Standing Committee responds to the Windsor Report’s ‘˜Questions for Consultation’
A response from the Standing Committee of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney to the Windsor Report's "Questions for Consultation'
1. What in the description of the life of the Communion in Sections A and B can you recognise as consistent, or not, with your understanding of the Anglican Communion?
The Windsor Report applies to the Anglican Communion categories and notions that the New Testament applies to the church as such. Rhetorically, this is a powerful move, but it is an illegitimate one, particularly given the lack of any recognition that this is, at best, a derivative application. Such a derived application shifts the centre away from the church to what is " when working at its best " a means of fellowship which supports the local congregations. In shifting the centre to not just the diocese, nor the province, but the Anglican Communion, there is a danger of ignoring the God-given dignity of that network of personal relationships which is the local congregation.
The report is also in danger of "over-legalising' the Anglican Communion. Although there is, from time to time, a welcome statement that the Anglican Communion has no legal status, this is lost in the overall focus on process and the thrust towards what amount to quasi-legal solutions, such as the proposed Anglican Covenant. The report also shows no real awareness of the vastly differing situations that prevail " ecclesiastical, legal and constitutional - in the various parts of the Communion. The Anglican Communion is not an "entity' as such, but an association of confederations that are historically related to each other, and these confederations are groups of dioceses which, in turn, are associations of congregations. Any attempt to tighten the relations between the various "parties' in a quasi-legal way, could only be at the expense of local diocesan and congregational life. It should be resisted.
2. In which ways do the proposals in Section C and D flow appropriately from the description of the Communion's life in Sections A and B?
Firstly, insofar as the proposals flow from flawed assumptions, the proposals are also likely themselves to be flawed.
Secondly, section C discusses the four "Instruments of Unity' and the possibility of a common canon law emerging as a fifth. It is pleasing to see this section, from time to time, reminding the reader of the non-legal status of the various bodies, and their consultative, advice-giving role. It is important that these statements should not be overlooked. However, given the tendency for "advice' to be viewed or utilised as "law', this requires constant re-iteration and any action by the various "instruments' needs to be carefully formulated so that there is no chance of the status of these actions being misconstrued. On these premises, the wisdom of attempting to establish a common canon law across the Communion seems of questionable value, since there is little possibility at all of the descriptive task resulting in future prescriptive practice.
Thirdly, the four Instruments of Unity are already well situated to perform their designated tasks within the Communion and there needs to be no "strengthening' at all. Each of the Instruments can speak in its own way, and each can withdraw its fellowship in its own way. There is no need for an Anglican Covenant, and this suggestion is unlikely to succeed, given the legal manoeuvres that would be required in the various provinces to institute it. But, more importantly, such a covenant should be resisted as a further move towards international centralism, which has little value, and much potential danger, for the life of the congregations of Christ's people around the globe.
Fourthly, the recommendations of Section D, in regard to the current "crisis', suggest that the problem is one of due process not being followed, whereas the supposed "due process' thought to be the correct one (namely, the process of "reception', as exemplified in the ordination of women) is a sanitised portrait and the reality is really much more difficult. In other words, it is not a precedent at all. Those who have taken steps to ordain or bless practising homosexuals could also argue that they did, in fact, follow due process, as understood by them. The real problem is not process, but it is the breach of the apostolic faith that is involved in condoning homosexual activity in any way.
Fifthly, this is the real issue that is glossed over by The Windsor Report. By privileging the notion of a worldwide "communion' focuses upon the structures of the "amorphous' end of the Anglican Communion, rather than the congregations of Christ's people at the "concrete' end, the recommendations fall a long way short of what is required. If the issue was focused upon the apostolic faith and the responsibility of churches and their bishops to continue to believe this apostolic deposit as found in the Scriptures, and not to "drift away', then the required action becomes clearer. The present crisis has been provoked by a clear turning away from the explicit teaching of Scripture on a matter which Scripture itself regards as a salvation issue.
Sixthly, focusing on the apostolic faith, i.e. the real issue, offers a further critique of Windsor's proposals. The actions of New Westminster and ECUSA cannot be placed on the same level as those bishops who intervened on behalf of congregations who requires them, due to their desire to stand for the apostolic faith. The principle of interdependency actually requires such action, for when schismatic actions are taken, care of the faithful remnant is imperative. Rather than calling for these bishops to express "regret', the authors of the Windsor Report should have clearly stood by the faithful congregations, and alongside these bishops who acted properly, and it should have commended their action to the rest of the Communion.
Seventhly, all "Instruments of Unity' need to speak out against the actions of New Westminster and ECUSA and call for, not just regret, still less regret over mere consequences (not the actions), but for repentance and the reversal of the actions taken. Until such actions are taken, given the high scriptural significance of the presenting issue, the Instruments of Unity ought to withdraw their fellowship, by means of not issuing invitations to the offenders to their various meetings. If and only when such repentance is forthcoming, there should be a willingness for fellowship to be restored, but, once again, a fellowship that is in the apostolic faith, not merely in order to gain some structural unity.
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?
If the proposals are not built on the realities of God's way of working (as revealed in the Scriptures), they will be seriously flawed and will therefore be seriously damaging. Attempting to build structural unity by international centralism does not accord with God's view of the church as expressed in the New Testament, and so it is bound to produce damage. There is also no historical precedent that such increased centralism will succeed, and there is plenty of evidence from history and the present day that such steps simply lead to persecution, and other forms of coercion. The gospel way is persuasion, exercised locally through the ministry of God's word. Any denominational structures ought to support this grass-roots activity. If there is any strength in "international' statements, then this ought to be turned to the protection of congregations who stand for the apostolic faith.
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?
Firstly, the assumption of the question is that the Anglican Communion needs such "development' and we just want to find the appropriate form. This is misguided. What is needed is a "looser' association, not one that is tighter and more centralised on the international structures. These, by virtue of their very nature, ought to be loose and consultative, not presuming to speak on behalf of world Anglicans, or to legislate, or to do anything that is considered binding in any final sense at all.
Secondly, contrary to par.119, the case for rejecting such an Anglican Covenant is overwhelming. Further comment has already been made in answering the questions above. The "covenant' our churches already have is the apostolic faith as delivered in the Scriptures, explained by the Creeds, and enshrined in the Anglican Reformation formularies. Every baptismal candidate, confirmee, ordination candidate, deacon, priest and bishop, before God and a local congregation, in fact already solemnly affirms these things.
Thirdly, some new quasi-legal covenant seeking to ensure structural unity is therefore not required, but what is needed is encouragement at all levels that this apostolic faith ought to be maintained and taught by Anglican Churches worldwide. Churches who continue to do so are automatically drawn to fellowship in their common faith and may from time to time express this communion in practical ways, such as prayer support, money, or supply of ministry. But those congregations or dioceses, or indeed provinces, who depart from the apostolic faith as revealed in Scripture automatically break communion with those churches who stand by it. The "orthodox' need to call for the offending churches to repent, and to undo any schismatic actions that they have taken. Until this is done, there is no real fellowship, and so the orthodox churches can, or should, also take the action of withdrawing their "structural' fellowship from the offenders as well.
Fourthly, if the desire is to assist local churches in their relations with the States in which they exist (par.5), then such assistance can probably be afforded at the present time without such a Covenant. The urgent need at the moment is to prevent faithful congregations from losing their property at the hands of hostile bishops. If the Archbishop of Canterbury declared immediately and publicly (and the other Instruments of Unity in due course) that he was in communion with those congregations who stand for the apostolic faith, then this is likely to assist them in the eyes of the State in their desire for natural justice to hold their property.
Fifthly, the Anglican Communion, at every level, already has the "power' to exercise this kind of action and the problem is not a failure of structure, but perhaps a failure of nerve. If this is so, then the solution is obvious.
7th February 2005
Forwarded by the Standing Committee of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney.
"¢ For another Australian response, see The Faith Once For All Delivered. An Australian Evangelical Response to The Windsor Report (Camperdown, NSW: Australian Church Record, 2005). For details: [url=http://www.australianchurchrecord.net]http://www.australianchurchrecord.net[/url] or www.matthiasmedia.com.au , [url=http://www.latimertrust.org]http://www.latimertrust.org[/url]
