There is a place for the broken

My June 18, 2014, article for the Grand Haven Tribune, "There is a place for the broken,"

“Oh, I don’t want to go to church. It is just full of hypocrites.”

I hear comments like this regularly from members of a rising group in America: the “nones.” This is those people who claim no religious affiliation — now nearly 20 percent of the population in the United States, including one-third of those ages 18-29.

And, every time I hear this comment, I grimace just a little. Because I know it is true.

I’ve been involved in the church my whole life, active in ministry of some sort since I was a campus minister in college 16 years ago, including the past six as a priest. I’ve seen that the church does indeed have our fair share of hypocrites — those who claim one thing with their lips but then do another in their actions. I’ve seen that selfishness, anger and gossip sometimes seem to be just as prevalent — if not more — in religious communities as in society at large...

Read more at the Tribune's website here.

Choosing Death or Life: Reflections on 21st Century American Ecumenism in Light of the NCC's 2014 Christian Unity Gathering

We are at the end now of the 2014 Christian Unity Gathering of the National Council of Churches. I was sent by the Churchwide Office of The Episcopal Church to represent our church at the Conventing Table for Theological Dialogue and Matters of Faith and Order.

At which point, I imagine, about half of you have already checked out of reading this post.

Still there?

Good.

Because I think that what this Gathering is wrestling with (and what this Gathering has not wrestled with) involves some profoundly important questions for contemporary Christianity. I hope you'll listen in as I think through some of them because I, because all ecumenists out there, need the wisdom of the larger body.

So, I want to begin with describing the Challenges of this Gathering but then I want to say what I find Hopeful about this Gathering.

Before I do, though, I want to be clear about something. I am a young clergy person, not an academic, and so I enter ecumenism with a very different lens than many of my other colleagues. Others have more experience and a broader view of the lay of the land—I think particularly of Crusty Old Dean (otherwise known as the former Assistant [and then Interim] Ecumenical Officer for The Episcopal Church) and his fantastic posts on the "Ecumenical Autumn" (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3). I don't have the training nor the breadth of him or other ecumenists who were cut from that cloth. Also, I am from the "Millennial Generation," but even I sometimes wonder if I am an aberration or example of that generation's impulses. Who knows. But the questions of Millenials and our engagement with the Christian Church are questions that are increasingly pressing.

All I do know is that I think the Ecumenical Movement is still desperately needed in today's Christianity. The question will be whether or not the current trajectories of that movement will lead to growth and vibrancy or only prolong an inevitable continued decline.

That said...

Challenges of a Struggling 21st Century Ecumenism

The National Council of Churches (NCC) recently went through a pretty significant restructuring of their work (you can read the report of the Task Force that engaged that work online here and the actual Restructuring Overview online here). This restructuring included the elimination of all former Commissions (including the Faith & Order Commission on which I served and which, as many Commissioners told me, predated the NCC). At the same time, the restructuring group created several "Convening Tables," including (ta da!) a Convening Table on Theological Dialogue and Matters of Faith & Order alongside of three other Convening Tables. So, it's not like Faith & Order has gone away... perhaps.

Whereas the former Faith & Order Commission met twice a year, now the NCC calls together one annual Christian Unity Gathering at which all the Convening Tables are present. Supposedly, this will help ensure we are in communication with each other and working together towards issues of mutual concern to the member communions of the NCC.

However, there is a part of me that feels like this is so much re-arranging of the deck chairs—and not a very good rearranging at that. It seems to me that what has actually happened is that Justice & Advocacy has now taken the lead role at the National Council of Churches. The NCC offices are now located in Washington, DC. Our First Christian Unity Gathering was held at the Washington-Dulles Hilton. The restructured NCC has laid out two key issues for us all to focus on: (1) Mass Incarceration and (2) Interfaith Relations with a focus on Peace-making.

Justice. Advocacy. Let's sign some petitions and change policies and programs in our government given the mandate of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I want to be very clear. I am a huge proponent of Justice and Advocacy work. Go to Twitter and search for #NCCCUG — you will see some fantastic points made by the speakers in our plenary sessions about the scourge of Mass Incarceration, several of which I myself quoted in tweets. The church must be mobilized around this and other issues of our day. Absolutely. I cannot wait to get back to St. John's in Grand Haven and talk to people about how our parish can engage this issue.

What I wonder, though, is whether Justice & Advocacy truly is the sole work of ecumenism in the twenty-first century. Is other ecumenical engagement (like, for example, traditional Faith & Order discussions on church-dividing and church-uniting issues) now going to be co-opted, used entirely in service to Justice and Advocacy concerns?

But perhaps even more troubling is that the pivot to Justice & Advocacy seems to continue the great weakness of late twentieth and early twenty-first century American (particularly mainline) Christianity—a longing for the return of Christendom. We want to come together to be a powerful voice to get Congress and the Courts and the President to listen to us. We want to be a force to reckoned with in Society. Because we know what's right.

Yet, we are not. We are not a force to be reckoned with. In the end, very few media outlets or news organizations probably care about the work and energy stirred up in these past two days at a hotel outside of Washington, DC. And even if they did, the question remains: should we, as the church, want them to care?

When we had power, back in the days of Christendom, we had a pretty bad habit of using that power poorly. We protected ourselves instead seeing a mandate to act in ways both healing and reconciling. If we get the power back, would we use it better than we used to?

Maybe instead of mobilizing around petitions, we should mobilize resources in local ways, help congregations see the plight of prisoners in jails and correctional facilities near them, encourage those congregations to become communities who truly care about prisoners, who advocate for forgiveness, who ensure they can indeed re-enter society in a way that is healing and healthy.

Maybe instead of cozying up to power to get the church's way, we should cozy up to Christ in the powerless that Christ may have his way with us.

My other worry about the pivot to Justice & Advocacy is that it seems to accept division among churches as a given that should not be worried about. We have lost a sense of the sin of schism that still besets the Church. As COD quotes H. Richard Niebuhr's classic, Social Sources of American Denominationalism in one of the above essays, “Denominationalism in the Christian Church is an acknowledged hypocrisy. It is a compromise made far too lightly, between Christianity and the world. It represents the accommodation of Christianity to the caste system of society.”

Take the question of Eucharistic hospitality, for instance. My heart breaks that at a Christian Unity Gathering like the one I have attended, we cannot bless bread and wine and eat it in memory of Christ. The fact that we are so broken that we cannot partake in the sacramental act that unifies believers with Christ and his sacrifice is tragic—the fact that it doesn't seem to bother anyone is unconscionable.

Not only is this accepting of the sin of division troubling ("why talk about theological issues that divide us when there is real work to be done?" seems to be the thinking of the day) it is bears a remarkable ignorance when it comes to the current re-arranging of Christianity happening all around us. These theological issues still divide churches but they rarely divide the Christians in the pews.

Which brings me to my hopes...

Hopes for a Flowering 21st Century Ecumenism
More and more, people choose a local congregation because of they like the social justice work, or the programs for formation, or the worship... rarely do they choose a local congregation because it is a member of their denominational affiliation. The old labels of "conservative" and "liberal" of "mainline" and "evangelical" are becoming increasingly nonsensical. Clergy and parishioners are both increasingly identifying around new polarities, many of which are yet to be identified.

I, for instance, represent a stream in the Episcopal Church focused on traditional approaches to liturgy and music, drawing from the well of the Christian spiritual tradition, intent on arguing for the inherent belovedness and dignity of all people, particularly the marginalized, and yet still formed deeply by the Biblical text and a passion that people come to know the grace of God. To put it more simply, my politics are liberal, my liturgy conservative, my preaching evangelical, and my spiritual life pietistic. Furthermore, a lot of those choices don't come from traditional sources. I am liberal on same-sex marriage because I believe this so-called liberality comes from a close reading of the Biblical text, not because I buy the traditional arguments of liberal Christianity. I believe in same-sex marriage because I believe in marriage—and I think that is a counter-cultural statement in today's context.

All of that to say, we now face the possibility of engaging in ecumenical dialogue that recognizes that many of our old categories simply no longer ring true. There is renewed possibility for convergence and communion. A careful analysis of the new polarities and streams arising across denominational lines, streams that are already present in the pews if not recognized by the leadership of communions, could yield remarkable fruit for a new unity that seems to be breaking out among Christians.

But if Faith & Order is only seen as the "theological dialogue" portion of Justice & Advocacy work... well, then we will miss this opportunity.

Now, after being admittedly a bit grumpy about the Justice & Advocacy work, I need to say that there are other aspects of it that make me profoundly hopeful. For example, our focus on the scourge of Mass Incarceration during the past two days was very clear in acknowledging the racial dimensions of this work. An increased awareness of the persistence of racism both in Christian division and also in societal issues is one that is deeply needed.

This new era into which the ecumenical movement is entering needs to continue to look closely at the racial dimensions of what divides us as Christians. The comfort (or ignorance) many predominantly white churches have when it comes to the slow holocaust of young people of color occurring in our prisons and correctional facilities is heartbreaking and terrifying all at once.

And this awareness of the racial dimensions of struggle is also entering more fully into Faith & Order concerns in ways that are new and life-giving. At our final Convening Table meeting today, one participant shared the pain that discussion of Mass Incarceration brings up in his spirit, given his own experiences of racial profiling and mistreatment by the authorities.... and he brought that up in a conversation regarding the theological predispositions our respective traditions bring to the table when considering these issues. We need more engagement around these realities, recognizing that theology is lived out in the bodies—particularly the mistreated bodies—of the baptized.

So, where do I go now?
I came to this Christian Unity Gathering intending to determine whether or not I will continue to accept my appointment to this work or if I would write the Churchwide Office and ask to exit out of it. It's too early to tell, I think, what direction this restructuring will take. I have significant concerns, as I've outlined above, but I have just enough hope to want to try and see if I can be a part of the solution, even if only a small part.

So I accepted a role as Co-Convener of a subgroup of the Convening Table on Theological Dialogue and Matters of Faith & Order. I'm going to work with a colleague I just met and try and facilitate our subgroup's engagement with the question of how our theology informs the justice work we do when it comes to the issues of Mass Incarceration and Interfaith Relations. (Spoiler alert: I have a feeling one of my strongest emphases is going to be on Eucharistic hospitality and our ability to discern Christ's body among the incarcerated, drawing a bit, perhaps, from one of the most powerful books I've ever read on Eucharist).

I'm going to dig in and see what work I can be a part of because I truly believe these issues and questions, these challenges and hopes, are simply too important for me to bow out at this point.

I titled this post "Choosing Death or Life," drawing from the choices laid before the children of Israel in Deuteronomy 30. I don't know which choices will bring death and which will bring life when it comes to contemporary American ecumenism. But I do believe that if we are willing to wrestle with these choices, to wrestle with the challenges and hopes of the many who do care about modern ecumenism, that God will bless and guide our work.

And we will see... in the weeks and months and maybe even years to come we will see what will become of the Ecumenical Movement in 21st Century America. We will see what we can do to fulfill, as best as we are able, Christ's prayer that we all be one.

O God of unchangeable power and eternal light: Look favorably on your whole Church, that wonderful and sacred mystery; by the effectual working of your providence, carry out in tranquillity the plan of salvation; let the whole world see and know that things which were cast down are being raised up, and things which had grown old are being made new, and that all things are being brought to their perfection by him through whom all things were made, your Son Jesus Christ our Lord; who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen. (Collect at the Great Vigil of Easter, BCP 291)

Praise for the strengthening of marriage

My March 29, 2014, article for the Grand Haven Tribune, Praise for the strengthening of marriage

Recently, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman struck down our state’s ban on gay marriage. 

Attorney General Bill Schuette has asked a federal appeals court to freeze Judge Friedman’s decision so that he can appeal the ruling, insisting that this ban was the will of 59 percent of voters when it was added to the state constitution in 2004. While no one can say for sure what the final result will be, I would be shocked if Attorney General Schuette won on appeal.

This case raises a key question about the nature of law and rights in our society. Does the majority have a right to enforce their views upon a minority? Was the decision made by over half of the voters in our state almost ten years ago a decision that should stand — or was it one that is in violation of our nation’s higher principles of justice as enshrined in the United States Constitution.

Read more at the Tribune's website here.

Elevator Pitches and Gettin' Saved

The Acts 8 Moment group has posted a great question for this week's blogforce, they have asked people to write a 250-word "elevator pitch" for the Episcopal church. As Fr. Simmons describes it,

A standard marketing tool is the “Elevator Pitch.”  The scenario behind this tool is that you step into an elevator with someone who is a possible client.  You have the time between when the elevator doors close and when they open at the destination floor to make your pitch.  You don’t have to get all the information across in the pitch – just enough to pique the interest of the person so you can then exchange information and follow up later.  Salesmen and consultants write, memorize, and rehearse their elevator pitch so that when the time comes, they are ready to deliver it. 

This is the sort of thing every Christian should be able to do—state clearly, succinctly, and quickly about why you follow Jesus in the tradition you have chosen. So, in the hopes of also encouraging other to give it a shot (perhaps even some of the great folks at St. John's in Grand Haven), here is mine...

One Elevator Pitch
Around ten years ago, I was hungry to follow Christ but finding the Christianity that surrounded me increasingly… insufficient.

Then I found the Episcopal Church.

I discovered a tradition that was concerned with more than the most recent fad in worship or spirituality. They prayed from a book! But the prayers in that book were rich and full, strained through hundreds of years of Christian experience. They believed God actually showed up—actually showed up!—in water and bread and wine. And they believed structure was not just a necessary means to an end. They believed structure could be a way for the Spirit to move.

That is, they believed God actually showed up in God’s people. Though they clearly adored much that was old and beautiful, they knew that those rich traditions could not contain the God of Abraham & Sarah, the God of countless fearless martyrs and broken sinners that spanned thousands of years.

So when they saw God in gay and lesbian relationships, they were willing to acknowledge that those GLBT Christians actually had the Spirit. It made that young former-evangelical feel uncomfortable for a while… but then I spent time around some of those GLBT Christians and saw godliness.

I decided to stay. Not just because I liked old and ancient things. Not just because I thought it was important to listen to God’s voice. But because I knew that the Episcopal Church could help me see a God who was still saving me.

Alright, what's your elevator pitch?

- See more at: http://www.acts8moment.org/?p=53090#sthash.OpX7WXu7.dpuf

Ashes to Go: A Difficult Invitation to Holiness

My March 3, 2014, article for "Tracts for These Times" theSCP blog, Ashes to Go: A Difficult Invitation to Holiness

As we approach another Lenten season, many priests around the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada are considering whether or not to adopt a relatively new Ash Wednesday practice. I’m speaking, of course, of the trend of offering “Ashes to Go.”

If you are not familiar with this new practice, “Ashes to Go” refers to a practice wherein clergy, sometimes accompanied by laypeople, go into the streets of their local community to offer the imposition of ashes for those going by. It is often practiced in urban areas at train stops or busy intersections.

The actual form of the offering varies rather significantly from church to church. In some churches people dress in street clothes and in others they wear full vestments. Some churches primarily and solely apply the ashes, others have crafted some sort of small liturgy that gives at least a bit of the Ash Wednesday experience to those who pass by.

Read more at the SCP website here.

No More Killing, No More Death

My March 2, 2014, article for the Grand Haven Tribune, No More Killing, No More Death

Earlier this month, federal prosecutors announced that they will be seeking the death penalty in the case of Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

When prosecutors made this announcement, they said it was because Tsarnaev acted in “an especially heinous, cruel and depraved manner” — and because did not show remorse for his alleged actions on April 15, 2013, when three people were killed and 250 more were injured in the bombings.

The death penalty is not a legal form of punishment in state courts in Massachusetts; but because Tsarnaev will be charged and tried in federal courts, prosecutors are able to argue for its use.

Read more at the Tribune's website here.

Reimagining Structure and Equipping Mission, or, This Could Be Bigger Than You Think

The Task Force for Reimagining the Episcopal Church (TREC) has released it's second study paper, this one on "Reforms to Church Wide Governance and Administration." It is much more substantive than the last paper and is already garnering some excellent responses (see Steve Pankey, Scott Gunn, and, of course, Crusty Old Dean.)

Though Care with the Cure rarely comments on the ongoings of Episcopal Church politics (which is odd, since this was the bread and butter of a lot of my old blog), this is one I do want to say a few words on. One reason is because I am an alternate to General Convention for the Diocese of Western Michigan (fourth alternate, if I'm not mistaken, which makes me almost entirely useless—perhaps a safe reality!). The other, larger reason is because governance and administration is one of the areas where I have particular interest.

Seriously, I was at a Lily gathering for new clergy a couple years ago and one of the opening mixers had people go to different areas of the room for the area of ministry which they enjoyed most. Over a hundred people scattered to areas for Mission, Preaching, Liturgy, Teaching... and I wound up with about five other people in the area for Administration.

Rockstar.

Though this paper is quick to point out that changes to governance will not save the Episcopal Church (good to know), I think that the way in which a body chooses to govern itself and administer its business can say a tremendous amount about what it believes. Furthermore, inept or inefficient governance and administration can cripple the energy level and work of any organization.

I say this with the deepest humility, knowing full well that my first couple years as a rector were a steeper learning curve than I could have imagined. I know exist, administer, and lead in a remarkably different way than I used to... but I know with deep pain the way in which failings in wise governance and administration can quickly lead to such a focus on issues of governance and administration everything else goes out the window.

One more thing before I get to the meat of the TREC paper. One of the most fascinating things I learned from the late Bishop Jane Holmes Dixon was in a gathering with my fellow residents where we were talking about having worship or Bible Study at the beginning of an otherwise administrative-based meeting. She cautioned that this practice could lead to people thinking that the worship and spiritual stuff just happened at the beginning, before we got to administration. Instead, the whole meeting should be seen as a spiritual exercise. Worship before a meeting should clarify that reality—not obscure it.

So, governance and administration is spiritual work.

OK, that out of the way, let's talk about the paper itself.

First off, as COD has noted, the emphasis on the paper reveals the preconceptions and priorities of the working group. This is not necessarily bad or good—it just is. However...

Executive Council and Church Center Administration 

There is an immensely complex (for the average Episcopalian) three option approach given to the organization of Executive Council and the Presiding Bishop. All of the angst of who the Presiding Bishop is and should be, along with the role of Executive Council, is clearly poured into these options. The paper does an admirable job of acknowledging that TREC is not of one mind and trying to chart three possibilities—but the underlying agendas and claims of power-grabbing that resulted in these three options is a reality that needs to be grasped seriously.

This is particularly important because, in my experience, angst and anxiety ridden hand-wringing over the role of Executive Council and the Presiding Bishop is primarily the game of long-time GC deputies or people that have had a hand in leadership for some time... a lot of it simply boggles the mind of the average Episcopalian who rather likes our Presiding Bishop and wants the Executive Council to keep things moving in a healthy way.

Don't get me wrong, we've got to find a healthy and efficient structure for this work, but we might need to find ways to deflate some of the anxiety and invite less invested people into the conversation who could have fresh eyes. I'd be curious what a church wide poll of these three (or some other) options might reveal about the mind of our church on this question.

Option one (the longest in explanation) is a strong Executive Council and weakened Presiding Bishop's office, they suggest much of it is status quo, but it also creates a new CEO position that would take many of the current PB duties. Option two is a strengthened Presiding Bishop. Option three makes the Presiding Bishop once more a diocesan bishop with presidency and leadership (the way it used to be) and creates a new General Secretary, hired by Executive Council, who functions as the CEO.

What structure do I prefer? Option two. Hands down. Our church's historic fear of episcopal leadership (an ironic reality given that we are the Episcopal church) has confused me ever since I first walked in the doors ten years ago. Option one seems like a mess, it's too close to the overlapping jurisdictions and turf battles that currently characterize the state of things, but it gives even more authority to a board which would, I fear, muck it up even more. Option three seems like option two, only with us not having to have the General Secretary also be our Presiding Bishop.

What do we believe is the ministry of bishops, after all? In the catechism, it says,

The ministry of a bishop is to represent Christ and his Church, particularly as apostle, chief priest, and pastor of a diocese; to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the whole Church; to proclaim the Word of God; to act in Christ’s name for the reconciliation of the world and the building up of the Church; and to ordain others to continue Christ’s ministry.

Bishops have a particular ministry of teaching. They are called to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the church. They are called to proclaim the gospel and to act in ways that will reconcile the world and build up the church of God. They are called to ordain.

All of those seem to be the duties we would want to have in a "CEO" or a  "General Secretary"... that is, assuming that as an organization we are committed to proclaiming the Gospel, strengthening the ministry of the baptized, and carrying on Christ's ministry of reconciliation.

If we believe that bishops have these gifts, if we believe that these gifts are strengthened and enabled by a particularly grace of the Holy Spirit given at ordination... then why wouldn't we want the Presiding Bishop to be the person who leads the organization of our church? Perhaps that would clarify that the organization actually is a church.

I do think, however, that the Presiding Bishop should be elected by the totality of General Convention instead of just the House of Bishops. This would, hopefully, further ensure that this person is truly called and empowered to be the Chief Pastor and Primate of the whole church.

Having dealt with part two first, now, with my cards laid on the table, it will be easier to talk about parts one and three.

General Convention Reforms 

In part one, the paper suggests several reforms to General Convention. Almost without fail I think every single one is a good idea. Yes, please limit resolutions so that the body of Convention is doing what the body needs to do for the rest of the church to do its work. Yes, make the focus a missionary convocation (just don't think that a legislative body cannot, by nature, be that).

Also, don't think that training and equipping three or four priests and lay people from every diocese will naturally result in training and equipping the rest of the priests and laity of a diocese. How much training at General Convention would actually trickle down into the life of the actual diocese? Not as much as we might hope.

Perhaps that means that we should re-think the missionary convocation nature of Convention. Have diocese send voting delegates and alternates (yes, do cut down on the size, as recommended). But also invite dioceses to send people who have calling and interests in the specific workshops and opportunities for training that could be offered at Convention.

Heck, keep the current size your heading towards, but reorganize it. Each diocese voting delegation consists of the diocesan bishop, two priests, two deacons, and two lay people, with an equal amount of alternates elected. Make the Convention unicameral (a suggestion that is notably absent from this paper though popular in many quarters of the church, particularly if voting by orders is maintained and expanded by having all four orders recognized in votes: laity, deacons, priests, and bishops). Elect as deputies leaders who can do well the legislative work of Convention, who have an eye for mission and the patience required for good parliamentary work.

But then, use what remains from the budget you used to have for sending people to send more lay people and clergy to Convention to learn, to grow, to be equipped for ministry.

Let's make it one big, frickin', ministry bazaar, where the best of Christian ministry in the Anglican tradition is available for those who want to learn and grow and be more effective.

Oh, and on the whole idea of diocesan giving: if you diocese doesn't give at the level decided on by the broader body of General Convention, and has not been given a specific exemption for real good reasons by Executive Council, then you lose your voting rights. The paper suggests we need to "develop a sensible means of holding dioceses accountable for paying their assessments." I say it needs to be sensible and have actual teeth. 

And please, please, stop using the language of "the biblical tithe." It looks ridiculous for us to insist upon a biblical tithe when we say that language of "biblical marriage" has no standing in actual biblical scholarship. The level should be the level it is needed to be to enable the ministry of the church at the national level, not tied to a biblical symbol for dependence upon God. Tithing is important—but if you only look at a biblical tithe as the responsibility of giving, you have neglected Jesus' invitation in these past couple weeks of lectionary readings to have a righteousness that exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees. 

 

Reforms to Commissions, Committees, Agencies, and Boards 

In part three, the paper takes on the questions of Commissions, Committees, Agencies, and Boards (CCABs). It gets rid of almost all Standing Commissions (though I'm not sure of the governing ideal that determines which stay and which go—absent that, this is unlikely to get very far). It has the Presiding Officers creating task forces and working groups... which might work, assuming there is a good blend of carryover from previous similar task forces to the new ones.

However, once more, it assumes the separation of a bicameral house, encouraging these task forces and working groups to have greater "collaboration with any House of Bishops committees and working groups." However, if General Convention was a unicameral house, then the task forces could be integrated from the beginning.

If the Episcopal Church is to thrive in the twenty-first century, it will not be because this group or that group one their culture, turf, or political battle with another. It will be because these battles were overcome by the reconciling love of Christ. It will be because we empowered bishops to be bishops, priests to be priests, deacons to be deacons, and lay people to be lay people. It will be because we found ways to work together collaboratively, because we created avenues for those who are hungry to do good ministry to be trained to do good ministry.

TREC is absolutely on the right track... I just don't think they are yet thinking big enough.

Caveat emptor: The three people I mentioned at the beginning, along with many others, have greater wisdom and experience in this than I do. My strong views here are not because I think I have the total picture, they simply reflect the passion of a young priest who thinks this picture is bigger than some may suspect.