"Resolution 72, 1988
Epsicopal Responsibilities and Diocesan Boundaries This Conference:
1. reaffirms its unity in the historical position of respect for diocesan boundaries and the authority of bishops within these boundaries; and in light of the above
2. affirms that it is deemed inappropriate behaviour for any bishop or priest of this Communion to exercise episcopal or pastoral ministry within another diocese without first obtaining the permission and invitation of the ecclesial authority thereof.
3. urges all political and community leaders to seize every opportunity to work together to bring about a just and peaceful solution.
With the number of issues that could threaten our unity it seems fair that we should speak of our mutual respect for one another, and the positions we hold, that serves as a sign of our unity."
Aside from wondering just what it is to which item 3 refers, the rest of the resolution is pretty straightforward: Don't mess in your neighbor's back yard.
Can anyone suggest any Lambeth Resolution that is a straightforward warrant for either of the other two moratoria? The statement in the famous Lambeth 1998 1.10 reads as follows, "e. cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions."
"Cannot advise"... is quite different from " affirms that it is deemed inappropriate behaviour." The first is a cautious statement regarding advice, the second is a clear statement of what constitutes bad behavior by bishops.
The greater force, it seems to me, goes to the second. It says bishops are behaving badly if they mess in their neighbor's back yard. That is strong and clear. It is about factual bad behavior.
Not advising that bishops do something - bless or ordain - is advice and says nothing about the moral behavior of those who do such things.
So, where is there something stronger in a Lambeth Resolution regarding matters that became Windsor moratoria?