The New Zealand Anglican Bishops released a pastoral statement on the Windsor Report, yet they seem to misread one of its key findings! I do a little woodworking, and I know that it doesn’t matter how nice the grain is, if the edges ain’t square then it’s going to be wonky!

The Pastoral Letter reads:

“We also note that this report does not address the issue of new ordinations of gay and lesbian people, any more than it addresses the question of homosexuality in general.”

But paragraph 127 of the Windsor Report reads:

“The Communion has also made its collective position clear on the issue of ordaining those who are involved in same gender unions; and this has been reiterated by the primates through their endorsement of the 1998 Lambeth Conference resolution. By electing and confirming such a candidate in the face of the concerns expressed by the wider Communion, the Episcopal Church (USA) has caused deep offence to many faithful Anglican Christians both in its own church and in other parts of the Communion.”

The Windsor Report is clear as to the “collective position” of the church, namely Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference which declares “This Conference: … cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions.” This is the resolution that the Primates of the 38 Anglican provinces were affirming when they said, “We also re-affirm the resolutions made by the bishops of the Anglican Communion gathered at the Lambeth Conference in 1998 on the issues of human sexuality as having moral force and commanding the respect of the Communion as its present position on these issues.”

Have our Bishops misread the significance of the paragraph 127?

Yes! Either that or they have been misinformed. For the Report does not confine itself merely to the particular ordination of Gene Robinson to the episcopate, as the Bishops’ Pastoral Letter implies. But to all ordinations of those involved in same gender unions in the most general sense. This is made clear by the footnote references directly to Resolution 1.10 and the Primates Statement and their inclusion in the appendix to the report. So how can our Bishops then say that the Report does not address the issue of “new ordinations”! Especially when the Report makes clear that the “old” ordination “has caused deep offence to many faithful Anglican Christians both in its own church and in other parts of the Communion.”

Why mention the possibility of “new ordinations’? What are “new” ordinations anyway and why would they need to be mentioned here? Is this a signal that New Zealand Bishops are planning to disregard one of the key findings of the Windsor Report! Let me be plain: any further ordinations (“new” or otherwise) of candidates involved in same gender unions will cause “deep offence” to many “faithful Anglican Christians” within our own Church, let alone the wider Church! To even contemplate such a course of action, given the findings of the Windsor Report, is nothing short of reckless and can only be regarded as a breach of good faith. I don’t think I can put it any plainer than that.

Of course the irony of it all is that the Pastoral Letter criticises those who have misread the report:

“The debate triggered on the Internet before and after the report’s release bears little resemblance to the careful and prayerful process of reception that the Commission proposes. Much of the media debate has little to do with what the Windsor Report is really about.”

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! One has to wonder whether our Bishops have leaned too heavily on insider trading from the two New Zealand Commissioners and have not allowed the text of the report to stand on its own terms.

Pastoral, yes, but for whom?

It is now almost two months since the Windsor Report was released and our Bishops issued their Pastoral Letter, and my “careful and prayerful” reflection has led me not to a growing re-assurance, but to a deepening anxiety for our New Zealand Church. It is almost as if the Bishops have given no consideration as to how Anglican evangelicals would “receive” their letter. Do they understand us at all? The Bishops write that they have “deep concern over all these issues and their potential to divide us,” yet they seem at a loss to know how to communicate effectively to the conservative wing of their church.

Let me attempt to articulate what it is that I feel has been left so unaddressed by the Bishops? This is how I see it. Here I am, looking on with horror as my Church seems to be careering down the road after the ECUSA and Canadian Church; and hoping to hear that the Windsor report has had at least an arresting, if not a sobering affect, on our leaders. But what do I hear? Only the declaration of “Business as usual!” This may well have been an unintended message from the Bishops, but one that I am hearing none the less.

How do I hear such a message? Well, consider the language of the Letter:

“We are encouraged that much of the spirit and direction of this report echoes our own General Synod resolution in May 2004, including the acknowledgement of the ministries and contributions of gay and lesbian people in this Church.”

Notice that Windsor is said to “echo” General Synod not the other way round. The Windsor Report is cast as the familiar echo and not as the strange and different voice that I hear. Hence the message communicated to me is, “business as usual”, “Windsor agrees with us.” Whether the Bishops intended it or not, the overall effect of the Pastoral Letter for me, is to say “Don’t panic, we are still on course. Windsor won’t affect us. General Synod can get on with its ‘active listening’; Bishops can still ordain practising gays. And we will win them over in the end!” I almost felt as if I was a third party to the intended audience of the letter, and that it was talking about someone else’s church.

The Bishops talk about not wanting to “close any doors or drop a portcullis on the debate.” Yet I believe they have! For why is it that the only portcullis dropped onto the path of the church, is the one that is dropped directly behind us, barring any attempt to return and seek another road? For there seems to be a determination not to countenance the idea that we might have it wrong, that we might need to ‘back up’ and pursue a different course if we are to achieve healing and restoration.

Can we give a name to that portcullis? I believe we can, for it is the stubborn triumphalism of the liberal worldview that bars our way. It is all about ‘progress’ we are told. “It’s going to happen eventually, it’s only a matter of time!” Sure, we can express “regret”, for progress always comes at a cost. But the idea of repentance is quite another matter. Yet, if we are to “choose to walk together” (as the Windsor Report urges us), we must at least concede the possibility that we may have got it wrong and have to retrace our steps. Maybe it is not just a case of the ‘Global South’ catching up with the modern civilised ‘West’. Perhaps there are lessons we can learn from them, if we have the humility to listen. That, it seems to me, is the true “spirit and direction” that the Windsor Report is asking us to consider.

Malcolm Falloon
Warden