Anglican Report, Episode 18

Bill Witt said:

“If [RW] takes the orthodox side too much, he’s going to infuriate his own liberals, and they could have the same thing…the same kind of split happening in England that we’re having here, but then what would seem to be more likely would be that he might have the liberals leave.”

But where are they going to go?  The liberal leadership of the CoE could walk en masse out the door.  Who would follow them?  A church cannot exist with only clergy and theologians and staff.  Someone has to give money to keep them employed.  Who is going to do that giving?

carl

Ugh.  Once again my words are misrepresented.

If you take a scale and put “expect nothing” on the left and then put on the right “expect significant discpline and a complete backing for a new structure of a new province”, what I was trying to say, and all I was trying to say, is that the expectation on the right extreme is wrong in my view.  All I said was what in my view would NOT happen which is what some reasserters seemed to think would happen, and that would be the second expectation listed above.  It is simply expecting too much from one meeting.

The irony is what will happen is something in between, which is essentially what Bill and Kevin say above. No one knows how much.

It does not speak well of us that we listen to each other so inadequately.

In the meantime, let us all pray for Tanzania.

Also, let me note one other inaccuracy.  It is untrue to say “all liberals” went to the ACC meeting in Nottingham to speak for TEC/ECUSA.  Bishop Jenkins from Louisiana was there.

Carl,
Isn’t this just a matter of time.  There is increasing polarization in the CofE, particularly as the government intrudes further and further into into freedoms that have been a basis of British society for generation, and for which Britatin has been much admired.  Now, as freedoms of action and speech are legislated and impinge more and more on the freedom of religions in general, conservative religions (such as Islam) and Christianity in particular -Chrisitanity especially since there is a clear and radical bias against it against it in British society.
The above will certainly only exacerbate the polarization between conservatives (evangelical and anglo-catholics) and liberals that a split will occur (indeed it is already occuring).  It will just not occur as violently and radically as that within ECUSA and it may not even be recognizably the same and that, I think has largely to do with the differences in character of the British and the Amreicans.  But come it will, although heavens knows what the product will be and how the CofE will look a decade or two down the road.  ++Rowan is a comservative, or has evolved into one and so events during his tenure of Augutine’s seat will go one way.  Suppose the next ABC is a liberal or ‘middle of the roader’, who will ‘own’ the See of Canterbury; how will matters develop?  Where and what will the AC be?  Will it, as perhaps might occur during ++Rowan’s tenure be an AC that is fundamentally orthodox and have shed the liberal elements such as the majority of ECUSA?

Kendall, I agree, the label “liberal” is a bad fit for Bishop Jenkins.  On the other hand, his public performance as a defender of the faith has been a null set.  Likewise, I know many “theologically orthodox” presbyters who are total ciphers to their congregations and fellow clergy with regard to where they stand on the apostasy of TEC (Sadly, this is when their congregations and peers most urgently need their leadership).  They, too, are not liberal, moderate, or conservative.  I’ve taken to view them as “conflicted.”  But I think the real truth is that sometimes/frequently (pick one) labels just don’t work.

Andy and Kendall—I seem to recall, long ago and far away as it now seems, the Bishop of Exeter addressing our HoB at the end of March last year, on Windsor, and analyzing the situation on (verbal) two-axis graph: doctrinal orthodoxy and Communion loyalty. 

Perhaps it would be more useful to evaluate the various positions both within the HoB and among the _Primates in terms like that rather than on a strictly theological basis.

I responded to Kendall BEFORE watching the video, and not realizing that I also wanted to respond TO the video, partially spurred on by Kendall’s comments.

It is the nature of this medium (video/TV) to superficially represent complex issues, just like one almost never gets the whole story on network TV news.  We viewers need to wise and well informed consumers of this kind of news, especially when news is presented as pre-recorded conversation (Kevin & Bill),  action, and in interview.  At the same time, it generally isn’t fair curse the evil intentions of ALL the providers (sometimes it is fair, just not generally).

I do think that Kendall, Matt, and Sarah were all partially misrepresented in this episode, and I didn’t think the levity surrounding Sarah’s name was meaningful or appropriate, but I understand that it was provided as context for Bill’s point that he believes that SOMETHING is going to happen.  Sigh!  If you really want to know what Kendall, Matt, and Sarah think, you’ve got to go read what they wrote (well worth your effort).

Otherwise, hooray for Anglican TV.  I’ll be watching.

Craig - that’s helpful.  High orthodoxy “orthodoxy” and high “communion (or jurisdictional) loyalty” is a pattern for terrible internal conflict.  Of course, that’s what rationalization is for.  Ouch!

Mr Ox,

(The ‘dumb’ part just didn’t seem appropriate . )  I don’t really disagree with you.  In fact, I believe RW is very concerned that this meeting might start a chain of events which would lead to conservatives leaving the CoE.  Preventing that outcome is his first and most basic goal.  That is why I think he will side with the GS

But although I agree the CoE will eventually follow this same road to separation, I don’t see how the liberals can trigger the division.  If the liberal leadership departed, the most immediate effect would be that most would suddenly be unemployed.  It takes work to plant a new church, and I just don’t see that what remains of liberal laity would have the heart to do this.  Even if they keep the buildings upon departure, they simply won’t have the financial resources to sustain themselves over time.  How many bishops can the readership of “Thinking Anglicans” sustain?

carl

Kevin and Bill (and anyone else out there who may not know),

Sarah’s last name is actually pronounced “high.”

Sarah’s last name is actually pronounced “high.”

Thanks, Kevin had it wrong. 

And good grief.  Some people take what we do WAAYY TOOO seriously.  One of the reasons we try to interject even really stupid humor—like talking about how to pronounce Sarah’s last name—is that we really are just two guys having a conversation.  Our opinons are just as valid—and just as invalid—as are any of the commenters here on StandFirm or TitusOneNine.  It’s just that Kevin has a camera.

But . . .we don’t deliberately misrepresent anyone either here or on TitusOneNine.  After all, we’re on the same team.  Kevin and I get together on Saturday morning with a list of the week’s stories that we think are worth talking about.  We then shoot the whole thing, usually in one or two takes.  We don’t have scripts.  We don’t have fact checkers.  If you want to challenge us, please do.  And if you’ve got a video feed, please put it on camera—like Matt does.  We would love to put Sarah or Greg or Kendall on camera saying “You guys don’t know what you’re talking about!”  Just be ready for the ribbing that goes with the territory.

Bill,

I love Anglican Report. Don’t sweat the criticism. You are doing a fantastic job. Seriously, you’ve done groundbreaking work.

Bill,

Of course we don’t take you seriously.  I mean, c’mon . . .  you don’t even have a jingle or theme tune.

When I see flashy visuals and hear some music, then I’ll know I’m supposed to take you seriously.

Oh, just in case: it’s pronounced “say” (rhymes with “weigh”).

Bill and Kevin,

I LOVE the Anglican Report!  Hang in there.  It is fun and informative.

I am just trying to think of who will play you guys in feature-film version.  I am thinking these guys or these guys.

DoW

Bill,
I agree with everything Matt said and would add that you and Kevin have responded to your critics with considerable grace.  And, BTW, having taped before Wright, Kings and Scott-Joynt, you’re looking pretty good.

ps.  I agree completely with what you posted in response to your critics on another site earlier.

BIll - don’t sweat it . I’ve known Sarah for three years now, and just a few wees ago I was on the phone with her, talking about her in the third person, and called her Sarah HAY.

It’s only fair. Ever since I can remember, I’ve been Griffin, Griffis, Griffiths, and (oddly enough) things that don’t even RHYME with ‘Griffith,’ but sound more like ‘brass bowl’ or something.

When I see flashy visuals and hear some music, then I’ll know I’m supposed to take you seriously.

IRNS,

In that case, you’ve got about 36 hours to get ready…

Kevin and Bill, you are doing a fantastic job with the Anglican Report.  Please disregard the whining complaints from certain sources.

How can “Hay” be pronounced “High”?

Has anyone considered that perhaps Sarah is pronouncing it wrong?

Kendall:

Listen, Kendall, now I’M confused. 

I thought you were saying, “Hey Guys, have patience and don’t get your hopes too high.”  If this is wrong, please clarify.

What are you trying to say then - please elaborate as I obviously missed the point.

Bill and Kevin:

If we cannot learn to take ourselves with a grain of salt, laugh at our own foibles (as Austin would put it), and see humor in life - then we are rather pathetic. 

Yes, the situation is dire with ECUSA, yes, B. Shori is little less than a heretic, and yes, Sarah Hey’s name is pronounced ‘High’ - however, if we cannot laugh a little at the absurdity of this situation - snicker a little at ourselves and the situation in general, then we are either going to go apathetic or get apoplexy.  I opt for neither.

All of which is to say, please keep up the humor and be willing to laugh in general.  I had a friend tonight listen to that awful ‘O Holy Night’ song that was on StandFirm tonight and she said later, “Thank you so much, how I needed to laugh today.”

Humor has a place - and a good one - in the Christian Faith.  I think God HAS to have a good sense of humor - and smiles at humanity often.  We miss a great blessing when we are unable to do it ourselves.

Besides, being silly is a great deal of fun.

“Hay” would be pronounced “High” in most of northern Europe, and “I” in Dutch, Spanish, Italian, and some Lowland German areas.  If you pronounce a long “I” slowly, you’ll see that phonetically, it’s actually aaaah-eeee.  The fact that we English speakers pronounce it like “Hey” is due to the regrettable corruption of our noble tongue by the Norman French after 1066 and all that.  It’s always useful to be able to blame everything on the French…

That said, I have no idea how Sarah’s name should actually be pronounced.  I grew up in rural Wisconsin among second- and third-generation Germans and Poles, so I’m willing to believe almost anything about name pronunciation.

Sarah Haaaah-eeeeY.

That makes me laugh just seeing in print!

Kevin and Bill ( pronounced Kigh-veen and Bigh-L ),
I certainly appreciate all the work you do as well!  Keep it up!
Spencer (pronounced Spine-Kar )

I posted a part of this comment over at titusonenine too regarding Kendall Harmon’s comments on the Mere Anglicanism/StandFirm interview . . .

I think there is a difference in what it means to “not expect much”.

It seems to me that there is a segment of reasserters who, if there is not Communion discipline of ECUSA, and moves to establish a new province, will firmly believe that “not much” happened . . . no matter what other things have happened.

What is acceptable to them as “something happening” is those two things of Communion discipline and new province establishment.

So if *some things* happen at the meeting that one group of reasserters likes . . . but those things are *not* “communion discipline” or new province establishment, then to another group of reasserters “not much” will have happened.

So in this way, every time Matt and William say “he said not much will happen” they mean by that “communion discipline and new province forming” since by their definition those are the only two things that will mean “something important other than Anglican fudge” happened.

Regarding my last name . . . I have, of course, never in my life heard such brilliant wit.  All of the jokes from this blog and Episode 18 are Entirely New to me.  ; > )

Seriously, my understanding is that my illustrious and noble family name was originally spelled “Heie” from Germany.  When we immigrated to England, out of convenience they substituted a “y” for the “i”, coming up with “Heye”. 

They should have stopped there.

Instead, when our family came to America, they further dropped the last “e”, coming up with “Hey”.  But the pronunciation remains the same—“high”.

I prefer, however, “Your Heyness” or something like that from the likes of Matt Kennedy . . . who I should point out, did not receive the “Anglican Blogger of the Year” award.

Either way you pronounce it, whether “high” [correct] or “hay” [incorrect] it serves as an inclusive “greeting” to all and demonstrates my affirming, warm, generous welcoming nature to others.  ; > )

Finally, I should note that it is the German aspect of my family history that is at constant warfare with the Scotch-Irish aspect of my family history, resulting in competing and often opposing elements of “Little Black Cloudism while stoically doing my duty” and “We are Happy Warriors living an adventurous and history-making story”.

When my Scotch-Irish Happy Story-Telling Warrior fails me, I revert to Little Black Cloudism.

Think of me not as confusingly schizophrenic in attitude . . . oh no. Think of me rather as a person with “several options”, when facing setbacks or defeat.  Sometimes the “Little Black Cloudism while stoically doing my duty” has brought many benefits to me and others, not the least of which is making excellent predictions that confound Some Anglican Bloggers who Do not Win Anglican Blogger of the Year Awards.  ; > )

But I prefer “We are Happy Warriors living an adventurous and history-making story”.

Sarah,
Now that’s what I’m talkin’ about!
So, glad to have you back!

Sarah:

Now is that ‘Sarhigh’ or ‘Saraa’?

I love the ‘blogger of the year’ comments.

I didn’t win commenter of the year either… sigh…

Sarah H[ -this space intentionally left blank- ] remarks on:

“Little Black Cloudism while stoically doing my duty”

Perhaps the family name was originally pronounced “Btfsplk”?

(Actually that’s a link to a picture of Kendall+ after the 27th time he tried unsuccessfully to explain that “warning against excessive optimism” didn’t actually mean “nothing good will happen”.  Notice that he has thoughtfully stroked his beard so much that it is completely worn off.)

Sarah must run into the pronunciation problem all the time in the USA with that H-E-Y spelling desired to be sounded as high. Surely if she wants the high or colloquial Hi! sound, a spelling of H-E-I-H-E, H-E-I-H, H-E-Y-E or H-E-I-G-H would help Anglophones.

While we are on the subject of pronunciation and, more to the point, StandFirm’s reportage on Tanzania with the Rev. Mr. Kennedy; perhaps a couple of pronunciation pointers are in order for him:

1. The word schism is properly sounded as SIZZ-UM, and not SKIZ-UM.

2. The name Akinola , as far as I know, is pronounced AK-IN-OLAH, and not AKY-OLAH. Someone please correct me if I am wrong about that pronunciation, but Kennedy is the first one that I have heard use AKY-OLAH.

Mr. Kennedy does a good job with print coverage, but his presence before the camera is compromized by his - what shall we call it? - youthful enthusiasm? Further, Kennedy was obviously scripted to come on as a anchor/reporter. At the end of the clip he begins to editorialize in a most unseemly, Evangelical way. That switch cuts into his on-screen credibility and the unbiased credibility of further reports.

This is not nit-picking because credibility before the public is very important. A calm and smooth, non-anxious presentation before the camera must be coupled with a script that is reasearched, thoughtful and believable - unless one is concerned with mere preaching to the choir. What Mr. Kennedy said about the primates potential to discipline The Episcopal church is a case in point. The primates meeting has no mandate and no canonical mechanism at its disposal to discipline an independent, constituent member church of the Anglican Communion. There is inference in Kennedy’s report that such a thing is a canonical possiblity.

Kennedy’s report makes not the slightest mention of the fact primates meet in camera and are effectively sequestered for the duration. A statement or statements are issued to the public following the meeting. There is a photo op. There surely will be high profile press conferences following this one at some stage of the game. However, Huffing and Puffing and Blow Your House Down is not a substitute for study, listening, prayer and reflection, the cooperative and collegial purpose of any primates’ meeting. In any event, what we will be observing is not to be likened to The Episcopal Church before the bar in the US Supreme Court. Kennedy utterly fails to get that point across to his listeners. It is plain to see that Kennedy, like others in his camp, wishes it were otherwise. It ain’t.

Robert if you don’t like Matt’s reports, there’s an instant cure.  Don’t watch them.  It’s easy to do, just don’t click the button.

Robert:

I’m assuming you MUST being doing satire - because you CAN’T be serious…

Matt, by the by, is pronounced ‘Maat’, Kennedy is pronounced ‘Kennidee’  His coverage is pronounced ‘wel’ ‘dun’.

Matt:

Please keep up the ‘youthful enthusiasm’  also keep up your sense of humor.

Eclipse (pronounced ‘eeclips’)

Robert,

Thanks for your comments:

1. You may have noticed the word “commentary” at the bottom of the screen during the last segment. THat was intended to signal the fact that I was actually doing “commentary”

2. Thanks for the “evangelical” label. I hope I earn it.

3. Yes you are correct about schism. I mispoke

4. As far as I know you are incorrect with regard to the pronunciation of ++Akinola. I have been told by someone who should know that the n is silent. But if you have better info, please pass on the source.

5. As for my on screen presence. I do not pretend to be an “anchor”. I am a priest. But I’ll use whatever gifts I have to the best of my ability to serve the gospel. I understand that it may not suit your tastes but please do see Jacki’s post

6. You are absolutely wrong. Please site the “canon” to which you refer. In fact the inclusion or exclusion of TEC in the councils of the church rests with the ABC (and possibly York) with regard to lambeth2008 and the primates as a body with regard to the primates meeting. So, at this meeting it very well could be decided to bar disinvite TEC’s participation in 2 of the three councils of communion.

And, if that were to take place, you are welcome to dream otherwise but please do not pretend that the ACC would not follow suit.

OK, Greg, why did my parenthesis turn into a wink?  It’s a conspiracy I tell you!!

Robert -
Further - Matt’s report is measured and presented in a calm manner.  What’s more you could tell he was working with a script.  I think he did a fabulous job.  You seem to just be spoiling for a fight.  His comments at the end are clearly marked as COMMENTARY and he concludes by saying THAT’S MY OPINION.  You are welcome to believe or discount any or all of it as you choose but many here value Matt’s reporting.

RE: “That switch cuts into his on-screen credibility and the unbiased credibility of further reports.”

Heh.  I’m sure that Matt will be Terribly Concerned that he has no credibility with reappraisers.  ; > )

RE: “. . . unless one is concerned with mere preaching to the choir.”

I don’t think that Matt is attempting to persuade reappraisers of the truth of his assessments.  I suspect that he is interested in communicating with reasserters.

Good job, Matt!

Hey Robert, why don’t you make a video production so you can show us how well you would do?  Then we could take pot shots at you!

Uhhh…Jackie…

How can I comment on a report by Mr. Kennedy unless I view it first? Since this was billed in an e-mail to me as the first of his - or StandFirm’s - reports on Tanzania, I went to see it. Further, I may watch other reports and I certainly will feel free to comment on those as well. Is this web site only for applause?

I am fully aware of the button, and since my time is limited, I intend to make good use of it as always. However, I wonder if your comment means that you think Matt Kennedy is above criticism.

Robert, you are repeating the party line that the Primates can do nothing at this meeting. Matt has corrected pointed out that they can effectively do everything.  While it is true that a two-thirds vote required for explusion from the ACC, it is hard to fathom how the ACC would maintain an seperate policy from if the Primates exclude TEC from the Primates meetings and Lambeth. If that were to occur, it would simply be abolished one way or another.

Having said all of that, like Matt and Sarah and others here, I am not optimistic that firm action will be taken, which I would consider discipline and creation of a seperate province.  But hope springs enternal.

Robert - Matt’s opinion is well known here at Stand Firm.  I think we can safely assume he won’t change it.  I do not always agree with Fr. Matt but I absolutely defend his right to say it.  When I disagree with him, I have no problem saying so and if you read our threads you will see that is a common trait here at Stand Firm.  Just don’t come in with guns blazing and expect us not to shoot back.  For the record - I agree with him here.  ECUSA deserves strict and severe punishment for its actions.  I pray the primates will be willing to take whatever steps are necessary to see that happens.

LOL..! WOW! What a golden boy!  

Thanks for your reply, Matt. I seems as if you have quite a fan club here.

To be quite clear, I on no way intended, nor did I compare, your preisthood to your presentation as a reporter. I did, however, miss the commentary caption on the screen.

As to this stuff in your point #6, well there is obviously a difference of opinion. I thought that was allowed among Episcopalians…formerly, anyway…

6. You are absolutely wrong. Please site the “canon” to which you refer. In fact the inclusion or exclusion of TEC in the councils of the church rests with the ABC (and possibly York) with regard to lambeth2008 and the primates as a body with regard to the primates meeting. So, at this meeting it very well could be decided to bar disinvite TEC’s participation in 2 of the three councils of communion.

Matt, I said there was no canonical mechanism that means no canon(s) . And I think you will find yourself looking at the fact that there is not a 2/3 majority of primates who would vote “out” the primate of The Episcopal Church. Peter Jasper Akinola and his primatial buddies just do not have those votes available to them in Tanzania. While anything is possible, why mislead by inference that the hardliners from Global South control everything that way? Very iffy.

As for Lambeth2008, who knows? What I do know - like you do - is that the Nigerians want Rowan Williams between a rock and a hard place. They want control of who is invited or not, and they have gone so far as to say that they will not show unless Gene Robinson is removed as bishop of New Hampshire. No way that’s gonna happen.

The withdrawal of The Episcopal Church from the ACC at Nottingham was voluntary, and it passed the Executive Council at Mundelein, Ill, by a hotly debated slim majority. That won’t happen again.

I’m afaraid that your report and your item #6 above, imply that the Anglican Communion was, or is, set up to be a metropolitical or patriarchal governing body with higher authority than the consituent, independent churches of which it is composed. Erroneous interpretations of the recently developed   Instruments of Unity are bound to give that impression to those who are misinformed, biased or easily led. That way of thinking is based on a dream from the ultra-conservative fringe.

Since I have accomplished my mission of stirring up such support for you, Matt, you can put that check in the mail to me at any time. 

Matt’s comments above stand in need of one serious point of correction:

Thanks for the “evangelical” label. I hope I earn it.

Aargh!  Luther and Calvin are no doubt spinning in their graves.  Matt, you of all people should know that the “evangelical” label is one thing you cannot earn.

Sarah, I do sympathize with “last name” humor.  My own suffering began when my father told my mother in the maternity ward that she had given birth to a “Half-Witt,” since, after all, she was an Olson.  It has continued ever since.

On the question of expecting “much.”  Simple logic dictates: If discipline and an alternative province is “much,” and we’re not to expect that, then we’re not to expect “much.” Or at least we’re not to expect that “much,” or that particular “much.”  Perhaps we should expect some other “much.” But “not much” is not the same as “nothing” or “little.”  It’s just not the “much” that we’ve been told not to expect.

Dear Robert:

Is this web site only for applause?

Actually it is - example - clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, and clap.  - Pause - clap, clap, clap, clap, and clap.

I hope you enjoyed this applause presentation.  A repeat preformance will continue at thirty minute intervals throughout the day.

Matt Kennedy is above criticism.

Hmm - thought that only extended to the multi-colored miter of B. JKS’s hat.

Dear William:

In the multitude of ‘muches’ there wanteth not sin, but he who refrainth from ‘muches’ is wise.

P.S.  None of this post was on point, but it was fun to write.

AAaaaaargh!

Ok, before we do any more pronunciation or name jokes . . .

all posters who continue this MUST be able to correctly pronounce the name of Mr. Mxyzptlk before clicking here!

Your conscience is your guide . . .

Kevin and Bill,
I really appreciate your Anglican Reports. It is a way for me to keep up on what is going on in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion during these troubling times. God bless your work and God keep you safe on your journey to and from Tanzania.

I also love Anglican Reports, and very much appreciate their humor - it helps me put things back into perspective and remember that God’s in charge.

FWIW,

- “Skizm” is an accepted pronunciation for “schism,” although I’d venture most of us around here pronounce it “sizm.”

- The “n” is indeed silent in “Akinola.” It is pronounced “ack-ee-OH-la.”

- Nothing like putting yourself on tape to bring out every manner of criticism that can possibly be concocted. Well done, Matt!

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary says the pronunciation can be sizm, skizm, or shizm—in that order. However you pronounce it, it looks to me like one is happening.

Sorry!  I don’t see where to post a comment about Matt’s video report, but it was wonderful!!  Matt, you could teach Katie Couric and the folks at CBS a thing or two, and help them rise from the bottom of the ratings….  Good job!

OK, Sarah….You’re next! 

Actually, in the deep south, schism is correctly pronounced as Shazam!  That’s what Gomer Pile always said when he knew that the s—t had hit the fan. 

The OED lists only sizm, but all the Brits I’ve heard on BBC say skizm.  Albert Mohler says skizm, so Matt’s in good company.

You say toMAYto, I say toMAHto
You say hay, I say high
Sizm, skizm
Let’s call the whole thing off.

Question:
Has anyone who is a “supporter” of Anglican TV received the email that Kevin spoke about (“by Sunday night”)  ??

Wondering if Fr. Matt is the “special report” or what….

Thanx
Grannie Gloria

“This is not nit-picking”
Actually this is the dictionary definition of nitpicking.  IMO Fr. Kennedy did a pretty good job first time out.  Is this going to be a weekly news digest/commentary?  BTW I say skizm, when I hear someone say sizm I think they are an elitist snob.

I notice a fault line developing between the Anglo-Catholics and Evangalicals regarding the pronunciation of “skism” and “Haaaah-eeeeY.”  I think we could work this out by grandfathering provision that allows each of us to continue to pronounce it they way we have done it in the past, while appointing a Study Commission to decide on an accepted going forward pronounciation, subject, of course, to a conscience clause.

Grannie,

We got an email this afternoon indicating that Kevin had arrived safely in Dar Es Salaam and was going to bed.  The first video blog will be sent out tomorrow.  This appeared to be a form email, so you might check with Kevin if you didn’t get it.

We hope this will be an every day thing for the duration of Tanzania

- “Skizm” is an accepted pronunciation for “schism,” although I’d venture most of us around here pronounce it “sizm.”

- The “n” is indeed silent in “Akinola.” It is pronounced “ack-ee-OH-la.”

- Nothing like putting yourself on tape to bring out every manner of criticism that can possibly be concocted. Well done, Matt!

I feel the need to apologise. The unspoken (but patently obvious) conclusion is that my English acccent has left the rest of you colonials scrambling to assert your various attempts at elocution

oh, and I just wanted to say “hi, Sarah Hey”

Timothy, is there supposed to be a listneing process somewhere in there, and what about reconciliation?

Angels, I don’t know how we can reconcile, if we can’t even address each other in a common language.

Actually my only nitpick about the Anglican Report is the rather blah background, hardly worthy of such distinguished commentators.  (Well, at least noone will ever suspect that they’re just anchors, selected only for their looks.)  Anyway, some sort of tasteful graphic logo might be nice in the background—perhaps one like this, courtesy of CCLEC, who apparently haven’t done much with it since 2000.

http://www.episcopalian.org/CCLEC/graphics/left-shield.gif

Actually my only nitpick about the Anglican Report is the rather blah background, hardly worthy of such distinguished commentators.

Actually Kevin has been promising me that we would “soon” have not only a background, but also a desk since Anglican Report 2 or 3.  I’ve since concluded that this is simply the proverbial carrot to keep me showing up.  Alas, face lifts, hair transplants and tummy tucks are outside the budget.  Fortunately, the video quality is sufficiently compressed to hide a lot.

Alas, face lifts, hair transplants and tummy tucks are outside the budget.  Fortunately, the video quality is sufficiently compressed to hide a lot.

Personally, I liked the shoes. They add something, I’m not sure what, but they do add to the production.

Dear Craig:

I like that emblem for Kevin and Bill’s background.  I suggest a tie-dye backdrop in ‘sunrise’ colors.  The two would go together perfectly.

Craig and Eclipse—

How about black walls with pink polka dots and a disco ball?!!

I also wish to add my voice in support of sunrise colors, in a tie-dye pattern as the backdrop.

Or maybe a fake Starbucks backdrop with ambient laptop clicking and assorted slurping noises?  Might give us more of a sense of just two great guys shooting the Anglican breeze on a Saturday morning…  I can just smell the Carmel Machiato….

Oops.  That’s Caramel Macchiato.  Oh heck, who cares how to spell it…  Point is, keep up the great work, guys!  Cheers!

Kevin—Could you post the mailing address for SF, that you mentioned on the video? I’m willing to send some money, but didn’t catch the address. Or if anyone else can direct me to it, that’s OK too.
Thanks! Dave

David,
If you have Paypal or credit card you can donate to Kevin at AnglicanTV at this site:  http://www.anglicantv.org/blog/index.cfm
Their email address is: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

You can contribute to Greg at StandFirm at the top of this page where it says “PayPal”.

I’d like to know why no one has thought of a white sandy beach backdrop, framed by palm fronds and showing Matt, Sarah, Greg, Bill and Kevin cavorting in the warm Indian Ocean.  Surely, despite the fact that most are back in the US shouldn’t stop swimsuit versions of the five being pasted into the ‘splashing in the sea’ vision.  The mind boggles!  .... I mean if you can make Kendall into Sumo Harmon ....

Greetings from Tanzania.  Granny G I am currently uploading the ‘diary’ video now.  Tanzania and broadband should never be in the same sentence.  I could have fed exed it back to American faster.

Keep you eyes peeled to Stand Firm—there is very BIG news a comin’

—Kevin

there is very BIG news a comin’

Um, you got the tie-dye backdrop in ‘sunrise’ colors? Even better shoe to accent the broadcast? Background of assorted slurping noises? A disco ball? Oh this is so hard to guess ... the suspense is killing me ...

Re:  Stunning backdrops for Kevin and Bill:

OK, who has photoshop out there… we should have a contest…

Greg and Kevin,

We L2 sent snail-mail checks in mid-January to each Stand Firm and Anglican TV but the checks haven’t been cashed yet.  Have you received yours?  We don’t feel comfortable sending another check until we know y’all got the last one…..

We e-mailed Kevin about this, but figure y’all will read this before your voluminous e-mails!