Here’s an intersting take on Synod 2010, from the Anglican Journal. I haven’t quoted the whole article, you can read it in its entirety here
General Synod 2010 did not approve the so-called local option that would allow dioceses to grant same-sex blessings. Neither did it take a legislative decision on the matter.
It did, however, recognize that local option has been exercised by some and may be taken by others in future, even though “it’s not local option approved by the national church…,” said Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada.
So – If the boss says that you aren’t allowed to stay at a five star hotel on your business trip, but he isn’t going to discipline you for it if you do, what does this really mean? It means that you are allowed to stay at five star hotels, even though the rules say you aren’t. This is dishonest. It is a way to say that the moratoria haven’t been broken (because local option isn’t authorized by the national church), but still allow local option to happen. Would it not be more upright to simply put local option on the table at Synod and vote on it?
“We’re not ready as a national church to say, ‘We’re building this into our doctrine that we approve of same-sex unions,’ ” he told a press conference following the close of General Synod 2010 in Halifax. What synod did say was, “We need to have more conversation,” confirmed Archbishop Hiltz, adding, “That’s an action.
In other words, you aren’t ready as a national church to be honest about what you are doing. You are changing doctrine through the back door.
The statement recognizes the reality of the Anglican Church of Canada right now, said Archbishop Hiltz. “We’re not in a position to be going back to dioceses where they’ve made decisions one way or the other, to say, ‘You must change your mind on this.’ ”
Why not? A Christian leader is supposed to guide his or her flock onto the right path.
The process for discerning what to do with the issue that has divided Anglicans in Canada and worldwide was “Spirit-led,” said Archbishop Hiltz. “Now is not the time to force the issue by a resolution because we’re not ready for that kind of step,” he said. The church needs to continue talking, said Archbishop Hiltz.
How do you know that the spirit that is leading this is the Holy Spirit, unless you go back to the bible and make sure that what the spirit is telling you doesn’t contradict God’s word written?
Asked whether he thought the rest of the Communion would see General Synod’s decision as evidence of “gracious restraint” that has been urged by some of its bodies, he said, “Some will and some won’t.”
Well, I know which side of the divide I fall on.
“We’re not in a position to be going back to dioceses where they’ve made decisions one way or the other, to say, ‘You must change your mind on this.’ ”
Unless the parishes have decided in favour of ACNA, in which case the gloves come off. Nice consistency there, Fred.
And the test will be what Hiltz would think of the following:
******
The General Synod of the Province of the Southern Cone did not approve the so-called local option that would allow bishops to oversee dioceses and parishes in the geographical territory of other Provinces. Neither did it take a legislative decision on the matter.
It did, however, recognize that local option has been exercised by some and may be taken by others in future, even though “it’s not local option approved by the Province…,” said Archbishop Gregory Venables, primate of the Southern Cone.
“We’re not ready as a Province to say, ‘We’re building this into our doctrine that we approve of exercising jurisdiction in the geographical territory of other Provinces,’ ” he told a press conference following the close of General Synod in Buenos Aires. What synod did say was, “We need to have more conversation,” confirmed Archbishop Venables, adding, “That’s an action.
The statement recognizes the reality of the Province of the Southern Cone right now, said Archbishop Venables. “We’re not in a position to be going back to bishops, dioceses or parishes where they’ve made decisions one way or the other, to say, ‘You must change your mind on this.’ ”
The process for discerning what to do with the issue that has divided Anglicans was “Spirit-led,” said Archbishop Venables. “Now is not the time to force the issue by a resolution because we’re not ready for that kind of step,” he said. The church needs to continue talking, said Archbishop Venables.
Asked whether he thought the rest of the Communion would see General Synod’s decision as evidence of “gracious restraint” that has been urged by some of its bodies, he said, “Some will and some won’t.”
**********
So, if Venables would make this sort of statement, would Hiltz et.al. demand that the Southern Cone was violating the moratoria or not? What’s good for the goose…
James W. you will be held accountable for what comes out of your mouth. Doubly so for putting those words into the mouth of a Godly Archbishop.
I believe that ++ Venables answered a call for help long before the idea of moratoria. This idea was laughable from the time it was conceived. Just another red-herring to go along with a long stream of half truths and conceit.
JamesW (#2), why not give us a real argument that we can consider; one with a premise? I don’t understand what your point is.
GC 2007 said SSBs would not be contrary to “core” doctrine, implying it is a change of doctrine. ++Hiltz now says SSBs are not yet part of the doctrine of the ACC (he has to say that to keep our options open internationally, not to mention that it is also still true!).
So, where are the actions under Canon XVIII against +Bird, as well as against parishes within certain dioceses?
I know all the ANiC types will say “waste of time”, but why does there not appear to be any effort by orthodox ACCers to resort to canonical procedures before it really is too late?
Exact citation: Section Seven(vii) of Canon XVIII reads: “All persons who are subject to ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the Church shall be liable to discipline for any of the following offenses:…(vii) teaching or advocating doctrines contrary to those accepted by The Anglican Church of Canada;…”
I think James’ point is that Hiltz is being hypocritical….
Kate I would agree with you if you had said Falsely “hypocritical”