House of Bishops & Windsor

The Rt. Rev'd John Howe, Bishop of Central Florida, via Canon Harmon via Brad Drell:

"Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I am grateful for the discussion on this thread.

I want to offer a couple of opinions. Please note: my opinions.

First, the Special Commission appointed by Frank Griswold and George Werner was heartily criticized as being far too “liberal,” but I think virtually all of the bishops were surprised by how “conservative” the (preliminary) report we received from it actually was! The Commission’s recommendations will reach about as far in the direction of Windsor as this Church can possibly reach.

Unfortunately (in my opinion) not far enough.

Windsor said: no more sexually active gay bishops. The Commission recommends that we pass a Resolution that urges “extreme caution” before confirming the election of another sexually active gay bishop.

Immediately, the questions of some of our bishops were: “And would it be possible for us to exercise ‘extreme caution’ and still confirm the election of a sexually active gay bishop?” “Surely you are not FORBIDDING the confirmation of a sexually active gay bishop, are you?” etc.

Windsor said: no more same-sex blessings. The reality is that while many of our bishops would not vote to authorize same-sex blessings at this moment in time, they will not forbid them, either. And we all know they are being performed all over this country. Not to forbid is to authorize.

Secondly, I am not as cynical as some of you. The Commission recommends the word “repentance” - not just “regret” - and I believe the majority of the bishops are prepared to embrace that word, and do so sincerely. It may be hard for you to believe this, but I think the great majority of our bishops are genuinely surprised (astonished) at the depth of anger and dismay throughout the Communion over the events of three years ago. (Everybody told us what would happen, but most of our bishops simply didn’t believe it.)

They are genuinely sorry for having “torn the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level.” I have no question about that. And for that they are sincerely repentant. We have all had a tutorial in what it means to be part of a world-wide Communion; what it means to have “bonds of affection” and what it means to violate those bonds; what it means to be “members, one of another.”

Our bishops are NOT repentant for the decision to confirm Gene Robinson’s election in and of itself - for they do not believe it was wrong. But they are sincerely sorry/repentant for having breached the “bonds of affection.” And they do NOT want to see the Communion destroyed.

Some, like my bishop, Peter James Lee, of Virginia, are prepared to say that if the vote were to be taken again, they would vote differently than they did three years ago . But (I believe) that is because of the consequences of that vote, not because they have actually changed their minds on the substance of the question.
Thirdly, if you read the Langrish Reflections carefully (and especially paragraph four in which he says he is speaking for the Archbishop of Canterbury), you will see that the terms are being spelled out very precisely. We are not being invited to argue our case. We are being asked to comply with the “mind” of the Communion, and we are being told - with a remarkable combination of gentleness and clarity - that our decisions, one way or the other, will have “consequences.”
My opinion: there is no possible way that the primates can have raised the bar this high, telling us what we must do to remain in communion with Canterbury, and then simply shrug if/when we decline to be in compliance with the Windsor recommendations.

So: I am saying, Don’t be cynical about the genuine “repentance” of the majority of the House of Bishops. It is real. But: Don’t expect it will be enough to satisfy the primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Archbishop Rowan has surprised virtually everybody by his tenaciousness in upholding the Lambeth understanding of sexuality standards (especially since there is a good deal of evidence his own personal sympathies are more “liberal.”)

If General Convention fails to adopt a stance of genuine compliance with the Windsor recommendations (which I am certain it will not do) I don’t see how the Archbishop has any alternative but to declare that the majority of ECUSA has decided to “walk apart” from the Anglican Communion.

What that might mean for those who DO agree to the Windsor recommendations has not been addressed by anyone, to my knowledge.

Warmest regards in our Lord,

The Right Rev. John W. Howe

Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida

1017 East Robinson Street

Orlando, Florida 32801