The second question, what if a diocese in a province that refuses to ratify the covenant wishes to do so, is now before us. The Archbishop of Canterbury has indicated that, from a theological perspective, the diocese rather than the province is the primary unit of the Anglican Communion. Nevertheless, the covenant proposal will be sent to provinces and not individual dioceses. There is a conflict here that requires resolution in a coherent manner. In principle, such a diocese must be recognized as being a part of such a Communion; but how that can and will be arranged demands attention sooner rather than later.

In respect to this issue, a final comment is in order. If the Communion makes provision for individual dioceses to ratify the Covenant, it will prove easier for that to happen in TEC than in many other churches of the Anglican Communion. It will be easier because of the unique character of TEC’s constitution. TEC’s constitution makes no provision for a metropolitan bishop, givens no real authority either to its Presiding Bishop or its General Convention to impose its will on a diocese; and I am convinced it allows for a diocese to remove itself from TEC. If provision were to be made for ratification at the level of a diocese, individual dioceses within TEC would have a degree of freedom in this respect that dioceses in many other provinces would not.

So now we come to the question, “What then shall we do?” For many in TEC a covenant with any real consequences is out of the question. It is likely that they will answer the question “What then shall we do” by refusing to ratify the covenant and forming an alliance with other provinces of like mind. In all likelihood they will continue to claim membership in the Anglican Communion, seeking from within their diminished status, as they are want to say, “the greatest degree of communion possible.” It may well be, however, that in forming such an alliance, they in fact end up by creating another communion altogether. In any case, the forces at play in these circumstances will be centrifugal rather than centripetal.

For others of a more confessional frame of mind a covenant may be a part of their future, but, at present, they are skeptical that the final draft will have sufficiently clear commitments to shared doctrine and practice. For those who have cast their lot with ACNA, their future in relation to a covenant is at best uncertain. At present, only provinces can ratify the covenant. It is unlikely that ACNA will realize its goal of provincial status in the near future. Further, should there be an arrangement for individual dioceses to ratify, there are only three, perhaps four, dioceses now a part of the ACNA group. They might be given access to ratification, though that is doubtful. Even, however, if they were allowed to ratify the covenant as individual dioceses, the majority of ACNA’s membership would not be so allowed because it is unlikely that they would be able to establish diocesan status.

For my own part, these first two options appear fraught with difficulty. I believe that the present proposal of the Covenant Design Group, even though it is surrounded by questions, provides the best way forward for Anglicans if they wish to maintain both communion and catholic identity. It has sufficient doctrinal content to provide Christian identity, it is deeply imbedded in Anglican tradition, and it suggests a process for resolving differences, flawed though it may be, that reflects New Testament practice. Indeed, for those members of TEC who wish to remain part of a communion rather than a federation of churches, I believe it is the only option. And, as I have said, in respect to TEC, it is an option that is far superior to the alternative—becoming yet another Protestant denomination (of either a liberal or conservative bent) within the range of religious boutiques located along the promenade of America’s religious shopping mall.