Pluralist's contribution is one of the most  sensible I have read on this topic and I wholly agree with him.  i have read the Covenant most carefully several times.  Read in Canada by a resident of Lancashire, it seems to me to be disingenuous to suggest that the document is not disciplinary.  No matter what commentators have said, it is designed to impose a measure of uniformity.  If churches do not conform to the prevailing majority and iinovate at the speed of the slowest, they will be cast out to an outer tier.  The reference to 'relational consequences' is a threat, the more damaging because it is so ill-defined.  It seems to me that this is a deeply divisive document, designed to divide, and will do little to promote unity.  The proponets consistently gloss over the disciplinary nature of the document.  They have overlooked the law of unintended consequences.  I'm agin it.

Bishop Cameron's letter was deeply offensive and unhelpful.  Living in Lancashire where BNP has had a baleful effect and read in Toronto where there is a sizable Jewish population, many of whose fobears suffered in the Holocaust, to smear the opponents of the Covenant with accusations of racism and fascism is unaccaptable and wrong.  If the Covenant needs defending in such a way, it is not worth having.

Daniel