Windsor Report Task Force
Episcopal Diocese of Chicago
Summary Report and Recommendations
Preamble
Decisions made by the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada,
primarily related to issues of sexual norms and practice, have resulted in a
range of responses and sharp words across the Anglican Communion. The Archbishop
of Canterbury established a commission to recommend actions in order to focus
concerns and work toward a resolution of the issues related to the unity of the
Anglican Communion. The Windsor Report was their product, and its
recommendations were received by the Diocese of Chicago, and assigned to this
Task Force for study and recommendations.
To be plain, when we began, the members of this Task Force did not agree on
the issues of scriptural authority, exegesis or theology informing our
understanding of human sexuality. We still do not agree on these issues.
However, through months of hard work, we have found times of grace and deeper
relationships, resulting in agreement on certain foundational points. We
recommend their acceptance throughout the institutions of the Diocese of
Chicago, and we offer them humbly to the wider church.
First, Jesus said we are to love God and love our neighbors, and that
all the law and the prophets depend on these two commands. Therefore no follower
of Jesus, in supporting any point of doctrine or discipline, however
passionately believed, should be permitted to violate these commands through the
manner in which others are treated or portrayed. Even when we disagree
profoundly, these commands require loving respect for each other. Therefore we
pledge ourselves not to participate in name calling and demonization. We
dedicate ourselves to love each other, even when this is very difficult.
Second, we have learned that we have lacked both an understanding of,
and a respect for, other member churches of the Anglican Communion. For this we
repent, and pledge diligently to correct.
Third, the Episcopal Church made certain decisions that, while
following its constitution and canons, and therefore legal within our national
church polity, nevertheless gave grave offense to other member churches of the
communion. Our speed in making these changes seemed measured and even slow to
some members of the Episcopal Church. However, in the view of other member
churches it happened quickly and without significant consultation or engagement.
For this nationalism and disrespect, we apologize.
Fourth, while the Episcopal Church has presented to the Anglican
Consultative Council a history of the timelines and processes by which it
arrived at its decisions, insufficient effort and time has been spent in working
through the theology of those decisions with other worldwide members of the
Anglican Communion. Those who believe the theology is correct must take the
necessary time and effort to make the case, hear other views, and work through
the spiritual and practical implications of such an encounter and debate. We
believe this is an issue that requires an international council of the church,
or an equivalent forum, with the grace of sufficient time for open debate,
discernment and decision, before any change in the church’s practice. Neither a
rush to judgment, nor acting with a fait accompli, from any person or member
church, is appropriate or respectful. For this we pledge great patience with
each other.
Fifth, in John 17:22-23, Jesus said, “The glory that you have given me
I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in
me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you
have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” Yet in spite of
this prayer, Christians have divided into thousands of sects over as many points
of doctrine, rather than working through their disagreements and seeking
forgiveness and reconciliation. We choose not to repeat this sin yet again, and
we pledge to seek unity, rather than walking apart.
These points and our own experience as detailed in our written report, we
commend to the Diocese and the wider church, as we endeavor to live and move
forward together.
The Report
1. As a Task Force of the Diocese of Chicago appointed by Bishop Persell at
Diocesan Convention 2004, we gathered in plenary session at Grace Church in Oak
Park on January 29, February 27, April 3, April 30, May 22 and June 19; on
September 18 at the Church of the Ascension in Chicago; and on at least three
additional occasions in small groups. With twenty-one appointees, attendance and
participation was remarkably faithful, averaging sixteen (nearly 80%) over the
course of our meeting. We are grateful for the hospitality of Grace Church in
Oak Park and the Church of the Ascension who have been our hosts.
2. Our meetings were held within the context of common prayer led by our
Chaplain, The Rev. Catharine Phillips. We thank God that our meetings have been
characterized by generosity of spirit, and a readiness to respect one another’s
integrity, with Christian charity and abundant goodwill.
3. In our first session all present were asked to consider a scale of one to
ten, one being “I tend to concur with the decisions of General Convention
2003 regarding sexuality, ordination and same-sex blessings” and ten being “I
tend to object to the decision of General Convention 2003 regarding
sexuality, ordination and same sex blessings.” Then each was asked to assign
himself/herself a number on that scale. After a period of quiet reflection, the
members were then asked to locate themselves in an arc around the room, “one”
being at one extreme of the arc and “ten” at the other. The result yielded
approximately 3 persons near each extreme and a majority arrayed toward the
center. Situated accordingly, each was asked to select a partner across the arc
who represented not only a different position, but other differences, such as
gender and ethnicity. After preliminary introductions each two-person team, or
dyad, was asked to determine and schedule at least one meeting in the interim
before that next meeting solely for the purpose of sharing and nurturing a
deeper knowledge of one another.
4. In subsequent small group and plenary meetings we reflected on the Windsor
Report with special attention to the four questions put by the Primates’
Standing Committee to the provinces of the Anglican Communion (found at
www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/reception/index.cfm).
5. We found substantial agreement on the criticism that The Episcopal Church
USA undertook the election and episcopal ordination of The Rt. Rev. V. Gene
Robinson without adequate theological preparedness; while to some it seemed the
action was undertaken on the premise that “it’s easier to seek forgiveness than
to secure permission,” we determined that between permission and forgiveness
lies a middle ground in which the Episcopal Church might (and perhaps ought to)
have offered to the other member churches of the communion a theological
rationale for its action as an addition to the rationale from a polity that
allows such action. Nevertheless, opportunity exists now to engage this process
of theological examination.
6. We deemed the Windsor Report a document representing a critical necessity
in the development of our communion, whose formation and life have been largely
organic in nature. The “instruments of unity” identified in the Windsor Report
have been historic responses to relationship with other Christian bodies, to
define Anglicanism within Christian ecumenism and a more broadly global
religious pluralism. If our organic growth and maturation as a church and
communion are analogous to human development, in that humans begin self
awareness by defining the self in relation to others before turning to the
deeper complexities of self-identity, the Windsor Report suggests that we as
church and communion have come to that more difficult work of self-identity.
7. We welcome the Windsor Report as offering a way forward for the mutual
life of our Communion, and offer the following conclusions for dealing with the
differences of opinion which have opened up amongst us.
8. In our consideration of the Windsor Report’s Sections A & B, especially in
describing “the Communion,” we noted, and found problematic, the variant
understandings of “autonomy,” “polity,” “authority,”—and “communion” itself—as
these terms are held and used within and among the member churches of the
communion. It was widely felt that the report’s description of the Anglican
Communion reflected a contemporary ideal not always in accord with historical
experience. Points of tension identified and substantially shared among us were
the report’s oft-cited references to women’s ordination which did not always
seem easily or readily analogous to us. Furthermore, the Report’s appeals to the
authority of scripture seem insufficiently nuanced to allow for the considerable
diversity in interpretation of scripture held by equally faithful parties
throughout the communion and within the Episcopal Church itself. Lastly, we
identified a substantial tension between the presenting issue of homosexuality
and the unaddressed but no less important issues of Western power represented in
the controversy. It seemed that Sections A & B of the report were written to
reinforce the outcomes offered in Sections C & D. It was suggested that a
process of discernment akin to that recorded of the first church council in the
book of The Acts of the Apostles [Acts 15:1-35] might be preferable to the
merely formal or procedural formation of instruments of unity presented by the
Lambeth Commission.
9. We found substantial concern that the recommendations and proposals of the
Report tend toward a centralized authority that would seriously compromise
representational democracy, especially in the lay order. Such a development
could eventuate in divergent opinions being dismissed or not even heard.
Moreover, implementation of these recommendations and proposals raise concerns
about the potential for politicization over issues of representation and balance
among the member churches of the Anglican Communion and within the lay and
clerical orders of each of those churches. A precipitous move to a more
hierarchical authority was seen as a threat to the historic balance of Catholic
and Protestant principles and polity characterized and valued as a “middle way.”
In light of our own biases toward the polity, policies and practices of the
Episcopal Church, we identified a need and desire among ourselves to learn more
about the polities, canon laws, prayer books and sacramental and covenant
expectations in the other member churches of the Anglican Communion, especially
as they may bear on how those churches receive the recommendations and proposals
of the Report.
10. We were further concerned that the Report seems to euphemize the central
issue of authority within the Anglican Communion in “Instruments of Unity” that
do not fully engage or answer the matters of the source of authority, i.e. does
it come from above or emerge from below? We also noted a confusion and/or
omission of any examination or explanation of how the authority of scripture
relates to institutional authority. Neither is adequate attention given to the
historic instruments of scripture, creeds, the episcopate, and worship practices
that constitute a substantive basis of unity for most Anglicans worldwide. We
recognize the tension between the need for tangible expressions of unity and the
risks attendant upon the extremes articulated by Charles Gore (1853-1932;
successively Bishop of Worcester, Birmingham & Oxford) as “represented by a
dogmatism that crushes instead of quickening the reason of the individual,
making it purely passive and acquiescent, and on the other hand by an
unrestrained development of the individual judgment which becomes eccentric and
lawless just because it is unrestrained.”
11. The recommendation that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of
Canada provide a theological rationale for the offending actions undertaken by
each was deemed a positive recommendation and a necessity to preserve communion.
[Note: the full text of the Episcopal Church report, entitled To Set Our Hope on
Christ, is available in print or pdf form at
www.anglicanlistening.org ]. It
was further noted that attending to these matters through an orderly succession
of prescribed gatherings , i.e. the Anglican Consultative Council in June 2005,
General Convention 2006, Lambeth Conference 2008, etc. seemed a prudent process,
preferable to extraordinary gatherings.
12. It is our shared opinion that a covenant seems the minimum undertaking to
preserve our unity and clarify our identity as Anglicans. Arguments for the
covenanting process certainly have greater standing in our estimations than the
substance of the proposed covenant appended to the Report. We believe that the
engagement of a covenanting process is a responsible and intentional witness to
the world; that such a process both offers and demands an openness to the Holy
Spirit; AND that such a process offers an opportunity to examine seriously the
theological issues of pluralism and difference that exist among us. We offer
these three additional arguments to those of the Report (paragraph 119).
13. Of the proposed Draft Covenant we were less enthusiastic. Our experience
of covenant connotes creedal, scriptural and sacramental bases for unity in
common principles; the covenant of marriage as articulated and experienced in
our church and Book of Common Prayer serves as our template. For us, the
attention to details of process as spelled out in the Draft Covenant seem more
canonical/legal than scriptural/theological, address difference more than unity,
and seem designed to hamper the work of the Spirit more like a binding
arbitration agreement than a Christian covenant.
14. Because we consider the process begun with the Windsor Report and our own
experience of this process amongst ourselves to be a work not of debate or
decision, but of discussion, deliberation and discernment, we arrive at the
conclusion of our task with a clearer sense of some of the questions to which
God is calling us in light of our experience and exploration of the Windsor
Report. Considered within the stated expectations of the Bishop for this Task
Force (repeated below in italics), the following issues commend themselves:
15. • Help me and our diocese to understand and to respond faithfully to the
Windsor Report, including what we can accept and where we might disagree.
• To discuss carefully the issues involved including the nature and history
of the Anglican Communion and to suggest helpful ways to extend the discussion
through our diocese.
16. In all aspects and contexts of our personal, congregational and diocesan
life we need intentional processes grounded in mutual respect and leading to
mutual trust, processes of introduction that move from personal sharing of
spiritual journeys to the engagement of issues. We share and commend the
aspiration of The Most Reverend John Sentamu, Archbishop of York: “I hope the
communion will rediscover holy conversation. It is not the Christian way to
stand on the banks of the river shouting. I don’t believe that is the way of
Jesus.” We therefore recommend to all committees and congregations of our
diocese our own example of deliberate attention to our need for nurturing
relationship as prerequisite to the engagement of any task. We further
recommend that the design of diocesan convention, vestry school and similar
resources be configured to encourage this interaction and that appropriate
measures be taken to provide the same for the Standing Committee, Diocesan
Council, Commission on Ministry and all commissions and committees of the
diocese.
17. • To help our diocese to deepen communion among all - respecting and
valuing persons with opposing viewpoints; helping those who feel in the minority
to have a voice.
18. We need to engage study of the spiritual, liturgical, cultural and
canonical differences among ourselves, within our congregations, our diocese,
our American church and the member churches of the Anglican Communion.
19. • Advise, at some point, how we as a diocese might deal with the issue of
developing a rite(s) for the blessing of same gender unions for those
congregations which desire to offer such blessings.
20. Article X of the Constitution of the Episcopal Church delegates
responsibility for standard rites to the Standing Liturgical Commission and
General Convention. Until such time as such rites are approved for use
throughout our church, we do not recommend the development of diocesan rites.
21. • I hope this committee will build strong relationships of understanding
and respect and will be an example to our diocese and wider church.
22. We acknowledge of our own experience that life in the community of the
baptized is hard. In the course of our life together, each member of this task
force devoted an average total of twenty-four hours to meetings, in addition to
many hours of study. The word “disciple” means, at root, “to learn” and forms
the base of the word “discipline.” Fidelity to our call as disciples entails a
basic commitment to the discipline of listening and learning as we continue to
grapple with what it means to be “one holy catholic and apostolic church.” We
are mindful of what Archbishop Rowan Williams calls a “passionate patience” that
is reticent to declare too handily or exactly how God is to be defined or to
presume too easily to know what God desires in all instances. As he reminds,
“There is in the Anglican identity a strong element of awareness of the tragic,
of the dark night and the frustration of theory and order by the strangeness of
God’s work.”
23. Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God
through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have obtained access to this
grace in which we stand; and we boast in our hope of sharing the glory of God.
And not only that, but we also boast in our sufferings, knowing that suffering
produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces
hope, and hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into
our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us. Romans 5:1-5
The Rt. Rev. William Persell, Convenor
The Rev. George Koch, Co-Chair
The Rev. Sam Portaro, Co-Chair
The Rev. Catharine Phillips, Chaplain
The Rev. Mark A. McIntosh, Consultant
The Rev. Ellen Wondra, Consultant
MEMBERS
The Rev. Alvaro Araica
Ms. Anna Brawley
Mr. Rodney Clapp
Mr. David Gillingham
The Very Rev. Matthew Gunter
Richard Hoskins, Esq.
The Rev. Indon Paul Joo*
The Rev. Dr. Ndung’u Ikenye
Mr. Gary Meade
The Rev. William Nesbit, Jr.
Mr. Leo Papillon
The Very Rev. Juan Reed**
The Rev. Graham Smith
The Rev. Claire Tenny
The Rev. Terri Tilley
The Rev. Mark A. Tusken
*withdrew voluntarily after second meeting
**dissented from final report
The Summary Report of the Windsor Report Task Force of the Diocese of Chicago
as well as the Windsor Report itself may be downloaded from the Diocese of
Chicago website at www.epischicago.org.
The reports may be accessed through the Anglican Communion link in the home page
resources column. Copies also are available by contacting: The Office of
Communication Diocese of Chicago 65 E. Huron St. Chicago, IL 60611.
Love
God, neighbor and enemy. 
Always
Accessible