"The fundamental problem is that the Anglican Communion is too broad, ranging from something like premodern magical belief combined with charismatic Protestantism to something that approaches the consumerist New Age. Such a spread can only be a loose association at best. Even the Church of England is too broad and is going through a trim. Traditionalist Catholics are being sidelined by change. Its most radical of liberals are shearing off, but it leaves others more exposed. The entryism of some evangelicals of the FCA kind may turn into separatism (as in North America). So the broad Church in an age of speciality is moving towards a lesser spread, just as The Episcopal Church is seeking its own clearer identity (and inevitable smaller size)." [my italics]In his own way Worsfield makes a point close to one of my points about the Covenant. If we do not sign to the Covenant as a Communion (i.e. 80%+, better, 90%+ members sign) then we are making a statement about our unwillingness to commit to being a Communion which grows in its union by signifying our willingness to be accountable to one another. In turn that means we should drop the name "Communion" and use a name which is truer to our actual life together. In the past I have offered 'federation' and in the more recent past I have offered 'association' as a better name. So here, when Adrian Worsfield writes that effectively the Communion 'can only be a loose association at best' I am in accord with him about which reality may emerge at the end of the Covenant process.
If (as appears likely) the Covenant is not signed up to in sufficient numbers, there will be no such reality as an 'unCovenanted Anglican Communion'. Just an unCovenanted Anglican Global Association.