This is part of the bigger problem identified by Dr Wil\u00c2\u00adliams in his final address. As he put it, the question emerging from Canterbury was not \u201cWhat is Lambeth \u201908 going to say?\u201d\u009d but \u201cWhere are we going to speak from?\u201d\u009d Not only do we not know who is to resolve the Com\u00c2\u00admunion\u2019s problems \u201d\u201d if not the Lambeth Conference, then the Primates\u2019 Meeting? \u201d\u201d we do not know who can define them with any authority. The Windsor Con\u00c2\u00adtinua\u00c2\u00adtion Group attracted atten\u00c2\u00adtion during the Conference because it articulated the problem with candour. The group func\u00c2\u00adtions as something between a Select Committee and a think tank, however, and the uncer\u00c2\u00adtainty of its status adheres also to its pro\u00c2\u00adnouncements. Its remit is merely to submit recommenda\u00c2\u00adtions to the Anglican Consultative Council next spring, taking into account the bishops\u2019 views as expressed in Canterbury.<\/p>\n
Thus the weight given to the group\u2019s resurrection of mora\u00c2\u00adtoriums as the solution to gay consecrations, same-sex blessings, and territorial incursions seems disproportionate. The Episcopal Church in the United States will be uneasy with the request, especially as it is open-ended. When would such a moratorium end? When half the Communion embraces a more tolerant atti\u00c2\u00adtude? When Muslims in North Africa stop taunting Christians with belonging to a \u201cgay Church\u201d\u009d? Similarly, conser\u00c2\u00adva\u00c2\u00adtives behind plans to create an alternative US hierarchy have not been im\u00c2\u00adpressed by attempts to put extra-provincial interventions on the same footing as same-sex blessings. Nothing suggests that they have changed their view.<\/p>\n
All this is to say that the Anglican Communion is in a bigger fix than any conference could sort out. On the other hand, the effort and expense of the Lambeth Conference justify the expectation that it will have done something to draw Angli\u00c2\u00adcans into a more coherent body. This is why the Reflections are so irritating. Where, indeed, are they speaking from? Whether for logistical reasons, or from a desire to avoid clause-by-clause wrang\u00c2\u00adling, they were not available to bishops before they were issued. The result is a rich field for the higher criticism. To take a trivial instance, how many bishops asked for a Lambeth Conference every five years? A handful of enthusiasts, or the majority?<\/p>\n
This uncertainty must colour any reading of the remarks about sexuality and suggested revisions of the Anglican Covenant \u201d\u201d a consequence of holding these discussions at the end of the Con\u00c2\u00adference, without time to achieve any corporate ownership of the suggestions. Some of the propo\u00c2\u00adsals would take the Communion back to the drawing board, and there is no sense of the relative weight that the bishops gave to them. The Covenant remains the only game in town. It is note\u00c2\u00adworthy that it was not dismissed by the bishops, most of whom have reservations about it; but it would have been good to have more than a disjointed set of suggestions.<\/p>\n