EfM and the Anglican Covenant

I'm in Year Three of Education for Ministry which means that I'm spending a lot of time with my head in my hands and muttering, "Ow! Ow! Ow!" The early Christian church in the third through sixth centuries is one bitter controversy after another. Is Jesus fully human or fully divine or both? Hypostases or Hypostasis? Antioch vs. Alexandria; Arius vs. Athanasius... "Believe as I do about the "true" nature of Christ or I'll call you a heretic, and you'll get the boot" and schism, schism, schism.
As a co-mentor in my EfM group, I am also having to keep up with what the folks are reading about in the Old Testament, New Testament... and even those who are working with the various 19th and 20th century philosophers and theologians and what they are saying about God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit (or is it creator, redeemer, sustainer?) I find myself often times taking a figurative step back as I read and see that the pattern of human behavior and response to God seems most intent on trying to unravel the mystery or harness it or make God the justification for a conquest.
In some ways, I have a similar response to looking at the language of the Anglican Covenant. I find myself holding my head in my hands. But instead of "Ow!" I'm muttering, "Why?" There are many words in the proposed Covenant that sound great. Again, Bishop Gregory Cameron wants a debate and discussion on the merits of the text, and I will say that Part 2.2 of the Covenant says many good things. For example:
(2.2.1) to answer God’s call to undertake evangelisation and to share in the healing and reconciling mission “for our blessed but broken, hurting and fallen world”, and, with mutual accountability, to share our God-given spiritual and material resources in this task.

(2.2.2) to undertake in this mission, which is the mission of God in Christ:

(2.2.2.a) “to proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom of God” and to bring all to repentance and faith;
(2.2.2.b) “to teach, baptize and nurture new believers”, making disciples of all nations (Mt 28.19) through the quickening power of the Holy Spirit[10] and drawing them into the one Body of Christ whose faith, calling and hope are one in the Lord (Eph 4.4-6);
(2.2.2.c) “to respond to human need by loving service”, disclosing God’s reign through humble ministry to those most needy (Mk 10.42-45; Mt 18.4; 25.31-45);
(2.2.2.d) “to seek to transform unjust structures of society” as the Church stands vigilantly with Christ proclaiming both judgment and salvation to the nations of the world, and manifesting through our actions on behalf of God’s righteousness the Spirit’s transfiguring power;
(2.2.2.e) “to strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and to sustain and renew the life of the earth” as essential aspects of our mission in communion.

(2.2.3) to engage in this mission with humility and an openness to our own ongoing conversion in the face of our unfaithfulness and failures in witness.

To all of the above, I can say, "Yes. Check!" And I would be surprised to learn if any of the churches in the Anglican Communion are not doing these things... or at least striving to do these things... right now, without having signed onto this document.

But, just as I have said about many of the early Christians and their varying arguments about the "true" nature of Christ and the Trinity, I can go along with this person, but then they took it too far. Or, another way of I've said it, this person (or group) had a "piece" of the puzzle, but then they became so enamored with their piece that they thought it WAS the puzzle. And that's what I believe has happened with the Anglican Covenant. Because, unfortunately, churches signing this Covenant will not only be agreeing to the text of Part 2.2, they'd also have to agree to Part 4.2. And, even though the Anglican Covenant says in its introduction that it is not meant to "change the character" of our Anglican expression of Christianity (point 5 in the AC Introduction), these sections of Part 4.2 should give many pause:

(4.2.2) The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion, responsible to the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting, shall monitor the functioning of the Covenant in the life of the Anglican Communion on behalf of the Instruments. In this regard, the Standing Committee shall be supported by such other committees or commissions as may be mandated to assist in carrying out this function and to advise it on questions relating to the Covenant. A group of bishops will hear from those parties in the communion who can't get along with another church in the covenanting group. Why do I feel like an Olympic figure skater from the United States hoping to score points with an all-former Soviet bloc panel of judges?

(4.2.4) Where a shared mind has not been reached the matter shall be referred to the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee shall make every effort to facilitate agreement, and may take advice from such bodies as it deems appropriate to determine a view on the nature of the matter at question and those relational consequences which may result. Where appropriate, the Standing Committee shall refer the question to both the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting for advice. A shared mind? Oh, my! Flip back the pages in history and see how often Christians had a "shared mind" on anything!! Even those "shared minds" that gave us the decision that Christ was fully human and fully divine in one person(Council Chalcedon in 451) didn't stop having disputes. "Take advice from such bodies as it deems appropriate"? So, if we need to build a case, we'll line up more to dope slap the Primate of the offensive church?

(4.2.5) The Standing Committee may request a Church to defer a controversial action. If a Church declines to defer such action, the Standing Committee may recommend to any Instrument of Communion relational consequences which may specify a provisional limitation of participation in, or suspension from, that Instrument until the completion of the process set out below. And the supporters of the Covenant try to say this won't make us the "frozen chosen" of God?

(4.2.6) On the basis of advice received from the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting, the Standing Committee may make a declaration that an action or decision is or would be “incompatible with the Covenant”. Again, how can they say there are no consequences for a covenanting Church should it do something "radical", like women bishops, or openly-gay and partnered bishops?

(4.2.7) On the basis of the advice received, the Standing Committee shall make recommendations as to relational consequences which flow from an action incompatible with the Covenant. These recommendations may be addressed to the Churches of the Anglican Communion or to the Instruments of the Communion and address the extent to which the decision of any covenanting Church impairs or limits the communion between that Church and the other Churches of the Communion, and the practical consequences of such impairment or limitation. Each Church or each Instrument shall determine whether or not to accept such recommendations. So now that we punish you, then what?

This last point might be the one where proponents say, "See? It's not so bad. I mean, we can't really stop anyone from doing anything!" Well, I say, placing head in hands, then we go back to the question, "Why are we doing this?"

Man, and I thought the early Christians were caught up in a whole lot of folly trying to define the undefinable God. Leave it to those involved in this Anglican Covenant to top that with defining our "common understanding" of how to be Anglicans!