For Ephraim Radner

1. First of all thank you Ephraim for your two responses. I appreciate the question of time demands. Even though I finished paid employment five years ago I still find that I am constantly pressed for time. Nonetheless we have do what we can and as theologians the good of the church calls for some priority. If this conversation is a way of serving that good then I am very content.

2. You are right of course about the inadequacy of our best efforts both individually and as a church. Historically it has not always been a good story. I puzzle often about what is the nature of that failure and in the term you use what is the kind of fragmentation that is a failure. The formation of sub traditions like Anglicanism, and others, can and has been seen as a fragmentation to be regretted. Even within Anglicanism the separation of Methodists has been seen in terms of fragmentation and failure. Yet it seems to me that the real fragmenting failure is not so much in the formation of sub traditions as such, but in the breach of love that occurs in connection with them, and in connection with other things in the history of the church. As you say Anglican should not expect to be different from other traditions in this matter.

3. When I say the covenant is inadequate I do not mean that it is fatal. I do not see anything in the life of the church apart from the abandonment of faith altogether that could be beyond the reach of the persistent grace of God. The question therefore for me is what is for the best, or simply the better. What is for the good of the church as it finds expression in the sub tradition of Anglicanism? That is the framework of my view that the covenant is inadequate. That is different from a question about whether the covenant is inadequate from the point of view of christian faith generally, though that is an important consideration in the current debate and goes directly to the way in which we conduct ourselves in conflict. Clearly the question of the covenant must satisfy what might loosely be called the faith that is generally described as christian. But it calls for something more precise. It calls for some kind of discussion about the nature and integrity of the particular sub tradition we call Anglicanism. One of the problems I have had with the Virginia Report is that it failed to take this aspect of the question sufficiently seriously. It too easily moved from general christian theological considerations to specific tradition specific proposals without sufficient intermediate arguments or warrants. I have tried to explore these issues in Conflict and the Practice of Christian Faith

4. Thank you for your comment on section 3 and the AMiA development. I am not intimately aware of the historical details on this point, though I have had the opportunity to discuss these developments with some of those involved. It seems tome that there was a growing disenchantment with bishops in ECUSA being willing to allow different kinds of church or churches to form as part of a diocese. One expression of this was the question of church planting by societies or organisations that were not part of the diocesan structure, but which while coming from a particular evangelical stream sought Episcopal recognition in dioceses that were not predominantly evangelical in tradition. In some case recognition was given, but increasingly not so. I am sure that there were all sorts of reasons for these developments besides the particular streams from which the parties concerned came or represented. Nonetheless this aspect of the matter was I understand an important element in the decision making the led to the ordinations. It was I think an important element in the rationale for the actions, though that is not the same thing of course. We all look back and perceive our actions from the perspective of them having been done and in the light of the continuing attempt to explain to others and toe legitimate them to ourselves as well as others.

5. This development may well be part of other narratives, such as your suggestion of institutional decline in the Episcopal church, but I don't think that removes it from the narrative in which I located it.

6. I would welcome comment and correction from those involved or Episcopal historians who have done detailed research on this phase of their history.

7. I appreciate your support for the theological group suggested in the IATDC 2006 report. It would have been better in my view if the second IATDC had been given homosexuality as a brief instead of the nature of the Communion. The documentary connection between the Eames Commission and that IATDC brief is pretty clear via the briefing document (prepared by a small group in London) that went to the 1988 Lambeth conference and led to the formulation of the terms of the IATDC in resolution 18. It is interesting to notice in retrospect the actual terms of the Lambeth resolution ‘Resolves that the new Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission (or a specially appointed inter-Anglican commission) be asked to undertake as a matter of urgency a further exploration of the meaning and nature of communion; with particular reference to the doctrine of the Trinity, the unity and order of the Church, and the unity and community of humanity.’ The agenda set out in the report of the first IATDC which was presented to the 1988 Lambeth Conference, namely contextualization and plurality, was dropped. Indeed the subject was not taken up again until the Third IATDC report presented to the 2008 Lambeth Conference, but apparently not discussed. It is good to see it re-appearing in the work of the Covenant Design Group.

8. In relation to your point c. I am not entirely clear what you mean by a distinction between inter and intra-provincial conflict being too static in my presentation. I think there is an important issue about the changing environment in human existence that we see in so called globalisation, or the shrinking of our world thought technology etc. Clearly for some categories of people who can write on blogs and travel there have been enormous changes and opportunities. Also these have a certain play at more local levels. That raises a question about the nature of connections between Anglicans around the world, but I am not sure how far we really want to be led by idea about global awareness just yet. I suspect there is more to be unravelled about these things. But I would be glad of further elaboration as to what you have in mind in your comment

9. Again thank you for your contribution to this conversation.