Update on Questionairre

Update:

Our little questionairres are fun. The numbers suggest little more than some fun.

However, for those voting, here's a break-down and note.

1. Does ACNA not have Reformational leadership?

About 63% said "correct." Not a good signal.
About 18.7% said "perhaps."

A clear majority agreed they have no Reformational leadership. Combined, about 80% do not have rock-solid feelings about the leadership, including the "perhaps."

About 18.7% said "incorrect." These voters think the ACNA, in fact, has "Reformational leadership," a slam dunk minority.

2. The ACNA has contradictory and conflicting voices?

A clear majority said "Yes" with 71% of the vote. An ape could see that. No offense is intended by that, but their "dog and donkey" show with Rev. Warren and Rev. (some call him Metropolitan) Jonah was exhibit A.

About 14-ish% said "Maybe." Not very confident. Categories one and two, "yes" and "maybe" total about 85% of our voters. If these minor numbers meant anything, it's not inspiring.

About 14-ish% said "No." These votes were decisive, suggesting complementarity, absence of conflict and absence of contradition.

3. Bp. Iker and followers are Tractarians?

81% said "Yes."
19% said "Perhaps," again, a note of uncertainty.

4. Virtue represents authentic Anglicanism?

This one expresses little confidence in Virtue by the voters.

No one, 0%, said "Yes." Yikes.

About 31% said "Sometimes." That's somewhere around what voters in the last election cycle expressed for Congressman, in terms of trust and reliability. Virtue got whacked in this one.

Almost 25% said he's "confused."

About 46% said "No."

The total sense of the three categories: Virtue doesn't generally represent authentic Anglicanism, by anyone's read of these numbers.

The only thing Virtue is good for is his errand-boy service, wherein, like a "hired page on the Hill," he collects news articles from around the world. For this scribe, the commentary and comments are almost worthless, especially since there are far better commentators that Virtue hires. His moderators are just plain worthless.

We admit this little questionairre is essentially limited, if not worthless itself. However, it would be most fascinating to have a professional sociologist, social psychologist, an historian trained in Anglican history, a psychiatrist, and a skilled college of Presbyters produce a thorough analysis with questions to every single cleric in the ACNA. Let that report be done and we'll read it, not the puff-pieces we're getting.

That little puff piece by a Rev. William Fry on "Four Streams" was one sorry piece of work, yet Virtue runs with puerility.