The division of views is deep and the Commission have taken them seriously. Their rebuke to unilateral action is clear and firm: before making innovations of this kind provinces and dioceses should consult the Communion. Provincial autonomy is not the same as provincial independence; it is autonomy within the Communion. That means that proper processes of consultation must be followed when innovations are being contemplated, as was done with regard to the ordination of women to the presbyterate and the consecration of women bishops. ECUSA and Canada are rightly rebuked for their failure to follow those processes.

We should give a warm welcome to the report’s strong emphasis on scripture as the Church’s ‘supreme authority’, which ought to be seen as a focus and means of unity, [para 53]. Particularly helpful is the discussion of adiaphora – ‘things which do not make a difference’ -- in paragraphs 87-96, from which it is clear that it has never been the Anglican position that all things over which we disagree are automatically to be placed in that category. From this we can see a special process of discernment across the whole communion is required to establish whether the subject of disagreement is matter of indifference or not. “It has never been enough to say that we must celebrate or at least respect ‘difference’ without further ado. Not all ‘differences’ can be tolerated,” [para 89]. Also helpful – indeed, something we all need to take very much to heart – is the call for ‘mature study, wise and prayerful discussion, and a joint commitment to hearing and obeying God as he speaks in scripture’ [para 61]. It will not do just to ‘drop random texts into arguments, imagining that the point is thereby proved, ... or to sweep away sections of the New Testament as irrelevant to today’s world’.

For those strong positives in the Report we can be grateful. But there remain assessment serious problems which its recommendations leave unresolved. Take discipline. The Report calls [para 134] for ECUSA to ‘express its regret’ that the proper constraints of the communion’s bonds of affection were breached in regard to the New Hampshire consecration. It adds that such an expression of regret would ‘represent the desire’ of ECUSA to remain within the Communion. What does this mean? Is it the godly sorrow that leads to repentance? Or is it a gesture towards the injured to cover the intention to continue as before?

To be invited to express regret at pain one has caused others is not normally be seen as discipline, and certainly falls short of the pattern given by Paul to the Corinthian church. But it could become an effective means of discipline if the Archbishop of Canterbury exercises his right (unambiguously re-affirmed by the Commission) to decide who is, and who is not, to be invited to the Lambeth Conference and take part in the other Instruments of Unity. Will he decide not to invite those who consecrated VG Robinson until ECUSA has repaired the breach it caused by reversing its decision, and thus coming in line with the rest of the Communion? And will he act similarly with regard to the Church of Canada, and the Bishop of New Westminster?

The second area of concern is the inadequate recommendation for oversight of congregations who wish to remain faithful to the Communion’s doctrine and ethical discipline rather than the revisionist line taken by their diocesan bishop. The proposed scheme of delegated oversight makes such provision depend wholly on the whim of the diocesan bishop. That will not do.

Recent experience has shown that the reasonableness and good faith for it to work which is simply not there. This recommendation does not fulfil the undertaking by the Primates’ meeting last year to ensure that adequate provision is made for such congregations, who are after all loyal and faithful Anglicans.

The test of adequacy must be that the Episcopal care to be provided is acceptable to those who will receive it. Failure to guarantee this by insisting on some external element to process is a major defect in the Report’s recommendations – but one that could easily be remedied when the Primates consider implementing them.

Lastly, there are concerns about the proposed ‘Communion covenant’. The concept here is a good one and deserves support. The covenant’s terms must be carefully drawn so that it delivers the core commitments on faith and conduct needed. The process of adopting the covenant will take years, not months, and probably more than a decade. In the meantime are we Churches in communion with each other or not?

The Report’s final paragraph begins ‘there remains a very real danger that we will not choose to walk together’ and points to some of the more unpalatable consequences of failure to do so. If they are to be avoided, then the Primates will need to build on the strengths of the report’s findings but adapt the recommendations so as to achieve the objective of enabling us all to walk together in the light and obedience of Christ.

Philip Giddings is the convenor of Anglican Mainstream UK