‘Neither has been elected to the post’. This in relation to Colin Slee and the Regius Professor. The implication is that both are appointees. But they aren’t. In particular, the latter is the product of a scrupulous academic assessment process. And how many bishops or archbishops are ‘elected’? The false and cheap rhetoric gives the game away.

John S. you pick at a nit while the logic buries you.  What Chris is saying is so correct ... Slee and his buddies (and our national TEC hierchy) don’t want a covenant; they don’t want anything that is objective, to which they can be held.  As Chris says, they are in power now, so they want to be able to do all the interpretations without reference to communion-wide requirements or “covenants.”  They don’t want a covenant because they know they are well beyond the pale on what they are presently demanding of the
AC.  As long as they can claim there is nothing in writing (and, of course, they somehow dismiss the Bible as a “book of poetry,” in the words of Stacy Sauls), they can do as they please and have everything decided by majority vote.  A covenant will provide basics from which they cannot stray and will require them to go through a process to make changes ... and those basics and that process are the hurdles they can’t get over, and they know it.  Thus, their strenuous opposition.

British polity or American polity or Anglican polity?  Sugden summarizes the real political struggle brought about by the American imperialism in the Anglican Communion.  Too clearly ECUSA/TEC denies its responsibility and causal role in moving from an unwritten constitution to a written one WHILE trumpeting from the HOB about throwing off the bonds in the War for Independence.  And Sugden clearly delineates that it is a power struggle.  Accountability rather than (im)plausable deniability, that’s the ticket for the Anglican Communion - and the standard to which all should be held - yes, even the Brits and the Americans!