The Dar Communique: Hope and a Future

Matt:  I agree.  It also passes the “think on it overnight” test - it looks just as good this morning. 
I still have a few questions though.  First, what are the first steps to get this off the ground?  When does the Pastoral Council get appointed?  When does 815 and Lee withdraw their lawsuits?  Second, what happens to South Carolina?  (And speaking of South Carolina, I was thinking that if I were KJS, I would be burning up the telephone lines to as many Standing Committees as I could strongly requesting them to approve Mark Lawrence as SC bishop.)
This also, I think, explains why the Virginia parishes did what they did when they did.

Matt,

This is an optimistic reading of the Communique.  By that I don’t mean to say your take is unrealistic.  But so much depends on the Primatial Vicar being someone that the orthodox can rely on.  If the PV is solid and energetic, I think we will have taken a huge step forward here.  If he is unreliable or passive this could turn into another “Panel of Reference”.

Otherwise the one bit of unquestionable good news is that border crossings remain an option.  There will be some room for an Anglican alternative no matter what TEC does.  That’s an important consideration and by itself puts a floor under how bad things can get.

But a real win would mean the path is clear to a new province in North America, and while that’s a distinct possibility I don’t think we’re quite there yet.  In the political biz we have a saying: Personnel is policy.  I think that’s very applicable here.  Only when we know who the PV is going to be do we know what the real fallout from DES is likely to be.

Wolverine

Fr. Kennedy:
You wrote:
Third: Those “faithful” clergy, parishes, and dioceses within the Episcopal Church that have been alienated from the Episcopal Church will be given the opportunity to organize under a college of Windsor compliant bishops and a Windsor compliant primatial Vicar will be chosen.
I didn’t see an affirmative enforcement mechanism for that in the Communique.  Am I missing something (which I frequently do)?  Or are we relying on the goodwill of the parties involved to allow this?  My guess is that we could be talking about hundreds if not thousands of congregations seeking transfer.

I wrote this to my small group of readers earlier today:
_ _ _ _ _ _
I have been asked for my response.  It is still being formed, but here it is so far:

The Primates gave us a process to follow - they did not provide a final conclusion to that process.  The conclusion to that process will be determined by the participants to the process.  The process could lead to reconciliation - or it could lead to schism.  Clearly, the hope of many of the Primates was that there be reconciliation, else why would they have constructed the process?  If they had abandoned hope of reconciliation, they would have given us a solution in the form of schism - instead of a process that allows the participants to determine an outcome.

NOTE WELL the term PARTICIPANTS.  It is my term, but is, I believe wholly in keeping with the TPC.  Those who sit silently on the sidelines are not participants - they are observers. They are not leaders - they are sheep.  They have abdicated any voice and influence in the outcome.  This process will have a result, and it is near (Sept. 30, 2007 is near).  If you are a parish leader are you fulfilling your leadership obligations to your parish by simply saying, “Let’s sit silent and see what happens. We don’t want to attract attention which might upset someone.”?  Enough said - we all have to answer to that ourselves and be answerable (accountable) for our decisions.

The process in the TPC acknowledges a group of Anglicans in North America at odds with TEC, and establishes a mechanism for unifying this group under a structure (or scheme). This structure is under a “Primatial Vicar” responsible to an oversight committee. This structured group will either be reconciled to TEC, (assuming TEC signs on to the covenant, makes it clear they will approve no other practicing homosexual bishops, figures out a way to allow those opposed to Women’s Ordination to be able to maintain that faithful opposition, etc.) or IT WILL BE THE CORE OF THE REPLACEMENT PROVINCE. 
The outcome will be determined by the participants in the process.

Some think TEC will never sign on to this, because Americans, “don’t ‘cotton to’ anyone telling us what to do, or being accountable to anyone else for our decisions and actions”, and TEC “really believe[s] in their hearts that what they’re doing is right.”  I agree with that assessment for many in TEC.

However, we need to be aware that TEC is not composed merely of the most liberal and the most orthodox. There are many who have been labeled “institutional moderates” for whom belonging to the institution of the WWAC (or some component part of the institution) is the overriding consideration. The scheme outlines in the TPC gives these moderates a chance to participate in the process.  Many of them have been silent - waiting to see where the winds take them.  It will be interesting to see if they participate, and how.  They may alter what TEC “signs on to” in the prior paragraph.  Then again, they may be entrenched in their silent tomb.

It is not automatic that all Network parishes are part of the group overseen by the “Primatial Vicar” (the “PV”). It will almost certainly be the case for the Network dioceses - but parishes already under the oversight of revisionist bishops will have to self-identify and seek to be included under the PV scheme.  Vestries will need to make that decision - recognizing that it may be a decision to be part of a replacement province.  Then again, vestries might choose to sit silent and let others do the work, in hope they will benefit from the fruits of the labor of others.

AMiA and CANA (and Bolivia’s Northern Deaneries - though unmentioned) will have to work through their bishops and primates in determining how they will relate to the PV. That is why they got specific mention in the TPC.  If there is a replacement province, these groups will be part of it - (that’s the purpose of Common Cause) but the immediate logistics were beyond the scope of the TPC. For my part, having exited TEC for Bolivia, I would hesitate to get under even the “consultative” influence of Schori. The composition of the PV’s reporting structure is a critical issue.

While Integrity is clearly incensed - after all, their prime agenda of inclusivity and proclaiming homosexual intercourse to NOT be sinful, has clearly been rejected yet again - many revisionists are claiming victory (or at least partial victory).  Some of these claims of victory are delusional (“We get AMiA and CANA back under the leadership and control of TEC!”). Some of them represent designs of how they are already planning to manipulate the scheme.  Some are overemphasizing the acceptance of Schori - (she was elected to Standing Committee by a vote of the Primates from the Americas. Only ++Venables - of the Southern Cone - would vote against her in that limited group.).  The outcome of this process will be determined by the participants. What those who are claiming victory are reflecting is their continued influence in the process, and their intention to influence the process to their own ends.
Vestries and Clergy - do you think it wise to sit silent in light of this???  Maybe - if you value property and pension more than the Gospel. (Or if you have a revisionist view of the Gospel.  We are all susceptible to Modernist Heresy)

One person asked, “When does basic doctrine become an issue here?  I think that is the most troubling question in all of this to me.  I want nothing to do with TEC because they deny the Risen Lord.  When does that become an issue?”  My answer - when you make it an issue.  Unfortunately, the Windsor Report established a process based on what many orthodox considered an overly narrow set of issues. It concentrated on blessing same-sex unions and consecrating practicing homosexuals as bishops.
The Windsor Report is flawed - but it forms a cornerstone of the process we have been given.  Its limitations with regard to including the broad range of Modernist Heresies were not expanded on by the TPC. It is up to each of us, individually and collectively to counter these heresies by proclaiming the true Gospel in word and deed. May Christ help us in that endeavor.

YBIC,
R. Scott Purdy

Perhaps I misread the communique, but I saw that the PB has veto power over the Primatial Vicar, and will delegate some unspecified duties to him.  What assurance do we have that the Primatial Vicar will (1) be someone the orthodox can trust, and (2) have the necessary authority to pastor to them?

I think Matt+ is largely correct in his analysis.  However, there is an international dimension here that makes this deal even better.  By putting the ball once again in TEC’s court, with terms like “unequivocal,” this makes it much less likely the other parts of the Communion—say, Scotland or Brazil—will revolt.  If these other “liberal” provinces start to go down the same road, the clear signal is: you’re next.  It may even have a salutary effect on Canada (which is why, I suspect, Canada was not mentioned in the “schedule.”  Their General Synod is coming up before too long.  Watch and see if “local option” for SSB gets passed there.)

Rick,

The enforcement mechanism is the pastoral council and the deadline after which there will be reduced status or reconciliation

“This structured group will either be reconciled to TEC, (assuming TEC signs on to the covenant, makes it clear they will approve no other practicing homosexual bishops, figures out a way to allow those opposed to Women’s Ordination to be able to maintain that faithful opposition, etc.) or IT WILL BE THE CORE OF THE REPLACEMENT PROVINCE. ”

There is no specified penalty for failure of the HOB to make an “unequivocal” statement other than a statement that the failure to do so will have “consequences”.  There is not, and will not, be a voting majority within the Primates to exclude TEC in the event of a dispute over their compliance with this provision, nor will the AOC be a party to TEC’s exclusion.

Yes, Timothy, you are correct, there is no “specified penalty”. 

Do you seriously presume that in light of this Communique the Primates will do nothing?

I’m afriad I can’t share Matt+‘s optimism.

:

First, I don’t see that deadline as hard and fast, given the number of “opt outs” in the Communique itself, plus, of course, PECUSA’s ability to claim (and even with some merit) that it cannot reply so quickly, that it needs GenCon to do so… and, further, that it has no moral obligation to do so until all primatal jurisdiction-crossing ends by return of the GS parishes to PECUSA via the Primatal Vicar.

I don’t see any hope that a hard and fast “reduction” of PECUSA’s status in the communion can actually be implemented (though a minority will call for it) after September.

:

Second, remember the composition of this primatal/pastoral “Council”:

2 members chosen by KJS (cronies who will be picked quickly)
2 members chosen by the primates as a whole (and thus necessarily candidates who are sufficient ‘compromise’ candidates to get whatever majority approval is needed… however long <u>that</u> takes.)
1 member who is a primate selected by the ABC (who will try to pick a ‘compromise’ and ‘unifier’ candidate who won’t be utterly unacceptable to either side).

Result—the council is initially 3 members, 2 of who are KJS shills and 1 a “moderate” and “unity-at-all-costs” primate; eventually, once the primates can find a compromise, 2 more compromise candidates.

And, further, this council has only very vague and limited powers, any exercise of which is will be resisted by PECUSA’s shrieks over “autonomy”... it will serve mainly as an advisory buffer layer between PECUSA and the rest of the Anglican world.

I don’t see any hope that this “Council” will provide either enforcement or discipline.

:

This is discouraging, but I think it’s also a realistic appraisal of what the Communique and Schedule actually says, and of how, based on past history, PECUSA will respond to the situation.

:

IMHO, all we have here is yet another excuse to draw yet another line in the sand and put off for yet another day ceasing to sit on the fence… as, all the while, the revisionists continue their 30+ - year campaign of taking over PECUSA and moving it to a non-Christian faith and ethics.

pax,
LP

I see, okay, it’s a either TEC cooperates in good faith or the hammer falls. 

I’m optimistic, with caution.  Let’s give it a chance to work itself out.

I hope that (a) the primatal vicar is someone like MacPherson, in the least, and (b) moderate dioceses begin to make the move to the Windsor College, knowing that not to do will bring great harm to their structure and mission.

I miss the morning roundtables with Sarah, Matt and Greg (the Katie, Matt and Al of Anglican Communion morning tv).

Any chance they’ll be more roundtables?

NB&S - I can hear David Ould clearing his throat again… was it the accent?  Poor guy can’t get any props on these threads!
(I sympathize - I am a Lent & Beyond contributor and often read compliments to “the gals” at L&B…)

Why is a primatial majority a necessity?  Aren’t the parameters set up in the Communique and the Schedule well-defined and tight enough that, wiggle though they might, the consequences to TEC are automatic if they have not met those parameters?

I’m optimistic, with caution.  Let’s give it a chance to work itself out.

Whew!  I don’t know how you veterans can deal with these episodes.  I feel like I’ve been through a meat grinder. 
Now - to ask a slightly paranoid question :  Is it possible that we’re being rubed?

Wolverine & Vinnie,
I had the same misgivings about the PV at first too, because the first part of the report made it sound like this person would be appointed by Schori.  The schedule, however, makes it clear that the PV will be elected by the Windsor Bishops, and then Schori can either accept or reject that election.  This makes her consent to the PV more of a rubber stamp.  She could use her veto, but would it be worth the backlash?  I doubt it.

On another note, although all the rejoicing about the Communique is warranted, I have been reminded today that there is a fight ahead.  Accepting this Communique will not be easy for many parishes and diocese to do. There will be a fight in the HOB, and there will be battles to be fought across the country.  I found the following statement from a commenter on Drell’s site and pass it on for what it’s worth:

“It’s not over yet so now is the time to really get aggresive with the apostates. Do you have rubber kneed priest? Vacillating Vacuous Vestry? Tell them you’ve had enough. Really do it. Make contact with orthodox leaders in your Diocese. One thing I have learned is that the apostates cannot handle confrontation. Make note of un scriptural behavior in clergy and lay activists and pass it on. Don’t sneak around, make your position known. Be kind, but be firm.
For forty years Thousands of orthodox, lay and clerical, have fought this fight for you, have been persecuted for you, have been chased from their pulpits for you, have lost their pensions for you, have had their priestly orders taken from them for you, have been publicly villified for you. All of this pain and hard work has brought us a victory. ++Akinola, ++Orumbi, +Iker, +Duncan, +Ackerman, +Schofield, +Minns, +MacPherson, how many others have taken hits for you. It’s time to repay them. You’ve got until Sept. 30 to get it done. For once, make a difference. ”

Wolverine, you took the words out of my mouth, when you wrote:

If the PV is solid and energetic, I think we will have taken a huge step forward here.  If he is unreliable or passive this could turn into another “Panel of Reference”.

Indeed.

On paper this looks pretty decent.  I’m encouraged on many levels.  And yet as they say, the devil is in the details and how this is implemented on the ground.  May the Lord grant that this will NOT be another panel of reference situation!!

Tim+  re: your comment about you & David O. not getting any respect, LOL…!  too true.

megadittoes, matt

One of my friends used to refer to Pittsburgh ‘05 as “I Hope there’s a Future”...

Well, at the moment, I believe there is…

IC,

J.

“Yesterday morning I was wondering which Reformed denomination to join. This morning I am praising God that he has not let the Anglican branch of Christianity wither. Thanks be to God.”

Matt I agree with you but you tend to leave out individuals who have been left behind and there are many.  I say this not for me as I have a reformed imperfect solution for me and my family.  I have friends who have no real Anglican solution and that is very sad.  I believe that orthodoxy has an obligation to include these folks.  Its part of evangelism.

My apologies to David Ould. I left him out of one of my thank you posts. It was inadvertant.

the snarkster

The cutting edge of the Anglican world is missionary, and that missionary effort sports strong lay leadership.  I feel for those isolated folks you mention, Lee Parker.  But if our hope is to establish a cost-prohibitive (and really out of date) model of Episcopalianism (building, priest, small congregation), there will be many people in the U.S. who never find their way back to Anglicanism (and will die long before a traditional model ever finds them).
We need house churches or other church-plant models with strong lay leadership.  Clergy, in many present settings, will need to be missioners who travel and train up and equip such lay leaders to build communities of faith.  We need to get away from our “it isn’t church without communion” ideology (a very new thing in the Episcopal Church) and reclaim Morning Prayer.  Existing orthodox congregations need to see themselves as mission centers and plan support of isolated people, but with an eye to those people building communities of faith where they are.
Sorry, rambling a bit.  But this is the sort of thing that is having to emerge here on the plains.  South Dakota’s AAC chapter just came into being and a big part of its work will need to be efforts like I’ve described to help geographically scattered people.  I guess what I’m saying is that your friends must become their own Anglican solution.

Thanks Timothy but why should they not be supported by one of the strongest ACN dioceses in the country which is less than 60 miles away.  I don’t get it.  Would Jesus have said evangelize only in your neighborhood?  Frankly, the Primates just gave the ACN a mandate, or at least it seems that way to me.  Let me say it another way.  What would have happened yesterday if a certain Nigerian Bishop would have said “your friends must become their own Anglican solution?”  I just find it hypocritical.

Nyssa, maybe we should be praying for the unimaginable and not assuming massive blood-letting.  Let’s pray for the best possible outcome.  What would that be? 

I think of the spat that Paul and Barnabas had.  We don’t know what they argued about, but they agreed to peacefully part company and each pursue what he thought was God’s call.

I reckon there will be quite a few reappraisers (Louis Crew, Susan Russell, Eliz Kaeton etc) who will be so appalled by the communique and disenchanted with Schori that they will not have a stomach for any more forensic dissection of words contained in documents in the search for loopholes, or the ensuing ambiguous resolutions. 

Wouldn’t it be great if TEC as a whole were to come clean, agree that we are indeed 2 integrities (oops no pun intended) or conjoined twins (to use Schori’s image) which should now peacefully part, each to pursue what she feels God is calling her to proclaim?

An honest admission by HOB that they can’t sign up to the schedule and a declaration of intent to withdraw honestly from the Communion would be perfect, don’t you think?

Matt, again my deepest thanks to you and ALL the gang at SF for the incredible coverage of the events in Tanzania.  My prayers for all here, bloggers, commentors and lurkers for a holy Lent and a blessed Easter.

The issues and dynamics surrounding the Primatial Vicar are one of my hot buttons in regards to the value (to the Orthodox cause) of the Communique released last night.

Those “faithful” clergy, parishes, and dioceses within the Episcopal Church that have been alienated from the Episcopal Church will be given the opportunity to organize under a college of Windsor compliant bishops and a Windsor compliant primatial Vicar will be chosen. This Vicar must be approved by the Presiding Bishop but he will be under the supervision of the pastoral council (this is a far cry from the primatial vicar plan suggested by TEC).

LP has raised significant concerns regarding the makeup of this pastoral council.  KJS must approve this PV, and some members of the college of Windsor bishops are not exactly the bishop I would like to see as PV.  A concern about the PV’s reporting structure was also raised which gets down to the nub of my concern on the element.

Who will be the PV’s Primate?  Will it be KJS?  Wouldn’t that place him under her authority, so how is that helpful for those diocese seeking APO?  Would the communal relationship remain unimpaired with KJS, therefore making that same relationship with the various parishes under oversight by the PV still in communion with KJS?

For those of us to which that particular component is of great significance, which was also of significance to 7 Primates, this is an important question.  There are many of us that could have stuck it until September to sort out the WR issues, if we just hadn’t been saddled with an apostate/heretical PB that keeps having interviews in which she confirms just how apostate/heretical she truly is.

I understand it may seem very quibbling to some, maybe even Pharisacial, but some of us have been given (or perhaps I should say burdened) an eucharistic understanding that is fastidious.  It is that, along with the lawsuits against the VA churches that was my straw that broke this cranky old camel’s back.  There is nothing in the Communique that eleveates those challenges, coupled with new issues regarding the ABC.

Matt, I respect your an analysis and the fact the Brad Drell this it’s wonderful means alot.  But there are some pesky details that even in our desire to have everything work out, we should not gloss over.

Thank you (elves?) for fixing my formatting.  I also need a spell-checker, too. 
Sometimes my multi-task function breaks down especially at the end of a long day.

I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first. 20 But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants [3] to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. 21 I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. 22 Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, 23 and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works. 24 But to the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call the deep things of Satan, to you I say, I do not lay on you any other burden. 25 Only hold fast what you have until I come. 26 The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, 27 and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father. 28 And I will give him the morning star. 29 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’

Joel
http://allsoulsva.blogspot.com/

Duke, You hold out hope that the conjoined twins could “peacefully part, each to pursue what she feels God is calling her to proclaim?”

and go on to say:

“An honest admission by HOB that they can’t sign up to the schedule and a declaration of intent to withdraw honestly from the Communion would be perfect, don’t you think?”

Hmmmm.  If it were peaceful, yeh I think that would be perfect, but that’s a big ‘if.’  It is also a scenario that doesn’t seem to require much preparation by the orthodox faithful; as opposed to the messier scenario which will require much careful strategery (side note: Sarah, please tell us your book is coming out soon!?). 

So I guess I think we should all be praying for your scenario of a peaceful parting of ways, while preparing (just in case) for bloodletting.

PS - Go Tar Heels ; )

This report is good news for those of us who live north of the border in Canada. It certainly is a shot across the bows of our General Synod which meets in June that it will introduce local option or anything else at the peril of its full membership in the Communion. I am sure that +Michael Ingham of New Westminster must feel a bit out of sorts as this communiqué effectively says that the diocese must stop its practices on this matter. Hopefully, it will also release some of the pressure on orthodox clergy and parishes that has been applied by bishops and diocesan administrations to make them compliant to Claim the Blessing agenda.

Whether the General Synod will actually listen as our Primate has said it should or not is very much an open question as there is a certain momentum and the whole environment that says that Anglicans are “nice” people and we have to give everyone what ever they want.

As I posted on another thread on SF, the PB sees the PV as “under her direction”.  She has a different reading of this than I do (and Fr Matt).  She also is on the record as saying the primates “affirmed her plan of a PV” making clear she thinks her earlier plan was accepted.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  Is there anyone who can say to the PB “No, the PV is responsible to the council of 5”?

usma87,

The primates certainly used the same words, “Primatial Vicar” as +KJS, but the two systems are quite different. The TEC primatial vicar plan was like a glorified DEPO. The Communique vicar, by way of contrast, is elected by the WR college, and overseen by the pastoral council.

He is not subject to +KJS. She does have to approve his election, but as Nyssa said earlier, it would be very difficult politically speaking to do so.

Fr Matt,

She has referred to the new PV concept as being under her direction on the comments posted on Episcope (I think).  I read the communique the way you do.  I just don’t think +KJS sees it the same way.  Am I missing something?

No doubt she sees it that way. But this is not a subjective thing. It just takes comparing the published TEC proposal with the published communique. The differences are not a matter of interpretation

Who will be in this WR college, every bishop who sees the wind blowing in a different direction and decides to sign on—the Lee, Howard, Parsley types?  Then what do you have but an only slightly watered down HoB?  (Going back to your misgivings about the Camp Allen alliance Matt+ which looks as if this is where all this began).  Will there be a separate Convention for this group or will this group have to participate in the TEC Convention?—this is all assuming that TEC decides to comply with the Communique.  Comments please, I am trying to get through to what is really being suggested.

LP brings up a number of points that lend themselves to further speculation.

Consider the World After September 30.  Assume that the HoB has not been able to provide the requested assurances.  Then “this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion.”  But the Pastoral Council is a creature of the Communion!  What then becomes the status of the PB’s nominees to the Council who are not Windsor bishops?  And what of the status of the PB herself?  Judging the HoB’s response in the first place will presumably be the task of the _Primates’ Standing Committee, of which Mrs. Schori is now a member.

But now suppose the HoB does in fact, with much arm-twisting and muzzling of the most outspoken apostates, provide assurances of compliance with the Windsor requests.  This means that in theory, at least, all the dioceses of ECUSA are Windsor-compliant; what happens to the “college”?  What effect does this have on the “Pastoral Scheme”?

Anyone who thinks the Anglican situation is muddled now—just wait ‘til the fall…

snarkster: My apologies to David Ould. I left him out of one of my thank you posts. It was inadvertant.

not at all! I really should repent of my recent blatant self-promotion

I don’t share Matt’s optimism however it is possible he might be right.  On the other hand he might be very wrong. 

There are just too many unknowns.  We do not know who the PV will be.  We do not know what powers the PV will have.  We do not know who the 5 will be who make up the pastoral council.  Everything is speculation at this point.  We just have to wait and see how things unfold.  I wanted clarity.  I didn’t get it. 

Oh well…

Craig,  You have raised some very key questions.  If TEC is compliant, that would in fact mean that all TEC blshops would be Windsor compliant—and it would follow that they would have to be eligible for the college.  Basically we are back to TEC.  I don’t believe they had time to think through these possibilities.  This, it seems could be a very real possibility.
  While I am very thankful that the truth was not suppressed or distorted in Tanzanian Communique and that TEC is once again called to uphold the standards of the Anglican Communion, the whole “Schedule” and PV part seems very murky and problematic.

Craig, Betty Lee,

The communique is far more nuanced than that. If you read the footnotes you will find that to be judged Windsor compliant you must sign on to the same agreements that the Camp Allen bishops agreed too. That means individually, not as a whole church.

Matt,
I pray that you are right and that my caution is ill founded.

Matt+:

Are we keeping any kind of a tally on published responses from Bishops - maybe broken-down by Camp Allen -vs- non-CA.  It would be interesting to see how soon we get enough claiming “no way” to be able to call it a ‘walking away’.

And a question: as you understand it, how and when can a Parish request to be included under the new PV structure?

Still very doubtful, but the reactions here and from my friends at Good Shepherd are melting my intial icey position a bit.

Thanks to you all ...

I would second the request for a tally of Camp Allen-NonCamp Allen-Undecided list.  In my mind something like the APO request map that we had a few months ago would be perfect.  I’d do it but I’m not computer savvy enough to know how to post on the internet.  Anybody out there willing to take that project on?