Global South Anglican

Source = AAC

American Anglican Council (AAC) Commentary on “One Baptism, One Hope in God’s Call”
The Report of the Special Commission on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion

Introduction

The Special Commission on the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA) and the Anglican Communion has released its report, “One Baptism, One Hope in God’s Call,” which includes 11 resolutions recommended for consideration at General Convention.  The commission was charged with “preparing the way” for General Convention 2006, which will discuss “maintaining communion” in light of decisions at General Convention 2003 and the ensuing crisis.  Recent suggestions in some of the media, blogs, and communication from various bishops that ECUSA might change course appear to be unfounded based on the commission report.  ECUSA’s compliance with the stated expectations of the Anglican Communion, including the Windsor Report (issued by the Lambeth Commission, October 2004) and Primates’ Communiqué (issued at the Primates’ Meeting, Dromantine, February 2005), would incorporate a call to repentance for decisions and actions that are contrary to Scripture and Christian teaching; a strong affirmation of Christian tenets of faith and an acknowledgement that Anglicanism upholds Scripture as the central authority on matters of doctrine; a recommendation for the immediate cessation of ordination and consecration of non-celibate homosexuals as well as for same-sex blessings; and a clear call for the Episcopal Church to embrace Lambeth 1.10 as the appropriate consensus for the Communion.

The commission report, however, does not represent such compliance.  While it expresses a commitment to live in “the highest degree of communion possible” (Paragraphs 24-25; Resolution A159), the report bases a claim of compliance with the Windsor Report upon expressions of regret that ECUSA’s actions have caused pain, the House of Bishops’ moratorium on approval of all episcopal elections, and the fact that General Convention has not approved official rites for same-sex blessings.  Underlying the report is a promise of fudging the issue as well as an underlying message that the Scriptural view of sexuality is antiquated and that the current consensus of the Anglican Communion, with its affirmation of the authority of Scripture and Lambeth 1.10, is no longer acceptable and should be replaced. In short, the report does not reflect the mind of the Anglican Communion with regard to these issues, nor does it comply with the spirit and word of the Windsor Report or the Primates’ Communiqué.  It is, therefore, inadequate.

Historical Perspective

In order to understand the report and its significance, it is necessary to frame its historic context.  For over 30 years before the 1998 Lambeth Conference, some in the Episcopal Church began embracing revisionist theology that challenged basic tenets of Christian faith, such as the divinity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the reality of Christ’s Resurrection, and the authority of Scripture. This slippery slope of heterodoxy went largely unchallenged by ECUSA or the Anglican Communion.  In the wake of postmodernism, which denies absolute truth and espouses relativism, and the sexual revolution, the Episcopal Church gradually undermined Scriptural and traditional teaching on marriage and morality, particularly regarding sexuality.

In the decades immediately preceding Lambeth 1998, the Anglican Church in the Global South grew in size and stature, and at the Lambeth Conference, Global South leaders found their voice and exerted strong leadership and influence. As a result, bishops gathered at Lambeth recognized the threat to the faith once delivered, and an overwhelming majority voted for Lambeth 1.10 (526-70 with 45 abstentions), a resolution upholding Scriptural and traditional teaching on marriage and human sexuality.

The outrage from ECUSA was immediate.  John Spong, then Bishop of Newark, said Global South leaders had “moved out of animism into a very superstitious kind of Christianity”; Frederick Borsch, then Bishop of Los Angeles, said that the bishops meeting at Lambeth were not “well-informed and wholly guided by the Holy Spirit on this issue;” and numerous revisionist bishops signed a letter authored by Bishop Ronald Haines of the Diocese of Washington apologizing to gays and lesbians for the pain caused by Lambeth 1.10.  General Convention 2003 was the culmination of a “revolution in stages” in which revisionist leaders sought forcefully to abandon and undermine the apostolic faith of Scripture and Anglicanism.  For this perspective to be validated, Scripture would need to be re-written or dismissed in order to promote the new gospel.  General Convention 2003 greatly advanced this goal by defeating a resolution that affirmed the authority of Scripture and basic tenets of Christian faith (House of Bishops, Resolution B001); approving a resolution declaring that “local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions” (Resolution C051); and affirming the election for bishop of V. Gene Robinson, a partnered homosexual.  It is critical to understand that while the flashpoint issue at General Convention was sexuality, the crisis of belief within the Episcopal Church is far deeper and is centered on a challenge to the authority of Scripture and the person of Jesus Christ as the one and only means of salvation.

The Anglican Communion has decried the actions of ECUSA while upholding Lambeth 1.10 as the authoritative mind of the Communion, and has warned ECUSA that failure to reverse its course will result in severe consequences.  The Episcopal Church was instructed to choose to walk together or walk apart from historic Anglicanism.

ECUSA’s official response to Paragraph 135 of the Windsor Report, “To Set Our Hope on Christ,” was presented to the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) meeting in Nottingham (June 2005).  This document justifies their decisions and actions as led by the Spirit, argues that faith must be understood within specific cultural contexts, upholds their actions as prophetic, labels consecration of non-celibate homosexuals and same-sex blessings as justice issues, and emphasizes the need for a new consensus within the Anglican Communion.  While the House of Bishops expressed regret over division caused by their actions and for breaking the bonds of affection (“A Covenant Statement of the House of Bishops,” March 15, 2005), rites for same-sex blessings are being developed in at least seven dioceses, and numerous blessings of same-sex unions have been reported.  In an act of outright defiance, the Diocese of California’s list of nominees for bishop includes three partnered homosexuals.

General Analysis of the Report

Theological Foundation:

The report begins with a “biblical and theological basis for ECUSA’s understanding of communion.” In the introduction, the commission describes communion as formed through Baptism and in the Eucharist, sacraments making all those who partake members, “brothers and sisters,” in an indissoluble community.  In this community, unity becomes the greatest good and highest goal, and the unforgivable sin is division caused by disagreement.  The report neither acknowledges nor defines “communion” in terms of a common faith centered on creedal elements such as the doctrines of sin, repentance, salvation and reconciliation through faith in Christ, transformation, or sanctification.  Rather, bonds of affection unite ECUSA in the fellowship of the Communion (Paragraph 38).

According to the report, unity is based not on God’s revealed and eternal Truth, but rather is attained at the expense of truth.  Behavior reflects belief, and if truth is relative, so is behavior.  As long as one is a member through the rites of Baptism and Eucharist, one can believe what one chooses and behave accordingly. In the report, the sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist, traditionally understood as efficacious based on a personal, saving, transforming relationship with Jesus Christ, are subtly elevated to equality with salvation.  Revisionist proponents of such thinking would have been opposed to the very idea of ecumenical councils of the early Church because these councils would not accept individual theological beliefs contrary to revealed Truth.  Heresy, for revisionists, is not viable unless it is the heresy of disunity and “exclusivity,” and yet such an assertion is historically indefensible.  Although the Episcopal Church by its actions has caused schism domestically and internationally, it focuses on those who uphold orthodoxy as divisive.

In Paragraph 13, the commission clearly indicates that healing and reconciliation will involve a new understanding of traditional teaching: “What means are available for recognizing God’s will when it requires reinterpretation of scriptural texts?” A footnote on this question refers to Jesus’ “controversy with scriptural experts of his day over interpretation” of various Old Testament texts and implies that this gives us permission to rewrite Scripture, reminiscent of Bishop of Pennsylvania Charles Bennison’s statement: “[We] wrote the Bible, and we can rewrite it.  We have rewritten the Bible many times.”

The report clearly demonstrates that the major issue before the Anglican Communion is far deeper than sexuality.  One of the weaknesses of the Windsor Report is that it did not address the House of Bishops’ failure to affirm B001 (the resolution considered during General Convention 2003 which upheld basic tenets of Christian teaching and the authority of Scripture).  Dismissal of traditional teaching and practice on human sexuality is a direct result of ECUSA’s abandonment of Scriptural authority.

Expression of Regret:

The committee declares a strong desire to remain in communion, expresses regret for straining the bonds of communion, and asserts that ECUSA has thereby met the standard required for walking together. While the report notes that the consecration of a non-celibate homosexual “raised many questions” (Paragraph 13), the commission does not acknowledge that decisions of General Convention 2003 are in fact contrary to Scripture, tradition and reason, and, therefore, outside the bounds of Christian teaching and practice (Paragraphs 33-35).  Rather, the report focuses on the regrettable fact that actions of ECUSA have “breached the bonds of affection” of the Communion.  The report expresses only regret for this breach and not repentance or even regret for the decisions and actions themselves (Resolution A160). The implication is that the commission regrets only a precipitous move before a necessary redefining of consensus.  Paragraph 38 offers a very interesting distinction between expressions of regret and repentance:

Statements of regret seem to be immediate signs of the desire to remain in communion, while expression of repentance seems a collective process… We also believe General Convention’s consideration of such expressions of regret and repentance will provide clear evidence of our desire to reaffirm the bonds of affection that unite us in the fellowship of the Anglican Communion.

The Anglican Communion Instruments of Unity have expressed expectations for repentance of actions taken, as well as amendment of life marked by adherence to Lambeth 1.10.

Election of Bishops:

Based on the commission’s theological foundation and the need for a new consensus, the report does not call for a moratorium on consecrations of non-celibate homosexuals; rather, the committee urges only “the exercise of very considerable caution” with regard to the election and consecration of an individual “living in a same gender union” (Paragraph 51 and Resolution A161).  Such a recommendation for caution seems intended to buy immediate goodwill within the Communion and time to change consensus.  In addition, the commission commends the response of the House of Bishops regarding the Windsor Report’s call for a moratorium.  In their March 2005 Pastoral Letter, ECUSA bishops claimed they lack the authority to impose such a moratorium on dioceses but pledged to withhold consent for the consecration of any individual elected to the episcopate prior to General Convention 2006.

The report not only fails to call for a moratorium on future consecrations of partnered homosexuals, but also claims that a moratorium by definition is intended to be temporary, in this instance, pending a new consensus developed during a period of prayer and study (Paragraph 48).  The commission members “gratefully note” responses to the Windsor Report expressing diversity and inclusivity regarding human sexuality (Paragraph 48).

Public Rites of Blessings for Same-Sex Unions:

The commission obfuscates the issue of blessings of same-sex unions and falls far short of a recommendation for an immediate moratorium.  First, the commission “expressly denies” that C051, the resolution recognizing that “local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions,” which was approved at General Convention 2003, represents authorization of official rites for same-sex blessings.  The report argues that only liturgies included in authorized ECUSA worship publications (Book of Common Prayer, 1979; the Book of Occasional Services, 2003; and Enriching Our Worship 1 and 2, 1997 and 2000) can be considered authorized or official.  For the commission, then, compliance with the Windsor Report is centered on official rites rather than widely practiced, though non-official, liturgies.  It is true that General Convention of the Episcopal Church has not adopted or developed official rites, but it is equally true that blessings of same-sex unions (for clergy and lay partners) routinely occur in churches and at homes and do in fact incorporate liturgy.  The report neglects to cite that several dioceses have developed, or are in the process of developing, rites, and at least two bishops (John Chane, Diocese of Washington, and Jon Bruno, Diocese of Los Angeles) have personally performed blessings of same-sex unions.  To suggest that “no official rite” equals “no blessings of same-sex unions” and non-liturgy is disingenuous at best.  With or without official rites, C051 offered ECUSA’s stamp of approval on blessings of same-sex unions as liturgical practice within the church.

The report recommends that bishops refrain from authorizing rites but does not call for a moratorium on such rites or on the practice of blessing same-sex unions.  In addition, the report expresses commitment to “ ‘a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care’ ” (Paragraph 53).  The commission is referencing a phrase included in a Pastoral Letter issued by Anglican Communion Primates at their meeting in Brazil in May 2003 (also quoted in the Windsor Report, Paragraph 143). In the letter’s section on human sexuality, the Primates emphasize that they could not “support the authorization” of blessings of same-sex unions, noting the Archbishop of Canterbury’s assertion that “it is through liturgy that we express what we believe.” The Primates are clearly concerned that authentic Christian pastoral care be extended to all people, regardless of their sexuality, however, and the pastoral letter goes on to say that:

This is distinct from the duty of pastoral care that is laid upon all Christians to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual orientations. As recognised in the booklet “True Union”, it is necessary to maintain a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care.

The Primates’ reference to “True Union” is key, as it establishes an accurate context for the Pastoral Letter.  In “True Union”, a paper commissioned by Archbishop Drexel Gomez, scholars express a strong argument against blessings of same-sex unions, whether officially and unofficially:

The union of physical bodies can affect the union of the ecclesial Body. Something which seems so small and immaterial can evidently have an explosive effect. Policy about sexual behaviour is not just a private matter. (6.24)

…it would be preferable if within the Communion as a whole a moratorium could be placed on actions in this area which seek to alter the traditional public teaching and practice of the Christian Church. (6.18)

The emphasis of the paper, as well as the Primates’ Pastoral Letter and the Windsor Report, is that practice (official and unofficial) must be consistent with the teaching of Scripture and the Communion.  The commission, however, intentionally misrepresents and distorts the clear meaning of these documents, taking them out of context and applying them to support revisionist teaching and practice.  Paragraph 53 of the report states, “The Episcopal Church has authorized no other rites. We remain, however, committed to maintaining ‘a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care.’ ” Resolution A162 opens with a call to “maintain a breadth of private response to situations of pastoral care,” implying that such “pastoral care” includes turning a corporate blind eye to blessings of same-sex unions or actually performing such blessings (Paragraph 53 and Resolution A162).  The resolution recommends not proceeding with authorization but says nothing about practice of liturgies being conducted in Episcopal churches.

Commitment to Windsor and Listening Process:

The report frames its resolution regarding the Windsor Report by focusing on the Listening Process.  The commission’s report repeatedly references “a new consensus” and identifies the Listening Process as a significant tool for reframing the argument and redefining the consensus of the Communion and highly recommends “To Set Our Hope on Christ” as a significant resource for the Listening Process.  Both “To Set Our Hope on Christ” and the commission report focus on the Listening Process as a means to change the mind of the Communion and to develop new consensus, which would ultimately embrace and affirm the new gospel of revisionism (Paragraphs 63-65, Resolution A 165).

Anglican Covenant:

Paragraph 72 of the report commends the concept of an Anglican Covenant recommended by the Windsor Report as a means of interdependence in the Communion, but notes three varieties of covenant emphasis – canonical/structural (Windsor Report), doctrinal/confessional (Primates), and missional/relational (Anglican Consultative Council).  The report includes a sample covenant which focuses on mission rather than a doctrinal/confessional model. Obviously a covenant based on traditional, apostolic teaching and practice would be inconsistent with the commission’s desire for a new consensus in the Communion. The report’s recommended resolution (Resolution A166) only calls on ECUSA to “follow the development processes and report to Executive Council.” Is this non-committal resolution designed to protect ECUSA should a binding, historically based covenant with a creedal/doctrinal focus be crafted?

Summation

The Episcopal Church was given an opportunity to choose to walk together with the Communion – to choose this day whom it will serve. “One Baptism, One Hope in God’s Call” does not call ECUSA to affirm and conform to the traditional teaching and practice of the Anglican Communion.  Instead, it advances revisionism while claiming a desire to remain in the Communion. The “autonomy-in-communion” pleaded for in the Windsor Report is reduced to mean simply “autonomy” in terms of ECUSA’s teaching and practice. Having been asked to stop and reconsider, ECUSA is rebelliously insisting that they go slowly, but remain on the same course. The trajectory of the leadership of the Episcopal Church remains on that very course of revisionism, and it seems nearly impossible that General Convention 2006 will change the course.  We will continue to pray for a miracle, because only the truth sets us free.

Sources

“One Baptism, One Hope in God’s Call,” The Special Commission on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, April 2005 (Appendix includes Primates’ Dromantine Communiqué and pertinent text from the Windsor Report).

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/SCECACReport.pdf

“To Set Our Hope on Christ: A Response to the Invitation of Windsor Report Paragraph 135,” June 2005.

http://www.anglicanlistening.org/

“True Union,” January 2003.

http://www.americananglican.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=ikLUK3MJIpG&b=687991&ct=1254205

Primates’ Pastoral Letter, Brazil, May 2003.

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/34/50/acns3450.html

###
Date: 4/18/2006Introduction