Windsor Report 2004: A Further Response
The General Synod in 2005 asked the Standing Committee to establish a Working Group to study the Windsor Report and subsequent relevant material in detail, to reflect upon it, and to report to the General Synod in 2006.
The response of the Windsor Report Working Group was received and debated today. This response agrees with the theology of Communion which was outlined in Sections A and B of the Windsor Report and that a more formal means of holding the Communion together is now required. The Group feels that unless these protocols are put in place, a looser Anglican Federation, lacking in the fullness of Communion, will develop. The response goes on to propose that the draft Covenant provided in the Windsor Report would be a good place to start, acknowledging it would require some “very careful scrutiny” by the Synod before any such agreement could be put in place.
Regarding the Instruments of Unity, the Response supports the Windsor Report’s proposals for a revised role for the Archbishop of Canterbury supported, when necessary, by a Council of Advice. However, bearing in mind the Standing Committee’s desire that the current four Instruments of Unity be reviewed before adding a fifth, the Working Group suggests that this Council of Advice should be convened only when the need arises and only to address “issues identified as sufficiently important by the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Anglican Consultative Council or Provincial Synods and would provide guidance on whether a matter was or was not among the adiaphora or would have a significant impact on the Anglican Communion and therefore require special consideration.” However, the Working Group strongly resists the development of a centralized Anglican curia and cautions “against the use of such emotive terms.” Rather, they are suggesting the creation of a diffused authority brought together only when required.
The Revd Canon Stephen Neill (Killaloe) welcomed this report, saying that while it doesn’t claim to give all the answers, it does give a very realistic portrayal of where the Church is today. He went on to say that it appeared that a resolution to this issue does not seem possible, that a vast chasm exits and the manner in which these differences are aired does nothing to further the argument. However, Canon Neill declared that it was time for everyone to listen to one another with humility. He emphasized the importance of unity in the Communion. “I once thought that truth trumped unity but now I realize that truth without unity is no truth at all,” he said.
The Very Revd Arfon Williams (Elphin) reminded Synod that one of the great tenets of the Anglican Communion has always been its ability to speak the truth in love. He appealed to those on opposing sides to remember this tenet.
Noting that this kind of debate inevitably results in the issue of sexuality coming to the surface, the Revd Canon Brian Courtney (Clogher) told Synod that the time had come for a frank, open and loving debate. Rather then devising a structure that puts the Archbishop of Canterbury in an impossible position, rather than creating another level of bureaucracy, the Church ought to be lead by the Word of God, he said.
The Rt Revd Richard Henderson, Bishop of Tuam, asked what it means when, in such a sustained way, a debate remains so equally separated. In this particular debate, he said, the split is 50/50. The Bishop told Synod that his hope for the Council of Advice would be its ability to point out that, when there is such polarization, then we are simply not asking the right questions. In a debate such as this one, there is a need to be refocused on issues such as love, fidelity, mutuality and respect. Maybe then the Church will be in a position to answer the question of sexuality, he said.
The Working Group recognized and paid tribute to the contribution of the Preliminary Response to the Windsor Report which was presented to Synod last year, in particular its note of caution. “I believe that it was a major contribution of the Preliminary Response to point out those dangers and to stand as a permanent reminder of them”, the Revd John McDowell said. However, it was now time to move forward and put in place “a transparent, straightforward, and morally authoritative procedure for dealing with matters which, if they are not addressed as they arise, have the potency to destroy the Anglican Communion.”