Ramsey wouldn't have liked it

Archbishop Michael Ramsey

Jared C. Cramer over at The Lead has a thoughtful critique of the Covenant based on his study of the theology of Michael Ramsey.  It's worth reading in full.

He contrasts Ramsey's understanding of relationship between living faithfully within the tradition we have received and the documentary inheritance of faith.  For example,

Ramsey consistently praised the “non-confessional” approach of Anglican Christianity, glad that the truth of God expressed in the creeds is a sufficient standard for Christian belief. ...

When Ramsey was in ecumenical meetings, he had deep doubts about the possibilities of engaging the profoundest matters of theology through “high pressure drafting,” asking, “Why should such procedures be the medium through which the Holy Spirit speaks to the Church?” (James B. Simpson, The Hundredth Archbishop of Canterbury (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 134)

Cramer's final paragraph says,

... One can clearly see the mechanism for separation in the Anglican Covenant, but it is much harder to see the mechanism for deep and abiding relationship. An approach to unity based upon forced policies and lists of doctrine and church principles results in precisely the same problem that created the sin of schism: the idea that one’s own perception of Christian faith is the one that is normative. At the end of the day, however, neither the Primates’ Meeting, nor the (Anglican Consultative Council, nor the SCAC, nor any other group will succeed in telling one bishop or group of bishops with whom they should consider themselves in Communion or in strained relationship. The unity which the Covenant purports to seek will remain out of reach.

Yes. Exactly. But will Ramsey's present successor, whose mind is at least as subtle as Ramsey's was, get the point?