UPDATED
The report of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Panel of Reference on the Diocese of New Westminster (Vancouver), which blesses same sex unions, is here. It is an 11-page pdf. The documet is encrypted, so I can’t pluck out any highlights.
At first read it seems that the panel has embraced, more or less, the Anglican Church of Canada’s existing plan for what they call Shared Episcopal Ministry. This would not seem to be good news for people seeking extra-provincial recognition in any Anglican province, although perhaps I am reading the report too broadly. On the other hand, the panel seems to believe, or wants to believe that the Canadian Church is going to reverse course on same-sex blessings at its next synod, and seems to suggest that if it doesn’t these issues might be re-opened.
A lengthier analysis lurks beneath the “continue reading” button.
See also Tobias Haller and Father Jake, who argues that the report is “as close as we’re going to get to an official refutation” of the Kigali statement of several weeks ago, calling for an alternative Anglican province in the United States.
The diocese of NW has welcomed the report. The Canadian primate has welcomed it, too. Archbishops Gomez and Venables don’t like it. Gomez’s statement is closely reasoned and worth reading. Venables’ less so. It is worth mentioning that Venables is one of the border crossing primates who comes in for criticism in the report.
Para 3: “Our recommendations refer only to the jurisdiction of the Province of Canada…”
So don’t extrapolate too freely. That said, certain underlying principles guide the discussion, and it seems unlikely these would change dramatically on a province to province basis.
Para 4: “TWR (Windsor) is critical both of those bishops, dioceses and provinces which have crossed the recognized boundaries of Anglican doctrine and the order of Anglican Ministry and of those bishops and primates (italics mine) who have crossed the territorial boundaries of other dioceses and provinces in order to minister to those, etc.”
On the one hand: The idea that there is Anglican doctrine on the issue of same-sex blessings is simply false. You can say there was a strong majority against proceeding with such blessings, but that doesn’t rise to the level of doctrine.
On the other hand: at last, a clear acknowledgment that some of the primaes who keep faulting the Episcopal and Canadian churches response to Windsor are themselves in violation of Windsor.
Para 8: “The temporary nature of the dispute, until determined one way or another by the Anglican Church of Canada and within the Anglican Communion, has a direct and important bearing on the kind of proposals which may be made by the Panel of Reference for the extended Episcopal care of those who have declared themselves to be in impaired communion with the Bishop and Diocese of New Westminster.”
This is the sentence that says to me that at some point, if the North American status quo doesn’t change re: same-sex blessings, then all bets may be off.
Para 21: “The argument that in order to remain ‘in full communion with the Church of
England throughout the world’ it is necessary for dissenting clergy and parishes to separate themselves from the diocese of New Westminster, adopting a title for their organisation which implies that they represent the Anglican Communion in New Westminster, in addition to or instead of the diocese and Bishop Ingham, can not be sustained. The Church of England itself remains in full communion with the Diocese of New Westminster and Bishop Ingham, pending resolution of the presenting issue, and therefore with all of its clergy, members and parishes, unless they formally withdraw themselves from the Anglican Church in Canada. Even if this were not the case there is no evidence that communion with dissenting parishes would in fact be broken since such provinces which have declared impaired communion have made it clear that they remain in communion with those whom they regard as faithful. ”
This seems to me to indicate that the argument being made by the Network bishops, and, to some extent, by the misnamed “Windsor-compliant” bishops who attended the Camp Allen meeting has been rejected. There is no need for an alternate structure to retain one’s membership in the Communion. At present. (see paragraph 8)
Para 25: It is factually incorrect to state … that ‘the province has been suspended from the Anglican Communion until 2008.’”
So stop doing that, okay?
Para 26: “But the assumption … that there is a ‘low probability that the Anglican Church of Canada will reverse their current direction and commit to upholding Lambeth 1.10” must be challenged, and so must the claim that in the present circumstances traditional Canadian Anglicans can only be recognized as having full Communion status by providing for them some kind of alternative ‘mechanism or structure.’
I don’t know who picks the panel’s horses, but I wouldn’t trust them with my money.
Para 29: “From the text of the submission it seems that the authors of the (appeal) hope to achieve rather more than temporary episcopal oversight for the Networks which they have established or joined, locally within Canada and in North America. The Panel is in effect being asked to extend recognition to one or more new entities, including the Anglican Network in Canada and other bodies outside the Anglican Church in Canada, rather than simply to make recommendations for extended Episcopal ministry pending a resolution of the disputes examined by TWR.”
And, the Panel does not offer this recognition. This seems to me a significant setback for the Network both in Canada and the US. I don’t have any particular insight to the jockeying currently underway on the Episcopal right, but I have a vague sense that this report in general, and this paragraph in particular, gives more comfort to those who want to cast their lot with Nigeria or the Southern Cone than it does to those who favor the creation of a parallel Anglican province in the United States.
Recommendation 3: “The provision of a scheme of Shared Episcopal Ministry (SEM) by the Canadian House of Bishops in 2004 offers a model which we believe to be appropriate, with some additional safeguards…”
The authors of the Windsor Report previously endorsed the Episcopal Church’s plan for Delegated Pastoral Oversight (DEPO). I think that plan could stand some improvement. Bishops who don’t want to extend it under any circumstances have to be persuaded, vigorously, to allow for it. That said, this marks the second time that a body created by the Communion to mediate our current dispute has said that the North American provinces have done a reasonable job at trying to provide alternative care for those in the theological minority. I realize that various posters on the blog disagree witih assessment of the panel and the Lambeth Commission on this count.