Fulcrum has written an interesting piece on the Anglican Covenant, "A Churchgoer's Guide to the Anglican Communion Covenant"
The authors give their best shot as to why people, particularly members of the Church of England, ought to support the Covenant. It does not convince this reader.
Among other things, Fulcrum observes:
The Archbishop of Canterbury has been among the strongest advocates for adoption of the Anglican Covenant.
The first and the last of the "Ten Reasons to Support the Anglican Communion Covenant."
1. It has been consistently supported by the Church of England which significantly shaped its content through the years of its development and so we should not now reverse our positive and constructive response.
10. The Archbishop of Canterbury has asked the Church of England to support him and the other Instruments in working for the widest possible acceptance of the covenant within the Communion.
The upshot is that the Archbishop of Canterbury wants it, and that is why the Church of England needs to say "yes" to accepting it.
It is a matter of loyalty.
This sort of argument for the adopting of the Covenant is bad indeed. It is too bad, in fact, for some of Fulcrum's other arguments for the Covenant make some sense. But for this to become a loyalty test is really uncalled for.
The Archbishop is for it. True. The CofE has been supportive, at least by support of the Archbishop of Canterbury. And the ABC has asked for support. (OK, I don't know that as a fact, but I am sure it is true.)
The thing is, that is not accepting the Covenant on its merits, that is accepting it because of who is offering it. It may be polite to eat whatever is put before us, but it is sometimes unwise.