“Called out of our assumptions”: General Synod Diary, Day 3

Posts and diary entries from the Anglican Church of Canada’s 2023 General Synod, meeting for part of that time conjointly with the Evanglical Lutheran Church in Canada. Earlier posts in this series are here.

A Bible passage for today: After yesterday’s vote on extending the primate’s term, the worship committee seemed to lay it on a little thick this morning, giving us a hymn about forgiving one another, Psalm 133 about unity, and Ephesians 4 about being one body. My table was struggling to figure out what lectionary they were following and then realized they probably weren’t.

The verse that came to my mind as we read Ephesians 4 was from Ephesians 3:10: “so that through the church the wisdom of God in its rich variety might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.” I love the idea of the rich variety of the wisdom of God (some translations have it as diverse wisdom). I have seen ample evidence of that in this Synod.

Highlight for today: Several, but I will highlight the number of side conversations people are wanting to have about the resolution I have put forward about Medical Assistance in Dying. We are now hoping that it will actually make it to the floor. Floor time is running out.

The debate today about resolutions from the anti-racism commission helped me begin to see what the General Secretary may have been getting at when he said General Synod is the church at its best. This was our second day of debate on this after we delayed consideration at the request of the Anglican Council of Indigenous People. Two resolutions (A200 and A201) were eventually passed after much amending that strengthened them in helpful ways, including with a clear statement of the importance of doing this work ecumenically. The whole debate across two days showed the strength of General Synod in its inter-cultural diversity. It also revealed some of the challenging cross-currents of anti-racism work as well as the great harm that racism has done in the church with some moving personal testimonies from both indigenous and Black people about this. It made clear the scope of the work ahead.

On that point, there was a narrow vote for deputy prolocuter (51% to 49%) between two candidates, one of whom happened to be Black. The Black candidate did not win. This was pointed out on the floor of Synod later with words to the effect that we can pass great resolutions about anti-racism but it also means raising up Black leadership when we have the opportunity.

On the rah-rah church part of the agenda, Will Postma of the Primate’s World Relief and Development Fund gave a presentation in the morning. I was struck by his comment that they are grateful to receive support from the Government of Canada and have some kind of government certification. It occurred to me that at a General Synod say, 75 years ago, there might have been a report from the church’s Missionary Society about the church’s work with residential schools with similar expressions of thanks for the support of the government. According to PWRDF’s charity listing, 25% of its funding comes from government sources. I wonder how Anglicans in 75 years will look back on a report like this one?

I chatted with Will about this afterwards (which was probably an unfair question to raise during a coffee break) and he stressed how the work PWRDF does now is by invitation and in partnership and that they try to set a cap on government funding. I assured him I will continue to be a donor. But I did find myself thinking that perhaps the deeper problem is when we shape the church’s work (of any kind) to ensure it can be certified as government approved.

The Synod authorized liturgies for journeys of gender transition and affirmation by a large majority after a civil and helpful debate that illuminated many different perspectives. Burbling away in the background are some questions about what the Synod is doing when it “authorizes” liturgies of any kind. Here’s one: it’s not clear that authorization actually means anything. In worship the other night, we used a statement of faith that, the credits told us, was authored by PWRDF. I hadn’t realized that among PWRDF’s many talents was liturgical creation. It was, if I may say, not a great statement of faith and it was made worse by the fact that it was the Primate who was leading it. If we can just willy-nilly use that — and at the General Synod of the church — why does authorization even matter? Let liturgical anarchy reign!

In spite of all that, I was persuaded by the debate on the floor and voted in favour of the liturgies.

The Archbishop of Kootenay shared with us a practice from throughout her ministry: whenever she mentions one of her children in a sermon, she owes them a Dairy Queen ice cream.

The afternoon was spent with the Lutherans discussing the proposed ecumenical relationship with the Moravians and the Churches Beyond Borders relationship with the Lutheran and Episcopal churches in the United States. In her comments, the Primate talked about how ecumenism “calls us out of our assumptions.” Amen to that.

Bill Franklin, former bishop of Western New York, had the tough job of filling in for Michael Curry. He mentioned one of his early 20th century predecessors, the great Charles Henry Brent (who apparently once managed to get arrested while wearing Eucharistic vestments), a Canadian-born bishop and ecumenist. I really am inspired by Brent’s ministry but let me just use this as an excuse to share this photo of Brent from the cover of Time magazine alongside one of Alfred E. Neuman.

More seriously, Brent is also the author of one of my favourite collects in the American Book of Common Prayer, for mission in the Morning Prayer service:

Lord Jesus Christ, you stretched out your arms of love on the hard wood of the cross that everyone might come within the reach of your saving embrace: So clothe us in your Spirit that we, reaching forth our hands in love, may bring those who do not know you to the knowledge and love of you; for the honor of your Name. Amen

Some Jewish groups are raising some deep concerns about the way the proposed resolution on Israel and Palestine draws a comparison between that situation and the settler-indigenous relationship in Canada. When we discussed this in our Anglican-Lutheran table groups, one indigenous person at my table group was upset about this as well as it felt like indigenous people were being used without adequate consultation. Mine was not the only table group that heard some version of this message. There were some questions about how deeply indigenous members of the church were consulted on this and a mostly inadequate answer in reply. It seems likely this is going to be withdrawn and sent back for more work.

Here I am with my colleague in theological education, Dan Smith, Dean of Theology at Huron University in London. Please, Internet, tell us who is the tallest?