We now appear to have neither!
Bishop Mouneer Anis' resignation from the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion, along with the significant concomitant criticism from the (normally Covenant supporting) ACI of aspects of the (recently revised) fourth section of the Covenant, particularly highlighting the confusing use of Instruments of Unity (if not inventing one or more as we go along), suggests that a common approach to truth in the Communion is now a fading hope, and that the possibility of some coherent authority for administering the Covenant is all but reduced to zero. Sarah Hey, for example, highlights pertinent aspects of the situation in this post.
Archbishop Mouneer gets to the heart of the matter which disrupts a meaningful sense that a common approach to truth undergirds our Communion when he observes that despite the majority view of the Anglican Communion being expressed in Lambeth 1998 1:10 in this phrase,
"homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture",
it appears to Anglicans such as Mouneer that, "the aim of the Listening Process is to convince traditional Anglicans, especially in the Global South, that homosexual practice is acceptable."
Is homosexual practice compatible with Scripture? Some say No, some say Yes. But together we have not yet agreed to one of two things which would accord with a common approach to truth: either that it does not matter if an open contradiction on this matter is a feature of Anglican life, or that it matters that there is an open contradiction but nevertheless we can live with the contradiction.
Perhaps we should put the Covenant on the shelf for a while and address how we might reach a common approach to truth. Then we might address the question of a clear structure of authority for the Communion. Four Instruments of Unity was always going to be a recipe for confusion when a really difficult contradiction in Anglican thinking was raised. That we muddled through (say) the rise of Anglo-Catholicism or the ordination of women is not a testimony to how brilliant Anglican Communion authority is, but to the low level of difficulty posed by such issues.
But I am not holding my breathe waiting for decisive leadership which demands that the Communion confronts the issue of whether it really wants to be a Communion or not. For the time being I shall try to consistently refer to the so-called Communion as a Confederation. That would be accurate. [UPDATE: I acknowledge Bosco Peters' point that 'Confederation' might not do ... so I shall think of another word].