T he Anglican communion's newly issued Windsor Report appears to have been written by apprehensive conservatives in damage-control mode. Meaning, it looks like it could have been drafted at an LCMS synodical convention. The report, which many had hopes would firmly address the crisis brought on by the consecration of a gay bishop, does claim that the request for the report to be drafted preceded that consecration. It also states that "in some instances the request by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates for an absence of developments or pronouncements which would make the work of the Lambeth Commission more difficult has been ignored." I take this to mean that the report actually does more than it was asked to do. And the more consists of suggestions for the different Anglican bodies to covenant together to avoid future possibilities of schism.
The document does not itself have teeth. It offers a lot of suggestions, but no real pronouncements. One writer I read said that perhaps the reason we don't see pronouncements is that it is written in British-speak, not American-speak. Instead of saying "You're fired!", the British might say "Have you ever considered a line of work more in line with your proclivities?" Perhaps this is how the document should be read. But the fact that the report states that it was asked of its drafters not to make pronouncements makes me think we should take it as being provisional.
The document does offer Biblical grounding for much of its approach. It contains a beautiful summary of what the First Epistle to the Corinthians says about our calling in Christ, and how even the disciplining of public scandals is done in light of the grace of God. But even here, though I cannot say it is inaccurate, it points this out while giving little indication of the harshness of the discipline Paul calls the Corinthians to mete out. The verse "Drive out the wicked person from among you," (1 Cor. 5:13) is never cited. While there may exist situations in which such reticence is warranted, it is downright biased to leave this out while at the same time treating as renegades those who have been scandalized. If the Corinthians had not only failed to address the immoral brother of whom St. Paul speaks, but in addition called the cuckolded father to reconciliation while the son was living with his wife, I can imagine that Paul would have thought his words had been used against their original intention.
The document does contain an appendix which outlines a possible future process by which the member churches in the worldwide Anglican communion can covenant together in the future so that actions such as bishop Robinson's consecration do not happen in the future, and that when offenses occur, there is an agreed-upon manner in which to deal with them.
Such a process sounds like it could be a good thing or a bad thing. Perhaps both. I think it is a pragmatic solution to a complex problem. How can we all get along? The one thing that it seeks to solve is the problem of renegades. Not liberals per se. Not conservatives per se. Just renegades. Which will eventually mean, most likely, whoever does not sign onto the new agreement.
I would almost rather be a member of a separate church body composed of the die-hard reactionary conservatives and the die-hard bleeding-heart liberals, who had contracted together in some very pragmatic document haggled over by expensive lawyers until both parties saw that they could go about their business as they saw fit. One congregation could worship with a gay-friendly prayer book, and the other with the First Prayer Book of Edward VI (with new homophobic anathema clauses), and nobody has to worry about their property being filched. But then, I'm a libertarian at heart. I fear that the great sins in our day happen when a conviction that we have to give those in power enough power to punish all evil is combined with a conviction that what is evil is decided by majority vote. Majorities and other strange coalitions can always put the squeeze on everyone else. Never arm an arsenal until you know who will be using it.
One particularly vomit-worthy line came early on. It reads: "What could be termed ‘the human face’ of these divisions has become clear to the Commission. Within provinces, dioceses and parishes, where individual Anglican Christians have experienced degrees of alienation and exclusion due to differences of opinion between leadership and members, there has been much pain and disillusionment. Further questions have surfaced about episcopal oversight within a diocese where significant groups of Anglicans have become alienated from their bishop. The Commission has seen and heard those emotions." The committee feels our pain! And I thought it was a stretch to believe the American President felt our pain. Anybody who could find comfort in the expression of emotions by a committee is a lost soul. How long did Screwtape work to make that possible?
I am saddened....Wait a minute! I've never been saddened in my life! That's a disingenuous bureaucrat word. (Never trust anyone who uses the word 'saddened'.) Gak! I am sick-to-death of church documents like the Windsor Report. And I don't think it's primarily a reflection of the people who write them. I think it's a reflection of the kind of culture in which we find ourselves, and the kinds of expectations placed upon those who write such documents. They are asked to perform the impossible. And they make an heroic attempt. But the time is later than they imagine.
Imagine if the letter to the church at Thyatira was written by the same people who wrote the Windsor Report. Instead of "I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess," we would read "Many in your congregation are bewildered by the nature of sexuality in our broken world. We have heard the emotions of alienation of both Jezebel and those who feel alienated by those who tolerate her. We call for a healing process where all can move on a journey together of discovering what communion means." Perhaps this sounds more Christian that the Revelation to some. But there is a danger in trying to be more Christian than Christ.
It is not unthinkable that this crisis could be resolved with the conservatives having the upper hand. What I fear is that even if they do, the church will not look anything like the New Testament church. Granted, there never was an age when the church was not a mess. But at other times, the remedy could be stated in a more straighforward fashion. And a document that does not present itself as the actual solution would not even need to exist.