By Robin G. Jordan
This article was suggested by a paper that the Rev. Neil Patterson delivered to the 2009 conference of the Prayer Book Society in the United Kingdom and which was subsequently published in the Prayer Book Society’s review, Faith and Worship. The Revd. Patterson is Rector of Ariconium, a Trustee of the Prayer Book Society and Chairman of its Hereford Branch.
The idea that liturgy and doctrine are inextricably linked to each other is summarized in the principle lex orandi lex credendi. “The law of prayer is the law of belief.” This principle is derived from the writings of Prosper of Aquitaine in the fifth century.
What this principle originally meant is that the words of the liturgy that we use should conform to the faith that we officially profess. In other words, our beliefs should shape our prayers. It was in this sense that the principle was applied at the Reformation in the development of the Prayer Book.
Since the Reformation, particularly in the nineteenth century, this principle has been used in reverse. The present or historical existence of prayers or liturgical texts with a particular theological implication has been taken as proof of the acceptability of a particular theological concept. For example, the Tractarians argued on the basis of the regeneration language in the 1662 Baptismal Office that the Church of England taught the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
The 1928 Book of Common Prayer was compiled at a time in the history of the then Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA when the dominant theologies were Anglo-Catholicism and Broad Church latitudinarianism. The 1928 Prayer Book reflects the influence of these two schools of thought. Traditional Anglican evangelicalism, which had been influential in the Episcopal Church in the 1840, 1850s, and 1860s, had disappeared from the Episcopal Church by 1900.
The small number of self-identified evangelicals and Low-Churchmen in the Anglican Church in North America and other North American Anglican bodies who use the 1928 Prayer Book are confronted with the fact that the Prayer Book that they use in their worship articulates and embodies doctrine largely at variance with their own. Its texts and practices have been interpreted as proof of the acceptability of doctrine that is contradictory to or inconsistent with their Protestant and Reformed views.
A few argue that it does not matter what Prayer Book is used, claiming that their teaching has greater influence upon the congregation than the teaching of the Prayer Book. However, the repeated use of its texts and practices and how other clergy have interpreted them to members of the congregation will influence the thinking of the congregation. The preacher is also denied the support of the Prayer Book for his teaching. The astute congregant is bound to ask why is the preacher teaching one thing and the Prayer Book another. The preacher is, in responding to this question, faced with the choice of paltering with the truth or honestly acknowledging the disparity between the Prayer Book’s teaching and his own.
Why then does this group of self-identified evangelicals and Low-Churchmen continue to use a Prayer Book that is essentially at odds with everything for which they stand? Some would say that the 1928 Prayer Book is the liturgy to which they are accustomed. They have become attached to it through repeated use. They dislike the modern service books. It represents for them continuity with the past. And so on. The answer will vary with the individual.
A number of the same individuals in their capacity as a minister have over the years omitted or altered texts in the 1928 services. They have also disregarded the rubrics when the rubrics direct the minister to follow a particular practice. They have made their own personal revision of the 1928 services for use in their respective churches.
The 1928 Prayer Book does have more variable options than its predecessors. They may, in a sense, be viewed as taking one step further a principle that these variable options embody—the adaptation of the liturgy to local circumstances. Anglo-Catholics have done the same thing, supplementing the authorized texts and practices of the 1928 Prayer Book with formerly unauthorized ones from the American or Anglican Missal.
The additions, alterations, and omissions, however, point to the uncomfortable truth that the 1928 Prayer Book does not really meet the needs of the congregations using it. For Protestant congregations the book is too Catholic and for Catholic congregations it is not Catholic enough.
I personally have difficulty with the 1928 Prayer Book due to the doctrine that the book articulates and embodies or for which it appears to offer proof of acceptability. Its Holy Communion and Baptismal Offices, its Offices of Instruction, its Confirmation Service, its Form for the Visitation of the Sick, its Burial Service, and its Form for the Consecration of a Church make it in my opinion a most unsuitable Prayer Book for a congregations and clergy committed to upholding and maintaining the Protestant and Reformed character of the Anglican Church. However, I also recognize that the heart is apt to over-rule the head in such matters and those who have been using the 1928 Prayer Book for their entire life and ministry are not going to abandon its use on the account of any critique of the book that I make however accurate it may be.
I would be interested in hearing from the readers of Anglicans Ablaze who identify themselves evangelicals or Low Churchmen, who have been using the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, and who have modified its forms and services in order to make them more distinctively Protestant and Reformed. I am particularly interested in hearing what they have done to overcoming the sacerdotalism of the 1928 Prayer Book and to make its forms and services more congregational and participatory, more truly common prayer.
38 comments:
Robin, the problem is that the 1928 BCP is more easily adaptable to the anglo-catholic interpretation than it is to the Reformed position. The best thing to do is simply abandon it and begin using the 1662 BCP. However, a so called Protestant bishop challenges anybody to prove that it is in anyway anglo-catholic.
The REC first adopted the 1789 BCP. Now they have a book of alternate services combining choices between the 1928 BCP and the 1789 BCP. For all practical purposes the REC now uses the 1928 book. We can see where lex orendi lex credenti leads when a church uses an aberrant prayer book. The 1979 book is even worse.
By the way, how does this differ from reading Arminianism, Amyraldianism, or Charismaticism into the Formularies? Doctrinal minimalism is just asking for problems. Doctrine needs to be nailed down from Scripture, not inviting of every wind of doctrine.
BTW, I have been trying to obtain a copy of the 1662 BCP in Spanish. I know that I can download a copy from the web, but where can I get a physical copy of it. Apparently it cannot be gotten from Southern Cone. They must not use it. I have contacted them on several occasions on this matter. I have even asked them what they are using but have gotten no reply. Anyone know the status of the BCP in Latin America? What Prayer Book they are using? Is it Reformed? or anglo-catholic?
Robin, I do believe that you would do well to explain exactly how the 1928 BCP reflects anglo-catholic and broad church views and how it replaces Reformed theology. It's general layout certainly undo the work of Cranmer's 1552 version. It certainly allows the addition of hymns and canticles from the 1940 Hymnal which would teach transubstantiation. There is no doubt that the 1662 BCP reflect Christian theology much better.
Charlie,
I fail to see the relevance of your last comment to this article. You misinterpreted an earlier article that I wrote and I drew that to your attention.
Arminianism, Amyraldianism, or Pentecostalism and the Formularies have no more relevance to this article than they did to that article. You appear to be looking for an argument.
Sorry Charlie. I am not going to rise to the bait. You will have to go fishing in other waters. I have better things to do than waste my time on pointless wrangling.
Joe, In Brazil is used by the IEAB (official anglican province) the BCP 1978, as they are closed friends with TEC.
Diocese of Recife used a BCP that they wrote and has influence of anglo-catholicism.
We use a BCP conformed by An English Prayer Book, LOC 1662 and the contemporary liturgy of Sydney.
Chile has a quiet evengelical and low church liturgy, you can find on their website.
I suppose the other South American countries could be used the LOC 1978 in spanish, sadly.
In Spain, IERE has a BCP who is quiet close to the BCP 1662 with Mossarab elements.
Joe,
I found the text of the Chilean Prayer Book on the Internet. It is in Spanish but Google has an application that can translate it to English. Like the compilers of the 1995 Nigerian Prayer Book, its compilers have adopted the 1958 Lambeth Conference recommendations and the order of the Holy Communion service is ecumenical. I was disappointed. I bookmarked where I found it but when I checked the web page to post the URL, it got a "Page Not Found" message. The book's title is Libro de Oracion Comun Iglesia Episcopal Anglicana de Chile. I ran a search and confirmed that freewebs.com no longer hosts the site. The Prayer Book Page of the Iglesia Anglicana de Chile is still under construction. The URL is http://iach.cl/portal/doctrina/libro-de-oracion-comun-de-chile/
My article "What's wrong with the 1928 Prayer Book?" deals with the theology of the 1928 Prayer Book. The URL is http://anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/2009/09/whats-wrong-with-1928-book-of-common.html
The 1940 Hymnal reflects the dominant theologies in the Episcopal Church during the late 1930s--Anglo-Catholicism and Broad Church latitudinarianism. The English Hymnal, which served as a model for the 1940 Hymnal, also contained communion hymns that affirmed the belief that Christ is present in or under the forms of bread and wine in the Holy Communion. They included the hymns of Thomas Aquinus.
I would still like to hear from readers who identify themselves as evangelical or Low-Church and who use the 1928 BCP. I would like to learn what changes, if any, they have made in the services if they are clergy or what changes their clergy have made in the services if they are not clergy.
Robin,
The TPEC uses the 28 BCP and identifies with the evangelical or low church. Maybe you should contact them. But one picture of the inside arrangement of their churches would dispel any notion that they are low church.
Unfortunately I would think the old REC book of 1963 which uses the 1785 proposed book of the evangelical revision of Bishop White is going out of vogue in the REC. Too bad. It was the best of all worlds. ...now the current book is a hodgpodge of anglican thinking especially the baptismal service. Who reads the rubrics anyway? They say the rubrics protect them from bapt. regeneration but I think it is an issue.
Josep Rosello,
Boa tarde,
Thank you for the information. It is truly sad that there is no standard Prayer Book used in Latin America. The 1979 TEC is a not good Prayer Book from any point of view except as a stepping stone to an even more revision and farther from Biblical truth.
Josep, are you a member of some different church than IEAB or the Diocese of Recife?
David,
The REC unfortunately has cut loose it mooring in the Protestant Reformation and has drifted into the troubled seas of anglo-catholicism; it waits only for the storm to come and capsize it and scatterage its wreckage over the sea bottom. Its captain was false and could not follow the compass. God save the REC from its false shepherds and hirelings. I truly mourn its loss to Christiandom. But I am still stunned at how easily and sheeplishly the church followed the wolves in sheep's clothing.
David,
The 1963 REC Prayer Book, which is actually a reprint of the 1930-1932 REC Prayer Book is not as faithful to the 1875 REC Prayer Book as we might think. It already shows the influence of the 1928 Prayer Book and the 1926-1928 Proposed English Prayer Book. A number of changes were made without apparently grasping the theological significance and full import of the changes. Consequently, I date the beginnings of the present "Catholic Revival" in REC to that period.
A Prayer Book that is more theologically sound and incorporates elements of the 1874 REC Prayer Book and the 1662 Prayer Book and its 1552, 1559, and 1604 predecessors is the 1956 FCE Prayer Book, which I have rendered into contemporary English and to which I have made a small number of modest changes.
I have a number of Prayer Book projects underway at different stages. I hope to eventually publish the 1956 FCE Prayer Book and my proposed revision on the Internet.
The late Peter Toon had a much higher opinion of the 1956 FCE Prayer Book than he did of the 1875 Prayer Book. The latter he regarded as something of a mish-mash.
In addition to what Josep said, I believe that the Anglican Church in Mexico uses an adaptation of the Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church's Prayer Book, which is based on the Mozarabic Rite with additions from the 1662 Prayer Book, and I think is a good example of Protestant high church liturgy, allowing for introits, litanies, antiphons, etc... but with a thoroughly evangelical theology.
Joe,
A number of factors account for the present drift of the REC. There is evidence as I have noted in my previous post that the REC begun this drift as early as the 1930s. This may be tied to efforts to bring about the reconciliation of the REC with PECUSA and their union into one church. From the 1970s on the REC experienced an influx of Episcopalians fleeing Prayer Book revision and women's ordination. While I have not traced its origins, the REC began to experience its own Catholic Revival. This revival affected the REC in two critical areas--its leadership and seminaries, in those who have been selecting and preparing a new generation of REC clergy. In these quarters there is a strong aspiration to bring the REC into the Anglican mainstream. In the same quarters the Anglican mainstream is equated with a church that is more Anglo-Catholic, High Church, and ecumenical in character. Among the results has been a revisionist interpretation of the REC founding principles and the adoption of a revisionist constitution and canons and a revisionist Prayer Book, which, while it is touted as an American edition of the 1662 Prayer Book, is actually a combination of the 1662-1928 Prayer Books. A more accurate description would be an Americanized version of the 1928 Proposed English Prayer Book. Parliament twice rejected the latter because it was too Catholic, even though it contained the 1662 services.
Dear Joe,
not, I am not member of the IEAB or the Diocese of Recife, I am a member of the Reformed Anglican Church. It is a small brazilian church. We have good relationships and conversation with Diocese of Recife, however we could not be part of the Diocese of Recife, as they ordained women to the presbyterate. However, we are opened to find points of union between us.
I agree with your comments about the BCP 1978. This is why I like "An English Prayer Book" and the Sydney (or Chilean) BCP.
Our challenge is to find a faithful BCP in modern language.
Jordan, thank you so much for the information about Mexico. I was not aware of.
Robin, where can I find the FCE Prayer Book?
Robin:
A few asides to your points and the discussion.
1. There was no influx of Episcopalians to the REC in the 70-80's. All that existed was the NY/Phila, Chicago, and Charleston Synods with no churches elsewhere. The REC barely rated footnotes in TEC histories. A better voice on that would be Drs. Guelzo and Fisher (OT, now long retired and a fugitive from the REC after Mr. Riches takeover). Or Dr. Jay Adams also. Fisher and Adams took their MDivs, if memory serves me, during the 1950's. Rather than any "Catholic Revival," as you hint, there was the obverse--a close relationship with the theology and thinking of Westminster Seminary up the road. During my time, the language was anti-Tractarian. I recall Mr. Riches talking about Holy Rood Seminary (College? It's defunct now or has disappeared), an AC-school, and how "they played Church." I was a Presbyterian pre-1980 and--at that time when in the REC--not familiar with Anglo-Tractarians.
2. As to the BCPs and "low churchmanship," I guess I would qualify, although my theology was far "higher" than in others, thanks to my Confessionally Reformed background (e.g. I find AMiA theology pretty low...I'm not even sure what ACNA embraces, but I digress). In fact, while at RES, I was sacramentally higher than the REC due to the WCF--which is not Zwinglian. I used the old REC BCP from 1980 till the mid-2000 period, including military chapels, in fields, deserts, and aboard Naval vessels. One visiting and older TEC Chaplain noted re: one serve I led, "Ah yes, reminds me of my youth." I switched to the 1928 BCP for one year while with Charles Morley, TPEC, which appears to have fractured badly and disappeared. There were a few problems with the Book, especially the truncated lectionary--I like the fuller one of the 1662. Since leaving TPEC, I've used the 1662 exclusively by day and night. I have a few issues with it also, but it is quite satisfying. This second point adds little (by me) to your discussion other than some color--perhaps.
3. My home parish in Detroit is a 1928 BCP Church. Mariners' Anglican. It is a 39 Articles Church. Of the 100-150 attendees, some (5-10) might cross themselves. There are a few bowings by the Rectors. Some might think it an high service. I don't. The high quality music is Cathedral-level quality. The theology is orthodox. It's "home" to me, although living in NC. I suppose I am "high" because I will not worship in non-liturgical services. I attend AMiA, ACC (occasionally) and a WELS work in the area.
4. Perhaps this will add further to the points.
Also, the terms "high," "low" and evangelical still are vague.
1. On hunches only, as an old REC-er, I suspect I'd be viewed as a low churchman. If "fashion" is the issue, not much bothered by it. Theologically, thanks to Dad and Granddad, I fly "higher" than all TEC clerics I had worked with--quite a few. I grew up on the Princetonian tradition of intellectual titans at the dinner table (although I then was somewhat indifferent, preferring to be on the hockey rink). I suppose I am an "High Calvinist."
2. Over the years, I suppose I've become an "High Churchman" in this respect. I will not worship without good solid liturgy. This is not a comment about the election, justification and status on non-liturgical Churchmen, Non-conformists or Dissenters. It is, however, a serious comment about their worship and piety.
3. As to being "evangelical," just using the 1662 BCP is "evangelical" to the core. That term, "evangelical," is a troubled one also. In the American sense, I utterly reject it. Far too connected with the sectarians, anabaptists, and enthusiasts.
Robin:
In fact, if phone numbers could be secured (a big if), it would be well worth your time to talk to Drs. Fisher and Jay Adams. Fisher was OT. Adams was the President of RES for sometime.
Also, Rev. Wayne Headman, former President. (He's retired now and travels most of the time.) But Wayne would give you a good, historic 1970ish-2010 picture re: the REC/RES. He too anguishes over the direction of the REC.
These men were on the scene.
Dr. Guelzo would be another good man to interview. Also, Dr. Dwight Zeller. All these men had connections to the 60's-90's with the REC/RES.
Also, Rev. Niel Bech--still grieving the loss of the REC to "latitudinarianism" and the "low theology" of indifferentism and capitulation.
In a table-turning reversal, Tractarians were anything BUT "high churchmen." They were snake-low theologically and ethically--as well. Newman was dishonest.
If you want some phone numbers, will make an effort at it.
I apologize for dominating the discussion, yet another point.
The REC BCP ham-handedly excised some Psalms for liturgical use? If memory serves me on this? That will not work for this scribe.
Also, the baptismal office was far too weak.
Also, some of the Articles (the 35) needed work.
Phil,
I have talked with a number of former Episcopalians who became a part of the REC in the aftermath to Prayer Book revision and women's ordination. I have also read a number of articles and academic papers that clearly show an Anglo-Catholic drift in REC seminaries. I did not come up with these observations off the top of my head. Others have made similar observations and written articles on these developments.
The Catholic Revival in the REC did not spring full grown like Athena from Zeus' head. Church Society, taking note of the same developments, ceased to classify the REC as a Reformed church.
Robin:
If so, as suggested, it was not open and evident in the 1970's-1980's, at least to my eyes. The REC was a mere 5-6K members. It was shrinking rather than growing. There was discouragement, at least at the seminary (there were only two then, Phila and one in Chas, SC). But then, maybe there were internal dynamics unspoken to us as students and Churchmen. ??
1990's, yes, "something" was flowering. Sutton and Riches were integral. Riches was "consolidating" power, it was reported, through canonical revision. A Dan Dunlap was another "Anglican" reformer, although he left in the 90's (??, early 2000) and submitted to "reordination" in the TEC. Another facilitator was Rev. Crouthamel, a Professor, sidekick to Mr. Riches, advocating "obey the Bishop"--a new tone was afoot. Old voices were being silenced.
Also, good news if Church Soc has declassified REC as Protestant and Reformed.
"Whatever" REC is now, it--on my view--will morph into the ACNA culture, the new "low" theology.
I cut ties with them. I talked to a retired TX state trooper attending Roy Grote's "Cathedral" Church in Houston, led by Roy's son. Roy's son or Rector was routinely invoking Mary in Holy Communion. I trusted the man.
But, methinks this is digressing from your larger point.
E.g. services? adaptations? Re: liturgy, doctrine and the BCP. I'd rather hear from others than myself, so must defer here to the larger inquiry.
Josep,
The FCE Prayer Book is difficult to obtain. I understand that they are out of print and the FCE bought up the remaining supply of them. Presiding Bishop Dominique Stockford of the FCE - Evangelical Connexion graciously provide me with two copies from the pews of his own church and I reciprocated by providing him with a conservative contemporary English revision/translation of the FCE Prayer Book.
Phil,
Crouthamel rings a bell. Wasn't he a professor at Cranmer House in Shreveport, Louisiana before it closed. Wasn't Sutton a professor there too. Crouthamel may have been the author of the papers to which I was referring. They certainly were not Protestant and Reformed in tone.
Phil,
Also,it only takes a few people to tip a scale.
Robin, a few observations.
1. I reflected on your staggering phrase. "The Catholic Revival in the REC did not spring full grown like Athena from Zeus' head." I read that and pondered it all weekend. I was tempted to write back and say, "Robin, that's exactly how it, in fact, appeared...out of nowhere." Yet, I brewed on it.
2. Then, I thought of the two aircraft carriers I served on--with four different Skippers. One was horrible, two were status quo fellows, and one was Top Notch. The bad guy influenced command morale, top to bottom. About 5500 men, so about the size of the REC in my time. It doesn't take very many men to turn a command downwards. That is exactly what happened. (He didn't make Admiral either.) Then, the awesome Skipper came aboard. I will forego developments, but he turned the ship around within months--started with the Chiefs who can smell a good leader a mile away. Once the Chiefs get aboard, upwards.
3. Then, I noted your later reflection, to wit, that it doesn't take many to turn things around. That is exactly what happened in the REC.
4. As to Rev. Crouthamel, he came aboard as I was leaving RES, 87.' He's been in Phila at RES ever since. He is and was Mr. Riche's sidekick. He may have been advertised for Cramner House, but never as a regular. Cranmer House shut down in Shreveport, LA, and moved to Houston, TX. Dr. Crenshaw has been involved for many years. Sutton moved, somewhat mysteriously from Phila RES to Shreveport, LA. He is associated with Roy Grote somehow, but there is the whiff of problems...including Dr. Dan Dunlap's departure (PhD, Oxford), a man on the internet in the late 90's-early 2000 championing the new direction of the REC. He left mysteriously and with heavy complaints by phone about Grote's and Riches' nepotism and corruption. Dunlap disappeared. Sutton got close to Duncan. The seminaries--on one very credible report--are not flourishing.
5. Also, there was very little internet activity till the late 90's on this issue. Back-room deals and discussions were occurring.
6. It was a top-down takeover.
Robin:
This has caused me to reflect on "command leadership." While I referred to larger commands, e.g. carriers, I've seen the same dynamic on literally dozens of submarines, surface vessels (one vessel, the troops called the Skipper the "Senator" because he took care of them well), and Marine commands. I had ten subs at one time. An oiler (about 800 men). A destroyer squadron of about 10 ships. A few Marine commands.
I seen some very excellent leaders. I can recall some very bad ones--morale always goes down with them. Several or most of the good guys made COL, GEN, CAPT and ADM. The bad guys ultimately get a reputation...as do the good ones.
Riches could serve a 300-man ship, but not a carrier.
He ran his ship aground.
End of the story for the REC. They will get absorbed. Any opponents will be silenced.
At one time, they might have had a serious platform for a confident presentation of the Protestant and Reformed faith. But, they have established their 15-yearish-or-so reputation...if we begin the changes in 1995. I think 1990 might be suitable too.
Robin:
You've caused me to reflect on this matter of leadership.
I have many good sea and field stories, but will forego that and ponder it privately. Many excellent leaders, several fair one, and a few bilge-low leaders--one comes to mind. He was always feathering his own nest and seeking his own advancement. It didn't take long for the lowest sailor to see it. Of course, the officers and chiefs see it first. But no one can say anything. It's the military. There were "integrity issues" as well, such as when we nearly went aground in Puerto Rico...in the harbour we hit bottom for sure and nearly went aground. The Skipper ordered the Quarter Master to log it as "unusual acoustical sounds" rather than the truth. I could tell a lot of stories, but will reflect on this.
The hydra-headed Athena springing from nowhere. You are absolutely correct. REC's problems have specific causes and didn't "just appear out of nowhere." It was a leadership problem.
At one point, before RES moved from downtown Phila (42nd and Chestnute) to Blue Bell, PA, they spent a few years at Grace REC Chapel in Phila--my home church and where I was ordained. The seminary rented a portion of the facility. The rector has told me stories about students emerging from Ray Sutton's classes and pondering transubstantiation--he was an REC rector there. Peter Toon was there also for a year or so. I understand he annoyed Riches, but don't know why.
The question: how many leaders were involved?
As Joe Mahler posted, why no major reaction?
I have the paper-work on one large meeting between Bp Cummins' Memorial Church, Rockland, MD, and Riches and Jon Abboud. Strict controls on the meeting. Just pulled the file last week. Transparency was one issue.
One problem--the leaders would never answer the mail. Frankly, Riches didn't care. He wanted "others" attention, affection, and affirmation. PERIOD.
As Dr. Guelzo put it, publicly at the time, it was the "lust for acceptance." I concur. But whose? Duncan's? Where was and is the confidence in the Reformed faith?
I will think about my experiences with leaders, the good and bad--real leaders with huge responsibilities, including lives.
Robin:
What do retired Sailors and Marines do in retirement? They tell stories.
I get my haircut at a local shop. A retired USMC SGT MAJ cuts hair. The old retired officers and senior enlisted--many--show up daily, drop by the barber shop, and just "tell stories." It's always a good event and lots of laughs. The young Marines who come in for a haircut do two things, as is appropriate. They "keep quiet" in the presence of their seniors (me included). And they "laugh" at our stories. We old guys love these "youngins" and they do it right. Listen and laugh.
Was just reflecting on one CAPTAIN, Navy. He came aboard our highly demoralized ship. It took one year. It's quite a story of a turnaround by a very good leader. Why? While fulfilling the command objectives, he "took care of his men." A big contrast to the previous CAPTAIN. The Admrial sniffed the bad Skipper out (long story there) and got him--finally--orders to run a ROTC shop in Worcester, MA, essentially "putting him out to pasture."
Every single statistic on the ship improved--several indicia. Why do I know this? I shaped the questionaire and interpretation for the results for the good Skipper. Pulled some of the ship's senior enlisted in to help. The SKIPPER LISTENED AND TOOK ACTION. Again, every indicia--reenlistments rose dramatically, etc. NJP's dropped. I could go on.
Those closest to Riches will tell you, "He doesn't really like people." He's not ADM material. CDR, at best. Sutton has been driving the ship for a long time, behind the scenes.
But, back to the reflection on that good Skipper. He's still alive and retired at Anapolis, MD. A Presbyterian elder now. He took care of all his men, top to the very bottom. It's going good when the lowest seaman, rather than grousing and complaining, chews out another seaman and says, "This is MY ship. This is OUR ship so get with it. That's MY Captain." When that informs unit morale, good things are going on.
Robin, could you send me a copy of your work on the BCP? Pleaseeee.....
What do you think of An English Prayer Book by the church society?
Josep,
As soon as I have put together a cover email, I will send you a Microsoft Word file containing the proposed contemporary English revision of the FCE Prayer Book. I am including my assessment of An English Prayer Book in the cover email, as well as explanatory notes on the proposed revision.
Thank you, Robin, I just receive it. I am travelling to visit some missions, but I write you back once I read it calmly. Thank you so much.
You men chat and gossip about elders in Christ's Church like idle, chatty old women leaning over a back yard fence. You sow discord among the faithful, a thing God hates. Your knowing insiders speculation is a low order gnosticism. Thanks for letting us little folks in on the real deal. Mature Christian men with your military backgrounds makes your disrespect for church leadership (no matter how flawed in your opinion)twice repugnant.
The forum seemed to be about one thing, but as I read it bacame clear that you were engaging in vapid, self indulgent puffery.
Thanks for nothing.
Alario
The South Florida Academy of AC is a private HVAC Academy that can
teach you HVAC training in only 8 weeks! Classroom or Home Study
Programs Available.
ac school
hvac trade school
Post a Comment