Article follows here:

The Windsor Report, though rightly recognising that provincial autonomy autonomy does not give a province any right to disregard the teaching of Holy Scripture or agreed decisions of the Lambeth Conference, fails to point out that the constitution of the Anglican Communion, agreed at the 1930 Lambeth Conference, makes provision for dealing with such departures from accepted teaching, should they arise. Instead, the Report gives all its attention to the central 'Instruments of Unity' in the Communion, and looks to them to sort such problems out. But, because of their purely moral authority, it is doubtful whether they have either the right or the power to do this.

The Anglican Communion grew up piecemeal, as a result of the colonial expansion of Great Britain and the missionary expansion of the Church of England and its daughter churches. But by 1930 it was thought desirable, for the avoidance of future problems, to provide it with an explicit constitution, setting out existing practice in an orderly form, and stating the ecclesiological principles on which it rested. This task was undertaken by the 1930 Lambeth Conference, and it carried out its task with such conspicuous ability that it has not been necessary to amend its report in any significant way, still less to supersede it. The Conference as a whole, in resolution 48, adopted the statements of its committee on the 'ideal and future of the Anglican Communion' and 'commended them to the faithful'. The most crucial of these statements are the following:

'3. There are two prevailing types of ecclesiastical organisation: that of centralized government, and that of regional autonomy within one fellowship. Of the former, the Church of Rome is the great historical example. The latter type, which we share with the Orthodox Churches of the East and others, was that upon which the Church of the first centuries was developing until the claims of the Church of Rome and other tendencies confused the issue. The Provinces and Patriarchates of the first four centuries were bound together by no administrative bond: the real nexus was a common life resting upon a common faith, common Sacraments, and a common allegiance to an Unseen Head. The common life found time to time an organ of expression in the General Councils.

'4. The Anglican Communion is constituted upon this principle. It is a fellowship of Churches historically associated with the British Isles. While these Churches preserve apostolic doctrine and order they are independent in their self-government, and are growing up freely on their own soil and in their own environment as integral parts of the Church Universal....

'5. The bond which holds us together is spiritual. We desire emphatically to point out that the term 'Anglican' is no longer used in the sense it originally bore. The phrase "Ecclesia Anglicana" in Magna Carta had a purely local connotation. Now its sense is ecclesiastical and doctrinal, and the Anglican Communion includes not merely those who are racially connected with England, but many others whose faith has been grounded in the doctrines and ideals for which the Church of England has always stood....

'7 While, however, we hold the Catholic Faith, we hold it in freedom. Every Church in our Communion is free to build up its life and development upon the provisions of its own constitution..

'8. This freedom naturally and necessarily carries with it the risk of divergence even to the point of disruption. In case any such risk should actually arise, it is clear that the Lambeth Conference as such could not take any disciplinary action. Formal action would belong to the several Churches of the Anglican Communion individually, but the advice of the Lambeth Conference, sought before action is taken by the constituent Churches, would carry great moral weight. And we believe in the Holy Spirit. We trust in His power working in every part of His Church as the effective bond to hold us together.'

Paragraph 8 here is of critical significance. After having fully recognised in paragraphs 4 and 7 the autonomy of the regional provinces ( on which ECUSA today so much insists), and after having balanced it in paragraphs 4 and 5 by stressing the common faith and order which binds the provinces together ( much in the manner of the Windsor Report), paragraph 8 adds three crucial corollaries: (i) it would be possible, though the committee hopes it would never happen, for a province so to emphasise its autonomy as to cause serious damage to common faith and order; (ii) if this happened, the Lambeth Conference could give advice, but could not take disciplinary action ( and the same would apply to the other Instruments of Unity); and (iii) 'formal action would belong to the several Churches of the Anglican Communion individually.'

Applying this to our present situation, the Lambeth Conference in 1998 passed by a very large majority resolution 1.10, opposing the ordination of practising homosexuals and the blessing of homosexual unions; the American and Canadian Churches appeared to defy this advice; the Primates Meeting several times reiterated the advice, and set a deadline for changing course and conforming to it; in the meantime, a number of individual Churches exercised their right of 'formal action' and excommunicated ( or declared themselves in impaired communion with ) ECUSA; having done so, they rightly regarded the Lambeth resolution against crossing boundaries as irrelevant, and (in the patristic manner) made separate Episcopal provision for orthodox adherents in areas dominated by heresy; and for this they were unjustly condemned by the Windsor Report, in language stronger than it uses for the heretics themselves, and the bishops they appointed have not been invited to the 2008 Lambeth Conference, though the erring American (and Canadian) bishops have.

Roger Beckwith has explored this issue at greater length in two articles in the Churchman Winter 2003 "The limits of Anglican diversity" and Winter 204 "The Windsor Report and the Future of the Anglican Communion".

END