Thinking Anglicans

Communion report

Here is the report of the Communion Sub-Group given to the Anglican Communion Joint Standing Committee of the Primates meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council.

At their meeting in London in March 2006, the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council nominated four of its members to assist the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion in discerning the response of the Anglican Communion to the decisions of the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church. Some of these decisions related to requests made of the Episcopal Church in the Primates’ Statement of February 2005 at Dromantine, which incorporated the Primates’ response to the recommendations of the Windsor Report. The group appointed met in London in September 2006.

A PDF version of the report is here.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
38 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
NP
NP
13 years ago

What we need is honesty and clarity.

Clutching at straws to create some FUDGE will just lead to another problem some time in the future.

Both sides deserve some resolution so everyone can get on with their lives.

Why force people to stay in one house when they believe very different things and fight each other – this is not wise and it is certainly not brave.

Someone once said that a house divided against itself cannot stand – hope the fudgemakers in the Anglican hierarchy understand this.

mumcat
13 years ago

“We recognise that the Windsor Report was addressed to the whole of the Anglican Communion. This report has been concerned with the response by the Episcopal Church to that Report. We understand that the Anglican Church of Canada is in the process of preparing its response. We have to express our concern that other recommendations of the Windsor Report, addressed to other parts of the Communion, appear to have been ignored so far” At last, buried at the very end of a report but nonetheless finally there in print, on the table and visible to anyone with eyes — recognition… Read more »

C.B.
C.B.
13 years ago

Bravo – The Communion Sub-Group Report gets it right!!! TEC HAS complied with the Windsor Report, other primates haven’t. Whatever is to come – at least the record has been made clear.

C.B.

Tobias Haller
Tobias Haller
13 years ago

NP, Some of us believe that staying together when you disagree is what Jesus wants us to do. But no one is being “forced” to stay together, at least on these shores. (I don’t think even in England, with its Establishment, there has been any coercive force against nonconformity for some time now!) Individuals — even groups of individuals — are free to disassociate from the Episcopal Church, or the Anglican Communion, any time they wish. No one is “forced” to remain at the table with those they regard as sinners, or with whom they disagree on any matter whatsoever.… Read more »

Thomas+
13 years ago

NP

>Why force people to stay in one house when they believe very different things<

Well, following such proposition, Anglo-Catholics which hold a “High” Eucharistic theology and Evangelicals/Charismatics with a “Low” Eucharistic theology should form their own Churches.

For, I would submit that Eucharistic theology is a tad more central to the faith and discipline of the church, than issues of marriage, divorce, and re-marriage, greed (idolatry), or the abstention of eating blood.

badman
badman
13 years ago

What a breath of fresh air. Even handed and optimistic. It doesn’t give TEC a completely clean bill of health – but it doesn’t write it off either. I’m rather impressed. I’m sorry Nersen Pillay doesn’t like it. But a big, grown up, worldwide church that plans to last until the end of the world has to live with people within itself that it doesn’t like. We all have to do that. If we don’t accept change, and we expel dissidents, we can’t grow and we won’t survive because, in the words of that great Anglican, W H Auden: “to… Read more »

Raspberry Rabbit
13 years ago

It’s certainly better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. South Area Clericus meeting at my house tonight for Chili Con Carne: I shall report the news with enthusiasm. I suppose everything could still go pear shaped but I’m feeling marginally better.

RR

JBE
JBE
13 years ago

We have honesty and clarity. The Sub-Group said TEC complied with Windsor. Given that several dissident bishops – +Durham and +Winchester anong them – said Windsor was THE key, all then is well. Now can we get on with the gospel, please?

Oh and NP? I’ll see your “house divided against itself cannot stand” and raise you “how can the hand say to the eye I have no need of you?'”

Ann Marie Nicklin
13 years ago

NP, No one is forcing anyone to stay anywhere. There are certain things we accept when we become members of a church. It is perfectly alright to disagree with them but that does not give us the right to expect the whole to agree with us. When you consider that Fort Worth is still not ordaining women and is not forced to do so and compare that to the fact that there are many places where women’s orders are not valid there is a huge difference. No one is forcing Fort Worth to do something contrary to its understandings. However,… Read more »

Prior Aelred
13 years ago

FWIW, I was in the House of Bishops during at least one of the debates on same sex blessings & the bishops felt quite strongly that this part of the Windsor Report was obviously directed at the Diocese of New Westminster and that The Episcopal Church did not have to address it since General Convention had never authorized rites for blessing same sex unions. I expect that if they had addressed it, that is what they would have said. It appears that since the ABC was on this sub-group & at least one of the members is extremely anti-TEC, the… Read more »

Spiro
Spiro
13 years ago

Re: “Anyway, it looks like the ABC doesn’t want to exclude TEC from the WWAC.” Please Note- The ABC does not own the WWAC. He has no power (on his own) to include or exclude anyone or any entity. By the way, even if the current ABC +++Rowan has the power to include or exclude anyone or any entity, he has NEITHER the backbone NOR the conviction to do so, if the truth be told. Whoever is looking up to +++Rowan for some decisive action is wasting his/her time. HOWEVER, empowered by the HOLY SPIRIT, +++Rowan Williams has the potential… Read more »

Spiro
Spiro
13 years ago

Re: “The group believes therefore that General Convention has complied in this resolution with the request of the Primates.” What a joke!! The ECUSA General Convention Resolved to “call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.” So, ECUSA General Convention came up with the above Resolution, instead of the clear demand of the WR to place “a moratorium on the election and consent of any candidate… Read more »

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
13 years ago

“For, I would submit that Eucharistic theology is a tad more central to the faith and discipline of the church, than issues of marriage, divorce, and re-marriage, greed (idolatry), or the abstention of eating blood.” You see Thomas, this is where you misunderstand. Eucharistic theology is NOT, for many/most of the “conservatives” on this issue, more important than what the “plain word of Scripture” says. In my private thoughts, I feel about “their” attitude to the Eucharist the way NP feels about TEC’s attitude to Scripture. I am just as wrong as he is, difference of belief does not equate… Read more »

Charles
Charles
13 years ago

#1: Anglican fudgemakers?? How about fudgejammers!

John Henry
John Henry
13 years ago

An excellent comment, Ann Marie: “I’m not quite sure why they can’t accept that since its beginning the church has lived with such diversity and it is the diversity that has helped us to grow and prosper. For in that diversity many have been welcomed and have come to know Christ as Lord and Saviour that would otherwise not have approached the church. That goes for all spaces on the spectrum – from extreme conservative to extreme liberal (or whatever the politically correct terms you want to insert.)” Sadly, human sinfulness always gets in the way. We can’t live with… Read more »

Fr Joseph O&apos;Leary
13 years ago

“Why force people to stay in one house when they believe very different things and fight each other – this is not wise and it is certainly not brave.” Countless divorces, and scenes of parents divorcing children, or children abandoning parents, are premised on this principle. Why this enthusiasm for schism? I like this quote from a seventeenth century Huguenot theologian: “Schism, for the Christian, is the worst of tragedies and the worst of crimes.” To foment schism is to go against the prayer of Jesus, “that they may be one.” It is not clear to me that any schism… Read more »

JCF
JCF
13 years ago

All I know is that the Lord has preserved the Anglican Communion for another day, and for that, I give thanks.

Lead us all, O Christ, evermore in the way you would have us go—convert ALL our hearts like unto yours. Amen.

matthew hunt
matthew hunt
13 years ago

Re Charles’ comment at Thursday, 7:59pm.

What exactly is a ‘fudgejammer?

NP
NP
13 years ago

Ann Marie – nobody is forcing me to stay in the AC but some are trying to force me and about 70m other Anglicans to accept people as bishops who according to bible should hold no such position…..this is the pressure on the AC and the pressure it is going to have to deal with. Just to be clear: we are not making this up – you know what the bible says about the qualifications for church leaders: many are not worthy icluding liars, drunkards and, in fact, any unrepentant sinner……. …that goes for all of us because the gospel… Read more »

NP
NP
13 years ago

JCF – are you really open to your prayer being answered if the answer is +Durham and +Duncan are right?

Are you really open to being led by God if that is the way he would have you go?

I hope you are (sincerely)

Merseymike
Merseymike
13 years ago

But you clearly aren’t, NP. Look at your previous post, where you say you will never accept Gene Robinson.

Why do you assume that all change must come from those who disagree with you?

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
13 years ago

“any unrepentant sinner”

Actually, NP, that shgould read any unrepentant homosexual. You don’t seem to have aproblem with lack of repentance in other areas.

NP
NP
13 years ago

Merseymike – because I am not the one saying “let’s ignore these bits of the bible” – that is why I assume the change must come from those making up a new morality / religion. I will not change until someone shows me that it was always intended that somebody like VGR should be a bishop – not from sociology / psychology but from the scriptures (which were inspired by The Spirit, remember – so I really doubt he is suddenly contradicting himself and telling me through the current leadership of TEC) I have no problem with the non-religious who… Read more »

NP
NP
13 years ago

Ford – come on, you are normally more reasonable than some on TA!
1Tim3v2:Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach…!

So – when have I EVER said I have no problem with other sins such as (looking at the verse!) drunkeness or polygamy or lack of self-control or lack of hospitality???

No, I mean “unpetentant sinner” – all repentant sinners are welcome -thank God.

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
13 years ago

NP, this is the problem. You see sin as “breaking the Law”. You also find sin by looking at specific verses. That’s Bible mining. Of course, Paul says what kind of traits a bishop should have, but I’m sure you’d agree the list isn’t exhaustive. And “overseer”? This is Protestant revisionism. For 1500 years (well, perhaps 1300)the Church had bishops, calling them “overseers” is just the way the Reformers justified the innovation of doing away with the Episcopate. A bishop is much more than just an “overseer”, it isn’t just an administrative job. You seem to have no problem with… Read more »

Ann Marie
13 years ago

NP, The problem is that it cuts both ways. Why should I accept that my ordination is not accepted in a number of provinces. There is nothing scriptural against it. The most common excuse I have thrown at me is that it is against tradition not against scripture. I will agree that there are people who should not be priests (or bishops). I even had a priest that should never have been ordained. There is nothing in the NT or Acts which speaks to whether or not to ordain homosexuals. I would say look at how God works through any… Read more »

David H.
13 years ago

Raspberry Rabbit mentiond, “South Area Clericus meeting at my house tonight for Chili Con Carne”

Heh. Being a native Texan, I’m almost *afraid* to imagine what chili might be like in Scotland =8-O

For those in the States who want an easy way to make the real thing, try this:

http://www.luzianne.com/template_buy_product.cfm?ProductID=71092-00074

or go completely home-made with Lady Bird Johnson’s recipe:

http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/FAQs/Recipes/chili.asp

Spiro
Spiro
13 years ago

Shame on those called to feed and shepherd the flock, but are now operating more like some third-rate politicians than Bishops in the Church of Our Lord. The Lord will surely call all to account.

At the end of the day, The Lord will have the last word on all this. I am not talking of the life after, but of this Disagreement in the Anglican Communion here and now. The Revisionists are wrong, wrong, wrong, and they know it, but don’t care.

NP
NP
13 years ago

Ford, Ann Marie

Sadly – I think we will never agree on the words or the meaning of the words which matter.

Basically, I will accept VGR as a bishop if you can show from scriptures that St Paul and St Peter and St James et al would have consecrated a man with his views and lifestyle as a “bishop” or “overseer” or “church leader” in the early church – the branches must stay connected to the vine to live.

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
13 years ago

No, Spiro, the people who are wrong are those on both sides who create the fiction that their opponents are all the same and are plotting to subvert the will of God for the Anglican Church. They identify “revisionists”, “reassors”, “bigots”, “homophobes”, “rebels” and misrepresent each other to put horns on the heads of the opposition. There are those who would say, with as much justification as you feel you have to say what you say, that the “reasserters” are wrong, wrong, wrong, and they know it but they just don’t care. The way it is worded is that “traditionalists”… Read more »

Spiro
Spiro
13 years ago

Dear Ford Elms, We have had long-running conversations on this site for some time now and the more I get to know you, the more I respect you, even though we disagree. I am praying for you, just as I believe you are doing same for me. I have no doubt that anyone who sincerely seeks the Lord will find Him. It will not surprise me when and if you and I end up on the same side of this issue (It may take decades, but it does not matter). Therein is our hope. God’s Peace and Love to you,… Read more »

JCF
JCF
13 years ago

“JCF – are you really open to your prayer being answered if the answer is +Durham and +Duncan are right? Are you really open to being led by God if that is the way he would have you go?” Of course, NP. I study Scripture and Tradition—using whatever meager Reason I have—looking for God’s leading (and, I listen to the voices of others, including yours NP, for Christian discernment as well). Always. As +Gene Robinson says, we’re *all* too quick to hear our own egos doing a Voice-of-God ventriloquist act—both for ourselves, and for others: I’m as guilty of that… Read more »

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
13 years ago

NP, I’m don’t care if you accept +VGR as a bishop or not. He’s got no plans to move to your diocese, AFAIK, and you will likely never even meet the man, let alone have the opportunity to refuse Communion from his hand. Your attitude will do more to damage your own soul through anger, hostility, feelings of persecution, and resultant temptation to unChristian behaviour than it will injure anyone else, including +VGR. My only contention to you is that sola scriptura is not the tradition of the faith. It is a Reformation era innovation that may or may not… Read more »

JCF
JCF
13 years ago

“I cannot argue for the consecration of a partnered gay man in the early Church. They wouldn’t even have understood what I was talking about.” You said it, Ford! :-p Assuming we could get competant *translation* into Koine (or Aramaic), try explaining “American” to them! (Or, for that matter: “Anglican” ;-/) “partnered gay man” would be the LEAST of the Early Church’s incomprensibilities re +Gene! [Moreover, wherein the NT says a bishop should be “the husband of one wife”, it seems to me that +GR’s relationship-status would be *less strange* to the Early Church, than that of Rome/Constantinople (where the… Read more »

Göran Koch-Swahne
13 years ago

“… Constantinople where the requirements for bishop are “NO wife”.

Well, even if that one is just because at one time one began to pick monks only for bishop (to that their bishops would be less vulnerable to State pressure).

Further, 3 consecutive spouses are allowed in Byzantine churches because Emperor Basil the Great had 4 simultaneous ones (2 men and 2 women ;=)

NP
NP
13 years ago

Ford – innovation is not always a bad thing – some of the “innovations” of the Reformers were taking the church away from corrupt Tradition and back to the bible…..I only object to innovations which are mistaken, wrong, deliberately taking the church away fom the Bible…..and, as you know, “sola scriptura” is hardly unbiblical as an idea (I won’t give you the verses because I am sure you know them) JCF – thanks for your reply – so pleased that you say you are genuinely open to being led by the spirit even if that meant agreeing with +Duncan….I am… Read more »

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
13 years ago

NP,
The idea that insects have four legs is Biblical, but that doesn’t make it true. I’m sure you know that the Christian faith is not based on the Bible. We’ve been over this a million times, and there’s abviously no point in doing so again. You put your faith solely in Scripture. I put my faith in the living Tradition handed down from the Apostles. Scripture is a part of this, but it isn’t all of it. And that’s not faithless, despite what the “reasserters” would have you believe.

Göran Koch-Swahne
13 years ago

“I won’t give you the verses because I am sure you know them”

Sorry, but you constantly keep forgetting that you live in a (to the Church) very strange sectarian environment. We do not and cannot know which verses that environment claims for its late modern innovations/heresies (Integrism, Fundamentalism, Trib, Complementarism, fixation with “sex”, “Apostolic” leadership, and so on).

38
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x