Engaging with The Windsor Report

by the Right Reverend Thomas Clark Ely, Bishop of Vermont
Mountain Echo
February 2005

The special meeting of the House of Bishops in Salt Lake City (January 11-13, 2005) ended on a positive note with the adoption of “A Word to the Church” in response to our initial common engagement with The Windsor Report. I think our communiqué is clear, and I am happy to be in conversation with anyone desiring further clarification of what this “word” is saying to the Episcopal Church and our Anglican Communion partners around the world. In this column I want to share some personal reflections, first about my preparation for that meeting and then about the meeting itself. I begin with a huge “thank you” to all who participated in the recent Windsor Report gatherings in the Diocese of Vermont. The six conversations throughout the diocese in the week before I left for Salt Lake City involved over 160 people—this despite snowy weather on Thursday and Saturday. Even prior to those conversations, many congregations held local conversations, and some individuals have shared their thoughts with me via e-mail and letters. I certainly did not feel “alone” as I headed to Salt Lake City, and that was great.

What did I hear from Vermonters about The Windsor Report?
What I heard in conversations and read in correspondence reflected the thoughtful concerns of Vermonters both for the life of the Episcopal Church and for our relationships in and throughout the Anglican Communion. I heard—loud and clear—a deep commitment to our engagement in the reconciling mission of the Church as we live our lives as disciples of Jesus Christ. I heard a strong witness to the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church, and especially in the life of our diocese. I heard and witnessed an appreciation for the very fact that we were gathered in conversation with one another. I think we modeled well the practice of sacred listening, and I look forward to future opportunities for similar gatherings around other important matters in our common life.

I heard a variety of responses to the content and specific recommendations of The Windsor Report. I heard many express great commitment to being part of the Anglican Communion. At the same time, I heard a need for us to deepen our knowledge of the Anglican Communion, both its history and its current incarnation. There were also many who expressed the sentiment that the rest of the Anglican Communion has a lot to learn about the Episcopal Church and our polity.

I heard folks struggling with some of the tensions brought to our awareness by the report. These include tensions between independence and interdependence, between relationships and structures, between the pursuit of communion and the pursuit of justice, between human lives and human institutions, between unity and diversity, between love and law. I heard numerous concerns about the recommendations calling for various moratoriums, for the idea of an Anglican Communion Covenant, and for investing the “Instruments of Unity” (the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates, the Lambeth Conference of Bishops, and the Anglican Consultative Council) with enhanced responsibilities and authority. I also heard some support for these recommendations.

Many expressed appreciation for the section on Scripture and the interpretation and authority of Scripture in our life as Anglicans, as well as the section on the purposes and benefits of communion. There were some who articulated concern about what they see as a “tampering” with God’s Word and its authority in the church and in our lives. Others spoke of the need to interpret Scripture in the light of differing cultural contexts throughout the world.

There was considerable conversation about the invitation to the Episcopal Church to express regret that “the proper constraints of the bonds of affection” within the Anglican Communion were “breached” by certain recent actions. I heard a continuing expression of support for the decisions of the 2003 General Convention with regard to the consent to the election of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire and resolution C-051 regarding the church’s ministry to and with gay and lesbian couples. I also heard voices expressing disagreement with those decisions and a continuing concern about the impact of those decisions on the life of the Episcopal Church. I heard a variety of opinions on the appropriateness of expressing regret and the ways in which we might best do that.

I heard expressions of gratitude from some gay and lesbian members of our church for the ways in which they and their ministries are appreciated. I also heard expression of concern, anxiety and even fear from some gay and lesbian members of our church as they continue to experience negative and sometimes hostile reactions, both close to home and from places farther away. Some noted their concern because The Windsor Report singles out Bishop Gene Robinson and his ministry and urges the Archbishop of Canterbury “to exercise very considerable caution in inviting or admitting him to the councils of the Communion.” Many spoke about the need for inviting the voices of gay and lesbian members of our church more fully into the conversations.

Many verbalized the hope that we would be bold in sharing who we are with the rest of the Anglican Communion and invite others around the world to share their stories with us. The theme of a mutual seeking after a common understanding and appreciation of the diversity within the Anglican Communion was frequently expressed. In this vein, many saw The Windsor Report as an opportunity to have deeper conversation about our commonalities, rather than focus on our differences with others. There was a general acknowledgment that this was a “big moment” in the life of the Church. There was a good deal of hope expressed that we would remain in conversation and communion with one another and find ways to “agree to disagree.”

I don’t pretend that these few paragraphs, drawn from my sixteen pages of handwritten notes, the newsprint and facilitator notes, and all the other correspondence I have received, capture everything you have said or that I have heard. I apologize to any who don’t “hear their voice” at all somewhere in these reflections. What I have tried to do in these few paragraphs is rehearse some of the major themes and responses I heard and received about The Windsor Report as I headed off to Salt Lake City.

What did I experience at the House of Bishops gathering in Salt Lake City?
When the House of Bishops decided last September to meet after the distribution of The Windsor Report, and before the meeting of the Primates in February, we had no idea of what to expect in terms of The Windsor Report, or who would show up for the conversation. I am pleased that many of the bishops who were most upset by the actions of General Convention 2003 and who were not in attendance at our September meeting were present for this meeting. It felt good to be face to face with one another in community. I hope they continue to be part of our meetings.

Since I am part of the Planning Committee for the House of Bishops, I had a good idea of the plan for this brief 36-hour time together. I arrived Tuesday afternoon, January 11, for a Planning Committee meeting that night. Wednes-day morning’s session began with a welcome and a thoughtful introduction to our work by the Presiding Bishop. Our time was to be focused on conversations in small groups, expanded groups and full plenary sessions and ultimately around the drafting of “A Word to the Church.” The Archbishop of Canterbury had earlier sent a series of four questions [see below] to all 38 Provinces asking for our common engagement with them, and so the agenda for our meeting centered on these questions and the writing of our communiqué.

Immediately after the Presiding Bishop’s welcome and introduction, another bishop introduced an alternate agenda that would have focused our discussion on the specific “invitations” of The Windsor Report that were directed to the Episcopal Church. Following a brief discussion, we voted to maintain the original agenda, which was designed to lead us into a discussion of those items in the report. Since this was such a short meeting—and the Primates had yet to even meet together to discuss the report they commissioned—it was the thinking of the Planning Committee that addressing the Archbishop of Canterbury’s questions was an important task and that we could continue our discussion about specific “invitations” and recommendations into our March meeting, as needed.

Next we heard reports from the meetings that bishops in each of the nine provinces of the Episcopal Church held prior to Salt Lake City. This was a very important and informative part of the meeting, because it helped us get an immediate sense of what other bishops had been talking about. The New England Bishops met in December, after which we sent a communiqué to all bishops about our response, concerns and commitments in light of The Windsor Report.

The final presentation, prior to entering into our discussion groups came from the Right Reverend Mark Dyer, the retired Bishop of Bethlehem and the only person from the Episcopal Church on the Lambeth Commission on Communion that produced The Windsor Report. Bishop Dyer clarified many questions and spoke of his own experience on the Commission. He shared with us his thought that The Windsor Report is like a “litigation document,” in the sense that nobody on the Commission agreed with every point, but everyone could support the document. He commented, “I gave in, they gave in.” Commenting on the use of 1st Corinthians in The Windsor Report, Bishop Dyer referenced his own theological conviction that communion is a gift from God and that schism is to be avoided at all costs. He also acknowledged the challenge he faced in helping other provinces of the Anglican Communion understand the polity of the Episcopal Church. He noted, among other things, that the Draft Covenant in Appendix Two of The Windsor Report was included as a very preliminary draft and is meant for discussion purposes only and not for action. It has no binding authority, and he suggested it might make a good Lenten study program!

The discussions we had for the rest of the day and into the night were really the heart of our meeting. They were forthright and challenging, respectful and heartfelt. We did our best in response to the questions posed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the key themes that ultimately were part of our communiqué began to surface as we moved from small table groups into full plenary sessions. The Wednesday evening session was particularly powerful, as we spent a good deal of time in discussion around the invitation “to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges.” There was a deep, deep sense of sacred listening that night, unlike any other time in my brief time in the House of Bishops. We went to bed leaving the task of writing the first draft of our communiqué in the hands of a small committee.

Our focus Thursday morning was the communiqué. This plenary process led to the document we call “A Word to the Church.” My own sense is that we tried to craft a document that was an honest reflection of our convictions and feelings and one that would communicate to the Episcopal Church and beyond our deep love for the Anglican Communion, our common commitment to mission, and our pledge to “walking together” and not apart. We expressed regret for the consequences of our action and sought to take responsibility for that, asking others to forgive us for the pain, hurt and damage we have caused by our actions. We renewed our commitment to study and dialogue in the area of human sexuality and spoke of our respect for the gay and lesbian members of our church and their ministries. We acknowledged that there is much more work to be done with regard to The Windsor Report and the response the Primates make to it at their meeting in February, and we are committed to that hard work in concert with all the baptized of our church.

As you read and digest The Windsor Report, our communiqué, and all the responses to that communiqué, my abiding hope is that people will stay at the table with each other in a respectful, loving and caring way. The work before us as the Episcopal Church is not that of its bishops alone. Our polity is built upon the active engagement of all the baptized, including those who are ordained, in the reconciling mission of God in Christ. Keeping our focus on that mission, and trusting in the power and presence of the Holy Spirit working in and through us, is essential to the future of our common life and ministry as Anglican Christians. There may well be irreconcilable differences among us, and if there are, then we must either seek God’s help in finding the best ways to remain in communion despite those differences or admit our failure and walk apart. In the meantime, God is calling us to listen, to learn, to love and to embrace a most precious gift—the gift of communion with one another. That communion is for the sake of the Gospel and its mission.

Faithfully,
+Thomas

Questions posed to the provinces of the Anglican Communion
regarding The Windsor Report

1. What, in the description of the life of the Communion in Sections A [“The Purposes and Benefits of Communion”] and B [“Fundamental Principles”] can you recognize as consistent, or not, with your understanding of the Anglican Communion?
2. In which ways do the proposals in Sections C [“Our Future Life Together”] and D [“The Maintenance of Communion”] flow appropriately from the description of the Communion’s life in Sections A and B?
3. What do you think are the ways in which the recommendations and proposals of the Report would impact on the life of the Communion if they were to be implemented?
4. How would you evaluate the arguments for an Anglican Covenant set out in paragraph 119 of the Report? How far do the elements included in the possible draft for such a covenant in Appendix Two of the Report represent an appropriate development of the existing life of the Anglican Communion?
   

Go to Episcopal Church Response to Windsor Report index page

Go to Lambeth Commission on Communion index page