A Response to the Joint Standing Committee’s Report

In my view, the Joint Standing Committee’s Report has not adequately identified the actual position of the House of Bishops and therefore has underestimated the distance that remains between TEC and the rest of the Communion.

Same-sex Blessings
In regard to Same-sex blessings, the Primates were seeking to clear up an ambiguous situation between the authorisation of Public rites and tacit permission at the local level for same-sex blessings to continue. As the Primates wrote, “It is the ambiguous stance of The Episcopal Church which causes concern among us.”

The Report indicates that this request has been met. However, the House of Bishops themselves state that a significant minority of Bishops, while not authorising such rites, do make “allowance” for such blessings. In their words, “the majority of bishops do not make allowance for the blessings of same-sex unions.” This clearly implies that while most “do not” a significant minority indicates that there is no new move from the House of Bishops to withdraw permission for such rites or to discipline any fellow bishops who make “allowance” for such blessings.

The Report sees this as acceptable under the provision of “a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care.” quoting the Primates own words. However, this is exactly where the House of Bishops needed to clarify their position. Do they see “individual pastoral care” as involving same-sex blessings, or not? In addition, the Primates in no way intended “individual pastoral care” to involve the local provision of same-sex blessings. Instead, along with the Windsor Report, they called for a moratorium on all such public rites.

Consequently, the Report has failed to identity that a most serious division remains between the House of Bishops and the rest of the Communion.

Consecration of Bishops in sexual relationships outside of marriage
In regard to the consecration of Bishops, it is frustrating in the extreme the way in which the House of Bishops first hides behind the constitutional requirements of their General Convention and then, when it suits, to stand on the freedom of their episcopal consciences to follow the truth as they see it. As an example (and perhaps the true source of all our present Communion issues), the Bishops were happy to ignore the General Convention in 1979 when the Convention decided that the ordination of practising homosexuals was “inappropriate”. Instead, the Bishops deliberately flaunted the General Convention declaring that it was their “apostolic leadership and prophetic witness” to do so.

In regard to the present situation, the House of Bishops had plenty of opportunity to consider wording that would have unambiguously complied with the Primates request, but choose not to do so. Instead, they have retained the right to act prophetically should they deem it expedient.

Therefore, I have no confidence that the House of Bishops have responded adequately to the Primates and the Report is wrong in its conclusion that they have “clearly affirmed” the request of the Windsor Report.

Pastoral Issues and Incursions by Uninvited Bishops
The House of Bishops have refused the Primates offer to provide pastoral support for dissenting congregations and dioceses. Yet they still aggressively pursue congregations through the civil courts. I believe it is highly one-sided on their part to call for an immediate end to such interventions while not adequately making provision for dissenting groups within TEC. This shows an unwillingness to accept any accountability from the wider Communion. The Report looks to downplay the significance of this issue in a way that ignores the reality of the local situation.

Is there common ground?
The most unhelpful statement in the Report is its view that some common ground is emerging throughout the Communion. They quite wrongly conclude,

“The Communion seems to be converging around a position which says that while it is inappropriate to proceed to public Rites of Blessing of same-sex unions and to the consecration of bishops who are living in sexual relationships outside of Christian marriage, we need to take seriously our ministry to gay and lesbian people inside the Church and the ending of discrimination, persecution and violence against them.”

This “position” is not supported at all by the House of Bishops’ statement. For they conclude their statement by declaring,

“We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God’s children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ’s Church.”

While the Report speaks of “ministry to”, the House of Bishops proclaims, “participants in”. This is, of course, the very issue that is dividing the Communion! To imply that they are in any way equivalent statements is most unhelpful. It most certainly does not justify the confidence of the Report that the “Communion seems to be converging around a position”. In my view we are as divided as ever.

Conclusion
The House of Bishops continues to insist on governing its life on theological principles that are contested by the rest of the Communion. What the Communion seeks is an opportunity to openly discuss and critique these principles. That cannot happen while TEC proceeds with blessings, ordinations and consecrations of persons in same-sex relationships. The Windsor Report is essentially a call for actions to stop so that dialogue may begin. The Primates have valiantly tried to clarify with TEC whether they are prepared to follow this course. The Report says that they have and that the “Communion should move toward closure on these matters”. However, the statement of the House of Bishops does not support this conclusion. Nor does it support the view of the Report that common ground is emerging between TEC and the rest of the Anglican Communion.

Revd Malcolm Falloon
Warden
Latimer Fellowship