Ruth Gledhill writing in the Times Online comes at last to this place in her analysis of what the Abp. of Canterbury is saying this morning:

“Many immediate unanswered question come to mind. What happens to the Network in the US, the orthodox in liberal provinces and the liberal in orthodox provinces. Where will the Scottish Episcopal Church go? If boundaries are not going to be dissolved, as the Archbishop states, this could all present a bit of a problem for, say, the supporters of Jeffrey John in the CofE. The might not be too happy themselves to remain in a TEC-less church. Would there be a mechanism for them to align themselves elsewhere? Will parishes be able to dissent from the covenant, will it be done by two-thirds majority and what will happen to the minority who disagree? Are we talking tyranny by democracy or authority by ecclesiology?

It will all be fought over at the next Lambeth Conference. I would guess, from this, that everyone, possibly even Gene Robinson and his consecrators, will be invited. Because they will all be entitled to have a place at the table of argument over this. But first it will be discussed by the Primates’  standing committee, and then the Primates themselves next February.”

The field of controversy seems to be shifting to the shaping of the actual covenant. (Which General Convention committed itself (at least the shaping) to being a part of.)

Read the rest here: Anglicans: an ABC of schism

(Via Ruth Gledhill – Times Online.)