Study Guide for the Windsor Report - A Study for Reconciliation in the Anglican Communion

This study guide was written for Fort Worth Via Media by:
John S. Morgan & George J. Komechak

SESSION ONE – WINDSOR REPORT SECTION A
(two & one half hour session - break up into groups of 5 to 7 people and discuss the following – reassemble for common discussion)

ten minutes introduction to those assembled
twelve minutes each discussion of the first four topics in small groups 10 minute break
twelve minutes each discussion of the second four topics in small groups
reassemble in large group for 34 minute discussion and comparison

  1. How is unity understood by Paul and the authors of the Windsor Report? 1-6

  2. How have Anglicans historically sustained unity? 7-11

  3. What procedures in the ordination of women avoided a major upset in the communion? 12-21

  4. How did a different approach concerning current topics in sexuality upset the communion in a major way? 22-27

  5. Why did 18 of 38 provinces (or primates on their behalf) find these contentious issues contrary to scripture when matters concerning divorce, birth control and the lending of money for interest do not incur a similar concern? 28-30

  6. Why, following a study according to the guidelines listed, could the principle of “reception” apply to current controversial issues? 31-35

  7. Has “core” doctrine been violated by accepting current? If so in what ways? 36-39

  8. Is a stronger Authority the answer to our needs? 40-42

SESSION TWO – WINDSOR REPORT SECTION B
(two & one half hour session - break up into groups of 5 to 7 people and discuss the following – reassemble for common discussion)

ten minutes introduction to those assembled
thirteen minutes each discussion of the first four topics in small groups
12 minute break
thirteen minutes each discussion of the last three topics in small groups
reassemble in large group for 37 minute discussion and comparison

  1. What is the nature of our communion with God and with one another? 45-51

  2. What is misleading about the phrase “the authority of Scripture?” 53-56

  3. Why and in what ways should we re-evaluate how we have read, heard, studied, and digested Scripture? 57-62

  4. How could a controversial person function as a bishop for the whole church? 63-66

  5. What should the third world church learn from the “Western World’s” attempts to be faithful to the spirit of Scripture (written by men) in the emergence from patriarchy and tribalism to a more gender equal society? 67-70

  6. How is “autonomy in communion” lived in the Anglican world? 72-86

  7. Considering Paul’s position on adiaphora, can the current contentious issues be re-conceptualized as “things that do not make a difference?” 87-96

SESSION THREE – WINDSOR REPORT SECTION C and D
(two & one half hour session - break up into groups of 5 to 7 people and discuss the following – reassemble for common discussion)

ten minutes introduction to those assembled
thirteen minutes each discussion of the first two topics in small groups
10 minute break
five minutes each discussion of items 2 through 15 of the last sixteen topics in small groups
reassemble in large group for 34 minute discussion and comparison

part one

  1. The authors of the Windsor report affirm that the Instruments of Unity have been ignored or sidelined by sections of the Communion. How would you rectify this problem within the present scope of Authority possessed by the Instruments of Communion? 97-112

  2. Do you approve or disapprove of the adoption of an Anglican Covenant? Why? Would a covenant lead to the curtailment of a Spirit-led growth of Anglican diversity? 113-119

part two

Indicate your approval or disapproval for the following Windsor report recommendations giving your reasons:

  1. the adoption by the churches of the Communion of a common Anglican Covenant which would make explicit and forceful the loyalty and bonds of Affection which govern the relationships between the churches of the Communion. [page 44; paragraph 118]

  2. the ECUSA be invited to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached…, and that such an expression of regret would represent the desire of ECUSA to remain within the Communion. [page 53; paragraph 134]

  3. those who took part as consecrators of Gene Robinson should be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion. [page 53; paragraph 134]

  4. ECUSA be invited to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges. [page 54; paragraph 134]

  5. that the Instruments of Unity, through the Joint Standing Committee, find practical ways in which the 'listening' process commended by the Lambeth Conference in 1998 may be taken forward, so that greater common understanding might be obtained on the underlying issue of same gender relationships. …request a contribution from ECUSA which explains from within the sources of authority…,how a person living in a same gender union may be considered eligible to lead the flock of Christ. [page 54; paragraph 135]

  6. we call upon all bishops of the Anglican Communion to honour the Primates' Pastoral Letter of May 2003, by not proceeding to authorise Public Rites of Blessing for same sex unions. [page 56; paragraph 143]

  7. we call for a moratorium on all such public Rites, and recommend that bishops who have authorised such rites in the US and Canada be invited to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorisation. [page 57; paragraph 144]

  8. We urge all provinces that are engaged in the process of discernment regarding the blessing of same sex unions to engage the Communion in continuing study of biblical and theological rationale for and against such unions. …to include clarification regarding the distinction, if such exists, between same sex unions and same sex marriage. [page 57; paragraph 145]

  9. It is vital that the Communion establish processes and structures to facilitate ongoing discussion. [page 57; paragraph 146]

  10. any demonising of homosexual persons, or their ill treatment, is totally against Christian charity and basic principles of pastoral care. [page 57; paragraph 146]

  11. we commend the proposals for delegated episcopal oversight set out by the House of Bishops of the ECUSA in 2004. [page 58; paragraph 152]

  12. We do not therefore favour the establishment of parallel jurisdictions. [page 59; paragraph 154]

  13. We call upon those bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty to intervene in provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own:
    • to express regret for the consequences of their actions
    • to affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and
    • to effect a moratorium on any further interventions. [page 59; paragraph 155]

  14. We also call upon those archbishops and bishops to seek an accommodation with the bishops of the dioceses whose parishes they have taken into their own care. [page 59; paragraph 155]

  15. We further call upon those diocesan bishops of ECUSA who have refused to countenance the proposals set out by their House of Bishops to reconsider their own stance on this matter. If they refuse to do so, in our view, they will be making a profoundly dismissive statement about their adherence to the polity of their own church. [page 59; paragraph 155]

  16. Conclusion: We call upon all parties to the current dispute to seek ways of reconciliation, and to heal our divisions. We have already indicated (paragraphs 134 and 144) some ways in which the ECUSA and the Diocese of New Westminister could begin to speak with the Communion in a way which would foster reconciliation. We have appealed to those intervening in provinces and dioceses similarly to act with renewed respect. … It may well be that there need to be formal discussion about the path to reconciliation, and a symbolic Act of Reconciliation, which would mark a new beginning for the Communion… [page 59; paragraph 156]

SESSION FOUR – WINDSOR REPORT - OVERARCHING CONSIDERATIONS
(two hour session - break up into groups of 5 to 7 people; select & discuss two or three of the following – reassemble for common discussion)

ten minutes introduction to those assembled
twenty minutes each discussion of three topics in small groups
10 minute break
reassemble in large group for forty minute discussion and comparison

  1. Should human sexuality be elevated to the status of core doctrine? What can be found in the historic creeds and the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral to support such a view?

  2. As culture in the ‘Western World’ moves away from tribalism and patriarchy toward a more gender equal society, is it time to “walk apart” from the former colonies of the British Empire?

  3. Should we be a church that welcomes developments in scientific knowledge, as being the ever-unfolding picture of God’s creativeness, or a pre-scientific church that rejects scientific insights as being contrary to biblical orthodoxy?

  4. Is there willingness among the dissidents in the American Church to reestablish ”bonds of affection” with ECUSA or do words such as repent, retract, refrain suggest that they require total capitulation?

  5. Should the instruments of Unity be elevated to a kind of curial status? Are there other effective mechanisms available for mutual discernment?

  6. “Virtually all Christians agree on the necessity for theological development, including rational innovation, and on the fact that the Holy Spirit enables the church to undertake such development.” “Primary examples include the great fourth-century creeds, which go significantly beyond the actual words and Concepts of scripture.” What implication does this have for us in our contemporary view of Scripture?

  7. In consideration that there was little reaction communion wise when the historic biblically specific prohibition on divorce was set aside, cannot we conjecture that the issue of approval of a gay bishop was merely a pretext by American dissidents to use the third world churches as a wedge in achieving an agenda which they could not achieve in the General Convention of their peers?

  8. Would not a discussion of the error and contradictions found in Scripture veer us away from the literal mindedness that threatens religious systems all over the world?