In this book "Understanding the Windsor Report" two theologians, one conservative; the other liberal, range across the issues the Report raises. The collaborative effort of the two men: The Rev. Dr. Paul F. M. Zahl, Dean and President of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry and the Rev. Ian T. Douglas Professor of World Mission and Global Christianity at Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Mass face off over the issues the book raises.

The Windsor Report came as the result of a huge international protest on the part of traditional or conservative Anglican Christians against the election and consecration of an actively homosexual bishop, Gene Robinson, in the American diocese of New Hampshire.

Writes Zahl; "The Windsor Report was necessary because an earlier task force called the Inter-Anglican Theology and Doctrine Commission had failed to anticipate the move in New Hampshire and was overwhelmed by the events of August 2003. The Eames
Commission had to move. Speaking personally, I am disappointed with the outcome. But looking at it historically, it is almost a miracle that anything concrete came out at all. But it did."

Douglas responds: "I am concerned with an instrumentalist approach to the maintenance of communion. I am not convinced that a reification of the Instruments of Unity (The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth conference of Bishops, the ACC and the Primates Meeting) offers a life giving approach to what it means to be Anglican in today's world. I would much rather have seen a liturgical and missiological response rather than a structuralist/instrumentalist trajectory to the report."

The two men touch all the nerve endings including the impact of homosexuality on Islam which the two men find common ground.

Zahl: The presenting problem addressed by the WR - which, despite all the explicit reluctance of the Commission to get remotely near it, is homosexuality in Christian perspective - this is the relation of the West to the religion of Islam….the brand of Christianity espoused by most Two-Thirds-World Christians is almost as critical of Western Christianity as Islam is.

Douglas: On the question of Islam, yes I would agree with you that we in the Anglican Communion have a very complex and difficult relationship to the followers of Muhammad. I do agree that, given the interdependence and perceived unity of the Anglican Communion, decisions taken in the West (particularly with respect to the inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the life of the church) become yet another reason for the oppression of Anglicans living close to or under Islamic rule. We cannot deny the fact that we as Anglicans are profoundly related to another and that decisions taken in one corner of the Communion do have important and lasting effects on other parts of the Communion.

But all is not sweetness and light between the two men.

Zahl: I am aware that church documents, and definitely Anglican documents, historically strive to reconcile and even unify diverging opinions. In the present crisis, we need at least a few absolute statements, both to affirm and reassure. In short the biblical foundations of the WR are too nuanced. This is to say, they concede too much to a contemporary distrust, in the West, or propositional truth.

Douglas: I have to disagree as to whether the texts in the Bible dealing with homosexuality are "unmistakable and clear." I am not arguing that there is a mandate in the Bible for same-sex relations. I simply do not see such. On the other hand I do not see the prohibitions as strongly as you do…

The two men treat each with great grace while disagreeing on understanding the nature of truth and hermeneutical principles of interpretation.

In their summation on the recommendations of the Windsor Report, Zahl says this:

The recommendations are too little. Enjoining a moratorium on homosexual bishops is good…ditto on same-sex unions. [But] the care for dissenting minorities, however, is completely co-opted against the people it wants to help. In my view the, the heroes are the CAPA bishops in Africa, who have affirmed the Network and supported the trouble consciences of the "traditionalists."

Douglas responds: The commission, especially given the makeup of the group, had widely divergent positions on many of the topics. We also know that if any one side had been able to get 100 percent of what they wanted, then the WR would not have been offered unanimously. I assume that a "minority report" would have been offered from the "losing side."

The book wades in with pointed chapter titles that read: How did we get here? What does the Bible say? What about the Church? and What should we do now?

Jan Nunley of Episcopal News Service offers a fine Introduction about how we got to the point we did, with a 40-page mini history and summary of the Report and its context. This is laid out well and accurately.

You can buy this book at the following link:
http://www.churchpublishing.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Product&Productid=368

Later this month the Windsor Report will be the centerpiece in discussions at the Anglican Consultative Council meetings in Nottingham, England.

END