The 2004 General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada is meeting now. Their convention website gives detailed coverage including webcasts, and the Anglican Journal reports from the convention are posted here. The webcasts all are in .wmv format (Microsoft Media Player).
There are news reports today in two British newspapers:
In the Guardian Stephen Bates reports Canada’s Anglicans debate blessing of gay unions.
In the Telegraph Jonathan Petre says Williams envoy hopes to turn gay marriage vote.
Both these stories report the speech made to the synod by Gregory Cameron, who is secretary to the Lambeth Commission.
This speech can be seen and heard on a recorded webcast downloadable here, but as this is a 7.5M download, a full transcript also appears below.
Also below that is a copy of the relevant portion of the Presidential Address (full webcast is 13.7 Mb, downloadable here) to which reference is made several times in Gregory Cameron’s remarks.
Update 11 June Official version of this speech is now on ACO website here.
Some Canadian news reports:
Anglican schism feared over same-sex blessings
Anglicans clear way for vote on leader
Gay Anglican priest elected to high post at synod
Anglicans elect gay B.C. priest to Synod
And an internet naming angle reported in the Anglican Journal:
Who owns the name ‘Anglican’?
Transcript of talk given to Canadian General Synod by Gregory Cameron on 29 May 2004.
I suppose that I should begin by saluting your courage as a General Synod in being willing to debate what is probably the single most controversial topic that could be chosen today in the life of the Anglican Communion today. It is arguably crazy that it should take up so much of the Communion’s life at present, but, as your Acting Primate said last night, it is a debate which has been short on generosity, and long on vituperousness. To debate it, however, is your absolute right and, many would say, your duty, but it does mean that I am filled with something of a quiet terror as I stand here before you, knowing the strength of diverse opinions on the issue.
I have been asked to speak to you as the Secretary of the Lambeth Commission on Communion,and as you have heard, this is the body set up by the Archbishop of Canterbury at the request of the Primates of the Anglican Communion after their meeting last October to look at ways of keeping the Communion together in the wake of all the events of the last eighteen months. And so it is that I have come, not only to speak to you now, but perhaps more importantly to listen to you, to discern what is going on in the life of the Anglican Church of Canada, and to hear the different viewpoints that are generated and expressed. And I am extremely grateful for the hospitality afforded to me, and for the honesty with which those conversations have begun.
No debate or decisions can be taken in vacuum, and that I suppose is why I have been asked to provide something of the Anglican Communion context. But I am uneasy about doing that in a situation that almost anything one says will be interpreted as aiming at one particular goal or another. And I’m uneasy about it as well, because quite honestly I am struggling with different loyalties in the current situation.
First of all, I want to be loyal as a disciple of Christ, because that is what I try to be; I want to be loyal to the chair and members of the Lambeth Commission, whom I represent on this occasion, and to their process of work, and that does not complete itself for another four months or so; I want to be loyal to those of my friends who are gay, and whose Christian faith and discipleship often puts my own to shame; I want to be loyal to my fellow Christians of the Global South, who see recent developments as a terrible betrayal of the gospel. And last but not at all least, I want to be loyal to you as the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada, and to respect your proper autonomy.
And I rehearse those loyalties, not merely as a piece of self-indulgence, but because I suspect that many Anglicans across the globe feel the same tug of similar and different loyalties, and that this is one of the main reasons why the debate has been so fierce – on all sides, this debate touches deeply the integrity and convictions of our faith.
Of course, the idea of a Public Rite of Blessing for Same-Sex Unions is not new, and not distinctive to the Anglican Church of Canada. Indeed, only yesterday a colleague was pointing out to me that bishops in the Episcopal Church of the USA have been developing such rites since at least 1973. You do not need me to tell you how the case for same-sex civil marriages, let alone mere same-sex partnerships, is very much part of the political debate here in North America, in the United Kingdom and in Australia; nor will you need reminding about the decisions of the General Convention of ECUSA last summer which recognized the developments of rites of blessing as within the legitimate life of the church.
Less well-known are the same debates currently going on within the Lutheran Church of Sweden, in the Presbyterian, Methodist and Lutheran churches in the States; the acceptance by some of the Lutheran churches of Europe of pastors openly living in same-sex relationships; and the decisions by Old Catholic dioceses in Europe to authorize such rites. For many, such developments are a welcome sign that the church is at last turning its back on centuries of prejudice and oppression.
However, nothing can be plain sailing – and no sooner did your Diocese of New Westminster persuade its bishop to accept its desire for a Public Rite of Blessing of Same-Sex Unions than that decision was under attack. The Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Hong Kong passed a motion advising against the adoption of controversial decisions in the life of the Anglican Communion – by a diocese without consulting the province, and by a province without consulting the Communion; and in so doing some of its members at least were seeking to invoke an ancient principle of church government – that what touches all should be decided by all.
Opponents of the decision in New Westminster were quick to point out that not only had ACC12 urged caution, but that the decisions flew directly in the face of the teaching on human sexuality adopted by the overwhelming majority of Anglican bishops at the Lambeth Conference of 1998. The Primates of the Anglican Communion, as a body, reiterated their own views at their meeting in 2003 – they wrote to all the Communion to say that they could not as the college of the senior bishops of the Anglican Communion, together support the authorization of such rites, echoing their earlier statements of 2000 and 2001. The Archbishop of Canterbury himself said at that meeting that there was no theological consensus on such matters.
In other words, at least three, arguably the four, of the Instruments of Unity in the Anglican Communion took positions opposed to the developments in New Westminster. Others went further, and were quick to condemn – in June 2003, the Primate of Nigeria and leader of 17 million Anglicans, announced that he was severing communion with the Diocese of New Westminster, because he believed that it was being unfaithful to Scripture.
Now your Acting Primate has rightly pointed out that as a matter of church law none of these voices have anything more than a moral authority in the Anglican Communion, and primates have not been slow to assert the autonomy of the independent provinces, such as for example the Primate of the Province in Southern Africa, who has said almost its’ none of our business what happens in other provinces.
but you need also to be aware that our sister and brother Anglicans of the Global South – much of Asia, most of Africa and in Latin America – are asking whether the Anglican churches of the West are prepared to pay any attention at all to the Instruments of Unity, and they intend to judge the value we place on our Communion with them by the heed we pay to the views expressed. Nor should we decry their motives, this is no game playing – on all sides people are acting out of profound convictions that this is what God calls the church towards.
Your Acting Primate could have cited principles adopted at successive Lambeth Conferences to support his anger at the irregular actions of primates from overseas intervening in the internal affairs of your Church. “That is not the Anglican way”, he said to us last night – but the fear of the Lambeth Commission is that it may end up becoming the Anglican way, as we move from respect towards rivalry: and that is why the Commission is working so hard to find ways to allow the Anglican Communion to walk together again.
Whatever happened in New Westminster: within days of Nigeria’s condemnation, the whole matter was eclipsed by the election of a Bishop Coadjutor for the Diocese of New Hampshire in the States. These two events taken together have caused joy to many of those who have witnessed – or experienced – the intolerance and persecution of gay people at first hand, but it is also true it caused enormous pain in other places – in Pakistan, Uganda, Nigeria, and Egypt, Christians – and not just Anglicans, but Baptists and Copts and others – were publicly pilloried and physically attacked, homes being set on fire, and people physically assaulted. The Russian Orthodox have severed links with ECUSA; the Oriental Orthodox Churches have suspended talks with the Anglican Communion, and their church leaders have denounced what they see as an attack on the institution of marriage and the teaching of the Bible about family life. The Roman Catholic Church has paused for thought about what they make of the Anglican Communion’s claim to be a worldwide family of churches, and stated that developments constitute a new and serious obstacle to the path to unity.
Reaction has come from right across the oikumene of the church. As Cardinal Casper said to the Archbishop of Canterbury on his visit to Rome, “In this day and age, no one is an observer. We are all participants.”
Within our own Communion, the leaders of twenty-two of the thirty-eight provinces of the Anglican Communion, representing about forty-four million Anglicans, have pronounced that they reject the moves in New Hampshire and in New Westminster as incompatible with the Gospel and with the Christian fellowship of which they are part. They have said that these developments tear the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level, and a state of broken communion now exists between ECUSA and some twelve to eighteen provinces of the Communion.
I really would that this was not so, but I cannot pretend that this is not the reality across the Anglican and ecumenical world at the moment. All of this has become a distraction from the wider mission and ministry of the church, and innumerable bishops speak of how they are frustrated by the seeming inability of the church to move beyond this topic.
The Lambeth Commission, for its part, is painfully, carefully listening to all who will talk to it, to discover whether there is a way to hold this great family of ours together – and it has been given a mere twelve months by the primates in which all provinces have been urged not to take precipitate action in order to allow space for the Communion to find a way to heal itself.
This week, the eyes of all those other provinces will turn to you, to watch how you decide. It is your decision, and you must bring your collective wisdom to bear upon it. But I am afraid to say that the context of this decision is so fraught at the moment that the fear must be that no matter what the careful wording of your resolutions this week, the Anglican Church of Canada will be seen to be debating, as I think your Acting Primate recognized last night, the place of gay and lesbian lifestyles in your Church. Fairly or unfairly, the Anglican and ecumenical worlds are likely to react to your decisions on whether they perceive you to support or to reject the possibility of public rites of blessings of same-sex unions as elements of your lived-out faith in Canada.
If you say “no” to the motions before you, you will be in danger of letting down the thousands of gay people in your midst, who are part of your Canadian family, as well as all those others who are looking towards the Anglican Church of Canada to set a new standard in dealing with this issue.
But if you say “yes”, the work of the Lambeth Commission becomes horribly complicated, because we will be told that the Anglican Church of Canada refuses to hear the voice, or to heed the concerns of your fellow Anglicans in the growing provinces of the Global South, who are your international family. The reaction to such a decision, without very careful explanation and liaison by the Church of Canada, is likely to be on a par with that currently being experienced by your neighbours to the South.
Now that may be a price worth paying if you conclude that that is where Christ leads. You must do what you believe God is calling you to do – as your Acting Primate said – to do what will expand the realm of God, but I think I would be unfaithful to the task I have been set if I did not say that the implications of your decision for the unity of the Anglican Communion, perhaps even its very survival in its current form, are just about as serious as it could get.
Transcript of portion of Presidential Address by Archbishop David Crawley, Acting Primate on 28 May 2004
…Thirdly, we face a difficult and demanding discussion and debate on the place of gay men and lesbians in our church, focussed particularly on the issue of the blessing of same-sex couples.
It would be… inappropriate for me to speak of my own position in this matter, but I do want to make some comments about a couple of things.
First, I want to remind us that for the Anglican Church of Canada, we gathered here in this Synod is the highest legislative body in the Anglican Communion. Just as in New Zealand, or England, their General Synods are the highest legislative body in the Anglican Communion for them.
Our Communion is a communion; it is a family of 38 regional or national churches, which has no central legislative body, and no central magisterium— such as the Roman Church has.
[pause] There is no body external to the Anglican Church of Canada which can make definitive rulings about our life.
We have in the Anglican Communion what are called – in a kind of odd phrase, that always makes me think of the dentist – Instruments of Union.
First is the Archbishop of Canterbury – who is, of course, without jurisdiction in this country.
The other day the General Secretary sent him a letter of invitation to come on behalf of the Canadian Church to visit Detroit [laughter] – well, they don’t know North from South, do they? – anyway, because the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church and the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church are having a joint meeting in Detroit in 1905 – er, 2005 – 1905? Bit late, aren’t we? – 2005, and the General Secretary wrote and issued an invitation, and they put it on his calendar but they couldn’t say yes, ‘till they got a letter from me, because only the Primate can ask him to come into this country, because he has no jurisdiction here.
Secondly, the Lambeth Conference is precisely what it’s called: a conference. It is an advisory body; it can make statements about things, and it can advise, but it has no compelling power. They have moral force, they have intellectual force, but it is not a legislative body.
The Anglican Consultative Council? Listen to it’s name: consultative – it is to consult, it is not to decide for the Provinces.
The Primate’s MEETING, it’s called – isn’t even – isn’t even anything more than a meeting! It is an advisory body. Now, I believe it’s important for us to make a decision on this matter… whatever the decision may be. I don’t think we can stand three more years of this strange night-battle in which we’re now engaged.
Having said all that, I have to say, and I want to say, and – that we must acknowledge that we are in fact part of a Communion, and whatever we do will affect other parts of the Communion; and that whatever we decide will not be decided in any sense of ill-will against the other parts of the Communion, or of ignoring their concerns; but in the knowledge of their concerns, still making the decision that we must make – one way or the other, for our own life….