Communion Matters:

A Study Document for the Episcopal Church

 

Summarization of Related Resources

By Fr. Earle King

 

 

Communion Matters:  A Study Document for the Episcopal Church was prepared by the Theology Committee of the House of Bishops as The Episcopal Church considers the Communique of the 2007 Tanzania Meeting of the Primates of the Anglican Communion.  In particular, Communion Matters is intended to help members of The Episcopal Church to engage a host of materials as the House of Bishops prepares for its meeting September 20-25 in New Orleans with the Archbishop of Canterbury.  The Communique of the Primates’ Tanzania Meeting asked for a response from our House of Bishops by September 30, 2007.

 

Our Bishop (Michael Garrison) has asked each congregation in the Diocese of Western New York to engage Communion Matters.  We at St. Martin’s are scheduled to address Communion Matters and related documents on Tuesday, August 28, at 7:00 p.m.  Behind all this is the issue of human sexuality (and homosexuality in particular).  The documents, however, don’t address this particular issue (generally), but rather how The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion engage in conversation and attempt to stay together.  Communion does matter.

 

The basic document is Communion Matters, is 14 pages long, may be downloaded at www.collegeforbishops.org (click “Resources”), or may be found on the table at the back of the Church.  Communion Matters makes reference to (and briefly summarizes) a number of other documents, all of which are listed in its bibliography on the final page.  The total number of pages in these additional documents is in the hundreds.

 

My attempt here is to create a timeline and to flesh out more fully the content of these additional documents, so that you may get a more complete overview of what has been said, without having to wade through the immense amount of material.  In attempting to summarize this amount of material relating to a controversial topic, I know that my own biases have crept in.  I’ve tried to do my best to keep this to a minimum.  Some of you will be offended by this, while others of you will undoubtedly be pleased.

 

If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me, and I’ll do my best to try to answer them.  Also, if something isn’t clear to you, it probably isn’t clear to others.  So let me know, and I’ll try to do better in explaining.

 

Please keep in your prayers our own congregation, our Diocese of Western New York, The Episcopal Church, and the Anglican Communion.

 

Faithfully in Christ,

 

Fr. Earle King

Some Anglican Terminology

 

Anglican Communion – The Anglican Communion, the third largest Christian body in the world, consists of all provinces that are in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury.  Because England “ruled the seas” for centuries after she defeated the Spanish Armada, England established colonies – and congregations – around the world.  After the Revolutionary War (in which we claimed our independence from England), these “English congregations” became The Episcopal Church – an autonomous “child” of the Church of England, in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury.  Other colonial churches worldwide eventually became autonomous members of the Anglican Communion, in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

 

General Convention – Every three years, The Episcopal Church gathers in General Convention, which is our primary decision-making body in our Church.  It is here that policy, position, and regulations are determined for the Church.

 

Instruments of Unity – This relatively recent term is used to describe four centers for unity within the Anglican Communion.  These four are:

  • The Archbishop of Canterbury, established in 597 when St. Augustine was sent to the British Isles by Pope Gregory.  The Archbishop of Canterbury (currently Rowan Williams) is the spiritual leader of the entire Anglican Communion.
  • The Lambeth Conference first met in 1867.  It is a gathering, every 10 years, of all the diocesan bishops in the Anglican Communion.  Archbishop Longley, who called the first Lambeth Conference, described its purpose as “meet[ing] together for brotherly counsel and encouragement.”  It was clear that, at least in 1867, the Lambeth Conference assumed absolutely no power to legislate on behalf of the Anglican Communion.
  • The Primates Meeting is a gathering of all the heads (all bishops) of the 38 autonomous provinces in the Anglican Communion.  Our Presiding Bishop – Katharine Jefferts-Schori – is our Primate.  The meeting of the Primates was begun at the request of the 1978 Lambeth Conference, which asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to gather the Primates.  Then Archbishop Coggan advocated “meetings of Primates of the Communion reasonably often, for leisurely thought, prayer and deep consultation . . . .”
  • The Anglican Consultative Council was established in 1968 “to advise on inter-Anglican, provincial, and diocesan relationships” (see its Constitution, Article 2.c.).  It is the only Instrument of Unity which includes priests, deacons, and laity, in addition to bishops.

There are a variety of issues posed about these four Instruments of Unity.

  • How did these four come to be defined as the “Instruments of Unity?”
  • What kind of “authority” does any one, or all four, have?
  • How is this “authority” granted?
  • Two of the four are relatively new; how does their “novelty” affect their “authority?”
  • Three of the four consist of bishops only.  Should the ACC have relatively more “authority” because is it more representative?
  • When one of the Instruments of Unity (such as the Lambeth Conference) adopts a resolution, how “authoritative” is it for the entire Anglican Communion?  Who decides which resolutions are more “authoritative” than others?
  • How representative is the Archbishop of Canterbury as an Instrument of Unity, inasmuch as he is appointed by the British Crown, and his appointment has no input throughout the wider Anglican Communion?

 

Lambeth Conference 1998; Resolution 1.10

(in its entirety)

 

This Conference:
(a) commends to the Church the subsection report on human sexuality; 

(b) in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage; 
(c)   recognises that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. Many of these are members of the Church and are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God's transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationships. We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to 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;
(d)   while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals, violence within marriage and any trivialisation and commercialisation of sex;
(e) cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions;
(f)   requests the Primates and the ACC to establish a means of monitoring the work done on the subject of human sexuality in the Communion and to share statements and resources among us;
(g) notes the significance of the Kuala Lumpur Statement on Human Sexuality and the concerns expressed in resolutions IV.26, V.1, V.10, V.23 and V.35 on the authority of Scripture in matters of marriage and sexuality and asks the Primates and the ACC to include them in their monitoring process. 

Note:  This resolution was passed overwhelmingly.  The issues include:

  • How “authoritative” is this?
  • Are some portions of this resolution more “binding” than others?
  • Who decides what resolutions are “binding” and which ones aren’t?
  • Why are some Lambeth resolutions more binding than others?

 

 

Election of V. Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire – 2003

 

This is a turning point in the debate.  In the spring of 2003, the Diocese of New Hampshire elected Gene Robinson to be its next bishop.  Robinson was living in (and continues to live in) a same-sex relationship.  The General Convention, by a close vote, consented to the election.  Robinson was consecrated bishop in the fall of 2003.  For the first time in its history, the Anglican Communion consecrated a bishop who was gay and who was public about it.  A whole raft of meetings resulted, as did a host of statements and resolutions.

 

 

Primates’ Meeting – Lambeth

October 15-16, 2003

 

In the wake of the consent to the consecration of V. Gene Robinson, the Archbishop of Canterbury called a meeting of the Primates at Lambeth on October 15/16, 2003.  [The meeting also discussed the action of the Diocese of New Westminster in the Anglican Church of Canada, which authorized rites of blessing for same-sex relationships.]

 

The three-page statement from the Primates’ Meeting included:

  • A claim that Lambeth Resolution 1.10 (1998) has “moral force and command[s] the respect of the Communion as its present position on these issues;”
  • A statement of concern that the actions of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada do not “express the mind of our Communion as a whole,” and that these actions “jeopardise our sacramental fellowship with each other;”
  • A request that the Archbishop of Canterbury “establish a commission to consider his own role in maintaining communion within and between provinces when grave difficulties arise,” and that this commission “be extended to include urgent and deep theological and legal reflection on the way in which the dangers we have identified at this meeting will have to be addressed;” [this commission will produce the so-called Windsor Report]
  • A request of all provinces “to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates.”

 

House of Bishops Meeting – The Episcopal Church

March 23, 2004 (Camp Allen, Texas)

“Caring for All the Churches”

 

At its meeting in March, 2004, our House of Bishops prepared a three-page response “to an expressed need of the Church.”  The primary focus of the response was to give form to a process which would provide pastoral and sacramental care to “dissenting groups” in the Episcopal Church – Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO).  The process anticipated the request of paragraph 151 in the soon-to-be-published Windsor Report.

 

 

The Windsor Report – October, 2004

 

The 93-page Windsor Report is the basic document on which most of the “communion” conversation is based.  Because of its “basic” nature to the conversation, the summary below is fairly extended, especially Section D (recommendations).  The Windsor Report was commissioned by the Archbishop of Canterbury in October, 2003, in response to request by the Primates (see above).  The Windsor Report does not deal directly with the issue of homosexuality, but rather on how the Anglican Communion might “stay together” while addressing extremely contentious issues.  Here are the main points of the Windsor Report, organized by section.

 

Section A:  The Purposes and Benefits of Communion

  • “Communion” is a gift from God, and is rooted in God’s Trinitarian holiness.
  • An overview of the issue of women’s ordination, and how it was handled.
  • What happens when communion is impaired?
  • A claim that the Primates’ Meeting (Lambeth, October, 2003) “upheld the resolution [Resolution 1.10 (Lambeth, 1998)] as the standard of Anglican teach on the matter;”
  • A list of six reasons why the Anglican Communion is at an impasse (paragraph 31ff).

 

Section B:  Fundamental Principals

  • “The divine foundation of communion should oblige each church to avoid unilateral action on contentious issues which may result in broken communion.” (paragraph 51)
  • Issues relating to the interpretation of Scripture (paragraphs 53-62) and the episcopate,
  • Diversity and autonomy – What is it to be autonomous and independent?  What are obligations to be interdependent and “in communion?”
  • What are the limits of diversity?  What issues “do not make a difference” (adiaphora – see paragraphs 87ff)?  Who decides?

 

Section C:  Our Future Life Together

  • This section begins with a summary of the histories of the four Instruments of Unity, including a couple of specific recommendations for the Instruments of Unity:

a)  There needs to be a clearer understanding of the expectations placed on the Provinces in responding to the decisions of these Instruments.

b)  A Council of Advice should be established for the Archbishop of Canterbury to assist him in discerning when and how it might be appropriate for him to exercise a ministry of unity on behalf of the whole communion.  (paragraphs 111, 112)  [This recommendation has generally been rebuffed.]

  • Finally, the Report begins to lay the groundwork for an “Anglican Covenant” based on a Canon Law model.  “The Commission believes that the case for the adoption of an Anglican Covenant is overwhelming.”  (paragraph 119; see also Appendix 2)

 

Section D:  The Maintenance of Communion

This is the section that has the “recommendations.”  First are the recommendations regarding elections to the episcopate.

  • When a bishop is appointed/elected, proper regard should be paid to the acceptability of the candidate to other provinces in the Communion.  (paragraph 131)
  • Bishop V. Gene Robinson generally should not be welcome at councils of the Anglican Communion.  (paragraph 133)
  • The Episcopal Church should “express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached in the events surrounding the election and consecration of” Gene Robinson, such regret representing “the desire of the Episcopal Church to remain within the [Anglican] Communion.”  (paragraph 134)
  • Those who were consecrators at Gene Robinson’s consecration “should be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion.”  (paragraph 134)
  • The Episcopal Church should “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.”  (paragraph 134)
  • The Instruments of Unity should “find practical ways in which the ‘listening’ process commended by the Lambeth Conference in 1998 [see part “c” of Resolution 1.10] may be taken forward.”  (paragraph 135)
  • The Episcopal Church should produce a document “which explains, from within the sources of authority that we 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.”  [see below – To Set Our Hope on Christ]  (paragraph 135)

Next are recommendations regarding public Rites of Blessing of same sex unions

  • There should be “a moratorium on all [public Rites of Blessing for same sex unions],” and “bishops who have authorized such rites . . . [should] be invited to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorization.  Pending such expression of regret. . . , such bishops [should] be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion.”  (paragraph 144)
  • The entire Communion should be engaged “in continuing study of biblical and theological rationale for and against such unions.”  (paragraph 145)
  • Lambeth Resolution 1.10 “calls for an ongoing process of listening and discernment, and . . . Christians of good will need to be prepared to engage honestly and frankly with each other on issues relating to human sexuality.”  All parts of Lambeth 1.10 need to be addressed, not just certain subsections.

Finally, there are recommendations on the care of “dissenting groups.”

  • When congregations or dioceses have felt that the spiritual leadership of their church has been compromised, the respective diocese or province should (1) recognized that the “dissenting groups” in their midst are “seeking to be faithful members of the Anglican family,” and (2) that “both the ‘home’ bishops and the ‘intervening’ bishops as Christian leaders and pastors [must] work tirelessly to rebuild the trust which has been lost.”  (paragraphs 148-150)
  • Only in the case of “an extreme breach of trust, and as a last resort” should there be “a conditional and temporary provision of delegated pastoral oversight for those who are dissenting.”  During this period, “there must also be a mutually agreed commitment to effecting reconciliation.”  (paragraph 151)  The model developed by the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church (see Caring for All the Churches in the letter from our House of Bishops, March, 2004) is specifically commended (though the Windsor Report’s commendation of DEPO will be rejected by the Primates).
  • In the case of “bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty to intervene in provinces, diocese and parishes other than their own” in order to minister to “dissenting groups,” such bishops should express regret for the consequences of their actions, affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and effect a moratorium on any further interventions.”  (paragraph 155)  This moratorium also will be rejected by the Primates.

 

Some of the questions relating to the Windsor Report include:

  • Is the Windsor Report intended to be a detailed plan, , or is it a sketch whose form will gradually be “filled out” as the Anglican Communion receives and engages the Report?
  • Are parts of the Windsor Report more “authoritative” or “binding” than other parts?
  • How much “authority” does the Windsor Report have?  Does it need to be “interpreted” by the Instruments of Unity?  Does it need to be “adopted” by the various Provinces?
  • Does the Windsor Report envision a timeline, by which it must be received?  Who decides?
  • Who determines whether or not the calls for action have been met?
  • How can the Church continue to have a “prophetic” voice, when and if contentious issues must be “OK’d” by all the Instruments of Unity?

 

 

House of Bishops Meeting – The Episcopal Church

January 13, 2005 (Salt Lake City, Utah)

“A Word to the Church”

 

This was the first meeting of the House of Bishops following the release of the Windsor Report.  Among other matters, the two-page letter:

  • Expresses the need for all to repent,
  • Expresses “our sincere regret for the pain, the hurt, and the damage caused to our Anglican bonds of affection by certain actions of our church,”
  • Expresses the desire to remain in the Anglican Communion,
  • Expresses a commitment to participate in “a Communion-wide study and discernment process on matters of human sexuality.”

 

We need to remember that the House of Bishops certainly has the authority to speak for itself.  But it does not have the authority to speak on behalf of the Episcopal Church as a whole.  Only General Convention (which also includes the House of Deputies) has that power.  An analogy might be that the Senate has no power to make law without the concurrence of the House of Representatives (and then also the signature of the President).

 

 

The Primates’ Meeting – Dromantine, Northern Ireland

February 20-25, 2005

Communique

 

This meeting was the first meeting of the Primates following the release of the Windsor Report.  Among other matters, their communiqué

  • Expresses the Primates “unreservedly to be committed to the pastoral support and care of homosexual people,” and “that they are children of God,” (paragraph 6)
  • Welcomes the Windsor Report recommendation for an Anglican Covenant, recognizing that “this is a longer term process,” (paragraph 9)
  • Basically rejects the Windsor Report recommendation of a Council of Advice for the Archbishop of Canterbury, (paragraph 10; see Windsor Report, paragraphs 111-112),
  • Requests that The Episcopal Church (and the Anglican Church of Canada) respond to the recommendations of the Windsor Report “according to their constitutional processes,” (paragraph 13)
  • Requests that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada “voluntarily withdraw their members from the Anglican Consultative Council for the period leading up to the next Lambeth Conference (paragraph 14),
  • Requests that the Anglican Consultative Council hear from The Episcopal Church regarding “the thinking behind [its] recent actions,” (paragraph 16)
  • Reaffirms the content of the entirety of Lambeth 1998, Resolution 1.10, especially the section on the listening and study process, (paragraph 17), and
  • Requests a ‘Moratorium on public Rites of Blessing for Same-sex unions and on the consecration of any bishop living in a sexual relationship outside Christian marriage.” (paragraph 18)

 

 

House of Bishops Meeting – The Episcopal Church

March 15, 2005 (Camp Allen, Texas)

A Covenant Statement

 

Although the study materials do not include anything from this meeting of our House of Bishops, nevertheless a two-page “covenant statement” was issued.  It stated

  • A reaffirmation of commitment to remain in the Anglican Communion,
  • A regret for pain that others experienced with respect to the actions of General Convention 2003,
  • A moratorium by the House of Bishops for the consent to the election of any bishop prior to General Convention 2006,
  • A moratorium by the House of Bishops to the authorization of public rites of blessing for same-sex unions (restating that The Episcopal Church has, in fact, never authorized such rites),
  • A pledge not to cross diocesan boundaries to provide Episcopal ministry in violation of our own canons,
  • Support to the Anglican Consultative Council and to the Executive Council to deliberate seriously on the request of the Primates that the Episcopal Church voluntarily refrain from having its delegates participate in ACC meetings until Lambeth 2008,
  • Support for mission, especially as articulated in the Millennium Development Goals,
  • Dedication to full and open dialogue with others in every available venue.

 

 

Anglican Consultative Council Meeting – Nottingham, England

June, 2005

 

The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada did indeed voluntarily withdraw their members from the 2005 meeting of the ACC (in accordance with the Primates’ request at their Dromantine meeting, paragraph 14 – see above).  The Episcopal Church did present To Set Our Hope on Christ:  A Response to the Invitation of Windsor Report, paragraph 135 (see below).  No specific communiqué or resolution from this Meeting is noted.

 

 

To Set Our Hope on Christ

Anglican Consultative Council – June, 2005

The Episcopal Church’s Response to Windsor Report, paragraph 135

 

This 130-page document was the Episcopal Church’s response to Windsor Report (paragraph 135) and the Primates’ Communique from Dromantine (paragraph 14), requesting a report “which explains, from within the sources of authority that we 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.”  The report is divided as follows:

 

Part I – Introduction

  • A commitment to listen
  • A reminder that the Episcopal Church as been wrestling theologically with the issue of homosexuality for almost 40 years (this is not new).

 

Part II – Holiness, God’s Blessing, and Same-Sex Affection

  • The issue of searching the Scriptures to discover what truly is holy.  This document will rely heavily on Acts 10-15, where the Church was called to discern whether or not non-Jews could be considered full members of the fledgling Christian Church.  This was a highly divisive issue in the first century, determining who was “in” and who was “out.”  (2.2 – 2.13)
  • How do we discern how Scripture speaks to our context today, especially as it relates to homosexuality?  (2.14 – 2.21)
  • How does fidelity in a relationship mirror Christ’s love for us?  Is it possible for fidelity in a same-sex relationship to mirror that love?  (2.25 – 2.32)

 

Part III – Contested Traditions, Common Life

  • Our particular historical setting affects how we see “others” – our biblical interpretations which led to our colonization and genocide of Native Americans, our racism as it particularly manifested itself toward African Americans, and our slowness in recognizing the leadership of women in the Church.  It has taken many years for the Episcopal Church to reverse its previous positions on Native Americans, African Americans, and women.  The document reminds us that the reception of the ordination of women was not as smooth as the Windsor Report suggests.
  • The also is an extended history of the conversations in The Episcopal Church in matters of sexuality and homosexuality.  (3.16 – 3.22)

 

Part IV – Eligibility for Ordination

  • Through the crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord, we (along with St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:3-11) have come to understand leadership “in terms of service to others, not power over others.”  Thus, what makes leaders fit “is the universality of Christ’s mission – and a minister’s fidelity to Christ’s way of serving that mission.”  The document claims that this was the case in the recent calling to the episcopate in New Hampshire.  (4.1 – 4.4)  The sacrificial holiness of Christ must also be present in the Episcopal candidate (again, claiming this for New Hampshire).  (4.5 – 4.7)
  • In addition to the holiness to lead in the local diocesan setting (4.8 – 4.11), a bishop is for the whole Church (4.12 – 4.16), even if the whole church is not in favor of any particular bishop (as is the case, in the Anglican Communion, with women in the episcopate).
  • In the Holy Trinity, we are invited to share, to “come and see” with others, and to exhibit generosity and tolerance – this is the divine life as given in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (4.17 – 4.24)

 

Part V – Walking together in Grace

This brief final section is an invitation to further conversation.

 

Appendix – the Document concludes with a 60-page appendix, documenting the various resolutions, papers, and actions of the Episcopal Church relating to sexuality and homosexuality.

 

 

The House of Bishops Meeting – The Episcopal Church

San Juan, Puerto Rico

A Report to the Church – September 27, 2005

 

It’s strange that this document is cited with the rest of this material.  This meeting occurred a month following Hurricane Katrina.  Therefore, the primary concern of the House of Bishops was the devastation from the hurricane.  The document barely touches on the issues related to the sexuality and communion discussions.

 

 

One Baptism, One Hope in God’s Call

The Report of the Special Commission

on The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion

to the 75th General Convention

Spring, 2006

 

This Special Commission was constituted in late 2005 by the Presiding Bishop (Frank Griswold) and the President of the House of Deputies (George Werner).  The purpose of the Special Commission was twofold.

  1. To produce a theological document, focusing “on our understanding of our participation as members of the Anglican Communion in God’s Trinitarian life and God’s mission to which we are called.”
  2. To be “the beginning point for a conversation that will take place at Columbus.”  Therefore, the document produced a series of resolutions, which ultimately were considered by a Special Committee of the General Convention.

 

The resulting 99-page document was in English, Spanish, and French.  The main body of the work is 23 pages (in English) and is divided as follows:

 

Section 1 – Introduction, setting the biblical and theological basis for understanding communion

 

Section 2 – Brief history of events in Tthe Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion since General Convention 2003

 

Section 3 – A theological and ecclesiological discussion of the nature of interdependence in the Anglican Communion

 

Section 4 – Expressions of regret and repentance by The Episcopal Church

  • The Windsor Report did not use the word “repentance,” but rather “regret”
  • How, specifically, should General Convention 2006 express its “regret?”  What counts as adequate, and who has the authority to determine that?

 

Section 5 – A survey of five “invitations to The Episcopal Church as ways by which we can live more fully into our common life in the Anglican Communion

  • A moratorium on election and consent to the episcopate of those living in same-gender relationships
  • No public rites of blessing for same-sex unions (with the clear statement that The Episcopal Church did not, and has never, authorized such rites)
  • Caring for Dissenting Groups, which 1) requests a moratorium on the crossing of diocesan boundaries, and 2) recognizes the need for sensitive pastoral care for all members of this church
  • Working with the Millennium Development Goals as a way of bringing God’s care to people throughout the world
  • A commitment to a continuing search for deeper communion through listening and dialogue with all persons

 

Section 6 – A tracing of precedents of covenants in The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion

  • Windsor Report stresses a canonical/structural approach to covenant
  • Dromantine/Primates offer a more doctrinal/confessional approach
  • ACC 13 is missional /relational in its orientation to covenant
  • The Special Commission believes that all three approaches should be part of the process, rather than limiting the discussion to any single way.

 

Section 7 – Proposals for a series of resolutions for General Convention 2006

  • A159 – Commitment to Interdependence in the Anglican Communion
  • A160 – Expression of Regret
  • A161 – Election of Bishops
  • A162 – Public Rites of Blessing for Same-Sex Unions
  • A163 – Pastoral Care and Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight
  • A164 – Continued Attention to the Millennium Development Goals
  • A165 – Commitment to Windsor and Listening Process
  • A166 – Anglican Covenant Development Process
  • A167 – “Full and Equal Claim” for All the Baptized
  • A168 – Human Rights for “Homosexual Persons”
  • A169 – Amend Canon III.a:  Quadrilateral and Exercise of Ministry

 

 

General Convention – Columbus, Ohio

June 12-21, 2006

Resolutions

 

It was at General Convention that The Episcopal Church officially would be able to respond to the Windsor Report, as well as to the Primates’ Meeting in Dromantine in February of 2005, and to the Anglican Consultative Council Meeting at Nottingham in June of 2005.  The report One Baptism, One Hope in God’s Call (see immediately above) was an attempt to set forth, in advance, possible resolutions to address issues raised by the Windsor Report, the Primates’ Meeting, and the Anglican Consultative Council.

 

The study materials for our discussion highlight four of the resolutions for our attention.  Other related “Windsor” resolutions were passed by General Convention, but are not identified for consideration for this study.  For each resolution below, the final text of the adopted resolution is given, followed by the explanations which were attached with the resolutions, followed by (in some cases) “notes” from me.

 

Resolution A160 – Expression of Regret

Resolved, That the 75th General Convention of The Episcopal Church, mindful of “the repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ” (Windsor Report,  paragraph 134), express its regret for  straining the bonds of affection in the events surrounding the General Convention of 2003 and the consequences which followed; offer its sincerest apology to those within our Anglican Communion who are offended by our failure to accord sufficient importance to the impact of our actions on our church and other parts of the Communion; and ask forgiveness as we seek to live into deeper levels of  communion one with another.

 

Explanation – This resolution addresses the invitation of the Windsor Report that "the Episcopal Church be invited to express regret" for breaching the proper constraints of the bonds of affection (Windsor Report 134). It concurs with and affirms the language of the House of Bishops' expression of regret, thus signaling our synodical intentions to remain within the Communion.

 

Note – One of the great debates about our “expression of regret” was whether or not the words “repent” or “repentance” should appear.  Paragraph 134 of the Windsor Report (upon which this resolution is based) does not call for The Episcopal Church to “repent.”  However, many believed that the word “repent” should have been included in the resolution.  If “repent” had been included, the resolution almost surely would have failed.  Without the word “repent,” many believe that this resolution therefore is an inadequate response to the Windsor Report.

 

Resolution A165 – Commitment to Windsor and Listening Process

Resolved, That the 75th General Convention of The Episcopal Church commend the Windsor Report “as offering a way forward for the mutual life of our Communion” (Primates’ Communiqué), and as an essential and substantive contribution to the process of living into deeper levels of communion and interdependence across the Anglican Communion; and be it further
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention commit The Episcopal Church to the ongoing “Windsor Process,” a process of discernment as to the nature and unity of the Church, as we pursue a common life of dialogue, listening, and growth, formed and informed by the bonds of communion we share; and urge all members of this Church to commit themselves to the call of greater communion and interdependent life; and be it further
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention commend the “listening process” as recommended in the Windsor Report, “so that greater common understanding might be obtained on the underlying issue of same gender relationships” (Windsor Report, ¶135); and be it further
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention gratefully acknowledge the practical steps taken by the Anglican Communion Office to begin a formal “listening process” across the Communion; and be it further
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention commit this Church to participating fully and openly in this “listening process,” both at the local level and with the rest of the Communion (ACC 13, Resolution 12); and be it further
Resolved, That a staff person at The Episcopal Church Center be identified to forward this “listening process” in coordination with the cognate person for the Communion and with our Communion partners.

 

Explanation – The Windsor Report has advanced a process for mutual discernment of our common life together in the Anglican Communion. In a similar way, the Anglican Communion has taken steps to fulfill the 1998 Lambeth Conference commitment to a "Listening Process." This resolution commends these two processes and commits the Episcopal Church to participate faithfully in them.

 

Resolution A166 – Anglican Covenant Development Process

Resolved, That the 75th General Convention of The Episcopal Church, as a demonstration of our commitment to mutual responsibility and interdependence in the Anglican Communion, support the process of the development of an Anglican Covenant that underscores our unity in faith, order, and common life in the service of God’s mission; and be it further
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention direct the International Concerns Standing Committee of the Executive Council and The Episcopal Church’s members of the Anglican Consultative Council to follow the development processes of an Anglican Covenant in the Communion, and  report regularly to the Executive Council as well as to the 76th General Convention; and be it further
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention report these actions supporting the Anglican Covenant development process, noting such missiological and theological resources as the Standing Commission on World Mission and the House of Bishops’ Theology Committee to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates, and the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion; and that the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church report the same to the Primates of the churches of the Anglican Communion.

 

Explanation – This resolution supports the development of an Anglican Covenant as suggested by the Windsor Report, the Primates' Meeting of February 2005, and the 13th Meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council. It directs appropriate bodies in the Episcopal Church to serve as resources for the development of an Anglican Covenant, and to report to the Episcopal Church regularly as to current covenant proposals.

 

Resolution B033 – On Election of Bishops

Resolved, That the 75th General Convention receive and embrace The Windsor Report’s invitation to engage in a process of healing and reconciliation; and be it further
Resolved, That this Convention therefore 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.

 

Explanation – No official explanation was attached.

 

Notes – This resolution has an unusual history.  When Resolution A161 came to the floor of the House of Deputies, it came as a combination of two resolutions – Resolution A161 (Election of Bishops) and A162 (Public Rites of Blessing for Same-Sex Unions).  It was defeated fairly soundly in vote by orders.  Conservatives didn’t like it because it was too liberal, and liberals didn’t like it because it was too conservative.

 

In the wake of the defeat of this combined resolution, many (though not all) at Convention felt that, since General Convention has never authorized Public Rites of Blessing for Same-Sex Unions, it was not necessary for Convention to address Public Rites of Blessing.  And, indeed, no resolution was adopted with addressed this issue.

 

The Windsor Report, however, clearly called for some sort of response to the election of bishops.  Parliamentary procedure precluded most attempts to reconsider the matter of Resolution A161.  On the final legislative day, Resolution B033 was crafted and presented to a joint meeting of both Houses.  Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold urged both Houses to consider and pass it.  The House of Bishops adopted it and sent it to the House of Deputies for concurrence.  In a vote by orders, the Resolution passed by a very large margin.

 


The Challenge of Being Anglican Today

Reflections on the Anglican Communion

By the Archbishop of Canterbury

June 27, 2006

 

As you will see by the date, this seven-page reflection was published a week following the adjournment of General Convention.  After reflecting on the nature of the Anglican Communion, Abp. Williams reminds the reader that there currently is no “covenant” as a basis for the Anglican Communion (nor has there ever been such a covenant).  “The idea of a ‘covenant’ between local Churches . . . seems to [him] the best way forward.”

 

Perhaps the “new” idea in the Archbishop’s reflection is his discussion of levels of relatedness, based on a Province’s acceptance of a covenant.  He posits the idea of “constituent” Churches (in full covenant) and “churches in association,” who are not so closely linked and who (thus) are not in full membership.

 

 

Report of the Communion Sub-Group

To the Anglican Communion Joint Standing Committee

Of the Primates’ Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council

February 15, 2007

 

This is the report which was presented at the Primates’ Meeting at Tanzania (see below), attempting to evaluate the actions of the 2006 General Convention.  Although the Windsor Report was addressed to the entire Anglican Communion, and although the entire Anglican Communion was asked to respond to the Windsor Report (with particular additional responses from the Anglican Church in Canada), this Report deals solely with The Episcopal Church and its recent General Convention.

 

The report of this Sub-Group indicated that “the response of the 75th General Convention to the Windsor Report as a whole in its resolutions was positive.”  The Sub-Group then went on to address three particular areas, which were highlighted by the Primates at their meeting in Dromatine in February of 2005.

 

Election of Bishops (living in a same-sex relationship) – The Sub-Group believes that Resolution B033 “has complied . . . with the request of the Primates.”

 

Public Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions – The Sub-Group notes two issues.  First, it recognizes that the Episcopal Church has never formally authorized such rites (since only General Convention has the power officially to authorize them, and that has never occurred).  It further recognizes (from the Primates’ Statement in 2003) that there can be “a breadth of private response to individual pastoral care.”  The “dissonance” is on two fronts.  First, in 2003, General Convention recognized that local faith communities within their common life were exploring and experiencing such rites (Resolution C051), and that General Convention has done nothing to check the development of such rites.  Secondly, such rites are “appearing,” and there are some bishops who are permitting their use.  The Windsor Report requested a complete moratorium on such rites.  The Sub-Group states that it “is therefore not at all clear whether, in fact, The Episcopal Church is living with the recommendations of the Windsor Report on this matter.”

 

Expression of Regret – The issue expressed by the Sub-Group revolves around “repentance” (see the “note” above at Resolution A160) and “the proper constraints of the bonds of affection.”  In the end, combined with Resolution B033 of General Convention, the Sub-Group believes “that the expression of regret is sufficient to meet the request of the primates.

 

Finally, the Report recognizes that the Anglican Church of Canada is still in the process of preparing its response, and “that other recommendations of the Windsor Report, addressed to other parts of the Communion, appear to have been ignored so far.”

 

 

The Primates’ Meeting – Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

February 19, 2007

Communique

 

This was the first meeting of the Primates following General Convention.  Their 10-page communiqué addresses many issues multiple times.  Since the Primates’ Meeting is now claiming for itself the authority to be the final arbiter over controversies in the Anglican Communion and over the interpretation and response to the Windsor Report, the summary below is fairly extensive.

 

Following through the Windsor Report – The Primates rehearse history since 1998, including the assertion that it is “quite clear . . . that the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10 is the standard of teaching.”

 

The Listening Process – The Primates note the progress in the “listening process” set forth in 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10 [but largely ignored], and that we are being moved forward finally by action of the Anglican Consultative Council at its 2005 meeting.

 

Panel of Reference – The Primates are thankful for the formation of this group, whose purpose is to assure the Communion of the “adequacy of pastoral provisions made by any [dissenting] churches,” and to address “groups in serious theological dispute with their diocesan bishop, or dioceses in dispute with their Provinces.”

 

The Anglican Covenant – The Bishops commend the work of the Covenant Design Group, whose task is to draft an Anglican Covenant, which each Province (presumably) would need to adopt in order to continue to remain a member of the Anglican Communion.  The Primates look forward to the conclusion of the formulation of such a Covenant, anticipating that the final step will be its approval by the Anglican Consultative Council at its next meeting.

 

The Episcopal Church – The Primates stated:

  • “The Episcopal Church has taken seriously the recommendation of the Windsor Report.”
  • “We believe that there remains a lack of clarity . . . [regarding] its position on the authorization of Rites of Blessing for persons living in same-sex unions.”
  • “Some of us believe that Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention does not in fact give us the assurances requested in the Windsor Report” [even though the Sub-Group above in fact did affirm that the response from The Episcopal Church had complied with request of the Primates].
  • There continue to be “dissenting groups” in the Churches.  The Primates recognized that there have been “interventions” to provide pastoral care to “dissenting groups;” such interventions have “exacerbated this situation,” but the Primates did not request that such interventions cease [even though that clearly was requested in the Windsor Report].

 

The Future

  • The Primates look forward to the eventual establishment of an Anglican Convenant
  • The Primates clearly understand that they are the arbiters of the Windsor Document, stating that “it seems that the recommendations of the Windsor Report, as interpreted by the Primates’ Statement at Dromantine, are the most clear and comprehensive principles on which our common life may be re-established.”  The Primates make the following urgent requests:
  • First, those of the Primates who have lost trust in The Episcopal Church need to be reassured that there is a genuine readiness in The Episcopal Church to embrace fully the recommendations of the Windsor Report.
  • Second, those Primates who have intervened with pastoral care to dissenting groups have permission to continue to intervene until there is a “robust scheme” of pastoral oversight for dissenting groups in The Episcopal Church.
  • Third, the Primates recognize that some in The Episcopal Church have “lost trust in the Primates and bishops of certain of our Provinces” due to the interventions.  However, the Primates believe that such interventions are the primary means of coercing The Episcopal Church to move in the direction that the Primates desire.

 

Foundations – A number of additional matters are discussed following the body of the communiqué under “The Key Recommendations of the Primates.  The first is “Foundations.”  Here, the Primates emphasize the need to

  • Affirm the Windsor Report and Resolution 1.10, Lambeth, 1998, as the standard of teaching commanding respect across the Communion;
  • Set in place an Anglican Covenant;
  • Encourage healing and reconciliation within The Episcopal Church, among the dissenting groups, and throughout the Anglican Communion;
  • Respect the proper constitutional autonomy of all the Churches of the Anglican Communion;
  • Provide pastoral care to dissenting groups.

 

A Pastoral Council

  • The Primates will establish a Pastoral Council to act on behalf of the Primates in consultation with The Episcopal Church.  (Note:  This is not a suggestion or an idea; it is an action.  The Episcopal Church is not invited to approve it, or to offer suggestions.)
  • The Pastoral Council will consist of up to five members (two nominated by the Presiding Bishop, two by the Primates, and one by the Archbishop of Canterbury).
  • The Pastoral Council will be the ultimate authority in carrying out the Primates’ mandate to provide and evaluate structures for provision of pastoral care to dissenting groups in The Episcopal Church. 

 

A Pastoral Scheme

  • A Primatial Vicar will be nominated by the so-called “Camp Allen Bishops,” in consultation with the Primates’ Pastoral Council (see above) and with the consent of the Presiding Bishop.
  • The Primatial Vicar will have specific powers delegated to him by the Presiding Bishop, and will ultimately be responsible to the Primates’ Pastoral Council.
  • This Primatial Vicar will have direct pastoral oversight with the dissenting groups.
  • When this scheme “is recognized to be fully operational, the Primates [will] undertake to end all interventions.”
  • The Primates anticipate that AMiA and CANA will have a role in the continuing pastoral care of dissenting groups.

 

On Clarifying the Response to Windsor – The Primates issued an ultimatum to the House of Bishops, demanding a response by September 30, 2007:

  • Make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorize any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their diocese or through General Convention;
  • Confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for Episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent for consecration.

 

On property disputes – The Primates urge The Episcopal Church to suspend all actions in law arising with dissenting groups.

 

Postscript – As you read this document,

  • Note the authority and the position of moral arbiter which the Primates’ Meeting claims for itself (even though this is the youngest of the four Instruments of Unity).
  • Note that the recommendations of the Communion Sub-Group (February 15, 2007) were almost completely overturned by the Primates.
  • Note that the Primates are seeking a response from the House of Bishops rather than the General Convention (which alone has the authority to speak for The Episcopal Church).
  • Finally, note the “ultimatum” tone of the communiqué.

 

 

House of Bishops Meeting – The Episcopal Church

March 20, 2007 (Salt Lake City, Utah)

Resolutions

 

Congratulations, if you’ve made it this far!!  The House of Bishops met a month after the ending of the Primates’ Meeting.  Three resolutions were adopted.  The first two are quoted in full.  The third is lengthy, and takes the form of a pastoral letter.  Its content is summarized.

 

Mind of the House of Bishops Resolution Addressed to the Executive Council of TEC

Resolved, the House of Bishops affirms its desire that The Episcopal Church remain a part of the councils of the Anglican Communion; and

Resolved, the meaning of the Preamble to the Constitution of The Episcopal Church is determined solely by the General Convention of The Episcopal Church; and

Resolved, the House of Bishops believes the proposed Pastoral Scheme of the Dar es Salaam Communiqué of February 19, 2007 would be injurious to The Episcopal Church and urges that the Executive Council decline to participate in it; and

Resolved, the House of Bishops pledges itself to continue to work to find ways of meeting the pastoral concerns of the Primates that are compatible with our own polity and canons.

 

Note – In the resolution, the House of Bishops rejected the portion of the communiqué from the Primates’ Meeting (Tanzania, 2007) which called for a Pastoral Council as well as for a Primatial Vicar to oversee a proposed Pastoral Scheme for The Episcopal Church.

 

To the Archbishop of Canterbury and the members of the Primates’ Standing Committee

We, the Bishops of The Episcopal Church, meeting in Camp Allen, Navasota, Texas, March 16-21, 2007, have considered the requests directed to us by the Primates of the Anglican Communion in the Communiqué dated February 19, 2007.

Although we are unable to accept the proposed Pastoral Scheme, we declare our passionate desire to remain in full constituent membership in both the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church.

We believe that there is an urgent need for us to meet face to face with the Archbishop of Canterbury and members of the Primates' Standing Committee, and we hereby request and urge that such a meeting be negotiated by the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church and the Archbishop of Canterbury at the earliest possible opportunity.

We invite the Archbishop and members of the Primates' Standing Committee to join us at our expense for three days of prayer and conversation regarding these important matters.

 

Note – On a number of occasions, The Episcopal Church and the House of Bishops have invited the Archbishop of Canterbury to make an official visit.  He has consistently been unavailable.  This past April 16, he announced that he would accept the invitation of the House of Bishops to meet with them at their meeting in New Orleans on September 20-25.  A number of Anglican Bishops (including Primates) worldwide have condemned him for accepting this invitation.

 

A Communication to The Episcopal Church from the March 2007 Meeting of the House of Bishops

This Communication, in the form of a pastoral letter, the House of Bishops

  • Reaffirms its deep desire to remain in the Anglican Communion,
  • Summarizes the “good faith” responses that The Episcopal Church has made to the requests of its Anglican partners since General Convention 2003:

1)  Development of Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight at the House of Bishops meeting in March, 2004, which received a favorable response from the Windsor Report, but which was rejected by the Primates;

2)  Adopted a Covenant Statement at the House of Bishops meeting in March, 2005, to reaffirm a commitment to the Windsor Report and to cease consents for elections of bishops, again rejected by the Primates;

3)  Struggled at General Convention in 2006 to respond to the Windsor Report; although the Communion Sub-Group found that these efforts had largely met the requests of the Windsor Report, they were rejected by the Primates;

  • Notes that, although 1988 and 1998 Lambeth Resolutions and the Windsor Report clearly call for boundary violations to cease, the Tanzania Communique rejects these Resolutions and the request of the Windsor Report, stating that only when the Primates’ conditions are met will they consider ceasing these violations.
  • Sets forth five reasons why the House of Bishops believes that the Pastoral Scheme delineated in the Tanzania Communique would be injurious to The Episcopal Church