Insitution
over inspiration?
Initial reflections on the Windsor Report from Bishop Paul
October 19th, 2004
Dear Colleagues,
In preparation for our November Bible study, please read the Windsor
Report at http://windsor2004.anglicancommunion.org/index.cfm.
On our own website you should also read the gracious words of our
own Primate and the Primate
of Canada in response to the report. Two African archbishops
have also expressed their appreciation for the work of the commission,
and I’m sure that others will be reported on the Bethlehem
of PA electronic list. Considering the dire threats and gloomy predictions
that have been abroad about the content of the report, we can all
rejoice in its overall moderation. Its constant emphasis on “bonds
of affection” is a great blessing to me personally.
As you read the report and the early responses, however, I think
there remain some hard questions to be asked of this document in
the nine months or so during which it will be processed at various
levels in the Anglican Communion. I offer some initial reflections
to assist the discussion of the document in our November clergy Bible
studies and in your parishes or study groups. A more detailed commentary
and response will be the work of time and patience. I will join the
bishops of the Province in responding on November 19.
While I am glad this report recommends no draconian actions against
anyone, I am still deeply saddened by it. I perceive water meeting
oil: an essentially institutional response to what claims to be prophetic
movement. Contrary to its stated desire, the report seems to impose
a curial solution, elevating institution over inspiration in the
absolute sense. I hope that those who take this document to the next
step can be clearer in speaking to us about the relationship of the
prophetic to the priestly aspects of church life.
In that vein, I have thus far found no respectful provision in the
report for conscientious action. Nor do I see recognition that many
religious movements, including Christianity and its founder, begin
with radical disturbance of the status quo. The character and actions
of Jesus -- as troubler of Israel and certainly no institutional
insider -- are not once mentioned, and I hope that this can be addressed
as well.
The report seems not to recognize, regarding us whom it criticizes,
that if one comes to a conclusion that something is morally mandated,
one cannot deny what has come to be seen as justice because there
is resistance to the idea in other places. I commend reflective reading
of Why We Can’t Wait by the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The report seems not to recognize that justice issues might even
tangentially apply to the current situation for those who have reached
certain theological conclusions. In short, only one set of consciences
is honored. Furthermore, I can detect no expression of “regret,” or
even concern, expressed for the suffering of Christians whose sexual
orientation puts them outside the ranks of those eligible for certain
offices in the Church. We are only told not to hate or kill them.
Furthermore, although the report attempts to excuse itself from discussion
of the issues at hand, its gratuitous and offhand denigration of
modern biblical study prejudices the outcome of thoughtful study
and discussion of the issue itself.
The report can lead a reasonable reader to the presumption that
our visible communion has become the highest good. Is there an idolatry
here? At the risk of appearing cynical, one might wonder how many
ways there are to say “don’t rock the boat.” I
do not read the story of Jesus, even in its most literal terms, in
such a peace-mongering way. I do recall, however, that in C.S. Lewis’s
The Great Divorce, there is situated in the pit of Hell a theological
discussion group, and we meet a bishop about to deliver to it a paper
on how Jesus might have been more effective and long-lived if he
had learned to get along with authorities! Institution over inspiration.
I am deeply saddened at the emphasis placed on canon law, and that
the proposed settlement of the issues that concern us is to be a
legal one, through a contract (“covenant”). Of even more
concern, the proposed contract puts the ultimate power of decision
in a person appointed by the British Crown without the consent of
those governed throughout 38 provinces worldwide. If the proposed
covenant should be accepted, the titular head of the Anglican Communion
must be a person elected by the entire communion and thus may well
not be the primate of all England: there is no wisdom in entrusting
such a critical theological position to a political appointee. (I
am a thorough-going fan of the current appointee, I hasten to add,
and also hasten to note that he is not responsible for the manner
of his appointment.) The Pope at Rome, with all the “pretensions” that
our liturgy once called his “detestable enormities” is
much more easily shown to be internationally and quasi-democratically
chosen than is that head of our Communion who now is to be the “final
arbiter” regarding the terms of the proposed contract. We cannot
place the future of the communion in the hands of the government
of the U.K., the U.S., or any other essentially secular organization.
Perhaps the leadership of the Communion should rotate among the primates,
from south to north. I realize that such at suggestion, although
hardly new, does ask of our English cousins a certain disciplined
dispossession, but that is always good for the soul.
I am troubled that the report begins by asserting that the Bishop
of New Hampshire was “appointed,” suggesting a steadfast
refusal to comprehend church life in the New World, where neither
the state nor the episcopal college nor another small group chooses
the bishops. Only much later in the document is there a nod to the
concept of election. Despite occasional and late reference to the
laity, the report does not recognize the voice of the people as being
worthy of note. The clergy and people of New Hampshire, who had rather
a large hand in the proceedings there, are not taken into account
in any significant way. The commission did not feel able to ask whether
the Holy Spirit might speak through so many of the faithful assembled
for a solemn election. The concerns are those of the institution.
The commission’s characterization of the 2003 General Convention
as authorizing the creation of same-sex rites seems, unavoidably,
to be a willful misinterpretation. As the sole author of General
Convention’s offending paragraph, which was discussed in public
committee meeting before coming publicly to the floor, I know that
the text was designed to say that while this Church cannot now authorize
such rites, it can tolerate their existence, giving the Spirit room
to work and teach us one way or the other. To tolerate is different
than to authorize; a document generally careful about definitions
disappoints by nodding here.
In total disregard of 30 years of public discourse and more than
50 years of academic writing, the report states that insufficient
formal theological work has occurred on the issue of human sexuality.
It fails even to acknowledge the existence of the multi-part formal
theological presentation made to the General Convention of 2000 in
its formal reports (The Blue Book) or the other studies issued previously.
There is nowhere expressed concern for the possibility, however faint,
that insufficient reading and thinking has occurred on the part of
those not now open to change in this area. I recognize that the burden
of proof lies with us who wish to see change; there is nonetheless
a responsibility on the part of the rest to at least read the newspapers.
I have told you before, even with tears, how it was the bench of
Bishops in Parliament that resisted the abolition of slavery for
so many years, unanimously and on the basis of the clear words of
both testaments. Nowhere in this report is any cognizance taken of
the fact that institutions are by nature resistant to prophecy, that
bishops in particular have an abysmal track record in this regard:
there is no hint of humility about our club and its historic patterns
of intransigence.
Most sadly of all, as occurred even at our own diocesan convention
last weekend, gay and lesbian persons are spoken of as though they
are not in the room. A statement that gays and lesbians should not
be hated or murdered does not atone for a lack of any recognition
that gay and lesbian persons’ experience in Christ is generative
of any theology that must be taken into account by the majority or
that their experience in any way legitimately serves to criticize
the status quo.
Those who are keeping “score” for either side will find
something to please and disappoint them in the report. Those looking
for sanctions might note that both ECUSA/Canada on the one hand and
the invading foreign primates on the other are equally rebuked, but
no sanctions are imposed.
However, the report requests the self-imposition of sanctions on
the bishops who consecrated Bishop Robinson (but not those who invade
other provinces), essentially asking them to have the good grace
not to show up where they are not wanted, that is, at any international
functions. This particularly British form of shaming adds sting to
merely disinviting them (in the days of the Empire, rogue army officers
were given a revolver on the assumption that they would know what
to do). While I am not one of those bishops, having had commitments
that day, I hereby associate myself with them as I would with any
group made untouchable by ruling class fiat, and consider any and
all penalties they suffer as applying to myself. If they are not
welcome at Lambeth, for instance, I hope no bishop of our Church
or of those other churches represented at the Robinson consecration
feels welcome. Let us remember that not of all Bishop Robinson’s
consecrators were American. Thus these sanctions that are to be self-imposed
will affect several national churches. Perhaps an alternate meeting
in South Africa will occur for those who are now to regard themselves
as untouchable. It is a matter of profound regret to me that that
the American and Canadian representatives on the commission voted
for this provision: how they will be able to face their colleagues
at our meetings will be interesting to see.
The report has just begun its journey through nine months of discussion
and reception. My hope and prayer will be that as the bishops, primates,
and other groups ponder it, their vision will be less constricted
and institutionally bound and more open to the possibilities that
it is not out of arrogance or whim, but out of a desire to serve
at considerable risk, that this church has chosen to follow the voice
it has been hearing for half a century.
We will have much more time to discuss this lengthy document, but
I hope that this initial and tentative reflection, along with those
that will inevitably come forth in the next few days, will assist
you in thinking creatively about the report.
+Paul
return to Addresses
index page
October 18, 2004
St. Luke's Day
A Word to the Church (From the Presiding Bishop)
Some preliminary reflections regarding the Windsor Report
[Episcopal News Service]
Dear Brothers and Sisters:
I write to you from London where I am attending a meeting of the Primates'
Standing Committee. I have had a matter of hours to review the Report of the
Lambeth Commission on Communion, thus I will now offer only some preliminary
observations. It will take considerable time to reflect upon the Report, which
consists of some 100 pages. Over the next months it will be discussed in a
number of venues, including the Executive Council meeting in November and the
Winter Meeting of the House of Bishops in January. After an opportunity for
further study and reflection, I will have more to say about the Commission's
work.
The members of the Commission, chaired by Archbishop Robin Eames, clearly have
worked with care and great diligence, and the fact that they have unanimously
put forward the Report, which individually may give them pause, is no small
accomplishment.
The Commission was obliged to consider a number of sometimes conflicting concerns,
and therefore in these next days the Report will doubtless be read from many
points of view and given any number of interpretations. It is extremely important
that it be read carefully as a whole and viewed in its entirety rather than
being read selectively to buttress any particular perspectives.
As Anglicans we interpret and live the gospel in multiple contexts, and the
circumstances of our lives can lead us to widely divergent understandings and
points of view. My first reading shows the Report as having in mind the containment
of differences in the service of reconciliation. However, unless we go beyond
containment and move to some deeper place of acknowledging and making room
for the differences that will doubtless continue to be present in our Communion,
we will do disservice to our mission. A life of communion is not for the benefit
of the church but for the sake of the world. All of us, regardless of our several
points of view, must accept the invitation to consider more deeply what it
means to live a life of communion, grounded in the knowledge that "in
Christ God was reconciling the world to himself."
Given the emphasis of the Report on difficulties presented by our differing
understandings of homosexuality, as Presiding Bishop I am obliged to affirm
the presence and positive contribution of gay and lesbian persons to every
aspect of the life of our church and in all orders of ministry. Other Provinces
are also blessed by the lives and ministry of homosexual persons. I regret
that there are places within our Communion where it is unsafe for them to speak
out of the truth of who they are.
The Report will be received and interpreted within the Provinces of the Communion
in different ways, depending on our understanding of the nature and appropriate
expression of sexuality. It is important to note here that in the Episcopal
Church we are seeking to live the gospel in a society where homosexuality is
openly discussed and increasingly acknowledged in all areas of our public life.
For at least the last 30 years our church has been listening to the experience
and reflecting upon the witness of homosexual persons in our congregations.
There are those among us who perceive the fruit of the Spirit deeply present
in the lives of gay and lesbian Christians, both within the church and in their
relationships. However, other equally faithful persons among us regard same
gender relationships as contrary to scripture. Consequently, we continue to
struggle with questions regarding sexuality.
Here I note the Report recommends that practical ways be found for the listening
process commended by the Lambeth Conference in 1998 to be taken forward with
a view to greater understanding about homosexuality and same gender relationships.
It also requests the Episcopal Church to contribute to the ongoing discussion.
I welcome this invitation and know that we stand ready to make a contribution
to the continuing conversation and discernment of the place and ministry of
homosexual persons in the life of the church.
The Report calls our Communion to reconciliation, which does not mean the reduction
of differences to a single point of view. In fact, it is my experience that
the fundamental reality of the Episcopal Church is the diverse center, in which
a common commitment to Jesus Christ and a sense of mission in his name to a
broken and hurting world override varying opinions on any number of issues,
including homosexuality. The diverse center is characterized by a spirit of
mutual respect and affection rather than hostility and suspicion. I would therefore
hope that some of the ways in which we have learned to recognize Christ in
one another, in spite of strongly held divergent opinions, can be of use in
other parts of our Communion.
As Presiding Bishop I know I speak for members of our church in saying how
highly we value our Communion and the bonds of affection we share. Therefore,
we regret how difficult and painful actions of our church have been in many
provinces of our Communion, and the negative repercussions that have been felt
by brother and sister Anglicans.
In a "Word to the Church" following the meeting of our House of Bishops
in September we wrote as follows. "We believe our relationships with others
make real and apparent God's reconciling love for all of creation. Our mutual
responsibility, interdependence and communion are gifts from God. Therefore,
we deeply value and are much enriched by our membership in the Anglican Communion.
We also value Anglican comprehensiveness and its capacity to make room for
difference."
One section of the Report recommends the development of a covenant to be entered
into by the provinces of the Communion. This notion will need to be studied
with particular care. As we and other provinces explore the idea of a covenant
we must do so knowing that over the centuries Anglican comprehensiveness has
given us the ability to include those who wish to see boundaries clearly and
closely drawn and those who value boundaries that are broad and permeable.
Throughout our history we have managed to live with the tension between a need
for clear boundaries and for room in order that the Spirit might express itself
in fresh ways in a variety of contexts.
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.
The Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church, USA
[top]
Statement from the Most Rev. Andrew Hutchison on the report
of the Lambeth Commission on Communion
http://www.anglican.ca/primate/communications/2004-10-18-a.htm
"This morning I received a copy of the report
of the Lambeth Commission on Communion (Eames Commission).
The Commission was created by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams
and chaired by Archbishop Robin Eames of Armagh, the senior Metropolitan
in the Anglican Communion. Its mandate was to maximize Communion
within the worldwide Anglican family despite significant theological
differences.
The Commission members cover a broad spectrum of geography, culture
and theology. Their meetings have been totally in camera with no
interim reporting to the Communion. It is significant that the Commission
has submitted unanimous recommendations in spite of the cultural
and theological differences of its members. This indicates that there
is a positive will to maintain the unity of the diverse Anglican
Communion. The fact that Commission members can speak with one voice
holds open the door of hope that our Church can, with prayer and
dialogue persevere in seeking unity. It is now incumbent upon us,
the Canadian Church , as it is for all provinces of the Anglican
Communion to study the document and its recommendations. In keeping
with the nature of the Anglican Communion, each province is entitled
to respond with its own voice and from its own cultural and theological
context. We look forward to hearing responses from all Anglican provinces.
The bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada will receive a copy
of the report today and it will be discussed at our next House of
Bishops meeting in Saskatoon from November 1-4. As well the commission
report will be on the agenda of the Council of General Synod when
it meets at the end of November. The report will also be distributed
to Dioceses across Canada for study and comment. We have set up a
mechanism to receive feedback and will look forward to receiving
comments from Anglicans and our ecumenical partners. I will be able
to share these thoughts when I meet with the other Primates of the
Anglican Communion in Belfast , Northern Ireland in February."
Andrew Hutchison Archbishop and Primate, Anglican Church of Canada
[top]
return to Addresses index page
Please direct any
questions or comments to the webmaster@diobeth.org
