If we left the Baptist Union where could we go? (Epiphanies guidelines apply)

Anna_BaptistAnna_Baptist Shipmate
edited March 2024 in Purgatory
There are rumours about that the BUGB Council is going to recommend changes around the theory and practice of same-sex marriage.

The local church I belong to would find it difficult to remain in the BU if this was the case.

There are already voices in the congregation that decry the BU’s theological liberalism. But this would probably tip the balance in favour of leaving the association.

I’m not interested in discussing these issues. The question for me is, “Where could we go?”

We believe in congregational government, credo-baptism (although paedobaptism plus confirmation will get you in a Church member), equality of the sexes, and broad Evangelical doctrine ( we're members of the Evangellical Alliance). We are mildly charismatic. We have an open Communion table.

I am struggling to think of a denomination where we could be all this and accepted. FIEC won't work because of its subordination of women. But I wouldn't want to be in an independent church - that seems unscriptural to me.

Do any shipmates have suggestions?

(ETA Guidelines info, DT, Admin)
«134

Comments

  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    Could I ask why you think being an independent church is unscriptural? Baptist ecclesiology ISTM very much emphasises the primary of the local congregation, to the point where a Baptist friend of mine once told me that to talk of the universal Church as though it already existed was over-realised eschatology.
  • My first thought was that perhaps you should go independent...but I see you're not too keen on that.

    Not much help, I'm afraid.

    How binding upon individual congregations, though, would BUGB decisions be?
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host

    How binding upon individual congregations, though, would BUGB decisions be?

    I'm going to take a wild guess that any changes will be permissive rather than prescriptive, congregational governance being what it is, i.e. the objection is that other congregations might decide differently to @Anna_Baptist 's . To which I think the Biblical response would be "What is that to thee? follow thou [Jesus]."
  • I thought much the same, but Baptist Shipmates will no doubt be along shortly...
    :wink:
  • Could I ask why you think being an independent church is unscriptural? Baptist ecclesiology ISTM very much emphasises the primary of the local congregation, to the point where a Baptist friend of mine once told me that to talk of the universal Church as though it already existed was over-realised eschatology.

    Although individual congregations have a large degree of autonomy in the Baptist Union Baptist ecclesiology also emphasises interdependence. We look to the scriptural record and see that there are no independent churches. They all have some apostolic oversight. Initially from Jerusalem, but then we see that John and Paul look after a number of churches. But the age of apostles has passed and now churches have to rely on each other to keep themselves straight.

  • How binding upon individual congregations, though, would BUGB decisions be?

    I'm going to take a wild guess that any changes will be permissive rather than prescriptive, congregational governance being what it is, i.e. the objection is that other congregations might decide differently to @Anna_Baptist 's . To which I think the Biblical response would be "What is that to thee? follow thou [Jesus]."

    Some in our congregation would say that the money that we give to the BU, particularly to the Home Mission Fund would then be supporting immorality.

  • How binding upon individual congregations, though, would BUGB decisions be?

    I'm going to take a wild guess that any changes will be permissive rather than prescriptive, congregational governance being what it is, i.e. the objection is that other congregations might decide differently to @Anna_Baptist 's . To which I think the Biblical response would be "What is that to thee? follow thou [Jesus]."

    Some in our congregation would say that the money that we give to the BU, particularly to the Home Mission Fund would then be supporting immorality.

    Hmm. Would they withhold that part of their income tax which they think might be spent by the government on immoral things (such as weapons, perhaps)?

    Still, they could withhold money from the BU, and divert it to charities (say) which they believe are not immoral...

    Sorry - this is perhaps a bit of a tangent. As you were...
  • KwesiKwesi Deckhand, Styx
    Anabaptist, your post raises a number of questions which centre on the issue of with whom is one prepared to
    worship and for what reasons. Those reasons seem to fall into two sections, style (charismatic etc.) and theological. Of the two theological issues are the more important.

    For you it seems important that you and your fellow worshippers are in agreement over an extensive number of beliefs beyond what would be generally held as necessary for conventional mainstream Christians. In a British context you are clearly going to be in great difficulty in ticking all the boxes you indicate in your post. Historically the answer would be to form a breakaway sect with likeminded individuals, but whether that option is open to you seems doubtful. From what you say in your post, it would seem that the congregation of which you are a member are generally at one over essentials and it would seem a pity for it to break-up. Until the BU changes its position over gay marriage I suggest you hold fire because subsequently you may find a number of congregations like yours willing to form a new association.

    Coming from a more liberal position than yourself, I like to see myself as one of those not too exercised by what other worshippers believe and would, consequently, recommend you be less concerned and more pluralistic in your stance. On the other hand, were I to live in the American South I'd have difficulty in accepting many "evangelical" churches as Christian. Your question thus raises questions regarding the parameters of my liberality. Are there limits to inclusiveness?
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Hell Host
    I am struggling to think of a denomination where we could be all this and accepted. FIEC won't work because of its subordination of women.

    I think this would equally apply to the other groupings of more conservative minded Baptist Churches.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Anabaptist, your post raises a number of questions which centre on the issue of with whom is one prepared to
    worship and for what reasons. Those reasons seem to fall into two sections, style (charismatic etc.) and theological. Of the two theological issues are the more important.

    For you it seems important that you and your fellow worshippers are in agreement over an extensive number of beliefs beyond what would be generally held as necessary for conventional mainstream Christians. In a British context you are clearly going to be in great difficulty in ticking all the boxes you indicate in your post. Historically the answer would be to form a breakaway sect with likeminded individuals, but whether that option is open to you seems doubtful. From what you say in your post, it would seem that the congregation of which you are a member are generally at one over essentials and it would seem a pity for it to break-up. Until the BU changes its position over gay marriage I suggest you hold fire because subsequently you may find a number of congregations like yours willing to form a new association.

    Coming from a more liberal position than yourself, I like to see myself as one of those not too exercised by what other worshippers believe and would, consequently, recommend you be less concerned and more pluralistic in your stance. On the other hand, were I to live in the American South I'd have difficulty in accepting many "evangelical" churches as Christian. Your question thus raises questions regarding the parameters of my liberality. Are there limits to inclusiveness?

    Yes. It's the paradox of tolerance isn't it? If we tolerate intolerance the intolerant will be able to stop us effectively tolerating what they are intolerant of.

    A tolerant church cannot for example tolerate the view that openly gay people cannot be church members, at least not if that view seeks to be policy.
  • @Anna_Baptist - if some sort of apostolic oversight is required, might it be possible to align your congregation with one of the small, but very liberal, episcopal churches?

    I appreciate that this might be a step too far!
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    @Anna_Baptist - if some sort of apostolic oversight is required, might it be possible to align your congregation with one of the small, but very liberal, episcopal churches?

    I appreciate that this might be a step too far!

    Especially since the problem is the Baptist Union bring seen as too liberal. @Anna_Baptist has also said they're credobaptist; Episcopalians are paedobaptist.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited May 2022
    KarlLB wrote: »
    @Anna_Baptist - if some sort of apostolic oversight is required, might it be possible to align your congregation with one of the small, but very liberal, episcopal churches?

    I appreciate that this might be a step too far!

    Especially since the problem is the Baptist Union bring seen as too liberal. @Anna_Baptist has also said they're credobaptist; Episcopalians are paedobaptist.

    Yes, but the really liberal ones (I can't offhand think of any in particular, I'm afraid, but there must be some!) might well be happy with credobaptists.

    I take your point, though, and (on reflection) I may have read too much into the OP.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    I would have thought there would be at least a few other congregations in the Baptist Union which find themselves in a similar position to yours. Would the suggestion by @Kwesi that these congregations form a separate association have any mileage? Then you would still have interdependence.
  • That sounds like a Plan. Even if those congregations are widely scattered, the Magic Electrical Interweb makes it easy to keep in touch...
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Hell Host
    Another alternative would be something like Vineyard which is fairly middle of the road these days and fits the ‘slightly charismatic’ element.
  • I didn't think that Vineyard did congregational government
  • Hmm. Neither did I...

    If push comes to shove, linking with other like-minded Baptist congregations might be the best option.

    Even though I'm C of E (albeit temporarily lapsed), I do appreciate the importance of the paedo-baptist as against credo-baptist points of view.

  • If push comes to shove, linking with other like-minded Baptist congregations might be the best option.

    Yes, and it is a route that Baptists have gone down before. But I wonder about the effort required to get a new association off the ground. Just keeping our present congregation going is exhausting for the leadership. Hence, thinking about a pret-a-porter rather than bespoke solution.
  • Fawkes CatFawkes Cat Shipmate
    It seems to me that you probably won't find anything that is an exact match - because if there was one, you'd already be in it. So perhaps your church needs to work out what are its absolutely essential points, and what other points there are that they can compromise on (as in, recognise that other congregations that you associate with will agree on the absolute essentials but may have different views on the other points). Then see if that suggests anyone to go with - although the practical upshot might be that the BU turns out to be the least worst fit available.
  • Personally I think it's good to tolerate (and indeed learn from) difference. And you must realise that there are folk who are unhappy with BUGB because they have taken a fairly prescriptive line so far - indeed that they have over-reached themselves and set aside the Declaration of Principle in so doing. You might find this of interest if you haven't already read it: it was produced by folk who don't all see eye-to-eye on this issue: https://www.baptist.org.uk/Publisher/File.aspx?ID=279176

    However: 1. Have you thought of the Grace Baptists? They may of course be neither charismatic- nor female-friendly.

    2. Is your building held in trust by a Baptist Corporation? It probably is; in which case you'd need to liaise with them before leaving BUGB or else you'd be running into legal difficulties.
  • Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    It seems to me that you probably won't find anything that is an exact match - because if there was one, you'd already be in it. So perhaps your church needs to work out what are its absolutely essential points, and what other points there are that they can compromise on (as in, recognise that other congregations that you associate with will agree on the absolute essentials but may have different views on the other points). Then see if that suggests anyone to go with - although the practical upshot might be that the BU turns out to be the least worst fit available.

    Very good advice, also relevant to joining (or voting for) political parties.
  • I thought much the same, but Baptist Shipmates will no doubt be along shortly...
    :wink:
    Except that at least one of them has been having a Nice Day Out.

  • chrisstileschrisstiles Hell Host
    edited May 2022
    However: 1. Have you thought of the Grace Baptists? They may of course be neither charismatic- nor female-friendly.

    Yes, that was what I was thinking of above, and theologically they are only going to be a fit for a fairly particular type of church.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    The Grace Baptists and other Baptist offshoots are overwhelmingly going to not be women-friendly.

    Many Anglican churches happily practice/support credobaptist members alongside pedobaptist members - charismatic Anglicans seem to do so quite often, and also mostly support women in leadership. This might be a good option.
  • If I remember rightly, those Baptist churches which left the BUGB and Ireland back in the 1970s over alleged Christological dilution mostly ended up as Reformed Baptists or other strongly Calvinist forms.

    I'm not sure how many 'general Baptists' seceded. I've also heard that a number rejoined the Baptist Union within a few years.

    Independent Baptists tend to be fairly FIEC in flavour and from what I can see among mildly charismatic Baptists most would probably stay within the Baptist Union rather than break away over this particular issue.

    The position is mixed, as it is with mildly charismatic Anglicans. I know of an evangelical Anglican parish which must have lost 8 or 9 key members, some in positions of office, as it were, because the vicars took a hard traditionalist line on this issue.

    It could be that a new Baptist association would emerge but I'd be surprised if it gained sufficient critical mass to become a going concern longer term - but then I think that of various associations of very different churchmanships.

    I don't see any obvious bedfellows in a formal sense, but I can see overlaps in style and ethos with Vineyard and moderately charismatic Anglican churches - apart from.the church government aspect.

    Interesting dilemma.

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    You might want to check out Worthing Baptist Church in Sussex.
  • Personally I think it's good to tolerate (and indeed learn from) difference. And you must realise that there are folk who are unhappy with BUGB because they have taken a fairly prescriptive line so far - indeed that they have over-reached themselves and set aside the Declaration of Principle in so doing. You might find this of interest if you haven't already read it: it was produced by folk who don't all see eye-to-eye on this issue: https://www.baptist.org.uk/Publisher/File.aspx?ID=279176

    However: 1. Have you thought of the Grace Baptists? They may of course be neither charismatic- nor female-friendly.

    2. Is your building held in trust by a Baptist Corporation? It probably is; in which case you'd need to liaise with them before leaving BUGB or else you'd be running into legal difficulties.

    The Declaration of Principle is no longer fit for purpose. The big question it prompts is not what Baptists agree on but what we disagree on so vehemently that we cannot stay together.

    BUGB has been in this sort of situation before and, like then, the denomination has slept walked into crisis. Then, a number of churches split off: some went to FIEC others became independent.

    As to your two points? Grace Baptists are pretty much Closed Brethren with knobs on and neither charismatic nor female friendly (in terms of participation in services).

    As to the buildings, it depends on the Trust involved and/or the constitution. Some of the latter say "may" be a member of BUGB. Besides which plenty of churches manage without a building - loads do in this neck of the woods.


  • If push comes to shove, linking with other like-minded Baptist congregations might be the best option.

    Yes, and it is a route that Baptists have gone down before. But I wonder about the effort required to get a new association off the ground. Just keeping our present congregation going is exhausting for the leadership. Hence, thinking about a pret-a-porter rather than bespoke solution.

    Hi I have sent you a private message.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited May 2022
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    You might want to check out Worthing Baptist Church in Sussex.

    They sound great to me. However, they seem to be exactly what @Anna_Baptist 's congregation object to:

    Worthing Baptist Church is committed to the love and inclusion of all people, affirming diversity in sexuality, gender identity, ethnicity, age, physical ability, learning disability, neurodiversity, and mental health. On 8th November 2021, we were delighted to agree as a church on registering our building for same-sex marriage.
  • Yes, and my impression is that a (growing?) number of mildly charismatic Baptist churches are taking a similar line to Worthing.

    I don't know much about the inner workings of the Baptist Union but rather suspect like ExclamationMark that it has been sleep-walking towards this crisis, but then I'm not sure how it could have avoided it.

    Perhaps some kind of new association will emerge which occupies some kind of middle ground between the more headline independent Baptist groups such as the Grace Baptists and the Strict and Particulars (do they still exist?) and an increasingly more liberal Baptist Union?

    If so, that might be convenient but it begs a few questions for me that apply more broadly across the Christian spectrum as a whole. If we are to separate over whatever the issue then, given our relatively low numbers, aren't we going to end up in smaller and smaller fissaporous groups?

    The 19th century saw a plethora of splinter-groups, umpteen varieties of Methodist for instance.

    Whatever we think of that - good, bad or indifferent - there were at least the numbers to bear it. That is no longer the case.

    In a different kind of way, few of the religious orders founded by Victorian and Edwardian Anglo-Catholics outlived their founders by any length of time.

    It is a conundrum for Anna_Baptist's congregation. Mainstream 'nonconformist' Protestant denominations here are generally fairly liberal on Dead Horse issues these days. That's certainly the case with the Methodists and URC around here and seems to be the way the BUGB is heading.

    So where do you go if you want to avoid that but equally aren't drawn towards the somewhat harsh and brittle feel of groups like the FIEC, Grace Baptists and so on?

    My guess would be that groups like the Vineyard and the traditional Pentecostal denominations as well as New Frontiers (or whatever it calls itself these days) are going to have to confront and deal with these issues sooner or later - if they haven't begun to do so already. I'm sure they have been discussing and debating these issues for some time.

    So what happens if Anna_Baptist's church affiliates with another, existing group only to find that it too takes a more liberal line in 5 or 10 years time?

    Do they leave and seek another association?

    How long could that go on and where would it end?
  • I meant 'hardline' rather than 'headline'.

    A question though ... as much as I understand the Baptist emphasis on interdependence, in practice the congregational polity does give individual churches a wide degree of wriggle-room.

    In my experience, Baptist ministers and many individual members of Baptist churches get on very well and collaborate with their Anglican, URC or Methodist neighbours and sit loosely by regional associations within their own denomination. That isn't because they don't 'get on' with Baptists across the other side of town, but because they tend to work locally.

    I suppose it depends on how individual congregations regard independence and interdependence as working out in practice.

  • I think there's quite often been a feeling that the BU "heirarchy" are more liberal than many churches. Certainly true after the Michael Taylor "humanity of Christ" talk at Assembly in the 70s, and of the General Secretariat in the 80s. Some churches left too when the Council of Churches became CTE, with its inclusion of Catholics.

    My question though is why Anna's church feels so concerned about being part of a grouping in which diverse views are held?
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Hell Host
    My guess would be that groups like the Vineyard and the traditional Pentecostal denominations as well as New Frontiers (or whatever it calls itself these days) are going to have to confront and deal with these issues sooner or later - if they haven't begun to do so already.

    My impression is that Vineyard are more flexible than the others which are mostly in retrenchment mode. The likes of Elim etc. have a hidden level of flexibility when it comes to women's ministry as increasing numbers of churches are effectively led by the ministering couple rather than the man alone.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    A scary lot, Elim. I recall a young woman I met in general practice 30+years ago who with her husband was being groomed as a missionary in foreign parts. Both she and husband were under pressure for her to undergo sterilisation so they would not incur the expense of a child to the organisation and to make sure she could be an ( unpaid) assistant to the mission.
  • I think there's quite often been a feeling that the BU "heirarchy" are more liberal than many churches. Certainly true after the Michael Taylor "humanity of Christ" talk at Assembly in the 70s, and of the General Secretariat in the 80s. Some churches left too when the Council of Churches became CTE, with its inclusion of Catholics.

    My question though is why Anna's church feels so concerned about being part of a grouping in which diverse views are held?

    Possibly because that they see this as a first order issue and one over which there can be no compromise? I don't that this is the case for A's church but I know of Baptist Churches where it is.

    I can only reiterate what I posted above .... we are soak testing the Declaration of Principle and it has reached the edge of destruction. For some people, the liberty to interpret is being over stretched beyond what they see as a Biblical boundary - it won't bring more people in and will alienate many who are already here. I can appreciate the issues around love, justice contemporary witness but for many in the BU - I'd estimate 35% - this whole area is a major sticking point.

    It hasn't helped that the messages have been very mixed on the public stage for many years. Too much don't ask, don't tell too many public decisions overturned or ignored in private. Overall, I feel that there are questions of integrity that need to be aired - a common issue in public life.

    It all seems very drawn out .... it is a case of whatever we have to do then let's do it quickly, split if we have to, and get it over.
  • I meant 'hardline' rather than 'headline'.

    A question though ... as much as I understand the Baptist emphasis on interdependence, in practice the congregational polity does give individual churches a wide degree of wriggle-room.

    In my experience, Baptist ministers and many individual members of Baptist churches get on very well and collaborate with their Anglican, URC or Methodist neighbours and sit loosely by regional associations within their own denomination. That isn't because they don't 'get on' with Baptists across the other side of town, but because they tend to work locally.

    I suppose it depends on how individual congregations regard independence and interdependence as working out in practice.

    As often the case with your posts GG you are bang on the money in your posts both IMHO and IME on the ground.

    There is wriggle room but the impact of it depends on the issue: this one is, I think (hear and see, too) a line in the sand one. With integrity you can't service two masters as you would by having opposing opinions of this nature. There has to be a general understanding of what the "Principals" are, otherwise the descent into Anarchy beckons.

    The general understanding is that as an explicitly evangelical movement, the biblical principals are of 1st order. There are different interpretations on the various texts of course.

    Most Baptists are more interested in local issues vs national ones. I think it reflects the fact that few people today are denominationally minded and most baptist churches have a mix of people from varied backgrounds that settle into a place because they feel happy with the set up not necessarily the denomination.
  • All I can say without unhelpfully derailing the thread is please look and listen to any of the C of E experience you can - not just about sexuality, but our painful and mostly unsuccessful attempts to deal with difference with any kind of integrity. We seem to be doing this as badly as humanly possible, in what feels like painfully full sight of the world and each other. Or perhaps that's just a perception from the inside.
  • Perhaps, but as a rather reluctant and lapsed Anglican, I fear you're right.

    I am, as it were, looking in from the outside nowadays, having recently resigned from my Lay Ministry role, and no longer taking an active part in parish affairs and worship.
  • Thanks Thunderbunk. Your perception from the inside is mirrored by our (non anglican) view from the outside. Whichever way the decision goes (including the fudge of both/and) will cause pain and attract criticism: there is no way of avoiding it unless people give ground. Given the "sides" and "positions" I have little expectation of that although God can always confound our plans.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    Sojourner wrote: »
    A scary lot, Elim. I recall a young woman I met in general practice 30+years ago who with her husband was being groomed as a missionary in foreign parts. Both she and husband were under pressure for her to undergo sterilisation so they would not incur the expense of a child to the organisation and to make sure she could be an ( unpaid) assistant to the mission.

    Crikey flip. Is that really true? Sterlisation is not something I would expect evangelical churches to be mad keen on.
  • I can't think of any churches that could lawfully require it, though pressure of a most unpleasant and wicked sort could be brought to bear.

    I hope the young lady mentioned by @Sojourner was able to resist...
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    edited May 2022
    Oh sure of course no-one could lawfully require it! But it's astonishing that the church would even desire this and horrifying that they pressed for it.

    I hope they resisted too (sounds like the man was also supposed to be sterilised?)
  • Yes, *lawfully* was the wrong word - even *reasonably* won't fit...because the whole idea is totally unreasonable and abhorrent IMHO.

    As you say, astonishing and horriying.
    :rage:
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    Sojourner wrote: »
    A scary lot, Elim. I recall a young woman I met in general practice 30+years ago who with her husband was being groomed as a missionary in foreign parts. Both she and husband were under pressure for her to undergo sterilisation so they would not incur the expense of a child to the organisation and to make sure she could be an ( unpaid) assistant to the mission.

    Crikey flip. Is that really true? Sterlisation is not something I would expect evangelical churches to be mad keen on.


    That’s what she told me. I’ll never know whether the happy couple went ahead or not; never saw her again.


  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited May 2022
    Something healthcare professionals often come across - the story (often heartrending) whose outcome, whether for good or ill, you never know...

    Oops - sorry - tangent...
  • Anna_BaptistAnna_Baptist Shipmate
    edited May 2022
    I think there's quite often been a feeling that the BU "heirarchy" are more liberal than many churches. Certainly true after the Michael Taylor "humanity of Christ" talk at Assembly in the 70s, and of the General Secretariat in the 80s. Some churches left too when the Council of Churches became CTE, with its inclusion of Catholics.

    My question though is why Anna's church feels so concerned about being part of a grouping in which diverse views are held?

    This is the scripture that has been quoted:
    Rev 2:20-25

    People think that these views are not "diverse" but rather against "the plain meaning of scripture". If we are part of an association that has churches that hold these views then we would be guilty of tolerating them and under God's judgment.

    Also, as I mentioned before, we support the BU financially, and some people would rather this money be given to properly evangelical causes.

    Fixed broken URL. BroJames, Purgatory Host
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Hell Host
    I think there's quite often been a feeling that the BU "heirarchy" are more liberal than many churches. Certainly true after the Michael Taylor "humanity of Christ" talk at Assembly in the 70s, and of the General Secretariat in the 80s. Some churches left too when the Council of Churches became CTE, with its inclusion of Catholics.

    My question though is why Anna's church feels so concerned about being part of a grouping in which diverse views are held?

    People think that these views are not "diverse" but rather against "the plain meaning of scripture". If we are part of an association that has churches that hold these views then we would be guilty of tolerating them and under God's judgment.

    I think you may find that you are stuck in between people who agree on all these views but also include the ordination of women as one of these views, and people who agree on the ordination of women but don't agree with the rest of these views.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    I'm inclined to say that attempting to use Revelation as a guide to handling disagreements within churches is a sure sign that someone has lost the plot entirely.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    I'm inclined to say that attempting to use Revelation as a guide to handling disagreements within churches is a sure sign that someone has lost the plot entirely.

    Perhaps that's what Patriarch Kirill is doing?
Sign In or Register to comment.