Thank you Kendall for this prayer. From what resource did it come?
Happy and Blessed Thanksgiving to the Harmon clan
Find the latter half of this piece completely irritating. I think its noble for Mr. Wright to laud CS Lewis and ask questions…but the tone of the latter quarter of the piece lacks grace, care and affection and instead tries to position Mr. Wrights view on Christ and the Judiac framework as the center of the critique instead of CS Lewis.
After being to one too many funerals where those left behind clearly didn’t know what to do, and so just fell back on the over-worn Amazing Grace and Psalm 23, in order that my survivors would not have to worry about it I wrote my own funeral service which I then gave to my wife for safe-keeping. Complete with specific hymns, Scripture verses, and suggested outline for the sermon (no eulogy, but a real sermon). Basically all organized on the theme of needing to run the race that is set before us. Maybe a little weird, but I want the Gospel to be preached at my funeral. And I would love the Widor Toccata to be played at the end of the service, with the foot pedals at full blast (and our organist can do it).
Having viewed the milquetoast advertising of the Protestant Mainline (remember the bland ‘open hearts, open doors, open minds’ Methodist ads a decade ago?) this is a surprisingly good video—and one that I will promptly share on social media. I agree with Terry that this was actually the best possible outcome—tons of free media and many more people will end up viewing the ad in the long run.
That being said, these theater chains are privately run businesses that have discretion over what advertisements they will accept. I recall ABC and at least one other network rejecting a dreadful United Church of Christ advertisement (the “bouncer” ad) a few years back, as it implied other churches were rejecting people.
Thanks for that perspective, Fr. Tee. You’re right, I suspect, on all counts.
First of all, let’s set aside the Daily Mail subeditor’s typical use of the word ‘fury’ for a courteous and polite response from the A of C.
Second, the video is available online and will, as a result of this controversy, probably now be seen by many more people than would have seen it on cinema screens. I think the PR people down at Church House might (very privately) be delighted.
Third, although I do understand and agree with the late Richard Neuhaus about the naked public square: public life without Christianity is denuded of content - even so, I think the cinemas made the right decision. They cannot be put in the position of having to adjudicate which religious adverts to accept and which not. That way, court cases lie in wait, swiftly. Imagine also, if you will, a perfectly reasonable commercial for cinema from a Muslim group. It might be about spirituality in Islam and be absolutely unobjectionable in itself. But in the current climate, would audiences welcome it? I personally would rather not walk into a cinema after the recent atrocities and be greeted with an apologia for Islam. So, on balance, yes, the cinemas were right.
Fourth, I wonder if there is not a culture issue here with the dear old C of E. It often operates on the assumption that as the default setting for English Christianity, anything it presents is above polemics. It’s as if what the C of E is putting forward is not really religious, just something pertaining to the warp and woof of English society. But of course it is religious, at a time when religion is deeply controverted.
Finally, here is the good news: this very short film is beautifully made, inspiring and touching. It shows a cross-section of believers from every walk of life. My favourite part is the too-few seconds of the black couple’s wedding. Hats off and three cheers to those who commissioned this wonderful piece of work.
Combined with the other item posted here about how converts to Christianity can be fairly openly targeted in the UK, this is quite alarming. If mosques can issue calls to prayer but Christians cannot, where is the UK heading? And the same applies here. Muslims here are free to decline to agree with Christian preaching, but Christians must be free to preach to any who will listen.
“THE FILM TOO SHOCKING TO BE SEEN BY CINEMA AUDIENCES!”
“WHAT DANGEROUS TRUTH DID THE CINEMA OWNERS FIND IT NECESSARY TO SUPPRESS?”
Maybe people will be curious about a film that has been BANNED by the theater industry. Has it been posted on Youtube?
When Syrians who are already here come out publicly and say not to let in these “refugees” because it is too dangerous, that sounds like pretty good advice to me.
Hillary Clinton also says Islamist violence has nothing to do with Muslims. It’s one thing to point out correctly that the majority of Muslims in our country do not support or commit violent jihad, but it’s simply idiotic to say that jihad is not Islamic. It is just as Islamic as are our peaceful neighbors, and it is for Muslims and Islam as a movement to find a way to stop this from within.
Meanwhile, it is reasonable and prudent to continue surveillance on Muslims with violent tendencies and to insist on reliable background checks before admitting more Muslims as refugees. Where reliable background checks cannot be done, which is the case now, it would be far better to provide for Muslim refugees in majority-Muslim countries.
And the refusal to consider Middle Eastern Christians as especially at-risk populations and to refuse to expedite their transfer to safer areas (i.e. non-Muslim areas) beggars belief.
Our blessed Lord also said, “Be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.”
Not the way I would go about saying it, but she gets at the heart of the matter which too many Western leaders are avoiding
Part of the problem is that while we speak of “health insurance,” what we actually mean and want is pre-paid (preferably by someone else) and cost-shared health care.
I am waiting for this viewpoint to be in the mainstream press. Only then will we really have the discussion we want.
Thanks Fr Handy, that’s very clear, particularly the distinction between tactical and strategic level reasoning.
This is really a very interesting article, well-written and well-researched. Some of the problems are specific to France, which still deals with undercurrents of the horrible situation in Algeria in the 1960s. According to this, France has cleaned out radical preaching from the mosques, so a great deal of the radicalization occurs in prisons and on the internet. The prison conversions are something that happen here and call for attention.
In a way, amid all the stories about the <fragiles> who find their identity in a broken world in radical Islam, it was encouraging to read about the article’s protagonist, Ben Ahmed. May he continue to work towards reconciliation, and may there be many more like him.
Here are some comparable deductibles:
But, but, but, they have insurance! Hope and change, too! Just not the insurance they hoped for and there’s nothing to change it now! Go Demmies, go.
Yep, and when they get a catastrophic illness like cancer, many cannot continue paying that high deductible year after year for treatments, scans, and follow up care.
Exactly Marie. When the company my wife worked for made her insurance comply with Democare, her deductible went from $150.00 for the year to $6,000.00.
I grant your objection that my last post only indirectly responds to Dr. Seitz’ perfectly reasonable retort. So I’ll attempt a briefer response along a different line, and I hope it may be clearer.
1. My pleas for a radical rethinking of how we orthodox Anglicans should approach setting things right and repairing the torn fabric of global Anglicanism are not intended as a practical suggestion for how the orthodox primates should approach the January meeting at Lambeth Palace. I wasn’t addressing the primates, but the readers of this blog. I was brainstorming.
2. How the primates should handle the specific issues that will be on top of the agenda in January appear to me to be a tactical issue, whereas I was suggesting a radical rethinking of our overall strategy. I was trying to take the long view and delve down to the root issues that I think are still being neglected, at our peril.
3. Put another way, I don’t want our golden opportunity for a radical overhaul of our beloved Anglican tradition to be missed. These sorts of chances for a radical makeover of Anglicanism don’t arise very often. Basically, they only arise in times of grave crisis, when returning to the status quo is simply impossible and widely perceived as such. Let’s not waste the best opportunity we’re likely to have in centuries (if the Lord continues to tarry and return during that time) for redesigning our Erastian, Anglo-centric, overly Protestant heritage, so that it can flourish as it should in our radically new cultural context in a global, post-colonial, post Christendom world.
Of course, if you don’t agree with my diagnosis of the fundamental flaws in our inherited and cherished form of prayerbook religion, then you will find my proposed solutions not only unnecessary and irrelevant, but downright foolish or even dangerously distracting and confusing and divisive.
A voice crying in the wilderness
In other words, they are what used to be called Major Medical Insurance, useful only when one had a catastrophic illness or accident.
When Mumbai was attacked, Indians held their breath for fear that it might have been home-grown terrorists. There was some relief to discover it was essentially a Pakistani invasion. The French are right to be worried by terrorists who come from among them.
And of course there is worry that an attack of this type could happen in the USA.
I was in France on 9/11/01. French people, hearing our American voices, expressed their sympathy and said they had prayed for our country. I now return the favor. May God receive the souls of the innocent dead. May God turn the hearts of those who love terror and death. Vive la France.
Fr Handy, you don’t appear to have answered Dr Seitz’ question.
Your post re-states your arguments above, voluminously, and lavishes praise on your own ideas. But it doesn’t explain what practical relevance this has to the January meeting, i.e. whether a single other person besides yourself is concerned with this.
Thanks, Dr. Seitz, for a thoughtful and kind response to my provocative post. I appologize if it seemed pointless or rude.
You asked what the point of such idealistic brainstorming is, so let me try to clarify what sort of genre my post belongs in, at least as I see it.
In a nutshell, it comes down to two things, which I think are actually quite practical and useful.
First, and foremost, I am calling for a deeper, more searching and rigorous post-mortem analysis of just what has gone wrong so badly with global Anglicanism. Clearly, any program we might undertake for setting right what is wrong with the current state of Anglicanism depends on prior agreement on the exact nature of those wrongs. What is the root problem, the primary ailment from which we have been suffering? How in the world did we ever get to the point where the kind of grossly unbiblical teachings and practices that now characterize TEC and the ACoC were even conceivable, much less widely accepted? How could we have ended up in such a terrible mess?
A proper treatment plan depends on the proper diagnosis. Essentially, what I’m suggesting is that the conventional wisdom in orthodox circles is inadequate, because it fails to perceive just how seriously flawed our inherited Anglican ways are, and how deep and radical a remodeling of Anglicanism is called for today, especially in the post-Christendom Global North. In my opinion, we are still largely just treating some of the more obvious symptoms of disease within Anglicanism and not addressing the root problems. In other words, you can’t come up with the right answers until you start asking the right questions.
Second, you and the other noble gang of brave defenders of orthodox Anglicanism in the ACI team are obviously committed to working “within the system,” whereas the whole point of my long tirades here at T19 is that the whole traditional Anglican system is fundamentally flawed, so much so that a drastic overhaul is necessary and overdue. Apparently, for you, and for the vast majority of conservative Anglican leaders, the inherited paradigm is still workable and plausible. For me, it stopped being plausible long ago. The whole point of the outrageously tendentious posts that I continually make at T19 is precisely to get orthodox Anglican leaders to start questioning the viability of that venerable old Anglican paradigm that served us well for centuries, but which I firmly believe is now both obsolete and counter-productive. You’re an academic, so you ought to recognize the genre here, I’m proposing a whole new paradigm for what it means to be an Anglican in the Third Millennium of Christianity.
If it seems that I’m pursuing some sort of idiosyncratic, delusional fantasy of the Don Quixote type, jousting with imaginary windmills, well, so be it. And that’s where the phrase, “impossible dream,” comes from. This year is the 50th anniversary of the opening of the great Broadway remake of Cervante’s classic story in the musical Man of La Mancha. The best and most famous song in that hit Broadway musical was “To Dream the Impossible Dream.” It’s still one of my favorite Broadway hits of all time, because something inside me resonates so strongly with it.
Martin Luther King, Jr., had a great dream, immortalized in his “I have a Dream” speech from the March on Washington in 1963. Today, over 50 years later, we still have a long way to go to achieve the sort of just society he dreamed of so fervently. Some “realists” would say that King’s dream amounts to an impossible dream, and that racism can never be eliminated from America. Perhaps they are right, but his lofty dream remains powerfully inspiring just the same, and it motivates many to work hard toward overcoming racism as much as possible.
In a way, I see myself as trying to do something similar. I’m proposing a new vision for what a renewed, faithful Anglicanism might look like in the 21st century, after the dust from the New Reformation has settled. I am sharing my dream of a truly global, truly conciliar, truly biblical Anglicanism that has emerged from the outdated wineskins of our Erastian, colonialst, Anglo-centric, Constantinian, and overly Protestant past.
It remains to be seen if others will be able to catch that vision and embrace it. You ask the very reasonable question: what primate or province supports such a utopian dream? Well, he is no longer the primate, but the best example of a visionary primate who seems to share at least some of my revolutionary ideas is the former and founding primate of the ACNA, Bob Duncan.
While such tests were no doubt intended to provide the basis for developing treatment for victims (military and civilian) of chemical warfare, the official approach towards the test subjects recalls not just Tuskegee but some of the ‘medical’ experiments in the concentration camps. You have to wonder about the role of the physicians involved. No informed consent and, more importantly, no effort to inform VA and civilian doctors about what had been done.
As acknowledged on their website, the WarHorse program is based on on a connection process called “Join-up” developed by Monty Roberts.
Recently, my wife and I were privileged to see a soldier friend of ours conduct a similar workshop for Vets under Monty’s direction at his facility, Flag is Up Farms, just outside of Solvang in California.
It was truly wonderful to see the effect of the connections they were able to achieve with these powerful animals.
While I grieve his passing, I have been sorry to see René Girard garnering more and more attention over the past years. His understanding of desire (or envy) is solid and sheds a great deal of light on the destructive power of sin on individuals and societies—so far so good. But his application of his theory to the wider Christian story, particularly to the atonement, takes him outside the realms of orthodox Christianity.
Thank you for posting this. Simeon receives far too little attention these days, particularly from evangelicals.
I’m not sure what the point of this genre of writing actually is (“impossible dreaming”).
Anticipating the January meeting: Who will read this proposal; agree with it; bring others alongside; promote it and see to its furtherance? Is there a Primate you have in mind who knows your proposal and believes it is the way forward?
“I think you gravely underestimate how problematic and obsolete are those inherited forms of provincial inter-relationship.”
I don’t think the question is under or over estimating anything, but rather seeking to understand what is presently possible given realities. I prefer that mode of analysis to exuberant expressions of what, on your own account, are theorizings with no present agents to effect them.
But by all means dream of the New Reformation!
Yes, Charles Simeon is truly an admirable role model for evangelical Anglicans. He represents the evangelical tradition at its best. Indeed, he is an inspiring, heroic model for all orthodox Anglicans with a passion for the truth of the gospel and a heart to obey the divine mandate to be a witness to that saving gospel. He bore “much fruit,” even a “hundred-fold.”
Two additional points not touched upon in this brief biographical sketch provided by the link. First, Simeon was a significant bridge builder between the Calvinist and the Arminian wings of English Protestantism. But he didn’t seek to reconcile those camps through the usual Via Media approach, splitting the difference between the “extremes.” Instead, he rightly sought to hold together both truths, divine sovereignty and predestination along with genuine human free will, insisting that their proper relationship was paradoxical, i.e., both true.
However, like all or us, Charles Simeon had his blind spots. Not least among them was that he was the sort of Anglican who can fairly be described as an English Protestant through and through. He failed to appreciate the catholic side of the Anglican inheritance and give it equal due. In some ways that is perfectly understandable, for he lived before the great flowering of the Catholic Revival within Anglicanism that started at Oxford in 1833.
But Simeon is the epitome of the faithful local pastor who ends up having a vast and far-reaching influence, especially by his personal example that inspired countless young men who went into the ordained ministry wanting to do as he did. Simeon’s “conversation parties” remind me of Luther’s similar tremendous influence through his “Table Talk” around the family table at his home in Wittenberg.
Thank God for the life and ministry of Charles Simeon. May Christ raise up many more like him in our own day!
You may be right about what the majority of Anglican primates an provinces want. After all, the orthodox majority are profoundly conservative, not just in terms of upholding classic Christian theology but also in terms of seeking to conserve as much of the customary Anglican style of polity (at the gobal level) as is possible.
However, I think you gravely underestimate how problematic and obsolete are those inherited forms of provincial inter-relationship. There is nothing sacrosanct about the ad hoc, minimalist, colonial arrangements that have gradually evolved since the invention of such consultative groups as the Lambeth Conference, the ACC, and the Primates’ Meetings. The classical structuring of the Church’s ordained ministry in terms of the three orders (bishops, priests, and deacons) is deeply rooted in the ancient church, going back to the second century, and is rightly regarded as normative and binding. Not so with our makeshift forms of international polity, which are gravely flawed and peculiar to the Anglican world. They can claim neither the sanction of Holy Scripture nor of Antiquity.
So I reassert the sort of seemingly extravagant claims that I advanced in #5 above. It is time to take the bull by the horns and fully face the heavy responsibility that this grave crisis has thrust upon us. It is no good trying to patch up the old worn-out institutional wineskins of prayerbook religion at the global level. They are kaput and defunct, not least because they are merely consultative in nature. It is high time for us to evolve into being a truly conciliar Church (singular), not a motley crew of autonomous provinces (i.e., a family of national churches, plural) with an incoherent blend of traditions when it comes to Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship.
We must dig down to the root causes of our present unhappy state of chaos and confusion and deal with those fundamental problems. And one of those root causes is our lack of a central magisterium that can IMPOSE real discipline on wayward, rogue provinces. We can no longer afford the luxury of going without such a central, binding authority. We just have to find a way of creating one that minimizes the danger of tyranny by building genuine checks and balances into this new system. And I again contend that the best place to start is by creating a wholly new Anglican judiciary that can render final, binding decisions on disputed matters. “Mutual accountability” sounds nice, but it must have real teeth to work. Real church councils don’t just gather to discuss problems or renew bonds of affection, they issue canons and when necessary they issue creeds or confessions that pinpoint specific heresies that have to be excluded decisively.
There is no sense pretending that we can set the clock back to Lambeth 1998 (or Lambeth 1930 or 1888 or any other point in the past). The massive problems and stern challenges we face in a post-Christendom era in the Global North won’t be solved or met by the minimalist sort of changes (largely just seeking to preserve “the Anglican Communion” as we have known it heretofore) that the ACI has consistently favored since its inception.
A new day is dawning for prayerbook Christians. Liberated from the shackles of those old, colonialist, inherited forms of provincial inter-relationship that amounted to almost no real relationship at all, much stronger bonds are being forged in the heat of battle in our time. But we still have a long, long way to go, if we are going to redesign global Anglicanism for the Third Millennium.
So I say once again, forget about saving “The Anglican Communion.” It has died (that parrot is truly dead, not just stunned, as in the famous Monty Python skit). Instead, let us seek to save Anglicanism, which is something else entirely, a unique Protestant-Catholic hybrid. The kernel must not continue to be confused with the chaff, the precious wine with the old, venerable wineskins. Freed from the Erastian straitjacket of our former connection to the English establishment, the Ecclesia Anglicana can become what it should be, a truly global and truly conciliar Church.
That is my dream. Perhaps it is “an impossible dream.” Many reasonable observers thinks so. But I refuse to give up on it. The New Reformation has barely begun. The demise of the former “Anglican Communion” is sad indeed. But like the Phoenix, Anglicanism can rise from the ashes of this consuming fire, with renewed youth and vigor. And the New Anglicanism will be better than the old. May it be so!
Dreamer of bold dreams
I knew Phil when we both served in the Diocese of Maryland. My father Dr. Nelson Rightmyer served at St. John’s, Glyndon 1952-1967, and I served at Annapolis and Joppa 1966-74. Phil was a strong voice for orthodoxy in the Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Church. May he rest in peace and rise in glory!
Interesting that the Anglican Communion News Service should carry this story.
The quote above is not normally what I would expect to see on ACNS - it generally steers clear of this issue.
“The archbishops at the meetings were Bolly Lapok of South East Asia, Daniel Deng of Sudan, Henry Isingoma of Congo, Glenn Davies of Sydney, and Mouneer Anis of Egypt. They were joined by Archbishop Foley Beach of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) and Archbishop Charlie Masters, moderator of ACNA’s Canadian branch, the Anglican Network in Canada.”
I was blessed when at Latrobe to have had the opportunity to exchange a few words with +Duncan, to shake his hand, and to thank him for his five years of service as our Archbishop as ACNA came to life.
Hearing and meeting for a few moments with such leaders is incredibly inspiring to such as we laymen.
God bless him and Mrs. Duncan for all their efforts since he joined the episcopate, and for his initial leadership of ACNA!
Our thoughts and prayers are with him. I hope he continues working with Gafcon or CAPA or the Global South, in some capacity.
I wish him all the best.
Its not just Pittsburgh - in an earthly sense, ACNA would not exist without Bob Duncan.
Good to see +McConnell of TEC putting in a gracious word as well.
I am sure TEC can find some Muslims to sell it to. Wouldn’t be the first time.
Wow, that was gut wrenching.
I’m receiving a “Bad Gateway” message when I try to read the article.
Is any of this in doubt?
1. The largest bloc of Communion Provinces want to retain the historic Communion, including recent decisions re: enhanced authority for the Primates;
2. There is a progressive grouping that prefers to speak of independent national churches and laissez-faire associations—an anglican league or federation;
3. +Welby attended the GS meeting in Cairo and knows the mind of group #1;
4. If this Communion bloc intends to maintain itself and its self-understanding, nothing prevents that happening: they either call for the question at the January meeting and see who wishes to maintain this Communion, on the terms of mutual accountability; and who prefers understanding #2.
Much of the above involves speculation about +Welby’s own stance and goals and that is fine so far as it goes. But clearly people have different views (though why Hitchens and Wilson might be relevant is not clear at all when it comes to his own position).
I suppose the question is:
If the largest bloc maintains the historic Communion on terms of mutual accountibility; and a small bloc of progressives opt out in favor of a loose association; so long as the former has what it wishes, the role of Canterbury seems less decisive anyway. One supposes he could decide he wants to inhabit both groups, in some role. But if the Communion bloc want a Communion, he would have to maintain his role on those terms.
But for all this resolve and leadership at the meeting will be crucial.
I wrote +Dorsey to suggest that and he politely indicated that he couldn’t comment on property matters.
The last diocesan convention of the united diocese took place at St. Martin’s, Monroeville.
Primates’ “gathering” be hanged, the Communion wheels continue to turn. Topic from the Standing Committee: ‘Intentional Discipleship in a World of Differences’. I wonder what “differences” they could have in mind?
A couple more fun quotes from the Guardian article I linked to at #21:
The first quote points out that the ABC’s course is based on the belief that CofE will indeed go down the same path as TEC, and fairly soon:
“The Rev Sally Hitchiner, one of the most prominent gay members of clergy in the church, said: “The churches now have the opportunity to relate like grownup siblings. This is a positive move for all sorts of reasons. We can’t hold together from a place like England – where an archbishop of Canterbury could be in a gay marriage, possibly in my lifetime – to somewhere like Uganda, where they want to imprison people for gay sex.”
Obviously Sally has a particular view, but the important point is that she is willing to accept this arrangement because she genuinely believes that it won’t be long before we see a practicing homosexual as ABC.
The second quote reinforces the point that I and others have made, that the Anglican Communion has no legal status:
The bishop of Buckingham, Alan Wilson, said: “He can’t be planning to break the thing up because there’s nothing there to break up. It is all independent churches.”
But what this also means is that there is nothing to stop orthodox Primates continuing to describe themselves as the Anglican Communion, if they wish to do so. They don’t need the Archbishop of Canterbury to do that, although in January he will do his best to convince them otherwise.
Publius writes at #17: “Let me offer a possible option 2(e)...”
What follows appears to repeat exactly what the Archbishop of Canterbury stated publicly as his desired outcome two months ago, so there really is no need to be coy! I assumed that everyone writing in this thread was already aware of it, and what we were discussing was the extent to which the orthodox Primates would allow themselves to be drawn into the ABC’s proposal.
It was all over the media at the time, but here is a link to just one of the articles, in the Guardian dated 17 September 2015: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/16/archbishop-of-canterbury-urges-breakup-of-divided-anglican-communion. This sums up the flavour:
“Justin Welby has summoned all the 38 leaders of the national churches of the Anglican communion to a meeting in Canterbury next January, where he will propose that the communion be reorganised as a group of churches that are all linked to Canterbury but no longer necessarily to each other.”
The rationale behind it is also made clear:
“Both [groups, i.e. liberal and conservative provinces] will be able to call themselves “Anglican” but there will no longer be any pretence that this involves a common discipline or doctrine.”
So the issue has not changed - Welby wants a looser communion with multiple bilateral lines of communion between ABC and each province, which in practice will lead to two separate groups; through this device, he hopes to be able to continue as titular head of the Communion without TEC/ACoC being required to repent of their apostasy. The precise details may differ, but the methodology has Rowan Williams written all over it.
The big question is whether the orthodox primates at the meeting will agree. Their language so far suggests they have no intention of doing so, but let’s see.
“My second reason for continuing to identify with Evangelicals is visceral. I just like these people. They are serious about their faith in ways that annoy unsympathetic Catholics. You can actually discuss orthodoxy, heresy, and apostasy with them without first issuing a trigger warning. And contrary to the conventional wisecracking, “hate” never arises. In fact, what you experience is the kind of affection and brotherhood that emerges when serious people who respect each other purposely engage in an old-fashioned, knock down, drag out argument.”
That’s high praise, from someone who doesn’t agree with them.
That the Anglican church in Queensland would support this is hardly a surprise. They are increasingly irrelevant as a Christian denomination.
But are the Baptists really at odds with other Christians? The last I heard, Ron Smith is not in the Baptist ministry, and he is in a small minority of baptists who support same sex “marriage”.
So, this building may be sold to the ACNA diocese of Pittsburgh…?
I saw the comments as being generated by a genuine wish to be a leader in this particular sort of reconciliation. But doesn’t tat depend on how much influence or power TEC has? I get the impression that TEC doesn’t exercise much of either these days. It mainly seems to be existing while its large but ageing membership dies off.
That’s not meant to be pejorative, and I know a number of members of TEC whom I respect post on this site from time to time, just saying how it can appear to an outsider.
Return to blog homepage
Return to Mobile view (headlines)