Statements Issued in Response To The Lambeth Commission On Communion's Windsor Report

1
The University of the South, School of Theology
Statements Issued in Response to the Lambeth Commission on

Communion's Windsor Report
Compiled by
Joseph B Howard II
October 2004
1
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
American Responses....................................................................................................... 7
STATEMENTS AND INTERVIEWS OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP ............................... 8
ALABAMA .................................................................................................................................... 11
ALASKA ........................................................................................................................................ 13
ALBANY ........................................................................................................................................ 14
ARIZONA...................................................................................................................................... 15
ARKANSAS................................................................................................................................... 16
ATLANTA ..................................................................................................................................... 18
BETHLEHEM .............................................................................................................................. 20
CALIFORNIA............................................................................................................................... 24
CENTRAL FLORIDA................................................................................................................. 26
CENTRAL GULF COAST ......................................................................................................... 30
CENTRAL NEW YORK............................................................................................................. 31
CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA ................................................................................................... 32
CHICAGO ..................................................................................................................................... 33
COLORADO ................................................................................................................................. 35
CONNECTICUT .......................................................................................................................... 36
DALLAS......................................................................................................................................... 37
DELAWARE ................................................................................................................................. 40
EAST CAROLINA....................................................................................................................... 41
EAST TENNESSEE ..................................................................................................................... 42
EASTERN MICHIGAN .............................................................................................................. 44
EASTON ........................................................................................................................................ 53
EAU CLAIRE ............................................................................................................................... 55
EL CAMINO REAL .................................................................................................................... 56
FLORIDA ...................................................................................................................................... 57
FOND DU LAC............................................................................................................................. 58
FORT WORTH ............................................................................................................................ 65
GEORGIA ..................................................................................................................................... 67
HAITI ............................................................................................................................................. 68
HAWAII......................................................................................................................................... 69
HONDURAS.................................................................................................................................. 70
2
3
IDAHO ........................................................................................................................................... 71
INDIANAPOLIS........................................................................................................................... 72
IOWA ............................................................................................................................................. 73
KANSAS......................................................................................................................................... 74
KENTUCKY ................................................................................................................................. 76
LEXINGTON ................................................................................................................................ 81
LONG ISLAND ............................................................................................................................ 83
LOS ANGELES ............................................................................................................................ 84
LOUISIANNA............................................................................................................................... 86
MAINE ........................................................................................................................................... 87
MARYLAND................................................................................................................................. 88
MASSACHUSETTES .................................................................................................................. 90
MICHIGAN................................................................................................................................... 91
MILWAUKE ................................................................................................................................. 92
MINNESOTA................................................................................................................................ 93
MISSISSIPPI................................................................................................................................. 94
MISSOURI .................................................................................................................................... 95
MONTANA ................................................................................................................................... 96
NEBRASKA .................................................................................................................................. 97
NEVADA........................................................................................................................................ 98
NEWHAMPSHIRE.................................................................................................................... 102
NEW JERSEY ............................................................................................................................ 103
NEW YORK ................................................................................................................................ 105
NEWARK .................................................................................................................................... 107
NORTH CAROLINA ................................................................................................................ 108
NORTH DAKOTA..................................................................................................................... 109
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ................................................................................................... 110
NORTHERN INDIANA ............................................................................................................ 111
NORTHERN MICHIGAN........................................................................................................ 112
NORTHWEST TEXAS ............................................................................................................. 116
NORTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA ................................................................................. 117
OHIO ............................................................................................................................................ 118
OKLAHOMA.............................................................................................................................. 119
OLYMPIA ................................................................................................................................... 120
OREGON ..................................................................................................................................... 122
3
4
PENNSYLVANIA ...................................................................................................................... 123

PITTSBURGH ............................................................................................................................ 124
PUERTO RICO .......................................................................................................................... 125
QUINCY....................................................................................................................................... 126
RHODE ISLAND ....................................................................................................................... 127
RIO GRANDE ............................................................................................................................ 128
ROCHESTER ............................................................................................................................. 129
SAN DIEGO ................................................................................................................................ 130
SAN JOAQUIN ........................................................................................................................... 131
SOUTH CAROLINA ................................................................................................................. 140
SOUTH DAKOTA...................................................................................................................... 141
SOUTHEAST FLORIDA.......................................................................................................... 142
SOUTHERN OHIO.................................................................................................................... 143
SOUTHERN VIRGINIA ........................................................................................................... 145
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA......................................................................................................... 146
SOUTHWESTERN VIRGINIA............................................................................................... 148
SPOKANE ................................................................................................................................... 149
SPRINGFIELD ........................................................................................................................... 150
TENNESSEE ............................................................................................................................... 151
TEXAS.......................................................................................................................................... 154
UPPER SOUTH CAROLINA .................................................................................................. 155
UTAH ........................................................................................................................................... 156
VERMONT.................................................................................................................................. 158
VIRGIN ISLANDS..................................................................................................................... 161
VIRGINIA ................................................................................................................................... 162
WASHINGTON.......................................................................................................................... 164
WEST MISSOURI ..................................................................................................................... 166
WEST TENNESSEE.................................................................................................................. 168
WEST TEXAS ............................................................................................................................ 169
WEST VIRGINIA ...................................................................................................................... 170
WESTERN KANSAS................................................................................................................. 171
WESTERN LOUISIANNA ....................................................................................................... 172
WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS............................................................................................. 184
WESTERN MICHIGAN ........................................................................................................... 185
WESTERN NEW YORK .......................................................................................................... 186
4
5
WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA........................................................................................... 187

WYOMING ................................................................................................................................. 189
Individuals and Church-related Organization ........................................................... 190
Americans:................................................................................................................................... 191
William Carroll: ______________________________________________________________192
Bob Duncan’s Address to the African Anglican Bishop’s Conference: ___________________196
Theodore Eastman: ___________________________________________________________198
Martyn Minns: _______________________________________________________________201
Philip Turner: ________________________________________________________________203
The Anglican Communion Network and AAC response: ______________________________214
International: .............................................................................................................................. 216
Canadian Anglican Church: _____________________________________________________216
Peter Akinola: _______________________________________________________________218
Marilyn Adams: ______________________________________________________________220
Oliver O’Donnovan: __________________________________________________________222
NT Wright:__________________________________________________________________227
Anglican Communion Institute:__________________________________________________230
Province of the Southern Cone: __________________________________________________233
CAPA: meeting of African Anglican Primates ______________________________________234
Episcopal Church of Burundi: ___________________________________________________236
Bishop of Down and Dromore: __________________________________________________237
Publications................................................................................................................ 242
Touchstone................................................................................................................................... 243
Primates Meeting 2005............................................................................................... 250
The Primates’ Meeting, February 2005 Communiqué......................................................... 251
From the Presiding Bishop: ...................................................................................................... 257
Primate Henry Luke Orombi: Uganda ................................................................................... 258
Primate Bruce Cameron: Scotland.......................................................................................... 260
Primate Njongonkulu Ndungane: From Southern Africa’s ................................................ 261
Primate Andrew S. Hutchison: Canada.................................................................................. 264
A word from the Presiding Bishop .......................................................................................... 265
Diocesan Responses to Primate’s Communiqué......................................................... 267
Albany .......................................................................................................................................... 268
Massachusetts.............................................................................................................................. 270
North Dakota ............................................................................................................................... 272
New Jersey ................................................................................................................................... 273
New York ..................................................................................................................................... 275
Pittsburgh .................................................................................................................................... 276
Southwest Florida ....................................................................................................................... 277
Southern Ohio ............................................................................................................................. 278
5
6
The House of Bishop’s ............................................................................................... 282

House of Bishops Letter, January 2005: A Word to the Church........................................ 283
House of Bishop’s Covenant Statement, March 15, 2005 .................................................... 285
Reactions to the HOB Covenant Statement: .......................................................................... 287
The South Carolina Anglican Communion Network _________________________288
Missouri ____________________________________________________________________289
6
7
American Responses
7
8
STATEMENTS AND INTERVIEWS OF THE

PRESIDING BISHOP
A Word to the Church
Some preliminary reflections regarding the Windsor Report
Dear Brothers and Sisters:
[Episcopal News Service 10/18/04] — I write to you from London where I am attending
a meeting of the Primates’ Standing Committee. I have had a matter of hours to review
the Report of the Lambeth Commission on Communion, thus I will now offer only some
preliminary observations. It will take considerable time to reflect upon the Report, which
consists of some 100 pages. Over the next months it will be discussed in a number of
venues, including the Executive Council meeting in November and the Winter Meeting
of the House of Bishops in January. After an opportunity for further study and reflection,
I will have more to say about the Commission’s work.
The members of the Commission, chaired by Archbishop Robin Eames, clearly have
worked with care and great diligence, and the fact that they have unanimously put
forward the Report, which individually may give them pause, is no small
accomplishment.
The Commission was obliged to consider a number of sometimes conflicting concerns,

and therefore in these next days the Report will doubtless be read from many points of
view and given any number of interpretations. It is extremely important that it be read
carefully as a whole and viewed in its entirety rather than being read selectively to
buttress any particular perspectives.
Anglicans live the Gospel in multiple contexts
As Anglicans we interpret and live the gospel in multiple contexts, and the circumstances
of our lives can lead us to widely divergent understandings and points of view. My first
reading shows the Report as having in mind the containment of differences in the service
of reconciliation. However, unless we go beyond containment and move to some deeper
place of acknowledging and making room for the differences that will doubtless continue
to be present in our Communion, we will do disservice to our mission. A life of
communion is not for the benefit of the church but for the sake of the world. All of us,
regardless of our several points of view, must accept the invitation to consider more
deeply what it means to live a life of communion, grounded in the knowledge that “in
Christ God was reconciling the world to himself.”
Given the emphasis of the Report on difficulties presented by our differing

understandings of homosexuality, as Presiding Bishop I am obliged to affirm the
presence and positive contribution of gay and lesbian persons to every aspect of the life
of our church and in all orders of ministry. Other Provinces are also blessed by the lives
and ministry of homosexual persons. I regret that there are places within our Communion
8
9
where it is unsafe for them to speak out of the truth of who they are.
The Report will be received and interpreted within the Provinces of the Communion in
different ways, depending on our understanding of the nature and appropriate expression
of sexuality. It is important to note here that in the Episcopal Church we are seeking to
live the gospel in a society where homosexuality is openly discussed and increasingly
acknowledged in all areas of our public life.
For at least the last 30 years our church has been listening to the experience and reflecting
upon the witness of homosexual persons in our congregations. There are those among us
who perceive the fruit of the Spirit deeply present in the lives of gay and lesbian
Christians, both within the church and in their relationships. However, other equally
faithful persons among us regard same gender relationships as contrary to scripture.
Consequently, we continue to struggle with questions regarding sexuality.
Here I note the Report recommends that practical ways be found for the listening process
commended by the Lambeth Conference in 1998 to be taken forward with a view to
greater understanding about homosexuality and same gender relationships. It also
requests the Episcopal Church to contribute to the ongoing discussion. I welcome this
invitation and know that we stand ready to make a contribution to the continuing
conversation and discernment of the place and ministry of homosexual persons in the life
of the church.
A Diverse Center in the Anglican Communion
The Report calls our Communion to reconciliation, which does not mean the reduction of
differences to a single point of view. In fact, it is my experience that the fundamental
reality of the Episcopal Church is the diverse center, in which a common commitment to
Jesus Christ and a sense of mission in his name to a broken and hurting world override
varying opinions on any number of issues, including homosexuality. The diverse center is
characterized by a spirit of mutual respect and affection rather than hostility and
suspicion. I would therefore hope that some of the ways in which we have learned to
recognize Christ in one another, in spite of strongly held divergent opinions, can be of
use in other parts of our Communion.
As Presiding Bishop I know I speak for members of our church in saying how highly we
value our Communion and the bonds of affection we share. Therefore, we regret how
difficult and painful actions of our church have been in many provinces of our
Communion, and the negative repercussions that have been felt by brother and sister
Anglicans.
In a “Word to the Church” following the meeting of our House of Bishops in September
we wrote as follows. “We believe our relationships with others make real and apparent
God’s reconciling love for all of creation. Our mutual responsibility, interdependence and
communion are gifts from God. Therefore, we deeply value and are much enriched by
our membership in the Anglican Communion. We also value Anglican
9
10
comprehensiveness and its capacity to make room for difference.”
Looking toward a freshness of The Spirit

One section of the Report recommends the development of a covenant to be entered into
by the provinces of the Communion. This notion will need to be studied with particular
care. As we and other provinces explore the idea of a covenant we must do so knowing
that over the centuries Anglican comprehensiveness has given us the ability to include
those who wish to see boundaries clearly and closely drawn and those who value
boundaries that are broad and permeable. Throughout our history we have managed to
live with the tension between a need for clear boundaries and for room in order that the
Spirit might express itself in fresh ways in a variety of contexts.
The Report makes demands on all of us, regardless of where we may stand, and is
grounded in a theology of reconciliation and an understanding of communion as the gift
of the triune God. It is therefore an invitation for all of us to take seriously the place in
which we presently find ourselves but to do so with a view to a future yet to be revealed.
Here I am put in mind of the words of Archbishop Eames in the Foreword to the Report.
“This Report is not a judgment. It is part of a process. It is part of a pilgrimage towards
healing and reconciliation.” It is my earnest prayer that we will undertake this pilgrimage
in a spirit of generosity and patient faithfulness, not primarily for the sake of our church
and the Anglican Communion but for the sake of the world our Lord came among us to
save.
The Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church, USA
10
11
ALABAMA
A Statement on the Windsor Report
18 October 2004, the Feast of St. Luke the Evangelist
The Windsor Report 2004, which is the name given to the Lambeth Commission report
called for by the Archbishop of Canterbury, has been released, as previously announced,
today, October 18, 2004.
The report itself is sixty pages in length, with four substantial appendices attached. It is
thorough, thoughtful, and while lengthy achieves clarity of expression. It is as
Archbishop Eames writes, “part of a process…part of a pilgrimage toward healing and
reconciliation.”
We, the bishops of the Episcopal Church in Alabama, welcome the report in its entirety.
We find, upon first reading, a balanced, constructive document that will help provinces of
the Anglican Communion avoid some of the destructive conflict that has taken place over
the last year, and will, if implemented with good will and diligence, lead the Communion
into a more complete fulfillment of all that Christian communion implies and promises.
By balanced, we mean that the report not only looks carefully at actions taken by our
church, the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Canadian Diocese of New Westminster, but
also at the actions of primates and bishops of other provinces of the Communion who
have intervened in the life of parishes and dioceses struggling with the actions taken by
the Episcopal Church (USA) and New Westminster. All of the above parties are seen to
have caused pain, anxiety, and confusion, and having strained our bonds of affection in
the Communion. All of the above parties are asked to express regret for their actions and
to place a moratorium on the actions seen in the report as damaging our common life.
The House of Bishops, meeting in September 2004 in Spokane, agreed that the report of
the Lambeth Commission would be received with humility. It is our belief that such a
stance makes possible a statement of regret over our actions, as recommended by the
report. How the Episcopal Church (USA) will respond to the recommendations regarding
moratoria on future actions will be more complex, but we believe our church will attend
to these recommendations with all care and consideration.
With regard to the constructive quality of the report, several important elements should
also be highlighted.
The Archbishop of Canterbury should have a council of advice, whose purpose is

entirely focused on helping the archbishop respond to challenges to the communion with
sufficient knowledge of varying cultural and theological contexts.
Clear, concise canon law regarding relationships between provinces of the Anglican
Communion should be developed at the level of the Communion and adopted by
individual provinces, including the development of a proposed “Anglican Covenant.”
11
12
This will need careful study.
The report gives warm approval to the plan for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight
formulated at the Spring meeting of our House of Bishops in Camp Allen, Texas, to help
in situations of conflict between a parish and its bishop over current issues.
Strong support is given to promoting practically the process of listening and discernment
regarding issues of human sexuality, as commended by the 1998 Lambeth Conference.
Finally, it must be pointed out that the report is a series of recommendations, not
judgments or mandates or punishments or laws. It will take some months for the report to
be apprehended, and its recommendations adapted and adopted by the various official
organs of the communion charged with these tasks. The Bishops of the Fourth Province
will consider the report at our regularly scheduled meeting in December, and the full
House of Bishops will meet in mid-January for the same purpose.
We welcome conversation around the content of the report here in the Diocese of
Alabama. We ask that you add your prayers to ours, that the Holy Spirit would lead us
into all truth and all peace.
Sincerely,
The Rt. Rev. Henry N. Parsley, Jr.

Bishop of Alabama
The Rt. Rev. Mark H. Andrus,

Bishop Suffragan of Alabama
12
13
ALASKA
13
14
ALBANY
The Episcopal Diocese of Albany - October 20, 2004
The Right Rev'd Daniel Herzog, Bishop

The Right Rev'd David Bena, Bishop Suffragan
The Windsor Report
The Diocese of Albany stands in the mainstream of Anglicanism. The mind of the
Anglican Communion on human sexuality was clearly articulated at the Lambeth
Conference of 1998 in reaffirming the traditional teaching of the Church by an
overwhelming vote. The decisions of the clergy and laity in the last two Conventions of
the Diocese in 2003 and 2004 affirmed that received teaching. We were among the
Dioceses of the world who appealed to the Primates to determine if the New Hampshire
consecration exceeded the boundaries of Anglican diversity. The Windsor Report is the
first step in addressing that vital question.
The Windsor Report provides the Anglican Communion with a basis to determine how
various national churches can maintain the bonds of affection that have characterized
Anglicanism.
The job of the Commission was not to resolve the question of human sexuality. It is our
contrasting views on this that have precipitated the current crisis in Anglicanism. The
task of the Commission was to identify how churches can maintain unity in the face of
divergent ideas on the sexual question. If we assert we are a 'communion' we need to
behave in that manner.
The report reflects delicate British diplomatic language. But the last paragraph clearly
indicates the high stakes involved when it poses the possibility of "a very real danger that
we will not choose to walk together." It alludes to 'withdrawal of membership' as a tragic
final outcome. I hope that this prompts the American Episcopal Church to abstain from
any further actions that will impair communion with the rest of worldwide Anglicanism.
The report now goes to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other Primates of the
Communion. In 10 days the bishops of Africa will meet to give their assessment. In
January the American bishops will meet in Salt Lake City to discuss and reflect on it. We
are ultimately confronted with the choice of isolation or interdependence. Our current
course is the path to schism and separation. I pray that we can rise above our parochial
boundaries to a larger vision of the Church and the call of Christ to come and take up our
cross and follow Him.
+
10-20-2004
14
15
ARIZONA
15
16
ARKANSAS
The Eames Report Made Public
After weeks of speculation about the work of the special commission appointed by the
Archbishop of Canterbury to study the impact of conflict on the Anglican Communion,
the full report was released on October 18, St. Luke's Day. Contrary to the expectation
that the report itself would fuel the fires of division within the worldwide Anglican
Communion, it appears as a document worthy of serious study by all parties concerned.
It does not seek easy answers of naming winners and losers, but offers insights into
proceeding with serious analysis of how there can be a global communion, such as ours,
in spite of continuing cultural and theological collisions.
It may help to place this whole endeavor in context. One, the Commission was charged
with the task of seeking ways of maintaining the highest degree of communion possible
among the 39 Anglican provinces of the world when there are continuing divisions. The
issue of homosexuality was the presenting issue for the formation of the Commission.
But there have been other divisions before, such as the ordination of women; and likely
future issues, such as the possibility of lay presidency at the Eucharist, something being
seriously considered in the Diocese of Sydney, Australia. So the larger question posed by
the Archbishop of Canterbury was how to maintain ourselves as a global fellowship when
deep divisions occur. Some, who expected this report to be a resolution of the debate
around sexuality, will be disappointed. Archbishop Eames, writing in the Foreward of
the Report says, "This report is not a judgment. It is part of a process. It is part of a
pilgrimage towards healing and reconciliation." Secondly, the Report will now be
studied and considered by all major bodies of the Communion. The Standing
Committees of the Primates and of the Anglican Consultative Council received the
Report on October 18. The full meeting of the Primates will consider it in February. Our
own House of Bishops will consider it in January in a special winter meeting. The list
goes on, but the point is that this report is part of a significant conversation about the
future of the Anglican Communion. It was never intended to be a final word.
The 18 members of the Commission included Anglicans from all parts of the world and
from many differing points of view. Only one was from the United States. So, it is
significant that the Report was issued with unanimity--no minority report necessary.
That suggests that it is possible to speak with one voice even in the midst of
disagreement, a quality for which the Anglican community has traditionally been known.
The Report reminds us that the 1998 Lambeth Conference did not simply pass a
resolution stating that homosexuality was incompatible with Scripture (almost the only
thing that ever seems to be quoted from that Lambeth meeting!) but called upon the
Church to establish processes whereby the voice of gay and lesbian person could be heard
and their issues understood. Because ministry always occurs in a particular context, the
Report acknowledges that the Episcopal Church has a unique role to play in that on going
discussion Later this month our own Clergy Conference will spend time with gay and
lesbian persons, their friends and parents, in furthering that conversation.
16
17
In the Presiding Bishop's immediate response to the Eames report he said, "The life of
communion is not for the benefit of the church but for the sake of the world." The
Anglican Communion exists to enhance the work of Christ in the world. Our
connections, our friendships, our common devotion across boundaries, has enabled our
church to impact the world in ways far beyond what we could do from a more isolated
perspective. That is something to be highly prized and is certainly worth the effort called
for in this Report. On the other hand, our Communion has never taken on the task of
preserving theological correctness and unanimity. Nor does this Report require a move in
that direction.
These words are being written on October 18 in order to meet our publication deadline.
The Eames Report is over 100 pages long and invites in depth study and contemplation.
There will be much more to be said as more and more of us digest the Report.
Meanwhile, I urge your own perusal of the report which can be found on line at
windsor2004.anglicancommunion.org/index.cfm. Finally, let me again turn to words
from the Presiding Bishop's immediate response:
"The Report calls our Communion to reconciliation, which does not mean the reduction
of differences to a single point of view. In fact, it is my experience that the fundamental
reality of the Episcopal Church is the diverse center, in which a common commitment to
Jesus Christ and a sense of mission in his name to a broken and hurting world override
varying opinions on any number of issues, including homosexuality. The diverse center
is characterized by a spirit of mutual respect and affection rather than hostility and
suspicion. I would therefore hope that some of the ways in which we have learned to
recognize Christ in one another, in spite of strongly held divergent opinions, can be of
use in other parts of our Communion."
17
18
ATLANTA
TO: The Clergy of the Diocese of Atlanta
FROM: Bishop Alexander
DATE: October 14, 2004
RE: The Windsor Report of the Lambeth Commission
Grace to you and peace in Jesus Christ our Lord!
I am writing to you in advance of the release of the Windsor Report of the Lambeth
Commission, which is scheduled for release on Monday, October 18, 2004. Because there
will be many questions, I want to take this opportunity to make some preliminary
observations.
* The release of the document will be a great relief to all of us, no matter what it says.
The anticipation of such things is almost always worse than the reality, and the rampant
speculation, much of it without any basis, has certainly heightened the anxiety around the
report. No matter where we may stand, we will all be better off when we know what we
will be dealing with. Then, in a new and fresh way, we will be able to move positively
forward in our mission and ministry both at home and around the world.
* I have enormous confidence in Archbishop Eames. I am certain that the commission

has done its work thoughtfully and prayerfully. Further, I am certain that the intent of the
report is to help the whole of the Anglican Communion achieve “the highest degree of
communion possible” in a time in which the rich theological and cultural diversity of
Anglicans around the world is being stretched. I believe that this diversity is one of the
great strengths of our tradition, but such strengths often run in counterpoint to our
weaknesses.
* It is my intention to welcome the report with an open mind and an undefended heart. I
do not intend to make any judgments about the report, its contents, or the
recommendations that flow from it, until such time as I can study it carefully, listen
faithfully to the effort it represents, and pray about its recommendations at some length. I
urge you to do the same. We must remind ourselves and others that the report has no
immediate effect on The Episcopal Church, the Diocese of Atlanta, or the parochial or
institutional ministries in which we are engaged. The report will go to the Primates’
Meeting at the end of February for their study and conversation, and to the Anglican
Consultative Council in June for their consideration. The Presiding Bishop will release a
statement concurrent with the release of the report. The House of Bishops will have an
interim meeting in January and its regular spring meeting in March. The report will
undoubtedly receive considerable attention at both meetings, but it is impossible to
predict whether the House will find it necessary to make any further comment beyond
that of the Presiding Bishop. While the response of the House of Bishops would certainly
carry significant weight, any truly official response from our church would have to come
18
19
from The General Convention, or the Executive Council on its behalf, and an additional
meeting prior to the next regular General Convention in June 2006, seems unlikely. The
report will also be important, no doubt, as we prepare for the next Lambeth Conference in
2008.
* I anticipate the efforts of many to interpret the document in the most negative way
possible, and it is not unreasonable to expect that we will be dealing with an enormous
amount of misinformation, unfounded projections, and knee-jerk reactions with no basis
in reality. I intend to speak only of those things I actually know, and keep the predictions
of the future to a minimum. I do not intend to issue a pastoral letter or further
communiqué beyond my episcopal address at Annual Council. If some further
communication seems appropriate at a later date, we will respond at that time.
* Attached to this memo is a list of materials that may be of assistance to you in

interpreting these matters to your people. Most of what is being attached is already in
circulation, but calling it to the attention of your folks may be helpful to those who are
interested.
* I thank God every day for the strength and faithfulness of the clergy of this diocese, for
your love of this church, and for the sacrifices you make every day for the ministry of the
Gospel of Jesus.
Faithfully, in Christ
Bishop
The Right Reverend J. Neil Alexander
Bishop of Atlanta
19
20
BETHLEHEM
Institution over inspiration?
Initial reflections on the Windsor Report from Bishop Paul
October 19th, 2004
Dear Colleagues,
In preparation for our November Bible study, please read the Windsor Report at
http://windsor2004.anglicancommunion.org/index.cfm.
On our own website you should also read the gracious words of our own Primate and the
Primate of Canada in response to the report. Two African archbishops have also
expressed their appreciation for the work of the commission, and I’m sure that others will
be reported on the Bethlehem of PA electronic list. Considering the dire threats and
gloomy predictions that have been abroad about the content of the report, we can all
rejoice in its overall moderation. Its constant emphasis on “bonds of affection” is a great
blessing to me personally.
As you read the report and the early responses, however, I think there remain some hard
questions to be asked of this document in the nine months or so during which it will be
processed at various levels in the Anglican Communion. I offer some initial reflections to
assist the discussion of the document in our November clergy Bible studies and in your
parishes or study groups. A more detailed commentary and response will be the work of
time and patience. I will join the bishops of the Province in responding on November 19.
While I am glad this report recommends no draconian actions against anyone, I am still
deeply saddened by it. I perceive water meeting oil: an essentially institutional response
to what claims to be prophetic movement. Contrary to its stated desire, the report seems
to impose a curial solution, elevating institution over inspiration in the absolute sense. I
hope that those who take this document to the next step can be clearer in speaking to us
about the relationship of the prophetic to the priestly aspects of church life.
In that vein, I have thus far found no respectful provision in the report for conscientious
action. Nor do I see recognition that many religious movements, including Christianity
and its founder, begin with radical disturbance of the status quo. The character and
actions of Jesus -- as troubler of Israel and certainly no institutional insider -- are not once
mentioned, and I hope that this can be addressed as well.
The report seems not to recognize, regarding us whom it criticizes, that if one comes to a
conclusion that something is morally mandated, one cannot deny what has come to be
seen as justice because there is resistance to the idea in other places. I commend
reflective reading of Why We Can’t Wait by the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The
report seems not to recognize that justice issues might even tangentially apply to the
current situation for those who have reached certain theological conclusions. In short,
only one set of consciences is honored. Furthermore, I can detect no expression of
20
21
“regret,” or even concern, expressed for the suffering of Christians whose sexual
orientation puts them outside the ranks of those eligible for certain offices in the Church.
We are only told not to hate or kill them. Furthermore, although the report attempts to
excuse itself from discussion of the issues at hand, its gratuitous and offhand denigration
of modern biblical study prejudices the outcome of thoughtful study and discussion of the
issue itself.
The report can lead a reasonable reader to the presumption that our visible communion
has become the highest good. Is there an idolatry here? At the risk of appearing cynical,
one might wonder how many ways there are to say “don’t rock the boat.” I do not read
the story of Jesus, even in its most literal terms, in such a peace-mongering way. I do
recall, however, that in C.S. Lewis’s The Great Divorce, there is situated in the pit of Hell
a theological discussion group, and we meet a bishop about to deliver to it a paper on
how Jesus might have been more effective and long-lived if he had learned to get along
with authorities! Institution over inspiration.
I am deeply saddened at the emphasis placed on canon law, and that the proposed
settlement of the issues that concern us is to be a legal one, through a contract
(“covenant”). Of even more concern, the proposed contract puts the ultimate power of
decision in a person appointed by the British Crown without the consent of those
governed throughout 38 provinces worldwide. If the proposed covenant should be
accepted, the titular head of the Anglican Communion must be a person elected by the
entire communion and thus may well not be the primate of all England: there is no
wisdom in entrusting such a critical theological position to a political appointee. (I am a
thorough-going fan of the current appointee, I hasten to add, and also hasten to note that
he is not responsible for the manner of his appointment.) The Pope at Rome, with all the
“pretensions” that our liturgy once called his “detestable enormities” is much more easily
shown to be internationally and quasi-democratically chosen than is that head of our
Communion who now is to be the “final arbiter” regarding the terms of the proposed
contract. We cannot place the future of the communion in the hands of the government of
the U.K., the U.S., or any other essentially secular organization. Perhaps the leadership of
the Communion should rotate among the primates, from south to north. I realize that such
at suggestion, although hardly new, does ask of our English cousins a certain disciplined
dispossession, but that is always good for the soul.
I am troubled that the report begins by asserting that the Bishop of New Hampshire was
“appointed,” suggesting a steadfast refusal to comprehend church life in the New World,
where neither the state nor the episcopal college nor another small group chooses the
bishops. Only much later in the document is there a nod to the concept of election.
Despite occasional and late reference to the laity, the report does not recognize the voice
of the people as being worthy of note. The clergy and people of New Hampshire, who
had rather a large hand in the proceedings there, are not taken into account in any
significant way. The commission did not feel able to ask whether the Holy Spirit might
speak through so many of the faithful assembled for a solemn election. The concerns are
those of the institution.
21
22
The commission’s characterization of the 2003 General Convention as authorizing the

creation of same-sex rites seems, unavoidably, to be a willful misinterpretation. As the
sole author of General Convention’s offending paragraph, which was discussed in public
committee meeting before coming publicly to the floor, I know that the text was designed
to say that while this Church cannot now authorize such rites, it can tolerate their
existence, giving the Spirit room to work and teach us one way or the other. To tolerate is
different than to authorize; a document generally careful about definitions disappoints by
nodding here.
In total disregard of 30 years of public discourse and more than 50 years of academic
writing, the report states that insufficient formal theological work has occurred on the
issue of human sexuality. It fails even to acknowledge the existence of the multi-part
formal theological presentation made to the General Convention of 2000 in its formal
reports (The Blue Book) or the other studies issued previously. There is nowhere
expressed concern for the possibility, however faint, that insufficient reading and
thinking has occurred on the part of those not now open to change in this area. I
recognize that the burden of proof lies with us who wish to see change; there is
nonetheless a responsibility on the part of the rest to at least read the newspapers.
I have told you before, even with tears, how it was the bench of Bishops in Parliament
that resisted the abolition of slavery for so many years, unanimously and on the basis of
the clear words of both testaments. Nowhere in this report is any cognizance taken of the
fact that institutions are by nature resistant to prophecy, that bishops in particular have an
abysmal track record in this regard: there is no hint of humility about our club and its
historic patterns of intransigence.
Most sadly of all, as occurred even at our own diocesan convention last weekend, gay
and lesbian persons are spoken of as though they are not in the room. A statement that
gays and lesbians should not be hated or murdered does not atone for a lack of any
recognition that gay and lesbian persons’ experience in Christ is generative of any
theology that must be taken into account by the majority or that their experience in any
way legitimately serves to criticize the status quo.
Those who are keeping “score” for either side will find something to please and
disappoint them in the report. Those looking for sanctions might note that both
ECUSA/Canada on the one hand and the invading foreign primates on the other are
equally rebuked, but no sanctions are imposed.
However, the report requests the self-imposition of sanctions on the bishops who
consecrated Bishop Robinson (but not those who invade other provinces), essentially
asking them to have the good grace not to show up where they are not wanted, that is, at
any international functions. This particularly British form of shaming adds sting to
merely disinviting them (in the days of the Empire, rogue army officers were given a
revolver on the assumption that they would know what to do). While I am not one of
those bishops, having had commitments that day, I hereby associate myself with them as
I would with any group made untouchable by ruling class fiat, and consider any and all
22
23
penalties they suffer as applying to myself. If they are not welcome at Lambeth, for
instance, I hope no bishop of our Church or of those other churches represented at the
Robinson consecration feels welcome. Let us remember that not of all Bishop Robinson’s
consecrators were American. Thus these sanctions that are to be self-imposed will affect
several national churches. Perhaps an alternate meeting in South Africa will occur for
those who are now to regard themselves as untouchable. It is a matter of profound regret
to me that that the American and Canadian representatives on the commission voted for
this provision: how they will be able to face their colleagues at our meetings will be
interesting to see.
The report has just begun its journey through nine months of discussion and reception.
My hope and prayer will be that as the bishops, primates, and other groups ponder it,
their vision will be less constricted and institutionally bound and more open to the
possibilities that it is not out of arrogance or whim, but out of a desire to serve at
considerable risk, that this church has chosen to follow the voice it has been hearing for
half a century.
We will have much more time to discuss this lengthy document, but I hope that this
initial and tentative reflection, along with those that will inevitably come forth in the next
few days, will assist you in thinking creatively about the report.
+Paul
23
24
CALIFORNIA
To: All Episcopalians of the Diocese of California
From: The Rt. Rev. William E. Swing, Bishop
Re: Report of the Lambeth Commission on Communion
Greetings in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ!
Obviously the “Windsor Report” has been made public. One hundred pages. The work of
seventeen individuals of various points of view and geographic locales. Although I have
read only summaries, I do want to let you know something of my initial thoughts.
The first and most important thing is that this is not primarily about homosexuality. It is
about keeping the Anglican Communion together. That is a worthy, noble, and necessary
focus.
Second, please know that this document does not have the status of Canon Law. The
Foreword to the Report states: “This report is not a judgment. It is part of a process.” The
process will go on for a long, long time. The House of Bishops will address it at a special
meeting in January 2005. The General Convention will address it in June 2006. And on
and on.
Third, I intend for the Diocese of California to be respectful of the work and tension that
went into the document. All of our relevant groups need to take this report into
consideration.
Fourth, this Diocese in the past has worked through the structures of General Convention,
Diocesan Convention, and Canon Law to forge an approach to matters related to
homosexuality. We have been law abiding, pastoral, and open-minded. Our approach in
the future will be the same.
Fifth, this report calls the Anglican Communion to a ministry of reconciliation. This is
not “win/lose.” This is the ministry of spreading your arms wide enough for crucifixion
and risen life.
Sixth, the call is not for louder proclamation of one’s views but a deeper understanding of
what it means to be in communion with those of opposite views, who are equal members
inside the Anglican family commitment.
Seventh, the report calls for the development of a covenant to be entered into by all
thirty-eight provinces. Hmmm! Does that mean creating an international Canon Law that
can be enforced? Or is it recommending guidelines? It is a big assignment. I hope we
don’t sell our Anglican experiment for a bowl of by-laws.
Eighth, it appears that much of the report’s integrity rests on its call for two sides to
24
25
apologize. Both sides might be willing to voice some regret, but an apology would force
them to disown the rightness of their cause.
In my opinion, this Windsor Report is not a punitive or mean-spirited document. It is not

the last word, but is the architecture for the next words. I call on all of you to read it, pray
about it, wrestle with its dilemmas, and join me in trying to make sense of it in Bay Area
terms.
May the Holy Spirit lead us into all truth.
Faithfully in Christ,
The Rt. Rev. William E. Swing

Bishop
25
26
CENTRAL FLORIDA
The Windsor Report provides a comprehensive and extremely balanced analysis of
"where we are" and how we got here. The bottom line is that both the Episcopal Church
(USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada have acted with blatant disregard for the rest
of the Communion, and the fallout from those actions has been disastrous. I welcome the
Report's recommendations and I hope these two great Churches will move quickly to
implement them.
The Rt. Rev. John W. Howe

Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida
------------------------------------------
Please apologize; Don’t do it again
Dear Diocesan Family,
Thirty years ago this past summer Karen and I got into one of the worst arguments of our
marriage. I am profoundly embarrassed to admit that it began over a Monopoly game!
We were on vacation here in Florida, and we stopped to visit for a couple of days with
my sister and her husband who lived in Casselberry. Somehow things went wrong in that
silly game, and a trivial slight triggered a conflict that began to snowball and gather into
itself whatever frustrations, disappointments, and little hurts we had been harboring
toward each other…
And three days later we were both still fuming as we sat on a beach over in Sarasota. I
remember saying, “I just want this vacation to end so we can go home and I can get away
from you!” (I think Karen said something equally complimentary in return.)
Finally I blurted out, “I want to forgive you; won’t you please apologize?”
And, to her everlasting credit, Karen reached deep down inside herself, and into the
reservoir of God’s grace, and said, “You know, I think you are wrong, too; but I do
apologize.”
And the dam broke.
As so often is the case, when one person takes the initiative in admitting wrong, the other
is able to see his/her wrong, as well. “Thank you!” I said, “I apologize to you, too. Will
you please forgive me?”
I have never forgotten that moment. The initial disagreement was ridiculous, but the
emotion and pain that followed it was traumatic. And the healing that came when we
were able to ask for and receive each other’s forgiveness was profound and wonderful. I
have tried, ever since, to be willing to take the kind of initiative in apologizing that Karen
took with me back in the summer of 1974.
26
27
*****
The whole Anglican Communion has been in turmoil since the 2003 General Convention,
when a majority of our bishops and deputies voted to confirm the election of an openly
gay man living in a “partnered” relationship as bishop of New Hampshire, and also
passed a resolution declaring that the blessing of same-gender relationships is “within the
bounds of Anglican common life.”
Before General Convention had even concluded, the Archbishop of Canterbury called for
an “Extraordinary Meeting” of the Primates of the 38 Anglican Provinces to be held at
Lambeth Palace the following month. At that meeting the Primates, including our
Presiding Bishop, issued a solemn warning that proceeding with the New Hampshire
consecration would “tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level.”
Nevertheless, the consecration went forward on November 2, 2003, with the Presiding
Bishop as chief consecrator, and the fallout since then has been breathtaking.
Twenty-one out of the 38 Primates have declared that they and their Provinces are in a
state of “impaired” or “broken” communion with the Episcopal Church USA (and equally
with the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada for similarly authorizing same-gender
blessings). And here in the US nearly every Diocese has lost clergy, members, financial
support, and in some cases whole congregations because of their disagreement with these
innovations.
At their meeting a year ago, the Primates asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint
a special “Lambeth Commission on Communion” (LCC) to make recommendations as to
how we might maintain “the highest degree of communion” among Provinces so deeply
divided over issues of sexual morality.
The Archbishop appointed a Commission of 17 Bishops and theologians, representative

of every opinion on the theological spectrum, and chaired by the Archbishop of Ireland,
Robin Eames. (Archbishop Eames chaired a similar commission some fifteen years
previously, when the Anglican world was debating the ordination of women to the
priesthood and episcopacy.)
The LCC has now issued its Report. It is well summarized elsewhere in the
accompanying story by the Rev. Canon George Conger. But please let me recommend
that you obtain a copy of the report itself and study it with care. It is an extremely
important document, and, in my opinion its analysis of “where we are”, and how we got
here is both comprehensive and balanced. Its discussion of the role and authority of
scripture in the formation of Anglican doctrine is very helpful. And its indictment of the
Episcopal Church for blatantly disregarding the rest of the Communion is very sobering.
(If you have internet access, just type “The Windsor Report” into your browser.)
Note: the Report does not argue the correctness of the Anglican Communion’s teaching
27
28
regarding human sexuality (it correctly points out it was not asked to do that). Instead it
asserts that the Anglican Communion has a clearly articulated understanding of sexual
ethics, and these decisions flout that understanding.
The “bottom line” is a simple request of the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of New
Westminster: Please Apologize; Don’t Do It Again.
Obviously, a majority of our bishops and deputies believed they were right to vote as they
did a year ago summer. But overwhelmingly the rest of the Communion has said to us,
“You were wrong. These things are absolutely proscribed by scripture, by tradition, by
the repeated Resolutions of successive Lambeth Conferences, and by all of the
‘instruments of unity’ of the Anglican Communion.”
The Report accuses the Episcopal Church and New Westminster of violating the “bonds
of affection” with the rest of the Anglican World. It says that local Provincial autonomy
does not trump membership in, and responsibility to, the larger Communion. It says these
matters are not trivial or of secondary importance, issues about which we can legitimately
disagree –and act on our disagreement.
In effect, it says to us, as I said to Karen so long ago, “We want to forgive you; will you
please apologize?” Of course, “apologize” could be interpreted to mean, “We are sorry
that you took offense at what we did.” The Report has something much stronger in mind:
it must be accompanied by a binding agreement that there will be no more such
consecrations or blessings until or unless “a new consensus” is reached throughout the
Communion.
The Report stipulates that such an “expression of regret” must be seen as a clear desire on
the part of the Episcopal Church and New Westminster to remain part of the Anglican
Communion. Further, it recommends that pending such expression of regret, “those who
took part as consecrators of Gene Robinson should…withdraw themselves from
representative functions in the Anglican Communion.” It recommends that those who
believe in the legitimacy of same-gender blessings and the consecration of non-celibate
homosexual persons to the episcopacy be invited to “make their case” to the rest of the
Communion that such innovations can meet the criteria of scripture, tradition and reason.
Until such legitimacy has been recognized by a majority of the Communion as a whole,
the Windsor Report recommends an absolute moratorium on such consecrations and
blessings.
(There are a number of other specific recommendations in the Report which I will not
recount as you can read about them elsewhere.)
It is clear that there are many in the Episcopal Church who are passionately convinced
that a new understanding of gay and lesbian people is needed, and that tolerance,
acceptance, and “inclusiveness” is the much-needed order of the day. The members of the
LCC are unanimous in saying that as far as the rest of the Communion is concerned, the
case has not yet been made convincingly enough for such things to be regarded as
28
29
legitimate, and until it is made such things must stop.
We are now at the crossroads. Is the Episcopal Church sufficiently convinced that it has
the truth about these matters that it can afford to ignore the rest of the Communion
regarding them? The Report concludes with the somber acknowledgement that this might
be the case. “There remains a very real danger that we will not choose to walk together.
Should the call to halt and find ways of continuing in our present communion not be
heeded, then we shall have to begin to learn to walk apart.”
Our Presiding Bishop has called the House of Bishops to a special meeting in January to
consider together our response to this Report. Please join me in praying that we will seek
and find the Mind of Christ, and the grace of God regarding it.
Warmly in our Lord,
(The Rt. Rev.) John W. Howe
29
30
CENTRAL GULF COAST
30
31
CENTRAL NEW YORK
31
32
CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Today the “Windsor Report” was made available to the 38 Provinces of the Anglican
Communion. Bishop Mark Dyer, professor of theology at Virginia Theological Seminary
and retired Bishop of the Diocese of Bethlehem, was one of eighteen members on the
Lambeth Commission charged to make recommendations about fostering unity within the
global Anglican Communion because of different perspectives about homosexuality.
Commenting on the report, Bishop Dyer stated, “There has been a great deal of
misinformation in reports in the press. Those who take time to read the full Report will
find it to be a comprehensive statement. It treats those on all sides of the issues who have
helped to create this division fairly, and asks the provinces and dioceses to cease the
actions that are furthering the divisiveness in the church today.”
Bishop Frank Griswold, the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, said, “The
Report calls our Communion to reconciliation, which does not mean the reduction of
differences to a single point of view. Common commitment to Jesus Christ and a sense of
mission in his name to a broken and hurting world override varying opinions on any
number of issues, including homosexuality.”
Bishop Robin Eames, Chair of the Lambeth Commission and Archbishop of Ireland, said,
“This Report is not a judgment. It is part of a process. It is part of a pilgrimage toward
healing and reconciliation.”
Bishop Michael Creighton, Bishop of the Diocese of Central Pennsylvania, said, “We
will reflect on the Lambeth Report faithfully and respectfully. I find it encouraging that
the recommendations of the Report are unanimous, despite the variety of perspectives
represented in the Commission's membership. The full Report is 100 pages, and it will
take time to absorb it all. My hope is that no one will use it selectively, but that they will
ponder the whole and begin to discern the work we need to do as community that is
faithful to following the Way, Truth and Life of Jesus Christ.”
To explore how the Diocese of Central Pennsylvania can participate in this ministry of
healing and reconciliation, all clergy will gather to discuss the Report on November 16.
The Bishop encourages all congregations in the Diocese to provide a respectful
atmosphere in which parishioners can discuss the Report.
The House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church will gather in January to grapple with the
Report; the Primates, or Presiding Bishops, of the 38 Provinces of the global Anglican
Communion will discuss it in February, and the Anglican Consultative Council, which
has clergy and lay representation from throughout the Anglican Communion, will deal
with the Report in June.
The Rt. Rev. Michael Creighton,

Bishop of Central Pennsylvania
32
33
CHICAGO
A Statement on the Windsor Report
The Rt. Rev. William D. Persell Bishop of Chicago
In October of 2003, the Archbishop of Canterbury empanelled a commission to study

how Anglicans can preserve communion in the midst of significant disagreement
regarding sexual orientation, ordination, and the blessing of same sex unions. This
morning the long awaited Windsor Report of the Lambeth Commission was released.
The report acknowledges the difficulties caused by the actions of our most recent General
Convention of the Episcopal Church. It begins by presenting impressive and substantial
theological reflection on what it means to be in communion with each other in a complex
and multicultural world.
I anticipate that this report will be a disappointment to some on both sides of the issue,
especially to those who feel that it did not go far enough in either condemning or
endorsing particular positions. People of sincere belief are found across the spectrum.
Our gay and lesbian members make immense contributions to the ministry of our church
as do those who find the actions of General Convention so troubling.
I am grateful to Archbishop Eames and the entire Lambeth Commission for generating a
report, which as Archbishop Eames noted, “Is part of a pilgrimage towards healing and
reconciliation.” The report recognizes the serious divisions that have occurred in the
Anglican Communion and begins a process that we believe will maintain the integrity
and the unity of this body.
In substance, the report asks that the Episcopal Church be invited to “express its regret
that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached” regarding the consent
to the election of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire, which I supported with
my vote. Bishop Robinson is a gay man living in a long-term committed same-sex
relationship.
The report recommends that the Episcopal Church “effect a moratorium” on the
consecration to the Episcopate of individuals living in same-sex unions. Furthermore, it
calls upon Bishops who have intervened in other dioceses to express regret for the
consequences of their actions and to effect a moratorium on any further interventions
across diocesan boundaries.
Related to this, the report commends the process for “Delegated Episcopal Pastoral
Oversight” adopted by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church at our March 2004
meeting in Texas. The report rejects the establishment of parallel jurisdictions; that is,
two bishops claiming authority over congregations in the same geographic area.
The bottom line is that this report calls the entire Anglican Communion to do its theology
and governance in community. The report names the dangers of unilateral action and
33
34
asserts that we must be the church together. I recognize that pain and hurt within our
diocese and Anglican Communion are among the unintended consequences of my actions
at our 74th General Convention. I regret the anguish this has caused in our common life.
The report recommends that the provinces of the Communion enter into covenant for
fostering greater unity. Recognizing that this needs to be done with care, I am forming a
Task Force in our own diocese. Its charge is to develop our own covenant outlining the
structures and mechanisms necessary to be a vibrant and missional church.
This must be accomplished while living with significantly divergent points of view. In a
deeply polarized world, the Windsor Report challenges us to model this Gospel-driven
mission. As our Presiding Bishop has said, “A life of communion is not for the benefit of
the church but for the sake of the world.”
As the bishop of the Diocese of Chicago, I accept this report with humility, knowing that
it will challenge me to reflect on ways that I need to proceed as a bishop of this church in
these challenging times.
I invite the clergy and laity of the Diocese of Chicago to join me in accepting this report
and taking up this challenge.
34
35
COLORADO
35
36
CONNECTICUT
36
37
DALLAS
Response of Bishop James Stanton
The Bishop's Message
“The Windsor Report has been published.
It is deserving of a careful read by every member of the Episcopal Church.
Rarely has any document been awaited with greater interest by so many people in so
many places around the world. Even more rarely has any such document, created by a
committee of theologians from very different perspectives, been more than mere
verbiage. This one is powerful, comprehensive, and hopeful.
“Windsor” is the name given to the report of the Lambeth Commission on Communion
established by the Archbishop of Canterbury last Fall.
The Report does not make anyone “winners” in what it calls a crisis for the Communion.
But it clearly identifies the losers - all of us who bear the name “Episcopal” or
“Anglican.”
The Report pulls no punches in outlining the extent of the crisis or its causes. Firmly
pointing to the actions of the Episcopal Church's General Convention in 2003 and those
of the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada, it describes the erosion of communion
which threatens to undo decades of mutual collaboration, mission, and care for the world
by the worldwide Anglican Church.
The Report reflects soberly, and at times movingly, on the way Anglicans have
understood Scripture, the episcopate, and world mission. It says that the recent actions
described have broken trust among Anglicans, and that a key factor in this broken trust is
the misuse of the idea of “autonomy.” Anglicans, it says, have never taken that word to
mean freedom to act unilaterally. It has always meant the freedom to act in relation to the
whole Church and with concern to preserve the “bonds of affection” which have
characterized our common life.
The Report accuses the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of New Westminster of four
failures:
• the failure to make “a serious attempt to offer a (theological) explanation to, or consult
meaningfully with, the Communion as a whole “about their innovations”
• the failure to go through “the procedures which might have made it possible for the
church to hold together across differences of belief and practice;”
• the failure to recognize that neither was competent on their own to decide what was an
indifferent matter to the Communion and what was not with regard to these innovations;
37
38
and
• the failure to distinguish between matters which should be made only at the
Communion-wide level. (Paragraphs 32-39).
The Report restates the importance of Scripture to the life and mission of the Anglican
Communion: “Within Anglicanism, scripture has always been recognised as the Church’s
supreme authority, and as such ought to be seen as a focus and means of unity.” (Para 53)
And it admirably handles Scripture throughout in the familiar context of both reason and
tradition. While it advocates informed biblical scholarship and its role in the life of the
Church, it dismisses using a ‘pick and choose’ approach to arguing about conflicting
results. This is where the role of a Communion of Churches comes in to play: “It is the
responsibility of the whole Church to engage with the Bible together . . .” (Para 57,
emphasis added)
In short, a failure of the Episcopal Church and the Canadian Diocese to bring its theology
to bear and to persuade the whole Communion to support its innovations provoked a
situation in which, “The overwhelming response from other Christians both inside and
outside the Anglican family has been to regard these developments as departures from
genuine, apostolic Christian faith.”
The Report offers a careful, considered, and generous approach to the future. First, it calls
on those who have created this crisis to “express their regrets” for their actions. Second, it
calls for a “moratorium” on future such actions. Third, it suggests a “covenant” for the
member Churches of the Anglican Communion. The point of the covenant is to make
explicit what has for many long years been implicit in the way we have lived and worked
together for the Gospel. It actually provides a constructive, as opposed to a restrictive,
way to hold together in mutual trust and care.
Whether the Episcopal Church or other parts of the Communion choose to take this
course is an open question just now. The last paragraph of the Report realistically, and
ominously, says "There remains a very real danger that we will not choose to walk
together." (Para 157)
While the Commission did not engage in speculation on the 'what-ifs,' they alluded to
progressively harsher steps in dealing with unilateralism and preserving meaningful
communion.
The recent Convention of the Diocese of Dallas voted to affiliate with the Anglican
Communion Network. In doing so by a very wide margin, this Diocese in some ways
anticipated the results of the Windsor Report. We expressed corporately our concern for
the Anglican Communion and for being a part of that rich heritage and fellowship. As I
have written previously in these pages, the simple and pertinent purpose of the Network
is just this: to preserve to the maximum extent possible our connection to the rest of the
Anglican Communion.
38
39
As the Windsor Report makes clear, the Episcopal Church’s own Constitution binds us to
that Communion. To be an Episcopalian is to be a vital and responsible member of the
body of Anglicans around the world, committed to a unity that is, at heart, not legal, but a
matter of God's grace received and lived in action.
I cannot encourage enough every member of this Church to look at, read, and reflect
prayerfully on the Windsor Report. You can find it at the following link:
http://windsor2004.anglicancommunion.org/index.cfm.
There is much to absorb here, much to think on, much to pray about.
39
40
DELAWARE
40
41
EAST CAROLINA
Corrected: (view corrections)
October 18, 2004

Kinston, North Carolina
This morning, the Windsor Report of the Lambeth Commission on Communion was
released to the thirty-eight member Churches of the Anglican Communion. The Lambeth
Commission was created in 2003 by the Archbishop of Canterbury and chaired by the
Archbishop of Armagh. The Commission's work has been to recommend to the world-
wide Anglican family of independent national churches how we might live into a deeper
spirit of unity despite some significant theological differences.
The members of the Lambeth Commission represent the wide range of theological
perspectives that characterize the diversity of the Anglican Communion. The Report
speaks clearly and directly to Jesus' call to deeper unity and reconciliation, not for the
sake of the Church, but for the sake of the Church's mission to a broken and divided
world.
I am committed, as a bishop of the Episcopal Church, to receive the Report with an open
mind and spirit and to consider it in an humble and obedient manner, listening to what
our Anglican family of churches have to say as brothers and sisters to one another as we
seek to maintain and deepen the historic bonds of affection and Gospel witness that are
hallmarks of our Anglican tradition.
I am confident that all member churches will, in the words of St. Paul, "make every effort
to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace" (Ephesians 4:3). I intend to do so
out of a deep commitment to the Gospel mission of working for peace and reconciliation
among all peoples and nations.
Over the coming months, the Report will be prayerfully considered and assimilated
throughout the member churches of the Communion. This will certainly be the case in the
Diocese of East Carolina.
The Rt. Rev. Clifton Daniel,

Bishop of East Carolina
41
42
EAST TENNESSEE
Posted: Tuesday, October 19, 2004
A commission formed by the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, to

study how churches within the Anglican Communion around the world relate to one
another has released its report. The Windsor Report released today, Oct. 18, details the
commission’s findings following a year of study and discussion.
The formation of the Lambeth Commission on Communion, which generated the
Windsor Report, was partly in response to events of August 2003, in which the Episcopal
Church voted in convention to consent to the election as a bishop of the church a gay man
who is living openly in relationship with another man. The General Convention at the
same time voted to study how same-sex unions are being blessed across the church.
Anglicans from around the world who hold a variety of perspectives participated in the
commission. The Windsor Report’s balance speaks well for the members who clearly
deliberated long and carefully on the difficult matters assigned to them. “Such diversity
within unity has marked Anglicanism from its beginnings,” commented the Rt. Rev.
Charles vonRosenberg, third bishop of East Tennessee, on the report, “but in our day, the
differences have strained our unity.”
He went on to note that the report emphasizes several areas. “First, there is the emphasis
on process rather than on achieving the final word. The Commission calls us to take very
seriously this journey we share,” he said, noting that the process will take place on
international, national and diocesan levels.
“Secondly, the emphasis on relationships rather than a legal framework also characterizes
our common life,” he said. “We are bound in covenantal relationship, rather than by a
legal framework. Of course, covenants require re-examination and considerable attention.
“Finally, the report is evenhanded in its criticism – of the Episcopal Church, of the
Anglican Church of Canada and of those bishops who cross diocesan and provincial
boundaries,” without consent of the relevant bishop, he said.
The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of New Westminster (Canada) were rebuked for
not following what has been an historical process of mutual discernment and decision-
making among churches in the Anglican Communion. At the same time, the report called
to task bishops who have exercised episcopal functions in dioceses outside their
provinces. These actions have been seen to shake and in some cases shatter the bonds that
allow “the church to hold together across differences of belief and practice,” according to
the report.
The report acknowledges a need for churches in the Communion to mutually explore and
explain theological beliefs and biblical understandings in a common forum “which listens
intensely and with good will.” Discussions in the church at large to consider the report
42
43
will include a special meeting of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in
January, a meeting of the global Primates of the Anglican Communion in February and a
meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in June.
As the Episcopal Church is the Anglican Church in the United States, the Diocese of East
Tennessee is the Anglican Church in this region of the state. In the Diocese of East
Tennessee, Bishop vonRosenberg will meet with clergy on Oct. 22. The diocese will
gather Oct. 30 to listen and consider a variety of perspectives on human sexuality, and
resources will be made available at that time to assist in similar conversations in parishes
across the diocese. The Oct. 30 meeting is the latest step in a process begun this past
February when the diocese in convention approved a resolution to “facilitate airing,
examination and reconciliation of differing opinions on human sexuality so we can do
God’s work together.”
The Windsor Report is an important instrument that will assist the churches of the
Anglican Communion in their lives together. Its implications will be seen over time.
“As we walk into an uncertain future together, it is important for us all to claim our part
in causing pain in the Communion,” said Bishop vonRosenberg. However, “I continue to
believe in our fundamental unity. That which unites us is far more significant than what
divides us. And I continue to pray that all Anglicans will focus on our mission to the
world, which is our Lord’s call to us.”
The Rt. Rev. Charles G. vonRosenberg,

Bishop of East Tennessee
43
44
EASTERN MICHIGAN
Connecting ...
by Edwin M. Leidel, Jr., Bishop of Eastern Michigan
E-mail: bishopeml@eastmich.org
2004 Convention Address
Peace and Joy to you in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I want to share three things with you this evening. The first has to do with the past, the
second with the present and the third with the future.
The Past: Celebrating Transformation
What a joy it is to be the Bishop of Eastern Michigan. You my friends are the source of a
great joy to me.
When I said yes, and when you said yes, 8 ½ years ago, we began a journey where “for
better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health we would remain
faithful to the task that God has put before us. And faithful you have been. I am very
proud of the community that God is creating in the stuff of our common life.
These past two months we have welcomed outside leaders into our diocese for two
conferences. In both cases the leadership said to me that the Diocese of Eastern Michigan
was one of the healthiest dioceses they had been in. Most recently, a team of seven from
the Church Pension Fund said that in the four years time since they had been here last
they saw a strong, confident and developing diocese.
I experience God in our congregations in so many different ways. New beginnings, and
new visions, are always a cause for great joy. Nothing excites me more than seeing new
things being given birth: new ideas, the joy of new adventures begun at baptisms,
confirmations, graduations, marriages, ordinations, new jobs, the blessing of new
buildings, and the acceptance of new responsibilities. These are all manifestations of
God’s creative presence in our lives.
And yet, it is also true that God’s creative presence and amazing grace is found often in
the struggles and challenges of our lives.
A few months ago as we gathered for a deconsecrating service at St. Andrew’s, Algonac I
experienced God working through the people and the Blue Water Convocation Team that
helped to discern the need for closure of that faithful congregation. People celebrated
their new congregational affiliations and sacred furnishings found new homes and
continuing life. Wonderful stories were told giving value to the past. God was present,
transforming and giving meaning to our lives.
44
45
We have experienced conflict and turmoil in some of our congregations. Yet in almost
every instance those challenges called forth a new energy and a new collegiality that gave
birth to transforming new opportunities for understanding and transformation.
There have been times of unexpected deaths, illnesses, financial crises and unforeseen
tragedies.
Often during my visitations I invite parishioners going through challenging times of

transition to come forward for the laying on of hands for strength and healing. It is
amazing how in the midst of sharing your pain and your need that I experience God’s
Presence pouring itself into your lives.
I want to share a story with you that was passed on to me from Michael Battle (one of our
House of Bishops chaplains) who led a recent clergy retreat in the diocese.
Michael heard the story from Desmond Tutu with whom he used to work.
There was a couple who used to go to England to shop in their beautiful stores. They both
liked antiques and pottery and especially teacups. This was their twenty-fifth
wedding anniversary.
One day in this shop they saw a beautiful teacup. They said, “May we see that? We’ve
never seen one quite so beautiful.”
As the lady handed it to them, suddenly the teacup spoke. “You don’t understand,” it
said. “I haven’t always been a teacup. There was a time when I was nondescript and I
was only clay. An artist took me and rolled me and patted me over and over and I yelled
out, “Leave me alone,” but he only smiled and said, “not yet”.
“Then I was placed on a spinning wheel,” the teacup said, “and suddenly was spun
around and around and around. Stop it! I’m getting dizzy!” I screamed. But the artist
only nodded and said, “not yet.”
“Then he put me in the oven. I never felt such heat. I wondered why he wanted to burn
me, and I yelled and knocked at the door. I could see him through the opening and
I could read his lips as he shook his head, “not yet.”
Finally the door opened, he put me on the shelf, and I began to cool. “There, that’s
better,” I said. And he brushed and painted me all over. The fumes were horrible. I
thought I would gag. “Stop it, stop it!” I cried. He only nodded, “Not yet.”
Then suddenly he put me back into the oven, not like the first one. This was twice as hot
and I knew I would suffocate. I begged. I pleaded. I screamed. I cried. All the
time I could see him through the opening nodding his head saying, “Not yet.”
Then I knew there wasn’t any hope. I would never make it. I was ready to give up. But
the door opened and he took me out and placed me on the shelf. One hour later he
45
46
handed me a mirror and said, “Look at yourself.” And I did. I said, “That’s not me; that
couldn’t be me. It’s beautiful. I’m beautiful!”
“I want you to remember, then,” the artist said. “I know it hurts to be rolled and patted,
but if I had left you alone, you’d have dried up. I know it made you dizzy to spin
around on the wheel, but if I had stopped, you would have crumbled. I knew it hurt and
was hot and disagreeable in the oven, but if I hadn’t put you there, you would have
cracked.” “I know the fumes were bad when I brushed and painted you all over, but if I
hadn’t done that, you never would have matured; you would not have had any color in
your life. And if I hadn’t put you back in that second oven, you wouldn’t survive for very
long because your maturity would not have held. Now you are a finished product. You
are what I had in mind when I first began with you.’
Jesus asks us in this evening’s Gospel, “Are we able to drink the cup that I drink?”
And during these past 10 years we have said, “YES.”
That Cup, which represents our common life with Christ, holds out for us the promise of
transformation as we say “yes” to the challenges and hardships that inevitably
come our way.
We are on a journey together. God walks with us on that journey and breathes life into us
precisely at those times when our cups are empty. We come to the Eucharistic
banquet specifically because we are empty, hungry and thirsty. God has been good to us
in Eastern Michigan. In spite of aging populations, in spite of economic diminishment, in
spite of clergy shortages, in spite of theological differences; or should I say because of
these things God has molded us into a kind of diocese that will mold our children into
better citizens and our world into a kinder and gentler kind of place.
During lunch tomorrow across the street at the Presbyterian Church, a group working
with our diocesan communications missioner, Tom Downs, will present a Multi-Media
presentation celebrating our past 10 years as the Episcopal Church’s 100th and newest
diocese. In case I don’t get a chance to say it tomorrow, let me say to you now:
“HAPPY BIRTHDAY Eastern Michigan!”
Enough about the Past. Let me say a word about the present.
The Present: Discerning Truth
This past year many within the Anglican world wide family have been preoccupied
with Gene Robinson’s election as the “gay” bishop of New Hampshire. This past
Monday the long awaited Windsor Report from The Lambeth Commission was
widely distributed and many of you have read all of its 93 pages or have at least seen
summaries or media reports about it.
I suspect this document will be talked about in our history books for centuries to
46
47
come. There has never been anything quite like it. I commend The Lambeth
Commission
for the great work and service they have done for us. Clearly this proposal will be
the subject of much study and conversation in the months and even years ahead.
The
report makes me proud to be called an Anglican.
If you haven’t already received a copy of my summary of the Report, it is available

on the Handout Table near the Registration area in the Parish Parlor area. The
internet address is on the summary for those of you who can afford the ink to print
all of its pages. I hope you will print your own copy and read it carefully.
As the dust and rhetoric settles around the Report, it is becoming clear that the
Report (as the chair of its authoring committee has said) is not about judgment
where
winners and losers are defined; but rather it’s about process. It offers a way
forward for our diverse interpretations of God’s Will as we patiently live in
respectful community with one another.
It clearly proclaims that conversation in community must always precede the

interpretation of God’s truth for us. Our Scriptures came out of a Community of
God’s
People living in faithful relationships. As you have heard me say before, right
relationships must precede and enable the discernment of right beliefs which mold
and encourage right behaviors.
Let me share a story with you that Michael Battle shared with the bishops last
month in Spokane, Washington.
One day a 6 year old girl was sitting in a classroom. The teacher was going to
explain science to the children. The teacher asked a little boy, “Tommy do you see
the tree
outside?”
TOMMY: Yes.
TEACHER: Tommy, do you see the grass outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
TEACHER: Go outside and look up and see if you can see the sky.
TOMMY: Okay. (He returned a few minutes later) Yes, I saw the sky.
TEACHER: Did you see God?
47
48
TOMMY: No.
TEACHER: That’s my point. We can’t see God because he isn’t there. He doesn’t
exist.
A little girl spoke up and wanted to ask the boy some questions of her own—to do a
sort of cross examination of her own. The teacher agreed and the little girl asked the
boy: “Tommy, do you see the tree outside?”
TOMMY: Yes.
LITTLE GIRL: Tommy do you see the grass outside?
TOMMY: Yessssss (getting tired of the questions by this time).
LITTLE GIRL: Did you see the sky?
TOMMY: Yessssss
LITTLE GIRL: Tommy, do you see the teacher?
TOMMY: Yes
LITTLE GIRL: Do you see his brain?
TOMMY: No
And then the little girl concluded, “Then according to what we were taught today in
school, he does not have one!”
Ultimate truth can be an illusive reality. Just because we always did something some
way does not make it true, nor does saying something over and over again with
great
volume and confidence make something true.
For Anglicans, the Living Christ - incarnate in history - is our ultimate Word and
sign of God’s Love and Truth for us. God’s Love and Truth is not a static thing that
is
confinable to some finite formula encapsulated for all time at some past moment in
history. Our Scriptures, our Creeds and our Living faith work together in every
generation to point our fallible and finite lives in a direction that leads us further
into the Light that will only finally be fully visible in God’s Coming Kingdom.
Jesus is our internal and eternal “gyroscope” that faithfully and everlastingly points
the way for us. Gyroscopes you may recall always point true no matter where they
are in three-dimensional space. Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is within us. So
having an internal sense of God’s Kingdom is like having Jesus as our gyroscope.
48
49
Our tangible Scriptures and our concrete Creeds and our rational processes
(including science and philosophy) are our external compasses. Magnetic compasses
will vary somewhat depending on their location; in the same way that Scripture,
Tradition and Reason may vary depending on their cultural context and on the
interpretation of the compass’s reader. We need these external compasses to help us
stay focused on the Living, Incarnate Christ. Scripture, Tradition and Reason are
means by which we can focus on the Living Christ.
Ultimate Truth can only be found in Jesus. Our Scriptures, our Traditions and our
capacity to reason simply point to Jesus. That understanding should make us
humble;
and it should keep us from ever boasting that we have a greater knowledge or a
greater faith then someone else.
I want to give you a charge. Please listen carefully. The Windsor Report is saying
that things cannot remain as they are. There are challenges for everyone here; no
matter where you find yourself in the midst of this important conversation. For
those of you who are impatient about the Church’s full incorporation of gay and
lesbian people into our Communion to you I say: Please become more sensitive to
the greater context of our world wide Anglican Communion. And do not label those
who do not see things as you see them as “backward, out-of-touch or insensitive to
social justice.”
Likewise, I charge those of you who are fearful that the Church is doing too much
innovation and departing from the faith of our fathers and mothers – to you I say:
Please be open to the possibility that God may actually be trying to do a new thing
in our time. It takes openness to discern validity of new ways of seeing God’s desire
for us. God works in time. Time ultimately becomes the great arbitrator of God’s
truth. Be patient, and not too quick to judge. And do not label those who do not see
things as you see them as “unfaithful disbelievers who disregard the great values of
Scripture.”
I believe that most of you are in neither of these two camps. Your challenge may be
to stop being confused or intimidated by these current issues, and to become more
involved in being respectfully present to the conversation that is not going to go
away. Get involved. Become a healing and an informed presence.
At last year’s Convention I suggested that the dynamic of Covenant was the means
by which God calls us into communion with God and with one another. I suggested
that
our Baptismal Covenant like the Hebrew Covenant and Christian Covenant is the
means by which God has and will continue to mold us into the likeness of God’s
Image. I said that as the different-ness of Sodium and Chlorine can become table
salt in the heat and pressure of a crucible, so can the different-ness of Adams and
Eves; or of conservatives and liberals become the living Body of Christ so badly
needed to heal today’s broken world.
49
50
Amazingly, the Windsor Report’s most important innovation is about covenant. It

proposes an Anglican Covenant to forge our Communion into a deeper sign of
God’s
present Love for today’s world.
I am appointing an Eastern Michigan Commission of 12 men and woman

representing a diverse expression of theological viewpoints and experiences as well
as geographical residencies - to assist me and our Standing Committee in our
common decision making as we deal with our wonderfully diverse ways of living our
common life together.
A copy of the Commission’s membership is on the Handout Table in the Parlor.

Most of you already have a copy of it. This Commission will act as a Council of
Advice and
will offer a report of its discernments to me prior to next year’s Diocesan
Convention in Port Huron.
As uncomfortable and challenging as this past year has been, I truly and firmly
believe that we will eventually come away from this experience having given birth to
a
deeper and a more fruitful Anglicanism that will excite and nurture our coming
generations.
Finally, I want to say a word about the future.
The Future: Living into God’s Vision of Mutuality
Tomorrow after lunch as we gather for our third legislative session, four members of the
18 member Town Meeting Task Force, will present a new Diocesan Vision Statement
that you created with your contributions to the four Town Meetings held in each of the
convocations this past year.
I call this new grassroots Vision Statement a CORE vision that holds up the basic core
values that all of us conclusively and evenly hold as being essential to our spiritual
identity. It is a kind of DNA out of which your local Congregational Visions can emerge.
Your new vision statement raises up the values of diversity and of mutuality. Kevin Thew
Forrester, our key note speaker tomorrow morning will share with you his vision of a
Church living out of the kind of core values that you have named. By the Grace of God
we are becoming a Church where everyone has a ministry and a Church where our
leaders are “gift un-wrappers” and ministry developers.
There are two clear focuses for ministry for all of us in the coming two years.
One of them has to do with the continuing formation of Pastoral Leadership Teams
50
51
(PLTs) and of Mutual Ministry Support Teams (MMSTs) in all of our congregations.
The alive Church of tomorrow can no longer be a community that gathers around a
minister; the thriving Church of tomorrow must be a community that ministers – it must
be a ministering community where everyone is a minister.
I am deeply grateful for the fruitful and growing relationship that we have with Huron
College Seminary in London, Ontario. Huron College has already given us three clergy
(Wayne Larson, Rusty Merrill, and Tracie Loffhagen), and we have two more
seminarians in residence at Huron who will soon be prepared to give more service to this
diocese. We are beginning our fourth year of collaboration with Dean John Chapman and
the Huron College faculty to continue to offer a seven module leadership program that we
have called, “Congregational Renewal through Ministry Team Development.” Beginning
next year we hope to offer the Module One of that course twice a year in two different
Eastern Michigan locations. It will be a course that will help reinforce our core values of
diversity and mutuality. It will be especially useful for newly elected vestry and other
congregational leaders as well as for clergy and congregations who are ready to take the
plunge into a stronger and trained team based ministry in their local congregations. This
introduction to Team will build on the strengths of Natural Church Development and on
our new Diocesan Vision.
The second emphasis for the coming two years will be around the one Natural Church
Development health characteristic that has shown itself to be the greatest area of
need in most mainline American Churches; namely “passionate spirituality.”
I have a gift to give to each congregation. You may already have picked it up from the
handout table. While on sabbatical last year I spent most of my time trying to
understand how to deepen my own spirituality as well as the spirituality of this diocese.
We already have wonderful programs such as Cursillo, Alpha, Education for Ministry
and Life Cycles. I wanted to add to that - something that was uniquely addressed to the
culture of our own diocese. So I wrote a book for the diocese. I wrote it for you.
The book has now been published and it is called “Awakening Grassroots Spirituality: A
Celtic Guide for Awakening and Nurturing the Soul.” That is my gift to you.
There are a few extra copies for sale at our book table, and they are also available at
amazon.com and barnesandnoble.com.
During these next two years I am going to offer every congregation an option to my every
18 month visitation with you. I will continue as before to celebrate a Sunday with you.
But instead of coming on a Saturday afternoon and evening, I will give you the option of
having my Saturday visit time replaced with a Thursday evening visit. Then on these
Thursday nights I will invite the whole congregation to gather with me and we will have
a conversation about either (1) Congregational Renewal through Ministry Team
Development, or (2) Awakening Grassroots Spirituality.
51
52
Last of all I have one final announcement to make about the future. By the end of 2006 I
will have been your bishop for ten and one half years and I will be 68 years old. I believe
that by that time you will be ready for a new bishop and I will be ready to move on to a
new form of ministry in semi-retirement. And so, tonight I announce my intention to
retire on December 31, 2006.
It takes approximately 18 to 24 months for a diocese to go through all the work of

discerning what kind of new bishop they want, and then to search for and call that
person. That is why I must announce this decision two years before my leaving. I have
been working privately with a mutual ministry discernment committee and the Standing
Committee for some time about this move – so it will not come as a total surprise to
many of you. The Standing Committee and I have worked out a draft schedule of events
which tentatively calls for a special election Convention in May of 2006 and a
Consecration date of a Coadjutor bishop in September of 2006. That would allow for a
three month overlap with the new bishop before my leaving.
The Standing Committee will have more to say about this to you in the months ahead.
Well there you have it: Our Past, our Present and our Future. My beloved in Christ, you
are the joy of my life. May God bless our life together these next two years, and
may God grant us wisdom as we begin to dream beyond that time into yet another future.
+Ed
52
53
EASTON
October 18, 2004
Dear Friends,
The Anglican world that you and I belong to received today what is called the Windsor
Report of the Lambeth Commission on Communion. This report was authorized by the
Archbishop of Canterbury, The Most Rev. Dr. Rowan Williams, spiritual leader of
Anglican churches around the world including the Episcopal Church in the United States.
The Archbishop asked for a report the common life of our brothers and sisters around the
globe (more than 70-million) as we face the issues of our day. The issues that have
precipitated this report are well known and were generated by the actions of the
Episcopal Church’s General Convention in August, 2003. As you are well aware, the
General Convention’s two legislative Houses of Deputies and Bishops gave consent to
the election and consecration in New Hampshire of Gene Robinson as the Church’s first
openly gay bishop. At the same time the Convention also acknowledged that same sex
blessings had occurred in the life of our American province. The Windsor Report also
addresses the actions of the Canadian Diocese of New Westminster which approved an
official rite for same sex blessings.
This report has generated a great deal of discussion as to whether the Anglican
Communion can still exist as we have know it since its inception in 1888. The Four
Principles of the Lambeth Quadrilateral has been the cornerstone of the Communion
members’ acceptance of one another. The very first conference of the worldwide
gathering of bishops acknowledged their reliance on scripture, Nicene creed, the two
dominical sacraments of baptism and eucharist, and the historical episcopate. These are
the essential points of unity for all branches of Christendom and not just the Anglican
branches of the Body of Christ. The Report, as mentioned by Presiding Bishop Frank
Griswold in his statement on October 18 will be dissected in a number of venues,
including the Executive Council of ECUSA when it meets in November and at the winter
meeting of the House of Bishops in January. Publication of the Report is the principal
item on the agenda at the current meeting of the Anglican Primates in London. The
Report will also be reviewed by the Anglican Consultative Council in 2005.
The chief recommendations of the Report are described in a news story that appears
elsewhere on this web site of the Diocese of Easton.
As a diocese we have already begun to explore our understanding of homosexuality when

we gathered at Trinity Cathedral in September for an Evening of Faithful Conversation.
What occurred there was a frank and honest expression of opposing views. The
interchange that evening was summarized by one participant so well. Marjorie Sullivan
of St. Alban’s, Salisbury, said, “Not one person here tonight will change his or her mind
by what we have been saying to each other.” “But, she declared, “the most important
thing happening here is that not one single person has raised a voice, no one is engaged in
name calling, and no one is expressing anger toward a neighbor. That’s proof the Holy
Spirit is in this room directing us in what we are doing.” I thought Marjorie’s statement
53
54
needed reporting because I do not know where else we will be able to approach
reconciliation unless we continue to pray for one another, listen to all sides, celebrate the
eucharist together, and read scriptures for the revealing of God’s will for not just
Anglicans but all people throughout the world.
It is very hard for us to say that we are motivated by love and yet the hatred that seems to
surround this issue is so intense and immeasurable. The pain that has been inflicted is
like phantom pain common to persons who have lost a limb to accident or surgery. The
pain felt by the patient in the missing limb is a harsh reality even though that part of the
body no longer exists.
As Christians, we are called by the very nature of our baptismal covenant to walk in love
as Christ loved us. Love is what binds us together and our relationships within the Body
of Christ are what compel us to continue to respect and care for one another. A friend
said to me recently, “We seem to be stumbling a bit when it comes to loving, but maybe
this stumbling, in a loving way, is okay.”
My hope and prayer is that when we regain our balance we will be better able to stand,
sit, and kneel alongside one another knowing that forgiveness, reconciliation, and
restoration are far superior to hatred, enmity, and separation.
The cross of Jesus continues to be the central point of our faith. Every time I look at a
cross or put my cross around my neck I cannot help but remember these words from
John’s Gospel.
And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people to myself.
I hope you will join me as I return to the cross daily for strength, compassion, renewal,
and encouragement. And proceed to live out my life loving God through Jesus Christ, my
neighbor, whoever that person happens to be and regardless of what that person believes.
May God’s blessing continue to be upon all of us.
Yours in the Christ of the Cross,
The Rt. Rev. James J. Shand,

Bishop of Easton
54
55
EAU CLAIRE
55
56
EL CAMINO REAL
56
57
FLORIDA
57
58
FOND DU LAC
Pastoral Address of The Rt. Rev. Russell E. Jacobus, Bishop of Fond du Lac
To the 130th Annual Diocesan Convention
Presented October 23rd, 2004
To the Delegates and guests gathered in Sturgeon Bay for this 130th Annual Convention
of the Diocese of Fond du Lac, and all members of the congregations in this wonderful
Diocese: Grace to you and Peace, in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
In my annual Pastoral address, notes of thanks always precede my reflections and

comments on the state of our Diocese and the Church at large.
My foremost thanks goes to my wife Jerrie, without whom I could not undertake this task
of being your Bishop with the devotion that I have. She not only upholds me during times
of stress, she supports the long hours that find me either in the office or in my car. I am so
thankful that she joins me on many of my Sunday Visitations. This actually offers us
some wonderful time together. Many Bishop’s spouses don’t do that any more.
This past year has seen a change in the job description for Matthew Payne. He has truly
become the Canon for Administration in the Diocese. With his expertise our focus has
become enhanced, we are better organized, and we are more ready to assist clergy and
congregations than we have ever been. Thank you Matthew for all that you do to make
life in this Diocese better. One change is that Matthew is no longer the Youth Ministries
Coordinator of the Diocese, but only supports that person. The new Youth Ministries
Coordinator is Mr. Ross Doebler.
Ross is half-time Diocesan Youth Ministries Coordinator, while being the half-time
Youth Minister at St. John’s in Wausau. This is a wonderful sharing of a staff person. I
want to thank Fr. Klutterman and the people of St. John’s for your willingness to work
with the Diocese on this joint venture. We welcome Ross, his wife Angel, and their
children, Christian and Mackenzie, to our Diocesan family.
The other person in the Diocesan Office who earns our deepest thanks is Marge Goelz.
Even though Marge works on an hourly basis in her retirement, she is an essential part of
the team. Her secretarial skills and knowledge of and commitment to overseeing the
archives are beyond value.
There are several people who are main-stays behind the smooth functioning of the
Diocese. One of these is our Diocesan Treasurer, Jim Workman. Jim, thanks for your
continuing support and guidance in keeping our Diocese fiscally and fiducially
58
59
accountable. Thank you to my Chancellor, Gary Dreier. I have had to call on the
Chancellor more this past year than before, and he is always ready to answer a question
or offer advice. Thanks to Fr. Barry Whenal, one of the recipients of this year’s Bishop’s
Cross for your dedication as the Registrar of the Diocese. Thanks to Fr. Bill Johnston for
the work you do as our Diocesan Clergy Deployment Officer. Also thank you to our
recently retired Clarion editor, Gail Rallens. Your work over the past eight years has
brought communication in our Diocese to a high level. And welcome to Dave Natzke, the
newly appointed editor of the Clarion.
Thank you to the Deans’ Task Force for your continuing assistance in developing
programming to help us become “a community of disciples enthusiastically leading all
people to transformation in Jesus”. Your hard work is beginning to help us move from
maintenance to mission in the Diocese. Thank you to all who serve on the Committees
and Commissions for the Diocese for your ongoing support of the work of our Lord Jesus
in this part of His kingdom. Thank you especially to the Diocesan Office Move Task
Force that studied this issue and made recommendations to the Executive Council. I will
comment on the proposed move in more detail later. Thank you to the volunteers that
assist with mailings and other projects at the Diocesan Office, especially Jane Carter and
the Pages from the Cathedral.
I also want to thank all who sustain me in prayer. Knowing that prayer is offered for my
work helps keep me focused on Jesus, and the work that He is calling us to do in this part
of His vineyard.
And what is it that we have been doing? Quite a bit.
The Youth Ministry in the Diocese continues to flourish. Our summer camping program
is one of the highlights. This past summer I was honored to serve as chaplain for the
senior session. It was truly a spiritual experience. I understand the Middler and Junior
sessions were as inspiring. This year at Kinder-Camp, Deb Woolsey and Faith Sanders
introduced many children and their parents to “Godly Play”. If your child or grandchild
has not experienced Fond du Lac summer camp, they have really missed out on a very
valuable encounter of faith.
The HAPPENING program continues to be strong, as is Cursillo for Adults. The Youth
Lock-In last weekend was an experience that brought many young people into a deeper
relationship with our Lord.
59
60
During this past year we brought the Rev. Kevin Martin, Executive Director of Vital
Church Ministries, back to the Diocese several times to consult with congregations of
specific sizes on Church growth opportunities and challenges. A consultation with the
leadership of the Family-size congregations is planned for next spring.
Last March we offered a workshop for congregational leaders – wardens, treasurers,

vestry members, secretaries. This was the beginning of what will become an annual
“Vestry School”. It will be held on the first Saturday of March. This coming spring
Vestry School will include Timothy Vanover from the Pension Group products and client
services division, as well as Fred Swing, the Church Casualty Insurance vice-president
for client services. This will be a great opportunity for congregational leadership to learn
about the expanded products and services being offered by Church Insurance, and have
opportunity to discuss any aspects of insurance with our experts.
Those are just a few of the things happening on the Diocesan level. Let me share with
you some of the things I see happening on the parish level that excite me.
As many of you know, St. Paul’s, Suamico acquired property several years ago. They
have an architect’s rendering for a new facility, and they have a capital fund drive under
way.
St. Matthias Church in Minocqua also acquired property adjacent to the Church, and has
undertaken a Building campaign. If you see a delegate from St. Matthias, ask them about
their plans. Last Sunday they had the kick-off for their capital fund drive, and I
understand they are well on their way to reach their goal of $1.5 million for the
expansion.
We also have the honor at this Convention of welcoming a former mission congregation
of the Diocese into union with the Convention as a Parish. St. Mary’s of the Snow’s,
Eagle River, under the leadership of Fr. Lawrance Glenn, applied and was accepted by
the Executive Council for Parish status. Our hearty congratulations to Fr. Glenn and all
the people of St. Mary’s.
There are many other positive things happening in our congregations; too many to list
here. I want to congratulate all of you who are really making attempts to move from
maintenance to mission in the service of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
Before moving on to my vision for the future of the Diocese and the challenge that
goes with it, I want to make a few comments about the Windsor Report. This is the
60
61
Report from a commission established by the Archbishop of Canterbury in response

to actions in parts of the Anglican Communion that have caused hurt and division.
The mandate to the commission was to consider “the canonical understandings of

communion” and was to include “practical recommendations for maintaining the
highest possible degree of communion that may be possible” despite opposing
positions within the Anglican Communion. I think the Windsor Report, which is
almost 100 pages, is very insightful, yet challenging. I was impressed with its biblical
and theological thoroughness and with its candor, without being harsh.
The Report begins with an elucidation of the purposes and benefits of being in
communion, including comments on the Biblical foundations, the theological
developments, and the ecclesial procedures involved. The report goes on to state:
“Communion does not simply happen. There are several aspects of our common life
which, as well as fulfilling the primary purpose of enabling the Church to fulfill its
Gospel mission in and for the world, serve to draw us together and hold us in
fellowship.” Those include the authority and interpretation of Scripture, as well as
the role of the episcopate.
The Report lists instruments of unity, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, the
Lambeth Conference, the meetings of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative
Council. These are analyzed, and specific recommendations are made regarding
how these instruments may be strengthened. Suggestions are also made regarding
how the Anglican Communion could maintain its unity into the future.
As I told the clergy in an e-mail, at this point the Windsor Report is only a report
from a committee. This past week the Report was submitted to a standing
committee of the Primates to plan for how it will be presented to the full meeting of
the Primates in February. We need to wait and see how the Primates receive the
report, and what their recommendation will be. There are other bodies of the
Anglican Communion, like the Anglican Consultative Council, which is like the
Vestry of the Anglican Communion, that certainly need to review and respond to
the Report. That body doesn’t meet until next June. And then, if an official response
is required of the Episcopal Church in the United States, it would seem appropriate
that the response be made by the General Convention, meeting in 2006.
There is much that lies ahead regarding the receiving and recommending of the
Report. I pray that we will not feel anxious, or feel that an immediate response is
necessary. I pray that no one in our diocese will act precipitously, causing more hurt
or division. I pray that those invested in the Report and its outcome will pray, think,
process, ponder and be patient.
A bishop friend said to me: “The question remains, are the liberals and the
conservatives, at home and abroad, interested in the justification of their position or
in reconciliation in the Body of Christ. Justification is not a sacrament,
reconciliation is.”
61
62
Will we in the Anglican Communion be able to rise above our parochial boundaries
to a larger vision of the Church, which is the Body of Christ, and witnesses to His
presence in our world? Time will tell. The stakes are high. In the last paragraph the
Report says: “The real challenge of the gospel is whether we live deeply enough in
the love of Christ, and care sufficiently for our joint work to bring that love to the
world, that we will ‘make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond
of peace’ (Ephesians 4:3).
I realize some feel my call for prayer and patience is, in reality, ignoring the division
and hurt that exists. I’m not ignoring anything. In last years Pastoral Address I
emphasized our need to remain in dialogue, and I reiterate that call.
Now is not the time for debate. This is the time for patience and prayer and study.
After the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council meet, then we will need to
gather in dialogue as a Diocese. This could be as early as next fall. Or we may want
to wait until spring after resolutions for General Convention have been developed.
That would be a good time to be in conversation with our General Convention
Deputies if, in fact, they will be asked to make some kind of commitment to the
Anglican Communion at the 2006 General Convention. As we plan for diocesan-
wide conversation, we will keep all informed.
For now, I plead with all of you to be in Christian conversation with one another,
not using critical or blaming language. Instead only talk with and about each other,
especially those you disagree with, in terms that will “build up the Body of Christ”.
Just as the future of the Anglican Communion rests on its members “walking
together”, as the Report suggests, let us remember the walk begins with us.
Now, my vision for the future of the Diocese and my challenge to all of you.
This past summer I celebrated my tenth anniversary as your Bishop. I spent some time
reflecting on the past ten years and realized that, in many places we are still stuck in the
maintenance mindset. That has got to change, or more congregations will be asking the
question, “How can we continue to exist?”
I remind you, we have a vision: to be “a community of disciples enthusiastically leading

all people to transformation in Jesus”. I hope there is not one person in this Diocese that
has not heard the vision at least a few times; and I hope that many of you have adopted it
as your own.
But the vision is not enough. Along with the vision, we need to have the passion to make
it a reality. Passion for who we are as God’s people in this Diocese, and a passion for
what Christ is calling us to do, is my challenge to all. I promise you will see me more
passionate about our call to mission as the people of God.
Let me share with you some of the things that are in the developmental stages, or are
62
63
actually beginning to happen on the Diocesan level, which I feel are responses to the
vision.
The Diocese is about to sell the former Christ Church, Green Bay buildings. At first I was
sad about this, but then realized that, in keeping the buildings, we were supporting
maintenance. The congregation that is purchasing the facility, a Church of God in Christ
congregation, is growing and reaching more souls than we could have imagined. In an
indirect way, we will be supporting people being lead to transformation in Jesus. I see
this sale as a response to our vision.
Another part of the vision is being fulfilled with the closing of St. Boniface Church,
Chilton, at the end of the year. This will allow Fr. Morrison to commit fulltime to the
ministry at St. Paul’s Plymouth; and the leadership of St. Paul’s has accepted this
challenge, and is beginning to plan to move forward. This is turning our back on
maintenance and moving into mission.
I have been in conversation with the congregations in the St. Aelred cluster about
revisioning their ministry. With one priest responsible for the congregations in Antigo,
Merrill, and Tomahawk, it’s no wonder all three have struggled for so long. We are
working to sustain ministry for St. Ambrose, Antigo and St. Barnabas, Tomahawk, but
making it possible for Fr. Bemis to devote more time to Ascension, Merrill. The lay
leadership of Ascension has also accepted their challenge to grow.
When I came to the Diocese I said that true insanity is doing the same things that we have
always done, and expecting a different outcome. Well, I think it’s time to start doing
things different; and the above two examples are just the beginning.
Our vision talks about being a “Community of Disciples”. For more than a year the
Executive Council has been talking about the possibility of moving the Diocesan Offices
to a more central location. At their August meeting they accepted a recommendation from
a special task force to seriously consider relocation to a place somewhere between
Appleton and Green Bay, relatively close to Highway 41 or 29, so it is accessible for
most of the people in the Diocese. The recommendation also suggests that this be a
Diocesan “Center”, not just an office. It should include meeting space for committees and
commission, a Resource Center for use by all, the Achieves of the Diocese, as well as
offices for the Bishop, our Canon for Administration, our Youth Ministry Coordinator,
and of course adequate parking. With such a Diocesan Center, we might begin to feel
more like a “community of disciples” rather than a loose federation of congregations.
As we review the budget for 2005 you will see another change in direction that I am
encouraging. I want to move toward a 10-10-10 Stewardship structure. Based on the
Biblical tithe, this would ask parishioners to tithe to their congregation; the congregation
would be asked to tithe to the Diocese; and the Diocese would tithe to the National
Church. Our proposed budget begins to move us in this direction.
I was not convinced this could work unless we had people in the Diocese who could
63
64
assist congregations and individuals in reaching the initial, personal goal of the tithe. God
provided. Deacon Jim Fosdick, who is new to the Diocese, has a personal, Biblical
philosophy of stewardship. He addressed the clergy on this issue at our annual continuing
education event in September. Deacon Jim is also working with several of the
congregations on their stewardship planning.
At a pre-convention Deanery meeting the question was raised, “Why is the Diocese
asking 15% from congregations this year, but pledging only 10% to the National
Church?” My response is that we would have moved to the 10% level across the board,
except that the giving from parishioners averages only 3½%. If we asked for 10% of that
3½% level of giving for the running of the Diocese, we would have to eliminate staff or
totally eliminate our pledge to the National Church; and I am not willing to do either. I
pray the personal level of giving will increase which will allow us to incrementally move
toward 10-10-10.
Several other Dioceses in the Episcopal Church use this method of giving, and it has been
very successful. It allows for more funds to remain in the congregation so that you can
offer more programming that will hopefully in turn bring more people to “transformation
in Jesus”. And we begin to move from maintenance to mission.
We have a vision – “being a community of disciples enthusiastically leading all people to

transformation in Jesus.” Now we need to have the passion to make it happen. That’s my
challenge – that we become passionate for Jesus; passionate in our faith.
In spite of the turmoil in the Church, please remember, God is still God, and the Church
is still His gift to us. Remember that Jesus Christ is still Lord, and is the Savior of the
world, not just savior of the Church. I promise that I will work with passion to continue
proclaiming that message. I will work hard to encourage all of you to do the same. I will
make every effort to keep us together in the unity of Christ, so that our very presence will
be a witness to others that we are “a community of disciples enthusiastically leading all
people to transformation in Jesus.”
You may feel free to email Bishop Jacobus with comments, thoughts or reflections on
this address.
64
65
FORT WORTH
The long awaited report of The Lambeth Commission on Communion has now been
received, and it deserves careful consideration by all church leaders, clergy and laity
alike. It is entitled “The Windsor Report 2004,” and it contains several important
recommendations as to how we can maintain the highest possible level of communion
among Anglicans in the midst of the controversies that have seriously divided us. The
Commission recommends:
An enhanced role for the Archbishop of Canterbury as “the focus of unity, mission and
teaching” in the Anglican Communion, especially in articulating “the mind of the
Communion” in areas of controversy. It is further recommended that a Council of Advice
be established to assist the Archbishop “in discerning when and how it might be
appropriate for him to exercise a ministry of unity on behalf of the whole Communion.”
The adoption by all churches of the Anglican Communion of a common Anglican

Covenant, which would deal with common identity, the commitments of being in
communion with one another, and the management of disputes that may arise. At the
heart of such a covenant lies the principle that “what touches all should be approved by
all.”
A moratorium on the election and consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is
living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion
emerges. The Episcopal Church is asked “to express its regret” over the breach it caused
by consecrating Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire, and those Bishops who
took part in the consecration are asked to consider withdrawing themselves from
representative functions in the Anglican Communion.
A moratorium on all blessings of same sex unions and a study of the biblical and
theological rationale for and against such unions. Bishops who have authorized the
blessing of same sex unions are asked to express their regret for having done so. If they
do not, it is recommended that they withdraw themselves from representative functions in
the Anglican Communion.
The provision of alternative pastoral oversight by sympathetic Bishops for those
congregations that dissent from their Bishop’s support of the ordination of non-celibate
homosexuals and the blessing of same sex unions.
These recommendations are now before the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates
and Anglican Consultative Council meeting in London this week and will be formally
presented to the next Primates’ Meeting of the Anglican Communion on Feb. 20–26,
2005, in Ireland. The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church will consider The
Windsor Report at a special meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, on Jan. 12 & 13, 2005.
Once again it has been made abundantly clear by this Report that the positions taken by
the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth on these issues are in full accordance with the
65
66
practice and teaching of the world-wide Anglican Communion. Please continue to pray
for the mission and unity of the church as the above recommendations are enacted.
The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker,

Bishop of Fort Worth
66
67
GEORGIA
67
68
HAITI
68
69
HAWAII
Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ,
The Report of the Lambeth Commission will have direct and indirect implications for
each of us, our congregations, our Diocese, and the Episcopal Church in the USA. With
the release of the Lambeth Commission’s Windsor Report on Oct. 18, I would like to
share with you how I intend to respond to the report.
First, I will personally read the Report when I receive my copy. It is reported that the
Report will be more than one hundred pages in length. Given the charge given to the
Commission by the Archbishop of Canterbury, it will be weighty and demand our careful
reading and reflection.
Second, after I have read and reflected upon the Report, I will share my reflections with
the Diocese (posted on our website). It would most presumptive of me to make any
statement or decision about the Report without having read the Report in its entirety.
Third, I intend to schedule gatherings of clergy and lay persons throughout the Diocese to
discuss the Report. It will be my assumption that we will have all read the Report prior to
our discussions at these gathering. The dates of these gatherings will be included in my
letter to the Diocese. I will attend these gatherings.
Fourth, I will participate fully in the plan adopted by the House of Bishops to receive and
respond to the Report. This plan includes a meeting of the bishops of Province 8 before
December 1, a meeting of the Presiding Bishop’s Council of Advice in December, and a
special meeting of the House of Bishops on January 12-13, 2005, in Salt Lake City. Our
discussions at our Diocesan gatherings will hopefully provide me with reflections that I
can take with me to each these meetings.
Finally, I encourage all members of our Diocese to engage in prayerful and thoughtful
discussion and reflection on the Report. Read the actual Report rather than a summary of
the highlights. Pray that we will hold other in prayer as we engage in our respectful
conversations.
Yours in Christ,
The Rt. Rev. Richard S.O. Chang,

The Episcopal Diocese of Hawaii
69
70
HONDURAS
70
71
IDAHO
71
72
INDIANAPOLIS
72
73
IOWA
73
74
KANSAS
Monday, October 18, 2004
I have received today a copy of the Windsor Report issued by the Lambeth Commission
after their months of study and reflection on issues currently facing the worldwide
Anglican Communion. It will take some time for me, and for others in our diocese, to
reflect on its nearly 100 pages.
I can well imagine some will come to quick and easy conclusions about what the report
does and does not say and will come to injudicious judgment about whose positions the
report does and does not support. I join Archbishop Eames and our Presiding Bishop in
encouraging members of the Episcopal Church in the United States to receive this report
prayerfully, humbly and with an openness to the fruits of the Spirit.
I had the opportunity to meet Archbishop Eames several years ago at Virginia
Theological Seminary, during a time when he was working toward reconciliation
between various Christian factions in Northern Ireland. In chairing this commission he
has taken on an equally complex task.
Within the Anglican Communion we enjoy very different ecclesial structures. In the
English and African provinces of our church, bishops are chosen by committee, and in
England only after consultation with representatives of the Queen. This hierarchical
methodology for the selection of bishops has been viewed as problematic by the
American Episcopal Church since the American Revolution. The American Church is
committed to an ecclesiology which posits great authority in the lay members of our
denomination.
Bishop Robinson was elected in New Hampshire by a majority of lay and clerical
delegates voting in their local diocesan convention. Bishop Robinson’s confirmation was
achieved only after a majority of lay and clergy delegates in the House of Deputies and a
majority of bishops in the House of Bishops voted to confirm his election. The American
branch of the Anglican Communion has long believed the Holy Spirit is present in this
democratic process, and this remains a fundamental difference between our provinces.
The parishes and campus ministries of the Episcopal Diocese of Kansas are focused on
evangelism, stewardship, Christian education, outreach and pastoral care. We have gay
and lesbian members who have made, and continue to make, substantial contributions to
the life of this diocese, and we love and support them. We have members of our diocese
who have been deeply wounded by the actions of the Episcopal Church with regard to
Bishop Robinson’s election, and we love and support them.
Though there be many temptations, we are determined to remain focused on our primary
mission: to know Christ and to make Christ known.
Faithfully,
74
75
The Rt. Rev. Dean E. Wolfe

Bishop, the Episcopal Diocese of Kansas
75
76
KENTUCKY
Interview with the Rt. Rev. Edwin F. Gulick Jr., bishop of the Diocese of Kentucky,
on the Windsor Report and its Implications
On Oct. 18, the Lambeth Commission, appointed last year by the Archbishop of
Canterbury in the wake of controversial actions taken by the American Episcopal Church
and a diocese in Canada, issued its long-awaited report, known as the Windsor Report.
The 17-member commission, under the direction of the Most Rev Dr. Robin Eames,
archbishop of Ireland, was charged with the responsibility of finding ways that the 38
provinces of the Anglican Communion can continue in relationship in spite of their
different positions regarding the American Church’s consecration of a gay bishop and a
Canadian diocese’s approval of a liturgical blessing of same-sex unions.
The nearly 100-page report will be the focus of a special meeting of the Episcopal
Church’s House of Bishops in January and will be presented for consideration in
February at the Primates' Meeting in Newcastle, Ireland, February 21-26.
On Oct. 19, Bishop Gulick discussed at length the significance of this report and the
implications of its recommendations for the Episcopal Church U.S.A. Following are
portions of that interview
What are your feelings about the Windsor Report?
If I were a seminarian, I would read the section on Holy Scripture very closely. It gives a
good Anglican understanding of the authority of scripture and how it works in our
Anglican tradition…. It probes some issues that have been lying dormant in the Anglican
family for a long, long time, particularly the issue of how individual autonomy relates to
communion—an issue that needs a lot of work in our communion. I believe that this
report begins to do some of that very, very important work….
At what point is it important for churches that are in communion to claim their autonomy
or to surrender it – that’s an important question. It’s very akin to family life questions. At
what point in a family do you claim autonomy of person, and when do you surrender that
autonomy for the good of the family? …. I think all human relationships are always
working the issue of the claims of autonomy and the larger good. … I believe this is
going to be an amazing teaching document in the life of the Communion because the
Anglican Communion is a living and evolving reality. I think this will turn out to be a
watershed moment in the Anglican Communion’s self-understanding.
I also think that the document is exceptionally well organized. It‘s a wonderful teaching
document, and then when it begins to make recommendations … it does a wonderful job
of giving three equal and parallel responses to three perceived threats to our Communion.
The first threat is the American Episcopal Church’s electing a bishop who cannot be
received as a good choice by the whole communion. That’s one issue.
The issue of same-sex blessing rites in parts of the Canadian church is the second issue.
That’s the one place where I disagree with the report. I don’t believe the Episcopal
76
77
Church has authorized such rites. I have a very different interpretation of the action of
General Convention, mainly because I was there and I was a part of removing language
from the resolution that was passed that directly called for the development of rites. Be
that as it may, it certainly is an issue of the Communion and an issue of the Diocese of
New Westminster in Canada, so fair enough to mention it.
And the third issue, of course, is the trespass of bishops in jurisdictions that are not theirs.
Interestingly enough I think some people will be surprised that that is being seen as an
issue of equal weight with the other two. But I think it is because it affects the good order
of the Body of Christ. I think that what is so interesting … [is] that the Church is invited
to respond in identical ways to each of these issues: the three R’s. The first thing would
be to express regret, and I think regret is a very carefully chosen word. I was amazed by
the choice of that word. There had been calls for another R word, which is repentance. I
have an analogy that came to me last night as I was thinking about all of this—an
orthopedic surgeon could tell a patient with all honesty and full truth that he regrets the
fact that he had to amputate a leg. But he wouldn’t feel repentance for that if he felt that
he saved a life.
Interestingly enough, in my public statements, I believe I expressed regret regarding my

vote to confirm Gene Robinson because I felt that I had compromised my vows to guard
the unity of the church. I expressed regret publicly so it’s not hard for me to agree that
regret is appropriate. What would be hard for me would be to repent of it because my
conscience has not informed me that it was wrong. So I think the choice of the word
regret is very nuanced and important.
Secondly, the second R is to renew the commitment to the Communion. That is asked of
the Episcopal Church. It is asked of the Canadian Church, and it’s asked of the bishops
that trespassed in dioceses. All are also asked to regret the actions that caused disunity in
the church.
The third R is to refrain from other actions that will compromise the communion.
Interestingly enough, the report calls on the Episcopal Church to refrain from the further
ordination of bishops that wouldn’t be approved wholeheartedly by the Communion, but
it also asks us to develop the theological rationale why that may have been the right
thing. That work really hasn’t been done. People have taken stabs at it, but there hasn’t
been a coherent theological rationale offered to the Communion. So we’re invited to do
that….
I really, really thought that [Presiding Bishop] Frank Griswold said something that had to
be said, however. That is, that to receive this report that is so carefully nuanced and is
trying to work so hard to honor a variety of opinions in the communion, and to keep as
many people as possible at the table, it still must be a very hard report for gay and lesbian
people to read. I think it is courageous of Bishop Griswold to express the view that gay
and lesbian people provide enormous contributions to our church, and they do.
How do you speak to them?
77
78
I would hope they would perceive me as having the same voice as Frank Griswold has
yet I can say in conscience that I regret aspects of that decision that have hurt the body of
Christ. I also have to say in the next sentence, however, that I believe that gay and lesbian
people in the Diocese of Kentucky are contributing generously—and now, even
courageously—to the life of the church as they stay and listen to this discussion swirling
around them. For those of us that are heterosexual, this does not have the same content
that it does for gay and lesbian Christians that love God, love Jesus, love his church, and
endure this long, long conversation.
But I think Robin Eames and most people on that commission were simply amazing.
Interestingly, it doesn’t call for anybody’s resignation…. It doesn’t call for Gene
Robinson’s resignation. It does call for people who were the consecrators of Gene to
examine their conscience to see if they should continue to take part in the wider counsel
of the communion. It’s a very interesting question, and I think particularly for Frank
Griswold, who was the chief consecrator, that could be perceived as done as a direct
statement to him. I happen to think that Frank Griswold was not only right but on several
levels courageous to have done that consecration himself. About half of our consecrations
now are being done by the provincial president bishop, so he could have delegated that
consecration to the Bishop of Maine, who is a province president. But he chose not to do
that in this instance because he felt that as the primate of the Episcopal Church he needed
to do that on behalf of the church…. Secondly, he’s the one who put on the bulletproof
vest in order to preside at the liturgy, and he would not have asked someone else to incur
such personal risk. There was an FBI warning.
Having said that, I don’t know anybody more equipped through his intense training in
Jesuit spirituality to examine his conscience. He has made several 30-day Ignatian
retreats, so he knows how to examine his own conscience and I am sure he will do a very
faithful and holy job of that task. I thought it personalized the issue in a way. However,
that too was probably a nuanced and carefully worked out alternative to those who said
they could no longer be in counsel to the Anglican Communion if he were present….
I think too that I noticed that the report generally is being well received in the
Communion…. I heard a quote from one bishop who said that this is bad news because it
put a higher premium on remaining in the family. That was a quote in the Washington
Post today. But you know, remaining in the family is Biblical. Jesus prayed in St. John’s
Gospel in what’s called the Highly Priestly Prayer that they “may all be one even as I and
the Father are One.” That’s the seminal text in ecumenical life. St. Paul said in his letter
to the Corinthians “the hand cannot say to the foot, ‘I have no need of you.’” It’s very
interesting that people perceive staying in communion as a bad thing when Jesus
mandates it in prayer and it’s one of the key components of St. Paul’s understanding of
the body of Christ. But the polemic has gotten so intense that I think people are making
statements that on the face of them seem to me to have a kind of polemical absurdity….
There are some in the church who arrange truth in a hierarchical way over unity and
justice. I think that’s always dangerous. It would be hard to make the Biblical case that
truth is more important than unity. Jesus claimed to be the Truth in John’s Gospel and he
78
79
prayed that we all might be one. I think sometimes it’s harder to hold three goods in a
kind of dialectic or in balance. It’s sort of human nature to arrange them hierarchically,
based on our own perspectives. But for anybody to say that the truth is more important
than unity, I could certainly make the opposite Biblical argument. The way I might make
it might be, if truth is your pure wine, what good is it to have the pure wine if you
shattered the only vessel that could contain it? ... I would think that it’s kind of hard to
argue hierarchically. It’s better just to ache with the question … better than to resolve it
out of your own polemical understanding. And that goes for liberals as well as
conservatives.
Are you willing to accept the recommendations?
Don’t ask me that … I think it is a good piece of work and as a member of the House of
Bishops I look forward to conferring with my sister and brother bishops in January as to
what the House of Bishops response will be. Generally speaking I think it is an amazing
piece of work. Am I happy with all of it? Absolutely not. I don’t think they would have
done their job if I had been happy with all of it. I’m sure that many bishops have things
that they wish would have been said differently, or things that were omitted that they
wish had been included, or things that were included that they wish had been omitted.
But all in all I’m very moved at the obedience of the people on the commission and their
faithful work and their hard work. Having served on certain dialogues having to do with
the unity of the Church, I know how important language is, I know how finding the right
phrase can really keep people at the table. I just think that these Christian people who
have served on this commission have really given a tremendous gift to the Church.
What will the House of Bishops do with these recommendations in January? Will you
make a response?
This is a very unusual step: The House of Bishops is going to meet only to deal with this
report. We’re having a called and special meeting in January and this is the only topic….
One thing you haven’t asked me about is the Anglican Covenant [one of the report’s
recommendations].
This is a whole new thing in Anglicanism. Our four instruments of unity are the
archbishops, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council and the
Meeting of Primates. Those are the four pieces of unity and our theological document is
the Chicago Lambeth Quadrilateral. This report is now saying that we need to go beyond
having these elements in relationship and make a formal kind of declaration of what the
covenant principles of Anglicanism are. That’s a new idea as far as I can tell, and a very
interesting one. … We’ll see how that issues forth….
The Windsor Report is very humble. It calls itself a first draft. It is an idea they are trying
to float in the communion. It’s certainly not a requirement. I love Robin Eames’ preface.
He has led the Anglican Church in Ireland through an incredible season and has been a
real minister of reconciliation in the Irish situation. He has led the communion through
early concerns about the ordination of women and now he is leading the communion
79
80
through this season. He’s quite a person….[T]o my mind he has risen to the challenge
and done amazing work.
80
81
LEXINGTON
From Lexington's Bishop Stacy F. Sauls: Statment on Windsor Report
[ENS]The report of the Eames Commission, which was appointed by the Archbishop of
Canterbury to consider relationships within the Anglican Communion was released on
Monday morning under the title The Windsor Report. The Rt. Rev. Stacy F. Sauls,
Bishop of Lexington, is continuing to prayerfully digest the report, which he receives
with utmost seriousness and respect. Bishop Sauls has planned a series of meetings with
diocesan leaders this week, and a full clergy meeting on October 27th. Efforts have been
made to provide background materials regarding the structure and function of the
Anglican Communion and the history of other controversies which have concerned the
Communion, in order to provide a context for the reception of this report, which contains
the recommendations of the Lambeth Commission. The report will now go to the
Primates, or the bishops and archbishops who are the elected heads of the constituent
members who make up the Anglican Communion for their consideration. The report will
also be received by the Anglican Consultative Council, made up of bishops, priests and
lay persons from the constituent churches in the Anglican Communion. Unlike the
Roman Church, there is no overarching canon law that is binding on all constituent
members, nor is there any parallel in Anglicanism to the Pope, in terms of jurisdiction in
all dioceses.
Bishop Sauls states: “The issue before the Lambeth Commission and the Anglican
Communion is far deeper than the current controversy regarding the ordination of Gene
Robinson or the blessing of Christians in same-sex monogamous relationships. The
Lambeth Commission was not charged with resolving that theological issue. We will
have to engage in deep and serious conversation with each other to do that. How to
engage together as partners in the Gospel is what I hope the Lambeth Commission will
help us with –how a diverse communion lives and works together. In our diversity, we
are indeed partners. What we do in this country impacts real people in other parts of the
world. At the same time, others in the Anglican Communion need to be aware of the
impact of their decisions here.
Many people have been waiting for the release of this report with hopes of substantiating
their particular perspective regarding the current controversies. The report admonishes
all concerned- not so much for specifics of the current situation, but for lack of regard for
other members of the Anglican family in making local decisions. The Episcopal Church
in the United States is called to task for ways in which we made decisions at General
Convention in 2003, and others in the Anglican Communion are called to task for
interfering with how we solve our problems. We are now, and have always been, a
communion grounded in our common life in Baptism and Eucharist; not by legal bonds,
but by bonds of affection. For Anglicans, legalism and enforced uniformity have always
been too easy a way out of honestly dealing with our differences. The task that remains
for us is how we live out that common life in diverse cultural contexts.
81
82
It is my intention as Bishop that the Diocese of Lexington will honestly and faithfully
engage the report of the Lambeth Commission—especially its call for how we honor each
other throughout the Communion as we work through to an understanding and practice of
the Gospel that we as Anglicans can hold in common.”
82
83
LONG ISLAND
83
84
LOS ANGELES
A message concerning the Lambeth Commission Report
To the clergy of the diocese:
Publicity concerning the scheduled October 18 release of a report by the Lambeth

Commission has made it certain that many of us will be approached by parishioners and
the news media for comment on the meaning and scope of that report. We expect that
Bishop Jon Bruno and Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold, both of whom will be in
London at the time the Commission releases its report, will make statements on this
matter at that time.
The contents of the report are not yet known to the public, but speculation and rumor,
especially on the Internet, are common. Please note that the Commission was not formed
to make any statement about homosexuality, but to study the relationships among
provinces of the Anglican Communion and make recommendations as to how those
provinces might work together in spite of theological and cultural differences.
In order to help you inform your congregations about the Commission’s report, we have
supplied the following materials below:
1. A list of important dates concerning the Commission and its work and meetings of
the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church (USA);
2. “A Word to the Episcopal Church from the House of Bishops”, September 28,
2004;
3. A “mind of the House” resolution from the House of Bishops concerning the
transfer of clergy, September 27, 2004;
4. An article concerning the Commission and its work, written by Canon Robert
Williams, director of the Episcopal News Service, interim Director of Communications
for the national Church, and former communications director for the Diocese of Los
Angeles.
More information is available online at www.episcopalchurch.org/ens, including a list of

“Fast Facts” about the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.
Thank you for your attention. If you are contacted by parishioners or the media about the
Lambeth Commission report, we encourage you to speak from your own convictions, but
to be sure that you are thoroughly informed about the facts. If you have further questions,
please call one of us at 213.482.2040. If you wish, media inquiries may be referred to
Janet Kawamoto, Media Director, at 213.482.2040, ext. 251 or editor@ladiocese.org
The Rt. Rev. Chester L. Talton
Bishop Suffragan of Los Angeles
84
85
The Rt. Rev. Robert Anderson
Bishop Assistant of Los Angeles
The Rt. Rev. Sergio Carranza
Bishop Assistant of Los Angeles
*****
Important Dates
concerning the Lambeth Commission and its report
· October 28, 2003: Lambeth Commission announced

· December 18, 2003: Archbishop of Canterbury announces mandate of Lambeth
Commission
· February 9-13, 2004: First Plenary Meeting, Windsor, England
· April 29, 2004: Archbishop Robin Eames sends letter to the Primates and
Moderators of the Anglican Communion
· June 14-18, 2004: Second Plenary Meeting, Kanuga, North Carolina, USA
· September 5-10, 2004: Third Plenary Meeting, Windsor, England
· September 23-28, 2004: Meeting of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church
(USA), Spokane, Washington
· October 18, 2004: Final report to be received by the Primates' Standing Committee
and made public at a news conference in London
· January 11, 2005: Meeting of the bishops of Province VIII of the Episcopal Church
(USA)
· January 12-13, 2005: Meeting of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church
(USA)
· February 21-26, 2005: Primates' Meeting in Newcastle, County Down, Ireland, to
receive final report
· June 2005: Anglican Consultative Council to receive final report
85
86
LOUISIANNA
86
87
MAINE
October 18, 2004
At our September 2004 meeting of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the
United States, we approved a statement which affirmed that our House of Bishops is
prepared to receive the report of the Lambeth Commission "in a spirit of humility and a
willingness to learn how we might best be faithful and responsible partners in the
Anglican Communion." I believe it will help us all to keep these words in mind as we
receive and digest the lengthy Report of the Lambeth Commission on the Anglican
Communion. This Commission, broadly representative of the many and divergent voices
within our world-wide Communion regarding current controversies, was charged to make
recommendations, not regulations, about how we might live together in the face of
division about present controversies.
The great gift of our Maine cultural tradition is the reminder that we need to "soak the
beans" before we serve up any final determinations, and, as we all know, there are can be
no short-cuts when it comes to soaking beans. Hasty conclusions are not helpful in giving
this Report the time and prayer which it deserves. We may be called to live without an
immediate resolution to the questions that prompted the preparation of this Report. It is
never easy to live in the "not yet" times, but that is where we are called to live right now,
and God’s promised grace is more than sufficient for all the uncertainties we face.
The call of the present moment is clearly for us all to reflect prayerfully on our unity in
mission. Let us be about that mission which is entrusted to us by the Lord Christ. As
Archbishop Eames, the Chairman of the Commission and the Primate of Ireland, has
said: "When disagreements arise, when problems face the Church, is it not all too easy to
lose sight of the real mission of the Christian Church?"
As the next chapters in our life together unfold, let us be united in mission. A hungry and
broken and hurting world awaits our attention and care in Christ’s name. I pray that we
will join together in that mission to which Christ has called us, with heartfelt surrender,
as we consider this report.
The Rt. Rev. Chilton R. Knudsen

Bishop of Maine
87
88
MARYLAND
I am thankful for the fine work and dedication of the members of the Lambeth
Commission. They have produced a thoughtful and thorough document which invites
considerable study and dialogue. I applaud their understanding of the ways in which we
function as a Communion and the ways they call us into fuller mutual accountability.
Theirs is a truly Anglican document: it is tempered, fair, and calls us all to consider both
our strengths and our shortcomings.
I am pleased that the Windsor Report calls for further dialogue and study of Holy
Scripture in relationship to the matter of homosexual persons, especially those living in
committed relationships. I am also in agreement that Americans in particular need to
grow in an appreciation of how our local decisions impact other Anglicans and other
Christian groups around the globe, and that we need much greater sensitivity to our
responsibilities as members of the Catholic (universal) Church. The Report calls us all to
be more accountable for our actions and words.
As a bishop who voted to ratify the election of The Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson, I apologize
for the pain that vote (which I made on the basis of my reading of Scripture, as a matter
of conscience, and given my understanding of our Constitution and Canons) has caused
to members of the Church at home and abroad. Early in August (even before the Primates
meeting in October, 2003) I made the decision not to participate in the consecration of
Bishop Robinson. I did so specifically as a pastoral response to persons within this
Diocese and others who were opposed to that consecration.
As a member of the Theology Committee of the House of Bishops and as one of the
authors of the document sited on page 55 of the Windsor Report, I have long held that it
was inappropriate for any Diocese or Province to authorize the development of rites for
the blessing of same-gender unions. No such rites are or have been authorized in the
Diocese of Maryland.
I am pleased that the Windsor Report reaffirms the importance of all bishops respecting
diocesan and provincial boundaries. This should preclude any future inappropriate
violations of diocesan and provincial boundaries. I voted for and have already
implemented procedures within the Diocese of Maryland which allow for alternative
pastoral care as provide by the House of Bishops last spring.
I look forward to discussing the implications of this important document with the clergy
of this Diocese this month, with our Province III Bishops in November and with all
Episcopal Bishops meeting in January, 2005.
Finally, I want to lend voice to the official statement of our Presiding Bishop when he
states: "I am obliged to affirm the presence and positive contributions of gay and lesbian
persons to every aspect of the life of our church and in all orders of ministry. Other
88
89
Provinces are also blessed by the lives and ministry of homosexual persons. I regret that
there are places within our Communion where it is unsafe for them to speak out of the
truth of who they are." To his words, I would add that I am sorry for the pain the Windsor
Report may cause gay and lesbian Christians. Their pain and the pain of persons whose
theology on matters of homosexuality is traditional are precisely what bring us to our
knees praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit and call us into sincere dialogue so that
the will of Christ may prevail in Christ's Church. I commit myself wholeheartedly to that
dialogue and am determined to respect within it a variety of points of view.
The Rt. Rev. Robert W. Ihloff,

Bishop of Maryland
89
90
MASSACHUSETTES
Message from Bishop Shaw on Windsor Report
On October 18, we received the Windsor (Lambeth Commission) Report.

The report gives us a common document from which we can have discussion. It fairly
and accurately recaps the history of the situation and gives some proposals as to next
steps, the process of which will include careful deliberation by the Executive Council of
ECUSA (November), House of Bishops (January), Primates Meeting, (February), and
Anglican Consultative Council (June).
I look forward to the reflection and discussion that will be part of developing a covenant
(as suggested by the Report), recognizing Christ’s power to reconcile our differences but
also recognizing that our mission is to the world, not to the church alone.
This document is important to every member of the Anglican Communion. We learn

God’s faith by listening to scripture, our tradition, and each other. The Windsor Report is
potentially a vehicle for us to listen to one another on critical issues that inform the
mission and witness of the Church in the 21st century.
The document embodies the best of our Anglican tradition, calling for covenant-building,
and the strengthening of our community through our common bond in Jesus Christ.
Pray during these next months, for the Anglican Communion, the Executive Council of
the Episcopal Church and the House of Bishops as we begin our discussions on the
recommendations of this report.
You can download the 93 page report from www.anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004
90
91
MICHIGAN
91
92
MILWAUKE
92
93
MINNESOTA
Statement of the Bishop of Minnesota on the Release of “The Windsor Report”
I commend The Windsor Report to Episcopalians in the Diocese of Minnesota for

thorough study and reflection. I am very pleased that, above all, the report calls us to
reconciliation through ongoing dialog.
The report reveals the high degree of care and consideration which the commission has
given to the whole matter of what it means to be “in communion.” The report now offers
an opportunity for a level of discussion on this topic that will be unprecedented in the
Anglican Communion—a discussion that I believe the whole American church has
longed for.
The report also reveals the depth of questioning and theological reflection for which the
Anglican Communion is well known. It is a way of being that has invited many people
over the centuries to use all of their minds and the breadth of their hearts to love God,
without leaving any part of themselves behind. I treasure that and I believe the church
will be stronger for engaging in this dialog on an international scale.
I have long affirmed the positive contributions of gay and lesbian persons—clergy and
lay—in the life of our church in this diocese. I do so again on this occasion.
Let us never lose sight of the fact that our real mission is beyond ourselves: for those
persons in our world who are in desperate need. Let us continually hold up the many
good examples where Anglicans—in this diocese and across the church—are carrying out
that mission, working as God’s reconciling agents across the divide of personal
differences.
The Rt. Rev. James L. Jelinek,

Bishop the Diocese of Minnesota
93
94
MISSISSIPPI
October 18, 2004
Dear Friends in Christ:
The Lambeth Commission today issued its report dealing with differences within the
Anglican Communion highlighted by recent actions by the Episcopal Church in the
United States and the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada. Their report comes after
much work, study, and prayer. I commend it to your reading.
The Presiding Bishop has issued his response to today’s report. I want to echo his
comments as we begin our reflection on the commission’s report.
Many had anticipated this report to be more conclusive and final in its statements and
recommendations. It is much more deliberate and intricate in nature. Its release today is
the first of several important steps in the coming months. I will be meeting with the
bishops of Province IV in December to begin to reflect ion the work of the Commission.
The full House of Bishops will hold a special meeting in January to deepen our
conversation about the report and its implications for the Communion. The Bishops will
gather again in March, when we will have conversations with members of the Lambeth
Commission. The Primates will consider the report at a meeting in February while the
Anglican Consultative Council will review it at a meeting in late spring. The Archbishop
of Canterbury will officially receive the report and associated recommendations in June.
Perhaps by then we will have a clearer vision of the pathway ahead.
The Presiding Bishop said at last month’s meeting of the House of Bishops that we
should be prepared to receive this report with humility and openness. I am receiving it in
that spirit. Bishop Griswold also noted that, “at the end of the day, whatever word the
Lambeth Commission has to give to the Communion, I hope that we will see it as an
invitation to become more than we have been….I believe we are all called to see how the
circumstances of our lives invite us to become an authentic sign to a broken and divided
world of Christ’s power to reconcile in the force of his deathless love.”
Let me take this opportunity to say clearly that as we move ahead it is my intention that
this diocese will do so as a faithful constituent member of the Episcopal Church. I ask
you to join with me in committing our lives, talents, treasures, and prayers to the ongoing
work of the Gospel in this church’s mission and ministry.
Faithfully yours,
The Rt. Rev. Duncan M. Gray, III,

Bishop of Mississippi
94
95
MISSOURI
[ENS] The report of the Lambeth Commission is both a sobering and encouraging
document, which because of the depth of its scholarship and theological reflection,
cannot be summed up in a simple statement.
It is a hopeful report, since it charts a way forward for the Anglican Communion. It is a
challenging report because it does not avoid naming the difficult measures required to
sustain communion.
The implications of the report for the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as
a whole will reveal themselves in the ensuing months as we come to understand what the
Commission has said and what it has asked. My intent is to hear the words with an open
mind and unguarded heart.
I know for myself that there are many details to be taken in and studied. I am humbled by
the extensive theology and historical work the Commission has done and I think their
work deserves and a careful and prayerful reading, not a rush to judgment. This report
marks a first step on a longer process, as Archbishop Robin Eames writes in his forward.
As for the Diocese of Missouri, it is my hope to implement the guidelines after taking
counsel on two fronts: With clergy and laity of the Diocese, and with my brothers and
sisters in the House of Bishops.
The Commission was chartered to sustain the highest possible degree of communion
among the 98 million Anglicans worldwide, not to address the scriptural and theological
issues around matters of human sexuality.
The report brilliantly fulfills this charter, marking a course, albeit a challenging one, for
holding the Communion together. It is worth noting, nonetheless, that the commission
reaffirms resolutions of past Lambeth Conferences recognizing the presence of gay and
lesbian persons among us as full members of the Body of Christ.
In that spirit, it is my intention to maintain the Episcopal Church as a safe place for our
gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.
The Rt. Rev. George Wayne Smith

Bishop of Missouri
95
96
MONTANA
96
97
NEBRASKA
97
98
NEVADA
Desert Spirituality
A Perspective on the Windsor 2004 Report of Oct 18,2004
Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori
(Excerpts from the Bishop’s 2004 Convention Address)
[Hawthorne, Nevada, October 15, 2004] We’ve gathered here in the desert to slake our
thirst, both literally and figuratively.... We have some other reminders here of thirst.
These great banners remind us of streams in the desert, and those deer are a visual
reminder of what the psalmist says, “As the deer longs for flowing streams, so my soul
longs for you, O God.”
We all yearn to know that we are loved, and that someone or something beyond us cares
deeply for us. Human beings were created for relationship. That’s what is intended in
Genesis when God says, “it is not good for the human being (Adham) to be alone.” Each
one of us yearns to be recognized as worthy of love and relationship. We all have a deep
need to be loved by others, and in turn to love others, whatever their response may be.
The thirst we know in earthly ways is a measure of the thirst every human being feels to
be in relationship with the divine, with something beyond this mortal realm. You and I
and this church are here to respond to that thirst. Those who take the path of relationship
with God soon discover that what our human relationships look like is a reflection of our
relationship with God, and vice versa.
We are not going to satisfy all the cravings of this thirsty land, but we have much that can
assuage that thirst. We are here because we know something of God’s quenching love –
even in the midst of this fiery desert! We’re here because once we’ve experienced that
love it begins to overflow through us into the world. Baptism is about getting a good
thirst-quenching drink, and priming the pump, so that the well overflows. What we do
with that water is a good measure of the strength of the connection with the Source.
If we’re well connected, that life-giving water overflows in mission – the love of God
made evident, real, and present to the world around us. We’ve got great examples here in
Nevada, both in individual lives and in parish ministries. We also have more room to let
that connection become an artesian well. I want to say a few things about the health of
this diocese, but I’m going to spend a bit more time on the distress and division around
us. We are healthy, and we’re seeing good life-giving ministry here. That is reason for
great celebration....
The Diocese of Nevada Addresses the issue
Let me speak for a bit about the thirst within the church, both here in this country and
across the globe. Some of you are aware of the distress in some congregations since our
General Convention more than a year ago. When we gathered in Las Vegas last year, you
did a remarkable job of listening to each other with deep care and compassion. You also
98
99
agreed that you would go home and engage in some conversation with each other about
issues of human sexuality. The resolution you passed said that each congregation would
engage in discussion, either in the congregation or in your mission district, and then
report back to this gathering. I would like to ask you now to tell each other about what
happened. I think the simplest way to do this would be to ask you to stand at your table if
your congregation and/or mission district did have these conversations. [About 25-30%
of the convention stood.] .... I was part of at least a couple of these conversations in
mission districts, and I found a great deal of grace in the ways people of good faith were
able to express vastly different opinions.
I am aware that there was misunderstanding in some places about just what it was we had
agreed to do. ... Some of you believed that I wanted each congregation to develop a
policy relative to same-sex unions. That is not an accurate reflection of what we agreed to
last year. I did say that if a congregation decided that it wished to bless such unions, that I
expected there to be a parish policy in effect before I would grant permission to proceed.
Only one congregation has developed a full-blown policy. A couple of congregations
have said they will respond when a request is made. Others have decided that they do not
wish to proceed with such liturgical rites. All those positions are acceptable. It is also
acceptable to say that this parish is not ready to make a decision. We are not all of one
mind on this issue, yet that very diversity will continue to call us to recognize the thirst in
each other for real and honest relationship between people who disagree.
The Episcopal Church as a whole has also been subject to some significant reaction from
some of our partners in the Anglican Communion. Those of you who follow such things
will know that a few of the other Provinces (national churches) in the Anglican
Communion have declared a state of impaired communion with the church in the United
States. It is appropriate to note that some of these provinces first declared themselves to
be in impaired communion with us more than 25 years ago, when we began to ordain
women to the priesthood. We have nevertheless continued to engage in joint mission
work in the decades since.
The response around the globe to the decisions of our General Convention led the
Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint a commission, the “Lambeth Commission,” which
was charged to reflect on the nature of the bonds between the members of our
communion, and how we might maintain those bonds at the highest possible level.
Report from the Eames Commission October 18, 2004
The Commission will release its report on Monday, and I am certain that you will hear
about it in the news media. The reaction to this report will be swift, at least from some
quarters. Some of it will be carefully reflective and some will surely be angry and
vitriolic. Whatever you read and hear, I would encourage you to remember several things.
All of the emotion that is attached to these reactions is a reflection of the thirst of various
people and groups – a thirst for relationship with God, with like-minded human beings,
and from some, for relationship with all of the great variety of people within the Anglican
Communion and beyond. That thirst is not a valid subject for our judgment. What may be
99
100
more appropriately judged is our own response. Will we continue to seek after
relationships with those who disagree with us? Or will we reject them out of hand?
The other piece that will be important to remember is that any official response to the
report will be a long time coming. The Anglican Communion depends largely on history
and the good will of its members. History, because we share a common heritage, rooted
in the particularly British expression of Christianity. That has flowered and borne fruit in
many, many different lands across the globe, acquiring new characteristics in every one
of those gardens. The good will of the Anglican Communion is expressed most clearly in
our common relationship to the Archbishop of Canterbury, whom we respect as a
spiritual leader, but who lacks any kind of juridical or rule-making power in the various
national churches in the Communion. We exist through bonds of love, not law. We do not
look to the Archbishop of Canterbury for binding statements on matters of doctrine, and
that is a primary difference between our Communion and the Roman Catholic Church.
Any official response to this report will be a matter to be considered by the Archbishop of
Canterbury, by the gathering of primates (the heads of each of the 38 different provinces
of the Anglican Communion), by the Anglican Consultative Council (a body of lay and
clergy representatives from across the Communion), and by our own General
Convention. Matters of church doctrine or discipline in the Episcopal Church are not
decided by bishops, or by individual dioceses, but only by the church gathered in General
Convention. That form of governance is quite different from other parts of the Anglican
Communion, in some of which the bishop rules, largely on his own. The church in this
country has been well served for 215 years by a more balanced and representative form
of church government.
All of which is a very long way of saying that neither this commission, nor the
Archbishop of Canterbury, nor the gathering of primates, can make rules or laws that
bind the Episcopal Church. That does not mean, however, that we should not consider or
be sensitive to the joys and pains of our brother and sister Anglicans across the globe.
Clearly, a number of them have been offended by the decisions of our General
Convention. This is a wonderful incarnational example of the reality that people of good
faith can disagree intensely. That does not mean we have to be disagreeable. It most
certainly does not mean we should reject those who disagree. None of us can say to
another, “I have no need of you,” anymore than one congregation in this diocese, or one
member of a family, can rightly say that to another. God has created us for relationship,
as difficult and painful and challenging as those relationships may be. The coming
months and years will be another growth opportunity for all of us, whatever the report
says.
The bishops in the Episcopal Church have agreed to gather regionally in the next three
months, and then to come together as a full house for two days in January, to receive and
consider this report, in all humility. A response from the bishops will not be forthcoming
before then, and a response of this whole church cannot be made until General
Convention meets again in 2006.
100
101
One last thing we need to remember. There are lots of thirsty people out there. We would
do grievous wrong if we were to let our disagreements blind us to the other and more
pressing kinds of thirst around us. Mission must continue, and it will likely be the route to
bridging those disagreements. We will respond to some thirst in growing into the difficult
relationships between us here and around the globe, but the greater and more pressing
thirst cannot be ignored. There are people literally dying of thirst while some argue about
human sexuality, or about how to rebuild Galilee. My sense is that Jesus’ response to a
situation like that would be to throw over the tables in those temples.
We can forge partnerships to address the thirst of this world, even and especially with
people who disagree with us. The friendships we are building in Kenya are one example.
We do not seek to change each other, except as God’s spirit wills, in love. We do seek to
respond to the needs of those who thirst for justice, for food, for medical care and clean
water, and who equally thirst to know the presence of God in their sisters and brothers
across the globe. We seek to build relationships with those who differ from us, for there
we will find the image of God in community. Would that the world could say of us, “see
those Christians, how they love one another.”
If we pay attention to the thirst of the world around us, we will find that God is already
healing the divisions between us. If we focus on the divisions, we will only continue to
dehydrate.
- The Rt. Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori

Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Nevada
101
102
NEWHAMPSHIRE
102
103
NEW JERSEY
October 2004
My dear sisters and brothers in Christ,
I am writing to you in anticipation of the publication of the report of the Lambeth

Commission on Communion, scheduled for release on October 18, 2004.
As I mentioned at our Clergy Day last month, it is important for us as pastoral leaders to
help our people to understand the purpose of the Commission and the context of this
report. The Lambeth Commission on Communion was appointed by the Archbishop of
Canterbury in October of 2003 to make recommendations on how to maintain the highest
degree of communion possible in circumstances where the ecclesiastical authorities of
one province feel unable to maintain the fullness of communion with another part of the
Anglican Communion. The report and its recommendations will not address issues of
human sexuality, but the circumstances and conditions and means by which Anglican
Provinces may maintain communion with one another.
It will be helpful to remember that there are four instruments of Anglican unity:
the Archbishop of Canterbury

the Primates' Meeting
the Anglican Consultative Council, and
the Lambeth Conference.
The report of the Lambeth Commission on Communion will be discussed by three of
these four over the next nine months. Thereport will first be presented to the Archbishop
and the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates' Meeting and the Anglican
Consultative Council, which meets in London on October 18-21. The Primates' Meeting
will consider the report in Newcastle, County Down, in Northern Ireland, February 20-
26, 2005. And the Anglican Consultative Council will discuss the report at their meeting
in Nottingham, England, June 18-29, 2005. The Lambeth Conference of bishops is not
scheduled to meet again until 2008.
I hope it will be clear from this schedule that October 18th marks the beginning of a long
process of discussion of the report. This report will initiate new levels of discussion of the
nature of communion. It will require discipline and humility and patience and respect for
one another as we engage in this process of reception.
I do not know what the report will contain. I do know that I will receive the report with
humility and hope, as a gift from representatives of our Anglican Communion that will
help us all to listen to members of this worldwide family. I am in full accord with the
word from our House of Bishops, who wrote last week at the conclusion of our gathering
103
104
in Spokane, Washington, 'We are committed to a gracious reception of the report in a

spirit of humility and to a willingness to learn how we might best be faithful and
responsible partners in the Anglican Communion.' We will gather in Salt Lake City,
January 12-13, 2005, to discuss the report.
On October 18th we can anticipate that our Presiding Bishop and Primate will have a
statement on the report. The Executive Council of the Episcopal Church will consider the
report at its meeting in November.
I am asking that the clergy and congregations of the Diocese of New Jersey all give
consideration to the full report as well as the recommendations of the Lambeth
Commission on Communion. We will, no doubt, be hearing quite a lot about the report
over the next nine months and beyond. We can participate in our local congregations and
convocations as we gather to reflect on the findings and recommendations, with patience,
graciousness, and respect. Let us see this report as a gift to strengthen our unity, and not
an instrument to threaten or exclude one another.
The report matters because our partners in the Anglican Communion matter to us. As
Barry Morgan, the Archbishop of Wales, has written,
It [the Anglican Communion] matters because Communion is God's gift to us, and what
God has given we should not, dare not spurn. God has given us in this Communion
people who are very different from ourselves. They are however his gift to us, as we,
hopefully, may be his gift to them. Gifts are means of grace and as such are to be
cherished and nourished, not rejected and cast aside.
In my first year as the Bishop of New Jersey, I have tried to be faithful in caring for all
the churches, clergy and people of our Diocese. With God''s help, I will continue to honor
and to uphold the presence and ministries of gay and lesbian clergy and lay members of
this Church. And I will continue to honor and uphold the ministries of those clergy and
lay members who differ from me on these matters. All of us are deeply loved by the One
whom we all call Lord, who commands us to love one another as he loves us (John
15:12). In this, and in all our challenges, may we have the grace to honor one another as
gifts to be cherished and nourished, for Jesus' sake.
The Rt. Rev. George E. Councell

Bishop of New Jersey
104
105
NEW YORK
We live and worship in an interconnected and complex world. The Lambeth

Commission has just released a thoughtful and carefully considered report which
expresses the reality of that interconnectedness for the Episcopal Church and the other 37
provinces of the Anglican Communion.
It is important for us to listen carefully, prayerfully and humbly to the reflections of our
brothers and sisters across the world-wide Communion. In this attitude of listening, we
hope to understand the unique perspectives that church leaders from many countries and
cultures bring to the issues of the day. Such listening will provide us with an invaluable,
if sometimes painful, opportunity to see ourselves through the eyes of others. This is an
especially rare and valuable moment for us because it is offered by those who love us as
brothers and sisters.
While this thoroughly Anglican document will give us much to reflect on, it is important
to remember that it is the beginning of a process, not the end of one. The goal of the
Lambeth Commission is to provide the framework for a discussion throughout the
Anglican Communion about the ways in which we can stay in communion with those
with whom we differ. We must remember that those differences are many, and go
beyond the issues of human sexuality raised by church actions in the United States and
Canada. They include plural marriages as in some provinces in Africa, lay presidency of
the Eucharist in some dioceses in Australia, and the ordination of women to the
priesthood and the episcopacy, which is still a divisive issue within the Church of
England and elsewhere.
Common to these issues are deeper questions about the interrelationship between faith
and culture, and the acceptable parameters for interpretation of Scripture. The questions
remind us that our goal cannot simply be to eliminate differences. We recognize,
however, that there are differences which can drive us apart and rupture relationship. So
the issue addressed by the Lambeth Commission report is how to avoid differences which
may lead to schism, and still live together with differences which are serious, but do not
justify a permanent rupture. This report addresses that issue.
Now that the report is public, we will proceed in good Anglican fashion to subject it to
extensive debate and discussion. It will be discussed here at home at the convention of
the Episcopal Diocese of New York next month. If interest warrants, there will be other
organized discussions around our Diocese. It will be discussed in parishes and dioceses
across the Episcopal Church and around the world. In early January, the House of
Bishops of the Episcopal Church will have a special meeting to consider the report and its
implications. The Executive Committee of the Primates Council will consider it, and so
will the full Council of Primates, which will meet in February. The Anglican
105
106
Consultative Council, the only Communion-wide body that contains laity, priests and
bishops, will review the study when it meets this month and again in June of 2005. The
report in final form will also be referred to Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of
Canterbury.
What action might result? One of the things that some find frustrating, and many find
confusing, is that the Anglican Communion operates not through strict hierarchical
structure, but through a system of reciprocal invitation.
As an Episcopalian and an Anglican, I place great value on precisely this loose structure,
which recognizes the variety of settings where the Church does its work, and trusts in the
power of the Holy Spirit to work with the faithful who labor to be fruitful servants of our
Lord within the rich and varied tapestry of our common humanity. Indeed, this loose
structure has evolved precisely in order to give expression to a desire and a need to be a
Church that is marked by an embracing spirit rather than an exclusive and excluding one.
As we set out on this long and difficult debate, I remain convinced that we as a Church
are called to be a place of welcome and a word of hope to gay and lesbian men and
women who seek to live their lives as faithful Christian people, in obedience to the Lord
of life who called them into being and asks them to follow him in all the fullness of their
being.
I would also like to draw attention to a comment by Archbishop Robin Eames in his
foreword to this report. He said, “Perhaps the greatest tragedy of our current difficulties
is the negative consequence it could have on the mission of the Church to a suffering and
bewildered world.” He went on to remind us of the staggering impact in the world of
“poverty, violence, HIV/AIDS, famine and injustice.” These are indeed the primary
challenges facing our Church, and I hope that its leaders in ECUSA and throughout the
Communion can push ahead through the “current difficulties” so we can refocus attention
on those pressing mission objectives.
The Rt. Rev. Mark Sisk

Bishop of New York
106
107
NEWARK
107
108
NORTH CAROLINA
108
109
NORTH DAKOTA
109
110
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
110
111
NORTHERN INDIANA
111
112
NORTHERN MICHIGAN
Those of you at Diocesan Convention (just completed) heard me talk about the Windsor
Report of the Lambeth Commission, which was released this morning. If you were not at
Convention, you could read my remarks on our web site (The remarks concerning the
Lambeth Commission are towards the end of the Address)
This morning I have downloaded the full report and have been reading through its 93
pages, It is long and complex, and (I believe) extremely well done. (I say that about its
thoroughness and even-handed approach, without stating support for any of its specific
conclusions or recommendations.) I commend it to your reading.
The full implications of the recommendations of this report are yet to be realized. As I
said in my Convention Address, it will take many months for it to be received by the
many bodies of our Church, both here within the Episcopal Church, and overseas
throughout the Anglican Communion. I have some initial reactions to what I am reading,
but I want to have an opportunity to reflect with others from within our diocese and
beyond, before having too much to say. All of this needs to settle into perspective.
Still, there were several rumors circulating about the report prior to its release, so I am
sure there are some basic facts about its content which I would like to point out:
1) Contrary to various rumors, the Episcopal Church has not been "excluded" from the
Anglican Communion. This report seeks to identify a way that there can be healing and a
restoration of unity and communion even as we live with our disagreements about some
important matters.
2) The Lambeth Commission is concerned that the actions taken in Minneapolis (the
consent to Gene Robinson's ordination as well as a recognition 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") as well as similar,
subsequent actions taken since then within the Episcopal Church and within the Anglican
Church of Canada, were taken without an adequate articulation of the theological grounds
upon which those actions were taken, and without adequate consultation with the rest of
the Anglican Communion (particularly through the so-called "Instruments of Unity": the
Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council,
and the meeting of the 38 Primates from throughout the Anglican Communion). The
Commission notes that such consultation *was* taken prior to the ordination of women,
but was lacking in these more recent actions. Thus, most of the recommendations which
follow are made for the purpose of re-establishing a climate within which that sort of
consultation and deliberation might take place over the coming months and years.
3) The Commission's Report is clear that it is not taking a position on human sexuality
112
113
per se, but on the matters of process by which these sorts of matters can be discussed and
how our unity and Communion can be maintained throughout the process of change
which occur through the march of human history, and within the bonds of our inter-
relationships as a world-wide Body. thus the Report addresses the way our theological
development and ecclesiastical procedures can help us sort out matters about which
various Provinces might appropriately differ from those about which there should be
world-wide consensus before one Province proceeds. Underlying all of this are questions
of trust and authority - all of which have been stretched to near breaking points by recent
developments regarding human sexuality.
4) Given the disagreements which have arisen, and serious questions about how we
throughout the world-wide Communion may be accountable to one another, even while
honoring appropriate differences in context, the Windsor Report proposes that a new
Anglican Covenant be developed which would clarify our agreements to be mutually
responsible and interdependent (to re-sound a phrase and principle affirmed in 1963 by a
world-wide Anglican Congress). My impression is that such a Covenant would provide a
common agreement about how we will be accountable to one another, while still
respecting the autonomy of each Province of the Communion.
5) The Report also recommends a clarification of the roles of the four "Instruments of
Unity" (being the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Commission, the Primates'
Meeting, and the Anglican Consultative Council) and the creation of a Council of Advice
for the Archbishop of Canterbury, which might assist the Archbishop in his/her
responsibilities for world-wide oversight of the Communion. The Lambeth Commission
is clear about the fact that this clarification would carefully avoid granting to these
Instruments of Unity any sort of jurisdictional power, as might make the Archbishop of
Canterbury into a Pope, or might make our Consultative Councils into bodies which
attempt to dictate matters which have always, within the Anglican Communion, been
overseen within more local Provinces and Dioceses.
6) The Episcopal Church of the USA (ECUSA) is "invited to express its regret that the
proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached" with actions taken with
regard to the election and consent and ordination of the Bishop of New Hampshire (Gene
Robinson). This expression of regret would constitute a desire to remain within the
Communion.
7) Those who participated as consecrators in the ordination in New Hampshire (and that
includes me) should be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should
withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion. (This
would mean that Mary and I would not be going to the Lambeth Conference in 2008) The
purpose of this recommendation is "to create the space necessary to enable the healing of
the Communion".
8) ECUSA is asked to place a moratorium on the election and consent to the ordination of
any candidate to be a Bishop who is living in a same gender union, until some new
consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges
113
114
9) The Instruments of Union (ArchBp of Canterbury, Primates, ACC, & Lambeth

Conference) be urged to move forward with the "listening" process called for at the 1998
Lambeth Conference, which called for the Church to listen to and learn from gay and
lesbian persons as well as those who object to changes which are happening in the
Communion, and that, as a part of this process, ECUSA be asked "to contribute an
explanation, based on scripture, apostolic tradition, and reasoned reflection, as to how a
person living in a same gender union may be considered eligible to lead the flock of
Christ".
10) The Lambeth Commission has affirmed the position of the Primates that since there is
no theological consensus about same sex unions, we (the Primates) as a body cannot
support the authorization of such rites. Thus, they call for a moratorium on such rites, and
ask Canadian and ECUSA bishops who have authorized them "to express regret that the
proper constraints to the bonds of affection were breached by such authorization", and
further, that they should consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw
themselves from all representative functions in the Anglican Communion. They also urge
that conversations continue about these matters throughout the world-wide Communion,
so that a consensus might be determined.
Nevertheless, the Commission stresses that "any demonizing of homosexual persons or

their ill-treatment is totally against Christian charity and basic principles of pastoral
care".
11) Concerning parishes in ECUSA and Canada (and elsewhere) who have dissented
from their own Bishops' views on these matters, and other Bishops (including those from
overseas) who have crossed diocesan boundaries to "care for" those parishes and thereby
violated basic principles of diocesan jurisdiction which have been in places since the
Council of Nicea is 325AD, the Lambeth Commission has affirmed the plan for
"Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight" approved by the ECUSA House of Bishops,
and has condemned the actions of Bishops who have crossed diocesan boundaries outside
of those agreements.
12) The Lambeth Commission has stated in no uncertain terms: "We do not favor the
establishment of parallel jurisdictions", as has been advocated by some dissenters within
the Episcopal Church.
13) The Commission calls upon Bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty to
intervene in provinces, dioceses, and parishes other than their own to express regret for
their actions, to affirm their desire to stay within the Communion, and to put a
moratorium upon any further interventions.
14) The Commission recognizes that if these recommendations are not followed, more
serious efforts at mediation and arbitration might be necessary. Also, it recognizes that
there is a possibility that the present strains within the Communion might result in our
learning to walk different paths (in other words, that some Provinces may feel called to
114
115
withdraw from membership in the Anglican Communion). In the face of these serious
times, the Commission affirms that they have seen their task to be "...to work not for
division, but for healing and restoration".
As I have said, this is all just "off the press", and it will take some time for the Church at
large (as well as each of us individually) to process it and to integrate it into our own life
and commitments. I urge you (as I urge myself) not to be reactive, but to reflect, inwardly
and with others, about how we might be called to respond to this important report as we
move ahead.
I'm sure we'll be having many conversations about all of this over the coming weeks and
months (and years). Let us be thankful that we a part of a Church which is trying, at least,
to figure out how to bring these matters to the table, so we might discover what future
God is calling us to.
The Rt. Rev. Jim Kelsey,

Diocese of Northern Michigan
115
116
NORTHWEST TEXAS
116
117
NORTHWESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
117
118
OHIO
St. Luke the Evangelist
October 18, 2004
This morning the Windsor Report of the Lambeth Commission on Communion was
presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury, to the Joint Standing Committee of the
Primates’ Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council, and thus to us all. It is
available in its entirety via a link on our website as well as through the Episcopal News
Service. Also, a very helpful word from our Presiding Bishop, the Most Rev. Frank T.
Griswold is available on our website, along with statements from the Archbishop of
Canterbury and the Rt. Rev. Mark Dyer, a member of the Commission.
I add my voice of gratitude and admiration to all who participated in the process of
developing this document, and especially to Archbishop Eames and the other members of
the Commission. The report is ninety-three pages in length, and while it deserves much
study, a first reading reveals that it is invitational. It invites us into deeper reflection and
conversation with one another, in our parishes, dioceses, national church, and
Communion, about the nature of communion and what it means to live into such a
culturally and ecclesiologically broad body as the Anglican Communion. The report
invites us into a deeper humility and patience with one another, with ourselves, and with
God, and it invites all of us into a deeper accountability to one another as Christians
committed to the reconciling mission of Christ Jesus.
The bishops of Province V are gathering just before Thanksgiving to review and reflect
on this work, and the House of Bishops will meet in January to do the same. As our
companions across the Communion begin to do the same, I encourage you to study and
reflect with one another, in congregations and deaneries and various configurations, and I
look forward to joining with you in those conversations.
The Rt. Rev. Mark Hollingsworth, Jr.

Bishop of Ohio
118
119
OKLAHOMA
119
120
OLYMPIA
Dear Friends,
I write to you today with an initial reflection in response to the release of the Windsor
Report of the Lambeth Commission on Communion. I also have included the response
made by Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold earlier this morning. With the publication of
the Windsor Report we are reminded that this is an Episcopal Church in communion with
Anglicans around the world. The House of Bishops will meet in January to reflect on the
report and to work proactively to see how we all remain a part of the Anglican
Communion. The primary work of the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops is
reconciliation and honoring different theologies as we walk with Christ. As both
Presiding Bishop Griswold and Bishop Eames, chair of the commission, have said, the
Windsor Report can point us toward reconciliation and away from punishment and
division.
The fact that the whole commission spoke with one voice in unanimously adopting its
findings shows unity in diversity is possible. Our next step is to study and have
conversations in all orders about the report and its recommendations so that we can
respond from the unique experience of the Church in western Washington to its contents.
Our long record of dialogue about this issue can and will serve as an example to the rest
of the church.
There is no doubt in my mind that the responses will be mixed and many. Critical,
thoughtful study will, I trust, open up the possibility for those on any side of these issues
to stay in communion with one anther as the primates of the Anglican Communion have
asked. It is naive to believe that we will come to one mind, but it is not naive to believe
that in Christ we can find union. Unity does not mean uniformity and reconciliation does
not mean coming to one mind. The report does call us to accountability because it is
grounded in reconciliation leading to conversion and communion leading to wholeness of
community.
In the end, there are parts of the report that will test each of us, but let us not forget that it
is not our church but God’s. And in God’s church, there are no outsiders. I concur with
our presiding bishop that we have an obligation to affirm the presence and positive
contribution of gay and lesbian persons in every aspect of the life of our church and in all
orders of ministry. At the same time I know our actions of fully including gays and
lesbians has upset other parts of the Anglican Communion and people in our own church
in western Washington.
In the days to come I will be in conversation with you about how we as clergy can lead
and teach with a spirit of reconciliation and not division. All of us, no matter our point of
view, need the opportunity to express ourselves. I am intent on being inclusive of all
points of view. The future has yet to be revealed. This is the beginning of the
conversation and not the end.
120
121
Faithfully,
The Rt. Rev. Vincent W. Warner,

Bishop of Olympia
121
122
OREGON
122
123
PENNSYLVANIA
123
124
PITTSBURGH
Beloved in the Lord,
The much-awaited report of the Lambeth Commission on Communion has been released.
The final document, now called the “Windsor Report,” suggests how the Anglican
Communion might work to preserve unity in the face of our Episcopal Church’s
decisions to abandon key aspects of Anglican (and Christian) faith and order. It is
available online here
No doubt, in the days and weeks ahead, you will see much commentary, both in the
secular press and from other sources, on what this document suggests for the future of
both our Anglican Communion and Episcopal Church. I would ask you, in the midst of
this unsettled season to continue to be faithful in prayer, for the Anglican Communion,
for the Episcopal Church, for the Diocese of Pittsburgh, for your own congregation, and
for me, your bishop. In the flow of commentary, I can promise you will see my face and
hear my voice, which is one of the reasons I am in England as I write to you.
Remember, our future is not ultimately in the hands of commissions, committees, or

bishops, but in the hands of the one who promises “I am with you always, even to the end
of the age."
The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan

Bishop of Pittsburgh
124
125
PUERTO RICO
125
126
QUINCY
126
127
RHODE ISLAND
127
128
RIO GRANDE
128
129
ROCHESTER
129
130
SAN DIEGO
130
131
SAN JOAQUIN
THE BISHOP’S ADDRESS
at the Forty-Fifth Annual Convention
of the Diocese of San Joaquin
St. James’ Cathedral, Fresno, California
October 22, 2004
Despite the gloomy news that greets us daily in the media, I strongly suspect we are
living in a time that will be remembered in years to come as the “good old days.” Our
nation, though divided politically, is intact. We have time, money, and energy to debate
everything from issues of human sexuality, stem cell research, retirement programs, to
foreign policy as well as challenging the wisdom of our leaders for involving us in war in
Iraq. The Church, too, whether considered from the stand point of the world-wide
Anglican Communion, the Episcopal Church in the USA, or diocesan level – has
somehow held together no matter how serious the debate is concerning the faith and our
own differences regarding science, medicine, and human behavior.
My concern is that we are in for a rude awakening such as we have never experienced
before.
As Christians, if we are going to fulfill God’s calling to be salt and light, we must have
truth. Both our political and church leaders have shied away from the reality that
surrounds us today. The war that we are engaged in is nothing other than a religious war.
On Tuesday, this week, a spokesman for Al Quaida and the Palestinians announced to
officials of the United States that hostilities in the Middle East will stop the minute that
America suspends all support of Israel. Extremists in the Moslem world have made no
secret that what is being perpetrated on American, English, French, Spanish (until their
withdrawal of troops) and Turkish Nationals is a JIHAD. We could believe such an
announcement were it limited to extremists. When leaders of the Arab nations do not
speak out against terrorism, their silence is not only self-condemning it re-affirms the
reality that the war being fought is a holy war.
The silence is not limited to those abroad. Not long ago Bishop Ed Little of Northern
Indiana and Bishop Geralyn Wolfe of Rhode Island, both of Jewish heritage, attempted to
make a presentation to the House of Bishops concerning its not so subtle anti-Semitic
stance. They were told there was not enough time to bring this matter before the House.
Meanwhile our Church publications continue to promote only the Palestinians in the Holy
Land.
This year thirty-four of us made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. (This was my fifth visit
to Israel.) While there, we made a special request to visit Bethlehem – now in control of
the Palestinians, and – for the most part – off limits to Christian groups. Despite the
myth that the Palestinians are our Christian brothers and sisters and therefore the only
ones deserving of the Church’s support – we saw with our own eyes the empty streets,
shops, and restaurants of Bethlehem. We were required to be accompanied by a special
Palestinian policeman. The owner of the Palestinian Restaurant where we ate, a
131
132
committed Christian himself, begged us to speak a good word to others who might be
traveling to Israel. He wanted us to ASK that Bethlehem be included on their Pilgrimage.
“You see,” he said, “when your group leaves I will send my whole staff home. We won’t
serve a meal for the rest of the month.” Then he added, “you remember when Bethlehem
was a thriving Christian city. Since the Palestinians (and here he spoke of them as
THEY) took over, there are only 300 of us Christians left in the city. I don’t know how
much longer we can hold on!”
There is a holy war, a JIHAD, going on. Today the Islamic government of KHARTOUM
is systematically practicing genocide in the southern part of the Sudan. All of our
Anglican churches have been destroyed through bombing and fire. As a brother bishop
of mine from Sudan told me personally, “It’s all right that our buildings are gone. Most
of them only held a 100 or so people. We could no longer fit. Most of our parishes are
well over 1,000 now.” Meanwhile, and shockingly, Moslems are kidnapping Christian
children on the way home from school, and – along with young women – selling them for
$15 American each in open air slave markets – primarily to buyers from Saudi Arabia – a
nation claiming friendship with America.
You may wonder, and rightly so, why I’ve devoted so much time to this topic. I believe
this JIHAD will continue against this nation and Israel no matter who is elected in
November and the goal of this war is the extermination of life as we know it in the
Christian West. We may well face into unbelievably hard times in this country in the
near future. As Christians, we must know how and be prepared to stand. Armed with
truth, we can be salt and light for many.
Turning our attention more specifically to the recent turmoil of the Anglican Communion
and our own part in it when the Episcopal Church, USA, voted to approve for
consecration as bishop an ACTIVE homosexual man, it is important that we understand
who we are as defined by the official documents of ECUSA. My brother bishop, James
Stanton of Dallas, has summarized the facts for his own diocese succinctly. I cannot
improve on his words which I hereby quote.
“The Constitution of the Episcopal Church defines us corporately in the following words:
The Episcopal Church ... is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, a

Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, of those duly
constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of
Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the
Book of Common Prayer.
Being an Episcopalian means being an Anglican. Belonging to the Episcopal Church

involves belonging to the Anglican Communion. Loyalty to the Episcopal Church entails
loyalty to the Anglican Communion: that is the meaning of this preamble which was
adopted in 1967 and which was, according to the Journal of the General Convention,
adopted as an ‘integral’ part of the Constitution. To be a Church is to be in communion.
132
133
That is why the Episcopal Church enacted this Preamble – to strengthen its ties to the
communion of bishops which is the primary sign of being a Church in the Anglican
tradition.”
“There is a crisis in the Anglican Communion concerning the Episcopal Church. The
decisions of the recent General Convention were taken in direct contravention of the
pleas of two Archbishops of Canterbury, the Meeting of Primates, a resolution of the
Anglican Consultative Council, and previous actions of the Lambeth Conference; and
against the advice of numerous bishops and bodies around the world.”
“The Primates’ statement, issued last year as we gathered to meet in Convention, said the
following:
‘If [this] consecration proceeds, we recognize that we have reached a crucial and critical
point in the life of the Anglican Communion and we have had to conclude that the future
of the Communion itself will be put in jeopardy. . .’”
“Our Primate, the Presiding Bishop, signed this statement – indeed all the Primates did.
The extent of the critical nature of the decision to proceed was also spelled out:
‘This will tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level, and may lead to further
division on this and further issues as provinces have to decide in consequence whether
they can remain in communion with provinces that choose not to break communion with
the Episcopal Church (USA).’”
“As soon as the consecration took place, the predicted divisions began to manifest
themselves.
To date, some 22 Provinces of the Anglican Communion have declared “impaired” or
“broken” communion with the Episcopal church. That’s 22 out of 38! In addition,
Ecumenical dialogues have been suspended. Furthermore, several Provinces have
refused missionaries or clergy from ECUSA

refused monetary assistance from ECUSA
experienced reprisals from neighbors – often Muslims
The decisions made by our General Convention have
shocked the whole Christian world.
Responding to this crisis and at the specific direction of the Archbishop of Canterbury – a
network of dioceses and parishes was formed. I’m proud that we in San Joaquin are
133
134
among the first eleven diocese to form the Network and that half of the Primates around
the world recognize today this as constituting a legitimate, stable, and orthodox Anglican
voice.”
“From the beginning of discussions of the Network, it has been clear that this was meant
to be
Within the Constitution of the Episcopal Church.
At no time was the possibility of splitting from the Episcopal Church even discussed,
contrary to press reports to this effect and the claims of those outside.”
“A second major emphasis of the Network continues to make clear that we are
Pledged to support the agreements of the Anglican Communion.
This does not mean that we come under any foreign rule or government of any kind. It
does mean that we support the Instruments of Unity which promote the health and
mission of the Communion as a whole.”
“The Network was also clear that it wished to be based on the
Historic formularies of the Anglican Communion.
That is, the Scriptures, the historic Creeds, the Book of Common Prayer, the Thirty-Nine
Articles.
Finally, the Network members agreed to
Honor and respect the differences
of those in the Network on the matter of the Ordination of Women. This is hardly
controversial, despite some efforts to make it seem so, since all of us in the Episcopal
Church already live together with these differences.”
For a year, now, the Archbishop of Ireland, appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury,
has with his commission been preparing a report – now known as the Windsor Report –
on the nature of the world-wide Anglican Communion and the proper role authority,
covenant relationships between autonomous provinces, and discipline must play – if we
are to remain together. All of this, of course, was occasioned by the unilateral and rogue
134
135
behavior of our Province, ECUSA.
In assisting readers of the Report (over 90 pages long) Anglican Mainstream views the
work through the lenses of four questions – which I have found particularly helpful.
They are: First, do its recommendations affirm the supreme authority of Scripture?
Second, do the recommendations provide for effective discipline? Third, do they affirm
mutual accountability within the family of churches which make up the Communion?
And finally, fourthly, do they provide adequate protection for congregations in revisionist
dioceses?
In answer to the first question the Windsor Report re-affirms the classical Anglican
position that Scripture is our supreme authority in matters of faith and conduct. In
paragraph 58 it goes on to stress that the bishops’ role is that of “teachers of scripture.”
The second question dealing with discipline calls for self-discipline and asks for
expressions of regret from bishops who supported the consecration of a divorced
homosexual man living with a male lover as bishop of New Hampshire. Equally, it
requests expressions of regret from bishops who have crossed provincial and diocesan
borderlines. It asks those who have supported the novel position of accepting
homosexuality as an alternative life-style to step down or withdraw from functions of the
Anglican Communion.
With regard to the third question involving accountability, it makes it very clear that
Provinces are NOT entitled to act unilaterally on core doctrine and moral issues, that – in
fact – they have to take into account the views and interests of other churches and
dioceses in the Communion. The “Communion covenant” which proposes that only
those Provinces agreeing to matters of faith and morals be entitled to remain in the
Communion points toward a self-selecting membership in the Anglican Communion.
And, finally, the fourth question concerning protection for orthodox parishes and
believers in revisionist dioceses fails to help those who are at the mercy of bishops of
those revisionist dioceses.
Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh is quite correct when he says: “The Windsor Report
is good on doctrine but weak on discipline.”
Were this long awaited report meant to be the final word, it would be most disappointing.
But, as Bishop Stanton puts it: “The Windsor Report is a FLOOR – NOT a ceiling.”
What it does accomplish is solid as a foundation on which the Primates are sure to build
when they meet in Ireland this coming February. What is affirmed clearly was: the
supreme authority of Scripture, the importance of the world-wide Communion where
unilateral decisions and actions are unacceptable, and a moratorium on all ordinations
involving candidates who are active homosexuals.
Many have already expressed the disappointment that the medicine offered is not
adequate to deal with the seriousness of the disease that afflicts the Anglican
135
136
Communion.
Archbishop Kolini from Rwanda has indicated that he intends to bring three demands to
the All-Africa Conference to be held in Lagos before the end of this month. They are:
First, the Presiding Bishop must repent publically for his deceitfulness in signing a
document urging that Gene Robinson not be consecrated, and two weeks later actually
officiating at this consecration in New Hampshire. Second, that Gene Robinson step
down from being a bishop. Third, that the General Convention of ECUSA repent its
decisions to allow Robinson to be consecrated and individual bishops be allowed to
authorize services for same-sex unions. Clearly he hopes that these demands will be built
into the Primates’ final decision.
Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria who heads up 21 million of the 80 million
Anglicans world-wide has expressed outrage that sexual sin and its acceptance as a holy
life be apologized for when nothing short of repentance is called for. And, he has utterly
rejected equating the promotion of sexual life styles that contradict Scripture to efforts to
protect and encourage orthodox believers in revisionist dioceses. There is no question of
the demands he will make when meeting with the other Primates.
Meanwhile, Gene Robinson has released a statement indicating he regrets having caused
pain to a large part of the Anglican Communion but he does not repent going forward
with his consecration nor will he step down.
The Presiding Bishop has called for a special meeting of the House of Bishops in January
just before the all important meeting of Primates in Ireland in February. He gives no
indication that he repents what he has done or that he will attempt to place a moratorium
on future ordinations of active homosexual men and women.
Bishops from the Global South (including Africa, South America, and Asia as well as
parts of Australia) have already indicated that North American arrogance will inevitably
end in ECUSA and parts of the Canadian Church going it alone. At the present moment
there appears to be no “fudge element” left among Anglicans. This could spell the
excommunication of North American Anglicans and possibly the demise of the Anglican
Communion itself.
What does this mean for us in the Diocese of San Joaquin? At the moment, nothing has
changed. As one of the earliest partners in the Anglican Communion Network we have
already made our position clear. There is nothing new about being an island of
orthodoxy surrounded by a sea of revisionist dioceses. It will be the same stance that I
have always taken when I go to the meeting called by Bishop Charles Jenkins, President
of the Presiding Bishop’s Council of Advice. (The forty-two of us who voted against the
consecration of Gene Robinson are being asked to meet in Houston, Texas November
29th and 30th.) I shall take the same stance when I participate in the urgent meeting
called for the entire House of Bishops in Salt Lake City, Utah in January. There will be
one significant difference, however. When I stand, I shall not be alone. The number of
Primates around the world who support the Network is increasing. Today there are 22
who stand with us out of the 38. By January who knows how many will have broken
136
137
Communion with ECUSA and identified themselves as supporters of those who remain
orthodox? Storm clouds are gathering.
What does this mean for us within the diocese? I am happy to report that the work of
preparing for the future goes on at full speed. What appeared to be an innovation a few
years ago is now a well-established institution, the San Joaquin Schools for Ministry. At
this very moment we have 31 students – 12 are studying for the priesthood; 13 are
studying for the diaconate; 6 are lay people studying toward a deepening of their faith.
There are three students preparing for the priesthood at Nashotah House as well as one
who will study for the diaconate. We have one student at Trinity School for Ministry in
Ambridge, Pennsylvania; one student at the Anglican Program in Asbury Theological
Seminary in Kentucky, while two students are on directed study programs. Next year
we’ll have our first student strdying in Canada at Wycliffe House in Toronto.
This year five students graduated with the degree of master of Divinity, another
completed directed study for Canon 10. It has been my privilege to ordain eight deacons
this year and one to the priesthood.
So successful has our local program uniting the Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary in
Fresno with the extension program of Anglican Studies of Trinity, Ambridge that the
Presbyterians of the Central Valley are copying our model.
I am deeply indebted to Fr. Bob Richard who, until recently, has served as Dean of our
School, Kelsey Stewart, as Registrar and Program Director, and to Fr. Karl Dietze as
academic advisor. I am grateful, too, to Fr. Van McCalister who in addition to serving as
vicar for two congregations, has been part time with the diocese as Vocations Director,
and is now appointed Dean of San Joaquin Schools for Ministry.
In his retirement years, Fr. Don Seeks has contributed his time and services generously as
he oversees the deacons in the diocese, serves as head of our clearing house for African
grants and keeps abreast of legal matters regarding Constitution and Canons.
When Title IV of the Canons changed making the bishop more of a judge than a Pastor –
it became apparent to many of us bishops that we would need a Canon Pastor to hear
Confessions of the Clergy. In addition to this important ministry, Fr. Ken Richards has
been faithful in hearing confessions of lay people and serving as spiritual director and
counselor particularly for our deacons, other clergy and lay people. He has made hospital
calls on behalf of clergy who have requested him to do this. His availability as interim
and supply priest has kept him busy in addition to serving as a speaker for special
occasions around the diocese and seminar leader at the request of clergy. His time spent
as an intercessor is invaluable as has been his assistance to me as bishop. He shares in
celebrating the regular round of services, too, at the cathedral when not called elsewhere.
As part of our educational program, the Canon to the Ordinary, Fr,. Bill Gandenberger
and the Chief Financial Officer of the Diocese, Duke Golden, have reached out with
seminars for the building up of local congregations. Fr. Bill has brought “Friendship
137
138
Evangelism” to representatives of 30 of our parishes and missions while Duke has

offered Stewardship Seminars to 20 of our congregations with both men doing follow up
intensive seminars with 5 congregations. In the next 18 months Duke will be offering
Stewardship seminars to all the remaining churches who request them. It is rewarding to
hear the positive and enthusiastic responses made by participants in these seminars.
Looking very much to the future San Joaquin has been noted for our state of the art camp
for teenagers. Having completed its fifth summer under the direction of Steve Phillips-
Matson, each year 50 to 60 young people have made profound commitments of their lives
to Jesus as Lord and Savior. And of those numbers five have themselves, gone on to do
youth work ministry!
A study group has begun the task of looking at our vision and mission statement with an
eye to strategic planning for the diocese in the years that lie ahead.
Not waiting for this strategic planning group to bring its insights to bear, we have already
sent two teams of clergy and lay people numbering 14 persons all told to the finest
seminar available on the West Coast for Church Planting Initiative.
As plans are being made for parish visitation for this next year, it is my intention to travel
to each of the six deaneries for continuing an open-ended conversation with clergy and
lay people. These evenings will have no planned agenda but are meant to keep the lines
of communication open at a time when rumors and inaccuracies are certain to abound.
With all of these ministries being offered the necessary and regular work of the diocese
continues on budget for expenses due to good management and diligent monitoring. Not
satisfied with our own monitoring we are inviting a nationally known clergyman from
outside the diocese to review in depth and make recommendations to structure the most
efficient team under the bishop to carry out the strategic planning of the diocese.
Finally, no small amount of anxiety has been expressed by many of the dioceses on the
West Coast and nationally due to the loss of people and subsequent loss of funds.
Dioceses known for their financial strength in the recent past are facing frightening
deficits. We in San Joaquin are not insulated against such woes. Rectors and vicars
report that we have lost orthodox traditionalists from our midst due to the anger and
frustration they have experienced with ECUSA despite the solid stand of the diocese.
Simultaneously, there have been those who are angered at me personally for my stand.
Some have left and withheld pledges. Taking all this into account, we can see the
enormous political, cultural, and theological forces impacting all of us may bring us to
the point where I will need to call for a special budgetary convention in the new fiscal
year.
No matter what the circumstances, Scripture counsels us to be instant in season and out of
season. Given the overwhelming correspondence, emails, and telephone calls we
continue to receive from all over the country, the message we are being given is that we
are salt and light and, as such, a sign of hope for them.
138
139
With that in mind, words penned decades ago by a man named Roland Wilson apply to
us today every bit as much as they did to members of his generation.
“Evil multiples, standards slip and violence is deeply disturbing people, but the devil’s
supreme deception is to persuade us that ordinary people, everywhere, are less hungry for
God’s answer and that WE are less able to offer it. Only it must be the FULL answer, the
FEARLESS answer, the answer dictated from above, the answer for EVERYBODY.”
It was for such an answer that the white robed army of martyrs met their deaths
victoriously. (One cannot imagine a single person willing to sacrifice his life for
pluriform truth!) May it be that our Primates will offer the answer dictated from above.
And, to that end, let us pray for a holy boldness, filled with the Spirit, and wedded to the
Word of God to come forth from the land of Patrick and Columba this February. Amen.
139
140
SOUTH CAROLINA
140
141
SOUTH DAKOTA
141
142
SOUTHEAST FLORIDA
142
143
SOUTHERN OHIO
From Southern Ohio's Bishop Herbert Thompson Jr: Statement on Windsor Report
Episcopal News Service
Posted: Monday, October 18, 2004
October 18, 2004
My brothers and sisters in Christ,
As many of you know, Archbishop Eames and his commission released the Windsor
Report this morning. The report is nearly 100 pages, and I’m sure it will be widely
discussed in the coming days. I invite each of you to read the report in its entirety, to
receive it graciously and prayerfully consider it.
As Archbishop Eames says in the report, “This report is not a judgement. It is part of a
pilgrimage towards healing and reconciliation.” The report is a recommendation to the
Archbishop of Canterbury. He has referred the report to the Anglican Consultative
Council, a representative body from across the Anglican Communion to provide
consultation and guidance on policy issues. The ACC will meet in February to review the
report, and the Primates will receive it next spring.
The report criticizes both the Episcopal Church for the election and consecration of
Bishop Gene Robinson, as well as those primates and bishops from outside the United
States who have chosen to interfere with the affairs of the Episcopal Church. The report
calls for a three-fold moratorium: (1) on the election and consent to the episcopate any
clergy living in a same-sex union; (2) on the public blessing of same-sex unions; (3) and
on the intervention of bishops into provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own.
It also calls upon the Episcopal Church 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.”
Above all, the Windsor Report calls us to unity and to a focus on the mission of the
church. Our Presiding Bishop wrote in his letter to the church, “A life of communion is
not for the benefit of the church but for the sake of the world … the fundamental reality
of the Episcopal Church is the diverse center, in which a common commitment to Jesus
Christ and a sense of mission in his name to a broken and hurting world override varying
opinion on any number of issues, including homosexuality.”
We are blessed in our diocese to have remained focused on the ministry and mission of
the church. I am proud of you, and I am honored to be your bishop. We will continue to
move forward together in a spirit of unity. There will be several opportunities for us to
discuss the Windsor Report as well as the ongoing dialogue around the Anglican
Communion. The first will be a workshop at Diocesan Convention in November. This
matter also will be on the agenda for the Bishops, Vestry and Mission Council meeting
143
144
Feb. 19 at Procter Camp & Conference Center and the Presbyters and Deacons meeting
in April.
There have always been disagreements among faithful people, but we must transcend
these differences and be a witness to the world of the church moving forward in unity for
the sake of God’s kingdom. As the Windsor Report concludes, “The real challenge of the
gospel is whether we live deeply enough in the love of Christ, and care sufficiently for
our joint work to bring that love to the world, that we will ‘make every effort to maintain
the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace’ (Eph. 4.3).”
It is appropriate that I am writing to you on the feast day of St. Luke, the patron saint of
healers and an early missionary in the spread of Christianity.
The collect for today is: “Almighty God, who inspired your servant Luke the physician to
set forth in the Gospel the love and healing power of your Son: Graciously continue in
your Church this love and power to heal, the the praise and glory of your Name; through
Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one
God, now and forever. Amen.”
Yours in Christ,
The Rt. Herbert Thompson, Jr. D.D

Bishop, Southern Ohio
144
145
SOUTHERN VIRGINIA
145
146
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
Understanding report will take time
Dear Friends in Christ,
On October 18 the long anticipated report of the Lambeth Commission chaired by

Archbishop Robin Eames of Armagh will be released. Over these past few weeks many
people have asked me what will happen. I hope that the following will provide a response
to the concerns behind the question.
The question that the Commission was asked to address is how we can achieve the
highest degree of communion possible given the great divergence in teaching among our
provinces. Comments by Archbishop Eames suggest that there will be both a reflection
on the nature of communion and a series of recommendations to enable us to achieve that
communion. There will be a tendency to rush to the recommendations. Please read the
entire report first. Following the release of the report, we will enter a period of serious
communal discernment regarding what we understand the report to mean to us.
On Wednesday, November 3, the clergy of our diocese will meet with the Rt. Rev. Mark
Dyer. Bishop Dyer is currently on the faculty of Virginia Theological Seminary. Bishop
Dyer was a member of the Commission. He will address the process of the Commission's
work and the content of the report. Following his presentation, the clergy will have an
opportunity to hold conversation regarding the report and its recommendations.
The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church will hold a special session in mid January
for the purpose of conversation and consultation regarding the report. This meeting will
be followed in February by a meeting of the Archbishops of the Anglican Communion.
This coming week is not a time for decisions to be made; rather it is time for the real
conversation to begin. The hard work of study and conversation must take place before
we will be able with clarity and conviction to talk about the future direction of the
Diocese of Southwest Florida, The Episcopal Church, and our place in the Anglican
Communion. We must approach our work with an open heart and with a spirit of
graciousness towards one another.
Please continue to pray and remain patient as we receive and study the Lambeth
Commission Report. The charge to the Commission was to address the issue of
communion and fellowship, not sexuality. Those who look to this report for a definitive
word to questions of sexual orientation and behavior will be disappointed. The concern of
how we will live together as the Anglican Communion crosses all issues and provincial
boundaries.
146
147
God bless and keep you.
The Rt. Rev. John B. Lipscomb,

Bishop Southwest Florida
147
148
SOUTHWESTERN VIRGINIA
148
149
SPOKANE
149
150
SPRINGFIELD
150
151
TENNESSEE
A WORD FROM THE BISHOP
The long awaited report of the Lambeth Commission on Communion (sometimes called
the Eames Commission) entitled, “The Windsor Report.” was released on October 18,
2004. This report is the response of a blue ribbon group of clergy and lay leaders
representing some of the best minds from all over the thirty-eight provincial churches that
constitute the Anglican Communion
The Commission was appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury to report, ”on the legal
and theological implications flowing from the decisions of the Episcopal Church (USA)
to appoint a priest in a committed same sex relationship as one of its bishops, and of the
diocese of New Westminster (Canada) to authorize services for use in connection with
same sex unions, and specifically on the canonical understandings of communion,
impaired and broken communion, and the way in which provinces of the Anglican
Communion may relate to one another in situations when the ecclesiastical authorities of
one province feels unable to maintain the fullness of communion with another part of the
Anglican Communion.”
The Commission was further charged to make recommendations “for maintaining the
highest degree of communion” between churches of the Anglican Communion and as to
“appropriate” actions (pastoral oversight) the Archbishop of Canterbury might exercise in
maintaining communion among the churches of the Anglican Communion.
It is important to understand that the Lambeth Commission was asked to seek ways to
effect reconciliation and maintain communion among the several provincial churches, not
to punish the American and Canadian churches. There is no “Supreme Court” in the
Anglican Communion and no provincial church has authority over any other provincial
church. At the same time, it must be noted that the divisions are so profound that, as
Archbishop Eames says in the ”Foreword” to the report, “if realistic and visionary ways
cannot be agreed to meet the levels of disagreement at present or to reach consensus on
structures for encouraging greater understanding and communion in (the) future it is
doubtful if the Anglican Communion can continue in its present form. “
The Report is aimed at reconciliation and healing. It is rich in its theological content and
definitive in stating that within Anglicanism, “scripture has always been recognized as
the Church’s supreme authority.” Meanwhile, it also affirms that each of the provinces of
the Communion is at the same time both autonomous and interdependent. It identifies the
many efforts made to prevent the actions of the Episcopal Church (USA) and the
Anglican Church of Canada and clearly states the negative effect of those actions all
across the Anglican Communion.
The recommendations of the Report are couched in gracious terms, e.g., 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 “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,” and that “the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to effect a
moratorium on the election and consent of any candidate to the episcopate who is living
in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges.”
151
152
The Report speaks in similar reserved language about the blessing of same sex unions
and calls upon all bishops in the Anglican Communion “to honor the Primates Pastoral
letter of May 2003, by not proceeding to authorize public Rites of Blessings for same sex
unions,” and that bishops who have authorized such rites are invited to express regret for
doing so and withdraw from representative functions of the Anglican Communion. The
Report calls for continuing study of this issue but this “does not imply approval of such
proposals,” while at the same time it pastorally cautions that “any demonizing of
homosexual persons or their ill treatment, is totally against Christian charity and the basic
principles of pastoral care.”
The Report calls upon those bishops who have intervened in provinces, dioceses and
parishes other than their own, to express regret for the consequences of their action,
affirm their desire to remain in the Communion. This will require the effecting of a
moratorium on any further interventions. It also calls for an expanded role of the
Archbishop of Canterbury to intervene in provincial disputes. This prepares the way for
the establishment of future checks and balances.
Finally, the Report calls for a worldwide Anglican Covenant to which all provincial
churches would be asked to subscribe.
The Windsor Report is not the end of the controversies in the Anglican Communion but it
is a window through which we can see clearly the various alternatives for the future and
if possible to develop ways in which the Communion might remain intact. One of my
fellow bishops has said, that this is not the ceiling but the floor upon which we can build
ways and means to deal with the present conflicts. I view the report as a hopeful sign and
a gracious way of finding solutions to our differences. The Report will be considered by
the Conference of African Bishops meeting later this month and be the main business at
the meeting of all of the Primates in February.
The last paragraph of the Report is very significant and is quoted here in full.
There remains very real danger that we will not choose to walk together. Should the call
to halt and find ways of continuing in our present communion not be heeded, then we
shall have to begin to walk apart. We would much rather not speculate on actions that
might need to be taken if, after acceptance by the primates, our recommendations are not
implemented. However, we note that there are in any human dispute, courses that may be
followed: processes of mediation and arbitration; non-invitation to relevant representative
bodies and meetings; invitation, but to observer status only; and, as an absolute last
resort, withdrawal from membership. We earnestly hope that none of these will prove
necessary. Our aim throughout has been to work not for division but for healing and
restoration. The real challenge of the gospel is whether we live deeply enough in the love
of Christ, and care sufficiently for our joint work to bring that love to the world, that we
will “make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace”
(Eph.4.3). As the primates stated in 2000, “to turn from one another would be to turn
away from the Cross”, and indeed from serving the world which God loves and for which
Jesus Christ died.
There have been many comments on The Windsor report, frequently reflecting the “spin”
that would serve a particular group or person or position. I am asking every congregation
in the Diocese of Tennessee to study this document at length and in depth. It will provide
wonderful material for Christian Education classes and study groups and not only help us
understand what has happened in the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada
152
153
and the world wide reaction to what these churches have done but also bring about a
greater understanding of the Anglican Communion and the role and responsibilities of the
provincial churches as members of the Communion.
(The document may be downloaded from: windsor2004.anglilcancommunion.org)
It is my hope that the Episcopal Church (USA) will receive this report in the generous
spirit in which it has been presented and will take to heart the recommendations it makes
and comply with them in the true spirit of reconciliation.
153
154
TEXAS
154
155
UPPER SOUTH CAROLINA

October 18, 2004
This is a day of high expectations and frankly I'm relieved that it has arrived. The
recommendations of the Windsor (or "Lambeth", or "Eames") Commission required over
90 pages of print, and I need more time to read it in its entirety, and to digest it.
Obviously, I shall do so promptly and with extraordinary interest-its content and
implications will affect all of us.
Therefore, at this point in time much of what I know about the report is through a
summary compiled by a news service-which means that there is a filter between the
report itself and my knowledge of specifics. However, my initial impression is that the
recommendations, many expressed as "invitations", are intended to call the entire
Anglican Communion into compliance with long-held principles of Christian faith,
practice, community-and appropriate relationships between provinces. For all provinces
within the Communion, this will require difficult, if not painful, introspection, self-
examination, and a strong commitment to reconciliation between provinces and to unity
for the mission of all Anglicans: to proclaim the Good News of God in Christ.
Surely this document will be the subject of much prayer, study and dialogue by every
Episcopalian. It comes at a propitious time for us, because our annual diocesan
convention will be held this very weekend in Greenville. Delegates from the 64
congregations which comprise the Diocese of Upper South Carolina will want an
opportunity to discuss initial impressions, thoughts and responses. That opportunity will
be provided on Friday during an open forum at the Palmetto Expo Center at 7:15 P.M.,
and on later occasions. In the meantime, we are praying for the Primates of the
Communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the members of the Anglican
Consultative Council-all of whom have the responsibility of considering over the next
several months if and how the recommendations shall be implemented.
After completing my study of all of the report's contents, I shall prepare another, more
comprehensive statement.
The Rt. Rev. Dorsey F. Henderson, Jr.,

Bishop of Upper South Carolina
155
156
UTAH
"I believe all of us are grateful to the members of the Lambeth Commission, appointed by
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, following the action of Episcopal Church of
the United States (ECUSA) in voting to affirm the election of Gene Robinson as Bishop
Coadjutor of New Hampshire. Robinson is a gay man living openly with his partner in a
covenant relationship. Our action caused great distress to some in the American church
and 'strained the bonds of affection among other members of the Anglican Communion.
"The task of the Commission was to seek ways of strengthening our unity as a
Communion. Their work cannot have been easy, since diversity and provincial autonomy
have always been hallmarks of Anglicanism. Homosexuality was the presenting issue,
but ultimately the Commission determined that it had to consider matters of polity or
governance in the Communion as well. This appears to be the primary challenge of the
resulting "Windsor Report" so-called because that is where the Commission held its last
meeting.
"The Report itself is lengthy and complex. We will spend considerable time reflecting on
its analysis and discussing its recommendations. I sincerely hope the conservative
bishops in our church will join in this process, though for the most part they have not
attended House of Bishops meetings since the summer of 2003.
"My sense is that the Report challenges all of us to go more deeply and stretch more
broadly in our understanding of how we are to live out the gospel in this enormously
challenging world-within the structures of our tradition and the bonds of our affection.
The Report does not reprimand the US Episcopal Church as some had hoped it would.
We are, however, called to sensitivity and patience, and to the use of every opportunity
for education, reflection, and communication.
"I believe we are perfectly willing to apologize for any harm and hurt our actions have
caused, and many among us have done so publicly. On the other hand it is entirely
unlikely that we will be willing to set the clock back on the actions themselves, or to
cease acting inclusively 'respecting the dignity of every human being 'as we promise in
our baptismal vows. What would a reversal such as that say to our gay sisters and
brothers? Go back to the closet? To deceit and dishonesty?
"Further, our church has not acted rashly or in haste, without study, conversation, and
prayer over a long period of time. A significant majority of our governing body (the
General Convention of ECUSA) had a strong sense of timeliness and rightness about our
church's actions.
"We are not in fact a church, but a communion of autonomous and interdependent
churches all over the world who trace their historical roots to the Church of England-the
156
157
American Episcopal Church being the first of these outside the British Isles. Our bonds
are not confessional (uniformity of belief) nor do we share common histories or cultures.
"So personally, I do have concerns about more tightly articulated and centralized
structures of governance in our Communion. I doubt that these would be helpful to our
ultimate unity and communion in Christ, or in our care and affection for one another.
Indeed they may yet again present a distraction from our active mission in God's world,
or even divide us further."
The Rt. Rev. Carolyn Tanner Irish,

Bishop of Utah
157
158
VERMONT
October 19, 2004
The Report of the Lambeth Commission on Communion, entitled the Windsor Report,
was released to the public yesterday at a news conference at Saint Paul's Cathedral in
London. The Archbishop of Canterbury established the Lambeth Commission in October
2003 at the request of the Anglican Primates, requesting "consideration of ways in which
communion and understanding could be enhanced where serious differences threatened
the life of a diverse worldwide Church." The report is substantial in its content (93 pages,
with 107 footnotes) and significant in its contribution to the ongoing conversations about
the present and future of the Anglican Communion. I am grateful for the thoughtful,
careful, and comprehensive nature of this report. I commend it to you for your prayerful
consideration and for the many conversations I anticipate we will have in response to the
report and its recommendations.
In the report's Forward, Archbishop Robin Eames, Primate of All Ireland and Chairman
of the Commission, writes, "This report is not a judgment. It is part of a process. It is part
of a pilgrimage towards healing and reconciliation." Further on he writes, "the report is
offered in the prayerful hope that it will encourage the enhanced levels of understanding
which are essential for the future of the Anglican Communion."
In anticipation of receipt of the Commission's report, I joined my Episcopal colleagues in
distributing "A word to the Episcopal Church from the House of Bishops," dated
September 28, 2004, as we committed "to a gracious reception of the report in a spirit of
humility and to a willingness to learn how we might best be faithful and responsible
partners in the Anglican Communion." This is the spirit in which I am reading and
responding to the report and its recommendations.
The conviction that communion is both the very nature of God and God's gift to us is a
conviction I strongly embrace. It is a gift we are meant to receive, embrace, seek to more
deeply comprehend and ultimately give expression to in the spirit of Christ’s reconciling
love. Our Presiding Bishop said in his initial response to the Windsor Report, "A life of
communion is not for the benefit of the church but for the sake of the world." In the spirit
of Hymn 537, to embrace and live more deeply into God's gift of communion is to "bring
Christ to the world." My initial read through the Windsor Report suggests to me that it
invites us more deeply into the gift of communion and for that I am profoundly grateful.
As I believe you know, I have a strong commitment to the ministry of blessing Holy
Unions that is part of our life here in Vermont. The section of the Windsor report on
"Public Rites of Blessing of same sex unions" is of particular interest to us here in
Vermont and so, initially, I want to offer some specific reflection on that section. I do so
not to the exclusion of the rest of the report, but rather because already I am being asked
to comment (by the media and others) on this particular section in light
of our policies and pastoral practice here in Vermont.
Section 136 of the report includes the statement that the Episcopal Church (along with the
Diocese of New Westminster in Canada) "took synodical [General Convention] action to
authorise public Rites for the Blessing of same sex unions." I think this is misleading.
The Diocese of New Westminster can speak best to its own situation. However, the
reality is that the General Convention of the Episcopal Church has not authorized any
liturgies for the blessing of same gender unions. The 2003 General Convention resolution
CO51 states that those dioceses exploring and experiencing liturgies celebrating and
158
159
blessing the union of same gender couples "are operating within the bounds of our
common life." I think this is an important distinction to make and understand. Bishop
Paul Marshall of the Diocese of Bethlehem, and author of that particular portion of
CO51, recently re-stated the understanding and intention behind those words:” I know
that the text was designed to say that while this Church cannot now authorize such rites,
it can tolerate their existence, giving the Spirit room to work and teach us one way or the
other."
The Windsor Report expresses criticism with regard to the action of General Convention
resolution CO51, and to any authorization of liturgical rites by bishops for the blessing of
same gender couples, principally on the ground that there has not been sufficient
consultation with other Provinces of the Anglican Communion. It maintains that such
action "goes against the formally expressed opinions of the Instruments of Unity [the
Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council
and the Primates' Meeting] and therefore constitutes action in breach of the legitimate
application of the Christian faith as the churches of the Anglican Communion have
received it, and of bonds of affection in the life of the Communion, especially the
principle of interdependence" (Section 143). It is important that we listen to this critique
and engage in discussion around it with others throughout the communion.
Here in Vermont, in response to the pastoral needs of both our clergy and gay and lesbian
couples seeking to have their unions blessed in the context of their faith communities, we
provide policy guidelines and liturgical texts for trial use. We ask clergy officiating at
Holy Unions to use these texts, so that we might have a common frame of reference for
reflecting upon our experience of blessing Holy Unions. We intend to offer that concrete
experience to the larger church.
Since the Windsor Report calls upon those "engaged in the process of discernment
regarding the blessing of same sex unions to engage the Communion in continuing study
of the biblical and theological rationale for and against such unions” (Section 145), I trust
that our continuing experience here in Vermont, as well as the published report of our
Task Force on the Blessing of Persons Living in Same Gender Relationships will be
contributions to that engagement. The report can be accessed on the web at
http//www.dioceseofvermont.org/Orgs/TfonBlessings.html.
The Windsor Report invites/recommends bishops who have authorized "public Rites of
Blessing of same sex unions to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of
affection were breached by such authorization. While I believe the liturgies we made
available to clergy and couples in Vermont for their pastoral use do not rise to the level of
canonical authorization, I can see how others might view our action differently. I do, in
the spirit of reconciliation that the Windsor Report invites, express my regret for any
breach of the bonds of affection that others have experienced as a result of our actions in
Vermont and express my deep desire to be in honest conversation with those who
disagree with these actions so that we might deepen those bonds of affection. Such a
breach was never my intention.
I also regret the reality that gay and lesbian members of our church continue to
experience closed doors and a cold shoulder from some as they seek to offer their gifts
and experiences in service to the gospel. I appreciate the opportunity this report offers to
reflect more deeply upon these aspects of our common life.
The work ahead of us in response to this report is substantial. It begins with a full and
159
160
thoughtful reading of the report as we seek to "read, mark, learn and inwardly digest" its
content. We each face a choice about whether we use the report as a weapon or as a tool.
My intention is to use it as a tool toward reconciliation and communion and, in the spirit
of the Baptismal Covenant, as a tool for living more deeply into our promise to "strive for
justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being.
Faithfully,
The Rt. Rev. Thomas C. Ely,
Bishop of Vermont
MORE:
Response to The Windsor Report
Resolved, That the Diocese of Vermont, meeting in Annual Convention on November 6,

2004, expresses its appreciation for the hard work of the Lambeth Commission on
Communion and its dissemination of The Windsor Report, and for the reflection, study
and conversations the Report has engendered, and be it further,
Resolved, That the Convention accepts Bishops Ely’s invitation, presented in his
Convention Address, for the Diocese to be in conversation about The Windsor Report,
and expresses its appreciation for the opportunities he has offered to all members of the
Diocese to be a “community of wisdom” with respect to the issues presented in the
Report in advance of the January 2005 meeting of the House of Bishops.
Explanation:
The Archbishop of Canterbury established the Lambeth Commission on Communion in
October 2003 at the request of the Anglican Primates, requesting “consideration of ways
in which communion and understanding could be enhanced where serious differences
threatened the life of a diverse worldwide Church.” The Report of the Commission,
entitled The Windsor Report, is significant in its contribution to the ongoing
conversations about the present and future of the Anglican Communion. The work ahead
of us in response to this report is substantial and begins with a full and thoughtful reading
of the report as we seek to “read, mark, learn and inwardly digest” its content. The House
of Bishops will meet in January 2005 for conversation about The Windsor Report with
the Presiding Bishop. The Presiding Bishop will meet with the other Primates of the
Anglican Communion in February 2005.
Proposer: Dispatch of Business (in response to the Bishop’s Convention Address)
160
161
VIRGIN ISLANDS
161
162
VIRGINIA
Has Robin Eames done it again?
The Eames Commission that reported to the 1998 Lambeth Conference provided a
thoughtful way of addressing the issue of the ordination of women that did not fracture
the Anglican Communion. Now, in the Windsor Report, the Lambeth Commission on
Communion, also chaired by the Archbishop of Armagh, deals thoughtfully with the
current crisis and makes recommendations that, if adopted, would change substantially
the way the Anglican Communion functions.
A 93-page report that took a year to prepare will require study and prayerful thought, so
these are preliminary responses.
Its criticism of the Episcopal Church in the United States is clear and pointed. It makes a
cogent case that ECUSA did not make a serious attempt to consult meaningfully with the
Communion as a whole about the significant development of theology which alone could
justify what we did in electing as bishop a priest in a same-gender relationship. The
Report criticizes on similar grounds the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada for
authorizing public rites of blessing.
Some of the most helpful reflections in the Windsor Report have to do with the nature of
communion, and in particular what autonomy means in the setting of the Anglican
Communion. The Report distinguishes between autonomy and sovereignty and stresses
that autonomy has to do with freedom in relation to others, not with the sovereign right to
make one’s own decisions regardless of others. The Report recommends development of
an Anglican Covenant to be adopted by all Communion churches and suggests a model
for such a covenant.
The Report strongly implies that Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire will not be
invited to the next Lambeth Conference. “The Archbishop has the right to call or not to
call to (the Lambeth Conference and Primates Meeting) whomsoever he believes is
appropriate, in order to safe-guard and take counsel for the well-being of the Anglican
Communion…” (He may) “invite participants to the Lambeth Conference on restricted
terms at his sole discretion…” And the Report urges the Archbishop, in relation to
Bishop Robinson, "to exercise considerable caution in inviting or admitting him to the
councils of the Communion.”
The Report recommends that the Episcopal Church be invited to express its regret that
“the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached” in the consecration of
Robinson and for the consequences which followed. The Report says that such an
expression of regret would represent the desire of ECUSA to remain in the Communion.
The Report also invites ECUSA to effect a moratorium on consecrating any candidate to
the episcopate “who is living in a same-gender union until some new consensus in the
162
163
Anglican Communion emerges.” The Report also asks those bishops who have
intervened without invitation to minister to dissenting congregations in dioceses not their
own to express regret for doing so, to affirm their desire to remain in communion, and to
effect a moratorium on any future interventions.
While the American House of Bishops may well express its regret for the consequences
of its consent to Robinson’s consecration, it will take the General Convention of the
Episcopal Church, which meets in 2006, to make an authoritative expression of regret
that would meet the standards set by the Windsor Report. (The Windsor Report is
inaccurate in describing the action of the General Convention of 2003 in relation to the
blessing of same-sex unions. The Convention simply recognized that local faith
experience liturgies celebrating the blessing of same-sex unions. There was no
authorization for the development of public rites. The word “public” did not appear in the
language of the resolution.) Nonetheless, it is clear that public rites of blessing are
considered out of bounds for most Anglicans around the world and the Report calls on
Americans and Canadians for a moratorium on such public rites. The Report’s call to
communion is heart-felt and thoughtful and deserves serious attention. It also does not
close the door on future developments in terms of gay and lesbian people exercising
leadership in the Church. In the American Church, this report will be considered by
bishops in their regional gatherings in the next few weeks, by a special meeting of the
House of Bishops in January, and by all of the dioceses between now and the General
Convention of 2006.
When one considers the alternatives that could have been presented, i.e. withdrawing of
recognition of the Episcopal Church by the Archbishop of Canterbury, or expulsion of the
Episcopal Church from the Communion, the Report offers a way forward that could
strengthen the Communion.
Whether Americans, who are so accustomed to going our own way in our foreign policy
as well as in our ecclesial life, can live with these recommendations remains to be seen. I
think they offer hope.
The Rt. Rev. Peter James Lee,

Bishop of Virginia
163
164
WASHINGTON
The Right Reverend John Bryson Chane
Bishop of Washington
Statement from Bishop John Bryson Chane

on the release of the Windsor Report
Good morning, thank you for being here as our Communion begins a momentous
journey.
I would like to thank the 17 members of the Lambeth Commission who have labored
long and prayerfully over the document that we have been given today. Their
Commission's willingness to struggle through its own divisions and to reach unanimity
on the report released today stands as a compelling witness to what we can achieve when
we open ourselves to the reconciling power of the Holy Spirit.
Because the report is lengthy, its reasoning deep and its recommendations complex, I will
make only preliminary comments this morning.
I find myself in agreement with Archbishop Robin Eames, the Primate of Ireland and
chair of the Commission when he says:
Perhaps the greatest tragedy of our current difficulties is the negative consequence it
could have on the mission of the Church to a suffering and bewildered world. Even as the
Commission prepared for its final meeting the cries of children in a school in southern
Russia reminded us of our real witness and ministry in a world already confronted by
poverty, violence, HIV/AIDS, famine and injustice.
As some of you know, the Diocese of Washington, in partnership with Fresh Ministries
of Jacksonville, Florida, and the Church of the Province of Southern Africa, was recently
awarded a $10 million, five-year grant by USAID, to do AIDS prevention and education
work in the Anglican Province of Southern Africa. We must continue to nurture such
partnerships, whatever our theological differences. For, as the Rt. Rev. Frank Griswold,
presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church has put it:
A life of communion is not for the benefit of the church but for the sake of the world.
As you probably know, I was among the many bishops who consecrated my friend the
Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. The Commission has invited
those of us who took part in the consecration to express regret that the constraints of the
bonds of affection were breached in the events surrounding Gene's election and
consecration. I accept this invitation, and express my sadness that actions we undertook
in good conscience—actions which gave hope to one alienated and marginalized
population—have themselves engendered alienation and made others feel marginalized.
This was not our intent. We lament this result and I commit myself to participating fully
and energetically in the process of reconciliation through dialogue and discernment
164
165
which is outlined in the Commission's report.
I recognize, too that in developing a rite for the blessing of same sex unions, I have
caused pain. I want to say with all humility, that this was not my intent. It remains
puzzling to me that no one objects to my baptizing the children of gay parents, blessing
their home, their car and their dog, yet I cannot bless the loving relationship which makes
this family's life possible without upsetting so many of our Anglican brothers and sisters.
Yet the Commission has determined that this is the case, and so, again, I want to express
my regret for breaching the Communion's bonds of affection.
I was grateful to learn that the Commission had particularly requested a contribution from
the Episcopal Church explaining—and here I quote—“from within the sources of
authority that we as Anglicans have received in Scripture, the apostolic tradition and
reason reflection how a person living in a same gender union may be considered eligible
to lead the flock of Christ.” I believe our life both in this Church and within the
Communion will be greatly enriched by a deeper understanding of this subject.
I was also grateful to learn that the Commission has reaffirmed the importance of
bishops' respecting diocesan boundaries. During the year that the Lambeth Commission
has been at work on this report, we have seen the traditional observation of such
boundaries disregarded by both primates and bishops who are disaffected from the
Episcopal Church. I trust that the Commission's strong admonition against this activity
will put an end to it, and that the Commission's endorsement of the U. S. House of
Bishops plan to care for dissenting minorities will lead members of those minorities to
make use of its generous provisions.
It is my fervent hope that the Commission's rejection of a “parallel jurisdiction” for

Episcopalians who disagree with the actions of our last General Convention will end the
talk of schism within the Episcopal Church, and that all parties will commit themselves to
moving forward in the manner that the Commission recommends.
Finally, I would like to note that we are at the beginning of what may be a long and
contentious process as we explore the possibility of agreement upon a core covenant of
Anglican beliefs. My prayer is that we may proceed with charity and civility, and that in
healing our wounds we may be a model to a wounded world.
John Bryson Chane, Bishop
165
166
WEST MISSOURI
INITIAL STATEMENT ON WINDSOR REPORT
OCTOBER 18, 2004
BARRY R. HOWE
I have spent a goodly portion of this day reading comments of others who have
apparently had the opportunity to wade through the voluminous Report. I have not read
the Report myself, but certainly hope to do so soon.
What has been helpful to learn from several of the members of the Lambeth Commission
who have now been able to speak about their work is the consistent effort on their part to
make this Report one that emphasizes healing, not punishmentand reconciliation, not
division. In the words of Archbishop Eames, the Chairperson of the Lambeth
Commission, "we believed that it was important to mirror the values of the Gospel in our
work - to look for healing not division, for pastoral reconciliation and not punishment, to
look to our shared witness not only in our mission but in the processes by which our
Communion works out the current tensions.
There are several major recommendations within the Report. These recommendations
will have to be considered by each Church within the Communion. Among these
recommendations are:
*An enhanced role for the Archbishop of Canterbury
*A Council of Advice for the Archbishop of Canterbury
*An Anglican Covenant
*Recommendations on elections to the episcopate
*Recommendations arising from the consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire
*Recommendations on Rites of Blessing of Same Sex Unions
*Recommendations on alternative pastoral oversight
As I have read the major statements from Primates and members of the Commission
today, I am encouraged by their sense of integrity and commitment to the task that was
given to them. We will do well to study all of the Report with great care, and to listen
with open minds and hearts to what is being offered to us through this dialogue.
The Report have been received today by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It will be the
major agenda of the Primates Annual meeting when they gather in February. And the
Anglican Consultative Council will receive it at their meeting in June. The Bishops of
the Episcopal Church have agreed to meet in January to officially receive the Report and
to respond to it.
166
167
With many and diverse views throughout the Anglican Communion, the Report will be
read and interpreted in a consierable number of ways. It is my hope that there not be
strong reactions to a limited part of the Report. Rather, it is most important to see the
report in its totality, respecting the incredible work of the diverse members of the
Commission.
We will obviously be a part of a great dialogue in the ensuing months!
BARRY HOWE
167
168
WEST TENNESSEE
168
169
WEST TEXAS
169
170
WEST VIRGINIA
170
171
WESTERN KANSAS
171
172
WESTERN LOUISIANNA
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me ..."
Luke 4:18
Address to the Twenty-fifth Annual Convention

Saturday, October 23, 2004 at St. Mark's Cathedral
by the Rt. Rev'd D. Bruce MacPherson, D.D.

Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Western Louisiana
The Lord be with you.
"O Christ, all who call you Savior are pilgrims, following One who never stands still.
Your Way leads us through rough and smooth terrain. Sometimes your path is seldom-
used, overgrown, unpopular. Sometimes it is well-trodden. But always, as our way
unfolds, we need the Light which only you can shed upon our path. When we are tempted
to detour from your direction or to stagnate in dead ends, give us courage and renew our
faith that the journey of our lives does indeed lead to the promised land of God's
kingdom." Amen. [drawn from All the Seasons of Mercy]
In look forward toward this weekend, and the celebration of our twenty-fifth annual
diocesan convention, I could not help but be mindful of the convention last year in
Monroe, and the gracious hospitality of Fr. Gregg Riley and Grace Parish as they hosted
the event on behalf of the convocation, and under the leadership of Susan Sparks. This
weekend we gather here, in the splendour of St. Mark's Cathedral, and find ourselves
recipients of further gracious hospitality. The work of the Shreveport Convocation under
the leadership of the co-chairs, Susan Hardtner and Dot Hensley, has provided a
wonderful setting for our celebration of the life and ministry of the diocese since her
formation in 1979, and Dean Agnew and the Cathedral staff have prepared well for us.
It is in thinking back over the past couple of years, I find myself mindful of the
convention two years ago in Lake Charles, and at which time I received the crosier
symbolic of the office of diocesan bishop. The seriousness of that moment, the joy, the
anticipation of what we could do together as a people of God.
That moment at Good Shepherd included the presence of the two bishops that had led this
diocese through, infancy and adolescence. Now, it was my opportunity not only to lead,
but also to share with you as we entered into young adulthood. Little did I know that day,
or in the days immediately following, that both of my predecessors would suffer ill
health. As such, Bishop Henton is not with us today, and he so much wanted to be. The
death of Martha Henton's sister, Mary, precluded his presence. Martha remains fairly
much confined to home due to her failing health following surgery almost a year ago.
Bishop Hargrove continues with his treatment for cancer, and after almost eighteen
months of medical care, is showing some positive signs at the moment. Linda remains a
faithful support to him through all of this.
172
173
Both bishops and their spouses are so very grateful for the prayers of all of you, and I am
thankful for your care and love for them.
Now, I stand before you this day as we continue prayerfully to seek to know the will of
God in the living out of our Lord's ministry in this place. The issues before the Church
continue to loom before us, and people everywhere keep crying out for answers; for
solutions; for someone to do something to make it better; and I will speak to this in the
course of this address.
It was in the light of these things that I began prayerfully to seek to find a sense of the
direction in which we should go, in this, our twenty-fifth annual diocesan convention.
From where and to where are we being led?
It was at this point the words of Jesus came to mind, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim
release to the captive and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are
oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." [Luke 4:18-19]
This scripture passage is drawn from the fourth chapter of Luke's account of the Gospel
as we see the beginning of Jesus' earthly ministry. Here is Jesus, "full of the Spirit",
returning from the Jordan River and his baptism, being led by the Spirit into the
wilderness and temptation. But it doesn't end here; the devil is rebuked and Jesus returns
"in the power of the Spirit into Galilee."
He teaches in their synagogues; continues onto Nazareth, yes the place where he was
brought up; and there in the synagogue he opened the book of the prophet Isaiah, and
read them the words -- "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to
preach good news to the poor. Has sent me to proclaim release to the captive and
recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed., to proclaim the
acceptable year of the Lord." [Luke 4:18]
There has been much this past year to distract us; and yes, it continues. However, as I
shared, and have shared, we must focus on that which God is calling us to be about -- and
this is indeed the building up of the Kingdom of God, the success of God's mission. We,
as with the prophet Isaiah, are called to be evangelists, we have been consecrated through
baptism and empowered by the Spirit of God to reach out in ministry. In keeping with our
baptismal covenant, we must be mindful of the mission of the Church, to restore all
people to unity with God and each other in Christ.
My brothers and sisters in Christ, this is not our mission, it is God's!
The mission is assigned by God. No one would take it upon themself. When we devote
ourselves to the work God places before us, we can be confident of ability through him to
accomplish it. Or as St. Paul expresses in 2nd Corinthians, "Not that we are competent of
173
174
ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, who has
made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the
letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." [2nd Corinthians 3:5-6]
The Spirit is God personally present and active in the Church and the Church is his
people. We are not being asked to live out a ministry for which we have not been
equipped, God has provided for this. Paul reminds us of this in his letter written to the
people of Ephesus, "But each of us is given grace according to the measure of Christ's
gift. Therefore it is said, 'When he ascended on high he made captivity itself a captive; he
gave gifts to his people.'; The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some
prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of
ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until all of us come to the unity of the faith
and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of
Christ." [Ephesians 4:7-13]
Paul continues to remind us as he states, "We must no longer be children, tossed to and
fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people's trickery, by their craftiness in
deceitful scheming. But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into
him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by
every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the
body's growth in building itself up in love." [Ephesians 4:14-16]
In the midst of that which has faced us, and we have all faced the same thing, that which
divides, we must be mindful that if we fail to do the work of God, to be about the things
God wants us to do ... and this being the living out of the Gospel with faithfulness, and in
being disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, then we are permitting that which surrounds us
to diminish our faith in the power of God, forgetting the words of Jesus, "For mortals it is
impossible, but for God all things are possible." [Matthew 19:26]
Some may question the focus, the need to be about God's work, but again I am mindful of
those to whom Isaiah was sent, they were discontented with their own and their nations
condition. They were those "who mourn in Zion." Those to whom Isaiah was told to
"proclaim the year of the Lord's favour ... to give them a garland instead of ashes." [Isaiah
61:2-3]
It was characteristic of Jesus that he should have selected this passage from Isaiah which
expresses the message of God's pity and compassion, for this described the ministry
which he would fulfill. The power God sent to earth in Jesus was the power of his love.
He lived this and taught this to his disciples. He made sure they knew that as they reached
out and touched people, shared the proclamation of the Good News, their lives and those
around them would be touched by the greatness of God.
This, my brothers and sisters in Christ, is the message before us this day; the charge for
ministry that stands before us! "The Spirit of the Lord is upon us ..."
In the context of the Eucharist yesterday we shared in the renewal of our Baptismal
174
175
Covenant. Not only did we affirm that we believe in One Triune God, Father, Son and
Holy Spirit; but we also affirmed that with God's help we would continue in the "apostles'
teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and the prayers"; that we would
"persevere in resisting evil, and whenever we fell into sin, repent and return to the Lord";
that we would "proclaim by word and example the Good News of God in Christ"; that we
would "seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving our neighbor as our self"; and that we
would "strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every
human being." [BCP 1979 p. 416-417]
Yes, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon us ..." The same Spirit that anointed Isaiah, Jesus and
those whom God has called down through the generations.
It is with gladness of heart that Susan and I encounter the anointed ministry of Christ
being lived out in so many places and by so many people as we journey across this vast
and wonderful diocese.
As has been shared with you, and is shared again, the vision on my heart for us, the
people of the Episcopal Diocese of Western Louisiana, is ...
• a vision that is grounded in a passionate desire to see the Gospel of

Christ lifted up throughout this diocese;
• a vision that finds us seeking to live out true discipleship in faithful response to our
Baptismal Covenant;
• a vision that will see us truly engaging the diversity of God's people across this
marvelous diocese; and
• a vision of moving into a real sense of being missionaries, reaching out to bring others
into the life of the church and most importantly, a relationship with Christ.
As your bishop, I give thanks to God for the fact that so many people and ministries in
this diocese have sought to grasp ... to live out this vision in the past year. In the midst of
creative tension within the life of the larger Church, ministry has and is being done in
wonderful new and creative ways. There is a renewed sense of mission on the part of
many and this is seen through the visibility of the things that are being done that have an
impact on not only the local congregation, but importantly, the community.
Examples of this include the new work being done by St. John's, Minden through their
acquisition of a new facility to reach out and minister to youth more effectively. The
prominence of the building is such a tremendous statement to the community that young
people are important; the establishment of a Canterbury ministry at Trinity, Natchitoches
and the outreach work being done with both of the university campuses; the expansion on
the part of St. James, Alexandria with their ministry to youth at risk in their community;
and importantly, the recent opening of Hope House, a ministry of Holy Cross, Shreveport
that touches the lives of the oppressed and those without a place to call home, as they are
175
176
provided with a facility that enables them to enjoy a greater sense of connectedness.
These are but a few of the things that are taking place, and of course, there is a risk in
identifying people and places. Many of our congregations are reaching out into their
communities with Alpha and other programs; and our ministry to youth continues to
grow under the leadership of Monet Brashear and dedicated labour of many in the local
congregations.
Not to be overlooked is the ministry of those who keep the church offices alive, and it
was in honour of them that Susan and I hosted the second recognition luncheon for the
secretaries and administrative assistants from across the diocese. A delightful time was
had by all as about forty people gathered with us at the Hotel Bentley in Alexandria for
lunch and a heartwarming talk given by Archdeacon Diane Moore.
The Gospel theme of this address is being seen in places small and large as we look at the
mission work being done in Cuba, Dominican Republic and Honduras; and a most critical
mission trip took place just weeks ago as St. Andrew's Mission in Lake Charles organized
and executed most welcome assistance for the hurricane victims in the southeast corner
of Alabama.
The new organizational structure of the diocese that was implemented in the early days of
my episcopate here is continuing to take shape and bear fruit. What pleases me most is
the fact that an increased number of people are able to be engaged in ministry and to take
a leadership role in the diocese.
With continued response to the call for us to be about "equipping the saints of God for the
work of ministry" [Ephesians 4:12] through an "abiding presence in and through
Christ"[John 15], we are witnessing more and more opportunities for the development
and growth of our shared ministry. Workshops, seminars, and retreats have been offered
up by various groups across the diocese. The Episcopal Church Women continue to reach
out and touch the lives of many with their "Time for Joy" weekends and the well attended
"Celebration of Womens' Ministries". As Cursillo prepares people for a richer experience
in Christ through personal discipline, the Kairos ministry touches not only the lives of the
incarcerated, but so importantly, their families through Kairos Outside.
On the parish level we find the Daughters of the King establishing new chapters, Faith
Alive weekends bringing renewal to congregations seeking to experience a richer
personal spirituality and the enhancement of their local faith community. The
Brotherhood of Saint Andrew chapters, though limited in numbers, are providing a strong
ministry and fellowship for men and boys.
I am certain that in typical Episcopal Church style, and this being to have the best kept
secrets, there are many things that have gone unmentioned this day.
One thing that cannot go unmentioned is my deep gratitude to Fr. Allen Dickson, a
retired priest of our diocese. Many will remember reading in ALIVE! of my vision for a
176
177
Bishop's Centre for Ministry, a place where people could be prepared for a variety of
ministries ... a place where the diocese could gather for special program events, the clergy
for continuing education, and the potential relationship with Nashotah House as a site for
their doctoral program in homiletics and other special academic offerings. This vision
was brought to fruition by the gracious and generous stewardship of Fr. Dickson, and as
such, the Bishop's Centre for Ministry became a reality this past August, and for this, I
am most thankful.
The Centre, located here in Shreveport, is currently home to the Diocesan School of
Theology, with Fr. Wayne Carter serving at present as interim dean; and will soon house
the Institute for Lay Ministry, the Institute for Spiritual Direction and Formation, and the
Institute for Diaconal Formation. It was my pleasure to announce last month the
appointment of Archdeacon Diane Moore as Director of the Institute for Diaconal
Formation; and I am looking forward to being able to announce in the not too distant
future, the directors of the other two institutes.
Plans for the Centre, in addition to programs offered through the various institutions, will
be the continued sponsorship of special programs such as the forthcoming Acolyte
Festival being held at St. James, Alexandria; the Clergy, Wardens and Treasurers
Seminar being presented at St. Timothys', Alexandria.
Looking back once again to my early days here brings focus to the priority that I raised
with respect to Hardtner Camp and Conference Center, and the announcement of my
appointment of an entirely new board under the leadership of Fr. Guido Verbeck.
Coupled with this was the direction given to the board to assist me in the selection of an
interim executive director, and to begin work on plans for the development of the facility
programmatically and physically. This led to my appointment of David Freedman to fill
the interim position, and in turn, the beginning of the work that will prayerfully lead to a
plan for the expansion of this ministry.
Continuing to look at the past for a moment, brings to mind two important areas: the
implementation of required training for those working with children and youth; and
background checks for a variety of capacities of ministry within the diocese. It pleases
me to say that both are in place at this time. The training for the "Safeguarding of God's
Children" is in place under the leadership of Susie Drell of St. James, Alexandria as
coordinator. In addition to the three people that attended the national training, we now
have fourteen trained instructors across the diocese, and to date over 350 people have
gone through the program since our initial offering on August 21 of this year. I give
thanks for those who are helping ensure that we provide a safe place within the church.
The background checks were implemented in time for our summer camping program a
year ago, thus everyone involved with this program, including staff, have undergone the
check. In addition, employees of various congregations, schools and institutions have
done likewise with a total of approximately almost 250 now screened.
Our new ordination process, previously implemented, now has the first group of aspirants
177
178
in the finishing stage of their discernment, and looking forward to their consideration for
postulancy this February.
As we transition into the new year, I am committed to the endeavour of building upon the
fine foundation of leadership that we have in the diocese; and continue that which I began
this past year, and this being the raising up of new people to the level of diocesan
leadership.
If we are going to be serious about providing for the involvement of new and younger
people, then we must make provision at the local level for their involvement. This begins
with the annual meeting of diocesan convention, and the expense related to this. Sadly, I
have talked with a number of folks over the past year that have told me they would love
to represent their parish or mission, but simply cannot afford the related expense. Now,
before your mind jumps to the thought of how can we do this differently, permit me to
say how the majority of other dioceses do it differently. The local congregation budgets
and funds the expense of representation. Today, I appeal to each of you to look seriously
at the proposal of this. I would like to think that as the Body of Christ, our desire would
be to see the diversity of our diocese represented more fully, and I trust that we can look
forward to this in the new year.
Looking forward into the new year, plans are in process for a clergy pre-Lenten retreat, a
clergy day, and a clergy family event. I will interject here my gratitude to my wife Susan,
who as many of you know, is truly a partner in ministry with me. Susan this day gathered
the clergy spouses for their second clergy spouse luncheon, which I am pleased to say
had over 35 in attendance.
Continuing to look forward I want to raise with you an important part of our life together,
and this is mission of the church as we look toward growth. I know many are aware of
the fact the diocese has not established a new mission in over eleven years. In fact, the
last mission started was Good Shepherd, Vidalia.
In the last eleven years various areas within our diocese have grown and continue to
grow. Suburbs within some of our larger communities have not only been birthed, but
have blossomed and grown into communities of their own. Other faith traditions have
gone, in fulfillment of the Gospel, and made disciples. My brothers and sisters in Christ,
we are a people that believe in the mission directive of the Gospel, but permit me to say,
it is time for us to become missionaries within our own vineyard. I cannot help but be
mindful of the old story about how many Episcopalians it takes to change a light bulb.
Six! One to change it and five to talk about how wonderful the old one was. Possibly this
is where we as a diocese are, satisfied in the comfort of our own space to watch and
reflect upon how wonderful it is to be ...
This, however, is not the living out of the Gospel or being responsive to the Spirit of God.
As with those to whom Jesus and the apostles ministered, we are called to discipleship.
Yes, to go and proclaim, to raise up and heal, to be a witness to the living Christ. It is my
pleasure to know the hearts and passion of some of you, and I know you share the same
178
179
concern about the future of the church in this diocese.
Through conversations with a number of people across western Louisiana, five sites have
been identified to me as places for potential missions. I have visited and driven around
most of these areas, and indeed there is substantial growth and the demographic base to
support new mission work. Now the time has come for us to look forward to a new
mission in a new place.
In the budget you will address this afternoon I am calling for the establishment of a new
mission in 2005. Where it will be is going to be determined by further demographic work
and the collective input of a number of people, and ultimately the consent of the
Executive Committee. We must be serious about this opportunity, we must be serious
about the Gospel imperative to go and do. Thus, with your approval of the budget this
day, work will begin on making a final determination as to location and the calling of a
priest into this new full time work.
Further, as a part of what I trust will be a shared vision for ministry and growth, it is my
prayer that together we will plant three new congregations in the next five years. Let us
together glorify God!
Before shifting our focus to the moment at hand, permit me to say a word about two
people who do so very much for us all, and this being my assistant, Dianne White, and
Kathy Richey, our Missioner for Administration and Finance. Repeatedly, the labour of
these two women on behalf of the entire diocese is above and beyond the call to duty. I
give thanks to God with great regularity for their presence and ministry, and know that
not only me, but all of us, could not be provided for better. It is with further gladness that
I welcome Canon Walt Friese, Canon to the Ordinary, to the Diocesan House team.
And at the risk of being shot upon leaving here this day, let me express with great thanks
my gratitude and appreciation for the unending support of the first lady of the diocese,
Susan. She has been a blessing in abundance to me for a lifetime, and especially through
the turmoil of the past fifteen months. Not only does she so unselfishly share in the
ministry to which God has called me to here, but likewise is her love and support for all
of you and the ministry that is shared together with all of you. Thank you, honey!
Now, to that which continues to confront the Church and sadly brings division.
Last year I stood before you and expressed that in keeping with the direction of the
Primates meeting, we needed to go forward patiently and prayerfully. We were told that a
process had been called for by the Primates and Archbishop, and as members of the
Anglican Communion, we needed to be a part of this.
Further, I raised a question as to "What will be the most important thing we can do during
this period of time?" And to which, I responded that we could "Not be distracted by the
media that surrounds us; not allow ourselves to lose sight of the mission to which God
has called us; continue to go forward as disciples of the Gospel, lifting up truth and a
179
180
risen, living Christ; and importantly, doing ministry wherever the Spirit of God leads us."
Additionally, I stated a position and policy with respect to the direction of funds, and
want to reiterate today, this same directive stands as we enter into 2005.
We have all watched as the Lambeth Commission under the leadership of the Most Rev'd
Dr. Robin Eames, Archbishop of Armagh, led the commission through their work. We
have all waited with varying degrees of anticipation for October 18th to come and the
report to be revealed. The day has come, now what?
First of all, I know the report was received with varying degrees of approval, but, as we
have been urged by the members of the commission, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and a
number of other primates, we must proceed cautiously. There is much to digest ... the
report, which has become known as the Windsor Report, is 93 pages long and single
spaced. It is so very important that we realize the work of the Lambeth Commission is
only a recommendation; the final recommendations rest with the Primates, and the
ultimate implementation, with the Anglican Consultative Council.
What has been recommended? With regard to the document and to endeavour to not do
injustice to it, I offer the following summary of the statements and recommendations
made by the Commission:
• the historic position of the Archbishop of Canterbury should be regarded as the central
focus of both unity and mission within the Communion
• that consideration be given by the Archbishop of Canterbury to the establishment of a

Council of Advice
• the adoption of a Common Anglican Covenant which would make explicit and forceful
the loyalty and bonds of affection which govern the relationships between the church of
the Communion
• the Episcopal Church [USA] has breached the core unity in consecrating a non-celibate
gay man as a bishop in the Church; and providing for the blessing of same sex unions
• regret is expressed in the report for the decisions and actions of the Episcopal Church
[USA] and requests the Episcopal Church to respond in six ways
6. express regret for breaching the bonds of the world-wide Anglican communion
7. pending such expression of regret, to ask each bishop who had a role in Bishop
Robinson's consecration to withdraw themselves from any further involvement in
organizations of the Anglican Communion
8. to declare a moratorium on any other elections of gay or lesbian clergy
180
181
9. asks the bishops of ECUSA to cease any further development of any and all rites or
permissions for the blessings of same sex union
10.asks bishops to not cross geographical boundaries with the Anglican Communion for
any reason
11. ask each diocese to work out their differences - theological and pastoral - without the
help or interference of other bishops
The report also confirms the stated teaching of the Anglican Communion with respect to
human sexuality; upholding faithful marriage and abstinence as the only two expressions
of personal sexuality; listening to the voices of the homosexual members of the Church;
and rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture.
What is the time frame that the Primates are looking at?
• February 20-26, 2005 The Primates of the Anglican Communion meet in Newcastle,
County Down, Some 30 miles south of Belfast, Northern Ireland. It will be the first
formal time the Primates [world wide] will deliberate together on the report's
recommendations.
• As an aside, it is important to note, the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa

[acronym CAPA] will be holding an extraordinary meeting of all Anglican Bishops in
Africa next week [October 24-31]. The Church of Nigeria will host this meeting in
Lagos. The theme of the historic gathering is "Africa comes of Age: An Anglican Self
Evaluation". Some 300 diocesan and suffragan bishops are expected to attend. Primates
from the Global South will be in attendance providing them an opportunity to give a
preliminary response to the Lambeth Commission Report. The reason I am making a
point of stating this, is that it is important to note the larger church could have a better
sense of the reaction of the Primates to the report and their intentions with respect to the
Episcopal Church as a result of this meeting, and before the February meeting of the
Primates. Please bear in mind this is MY speculation, not a published plan. Thus, when
the Primates gather as a whole in February, we could well see some sense of the
direction.
• June 18-29, 2005 The Anglican Consultative Council will meet in Nottingham,
England. Recommendations from the Primates meeting could be implemented at this
meeting.
What does all of this mean to us? First of all it effects me as a bishop of the wider
Anglican Communion; I am asked, as are the bishops world wide, to be sensitive to the
Windsor Report and to consider their preliminary recommendations. Secondly, it means
there are some very real expectations with respect to seeking ways of reconciliation, and
to heal divisions. The indicated direction is as I outlined above, and the Episcopal Church
is being asked to address this document in the next few months. The Commission has
also appealed to those intervening provinces and dioceses across the Communion to
181
182
similarly approach the document and our relationships with one another with respect.
They expect all provinces throughout the Communion to respond with generosity and
charity to any such actions.
What does it mean for the bishops of the Episcopal Church? For those who did not
consent to the election and consecration, it means that we will no doubt continue to be
recognized within the larger Anglican Communion at this time, and not affected by
impaired communion status. I say this, as this has been stated to me personally.
Further, each of the nine provinces in the Episcopal Church has a bishop who was elected
by the bishops of the province to preside over their shared life. [Province VII is the
province in which we are located, and consists of twelve dioceses.] Two years ago I was
elected by the bishops of this province to provide provincial leadership, which includes
representing Province VII on the Council of Advice to the Presiding Bishop. Thus, it is
my responsibility to bring together the bishops of our province to address the Windsor
Report in preparation for a meeting of the entire House of Bishops. I have called the
bishops to meet together with me in Houston, Texas on December 1to begin this process.
The entire House of Bishops will assemble in Salt Lake City, Utah on January 12 and 13
to discuss the Report and prayerfully to explore the responsive action to be taken by the
bishops in question.
What will come out of this? This is unknown at this point. What is known, and this being
based upon the Commissions report, and pending the action of the Primates, is that if the
American Church does not take responsible action in response to the forthcoming
directive, there will be a real danger in being separated from, and not recognized by, the
Anglican Communion.
As the Lambeth Commission put it in closing there report, and I quote, "There remains a
very real danger that we will not choose to walk together. Should the call to halt and find
ways of continuing in our present communion not be heeded, then we shall have to begin
to learn to walk apart. We would much rather not speculate on actions that might need to
be taken if, after acceptance by the primates, our recommendations are not implemented."
What I see in this, is that should the Episcopal Church as we know it, reject the
opportunity to be a part of the Anglican Communion, and take a separate path from that
of the Anglican Communion world wide, then I see no other choice as your bishop than
to take the path that leads us to a common place of understanding within the wider
church, the Anglican Communion, under the authority of the See of Canterbury, and in
alignment with the structure that would be provided by the Archbishop of Canterbury and
the Anglican Consultative Council. To do otherwise, would be a compromise of my faith,
to that which I believe in, and the vows I made when ordained and consecrated as a
Bishop of the Church and the Anglican Communion.
I want to draw to a close with the words of the Lambeth Commission report, "We
earnestly hope that none of these will prove necessary. Our aim throughout has been to
work not for division but for healing and restoration. The real challenge of the gospel is
182
183
whether we live deeply enough in the love of Christ, and care sufficiently for our joint
work to bring that love to the world, that we will 'make every effort to maintain the unity
of the Spirit in the bond of peace.' [Ephesians 4:3]" As the primates stated in 2000, 'to
turn from one another would be to turn away from the Cross', and indeed from serving
the world which God loves and for which Jesus Christ died."
My brothers and sisters in Christ, as we pray for the Church and that which is before us,
know that I will be communicating this message to our diocese in the coming week.
May we be mindful that "the Spirit of the Lord is upon us ...", and in the words of Paul to
Timothy this past Sunday, "In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge
the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I solemnly urge
you: proclaim the message; be persistent whether the time is favourable or unfavourable;
convince, rebuke and encourage, with the utmost patience ..." [2 Timothy 4:1-2]
Let us pray:
"O Jesus, you found peace and restoration of your energy in the gently sloping hills of
Galilee. The gentle waves of the lake were so soothing they could lull you to sleep. You
gazed at the meadow flowers and the fields of grain and found common plants to be signs
of God's wondrous and extravagant care for all creation. You call us to consider the lilies:
to rest in the trust that God who clothes the flowers that bloom but a day will surely look
after us as well. O Jesus, just as you spoke these gracious words on the hills about
Galilee, you still offer the invitation to rest in the peace of God's care. Release us from
the fears that constrain us and deny us delight in God's festive spirit. Help us to live with
joy in the blessing of each day. As we find ourselves renewed by your living Spirit, send
us to help the careworn find the peace of your presence." Amen. [drawn from All the
Season of Mercy
183
184
WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS
184
185
WESTERN MICHIGAN
185
186
WESTERN NEW YORK

I find the Windsor Report to be faithful to the three hallmarks by which the course of
Anglicanism has been charted since its founding: Scripture, tradition and reason. After
my initial reading, my first impression is that the report calls upon all parties invovled to
make some concessions and urges us to come together with open and willing hearts.
The report calls for the Episcopal Church to acknowledge the hurt caused in a variety of
places around the Communion by our unilateral action in affirming New Hampshire’s
election of Bishop Robinson and moving forward with his consecration last year. I do
acknowledge the pain this action caused.
While television, satellites and the internet have provided nearly instant connections
between all points on the globe, it is still a big world out there. The context in which we
live out our lives and our faith here in the United States is very different from the context
experienced by our contemporaries in other parts of the world. The report challenges us
all to recognize, respect and honor the many contexts in which we seek to pursue the
church’s mission.
We in the United States live in a society that is open to public discussion of issues
surrounding human sexuality. Many of us, myself included, find that our Church has been
blessed by contributions of gay and lesbian Christians who are seeking also to be faithful
to the mind of Christ in their own life circumstances. I voted to affirm Bishop Robinson. I
can only say that my response to the issue of the ministry of homosexual persons in the
life of the church is based upon my faithful pursuit of the Gospel of our Lord, Jesus
Christ.
When the Lambeth Conference last met in 1998, it affirmed the traditional teaching of the
church on human sexuality. At the same time, the bishops called for the Church to initiate
a conversation about homosexuality in the life of the Church. The Windsor Report
recommends that practical ways to move this conversation forward “so that greater
common understanding might be obtained on the underlying issue of same gender
relationships.” I support this call for continued dialogue and honest sharing.
The Anglican way has often been described as the via media, the middle ground where
many diverse expressions of Christs body are welcomed, honored and respected. I believe
the Windsor Report is calling us all back to the via media.
At our House of Bishops meeting less than a month ago, my sister and brother bishops
here in the United States pledged to receive the Windsor Report humbly and prayerfully.
In the coming months, we will gather to discuss and consider the insights and
recommendations put forth in it. The same will be happening in all 38 Anglican
Communion provinces. I look forward to the fruits of all of these discussions.
God is at work in the Church. May we all be infused with God’s grace as we move ahead.
The Rt. Rev. J. Michael Garrison Bishop of Western New York
186
187
WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA

Dear Clergy and Laity of Western North Carolina,
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Like many of you in these past days I have been reading the Windsor Report from the
Lambeth Commission on Communion and reflecting upon its implications. Clearly it will
take some time for our diocese, our church, and our communion to understand and
respond to this document. What is called for is not a hasty reaction but rather a thoughtful
dialogue and engagement with the issues presented. The focus of the report is the nature
and responsibilities of being in a world wide communion.
The report's Preface reminds us that "The Report is not a judgment. It is part of a process.
It is part of a pilgrimage towards healing and reconciliation." That is, the report does not
resolve the underlying issues but instead points towards a way of reconciliation. We must
remember that this report is one event in a series of occurrences that will take years
before a resolution is reached. Let me highlight some of these:
December 15-17.....Province IV Bishops meet in Charleston, SC

January 11-12, 2005.....The House of Bishops meets in Salt Lake City to receive the
Report.
February 21-26, 2005.....The Primates meet in Ireland to receive the Report.
June 2005.....The Anglican Consultative Council meets to receive the Report.
June 2006 .....The General Convention of the Episcopal Church meets in Columbus Ohio.
Summer 2008.....The Lambeth Conference of Bishops in the Anglican Communion
meets.
We are on a pilgrimage towards reconciliation and a deeper understanding of God's gift

of communion. This journey requires us to be patient. God is working God's purpose out,
but not by our calendar. We are also required to be open to one another and to the Holy
Spirit. If we are to discern what God is calling us to be, then we must listen to one
another - including those with whom we disagree.
The report calls for the worldwide Anglican Communion to reflect upon what it means to
be in a worldwide communion. Specifically it calls upon the Episcopal Church to
examine how it has endangered this communion through its actions at General
Convention in 2003 and respond. Likewise, it also calls for bishops who have violated the
boundaries of dioceses and oversight of the Diocesan Bishop to examine their actions and
respond. It admonishes both sides and asks for everyone to promote the unity of the
Anglican Communion. My guess is that the section "Proposal for the Anglican Covenant"
found in the Appendix in the long run will have the greatest implications for the future of
the Anglican Communion, the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and relations of the
individual members to one another.
In the months to come our church will faithfully and prayerfully consider the report's call
for unity. As your Bishop, my strong desire is that we focus on reconciliation while
honoring our diversity. It is impossible for each national church in a worldwide body
187
188
always to reach unanimity. However, my prayer is that the Holy Spirit will descend and
enable us to rediscover a holy communion.
About a year after I was ordained, I became aware of how far the actual church was from
my idealized image. One day I was complaining about the state of the church to a former
professor, and he said to me, "You know, churches are places to learn to love." So they
are. Learning once more how to love one another with all our differences is the task
before the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. Learning to love takes time
and honesty and humility. Most of all, it requires us to open our hearts again to God's
grace so that we may experience that "newness of life."
The task before us is hard and time consuming but worth doing because ultimately
reconciliation is about salvation.
Peace,
+G. Porter Taylor
Bishop, WNC
October 21, 2004
188
189
WYOMING
189
190
Individuals and Church-related

Organization
190
191
Americans:
191
192
William Carroll:
November 01, 2004

Pray for the Church!
My response to the Windsor report of the Lambeth Commission. I invite your
comments and have turned on the comment feature.
May God give you peace!
Indulge me, if you will, in a little foolishness. I hope that it's the kind that makes
us fools for Christ. But I may be wrong. I may just be a fool. Anyway, I'll risk it and say
what I have to say.
I wish, frankly, that the Lambeth Commission's Windsor report looked a little
more like today's epistle, which forms a cornerstone in the liturgy of Holy Baptism.
Baptism unites us with Jesus in his death and resurrection. Baptismal unity precedes and
grounds all other forms of unity in the Church. Baptismal grace is the ultimate basis for
our communion. This grace makes us members of the Body of Christ, living stones in the
temple of the Spirit, and missionaries of the risen Lord.
In today's epistle, Paul-or someone writing in his name-is not afraid to beg:
I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to
which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with
one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
peace.
Now, I may be a fool, but it strikes me that begging, asking, and exhorting are
closer to Gospel forms of authority-and to those of normative Anglicanism-than the
Windsor report's rather narrow focus on legal norms and institutions. Now, I'm not
against those things per se. After all, we already have them, and I've promised to obey
them. But the Windsor report, despite its protests to the contrary, strikes me as rather
Roman. Apparently, we can no longer be united by “bonds of affection” but must rely
instead on what we have NE VER had before-in essence, a global code of canon law.
How sad for us! How sad for the Gospel!
I fear that we may sacrifice the distinctive character of Anglicanism on the altar of
conformity. Our desire, understandable as it is, to bring order out of the present chaos
may lead us to hasty and excessive attempts to impose control. The Windsor report
counsels unity at practically any cost, and it reinterprets priceless notions of conscience,
provincial autonomy, and subsidiarity in highly questionable ways. In my own view, its
proposals should NOT be accepted in their present form.
Ultimately, the challenge we face is not institutional in character. Rather, it
consists in a rupture in the bonds of affection. It involves a massive breakdown in the
kinds of Christian virtues that Paul begs us to display in our life together. Try as we
might, we cannot enforce these virtues. It is the Holy Spirit, the living breath of God, who
unites us. The Holy Spirit is the bond of peace. Communion is a gift from God. And we
cannot force God's hand.
To be fair to the authors of the report, they are careful to present their findings as
recommendations. Nothing more. To do otherwise would be to exceed their authority.
They have the first word, not the last. The last word is up to all of US together, and our
faithfulness over the next several years will determine the success or failure of the efforts
to repair the breach in our communion.
192
193
I do wish that the members of the commission had spent more time exhorting us
to the virtues that Paul lists in today's epistle: humility, gentleness, patience, and mutual
forbearance. Together with justice and honesty, these virtues are the heart of genuine
reconciliation. They create the necessary climate to hear what God is telling us through
our sisters and brothers in the Global South, who are often persecuted and martyred for
their faith-and who are impoverished, excluded, and murdered by the forces of
globalization and empire that have enriched many of US. But these virtues also open our
ears and hearts to what God is telling us through many gay and lesbian brothers and
sisters in our midst, who are still silenced, excluded, oppressed, and murdered. These
same virtues frame our conversation about how best to respond to the report's advice--and
to heal the Church we all love.
My brothers and sisters, I too beg you to lead lives worthy of your calling. Be
humble; be patient; be gentle. Bear with one another in love. Strive for unity in the Spirit,
who binds us together in peace. There IS one body and one Spirit, just as we have been
called to a single hope-the Reign of God and the resurrection of the dead. There is one
Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God-the Father and Mother of us all. Therefore, we are
ONE-whether we like it or not. Whether we act like it or not.
Whether WE succeed or fail in reconciling the divisions in our small portion of
the Church, GOD will prevail. Communion is God's gift of God's own love. It is our
participation in the life of the Trinity. And no human deed, however wise or foolish, can
break this communion. We cannot annul God's covenant-sealed as it is with the precious
blood of JESUS.
Pray for his Church. Amen.
Posted by Bill Carroll at November 1, 2004 09:27 AM
193
194
Louie Crew:
[. . .] I am still trying to digest the Windsor Report myself, and Executive Council won't
prepare our response, if any, until our February meeting. It's a very long process. It's
intended to prompt the many points of view. It's not a final document, nor does the
Commission claim jurisdiction. Probably even General Convention itself will receive the
document for study for several years.
The Report does not inhibit pastoral responses at the parish level (it even encourage
thesm), and asks only that dioceses not put an imprimatur on these.
The Report categorically disapproves of bishops' crossing other bishops' territories; it is

more provisional in its inhibitions for support of unions and ordinations.
I expect to see Paulene Revere sooner than to see General Convention grant jurisdiction
to outside bodies. I doubt General Convention will consent to anything that amounts to
even a hint of a curia.
We should read the Windsor Report carefully. It has much fine work in it. I especially
like the call that we become much more biblically centered. The bible is every
Christian's birthright, and I find most Episcopalians highly literate about much else
except Scripture.
We should not be anxious. It's God's church. We need to stay focused on mission. The
people in the pews of Africa have far more to be worked up about than about +New
Hampshire or our General Convention.
Some of the issues are about hegemony, about the new balance of power. Several are
learning afresh some old lessons about power, especially that you best not push for more
power or jurisdiction than you really have. You can persuade people better by loving
them than by trying to shame them.
Homoexuality is only the presenting issue for the Windsor Report and for the Anglican
Communion. Few would have chosen homosexuality to be the center of attention, least
of all those of us who are lesbian or gay. Why are we not as worked up over hunger,
poverty, disease, violence....?
In time homosexuality will seem as bizarre an issue to argue about as we now see
circumcision, which was the major conflict of the church in the first century.
But homosexuality IS the presenting issue, and talk about it we must. As with
circumcision, homosexuality forces the church to struggle with whom God chooses to
love, and God chooses to love absolutely everybody.
This family feud also gives us an invitation, an opportunity to know better our sister and
brother disciples in other parts of the Communion. For far too long we have exchanged
194
195
gifts but not met face to face as brother and sister disciples. We now have the
opportunity to do so. Whenever we do so with open hearts, we will find far more that
unites us than divides us. We in the Episcopal Church have so very much to learn about
the faith from those in other parts of the world, not just from their bishops.
For all its importance, the Windsor Report is not the cutting edge issue for the church in
the 21st Century, nor is the lesbigay issue. The cutting edge issue is the same one
Christians have always been given: will we love God, and will we love our neighbors
(all of them!) as we love ourselves?
That is a challenge with eternal consequences, for all of us.
Joy!
L.
195
196
Bob Duncan’s Address to the African Anglican Bishop’s Conference:

The Rt Rev Bob Duncan, Moderator, Anglican Communion Network
Bishop of Pittsburgh, USA
Your Grace and my Lords, Guests, Spouses, Brothers and Sisters.
I greet you in the precious Name of Jesus Christ, My Lord and Saviour (and yours). I am
here because I met Jesus in my teen years and gave myself to Him at University.
I greet you as a brother who knows what you know:
“that there is no other foundations that anyone can lay, except that which is laid, which is
Jesus Christ.” (I Cor 3:11)
I greet you as a fellow apostle:
“who seeks only to know Christ Jesus – and him crucified – with ourselves as your
servant for Jesus’ sake.”
I greet you as Bishop of Pittsburgh:
That great missionary diocese, home to the greatest concentration of missionary

organizations in the United States, home to Trinity School (of which some of you are
graduates); from them and from my clergy and people I bring you greeting.
I also greet you as Moderator of the Anglican Communion Network – and it is chiefly
because of this office that I am here. I must acknowledge the kindness and support of His
grace, the Chairman of CAPA, the Archbishop of All Nigeria, the Most Revd Peter
Jasper Akinola, in his generous invitation which brings me to this First African Anglican
Bishops’ Conference.
The Anglican Communion Network represents 10 dioceses, 1000 parishes, and 1200
clergy across the Unites States – orthodox and faithful Anglicans all.
We also stand with orthodox allies of the Anglican Diaspora in the States. I want to say to
you that – with the three young men of Daniel, Chapter 3 – “We will not bow down.”
“We know that our God can save us. But if not, be it known to you (O king) that we will
not bow down….”
I know it is hard for you in Africa to understand that a Primate would not speak for all his
people. I tell you clearly that the Primate in the United States and the Primate in Canada
do not speak for all their people. There are tens of thousands for whom I speak, who are
at one with you in Africa, for whom our North American Primates do not speak.
196
197
I come not only to greet you, but also to thank you:
To thank you for myself, and for the tens of thousands I lead.
I come to thank you for your steadfastness, for your courage, for your perseverance, for
your suffering.
I come to thank you for your right hand of fellowship.
I come also to ask for forgiveness:
For the trouble we in the West – especially in the US – have caused you.
I come to ask your forgiveness for the distraction from your work that we have been. You
have faced wars, refugees, soaring debt, poverty, famine, disease, HIV-AIDS – and we
have distracted you from your gospel ministry.
I have come to ask your forgiveness for our complicity – the complicity of the orthodox –
in the West’s unfaithfulness. For too long we were far too silent, made too many
compromises.
Forgive us too, for our “ease in Zion”, while the poor have suffered, while justice has
gone undone – forgive us we ask you and ask the Lord.
I have also come to ask your forgiveness for the evils of our culture, now a global culture
– exported to you daily electronically.
Forgive us, for our part in it all.
I have come to work and to weep and to rejoice with you.

Of St Paul in the 12th Chapter of 1st Corinthians (v. 26) says that “when one weeps all
should weep, and when one is honoured all should rejoice.”
I am here – and those who have come with me either physically or by greeting and
intercession – to listen to you and to Africa’s concerns. (This Conference is not about
North America. Thank God it is about Africa – at last, Africa comes of age). I have come
to worship and to listen and to learn. I - and our Network – have come to seek to be your
partner in the gospel (as you have already been ours).
Above all, I have come to thank God in this historic moment. To thank Him that the day
of this 1st African Anglican Bishop Conference has finally come.
To thank God that Africa has finally come of age – and with that coming of age – there is
a new and better future ahead for Anglicanism, as well.
To God be the glory that African Anglicanism has come of age and that an extraordinary
new day is dawning for all.
God bless you all in your work this week.
197
198
Theodore Eastman:
The Windsor Report, issued in London on October 18th, is the result of the year long
work of The Lambeth Commission, appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury to
examine the current situation of impaired communion between various Anglican
churches and to recommend ways to repair, improve and strengthen the ties that bind the
Communion together. The panel was composed of seventeen members from various
Anglican churches around the world, including our own Episcopal Church, and was
chaired by Archbishop Robin Eames of Ireland. The report has gone to the Archbishop of
Canterbury, who will bring it to a meeting of the Primates of the thirty-eight national or
regional churches in February 2005 and thence to a meeting of the Anglican Consultative
Council, a more representative international body, later in 2005.
The precipitating issues were three actions that proved to be controversial in certain parts
of the Communion:
• the election and consecration of Gene Robinson, an openly gay priest in a

committed same gender relationship, as Bishop Coadjutor of New Hampshire,
• initiatives taken in the Canadian and American churches to permit public rites of
blessing for same gender unions,
• and the subsequent intervention of some bishops in the dioceses of other bishops
where there are congregations that dissent from the above actions.
The 93 page report, which may be found at www.anglicancommunion.org., outlines the

biblical and theological foundations of the concept of communion, proposes a process for
deepening mutual responsibility and interdependence within the Anglican Communion,
and recommends specific actions to depressurize the current situation in order to establish
better communication and enable broken relationships to begin to heal. The report raises
many issues that will need careful study, reflection and discussion in the months ahead.
For the moment, however, it would be well to address the most immediate
recommendations, which are as follows:
With respect to the election and consecration of Gene Robinson to the episcopate, the
report recommends
• that the Episcopal Church “be invited to express its regret that the proper
constraints of the bonds of affection were breached in the events surrounding [this
election and consecration] and for the consequences which followed, and that
such an expression of regret would represent the desire of the Episcopal Church to
remain within the communion;”
• that “pending such expression of regret, those who took part [in his consecration]
should be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw
themselves from representative functions of the Anglican Communion…in order
to create the space necessary to enable the healing of the Communion;”
• that the Episcopal Church “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
198
199
same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion
emerges.”
With respect to the blessing of same gender unions, the report recommends
• that a moratorium be called on all such public rites;

• that bishops “who have authorized such rites in the United States and Canada be
invited to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were
breached by such authorization;”
• that “pending such expression of regret, such bishops be invited to consider in all
conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative
function in the Anglican Communion.”
With respect to bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty to intervene in

provinces, dioceses, and parishes other than their own, the report recommends that they
• “express regret for the consequences of their actions;”

• “affirm their desire to remain in the Communion,” and
• “effect a moratorium on any further interventions.”
Some of the recommendations require corporate responses; others invite responses from
individual bishops. The only way that the Episcopal Church as a whole can express regret
or institute blanket moratoriums, is by action of the General Convention which will not
meet again until the summer of 2006. It is expected that the pertinent recommendations
of the report will be dealt with there.
As for expressions of regret by individual bishops, that will have to be done on a bishop
by bishop basis. The Presiding Bishop and the Bishop of Washington have already issued
responsive statements on these matters (copies attached). As one who voted to confirm
the election of Gene Robinson and participated in his consecration, I want to say
wholeheartedly that I regret that my participation in those events unintentionally caused
pain and anger among some Episcopalians at home and other Anglicans abroad. My
actions were taken after extensive study of Scripture and science, careful thought and
discussion, and no small measure of open-hearted prayer. I believe them to be consistent
with the gospel of Jesus Christ, even as I know that other faithful Christians hold a
different position with equal conviction. It would be a tragedy, however, to allow these
differences to destroy the “bonds of affection” which have historically held the Anglican
Communion together. There is so much else within the faith and order of the church on
which there is broad agreement.
The Windsor Report takes pains to declare in several places that continued study and
honest discussion need to take place throughout the Anglican Communion on issues
relating to human sexuality. I couldn’t agree more. So it baffles me that those of us whose
thoughtfully reasoned and spiritually grounded participation in the consecration of
Bishop Robinson should be excluded from official international Anglican gatherings
where these matters will be discussed.
199
200
A continuing goal of the Washington National Cathedral is to be a safe and open place
where people with varying perspectives and positions on important religious matters of
the day can gather to work through their differences. It is my conviction that the
Cathedral should dedicate a significant portion of its time and energy in the immediate
future to address the issues raised but unresolved in the Windsor Report. No one would
be excluded from these conversations. Our new Cathedral College, it seems to me, is the
ideal instrument to undertake this important work.
An agenda could include these topics among others:
• the nature of human sexuality,
• the mystery of diversity in unity within the economy of God and the household of
faith,
• the authority and interpretation of Holy Scripture,
• the full inclusion of all baptized people in every aspect of the ministry of the
church,
• an exploration of forms of governance, consultation and communication

appropriate to the theology and ecclesiology of Anglicanism.
In his Word to the Church last week, Bishop Griswold observed that the Episcopal
Church represents a “diverse center, in which a common commitment to Jesus Christ and
a sense of mission in his name to a broken and hurting world override varying opinions
on any number of issues, including homosexuality. The diverse center is characterized by
a spirit of mutual respect and affection rather than hostility and suspicion.”
It is my hope and prayer that the efforts of the Cathedral and its College will be able to
help this diverse center expand and grow stronger.
200
201
Martyn Minns:
Dear Friends in Christ:
The Lambeth Commission has completed its work and their report now known as ‘The
Windsor Report 2004’ has been released. I was able to witness the press briefing in the
Crypt of St Paul’s Cathedral where it was first released and heard Archbishop Robin
Eames introduce this lengthy (121 page) work of the commission set up last year at this
time, at the request of the Primates. The mandate to the commission was to find ways in
which we could live together as a worldwide communion at a time when the actions of
the American and Canadian branches of the Anglican family have almost torn us apart.
The results of their labors will take some time to digest, but let me outline some of my
initial reactions:
The report clearly affirms the value of this worldwide family staying united in mission
and ministry. At Truro we have been blessed by friendships around the Communion and
we know well the joy and benefit we receive from being in communion with other
members of the Anglican Church around the world. It also makes clear that the teaching
of the Church has not changed with regard to human sexuality. It reaffirms Lambeth 1.10,
the resolution on human sexuality passed at the Lambeth Conference in 1998.
The report outlines some of the inherent challenges of being in communion with all kinds
of people from all across the globe and the importance of working to maintain our unity
as a witness to Christ. We don’t have a pope, and we aren’t simply a collection of
independent churches. We are bound together by our Anglican heritage and the report
emphasized the importance of mutual submission to one another though the four
instruments of unity: the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates Council, the Anglican
Consultative Council, and the Lambeth Conference.
The report did not ‘dodge’ the serious nature of the crisis and repeatedly pointed out that
the American Church has broken this core unity by the consecration of Gene Robinson as
bishop of New Hampshire, and sanctioning the blessing of same-sex unions, and in so
doing, rejecting the historic teaching of the church throughout the ages and also the
solemn warnings given before it took these unilateral actions.
It outlines several steps necessary to restore our unity:
1. It asks the Episcopal Church to express ‘regret’ for what they have done. I understand
that the committee had a lengthy debate over whether to ask for regret or repentance—I
would have much preferred if they had chosen the latter!
2. It invites each bishop who had a role in the New Hampshire consecration to withdraw
themselves from further involvement in Anglican Communion organizations.
3. It asks the Episcopal Church to declare a moratorium on any other elections of
practicing homosexuals and on the development or use of rites of blessing of same sex
unions.
201
202
4. It asks those who, in response to this current crisis, have crossed diocesan boundaries
without permission from the local diocesan bishop, to desist because those actions can
also be detrimental to the unity of the Communion.
In addition, the Windsor Report proposes that the Anglican Communion establish a core
covenant that all members of the Anglican family would agree on—although no precise
wording was offered.
These are important recommendations and they correctly assume the obvious truth that
the American Church is responsible for the schismatic tensions in our worldwide family.
The Episcopal Church overstepped itself. It is also clear that the Anglican Communion is
at a crossroad. If the American Church does not back away from its course, the Anglican
Communion will break apart.
Sadly, the Presiding Bishop, in a prepared statement just released, accepts the report, but
seems to indicate no change in his views and no apparent willingness to agree to any kind
of moratorium. So what next?
This is only the first part of the story. The Primates requested the report and they will not
be meeting together until next February. The All African Bishops Conference will
convene in Lagos, Nigeria in next week. I suspect that they will have some rather strong
things to say and practical suggestions to make.
It is frustratingly slow, but the Lord is still in control of his Church and He will have the
last Word. Keep praying. We will have more to share on our return.
In Christ,
The Rev. Martyn Minns is rector or Truro Episcopal Church, Fairfax, Virginia
202
203
Philip Turner:
Shall We Walk Together or Walk Apart?
by The Rev. Dr. Philip Turner (Nov 10, 2004)
I
The long awaited Windsor Report (WR) is now in the public domain. On one level, this
address is a response to both the content and tone of the report. On a deeper level,
however, it is a discussion of the future (or lack thereof) of the Anglican Communion
itself. Reactions to the report have been varied. Some hold it to have gone too far and
others not far enough. Still others have urged a slow and careful response. I count myself
among the latter group, but I do so with a sense of urgency that is belied by the words
"slow" and "careful." To avoid an eventuality of this sort, (the muting of urgency by over
caution and/or delay) I begin by citing WR's disturbing conclusion. "There remains a
very real danger that we will not choose to walk together. Should the call to halt and find
ways of continuing in our present communion not be heeded, then we shall have to begin
to learn to walk apart." (WR #157)
It is the possibility that my church, perhaps along with the Anglican Church of Canada,
will (by refusing to "call a halt") make a de facto choice to "walk apart" that most deeply
concerns me. It is this possibility that sets the direction of the remarks that follow. I
confess that my own biography leads my thoughts and reactions to give greater weight to
the health and continued existence of the Anglican Communion than to the particular
internal exigencies of my own church. Ten years of service in the Church of Uganda
made me aware of both of the ecumenical and international significance of the Anglican
Communion and of the spiritual illness and theological poverty that now characterize the
life of my own church. Indeed, I have come to the reluctant conclusion that the most
theologically adequate stance to take in the present crisis is one that begins with divine
judgment upon ECUSA whose form and practice drifts ever further from a faithful
witness to God's reconciling and redemptive action in Christ Jesus.
You must determine if my perception of the state of ECUSA before God might illumine
as well that of the Anglican Church of Canada. However, no matter what your conclusion
might be at the end of such a prophetic exercise, it is still the case that the future of
Anglicanism as a communion of churches hangs in the balance; and that the way in
which the scales tilt will be determined in no small measure by the reaction of the
Primates and the Communion as a whole to the recommendations of this report. I say this
for the simple reason that, though the report has both flaws and omissions (some serious),
it nonetheless maps a credible way for the various autonomous churches of our
communion to remain in fact a communion of churches.
So my basic purpose in this address is to use WR to map a future for the churches of the
Anglican Communion that will allow them to remain a communion. My goal reaches into
the future, but that future depends in the first instance on successfully addressing, in the
present, the crisis caused by the consecration of Gene Robinson, the action of the Diocese
of New Westminster in the matter of blessing "gay" unions, the action of ECUSA's
203
204
General Convention making room for such blessings, and the Action of the General
Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada that affirmed "the integrity and sanctity of
committed adult same-sex relationships." (WR #27)
II
So let us begin with the theological starting point of WR and the (surprisingly)
unanimous conclusions to which this theological framework leads its authors. On several
occasions, the authors of the report remind their readers that it is not their brief to make
determinations in respect to the theological and moral issues that swirl about the
contested matter of same-gender sexual relations. Their brief is of a ecclesiological
nature; namely to comment in particular on "the ways in which provinces of the Anglican
Communion may relate to one another in situations where the ecclesiastical authorities of
one province feel unable to maintain the fullness of communion with another part of the
Anglican Communion." (WR #1) Appropriately the author's of WR begin with an
account of the "communion ecclesiology" that has shaped the recent ecumenical
dialogues in which Anglicans have been involved. (See e.g., the various ARCIC reports).
Further, in order to establish precedent, they have rendered an account of the ways in
which Anglicans have functioned as a communion in years past.
The particular rendition of communion ecclesiology they give is rooted in a reading of

Ephesians and the Corinthian correspondence. (WR # 1-6) WR rightly notes that, in these
letters, God's purpose in history is construed as nothing less than "to rescue the whole
created order from all that defaces, corrupts and destroys it." (WR #1) In accord with this
purpose, it is God's will that the church be "an anticipatory sign of God's healing and
restorative future for the world." (WR #2) In respect to this calling, the unity of the
church, the communion of its members, and the holiness to which each is called are each
essential. (WR #3)
It is the view of the commission that the history of the Anglican Communion shows a
sustained effort to live up to this calling. Thus they write: Throughout its history, the
Anglican Communion has been sustained by a common pattern of liturgical life rooted in
the tradition of the Books of Common Prayer; shaped by the continual reading, both
corporate and private, of the Holy Scriptures; rooted in its history through the See of
Canterbury; and connected through a web of relationships-of bishops, consultative
bodies, companion dioceses, projects of common mission, engagement with ecumenical
partners-that are the means and the signs of common life. This continues to flourish in a
myriad of ways at the local as well as national and international level. (WR #8)
In short, both Holy Scripture and the long history of Anglican practice point to the central
importance of unity, communion, and holiness of life for Anglicans, each of which has
been called into question by the recent actions of ECUSA and the Anglican Church of
Canada. Though the Chair of the commission states in his introduction that WR "is not a
judgment" but "part of a process," (WR p. 11) the scriptural and historical foundations of
WR lead, as the report unfolds, to rather strong and, to some, unexpected judgments.
204
205
These judgments address the present crisis; and, in so doing, suggest certain definite
courses of action that might serve in the present hour both to avoid further division and
promote "unity, communion, and holiness of life." Chief among the judgments are these:
ECUSA, the Diocese of New Westminster, the Anglican Church of Canada, along with
those who have crossed jurisdictional boundaries to aid parishes in distress have acted
against the ideal of communion presented in the Pauline literature cited and in ways that
are "incompatible" with the principles of communion interdependence implied by the
biblical witness and adumbrated in WR (WR# 122)
In acting as they have these churches and ecclesial bodies have clearly violated
communion teaching as set forth in successive resolutions of the Lambeth Conference of
Bishops and subsequently affirmed by the communion's other instruments of unity. (WR
#27).
The actions of ECUSA, the Diocese of New Westminster, and the General Synod of the
Anglican Church of Canada cannot be judged to be part of a process of "reception" for
the simple reason that these actions are ones that "are explicitly against the current
teaching of the Anglican Communion as a whole." (WR #69)
The actions of the Diocese of New Westminster and the General Convention of ECUSA
that license or promote public blessing of same gender unions constitute "a denial of the
bonds of communion."
The bishops of ECUSA, with full knowledge, consecrated a person bishop whose
ministry as a "bishop in the Church of God"…very many people in the Anglican
Communion" could "neither recognize nor receive." As the authors of the report go on to
say this action raises questions about their commitment to the Episcopal Church (USA)'s
interdependence as a member of the Anglican Communion…" (WR # 129)
The actions of ECUSA, the Diocese of New Westminster, and the Anglican Church of
Canada have caused scandal within the Anglican Communion and placed severe
stumbling blocks before the majority of its members. (WR #87-96)
In summary, it is the judgment of the members of the commission that ECUSA and the
Anglican Church of Canada have (1) in various ways acted in a way contrary to the
witness of Holy Scripture and to the principles of communion implied therein; (2)
violated teaching affirmed by all the communion's instruments of unity; (3) falsely
claimed that their actions might be considered as part of a process of reception: (4)
denied the bonds of communion that define Anglicanism; (5) in the case of ECUSA,
consecrated a person bishop who cannot in fact exercise a central aspect of the Episcopal
office; and (6) acted in ways that cause "scandal" throughout the Anglican Communion.
This simple rehearsal of "judgments" makes clear how seriously WR takes the crisis the
Communion now faces. What then do they believe necessary as first steps toward
mending the tear that has occurred? The list they provide is scattered about and easily
missed, but when collected comprises what to my mind is extraordinarily strong
prescription for cure. The remedies set forth in WR are all bracketed by "the imperatives
of communion," namely, "repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation." From the outset,
(in my view rightly) no party to this dispute is exempted from these demands, each of
205
206
which flows from the communion ecclesiology that lies at the base of the report. The
report goes on to make clear what, in concrete terms, is demanded of those who are called
upon by the principles of communion to repent of their actions. In respect to the
consecration of Gene Robinson the following invitations are offered:
ECUSA (as a whole) is invited "to express its regret that the proper constraints of the
bonds of affection were breached" and "for the consequences which followed." Such an
expression of regret would, WR holds, "represent the desire of the Episcopal Church
(USA) to remain within the Communion." (WR #134)
Those who took part in the consecration of Gene Robinson are invited (in order to create
the space necessary for healing) to consider "whether they should withdraw themselves
from representative functions within the Communion. (WR #134)
ECUSA is invited "to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the
consecration" of anyone "living in a same gender union." (WR #134)
In respect to approval of the blessing of same gender unions, WR notes, in surprisingly
firm language, that liturgical provisions of this sort constitute "actions in breach of the
legitimate application of the Christian faith as the churches of the Anglican Communion
have received it, and of the bonds of affection in the life of the communion…" (WR
#143) Consequently,
WR calls upon the all bishops of the Anglican Communion not to authorize the blessing
of same gender unions. (WR #143)
The authors of the report also call for a moratorium in ECUSA and the Anglican Church
of Canada upon all such public rites. (WR #144)
The authors of the report also call upon all bishops in ECUSA and the Anglican Church
of Canada who have authorized such rites "to express regret that the proper constraints of
the bonds of affection were breached by such authorization." (WR #144)
The points mentioned above are all directed to those who have violated the witness of
Holy Scripture, the clear teaching of the Anglican Communion, and the principles of
communion that bind its member churches together. They are steps that must be taken to
avoid a decision "to walk apart" rather than "to walk together." What, however, are the
steps to be taken by those who have been scandalized by these actions? Here one touches
upon one of the most controversial and, to my mind, least satisfactory aspects of the
report. The report asks what care is to be given to dissenting groups within ECUSA and
the Anglican Church of Canada. Their response amounts to a double-edged sword. On
the one hand, they recognize that the actions of bishops in both the U.S. and Canada have
caused a breach of trust so serious that in some cases parish or diocese "has found itself
unwilling to accept the ministry of a bishop associated with such a contrary action." (WR
#149) In response, bishops from elsewhere have been asked to provide pastoral and
sacramental oversight. WR makes it "quite clear" that, though its authors believe the
matter should have been handled differently, they nonetheless "fully understand the
principled concerns that have led to those actions." (WR #149) Thus, they express
support for the proposals for delegated Episcopal oversight approved by ECUSA's house
of bishops in 2004 (WR #152), and they suggest that the Anglican Church of Canada
adopt "a broadly similar scheme." (WR #153) They even go so far as to say that the
oversight they have in mind might, in principle, be provided by bishops from other
provinces within the Communion. (WR #153)
206
207
One edge of the sword thus cuts against those who have precipitated the present crisis.
The other, however, cuts against those who, in response to the crisis, have, in the view of
the authors of the report, acted in a way contrary to an "ideal" of the Anglican
Communion--one that holds that "all the Christians in one place should be united in their
prayer, worship and the celebration of the sacraments." Accordingly, they call upon
bishops who, in conscience, have intervened in provinces other than their own
To express regret fore the consequences (emphasis added) of their actions
To affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and
To effect a moratorium on any further interventions.
III
These are the immediate steps the authors of WR believe necessary if the member
churches of the Anglican Communion are, in the future, "to walk together" rather than
"walk apart." Forgive me for this rather lengthy rehearsal, but the very nature and tone of
the report makes it easy to miss both the purpose and the force of what is being said. If
the report is to be read properly, it is important I think to recognize what might be called
its literary form. WR is a constitutional and juridical document rather than a prophetic
one. As such, its language does not thunder forth like the words of Amos or Jeremiah.
Rather, its contents are expressed in the careful and considered tones of a political,
diplomatic, constitutional, or legal document. Its purpose is to strengthen a polity rather
than denounce a great wrong or announce a new act of God. Precisely because its
language is measured rather than graphic, it is easy to miss the fact that its indictment of
ECUSA, the Diocese of New Westminster, and the Anglican Church of Canada is
nothing less than devastating. Listen once more to the list of judgments unroll. These
bodies have acted in ways incompatible with scripture and the principles of communion,
they have contravened the clear teaching of the Anglican Communion, they have violated
the bonds of communion, they have placed in Episcopal office a person who cannot
fulfill the central function of that office, they have caused scandal throughout the
Communion, and they have threatened the very existence of Anglicanism as a
communion of Churches.
The devastating character of this indictment is heightened by the fact that the members,
both liberal and conservative, of the commission, approved the contents of the report
unanimously. Further, it is easy to miss the fact that the indictment was so stinging not, as
the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA said, because the report is more interested in
containment than mission; but precisely because its authors believe that the preservation
of the bonds of communion is central to the mission of the church. As section A of WR
so clearly establishes, the mission of the church in fact depends upon its credibility as an
effective sign of God's redemptive, reconciling, and uniting mission to the world.
According to the communion ecclesiology of WR, the effectiveness of this sign is
directly tied to unity, communion, and holiness of life within the body of Christ.
Finally, the literary form of WR has led to a serious misreading of one of the judgments it
makes. Because the bishops who crossed jurisdictional boundaries were asked to express
regret for the consequences of their actions and to effect a moratorium on any further
actions of this sort, many have drawn what I believe to be a false conclusion; namely, that
207
208
the report sees the action of those bishops who consecrated Gene Robinson and those
who license the blessing of same gender unions as morally equivalent to those of bishops
who cross jurisdictional boundaries in aid of distressed congregations and dioceses.
In response, let me say that I do not believe that WR's espousal of delegated Episcopal
Oversight as approved by ECUSA's House of Bishops is in any way adequate to address
the pastoral and ecclesial crisis set off by the actions of ECUSA and the Diocese of New
Westminster. As I will indicate in a moment, I believe, because of the refusal of a number
of bishops to abide by the spirit and the letter of DEPO, alternative Episcopal oversight
with jurisdiction (AEO), though far less than ideal, is the only possible means left to
address the needs of a number of congregations and dioceses in distress.
More of that in a moment! First, in response to the charge of moral equivalence, let it be
noted that the devastating judgments rendered against ECUSA, the Dioceses of New
Westminster, and the Anglican Church of Canada are not rendered against those bishops
who have crossed jurisdictional boundaries. Rather, full recognition is given to the
"principled concerns" that led to these actions. The objection of WR is not to the
principles that led bishops to cross boundaries, but to the means they employed to address
what WR fully recognizes as a genuine pastoral issue. Further the bishops who have
crossed jurisdictional boundaries are not asked to express regret for their actions-only the
(unspecified) consequences of their action. Finally, the call for a moratorium on these
actions is bracketed by a call for bishops of ECUSA who have "refused to countenance
the proposals set out by their House of Bishops to reconsider their stance." In this respect,
WR notes that those who do not countenance these proposals are "making a profoundly
dismissive statement about their adherence to the polity of their own church." (WR #
155)
Looking back over the report, I fail to see that the moral equivalence charge most
recently brought by CAPA can be substantiated. It appears to me that WR speaks in
relation to an ideal of communion-one in which all parties desire reconciliation and all
parties practice restraint. What WR fails to state with sufficient strength is that when
these principles are not abided by, the ideal of communion collapses and its normal
procedures do not work. In short, AEO is not ideal. DEPO is ideal. But when the ideal is
just not in play, less than desirable means to address a present crisis will inevitably be
embraced.
IV
It is this last observation that brings me to what I take to be a glaring omission in WR-one
that impinges (negatively) upon its adequacy as a means both of addressing the
immediate crisis and the future health of the Communion as a whole. I speak of the
failure of WR to discuss the relation between communion and discipline. It is true that
WR makes one specific reference to discipline (WR #4), and that it mentions one
concrete mode of discipline (the Authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury to issue or
withhold invitations to gatherings of the communion and its instruments of unity); but no
sustained discussion of the necessary connection between communion and discipline is to
be found. This omission may in part be due to an inability on the part of the commission
208
209
to reach agreement, in part because of a political judgment that such a discussion would
not be helpful, and in part because its own view of communion is rather idealized. That
is, in marked contrast to both Ephesians and Corinthians, it pays insufficient attention to
the way in which the continued presence of sin in both world and church struggle against
the unity it is God's purpose to bring about.
There is something like a premature eschatology present throughout this report that
assumes the best of everyone; and while WR does indicate the way things ought to be, it
does not give an adequate account of the way things are. Hence, perhaps, omission of a
discussion of communion and discipline! Whatever the causes of this omission, it will not
do if the promise of this report is to be realized. The actions of ECUSA have raised in an
unavoidable way an issue that has been with us for well over a century. How, given both
the legitimate differences between provinces and the likelihood of illegitimate claims to
independence, can Anglicanism remain a communion and yet support the autonomy of
provinces that is such a characteristic mark of its polity?
I for one cannot imagine Anglicanism continuing as a communion if some agreement is

not reached concerning the relation between the yoked realities of communion and
discipline. Do not misunderstand me! I am not speaking of the articulation of a body of
communion law that can be applied in cases like the one we are facing, as if an erring
citizen had broken the traffic rules. As the Anglican Communion Institute argued in its
submission to the Lambeth Commission, discipline is a necessary means of insuring that
the life of the church is in fact formed by an accord with Holy Scripture. Consequently,
the theologians of the institute argued in their submission Communion and Discipline
(ACI, 2004) in the following manner.
Discipline is not primarily a legal reality. As the ordering force of the Body's life (ie. The
Body of Christ) in witness before the world through its scriptural consonance, discipline
represents very generally and freely the means by which the Church, at any given time, is
'formed' into this common life of faith. The word is not a juridical term, but a pedagogical
one.
If it is indeed the case (as I have argued) that sin remains present within the life of the
church, its unity, communion, and holiness of life will be maintained only if "pedagogical
discipline" remains a part of its life while it awaits the consummation of God's unifying
purpose at Christ's return. The question, of course, is what form that discipline might
take? The question is a very difficult one to answer if indeed one wishes to avoid some
form of juridical centralism like that of Rome-a step that most certainly would subvert
Anglican polity by undermining autonomous character of the various Anglican provinces.
Despite its failure to discuss the place of discipline within a communion of churches, WR
does indicate one way in which a pedagogical discipline might be exercised within our
communion. After asserting its belief that the Archbishop of Canterbury is not simply a
figurehead, but the "central focus of both unity and mission within the Communion" (WR
#109) the commission expresses the opinion that the Archbishop "has the right to call or
not to call (emphasis added) to meetings of the Lambeth Conference and the Primates
209
210
Meeting "whomsoever he believes appropriate, in order to safeguard, and take counsel

for, the well-being of the Anglican Communion." They go on to note that the Archbishop
should invite "on restricted terms at his sole discretion if circumstances exist where full
voting membership of the Conference is perceived to be an undesirable status, or would
militate against the greater unity of the Communion." (WR #110)
In short, the long established authority of the Archbishop to "gather" the Communion and
its Primates carries with it also the authority, if the unity of the Communion demands it,
to refuse to gather those whose presence "militates against the greater unity of the
Communion." This form of discipline seems to me a remarkably effective pedagogical
tool-one that is far preferable to premature announcements of broken or impaired
communion. Once actions of this sort are taken and/or announced, brotherly correction
becomes extraordinarily difficult. There are already have been a number of
announcements of this sort, and I pray that they will not precipitously lead to formal
synodical actions. These forms of action, of course, lie within the authority of
autonomous provinces, but taken precipitously and individually, they make premature
divisions, do not create spaces in time for instruction, rebuke, and repentance, and do not
serve as effective means of pedagogy.
My own view is that these premature actions have been taken in large measure because
the question of discipline has never been adequately addressed within our communion.
Support of the commission's suggestions about the authority of the Archbishop of
Canterbury to "gather" or "not gather" would go a long way toward filling a potentially
fatal flaw in the polity of the Anglican Communion. Unfortunately, this step may, in the
present crisis, prove insufficient. A number of bishops from the more "progressive"
dioceses both within ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada have, I am told, stated
privately that attendance at the Lambeth Conference is not in their mind essential to the
life of their Diocese or their Province. They do, however, become quite exercised when
the matter of Delegated or Alternative Episcopal Oversight is mentioned. It is this issue
that is the most immediate importance both to the bishop involved and to the distressed
parishes under his or her jurisdiction.
I am inclined to believe that more needs to be said about this form of discipline than can
be found in WR. If a break occurs in the pastoral relation between a bishop and one or
more of the congregations under his care, and if this break has occurred because of
actions by the bishop that run contrary to the witness of Holy Scripture and Anglican
teaching, it would be optimal (as suggested by the 2004 resolution of ECUSA's house of
bishops) for the bishop of the diocese to make arrangements for delegated Episcopal
oversight (DEPO) of a sort that is acceptable to the distressed congregation. If, however,
a bishop refuses to provide such oversight, what then is to be done? I do not believe it is
enough to say, as have the authors of WR, that such a bishop would "be making a
profoundly dismissive statement about their adherence to the polity of their own church."
After such a remark, one wants simply to say "well daaa…" No, something more is
needed. My own view is that the Primates should, in cases where a bishops has acted in a
manner judged by them to be contrary to scripture and the teaching of the Anglican
Communion, deem it appropriate to have provided for the distressed parish or diocese a
210
211
from of alternative Episcopal oversight with jurisdiction (AEO) that is acceptable both to
them that the distressed parties involved. This arrangement should be considered
temporary and in effect only as long as the offending bishop persists in his action.
WR may, in a limited sense, be right to say that such a form of discipline runs contrary to
an ancient norm of the church; but the norm presupposes behavior on the part of a bishop
that accords with catholic belief and practice. It cannot work in situation of blatant
defiance of the agreed upon teaching of the church and the pastoral provisions made for
coping with such circumstances. Further, the ancient canon of Nicea must be understood,
at least in part, as an action ex post facto-one designed to put right a previously existing
mess brought about the divisive conflicts that preceded it. It seems to me that those who
have sought to render pastoral assistance to dioceses and parishes in distress have not
been fairly or adequately addressed. It would, I think, have been more helpful for the
authors of the report to address the early statements about broken or impaired
communion and set out a process whereby these measures might in the future be avoided.
V
This last remark brings me to the final section of this address. WR takes a very firm stand
in respect to the immediate steps needed to effect repentance, forgiveness, and
reconciliation within our torn communion. In addition, however, in view of the fact that
crises of the sort Anglicans now face most certainly will arise in the future, WR makes a
number of extraordinarily wise and helpful statements about the long term steps
necessary if communion between Anglican provinces is to be preserved and strengthened
over the long haul.
It is not possible in this short address to discuss adequately all of these suggestions, but a
few comments I believe will serve to make clear both their promise and their problems.
First, WR rightly assumes (with one exception) that the basic elements of Anglican polity
are in place; and that these elements are, if considered in themselves, adequate to meet
the challenges that lie ahead. Thus, there is general approval of the "instruments of unity"
now available to the Communion. (See i.e., Section C of WR, "Our Future Life
Together") The issue that must be addressed, according to the commission, is the nature
of their authority and the relation between them. Thus, WR concludes, "…there needs to
be a clearer understanding of the expectations placed on provinces in responding to the
decisions of these Instruments." (WR #105) They further conclude that the terminology
used to describe the Instruments of Unity does not sufficiently reveal their unifying
purpose. Consequently, WR recommends that the Archbishop of Canterbury "be regarded
as the focus of unity and that the Primates' Meeting, the Lambeth Conference, the
Anglican Consultative Council, and possibly others, be regarded more appropriately as
the Instruments of Communion" (emphasis added). The report further suggests that, in
order to make the role of the Primates' Meeting clearer its name be changed to the
Primates' Conference-the Lambeth Standing Committee.
This terminological adjustment is but one suggestion of several meant to bring the
responsibilities of the "Instruments of Communion" into sharper focus. Thus, the report
contends also that the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury should be seen as pivotal in
211
212
relation to each and all the Instruments of Communion. In this respect, it is the
Archbishop of Canterbury who is to gather (or refuse to gather) the various instruments
of the Communion. Further it is the Archbishop who is "to articulate the mind of the
Communion, especially in areas of controversy." (WR #109, #110) The Primates,
gathered by the Archbishop of Canterbury, are to assume the "enhanced responsibility"
for the unity and health of the Communion assigned them by the Lambeth Conference;
and thus are to be seen as the Standing Committee of that Conference. The most far-
reaching redefinition of responsibility applies to the Anglican Consultative Council. The
report notes that at present "there is no clear demarcation indicating which
responsibilities fall to which instrument of unity" and that "this is particularly true of
relationship between the Lambeth Conference and the Anglican Consultative Council."
(WR #105) Clearly, WR wants this matter sorted out and that right soon.
The Instruments of Communion are in place. They need only clarification in respect to
authority and interrelationship. WR believes also, however, that they need to be
supplemented in certain ways. In this respect, there are three suggestions of particular
importance. The Archbishop of Canterbury should be provided with a council of advice,
canon law should be considered an additional instrument of communion, and there should
be a solemn covenant between the various provinces of the Communion that would
"make explicit and forceful the loyalty and bonds of affection which govern the
relationships between the churches of the Communion." (WR # 118)
Some final, though brief, comments are appropriate in respect to each of these
suggestions. First, in respect to a council of advice for the Archbishop of Canterbury, he
not doubt should have one. Surely, however, the Archbishop can constitute such a body
on his own authority. It seems unwise to me to place this suggestion among others that
have to do with the polity of the Anglican Communion. By doing so, one simply places
another "instrument" in the mix-one that holds the potential of undermining the authority
of the already established instruments.
Second, in respect to Canon Law, the report notes that in 2002 "the Primates recognized
that the unwritten law common to the Churches of the Communion…may be understood
to constitute a fifth 'instrument of unity.' (WR #114) Consequently, WR recommends a
process wherein "The canon law of each church should reflect and promote global
communion." (WR #115) This suggestion is of enormous importance and should receive
support; but no one in his or her right mind can imagine that compliance with this
suggestion can be done very quickly. Indeed, it will not come about unless a covenant
that makes explicit the bonds that tie the churches of the Communion is in place. Without
espousal of the overriding importance of unity, communion, and holiness of life for the
definition of the Anglican Communion, there will not be sufficient motivation within the
communion as a whole to undertake such a daunting project.
Thus, a final word about WR's suggestion of a covenant! I cannot possibly undertake an
analysis of the covenant suggested. I can say, however, that its intent is to make clear that
communion among Anglicans is utterly dependent upon the sort of mutual subjection that
both Ephesians and Corinthians posit as essential to maintaining unity within the Body of
212
213
Christ. It is my view that Anglicans have, over time, come to posit mutual subjection in
the Lord (rather than the three fold ministry) as the defining feature of their polity. Thus,
I have argued elsewhere that Anglicans have answered the question of how the church
both remains faithful to the Apostolic witness and addresses the exigencies of varying
times and places by allowing wide ranging debate over contested issues but delaying
changes in practice until there is a consensus among the faithful. The unity of the
communion depends upon being mutually subject-a principle that brackets and limits the
meaning of autonomy.
It is this essential element of Anglican polity that the actions of ECUSA, the Diocese of
Westminster, and the Anglican Church of Canada have subverted by their recent actions.
I am often tempted to wring my hands over what has been done, but a wiser voice in me
says that these actions are forcing us to recognize in conscious fashion the sort of polity
that has evolved among us-a polity of whose basic characteristics we are largely
unconscious. If we had been aware of the nature of our polity, the current crisis would in
all likelihood not have arisen. There would be no need of a covenant because we would
have understood far better than we do at present the nature of our communion. The
present crisis has demonstrated clearly that we do not understand ourselves very well.
Thus, a conscious espousal of the nature of our communion is without question
necessary. The proposed covenant no doubt needs review, but it is exactly what is needed
if we are to come to the sort of self-understanding necessary for life in communion. So
also is the solemn act of entering a covenant that carries the weight of an international
obligation. (WR #119) Apart from such understanding and action, we will without doubt
face other crises of perhaps even more devastating effect in the not too distant future. As
WR rightly says, "The Anglican Communion cannot again afford, in every sense, the
crippling prospect of repeated worldwide inter-Anglican conflict such as that engendered
by the current crisis." (WR #119) These words may be taken as final words. To ignore
them is to turn ones back on a communion whose life I firmly believe fits into God's
providence in a positive way, and I only hope that our current peevishness does not lead
us in such a destructive path.
213
214
The Anglican Communion Network and AAC response:

We are grateful to the Lambeth Commission for their hard work and dedication to this
difficult task. We have strong concerns, however, about the fact that they call only for
the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA) to “express regret” and fail to recommend direct
discipline of ECUSA. We commend the Windsor Report’s strong affirmation of
Lambeth 1.10 with its biblical doctrine of sexuality. We also echo the Commission’s
deep concerns with the unilateral decisions and actions of the Episcopal Church as well
as the Anglican Church in Canada that have fractured the Anglican Communion and
brought us to this crisis. We see a critical need for a Core Covenant and applaud this
recommendation by the Commission. In addition, we support the recommendation of a
moratorium on the ordination and consecration of practicing homosexuals and the
blessing of same sex unions as well as the invitation to those who participated in the
consecration of V. Gene Robinson “to withdraw themselves from representative
functions in the Anglican Communion.”
We understand and embrace the justifiable concern for the unity of the communion, and
we treasure real unity. We cannot in good conscience, however, support such unity at the
expense of truth. We must not allow a desire to hold the church family together to allow
us to maintain the fatal disease that grips ECUSA and by association, the Anglican
Communion.
In addition, Section 155 of the Windsor Report presents a false parallel between
permanent and willful changes to Christian doctrine and temporary pastoral measures
provided in emergency situations. We reject this concept and once again call for
permanent structural relief. We are grateful to those Primates who have provided
temporary pastoral accommodation, at great cost, for faithful Anglicans in America who
have been persecuted for upholding the apostolic faith.
We are deeply saddened that within minutes of the Windsor Report’s release, the
Presiding Bishop has already rejected its core presupposition that is the church’s
traditional teaching on human sexuality. We call upon Bishop Griswold to express godly
sorrow, immediately implement a moratorium on ordinations and consecrations of
practicing homosexuals as well as the blessing of same sex unions, and we call on all
bishops who have supported the consecration to withdraw from the councils of the
church, as the report suggests. The Episcopal Church is now faced with serious and
difficult choices. They can follow the lead of Bishop Griswold which will ultimately
lead to the demise of the Episcopal Church or they can choose to embrace the core
covenant recommended by the commission, reject false doctrine and preserve faithful
unity.
214
215
Forward in Faith, NA:

From www.forwardinfaith.com
FiF North America

Forward in Faith North America responds to the Windsor Report
18 October 2004
St Paul's Cathedral - London, England
We applaud the Archbishop of Canterbury for the establishment of the Lambeth

Commission on Communion which has released the Windsor Report. But it is clear that:
There is no determination of what constitutes the minimum requirement for membership
in the Anglican Communion.
There is no definition of what would constitute an adequate apology from those who
caused; and from those who have responded to the "impaired" communion.
There is nothing offered for a world-wide solution to address the schismatic state of the
Anglican Communion.
A full report will follow in the November issue of the forwardNOW!
The Revd Dr David L Moyer and The Revd Canon Jonathan Ostman
Forward in Faith North America
215
216
International:
Canadian Anglican Church:

Canadian Anglican bishops meeting this week in Saskatoon, Sask., have
unanimously declared the Windsor Report of the Lambeth Commission on unity in the
Anglican Communion to be an important document worthy of study by the whole church.
Without dissent, the bishops approved a motion that calls on Canadian Anglicans
to respond to the report in time for a meeting of the Primates of the Communion that will
be held in Belfast next February.
The bishops also voted unanimously to ask the Canadian Primate, Archbishop
Andrew Hutchison, to write a pastoral letter to the Canadian Church asking Anglicans to
consider the report and send their responses to him.
The Lambeth Commission was created by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan

Williams more than a year ago to consider how the world-wide Anglican Communion
can preserve its unity in the face of controversies around issues such as the ordination of
a gay bishop in the United States and the blessing of same-sex unions in a Canadian
diocese.
The commission under the chairmanship of Archbishop Robin Eames of Armagh,

submitted its report last month. The commission conducted an exhaustive study of
Anglican unity and the stresses it faces and made several recommendations including
issuing a call for “expressions of regret” on the part of some bishops and churches whose
actions have distressed others in the communion. Bishops who have intervened in the
affairs of dioceses other than their own are also asked to express regret and refrain from
such interventions in the future.
The report also includes a model “covenant” to more closely bind provinces of the
Anglican Communion.
Anglican Primates from around the world are to bring their churches’ responses to
the Belfast meeting, and the Canadian Church has set up a process to gather those
responses.
On another matter, the bishops also approved a document entitled Shared

Episcopal Oversight which provides a model through which parishes and congregations
that dissent from a decision on the blessing of same-sex unions made by their dioceses
can be placed, temporarily, under the care of a bishop from outside the diocese.
The model described in Shared Episcopal Oversight also provides for a process of
reconciliation where agreement between certain parishes or congregations and the
diocese’s bishop cannot be reached. In both cases, the diocesan bishop is involved in the
process.
216
217
The document says that “shared Episcopal ministry” is based on a spirit of

reconciliation, cooperation and good will.
The meeting of Anglican bishops is held twice a year and brings together bishops
from each of the Canadian Anglican church’s 30 dioceses from across the country.
(Courtesy Anglican Journal)
217
218
Peter Akinola:
A Response to the Windsor Report from Archbishop Peter Akinola, the Primate
of All Nigeria and Chairman of the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa.
Released on Tuesday, October 19, 2004
I welcome the sincerity and hard work of those who have prepared ‘The Windsor
Report 2004.’ After an initial reading it is clear to me that the report falls far short of the
prescription needed for this current crisis. It fails to confront the reality that a small,
economically privileged group of people has sought to subvert the Christian faith and
impose their new and false doctrine on the wider community of faithful believers. We
have watched in sadness as sisters and brothers who have sought to maintain their
allegiance to the “faith once delivered to the saints” have been marginalized and
persecuted for their faith. We have been filled with grief as we have witnessed the decline
of the North American Church that was once filled with missionary zeal and yet now
seems determined to bury itself in a deadly embrace with the spirit of the age. Instead of a
clear call for repentance we have been offered warm words of sentimentality for those
who have shown no godly sorrow for their actions and harsh words of condemnation for
those who have reached out a helping hand to friends in need of pastoral and spiritual
care.
Why, throughout the document, is there such a marked contrast between the
language used against those who are subverting the faith and that used against those of
us, from the Global South, who are trying to bring the church back to the Bible? Where
are the expressions of deep concern for the men and women whose witness is jeopardized
and whose lives are at risk because of the actions of ECUSA? Where are the words of
“deep regret” for the impact of ECUSA’s actions upon the Global South and our
missionary efforts? Where is the language of rebuke for those who are promoting sexual
sins as holy and acceptable behaviour? The imbalance is bewildering. It is wrong to use
equal language for unequal actions.
The report correctly notes that the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of New
Westminster have pushed the Anglican Communion to the breaking point. It rightly states
that they did not listen to the clear voices of the Communion and rejected the counsel of
all four Instruments of Unity. Therefore it is surprising that the primary recommendation
of the report is “greater sensitivity” instead of heartfelt repentance. Already the Presiding
Bishop of ECUSA has stated that he sees no need to halt welcoming practicing
homosexuals into all orders of ministry! In addition, the bishop of New Westminster has
indicated that same sex blessings will continue. Thus they are hell bent on destroying the
fabric of our common life and we are told to sit and wait.
We have been asked to express regret for our actions and “affirm our desire to
remain in the Communion” How patronizing! We will not be intimidated. In the absence
of any signs of repentance and reform from those who have torn the fabric of our
Communion, and while there is continuing oppression of those who uphold the Faith, we
218
219
cannot forsake our duty to provide care and protection for those who cry out for our help.
The Bible says that two cannot walk together unless they are agreed. The report
rightly observes that if the “call to halt” is ignored “then we shall have to begin to learn to
walk apart.” The Episcopal Church and Diocese of New Westminster are already walking
alone on this and if they do not repent and return to the fold, they will find that they are
all alone. They will have broken the Anglican Communion.
I am disappointed that an important report that was requested by the Primates

who gathered at Lambeth Palace last October was not first submitted to us for prayerful
consideration. Instead it has been released to the entire world as if it were the final word
on this troubling matter. However, before the next meeting of the Primates in February, I
will now take it to the All Africa Bishops Conference that will gather in Lagos from
October 26th/31st and we will have further opportunity to speak to the crisis created by
the North American Church.
We commend the future of our Communion to the hands of almighty God and the
prayers of all.
219
220
Marilyn Adams:
How to quench the Spirit
The Windsor report calls for a suppression of honest discernment, argues Marilyn
Adams
THE Windsor report proposes a new polity for the Anglican Communion, one
that translates the poetry of mutual affection and nostalgia for Canter-bury into
institutional structures that move in the direction of international canon law.
What was formerly a loose federation of legally independent Churches would

now be bound together by a Covenant, which would be given legal status by each of the
member Churches’ passing a canon to observe it. Just as the UN uses the doctrine of
human rights to critique the legal practices of member states, so the Covenant would hold
member Churches to "essentials", while allowing them autonomy over matters of
indifference.
The Covenant would oblige members to submit innovations in theology or ethics

to the "Instruments of Unity" (the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference,
the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Primates’ Meeting). It also implies that the
selection of bishops would be subject to the approval of these Communion-wide
authorities. Compliance would be enforced on pain of excommunication from the
Anglican Communion.
So far from a way forward, this proposal is pernicious: it brings us too close for
Anglican comfort to the coercive and authoritarian structures of Rome.
THE Windsor report locates authority to discriminate the essential from the
indifferent in the Instruments of Unity. Its criterion for what violates essentials is what
disrupts the union and/or compromises the common good of the Anglican Communion.
What counts as essential thereby becomes a function of what the international bodies can
or cannot tolerate.
Once essentials are expanded beyond theological doctrines (such as are mentioned
in the creeds) to ethics and mores, the problem of how Christ relates to cultures looms
large. The Bible bears witness that difficulty in discriminating the Spirit of God from "the
spirit of this present age" applies to entrenched social patterns as much as to innovations.
Jesus’s inaugural sermon and his Synoptic Gospel ministry suggest that "release
for the captive" may well involve the undoing of long-standing taboos. The Gospels,
human history and the newspapers all bear witness: when taboos begin to unravel, the
process regularly arouses heated resistance. Because we have individually and
collectively defined ourselves in terms of these challenged ways of life, their
maintenance can seem like a matter of life and death.
220
221
The structures proposed in the Windsor report invite those who want to stop the
process of change before it reshapes the Church to appeal for allies from other cultures
where the taboos are still firmly in place. It contains no comparable provision for
individual and Communion-wide self-examination; no provision for systematically
exhorting member Churches to uproot taboos that oppress.
In the best of circumstances, even among those of similar backgrounds, fresh

consensus on issues of race, gender and sex is the work of decades. The Windsor report’s
built-in demand that member Churches wait — on pain of exclusion from the
consultative councils of the Communion — for multicultural consensus would have the
consequence of quenching the Spirit.
The authoritarian tone of the Windsor report is further sounded in its demand that
both sides compromise their integrity for the sake of unity and the common good. It is
one thing to express regret that others were hurt; this is a ready response of human
benevolence and Christian love. It is another to acknowledge responsibility for hurting
someone by my actions, and to submit to a "cease-and-desist" order on further actions of
that kind.
The latter seems to agree that I have done something wrong, and that the thought-
process that led me to it was in error. But ECUSA does not believe that it has wronged
the Anglican Communion by consecrating Bishop Gene Robinson; the diocese of New
Westminster does not agree that it has violated an obligation by authorising rites for
blessing same-sex partnerships; and bishops acted in conscience when they entered other
dioceses to provide pastoral care.
The Windsor report calls for a suppression of honest discernment, contrary to the
mystery of the gospel that calls us to discern for all we’re worth, and to live up to the
light that is in us.
Current disagreements should remind us how all merely human discernment —

not only individual, but collective — is fallible. Where positions are diametrically
opposed, both parties can’t be right. Worldwide cultural flux should combine with
vigorous multi-culturalism within Anglicanism to warn us against demanding too much
agreement from one another. Instead, we should stick with the loose federation that has
enabled us to work together to meet the world crises of war, hunger, poverty, disease and
dislocation in the past.
Canon Marilyn McCord Adams is Regius Professor of Divinity in the University

of Oxford.
Source: By Canon Marilyn Adams in the Church Times

Date: 29/10/2004
221
222
Oliver O’Donnovan:
The only poker-game in town
1. The Lambeth Commission was asked to make a theological and legal

discernment of a particular situation, describing that situation in an analytical way that
would prepare for a practical decision by the Primates and A.C.C. Their work, we may
say, is a service rendered to the episcopê of the Anglican churches, aimed towards an act
of judgment that would address the offence they have given one another and make space
for them to return to fellowship. It is not a servuce to its didachê, or ministry of the word.
It needs hardly to be added that the Commission was asked to accomplish its task under
very great time-pressure, while the fellowship of the Anglican Communion was
continuing to rupture around it.
Precisely because their task was to provide the organs of episcope with what they
needed for a practical judgment, the Commission were bound to present their
discernment in as objective and cautious a fashion as it would bear. It is strange to
discover that some critics of the Report hoped that it would produce a thunderous,
barnstorming vindication of their stance, and found it, notwithstanding its international
authorship, annoyingly “English” in its style – as severe a criticism, it would seem, as any
that could be conceived of in the now heated discourse of the Anglican Communion. This
expectation was, of course, quite misplaced. The document had to perform a judicial
function, and would have forfeited its credibility had it at any point overstated a position
or resorted to the rhetoric of denunciation. Yet its low-key manner allowed a certain
clarity of timbre in its comments on the behaviour of the primary actors which stands out
the more memorably for not being drowned out in a general acoustic boom.
2. It is true, as some critics have said, that the theological foundations of the
report are limited to a briefly-sketched recapitulation of a now familiar communion-
ecclesiology. (There is, of course, more theology than appears in the foundations:
discussions of adiaphora, authority, subsidiarity and trust are all conducted in a usefully
theological manner.) The Commission might certainly have explored more fully the
Christological basis of the church; it might have done more with tradition; it might have
had something to say about the Holy Spirit; it could with profit have elaborated its
account of sin, repentance and forgiveness. But when? Such things, if they are to be done
well by a committee, need prolonged discussion, and the limited time available to the
Commission was devoted to listening to the chief actors in the drama. It was, therefore, a
wise strategic decision to tap into a well-established tradition of ecclesiological reflection
at a fairly downstream point, and to allow much of what upstream to be assumed. The
Anglican Communion is not, after all, short on piles of paper dealing with those other
topics in a largely consensual way.
Would it have made a difference to their conclusions if they had taken a different
path through the theological resources – if, for example, they had stressed the prophetic
role of the church breaking new boundaries under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? That
question supposes that they were engaged in a deductive process. Moral theologians
222
223
know very well the truth of the adage: deduction is seduction. In practical reason the
relation between the the general and the particular is not a deduction but a recognition,
the Kantian “Urteil”, the Thomistic “subsumption”. It is not a matter of starting with
general categories and then, by feeding in factual information, proceeding to derive an
interpretation of the concrete situation from them; it is rather a question of making sense
of a concrete situation by referring it back to general categories that sufficiently describe
it.
The centre of gravity in the Commission’s work was precisely their discernment
of the situation. That was as it should be, as is clear from the opening words of the
Archbishop’s Mandate. Their duty was to provide an account of that situation as they
discerned it, using theological reference points to make it clear what the implications of
the situation were. Other people might have made other discernments and given other
accounts, drawing on other theological reference points. But this was the theological
repertoire appropriate to the discernment actually made by the Commission charged with
making it.
3, It was essential that their discernment of the crisis in the Communion over
homosexuality should not prescind from, or prejudge, future reflection on the substantial
question of sexual morality.
Astonishingly, it appears that some critics expected this Report to pronounce
conclusively not only on the tangled ecclesiological situation but on the moral status of
gay unions and gay lifestyles, too. The Commission were emphatic (§43) that this lay
outside their brief. I can only think that the expectation reflects how little the
complexities of that question are generally grasped. As one who has dabbled in them
from time to time, I am inclined to say, meaning no disrespect, that if the church wanted
wisdom on that topic, it would have not have done well to ask this group of people in
these pressured circumstances to produce it.
The church does, of course, want wisdom on it. The Commission adds its voice to
a series of authoritative calls (among them the Lambeth bishops in 1998 and the Primates
in 2003) for ongoing study. The shape and direction of such study is very difficult to
envisage, yet somehow it has to be helped to happen and given the time to mature. In a
rather sharp comment (§33) the Commission makes it clear that they think the actions of
the Canadian and American churches remarkably unaccompanied by reflective
explanation or interpretative commentary.
Nobody reading Resolution 1.10 of Lambeth 1998 – and I am among those who
read it sympathetically and appreciatively – could seriously pretend that it was supposed
to represent the last word about homosexuality or about the church’s pastoral practice in
relation to its homosexual members. It simply set responsible bounds within which we
could approve one another’s pastoral practice in good conscience to Scripture and
tradition while continuing to explore together a phenomenon of extreme cultural and
anthropological complexity. The difficulty the church faces with such an exploration is
that left and right wings, in almost equal measure, seem to think that there is nothing to
explore. Either Scripture and Tradition have Settled it Once and for All (though how well
our phenomena match those that Scripture and tradition addressed is an open question
223
224
until we have learned to describe our phenomena better); or else Science has Taught us
Better, (though no one can quite remember what the scientific experiments were, or what
they were supposed to have demonstrated). Our greatest difficulty is that we all follow
faithfully the ironic advice of Hilaire Belloc: O let us never, never doubt What nobody is
sure about!
If anyone thinks that a prolonged exploration would simply hand a victory to

revisionists, let me recall that in 1997 a group of British theologians (“traditionalists” as
the press would call them) put some questions, chiefly about theological anthropology, to
advocates of the gay cause in the churches – hoping for a reply that would bring to clear
expression gay thinking about the gay position and so provide something to discuss. I
was among the authors of the so-called “St. Andrew’s Day Statement”
<http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/index.php?p=1012#comments> – and to
the best of my knowledge the questions I and my colleagues then asked have not received
the first shred of an answer. The Christian gay movement is not, by and large, a self-
theorising movement. For that reason the distinctive experience it wants to attest is often
inarticulately expressed, and easily swamped by a well-meaning liberal social agenda of
championing all minorities in sight, an agenda which is precisely uninterested in what
makes the gay experience different. All this poses a problem for the church, since it
means that any possibly helpful pastoral initiative risks signing up, unwittingly perhaps,
to a dogmatic revolution. In a world where nothing is clearly explained, all cheques are
blank.
4. At one point in his evidence to the Commission, the Presiding Bishop of

ECUSA reflected ruefully on the difficulty of functioning in an internet-dominated
environment, in which whatever is done excites instant reaction from the other side of the
world where the context is not understood. The Commission itself, perhaps, has cause for
such rueful reflections, since its work appears to have been subjected to a great deal of
internet-reading, i.e. browse-reading without the facility to look back and compare
passages separated by several pages. The reader who can glance more or less
simultaneously at §§ 134 and 155:
the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to express its regret that the proper
constraints of the bonds of affection were breached….
We call upon those bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty to intervene
in provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own to express regret for the
consequences of their actions.
will not be impressed by the claim that the Commission treats the actions of the
Episcopal Church and those of the intervening bishops as morally equivalent. They are
not described in equivalent terms with respect to their subjective motives (breach of
affection is not the same as conscientious duty) and therefore they are not presented as
equivalently regrettable (what was done is to be regretted in the one case, what ensued is
to be regretted in the other).
224
225
5. This bears on the more substantive and interesting criticism that the verb
“regret” is altogether too weak to convey a fully Christian repentance. Some critics, of
course, wanted the Commission to demand repentance for believing homosexuality to be
acceptable, which, as we have seen, they regarded as beyond their brief. Yet laying that
aside, it is still clear that the actions of ECUSA which the Commission finds it in its brief
to criticise are intended to be repented of.
The choice of the verb “regret” is easily understood when the subject is an
institution, not an individual. The Episcopal Church (USA) does not have a conscience,
though its members do. It cannot feel compunction, though its members may. It does not
have a face to blush with shame. It does not have limbs to tremble before the wrath of
God. All the subjective experiences that can and may go with “repentance” are
inappropriate to an institutional body. An institution, we may say, repents simply by
regretting – i.e. by repudiating its own past actions.
Yet this act of institutional regret is to be regarded as an aspect of the whole
Christian baptismal duty to reject sin and turn to Christ.
That is made unambiguously clear in §134, where it is said in explanation for the
Commission’s requiring this act of regret is that “the imperatives of communion” are “the
repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ”.
It has been said that this expression of regret will be too easy for the Episcopal
Church to make, ergo the Commission got it wrong. It has also been said that it is
impossible for the Episcopal Church to make, ergo the Commission got it wrong. Well,
we shall see. But bonds of affection are bonds of charity, and the “proper constraints of
the bonds of affection” are the restraints of love which should warn us from actions that
will hurt Christ’s body. To admit that these “constraints… were breached” in the election
and consecration of a bishop for New Hampshire is to admit quite simply that the
Episcopal Church failed to act out of charity – than which no more serious admission can
be made. The English language will not tolerate the paraphrase: “We did it, and there was
a row. What a pity!” An admission made strictly in the terms that the Commission
requests would be seriously worth having; and it would contribute decisively to the
healing of the body of Christ – on which depends the very possibility of tackling the
underlying issues constructively.
Everybody will find frustrating moments in the Windsor Report. Some have felt
that it was gullible in accepting the arrangements for alternative oversight offered within
ECUSA, a point on which I cannot form a view.
For myself, I am sorry that it did not take up the suggestion that the consecration
of Gene Robinson was defective, given the obvious lack of intention on the part of the
consecrating bishops to make a Bishop of New Hampshire acceptable to the universal
church – though I enjoyed the gingerly reference to “the present occupant of the See”.) I
was irritated by its pussyfooting attitude to the phrase “the authority of Scripture”,
problematic only to those who don’t understand how the word “authority” is normally
used. Yet all in all, as an experienced, if reluctant, reader of church reports, I think the
Anglican Communion has bought itself an up-market article in Windsor - as good as it
was going to find anywhere, and perhaps a little better. In coherence of argument,
225
226
lucidity of prose and balance of judgment it scores high. And – perhaps the most
important thing – its recommendations for strengthening the Instruments of Unity and
securing the situation by a covenant in church law, are bold and imaginative. To crown it
all, what we had no reason to expect, it is unanimous.
But whether or not my favourable judgment is shared, it is, as they like to say, the
only poker-game in town. If we want to have an Anglican Communion of any kind (and
what we will have if we don’t have that, is not at all clear to me), we had better go along
with its recommendations.
–Oliver O’Donovan
<http://resources.theology.ox.ac.uk/staff.phtml?lecturer_code=Oodonovan>
is Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology at the University of Oxford
and Canon of Christ Church.
226
227
NT Wright:
by Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham and member of the Lambeth Commission
The main reason the Lambeth Commission was asked to talk about communion
life and structures rather than about sex was because there would have been no point in
doing the latter. The Lambeth Conference 1998 had already reaffirmed the church's
stance on the subject, by a very substantial majority; and this had in turn been underlined
by the ACC. The Primates had then made it very clear that to break this line in the case of
Gene Robinson would have enormous and damaging implications for the Communion,
and the Archbishop of Canterbury had reinforced this. Thus all four 'instruments of unity'
had already spoken; what more could the Commission have said? If they do not hear
Lambeth and the Primates, neither will they be convinced even if Robin Eames were to
rise up and repeat it all.
We were thus in the position of Paul, not in 1 Corinthians, addressing ethical

issues head on, but in 2 Corinthians, addressing the second-order issue of what happens
when a church has resisted such authority structures as it has. Just as Paul has to go back
to first base and explain the nature of his apostolic authority, so the Commission had to
go back to first base and explain why the Lambeth Conference and the other three
Instruments of Unity are what they are, how they have come to function, and more
especially how they enable the church to carry forward God's mission to the world. The
charge against ECUSA and New Westminster at this level was precisely not that they had
acted in certain ways in relation to same-sex relationships; that was presupposed. As in 2
Corinthians, the charge this time is that by acting the way they did they were ignoring
such structures of authority as we possess, which being Anglicans we prefer to articulate
not in terms of a top-down Curial structure but in terms of the well-known and long-
established 'bonds of affection'.
They have been asked to express regret for doing so, and to promise not to do so
again. I leave it to semantic pedants whether this means 'repentance' or not, but I have to
say that when I tell God and my neighbour that I regret breaking the high call of love and
promise not to do so again that looks and feels pretty much like repentance to me. And
that, of course, is precisely what the expressions of regret currently coming from
Griswold and Robinson are not doing; they regret that some people were upset, much in
the same way that when I'm driving lawfully down the road I regret that someone' s pet
mouse ran out in front of me and was killed; that is, I regret the hurt but am not guilty,
and will continue to drive at the same speed down the same road. My sense from this
point is that by explicitly not expressing the 'regret' they have been asked to express they
are setting a tone, which I hope ECUSA and NW will not adopt but fear they may, which
will simply result in us reaching the questions of paragraph 157 sooner rather than later.
From that point of view, all that the 'orthodox' will have to do is to hang on and wait and
see whether those charged will draw the logical conclusions of their actions (as I said in
my article in the Guardian today), i.e. that having ignored the Instruments of Unity they
should now withdraw from participating in them.
227
228
Because the issue of the Report is about structures of authority, it was and
remains important that we also said something about those who have invaded other
dioceses. As Josiah Fearon has made clear in an interview, there were plenty of people on
the Commission who did not see this as an 'equal' or 'even-handed' question; Josiah's
image about someone breaking into a neighbour's house to rescue their children from a
fire was used, and though the Commission as a whole didn't sign up to that there was a lot
of sympathy for it. However, we must recognize - as I know from first-hand experience -
that there are some Anglicans who have for some time been looking for a chance to set
up independent networks and structures, and have engaged in aggressive planting which
cannot be justified by this or other particular emergencies. I know this is not what (for
instance) Bob Duncan and many others in the US were doing, but the Commission was
aware of a wide spectrum of cross-boundary activity and wasn't about to engage in
detailed analysis of different movements and actions. The point is this: since ECUSA and
NW had forced us to look at structures of authority, bonds of affection, and so on, we
could not ignore the fact that Lambeth and the Primates had also urged members of the
Communion not to invade one another's territory, and that some had nevertheless gone
ahead and done so. If we are to live with the instruments of unity we currently possess -
and I know there are some who would like us to invent new and more solid structures, but
we have to start where we are, not where we aren't - then it is vital, precisely if we want
those instruments to work in terms of the rebuke now issued to ECUSA and NW, that we
all sign up ourselves to living within them and making them function to the glory of God
and the work of the gospel. In fact, if you look carefully at paragraphs 134 and 144, and
then at pargraph 155, you will see that we are precisely not asking for an 'equal and
opposite' statement. In fact, paragraph 155 simply asks the invading bishops for an
expression of regret for the consequences of their actions, i.e. the anger and frustration of
those who were genuinely trying to make DEPO work, etc., not for regret that they did
them. (I know, by the way, that there are several different viewpoints about DEPO. The
Commission was assured by the one of our members who was in the best position to
know, and who we trusted deeply, that though there were a few places where difficulties
were being experienced, one in particular, every effort was now being made to put it into
practice and that in general this was working well.)
I fully appreciate - as those who know my writings on other subjects will realize -
that there are massive theological cleavages within American Christianity and that these
are not going to go away. I am also horribly aware that this comes at a time when
American society is polarized as seldom before in the run-up to an election, and that
many in America see all ethical issues in a straightforward way in terms of their own
particularly cultural and political packages. This puts many of us in an impossible
position when, for instance, we remain implacably opposed both to American's actions in
Iraq and to same-sex blessings. It is vital, for the health of Christianity worldwide, that
the rest of the Communion refuses to be drawn into this false and trivializing presentation
and polarization, and gets on with the tasks the Commission urges upon it, i.e. the work
of the gospel and the serious reading of scripture. We need to take courage; not to lose
our nerve; to hold on and see the new work that God will do.
Rt Revd Dr N Thomas Wright
228
229
Bishop of Durham, member of the Lambeth Commission

Saturday 23 October 2004
229
230
Anglican Communion Institute:

Call to Life Together: The Choice facing the Episcopal Church--USA, November
2, 2004
The Windsor Report offers a clear choice to North American Anglicans: "walking
together" with the Anglican Communion, or "walking apart". It is important to
understand that this choice is not part of the Report's "recommendations." It is a
description of what in fact lies before the churches of our Communion at this point in
time.
"Walking together" literally represents an actual life of "synodality." "Synod life

in Christ" means taking counsel together, mutual subjection in matters that concern the
whole Communion, self-restraint from acts of destructive autonomy, and a commitment
to "repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation" among churches in the Communion.
"Walking apart" constitutes a continued adherence to actions that "deny the bonds of
communion," and "breach the legitimate application of the Christian faith as the churches
of the Anglican communion have received it," and which, finally violate the "principle of
interdependence."
The choice between walking together and walking apart is thus not something the
Report considers properly subject to some process of local discernment within various
Provinces - as might be the particulars of its recommendations. Rather, the choice stands
as the fundamental starting point for this process of discernment itself. It cannot and must
not be put off, if the Communion's life is to be respected and upheld. And those bishops,
priests, and leaders of our North American churches are thereby either naïvely or
irresponsibly distracting their flocks from this basic decision by deferring its articulation
to some point beyond the present. No one should be under any illusion but that the shape
of this choice - already made or deferred - will inform the outcome of the Primates
Meeting in February, 2005, and thus the very shape of the Anglican Communion of the
quite immediate future.
Just as the Report itself "calls on" Anglican churches around the world to "halt
and find ways of continuing in our present communion," so we call on bishops, diocesan
standing committees, diocesan conventions, and local parishes within the American
Anglican context, to make their choice for "walking together," and to do so formally and
publicly without delay.
To this end, we offer the following two resources:
First, a draft "Statement of Regret": to be signed and issued by any bishop,

diocesan standing committee, diocesan convention, or congregation who has either
openly affirmed the acts of General Convention 2003 (and related actions) that have
contributed to the current crisis in the Communion, or who has failed to state their public
opposition to them. The Statement could rightly be issued by any bishop, diocese, or
other representative group or individual in these churches who are committed to being
230
231
identified with the ongoing life of the Anglican Communion.

Second, an Affirmation of Compliance to the Anglican Communion's common
life, to be made by a bishop, diocesan standing committee, diocesan convention, or
congregation, most suitably within the context of a liturgical act.
This Affirmation calls on all members of ECUSA and the Anglican Church of
Canada to encourage their leaders to adopt some appropriate version of these statements
and affirmations as soon as possible, before the gathering of the Primates' Meeting in
February 2005.
I. Proposed Statement of Regret

We, as [a] bishop[s]/diocese/congregation of the Episcopal Church (USA)
wishing to signal our desire that the Episcopal Church (USA) remain within the Anglican
Communion, welcome the Windsor Report and its call to the imperatives of communion -
the repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ.
We see in the Report's vision of life in communion under the supreme authority of
Scripture a commitment we share. We recognize in its account of our current illness,
symptoms within our part of the body of Christ. We welcome its call to respond to the
hurt and offence that have resulted from recent events in order that we may walk together
rather than walk apart.
We regret that, in consenting to/affirming the election and consecration of Gene

Robinson to the See of New Hampshire, we in ECUSA have breached the proper
constraints of the bonds of communion.
We also regret the hurt and alienation and other painful consequences that
followed from our breaching of the bonds of communion in this way.
We recognize that ordination is to the whole church and so we commit ourselves

not to repeat this breach.
We affirm we will neither ordain nor consent to the consecration of any

unmarried, non-celibate persons.
We regret that General Convention declared it within the bounds of our common
life to explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions.
We recognize that to proceed unilaterally with the authorization of public Rites of

Blessing for same sex unions before such time as there is consensus within the
Communion permitting this constitutes action in breach of the legitimate application of
the Christian faith as the churches of the Anglican Communion have received it and a
breach of the bonds of affection in the life of the Communion.
We affirm that, as [a] bishop[s]/diocese/congregation of the Anglican

Communion, we will honor the Primates' Pastoral Letter and the call of the Windsor
231
232
Report and not authorize public Rites of Blessing for same sex unions.
II. An Affirmation of Compliance to Life in Communion

This Affirmation can be made in a number of contexts, but is properly done
within the context of corporate prayer. We suggest doing so as part of the Prayers of the
People in the Eucharist; as part of a formal Litany before the Eucharist; or as part of the
prayers during the Daily Office prayed in common. (Advent of this year is an obvious
season for repentance and renewed commitment to Christ in Communion.)
The following suggested prayers are based on various elements in the Windsor
Report itself as it discusses the reality and character of communion itself.
A brief litany of commitment to life within the Anglican Communion (to be

adapted in form of address as appropriate)
We give thanks for the communion we share in Christ, offered to us in this

fellowship of Anglican churches around the world, and rooted in the common life of God,
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
We gratefully accept the divine obligations of this gift of communion, and

beseech God's grace in complying with their purpose and in fulfilling them before the
eyes of the world.
We repent of all words and actions on our part and on the part of our churches
that would put in question the divine authority under which we live, deny the fabric of
our communion and breach the bonds of our mutual affections.
We commit ourselves to a life worthy of the communion we share: avoiding

actions of our own that would break our relations with others, submitting to common
counsel within the Anglican Communion on matters that touch the larger body,
nourishing the marks of our common identity, respecting the instruments that maintain
our unity, and seeking amongst one another a common mind in Christ.
We ask God to bless the Anglican Communion of which we are a part, to use it
faithfully as a sign of God's own mission in the world, and to preserve our own ministries
in charity and truth within its midst.
232
233
Province of the Southern Cone:

Resolution of Provincial Synod of the Southern Cone,
Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia,
2-4 November 2004
FULL SUPPORT OF THE PROVINCE FOR ITS PRIMATE
As a synod we give thanks for the Windsor Report and all those that were committed to
its preparation. It offers valuable tools to the Communion with which our serious
problems can be addressed regarding the authority of the Scripture, order in the Church
and
the crisis over human sexuality that two provinces of the Communion have created by
taking “rebellious and unilateral actions".
Nevertheless it worries us that the report has not made a clearer call to repentance on the
part of the Episcopal Church of the United States and the Anglican Church of Canada.
They are the ones that have clearly taken decisions and endorsed practices against the
Holy Scriptures and the apostolic tradition of two thousand years of ethical teaching of
the Church and against the clear voice of the Communion. This synod insists on what our
bishops said in their pastoral letter of February 2004, that our relationship with these
provinces “can only be restored through repentance, pardon and love".
In addition it is our hope that the Primates will set down mechanisms and limits by which
the unity of the Communion can be assured in the future.
This synod, conscious that the next meeting of the Primates, that will take place
in Ireland in February of 2005, will need clear consultation from all over the
Communion and observing the need that those parts of the Church, especially in the
Americas, that have remained faithful in their life and testimony - as many dioceses,
bishops, parishes and individuals have - should receive adequate pastoral care, give our
Primate, the Most Reverend Gregory Venables, our full and total support in his
responsibilities, consultations and tasks. We pray that the Lord will be with him and fill
him with grace and wisdom.
233
234
CAPA: meeting of African Anglican Primates

We are gathered at an extraordinary and historic meeting of Anglican Bishops
from all over Africa. We do so grateful for the Faith once delivered to the saints and the
generosity of those who first brought the good news of Jesus Christ to the African
continent.
We have come to celebrate the coming of age of the Church in Africa and we look
forward to taking our rightful place in the various councils of the wider church. In that
context we have received the Windsor Report prepared at the Primates' request and in
preparation for our meeting in February we offer the following preliminary reflections:
• We are very grateful for the hard work of the Commission members and
the dedicated servant leadership offered by the Most Reverend Robin Eames. We believe
that the Windsor Report offers a way forward that has the potential of being marked with
God's grace.
• We believe that the Windsor Report correctly points out that the Episcopal
Church USA and the Diocese of New Westminster have pushed the Anglican
Communion to the breaking point. The report rightly states that they did not listen to the
clear voices of the Communion, rejected the Counsel of the four Instruments of Unity and
ignored the plea of the Primates of the Global South in their statements issued on October
16th and November 2nd, 2003.
• We call on the Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of
Canada to take seriously the need for “repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation
enjoined on us by Christ” (Windsor Report [134]) and move beyond informal expressions
of regret for the effect of their actions to a genuine change of heart and mind. Failure to
do so would indicate that they have chosen to “walk alone” and follow another religion.
• We note with approval that the Windsor Report calls for a moratorium on
the election and consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in same
gender union and the use of rites for the blessing of same-sex unions. We urge the
Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada to take this call to heart
mindful of Lambeth Resolution 1.10 “We cannot advise the legitimizing or blessing of
same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions.” Failure to do so
would indicate that they have chosen to “walk alone.”
• The Windsor Report acknowledges the great pain that has been inflicted
upon faithful communities that have resisted doctrinal innovations within Episcopal
Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada. However, we reject the moral
equivalence drawn between those who have initiated the crisis and those of us in the
Global South who have responded to cries for help from beleaguered friends. To call on
us to “express regret” and reassert our commitment to the Communion is offensive in
light of our earlier statements. If the Episcopal Church USA had not willfully “torn the
fabric of our communion at its deepest level” our actions would not have been necessary.
• We note with approval the recognition that extraordinary episcopal care is
needed for congregations alienated from their diocesan bishops. We remain convinced
that the adequacy of that care should be determined by those who receive it, and we are
looking for clear evidence that the Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight proposal is
effective by this measure.
• We are encouraged by the suggestions offered for restructuring the various
234
235
instruments of unity to strengthen our common life. We look forward to the day when the
voices of the majority of the Anglican Communion are adequately represented in those
various instruments.
We are committed to the future life of the Anglican Communion, one that is
rooted in truth and charity, and faithfulness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
235
236
Episcopal Church of Burundi:

[EEB Press] The Episcopal Church of Burundi wishes to express appreciation for the
Windsor Report, and to congratulate the Lambeth Commission that produced it. It is an
interesting, coherent, and sensitive report that challenges the Communion to dialogue
constructively as a way forward.
The Episcopal Church of Burundi remains totally committed to the Anglican Communion
and will continue to endeavour to “keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace”
(Ephesians 4 v 3). We should always be mindful of the Gospel imperative to maintain
unity and communion that is rooted in truth and love.
We are called to be a “holy, catholic and apostolic” church and to affirm the authority of
Scripture and the traditional teachings of the Church. Though we recognise the principle
of unity in diversity, Scripture should remain our guide in all matters of ethics and
decision making. We affirm the autonomous status of each Province. However, decisions
taken by individual Provinces should not impair the unity that we enjoy within the
Communion. As has become apparent, we ignore Biblical teaching, the Apostolic Faith,
and Church practice at our peril, and compromise the cohesion of our communion.
We regret the unilateral decisions that have proved so divisive and have polarised
Christians and threatened the future of the Anglican Communion. These decisions have
also threatened relationships with other denominations, and the mission and witness of
the Church in a world that is already confused in areas of sexuality, morality and
theology.
All through the debate on human sexuality the Episcopal Church of Burundi has
prayerfully encouraged unity, understanding and dialogue within the household of God.
As human beings we are all vulnerable to sin. As Christians we are called to exercise the
love of Christ in all our relationships and to pray with love that the Spirit of God will
change the sinner who repents. We acknowledge the importance of care and compassion
for all members of the Church and the need for a pastoral response to the many within the
Church who struggle with issues relating to sexuality, especially those who feel isolated,
and fear rejection and loneliness.
The recent African Anglican Bishops’ Conference in Nigeria rightly emphasised that
there are many issues currently concerning the Church, and especially the Church in
Africa. As those called to mission in the world, we need to show a willingness to join
together in the work of the Kingdom. We should encourage one another to share the
resources that God has entrusted to us, whether they are human, material or financial, for
the benefit of all.
Finally, we heed the call to seek reconciliation and healing, and to find ways to walk
together in a way that honours the name of Christ whom we seek to serve.
Issued: Bujumbura 3 November 2004
The Most Revd Samuel Ndayisenga
236
237
Archbishop of Burundi
Bishop of Down and Dromore:
The Windsor Report was presented to the Anglican Communion on St Luke’s
Day, 18 October 2004, just over a week ago. At that point, I made a personal decision not
to comment publicly on it until I had the opportunity to read the report in full, and reflect
on it. The Windsor Report does not lend itself to a précis, and the report itself does not
include any simplistic ‘bullet point’ summary. Sadly and unhelpfully, some of the early
responses, led off by Jack Spong in The Times, seemed to be knee-jerk reactions of those
who were scouring the report for what they wanted it to say.
First of all, I believe this is a first-rate report, given the parameters of what is
possible within the Anglican Communion. Its structure is superb, beginning with a
lengthy section which establishes, as well as I have ever seen it established, a biblical
understanding of the communion which we believers have been given in Christ. At a time
when our valued communion as Anglicans is threatened, it is important to establish
exactly what communion is, how God has established it for Christians, and how it might
be preserved in the life of the Church. Over the past months there had been thoughts that
this Commission might offer us a model which is much less than communion – for
example a ‘federation’ model- but this chapter makes it clear that we want nothing less
for the church than the will of Jesus Christ for unity.
The report then goes on to use a medical analogy to understand the present
situation, looking at the ‘illness’ which has befallen us. Basically the problem is defined
as the fact that decisions about serious and contentious issues have been carried out by
some parts of our Communion, without a full recognition of the expressed Anglican
position. So some provinces have gone down a road of excessive autonomy which has
not given enough weight to our interdependence. In strong words the report states: ‘What
is done in one place can and does affect all’. The two focal issues have been the
consecration of Gene Robinson, a person who is in a publicly acknowledged homosexual
relationship, to be Bishop of New Hampshire, and the blessing of same sex relationships,
especially in the Canadian diocese of New Westminster.
The report correctly points out that these are areas in which the Communion has
declared its view clearly through The Lambeth Conference, The Primates’ Meeting and
The Archbishop of Canterbury. Both churches concerned knew exactly what the views of
the Communion were and were warned of the dangers of continuing down this path, but
went ahead, knowing that in the unanimous warning of the Primates it could ‘tear the
fabric of our Communion at its deepest level’. The report also makes clear that it is not
possible to have recourse to the doctrine of ‘reception’ in an area on which the church has
clearly declared its mind.
The Windsor Report provides a way forward in this difficult situation, which I
believe should be welcomed. First of all, there needs to be a recognition by those
involved with regard to what has actually happened, and a recognition of the results of
their actions.
237
238
The particular actions concerned are spelt out in black and white:
The Episcopal Church (USA) proceeded with the consecration of Gene Robinson
The 74th Convention of the Episcopal Church (USA) declared that “local faith
experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions”.
The Diocese of New Westminster approved of the use of public rites of Blessing
for same sex unions.
The General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada issued a statement
affirming the integrity and sanctity of committed same sex relationships.
A number of primates and other bishops have taken it upon themselves to
intervene in the affairs of other provinces of the Communion.
It is important at this stage, in my view, to separate out the fifth of these from the
others. One criticism which has been made of the report (eg by Ruth Gledhill in The
Church of England Newspaper) is that it does not state clearly enough that the
intervention of other primates and bishops has been of a different order to the other
events, as it was essentially responsive to them. She says: “it is like making the man who
commits a crime in self-defence as guilty as the man who provoked the defence”. But the
context in which the interventionist bishops appear in the report, and the relatively small
amount of space given to their interventions do, in my view, establish both the order of
the events, and the logical order in which the responses will need to be received. The first
group we must hear from is ECUSA. We need the following from them, if this report is
to be effective:
a) An expression of ‘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. It is vital to note that
this expression of regret is placed in the context of ‘the repentance, forgiveness and
reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ’. The expressions of regret which were voiced
very quickly after the report was issued were, in my view, inadequate; with their basic
tenor ‘We’re sorry if you’re hurt’. The statement of regret must specifically include a
recognition of breaching the bonds of affection. It is also important to note that such a
clear expression of regret would be taken as a sign of a desire to remain in the
Communion. This of course, implies that, were such an expression of regret not
forthcoming it would be an indication that there is not such a desire. Who can express
this regret is an important question. It may need to be the General Convention.
b) Pending such an expression, those who were involved as consecrators of Gene

Robinson would be asked to withdraw themselves from representative functions in the
Anglican Communion. The Presiding Bishop, Frank Griswold, who presided at the
consecration, has already stepped down from his co-chairmanship of ARCIC (Anglican
Roman Catholic International Commission).
c) ECUSA would be invited to bring into effect a moratorium on the election and
238
239
ratification of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union, and
this moratorium would continue until ‘some new consensus in the Anglican Communion
emerges’. At this moment in time, it has to be said, such a consensus is most unlikely.
Such a moratorium would, of course, represent the other aspect of repentance: the
practical putting right of the situation.
The same kind of response is asked of the Diocese of New Westminster and in
other dioceses where bishops have authorized rites of same sex blessing.
The Archbishop of Canterbury himself had stated with regard to these that:
‘through liturgy we express what we believe, and… here is no theological consensus.
Therefore, we as a body cannot support the authorization of such rites’.
The Windsor Report also draws attention to what it calls ‘care of dissenting
groups’. In North America, there are many individual Christians, parishes, and indeed
dioceses which are not in agreement with developments which have been taking place.
These are faithful Anglicans. They include our own companionship diocese of Albany,
which voted at this year’s Convention to join the Network of Anglican Dioceses and
Parishes. This is intended to be a support system, approved by the Archbishop of
Canterbury, which will help dissenting parishes and dioceses. This section of the report
encourages the present Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO) pattern which
some bishops in ECUSA are operating, and others sadly have rejected. ‘DEPO’ preserves
the role of the diocesan bishop, while allowing pastoral oversight to be delegated to
another bishop for a period, where the ministry of the diocesan bishop is unacceptable.
One of the things which will test the desire of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican
Church in Canada to be part of the Anglican Communion will be the way in which it
respects and treats those within its own ranks who cannot accept the recent developments
which have taken place. The Anglican world is looking on carefully to see what happens
at this level.
The Windsor Report also asks that the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury be
seen as more than a figurehead. He should be a ‘focus of unity’. Rowan Williams will
have many difficult decisions to make, some of which are focused in this report. For
example, he will have to decide who is to be invited to Primates’ Meetings and the
Lambeth Conference in 2008. The suggestion is made that a Council of Advice be
created to support him in his decision-making, though no worked-out pattern of how this
council is to be chosen is given. Such a group would have to be chosen very carefully
indeed, so that the power of choice was not given by default to people with power in the
Anglican Communion Office or Lambeth, who may sometimes have particular interests.
Another issue which is raised by enhanced authority being given to the Archbishop of
Canterbury is the way in which the person in that office is chosen in the established
Church of England, and the role of the Prime Minister (who might have any beliefs or
none) in the selection. That is certainly a nettle which will need to be grasped in the
future.
A new’ Covenant’ has been drafted which would be a kind of ‘canon law’ for the
239
240
Anglican Communion. This, after the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth

Conference, the Anglican Communion Council and the Primates’ Meeting, would be the
fifth ‘instrument of communion’. The draft in the report will be looked at by the
Primates’ Meeting which will take place here in Northern Ireland in February, and
presumably honed at that time. Eventually, each autonomous province would have to sign
up to the “Covenant” in its entirety, and this would provide then an agreed means for
dealing with how we live in an interdependent communion. It needs to be recognized that
such a process could take up to ten years.
The Lambeth Commission on Communion was not asked to deal specifically with
issues of homosexuality, except insofar as this particular subject has been the trigger for
serious division within the Anglican Communion. Sometimes an impression is given that
the Anglican Communion has nothing to say about the issue as such, or is seeking to
avoid it. But the ‘official’ views of the Communion have been clearly stated in the
famous Lambeth Resolution 1.10, which is appended to the report. We are often
reminded (as though it is the forgotten part of the Resolution) that we are committed to a
listening process. That is true, and the Church of Ireland bishops individually and
corporately have been engaged in just such a process. But it may be useful to re-iterate
the teaching of the Anglican Communion on the subject of homosexuality, in case there
is any confusion:
a) Faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union is

upheld.
b) Abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage.
c) Many people with a homosexual orientation are members of the church, and are
seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God’s transforming power.
d) Homosexual practice is incompatible with scripture.
e) We need to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual

orientation.
f) We condemn irrational fear of homosexuals (what some call ‘homophobia’),

violence within marriage and any trivialization and commercialization of sex.
g) We cannot advise the legitimizing or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining
those involved in same gender unions.
In my view all these points are clear and easily understood, and there is no reason
to be confused, therefore, about what the Anglican Communion teaches on this subject.
At the Down and Dromore Diocesan synod last June, our diocese doubly committed itself
to the teaching of Lambeth 1.10 in a resolution.
Overall, I am most impressed by The Windsor Report, and not least the work of
our own Primate, Robin Eames, in chairing a very wide-ranging Commission and
240
241
bringing it to an agreed mind. That fact alone should make us realize how important it is
that the whole Communion gives the report the attention and serious consideration which
it undoubtedly deserves. My prayer is that the Windsor Report will be fully implemented
by all, and that the Anglican Communion which we hold dear would emerge strengthened
in its commitment to the Lord of the Church, Jesus Christ.
–The Rt. Rev. Harold Miller is bishop of Down and Dromore
241
242
Publications
242
243
Touchstone
Abusing the Fathers
The Windsor Report’s Misleading Appeal to Nicea
by William J. Tighe
A year ago, after the uproar over the consecration as bishop of New Hampshire of
the notorious Vicki Gene Robinson—the Episcopal priest who divorced his wife and
subsequently openly entered a homosexual relationship that continues to this day—the
Archbishop of Canterbury appointed a committee to look into the matter. The
consecration clearly contradicted the 1998 Lambeth Conference’s resolution declaring
such relationships to be incompatible with the Christian faith, and the “Lambeth
Commission” was to recommend ways in which the Anglican Communion could
maintain the highest possible degree of communion.
The ensuing “Windsor Report,” released on October 18, 2004, called for
moratoria on the ordination of all non-celibate homosexuals and on the approval of rites
for blessing same-sex “partnerships,” as well as for an end to the intervention of
traditionalist bishops (usually from Africa or Asia) in the dioceses of “revisionist”
bishops. It called both traditionalist and revisionist groups to express regret for their
actions, which were deemed to be incompatible with the tangible and intangible bonds
that held the Anglican Communion together.
Wright’s Defense
N. T. (“Tom”) Wright, the bishop of Durham in the Church of England, was a

member of the commission, and in various places since the issuance of the report has
defended it. He has for some years deservedly enjoyed the reputation of a first-rate
Scripture scholar who has been able to counteract and debunk revisionist—read, if you
will, heretical or anti-Christian—views of the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord and
of the authority of the Bible.
He appeals particularly to those “conservative evangelical” Christians who wish

to uphold a generally high view of the authority of Scripture in doctrine and morals, but
wish to leave room for some “developments,” such as the ordination of women, which
Wright supports.
Wright has, in particular, defended the report’s implicit censure of the

intervention of orthodox Anglican bishops in the dioceses of revisionist ones in the
United States and Canada. In a report published in the liberal-leaning English Roman
Catholic weekly The Tablet, he justified this censure on the basis that such interventions
were “in contravention not only of Anglican custom but of the Nicene decrees on the
subject.”
243
244
The theory of the inviolable integrity of diocesan boundaries has underpinned the
statements of more than one or two Episcopal bishops in recent years, such as Peter Lee
of Virginia and Neil Alexander of Atlanta. The result of the theory that “heresy is
preferable to schism” and “schism is worse than heresy” has been the belief among
influential conservative Anglicans that the faithful must put up with an unending stream
of doctrinal absurdities and moral enormities.
In an interview with Christianity Today, Wright insisted that “border crossings”

are not only “disruptive” but prohibited by the Council of Nicea. “And I think not a lot of
people know this, but it’s important to say this was a question that the early fathers faced
at the same time as they were hammering out the doctrine of the person of Jesus Christ,
and that they gave it their time to say people should not do this because that’s not how
episcopacy works.” He insisted that “the real charge” against the offending dioceses
is that they were going ahead with innovations without giving the proper
theological rationale, without paying attention to the rest of the communion, without
doing all the things which as Anglicans we all thought we were signed up to doing before
people make innovations. The bishops and archbishops who have intervened in other
people’s provinces and dioceses are, in effect, at that level making the same error.
The interviewer then noted that one theologian believed that, in the early Church,
orthodox bishops considered a heretical bishop’s see vacant and would go into his
diocese. “It’s not simply as easy as that, because who says that so-and-so is a false
teacher?” Wright responded. Bishop John Spong would describe the Evangelical former
Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, as “a false teacher. . . . So you have to have
some way of getting a handle on this and not simply one bishop saying that his next-door
neighbor is out of line and therefore he’s going to invade. That has never been the
Anglican way.”
As Bishop Wright’s grasp of the church fathers’ theory and practice seems a bit
weak in these areas—and as he was clearly the most scholarly member of the
commission—it may be useful to pursue the subject a bit further. Less can be said for the
church fathers’ support for the commission’s claims than Wright asserts.
A regrettable feature of the Windsor Report is its lack of documented notes and
references to back up its claims and assertions. For example, it simply cites “the ancient
norm of the Church” for its claims about the unity of all Christians in one place and for
its rationale against the intervention of outside bishops, without offering any evidence at
all. It never quotes any “Nicene decrees on the subject,” to use Bishop Wright’s phrase,
though an allusion to one of Nicea’s canons, of doubtful relevance, is tucked away in the
report.
Inapplicable Canons
The Council of Nicea, which met from May to August of a.d. 325 and is most
244
245
famous for its formulation of the original version of the Nicene Creed, also produced
twenty canons, or rules, to settle problems or fix abuses in the Church. Several of the
canons concern the relations of bishops with one another and of clergy with their bishops.
Significantly for the present case, none have any legal force in any contemporary
Anglican church.
But more importantly, none of them seem to have any real applicability to the
situation of the Anglican Communion, or the Episcopal Church, today. If any one of them
underlies Bishop Wright’s oblique reference, it must be Canon 16. Members of the
clergy, it declares,
who have the audacity, not considering the fear of God and not knowing the
Church’s rule, to abandon their churches, must not under any circumstances be received
in another church but by all means must be forced to return to their proper communities,
and if they refuse, they are to be properly excommunicated. In addition, if anyone dares
to take someone who is under the authority of another bishop and to ordain him in his
own church without the consent of the bishop in whose clergy he was enrolled, let the
ordination be regarded as null.
This canon obviously deals with “clergy flight” and “clergy poaching”: It assumes
a community of orthodox belief between the churches and bishops concerned, and says
nothing at all about interventions in churches whose bishops have abandoned orthodoxy
of belief and practice and have begun to oppress those of their flock who continue to
uphold it, even if that “oppression” consists only in contradicting that orthodoxy and
furthering those who teach and act against it.
But while I was puzzling over Wright’s invocation of this inapplicable canon, I
found an allusion to the eighth canon early in the report. In this passage, the report
deplores “ as now part of the problem we face” the breaking of communion with the
Episcopal Church by other Anglican churches, attempts by dissenters in America to
“distance themselves” from the Episcopal Church, and the interventions of archbishops
from other Anglican churches.
Then it comments: “This goes not only against traditional and oft-repeated
Anglican practice [alluding to the 1988 and 1998 Lambeth Conferences] but also against
some of the longest-standing regulations of the early undivided church (Canon 8 of
Nicea).”
The Pure Ones
So what does the canon say? It is one of the longer ones, and it concerns the re-
entry into the Church of “the so-called ‘pure ones’.” It required them to “promise in
writing to accept and to follow the rulings of the Catholic Church,” primarily to have
communion with those who renounced the faith during persecutions but had since been
given a period of penance and a date for their reconciliation with the Church.
245
246
In places that had only “pure ones” as clergy, they should keep their status, but if
a “pure one” wanted to be admitted to the clergy in a place that had “a bishop or a priest
of the Catholic Church . . . it is evident that the bishop of the Church should keep the
dignity of bishop.” A bishop of the “pure ones”
is to have the rank of priest unless the bishop consents to let him have the honor
of his title. But if he is not so disposed, let the bishop give him a place as a chorepiscopus
[i.e., a bishop who exercised some supervision over Christian communities in the rural
areas, while being himself subordinate to the bishop of a nearby city] or as a priest so that
he can appear as being integrated into the clergy. Without this provision, there would be
two bishops in the city.
“The pure ones” was the name given, perhaps self-given, to a schismatic group
known as the Novatianists. They originated in the aftermath of the great persecution—the
first empire-wide persecution—launched against the Church by the Roman Emperor
Decius in 249–251. Before that persecution, a Christian who renounced Christianity
under pressure and then wished to return to the Church could only be readmitted to the
Eucharist when on his deathbed.
In the aftermath of the persecution, which saw apostasies on a large scale, the
bishop of Rome, Cornelius, allowed the “lapsed” to be readmitted after some years of
public penitence, which involved, among other things, standing in a particular place
during the Church’s Liturgy and leaving before Communion. Most bishops elsewhere
adopted this practice as well, but in Rome, Pope Cornelius was opposed by the priest
Novatian, whose followers elected him bishop in opposition to Cornelius, and in the
ensuing years the schism spread throughout the Roman Empire.
The Novatianists were moral rigorists, best known for their absolute prohibition
of second marriages under any circumstances (including after the death of a spouse) and
their refusal to readmit the lapsed to Communion. In every other respect, though, their
beliefs were thoroughly orthodox. A Novatianist bishop turned up at the Council of
Nicea, where he was as vehement in his opposition to the views of the heretic Arius as
any of the other bishops there. It was only when he went on to insist on the exclusion of
the lapsed from Communion that his Novatianist allegiance came to light, and he was
ejected from the council.
Of all the various heretical or schismatic Christian sects, the Novatianists were
viewed with the most indulgence, as this canon indicates. Although it was common at the
time to regard as “heretical” all Christian sects that pertinaciously and as a matter of
principle separated themselves from the “Catholic and Apostolic Church,” in practice the
council treated groups of them who wished to rejoin the Church as though they were
simply schismatics.
In fact, few Novatianists took advantage of this offer. Their church, or

“denomination,” continued to exist as a rigorous and “pure” alternative to the established
Church in parts of the Eastern Roman Empire for some three or four centuries afterwards.
246
247
Dealing with Defectors
It is hard to see how this canon has anything to do with the troubles of
contemporary Anglicanism that evoked the Windsor Report. The canon does uphold the
unity of the local church, but the situation it addresses is the reunion of a schismatic
group with the Church, not the appropriate response of bishops to the defection of one of
their brethren from their common orthodoxy. However, the latter type of situation did
arise in the fourth century, in the long aftermath of the Council of Nicea, and later still.
The main purpose of the Council of Nicea was to judge the views of the
Alexandrian priest and theologian Arius, who held that Jesus was a creature—a divine
being created by God before the angels, the cosmos, and mankind, but a creature
nevertheless. Nicea condemned Arius’s views, and its creed confessed the full co-divinity
and co-eternity of “the everlasting Son of the Father.”
However, since the controversy continued unabated after Nicea, and since
Emperor Constantine had wanted the council to promote ecclesiastical harmony, the fact
that it signally failed to produce such harmony induced him, within a few short years, to
attempt to promote various theological compromises that would reconcile the Arians and
the Niceans. (Many of the most influential bishops around the emperor were sympathetic
to some degree with Arius.)
Among the most vigorous and uncompromising upholders of Nicea and its creed
was the young archbishop of Alexandria, Athanasius (c. 296–373), who as a priest had
accompanied his predecessor to Nicea. His vigorous opposition to any compromise
earned him the hostility of the bishops who had most influence with the emperor, who
himself in the last decade of his life (he died in 337) increasingly regarded Athanasius as
a disturber of the peace, and finally exiled him to what is today the German Rhineland.
After Constantine’s death, as his Arianizing son Constantius became master, first
of the East and then (in 350) of the whole Roman Empire, imperial policy shifted from
conciliation to coercion of the adherents of Nicea, and these shifts continued down to the
final defeat of Arianism in 381.
As time went on, the whole Church became divided over the question, with
bishop opposing bishop. Athanasius was willing, as the conflict intensified—in his case,
as early as the mid-340s—to intervene unilaterally in dioceses whose bishops were
Arians or compromisers. The historians Socrates and Sozomen, writing in the middle of
the next century, record that he ordained men in dioceses whose bishops were tainted
with Arianism to serve the orthodox upholders of Nicea, and that he did so without
seeking or obtaining the permission of those bishops.
We do not know for sure whether Athanasius ordained bishops for these orthodox
communities faced with hostile heterodox bishops, or only priests and deacons.
Socrates’s account in his Ecclesiastical History is obscure, stating only that “in some of
247
248
the churches also he performed ordination, which afforded another ground of accusation
against him, because of his undertaking to ordain in the dioceses of others.”
In his Ecclesiastical History, Sozomen wrote of Athanasius’s ejection of

Arianizing clergy when he returned to Egypt from his second exile around 346, and
added, “It was said at that time that, when he was traveling through other countries, he
effected the same change if he happened to visit churches which were under the Arians.
He was certainly accused of having dared to perform the ceremony of ordination in cities
where he had no right to do so.”
Violable Boundaries
And he was not alone. Other orthodox bishops acted similarly.
Theodoret of Cyrrhus, yet another historian (and bishop), tells us in his

Ecclesiastical History that a contemporary and collaborator of Athanasius, Eusebius of
Samosata, traveled around many of the eastern portions of the Roman Empire disguised
as a soldier, and where he found Arian or Arianizing bishops, he ordained deacons,
priests, and even bishops to care for the orthodox and oppose the official bishops and
their supporters. He names five bishops Eusebius consecrated.
Another bishop, Lucifer of Cagliari, wandered throughout the Mediterranean

world in support of those who upheld Nicea. Both Socrates and Theodoret record his
intervention in the divided church of Antioch. In 362 he consecrated the leader of one of
the orthodox groups, the leader of the other, larger group having early on in his career
appeared to compromise with moderate Arians. The uncompromising orthodox group had
never been willing to accept him as their bishop, and the consecration embittered the
break between the two and led to a schism that was not to be healed for over fifty years.
Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, conducted ordinations in his native

Palestine in defiance of compromising bishops during the Arian crisis. As Socrates
relates, he did the same thing many years later in Constantinople, when he was led to
believe that John Chrysostom, the patriarch there, supported the errors of Origen.
Details of the activities of such bishops are few, but in the next century, for 85
years after the Council of Chalcedon in 451, both proponents and opponents of that
council among the bishops in the eastern parts of the empire were willing to intervene, or
intrude, regularly in dioceses whose bishops were on the “ other side.”
All of this allows us to say that any attempt to construct a theory of the
inviolability of diocesan boundaries cannot find any support in the theory and practice of
the early Church. In the light of this history, Bishop Wright’s invocation of “Nicene
decrees” and the Windsor Report’s allusion to “the ancient norm” and “some of the
longest-standing regulations” vanishes altogether, and all that is left is “Anglican custom”
(Wright) or “traditional and oft-repeated Anglican practice” (Windsor).
248
249
Deprived Christians
Those who have followed the actual practices of Anglican churches over the past
three decades, in the United States, Canada, and Australia especially, will see how readily
proponents of one innovation after another have been willing to abandon norms, decrees,
regulations, canons, customs—you name it—to gain their ends.
In the Christianity Today interview, Wright remarked that “the real question at the
heart of much of this is, which [are] the things we can agree to differ about and which
[are] the things we can’t agree to differ about.” He continued, speaking of modern
questions the Nicene fathers he invoked would have thought settled matters of their
common faith,
Again and again I hear people on both sides of the argument simply begging that
question and assuming that they know without argument that this is something that we
can agree to differ about, or assuming that they know without argument this is one of the
things we can’t agree to differ about. What we all have to do is to say about any issue—
whether it’s lay celebration [of Communion], whether it’s episcopal intervention, whether
it’s homosexual practice—
How do we know, and who says which differences make a difference and which
differences don’t make a difference?
Speaking for myself as a Catholic with many Anglican friends, the clearest and
most instructive (as well as the saddest) lesson of this episode is how sincere and pious
Christians, like Bishop Wright, deprive themselves of any compellingly persuasive basis
for rallying a forceful “Athanasian” movement to retake their churches from the
heterodox innovators who dominate them—and not least because of their own inability,
as the bishop’s statements show, to make clear judgments about false teaching and false
teachers and to take firm and decisive measures in response. In consequence, they render
their own situations hopeless, being able neither to fight nor to flee.
N. T. Wright’s article appeared in the 23 October 2004 issue of The Tablet and
may be found at www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/register.cgi/tablet-00945. The Christianity
Today interview can be found at www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/142/42.0.html. The
sources of the quotations from Socrates are (in order): Book II, chapter 24; III.6 and 9;
VI.12; those from Sozomen are III.21; and from Theodoret IV.13 and V.4; III.2.
William J. Tighe is a contributing editor of Touchstone
249
250
Primates Meeting 2005
250
251
The Primates’ Meeting, February 2005 Communiqué

As Primates of the Anglican Communion and Moderators of the United Churches,
we gathered at the Dromantine Retreat and Conference Centre, Newry, in Northern
Ireland, between 20th and 25th February, 2005, at the invitation of the Archbishop of
Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams. Thirty-five of us were present at this meeting.1 We
are extremely grateful for the warmth of the welcome to Dromantine that we have
received from members of the Roman Catholic Society of African Missions who run the
Retreat Centre, and from the Church of Ireland, and especially the Primate of All Ireland,
the Most Revd Robin Eames and Lady Eames, who have been our hosts.
Our meeting was held within the context of common prayer and worship,
including Evensong at St Patrick’s Cathedral, Armagh, when we were formally
welcomed to the Church of Ireland. On the Monday and Tuesday mornings, we spent
time in Bible Study, prayer and silent retreat, led by the Archbishop of Canterbury on the
Lenten theme of the Three Temptations of Christ. He reminded us that it was our duty as
Christian leaders to begin by listening to God, before going on to listen to one another.
We thank God that our meeting has been characterised by generosity of spirit, and a
readiness to respect one another’s integrity, with Christian charity and abundant
goodwill.
The meeting opened with reports from the Provinces most affected by the recent
tsunami disaster in the Indian Ocean and the works of relief undertaken by Anglican
churches. We offered prayers for the victims, and for the ongoing work of reconstruction
and relief being undertaken across the entire rim of the Indian Ocean, particularly in the
Province of South East Asia, East Africa, the Indian Ocean, and South India and in the
Church of Ceylon.
The most pressing business facing the Primates’ Meeting was consideration of the
Windsor Report 2004, in which the Lambeth Commission on Communion2 had offered
its recommendations on the future life of the Anglican Communion in the light of
developments in Anglican life in North America.3
We reflected for many hours on the recommendations of the Windsor Report;

listening first to Archbishop Robin Eames, who introduced the work of the Lambeth
Commission, which he had chaired, and then to Primus Bruce Cameron of the Scottish
Episcopal Church, who took up the work that Archbishop Peter Kwong had begun with
the Reception Reference Group.4 We considered a careful analysis of the 322 responses
which this group had received from around the Anglican Communion, and which offered
a high measure of general support for the recommendations of the Windsor Report,
despite some expressions of concern in relation to matters of detail.5
251
252
We then proceeded to our own reflections on these responses. There are a

number of things which are quite clear. Many primates have been deeply alarmed that
the standard of Christian teaching on matters of human sexuality expressed in the 1998
Lambeth Resolution 1.10, which should command respect as the position
overwhelmingly adopted by the bishops of the Anglican Communion, has been seriously
undermined by the recent developments in North America. At the same time, it is
acknowledged that these developments within the Episcopal Church (USA) and the
Anglican Church of Canada have proceeded entirely in accordance with their
constitutional processes and requirements.6 We also wish to make it quite clear that in
our discussion and assessment of the moral appropriateness of specific human
behaviours, we continue unreservedly to be committed to the pastoral support and care of
homosexual people. The victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose
affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us. We
assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by him, and
deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship.7
We welcome the general thrust of the Windsor Report as offering a way forward
for the mutual life of our Communion, and commend the following conclusions for
dealing with the differences of opinion which have opened up amongst us.
We believe that the Windsor Report offers in its Sections A & B an authentic
description of the life of the Anglican Communion, and the principles by which its life is
governed and sustained. While we believe that many elements of this account offer a
picture of what is ideal, rather than what is currently actually experienced, we accept the
description offered in Sections A & B of the Windsor Report as the way in which we
would like to see the life of the Anglican Communion developed, as we respond in
faithful discipleship to Christ. These sections speak of the central place Anglicans accord
to the authority of scripture, and of “autonomy-in-communion” as the balanced exercise
of the inter-dependence between the thirty-eight Provinces and their legitimate provincial
autonomy. We therefore request all provinces to consider whether they are willing to be
committed to the inter-dependent life of the Anglican Communion understood in the
terms set out in these sections of the report.
We welcome the proposals in Section C for the future development of the

Instruments of Unity,8 although we recognise that serious questions about the content of
the proposal for an Anglican Covenant9 and the practicalities of its implementation
mean that this is a longer term process. We were glad to be reminded of the extensive
precedents for covenants that many Anglican churches have established with ecumenical
partners, and that even within our Communion the Chicago/Lambeth Quadrilateral has
already been effectively operating as a form of covenant that secures our basic
commitment to scripture, the Nicene Creed, the two Sacraments of the Gospel and the
252
253
Historic Episcopate. We therefore commend this proposal as a project that should be

given further consideration in the Provinces of the Communion between now and the
Lambeth Conference 2008. In addition, we ask the Archbishop of Canterbury to explore
ways of implementing this.
We also have further questions concerning the development of the role of the
Archbishop of Canterbury, and of a Council of Advice.10 While we welcome the
ministry of the Archbishop of Canterbury as that of one who can speak to us as primus
inter pares about the realities we face as a Communion, we are cautious of any
development which would seem to imply the creation of an international jurisdiction
which could override our proper provincial autonomy. We ask the Archbishop of
Canterbury to explore ways of consulting further on these matters.
We accept the principle articulated in Section D of the Windsor Report

concerning the universal nature of the ministry of a bishop within Anglican polity.11
Although formidable practical problems would attend any formal process of wider
consultation in the election and confirmation of bishops, we request that Provinces should
themselves find an appropriate place for the proper consideration of the principle of inter-
dependence in any process of election or confirmation.
We as a body continue to address the situations which have arisen in North

America with the utmost seriousness. Whilst there remains a very real question about
whether the North American churches are willing to accept the same teaching on matters
of sexual morality as is generally accepted elsewhere in the Communion, the underlying
reality of our communion in God the Holy Trinity is obscured, and the effectiveness of
our common mission severely hindered.
We are persuaded however that in order for the recommendations of the Windsor
Report to be properly addressed, time needs to be given to the Episcopal Church (USA)
and to the Anglican Church of Canada for consideration of these recommendations
according to their constitutional processes.
Within the ambit of the issues discussed in the Windsor Report and in order to
recognise the integrity of all parties, we request that the Episcopal Church (USA) and the
Anglican Church of Canada voluntarily withdraw their members from the Anglican
Consultative Council for the period leading up to the next Lambeth Conference. During
that same period we request that both churches respond through their relevant
constitutional bodies to the questions specifically addressed to them in the Windsor
Report as they consider their place within the Anglican Communion. (cf. paragraph 8)
253
254
In order to protect the integrity and legitimate needs of groups in serious

theological dispute with their diocesan bishop, or dioceses in dispute with their
Provinces, we recommend that the Archbishop of Canterbury appoint, as a matter of
urgency, a panel of reference to supervise the adequacy of pastoral provisions made by
any churches for such members in line with the recommendation in the Primates’
Statement of October 2003.12 Equally, during this period we commit ourselves neither
to encourage nor to initiate cross-boundary interventions.
Notwithstanding the request of paragraph 14 of this communiqué, we encourage

the Anglican Consultative Council to organise a hearing at its meeting in Nottingham,
England, in June 2005 at which representatives of the Episcopal Church (USA) and the
Anglican Church of Canada, invited for that specific purpose, may have an opportunity to
set out the thinking behind the recent actions of their Provinces, in accordance with
paragraph 141 of the Windsor Report.
In reaffirming the 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution 1.10 as the present

position of the Anglican Communion, we pledge ourselves afresh to that resolution in its
entirety, and request the Anglican Consultative Council in June 2005 to take positive
steps to initiate the listening and study process which has been the subject of resolutions
not only at the Lambeth Conference in 1998, but in earlier Conferences as well.
In the meantime, we ask our fellow primates to use their best influence to
persuade their brothers and sisters to exercise a moratorium on public Rites of Blessing
for Same-sex unions and on the consecration of any bishop living in a sexual relationship
outside Christian marriage.
These strategies are intended to restore the full trust of our bonds of affection
across the Communion.
In the second half of our meeting we addressed some issues of practical ministry
which have been on our agenda now for the last couple of years. We received a report of
the present situation in relation to the ministry of African churches in particular amongst
people living with HIV/AIDS; the dying, the bereaved, and orphaned children. We noted
that this serious challenge is faced by all of our churches. We now accept, however, that
our concerns must be broadened to include those suffering from TB and malaria. We
know that this year 3 million people will die of AIDS, 2 million of TB, and 1 million of
malaria. We have also been called to support the General Secretary of the United
Nations, Kofi Annan, and world leaders in developing effective strategies for achieving
the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015.13 In addition to the commitment
to combat HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria, these MDGs include reducing absolute poverty by
half and reducing hunger by half by 2015. In the longer term we must eradicate both.
254
255
Other MDGs include lowering child mortality and improving maternal health, universal
primary education, access to clear drinking water, and the building of sustainable
development partnerships between rich and poor. Accordingly we call upon the people
of God in all the Provinces of our Communion to encourage leaders of government to
pursue these goals with vigour, and to pray for the strengthening of their resolve to
achieve the MDGs by 2015.
Two whole sessions of our meeting were devoted to the important work of the
discernment of theological truth and the development and improvement of theological
education through the sharing of resources across the Communion. The Archbishop of
Canterbury has identified this as a priority concern during the period of his leadership.
The work of TEAC (Theological Education for the Anglican Communion) which was
established at our meeting in Kanuga in 2001 was reviewed, including the four separate
Target Groups which are now engaged with the development of specific education and
training programmes for bishops; for priests and transitional deacons; for vocational
deacons, catechists and licensed lay readers; and for the laity. In all this particular
attention is being paid to the distinctively Anglican component in theological education.
This mandate is of concern because some theological education across the Communion
needs to take more account of Anglican history, formularies or spirituality. The
discernment and definition of the “Anglican Way” is being intentionally pursued by a
dedicated Target Group. It is planned to hold a Consultation for theological educators
later this year in Canterbury, and it is anticipated that this work will be a significant item
of consideration at the Lambeth Conference in 2008.
Our common commitment to the pursuit of projects such as these, together with
our recent very positive experience of close practical co-operation in response to the
tsunami disaster, convince us of the enormous importance of our shared work together as
Provinces of the Anglican Communion. Indeed, in the course of our meeting, we have
become even more mindful of the indissoluble link between Christian unity and Christian
mission, as this is expressed in Jesus’ own prayer that his disciples should be one that the
world may believe (John 17.21). Accordingly, we pray for the continuing blessing of
God’s unity and peace as we recommit ourselves to the mission of the Anglican
Communion, which we share with the whole people of God, in the transformation of our
troubled world.
“Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your
mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and
perfect.” (Romans 12.2)
“All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us
the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5.18)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Absent from the meeting were the primate of Burundi, following a family
bereavement, of Hong Kong, following health problems, and the Moderator of United
255
256
Church of North India, because of unavoidable business.

2 This Commission was established by the Archbishop of Canterbury at the
request of the Primates at their meeting in Lambeth Palace in October 2003.
3 Namely, the authorisation of a Public Rite of Blessing for Same-sex Unions

within a diocese of the Anglican Church of Canada in May 2003, and the Consecration of
a Bishop in a committed same-sex relationship in the Episcopal Church (USA) in
November later that year.
4 This group had been established by the Primates’ Standing Committee on

publication of the Windsor Report in October 2004 to receive and review responses and
reactions to the Windsor Report from within the Anglican Communion and from our
ecumenical partners.
5 The presentations by Archbishop Robin and Primus Bruce, together with the
submissions to the Reception Reference Group may be found at
www.aco.org/windsor2004/presentation.cfm [for the Eames presentation] and
www.aco.org/commission/reception/report.cfm [for the Cameron presentation] and
associated documents.
6 In the statement of October 2003, we wrote “The Presiding Bishop of the

Episcopal Church (USA) has explained to us the constitutional framework within which
the election and confirmation of a new bishop in the Episcopal Church (USA) takes
place. As Primates, it is not for us to pass judgement on the constitutional processes of
another province. We recognise the sensitive balance between provincial autonomy and
the expression of critical opinion by others on the internal actions of a province.”
7 See the Windsor Report, paragraph 146.
8 The Windsor Report, paragraphs 105 – 107.
12 “ … we call on the provinces concerned to make adequate provision for

episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in
consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates.”
13 These Millennium Development Goals may be found at

http://www.developmentgoals.org/
256
257
From the Presiding Bishop:

The primates of the Anglican Communion and Moderators of the United
Churches have just completed their work on the attached communiqué which gives some
sense of our meeting this week in Northern Ireland. These days have not been easy for
any of us and the communiqué reflects a great deal of prayer and the strong desire to find
a way forward as a Communion in the midst of deep differences which have been
brought into sharp relief around the subject of homosexuality.
Clearly, all parts of the communiqué will not please everyone. It is important to
keep in mind that it was written with a view to making room for a wide variety of
perspectives. I continue to have faith and confidence in the many ways in which the
mystery of communion is lived among us, and am grateful that bonds of understanding
and affection to bind us together and call us to an ever deeper and more costly living out
of the reconciliation brought about by Jesus through the Cross. Again this week it was
revealed that so much more unites us than divides us.
The Presiding Bishop will make a further comment tomorrow.
257
258
Primate Henry Luke Orombi: Uganda

Issue:
Section:
Posted: Thursday, March 03, 2005
Members of the Press, I welcome you to the Residence of the Archbishop of the
Church of Uganda. The most important information I want to communicate to our people
in Church of Uganda, all Christian bodies, citizens of Uganda and the rest of the world
concerns our position on homosexuality.
Primates Meeting In Dromantine, Northern Ireland 25 February 2005
This meeting of the primates was specifically called to receive the “Windsor
Report”. This is a document that came as a result of the threatened breakage of the
Anglican Communion following the consecration of Gene Robinson as the Bishop of
New Hampshire in November 2003.
Church of Uganda did not agree with the line of action taken by the Episcopal
Church of America. We have disagreed with the consecration of a practicing homosexual
as a leading Church leader in the Church of God. The scriptures require that anybody
who takes to this office should be properly married - “A man married to one wife”.
Since September 2003, the House of Bishops took a strong stand to break our
fellowship with the Episcopal Church and the Church of Canada. We refused any funding
from these churches. The same decision was endorsed by the Provincial assembly in
August 2004.
We see homosexual practices as unbiblical and against the teaching of the

Church. Only Jesus who makes a difference to people can transform them not debates.
In our Ireland meeting the Primates suspended the Episcopal Church of America
and the Canadian Church until they repent. We are committed to other members of the
Episcopal Church who are orthodox in their interpretation of the scriptures and adore
Jesus Christ as their savior and Lord. We continue to provide support for them because
they share with us in the same mission.
I will state again our position in clear terms as follows;
The Church of Uganda upholds the biblical position on sexuality, namely that
sexual intimacy is reserved for a husband and wife in a lifelong, heterosexual,
monogamous marriage. For us in Uganda we teach this without fear. For our own good
the bible teaches abstinence before marriage and faithfulness in marriage. And marriage
is defined as between one man and one woman.
258
259
The Church of Uganda also supports the “1998 Lambeth Resolution” which states
that, “Homosexual practice is incompatible with scripture”.
We continue in a state of broken Communion with EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF

AMERICA and CANADA because they have not repented of their actions and decisions
in approving and consecrating as Bishop a man actively involved in a same-sex
relationship.
The Church of Uganda is committed to offering the gospel to those struggling

with homosexuality. Jesus told the woman caught in adultery, “Go and sin no more”, not
“go and sin some more”. For the North Americans Pastoral care means providing services
for the blessing of same-sex unions. For us in Uganda pastoral care means leading people
into the fully transformed life that Jesus promises to those who call upon his name.
Contrary to reports coming out of North American that say, “we have more in
common that we do than what divides us”, I am not convinced of that. We have a lot that
divides us and we are praying that ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada will
repent and rejoin Biblical Anglicanism.
We remain committed that Church of Uganda will continue to proclaim the

Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ zealously. I am prepared to remain a preacher of this
Gospel as the Archbishop of the Church of Uganda until we see Jesus changing the hearts
of those who believe his word.
Thank you again for coming and may God bless you in your very important work
to inform the nation and the world.
The Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi

Archbishop of Church of Uganda
259
260
Primate Bruce Cameron: Scotland

Issue:
Section:
Posted: Monday, February 28, 2005
"The meeting of the Primates of the Anglican Communion has been one of the
most difficult I have attended, yet at the end it did offer a process by which the Anglican
Communion can not only tackle seriously the issues which have been the subject of
controversy but also find some sense of unity.
"We did not solve all our differences on the issues of sexuality but did find a way
which respected the integrities of both sides of the argument and set in motion a process
that will allow us to keep talking together. Despite our differences we were able to affirm
the place of homosexual people within the life of the Church and it is my hope that the
Scottish Episcopal Church will continue to be open and inclusive to all those who want to
follow Christ. I very much hope that the Scottish Episcopal Church will continue to be a
listening and welcoming church to people who have differing opinions.
"I do not believe the Communion is now facing a serious split, as some are
claiming. The Scottish Episcopal Church remains in communion with the churches of
USA and Canada as well as our brothers and sisters in the churches in Africa.
"Archbishop Robert Eames said that 'while division is painful, the healing of
division also involves pain'. These are words which all churches must remember.
"I shall be giving a full report of the meeting and my reflections to the College of
Bishops when we meet next week and we will issue a further response in due course.
The full communiqué the Anglican Communion Primates? Meeting can be found
on the Anglican Communion web-site http://www.anglicancommunion.org/
The Most Rev. Bruce Cameron,

Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church
260
261
Primate Njongonkulu Ndungane: From Southern

Africa’s
Issue:
Section:
Posted: Saturday, February 26, 2005
This week's meeting of the Primates of the Anglican Communion has been one of
the hardest I have ever attended.
The gathering of church leaders from round the world was dominated by
discussion of the Windsor Report. This assessed the nature of the relationships between
Anglicans, and between the Provinces which make up our global church, and our ability
to respond when major differences arise between us. This, of course, has been the
situation since the Episcopal Church of the USA consecrated a Bishop in a long term
relationship with another man, and since within the American and Canadian Churches
there has been the public blessing of same-sex unions.
At the beginning of the meeting, I was dismayed to have the impression that many
colleagues had come with their minds made up. Positions were entrenched - and
irreconcilable.
But we serve a Lord who is the God of reconciliation. As we wrestled together,

he was able to lead us in constructive ways that will help us deal together with our
differences. We were able to hear that though many came with firm views, nonetheless
there was also a commitment to continue walking together. Recognising that we were
not trying to reconcile the irreconcilable gave us confidence to find a way forward we
could share. The way ahead will not be easy, but we can rely on God to continue guiding
our path, as we depend on him.
The Windsor Report has proved to be a rich and powerful resource for deepening
our understanding of what it means to be Anglican. It prompted us to engage deeply with
questions of interdependence - recognising both the autonomy of each Province for the
governance of its own affairs, and the accompanying obligations nonetheless to act in
ways that are sensitive to our brothers and sisters throughout the worldwide Communion.
There is still much we can learn from the Report, and I strongly commend its
serious study to all who wish to engage more deeply with these issues.
Now we are asking the American and Canadian Anglican Churches to withdraw
their members from the forthcoming meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council - a
large body in which bishops, clergy and laity from around the world join in debate. Yet
we are also asking that meeting to make the opportunity for representatives of those
churches to speak about the decisions they have taken, and the reasons, including the
261
262
theological reasons, behind them.
As our meeting demonstrated, listening carefully to one another is vital if we are

to building on the foundations we have been able to lay. There also needs to be more
listening by the church generally to the experiences of gay and lesbian Christians. The
1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution among other things called on us all to follow a
thorough process of listening and studying, and in many places this has not been done, or
not done adequately.
I am glad that the communiqué from our Primates' Meeting condemned the
victimisation and ostracising of those with homosexual orientation. Too often that has
been their experience within the church, and I am very concerned at the sub-text of hatred
that exists within Anglicanism, for example in some of the responses to the Windsor
Report.
I admit that I am dismayed whenever I hear language that seeks to make

distinctions among human beings or discriminates on the basis of things over which we
have no control - such as race, colour, gender, or sexual orientation. These are, so to
speak, accidents of birth. They are gifts of our created nature, and all of us are worthy of
the dignity that comes with being created in the image of God.
Because of just such an 'accident', I personally experienced prejudice, exclusion

and injustice for over two thirds of my life. The principle of non-discrimination runs
strongly in my veins - and indeed, I was imprisoned on Robben Island because of my
fundamental belief in the intrinsic worth of every human individual, every child of God.
No, discrimination on grounds like these is wrong. Reconciliation and healing of

relationships is the only way forward. That is the experience of the Church of the
Province of Southern Africa, which lived through the fullness of the apartheid atrocities,
and yet found a way forward into freedom, reconciliation and new life together.
Let me be clear about what we have agreed to do. We have not expelled the
churches of America and Canada. Nor have they been placed in some sort of limbo, as
some press reports suggested. There are no legal provisions for any such actions.
The door to the Americans and Canadians is not shut. We have recognised that
this is a deep and complex issue for them, which they must pursue and consider through
their own proper constitutional processes. Because of the depth of democratic
consultation within these Provinces, we recognise that this may take even a year or two.
And this is right. Because one of the hallmarks of Anglicanism is that we are a
synodical church. This means that our deliberations are not just for Bishops. Rather, we
consult fully, engaging with clergy and people at every level, right down to the parishes.
Bishops, clergy and laity together take council and make decisions. We must give the
Americans and Canadians the space to do this, and support them with our prayers.
262
263
Considering this has led me to conclude that we need to act more synodically as a
global Communion. Archbishops and Bishops meet from time to time, and the Anglican
Consultative Council every three years. Yet I wonder whether our current disagreements
would have arisen - or would have arisen with such bitterness - if our people knew one
another better, and understood better the varied life of the church in this complex world
of the twenty-first century.
Therefore, I believe there is an urgent and pressing need to convene a large and
comprehensive 'Anglican Gathering' before the next meeting of the Lambeth Conference
in 2008. We need to bring people together, to share their stories, and collectively explore
what it means to be Anglicans today - with the rich tapestry of our varied experiences and
our many differences, yet woven together in a common understanding of faith.
Those who read to the end of the communiqué will find that our meeting did not
just discuss matters of human sexuality! I am glad to say that we also debated the
scourge of HIV/AIDS and the battle against poverty. We called on our whole
Communion to lend its weight to the pursuance of the Millennium Development Goals,
which are aimed at halving global poverty irrevocably by 2015. My prayer is that we
will now be able to make such vital issues our top priorities.
The Most Revd Njongonkulu Ndungane

Archbishop of Capetown
263
264
Primate Andrew S. Hutchison: Canada

Issue:
Section:
Posted: Friday, February 25, 2005
During the past week the Primates of the Anglican Communion have been
meeting at the Dromantine Retreat Centre in Northern Ireland. Together we have prayed,
studied and listened to one another and to the Holy Spirit as we went about our work. The
task before us was to seek a way forward in spite of the differences that exist concerning
the subject of homosexuality.
The Primates' communiqué is not a perfect document and no doubt there will be a
variety of interpretations. It does, however, reflect the consensus that we were able to
achieve. The Windsor Report challenged us to maximize the bonds of affection in
seeking God's will for the Church. We have forged ahead, while realizing there is still
much to do. Celebrating how we share Communion together is not a matter of what is
written on paper, but rather of how we live out our faith in relation to all of our sisters
and brothers. The Primates experienced a strong sense of reconciliation and fellowship
through the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the graciousness of our host
Archbishop Robin Eames.
I would ask the members of the Anglican Church of Canada to read the Primates'
communiqué and to continue to pray for the Anglican Communion. I will be sharing
more of my thoughts in an upcoming webcast as well as on the national church website -
www.anglican.ca
Andrew S. Hutchison,
Archbishop and Primate,
Anglican Church of Canada
264
265
A word from the Presiding Bishop

Issue:
Section:
The primates of the Anglican Communion and Moderators of the United

Churches have met together in Northern Ireland to address common concerns and to
share something of our lives and ministries in our own widely different contexts.
We have carefully studied the Windsor Report and how we might best be a
communion in the midst of the deep differences which have been brought into sharp
relief around the subject of homosexuality. I leave Ireland grateful that we as primates
have done our very best to find a way forward and to avoid creating an unproductive
situation of winners and losers.
These days have not been easy for any of us and the communiqué we issued gives
some sense of our meeting and how we have struggled together. The communiqué is the
fruit of a great deal of prayer and reflects our mutual desire to move forward together.
As the communiqué was written with a view to making room for a wide variety of
perspectives it is inevitable that no one will be pleased with all aspects of it. Some will
not be pleased with the request from the primates (paragraph 14) that the Episcopal
Church, along with the Anglican Church of Canada, "voluntarily withdraw" our members
from the Anglican Consultative Council "for the period leading up to the next Lambeth
Conference." This request, together with the opportunity for a hearing with the Anglican
Consultative Council (paragraph 16), gives space for speaking and listening. During this
time the Episcopal Church will be responding to the questions addressed to us in the
Windsor Report, as the primates have requested.
We will have the opportunity to speak out of the truth of our experience. I
welcome this opportunity knowing that the Episcopal Church has sought to act with
integrity in response to the Spirit, and that we have worked, and continue to work, to
honor the different perspectives very much present within our church. Also during this
time, the Anglican Consultative Council will be listening with care to what we have to
say.
The primates discussed the importance of pastoral care for all members of our
Anglican Communion and have spoken clearly to the matter (paragraph 15). I very much
welcome the recommendation to the Archbishop of Canterbury that he appoint a "panel
of reference to supervise the adequacy of pastoral provisions" for "groups in serious
Provinces..."
265
266
The bishops of the Episcopal Church are committed to the provision of such
pastoral care to those of various perspectives and have established a means of being
certain it is provided which is described in Caring for all the Churches: Delegated
Episcopal Pastoral Oversight. I am also pleased by the commitment made by the primates
"neither to encourage nor to initiate cross-boundary violations."
The communiqué notes that our meeting was "characterised by generosity of

spirit, and a readiness to respect one another's integrity, with Christian charity and
abundant goodwill." I have faith and confidence in the many ways in which the mystery
of communion is lived among us.
I am grateful that bonds of understanding and affection bind us together and call
us to an ever deeper and more costly living out of the reconciliation brought about by
Jesus through the Cross.
Again this week it was revealed that so much more unites us than divides us.
The Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold

Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church, USA
266
267
Diocesan Responses to Primate’s

Communiqué
267
268
Albany
From Albany's Bishop Suffragan David Bena

Issue:
Section:
PRIMATES ACCEPT THE WINDSOR REPORT "ECUSA TO THE PENALTY BOX!"
If you read your newspaper this past weekend, you read dribs and drabs of the
Primates meeting last week in Northern Ireland. I have the closing Communiqué of the
Primates meeting before me, and would like to share highlights of it with you, and its
possible ramifications on the Episcopal Church in the USA. You probably are aware that
I have a traditional, biblical view of human sexuality, and so my comments will no doubt
reflect my position. Also, I am using terms that don't have to be checked in a theological
dictionary, so "hardliners" may find fault with the terminology I use. Oh, well....
BACKGROUND: The Anglican Communion is a worldwide network of

approximately 70-80 million (depending on who's counting) people. It is broken into
thirty-eight autonomous "provinces," of which the Episcopal Church, USA is one. These
provinces tend to be national churches scattered around the world, which see the Church
of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury as their anchors. Each province has an
Archbishop as chief shepherd. In the Episcopal Church USA ("ECUSA"), we use the
term Presiding Bishop rather than Archbishop. His name is Frank Griswold. We pray for
him each week in our Communion Liturgy. These Primates gather once a year to discuss
the state of the Anglican Communion. Also, once every ten years, all the bishops of the
Anglican Communion (somewhere around a thousand) get together for the Lambeth
Conference to do heavy-duty discussion. The last Lambeth Conference was in 1998,
when a resolution was overwhelmingly passed that stated in part that genital sexual
activity is a gift of God to be shared between a husband and wife in Holy Matrimony.
Sexual activity outside those bounds is not OK. The majority of the American bishops at
Lambeth in fact voted for this resolution.
REVIEW: It is a fact that for a number of years, bishops in certain dioceses in the
USA have been allowing the blessing of same sex relationships in their dioceses, and
have been ordaining active homosexuals to the priesthood. When the Lambeth resolution
was passed in 1998, most of the bishops involved in this activity simply ignored it. The
whole thing hit the fan, however, when an active homosexual was elected Bishop of New
Hampshire, SOON AFTER THE PRIMATES HAD ASKED THE ECUSA TO STOP
DOING ORDINATIONS OF ACTIVE HOMOSEXUALS. When Mr. Robinson was
consecrated a bishop in November of 2003, the Primates met in extraordinary session to
268
269
deal with the crisis. The Archbishop of Canterbury, as one of the Primates and acting on
the advice of the Primates, commissioned a study to come up with a method to keep the
provinces of the Anglican Communion from flying apart as a result of this horrible
situation. That study took a year, and was issued just last October, entitled the Windsor
Report. The Report showed great distaste for the direction of ECUSA regarding sexual
practice, and among other recommendations requested that ECUSA express regret for
tearing the fabric of the Communion by its non-biblical actions, and asked ECUSA to
enact moratoriums on same sex blessings and ordinations of active homosexuals.
PRESENT SITUATION: Last week, the Primates met in Northern Ireland and
received the Windsor Report. At the end of their four day, closed meeting, they issued a
communiqué, which summarized what they ALL agreed upon regarding the present
impasse. Of the 22 paragraphs of the communiqué (you can read the whole thing on a
number of websites - I might suggest you type out "virtue online" in your search engine,
and "read all about it"), I would like to highlight the ones I see as germane to our
situation here in ECUSA.
Paragraph 6 states that many of the Primates are deeply disturbed that the 1998
Lambeth Resolution has been ignored. While calling for a compassionate response to the
homosexual population in the world, they stand by their biblical position that sexual
union is intended for a husband and wife.
Paragraph 8 states that Scripture is our primary authority FOR THE WHOLE
COMMUNION. This is to counter some American arguments that scripture is simply a
working document on which to reflect in light of local culture, much like the U. S.
Constitution is viewed by many today. The Primates further state that all provinces need
to agree on this principle of scriptural authority, or decide now if they wish to continue in
the Communion. The provinces of the Communion must be inter-dependent, and so need
the common ground of scriptural authority to remain in communion.
Paragraph 12 states the grave concern that as long as ECUSA refuses to "accept
the same teaching on matters of sexual morality as is generally accepted elsewhere in the
Communion," our unity and effectiveness in mission will be severely hindered.
Paragraph 14 asks (this is British diplomacy for "commands") ECUSA to

withdraw from the Anglican Consultative Council for three years, until Lambeth 2008.
This is what is being called "Suspension" or "Penalty Box." The Primates are giving
ECUSA three years to try to justify to the rest of the Communion its differing sexual
morality, and meanwhile go to "time out" to think about its stance.
Paragraph 15 directs the Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint a "panel of

reference" to supervise the adequacy of pastoral oversight. The ECUSA bishops passed a
resolution a year ago called DEPO, Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight, to assist
parishes in hostile dioceses to continue in the Episcopal Church when they judge that
their bishop has departed from orthodox doctrine and action. DEPO has been less than
successful, evidenced by the large number of parishes who have left ECUSA rather than
269
270
submit to the difficulties involved in DEPO. This paragraph seems to say there will be
"supervision" of this process from Primates other than ours.
Meanwhile, the Primates state that they will not "encourage nor initiate cross-
boundary interventions."
Paragraph 16 calls upon representatives of ECUSA to appear before the Anglican

Consultative Council this June to "set out the thinking behind recent actions of its
province." Does the term, "WHAT WERE YOU THINKING WHEN YOU DID THAT"
come to mind?
Paragraph 18 simply states "we ask our fellow primates to use their best influence
to persuade their brothers and sisters to exercise a moratorium on public rites of blessing
for same sex unions and on the consecration of any bishop living in a sexual relationship
outside Christian marriage."
This is heavy stuff, my Brothers and Sisters! The Primates are telling ECUSA that
it has three years to get its act together and return to the Anglican Communion fold, or it
may be excommunicated.
In two weeks, I will attend the ECUSA House of Bishops meeting in Texas,
where we will take up the results of the Primates meeting, and deal with the possibility of
declaring a moratorium on the blessing of same sex unions, and on ordaining people who
are engaged in sexual relationships outside marriage between a husband and a wife. Pray
for us. So far, the mood has not been toward reconciliation with the Anglican
Communion, but on staying the course of "honoring our gay and lesbian brothers and
sisters." Pray that the silent majority of bishops, who just hope the problem will go away,
will unite and vote to go into the moratoriums. I will report back after the meeting.
Will the Episcopal Church become a very small "niche" Protestant sect, or will it
come back to the Anglican Communion fold and live by the biblical norms of the other
78 million Anglicans? Watch and pray.
The Rt. Rev. David Bena

Bishop Suffragan of Albany
Massachusetts
From Massachusetts’s Bishop M. Thomas Shaw, SSJE

Issue:
Section:
270
271
As you know, the Feb. 24 communiqué from the 2005 Primates Meeting in
Belfast has been widely reported in the media. Your three bishops have read the
communiqué carefully, and we are grateful for the prayerful work of the Primates. As our
Presiding Bishop commented on the communiqué, “Again this week it was revealed that
so much more unites us than divides us.”
Because media attention doesn’t always reflect the nuances of this complex
document, it may be helpful to share this letter with your parishioners.
The Primates’ communiqué shows genuine appreciation of the polity of the

Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church in Canada in stating that we have
proceeded entirely in accordance with our constitutional processes and requirements.
The communiqué also recognizes that the discussion as to how the Provinces will
relate to one another through the Archbishop of Canterbury will be a long term one.
The Primates are cautious about a Council of Advice for the Archbishop. There is
no question that they continue to support the geographical jurisdiction of bishops.
Your bishops were encouraged by the Primates’ renewed commitment “to the
pastoral support and care of homosexual people” and were encouraged that the Primates
recognize that our Presiding Bishop consults with the lay and ordained members of the
Episcopal Church USA in decisions having to do with a moratorium on public rites of
same-sex blessings and the consecration of any bishop living in a same-sex relationship.
Of course, we are saddened by the request of the Primates that the Episcopal
Church USA withdraw from the June, 2005 meeting of the Anglican Consultative
Council (which is the Anglican Communion’s representative decision-making body) and
yet we are heartened by the invitation for a dialogue on the decisions our Church has
made.
What does all this mean for the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts?
It affirms our efforts over the past two years in allowing space for the theological
diversity in our diocese by providing Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight for parishes
that disagree with the decisions of your bishops and the Convention of the Diocese of
Massachusetts and by our acknowledgment of the affiliation of some individual clergy
and parishes of our diocese with the Anglican Communion Network.
This communiqué acknowledges the polity of the Episcopal Church where all
decisions regarding human sexuality will be made in the community of General
Convention.
We pledge ourselves as your bishops to the full inclusion of gay and lesbian
271
272
persons in the life of the Church through the appropriate canonical procedures.
The public attention being given to the Primates’ response to the aforementioned
concerns threatens to obscure perhaps the most important part of the Primates’
communiqué -- the recognition of the serious challenge we face with our Anglican
brothers and sisters in Africa with regard to people living with HIVAIDS, the dying, the
bereaved and orphaned children.
For some years, the Diocese of Massachusetts, through our Jubilee Ministry, has
been doing important work in Africa to alleviate the suffering caused by HIV/AIDS. The
communiqué is a real endorsement of our work and encourages us in our diocesan
mission strategy around HIV/AIDS in Africa and the support of the Millennium
Development Goals.
Our Deacon, Maggie Geller and Jubilee members continue to work with local
parishes to build awareness and support for those who are suffering.
Please continue your prayers for the Anglican Communion, for Frank, our
Presiding Bishop, and for our Diocese. If you have further questions, please contact
Maria Plati in our Communications Office.
Faithfully yours,
M. Thomas Shaw, SSJE
Bud Cederholm
Gayle E. Harris
North Dakota
From North Dakota’s Bishop Michael Smith

Issue:
Section:
A headline in today's Fargo Forum states: "Anglicans ask U.S., Canada to leave."
After reviewing the Primates' Meeting Communique, I think a more accurate headline
might have been: "Anglicans ask U.S., Canada to take a time-out." It appears the
Episcopal Church is being asked to withdraw from the councils of Anglicanism for a
time, to decide if we want to remain a member of the Anglican Communion or not.
The situation leading up to the current crisis is summarized in paragraph 6:
"Many primates have been deeply alarmed that the standard of Christian teaching on
matters of human sexuality expressed in the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10, which
should command respect as the position overwhelmingly adopted by the bishops of the
272
273
Anglican Communion, has been seriously undermined by the recent developments in

North America." You will recall the Lambeth Conference, a gathering of the world's
Anglican bishops, in 1998 declared that "in view of the teaching of Scripture, [this
Conference] upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong
union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage." It
also declared homosexual practice to be "incompatible with Scripture."
In what has been interpreted by many as defiance of this teaching, the 2003
General Convention of the Episcopal Church consented to the election of a man involved
in a sexual relationship outside of marriage to be bishop of New Hampshire, and the
Canadian Diocese of New Westminster approved rites for the blessing of same sex
unions. Since these actions threatened to tear apart the Anglican Communion, the
Archbishop of Canterbury and the other primates commissioned the so called "Windsor
Report" to seek ways for the churches of the Anglican Communion to remain together,
despite theological disagreements over issues of human sexuality.
One of the recommendations of the Windsor Report, now endorsed by the

primates, is for the Episcopal Church "to exercise a moratorium on public Rites of
Blessing for Same-sex unions and on the consecration of any bishop living in a sexual
relationship outside Christian marriage" (para. 18). It would seem we have until General
Convention of 2006 to enact such a moratorium. Failure to do so will most likely be
interpreted as a decision to excommunicate ourselves from the councils of the
AnglicanCommunion.
The next General Convention is only 15 months away. Therefore, I call upon
members of the Diocese of North Dakota, and especially vestries, the Standing
Committee, Diocesan Convention delegates and General Convention deputies to engage
in prayerful discussions about whether God is calling us to remain in the Anglican
Communion or not.
I also ask you to be mindful of the primates' words pertaining to our attitude
towards homosexual persons: "We continue unreservedly to be committed to the pastoral
support and care of homosexual persons. We assure homosexual people that they are
children of God, loved and valued by him, and deserving of the best we can give of
pastoral care and friendship" (para. 6).
Finally, I ask for your continued prayers for reconciliation, healing and
forgiveness within our church and between the churches of the Anglican Communion. A
practical way to do this is by praying the simplified form of Evening Prayer, available
through my office, containing prayers for the Anglican Communion.
The Rt. Rev. Michael G. Smith,

Bishop of North Dakota
New Jersey
From New Jersey’s Bishop George E. Councell
273
274

Issue:
Section:
Our Diocese continues to offer our prayerful support and thanksgiving for our
Presiding Bishop, Frank Griswold, and the 34 other Primates of the worldwide Anglican
Communion as they complete their work in Newry, Northern Ireland today.
The Communiqué from the Primates reflects the hope and commitment as well as
the pain and anger around the Anglican Communion over developments in the Episcopal
Church in the USA and in the Anglican Church of Canada.
I read, with sorrow, that the Primates request that representatives of the Episcopal
Church and the Anglican Church of Canada "voluntarily withdraw" from the Anglican
Consultative Council until the Lambeth Conference of 2008. I am encouraged, however,
that the June 2005 meeting of the Council is to include a hearing, at which time
representatives of our two provinces will "set out the thinking behind" recent actions.
It is of no less importance to note that the Primates request the ACC, at the same
June meeting, "to initiate the listening and study process" that will help our Communion
to listen to, learn from, and not just talk about homosexual persons. This goal has been
included in resolutions of Lambeth Conferences in 1978, 1988 and 1998. I pray that each
of the Primates will lead his Province in this effort, so long desired. Only so can we
respect the dignity of gay and lesbian persons.
I am grateful to find that the strongest language in the Communiqué is found in

paragraph 6: "The victimization or diminishment of human beings whose affections
happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us." The Diocese of
New Jersey and I are committed to live with and serve with gay and lesbian clergy and
lay persons as our brothers and sisters in Christ, "deserving of the best we can give of
pastoral care and friendship."
I hope and pray that these next three years will be a time of calm and restraint
within the Communion so that the American and Canadian Provinces may articulate the
theological foundations for our recent actions. Our Presiding Bishop has already
appointed a theological committee to provide that account, in response to this
recommendation of the Windsor Report on Communion.
I take seriously, as I know that our Presiding Bishop and House of Bishops takes
seriously, the damage that has been done to our bonds of affection and trust within the
Communion. I am committed to strive for reconciliation so that we may continue to walk
together in the service of Jesus Christ in the Anglican Communion.
274
275
I am grateful that the Diocese of New Jersey is a community that continues to

work together in mission and to engage in respectful conversation about our differences.
We are also committed to address the other items on the agenda of the Primates’ meeting,
such as working toward the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals,
including the reduction of poverty and hunger and the provision of relief for those
millions suffering from HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria, and from natural disasters such as
the tsunami in the Indian Ocean.
We are a community with deep differences over matters of great importance. But
we are committed to find ways to walk together in the light of Christ and in the service of
the world, for Christ’s sake. Let the world see in us the fruits of the Holy Spirit and the
extraordinary quality of respect, trust, and mutual affection, that we may demonstrate this
word from I John 4: 20-21:
"…for those who do not love their brothers or sisters, whom they have seen,
cannot love God whom they have not seen. The commandment we have from him is this:
those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also."
The Rt. Rev. George E. Councell

Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Jersey
New York
From New York's Bishop Mark Sisk

Issue:
Section:
I welcome the statement of the Primates of our Anglican Communion as a

constructive attempt to address the diverse and importantly different perspectives
represented by our worldwide fellowship. I appreciate our Presiding Bishop’s own
“Word” on the Primates’ Communiqué. I look forward to hearing his personal reflections
at the March meeting of our House of Bishops. That occasion will, as well, afford the
opportunity to benefit from the insights of other colleagues.
Clearly the Primates’ Communiqué reflects the different currents which flow in
our Communion. It shows careful thought and prayerful wrestling with the challenges
that confront us. Obviously elements in this document will delight some and disappoint
others. I was encouraged by the words of paragraph 6, “….we continue unreservedly to
be committed to the pastoral support and care of homosexual people. The victimization
or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people
of the same sex is anathema to us.”
275
276
I was, however, surprised and even puzzled by the Primates' sense of their own
responsibilities and authority by inviting constituent Provinces of our Communion to
withdraw from participation in a completely separate and distinct body, the Anglican
Consultative Council, which, on its own not only stands as an “instrument of unity” but is
also senior to the Meeting of Primates, in terms of years of existence.
The strains which mark our Communion, and indeed our global community, are
evident in this document. What is also evident is a deep, painful, and costly struggle to
stay in Communion. We all owe a debt of gratitude to those who have shared in these
conversations with such faithful dedication.
The many opportunities for fellowship and work with churches and dioceses of
the Anglican Communion all around the globe remain an important part of our common
life. Therefore, I encourage Episcopalians in the Diocese of New York, and elsewhere, to
continue their work on global mission initiatives, to spread the Gospel and to serve the
poor in Christ’s name.
The Rt. Rev. Mark Sisk,

Bishop of New York
Pittsburgh
From Pittsburgh’s Bishop Robert Duncan

Issue:
Section:
"The clarity with which the Primates have spoken is breath-taking. Individual
provinces do have the freedom to act as they see fit under their various constitutions, but
the exercise of that freedom beyond agreed teaching and practice will imperil their
standing and participation in the Communion. The Episcopal Church and the Anglican
Church of Canada have been asked to withdraw their representatives from the Anglican
Consultative Council (ACC) effectively immediately. This suspension of relationship
continues until the constitutional assemblies of each church indicate their willingness to
conform to what was asked of them in the Windsor Report."
"The teaching of the Communion is sustained. The authority of Scripture is
upheld. 'Autonomy in Communion' is defined. Moratoria are called for Communion-
wide. The need to turn our global attention to the great social crises of disease and
poverty is re-asserted."
"Provision for the 'integrity and legitimate needs' of theological minorities is

guaranteed by the creation of an international 'panel of reference.' This is an
extraordinary and essential development. The Anglican Communion Network, together
276
277
with the much wider circle of orthodox believers in the United States and Canada
(including especially the Common Cause movement) now has an international promise
and an Anglican Communion provision that should stem the flow of three decades of
believing life-blood."
"For some months now, I have maintained that the 2005 Primates Meeting would
prove a defining moment in Anglican history. So it has proved. As the Synod of Whitby
in 664 AD decided for unity with the universal Christian Church in matters of worship
and church order, so the 2005 Primates meeting has decided for unity with the universal
Christian Church in matters of doctrine and morals. The decisions taken at Newry in
Northern Ireland are epochal."
"For all of this, we should be profoundly grateful to Almighty God and to the
godly leaders of the Anglican Communion for a new day dawning for Anglicanism and
for us."
The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan,

Bishop of Pittsburgh
Southwest Florida
From Southwest Florida’s Bishop John B. Lipscomb

Issue:
Section:
The statement from the primates' meeting in Newry, Northern Ireland, provides a
way forward by maintaining the integrity of the Communion and the autonomy of the
provinces of the Communion. I was very pleased to see that they have taken seriously the
calls of the Lambeth conferences to include gay and lesbian people in the conversation.
I am somewhat concerned that two North American provinces have been invited
to absent themselves because I think it is going to make dialogue all the harder.
I think the coming meeting of the House of Bishops is going to be critical as we

have to wrestle with our ability to live into the provisions of the Windsor Report. I think
it's going to especially critical that we address the question on moratorium on ordinations
of bishops living in any union outside the bonds of Christian matrimony and blessing of
same-sex unions.
If we are not able to declare a moratorium, I believe we should voluntarily, for the
sake of the health of the Communion, abstain from participation, except as requested by
the various constitutional bodies.
277
278
I was especially grateful that the primates acknowledged the constitutional

requirements that we have to go to General Convention before we can fully act as a
church and have provided a period of grace before the next Lambeth Conference for us to
follow this process to its appropriate conclusion.
I think that we are still in a process and we have not reached the end of the
process. But we certainly have a clearer picture of its direction.
The Rt. Rev. John B. Lipscomb,

Bishop of Southwest Florida
Southern Ohio
From Southern Ohio's Bishop Herbert Thompson

Issue:
Section:
My brothers and sisters in Christ,
As many of you know, the Primates of the Anglican Communion gathered last
week in
Northern Ireland and issued a communiqué that outlines their response to the
Windsor Report. Contrary to some news reports, the communiqué did not kick the
Episcopal Church (U.S.A.) and the Anglican Church of Canada out of the Anglican
Communion. On the contrary, the communiqué clearly stresses the desire to maintain the
unity of the church and the Anglican Communion.
A report from the Episcopal News Service succinctly captures the essence of the
communiqué:
It requests the U.S. Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada
"voluntarily withdraw" their representatives from the Anglican Consultative Council until
the next Lambeth Conference in 2008. A note about the Anglican Consultative Council:
It is one of four instruments of unity that serve the Anglican Communion. The ACC
meets about every three years and includes laity, bishops, priests and deacons. It is the
Communion’s main legislative body. The other instruments of unity are: The Lambeth
Conference (meets every 10 years, for bishops); the Primates Meetings (regular meetings
for the senior archbishops and bishops of the 38 Provinces); and the Archbishop of
Canterbury in his international role as primus inter pares.
It reaffirmed the importance of the autonomy of Provinces and of our

interdependence.
278
279
It committed the primates to the pastoral support and care of homosexuals.

Furthermore the primates wrote, “The victimization or diminishment of human beings
whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to
us.” At the same time, the communiqué asked “our fellow primates to use their best
influence to persuade their brothers and sisters to exercise a moratorium on public Rites
of Blessing for same-sex unions and on the consecration of any bishop living in a sexual
relationship outside Christian marriage.”
It also committed the primates to a promise “neither to encourage nor to initiate
cross boundary interventions,” calling on the Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint a
panel
that could supervise the “adequacy of pastoral provisions” for those in theological
dispute with their bishop or province.
I am encouraged by this faithful, prayerful journey of discernment and the
widespread commitment to unity. I am thankful for the leadership of Bishop Price in this
dialogue as he was the only U.S. bishop asked to serve on the Windsor Report Reception
Reference Group, a group that gathered responses about the report from around the
world.
The next step in the process occurs in March during the regular meeting of the
U.S. House of Bishops. In June, the Anglican Consultative Council will receive the
Windsor Report and the Primates' communiqué. The primates have encouraged the
Council to organize a hearing with representatives from the U.S. and Canada.
A full response by the Episcopal Church (U.S.A.) to the communiqué and the
Windsor Report cannot be made until General Convention, which meets in Columbus in
2006.
I think it is important to note that drafting the communiqué was only part of the
agenda for the primates. They also discussed the tsunami relief work in South East Asia
and the ministry of African churches among people living with HIV/AIDS. As we reflect
and determine the nature of the Anglican Communion, we must not lose sight of the
ministry and mission of the church to look beyond our doors and help those in need.
We are blessed in our diocese to have remained focused on the ministry and
mission of the church. Earlier this month, more than 120 lay leaders and clergy gathered
for the annual Bishops, Vestry and Mission Council at the Procter Camp & Conference
Center. We spent the morning talking about the Windsor Report and the unity of the
church. That afternoon, we offered four workshops. I was heartened that 50 people
attended a workshop on evangelism. Another 60 or so divided their time between
exploring communication and youth ministry. I think it is significant that the diocese’s
leaders wanted to talk about and learn new ways of ministry. I am proud of you, and I am
honored to be your bishop.
I have heard some people say that the future of the Church is at risk. My brothers
and sisters, the future is God’s. In the midst of these discussions, someone wrote, “We
don't have to save the Church. It's not ours to save. Jesus has already done that.”
279
280
Our job is to minister to the sick, to feed the hungry. We are called to share the
word of Christ to those in a broken, needy world. We must be a witness to the world of
the church moving forward in unity for the sake of God’s kingdom.
Yours in Christ,
The Rt. Rev. Herbert Thompson Jr.

Bishop Southern Ohio
West Missouri
From West Missouri’s Bishop Barry R. Howe

Issue:
Section:
I find the Communiqué from the Primate’s Meeting to be balanced and developed
with great care. It is obvious that much prayer and study took place among the Primates
at this meeting, and that they were receptive to one another in the common life of the
Spirit.
It should be noted that much of the time of their meeting was spent dealing with
pastoral matters pertaining to disasters and epidemics and ongoing challenges throughout
the world that effect so many people as victims of war and violence and systemic
poverty. The common mission of the Anglican Communion in responding to these
developments is the imperative of the work of the Church.
The work of the Primates spent on the Windsor Report is what receives so much
attention in the press. It is in this work where the balance and respect for one another
seems so evident. In addressing the Report, they affirmed much of the ecclesiology for
describing the Anglican Communion, and accepted the Instruments of Unity outlined
therein. But they also indicated a need for more work and study concerning the Office of
the Archbishop of Canterbury and a Council of Advice for the Archbishop.
The Primates strongly urged the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in
Canada to withdraw from representation at the Anglican Consultative Council (one of
Instruments of Unity) which will meet in June. This withdrawal is to be until the next
Lambeth Conference, which is scheduled for 2008. At the same time, the Primate’s asked
that the representatives from the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada
be present at the June meeting for the purpose of making a report to the entire Anglican
Consultative Council on the work that is being done in our churches concerning human
sexuality. As our Presiding Bishop has said, this will give space for both speaking and
listening, which the Windsor Report recommended. “We will have the opportunity to
speak out of the truth of our experience.” I note that a Theological Committee from the
280
281
House of Bishops has been working on contributing to this opportunity to share from the
perspective of the Episcopal Church.
The Primates also asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint a panel of

reference to supervise the adequacy of pastoral provisions for groups in serious
Provinces. This creation of a panel under the Archbishop is in response to the
condemnation in the Windsor Report of bishops disrespecting the jurisdiction of
Diocesan bishops. I remind all that our House of Bishops, at its meeting last March,
issued “Caring for All the Churches: Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight” which
deals with this concern, and which was commended in the Windsor Report.
There is much work that remains to be done. And there is much more
understanding of one another throughout the Communion that must result. The Primates
made it very clear that each Provincial Church in the Communion has proceeded entirely
in accordance with their constitutional processes and requirements. It is often these
differing areas of polity that eventuate in much misunderstanding.
The desire to maintain the integrity of the Anglican Communion remains strong.
This is evident to me from the Communiqué. It is also important to note the concluding
sentence of the Presiding Bishop in his Statement: “Again this week it was revealed that
so much more unites us than divides us.”
The House of Bishops will be meeting at its Spring Meeting from March 11-16.
Part of our work together will be the result of the need to continue to do what has been
asked of us by the Windsor Report and affirmed by the Primates.
The Rt. Rev. Barry R. Howe,

Diocese of West Missouri
281
282
The House of Bishop’s
282
283
House of Bishops Letter, January 2005: A Word to the

Church
Thursday, January 13, 2005
A Word to the Church
The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church

January 12-13, 2005
Salt Lake City
To the faithful in Christ Jesus, greetings in the season of Epiphany. We rejoice

together with you that God has “caused a new light to shine in our hearts” revealing
God’s glory in the face of Jesus Christ our Lord. The sufferings of our brothers and
sisters in the aftermath of tsunamis in South Asia and flooding and mud slides in
California and here in Utah where we are meeting, make us long all the more for this new
light revealed to us in Christ. We are mindful as well of the suffering around the world
caused by global poverty, HIV/AIDS, malaria, other diseases, and war. In this suffering
world we are called to “serve and signify God's mission to the world, that mission
whereby God brings to men and women, to human societies and to the whole world, real
signs and foretastes of that healing love which will one day put all things to rights”
(Windsor Report, paragraph 3).
We decided at our September meeting in 2004 to set aside this time so we might
together begin to receive the Windsor Report with humility. We have met for a day and a
half in Salt Lake City. We welcome with gratitude the work of the Lambeth Commission
on Communion. We realize this is a long-term effort which will most likely extend
beyond our March meeting. In the meantime, we aim to practice the more intentional
consultative processes called for by the Windsor Report. We also anticipate the Executive
Council of our church joining in this consultation.
In this spirit of intentional practice, we affirm that all need to repent, as the
Archbishop of Canterbury reminded us in his Advent Letter 2004. We repent of the ways
we as bishops have sometimes treated each other, failing to honor Christ’s presence in
one another. Furthermore, too often we have also failed to recognize Christ’s presence
fully manifest in our sister and brother Anglicans around the global communion. We
honor their full voice and wisdom. We desire mutuality. We recognize our
interdependence in the Body of Christ.
Moreover, we as the House of Bishops express our sincere regret for the pain, the
hurt, and the damage caused to our Anglican bonds of affection by certain actions of our
church. Knowing that our actions have contributed to the current strains in our
Communion, we express this regret as a sign of our deep desire for and commitment to
continuation of our partnership in the Anglican Communion.
283
284
We note here that our decision-making structures differ from those in many parts
of the Anglican Communion and that our actions require conciliar involvement by all the
baptized of our church, lay and ordained. Therefore we as bishops, in offering our regrets,
do not intend to preempt the canonical authority of the General Convention of the
Episcopal Church. At the same time, we are keenly aware of our particular responsibility
for episcopal leadership.
We long for the fullest expression of the gift of communion that God has given us
through Christ. “The communion we enjoy with God in Christ and by the Spirit, and the
communion we enjoy with all God’s people living and departed, is the specific practical
embodiment and fruit of the gospel itself” (Windsor Report, paragraph 3). We rejoice in
our partnership in the worldwide Anglican Communion and affirm anew our commitment
to the interdependence of this church as a member of the Anglican Communion.
We agree that one important expression of our communion would be a

Communion-wide study and discernment process on matters of human sexuality as
recommended by Lambeth Conferences of 1978, 1988 and 1998 and are eager to
continue to respond to this challenge. This would be a sign of respect for gay and lesbian
persons in our common life and of our ongoing pastoral care for them. We also believe
that such a process would strengthen our communion. By doing so, we will be able to
share more of the prayerful conversations and studies on the ministries and contributions
of homosexual persons in the church that have enriched our experience for many years.
The Presiding Bishop has already established a committee to offer a theological
explanation of how “a person living in a same gender union may be considered eligible to
lead the flock of Christ” (Windsor Report, paragraph 135).
We pray our brothers and sisters throughout the Anglican Communion will
forgive us and that together we may remain in steadfast relationship so we might open
our lives and our hearts to one another and learn how the Holy Spirit is acting in our
different contexts. We are eager to take steps to make this possible, and particularly
would welcome invitations to visit other Anglican provinces to learn from them the many
ways they are vital witnesses to the healing love of Christ, often in very difficult
circumstances.
During this brief meeting we humbly struggled in our deliberations to discern how
best to receive the Windsor Report. We had an extensive discussion about a “moratorium
on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is
emerges” (Windsor Report, paragraph 134). We have only begun a serious and respectful
consideration of how we might respond. Further, we have not had sufficient time to give
substantive consideration to recommendations in the Report calling for a moratorium on
diocesan boundary violations or the call for a moratorium and further discussion of the
authorization of liturgical texts blessing same sex unions. (Here we note that there are
those among us who do not agree with the statement in paragraph 144 of the Windsor
Report that “the Episcopal Church has by action of Convention made provision for the
284
285
development of public Rites of Blessing of same sex unions.”)
In February 2005 the Primates of the Anglican Communion will consider the
Windsor Report. We commit ourselves to a more thorough consideration of the range of
concrete actions identified in the Report at our House of Bishops meeting in March 2005.
We do not wish to act in haste. We believe it is extremely important to take the time to
allow the Holy Spirit to show us ways we can engage with people throughout our church
in a consideration of all of the invitations for further reflection and the recommendations
of the Windsor Report.
We seek together the epiphany of Christ’s reconciling love for the world, which
lies at the heart of the mission we share. It is our prayer that along with Anglican
Christians around the world we may be faithful to God’s mission.
House of Bishop’s Covenant Statement, March 15, 2005
House of Bishops' Spring Meeting
Camp Allen, Texas
March 15, 2005
A Covenant Statement of the House of Bishops
We have received the Windsor Report as a helpful contribution to our relationships with Anglican
brothers and sisters across the world. We recognize its recommendations as coming from a broadly
representative commission inclusive of bishops, clergy, and laity and as an attempt to speak as
equals to equals. We experience it as being in the best tradition of autonomy within communion and
as helpful in our efforts to live into communion. Likewise, we appreciate receiving the communiqué
from the February meeting of the Primates and take seriously the perspectives and convictions
stated therein.
It is our heartfelt desire to be responsive and attentive to the conversation we have already begun
and to which we are being called and as a body offer the following points.
1. We reaffirm our commitment to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888 and each

of its individual points. We reaffirm our earnest desire to serve Christ in communion
with the other provinces of the Anglican family. We reaffirm our continuing
commitment to remain in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and to
participate fully in the Anglican Consultative Council, the Lambeth Conference, and the
Primates' Meeting, and we earnestly reaffirm our desire to participate in the individual
relationships, partnerships, and ministries that we share with other Anglicans, which
provide substance to our experience of what it is to be in communion.
2. We express our own deep regret for the pain that others have experienced with
respect to our actions at the General Convention of 2003 and we offer our sincerest
apology and repentance for having breached our bonds of affection by any failure to
consult adequately with our Anglican partners before taking those actions.
3. The Windsor Report has invited the Episcopal Church "to effect a moratorium on the
election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is
emerges" (Windsor Report, para. 134). Our polity, as affirmed both in the Windsor
Report and the Primates' Communiqué, does not give us the authority to impose on
the dioceses of our church moratoria based on matters of suitability beyond the well-
articulated criteria of our canons and ordinal. Nevertheless, this extraordinary moment
285
286
in our common life offers the opportunity for extraordinary action. In order to make
the fullest possible response to the larger communion and to re-claim and strengthen
our common bonds of affection, this House of Bishops takes the following provisional
measure to contribute to a time for healing and for the educational process called for
in the Windsor Report. Those of us having jurisdiction pledge to withhold consent to
the consecration of any person elected to the episcopate after the date hereof until the
General Convention of 2006, and we encourage the dioceses of our church to delay
episcopal elections accordingly. We believe that Christian community requires us to
share the burdens of such forbearance; thus it must pertain to all elections of bishops
in the Episcopal Church. We recognize that this will cause hardship in some dioceses,
and we commit to making ourselves available to those dioceses needing episcopal
ministry.
4. In response to the invitation in the Windsor Report that we effect a moratorium on

public rites of blessing for same sex unions, it is important that we clarify that the
Episcopal Church has not authorized any such liturgies, nor has General Convention
requested the development of such rites. The Primates, in their communiqué "assure
homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by him, and
deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship" (Primates'
Communiqué, para. 6). Some in our church hold such "pastoral care" to include the
blessing of same sex relationships. Others hold that it does not. Nevertheless, we
pledge not to authorize any public rites for the blessing of same sex unions, and we
will not bless any such unions, at least until the General Convention of 2006.
5. We pledge ourselves not to cross diocesan boundaries to provide episcopal ministry in

violation of our own canons and we will hold ourselves accordingly accountable. We
will also hold bishops and clergy canonically resident in other provinces likewise
accountable. We request that our Anglican partners "effect a moratorium on any
further interventions" (Windsor Report, para. 155; see also 1988 Lambeth Conference
Resolution 72 and 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution III.2) and work with us to find
more creative solutions, such as the initiation of companion diocese relationships, to
help us meet the legitimate needs of our own people and still maintain our integrity.
6. As a body, we recognize the intentionality and seriousness of the Primates' invitation

to the Episcopal Church to refrain voluntarily from having its delegates participate in
the Anglican Consultative Council meetings until the Lambeth Conference of 2008.
Although we lack the authority in our polity to make such a decision, we defer to the
Anglican Consultative Council and the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church to
deliberate seriously on that issue.
The bonds of affection are not ends in themselves but foundations for mission. Therefore,
we re-commit ourselves to work together throughout the communion to eradicate
HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other diseases, to achieve the Millennium
Development Goals, and to address the other efforts mentioned by the Primates'
Communiqué (para. 20). We dedicate ourselves to full and open dialogue in every
available venue through invitations for mutual visitation, intentional exploration of the
theological perspectives and spiritual gifts that our diverse cultures offer, and
collaborative partnerships for the purpose of shared mission in Christ.
286
287
Reactions to the HOB Covenant

Statement:
287
288
The South Carolina Anglican Communion Network
Response to HOB Covenant

Statement from the South Carolina Anglican Communion Network Steering Committee
Upon first reading the headlines that a "Covenant Statement" had been issued by ECUSA
during the House of Bishops meeting at Camp Allen, Texas, we were excited and
hopeful. However, by the time we finished reading the "Covenant," the reality began to
dawn that we may be at the very same place where we had started in August 2003. For
over one and a half years the Anglican Communion has moved forward with great
deliberation, patience, and understanding in an attempt to prevent parts of the communion
from deciding to "walk apart." Despite extraordinary patience and understanding, the
calls and requests of our brothers and sisters in the Anglican Communion have once
again been put on hold or side tracked by the House of Bishops.
Where do we go from here? What can we expect? We can expect there will be another
wave of laity departures from ECUSA, particularly among those who believe that
ECUSA's unilateral actions were wrong in August of 2003 and see the covenant as
another stall and delay tactic.
For those who decide to see this fight through to its conclusion and remain faithful to the
historical traditions of the Church, prayer and action are a necessary component to
survival. And through prayer, and actions premised upon and inspired by prayer,
anything is possible. The South Carolina Anglican Communion Network (SC-ACN) will
continue to organize efforts to support our fellow parishioners, not only those within our
Diocese, but as importantly, those outside of our diocese. We communicate daily with
our fellow parishioners in North Carolina, Alabama, Maryland, and beyond and although
they feel totally marginalized by the past and current actions of ECUSA, we all know
through our fellowship there is hope.
Also via this letter, we request that the Archbishop of Canterbury move forward, through
the recently formed panel of reference and with a renewed sense of urgency, to review
the adequacy of pastoral oversight within ECUSA.
As for our faithful orthodox brothers and sisters in South Carolina and beyond, we urge
that you remain faithful and true to our great commission. Do not give up on the hope and
promise that orthodox Anglicanism will survive and flourish in North America.
May God bless us, keep us, and preserve us all.
288
289
Missouri
Report on the Meeting of the House of Bishops

March 21, 2005
Monday in Holy Week

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ Jesus:
There is precious little to add substantively to the two documents issuing from the Spring
Meeting of the House of Bishops. “The Covenant Statement” details your bishops’
response to the Communiqué from the Anglican Primates and to the Windsor Report. “A
Word to the Church” briefly narrates the meeting, describes the tenor of it, and lists its
various actions.
I can add little to the material in these reports, but I do want to convey to you a sense of
the meeting’s character, which was nothing short of remarkable. This meeting was by far
the most arduous in my three years as bishop. The Covenant Statement alone required
fourteen hours of work during official sessions, not to mention the countless hours spent
on the side and late into the night, informal meetings that made this agreement possible.
Open and painful conflict also surfaced during our time together. Hard work and heavy
emotion were evident in equal portions throughout the meeting.
The presence of conflict and toil, however, did not signal the absence of Spirit; quite the
contrary. For me, these days were filled with a realistic hope, for it became clear early on
that most bishops arrived at Camp Allen with a desire for ECUSA to remain one with the
Anglican Communion. There soon emerged a longing to find some way to share as
broadly as possible the cost of what the Primates have asked from us, with the sense that
what touches one touches all. The hard work ensued as we sought, and eventually found,
a consensus.
For the first time, I experienced the whole of the House of Bishops as pulling together,
whereas in the past we might have given in to the forces seeking to pull us apart. I do not
hesitate to bear witness to the Spirit’s presence among us, precisely because of this. And
the core working group, who presented the first draft of an idea that eventually resulted in
the Covenant Statement, was mind-boggling in its diversity. The spectrum of theological
and political thought in our Church was represented in that group, and on this occasion,
they spoke with one voice. I will say to you that it could not have been of their doing
alone, for the One who has called us was much in evidence as we met.
The strife is not over, nor is this hard season of uncertainty finished, and, as our Presiding
Bishop reminded us, sin lurks precisely in these moments of confidence and
289
290
accomplishment. But I can bring you this news of hope.
Often we associate the Spirit’s presence with the ease of a task undertaken or in some
brilliant performance. Certainly that may be the case, but we do well to remember other
realities, equally true. Scripture says that the Spirit, for example, was the One who drove
Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted. During these last days of Lent, let us remember
that perplexing aspect of the Spirit’s life, and our life in faith. As we enter the mysteries
of Holy Week, let us remember the Spirit’s working through cross and resurrection-both.
In Christ,
The Rt. Rev. George Wayne Smith, Bishop of Missouri
290

Statements Issued in Response To The Lambeth Commission On Communion's Windsor Report

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Statements Issued in Response To The Lambeth Commission On Communion's Windsor Report

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1

The University of the South, School of Theology

Statements Issued in Response to the Lambeth Commission on

PENNSYLVANIA ...................................................................................................................... 123

WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA........................................................................................... 187

The House of Bishop’s ............................................................................................... 282

STATEMENTS AND INTERVIEWS OF THE

Dear Brothers and Sisters:

The Commission was obliged to consider a number of sometimes conflicting concerns,

Anglicans live the Gospel in multiple contexts

Given the emphasis of the Report on difficulties presented by our differing

A Diverse Center in the Anglican Communion

comprehensiveness and its capacity to make room for difference.”

Looking toward a freshness of The Spirit

The Archbishop of Canterbury should have a council of advice, whose purpose is

This will need careful study.

The Rt. Rev. Henry N. Parsley, Jr.

The Rt. Rev. Mark H. Andrus,

The Right Rev'd Daniel Herzog, Bishop

The Windsor Report

FROM: Bishop Alexander

DATE: October 14, 2004

RE: The Windsor Report of the Lambeth Commission

Grace to you and peace in Jesus Christ our Lord!

* I have enormous confidence in Archbishop Eames. I am certain that the commission

* Attached to this memo is a list of materials that may be of assistance to you in

October 19th, 2004

The commission’s characterization of the 2003 General Convention as authorizing the

From: The Rt. Rev. William E. Swing, Bishop

Re: Report of the Lambeth Commission on Communion

Greetings in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ!

In my opinion, this Windsor Report is not a punitive or mean-spirited document. It is not

May the Holy Spirit lead us into all truth.

The Rt. Rev. William E. Swing

The Rt. Rev. John W. Howe

Please apologize; Don’t do it again

Dear Diocesan Family,

And the dam broke.

The Archbishop appointed a Commission of 17 Bishops and theologians, representative

legitimate, and until it is made such things must stop.

Warmly in our Lord,

(The Rt. Rev.) John W. Howe

CENTRAL GULF COAST

CENTRAL NEW YORK

The Rt. Rev. Michael Creighton,

The Rt. Rev. William D. Persell Bishop of Chicago

In October of 2003, the Archbishop of Canterbury empanelled a commission to study

The Bishop's Message

“The Windsor Report has been published.

It is deserving of a careful read by every member of the Episcopal Church.

October 18, 2004

The Rt. Rev. Clifton Daniel,

A commission formed by the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, to

The Rt. Rev. Charles G. vonRosenberg,

2004 Convention Address

The Past: Celebrating Transformation

Often during my visitations I invite parishioners going through challenging times of

And during these past 10 years we have said, “YES.”

The Present: Discerning Truth

If you haven’t already received a copy of my summary of the Report, it is available

It clearly proclaims that conversation in community must always precede the

TEACHER: Tommy, do you see the grass outside?

TEACHER: Did you see God?