06/05/2004: "This is compromise?"

I love the take on the events at the Canadian Anglican synod by Stephen Bates, religion reporter for the UK's Guardian :

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.

An attempt to maintain fragile unity? What the synod did was insult every intelligent evangelical and Anglo-Catholic in the Communion. By pulling the measure that would have formally approved same-sex blessings, liberals thought conservatives would say, "oh, we don't have to worry about this for another three years." They thought conservatives stupid enough not to recognize that diocesan option on said blessings, combined with pronouncing such relationships holy, was essentially the same thing. If that's an effort to maintain unity, it was pathetic. No one was fooled, of course:

[T]his was followed by a statement from Drexel Gomez, the Archbishop of the West Indies, who has led developing world opinion in the Anglican communion against any accommodation of gays and lesbians.

The archbishop said: "It is completely unacceptable to orthodox Christians that same-sex unions are described as 'holy'. Such language is reserved for marriage alone. The attempt to give 'committed adult same-sex relationships' the same theological stature as marriage...will reap devastating consequences."

[N]ine Canadian bishops, about a third of the total, took the synod by surprise when they announced the amendment was "in error and contrary to the teaching of scripture and the tradition of the undivided church".

Duh. That came as a surprise only to Steve Bates and some folks at the Synod who thought their "compromise" would make the whole thing go away.

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

He 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' statement (found here) "speaks of division"? The Anglican Church in Canada just spit in the face of most of the Anglican Communion, and the bishops' statement "speaks of division"?

In the synod delegates had argued in favour of a delay so as to preserve the unity of the 77 million-strong worldwide Anglican communion.

The amendment was taken up to affirm that the church still welcomed gays-although, with both liberals and traditionalists jockeying for position, there may have been ulterior motives in presenting it as a compromise.

Ya think?