Comments: GS: Anglican Covenant Proposal - Annex 1

People are indeed examining the idea of an Anglican Covenant, and increasingly thinking it is a bad idea, divisive in itself, because it will add to restrictions or not be restrictive enough and lead to more division on the usual lines. A verdict is rapidly forming.

A new creed or code is what it will be: what is the difference (to repeat) between a Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and something like a Congregation for the Process of the Faith - assuming a covenant is regulative of process not doctrine?

Do not set up permanent institutions based on a crisis!

The question is why there needs to be anything other than informal meetings between different provinces. Of course one province will do something that another dislikes. Why not then (taking the body of Christ argument) introduce regulative procedures under Roman Catholics and Orthodox and restrict diversity further? Diversity is a means of exploration, and Anglicanism says that what is right for one area may not be for another - but may be later.

The idea that a Covenant could decide what is important or not is crystal ball gazing and high level arrogance. No one knows what suddenly becomes the cause on to which a heck of a lot more gets pinned.

Diversity gives people space to grow. It's important that decisions are taken as close to people as possible, with checks and balances. People then feel involved.

"Something like a covenant" (typical English culture understatement) is a covenant, and it is a new departure and perhaps of most interest to those on the international stage who see things from high perspective.

There is another viewpoint, though. That this thing called "Anglicanism" is not one thing any more: that there is a highly superstitious, pagan-rooted, supernatural Christianity that is coloured in its labelling by Protestant Reformation elsewhere and missionaries and a biblicalism full of signs and wonders; and there is something else that has dealt with a whole intellectual inheritance in later conditions of liberty of thought and the secular environment, for which tradition is something worked out. Perhaps another view is to have two Anglicanisms, even if Conservative Evangelicals want to ride on the horse of another grounded spirituality.

Posted by Pluralist at Monday, 18 June 2007 at 10:19pm BST

Not exactly a hard sell. Rather, it is promoted by identifying the concerns of its critics:

"...the Covenant is not meant to be a new creed or code, dictated by some authoritarian body divorced from the real life of the Communion’s member provinces...

"The Covenant is not an attempt to create an international executive;...

"It is not a tool for promoting schism or canonizing heightened intolerance,...

Many of us would say that it is in fact all of these.


Posted by Hugh of Lincoln at Monday, 18 June 2007 at 10:46pm BST

"It is, of course, in some degree a response to a crisis – and we are all rightly cautious about creating lasting structures in reaction to temporary crises."

My crisis would be if this was to be a temporary crisis. Temporary infers that the debate over how and when to give souls respect and dignity has ended. Temporary infers that there is a return to scholarly precedents and women are again submissive and quiet. Temporary infers that there is no longer any outside accountability and the priests don't have to worry about explaining their collusion in aiding and abetting pedophiles or inciting hatred or abuse. Temporary infers that we say there is peace and ignore the realities of starvation, poverty, desecration. war or tyranny.

Jesus said that the poor we will always have with us (John 12:8). Women will always be with us (unless we become extinct). Thus the marginalised, the outcaste, the afflicted will always be with us.

How can we say we are creating a temporary solution when we are dealing with perennial problems? There are meant to be perennial problems and conflicting paradoxes. If there hasn't been that is to the priests' shame as it demonstrates the extent of repression.

There should have been ongoing debates of the merits celibacy versus the mitzvos to get married and have children http://www.torah.org/learning/mitzvah/43.html Just as there should have been tensions between separation and purification versus integration and grace. There should have been debates about idolatry versus submitting to authority.

Jesus commented at Luke 12:51-53 "Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.” There is nothing wrong with division and diversity, it is the natural order of things. None of us live inside another's skin. What is the issue is when there is an attempt to whitewash over the divisions and destroy the diversity.

In Jesus' words at Luke 11:23 "...he who does not gather with me, scatters." Matthew 23:37-39, Jesus longs to gather the children together, but the house will be left desolate unless we bless those who come in the name of the Lord. We will not always recognise those that God has called e.g. Isaiah 44:5. But God knows who they are and has broadened the tent stakes to include them see Isaiah 54:2-7. Isaiah 33:20 tells us that it will be a peaceful abode.

Posted by Cheryl Clough at Monday, 18 June 2007 at 11:23pm BST

Cheryl, do not perpetuate that reading of John 12.8. (John's) Jesus was not talking about the future but only about the present circumstances of his disciples. "Pantote" should not be translated "always" as if some continuing temporal permanence of povery were being predicted, but something like "ready to hand". Liberation theologians have often discussed this text, which is so often cited by their enemies.

Posted by Fr Joseph O'Leary at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 1:52am BST

"Ceci n'ést pas une pipe."

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 7:24am BST

Simon - I wonder if too many insults against GS bishops are allowed (eg referring to them as "pagan-rooted" in their views?)

Pluralist - you say, "People are ....increasingly thinking it {a covenant} is a bad idea, divisive in itself...."
---but when you say "people", the truth is "a few liberals in the AC who do not want to have any restrictions on their actions" are against the idea of a covenant while it seems pretty common sense to most Anglicans, given the strife TEC has caused in the last 4 years, that there are some agreed "limits to diversity" to make the AC function properly as a united body, as the ABC and +York argue.

Then, Pluralist, you make an even weaker and disgraceful point in referring to the Global South saying "there is a highly superstitious, pagan-rooted, supernatural Christianity...." in the AC.....

--- so does this "pagan-rooted" group include all those who do not want your pluralistic agenda or does it include darker conservatives in the AC?

-are you just making a racial slur on Global South Archbishops?
(remember that many of those dark Archbishops you disagree with have far far superior academic credentials to you (looking at your cv on your site), despite your words trying to paint them as somehow unsophisticated and unreliable theologically)

---do you include +Durham, +Duncan, ++Jensen, +London, the 200+ churches that have left TEC, all the UK evangelicals in this group of people following "pagan-rooted" principles in your view?? (I guess not....but then you might be able to see that perhaps your point about the GS is not only wrong buy quite disgraceful)

Pluralist, if you cannot respect the GS Archbishops despite many of them being your academic superior in theology, at least respect them as people - there is no need for slurs on opponents in the debate eg describing the views of some as "pagan-rooted".....especially when many western Anglicans are coming to the same conclusions as the GS bishops ...... i.e. in line with Lambeth 1.10, TWR etc etc Stop insulting the GS Archbishops, it just shows you have very little real argument to make when you resort to slurs.

Posted by NP at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 7:36am BST

NP
Pluralist did not refer to any GS bishops, or archbishops, in his comment to which you take such great exception.
Therefore I don't find it objectionable, any more than I find your use of "200+ churches that left TEC" objectionable, even though the latter is unsubstantiated and seriously misleading as discussed at length in another article linked from http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002450.html

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 8:05am BST

Simon - on nos, whichever nos people want to fix on, the fact is that thousands of people are leaving TEC....this is why we have lawsuits in the US etc

On Pluralist's "pagan-rooted" comments - well, I am not sure who Pluralist was referring to if not to GS archbishops who have been part AC opposition to TEC's innovations - who did you mean Pluralist?

Posted by NP at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 8:37am BST

It is interesting how situations are able to be changed by the constant use of words. We now commonly speak of the "provinces" of the AC. In fact, while Canterbury and York are Provinces of the CofE, the CofE is not a "province" of the AC but an autonomous CHURCH within the AC.

However, according to the Telegraph apparently, the piecemeal dis-Establishing of the CofE is to begin next month. The slippery slope to 'provincial-dom' has started.

Posted by Terence Dear at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 9:26am BST

Pluralist is quite correct that this amalgam of basic Christianity and paganism happens. To take a non-Anglican example, there was the affair of Archbishop Milingo of Zambia, who had a widespread healing and exorcism ministry in his diocese in the 80s. The Vatican (in this case one J Ratzinger) got very worried about the amount of tribal religion which seemed to be involved in this, and he was pulled out of his diocese, sent for corrective training, and ended up in a minor role in tourism in the Vatican. He later married a wife chosen for him by Sung Myung Moon, and found himself excommunicated.

I'm not commenting on his psychology, his treatment by the Vatican or his subsequent career. Simply I point out an example, (and to avoid contention a non-Anglican one) of what Pluralist says.

Posted by cryptogram (John Marshall) at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 10:20am BST

that guy clearly lost the plot, crypto

- I just don't wanted respected Primates of the AC tainted by any suggestion of similar theological errors.....especially when so many Western (even American) Anglicans are against the innovations of TEC too

Posted by NP at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 11:09am BST

The various sections of the proposed covenant are preceded by citations of scripture. None of these include “The Sermon on the Mount” or the “Sermon on the Plain”. “Love your enemies” is missing. How can a church whether local, national, or international expect unity in doctrine in discipline when it does acknowledge that it’s members are taught by Jesus to refrain from the violence of war. You can’t kill enemies if you are loving them. If Christians will do violence to other Christians how can we ask the world to refrain from violence? If Christians exhibit national flags in processions and place them near our Holy Tables, how can we claim to be catholic/universal/evangelical. If a person becomes Commander and Chief of his/her national military, how can he/she be a Christian. Isn’t Anglicanism about how we treat one another rather than conformity in what we believe

Posted by Jim Prevatt at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 12:10pm BST

Hi Pluralist
You say 'Diversity gives people space to grow'. Anyone would think from this that the document and its writers were against diversity.

They are not. They simply recognise that there have to be limits to it. In that, they agree with everyone else in the world - bar none.

Given that everyone agrees that there have to be limits, it is more helpful to define what those limits are than not to do so.

Posted by Christopher Shell at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 12:44pm BST

Joseph

Your warning about John 12:9 is appropriate, it has been a contemplation that has vexed me throughout today. You are right to point out that this passage has been used to justify ignoring the plights of the poor and our responsibility to help them (which includes identifying how "the systems" create poverty and postulating alternatives that might be more rational and compassionate).

There is a parallel lesson that women will always be with us, and the complacency about their abuse should also have been challenged by liberation theology, for the same precepts.

If that is an insight that has not yet occurred, then I do not mind my faux pas if it led to drawing out a parallel insight that needed to be made.

Posted by Cheryl Clough at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 1:52pm BST

Two days back I wrote "I hope that I am wrong, but will Sugden's "racism" charge be the first shot of an attack on TEC". Today, dead on cue - "monkey see, monkey do", in the words of Marge Simson - NP rides to the attack, asking of Pluralist "are you just making a racial slur on Global South Archbishops?"

I am curious to know what insights NP has into Pluralist's academic credentials that others of us lack, when he refers to "many of them [the GS primates] being your academic superior in theology" (Presiding Bishop Venables has a London DipEd- can Pluralist compete?)

As to the final statement "it just shows you have very little real argument to make when you resort to slurs" - why comment? - why gild the lily? Tho' I will stick it in a "save" file in keen expectation of future use.

And to think that only days ago I swore off wasting my time in replying to NP.

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 1:52pm BST

The Anglican communion is inclusive, but it has never been tolerant. It is important that we take the time to understand the crucial difference. We include sinners of all kinds in the Church, but we do not tolerate sin of any degree by condoning it, in particular we have never tolerated deliberate sin (lifestyle sin).

The Covenant needs to underline this in that it must state "all are very welcome, but no allowances are made"

Posted by Vincent at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 2:10pm BST

Re "pagan rooted" - read the transcript of Philip Jenkins' May 17th "Global Schism" presentation to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

"You're dealing with people who live in, in many ways, an Old Testament world. Many Africans may not know themselves a world that practices nomadism and polygamy and blood sacrifice, but their parents did. You don't have to go far down the road to see people who are still doing these things. "

http://pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=145

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 2:36pm BST

Lapin - you can go to Pluralist's website to see his academic credentials

As for Canon Dr Sugden's comment - well, maybe he is onto something!
How often do some liberals try to pretend it is only the GS or ++Akinola who are against TEC's innovations?

Quite obvious that people would rather talk about ++Akinola or "Africans" in terms of opposition to TEC's innovations than the very strong opposition from people like +Durham, +Duncan in TEC and even the ABC!

Despite the obvious attempt to pretend that opposition to TEC is from a small and narrow part of the AC (maybe even a "pagan-rooted" part of the AC), we still have Lambeth 1.10, TWR and the Tanzania Communique.....and no credible evidence that the AC is about to change to allow TEC to stay in but on certain issues not pay attention to the common will of the AC

Posted by NP at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 2:55pm BST

Vincent, I posted the following observation yesterday, but posted it to what I later discovered to be a pretty old, little-visited thread. It's relevant to what you say, so, with Simon's indulgence, how 'bout we give it another spin:

"When I encounter an individual who will say "go and sin no more" as forcefully to those who are divorced and/or remarried, as he or she will say it to gays & lesbians, I will concede that that individual's views, however mistaken, might be based in scriptural belief, rather than purely in personal prejudice."

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 3:01pm BST

I am making shorthand religious typologies, with all the danger that involves, but as ever necessary to get across a basic point.

We had a discussion the very same evening among a church group, someone asking if the African Christians are perhaps some decades behind the West and its (Anglican) Christianity. I said that you cannot say, because the question is whether they are like when we were pre-industrialisation, or perhaps nearer to when Christianity was absorbing paganism in this land. Does comparison work? I said that when I look into this book, alongside me (Bible), I see another world, that needs "thick description" to even begin to understand it, whereas the African Christian sees in it the world of signs and wonders readily understood. But it gets labelled by the fact that elsewhere there was a Protestant Reformation, that they had missionaries, that there is literalism, and it all skews and alters how they might otherwise understand the faith they have.

This is the basis of my comment then, and nothing about how many qualifications they or I or anyone else might have.

Posted by Pluralist at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 3:06pm BST

“Simon - on nos, whichever nos people want to fix on, the fact is that thousands of people are leaving TEC....this is why we have lawsuits in the US etc”—NP

Yes, NP thousands are leaving—but millions are staying. Which is the point, isn’t it?

Posted by Kurt at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 3:13pm BST

To answer Chrstopher Shell's point, elsewhere I suggest that if unity cannot be described then an alternative is to describe the diversity. I admit, it worries a lot of people, but there is an honesty involved.

Suppose a document was produced, non-binding (of course!) about all the positions in Anglicanism, then the next section would be how to relate them all together. That might be interesting. It might indeed suggest that some positions are more "legitimate" than others, or find that difficult, but even if it did it would still have to ask how to relate all the participants (and what about the non-participants?) together.

This is a much more interesting "process" I'd suggest as a discussion primates could have than one trying to find a magic formula of limits to diversity.

Posted by Pluralist at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 3:14pm BST

"We include sinners of all kinds in the Church, but we do not tolerate sin of any degree by condoning it, in particular we have never tolerated deliberate sin (lifestyle sin)."

We're also quite reluctant to take on the responsibility of judging another's sin. And I think that's appropriate. It's certainly a biblical attitude reflecting Gospel values.

Posted by ruidh at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 3:39pm BST

Kurt - "leaving millions"??
- do you realise TEC says that it does not even have ONE million attending on a Sunday???
(in the US where 43% of people go to church!!)

Do you realise that one church leaving in Plano had more people attending than the whole of TEC's Nevada diocese?

(Oh, now let's see how many replies come to muddy the waters, deny the numbers and pretend that all is well)

Posted by NP at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 4:08pm BST

Lambeth 1.10, TWR and the Tanzania Diktat

NP's three-legged stool replaces the Lambeth Quadrilateral.

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 4:13pm BST

Lifestyle sin??!?

Oh, my, now I've heard it all.

LPR

Posted by RudigerVT at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 5:37pm BST

"Inevitably, this implies that we have to recognize that there are some limits to Anglican ‘diversity’. It is a simply a matter of fact that some questions – not only the debates over sexual ethics – are experienced as fundamentally Church-dividing issues..."

Notice how "Church-dividing" has now become the most important criterion by which issues are judged. If an issue is judged to be "Church dividing" (which basically happens because some hotheads are threatening schism over it), why, let's put it on the back burner indefinitely, we wouldn't want to divide the Church over it, would we.

To paraphrase a certain infamous slogan regarding firearms, issues don't divide churches, people do.

Posted by Brian MacIntyre at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 5:44pm BST

"Kurt - "leaving millions"??" NP

More than two millions, actually. Whether or not we always go to church each week, well, that's another matter.

Posted by Kurt at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 8:50pm BST

Until NP's heroes start to regard the whole of Lambeth 1.10, would it not be more honest of him to demand compliance with Lambeth 0.55?

Just trying to help.

Posted by mynsterpreost (=David Rowett) at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 9:36pm BST

"Lifestyle sin" might just be a useful category. After all lifestyle is not just sexual activity. And anyone posting on this board has access to resources unimaginable to most of the world's population.

Posted by Mark Bennet at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 10:33pm BST

OK, mynsterpreost, you've lost me, and I'm probably making a fool of myself asking, but Lambeth 0.55?

Looks like there's trilingual "trubble a't mill" in a N. Lincs parallel ecclesiastical universe. What gives?

http://www.aicuk.org.uk/

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 10:36pm BST

The New Lambeth (1:10) Quadrilateral:

i) Windsor,
ii) Dromantine,
iii) Dar es Salaam,
iv) Covenant.

Posted by Hugh of Lincoln at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 10:46pm BST

Fr. Rowett, sir. I have an answer of sorts to my question regarding the AIC. A blog named "The Continuum" quotes one Archbishop Norman Dutton as saying that Bishop Peachey has been deposed and excommunicated, adding "I have today received confirmation that he has lost his power base in Latin America. All the churches there have now pledged their support to me." Bp. Peachey's response, also quoted, is basically "Sez you!".

"Parallel Universe" to be sure.

Read all about it at http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/search/label/Anglican%20Independent%20Communion

One "Anglican Independent Communion" (probably not this one, but can't be sure) sports lines of apostolic succession that include the Order of Corporate Reunion - the grand-daddy of schismatic weirdos (see Anson: "Bishops at Large") - and claim "Bishop Percy Dearmer" as a link in their chain. Am not, in the words of Anna Russell, making this up. Check it at

http://www.cinemaparallel.com/Order.of.corporate.reunion.html

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 11:19pm BST

"in the US where 43% of people go to church!!"

NP, you DO realize that the majority of American Christians are GASP Roman Catholic, right? Funny how Rome can be the Whore of Babylon in everything else, but when it comes to the hommersexerals, you think they're fine and dandy. The next largest group is the Southern Baptists. Nice crowd of Evolution/global warming denying, "God punished the Godless heathens in Asia with a tsunami" (in chorus with the Taliban, I hasten to add) people there! Do you really think it a cause for gloating that they are more numerous than the Anglicans?

Posted by Ford Elms at Tuesday, 19 June 2007 at 11:43pm BST

Dear Lapinbizarre, Lambeth .55 = 1/2 of Lambeth 1.10, or, Lambeth 1.10, divided in half, = Lambeth .55
Mynsterpreost is repeating, in other words, the truth that only part of Lambeth 1.10 is authoritative for "NP's heroes".
Lois Keen

Posted by Lois Keen at Wednesday, 20 June 2007 at 12:04am BST

There are some souls who are simply argumentative. When they think they have the upper hand, the bravado and insults fly much thicker than when they think they might be held accountable for their indifference and contempt for others.

This is an excellent Torah study which talks about the lead up to the swallowing of Korach and his rabble rousers. http://www.algemeiner.com/generic.asp?ID=343 I shared it with a friend the other day and commented that even Moses had to deal with rednecks. (The next joke being are they red necks because they are always angry and thus their neck is always flushed?) I liked this core lesson from the study "Moses knew that fighting and animosity among Jews was a malignant disease, and he would not give up the slightest opportunity to stop it!... To become comfortable with disunity and fragmentation is a tragedy. We must never cease to confront our arrogance and strive for peace even with people we can easily write off."

I have found the last couple of years incredibly amusing. Watching those who throw accusations around and deny biblical interpretations in a matter of days taking up a propoganda spin that they had had the moral high ground all along. My two favourites are God wanting justice in this world and Jesus opposing slavery. I still enjoy watching the hyperboles over how to deal with God's feminine characteristics.

Similarly, I have enjoyed watching the swing go from one extreme of "we're only following scripture as taught to us by your missionaries over a century ago" to the other of "we were there helping Jesus carry the cross, so of course we are the older church with the better interpretations." One one hand they dodge responsibility by trying to blame their interpretations on others (missionaries) - reminds me of Adam and Eve being sprung having eaten from the tree of good and evil. On the other hand they claim to have the history and moral authority to denounce the validity of other interpretations. If they have had the bible all along and have a better understanding of it than us. Why is it that some cultures consider beheading a wife a suitable form of domestic discipline? Why is it okay to abduct children to foreign lands and rub chile in their eyes to exorcise demons? I don't remember any missionaries teaching them these two edicts.

Posted by Cheryl Clough at Wednesday, 20 June 2007 at 12:08am BST

I do realise that the discussion has changed topic to some extent. I wish only to add a small clarification upon what was intended by the the phrase 'lifestyle sin'.

I had tried to describe by those words sins which take place openly and one might be tempted to explain as being part of a given lifestyle.

An example in my own case would be gluttony during family gatherings; whilst it may be explained as being a part of family life, it remains sinful. In so much as I don't feel much compelled to cease and change my lifestyle, the sin becomes a 'lifestyle sin'.

Posted by Vincent at Wednesday, 20 June 2007 at 12:46pm BST

Vincent, I don't have sex "openly." I don't even talk about my sex life, as it's private. Will I, for anybody's comfort, deny that I have sex with a man -- my partner? No.

As the row over J. John demonstrated so plainly, though, when push comes to shove, it's not even about the sex. It's about the fact that I won't accept your interpretation of the Bible and won't accept your conclusion that my being gay is a problem with God.

There's not enough 'lifestyle adjustment' to please the anti-gay factions.

LPR
PS: Eat what you wish.

Posted by RudigerVT at Wednesday, 20 June 2007 at 3:17pm BST

I'm just doing a stock taking audit on my "lifestyle sins". This could take some time.

Posted by Pluralist at Wednesday, 20 June 2007 at 3:18pm BST

RudigerVT said
I don't have sex "openly."

I know someone who did. Their case comes up next week.....

Posted by Mynsterpreost (=David Rowett) at Wednesday, 20 June 2007 at 4:48pm BST

"gluttony during family gatherings"

Vincent, if your family is getting together two or three times a week to stuff themselves like hogs, you might have a point. Most families get together 2 or 3 times a year, and even then there's usually someone missing. This is to renew the bonds of kinship, to talk and laugh, perhaps play some music, sing, and dance, perhaps fight and squabble. At such times, having that third potato is not gluttony. If God is gracious enough to allow your family to get together at Christmas to celebrate, and to give you an abundance of food, it seems ungrateful to turn down that extra piece of turkey out of fear of spotting your soul with gluttony! Surely thankful enjoyment of God's bounty is called for at such times. Or do you really think He is so niggardly as to give you an adundance of food, family, and laughter once or twice a year but judge you adversely if you actually enjoy that gift from Him? "Thanks, awfully, God, but I'm afraid I won't be all I can be and you'll send me to Hell if I actually enjoy what You have given."

And marriage is about lifelong commitment and support, encouragement, challenge to grow, and innumerable other things. Do you seriously think that being required to give that up for your entire life is the same as turning down that second bowl of trifle Christmas day? Not arguing for the rightness of SSB, just suggesting that perhaps what is being asked of gays here is a bit more of a burden than watching one's wasteline.

Posted by Ford Elms at Thursday, 21 June 2007 at 6:40pm BST

Malcolm Muggeridge - remember him? - said that too many people have sex on the brain, and it is the wrong place to have it. I asked my wife, yes, it was my wife, if we have sex openly, and she replied, "Yawn, snore", stuck two fingers up and went back to sleep. It was during lunch. Then when she woke up I asked her what she thought of the Covenant and she replied that she was no longer a Methodist and had stopped fighting on the Scottish Borders. This is much more interesting isn't it?

Posted by Cardinal Wardrobe at Saturday, 23 June 2007 at 2:39pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.