“...they agree not to carry out any contentious actions such as putting their clergy in another country without its agreement….”

How does this apply to ECUSA plants, that are episcopally answerable to ECUSA, in other countries?

Its one thing to have missionary activity in another country to form a proto-national church that becomes an independent national church of that country, but it is certainly another thing for ECUSA to ‘hang on’ to its international church plants in foreign countries and to have those plants continue to be subservient to ECUSA.

ECUSA’s leadership may be successful at ‘explaining away’ some of the foreign churches that are under its authority, but not all of them.

By doing what it has done, hasn’t ECUSA set itself up to be in a position that challenges the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury in those foreign countries in question?

We need to hold Schori’s feet to the fire on the issue of overseas missions and jurisdictions of the Episcopal Church, and not allow TEC to have them “grandfathered in.”  What applies to everyone else has to apply to TEC too, and with no exceptions.

The only thing controversial about this “Covenant” is whether it can be processed long enough for Rowan to retire with the Anglican Communion “intact” technically.  There is no controversy that it is window dressing and completely without redeeming features as regards any serious relationship accountability in any form whatsover.  The best description I have yet read is that it is “think Panel of Reference on steroids”.  That is being more than generous while apt.