I hope it doesn’t disappear altogether: less to make fun of.
From here:
The Anglican Journal’s print edition may be discontinued after a “lengthy transition period” and its mandate as an editorially independent news source may be changed under possible scenarios now being considered by a working group, the Council of General Synod (CoGS) heard Friday, June 1.
The paper is presently editorially independent: in other words, it isn’t the official voice of the church. This doesn’t mean that it is unbiased, of course: it is so biased in favour of the liberal theology of the Anglican Church of Canada that discarding editorial independence would make little difference to the content and would at least be more honest. The reason for maintaining a façade of independence is the yearly $596,627 subsidy from Canadian Heritage, only granted if it maintains editorial independence.
Sixty-five per cent of the 400 randomly surveyed Anglicans said they thought the Anglican Journal should be “the official voice of the Anglican Church of Canada” with only 35 per cent preferring that it retain its current status as “An independent, ‘arm’s length’ observer of the Church.”
Bishops “were asked a different question, but it was a parallel question and less than 50% of bishops think that the current mandate of independence is important, and they estimate that about a third of their folks find it important. And, lo and behold, it was a third of the folks who answered the survey,” said Alexander. “I have the sense that bishops have their finger on the flock fairly closely.”
On the other hand, over half of General Synod members and about 75 per cent of diocesan editors feel the Journal’s editorial independence is important, he said.
“Having an independent editorial policy makes the paper more credible as a news source,” Alexander quoted a respondent of the General Synod survey as having commented; “As an unofficial, and, as it were, non-partisan paper, the Journal acts as a fair dealer, offering news from a variety of perspectives,” wrote another.
The Anglican Church of Canada has developed a neurotic dislike of all things binary: there are no definitive decisions or conclusions. It seems to me obvious that this is because the ACoC is too cowardly to take a stand, preferring obfuscation and ambivalence in the hope that no-one will notice that it no longer believes in anything of import.
The fact that the ACoC is so opposed to binary decisions is a strong indicator that there must be something good about them. Musing along those lines, it occurred to me that the real world which is generally regarded as analogue in nature, may in fact be a digital creation masquerading as analogue. Rather like an analogue quartz watch whose hands don’t move smoothly, but appear to at first glance. This might provide an elegant solution to Zeno’s paradoxes.
I bet the “we” mentioned below typed this on a digital computer using nasty binary logic:
“We’re beginning to realize it’s not a binary discussion… ‘either you’re an official voice, and therefore you’re some kind of Pravda, or you’re independent’,” he said. “Editorial independence and diversity of views are not necessarily yoked together.”
Like this:
Like Loading...