What is concerning about the is that it is the Windsor Continuation Group is put in the driving seat. Leading a discussion on 22 July, it laid out in stark terms the disagreements within the Communion and it is tasked with doing something about it via carrying on with this Covenant.
It is as if these short time versions of Indaba Groups cannot produce resolutions and so - step back - we will find the Windsor Continuation Group taking upon itself the viewpoint for the communion, regarding a Covenant and continuing to work on it.
Imagine if there is a sense that the Conference is divided regarding a Covenant. Why would then the Windsor Continuation Group have a right to carry on? (Such is hypothetical now.)
Of course there is the problem with the Indaba groups. The real indaba groups have local chiefs meeting on one subject which they thrash out facing one another and in depth. Remember Channel 4's and once BBC Four's After Dark? That was a discussion on very comfy chairs and settees with plenty of drink and, in those days, smoking too, where people of very different positions kept speaking and listening, and there was no set end time to the programme. Just add to that a need to come to some sort of statement and means of acting on it. Such would be an Indaba group, and such would bring an outcome (it would need a plenary) - but not the way they are chopped at Lambeth 2008. This gives the Windsor Continuation Group a driving ability to continue its agenda.
A view from the gallery - http://changingattitude.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/GS-A-View-From-the-Gallery-75x42.jpg 75w" sizes="(max-width: 299px) 100vw, 299px" /> When I was a ...