As you perhaps can tell from the headline, I do not share ACNA leadership’s cheery assessment of what transpired at Synod. I do understand their desire to be positive. It would not be very polite to say, “Thanks for nothing, pommy church!” And the Synod could have in turn told ACNA to go away. They did not.
But let us follow Matt+ Kennedy’s admonition to engage in exegesis, not isogesis and look at what actually passed.
The original motion by Lorna Ashworth was modest:
“That this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America.”
As she noted during debate, all that motion would have done was express a desire for communion. It would have had little if any binding result (except REALLY tick off --Schori and company, of course).
But that was *ahem* too bold for the Synod. So they gutted the resolution with an amendment. Therefore the final resolution that passed was the following:
“That this Synod, aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada,
"(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011."
The passed resolution does not even deign to express a desire for communion. It only affirms ACNA’s desire – whatever that means, says this is oh-so complicated, and kicks the issue to 2011.
Thus Synod punted on even expressing a desire for communion with ACNA.
I can think of several adjectives to describe that. “Anglican” seems appropriate at the moment.
Granted, I am a bit grumpier than some (but not Christopher Johnson). Other views may be found here.