The head of the Anglican Church of Canada wants a face-to-face meeting with his South American counterpart, who earlier this year claimed jurisdiction over 10 Canadian congregations in a growing split over same-sex marriage blessings.
“What I would hope is that we could hear one another,” Fred Hiltz, primate of the Canadian church, told the Anglican Journal.
“What would I say in that meeting?” Hiltz said. “Let me try and hear why it is you feel you need to continue to work to intervene in the life of the Anglican Church of Canada.”
Archbishop Gregory Venables of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, however, says he would find it “difficult” to attend such a meeting.
“We had been talking about a private meeting, and it rather surprises me that it is now public,” Venables told the Star in an interview from Buenos Aires.
“This makes it even more difficult for me to attend.”
Sigh, Archbishop Venables is not claiming anything for himself or his province. He is responding to pleas from traditional Anglican Christians who cannot accept the innovations of their own provinces and bishops.
Again, it is a rescue action…
The Christian thing to do would be to negotiate a orderly separation and allow charity to all, but the ACiC and TEC are not about to allow it.
As much as I hate the idea of sending a “Daniel” into that Lion’s Den, I believe ++Venables is just the “Daniel” to do it.
I’ve seen his strength, his belief in Christ as Saviour, and his ability to communicate. They, (including +++Rowan) and run around and snarl and growl, but they cannot touch him. He is protected by the God we serve and love.
Our prayers should go with him,
Grandmother in SC
If ++Fred Hiltz hasn’t “got it” by now, he never will! Listening and hearing are supposed to go hand in hand, but I don’t think he understands. He’s heard, but he hasn’t listened. Rather, like Schori & Company, he’s ignored everything Archbishop Venables has had to say about the rescue mission that he’s on……and it IS a rescue mission!
#2 wrote:
“I’ve seen his strength, his belief in Christ as Saviour, and his ability to communicate. They, (including +++Rowan) and run around and snarl and growl, but they cannot touch him. He is protected by the God we serve and love.”
Good. So why then does he seem so timid and unwilling to show up and tell them what’s what?
Archbishop Gregory Venables of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, however, says he would find it “difficult” to attend such a meeting.
“We had been talking about a private meeting, and it rather surprises me that it is now public,” Venables told the Star in an interview from Buenos Aires.
“This makes it even more difficult for me to attend.”
Why?!
Another Anglican (who wrote a book on overcoming fear) once said, “Be bold and might forces will come to your aid.” (Rev. Basil King)
A TOTAL waste of Archbishop Venables time. Enough indaba already! Archbishop Hiltz “gets it,” he just doesn’t like it. Well, the Canadian congregations fleeing the heretical theology of his jurisdiction don’t like what’s being forced upon them either. Time to move on in Christian charity, but enough indaba!
#4 The issue is that Hiltz presumes that Venables accepts that there is “life of the Anglican Church of Canada”. Suppose, to the contrary, that there is no life. At that point, Venables’s response becomes entirely logical.
(In layman’s terms, it would be like inviting guests to dinner, but having no food served.)
RE: “Good. So why then does he seem so timid and unwilling to show up and tell them what’s what?”
It’s a waste of valuable time, which he could spend otherwise engaged in meaningful activities?
RE: “This makes it even more difficult for me to attend.†Why?!
Because Archbishop Hiltz provided further evidence of how singularly untrustworthy and slimy his behavior is thus making a conversation with him even less meaningful?
Really Archangelica . . . this is not that hard. You’ve been hanging out on traditional blogs hearing our perspective for a long time now. You don’t have to agree with it — but to pretend like you don’t understand is just odd.
There is a complete disconnect with +Hiltz. We have all been reading about the bandit Bishop of New Westminster and his sidekick moving to depose Christ’s priests and renewing his long-running persecution of conservative congregations. +Hiltz says nothing. He and the Bishop of the Yukon have said nothing in respect of the Bishop of New Westminster’s flagrant disobedience of the Communion and his own House of Bishops with his continued approval of same-sex blessings.
There is a term for people like +Hiltz: passive-aggresive.
Sorry, think that should be the Archbishop of Yukon, Metropolitan of the Ecclesiastical Province of BC & Yukon.
#7 wrote:
“Really Archangelica . . . this is not that hard. You’ve been hanging out on traditional blogs hearing our perspective for a long time now. You don’t have to agree with it—but to pretend like you don’t understand is just odd.”
I hope I have been participating on this blog, archives would seem to justify that I have been, and not just “hanging out”. I absolutely do not understand why Venables would give his detractors any fuel by saying he refused to even meet with them. To me, this sounds like an invitation to a theological “show down”…Goliath is roaring, no indaba about it, and I don’t get why Venables doesn’t take his slingshot and go! Yes, it will be uncomfortable and unpleasant but it would also exemplify speaking truth to power. I have great respect for this man (as does the ABofC seemingly) but if he ducks this meeting, he will have chosen path of Jonah and I hope God has a whale with his name on it.
Like #2 Grandmother wrote: “As much as I hate the idea of sending a “Daniel†into that Lion’s Den, I believe ++Venables is just the “Daniel†to do it.”
I hope she’s right.
blockquote]Venables said he would make his formal response about the proposed meeting to Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the spiritual leader of the Anglican church, who was asked by Hiltz to organize the meeting.[/blockquote]
Does this mean that the ABC can actually do something–if he wants to?
Making a private meeting into a public one is a form of bullyiing, a form of coercion. If Venables says No, then Hiltz can say that he has made the offer for “conversation and listening” with Venables – and the reader and listener is free to supply the implication this refusal implies – and that for some reason, his simple request has been denied. To call this gambit shabby is rather too kind.
If Venables did meet with Hiltz, then Hiltz would make propaganda hay from it, regardless of what was said. Moreover, given the above gambit, Venables would not feel free to speak plaiinly because Hiltz would take a private declaration public. And while there would be propaganda hay ffor Hiltz, what could Venables possible expect to gain from such a meeting. Nothing, in fact. But by putting his opinions in the hands of Hiltz, he has a lot to lose.
Simple rule: Don’t negotiate with your enemies unless you can make a profit from it. Larry
When you look at this curiously timed with the unusual and apparently generous removal of Bishop McBurney’s Inhibition and then see that this was done in return for his apology for acting on behalf of the Southern Cone, that action by the PB looks less generous and this meeting looks less constructive and more like a concerted attack by persecuting provinces on the Southern Cone. Are we to take it that by his unusual burst of activity the ABC is going along with this?
Are we seeing here some very dirty tricks?
BTW what happened to that meeting Covenant asked the ABC to convene before the end of September? You know the one which actually would involve those concerned in the US and Canada? The small fry – or do they not matter? Are these meetings only for the Grand Poo-Bahs?
RE: “I absolutely do not understand why Venables would give his detractors any fuel by saying he refused to even meet with them.”
Well I absolutely do not understand why Venables would give a hoot in the holler as to what “his detractrors” say about him. After all — there’s only one thing he can do to make them say nice things [maybe] and that’s stop taking departing parishes under his Provincial care. Why on earth would he desire them to say nice things about him?
The telling thing to me is to observe just how infuriating it is to the TEC/Canada progressive leaders for that to happen. Just think what this means. What they wish is for parishes to leave — [i]and for them to never have any contact with an Anglican Communion bishop, Primate, or province again[/i] as punishment for them rejecting the Canadian Church leadership’s gospel. That’s their wish.
RE: “To me, this sounds like an invitation to a theological “show down ”
Nonsense — all that would happen in such a meeting is the same stuff that happened at the ridiculous waste of time that was the NY meeting. Both parties leave, recognizing that neither side will give in on their opposing gospels.
There is no “truth” telling that Venables could do that would cause them to change their gospel — and vice versa, of course.
I find it singularly ironic that we’ve just had the very best Lambeth Conference ever, full of literally scores of hours of “conversation and dialogue” . . . all to absolutely no avail, and the Canadian leader still upset that Venables and the other four Primates involved are going to continue helping parishes that are leaping off the Canadian church like rats leaving a sinking ship and calling for further conversation and meetings.
Hey — Venables was at the Lambeth Conference. He participated. And guess what — he didn’t change his mind, and neither did Hilz and we’re exactly where we were prior to Lambeth, except for the debt.
This is the Hilz whining last week about not getting heard at Lame-beth 08 (because the ECUSANs hogged the microphones)? Wasn’t he listening?