When the liturgy of the English Church was reconfigured in the 16th century, there was an understandable reaction to the proliferation of saints’ days and the observance thereof in medieval society. Only the apostles and evangelists and a handful of others (all found in the New Testament) were spared the editors’ scissors. It wasn’t until the long run-up to what became the present Prayer Book that the idea of a re-expanded calendar was explored in a concrete way. The first edition of LF&F appeared as a trial use document in 1964, and contained essentially the same observances one can spy in a “vintage” edition of the 1979 BCP. The emphasis was on biblical figures (e.g. Timothy & Titus, Mary & Martha), patristic-era saints recognized by both East and West (e.g Chrysostom, Ignatius of Antioch), medieval saints well-established in western Christianity (e.g. Benedict, Francis), with a particular focus on those who figure in the history of the faith in Britain (e.g. Augustine of Canterbury, Anselm); prominent figures in post-Reformation England (e.g. Lancelot Andrewes, Richard Hooker), and, finally, leading lights in the history of the Episcopal Church (e.g. Samuel Seabury, William White).
During the ‘80s and ‘90s, many complained that the inhabitants of the 1979 calendar were disproportionately male and disporportionately clerical. Subsequent additions have sought systematically to redress this perceived imbalance. Hence, we now observe (or are permitted to observe, at local option) days for the likes of Sojourner Truth, Florence Nightingale (both not male) and C. S. Lewis (not ordained), among many others.
The proposed volume is no mere revision of Lesser Feasts & Fasts; it is a replacement. In this light, it may be apt that the SCLM proposes dropping the cutomary name and adopting Holy Women, Holy Men (taken from the text of a Latin hymn that appears in H1982 at 238/239). It is a bad news/good news saga. The good news (on balance) is that nobody was dropped from the calendar; some dates have been shifted around, and some who enjoyed their own days now have to share (Hugh of Lincoln and Robert Grosseteste), but everyone made the cut. The bad news is that there are—wait for it and count ‘em—112 proposed additions! If you think this leaves very few “open” days in the calendar, you are absolutely correct. There are even a few double-ups, creating “choices” for local communities, so we are told. We are well on our way back toward the status quo ante to which Cranmer and his minions reacted.
There is, as well, some good news in the criteria enunciated by the SCLM for deciding who gets in to this select company. They are worth looking at in their entirety:
Principles of Revision
1. Historicity: Christianity is a radically historical religion, so in almost every instance it is not theological realities or spiritual movements but exemplary witness to the Gospel of Christ in lives actually lived that is commemorated in the Calendar.
2. Christian Discipleship: The death of the saints, precious in God’s sight, is the ultimate witness to the power of the Resurrection. What is being commemorated, therefore, is the completion in death of a particular Christian’s living out of the promises of baptism. Baptism is, therefore, a necessary prerequisite for inclusion in the Calendar.
3. Significance: Those commemorated should have been in their lifetime extraordinary, even heroic servants of God and God’s people for the sake, and after the example, of Jesus Christ. In this way they have testified to the Lordship of Christ over all of history, and continue to inspire us as we carry forward God’s mission in the world.
4. Memorability: The Calendar should include those who, through their devotion to Christ and their joyful and loving participation in the community of the faithful, deserve to be remembered by The Episcopal Church today. However, in order to celebrate the whole history of salvation, it is important also to include those “whose memory may have faded in the shifting fashions of public concern, but whose witness is deemed important to the life and mission of the Church” (Thomas Talley).
5. Range of Inclusion: Particular attention should be paid to Episcopalians and other members of the Anglican Communion. Attention should also be paid to gender and race, to the inclusion of lay people (witnessing in this way to our baptismal understanding of the Church), and to ecumenical representation. In this way the Calendar will reflect the reality of our time: that instant communication and extensive travel are leading to an ever deeper international and ecumenical consciousness among Christian people.
6. Local Observance: Similarly, it should normatively be the case that significant commemoration of a particular person already exists at the local and regional levels before that person is included in the Calendar of the Episcopal Church as a whole.
7. Perspective: It should normatively be the case that a person be included in the Calendar only after two generations or fifty years have elapsed since that person’s death.
8. Levels of Commemoration: Principal Feasts, Sundays and Holy Days have primacy of place in the Church’s liturgical observance. It does not seem appropriate to distinguish between the various other commemorations by regarding some as having either a greater or a lesser claim on our observance of them. Each commemoration should be given equal weight as far as the provision of liturgical propers is concerned (including the listing of three lessons).
9. Combined Commemorations: Not all those included in the Calendar need to be commemorated “in isolation.” Where there are close and natural links between persons to be remembered, a joint commemoration would make excellent sense (e.g., the Reformation martyrs—Latimer and Ridley; bishops of Lincoln, Robert Grosseteste and Hugh).
This is, IMHO, a reasonable and well-thought out approach, though I might quibble with a point here or there. It clearly intends (or seems to, at any rate), the hold up for honor men and women who are examples of heroic holiness and consecrated living as intentional Christian disciples, examples that are worthy of recognition by the whole church.
If only they had followed their own guidelines. Alas, they did not. So it’s back to “bad news.” What we have, in effect, is a roll that includes many people who are merely famous (or, more accurately, people who some think should be famous) based on signal accomplishments during their lives. So we have Copernicus and Kepler, Bach and Handel (along with Byrd and Tallis), John Muir (of Yosemite photography fame), Durer (along with Grunwald and Cranach), Harriet Beecher Stowe, Christina Rosetti (the poet), and (for the top prize in implausibility) “William Mayo and Charles Menninger and Their Sons, Pioneers in Medicine”.
This is ... well ... embarrassing. But there’s more. We are poised to canonize people who haven’t even been raised to that status by the church they were part of in this world, like Pope John XXIII and Pierre Tielhard de Chardin. We are a church on brink of honoring the heroic Christian witness of people who with great intentionality left the church that now endeavors to so honor them, and did so because they felt compelled by their Christian conscience—Elizabeth Ann Seton, John Henry Newman, G. K. Chesterton (to say nothing of Francis Asbury!). And then there are those who never were Episcopalian or Anglican, and because of their evangelical convictions, would probably find it odd to now be asked to “come up higher”—the missionaries William Carey and Adoniram Judson come to mind.
And are we really now to have a “saint’s day” set aside for John Calvin? (What about Oliver Cromwell?) Karl Barth? Walter Rauchenbush?
Alas, poor old and oft-maligned Charles Stuart, the only person actually canonized by the Church of England, still didn’t make the team, despite the earnest prayers of the Society of St Charles, King & Martyr. But welcome back to St George, despite the fact that the Romans cut him loose for being of doubtful historicity. And surely somebody will rejoice that Kierkegaard is now a saint.
And, despite the SCLM’s averred intent to include only baptized persons, one slipped through the net: the Jewish chaplain who went down with his Christian (all non-Anglican) companions on the Dorchester after giving away their life vests. (Lt. Goode is eminently worthy of being remembered and honored, just not perhaps in a Christian calendar of saints.)
I fear we are making utter fools of ourselves, turning the sanctoral calendar into a flatbed truck to carry the freight of our collective neurotic guilt, trying desperately to demonstrate our inclusivity to an ecumenical community that will just chuckle softly as they shake their heads in bemused bewilderment.
The silver lining is that some real worthies actually did get in: Joan of Arc, St Cecilia, Margery Kempe, Charles Grafton (I Bishop of Fond du Lac), Innocent of Alaska. But why not some of the 19th century London “slum priests”: Charles Lowder, Alexander Mackonohie, inter alia—now these were some exemplars of heroic witness and sanctity)?
But I’ve saved the worst for last. Aside from the obvious deficiencies in the proposed revision to our calendar, there is a Trojan Horse in the mix. Holy Women, Holy Men is being used as a vehicle to promote elements of a radical liturgical language agenda (as has every other publication of the SCLM for most of the last three decades). From earliest times, formal Christian prayer has normatively concluded per dominum Jesum Christum—through Jesus Christ our Lord. Not exclusively, but normatively. More recently, however, the use of the word “Lord” has been deemed suspect because of percieved patriarchal connotations, and there has been a steady pressure to subvert the long-standing norm. Indeed, this is one of the motivating concerns that underlies the entire project known as Enriching Our Worship.
Since there are 112 new observance proposed for the calendar, this means that there are 112 new collects that have been written. Of this number, how many include the formua “through Jesus Christ our Lord”?
Exactly two.
The rest either substitute something like Savior (the most common by far), or Redeemer, or Good Shepherd, or simply nothing (as in “through Jesus Christ; who lives and reigns…).
This is infinitely more important than any concern about who made the list or who got left off. The fundamental (and earliest) Christian creed consists simply of two Greek words which take three English words to translate: Jesus is Lord. It’s not an option, one alternative among many. It’s not a metaphor, one image among many. It is a basic Christian confession. If you can’t make that confession, full-throatedly and with uncrossed fingers, you can’t be a Christian. So there’s nothing particularly wrong on this account with any single given collect of the 112 proposed additional observances. It’s the trend that is cause for alarm. It bespeaks a church that talks a good talk about its theological moorings in Catholic Christianity, but is in the process of weighing anchor, throwing the rope back on the dock, and drifting out on the tide of distorted perceptions of oppressive language.
Morever, the SCLM needs to be called on their subversive tactics. For decades now they’ve just been sneaking in this Trojan Horse under the guise of other agendas—this time the calendar (as well as pastoral rites for issues surrounding pregnancy and childbirth, which I’m not dealing with in this post). People are naturally curious about the “presented” topic, and the “akyrial” (did I just coin a Greek word?) theology in the proposed prayers doesn’t register on their screens. It would be much healthier to have the discussion about liturgical language out in the open, as its own topic, rather than just sneak it in covertly.
Those who have the ability to rake muck, now’s the time.
View the original post
I attended both the 2006 and 2009 General Conventions as a consultant and observer. This perspective differs from the perspective of a deputy or bishop. As an Episcopal priest, I admittedly have an interest in the outcome of some of the proceedings. Given those disclaimers, I offer the following observations[:]
....
(3) In sharp contrast, the HOD, with over eight hundred and forty members, meets once every three years for ten days. Half of each diocese’s HOD deputation is lay; priests or deacons comprise the other half. The HOD has a more fluid membership than does the HOB, as dioceses elect deputies for a single three-year term, although many deputies do serve multiple terms. Alternates may also substitute for a deputy during part or all of a Convention. Deputies have no staff to prepare briefings on the vast array of subject matter and a sizable number, based on my observations, seem largely ignorant of HOD parliamentary procedures. These problems were glaringly apparent when eight hundred plus deputies allotted themselves only ten minutes to consider most resolutions, then spent much of that time on parliamentary questions. To their great credit, most Deputies work long hours, strive to do their best for Christ’s Church, and seek to understand an incredibly broad gamut of issues that encompass liturgical, pastoral, theological, and ethical subjects far beyond the competence of any one person. The problem is not with the Deputies as individuals but with the Church’s structure, which imposes this impossible task on these good people. It is no wonder that well before Convention’s end most deputies (and many bishops!) look overwhelmed and fatigued.
(4) General Convention’s structure inherently entails some self-selection on the part of lay deputies. Ten days of sessions with travel can easily mean twelve days away from home. Even with their Diocese paying expenses, few working poor or lower middle class people, who generally receive little if any vacation time, can attend. Single parents may have difficulty arranging twenty-four hour childcare during their absence. I suspect that few high-powered professionals, corporate executives, or small business owners attend, reluctant to be away from their work that long. In other words, those present must have sufficiently flexible schedules to give the Church an uninterrupted block of ten or twelve days, valuing the Church above their other commitments. Anecdotally, rather than based on formal research, lay deputies appear to be mostly upper middle-class and closer in age to retirement than to high school. The deputies were laudably diverse in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, etc. Except for their degree of commitment to the Church, I wonder how well the socio-economic status of HOD lay deputies mirrors that of the Episcopal Church.
Read it all here.
]]>1. No-one could be in any doubt about the eagerness of the Bishops and Deputies of the Episcopal Church at the General Convention to affirm their concern about the wider Anglican Communion. Their generous welcome to guests from elsewhere, including myself, the manifest engagement with the crushing problems of the developing world and even the wording of one of the more controversial resolutions all make plain the fact that the Episcopal Church does not wish to cut its moorings from other parts of the Anglican family. There has been an insistence at the highest level that the two most strongly debated resolutions (DO25 and CO56) do not have the automatic effect of overturning the requested moratoria, if the wording is studied carefully. There is a clear commitment to seek counsel from elsewhere in the Communion about certain issues and an eloquent resolution in support of the ‘Covenant for a Communion in Mission’ as commended by ACC13. All of this merits grateful acknowledgement. The relationship between the Episcopal Church and the wider Communion is a reality which needs continued engagement and encouragement.
2. However, a realistic assessment of what Convention has resolved does not suggest that it will repair the broken bridges into the life of other Anglican provinces; very serious anxieties have already been expressed. The repeated request for moratoria on the election of partnered gay clergy as bishops and on liturgical recognition of same-sex partnerships has clearly not found universal favour, although a significant minority of bishops has just as clearly expressed its intention to remain with the consensus of the Communion. The statement that the Resolutions are essentially ‘descriptive’ is helpful, but unlikely to allay anxieties.
3. There are two points which I believe need to be reiterated and thought through further, and it seems to fall to the Archbishop of Canterbury to try and articulate them. To some extent they echo part of what I wrote after the last General Convention, as well as things said at the Lambeth Conference and the ACC, but they still have some pertinence.
4. The first is to do with the arguments most often used against the moratoria relating to same-sex unions. Appeal is made to the fundamental human rights dimension of attitudes to LGBT people, and to the impossibility of betraying their proper expectations of a Christian body which has courageously supported them.
5. In response, it needs to be made absolutely clear that, on the basis of repeated statements at the highest levels of the Communion’s life, no Anglican has any business reinforcing prejudice against LGBT people, questioning their human dignity and civil liberties or their place within the Body of Christ. Our overall record as a Communion has not been consistent in this respect and this needs to be acknowledged with penitence.
6. However, the issue is not simply about civil liberties or human dignity or even about pastoral sensitivity to the freedom of individual Christians to form their consciences on this matter. It is about whether the Church is free to recognise same-sex unions by means of public blessings that are seen as being, at the very least, analogous to Christian marriage.
7. In the light of the way in which the Church has consistently read the Bible for the last two thousand years, it is clear that a positive answer to this question would have to be based on the most painstaking biblical exegesis and on a wide acceptance of the results within the Communion, with due account taken of the teachings of ecumenical partners also. A major change naturally needs a strong level of consensus and solid theological grounding.
8. This is not our situation in the Communion. Thus a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority of the Church Catholic, or even of the Communion as a whole. And if this is the case, a person living in such a union is in the same case as a heterosexual person living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond; whatever the human respect and pastoral sensitivity such persons must be given, their chosen lifestyle is not one that the Church’s teaching sanctions, and thus it is hard to see how they can act in the necessarily representative role that the ordained ministry, especially the episcopate, requires.
9. In other words, the question is not a simple one of human rights or human dignity. It is that a certain choice of lifestyle has certain consequences. So long as the Church Catholic, or even the Communion as a whole does not bless same-sex unions, a person living in such a union cannot without serious incongruity have a representative function in a Church whose public teaching is at odds with their lifestyle. (There is also an unavoidable difficulty over whether someone belonging to a local church in which practice has been changed in respect of same-sex unions is able to represent the Communion’s voice and perspective in, for example, international ecumenical encounters.)
10. This is not a matter that can be wholly determined by what society at large considers usual or acceptable or determines to be legal. Prejudice and violence against LGBT people are sinful and disgraceful when society at large is intolerant of such people; if the Church has echoed the harshness of the law and of popular bigotry – as it so often has done – and justified itself by pointing to what society took for granted, it has been wrong to do so. But on the same basis, if society changes its attitudes, that change does not of itself count as a reason for the Church to change its discipline.
11. The second issue is the broader one of how a local church makes up its mind on a sensitive and controversial matter. It is of the greatest importance to remember this aspect of the matter, so as not to be completely trapped in the particularly bitter and unpleasant atmosphere of the debate over sexuality, in which unexamined prejudice is still so much in evidence and accusations of bad faith and bigotry are so readily thrown around.
12. When a local church seeks to respond to a new question, to the challenge of possible change in its practice or discipline in the light of new facts, new pressures, or new contexts, as local churches have repeatedly sought to do, it needs some way of including in its discernment the judgement of the wider Church. Without this, it risks becoming unrecognisable to other local churches, pressing ahead with changes that render it strange to Christian sisters and brothers across the globe.
13. This is not some piece of modern bureaucratic absolutism, but the conviction of the Church from its very early days. The doctrine that ‘what affects the communion of all should be decided by all’ is a venerable principle. On some issues, there emerges a recognition that a particular new development is not of such significance that a high level of global agreement is desirable; in the language used by the Doctrinal Commission of the Communion, there is a recognition that in ‘intensity, substance and extent’ it is not of fundamental importance. But such a recognition cannot be wished into being by one local church alone. It takes time and a willingness to believe that what we determine together is more likely, in a New Testament framework, to be in tune with the Holy Spirit than what any one community decides locally.
14. Sometimes in Christian history, of course, that wider discernment has been very fallible, as with the history of the Chinese missions in the seventeenth century. But this should not lead us to ignore or minimise the opposite danger of so responding to local pressure or change that a local church simply becomes isolated and imprisoned in its own cultural environment.
15. There have never been universal and straightforward rules about this, and no-one is seeking a risk-free, simple organ of doctrinal decision for our Communion. In an age of vastly improved communication, we must make the best use we can of the means available for consultation and try to build into our decision-making processes ways of checking whether a new local development would have the effect of isolating a local church or making it less recognisable to others. This again has an ecumenical dimension when a global Christian body is involved in partnerships and discussions with other churches who will quite reasonably want to know who now speaks for the body they are relating to when a controversial local change occurs. The results of our ecumenical discussions are themselves important elements in shaping the theological vision within which we seek to resolve our own difficulties.
16. In recent years, local pastoral needs have been cited as the grounds for changes in the sacramental practice of particular local churches within the Communion, and theological rationales have been locally developed to defend and promote such changes. Lay presidency at the Holy Communion is one well-known instance. Another is the regular admission of the unbaptised to Holy Communion as a matter of public policy. Neither of these practices has been given straightforward official sanction as yet by any Anglican authorities at diocesan or provincial level, but the innovative practices concerned have a high degree of public support in some localities.
17. Clearly there are significant arguments to be had about such matters on the shared and agreed basis of Scripture, Tradition and reason. But it should be clear that an acceptance of these sorts of innovation in sacramental practice would represent a manifest change in both the teaching and the discipline of the Anglican tradition, such that it would be a fair question as to whether the new practice was in any way continuous with the old. Hence the question of ‘recognisability’ once again arises.
18. To accept without challenge the priority of local and pastoral factors in the case either of sexuality or of sacramental practice would be to abandon the possibility of a global consensus among the Anglican churches such as would continue to make sense of the shape and content of most of our ecumenical activity. It would be to re-conceive the Anglican Communion as essentially a loose federation of local bodies with a cultural history in common, rather than a theologically coherent ‘community of Christian communities’.
19. As Anglicans, our membership of the Communion is an important part of our identity. However, some see this as best expressed in a more federalist and pluralist way. They would see this as the only appropriate language for a modern or indeed postmodern global fellowship of believers in which levels of diversity are bound to be high and the risks of centralisation and authoritarianism are the most worrying. There is nothing foolish or incoherent about this approach. But it is not the approach that has generally shaped the self-understanding of our Communion – less than ever in the last half-century, with new organs and instruments for the Communion’s communication and governance and new enterprises in ecumenical co-operation.
20. The Covenant proposals of recent years have been a serious attempt to do justice to that aspect of Anglican history that has resisted mere federation. They seek structures that will express the need for mutual recognisability, mutual consultation and some shared processes of decision-making. They are emphatically not about centralisation but about mutual responsibility. They look to the possibility of a freely chosen commitment to sharing discernment (and also to a mutual respect for the integrity of each province, which is the point of the current appeal for a moratorium on cross-provincial pastoral interventions). They remain the only proposals we are likely to see that address some of the risks and confusions already detailed, encouraging us to act and decide in ways that are not simply local.
21. They have been criticised as ‘exclusive’ in intent. But their aim is not to shut anyone out – rather, in words used last year at the Lambeth Conference, to intensify existing relationships.
22. It is possible that some will not choose this way of intensifying relationships, though I pray that it will be persuasive. It would be a mistake to act or speak now as if those decisions had already been made – and of course approval of the final Covenant text is still awaited. For those whose vision is not shaped by the desire to intensify relationships in this particular way, or whose vision of the Communion is different, there is no threat of being cast into outer darkness – existing relationships will not be destroyed that easily. But it means that there is at least the possibility of a twofold ecclesial reality in view in the middle distance: that is, a ‘covenanted’ Anglican global body, fully sharing certain aspects of a vision of how the Church should be and behave, able to take part as a body in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue; and, related to this body, but in less formal ways with fewer formal expectations, there may be associated local churches in various kinds of mutual partnership and solidarity with one another and with ‘covenanted’ provinces.
23. This has been called a ‘two-tier’ model, or, more disparagingly, a first- and second-class structure. But perhaps we are faced with the possibility rather of a ‘two-track’ model, two ways of witnessing to the Anglican heritage, one of which had decided that local autonomy had to be the prevailing value and so had in good faith declined a covenantal structure. If those who elect this model do not take official roles in the ecumenical interchanges and processes in which the ‘covenanted’ body participates, this is simply because within these processes there has to be clarity about who has the authority to speak for whom.
24. It helps to be clear about these possible futures, however much we think them less than ideal, and to speak about them not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication but plainly as what they are – two styles of being Anglican, whose mutual relation will certainly need working out but which would not exclude co-operation in mission and service of the kind now shared in the Communion. It should not need to be said that a competitive hostility between the two would be one of the worst possible outcomes, and needs to be clearly repudiated. The ideal is that both ‘tracks’ should be able to pursue what they believe God is calling them to be as Church, with greater integrity and consistency. It is right to hope for and work for the best kinds of shared networks and institutions of common interest that could be maintained as between different visions of the Anglican heritage. And if the prospect of greater structural distance is unwelcome, we must look seriously at what might yet make it less likely.
25. It is my strong hope that all the provinces will respond favourably to the invitation to Covenant. But in the current context, the question is becoming more sharply defined of whether, if a province declines such an invitation, any elements within it will be free (granted the explicit provision that the Covenant does not purport to alter the Constitution or internal polity of any province) to adopt the Covenant as a sign of their wish to act in a certain level of mutuality with other parts of the Communion. It is important that there should be a clear answer to this question.
26. All of this is to do with becoming the Church God wants us to be, for the better proclamation of the liberating gospel of Jesus Christ. It would be a great mistake to see the present situation as no more than an unhappy set of tensions within a global family struggling to find a coherence that not all its members actually want. Rather, it is an opportunity for clarity, renewal and deeper relation with one another – and so also with Our Lord and his Father, in the power of the Spirit. To recognise different futures for different groups must involve mutual respect for deeply held theological convictions. Thus far in Anglican history we have (remarkably) contained diverse convictions more or less within a unified structure. If the present structures that have safeguarded our unity turn out to need serious rethinking in the near future, this is not the end of the Anglican way and it may bring its own opportunities. Of course it is problematic; and no-one would say that new kinds of structural differentiation are desirable in their own right. But the different needs and priorities identified by different parts of our family, and in the long run the different emphases in what we want to say theologically about the Church itself, are bound to have consequences. We must hope that, in spite of the difficulties, this may yet be the beginning of a new era of mission and spiritual growth for all who value the Anglican name and heritage.
+ Rowan Cantuar:
From Lambeth Palace, Monday 27 July 2009
© Rowan Williams 2009
View the original post
It is painful to see the Episcopal Church in such turmoil over the subject of gays and lesbians. For some this will be the hill to die on, for others it will cause them to leave the church, and for others it will be yet another issue to grapple with in a centuries-long list of difficult issues. It grieves me to think fellow members of the Episcopal Church would attack either in person or via the internet any bishops, clergy, or members of our church. Both sides of this issue hold what they believe to be heart-felt, passionate beliefs on the subject. If we truly think of ourselves as the body of Christ, there is no room for sarcasm, rancor, and disrespect. If we attack each other, we attack our own body—the body of Christ.
I have been confirmed in the church, married in the church, and had my child baptized in the church. During the 41 years I have been at St. Anne’s Episcopal Church I have seen prayer books change, I’ve seen the priest go from facing the altar to facing the congregation, I’ve seen less kneeling, I’ve seen over half a dozen priests come and go, I’ve seen three different bishops, and I’ve seen the issue of the ordination of women discussed and dissented (even by my own bishop at the time). None of these changes has ever tempted me to leave. I have at times been uncomfortable, mad, frustrated, felt like an “old timer,” and felt a little wistful about the church I knew as a young person, but I repeat, I never felt tempted to leave.
Why didn’t I leave? I firmly believe the Christ who hung on the cross to die for our sins did not call us to divide even over the most deeply felt social convictions. What I think I know for sure is that in the Old Testament God told his people to always remember his promises to them—even when it didn’t look like the promises were being fulfilled. In the New Testament, the only thing I know for sure is that we are called to believe that Jesus was the Son of God and that he died for our sins so that we might have eternal life. That is pretty much all I know for absolute certain. The rest has been picked apart by theologians and scholars far smarter than I am. It has been interpreted differently by various denominations, and some take the Bible very literally, while others see it as open to wide interpretation. I’m looking for answers, but honestly, I’m not absolutely certain where I fall on all of that.
What I know Christ calls us to do is work it out TOGETHER. The apostles scolded the early church repeatedly about their bickering and fighting. What they were fighting about I am sure seemed as important to them as the issues we face today. The message to a church in turmoil seems to me to be the same throughout history—walk TOGETHER in love and mutual respect for one another. The greatest commandment, after all, was to love one another.
It would be so much easier each week to sit in church with people who all thought the same as I do and who interpret the Bible the same way I do. It is much harder to sit shoulder to shoulder facing the cross with people who differ drastically with me in my point of view, but who share in common a love of God and a commitment to follow Christ as best they can as flawed humans. I do not for a moment believe that when we die and meet our maker face to face he will judge us on where we stood on these issues, but I feel certain we will be judged on how we treated one another in the midst of strife.
View the original post
]]>The resolution from the 1979 Episcopal General Convention in Denver inspired a small wave of headlines, even though it simply restated centuries of doctrine about marriage.
“We reaffirm the traditional teaching of the church on marriage, marital fidelity and sexual chastity as the standard of Christian sexual morality,” it said. “Candidates for ordination are expected to conform to this standard.”
However, 21 bishops disagreed, publicly stating that gay sexual relationships were “no less a sign to the world of God’s love” than traditional marriage. These bishops—including the Rt. Rev. Edmund Browning, who was chosen as America’s presiding bishop six years later—warned that since “we are answerable before almighty God ... we cannot accept these recommendations or implement them in our dioceses.”
It was the start of an ecclesiastical war that has dominated the 70-million-member Anglican Communion for decades.
Then again, this conflict may have started in the 1960s, when Bishop James Pike was censured for his “offensive” and “irresponsible” views questioning the virgin birth, the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity and other ancient doctrines. And in 1977 a high-profile leader—Bishop Paul Moore of New York—created a firestorm when he ordained a priest who identified herself as a lesbian.
It’s hard to understand this story without some grasp of this complicated timeline. However, news reports regularly chop off several decades, thus making it appear that these doctrinal clashes began with the 2003 consecration of V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire as the first openly gay, non-celibate Episcopal bishop.
“This whole conflict is actually about the Bible and how you interpret it,” said the Rev. George Conger, a correspondent for The Church of England Newspaper. “The polite warfare has been going on for 30 or 40 years. The open warfare truly began in 1997, when the archbishops from Africa and the rest of the global south met in Jerusalem and decided to let their voices be heard.”
In addition to events in the late 1970s, other crucial dates on this timeline include:
1989—Bishop John Spong of the Diocese of Newark ordains the first homosexual priest who is openly living in a same-sex relationship.
1994—Spong drafts his Koinonia statement affirming the ordination of gays and lesbians living in faithful, monogamous relationships—with the support of 90 bishops. He also publishes his 12 theses for a liberal reformation, rejecting belief in the transcendent, personal God of the Bible.
1996—An ecclesiastical court dismisses heresy charges against Bishop Walter Righter, after another controversial ordination. The court says Episcopalians have “no clear doctrine” clearly forbidding the ordination of persons who are sexually active outside of marriage.
1998—In a stunning defeat for the left, bishops at the global Lambeth conference in Canterbury declare that sex outside of marriage, including gay sex, is “incompatible with scripture” and call for a ban on same-sex-union rites and the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals.
2000—Archbishops from Rwanda and Southeast Asia consecrate two American conservatives as missionary bishops, escalating global efforts to form an alternative structure for Anglican traditionalists in North America.
View the original post
What are the practical ramifications of the Episcopal Church’s resolutions re: ordaining gay bishops/condoning gay marriage? Can the Episcopal Church be kicked out of the Anglican Union? Will priests and bishops ordained in the Episcopal Church be unrecognized by the wider Anglican Union? Is it a matter of funding?
I ask these questions in innocence and ignorance: I really don’t understand how all of this works.
Peace and all good,
Michael
]]>At its recently concluded General Convention, The Episcopal Church passed resolutions that are widely regarded as repudiations of prior commitments to the Windsor moratoria that have been officially implemented by the Anglican Communion. Apparently reacting to the swift denunciation of these actions by many in the Communion, various constituencies in TEC are now scrambling to re-interpret General Convention’s actions. ENS withdrew and revised its story about a key vote and Convention participants have produced wildly inconsistent, if equally far-fetched, interpretations of what took place. Integrity continues to claim, however, that this Convention was a “virtual clean sweep” for their side.
There are now multiple conflicting interpretations of the relationship of Resolution D025 to Resolution B033 and the Windsor moratorium on episcopal elections. During the debate on D025 in the House of Bishops, the Presiding Bishop stated (in response to a leading question from Bishop Gulick) that the moratorium would remain in effect until another gay bishop was consecrated. Bishop Gulick has since repeated this claim himself. In any sense in which this is true at all, it is merely a trivial tautology and therefore of no empirical significance or interest. The Windsor Report was not asking TEC to refrain from consecrating another gay bishop only until such time as they consecrate another gay bishop. It was asking TEC to commit not to do so.
A few days later, in their joint letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies stated that “Some are concerned that the adoption of Resolution D025 has effectively repealed Resolution B033. That is not the case. This General Convention has not repealed Resolution B033. It remains to be seen how Resolution B033 will be understood and interpreted in light of Resolution D025.”
http://ecusa.anglican.org/documents/D025_letter_to_Archbishop.pdf
Note that this letter makes no mention at all of a moratorium. It neither claims that one is still in place or even that one was ever in place. It only refers to the relationship between D025 and B033, and in that context makes the claim that B033 will be interpreted in light of the later D025, not vice versa. The joint letter thus gives D025 priority over B033. Time will tell, they say, whether B033 will either be re-interpreted or treated as repealed. But it is the status of B033 that is up for grabs, not D025.
The Presiding Bishop’s assistant for ecumenical matters, Bishop Epting is among those taking the tack of re-interpreting B033:
The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops’ passage of resolution D025 does not overturn last General Convention’s call for care and “restraint.” That last resolution (B033) was never a “moratorium” on the ordination and consecration of gay and lesbian persons. It counseled care in approving any bishops whose “manner of life” would cause additional strain on the Anglican Communion.
Quite apart from the press’s (including Episcopal News Service) usual misunderstanding of such things, D025 simply re-asserts what has always been true — the ordination process in The Episcopal Church is governed by the Constitution and Canons of this church.
It would be perfectly possible for a bishop to have voted for D025 and still withhold consent for the election of any bishop-elect. http://ecubishop.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/do25-does-not-overturn-b033
In other words, the Epting defense is that B033 is not repealed because it was never a moratorium to begin with. This points out the flaw in the D025/B033 shell game that is now the party line of TEC progressives. It “preserves” B033 by acknowledging that TEC was never in compliance with the Windsor request anyway. It thereby constitutes a stunning betrayal of the Communion bodies that bent over backwards at the cost of their own credibility to find in B033 the moratorium that the Windsor Report and consecutive Primates’ Meetings requested.
Note that the Windsor Report requested in paragraph 134 that:
the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges. http://www.anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004/section_d/p2.cfm
The Primates’ Meeting at Dromantine formalized this request and asked that TEC (and the Anglican Church of Canada) “respond through their relevant constitutional bodies.” http://www.anglicancommunion.org/communion/primates/resources/downloads/communique _english.pdf Neither the Windsor Report nor the Primates specified that the moratorium needed to be incorporated into canon law; only that the commitment to “effect” the moratorium be given by the relevant constitutional body.
In TEC’s case, a moratorium could have been effected by passing a canon at General Convention, but that was not done. Indeed, it was never proposed. Instead, B033 was merely a resolution requesting restraint. But in TEC’s case, a moratorium could also be effected by a commitment by the constitutional bodies responsible for giving consents to episcopal elections, bishops with jurisdiction and standing committees. The Communion bodies did TEC a great favor by interpreting B033 in precisely this fashion. B033 complied with the Windsor request, they said, because it was a commitment by a majority of bishops with jurisdiction to withhold consent. Thus, the widely-criticized “Sub-Group Report” issued before the Primates’ Meeting in Dar es Salaam found TEC in compliance on this front based on its conclusion that:
In voting for this resolution, the majority of bishops with jurisdiction have indicated that they will refuse consent in future to the consecration of a bishop whose manner of life challenges the wider church and leads to further strains on Communion. This represents a significant shift from the position which applied in 2003. It was noted that a small number of bishops indicated that they would not abide by the resolution of General Convention, but in supporting the resolution the majority of bishops have committed themselves to the recommendations of the Windsor Report…. The group believes therefore that General Convention has complied in this resolution with the request of the Primates. (Emphasis added.)
http://web.archive.org/web/20070221141200/www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/42/25/Communion+Sub-Group+Final+text.pdf
The compliance with the Windsor request was found therefore not in the canonical enforceability of B033 but in the commitment of a majority of bishops with jurisdiction to a moratorium. And that commitment was manifested by their vote on B033.
In New Orleans in September 2007, the House of Bishops confirmed this interpretation of B033 by endorsing the Sub-group Report:
The House of Bishops concurs with Resolution EC011 of the Executive Council. This Resolution commends the Report of the Communion Sub-Group of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates of the Anglican Communion as an accurate evaluation of Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention, calling upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees “to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.”[1] The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains. (Emphasis added.)
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_90457_ENG_HTM.htm
In evaluating the House of Bishops’ response after New Orleans, the Communion’s Joint Standing Committee concluded TEC had complied with the Windsor request solely on the basis that it had endorsed the Sub-Group’s conclusions:
By confirming the interpretation of the Communion Sub-Group and quoting it explicitly, as well as making the explicit acknowledgement in the last sentence of their text that Resolution B033 does refer to “non-celibate gay and lesbian persons”, the Episcopal House of Bishops is answering the question of the Primates positively. They confirm the understanding of the sub-group that restraint is exercised in a precise way “by not consenting”, and that this specifically includes “non-celibate gay and lesbian persons”. They have therefore clearly affirmed that the Communion Sub-Group were correct in interpreting Resolution B033 as meeting the request of the Windsor Report. http://www.aco.org/communion/acc/resources/downloads/JSC Report on New Orleans 071003.pdf
As this review shows, the significance to the communion of B033 was the “commitment” manifested by bishops with jurisdiction by their votes to “effect a moratorium” by withholding consent. One can readily see that this was the most favorable interpretation one could possibly give to TEC’s actions in 2006 in passing B033.
Those who gave TEC this benefit of the doubt have now been rewarded with D025 and the claim that no harm has been done because B033 never was a moratorium anyway. Yet those same bishops (including Bp. Epting) concurred in the HOB statement at New Orleans that B033 complied with Windsor and effected a moratorium. We now have the Presiding Bishop (among others) saying the moratorium is still in effect, her ecumenical assistant saying (contrary to what he said at New Orleans) that it was never in effect, the two presiding officers jointly saying only time will tell, but D025 takes precedence and virtually everyone lauding themselves for their “honesty.”
In fact, B033 never was a de jure moratorium, but it could be construed (as the Communion bodies graciously did) as a commitment by bishops with jurisdiction to effect a moratorium. But under this most favorable possible interpretation, that commitment by bishops has now been repudiated by D025. In that resolution, an overwhelming majority of bishops, including bishops with jurisdiction, committed to opening all orders of ministry to partnered homosexuals and accepted a resolution that was explicitly based in its own official Explanation on the claim that homosexual relationships reflect “holy love” and that these “standards” should provide “guidance for access to the discernment process for ordination to the episcopate.” The only conclusion that can be drawn from this vote is that the commitment to effect a moratorium manifested only by the votes for B033 has been repudiated by the very different commitment manifested by the votes for D025. A vote endorsing D025 and the standards articulated in its Explanation is not a commitment to effect a moratorium. It quite obviously is the contrary and is why Integrity regards this convention as a “virtual clean sweep.” A minority of bishops remain committed to B033, but they no longer are the majority the Sub-Group and Joint Standing Committee concluded was sufficient to effect the Windsor moratorium.
Similar efforts are underway to obscure the effect of Resolution C056, which approved dioceses’ blessings of same sex unions and began the development of church-wide liturgies. This is a subject with a lengthy history and public record.
In 2003, General Convention by resolution C051 acknowledged that liturgies blessing same sex unions were in use in TEC: “we recognize that local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions.”
http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts/acts_resolution.pl?resolution=2003-C051
The Sub-Group Report found that such public liturgies were in use in several TEC dioceses and concluded: “We do not see how bishops who continue to act in a way which diverges from the common life of the Communion can be fully incorporated into its ongoing life. This is therefore a question which needs to be addressed urgently by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20070221141200/www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/42/25/Communion+Sub-Group+Final+text.pdf
In New Orleans, the House of Bishops acknowledged that some, but not a majority, of bishops “make allowance for the blessing of same sex unions.”
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_90457_ENG_HTM.htm
In light of this record over several years of acknowledgement of public liturgies of blessing, the language in C056 encouraging bishops to offer “generous pastoral response”—not “private [pastoral] response” as contemplated by the Primates—can only be construed as endorsement by the General Convention of the well-known public liturgies of blessing that have long been acknowledged to be in use in TEC dioceses. That this endorsement was given with obvious cunning and craft is not a point in its favor.
In other words, C056 is the endorsement by TEC as a whole of those bishops who act in violation of the second of the Windsor moratoria. The Archbishop of Canterbury has indicated that it is public liturgies of blessing, not just approval of rites, that are implicated by the second Windsor moratorium. The post-New Orleans Joint Standing Committee report, which was accepted by TEC’s Presiding Bishop, a member of that committee, made this explicit:
It needs to be made clear however that we believe that the celebration of a public liturgy which includes a blessing on a same-sex union is not within the breadth of private pastoral response envisaged by the Primates in their Pastoral Letter of 2003, and that the undertaking made by the bishops in New Orleans is understood to mean that the use of any such rites or liturgies will not in future have the bishop’s authority “until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action”, a qualification which is in line with the limits that the Constitution of The Episcopal Church places upon the bishops (emphasis added).”http://www.aco.org/communion/acc/resources/downloads/JSC Report on New Orleans 071003.pdf “] http://www.aco.org/communion/acc/resources/downloads/JSC Report on New Orleans 071003.pdf [/url]
The Windsor Continuation Group Report released earlier this year concluded that those dioceses that were “actively pursuing” public rites of blessing had “only the passive consent of General Convention, which has until now refused to take positive steps toward the recognition of such Rites.” The WCG was willing to conclude the second moratorium was “significantly” holding because it found that the public blessings could not “be characterized as a determined movement by the whole Church to see such Rites firmly established in the life of the Church.” http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/windsor_continuation/WCG_Report.cfm
C056 quite obviously is a repudiation of the New Orleans undertaking as understood by the Joint Standing Committee and is the “determined movement” by the whole church the WCG did not find earlier this year. C056 made no effort to discourage the long-acknowledged and ongoing public blessings, and no one suggested for a minute that they were not what was being encouraged as a “generous pastoral response.”
Whatever one makes of the resolutions of the last two General Conventions, it is clear that TEC has now charted its own course and no longer considers itself bound by previous undertakings and Communion moratoria.
View the original post
]]>When I returned home from Convention in Columbus, I was emotionally drained. The intensity and the anguish felt by so many over the last few days of that Convention took a massive toll. When I got home, besides sleeping for a day or two, I just sort of sat and stared out the window. I ended up digging out my director versions of the Lord of Rings movies and spent a few days watching the whole series sequentially. Sort of like going to Bayreuth for a full Ring cycle.
I’m not as drained this Convention. The bishops have made the big decisions already (and there’s little or no question about where the House of Deputies is standing on this during this particular Convention) and the budget discussions yesterday were mostly a waste of time in terms of accomplishing anything. So given that I’m not exhausted, I’m thinking I need to find a nice mental challenge for a couple of days of vacation.
I think I’ve found it:
“Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates believes that if he had been able to watch physicist Richard Feynman lecture on physics in 1964 his life might have played out differently.
Mr. Gates, of course, is legendary as a Harvard University dropout who went on to create the world’s most successful software firm. He has told associates that if had watched the lectures earlier in his life he might have become a physicist instead of a software entrepreneur.However, Mr. Gates, who is also well known for his sharp and varied intellectual interests and his philanthropic commitment to education, said this week that he had purchased the rights to videos of seven lectures that Dr. Feynman gave at Cornell University called “The Character of Physical Law,” in an effort to make them broadly available via the Internet.”
Read the full article here.
My advisor back when I was working in the area of General Relativity was Ed Kerner. Kerner was famous around the school as having been Feynman’s first grad student. Dr. Kerner (I never ever called him by his first name, not even behind his back) was said to have had much of the same lecture style as his advisor had. Kerner, while certainly one of the finest mathematical minds I’ve ever known, never ever lost sight of the physics behind the equations. He told me that he’d learned that skill from *his* advisor.
I’ve read the Feynman lectures a couple of times now, but I always wished I could have seen Dr. Feynman actually deliver them. Now I can apparently.
I think I’m going to do just that for my aperitif in the coming week.
View the original post
In 2006 the broad middle of the church was tired of the combative right and left. In the wisdom of that moment they supported B033 which was intended to send a message of good will to the ultra conservatives in TEC encouraging them to hang in and keep working.
Things went differently, of course. The rabid reasserters, ignoring the Windsor Report’s third moratorium struck out on their own to various foreign climes. Acna was formed and within TEC the Communion Bishops group emerged. The relentless attacks of the ACI on the entire history and polity of TEC were noted.
In short the effort at a good will “leaning in” to the Communion and its concerns and the conservatives and their concerns was rewarded with dirt in the face.
So now there is not only a lopsided majority in the House of Deputies, with the middle moving away from a naive (in my estimation) view that an offering would help, to an understanding that nothing that can be done will matter to those determined to hurt TEC. The more surprising thing is that the House of Bishops, still fresh from the warm fuzzies of Indaba have also sent the message that they are fed up. Both messages are embedded in traditional Anglican Fudge, but they are there.
Those conservatives struggling to stay connected have not been abandoned by TEC, but by the ultra conservatives who created and have maintained a climate of vilification and attack. The lopsided votes are a statement that when something is given or conceded genuine people give something back. Because this did not happen because there was never for one moment an effort to meditate,TEC seems done with it.
So now the Anglican Communion is faced with a TEC whose message is “enough.” TEC made a good faith effort, far more than I personally would have counselled they make, and was rewarded with wormwood. And even now, attempts to characterize where we are, to give a snapshot of how we see the world, is instantly repudiated and vilified. So be it.
Were the votes 51 to 49 there might be some cause to ask that TEC listen more. But given the despicable treatment TEC has endure these three years it is perhaps wise for other to do some respectful listening to the two thirds plus majorities happening.
]]>Styled as the “Anaheim Statement,” the letter of dissent to the actions of the 76th General Convention pledged the bishops’ fealty to the requests made by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the 2008 Lambeth Conference, the primates’ meetings and ACC-14 to observe a moratoria on same-gender blessings, cross-border interventions and the ordination of gay and lesbian people to the episcopate.
In the hours after its release, the statement drew support from 23 diocesan bishops, four suffragan and assistant bishops, and two retired bishops and included bishops who voted on both sides of D025 and C056—resolutions that rescinded the ban on two of the three Windsor Report moratoria.
Rising to speak on a point of personal privilege during the House of Bishops afternoon session July 16, the Rt. Rev. Gary W. Lillibridge of West Texas read a statement prepared by an ad hoc committee of concerned bishops.
“At this convention,” Bishop Lillibridge said, the house had “heard repeated calls for honesty and clarity” on The Episcopal Church’s stance on the contested issues surrounding sexual ethics. The attempts to “modify wording which would have been preferable to the minority in the vote were respectfully heard and discussed, but in the end most of these amendments were found unacceptable to the majority in the House.”
The votes on Resolution D025 and C056 had made it clear that a majority of bishops believed it was time to “move forward on matters of human sexuality.” While grateful for the “clarity” these votes had brought, Bishop Lillibridge asked his fellow bishops to join him seeking “to find a place in the Church we continue to serve” and endorse a five-point statement of loyalty to the Communion.
The statement:
* reaffirmed the bishops’ “constituent membership in the Anglican Communion, our communion with the See of Canterbury, and our commitment to preserving these relationships”;
* reaffirmed their “commitment to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them”;
* reaffirmed their “commitment to the three moratoria requested of us by the Instruments of Communion”;
* reaffirmed their “commitment to the Anglican Communion Covenant process currently underway, with the hope of working toward its implementation across the Communion once a Covenant is completed”;
* reaffirmed their “commitment to ‘continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship’ which is foundational to our baptismal covenant, and to be one with the apostles in ‘interpreting the Gospel’ which is essential to our work as bishops of the Church of God.”
At the close of the afternoon session, 20 bishops endorsed the letter, with nine morre adding their names during the evening.
“This was not a statement of division,” the Rt. Rev. Edward J. Konieczny, Bishop of Oklahoma — a conservative leaning bishops who had not signed the statemen —said at a news briefing after the session. It was a “statement of unity” that acknowledged “we have listened to one another intently.”
The House of Bishops’ second media spokesman, the Rt. Rev. James Mathes of San Diego and a supporter of the actions taken this week in the House of Bishops, said he believed the statement offered “clarity of where they are.”
A copy of the letter has been forwarded to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Its initial signatories include:
The Rt. Rev James Adams, Western Kansas
The Rt. Rev Lloyd Allen, Honduras
The Rt. Rev David Alvarez, Puerto Rico
The Rt. Rev John Bauerschmidt, Tennessee
The Rt. Rev Peter Beckwith, Springfield
The Rt. Rev Franklin Brookhart, Montana
The Rt. Rev William Frey, Rio Grande
The Rt. Rev Dorsey Henderson, Upper South Carolina
The Rt. Rev John Howe, Central Florida
The Rt. Rev Russell Jacobus, Fond du Lac
The Rt. Rev Don Johnson, West Tennessee
The Rt. Rev Mark Lawrence, South Carolina
The Rt. Rev Gary Lillibridge, West Texas
The Rt. Rev Edward Little, Northern Indiana
The Rt. Rev William Love, Albany
The Rt. Rev Bruce MacPherson, Western Louisiana
The Rt. Rev Alfredo Morante, Litoral Ecuador
The Rt. Rev Henry Parsley, Alabama
The Rt. Rev Michael Smith, North Dakota
The Rt. Rev James Stanton, Dallas
The Rt. Rev Pierre Whalon, Convocation of American Churches in Europe
The Rt. Rev Paul Lambert, Suffragan-Dallas
The Rt. Rev David Reed, Suffragan-West Texas
The Rt. Rev Sylestre Romero, Assistant—New Jersey
The Rt. Rev John Sloan, Suffragan—Alabama
The Rt. Rev Jeffrey Rowthorn, Retired-Convocation of American Churches in Europe
The Rt. Rev Don Wimberly, Retired-Texas
View the original post