 |
|
|
|
 ommissioned
by an International Gathering of the Anglican Communion that met
at Oxford from
October 19-21, 2004, and offered as a summary and discussion document
on the Windsor Report -- by Rev. Dr. Andrew Goddard, Canon Dr.
Chris Sugden, and Rev. Dr. Peter Walker
The Report's Aims & Limits
• The Mandate to the Commission that
the Archbishop of Canterbury established is vital, but it has
clearly prevented the Commission from addressing a number of issues.
Specifically, the Commission was asked to examine and report on:
v the
legal and theological implications of recent actions (not the
legal and theological justification or validity of those actions
themselves);
v
the canonical understandings of "full," "impaired,"
and "broken" communion;
v practical
recommendations for "maintaining the highest degree of
communion that may be possible" given the circumstances
that have resulted from these actions — i.e., taking
those actions as a given and dealing with present reality rather
than the ideal; and
v emerging
patterns for the provision of episcopal oversight.
• The Report, therefore, did not
address the underlying issues of sexuality — either
to defend and explain Anglican teaching or to revise it (e.g.,
§26, §43).
• Rather, in the recent words of Canon
Gregory Cameron, the Commission's Secretary, the Commission was
asked, "Given the standard of teaching adopted on human sexuality
at the Lambeth Conference 1998, how could the Communion maintain
the "highest degree of communion possible" in the face
of the consecration of a bishop whose lifestyle challenged that
teaching?" (New Directions, Oct 2004, 20).
• Its theological and legal/canonical
studies were to be supplemented with recommendations to the Archbishop
of Canterbury and the Primates. It had no executive power or authority
of its own but could make only recommendations.
• The members of the Commission clearly
understood that they were to offer recommendations about how the
North American provinces and the Communion could "walk together"
given decisions made by the former that were incompatible with
Communion teaching. They sought to base their counsel on an account
of what "walking together" involved.
• The diverse members of the Commission
agreed to endorse the Report unanimously rather than offer majority
and minority reports with different analyses and recommendations
(§123).
The Report's Structure & Central Points
The Report has four sections whose central questions and responses
are summarized below:
• Section A — What
does a healthy Communion look like and what is the Communion's
current state of health?
The Report begins with the biblical foundations for communion
and the practical consequences of a healthy spiritual union. It
illustrates how a healthy communion engages in mutual discernment
and mission, interprets the current situation as one of "illness"
rather than health, and identifies the various symptoms of the
illness.
• Section B —
What are the principles — especially concerning
unity and diversity — that we need to uphold in order
to be a healthy Communion?
In the light of its definition of a "healthy" vs.
a "sick" communion, Section B then examines the fundamental
principles of a healthy communion and focuses especially on the
bonds of communion and the character of diversity in communion.
This section clearly and explicitly rebuts the main arguments
— i.e., "autonomy" and "secondary
matter" — used to justify recent actions in North
America.
• Section C —
What changes to our structures would strengthen our Communion
and prevent repetition of recent events?
The Report then examines the current structures of the Communion
in the light of the principles of Section B and offers proposals
for the medium to long term structure of our life together, e.g.,
a stronger role for the Archbishop of Canterbury supported by
a Council of Advice, a covenant and acceptance of a Communion
Canon.
• Section D —
What is required of various parties if we are to continue to "walk
together" rather than "walk apart"?
Finally, in the light of the analysis offered, the Report makes
practical recommendations about how communion may be maintained
and reconciliation begun in the current unhealthy state of affairs.
The Report's Main Strengths: General
The Windsor Report features
1. an analysis that exposes the failures of ECUSA &
New Westminster;
2. a vision of communion that emphasizes mutual accountability
and interdependence under the supreme authority of Scripture;
3. an account of "autonomy" that binds it to
"communion" and clearly rejects the view that provinces
are independent;
[NOTE:
"Autonomy...is not the same thing as sovereignty or independence...A
body is..."autonomous" only in relation to others: autonomy
exists in a relation with a wider community or system of which
the autonomous entity forms part. The word 'autonomous' in this
sense actually implies not an isolated individualism, but the
idea of being free to determine one's own life within a wider
obligation to others. The key idea is autonomy-in-communion, that
is, freedom held within interdependence" §§75-76.]
4. an account of the contentious issues that shows ECUSA's
& New Westminster's disregard for the obligations of communion
life;
5. a clear rejection of an appeal to the "reception"
model in the current crisis;
[NOTE:
"In classical theological terms, 'reception' was the process
by which the pronouncements of a Council of the Church were tested
by how the faithful 'received' it. The consensus fidelium
('common mind of the believers') constituted the ultimate check
that a new declaration was in harmony with the faith as it had
been received...We should note, however, that the doctrine of
reception only makes sense if the proposals concern matters on
which the Church has not so far made up its mind. It cannot be
applied in the case of actions which are explicitly against the
current teaching of the Anglican Communion as a whole, and/or
of individual provinces. No province, diocese or parish has the
right to introduce a novelty which goes against such teaching
and excuse it on the grounds that it has simply been put forward
for reception" §§68-69.]
6. proposals to make explicit the unwritten conventions
of communion life and to strengthen the moral authority of the
Instruments of Unity — i.e., the Archbishop
of Canterbury, Council of Advice, canon, covenant; and
7. strong appeals to ECUSA & New Westminster outlining
what they must do if they wish to "walk together" with
the Communion.
The Report's Main Strengths: Details
The Windsor Report:
1. grounds our unity and communion in the gospel (§3);
2. subordinates unity and communion to holiness —
"Unity and communion are meaningless unless they issue
in that holiness of life" (§3);
3. contrasts the current issue (and its handling within
the Communion) with that of women's ordination (§§12-21);
4. understands the current situation as a sign of sickness;
analyzes clearly the symptoms of disease (§§22-42);
5. strongly rejects the American Presiding Bishop's defense
that the consecration was simply a local matter by demonstrating
that both ECUSA's own earlier statements and reaction to the consecration
"undercuts any argument that such decisions are purely local"
(§24);
6. clarifies the strong status of Lambeth I.10 and explicitly
affirms that "the primates unanimously upheld this resolution
as the standard of Anglican teaching on the matter in their statement
of October 16, 2003" (§25);
7. clearly establishes that the "overwhelming response"
to recent events in North America from Christians — Anglican
and others — is that these actions are "departures
from genuine, apostolic Christian faith" (§28);
8. emphasizes the need for discernment in relation to theological
development because some "distort or even destroy" the
Christian faith (§32);
9. concludes that, to the wider Communion, the ECUSA and
the New Westminster Diocese appear to have made no attempt to
offer an explanation to, or consult meaningfully with, the Communion
about any significant development of theology that would justify
their actions (§33);
10. highlights the need to be more clear about "authority"
within Anglicanism (§42);
11. defines clearly the fundamental principles (Part B)
and counters the arguments of revisionists who seek to unilaterally
introduce practical innovations in relation to sexuality;
12. underscores the "supreme authority" of Scripture
as the central bond of communion and the focus and means of unity
(§53);
13. emphasizes the importance of Christian leaders as teachers
of Scripture (§58);
14. asserts unmistakably that bishops represent the universal
church to the local and vice versa, so the consecration of a bishop
is not just a local matter (§64);
15. reasons that discernment in communion with those in
different contexts must focus on "the reading and pondering
of scripture" (§67);
16. convincingly affirms that autonomy does not mean full
independence but rather "autonomy in communion" (§§72-86);
17. makes it clear that, in some matters, provinces must
involve others before making decisions (§79);
18. limits diversity to that which is "defined by
truth and charity" (§86);
19. clarifies the concept of adiaphora ("things indifferent")
and makes it clear that not all differences are to be tolerated
— "we would not say 'some of us are racists,
some of us are not, so let's celebrate our diversity'" (§89);
20. maintains that, even when a matter is judged to be
"indifferent", we should not act if a sufficient number
of Christians would find our actions scandalous and offensive(§§92-93);
21. asserts fervently that the express views of the Anglican
Instruments of Unity have been ignored or sidelined (§97);
22. observes that the Archbishop of Canterbury has clear
authority to call whomever he wishes to Primates' Meetings and
Lambeth (this endorses the argument of "To Mend the Net")
(§110);
[NOTE:
"To Mend the Net" is a document prepared by Archbishops
Drexel Gomez and Maurice Sinclair in 2000 that aims to bring order
and discipline to the Anglican Communion by giving enhanced responsibility
to the Primates. It puts forward two plans of action for dealing
with ECUSA. One proposal seeks to establish a third Province for
North America that gathers American and Canadian conservatives.
The second strategy seeks to reform the American church and bring
its teachings and actions into line with the rest of the Communion.
(While this document does not refer directly to the Diocese of
New Westminster in Canada because its synod had not yet condoned
the blessing of same sex unions, it would certainly apply to them
because that diocese's action was taken just as unilaterally and
independently as that of ECUSA.)]
23. proposes that the Council of Advice would give the
Global South a role at the heart of the Communion (§§111-112);
24. suggests that the proposed Communion Canon and Covenant
would prevent unilateral innovation in the future or at least
make it clear what consequences would follow from such unilateralism
(§§113-120);
25. states that ECUSA and New Westminster did not "attach
sufficient importance to the impact of their decisions on the
communion" (§121) and "acted in ways incompatible
with the communion principle of interdependence" (§122);
26. declares publicly that the election of Robinson "has
caused deep offence to many faithful Anglican Christians"
(§127);
27. states clearly that many in the Communion neither recognize
nor receive Robinson's ministry as bishop (§128) and accepts
the decision of the Archbishop of Canterbury to refuse to allow
him to minister as bishop in England (§133);
28. asserts that the decision to consecrate Robinson brings
into question his consecrators' "commitment to ECUSA's interdependence
as a member of the Anglican Communion to which its own Constitution
and Canons makes reference" (§129);
29. recognizes that Robinson's consecration has had "very
prejudicial consequences" in ecumenical relations (§130);
30. strongly advises that Canterbury not invite Robinson
to Lambeth (§133);
31. draws attention to the imperatives of communion —
i.e., "repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation"
— when framing its specific invitation to ECUSA to
express its regrets (§134);
32. expects that ECUSA should not only regret the consequences
of their actions but also recognize that "the proper constraints
of the bonds of affection were breached" by their decision
(§134);
33. suggests that their expressions of regret would demonstrate
"the desire of ECUSA to remain within the Communion"
(§134);
34. pending such demonstration of remorse, calls upon Robinson's
consecrators to examine their consciences and consider withdrawing
from the representative functions in the Anglican Communion (§134);
35. invites ECUSA to impose a moratorium on any further
similar consecrations (§134);
36. in its appeal for continued listening within Communion,
requests ECUSA to explain its opinions from within the sources
of Anglican authority (i.e., "scripture, the apostolic
tradition and reasoned reflection") and suggests that their
explanation be considered along with the reports from the orthodox
Church of England House of Bishops (§135);
37. affirms that no bishop or diocese has unqualified freedom
to authorize liturgical texts that are likely to be inconsistent
with the Book of Common Prayer or other authorized texts (§138);
38. clearly states that current moves by ECUSA and the Diocese
of New Westminster to publicly authorize and approve of blessings
of same sex unions in the face of opposition from the wider Anglican
Communion "constitutes a denial of the bonds of Communion"
(§141);
39. insists that ECUSA and New Westminster must be able
to show to others how the development and approval of such rites
constitutes growth in harmony and with apostolic tradition as
received (§141);
40. contends that ECUSA's and New Westminster's unilateral
approval of same-sex blessings goes against formally expressed
opinions of the Instruments of Unity and "constitutes action
in breach of the legitimate application of the Christian faith"
(§143);
41. in line with the Primates' Letter of May 2003, calls
for a moratorium on rites of same-sex blessings (§143);
42. recommends that those who authorized these rites be invited
to express "regret that the proper constraints of the bonds
of affection were breached" and reconsider their role in
Communion life (§144);
43. recommends that all provinces endeavor to ensure their
bishop's commitment to the common life of the Communion (§144);
44. calls for further study of the proposals put forth
by ECUSA and New Westminster but notes that this call does not
imply approval of changes (§§145-6);
45. rejects any demonizing or ill treatment of homosexual
persons (§146);
46. expresses full understanding of the "principled
concerns" that have led those within a parish or diocese
who are unwilling to accept the ministry of a bishop associated
with such contrary action to seek the ministry of other bishops
(§149);
47. affirms that those who seek alternative oversight are
"seeking to be faithful members of the Anglican family"
(§150);
48. calls on all bishops concerned to "rebuild the
trust which has been lost" (§150);
49. declares it axiomatic that the incumbent bishop in
the above circumstances should "delegate some of his or her
functions, rights and responsibilities" to bishops who legitimately
offer alternative oversight (§152);
50. affirms that it is suitable for bishops from other
provinces in the Communion to undertake such an alternative oversight
under agreed processes (§152);
51. recognizes that some bishops "believe it is their
conscientious duty to intervene in provinces, dioceses and parishes
other than their own," but calls on those who have so acted
to express regret for the consequences of their actions (§155);
52. does not require parishes alienated from their bishop
to be returned to his/her oversight, but rather calls upon those
bishops who desire to intervene to seek, first, "an accommodation"
with the diocesan bishop(§155);
53. considers a refusal by ECUSA bishops to work with Delegated
Episcopal Pastoral Oversight to be "a profoundly dismissive
statement about their adherence to the polity of their own church"
(§155);
[NOTE: For the benefit of traditional
parishes in "liberal" dioceses, the Windsor report calls
for the resident bishops in these dioceses to share their Episcopal
Oversight with a traditional bishop on a case-by-case basis -
that through this generosity of spirit, unhappy parishes would
be less likely to depart the Episcopal Church for more conservative
pastures. The Report commends the Episcopal Church House of Bishops'
"Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight" (DEPO) as a
way for this to happen.]
54. suggests formal discussions about the path to reconciliation
and calls for a symbolic Act of Reconciliation (§156); and
55. maintains that failure by ECUSA and New Westminster
to heed the call to halt and find new ways of continuing in our
present communion will lead to the North American churches and
the Anglican Communion walking apart — including the non-invitation
and request for the withdrawal of these provinces from the Communion
(§157).
Critiques of ECUSA & New Westminster
As noted above, the Windsor Report contains many clear criticisms
of ECUSA's and New Westminster's actions. For example, the report:
• implies ECUSA's failure to heed
its own report that stresses the importance of holy living among
the ordained and recognizes that ordination is not just a local
matter; it is operative for the whole Church (§§23-4);
• rejects the view that decisions were
purely local (§24);
• asserts that the actions of the erring
provinces have "gone against both the letter and the spirit
of the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference that are reiterated
by the Primates' Meeting" in October 2003 (§27);
• declares that ECUSA "proceeded
with the consecration…despite the primates describing that
forthcoming consecration as one which might 'tear the fabric of
our Communion at its deepest level'" (§27);
• gives four reasons for the current
problems that relate to ECUSA & New Westminster (§§33,
35, 37, 39);
[NOTE:
1) "…it appears to the wider Communion that neither
the Diocese of New Westminster nor the Episcopal Church (USA)
has made a serious attempt to offer an explanation to, or consult
meaningfully with, the Communion as a whole about the significant
development of theology which alone could justify the recent moves
by a diocese or a province" §33. 2) "…neither
the Episcopal Church (USA) nor the Diocese of New Westminster,
in deciding and acting as they did in 2003, went through the procedures
which might have made it possible for the church to hold together
across differences of belief and practice" §35. 3) "…many
within the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Diocese of New Westminster
hold to the opinion, at least by implication, that the questions
they were deciding were things upon which Christians might have
legitimate difference, while large numbers of other Anglicans
around the world did not regard them in this way" §37.
4) "…it was assumed by the Episcopal Church (USA) and
the Diocese of New Westminster that they were free to take decisions
on matters which many in the rest of the Communion believe can
and should be decided only at the Communion-wide level" §39.]
• concludes that ECUSA, the Diocese
of New Westminster, the General Synod of the Anglican Church of
Canada, and primates who have accommodated clergy who are at odds
with their own bishops (without consultation with their fellow
primates) have all acted "in ways incompatible with the Communion
principle of interdependence, and our fellowship together has
suffered immensely as a result of these developments" (§122,
also §123);
• maintains that, by electing and confirming
a candidate involved in a same gender union, ECUSA has "caused
deep offence to many faithful Anglican Christians both in its
own church and in other parts of the Communion" (§127);
• notes that the actions of Robinson's
consecrators raise "the question of their commitment to the
Episcopal Church (USA)'s interdependence as a member of the Anglican
Communion to which its own constitution and canons make reference"
(§129);
• invites ECUSA to "express its
regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were
breached in the events surrounding the election and consecration
of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire, and for the consequences
which followed, and that such an expression of regret would represent
the desire of the Episcopal Church (USA) to remain within the
Communion" (§134);
• requests that Robinson's consecrators
consider whether, in all conscience, they should, themselves,
withdraw from representative functions in the Anglican Communion
(§134);
• urges ECUSA "to effect a moratorium
on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate
to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some
new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges" (§134);
• observes that, despite its own report
of March 2003, ECUSA "commended the development of public
Rites of Blessing for same sex unions as being within the bounds
of the Episcopal Church (USA)'s common life … without formal
theological justification or consultation in the Communion"
(§140);
• specifies that "actions to move
towards the authorization of such rites in the face of opposition
from the wider Anglican Communion constitutes a denial of the
bonds of Communion" and calls for these churches "to
demonstrate to the rest of the Communion why their proposal meets
the criteria of scripture, tradition and reason" (§141);
and
• strongly criticizes ECUSA bishops
who refuse to provide for alternative oversight (§155).
Main weaknesses in the Report
Some would include here those matters that the Lambeth Commission
was not able to address given its remit ("a matter remitted
for further consideration") — e.g., the commission
offered neither an explanation and defense of Anglican teaching
on sexuality and its importance nor a deeper analysis of the reasons
the North American churches behaved as they did and the possible
existence of wider signs of malaise.
However, given the terms of its remit, the following items of the
Windsor Report need to be explored further and probably strengthened
1. The language of "regret" is ambiguous; it
needs to define more clearly what constitutes an adequate expression
of regret - who should give it? How? By what date? And for what?
(cf. §134, §144)
2. The decision to focus individual responsibility on consecrators
rather than General Convention consenters (§§128-9)
limits the number of people asked directly to consider their position.
All bishops in ECUSA will have to decide whether ECUSA should
express regret, and they should be challenged regarding their
intent to follow this request. The appeal to conscience (rather
than a recommendation of non-invitation or "observer status"
only) places the ball in their court. But it leaves the Communion
with no obvious recourse if revisionist bishops assert their will
to attend Communion events.
3. Grouping together both violations over sexuality and
violations over geographical boundaries (i.e., §29,
§§122-3) — along with the unqualified call
for a moratorium on interventions (§155) — without
drawing a clear distinction between them has caused some confusion
because it appears to imply "moral equivalence" between
the two infringements. However, they are not "morally equivalent."
The only similarity between the two is that they are actions that
were taken unilaterally against the common counsel of the Communion
and impacted detrimentally the wider life of the Communion. The
traditional clergy proceeded "without consultation with their
fellow primates" (§122) and took it upon themselves
(§123) to intervene. Such actions do not fit within the communion
envisioned by the Commission.
However, beyond this, these two violations are not equivalent
in the Report. The Commission clearly states that the interventions
were "reactions…prompted by" the prior actions
of ECUSA and New Westminster. It acknowledges that when the North
American provinces took actions that "tear the fabric of
the Communion at the deepest level," then these interventions
may have been both necessary and proportionate in an emergency
situation. Although it does not make an explicit statement (because
of its remit), the Report does base itself on the Lambeth resolution
with that document's strong statements that homosexuality is "contrary
to Scripture."
However, the Commission clearly does not express this kind of
strong, negative attitude toward "intervention."
It should be noted that there are clear differences between what
the Commission says about orthodox bishops and Primates and what
it says about those who consecrated Gene Robinson.
Regarding orthodox bishops and Primates, the Commission:
v speaks
of their "principled concerns" and "conscientious
duty;"
v asks
for expressions of regret, not for the actions themselves, but
only for the consequences;
v
does not categorize their actions as breaching the proper constraints
of the "bonds of affection;"
v does
not ask those who intervened to consider withdrawing from Communion
life;
v
does not see their willingness to express regret as a requirement
to signal that they desire to remain in the Communion (i.e.,
there has never and will never be any question regarding their
desire to be part of the Communion); and
v does
not require those who have intervened to return to the diocesan
bishop those parishes in which they interceded.
All these important distinctions need to be carefully assessed
by those who fear that the Report is criticizing them.
4. The Report does not provide for the Adequate Episcopal
Oversight within ECUSA that the Primates have required. Furthermore,
the report's advocacy of DEPO (§152) is particularly disheartening
to many orthodox because it makes delegated oversight dependent
on the good will of the very bishops whom, given their recent
conduct, the Report asks to consider whether they can continue
within the Communion! On the one hand, the Report effectively
questions and undercuts the authority of revisionist bishops.
On the other hand, however, it also criticizes those orthodox
parishes that have, themselves, questioned the authority of these
very same bishops.
5. The Report does not view the discipline of these bishops
or provinces (e.g., by non-invitation) as the necessary
works of love within a body that is faced with breaches of communion
(as argued in "Communion and Discipline," the Anglican
Communion Institute's submission to the Lambeth Commission). Instead,
the Report sees imposed discipline as a sign that the North American
provinces and the Communion are already "walking apart"
(§157). By not availing themselves of the biblical language
of discipline within the Church (either because they thought this
was beyond their remit or they were afraid of its legal implications),
the members of the Lambeth Commission have thus, paradoxically,
advanced the possible end of Communion. Between the two options
of Communion or "walking apart," they have not opened
up the middle ground of "membership under discipline."
The options are, therefore, stark and few mechanisms are in place
to enact even what has been decided.
6. Given the (predictable) instant rejection of its appeals
by many revisionist bishops, the Report lacks a timetable for
reconciliation, and it fails to offer concrete proposals for the
Primates' Meeting in February 2005 about what should be done if
the appeals fail. Failure to provide a timetable may also encourage
endless delaying tactics by revisionist bishops in an effort to
avoid decision and action.
Overall Evaluation & Response
• There is in the Report much excellent
material - especially the vision of Communion life in Parts A
& B - that can be used to strengthen the Communion and challenge
revisionist actions.
• In order to see its relationship
to the Communion's teaching on sexuality, the Report must be set
clearly within the wider context of the Primates' Statement, such
as the Lambeth Resolution etc.
• The weaknesses in Part D could be
overcome and strengthened in part by drawing out some of the stronger
statements and analyses in earlier parts of the Report and following
through with some concrete proposals for the short-term.
• The longer-term proposals in Part
C can be welcomed and evaluated (with some caution perhaps over
the precise details of proposed covenant) as means to strengthen
the Communion.
• Despite its limitations, the Report
presents a strong basis on which to strengthen the case for orthodoxy.
It can also be useful for clarifying people's positions.
• It is vital, therefore, that revisionist
actions remain the focus of orthodox concerns and opposition -
not the Report itself.
• There are potential "teeth"
in the Report, but it leaves unclear the mechanisms by which its
proposals can be enacted if revisionist bishops are determined
to ignore its recommendations.
• The Report provides grounds for the
Primates, in their February 2005 meeting, to take those actions
necessary to repair the tear in the Communion - if they are willing
to do so. Such actions are urgently needed and cannot be put off
much longer. The consultation process on the Report must not,
therefore, be prolonged. Finally, if there is to be any hope that
the North American Provinces and the Communion can continue to
walk together, the oppression of loyal Anglican Communion dioceses
and parishes in the Americas must cease immediately.
[NOTE: The Windsor Report Guide has been
edited for clarity.]
Source: www.anglican-mainstream.net/news/news211.asp.
The full Windsor Report with introduction can be found at: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004/index.cfm
If you want to skip the introduction, go to:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004/section_a/p1.cfm
Anglican
Crisis, Anglican Primates Meeting February 21-25, 2005
 Download
Acrobat Reader
[Return to top of page]
|
|
|
