It may appear to be, though. For example, synod has scheduled six sessions on “sexuality discernment” – church-speak for deciding whether to bless same-sex unions – yet only two sessions on financial management. This may not be an ideal allocation of time, considering the demise of the Anglican Church is being hastened by a lack of cash as much as by an excess of prurience.
In an attempt to address its financial embarrassment, the Anglican Church of Canada has sought corporate sponsors to help pay for synod; the degree of sponsorship peaks at the “visionary” level which, for $30,000 will not only buy you tasteful Anglican advertising, but a private lunch with Primate Fred Hiltz. Although this is an enticement that few could resist, I haven’t seen many corporate logos in evidence at synod; come to think of it, I haven’t seen any. It can’t be merely coincidental that the Director of Philanthropy, whose idea it was, has just resigned.
Luckily for the church, a number of generous bequests in 2009 balanced the budget; dead Anglicans won’t keep the church afloat for long, though, so the living are also being vigorously exhorted to part with their money.
I was delighted to be invited to participate in some of the press conferences that have take place at noon each day. On Friday I was introduced to the refined art of advanced ecclesiastical sophistry by Archbishop Hiltz who expounded on which of the following circumstances would break the moratorium imposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury on same-sex blessings (yes, I know I am going on about sex again, but I just can’t get away from it). Here are the circumstances and the answers:
Synod passes a motion that approves same-sex blessings. This would break the moratorium.
Synod passes a motion that allows dioceses to decide for themselves whether to conduct same-sex blessings. This would break the moratorium.
Synod passes no motion, but continues to ignore dioceses that are already blessing same-sex unions and those who are about to start. This would not break the moratorium.
The distinguishing feature of the last option is that it is not “formal”; the fact that what should not happen is happening is immaterial so long as it is happening informally. A secular equivalent would be a loose association of astute crooks committing uncoordinated burglaries, emboldened by the certain knowledge that the informality of their crimes insulates them from prosecution.
In another press conference, Suheil Dawani, Bishop of Jerusalem unintentionally illustrated part of the malaise afflicting the Anglican Church. In his address he eloquently spoke of his efforts to mediate between warring factions in the Middle-East; he expressed his distress at the fact that Christians are a diminishing two percent of the population. In the interview afterwards I asked him whether he is trying to replenish the dwindling Christian population by making new Christians – by converting Muslims, for instance. “No”, he said, “we are not evangelical; we are just trying to preserve the ‘living stones’ (Christians) already there.” For a liberal – and to be invited to speak at an Anglican General Synod, that’s what you have to be – this makes perfect sense. Liberals tend to believe that Christianity is one of many paths that lead to God. The good bishop could not quite see that his liberalism is chipping its way through the branch on which he is perched: if Christianity is not unique, if it has no truth to offer that is inaccessible to other religions, there isn’t too much point in keeping Anglicanism, synods, dioceses, parishes or even bishops on artificial life support. What reason could there be, other than nostalgia, for not letting this particular path fade gracefully away?
Speaking of fading away, synod is not quite at the half way point and my ability – or perhaps willingness – to concentrate seems to be decreasing as the talking increases. And Anglicans do like to talk. Still, there’s plenty more to come on “sexuality discernment”; that should liven everything up.
A slightly condensed version of this article can be found at the National Post. Also on Eternity Magazine.
Pertaining to the money issue…
I recently received a letter from St. George’s (seems that they still have my on the Parish registry even though I have not seen the inside of that Church in almost six months, guess I have to send them a letter that points out the obvious). In the letter that I received it was noted that my financial contributions so far this year totalled $0.oo. Also that the repair of the steeple and tower still has an outstanding balance to be paid in excess of $300,000.oo (the entire repair was supposed to cost $150,000.00). And if that wasn’t enough, so far this year Parish expenses have exceeded money received by over $20,000.oo (all sources with the amounts pertaining to the steeple and tower repairs excluded).
I have to wonder how much longer can St. George’s survive?
Is this a typical situation in most ACoC congregations?