ChristianWeek

Where to start on Anglican woes? Perhaps not at the very begin ning, as Mary Poppins would suggest. Too boring, too complicated and, well, too Anglican.

I’ll bring you up to speed anyhow. On June 25, Winnipeg will host the General Synod where bishops, clergy and laity will decide whether or not same-sex marriage is consistent with core doctrine. They’ll also elect a new archbishop, or primate.

Winnipeg will be witness to an important and complicated landmark in Canadian history. Complicated is normal for the Anglican Communion. The church has always existed as a group of independently governed provinces formed around the moral leader ship of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Disagreeing with the Archbishop means you’re out. That is, if you can both agree that you disagree. You see? It’s complicated.

Unity in diversity is the great Anglican trademark. Ever since Protestants and Roman Catholics persecuted each other in the early years of the English reformation, the church has had to put up with various factions.

However, since unity worldwide has depended on a shared history based initially on the expansion of the British empire, a globalized church limits a shared worldview. The role of women, divorce and abortion have all rocked the boat at one time or another.

The instruments of unity such as Lambeth councils and Primates meetings are “bodies by which our common life in Christ is articulated and sustained, and which therefore carry a moral authority which commands our respect,” and hold no legal power themselves.

Core doctrine is thus a tradition of interpretation. Scripture first, then reason, then tradition.

So when arguments of Anglican the ology unsheath in Winnipeg this June, much will depend on persuasion. The Synod delegate from my parish, one of the few evangelical and conserva tive orthodox parishes in the city, has already been asked out numerous times for lunch by other delegates. The Holy Spirit often does move in mysterious ways—and lunch bills.

One of the main problems of this approach—based on the example of the early church councils—is that sound decisions of doctrine should take a long time to formulate, and hopefully employ the greatest theological minds.

This will not be the case in June. Council of General Synod (CoGS), which governs church affairs between Synods every three years, decided this March that it wanted to change the decision-making process of what constitutes core doctrine.

The St. Michael’s Report, prepared by the Primates Theological Commission in 2005, recommended that the church resolve the dispute over same-sex marriage by treating it as a church law (canonical) dispute. It would then require a two-thirds majority at two consecutive Synods to decide—making sure any doctrinal decisions would take a long time.

Instead, CoGS is sending the question of same-sex marriage to the Winnipeg Synod as a one-time motion that will either pass or fail with 60 per cent. This came as a surprise, mostly because it has no precedent, but also because CoGS—which does not have a say in church doctrine directly—seems to be saying “we’d like this done once and for all, and there’s a good chance that it’ll pass.”

It’s obvious that dragging the decision out favors the status quo of the Communion, but then again, those who oppose the status quo haven’t been around for a while have they?

In a letter from the House of Bishops of Rupertsland (based in Winnipeg) they say, “we do not believe that it is not possible for members of General Synod—or the broader Church—to undertake the required education and discussion to be in a position to determine whether the blessing of same-sex unions is Scripturally sound and theologically consistent with core doctrine.”

Instead, we’re given two months and there’s been no afterthought to how this decision will affect the Canadian church’s status in the Communion.

Archbishop Rowan Williams, who exists as a moral authority and facilitator, has called the Canadian church to act in the interest of worldwide communion. A good question to ask ourselves is “what has led to an increasing lack of respect for moral authority in North America?” It’s a complicated question.