An Address on Integrity, Diversity, and Episcopal Authority In the Anglican Communion
I
We are gathered to discuss the covenant that has been proposed as a means of preventing the fragmentation of Anglicanism and insuring its continuance as a communion of churches. As a way to throw light on the subject, I have been asked to speak about "Integrity, Diversity, and Episcopal Authority within the Anglican Communion". The fact is that conflicting ways of understanding these four nouns (integrity, diversity, authority, and communion) lie at the heart of our travails. The subject before us is in fact of central importance to our future. However, the pace of events is such that hardly a thought crosses my mind before it is rendered problematic by yet another development within one or another of our provinces. Within my own church, for example, the consecration of Gene Robinson and the election of a woman as Primate have been followed by the whole sale rejection on the part of the House of Bishops and the Executive Council of the scheme of pastoral care proposed by the Primates meeting in Dar es Salaam, In reaction to these and other previous developments, we have witnessed the formation of CANA, the announcement that Kenya and Uganda will each consecrate a bishop to oversee the "orthodox" parishes within the U.S. that have placed themselves under their care, and formation of a wider coalition (Common Cause) that includes these and other groups. This coalition bears all the marks of a proto province. By the time I deliver this address, I assume even more will have transpired; and I assume as well all that occurs will have profound effects on how the question I have been assigned is adequately to be addressed.
I will return to this question at a later point, but an initial comment about it will help us focus our attention on the immediate significance for us of the church struggle in which we are engaged. From the beginning, Anglicans have worried about ecclesiology. From the beginning, we Anglicans have sought a justification for our existence within a divided church. The history of Anglican theology is in no small measure a history of what we have had to say in response to this question. Our present travail has raised the question again, and in an acute and painful form. It would appear that we are not at present sure about who we are as Anglicans? What is our identity? What we see in the arguments that whiz back and forth in the virtual world of the Internet is less an argument about sex and more a quest for identity-an answer to the haunting question of what we as Anglicans are called to be and do.
So the title I have been assigned presents us with several abiding issues and one that is of specific importance for ourselves. How do we remain faithful to the apostolic witness and yet speak in a way that is meaningful and powerful within our own time and place. How do we maintain both the truth with which we have been entrusted and the unity to which we are called as we struggle both to be truthful and relevant? And in this struggle, does Anglicanism have an important, even necessary, role within the providence of God?
II
When I first thought of this address, I imagined that I would begin with the Windsor Report--with that document Bishop Tom Wright has referred to as the gold standard of present Anglican thought. I quite agree with Bishop Wright, and I will end these remarks by trying to show that it points to an answer to each of the questions posed by my title in a way far more adequate than any of its rivals. But the Windsor Report was prepared in response to an action on the part of The Episcopal Church (TEC)-an action that was in direct contradiction to the requests of all the instruments of our communion. It seems right, therefore, to begin with the answer to our questions that is now dominant within the church that precipitated our present crisis.
In defending itself, TEC is quick to remind its critics that it holds fast to the Lambeth quadrilateral and so insists (in accord with Resolution 11 of the Lambeth Conference 1888) that TEC holds to the four following points:
(a) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as "containing all tings necessary for salvation," and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith, (b) The Apostles Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith, (c) The two Sacraments ordained by Christ himself-Baptism and the Supper of the Lord-ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him, (d) The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.
These four points are taken by the progressive defenders of the actions of TEC as an adequate guarantee of its integrity, its adherence to the apostolic tradition. However, at each of the four points, the progressive leadership of TEC gives a remarkable spin to their interpretation. Thus, for example, the claim that The Holy Scriptures contain "all things necessary for salvation" and are "the rule and ultimate standard of faith" is qualified (if not contradicted) by the common assertion that revelation is "ongoing" in a way that makes available new truths either not previously known, not properly understood, or in direct contradiction to well established tradition. The witness of the Holy Scriptures is further qualified by claims that there are truths of reason and/or experience that may contradict the seemingly univocal witness of scripture. (Thus, for example, the assertion that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life is contradicted by the experience of God in other religions just as the univocal scriptural condemnation of homosexual relations is contradicted by the experience of loving relations between members of the same gender.) In short, within TEC, tradition, reason, and now experience can operate independent of and in contradistinction to the witness of the Holy Scriptures. Further, novelty in respect to doctrine and practice receive generous license because (so it is claimed) the Holy Spirit acts most normally in doing new things-things that need not accord with former things!
Similar issues arise with the claim that the integrity of TEC is assured by the continuing authority of the historic creeds. However, the progressive clergy who now hold the levers of power within TEC insist vehemently that the creeds are not to be used as binding confessions that exclude from fellowship people whose experience of God or whose beliefs about God are different from or even contradictory to those normally associated with the creeds as tokens of Christian identity and sufficient statements of Christian belief. The progressive position in respect to the creeds is that Christians in the U.S. now live in a pluralistic society; and, in response to this fact, its advocates agree with our former Presiding Bishop who is fond of saying we should tolerate the contradictions because they will find a final reconciliation within the pleroma of divine truth. The prevalence of this view recently received vivid illustration when a Priest of TEC announced that she is now both and Muslim and a Christian. The response of her bishop was that he welcomed her decision because it would do wonders for interfaith relations!
A more fundamental problem arises when one looks hard at the meaning and use of the two sacraments on the part of TEC's clerical leadership. It is no secret that in a significant number of dioceses and parishes Baptism is no longer thought to be a necessary precondition for participation in the Supper of the Lord. To be sure, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord are sacraments found throughout the dioceses and parishes of TEC. However, use is changing the meaning of both in ways most Christians within the Anglican Communion and within the other churches would not recognize as faithful to Christ's intention. How is one to understand this remarkable novelty? One can come the Supper of the Lord without Baptism because one does not have to die and rise with Christ in order to come to the Father. As a consequence, Baptism is not an effective sign of dying and rising with Christ and the Supper of the Lord is not a participation in that death and resurrection. Both sacraments are simply ways of offering hospitality to a diverse humankind and so manifesting the welcoming love of God to all.
We now come to the fourth element of the quadrilateral-the historic episcopate locally adapted. With its arrival, we are presented not only the question of Episcopal authority but also the question of diversity. How is the truth of the Gospel of Christ to be proclaimed and lived faithfully in circumstances very different from those that obtained in first century Palestine? And how is the common life of the church to be ordered within the tensions produced by the meeting of the truth about God made known in Christ Jesus and the particular circumstances in which Christians witness to that truth? The answer given by the leadership of TEC is, at the moment, through allowing the greatest possible autonomy not only on the part of each province of the Anglican Communion but also on the part of the various dioceses and parishes of TEC. Within TEC this is known as local option. Each province, diocese, parish and mission is to maintain loving relations with all others, but each is to pursue the truth of God in Christ in its own way and in its own place. In short, the historic episcopate which once was thought to guarantee that Christians throughout the world held to one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all is now to see that the particular way in which the Gospel is received and lived in his or her particular location is not threatened or impinged upon by Christians from beyond the borders of a particular jurisdiction. The locally adapted episcopate within TEC has become thoroughly local in all matters save a range of moral imperatives that enjoin hospitality, mutual aid, mutual respect, and love, but not common faith and practice. On this view, bishops function in large measure to enforce not the belief and practice of the church catholic but local canons that protect diocese or parish from foreign intervention or defection by anyone who oppose the progressive views of those who hold office.
So, what about the Anglican Communion? A trip around progressive blogs and a sample of recent literature quickly reveals an answer. The Anglican Communion has no brief to impose restrictions on its member provinces. Each province is autonomous. To be sure, each is bound to the others by "bonds of affection" but these bonds do not include common belief and practice. On this view, the Communion is in fact a federation of independent churches whose links are purely historical and moral. Thus, in respect to Episcopal authority, progressive voices make the very dubious claim that the "enhanced responsibility" now accorded to the Meeting of Primates represents an incipient curia that runs in a contrary direction to Anglican tradition. In a similar vein, the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury to "gather" the bishops of the Communion and its various instruments of communion is no more than functional. It carries with it no right to withhold invitations and so no right to discipline. In short, the progressive view is thoroughly postmodern. The Anglican Communion is a polycentric web of autonomous and distinctive political units whose chief characteristic is diversity. Integrity consists not in unity of faith and practice but furtherance of this diversity within a web of communication that is sustained by mutual respect for difference. (What we have here is a paradise imagined by Richard Rorty.)
III
It is not surprising that there has been a vehement reaction to the progressive position on the part of people of a more traditional frame of mind. Both Ephraim Radner and I have termed this reaction "confessionalist." What is the counter vision of integrity, diversity, Episcopal authority, and communion presented in reaction to what is perceived to be an unacceptable progressive hegemony within TEC (and the C of E)? Within TEC reaction to the progressive position has in large measure been political and practical rather than theological. Nevertheless, there is a growing literature (largely from outside the U.S.) that gives voice to the views of those in reaction to the patently heterodox views now regnant within TEC. There are several of particular importance; namely, the chapter in To Mend the Net entitled "The Formularies and the Limits of Diversity," "A Covenant for the Church of England" issued by a coalition from within the Church of England, a submission by Bishops from the Global South to the Covenant Design Committee, and a recent change in its constitution on the part of the Anglican Church of Nigeria.
As one culls through these sources, what vision of "integrity" emerges? In a section from "A Covenant for the Church of England" (CCE) entitled "Identity", we read, "We are committed to faithful biblical orthodoxy as defined by the classic formularies of our tradition." This commitment is further defined by reference to Canon A5 of the C of E that reads, "The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal." The framers of CCE then add a reference to the Preface to the Declaration of Assent that declares that the Church of England professes "the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds." The section on "identity" concludes by saying "true unity belongs in this common confession" and that schism is caused by "departure from this common faith."
Integrity, fidelity to the apostolic witness, is to be recognized and guaranteed not by relatively unfettered evolution in experience and understanding (i.e., as in TEC) but by an interpretation of the Holy Scriptures that accords with a range of authoritative interpretive documents. This is precisely the position taken by the author of the essay "The Formularies and the Limits of Diversity" only the number of authoritative documents listed there is more extensive. The author contends that there are two sorts of formularies-one general and the other particular. The general formularies are the dogmatic decrees of the General Councils, the "writings of the Fathers as a record of the mind of the Church in reading Holy Scripture"; and the common law of the Christian Church. The particular formularies are The Book of Common Prayer, the "Ordinal", the Articles of Religion, and the Canon Law. It is by fidelity to these "formularies" that the integrity of the Anglican Communion is to preserved.
It is clear that this view is having very practical consequences. The Anglican Church of Nigeria has changed its Constitution so as to define communion by adherence to the classical formularies of Anglicanism rather than by a relation to the Archbishop of Canterbury. In a similar move, Common Cause (a uniting movement of diaspora Anglicans within the U.S. and disaffected parishes and dioceses from within TEC) has incorporated these formularies into its self-definition.
It is clear also that the "confessionalist" view of diversity is radically different from that proposed by those Ephraim Radner has termed "localists" and I have referred to as "progressives." If "localists" uphold diversity as part of the richness of the Anglican heritage and as a way in fact of ensuring its integrity, "confessionalists" view diversity as a threat to integrity that is best limited by rather clear doctrinal and moral boundaries. The important thing is not variety, development and new insight but fidelity to a recognized deposit of right doctrine and practice.
"Confessionalists" are concerned to maintain doctrinal limits rather than expand (or perhaps blur) doctrinal boundaries; and, not surprisingly, this concern gives them a very different view from their "progressive" of both Episcopal authority and the nature of the Anglican Communion adversaries. For "confessionalists" Episcopal authority functions primarily to insure that "orthodoxy" is maintained within parish, diocese, province and communion. However, it may well be that "confessionalists" have differing views of how that authority ought to be exercised in circumstances like those brought about by the actions of TEC. Those who proposed CCE have a very radical position. Noting that the Gospel imperative to "Go into all the world and make disciples" has renewed force in a post Christian society, the framers of CCE insist "traditional patterns of parishes, clergy and ecclesiastical buildings is now inadequate" and in consequence "existing ecclesial legal boundaries should be seen as permeable." Thus, there cannot be any "no-go areas for gospel growth and church planting." They insist also that leadership faithful to "biblical orthodoxy" must be raised up at the local level and if not approved by the ordinary of that area, provision for recognizing or ordaining said leadership should be provided from outside the local jurisdiction. They conclude that they can no longer accept "churches being denied such oversight, and that provision of such oversight is more important than arguments about jurisdiction. The immediate crisis, they say, is over "the fundamentals of revealed truth." It is perhaps worth noting at this point that Bishop Martyn Minns of CANA has espoused a similar view in a recent web article, "The World is Flat." It is also a position similar to that taken by AMiA.
The view of Episcopal authority proposed by the authors of CCE, CANA, and AMiA is quite aggressive. It not only is charged with guarding "biblical orthodoxy", it is also charged with spreading it not only in areas where it is under threat by heterodox Episcopal authority but also more generally even in "Biblically orthodox" dioceses. A more moderate view can be found in the letter of Archbishop Henry Luke Orambi of Uganda announcing the consecration of the Rev. John Guernsey as Bishop within the Church of Uganda with pastoral responsibility for the 26 parishes that have sought the protection of one or another of Uganda's bishops. Bishop-elect Guernsey will be assigned "Episcopal oversight" but not "jurisdiction" in respect to the 26 parishes (each of which will remain "full members" of its respective Ugandan diocese). Guernsey is to be seen as "overseeing bishop" and the various Ugandan bishops involved as mission partners. This arrangement means, in the words of Bishop Orambi, "all matters pertaining to ordinations, deployment of clergy, calling of clergy to parishes, clergy discipline, installation of new rectors, confirmation, planting of new churches, referral of church for Ugandan oversight, etc. should now be referred directly to Bishop-elect Guernsey and no longer to your Ugandan Bishop. On the other hand, matters pertaining to your joint mission efforts should be referred to your Ugandan Bishop."
By Bishop Orambi's own admission, this is a "complex" arrangement. It is, however, one that has arisen from direct requests for Episcopal oversight that have come from within TEC. It is not one that has resulted from missionary efforts on the part of the Church of Uganda within other jurisdictions. Further, it is an arrangement the bishop refers to as an "ecclesiastical refugee ministry." It is intended to last only until there is in place "a Biblically orthodox domestic ecclesial entity in the USA." If at some point in the future such an entity should exist, Bishop Orambi says the Church of Uganda could "repatriate" any parishes involved in such a scheme.
What might such an entity look like? This question brings me to the final subject I have been assigned-the Anglican Communion. I say this because the sort of entity envisioned carries with it the future nature of what is now the Anglican Communion. For various reasons that future does not at the moment look bright. The unanimously agreed Pastoral Scheme by the Primates in their February meeting of 2007 is one possibility. If adopted, it would provide a way to prevent fracture because it would, in the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, provide an American solution to an American problem. Nevertheless, its rejection by TEC's House of Bishops and its Executive Council prompt a concluding comment by Bishop Orambi that augers ill for such a possibility. At the conclusion of his letter he welcomes Bishop Duncan's call for a "Council of Bishops meeting for the Common Cause partners in September." He states, "This is the kind of movement toward unity among orthodox entities in the USA that is hopeful for the future of a Biblical North American Anglican witness..." This remark leads to the conclusion that a new province may be in the making if no other course presents itself.
The apparent collapse of the pastoral scheme and the positions and actions taken prior to and subsequent to said collapse by persons and groups of a "confessionalist" frame of mind cast more than a shadow of doubt over the future of the Anglican Communion, as it now exists. Just what sort of communion do "confessionalists" envision? How do they understand the identity of Anglicanism? They often speak of "realignment", but on what basis? Clearly, as Nigeria's change in its constitution makes clear and as the other proposals and actions I have mentioned suggest, Anglicanism is to be understood first of all as a confessional body defined by the classical formularies of the C of E. It is on the basis of this confessional identity that the Anglican Communion is to go forward, and it is on the basis of a confessional identity that the realignment of the Communion is to take place. It probably doesn't need saying, but I will anyway. This view is as different from the polycentric vision of autonomous provinces held by progressives as one can imagine.
IV
Be that as it may, what I find so distressing about what might be called the "confessionalist turn" in thought and action is that planning for an independent ecclesiastical entity of the sort apparently being considered by the bishops involved in Common Cause has been going on in secret perhaps from the year 2004 and certainly from the year 2005. The recent appearance on the Web of a memo by the Rev. Allison Barfoot and dated 2004 suggesting many of the developments and possibilities I have noted above certainly suggests that plans for a new province have been in the making for some time. A memo from Bishops Duncan to the Primates of the Global South dated 2005 proposing a "missionary distinct" clearly recommends such a course. What is even more distressing than the secrecy, however, is the fact that the confessional nature of the suggestions for a new province and a new definition of communion portends splits within the Communion that run all the way down--through parishes, dioceses, and provinces. We are speaking here not of "realignment" but the shattering of the Anglican Communion as we have known it.
It may in fact be too late to prevent such an eventuality, but a possibility as dire as this requires one to ask if there is a better way. I very much hope there is because both the "progressive" and the "confessionalist" positions are more than inadequate. They are dead wrong! Before I point to a better way forward, I must state briefly my reasons for making such a bald statement. To take the "progressive" view first, their idea of communion verges on Rotarianism. It amounts to little more than a dedication to good works surrounded by a patina of religiosity. Thus, the mission of the church is reducible in their mind to the "millennium goals." But can the church understood as a communion of believers be understood as little more than a society devoted to good works (even if those good works are done to honor God)? Or again, does a body bound by no more than affection, mutual aid, and mutual respect even approximate what the New Testament understands as koinonia? Does it come close to what Paul means when he urges believers to be of one mind? Does it approach what John has in mind when he presents the Church with Christ's final prayer that they all be one? I find it impossible to conclude that the right answer to any of these questions could be yes.
The "confessionalist " position presents different but equally serious problems. It difficulties are at least three fold. First, the history of confessions within Anglicanism shows that again and again appeal to formularies failed to produce the unity for which they were intended. Second, as time goes on, those who hold to confessions must interpret them in the light of new circumstances. This simple fact suggests that the communion confessions are supposed to produce and protect in fact depend upon relations between people who interpret and enforce them. Finally, confessions grown from an achieved unity of thought and practice and have force only as long as that unity exists. In and or themselves, they cannot sustain the reality that gives them birth-namely a unity of belief and life within the Church. In short, to make confessional agreement the basis of communion is to put the cart before the horse and in so doing produce not a communion but a church party; or worse yet another church!
V
To quote Luke very much out of context, the problems endemic to the sort of action and reaction I have described prompt me to ask "What then shall we do?" As I suggested at the outset, I believe the Windsor Report (WR) provides a more adequate answer to the questions posed than either of the alternatives I have described. How do the authors of WR understand "integrity"? Nor surprisingly, "integrity" requires fidelity to apostolic teaching. However, fidelity to apostolic teaching is carried forward through time not by devouring the past in the name of the future and not by confessional agreement. Rather it is carried forward by participation in a practice, namely, the regular reading of the Holy Scriptures (entire) through the year in the context of the prayers and worship of the church. If read in this way the Bible is perspicuous-its meaning open to the simple believer. To be sure, the faithful are aided in their appropriation of the meaning of the Holy Scriptures by councils, creeds, the writing of the Fathers, confessions, and formularies; but these do not provide the bedrock upon which fidelity to apostolic teaching rests. What a number of us have termed "scriptural immersion" on the part of a people is the source and guarantee of the "integrity" to which the Church is called at all times and in all places. Consequently, WR calls for the Anglican Communion to "re-evaluate the ways in which we have read, heard, studied and digested scripture" with a view to procuring "a shared reading of Scripture across boundaries of culture, religion, and tradition." (WR 61, 62) Clearly, a shared reading is something that comes into being through the common practice of the church. It is not a pre-existing and permanent condition that can be summed up in a formulary and presented as the standard of fidelity through the ages.
What about "diversity"? Why is it necessary and how is it related to "integrity"? According to WR, a common and adequate appropriation of apostolic teaching is an ongoing process. That process is challenging because there are differences in historical and cultural location that require autonomy on the part of the various provinces of the Communion. Each is called upon to make a faithful witness within its particular circumstances. Consequently, difference between provinces (some no doubt extreme) will inevitably appear. However, WR insists that, "in communion, each church acknowledges and respects the interdependence and autonomy of the other..."If any local practices or statements of belief become controversial, their adequacy is to be judged through a process of discernment. However, in this process each province is to put "the needs of the global fellowship before its own." Further, they are to "avoid unilateral action on contentious issues which may result in broken communion." In short, "diversity" and autonomy are to be understood not in isolation but always in relation to the sort of common mind and heart that is constitutive of communion.
The view presented by WR of both "integrity" and "diversity" leads directly to what the report has to say about Episcopal authority. The centrality of the Holy Scriptures for discerning the circumference of apostolic teaching and the limits of diversity points to the importance of "teachers of Scripture" within the life of the Church. Chief among these are "bishops who aid the church in its efforts of discernment." (WR 57,58) Bishops also fulfill a function of fundamental importance in maintaining and giving expression to the sort of "synodality" that is constitutive of communion as Anglicans have understood and lived it. What the report terms "synodical walking together" is "expressed most visibly among Anglicans through the office of bishop." (WR 66) How might this view of Episcopal authority best be summarized? The bishop is not a prophet called to lead the church into new truth. The bishop is not first of all an inspector of confessional adequacy. The bishop is rather a teacher of the church and a living expression of its common faith and life charged with guarding and strengthening its communion both within each diocese and the church universal.
(I will only note at this point that failure to discuss church discipline in connection with the Episcopal responsibility to guard the faith and practice of the church constitutes a serious weakness in both the Virginia Report and the Windsor Report. Apart from adequate discipline, the call given by WR for "mutual subjection" cannot sustain the sort of communion it is the purpose of the framers of WR to promote.)
This last remark about the authority of bishops brings us to the way in which WR understands the Anglican Communion. It's chief characteristic is neither local autonomy, confessional uniformity, nor centralized jurisdiction. Rather, its chief characteristics are "mutual subjection" and "mutual responsibility and interdependence" within the body of Christ. On this view communion is not a steady state that can be measured by confessional adequacy. Neither is it simply a shared set of moral commitments. Rather, it is a constant work of the Spirit within the church bringing unity out of division and peace out of struggle. It is a work of the Spirit within the life of the Church that brings together those of a different mind and heart and gives them one mind and heart. For this miracle to occur, the church is called upon to practice mutual subjection and exercise patience as it searches the Holy Scriptures seeking a common mind on divisive matters. In short, when threatened with division, the Church is called upon to provide a space in time for grace to abound so that brothers and sisters who have been divided may once again sit down in unity and peace. This calling, says WR, derives from the fundamental calling of the Church; namely, to be an anticipatory sign of God's purpose for "all things." That purpose is to unite all things in Christ Jesus. Thus, unity and truth are conjoined in the providence of God like twins joined at the hip.
VI
In conclusion, allow me to return to a question I posed at the beginning of these remarks. Is the continuance of Anglicanism as a communion of churches of any significance within the providence of God? I believe it is and I hope you will forgive me for quoting myself as I provide a reason for saying so. The reason I believe the Anglican Communion is important within God's providence stems from the answer it gives to one of my initial questions in this address.
How does the Church both remain faithful to the apostolic witness and yet address the issues of its own time and place? The answer suggested by WR is as follows:
"The Anglican answer to the question of fidelity and cogency on the part of the church is not addressed by magisterial, fixed conciliar, or confessional authority, but by the shape and form of the common life of the church itself. That shape is given form by a thick notion of communion and mutual subjection and upon a willingness to abide over extended periods within the internal conflicts of the church." (Ephraim Radner and Philip Turner, The Fate of the Church)
It is my belief that God has brought us to a point within our present conflicts at which he is asking if we Anglicans have sufficient faith, hope and love to sustain such a vision of the church catholic, and offer it as a way forward for Christ's broken and divided body. This is the question posed to us by the proposal that we covenant one with another. What ought such a covenant to look like. If we are progressive, it will resemble a charter of good will and mutual aid. If we are confessionalists it will resemble a rather carefully formulated statement of shared belief. If we follow the road suggested by the Windsor Report, it will more closely resemble a marriage-a commitment to mutual subjection in Christ that will carry us through time and in the process unite us both to Christ and one another in a bond that binds in one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, and one God and Father of all. Amen.
