And, of course, I speak as an "outsider," but I don't see how, if you follow what he's written here, that anything like an Anglican Communion exists.
An Anglican something, but surely not a Communion in any traditional theological sense of that term?
He's an extremely intelligent man, who happens to be rather to the left on most of the issues at stake. Thus, when he speaks of making sacrifices and compromises, he's leading by example with this paper, and his leadership in general.
And, of course, I speak as an "outsider," but I don't see how, if you follow what he's written here, that anything like an Anglican Communion exists.
I can see how an "outsider" would have missed the reference. It's spelled out in the following:
And we have seen these links not primarily in a bureaucratic way but in relation to the common patterns of ministry and worship – the community gathered around Scripture and sacraments; a ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, a biblically-centred form of common prayer, a focus on the Holy Communion.
The structural aspects (e.g., bishops, etc.) are obvious to an outsider, but the other two are not. The "biblically-centered form of common prayer" is really the hallmark of "Anglicanism," however -- all of the provinces have their versions of the Book of Common Prayer, all of which can trace their roots back to Thomas Cranmer, back in the 16th Century. Cranmer's legacy was not only the gorgeous language and liturgy, but also an approach where language and liturgy draw directly from the Bible.
An Anglican something, but surely not a Communion in any traditional theological sense of that term?
Overall, Williams states that we're a "Communion" in the sense that "we are not just a human organisation but a community trying to respond to the action and the invitation of God that is made real for us in ministry and Bible and sacraments." (As Webster's dictionary puts it, a Communion is a body of Christians having a common faith and discipline.)