Comments: Opinion - 5 July 2017

This passage from Oliver Twist shows that, even when talking about a bishop's distinctive dress, Dickens didn't think that would be a mitre:

“There are some promotions in life, which, independent of the more substantial rewards they offer, acquire peculiar value and dignity from the coats and waistcoats connected with them. A field-marshal has his uniform; a bishop his silk apron; a counsellor his silk gown; a beadle his cocked-hat. Strip the bishop of his apron, or the beadle of his hat and lace; what are they? Men. Mere men. Dignity, and even holiness too, sometimes, are more questions of coat and waistcoat than some people imagine.”

Dickens' substantive point, however, might support the wearing of the mitre. Bishops are different. Ian Paul's evangelical perspective is that they are not different; they are ministers among the laity who are yet part of the laity. For many other Anglicans, however, the threefold ministry means something worth pointing out visually.

Another view is that clerical robes generally (including mitres in particular) show the office is greater than the unworthy individual who holds it; it is part of the symbolism of the church, which is greater than the humanity which populates it.

I would like to see research before assuming that the public doesn't want bishops to wear mitres. When there were surveys about barristers' wigs, the public was more in favour than the profession was.

Posted by badman at Wednesday, 5 July 2017 at 2:05pm BST

It is time for mitres to be retired to the haberdashery of history. The only reason for wearing the costume of a medieval overlord is if one has pretensions to overlordship.

Posted by Rod Gillis at Wednesday, 5 July 2017 at 4:15pm BST

Colin Coward's comments are extreme, to be sure, and he clearly has his reasons for them. But they did make me think about the way I was treated by laity, clergy, the bishop(s), and the diocese during 40 years of ordained parish ministry. In 1975 I was ordained into a church (Anglican Church of Canada) that was still led by men (then) who had been born and formed in the days when the church had power and influence and clergy were unassailable. The boom of the 1950s had convinced them that their influence was absolute. The place of women, gay people, persons with disabilities, etc., was not a real issue for many. Many were not especially well educated or even especially intelligent, but they had absorbed all the bigotry and prejudice or society, which lived in the church. As times changed and the church lost influence, many became defensive and refused to accept change. This was true of clergy and laity alike and we spent decades tilting at the windmills of liturgical change, the ordination of women, and whatever else, largely looking inward and wasting energy on ridiculous things. We will see this small mindedness at work aiming peopke who think that if we just went back to the "good old days" (which were bad for so many), all would be well. I especially found the hierarchy closed off and defensive and bishops insecure (not all) because they did not want to blamed for decline and loss and because they were subject to endless criticism. Clergy could never admit that there was any problem or conflict in their parishes, since their careers would be affected. It was especially galling that powerful laity (their power was usually their money) had such influence in the parish and diocese, since the church would bend over backwards to keep their money coming in. Anything that looked bad had to be hidden, we "kept up appearances". As a priest on the "front line", I bore the brunt of this. To keep my job I had to allow myself to be abused and bullied by dysfunctional and irrational people, many of whom used the clergy as their personal punching bag while playing the devout Christian in public. I walked on eggshells, since the prejudices and demands of these people had to be met or there would be a letter to someone in the hierarchy, who would inevitably tell me to bend even more. If these people were bullies, they were also entrenched and my existence meant nothing. I was well aware that approaching any subject that was a "hot button" (e.g. The rights of gay people or even varying interpretations of scripture) would put my ministry in peril. Often the church was the last refuge for people who could not accept change and demanded attention. I see this changing, since we can no longer pretend that we are influential or important as an institution, which is actually a good thing. Some humility has been forced on us and we can be more honest. However, bishops can still be deaf and blind to the realities of parish and clergy life and they can still support and enable people who can manipulate the system by their money or personality. There is still a strange unwillingness to allow themselves to see the church as responding to the real needs of people instead of simply imposing unrealistic and hurtful ideas that are rejected anywhere else. In our culture now (Britain and North America) we still have a long way to go to show a compassionate love and to really seek justice, both within and without the church. For some, it is still too much risk. I don't agree with everything Mr. Coward has said, but if anyone suffers at the hands of "Christians" in the church or in society, we have abandoned the Gospel and replaced it with a self-seeking and uncaring institution. I have had enough experience of the latter. But I will stay and persist, since the Church is still the Body of Christ and because there is still good being done by many fine and committed people. Thank God for them.

Posted by Adam Armstrong at Wednesday, 5 July 2017 at 4:23pm BST

Hmm, Ian Paul manages in his article to (a) personally insult the appearance of a bishop (who just happens to be female - surprise!), before (b) showing his disregard for Canon C27 (it seems the rules of the church only count if he agrees with them, in which instance they must be vigorously defended), and then (c) throwing in a spot of Marcionism with the whole 'we're New Testament not Old Testament people' argument, rather than one based on how the witness of the whole canon might speak to us.

Quite the trifecta...

As an aside, whether or not mitres may be appropriate, young people have no problem at all understanding the symbolism of crowns, police headgear, etc. If anything, mitres may provide a good starting point to discuss the proper meaning and use of leadership and 'authority' in a church which looks always to one who had 'authority' but used it very differently from those around Him.

In any event, looking daft sometimes as an ordained person comes with the territory, as it probably should do!

Posted by Fr Tony at Wednesday, 5 July 2017 at 5:01pm BST

In my above comments, "wasting energy on ridiculous things" means that we spent so much energy resisting change and dealing with people who treated the church as the last bastion of misogyny, homophobia, and bigotry of all kinds, under the guise of "preserving" some kind of perceived heritage, however irrelevant, oppressive, or absurd. Don't misunderstand me-I like and use the BCP and I appreciate the beauty of Anglican music, etc. Unfortunately these things were treated as more important than the Gospel and misused to further other agendas.

Posted by Adam Armstrong at Wednesday, 5 July 2017 at 6:42pm BST

I find Ian's style a bit abrasive, but I agree with his main point. We may want to kid ourselves into thinking that robes emphasize the office rather than the individuality of the person holding the office, but I think most people understand that episcopal robes are about emphasizing a power structure. In this as in so many other things, I find myself wondering 'How did we get from the Sermon on the Mount to here?'

BTW, the first time I saw a Lutheran bishop I was delighted to see that he was wearing no special robes - just an alb and stole, with a pastoral staff in his hand. I note that Lesslie Newbigin dressed this way when he was a bishop in the Church of South India as well.

Posted by Tim Chesterton at Wednesday, 5 July 2017 at 7:00pm BST

Nothing appears more pompous to me, and redolent of secular rather than spiritual authority, than bishops in purple shirts, and wearing frilly sleeves and the quasi-academic dress of 'choir habit'. Mitres, chasubles, stoles etc simply show their priestly and pastoral role, and cloak their personal distinctiveness in the impersonality of their order.

Posted by David Emmott at Wednesday, 5 July 2017 at 7:04pm BST

I agree with Fr Tony. lets make sure that Canon C 27 is taken seriously. Ian Paul's article also links the notion to the abuse of power to dress. Abuse of power, whether horrific and manifest (Smythe, Ball) or more subtle is just as like to be carried out by 'pastors' in chinos, obsessing about leadership, as priests in chasubles. As for the mitre; yes, it probably looks a bit daft, but maybe that's part of the point!

Posted by Andrew Lightbown at Wednesday, 5 July 2017 at 7:22pm BST

My grandfather's antique chess set had flat-topped bishops. Now I know why,

Posted by T Pott at Wednesday, 5 July 2017 at 9:11pm BST

Colin Coward is spot on. His writing is eloquent and courageous.

My experience in CoE parishes have been receiving lovely welcome and hospitality, feeling spiritually renewed and healing, if not healed. So I would say that the parishes and cathedrals where I've been welcomed are definitely "fit for purpose." It's the CoE hierarchy who are the problem, and no, collectively they are not "fit." They seem to prioritize everything except the Gospel. They surely have forgotten that the Incarnation came as the Good News to all people everywhere, but especially the poor, the vulnerable, the outcast.

Posted by Cynthia at Wednesday, 5 July 2017 at 11:46pm BST

Re Fr. Tony, "...looking daft sometimes as an ordained person comes with the territory, as it probably should do!"

Nope, wearing a wacky suit does not signal gravitas, just wackiness.

Theology, not haberdashery, makes the anglo-catholic.

Posted by Rod Gillis at Thursday, 6 July 2017 at 4:09am BST

Perhaps bishops should fashion their dress on those humble ministers of a well-known diocese where the archbishop often wears a lounge suit with open collar when officiating at 'meetings' in Church. Other clergy are happy in shorts and a T-shirt. Sydney Diocese leads the way in sartorial simplicity, as well as misogyny, homophobia and general hatred. And not a mitre in sight.

Posted by FrDavidH at Thursday, 6 July 2017 at 7:55am BST

Even in my short lifetime I can remember it was not the custom for TEC bishops to wear mitres, though a few did. The practice seemed to have changed in the 80s. As the learned article points out, they arrived late even in the pre reformation church (11th century) and then did not possess the grand shape and cost of those now being worn, latterly, in the CofE and elsewhere. TEC bishops routinely wear purple, and it is rare to see any wearing black, though this is of course the practice of many in the CofE (as well as the RCC). In France where I live french catholic clergy do not always wear clerical collars; some do, some don't, even when presiding.

When hypocrisy seems rife, it becomes easier to see the dress as inflated and silly. I suspect this is part of Ian Paul's thinking, quite apart from his historical perspective on the matter. That said, I do think it is useful to remember these practices are neither as uniform nor as ancient as we may sometimes think.

Posted by crs at Thursday, 6 July 2017 at 8:52am BST

Personally I find it hard to grasp how we got from Jesus' warnings in Luke 20:45-47 to copes, mitres and episcopal 'thrones'.

Posted by Tim Chesterton at Thursday, 6 July 2017 at 9:09am BST

FrDavidH, thanks for tarring everyone who believes in 'sartorial simplicity' with misogyny, homophobia and general hatred (I'm sure my fellow Canadian Rod Gillis really appreciates the guilt by association).

Posted by Tim Chesterton at Thursday, 6 July 2017 at 9:11am BST

If bishops are behaving in a worldly and authoritarian manner, why are we blaming the hat rather than the person under the hat?

Posted by Sam at Thursday, 6 July 2017 at 10:03am BST

Rod Gillis: yes, it is theology that counts, but 'gravitas' is not the only thing that matters. Sometimes we are also called to signify joy, the fact that we are indeed 'set apart' for God's work (not in a better way, but in a particular way), and even (whisper it quietly) God's blessing and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on God's people. I'm not sure why you think episcopal attire equates to a 'wacky suit' but even were that the case, it does not empty a bishop of theology to wear something other than plain clothes. There is a reason (laid out in Canon Law) why clergy are to be visible as such, and the 'just call me Ian, I'm just a regular guy in a suit' approach ignores this fact.

Posted by Fr Tony at Thursday, 6 July 2017 at 10:28am BST

You do me an injustice, Mr Chesterton. I was simply pointing out the absence of mitres doesn't automatically lead to humility and compassion. It is not the lack of episcopal head-gear that I find objectionable in Sydney, but their wish to spread malicious bigotry thoughout our Communion, mitres or not. Obviously, many others who believe in 'sartorial simplicity" are to be respected.

Posted by FrDavidH at Thursday, 6 July 2017 at 11:24am BST

We just had an "episcopal Requiem Mass" in Chichester Cathedral. The coffin was 7 ft long. Anyone guess why that was? Yes, you got it in one!

Posted by Mother Hubbard at Thursday, 6 July 2017 at 2:20pm BST

By co-incidence I am currently enjoying W.C. Jordan's book, Europe In The High Middle Ages. Jordan's (p. 242) includes an example of lewd marginalia from an illuminated Gothic manuscript. One of the marginal drawings is of a serpent wearing a mitre.

Re Tim Chesterton, right on. It is important not to allow the assignment of inappropriate guilt to weigh heavy on one's point of view. I think a simple syllogism would demonstrate the problem with Fr. David's assertion.

I am taken with Adam Armstrong's comment (above July 5). The following line from his comment ( on Colin Coward) bridges with the discussion regarding mitres, "I especially found the hierarchy closed off and defensive and bishops insecure (not all) because they did not want to [be] blamed for decline and loss and because they were subject to endless criticism."

Perhaps the fascination with mitres and other episcopal fashion accessories is compensation for a feeling of political and administrative impotence?

Posted by Rod Gillis at Thursday, 6 July 2017 at 3:11pm BST

Ill informed, Evangelical (or, is it Latitudinarian?) rubbish!

Obviously Mr. Paul has not read any of the inventories of vestments—copes and miters included—seized from cathedrals and parish churches by the Puritans during their brief theocratic dictatorship in the UK in the 1640s and 1650s. It is misleading to claim, as some Evangelical (as well as some Anglo Catholic) writers do, that prior to Pusey, Newman, Neale, et alia most Anglican parish churches and chapels were just bleak displays of Puritan-like severity. In America, it certainly was not the case. No far away Oxford dons, or groups of English Ritualist enthusiasts were required to rescue us Episcopalians from the patterns of “puritan austerity” we daily saw around us in other American denominations. Indeed, the first American Anglican bishops (the irregularly consecrated non-jurors John Talbot and Robert Welton) were both said to have worn copes and miters “in their offices” in the 1720s here. Our first “regularly consecrated” bishop (1784), Samuel Seabury, owned two miters and always wore a miter when he functioned episcopally. Dr. Thomas Claggett, the first Episcopal Bishop of Maryland, wore a miter from his consecration in 1792 until his death in 1816.

I recommend that Mr. Paul become more familiar with contemporary scholarship. In the past few decades a growing number of scholars both in the UK and the USA have re-visited Anglicanism’s pre-Tractarian/Ritualist past. They have brought forward new appreciations, interpretations, and understandings of that history. These scholars include: Nicholas M. Beasley, Edward L. Bond, Charles D. Cashdollar, Kenneth Fincham, Alison Findlay, Nicholas Gianopulos, Bruce Cooper Gill, Deborah Mathias Gough, Clare Haynes, George Herring, Judith Maltby, Louis. P. Nelson, Graham Parry, Brent S. Sirota, Julie Spraggon, Nicholas Tyacke, Dell Upton, Alexandra Walsham, Lauren F. Winner, and Nigel Yates.

Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY

Posted by Kurt Hill at Thursday, 6 July 2017 at 3:47pm BST

I don't really mind one way or the other whether a bishop sports a mitre. But when I see 'priests' in 'smart casuals,' I experience a dread of encountering a church which obsesses about power, authority and, leadership far more than I do when I come across a dog collar, cassock alb and stole (with or without chasuble). The vestments I wear are not about me and my choices or desire to self express and in most cases they aren't even mine.

Posted by Andrew Lightbown at Thursday, 6 July 2017 at 4:34pm BST

Theology, not habdashery, makes the anglo Catholic."
Let us devotly hope that it is more than either.

But, if mitres make those who wear them look clownish and foolish, maybe that's not such a bad thing and maybe says something about how they should be seen - in part. After all, those who wear them are just like the rest of us.

And what could be more foolish than thinking that abandoning mitres will do anything about our problems. Puritanism lives - it hasn't worked in the past, it doesn't work now, and it won't work in the future. Just one more flavour of the day!

Reminds me of a friend who became a bishop. After seeing her father all tricked out at his consecration, his teenage daughter, a young lady of some discernment, said, "I love the jewelry, but Dad, you've gotta do something about that hat!"

Posted by Garry Lovatt at Thursday, 6 July 2017 at 5:38pm BST

I have no problem with mitres.In fact Bishop Geoffrey Rowell whose funeral I attended yesterday was buried in his. But I rather think bishops wear cope and mitre at a variety of services, especially non sacramental ones when the simplicity of choir dress would be more appropriate.

Posted by Perry Butler at Thursday, 6 July 2017 at 5:52pm BST

"Even in my short lifetime I can remember it was not the custom for TEC bishops to wear mitres, though a few did."--crs

You should have gotten out more as a kid. In the 1950s and 1960s I can't remember a bishop who DIDN'T wear a miter for episcopal functions in our diocese (Western New York), or the other cathedrals I visited (New York City, for example.) It may have been different in some Low diocese, of course...

Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY

Posted by Kurt Hill at Thursday, 6 July 2017 at 8:01pm BST

Funny how a post about ecclesiastical tat has attracted far more comment than Colin Coward's profound reflections. But it's perhaps a natural safety-valve, rather like Steve Bell's portrayal of May's leopard-print shoes or Major's underpants.

There is a subtle difference (perhaps too subtle for some people) between dressing up to draw attention to oneself, and dressing up in order to submerge one's personality in the role. Paradoxically, the polo-shirt-and-chino look on a liturgical president has the effect of 'making it all about him' (and it's nearly always him). As does the sporting of academic hoods as part of 'choir habit'. If baroque chasubles and such like belong to the church, they should be worn as a gesture of humility, but otherwise simple (which doesn't mean minimalist) is best.

Power as described by Colin Coward is nearly always that of an individual seeking to manipulate others, and to rebuild the institution in the individual's own image. True authority is that which aims to build up the Body of Christ and therefore serves in humility.

Posted by David Emmott at Friday, 7 July 2017 at 12:35pm BST

Mr Hill, kindly look at any picture of bishops in formal settings where one might wear a mitre, and in the 7Os it was an obviously minority dress. My grandfather, father, two uncles, two brothers /were are all priests. My grandfather taught liturgics at Bexley Hall and was known as "High Church Seitz." I attended an AC boarding school that had non-communicating Mass on Sundays.

Posted by crs at Friday, 7 July 2017 at 1:39pm BST

"Perhaps the fascination with mitres and other episcopal fashion accessories is compensation for a feeling of political and administrative impotence."

Let me take the opportunity to agree with Rod Gillis in his observation. It will not pertain in every case, of course, but I do think it describes something of the acceleration of wearing miters in TEC of recent.

Posted by crs at Friday, 7 July 2017 at 1:49pm BST

Garry Lovatt writes, in response to theology, not haberdashery makes the anglo-catholic, "Let us devoutly hope that it is more than either."

It can only be theology, nothing more.

"...if mitres make those who wear them look clownish and foolish..."

I prefer the term "pythonesque" . So much in our Anglican subculture(s) is like something out of a Monty Python sketch, don't you find?


Posted by Rod Gillis at Friday, 7 July 2017 at 2:33pm BST

I've said for a long time that when it comes to biblical interpretation, Christians are all selective literalists. What is very clear from this discussion is that we're also all selectively conservative. TA is radical in some things, but for the most part very, very conservative on what I would call 'christendom' issues (establishment, episcopacy, the trappings of office etc. etc.).

Fascinating!

Posted by Tim Chesterton at Friday, 7 July 2017 at 3:19pm BST

I apologize to Dr. Paul (and anyone else who may have been offended) for the sharpness of my comment. I lost my temper. It is so frustrating when people in some measure of authority and status in the Church repeat again and again old myths and misinformation about pre-Tractarian Anglican customs. I could scream: “Read Dr. Graham Parry, for heaven’s sake!”

These mirror image, mutually reinforcing, myths have been promoted both by Evangelicals, and some Anglo Catholics, for over a century and it’s WAY PAST TIME they be put to rest. The new scholarship has clearly demonstrated that if seventeenth, eighteenth and early nineteenth century Anglican/Episcopal churches, chapels, clergy etc. were not as multihued and highly ornamented as they would be during the Gothic Revival era, neither were they generally of the austere plainness commonly associated with the Puritans, the Quakers, and the other non-liturgical Protestants.

As Dr. Clare Haynes has noted, for example: “Religious pictures or sculptures were erected during the 100 years before the [1660] Restoration, and the necessity for repeated programmes of destruction suggests immediately that there were differing standards of what constituted a Reformed church. Religion in England was thus not all of the plainness of Puritanism, the fervor and political dominance of which tends to overshadow our understanding of this period.”

It’s frustrating when these myths are repeated again and again. In America, for example, one of the central Evangelical myths says the surplice was only “rarely used” by clergy in American Episcopal churches during the seventeenth, eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Over the years this legend has been debunked by a number of historians who have established that there are actually frequent references to surplices as gifts, purchases, or items of upkeep in the vestry reports and other parish records that were compiled during the Colonial and Early National periods. Indeed, a surplice was an item in what is likely the very first set of ecclesiastical appurtenances sent in 1619 to an Anglican church in North America for which there is a written account.

Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY

Posted by Kurt Hill at Friday, 7 July 2017 at 5:17pm BST

"Mr Hill, kindly look at any picture of bishops in formal settings where one might wear a mitre, and in the 7Os it was an obviously minority dress. My grandfather, father, two uncles, two brothers /were are all priests. My grandfather taught liturgics at Bexley Hall and was known as "High Church Seitz." I attended an AC boarding school that had non-communicating Mass on Sundays.”

Dr. Seitz, I don’t doubt that your experience in 1970 is true, but with all respect, I don’t think it “proves” much. Bishop Lauriston L. Scaife (1948–1970) commonly wore a miter on certain occasions in our Diocese of Western New York, (he wore a red and gold one at my Confirmation in 1966) as did Harold B. Robinson, his coadjutor bishop (1968). Yet in some formal settings where one might wear a miter today, Bishop Scaife wore a purple Anglican cassock, a rochet and chimere with cuffs, a tippet, and a pectoral cross…and, I think, a zucchetto or biretta.

As my favorite history professor was wont to say: “The absence of evidence is not necessarily the evidence of absence.” Just because a bishop might not wear a miter in one situation does not mean s/he might not wear one in another context. We know with certainty that Bishop Samuel Seabury wore miters. We know he wore them at Ordinations, at Confirmations, and at some church Consecrations. Did he wear one during his weekly Sunday celebrations of the Holy Eucharist, or during weddings, burials, etc.? Maybe, maybe not.

Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY

Posted by Kurt Hill at Friday, 7 July 2017 at 5:21pm BST

Rod Gilis writes: "It can only be theology."
How so? I must admit though that today it often seems to be in danger of being reduced to little more than an aesthetic.

"... Pythonesque"
Possibly, but you date yourself. (-:
I'm often reminded of Barbara Pym's aphorism, "the continuing soap opera of anglocatholic parish life." Seems to suggest there is a great deal more going on than just theology (or Monty Python?).

Posted by Garry Lovatt at Friday, 7 July 2017 at 5:46pm BST

'I prefer the term "pythonesque" . '

And that, Rod, made me snort coffee out of my nose this morning! Thank you for the best comment yet on the subject!!!

Posted by Tim Chesterton at Friday, 7 July 2017 at 6:51pm BST

Re Garry Lovatt, It can only be theology because an articulation of one's theological position is the most obvious benchmark of one's theological position. Besides, who really knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? I mean, The Shadow knows, but otherwise who really knows? Am I dating myself again?

Besides, dressing up in mitres, copes, sanctuary slippers, fiddle back chasubles and the like may indicate an anglo-Catholicism; on the other hand it may simply be be a costume party for Calvinists.

Re Tim Chesterton, this one is for you buddy. It should be the Holy Hand-grenade sketch. No mitres were damaged shooting this scene. ( :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOwk

Posted by Rod Gillis at Friday, 7 July 2017 at 8:26pm BST

Re: Rod Gillis

"The Shadow knows" Yes, you date yourself again, but you forgot the squeaky door - or should that be the "Holy Door Squeak?" And you forgot vimpas too - I love the sound of that, vimpa.

BTW, not long ago I saw a photo of the bishops involved in the consecration of late nineteenth century Bp of Quebec. In vesture they were all over the lot, including one in Rochester and shimmer - and mitre!

"... a costume party for Calvinists" What a simply dreadful thought! But perhaps perilously close to the truth. We have landed on a point of agreement.

Posted by Garry Lovatt at Saturday, 8 July 2017 at 2:43am BST

Thanks, Rod - I love that scene!

Posted by Tim Chesterton at Saturday, 8 July 2017 at 7:01am BST

"Just because a bishop might not wear a miter in one situation does not mean s/he might not wear one in another context."

Nice try but nonsense. In 1970 only a very small percentage of TEC Bishops ever wore a miter.

The practice would have been almost pythonesque west of the alleghenies, with 2 or 3 exceptions in Illinois/Wisconsin. It was unknown in the big diocese of Virgina and throughout the south. The warhorse bishop of FL who reigned for 40 years might have worn a miter, but typically episcopal bishops did not want to appear to the general public as Roman Catholic.

I think Rod Gillis has captured the reason for its emergence in TEC in recent days: in proportion to worry about influence and authority in a declining body.

Have a good weekend.

Posted by cseitz at Saturday, 8 July 2017 at 7:02am BST

"Nice try but nonsense. In 1970 only a very small percentage of TEC Bishops ever wore a miter." cseitz

And what empirical study of American Episcopal bishops' practices do you base your claim, Dr. Seitz? Your subjective, emotional need for it to be "true"? What study do you point to? Please cite works and pages...

Posted by Kurt Hill at Monday, 10 July 2017 at 2:32pm BST

Colin Coward's post is tremendously sad. Not wrong---just sad.

Posted by JCF at Friday, 14 July 2017 at 2:52am 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.