At one point, a week ago, the agenda was to devote [drum roll] four hours to the discussion of the Episcopal Church and its response to the Windsor Report. There were to be 16 official sessions, four of them Bible Studies, three for "administrative meetings" and six others for single issues like the church in China, theological education, the "listening process", and the Millennium Development Goals. Two sessions were to be granted to Bishop Jefferts-Schori to defend the Episcopal church. Thanks to George Conger, and his article for The Church of England Newspaper on the agenda, we learned all of this on February 1 or thereabouts. . . . My how things have changed. So far, we have had three sessions on the Episcopal church -- a full day -- and according to the press briefing Friday morning is also to be taken up with the isssue.

To put it coldly and brutally -- the revisionists won the process victory on the "report" and the conservatives won the process victory on the "agenda."

We are at a 1-1 score and we are only in the first quarter of the game.

As we all know by now, it is going to be a very long long five days.

As I mentioned in this morning's panel discussion, there are about a dozen options for discipline, new provinces, and the covenant, all of which are "variables" or "negotiation streams" that one puts into the equation or brings to the table, depending on your metaphor. The Tanzania meeting could appoint a college of bishops, it could allow internal episcopal oversight to parishes in other revisionist dioceses, it could recommend denying invitations to Lambeth of non-Windsor compliant bishops, it could strengthen the covenant draft, it could . . . take any number of positive actions that we have not yet imagined.

But one thing is quite clear. The battles that are being fought -- the battles that lead to victory or defeat in the "Anglican Wars" -- are over "process."

Let's talk a bit about "process".

One of the ways that one accomplishes decisions that one wishes to accomplish in a group is by placing "facts on the ground" in advance of decisions. Those facts might be, oh, say illegal consecrations. They might be apparatchiks making "official, public pronouncements" declaring certain items "off limits". They might be unbalanced appointments of committees. And of course, they might be, say, a report issued from a subcommittee.

Whatever the means, "process" decisions are important, as they ultimately [though not inevitably] lead to "actual" decisions of a body as a whole. But be that as it may, the more that "process" decisions guide a body's deliberations, the more we can assume that the actual body is divided as to goals, values, and even foundational worldviews. A body that is "unified" in these matters, depends far less on process decisions than a body that is divided.

Here might be a good place to recognize the five groups that are represented at Tanzania, each with their own agendas, values, and worldviews. On the "conservative" side are the "Federal conservatives" and the "Communion conservatives". Ominous rumblings from both sides, attempting to blame the other should defeat of the conservative position occur at this meeting have begun. Jordan Hylden's article in First Things, for example, seems to imply that, if the evangelicals do not "yield" their values and agendas, the communion will be lost and it will be the evangelical's fault. I have heard the same from the opposite side.

Let me assure, personally, both conservative "groups" that I and many others will have no sympathy for these cries of blame by either side, should they dramatically fail at working together. Both groups are made up of lovers of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and there is no excuse for not respecting and working through the values of those groups so that both may live in integrity within the Communion. No excuse.

On the liberal side, we have the radical "Federal revisionists" like Katharine Jefferts-Schori, and the moderate "Communion Revisionists", like the new primate of Hong Kong. I place Rowan Williams in the "Communion Revisionist's" group, and it is clear that, through a brilliant use of process, he intends to keep as many Provinces within the group as possible, with as little discipline as possible and as much delay as possible.

All four of these groups -- along with the Anglican Communion Office -- arrive with strikingly different agendas, although the agendas of the federal and communion conservatives should be quite close. All will use "process" decisions to further their agendas.

Rowan Williams knew what sort of report on ECUSA's compliance with the Windsor Report would be submitted to the Primates, and there is no doubt that the report by the sub-committee declaring the compliance by ECUSA furthers Rowan William's goals.

We can also assume that all five of the rest of the members of the committee knew about the report as it would be inconceivable that they would be kept unaware of their own committee's report.

What the report represents is not an "actual" decision by the body of Primates, but a "process" decision by the subcommittee. The "process" decision is designed to advance the agenda of one segment of the four groups -- the "communion revisionists" and tangentially, of course, the ACO -- and lead to an "actual" decision of the whole body.

As such, it represents a "process" defeat for our side -- and a massive failure of process for one of the actually "conservative" members of the subcommittee, Archbishop Malango.

What might Archbishop Malango have done, in the "process", to deal with such a report?

Well, one "process" way of handling such a report would be to issue a strong minority report that differed from the "majority" report. At that point, several things are accomplished. A new "report" is "placed on the ground", the "majority report" ceases to be a "unanimous" report. And there are then two "competing" reports established.

This did not happen, for whatever tragic reason.

But let us all remind ourselves that, often, conservatives lamentably fail at "process victories". Somehow it is considered that process is beneath us, that the process is unworthy of us, and that simply "good sense" and a pure heart will win the day. That attitude, as I have argued before, is a gnostic attitude, one that fancies itself "removed" from the physical realities of this world.

If you are presently serving on a frustrating committee, do not resign. Find allies if you can. Fight the "process" battle. And serve your allies at the end of the day, even if it means going through the time, energy, and bravery of issuing your own minority report. Leave your allies with *something* to hang on to -- as would have been helpful in the case of this subcommittee.

Naturally, some [less canny] revisionists have declared Unilateral and Complete victory. Interestingly, often when many canons are against them, they proclaim "time for further listening, conversation, and revisions to the canons". But when subcommittee reports are for them, they declare unilateral victory and hopefully and helpfully point us to the exit doors. ; > )

Leaving that particular "process" battle to the side, we must also take note of another process battle that has been fought -- and won by the conservatives.

At one point, a week ago, the agenda was to devote [drum roll] four hours to the discussion of the Episcopal Church and its response to the Windsor Report. There were to be 16 official sessions, four of them Bible Studies, three for "administrative meetings" and six others for single issues like the church in China, theological education, the "listening process", and the Millennium Development Goals. Two sessions were to be granted to Bishop Jefferts-Schori to defend the Episcopal church. Thanks to George Conger, and his article for The Church of England Newspaper on the agenda, we learned all of this on February 1 or thereabouts.

In other words, the agenda was to be 1) littered with comparatively meaningless trifles that ate up the time, 2) backloaded the important stuff, and 3) limited in the amount of time allowed to face the manifold and deep issues confronting the communion. Furthermore, the session with the three bishops invited from the Episcopal church was to take place on Wednesday, and not in the midst of the official day of the meeting on Thursday -- as in fact later happened.

. . . My how things have changed. So far, we have had three sessions on the Episcopal church -- a full day -- and according to the press briefing Friday morning is also to be taken up with the isssue.

To put it coldly and brutally -- the revisionists won the process victory on the "report" and the conservatives won the process victory on the "agenda."

We are at a 1-1 score and we are only in the first quarter of the game.

Now.

If all of this strikes you as a bit mind-boggling, and depressing, you are a human being with a pulse. It is indeed very saddening that a Christian community is down to making decisions based on process victories and defeats.

Imagine, if you will, that Matt Kennedy and I, by some terrible happenstance, ended up "in charge" of the Anglican Communion. Matt is the Grand High Potentate of All Anglitania, and I am the Chief Chancellor and Officiant of Liturgical Primacy. As StandFirm commenters well know, Matt and I have fevered disagreements on certain aspects of the Anglican Communion, and broadly speaking he might be categorized as a "federal conservative" and I as a "communion conservative". Our disagreements have been, shall we say, "vigorously" pursued on occasion.

Let's suppose that at our Annual Summit of All Anglitania and Liturgical Primacy we bring our various committee members, undersecretaries, administrators, and Liturgical Minions to this meeting and after our Grand Parade, we settle down to resolve our differences regarding the ecclesiology of Anglicanism in a spirit of unity, grace, and truth.

Matt Kennedy opens with a startling announcement. The Constitutional Committee -- of which he is the chair -- has issued a Special Report declaring that it is now unconstitutional to not receive the PCA denomination as a full "constituent" denomination of the church. An undersecretary of Matt's rises and promptly makes a motion to receive this report "in a spirit of study and humility." The startled and muddled summit votes to do so, at which time Matt rises and announces that the Summit has "received the report".

Blogland is abuzz with this "Special Constitutional Report" that has been "received". On the communion side of the aisle, there is much gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands. When our side of the aisle attempts to point out that we had had only voted to "study" the report, the other side points out that we actually voted on "receiving" the report, and that the study follows the reception and was simply a "descriptive object of the prepositional phrase".

But the next day, the Agenda Committee, of which I am the chair" announces that the "Summit Agenda" has been released, and it is entered into the Summit Record. Thirty minutes after entering it into the Summit Record, I stand and announce that we must consider a constitutional ban on all non-Anglican denominations entering into "constituent communion". When Matt protests this, pointing to his "Special Constitutional Report" I point out that the agenda has placed that discussion *last* in the final 15 minutes of the Summit which ends a week hence. Further, the report has not been "accepted" and will not be up for "acceptance" until that last 15 minutes. At this time, the agenda states that we will be discussing the constitutional ban on all non-Anglican denominations and that is not open to amendment.

And on it goes.

I need hardly point out that those in the blogosphere -- those Anglican Christians who had looked to Matt Kennedy and Sarah Hey to resolve our differences in a spirit of unity, grace, and truth -- should be Very Concerned at this point.

It is clear that Matt and I will not be resolving our differences as Christians, but will rather be resolving our differences using "process battles".

In the same way, we should all be troubled that the process battles that we will be enduring over the next four days reveal a terrible disunity in the Anglican Communion. And the more process battles are won or lost -- for either side -- the more apparent it will be how divided we are.

On the other hand . . . we should have some perspective about the upcoming painful next few days.

Each day will bring a victory. Each day will bring a defeat.

That's the "process" game that we are playing and that I believe that God has called us to.

We may be confident, however, that God can accomplish anything that He desires. He may desire that we muddle along, working as hard as we can with what few "process tools" that we have. And that's okay. We are fortunate that we have human beings who have slowly but surely learned to use these process tools.

But God may also desire to show forth His power and in a sudden bold move, create a way where there was no way. He can do that too.

While we watch these advances, and retreats, and charges, and "flanking maneuvers" -- let us pray, watch, hope, and stay strong together.

God can save us at any time, in any way, and in whatever place. We are in His hands.

And the Anglican Communion is in His hands, to do with as He pleases.

19 Comments • Print-friendly • Print-friendly w/comments • Share on Facebook

Comments:

I always enjoy reading this type of analysis from you Sarah and it is particularly valued at this point, as I work to maintain patience and wait for an outcome that I have no control over, beyond prayer, of course. What I look forward to with hope and expectation is hearing you and Matt and others analyze the path forward after we get the final results from this meeting…having followed your advice to remain engaged in the battle to this point, I now find myself on a vestry facing the possibility of needing to consider those next actions and searching for nuggets of wisdom to squirrel away for those upcoming meetings in the not too distant future, so don’t wear yourselves out stressing too much now…the real analysis is soon to come.

[1] Posted by johnp on 02-15-2007 at 05:37 PM • top

Thank you for that cold, hard dose of reality. You always call us back to realism, and, today, that gives us hope, as your perspective is much more positive, realistic and sensible than most of the wailing and gnashing of teeth that has been going on today over the report. The analysis on StandFirm has been great, accurate and persuasive. But, many of the comments have assumed way too much about how this report will be eventually received. This report is the “singing of the National Anthem” before the game. We have a long way to go before the Fat Lady even starts to warm up! Anything can happen, and I remain hopeful!

[2] Posted by Eddie Swain on 02-15-2007 at 05:41 PM • top

Those of us who are former parishes of the DioVA know only too well that when a leadership body claims to “receive” a committee report (think Protocol for Departing Churches) it actually means jack.

I do, however, love the sound of “Anglitania” and move to receive it immediately.

[3] Posted by AnnieCOA on 02-15-2007 at 05:57 PM • top

Sarah - superb article.
I’m reminded of something I heard (secondhand) - a quote attributed to J.I. Packer re the PCA: “A denomination of heresy hunters and Gospel cowboys.”
Yeah - I know that this was used for purposes of illustration, and partly out of jest. But you know what they say about things said in jest.
Which is good in its own way. I take it as a sign that TEC dissidents are moving closer to NAPARC folks, and vice-versa (e.g., yours-truly). If we get close enough, maybe we’ll have an iron sharpening iron thing happen.

[4] Posted by Moot on 02-15-2007 at 05:57 PM • top

Whoa. Sometimes I think that Sarah and I are twins separated at birth…okay and age too, and fondness for elf-hunting….gimme a break.

It’s all about process. Recently in my secular job I was asked to prepare a design of a particular organization in a Fortune 500 company. My design and organization chart was to provide a possible structure to a major change within this corporation. My design suggested a three part structure with one of the parts consisting of _____, ______ & Process.

When my immediate supervisor reviewed my design, he was confused about why our organization should our group be in charge of process. I told him plainly that if you own the process, you own everything and if you don’t control the process, you control nothing. Unfortunately, I have not gotten his buy-in, so in all likelihood, my group will find themselves on the outside looking in.

Too many people seem to want to focus on being charitable, being as gentle as doves. But our Lord told us that we are also to be as wily as serpents.

[5] Posted by Gayle on 02-15-2007 at 06:26 PM • top

Sarah: Great post. I guess that explains why the report says that TEC has mostly complied with Windsor except for SSB and that this will require attention from HOB, and that it also says that further monitoring of TEC will be needed to determine TEC’s true response to Windsor.
This sounds like a set up that is at once meant to placate the conservatives (by saying TEC didn’t fully comply), but setting things up to say that TEC mostly did comply and we will give them x amount of time to correct their mild deficiencies.
Very clever, but it probably won’t work.

[6] Posted by jamesw on 02-15-2007 at 06:33 PM • top

Gayle,
I think it was “be as wise as serpents…”, but I suppose “wily” is a close enough approximation.

My dismay about the importance of “process” stems from the fact that Jesus was not about “process” at all! He was all about obedience and repentance when we failed at obedience! This does not allow for “spin”, parliamentary maneuvers, or other such fun pastimes of political organizations. The Church is the Body of Christ, not the Steering Committee in action.

With all due respect to Sarah - this was a marvelous analysis of why things are so awful in TEC - I abhor and denounce process with every fiber of my being! For the love of “process” is rooted in human pride, greed and lust for power over others. It has nothing in it of Christian charity. It is a way to get one’s way by lies and deceit. Hence, its effectiveness. But hardly a Christian way to operate.

You might reply that the Ecumenical Councils were “process” oriented. Sadly, I will agree, but that was because the government of Rome - for its own reasons - had involved itself in the decisions which needed to be made. Constantine desired stability within the Empire and wanted to use the Church to obtain it. Sadly, some bishops decided this was a good thing. Not that they should have spat in the Emperor’s face, but they should have been wary about allowing politics to gain an entrance into their fellowship. After priests and bishops became players in the “political process,” the game was lost, in my not so humble opinion. It is a huge mistake to entangle the Body of Christ with secular power.

The Church is supposed to be a collection of citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, not self-appointed members of the secular Powers That Be. Any time we find ourselves angling for that status - i.e. members of the PTB’s - then we can be sure we are not humble followers of the Lamb of God.

[7] Posted by Allen Lewis on 02-15-2007 at 07:06 PM • top

Sarah, I enjoyed reading the article, but I don’t follow how Rowan Williams can be fairly called a revisionist. I see him very much as a communion conservative. I admit that I base that on devouring his books, but, as I understand the term ‘revisionist’, the referent is theological in nature and not political. I notice you and Matt have begun to adopt Graham Kings’ typology recently, so perhaps definitions are sufficiently different from Kendall’s to explain the label. And you make some pretty strong charges about his ownership and malevolent intent with today’s report that cause me to scratch my head and ask, “how does she know that?” Can you elaborate please?

Also, I move that you amend your example to make the federal conservatives the ones who are gnashing their teeth instead of the communion conservatives. In the Bible, it is only the evil ones who gnash their teeth in response to Truth, and, since I am with you on the communion conservative side, it’s obvious that we aren’t teeth gnashers.

Allen: I think Sarah in on good ground in speaking of process as a sound Christian practice. Check out Luke Timothy Johnson’s or Beverly Gaventa’s commentaries on Acts 15 (The Jerusalem Council), for example. The paradigmatic way of discerning God’s will in the face of controversy is all process: call a council, hear testimony, interpret Scripture in light of the testimony of what God had done with Peter and Paul, declare convictions in propositions of faith (James), send out legations with letters, establish peace in Antioch, signalling they had caught up with what the Holy Spirit was doing with the Gentiles. I think Sarah’s point about us conservatives mastering process is well taken.

[8] Posted by Craig Uffman on 02-15-2007 at 07:55 PM • top

Also, I move that you amend your example to make the federal conservatives the ones who are gnashing their teeth instead of the communion conservatives. In the Bible, it is only the evil ones who gnash their teeth in response to Truth, and, since I am with you on the communion conservative side, it’s obvious that we aren’t teeth gnashers.

(Heh, heh…) Why do I suddenly have this uncontrollable URGE to grind my teeth? (ROTFGT)

But then a serious (or not) question comes up…do you, will you, might you wring your hands in frustration?

I do think Sarah has some good points about process. The problem has been that, inside TEC, process has trumped all other concerns. There hasn’t been anything else for nearly 40 years. What is needed is a balanced picture of how process occurs without compromise of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I think the problem for many reasserters is that they see process as replacing the gospel once received because that is what the other side does with it and they do not wish to stoop to that level. They see it as a selling out of their birthright.

The issue to remember for such reasserters is that we live in a fallen, sin-sick world. Resources of time, money, space and power are finite. Process is nothing more than applying the lessons of political economics in the allocation of scarce resources inside a fallen world. To fail to engage in process is to concede this world to the devil (as Sarah says, very gnostic).

I only wish I understood that when I was much younger. I would, hopefully, be better at it than I am now.

[9] Posted by Rom 1:16 on 02-15-2007 at 08:33 PM • top

I thank Sarah for this analysis, which allows me to think for one more day that all is not lost.

I cannot imagine Akinola and several others accepting this monumental fudge and moving on as if all were well. If they do, then the concept of an Anglican Communion which is in communion with the church of the apostles is broken.

Obviously, I am not a process politician, but merely a results-oriented plain Christian. I recognize that the process pols are the ones who will make the difference, and all I can do is pray for them. Lord have mercy.

[10] Posted by Katherine on 02-15-2007 at 08:52 PM • top

After reading the responses to questions at the press conference and the report, I am surprised that the report is “mild” - I expected it to be a total sellout. The formation of the committee, the response of the individual (ABC’s rep) who witnessed the GC discussions, all pointed to the fact that ECUSA would get away with their response. If one understands the British system (government), it should be clear that decisions involving controversies are expressly studied by committees, so that the reports from the committees can be shelved or reflects all possible choices of outcome (there is never a wrong answer). For a true caricature of this “process”, one should watch BBC’s “Yes, Minister” and “Yes, Prime Minister”.

Consider the individuals on the committee - given +Rowan’s past support for gay rights and the financial support that ECUSA supposedly provides, did we really think that the report would be different? ++Sentamu was invited for a reason - to keep the communion together by providing a counterweight to +Akinola. ++Akinola understands this and hence his objection to invite ++Sentamu. This is “divide and conquer” at its best. The Primates of the Global South will be under pressure to accept the report and follow ++Rowan’s lead. At the end of the day, ECUSA will not be expelled nor will there be a second province in the USA. I don’t know what sop will be handed to the conservatives but I think the Anglican Communion will look the other way regarding “boundary crossings”.

To me, it appears that the Anglican Communion is hypocritical (and racist) - it has one set of standards for its “progressives” and a different set for its “conservatives”.

[11] Posted by JGeorge on 02-15-2007 at 09:23 PM • top

The report, in all its frustrating ignorance of the true situation, is what the AC needed. It sets the stage for clarity. If the Primates reject the report, there will be clarity for the EC. If the primates split there will also be clarity. If they accept the report and refuse any meaningful discipline there will also be clarity - for many of us individually. In any case, it appears that the slow torture of not knowing the direction the AC is moving is coming to an end.

[12] Posted by BillK on 02-16-2007 at 07:31 AM • top

This morning my wife, on her journey throught the bible from stem to stern, is in Habakkuk - 1:5 “look at the nations and watch and be utterly amazed, for I am going to do something in your days that you would not believe even if you were told ...” 2:20 “But the Lord is in his holy temple, let all the earth be silent before Him.”
We live in exciting times and will have the chance to take a Stand for our convictions. Are we ready and up to the challenge?

[13] Posted by Wilkie on 02-16-2007 at 07:46 AM • top

Amen, Wilkie.

I thought of Habakkuk’s words earlier this week and came to the end after all that the prophet saw and read:

“Though the fig tree should not blossom, nor fruit be on the vines, the produce of the olive fail and the fields yield no food, the flock be cut off from the fold and there will be no herd in the stalls, YET I WILL REJOICE IN THE LORD; I WILL TAKE JOY IN THE GOD OF MY SALVATION. God, the LORD is my strength; He makes my feet like the deer’s; He makes me tread on high places.” Habakkuk 3:17-19

(Emphasis mine)

[14] Posted by Rom 1:16 on 02-16-2007 at 08:42 AM • top

Great report, Sarah. Thank you for your work!

[15] Posted by Becket on 02-16-2007 at 11:17 AM • top

I just want to thank all of you—Sarah, Gregg, Matt+, David, Kendall+—for working so hard to get us some news, and help us with analysis. Tonight, I feel grateful not only for information, but for the Christian fellowship that Gregg’s wonderful website makes possible. Like many of you, I am pondering my future—and realizing fully how alone I am in my little outpost here. Most people in my parish are faithful Nicene Christians who are so good at keeping their heads down and their blinders on, that they don’t even know that Newark is a liberal diocese! Even people who do understand some of what is happening are determined to stick with ECUSA. So while I have always said that I would stay, to point the way to the lifeboats, right now I feel as if the water is up to my shoulders, and no one else notices that they are also soaking wet. So thank you all for helping me recover my determination to stay—-at least for the next month or so.

[16] Posted by In Newark on 02-16-2007 at 10:29 PM • top

Thanks for the thoughtful criticisms, Sarah. I should be clear that if serious schism should occur, I don’t think Evangelicals should bear the brunt of the blame. That honor goes to the liberals in the Episcopal Church and elsewhere who have exchanged the apostolic faith for a religion of their own invention.

That said, I am critical of the historic Evangelical tendency to faction. I mentioned Wesley, and various other Dissenters in the Anglican tradition. Don’t get me wrong—I think Wesley was a saint, one of the best and holiest men the C of E has seen. But in the long run, I think that being too quick to secede leads only to endless splintering. This is what has happened with the Methodists and various other Protestant denominations, of which there are now (I think) somewhere over 3000.

As a Protestant, I think that sometimes Luthers are necessary. But I’m extremely concerned with where that logic leads. (Ephraim Radner is the theologian who’s convinced me of this, btw.) And so I think that especially now, it’s important for this point to be made.

I don’t mean it at all in the sense of casting blame. It’s just my criticism, offered hopefully in the service of the faith and unity of the Church. I have the greatest respect for people who disagree, like for instance my own parents and many people here at StandFirm. And my larger point, which I stated in the last paragraph of my article, is that I hope that Anglican evangelicals and catholics will learn from each other in this critical moment in our church’s history. That isn’t yielding values; that’s realizing that we have need of each other.

[17] Posted by Jordan Hylden on 02-17-2007 at 02:22 PM • top

RE: “I should be clear that if serious schism should occur, I don’t think Evangelicals should bear the brunt of the blame. That honor goes to the liberals in the Episcopal Church and elsewhere who have exchanged the apostolic faith for a religion of their own invention.”

Jordan, I appreciate this clarification. I really do.

I do agree that, in a battle that is lost after hard fighting, it is best to simply lick one’s wounds, and not blame one’s allies, although certainly one might be able to point out where errors were made in strategy and tactics.

It did seem to me as if it was going to start the blame game and I’m glad to know that it is not.

What a mess we all are in. Even if thoroughly trounced, I’d rather come out of it all and still love and respect my friends and allies—even though they did not take all of my Wonderful and Spiritual Advice. ; > )

[18] Posted by Sarah on 02-17-2007 at 05:52 PM • top

Thanks very much, Sarah. I’m glad to make that clear, and I’m sorry if I hadn’t before. The reason that I wrote my article as I did was, to a large extent, that I see Anglican catholics and evangelicals as having a great deal in common, but unfortunately not always able to communicate with each other. And just now, in such a critical moment, I think it’s so important for us to stick together.

That really was why I wrote the article—not to cast blame, but to try make the case for why we need each other more than ever at this particular moment. If the catholics are left alone, they’ll lose a great deal of biblical Christian vitality and energy, and perhaps will be outnumbered by the liberals. If the evangelicals go their own way, I worry that they’ll eventually split up into all sorts of pieces.

Hopefully we’ll stay together! I myself am sort of a mixture of both, so I hope more than anyone that we do.

[19] Posted by Jordan Hylden on 02-18-2007 at 02:41 AM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.