A priest visited our all-age worship yesterday. He has recently resigned from the leadership of a congregation. For a long time he had stood for what he understands to be Gospel imperatives. In the face of some opposition from his congregation (a few of whom left to go to other churches) and his bishop, he stood pretty much alone in his diocese. Yet he is a pastorally-hearted person, with a concern for both scripture and tradition. He and his wife feel pushed out, rejected and with little future in the Church. Unlike those clergy who who have entered same-sex Civil Partnerships (and who presumably see themselves as being in some sense married). Or those who conduct blessings of such partnerships using the new Scottish Episcopal Marriage liturgy (can someone please confirm that this isn’t happening?).
I’ve expressed my concerns about this kind of thing before: how can we ensure that those who take a traditionalist line on matters of sexuality, women’s ordination, etc, are both included and honoured in the life of the church? How can we ensure that having such views is not a bar to ordained ministry? Or will it be the case that only those that hold to the new way of thinking will be allowed to function in ministry? And I don’t mean that they should be tolerated as dinosaurs who will soon die out.
Any settlement of these issues in the Anglican Communion (or the Scottish Episcopal Church for that matter) needs to ensure that both reappraising and reasserting views are held in tension. At the moment, it remains a ‘winner-takes-all’ scenario, with neither side willing to allow the other a canonically protected place in the church.
It can’t be tolerated. If this is a justice issue and traditionalists are bigots then how can they be tolerated? For the time being thy can be isolated and kept form having any effect, but as we have seen in the case of WO, only those who accept it will be allowed in in the future.
This is spot on.
Just consider the C of E and women’s ordination. Although both points of view were meant to be upheld (however daft that decision was) the truth is not so. Since 1992 opponents have been drvien to the margins of the church. Preferment is nigh on impossible and people treat you as though you are a supporter of the holocaust.
And in more subtle ways you see it too. I serve a parish with no curate or lay reader whilst all around are churches awash with salaried and nsm help. When I point this out – the response is often a patronising reply that ‘we will lend you our curate but you wont take her!!’
Being 34 and knowing that your future is blank (perversely for daring to uphold scripture) is tough. I am not ambitious in a worldly sense but we all need aims and possiblities to work towards.
Still the flip side is serving a fantastic congregation with clear direction and the blessings that go with orthodox ministry.
“And I don’t mean that they should be tolerated as dinosaurs who will soon die out.”
I think that is more likely to happen to the Scottish Episcopal Church first, heart-breaking as it may be to see a nation lose its soul. Hold fast, brother, even in your tears.
As The Rev. Mike Lumpkin wrote the Presiding Bishop, there should be room within God’s Church for interdependent “integrities” of those who can recognize in one another men and women for whom Christ died and who are doing the best they know how to follow him. It is not necessary that we agree on every dot and tittle of God’s Word, even if our differences necessarily result in an impairment to full fellowship and communion.
#3: but once Anglicanism opted for the local, political, and non-theological absurdity of ‘two integrities’, it became inevitable either that the majoritarian group would, in time, exclude the minority, or that local branches, like Tec or ACoC, would move to cut themselves off from the global majority. The Scottish Church is following the same path, and well succeed because it is so minuscule (ASA c. 16000) that no one will notice – but sadly its most vibrant churches – like St Paul’s & St George’s and St Silas – will be out on a limb.
Once the ordination of women was accepted in some parts but not others, Anglicanism really ceased to be a Communion. The Orthodox Churches understood that.
[blockquote]For a long time he had stood for [b]what he understands to be[/b] Gospel imperatives.[/blockquote]
For me, this is the money quote. It comes down to what constitutes ‘Gospel imperatives’ and who has the authority to make that decision for the church. It’s not scripture per se, or even the authority of scripture. It’s all about authoritative interpretation and who gets to say what that is.
Liberal ideas of “inclusion” extend only to conservative laity, and then only so long as conservatives can be safely kept as a minority. Liberal ideas of “inclusion” do not, and never will extend to conservative leadership. The danger that liberals (rightly) see is that conservative leadership will immediately impose conservative doctrine. The church will cease to be Liberal.
It is naive in the extreme to assume there is some mutually acceptable conclusion to this conflict. There isn’t. One side must win, and as a consequence drive the other side out. Mutually exclusive first principles do not co-exist. They seek only to dispalce each other. The quicker this is accepted, the quicker an effective strategy can be developed.
But more to the point, we shouldn’t expect Liberals to “include” conservatives. Would not conservatives if given the power immediately purge TEC of its heretical and apostate clergy? And should we not do this for exactly the same reason that the King of Israel removed the High places and the Asherah poles? So do not fault Liberals for giving us the same treatment we would give them. Fault them instead for spitting in the face of the Living God. Their crime is idolatry – not unfairness.
carl
#2 May God bless your ministry for many years to come.
My sentiments exactly re:rugyplayingpriest. God Bless you! You’re a brave soul.
#7 Interestingly, when conservaives did hold more of the levers of power within TEC they really never used any of the kinds of tactics being used by the current liberal leadership. Of course if they had rigorously enforced the canons in the 1960s and 1970s purging seminaries, repeatedly going for the abandonment of communion on those bishops and clergy who broke canon law etc. we would not be where we are now. That they did not do so perhaps reflects their lack of confidence, naivety, generosity of spirit and complacency that those who wrested power from their hands learned from.
Sorry, but this is not “spot on.” It’s the easy way out without actually having to deal with difficult issues. Oh, by all means! Rather than actually thinking and debating and drawing conclusions, lets just make exceptions. Of course, IMO this appeals to revisionists because deep-down they know they will loose a vigorous debate.
#12 I rather suggest this is not easy. I imagine it is utterly heartbreaking. Years of isolation, lack of interest or support from the diocese, and occasional bouts of serious conflcit sap the spirit. Maybe the child who has no friends, whom the teachers ignore, who fights with their parents should just ignore it all. A few manage to do so. For many it leads to serious psychological wounds, a profound and bitter sense of injustice and persistent struggles with despair. Maybe it’s not so easy after all?
#12 I rather suggest that it [i]is[/i] eas[b]ier[/b] than, heaven forbid, making decisions and drawing conclusions. But then I agree that failing to do the hard work can and does lead to all the things you mentioned.
I agree with Nikolaus (#11), and, as usual, I find myself in sharp and vehement disagreement with Dale Rye (#4). The young Scottish “GadgetVicar,” David McCarthy, simply ASSUMES (without arguing the case) that there ought to be room within Anglicanism for us to “agree to disagree agreeably” (to cite a phrase I often hear). That is, he simply ASSERTS or takes as axiomatic that this is the kind of issue where disagreement is valid. In other words, the Rev. McCarthy (and Dale Rye and many others I know) just take it for granted that homosexuality is a Romans 14 sort of issue, like meat offered to idols in Paul’s day, where the Apostle urged mutual toleration and respect (despite Paul’s own view that sided with those who felt free to eat such meat). Of course, I see it as a Galatians 1 kind of issue, where two rival gospels are competing with each other for domination, and only one of the two is permissible. The other (the liberal version, a false gospel of affirmation of sinners in their sinfulness apart from repentance) is actually no gospel at all.
In the end, the position of the GadgetVicar (and Dale Rye and the majority of TEC clergy) is a cop-out. The fact is that the two positions on homosexual behavior, like the two positions on abortion and many other things, are mutually exclusive. The sad and tragic fact is there SHOULDN’T be any toleration on these issues. There is in fact only room for one view in genuine Anglicanism, because only one view, the orthodox one, is biblically justified and pastorally sound. All advocates of the pro-gay cause, should be summarily ex-communicated and deposed. I really do mean that. Literally.
I don’t expect the liberals to give me any quarter or show me any tolerance. Nor would I give them any. There is a time for peace and reconciliation, but that is AFTER the culture war is over. After we have forced our liberal foes into unconditional surrender, then, and only then, will there be peace, on the terms that we have dictated, of course.
I am fully aware that this is totally unacceptable to many in the AC today, including the ABoC. They find it simply unthinkable that the AC should be torn apart over this issue. My response to them: it’s time to start thinking the unthinkable.
David Handy+
Passionate advocate of High Commitment, Post-Christendom style Anglicanism that is doctrinally coherent and dogmatic, as well as morally strict. Now that would amount to a New Reformation.
#14 is again right. We should not offer tolerance not should we expect any quarter. This joust is a l’outrance, as it should be. LM
Re #14: If you were to ask the overwhelming majority of Anglicans in 1845 whether there should be toleration for the sort of views expressed in Tract 90 of the [i]Tracts for the Times[/i], they would have said, “The sad and tragic fact is there SHOULDN’T be any toleration on these issues. There is in fact only room for one view in genuine Anglicanism, because only one view, the orthodox one, is biblically justified and pastorally sound. All advocates of the [Catholic] cause, should be summarily ex-communicated and deposed. I really do mean that. Literally.” Father Newman got the hint and left.
If you had asked an advanced Anglo-Catholic in the mid-19th century how he felt about the views of more Protestant Anglicans about such things as baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence, the Apostolic Succession, the authority of Church Tradition, and the relation between faith and works, he would also have replied that those views should not be tolerated. Bishop Cummins got the hint and left.
These are not peripheral issues. They are the core of the differences between the Decrees of the Council of Trent and the Westminster Confession of Faith. The fact that many, many thousands of Europeans (and a few Americans) died between 1517 and the present as a result either of defending those views or attacking them suggests that they were central to Christian self-understanding for centuries. Both Catholics and Protestants see them as salvation issues.
Yet the fact is that beginning with a series of stirring addresses on the floor of the 1871-1877 General Conventions by Dr. James De Koven, Episcopalians and Anglicans have agreed that those who hold views on either side of the Catholic/Protestant divide can fruitfully belong to the same ecclesiastical communion. That is the context of what became the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral in 1888. If someone can honestly profess that he believes in Holy Scripture, the Creeds, the Greater Sacraments, and the Historic Episcopate, then “we declare our desire and readiness to enter into brotherly conference with [such] seeking the restoration of the organic unity of the church.”
That irenic approach to Christian unity has no room for “After we have forced our … foes into unconditional surrender, then, and only then, will there be peace, on the terms that we have dictated, of course.” Muhlenberg, De Koven, Huntington, and Brooks would probably have regarded that as blasphemy. None of them were willing to compromise their personal principles, but all of them were willing to include people they regarded as holding erroneous positions on matters of soul-saving importance within Anglican comprehension.
Why is this issue more important than salvation by faith alone or the Real Presence?
Dale Rye (#16),
I thank you for an irenic and thoughtful reply to my highly provocative #14, which was indeed somewhat “hyperbolic.” I take your question seriously. It deserves an equally throughtful answer.
I’d respond in two ways. First, the difference between this issue of the moral status of homosexual behavior and the other highly controversial and divisive issues you’ve mentioned, including justification by faith and the Real Presence, is that in those other cases, there is at least a plausible case that can be made for the other side in terms of Scriptural support. That is simply not true when it comes to homosexual behavior. There is absolutely no shred of biblical support for the pro-gay position. Zip, zilch, none. That is the all important difference.
My second angle of response would go to a deeper level. I believe that part of the reason why this crisis is literally tearing the AC apart is because the whole cultural context for Anglicanism in the western world has changed radically. That is, we now live in a society that is not only secularized (that tendency has been growing since the Renaissance), but highly pluralistic, and most importantly, increasingly hostile to authentic Christianity. That is, we live in a post-Christendom western world. And that literally changes everything.
Let me try to explain what I’m getting at. I believe that despite our vaunted lofty claim that Anglicanism at its best represents the ideal of “comprehension for the sake of truth rather than compromise for the sake of peace,” the reality is quite otherwise. The historical record is all too clear. Anglicanism has always been driven by political and cultural currents more than authentically religious ones, because it took for granted a Christendom, state church model of church life. Our famous roominess has always been driven primarily by the need of the state to have a church that sanctioned and unified the state. “Twas ever so since Elizabeth and her Settlement.
Well, now that we’ve been freed (at last!) from the curse of that state church subordination to the needs of the secular state, we are free to move in the direction of genuine doctrinal cohesiveness as never before. And yes, that WILL mean a narrower Anglicanism than before in some crucial ways, even while it will mean a wider and more inclusive one in other ways (some Liberal types of Anglicanism will be excluded, some almost unprecedented Pentecostal types will be accepted).
The fact is, Anglicanism was RIGHT to spurn Newman’s Tract 90, even though I’m a great admirer of Cardinal Newman (I think his Parochial and Plain Sermons from his Anglican days at Oxford are the greatest Anglican sermons of all time). But while Anglicanism is far more hospitable to Anglo-Catholicism now than it was in 1845, and rightly so, there is simply no way to reconcile Anglicanism with the decrees of Trent. There are forms of Anglo-Catholicism that OUGHT to be excluded from Anglicanism.
Likewise, to deny the Real Presence in the way that Bp. Cummins and the early REC leaders did is in fact contrary to the clear implications of the BCP. Thus, I’d agree that the basic instincts of Anglicanism were right in this case too. +Cummins wasn’t a real Anglican (sorry, ++Leonard Riches et al). It’s right to exclude the extreme Sydney type Reformed folks. They aren’t real Anglicans (sorry, David Ould, ++Peter Jensen etc.).
I believe that one of the results of the New Reformation of the 21st century will be a clarification of our doctrinal boundaries, in a way that will make the 39 Articles look very vague and fuzzy (just remember how Article XVII on Predestination manages to be the longest article without really coming down on one side or the other, ie., neither the Calvinist or the Lutheran/Catholic though tending toward the former). This will be possible precisely because we no longer have to be captive to the needs of a secular state and compromise our theological foundations in the interests of social harmony.
For much too long we have BOASTED that we aren’t a credal church like the Lutherans or the Presbyterians or the Roman Catholics. We have made a theological virtue out of a political necessity. Well, I’m sick of it and I don’t buy it.
I freely confess that I won’t be happy with anything less than a new Anglican equivalent of the 39 Articles, a new Anglican CREED. No fuzzy Covenant, thank you very much. And if that means the departure of large numbers of people currently in Anglicanism, well, all I can say, I won’t be shedding any tears.
I know that sounds incredibly arrogant and callous. I’m fully aware of how provocative it is. I hope it’s not offensive, because I don’t mean it in any way as a personal affront to you or anyone else considerably to the left of me.
But I will freely confess that I want a new KIND of Anglicanism. One that is far more theologically coherent than we have EVER been (and inevitably therefore, less inclusive), but above all, much more STRICT in both matters of doctrine and discipline than we have ever been. That is, this isn’t just a debate between theological liberals versus conservatives. It’s also a debate between those of us who are STRICT versus those who are far more lenient and permissive, in both doctrine and discipline. I realize how ominous and threatening that must inevitably sound to many of my fellow Anglicans, including many on the conservative side who are far more tolerant than I am.
David Handy+
Like Fr. Handy, I appreciate Mr. Rye’s decency and earnest attempts to be irenic. Whether I find his contributions intellectually impressive or not is unimportant. His voice is a welcome one. However, he continues to give unwarranted credit to TEC, which has, in its embrace of the utterly vapid ideology of the Homosexual Movement, forfeited any claim to theological or philosophical seriousness. The movement does not deserve, and has never warranted credit as a plausibly Christian theological undertaking. Its assumptions are transparently devoid of veracity and its methods and approach blissfully free of rigor. Its complete dependence on drawing philosophical conclusions based on dubiously meaningful scientific data (the fact that homosexual desires are involuntary is obvious but significant in absolutely no appreciable way) continues to mark it as utterly fatuous. The time has long since departed when there was any joy to be taken in pointing out the obvious shortcomings of either the movement’s assumptions or conclusions. All we are left with is the tiresome refrain of the movement’s good intentions (never in doubt) and its presumption of a place amongst the admittedly broad range of attitudes, approaches, and affections that orthodox, believing Christians may rightly embrace. It doesn’t belong. It has always been clear to those who actively examine the assumptions and inclinations of the movement that it is not Christian in any recognizable sense. It repeatedly follows from and is dependent on understandings of the nature of Divine Revelation that differ substantially from the Jewish or Christian apprehension thereof. It rests on definitions of human nature that are extremely dehumanizing and antithetical to that revealed in the Jewish and Christian scriptures and are utterly unrecognizable to the Christian Church. The embrace of the homosexual movement is both an unchristian act in itself and the result of a cumulative movement against Christian belief in the life of TEC. Christian believers have a duty to oppose it at every step along the way and not give in one whit to the pretense of Christian orthodoxy its adherants continually and increasingly implausibly maintain.
Re #17: Not particularly provocative, because you frankly admit:
that “the Spirit is doing a new thing,” so that values traditionally held by Anglicans since the 1500s (and by Catholics since the 300s) will no longer serve.
that the basis for this is an assessment, based on your personal experience, that the traditional ways cannot effectively address a secular post-Christendom culture.
that you reject the 39 Articles and seek the adoption of a new creed that is more compatible with your personal theological priorities.
that there is no need to accommodate other views than your own, because all other views are wrong and have no rights.
that it is right to expel from your communion and fellowship anyone who cannot sign on for your New Reformation.
that you feel free to ignore established ecclesiastical authority structures in the pursuit of truth, pending the creation of new structures guided by your principles.
Why would the Presiding Bishop disagree with any of that?
Dale, your submission to the Roman Pontiff is welcome any time.
The homosexual wars are so different in degree that they are in reality a difference in kind. Dale Rye does not take this into his account. The homosexual wars attack the very roots of what it means to be human for it attacks the meaning of the word “normal” and what this concept means. Being human is not a simple denotation with differentiae surrounding it. It is a gestalt which arises from the real meaning or normal – which the homosexual agenda has sought and continues to seek to extirpate, for pat ent reasons.
For them to succeed will falsify a reality that social agendas cannot at last alter. This is not a matter of “changing perceptions” or gradual shifts from what-cannot-be-tolerated to what-is-acceptable.
Evolution has established the human norm; dialectics cannot alter this. The norm is clear, obvious and quintessential, the standard of male and female, reproduction, and the care of the young. As the social element in the norm evolved, binding emotion between male and female, has become normative as well because there is a direct connection between the binding emotion and the evolutionary standard: First survival of the species is the great rule, and second, adapt or perish. To adapt to accept a sexual relationship that is fundamentally sterile violates the great rule.
And it is worth observing here that the church accepts the great rule, for the deep sense of fertility, the new life, runs through Christianity well below the comparative superificies of ritual and dogma. The “marriage” of Mary and the Holy Ghost is the ratification of the spiritual and the physical in the renewal of life, of fertility, and of our survival , for mankind will perish is the spirit perishes. In short, evolution and Christianity are not at odds at all, for each shows us a means by which we may adapt by extending the norm into the life of the spirit so that our survival may extend forever. Christ’s message is at last an evolutionary one.
In short, there is no connection, except in the most superficial sense, between the homosexual issue and, say, the acceptance of blacks and hispanics. To make that connection is to trivialize the issue, which is precisely what the Rye’s and t h e Russell’s of the world wish to do, for such trivialization allows the agenda to say “Surely we have more important issues than homosexuality and ssm, such as world poverty…. and the like.” And we had heard this all before, over and over.
Moreover, to allow the homophile agenda to succeed, as a practical matter, is to establish the tyranny of the minority, a phenomenon we have seen again and again in a “multicultural” society. I shall let this issue go because it is not germane at the present moment, and yet you have all seen this corrosive force at work as it eats away at all established identity.
Dale (#19),
I fear that you’ve missed the point. There are indeed superficial similarities between the PB’s desire to reform TEC on the basis of what she believes is the “new thing” that God is doing in our day and my own fervent desires for a New Reformation, but the differences far outweigh the similarities. You ask, rhetorically I’d guess, why the PB would find fault with my appeal for a New Reformation when we seem to be engaged in similar enterprises.
I’d have thought the answer was obvious. Our reforms are mutually exclusive. We represent two totally different worldviews and two incompatible religions. Like oil and water, they can’t mix or assimilate each other.
But your post does raise a crucial theological question, which deserves a serious, detailed answer. And that is, HOW do we tell a legitimate “development” of doctrine from an illegitimate corruption? What criteria can we use to tell the difference? Well, I can’t give a full reply here, but my starting point would be to take the famous seven tests proposed by John Henry Newman back in 1845 in his classic work, “The Development of Doctrine.” Suffice to say for now, that I believe that my proposed New Reformation would pass his seven tests with flying colors, while the false gospel being propagated by the heretical PB and her ilk would flunk the same tests badly.
To put it rather oversimplistically, I believe that the changes I’m calling for would be a matter of organic development, of continuing the trajectory that Anglicanism has been on for the last 150 years or more. Whereas, the “new thing” the reappraisers are pursuing is like cancer, it’s growth all right, but of a wild and deadly kind that kills the host organism, instead of enriching it.
Don’t be fooled by mere appearances. There is actually deep continuity between the New Reformation and the biblical, patrsitic, and Anglican traditions. On the other hand, the new religion the liberals seek to substitute in place of classical Anglicanism stands in sharp and fundamental discontinuity with all three. It distorts and betrays our biblical and patristic foundations, and falsifies our Anglican heritage.
David Handy+
Re #22: Obviously you and the PB differ on where your respective New Reformations would take the church. You can surely see, though, how some old-fashioned Episcopalians like me might regard both approaches as equally inconsistent with the comprehensive Anglicanism rooted in its own traditions that we signed on for when we were baptized, confirmed, or received. We are not bound by your perception that your reforms continue the trajectory of Anglicanism since the 19th century any more than we are bound by +Katharine Jefferts Schori’s similar perception of her own reforms.
We do consider ourselves bound by the collective discernment of the church, but the crisis in authority within Anglicanism makes it difficult for many of us to determine exactly what positions we are entitled to regard not only as erroneous but also as a sound basis for breaking communion. I can name half-a-dozen parishes within an hour’s drive of here where the majority of members support a different position on homosexuality than that of the diocese, which has a different position than the national church, which has a different position than the Communion. Given the chaotic situation, it seems imprudent to tear down the old church without any clearly articulated vision of what will replace it. If I wanted to be a generic Protestant (liberal or conservative) in a church with no Anglican distinctives, I would have joined such a church in the first place.
Re #21: I’m sorry, but I cannot rely on any judgment from someone unperceptive enough to confuse me with Susan Russell+.
Well, Dale (#23), your last line invites the rather flippant response that this is a game that two can play. That is, since you object to #21 confusing you with the notorious President of Integrity, Susan Russell+, I might just as well ask, so why do you confuse me with the PB? But you deserve a more serious response than that.
Alas, it’s hard in short posts to give a very clear picture of the kind of changes that I seek in this New Reformation I keep calling for. Others have asked for clarification too; so you are by no means alone in wondering what in the world I have in mind, and in suspecting that it’s foolhardy to tear down the familiar church we know and love, when the plans for the replacement seem unclear. My initial reply would be: wait for my forthcoming book where I spell it out as comprehensively and specifically as I can at present. But that doesn’t help much right now, does it?
The biggest surprise and disappointment in your #23 is that you seem to think that I’m proposing some kind of new generic Protestant church that would cease to be distinctively Anglican. I honestly don’t know what gave you that imporession. I hope you’ll tell me, so that I can correct my language in order to avoid giving such a false impression. That is the farthest thing from my mind.
But in order to try to clarify what I’ve already said in my #21, part of what I was trying to say is that over the last 150 years or so (i.e., since the rise of the Anglo-Catholic movement), Anglicanism has truly evolved into a genuinely two-dimensional hybrid form of Christianity. Earlier Anglicanism was much more Protestant than Catholic (despite the influence of the catholicizing “Caroline Divines” in the early 1600s), but after the time of Newman, Keble, Pusey, R.W. Church etc., the balance was redressed and we became much more of a real synthesis of evangelical and catholic elements. As you know, my dream is that we will now take the next step along that same trajectory and go from being 2-dimensional to 3-dimensional (evangelical, catholic, and now charismatic as well). That was the kind of thing I meant.
Not to mention that over the last 150 years, Anglicanism has become a worldwide fellowship, due to the impressive, valiant missionary work done during the Victorian era and afterwards. In that sense too, the New Reformation will continue along the same trajectory by helping us evolve into a real worldwide Anglican Church (not just a family of national churches around the world), with the Global South taking the lead and setting the agenda and the tone for the whole Communion. In this second way, the New Anglicanism represents real continuity with how we’ve been growing as a Communion over the last couple centuries.
But the new religion promoted by ++KJS and her ilk does the exact opposite on both counts. It denies the value of both Scripture and Tradition (and usually authentic Reason too) in the name of Experience. It is a one-dimensional religion that is fundamentally unProtestant and unCatholic as well. And it is allergic to the evangelical and orthodox form of Anglicanism that is so powerful in the Global South, and therfore TEC is working directly at cross-purposes from the healthy, growing GS part of our Communion.
I hope that clarifies things. As I said above, the similarities you’ve noted are only superficial. I have nothing significant in common with the PB and the agenda of the Executive Council and 815 staff. Nothing at all. We are polar opposites.
David Handy+