"There is no element of coercion anywhere in the text, but there is an acknowledgement that neither can everything that one Church does be foisted on the whole Communion without the recognition that relations can be damaged. What the Covenant sets out in Section 4 is a proper mechanism that allows the articulation of discomfort, even distance, but which honours autonomy.
But this is too much for our latter-day Little Englanders, who bemoan the passing of the armchair bonhomie of the Athenaeum as the measure of Anglican inclusivity. They would, it seems, rather see the disintegration of the Anglican Communion into a series of acrimonious factions than restate a common faith and witness and find grown-up and responsible mechanisms for the articulation of the life of a whole Communion."
That's what Anglican Down Under likes to hear from the Top of the World (Wales, to be precise)!
The searing critique of the recent advertising in English church newspapers against the Covenant can be read in full here (thanks to Thinking Anglicans for the link to this Church Times letter).
The writer is slightly qualified to speak with authority on the Covenant: take a bow +Gregory Cameron, Bishop of St. Asaph and Secretary to the Covenant Design Group, 2006-09.
The two paragraphs I cite are at the heart of my support for the Covenant: if the Communion is to be a Communion and not a collection of dissonant churches then it needs the Covenant as a statement of a renewed commitment to communion for the 21st century.