I thought this interesting deposit in the Lambeth archive worth a glance:

http://www.lambethconference.org/1998/news/lc104.cfm

It touches on so many issues .......

I had felt torn between the desire to see more women archbishops (I'm gettin to hate the word 'primate' in this context) and the longing not to have another strong conservative among the erm archbishops of the AC. I especially felt that that was the last thing the Canada Church needs right now.

Well, according to the folks at the Anglican Essentials Canada blog, Hiltz is certainly not conservative. Some of their readers feel he is more liberal that Bishop Matthews of Victoria.

http://www.anglicanessentials.ca/wordpress/index.php/2007/06/22/primatial-election/

I'd love to hear an opinion from a Canadian correspondent.

I wondeer if the Canadians had thought of getting some white smoke. It's not a bad result. That, though, has been thought before.

I think the labeling of Bishops Hiltz and Matthews was a bit dodgy - and mostly for the benefit of a media that wanted to see a story that wasn't there.

It may well be that +Nova Scotia was the most liberal of the candidates and +Edmonton the most conservative, but the space between them (and the other two) was pretty negligible. Essentially, they were four moderate conservatives.

And by "conservative," I do NOT mean that hodge-podge of inchoate rage, inflated ego and absolutist arrogance that masquerades as conservatism nowadays. I mean it in terms of what we used to mean by conservative - cautious about innovation and conscious of tradition and prudent about change.

Of course, if "conservatives" like +Abuja were the least bit conservative, they wouldn't be pushing this unexamined adoption of their innovative "covenant."

Marshall,
Here's one opinion for you from Canada.

Fred Hiltz was certainly the most liberal of the candidates (though there are several bishops more liberal than he is), but one with a strong record and support that cuts across the usual divides.

Victoria Matthews is a bit of an enigma. As bishop of a conservative diocese, she has been considered by many as conservative. But she has also been a patron of Affirming Catholicism, and others see her as a liberal catholic. She is certainly the most theologically astute among the whole House of Bishops.

George Bruce and Bruce Howe are both moderate to conservative, but not enough for the Essentials crowd.

Personally, I would have liked Victoria, but I'm quite happy with Fred.

Not theologically conservative, though, Malcolm - Hilts is clearly a moderate liberal Anglican in the best tradition of both words

It will be interesting to find out quite what, if any, Covenant Archbishop Akinola does support. My guess would be that he would not support one that is just some sort of process limitation Covenant, a sort of minimalist "Don't do it unless we all do it" type of document, but one that lays down many absolutes, and I just suppose he would rather it was coming from an African geographical centre. I may have this wrong, but it would be consistent.

The assessment of Bishop Hiltz as the most liberal is probably true. But I am not sure that the assessment of + Victoria as a liberal in a conservative diocese is true. She is an Anglo-Catholic and obviously a supporter of women being ordained to the Priesthood and to the Episcopate.

However, from my advantage point (I was at a neighbouring table) in the same-sex debates the Lay & Clergy of the Diocese of Edmonton voted for the motion(s) by a 2:1 vote, while +Victoria was one of the swing bishops voting for the first and against the second.

One needs to remember that in secular politics while the Province of Alberta is (and has been for a long time) Conservative - the city of Edmonton often elects Liberals (cf Lib Dems) and NDP (cf Labour), and is much more small-l liberal than the province.