Papers on The Anglican Way spell out the complexity of the tensions and rifts in the communion. All the documents are pretty familiar and even-handed, coming as many of them do from the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission (IADTC) but there are firm words about encroachment, for instance:

“There are occasions when a church falls out of sympathy with its bishop on matters of doctrine or conduct. It must not be the case that the mere fact of ease and communication of travel become the excuse for choosing a leader in another territory to be one’s chief pastor. In the case of serious and extensive conflict, it becomes the duty of diocesan bishops to provide pastoral support in particular congregations. When a diocesan bishop fails to undertake his duty, the matter becomes a provincial responsibility.”

Reflections offered to the Primates emphasise mutual accountability. “The cost of genuine dialogue is considerable... If conservative voices are not to be driven out, it must be possible for an admonition about recent issues to do with homosexuality to be delivered, clearly argued from biblical sources. Not all such arguments are well expressed and would be supported by scholarly writing; but it is a mistake to dismiss all of them as if their sole basis was literalism or naive fundamentalism.”

The paper continues: “On the other hand, if progressive views are not to be ignored, new knowledge has honestly to be confronted. Though there is still much uncertainty, it is evident that the existence in some people of homosexual inclinations has to be understood in a way not available to biblical writers. It has to be recognised as a cost of the engagement of the gospel with the world, that Christians remain open to changing ideas with their attendant uncertainties and controversies.”

The documents grapple with how the church judges which things lie closer to the heart of the gospel than others. With specific reference to Gene Robinson’s consecration, it asks how significant that was for Christian faith and practice? If the primates decided it was a matter of great weight, “then it would seem that an innovation of such significance requires the broadest consideration and endorsement by the rest of the Anglican Communion.” If they decided it was neither “commanded not forbidden”, then it could be determined at provincial or local level. Primates were not necessarily to be the ‘first port of call in such disputes, but the report suggests, “Many are looking to the Primates to hear the call of the churches for the leadership that befits those who hold such a high office.”

There are constant reminders of the changed context and landscape since the 1998 Lambeth Conference. Communion, Conflict and Hope, another IADCT report, suggests that the principles which hold Anglicans together are “born out of the recognition that the intensity of the debates which threatened to divide the Anglican communion meant that terms like ‘progressive discernment’ or ‘mutual admonition’ could not be taken to suggest that deeply felt differences would be resolved by calm, almost detached theological reflection alone, leave alone by the dictat of any church or theological commission.” Too often, attempts to discuss theological differences “degenerate into the parties issuing a series of assertions and counter-assertions at each other.” There is a warning against the use of Christian Scripture as “proof texts” to bolster points being made.

Disagreement is “not a matter of indifference. Dealing with controversy should expect a resolution,” the bishops are told.

They will consider the St Andrew’s Draft Covenant, where among the principal questions will be, “Are there any ways in which this [covenant] might have a stabilising or destabilising effect in your diocese or province? There is also extensive background material for the Mission and Ministry section of the bishops’ discussions, including issues the Churches must address around the Millennium Development Goals.