Lionel Deimel offers A Deeper Look into the Covenant in his blog entry If it looks like a duck… and while you are there scroll over the duck. Deimel offers a point by point examination of the entire document with charts of the relationships of the various so-called Instruments of Unity and how an issue would be handled if the Covenant is passed. (see below):
The crux of the Covenant, the place where its true intent is exposed, though veiled, is to be found in section 3.2, which begins, “Acknowledging our interdependent life, each Church, reliant on the Holy Spirit, commits itself.” Here is a summary of the commitments, stripped of their Anglican smoke and mirrors:
(3.2.1) To pay for the Instruments of Communion and attempt to do what they say.
(3.2.2) To respect the autonomy of other churches, even as they restrict it.
(3.2.3) To agree that new and controversial issues “need to be tested by shared discernment in the life of the Church.” In other words, individual churches do not have the freedom to act on such matters until everyone agrees.
(3.2.4) To seek agreement with other churches of the Communion.
(3.2.5) To do nothing to upset other churches of the Communion.
(3.2.6) To keep talking and meeting when conflicts arise until consensus is reached, even if that is until hell freezes over.
(3.2.7) To keep in mind that bonds of affection and Christ’s love “compel”—interesting word choice—“us always to uphold the highest degree of communion possible.” (This is, of course, firm but gentle Anglican intimidation.)
In other words, the real purpose of the covenant is to get churches to agree to “shared discernment” on any matter that any church thinks is important and to not act until the shared discernment produces consensus. (The Covenant fails to give any operational definition of consensus.)
Click to enlarge
Read it all here. Deimel has take the UFO advice and “read, marked and inwardly digested” the document.