CHAPTER FOUR
4. RESPONSES TO CRISES IN THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION 1978 – 2009 Introduction
4.3. The Windsor Report
4.3.2. Practical Consequences
When the “practical consequences of a healthy communion”104
are considered the image of the Body is taken up once more. This time the reference is from Ephesians and an emphasis is given to Christ as the head. Again, echoing The Virginia Report, a rosy picture of the Anglican Communion is painted in terms of the structures of the church.105 In the next paragraph Toronto 1963 is referred to, and the “Ten Principles of Partnership” are said to have been developed from the commitment to “mutual interdependence in the Body of Christ.”106 No awareness is shown of the dysfunctional nature of the PiM process that led to the writing of the “Ten Principles.” Instead, it is claimed that they have been lived out and honoured, and a few examples are offered to support this claim.107 These are seen as signs of health.108
The report looks at the issues which have led to the forming of the Lambeth Commission and, again drawing upon The Virginia Report, sees subsidiarity as one of six key elements in Anglican relationships,109 but adds to this a concept not in The Virginia
Report, adiaphora.110 Adiaphora are defined as “things which do not make a difference,
matters regarded as non-essential, issues about which one can disagree without dividing the church,”111 and are derived from Rom. 14:1-15:13 and 1 Cor. 8-10. The Windsor Report argues that clarity is offered if a decision is clearly adiaphora. The Report states that
adiaphora was a concept developed by the English reformers and a “major feature of
Anglican theology.”112 However, several Anglican theologians were surprised by its
104
Section heading. Ibid., 6-11.
105 Ibid., 7. See TVR, Chapter 3 “Belonging together in the Anglican Communion.” 106 TWR, 8. 107 Ibid., 9. 108 Ibid., 10. 109 Ibid., 38-39. 110 Ibid., 36-37, 87-95. 111 Ibid., 87. 112 Ibid., 88.
inclusion and saw it as an innovation in Anglican Theology.113 Many see it as positive,114 but others point to its complexity.115
The theology of adiaphora has roots in divisive disputes as the second generation Lutheran Church sought to find an identity in changing political situations. Melanchthon proposed the concept to enable Lutherans to accept the Leipzig Interim, a settlement hammered out between Elector Moritz and Emperor Charles V.116 Charles would accept Lutheran theology if Moritz could persuade the Lutherans to accept Catholic traditions of worship. This compromise was considered a possible way to reconcile the Lutherans and the Church of Rome. Melanchthon found a way of accepting ceremonial acts as matters that were not essential, or adiaphora. Competing Lutheran leaders, questioning where it would end, chided Melanchthon for his weakness and asked if transubstantiation itself could be
adiaphora.117 Those who opposed its adoption in the English church of the time, both
puritans and catholics, echoed this fear.
For A. G. Dickens adiaphora was among the most attractive of all the Reformation doctrines. He argued that it enabled an escape from the demand to acquiesce to propositions, and was the mark of liberal, tolerant, reformed theology.118 It was fundamental to the
theology of Frith, who was executed in 1533, not because he denied transubstantiation and purgatory, but because he did not see them as essential to the faith.119 The English liberal reformers, such as Starkey and Brinklow, also took such a stand.120 In the English
Reformation adiaphora was used to argue for toleration and freedom, and the issues
113 See, for example, “Response to the Windsor Report - Bishop Epting,” The Anglican Communion Official
Website, http://www.aco.org/commission/reception/responses/p1.cfm. “The long section on 'adiaphora'
(Paragraphs 87 ff), while helpful overall, sounds more Lutheran than Anglican.”
114
For example, “Response to the Windsor Report - Anthony Thistelton,” The Anglican Communion
Official Website, http://www.aco.org/commission/reception/responses/pdf/comm_thiselton.pdf.
115 For example, “Response to the Windsor Report - Robert Hughes,” The Anglican Communion Official
Website, http://www.aco.org/commission/reception/responses/pdf/theo_revprofroberthughes.pdf.
116
Euan Cameron, The European Reformation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), 346-9.
117 Ibid., 363-4.
118 A.G. Dickens, The English Reformation (Glasgow: Fontana, 1st ed.1964, revised 1967), 462. 119 Ibid., 116-7.
120
surrounding who was to judge what was essential were side-stepped. The pressure for conformity in Melanchthon‟s Germany and in mid sixteenth century England came from the civil powers. In 1556, John Ponet, the Bishop of Winchester, adopted adiaphorism, and while he assigned to the crown powers over “things indifferent,” the essentials, he argued, were left to individual conscience.121 Ponet argued that Bishops could enforce non-essential things, such as the style of vestments worn by clergy, but not essentials, such as belief in purgatory, which was for the individual to believe or reject.
Adiaphora is established as an explanatory model and applied as an exploratory
model in The Windsor Report. Paragraph 88 endorses the understanding of adiaphora set out above. It was noted that transubstantiation was regarded as non essential, even though it is a core doctrine that divided the church. However, when the concept of adiaphora is combined with subsidiarity and authority this understanding is reversed.122 The report states that
essential items need to be decided at a higher level and the decisions need authority.123 While
adiaphora has biblical and theological history, its combination with subsidiarity has no
precedent. The combination of the two concepts of subsidiarity and adiaphora together reverses the theology of Melanchthon and the English reformers from a positive embracing of tolerance and individual conscience to a structural formalism. Whereas Melanchthon saw the notion of adiaphora as a way to compromise, in combination with subsidiarity it
becomes a symbol of no compromise. In contrast to the diversity that Dickens claimed for its application by the English Reformers, it becomes legislative and authoritarian.
Authority in Anglicanism was not previously institutionalised with distinct “higher” levels and theoretically belief was ultimately the responsibility of individuals who were able to read the Bible for themselves. Subsidiarity is an innovation, which, while it was clearly
121 Ibid., 430. 122 TWR, 94. 123
present in The Virginia Report, had not been accepted by the Lambeth Conference. It was not supported in The Windsor Report by any further theological work.
Thus, The Windsor Report recommended the development of clearer authority structures that it saw as being rooted in the model of The Virginia Report. For example, The
Windsor Report recommended that the Primates‟ Meeting should have “enhanced
responsibility”124 and become the “Primates‟ Conference – the Lambeth standing
Committee.”125 They recommended the Archbishop of Canterbury have an authoritative role supported by a “Council of Advice.”126 They also recommended the adoption of an Anglican Covenant.127 The covenant would, they argued:
Make explicit and forceful the loyalty and bonds of affection which govern the relationships between the churches of the Communion. The Covenant could deal with: the acknowledgement of common identity; the relationships of communion; the commitments of communion; the exercise of autonomy in communion; and the management of communion affairs (including disputes).128
The main innovations of The Windsor Report were in the combination of the concept of subsidiarity with the requirement to define adiaphora and, more pertinently, those that were not. This led to a search for a centre of authority and to the suggestion of the
formalising of relationships by the adoption of a Covenant.
4.3.3. Summary
The Windsor Report replicated many of the strengths and weaknesses of The Virginia Report. It is set out in a similar style and functions in a similar manner. Both are constructed
to act as exploratory models, but fail to convince as explanatory models. This is highlighted in the simple reference to the significance of adiaphora to the English Reformers without the evidence of a sound foundation on critical studies.
124
Ibid., 104, quoting from To Mend the Net: Anglican faith and order for renewed mission, by Drexel Gomez and Maurice Sinclair eds. (Carlton, Texas: Ekklesia, 2001).
125 TWR. 106. 126Ibid., 108-112.
127 Ibid., 113-120, especially 118-119. 128
Following The Windsor Report energy was released in practical action. These included the forming of a “Panel of Reference” to settle disputes in line with the idea of subsidiarity and adiaphora, moves towards the development of an Anglican Covenant, and the reinvigorating of a process of listening to the experience of gay and lesbian Christians.
The work of the Panel of Reference illustrates the problem of implementating subsidiarity. The panel followed up three cases that were deemed to require a “higher” authority to solve disputes that were intense and impossible to resolve at the local level. The panel met and gave judgements, but those on the losing side did not accept the judgements and appealed to alternative authorities, including the courts.129 The “authoritative” decision of the panel did not result in any noticeable difference within the dioceses and the conflicts remained. The panel ceased its work in April 2008, because it was clear to all that it would not succeed.130 The end of the Panel of Reference was not the end of the move towards authority structures in the Communion, but it illustrates the problem with such an approach in a voluntary community.
4.4. IATDC 2006131
The Lambeth Commission used money that had been intended for IATDC and so they were unable to meet between 2003 and 2006. In 2006 they intended to offer a theology of “covenant” along with a study of the role of bishops in communion. Three papers were produced: “Responding to the Proposal of a Covenant,” “The Anglican Way: The
129 This can be illustrated by the judgement on the dispute in the Diocese of New Westminster. “13th
October 2006 - Report on the Diocese of New Westminster” The Anglican Communion Official Website, http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/reference/docs/report_october.pdf. The parties have been in continued dispute since the report, going to civil courts in June and July 2009.
130 “Panel of Reference,” The Anglican Communion Official Website,
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/reference/index.cfm.
131 “Theological Resources for Anglican „Communion‟ Issues” (IATDC 2006), The Anglican Communion
Official Website, http://www.anglicancommunion.org/ministry/theological/iatdc/docs/2006resources.cfm. I was
present as a staff member at this meeting of IATDC. In view of the subject matter of this PhD thesis, I was asked to prepare a paper on koinonia and Philippians that was distributed to the members. It was offered as a text for critical reflection. The group accepted the paper and included a conclusion from it. Paragraph 1.5 “Paul chooses a special term („koinonia‟) that has both commercial and social implications to describe his covenant friendship with the Philippians. They were in „partnership‟ together for the spreading of the gospel and the mission of the church to the Gentiles in God‟s name. Although Paul and the Philippians are in different
locations doing different tasks, they are nevertheless partners „in Christ‟, sharing the risks as well as celebrating the successes of the gospel.” The implications of this were not fully considered.
significance of the Episcopal Office for the Communion of the Church,” and a “Summary Argument.” Focus here is on the first of these three papers with some supplement from the “Summary Argument.”
Once again the product of the commission can be seen in the terms of a model. The intention was to offer guidance to the process of covenant design following The Windsor
Report.132 The paper replicates the style of the Virginia and Windsor Reports, and adopts the
meta-narrative approach to the Bible, this time with a sharper focus on covenant. It is stated that God established the covenant with Abraham as a response to the fall.133 The covenant is expressed in the law that established a covenant community,134 and by the prophetic
assertion of a new covenant of love fulfilled in Jesus,135 who at the Last Supper inaugurated a new covenant community.136 The practical living out of this community took the form of differing models,137 including one based on the Essene community, and Pauline
communities, such as the Philippian church.138 It was recognised that the community of the early church was never perfect and marked by sharp disputes.139
It is in this context that the significant principle of subsidiarity, and the required concepts of adiaphora and a locus of authority, are considered and developed further. Paragraph 1.7 sets up an interesting dynamic. The priority of unity is established as “a vital strand” for covenant living, but, as in The Windsor Report, it is the example of the expulsion of an individual for incest in 1 Cor. 5:8 which is offered as an example of something which intolerable, that is, not adiaphora.140
132 Ibid., “„Responding to the Proposal of a Covenant‟ reflects on the biblical and eclesiological background
to the idea of covenant, and observes ways in which the concept of covenanting may be fruitfully employed to demonstrate a way in which Anglicans seek to stay together in times of controversy.”
133
“Responding to a proposal of a covenant - October 2006,” The Anglican Communion Official Website, http://www.anglicancommunion.org/ministry/theological/iatdc/docs/2006covenant.cfm. 134 Ibid., 1.3. 135 Ibid., 1.4. 136 Ibid., 1.4. 137 Ibid., 1.5. 138 Ibid., 1.5. 139 Ibid., 1.6. 140 Ibid., 1.7 see TWR, 4.
Subsidiarity is treated as a principle which has been accepted and a dependable basis for building the structures required for maintaining unity.141 To assist with criteria for deciding at which level a conflict should be considered, the commission reasserted three criteria that it had presented to the Primates in 2003.142 These were “intensity, extent and substance.”143
To enable the interpretation of a covenant the group proposed “an instrument to interpret it.”144
A new source of authority, an “interpretative body” was proposed. This would be a group of the best Anglican theologians, “people whose competence and wisdom as theologians was recognised and respected by all.”145
In the case of making judgements on intensive, extensive and substantive issues, theologians who are respected by all are hard to find.
Once again the formation of the model is not open to scrutiny, except that previous models set out in The Virginia Report and The Windsor Report are accepted as exploratory models with their conclusions sharpened, but not questioned. The Anglican Communion has a wealth of experience in reconciliation ministry in Southern Africa, Northern Ireland, and Burundi, and through organisations such as the Society of the Cross of Nails, but none of this experience is drawn upon. Neither was the experience of marriage guidance experts sought. The imposition of solutions from impartial observers does not seem to have worked
141 Ibid., 3.2.
142 Ibid. See “Reflections offered to the Primates of the Anglican Communion” The Anglican Communion
Official Website, http://www.aco.org/ecumenical/commissions/iatdc/20031015primates.cfm. Paragraph 21. “A
problem arises over innovations about which there are different views in the Church concerning the relative weight or significance to be accorded to a matter. Such are the matters in question. How ought the Church to proceed in such situations? A principle here might be that if the dispute is: intense (e.g. generates high degree of sustained and unresolved debate that threatens the unity of the Anglican Communion; or that requires urgent attention) extensive (e.g. not confined to one section or region of the Church; has significant implications for mission and ecumenical relations; has a wider social impact) and substantial (concerning an actual issue, and not for example, simply being generated by the media) then the matter cannot remain simply for the local Church (e.g. the diocese) to handle.”
143
Ibid., 3.2.
144 Ibid., 3.3.
145 Ibid., 5.2. See, in contrast, David Beetge, “The future of the Anglican Communion” in Christianity and
Homosexuality – A Resource Booklet for Discussion (London, St Martin-in-the-Fields, 2005), 14-18. Bishop
in international relationships or in resolving marriage disputes.146 The proposal of The
Windsor Report of a covenant is supported by IATDC, with a clear understanding that it will
involve a move from a dynamic relationship model based upon mutual responsibility (as proposed by Warren and Bayne) to a structured model in juridical mode. It is envisaged that “higher” levels ruling on theological disputes will give clarity, make judgements that are authoritative for the whole church.
The IATDC report might not be thought of as significant. It did not have any official endorsement, and was not widely studied. However, three members of the Commission were members of the Covenant Design Group, and the consultant to the design group – Norman Doe – made frequent reference to it in his commentary to the Covenant for the 2008 Lambeth Conference.147