It’s nothing to worry about because: there can be no final decision before 2019 and who knows what could happen by then – Hiltz could retire, Jesus could return (a real shock to the ACoC, since it believes in the parousia as fervently as I believe in unicorns); other parts of the communion will be “consulted” (and ignored if they disagree); it will be discussed in dioceses (over and over and over again until the opposition weaken from exhaustion).
Anyway, no priest who is indifferent to his career prospects will be compelled to perform same sex marriages.
From here:
That question might be particularly relevant when it comes to controversial matters such as the resolution passed by General Synod in Ottawa, which asks the Council of General Synod to draft a motion to be considered by the next General Synod, when it meets in 2016, to amend the marriage canon to allow same-sex couples to marry, with a conscience clause that gives any clergy, bishop, congregation or diocese that objects the option of not participating. The primate said he had heard from bishops across the theological spectrum that they had experienced “a sense of peace” about the issue after General Synod 2010 published its pastoral statement, following its meeting in Halifax, which they did not experience after the resolution was passed this summer in Ottawa.
The issue is not for the House of Bishops to resolve; it is a matter for the Council of General Synod and the order of bishops in General Synod, Hiltz acknowledged, but he said he opened the discussion with the bishops, understanding that there are tensions and concerns around the issue.
“There’s been a huge effort in the life of the church to talk about this as a pastoral response, not a change of doctrine, and now it feels like the ground has shifted,” Hiltz said. The change to a question of doctrine creates difficulties in dioceses where bishops “have worked really hard to hold all voices and all people together,” and where some people are asking how this shift happened. The motion, he noted, came from individual members of General Synod, not the Council of General Synod or a diocese.
While the issue has been divisive, the primate said he did not have a sense of lines hardening within the House of Bishops. “We reminded one another that, because it is a doctrinal matter, it will take two successive general synods to do anything in terms of a final decision anyway, and between the first and second reading it would be discussed in provinces and dioceses.” The bishops considered the international reaction and said, “we ought not have this conversation in isolation, that we should be consulting with other parts of the Communion,” said Hiltz, who will relay the bishops’ input to CoGS.
Considering Fred Hiltz fully supported his apostate colleague, Michael Ingham, and the action of the Diocese of New Westminster to force true Christians from property which the diocese made absolutely no contribution there is no question that despite his purple shirt and white collar he is definitely neither a Christian or an Anglican but one who will gladly worship any popular idea that happens to enter the minds of society. If he were true to his vows he would stand up for the Gospel.
No humans can destroy the Church of Jesus Christ. God is God. God is more powerful than all of us. There will be a new heaven and new earth.
I think we ought to read Fred Hitlz’s comments very carefully. Hiltz has now been Primate for six years. I see him as gradually gaining power and authority and respect. He has to move carefully, as Archbishops are not supposed to have prescriptive power. So, there is much politics going on. AS he gets stronger, he can have more influence. Now, I agree, he is in general in a Liberal Theological camp. How would Victoria Matthews have done, if she had been elected Primate? It is a tough job, and she would have moved carefully also. Would she have engaged in public criticism of Bishop Ingham and the Diocese of New Westminster? Maybe as a woman, she might have got away with taking a stand. For me, the good news is Bishop Ingham is no longer in the House of Bishops. Also, Dean Elliot, I think, is no longer in the Council of General Synod. Both Ingham and Elliot were members of COGS from 2004-2007. yes, the whole pastoral/doctrinal distinction is somewhat of a fudge. The best sense I made of it all, was we had to suffer Ingham, suffer his theology, suffer his views. He was partly right about some things, such as homosexuals are persons, and we ought not to be afraid of them. Also, there are Christian homosexuals in our Churchs, and we ought to accept them and talk to them.(I use “accept” in the sense of accepting a person, but not necessarily agreeing with all their behaviours or all their beliefs). But I think Ingham offered false solutions, compromises, and he was able to stereotype his opponents and critics as Fundamentalists. So, I am hopeful the ACOC will shift back to a more moderate center, and I am hopeful conservative and traditional priests and bishops will learn how to speak about current issues. Yes, the ACOC does not do theological thinking well at all. But theology does matter at some point. Bloody Liberal Bishops are a nuisance. They are gadflies. I heard Stephen Sykes, who wrote “The Integrity of Anglicanism” (1978) talk about “diffused authority” in the Anglican Church. He voiced an opinion, that Bishops are really followers, they have to follow the trends they see going on in the Church. A sad comment, but it has some truth. It points to the political aspect of being a Bishop. But lets remember, the Church is a spiritual communion, and it is not a rational organization understandable with Reason. Let’s hope the theology of Radical Liberalism will decrease (especially amongst the clergy), and the number of noisy Anglican activists going to General Synod will decline. The radical Liberalism of Bishop Ingham has not done the Church good in the long run. As we enter the post-Ingham era, I think this will become clearer.
How can Fred Hiltz gain respect. He was a major supporter and a significant player in legally stealing property from orthodox believers – property for which the diocese made no contributions. As I have stated in previous submissions the use of the terms “liberal” and “conservative” do not cover the situation. The proper terminology is apostasy and orthodox and I do not think this requires any explanation.
How is it that it is not for bishops to resolve this? They are supposed to be ‘shepherds of the people’ (they all carry a crook) and protect their flocks from false doctrine, among other things. I was very disappointed that after the infamous ‘sanctity of committed, adult, same-sex relationships’ motion at General Synod in 2004 only a handful of bishops – 7, if memory serves – spoke up. Where were the rest of them?