Comparing Anglican reaction to Barcelona vs Charlottesville

Fred Hiltz’s response to what happened in Barcelona and Charlottesville is reasonably representative of the reaction of other Western Anglican leaders.

For Barcelona he concentrates mostly on praying, in particular for our enemies:

So long as we pray for them, let us be bold in praying for those who with such malicious intent inflict such horrific suffering on others. Let us pray that they be turned from their malice, their hearts be moved and their plans thwarted.

He goes on to denounce terrorism without being at all specific about the particular brand of terrorism – they could have been marauding Mennonites, after all.

With people of all faith traditions who condemn the terrorism that stalks our world, we gather in our churches, mosques, synagogues and temples, in our homes and in our public squares, turning with one voice and one heart to God.

When it comes to Charlottesville, things are quite different. No prayers are offered for those being violent, nor does Hiltz shrink from identifying them as white supremacists; instead, he denounces them – quite rightly – and demands secular leaders denounce them.

Could the fact that Hiltz fails to denounced Islamic Jihadists and their sympathisers along with calling for imams to do the same mean that he and his fellow clergy are shamelessly biased? Does Hiltz think white supremacists are not worth praying for because they are beyond redemption? It is tempting to think so.

In the wake of the violence in Charlottesville, many governors, senators and mayors across the United States have called on the President to be unequivocally clear in denouncing the principles and activities of white supremacy. Many world leaders have also called him to exercise strong leadership in this regard.

10 thoughts on “Comparing Anglican reaction to Barcelona vs Charlottesville

  1. “… Let us pray that they be turned from their malice, their hearts be moved and their plans thwarted.”

    Why stop there? Why not also say “pray that their hearts be turned to Christ and that they be saved”?

  2. In this world, there is no place for white supremacy, black supremacy, yellow supremacy, brown supremacy, Jewish supremacy, or Gentile supremacy.

  3. It’s easy to denounce “white supremacy” because the sad assemblage of wingnuts, skinheads and dullards who show up with Nazi flags and KKK symbols represent an infinitesimally tiny fringe of society: they are not an ongoing existential threat to public safety.

  4. It greatly saddens me to say this but it is now painfully obvious that the Anglican Church of Canada is lost. Not just by these the latest pathetic lamentations from Mr. Hiltz.

    I know this is off the topic of this piece but I felt compelled to share. On the weekend I visited my parents (now in the 80’s) and asked how things were at Church. Since the late 1960’s they had been regular Parishioners the local Anglican Church and have incredibly strong ties with the Congregation there. Much to my surprise my Dad told me that they had not been to Church in months. When I asked why Dad explained that the woman priestest assigned to the Parish by the Bishop was terrible. My parents were already fed up with the gay marriage crap, but that seemed to have fallen off only to be replaced with so called “first nations” and residential schools and so called “truth and reconciliation” non-sense. Things had become so bad that one of the other Parishioners, a long time Warden of the Parish, had all but left the Congregation. Attendance was way down along with a huge decline in Offerings. Dad expressed a concern that the Parish would likely not survive, even this priestest had resigned and a Monk was now leading the Congregation.

    I never thought that I would live to see the day that my Parents would not be going to Church! This more than all other things combined signals to me that the Anglican Church of Canada is dead.

  5. The furor in Charlottesville has, at least on the surface, to do with Confederate monuments. You know who would probably have agreed with the movement to take down the huge, overbearing monuments to themselves? Yep. Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Joseph E. Johnston, James Bell Hood, Albert Sidney Johnston, Richard Ewell, etc. James Longstreet in all likelihood too. He joined the Republican party and worked at reconciling the North and the South. For decades after the war he was not even liked in the South as he was considered something of a traitor.

    From what I have read of many Confederate leaders, they did not seek that sort of recognition or immortality-in-stone. Ironically, probably neither side in the monuments dispute is educated enough on the subject to even know that.

    I think the former Confederate leaders would have objected to the removal or destruction of statues and plaques dedicated to the memory and sacrifice of the ordinary Confederate soldier though.

    I also have to wonder how much Fred Hiltz really knows and understands about the subject.

    • To clarify, I am not saying that Fred Hiltz does not know about the subject. He may know a great deal. I simply do not know. Sort of wish I did.

Leave a Reply