GetReligion

As Terry has indicated in this space, I spent the last week in St. Catharines, Ontario, covering the Anglican Church of Canada’s 37th General Synod for Anglican Essentials Canada.

Most media coverage of General Synod did a solid job of describing the conflicts and the key players of this triennial legislative session of the 651,000-member church. Over the protests of the ACC’s communications officers, reporters rightly identified the church’s newly elected primate, Archbishop Andrew S. Hutchison of Montreal, as the most liberal of four nominees. (One reporter, Douglas Todd of The Vancouver Sun, described Hutchison as a “moderate liberal” — which makes the most sense if one compares Hutchison to Michael Ingham, the merrily syncretistic bishop of the Vancouver-based Diocese of New Westminster.)

Stephen Bates of The Guardian was the first reporter to refer to the Brock University campus as bleak, and Bates certainly deserves props for his sense of design. Brock opened its doors in 1964, and its older buildings reflect that era’s perverse fondness for concrete.

One official from the Diocese of Niagara, the Ven. Bruce A. McPetrie, added to the bleakness by writing a letter to campus police about the presence of one, possibly two, groups that “could affect the traffic and possibly some other forms of disturbances beyond the Brock premises.” Shades of Fred Phelps’ notorious God Hates Fags traveling media circus!

As it turned out, Anglican Essentials Canada did nothing more disruptive than providing free meals and strategy sessions to members of the synod. McPetrie had worried about an unspecified group from Texas converging on the campus, which prompted Bill Atwood of the Texas-based Ekklesia Society to issue a satirical ten-point list of why the theological cowboys would not show up.

Despite his keen eye for architecture, Bates hits a few clunkers in today’s report.

“An attempt by Canadian Anglicans to maintain the fragile unity of the worldwide communion by postponing a decision on authorising gay blessings was shattered within hours yesterday when evangelical church leaders warned of ‘devastating consequences’ of a positive message sent to gay and lesbian couples.”

If <a href="one affirmation of orthodox theology can single-handedly shatter an attempt at unity, perhaps fragile is too weak a word to describe that unity.

“The criticisms also took Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, the newly elected primate of the Canadian church, by surprise,” Bates writes. “He had submerged his previous support for gay blessings in favour of a delay in order to preserve international solidarity.”

Actually, Hutchison voted against the postponement that Bates praised in his lead sentence.

Bates also mentions that nine ACC bishops rose during the synod to express their dismay at synod’s vote: “[Hutchison] said he was ‘obviously very disappointed to hear that kind of statement because it speaks of division’, making it clear the bishops had not let him know what they were planning.”

The bishops obtained permission to deliver their statement to the synod.

The bishops’ statement neither speaks of nor encourages division. Indeed, the bishops clearly expect their people to remain within the church: “We urge Anglicans across Canada distressed by this expression of opinion not to despair and urge them to take their full part in the diocesan and provincial synods which will contribute to a decision of whether this is a doctrinal matter.”

Bates’ closing paragraph achieves greater balance: “Neither side wants to be blamed for breaking up the church. But both are accusing each other of attempting to do so by pre-empting a report on the issue by the Archbishop of Ireland, Robin Eames, which is due in October.”

I found an interesting commentary out there online about a major victory for the Anglican left in the sexuality wars in Canada.

The piece is called “Parting thoughts from your American guest” and it’s written by a veteran reporer named Douglas LeBlanc. Fine writer, this guy.

First, here’s the start of an actual news report from the Anglican Journal about this rather tricky event, in which it seemed like action had been delayed. Then the Anglican establishment managed to arrange a last-minute action that some will call merely symbolic.

It’s much more than that, really, because of the presence of the word “sanctity.”

One day after delaying a decision on whether to bless gay relationships, Canadian Anglicans approved a statement that “affirms the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same-sex relationships.”

Delegates meeting here at the triennial General Synod governing convention said the statement was intended to send gay and lesbian Anglicans a message after yesterday’s vote.

“Our church has always had gay couples and they have been welcome. This would affirm we recognize them as children of God,” said delegate Cassandra McCollum of the Yukon, who identified herself as bisexual.

LeBlanc notes that this is one of those stories in which words have meaning and that it is hard to tear them away from their common definitions, especially when that context is common prayer. In this case, the use of the word “sanctity” will have a global impact.

Once again, journalists covering the story must face this reality — this is not a Canadian story or an American story. It is a global story, as also shown in the basic Associated Press report. LeBlanc continues:

Attempting to separate the word “sanctity” from its theological content may work in the hothouse environment of Synod. But it will cause moral and theological confusion among Christians who still think, with good biblical and logical bases, that specific words mean specific things, and that honoring those meanings is a matter of integrity and stewardship.

General Synod has, in its more self-effacing and civil way, chosen to join the Episcopal Church in pressuring global Anglicanism toward accepting the sexual standards of the prosperous West. As the Rev. Canon Gregory Cameron said on Saturday, this decision will cause distressing questions for Anglicans in other nations. These brothers and sisters in Christ will soon ask valid questions about whether being part of the Anglican Communion means anything more than welcoming the occasional Global South bishop to a diocesan synod, or sending a youth group out on a short missions trip.

The global conversation is just beginning. It almost certainly will grow more tense in the months ahead, and still more strained as Anglicans look at gathering for Lambeth 2008 in South Africa.

Note, for example, that South Africa is not in Great Britain. Things will get even more interesting if that turns into southern Africa instead of South Africa. Stay tuned.

I first heard N.T. Wright in 1993, at a conference of Episcopalians called Shaping Our Future. (The Rev. J. Stephen Freeman, whose essay of the same title prompted the conference, edited a collection of essays from that conference before converting to Orthodoxy.)

Wright lectured on the gods of the left and the right, and in such an even-handed and manner that I had no trouble agreeing with his assertion that the right worships Mars and Mammon. (I already agreed that the left worships Venus.)

Since then, Wright has passed through posts as dean of Litchfield Cathedral and canon theologian at Westminster Abbey before becoming Bishop of Durham.

Wright’s lengthy interview with John L. Allen Jr. of the National Catholic Reporter is a feast for people who love Allen’s acclaimed religion coverage and Wright’s dynamic Anglican orthodoxy.

Here are a few appetizers:

On same-sex unions in antiquity
As a classicist, I have to say that when I read Plato’s Symposium, or when I read the accounts from the early Roman empire of the practice of homosexuality, then it seems to me they knew just as much about it as we do. In particular, a point which is often missed, they knew a great deal about what people today would regard as longer-term, reasonably stable relations between two people of the same gender. This is not a modern invention, it’s already there in Plato.

On Episcopalians’ independent streak
Of course, the American church has a long and noble tradition of jumping the gun on things. I understand that. The American nation grew out of a rejection of British imperial rule, and a desire to do it its own way. It’s very difficult psychologically [for Americans] to accept a decision reached in London, even if it is made by a global community.

On Baptist vs. Anglican ecclesiology (for my colleague Terry’s amusement)
I have friends in the Texas Baptists where every single church is autonomous. I’ve asked what Texas Baptists believe about this or that, and they say you just have to ask the individual church. It’s up to them. They guard that independence jealously. That is the other route you could go, but most Anglicans around the world have never seen their koinonia that loosely. They’ve seen it as very much a matter of tight, shared bonds, and mutual support that goes with that. For instance, when Desmond Tutu was standing up facing rioting mobs who wanted to kill people, the Archbishop of Canterbury would send a senior bishop physically to stand beside him, as a way of saying that Tutu is part of a larger thing, and we’re here supporting him.

On the crisis management of the Lambeth Commission
For me as a New Testament scholar, it’s very rare to find a new problem to work on. The New Testament is a small book, and every single verse has been fought over by somebody. It’s quite interesting theologically to find that we have not been this way before, so we have to set parameters so we can move forward. That’s what we’re doing. I wish it were not so sad and contentious and damaging an issue, because on many things it would be really exciting to do this kind of fresh theology together. But unfortunately we’re doing it with a gun to our heads, and that’s tough.