THE COMMUNIQUE IN CONTEXT
The final communiqué from Ireland must be set in the context of the events that led up to it, events from the issuing of The Windsor Report (TWR) until the Primates met and events during the meeting itself. Although the meeting was private, in line with the very welcome openness and fairness shown by Canon Gregory Cameron and others during the Commission and during the work of the Reception Group, some key documents are now online and well worth examining in detail.
They show that the communiqué is shaped by three factors: (1) a strong stance taken by Global South Primates in Nairobi; (2) a clear and strong interpretation of the Windsor Report and its recommendations by the Commission’s Chair, Archbishop Eames, culminating in eight questions the Primates needed to decide at their meeting; (3) a refusal by ECUSA and Canada to either comply with those recommendations or commit to providing urgently a response to Windsor. The resulting communiqué provides, paragraph by paragraph, the Primates’ decisions in response to Archbishop Eames’ eight questions. These generally strengthen TWR in relation to North America but weaken it in relation to those who have intervened. It also charts the way round an impasse that threatened to lead to division: voluntary withdrawal of members from ACC while following provincial constitutional processes in order to frame a response to TWR.
The View of the Global South Primates
The most important response to the Report in terms of the dynamics of the meeting this week was undoubtedly a statement sent by Global South (GS) Primates who met in Nairobi at the end of January. This is made public for the first time in the papers online and shows the attitude with which a very large number of the Primates entered the meeting.
Welcoming Windsor
The statement – submitted to the Reception Group and the Archbishop of Canterbury - spoke in the context of the Communion’s mission of “fundamental issues of faith and order confronting us that threaten the very existence of our common life”. Thanking the Commission and Archbishop Eames they made – in contrast to some of the initial public comments as reported in the media – the important statement that “We believe that the Windsor Report offers a way forward that has the potential of being marked with God's grace”. Welcoming its vision of the Church as a "Communion of radical holiness to which all Christ's people are called, [and] are thus rooted in the Trinitarian life and purposes of the One God" [TWR 3], they committed themselves “to manifesting our oneness in Christ through our willing submission one to another”.
North America Walking Apart
The GS Primates described TWR as recognizing that ECUSA and New Westminster have “pushed the Anglican Communion to breaking point” by their actions and affirmed that they took the view, reported in TWR that “their actions represent a "departure from genuine, apostolic Christian faith" [TWR 28]”. In highlighting the call for repentance (TWR, 134) they noted the necessary response was as yet not forthcoming and so concluded “This indicates that they have chosen to walk apart from the rest of the Communion”. As a result they affirmed that “failing any substantial change of direction within the next three months (i.e. by May 31st, 2005,) the Global South Primates and the others who share our convictions would confirm that they have chosen to "walk alone" and follow another religion”.
This clearly shows why they were unable to share in the Eucharist together and reveals just how deep the divisions were on entering the meeting. Given ECUSA and Canada have not changed direction, the GS judgment presumably remains as it was though it is unclear whether the collective communiqué of all the Primates supercedes the Nairobi deadline and buys more time. This is probably but it is not impossible that such a declaration of separation from the GS will be forthcoming before (or immediately after) the proposed hearing at the ACC. In contrast, welcoming the minority “statement of acceptance and submission” from some ECUSA bishops, the GS encouraged the Primates “to join us in declaring that full communion with these bishops is maintained”.
The role of boundaries
Turning to the parts of TWR addressing those who have intervened, the Primates clarified their own position by stating they remained committed to “the importance of coherent diocesan and provincial structures” but also believed “that there are times when these very structures can and have been inappropriately used to intimidate the faithful”. Rather than continuing such actions, however, they recognized “the necessity for the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates and the aforementioned bishops to establish a more collaborative mechanism to provide for adequate Episcopal care where needed”.
Lambeth I.10 and compliance
In relation to the presenting issues and TWR’s recommendations the GS Primates urged the two provinces “to fully comply” but to do so “mindful that this is only the first step towards acknowledgement of Lambeth Resolution 1.10 "We cannot advise the legitimizing or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions””. In fact, “faithfulness to the Holy Scriptures and to the expressed mind of the Communion requires that non-celibate homosexual clergy be asked to reform or resign and instead of a moratorium on same-sex blessings there should be an immediate, total and permanent cessation of such practices”
Response to Windsor on intervention
Returning to TWR’s address to some in their own provinces they rejected “the moral equivalence drawn between those who have initiated the crisis and those of us in the Global South who have responded to cries for help from beleaguered brothers and sisters in Christ”. However, in compliance with TWR 155 the Primates stated that “Because of our commitment to our common life we do regret any discomfort and disorder that has resulted from our actions taken in fulfillment of our "conscientious duty."”
Wider Communion reform
Turning to the wider structures and possible reforms of the Communion, these were broadly welcomed although the GS Primates expressed themselves as “aggrieved and disappointed that the contributions and resources of the majority of the Anglican Communion are not adequately recognized and represented in these instruments”. They called for “a more regionally and provincially representative procedure in appointments to commissions and task forces established to serve the whole Communion” and emphasized that “a more deliberately global approach to leadership is vital if we are to be able to respond to the challenges and complexities of worldwide mission”.
Future life in communion
Finally they emphasized their commitment to “the future life of the Anglican Communion, one that is rooted in truth and charity and faithfulness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ”. Applauding the proposed Anglican Covenant they specifically highlighted and endorsed and commended as an initial step in this direction the statement in the draft covenant that they clearly believed captures the division within the Communion at the present time: "Each church shall act in a manner compatible both with its belonging to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and with its membership of the Anglican Communion. In all essential matters of common concern in the Anglican Communion, no member church shall act without consideration of the common good of the Communion." [TWR, Appendix Two, Article 9]
The Report of Archbishop Eames
The meeting’s discussion of Windsor was introduced by Archbishop Robin Eames. He identified the Report’s key features and set out the issues the Primates had to discuss. He then highlighted the features of the Commission’s work that meant it represented “communion in its highest and best level” - the full range of Anglican outlook, no minimizing of division but respect for opposing views, integrity in presenting and listening to arguments, daily worship and Bible study – and spoke of this as having something to say to the Primates as they met.
The context of the report has to be seen as communion (not pronouncing on sexuality) and the gospel imperatives “to look for healing not division, for pastoral reconciliation and not punishment, to look to our shared witness not only in our mission but in the processes we suggest by which the Anglican Communion works out the current tensions”. The reality is that there is pain in both division and in healing and there are no easy solutions.
Archbishop Eames noted various questions concerning communion but stressed that “the most crucial question of all” for the Primates was “Do we want to remain in communion and can we do so in ways where deep differences can be addressed without fracturing what is essential in communion?”
Bonds of affection & reform of institutions
He proceeded to speak of Anglican expectations and especially “the expectation that cultural, theological and doctrinal diversity can be contained within structures based on consensus or bonds of affection alone”. From this rejection of central authority it follows that “there must be an acknowledgement that at some point a process of living together, of being together, will need a 'bottom line', a 'line in the sand'.”
TWR offers not an Anglican curia but “the minimum degree of structural expression we believe the Communion needs to provide bonds of affection with realistic channels of accountability, transparency and cohesion”. The Report is, however, part of an ongoing process and, although “there are questions demanding our answers this week. Those we cannot and must not avoid”, there are others in the ongoing attempt to understand the nature of Anglicanism.
Reading TWR
Turning to the substance of the Report, the Commission’s chair explained that Sections A and B sought to describe the Communion as we experience it, concluding that “communion exists for the purpose of witness to the reality of our common life in Christ and then for the mission of the Church”. Interdependence means that though valuing autonomy and diversity, “on main principles of what we believe to be God's revelation as Anglicans we act in harmony with each other”. The difficult experience over women’s ordination showed how this could be done within “a commitment not to act contrary to the instruments of unity”.
Archbishop Eames then stressed that one can only read Sections C and D in the light of one’s views of section A and B and asked “the Primates to address section D before section C”. Here there are six areas:
(1) The role of a bishop. As a bishop is for the whole church and a focal point of unity, “the communion-wide aspect of the episcopate must be taken more seriously than has been our practice in the past”. In this light TWR concludes that “the election and confirmation of the bishop of New Hampshire…was a challenge to that principle” and so, although the provincial legitimacy of ECUSA’s actions are accepted, “in terms of communion we have been compelled to reach the serious and unanimous conclusion that ECUSA acted against the expressed opinions of the four instruments of unity, their understanding of Communion teaching on the issue of the episcopate - and against an understanding of the universality of Episcopal ministry”. As a result, “we conclude that the result of the process of ECUSA in the election in New Hampshire breached the bonds of affection”.
(2) Responding to ECUSA. Although some have called for expulsion, “we concluded that this issue did not arise as a constitutional issue given our structures. To put this plainly: you cannot expel someone from a body which has no rules of membership”. However, “we have called for an expression of regret, a moratorium and withdrawal from representative functions”.
Regret. Here it is made clear that this is not merely “a statement of regret that other parts of the Anglican Communion were dismayed or distressed by the election and confirmation in New Hampshire on the part of ECUSA”. Rather, it has to be “a statement of regret that this process went against the advice of the four Instruments of Unity. We do not believe anything less is appropriate in the circumstances. Having analysed the nature of communion we have experienced the Lambeth Commission believes the interpretation of regret by ECUSA must be clearly defined”.
Explanation. The Commission concluded that “there was a moral obligation on ECUSA to produce clear arguments as to how its actions in this respect could be justified with Anglican teaching as we perceived it to be across the Anglican Communion. To put this another way, can ECUSA persuade the Communion that its actions were justified within the structures of the Anglican Communion”.
(3) Same-sex blessings. The issue the Commission addressed was Public Rites of same sex blessings and Abp Eames stressed that “the key word here is 'public'”. Again it was concluded that “the actions of the diocese of New Westminster in Canada breached the bonds of affection” and so “the same qualities of regret are therefore requested from the Anglican Church of Canada”
(4) Interventions. The intervention by bishops in a jurisdiction other than their own without the agreement or invitation of the relevant Episcopal and/or primatial authority is viewed by TWR as “a threat to communion and a breach of the bonds of affection”. However, responding to some talk that ‘the Report accorded equal judgement to these actions as in the case of ECUSA and the Church of Canada’, the Commission’s Chair clearly stated – “I cannot accept this criticism. I ask the Primates to look at the language of the Windsor Report”. Specifically, “It has been argued that interventions of this nature may be defended as a consequence of the developments in ECUSA and Canada but the Commission had to conclude they also represent a threat to communion and the bonds of affection. However a careful reading of the language we use in the report does not deal with the two instances in the same way”.
(5) Alternative Pastoral Oversight. TWR expects “realistic, sensitive and transparent pastoral care of minority groups” and was aware of strong feelings but “did not see a value in the creation of rival jurisdictions” although “we do emphasise the value to communion of an affirmation that ECUSA and Canada wish to emain in the Anglican Communion”.
(6) Moratorium and Reconciliation. TWR links reconciliation and healing in the process and “if true reconciliation is to be produced in our current situation a moratorium is an important part of that process. Healing of wounds takes time. A moratorium is to be viewed as much in relation to reconciliation as to reflection”.
Section C’s call for a covenant and Council of Advice are then very briefly summarised in relation to bonds of affection but the long-term nature of these proposals and the need for more provincial discussion and study is clearly stated.
In conclusion Archbishop Eames set out eight questions that clarified the ‘decisions that must be faced’. These are set out below to show how the Primates respond to them within the communiqué.
His final words are worth quoting in full:
I said earlier that experience has taught me that while there is pain in division there is also pain in healing. The Lambeth Commission experienced the pain of many during its year's work. I recognise there is pain for many in the recommendations we have made. The Report asks much. In particular it asks much of ECUSA, much of the Anglican Church of Canada, much of those who have intervened in Provinces other than their own without invitation or permission. But the Windsor Report asks something of all of us. It accepts the depth of feeling which exists in the Anglican Communion. It asks those who may have underestimated the depth of that feeling to consider the feelings of fellow Anglicans. It asks those who have felt decisions had to be made which seemed right and lawful for them to recognise what communion and bonds of affection mean. It asks all of us to reconsider how important are our links to each other in the Anglican Communion. It is also realistic when it recognises that we may choose to 'walk along separate paths'.
However, my colleagues, may I remind you of one of the questions posed by the Windsor Report which I believe we must answer on our knees -
“What is the will of God for the Anglican Communion”?
The Findings of the Reception Reference Group (RRG)
These findings were provided in a Powerpointed presentation by Bruce Cameron, Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church. A detailed report on the responses (combining statistical data, selected quotations from responses, and some commentary) has also been published. This was structured around the eight questions for Primates which are given below with the response offered in the communiqué.
Archbishop Eames’ Questions and the Response of the Primates’ Meeting
Question 1:
In sections A and B the Lambeth Commission gave a description of the Anglican Communion. We saw three main strands to our common life:
governed by Holy Scripture
living in inter-dependence
autonomy-in-communion.
Do the Primates recognise this description as an authentic description of our life together as a family of Churches?
Para 8 states the belief that “the Windsor Report offers in its Sections A & B an authentic description of the life of the Anglican Communion, and the principles by which its life is governed and sustained”. Though believing “many elements of this account offer a picture of what is ideal, rather than what is currently actually experienced” the Primates said they “accept the description offered in Sections A & B of the Windsor Report as the way in which we would like to see the life of the Anglican Communion developed, as we respond in faithful discipleship to Christ” and affirmed the three main strands. In the light of this they requested “all provinces to consider whether they are willing to be committed to the inter-dependent life of the Anglican Communion understood in the terms set out in these sections of the report”.
Question 2:
Section C contains suggestions to improve our machinery of inter-dependence
the Instruments of Unity
the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury
a Council of Advice
an Anglican Covenant.
Do the Primates approve the main thrust of these proposals and feel they can commend them for implementation?
Pars 9 and 10 welcomed “the proposals in Section C for the future development of the Instruments of Unity” but – reflecting the RRG findings - recognised serious questions about the content of the proposal for an Anglican Covenant. They also called for further consultation on the Council of Advice and the development of the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Section D addresses the current situation. The Commission makes proposals about the election of bishops, public rites of blessing for same-sex unions, the Episcopal Church USA and other Provinces, situations of intervention, care of dissenting groups and the consideration of Lambeth Conference 1.10.
Question 3:
In the election of a bishop we submit that a bishop is for the whole Church so we propose a review of the election and confirmation processes to ensure an element of Communion-wide acceptability. We also speak of the process involved in the appointment of the Bishop of New Hampshire.
Are the Primates willing to commend this principle to the Provinces?
In para 11 the Primates “accept the principle articulated in Section D of the Windsor Report concerning the universal nature of the ministry of a bishop within Anglican polity” and ask for provinces to “themselves find an appropriate place for the proper consideration of the principle of inter-dependence in any process of election or confirmation”.
Before addressing the further specific questions of Archbishop Eames the Primates clearly had to find a way forward given the determination of the Global South in the Nairobi response and the refusal of either ECUSA or Canada to comply with TWR.
The only way round this is that found in paras 12 and 13 of the communiqué: strong statements about the effects of recent actions in North America to satisfy the Global South (“We as a body continue to address the situations which have arisen in North America with the utmost seriousness. Whilst there remains a very real question about whether the North American churches are willing to accept the same teaching on matters of sexual morality as is generally accepted elsewhere in the Communion, the underlying reality of our communion in God the Holy Trinity is obscured, and the effectiveness of our common mission severely hindered”) but a buying of time for North America (“We are persuaded however that in order for the recommendations of the Windsor Report to be properly addressed, time needs to be given to the Episcopal Church (USA) and to the Anglican Church of Canada for consideration of these recommendations according to their constitutional processes”).
The only concrete solution (reportedly brokered by Archbishop Eames) is that found in para 14 – “we request that the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada voluntarily withdraw their members from the Anglican Consultative Council for the period leading up to the next Lambeth Conference. During that same period we request that both churches respond through their relevant constitutional bodies to the questions specifically addressed to them in the Windsor Report as they consider their place within the Anglican Communion. (cf. paragraph 8)”
It is into this political reality and this way forward that the specific answers to the questions on Section D can be read
Question 4:
In the issue of Public Rites of Blessings for same-sex unions the Commission speaks of a moratorium, withdrawal from representative functions within the Communion and continued reflection.
Do the Primates wish to call for a moratorium?
Question 5:
On the consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire the Report speaks of regret, a moratorium and withdrawal from representative functions by consecrators until regret is forthcoming and a moratorium introduced.
Do the Primates wish to issue this call to ECUSA?
These call are issued implicitly at the end of para 14 and explicitly in para 18. However, the proposal that consecrators and those authorizing liturgies withdraw from representative functions within the Communion is replaced by the call for the provinces to remove their representatives from the next meeting of the ACC, irrespective of their relationship to the consecration or authorization of public rites of blessing. The provinces are called instead to be invited to present their reasoning at a hearing (para 16) with the focus on whether “public Rites of Blessing for same sex unions would constitute growth in harmony with the apostolic tradition as it has been received” (TWR, para 141).
Question 6:
The Report speaks of situations of intervention as a threat to Communion but not on a basis of moral equivalence to the other issues examined. It calls for reconciliation, regret for consequences, an affirmation of Communion and a moratorium.
Do the Primates wish to adopt these recommendations?
Question 7:
In the case of the care of dissenting groups the Windsor Report talks of a recognition of the genuine Anglican expression of conservative groups, that is, that they remain loyal Anglicans even whilst in disagreement with their Provinces, a rejection of parallel jurisdictions, moves towards negotiated change and delegated jurisdiction.
Do the Primates affirm these proposals?
The response in para 15 adopts a suggestion from the RRG that the problem is primarily one of trust. The RRG asked “might `dissenting´or minority groups be reassured of their security within the Communion by having the internal system devised in their Provinces monitored by a Primate or group of Primates on behalf of ABC?” but noted that “such an arrangement might have to remain `voluntary´, in the strict sense of the word (ie, not secured by legislation), but would carry heavy symbolic weight if it had the full support of the Primates” (RRG analysis, p16).
The Primates “recommend that the Archbishop of Canterbury appoint, as a matter of urgency, a panel of reference to supervise the adequacy of pastoral provisions made by any churches for such members in line with the recommendation in the Primates’ Statement of October 2003”. The call to regret consequences and affirm Communion are not called for (but perhaps were considered as already supplied in the Nairobi statement) and the call for a moratorium is replaced with the statement that “during this period we commit ourselves neither to encourage nor to initiate cross-boundary interventions”. There is no explicit response addressing of issues described as ‘a rejection of parallel jurisdictions, moves towards negotiated change and delegated jurisdiction’.
Question 8:
Resolution 1.10 of Lambeth 1998 in addition to underlining the norm of Anglican understanding of sexual relationships spoke of a process of listening.
Will the Primates commit themselves again to this process?
In para 17 the Primates do make this commitment – for which the RRG reported much support – and they “request the Anglican Consultative Council in June 2005 to take positive steps to initiate the listening and study process which has been the subject of resolutions not only at the Lambeth Conference in 1998, but in earlier Conferences as well”.
Finally, reflecting the emphasis in TWR, Archbishop Eames’ address and the Nairobi statement, in para 19 the Primates stress that “these strategies are intended to restore the full trust of our bonds of affection across the Communion”.
Conclusion
So what happened in Newry? It is clear that a significant part of the Communion (represented by the statement of Global South Primates) hold that the North American provinces have departed from apostolic Christian faith (as noted in TWR, para 28) and a large number of Primates are therefore prepared to declare them ‘another religion’. They have granted the provinces time for amendment of life and to bring forth fruits of repentance. Those fruits are, at a minimum, full compliance with TWR’s recommendations in relation to the current disagreements and clear commitment to its vision of interdependent life in communion. While they determine if they can, as provinces, comply and commit in this manner, they have consented to withdraw from the next council of the Communion (ACC) and their role in the next Primates’ Meeting and Lambeth 2008 is clearly dependent on their response to TWR and this communique. The ACC will however listen to them explain their actions and initiate a wider Communion listening and study process on issues of sexuality as called for by those Lambeth resolutions that have also clearly stated traditional and biblical teaching which remains the standard of Christian teaching to be respected in the Communion.
