Earlier reaction from within ECUSA and in the press to the Special Commission report (issued on 7 April) was recorded here and also here.
Some further items have appeared. This is not a complete list, so please propose additions that I may have overlooked.
First, from the Anglican Communion Institute I want to link to two earlier articles that although not directly in response to the commission’s report, do have some relevance:
If there is a future for ECUSA and the Anglican Communion, then what? by Ephraim Radner dated 2 April
An open letter from the ACI to General Convention members, dated 4 April.
(More recently, Dr Radner wrote a personal note entitled Why I am Still a Member of the Anglican Communion Network and there is also this footnote.)
Next, a further article by Michael Watson Are the SCECAC resolutions intended to authorize private blessings?
David Simmons wrote this analysis and Sarah Dylan Breuer wrote this response to him.
The anthills blog contains several posts about the report. They include:
ARCHBISHOP ROWAN, PLEASE SPEAK UP NOW
LISTEN TO INSIDER MARK HARRIS.
Mark Harris’s four part commentary on the Windsor Report is here: one, two, three, and four.
Update part 5 added.
Fr Jake proposed some Amendments to the Special Commission’s Proposed Resolutions.
Integrity published its response as a PDF file, but AAC has republished it as html here.
One point that we expect to bring up with our GC deputies (if we can) is GC2003 resolution B001. Frankly, my wife and I (who are coming rather firmly down on the “reasserter” side partly because of the sort of brushoff we’ve been getting from our parish “leadership”) don’t give a damn about homosexuality (as distinct from people who are attracted to the same sex) one way or another. As far as we’re concerned, it’s a pastoral issue, like remarriage after divorce. (Divorced/remarried bishops, like non-celibate homosexual ones, create a scandal that hurts other Christians, as St. Paul admonishes. But… Read more »
Calls by some to “embrace” Windsor (and then, only as they define it) or face schism, ring hollow as long as all provinces are not held to the same standard as TEC, or any standard for that matter.
I’m Canadian, and therefore need some clarification. What’s the wording of B001? I was able to find its title on the GC2003 site, and the fact that it was rejected, but what was the wording that was rejected? Thanks.
Sorry, FE, I tried to include a link but TA doesn’t seem to allow link tags. Here’s the URL:
http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/03_b001.html shows the roster of bishops who voted for/against.
http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/03_b001.html#resolution is the text of the resolution, which never left the House of Bishops and was never (to my knowledge) modified from the original.
You can find the text of the original resolution at this URL: http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts/acts_resolution-complete.pl?resolution=2003-B001 When one checks out a resolution in the electronic archives of General Conventions since 1973, the first page is the final result: the text as passed, and no text if failed. However, at the bottom of the page one can link to the resolution as submitted, and to the legislative history. Not being a bishop, I don’t know all the debate. However, looking at the original resolution I can make some educated guesses. This has the appearance of what we call in America a “motherhood” resolution –… Read more »
Windsor completely failed to notice that conservatives were trying to trump and define historic Anglican diversity. Somehow the obvious, heated evidence that we were not of one global Anglican mind on sexuality or reading scripture or confessional conformity issues got used as incontrovertible evidence that we were indeed of one mind, and to hell with any believer who wasn’t. Ooops. Windsor failed to adequately discern all the high international drama of conservatives taking alarmed and disgusted offense that a church would even bother to talk openly about sexuality, human nature, or Queer Stuff. This is like a jury in the… Read more »
Here’s the text of resolution B001: http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/03_b001.html#resolution My understanding is that this resolution did not pass because it was considered redundant, in light of resolution C051, which was passed, and contained this language: ““That our life together as a community of faith is grounded in the saving work of Jesus Christ and expressed in the principles of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral: Holy Scripture, the historic Creeds of the Church, the two dominical sacraments, and the historic episcopate.†Beyond that, we have the creeds; why must we legislate submission to the Articles of Religion? The creeds are sufficient. These attempts to develop… Read more »
Dan, re: Even a formal reaffirmation of the C-L Quadrilateral would be a step in the right direction.
I also have thought of this. Our parish is hosting a pre-convention forum with the delegates from our diocese in a couple weeks, and I’m going to suggest it.
I’d have to agree with it being a ‘motherhood issue’. Whenever I hear statements like this, my alarms go off. What is really behind it? I think it’s pretty obvious what the things “repugnant to the word of God” are in this instance. A question: given that the practice of usury is plainly repugnant to the word of God, regardless of how the Church, wedded to the spirit of the age, compromised herself and gave in to the trends of the world 500 years ago and declared usury no sin at all, would those who made this motion then require… Read more »
After reading the text of B001 I’m not surprised in the slightest that it was rejected. It sounded like its resolves were code for “TEC utterly rejects the liberal position on everything that is controversial at this time”. In so far as that was the intended message, the resolution was anything but motherhood and apple pie, in spite of how uncontroversial the text itself is.
Jon
Marshall Scott wrote, “In my observation, ‘motherhood’ resolutions are rarely as simple as those who propose them, much less those who see them from outside, would wish.” Fr. Jake wrote, “These attempts to develop some kind of Anglican Confession make me uncomfortable.” drdanfee wrote, “Not one of these beloved propaganda traps set by the Anglican right are of any use or importance to us, whatsoever, as modern Anglican believers. They cannot be used to dramatically define following Jesus, and however we say it, we maybe need to directly decline to take up the bondage and imprisonment that each trap wishes… Read more »
Ford Elms, shall we keep things on topic? “Usury” is still a sin and a crime. We just define it somewhat differently. See, for example, Rodney Stark’s “The Victory of Reason.” You might also look into the process the Amish use for deciding which bits of technology fit into their vision of a Christian life, and which don’t, as an example of how the Church works. The fact that the Church exercises discernment doesn’t mean that it will, should or must approve everything — or else nothing. “False dichotomy.” Jon, I agree that B001 was a rhetorical bludgeon. But see… Read more »
Dr. Radner’s invitations seem quite sincere, and who among us would doubt that he consciously intends to do everyone well? The problem is, he urges us to agree with things which are simply not so. The problem is, he and all his traditionalist colleagues know completely better, both about sexuality and about Anglican leeway. How can this be? Well, Dr. Radner tells us that this is because they are orthodox, and so they alone have the right – indeed the biblical obligation – to save the rest of us from ourselves. But facts are funny things. They seem to affect… Read more »
After looking again at Dr. Radner’s article, I am more convinced than ever that we are becoming more clear in describing the different goals sought by those on both sides. The SCECAC Report calls for seeking consensus, and in the meantime maintaining humility while continuing to explore and to listen. Dr. Radner speaks of establishing the limits of the faith and exercising discipline. Of my own thoughts on consensus I have written more on my blog at http://episcopalhospitalchaplain.blogspot.com/2006/05/slow-and-steady-wins-doesnt-it.html I agree with Dr. Radner about the topics we need to discuss. I think that actually discussing these issues, and actually listening… Read more »
I’m not so sure it was that foolish. I have heard similar stories about GC refusing to pass a resolution to reaffirm the Nicean Creed. This wasn’t because they didn’t believe the Creed. It was because they had just finished reaffirming the Creed at the eucharist that morning. Similarly, B001 served no useful function beyond repeating what is still present in the ordination liturgy. Incidentally the presence of the line about Scripture containing all things necessary for salvation in the ordination rite is why you can reassure your wife that the bishops still uphold that principle since as far as… Read more »
Jon, to a an extent I agree with you. This should not be an issue to a church that rubrically mandates the recitation of the Nicene Creed every Eucharist; and the “we believe” weasels are answered by the “I believe” in the Baptismal Covenant, recited each Easter. But we all know that the rubrics are ignored, and there is no accountability. The scandal is that certain highly-visible episcopal voices have been openly repudiating Nicene Christianity for decades, and the response from ECUSA has been, not discipline (why should such a one occupy a teaching position in a Christian body?), not… Read more »
Sorry, I didn’t answer Jon’s last question. I would say, no, the affirmation of the C-L Quadrilateral in C051, paragraph 1, is insufficiently specific. The reason it is so is the weaseling around and outright ignoring of Nicene doctrine that has become a relatively common scandal in ECUSA.
It might be specific if it were coupled with a commitment to actual church discipline.
Dear DanB,
Assuming I get to leave, then, for whatever good reasons now preached by the conservative Anglicans – all mainly about how awful me and my ways are – what is reasonable to expect next?
Continued on blog, at: http://drdanfee-blogs.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_drdanfee-blogs_archive.html
Y’know, I think we’re just talking past each other. I would say that your blog post doesn’t deserve a response, but that would let you “win” in some eyes. If we can remove the focus from your sacred self and look at some doctrinal issues… such as what differentiates Christianity from, say, Zen Buddhism … we might make some progress. But condescending dismissal, of which you provide an excellent example, is not the way to go. You can dismiss me. Can you so cavalierly dismiss, say, N.T. Wright? Rowan Williams? Alvin Plantinga? Elizabeth Anscombe? The entire Oxford Movement? Richard Hooker?… Read more »
Dan B, to be honest, I would rather you didn’t carry on that conversation with drdanfee here. There are plenty of other, more succinct commenters here to respond to 🙂
Simon, your command is my wish. :^)
P.S. Ditto, in retrospect I agree to solely being a reader. Happy to be part of the silent global audience, and let it go at that. Best wishes. I am just down the block, and maybe next to you at work.
Simon, some observations by Bishop NT Wright on what the Windsor Report meant have just been posted. As he was a member of the Windsor Commission, I guess that his interpretation is more-or-less as authoritative as they come. It’s here: http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/we_can_all_celebrate_diversity_bishop_tom_wright/