Moving from corporate governance to incorporated governance

The news that there will be a telephonic meeting of Executive Council on December 7th, called by members of Council to address the concerns of members about the anti-gay, anti-freedom of speech, homophobic legislation being considered in Uganda is good news. Difficult, but good.

The news is of course good because in its own strange way the church is getting itself together to make a statement of outrage at the slip back into rampant homophobic hate for which the Uganda's legislation is only an example.

It is difficult news because beneath the surface there are passionate currents running. Some of these passions concern the vision and "place of being" of the GLBT community in the life of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. Some concern the matter of the international movement for justice and civil rights. Some concern the governance of The Episcopal Church. Some concern the persons and groups actually governing - The Presiding Bishop, the Officers of the Executive Council / Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society, the Executive Council itself and the commissions / committees / boards and agencies of The Episcopal Church.

The news is difficult, in other words, because it points to a wide range of issues that, should they be explored, concern a systemic reevaluation of who governs in TEC and why.

The news is also good because the matters raised by the effort to articulate the position which is almost universally acknowledged as being TEC's regarding the repression signaled by the proposed legislation - namely that we oppose and strongly condemn the criminalization of homosexuals - also helps us focus our attention on the need to rethink the future forms of governance in this Church.

This Executive Council, with its particular makeup and with its symbolically important leadership in the Presiding Bishop and President of the House of Deputies, and with its feisty entering class of 2009, is in no mood to take past Executive Council patterns of action as normative. The fact that members, rather than the Presiding Bishop, would call a special meeting is significant. That they would do so concerning matters that in the past would have been either brought up in regular session of Executive Council or spoken to by the Presiding Bishop is also worth noting. And, to make matters even more interesting, the members of Executive Council are more and more participant members in a very different community of knowledge and authority - one based on knowledge and authority as shared rather than derivative of this or that matter of merit. All of which is to say that the Executive Council, formed as a mechanism for corporate organization is becoming a mechanism within an incorporated - that is to say incarnated - community.

The development of new senses of the role and function of Executive Council is in part a product of increasing tensions in the Anglican Communion and within the Episcopal Church, tensions that have not adequately been addressed by existing canons and procedures of the church. So just as the Presiding Bishop has had to find new ways to work with the canons to provide clarity that particular bishops have indeed abandoned the communion of this Church, the Executive Council has had to find new ways to deal with the possibility of constant communication and demands for action among its members. Communication beyond the confines of the meetings of the Council begin to yield in passions, concerns, matters of inquiry and even matters of political struggle that were not present when Council could only correspond by snail mail or fax and by telephone, and when the rigors of corporate behavior mitigated against such rash interaction.

So it would appear that Executive Council is on a cusp, to use old age of Aquarius jargon. We are moving from being the corporate board of a corporation - the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society - and the governing body between Conventions of the General Convention of The Episcopal Church - to being the incorporation of a broad based body of elected persons who will define for themselves the limits and actions appropriate to the Council.

Where before we might have expected the corporate board rules to prevail here there are too many "networking" linkages to make those rules of behavior work. Now new ways of communication, new lines of trustworthy or trust building linkages will develop, new sources of power and authority will develop. The Executive Council is no longer understood by its members as being modeled as a corporate board. The message of inclusion, on a board level, has begun to effect the workings of Executive Council itself.

I think this is to the good. But there is no way that it will not be painful. Persons whose offices have power precisely in a corporate model will find these changes very difficult. Others who have built their own position on allegiance to this or that officer will find themselves no longer having a court in which to move about with subsidiary powers. At the same time various factions will develop and at one time or another attempt to become the new corporate officers, not realizing that their powers derive not from the old values of the corporate board but from the new values of the incorporated community.

These are times of heady change and there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. However the issue of responding to the the Uganda legislation plays out, the power shifts that result are signaling a move from corporate to incorporate, from carnation to incarnation, from a form of governance based on civil models (and what are bishops except ecclesial alternatives to civil administrators in the Roman Empire) to a form of governance based on a post modern projection of the best of reformation thinking in which the company of believers share the oversight collectively.

I think we are beginning to see in all this a movement beyond the mere shadowing and mimicking of civil structures to a new attempt to grasp the possibility of all the faithful working as an incorporated entity to do the work God has given them to do.

So the good news is that Executive Council is flexing its "incorporated" muscle. The bad news is that until it gets it all worked out there will be the odd wild punch and the occasional one well placed blow below the belt. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth and blood on the floor.

And after perhaps a new beginning.

Brazil on the Anglican Covenant, particularly part 4.

The Anglican Episcopal Church of Brazil (IEAB) has published an important paper on the Ridly-Covenant Draft Anglican Covenant. The Church of Brazil has given careful and studious church wide attention to the development of an Anglican Covenant and its formal commentaries and reports on the various drafts have been extremely helpful. They have asked that this statement be widely distributed.

The cover note from the Provincial Secretary, with the text attached is as follows:

Dear brothers and sisters

Grace and Peace!

On behalf of our Primate Mauricio Andrade, I`m so delighted to announce and publish the Response from our Province to the Consultation Process on the proposed Anglican Covenant.
Such consultation started from the last ACC meeting and we spent a careful attention and wide participation within our Province trough bishops, clergy and lay leaders. The special Primate`s Commission was very well involved in this process and finally, with prayers and high consideration we offer our response to the Anglican Communion as a contribution on this reflection about a proposed Covenant.

Receive it as a gift and a voice from a special context. Our prayers are with all the partners provinces involved in the same process. May God help us to find ways to strength our Communion with bonds of love, mutual respect and commitment with the God`s will.

We ask kindly that this response could be forward to all related people around the Anglican Communion.

With best wishes,

Revd. Canon Francisco de Assis da Silva
The Episcopal Anglican Church of Brazil
Provincial Secretary


Here is the text that was attached. It is a fairly long but an important read.


A STATEMENT FROM THE ANGLICAN EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF BRAZIL (IEAB) ON THE ANGLICAN COVENANT RIDLEY-CAMBRIDGE DRAFT

Almighty God, to whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid: Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of your Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love you, and worthily magnify your holy Name; through Christ our Lord. Amen.
(Collect for Purity, IEAB Book of Common Prayer)

Foreword

The Anglican Episcopal Church of Brazil (IEAB) received the Ridley-Cambridge draft of the Anglican Covenant for study and reflection after the last meeting of the ACC in Jamaica. The procedure adopted was to convene a Special Commission of the Bishop Primate, formed by bishops, clergy and laypersons for an initial two-day meeting of prayer and reflection.
Besides the Bishop Primate, the Rt Rev Mauricio Andrade, the following people also participated: two Diocesan bishops (the Rt Rev Jubal Pereira Neves and the Rt Rev Sebastião Armando Gameleira), three presbyters (IEAB General Secretary, Rev Francisco de Assis Silva; the President of the House of Clergy, Rev. Luiz Alberto Barbosa; and the Director of the Centre for Anglican Studies, Rev. Carlos Eduardo Calvani) and two laypersons, our representative in the ACC, Dr Joanildo Burity, and Mrs Erica Furukawa.

Our meeting took place peacefully, and included Morning Prayer and Holy Communion. We heard the detailed report from our representative in the ACC and gave full consideration to the study of the Ridley-Cambridge Draft.

After careful analysis, a report was written singling out some of the difficulties raised by the document. This report was sent to all the dioceses with the request that internal groups of study and reflection would be set up and that their results returned to the Commission by 20th October for reappraisal.

Not all dioceses managed to conduct the study in time. but on the basis of the contributions received from some dioceses and the exhaustive work done by the Commission members during two days of gathering, we can now offer the following comments on the Ridley-Cambridge Draft.

1. The Current Situation in the Anglican Communion

1.1. We acknowledge that the Anglican Communion has historically gone through moments of crisis from its inception, and that these crises and tensions form part of the history of Anglicanism since its rupture with the Roman Church. Despite this, it has always managed to maintain throughout its history, the ability to dialogue with mutual respect, to affirm interdependence and to respect provincial boundaries.

1.2. We acknowledge that Anglicanism is not a “Church”, but a fellowship of national, autonomous and interdependent churches, united not only through bonds of affection, but also by a classic tradition developed over centuries, centred on worship, the incarnation, and the upholding of each culture’s ethos and contextual mission, as well as having a set of Instruments of Communion in which the various orders are represented, offer their particular contributions, and make decisions within their respective legitimate spheres of action.

1.3. We understand that there are situations specific to each country, region or context that must be faced according to criteria appropriate for the national churches, while being open to listening and counselling from other churches in the Communion. Our view is that the Anglican Communion cannot be identified with the Church of England, which is only part of the former.

1.4. We note that there has never been a normative statement of faith binding each of the national churches in the Anglican Communion, nor a central source of authority, but a dispersed authority according to the 1930 Lambeth Conference report and the encyclical signed by the bishops attending that Conference, whose Resolution 49 reads:
The Anglican Communion is a fellowship, within the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted dioceses, provinces or regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, which have the following characteristics in common:

a. they uphold and propagate the Catholic and Apostolic faith and order as they are generally set forth in the Book of Common Prayer as authorised in their several Churches;
b. they are particular or national Churches, and, as such, promote within each of their territories a national expression of Christian faith, life and worship; and
c. they are bound together not by a central legislative and executive authority, but by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference .

1.5. We recognise that the current instruments of unity in the Anglican Communion need to be revised and strengthened in order to fulfil their purpose to keep the various churches interdependent in their understanding of the gospel and mission.

1.6. We believe that Communion is a gift of God and that the Anglican Communion is one of the many signs of this gift. Hence we commit ourselves to remain in communion and prayer with the other churches of the Anglican Communion, to share the same gospel, to uphold the principles of the Book of Common Prayer (which, however varied, maintains the same liturgical structure everywhere), to reaffirm our allegiance to the Lambeth Quadrilateral, to express our commitment to the “five marks of mission”, and to uphold our firm resolve to strengthen the already existing instruments of unity.

1.7. We acknowledge and value the work of the Ridley-Cambridge drafting committee, as well as recognise their intention to preserve the unity and interdependence of the churches of the Communion. However, we lament the fact that this process has been conducted without broad consultation with missiologists and liturgists, as well as the polemic circumstances, marked by mutual mistrust and judgement, which conferred a judicial character particularly on Section 4 of the Draft, showing little emphasis on spirituality, liturgy and mission, and accentuating traces of institutionalisation that significantly alter the ecclesiological nature of the Anglican Communion, bringing it closer to the idea of a denominational macro-structure.

2. Observations and doubts with regard to the Ridley-Cambridge Draft

2.1. On the first three sections
The Anglican Episcopal Church of Brazil expresses its agreement with sections 1 to 3 of the proposed Covenant, in the understanding that these sections merely reaffirm the Baptismal Covenant (Pact) and what has been accumulated throughout the history of Anglicanism since the Lambeth Quadrilateral. The feeling of near consensus expressed by many churches in the Communion about these points, confronts us, at the same time, with a curious question: if such an affirmation is sufficient to identify us, while adding nothing to what has already been extensively shared, what is it that the Communion lacks which cannot be achieved through the existing instruments at its disposal?

2.2. On doubts and imprecision in relation to Section 4

2.2.1. We have a theological problem with the term “covenant”. The use of the term as a verb, in the preamble to the document raises theological issues that should merit more careful analysis. In the Scriptures, any initiative towards a “Covenant” or “Alliance” comes from God and not from us, contrary to what the document suggests, when it reads “we... solemnly covenant together in these following affirmations and commitments”. This is much closer to a contract in the modern Western political tradition appropriate for the state as a form of a binding political association. In the Scriptures, the term “covenant” or “alliance” is always used with reference to the relationship between God and his people. In the Book of Common Prayer of the Anglican Episcopal Church of Brazil we use the expression “Baptismal Alliance” in the Holy Baptism and Confirmation rites . We understand that the Covenant that binds us to God and to one another is Holy Baptism, and recommend that, in the Preamble to the text of the Covenant, the Baptismal Alliance be affirmed as sufficient to keep us united in mission.

2.2.2. The Commission members in Brazil were struck by the different literary style of Section 4 as compared to the previous ones, with sentences which resemble a legal canonical statute and not a proper mutual theological and missionary commitment. The text of the Covenant therefore assumes a legalistic tone of an instrument to resolve conflict, which goes beyond the existing instruments of communion.

2.2.3. We observe that Section 4 creates absolutely new and strange relational mechanisms. It has never been necessary in the history of Anglicanism to resort to such procedures because we have always tacitly experienced a state of “permanent covenanting”, trusting the Church consensus (sensus fidelium) without the need for written agreements. This consensus was understood in the sense of requiring a double focus: to deal with the emergence of new issues and theological and missiological challenges, and for the need not to rush into ultimate decisions before the “time of the Spirit”. That is, in the midst of controversies, consensus takes time to emerge and is the result of patient and merciful listening to God and to one another; it cannot be the expression of a final judgement about the faith or communion with one another, nor can it be a precedent for any change to our practices and beliefs.

2.2.4. We also express our doubt in relation to section 4.1.1, which deals with the formal acceptance of the Covenant. By speaking of “other Churches” that could subscribe to it, the possibility arises for Churches other than the current members of the Communion to be accepted, which raises doubts about the schismatic Anglican churches that have broken communion within existing Provinces, and today gather groups in open theological conflict with the Anglican Communion. It also opens, for lack of clarity, the possibility for other Christian confessions to join the Covenant, which then ceases to be specifically Anglican and becomes ecumenical. Though this last hypothesis is part of a deep Anglican aspiration, it is not a justification for the Covenant, nor does the Covenant seem to us to be an adequate instrument for that purpose. The outcome of this open-endedness would be otherwise: a disfiguration of Anglicanism through the incorporation of practices and traditions alien to its history or through the breaking of the theological, pastoral and spiritual balance that has historically been built within the Anglican Communion.

2.2.5. We understand that Section 4 of the Covenant inevitably leads to the creation of a fifth instrument of unity in the Anglican Communion. One of our dioceses stated that the reading of this Section caused an apprehensive reaction among those participating in the discussion, as they understood that the attribution of power to arbitrate on issues between Churches of the Communion to the Joint Standing Committee of the ACC and the Primates’ Meeting, an affront to the Anglican view of the “bonds of affection”. Another diocese, however, considered it positive in that the creation (sic) of this Committee would represent an opportunity for “re-founding the Anglican Communion”.

2.2.6. Besides this innovation, an apprehension also emerged among some dioceses that the Joint Standing Committee may exercise powers of oversight in the internal life of national Churches, by receiving the munus to recommend that a Province be temporarily barred from participation in the instruments of unity where it is represented. It thereby wrongly establishes the principle of suspension even before any divergence can be effectively clarified, thus characterising a prejudgement without the right to defence. We note here a great internal contradiction in the document, for it also states that no Church will be subject to any external ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The fact that the composition of the Joint Standing Committee is drawn from the existing instruments of unity does not guarantee that it will act as a merely executive instance of Section 4 provisions. The way in which procedures are laid out will always imply assessment, judgement and decision-making that will give the Committee powers of decision above all the current instances, inevitably resulting in interference in internal matters of provinces, even if the existing legal provision there is being fully complied with. We are particularly concerned about the fact that while none of the instruments of unity possesses decision making or arbitration powers over the provinces, a representation of these may be given such powers, especially considering the asymmetry in the character of representation and forms of appointment of such participants in each of the instruments. The Joint Committee therefore has a normative and legitimate deficiency which
Section 4 does not clarify nor duly sorts out.

2.2.7. We are also of the opinion that Section 4 lacks clarity in regard to the form in which controversial matters will be dealt with. For example, can any kind of divergence be addressed to the Joint Standing Committee so as to start off the described process? Should the existing instruments of unity not be the preliminary instances of any process of questioning and clarification of disputes that may eventually be referred to the Committee? Alternatively, should the plenary of the Anglican Consultative Council, the most representative of the instruments of unity, not be the decision arena on any matters in which the breaking of communion or conflicts threatening the Communion, since all the provinces of the Communion are there represented (absolutely and in proportion of their relative size)? A properly amended ACC constitution, so as to reflect such an extraordinary role, would allow for the procedures to be taken by the Joint Standing Committee to have an ad referendum nature between the Council meetings, thus giving provinces the juridical safety that decisions would not take place without their direct participation.

2.2.8. The ambivalence or silence found in Section 4 provisions and the process of formal entry into the Covenant also give reason for doubt. For instance, what is the status of those provinces who will not subscribe to the Covenant or who may withdraw from it? In principle, the Churches that violate it will not necessarily lose their Anglican nature, that is, they would be declared in breach of the Covenant, but would not be declared non-Anglican. Nevertheless, in relation to those Churches that choose not to join the Covenant, it is not clear what status they would bear. Would they become second-class provinces within the Communion? What would the membership relation between these Churches and those signatories of the Covenant be? Would there be a possibility of adhering to the first three sections alone as sufficient to solve this potential status imbalance, leaving the adoption of Section 4 a matter of supplementary adherence? What would be the relationship between partner dioceses, in case one of them belongs to a province that has signed the Covenant while the other does not? Or, in the case when one of the two provinces receives a disciplinary sanction from the Joint Standing Committee? In our view, section 4 creates more doubts than certainties. Although one of our dioceses has manifested its support to the Covenant, another one asked for more clarification with reference to the criteria and procedures to be employed by the Joint Standing Committee. Another diocese expressed its concern that a “pact” in a normative sense may not unite us, and may even accentuate our differences, disuniting us further.

3. Our pledge

3.1. The fact that we are considering a Covenant to regulate the relationships between the provinces of the Communion points to yet another concern: that the current instruments of unity face a crisis of legitimacy and effectiveness. We believe that the way for the maintenance of the Communion passes through the strengthening of those instruments, rediscovering and reconfiguring their roles. Therefore, the reconstruction of the internal links within the Communion should be the condition prior to the adoption of any covenant, through mutual respect, dialogue, prayer and practical reflection in view of our mission.

3.2. We believe that the Communion needs, instead of a pact (Covenant), a joint commitment through which the missionary nature of the Church is reasserted. The Anglican International Mission Commissions have produced, during the last decades, excellent documents about the nature of the Church and of its Mission (MISAG I and II, MISSIO and IASCOME). All this material, elaborated over years of work seems to be disregarded in this conjuncture of conflict in the Communion.

3.3. In the current stage of the process, IEAB cannot commit itself to either the immediate adoption or refusal of the proposed Covenant. Thus, the question remains open for the Brazilian province. In addition, while we express in this statement positions formerly manifested with regards to the idea of an Anglican Communion Covenant, we have attempted to stick to what was expressly required for the consideration of IEAB: its assessment of the proposed draft of Section 4, which had not until now been the object of analysis in the province, in view of the date of its original publication. This document represents is our position on the referred section 4 and is not a final judgement on the whole of Ridley-Cambridge Draft, whose content largely reflects our province’s position.

3.4. We are convinced, according to the Anglican tradition experienced in Brazil, that any decision on the immediate adoption or rejection of the Covenant would be precipitated. The Anglican Episcopal Church of Brazil has its own canonical procedures. Our process will require referring the matter to the General Synod (2010), the highest provincial instance gathering bishops, clergy and laypeople from all dioceses and missionary districts, recommending the appointment of a special inter-Synod commission that will study the text and monitor the developments regarding the Covenant within the Anglican Communion during the inter-Synod period, and will submit a report to the 2013 Synod, recommending the adoption or not of the Covenant, or a longer process of listening and observation.

3.5. We hope that even if the adoption process of Covenant begins as a result of the present consultation on Section 4 of the Ridley-Cambridge Draft, the provincial canonical procedures will be respected and that the promptness shown by some provinces to adopt it will not be used as an evidence of a supposed unwillingness or indecision of others to do so. This would be good Anglican practice and a sign that the process of formalisation and eventual adherence to the proposed Covenant will not be viewed by an implicit agenda to judge the depth of provincial commitment to the Communion or to the solution of the serious conflicts currently afflicting it.

3.6. We reaffirm, finally, our sincere and unequivocal Anglican identity, inherited from our forebears, and which we intend to pass on to the future generations, by praying the Collect for the Church Unity (IEAB Book of Common Prayer, p. 151):

Most holy Father, whose blessed Son before his passion prayed for the disciples that they may be one, as you and he are one; grant that your Church, united in love and obedience to You, may be united in one body by the one and only Spirit, that the world may believe in the one you have sent, your Son Jesus Christ, our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen.

Fr. Jake takes looks beneath the sheets. Strange bedfellows indeed!

Fr. Jake is on the case regarding the connections between conservatives in the US and various church leaders in Africa and Asia, and in particular regarding the connections between the realignment gang with amazing links to conservative religious organizations in the US and the Anglican Prelates from several nations in Africa, all part of the "Global South" cabal. Go, read it. Good stuff.

It is all about exporting homophobia, at least as far as Fr. Jake reads it. The operant part of that word homophobia is in this context phobia. The export of fear mongering is a tidy way of getting others to carry the message that Christianity and Family as we know it is about to crumble and that it is "those people" who are the cause of it all. If we just get rid of "them" then everything will be alright.

It works very well indeed. And Jake also reminds us of something I have spoken to as well, that its homophobia this week it is fear of Muslims next.

It is time to step up to the plate. If you fear homosexuals, then fear me. It's time to wear the pink triangle on an armband or patch. If you fear Muslims then fear me. It is time wear a crescent symbol on an armband or patch. It is also time for serious comedy, for laughing these people into submission may be the only way out. Otherwise the fear mongering crowd wins.

Go read Jake, then come back.

About the Ad in USA Today

An ad was taken out by the Communications Office of The Episcopal Church on Friday's USA Today, "weekend" edition. There have been a number of comments mostly suggesting the ad is verbose and kind of dull. Still, I'm glad to see "The Episcopal Church welcomes you" back in full use and glad to see something being done.

At the same time it is a joy to see that other more quirky and lively ads are also being experimented with. As usual Susan Russell has done a remarkable job getting to the bottom of this quirky creativeness and has contributed an ad of her own. Here it is, to the right.
















There is a challenge out to produce new and fresh ads that tell US as we are, and with joy. Here is the Ad-o-rama challenge. Take it or weep. Among the offerings already in place is this one to the left.

Now after those rather spirited efforts the ad from the Church Center seemed rather less useful. The problem I think is that it tries to do too much. The good news is that the Church Center is seeing the need to try to reach the unreached. Anne Rudig, Director of Communications, explained it this way "Our goal is to herald and share our message of "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You", and the copy delves into our identity, our core beliefs, and our heritage."

The operant words here are "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You" and "the copy delves..."

It is the "delving" that is the problematic here.

Here is the copy of the text from the USA Today ad. I have inserted comments in RED reflecting on the dangers of delving.The font is not produced here, but can be retrieved as a PDF file HERE. It is nicely proper.

THE TEXT

As Episcopalians, we are followers of Jesus Christ, our Lord, and believe in
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

It would have been helpful to use perhaps a few more words here, as in "believe in One God, Father..." Not that that helps in some quarters, the doctrine of the Trinity being what it is, but at least we would be less open to the charge of worshiping three gods.

The Episcopal Church has members in the United States, as well as in Colombia,
the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy,
Switzerland, Haiti, Honduras, Micronesia, Puerto Rico, Taiwan, Venezuela,
and the Virgin Islands.

That is true, but we also have members, I suspect in almost every country in the world. It issue is not members. It is congregations and / or dioceses in those countries.

We strive to love our neighbors as ourselves and respect the dignity of every person.

The Episcopal Church is part of the worldwide Anglican Communion, and traces
its heritage to the beginnings of Christianity.

Our liturgy retains ancient structure and traditions, and is celebrated in
many languages.

We welcome men and women, married or celibate, to be ordained as bishops,
priests, and deacons.

This one is oddly phrased. The choice "married or celibate" is not correct. The choice is between in community or solitary, or something like that. Marriage, being part of a religious order, partnered, in a holy union, etc are all variations on community. Being "single" can be an accident or on purpose. I like the word "solitary" to describe a vocation to a life without the vows that accompany joining a community or being partnered. At any rate here it might have been better to leave out "married or celibate," and make it about "men and women" without further limitations.

We believe in amendment of life, the forgiveness of sin, and life everlasting.

Lay people exercise a vital role in the governance and ministry of our Church.

Holy Communion may be received by all baptized Christians, not only members
of the Episcopal Church.

We uphold the Bible and worship with the Book of Common Prayer.

Here "uphold the Bible" seems odd. "We are informed by the witness and words of the Holy Scriptures, the Bible...." might work better.

We affirm that committed relationships are lifelong and monogamous.

This is just plain silly. I have many committed relationships. In most there is no expectation that the commitment is lifelong and the relationship is exclusive. This one needs radical reworking or needs to be dropped altogether.

Episcopalians also recognize that there is grace after divorce and do not deny
the sacraments to those who have been divorced.

We affirm that issues such as birth control are matters of personal
informed conscience.

We celebrate our unity in Christ while honoring our differences, always putting
the work of love before uniformity of opinion.

This makes it sound as if we are more willing to put up with people who do injustice from a principled position than we are to take them to task for bad principles. Come to think of it perhaps we are.

All are welcome to find a spiritual home in the Episcopal Church.


All in all not a bad list. Needs some work. Informative without being too concentrated on theological or ecclesiastical niceties. Still, as I have said on other occasions, it might be nice to add in closing,

We live in hope that when you know us you will welcome us into your home, for where you live is also the spiritual home of the God whose blessings are on us all.

ACNA habits of church attendance and Archbishop's habits of dissing TEC: revised.

This week the Anglican Church in North America put out a notice about the ordination of three new bishops for the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC). The press release noted,

"ANiC is under the Episcopal authority of Bishop Harvey and is a diocese in the Anglican Church in North America which unites over 100,000 faithful Anglicans from across this continent. It now numbers 733 parishes and eight forming congregations in North America with more than 3500 in church on an average Sunday."

I had assumed "3500" was a typo for "35,000" the percentage present on a Sunday is similar to that of the Episcopal Church (don't know about the Anglican Church in Canada). The numbers seem to have gone up a bit again, reaching the 100,000 spoken of prior to the formation of ACNA.

IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT in two comments on this blog that the press release now reads, "ANiC is under the Episcopal authority of Bishop Harvey and is a diocese in the Anglican Church in North America which unites over 100,000 faithful Anglicans from across this continent. ANiC now numbers 33 parishes and eight forming congregations in North America with more than 3500 in church on an average Sunday." I believe, but cannot show that this is a correction. I have no reason to have produced the first press release with other numbers and believe I simply copied and lifted the quote directly.

At any event the revised standard numbers - that the 3500 is a reference only to the ANiC - means that my comments concerning the size of ACNA needed revision.

Revised comment: ACNA , at 100,000 persons is about 1/20th the size of The Episcopal Church. Given that a fair number of the 733 parishes were never part of TEC or the Anglican Church of Canada, and that their communicants likewise were never part of the Provinces of the Anglican Communion, this would place the numbers of people who have left TEC or the ACiC for the ACNA or any of its subsidiary parts at well below 5%, probably more like 4%.


There are no doubt a number of people why have simply wandered off from The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. That's one of the problems of a bridge church, people wander in, they wander out.

It seems more and more likely that the effect of all the miseries of the past few years will be that some 4 or 5 percent of TEC people will leave for ACNA. The notion that somehow ACNA represents a better form of Anglicanism and will be therefore immediately attractive to TEC members past or present is not at all certain.

The National Post in Canada interviewed the Archbishop. According to the NP, Duncan
"...says it is the national churches in Canada and the United States -- the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church USA -- that are the real schismatics, trading in the Bible and orthodoxy for a trendy form of Christianity that is trying to be popular instead of faithful.

Those institutions have "turned so far to the left" they are now on the road to virtual oblivion, he said, pointing to such innovations as the blessing of same-sex marriage.

"They'll become irrelevancies," he said during an interview with the National Post. "People who are looking for a saviour who can save. They are really looking for how they can shape their lives and what they can trust in. And what the [national churches] are offering is Jesus Lite. Folks don't need a Jesus Lite."

... Archbishop Duncan, who is based in Pittsburgh, said in the end it will be the conservatives that will win.

"People will turn to what's true," he said while attending an ACNA synod in St. Catharines. "And we'll have the souls and they'll get the stuff. We'll get the future, they'll get the past. I'd rather have the souls and the future."

He believes that what is going on in Anglicanism right now is nothing short of a new Reformation, similar to what Luther kicked off in Germany 500 years ago. For the Anglican Church worldwide, he said, it will be mean a complete shift in orientation away from Canterbury, the historical spiritual home of Anglicanism, to Africa, the faith's new spiritual home.

"In the year 2000, the Archbishop of Canterbury was the second most important Christian leader in the world. In a short space of time that office has utterly been diminished. It shows that the British model of Anglicanism has failed."

He fully expects either a new "Canterbury" to emerge in Africa, or that the old seat of Anglicanism will remain where it is, but future archbishops will come from the Global South -- and be black and brown."

Aside from the usual arrogance of the two second flip of the finger..."what the (Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada) are offering is Jesus Lite," his most telling remarks had to do with the turn from Canterbury (the one in England with the Archbishop of Canterbury as Primate and "focus of unity" for Anglicans) to Canterbury with archbishops being appointed from the Global South or a new Canterbury - seat of the Communion's chief Archbishop - located somewhere in Africa.

The first is a fantasia. The Church of England will continue to appoint its Archbishop of Canterbury by a means most Anglicans find odd to say the least. Disestablishment might bring more democratic processes into play but that is a far cry from archbishops being chosen from the Global South.

The second is the dream field of the rigorous Global South. There may in fact be a new Anglicanism, one related to the Church of England's Anglicanism in only the most superficial ways. If the Archbishop of ACNA and his 100,000 want to go there, welcome to it.

Meanwhile the 95% will continue, having neither sworn on to "Jesus Lite" or to the fantasies of the Global South and their American counterparts.

How many Episcopalians does it take...?

A small rumination at the end of the day.

You know the question: How many Episcopalians does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Well, the answer varies. In an Anglican sort of way, "it depends."

If the light bulb is one of those incandescent bulbs, the answer is, "at least one politically incorrect one."

If the light bulb is one of those energy saving ones, the answer might be, "one to screw it in, one to genuflect, and one to chant, "the Light of Christ."

Or perhaps there is a non answer, "I'm not sure Episcopalians use the word screw."

But if the light bulb is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, like the 40 watt bulb that plays the part of the baby Jesus in the pageant or the light bulb behind the nifty Jesus night light, perhaps the light bulb getting screwed in and turned on is something like the light of Christ in our lives.

In which case, the answer to the question, "How many Episcopalians does it take to screw in a light bulb?" is this: IT TAKES ALL OF US.

So here is the point to all this: I believe the light of Christ is too great, too important, too wonderful to be left in the hands of one person or group or party. We all have see that it is screwed in and the current is flowing.

The light is important to all of us. This is because the light of Christ shines on and through the Scriptures and light is thrown on their meaning.

It is because the light of Christ shines in our minds and hearts and all our thoughts and experiences become illuminated by that light.

It is because the light of Christ shines in the life and prayers of witnesses in the church and by that light we see God's grace in the Saints and God's truth in our faith. The light of Christ is too big for any party to handle.

If the light is to get power, everyone has to help.

So there it is: The Episcopal Church needs everyone to help light up the night. All of us.

We are 110 dioceses in the US and a number of other countries. We are high church, low church, broad church, not much church at all. We are evangelical, sacramental, pentecostal, analytical, traditional, experimental, progressive, modern, ancient, post-modern, old, young, men and women, children, and on and on.

The reason we all hang out together is that we have the sense that no matter how well any one of us is at screwing in the bulb and turning on the light, it will take all sorts and conditions of folk in the human family to even begin to do the job right.

And of course, we also know that the light does not depend on our doing the work of screwing in the bulb. (That's why we get along with the Lutherans.) The light is already present, bulb or no bulb. It is just that we want to be part of making that light real in the lives of those who have been with out.

The real reason for being part of something that includes those who are so different from ourselves (however we define that) is that they and we are all part of the one great effort that is also God's desire, that we live in the light.

Anyone who will lend a hand at setting the bulb is invited to do so.

Why there is not much to be said here on Preludium: We're busy.

It's a slow week in Anglican land anyway, but down here in the village by the bay on the edge of the big waters that were angry these past few days, Preludium is all but shut down, not because of the weather, but because of the very active presence of Lily, beloved 4 1/2 year old granddaughter. She was accompanied by her brother Luke of 2 months and the parental units, also beloved.





After considerable study I have come to the conclusion that 4 1/2 is about as good as it gets. The alignment of all the necessities for perfection are there - beauty, action and intelligence. After 4 1/2 it is a long down hill slide and never again to the three all rise as one again.

So while we have the time we are making the best of it! The rest of the world in blogland or otherwise will have to wait, or get considerably more interesting.

Is "Anglicanorum coetibus" a tragic misspelling?

In a previous post Anglicanorum Coetibus: Pass the Groups, I suggested that perhaps "coetibus" might have various meanings. I pointed out that, "The word "Coetibus" means groups in this context but other possibilities include the following,"meeting, encounter, (political or illegal) assembly; union; band, gang, crowd; social intercourse (w/hominium), society, company; sexual intercourse." The matter of "coeti.." apparently has to do with the idea of affiliation, as in people who affiliate with one another or with an brand, or more sexually, who are pelvic affiliates, and much in between."

Little did I know that coetibus might simply have been a misspelling - tragically so - of the word "ceti," so that "coeti" is actually "ceti" and instead of the unseemly possibilities of this meaning "groups" as in "groups of Anglicans" or "group grope," this is a reference to a star "Ceti Alpha." The constellation Cetus is home of Tau Ceti, a star similar to our own sun in size and the target for CETI efforts to contact alien intelligence. It is also the home for Ceti Alpha V, which is the home of a terrible creature used as an instrument of torture.

A comment on this blog suggested that the reference to "coetibus" may in fact be a reference to the infamous Ceti eel, a beast that was forced into Commander Chekov and then matured and came out of his ear. The Ceti eel drove it's host mad and Chekov's scream is a memorable moment in an otherwise very camp movie, "The Wrath of Khan."

So here is the deal: It may very well be that the Pope, may peace be upon him, issued this Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum cetibus," "Anglican bug in the brain" in order to but a bug in our collective Anglican brain and drive us mad. Perhaps others in translating from the Pope's notes, stuck in an 'o'. Independent evidence for this is that the more we try to understand just what sort of gift this offering of room for reunion is, we more we find madness.

Just remember, as my son the scientist says, "The Truth is out there."

Archbishop Akinola speaks up: Apostolic Constitution necessitated by Anglican failed leadership.

In a statement issued by Archbishop Peter Akinola, chair of the GAFCON Primates, an organization of self appointed guardians of Anglicanism in the Global South and elsewhere, he pins the need for the Apostolic Constitution on Anglican Groups squarely on the failure of the "instruments of Communion to do their job in disciplining The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.

He states,

"We are, however, grieved that the current crisis within our beloved Anglican Communion has made necessary such an unprecedented offer. It represents a grave indictment of the Instruments of Communion whose very purpose is to strengthen and protect our unity in obedience to our Lord’s clear command. Their failure to fully address the abandonment of biblical faith and practice by The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada has now brought shame to the name of Christ and seriously impedes the cause of the Gospel."

The indictment of the Instruments of Communion is preparation for the next round - the argument by the Global South Primates and others that the Anglican Communion as currently organized is not able to provide the unity needed. It will remain for the GAFCON Primates to provide an alternative structure for a world wide Anglican Church, using the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FOCA) which exists in one form or another of organization now in the US, Canada, England and South Africa.

This new Anglican Church will subscribe to the Jerusalem declaration, recognize ACNA, build its own structures, and dismiss the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, those bishops who don't buy in, and laugh the Anglican Consultative Council out of the hall. It will pay lip service to the Anglican Covenant believing that the Covenant will be eviscerated by the west, whose dentists will pull out its teeth of judgment and whose surgeons will cut out its purity of heart.

It will turn its gaze South and locate its offices there. Often in the past few years Alexandria, Egypt has been mentioned, but who knows?

But in terms of the latest from Rome, it will use the fact of this offer as one more example of incompetence by the Instruments of Communion and the whole of the Anglican Communion in its westward decadence.

Isn't it nice to hear Akinola's voice again? He's been quiet, what with his successor having been elected in Nigeria and others carrying the load.

But he is back, and will be looking for a new job one of these days. If the deposed bishop of Pittsburgh can become an Archbishop of something perhaps the retired Archbishop of Nigeria can become a super Metropolitan.

Stranger things have happened. Yes?

This is not what Jesus had in mind. I am sure of it.

The Global South Primates met in late October and issued this statement "A Pastoral Exhortation to the Faithful in the Anglican Communion" It is considerably more polite.Oddly, Archbishop Akinola is also chair of the GS Primates as well. Ah, how odd it is.

And now for Evangelism, done from the ground up.

Great video on how the people of the Diocese of Iowa tell the Good News they have to tell. We CAN do evangelism in lots of ways. This is a fine example. GO IOWA!

Anglicanorum Coetibus: Pass the Groups.

The Apostolic Constitution on Anglicans wishing to become Roman Catholic has been published. There are lots of words on all this. Here are some more.

It is called, "APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS PROVIDING FOR PERSONAL ORDINARIATES FOR ANGLICANS ENTERING INTO FULL COMMUNION WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH." The phrase "Anglicanorum Coetibus" meaning rougly,"on the groups of Anglicans," a phrase also found in the first sentence of the document. The word "Coetibus" means groups in this context but other possibilities include the following,"meeting, encounter, (political or illegal) assembly; union; band, gang, crowd; social intercourse (w/hominium), society, company; sexual intercourse." The matter of "coeti.." apparently has to do with the idea of affiliation, as in people who affiliate with one another or with an brand, or more sexually, who are pelvic affiliates, and much in between.

What makes these groups Anglican? Apparently it is that they affiliate themselves with something like Anglican values, liturgy and so forth. It is not at all necessary for these groups to actually be related to the Anglican Communion, but rather to have some patina of Anglican folkways. The Apostolic Constitution affirms Fr. Tony Clavier's observation, published over on Covenant, in his article "Anglican?". It is worth quoting his remarks at some length:

"During the past year two events challenge this traditional use of the term “Anglican”. The first was the creation of the Anglican Church in North America. The second, this week was the announcement that the Roman Catholic Church is to create Anglican Ordinariates for those who in faith and conscience have either left Provinces or the Anglican Communion or contemplate so doing.

Involved in all this is a linguistic shift of some importance. When I was exercising the episcopate in what is termed now a “continuing church” it was often suggested to me that my ecclesial body could not use the term Anglican in self-description because it was not in communion with Canterbury. When I sought a ruling from +Robert Runcie, then Archbishop of Canterbury he replied that the relationship was “fluid”: a delightful and typically Anglican fudge.

Rome now seems to interpret the term to mean a tradition, an ethos, a way of doing liturgy and perhaps pastoral work, or a cultural-religious phenomenon. In affirming such an interpretation in formal canonical language it does Anglicanism no favor. While “Communion-Anglicans” are struggling with the matter of structural and ecclesial integrity, concerning the breadth and limits of autonomy, Rome issues a Constitution which logically suggests that Anglicanism has no ecclesial and structural integrity at its core, but is rather a “spiritual” and traditional phenomenon, the essence of which may be captured and preserved without reference to what it actually is.

Anglicans should be concerned that we are seen no longer as a Church of Churches, but rather a flavor!"

"Anglicans should be concerned that we are seen no longer as a Church of Churches, but rather as a flavor!"

Exactly so.

The most famous of the groups asking for a home in Rome is the Traditional Anglican Communion which is not at all part of the Anglican Communion. Some bishops, clergy and laity in Churches in the Anglican Communion are apparently interested. In any event the invitation is now out there. Looking at ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS it is easy to see why some consider this a graceful and open invitation. It goes a long way to giving these Anglican-like communities a place in the Roman Church. At the same time it degrades what Churches in the Anglican Communion claim - apostolic succession, valid priesthood, legitimate sacraments, a right to be ordered without the imperial hierarchy of Rome, freedom from the workings of dogmatic excess, and so forth. At the same time all those who have been working for a clearer Anglican sense of unity and self-definition are debunked by a system that will lead systematically to a return in a very few years to the end of this Anglican-like subset of Roman Catholic order.

Much has been said about how Anglican clergy who are married can be transferred over. Perhaps even some seminarians. Nothing has been said about the next generation of clergy, except that "§ 2. The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See."

By this I suggest that the Pope means to accept mostly those clergy who are married and come over, but that future clergy will conform to the discipline of celibate clergy. Bye bye married clergy.

The clever solution of the bishop "thing" is to ordain married bishops who come over and give them priest in bishops clothing status, along with all the powers of the bishop as Ordinary, save the ones that set bishops apart from priests. That also is a stop-gap measure. In the end as these former bishops who have "come over" retire or die new "ordinaries" will be named who are part of the "Personal Ordinariates" who are celibate and who can then be full bishops, without the mumbo jumbo of calling up mitered priests.

So the Pope has extended an invitation to Anglican like groups. The more Anglican they are the less likely they will be to accepting the invitation. Either one believes that Anglicans have a legitimate hold on apostolic mission and ministry, on legitimate order and on sound faith, or not. If one believes Anglicans are indeed part of the catholic faith, then this invitation is unnecessary and unbecoming. If one does not believe Anglicans are legit, then the sooner one leaves off being an Anglican affiliate the better.

Fortunately, many of those who would leave for Rome under these conditions have already left, or never were part of, Churches in the Anglican Communion.

If I may say so, speaking simply as an Episcopalian sort of Anglican, we are not an Anglican group. We are an Anglican Church. We don't do that "coetibus" thing. Well, at least not in public.

Report in on a Sunday evening

It was a stunning day out there where the bay meets the ocean. So, accompanied by several friends I went a-boating. Still learning how to safely get about in this boat, so I've not until today gone out on to the Ocean. Today was the day. Strong currents but calm seas. Beautiful.

It was good to be back at St. Peter's after two weeks away. Choir at 8, good sermon both times, fine turnout and good news about a young person in the parish who had the flu and is recovering.

Meanwhile back in Anglican blogland some recommendations and some oddities:

Anglicans Online publishes a "cover" essay each week. The one today was especially good and suggests that church from the ground up can be practiced by as simple a means as the UTO Blue Box. Read it HERE.

The beginning of the Anglicans Online article ruminated about "creeping centralization" in Anglican churches. This is unfortunately the reality, both in individual "provinces" and in the Anglican Communion as a whole. This, just at a time when a combination of networking (in a gen x sort of way) and decentralization seem to be the real need.

We unfortunately rumble about wringing our hands at the "loss" of a central evangelism office, or the reduction in staff at a diocesan level, when we might otherwise be delighted that evangelism and outreach and education and such be in the hands of locals, networking with one another about best ways to do these things.

So it is with some amusement to see that on Baby Blue she gives us a look-see at part of the New York Times interview with ACNA Archbishop Robert Duncan, deposed bishop of Pittsburgh. The section that stood ought enough to be quoted by her is this,

" NYT: We should point out that you were deposed from ministry of the Episcopal Church by the presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, after you threatened to have your diocese in Pittsburgh secede.

Duncan: That was a year ago, but what’s interesting is that virtually no one in the Anglican world accepted that sentence. Within two weeks of being deposed, I was received at Lambeth Palace in London by the archbishop of Canterbury, who continues to consider me a bishop."

Well all that has to do with one sort of centralization or another. Duncan got deposed from TEC, accepted in good standing by The Province of the Southern Cone, formed a new church and became Archbishop Duncan.

Duncan sets high marks on being "received at Lambeth Palace." The photo accompanying that seemingly central event is however of the gatehouse at Lambeth, not Lambeth Palace itself. Such a little thing. But it made me smile.

Being received by the Archbishop of Canterbury at Lambeth or elsewhere is a fine thing, but it says little or nothing about being brought into the center. Just as it says nothing about doing the decentralized networking work of people who figure that getting to church before the end of the processional hymn is doing pretty well at being centralized, and giving to and praying for mission is quite sufficient.

Follow her link to the NYT article, which article is pretty limp.

Over on Confessions of a Carioca, Dan Martins is doing a fine job at hacking away at issues concerning ecclesiology. Of course I don't agree with all he has to say. It wouldn't be any fun otherwise. But he writes very well and places some of the issues in clear terms so that we can actually discuss them. Parish theological discussion groups could do well to read these essays. They are good provocation for discussion. Go on over there and read his latest, HERE.

That's it. More later. As always it seems a good time to stay below the radar, do some good somehow, and trust in the Lord.

Well, there you are: Archbishop of ACNA understands ACNA as a new denomination.

The New York Times asked Robert Duncan, deposed bishop of Pittsburgh and Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America, "How large is this new denomination of yours?" He responded, "In June, when the Anglican Church in North America was constituted, there were 702 congregations. Right now there are 755."

That was two days ago and granted the article, by Deborah Solomon, was printed as an "Interview...condensed and edited."

But the interesting thing is Duncan does not deny that ACNA is a new denomination. This in contradistinction to the notion that ACNA is the instrument by which his "call now is to lead all those Anglicans who stand where Anglicans have always stood."

This is NOT the continuing real successor to the Episcopal Church, which church has slipped into apostasy and heresy. This is a new thing, a new denomination. That means that all this business of claiming to be the rightful benefactor and holder of persons, places and things related to The Episcopal Church is hokum.

ACNA and Duncan have formed a new denomination, different from any other denomination. They are not the inheritors of The Episcopal Church. They may attempt to be the usurpers. But that is a different story.

The New York Times did not follow up on that possibility.

He also had odd things to say about the Presiding Bishop:

"Bishop Schori heads the Episcopal Church in this country, and you opposed her election in 2006?

She was the least qualified, the least experienced, of the candidates, but I hoped that what she would bring if she were elected was the kind of grace that women often bring. She turned out to be far harder, far less willing to bend or compromise, than any of the men."

So what is his problem? That she was least qualified? No it is that she might have brought "the kind of grace that women often bring." She was not feminine enough? She did not conform to his idea of what a woman's grace might consist of? Come on.

He doesn't like her because she doesn't give way to men.

This inteview with the New York Times is a disaster.

The Living Church headline bias clear.

The Living Church, which has undergone some useful changes with its new executive Christopher Wells in the chair. But the writer of the headlines still seems not to get it. That persons gives us false information and clear bias. The headline proclaims "Former TEC Dioceses Welcome Congregations." However, the entities in question are not the "former dioceses" of anything. They are entities made up of people and bishops from dioceses of The Episcopal Church who have left, formed new dioceses related to other Provinces of the Anglican Communion or the new Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) and are now welcoming congregations.

The TEC Dioceses still exist and still conform to the understanding that a diocese is a jurisdiction with particular boundaries and consists of those churches related to TEC within those boundaries.

The new dioceses forming ACNA do not operate with that sense of geographical connection and there is already some sense that the bishops of these dioceses will have jurisdictional responsibility only to the particular parishes, clergy and people that sign up to join that diocese. There will be no sense that, say, the ACNA bishop of Pittsburgh, will have any sense of a pastoral charge to Pittsburgh or to the region around Pittsburgh. Similarly the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA) will have no particular local jurisdiction but rather a jurisdiction made up of parishes scattered throughout a region of the United States.

The notion of the diocese grounded in specific cities and adjacent lands is by ACNA cast aside. One of the odd results is that in a particular city there might be one parish that is related to CANA (Convocation of Anglicans in North America), one related to AMiA, one part of the diocese formed in the area by those who left the Episcopal Church diocese, and one related to a diocese elsewhere in the ACNA family. Each of these churches could have different locations for their ecclesial oversight. And because each group has a different flavor, sense of what is right and honorable, etc, the end result could be fragmentation and dashed hopes for any sort of episcopal stability. The clergy of these four groups might all work together with some grace. On the other hand they might not.

The entities that the Living Church is reporting on are not dioceses in the traditional sense at all, nor are they the "former" dioceses of TEC. They are a new thing. It remains to see if they are vainly invented.

Its Margaret...it is right and good and a joyful thing... and she says it all...

Here at Preludium we write a lot. Maybe it is time to simply throw in the towel. Sometimes someone else writes the perfect essay. Here it is:

Over on leave it lay where Jesus flang it "its margaret" has written the essay I wish I could have written. It is titled, the up-side down dance... time to walk away from that table. "

READ IT and come back to IilwJfi again and again for more wonderful stuff.

Sometimes when I read what others write I feel like chopping my fingers off and ripping the lungs out of my computer. Happens that way with poetry as well.

Ah, but then I think, "one day, one day..."

Writing is usually a promissory note.