Woven through some exchanges of views to recent posts here re the Covenant is the question of what the Anglican Communion is or is not in respect of the idea of 'church.' One argument seems to go like this:
The Communion is not a church therefore it neither needs a constitution-and-canons to structure its life, nor is it fair to raise the question of consistency of those who oppose the Covenant but live with constitution etc in their own member churches.
A possible response to this is: if we enjoy belonging to a member church of the Communion, why not enjoy belonging to a global Anglican church, part of that enjoyment being the joy of being united in Christ by the things we hold in common as Anglicans?
Another related matter raised recently has been the question of what is 'Communion breaking' behaviour, as in (say) 'diaconal presidency is not, for me, a Communion breaking matter.' The implication is, we Anglican Communion-ites can live with such a wide range of diversity we do not need a Covenant (which is an attempt to limit diversity in order to render 'Anglican' as having some meaning).
I have been thinking about this idea of 'Communion breaking' a little: perhaps a difference between me and some commenters here is that (on balance) I think I am more interested in what 'builds Communion' than in what 'breaks Communion.' I see the Covenant as helping to build the Communion (by building up what we hold in common together) rather than fixing the Communion when something seems to be breaking Communion. In respect of, say, diaconal presidency, the Covenant (on my 'building Communion' approach) asks the question 'whether or not this development builds Communion between one another?' rather than condemns the development because it breaks the Communion.
One of the reasons why I am interested in the possibility that the Anglican Communion becomes a global church is that 'communion' is not a static state: either we are being drawn more deeply into fellowship with one another in Christ or we are not. Communion which deepens is becoming church. Communion which lessens is becoming a something else (alliance, association, loose affiliation). The Covenant, rightly discerned by its critics, is about the question of whether the Communion is becoming a church or not: if the Covenant builds Communion life then the fellowship between member churches deepens and the Communion is becoming a church. (For clarification, this last sentence is about the 'theological implications of the Covenant as we reflect on its meaning and significance', not about revealing secret conspiracies and hidden intents of the Covenant designers).
Even if I get the 'No Covenant Coalition' wrong etc, I remained interested in why we Anglicans (i.e. some or many of us) seem loathe to engage with the theology of Christian unity in Christ (John 17, Ephesians 2, Philippians 2), let alone with the implications of that theology: that a global fellowship of Anglican churches would want to become a united global church, and beyond that, would want to see the unity of all Christians. Is it because we immediately see too many difficulties to make any real progress towards unity? Is it because we can only understand 'unity' as 'uniformity'? Is it because we lack understanding of the theology of Christian unity? Is it because we take an eschatological view: Christ will sort it all out at the end of time?