Windsor Continuation Grope

Ruth Gledhill of the Times is alarmed:

An Anglican version of the Roman Catholic church's "inquisition" is proposed today in a document seen by The Times. Bishops are urging the setting up of an Anglican Faith and Order Commission to give "guidance" on controversial issues such as same-sex blessings and gay ordinations.

And, at first glance, this proposal seems to fly in the face of the sort of kumbaya indaba Covenant which appears to be Williams' ideal. Perhaps we should take a closer look.

As always, let us start with what facts and quotes we can assemble. What is the Windsor Continuation Group? Well the WCG started when

The Archbishop of Canterbury announced the formation of the Windsor Continuation Group (WCG), as proposed in his Advent Letter. The WCG will address outstanding questions arising from the Windsor Report and the various formal responses from provinces and instruments of the Anglican Communion.

In that Advent Letter, he describes the mandate of this group more exactly:

I also intend to convene a small group of primates and others, whose task will be, in close collaboration with the primates, the Joint Standing Committee, the Covenant Design Group and the Lambeth Conference Design Group, to work on the unanswered questions arising from the inconclusive evaluation of the primates to New Orleans and to take certain issues forward to Lambeth. This will feed in to the discussions at Lambeth about Anglican identity and the Covenant process; I suggest that it will also have to consider whether in the present circumstances it is possible for provinces or individual bishops at odds with the expressed mind of the Communion to participate fully in representative Communion agencies, including ecumenical bodies. Its responsibility will be to weigh current developments in the light of the clear recommendations of Windsor and of the subsequent statements from the ACC and the Primates' Meeting; it will thus also be bound to consider the exact status of bishops ordained by one province for ministry in another. At the moment, the question of 'who speaks for the Communion?' is surrounded by much unclarity and urgently needs resolution.

Second, what are the various documents circulating at Lambeth which the Times has seen and which have R.G. in a tizzy? They appear to be these anticipated memos that "feed in to the discussions at Lambeth about Anglican identity and the Covenant process." But these are part of an on-going discussion, intended to stimulate conversation, not any official documents. The WCG themselves say, in the first of the two documents circulated so far,

This document is NOT a report by the Windsor Continuation Group. It constitutes their preliminary observations on the life of the Communion and of the current state of responses to the recommendations of the Windsor Report, and offering some suggestions about the way forward. These observations are offered to the Lambeth Conference for conversation and testing.

So if you were worried that the Inquisition is going to show up tomorrow, relax.

Thirdly, what is the substance of these mere "discussion points" which the WCG is raising at Lambeth? Let's summarize the key points, as we know them, so far, from the first report and from the Times' report on the second and commentary thereon:

• Much has been undertaken in the Communion through and in response to the Windsor Process, but as a Communion, we appear to remain at an impasse. There is inconsistency between what has been agreed, and what has been done.
• Positions and arguments are becoming more extreme: not moving towards one another, relationships in the Communion continue to deteriorate; there is little sense of mutual accountability
• There are growing patterns of Episcopal congregationalism throughout the communion at parochial, diocesan and provincial level. Parishes feel free to choose from whom they will accept Episcopal ministry; bishops feel free to make decisions of great controversy without reference to existing collegial structures. Primates make provision for Episcopal leadership in territories outside their own Province.
• All this amounts to a diminishing sense of Communion and impoverishing our witness to Christ, placing huge strains on the functioning of the Instruments of Communion.
• Such turmoil affects our relations with our ecumenical partners.
• The Principles of Canon Law Project... which is being talked of by primates as the 'Fifth Instrument of Communion'. I am told it will not be so much a Catholic-style 'Code of Canon Law' as a 'blueprint' of Canon Law.
• We commend the suggestion for the setting up of an Anglican Communion Faith and Order Commission that could give guidance on the ecclesiological issues raised by our current crisis.
• The document also describes as "crucially important" for future unity the Anglican Covenant, a new "unity pledge" that provinces will be asked to sign up to. The Covenant will be debated in detail next week.
• My sources tell me the moderate conservatives are on side with this. One of the battles being fought, apparently, is over which way the TEC Primate Katharine Jefferts Schori will jump. The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams is desperate to have her on side, and on that hangs or falls the unity of the Anglican Communion.

Sounds impressive, eh? Well, let's examine it...

First, the WCG is not working on the Covenant. They do commend the inclusion of a "unity pledge" in the Covenant, but their own work is on this proposed "fifth instrument of Communion" which would articulate some norms. So the "commitment" to an ongoing unresolving indaba conversation which is Williams' Covenant is unaffected.

Secondly, the WCG is not dealing with theological matters. Sure, they're aware that issues of theology and ethics -- and the authority of Scripture! -- have precipitated the crisis, but that's not what they're focusing on. Their concern is with structure and process -- which is what makes their proposal more of a code of "law" than a "catechism". That right there should put paid to any fears of a doctrinal Inquisition.

This is not a "Confessional norm" they are proposing; nor are they proposing that they develop new norms of international law; nor are they proposing that debate be held upon whether they should develop new norms; nor are they proposing that debate be held upon whether the existing instruments should hold discussions about whether or not to develop new norms. Rather, they are proposing that the Communion discuss the possibility of setting up a new committee whose function would be to arrange Communion discussions to examine whether or not a new set of norms should be proposed and (if so) what norms. Oh, and this is just a talking point for discussion. Not a proposal. (That makes what the Times is reporting to be -- let's see if I can get this right -- a proposed discussion about whether they should discuss a proposal on proposing discussion of the creation of a new instrument to discuss the proposal of establishing some sort of normalized code (details to be discussed later) for intra-Communion relationships.)

Further, look at the concerns they express: disjunction between agreement and implementation; deteriorating relationships; lack of mutual accountability; congregationalism; jurisdictional choices made without adequate international consultation; jurisdictional boundary crossing; confusion over who speaks "legitimately" for the Communion. The ABC added concerns over who might "participate fully in representative Communion agencies, including ecumenical bodies" and, more recently, says the discussion needs to be about "protocols and conventions by which we recognize one another."

In other words, the concerns here are ALL ABOUT INSTITUTIONAL PROCESS AND RELATIONSHIP. We're not talking about doctrine, and we're not even talking about membership in the Anglican Communion. Heck, even if there were to be a "unity pledge" in the Covenent (if that ever even emerges) it will just be a pledge to commit to the ongoing conversation and process which represents membership in the Covenant "portion" of the Anglican Communion (perhaps carrying with it the perq of being eligible to participate on certain committees... woo-hoo!) but not membership in the Communion itself. (More here.)

That whole fear of excommunication by an Inquisition is starting to look pretty unfounded, isn't it?


Finally, given that all this is merely a proposal (or proposal about a discussion about a proposal... er, whatever), how can we expect the proposal to be modified in order to get it accepted before we even get to the stage of discussing setting something up? Remember, the WCG has no authority on its own -- its mandate is to stimulate discussion and make recommendations. It's the ABC (I gather) who decides how to propose part of those recommendations to the Communion, and so he'll have to adjust and spin it to get adequate support.

As the current "talking points" stand, they seem to be alienating both traditionalists and liberals. For traditionalists, of course, it's too little too late -- that's why, with the failure of the Windsor process (thanks largely to Williams himself undermining it), they went to GAFCon. Don't expect them to come running now to a "Windsor Continuation" process! Gledhill suggests that some English "catholics" might object as well for fear that they'd have more protestant practices imposed upon them. Remember, in English circles, "catholic" often seems to be a liturgical rather than a theological description... and most genuinely "theological" anglocatholics are already looking for some new arrangement to escape the increasingly heretical and anti-catholic pro-episcopal-W"O" CoE anyway.

And the liberals and apostates are, of course, terrified of anything which might possibly involve structures which might mean that doing or preaching any damned (quite literally) thing they want might limit their membership as "real" or "full" members of the Anglican Communion in some way. Anti-anglocatholic anti-apostolic succession anti-Scriptural authority pro-W"O" member of the English "Watch" group criticizes it with the typical bleets about listening and transformation and all the other pleasant-sounding buzzwords which are code for "a consensus to tolerate any damned belief or practice at all", saying:

What is needed is the transformation of hearts and minds – a softening of hearts and a turning again to hearing from one another with a goal of consensus, without the pressure of intention of a set form of words that will have disciplinary and legal weight.

Jim Naughton, Chane's spokesman, says

it's troubling, but perhaps unsurprising to see a group composed almost exclusively of bishops, and advised by Anglican Communion Office bureaucrats recommending new structures for the Communion that strengthen the role of bishops and bureaucrats at the expense of clergy and lay people.

To date, Times reports, only the "moderate conservatives" (by which I think they really mean the "moderate revisionists" of the ACI) are on board.

Now, often if both ends of a spectrum dislike something, it's a sign that it's "properly" in the middle. But that's only true if the middle is a good place to be... and if there are lots of people there! I mean, you could get the 2% in the "middle" to agree, but that's hardly a sweeping victory of moderate representation, now is it?

This is probably why it's a big concern to get Dr. Schori to agree to the notion. After all, it's clear that those supporting a more GAFCon-like approach (you know, a Covenant about -- and accountability to -- substance rather than process), judging from attendence at Lambeth, represent about two-thirds of the Communion. So it's already got minority support in terms of numbers. And if PEcUSA doesn't sign up to this proposed new process of discussing relationships, that means that two-thirds of the money won't be there either. And we can't have a repeat of a bankrupt Lambeth Conference, now can we?


This means that, whatever final form of the WCG's proposals are adopted for consideration (if any) -- regardless of how "traditionalist" some members of that committee itself might be -- they'll hvae to be watered down to the point where the majority of institutionalists and revisionists can get on board... which means, as with Williams' Covenant, it's going to have to be sure not to exclude anyone based on clear or enforceable doctrinal norms (beyond mere hand-waving at vague, variously-interpreted statements); going to have to be something without teeth, spines, or cahones... an amorphous invertebrate affiliation where the primary qualification for membership is simply agreeing to be a member.


So I don't think folks need to worry that we're in danger of the Spanish Inquisition.

At worst, just expect something with all the attitude -- and all the ineffectiveness -- of... THE BISHOP!

(UPDATE -- follow-up, with the posting of the WCG's second memo -- posted HERE)