Continued from Part 1
18. In 2005 the Primates asked The Episcopal Church to consider specific requests made by the Windsor Report [6]. On the first day of our meeting, we were joined by the members of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council as we considered the responses of the 75th General Convention. This is the first time that we have been joined by the Standing Committee at a Primates’ Meeting, and we welcome and commend the spirit of closer co-operation between the Instruments of Communion.
The Windsor Report articulated and the Primates accepted a Communion framework resting on the shared authority of the four Instruments of Unity: the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Lambeth Conference. Many revisionist leaders have claimed that the Windsor process represents a primatial power grab. But such assertions ignore the involvement of all four instruments in this crisis.
The Lambeth Conference, the once every 10 year meeting of all Anglican Communion bishops, established the standard: Lambeth resolution 1.10.
1 commends to the Church the subsection report on human sexuality;
2 in view of the teaching of Scripture, 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;
3 recognises that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. Many of these are members of the Church and are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God’s transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationships. We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ;
4 while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals, violence within marriage and any trivialisation and commercialisation of sex;
5 cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions;
6 requests the Primates and the ACC to establish a means of monitoring the work done on the subject of human sexuality in the Communion and to share statements and resources among us;
7 notes the significance of the Kuala Lumpur Statement on Human Sexuality and the concerns expressed in resolutions IV.26, V.1, V.10, V.23 and V.35 on the authority of Scripture in matters of marriage and sexuality and asks the Primates and the ACC to include them in their monitoring process.
When the Episcopal Church unilaterally violated that standard the remaining three Instruments of Unity acted to restore fellowship and Communion order.
It is true that the primates have taken a leading role in this restoration, but the participation and assent of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the meeting of the primates must not be forgotten, nor can the increasing cooperation and cross-participation of the primates with the Anglican Consultative Council as evidenced above in paragraph 18.
Moreover, the Archbishop, the primates, and the Anglican Consultative Council have all agreed on the necessity of the Windsor recommendations and the appropriateness of the primates requests at Dromantine in 2005.
19. We are grateful for the comprehensive and clear report commissioned by the Joint Standing Committee. We heard from the Presiding Bishop and three other bishops [7] representing different perspectives within The Episcopal Church. Each spoke passionately about their understanding of the problems which The Episcopal Church faces, and possible ways forward. Each of the four, in their own way, looked to the Primates to assist The Episcopal Church. We are grateful to the Archbishop of Canterbury for enabling us on this occasion to hear directly this range of views.
At the outset of their proceedings, the Primates listened to the Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, Bishop Chris Epting (former Bishop of Iowa), Bishop Bruce MacPherson (Western LA), and Bishop Robert Duncan (Moderator of the Anglican Communion Network and Bishop of Pittsburgh). The bishops were invited to give presentations summarizing their understanding of the current situation within the Episcopal Church and then to answer questions from the primates. There has been much written about these presenters (why these three in particular were chosen) and a great deal of speculation with regard to who would stay in the meeting and who would not.
All of that is rather moot at this point. Bishop Schori remained throughout the meeting just as the Archbishop of Canterbury indicated she would in his letter to the primates sent several weeks prior to the meeting.
Moreover, she was recognized as the legitimately elected primate of the Episcopal Church and elected by the peers in her region to represent the Americas on the Primates Standing Committee.
When this news broke, there was a great deal of consternation and rightly so, but in the context of the care the primates have provided in this communiqué, I believe that the consternation was somewhat overdone (though I was a full and earnest participant).
As I will argue in part 3 below, the Episcopal Church has been placed in on disciplinary probation until September 30th of this year or until she provides sufficient answers to the Dromantine requests. Thus, until September 30th at the latest, the majority of the primates felt it inappropriate to send her away or bar her from full participation.
I don’t agree but I do understand the reasoning.
20. We believe several factors must be faced together. First, the Episcopal Church has taken seriously the recommendations of the Windsor Report, and we express our gratitude for the consideration by the 75th General Convention.
It is interesting to compare the words of the leaders of the Episcopal Church to their deeds. Many objected strenuously to the directive nature of the Windsor process, especially in the aftermath of Dromantine. Some central figures argued that the primates had no authority to even make the requests, characterizing them as an invasive affront to provincial autonomy.
Nevertheless, in action, the Episcopal Church participated in the process the primates established. The Episcopal Church agreed to send her delegates to the Anglican Consultative Council Meeting as observers rather than participants. She agreed to present her case for the moral neutrality of homosexual behavior in that venue.
Then, in June of 2006, she directly addressed two of the three core Dromantine requests, leaving unanswered the question of same-sex blessings.
The Presiding Bishop and others have (quite unpersuasively) argued that the Episcopal Church has never officially authorized or developed public rites for blessing same sex unions. This, despite the passage of resolution C051 at the 74th General Convention (which declared that such rites may be “explored” and “experienced” within the boundaries of “our common life”...see below) and despite the fact that the Windsor Report specifically identifies resolution C051 as the reason a moratorium on the authorization and development of public rites is necessary.
And yet, given that the Episcopal Church cooperated and participated in the process established at Dromantine and responded in one way or another to all three requests, the majority of the primates believe that she took the Windsor process “seriously.”
21. However, secondly, we believe that there remains a lack of clarity about the stance of The Episcopal Church, especially its position on the authorisation of Rites of Blessing for persons living in same-sex unions. There appears to us to be an inconsistency between the position of General Convention and local pastoral provision. We recognise that the General Convention made no explicit resolution about such Rites and in fact declined to pursue resolutions which, if passed, could have led to the development and authorisation of them. However, we understand that local pastoral provision is made in some places for such blessings. It is the ambiguous stance of The Episcopal Church which causes concern among us.
The lack of clarity centers on the status of resolution C051 as noted above. The Resolution states:
Resolved, That the 74th General Convention affirm the following:
…
3. That, in our understanding of homosexual persons, differences exist among us about how best to care pastorally for those who intend to live in monogamous, non-celibate unions; and what is, or should be, required, permitted, or prohibited by the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church concerning the blessing of the same.
…5. That we recognize 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.
6. That we commit ourselves, and call our church, in the spirit of Resolution A104 of the 70th General Convention (1991), to continued prayer, study, and discernment on the pastoral care for gay and lesbian persons, to include the compilation and development by a special commission organized and appointed by the Presiding Bishop of resources to facilitate as wide a conversation of discernment as possible throughout the church.
7. That our baptism into Jesus Christ is inseparable from our communion with one another, and we commit ourselves to that communion despite our diversity of opinion and, among dioceses, a diversity of pastoral practice with the gay men and lesbians among us.
The resolution seems clearly to “affirm” both the development of rites (paragraph 5 “explore”) and the performance/celebration of rites (paragraph 5 “experience” and paragraph 7 “practice”) as occurring legitimately within the bounds of “communion” (para 7) and common life (para 5)
Paragraphs 27, 123 and 140 of the Windsor Report refer specifically to Resolution C051 as inconsistent with the teaching of the Communion as articulated in Lambeth resolution 1.10.
Paragraph 144 of the Windsor Report, therefore, calls for a moratorium on both the celebration and development of all public rites for same sex unions and invites those bishops who have developed or authorized such rites in keeping with C051.
“While we recognise that the Episcopal Church (USA) has by action of Convention made provision for the development of public Rites of Blessing of same sex unions, the decision to authorise rests with diocesan bishops. Because of the serious repercussions in the Communion, we call for a moratorium on all such public Rites (WR 144)”
The Episcopal Church argues that resolution C051 does not constitute a provincial “provision” for same-sex blessings but rather represents “recognition” that bishops do in fact exercise appropriate pastoral care when parishes within their dioceses explore and experience such rites.
On the basis of this argument; that the Episcopal Church ”as a province” has never authorized or developed public rites for same sex blessings, the Presiding Bishop (++Griswold) and those who assisted him in crafting Resolution B033 from the remains of defeated Resolution A161, did not think it necessary to address the issue of same sex blessings.
But because the Windsor Report as accepted by the primates at Dromantine specifically made reference to the provisions of C051 and because C051, as passed at the 74th General Convention, is necessarily a “provincial” resolution and, in fact, public rites for same sex blessings are being permitted and the development of such rites I pursued, the primates seek a definitive answer from the Episcopal Church as to whether she intends to conform to the communion standard articulated in paragraph 17 of the Dar Es Salaam Communique (i.e Lambeth98 1.10).
In recent days some dispute has arisen with regard to the intent of the primates. Do they seek a commitment from the Episcopal Church not to permit public rites for same sex blessings to take place at all or do they seek a commitment from the bishops of the Episcopal Church that they will not personally authorize such rites?
The Presiding Bishop, in recently recorded discussions, explained that the primates did not seek to end rites for same sex blessings altogether but simply to limit the involvement of bishops in the authorization and development of such rites.
Her interpretation of the has been questioned by Archbishop Gregory Venables who wrote:
We gave much time to producing a Communiqué which was unambiguous and straightforward. Tragically, in the Presiding Bishop’s remarks to the Church Center community just two days after the close of the meeting she misguidingly argues that there was agreement and understanding among the Primates that blessings of same-sex couples could continue as “pastoral care” as long as there was no official published liturgy for it. That assertion quite scandalously demonstrates the very concern that the Communiqué addresses in identifying this situation.
Archbishop Venables’ account is bolstered not only by the “permission” language found in paragraph 17 of the Dar Es Salaam Communique (see part 1) but also by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s suggestion at the closing press conference of the primates meeting in Tanzania that paragraph 17 which upholds Lambeth resolution 1.10 is the “key” paragraph of the communiqué.
Moreover, in an interview published recently in the Tanzania Guardian, the Archbishop of Canterbury said:
“Q:It seems that the leaders are more concerned with preserving their cohesion rather than communicating the truth to the faithful. So, given the circumstances, what does the Anglican Church stand for and why are you dilly-dallying to give a stance in this very crucial moral issue?
A:The stance of the Anglican Communion is clear: It has never said anything other than that. The ordination of active homosexuals is not acceptable.
It has never said anything other than that the marriage of same sex-couples is not to be admitted.
That`s what the Lambeth Conference said in 1998, and every meeting has said so since then.”
This represents a fairly unambiguous refutation of the Presiding Bishop’s interpretation of events and provides even more clarity to the Dar Es Salaam Communique as a whole.
Even Mr. Jim Naughton, Director of Communications for the Dioceses of Washington, recognizes the significance of the Archbishops’ interview:
If widely circulated, I believe it will significantly handicap Bishop Jefferts Schori in her efforts to persuade our Church to accept the difficult recommendations being urged upon us by the Primates.
The primates seek compliance not only with the specific wording of the Windsor Report requests but with the standard teaching of the communion as articulated in Lambeth 1.10.
Thus, the bishops of the Episcopal Church have been asked to disallow public rites for same sex blessings altogether.
Update:
Adding further clarification to the dispute over the primates’ intent regarding same sex blessings, the Archbishop of Canterbury said the following in his address to the Synod of the Church of England on Monday:
“...we have suggested a similar voluntary moratorium by the bishops on licensing any kind of liturgical order for same-sex blessings (the understanding of the Meeting was certainly that this should be a comprehensive abstention from any public rites), at least for the period during which the wider discussion of the Covenant goes forward…”
end
8 Comments •
Another excellent analysis!
Please keep the clergy of the DRG in prayer as we gather today and tomorrow with the Rev Dr. Ephraim Radner severing as Presenter and facilitator as we look at Dar es Salaam. I am looking forward to this!