From Graham Kings at Fulcrum

This was a clear sign, very early on, that not all were likely to agree to the Covenant. Its content would not be just bland – there would be ‘teeth’ – and eventually a ‘two tier’ Communion would be likely to emerge, of those in the centre who will sign, and of those on the edge who will not. The Anglican Communion is involved in ‘intensifying’ its current relationships and those who do not wish to continue on that ‘intensifying’ trajectory may remain where they are – there is no force – while the centre of the Communion moves on. Not exclusion, but intensification and no group can veto this movement forward.

He mentions two categories: those who sign on to the Covenant and will be a full part of the Communion and those who don’t – and won’t. I can’t help thinking that there will be a third category: those who sign, but have no intention of living up to what they just signed.

And what is this obsession with the word ‘trajectory’; it makes it sound as if we are trying to hit the moon with a firework. Oh right, we are. This ‘trajectory’ abomination is scattered abroad by liberals and conservatives with equal abandon: it’s overused, overworked, half dead on its feet and I’m sick of reading it.

‘Intensify’  appears to be the latest euphemism for ‘exclude’. I admit, I can see potential here: orthodox parishes will belong to Intensified Provinces, while liberal parishes will have their Enervated Provinces.

Further down in the complete article, there is mention that  the ‘interventions’ were only ever intended to be temporary (true) and that they will be no longer needed once the Pastoral Forum is in force (highly unlikely to be true).

How can anything useful come of all this waffle?

c/p on Essentials blog