Despite attempts by the Catholic hierarchy in Britain to prevent the move reopening old wounds, senior Anglicans have already said the overtures have a “slightly predatory feel” to them.
However, Lee Bennett, who has been the vicar of the Church of England’s St Mary the Virgin Church, in Benfleet High Road, since 2007, is adamant there is no need to worry….
He said: “It is nothing more than an idea at this stage.
“Nothing has been decided and when, or if, it is, I will be very open about it.”
The Church of England is being blindsided. They have Rowan at the top and nothing below. No wonder an overture of actual theology is such a shock. It isn’t predation, it’s *preaching*. Go look it up in the Ven. Bede or someplace.
I wrote about this on my blog a few weeks back (http://bit.ly/gGZgwf) and was taken to task for ‘not knowing the full story’ (which is obviously true as we are observers, not players) but I am sad to find so much background noise and see the parading of scalps (especially when they appear to be reluctant, or surprised, scalps perhaps) by +Brentwood.
I does appear that there is smoke and therefore it is fair to, sadly, assume that there is fire too!
Sadder still is the fact that there doesn’t appear to be the welcome some assume awaits those who swim either. I am convinced that this is opportunism on the part of some and a ‘too soon’ kneejerk on the part of many who seek to swim.
A sad story at many levels.
V
I think you’re right, Vic.
Regarding what might be an enthusiastic embrace by Catholics of new members as having a “predatory feel” to it possibly shows why the Anglican-Episcopal Church is having problems. For what is one person’s “predatory feel” is another person’s missionary or evangelical outreach. If one regards welcoming outreach perjoratively as “predatory” the chances are there is a lot of stagnation at work among those who should be doing their own missionary or evangelical outreach work on behalf of their own church.
Having swept into various parts of the world on the coat-tails
of the British Empire (a major predator), it seems hypocritical of the
C of E to complain about others being predatory. Its US franchise
(TEC) has set up churches and indeed dioceses in the heavily
Catholic areas of Central and South America. In what significant
way is that not predatory ?
DeaconJohn,
I fear the biggest problem to be overcome might be that of those coming being neither fish nor fowl.(http://bit.ly/i4HfxQ)
A disccusion with some lovely RC members at an ecumenical gathering demonstrated that many (lay and ordained) are perhaps a little confused by the whole affair. Also, as I understand it, the ordinariate will be assimilated and so is little more than Bendict importing a job lot of pre vatican II types to bolster the ‘orthodox’ position within the RC church.
Ichabod,
An interesting thought but then of course, conversion by force in the lands of which you speak does nothing to ameliorate the RC plc side historically either.
PAx
Vic,
It is confusing. From the news stories, it seems that when groups and their clergy leave en masse, they don’t want or expect to be assimilated. They seem to want their group to have its own parish left intact but under the Roman authority. On Rome’s side, yes, it does appear that they see this as a wondrous opportunity to import conservative sacramental Christians who have a lot in common with them to bolster their own conservative ranks.
Ichabod,
I live in the Southwestern United States, specifically Texas. If you know anything about the history of this region, you’re aware of the strong-armed conversion tactics that the RCC used here — first, on the native peoples and, then, on the incoming settlers under the guise of the Mexican government. In most of Latin America, the RCC wielded both spiritual and secular political power supporting the ruling classes until/unless the people staged a revolt.
Texas fought for its independence from Mexico in part because of the mandate that everyone who lived in these territories was forced to convert to Catholicism. To this day, church membership follows ethnicity. Most Hispanics are Catholic; most Caucasians and African-Americans are Protestant. When I moved here from the Northeast in the early ’90s and joined an RC parish, it took some time and convincing that I was a cradle Catholic. In their experience in Texas, white families are traditionally Protestant.
So, I’m sorry but your statements are astounding, particularly when it comes to TEC. If anything, TEC doesn’t evangelize enough and treads very lightly when it comes to other churches. But the RCC has no such history of subtlety or nuance. We’re seeing another example of that now.
RE: “We’re seeing another example of that now.”
Sorry, but I strongly disagree. There have been outcries from papist AngloCatholics to Rome now for literally decades. So concerned was Rome about damaging ecumenical relationships with the COE/Anglican Communion that these people were essentially ignored.
Now they’re not.
I’m happy for them and I don’t think it’s in any way at all an example of the RCs sheep stealing. It’s simply offering a simple and fairly holistic means for sheep who are leaving to enter whole cloth as a community into Rome’s church.
I see no problem with that and am very happy for TAC and various other groupings of AngloCatholics who accept the claims of Rome.
I think we need to face it — leaders in the Anglican Communion — first in TEC and now in the COE — royally muffed the ball, and they have now lost *yet another* group of Anglicans who are trundling off to other churches.
Our loss.
And our fault entirely.
Vic and Teatime2: spot on.
“On Rome’s side, yes, it does appear that they see this as a wondrous opportunity to import conservative sacramental Christians who have a lot in common with them to bolster their own conservative ranks.”
And if this is true, what does that say about the Roman communion’s “orthodoxy”? A few days ago, I wrote in another combox discussion that Rome’s conservatism was “on paper only.” Or, to switch metaphors, underneath that orthodox veneer is a a squirming mass of Lavendar Mafia, liberation theology, radicalism, liberalism (of the kind condemned by recent popes), new age religion and nominalism. What kind of refuge is that to flee to?
RE: “And if this is true, what does that say about the Roman communion’s “orthodoxyâ€?”
Well — it seems to say that those who are *in leadership* in the Roman Communion actually know a good thing when they see it.
Which certainly speaks well of those leaders in Rome who are actually capable of having the *power* to get things done.
I think those who have that power are doing a pretty decent job of cleansing out various of the liberal bishops that snuck into the secular West.
Sarah,
I didn’t think it was “sheep-stealing” at all when it was first announced and began. They framed it in terms of granting requests to them from the TAC and such. OK, that makes sense.
But now it seems that they’ve broadened their scope and are making it a campaign directed entirely at Anglicans. They’ve announced initiatives in other countries. And they’re not making it a general welcome to disaffected, individual Anglicans who may be discerning — they continue to focus on bringing in groups, led by clergy. That is aggressive, and they doesn’t seem at all concerned with the salt they’re pouring into the wounds of Anglican faithful who do NOT want to become RC and have seen their parishes torn apart.
Yes, we can blame our own dysfunction for creating the climate in which this is possible. However, I think it is despicable of Rome to be capitalizing on it in this manner, in such a systematic, divisive, and aggressive way. They may think they’re gaining a whole lot of grand conservative converts but methinks that the haste and manner in which this is going about will not provide LASTING members.
I suspect that a sizable portion will become disillusioned and either come back to Anglicanism or drop out of organized religion entirely when all of their hopes and the promises made to them don’t materialize, when the dust settles and they are living the full reality of what they’ve embraced. They want to stay together as a congregation but no buildings have been provided for them and the men they call their priests aren’t priests yet under RC canon law. If they simply assimilate into existing RC churches, they’re going to find equally (oftentimes more) vocal and active liberalism of the sort they despised in Anglicanism. It’s going to be difficult.
Caedmon,
Exactly right. I find it sadly amusing that while the C of E folks are fleeing the C of E over the notion of female bishops, polls consistently show that the majority of RCs favor female clergy and bishops. There’s quite a bit of activism in favor of that issue.
And they’re absolutely going to the wrong church if they want to avoid homosexual clergy/bishops. Several years ago, I became startlingly aware that every single RC parish I attended in my life as a Catholic has at least one priest I knew locked up for sexually abusing children. Every one.
Do you know what was really scary? At the last one, the dude was the director of vocations and was inviting my pre-pubescent son to parties and such for “vocations.” OMG. I declined to let him participate. My now-grown son and I were just talking about that, how he fit the profile of the type of kid the pervs targeted. Devout, father deceased, single mum, loved helping the priests in church activities. If I wasn’t suspicious, my son would have become another of this perv’s victims.
Is it better in the RCC now? I hope so. But if people are looking for a panacea of conservative orthodoxy, uniformity of belief, and stellar leadership, it ain’t there. Is this pope an intelligent, capable, faithful leader? Yep! But he doesn’t have the reach and control at the local/diocesan level that people think he does. And that’s where it gets very murky. Moreover, many of the religious orders that serve churches and schools are NOT under the pope’s authority — and many are very liberal.
LOL, some folks here probably think I lean liberal but that’s not true. I come from an experiential perspective regarding the RCC and it’s made me both wary and realistic. Humans are sinful creatures suffering the effects of the Fall, no matter how many theological degrees they might have or what authority might be in place. An openly gay bishop doesn’t freak me out nearly as much as closeted clerics who prey on children and use tradition, politics and secrecy to get away with it for decades. And a good bishop who happens to be female doesn’t freak me out at all.
These are difficult times to be a Christian in so many ways. I believe I’ve come to the point where I’m placing so much less emphasis on church structure and leadership and more responsibility on myself to be faithful to the teachings of Christ. Perhaps sometimes the best we can do is to remain steadfast and faithful, despite all of the noise around us, in a place where we can grow and feel reasonably safe.
RE: “They’ve announced initiatives in other countries.”
TAC is in a large variety of countries — and so are just general-purpose AngloCatholic papists. From the beginning the ordinariate was to be in all countries where there were TACians/etc.
RE: “And they’re not making it a general welcome to disaffected, individual Anglicans who may be discerning—they continue to focus on bringing in groups, led by clergy.”
Right — they were *begged* to do that for decades now — by the AngloCatholic papists themselves. And these folks tend to [for obvious reasons] congregate together into congregations. There’s no reason not to create a way for them all to come together and maintain their ethos as an AngloCatholic congregation while acceding to RC doctrine and dogma.
RE: “. . . they doesn’t seem at all concerned with the salt they’re pouring into the wounds of Anglican faithful who do NOT want to become RC and have seen their parishes torn apart.”
Mmmm . . . I’m not sure what to say about that. If a parish is predominantly AngloCatholic papist, then whether it goes “together” or “individually” it still gets “torn apart.” And that’s not the Romans’ fault either.
It seems as if you are saying that Rome should not be making it simple and easy for majorities of congregations to move en masse over to Rome, and the reason they should not be making it simple and easy is because it makes those who are left behind very sad.
So is the solution to not make it simple and easy for majorities of congregations to move en masse over to Rome? That way, one side can be frustrated and further disheartened, and the other still very sad?
RE: “However, I think it is despicable of Rome to be capitalizing on it in this manner, in such a systematic, divisive, and aggressive way.”
Why? How is it “despicable” to be systematizing the assimilation of congregations or large chunks of congregations into Rome? How is it “despicable” to create a nice simple system?
I mean — obviously it’s “divisive” when people leave a church — you and I know that, since we’re part of a church that is dividing in huge chunks every month.
But that’s the nature of “dividing” — it’s “divisive.” I don’t think one can blame Rome for creating a nice place for people to go when they divide!
RE: “They may think they’re gaining a whole lot of grand conservative converts but methinks that the haste and manner in which this is going about will not provide LASTING members.”
I don’t see what they are doing as at all hasty. And if folks leave for Rome and then pop back to Anglitania, I don’t have a whole lot of respect for either the minds or the hearts of those individuals. My mind boggles at that kind of behavior, ignorance, or simple shallowness.
RE: “I suspect that a sizable portion will become disillusioned and either come back to Anglicanism or drop out of organized religion entirely when all of their hopes and the promises made to them don’t materialize, when the dust settles and they are living the full reality of what they’ve embraced.”
Well, you could be right. But that says a lot about those folks, then — not a bit about Rome, which has proceeded incredibly slowly and methodically and cautiously.
RE: “They want to stay together as a congregation but no buildings have been provided for them and the men they call their priests aren’t priests yet under RC canon law.”
Well, harder conditions have occurred for start-up churches before. Some succeed, others don’t.
RE: “If they simply assimilate into existing RC churches, they’re going to find equally (oftentimes more) vocal and active liberalism of the sort they despised in Anglicanism.”
That’s certainly true in the West — you and I agree there. But you know . . . maybe that’s one more reason why the leaders of Rome have been so careful to allow congregations to go together if that’s what they choose. The current leadership of Rome seems to highly value a particular version of AngloCatholicism, and that certainly redounds to their credit.
RE: “It’s going to be difficult.”
Well — if it’s not one thing, it’s another that’s difficult. The key thing is to choose the things that are really really important, since pretty much everything in life is difficult and prone to failure and disaster.
Look — nobody can accuse me of not being a resounding Protestant! I think I’ve demonstrated that in spades over the years. But to my mind, Rome as a whole is behaving very reasonably about all this, and it’s the Anglican “leaders” who are acting all offended that people would dare to even think of departing that are behaving like impotent children.
Regardless of whether Bennett+ and his colleagues go to the ordinariate or not, it is very clear that they are opposed to the liberalising tendencies in the CofE and will continue to speak publicly on this issue. Good on them.
For the record, I do not think you are a liberal, Teatime. ; > )
Sarah,
I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your posts on this subject. It has been hurtful to read so many of the bitter remarks made by others and for that reason I am taking a Lenten break.
But I thought it was important that I note your thoughtful and charitable and reasoned response to those joining the Church under these circumstances.
Teatime2 at 12. Amen, amen and amen, to your “bitter” but truthful post, especially to the last paragraph.
Wishing a blessed and profitable Lent to all, Roman, Anglican, Orthodox, and Protestant.
#17 your snide remark is duly noted and I will take it in the spirit of Christian charity it no doubt was meant to be given in.
Thank you, Caedmon. I’m sad for these Anglicans and weary of the RCC and their “ordinariate.” I wish the ABC would end the farce of ecumenical “dialogue” with them. It’s pointless.
It should be duly noted by us that Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church has stood with conservative Anglicans and the OC hasn’t engaged in tactical maneuvers to lure in Anglicans. If Anglicanism ended tomorrow, that’s where I would go.
Sarah, thank you for not assigning that label. 🙂 Your post deserves a substantive response and I’m just too tired tonight. Our Ash Wednesday service was beautiful, but lasted over an hour and a half and the imposition of ashes wasn’t the reason. Incredible music, reverent solemnity, quality preaching that again underscored the wonderful attributes of the Anglican way and its place in Christianity. I wish Rome would leave us alone and target the Lutherans, instead. 😉
“your snide remark is duly noted and I will take it in the spirit of Christian charity it no doubt was meant to be given in.”
Or you can simply laugh out loud at it.
Teatime2 –
“It should be duly noted by us that Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church has stood with conservative Anglicans and the OC hasn’t engaged in tactical maneuvers to lure in Anglicans. If Anglicanism ended tomorrow, that’s where I would go.”
Indeed, it would be the most natural place for Anglicans to go. Not only is Orthodoxy more theologically akin to Anglicanism, but the Orthodox world more or less accepted the validity Anglican orders back in the early part of the 20th century, whereas Rome has consistently their validity. Furthermore, Orthodox Church officialdom has been very accommodating to the Western Rite, even when many naysayers within the Orthodox Church have been very critical of it. Western Rite churches exist under both the Antiochians and the Russians, and it would appear that under Met. Jonah the OCA might “come around” too. For the life of me, I cannot understand why an Anglican fleeing the CofE would opt for Rome over Orthodoxy.
Not only Metropolitan Jonah. Last year, Metropolitan Hilarion of the Russian Orthodox Church was invited by ABC to address the Nicean Club dinner at Lambeth Palace. The text of his address is at http://www.mospat.ru/en/2010/09/10/news25819/. To call it explosive would be an understatement. Here are some excerpts that must have caused liberal Anglicans to choke, but gave great encouragement to orthodox Anglicans:
[blockquote] “All current versions of Christianity can be very conditionally divided into two major groups – traditional and liberal. The abyss that exists today divides not so much the Orthodox from the Catholics or the Catholics from the Protestants as it does the ‘traditionalists’ from the ‘liberals’.”
…
Certainly, inside the Anglican Community there remain many “traditionalistsâ€, especially in the South and the East, but the liberal trend is also quite noticeable, especially in the West and in the North. Protests against liberalism continue to be heard among Anglicans, as at the 2nd All African Bishops’ Conference held in late August [2010]. The Conference’s final document stated in particular, ‘We affirm the Biblical standard of the family as having marriage between a man and a woman as its foundation. One of the purposes of marriage is procreation of children some of whom grow to become the leaders of tomorrow’.
Among the vivid indications of disagreement within the Anglican Community (I am reluctant to say ‘schism’) is the fact that almost 200 Anglican bishops refused to attend the 2008 Lambeth Conference. I was there as an observer from the Russian Orthodox Church and could see various manifestations of deep and painful differences among the Anglicans.
…
It is impossible to pass silently by the liberalism and relativism which have become so characteristic of today’s Anglican theology. From the time of Archbishop Michael Ramsay of Canterbury, the Church of England saw the emergence of so-called modernism which rejected the very foundations of Christianity as a God-revealed religion.
…
We are also extremely concerned and disappointed by other processes that are manifesting themselves in churches of the Anglican Communion. Some Protestant and Anglican churches have repudiated basic Christian moral values by giving a public blessing to same-sex unions and ordaining homosexuals as priests and bishops. Many Protestant and Anglican communities refuse to preach Christian moral values in secular society and prefer to adjust to worldly standards.
Our Church must sever its relations with those churches and communities that trample on the principles of Christian ethics and traditional morals. Here we uphold a firm stand based on Holy Scripture. [/blockquote]
Metropolitan Hilarion does not encourage Anglicans to leave Anglicanism, but to recover it. Clearly the Orthodox intend to maintain and foster communion with orthodox Anglicans, and to withdraw (perhaps permanently) ties with liberals.
RE: “I find it sadly amusing that while the C of E folks are fleeing the C of E over the notion of female bishops, polls consistently show that the majority of RCs favor female clergy and bishops. There’s quite a bit of activism in favor of that issue.”
Hi Teatime — sure, there are plenty of weak, powerless “activists” along the lines of Joan Chittister . . . of course, the difference between the Chittisters of the world and the foaming revisionist activists in TEC is that the latter have full positions of authority at the national level and at most diocesan levels, not to mention many parish levels. They *own* the national levers of power in TEC, whereas in the RC church they are ineffectual and powerless to change really anything at all.
So I’m afraid it’s not an apt comparison — not even in the ballpark.
RE: “And they’re absolutely going to the wrong church if they want to avoid homosexual clergy/bishops.”
Why would they wish to avoid gay clergy/bishops? I think the point is that in TECusa gay sex is declared holy and blessed — in the RC church it’s not.
That may not be all that important to you — but it is to even little old me, who am happily staying in TEC as long as I’m called to.
RE: “But if people are looking for a panacea of conservative orthodoxy, uniformity of belief, and stellar leadership, it ain’t there.”
Well — I think the dearly departing are looking for a church where rank heresy and immoral sinful behavior is not acclaimed and promoted at the national, formal, legislative, highest authoritative body in the church.
I think they have, actually, rather low expectations — considering the church they’re departing from.
RE: “Is this pope an intelligent, capable, faithful leader? Yep! But he doesn’t have the reach and control at the local/diocesan level that people think he does.”
I agree. But he gets to replace bishops.
One by one by one by one by one. ; > )
The most unsettling thing about all of this is that, women bishops aside, it is bringing into play yet another area where we are finding division and oddly, those who are at the root of it have gone leaving some to posture (“I might be going too!”) and others to triumph (“This is the end of the ‘Anglican Experiment’, and the beginning of the revival of Rome.”).
What I see is that some people who are truly challenged in terms of personal integrity see no option other than to flee (which I personally disagree with, but this is a personal choice issue and so can only bless their leaving) and some, who “Have longed for Rome” are using this convenient exeat to fulfil their own desires masked in righteous indignation.
We need, generally to ignore those who have gone, for they are Benni’s problem now just as he will be theirs, and get on with the work of preaching the Gospel, healing the sick, setting the captives free and being Church (not an ecclesial gathering at all).
Pax
Sorry – a postscript.
Women’s ministry is a matter of ecclesiology which separates us from unity with Rome (AKA the true church) and is therefore important.
Homosexuality is a matter of personal sin and therefore is not a big issue. That some of those I have met who have wittered on about swimming are themselves homosexual; is merely the sign that God has a sense of humour in exporting them from the CofE.
Some of the priests I have met have indicated that having been faithful to their vows of chastity it is a little galling to see those who have not soon to be standing alongside them as priests. What does this say of their commitment and fidelity they ask? (A great sadness and a painful reality for some 🙁 )
I really don’t see much of a difference in approach between the Orthodox and Rome in terms of inviting Anglicans. Met. Jonah came to your ACNA convention and told them what they would have to do to be in communion with Orthodoxy-give up Calvinism, accept Orthodox ecclesiology and sacramental theology-in fact, to become Orthodox. They also invite whole parishes and their priests to come over to Orthodoxy. And they have been very successful at getting parishes from the Anglican spectrum to do so.
Rome will accept a parish converting with its priest, if they accept Catholicism. Orthodoxy will accept a parish converting with its priest, if they accept Orthodoxy. Both re-ordain converting priests.
Each one has its own culture which is different from Anglicanism.
Neither one will be “in communion with” anyone who does not formally accept all of its beliefs. And if you accept Orthodox beliefs, you ought to become Orthodox. If you don’t, I am not sure how you are talking about maybe going there, or going there if Anglicanism dissolves.
Susan Peterson
Sarah, my friend, I can’t possibly catch up on responses now, lol. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. A few points, though.
Regarding the thorns in the Pope’s backside such as Chittister, they have more influence than you might think, for a number of reasons, and this may be why it’s seemingly so important to Rome to bring in more traditional believers and to keep the Hispanics happy in the Western Church. That’s where the RCC is showing growth.
Catholics have no input when it comes to their pastors or bishops. Rome appoints the bishops and the bishops appoint the priests. The lay people and religious simply have to take what they get. Enter Chittister. She and others like her aren’t appointed and they are part of congregations that aren’t under the pope’s authority. So, they’re the ones leading the causes and taking on the Vatican. Excommunicating them or trying to shut them up officially would cause an uproar and it hasn’t been done so far. The lay people and religious have given them a bullypulpit.
Whereas our “movements” tend to be clergy-driven, theirs (since Vatican II) are lay- or religious-driven. Episcopalians such as myself have the luxury of remaining cocooned away from the harsher realities of our church because we call our own rector, he makes our parish a wonderful place of spiritual growth and reverent worship, and we are content. (If he’s awful, we have recourse.) Rightly or wrongly, I think we tend to identify so much more with our local parish than we do as Episcopalians or Anglicans. The reverse is true in the RCC.
We’re a small church; we know our bishops rather well and can communicate with them directly. That’s not the case in the RCC; they have too many people, parishes, and responsibilities to have much episcopal contact. And when the big decision-making authority is this behemoth in Rome, addressing problems isn’t easy or expedient. It takes a LOT of time. That’s how scandals can grow out of control and how people can languish for a long time under terrible leadership. This is how the “thorns” can multiply and strengthen quickly, and become very difficult to cut back.
They face the same hot-button issues we do; it just manifests through different outlets. Perhaps it’s because of where I live but I have never known any Episcopal bishop, priest, or lay person declare homosexual activity as “holy.” That is not the official position of our church any more than it is the official position of the RCC. Yes, I’m sure that there are flakes in our church declaring it as such and I’m just as sure there are flakes in the RCC declaring that, too.
I agree wholeheartedly, Vic. I’ve alternated between sadness and slight amusement when liberal RCs have fustigated about getting our “misogynists and homophobes.” My response has been “well, your Holy Father rolled out the red carpet so take it up with him!”
I feel for their clergy, though. What a slap in the face it may be to those who struggle with the loneliness of celibacy when the new Anglican congregation moves in down the road, led by their married priest. But I guess if the wife is a shrew and the children are brats, it might make them thankful? 😉 (I am joking, folks!)
Susan,
I responded substantively to you on the other thread but it didn’t appear, for some reason. Briefly, I wanted to thank you seeing the spirit in which I was writing and for your willingness to discuss honestly and passionately.
I was glad to know your spiritual history. I think that those of us who convert to our respective faith communities as seasoned adults sometimes may be more passionate about our churches than those born into them.
See MichaelA’s post about the Orthodox response to our situation. They don’t mince words, either, but they also didn’t roll out a huge announcement and structure and blindside our Archbishop of Canterbury. While the process may be similar for those who wish to embrace Orthodoxy, the MO here is entirely different.
And it worked for Rome, didn’t it? Even though Orthodoxy is probably a better fit for those Anglicans seeking a new church, the groups are heading to Rome. I’m not sure what that means but I have my suspicions, which I won’t share for fear of rufflling more feathers.
As for me personally, no, I have no plans to become Orthodox. I was merely pointing out that if the Anglican Communion suddenly disappeared (which was facetious), that would be my choice as Anglican and Orthodox beliefs about structure and the Marian doctrines are more similar. I belong to a large, thriving Episcopal parish that is focused on the Lord and His mission so I’m not at any sort of crossroads.