(1) To be Anglican is to be open to the new and to be responsive to changing circumstances.
(2) In the early part of the 21st century the Anglican Communion has been faced with changing circumstances, namely the recognition that increasing diversity of theology and praxis has stretched the bonds of affection to breaking point.
(3) Thus a new need has arisen to offer definition of what it means to be (a) Anglican, and (b) in formal global Communion as Anglicans.
(4) Further, recognition that there is division about what it means to be Anglican has led logically to the conclusion of the necessity of a means of discipline in respect of (b) above in order to deepen our fellowship as a global Communion (note, the discipline is not in respect of (a) ... anyone and any church may lay claim to be 'Anglican', it is not a registered trademark).
(5) The Covenant is the proposal on the table: Sections 1-3 in respect of (1) - (3) above and Section 4 in respect of (4) above.
What is intriguing about the Coalition of No is that their talk of shared Anglican heritage of worship and Hooker's classic and normative theology is entirely in agreement with the analysis (1) - (3) above. Their disturbance is over the possibility of discipline if alternative ways of being Anglican are proposed. What would they do if Anglicans in the Communion went against Hooker and our liturgical heritage?