English Ecclesiastical Autonomy and the Windsor Report by Dr Augur Pearce (February 2005)

Adobe Acrobat is needed for this report download here for free  http://www.adobe.com

• A central assumption of this paper is the identification of church and nation which was once a European commonplace, but which remains much more strongly expressed in the religio-legal constitution of England than in most other predominantly Christian legal systems.
   
• Given that identification, it is suggested that the religious autonomy of the Church of England must be seen as a facet of national sovereignty, applicable no less against claims of foreign protestant bishops than against past claims of the Roman hierarchy.
  
  
• At an early stage, the paper considers the Tudor declaration of this autonomy, countering any suggestion that subsequent political unions with Scotland, Ireland or the European Union may have affected the position. It is suggested that the Windsor Report’s dichotomy between autonomy and sovereignty is, or would be in the English context, false. England’s subjection to divine law is recognised, but not its subordination to external judges of what divine law may require.
  
  
• From the starting-point of full independence, therefore, the paper proceeds to consider how a nation’s or national church’s autonomy may be voluntarily limited. Contracting parties on the international plane are, ordinarily, crowned Heads (or their republican substitutes); the paper considers the role of the Queen in treaty-making and the limited domestic effect of treaties due to England’s democratic legislative tradition.
  
  
• Recognising that English parties to the emergence of ‘Anglican’ institutions, giving rise to the Report’s concept of ‘communion’ and a body of statements called ‘Anglican teaching’, have not been the monarch but the bishops, the paper considers whether these can claim the right to represent the whole Church of England internationally by analogy to the monarch’s function. Noting considerable difference in the modern legal position of the episcopate from that claimed before the Reformation, the paper concludes that there is no inherent right, and doubts whether any action of Parliament or General Synod can be seen as conferring a delegated right, in this respect.
  
  
• Despite the primarily legal nature of conclusions so far, the paper points to the theological reasoning underlying both national ecclesiastical autonomy and limited episcopal powers. Those who accept such reasoning will see the Church of England as having not only a legal but a moral freedom to act independently.
  
  
• Finally, considering the legal position of English bishops and the relationship between obligation and discretion, the paper suggests that in certain fields it would be wrong for English bishops to give even personal commitments on future conduct to overseas colleagues, since decisions on such conduct are domestically assigned to some other organ.
  
  
• Reflecting that the Windsor Report’s proposed ‘communion law’ (subordinating national ecclesiastical autonomy for the future to an international agreement and arbiters) could only be effected in England by primary legislation, the paper mentions two existing approaches to self-obligation in the legislative field (in the European Communities Act and Human Rights Act). Given that either approach would affect radically the tradition of independence that formed the English Church as now known, and that a possible consequence could be to narrow the national church’s broad popular appeal, Parliament may think very carefully before approving such legislation while leaving the Church of England its national status and associated endowment.
  
  
• Being no expert in the history of the North American churches’ involvement with the Lambeth Conference, the writer does not seek to apply his conclusions directly to their situation. It is recognised that as voluntary rather than national churches, the conceptual basis for their autonomy is quite different. However it is suggested that if the Church of England is indeed presently not bound by Lambeth Conference majorities, the North American churches should consider whether it can be right for them either to own such an obligation.
  
  Commissioned and Published by the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement