SPEAKER_04 0:36

Welcome to the Episcopalian. I am Ann Jambore here with Dr. Ryan Partovi, and we are going to be talking about the Episcopal Church. This is an unfiltered conversation. These are our own thoughts and opinions, and uh not reflective of anybody else in the church. This is just our own personal thoughts. Um, Dr. Povi, welcome to the show. I want to just give everybody a brief introduction of who we are and why we're doing the podcast.

SPEAKER_01 1:06

Absolutely, and thank you. Yes, I'm Dr. Ryan Partovi. And um, you know, um why we're doing the podcast probably is the best place to start. So, you know, really the intention as I see it is we are both passionate about the Episcopal Church, and we are committed in the first of all, in maintaining it and growing it and expanding it. And we want to help people learn about Episcopalianism, see if it's right for them, and we want to advocate for it and encourage as many people to become Episcopalians as possible. So that's really the intention of the podcast as I see it. How about you?

SPEAKER_04 1:54

Well said. Um well again, I'm Angie Ambor. I'm a cradle episcopalian, uh, which means I've been doing this for a long, long time. And I love our Anglican tradition, and I agree with everything you said. I really want to make sure that um our via media is something, our via media philosophy is something that we are able to welcome and embrace all sorts of people. And I think it's a good good denomination for just about everybody.

SPEAKER_01 2:26

Yeah. Well, so for those who don't know what via media means, maybe maybe give them a quick overview because not everybody who's watching this is already going to be in Episcopal.

SPEAKER_04 2:36

Yeah, right. Well, via media um literally means the middle way. And via media is a fantastic concept. So think, you know, you and I uh are we both have uh we're both health practitioners. And so imag so imagine that you're looking, you close one eye and you're looking at your finger, you know, and it kind of changes position, right? Based on which eye you're looking out of. And you know, you've got the right hemisphere of your brain and the left hemisphere of your brain. And so each eye is controlled by a different hemisphere. Well, they're your your finger is changing positions based on which eye you're looking out of. You need both eyes in order to really get the depth perception that you need um to be able to see where you're where where you are in space properly. And via media is sort of that that idea of we need the right side and we need the left side. We need uh all sorts of perspectives in order to see the truth. And my one of my favorite quotes is that we're not a compromise for the sake of peace, but rather a comprehension for the sake of truth. Uh, I believe that's hooker. So this idea of a comprehension for the sake of truth is um is what the via media really represents.

SPEAKER_01 4:09

Yeah. Well, and what I'm hearing in that is that is that you know, the there's a tension, there's a dynamic there that's where it's it's it's the idea is that both sides are necessary, not like, oh, you know, we need to learn to tolerate each other and get along because we have to and we don't want to schism, but more like, no, no, we actually need those guys, and and they actually need us. And and I think that that will, you know, I mean that so grounding the podcast in that concept of the via media is actually which would be a great name for the podcast, by the way, if anybody knew what it meant, right? Via media would be a great podcast name, but we went with a name that was more like obvious. Um, just because the goal here again is to to try to really bring as many people to the table as possible. So um, yeah, I mean, I think given that maybe we just talk about sort of our own where we come from, what our biases are, you know, what what uh and and so people can kind of understand that we sort of embody that whole that whole dynamic uh in in the via media uh ourselves.

SPEAKER_04 5:29

Yeah, that's a really great point. Um, you know, this concept of via media is also something that, in my opinion, and as I said at the beginning, everything I was saying is just my opinion. Um it's it's the Episcopal Church has lost its way. The Episcopal Church has lost the concept of via media. Um and we are gonna talk through that and hash out some examples and why that's happening, and and really what we want is to be able to pull people back into this understanding of what our Anglican theology really teaches in terms of via media.

SPEAKER_01 6:15

Um so again, for those who who don't know Anglican versus Episcopalian, could you give us a quick overview of like you're using those interchangeably, which I know is correct, but for people who aren't familiar with it, yeah.

SPEAKER_04 6:29

Okay, well, that's a really good question. So the Episcopal Church is a denomination um primarily in North America and the United States. It started out as a denomination in the United States. Now the Episcopal Church is kind of everywhere in the world, um, which is kind of strange to me. But anyway, the Episcopal Church is a branch of the Anglican Communion. So the Anglican Communion, I like to think of it as like the like the UN or like the global, you know, sort of power or f or or governance of all of the other denominations in the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church is the only denomination in the United States that is recognized by the Anglican Communion. Um, so you might see other Anglican churches in North America, but they are not uh part of the Anglican Communion officially. So uh they might have Anglican theology, they might use um plenty of Anglican traditions, but not officially part of the Anglican Communion.

SPEAKER_01 7:44

So now why is that? Why are they not part of the Anglican Communion if it's this big, big umbrella organization that spans the globe?

SPEAKER_04 7:53

Right. So because the Episcopal Church is the representation of the Anglican Communion in America, so um, those other denominations that call themselves Anglican, they're just not recognized by the Anglican Communion.

SPEAKER_01 8:11

So you know Right, but why aren't they recognized?

SPEAKER_04 8:16

Well, I'm that's a good question.

SPEAKER_01 8:17

I don't I I can answer the question if you don't.

SPEAKER_04 8:20

They're just they're not.

SPEAKER_01 8:21

Um well they're not because they all broke away from the Episcopal Church at some point, right? They were all part of the Episcopal Church at some previous point, and then they broke away saying, Well, no, we're we don't agree with the direction of the the national uh Anglican body, which is the Episcopal Church. So we're gonna, you know, break away, which is in ecclesiastical terms is called schism, right? So we're gonna we're gonna break away, we're gonna do our own thing, we're gonna call ourselves Anglicans so we can tie ourselves back to that tradition, but we're not gonna participate in the overall body of the communion.

SPEAKER_04 9:01

Yeah, that's a really great explanation of that.

SPEAKER_01 9:06

Yeah. And really, the when we talk about the communion, I don't really want to get this into like Anglican Communion 101, but uh there are certain instruments of communion that that kind of bind the communion together, one of which is the um well, the the I said the oldest is actually the Archbishop of Canterbury, which is the um uh basically the head of the uh Anglican Communion and also the Church of England. Um and the the Archbishop of Canterbury is the first among equals, you know, what's primum interparis is the Latin. Um and then you also have things like the Anglican Consultative Council, you have the Lambeth Conference that's I think every how many years, 10 years, eight years, something like that. Uh could be 11. Don't don't quote me on that. Um, and that's a big a meeting of all the bishops from all over the world uh and at Lambeth Cathedral, um uh at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury. And um and then there's also the the primates council, which is like the the the heads of each church, uh each country's church get together and they have meetings. And so all of these together make up the instruments of the Anglican communion that bind us together.

SPEAKER_04 10:41

Yeah, I think a really good parallel to kind of simplify that down is to, I mean, everybody knows who the Pope is, right? In the Roman Catholic Church. I think it's pretty ubiquitous that most people understand that the Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the sort of like the Pope of our Anglican communion, and then from there we've got all of these other denominations that right, but but but hold on, before you move on, I have to stop you there because because because he is and he isn't, right?

SPEAKER_01 11:17

I mean, the Archbishop of Canterbury is the first among equals, so it's it's how the Pope was for the first, not to get into a history lesson, but the first six centuries of the church, where the Pope was literally first among equals. There were, you know, five other patriarchs, and they all had sort of an equal say in the in the governance of the church. And then at some point the pope says, No, I'm ahead of, I'm I'm I'm above all the other ones, and they are subject to me, which is the subject of the great schism, which happened in 1054, where the Eastern Orthodox Church said, No, you're not. And he said, Yes, I am, and they cross-excommunicated each other. And ever since then, the the bishop of Rome, aka the Pope, has said, you know, I am, I have authority over all other bishops in the world, and you know, they're subject to me, which of course also also the Anglican church uh doesn't no longer subjects themselves to Rome. Actually went through about 12 centuries of not subjecting themselves to Rome, went through, I think it's like three or four centuries of subjecting themselves to Rome and then saying, no, we're done with that, uh, and went and went independent again, and which is that that independent um Catholic Church, because it is Catholic, but it's also has elements of the Protestant Reformation woven in. So it's Protestant Catholic, but it's it is um that's what we call the Anglican Church. So if you're like, hey, I I'm you know interested in a church that's both Catholic, but maybe not under the Pope, we're for you, you know. Um and there's a lot of that. So um, and we get a lot of people who are interested from the Roman Catholic side coming over and saying, well, you know, I I like I like Catholicism, but I don't like, you know, the the sort of papal infallibility and the rigid hierarchy and that kind of thing. So sorry, I interrupted you, but I just wanted to clarify that the Archbishop Canterbury is, you know, doesn't actually have any more real power. It's more of a symbol of unity than like, oh, you know, he or she, and we'll get into the she in a minute, but is going to be able to say you must do things this way throughout the Anglican communion. It's it's much more bottoms up, ground up, local control is the name of the game uh in our church versus top-down hierarchical, uh, which is how you see it in the Roman church.

SPEAKER_04 13:56

Exactly. Well, and so back to the point of the question is that when we talk about Anglican tradition and then the Episcopal Church, the Episcopal Church is just a denomin an American denomination under our Anglican uh tradition. So um and the history of that is uh pretty self-evident, you know, when uh we, you know, started the United States, uh we needed a different denomination uh that wasn't uh under the king. So we could not be the Church of England anymore because now we're Americans. So they changed it to Episcopalian. Hey, do you want to just give us like a 15-second like what is a what is episcopal mean?

SPEAKER_01 14:48

Yeah, episcopal just means that we have bishops. Like that's what the word means. Episcopal just means that we have bishops, which the traditional, the traditional structure of the faith handed down through the centuries is always bishop, priest, deacon. And that, you know, sort of tripartite leadership of the church, the tripartite's not the right term, but you know what I mean, um, uh, is is something that we've really inherited from the Bible and from the very, very earliest days of the church. And you see that tripartite ministry throughout um throughout the Bible, actually. You see the word bishop, I don't think is ever used, but basically the bishops are the successors of the apostles. And um, so the role that the apostles played in the early church is the role that the bishops play today in the church. Yeah.

SPEAKER_04 15:42

Yeah, thanks for that. That's perfect, perfect explanation.

SPEAKER_01 15:47

Well, all right. Yeah, and actually, just as another side note, our bishops, including the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, one of the things that we have in common is what's called apostolic succession, which is the idea that our bishops can trace their lineage of who ordained them all the way back up to the 12 apostles.

SPEAKER_04 16:08

Yeah, absolutely. All right, well, end of the podcast. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. No, we covered it all.

SPEAKER_01 16:19

Um, I I want to deal with actually inside of that conversation, just one of the misconceptions people have, I think, and we can actually dedicate probably multiple episodes to this, but I think one of the great misconceptions is that our church was founded by Henry VIII, you know, because he wanted a divorce from his wife. And that is like that is the most absurd thing ever. But it's it's hilarious that it's like that's the smear propaganda that gets used against us, I think, by a lot of people. Uh, I'm not naming any names, but I have them. Um so, and it is um not correct. You know, our church was founded by, I would say that the the legend is that it was founded by Joseph of Arimathea. Um, because you see, and that he came basically after the resurrection, came and settled in England, lived and died the rest of his life in England, and brought the faith directly to England. Um, and that in fact, um, a lot of the early Celtic Christians, which was were really distinct, they had their own mass, they had their own right. Um, and there was a whole controversy when the Romans first came and said, well, you know, this is the official way we do it in Rome. And it's like, well, we have our own Celtic rite that we've been using for centuries. And um so they did finally work all that out, but basically, you have saints, you have, you know, you have you have actually bishops from England participating in ecumenical council in France in I think like 314 AD, which was before Constantine, you know, but before there was a Roman, official Roman church, right? Um, and so there has been an Anglican church really from the very beginning of Christianity, and that is the church that we trace our lineage from. So, really, our church was founded by Jesus Christ. That's what everyone always, you know. It's like it's like the gotcha question, right? And every time I watch an interview with like an episcopal, someone who's Episcopalian or Anglican, and they're like, Who founded your church? And they say, Well, our church was founded by Henry VIII. I'm like, you walked right into it, right? It's like, it's like, no, our church was founded by Jesus Christ, right? And um the um interesting thing is that the current manifestation of the church actually was a result of the Elizabethan settlement uh during the reign of Elizabeth I, where basically the Protestants of the day and the Catholic, uh, the Catholics of the day said, Well, we're gonna work out a settlement, an agreement, where we're gonna agree to be both Protestant and Catholic. And um here we are.

SPEAKER_04 19:19

So Yeah, well said. I I think that simplifies the the issue of whether or not the Anglican communion is a schismatic, you know, breakaway religion, right? And um and I I love that we're that Anglicanism is not a schismatic religion because uh we've always been taught that, you know, we've always been taught that Yeah, even in history class, right? Yeah, yeah, exactly. So um I think it's a really beautiful understanding of the Anglican communion. So thanks for elucidating all of that.

SPEAKER_01 20:02

Yeah. Well, and we were gonna talk about who we are, our background, and all that. So you wanna you wanna go first?

SPEAKER_04 20:09

Yeah, that was a that was a rabbit trail just kind of trying to describe Episcopal Episcopalian versus Anglican.

SPEAKER_03 20:17

Right.

SPEAKER_04 20:18

So yeah, okay. Well, I am a cradle episcopalian. What does that mean? That means that I was baptized as a baby into the Episcopal Church, and um I've always been raised in the Episcopal Church. My background is that my mother was Roman Catholic when she was growing up. My uh dad's side of the family, they were Episcopalian. And my mother really fell in love with the Episcopal Church when she started going to the Episcopal Church on the invitation of my grandmother, my dad's mom. Um, fast forward a bunch of years, and my dad retired from a very successful pediatric practice as a doctor. Um, and he went to seminary. He went to seminary at Neshoda House in Wisconsin, which is a beautiful Anglican Catholic um education in seminary. And then, you know, he was ordained as a priest and then started working um in the Episcopal Church as a priest, and then now is retired. And so our family has just multiple generations. Um I've got kids and grandkids now who are all Episcopalians. So we're looking at what five generations in my family of of Episcopalians. Um maybe six. So it's it's steeped in our blood. It's steeped in our blood. And I, you know, people nowadays they like to talk about cultural cultural appropriation and and kind of trying to find um your roots in terms of of religion. And for me, this just fits really well. I mean, I've got a lot of I'm an American mutt, you know, just Eastern, Western European and British heritage. So I mean, that it just fits.

SPEAKER_01 22:21

Yeah. Well, I think that's such a great point because actually the what many people don't know is that the Episcopal Church is actually the mother church of pretty much everyone. Every other denomination that exists in this um in this country.

SPEAKER_02 22:40

Yes.

SPEAKER_01 22:41

The Methodists, so with a few exceptions. I mean, like obviously, I would say the Lutherans and the Baptists have a separate lineage and they kind of come from a different, you know, through from a different location, Lutherans from Germany, the Baptists from the Anabaptists, which I think we're also in Germany or Switzerland, right in there. And we through coming from, you know, but but the Methodists, the Presbyterians, well, Presbyterians come from Scotland predominantly, but originally, you know, kind of the UK right zone. But Presbyterians, Methodists, um, really, and many of the other non-denominational groups that kind of came out of the Methodists and the Presbyterians uh all trace their lineage back to the Anglican Church. Um, and there's probably others that I'm forgetting, but but um I would say the majority of Protestant Christianity in the United States, if you were to trace your lineage back up far enough, you'd find that originally your you know great-great-great-grandparents or whatever were were Episcopalians.

SPEAKER_04 23:53

Yeah. So well said. What's your background in the Episcopal Church?

SPEAKER_01 23:59

Yeah, so I'm a fourth generation Episcopalian on my mom's side, and um it's a funny story. So her her grandmother um had apparently grown up Roman Catholic, but then there was a falling out, and then she was attending the Methodist Church, and then she did some more research and said, Well, no, we really should be attending the Episcopal Church. So she brought the family into the Episcopal Church, and then we've been there ever since. And I would say that I have kind of a unique background, and that my dad is um grew up a Baha'i, and so it's a totally different faith. And it that, but I would say the Baha'i faith and some of the experiences I had, like as a child being exposed to the Baha'i faith, going to Baha'i summer school, has really informed my Christianity in a in a very deep way. And I'm sure we'll talk more about that. Um, but um I think that um it's really deep in my faith, I would say. So I, you know, obviously went along with my mother's side when it comes to my own faith. And um, you know, I have two boys now and they're growing up in the Episcopal Church. So, you know, we've got our fifth generation going. But um yeah, I mean, um, and then my wife is Roman Catholic and uh grew up Roman Catholic, and she uh her father is a Roman Catholic deacon. So, you know, we have I have a lot of influences from from all sides, and I would say that, you know, um I think that you know, I was trying to peg myself down about sort of where I come from. I tend to be, and we were talking about the via media and sort of who what we represent, and and I was like, you know, I think that some of the ways I arrive at my thoughts are like you know, theologically liberal, some are more theologically conservative. So I must be more of like a theological moderate, which doesn't really make a whole ton of sense. So for people who don't know, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you know, my understanding is basically theological conservatism really leans in on the authority of scripture and really like a more literal and stricter, not necessarily literal, but I would say a stricter adherence to scriptural um guidance versus theological liberalism is more willing to take a more expansive view, kind of say, well, we're gonna have um we're gonna have scripture as a source, it was divinely inspired, but then there'll be other sources, and we can kind of, you know, we'll be a little more loosey-goosey with our interpretation, and we don't really see scripture as authoritative, perhaps, as the theological conservatives. Does that does that align with your yeah your thought process on what those those two meaning things mean?

SPEAKER_04 27:06

Yeah, it does. And I wanna I wanna kind of this is such a nuanced issue too, whether we're talking about um theology or you know, politics, we've got this idea of like liberal versus conservative. And so the way you described yourself is that you have some theologically conservative ideas, you have some um ideas that are more theologically liberal, and then those sort of average out to make you a moderate. And you know, it's kind of this thing where why do we have to why do we have to label that and try to balance that out into a moderate perspective? I mean, I think it's completely a nuanced thing, you know. I think it's completely appropriate for people to have certain ideas that are more conservative and certain ideas that are more liberal. And it doesn't, I don't know, it's just human.

SPEAKER_01 28:09

Yeah. Well, I mean, I to me, I think that you bring up a good point, which is why, why, why label? And I think labels I want to get into labels a little bit because I think it helps people understand that we sometimes approach things from different ways. And at the same time, I get your fundamental point, which is that often labels are more divisive than they are uh uniting, right? Um, and I I that's a that's a very valid point. Um, because it's sort of like if you're this, then you can't be that, right? And I and I I don't necessarily think that has to be the case. Like, you know, one of the things that um my wife and I are uh talked about in one of our um upcoming episodes that hasn't been published yet of the Partovia effect, which is the podcast I do with my wife, um is about the distinction between cosmopolitanism and what is really the opposite of cosmopolitanism, because that's something that Dr. Brett Weinstein, which is, I don't want to go down a rabbit hole here, but he's one of my favorite podcasts. Uh his podcast with his wife, Dr. Heather Hyang, was kind of our inspiration. And so, you know, he says, well, I think multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism are opposites. And, you know, I one of the things I I talk about in this episode is um, I don't think that's right. You know, I think that multiculturalism and cosmopolitan can can coexist. And I think the real um distinction between is between cosmopolitism and identitarianism, which is you know, more of the idea of like, hey, can we all get along together in one big melting pot versus you know, are we going to have, you know, be defined by on one hand, you know, white nationalism or Christian nationalism, and on the other hand, um, you know, critical race praxis and intersectionality, right? So I think that, you know, the more we focus on identity, whether it's on the left or the right, the more problem we're gonna have as a society. And I think the opposite is true. Um, I think the more cosmopolitan and multicultural really just is like, hey, honoring and respecting all cultures, which I'm all for that. So, you know, I do think that labels can be helpful as a way to sort of distinguish, but I think we have to, I think most disagreement lies in definitions. I think if we can get clear with the definitions, and hopefully we'll spend, we'll probably spend a lot of time defining things on this podcast, but um I think that's where it can be useful. So I come from, you know, uh sort of still discerning theologically where I come from, but in terms of on the political side, you know, I come from sort of a definitely a pretty uh left-wing place on the economics. And I would say I would say probably center left on a lot of the social cultural issues, um, which is distinct from you. So you can talk a little bit more about that. Actually, before you yeah, so before you respond, um, I there's one more thing I'd like to add, which is that I think that even as somebody who is more on the progressive side of things, uh, in terms of where I end up, I think a lot of the ways I end up there are through a lot of the more theologically conservative arguments and rationale. And so, and I frankly, I find it more useful to talk about a lot of those topics from a theologically conservative perspective, because then I think it's I can have conversations with someone who's more politically conservative, and we can kind of say, well, okay, I see where you're coming from. We're looking at different, we're prioritizing different parts of scripture, but we're coming from the same place, right? Which is scripture, right? And so, um, and of course, it's not just scripture, there's also tradition and reason, which I know you're about to talk about. So go ahead and talk about that, and then let us know a little bit about where you're coming from. Well, it's a great or where you end up, maybe, is is maybe the better point.

SPEAKER_04 32:37

That's a great idea. Well, you know, this is a really good segue into the idea in Anglican theology of the three-legged stool. And so if you imagine a three-legged stool, if you sat on it, if you took one of those legs away, the stool would fall over. And in Anglican theology, the three-legged stool refers to sort of this balanced interplay between scripture, tradition, and reason as the foundation, the three-legged stool. Uh and that is uh the foundation of faith and discernment. This idea originates from um uh an Anglican theologian named Richard Hooker, and it teaches that the three-legged stool is uh for scripture, and scripture holds that um primacy as the source of divine revelation. Tradition preserves the church's uh collective wisdom through centuries of worship and doctrine, and reason is the you know God-given faculties that you have of understanding and interpreting and applying the scripture to contemporary life. And so three of these things work together. Scripture guides us, tradition grounds us, and reason helps us to discern, to keep that Anglican faith um both rooted, you know, and grounded and alive in every generation, right? Because every generation is dealing with different challenges. And this is a really in contrast to a lot of other faiths that hold more of a sola scriptura or scripture alone sort of theology, where it's only scripture, right? In productism.

SPEAKER_01 34:46

Um so that's well, and on the other side of that, and I was just having this conversation with my wife this morning, because she was talking about orthodoxy and you know what is it that makes orthodoxy distinct? Orthodoxy is distinct because tradition is really their only leg, right? It's like everything is interpreted through tradition, scripture is interpreted through tradition, every other thing is is all tradition. And so, because of that, they seem some somewhat impervious to you know whatever comes up in society, right? Because it's not aligned with tradition. And so it's like, well, then you know, we're probably not gonna do anything with it, or or it's it's not gonna affect what we're doing. And I think that on one hand, that is really good at preserving something uh for as as it's always been, but then there you also wonder, uh, or I guess it it gets to the point of aliveness, right? The idea of the church being a living, breathing entity of the bride of Christ, um, and and really the idea that it is that it was instituted by Christ to engage with the world and really to support the the believers um in navigating the world. And if the solution offered by the church is well, just kind of close yourself off, don't accept any of the new innovations of science or technology or anything, you know, just the world has nothing to offer you. And I mean, that's going to be a solution which will appeal to some people. I'm not saying it doesn't, right? Obviously, the Orthodox Church is pretty big, but I think um I think that there's a lot of us who are people of science, and you know, that's me, I for sure. And I know you have a love of health and interest in science as well. Um a lot of us would feel that that faith would be incomplete for us. I know for me, it would, it was like it if you're not willing to wrestle with these issues and deal with them, and then the other thing is I think what can happen is you get like a staleness, like an almost deadness that can start to accumulate over time, where it's like if you're not willing to deal with what is real on the world on the ground right now, then you sort of there's a loss of relevance, there's a loss of vitality and aliveness and and um the kind of alacrity, right? That cheerful readiness that characterizes uh how I like to live life.

SPEAKER_04 37:31

Yeah, absolutely. Um so scripture, tradition, and reason, and each one is equally important, right? You don't have one leg of the stool that's shorter or weaker. You need to dig into to all of them as your foundation. So I I like that analogy. And I like what you just said about um holding to like making one of those legs too strong or too large, it it really kind of well, it adds to the imbalance, obviously, but it also the the image of having you know dead skin that's not sloughing off and recycling itself, that is um, that's really powerful.

SPEAKER_01 38:19

Yeah. Well, and I think for for people who like to think and for people who are thinking people, uh the Episcopal Church in particular, but the Anglican communion in general is a big draw for us um for that very reason.

SPEAKER_02 38:33

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 38:34

Uh, because we like to have nuanced conversations, we like to have, you know, we like to evaluate things and not necessarily just in black and white terms, but look at the different shades of gray and maybe even some colors in there from time to time. I'm not gonna deny it. Um, but I think um that approach is distinct in some ways uh in amongst certainly amongst Orthodox Christianity. And this time I'm using lowercase O Orthodox, right? Not talking about the Eastern Orthodox Church, but just talking about the creedal, the creedal phase, the the phase that adhere to the Nicene, Athanasius, and Apostles' Creeds that uh affirm the seven ecumenical councils of the early church, where all the bishops were included and the the decisions that were the rulings that were made and the um the decisions that were made by those councils. Um I, you know, bra, I I call all I call all the churches that adhere to those basics, the basics of Christianity, Orthodox, right? Uh, because orthodox just means right belief, if I'm not mistaken.

SPEAKER_04 39:46

Yeah, well, I like what you're saying because really this framework of Anglican tradition with and the idea of the three-legged stool allows us to really embrace um, I don't know, intellectual openness and diversity within the bounds of our faith, and it encourages these theological conversations rather than just you know a rigid dogma. Um so well said.

SPEAKER_01 40:15

Yeah, and I think, you know, I like to think that um, you know, Thomas Aquinas, if he were alive today, would be an Anglican because I really think that, uh, of course, he didn't live in England, but you know what I mean. It's basically like that that intellectual strain is the strain that has really characterized, I would say, the the growth of people like Hooker, for example, or you know, um, you know, someone more recent like Ron Williams, um, which is the more recent Archbishop of Canterbury, um, and their theology is also a theologian. So yeah, I mean, I really think that, and each church has sort of a different foundation. Like the the church, the Roman, the Roman Catholic Church is based on they they have their own three-legged stool, but their three-legged stool is scripture, tradition, and the magisterium. The magisterium being like the bureaucracy of the church, literally. So, you know, if you're if you're good for like hierarchy and rules and order, and you want to basically submit yourself to that, that's a good church for you, I would say. If you're more like, no, I want to reason it out and figure out what I believe by listening to both sides and then coming to my own conclusion in my heart between me and God and you know the Bible, right? Then I think we're a really good choice for you, um, if not the best choice. And I think that um, you know, I think that there are different, there are different people and that that are at sort of at different stages of their faith journey and different stages of their personal development and all of those things. So I I actually can see that like the Episcopal Church may not be the place for everyone right now or everyone yet, although I do feel like all are welcome. I mean, that's that's kind of our our whole thing, right? It's like I think everyone, I think everyone would benefit from the Episcopal Church. I think everyone um would be welcome in the Episcopal Church. I think that it would be an enriching thing, an enriching place for anyone's life. And I could see how there would be people who, based on where they are in their life, may not be ready for it. And may never be ready for it, but hopefully they find God in some other way. Maybe that's a little theological liberalism on my side, a little bit of my Baha'i faith background coming up out of the woodwork. But I think uh, you know, from from that, my dad's side of the family. But yeah, I mean, I I'm someone who sort of, you know, can can appreciate religious pluralism. I do believe, that being said, I do believe that there are truths that are unique to Christianity that are um, you know, as Jesus says, I am the truth. That doesn't mean that there's not truth elsewhere, but the truth is in Jesus Christ. So if you want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, you'll come, you'll come to Jesus. And I think um we are in a process as a um as a church of constantly wrestling with that truth and not feeling that you know, not that God changes, right? Because God is eternal, unchanging, but that we are our knowledge of God is constantly growing, evolving, developing over time. And in the same way that in the Old Testament, the you know, the Israelites had a very particular view of God, that as that view changed over time, actually, even in the Old Testament, across the Old Testament, from as um you know, your dad has mentioned before, um, the idea that you know initially Yahweh was one God amongst many, then the conception was no, actually, he's the God over all the other gods, and then no, actually, he's the only God, right? And that that Was an evolution and really a way that we came to understand God better over time, I would say. And that process is still underway. It's still one of the things we, I believe, as Episcopalians hold is that that process is still underway. Like it's not over yet. We're still getting to know God better in new ways, in deeper ways than we uh frankly maybe did in the past. And that's that's part of it's interesting, right? Because uh I keep mentioning Baha'i, but um in the Baha'i faith there's this idea of progressive revelation, which is the idea that revelation never stops, right? The revelation of God never ends, the revelation of God found its fulfillment in our Episcopalian context in Jesus Christ, and yet our knowledge of Christ even grows and develops, of God in Christ develops over time, right? And you see that. I mean, I think our relationship to the love of Jesus and the the love of God in Jesus is probably at an all-time high. Like, I don't think that there's ever been a time in the history of the church where we were more present to and focused on God's love in the form of Jesus Christ. Now, there are things that we're neglecting. I'm not saying that that's you know the whole picture, but I'm saying that it is the great commandment, right? Love the Lord thy God for all thy heart and all thy soul and all thy mind. That is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. And upon these two commandments hang all the laws and the prophets. So, you know, I think that it is the lens through which Jesus wanted us to look at all of Scripture, you know, the laws and the prophets. And um, you know, there's some there's some legitimate claims that maybe we have um overextended that, or or we've done that at the neglect of other things. And I would say a lot of that comes down to, and we'll talk more about this, I'm sure, maybe in a different episode. A lot of that comes down to how one defines love. And the definition of love even has evolved over time and evolving, I would say. Yeah.

SPEAKER_04 47:03

Well said.

SPEAKER_01 47:04

But go ahead. I've talked a lot and not even let you talk about your own your own political political um sort of alignments.

SPEAKER_04 47:13

Okay. Well, um you know, I like what you said about identitarianism versus pluralism. Um and I don't know that I identify this. Kind of goes back to what you were saying about I'm cons theologically conservative, theologically liberal, you know. I don't know. I I feel like I'm independent, you know, I really, and politically and um and theologically. I think independent is the best word to describe that because it really is the heart of pluralism, right? Where you can take a piece from here and you can take a piece from there, and you can allow those things to coexist, like you said, and that's okay. One of the things that um so I'm an I would say I'm an independent. I'm an independent thinker. I tend to lean more towards a conservative um viewpoint, I I would say uh for in most things. I would like to rely on scripture. Um and one reason probably is because it's kind of almost a reaction to what we're seeing in popular culture right now, with things moving further and further to the left. I kind of like want to dig my heels in and just say, well, wait, is that really where we want to go? I mean, I can see some things, but C.S. Lewis talks about the most progressive man uh is the man who when he realizes he's on the wrong path, he turns back first. Because if you're on the wrong path and you know you're entrenching yourself in a progressive, um progressive path that and you can see where that's going, and you know eventually it's probably gonna be not where we want to end up, right? Yeah, and you're the and you turn back early, you get back on the right path. And so I want to, it's just sort of like, wait, are we on the right path? I just want to ask you.

SPEAKER_01 49:30

Well, and I think I think that there's another way to word that that might make it even more clear. Because I agree with that fundamentally, what you said about C.S. Lewis, and and I I love that quote. Um, you know, the sort of uh he who turns back first is the most progressive when they're on the wrong path. That's so great. Um and I think the way I conceptualize this is like, you know, we we think of politics as being like this line or the political issues as being like a line, but I really think of it as more of a circle. Because I my view is that if you are, you know, and and progress is probably like if if conservatism is over here and progress is over here, if you keep going, you know, a lot of times people who are progressives think, oh, I we just need to keep going. There's always something more to progress to. But the problem is that it's not like, oh, it's this arc of ascend that just keeps going forever and we can just keep progressing forever, on most issues.

SPEAKER_02 50:41

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 50:42

Um, I mean, there's probably some issues that are kind of like that, but I would say on most issues, if you keep going, you're gonna end up right back on the conservative side or even the reactionary side, which is like people who want to turn back. I think the obvious example of that, I can give a few examples. So I think about you know, abortion, which is like you're like sort of the topic that our society doesn't want to deal with. But I think it's reasonable, like if your view is like if you look at, you know, the reactionary view was like infanticide is okay, right? Like that if you look at the Roman Empire, it's like, oh, this kid is like born with some deformity, or like, oh, we had one too many girls this year, we're gonna just leave them out for the wolves to eat, right? Like that was that was the the old school idea, right? And then we developed this idea of the sanctity of human life, which frankly came from Christianity. And then, okay, now we're gonna say that we're not gonna do that anymore, and we're gonna take care of kids and we're gonna take care of all life, all human life is sacred, and we're gonna nourish it. And then you kind of move, oh, over time. Well, we know then when now we understand biology, and biology basically is like, well, but really, it's is it not a is it a person yet? There's no brain waves. Okay, maybe we can go ahead and do abortion, early abortion. But then as you move forward, it's like, well, but maybe if we if after brain waves, maybe we only want to do that if it's you know, it's a it's it's harming the the mother, it's you know, her her life is is in jeopardy. And then there are those who advocate, no, we should just be be able to do it all the way up until the moment of delivery. And then if you keep going with that, guess where you end up? With insane fanticide again, right? It's like you end up back in the Roman Empire where basically you can kill kill little babies if you don't like their face, right? Uh, or their gender or whatever, right? So um so that is the challenge with progress, is that progress is like finding that sweet spot where it's like, okay, now we have made enough progress such that we should probably stop here and become conservative on this issue. And that's what I find many of my progressive friends and colleagues struggle with. They're like, no, no, we got to keep going. I'm like, no, we don't. Because the nature of human nature and society is that if we try and we we get past this sort of breaking point, what ends up happening is oftentimes we go back. And we're in the middle of that right now. We're seeing it right now. We're seeing a lot of the progressive changes, uh, reforms, frankly, in my view, improvements that were made over the course of the 20th century now get walked back because a lot of my friends and colleagues decided we need to keep pushing, pushing, pushing beyond the point of reason. You know the number one place where they do gender reassignment surgeries in the world, the capital of gender reassignment surgery?

SPEAKER_04 53:53

Is it Minneapolis?

SPEAKER_01 53:55

No, it is Tehran, Iran, okay, which is a reactionary theocratic regime. You know why? Because being LGB is a crime in that country, right? So it's like if you're born lesbian, gay, bisexual, you now have to get a gender reassignment surgery so that you can fit into society according to their rigid gender stereotypes. I don't know about you, but I thought progress was not having render rigid gender stereotypes, so people didn't have to undergo medical therapies to fit into some rigid view of you know uh of someone's idea of what a human should be, right? Right. So again, this is like we want to be inclusive and accepting, but that if we if we say, okay, well, that can easily move into well, then you must do these procedures or you must have these um medical treatments, which then lead us to this reactionary, reactionary place, which is you know the official policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which I don't think anybody thinks, like, oh, that's where we want to go, but that is the end result of you keep you know moving that dial forward without saying, okay, no, we've reached a really good spot here where we have you know a high level of equality, it's never going to be 100%, but we've reached a good point here. Let's let's pause, you know. Yeah, and I think that's um it's a real challenge, you know, for my friends and colleagues on the left, and something that that we struggle with, um, that I struggle with sometimes is where where is that point? You know, because sometimes the arguments for oh, but let's do a little more, they sound really good, right? And so it's like, yeah, no, that sounds good. And then wait, what's the consequence? Right. And um, we're living through that right now. So it's um, yeah. Well, anyway, we'll talk more about that later, I'm sure. But right now, I wanted to just bump it back to you and say, Did you have anything else more you want to talk about yourself or your views?

SPEAKER_04 56:16

Or oh, myself, well, I don't know. So one of the things that you did say in there is that, and I want to kind of make sure we're defining terms, is that you were saying, like, once we get to a certain point, we want to be conservative. And you didn't mean that once we get to that certain point that we want to go back to like conservativism.

SPEAKER_01 56:39

You conserve where we conserve, like literally don't change, right? Which is the original meaning of conserve, because conservative is someone who wants no no change, right? And I I was very specific. I said, be conservative on that issue, right? Like that doesn't mean we now become conservatives. It means we now are like, we want to hold on to the you know feminist gains we made in the 20th century and not backslide to you know what some of these influencers on you know different social medias are saying we need to take away the vote for women, which is absurd and you know, like catastrophic that that's even an idea in anyone's head, in my mind. But it's like, but that's the kind of crap that, sorry, I mean, I'm sorry, I shouldn't be saying any scatological language, but that's the kind of things that can come from trying to push things too far. And I think that that is, and and instead of saying, no, we are here, we're gonna conserve this these gains and we're not gonna allow any entrenchment upon them, but we also realize when we've reached a point where it's like, okay, this is this is where we want to be as a society.

SPEAKER_04 57:51

Exactly.

SPEAKER_01 57:52

So um I just want to make sure that and if you disagree with me and think we need to take the vote away from women, feel free to say that.

SPEAKER_04 58:01

I am a woman and I don't think that I can understand where that ideology is coming from, because like you said, for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction, and that's something that I really wish both extremes would start to get through their thick skulls. Like you've got to calm down your reaction because there's gonna be an opposite reaction. So that is the devil, like that. That is literally what evil wants, that's where evil wants us. You know, that is is divided.

SPEAKER_01 58:45

Well, and not realizing that we need those getting back to the via media, right? Like not realizing that we need those people on the other side who disagree with us on this issue to be part of the body of Christ, so that we can, you know, together come closer to him. And that's really that's the intention ultimately of this podcast as well, is to together, not just you and me, but like all of our listeners and people as well, to um join us in in coming closer to to God through Jesus Christ. Yeah.

SPEAKER_04 59:24

So one thing I wanted to say, which might feel like a little bit of a tangent, but um, when we're talking about this three-legged stool idea, I had a conversation with an Episcopalian priest last year, and I asked him about the three-legged stool, and because he was kind of rambling about some theological stuff that wasn't making a lot of sense to me. And so I asked him about the the three-legged stool, and he was like, you know what? I really don't think that we that tradition is really that important. And I I was like, okay, Mr. Priest, I feel like so.

SPEAKER_01 1:00:03

He doesn't think the tradition of the three-legged stool, or that the tradition leg of the stool is that important, or both.

SPEAKER_04 1:00:10

He would like to just cut that off because in his view tradition.

SPEAKER_01 1:00:14

I see.

SPEAKER_04 1:00:15

In his view, the tradition is what is holding us back hold from being progressive, it's you know, causing harm, it's um causing, you know, so-called violence to people because we want to be rooted in some kind of tradition. And I think that is just hogwash. And uh I don't understand how we get uh clergy in the Episcopal Church who don't adhere to like basic principles of Anglican theology. I can understand people have disagreements, but that is a basic tenet of our Anglican you know, theology. And go to another denomination, you know. That if you're gonna think that. And that's that's the kind of thing where that sort of thinking.

SPEAKER_02 1:01:08

Well finish your thought.

SPEAKER_04 1:01:12

Well, that sort of thinking is exactly why we've had so many schisms in the Episcopal Church, right?

SPEAKER_01 1:01:19

I I get where you're coming from, but I'm gonna push back a little bit because I I wouldn't say go to a different denomination. I would say come, let's have a conversation so you can have your view corrected. Okay. Um, because I think that I agree with you that that view is fundamentally incompatible with not only to to deny the importance of tradition, in my view, is actually um to deny scripture because scripture itself is a manifestation of the church, right? So so, yes, it's a witness to God in Christ, yes, it is something that we've inherited, at least the Old Testament, from the Hebrew Bible. But the my point would be the actual books of the Bible officially that we have now was not like the official Bible, I think, until like the Council of Trent. Like I think that there were, I mean, there were certain, I forget his name. It was Saint There was a Saint who did list them all out, and I forget which one it was. It was one of the doctors, early doctors of the church. Um and it was the first time that all of the current books were listed together, right? Um, but that wasn't like the official doctrine of the church until centuries later that these were the only holy scriptures that you could go from. And so even the Bible, as we've inherited it, is a is a product of the tradition established in you know, by Jesus of the church. And so without tradition, you don't actually even have scripture, right? Or at least you may you don't have this scripture, you may have a different scripture, you know. Um, but um yeah, I'm I'm wondering if that was correct what I said about the Council of Trent. I know that it was late. I know that it was later than most people think. Most people think, oh, the Bible's always been the same, it's always just been, it's like, no, there were actually like five or six books that were close to being included that didn't quite make it. Um and um that's a whole other interesting conversation, which we can probably do a whole episode on.

SPEAKER_02 1:03:37

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 1:03:38

But um, yeah, I mean, I think that that is just I will say that that view lacks vision.

SPEAKER_02 1:03:49

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 1:03:50

Because then basically it becomes once you get rid of tradition, you get rid of scripture, and then now you're only on now you're only looking at reason. And the problem with reason is I do believe it's God given, but I do think that part of the problem with reason is that you can reason your way in and out of pretty much anything you want. That's part of the nature of human capacity, right? Like we have that ability. And so without the tradition in the scripture to anchor the reason and give the reason something to reflect back on and to, yeah, you don't have a foundation to, I mean, you can just come up with anything. I mean, literally, you can reason your way in and out of anything, and and that's how reason is designed. And so it's like, unless you have that sounding board of tradition and scripture to to to interplay with the reason, you know, you how do you have a church at that point? That's just that's an absurd statement to me.

SPEAKER_04 1:04:54

Yeah, it is absurd.

SPEAKER_01 1:04:56

And the other thing that I want to touch on here is this But that's why we need bishops, bishops who are willing to hold uh clergy like that accountable for their errant, uh their errant views.

SPEAKER_04 1:05:08

Right. Um, if only they would.

SPEAKER_01 1:05:12

So we have a but that's but that's frankly a probably a more theologically conservative idea that we're both that we both agree on, um, or maybe just an orthodox view, right? I guess like, and I would say that I identify with the sort of inclusive orthodoxy strain of Episcopalianism, and there's a lot of different strains of Episcopalianism, but the uh inclusive orthodox is uh I would say is one of the ones I agree the most with. And I would say that um you know, orthodoxy, which is sort of the idea that the faith that we have is the one that is inherited from the saints, that has come down through the centuries, that's a you know, 2,000-year-old plus, and as you have told me in the past, maybe even longer, right? Faith. Um, and really if we trace ourselves all the way back to Abraham, right, it it is longer, right? Uh, which we do. So yeah, I mean, I think that that is probably something we will have even more talks about. But I think that the the importance of orthodoxy in in a modern world gives us an anchor.

SPEAKER_04 1:06:30

And that's a beautiful segue into a point that I wanted to make about. Stewardship in the prayer book, we have a prayer from Ephesians, and it goes something like Glory to God whose power working in us can do infinitely more than we can ask or imagine. Glory to Him from generation to generation in the church and in Christ Jesus forever and ever. And what are we passing on? And I feel like this the 20th century and the early 21st century, we've gotten so self-absorbed in what we want to do and how we feel about things and what you know what's going on in our culture that we have forgotten that this is not our church, that this is a church for us to steward and hold on to for a while and pass on to the next generation. Let them screw it up. But it's not gonna get screwed up on my watch. You know, I'm not gonna go down that path of just deciding, oh heck, it's 2025. We need to do X, Y, and Z and just throw all the tradition in the garbage can. Um, I know.

SPEAKER_01 1:07:45

I'm so and that's so good what you point out, because it actually points out the other flaw in that in that priest's uh comment, which is that at the end of the day, if we're all if we're just relying on reason, at the end of the day, we all have our own reason, we have our own view of things, and so each one of us is our own church because we can't agree on anything necessarily. And so I guess what I would just say is, and you see that. I mean, to me, you know, um, and I think that Redeem Zoomer makes this point um really well, which is that in many ways, a lot of the churches that are today considered Protestant are not really Protestant in the sense of you know, that they are they can trace their lineage directly from the un you know, unbroken from the Catholic Church, from the from the uh from the original early church, which you know, the Anglicans, Episcopalians, you know, as being the American Anglicans, um, the the Methodists, the um Presbyterians, the Lutherans, you know, Dutch Reformed, I'm sure there's a few others, but those are the ones that really can. And so what I would say is that if you go, and that's why denominations are so important, because if you basically have nothing that you can agree upon, then and you've sort of given up on the creeds, you've given up on the ecumenical councils, you're you've given up on any kind of received wisdom from the early church, then you're basically just making up your own faith, you know, and and and at the end result, and this is the downfall of Protestantism, is the end result of it is that every person becomes their own church if you take it to its extreme. If, you know, it's like if if you if you accept voluntary schism, which is something I'm sure we'll talk a lot more about, but you know, another thing I like that Redeemed Doom Resumer does is make the distinction between voluntary and involuntary schism. Involuntary schism is like schism because they kicked me out, and therefore I have to start my own church, which I think is the only legitimate reason for ever starting your own church. Um and versus involuntary is like, I don't like you guys, I don't like what you believe about women, I don't like what you believe about LGBT, I don't like what you believe about, you know, abortion, whatever it is. Therefore, I'm out of here and I'm gonna go start my own church. That's voluntary schism, and that's to me never okay. Um, because the point is to stay in, be like Athanasius against the world, stay in, make your case, even if you're the last Orthodox Christian on the on the planet or in you know in in your church, make your case and die on that cross because that's what Jesus did, and that's what he calls us to do uh when he calls us to follow him.

SPEAKER_04 1:10:40

Amen. Well, that's a really great segue into the Anglican schism. Do you want to talk about that at all?

SPEAKER_01 1:10:46

Yeah, you know, I wanted to talk about, um, I don't know, let me see what time it is. Okay, I think we'll be okay. So I just I wanted to overview a few things. You know, one of the things that I believe is really distinguish uh distinctive about the Episcopal Church in general and Anglicanism in in particular, is the um the idea that we're a big tent, right? That we have all these different, we have an evangelical strain, we have an Anglo-Catholic strain, you know, we have uh high church, low church, which we'll get into what those mean, but basically it's like high church is more, you know, bells and incense. Low church is like, you know, basically a lot of times the priest will show up wearing a suit and uh a suit and tie, and you know, there'll be maybe a plain cross, but like not no icons, just very simple worship, right? Almost like a Methodist church, basically. Um, and we have all of that inside. I mean, that's one of the things that to me is so tragic about the Methodist Church and how that all went down, which we can have that history lesson another time. But um the um we have that ability, I mean, we have charismatics, which you know, now the charismatic denomination is the Pentecostals, but they're charismatic. There was a whole charismatic movement inside the Episcopal Church, and there's charismatic people inside the Episcopal Church who who believe in the gifts of the Spirit and that kind of thing. So it's um it's a big tent, which is able to incorporate and encompass you know pretty much any part of Christendom. And that's another thing that you know, why schism is so heartbreaking to me, because I'm like, you didn't have to leave. But um, I think that um that pluralism is to me what is is our greatest strength. And there's been, I you know, I have kind of like five episodes where we um honored that, and then five episodes where we betrayed it. So I'm gonna start with um the five episodes where we, and if at any point you want to comment on any of these, feel free to just interrupt me, okay? Um so the first of the episode where Anglicanism, just to give you some examples of what I mean, lived up to its pluralist ethos. The first one is the Elizabethan settlement. So we mentioned that earlier, but this is when Elizabeth I've acts of supremacy and uniformity restored the Church of England, but intentionally crafted that broad theological umbrella. You had a liturgy that was acceptable to both the moderate Protestants and moderate Catholics, with room for varying interpretations. And so, you know, this was designed to prevent sectarianism, you know, to prevent schism, really, and to keep as many as possible under one tent. And it really was the foundational moment of that Anglican breath. It's the DNA of our creedal orthodoxy, plus the general the generous pluralism ideal that characterized the rest of the church. Um, second example is from the 18th and 19th centuries, where we had uh you know developed a sense of toleration of the evangelical and Anglo-Catholic revivals, which both happened at the same time. So there was a lot of mutual suspicion, but both the Anglican, uh evangelical revivalist, which emphasized personal conversion, you know, accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior, biblical authority, as well as the Oxford movement, which at the time was emphasizing sacramental theology, Catholic continuity, which we've talked a lot about. Um, and you know, both of those were able to find a home within the Church of England at the time, and the broader Anglican Communion at the time. And that um, you know, that allowance of those radically different emphases without one side kicking the other side out, I think is a beautiful episode, a textbook case really, of living with that deep theological disagreement under one ecclesial structure. Um, the third example of Anglicans winning at being Anglican is uh Lambeth Conference 1920, which was the appeal to all Christian people. So what happened is bishops from all across the communion issued an invitation to all baptized Christians, regardless of denomination, to join in unity based on the creeds and the sacraments, not on uniformity of opinion on every little thing. And so this was an explicit affirmation by all the bishops of the Anglican communion that diversity of thought can coexist within Christian unity. God, I wish we could have some of that right now. And this is the one of the important because it was one of the most formal articulations of Anglicanism as as I think we both see it. Um, the fourth example would be Church of England and how it dealt with women's ordination from the 1990s to 2000s. So we alluded to this earlier, but when the Church of England ordained women to the priesthood in 1994 and later to the episcopate, the bishop, the bishopri in 2014, it allowed special arrangements for parishes and bishops who could not, in good conscience, accept women's orders. And they created what's called the two integrities model, which preserved space for dissenters, carved that space out, and you know, honestly, it was a rare model, uh modern model, of making a major doctrinal shift without purging opponents, without alienating, and instead really carving space out for them. And then, you know, the final example I have of Anglicanism embracing that, this pluralistic view uh was the 2016 primates meeting, which was really the last big attempt to coexist as a communion. And, you know, what happened is the Episcopal Church in the United States decided to permit same-sex marriage rights, which, you know, in a lot of uh of Anglican provinces is just it's a totally wild thing to them because, you know, homosexuality is is illegal in many of the African countries where we have a lot of Anglicans. And, you know, there's even certain offenses related to homosexuality where they're punishable by death. So it's like, I think homosexual rape is considered punishable by death in, I want to say Uganda or Nigeria or maybe both. So it's they call it aggressive homosexuality. But it's it's really the opposite of here. If you can, if you can imagine anything more opposite on that issue, I can't. But uh so it was very confronting. And what happened is after the Episcopal Church decided to permit same-sex marriage, the primates, which again are the national heads of all of the Anglican provinces all over the world, imposed a limited sort of relational consequences, but didn't kick us out. They didn't say, oh, well, that's it, Episcopal Church, you're out of here. They emphasized dialogue over schism. Tensions obviously remained, but that choice to remain in the communion showed that preference for holding together, over enforcing uniformity, you know, not a perfect outcome, but still evidence of this keep talking rather than cast out instinct, which I think characterizes the best of Anglicanism. Anything on those before I move on to the examples of where we we haven't been so good?

SPEAKER_04 1:18:34

Yeah, I think those are five really great examples and um just understanding that there's a long history of a pluralistic ideal in the Anglican communion, which is able to hold space for different ideologies. Um it's really it's a beautiful thing. And is it our place? The question then becomes is it our place to do away with that ability? I don't think so. I want to conserve, like you said, I want to conserve where we are with this this pluralism. So go ahead and let's see what what are your five examples of uh where we haven't done that?

SPEAKER_01 1:19:28

Right. So five episodes where Anglicanism betrayed the pluralist ethos. Um the first one was the Puritan expulsions. So in 1662, there was the act of uniformity, and around 2,000 Puritan ministers were forced out of the Church of England for refusing to conform to the 1662 prayer book and episcopal polity. Um, so this was like the definitive rejection of Puritanism from the national church, and the effect was it was very exclusivist. So it was like, well, if you don't accept the authority of the bishop and you don't and and you want to, you know, kind of have this puritanical ideal, then you're no longer welcome here. And so this is a direct contradiction of that broad church ideal. And um, I think that you know, that led to a lot of the Puritans, as we know from our own history, first going to Holland and then actually coming to the United States, founding the Plymouth colony in Massachusetts, and really like Massachusetts and Maine and some of the surrounding areas were dominated by Puritans, and then they became in many ways the seed for the American Revolution. So it's a big question of like, if we'd never had the Puritan expulsions, might we all still be part of one big, you know, British Empire? I don't know. You know, like it's kind of fascinating to think about, right? If if if we had learned to coexist with each other in a more pluralistic way, you know, I I think it it could have led to greater unity on a global scale. Um second example, prosecution of Anglo-Catholics under the Public Worship Regulation Act, which was in 1874. So what happened then is you had um, and this was kind of um the some of the um pushback against the Oxford movement, but the high church clergy were actually prosecuted, fined, even jailed for using ritual practices that were deemed too Roman. So rather than tolerating liturgical diversity, Parliament and certain bishops enforced conformity to low church norms, which frankly was a dark moment for Anglican pluralism as someone who loves Anglican Catholic uh rituals and practice. Um the third example were colonial era exclusion, so 17th to 19th centuries and some of the colonies, um, Anglicans enforced little literal legal penalties on dissenters. So um Quakers, Baptists, Catholics, um, and treated Anglicanism as the only legitimate church. So that's not just in the United States, but literally in like other parts of the British Empire, you know, there were legal penalties on people who were dissenters, uh, which made the United States kind of distinct in that way. Um, so obviously this is a betrayal of the Anglican pluralistic ideal. Uh, it was an example of exclusivism toward not only other Christians, but toward internal theological descent. And it's a definite departure from my, you know, the Anglican pluralistic ideal. So the fourth example, which is one that you and I are very familiar with, uh, was the property litigation and discipline that occurred in the Episcopal Church from 2007 to 2015, which led to the formation of the um the ACNA group. So this was after disputes over same-sex ordination and marriage. The Episcopal Church pursued uh legal action, obviously, to retain property and discipline bishops who resisted national policies. A lot of which I think happened though um because of that this schismatic push to go and form, you know, what they called a continuing Anglican, but what we would say would be is was a fundamentally break-off or schismatic group. Um, but at the same time, I think from their perspective, they probably felt, oh, we're being too theologically liberal, too exclusivist, trying to enforce our position, drive out dissenters. And I think if we'd approached it from more of that two integrities model, which they like they did in England, I think very likely we we could have prevented that schism. And we could probably have a whole episode just talking about that. Um we should. Yeah. Yeah. And then the final one, um, did you have anything else you want to say about that before I move on? Okay. I'm sure you have a lot to say about it, but not right now. Um, and the final one is the GAFCON driven breaks in communion, which really is 2008 to the present. So, you know, this is where conservative provinces, mostly in the, you know, well, all in the global south, mostly in Africa, have declared impaired or broken communion with the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, um, and now possibly even with the Anglican, the Church of England over sexuality issues, sponsored breakaway. They've sponsored these breakaway jurisdictions like ACNA. Um, for those who don't know, ACNA is the so-called Anglican Church in North America, which is basically like the group of, you know, roughly 10% of the most um, I would say, furthest to the right group of on a political level, predominantly on a political, although they were also mostly theologically conservative folks as well. Although I might push back on that and say there's probably more theological liberalism in ACNA than they realize. Um, but they definitely are very politically right wing, said, well, we're not willing to accept being in the same communion with um, you know, either LGBT uh clergy or um clergy that um female bless same-sex unions or yeah, female, some some of them are even opposed to women uh in the um women's orders. And so they basically said, well, although they they actually do allow women's orders, I think, in at least one of their dioceses. So um anyway, even that is mixed. I mean, at this point, I think it's something like 97 point something percent of Anglican uh provinces allow at least the ordination of uh female deacons, and I think it's like 80 something percent allow female priests, and it's over 50 percent now uh ordain female bishops. Of course, it depends on how you define 50. I would say 50 if we were to count all of the provinces and then say this many versus this many. But of course, what the Church of Nigeria is going to say is we have a lot more Anglicans, so really it's not 50%, because it's a huge church. Um, and and I'll give them that point. Um so from the conservative side, you know, this this replaced the staying in dialogue, which has kind of always been our Anglican um cornerstone, to separate and set up rival structures. And it totally abandons that idea of pluralism within one communion, which is really how Anglicanism has has always, at least officially presented itself, as this church where we get creedal orthodoxy plus generous diversity equals unity. And you know, and what you can see over the course of all the examples I've given is that there throughout history, there have been parties on both sides who have enforced exclusivism over contested issues, which then contradicts that ethos. And I think what I would point out, uh just as a final point, is that the betrayals of that pluralistic vision stand out precisely because they're seen as betrayals. So, you know, my argument is that pluralism is really the normative Anglican ethos, even if we don't always practice it, even if we deviate from it from time to time. And it really is like it's a call to us, and we are called upon as uh you know, Episcopalians in particular, but Anglicans in general, to practice that pluralism in our interactions with not just each other, you know, like you and I do, right? Like on a personal level, but also on uh you know a parish level and also on a diocesan level and on a national level. level and on an international level. And I think when we lose sight of that, we do so at our own detriment and to our own peril.

SPEAKER_04 1:28:42

Well said Micro. I mean Which brings us to what you mentioned about GAFCON and the impending Anglican schism globally. I don't have much to say about it as other than I don't have much um tolerance for those people who want to who who want to break away.

SPEAKER_01 1:29:16

Yeah, it's like I want to be tolerant of everybody as long as they're also tolerant, right? It's it's and and that's the tricky part, right? Is like tolerance of intoler tolerance of intolerance. And I think that um I think the way we deal with that is through that two integrity framework. Is that idea of like hey we don't love the fact that you're being intolerant right now, but we get it. Right. You know, because there's times maybe that we've been intolerant as well or in the past. Yeah. Um and so we don't want you to leave and so because we don't want you to leave over this we want to give it time to like work itself out. And so you know we're willing to like have your way be true and have our way be true and still stay under the same roof. Yeah. And have your way be protected and have our way be protected and still stay under the same roof. And that's how really by the way we stay together as a country right. I mean just on a purely like secular political level like the only way we last as a republic is if we can learn to do this as a society, which is why you know I think we have to be I don't know it's I I guess I would just say and and again this may be speaking to my biases but I think we have to learn to be tolerant I'm always reminded of the Illinois Nazis right from from uh that whole like um protest that was I forget when it was maybe the 60s or something there were those group of neo-Nazis that wanted to protest and the um the uh what is the organization the god I'm having a total blank right now the organization that is the American Civil Liberties Union, sorry, the ACLU um what went out and like went to court to protect those Nazis' right to protest right even though they really didn't agree with Nazi ideology at all but the idea is like even those Nazis are super intolerant intolerant they should be able to have their data protest just like anybody else and that to me is fundamental to the American not just the American um experiment but also to pluralism in general frankly and and that Anglican identity it's like hey you know yeah there were people at the last Lambeth who uh were you know visibly and vocally advocating for you know same-sex um marriage throughout the communion and there were people at the last Lambeth conference who refused to take communion with the other bishops because some of the other bishops were LGBT and my comment would be all are welcome right you know and and well and and I I think without that radical inclusivity you know we are going to lose a valuable part of the body of Christ.

SPEAKER_04 1:32:40

Exactly and what what what's gonna happen is that and what has happened in the Episcopal church and now what's going to happen in the Anglican communion is that the people who feel more conservative are gonna leave and then that's just gonna ramp up the acceleration for the for the entire communion to become more liberal which is what they disagree with the con and right I love this idea that you know conservatives always end up leaving because essentially they've failed to conserve anything right well but I think part of the problem is they're not willing to play the long game.

SPEAKER_01 1:33:20

And I think that you know one of the things that I love about Athanasius is he's got such a great example. I mean how many times he's like exiled four or five times he just kept coming back like you know it's at one point he was put under house arrest but the man never gave up and now you know now we say uh Athanasius's creed because he was he he eventually won enough bishops over to his side that he changed the course of I mean we would probably all be Aryans today if he hadn't stuck his ground and stayed with the church and and said no I'm not leaving you guys are wrong and I'm gonna die trying to get you guys to see the truth. And if that's truly what they believe, that they believe that um you know that um God condemns homosexual relationships and if they believe that God doesn't you know support the idea that a full inclusion of LGBT people in the life of the church um then they should be willing to die on that hill you know and and they should be willing to stand for that and keep standing for it and standing for it until they're blue in the face and then keep standing for it some more because Christ doesn't ask us to to pick up his cross because it's comfortable or when it's easy or when we're in a safe environment where everybody agrees with us you know I mean how many people agreed with him when he was hanging up there right I mean Peter denied him three times. Yeah you know his chief apostle denied him three times in one evening so you know we're called as we are called to join cross join christ up on the cross which means sometimes we die you know for well yeah for our beliefs right just like Jesus did and sometimes we die um you know maybe being in the minority or you know whatever so I think that that is um one of the fundamental challenges I see and the other thing I would just want to point out here is like yes the 10% most right wing people left but still 40% of the Episcopal church is if I had to put numbers on it, I would say 40% of the Episcopal church is conservative, 40% are probably moderate, maybe moderate left and 20% are like radical left. And the thing is is that the people who get all the play on the news and on social media are all the radical left because they're the ones doing all the things which are frankly sometimes contradict Orthodox you know belief and practice right or ortho orthodoxy and orthopraxy. And I think that you know when that does happen and we could talk about examples of that maybe another time but when that does happen it is incumbent upon the descendants of the apostles the bishops to reign them in. And when they fail to do so then they're not really being Orthodox bishops are they so I think that there's I'm not so I on one hand while I align more with the left I'm not saying like a lot of I mean I have friends that are in that 20% who are like none of these grievances that the conservatives have any legitimacy. I'm not I wouldn't say that I absolutely think that the conservatives have some legitimate grievances. I think that you know the way things went down or have been going down really since 2007 have not been great. And I think there has been kind of a mentality of oh just let them leave right and I think you know that's I I'm I I don't like that I I mean to me I I think that that's not healthy or helpful because it's like oh I'll just cut off this arm you know like I don't need it anymore.

SPEAKER_04 1:37:20

And exactly and not only are they letting the conservatives leave without proper dialogue and you know maybe some pastoral care and all the things that you're talking about they are actively rooting out conservatives from the Episcopal church.

SPEAKER_01 1:37:41

And you're talking about on the national level on the yeah and the diocesan level yeah well that is again it's like it's like it's like the sour grapes you know well if you guys aren't going to play with us then screw you I'm gonna take my toys and go home right and and that to me is so uncharitable right it's so ungracious right and and ultimately like not and and I think to some degree it comes from fear right it's like well this 10% left so we're not we don't want any more to leave and instead like hey what about this 40% of our church that's still conservative and still here and still loyal Episcopalians which I'm like yay you know like I applaud them and the fact that we have probably four times as many you know conservatives in the Episcopal church than in in all of ACNA right and and that's something that I think a lot of the ACNA people do not want to deal with right and frankly as you point out a lot of the people in the Episcopal church do not want to deal with um so instead they're like ooh let's you know but let's low-key behind the scenes you know try to root people out which I think is absolutely the wrong move. I think it's time for a Mayakopa it's time to say you know what we should have done more to fight for the inclusion of all people including the conservatives who we vehemently disagree with and who disagree with us but we should have fought for their inclusion and keeping them as part of the conversation because only because together we are stronger you know because you know without that you know we've seen what happens you see that that circle you just keep going along that circle you're gonna end up back in a very reactionary place and I could give even more examples of that but I'm not going to uh because you know we'll be here all day but the point is that um yeah we absolutely as a communion have to remember and have to fight for each other have to fight for that unity have to fight for that pluralism and I think that there's too much of a willingness a permissive sort of like oh well if they want to leave I can't stop them there's nothing I can do. And we saw that with the Episcopal church in 2007 2008 and we saw it in and we're seeing it now in the Anglican Communion you know and frankly on one hand like I applaud Dame Sarah Malale's uh appointment. I really like her. I think she's gonna be great but I wonder if the timing was wrong right because we're in this such a precarious place. Like I wonder if the smarter move for the unity of the communion might have been like oh I don't know like maybe someone of color who could have spoken to those Southern you know African bishops like you know a mano and been like you guys aren't going anywhere. Right? Like you know like like I wonder if if which you know the Episcopal church it's interesting right because we had Michael Curry that we brought on board after Catherine Jeffrey Shorey and it was kind of like too little too late right I think in that regard. I think if we'd elected Michael Curry instead of Catherine Jeffard Shorey we might be looking at a totally different scenario right now. But I think the point is that and I apologize for those who aren't Episcopalian because I've just thrown out a lot of names and you don't like who the heck are these people? These are former presiding bishops of the Episcopal church in the United States. So they're like our head bishop here in the United States and each of them had a different role to play in sort of everything that's played out over the course of the last oh 15 years. And if anybody wants us to talk more about that we will I'm sure um did you did we create an email address yet for the yeah it's um the Episcopalian podcast at gmail the episcopalian podcast at gmail.com so if you have if you do have questions suggestions comments doubts concerns please email us theepiscopelianpodcast at gmail.com and we will promise to address them as long as they are polite.

SPEAKER_04 1:41:59

Yeah all right well that's probably a good place to end I mean we could keep talking about this forever but all right well said yeah I mean trying to think if there's anything else that I wanted to ask you I mean I guess my question to you is like what where do you see us going from here?

SPEAKER_01 1:42:29

Two questions number one and we can take them one at a time number one do you see any way back from the break you know given the things that have got have gone on in the last few few months like is there any way we we we pull this back and say hold on let's not schism quite yet and um my second question is more like where do you think we we go from here?

SPEAKER_04 1:42:58

I mean realistically speaking yeah I don't know my I mean frankly I don't know if I understand the Anglican you know governance well enough to really speak on the first question if there's a way to pull the Anglican communion back from the brink. Is there a way to pull the Episcopal church back together and bring those conservatives back in yes but that's going to require the existing conservatives in the Episcopal church to be more vocal to stand up and and and be willing to get bloodied and bruised in battle I mean what tends to happen is people just get worn out and they get tired and pretty soon you're an army of one and you're like wait a second where did all my my fellow soldiers go they're they've disappeared um because they just get tired so they go to another church or they you know whatever um so we really need to understand that we're not just doing this for an egotistical reason we're doing this to pass the church on from generation to generation but we need to understand too as a church that the Gen Z um youngsters that are coming up are the most conservative generation that has existed in over 50 years. And they are they we need to save this for them. We we need to bring them into via media and that is what's going to help them wrestle with the demons that they've had to wrestle with over the last five years as they've come of age and um because it's it's it's gospel I have a lot to say about the Episcopal church and its governance and what it's been doing to root out conservatives. And so because of that it's I I gotta tell you that it's not gonna come from our priests in the pulpit. It's not going to come from our clergy this bringing the conservatives back in you know why? Because they'll get defrocked or they'll get kicked out of the church. It's gonna have to come from people like you and me who have a a pretty wholesome understanding of our Anglican theology and we are going to have to be the ones to defend the church so that we can have something to pass on that's worthwhile of passing on.

SPEAKER_01 1:45:46

Right. Well and I think it's interesting because yeah there's two things that are brought up in what you've said first um it is incumbent upon in my view those who are more of the traditional liberal mindset to have to really have common cause with the conservatives for the purpose of unity not like we agree on a lot of the issues uh at least politically economically whatever else but I think that for purposes of maintaining that Anglican pluralism maintaining that Anglican unity we have to make because again 80% is more than 20% so if the traditional liberals moderates and the conservatives can kind of say well look we may not agree on everything and you know whether it be women's ordination whether it be same sex marriage whatever it is and yet we don't want to lose 10 20 whatever percent of our church our communion whatever for any reason yeah um and we are united in that mutual pluralistic vision and then just something specifically on that issue of Gen Z. Yes it's true that they are more conservative in the sense of maybe voting conservative or voting you know Republican in the United States maybe even on certain social cultural issues but I would say if you delve deep into the economic issues they tend to be a lot more like like me in terms of being more left-wing on economic issues and really looking to get that mutual support that is really fundamental to Christianity. In fact all those ideas didn't originate with Karl Marx they originated with Jesus Christ. So you know my fate one of my favorite sayings is I got my socialism not from Karl Marx but from Jesus Christ. And in fact the first communists were Christian. The early church was communistic every everybody shared their property in community. And that's something a lot of people don't know and I'm not a communist so I'm not advocating for that but I would just say that I would say that what you're describing as libertarianism is but anyway not socialism.

SPEAKER_04 1:48:12

But go ahead go ahead.

SPEAKER_01 1:48:14

We can have that conversation another time but I would just say that I think that um because that's an interesting one but I would say that you have this interesting emergence of like a young socially conservative economically liberal youth which I think is like I think the Episcopal church is a perfect place for those people because I think that it's very much aligned with our tradition and our history and the frankly the heart and soul of the church and I think that that's a that's a faith and an alignment which the historic Anglicans and historic episcopalians would see as being you know our our vision for I mean the fundamental what what you're talking about there is what's called Christian democracy or you know what's what's called a Christian democrat. We don't have a Christian Democrat party in this country but um some countries do I mean they do in Germany right the CDU is a Christian democratic union and these are parties where they're sort of more you know center left economically center right on social cultural issues and they do very well in many many countries that have a majority Christian population. We have sort of resisted creating one of those but I um you know I have a suspicion that part of what the Republican Party well not the Republican Party not the old establishment but some of the newer voices including um people like JD Vance and actually Charlie Kirk were interested in sort of pushing that vision of a more Christian Democratic party um onto the Republican Party which is interesting. And again I think it does mean that even if we are more progressive as a denomination on some of those social cultural issues that it's crucial for the future of our church to create space and carve out space for the those you know two integrities the dueling you know vision or view of those things so that we can allow time and people to work through some of these issues I think that there's been a real push in our church to go ahead and like, let's, you know, try to make as much progress as we can in the shortest time as possible. And I think that what history has shown us is that that actually makes the progress more fragile than if it's slow and gradual and mindful. You know, I think one of the reasons why Pope John Paul II wrote his sort of the Roman Catholic Church will never ordain women ever, and we can't, and the reason why is we can't, and here's why we can't. And now it's like, you know, been verified and approved and signed into law. And now to roll that back would be much harder, is because he saw what was going on in the Anglican church and was like, and how fast it was happening and how many changes were happening. He was like, whoa, we gotta, we gotta pump the brakes on this, you know. And I think that's sad because I think ultimately there's a tremendous enriching benefit that the uh ministry of women in women's orders brings to the church. And I think it's sad that the Romans, you know, in all likelihood will not have access to that for the, you know, certainly not the short or medium term, from what I can tell. And um, you know, I have a charitable place in my heart, a loving place in my heart for my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters. And I think that that's, you know, I mean, on one hand, you've got the retired bishop of uh in Mexico uh inviting a female Anglican priest to come celebrate the Eucharist. She came from Canada, actually, and uh came to celebrate the Eucharist there in Mexico. And, you know, I don't know whatever happened to him, but hopefully he's okay. And and a lot of people were like, yay, that's great. And wouldn't that be great if we could have that all the time? And there were a lot of people on the Catholic side that were like, this is horrible. I can't believe he would do this, you know. And I'm like, great, you know, have the debate. At least have the debate. Of course, you know, you if you're not, if reason is not one of your get to getting back to our three-legged stool, if if instead of reason you have the magisterium, then you sort of have to sit around twiddling your thumbs, waiting for the magisterium to decide it wants to make a slow, gradual incremental change. But on the other hand, you know, what we've seen is when we sort of let reason run the show, we can reason our way into just about anything. So there's got to be a balance between those. And I think that that's what we're trying to navigate, and you and I are trying to actively navigate, along with the rest of our Episcopalian brothers and sisters out there to really discern like what is the right balance between those things.

SPEAKER_04 1:53:20

And I don't have all the answers, and you know, yeah, I don't know if you do, but well, and I would say find the right balance for what? You know, for me, it's find the right balance so that we have a church to pass on from generation to generation, that we are only stewards here in this lifetime, and the amount of hubris and egotism that's involved in the wanting all of this progress at this cost of pathologizing an entire group of people is evil.

SPEAKER_01 1:54:06

Yeah, I mean, I think that that is yeah, that's so interesting. I mean, I I I want to say well said, actually, and I want to say that though what I would maybe say is that we have to have a balance, you know, and and to me the balance is not even I would start from where actually you said, but then I'd say I want us to play an even bigger game. It's not just maintain the church for the next generation, it's grow the church, spread the church, you know? And I used to not understand that. I used to be, you know, because I came from this background where, or again, I'll mention it again, my half of my family is Baha'i. I tended to be a little more religiously pluralistic and say, well, why can't we all just get along? Why do we need missionaries? Why do we need to grow Christianity? Can't we all just be accepting of each other? And I think we can do both, right? I think that through, I actually think our acceptance is one of our big calling cards. Because if you look at the way other faiths approach conversion, there's a lot more force involved and coercion involved, and you know, discipline and punishment involved if you don't, uh and consequences if you don't, then you know, where we're basically, and you and I talked about this recently face to face, but it's like, you know, we took this approach of like, hey, we're gonna come to an area, we're gonna bring our faith, we'll give you some free food, free lodging, some clothes, an education. And by the way, here's our faith too, if you're interested. And that's a much less coercive approach than frankly, uh, some of the other major world religions have taken. And I think that's one of our calling cards. It's one of the things that makes Christianity great. And I think that we really it's incumbent upon us to be proud of that and to be willing to stand for it and to continue to, you know, spread the church to the ends of the earth as we're able to in a peaceful, loving, kind, considerate, respectful way. You know, standing for what we believe in, not backing down, but also not trying to shove it down anybody's throat to the point where they feel, you know, pressured or manipulated or you know, forced.

SPEAKER_04 1:56:37

Exactly. Yeah. The gospel has to be embodied in action. And not just conceptualized, not just contextualized. The word is the context, and we we have to back that up with action. So I pr I appreciate that you said that.

SPEAKER_01 1:57:02

Yeah. Okay, great. Well, I think that is a good place to end it, unless you have anything else.

SPEAKER_04 1:57:08

I don't. I don't have anything else. I'd say let us go forth in the name of Christ.

SPEAKER_01 1:57:14

Thanks be to God.