Anglicans and a covenant

I don't take a lot of notice of how the church organises itself these days. I am not on Synod, or even Parish Council. It is like the freedom of being sixty. I don't need to know. It is a freedom I relish.
Except that other people make the decisions!

I remember fondly that Canon Laurie Murchison (may his name be forever remembered), told us at All Saint's and St Mark's that the fundamental unit of governing the church was the diocese. (governance was not a word in use then,) The diocese (and its Synod) was where the decisions were made. Later on in my life I discovered Provincial Synods and Primates.

But a covenant to keep "the communion" together; this comment worth reading is from Pluralist:
http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2009/08/thirteen-unsure.html He stirs my unease. We are in communion, because we take communion at each other's tables. We break bread together.

As Pluralist says:

Here is my 'but', and it is as if these organisations do not yet get it. It is this:

We will work to ensure that if the Church of England is to sign up to the Covenant, it has potential for rapid progress on this and other issues.

No! Work to ensure the Church of England does not sign up to the Covenant. The Covenant is no good for anyone interested in Anglican flexibility and the inclusion of all its people liturgically and in ministry. If you sign the Covenant, you get the two track approach at the very least, which this joint statement rightly rejects. It would mean having to defy the Covenant and linking up with those Churches that are more flexible, which would not be possible structurally in the Church of England. Also if the Covenant fails in the Church of England, it means it won't constrain other parts of Anglicanism either, except those Churches that want to draw up agreements with others (and nothing surely wrong with that - part of the decentralised or confederal way of doing things).

as I say, he is worth reading.