From the Church Times blog

WHAT is increasingly apparent here from talking privately to bishops is how much language and terminology differ across the Communion, how much misunderstanding can arise over its use and how easy it has been to go with perception and rumour rather than fact. (The Canadian spin machine is now at full revs. (pun intended))

Take the position of Canada, reduced to observer status at the last meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council for the actions of New Westminster over same-sex-blessings. The superficial understanding of many bishops here is that ‘The Canadian Church’ has authorised rites. Lack of knowledge of the facts has simply reinforced ignorance in its true sense, says the Archbishop, Fred Hiltz, who emphasises the importance of the deep conversations that are happening between bishops. (or is it deep deception?).

So just as a briefing on the principles of canon law revealed on Saturday that words like ‘inhibit’ and ‘depose’ (you are not allowed to preach and, if you even set foot in the building we will charge you with trespassing. Even if you are a world-famous theologian) as applied to clergy discipline can mean quite different things in different provinces, so terms like ‘shared episcopal ministry’ (booting 150 believers out of a building to make room for a priest and his wife) and ‘pastoral generosity’ (suing the pants off people who disagree with you) as they relate to the Canadian situation have benefited from explanation, says Archbishop Hiltz. 

References to resolutions, responses and statements from the Canadian House of Bishops abound across the Communion, but frequently with no reference to the subject of these, he says. In the next two hearings of the Windsor continuation group, he has asked that where reference is made to Canadian responses or statements, the subject is named and if possible, the text made available.

“We are on record as saying through the St Michael report that [same-sex blessings] is not core doctrine to be placed alongside doctrines like the atonement, the resurrection and the Trinity (or the environment). And also that this is not a Communion-breaking issue,” he said. “People take great exception to that perception but we really do not believe it is. (In spite of the empirical evidence to the contrary, it seems.)

“The other thing that is happening for lots of people who are engaging Canadians in conversation is learning that out of 30 dioceses, only one – after three sessions of its synod over a period of several years – has authorised public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions. And out of maybe 80 or 90 parishes in that diocese, only eight have rites to do it.” (So you have to understand, we are blessing sin in a very limited way. Why is everyone so upset? And it’s not as if we plan on plowing ahead at full speed once Lambeth is over – really. Trust me.)

It has also come as news to many that the Bishop of New Westminster, Michael Ingham, has honoured the moratorium that was called for in the Windsor report. “Certainly in that diocese, other parishes in addition to the original eight want to proceed, but he has said he is not prepared to authorise any more until he has been to Lambeth and got a sense of what has moved there,“ the Archbishop said. (And if the sense is that he should repent; what then?)

“We also have four other dioceses who have passed resolutions through their Synod requesting permission to authorise. There are two things we have been coping with at Lambeth in regard to that: one, the question, ‘How dare those dioceses take such resolutions when General Synod has said no diocese has the jurisdiction to do it’. I have been criticised for my response to that but I don’t think those dioceses have acted in a defiant way at all. (Why would anyone think they had; why are people being mean to me – I just can’t understand it!) They have responded to the Synod’s desire to have the conversation publicly and to test the mind of the church local. (At least, the local churches who have access to reliable information in spite of the ACoC’s best efforts at obfuscation.)
“The second thing is that bishops in those cases have often been criticised for giving consent. But all they’ve given consent to is the resolutions, and that is no more than a request. The bishops have all concurred with the request and have all said in various ways that they would want to consult widely. We have had some very good conversation. Part of it, for them, is consulting folks here. Canadians have always valued both the privilege of belonging to the Communion and the responsibility. That remains our solid position.” (Funny, I seem to remember bp Ralph Spence saying, ‘not if, but when’)

Lambeth is a conference, not a Synod, he reiterates. “Rowan and the Design Group have done a superb job shaping a conference that could easily have had lone focus only. It isn’t all about how we as a Communion survive but how we as a Church see ourselves as a servant of God’s mission in the world….They’ve opened it up.

“I probably sound like a broken record but of course the conversations about sexuality and their impact n the church are important. But they’re not going away: the conversation is here to stay and we have to engage with it –pray God we can engage with respect and grace.” (In other words, we are going to harp on about it until we wear everyone down and get our way.)