Cranmer says some things about the Covenant and the future of the Communion very well:
'Perhaps the Covenant is un-Anglican, but the very fact that it is a development in the Church’s doctrine of ecclesiology actually renders it rather Anglican.
If we are to avoid the ‘piece-by-piece dissolution of the Communion’, do we not need a bit of glue?
It’s a certain fact we’re out of whitewash.
And what on earth could be wrong with a framework which demands consultation?
How can one resolve disagreements without dialogue?
The bizarre thing is that the Anglican Church actually practises what the Roman Catholic Church pretends to: subsidiarity; notwithstanding that the very concept is a Roman Catholic invention. It is to do with governance at the lowest level, and the Anglican Communion has historically been constructed on devolved localism. Dan Hannan and Douglas Carswell [two Euro-sceptic politicians] would be proud.
But it hasn’t worked.'
Future historians will judge the Communion failed because a mistake was made about the glue required to hold us together. A common heritage of roots in the C of E is insufficient: the church is not an historical association, it is the body of Christ guided by the mind of Christ. Some kind of shared understanding of and shared commitment to common doctrine is the glue we need. It is insufficient response to this requirement to dismiss it for fear of some kind of 'unhealthy dogmatism' shaping Anglicanism. If we do not wish to dissolve we need doctrine (commensurate with our heritage in the ancient and reformed church, consistent with creeds and Scripture). If we take doctrine seriously we will commit to some form of discipline.
We are free to reject doctrine and discipline. But there will be a consequence. The Communion will dissolve.