Stand Firm

My posts last weeks about the AMiA and CANA preceded the controversial letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury by only a few days. The letter took me by great surprise simply because of its clear tone and direction. (I thought it was a fake at first… sorry Matt.) Knowing it’s genuine, I am greatly encouraged by it. The content of the letter was consistent with everything I had learned on my travels. And the direction of the letter confirmed my recollections of the conversations I had at Lambeth just a few weeks earlier.

I am not able to write much about my conversations inside Lambeth Palace (I did not meet with Archbishop Williams), but I am able to say that they take a very “concerned and fully aware” view of the American problem. But they are detached from it, in a sense. It is almost a ‘Freidman-style’ approach to the crisis. (Rabbi Edwin Freidman is jokingly referred to as the 13th apostle to the American Episcopal Church. His ‘family-systems’ approach to congregational life and on being a ‘non-anxious presence’ have helped hundreds of rectors and dozens of bishops endure countless conflicts. He’s worth reading.) Lambeth wants to be a non-anxious presence among the tensions of the Anglican Communion. You can sense this in letters and updates that come from Lambeth. They are, on the whole, written from a prone position.

While the American church is breaking down, Lambeth takes its time and is letting the Windsor “process” play out. That is what his letter of last week was all about. They are not acting quickly or acting to ‘fix the American church.’ In fact, their outlook is pretty much what the ABC’s most recent letter indicates: we will all sit down and talk and see where we need to go from there.

When I was at Lambeth I sensed a kind of timelessness. There are portraits of past Archbishops lining the dark, wide hallways. There are old, musty smells in the curtains and furniture. I was offered tea (but took coffee) in a great library filled with large tables and tall windows and old pieces of art. I’ve been in dozens of corporate headquarters for American enterprises in my ministry. This headquarters said something to me that no other American organization would ever want to say. The stone edifice, the creaky floors, the polite staff, and the great hallways of historic archbishops - they all said “Wait.” Not “lead,” not “charge!”

Given the complexities of a world wide communion, Anglican Church headquarters has become very much a ‘church at rest.’ In fact, on the way out of Lambeth at the foot of the stairs, I saw something of an earlier day… of a day more filled with urgency, perhaps. I saw a rack of once very useful lances and spears. Hmmm. They used to throw spears from Lambeth Palace! Now they offer tea.

I offer this anecdote because my meeting at Lambeth showed me two things that I could not have discerned in any other way than through a personal visit. The first thing I felt was the vast cultural distance between my 24 years of ‘renewal-based evangelical Episcopalian ministry” and the Lambeth culture of a ‘state church.’

For example, we count things every Sunday at Christ Church: attendance, visitor cards, offerings, new members, program sign-ups, sermon tape sales, parking lot loads, etc. We know that we are one of hundreds of ‘church choices’ that the American seeker/believer and consumer has in church participation… and there are some pretty excellent choices just down the street. Whether you like it or not, we are geared that way.

We are not anything like the ‘established’ Church of England. The culture of Lambeth is of a state church where clergy have their ‘livings’ and people, priests, and centuries come and go. It is the ‘established’ church. And it seems very content to wait and wait.

As an American, I have been looking for the ABC to settle the very important matter before the Anglican Communion like a strong father in a family filled with fighting children and wayward sons. But I sensed for the first time that the role of the ABC at Lambeth will not ever be that of a ‘father,’ but of a ‘grandfather.’ His ‘historic office’ is there, like Lambeth Palace itself, to give wisdom and weight and representation to the years of the past and the hope of unity ahead.

I have never met Dr. Williams. I would like to one day. I have great respect for his writings and his viewpoints on many subjects. I know that he is a man with his own family, personal ministry, scholarly passions, and married to a scholar wife (two of her books on my coffee table for Christmas). He has a personal vision and leadership style that could be quite effective in many places, I am sure. But as the vested Archbishop of Canterbury, his role in the fracas would never be a decisive or ‘purpose-driven leader’ or in the American sense ‘driven’ at all. It would be diplomatic and directional. Archbishop Williams will facilitate the Windsor Process that is still being played out. And the process will take time… lots of it. I don’t think the February Primates meeting will be the finish for anything. It is just another meeting in time. And time is what Lambeth seems to have plenty of.

But the second thing I saw at Lambeth was a clear reason why CANA and AMiA are in the same boat regarding their status in the Anglican Communion. These organizations are mission efforts by Global South Provinces to pick up the pieces of a broken church, fuse it to a new mission, and build something new for Gospel ministry. Both of them are working at different levels in unique circumstances, as I have tried to show in my previous posts. I admire the leadership of both these organizations greatly. And I have it on good authority that they are admired at Lambeth too.

But as yet, they are not the parts of the Anglican Communion that the ABC wants to bless or welcome right now. The Windsor “process” is still rolling itself out. This is the Lambeth take: even though the bishops of both CANA and AMiA are admired and evenly regarded as Anglican bishops, their associations are thought of by Lambeth as ‘not the best way forward,’ for the moment.

Will the American bishops who have been consecrated by Kolini and Akinola receive invitations to Lambeth? I don’t know. But I can tell you with certainty that every one of those bishops believes they should and will go the Lambeth in 2008. And, from my research and despite the rancor about the past, I believe they should all receive an invitation. They are legitimate Anglican bishops with legitimate seats in legitimate Houses of Bishops in their home provinces.

But will they in fact get an invitation to come to the Lambeth gathering and take their place among all the Anglican bishops in the world-wide Anglican Communion? I don’t know. And I don’t think that Lambeth knows yet. They see that they have ‘miles to go’ before they are in a position to finalize the list of invitees. At least, that is what my impression is.

I have no regrets for the decisions made at Christ Church in the last few months. As I have written, they were hard decisions and exacted a degree of grief from me and from my congregation. But we are thankful to God every day for the freedom we feel to pursue the gospel mission of our church without apology and without hindrance. But going back to the roots of Anglicanism (England) and to Lambeth Palace was a bit maudlin for me. Sometimes I wish the Anglicanism of old could regain its glory in the Western world. We have everything we need: the good old church structures, the ancient cathedrals, the scholars of the past, and the ordained offices for ministry. We have the historic palaces and we even have the racks of spears. It all tends to make me nostalgic…too nostalgic… even if it is for something I never really had.

But the western world is decaying around us. As we all know and sense deep within, the strong institutions of Christendom are collapsing and the new generations coming need to hear the gospel proclaimed afresh in new wineskins. It is time to move on. Charge!

When I began this research project several months ago I had a few things in mind. Where would the best future for Christ Church be? What of our clergy and seminarians? We knew that we could not remain within ECUSA and carry out our ministry. We had tried that route and got hung up many times. Yet, we wanted to remain connected to the world-wide Anglican Communion.

I am also looking for a place where the vision and ministry of Christ Church can serve a gospel purpose in North America with fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

I took stock of the so-called ‘Anglican Diaspora.’ They are the myriad of groups (mostly small) that call themselves ‘Anglican.’ I didn’t think we had a home there for many reasons, not the least of which was a lack of connection to a standing Anglican Province. So my choices narrowed quickly to two very exciting prospects: CANA and the AMiA.

In my last two posts I outlined my experience of each. But I would like to add one more thought as I think about the next steps at Christ Church.

The Anglican Mission and CANA are very, very similar to each other. They are not identical twins… and they are sadly not fraternal twins. But they are twins nonetheless. If I could remove pejorative use of the phrase, I might call them Irish twins. They are born of the same parents during the same single season of the tragic and sad breakdown of the Episcopal Church. They will share the same place and grade in school later on in years. They are different in look and feel… but very much of same season and of the same lineage. They are ‘in’ the Anglican Communion, to be sure. Whether the Archbishop of Canterbury blesses them to be ‘of’ the Anglican Communion is probably a product of a lot more time and size and further erosion of the American Province.

And if we (Christ Church) are looking for a place to align with, we probably can’t make a bad choice among these two.

And we will make a choice. Almost certainly, in the next few weeks, Christ Church clergy and vestry and I will come to a unanimous decision about our next steps. At that point, I will make our intentions known.

Wonderful, balanced and insightful comments Fr. David. Thank you for taking the time to share your, and your vestry’s, thought process regarding where to find your accountability and leadership. May His light shine in front of you as you take each new step.

Good, helpful series David. I have one quibble: I don’t believe Lambeth has lots of time. The ABC will have increasing difficulty continuing to contain both TEC and GS. I don’t know how much longer he can do so - maybe till Lambeth but maybe not even that long. As former Sec. Rumsfeld memorably put it, “there are many unknown unknowns” to which he will have to fashion a response.

I’m hoping, Fr. Roseberry, for a brief note if you considered the 7th/Internaitonal Convocation of the ACN. Your discussion of AMIA and CANA have been very helpful.

By that I meant gaining oversight from a bishop from Uganda, Kenya, Bolivia, and so on.

I appreciate Fr Roseberry’s description of Lambeth. It scares me! My greatest fear is the glacial pace of things will continue to be that, glacial. I think Feb will come and go and we will all say, “What!?!” They will officially change the Windsor Report to the Windsor Process. TEC will not be punished and the GS will get shot down when they introduce the idea of a new Province in America. Man, do I sound like Sarah or Fr Matt these days or what? I am increasingly frustrated with the lack of desire by leaders to make a decision. It really seems like we are being treated like a little kid who asks for something many times and the parent tries to wait them out so the kid will give up. The difference is we are not kids, nor are we acting like it (contrary to revisionists claims). I firmly believe we are moving in the right direction. I hope I’m wrong about the Feb meeting, but I have officially become a pessimist about it.

I am not a pessismist about the February meeting. I trust where all this is headed, and I trust those leading the process. It is pace, not direction, that I am a bit concerned about. On the other hand, I think it is unfair to ask the ABC to fix in five years what took us forty years to denigrate and possibly destroy.

David+ a fascinating and quite helpful series. Thank you so much.
One thing confuses me just a bit however. I was quite surprised to read of the research process you’ve been engaged in to decide what new structure within Anglicanism you will affiliate with. I had thought that your original agreement with Bp. Stanton meant that you were now under ++Venables and the Southern Cone?

Perhaps that was merely a temporary measure? I confess I’m too busy tonight to go look up the link I’m thinking of from when the announcement of CCP’s departure was made public, but I do remember some discussion of your longstanding ties to Southern Cone or one of the other orthodox Latin American provinces.

May the Lord send forth His light and truth and guide you all clearly in what is pleasing to Him.

I don’t doubt that Lambeth as an institution really does take the long view. The interesting thing is that they seem to have no control of the facts on the ground, and those are changing quickly. This may put the ABC into reactive mode. I remember how Dromantine was intended to be scripted, and yet the global south primates asserted themselves as primates, did not allow themselves to be dictated to, and things changed. I wonder if Tanzania will see more of the same. It is not as though ECUSA has not been provoking them every chance it gets.

Karen B - I think this from the CC Plano web site explains their temporary connection to Southern Cone:

It seems to me that a covenant will have to be established before the Anglican Communion will deal with TEC. At least the AMiA and CANA are pointing the way to real reform and they may be in a better position to share the covenant when it is proposed.

Interesting observation. I share your love for the historic British institutions, and the sense of timeliness you get walking in the halls of ancient structures. I hope for a resolution that allows me to continue to feel connected with such treasures.

But I have also read the 2005 English Church Census, which reveals that only 6.5% of those in England now attend church. Over the last seven years a half a million people English citizens stopped going to a Christian church on Sunday—a million left in the previous nine years. The figure would be much worse but for the influx of immigrants, particularly from Africa. On a typical Sunday, less than half of London’s churchgoers are white!

David, don’t get too nostalgic, and please keep checking the parking lot on Sunday. As the statistics show, in our age renewal in the Anglican tradition is coming from the bottom up, not the top down. CC is an important part of that renewal movement.

Thanks Timothy…indeed, we will continue to count…noses, nickels, nursery babies, etc.

Ray Kroc said, “When you’re green you grow…when you’re ripe, you rot.”

Excellent commentary - I really liked the seeing “inside” Lambeth from an American evangelical perspective. Wonder about those lances and spears, though ...

This personal oddessy of the good Canon to Lambeth, and his experience as an American evangelical at the ABC’s HQs prooves two things.
1) the crisis in the Anglican Communion has been primed by the church in America. We all know this.
2) only the church in America can provide the solution to this same crisis. Not the ABC, not the primates, not the Instruments of Unity. Only the church in America. The sooner we all own up to this reality, the more reasonably we shall embark on finding a lasting solution. That is why we now have the Network, and AAC, and CANA and AMiA and Reform and all others with their current and future “bishops-irregular”- all of them in America, not anywhere else. The underlying core value of the church in America is not the Gospel per se, rather it is worshiping in freedom. We want to have it our way (all of us liberal or orthodox) because we can- we live out our faith in the context of American freedom. Other parishes and churches and rectors/priests in other provinces do not have that option or indeed luxury or the legal base or canonical base (of voting to leave ECUSA and choose which network to affliliate with, for example).

There is no solution out there, it is here, and any solution we do not like will continue to play out in the same way- fragmantion- because we can and live and let live.

“only the church in America can provide the solution to this same crisis. Not the ABC, not the primates, not the Instruments of Unity. Only the church in America”

Thank you. You have put the solution with the problem, as much as we may not want to hear it.

I was envisioning our situation today as if we (TEC) were a passenger cruise ship in troubled waters. Around us were other ships (from the other 37 provinces). Several of them have put life boats out into the water around us for those of us that wanted to escape from this continuing saga. But no one can come aboard this ship (TEC) from the other ships and take over the navigation systems or the steering wheel. That is in our crews hands. And if we get into a life boat, we will be brought to another ship, which may seem safer, but it won’t be our own. So the question is: how do we the passengers take over the ship from the crew that is now steering it towards the iceberg. As more get into the life boats, the more the crew seems to be relieved that there are fewer voices telling them about the destruction ahead. Our raised voices of warning are being heard on the other ships, but they are being disregarded by the crew that steers our ship. What now?

Canon Anglican, it is hard for me to tell exactly what you advocate. However, I think it is accepted by most here that the levers of reform within TEC have been lost. To use your analogy, Gayle, for a long time there have been insufficient forces in place for some time to change direction of the ship. Most significantly, TEC already hit the iceberg when it abandoned the Truth once delivered to the Saints. It is sinking. It will not be the faithful Anglican institution in the US, regardless of the outcome in February or beyond.

American plays a key part of the solution, but it is not found in continuing to attend TEC General Conventions. That simply perpetuates the problem. The American solution is precisely what TFC, Truro, CCP and scores of others have done. Not sitting back and passively waiting for an international rescue, but doing everything they can now.

Timothy;
I agree that the solution is not in the general conventions or other TEC instititional methods. We have lost that battle (or gave it away) over a number of years (back to Browning?). For Trufo, TFC, Christ Church and others, I don’t doubt that is the best solution for them at this time for they have voted for it and probably have given much time, prayer and thought into the ramifications. I wish them God’s speed and anyone else that choses this option. But is that the right solution for the orthodox remnant of the remaining 3700 congregations? I suspect that it will be a long time before a parallel Anglican Institution in North America will be recognized by the ABC along side TEC, never mind replacing it. There are too many forces at work here for that to happen. I have both an institutional view (being on a bishop’s staff) but also a congregational view from old friends. At the congregational level, many are not involved in the disputes or have even understood the seriousness of what we face. In many cases the local clergy have kept away from these topics. Many go to church because thats where their friends are, and as long as no one rocks the boat everthing is static. The few that go to Diocesan Convention where we have debated redirection of funding from the national church to outreach ministries, either don’t report back or weren’t that passionate about the debate.

Is there another American solution, or do we, who oppose the current direction abandon ship, get into any life boat available and watch while our friends go down?

Gayle, that is the dilemma. I have enjoyed reading you insightful analysis in 2006, and look forward to reading as your own journey continues. My thoughts are below.

For those in an orthodox parish in an APO Diocese there is obviously good reason to stay, since they are on a trajectory for rescue. Otherwise, I have seen only three arguments to stay: (1) because you believe it is not too late to change course of the ship; (2) to make sure you can convince a few more to get on the life raft; or (3) that by fighting a rear gaurd action (at personal sacrifice) you help others win a battle elsehwere.

Focusing on (2), how would you discribe those you hope to convince to get into the life raft? There may very well still be some left in the pews that have somehow been asleep and when informed of the truth will wake up and get in the life boats. But it is hard to see how there would be a large number “with ears to hear” that are still asleep as to the underlying theological issues that have caused this breach. If some exist, they are most likely in parishes under revisionist or institutionalist Priests and other leadership who are unlikely to change course and teaching. It is thus unlikely that this group will be reached from within.

Rather, it seems to me that the majority of those still in TEC with “ears to hear” understand the underlying issues (even if they don’t want to talk about it) but are laboring under the misapprehension that internal reform is possible or that things will simply work out.

What is most likely to help convince these people that the situation is as serious as we know? My own family ultimately decided that our continuing presence within TEC, despite our open and fundamental disagreement with the gospel (little g) being proclaimed by its leadership, was actually encouraging others not to get on the life rafts. I also knew it would ultimately impact on my children. So we left.

We were blessed to be around many other laity and Priests that were led to the same conclusion at around the same time and have thus ended up happy as a bed bug under an GS Bishop. I feel for those in rural areas without like minded Priests and laity who do not have this option. The new Anglican churches have an obligation to do everything they can to sponsor worshiping bodies for these individuals. I realize, however, that will not happen in time for many. However, as we all have discussed, there are other denominations that have remained faithful to the Truth.

Thanks for your response. I think you have it pretty well laid out. Your position is one I have been encountering the most. Many of those with yong families do not want their children being brought up in a church that is pushing the gay agenda. A number of my friends in that category have already left even though they may be on the liberal side in national politics.

At this point I’m at “(3) that by fighting a rear gaurd action (at personal sacrifice) you help others win a battle elsehwere.”

Our bishop is orthodox (chaired the committee that wrote the Network’s theological statement- but is not a “network bishop” as he did not have the Standing Committee’s support for that action at that point in time). But life is good here. WE passed a resolution affirming our committment to the Windsor Report at our 2005 Convention (192-92) We haven’t lost any congregations yet, but we all realize that when our bishop retires things could change.

I have a number of priest friends that are really having trouble with this. They are orthodox, but may only have 10-15 years paid into the pension system. Yes, that gives them rights when they retire, but they are afraid of what would happen to them and their families if they bucked the system now. I heard at our last meeting of network clergy that there is now a pension system in place. Hopefully that will strengthen the resolve of some.

In the end, I realize, I will probably leave. Depends on the situation. I will try to help others to see that they have a choice (Choose now whom you will serve) and to ignore the choice is to make a choice.

Pendennis: “...I remember how Dromantine was intended to be scripted, and yet the Global South primates asserted themselves as primates, did not allow themselves to be dictated to, and things changed…” Amen. It is inconceivable to me that the GS primates will not again assert their overwhelming authority and force ABC et al into resolving this matter of American Anglicanism at once. In written and spoken forms, they have made it clear that TEC is anethma, out of communion with them, that they will not “sit down with them” at the formal meeting and their paricipation in Lambeth 2008 is on the table if TEC is not disposed of. Also, do not underrate the real problems ABC is suddenly having in the C of E. Orthodox storm clouds are gathering, and capitulating to the heretic TEC at Tanzania would exponentially worsen his problems at home. Further, ABC’s invitation to at least one orthodox bishop to the “pre meeting” meeting demonstrates his understanding of the probable outcome of Tanzania. Practically, and politically, I look to the Windsor Bishops, and Bob Duncan’s group, together, to get the tip of the mitre to rebuild our poor bloodied old American church. How they do it is of interest, and will be a difficult process. It will not involve TEC in any event. It simply cannot. Orimbi, Akinola and the like will not sacrifice their reputations, and the physical safety of their parishoners, to guarantee some one’s pension plan. This thing is coming to an end.

Imagine a contemporary Anglican priest longing for the days when he or people under his orders or with his blessing could heave pikes at other people in Jesus’ name. And call it gospel living.

As a believer I can imagine feeling nostalgia for a great many past moments in much of our known history, but pike heaving is just a bit outside my own fallible personal boundaries. I’ve resigned in that sense as just that sort of soldier of faith, for reasons of conscience. In other words, I read and I prayed and when I listened, I heard Jesus telling me to lay down my pike. In a most historically Anglican tone of voice.

Dying for Christ is one thing. Living another thing, much more. Walking a mile in the other person’s shoes is still yet another. And heaving pikes, well .... I recommend peace-mongering conversation and mutual inquiry as an alternative pathway across all our differences. No pikes needed. Informed peace-making which can draw freely on that (frequently dissed) vitamin of agreeing to disagree while remaining discerningly open-ended in many areas of witness, service, Tikkun.

I had rather stand there, in a beknighted Anglican minority position, than follow all the pike throwers who are so busy reliving the Reformation wars. Hello, Mr. Darwin, care to come in, chat, sit a spell? Wasn’t your paternal grandfather, Erasmus? What great blessings you have been, both of you grand old fellows.

Dr Dan Fee:
License, friend. Literary license to make a point. The point is that Lambeth has been through a lot…and they have the time to wait for a lot more to happen.

RE: “I recommend peace-mongering conversation and mutual inquiry as an alternative pathway across all our differences.”

Did that for 35 years. Then the “mutual inquiry” was broken and the decisions were made.

You’ll just have to live with the fact that many in ECUSA do not agree with the decisions and will not ever support them.

Now we can practice the arts and sciences of living together in peace on this small planet even though you do not intend - and are fully determined never, ever, for any conceivable reason whatsoever - to reach agreement with me on some important believer things. Fine by me. I am not claiming to be infallible, nor is that the method or the definitional given by which scriptures inspire my allegiance. Perhaps you do not think scripture infallible either, or maybe you necessarily do.

I am not any more diminished by your disagreement than I am impossibly lifted above you or condemned below you by our conscientious disagreements. If you do not in good conscience invite me to the Great Conversation, nourished by the Great Feast, I am somehow nevertheless invited – because we both exist, just in this century, despite our palpable lacks of conformity.

I am in that sense concordant with the institutional Canterbury sense of waiting through the long view - fusty as that may seem to some, and Anglican fudge as that may seem to some others. I am quite content to be sorted by Jesus, come that final day of days when in fact we will see and know and understand - just love that understanding bit - ah, eschatology.

Glad to be rubbing shoulders then with all the people of all the views on this planet. What an inevitable dimension of that mysterious thing we sometimes call, vocation. Or, following.

Maybe we shall join in some piece of service – just for the service’s sake of something good, just for the neighbor’s sake whose good is being served? Where else should we begin to learn peace, then – other than starting exactly where we differently in good conscience are?

It seems ever such a high privilege to jointly walk the paths of Tikkun, even though and maybe precisely because all our world’s differences cannot easily be resolved at the moment.

Whatever happens, then: I live just down the world’s streets from you, now. And we shall indeed be neighbors for the foreseeable future of elaborating differences.

RE: “Now we can practice the arts and sciences of living together in peace on this small planet even though you do not intend - and are fully determined never, ever, for any conceivable reason whatsoever - to reach agreement with me on some important believer things.”

Funny—whenever reappraisers speak of “living together in peace” it’s always said like a threat.

And when they speak of “reach agreement” on “some important believer things” it means—in the face of what reasserters assert—that reasserters will change their minds and “agree” with reappraisers.

The good news is that we don’t have to “practice the arts and sciences of living together in peace”—we are already at peace and I am untroubled by the thought of being “neighbors”. I am friends and neighbors and at peace with plenty of pagans, agnostics, and folks of other religions and worldviews. It’s nothing particularly special or unique to me.

It’s simply that the two religions that currrently exist within the Episcopal church will eventually not be in the same organization. But live at peace we certainly will.

RE: “If you do not in good conscience invite me to the Great Conversation, nourished by the Great Feast, I am somehow nevertheless invited . . . ”

I am indifferent as to the “Great Feast” you are partaking of. You are welcome to partake of your “Great Feast” but the two feasts are just that—two separate feasts, with one side fancying that they are partaking of the same feast as the other.

Again—not really a concern of mine. I don’t mind people eating their own “Great Feast” and I have no envy of it.

Howdy again Ms SaraH, if you are hearing my acknowledgement that we might agree to disagree while finding good things to do together in the rest of the world as a threat (veiled or otherwise) then maybe there are other sources of felt threat, besides my own remarks. Glad to hear your own reaffirmation of committed peace-mongering, even if from your side it seems redundant and given to the point of being passe and cliche. I am still hearing peace-mongering as a major item of global unfinished business. So a part of global vocation. Ah for the day I am able to also perceive peace as a global cliche.

I persist in noticing how many of the same feasts we might share as citizens, including maybe trips to the doctor, forays into the great libraries of global civilization, seminars or conferences or work teams - well the list of citizen feasts which nourish us in daily life is potentially long and detailed. The God whom we worship, revealed in Eucharist, might be the same God who is also at work in these other domains. Thus it is possible to infer a Great Feast, marked by a Great Conversation. If nothing else, Tikkun. Thanks for pledging peace. Maybe as Robert Frost once wrote, Fences make good neighbors. But that is a distinctly New England sort of take on differences. Maybe peace cannot be taken for granted, by the way, in some sectors of our USA religious right. So I am often directly instructed by believers on that right.

©2006 Stand Firm, LLC. All rights reserved. Permission to copy and distribute free of charge is granted, provided this notice, the logo, and the web site address are visible on all copies. For permission for use in for-profit publications, please email contact@standfirminfaith.com.