From the Journal:
The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has asked the primates (national archbishops) of five provinces, including the Anglican Church of Canada, to reflect on the impact that the current Anglican conflict over sexuality has had on the mission and priorities of their churches.
Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, said that he and the primates of the U.S. Episcopal Church, Uganda, Pakistan, and South Africa, have been invited to offer their reflections during the primates’ meeting scheduled Feb. 1 to 5 in Alexandria, Egypt.
“We’re fortunate in that we can say that the five marks of mission have become a real focus in the Canadian church and are sort of becoming household language in terms of how we talk about our work as a church, both here in Canada and through our partnerships around the world,” said Archbishop Hiltz in an interview. (The five marks of mission, which were formulated by the Anglican Consultative Council, are: to proclaim the good news of the kingdom; to teach, baptize and nurture new believers; to respond to human need by loving service; to seek to transform the unjust structures of society; and to strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth.)
Archbishop Hiltz said he was putting together a package of information to be handed out at the meeting which will reflect the message that “we’re a church that’s renewing its commitment to God’s mission in the world, and that there’s more to the Canadian church than discussions about sexuality; that mission is front and centre.”
The things that truly are front and centre are: the same-sex blessing issue; the fact that there is now a flourishing orthodox alternative to the ACoC in ANiC/ACNA; the radically declining numbers in the ACoC; the precarious financial position of the ACoC.
[…………………]
The house of bishops last fall issued a statement that a “large majority” of its members could affirm “a continued commitment to the greatest extent possible” to a moratorium on the blessing of same-sex unions but also recognized that this would pose difficulty for dioceses “that in conscience have made decisions on these matters.”
Abp Hiltz omits mentioning the fact that he fully supports the actions of the dioceses that are pushing ahead with same-sex blessings – for example during his recent visit to the diocese of Niagara.
Archbishop Hiltz said he planned to specifically raise the issue of cross-border interventions. “The bishops made it really clear to me that they want me to speak about the issue with clarity and conviction that no bishop in the Canadian church is happy or will tolerate these interventions, no matter where they stand on the blessing of same-sex unions,” he said. “I will have to find a way to get that on the table if others don’t.”
The three ANiC bishops – who are, after all, bishops in the Canadian church – are extremely happy that Greg Venebles has offered orthodox Anglican parishes oversight. While it would be courageous and encouraging for an orthodox ACoC bishop to support Greg Venables’ oversight, it would probably be a career limiting move; liberal bishops, of course, see this merely as an erosion of their power-base.
While some bishops have indicated that they would take some “incremental steps” in allowing same-sex blessings, they were still exercising “gracious restraint,” he said. “None of the bishops to date are saying ‘across the board, it can happen.’ They’ve been gracious in trying to listen to the rest of the church. We’re not moving that quickly, we’re somewhere in the middle here. While all that is happening, we still have the continuing intervention of primates and bishops from other jurisdictions who are showing no restraint.”
“Gracious restraint” and “incremental steps” are euphemisms for “adopting heresy at a more moderate pace than our inclination demands, in order to pull the wool over the eyes of conservatives”.
The ABC continues his reign with yet another clever endeavour. Asking Hiltz and Schori to report on the state of their charges is like asking the fox how the henhouse is doing.
Peace,
Jim
Of course Hiltz is going to cry boo hoo like a spoiled child at the rescue of real Anglicans that so many of us are thankful for. He would rather we have nowhere to go, and hinder our relationship with God. After all, his authority as Primate of this geographic area is more important than accepting us real Anglicans for what God has made us.
One of the five missions made much of by Mr Hiltz is “to proclaim the good news”. However, when asked to explain what the good news is at the recent meeting in Burlington, Mr H. could not come up with an answer – just a lot of rhetoric about the good news being presented in liturgy and worship while avoiding having to explain what he feels the good news is.
In reading the Article it I think that the Primate and the Canadian Bishops have their heads in the Sand The Primate has never told the Truth and I think he never Will
I am reminded of Matthew Chapter 7 V 15
Beware of False Prophets who come in Sheep’s clothing but inwardly are Ravenous Wolves.
I expect that his report to the primates will be that the mission of the Canadian church (to become the largest social services agency in the country) is flourishing, that the “listening” process (we’ll talk and you’ll listen until you agree with us) is progressing, and that the current discourse over human sexuality has had no meaningful impact on the church’s priorities (SSB’s coming to a church near you). In other words, to paraphrase the Presiding Heretic to the south – “All is well”.
Is he going to report on all those native Canadians committing suicide after receiving residential school financial settlements from the church?
#5
Nicely said Winter Traveler.
Ellie M. #6 – Did I miss something?
#8:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=1218949
It’s all over today’s news. So much for “justice” and “reconciliation”.
Regarding the residential school issue.
Do we need any more evidence that money is the root of all evil. When ACC accepted liability/punishment for the sins of other poeple and organizations did it give any thought to also providing the healing power of God? Why was the money just handed over, and none used to pay for councilling?
This may not sound very good of me, but frankly I was disgusted when I sat in Church and was asked to donate more and more money for the blood money that ACC had offered the victims. These sins were committed by people other than myself, and also before I was born. I thought that Jesus said that the son will not be punished for the sins of his father. So why was I being asked to accept liability/punishment for these sins?
Amp [#10]
Actually, it’s the love of money – 1 Tim. 6:10
I refused to donate money to any of the residential school fundraisers held at my church.
My conscience is clear.