John Ledbury, Kings Lynn, England, should learn how to read the Bible. How does he answer the injuntions: "Don't wear clothes woven of two kinds of material" or "Don't cut the hair on the sides of your head or trim your beard"? I guess it's OK to pick and choose just which injunctions are still binding and which are not?

steven heroux, cohoes, New York

Odd. A covenant that allows for the expulsion of pro-gay parts of the church, to prevent anti-gay parts from walking off in a huff 'avoids schism'? So witchhunts are preferable to schism? I don't think so. Let the bigots walk.

Doug Pollard, Melbourne, Australia

"The expulsion of rebel provinces from the Anglican Communion" sounds like a schism in the making to me.

Alan Justice, Dallas, TX

I think the headline says it all. How could the church of england go about expeling its gay clergy ? The whole shebang would grind to an immediate halt. So I hope that our church at least will do nothing so hypocritical as to sign up to a covenant that condemns many faithful clergy (not least a goodly clutch of gay Deans not to mention Bishops) to continuing to live split and hidden lives just so that we can continue to deny reality.

Miranda T-H is right I think - the form of words may get agreed, but it is not in touch with reality, and therefore will not do the job that is intended for it.

Goodness knows what our society is to make of all this - itmakes the missional taks of the Church of england that much more difficult I fear

Canon Jeremy Pemberton, Bristol,

Love is not going along with the demands of hedonistic western culture in damaging and destructive life styles; those with problems of all kinds are welcome in the church, but their problems remain problems, not norms.

BigIb, Homerton, UK

Do the words baby, throwing and bathwater mean anthing to these people? Liberal is not a bad word? Exclusive is a bad word; discriminatory is a bad word.

matthew thomas, London,

During the debate, the Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright, spoke in favour of the covenant by saying "no classical Anglican would have embraced the contemporary idea of inclusivity." I think that's an outrageous way to argue. Does he mean the church should never have come round to including ethnic minorities rather than enslaving them (in line with good Scriptural principles); or that it should never have started including women on equal terms (contrary to Scripture)? Or is it just gay people who have to be excluded?

Mark, Oxford,

We are not a confessional church and a "covenant" is far too similar to engender comfort or trust. A "covenant" will not foster unity, it will most likely result in the legitimization of oppression--and not just of homosexual persons. If the Primates are given oligarchical control over doctrine and membership--and that's what many of them seem to want--the essence of Anglicanism will be lost forever.

Michael, Chicago, Illinois

The liberals want it both ways, both to be a buch of miserable mediaeval sods AND a bunch of liberated pagans. They have to commit one way or the other, otherwise Anglicanism is meaningless

John Ledbury, Kings Lynn, England

Love Unconditional" also expects the best of its (his/her) children, and provides both a vocation to saintliness and guidelines for conduct toward that end. Christians must never turn their back on anyone, but we must never accept self-destructive choices for the sake of "being nice" either. Are (at least some) "gay" lifestyles self-destructive? Well that's what Anglicans, as a Christian community, need to discern together, with the wisdom of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason (including the best that non-partisan science can teach us on the issue). What the Covenant calls for is not an abandonment of Anglican generosity, but the fortification of Anglican patience and thoroughness. Talk about "haters" reveals a heart in need of serious healing. Surely such emotions cannot be allowed to poison our unity in Christ?

Chris McMullen, Saint John, NB Canada

If you are a Christian, you follow the Christian doctrine, and one of the tenets is that man shall not lie with man as a woman as this is a sin in the eyes of God. Whether or not you agree with that determines your faith. If you think that homosexuality should be condoned by the Church so it breaks the rules of God as in the Bible, I would suggest that you CHANGE YOUR RELIGION. But you will have a problem because they all follow this natural Law.

So let us not have any criticism because the Church leaders in my opinion, wish to maintain the basic Laws of God which have existed for thousands of years. It is discrimination of the highest order to try and legally force the Church to do otherwise.

As it is, homosexuals are allowed to pray in a church and are accepted as they should be as they cannot help being as they are in most cases. Let us leave it at that for Gods's and the Christian congregation's sake

B J Deller, Marbella, Spain

It rather depends if the 'covenant' relates to matters of doctrine, the upholding of the essential beliefs of the Church as expressed in the Nicene Creed and also the position of the Anglican 'Via Media' as both Catholic and Reformed, or matters of dicipline. Many Anglicans are far more concerned with the former than if someone is gay or not.

M.J. Radford, cirencester, uk

I wonder if we would be having this debate if the subject was acceptance / rejection of consecration based on race?
It is disappointing to see the loudest calls for rejection coming from a nation that has suffered so much bigotry and racism throughout its history. Clearly tolerance and acceptance is a lesson that Africa is still to learn...

Ian Wells, London, UK

If homosexual behavior were "natural" then the species would die out. As as biologist I realize sex (biologically speaking) is for procreation of the species. Probably the day will come when we find sexuality is determined in utero and from that stand point is "natural". The question however is if we could alter this state in utero would we?

Paul Langston, Los Angeles , Calif

Synod is sleep-walking into the arms of those who want the Anglican Church to be a narrow-minded cult rather than an open and generous community like Jesus founded. Ecclesiastical politicking has triumphed over the gospel spirit once again. Will it bring calm into the Church - no way - the fight for the true spirit of Anglicanism goes on!

David Hodgson, Wokingham, UK

Why would God hate a community that has shown nothing but care, love and compassion to their loved ones.

Stopping someone from becoming a priest because of some benign biological circumstance (like being a woman or gay) is wrong. I look forward to the day when the world looks back at this generaton and considers us living in the 'dark ages'.

Mame du Bois, Toowoomba, Australia

It's time someone took a stand. hopefully this may be it.

It seesm to me that many in the pews are more doctrinally sound than many of our so called leaders.

edwardingle, chesham,

Where, exactly, Tom is Jesus' code?

And what does it have to say about gay priests?

Michael Tomlinson, Melbourne, Australia

“An appropriately considered and drawn covenant might help us to love one another more.”
Am I to take from this that the Almighty did not appropriately consider and draw up His New Covenant with us, that we now need a new New Covenant to make up for the deficiencies in the Divinely created First Draft? Will we need a new Lamb of God to crucify to bring this covenant into effect?

Ford Elms, St. John's, Newfoundland

The question is not whether to have a Covenant, but who is to decide the matter when disputes arise. Gomez et al propose in their draft Covenant that the deciders are the Primates, the most conservative of our Anglican "instruments of union." That's what many here in North America object to. If the Covenant involved a broad section of Anglicans, - less senior bishops, clergy and laity - a Covenant might indeed promote unity.

Neale Adams, Vancouver, Canada

If homosexual behavior were "natural" then the species would die out. As as biologist I realize sex (biologically speaking) is for procreation of the species. Probably the day will come when we find sexuality is determined in utero and from that stand point is "natural". The question however is if we could alter this state in utero would we?

Paul Langston, Los Angeles , Calif

The Anglican Communion, like any democracy, only works when what is believed and held in common as foundational is carefully preserved and protected. Change in basic substance should be exceedingly rare and tectonically slow. Then "the bonds of affection" are enough to maintain unity. If some no longer can be trusted to "keep the Faith", well, they don't actually belong to the Faith, do they? Christ , himself, was quite clear about who should be co-habiting with intimacy according to the Original Design. It is with stunning arrogance that some think the Church has been mistaken all along about who should be having sex. And, it is out of an abundance of love, not a lack of it, that anyone bothers to try and correct the moral errors and confusion so apparent among the narcissists who quite willingly would disrupt the unity of faith and the bonds of peace.. Kindly take a look at Matt. 18:15-17. We are to confront sin, which sex outside marriage always was, is and ever shall be.

Jubilate Latte, Atlanta, GA, USA

Thank you C of E for doing the right thing.

Floyd, New England, USA

Pace posts which refer to "love and forgiveness" and "Love, Unconditional", it is worth noting that Jesus also explicitly espoused a moral code.

Tom, New York City,

Brilliant. Far from preventing schism, the covenant is likely to be an instrument of it, as the provinces are given the choice of following their consciences or allowing themselves to be blackmailed by a collection of ignorant bigots from third world countries. There are also broad legal implications: how can the church receive tax breaks on its immense wealth when it is clearly in breach of our laws against homophobia and those enshrining equal opportunities. As an employer, the church is stating that it will excercise a prejudice against staff of a given sexuality. That, as I understand it, remains illegal in this country and should be prosecuted fiercely.

Paul, Brighton,

Christians are they? Followers of the doctrine of love and forgiveness as preached by Jesus Christ? Doesn't look like it, does it!

J S M Roberts, O.B.E., Seaford, UK

I would love to know where and when "Love, Unconditional" was lost in my church. It hurts to see all the fur flying and the cat crys from one to another. A good injection of "The Christ" into each of these haters is my advice.

Joy-Lynd Chamberlain, Las Vegas, USA / Nevada

The final authority/constitution/cannon or Christian epistemology is the inerrant and infallible revelation of the Triune God in the cannonical Holy Bible of 66 books. Without this there is no basis for the existane of Christianity or the Christian Church. God's revelation is final and homosexuality (and many other things) is clearly SIN. The created human(clay) has no right or ability to tell the creator what is right or wrong or what He should decide.

One or a group may decide to support the gay life style or other issues as abortion as a social choice, but it is not a Christian option and should not be called a Christian church.

Bill ORourke, Moneta, Virginia, USA