Having already repudiated every theological doctrine it could find in its once ample arsenal, the Anglican Church of Canada is desperately searching for other doctrines to denounce – any will do, even one that is 500 years old and, for all practical purposes, irrelevant outside a small coterie of obsessive leftists. Fred Hiltz is leading by example in his hand-wringing repentance over, not his own failings – that would be too embarrassing – but his ancestors’ complicity in one the few sins still acknowledged as such by the ACoC: the Doctrine of Discovery.
As this news release notes:
In a nutshell, the DoD gives the Christian nations of Europe not just the right, but the God-given duty, to take over any unoccupied lands—the latin phrase is Terra Nullius— they discover and bring to them the “benefits” of a “Christian civilization.” For us white Europeans
The Anglican Church of Canada has been working tirelessly to remove all the benefits of a Christian civilisation from Canada for years; its most celebrated success has been the redefinition of marriage – to the point where the concept of marriage has been almost entirely drained of meaning. No atheist movement has been able to claim such a resounding victory.
Apparently:
We suffer from: a colonizer mentality; an internalized sense of white superiority, racism and stereotypes that separate us from one another; a stratified society where only some are powerful and wealthy and the rest live in a climate of fear and scarcity. Moreover, we can only carry on this injustice by denying reality and blaming those we have victimized.
Who could deny that? How many black bishops are there in the ACoC? How many earning less than $100k? How often have these wealthy white bishops blamed those they have victimised: the ANiC congregations whose buildings they have taken?
Naturally, the Residential Schools fiasco is a repeating theme:
The Anglican Church of Canada is a child of the Doctrine of Discovery. We grew out of our parent Church of England, and we promoted the DoD in almost everything we did, but particularly through our eager, century-long support for the Indian Residential School system. In many ways, our faith and the DoD were mutually inclusive.
Unsurprisingly, the intensity of all this conspicuous contrition has not lead to returning the colonised land on which all ACoC property sits to its Aboriginal owners. That is because, in spite of all the theatre, what the Anglican Church of Canada really cares about is money – and how to hold on to it.
Most people think that native cultures are inferior to ours. They may be right. Thus, in 1823, American Chief justice John Marshall justified the way in which colonial powers laid claim to lands belonging to indigenous nations during the age of discovery.
Indeed he did. Out of context however this statement misrepresents Marshall’s jurisprudence and his views on the relationship between aboriginals and Europeans.. In Cherokee Nation vs United States and Worcester vs Georgia (particularly the latter) Marshall was unequivocal that the Cherokee were indeed a nation, with certain rights which the government of the United States was bound to respect. Of course President Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court and carried on with Indian Removal . . . .
I’m not sure how to interpret this post. On the specific issue of DoD, tt appears that you (David) agree with the ACoC to remove it but are mocking them for doing so.
Many still await the discovery of doctrine: “sound doctrine” + II Timothy 4:3, 4a
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine:
but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
and they shall turn away their ears from The Truth…”
Since the ACoC stopped being a Christian Church and abominated itself into a special interest group mouthpiece it has become a rather sad and pathetic organization.
I’ll second that motion.
So he says, ” . . we suffer from a colonizer mentality; an internalized sense of white superiority . . .”. All I could say is, “Speak for yourself, Buddy. Don’t put words in my mouth or assume attitudes in my mind.”
Sadly Mr. Hilz has shown that he does believe that he can speak for you (and all members of the ACoC). He routinely issues letters to politicians lecturing them on a number of secular issues and does so with the authority of an Arch-Bishop. In this habit of his he obviously is claiming to have the authority to speak on behalf of others.
I start of by saying this is sad because Mr. Hiltz will boast of having a membership of 400,000. but anyone who bothers to actually look at his organization will see that attendance is now below 200,000, and that a significant number of that now less than 200,000 do not agree with him.
Additionally, even though he still has the title of Arch-Bishop it no longer really means anything in our current secular society. All to often now we here our opponents telling us to keep our religion out of the discussion. So how is speaking as an Arch-Bishop to be any different? Furthermore, an Arch-Bishop of what? A church (notice the small “c”, and I am now tempted to start calling the ACoC a “cult”) that is obviously dying. A church that is ripping itself apart on issues of human sexuality. A church that can no longer agree within itself on something as fundamental as the Authority of Scripture. All of this results in a man who has a delusion of legitimacy, and with that no real authority for virtually anything.
Is it not wonderful to have Fred The Simple battling so fiercely against these dreadful things? What will he tackle next? I hope he will consider denouncing cannibalism. Surely some of us at least are against this tasteless depravity. Cannibalism should no longer be a feature of Anglican cuisine. Are you with us Fred?