In October 2003, the Primates of the Anglican Communion requested that the Archbishop of Canterbury form a commission to examine grave concerns within the worldwide Communion. These arose from the then recent actions of the Episcopal Church's General Convention, as well as those being undertaken by the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada .

As most of you know, both sets of concerns gravitated around issues of human sexuality. In the United States , General Convention had consented to the election of V. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire , despite the fact that his lifestyle as a non-celibate homosexual violated the official teachings of the Communion. So did General Convention's tacit approval of the blessing of same-sex relationships, a practice going on in several dioceses around the country (and openly endorsed in the Diocese of New Westminster).

The commission's charge was not to reexamine issues of human sexuality—for these had just been extensively explored in 1998, resulting in the Church's traditional teaching being reaffirmed. Rather, the commission was to explore ways to preserve the unity of the Communion while at the same time maintaining the integrity of its teachings in the face of such unilateral actions by two of its thirty-eight provinces.

Archbishop Rowan Williams soon appointed the members of the commission, who included scholars and clerics from around the Communion. Its chair was the Most Rev. Dr. Robin Eames, Archbishop of Armagh and All of Ireland . Over the past year, the Eames Commission has been holding hearings and assiduously pursuing their charge so that they could issue their report within the twelve-month deadline they had been given.

While the Commission was engaged in its work, many parishes in both the United States and Canada began to register various degrees of dissent with bishops who had agreed with the actions of General Convention. In some cases, congregations felt so estranged from their bishop that they invited others from outside their diocese to perform Confirmations—and they did so without asking their own bishop's approval.

A few congregations took this a step farther and unilaterally placed themselves under the authority of a bishop from another country. Typically, local bishops reacted by deposing the clergy of such congregations and replacing them with persons of their own choosing—though these replacement clergy usually found themselves facing a mostly empty church on Sunday mornings. In response, leaders of other Anglican provinces have openly discussed establishing a new Anglican Church in the United States , unless the Episcopal Church changes its course.

Needless to say, all of these actions have further exacerbated the rancor within the Communion.

On October 18, 2004 , the Eames Commission released its report to the general public (it may be accessed at: www.anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004). Dubbed the “Windsor Report” after the place where it was released, it spans some ninety-three pages, counting the index and appendices. While couched in diplomatic language and British understatement, the report nevertheless makes several forceful recommendations.

First, it reaffirms the Church's existing teaching on human sexuality, as expressed in Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference. That resolution “upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage.” Further, it rejects “homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture” and openly states that the Communion “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions.” At the same time, the resolution recognizes that those with homosexual orientations “are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God's transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationship.” It therefore condemns “the irrational fear of homosexuals” and calls upon all Anglicans “to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation.”

Second, the report chastises the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of New Westminster for the unilateral actions taken over the past two years, calling for these bodies to “express regret” (British understatement) for their behaviors (pp. 53, par 134; p. 57, par. 144). Moreover, it calls for a moratorium on the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals and the blessing of same-sex unions. Pending these actions, it recommends that such bishops “be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion” (ibid.).

Third, the report calls for the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of New Westminster to provide alternate episcopal oversight for dissenting congregations in situations where there has been “an extreme breach of trust, and as a last resort” (p. 58, par. 151). At the same time, it also invites to “express regret” those outside bishops who have performed visitations without first seeking the approval of the local bishop, and calls for such interventions to cease (p. 59, par. 155).

Finally, the report recommends that each of the thirty-eight provinces enter into a “common Anglican Covenant,” where each branch would approve and promise to abide by the contents of this document. Given the tensions over issues of human sexuality, presumably the covenant would include language reflecting the 1998 Lambeth resolution on this issue.

There is, of course, much more to the report, and I would therefore encourage everyone to read through the entire document. Some have expressed an interest in forming a group to reflect upon its many points—and I would be glad to facilitate such a study. Yet because I do not believe it should preempt our current slate of adult classes, I would ask those interested in this group to speak to me so that we could arrange the most convenient time to meet.

It is important to note, however, that the Windsor Report is just that—a report. The Primates will be meeting again this February to discuss its recommendations and decide whether to adopt these or other courses of action. In view of this, I would urge all of you to keep them in your prayers during the time leading up to their deliberations.

In the meantime, we will continue the course we set last Fall. We will abide by the teachings of Lambeth Resolution 1.10, whose strictures Bishop Lee firmly enforces within our diocese. At the same time, because Bishop Lee and most of our deputies to General Convention endorsed some of the actions called into question by the Windsor Report, we will continue to register to him our concerns, as we did last Fall with the petitions, and in his meeting with the Vestry this past June. Likewise, we will remain respectful of the consciences of those concerned about the use of their contributions to Pohick by the diocese and national church, allowing them to designate these accordingly.

Most importantly, we will continue in the work we have been called to do as a congregation. While keeping informed about these larger issues, we will stay focused on the purposes God has given us: to worship, to learn, to strengthen, to serve.

Faithfully,

Donald D. Binder+

||--Index-- Next Page-->