Here is an intriguing argument against the Covenant, in the first of the CiF posts about the Covenant:
"Such a process represents a more developed system than archbishop Geoffrey Fisher knew. In 1951 he said: "We have no doctrine of our own – we only possess the Catholic doctrine of the Catholic church enshrined in the Catholic creeds, and those creeds we hold without addition or diminution." Fisher was no woolly liberal. Why is his doctrinal standground no longer adequate?"
That would be "1951" as in the years before Robinson, Spong, and Cupitt; before the Jesus Seminar; before, well, quite a few developments which severely strain the notion that 'the Catholic creeds' are adequate as a doctrinal standard. What, we may ask with all the reasonableness of Hooker himself, does the church do when the creeds themselves are reinterpreted by teachers of the faith dressed as Anglican bishops?!
That would also be "1951" as in the years before the post-colonial expansion of the Communion as a group of Anglican churches no longer run by Oxbridge educated English bishops and missionaries. A year, in other words, when Nigeria would never have questioned whether England was truly Anglican, nor vice versa.
Anglican life has changed!