In recent weeks there has been the first 'Court of High Commision Thread' that I have seen in this Forum. Firstly let me say, so as to be quite clear, I do not have an Anglican Badge. For me the requirement to subscribe placed the bar to high for me to make it with sufficient integrity for myself. (the reasons being that a lack of clarity in the expression of double procession in Article 5, the filioque should not be part of the Nicene Creed, and I don't understand the omission of the 2nd Note of the Church from BCP, and whilst those matters may seem of little consequence to some, I value my integrity). I am neither advocating nor arguing my position, simply being entirely clear. None the less I identify myself as an Anglican through and through. What did concern me about the process was the level of angst the process caused, and the poor witness the matter generated. I know of at least four members of this forum who were quite discouraged by the process. The notion of magisterium is not so Anglican, and whilst the diversity of Anglican opinion is sometimes one of our greatest weaknesses, it is also at times one of our great strengths. I can understand why the word 'inquisition' was floating around, and I have no doubt that that was not the intent of the process. There was also a question about the place of theology in the Anglican world, and I for one would see that Theology is front and centre, the Queen of the Sciences, for Anglicans, and Anglican Theologians have made significant contributions way above our numbers. We speak of the principles of Scripture, Tradition and Reason as the undergirding of our life of faith. Let me be clear, I am in now way challenging the process that was undertaken, or the decisions made, but I am asking the question if the open public disputation was the best approach, given that there are clearly costs emotional and spiritual to be had in such a process.