Canada's take on the the new North American Province which will be announced in a few weeks.
News of a plan to create a new North American Anglican province that would be defined by conservative theology rather than a geographic location may have been greeted with enthusiasm by delegates at the Anglican Network in Canada’s first synod last week, but Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, described the plan as “disturbing.”
The plan is scheduled to be publicly released on Dec. 3 in Chicago at a gathering of the Common Cause Partnership, a coalition of conservative Anglicans who oppose moves within the Anglican Church of Canada toward blessing same-sex unions and the ordination of an openly gay man as an Episcopal bishop in the U.S.
“What’s quite disturbing, in my opinion, about this proposal is the determination to create a province based on theological grounds,” Archbishop Hiltz said Nov.17. “The creation of provinces, as I have always understood it, is based on mission. It is based on a commitment to embrace and give flesh to an expression of the gospel in a particular context. There is a geography associated with that context, there is a set of cultural needs, a set of social needs.”
http://www.anglicanjournal.com/100/article/plans-to-create-a-conservative-province-disturbing-says-primate/
1 comment:
We really are in a predicament. I've been arguing all along that our TEC constitution protects our Christology, the Windsor Process will allow for more careful consideration of the sexual issues, and conservative opinion will always be respected-it is part of our diversity, along with liberal opinion unless leaders go beyond the limits of the constitution--and advising one's flock to leave TEC is not tolerated since it is contrary to the constitution. But articles I'm reading in the latest _Anglican Digest_ make me wonder if that is going to be true. There's one by Bishop Schori about how Christianity doesn't have all the answers, etc.; it's one thing to respect other faiths, but it's another thing--as the PB seems to be doing in this very short article-- to tell people not to be so sure about their own, and she seems to be casting doubt on the doctrines referred to in the TEC constitution. When I read about new standards of discipline among younger bishops in the HOB, and the "no fault" removal clause proposed for laity in the new constitution (and I understand rectors can already be disciplined or removed without giving a reason--if I'm wrong, I hope someone will tell me)--it makes me think that the people who say "in the new TEC, you can be removed for teaching the orthodox faith" may be right after all.
Post a Comment