Sunday, July 20, 2008

Lambeth and the provisionality of Anglicanism

As the Lambeth Conference is formally convened, there have been ecumenical greetings from the multiple factions of the worldwide Church. On the agenda are mission and evangelisation, social justice, the environment and violence against women, but no-one is in any doubt that the media and the Church’s critics will focus upon the divisions surrounding homosexuality and women bishops.

And how shall the Archbishop of Canterbury hold it all together?

Cranmer was amused by this observation from Thinking Anglicans:

“Reading all the titles of the (ecumenical guests) made me wonder whether the problem we have with Anglican authority is that we just don’t have impressive enough words in front of our names. If Rowan styled himself catholicos, supreme head, patriarch, holiness or beatitude who’d dare oppose him?”

And yet the fact that he does not is part of the Anglican tradition, and that tradition appears to include talking itself down and stressing its provisionality. There is a quest for absorption into the wider Church and for finding a raison d’être because the Church of England has ceased to believe in itself. There is historic rationale for this, because the Church of England is part of the catholic Church of Christ, and the restlessness it has experienced since its foundation (ie since it ceased being simply the Church in England) is simply a symptom of eschatological reality.

Anglicans profess the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and this is without geographic or sociological limitation. It is no more English than it is Russian, Greek or Roman: it is incarnational and visible in each disparate society, and is therefore fragmented and fractured because catholicity is partial and incomplete. The unity to which it aspires is an eschatological hope to be fulfilled beyond this life, and all parts of the Christian Church - whatever they assert about themselves, and whatever impressive titles their leaders have before their names – stand in this position of incompleteness, with partial understanding, gazing through a glass darkly.

And it is in this fragmentation that we may find the cross. And the suffering inherent to our humanity should evoke humility and contrition. Ecclesial communities cannot be the Church catholic, but neither can the Church catholic be the repository of completeness or truth while it lacks the fullness which union with those communities would provide.

The Church of England has never claimed the exclusivity claimed by other communions. It has always been part, portion or branch of the whole catholic Church. As a fragment of the whole, as a victim of disunity, it shares its responsibility for schism. But because it acknowledges its provisionality, it works incessantly towards healing the wounds in the body of Christ, and it does so with humility, with brokenness, and without globe-trotting expressions of triumphalism.

The Church of England should have confidence in its ecclesiology, its tradition and the Anglican Communion. But the survival of the latter must not become an end in itself, for all communions, however great, are destined to cease. But the Church of England's cultural habit of self-denigration must also cease, if only because other communions are not so cursed with this propensity. The Church of England is worth its salt, and anyone who asserts the contrary can have no understanding of the meaning of church, and little appreciation of the provisionality with which the whole worldwide institution is charged.

27 Comments:

Anonymous The Recusant said...

Don't need to refute this absolute twaddle some one has already doe it, Last year:

Thoughtless Anglicans

I have come across a website with the remarkable title 'Thinking Anglicans'. The website compiles blog posts and makes comment from a viewpoint that basically toes the liberal humanist Anglican establishment party line.

The title of their website, 'Thinking Anglicans' is immediately offensive because it sounds elitist and condescending. It implies that the authors and readers of the website are the only Anglicans who think. Anyone who disagrees with them (like those awful fundamentalist, superstitious African Anglicans or those crude American Evangelicals in Virginia) cannot be thinkers like they are. They must be ignorant, stupid or both. The title further implies not only that the authors and readers are the only thinking Anglicans, but that Anglicans (especially Anglicans who are tasteful, educated and socially rising) are probably the only sort of Christians who think at all.

One of their number (if not in fact, then certainly in spirit) once said to me in his languid, English aristocratic way, "It must be sooo easy to be a Catholic. You don't have to think about anything. You just accept whatever the Church says."

The privately educated chattering classes of the Church of England offend in this way constantly. They do it instinctively. They are too often like one of Jane Austen's aristocratic ladies who constantly offend everyone lower than themselves without even being aware of it. At the same time this gang usually prides itself on its refined manners, good taste and social niceties.

When confronted with a website called 'Thinking Anglicans' I want to ask, "What were you thinking?" I search in vain for anything in their writings which is at all original, creative or even interesting. Most of what is written is second or third hand liberal mumbo jumbo...a re-hash of out worn sentimentality, sad politically correct agitprop, and dodgy psycho babble all dressed up in mock Christian jargon.

It must be sooo easy to be a 'thinking Anglican'... you just accept whatever the establishment of the Episcopal and Anglican Churches tell you...

Fr. Dwight Longenecker February 04, 2007

20 July 2008 at 11:06  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Recusant,

His Grace has not quoted at length from 'Thinking Anglicans', but merely one slightly amusing paragraph. He has himself previously expressed that 'Thinking Anglicans' is somewhat oxymoronic.

His Grace would be most interested to hear why the rest of his post is 'absolute twaddle'. Unless, of course, it is sufficient to state that you do not share his beliefs on provisionality, universality or eschatology.

20 July 2008 at 11:54  
Anonymous John Fisher said...

Your lordship,

One thing anglicanism doesn't lack is fancy titles: reverend, very reverend, most reverend, venerable ...

Not to mention archbishops, bishops, suffragans, archdeacons, canons, prebendaries, primates ...

20 July 2008 at 12:40  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

I don't think this is absolute twadle, but I have to agree with much of what the recusant has to say.
It is my opinion that if the working class began filling the churches, the upper and middle classes would have to invent either a new religion, or a new brand to perpetuate their superior beingness.

20 July 2008 at 12:49  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

I assumed that Fr Longnecker was (quite rightly) calling "thinking Anglicanism" twaddle, not Your Grace's post.
However, his reference to "the privately educated chattering classes of the Church of England" suggests a certain want of thinking on his own part.

20 July 2008 at 13:56  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

QED

20 July 2008 at 14:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

St Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, AD 189:

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition."

20 July 2008 at 14:10  
Anonymous The Recusant said...

My somewhat too brief response was primarily directed to the thinking Anglicans snippet being twaddle; naturally your Grace would not expect me to agree to the presupposition that the Anglican Communion is Catholic and Apostolic, you know the arguments, I don’t think we have to rehash them again, as for your specific points;
provisionality, certainly as we are all provisional.

I agree that the official strap line may be for universality but in reality this is not he case, residual pockets of Anglicanism harping back to the days of empire is hardly universality and as we have seen GAFCON don’t seen to share in Lambeth’s vision of universality but rather a new order of young black Turks are making themselves felt. Who knows the way things are going they will be sending missionaries here as the AC has categorically denied Christs instruction to “Go Ye, Therefore, and Make Disciples of all Nations”. The AC has given up on its missionary zeal of the 19th century and is now in ‘holding the fort’ mode so universality is questionable.

This was nowhere more evident recently than when Paul Eddy, a lay member of the General Synod, proposed a private members bill inline with the Bishop of Rochester, to discuss whether clergy should be doing more to convert British Muslims to Christianity only to find that that many bishops now actively downplay this missionary role. He said "Ten days before Lambeth there would be lots of bishops who would not be comfortable voting on the uniqueness of Christ.”, (can you believe that?) the debate on recruiting other faiths was postponed while another far more important topic was discussed, the promotion of churches as tourist attractions. So yes I have difficulty with universal.

Eschatology is somewhat a fixation with the more protestant branches of the AC but does not really concern me too much. Some of the more extreme protestant sects are obsessed with the so called ‘rapture’ (for a Sola scriptura based religion find rapture in the Bible), prophecy and "last days" teachings. Well we had Matthew 13:24-27 in Sunday’s gospel which says what will happen at the end of the age and all we need to know about it, Matthew 24:36 says “About that hour no one knows, neither the angels nor the Son”, I think Christ said that to shut his disciples up pestering him about it. St. Ephrem an Early Church Father wrote in the early 4th century this excerpt from his commentary on the Diatessaron (Cap. 18, 15-17: SC 121, 325-328)

"Though the Lord has established the signs of his coming, the time of their fulfilment has not been plainly revealed. These signs have come and gone with a multiplicity of change; more than that, they are still present. His final coming is like his first. As holy men and prophets waited for him, thinking that he would reveal himself in their own day, so today each of the faithful longs to welcome him in his own day, because Christ has not made plain the day of his coming."

So eschatology is there but we cannot add, change or know any more about it consequently I don’t fixate on it much, my pilgrim journey has enough problems that I can do something about to worry about those I can’t.

Finally the thing about titles, one cannot compare the ABC with the Pope (if that is what is being implied) as the former is not a monarch, now compare the Popes titles with Her Majesty and you would be nearer the mark.

20 July 2008 at 14:11  
Anonymous mckenzie said...

The Centurion was a man under authority. He understood taking and giving orders. He understood the responsibility and obligations that go with authority. He understood the authority that Jesus had over diseases. He understood Who Jesus was. He understood humbleness and how unworthy he was. Jesus said of this person that understood authority, I HAVE NOT FOUND SO GREAT FAITH, NO, NOT IN ISRAEL. Understanding authority is directly related to faith.
It is written Mt 8:5-10,13-AND WHEN JESUS WAS ENTERED INTO CAPERNAUM, THERE CAME UNTO HIM A CENTURION, BESEECHING HIM, AND SAYING, LORD, MY SERVANT LIETH AT HOME SICK OF THE PALSY, GRIEVOUSLY TORMENTED. AND JESUS SAITH UNTO HIM, I WILL COME AND HEAL HIM. THE CENTURION ANSWERED AND SAID, LORD, I AM NOT WORTHY THAT THOU SHOULDEST COME UNDER MY ROOF: BUT SPEAK THE WORD ONLY, AND MY SERVANT SHALL BE HEALED. FOR I AM A MAN UNDER AUTHORITY, HAVING SOLDIERS UNDER ME: AND I SAY TO THIS MAN, GO, AND HE GOETH; AND TO ANOTHER, COME, AND HE COMETH; AND TO MY SERVANT, DO THIS, AND HE DOETH IT. WHEN JESUS HEARD IT, HE MARVELLED, AND SAID TO THEM THAT FOLLOWED, VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, I HAVE NOT FOUND SO GREAT FAITH, NO, NOT IN ISRAEL. AND JESUS SAID UNTO THE CENTURION, GO THY WAY; AND AS THOU HAST BELIEVED, SO BE IT DONE UNTO THEE. AND HIS SERVANT WAS HEALED IN THE SELFSAME HOUR.

A person may say, "I am saved by grace. I believe in Jesus. I teach the Gospel." Yet, even though they say these things and even teach the Gospel:
IF THEY DO NOT LOVE THEIR BROTHER IN CHRIST, they will perish.
IF THEY ARE NOT BORN-AGAIN, they will perish.
IF THEY DO NOT FORGIVE THEIR BROTHER IN CHRIST, they will perish.
IF THEY ARE NOT CONVERTED AND DO NOT BECOME AS LITTLE CHILDREN, they will perish.
IF THEY DO NOT DENY THEMSELVES, AND PICK UP THEIR CROSS DAILY, AND FOLLOW JESUS, they will perish.
The list goes on and on.
They may appear to have repented, been baptized, and be serving God; however, IF these and other things are not also in place, they will perish. True repentance includes all of these.
But understand this. If you are HOT in knowledge and wisdom for Jesus, but are continually around others that teach and believe a lukewarm message, they may cause you to cool down and compromise, rather than you causing them to get hot. It is written, DO NOT BE MISLED: BAD COMPANY CORRUPTS GOOD CHARACTER-1 Cor 15:33 NIV.

20 July 2008 at 14:39  
Blogger Johnny Norfolk said...

I think the Church of England as we have known it is finished.

It has followed trendy roads for years has not given firm guidence and has let the nation down. It has taken the easy slack option every time. Pity.

20 July 2008 at 16:16  
Anonymous Stonemason said...

I wonder, are the problems in the "Church of England" because the Church is still "work in progress".

Do you just have to keep the faith, and let your saviour complete the task, after all, its only been about 2000 years, a mere bagatelle in terms of time.

20 July 2008 at 17:14  
Blogger mckenzie said...

The Church has lost the way over the years, it has struggled to compete with the fierce pace of scientific discovery and materialistic wealth.
But science has only proven to explain a small amount of physical processes and phenomena. There did seem to be hope that science would yield the answers to everything, but sadly this is not to be.
There will ever remain a sixth sense into a fourth dimension, where science will only reveal more startling evidence of a greater power in the Universe.
But this is a satori moment for us, where we can move forward once again, with no shame in our faith in God coupled with scientific revelation, on our journey of discovery into the nature and beauty of the miracle of creation.

20 July 2008 at 17:22  
Anonymous Bugs Bunny said...

"the restlessness it has experienced since its foundation (ie since it ceased being simply the Church in England) is simply a symptom of eschatological reality...The unity to which it aspires is an eschatological hope to be fulfilled beyond this life, and all parts of the Christian Church"

With all due respect Your Grace, I think you may be confusing eschatology for ecclesiology (...otherwise the above makes little sense). Eschatology is the study of the end times; ecclesiology has to do with the nature and theological understanding of the Church. They are two very different types of bananas.

20 July 2008 at 19:59  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Bugs Bunny,

His Grace is not wont to converse with rabbits, but he would like to point out that he is perfectly conversant with both ecclesiology and eschatology, and is fully aware of their definitions. And his statement makes perfect sense, unless you, of course, understand the meaning of neither.

20 July 2008 at 20:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

THE ANGLICAN TRADITIONAL CHURCH IS DYING ON ITS FEET.
UNTIL IT STANDS ON THE ROCK(JESUS CHRIST)IT WILL CONTINUE TO DECLINE.
NO AMOUNT OF HUMAN EFFORT WILL SAVE IT!.
IT IS ONLY WHEN THE CHURCH ALIGNS ITSELF WITH GODS WILL THAT RECOVERY WILL BEGIN!.

20 July 2008 at 21:37  
Anonymous hear o israel said...

thankyou mckenzie for your quotes nice to hear the great work being used to illuminate rather than burdon.

The CofE is suffering from a lack of faith, christianity is suffering from man made implants.

If i were a pagan , how would i be taught to walk the upright path ??
would a "councellor" dare to venture to tell me what i should do ??

would a police officer ??? would an MP ?? well i think the answer would be NO .

they would all be wary of telling someone, as this is anti liberal. What the feat of this government to acieve the belief that it is right to leaglise the individual being a moral vaccuum.

who should tell us why life is a mess , who should respond when we find the cause . The liberal mindset trys to define a basic moral framework but stops short at where it thinks libertites lay .

The church has always told us where our liberties lay in retelling the bible. "work in progress" may help to define things for the functioning of the church , but it seems a bit poor that its takers are so cruelly paradid as being out of touch luddites.

The CofE is being asked to catch up , my view is its values have never diminished and now it finds itself in a protacted civil war of the theology of the veiwers sofa, vs the scripture that is the well of salvation .

the thinking anglican is everthing , but then again nothing without being a fathfull one

20 July 2008 at 22:52  
Blogger Viator Catholicus said...

How can the "Church of England" which admittedly "ceased being simply (I'd remove "simply") the Church in England" be part of the Catholic Church when it has separated itself from that One Church?

"Oneness" is a mark of the Church. If the Church is not one in essence, it cannot be from God. Meanwhile, a lack of oneness in doctrine here and now, implies that one communion is now not part of the other. The "eschatological reality" novelty is merely a rationalization to continue opposing the Holy Spirit.

Pope Benedict's recent (Sat. July 19) words to the youths in Australia about the unity of the Church effected by the Holy Spirit are appropriate:

"It is the Spirit, in fact, who guides the Church in the way of all truth and unifies her in communion and in the works of ministry (cf. Lumen Gentium, 4). Unfortunately the temptation to “go it alone” persists. Some today portray their local community as somehow separate from the so-called institutional Church, by speaking of the former as flexible and open to the Spirit and the latter as rigid and devoid of the Spirit.

"Unity is of the essence of the Church (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 813); it is a gift we must recognize and cherish."

21 July 2008 at 04:04  
Anonymous steadmancinques said...

viator catholicus;

The answer to your question, 'How can the CofE be catholic when it has separated itself from the One
Church?' is fairly straightforward.
The CofE upholds belief in one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it subscribes to all the doctrines concerning the nature of the Trinity, and the central tenets of the catholic faith as defined in the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon.
It is therefore part of the catholic church.

This is not the whole story, however. There is also the question of tradition and authority. The Protestant Reformation grew out of the rejection, firstly by Martin Luther, of those medieval traditions which they regarded as corrupt. The reformers did not seek to establish a new church; they wished to return the church to its early purity.

In the end this could not be achieved without rejecting the authority of the Pope. The overwhelming wealth, pride and magnificence of the Renaissance papacy meant that the Popes, Cardinals, Archbishops, etc were completely integrated into a system which they did not want to see reformed, and in which Roman Catholic reformers were seen as almost as much as a threat as 'heretics'. The well chronicled marital difficulties of Henry VIII, combined with English anti-clericalism made the break with Rome fairly inevitable. Denying the authority of the Bishop of Rome does not deny the Anglican Communion a place in the catholic church any more than the 'Great Schism' denies the rightful place of the Orthodox tradition in the catholic church.

As Queen Elizabeth I famously remarked, 'There is only one Jesus Christ who died for us and all our sins. The rest is as a squabble amongst children over trifles'.

21 July 2008 at 10:04  
Anonymous tiberswimmer said...

Considering the parlous state of the Church of England, it turns out Her Majesty would appear to have been quite wrong.

21 July 2008 at 12:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes; but. What does his Grace think of the frocks?

21 July 2008 at 14:43  
Blogger prziloczek said...

Dear Vicars:
And now to the nitty gritty:
1. Would you, personally, marry a couple of gay people in your church if they were asking you to? If yes, Why? If no, what would you give them as the reason?
2. Bearing in mind Christ's statements on divorce, would you personally remarry a divorcee in church? If yes? Why? If no, what would you give them as the reason?
I simply cannot see the way round these problems. In the end it is "a pope in every parish".

21 July 2008 at 17:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

THE BIBLE USED TO GIVE US GUIDELINES
AS TO WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT IS WRONG! NATIONS HAVE BEEN BUILT ON THIS.
THROW THAT OUT AND ANYTHING GOES!.
THAT IS PRECISELY WHY WE ARE IN THE MESS WE ARE IN.

21 July 2008 at 19:53  
Anonymous Voyager said...

The question is "Where is the Church of England" ? I am not sure it is meeting in the University of Kent at a Lambeth Conference.

So many of those present are not English, nor for that matter is the Archbishop of Canterbury. It calls itself an "Anglican" Church to please its franchisees, but it is the State Church of England since The Act of Uniformity and Charles II. After all CRomwell dispensed with Church, Lords and Bishops.

All the Roman Catolic comments about Henry VIII are irrelevant since he merely replaced the Papacy with himself retaining a largely Roman Catholic liturgy but saving on transfers of gold to the Vatican coffers.

The Republic had no need of Bishops but Charles II did and removed the presbyterians who had been at the centre of the English Civil War.

The Church became moribund and Wesley went out to proselyte - the C of E is still afraid to evangelise or to confront Muslim paganism. It is run by persons of similar ilke, independent school, university, socialist leanings and belief in Gramscian Marxism as the true Book of Revelation.

So many feel Jesus is boring and don't subscribe to the veracities of Christian Faith proving why it was Jesus chose fishermen and carpenters rather than scribes and lawyers for his disciples.

The whole status thing has bishops condescending towards parishioners and in need of a short sharp shock as parishes become self-financing by withholding diocesan levies and becoming congregational churches.

The bishops are the curse. they are too many with too little work, too much politics, and an inflated sense of self-importance. The whole bureaucracy of Synod, and the almost Labour Party structures it has adopted make it less a Christian Church and more a Party Convention with political factionalism rampant.

Worship of Christ and God Almighty can take place in a home or Bible group...Protestants do not need "Apostolic Succession". The whole issue is a vanity of under-employed bishops who should be working as street missionaries rather than civil servants.

They have simply become Ersatz-politicians who think they have a right to tax congregations of the faithful and to remain Princes of the Church. This notion is fatuous.

Reading books by Ratzinger in German shows a clear and ordered mind; listening to Rowan Williams reveals a man clouded in self-doubt, inarticulate in any sense that makes communication feasible. He sounds insincere.

Listening to Gene Robinson is like a TV commercial full of banalities and self-serving poppycock. Listening to Nazir-Ali is to hear clarity of purpose and respect for the audience.

The Lambeth Conference takes place behind a 10-foot wall; it is a pity that the entrance is not sealed as a Tower of Babel because they speak without clarity or integrity to the congregations outside, but rather as aged Politiburo apparatchiki quoting Jesus as they quoted Marx to justify their own prejudices

21 July 2008 at 20:04  
Anonymous John Knox said...

Cranmer confidently asserts: "The Church of England is worth its salt, and anyone who asserts the contrary can have no understanding of the meaning of church, and little appreciation of the provisionality with which the whole worldwide institution is charged."

It would be good if his grace could pinpoint this salt's resting place, that one may estimate its quality and value? Salt can be thrown even on pilgrimsroads in virtuous self deceit because it is unsuitable for its Lord's table.

22 July 2008 at 06:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the C of E is a bit like the NHS. It always was a compromise, but somehows struggles on and more often than not does a reasonable job in difficult circumstances. Also, although reports of church and NHS imminent demise have always been with us, the alternatives might seem less good.

However, it remains to be seen if either organisation can survive the unprecedented threats of these latter days. The church is squeezed between Islam and secularism, neither of whose territorial ambitions are limited. Can they rise to the challenge, since many bishops and others seem so keen to be 'friends with the world'?

I'm window shopping Evangelical churches, it's not only Rome that may receive some tragglers if Lambeth goes belly up.

Dissenter

22 July 2008 at 10:23  
Blogger Viator Catholicus said...

Steadmancinques,
my point was that the Church of England cannot be "part" of that to which it does not belong.
You say it belongs to the Catholic Church because you have a conception of the Catholic Church much different from that which the Catholic Church has of herself. This very lack of common vocabulary is a clear indicator that the Church of England and the Catholic Church (made up of more than 20 ritual Churches but united in Faith) are not One!

But, if the Church of England is to be considered a "part" of this existing and above mentioned Catholic Church and not some nebulous entity, than the Church of England is a "part" that long ago separated itself (just read the 39 or is it 42 articles). Cut from the Vine it can but wither.

25 July 2008 at 04:47  
Anonymous steadmancinques said...

viator catholicus;

That's all very well, but you do not define the conception that you say the Catholic Church has of itself, and complain of a lack of common vocabulary. Do you mean the Roman Catholic church, by the way?
When I use the term catholic church, I mean the church established by the Apostles and disciples to spread the good news of the the gospel of Christ throughout the world. When the Christian religion became the official religion of the Roman Empire under Constantine, it was necessary to establish a common vocabulary of the nature of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and the life, death and resurrection of Christ, as well as the canon of scripture, which was achieved by the Councils I referred to. This defined the catholic church. The Anglican church subscribes to all these doctrines, ipso facto, it is part of the catholic church.

The authority of the Bishop of Rome was recognised in early times, but it is not an article of faith.

I note you have not answered my point about the Orthodox, Greek and Russian, etc. Those churches do not recognise the authority of the Pope either; are they, therefore, in your view not part of the catholic church?

As for withering, having been cut from the vine, John's gospel does not refer to different churches, but to us as members of Christ's body; indeed, cut off from the body of Christ, the true vine, we can only wither, but if we proclaim Christ crucified, he lives in us and we in him, irrespective of which particular church we belong to.
As for the Anglican church withering, I was privileged to hear the Bishop of Natal preach in our church this morning; his diocese is just undergoing division in two, not because of controversy, but that numbers have grown to such an extent that that they can no longer be coped with in one diocese.

I am also privileged to have a direct link to someone who is privy to many of the discussions that have taken place at Canterbury this week; if you think that the Anglican Communion is about to dissolve in fratricidal disharmony over the issues of women bishops and homosexuality, you must have been reading the newspapers!

27 July 2008 at 21:44  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older