Seitz asks, “If a new liturgical rite, a new metro-political PB, and probably a new constitution (in the case of TEC, reinforcing a new polity) are now part of the agenda of the new season, will dioceses and parishes be permitted to do what has been done up until this new time, as the church inhabited this time and space previously?” I think the recent history of the Diocese of South Carolina, as well as several other dioceses, has already given us an answer to that question.
When I read Seitz’ statement, “Let justice and mercy kiss each other, as conservatives are permitted to remain on familiar trails, while the larger Episcopal and Anglican bodies in North America forge ahead where they believe God is calling them. If in time they part ways, at least it could happen in a spirit of charity and loving-kindness,” I feel as though I am reading something written in 1998, not 2013.
If in time they part ways??? Hello? There is already a parting of the ways….
RE: “If in time they part ways??? Hello? There is already a parting of the ways…. ”
“If in time they part ways??? Hello? There is already a parting of the ways…. ” [i]said the REC priest to the remaining conservative Episcopalians.[/i]
“If in time they part ways??? Hello? There is already a parting of the ways….” [i]said the Continuers to the remaining conservative Episcopalians.[/i]
“If in time they part ways??? Hello? There is already a parting of the ways….” [i]said the AMiA to the remaining conservative Episcopalians.[/i]
“If in time they part ways??? Hello? There is already a parting of the ways….” [i]said the early ACNA members to the remaining conservative Episcopalians.[/i]
“If in time they part ways??? Hello? There is already a parting of the ways….” [i]said the later ACNA members to the remaining conservative Episcopalians.[/i]
Somehow, in the mind of some, [i]The Departure of Themselves[/i]—their particular Departee-Segment—[i]is more significant than anybody else’s.[/i] ; > )
RE: “So my final question is, in light of all this, when is the Anglican Communion Institute going to stop dismissing the ACNA and GAFCON . . . ”
Maybe the question is . . . why are some leaders in ACNA so obsessed and upset with why so many conservatives in TEC have made the choice not to join ACNA and are instead keeping their eyes focused like a laser on what they actually *are* a part of which seems a sensible and good use of time and energy, rather than looking over at some place where they aren’t going to be anyway?
I welcome this frank response from Dr. Munday, which I hope the noble ACI team will aceept as “constructive criticism” from orthodox friends, rather than as an attack from a foe. I hope it won’t seem like a football player “piling on” by jumping on a quarterback after he’s already down on the ground, but I’d like to add a couple of comments that build on Dr. Munday’s critique of this important address by Dr. Seitz. I think Dr. Munday would agree with my first comment. I’m pretty sure he would have major reservations about my second one.
First, I’d alike to acknowledge the huge debt all of us who are fighting for the survival of orthodox Anglicanism in the global north owe to the ACI team. Notwithstanding the criticisms that Dr. Munday or the rest of us in the ACNA might have of those learned and godly men, that doesn’t diminish at all our appreciation for their heroic efforts to defend biblical orthodoxy and classical Anglicanism within the increasingly hostile and toxic environment of TEC and the ACoC. I’m sure Dr. Munday would agree with me there.
No one has done more to uphold and salvage “the Anglican Communion” than the ACI team. That is entirely commendable. I salute and applaud them for it, even though, like many in the ACNA, I believe those efforts were doomed to futility from the start.
The ACI’s fundamental mistake, their big strategic error, it seems to me, was that they confused the precious wine of Anglicanism with the old institutional wineskins of “the Anglican Communion,” as if the two things were so closely related that one couldn’t survive or thrive without the other. As regular T19 readers know, I contend that Anglicanism can and will survive the collapse of the Communion structures that have embodied it for so long. They must, or Anglicanism itself is doomed.
But of course, that raises the million dollar question: Just what is part of the expendable husk in the traditional Anglicanism that we’ve know heretofore, and what is the precious kernel that must be preserved at all costs?? Alas, there is little agreement on that crucial issue. And much of what orthodox Anglican leaders take for granted on that score seems clearly wrong to me.
But I’ll stop here and continue shortly with my second, and more controversial point.
David Handy+
Regarding the Toronto context of my remarks:
TEC progressives believe in the pro-Gay agenda and held the conviction that all enlightened people only needed time to get on board. Other people would probably not accept this new progressive insight, it was conceded. Still, it would be the case that they would leave and form their own split-off groups, and so would exit the field of play and leave progressives to inhabit TEC. What they did not anticipate is a species of conservative which would refuse to leave, and would insist they be able to retain the faith and practice all had shared heretofore, forcing progressives to enshrine the necessary changes themselves. Progressives wanted their agenda to come to force naturally over time, and for others to leave. They did not anticipate having to drive conservatives out and acknowledging their doing that. They still have the hard and necessary business ahead of them to integrate the new faith and practice. They need formally to ‘leave’ the former TEC that conservatives have inhabited and continue to inhabit without change. Recent court rulings also support this fact.
My remarks were aimed at an audience of progressive leaders in Canada who have a large percentage of non-leaving conservative clergy and parishes. The Diocese of Toronto has not been a growth market for “conservative leavers-for-ACNA.†The largest parish in Canada is an evangelical-conservative parish in the Diocese of Toronto, where the conference was in fact held. Conservatives are a sizeable force in the Diocese and the episcopal leadership knows that. This includes Wycliffe College, the largest evangelical seminary and Anglican PhD training site in North America.
Gafcon was ably represented at the conference by +Eliud Wabukala who is its President. He is a Wycliffe College graduate. He was part of a multi-faceted leadership group, representing the GS (GS Anglican; CAPA; Gafcon). My talk was part of a wider series, which included talks by these GS leaders. It was not my remit to speak about areas they would be addressing in their own talks. That is the way the conference was organized. Apparently this wider context is not obvious to some commentators, especially in the US.
Audio versions of talks are appearing serially at http://www.cranmerinstitute.org with the first two from +Mouneer Anis and +Josiah Idowu-Fearon.
Follow up to my #2 above,
As NRA, I heartily concur with Dr. Munday’s closing comment that the massive realignment that is underway in global Anglicanism is the most important development since the English Reformation. However, I think that rather bold claim needs a lot of unpacking, and I doubt that Dr. Munday would agree with the way that I would do it. Nonetheless, I’ll take a stab at it, from my perspective.
Dr. Seitz’s address reminded me of an address I heard from another great Toronto theologian back when I was in seminary at Yale in the early 1980s. The guest lecture was by the man regarded in the mid 20th century as “the Dean of Canadian theologians,” the great Anglo-Catholic church historian Eugene Fairweather. He gave a memorable, stimulating lecture on what he called, provocatively, “the Three Anglican Counter Reformations.” By that he meant the three great attempts to unsettle the Elizabethan Settlement in order to remake the CoE in drastic and radical ways. Those three movements were, of course, as follows:
1. The Puritan Movement of the 16th-17th centuries.
2. The Evangelical Revival of the 18th-19th centuries.
3. The Catholic Revival of the 19th-20th centuries.
In the end, all three failed, although not without leaving permanent contributions to Anglicanism. But Anglicanism is, as the old adage goes, an anvil that has outlasted the hammers of many would-be reformers (Remember the Non-Jurors?).
Let me expand on Dr. Munday’s observation this way. I believe with all my heart and soul that we are in the early days of what will prove to be nothing less than the Second Reformation for Anglicanism. Or put another way, we are witnessing nothing less than the Fourth “Counter Reformation” within Anglicanism. Only this time, I think (and hope and pray) that this New Reformation succeeds, where the earlier three attempts basically failed to remake Anglicanism (i.e., the CoE at that time).
The crucial factor here is the complete change in the social context that has taken place in the last hundred years or so, the fateful and momentous change from Modernism to Postmodernism, and above all, from a Christendom world to a post-Christendom social world. The three prior “Counter Reformations” in Anglicanism still presupposed that England was a Christian country, where Christianity was culturally dominant (or even unchalleneged) as well as politically established. Alas, those days are long gone. The whole Elizabethan Settlement presupposes a Christian society that no longer exists. It has gone the way of the Brontosaurus and the Dodo Bird.
Or to use a British analogy, that Christian social context has gradually disappeared, much like the Cheshire Cat in Alice’s Wonderland. Now all that’s left of it is a mocking smile. And that bygone social world isn’t coming back. Not even if we double or triple our effectiveness at evangelism. The Constantianian social world on which traditional Anglicanism was based is gone forever. And that changes everything.
Again, I’ll stop here, before continuing with my third and final comment.
David Handy+
Re: “Hello? There is already a parting of the ways.â€
What puzzles me about Dean Munday’s questions and reference to South Carolina is that the [url=http://www.episcopalchurchsc.org/clergy-in-good-standing.html]TECinSC website[/url] lists him as a member of the clergy in good standing in the faux diocese—the one that stayed in TEC rather than parting ways and is in court this morning trying to explain away its contempt of court. If this clergy list is correct—a matter on which I have no independent knowledge—Munday has pledged his obedience to vonRosenberg, the man who has sued Mark Lawrence personally in federal court.
#5–FYI, I personally know of one preist who as of a couple of weeks ago had not been deposed by KJS even though he is with Bp. Lawrenece. I don’t know one way or the other about Munday, but I wouldn’t count on the adminsitrative prowess of 815.
Thanks to Dr. Seitz for weighting in here with clarifying remarks about the eccleasial context he was addressing. I won’t pause to comment directly on that now, but will continue with my own series of remarks prompted by his address.
As I noted earlier, I believe that Dr. Munday is correct that the global realignment that is underway within Anglicanism is the single most important, most fateful, and most momentous development we’ve seen since the English Reformation. And that has everything to do with the drastic and fundamental change in our social context in the global north, so that everywhere we are now a distinct minority, and an increasingly suspect and misunderstood or even maligned minority, in the Anglo world. We’ve lost control of the mainstream culture as well as most of its social institutions. That renders the whole traditional Elizabethan Settlement highly problematic. Indeed, it makes it obsolete and counter productive.
And that’s not just true in terms of polity arrangements. So this is where I suspect that Dr. Munday, along with most leaders in the ACNA, much less those still trying to hang on within the old wineskins of TEC and the ACoC, will find me perplexing, or wildly living in a fantasy world of my own fertile imagination. So be it.
On the eve of GAFCON II, it needs to be said, clearly and emphatically, that simply trying to salvage and reclaim the old historic Anglican formularies (not least the 39 Articles of 1571 and the 1662 BCP) will not suffice. Those classic and precious documents from our past are NOT sufficient to sustain the New Anglicanism that is now emerging from this Second Reformation (or “Fourth Anglican Counter Reformation”). And again, that has everything to do with the fact that they are pervaded and utterly dependent on the premiss that Anglicanism exists in and for a Christian society that no longer exists anywhere in the global north. I applaud the attempt by the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans to reclaim and reassert the abiding value of our historic formularies, so that we can again confess a biblical and historic faith together.
But the fact is, Anglicanism has been changed drastically, radically, and for good by history, including those three “Counter Reformaations” that Prof. Fairweather spoke about. The shoe must not be allowed to tell the foot how large it can grow. Above all, as a “3-D” Christian: evangelical, catholic, and charismatic, I insist that the historic formularies just don’t adequately represent the catholic and charismatic dimensions of “3-D Christianity.” That reality must be squarely faced in Nairobi, and elsewhere, as this realignment continues to unfold.
Again, I repeat, more than a realignment in polity is taking place here. Much, much more. A fundamental realignment in theology, liturgy, and spirituality is also taking place simultaneously.
And here’s my parting shot. One key element in all this is that one of the historic parties in Anglicanism, the Broad Church or Latitudinarian party or tradition, is being excluded in the process. And rightly so (IMHO). If the evangelical dimension (that I as a Wheaton alumnus value so much) is basically equivalent to the old “Low Church” party, and if the catholic dimension (that I as an ordinand of Albany value at least as much, if not more) is likewise basically equivalent to the old “High Church” party, then let there be no mistake about it, I have very intentionally and deliberately substituted the new charismatic dimension for that old Broad Church party that was always so suspicious of dogmatism and moral rigorism. The New Anglicanism that results from the Second Anglican Reformation will be shorn of that old Latitudinarianism, that morphed into Liberalism.
IOW, I’m not watching the demise of “The Anglican Commuion” with dismay as if it spelled the end for Anglicanism itself. No, the new wine of the New Anglicanism will survive its transference into new institutional wineskins for a new era. The best is yet to come! May it be so!
David Handy+
“My remarks were aimed at an audience of progressive leaders in Canada who have a large percentage of non-leaving conservative clergy and parishes. The Diocese of Toronto has not been a growth market for “conservative leavers-for-ACNA.†The largest parish in Canada is an evangelical-conservative parish in the Diocese of Toronto, where the conference was in fact held. Conservatives are a sizeable force in the Diocese and the episcopal leadership knows that. This includes Wycliffe College, the largest evangelical seminary and Anglican PhD training site in North America.”
One other thing should be noted in terms of context. The conference was attended by quite a large group of young (early 20s-mid 30s) evangelical catholics and/or evangelicals who are moving into the Anglican Church because they find the association between evangelicalism and constant division repugnant and as scripturally and theologically unsound as much of what is preached, proclaimed, by current TEC and ACoC leadership.
Furthermore, very few, if anyone under the age of thirty five really knows the history of these debates, what is at stake, and most are only beginning to grapple with the issues involved. Some know there is friction; but not necessarily the extent. So to have speakers from the Global South provide their perspectives (which was prefaced with some earlier discussion about where we’re at), followed by Dr. Seitz’s comments, helped these younger students to come up to speed without being completely overwhelmed or feeling utterly depressed. His comments also served as a summons to younger conservatives who are largely committed to staying within (for various practical, Scriptural and theological reasons), to press our leadership to create space for us to plant churches and to catechize in accordance with Scripture and our tradition, and to figure out Scripturally, theologically, and politically, why many of our teachers and mentors (Drs. Seitz, Radner, Sumner, Mangina, Robinson, Hamilton, Brownlee, Bowen, the Taylors) – the priests and theologians by whose faithfulness in ministry and in their theological and biblical work we are drawn – have themselves ‘stayed within.’
This is incredibly compelling for many of us, I think, because it seems to be a witness that conforms and thus points to Christ himself who, yes, spoke the truth, but nonetheless still bound himself even to those who rejected the truth. Its opposite, the fragmentation of the communion – by the actions of BOTH conservatives and liberals – looks not at all like a witness to Christ (in either truth or unity). Rather it looks much like what the secular world offers us: divorce, lack of commitment, corruption, selfishness and evasion of the suffering that commitment to another in charity (enemy and friend alike) inherently requires.
In following the sort of witness set out by those above (and the connections to others worldwide that they provide), those of us who are now TAing courses and pastoring churches (or doing some mix of these things) are offering challenge, guidance, fellowship, debate, and networking (going to teach, pastor, do theological work) both with younger evangelical catholic Anglicans world wide and with Bishops and Archbishops in the global south in particular. We’re the future leadership of the Anglican and Episcopal Churches. Our hunger to serve, to teach, and to do so with wisdom and charity, shaped by the likes of those like Dr. Seitz, give rise to methods of engaging those with whom we are in theological agreement and those whose theology we despise, very different from those of the Baby Boomer generation. We live in the wake of a combination of social and ecclesial fragmentation of an unprecedented scale. It’s left us believing we must construct our entire self identity from our ecclesial affiliation, to the canon within a canon we use to justify those identities, to our sexuality, to our marriage status, to our physical bodies, to our social status, to the way our musical and artistic tastes and social media usage seem to shape and conform our very personhood – and yes, this is the Church’s doing, not just society’s. To get out from under those self constructions – those idols – requires giving of ourselves in service to the truth of who Jesus Christ is and what that means for how we witness to him, regardless of our circumstances (whether we’re surrounded by ‘enemies or not) right from where we find ourselves (once we find ourselves). Otherwise we’re just engaged further in projects of self construction.
It seems a growing number of young people are drawn to and settling within the Anglican Church of Canada and within the Episcopal Church; broken, corrupted and despicable as it is might appear at the moment (as is every Church it seems). We’re in tatters. We’re declining in numbers. We often can’t pay priests. We struggle with our older (and sometimes younger) colleagues whose theology and morality we find atrocious. I for one cannot think of a better opportunity, as a young priest and theologian in training – an upcoming leader – to teach, preach, and pastor in accordance with the apostolic faith that I’ve been handed down by the Church catholic. The infrastructure that has preserved liberal ideologies of rights and equality as definitive of true Christian teaching is falling apart and its presupposing support structures, tested over time, have shown themselves incapable of sustaining true witness to Christ. So the way is being cleared to create the networks and connections of fellowship and shared faith by which we are sustained in and by the Lord as we engage in the task of proclamation. They will not, however, disappear entirely. So we need to figure out how to witness from within for the generations to come. And that’s what Dr. Seitz’s presentation seemed to me anyway, to be about. It wasn’t for or about most of the posters to this board. It was for those of us of a different generation, in a different context, with the retrospective of what Anglican fragmentation has left in its wake. We think a Christiform witness can and should look much different from that which the last several decades have demonstrated.
I should think the former Dean of Nashotah would be pleased at the outcomes in the Diocese of Quincy—and the news of today—where ACI has certainly invested a great deal of effort. Quincy is a longstanding, traditional supporter of The House. Like SC and Dallas, they have been helped by our detailed arguments regarding the polity of TEC and the hard legal work of Mark McCall. Both Radner and Turner appeared in court in Quincy to counter the TEC side. If memory serves, former Dean Munday was once a priest in that diocese—before it split with TEC. So I find the thrust of his remarks strangely positioned. The “parting of the ways” accomplished in Quincy was due to ACI’s own efforts and arguments. Would that this might be accomplished without so much money spent in litigation, and with more obvious connective tissue to global Anglicanism, in our present season of Communion life.
But I am repeating myself.
One aspect of Dean Munday’s remarks that does not yet appear to have been touched upon is the ecclesiology of GAFCON (or of the FCA, if you prefer).
As far as the orthodox “stayers” are concerned, the questions posed could as easily have been addressed to those “orthodox” clergy and bishops who “chose” to remain within the 18th century Latitudinarian Church of England.
Equally pertinent, it seems to me, is that GAFCON’s approach to creating separate structures within the Anglican Communion is distinctly different from the manner in which ACNA has established separate structures. ACNA is parallel to TEC at every hierarchical level; GAFCON does not appear to be parallel to the Anglican Communion at every hierarchical level. To quote from the FCA website:
[i]We are a fellowship of Anglicans, including provinces, dioceses, churches, missionary jurisdictions, para-church organisations and individual Anglican Christians whose goal is to reform, heal and revitalise the Anglican Communion and expand its mission to the world. Our fellowship is not breaking away from the Anglican Communion.[/i]
While in 2005 I remember Peter Akinola asking attendees at Hope and a Future “Are you Network or are you ECUSA,” apparently the rules for North America don’t necessarily apply in a global context.
Of course, there are practical considerations – the costs of erecting permanent global structures, for example – but GAFCON still looks like a global confessing movement, not a separate communion. There’s clearly nothing wrong with that, and some of us may feel that it’s preferable. Perhaps GAFCON 2 intends to be different.
Dean Munday’s efforts to clarify at his blog only confuse me further. He accuses me of dismissing ACNA. I have tried several times to explain the context, apparently in vain, in which I was making the comments for this particular address. My task was to speak about encouragement for parishes in NA. In Canada, as well as in TEC, parishes that have left for ACNA are finding their encouragement presumably in that very act. In Toronto, most conservative parishes—as well as our own students at Wycliffe—have not left and do not intend to. So if I understand Dean Munday, my failure to address a topic that interests him—though has he himself joined ACNA?—is a dismissing of ACNA in a context where it is not the topic. I also did not address the litigation in which ACI is at work. Or the disciplining of Bishops and clergy with whom I work. Or any number of other topics. To repeat: the actual leader of Gafcon was both a guest and a speaker. We had numerous good and profitable meetings, together with other GS leaders from Nigeria, SE Asia, Burundi, Indian Ocean. If Dean Munday wishes to host a conference where he discusses encouragement for ACNA Anglicans, he is free to do so. Would I then post a note and chide him for not discussing X or Y to do with conservative stayers? I can assure you I would not do so.
RE: “He accuses me of dismissing ACNA.”
I think we have come to grasp that “dismissing ACNA” means some people not agreeing with Dean Munday’s opinions about ACNA’s significance and also a certain person not talking about ACNA in his recent Toronto address as obviously he should have, since it would have been of immense encouragement to people in TEC and the ACoC who have chosen to remain in TEC and the ACoC.
I am glad to see that at least some of those who remain in TEC do so on a basis of hope, i.e. a hope that they will eventually see a radical turn around in that organisation. Of course, whether that hope comes to fruition is in the hands of the Lord, as is the success of every Christian church.
I am not surprised that Global South and Gafcon representatives were present at Toronto – both bodies have always taken the view that all faithful Anglicans should be encouraged, wherever they happen to be. Therefore both GS and Gafcon have accepted representatives of ACNA and TEC/ACoC at their meetings, and encouraged them to have fellowship with each other.
I would just like to make a respectful response to Dean Munday on one issue. In his article he writes:
[blockquote] “When the Global South Primates met in Singapore, in April 2010, they invited Abp. Duncan to preside at the Eucharist. When the Convocation of Anglican Provinces of Africa (CAPA) met in August 2010, the four primates at the head table were the current and outgoing heads of CAPA (Ian Ernest and Henry Luke Orombi), the Archbishop of Canterbury (Rowan Williams) and the Primate of the Anglican Church in North America (Robert Duncan). How much stronger an indication could one look for that a parting of the ways has happened and that a realignment in Anglicanism is underway?” [/blockquote]
That is all true. The whole Global South (not just Gafcon) and the whole of CAPA (not just Gafcon) have accepted ACNA as a true Anglican church.
However, it is important to note that the Global South and CAPA have ALSO invited faithful bishops from TEC to these meetings and accepted them. +Lawrence and +Howe of TEC were both at Singapore in April 2010. I understand there were orthodox TEC bishops at the CAPA conference and they have been to other Global South Meetings as well.
The Global South has extended the hand of fellowship to the faithful in ACNA and in TEC/ACoC. You can’t have one without the other.
Now, if either group wants to get into some godly rivalry, I would say (and I expect the Global South would also say): ‘Go for it! Prove yourself better in the best way possible: plant churches, disciple Christians, strengthen the weak, spread the gospel, be truly faithful!’
“I am not surprised that Global South and Gafcon representatives were present at Toronto – both bodies have always taken the view that all faithful Anglicans should be encouraged, wherever they happen to be.”
That is why we invited them all. Middle East, Indian Ocean, Burundi, Kenya, SE Asia and Nigeria. This spans the entire GS. It was a very encouraging meeting on that score alone.
Must every conference be about ACNA? Even the archbishop of Kenya and head of Gafcon spoke–not about ACNA–but about the importance of personal evangelism. I confess I find it tragic that a successful gathering of GS leaders to celebrate and evaluate the Toronto Congress — and to discuss the Instruments, the State of the Communion, Reconciliation, conservative witness in Toronto, Canada, and TEC — finds itself required to respond to Robert Munday’s enthusiasms for ACNA. No one has criticized his interest in ACNA and his advocacy for it. God bless him. But this conference was not about ACNA.
RE: “I am glad to see that at least some of those who remain in TEC do so on a basis of hope, i.e. a hope that they will eventually see a radical turn around in that organisation.”
I’d like to clarify that most of the people I know who are conservative and who remain in TEC “do so on a basis of hope” — but not necessarily the hope that is specified above by MichaelA [in fact I don’t know any conservatives who believe that the current leadership of TEC will repent]. There are many ways to hope and many things to hope for that do not include a particular concrete hope that TEC will take a “radical turn around.” Of course it is *possible* that such a miracle would occur but there are so many many other things to hope for other than a “radical turn around.”
As I indicated in my remarks, much will turn on the wider Communion when it comes to conservatives in TEC. #17 is properly circumspect.
Amen, Sarah1. I think you are spot on in your assessment here in #17.
One question I have – I realize he may be busy and not have the time to read or respond here – is whether anyone knows if Dr. Munday is working as a parish priest in a TEC parish or in an ACNA parish, and in either case, where? It might be helpful to have some context for comparison, particularly to the situation in various parts of the Canadian Church. Thanks folks.
“the hope that is specified above by MichaelA [in fact I don’t know any conservatives who believe that the current leadership of TEC will repent]”
That was not the hope I specified Sarah. This has come up before and in each case you appear to recast my comment to what you *think* I am saying!
I have at no time suggested that the “current leadership” would repent (although I agree that anything is possible).
optimus prime at #19 – please note that Sarah at #17 did not respond to the point I was actually making in the first paragraph at #13.
MichaelA, no worries. I was actually just responding to this: “There are many ways to hope and many things to hope for that do not include a particular concrete hope that TEC will take a “radical turn around.†Of course it is *possible* that such a miracle would occur but there are so many many other things to hope for other than a “radical turn around.â€
I agree with this statement and share in its conviction about hope.
optimus, there are many who will be praying for you. No-one knows how the Lord will bring deliverance to any of his people who are going through difficult times, but I have no doubt he will deliver, in his own good time and in his own way. You are an encouragement to all faithful Christians.
Thank you, MichaelA. This is very much appreciated. I will keep you in my prayers as well. I do hope and pray that my witness is faithful, fruitful and encouraging for folks who are searching, seeking, struggling, and witnessing to Christ where ever they might be. And I give thanks (especially on this Canadian Thanksgiving day!) for your prayers, for my teachers, for my mentors, and for my challengers.