Once the vote to change the marriage canon to permit same-sex marriage passed at General Synod, a number of bishops released a statement expressing their disagreement with both the process and the outcome. They also reaffirmed their commitment to stick with the Anglican Church of Canada come what may, a resolve that does little to fortify any influence they may think they have.
Now Fred Hiltz has responded to the statement. He makes his support for same-sex marriage quite clear and, reading between the lines, in spite of protestations to the contrary, I can’t believe there will be much tolerance for dissent.
From here:
While he affirmed the bishops’ commitment to offer “pastoral care and loving service to all irrespective of sexual orientation,” he noted that for many LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning) Anglicans, “pastoral care” would include the solemnization of their marriages—which the bishops have expressly said they will not do. “For me, my brothers, the question you ask is really a question for all members of the church. To what extent can we and will we make room for one another? To what extent will we pastorally accommodate one another?” Hiltz said in his letter.
The bishops are, rightly, worried about the conscience clause:
Hiltz also challenged their claim that the resolution, which contains a conscience clause, “does not provide adequate protection for the consciences of dioceses, clergy and congregations.” He asked the bishops to explain what such protection would look like, and how it would apply for those in their dioceses who are in favour of same-sex marriage.
One answer to Hiltz might be this: when a bishop or clergyman refusing to marry a same-sex couple is either hauled before the Human Rights Commission or is civilly sued, the ACoC must pay for his legal defence. Of course, that won’t stop liberal bishops refusing to hire orthodox clergy or making their lives so disagreeable that they quit for a saner environment – but some things are too much to hope for.
I must again state clearly that the issue within the ACoC is NOT “liberalism vs. conservatism” but apostasy vs. orthodoxy. Clearly the apostates do not like that reference and they have their “champions” led by Fred Hiltz and Michael Bird. From my perspective the orthodox bishops should simply seek to become part of ANIC where the Gospel is upheld and taught. I cannot see any other solution to the problem as the apostates will simply push their way through with no consideration for those who are true to the Gospel. That has already been proven by actions against orthodox Christians in various dioceses including New Westminster, Niagara and Huron. The ACoC has clearly lost its bearings and currently have no intention or desire to rectify the situation.
In the accommodating apostate House of Hiltz, both in word and in deed, “broad is the way……” that leads first to the accommodating honeymoon Diocese of Niagara.
Our Living WORD LORD counsels, both in WORD + Matthew 7:13-27 and in deed at the Wedding in Cana + John 2:11, “the strait Gate…”; strait;
directly followed up by an accurate description of “false prophets”
– “ravening wolves…in sheep’s clothing”; parse, Bishop’s clothing,
as did Milton after Him (‘Lycidas’).
The ACoC is an apostate church and has been for some time. With no sense of irony at all, Fred has the gall to write, “To what extent can we and will we make room for one another? To what extent will we pastorally accommodate one another?” He’s made it very clear that he’s willing to cast orthodox believers to the wolves. Fred Hiltz is disingenuous and an arch hypocrite, as are many others in the ACoC hierarchy. E. g., We had a priest who, 20 years ago, bent over backwards to baptize the children of lesbian couples: three parents were even named in one baptismal leaflet. Within six months, none of these people came to church again. So, accommodate the uncommitted and demean and bully the committed: not a good way to grow a church, IMO.
For 25 years, I was so unaccommodated by the “tolerant, diversity-loving, inclusive” ACoC, that I finally left. I’m a layperson: I became a Catholic. Some ex-Anglican priests, at great cost, have become priests in the Catholic Ordinariate.
Abortion, which has slaughtered millions of unborn human beings, “made in the image of God”, is an issue the ACoC turned its back on decades ago. That was a big issue for me and, in the ACoC, I was excoriated for it. To see the Anglican Church completely submit to the tenets of the sexual revolution is no surprise, but it is disheartening. Does this Church really believe anything that the plain words of its prayer books and liturgy say? E. g.,”God” might actually be a “she”, etc. The truth of the matter is that the ACoC pretends to be a Christian Church, while it’s actually just the United Church in drag: more elegant clothing and music!
There is now an Anglicans for Life Canada. Although it is mainly supported by ANiC, there are some ACoC members.
Facebook page here.
I’m afraid,that I to believe that Fred Hiltz is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.The Book of Common Prayer has indeed been taking out of context as well as our Holy Bible. God has indeed made it very clear on his views of sexual life style,in all forms.Mary of Magdelene who was a prostitute had to ask forgivness and mend her way’s before Christ would accept her.Christ see good in us all,but we have to come to the Lord and with a clear Heart and Soul and Mind ask God to humbly forgive us of our sin’s. Only God and only God can see if we truly have repented. For me I rejoyce the day that I see my Father,for then I know the world as we know it will be cleansed and healed from this decayed rot that we have made on this planet that God created for us.We all will have to answer and it does not matter who we are as we all even clergy will have to answer to our Father,even Fred Hiltz.