Where Is ECUSA on The Windsor Report?
by Anglican Communion Institute (Jan 14, 2005)
The ECUSA is sending unclear signals about how it regards the definition of the Anglican Communion set forth in the Windsor Report.
It speaks of regret but then says it does not regret what it has done to its Communion sisters and brothers, only what it has caused by what it has done.
Those who receive what it says ("Integrity"), and its own Bishops (C Irish, Utah) commend it for not endorsing a moratorium on same-sex blessings, when this is precisely what TWR calls for.
It speaks of a unique American Church with special attributes, not appreciated or endorsed by TWR's conception of Communion, like lay involvement, bi-cameral government, and so forth (we leave to the side whether the laity in fact are involved in representative ways; see the recent report from the Episcopal Church Foundation).
Its own Presiding Bishop insists that TWR does not ask it to say it regrets what it has done (NPR report, 14 January 2005).
It says it will seek to find theological warrant for its views of same-sex blessing, as TWR asks, when it knows what its own special theological commission called for ('we are nowhere near consensus…we cannot recommend authorizing'), which counsel it promptly ignored at Minneapolis in 2003 (see TWR's embarrassing citing of this, paragraph 140).
It has not spoken of examination of conscience for the hurt it has caused, when TWR speaks clearly about this.
Our main question is this, Does the ECUSA genuinely believe it has a special Communion understanding at odds with that set forth in The Windsor Report? If so, could it state this in clear and unambiguous ways?
At present we are struggling not so much with theological disagreement, or pastoral disagreement, or even political disagreement. We are struggling to have clear statements issued by the ECUSA about what it believes to be true.
We call on ECUSA Bishops to indicate the degree to which they take issue with TWR. We know where those Bishops who issued a Minority Report stand. And we are getting signals from the Church of England House of Bishops about where they stand. Where do the rest of the Bishops of ECUSA stand on the matter of Communion definition in TWR?
If ECUSA wishes to stand by an understanding of Communion it believes is not accurately set forth in The Windsor Report, as some of its theologians have stated clearly (M. Adams, R. Hughes, E. Wondra), we urgently request that it say so with equal clarity and honesty.
Finally, we must observe that if the ECUSA House of Bishops and the Executive Council affirm an understanding of "life in Communion" or of the Communion itself that is at odds with the rest of the Communion's own self-understanding (e.g. should TWR's understanding of the Communion be accepted by the Primates), then the claim of ECUSA in its Constitution's Preamble to be a "constituent member" of this Communion will be thrown into serious question.
Anglican Communion Institute
14 January 2005
