"...once again I make the point that Unitarian Universalists in the United States have enjoyed consistent growth year by year, and actually we Unitarians in the UK have had rather a good Christmas in terms of attendances - not only that but we have some good model congregations to teach the others."

Of course I am pleased that you have found an affiliation in which you are content. (Should you make your way to Star Island or King's Chapel hereabouts, do call, and we can compare notes in Cambridge at the bend of the Charles ;-)

However, as my last post implied, great churches should be judged by the mission criteria derived from their faith, and those are not satisfied by simple numerical measures, even in the quite special cases of the national churches, such as the Church of England. (Beyond that, of course, no sociologists of religion I know  trust church statistics.) For examples of better Christian criteria than church rolls, see my last post.

"But diversity, and the value of diversity, is the more difficult challenge."

Not if identity is understood relationally in the first place. I know plenty of cosmopolitan congregations with crystal clear identities. Among other postmodern corrections to modern error is the insight that it is not the strength of identities that causes conflict in our world, but the weakness of intercommunal relations. The sort of illegible, submerged identity that you urge on Anglicans died with the bloody breakup of Yugoslavia, which it largely caused. Conversely, I know a few Episcopalian parishes here who share worship spaces, staff, etc with Jewish congregations, not because either party is confused about who they are, but precisely because clarity of identity facilitiates the desire and the trust for deeper sharing.

"Covenants that create outer layers and inner layers, second divisions and first divisions, inner members and outer members achieve their 'solidarity' first by exclusion."

This does not apply to an "opt-in" covenant, such as the Anglican Covenant. If a church wants "in," let it join.

But now that you bring it up, it is actually close to a Protestant norm in the United States to have parallel jurisdictions, one living in the 19th C (but fond of the 18th) and one living in the 21st C (with a fringe that yearns for the 22nd). Relations between these parallel jurisdictions seem to have the tone of their predominant temperament-- fiery Baptists, rigorous Presbyterians, ponderous Lutherans, sentimental Methodists, scrupulous Mennonites, etc. It seems an honest, grown-up arrangement that lowers the stakes of ecclesiastical controversies while still allowing for extensive cooperation on matters where agreement is possible. Blessed are the peacemakers.

"I'd have thought that anyone who values the reach and comprehension of the Church of England would reject this Covenant."

There is no reason to doubt the reach and comprehension of a covenanted Anglican Communion. But, no, reach and comprehension for their own sakes do not have the significance in the 21st C that they had before the rise of the Ecumenical Movement and the sort of postmodern believer who is happy to "vote with the feet." If the U.U.s are England are thriving as you say, then that more or less illustrates the point. The world has changed, and so have we.

A fuller development of these points is most usefully reserved for the new thread on David Cameron's speech.

Please be assured that I am not making a simple association between numbers and vitality of faith, indeed I am criticising those who precisely make that point (that all you need is evangelical religion and the magic growth button is pushed): and the fellowship of a liberal group is just as well knowing and faithful between the people as a community as with any other group. It's as postmodern to be diverse as it is to fall into some sort of 'follow the text' and acquire a narrow definition, indeed it is important to resist narrow sectarianism.

As for the Anglican Covenant, it's "relational consequences" suggest quite a negative aspect: it is not just opt-in but consequences for those who wish to include and involve those for who others have a phobia.

So Diarmaid MacCulloch has been appointed as a patron of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition. No doubt he will produce a far higher standard of argument than has been produced by the pro lobby, including that ridiculous paper by Peter Doll with distribution to English bishops by Rowan Williams as if that is the best they can do.

However, the weakness of the appointment is in the last episiode of his recent BBC 4 series - he comes to the Bible and Christianity from the outside, as I do. He realises (again, as I do) that Christianity is a 'cult of an individual' (Jesus of Nazareth) and of course it means a removal of oneself from identifying with the communities and proto-orthodox early Christians whose perspective made the New Testament. He is yet another liberal, whereas they could do with more from across the spectrum. The Covenant will do damage to the C of E in terms of freezing it, but with it or without it makes no difference to involvement - it might and should to some of those in NACC. He'll add analytical insight and he is from an Oxford circle of academics, but essentially it is from the outside.

So the diocese of Derby has voted comprehensively against the Anglican Communion Covenant. At the moment then a majority of dioceses are against. It is starting to look like the Covenant is in serious trouble. Perhaps the poverty of the argument and misrepresentations in the latest one-sided paper distributed on the say of the Archbishop has not helped. Clearly dioceses are not (yet) voting for an extra layer of authority at international level that would impose restraint on their Church.

Intrigued to have found this in Fulcrum's attic.

Also pleased to have found this in the attic.

Stephen Kuhrt is right-- The model that suggests itself for evangelicals, therefore, is one of self-critical as well as critical engagement. Rather than assuming that those proposing unorthodox theology are simply misguided, lazy or even plain wicked, a better and more humble approach is to be open to the weaknesses within current "orthodoxy" that they have detected. My increasing opinion is that they will always be on to something. And evangelicalism, at its best, will have the nerve to rise to the challenge of addressing these areas and be prepared to be surprised by the fresh insights thrown up from this engagement. We won't necessarily (or even usually) endorse the suggested reconstruction but we will be prepared to accept, partly because of our theology of the Body of Christ, that a crucial insight has been raised that we need to engage with. Perhaps this is one of the core values of "Open Evangelicalism". Abandoning an instinctive and reactionary defensiveness, we will strive to employ a positive, generous and exciting model for responding to unorthodox theology.