The Lambeth Commission - Reception Windsor Report Reception Process The work of the Lambeth Commission on Communion was commissioned by the Archbishop of Canterbury in October 2003, following the special meeting of the Primates and Moderators of the Anglican Communion at Lambeth Palace in that month. The official process of reception for the Windsor Report 2004 therefore began in February 2005 during the regular meeting of the Primates and Moderators which was held in February 20th - 26th in Northern Ireland. In order to prepare for this meeting, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in conjunction with the Primates' Standing Committee, appointed a Reception Reference Group (RRG), under the chairmanship of the Most Revd Peter Kwong, then Primate of Hong Kong, to assist the Primates by monitoring the way in which the Windsor Report had been received across the Anglican Communion and by our ecumenical partners. In a letter to the Provinces, Archbishop Peter wrote, "My hope is really to be able to gain some sense of where Anglicans, Episcopalians and members of the United Churches stand on the issues raised in the Report, and the recommendations made...This is a formidable challenge but I feel it is vital that the Primates are able to have the widest and best possible information for their meeting next February." The members of the Reception Reference Group were: • Archbishop Peter Kwong, Primate, Hong Kong, Chair • Archdeacon Jim Boyles, Provincial Secretary, Canada • Bishop John Gladstone, Bishop of South Kerala, South India • Dr Ishmael Noko, General Secretary, Lutheran World Federation • Bishop Kenneth Price, Suffragan Bishop of Southern Ohio, USA • Bishop James Tengatenga, Bishop of Southern Malawi • Bishop Tito Zavala, Bishop of Chile Staff Consultants were: • Canon Gregory Cameron, ACO, Secretary • Canon John Rees, ACC, Legal Adviser • Revd Sarah Rowland Jones, CPSA Responses to the Windsor Report Several questions were developed for consideration by groups around the Communion as they considered the Windsor Report. The questions posed by the Primates' Standing Committee to the Provinces of the Anglican Communion were: 1. What in the description of the life of the Communion in Sections A & B can you recognise as consistent, or not, with your understanding of the Anglican Communion? 2. In which ways do the proposals in Section C & D flow appropriately from the description of the Communion's life in Sections A & B? 3. What do you think are the ways in which the recommendations and proposals of the Report would impact on the life of the Communion if they were to be implemented? 4. How would you evaluate the arguments for an Anglican Covenant set out in paragraph 119 of the Report? How far do the elements included in the possible draft for such a covenant in Appendix Two of the Report represent an appropriate development of the existing life of the Anglican Communion? The questions offered to our ecumenical partners by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion were: 1. What do you find helpful in the Windsor Report 2004? 2. What questions does the report raise from the perspective of your church? 3. If the recommendations of the Windsor Report were implemented, how would this affect your church's relationship with the Anglican Communion as an ecumenical partner? Some more general questions of a non-specialised kind were also formulated for consideration by those who didn't have a knowledge of the Windsor Report: 1. How can the 44 churches of the Anglican Communion be helped to stay together? 2. How should a Christian behave when another Christian does something which they believe is deeply offensive to the Gospel? 3. Would you like to see Anglican/Episcopal churches moving closer together or going their separate ways? A total of 322 responses were received. These were of varying size: some in the form of short, one-paragraph emails; others, two or twenty pages of thought-out views; others in book form representing a more in-depth analysis of the Windsor Report. Related Information • Report PDF (116K) • Responses • Presentation made at the Primates Meeting by the Most Revd Bruce Cameron PDF (46K) • Powerpoint Presentation made at the Primates Meeting PDF (517K) THE WINDSOR REPORT 2004 Reception Reference Group Report on responses THE WINDSOR REPORT Reception Reference Group report on responses THE RESPONSES By the time the Reception Reference Group met on February 10/11, 2005, 322 responses had been submitted. These were classified as being from sectors (108) - defined as: dioceses and bishops, provinces, organisations, primates, theological institutes, ecumenical partners, mission agencies and the networks and commissions of the Communion - and from individuals (214), most of which (140) came from Anglicans in the USA and Canada. Further submissions continue to arrive. The Reception Reference Group considered a statistical analysis of the responses submitted ahead of their meeting and had access to the texts of all submissions, including those arriving during their meeting. Pie charts of the analysis appear at the end of this report. The group based its report on the eight questions for Primates identified by Archbishop Robin Eames. A desire for the Anglican Communion to stay together Of those expressing a preference, many respondents wish the Communion to stay together (113) or its Churches to move closer together (28): 29 can be said to accept the possibility of the Communion separating. SECTION A and B Sections A and B offer a description of the Anglican Communion which • is governed by Holy Scripture • is living in inter-dependence • exercises autonomy-in-communion Do the primates recognise this description as an authentic description of our life together as a family of churches? Statistical Material The statistical analysis reflects a high level of agreement on these sections Sectors Individuals Agreement 66% 51% Qualified agreement 27% 25% Disagreement 7% 24% Within this sense of general agreement there are however a number of important points and reservations raised: a. Scripture. While there is an full acceptance of the authority of scripture, a number raise the issue of interpretation – how and by whom; and also the weight that should also be given to tradition and reason in the discernment of truth. b. Episcopate. Many respondents welcomed the sacramental and teaching role of the Bishop. A number though pointed out the more collaborative approach to the teaching aspect of ministry involving both ordained and lay. There was suspicion of the monarchical power of episcopacy and a greater need to discuss and develop the model of the Anglican Communion as “episcopally led and synodically governed. c. Bonds of Affection. Interdependence strongly affirmed but there are sometimes different understandings of the language used. For example ‘autonomy in communion’ is regarded by some as encouraging independence while others see it as restricting independence “Too great an emphasis on unity and agreement among Anglicans may lead to a stifling of the leading of the Spirit, and a resistance to change, even worthwhile or necessary change, within the church.” (Brisbane) “This diocese would also affirm… the view that no church has the authority or autonomy to act unilaterally on any significant matter of faith or order” (Bendigo) It was important to understand the different ways in which those bonds of affection had developed – for some out of the assertion of difference (e.g. USA) while others through a common history. In the end of the day the question we had to face was “Do we want to be a global Communion?” d. Adiaphora. This was seen as a helpful concept by many. It is part of the implications of our common life together that we be aware of the effects of any decision on the other. However concern was expressed about how we identify those ‘Communion Issues’, upon which agreement may not be achieved but consensus is required. e. Eucharist. A number of respondents noted and regretted the omission of this sacrament in any description of Communion “We find it curious that in a discussion of communion little was made of its significance as a primary sign of unity” (Brit. Columbia) It was welcomed that the Report did stress the place of prayer as an important part of our life as a Communion. SECTION C Suggestions to improve the mechanisms of our inter-dependence • The Instruments of Unity (Appendix 1) • The role of the Archbishop of Canterbury (§109, 110) • A Council of Advice (§111, 112) • An Anglican Covenant (§113-120) Do the Primates approve the main thrust of these proposals, and feel that they can commend them for implementation? If the Primates respond positively to this question, it would be helpful for them to add further reflections that acknowledge some of the feedback and provide guidance for ACC and other groups as they move forward in refining and implementing the proposals. Statistical Material • Statistics point to sectors giving strong support to Section C Sectors Individuals Agreement 42% 39% Qualified agreement 45% 32% Disagreement 13% 29% General Critiques • Looking for a bureaucratic solution to a question of communion seems to miss the points of fellowship, dialogue, sharing • A tendency to centralize authority and power within the communion is questioned. • Some fear that increased emphasis on the Instruments of Unity will lead to loss of autonomy; others support this move • Communion seems to be moving towards a more systematic ordering of its life and away from a more organic