Globe and Mail reporter Michael Valpy deploys the heavy rhetorical artillery against uppity orthodox Anglicans.
The schism in Canadian Anglicanism turned ugly at week’s end with threatened fights over ownership of church buildings, hints of swift punishment for rebellious priests and the uncrating of an alternative church structure for clergy and laity who reject openness toward homosexuals.
“Reject openness toward homosexuals”? What a crock! Who rejects openness: liberal Anglicans who contradict God’s Word and the historic Christian faith by teaching that homosexual practice is not sin, or orthodox Anglicans who call homosexuals—and all sinners—to repent of illicit desires and behaviours and seek God’s forgiveness though our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?
That’s par for the course from the reporter who said that the Dar es Salaam Communiqué called on the Episcopal Church to “slam their church doors against full acceptance of homosexuals”.
The Canadian primate is getting ready to lob one across the bow.
Archbishop Fred Hiltz’s letter is expected to be temperate, but to explain that the head of what is known as the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone of America, Archbishop Gregory Venables, has committed an outrageous wrong by trying to extend his authority into another church jurisdiction.
What’s outrageous is Abp Hiltz’s acquiescence to recent votes in Niagara, Montreal, and Ottawa supporting same-sex blessings, despite many clear statements from the Anglican Communion and its primates opposing such blessings. How can he expect criticism of Abp Venables’s “bureaucratic sin” to carry any weight in view of his own acceptance of liturgies celebrating sin in the church?
Archbishop Hiltz is also expected to make clear that congregations that vote to leave the Canadian church wouldn’t be taking their buildings with them, a subject much discussed at the Burlington conference.
In the United States, the Anglican Episcopal diocese of Virginia is fighting 11 congregations in court over ownership of church buildings. The congregations voted recently to quit the Episcopal Church and affiliate with the Anglican Church in Nigeria.
According to recent reports in the American press, that court fight is not going well for the Episcopal Church. The church is insisting that there is no “division”, despite the fact that it’s in court suing to regain property from parishes that have split off.
As for Canadian church buildings, we’ll just have to wait and see what our courts decide, Abp Hiltz’s pronouncement notwithstanding.
For a far more interesting and challenging perspective on events of the past few days, I recommend the National Post article by Charles Lewis, “Conservative Anglicans look to the Third World”.
The issue of buildings wasn’t “much discussed”. I think there might have been four questions about them. Was this reporter at the same conference I was at?
Peter, could you please email me at mrsfalstaff [at] gmail.com? I have a matter I would like to ask you to pray about, if you are willing….
Heh, so the Globe and Mail doesn’t like us eh? Who’d have thunk it?
“Who rejects openness: liberal Anglicans who contradict God’s Word and the historic Christian faith by teaching that homosexual practice is not sin, or orthodox Anglicans who call homosexuals—and all sinners—to repent of illicit desires and behaviours and seek God’s forgiveness though our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?”
The “heavy rhetorical artillery” obviously isn’t coming solely from one side, then.
There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with rhetoric, Scott – just depends upon how you use it….
hum, seems to me like the Essentials movement have no problem with rhetoric when its their spin people dishing it out. You got to be prepared to take it also.
So, who says we’re not? I didn’t suggest reporter Valpy shouldn’t use rhetoric, I didn’t say it’s a “problem”; I just called him on it.
Also, are we to assume that there are no substantive issues raised in the post that you disagree with?
By the by, I am the Scott who wrote the post, not the individual named “Scott” in comment #3. I suggest that individual choose a different nom de plume to avoid confusion. (But that’s just a suggestion.)
Whoops. Count me in as one who was confused….
Just for the record… Globe reporter Michael Valpy didn’t attend the Network meetings he comments on in this article.
Buildings are pretty ornaments, but Christians started in the catacombs so returning to basements and rented halls is returning to our roots. We will plant churches, denying us existing churches will only serve to create more acramony which flies in the face of the Second Great Commandment. We choose to preserve what they will not.
New take on an old lie
now class – hands together, two big fingers straight up.
Repeat after me; See the building, the birds high perch. Open the doors and see the church.
Who’s concerned about stained glass windows and great cathedrals with gargoyles hanging off the ceilings. I think I would prefer a little 40 x 80 foot wooden structure with folding chairs, a simple alter and a Cross hanging on the wall or from the ceiling. A piano and guitar instead of the stately organs and sometimes dead music. Better and easier to start over with a new building that won’t suck all the money out of the congregation to keep the “pretty” building operating. Most of our $$$’s should be going where Our Lord wants it to go….ministry to the poor and the needy and the lost.