Thinking Anglicans

the precise wording of Windsor

Robin Eames has asserted recently that:

…both the bishops of the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada have in my opinion met the precise wording of Windsor…

Those who wonder if this is accurate, at least with respect to ECUSA, may find it helpful to peruse my earlier articles:

TA Monday, 10 January 2005 Windsor Report: the exact recommendations
TA Friday, 14 January 2005 WR: the exact responses
AO Sunday 27 February 2005 The Primates Meeting at Dromantine, February 2005

Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Wall
18 years ago

The issue with Windsor is that there is a struggle going on as to what Windsor means. There is what Windsor says, and then there is what Akinola and his followers want Windsor to mean (regardless of what it says). They want Windsor to be understood to say that ECUSA and the AC of Canada must “repent” of their actions, must in effect admit that they were in grevious error and beg forgiveness of Akinola, et al.; if this does not happen, Akinola feels justified in going his own way, intervening in other Provinces, and so forth. There are fundamental… Read more »

Leonardo Ricardo
18 years ago

“…both the bishops of the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada have in my opinion met the precise wording of Windsor.” ++Eames

Thanks be to God

Martin Reynolds
Martin Reynolds
18 years ago

While we contemplate the precise wording of Windsor we might also consider how it was planned to impact on the Jensen family business a.k.a. The Diocese of Sydney. As the Lambeth Commission began meeting those penning the Report were making it clear that any solutions they might offer would also have to address the “Sydney problem” too. What finally emerged was a vision of a new Anglican Communion where the developments planned by Jensen would have placed him and his followers outside the Anglican family of churches. While the Windsor status quo remained and there was “only one poker game… Read more »

Prior Aelred
18 years ago

John Wall —
What an excellent post — I wish I could have written something so cogent!

Martin Reynolds —
I think you are spot on about JensenCo, but had no idea about the Cantubian juridical authority — looks like Sydney’s Synod has some fancy footwork to do!

18 years ago

“This is not…. a struggle between 36 Provinces and 2 on how to ‘discipline’ the ‘wayward’. Rather it is a struggle to discern how to meet conservative concerns for proper biblical interpretation AND liberal consensus for justice and inclusion for minorities who claim…” ++Eames

There is a struggle, the world recognised and greatly respected ‘umpire’ defines the struggle by putting ‘justice’ on one side and ‘concerns’ on the other. Hmm…

Somehow, I feel if the tables were reversed and it was a ‘Conservative’ institution giving the doctorate, allegations of ‘being bought’ will dominate the comments.

Nadine Kwong
Nadine Kwong
18 years ago

Tunde, with all due respect, you misanalyze ++Eames’ constructions. He did not juxtapose conservative “consensus” with liberal “justice”; rather, he (a) juxtaposed “conservative concerns” with “liberal consensus” and (b) contrasted one camp’s desire for “proper biblical interpretation” with the other camp’s desire for “justice and inclusion for minorities.”

Parsed the way ++Eames actually constructed his sentence, this conveys a different and more balanced view than the one you have read into this sentence.

18 years ago

if your concerns with Sydney “declaring for a network” is based on the “Constitution Amendment (Relations with Other Churches) Canon 2004 Assenting Ordinance 2005” before the Sydney Synod this week it is worth noting that this Bill comes from the (national) General Synod and all Australian dioceses are being asked to pass it.
Brian, a progressive anglican blogger at www(dot)nottoomuch(dot)com has posted a good explation of this, you don’t have to accept this evangelical’s word for it.

J. C. Fisher
18 years ago

Although, Nadine—as I just said above, in the +James Jones thread—I am, well, “concerned” about the way that +Eames, too, has constructed a dichotomy in such a way as Anglican liberals come off as essentially *secular*.

Good heavens: *of course* I am for “proper biblical interpretation”. That’s why I’m so outraged by the in-roads of *insane (quasi-)literalism* into the AC!

If liberals have a focus on “justice and inclusion for minorities” it is only *because of* (with God’s help) “proper biblical interpretation”: not in spite of it.

Prior Aelred
18 years ago

I strongly reiterate what J. C. Fisher said!

One would think that the only thing our Lord ever talked about was homosexuality and abortion!

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x