Here is what is written:
"Next week the Church of England's General Synod will be asked to take an apparently momentous decision. Should it sign up to a formal, international, disciplinary process which would allow other churches a voice on whether it is truly Anglican or not? The proposed Anglican covenant is presented as a means to deepen unity within the Anglican Communion, but it will do so by strengthening discipline.
I have boldened words which seem quite outrageous in their claims. Quite how the writer estimates that globally there is a clear majority 'against' the Covenant, I do not know. Even within England itself, presumably best known to the writer, there is the uncertainty implied in the word 'probably' which gives lie to the certainty expressed in the previous sentence.
Italicised by me are the words which I think neatly sum up two arguments for the Covenant! (1) That in a global Anglican entity it is a good and necessary thing for all members to have the right to choose to have a say in what any one member body proposes to be an assertion of what it means to be Anglican. (2) That in a body keen to deepen unity, it is (again) a good and necessary thing to have a clear means of discipline in order to reject those things which work against the deepening of unity. It would be folly to work on deepening unity while having no means of countering forces working against unity!
Crossed out by me are words which undermine the credibility of the writer's accurate understanding of the Communion's situation. Quite how they slipped by the editor, I do not know. Conservatives do not wish to exclude anyone from the church but they do want to uphold the church's teaching on marriage. The tension is not about inclusion/exclusion but about what our common doctrine on marriage is. Perhaps in the next few days as further columns in Comment is Free are produced, we will see greater accuracy!