From the Journal
News of a plan to create a new North American Anglican province that would be defined by conservative theology rather than a geographic location may have been greeted with enthusiasm by delegates at the Anglican Network in Canada’s first synod last week, but Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, described the plan as “disturbing.”
The plan is scheduled to be publicly released on Dec. 3 in Chicago at a gathering of the Common Cause Partnership, a coalition of conservative Anglicans who oppose moves within the Anglican Church of Canada toward blessing same-sex unions and the ordination of an openly gay man as an Episcopal bishop in the U.S.
“What’s quite disturbing, in my opinion, about this proposal is the determination to create a province based on theological grounds,” Archbishop Hiltz said Nov.17. “The creation of provinces, as I have always understood it, is based on mission. It is based on a commitment to embrace and give flesh to an expression of the gospel in a particular context. There is a geography associated with that context, there is a set of cultural needs, a set of social needs.”
If the ACoC were truly giving expression to the gospel, then there would have been no need for ANiC or a North American Province. To say “give flesh to an expression of the gospel in a particular context” is really code for what St. Paul called a different gospel (Gal 1:6).
It is significant, too, that for Abp Hiltz, geography seems to be more important than theology.
He also noted that the Anglican Consultative Council is the only body of the church that can create a province, and it does so, only after “after a long period of discernment and testing the viability and capacity for the province to maintain itself in the spirit of mission.” The Anglican Consultative Council is also the only body of the church that includes bishops, clergy and laity.
Archbishop Hiltz was also critical of the Common Cause Partnership’s determination to go forward with its plan with or without the blessing of the Archbishop of Canterbury. “That is quite simply not in keeping with Anglican tradition. Part of the essence of being Anglican is that you are in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. We respect his office as first among equals. We respect the wisdom and experience of that office and we look to the office for guidance.” He also noted that Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has already stated that the only ecclesial body he recognizes in Canada is the Anglican Church of Canada.
Those working on a draft constitution acknowledge that the creation of such a province based on differences in theology is unprecedented in the Anglican Communion, but ANiC Bishop Donald Harvey said that support from conservative primates in the Global Anglican Futures Conference (GAFCON) gives them confidence that the primates will give the proposal serious consideration, perhaps when they meet next in Egypt in February.
Archbishop Hiltz responded by saying that it is an assumption, perhaps a “huge assumption,” to think that the views of the GAFCON primates accurately represent the views of the millions of Anglicans in their provinces. “The experience that I had at Lambeth [the decennial meeting of Anglican bishops around the world] and that lots of other Canadians had at Lambeth was that the primates speak, but they don’t necessarily represent the views of all the people,” he said. “And they don’t in every case represent the views of their bishops…. There were some bishops who were told by their primate do not go to Lambeth and ‘if you go you could be deposed’.”
The particular canard mentioned in the last sentence was, I believe, debunked.
Although the ABC may not recognise a North American Province, the Primates probably will. Either way, it does not change the fact that what is being done is being done to further the gospel; an act that really is prophetic, something that the ACoC should be able to relate to.
He asserted that many other views were represented at the Lambeth Conference, which he characterized as having a spirit of openness, good will and a general determination to find ways to keep the communion together. “I think the difference between GAFCON or the group that’s connected with GAFCON and the rest of the communion is that the rest of us in the communion are trying – and it’s a challenge – to build bridges, to create links, to keep in conversation with one another,” he said. “It has become more and more clear that those associated with GAFCON are not so committed to building bridges and keeping in conversation but rather to separation.”
The truth is, that Abp Hiltz has repeatedly refused to talk to Don Harvey to attempt to find a way to settle the building disputes outside of the courts. Very recently, the diocese of Niagara rebuffed a similar approach, saying, they “prefer to take it to the courts”. This is how the ACoC is going to “build bridges, to create links, to keep in conversation with one another”?
Finally, Archbishop Hiltz asserted that cross-border interventions (meetings with parishioners about separating from the Anglican Church of Canada) by ANiC representatives in Anglican Church of Canada diocese are continuing, contrary to the moratoria and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s call for “gracious restraint” on both sides. “Across the board, everyone is frustrated by these cross-border interventions, not the least of which are poor bishops whose synods haven’t even had a conversation about same-sex blessings, let alone made a decision, and they’ve got people like Archbishop [Gregory] Venables [primate of the Southern Cone] interfering in their diocese,” he said. “We really struggled hard at the house of bishops around how do we respond to this call for gracious restraint and the vast majority of bishops were able to say ‘Okay, we’ll honour gracious restraint,” but you could just feel underneath that a sense of ‘we’re committed to this, but give us some evidence that those who are given to cross-border intervening are going to hold off.’ And there is little or no evidence that they are. In fact, it appears that their behavior is more aggressive.”
But there is no “restraint”, gracious or otherwise: the development of SSB rites is proceeding apace; faithful Christians are being hauled into court; ANiC bishops are being smeared.
To restate it once more, our realigning with the Southern Cone was the result of the ACoC’s pursuit of unbiblical doctrine, not vice versa. To equate this with the ACoC’s determination to pursue SSBs (and they are determined) is to lose the distinction between cause and effect.
Also, Gregory Venables is not “interfering”: parishes ask to join the Southern Cone. In the same way, ANiC representatives are not inflicting themselves uninvited on anyone: they only speak to parishes when asked
“The experience that I had at Lambeth and that lots of other Canadians had at Lambeth was that the primates speak, but they don’t necessarily represent the views of all the people”
From what I understand, this is true but not in the sense of Mr Hilz. Rather, the people and clergy of the province of Nigeria are more conservative and less forgiving than ABp Akinola.
“Archbishop Hiltz… also noted that Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has already stated that the only ecclesial body he recognizes in Canada is the Anglican Church of Canada.”
At the moment, yes. However, Archbishops change, and so does recognition.
A further thought: part of the mission of the Holy Spirit is to comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable.
“What’s quite disturbing, in my opinion, about this proposal is the determination to create a province based on theological grounds,” Archbishop Hiltz said Nov.17.
I’m glad that Hiltz now understands that the problem is a theological one, despite earlier protestations of: “not core doctrine”, “is a pastoral matter”and “let the synods vote on the issue”.
Apparently when Bishop Duncan went to see Rowan Williams on October 15th he told Duncan to put an application in for a new Province to be formed.
It is amazing to me how the revisionists are so hung up on process when they were quite happy to discard the process when it suited their own needs. The new province is a “fact on the ground” – get over it. Theological grounds are the only reason for a new province – ask Luther.
Actually there would be other reasons for starting a new Province for geographical reasons, but a theological reason is very acceptable too.
As if the blessing of SSB’s, to which he seems quite favourable, is…
It almost seems silly to waste time debunking such blatant deception and manipulation of the facts, let a lone the gospel. That said I do appreciate these posts from David and Kate and others because they provide a valuable “second” opinion for those weighing their future in the ACoC.
It is surprising to me that Mr. Hiltz is disturbed about the creation of a new Anglican Province in North America. One would think that he would welcome it. Once the New Province is in place, there will be no further need for those nasty cross-border incursions that he is constantly complaining about. He will then be able to focus his full attention on implementing the moritorium on same-sex blessings that he endorsed at Lambeth.
Winter Traveler (9) raises a very interesting point. Once the new Anglican orthodox Province of North America is formally accepted by the majority of the Global Anglican Communion (truth is this new Province already exists) than what argument does Hiltz have left about “cross border” interventions. How will he be able to argue that a Parish “transferring” from the Province of the Anlgican Church of Canada to the Anglican orthodox Province of North America will not be part of the Communion?
Also, until the formally acceptance in made, Hiltz can argue that ANiC is not “legitimate”. But once the formal acceptance and recognition are made, ANiC must be viewed as “legitimate” by ALL Anglicans, including Hiltz.
What will happen if Hiltz refuses to be “in Communion” with the new Province? Other Anglican Provinces from around the world will be forced to choose which Province(s) in North America that they will be in Communion with. How many will choose the new Province, which is Biblically Faithful, vibrant, and growing? How many will choose ACoC, which is walking away from God’s Holy Word, more interested in MDG’s than the Great Commission, has an aging and shrinking demographic, and is declining (even dying)?
“That is quite simply not in keeping with Anglican tradition…”
But God’s revelation is ongoing! The Holy Spirit is leading us to a New Thing!
See how easy it is to turn their own arguments against them?
Ellie (#11)
“See how easy it is to turn their own arguments against them?”
Sorry to disappoint you, Ellie, but you are dealing with the Masters of Weasel Wording (saying something which sounds clear, but can be understood in many different and often contradictory ways). The BAS is great evidence of their mastery!
I am sure that their definitions of “border” and “interventions” is more closely connected to revenue and power than to geographical or political areas.