Would the therm(sic) "Church" not also include Episcopal Dioceses to join if - should that time ever come - General Convention rejects the Covenant?
- mandate financial assessments from Dioceses to the General Convention budget;
- unilaterally impose trust interests on diocesan and congregational assets.
31. Ephraim Radner wrote:
Dr. Noll asks one of the question very much in some people’s minds. The answer is that the word “church” is not carefully defined because it would have been overly limiting of a number of potential situations we did not feel it was wise to constrain in advance, including churches now in a relationship of ecumenical partnership, as well as future uniting churches, currently extra-jurisdictional dioceses, or future ones, etc.. The specific issue of ACNA or an individual diocese in a non-covenanting province was placed on the table, discussed at length, and we agreed that no limitation on this possibility would be defined. I.e., of course ACNA or siuch a diocese can sign and formally request recognition and participation. (The latter might finally function under some metropolitan aegis as currently happens with e.g. Lusitania. The seeming inconsistency between the Preamble and these kinds of possibilities was noted, and understood to be acceptable as the price paid for the organic transformation of the Communion under the covenant as I have noted it in a previous comment (I think!): the Communion is not static.
In fact, we are now looking not at what is good for the "Anglican Communion" but rather what punishes people. So, this covenant is good for who? It promotes what? I am hopeful that not only does this covenant not see the light of day but the revisers are chastised for this most recent revision in which they politics above everything else.