In a report from the Anglican Journal

[T]he primate, Archbishop Fred Hiltz, is one of the church’s “greatest assets.” The visitors said they were “amazed” at the similarities between Archbishop Hiltz and Archbishop Williams, noting that the primate presided over the bishops’ meeting “with humility, sensitivity and passion.”

If Hiltz is one of the ACoC’s greatest assets, I’m surprised that there are any people left in it. I think he’ll have to work on his eyebrows a little if the similarity to Rowan is going to be convincing.

As the Anglican Journal points out, Primate Fred Hiltz isn’t very happy that the Government of Canada isn’t listening to him; I’m not sure why they would – no-one else does:

In his address, Archbishop Hiltz said the recent cut of  $7-million in CIDA funding for KAIROS, the ecumenical church coalition that includes the Anglican Church, “denies hope for millions of people throughout the world and damages our reputation among the nations.”

Archbishop Hiltz said, “This crisis highlights the need for the churches to have a Secretariat for Government Relations here in the nation’s capital.” He added, “Given the multicultural and multi-religious complexion of our country, such a secretariat could reflect a strong partnership in the interest of human rights, among people of a variety of faith traditions.”

If Hiltz were bewailing the fact that the Canadian government is somehow preventing the myriad of good works that the Anglican Church of Canada is eager to perform if only the right-wing government of Stephen Harper would allow it to, his peenging might make at least a modicum of sense. As it is, Fred is pressuring the government to squeeze more money out of Canadian taxpayers – most of whom are not Anglican – to fund the projects that he, Hiltz has deemed worthy of support.

Instead of playing politics, perhaps the ACoC should try being a church, win souls for Christ and his eternal kingdom and do its own good works – quickly before it goes bankrupt.

In his New Year’s Day address, Primate Fred Hiltz brings up the Anglican Covenant and the little difficulty that it might create for the Anglican Church of Canada:

The Covenant also speaks about procedures for addressing controversial issues and actions by provinces that could be deemed “incompatible” with the spirit of the Covenant, and of “relational consequences” for that province and its place in the Communion. For some, the language of relational consequences is deeply disturbing, given that our relationships within the Anglican Communion are and should never be dependent or fixed on one issue only.

I maintain that in the midst of our differences over issues of sexuality we are called to model a capacity to live with difference and to do so with grace. It is precisely a lack of graciousness that has fired tempers and sparked words of condemnation and dismissal that have been so destructive to relationships within the Communion. I pray that our attitudes and conversations with one another be more and more centered in Him in whom, beyond our understanding, we are forever one.

Hiltz’s reasoning seems to be along the lines of:

• The ACoC is going ahead with the ”full inclusion” of homosexual Anglicans by blessing same sex marriages and ordaining practising homosexual clergy.
• Those that disagree with us on this have to live with it and do so with grace.
• Anyone who doesn’t do so with grace is destroying the Communion.
• If the Communion is destroyed it will be the fault of those who lack the grace to go along with the homosexual agenda of the ACoC.
• If the attitudes of those who disagree with the direction of the ACoC were more centred in Christ, we wouldn’t be having these problems.

He goes on to say:

As we prepare for conversations about sexuality at General Synod it is very clear that people favour conversation and discernment over resolution and debate. Many hope that our discussions will be marked by a capacity to hear one another’s perspective and to appreciate the diversity of settings in which the pastoral and sacramental ministry of the Church is desired. My own hope is that we will emerge from the Synod with an honest statement of where we are in our continuing discernment.

Endless talk without resolution = Good. Disagreeing with each other = Bad. I hate modern pseudo-psychological catchphrases, but I can’t help noticing that this is a perfect description of “dysfunctional”: no-one says what he really thinks in order to maintain the pretence that everyone is getting along just fine.

And to follow:

Personally I am both challenged and heartened by a comment made by the Pastoral Visitors in their report to the Archbishop of Canterbury, “General Synod will, indeed, be a watershed, both for the Anglican Church in Canada, and for its wider relations within the Anglican Communion. At its worst it could lead to internal anarchy. At its best it could help us all to appreciate and practise a properly Christian style of inclusiveness. … Our distinct impression was that if the Anglican Church of Canada could find a way through this current impasse, it could well become a vibrant model of the kind of renewed Christian community that has much to teach the wider Church.”

To put it another way: “Rowan hasn’t managed it, but if you find a way to convince Christians to get along with Unitarian Gnostic New-Age Pantheists, we’ll give it try, too. Hint: try smaller Indaba groups; good luck, Fred.”

Other than gay sex, of course. Fred discusses his beloved five Marks of Mission. There are actually six: the sixth is “undisclosed”, “unnamed” and is the most exciting: money.

The God-Man, Jesus was nailed to some pieces of wood and left to hang there until he was dead. During that time, he absorbed all the sins of the entire human race – including mine, which on their own are bad enough – and received the just punishment for them from his Father. Including being removed from his Father’s presence, a presence that he had experienced for an eternity before time even existed. He did this because he loves us and he didn’t want us to have to bear the punishment that we deserve, but he didn’t.

He died and was buried. Our sins died with him and he offers us redemption; as proof of this, he rose from death to life 3 days later. This had never happened before; it is evidence that we too will rise from death.

This article from the Anglican Journal by Fred Hiltz, Primate of Canada doesn’t mention sin; this is not particularly surprising, since the Anglican Church of Canada doesn’t much like to acknowledge that man is sinful, much less that real justice would demand that we be punished for our sin. The notion that Jesus was punished for our sin instead of us is complete anathema to the ACoC, since it flies in the face of the central tenet of the new religiosity experientially discerned by the wrinkled shamans of what used to be a Christian Church: All You Need is Love

In the Anglicans in Mission campaign in the early 1980s, we used prayers and messages about mission from partner churches. I shall never forget the message from the Church in Korea. It read, “The church should light the sacred candle of the resurrection, not merely through its preaching within its walls, but also through actions outside the walls of the church.  We should dedicate ourselves to the task of reviving conscience and justice which will bless us with a brighter, more just society.” That was wise counsel then and now.

For Fred, Easter means a more just society. Why do you think your churches are empty, Fred?