Total visitors right now: 92

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

BREAKING: Bishop Fred Hiltz elected Anglican Primate

Friday, June 22, 2007 • 2:08 pm

Winnipeg, June 22, 2007—The Anglican Church of Canada has chosen Bishop Fred Hitz of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island as its 13th Primate or national leader.

Bishop Hiltz was elected by the church’s General Synod, meeting in Winnipeg, on the 5th ballot, from among four bishops nominated last April by a gathering of all Canadian bishops.

Bishop Hiltz, 53, will succeed Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, elected three years ago, who announced earlier that he would retire at the end of the General Synod gathering now underway.

58 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook

The most liberal of the candidates. WOW.

[1] Posted by plainsheretic on 06-22-2007 at 02:13 PM • top

The most liberal of the candidates.

Lucky for us we are in TEC in the US.  That would never happen here.

[2] Posted by tjmcmahon on 06-22-2007 at 02:24 PM • top

I hear there were about 300 people in attendance.  That represents about 10% of the ASA for the province.

[3] Posted by DaveG on 06-22-2007 at 02:29 PM • top

Clarity - expect SSBs to be passed tomorrow.

[4] Posted by Canuck on 06-22-2007 at 02:31 PM • top

I guess women are like Africans to the liberals.  Great to parade around until they actually have opinions which threaten liberal ideology.  Perhaps that’s why KJS got elected primate, while Victoria Matthews didn’t.

[5] Posted by jamesw on 06-22-2007 at 02:33 PM • top

If that happens sadly does look as if there will be a parting of the ways, for some at least.

[6] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 06-22-2007 at 02:33 PM • top

It does appear that there is a polarisation starting to develop.

[7] Posted by Merseymike on 06-22-2007 at 02:34 PM • top

God is clearly doing a new thing! He (god) is controling these election so that the orthodox will see the light and start a NEW province in North America! What bliss! What bliss!

[8] Posted by plainsheretic on 06-22-2007 at 02:43 PM • top

Perhaps TEC and the AC of Canada are destined to become the “Episcopal Church of North America” (ECNA) post September 30?

[9] Posted by midwestnorwegian on 06-22-2007 at 02:43 PM • top


I remember that text from somewhere…. about division and God’s will.

What a blessed day!

[10] Posted by plainsheretic on 06-22-2007 at 02:47 PM • top

Understatement of the decade:  “it does appear that a polarization is starting to develop…”

[11] Posted by RealityCheck on 06-22-2007 at 03:00 PM • top

This makes a Canterbury based solution even further difficult.

However, this is consistent with the trajectory of the Canadian church and is thus not unexpected.

[12] Posted by Going Home on 06-22-2007 at 03:04 PM • top

I would not assume that Hiltz’s election is a sign of things to come regarding same-sex blessings.  I posted this on another thread, but do so again here:

It all depends on whether the St. Michael Report is accepted or not.  You may recall that the report, chaired by would-be primate Victoria Matthews, determined that blessings are closely related enough to marriage to be considered doctrinal; although, they are not “core doctrine” in the sense of being creedal.  The Synod has the option of accepting or rejecting this report of the Primate’s Theological Commission.  But if it is accepted, it signals the agreement of Synod that blessings are doctrinal.  And the implications of that are great.  It means that only General Synod can decide on the matter.  If the St Michael Report is rejected, the implication would be that the Synod disagrees with the doctrinal basis and the decision would be pastoral and could be decided at the diocesan level.  If it is determined to be doctrinal, the bar set by the Council of General Synod is 60% in all three orders for approval as a local option: bishops, clergy, and laity.  It may well be that the clergy and laity could muster the 60%, but the bishops are doubtful. 

The bishops have offered a pastoral statement which was intended as a response if the Synod rejected the local option, but it was released ahead of time at the behest of Bishop Victoria and others as an alternative to moving ahead.  This statement, written by two of the most liberal and most conservative bishops together, seeks to outline what is and is not acceptible practice within the current guidelines, basically permitting a mass to be celebrated which includes special prayers for a couple within the prayers of the people but no solemnization or nuptual blessing. 

My hunch is that there is enough support for this option among the bishops that the more explicit approval will be defeated in their order, if not the others.  This, of course, is all dependent on the St Michael Report being accepted.  Some of the more liberal members of Synod will work to reject it, arguing that the definition of doctrine is too broad to be meaningful.  The most conservative members may also work to reject it, arguing that marriage is directly related to core doctrine.  These issues will be debated Saturday and Sunday, I believe.

[13] Posted by Trinitymatthew on 06-22-2007 at 03:04 PM • top

Thanks TM - going to be an interesting weekend.

[14] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 06-22-2007 at 03:08 PM • top

Trinitymatthew:  I have a question for you.  As I understand it, Victoria Matthews was seen as the Anglican Communion-minded moderate who was expected to hold the conservative and moderate vote as well as pick up the “we want a woman” faction, and was thus the favorite to win.  Hiltz was seen as the choice for the more extremist liberals.  Hiltz won, yet he did so by picking up votes along the way from Matthews.  What was the dynamic?

It seems to me that the election of Hiltz, as the clear liberal choice, over a moderate Communion-minded woman is a very definite signal of things to come.  How/why do you interpret this differently?

[15] Posted by jamesw on 06-22-2007 at 03:11 PM • top

The other option is that the vote could be called by diocese - this would dilute the voice of the bishops, who would not be happy….

[16] Posted by Peter on 06-22-2007 at 03:12 PM • top

The following interesting comment appeared here [on T19’s site]

#9 Edmonton Anglican
Victoria Matthews, at a recent gathering to discuss the Synod, said that she thought SSB was inevitable and would be a good thing for the church. She put the caveat on that statement that we could only proceed after significant theological study to ensure the decision could be supported. Catholic in practice, liberal in theology.

[17] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 06-22-2007 at 03:20 PM • top

That’s not T19 - I am not worthy grin

[18] Posted by Peter on 06-22-2007 at 03:22 PM • top

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss…

[19] Posted by Jeffersonian on 06-22-2007 at 03:22 PM • top

Sorry Peter - I should have spelt out that it was a link on this link of Canon Harmon:-

[20] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 06-22-2007 at 03:24 PM • top

Why was Hiltz stronger among the laity and Matthews stronger among the clergy?

[21] Posted by Irenaeus on 06-22-2007 at 03:31 PM • top

Why did the clergy dump her?

[22] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 06-22-2007 at 03:35 PM • top

For those who like to read such things, here is his <a >bio</a>.

He looks so NICE…  Too earthly nice to be any heavenly good?  LOL

[23] Posted by old lady on 06-22-2007 at 03:51 PM • top



[24] Posted by old lady on 06-22-2007 at 03:53 PM • top

jamesw and others:

I can’t really speculate as to why Matthews support eroded, except to say that there are lots of dynamics involved that are not only liberal-conservative.  There is also a geographical divide to consider—Alberta vs Nova Scotia.  Hiltz is not ultra-liberal, by the way.  Just more liberal than the rest.  There are several bishops who are understood to be more liberal.  And for that matter, Matthews is not ultra-conservative, but she does place a lot of importance on the Communion and is hesitant to rock the boat.

In terms of blessings, I just don’t think that Synod can muster 60% in all three orders, especially the bishops, which is necessary if the St Michael Report is adopted.  For example, yesterday the Synod elected as Prolocutor (roughly equivalent of Pres. of House of Deputies) Stephen Andrews, the most conservative choice who wrote the statement of 25 theologians opposed to SSBs.  And given how close the primatial election was, it is not the case that this is an overwhelmingly liberal synod, at least by moderate standards.  Perhaps to some here it would be thought so, but not for the broad mainstream of the Canadian Church.

[25] Posted by Trinitymatthew on 06-22-2007 at 03:59 PM • top

I don’t think the clergy ‘dumped’ her.  I think they were impressed by the the strength of the lay vote for Fred.  I have participated in two episcopal elections where the house of the clergy moved after a couple of ballots quite dramatically towards the candidate clearly favoured by the laity.  I think that, in a church which tends to be jostled to the left and the right by clergy, such an openness to the leading of the Spirit is laudable.  I gather he is quite well loved back home.  Primates do not legislate for the Church so the election today will have no bearing on what happens tomorrow.  It would have happened with Fred or with Victoria.  A little peace is in order, I think - perhaps some best wishes to the Diocesan family which is going to lose their bishop.

[26] Posted by Raspberry Rabbit on 06-22-2007 at 04:04 PM • top

Trinitymatthew:  Tell me more about the other issues in the Hiltz/Matthews vote.  I was born Canadian and lived there till the mid-90’s and I don’t believe that geography would have been a serious factor in electing a primate - maybe if it was an Ontario vs. other regions, but not Alberta vs. Nova Scotia, unless the East Coast has become much more anti-Western then I think.

My impression of Victoria Matthews is that she is much more impressive theologically, intellectually, personally then Jefferts-Schori, yet she wasn’t elected.  I know Canadians and they like to be politically correct when given the opportunity.  I would have thought that Matthews was a shoe-in, but she lost. And she lost when people who initially stood with her shifted quickly to Hiltz.  It doesn’t make any sense, unless there were other issues at play.

[27] Posted by jamesw on 06-22-2007 at 04:05 PM • top

Raspberry Rabbit - your explanation makes some sense to me - that the clergy decided to go with Hiltz due to his strong lay support.

[28] Posted by jamesw on 06-22-2007 at 04:07 PM • top

Thanks TM & RR - very informative.  Be interesting to see if the Canadian Church adopts its own report.  I do seem to remember another report that wasn’t adopted by the body it reported to; not that you’d know listening to TEC.

[29] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 06-22-2007 at 04:11 PM • top

Three years ago the laity supported Hutchison when the clergy were less strong.  So we have a smiliar situation today—the laity “stood firm” as it were, and the clergy followed.  There is also a sense among some that favors “anybody but Matthews.”  This is not much about liberal-conservative issues, but about leadership style.  Let’s be clear: I’ve never worked under her, so it is not my view.  I know people who both like and dislike her leadership.  At the same time, Hiltz is much beloved in his diocese, one rarely hears anything negative about him, and word simply gets out.  Not everything is political.

[30] Posted by Trinitymatthew on 06-22-2007 at 04:25 PM • top

Respectfully, saying that the clergy decided to take notice of the choice of the laity describes what happened, not why.  In other elections, the DIO TN being a classic example, neither house budged.  So any ideas on WHY they did what they did?

[31] Posted by APB on 06-22-2007 at 04:29 PM • top

Well a situation where ‘neither house budged’ seems to be a situation which is quite clearly not allowed to continue for a long time.  A three ballot limit is pretty short, really.  Plenty of diocesan elections allow for multiple ballots with the concomitant risk of further division.  It would have gone to the House of Bishops for an election there if Fred hadn’t been elected.  I wasn’t a delegate on the floor.  I can’t tell you what the mood was like or what the delegates were talking about between ballots.  I’d have loved to be there and not languishing in Scotland - at least not this week.  I can see the frustration of having the candidates classed by virtue of their views on one and only one subject - the sense of the world having missed the boat when it comes to what a bishop or a Primate is supposed to do.  The memory of Ted Scott is not yet completely dimmed in the minds of any Canadian Anglicans over the age of about 45 - the memory of a really lovely man who spoke incisively and with kindness - prophetically even.  I can imagine a clerical delegate coming to the view that his allegience to a bishop who fit all the right criteria in the ‘present crisis’ ought to give way given a clear decision by the laity to get behind a well loved bishop and pastor.  In any case, it will be interesting to hear the stories of those who were there at - and more importantly between - the various ballots

[32] Posted by Raspberry Rabbit on 06-22-2007 at 04:47 PM • top

From the Anglican Journal:

Hiltz elected primate on fifth ballot
Marites N. Sison
staff writer
Jun 22, 2007
Art Babych
After a nail-biting election that took nearly three hours, a majority of the delegates of the General Synod elected Bishop Fred Hiltz of the diocese of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island as the 13th primate – or national archbishop – of the Anglican Church of Canada.

Bishop Hiltz, 53, was elected on June 22 on the fifth ballot, garnering 60 out of 116 votes (51.7 per cent) from clergy, and 81 out of 137 votes from laity (59 per cent). Bishop Victoria Matthews of the diocese of Edmonton came in a close second, with 56 votes from clergy, and 56 from the laity.

Amid the sweltering summer heat, delegates cast the first ballot at 11:07 at Holy Trinity Church, an inner city parish in downtown Winnipeg.

Delegates were nearly faced with the prospect of having the house of bishops make the final decision on the new primate when both houses of laity and clergy were split on their choice for primate.

(Two other candidates –Bishop Bruce Howe of Huron and Bishop George Bruce of Ontario – were dropped from the roster on the third ballot.)

On the third ballot, Bishop Matthews received a majority of the votes from clergy (62 out of 115) and Bishop Hiltz received 53. Fifty-nine votes from clergy were needed to win the election. Bishop Hiltz, however, received a majority of the votes from laity – 73, compared to Bishop Matthews’ 64. Seventy lay votes were needed.

On the fourth ballot, the deadlock between the choices of clergy and laity remained. The members were informed that if the stalemate remained on the fifth ballot, the decision of choosing the next primate would fall on the bishops, who were sequestered in a nearby hotel. Two motions from the laity and later, one motion from the clergy, asking the house of bishops to add another name to the list of candidates were defeated.

Delegates jumped, cheered, hugged each other and when at 1:56 p.m., Dean Peter Elliott, General Synod prolocutor, announced, “My brothers and sisters, you have done your work. We have a new primate.” Members sang the Doxology, a song of thanksgiving and the church bells were rung. Moments later, Bishop Hiltz was escorted to the main door of the church by his predecessor, Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, and was met with a rousing welcome by delegates who stood from their pews to greet him.

“My brothers and sisters in Christ, thank you for your welcome. Believe me, it’s helping me to relax,” Bishop Hiltz said as he was presented to the delegates. “I was in quite a state coming through the front door.” As he was led through the main door Bishop Hiltz’ lips quivered at the sight of his wife, Lynne Samways, who approached him with tears in her eyes.

“I enter this with a great deal of trepidation. It’s daunting, it’s overwhelming but I will give it all I can,” he said. “I love this church. I’ve always loved it and pray God I’ll always give generously of myself for it.”

Bishop Hiltz vowed to address the deep divisions within the church over the issue of same-sex blessings, saying, “I will try to the best of my ability, with your help and with your prayers to be a primate that holds the church together, tries to hold people in dialogue, tries to keep them at the table and not to alienate or isolate them.” He added: “We are all one in the Lord. I will do my best to make sure we remain together in Christ.”

The primate-elect also spelled out the other priorities of his primacy: getting to know the churches in Central Canada, in the West and in the North, more support for the Council of the North (composed of 11 financially-assisted dioceses in the North), and the deepening and broadening of the church’s relationship with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, which is in Full Communion with the Anglican church.

(Bishop Hiltz serves as co-chair of the Joint Anglican-Lutheran Commission that is implementing the two churches’ agreement on Full Communion.)

In his first pastoral statement, Bishop Hiltz expressed the hope that Canadian Anglicans “will rediscover something of what happened in Nazareth when Jesus opened the scroll of Isaiah and read from Chapter 61: The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.”

The powerful moment in the story, said Bishop Hiltz, is when Jesus rolls up the scroll and gives it back to the attendant. “And he looks at them and says, ‘today the Scriptures fulfill what you’re hearing,’” he said. “My hope and prayer for our church is that the Lord will be able to look at us and to see through the works to which we are committed as God’s people that that text has been fulfilled yet again and again.”

In 2004, Bishop Hiltz’s fellow bishops selected him as a candidate for primate, but he declined the nomination, saying he did not feel he had all the necessary skills to be the national leader and felt a commitment to a diocese undergoing a period of transition.

This year, however, he said he has had three additional years of experience, the diocese is on a firmer footing and he and his wife are more comfortable with the idea of moving to Toronto, where the seat of the primacy is located.

Bishop Hiltz, who is known for his quiet demeanour, succeeded Archishop Arthur Peters in 2002 as the 14th diocesan bishop in the oldest diocese (founded in 1787) in the Canadian church. It is preparing to celebrate in 2010 the 300th anniversary of continuous Anglican worship in the diocese and will host that year’s meeting of General Synod in Halifax.

In the past three years, Bishop Hiltz led the Leap for Faith capital campaign, which has collected $2.8 million of its $3-million goal to benefit youth ministry, congregational development, communication and organizational effectiveness.

He is a former member of the national faith, worship and ministry committee and the Council of General Synod.

Born and raised in Dartmouth, N.S., Bishop Hiltz graduated from Dalhousie University with a bachelor of science degree in biology in 1975 and from the Atlantic School of Theology with a master of divinity degree in 1978.

He was ordained a deacon in 1977 and priest in 1978. He served in a number of parishes within the diocese: Christ Church, Sydney; Melford-Guysborough; Timberlea-Lakeside; All Saints Cathedral, Halifax; and St. John’s, Lunenburg.

In October 1994, he was elected suffragan (assistant) bishop of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and in 2002 was elected co-adjutor bishop (assistant bishop with the right to succeed the diocesan bishop) on the first ballot by a 75 per cent majority.

He and his wife have one son, Nathan, who is a musician in Toronto.

[33] Posted by Trinitymatthew on 06-22-2007 at 05:48 PM • top

“I hear there were about 300 people in attendance.  That represents about 10% of the ASA for the province.”

A synod is a representative body. 
Congress has 535 members for 300 million Americans.  That is the way ssuch things work.


[34] Posted by jimB on 06-22-2007 at 05:50 PM • top

Interesting TM - one does of course wish him well in his challenging ministry and should start with a clean slate.

[35] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 06-22-2007 at 06:19 PM • top

Raspberry Rabbit—The lovely, prophetically-minded Ted Scott that you describe as remembered fondly by Canadian Anglicans over 45—would that be the same primate that some of us remember, not so fondly, as “Red Ted”?

[36] Posted by HumbleAccess on 06-22-2007 at 07:13 PM • top

I too am curious why a clergy person voting for Matthews on the first and second ballot would change his/her vote on the third or fourth. It’s not like having to shift because one supported a person who was dropped from the ballot.  What’s this follow the laity stuff?  You do your homework, you vote on the first two ballots for her….is she is your pick, why change because of how others are voting?  If I vote for Bush, I vote for Bush. I don’t change my mind three times in the voting booth. 

I am guessing another factor I don’t believe anyone has mentioned so far is that Matthews dropped out of the election three years ago (not totally sure about that) because she had been diagnosed with breast cancer.  I’d be a little queasy voting for someone who was not in excellent health-if nothing else, I’d like to avoid putting someone in a position where the stress could cause a recurrence. I wonder if that thought operated subliminally for folks.

[37] Posted by RealityCheck on 06-22-2007 at 07:27 PM • top

The acceptance of the St Michael Report by Synod does not mean all of the conclusions of the report are given any authority.  Acceptance means the body is willing to allow the report to become part of ‘the record’ of that meeting.  Acceptance would only be witheld in an extreme case (I’ve never seen it done in or out of church).
For the Synod to give any weight to the recommendations of the report requires a separate motion that is passed by the Synod.  So Saturday they vote on this: “That this General Synod accept the conclusion of the Primate’s Theological Commission’s St. Michael Report that the blessing of same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine, but is not core doctrine in the sense of being credal.”  Which would accept the main recommendation of the report.  Some other resolutions on that topic are link

[38] Posted by sameo416 on 06-22-2007 at 10:58 PM • top

Posted by midwestnorwegian on 06-22-2007 at 01:43 PM [link]
“Perhaps TEC and the AC of Canada are destined to become the “Episcopal Church of North America” (ECNA) post September 30?”

A few nights ago I reached into the cabinet and pull out a half bottle of fine wine that I had forgotten.  I took a sip and was forced to throw it away.  It had soured.

Midwestnorwegian, I feel the same way about the name “Episcopal”.  It use to be a fine name, but it has gone sour.  Lets throw it away and adopt the “Anglican” name.  How about “The Anglican Church of North America” (TACNA) instead?

[39] Posted by Donal Clair on 06-23-2007 at 03:25 AM • top

For anyone interested, the debate on the St Michael Report in Winnipeg has begun.  Bishop Matthews, chair of the Primate’s Theological Commission, has just presented the report.  Watch it all live at:

[40] Posted by Trinitymatthew on 06-23-2007 at 09:57 AM • top

Whoa.  I was feeling uneasy about Hiltz’s election, but this “inclusive, non-judgmental Christian Church” of “God’s unconditional love” is even more ticked off.  I wonder what it all means?

[41] Posted by st. anonymous on 06-23-2007 at 10:17 AM • top

Thanks TM

Perhaps you could keep us updated with what it all means and these Numbered Resolutions coming up.  As far as I can see the Agenda has been moved around?

[42] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 06-23-2007 at 10:21 AM • top

Here are some cute names posted in another blog that are kinda cute…

“The NIAC (New Improved Anglican Communion)  .”
“More Anglican-than-thou New Improved Anglican Communion (MANIAC)”

[43] Posted by seraph on 06-23-2007 at 10:36 AM • top

After a long presentation by Bp Matthews, questions, and various comments pro and con the St Michael Report was just adopted by General Synod, stating that same-sex blessings are a matter of doctrine, but not core doctrine, and that it should not be a communion-dividing issue.

[44] Posted by Trinitymatthew on 06-23-2007 at 10:58 AM • top

So, because it is a matter of doctrine approval for blessings must be made by the Synod and not at the diocesan level.  I believe that there are now three motions before Synod: one calling for all decisions to be made by a 60% majority;  a decision to state that blessings are not contradictory to core doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada; and one allowing dioceses to adopt blessings as they see fit.

[45] Posted by Trinitymatthew on 06-23-2007 at 11:04 AM • top

That really was a very interesting debate….I watched some of it and have never seen anything like it…quite civil.  That bishops, laity and clergy all seemed comfortable expressing their opinions even eith differing perspectives seems to me to be quite a gift Anglicans have…irrespective of the conclusions thy come to. It is not that way everywhere.


[46] Posted by seraph on 06-23-2007 at 11:11 AM • top

It doesn’t surprise me, Seraph. I think that left to their own devices, the CofE could probably come to a position of being able to agree to differ as well. Should there be a split, that bodes well for a church where the conservative evangelicals are in a separate body

[47] Posted by Merseymike on 06-23-2007 at 11:15 AM • top

Would that all of our debates in the Anglican world were that civil and worked toward such understanding.  I commend Bishop Matthews for her careful leading of the discussion.

[48] Posted by Trinitymatthew on 06-23-2007 at 11:16 AM • top

...same-sex blessings are a matter of doctrine, but not core doctrine, and that it should not be a communion-dividing issue.

And once again I say this is absurd.  “Should not be”—when the issue has already torn the communion apart—is mere wishful thinking.  Wake up and smell the reality, people.

[49] Posted by st. anonymous on 06-23-2007 at 11:42 AM • top

The status of gay and lesbians and their relationships is a matter much up for discussion in the light of modern society and different perspectives on the Bible.

What seems absurd is to elevate this issue to the level of core Christian doctrine defined in Ecumenical councils and summarized in the creeds.

Other issues…i.e women’s ordination, the status of the divorced and second marriages, divorced and remarried clergy and even polygamy have been discussed and dealt with in various ways in the church pretty much as this should be…..IMHO

It does not smell like cofee to me…maybe more like tea or latte!


[50] Posted by seraph on 06-23-2007 at 11:56 AM • top

Apparently my point was already raised by Matthews at a previous synod:

Bishop Victoria Matthews of Edmonton ... said that “my continuing difficulty is that it says this ought not to impair the church’s unity, when it already has.”

Such clarity of vision… sigh. What a primate she would have been.

[51] Posted by st. anonymous on 06-23-2007 at 12:05 PM • top

Motion 1 was just passed, the remainder come up later today.The next motion in the series concerns the per cent support require to pass the motions concerning SSB.  If a matter is doctrinal the canons require 2/3 majority, in each house, at two Synods.  The coming motion sets the bar at 60% at this Synod.  You can argue that motions 3, 4 below are not doctrinal, which is the approach the movers are taking.  However, it is hard to accept that stating something is consistent with the creeds is not a doctrinal statement, and allowing Diocese local option is not a fundamental change in present ecclesiology.
The up coming motions:

2. That resolutions 3 and 4 below be deemed to have been carried only if they receive the affirmative votes of 60 per cent of the members of each Order present and voting, and if a vote by dioceses is requested, only if they receive the affirmative votes of 60 per cent of the dioceses whose votes are counted.
3. That this General Synod resolves that the blessing of same-sex unions is consistent with the core doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada.
4. (The resolution deferred from 2004) That this General Synod affirm the authority and jurisdiction of any diocesan synod, with the concurrence of its bishop, to authorize the blessing of same-sex unions.
5. That this General Synod requests the Council of General Synod to consider revision of Canon 21 (On Marriage) including theological rationale to allow marriage of all legally qualified persons and to report back to General Synod 2010.

[52] Posted by sameo416 on 06-23-2007 at 12:23 PM • top

sameo416, I assume that this motion would not have been pushed if the backers didnt believe they had the 60% to get 3 and 4 approved.

[53] Posted by Going Home on 06-23-2007 at 03:54 PM • top

The Anglican Video was an excellent link [TM gave it here:

and I watched the Synod in ‘committee of the whole’ this afternoon.  They should be back to vote in 20 minutes or so.  The seriousness with which the speakers on both sides spoke was very impressive and courteous, though I am not sure I followed why not passing these resolutions at this time would mean gay people in Africa and Columbia would be murdered.

A number on both sides urged caution from doing things fast on either a 50% or 60% basis and spoke of the benefit of societies where moves forward are on consensus carrying all with them rather than fracturing.  It would be better to take it carefully as it was so serious for unity.  One lady said it would have been like her husband saying he was 60% sure he would like to marry her.

There were a few quiet but powerful voices including one lady who described a picture she had of a wide and a narrow road.  The narrow road seemed empty and the wide road was full of people excited and congratulating each other.  She had asked of God why the narrow road was so empty and not as attractive to people as the wide road and which one was the right road.  She then described being shown that those who were on the narrow road were carrying crosses.


[54] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 06-23-2007 at 06:46 PM • top

Well looks like the procedural voting became, unintentionally or otherwise, a shambles and only a 50% plus vote in both houses is required for any of the ssb motions which were adjourned.  They all start their day at 8 a.m. I understand.

[55] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 06-24-2007 at 05:30 AM • top

I am still hopeful tha tha ACC and TEC can build “safe” places for conservatives without a split.  But I am wondering about this seemingly quick migration from the more conservative +Mathews to +Hiltz?  Maybe it was her sex which is unacceptable to so many particularly in Africa, and, because of it her voice, and the ACC’s voice, in imternational circles would be diminished?  Was the most recent action of Kenya and Uganda?  Have the Canadians read the writing on the wall, the Barfoot Memo on realigment and realized it isn’t just talking about the US but ALL of North America?  And what of the word “ought” addressed by +Matthews?  Did she see it as a word implying what might happen in the future?  As in this “ought” to happen next, and it had already happened and others saw it as “ought” in a “correct” or as in “should” ?  Hard to parse the language…  Well TEC has agreed to a moratorium on consecrating bishop ANYONE, not just gay people whose manner of life maybe a challenge to the communion.  The same sex issue wasn’t really addressed.  TEC ran out of time.  The Canadians seemed to have planned better in case their debate ran longer than Sat.  Sunday a spill over day?  How many will miss their planes to stay and vote?

[56] Posted by EmilyH on 06-24-2007 at 07:04 AM • top

Anglican Essentials reports that resolution A186 -The blessing of same-sex unions is not in conflict with the core doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada - passed with Victoria Matthews voting in favor.

[57] Posted by C.B. on 06-24-2007 at 01:09 PM • top

Now Canada comes to the forefront, giving a needed boost to TEC’s strategy of delay.

Mainstream thought continues to move away from acknowledgement of absolute standards, particularly in the area of sexuality and toward approval of a range of non-traditional sexual relationships, including same-sex relationships. This will get much worse before it gets better.

As a result, Orthodox Christians are losing their home in mainstream churches. This presents some difficult questions.  Are we willing to set ourselves apart, with all that entails?  Will we be willing to give up reputation and secular advancement because we are part of a church that is wrongfully considered intolerant or equivalent to fundamentalist Islam in its close-mindedness? 

That’s where things are heading, folks.  In the end, a Canterbury led Anglican Communion is simply not going to be separated from TEC or the Canadian Church.  Some ties with Canterbury may remain, but the orthodox Anglicanism will increasingly be identified with the Global South in a different form of communion that will be a far cry from the country club Episcopal/Anglican thing we joined. This new group that will be called “fundamental” by many. It will not be a politically correct to be member.

Orthodox Christians that leave Anglicanism altogether for another faithful Protestant grouping will not escape this challenge, whether they end up in a PCA, Southern Baptist Church, Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) or Evangelical Free church.  In the years ahead, each of these denominations will come under attack for their faithfulness.

In years past, many of us never before had to sacrifice to be a member of a faithful church. That is changing.

[58] Posted by Going Home on 06-24-2007 at 01:47 PM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.