Diane Knippers Weighs In

The Windsor Report expresses more Christian hope than Christian realism. Those who expected dramatic and definitive action from the Lambeth Commission will be disappointed. Those of us who did not have high expectations will continue to look to the Primates of the Communion for leadership.

Tone and scope of the report. Regarding its tone, we see here classic British understatement. Formal Anglicanism generally uses understated language that inadequately communicates to American ears the depth of the concern – and even the radical nature of what is being proposed.

Nature of the crisis. The report is clear that ECUSA’s proceeding with the consecration of a bishop living in a same-sex partnership and bishops authorizing same-sex marriages are threatening the Communion. For example, Para, 141. explains, “the authorization of [same-sex marriage rites in Canada] in the face of opposition from the wider Anglican Communion constitutes a denial of the bonds of Communion.”

The report then recommends actions to avoid “crippling prospect of repeated world-wide Anglican conflict such as that engendered by the current crisis.”

Legal requirements vs. voluntary compliance. In particular, the report recommends a basic international Anglican legal standard, or “brief law.” (It points out that since national churches don’t expect voluntary adherence to common standards and so must develop canon law, so the international Anglican Communion must develop some legal standards.) This is a first step in developing serious legal accountability across the communion. It’s a huge step for Anglicanism. However, it will be essential for the Communion to state its expectations clearly enough so the Western revisionists can’t waffle. The danger is that Western theological revisionists have become masters at deconstructing language – saying they agree with something when they in fact do not believe in the clear and obvious meaning of the words. A clear example of this problem is the way language is used by the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Frank Griswold.

But what does the report ask of those who have threatened the Anglican Communion by their actions?

Voluntary moratorium on divisive actions. Voluntary expressions of regret “that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached” by their actions. Failing this, voluntary withdrawal from representing the Anglican Communion in any official way. Here the contradictory instincts of the report are apparent. While the report seeks these voluntary actions, its call for legally binding affirmation of an “Anglican Covenant” within each Province is an acknowledgement that voluntary commitment to one another is no longer adequate.

Care of dissenting groups. In a misguided attempt at evenhandedness, the report also criticizes bishops who have sought to provide alternative oversight for those under the spiritual authority of theological revisionists. In this, the report implies equivalence between the arsonist who started the fire and the fireman who must take an axe to the door in order the save the innocents caught in the burning building. Both actions are destructive, but the former are criminals and the latter heroes.

The report’s suggestions for conditional and temporary provision of delegated pastoral oversight are completely inadequate. Here again the report itself is contradictory. It affirms the Episcopal bishops’ 2004 plan, but also requires a kind oversight that this plan clearly does not offer: “This oversight must be sufficient to provide a credible degree of security on the part of the alienated community, so that they do not feel at the mercy of a potentially hostile leadership.”

Realistic conclusion: The report does conclude with a sober, realistic warning: “There remains a very real danger that we will not choose to walk together.” It suggests a process that could end with some parts of the Communion in observer status or “as an absolute last resort, withdrawal from membership.” Those of us who live within the American church, and have a realistic understanding of its obstinacy, will recognize how likely it is that the report’s hope will be disappointed and that division will be the tragic outcome.

The danger is that Western theological revisionists have become masters at deconstructing language – saying they agree with something when they in fact do not believe in the clear and obvious meaning of the words. A clear example of this problem is the way language is used by the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Frank Griswold.

exactly

As most of us expected, this is just another nice bit of fudge from Robin Eames, etal. For the orthodox still in the pews of ECUSA, this was just another year wasted - praying, waiting, and hoping - that all was not totally lost. What a heartbreak for the orthodox, who woke up this morning to find that it's "business as usual" for the heretics and apostates in ECUSA. Confronted by the reality that they must now make a decision - stay or go - it will be illuminating to see how many will (as in '79) compromise their beliefs in order to remain in the temporal comforts of their parish church. So many lost souls.

God have mercy...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.