In communion:
Reflections on the Windsor Report

A summary of the Report

by the Rev. Dr. Leon P. Spencer, Dean of the School of Ministry,

originally presented at

the 189^th Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina

This is an edited version of the Convention presentation prepared for those in the Diocese (and elsewhere) who may find it helpful in their own discernment and discussions. This presentation is posted on the diocesan website www.episdionc.com.

For those who would prefer having an MSWord version to copy, contact the Dean by e-mail (leon.spencer@episdionc.com) or phone (336-273-5770). You may reproduce and circulate this document as is most helpful to you; however, we will be grateful if you will attribute the School of Ministry of the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina.

What I want to do here is present, as matter-of-factly and objectively as I can, something of what the Windsor Report is and says, and where the Church goes from here. I am not before you today to critique the Windsor Report, to suggest what is good or bad in it, nor I am going to argue what we should do or not do as a Church. My premise is that many of us have not, nor are we likely to, give detailed scrutiny to all 93 pages of the Report. If we are paying attention to it at all, we are most likely to have reviewed the recommendations, not the careful theological analysis that led to those recommendations. And – and this is an important and – if we are to have meaningful discourse about our life together as a communion, we need to be informed enough about the Report to “be on the same page” … if not with the same views, at least with similar information.

The School of Ministry has also prepared several handouts that you may find helpful. They include a summary of the Report, a review of what the next steps are in “receiving” and acting upon the Report, and resources available to you about the Report. On the resources sheet are references to study resources should you wish to arrange for further discussion in your parish. These materials are already posted on the diocesan website, www.episdionc.com.

It is necessary, I think, at least to name the context from which the Windsor Report emerged – the question of our understanding of homosexuality in the light of Scripture, the tradition of the Church, and reason – but it is unnecessary to march through the tortured debate about whether the presence of life-long commitments among gays and lesbians alters the traditional church view of homosexuality, or about the place of homosexuals within the Church in light of the baptismal covenant, that all are called into ministry, or about Scripture as it leads us to discernment on those matters. They have been before the Church for decades and they deserve continued attention, as the Windsor Report makes clear. But it was not the task of the writers of the report to do that, nor mine as I engage in a briefing on the Report.

The Lambeth Conference in 1998 – bringing together bishops from across the world – passed a resolution on human sexuality that has generally been declared to have “moral force” and to be “the standard of Anglican teaching” within the Anglican Communion (and by that we mean the 38 autonomous provinces and national churches across the world that are in relationship to the Archbishop of Canterbury). No one can argue that the Anglican Communion was not already severely divided in their, in our, approach to the issue, when three events occurred that led directly to the Windsor Report: First, the decision of our Episcopal Church USA, at General Convention in 2003, to consecrate Gene Robinson, a gay man living in a committed relationship, as Bishop of New Hampshire; second, the decision, also at General Convention, to allow experimentation with rites of blessing for same sex unions; and third, the decision of the Diocese of New Westminster, in the Anglican Church of Canada, to authorize a public rite of blessing for same sex unions (which is generally taken to mean “authorized liturgies”).

At the urging of the primates – the archbishops and presiding bishops from throughout the Anglican Communion – the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, appointed the Lambeth Commission on Communion in October 2003. The direction he chose to take, in his mandate to the Commission, was to examine “the legal and theological implications” of the Episcopal Church and Canadian actions, “specifically on the canonical understandings of communion, impaired and broken communion, and the ways in which provinces of the Anglican Communion may relate to one another in situations where…one province feel unable to maintain the fullness of communion with another part of the Anglican Communion.” Be clear, then, about the task of this Commission. Rightly or wrongly, it was to examine the nature of communion, and how we may be in communion with one another despite our differences. They were not asked to comment on the theology and ethics regarding homosexuality, the blessing of those relationships, or the consecration of those who engage in them. They were asked to make recommendations about our oneness in Christ in the midst of our divisions.

The 17-member Commission came from throughout the world. Bishop Mark Dyer, now on the faculty of Virginia Theological Seminary, represented the US. Last October the Commission issued its report – called the Windsor Report because it met at Windsor. (It could have been the Kanuga Report, as it met there too!) The recommendations they made were unanimous.

As the Report was requested by the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates, it was first presented to Archbishop Williams and to the Primates’ Standing Committee, which was then meeting in London. Copies were circulated to all Primates at that time.

Note that the Report “is not a judgement. It is part of a process.” The recommendations of the Report do not carry with them any authority until they are received and acted upon within our Communion. As our North Carolina bishops noted in their pastoral letter, “the Report is the beginning of a conversation of prayer, study, reflection, dialogue and discernment.” That is a conversation into which we are all invited.

There are four sections to the Report:

The purposes and benefits of communion

Fundamental principles

Our future life together, and

The maintenance of communion

We in the United States are pretty good at studying things – in fact, we are quite capable of studying things to death sometimes – but we are also an action-oriented people. We like the “can do” mentality. And so, when we come to a report like this, we are tempted to rush past the “theology” (we can study that later, we might tell ourselves) to get to the recommendations. What, we want to know, are we, or they, asked to do. What’s the judgment? What’s the punishment? What’s the reward? What’s the action?

I want to frustrate us for a few minutes and not rush to the action. And that means that I want to take a little more time than most of us may want to do with these first sections, on the purposes, benefits, and fundamental principles regarding communion. I’m not presenting the points the Report makes here as something that must be accepted, but as something deserving our careful thought.

Section A: The Purposes and Benefits of Communion describes the Biblical foundations of communion. We Christians, the Commission suggests, are called by God into relationship. “The communion we enjoy with God in Christ and by the Spirit, and the communion we enjoy with all God’s people living and departed, is the specific practical embodiment and fruit of the gospel itself….” Everything we say about unity and communion, they argued, “assumes this foundation in the gospel itself” (para 3). They continued: “As we Anglicans face very serious challenges to our unity and communion in Christ – challenges which have emerged not least because of different interpretations of that holiness to which we are called, and different interpretations of the range of appropriate diversity within our union and communion – Paul [they had been examining his first letter to the Corinthians] would want to remind us of the unique source of that unity, our common identity in Christ, and its unique purpose, the furtherance of God’s mission within the world….. This grace-given and grace-full mission from God, and communion with God, determine our relationship with one another. Communion with God and one another in Christ is thus both a gift and a divine expectation.” They conclude: “All that we say in this Report is intended both to celebrate that gift and to answer that expectation.”

I find it easy to say to that: “Okay, fair enough.” And then to add: “Now what?” But I do commend to us all, from whatever place we have chosen to stand on the divisions facing us, to reflect carefully about our theological understanding of communion, of what it means to be in communion, and of our ability to say, and the limits upon our capacity to say, that we are no longer in communion with those with whom we disagree. This section of the Report requires close attention, closer than time permits in this presentation.

This section goes on to say that our Communion needs to find ways to engage in “mutual discernment and decision-making” if we are to sustain our life in communion. As an example of mutual-discernment, the Report reviews the ordination of women, holding that process up as a sign that “serious and contentious issues [have] been, and can be, carried out without division” (para 21). Of course they know that it was and sometimes still is a divisive matter. But as the Commission takes us through many stages in that debate, they underscore that the process led to agreement that “each province respect the decision and attitudes of other provinces” (cited in para. 19). This positive precedent, the Report concludes, has not been followed in our current controversy. “This,” they say, “lies at the heart of the problems we currently face.”

They then proceed to discuss “six underlying features of our common life” which “together make up the key strands of what has happened” and why we are at an impasse. Give attention to this, please. These features can take on meaning for us far beyond any single issue.

1) Theological development. The idea here is that things evolve over time, and that Christians widely accept that through the Holy Spirit new ideas and innovations emerge and may be incorporated into our lives of faith. The catch is how we draw the line “between faithful inculturation and false accommodation to the world’s way of thinking.” We are not free, they argue, “to simplify these matters either by claiming the Spirit’s justification for every proposed innovation or by claiming long-standing tradition as the reason for rejecting all such proposals” (para 32). We need ways as a communion to consider proposed developments, they say, and the Episcopal Church made no serious attempt to explain or consult with the Communion about the significant development of theology that would justify our actions on homosexuality (para 33).

2) Ecclesiastical procedures. The idea here is simply that a process of discernment about theological developments would require that we use our church structures for wide consultation, so that the church might remain together across differences of belief and practice. This, they say, the Episcopal Church did not do (para 34-35).

3) Adiaphora. This Greek word refers to the doctrine about “things that do not make a difference.” When Paul spoke of the issue of what to eat and what not, he was distinguishing between what were core doctrines and what were matters where disagreement could be tolerated. The Windsor Report suggests that many in the Episcopal Church saw the consecration in this latter way, while many Anglicans world-wide could not (para 36-37).

4) Subsidiarity. This is the principle that matters should be decided as close to the local level as possible. The catch is that the Episcopal Church, the Commission says, seemed convinced that we were free to take decisions “locally” on matters which many throughout the Communion felt could be decided only at the Communion-wide level (para 38-39).

5) Trust. Here, simply put, is an affirmation of the critical need for a relationship of trust. That has been severely undermined. We need, the Report proclaims, “to develop the habit, and thence the virtue, of that charity which listens intensely and with good will to widely different expressions of sincerely held Christian theology” (para 41). And

6) Authority. Because “we have not always fully articulated how authority works within Anglicanism, and because recent decisions have not taken into account… such authority as we all in theory acknowledge, we have reached the point where urgent fresh thought and action have become necessary” (para 42). That’s why they end up with recommendations that seek to clarify how and where decision-making is to take place.

This sounds awfully academic, I imagine, and in a way it is. But it is certainly not beyond any of our understanding, and in fact we deal with these six all the time in our daily lives. If you stop and think about your family, across generations, you’ll acknowledge, I imagine, that ideas evolve – what you find acceptable with your children is perhaps a bit different from what your parents or grandparents did. Theological development is what it’s called here. You’ll recognize that in the family you have ways of making decisions. Here, it’s called Ecclesiastical procedures. You’ll recognize that there are some things that you alone can decide, or with your spouse; others – the sale of the old family home, perhaps – may require wide consultation. Here that’s adiaphora and subsidiarity. And then there’s trust: What an essential in family life. Trust. And finally, authority, not power but authority, decisions that allow full participation – let our children have their say – and made in a way that enhances, not endangers, our family bonds. Authority. We know all these features I’ve just been through. The task, the Windsor Report suggests, is for us to live into them as expressions of our faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Section B: Fundamental Principles continues to examine the essentials of our being in communion. It stresses our mutual relationships and mutual interdependence as the Anglican Communion, and reminds us that being in our communion “involves obligations, and… rights, which flow from the theological truths on which the life of the Christian community rests.” Among those obligations, the Report says bluntly, “ the divine foundation of communion should oblige each church to avoid unilateral action on contentious issues which may result in broken communion. It is an ancient canonical principle that what touches all should be decided by all” (para 51).

The Report then turns to the authority of Scripture. Here is a treatment of this crucial subject that deserves careful reading, and more attention than is available here. Essentially the Commission maintains that “for Jesus and the early Christians, ‘authority’ was not conceived as a static source of information or the giving of orders (as the word ‘authority’ has sometimes implied), but in terms of the dynamic inbreaking of God’s kingdom, that is, God’s sovereign, saving, redeeming and reconciling rule over all creation.” (para 55). From the first, they say, the New Testament was meant to be a source “through which the Spirit who was working so powerfully through the apostles would develop and continue that work in the churches.” For us now, they say, “for scripture to ‘work’ as the vehicle of God’s authority it is vital that it be read at the heart of worship in a way which… allows it to be heard, understood and reflected upon, not as a pleasing and religious background noise, but as God’s living and active word” (para 56-57). As this is done, “questions of interpretation are rightly raised, not as an attempt to avoid or relativise scripture and its authority, but as a way of ensuring that it really is scripture that is being heard, not simply the echo of our own voices (though our own responsive hearing is necessary) or the memory of earlier Christian interpretations (though we must always take them into account: ‘tradition’ consists primarily of the recollection of what the scripture-reading Church has said)” (para 59).

They conclude: “The current crisis thus constitutes a call to the whole Anglican Communion to re-evaluate the ways in which we have read, heard, studied and digested scripture. We can no longer be content to drop random texts into arguments, imagining that the point is thereby proved, or indeed to sweep away sections of the New Testament as irrelevant to today’s world, imagining that problems are thereby solved. We need mature study, wise and prayerful discussion, and a joint commitment to hearing and obeying God as he speaks in scripture, to discovering more of the Jesus Christ to whom all authority is committed, and to being open to the fresh wind of the Spirit who inspired scripture in the first place. If our present difficulties force us to read and learn together from scripture in new ways, they will not have been without profit” (para 61).

In this section the Commission also considers the process of “reception,” in which the test of a Church decision is how it is “received” by the faithful. This idea has a long history, but more recently, it “has been used in Anglicanism as a way of testing whether a controversial development, not yet approved by a universal Council of the Church but nevertheless arising within a province by legitimate processes, might gradually, over time, come to be accepted as an authentic development of the faith.” Does the action “settle down and make itself at home”? This, they say, “leads to a shared discernment of God’s truth” (para 68).

Finally, they reflect upon the autonomy of provinces within the Communion as a sign of respect for diversity – giving “full scope for the development of authentic local living out of the Christian faith and mission” (para 85) – and of the limits to autonomy, especially discerning what is and is not a matter that “makes a difference.” That adiaphora word again.

Section C: Our Future Life Together seeks to identify ways for us to strengthen our future mission and life in the Communion. It reviews the Anglican “Instruments of Unity,” which consist of four entities:

the Archbishop of Canterbury,

the Lambeth Conference (a gathering of bishops generally held every decade since 1867),

the Anglican Consultative Council (created in 1968 as an advisory body and

including laity among its members), and

the Primate’s Meeting (initiated in 1978 and often meeting more than once a year).

The Commission suggests that “there needs to be a clearer understanding of the expectations placed on provinces in responding to the decisions of these Instruments [of Unity].” They did “not favour the accumulation of formal power….” They did suggest, however, “several ways in which the nature of the moral authority” of the Communion could be better revealed (para 105). These included:

1) An enhanced role for the Archbishop of Canterbury: His serving “as the central focus of both unity and mission” for Anglicans, with authority to “articulate the mind of the communion” in controversies (para 109).

2) A Council of Advice: To provide support for the Archbishop when hard decisions needed to be made (para 112).

3) An Anglican Covenant: To define the relationships among the member churches of the Anglican Communion (para 118). In the appendices it provides a possible draft (page 65).

Section D: The Maintenance of Communion turns specifically to the current difficulties facing us. The Commission again tries to make clear that its intent is not to resolve the human sexuality controversy but to adhere to the Commission’s mandate, looking toward the “maintenance of communion.” It does this through the following recommendations:

1) Elections to the episcopate: Since a bishop “represents the local church to the wider, but also the other way round,” elections to the episcopate must be evaluated for their broader consequences. The Commission advocated a “change of attitude” not a “new… formal process” (para 124, 132).

2) The Bishop of New Hampshire: “By electing and confirming [Gene Robinson],” the Commission says, “in the face of the concerns expressed by the wider Communion, the Episcopal Church (USA) has caused deep offence to many faithful Anglican Christians both in its own church and in other parts of the Communion.” At the same time, they say “there is no doubt that in terms of its [constitution], the Episcopal Church was free to take the steps it did” (para 127-28). Still, aware of the resulting “hurt and offence,” they called upon the Episcopal Church “to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached,” and by doing so, showing our desire to remain part of the Anglican Communion. Whatever our differing views may be, we need to be clear as to what was and was not sought here. I know this recommendation may be subject to interpretation, but the words themselves do not call for repentance, nor do they ask for an expression of regret for the action – the consecration – itself. It calls for “regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached.” Next, the Commission asks us to effect a moratorium on any bishop candidate who is living in a same-sex union “until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges.” Further, Bishop Robinson’s consecrating bishops are “invited to consider... whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion” (para 134). The Commission urged the proposed Council of Advice to “keep the matter of [Bishop Robinson’s] acceptability under close review” and urged the Archbishop of Canterbury to “exercise very considerable caution in inviting or admitting him to the councils of the communion” (para 133). Finally, they urged that practical ways be found for the “listening process” that the Lambeth Conference in 1998 called upon all provinces to undertake (para 135). That resolution read: “We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and… assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ” (reso I.10, no. 3, on p. 78). “It is vital,” the Commission says, “that the Communion establish [ways] to facilitate ongoing discussion” (para 146). As part of that process, they asked the Episcopal Church to explain, “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” (para 135).

3) Blessing of same-sex unions: The Report asks bishops not to authorize public rites of blessing for same-sex unions and recommends that those who have already done so “express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached,” and until they do so to “withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion” (para 144). The Report calls for those provinces, such as the Episcopal Church, who are engaged in discernment about blessing same-sex unions to “engage the Communion in continuing study of biblical and theological rationale for and against” same-sex unions (para 145).

4) Alternative pastoral oversight: Here the Report is talking about parishes so hurt and alienated by developments that they find themselves unwilling to accept the ministry of their diocesan bishop. Without the permission of that bishop, other bishops have assumed that pastoral and canonical responsibility. The Commission recommends that a “conditional and temporary provision of delegated pastoral oversight” – meaning another bishop can come to minister to that parish – be a “last resort” for those who dissent from the decisions of their bishops (para 151). They commend the proposal for “delegated episcopal pastoral oversight” set forth by our House of Bishops (para 152). They reject the idea of parallel jurisdictions (i.e., dioceses whose identities rest on theology rather than geography) (para 154). They call upon bishops who have intervened in other jurisdictions without permission to “express regret for the consequences of their actions...affirm their desire to remain in the communion... effect a moratorium on any further interventions... [and] seek an accommodation with the bishops of the dioceses whose parishes they have taken into their own care....” The Report adds: “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 [regarding pastoral oversight] 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” (para 155).

Well, that’s it. That’s my fallible effort at a summary of the Windsor Report. Except for this: As Archbishop Eames of Ireland, who chaired the Lambeth Commission that created the Windsor Report, remarked, “the depth of conviction and feeling on all sides of the current issues has on occasions introduced a degree of harshness and a lack of charity which is new to Anglicanism” (page 5). Despite that reality, the Commission reminds us, “Our aim throughout has been to work not for division but for healing and restoration.” But, they add, “there remains a very real danger that we will not choose to walk together, [and if that proves to be the case] “we shall have to begin to learn to walk apart.”

“The real challenge of the gospel,” they conclude, “is whether we live deeply enough in the love of Christ, and care sufficiently for our joint work to bring that love to the world, that we will ‘make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace’ (Eph. 4.3). As the primates stated in 2000, ‘to turn from one another would be to turn away from the Cross,’ and indeed from serving the world which God loves and for which Jesus Christ died” (para 157).

I commend those words to us all….

Leon Spencer, Dean

School of Ministry

Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina

January 2005

OASIS CALIFORNIA

The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Ministry of the Episcopal Diocese of California

Mailing Address: Oasis/California, Episcopal Diocese of California, 1055 Taylor St., San Francisco, CA 94108-2209

The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and TransgenderMinistry of the Episcopal Diocese of California

In communion: Reflections on the Windsor Report