St Luke's Church Eccleshill - Articles from "The Link"

Repairing the torn church

The "Windsor Report" (Anglican Communion Office, Ł4.95)
and "Repair the Tear" (Anglican Mainstream & CEEC, Ł3).

In 2003 the Episcopal Church of the USA proposed Gene Robinson for the next bishop of New Hampshire. Gene is a man who divorced his wife and went to live with another man in an openly homosexual relationship. There was an outcry across the world, but ECUSA consecrated him anyway. Around the same time the New Westminster Diocese in Canada approved a service for blessing same-sex unions. Some Anglican Churches declared that ECUSA and New Westminster had put themselves out of fellowship, and were no longer part of the Communion.

The Archbishop of Canterbury set up a commission to recommend what should be done next, and asked everyone to avoid rocking the boat for a year until this commission had had the chance to report. (I think Jeffrey John's appointment as Dean of St Alban's was contrary to this request!) The "Windsor Report" (WR) is the result of this year's work.

WR is heavy going, and I made little progress reading it until Anglican Mainstream and the Church of England Evangelical Council sent me "Repair the Tear", which is their commentary and reactions to WR. Maybe it's easier to read things you agree with? Anyway, I made much better progress since then!

The Windsor Report says ...

The commission was NOT asked to reopen the debate about homosexuality, so WR isn't to argue for one side or the other. The Lambeth Conference had already rejected homosexual practice as incompatible with scripture. The Anglican position is that we fully support those who have a gay orientation but live celibate lives, but we do not ordain those involved in same-sex unions or approve of their acts.

Instead WR is supposed to suggest how we can make the best of the present bad situation.

WR opens with Paul's letter to the Ephesians: unity and communion are linked with holiness, and without holiness there's no point or meaning in communion and unity.

WR then outlines the way that Anglican provinces asked opinions and listened to them before they started ordaining women. The problem is, it says, that opinions were not sought when it came to the homosexuality debate. Instead we had unilateral action on both sides: the ordinations and services on one, and the statements of excommunication on the other.

WR says that mainstream Anglicanism has to focus on the bible as the word of God, and bishops are supposed to be the focus of that unity. Diversity is a strength if it means churches can be relevant to their own cultures, but a weakness if it means the church in one place goes against the clear understanding of Scripture in another place. There are issues on which scripture isn't clear or doesn't speak, but local churches have to be careful not to act contrary to scripture or scandalize other churches.

To prevent this happening in future, WR suggests there should be a covenant which all Anglican churches would sign, to indicate the agreement they would have to seek before making any major local changes. The Archbishop of Canterbury would be in charge, assisted by a Council of Advice.

And for the present, the way to pull back from the brink of schism is for both sides to express their regret, for those involved to consider resigning, and for both sides to agree a moratorium on further divisive actions.

Could the remedy work?

I must admit I doubt it, for three reasons. I hope I'm wrong!

First, although WR tries to be even-handed in a lot of ways, I agree with "Repair the Tear" that WR looks biased. WR doesn't state and defend the Anglican position on homosexuality: instead it refers to "ongoing listening and discerning", which suggests the subject is still up for grabs. WR doesn't admit the bible is clear on whether same-sex unions are holy or not. WR doesn't face the fact that ECUSA and New Westminster didn't just "not seek opinions", but they went ahead in the full knowledge that their actions scandalized others. WR seems to say both sides are equally wrong, but I believe the wrong isn't equally divided. (I guess others will think WR is biased the other way!)

Second, WR proposes statements of regret, but humanly speaking it is hard to see how either side will do this. Those who think ECUSA was wrong will follow St Paul's example (in Gal 2:11-14) and insist that it is right to separate over such a basic issue as this. And besides that, regret is a long way short of repentance - that's what the Jeffrey John row was all about.

And third, I think there's a real risk that the Anglican Communion might not last long enough to put a covenant into practice, because of the length of time a covenant would take to be signed, with all the individual churches having to agree it in their own synods. Instead, the Anglican Communion may fall apart by default. Maybe it already has?

In fact, I can now see why the former bishop of Durham has suggested it would be quicker, cleaner and cheaper to scrap the Anglican Communion!

John Hartley

	*St Luke's Church, Eccleshill - The Link* magazine** The Link is published monthly at 40p (Senior Citizens 35p), and we deliver free within the parish and post copies (at the reader's expense) to those who request it. Please contact us if you would like a free copy for a trial period. February 2005, Pages 4 & 6.
Home Page. Index of articles: by subject, by date. In this issue: (February 2005) Vicar's letter, Matthew, Windsor Report. Other articles on marriage and relationships.	Repairing the torn church The "Windsor Report" (Anglican Communion Office, Ł4.95) and "Repair the Tear" (Anglican Mainstream & CEEC, Ł3). In 2003 the Episcopal Church of the USA proposed Gene Robinson for the next bishop of New Hampshire. Gene is a man who divorced his wife and went to live with another man in an openly homosexual relationship. There was an outcry across the world, but ECUSA consecrated him anyway. Around the same time the New Westminster Diocese in Canada approved a service for blessing same-sex unions. Some Anglican Churches declared that ECUSA and New Westminster had put themselves out of fellowship, and were no longer part of the Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury set up a commission to recommend what should be done next, and asked everyone to avoid rocking the boat for a year until this commission had had the chance to report. (I think Jeffrey John's appointment as Dean of St Alban's was contrary to this request!) The "Windsor Report" (WR) is the result of this year's work. WR is heavy going, and I made little progress reading it until Anglican Mainstream and the Church of England Evangelical Council sent me "Repair the Tear", which is their commentary and reactions to WR. Maybe it's easier to read things you agree with? Anyway, I made much better progress since then! The Windsor Report says ... The commission was NOT asked to reopen the debate about homosexuality, so WR isn't to argue for one side or the other. The Lambeth Conference had already rejected homosexual practice as incompatible with scripture. The Anglican position is that we fully support those who have a gay orientation but live celibate lives, but we do not ordain those involved in same-sex unions or approve of their acts. Instead WR is supposed to suggest how we can make the best of the present bad situation. WR opens with Paul's letter to the Ephesians: unity and communion are linked with holiness, and without holiness there's no point or meaning in communion and unity. WR then outlines the way that Anglican provinces asked opinions and listened to them before they started ordaining women. The problem is, it says, that opinions were not sought when it came to the homosexuality debate. Instead we had unilateral action on both sides: the ordinations and services on one, and the statements of excommunication on the other. WR says that mainstream Anglicanism has to focus on the bible as the word of God, and bishops are supposed to be the focus of that unity. Diversity is a strength if it means churches can be relevant to their own cultures, but a weakness if it means the church in one place goes against the clear understanding of Scripture in another place. There are issues on which scripture isn't clear or doesn't speak, but local churches have to be careful not to act contrary to scripture or scandalize other churches. To prevent this happening in future, WR suggests there should be a covenant which all Anglican churches would sign, to indicate the agreement they would have to seek before making any major local changes. The Archbishop of Canterbury would be in charge, assisted by a Council of Advice. And for the present, the way to pull back from the brink of schism is for both sides to express their regret, for those involved to consider resigning, and for both sides to agree a moratorium on further divisive actions. Could the remedy work? I must admit I doubt it, for three reasons. I hope I'm wrong! First, although WR tries to be even-handed in a lot of ways, I agree with "Repair the Tear" that WR looks biased. WR doesn't state and defend the Anglican position on homosexuality: instead it refers to "ongoing listening and discerning", which suggests the subject is still up for grabs. WR doesn't admit the bible is clear on whether same-sex unions are holy or not. WR doesn't face the fact that ECUSA and New Westminster didn't just "not seek opinions", but they went ahead in the full knowledge that their actions scandalized others. WR seems to say both sides are equally wrong, but I believe the wrong isn't equally divided. (I guess others will think WR is biased the other way!) Second, WR proposes statements of regret, but humanly speaking it is hard to see how either side will do this. Those who think ECUSA was wrong will follow St Paul's example (in Gal 2:11-14) and insist that it is right to separate over such a basic issue as this. And besides that, regret is a long way short of repentance - that's what the Jeffrey John row was all about. And third, I think there's a real risk that the Anglican Communion might not last long enough to put a covenant into practice, because of the length of time a covenant would take to be signed, with all the individual churches having to agree it in their own synods. Instead, the Anglican Communion may fall apart by default. Maybe it already has? In fact, I can now see why the former bishop of Durham has suggested it would be quicker, cleaner and cheaper to scrap the Anglican Communion! John Hartley
Top of page.	This web page was last updated on 7th February 2005.