by Margaret Rodgers
The Anglican world is overwhelmed with responses to The Windsor Report. It was almost certainly the most-watched-for Anglican report ever to see the light of day.
Last month I left Synod slightly early on 18th October to go to the office to log into the internet to read it on the Anglican Communion website, and to circulate it to the Archbishop, bishops and archdeacons. Undoubtedly hundreds of thousands of Anglicans logged in at the same time as me " the site was frozen and it took more than an hour to download.
Now we should ask where this Report is leading the Anglican Communion, if anywhere.
The report is elegantly phrased, a model of ecclesiastical prose. It is conciliatory in tone and earnest in the desire to lead to reconciliation and unity in communion. The masterly hand of Bishop N.T. Wright is readily detected in the early section.
It recognises the study of Scripture as the paramount way to determine the will of God for the individual and for the Church.
It recognises, as the African Primates said that "the Episcopal Church USA and the [Canadian] Diocese of New Westminster have pushed the Anglican Communion to the breaking point'.
It calls for a moratorium on the election and consecration of any bishop who is living in a committed same-sex relationship. It also calls for a moratorium on the use of rites [services] for the blessing of same-gender unions.
In spite of this, why am I, like so many others, left feeling dissatisfied and disappointed? Perhaps because it has not come out strongly to call for discipline of those whose actions are based on novel and innovative teaching on human sexuality that is way out of sync with traditional scriptural and Christian ethical teaching.
Because it has not called for the discipline (which does not necessarily mean expulsion) of those who have moved forward without consultation, it has left the way open for them to continue to offend. As they have said they may well do.
They have been requested to offer expressions of regret. The Bishop of New Westminster therefore said he regretted the consequences but not the action taken by his diocesan synod to allow the blessing of same-gender unions in church.
The Presiding Bishop of ECUSA has expressed regret for any hurt caused by the consecration for the Diocese of New Hampshire of a bishop living in a long-term same-gender relationship. But he replied when questioned on the BBC's Breakfast with Frost program that his statement of "regret' did not mean that he would not consecrate another non-celibate homosexual. "I think I would attend to the way in which the community makes its decision and if that was prayerfully done I think I'd probably again preside at an ordination," Bishop Griswold said.
The "gentlemanly' language of The Windsor Report calling for a moratorium and for expressions of regret and for consideration by those who have offended whether they should not take part in Anglican Communion representative affairs, is neither strong enough nor is it likely to be effective.
When the international Primates meet in February, is Bishop Griswold likely to stay away even though he asked been asked to consider doing so? Not by a long chalk! He is sure to be there to express his point of view. The African Primates who have called for "repentance' rather than regret are clearly on the right track.
The report sees some moral equivalence between those who have acted upon innovative teaching on sexuality and those Primates who have offered episcopal oversight to orthodox, biblically-based parishes in New Westminster and within ECUSA who dissent from the new non-biblical changes. The African Primates find this deeply offensive. "If the Episcopal Church USA had not wilfully torn the fabric of our communion at its deepest level our action would not have been necessary," they said.
In the recommendations there is a hint of putative vaticanising of the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury. They say he must not be regarded as a figurehead but "as the central focus of both unity and mission within the Communion".
If this should be the case, surely it is unhelpful for such an Archbishop of Canterbury to be chosen only by the Church of England, or more truthfully, by the Prime Minister of Great Britain assisted by a committee of church and government appointees?
The Commission urges the Primates to consider the adoption by the churches of the Communion of a common Anglican Covenant "which would make explicit and forceful the loyalty and bonds of affection which govern the relationships of communion; the commitments of communion; the exercise of autonomy in communion; and the management of communion affairs (including disputes)'. Gentlemen, please! Keep the hands of the lawyers out of our relationships built on bonds of affection.
