In his New Year’s Day address, Primate Fred Hiltz brings up the Anglican Covenant and the little difficulty that it might create for the Anglican Church of Canada:

The Covenant also speaks about procedures for addressing controversial issues and actions by provinces that could be deemed “incompatible” with the spirit of the Covenant, and of “relational consequences” for that province and its place in the Communion. For some, the language of relational consequences is deeply disturbing, given that our relationships within the Anglican Communion are and should never be dependent or fixed on one issue only.

I maintain that in the midst of our differences over issues of sexuality we are called to model a capacity to live with difference and to do so with grace. It is precisely a lack of graciousness that has fired tempers and sparked words of condemnation and dismissal that have been so destructive to relationships within the Communion. I pray that our attitudes and conversations with one another be more and more centered in Him in whom, beyond our understanding, we are forever one.

Hiltz’s reasoning seems to be along the lines of:

• The ACoC is going ahead with the ”full inclusion” of homosexual Anglicans by blessing same sex marriages and ordaining practising homosexual clergy.
• Those that disagree with us on this have to live with it and do so with grace.
• Anyone who doesn’t do so with grace is destroying the Communion.
• If the Communion is destroyed it will be the fault of those who lack the grace to go along with the homosexual agenda of the ACoC.
• If the attitudes of those who disagree with the direction of the ACoC were more centred in Christ, we wouldn’t be having these problems.

He goes on to say:

As we prepare for conversations about sexuality at General Synod it is very clear that people favour conversation and discernment over resolution and debate. Many hope that our discussions will be marked by a capacity to hear one another’s perspective and to appreciate the diversity of settings in which the pastoral and sacramental ministry of the Church is desired. My own hope is that we will emerge from the Synod with an honest statement of where we are in our continuing discernment.

Endless talk without resolution = Good. Disagreeing with each other = Bad. I hate modern pseudo-psychological catchphrases, but I can’t help noticing that this is a perfect description of “dysfunctional”: no-one says what he really thinks in order to maintain the pretence that everyone is getting along just fine.

And to follow:

Personally I am both challenged and heartened by a comment made by the Pastoral Visitors in their report to the Archbishop of Canterbury, “General Synod will, indeed, be a watershed, both for the Anglican Church in Canada, and for its wider relations within the Anglican Communion. At its worst it could lead to internal anarchy. At its best it could help us all to appreciate and practise a properly Christian style of inclusiveness. … Our distinct impression was that if the Anglican Church of Canada could find a way through this current impasse, it could well become a vibrant model of the kind of renewed Christian community that has much to teach the wider Church.”

To put it another way: “Rowan hasn’t managed it, but if you find a way to convince Christians to get along with Unitarian Gnostic New-Age Pantheists, we’ll give it try, too. Hint: try smaller Indaba groups; good luck, Fred.”