Link to final version of covenant at the end of the transcript, and here:
http://www.aco.org/commission/covenant/final/text.cfm

What a strange way to release such an important document. No official announcement. No press release. Just an awkward You Tube video on the ABC’s website that appears to have been posted yesterday.

Robert, “no official announcement” can only mean “no official agreement” on what all that stuff means.

The seams that form the Anglican Communion into some sort of coherency are beginning to show gaps. Some might say that the Anglican Communion garb is becoming little more than a ragged cloak.

The text of the covenant is quite good. In general it describes Anglicanism and it does spell out some consequences for provinces which cant live within the boundaries of Anglicanism.

Naturally TEC will interpret the words in their own special way.

http://www.churchoftheword.net

This part I like:

(4.2.8)  Participation in the decision making of the Standing Committee or of the Instruments of Communion in respect to section 4.2 shall be limited to those members of the Instruments of Communion who are representatives of those churches who have adopted the Covenant, or who are still in the process of adoption.

Except what if TEC takes, say, ten to twenty years to be “in the process of adoption”?

Just teasing out the documents posted by Canon Harmon above and one or two others as I have been trying to make sense of all this:
In addition to the video from the Archbishop commending the Covenant to the Provinces for adoption, the key documents are here:

1. Covenant [Final Form]
http://www.aco.org/commission/covenant/final/text.cfm
pdf:
http://www.aco.org/commission/covenant/docs/The_Anglican_Covenant.pdf

2. Commentary from the Working Group on Revisions to Section 4 of the Covenant [the Working Group was that appointed by Dr Williams to look at Section 4 after ACC 14 in Jamaica]:
http://www.aco.org/commission/covenant/docs/commentary_section_four.pdf

3. Comparison of Section 4 final text compared with the previous draft, with alterations noted:
http://www.aco.org/commission/covenant/docs/section_four_comparisons.pdf

4. Letter from Canon Kearon forwarding the Anglican Covenant Final Form to the Provinces [gives details of future events and the question of whether dioceses and parishes may sign - this seems to have been deliberately deferred]:
http://www.aco.org/commission/covenant/docs/letter_from_the_secretary_general.pdf

5. Collated Responses from Provinces to Section 4 of the Ridley Cambridge Draft of the Anglican Covenant including responses received after the working group meeting [70 page consolidation]
http://www.aco.org/commission/covenant/docs/collated_covenant_reponses.pdf

6. Individual Responses from Provinces to Section 4 may be found here [note Uganda is missing but included in the collated responses at #5 above].
http://www.aco.org/commission/covenant/responses/index.cfm
Response of the Church of England to Section 4 [including their detailed proposals]:
http://www.aco.org/commission/covenant/docs/ridley_church_of_england.pdf

Since this has all been released late on Friday London time, there is and is unlikely to be much in the papers, which means that people are going to have time to read all this properly before writing their columns…which is probably a good thing.

people are going to have time to read all this properly before writing their columns

Ah, but what will we see in the ubiquitous blog posts?

Interesting that the Standing Committee is judge and jury, but there are no provisions to bar offending provinces from participating in Standing Committee proceedings regarding their offenses.  Doesn’t take a rocket scientist, attorney, or theologian to figure out that is just plain foolish and contrary to all notions of fairness.

As long as KJS is a member of the Standing Committee, I will have nothing to do with this Covenant.  Replace her, and maybe I’ll show some interest in it.

Ralinda, re-read my comment #5, and the whole of section 4.2. Section 4.2.8 specifies that offending provinces cannot be a part of the consideration of their own offenses.

Great slight of hand!  All the desired words are on the page, AND the liberals neatly retain all their power.

The Standing Committee is created out of whole cloth and has de facto control of the relationships though its position as arbiter. 

Why?  Because they say so, and there is no one able to say them nay.  Thank you one and all.

Slightly edited by elf.

It appears that, despite his protestations to the contrary, the Archbishop of Canterbury holds enormous power over the Anglican Communion. It appears that he got everything he wanted in the Covenant.

#7 “Ah, but what will we see in the ubiquitous blog posts?”
Feel free to lead the way, O Rabbit!

#9.  KJS is not on the joint standing committee, although Ian Douglas is, and his participation worries me greatly.  Anyway, the list of members is here:  http://www.aco.org/acns/news.cfm/2009/5/12/ACNS4628

12. He is, after all, the only instrument:

*the Lambeth Conference may be diverted from conducting business by fiat of the ABC; the ABC exercises unilateral control over invitation.
*the decisions of the Primates’ Meeting may be disregarded and subverted by unilateral action of the ABC.
*the ACC is non-representative and by mission consultative only. 

Now the JSC has morphed into the SCotAC, and the member primates are given a minority role.

And they call them bonds of ‘affection?’

14. I believe she is on the Joint Standing Committee. I think this is the list but correct me if I’m wrong:
Primates Members
1.    Archbishop Barry Morgan, Wales
2.    Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori
3.    Archbishop Rowan Williams
4.    Archbishop Mouneer Anis, Jerusalem and the Middle East
5.    Archbishop Henry Orombi
ACC Members
1.    Bishop James Tengatenga (Central Africa) Chair
2.    Mrs. Philippa Amable (West Africa)
3.    Bishop Kumara Illangasinghe (Ceylon)
4.    Ms. Nomfundo Walaza (South Africa)
5.    Elizabeth Paver (England)
6.    Ian Douglas (TEC)
7.    Tony Fitchett (New Zealand)
8.    Bishop Azad Marshall (Jerusalem and Middle East)
9.    Stanley Isaacs (South East Asia)

Oops.  Sorry, I didn’t see that full list.  Mea culpa, #9.

#13, Damian Thompson has already posted his December 18 blog on another subject, and Ruth Gledhill has not posted on her blog since December 16.

so there will be different types of Anglicans some better than others, but all Anglican and some in breach of rules but sort of still part of the family. And they are bad but may still keep doing what they wish….and just how does this bring any clarity, teaching or help to anyone?

Imagine the police merely moaning about thieves, naming them as outer ring citizens but refusing to arrest them and stop the behaviour.

Wors, words, words and all the while anarchy reigns

16- I think Aspinall is also on.  The 5 Primates do not count ++Williams, who in his capacity as ABC is on everything.

10. Br_er Rabbit wrote:

Section 4.2.8 specifies that offending provinces cannot be a part of the consideration of their own offenses.

I don’t read that it says that at all. It implies that they cannot be excluded as long as they are “in the process of adoption.”

Bull Street, you’re right about that loophole, and TEC is fully capable of attempting that deception, and RDW is fully capable of accepting that deception. but will the rest of the Communion continue to put up with deception forever?

#10, B’rer:  If they are in the process of adopting they can be part of the Joint Standing Committee.  I predict TEC will eventually adopt the covenant and continue to defy it.  There is really nothing to stop them from defying it—Rowan keeps giving them a free pass.  And he can’t afford to operate the ACO bureaucracy without American cash.

Having already compiled a simple comparison, in two columns, to highlight the differences between RCD and its previous version, the St Andrews Draft, I was initially overjoyed to see my work already done for me: Pageantmaster’s links, #3.  Yet imagine my dismay when I actually saw the very first lines. 

They cannot even get the titles right!  So how can I now trust the rest of the comparison document?  Further shades of things to come ...?  For the ongoing provisions of 4.2.8, a NEW SUB-SECTION NOTE, is a real classic, as already pointed out ...  It quite simply undermines any middle term resolutions to our ongoing Communion sagas ...  Unless, that is, there are decisive actions taken by GSA.  So may the Good Lord empower those who gather for the 4th Encounter in Singapore this coming April.

One last thing.  It is well known in media circles that Fridays are ideal times to announce matters one wants buried.  I for one used to be as generous as one might be towards Lambeth and ACO et al.  This time around, on such a supposed vital matter, this piece of timing and the manner generally of its announcement makes me not just ‘nervous’ but angry.  This stuff is simply staggering.

PS. A technical distinction between the old 4.2.7 and the new 4.2.8 seems to clarify where the power will be allowed to truly reside.  That’s the real novelty of 4.2.8, not the bulk of its wording, IMHO ... Just to head off that stray bunch of horses ...

#24 Hello Art, sorry if it is not fully accurate.  Not my work. 

Again I can’t vouch for it, but here is something I came across on a google search: Prof Lionel Deimel has done a word comparison [highlighting amendments and deletions] of the Ridley and Final versions, which if accurate [and I have no reason to think that it is not] has done everyone a big favor.  The pdf he created is linked here:
http://blog.deimel.org/2009/12/changes-to-section-4-of-covenant-draft.htm

Of course the Working Group also produced their reasoning for the changes linked above which are probably worth reading at the same time.
http://www.aco.org/commission/covenant/docs/commentary_section_four.pdf

I will go through it all, sometime, if I can be bothered.  No doubt sharper minds than mine are crawling all over this.

I suspect that if there is something that needs looking at in some detail it is the creation of a new role for the “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” as a new “Instrument” and the “Faith and Order Commission” who have been apparently been given the job of looking into the reform of the Instruments [see earlier posts on T19].  There is some mention of these bodies in the Alexandria Primates’ Communique and Jamaica ACC 14, but the roles they have been assigned appear to have been considerably enhanced without any particular apparent authority.  Then there is the question of whether the Primates’ Meeting has been sidelined, contrary to the resolutions contained in the Communique of the Primates at Alexandria [available on the ACO site] and the Statements of the Global South recently in their requests to Dr Williams.  If there is a ‘fix’ it is probably here that it will be found and I rather think that Dr Noll has homed in on this from his earlier remarks.

But generally I am reserving commenting overall on the Covenant version just presented until going through it carefully.  There is no substitute for that.

Thanks Pageantmaster.  I did not think you’d done the job on account of the nature of the link itself.  It’s just rather disappointing, and perhaps indicative ...  So thanks for the new link, which I shall crawl through - but I do note it tries to compress a parallel comparison format into a single document, which to my mind is more complicated than highlighting changes via a colour coded scheme (like Synoptic parallels).

Yes; the Working Document is helpful.

Your further comments are the kicker!  Hence my PS too ...  And the enlarged role of the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order has indeed been commented upon by not a few!  For who appoints, with what brief, and for how long?  And how does it relate to the Instruments themselves?  Let alone now the role and membership of SC itself?!  All “unwritten constitutional” stuff I’m afraid, in which UK excels ...

Just so, over ACNA and GSA and all that ...  And it is their considered response that I await.  For the ABC has so loaded his strategy on this particular Covenant wagon (at least publically) that its lack of any real determination (at least, that’s my reading of Sect 4 still) may yet prompt a Southern revolt.

Analogy?  Parable?  Aesopian?  You decide.  At any rate the headline should read identically:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-deal

With a ratification process slated for 3 to 20 years, no clearly recognized central authority, boundaries that are dependent upon the interpretation of multiple instruments of unity, and the continued assertions of TEC and other provinces which promote the principles of an alternative gospel, how can anyone believe that the covenant will actually produce a unified, vibrant, Anglican expression of Christianity in our time.
Fr. Jack Estes

with you #29 it is SO very confusing as to seem like smoke and mirrors. How on earth is the average person meant to get their head around it all. They will use a simple rationale- and who can blame them:

I see gay Anglican bishops = they are deemed appropriate

#27 Art and others
To be fair, the JSC [for that is what it is, and only that] met from 15th to 18th December ending on a Friday.  It looks as if the Archbishop’s video was pre-recorded for whatever Covenant was sent forward.  To get all the documentation online as quickly is did happen is quite an achievement and if there are mistakes then some allowance should be given.  It is the substance, not the form that matters.

As for the Deimel consolidated document, Word enables one to take a document and compare another document to it, tracking the changes by striking through in red words deleted in the new version and underlining insertions made in the new version in another color.  This is an automatic program, and reading such a document is initially quite hard, but gets easier.  And it is a very useful tool in a confusing environment with two versions in front of one enabling one to see at a glance the changes made in one document.

As for the extra-constitutional changes, yes the British do not have a written constitution, but those principles are not amenable to change without notice and making it up as they go along, as seems to happen with anything Lambeth Palace has a hand in.  You have to get up very early indeed and keep a beady eye on what they are up to because they are as slippery as eels.  But that is Dr Williams for you - he is several steps ahead at each stage laying the groundwork for what he intends to do next.  Often these initiatives sink without trace; remember all those facilitated conversations that were going to be held by retired soldiers and whatnot?  Whatever happened to them?

“It’s quite important in this process to remember what the Covenant is and what it isn’t, what it’s meant to achieve, and what it’s not going to achieve.  It’s not going to solve all our problems, it’s not going to be a constitution, and it’s certainly not going to be a penal code for punishing people who don’t comply.”
This is quite an intro. Does anyone with addiction recovery or family systems experience recognize which family member the ABC sounds like?

If I am not mistaken, I do believe the triple prods from ACNA, Pope Benedict and the Diocese of Los Angeles have prodded His Grace to step forward and lead, and not with hesitation but with gracious boldness. This is an astonishing turn of events. Thank you Holy Father and Los Angeles.

Why do I keep thinking of all this as a garment for the emporer’s new clothes?

A few final comments before signing off on this thread.

Thanks pageantmaster but I wld say this. To be more explicit re timing and Fridays and all that.  The date of the JSC/SC has been set for months; the purpose was also set - though we shld be grateful for the extra announcement re LA; and of course a formal press release plus documentation release was always due.  So why set the dates for the meeting to END on a Friday, together with all that that entails?  That’s my simple point abt “grave-yard” timing.

Thereafter, I am more than familiar with Westminister-type unwritten forms of behaviour.  I too have lived in UK for many years.  And you are right: Establishment rules; OK?!  Which continues to make me more than a little ‘nervous’ about how some aspects of ‘non-compliance’ and/or delayed compliance re the Covenant will be actually played out ...  So even as I do continue to push for this Final Draft and all that it might yet be/become, I have great sympathy for the likes of ## 29 & 30, et al.

All of which simply means that while there were no doubt many agendas running with that Roman “census”, and all that, God’s own Good Agenda was able to trump its way through!  May you have a blessed Christmas not despite but even because of ...!