A year after her controversial election as presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States, Katharine Jefferts Schori is still hopeful tensions within the denomination and the worldwide Anglican Communion can be resolved.
“I think as a Christian you have to live in hope of reconciliation always,” Jefferts Schori said during a brief stop in Corvallis at the beginning of a weeklong vacation.
“If we can get people to get out of a face-saving mode and refocus on the mission of the church, I think we can learn to live together and stay one body.”
We can start getting out of “face saving mode” by dropping lawsuits (the ultimate expression of saving face) and by stopping the decision of doctring by raw political means.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
um that should be stopping the decision of determining doctrine by raw political means.
I haven’t had my coffee yet 🙂
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Hey, I have an idea. Let’s reconcile by deposing orthodox priests and suing each other. Works for me.
If she hopes for healing, she should act accordingly.
Drop the lawsuits Bishop Schori.
“If we can get people to get out of a face-saving mode and refocus on the mission of the church, I think we can learn to live together and stay one body.â€
This is a true statement; one that all of us could agree on. Now if we could just agree on the Mission of the Church; works, or Gospel?
It’s strange to me that her expression of a desire for “reconciliation” is couched as an insult.
#6 Sherri–Why do you find that strange? I find it completely and totally in chatacter. KJS’s reconciliation equals “we will be reconciled when you agree with me and do everything I say.”
“….refocus on the mission of the church…”
I have not once heard her state that mission.
3. David Keller wrote:
Hey, I have an idea. Let’s reconcile by deposing orthodox priests and suing each other. Works for me.
—–
Sure, that should work for everybody. But don’t you think we should also tell all the hundreds of orthodox bishops and archbishops of the world to just go stand in the corner and suck their thumbs?
Reconciliation is sooooo much fun — when you are doing it to others!
#8 Don Gander: MDGs are the [i] stated [/i] mission… but that’s for public approbation. The real mission is LGBT advocacy, plain and simple.
“MDGs are the stated mission”
Precisely.
That is NOT the mission that Jesus gave to HIS (the) Church. When are we going to hear the truth?
#9 Cana–I’m with you. I’ve been reconciled by the authorities so many times lately, I hardly even notice anymore.
When she AND all her cohorts accept The Scriptures as the “once given to all” as the norm without any other interpretation other than that found therein AND acts accordingly, then maybe. Actions speak louder than words.
jj
“It’s hard to give up the desire to be right, but I’ve realized it’s not about my being right.”
Great – so, when is ECUSA going to reverse itself on sexual morality and rejoin the Christian mainstream?
When I looked at her bio/resume at the end of the article I made the following preliminary evaluation.
—Good student, likes incremental challenges and achievements.
—Not much supervisory of management experience except with the activites of a small staff in a very narrow technical field.
—No track significant track record (Dio of NV is not a big deal) demonstrating her executive level potential.
—Now in charge of a situation which may well be far over her head. The current situation is not one requiring one of the better students in a classroom. It is a situation that requires the wisdom of a highly experienced theological/ecclessiological leader with a strong executive level track record.
It’s nice to read a fairly straightforward report. Usually the press reports are inaccurate or one-sided. This one is much more even-handed.
Do you get the feeling you’re being told to reconcile off?
#17–No kidding. See my comment #12.
we are to be about restoring all people to unity with God and each other in Christ
from my POV, all sides live in a glass house – mostly empty, with shattered glass
our hope comes from the resurrected Jesus, overcoming even death
[blockquote]It’s strange to me that her expression of a desire for “reconciliation†is couched as an insult. [/blockquote]
Sherri, that was almost exactly my first thought when I read the post. Except it didn’t seem strange to me, just… telling.
Ms. Schori says, “… I think we can learn to live together and stay one body.â€
I ask, what do we call a body with two distinct minds?
THAT is TEC!
And she indicates that ” I think we can learn to live together and stay one body†is some kind of a norm or a sought for state. That, of its self is a disfunctional concept.
If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.
Name ONE thing. Just ONE. One thing that she has done to promote “reconcilliation”. ONE. ONE. I want ONE. Name it. Anyone? Jake? ANYONE??????
Re #23
Umm, she’s talked about it a lot? 🙂
#8 … See Luke 4:14-21
“…as a Christian…”
You probably need to believe in the Bible, the Resurection, etc.
Aw, c’mon, Midwestnorwegian… she got up in front of a conflicted convention and preached about Mother Jesus… no, wait… She announced that liberal theology was a “more gracious strand” than the preaching of Christ crucified… OK, not the best example… she DID point out that Catholics and others were a bunch of stupid breeders compared to TEC insiders… OK, wait… she IS presiding over multibazillion dollar litigation…
Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! She IS part of the coming TEC – ELCA – LGBT Clergy extravaganza!
[blockquote] I ask, what do we call a body with two distinct minds? [/blockquote]
An entity with multiple personality disorder – you know, like Sybill. Keyword: DISORDER.
#25 is correct. The PB did cite that verse from Luke as a summary of Christ’s mission (and hence the mission of the church).
The passage includes:
“To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD…”
With that kind of jubilee language, the church should be withdrawing lawsuits, not filing them. On that I have to agree with a bunch of other folks posting on this thread.
[b] It’s not my job to fix the (Anglican) Communion, it’s my job to do my piece,†she said.[/b]
When you break it, it is your responsibility to fix it. ++KJS and TECusaCorp seem to think they bear no blame whatsoever for the mess they have created.
the snarkster
[blockquote]“I think as a Christian you have to live in hope of reconciliation always,†Jefferts Schori said during a brief stop in Corvallis at the beginning of a weeklong vacation.
“If we can get people to get out of a face-saving mode and refocus on the mission of the church, I think we can learn to live together and stay one body.â€[/blockquote]
In order to interpret this, one simply needs to understand that “reconciliation” and “mission of the church” have a completely different meaning when one is dealing with the TEC dictionary:
[i]Reconciliation – (n)[/i] the process by which those who disagree with the current views held by the enlightened are reeducated.
[i]Mission of the Church – (n)[/i] the direction taken by the enlightened to steer the proletariat, er, I mean, TEC members away from the historical, apostolic, and catholic tradition towards, well, whatever we say is right!
Does it need pointing out that Luke 4:14-21 is the mission of the incarnate Lord, not the mission of the church? Of course, we might like to believe that it is our job to save the world, but that job is taken. We are the poor, the blind, the oppressed, the prisoners to whom Jesus indicates he has come to proclaim the Good News. We aren’t the Good News.
As Sherri noted, the Presiding Bishop seems to think that all the turmoil in TEC and the Communion is being caused by us nasty, reactionary reasserters. She doesn’t see that she, and the reappraisers, have done anything at all to cause the turmoil. In effect, the Presiding Bishop is saying that she and the reappraisers are totally right, we reasserters are totally wrong, and if we just capitulate and admit our manifest errors, we can all move forward together.
This is “reconciliation” in an unusually pure form. I wonder if the Presiding Bishop realizes how rigid and self righteous she sounds?
When will they see that the are a bunch of elitists talking the egalitarian talk? Dialogue is of no avail when you have no respect for the views of others.
#32 William – if the church is acting as Christ’s body (a Biblical teaching which assumes that Christ is the head), then the church participates in his mission. But you are right – the church alone can’t do what Jesus alone does. It can preach his Good News and minister his sacraments so that people come into relationship with him and are built up in that relationship – a relationship in which Christ bestows the benefits.
You point out the problem with many who call themselves “Amos 5:24” or “Matthew 25” Christians. They argue that cherry-picking a list of “to-dos” from the Bible is a substitute for relationship with the transcendent source of the works and his purposes for them.
RE: “We are the poor, the blind, the oppressed, the prisoners to whom Jesus indicates he has come to proclaim the Good News. We aren’t the Good News.”
WHAT???!!!???
I RESENT THAT!!!
Susan Russell #25: If the mission of the Church lies in Lk 4:18-19 …to preach good news (salvation through Jesus Christ) to the poor. (the human family)
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners (of death)
and recovery of sight for the blind, (we, who have not yet seen the glory of God)
to release the oppressed, (so that our spirit may be freed by the hope of eternity with the Lord)
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.
PB Schori is still missing the mark.
The Rev. Russell is only repeating what Via Media has seen as its mission: to “proclaim the good news of the Episcopal Church”. The Good News in the Episcopal Church really has nothing to do with Jesus.
Susan: Read Matthew 28.
The only way we have any hope of fulfilling Luke 4 is if we participate in Matthew 28 – first as those who are made disciples, baptized, and taught, then as those who make disciples, baptize and teach. While the MDGs are worthwhile goals, the are not [b]the[/b] goal or mission of the Church. Making Disciples who are willing to follow Luke 4 is.
The Church, as the body of Christ, can be considered the continuation of the Incarnation and, thus, we have a part in our Lord’s ministry shown in Luke 4, Matthew 25, and other places. But we participate in that ministry only as part of the Body – as part of those who “continue in the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship.” If we leave the Apostles’ teaching or fellowship, our participation in the Body of Christ is lessened and our ability to fulfill those Christ-like ministries is severely curtailed. Eventually, we will end up working for oppression and violence in our zeal to fulfill what we see as our mission. For an extreem example, see the Soviet Union.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
[blockquote]“It’s hard to give up the desire to be right, but I’ve realized it’s not about my being right. It’s about taking care of the community. It’s not my job to fix the (Anglican) Communion, it’s my job to do my piece,†she said.[/blockquote]
Well considering it was your church and your weak leadership which broke the Communion don’t ya think you have a little bit of work to do fixing it?
But she is correct, it is hard to give up the desire to be right. Perhaps she should give up tryng and leave it to God to say what is right?
But that would mean taking the Bible literally sometimes! Of fudge!
#39: The problem I have is when people don’t believe or see any outreach aspect in Matthew 28 or in Matthew 22 for that matter. Making disciples is certainly a key to the Christian mission, but evangelism is also to be married to other traits such as teaching, worship, baptismal fellowship and, yes, service ministry. (“Purpose Driven Church” by Rick Warren.) In that sense, I would argue that the MDG’s could be seen as part of the mission of the church.
Smuggs,
I don’t think anyone here is arguing that MDG’s aren’t good things to do It is perfectly acceptable that they be A PART of the Christian mission, but MDG’s should not be THE SOLE mission of Christians as PB Schori and the rest of 815 would have us do.
“Unless two agree they can not walk together” Jesus Christ
I wish you orthodox guys would say cleanly, unequivocally: OK, we want to stay with you, we respect your different integrity, just give us our space. I think, if you did, then either (a) she and other liberals (like Bob from Boone) would say: that’s great! or (b) they would say, no way, we are right, right, right (rather as you guys are saying now). I would hope for (a) but at any rate there might be ‘clarity’, and the ‘clarity’ that matters, which is people disagreeing (to some extent – not really very much) agreeing to stay together, or agreeing to separate, stupid, self-indulgent, destructive and self-destructive as that is (only my opinion).
john s. – I think we have asked for “space.” In any case, we got (b) for an answer. Loudly and clearly.
Phil, I don’t think those who are in court have asked for “space.” I think they have asked for property and alternative oversight from African primates which is a whole different thing than “space.”
Phil, but have you said: we respect your different integrity? I’m all for giving you guys space, also in the UK, where women bishops will certainly come and where it will be necessary/good to create safe havens for those who can’t tolerate them. Very messy – but better than endless fragmentation.
My church, last Sunday: ‘T.’, Forward in Faith type, who finds women priests anathema, went out of his way to pick up by car elderly liberal priest (probably gay, certainly generally liberal and certainly pro-WO) who’s fallen into depression and not attended for months. His presence most moving – the Peace more than usually affecting – good for ‘T.’ We all get on. It can be done.
smuggs – actually, it’s not different at all, especially after it’s been made plain that “your kind” will be rubbed out of the organization as fast as practical.
John S., well, you’ve certainly got a fairly wide set of doctrinal beliefs comprehended in the so-called “Common Cause” grouping, which tells me there is a willingness to respect a different integrity, as you put it. I think, however, there’s a feeling that modern ECUSA wants that respect to be infinitely elastic – save for orthodox Anglicans, of course – which, at some point, isn’t possible in a creedal, revealed faith system. The question is whether we’ve reached that point.
John S., Unfortunately, the powers that be in TEC are not willing to give the orthodox any space at all; just ask Bp.-elect Lawrence, any of the priests deposed without trial, or any of the preople sued. In effect, the reappraisers here are saying “You reasserters shall admit that you are wrong and that we are right, and you must submit to our enlightened leadership. Full stop.” Perhaps things are different in the UK.
Your reference to “different integrity” identifies the real issue: reasserters doubt the claims of some of the reappraisers to be Christian at all. It is fair to qualify that carefully. Only God knows who the true faithful are. But certainly the Presiding Bishop seems unable to say that Jesus is The Messiah, The Christ. What kind of integrity asks us to pretend that we simply don’t agree concerning who Christ was, and what He did?
John S.,
OK, we want to stay with you, we respect your different integrity, just give us our space. There, I said it.
Now, when you wrote out what you wanted to hear, who did you have in mind being the “we” in “we” want to stay. Clearly, there are many bishops (aka the Windsor Bishops) and many individuals who have said this so does that count? How come we don’t hear KJS respond to us? I count myself squarely in the here I stand and stay group yet see no movement from her to accomodate me. Why not?
#46 You may not understand that the churches who are now being sued by the DoV and TEC petitioned ++Lee for years to return to a scripturally based direction for the diocese. We then tried through a commission of people of good will to find a way forward, but in the end, those on the commission agreed there was no common ground to be found. The Diocese of VA is very hostile to the orthodox. (If you’ve got the votes, step on their throats!)
We have sought, were pursuing, and still seek, a negotiated settlement. For TEC and the DoV, this is about power, pure and simple. It is not about theology or reconciliation.
RalphM
When KJS says that people should “get out of a face-saving mode” does she mean that TEC should stop rationalizing its breach of Communion standards, apologize, and promise in the future not to breach the Communion standards as expressed in Lambeth 1:10?
#49
I’m all for space for everyone within Anglicanism. I’m against strong-arm tactics. My own views – to the extent that I have them – are certainly far more liberal than the PB’s. I try to get on. I try to love (actually very difficult for me). I try to believe. The acid test for me is: would you and I (or the Gordian and I, or whoever and Bob from Boone) be willing to kneel down and receive communion together (however we understand it)? In my experience, which is fairly extensive but also obviously limited, lots of very different Anglicans do this. Another big test, of course, is dividing up the swag, such as it is, but people have to live, people have to have careers, people have to feel that their own views are represented. I still believe it could be done. It often is done, but of course the degree to which it can be done, in ever wider contexts, with ever more instant commuication, etc., is moot. Still and all, all alternatives seem worse and somehow degrading.
#44 John–That’s exactly how TEC worked until August 2003. Since then there has been no quarter for dissenters, and the formerly “moderate” bishops who voted against VGR, like mine, are now starting to use a heavy hand. When we treated each other like equals, though we lived in tension, we still lived together. The unilateral action of the left has brought us where we are. I would be willing to return to the status quo ante bellum, but I don’t believe the leaders of TEC are. I think you are probably being sincere, but what you are suggesting would require compromise and retrenchment at 815 and throughout the heirarchy of TEC, et. al. I am ever hopeful, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Jimmy #5: “Now if we could just agree on the Mission of the Church; works, or Gospel”
One does not preclude the other. In fact, one demands the other.
Publius #49: “John S., Unfortunately, the powers that be in TEC are not willing to give the orthodox any space at all; just ask Bp.-elect Lawrence”
I do so wish y’all would stop trotting out poor Fr. Lawrence at every opportunity to show how oppressed “the orthodox” are. Fr. Lawrence received non-consents from many bishops and standing committees not because he is conservative, but because he does not convince that he would do all possible to remain a faithful TEC Episcopalian. He says “intend” instead of “will.” [i]That[/i] was the basis for many (I cannot say “all) of the non-consents. And [i]that[/i] will be the basis again.
Stop making the poor man a posterchild for orthodox oppression.
This is all due to politicing to get VGR elected and them electing KJS,who has limited experiance, as an in your face expression of the liberal power in the TEC hirarchy. Now we all are trying to deal with the fall out from miscalculations and bad decisions. No the toothpaste isn’t going back into the tube.
Striking how we all postulate on this post what our various opinions are and who is right or wrong. To do so (and I’m as guilty as the next man) implies that I have anything whatsoever to do with the creation or interpretation of what Salvific Wisdom really is.
Nothing could be further from the truth. My opinions matter nothing to Christ or to the process (or event) of my own Salvation. My understanding is helpful, but not decisive, nor is it important. Only divinely inspired truth is important.
The words of the NT, what I think of them, is not an issue. We are faced with a boolian choice. A binary solution set.
Either the New Testament contains what is necessary for salvation, either its words are perfectly true and representative of Jesus gifts to us and expectations of us, or they do not. There is no middle ground.
In the first case, anyone who would interpret or soften the message is leading everyone into the pit.
In the second case, none of this matters a whit, so delighting in the parts we like, and casting out the parts we don’t, will not amount to anything.
Like I said, binary decision set. Either the New Testament as written is correct, or it is meaningless.
Which will it be? TEC’s HOB by its own actions have embraced option 2, irrelevancy. And the fruits of that decision are now becoming known to us all.
See? It’s simple if you stop thinking of “being right all the time” and start dealing with reality as presented.
KTF….mrb
#56 I was specifically asked by some Standing Committee members to state my, (and I qoute), “intentions”. When I used the word requested, (which frankly is all anyone can do, intend–that is– certainly an aspect of the Will), some complain. Geez, I mean to tell ya!
“Every eye must weep alone
Til I Will be overthrown”
W. H. Auden
My church, last Sunday: ‘T.’, Forward in Faith type, who finds women priests anathema, went out of his way to pick up by car elderly liberal priest (probably gay, certainly generally liberal and certainly pro-WO) who’s fallen into depression and not attended for months. His presence most moving – the Peace more than usually affecting – good for ‘T.’ We all get on. It can be done.
It can. I see it in my own tiny but divided church. But I don’t see it at the diocesan level and from there pressure is applied to the parishes. From all that you have said, I think things must be very different in the Church of England, but here there is little tolerance in the larger church for orthodox/reasserters. Despite Padre Wayne’s protestations, the elected bishop of South Carolina is a prime example, but far from the only one.
Gosh, you want the PB to call off the lawsuits. That’s easy. Give us back our property! Seems easy enough to me.
#60 Congrats ++Lawrence! Thanks for staying in the Battle.
KTF!…mrb
Fred,
I would LOVE to see you tell some of the people in my church (est. 1852 or 1853, depending on whose record you `believe`) – many of whom are the direct descendants of the people who were instrumental in forming the church in its early years, BEFORE there was a diocese at all – that our church is YOUR property. I know some octagenarians (sp?) who would vehemently take issue with you on this point.
Bishop: overseer or supervisor. Office first mentioned by St Paul in his letters to Timothy. Standards for the office are delineated therein. There is no reference with which I am familiar indicating that St Paul thought of Bishops as being in contact with other Bishops and maintaining good relations with them.
St Paul wanted Bishops to insure that the message of the Gospel was being rightly handled and accurately presented by those under his (!) supervision.
Please note: the qualifications for a Bishop are clearly delineated in Timothy. Presiding Bishop Schori does not meet those qualifications.
I would suggest that the hierarchical construct of Presiding Bishops, national churches, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conferences, and the entire international structure is the invention of men (and women). And the human invention goes back almost to the beginning, with the appointment of senior Bishops and Archbishops as far back as the Council of Nicaea.
Not that this human invention is either good or bad. I merely suggest that we keep the proclamation of the Gospel and the later additions to the Church in separate categories in our thinking.
The Gospel reconciliation is, of course, that each sinner be reconciled to God. The reconciliation is through the blood of the Cross and the water of Baptism, and by learning day by day to live under the grace of God. This reconciliation is delineated by St Paul in the most detailed and painstaking way in Romans. The hoped-for goal of such reconciliation is the “entering into His rest†of Hebrews.
The Schori reconciliation is of an entirely different character and order. Her notion of being reconciled is a submission to an earthly hierarchical order. In her view, the GLBT revisionists now hold the chief offices in TEc, hold the chairs and the reins of power in the Seminaries, and compose the leadership of the House of Bishops. Therefore to be reconciled is to buckle under to the established order and get with the program. In such a system one may not object or quarrel with what one’s betters have decreed; one’s betters hold the high offices and have the [b]right[/b] to tell one how to believe and how to act. And the system is a Soviet-style one: what is ours is ours forever, you may not leave, or at least if you leave you may take nothing with you.
In the Schori reconciliation we may safely ignore the Gospel. The Gospel has been proclaimed around the world, everybody is reconciled to God, the thing is done. We do not need to fuss with it anymore.
The mission of the Church, you see, is not the Kingdom of God anymore. The Kingdom of God is not here. The Kingdom of God has come, but is not of this present age, any more than Jesus was the temporal ruler who would establish an earthly Kingdom during His incarnation. We may safely, in the view of Schori, ignore that Kingdom.
Instead our task is to establish an earthly Kingdom of God, under the banner of the MDG, leading to total inclusion of GLBT persons (who are discriminated against and mistreated just as slaves were). Once the GLBT persons have equal standing and all distinctions based upon gender or sexual orientation have been purged, we all will be one.
My friends, that is a [b]new thing[/b]. But it is not the Gospel.
Every time someone brings up our esteemed PB or the HOB and their intended roles and responsibilities, and we begin to analyze their failure therein, I cannot help but hear in my head the “Ordinations…” section of the BCP from 1928. Think of the progression to Bishop.
First as a Deacon: “LIKEWISE must the deacons be grave, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; …Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.”
Then Priest: “Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain all Doctrine required as necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? And are you determined, out of the said Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge; and to teach nothing, as necessary to eternal salvation, but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture?
Answer. I am so persuaded, and have so determined, by God’s grace.”
And as Bishop: “Are you ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word; and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to the same?
Answer. I am ready, the Lord being my helper.”
No wonder the reappraiser movement need the 1979 BCP to get the job done. Promises of this gravity are nowhere to be found in it.
KTF….mrb
#62 Fred,
interesting concept about “your” property. Our parish actually purchased and paid for the property from the diocese. And then, some time after some rule gets past saying the property is only held in trust for the diocese. That’s quite a scam. Sell somebody something and then tell them yo still own it.
If she truly wants to “heal the Church,” she can start by resigning and taking all of the innovations of the past forty years with her as she closes the door behind her. But of course, that will never happen, will it? Still, it’s nice to dream now and then.
#61
Well, Sherri mou, ultimately I think that what we get out of our individual churches matters more and is worth more than the diocesan level. And I don’t think I accept your description of a church that encompasses different views as ‘divided’. Sorry, though, that when we come visiting you we’ll have to watch out for the poisoned water. Here in Durham UK the water is very good,
John.
I continue to be at a loss to know whether Schori actually believes what she is saying. How can she not know that her words and reality are unacquainted? And yet, maybe she doesn’t know this. And I often think she is talking to keep face, or to keep her courage up. I really don’t know. LM
john scholasticus:
1) I was in a church where strong arm tactics were used from the Bishop. He basically did not want a “divided” church. He wanted one where we all did not believe in the Virgin Birth, the Word of God, and the Resurrection.
2) Did you realize that a heirachal church is Spiritually connected to those above and below it? So, you can stay away from the poisoned water, but the spirit will find you…..
And I don’t think I accept your description of a church that encompasses different views as ‘divided’.
You misunderstand me, John. When I say divided, I mean divided. On Sundays when the priest is here, the people who come talk spitefully about the ones who don’t. The priest himself makes snide remarks about one who doesn’t come, yet it is this one who does more to prepare for that (and all other) service(s) than all the rest of us put together. The ones who come to eucharist never darken the door on the Sundays when we meet for morning prayer. It’s more than encompassing different views – there is anger, bitterness, arrogance and mistrust. And yet … church does happen. It isn’t always ugly. There are a few of us who come to both morning prayer and the eucharist and we are all at the rail together as you describe.
Sorry, though, that when we come visiting you we’ll have to watch out for the poisoned water.
I hope you’ll be sorry for attributing to me something that I neither expressed nor intended. I’m still at the rail, John.
ultimately I think that what we get out of our individual churches matters more and is worth more than the diocesan level.
I agree, which is why I haven’t left yet.