There is “general pessimism” among bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada about the potential for “any clear resolution” of the divisive issue of sexuality at the church’s upcoming General Synod in Halifax this June.
This is one of the many observations recently made by two pastoral visitors from the U.K. who were deputized by the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. They were invited to attend the four-day meeting of the House of Bishops last November in Niagara, Ont., at the request of Archbishop Williams. Archbishop Williams is seeking ways to heal divisions among member provinces of the Anglican Communion.
No matter what decisions may be reached at the 2010 General Synod, however, the gathering is bound to be “a watershed both for the (Anglican Church of Canada) and for its wider relations with the Anglican Communion,” said Bishop Chad Gandiya of Harare, Zimbabwe, and Bishop Colin Bennetts, the retired bishop of Coventry, in their report. “At its worst it could lead to internal anarchy. At its best it could help us all to appreciate and practice a properly Christian style of inclusiveness.”
Bishops Gandiya and Bennetts said that the last General Synod left the issue of same-sex blessings “unclear,” noting that while it did not approve same-sex blessings “nor did it rule against them.” Such uncertainty has resulted in a situation that is “complex, not to say confusing,” they said, with some dioceses independently approving same-sex blessings.
[blockquote]The acknowledgment of numerical decline was matched by a very positive approach to church growth[/blockquote]
This is Anglican doublespeak at its finest. Negative growth matches positive approach to growth. Yeah, right.
[blockquote]it could help us all to appreciate and practice a properly Christian style of inclusiveness[/blockquote]
“Inclusiveness” is of course a codeword for you-know-what. Also, Inclusive means they Include fewer people. Figure that one out.
Great examples of Anglican mendacity. Will we turn our heads, expunge the facts, and pretend otherwise?
Alas.
[blockquote]The report [of the Episcopal Visitors] also said:
….Reiterated an earlier observation made by the visitors that the meeting of bishops was “relaxed and relational,†and that while this has merits, “one casualty of this user-friendly meeting was perhaps a certain lack of theological depth.†It noted that “very few of the items discussed were approached via theological first principles, the stress being much more on pragmatic outcomes.†While this may be “unduly critical,†the visitors said, “we do not believe that the House is not without its theological heavyweights.†Rather, they simply question “whether their expertise is made as widely available as it might be…â€[/blockquote]
Ouch!
And of course, the ideological liberals won’t ever let it go away. In any well run organization, a disaster like Michael Ingham would be forced out. But instead, Ingham and his ilk can concentrate power by forcing out true, Scripturally faithful, Christians. So even if the mountain is becoming a mole hill, Ingham is king of it.
They really don’t “wish it would all go away.”
They wish the same-gender-sexual-relationship approval drive would continue — but that [i]the conflict[/i] would go away.
For [i]that[/i] to happen, the conservative/traditional wing of the church needs to sit down, shut up, and pay its pledge, please.
Fogging the issue … SOP. No theological approach … SOP. When do they start paying dues to EcUSA/tEc ? No way the PB’s gonna let Canada be the new head of the GCC.