CofE Resolution in Support of the Anglican Church of North America(ACNA)

If you haven't seen it yet, here is the text of the resolution:

That this Synod, aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada
a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family
b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011
Votes for 309, against 69, abstentions 17
Motions to pass to next business and to adjourn the debate were lost.

Notice that Canada is included. There's a ton of comment all over the blogosphere, but I like David Virtue's take:

First of all, the resolution said orthodox Episcopalians are indeed being persecuted by revisionists; however much TEC leaders whine that the brokenness is caused by those leaving, the resolution says otherwise.

Secondly, the resolution said that these faithful orthodox Anglicans want to remain in the Anglican family and not become outsiders. In fact, it did more than that. It was a wedge that will, in time, lead to a full chair at the Anglican Communion table.

…the rest of David's piece here.

Sabbath Interesting Bits: Anglicanism, Marriage, Leadership and theCovenant

My Sabbath is on a Wednesday this week. Some interesting bits from my blog reading this morning:

More Anglican good news

…this time from The Rev'd Dr. John W. Yates II who lists the good things about Anglicanism. At its best, Anglicanism:

1. is Biblical
2. is Sacramental
3. is Evangelical
4. is Liturgical
5. is Worldwide
6. is Charismatic
7. is about Accountability (we have bishops)
8. is Musical
9. Engages society and the world us
10. is Prayerful
11. is a Community of Grace
12. loves Children
13. loves Beauty

All here (H/T VirtueOnline).

What Marriage and Leadership Have in Common

In our Sabbath devotional this morning, Jude and I read this:

Contrary to hundreds of Hollywood romance movies, marriage is not primarily designed to make us happy. God is not primarily interested in our happiness, but in something deeper and more lasting: our holiness. Or we might say that God is so interested in our long-term happiness — our eternal joy, which only holiness leads to — that he reserves the right to sacrifice our short-term happiness to ensure we receive it.

Ditto for leadership. Kevin Miller, here.

The Anglican Covenant

The excellent ANGLICAN DOWN UNDER has a good point about the living with an Anglican Covenant and whether or not it can work:

Is homosexual practice compatible with Scripture? Some say No, some say Yes. But together we have not yet agreed to one of two things which would accord with a common approach to truth: either that it does not matter if an open contradiction on this matter is a feature of Anglican life, or that it matters that there is an open contradiction but nevertheless we can live with the contradiction.

That's the question. Wise Kiwi. All DOWN UNDER here.

The Good News Bit in Archbishop Mouneer Anis' Letter of Resignation

A few days ago Archbishop Mouneer Anis, Primate of Jerusalem and the Middle East, resigned from the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion. Archbishop Anis is a wise and faithful leader in the Anglican Communion. There are many quotes from his letter of resignation throughout the blogosphere, but I've not found anyone who quoted this bit; the conclusion of his letter of resignation:

O, yes!

His whole letter, which is worth the read, is here.

Don't you love the way, whenever Anglicans make a solemn declaration of something, they number all the paragraphs? So decently and in order. 

Happy New Year

This post didn't happen yesterday because we were driving through the blizzard between here and Swift Current (twice!) to give the granddaughters back.

Come and See Evangelism

I can't think of anything deeply theological to write, but my Morning Prayer reading this morning was from John 1 where Nathanael says, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Many are asking the same question about the Anglican Church.
Philip's answer to Nathanael was a simple one and a good one: "Come and see," he said. It's a response many Anglican parishes and individuals can, and should, still say often, and with confidence.

A Bit of Fluff

Jude got a new NZ lambskin steering wheel cover for her beloved red Neon, Cloe, for Christmas.

It's a bit like driving a bedroom slipper. Cosy, though.

A New Bishop

Fraser Lawton is being consecrated Bishop of Athabasca this evening. A good one. God bless him and his family.

Anglicans Must Change or Die

Sobering words by Steve Weatherbe of canadianchristianity.com. His article focuses on the Diocese of British Columbia's development director, the Rev. Dr. Gary Nicolosi, who calls for the Vancouver Island Anglican diocese to encourage growth by requiring

50 percent of rental incomes be spent on evangelization; by rewarding clergy with higher salaries and more holidays; by training those that don’t grow their parishes – and, if necessary, move them to non-leadership positions, or out of the ministry entirely.

It's not just a BC problem. It's an Anglican Church of Canada, Diocese of Calgary, StB and my problem, too. Lord, have mercy.

All here.

Lord Carey on the Roman Cat(holic) Among the Anglican Pigeons

In "Cause for Sadness and Celebration" for The Washington Post, Lord Carey, erstwhile and most recent Archbishop of Canterbury, gives his take on Pope Benedict's offer of a Roman Catholic 'Apostolic Constitution' for "Anglicans wishing to flee their own troubled shores."

I enjoy the way Lord Carey thinks and expresses himself. This on why we have this complicated Anglican predicament:

Historically, we have been a Church formed and shaped from a 'troika' of three traditions - evangelical, high church and liberal. Many evangelicals are now hiving off to the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and refusing to have anything to do with the rest of the church. If Anglo-Catholics are wooed by Rome we could see the Church of England becoming a mainly liberal church, espousing little more than tolerance and liberality in all things; a kind of green party at prayer. Yes, the troika we have inherited has been, at times, a wild group of horses but, for myself, I would rather have that, than what we are likely to have if distinctive groups go their separate ways.

We do indeed live in uncertain times but I remain quite convinced that Anglicanism stands for something that is not quite caught by other traditions and, with respect, not even by Rome. That is to say, Catholic and Reformed. This has sometimes been put in the Latin tag: 'Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda' (the Church reformed and constantly in need of reform). In faithful continuity to the past and yet open to all that God wishes to reveal to us through the fundamental sources of our faith, namely, the scriptures.

Our mess is a fine one, indeed.

All here.

On Being Christian, Anglican and Evangelical: in That Order

Anglican Down Under quoting The Ugly Vicar quoting Bishop Stephen Neill in a post on being Christian, Anglican and Evangelical; in that order:

Show us anything clearly set forth in Holy Scripture that we do not teach and we will teach it. Show us anything in our teaching or practice is clearly contrary to Holy Scripture, and we will abandon it. (Anglicanism, Pelican Books, 1965, p 417)

Good stuff. All here and here.

David Warren on the Roman Catholic Cat Among the Anglican Pigeons

The Ottawa Citizen's David Warren has weighed in on all the commentary and opinion arising out of the Roman Catholic invitation to traditional Anglicans. He makes a point which I have not yet seen in all the debate—the possible benefits for the Catholics:

the reception of these traditional Anglicans will create very exciting possibilities for all English-speaking Catholics on the "liturgical" front: for the traditional Anglicans retain, in intensely beautiful English, a liturgy that is actually more "catholic" in spirit and form than the rather crass and now dated "contemporary translations" Rome mistakenly approved at the end of the 1960s, in the depths of the post-Vatican II meltdown. Those old Anglicans can help us recover our own more reverent liturgical traditions.

…one answer, and a good one, to the question: Can anything good come out of Anglicanism?

I'm happy to say we get to enjoy that intensely beautiful, 'catholic' liturgy every Sunday morning at 830.

All here.

A Momentous Vatican Announcement and Two Anglican Choices

In his Hope Among the Fragments, Ephraim Radner writes that we conservative Anglicans only have two choices; stay, or go back to Rome.

A New Road to Rome

The Pope's invitation to disaffected Anglicans has now made the second of Radner's choices  a real option (see the Catholic News Service article here).

Staying On

On staying, "Staying On" by Philip Turner, an excellent piece over at The Anglican Planet:

As I understand it, my role as a Presbyter is to protect the church from strange doctrine rather than go to another place whenever error rears its ugly head.

…past divisions leave all sorts of opportunities to find a church that is more to my liking–one that seems a little more faithful. On a relative scale of things there are no doubt a number of more faithful options.  But to my mind, to avail myself of one or another of them is simply to repeat what I believe to have been an inadequate grasp of the way in which God has confronted the defection of the world.  No matter how noble my intentions and no matter how understandable my reasons, I, nonetheless, repeat in my own life the divisions of the past.  In so doing, I avoid once again, as did my forebears in the faith, the way my Lord took.  He stayed on.

All here. (H/T Canon James Robinson)

And, for better or for worse, that's where I find myself at the moment.

More Thoughts on Archbishop Rowan's Reflections on Our Anglican Future

These are some of his thoughts on how our future might play out:

23. …perhaps we are faced with the possibility rather of a 'two-track' model, two ways of witnessing to the Anglican heritage, one of which had decided that local autonomy had to be the prevailing value and so had in good faith declined a covenantal structure. If those who elect this model do not take official roles in the ecumenical interchanges and processes in which the 'covenanted' body participates, this is simply because within these processes there has to be clarity about who has the authority to speak for whom.

24. It helps to be clear about these possible futures, however much we think them less than ideal, and to speak about them not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication but plainly as what they are – two styles of being Anglican, whose mutual relation will certainly need working out but which would not exclude co-operation in mission and service of the kind now shared in the Communion. It should not need to be said that a competitive hostility between the two would be one of the worst possible outcomes, and needs to be clearly repudiated. The ideal is that both 'tracks' should be able to pursue what they believe God is calling them to be as Church, with greater integrity and consistency. It is right to hope for and work for the best kinds of shared networks and institutions of common interest that could be maintained as between different visions of the Anglican heritage. And if the prospect of greater structural distance is unwelcome, we must look seriously at what might yet make it less likely.

For me, the problem goes beyond mere "styles of being Anglican." We need to be talking about the same Jesus and the same, authoritative, Holy Scriptures. I'm not sure how much I can co-operate in mission with someone who's mission is to assure people that there is no need to try and live according to Biblical teaching or for saving faith in Jesus Christ. There is a point where two tracks have to become separate.

The Archbishop continues:

25. It is my strong hope that all the provinces will respond favourably to the invitation to Covenant. But in the current context, the question is becoming more sharply defined of whether, if a province declines such an invitation, any elements within it will be free (granted the explicit provision that the Covenant does not purport to alter the Constitution or internal polity of any province) to adopt the Covenant as a sign of their wish to act in a certain level of mutuality with other parts of the Communion. It is important that there should be a clear answer to this question.

Important, indeed. If the Anglican Church of Canada decides to follow The Episcopal Church's lead at next year's General Synod, I'd like to know that my parish will be free to adopt that Covenant.

The Great Divide: Two Gospels, Contrasting Views

The view from one side of the divide

Presiding Bishop Jefferts-Shori in her opening address at The Episcopal Church's General Convention a few days ago on what she calls "the great Western heresy":

that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God. It's caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of all being. That heresy is one reason for the theme of this Convention.

From the other side

Former Archbishop of Canterbury, William Carey:

Let's not have any truck with bland theology, that Jesus is just one option among many. Dialogue with other faiths is very important, but I can respect another faith and a believer of that faith by saying I believe that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation. Do with that truth what you may, but my job is to say that to you.

Choose life.

What Do Driveling Little Doodles Have To Do With Christianity's Dangerous Idea?

Reading Alister McGrath, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: the Protestant Revolution—a history from the sixteenth century to the twenty-first (HarperOne, 2007)…from the public library, yet! Very good. Some bits that caught my eye:

Other nations might have been tempted to experiment with atheism or agnosticism in response to the religious intolerance and bigotry of the Puritan era. The English, however, decided to reinstate the Church of England instead, presumably believing that, for all intents and purposes, this amounted to more or less the same thing.

The same thing as atheism or agnosticism, that is. Hmmm. Does history repeat itself? He goes on:

Under Charles II, who reigned from 1660 to 1685, a decidedly docile form of Anglicanism emerged as the religion of the English establishment. The Church of England would be expected to be submissive to the expectations of the people and to keep its religious beliefs to itself rather than impose them on others. 142

Is there still the tendency to docile submissiveness to the spirit of the age and to keeping its beliefs to itself? I think so, alas. I do it myself.

On early protestantism in America

Whereas Massachusetts became a hotbed of Protestant religious experimentation, with generally secondary interests in commerce, southern colonies from Delaware to Georgia were primarily concerned with trade and saw religion as peripheral to this enterprise. It was an ideal context for Anglicanism to take root and flourish, primarily as the religion of the planting class. Long used to issues of social class and distinction, Anglicanism proved an ideal provider of a veneer of religious dignity to the social structures of the plantations that continued to the dawn of the nineteenth century. 154

Allowing our religion to be peripheral to our lives is still a hazard for Christians. So it devising a form of Anglicanism which merely provides a veneer of religious dignity to living and consuming like everyone else.

The problem with nineteenth century pastors

Who were seen by some as little more than “thin, vapid, affected, driveling little doodles.” 369

Ahem. I AM not thin.

Shame! The Diocese of Niagara Sues Individual Laypeople

See here.

See how these Christians love one another.

Yet another thing that makes it more difficult for people in parish ministry to promote the Anglican Church of Canada as being a good place to put down roots and learn to follow Jesus. Why would anyone, especially anyone starting out, want to do so in an organization that does this, or allows it to be done, to people who disagree with it?

A Case For Faithful Anglican Staying

As is so often the case; ideas, opinions and thoughts about what concerns me float about in my mind "without form" until one day I come across something which crystalizes and settles them into a coherent form. This, from Philip Turner, Christopher Seitz and Ephraim Radner over at VirtueOnline, is such a something:

It is now the case that the people we know do not see any near possibility of reform and they no longer pursue such purposes. They have recognized the futility for near term of politically realistic change. However, they do hold certain convictions, and they do have certain commitments that give shape to their present actions-actions that hardly qualify as passive. These convictions and commitments are reflected in patient and enduring witness rather than in strategies and tactics designed to bring about desired future states. They grow from trust that God will use faithful witness in his own time and in his own way to bring about his purposes-purposes that do not stem from our imaginings or our desires but from God's justice and God's mercy.

This is where I now find myself

The experience of two General Synods have convinced me of how unlikely reform is in the Anglican Church of Canada and the futility of any attempts at Biblical or orthodox theological argument in the face of the well meaning but tragically mistaken revisionist tide. Yet this is the time and place into which God, in his wisdom, has called me.

So patient and enduring witness it is 

Turner, Seitz and Radner are committed to: 

witness rather than a strategy designed to bring about a desired future state. Our work is not to take this kingdom by force of design and tactic, but to make a faithful witness, practice faithful endurance, and wait upon the Lord to see what he will make of what we do and say.

Certainly my attempts at "design and tactic" have not been particularly fruitful in the wider church, or in my parish, for that matter.

I find I am strategically challenged, alas

I am, however, capable of faithful endurance. I don't much like it, but, with the Lord's help, it's doable. 

The whole piece here.

And not only that…

In a piece by Timothy Morgan of Christianity Today, one Russell Levenson Jr, Rector of the largest Episcopal church in the United States, explains why he and his parish are staying:

Daniel had to stay in Babylon, but did not abandon his faith. Jeremiah was not given another Israel. Ezekiel had to preach to the dry bones. When Jesus and his message were completely rejected, he did not leave. He wept. He stayed. He did not move on to Egypt. He stayed and faithfully preached when they believed and when they did not believe.

John Stott's Counsel

Levenson visited with John Stott recently. They talked and prayed about the challenges facing the Anglican Communion. When he asked Stott for his counsel, Stott said:

If I were you, I would stay … you have the truth on your side … and I think you are called to stay and faithfully preach the gospel. Remember what Max Warren said, 'the church is evidence of God's patience.' And we just don't know what fruit or reform will be born as a result of a long period of faithful preaching and witness to the evangelical faith we share.

Faithful staying, witness, endurance and preaching…

…while leaving the outcomes to the LORD are the order of the day for the likes of  Turner, Seitz, Radner and Levenson. Me, too, I guess.

O Lord, write these on my heart and may our faithfulness lead to Kingdom fruitfulness in the Anglican church. 

Read the whole interview with Levenson here.

Pope's Remarks on Sexuality will widen Anglican rift: a No-Bull Christmas Message

I found a thought provoking comparison of the clarity of Catholic and Anglican expression in a piece by Andrew Pierce in The Telegraph entitled, "Pope's remarks on sexuality 'will widen Anglican rift.'"…

Rev Geoffrey Kirk, a vicar in south London who is general secretary of the traditionalist Forward in Faith organisation, said: "It should not be a surprise that the Pope is a catholic and makes clear statements supporting catholic teaching.

"If there is confusion about what he said it is not because he is not clear - it will be because people chose not to listen to what he said. If there is confusion about what Rowan Williams says it is because he is not clear. We are in such a mess in the Anglican church, clarity on sexual morality is now impossible."

Rev Kirk said that even though the remarks of the Pope would increase pressure on the Archbishop to clear up the confusion he expected no movement. "Rowan will not be any clearer on the issue," he said. "He is an Anglican."

One of the things I admire about Pope Benedict is that he is a "no-bull" Pope—he says what he believes and what he means clearly. While I appreciate Anglicanism's breadth, many of our North American leaders go too far in compromising Biblical clarity with Anglican smoke and mirrors.

Read the whole article here. H/T Anglican Mainstream.

On Smells and Bells

On the one hand, something that makes my heart sing from Matt Kennedy over at Stand Firm (in a post on the use of incense in worship):

we embrace the essential biblical truths recovered during the Reformation...

1. Sola Scriptura--the bible is the sole infallible source of revelation, the primary authority in the church by which all doctrine and discipline must be tested and measured.

2. Sola Fide--sinners are justified through the instrument of faith alone

3. Sola Christi--Christ's righteousness, sacrifice, and mediation is the sole basis or grounding for the justification that is communicated to sinner by faith alone.

4. Sola Gratia--the whole arch of salvation, from beginning to end, is due to and grounded in the free gracious gift of God and for no merit or deserving on our part.

5. Soli Deo Gloria--God's purpose in Creation, Judgment and Redemption is ultimately his own glory.

Therein lies our hope, our future and our salvation.

A pleasing Aroma

And speaking of "smells," I've always enjoyed it although I've discovered you need a high ceiling in your sanctuary. We tried it one Christmas Eve in the low-ceilinged St Francis in Airdrie, Alberta. One of the acolytes fainted dead away in the blue, sweet smelling haze. Flat on her face. Talk about being slain in the Spirit.

More from Matt on the sweet "smells" issue here.

A Less Pleasant Odour and Yet Another Warning Bell

(H/T The Essentials Blog)

The Globe and Mail is reporting that the Bishop of Montreal intends to proceed with same sex blessing despite the recent House of Bishops decision.

Why is it that we only seem to hear from the liberal revisionist bishops in the media? I wonder why our conservative bishops are so quiet? Faithful Anglicans who are trying to stand for Biblical orthodoxy within the ACoC need to hear some encouragement from their episcopal leaders. We need to hear something Biblical and clear and firm to counter the bland, nuanced, official Anglicanese which always tries to say yes and no at the same time and which, therefore, ends up saying nothing definite at all. And we need to hear it from the bishops within the institution otherwise it seems as if it's only the Southern Cone or the Global South bishops who are concerned about what is happening to our church.

When those who are silent seem to consent, it's hard for us in the trenches not to be discouraged as the mud gets deeper and the stench increases.

Of Schism, Heresy, Duncan, Spong and Thoroughly Modern Bishops

Joe Walker…

asks an interesting question over at his excellent felix hominem:

If I wake up in the morning to discover that, say, bishop Robert Duncan has been deposed for veering toward ecclesiastical realignment, but that bishop John Spong remains in good standing despite veering toward theological realignment, what should I think?  To put it bluntly, let us say, just pretend now, that the former is veering toward schism, while the latter is veering toward heresy.  I am sure the Episcopal Church has its excellent reasons for proceeding as it does, but to simple folk like myself it looks like a rather selective double standard.  

It does to me, too. Read it all, illuminated by the ancient and wise writings of St Cyprian, here.

The reason for this double standard and this fine mess?

Harald Haugan, in "Rebellion and the House of Bishops," an As Eye See It piece over at VirtueOnline, reckons this is the problem:

There are two kinds of bishops in the Episcopal Church, biblical bishops and secularly modernized bishops. The first have a personal relationship with Jesus and believe in the authority of Scripture. The second compromise with secularized thinking and standards reinterpreting Scripture to accommodate contemporary culture. The first are in the minority.

Modernized bishops have arrived through the present world's methodology of corporate career advancement. They would bristle at being accused in such a way but Scripture is clear when Jesus says you are either for Him or against Him. Biblical bishops do not question the authority of Scripture or attempt to reinterpret it. They know the injunction not to add or subtract from it.

These two groups live in two entirely different worlds, two different mindsets, with two totally conflicting beliefs and missions.  

We have the same kinds of bishops and the same mess in Canada although, I am happy to say, my bishop is one of the first kind. Read the rest of Haugan's piece here.

Is it just me? Or…

was St Paul addressing something very similar when he wrote:

For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. (2 Cor 11.4, ESV)

Is that what we're doing by accepting and not challenging the leading of thoroughly modern bishops…too readily putting up with another Jesus, a different spirit, a different gospel?

And could these thoroughly modern bishops really be…

false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. (2 Cor 11.13-15, ESV)

Servants of Satan? Strong words. I think not, at least not intentionally. And yet the enemy so often tempts us with, "Did God really mean that? Come, be reasonable. Be tolerant. Do the 'loving' thing."

Lambeth Aftermath, Purple-shirted, Flatulence, Schism is Better than Heresy and the Future

"Purple-shirted Flatulence: Schism is Better than Heresy" is the arresting title of an article which is an excellent summary of where we find ourselves after Lambeth 2008 and how we got here. Mark Dawes, The Jamaica Gleaner News religion editor, gets The Windsor Report and how it plays in Anglicanism right:

The Windsor Report served to invoke a charge not uncommonly laid against Anglican ethos. The charge was that the report did not go far enough and that the Anglican communion was sacrificing biblical truth to preserve unity. Indeed, there is a saying that Anglicans prefer to accommodate heresy within their ranks rather than have a schism.

He also gets it right on the opposing views of biblical authority:

The problem posed by homosexuality to the Anglican church was theological long before it became organisational. For the conservative Anglican, the Bible is inspired and, therefore, authoritative for faith and practice. For liberals, the Bible is inspiring, like good Shakespearean writings, and listening to Mozart or Marley.

Finally, 

The Anglican church has had five years to deal with homosexuality among clergy and the blessing of same-sex unions. Collectively, the church has lacked courage to take the hard decision that beckons. There have been enough conferences, councils and purple-shirted flatulence on the issue of homosexuality. If a person can find where the Bible sanctions homosexuality he/she should be recruited by George W. Bush to find bin Laden. Anglicans have lost enough time on the issue of homosexuality. The two opposing views on homosexuality are incompatible. There is no middle ground. There has been enough talk. There comes a time when schism is far better than heresy.

Read it all here: Jamaica Gleaner News - Purple-shirted flatulence: Schism is better than heresy - Saturday | August 9, 2008. H/T Stand Firm.

Dawes is right. Anglican leaders, whether for the sake of not excluding anyone, or because they were ignorant or in denial of the depth of the divide that has formed, have avoided coming to a resolution on the issue that faces us. Instead, for fear of offending anyone, they have remained silent, or opted for endless "dialogue," while all the while, in the case of the Anglican Church of Canada, simply declaring that this is not a communion-breaking issue which they must think will just make it all go away.

What that and Lambeth 2008 have brought us to is summed up by Stand Firm's, Sarah Hey:

The end result of the Lambeth Conference is that it leaves the revisionists with zero consequences as of yet from the international communion. And with ten years before another Lambeth Conference.

...from her excellent no-tell-us-what-you-really-think summation of it all here.

And so the US Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada will continue on their present course. Victoria Matthews, former Bishop of Edmonton, now Bishop of Christchurch in God'sOwnCountry (New Zealand), is a member of the Windsor Continuation Group comments:

Regarding the difficulty of the Canadian and US churches in stepping back from their approval of same-sex unions, she told the Anglican Journal, "I don't think they actually mean 'can't', I think they actually mean 'won't'."

...from Jim Coggins at canadianchristianity.com here. 

Canadian Primate Hiltz on the Possibility of a Canadian Anglican Split

Comment on Archbishop Hiltz' interview with the National Post over at the Anglican Essentials Blog. On the subject of conservative Anglicans who are considering separation from the ACC, the Primate is quoted as saying:

There may come a point we have to acknowledge that and respect their decision. It’s not what any of us want, but it’s what happens sometimes. If they feel they cannot stay and withdraw other parishes with them, obviously it’s a sad moment for the Church. But I also think at that point you don’t fight. You don’t fight. You have to acknowledge the situation, acknowledge the pain, acknowledge the brokenness. It’s the kind of stuff that drives the Church to its knees.

Personally, I find that encouraging and a much finer response than our brothers and sisters to the south are experiencing from Archbishop Hiltz' counterpart down there.

LORD, have mercy on us all.

Read the whole post here.

Anglican Communion Census

...a list of Anglican populations over at Anglican Mainstream. Canada is 17th on the list. Check it out here.