The Case For Discipline

The Windsor Report makes three specific recommendations regarding the Episcopal Church. First, the Report recommends that:

As the authors of the Windsor Report acknowledge in paragraph 157, the Windsor Report recommendations remain merely recommendations until accepted by the primates.

And, as The Most Reverend Dr. Robin Eames noted in his introduction to the Windsor Report, “The Lambeth or Windsor Commission was established in October 2003 by the Archbishop of Canterbury at the request of the Anglican primates.”

The Windsor Commission obviously recognized that until such time as these three recommendations might be received and accepted by the primates that they would remain mere recommendations.

In February 2005, the primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury met at Dromantine to receive and consider the Windsor Report recommendations. At the end of their meeting they issued a Communique in which they accepted most of the recommendations of the Windsor report including the three requests or invitations above.

The Episcopal Church began her response to the Windsor Report at the meeting of the House of Bishops in March of 2005 subsequent to the primates meeting in Dromantine in February and prior to the meeting of the ACC in June.

The Case For Discipline Part 2: A Petulant Response

However inadequate, this action by the HOB demonstrates, despite protestations to the contrary, that the bishops themselves possess the power and authority to bring the Episcopal Church into conformity with the second Windsor request (regarding episcopal consecrations) by simply agreeing to a specific moratorium applying solely to non-celibate homosexual candidates to the office of bishop and by making this specific moratorium contingent upon the mind of the communion rather than the timing of General Convention. The bishops of the Episcopal Church, then, have the authority and have always had the authority, to deny consent to non-celibate homosexual candidates for episcopal office...

The Episcopal Church began her response to the Windsor Report at a meeting of the House of Bishops in March of 2005 subsequent to the primates meeting in Dromantine in February and prior to the meeting of the ACC in June.

The House of Bishops issued a Covenant Statement on March 15th which stated the following:

“We express our own deep regret for the pain that others have experienced with respect to our actions at the General Convention of 2003 and we offer our sincerest apology and repentance for having breached our bonds of affection by any failure to consult adequately with our Anglican partners before taking those actions (HOB 2005, para 2)”

This expression of regret was an attempt to answer the invitation articulated in WR paragraphs 134 and 144. But it was inadequate in that it did not publicly recognize and express regret that “the events surrounding the election and consecration of the bishop of New Hampshire” had breached the bonds of affection. Rather, the bishops expressed regret for causing others pain, apologized and even “repented,” for breaching the bonds of affection by “any failure” to adequately consult with their Anglican partners.

This expression of repentance did not specifically acknowledge the actions, identified by the primates, which led to the breach for which the bishops suggested they were truly sorry. The House of Bishop’s expression failed because it was both non-specific and non-committal.

The Bishops also made the following commitment:

Those of us having jurisdiction pledge to withhold consent to the consecration of any person elected to the episcopate after the date hereof until the General Convention of 2006, and we encourage the dioceses of our church to delay episcopal elections accordingly(HOB 2005 para 3)

This commitment represented an attempt to answer the invitations articulated in paragraph 134 of the Windsor Report. However, the bishops did not commit to withhold consent to non-celibate homosexual candidates for consecration to the office of bishop. Rather they committed to withhold consent to all candidates for consecration in general.

While this certainly resulted in a temporary moratorium until the 75th General Convention as called for in WR134, it did so by unnecessarily prohibiting all episcopal consents. Moreover, the HOB moratorium ends with and is contingent upon the actions of General Convention 2006 rather than the more open ended moratorium called for in the Windsor Report contingent on “the mind of the communion.”

However inadequate, this action by the HOB demonstrates, despite protestations to the contrary, that the bishops themselves possess the power and authority to bring the Episcopal Church into conformity with the second Windsor request (regarding episcopal consecrations) by simply agreeing to a specific moratorium applying solely to non-celibate homosexual candidates to the office of bishop and by making this specific moratorium contingent upon the mind of the communion rather than the timing of General Convention.

The bishops of the Episcopal Church, then, have the authority and have always had the authority, to deny consent to non-celibate homosexual candidates for episcopal office.

Finally the House of Bishops pledged:

not to authorize any public rites for the blessing of same sex unions, and we will not bless any such unions, at least until the General Convention of 2006.

The bishops prefaced this pledge with the dubious claim that contrary to the assertions of the Windsor Report, the Episcopal Church had not “authorized any such liturgies” nor had she authorized the development of such liturgies. This denial, which when compared to C051 (GC2003) is hardly sustainable, nevertheless constitutes an explicit recognition on the part of the House of Bishops that the Windsor Report not only recommends a moratorium on the authorization of the development of public rites, but that it also recommends a moratorium on the actual celebration of those rites.

This recognition is made more plain and evident in the bishop's subsequent pledge “not to authorize any public rites…and…not bless any such unions.”

As before, this final pledge is linked not to the mind of the communion but to the date of General Convention.

The House of Bishops obviously failed to adequately respond to the three primary Windsor requests.

And yet as inadequate as the House of Bishops actions were they represent the closest the Episcopal Church has ever come to adequately answering and meeting the requests of the Windsor Report as accepted by the primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury at Dromantine and the ACC in Nottingham.

The 75th General Convention met in June of 2005. The Special "Commission" on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion (SCECAC) had been appointed prior to Convention to formulate and submit a number of resolutions answering the Windsor requests. These recommendations were in turn submitted to the Special "Committee" on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion (again, SCECAC) which met at General Convention. The Special Committee met with the purpose of editing, amending and perhaps re-crafting the submissions provided by the Commission and in submitting them to the Convention floor for debate and action.

The Committee produced a number of Windsor related resolutions.

Resolution A159, for example, entitled: “Commitment to Interdependence in the Anglican Communion” concurred or “passed” through both houses reaffirmed, ”the abiding commitment” of the Episcopal Church to the Anglican Communion and to the see of Canterbury and, as a demonstration of that commitment, pledged to explore ways that representative from other provinces might participate in the work or at least observe the work of standing commissions in the Episcopal Church.

Resolution A165 committed the Episcopal Church to engage in the “listening process” as described in Lambeth98 resolution 1.10 and urged the rest of the Communion to do likewise.

A166 articulated support for the Anglican Communion Covenant creation process and committed resources to that end.

Both A165 and A166 (along with A159 above) passed easily through both houses.

The first substantive response, however, is found in Resolution A160 which is General Convention’s answer to the first Windsor request articulated above: an invitation to express regret:

A160 (Concurred): 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.

The language of the Windsor request is as follows:

“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,” (WR 134)

The language of the Windsor request requires a public admission and expression of regret 1. that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were “breached” in the events surrounding the election and consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire and 2. for the consequences which followed.

Resolution A160 fails to comply with the Windsor recommendations on several levels.

First, A160 fails to publicly admit that the proper constraints bonds of affection were “breached.” Rather, A160 asserts that they were only “strained” despite the clear warning of the primates in October of 2003 that the consecration of V. Gene Robinson would cause a tear in the fabric of the communion at its deepest level.

Second A160 fails to specify which events in particular caused the breach. It generally points to the “events surrounding the General Convention of 2003” but does not mention the consent to the election of the bishop of New Hampshire which was given in that venue as specified by the Windsor Request.

Third, by pointing generally to the events surrounding General Convention rather than the events surrounding the election, consent and consecration of the bishop of New Hampshire, resolution A160, significantly, excludes the consecration itself which took place in November 2003, approximately three months after the “events General Convention” were long over. Perhaps the event of the consecration might be identified by implication in the phrase, “and consequences which followed,” but such an implication is impossibly oblique and thus such a reading tenuous at best. The phrase seems far more consistent as a referent to the consequent “strain” in relations.

Fourth, the apology offered in the second half of the resolution “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” recognizes that some were offended and, further, recognizes that the Episcopal Church did not accord sufficient importance to the impact of her actions. But the strength and adequacy of this apology is significantly reduced because the nature of the “impact” to which it refers is cast in doubt by the context of the preceding sentences discussed above. Given its context, at best the expression represents an apology for taking actions without due consideration that ended up “straining” the proper constraints of the bonds of affection.

Finally, the explanation makes it clear that this resolution’s expression of regret “concurs with and affirms the language” of the House of Bishop’s expression of regret which, as we have already seen, is itself inadequate.

Though clearly inadequate, Resolution A160 won approval in both the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops.

Tomorrow we will closely examine the floor debate and ultimate rejection of omnibus resolution A161 which sought to address same sex blessings and the consecration of bishops, the explicit rejection of a substitute motion containing precise Windsor language, and the final acceptance of B033...

The Case For Discipline Part 3: Rejecting the Call

With the House of Deputy’s rejection of Resolution A161 and the substitute resolution which specifically employed Windsor language, it is clear that the Episcopal Church, as an official body, has rejected the call of the Anglican Communion to halt the development of rites for same sex blessings and the celebration of the same until such time as there is a change in mind of the communion.

Following the passage of A160 and after much debate, the Special Committee on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion (SCECAC) presented Resolution A161 to the floor of Convention. The resolution was an omnibus resolution. It included in various “resolve clauses” answering the remaining two Windsor requests. Here it is in full:

A161 Election of Bishops

Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, that the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church regrets the extent to which we have, by action and inaction, contributed to strains on communion and caused deep offense to many faithful Anglican Christians as we consented to the consecration of a bishop living openly in a same-gender union. Accordingly, we are obliged to urge nominating committees, electing conventions, Standing Committees, and bishops with jurisdiction to refrain from the nomination, election, consent to, and consecration of bishops whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion; and be it further

Resolved that this General Convention not proceed to develop or authorize Rites for the Blessing of same-sex unions at this time, thereby concurring with the Windsor Report in its exhortation to bishops of the Anglican Communion to honor the primates’ Pastoral Letter of May 2003; and be it further

Resolved that this General Convention affirm the need to maintain a breadth of responses to situations of pastoral care for gay and lesbian Christians in this Church.

Resolved that this General Convention apologize to those gay and lesbian Episcopalians and their supporters hurt by these decisions.

EXPLANATION
The Windsor Report has invited the Episcopal Church 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" (Windsor Report 134). Within the parameters set by our Constitution and Canons, this resolution frames a response encouraging caution regarding "nomination, election, consent to, and consecration of bishops whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion." The resolution does not specify what constitutes a "manner of life" that "presents a challenge to the wider church;" we leave this to the prayerful discernment of those involved in nominating, electing, and consecrating bishops. Concerns we discussed were by no means limited to the nature of the family life; for example, the potential of bishops to serve effectively as pastors for all within their diocese, and their level of commitment to respect the dignity of and strive for justice for all people are also relevant. Finally, the Special Commission was not of one mind on the use of the words "exercise very considerable caution in," with some instead recommending the words "refrain from." As a group and in a spirit of cooperation and generosity, however, we decided to offer the resolution as it stands for debate at the 75th General Convention.

This resolution fails in many ways.

First, resolution A161 adopts the inadequate language of A160, referring to bonds which have been “strained” rather than breached (see my argument in part 2 of this series where I deal specifically with the language of A160).

Second, the resolution fails to specifically identify, “non-celibate candidates living in same sex relationships” in keeping with the Windsor Report (see part 1) and refers instead to any candidate whose, “manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church.”

As the explanation notes, the lack of specific Windsor language was purposeful. The generality was meant to provide space for diocesan nominating committees and conventions to “prayerfully consider” for themselves what sort of lifestyle might pose a “challenge” to the wider church.

One primary purpose of the Windsor Report and the Dromantine Communique was to deny the very space this resolution seeks to create.

Third, there is a certain level of condescension in the word “challenge.” The word suggests that the rest of the world is somehow not “ready” to embrace the prophetic call to include people living in non-celibate homosexual relationships that the Episcopal Church has already embraced.

The second resolve clause seems to place a moratorium on both the authorization of the development of public rites for same sex unions and the authorization of the use of such rites. However, the third resolve casts doubt on the meaning of the second. What precisely does it mean to “maintain a breadth of responses to situations of pastoral care for gay and lesbian Christians in this Church”?

If the subsequent actions of various bishops and dioceses are any indications, it means to authorize and develop public rites for the blessing of same sex unions.

The debate within the SCECAC is instructive. At one point, Michael Howell moved that resolution A161, in keeping with the House of Bishop’s “Covenant Statement”, be articulated in such a way that it might represent a moratorium not only the development of public rites, but on the celebration of the same. His motion was debated by the committee (see notes taken during this debate) and ultimately rejected by a vote of 7 yeas to 11 nays. One member of the committee, the Rev. Ian Douglas, noted that any language which absolutely forbade the celebration of non-celibate same sex unions would cause him to “walk apart.”

It was clearly the intention of the committee that “space” be provided for same sex blessings to take place as a “pastoral response.”

The debate on the floor of the House of Deputies was quite telling. Ultimately A161 was rejected by the House of Deputies. Here are the vote totals:

LAY: 38 yes 53 no 18 divided: Motion fails
CLERGY: 44 yes 53 no 14 divide Motion fails

Since a resolution must be passed by both houses to take effect, Resolution A161 died in the House of Deputies.

During the debate Deputy Christopher Cantrell offered a substitute resolution that employed the precise wording of the Windsor Report:

Resolved, the house of--------concurring, That the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church “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 [and unless] some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges” (WR134) and be it further

Resolved that the 75th GC effect a moratorium on the authorizing of all public rites of blessing of same sex unions (WR 144), and be it further

Resolved that the 75th GC call upon those bishops who have authorized public rites for blessing same sex unions, “because of the serious repercussions in the Communion…to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorization” (WR144)

After a good deal of debate the substitute resolution was rejected as “unconstitutional” by the parliamentarian who claimed that General Convention does not have the constitutional authority to “effect” moratoria named in the substitute. Thus the entire substitute was also deemed out of order (see notes from the House of Deputies floor debate).

Lest this decision be seen as not reflecting the mind of the wider body, The Rev. Dr. Kendall Harmon rose to challenge the decision of the parliamentarian. Here are notes from his remarks:

Harmon: First, when a community wants to do something it can do it. The House of Bishops did it a year ago. Second Before we left for lunch the ruling was that the first resolve was not in order but the second and third resolves stand. Now the ruling is that the first resolve is out of order so they are all out of order. The problem is that all three resolves use similar language.

A successful challenge to a parliamentarian ruling requires a simple majority of the House of Deputies.

Dr. Harmon’s challenge failed.

A majority of the House of Deputies concurred with the decision of the parliamentarian and refused to consider a resolution that employed the precise language of the Windsor Report.

After the failure of A161, there was a general sense of chaos on the floor. It was recognized by many that if the defeat of A161 were to stand that this would represent a decision to “walk apart” from the communion.

Overnight another resolution was drafted by several bishops. It was, by the somewhat contested use of a special rule, introduced to both houses at the same time during a special session of General Convention by the presiding bishop accompanied by the presiding bishop elect. Both leaders urged passage of the following 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.

As was the case with resolution A161, resolution B033 fails to adequately answer the Windsor recommendations as accepted by the primates at Dromantine.

Most significantly, the second resolve in A161 which called on the General Convention to refrain from the authorization of public rites for same sex unions and the authorization of the development of the same is completely omitted from B033.

There is no official answer to the Windsor Report request regarding rites for same sex blessings.

Subsequently it has been argued that the General Convention had never authorized such actions in the first place and thus there was no need to specifically urge the Convention to refrain from them.

However, a brief perusal of C051 (see part 1 linked above) makes it abundantly clear that the General Convention had previously affirmed both the “exploration” and the “experience” of such rites as taking place legitimately “within the bounds of the common life of the Episcopal Church.”

Moreover, in March of 2005, the House of Bishops, while also asserting that rites had not been authorized nevertheless went on to place a temporary moratorium on both the development of Rites for same sex blessings and the authorization of the celebration of such rites.

The bishops understood this moratorium as a specific answer to the Windsor requests. In other words, despite the fact that the bishops disagreed with the assertion of the Windsor Commission and the primates that such rites had been developed and authorized, they at least made an effort to appear to comply.

B033 doesn’t even bother.

Moreover, the moratorium adopted by the House of Bishops in March 2005 was timed to last “at least until” the outset of the 75th General Convention. But, as we see, the moratorium was not adopted by General Convention and the House of Bishops did not extend it. The House of Bishops Moratorium on same sex blessings and the development of rites for same sex blessings has, therefore, expired.

The Episcopal Church has not simply refused to adequately answer the Windsor request articulated in paragraph 144 of the Windsor Report, it has refused to offer an official answer at all.

With the House of Deputy’s rejection of Resolution A161 and the substitute resolution which specifically employed Windsor language, it is clear that the Episcopal Church, as an official body, has rejected the call of the Anglican Communion to halt the development of rites for same sex blessings and the celebration of the same until such time as there is a change in mind of the communion.

With regard to the second Windsor request found in paragraph 133 of the Windsor Report, B033 largely repeats the inadequate answer contained in A161. While it calls on the proper authorities not to grant consent, it fails to specifically identify, “non-celibate candidates living in same sex relationships” referring instead to any candidate whose, “manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church.”

As I noted above, the explanation for this wording, as it is provided in resolution A161, is that the general rather than specific language is intended to provide space for diocesan nominating committees and conventions to “prayerfully” decide for themselves what sort of lifestyle might pose a “challenge” to the wider church.

Again, one primary purpose of the Windsor Report and the Dromantine Communique was to deny the very space this resolution seeks to create.

Conclusion: The Episcopal Church has failed to adequately respond to the Windsor requests as accepted by the primates of the Anglican Communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Anglican Consultative Council.

First, in resolution A160 the Episcopal Church fails to recognized and/or express regret for breaching the proper restraints of the bonds of affection in the events surrounding the election and consent to the consecration of the bishop of New Hampshire. The Episcopal Church admits to and regrets merely “straining” the bonds of affection, rejecting the call of the Windsor Report to specifically recognize and take responsibility for the events surrounding the election and consent to the consecration of V. Gene Robinson.

Second, in resolution B033, Episcopal Church has refused to call the proper bodies to place a specific moratorium on the nomination, election and/or consent to the consecration of a candidate for the office of bishop who is living in a non-celibate same sex relationship. Instead B033 calls on the various bodies to deny consent to the consecration of any candidate whose manner of life poses a “challenge” to the wider communion. Unfortunately, the resolution leaves it up to diocesan bodies (rather than the Windsor Report) to determine what manner of life would pose such a challenge.

Finally, the Episcopal Church, despite the promising action of the House of Bishops in March 2005, has utterly refused to address the third Windsor Request contained in paragraph 144 of the Windsor Report. Not only did General Convention fail to produce a resolution responding to this request, but the legislative body specifically rejected two resolutions (A161 and the Windsor language substitute offered by Deputy Cantrell) which offered somewhat positive responses. It is now possible to both authorize the development of rites for non-celibate same sex unions and to experience such rites legitimately within the boundaries of the common life of the Episcopal Church (C051)

It is difficult to see how any observer could fail to conclude that the Episcopal Church has willfully chosen to walk apart from the Anglican Communion.

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.