VOL: The pre-conceived notion that there is at present "a vibrant, cooperative, fellowship of churches" is a myth. No such vibrancy exists. The Communion is currently in a state of "broken" or "impaired" communion, depending on your point of view. What in fact exists is fear, hatred and cries of homophobia. We believe that the Covenant has institutionalized only ONE Instrument of Unity, namely the Anglican Consultative Council. It has not "institutionalized" either the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Lambeth Conference. Yes, it has given newly enhanced powers to the Standing Committee. That is, in part, why the Global South Primates have also rejected the Covenant and a least one archbishop has stepped down from the Standing Committee.

NAC: (2) Under the Covenant, churches will be inhibited from undertaking new evangelical or mission initiatives for fear of offending other Communion churches and becoming embroiled in the disciplinary mechanisms set up by the Covenant.

VOL: This is patent nonsense. There is nothing stopping TEC diocesan bishops from undertaking new evangelical or mission initiatives. The trouble with the vast majority of liberal bishops is that they have no gospel to proclaim and they don't start churches. The newly formed ACNA has and is starting new churches, sometimes in the same backyard as TEC dioceses (much to the annoyance of local liberal bishops). Furthermore, it is liberal TEC bishops who have stifled new initiatives fearing it might tread on the toes of existing Episcopal parishes. As a result, a priest like the Rev. John Yates has started eight new churches in the Diocese of Virginia because then VA Bishop Peter James Lee would not permit him (when he was in TEC) to form new churches for precisely the reasons stated.

Not to put a too fine point on it, Mr. Deimel is from the Diocese of Pittsburgh, which has split in two with Bishop Robert Duncan's group starting new parish missions while the rump diocese is going nowhere.

NAC: (3) The centralization of authority envisioned by the proposed Covenant is cumbersome, costly, and undemocratic. In an era in which power and authority are being distributed in many organizations in order to achieve greater efficiency, responsiveness, and accountability, what has been proposed for the Communion seems out of step with current thinking regarding large organizations.

VOL: The Covenant, as we have been repeatedly told, is not designed to be authoritative, but a way of holding us together and of being accountable to one another. The Archbishop of Canterbury has repeatedly said that it is not about power or coercion nor is Section IV designed to be punitive.

NAC (4): Although the proposed Covenant is offered as a mechanism to achieve unity, its immediate effect is to create divisions. Churches that cannot or will not adopt the Covenant automatically become second-class members of the Communion. The inevitable application of the disciplinary provisions of Section 4 will likely further distinguish between "full" members of the Communion and less-than-full members.

VOL: Now we get to the nub of the issue - Section 4. So discipline will create "second-class members". No one, but no one, not even the ABC has talked about some Anglicans being or becoming second-class members. That is nonsense. When a parent disciplines an errant child for disobedience, does he or she say, "Now junior that was wrong and I must punish you and from now on you will be a second class member of the household." This is called "parallel universe" thinking. No one has talked about "second class members" or a "two-tier communion" this has been the fiction of liberals.

NAC (5) The proposed Covenant is dangerously vague. Sections 1–3 of the Covenant, which are seen by many as innocuous, leave much room for divergent interpretations. Section 4 makes it all too easy for any church to "ask questions" about the actions of another, which may then be subjected to unspecified "relational consequences." There is no sure measure of what behaviour is likely to be acceptable, no checks provided against unreasonable complaints, and no guarantee that "consequences" (i.e., punishments) meted out will be commensurate with the alleged offence.

VOL: What behavior is acceptable? What do you think has been the central bone of contention at every Primates meeting for the past decade? It is homosexuality, the authority of scripture and can you preach a gospel of salvation to people who don't believe they need converting from their deviant behaviors. What exactly is commensurate? If the orthodox Primates believe scripture is absolute on sex outside of marriage then they can and should invoke those passages from St. Paul's letters that speak directly to sexual sin and the punishments that go with them.

NAC (6) The proposed Covenant runs counter to the gospel imperative of not judging others. It is all too easy for Communion churches to complain about the sins of their sister churches while ignoring or diverting attention from their own failures to live out the Gospel.

VOL: Judging. We are called upon to judge behaviors not persons. We are all sinners. To let judgment pass on homosexual sin is to deny the need for the life-changing news of the gospel. Of course, if the other side wants to challenge the orthodox on their sins, then the orthodox should listen and admit where they too have gone wrong. Whoever said we were perfect? We can be caught up in greed, avarice, pride and a whole host of sins that should be called to our attention. Calling sin for what it is is a two-way street.

For the record most of the judging has been done by TEC homosexuals who have constantly berated Global South archbishops accusing them of homophobia, lacking inclusion and not having sufficient diversity.

NAC (7) The proposed Covenant encourages premature ending of debate. Rather than taking the advice of Gamaliel (Acts 5:38–39) and seeing how controversial matters play out, the Covenant evidences an eagerness to "settle" them. This is an unfortunate temptation to which the Communion seems subject. It has too quickly concluded that "homosexual practice" is "incompatible with Scripture" and that adopting the Covenant is "the only way forward," neither of which is either intuitively obvious or universally agreed upon.

VOL: This debate has been going on for a decade or longer. It goes back to Frank Griswold and Ed Browning. How many more years must the orthodox listen to the whine of one Presiding Bishop after another preaching homosexuality to the Global South about the alleged joys of sodomy? I was in Alexandria, Egypt, (2005) and saw how dispirited the Global South primates were when it was all over. They said then they had had enough. Yet they still came, year after year to the Primates meeting and heard one more time how they needed to "listen" to the stories (read whine) of gays, how homophobic they were. They sat and patiently listened through the insults, till they fell asleep or got bored to death.

Now they are done. They have heard enough. Eleven of them will be no shows in Dublin next month. How much longer should they listen and resolve absolutely nothing for the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on these primatial charades? How many more years of "listening" should they have to endure? The truth is that this is not primarily about homosexuality, but about the desensitization of the orthodox into accepting any and all forms of pansexual behavior. What about Lambeth resolution1:10 does this group not understand?

Church of England evangelical blogger John Richardson said this relies on another special pleading which has run throughout this whole dispute: The proposed Covenant encourages premature ending of debate. What we know, of course, is that the only ending of the debate which will not be rejected as 'premature' by those who want to keep it going is an acceptance of homosexual practice. This is actually made clear in what follows: [The Communion] has too quickly concluded that "homosexual practice" is "incompatible with Scripture" and that adopting the Covenant is "the only way forward," neither of which is either intuitively obvious or universally agreed upon. Fine - but do those opposing the Covenant in this way really accept that it could, after debate, be universally agreed upon? If not, let them be honest and say so.

NAC (8) The notion that we need to make "forceful" the "bonds of affection" is fundamentally flawed. If we need force and coercion to maintain relationships between Communion churches, there is no true affection, and the very foundation of the proposed Covenant is fraudulent.

VOL: The Archbishop of Canterbury has made it clear that the Covenant is not in any to be used as punitive action of one province against another. It was designed, if anything, to reinforce the "bonds of affection".

As Richardson observed, "The notion that we need to make "forceful" the "bonds of affection" is fundamentally flawed. If we need force and coercion to maintain relationships between Communion churches, there is no true affection, and the very foundation of the proposed Covenant is fraudulent."

NAC (9) The proposed "Covenant" seems more like a treaty, contract, or instrument of surrender than a covenant. In the ecclesiastical context, a covenant is usually thought of as an agreement undertaken in joy and in an atmosphere of trust-baptismal and marriage covenants come to mind. The proposed Anglican Covenant, on the other hand, is advanced in an atmosphere of anger, fear, and distrust, and with the threat of dire consequences if it is not adopted.

VOL: The "atmosphere" within which this was written had everything to do with the brokenness of the communion. Why else would a covenant even be necessary? The Communion has been shattered by the actions of TEC in consecrating a gay bishop and then a lesbian against the express wishes of the Windsor Report, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lambeth resolution 1:10 and the Global South archbishops who believe that such behavior is nothing more than sexual anarchy.

Again as Richardson observes: "One is tempted to point to the example of Suzerainty Treaties, which had parallels with the biblical Covenant between God and Israel. These were not exactly 'undertaken in joy and an atmosphere of trust'. More importantly, however, it is the existing lack of joy and trust which has brought about the need for the Covenant - and which, as has already been observed, point 9 actually recognizes: The proposed Anglican Covenant .... is advanced in an atmosphere of anger, fear, and distrust, and with the threat of dire consequences if it is not adopted."

NAC (10) The proposed Covenant is not the only way forward; there are better options. The Anglican Communion would be better served by remaining a single-tier fellowship of churches, allowing disaffected members to leave if they must, while keeping the door open for their return. Any alternative position cedes too much power to those willing to intimidate by threatening to walk away.

VOL: Well the Lambeth Quadrilateral is one way forward for sure, so indeed are the Articles of Religion. Those "disaffected members" - some dozen orthodox archbishops from Africa, SE Asia, the Middle East and Latin America who represent some 80% of the Anglican Communion have said they won't attend the next Primates' meeting in Dublin. That is a de facto separation if not a de jure one. ALL the threatening has come from the other side, not from the orthodox. The liberals and revisionists have been saying for years that they will have nothing less than the full acceptance of various pansexual behaviors (lesbitransgay). They have been bludgeoning, coercing and buying whatever support they can get from borderline or wavering archbishops.

Finally if the revisionists want and get their way then what sort of Covenant would it be? The truth is it wouldn't be a Covenant at all. It would be a Covenant that only one side agrees with. Is it any wonder then that the Global South archbishops have said enough and want out from under it and choose instead the Jerusalem declaration they can all agree upon?

Finally Deimel says this, "It may be helpful to think of the reasons given above in terms of one-word descriptions. The ten reasons describe the Covenant as

1. Radical. Is it? The actions of TEC bishops have been totally radical. The Covenant is designed to bring peace. If one side considers the other to be radical what sort of a Covenant is it?
2. Reactionary. The consecrations of two openly non-celibate pansexual bishops can only be called reactionary.
3. Impractical. Who's impractical? The orthodox that have not departed from the faith or those who have?
4. Divisive. The actions of TEC and Canada have been totally divisive, who could possibly argue otherwise?
5. Vague. The orthodox have never been remotely vague about what they believe or stand for.
6. Judgemental. An accusation without foundation against orthodox archbishops that goes along with false charges of homophobia.
7. Impetuous. The actions of TEC have been totally impetuous and worse, they have been arrogant and divisive.
8. Insincere. This is the pot calling the kettle black. TEC's revisionisms have been totally insincere.
9. Misnamed: No one can ever say the Covenant or the orthodox were misnamed. Those who have departed from the faith are misnamed.
10. Suboptimal. The actions of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada can only be described as suboptimal.

END