The visitors’ report, discussed at a January meeting here of the House of Bishops, also noted that General Synod 2010 is bound to be “a watershed both for the [Anglican Church of Canada] and for its wider relations with the Anglican Communion””¦no matter what decisions may be reached.
The visitors said they were “very encouraged” by the general desire that the church be more mission focused. They noted “”¦a very positive approach to church growth, a strong commitment to ministry among indigenous people and a determination to deliver better, more integrated forms of theological education both for ordinands and for laity.”
They’re kidding, right?
Pravda surfaces….
Intercessor
Didn’t they also say that they noted a lack of theological depth? See the report also in the Anglican Journal at http://www.anglicanjournal.com/100/article/we-just-wish-it-would-all-go-away/?cHash=0f3a56e622.
I hadn’t originally seen the article cited by driver8. Talk about damning with faint praise or simply damning:
[blockquote] 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…†[/blockquote]
That article’s premise is even sillier than the first: Bishops are overwhelming pessimistic about resolution, but IF they do resolve the conflicts the Canadian church, it will be a model for the Anglican Communion. The ideologues like Michael Ingham will never allow the subject to be changed until their consolidation of power is complete. It is their main weapon to drive out the orthodox.
And note to the editors of the Anglican Journal: The word “vibrancy” and the ACoC should never be mentioned in the same sentence unless it is in the negative, e.g., “The ACoC is completely lacking in ‘vibrancy’.”
True enough, but they’re also sorely lacking in legitimacy.
I could not have said it any better….
Intercessor