Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, tells Anglican Journal what he thinks of Ottawa Synod’s vote in favour of same-sex blessings (SSBs): The procedure was just fine. Apparently he has no opinion on the content of the motion, for none is reported.
“I believe due process was followed with respect to the handling of this resolution. The outcome of the resolution is a reflection of the mind of the church local in this matter,” Archbishop Hiltz told the Anglican Journal.
As long as the correct process is followed, the outcome must be true and righteous. Our new primate is a libertarian. I had no idea.
Is “due process” now the cardinal virtue of the Anglican Church of Canada? Whatever happened to fidelity to our Lord’s teachings and the Word of God?
And, once again, there’s the ambiguity created when General Synod passed Resolution A186 declaring SSBs do not conflict with “core doctrine” right before it rejected Resolution A187 that would have allowed SSBs anywhere in the Anglican Church of Canada (if the diocesan bishop approved).
Some bishops have stated that the defeat of the motion affirming the authority of dioceses to offer same-sex blessings bars dioceses from going forward on the matter. Some canon law experts opined, however, that there is nothing in the church’s canons or constitution that prevents a diocese from acting on the matter now that General Synod has said that the blessing of same-sex unions are “not in conflict” with core church doctrine.
Are we to assume that lawyers rank higher than bishops in today’s Anglican world?
Robin MacKay, chancellor (legal advisor) of the diocese of Ottawa, said the motion approved by diocesan synod was legal. He said that although General Synod did not approve the motion affirming the authority of dioceses to offer same-sex blessings, “it doesn’t affirm the opposite.” The motion, he added, “doesn’t deny the jurisdiction of bishops to (allow) same-sex blessings; it’s just that General Synod failed to act in that area.”
I’m not a lawyer and I admit I’m not interpreting A186 and A187 legalistically, but General Synod was clearly offered the opportunity to “affirm the authority and jurisdiction of any diocesan synod” to permit SSBs and turned it down. Sounds like a rejection of SSBs to me.
Mr MacKay’s claim that rejection of a motion authorising SSBs is not tantamount to affirmation of a motion rejecting them seems to me a textbook example of the old “letter versus spirit” thing. But, like I said, I’m not a lawyer.
2007 Anglican Blog Award winner Christopher Johnson demonstrates the vacuousness of Abp Hiltz’s comment.
c/p: Magic Statistics
Y’got there before I did
Yes, the entire notion is that as long as procedure is followed, there cannot be any objection. It is indeed to expression of the will of the “church local”. However, our creeds still call us to be part of the “church catholic”.
What the “primate” has totally missed is that it’s not about our “legal” laws or the system they operate. The entire reason for our being is for God’s enjoyment and we’re commanded to be obedient to Him through His Word revealed in the Bible. If the Bible says something is considered sinful, then it IS sinful! God made that decision, NOT us! The Bible is God’s breathed and inspired Word. THAT is what the real issue is. The Anglican church has decided it doesn’t want to believe that any more and has moved away from teaching that truth. Now, the Anglican church is instead teaching what the “culture” wants. That is satan’s work, since satan rules the world. It’s just too bad that’s what the church has come to. I had to leave and go to the Reformed Episcopal Church. I can’t keep company with the lovers of satan.
We can argue back and forth all we want about “church local” or “church-catholic” and whatever. BUT, it all boils down to just being obedience to God’s word. It doesn’t matter what denomination or church it is, if it’s not obedient to God’s Word, then it’s not a Christian church.
I have just been rereading David Mills article – “Collapsing Churches – A Sociological Analysis”. The basis of the Institutional Church is that the members have shared beliefs on which they build their future. When this is no longer the case the Institution collapses rather than transforms itself. Liberalism is either parasitic or so open ended that when the orthodox have left they have nothing left to react against and no shared beliefs to build with. However, after the collapse we are free to rebuild the castle. it will not be the same castle but it will be a sounder castle. The ACC will not give us the numbers, and delayed the bad financial news – they are in denial. The fat lady has sung.
Pauline you said that so well. Yes, I believe a new castle is already being built. Common Cause has already started putting together a new church. Canadians are part of that process. Let’s pray for them and all the hard work they are doing. Yes, the fat lady has indeed sung.
Arise and build!!!