Most of the response already has been made. The primates wanted four points addressed. The bishops answered three of them at their spring meeting. The late Bishop James Kelsey wrote about his experience at that meeting on his diocesan blog.

At that meeting, the bishops declined to participate in the "pastoral scheme." They had been asked to refrain from authorizing liturgies for the blessing of same-sex unions -- and to make a clarifying statement -- and to stop electing out gay or lesbian bishops. Our bishops replied that decisions that affect the life of the entire church into the future would have to be made by a General Convention.

The fourth and final request involves the Anglican covenant process. Since Dar es Salaam, a draft of the covenant has been proposed. I think we have given the document the wrong title.

Covenant seems to me the wrong term.  Maybe treaty is more apt. Or cease-fire. A covenant is what God made with Noah and Abraham. A covenant is a big promise, a bit on the impossible side and with a lot of forgiveness granted in advance.

Covenants are about God not doing what God could do (wipe us out with water) or doing something impossible (giving Abraham heirs, lots of them). Covenants are about hope. Covenants are creative and radical. The League of Nations after World War I was called a covenant. The victorious allies were so horrified by the human cost of modern warfare that they attempted to create a structure by which war as a way to resolve conflict would become obsolete, an unimaginable future of peace.

A covenant is jaw-droppingly gorgeous and makes our wildest dreams look uncreative.  Maybe we should leave the covenants to God.

A treaty, on the other hand, is hammered out and negotiated. No one really likes a treaty, but sometimes we need them. A treaty is lawyers and committees. A treaty engages the kinds of issues our "draft covenant" addresses. For example, we should refrain from doing things as national churches that upset other churches in the communion.

Who decides what is upsetting? The primates. Who decides what should be done about it? The primates. The scriptural references under the headings of the document are sweet, but the language underneath sounds less like Scripture than like the worst interpretation of tradition.

Maybe our new document could be Article 40, another few paragraphs added to the original 39 that generations to come will read as a sign of how frightened we were at the turn of this century.

I have avoided the most obvious covenant: marriage. Isn't that what started this whole thing? Some of us around the world have decided that we will try to live our lives in covenant in our primary relationship -- not in a deal of convenience, not out of fear or lack or simple practicality, but with God's help in covenant. Risk-taking, profound commitment to another person out of love means preparing for the joy, rapture, forgiving and repenting that a lifetime will hold.

Maybe more of the saving love of Jesus the Christ will be known on October 1 than on September 30. Maybe. I wish Jim Kelsey were here to help.

Maybe all some can hope is that we don't move too fast and allow the break-off groups any legal ground for claiming to be the true Episcopal Church.

Maybe some of us need a covenant from our own church telling us that we are welcome.

Maybe someone will stand up straight and walk through a jeering crowd and change us forever.