"The article seems to entirely miss noticing its most egregious innovation, to be found neither in tradition or scripture, that moves from noting diverse historical and cultural practices to the assertion that “every particular or national Church” is where the authority in matters of tradition lies. It is this complete blurring of the social and ecclesial orders that has always been the Church of England’s biggest problem, and which lies at the root of many of its contemporary issues, whether adjusting to post-Christian society, or creating and responding to bizarre concepts of “provincial autonomy” across the Anglican Communion."
At the least I take this to mean that the 39A do not steer Anglican tradition well in respect of authority of or over, and autonomy of Anglican churches in the era of the Anglican Communion.
There is a case for a 40th Article of Religion (and, yes, I know, also a case for revising the 39A): one which sets out the nature of authority for Anglican churches in communion with each other. My sense is that this involves a new appreciation of the role that councils have played, and can continue to play in the life of a global movement. That is, citing 'councils do err' is unhelpful if we wish to improve on the current situation.
The remedy for the poor ecclesiology expressed through the 39A lies in developing a theology of the church as communion ('communio ecclesiology') with attention to conciliarity ('conciliar communio ecclesiology').