As always, Maggi Dawn has provided a helpful and provocative response to the Archbishop of Canterbury‘s response to the TEC 2009 General Convention’s response to the sexuality questions currently anguishing the Anglican Communion. Tom Wright has also responded fully and clearly, but it is Maggi who expresses some of the emotional exhaustion many people are experiencing about these vexed matters. She writes:
Like many others who belong to the Church of England, I’ve oscillated between making a thoughtful response and throwing in the towel altogether over the impossibility of finding a solution to this mess. I’m dismayed at the number of excellent, hardworking, moderate-thinking ordained people who have called me this week and spoken about the possibility of resigning over this. People are utterly weary at the way this one issue seems to stick our feet to the ground when day to day mission and ministry is about the whole of life.
Jane Shaw has written with clarity about the inner workings of the Episcopal Church, and rightly points out that the issue of inclusion is vital to Mission. The Episcopal Church, she points out, “…is not going grey in the pews. It is a Church that has young people engaged and involved at all levels. It is, therefore, a Church that will thrive and grow into the future — and that cannot necessarily be said of other Churches in the West. And those young people have an enormous passion for mission… And, for the vast majority of that younger generation, the full inclusion of gay and lesbian people is a no-brainer, a non-issue. To go against full inclusion would be to offend their sense of the gospel — God’s good news to all people — and affect their Church’s capacity for mission. Me? I don’t think the covenant is a good idea, yet I hesitate to criticize Rowan’s proposal when I can’t come up with anything better myself…
Basically, my church is sleepwalking into disaster. We are going to die because we are so damn polite and we don’t like offending people… Whether you agree with the covenant or not, ++Rowan is to be applauded for making a sincere attempt to move forward in an impossible situation. But we shouldn’t just leave it to “the people in charge” – ordinary people who are concerned about the future of the Church should not assume they can do nothing. We all need to think and pray and speak up in an attempt to help create a solution that works.
I think it is unlikely that Maggi would find anyone who is not exhausted by all this – other than Chris Sugden (& co) who has made it his life’s work to break the Communion apart and, I think, gets energised by conflict. Yet the complexity she recognises is more complex still – hence the problem. Many of us would like to walk away from it, but that doesn’t solve anything for the world the Church is there to serve. It is the ecumenical element that most imposes itself on my own consciousness.
There are essentially three historic Christian blocs in the world: Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Anglican. I know this ignores free churches and Pentecostals (for which I apologise, but time is short), but in ecumenical terms these are the big players. Deal with politicians internationally (as I have to, from time to time) and these are the three that appear on their (albeit sometimes limited) horizons. For the Anglican Communion to fall apart, be dismantled or neutered might not have any impact on the particular provinces involved, but it would remove from the worldwide ecumenical table a Communion (rather than a federation of similar but autonomous churches). This would deprive the world of those uniquely Anglican perspectives and experiences that no other Church will bring.
This is not special pleading. The Anglican Communion commands massive respect around the world precisely because of its ability to hold together a disparate group of churches from disparate cultures and with disparate histories together in one Church. And, as Bishop Kallistos Ware observed during the Lambeth Conference, the struggles being endured by the Anglican Communion are not simply those of the Anglican Communion – we are doing them on behalf of others who are watching.
I don’t believe in the proposed Anglican Covenant. I don’t think we should need one nor have one. The relationships that hold us together as a Communion should suffice. But, my own sensibilities aside, I don’t see any other show in town to help us remain together for the sake of the world (which has always been the vocation of the Church). We don’t live in an ideal world and we certainly don’t live in an ideal church. But our decisions should be taken in consideration of the Church’s witness to the world and its engagement in matters of politics, economics, culture and values at levels (and in ways) that will be detrimentally affected by the collapse or further fragmentation of the Communion. And I say that fully cognisant of the fact that people ‘on the ground’ suffer the consequences – and that is always very uncomfortable.
Whereas I share the frustration and exhaustion of those clergy who have spoken to Maggi about resigning, I think that to do so would be self-indulgent and achieve nothing. Their voice would no longer be heard and their perspective weakened. I hope that, like many of us, they will stay and pray and struggle on. Sex is not the only (or, even, the most important) challenge facing the world and we still need to be focusing on those others: climate change, poverty, injustice, health (including the western world’s shameful waste and obesity…), etc.
Tomorrow I go to Zimbabwe where there are more pressing matters than the internal struggles of the Anglican Communion – and I say that even in the light of the Church’s internal struggles there. This is the real world…
Nick Baines's Blog 
August 2, 2009 at 5:50 pm
I read Maggi Dawn’s blog and I can see where she is, perhaps feels disconnected due to all that is going on.
I do not have enough knowledge of the Covenent to judge whether it is a good or bad thing, but that fact that it will be resisted by those who are seeking to cause division is enough to make me feel for it.
I remain mystifyied by the whole inward looking debate going on which as you have clearly stated, ignores the much more urgent issues facing the church and Anglican Communion.
Where is tolerance, and God’s love in this debate? Side lined by personal and group agendas which I find totally selfish and self serving.
I am encouraged that you are able to apply sense and speak out so clearly on this as there appear to be to many ready to manipulate the media, who will jump onto any bandwagon which will create a headline.
August 2, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Nick, many thanks for calling a spade a spade, and considering the meta level of it all. I think it very likely the reason there are so many silly answers to this wrangling is that silly questions are being asked. It needs reframing in terms of gospel and kingdom. Most lay Christians I meet, whether of conservative or progressive instincts, are perfectly ready to work this thing through in terms of first principles, i.e. as being about finding ways to love their neighbour as themselves, without politicking, slimy manipulation and angry rhetoric that has so often driven this matter from the right.
August 2, 2009 at 8:02 pm
I don’t really understand what the Anglican Communion is, or what most people in it think it is.
I do know where I stand on issues of inclusion: I would count myself among those Maggi Dawn refers to, those for whom full inclusion of LGBT people is a no-brainer. I accept that I could be wrong about whether homosexuality is sinful, just as I accept that I could ultimately be wrong that God exists, but I don’t think the likelihood is high; I appreciate that others may with good reason and good faith draw different conclusions, though I have not yet seen any convincing evidence of those conclusions.
I would rather, given the choice, give people the benefit of the doubt and err on the side of mercy. And as much as sexuality can be seen as a side-issue, mercy is rather important. How the church treats those who are marginalised, those who are excluded by the rest of society, is important. If church is meant to be somewhere that people can discover that they are loved by God, the church needs to act as a living example of that love–in its treatment of LGBT people as well as in working to eradicate poverty, eliminate injustice, improve health and address–somehow–climate change.
I don’t think a Covenant which essentially gives provinces a sort of veto power over one another will serve the world well. “If you do that, I won’t pray with you,” is a very powerful threat and I fear that it would be used, which could lead to a stagnant maintenance of the status quo and little or no freedom (another important Gospel concept, in my understanding) to explore how to better serve the world. Unless one believes the church is already perfect (and isn’t that almost a sort of idolatry?) that sounds like bad news to me. I can’t suggest any alternative because I am so ignorant of what the Anglican Communion even is, but there must be a better way.
I’m not Anglican, not even Christian by most standards, and yet this whole mess pains me. I’m really quite unsure what I can do about it, other than continue to pray that God’s will be done. Other suggestions welcome.
August 2, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Never doubt that you are Christian! It is evident.
August 2, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Alan, thanks. You are dead right about the behaviour of people who should know better!
August 2, 2009 at 8:33 pm
I am really not sure if I am Christian according to doctrine. I’m working on it. I seem to have a very high need for intellectual understanding of some concepts which, it turns out, are rather difficult.
I would dearly love to be Christian in terms of speaking and acting with lovingkindness. I hope that my attempts to do so are what is evident, and thank you for saying so.
August 2, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Nick, I have read Maggi’s comments, and as a (current) non-Anglican, looking in and longing for this lovely church to reflect Jesus in compassion and holiness, I agree with your frustration. Tom Wright’s comments on the fulcrum site are really helpful (more so when he talks about the general issues – I particularly liked his comment that Jesus’ welcome is always a transforming welcome) and to me have helped enormously in clarifying the thinking he began in an article in the Times a couple of weeks ago about the TEC.
It will always (and MUST always) be a difficult balance between compassion and righteousness – a slip in either direction makes us sub-Christian. Thank you for continuing to air this subject (which concerns ALL of us who are Christian) and for allowing space for Maggi’s compassionate plea.
August 2, 2009 at 9:54 pm
we must be a loving community and remember that Jesus’ arms are open to all. I am a memember of the Anglican Church not sure if that makes me a christian but i always want to try and see things throughloving eyes perhaps following situation ethics
August 2, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Thanks, Huw. I think the problem is that Jesus spent half the Gospels embarrassing those who put ‘being right’ above compassion and missing the point of (for example) the Sabbath. If it comes to a choice between the internal purity of the institution and the compassionate extravagance (even if wrong) of generosity, I think we are compelled towards the latter. But I realise this is a false dichotomy. I tried to wrestle with this in my book Scandal of Grace, but promptly got accused of not being very gracious!
August 2, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Try seeing this whole sad debate from the perspective of someone who worships God in a FiF parish but is definitely not FiF in views.
The sorry “mess” that the Anglican communion has got itself into by allowing certain voices from within to stir up dissent in order to split the communion and elevate their egos is desperately painful for me and many other ordinary parishioners to see, especially in view of my own recent soul searching regarding my faith which has been very wobbly over the past 5 years for various personal reasons. It calls the whole Anglican Communion into disrepute – it is easy for others to mock Christianity and Anglicanism when we are so visibly inwardly divided and hardening the divisions, including by proposing a Covenant of unity which though well intentioned, will be anything but unifying.
I have spent the past few months following various religious blogs, reading the news, and trying to crystallise my own views whilst coping with being a regular church attender in a parish community I have loved for over 15 years, yet in which I often feel confused and tired by the polarisation of views about female priests and homosexual issues. I was discussing this today after the service with a friend who also disagrees with some of what is preached locally, but who has learned to find her way by trying not to let certain views aggravate her (selective listening) whilst always seeking behaviours of “speaking and acting in loving kindness” to quote Song. I struggle constantly to do the same.
Oh for those within “who should know better” to wake up and see the damage they are doing to their own souls and everyone elses, and try to make good some of the destruction before it is too late.
August 2, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Thanks for this and for the clarity with which you write. I realise how grievous this business is. We need to keep focused…
August 3, 2009 at 12:42 pm
You have to make choices in life – sometimes if you want one thing, you can not have another.
You can not be an actively practising homosexual and an ordained priest simoultaneously.
Anne.
August 3, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Anne, I acknowledge that this is the case in some denominations.
I see the rule that says one cannot be a non-celibate homosexual and a priest at the same time as a rule humans are choosing to impose, and I wonder by what authority they impose it and how they are sure they are right to do so.
I have no problem with individuals believing that something is wrong, but I do have serious concerns when they seek to prevent others from doing something when there is no objective harm done. These concerns get even more serious when legislation or coercion or out-and-out threats are used.
To use a different example, I have a very strong belief in God. I have a number of much-beloved friends who happen to be atheists. I am utterly convinced that I am right; they are utterly convinced that they are. And yet they do not make any serious attempt to convince me that they are right, because they acknowledge there is no proof either way. And I make no serious attempt to argue them into belief in God, because it would waste my time and annoy my friends; I try to treat them with love and respect. They show me the same care and courtesy. I certainly would not dream of trying to pass some rule or law that says they must believe in a higher power; nor would any of the friends I have in mind think it appropriate to force me to give up my belief in God. Sadly, this is not the way of all people with beliefs about the existence or non-existence of God.
If someone says that they are homosexual and they also have a vocation to ordained ministry, why should I not take them at their word? Why should I require them to choose to be celibate in order to fulfil such a vocation when heterosexuals are under no such requirement?
August 3, 2009 at 3:18 pm
A Parishioner —
You have my admiration for attempting to struggle on; I don’t know if I could. I am in the position of trying to find a church that suits me, out of several in the neighbourhood to which I recently moved, and I discounted the FiF church without even looking at it.
August 3, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Very helpful post. The trouble with this whole process is that the more things we write about it, the more comments there are for people to hold against each other. I gave up a long time ago trying to remember who said what, and to be honest I still have no idea what the Covenant really is.
Is it dangerous to leave all this up to the politically minded, or just a responsible use of our time whilst we get on with – as you say – more pressing matters? If the future of the Anglican communion ends up as a straight fight between Chris Sugden and Gene Robinson then, truly, God help us.
August 4, 2009 at 10:42 am
Currently the Anglican Church does not bless same-sex unions. Therefore someone living in an homosexual relationship can not also be in a representative, leadership role in the Church where there life-style is definitely not in line with the public teaching of the organisation.
You say heterosexuals are not under the same requirement to be celibate – of course not. Heterosexuals in a marriage relationship are in a totally different situation!
Anne.
August 5, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Re: Anne’s remark.
She writes:
“You can not be an actively practising homosexual and an ordained priest simultaneously.”
But the thing is, people are. So that statement doesn’t really mean anything.
The question is, what do you do then?
Say they aren’t ordained priests? say they aren’t practising? say they aren’t homosexuals?
One option would be to just strip them of jobs and holy orders, but you’d have a heap of angry parishes and parishioners deprived of priests they love and feel inspired by and who may, (who knows?) be doing Jesus’ work.
We’ve got to start with the reality first, and then see how to act.
Of course, there may be tough decisions to be made, but please do them with thought, and care and an openness to the future of the Gospel.
There’s a power in baldly stating a position like you have. But there’s a huge weakness too.
August 5, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Anne: “You can not be an actively practising homosexual and an ordained priest simoultaneously”
Well, I am, and I know quite possibly several hundred others who are… so, evidently, you can. Some of them are people who are amongst the best pastors the C of E has. You & the Church need to be honest about this: we have always been here.
August 5, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Many thanks for these words
“….to help us remain together for the sake of the world (which has always been the vocation of the Church)”
They will inform me as I preach in Sarasota, FL this Sunday
August 5, 2009 at 3:58 pm
What about the Lutherans? The Roman catholic-Lutheran dialogue has been conducted, quite frankly, at a greater level of theological sophistication than ARCIC…just look at the statements on justification.There are more Lutherans than Anglicans in the world, albeit organised in a looser way.And their clergy on the whole are more theologically educated..What about the Reformed?? Again, a confessional family larger than anglicans and one that produced Karl Barth and Thomas Torrance.Who has Anglicanism produced on the world theological stage?? And lets face it ARCIC and the Orthodox dialogue are pretty well in the doldrums.I think Anglicans need to face reality more…Methodists outnumber us too!!
August 5, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Nick, I heard the Archbishop make the ecumenical argument and I see your reference to it. I don’t find it compelling. In the first place, I would argue that in fact the Anglican Communion has never been more than a “federation of similar but autonomous churches,” at least since the churches in Commonwealth nations became separate national churches. Putting us troublesome Americans aside for the moment, one could hardly find more connection than that between practice in Aotearoa/New Zealand/Polynesia and Nigeria and Australia and Southern Africa. Once the structures were no longer accountable under the Church of England to the Bishop of London, the language of a “communion” that looked like the Roman definition of a “church” simply no longer applied.
Second, to make the ecumenical argument dependent on recognition by Rome or Constantinople not only demeans such “federations of similar but autonomous churches” as the Lutherans, implying that somehow they are neither sufficiently historical or sufficiently “church” to be worth our time, but also suggests that our unity is not for the sake of the world but for the sake of institutional recognition. It’s not like we’ve failed to seek to serve the world in the century plus since Leo declare Anglican orders invalid (still the position of Rome, and one that does not seem likely to change).
I have long prayed that the Communion could continue. I see some ecumenical value in its continuing. However, I have not been persuaded that ecumenical work and/or difficulties with Rome and Constantinople per se justify an innovative institutionalization of the Anglican Communion, and especially in the form of the Covenant process as it has unfolded.
August 5, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Sorry, Bishop Baines, but the so-called Covenant is a non-starter here in America. In the entire period that people have been discussing its merits, I have not personally met one–not even one–Episcopalian who supports the Covenant. It won’t even come up for a vote here for at least three years. By then, I’m sure the Covenant will be “water over the dam” anyway.
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY
August 6, 2009 at 8:55 am
How is it possible that this course may not end in an unhealthy and disgraceful McArthyite witch-hunt? Once we start identifying ‘Track 1’ and ‘Track 2’ provinces surely it will go further to labelling Bishops, Parishes and individual clergy and laity.
Will people have to sign up to a label or will labels be attached by some committee? Will disciplinary action be taken? Perhaps we shall have ethical cleansing with Anglican christians being expelled from one communion and forced, even against their will, into another.
I shall not sign a covenant such as this – but I will not leave the church nor resign God’s call.
August 7, 2009 at 6:15 am
“There are essentially three historic Christian blocs in the world: Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Anglican.”
Here is typical myopic Anglican arrogance. What about the many Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists and Pentecostals all over the world? Anglicanism is dominant in the UK but hardly anywhere else. While rich and with a certain social elan in the US, the Episcopal Church is relatively small The Southern Baptist Convention has 10 times as many members. The fact is that that the Anglican Communion is just another denomination.
August 7, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Anne,
I’m afraid that “Currently the Anglican Church does not bless same-sex unions. Therefore someone living in an homosexual relationship can not also be in a representative, leadership role in the Church where there life-style is definitely not in line with the public teaching of the organisation” just comes across as a sort of “because I said so” by the church. Many people simply won’t accept that.
Why should the response be to assert that homosexuals in non-celibate relationships cannot be priests, rather than to change the teaching on same-sex unions? What does that achieve, in the context of a call to make God’s love known to the world?
August 7, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Note to Kenneth Brownell: This seems to be a variation of the old “branch” theory that there are three historic “branches” of the Holy Catholic Church: Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman. It’s a bit surprising, though, that a self-proclaimed evangelical holds this view.
The branch theory was popular when I was growing up at about the time of Vatican II. In those days, the Episcopal Church had a “closed communion” to all but those confirmed in the Apostolic Succession, e.g., no Methodists, Baptists, Presbys, etc. need apply at the Communion Rail. No Lutherans either (unless they were confirmed by a bishop of the Church of Sweden).
Of course, after Vatican II things changed for the better, and today TEC welcomes all baptized Christians to receive the Blessed Sacrament at its Altars if they receive the Holy Mysteries at their own parishes.
August 8, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Reply to Mark above:
I know there are ordained priests who are practising homosexuals. That is a fact; but there is an incongruity between the teaching of the Church and their lifestyle as representative leaders in that organisation. This mismatch between what is said and what is done – makes me fidget uncomfortably every time I encounter it.
Anne.
August 9, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Dear Song, Perhaps you are discounting the FiF church in your neighbourhood too quickly. It may well be that it the community there love Christ dearly and their neighbours as themselves. It is one of the great ironies of life that God often brings great blessings through the people we most disagree with! and certainly it would be a shame if FiF (or Resolution A, B,C) churches were left wallowing in isolation from the other parts of the Church of England, because we define them by only one aspect of their theology. As a female priest I may disagree completely with their view of my ministry, but too often I have also found passion for Jesus and for others I admire and to which I aspire.
It helped to find this question in an 1897 Priests Prayer Book (googled). It comes in a list entitled Self Examination (and just before the section entitled ‘ejaculations’ but thats a whole other story…) ‘Have I abstained from ascribing bad motives, especially to my theological opponents?’
I admit I’m still working on this one, I hope the Anglican Communion and indeed our society as a whole will keep asking that question too. People said of the early church, ‘how those Christians love each other…’. Well actually we often do and we often share remarkably common ground when it comes to caring for the dispossessed, the vulnerable, the outcast, the unloved and rejected and restoring justice. (Something we also share with those of other faiths and none.)Nick’s point that the church does not exist for itself is absolutely crucial. Someone once aptly pointed out ‘The Church is the only institution that exists for the benefit of its non-members.’ The question I have about the covenant is – whose interests will it serve and will it promote or disable our willingness to love one other?
August 10, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Kenneth, did you not read the disclaimer, too? I knew this would be picked on, but I hoped readers would go to the point I was making and not get sidetracked by this detail. I work closely with loads of denominations – particularly Lutherans, the Reformed and the ‘Uniert’ in Germany and I know Ishmael Noko (World Lutheran Federation. I grew up a Baptist. But, whether we like it or not, the three Christian leaders recognised outside the Christian Church worldwide are the Pope, the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Archbishop of Canterbury.
August 10, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Kurt, I am happy to be called Nick! But I think you need to get out more. I suspect you are right that the Covenant will not get through TEC, but it is patently absurd to say that no Episcopalian agrees with it! There are plenty, but I suspect they won’t ‘win’ the argument.
August 10, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Marshall, it is not demeaning of other denominations. See my response to Kenneth above. But, I think your points are helpful in this discussion.
August 10, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Perry, congratulations on missing the point and my disclaimer. And see my response to Kenneth above.
August 10, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Robert, I take the point. But the fundamental point of ethics (I think) is that you can’t get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. Even those who sympathise with your conclusion should be suspicious of the grounds for it.
August 10, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Lindsay,
You may be right; I may be acting too hastily in discounting the FiF congregation as possibly being the right one for me.
‘Have I abstained from ascribing bad motives, especially to my theological opponents?’
This is a very good question, and one that I do struggle with; I do try to remember that even those active within organisations like FiF are working on the basis of their own discernment processes which are at least as valid as mine. More than that I try to remember that they are beloved children of God, even if I don’t like or understand their actions, and that means my primary calling is to love them unconditionally.
But I’m also aware of some of my own limitations. I’m something of an argumentative, defensive sort of person and I doubt my ability to hold my tongue when faced with a situation which I find distressing (for an example one need not look further than my comments here, in which I have attempted to be polite and kind but probably still sound strident). I fear that my attempting to become part of such a community would do more harm than good, not because of a lack of attempt on their part or on my part to love one another, but because I lack the skill to engage constructively with that which I find threatening. Better to let them get on with doing their good work (which is not in any way discounted by the fact that we disagree over some issues), and find somewhere that I can also do some good work without the inefficiency of getting side-tracked by arguments.
The question I have about the covenant is – whose interests will it serve and will it promote or disable our willingness to love one other?
Another very good question.
From what I understand (which isn’t much) it would give different groups a sort of veto power over one another in matters on which there is a large degree of difference in interpretation. My feeling is that this would produce much resentment; when I have struggled to come to a decision that I feel is right and someone else tells me I cannot take that course of action I tend to get upset, especially if I feel they don’t understand or sympathise with my situation. But I could be wrong.
August 10, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Well, Bishop, I didn’t mean to imply that no Episcopalians supported the Covenant; I’m sure there are supporters. I just have not met any here in New York, and I do visit other parishes fairly frequently—especially in the summer. My guess is that support for the Covenant varies substantially by diocese.
Kurt in Brooklyn, NY
August 16, 2009 at 12:17 am
Song: thank you, though I’m not sure I deserve any admiration – I am sure there are plenty like me out there who have similar experiences, doubts and struggles about the communities in which they worship and their own sometimes fluctuating faith. Lindsay’s point about not discounting or excluding the FiF community is so true – I find it terribly sad that FiF was formed in the first place, as it has allowed a division to continue long after Synod voted for consecration of female priests. I am sad that a ‘flying Bishop’ serves the Parish in preference to the local diocesan Bishops as it sets us apart.
As for your concern about your ‘own limitations’ regarding integrating with a worshipping community with which you ultimately have some fundamental differences, I can understand your reservation as this has often been my own experience during the past years in this particular parish. I have sometimes been bold enough to challenge views when I felt strongly about something (not necessarily regarding issues of sexuality and priesthood) and have sometimes come unstuck (particularly uncomfortable when this has been in conversation with the vicar). I have discovered from sometimes bitter experience that quiet firmness, friendliness and steadfastness is the strongest form of persuasion I can display – confronting the issue head on has not often been the solution as this makes people more polarised and defensive, whereas making collaborative contributions within the parish has enabled me to build friendships and mutual respect, even where on some issues we gracefully agree to differ.
In this respect Bishop Nick’s point about resigning and losing influence really strikes a chord for me. I try to think about ways of approaching a situation, people’s likely reactions and being sure of my facts before dealing with an issue, time and again this has proved to be the best coping strategy in which to make constructive contributions in the Parish.
Initially we did discount our local Parish Church when we moved to the area, as the building appeared a little bare and uninviting, but we soon discovered that it houses a warm and loving community of variety, not all of them FiF in outlook.
August 16, 2009 at 12:15 pm
A Parishioner,
Thanks for your considerate reply and being so willing to discuss the difficulties you have had.
“Initially we did discount our local Parish Church when we moved to the area, as the building appeared a little bare and uninviting, but we soon discovered that it houses a warm and loving community of variety, not all of them FiF in outlook.”
I’m rather spoilt for choice in the area where I live; the FiF-affiliated church locally is one of the further ones from my home address. I might otherwise consider it a more serious option, but to go out of my way to attend would, I feel, fall under the category of “looking for trouble”.