Every time my liberal instincts threaten to get the better of my evangelical ones, I have an encounter like this and turn into a foaming fundamentalist.

But surely even Frank Griswold could see it might not be the best idea in the world to shun a national newspaper journalist in that way. Then again, a primate who is capable of overriding the opinions of large parts of the Global South, not to mention parts of his own province, is clearly not going to give a toss about The Times. We will never know. He was frogmarched from the room before any more questions could be asked.

Now if an Anglican prelate cannot tell his own, diminutive female minder that on this occasion, it might not be a bad idea to answer a question - and we all know that Grizzy has no problem thinking up appropriately slippery answers to even the most direct of interrogations - however is he going to be able to exert any authority he does have to ensure his bishops abide by the moratorium asked for in the Windsor report? My guess, judging from this encounter and from his statements in the preceding debate with Josiah Fearon, is that he is not even going to try.

A lot of hopes are riding on the Windsor Report. Many, myself included, maybe had higher hopes than we should have done. But I now feel there is only one serious flaw in it. The chastisement of those bishops who have breached provincial boundaries seems more than unfair, and they certainly do not deserve to go in the same dock as those who prompted their actions. It is like making the man who commits a crime in self-defence as guilty as the man who provoked the defence. Imagine a burglar who breaks his leg when he falls through a glass window during illicit entry into a house. In the Windsor report scenario, the householder is fined for not making his glass strong enough, while the burglar is merely asked not to do it again.

The liberals are claiming a victory and there is palpable despair among some conservatives. But it is too early to lose hope. It is still possible that a united way forward can be found. There are certain facts about Anglicanism that cannot be ignored. Provincial autonomy is one of them. Lack of effective archiepiscopal authority is another. These are surely among the reasons we remain Anglicans. There is nothing to stop any of us from following the example of our Prime Minister and start going to Mass, or from joining the Strict Baptists or the Plymouth Brethren.

Liberals should take heart from the evangelical despond. It means they have got more than they expected. Evangelicals should take heart from the critique of Jack Spong this week in The Times, who accurately recognises the revolutionary concept of the proposed covenant.

As one conservative academic says: "My view is, when you get eight out of ten you don't complain about not getting two. This is in part a spiritual problem. The 40 non-consenting Bishops in Ecusa need to stand together and put the rest on the defensive.

I think Windsor is good for the basic Christianity lobby, that the liberals are playing an excellent spin game (it could have been worse for them, but puts them still at the edge and reaffirms Lambeth 98 as normative now)."

Norman Doe and Gregory Cameron could yet go down in history as the Hookers of the 21st century (no pun intended). The Anglican Church really could emerge as stronger and fitter, as Lord Eames himself predicted at the start of the process a year ago. It really is worth sticking with this report and trying to make it work. The primates, including Archbishop Rowan, have to show leadership. If they've forgotten how, they should go away and read St Paul.

So now I have a proposal for them. It is up to you, archbishops, to ask Frank Griswold whether he or his church intend any more consecrations of the kind that the Windor Report has asked for a moratorium on. He may not tell you the answer either. But as you already know, if you don't ask him, he certainly won't tell. You at least will not be ticked off, simply for asking the question.

And I have one final word for Frank. If I was rude to you today Frank, which I don't think I was, I do regret it very much. But I won't apologise. Is there a difference? Maybe you don't think there is.

Ruth Gledhill is The Times' Religion Corresponden