Posted on 10/18/2004 4:49:12 AM PDT by good_fight
The long-awaited Windsort Report, the result of the year-long Eames Commission study on "unity" within the Anglican Communion after the Episcopal Church (USA) ordained an openly-gay, non-celibate bishop, has be released.
From the Windsor Report:
134. Mindful of the hurt and offence that have resulted from recent events [ordination of Gene Robinson], and yet also of the imperatives of communion - the repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ - we have debated long and hard how all sides may be brought together. We recommend that:
the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached in the events surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire, and for the consequences which followed, and that such an expression of regret would represent the desire of the Episcopal Church (USA) to remain within the Communion
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. We urge this in order to create the space necessary to enable the healing of the Communion. We advise that in the formation of their consciences, those involved consider the common good of the Anglican Communion, and seek advice through their primate and the Archbishop of Canterbury. We urge all members of the Communion to accord appropriate respect to such conscientious decisions
the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at windsor2004.anglicancommunion.org ...
Bump.
So instead of believing and adhereing to God's word this church is going to have a moratorium?
The text of the report was just released an hour ago. I've not studied it fully, but -- yes -- your interpretation does seem right to me.
I had expected stronger language, based one earlier discussions of the report's contents.
(By the way -- please forgive the typos in my initial post. A moderator will be along to correct them shortly. I got up a 4AM local time to get a copy of the report and my spelling suffered.)
Ahhh... corrections have been made. Thanks, moderator!
The first offense committed, in my mind, was that here was man of the cloth, seeking a position of bishop of a church living in open sin. The offense of adultery or promiscuity should have been the premiere item, not who it was with. The second offense committed was the gender issue, which is clearly addressed (spoken against) in both the OT & NT. The first offense, in itself, should have negated any consideration for appointment. The second should have been the nail in the coffin that sealed him against appointment.
Yes, this is no departure from the norm, as far as I can see. The only interesting part now is how the ECUSA responds to the "invitations" it has been given. I suspect "business as usual".
This IS strong language for Anglicans. They are saying,"Golly, we think you ought to consider saying your'e really sorry, and you ought to think about not doing it again until the ripples subside." A major aspect of Anglican behavior is to avoid making a statement which unequivocally takes a stand one way or another -- except for certain tenets of liberal social theory. So for the council to say that they definitely think it might be a good idea to apologize is a bold step -- for them.
And you can bet the cries of outrage, expressed politely and quietly, of course, and hedged about with provisos and temporizations, will be courteously deafening. And nothing will change.
Who me (former Episcopal priest)? Bitter? Why would you say that?
I'd be laughing, if I didn't feel like crying. The Anglican "via media" as formulated by Hooker, et. al. has degenerated into a "split the difference and be nice" rhetorical mushpot.
I'm sure that Griswold, Spong, Robinson, Louie Crew et al. will willingly do this at the gracious "invitation" of the Eames Commission -- NOT!
I agree with you completely and will go one step further. I think that the ECUSA has far too casual an attitude toward divorced bishops (and clergy in general).
So Vicky Gene is unsuitable on at least three counts to me. Where I play ball, it's three strikes and you're out.
The Presiding Bishop of the ECUSA offers this response to the Windsor Report:
The Report makes demands on all of us, regardless of where we may stand, and is grounded in a theology of reconciliation and an understanding of communion as the gift of the triune God. It is therefore an invitation for all of us to take seriously the place in which we presently
find ourselves but to do so with a view to a future yet to be revealed.
Here I am put in mind of the words of Archbishop Eames in the Foreword to the Report. “This Report is not a judgment. It is part of a process. It is part of a pilgrimage towards healing and reconciliation.” It
is my earnest prayer that we will undertake this pilgrimage in a spirit of generosity and patient faithfulness, not primarily for the sake of our church and the Anglican Communion but for the sake of the world our Lord came among us to save.
Full text of his "Word to the Church" can be found at:
http://demo.episcopalchurch.org/3577_52922_ENG_HTM.htm?menu=undefined
When Lambeth adopted artificial contraception in the 1920s, it finally surrendered all pretenses of apostolic authority. This is simply more of the same, only even more obvious in heterodoxy.
ping
I had expected stronger language, based one earlier discussions of the report's contents.
A note on strength of language: to non-Americans, the language in this report is very strong indeed. It's merely politely strong. The direct mention of names and actions, in connection with condemnations and consequences, is precisely what we've been hoping for.
Just scanning, mind you, but it seems that the report has some real teeth. If you look at Section D of the report, it lays out a pretty strong case against ECUSA, and also what to do about it. One problem is, as the report lays out in detail, there's not much that can formally be done, because there is not much to define how or whether a province is within the communion. The report's major findings are centered around this current weakness of the Communion structures.
Thus, in the "Instruments of Unity" section (Section C) I saw two biggies: first, they lay the groundwork for the ABC to decide who can, and cannot, attend Communion meetings. Second, they call on all provinces to enter into an Anglican Covenant, which basically says that each province has to get "permission" from the rest of the Communion before embarking on some new thing. This lays some real foundations for the Communion being something more than the quasi-voluntary association that it currently is.
Second, they do lay out some immediate consequences, of precisely the form that has been predicted. The key section is Paragraph 134, which basicall says (all diplomatic language aside), "repen, and you're not invited to participate in Communion gatherings until you do."
Given the lack of inter-provincial authority (which the suggested exercise of authority by the ABC, and the Anglican Covenants are supposed to address), that's about as far as they can go. However, there is also the question of consequences, and they're discussed in paragraph 157, which basically says that if the provinces can't act in communion, "we shall have to begin to learn to walk apart." What that means, in layman's terms, is: somebody may have to leave.
Finally, the report lays out the fundamental problem underlying the whole shebang: there is no general agreement on what the "Authority of Scripture" really means. This is a true statement -- it needs to be agreed upon -- and each province has to apply that agreed-upon meaning -- so that the various instruments of unity have a real Scriptural foundation.
Overall, the report is pretty much what I expected to see.
What I also expect, is that the ECUSA will try to defend itself as per paragraph 135, which calls on ECUSA to make a real Scriptural case for its departure from the rest of the Communion. Their report (if it's issued at all) will most likely be shredded, and the ECUSA will not repent (as per para. 134). Thus, the "walking apart" in 157 will eventually come to pass.
In that vein, I think the section "On care of dissenting groups" ends up being the instrument by which a) the heretical bishops depart, and are b) replaced by orthodox structures.
Correct. And thus we look at Paragraph 110:
At present, there is some lack of clarity about the level of discretion that the Archbishop has with respect to invitations to the Lambeth Conference and to the Primates’ Meeting. This Commission is of the opinion that the Archbishop has the right to call or not to call to these gatherings whomsoever he believes is appropriate, in order to safeguard, and take counsel for, the well-being of the Anglican Communion.
As I noted above: if you look at this report carefully, it's a pretty good smack-down of the ECUSA. The deal is, though, that the Commission has taken the approach that it's still possible for the ECUSA to repent and rejoin -- but they have to provide a means by which that process can happen.
Will ECUSA repent? I doubt it. So the "we'd rather not consider it" portion of para. 157 will eventually have to be defined.
Kerry sounds like an Anglican.
Boy, Griswold is a master of obfuscation and befuddled speaking. He's like one of those good old-line Communists who could spout reams of meaningless Marxist dialectics at the drop of a hat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.