Amended 17 January 2005
Addition of more WR text to item 6 - I apologise for this omission.
This article relates in part to the meetings of ECUSA and CofE bishops this week, and in part to the various subsequent meetings of February and beyond. See timetable here.
There has been some paraphrasing of the WR recommendations lately. I therefore repeat here the verbatim wording of WR’s specific recommendations in Section D as they relate to various particular groups and then add some comments on the practicalities of each recommendation. I am working on the assumption that acceptance of the WR’s recommendations broadly as they stand is the best way forward for the Anglican Communion.
1. To ECUSA as a corporate body:
…the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited 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.
This is expressly addressed to ECUSA as a corporate body. Therefore, constitutionally speaking, only General Convention is able to represent ECUSA in making (or not making) this response and although the House of Bishops meeting this week can give a lead, it cannot answer formally for ECUSA as a whole, just as the English HoB cannot speak for the General Synod of the Church of England.
2. To bishops who took part in Gene Robinson’s episcopal consecration:
…pending such expression of regret, those who took part as consecrators of Gene Robinson should be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion…
This clearly refers to functions representing the AC externally, i.e. to other bodies. It does not refer, for example, to ECUSA representatives on the Anglican Consultative Council (Bp Roskam appeared to misunderstand in this regard), nor to ECUSA’s own primate - or any other person from ECUSA - attending intra-Anglican meetings including the various Instruments of Unity.
The names to whom this applies are clear: here is a list. If a more accurate list exists, please let me know. Addition Here is another version of the list.
3. To ECUSA in general
…the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited 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…
This is carefully worded so that, as Tobias Haller has pointed out, it is possible for a mere majority of bishops with jurisdiction (i.e. active diocesans, not suffragans or retired, or other bishops) to “effect a moratorium” in practice by agreeing among themselves that they will not confirm any such election. Thus it can be initiated by bishops without requiring any agreement by diocesan standing committees, or General Convention. It is less clear that it could persist in the long term, as when “subscribing” diocesans retired, the majority would be depleted, unless replenished by new bishops.
4. To bishops who have authorized public Rites of Blessing of same sex unions
…we call for a moratorium on all such public Rites, and recommend that bishops who have authorised such rites in the United States and Canada be invited to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorisation. Pending such expression of regret, we recommend that such bishops be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion…
This clearly applies to New Westminster in Canada, and also to several dioceses and diocesans in ECUSA: this appears to be the latest list of ECUSA dioceses affected.
5. On care of dissenting groups
…we commend the proposals for delegated episcopal pastoral oversight set out by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church (USA) in 2004. We believe that these proposals are entirely reasonable, if they are approached and implemented reasonably by everyone concerned. We particularly commend the appeal structures set out in the House of Bishops policy statement, and consider that these provide a very significant degree of security. We see no reason why such delegated pastoral and sacramental oversight should not be provided by retired bishops from within the province in question, and recommend that a province making provision in this manner should maintain a list of bishops who would be suitable and acceptable to undertake such a ministry. In principle, we see no difficulty in bishops from other provinces of the Communion becoming involved with the life of particular parishes under the terms of these arrangements in appropriate cases.
We are conscious that the Anglican Church of Canada is considering the adoption of a broadly similar scheme, and we ask that their proposals too should be marked by and received with a willingness to co-operate together in accordance with the principles we have outlined above…
…We further call upon those diocesan bishops of the Episcopal Church (USA) who have refused to countenance the proposals set out by their House of Bishops to reconsider their own stance on this matter. If they refuse to do so, in our view, they will be making a profoundly dismissive statement about their adherence to the polity of their own church…
AS to the ECUSA bishops who have so far refused to conform to the DEPO proposals, this no doubt will be a topic of discussion at this week’s ECUSA HoB meeting, after which it may be appropriate to list who they then are.
The current status of the corresponding Canadian proposals is reported here.
6. To those bishops who have intervened in other provinces etc.
…We call upon those bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty to intervene in provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own:
- to express regret for the consequences of their actions
- to affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and
- to effect a moratorium on any further interventions
We also call upon these archbishops and bishops to seek an accommodation with the bishops of the dioceses whose parishes they have taken into their own care.
This clearly does not include bishops who enter other dioceses at the invitation of, or with the permission of, the local diocesan (Bp Wimberly appeared to misunderstand in this regard). I know of no list of bishops to whom this call already applies. Again I will gladly compile one if readers will supply details.
7. To ECUSA
…We particularly request a contribution from the Episcopal Church (USA) which explains, from within the sources of authority that we as Anglicans have received in scripture, the apostolic tradition and reasoned reflection, how a person living in a same gender union may be considered eligible to lead the flock of Christ. As we see it, such a reasoned response, following up the work of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church (USA), and taken with recent work undertaken by the Church of England and other provinces of the Communion, will have an important contribution to make to the ongoing discussion…
This contribution may need a little time to prepare and approve, but should not require more than a few months and could presumably be commissioned and approved by either the House of Bishops or the Executive Council.
Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Monday, 10 January 2005 at 11:27pm GMT | TrackBackOnce again a clear and useful service from Simon (the truth may set us free, but we have to know what we are talking about first!). One quibble with your interpretation of Section 2. You say "This clearly refers to functions representing the AC externally, i.e. to other bodies." I don't think that's right. If it actually meant that, wouldn't the recommendation say "from representative functions *of* (or *for*) the Anglican Communion". Saying "in" reads, to me, representing one part of the AC to another, and thus, although I hate to say it, I think Bishop Roskam's interpretation is right.
Posted by: Justin Lewis-Anthony on Tuesday, 11 January 2005 at 4:09pm GMTSome of the bishops who were asked to express regret for authorizing a public rite to bless same sex unions have already done so. Here is a link to Bishop John Chane of Washington's statement released on the same day as the Windsor Report.
"http://edow.org/news/media/releases/2004/windsorstatement.html":http://edow.org/news/media/releases/2004/windsorstatement.html
I also wanted to mention that according to Bishop Mark Dyer of the Lambeth Commission, in his "widely distributed":http://www.anglican.tk/docs/dyer.htm talk at the Virginia Theological Seminary, Simon's interpretation of the "representation" issue is correct. It has nothing to do with Intra-Anglican affairs.
Posted by: Jim Naughton on Tuesday, 11 January 2005 at 7:16pm GMTSimon,
Many thanks for this helpful summary of what Windsor actually says and it is encouraging to see you supporting compliance with its appeals as what is needed.
A couple of concerns about your presentation in response to paraphrases of the Report –
First, the statement of regret. Windsor does not say which bodies should make this but clearly emphasises – as have a number of Commission members, including Archbishop Eames – the seriousness and urgency of the situation. Waiting another 18 months is really not a viable option with such a sick Communion. The Primates really need some evidence by next month of whether or not ECUSA wishes to express a desire to remain in the Communion by showing signs of regret for breaching the bonds of affection in recent actions. The ECUSA House of Bishops is one of the two houses of General Convention and can make a statement of regret as one of the houses. If a majority of that House is unwilling to do so, General Convention will be unable to do so as both houses would need to agree. The Executive Council could also express regret when it meets shortly. Another alternative would be for a special General Convention. Leaving everything until GC 2006 is neither necessary nor desirable for the Communion to get a sense of ECUSA’s response to the Report.
Second, as already pointed out by Justin Lewis-Anthony, it is far from clear the Report refers only to external representation such as on ARCIC. That is not the only or best reading of the report which is probably best read as referring to any representation – internally on instruments of unity or externally on ecumenical bodies. Bishop Tom Wright on the Fulcrum website and in the Guardian has made clear his understanding and the logic of the Report – “that having ignored the Instruments of Unity they should now withdraw from participating in them”. Bishop Roskam was therefore right to consider her position.
Third, the Executive Council in November has already affirmed the intention of the Presiding Bishop “to appoint a group to respond to the Windsor Report’s invitation that the Episcopal Church explain the rationale for consecrating a bishop living in a same-gender relationship” The speed with which it defended itself being in stark contrast to the speed with which it appears willing to consider a response to the call to regret its actions.
Fourth, the Report is based on the Lambeth Conference Resolution I.10 being current Communion teaching. It was necessary because of such clear and explicit violations of that teaching in parts of North American provinces. To comply only with those parts of the resolution explicitly addressed in the Report but to continue to disregard other parts of the resolution would not resolve the situation or lead to reconciliation as it would clearly not be in keeping with the spirit of the Report’s vision of life in communion.
Although all these are the most pressing questions, the deeper question is perhaps whether or not ECUSA (and Canada) are willing to live in the sort of Communion described in the Report or whether they wish to view autonomy as independence. The longer they take to respond positively to the recommendations, the more it looks like they have a different and incompatible vision of life in communion from that in the Report.
Posted by: Andrew Goddard on Tuesday, 11 January 2005 at 10:17pm GMTThanks for all the comments so far.
I note that there divergent views expressed, even by WR authors, as to what is meant by "representative functions in the Anglican Communion", although I do not interpret NTW's "Fulcrum comments":http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2004/20041023wright.cfm as being a direct commentary on the WR wording at this point. Of course, the Primates Meeting may choose to issue an interpretation of this which differs from mine, or indeed alter any of the recommendations as they see fit. But at present this wording is what we have.
However, it is surely clear that these two calls for voluntary withdrawal are *time-limited*, and cease to apply once the requested expressions of regret are issued. In the case of consecrators the call is only dependent on the corporate response of ECUSA, whereas in the case of authorization of same-sex blessings it is for each individual bishop concerned to express regret.
Posted by: Simon Sarmiento on Wednesday, 12 January 2005 at 10:43am GMTAlthough Dr. Goddard elected not to mention it, it may be noted that he has written a critique of Bishop Mark Dyer's presentation referred to in the comment by Mr. Naughton immediately preceding his. See
"http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.org/articles/Dyer_Critique.htm":http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.org/articles/Dyer_Critique.htm
Posted by: Mike Watson on Wednesday, 12 January 2005 at 2:19pm GMTIn the interests of adding to the "TIME LIMITED" question I want to add the following.
There is a "time limited" amount of patience in the pews. I can only speak out of our own congregation. Their patience is wearing very thin at this time. To be patient longer people want something like the following: -
1 Clear expression by the HOB of regret for the actions taken - not simply the effect. This goes beyond individual expressions of regret by offending bishops.
2 Clear commitment by the HOB to a moratorium on both same sex blessings and ordination of those practicing such homoerotic affection.
3 Commitment by the HOB to protect dissenting congregations and clergy from predatory diocesan bishops.
If it requires a General Convention to legislate a response then one should be called for the Summer of 2005. In fact I believe that the WR expects a timely response from ECUSA's Bishops. This can then begin the process of reconciliation in the Communion. That response can then form the agenda of GC 2006. Not to respond in this way will be perceived as a delaying tactic and a decision to walk apart.
Parishioners have a finite amount of patience. In our congregation they already vote with their wallets and feet. Not to respond in a timely fashion will be to precipitate a further exodus of the faithful.
Posted by: Ian Montgomery on Wednesday, 12 January 2005 at 3:25pm GMTI've tried to resist joining in this discussion since I no longer regard myself as an Anglican (or a Christian) in any institutional sense. I am one who has voted with his feet at the opposite end of the spectrum from those for whom Ian Montgomery speaks. After the resolution of Lambeth 1998 which is so heavily relied on by the authors of the Windsor Report many gay people who had worked so hard to bring about the death of homophobia among Christians simply gave up. Some stayed on to fight the injustice and ignorance of that stand by the bishops.
It is they whose strength and commitment is now being tested. The supporters of the the death dealing hatred that is homophobia are stiving with every means at their disposal, not stopping at the most outrageous blackmail, to cling to the wreckage of a collapsing institution. A new Christianity is struggling to be born, one which includes all equally.
Outside the cosy world of church politics the world waits for good news - life affirming news. Any failure by Anglicans in North America to stand up for the decisions they have made - no matter what it may cost - will be seen in the wider community as a joke. They made the decisions they did in good faith, having considered all the questions. Now they must stand by those decisions. Defend them! Unity at any cost? Humbug!
Posted by: Rodney McInnes on Thursday, 13 January 2005 at 2:00am GMTRodney, you may "no longer regard myself as an Anglican (or a Christian) in any institutional sense" . . . _but who wants to live in an institution, anyway?_ ;-) I just want you know I consider you a brother in Christ, the Lord of Love.
ECUSA (the democratic majority, in contrast to a loud minority of the likes of Ian Montgomery) *will persevere*---in Faith, Hope and Charity---to bind your wounds, and welcome you back to the Table of the Lord.
There's a *Heavenly Banquet* awaiting LGBT (and affirming) Anglicans . . . and _the party starts *now*!_
_Shalom!_
Posted by: J. C. Fisher on Friday, 14 January 2005 at 5:50am GMTThe interpretation of the notion that those bishops participating in the consecration of Gene Robinson should not be present at intra-Anglican deliberations seems to be counter to the desire of the Windsor Report to both create a space for dialogue and the affirmation of the diocesan as the physical embodiment of the representation of the entire diocese.
You can't come to agreement with dioceses (not diocesans) who are not invited to the discussion.
By definition, you cannot "walk together" if you do not invite _everyone_ to walk.
Read as a whole, the Windsor Report does not appear to be intended as an opinion-suppressor, but rather as a foundation for future dialogue and continuance of the communion _for all_. Even between those with different opinions.
I think this is one important reason why it has been so severely criticized in certain circles as not having gone "far enough".