This is the first part of what will be a fairly extensive analysis of the Dar Es Salaam Communiqué. I will focus as narrowly as possible on those parts of the Communique that deal specifically with the Windsor recommendations and the Episcopal Church. I will proceed paragraph by paragraph commenting, as best I can, on both the content and implication of each section.
As most readers at Stand Firm know, I believe this latest primatial Communique is very good news.
In fact, I think the struggle in Tanzania represents something of a Gettysburg moment for the Anglican Communion. The Battle of Gettysburg was closely fought, but it was decisive and ultimately determined the outcome of the Civil War.
I think Tanzania will prove just as decisive and just as determinative.
But that does, in some sense, depend on a correct understanding of what took place there and the decisions that were made.
It is to that end that I offer this study.
Part One:
Dar Es Salaam Communiqué Paragraphs 9-17
9. Since the controversial events of 2003, we have faced the reality of increased tension in the life of the Anglican Communion – tension so deep that the fabric of our common life together has been torn. The Windsor Report of 2004 described the Communion as suffering from an “illness”. This “illness” arises from a breakdown in the trust and mutual recognition of one another as faithful disciples of Christ, which should be among the first fruits of our Communion in Christ with one another.
Paragraph 9 re-affirms the truth articulated first by the primates in October 2003, that the “fabric of our common life has been torn.” It further goes on to employ the metaphor of illness for the breakdown in trust and mutual regard that has characterized relationships in the Anglican Communion since 2003. This illness is inconsistent with the “fruits” of true life in the Body of Christ.
10. The Windsor Report identified two threats to our common life: first, certain developments in the life and ministry of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada which challenged the standard of teaching on human sexuality articulated in the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10; and second, interventions in the life of those Provinces which arose as reactions to the urgent pastoral needs that certain primates perceived. The Windsor Report did not see a “moral equivalence” between these events, since the cross-boundary interventions arose from a deep concern for the welfare of Anglicans in the face of innovation. Nevertheless both innovation and intervention are central factors placing strains on our common life. The Windsor Report recognised this (TWR Section D) and invited the Instruments of Communion [1] to call for a moratorium of such actions [2] .
Paragraph ten isolates two “threats” or two sources of the disunity described in paragraph 9. It is vital to note that the Primates understand the Windsor Report to identify the actions of the Episcopal Church, her ongoing deviation from Lambeth98 resolution 1.10, as the primary “source” or cause of the present illness/division. Cross jurisdictional interventions came about as the result of the Episcopal Church’s decision to disregard Communion teaching and therefore there is no “moral equivalence” between the two “threats”.
This is an important point to make given that the Episcopal Church and her apologists often cite border crossings as the more egregious of the two sources of disunity. The Primates do in fact recognize that in 2004, the Windsor Report described cross-jurisdictional interventions as a “threat” to unity and called for a moratorium but they also note that the Report understands the divisive actions of the Episcopal Church to have preceded border crossings and to be the primary threat to Communion fellowship.
11. What has been quite clear throughout this period is that the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10 is the standard of teaching which is presupposed in the Windsor Report and from which the primates have worked. This restates the traditional teaching of the Christian Church that “in view of the teaching of Scripture, [the Conference] 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”, and applies this to several areas which are discussed further below. The Primates have reaffirmed this teaching in all their recent meetings [3], and indicated how a change in the formal teaching of any one Province would indicate a departure from the standard upheld by the Communion as a whole.
Paragraph 11 is perhaps the most important of all because it defines the entire Windsor Process as an attempt to uphold the teaching of the communion. The Windsor process, then, is identified in terms of discipline. Discipline is not necessarily punishment.
Discipline has to do with establishing right order and enacting appropriate consequences should that order willfully and defiantly be breached.
Lambeth Resolution 1.10 regarding human sexuality has been unilaterally set aside without consultation or consent from the rest of the Communion. Thus, it is Lambeth 1.10 that must be reestablished and maintained in order to restore the breach.
It is also vital to note that the primates are not simply interested in upholding institutional standards. Lambeth 1.10, as the wording of the resolution makes clear, reflects both the teaching of the Scriptures and the teaching of the Christian church. Anglicans give the Scriptures primary authority and then, within (but never beyond) the boundaries of biblical principles and teaching, the Church has the freedom to act.
What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth… (Laws, Book V, 8:2; Folger Edition 2:39,8-14)
The actions of the Episcopal Church in 2003 represented a violation first and foremost of biblical teaching and then the universal teaching of the “Christian Church.”
Note the word “Christian” in paragraph 11 and recognize the ecumenical thrust of this argument. The Episcopal Church has not only violated a Lambeth resolution. She has violated the universal teaching of Christendom.
Finally, as we progress through the document it is important to remember that the primates see the violation of the teaching of Lambeth 1.10 as core to our current turmoil. It should then be quite clear that when the primates call the bishops of the Episcopal Church to declare a moratorium on the authorization of same-sex blessings, they are interested in the cessation of same sex blessings altogether.
We must not permit the facile distinction between “allowing” and “authorizing” such rites to be taken seriously.
12. At our last meeting in Dromantine, the primates called for certain actions to address the situation in our common life, and to address those challenges to the teaching of the Lambeth Resolution which had been raised by recent developments. Now in Dar es Salaam, we have had to give attention to the progress that has been made.
Here the primates define the purpose of their meeting with regard to the Episcopal Church. They have come together to measure the “progress” made. The primates see the Windsor “process” as a process of accountability. The Episcopal Church is being held accountable to a standard.
The term, “Windsor process,” has been used by many leaders in the Episcopal Church to suggest that we are all on a journey together toward some final goal of social enlightenment. That is not true. The Episcopal Church has been called to conform to biblical and ecclesial standards. Now her “progress” toward conformity will be measured.
Paragraphs 13-16, deal with the Listening Process and the new draft of the Anglican Covenant. These are important matters but go beyond the scope of this analysis. So we pick up with paragraph 17 under the heading, “The Episcopal Church”
The Episcopal Church
17. At the heart of our tensions is the belief that The Episcopal Church [5] has departed from the standard of teaching on human sexuality accepted by the Communion in the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10 by consenting to the episcopal election of a candidate living in a committed same-sex relationship, and by permitting Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions. The episcopal ministry of a person living in a same-sex relationship is not acceptable to the majority of the Communion.
The first sentence of paragraph 17 reaffirms the Windsor Report’s identification of the Episcopal Church’s departure from Lambeth 1.10 as the primary source of discord, the “heart of our tensions”. The paragraph specifically identifies the election of a non-celibate homosexual candidate to the office of bishop and “permitting” rites of same sex blessings for same sex unions.
The word “permitting” is important. Some have, as I noted above, and, likely, many more will seek to draw a distinction between “allowing” and “authorizing” rites of same sex blessings. But a bishop cannot “allow”, nor can he “authorize”, same sex blessings without also “permitting” them. In other words, the expression, “permitting,” encompasses both “allowing” and “authorizing.”
Clearly, the fact that same-sex blessings take place at all is “unacceptable to the majority of the Communion”.
This wording may have wider implications for the Church of England as well as for the Episcopal Church. Notice the distinction between rites for same sex blessings and same sex unions. It could be that the primates are here acknowledging that some governments have and will legally recognize same sex unions. But the majority of the primates believe that this secular practice need not and ought not receive ecclesial sanction.
Second, some have wondered why there is no (and never has been) mention of the widespread practice of ordaining non-celibate homosexuals to the priesthood and diaconate.
This is indeed a problem.
However, ecclesiologically speaking, the focus on bishops is consistent with catholic principles. A priest is ordained to serve under a bishop within a given diocese and more specifically within a local congregation. Bishops, however, are more than diocesan leaders. They are consecrated as living symbols of unity for the entire Church. By their life and doctrine they are to live as apostolic models and witnesses to the Faith once delivered. The consecration of Canon Robinson to the office of bishop was then not merely the isolated or autonomous act of a single diocese. It carried implications for the whole church. By elevating a non-celibate man to the office of bishop, the Episcopal Church in some sense presumptively and unilaterally altered the doctrine of the whole Communion.
end
27 Comments •
Matt+: a good and careful analysis. I would just warn you about one small footnote which should not be a distraction from the big picture but will prove to be important in some localities. Border crossing in the USA did not begin in 2003. The AMiA for example, has been a refuge for folks disgruntled with a bishop or vestry or priest for 10 years. One could look on those early (pre +EVR) “crossings” not as you say: “Cross jurisdictional interventions (which) came about as the result of the Episcopal Church’s decision to disregard Communion teaching…) but as merely political breaks. On the ground for these break-away churches there will be some very difficult decisions to make. Decisions as difficult as it will be for revisionist churches to decide to chuck the Communion or not.