I’ve found an interesting take on the Anglican Communion as it exists today, pre-split, titled “Anglicans in the Postcolony: On Sex and the Limits of Communion” by Mary-Jane Rubenstein. It can be found at Telos 143 (Summer 2008): 133–60. Importantly, for those not in the know, or at least in America and can’t seem to find a copy of “The Battle of the Bishops” because the BBC won’t let those in the USA watch it, Rubenstein also does a decent job of locating the major players and some decisions that led to the tension today.
Below is her thesis:
I would like to suggest, however, that a more useful picture—both analytically and ecclesiastically—emerges when one considers the full range of commitment and opinion within the Communion. In conversation with the work of French philosopher Jean-Luc Nancy, I will propose that the Anglican Communion’s crucial distinction falls, not between proponents of ecclesiastical relation and proponents of ecclesiastical autonomy, but rather between proponents of two different kinds of relation: one that aims to bring all difference into identity, and another that seeks its identity in and through difference. Both of these models can arguably find scriptural and traditional justification, and yet they are proving to be fundamentally incompatible as they vie for the souls—and the soul—of the Anglican Communion.