The Windsor (Eames) Report in pdf

gtsecc · Oct 18, 2004

http://windsor2004.anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004/downloads/windsor2004full.pdf

CaDan · Oct 18, 2004

¶ 134:

Mindful of the hurt and offence that have resulted from recent events, and yet also of the imperatives of communion - the repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ - we have debated long and hard how all sides may be brought together. We recommend that:

--

the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached in the events surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire, and for the consequences which followed, and that such an expression of regret would represent the desire of the Episcopal Church (USA) to remain within the Communion

--

pending such expression of regret, those who took part as consecrators of Gene Robinson should be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion. We urge this in order to create the space necessary to enable the healing of the Communion. We advise that in the formation of their consciences, those involved consider the common good of the Anglican Communion, and seek advice through their primate and the Archbishop of Canterbury. We urge all members of the Communion to accord appropriate respect to such conscientious decisions

--

the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited 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.

chalice_thunder · Oct 18, 2004

Be of good cheer,CaDan. The Episcopal Church still remains, doors open, and a welcome table spread for ALL...not just a select few...but ALL.

Inside Edge · Oct 18, 2004

I read the report..before I comment, I'm not clear on something: does it recommend that certain bishops consider resigning their positions? There was a lot of "review in your good conscience" talk, which sort of blurred what they were trying to get at (for me). Can anyone clarify what those recommendations were trying to articulate?

PaladinValer · Oct 18, 2004

Basically, the report slapped my ECUSA's prohervial wrists.

I'd like to see an ++Eames report on the polygamy that goes on with the willingness of the ultra-conservative Anglican primates now in their provinces, but I have a feeling they may just break away themselves because they didn't get what they wanted.

pmcleanj · Oct 18, 2004

PaladinValer said:
Basically, the report slapped my ECUSA's prohervial wrists.

I'd like to see an ++Eames report on the polygamy that goes on with the willingness of the ultra-conservative Anglican primates now in their provinces, but I have a feeling they may just break away themselves because they didn't get what they wanted.

I just recently read Romeo Dallaire's searing book, "Shake Hands with the Devil". And news reports of the ongoing ethnic violence in Rwanda and Burundi. I am astonished that the archbishop of Rwanda and his conservative African brethren have so much time, energy and money to spend on travelling half-way around the world to minister to wealthy American congregations when ethnic genocide and tribal violence go unaddressed in their own sees. There is talk of clerical complicity in the Rwandan genocide and in the post-genocidal economic displacements.

I think I'd like to see an Eames report into the appropriate episcopal actions during tribal genocide.

For that matter, I'd like to see Canadian and American congregations freed up to offer care in that desperate need, instead of being wounded by the vilification of our sisters and brothers who worship with us and the vilification of those of us who minister to the people we love.

And in Eames' various calls for "expressions of regret", I'd like to see, perhaps, a call for some regret to be expressed to those who are being asked to wait, perhaps forever, for the vilification of their human nature to stop.

CSMR · Oct 19, 2004

I don't consider retaliatory attacks on other sections of the Church warranted. They are not relevant to the thread. There are many other sins in the world, and I am sure that all members of all churches do not help others as they should, and should be encouraged to do more.
As for the vilification of human nature, this is necessary for the gospel to be preached: "repent and believe!" The preaching of the gospel does not consist in expressing any pleasant message or helping others materially - although the latter is nevertheless something we should do.

ahab · Oct 19, 2004

This thread is about the report and the way forward (if any) What is alarming here is that a failing in our neighbour is seen as justification for our failings. Poligamy, which is wrong, is not being promoted by bishops, same-sex sex, which is wrong, is being promoted by some bishops. Issue 1.10 of Lambeth is that marriage is a faithful union between a man and a woman, that is not being respected or adhered to by some bishops.

The church is Jesus Christ is inclusive to all, Jesus and the NT disciples and apostles have some very hurtful words for us about adultery and sexual immorality, and similar devastating warnings about same-sex offenders. Many found Jesus unacceptable for all kinds of reasons and we do have examples of where people were unable to accept what He said and Jesus pointed out their refusal to enter the Kingdom. Therefore we must as Christians remain true to the gospel. As to homophobia, homophobia is a fear of homosexuals or homosexuality, contrary to the gospel. However, there are definitions of homophobia which include an opposition to same-sex romance or sexual activity, which obviously makes the gospel homophobic and therefore so be it; we can only preach the gospel we are given, we can't judge people or the Word of God.

However, as Robin Eames pointed out, the majority in the Anglican communion have been hurt. If the liberals refuse to repent or leave then perhaps the orthodox and growing evangelical majority will leave, leaving the liberal minority as the Anglican Communion?

As for me I am still left in an Anglican church which has a diocesan bishop that preaches and allows preaching contrary to Lambeth 1.10. (amongst other wacky things)

J-Tron · Oct 19, 2004

I think that the best reaction any of us can have to this report is to sit with it and pray about it and discuss it without anyone threatening to bolt. While I respect everyone's desire to hold firm to moral principles, which is a desire I share, cutting and running at this point would be immature, whether it be liberals or conservatives who do so.

Taking the discussion in a different direction for a moment, one thing that I found puzzling and a bit troubling about the report was its insistence on the weight that the Primates' meetings should carry. I believe in three orders of ministry as being traditionally and scripturally sound. But I have never been able to understand "archbishops" and "primates" as having any more valid authority than any other bishop would. I think many of us in the American church will recognize this as a difficulty, since our "primate" is really just an executive officer who has very little power of his own. The report seems to place the will of the primates on equal footing with Lambeth and the ACC. What is the theological or scriptural justification for primacy?

Inside Edge · Oct 19, 2004

The fact that some bishops are not of the position that same-sex unions and relationships are wrong, to me, indicates that such a judgement or interpretation of scripture may not be accurate.

I didn't see anywhere in that report where it said the majority of Anglicans have been hurt. The only numbers I recall were 18 of 36 provinces (I think it was provinces). To my knowledge, they haven't held a general vote of any sort, so even 18 of 36 is just generalizing each division based on the leadership. If anything, it seems more accurate to say that we're split right down the middle on the issue.

I think the report is dead-on accurate when it concludes that those who have endorsed Rites for same-sex couples, ordination, etc, have jumped the gun. The least they could have done was take better care to inform the greater Communion, present their reasoning, and then take action as they saw fit. The sort of unilateral decision that went on was not conducive to gradual growth.

As for preaching or allowing discussion contrary to Lambeth documents and such - it has to start somewhere. I do not feel legalism should be enforced to such strict degrees, which is one reason I find the Anglican Church "good." As the report stressed, disagreement and different practices over issues (theological, social, political or what have you), is fine; however, disagreement and action based upon disagreement should not be headstrong and unilateral.

PaladinValer · Oct 19, 2004

CSMR, then you need to reread the report itself, because it told those archbishops and primates in African provinces to quit involving themselves in the interalities of other provinces. And based on a previous thread of some of the things a certain archbishop and primate said, there's now a chance he himself may cause a schism because he didn't get his way.

The ++Eames Report wasn't just about my ECUSA. It also told African provinces that the AC is not like the Vatican Catholic Church but is autocephalous, a fact that they keep forgetting.

Ahab, believe it or not, the AC is autocephalous. Not all of the provinces must be in full accord to be considered "orthodox" Anglican or "good" Anglican or "true" Anglican or whatever. The Lambeth Councils carry weight, but in the end, it is up to the individual provinces to decide to follow them.

Secondly, I'm rather tired of people forcing the homosexual question in this Anglican Forum. This thread is about the ++Eames Report and that does not simply equate to the homosexual question; anyone who actually read the entire Report can see that quite clearly. This Anglican Forum was designated "not appropriate" to the debate/discussion of the homosexual question by Erwin, yet it seems a lot of non-Anglicans come in here doing exactly that. It is an invasion of our Anglican Forum's rules and it violates CF rules as well. I would deeply appreciate it if you stopped baiting or trying to twist the discussion/debate into one of the homosexual question.

Inside Edge · Oct 19, 2004

The report seems to place the will of the primates on equal footing with Lambeth and the ACC. What is the theological or scriptural justification for primacy?

You may have to forgive my ignorance on the details of tradition here, but for what it's worth: why should we need a scriptural basis to increase the weight of opinion for any given group? Unless resting power in a given group or person contradicts scripture, why should this be a consideration?

The Church is an organization of people, and aparently this report feels the organization is not effectively representing its members (or at least could be doing so more efficiently). I fully understand the complications you've mentioned (like the ECUSA's primates being valued differently from other areas'), but I don't understand why we need to consult scripture to decide whether a little reorganization will help the Church take the pulse of the whole more effectively.

chalice_thunder · Oct 19, 2004

Inside Edge said:
I think the report is dead-on accurate when it concludes that those who have endorsed Rites for same-sex couples, ordination, etc, have jumped the gun. The least they could have done was take better care to inform the greater Communion, present their reasoning, and then take action as they saw fit. The sort of unilateral decision that went on was not conducive to gradual growth.

I'm not so sure this is true. ECUSA has been dealing with gay and lesbian issues for YEARS. Trial rites for same-sex blessings were being written at least since the early 80's - I know, because I was privy to the docs and liturgical reviews.

How gradual does growth have to be?

Does the gospel demand that we help the poor, the hungry, the widow and orphan GRADUALLY? I don't think so.

It's the same for those of us who have been on the margin for centuries. The time to be inclusive of all is now, even if that means some people aren't ready for it.

The Fourth Gospel tells us "The Kingdom is coming AND NOW IS."

Inside Edge · Oct 19, 2004

Does the gospel demand that we help the poor, the hungry, the widow and orphan GRADUALLY? I don't think so.

But as the report cites, when an issue or action is controversial, there must be some sort of good-will, common-sense consideration. Maybe the ECUSA has indeed been taking it slowly, but I hardly think it's unreasonable to ask (or charge): "Why didn't you at least try to go through the same process as we've used for every other problem or change or development?"

The time to be inclusive of all is now, even if that means some people aren't ready for it.

I'm in complete agreement with you. But many others in our organization are not. So despite my personal beliefs or convictions, I am at least sensitive to their issues and would use all available avenues to present my case and/or plans for action before I did so.

If every bishop/church/parish acted within its own vacuum, there wouldn't be much point of a greater organization.

J-Tron · Oct 19, 2004

Inside Edge said:
You may have to forgive my ignorance on the details of tradition here, but for what it's worth: why should we need a scriptural basis to increase the weight of opinion for any given group? Unless resting power in a given group or person contradicts scripture, why should this be a consideration?

It's not simply an organizational concern that I have. Bishops have historically been viewed in our tradition as being collegial. To give one bishop or one group of bishops much greater authority over others is to undermine that understanding of episcopacy. The report goes to great lengths to sketch out the Anglican understanding of episcopacy but then takes a b-line when it lists meetings of the primates as being one of the "four instruments of unity" that need to have an elevated status as we continue to re-envision and re-organize our communion. I have a problem with that, because while I see a value to giving the common will of the bishops certain weight, I don't see a value in allowing a small group of bishops to whom we've given funny titles to have extra weight over what all of us do. As much as I respect the ABC as a source of unity among the various realms of our church, I don't believe that his opinion is of greater value than my local diocesan bishop's. I believe in three orders of ministry, not four. But I welcome any theologically grounded reasoning for why this extra weight is necessary.

Inside Edge · Oct 19, 2004

I don't believe that his opinion is of greater value than my local diocesan bishop's.

I'd agree with you there, but did the report specifically recommend the ABC be given more power or his opinion more weight on hot issues? I thought it recommended the creating of an advisory group to the ABC of some sort, not lumping him with more power. Maybe I misunderstood.

As for the increased importance/consideration given to the Primates...well, it doesn't say they become the primary driving force (again, from what I understood). It sounds to me like it acknowledges the Primates as pretty fluffy right now, and is suggesting that the greater good could be served by giving their conlcusions more consideration than is currently being afforded. I don't think this would result in any given primate being "more important" than your local bishop.

CSMR · Oct 19, 2004

PaladinValer said:
CSMR, then you need to reread the report itself, because it told those archbishops and primates in African provinces to quit involving themselves in the interalities of other provinces. And based on a previous thread of some of the things a certain archbishop and primate said, there's now a chance he himself may cause a schism because he didn't get his way.

Sure, this is relevant to the thread; accusations that other bishops condone polygamy and fail to take action against violence and genocide are surely not, even if they are true.

ahab · Oct 19, 2004

PaladinValer,

Ahab, believe it or not, the AC is autocephalous. Not all of the provinces must be in full accord to be considered "orthodox" Anglican or "good" Anglican or "true" Anglican or whatever. The Lambeth Councils carry weight, but in the end, it is up to the individual provinces to decide to follow them.

Then how come your bothered about Bishops interfering in other provinces? Why was the Windsor report commissioned? Why did Bishop Eames refer at the press conference to the breach of Lambeth 1.10?

Secondly, I'm rather tired of people forcing the homosexual question in this Anglican Forum.

Well this is the issue that has caused the problem and why we are debating the Windsor report. Please dont get too tired to debate.

The Windsor report does say as to Lambeth 1.10 that primates unanimously upheld the resolution as the standard of Anglican teaching on the matter in their statement of October 16, 2003: I feel deeply about the Anglican Communion. I am baptised and confirmed in the Anglican church. I am a member of an Anglican church and in active service and fellowship in an Anglican church. You can assume I am not autocephalous but under Anglican pastoral authority in my local church.

J-Tron · Oct 19, 2004

Inside Edge said:
I'd agree with you there, but did the report specifically recommend the ABC be given more power or his opinion more weight on hot issues? I thought it recommended the creating of an advisory group to the ABC of some sort, not lumping him with more power. Maybe I misunderstood.

No, you're right, the report doesn't really beef up the ABC much beyond his current position. I was just using him as an example, thinking of him more in his role as primate of the Church of England than as pastor of the communion.

Inside Edge said:
As for the increased importance/consideration given to the Primates...well, it doesn't say they become the primary driving force (again, from what I understood). It sounds to me like it acknowledges the Primates as pretty fluffy right now, and is suggesting that the greater good could be served by giving their conlcusions more consideration than is currently being afforded. I don't think this would result in any given primate being "more important" than your local bishop.

Yes, they don't make them the driving force. But they do name the Primates' meeting and any statements made there as being an instrument of unity on equal ground with the Lambeth Conference. In fact, they mention the vote on Lambeth's 1998 statement on homosexuality as having been questioned by some within the body. But they go on to say that because the Primates meeting in October of 2003 re-affirmed the statement from Lambeth, it is therefore the official teaching of the Communion on matters of sexuality. This essentially sets up the collective of the primates in a check/balance with Lambeth. I don't think that they purposefully intended to say that 38 particular bishops have opinions of a greater value than the entire gathered body of Anglican bishops from around the world, but that's what it made it look like. If 38 bishops from America got together and made some statements, would that carry as much weight with the Communion? Why stop with the primates? Why not say that CAPA or some other group of bishops have a hold on us all?

I guess I'm just generally uncomfortable with the idea that meetings of the primates is something that we all have to ascribe ourselves to in order to be Anglican. I'm uncomfortable with the whole idea of a primate. Sounds a little too close to another churchy word that begins with a "p"

Bingley · Oct 20, 2004

ahab said:
PaladinValer,

Ahab, believe it or not, the AC is autocephalous. Not all of the provinces must be in full accord to be considered "orthodox" Anglican or "good" Anglican or "true" Anglican or whatever. The Lambeth Councils carry weight, but in the end, it is up to the individual provinces to decide to follow them.

Ahab,
Then how come your bothered about Bishops interfering in other provinces?

Because it breaches the principle of autocephalousness (autocephality? whatever), presumably.

ahab said:
Why was the

ahab said:
Windsor report commissioned? Why did Bishop Eames refer at the press conference to the breach of Lambeth 1.10?Well this is the issue that has caused the problem and why we are debating the Windsor report. Please dont get too tired to debate.

The Windsor report does say as to Lambeth 1.10 that primates unanimously upheld the resolution as the standard of Anglican teaching on the matter in their statement of October 16, 2003: I feel deeply about the Anglican Communion. I am baptised and confirmed in the Anglican church. I am a member of an Anglican church and in active service and fellowship in an Anglican church. You can assume I am not autocephalous but under Anglican pastoral authority in my local church.

Yes, the Anglican Communion is autocephalous, but I think the whole issue of homosexuality is a test case of whether autocephality/autocephalousness can still work in an age of emails and the internet. 20 years ago most people even in developed countries were unable to influence debates going on in other parts of the world, and what the church in the US or Uganda or Australia or wherever did probably had comparatively little impact on the person sitting in the pew in other parts of the world. Now people can link up with others all over the world who share their viewpoint and communicate instantly. I suspect we are just experiencing the first of many upheavals as churches and other institutions change from a geographic basis towards one based on common viewpoints and interests. In the process we may lose (are already losing?) a spirit of being able to get on with those we disagree with and a recognition that God may work in different ways with different people. I would hate to be in a church where everyone was just like me, and I'm pretty sure heaven's not going to be like that.

The Windsor (Eames) Report in pdf

Aspirant

I remember orange CF

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner

Totally depraved

ahab

Guest

Active Member

Senior Member

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Active Member

Senior Member

Totally depraved

ahab

Guest

Active Member

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency