In the lead news story of our last edition, longtime ChristianWeek contributor Sue Careless described what happened at a national conference of concerned members of the Anglican Church of Canada who are determined to work “for the recovery and renewal of the orthodox heritage” of Anglicanism (“Orthodox Anglicans find way forward,” ChristianWeek, October 1).

Many Anglicans are seriously disturbed by the theological drift of their denomination, especially its increasingly official acceptance and blessing of same-sex unions.

As Careless reported, “all participants, observers and media attending The Way Forward conference were required to sign a statement that they not only affirmed orthodox Christianity...but also repudiated the controversial motion passed by General Synod in May ‘affirming the integrity and sanctity of committed, adult, same-sex relationships.’”

Several mainstream and Canadian Church Press media outlets refused to sign the statement and did not attend the sessions. Both the national and Ottawa-area Anglican newspapers and The Ottawa Citizen, for example, felt it would be unfair to their constituencies and their consciences if they were to sign.

So...what about ChristianWeek? Did we do a disservice to our readers by accepting these constraints? Did we compromise our role as a newsgathering agency by allowing a writer with a history of involvement within conservative Anglican circles to report the news? These are fair questions, which I will address as succinctly and honestly as possible.

I’ll begin by asserting that there was no conflict for a bonafide ChristianWeek reporter to sign the statement. Indeed, we publish a little phrase in the masthead of every edition of our newspaper that declares we are “committed to historic Christianity.” That bias permeates our paper today as it did when we first started publishing back in 1987.

Throughout the years we have reported regularly on the conflicts within denominations (Anglicans and others) over this and similar issues, always giving priority to those voices which in our judgment reflect a commitment to historic Christianity. On the matter of same-sex blessings, our editorial stance has consistently reflected our biblically-informed belief that God honours sexual intimacy between a man and a woman in marriage and finds it troublesome in other relationships.

The reporter’s assignment letter asked for a news story, and we believe that’s what was delivered. Was it sympathetic to the emerging Anglican Federation it described? Yes. Was it detached enough to simply put the essential facts of the conference on the record? I believe so. We expect fairness and accuracy from all our correspondents. If they fail to deliver, we’ll do whatever is necessary to set the record straight.

I have no difficulty understanding why the Anglican Journal could not comply with the organizer’s demands. But this is a place where ChristianWeek could be without compromising the convictions our readers expect from us.