If Bp Anderson’s comment is the anamnetic moment for the Covenant, then Bp Andrus is only off by 45 years.  Such a ploy.  Perhaps, though,  we should show compassion for historical ignorance.
This is the problem with a body whose collective memory is defined only by those who are currently present.
Thank God we have 4 Gospels which are brought forward to us as the Body of Christ weekly, so we do not lose focus or remembrance of just Who is in fact the Risen Christ.

each of you here, and the dioceses you serve, through your formal companion diocese relationships and your many lines of mutual ministry and service that stretch in every direction across the whole of the Communion have sent the strongest, most positive message possible about our solidarity with the Communion

It’s no surprise that Bishop Andrus thinks the Covenant is “A BAD THING”. What is funny and sad is the obviously barking mad view about what messages they have been sending to the wider Communion.

If those were truly the sentiments of the “primate of Korea,” one wonders why he would be Anglican at all if he’s concerned about “internalizing colonialism.” Do they ever listen to themselves?

Heaven forbid that the AC be bound by common doctrine and belief.  After all we want to be autonomous and free to do what we feel is right in our own eyes.  Now where have I read that?

Well, if history is any prognosticator, TEc would have signed anything and continued to do as it pleased a la the Griz et alia laying hands on VGR, so why is Andrus’ vexed?  The ABC copied the TEc playbook?  Amazingly short-sighted view of his own “process” - probably due to undigested chicken dinners or such.

” I took him to mean that we hold together as a spiritual body, whose bonds are more than affection, but are the love of Christ, the vivifying blood that reaches each community of the Communion equally… Affirming the Covenant, besides the negatives factors I have mentioned, is totally unnecessary to tell our sisters and brothers that we love them”

Communion?  What communion?  Instead - he has a Potemkin Village notion intended to mislead others, and from which he and certain other clergy might seek a false credibility or authority.

Mark Andrus is right about one thing: Lambeth 2008 with its “Indaba”, and lack of conciliar debate and resolution, provides no basis or foundation for anything.

In 1998 the Lambeth Conference functioned as a council of bishops: A number of bishops demanded that a motion be debated which (to the dismay of the AC/Lambeth palace bureaucracy) was not on the official agenda.  After extensive and vigorous debate, that motion became Lambeth Resolution I:10 on Human Sexuality. It was passed by a massive majority of bishops.

Since then, the AC/Lambeth bureaucracy and the western liberals have worked (for different reasons) to bury Resolution I:10. But it just won’t die, because it truly did represent the considered will of the bishops of the whole Communion.

By contrast Lambeth 2008, the conduct of which was specifically designed to prevent any more “surprises” like Resolution 1.10, does not resonate with anyone. It is already in process of being forgotten, a few short years later.