Monday, November 19, 2007

Windsor Compliance

This story from Jonathan Petre has me thinking. He says the Archbishop of Canterbury may rethink the invitations to the Lambeth Conference. He claims the Archbishop

has now indicated that he is prepared to scrutinise controversial bishops he had already invited if there is evidence that they are unwilling to compromise their views.

The Archbishop will seek assurances that they can abide by the broad principles of the Windsor Report, but he has not ruled out barring them from the three-week conference.

This has me thinking again: Which provinces are really "Windsor-compliant"?

Windsor called on provinces not to consecrate any homosexuals to the episcopate. The Episcopal Church (U.S.) has complied. In fact, our General Convention passed a noxious resolution (PU33) saying we wouldn't consecrate anyone whose "manner of life poses a challenge" to the wider Communion. And in September, our weenie bishops passed a resolution making it clear that the targets – the only targets of that resolution – are the queers. They have no problem with thrice-married bishops. [Can you say Beisner?] They have no problem with episcopal candidates who despise our church. [Can you say Lawrence?] But they will "faithfully" and steadfastly bar faithful gay men and lesbians from the episcopate. The U.S. church is Windsor-compliant. The bishops have sold their souls, but – by God! – they are Windsor-compliant.

Windsor called on provinces not to adopt liturgies for same-sex blessings. The Episcopal Church has complied. Interestingly, three dioceses of the Anglican Church in Canada have now approved such liturgies. [Edit/update: Thanks to Malcolm+ in the comments section for clarifying: Only 1 diocese in Canada (New Westminster) has approved SSBs; three other diocesan synods (Ottawa, Montreal and Niagara) have now asked that their bishops authorize them.] The Church of England officially blesses unions of priests who have civil blessings. The U.S. church is Windsor-compliant. Others are not. If Windsor-compliance is the yardstick, I fear Rowan will have to disinvite the bishops of the Church of England.

Windsor called upon provinces to cease cross-border incursions. The Episcopal Church has never done these. Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, and the Province of the Southern Cone have done so. Gomez has participated in these cross-border consecrations, while serving on the "Covenant Design Group." The U.S. church is Windsor-compliant. These others are not.

It seems to me that the Episcopal Church is one of the few provinces that has remained "Windsor compliant" since the issuance of the Windsor Report. Many of the so-called orthodox will have to be disinvited if "Windsor compliance" is the yardstick.

If Jonathan Petre is correct and the Archbishop of Canterbury is going to rescind invitations to Lambeth based on their "Windsor compliance," the bishops of the Episcopal Church are in a sweet position. Many bishops of England, Nigeria, Canada, Uganda, Kenya, and the Southern Cone should find themselves disinvited if "Windsor compliance" is the yardstick. Most of the bishops of the Episcopal Church in the U.S. will get to have tea with the Queen. (Never mind that they sold some of their members down the river to get that invitation.)

Let Rowan use "Windsor compliance" as his yardstick for who he will and will not invite. I dare him!

5 Comments:

Anonymous Malcolm+ said...

A small quibble. Only one diocese in Canada has approved the blessing of same sex unions, and New Westminster did so prior to the Windsor Report.

What is new is that three further diocesan synods have asked their bishops to take that step. But the step has not yet been taken.

11/19/2007 11:14 AM  
Blogger Lisa said...

Thanks for the correction, Malcolm+. I've revised the text accordingly. That's what I get for "whipping out" a post without doing my fact-checking.

11/19/2007 6:09 PM  
Blogger Caminante said...

It can save us a lot of money that we can then spend toward the MDGs. Anyway, it's always interesting to go to our provincial synod meetings because only one bishop (RI) is 'Windsor compliant.' I always gear up waiting for that remind that will come at some point in the meeting. Read VT's convention address where he states that he marvels that a working report became law. Indeed.

word check: fxoobbo (So there! smile)

11/20/2007 9:32 AM  
Blogger Malcolm+ said...

I don't mean to be difficult, but New West has authorized them and THREE other diocesan synods have now asked for them to be authorized (Ottawa, Montreal and Niagara).

11/20/2007 10:34 AM  
Blogger Lisa said...

Malcolm, you're not being difficult at all! I'm grateful for your correction, and mortified at my blunders. I'll post the corrected correction up in the body of the essay.

Caminante, I agree: We could well use the funds on something of more enduring value than a big fat Anglican party for the princes of the church! ... And a hearty nvkfihfm back to ya! ;-)

11/20/2007 6:21 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home