An internal conference of the Anglican Communion has reported to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Lambeth Commission’s Windsor Report is the next distinct escalation in the war of words over church policy and gays.
The report, published today, called on those in the US Episcopal Church who took part in a “deeply offensive” consecration of a gay bishop to apologise for their actions or withdraw from the Anglican Communion.
[…] In consecrating Bishop Robinson, the report said, the Episcopal bishops ?caused deep offence to many faithful
Anglican Christians.”
“[They] acted in the full knowledge that very many people in the Anglican Communion could neither recognise nor receive the ministry as a bishop in the church of God of a person in an openly acknowledged same-gender union.” The report called for the withdrawal from the communion of those who took part in the consecration if an apology was not forthcoming.
It also invited the Episcopal Church to call a moratorium on promoting any other person living in a same-gender union to the bishopric “until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges.”
“Pending such expression of regret, those who took part as consecrators of Gene Robinson should be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion,” the report said.
I can certainly see, from my own perspective, offering an apology. There is no doubt that the consecration of Bp. Robinson, even if in keeping with the canons of the Episcopal Church (fill in that debate here), was and could have been known to be something that many Anglican Communion leaders and laity would be offended by. The hurt caused by such an action is certainly something to be regretted, and such regrets can be offered without touching on the righteousness of the action involved.
Of course, that won’t satisfy folks who oppose the action, but …
The question, of course, is what this all means. The report can ask for all the apologies and moratoriums and so forth all it wants, but it’s not clear that the Episcopal Church can officially respond as a body until the next General Convention (Summer 2006), though the individuals involved can respond to it. Though Episcopal primate Bp. Frank Griswold has responded to some degree:
Griswold previously expressed regret for the turmoil and withdrew as co-chairman of an Anglican ecumenical body. “We regret how difficult and painful actions of our church have been in many provinces of our communion, and the negative repercussions that have been felt by brother and sister Anglicans,” he said Monday.
He did go on to note:
Griswold said his church was seeking to live the gospel “in a society where homosexuality is openly discussed and increasingly acknowledged.”
“Other provinces are also blessed by the lives and ministry of homosexual persons. I regret that there are places within our communion where it is unsafe for them to speak out of the truth of who they are,” Griswold said.
The report does cover a couple of other bases worth noting:
The Windsor Report also went on to criticise the demonising of homosexuality. It said: “Any demonising of homosexual persons, or their ill-treatment, is totally against Christian charity and basic principles of pastoral care.”
[…] The report also called on conservative bishops who have threatened a breakaway faction to apologise and to affirm their desire to remain within the communion.
The latter is also reported by AP as:
The report also called on conservative bishops — including some from Africa — who have offered to forge relationships with disaffected Episcopal congregations to desist from such activities, apologize and affirm their desire to remain within the Anglican Communion.
It further urged those archbishops and bishops who have intervened with Episcopal churches to seek an accommodation with the Episcopal bishop or bishops involved.
We’ll see how much play that gets in various coverage of the report.
Dave: The report, sadly, will accomplish nothing. Frank Griswold of ECUSA has already today expressed regret over the results of his actions but not over the actions themselves. Sort of an “I regret you feel that way about my behavior, but surely you cannot expect me to change at this point…..” That is all the pain ECUSA will feel from this report since there is nothing else of consequence required beyond the “statement of regret” delivered today.
But on your last point, you can be sure coverage of the report does indeed note the moral equivalence it exhibits between the firemen who come from afar who seek to rescue US victims and those who started this fire in NH and MN. “Apologies all round…..and now carry on!” says the report. Indeed, the harshest words in the report are reserved for the Third World Bishops who sought to toss a life preserver to American traditionalists.
Make no mistake: this report is very nearly an unvarnished victory for ECUSA and resounding loss for traditional Christian understanding of human sexuality. Traditionalist wrote the preamble and everything up until the consequences section, where ECUSA evidently wrested control of the pen. All the while while asserting and applauding the report’s “balance,” Rob O’Neill and the folks back at ECUSA HQ must be doing cartwheels…..
Blessings to all–we waited a year to move not an inch forward–Bob
Make no mistake: this report is very nearly an unvarnished victory for ECUSA and resounding loss for traditional Christian understanding of human sexuality. Traditionalist wrote the preamble and everything up until the consequences section, where ECUSA evidently wrested control of the pen. All the while while asserting and applauding the report’s “balance,” Rob O’Neill and the folks back at ECUSA HQ must be doing cartwheels…..
It’s difficult to think of what further the report *could* do, given the lack of actual central authority over the communion, aside from the indirect authority of who’s willing to stay in the room with whom. Which, perhaps, is a good model for Christianity.
If the central thrust of the AC report is to be on unity, then calling for apologies all around from those working in opposition to unity — be they folks in ECUSA who don’t give a damn what the rest of the AC thinks, or those outside the US who consider the concept of national/provincial churches tied to geographical boundaries to be passe (both of which are dangerous positions) — is about the only tack they could take.
The question, of course, is how far the priority on unity can reasonably trump the priority on understanding of other spiritual truths. Christians are called on to pursue both — but where we cannot be united doctrinally, one can hope that we will still be united in love for one another.