It has, for some reason, become established opinion that a number of Global South primates stand in violation of the Windsor Report (WR).
Of course we all know, ++Robin Eames told us so, that the Episcopal Church “complied” with the WR in 2004 when the House of Bishops voted to establish a nationwide moratorium on the election and consecration of all bishops (not just the ones having extramarital gay sex) until General Convention 2006.
But, conversely, we also know, because we believe what we’re told, that various Global South primates have violated the WR by crossing jurisdictional boundaries without permission.
This version of reality has been implied or expressed in the speeches and/or resolutions of several recent diocesan conventions.
It’s a load of horsefeathers.
Remember the days after the WR’s release? One of the original lines of revisionist obfuscation was that the WR is a nonbinding, meaningless document. It’s simply a study; a mere collection of scholarly recommendations.
They were right.
The WR was commissioned by and completed for the primates. Without their reception and approval, it was, indeed, little more than a study document.
At Dromantine, however, the primates, along with the Archbishop of Canterbury, received and approved the WR.
But it wasn’t a blanket approval. The communiqué issued after the Dromantine conference included some significant additions and some significant subtractions to the WR.
Most significant for our purposes is the change the communiqué made to the language of the WR with regard to jurisdictional crossings.
The Windsor Report suggested the following language:
“We call upon those bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty to intervene in provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own: 1. to express regret for the consequences of their actions 2. to affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and 3. to effect a moratorium on any further interventions.” (section D:155)
The Dromontine Communiqué rejected this language and replaced it with the following:
“We commit ourselves neither to encourage nor to initiate cross-boundary interventions.”(section 15)
This is a dramatic alteration of both language and meaning. Interventions cannot be “encouraged” or “initiated” but beyond that, they may, in fact, be done.
When a parish in a revisionist diocese secedes from her diocese and seeks intervention, a primate can, under the changes instituted by the primates’ communiqué, legitimately respond to the call and cross jurisdictional boundaries without violating the Windsor Report.
This truth does not make ECUSA bishops and standing commissions happy.
But that doesn’t make it any less true.
The URL for this story is:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/comments/the_truth_about_border_crossings/
Maintainer: Ted McMichael
Send Comments or Questions to:
theword@starpower.com