We can expect, then, an African Anglican Church separated from the other Anglican churches, much as the Missouri Synod Lutherans in the United States hold themselves apart from the other international Lutheran Bodies.

Or ...

We can expect, then, an Gay/Lesbi/Bi Anglican Church separated from the other Anglican churches, much as the Missouri Synod Lutherans in the United States hold themselves apart from the other international Lutheran Bodies.

Perspective is everything.

Not much of a majority. The vote denotes the weakness of support, since it had the benefit of a secret ballot; yet failed to reach a commanding total. Look for feeble consequences.

At least the secret ballot has spared us from too much analysis of Anglican "polarisation"... or maybe not.

I would like to note that one of the proposers was from the UK. And plenty of other members of the Church of England, like me, would support it too !

Maybe we can have our church back now ?

Is it clear yet which side the ABC will come down on?

Charlotte,

Perhaps African-Asia-Middle Eastern-North American (Minor) Anglican Communion would more clearly describe it. In that sense, borrowing from your theme, the 50 to 60 million would hold themselves separated from the 15 to 20 million main part. Does that about capture the sense of it?

Blessings, Andy

I'm not familiar with the Lutheran situation you refer to. But it sounds a bit too simple for the Anglicans! ;)

Please can you enlarge upon how it is.

I have not heard the break-down of the voting yet (and we may not do so as it was by secret ballot), but please note that although Africans were the majority of the "supporters" of the motion, there were also names from South America, Asia and England.

I can see why the one line was stricken from the resolution. 1. It bought the conservatives more votes and 2. It was not necessary as, aside from the primates, there are no more meetings of official entities until 2008. So the effective suspension asked for at Newry is affirmed.

Hmmm. Surprisingly close vote, especially since ECUSA and Canada are presumably not voting here.

Clearly the resolution does not represent a consensus - or in fact even a majority if all
members were voting.

Rob

I think that Charlotte, rather than Bro. Q., has it more correct. All one has to do is take a look at the List of Attendees on the ACC site. It's easy to see where the 30 votes came from. Given the number of delegates that voted against the Global South from the Global North, I'd say that Akinola et al have a lot to be concerned about. They may have the "rice Christians" but the Americans and the Canadians have the Western Churches (including Australia and NZ) on their side. Yep, one thing the Global South has is plenty of poor people.

My hope is that this withdrawal will be followed by a real desire to engage with issues that arrive out of homosexuality. That to be under the authority of scripture is to interpret scripture is a concept we must come to understand as a communion. Our faith must rest solidly in Jesus Christ as understood through scripture, tradition and reason under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not a limited range of interpretations considered orthodox. If we do not come to grips with this countless schisms are just waiting in the sidelines as we can see among other churches of the protestant tradition, and among those anglican tradition bodies that have already departed. Talk about divisions!

Or...

At least we can expect a church, where the tail does not wag the dog.

Or...

We shall end up with a church, where the tail does not wag the dog...

I am greatly distress that BQ would define a church by the sexuality of a tiny portion of its members. How low...! We seem to have forgotten that Christ reached out to those on the margins of first century society-the outcasts.

It should be noted that the geographical analysis of the african signatories shows that it is not . not the totality of the african delegates . . None of the chuches of the south ern african part are represented in the list . It My hope is that these voices of africa will be heard too as they are heard in the African council of churches . we should pray for maintenoing the unity of the chorch as a fofdamental part of our belief in the " CATHOLIC AOISTOLIC " church JB

This is good news for our church. I think this will give the ECUSA something to think about. After all they were the ones who walked away from the teaching of our faith.

Although the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod does not participate in the Lutheran World Federation, it does participate in an organisation called the International Lutheran Council. This is an association of like-minded confessional churches from around the world, including also the Lutheran Church - Canada, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of England, the Independent Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Germany, and various others from around the world. Basically, an international network of conservative Lutheran churches exists parallel to the more liberal network of the Lutheran World Federation. Perhaps a similar system is developing in the Anglican world.

And now we see, by two votes, why it was insanely stupid to voluntarily withdraw six of ours.

This may look like a narrow margin, but remeber how disproportionate the ACC system works (i.e. ECUSA 2 million members holds the same weight as 17 million Nigerians!). An even more important resolution, in favour of orthodoxy, was passed before this "single issue"; that the Anglican Primates will be included in the ACC. Finally we are getting closer to an Anglicanism that can claim a true Catholic and Apostolic identity.

Perhaps I was moved by the Spirit, and acted in a rush (like the American nomenclatura), so you have to forgive me for being back so soon! But, dear Charlotte, please do not be so arrogant towards our fellow sisters and brothers "third world" Christians! They are much closer to The Apostels, The Fathers, The Ecumenical Councils and The Martyrs then the "ECUSA Revisionists" ever will get!!
Pax!

My remark was made after considering the list of sponsors and the vote tally. They confirm what has been emerging since the Primates' Meeting: the older and longer-established Anglican churches do not support +Akinola's call for the expulsion of the North American churches, while most of the African churches do, South Africa being an exception. Thus, should +Akinola be insistent on expulsion, the Communion will likely divide along geographic lines. The African churches will be in one group, with perhaps a few others; the older and long-established churches will be in another.

I was not making conjectures about the majority sexual orientation in any of the churches. I think we should stay on the issues, though remarks such as the preceding are helpful in defining what the issues are.

What is clear is that Peter Akinola is now running the Anglican Communion, transforming a collegial body into a body that decides doctrinal issues through secret ballots. The ABC has lost control and one wonders how the Church of England will respond to Akinola's disciplining rod.

Brother Quotidian (or whoever you are) Such a comment smacks of a sort of "sexual racism" that has been entirely characteristic of the neo-conservatives within the Anglican Communion. The LCMS choose to separate themselves to protect their purity in much the same way as the GS Primates are threatening to do. It's patently absurd to compare ECUSA, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Scotish Episcopal Church etc. with LCMS, since the desire for divisive purity comes from eslewhere.

Seems to me that if anyone is "walking apart", then everyone is "walking apart". Although extra credit to those who incessantly hurl the phrase "walking apart" at those who, ironically, seek greater inclusion.

As an American Episcopalian, I think it is time that the Episcopal Church simply withdraw from the Anglican Communion, and take all US funding away from other Anglican entities. Sink or swim time.

This resolution looks like a complete nullity. The EC and ACCanada have already voluntarially withdrawn and the ACC agrees.

I wonder about the abstentions. They held the margin between pass and defeat.

The Anglican Communion is sounding less and less like a venue in which the Holy Spirit has a chance to be heard. Hardened hearts leave little room in case God wants to say something to them that they are not expecting to hear. They came to this meeting with minds made up in advance, ears and hearts closed to any further inspiration. So few people "listen" in prayer, I doubt that anyone will begin "listening" to the Spirit -- let alone to each other -- any time soon.

...And the Gold Medal for Rich World Arrogance goes to - Kurt Hill!!

This whole thing has been and is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Neither side will budge (and cannot budge given their presuppositions). Thus, the final result--which will ultimately involve schism and pain--is inevitable and unavoidable. The main question now is how long it will take for the whole inexorable process to work its way out--and, who will have what when the dust finally settles.

"Brother Quotidian (or whoever you are) Such a comment smacks of a sort of "sexual racism" that has been entirely characteristic of the neo-conservatives within the Anglican Communion."

Rot. Quite apart from your completely misleading use of the term neo-con, BQ was simply making the point that from one perspective it is the conservatives who are choosing to separate themselves and from the other it is the revisionists who are doing so. The analogy with the Lutherans is wholly disingenuous in any case since they are a global federation as opposed to a communion. To withold oneself from a federation is pretty silly (since you're not in communion in any case); to break communion is an act of discipline. Moan about divisive purity if you like but it's in the new testament.

Furthermore your comment rather makes the assumption that everyone in the Canadian, Scottish, English and US Anglican churches supports revision. This is hardly the case.

Jimmy, plentry of us would want to come with you rather than be dominated by Gauleiter Akinola and his chums.

All this does is ensure two further years of angst and argument. No-one is going to change their mind. A split is needed, and soon.

Dear Kurt: Wow. You say: "Akinola et al ... may have the 'rice Christians' but the Americans and the Canadians have the Western Churches (including Australia and NZ) on their side. Yep, one thing the Global South has is plenty of poor people." Are you serious? You're calling the Africans "rice Christians" (when in fact many of them risk their lives to follow Jesus), and you dismiss the "plenty of poor people"? I hope there's some irony at play here to which I am deaf. --David

Kurt, Charlotte, John, Jimmy etc. seems to be to "western narrowminded" to grasp that the ACC still has a colonial representation. If the ACC members would truly represent the faithful this resolution would have been taken by a majority of, at least, 7 to 3!.' It is, again, a joke that some 3-4 million North Americans has (had) twice as many votes on the ACC as 17 million Nigerians! Also, with Charlotte's emphasy for historical establishments, perhaps it would have been better if the American Colonies had stayed British and this mess might never have happened in the first place?!

I'd describe that as quite charitable. I view most African Christianity as cult-like delusion of the worst order, leading to murder of children and abuse of women. It reflects, very much, fundamentalist Islam in the same region. As for risking their lives - they make the choice to partake in what is religious warfare of two extreme, fundamentalist religions who frequently murder one another.

I'd be quite happy to be part of a church without premodern , pre-enlightenment primitivism.

Would it be racist or neo-colonialist (I hope not!) to wonder out loud whether branches of the Anglican Communion that have beein living their faith for centuries, even millennia, may have lived more fully into that Anglican faith than those whose conversion is recent?

Neil: The official websites of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America can do a much better job than I of explaining who they are and what they believe.

I'd add that is not unusual in the United States to have separate churches of this kind, one "liberal" and one "conservative." For example, the Presbyterian Church USA is a separate group from the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. The ARP was formed from a union of two Presbyterian groups. One was a Southern group that split from the main body just before the US Civil War, when the larger Presbyterian church condemned slavery. The second group formed somewhat later, when it rejected the theological "modernism" of the main Presbyterian body. The ARP continues strong in the Southern US.

There are likewise Southern Baptists and American Baptists; more examples than these could be given. The Episcopal Church was able to avoid a split over slavery at the time of the US Civil War, but we may not be able to avoid one now.

Boy the sparks are flying! I for one am glad the way the votes came out. If the ECUSA doesn't accept the AC theology then they will not be part of the AC. Their are many in the US that agree with the AC and we will continue to be family. I pray for the archbishop of canterbury and archbisop peter akinola. I hope they consider ex-homosexuals in the study also. If not you are only looking at 1/2 the story.

I agree with Merseymike completely here. I admit I'm biased toward the West. I believe the churches of the Global South should do as they please, but they should not expect those of us who live in more progressive, educated, and enlightened parts of the world to cater to their backwardness simply because they outnumber us. I left the Baptist church in which I was reared to become an Episcopalian 40 years ago, partly to escape the kind of thinking I'm finding in the Anglican Communion now courtesy of fundamentalism.

If that also includes all the members of other provinces who don'tagree with Akinola et al, then there will be a major split.

Until today I thought otherwise, but I am now convinced there is nothing anyone could have done to have prevented a split between the Old Anglicans (including ECUSA and Canada) and a majority of the African Churches. It was bound to happen, whatever we did. So let me wish the African Churches well. I cannot believe what they believe, and they will not continue in communion with me unless I do; now let us shake hands and part at last. No doubt a scattering of congregations in North America and elsewhere will want to go with them.

What is this fixation liberals have for Nazi references when discussing those who differ? I am referring specifically to Merseymikes "Gauleitner Akinola." CAN IT! It is racist! biggoted! and hugely offensive!

Somebody help me with the numbers. The ACC membership counts at 78 (see previous entry "ACC votes to add Primates to membership") (and this is before today's vote to add the 37 Primates as ex officio members).

Today's vote was 30 to 28, with 4 abstaining. Okay, that's 62 voting. Who are the other 16? Are ECUSA and Canadian Anglicans counted in the 78, or is that a different number? I'm pretty confused. This is beginning to look like the American presidential election of 2000. 30 of 78 vote to make ECUSA and Canadian Anglicans "untouchables", and they prevail. Quite a mandate.

RE: Recent ACC vote on Episcopal Church and the Canadian Anglican Church.

I am thankful that by this vote ACC has to-day 6/22/05 told the Ecusa and Canadian Anglican Church that they do not belong and that the representations they presented did not receive acceptance vis-a-vis the accepted position of the Anglican Communion.
Rejected lovers always find it difficult to go away and look elsewhere or detach from the former associate.
O.K, stay there and continue forcing yourself on those whose mind have left you.About your "mission" and your "overflowing dollar",those needy faithful Anglicans in Global South have told you they prefer to die hungry than be 'defiled' by 'contaminated funds' from misguided brethren. May our Jesus give you repentenance--you see, you have so much to offer in pursuant of our Lord's " Great Commission"if you but can repent .
Rev Emmanuel Nduka

Dear Antony: Certainly no one is denying that the African churches carried the resolution today, nor that they have many millions of members. But what is the relevance of all this now? Yesterday the African Churches told us, the churches of North America, that we are no longer members of your group of churches. And so we are not. "You have said it." You are free of us, and we are free of you. Peace be with you on your path, which will now be separate from ours.

"Some natural tears they dropped, but wiped them soon;/ The world was all before them, where to choose,/ Their place of rest, and Providence their guide."

Dear John Wall: You said, "What is clear is that Peter Akinola is ... transforming a collegial body into a body that decides doctrinal issues through secret ballots." With respect, no. The doctrinal issues (like they keep on saying) were decided at Lambeth 1998--very publicly. The Windsor report acknowledged it; the ABC has noted it; the Primates reaffirmed it; and now the ACC has repeated it. The US and Canada may not like it, but the doctrinal issues have been decided. --David

It is pathetically ignorant to refer to African Christians as "Rice Christians". Rice requires irrigation, which requires both large, consistent supplies of water and large plots of land devoted to a single crop. African staples are corn and root crops, and in some places other grains. As a rule, in Africa, it is so expensive to grow rice that it is a luxury item only rich people can afford.

Furthermore, rice is NOT the staple in the Americas, the Middle East ... or really anywhere except parts of Asia. Even in India, rice is only the staple in confined regions which make up a relatively small portion of the country.

If you know so little about the rest of the world that you don't even have a clue what people there rely on to survive, I suggest that you "voluntarily withdraw" yourself from active conversator status, and either admit that you don't give a damn about the people you are talking about or find a way to embrace your temporary status as "observer" until you have learned enough to know what you would do if you did give a damn ... and even then you should probably wait until you really do start caring about others to insist that they care about you.

What did Jesus say about the poor?!!!! What did Jesus say about the rich?!!!! He called one group blessed and explained that it was almost impossible for the other to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. But what the hell did Jesus know anyway? The bastard literally thought he was God. Who let this vagrant into the country club? It would probably be best to throw him out and not give him any food stamps either ... the bum needs to develop a work ethic and an intellectual life if he wants to speak to us ... and fat chance that will ever happen, since he has been dead for 2,000 years, if he ever really existed at all. Can we not admit that we are in the 21st century already? Why do so many people have to be so frustratingly backwards? If only we could all be Americans, or at least extremely similar to them, utopia would be within our grasp.

Scott, your unbridled description and comments about Jesus takes my breath away.

Whenever one hears big generalisations about a big entity like 'African Anglicanism' or 'African Christianity', one checks out whether or not these generalisations correspond to media stereotypes. If they do, then one has found the source of the generalisations: 2nd hand chitchat rather than first hand knowledge.

...Someone has kindly suggested that Scott was being ironical. I've been so caught up with events that this was lost on me! Apologies, Scott!

Scott, are you really hoping for the Americanisation of the world? The Macdonaldisation? The death of local craft, culture and small businesses? A 50% divorce rate? A massive crime rate? A culture of decadence? A worrying level of solipsism? This is progress?

Or else your sarcasm was so breathtaking that it fooled me!!

I find myself agreeing whole-heartedly with Jimmy, MM, and Charlotte. We need to leave the AC. It is no longer the gentle, intellectual, tolerant Anglican Church of the past - but rather a bunch of (as we'd say here in Texas) hard-shell, Southern Baptists in fancy vestments. The face of the AC is now +Akinola, not ++Williams.

Think of all the good that, say, Episcopal Relief and Development could do in the world with the bucket loads of money ECUSA currently sends to the AC.

On another note, I see that Thinking Anglicans is once again the target of a storm of comment spam from "conservatives." The respite we had from this trolling was nice for awhile, but all too short-lived...

If one should follow Charlottes "logic" ( i.e. regarding "old" and "young" Anglicans) it would mean that St Peter and St. Paul would be less Christian then, er....Charlotte! Is this just plain stupidity or what!?

Simeon,
what is the differens between "+" Akinola and "++" Williams, are we leaving the "first among equals" idea or what??

Back again, and now with a report from ECUSA's News Service. Believe it or not, but they do NOT even MENTION the resolution (some 30 hrs after it was taken)!! Is this representative of an open, inclusive and embracing organisation or have they all learnt from some former Pravda editors? Westminster's and Washington's Spin Doctors are not even close to this!

The comment by the Rev. Mr. Nduka speaks for itself. These are the folks who actually want this split to occur. They want everybody gone who does not agree with them. What arrogance. Besides, they are really busy shooting themselves in the foot.

I must correct myself, ECUSA do mention the resolution, but "buried" under a different headline. This is what I mean by being "brilliant" in the art of Spin.

Simeon, I admit to being new here, so perhaps I am incorrect--I thought this was an open board, is it only for liberals? Your comments seem to classify anyone else commenting here as spammers and trolls.

Gimme a break, Scott! I was speaking in metaphor! "Rice Christian" in this sense is someone who is a nominal "Christian" for reasons other than theological or personal conviction. It was a term that originated in China, where large numbers of "Christian converts" were to be seen in order to gain access to the missionary dole.

In a region characterized by chronic instability, civil war, government criminal mismanagement, etc. large numbers of "Christian converts" is understandable. It has little or nothing to do with the theology preached by Akinola, et. al. It has everything to do with trying to operate in chaos, and bring some measure of stability and social support to one's family.

C'mon, Scott, get real.

"On another note, I see that Thinking Anglicans is once again the target of a storm of comment spam from "conservatives." The respite we had from this trolling was nice for awhile, but all too short-lived..."

Spam, presumably, being what you disagree with!

I was informed that this discussion board was for everybody, but from your comments it is only for liberals. So much for being inclusive - it's just a chat column for people with a chip on their shoulder, is it?

Steve,

No, it's not my place to decide who's "welcome" here. That belongs solely to the maintainers of this site.

What I was commenting on relates to the "charter" of this site, which was laid out in a very, early posting here:

"Thinking Anglicans will actively report news, events and documents that affect church people, and will comment on them from a liberal Christian perspective."

It's a liberal Christian site, according to the proprietors :) So when masses of neo-orthodox posters feel free to flood the site with comments from a "conservative" perspective, it certainly meets the definition of *trolling in my book. It'd be the same if a bunch of us awful "liberals" did the same over at Kendall Harmon's site, just to try and shout down his fans with sheer volume, or to make them angry on purpose.

*Note: "trolling" has a specific definition in the online world. It doesn't mean I think folks are evil gnomes who hide under bridges to waylay unsuspecting billygoats ;) See the following for details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Kurt wrote: "It has little or nothing to do with the theology preached by Akinola, et. al. It has everything to do with trying to operate in chaos, and bring some measure of stability and social support to one's family......Get real"

Get real?
You must be in a parallel universe Kurt. If you think you can speak "in metaphor" like that without causing offence, you must be.

And what you now say is not reality either - it sounds to me just like plain cynicism and unbelief which denies the power of God to save through the gospel.

"DGus" commented above:

"The doctrinal issues (like they keep on saying) were decided at Lambeth 1998--very publicly. The Windsor report acknowledged it; the ABC has noted it; the Primates reaffirmed it; and now the ACC has repeated it. The US and Canada may not like it, but the doctrinal issues have been decided."

It's quite true that a decision was reached at Lambeth in 1998 by the bishops meeting there, though it's possible, given the history of the Anglican Communion and the Lambeth meetings, to debate in what regard any Lambeth statement is binding on the members. What is misleading, I think, is the implication that the decision is once for all and not subject to reexamination or reappraisal.

Historically, there's often been good reason to reopen doctrinal decisions and look at them again. Usually this happens for one of two reasons. The first is a need by the church to reexamine and even restate a theological principal in response to changing understanding. For example, the thirteenth-century theologians, armed with new ways of understanding and talking about human nature, reopened the discussion of how a human being and the second Person of the Trinity are united in the person of Jesus. It wasn't because anyone was intending to call the hypostatic union into question but because they needed to refine the explanation in their own terms.

The second is more threatening to many people, and comes when a doctrinal issue is reopened because of pastoral pressures that suggest that an earlier decision is wrong. I think that is what is happening now with same-sex unions, and what has already happened with remarriage of divorced persons and the ordination of women in the many parts of the Anglican Communion. That's why I think the listening process is important, because I think the reexamination of this issue is almost completely driven by legitimate pastoral concerns and that these will not become clear to the wider church without that process.

I don't expect everyone in the Anglican Communion to agree, but I still pray that we can agree to disagree on this. If not, I prefer to stand with the Anglican Chuch of Canada even if it is no longer in communion with other Anglican churches, because I do think we are in the midst of a process that is taking us in the right direction.

Janice wrote:
"Spam, presumably, being what you disagree with!"

Which brings up an important point. I've used the phrase "comment spam" incorrectly. While it captures the idea of an excess of disagreeable comments, it's not really "spam" as the comments weren't off-topic attempts at linking to sites for commercial benefit (e.g. cheap mortgages, Viagra, etc...).

Having searched further, I find there's no current term for what I was trying to convey. What I was after was something meaning comments of an excessive and/or incoherent talkativeness in a quarrelsome, bad-tempered manner.

For example, if several of us "Liberal" types all posted multiple, "troll" like comments on Kendall Harmon's blog in order to drown out his regular, conservative visitors. Something which would be both bad-mannered and, ultimately, ineffectual.

Simeon,

Thanks for the clarification vis-a-vis the board's liberal slant and purpose. I noticed the slant, but didn't realize that was the board's official position and purpose. (I initally followed a link from Anglicans Online and visit often because of the up-to-date news coverage).

In any case, I still think your terminology to be unnecessarily harsh (and yes, I do know the meaning of the terms "troll" and "spam" in an internet context). As far as I can tell the nastiest most abusive language I've heard from the conservatives is--"revisionist!" This would hardly bring the house down on most boards.

Charlotte,

On the listening thread you posted a comment (contra Merseymike) that you were glad that it would take a long time for things to come to a conclusion, apparently with the idea that the sides might reach an understanding of some sort. I'm responding here because I think this is probably just as appropriate a location as the other for the subject matter--so, what is the compromise? I'd like to believe that you are correct, but I'm unable to find an intermediate position between the parties. It seems that one side must stand down or the other, with no in-between. I'd have some hope for the process if I could locate any viable alternative, any compromise that both sides might accept. Otherwise, why prolong the pain?

Liberal or conservative, I believe the "charter" also speaks about tolerance. We can express our views and disagreements, either liberal or conservative, without some of the epithets posted here and elsewhere.

"It seems that one side must stand down or the other, with no in-between. I'd have some hope for the process if I could locate any viable alternative, any compromise that both sides might accept."

Isn't there just such a compromise in place, Communion-wide, on the ordination of women? Is +Gene Robinson standing in the group-picture at Lambeth so *that much more frightening* than the women bishops doing the same?

[Those of you who choose to respond in the affirmative, could you please not do so if just to accuse +GR of that about which you (or anyone else but God) do not know anything?]

Neil, let Scott speak for himself, if he can.

Neil, to me you seem to be ignorant of the political and socio-economic realities of most of the Global South. Turbulence, turmoil, tuberculosis. The Church is the only functioning social organism that most people in these backward countries can count on. What these churches preach is of only secondary importance to most of these poor people. Do a little work, a little research, for heaven’s sake.

Kurt I thank you for your presumption but totally reject your claim to be the authority on the true state of the world or the hearts of those in the Global South.

When you have researched to the extent of taking an empty, lifeless alternative gospel to the Global South and preached it and had it embraced warmly and openly so that you see new life on the scale that it is currently being manifested there under the likes of Akinola's leadership, * then * maybe you can presume to lecture.

I've often wondered why the AIDS statistics in Africa are so high despite the populkarity of conservative Christianity, and suggest that the effects of conservative theological teaching are clearly shallowly accepted.

I'd prefer atheism to what I perceive as the pre-modern 'gospel of Akinola and the Nigerian church. I'm glad we have largely grown out of it.