The Anglican Communion Office (ACO) has issued a rebuttal today suggesting that all the worry about the covenant means people are not really reading it. This seems to indicate that the proposed Covenant is in for some heavy debate at next week's Church of England General Synod:
Many things have already been said in the public arena about the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant. As Provinces around the world continue to discuss this important document I think it worth clarifying some points about it. I am not arguing here for or against the Covenant, merely pointing out that it should be debated fairly, with an accurate reading of the text.
The first thing to say is that for any Anglican or Episcopalian to be able to properly enter into a discussion about the Covenant it is vital that they first read it for themselves here
It seems to this writer that people have read it very carefully and are not so willing to gloss over the words as easily as the ACO.
They really do think we are stupid. It is obvious that as the majority will be able to veto the aspirations of minorities under the Anglican Covenant and police the Communion as they see fit ..., the Anglican Covenant will hand over local, provincial authority to whoever happens to be able to swing the most votes at the worldwide communion level.
Tobias Haller, at his blog In a Godward Direction replies to the ACO press release.
I cannot criticize her suggestion that people read the text of the Covenant itself. But I have to say I find her characterizations of the Covenant to be merely the most optimistic reading of a perilously ambiguous text. Having been brought up on a "hermeneutic of suspicion" I have long believed that legal texts need to be read in the light of the worst, not the best, that could happen.