Resources for reflections on the Windsor Reportdeveloped by the School of Ministry forthe 189th Annual Convention ofthe Episcopal Diocese of North CarolinaIn October 2003 the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, appointed the Lambeth Commission on Communion at the request of the Primates throughout the Anglican Communion. The 17-member commission, chaired by the Primate of All Ireland, Archbishop Robin Eames, issued its report – called the Windsor Report – in October 2004. Bishop Mark Dyer, on the faculty of Virginia Theological Seminary, represented the US. The Commission was specifically asked to examine and report on ways in which the 38 Anglican provinces can “relate to one another in situations where the ecclesiastical authorities of one province feel unable to maintain the fullness of communion with another part of the Anglican Communion.” This was thus not a commission to settle the difficult questions that we face about human sexuality issues. Their mandate was to recommend ways to maintain “the highest degree of communion” within the worldwide Anglican family despite the differences that we may have. The recommendations they made were unanimous. There are four sections to the report. Section A: The Purposes and Benefits of Communion describes the Biblical foundations of this relationship called communion into which Christians are called by God, and examines how this relates to the mission of the Church. It then describes the current difficulties and tensions that the Anglican Communion is experiencing, reviewing the ordination of women as a recent process of mutual discernment that demonstrated that decision-making “on serious and contentious issues has been, and can be, carried out without division.” This precedent, it concludes, has not been followed in our current controversy. This section concludes with a discussion of “six underlying features of our common life:” Theological development (offering a theological explanation for our actions), ecclesiastical procedures (using our church structures for wide consultation), adiaphora (the doctrine about “things that do not make a difference”), subsidiarity (the principle that matters should be decided as close to the local level as possible), trust (the critical need for a relationship of trust), and authority (especially “the way in which living under scriptural authority is principally the grounding for the church’s mission”). Space is insufficient to expand on these six points here; they deserve a careful reading to grasp fully their implications for our relationships. Section B: Fundamental Principles focuses upon biblical authority and interpretation, the episcopate, discernment and “reception,” and diversity. It calls for “mature study” and discussion “to discover 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.” The Bible, it says, should be a means of unity through “our shared reading of scripture across boundaries of culture, region and tradition.” The Commission here considers also the process of “reception,” in which the test of a Church decision was how it was “received” by the faithful. 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” – and of the limits to autonomy, especially discerning what is and is not a matter that “makes a difference” (adiaphora). 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, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Primate’s Meeting. In this section the Commission makes three recommendations:
1) An enhanced role for the Archbishop of Canterbury: Pointing out the central position of the Archbishop, the report says he “must not be regarded as a figurehead, but as the central focus of both unity and mission” for Anglicans, with authority to “articulate the mind of the communion” in controversies and to “speak directly to any provincial situation on behalf of the communion” without being viewed as an outside interference.2) A Council of Advice: The Commission concludes that a Council of Advice composed of “suitable persons, who would possess a knowledge of the life of the communion” would provide support for the Archbishop when hard decisions needed to be made. 3) An Anglican Covenant: The Commission recommends that each Province or Church adopt its own simple and short domestic “communion law,” authorizing its primate to sign an Anglican covenant and to promise to adhere to it, as provinces have already done with churches outside the communion. The covenant would deal with the acknowledgement of common identity; the relationships, commitments and exercise of autonomy in communion; and the management of communion affairs, including disputes. The report then recommends the creation of an Anglican Covenant that would define the relationships among the member churches of the Anglican Communion. Section D: The Maintenance of Communion turns specifically to the current difficulties facing us. The intent here 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” rather than a “new tier of formal process.” In a footnote, the report stated that its authors do not agree that the consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire was invalid, but they urged the proposed Council of Advice to “keep the matter of his acceptability under close review” and the Archbishop of Canterbury to “exercise very considerable caution in inviting or admitting him to the councils of the communion.” 2) The Bishop of New Hampshire: The Episcopal Church USA is “invited to express its regret” for the pain its actions caused other members of the Communion and its desire to remain part of the Communion. We are asked 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.” 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.” The report calls for “continuing study of biblical and theological rationale for and against” same-sex unions. 4) Alternative pastoral oversight: A “conditional and temporary provision of delegated pastoral oversight” is recommended as a “last resort” for those who dissent from the decisions of their bishops. The report commends the proposal for “delegated episcopal pastoral oversight” set forth by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church USA. The idea of parallel jurisdictions is rejected, and bishops who have intervened in other jurisdictions without permission are asked 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 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.” Adapted from and with additions to releases by Matthew Davies and the Rev. Jan Nunley of the Episcopal News Service and from a pastoral letter by the Most Rev. Andrew S. Hutchison, Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Canada | 
