Diocesan News04 Nov 04

Bishop Miller's initial response to The Windsor Report

Bishop Miller's initial response to The Windsor Report
of the Lambeth Commission on Communion

by Harold Miller, Bishop of Down and Dromore

Thursday 28th October 2004

The Windsor Report was presented to the Anglican Communion on St Luke?s Day, 18 October 2004, just over a week ago. At that point, I made a personal decision not to comment publicly on it until I had the opportunity to read the report in full, and reflect on it. The Windsor Report does not lend itself to a précis, and the report itself does not include any simplistic ?bullet point? summary. Sadly and unhelpfully, some of the early responses, led off by Jack Spong in The Times, seemed to be knee-jerk reactions of those who were scouring the report for what they wanted it to say.

Nevertheless, one of the criticisms I most often receive is that bishops are not prepared to speak with clarity and leadership on these issues, and therefore I am making my initial reflections available at this point. .

First of all, I believe this is a first-rate report, given the parameters of what is possible within the Anglican Communion. Its structure is superb, beginning with a lengthy section which establishes, as well as I have ever seen it established, a biblical understanding of the communion which we believers have been given in Christ. At a time when our valued communion as Anglicans is threatened, it is important to establish exactly what communion is, how God has established it for Christians, and how it might be preserved in the life of the Church. Over the past months there had been thoughts that this Commission might offer us a model which is much less than communion - for example a ?federation? model - but this chapter makes it clear that we want nothing less for the church than the will of Jesus Christ for unity.

The report then goes on to use a medical analogy to understand the present situation, looking at the ?illness? which has befallen us. Basically the problem is defined as the fact that decisions about serious and contentious issues have been carried out by some parts of our Communion, without a full recognition of the expressed Anglican position. So some provinces have gone down a road of excessive autonomy which has not given enough weight to our interdependence. In strong words the report states: ?What is done in one place can and does affect all?. The two focal issues have been the consecration of Gene Robinson, a person who is in a publicly acknowledged homosexual relationship, to be Bishop of New Hampshire, and the blessing of same sex relationships, especially in the Canadian diocese of New Westminster.

The report correctly points out that these are areas in which the Communion has declared its view clearly through The Lambeth Conference, The Primates? Meeting and The Archbishop of Canterbury. Both churches concerned knew exactly what the views of the Communion were and were warned of the dangers of continuing down this path, but went ahead, knowing that in the unanimous warning of the Primates it could ?tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level?. The report also makes clear that it is not possible to have recourse to the doctrine of ?reception? in an area on which the church has clearly declared its mind.

The Windsor Report provides a way forward in this difficult situation, which I believe should be welcomed. First of all, there needs to be a recognition by those involved with regard to what has actually happened, and a recognition of the results of their actions.

The particular actions concerned are spelt out in black and white: The Episcopal Church (USA) proceeded with the consecration of Gene Robinson

1. The 74th Convention of the Episcopal Church (USA) declared that ?local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions?.


2. The Diocese of New Westminster approved of the use of public rites of Blessing for same sex unions.


3. The General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada issued a statement affirming the integrity and sanctity of committed same sex relationships.


4. A number of primates and other bishops have taken it upon themselves to intervene in the affairs of other provinces of the Communion.

It is important at this stage, in my view, to separate out the fifth of these from the others. One criticism which has been made of the report (eg by Ruth Gledhill in The Church of England Newspaper) is that it does not state clearly enough that the intervention of other primates and bishops has been of a different order to the other events, as it was essentially responsive to them. She says: ?it is like making the man who commits a crime in self -defence as guilty as the man who provoked the defence?. But the context in which the interventionist bishops appear in the report, and the relatively small amount of space given to their interventions do, in my view, establish both the order of the events, and the logical order in which the responses will need to be received. The first group we must hear from is ECUSA. We need the following from them, if this report is to be effective:

• An expression of ?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. It is vital to note that this expression of regret is placed in the context of ?the repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ?. The expressions of regret which were voiced very quickly after the report was issued were, in my view, inadequate; with their basic tenor ?We?re sorry if you?re hurt?. The statement of regret must specifically include a recognition of breaching the bonds of affection. It is also important to note that such a clear expression of regret would be taken as a sign of a desire to remain in the Communion. This of course, implies that, were such an expression of regret not forthcoming it would be an indication that there is not such a desire. Who can express this regret is an important question. It may need to be the General Convention.


• Pending such an expression, those who were involved as consecrators of Gene Robinson would be asked to withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion. The Presiding Bishop, Frank Griswold, who presided at the consecration, has already stepped down from his co-chairmanship of ARCIC (Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission).


• ECUSA would be invited to bring into effect a moratorium on the election and ratification of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union, and this moratorium would continue until ?some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges?. At this moment in time, it has to be said, such a consensus is most unlikely. Such a moratorium would, of course, represent the other aspect of repentance: the practical putting right of the situation.

The same kind of response is asked of the Diocese of New Westminster and in other dioceses where bishops have authorized rites of same sex blessing.

The Archbishop of Canterbury himself had stated with regard to these that:

?through liturgy we express what we believe, and? here is no theological consensus. Therefore, we as a body cannot support the authorization of such rites?.

The Windsor Report also draws attention to what it calls ?care of dissenting groups?. In North America, there are many individual Christians, parishes, and indeed dioceses which are not in agreement with developments which have been taking place. These are faithful Anglicans. They include our own companionship diocese of Albany, which voted at this year?s Convention to join the Network of Anglican Dioceses and Parishes. This is intended to be a support system, approved by the Archbishop of Canterbury, which will help dissenting parishes and dioceses. This section of the report encourages the present Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO) pattern which some bishops in ECUSA are operating, and others sadly have rejected. ?DEPO? preserves the role of the diocesan bishop, while allowing pastoral oversight to be delegated to another bishop for a period, where the ministry of the diocesan bishop is unacceptable. One of the things which will test the desire of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in Canada to be part of the Anglican Communion will be the way in which it respects and treats those within its own ranks who cannot accept the recent developments which have taken place. The Anglican world is looking on carefully to see what happens at this level.

The Windsor Report also asks that the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury be seen as more than a figurehead. He should be a ?focus of unity?. Rowan Williams will have many difficult decisions to make, some of which are focused in this report. For example, he will have to decide who is to be invited to Primates? Meetings and the Lambeth Conference in 2008. The suggestion is made that a Council of Advice be created to support him in his decision-making, though no worked-out pattern of how this council is to be chosen is given. Such a group would have to be chosen very carefully indeed, so that the power of choice was not given by default to people with power in the Anglican Communion Office or Lambeth, who may sometimes have particular interests. Another issue which is raised by enhanced authority being given to the Archbishop of Canterbury is the way in which the person in that office is chosen in the established Church of England, and the role of the Prime Minister (who might have any beliefs or none) in the selection. That is certainly a nettle which will need to be grasped in the future.

A new 'Covenant' has been drafted which would be a kind of ?canon law? for the Anglican Communion. This, after the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Communion Council and the Primates? Meeting, would be the fifth ?instrument of communion?. The draft in the report will be looked at by the Primates? Meeting which will take place here in Northern Ireland in February, and presumably honed at that time. Eventually, each autonomous province would have to sign up to the ?Covenant? in its entirety, and this would provide then an agreed means for dealing with how we live in an interdependent communion. It needs to be recognized that such a process could take up to ten years.

The Lambeth Commission on Communion was not asked to deal specifically with issues of homosexuality, except insofar as this particular subject has been the trigger for serious division within the Anglican Communion. Sometimes an impression is given that the Anglican Communion has nothing to say about the issue as such, or is seeking to avoid it. But the ?official? views of the Communion have been clearly stated in the famous Lambeth Resolution 1.10, which is appended to the report. We are often reminded (as though it is the forgotten part of the Resolution) that we are committed to a listening process. That is true, and the Church of Ireland bishops individually and corporately have been engaged in just such a process. But it may be useful to re-iterate the teaching of the Anglican Communion on the subject of homosexuality, in case there is any confusion:

• Marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union is upheld.


• Abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage.


• Many people with a homosexual orientation are members of the church, and are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God?s transforming power.


• Homosexual practice is incompatible with scripture.


• We need to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation.


• We condemn irrational fear of homosexuals (what some call ?homophobia?), violence within marriage and any trivialization and commercialization of sex.


• We cannot advise the legitimizing or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions.

In my view all these points are clear and easily understood, and there is no reason to be confused, therefore, about what the Anglican Communion teaches on this subject. At the Down and DromoreDiocesan synod last June, our diocese doubly committed itself to the teaching of Lambeth 1.10 in a resolution.

Overall, I am most impressed by The Windsor Report, and not least the work of our own Primate, Robin Eames, in chairing a very wide-ranging Commission and bringing it to an agreed mind. That fact alone should make us realize how important it is that the whole Communion gives the report the attention and serious consideration which it undoubtedly deserves. My prayer is that the Windsor Report will be fully implemented by all, and that the Anglican Communion which we hold dear would emerge strengthened in its commitment to the Lord of the Church, Jesus Christ.