The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society has formally put into writing, with the force of Canon Law, that TEC is a "hierarchical church" to which all must accede. At the same time, The Episcopal Church claims to promote inclusivity and diversity and more laity input.

The sweeping changes made by the national church with the passage of Resolution A185 at the 2009 Episcopal General Convention were unprecedented in TEC's history. As fear and paranoia grip the church, the grab for power and money grows the greater.

TEC has less and less theology holding it together, and the (homo/bi/trans) sexual zeitgeist are becoming more firmly entrenched by the week. What binds the church together is not the faith of Scripture, the Creeds or history, but the ravings of a small group of people bent on having their sexual proclivities be center stage and worshipped at the church's altar - at the expense of almost everything else. "Do this in remembrance of me," becomes "Do the 'other' in remembrance of somebody."

So it is marvelously ironic that the powers that be at 815 2nd Avenue, New York, New York, are centralizing power in order to fight for parish properties and fleeing dioceses, persecute orthodox clergy and bishops, impose women's ordination and pass sexual resolutions that have no basis in Scripture, history or tradition. At the same time, they complain mightily about a Covenant that will clip their sexual wings, accusing its designers of the very centralizing powers they loathe and hate.

How ironic, how totally hypocritical.

Liberal Episcopalians and Anglicans, assorted pansexualists in the US and UK are outraged that a covenant should have a disciplinary section that will put a scrimp on their behavior and rant about "law", comprehensiveness and coerciveness ripping the Archbishop of Canterbury and numerous orthodox Anglican primates for lacking inclusivity.

It is the stench of hypocrisy that reaches to the highest heavens. And the liberals and pansexualists do it with straight faces.

Consider some of these statements by various TEC and Church of England clerics: "What I dislike about the Anglican Covenant is not just that it is institutionalized homophobia, but that it ... is an attack on traditional Anglican pluralism."

"Let me put it simply: We can't even agree on what the Covenant means; so why should we imagine the Covenant will help us come to agreement on anything else?"

"The worst thing about the Covenant is that it will create a church of the lowest common denominator in which the only things we can embrace will be safe and uncontroversial. They will keep us locked into old established ways rather than allowing us to embrace the challenges of making Christ know in the ever changing culture in which we live."

"We need to find new ways to be united without forcing ourselves to be what we're not."

This process and the proposed Anglican Covenant are not building unity. They are turning disagreement into institutionalized disunity - even inventing mechanisms of exclusion to facilitate the process.

"Let me put it simply: We can't even agree on what the Covenant means; so why should we imagine the Covenant will help us come to agreement on anything else?"

"The covenant is a waste of time and money."

The covenant, said Katharine Jefferts Schori, is a type of "cheap grace", an "enlightenment response to postmodern" era disagreement. It is a legal move to avoid the harder "work of the heart", of building relationships in the face of diversity.

From Louie Crew we have: "For bonds of affection the Covenant substitutes bonds of law."

Finally this: "The Anglican Covenant is the greatest attempted centralization of authority since the de facto creation of the Anglican Communion due to the final disestablishment of episcopacy in Scotland (1689) and the consecration of the first American bishop (1784). Despite the pretty words of 4.1.3 that the Covenant "does not represent submission to any external ecclesiastical jurisdiction," nor "grant to any one Church or agency of the Communion control or direction over any Church," 4.2.7 is very clear that the newly minted Standing Committee (whose creation has been a sideshow of smoke, mirrors and skullduggery) will have authority effectively to direct "relational consequences" to be imposed on recalcitrant Provinces."

There you have it. We shall not have a covenant if it demands accountability, responsibility and punishment if you break it. But heaven help you if you think you can leave the pincer grip of TEC with the buildings you bought and paid for and maintained weekly, and if you believe in the "faith once for all delivered to the saints," because if you do, your worst nightmares will come true. TEC has spoken.

END