"The Lord is gracious and full of compassion, slow to anger and of great mercy."
Psalm 145:8 KJ21
|
|
|
| Quick Links |
|
|
|
|
Message from Bishop David Anderson
|
 | |
Bishop Anderson
|
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
This is a long lead in to a short news event in the UK. If you are in a hurry, scroll down to the paragraph beginning with boldfaced England.
In the type of physics that deal with very small things, something called Quantum Mechanics seem to apply, and within this is a concept called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The online Free Dictionary defines the Uncertainty Principle as: "greater accuracy of measurement for one observable entails less accuracy of measurement for another. For example, it is in principle impossible to measure both the momentum and the position of a particle at the same time with perfect accuracy."
Moving into an area more familiar to many of my readers, at times it appears that there is an Uncertainty Principle of some type at work in theology as well, with different Christian leaders focused on one aspect or another of an issue and thereby coming out with different answers, but never a coherent coming together of all measurables to give a singular answer that all agree on. Today I want to look briefly at the issue of the ordination of women to Holy Orders, and I hope to do so fairly enough that you can't tell where my own inclination is.
|
|
|
|
One group addressing this issue might assume that the orders of Deacon, Priest (Presbyter) and Bishop are all very similar, and an argument that applies to one would logically extend to all three. Others might argue that each of the three orders is unique. Although they are additive, one might begin as a deacon, later become a priest, and possibly later a bishop, and the progression is in this order and not the reverse. There is such a difference in the authority and responsibility of each office that there may be very different requirements for each office, for example being a very good deacon or priest doesn't always mean that you are really an undiscovered bishop just waiting for proper recognition, though every priest and bishop does begin as a deacon. In the issue of women's ordination, some will assume that one argument, for or against will apply to all three orders, and some will believe that an argument might apply to one order or another but not all three.
Anglicans might have any of four points of view that bear on the discussion and argumentation over women's ordination. All four can look to some portion of Holy Scripture to find a basis. One view is that a priest and bishop should physically represent Jesus Christ at the altar, and therefore should be physically the same, i.e., a man. A second view is that the Biblical principle of masculine headship requires the one exercising authority to be a male. The third view is that the passages from Joel 2:28-29 and Acts 2:17-18 which speak of God in the latter days being an "equal opportunity employer," if you will, applies to the opening of Holy Orders at all levels to women. The fourth view is based on modern concepts of justice, fairness and equality, but would look to Scripture to validate their position.
The first two points of view would generally not ordain women, or would only allow women deacons, whereas the latter two would generally ordain women to all three orders. Although I have greatly simplified the points of view to the point of doing damage to them, if I have damaged them I hope I have done so equally.
The outcome you arrive at on women's ordination may well be predetermined by where you start and what you value the most, with Biblical citations, Biblical tradition, Biblical prophecy, and Biblical concepts of equality and fairness all as starting points. In conversations, it is equally as important to listen and ask questions as to inform others of your beliefs and reasoning. Even if no change of mind occurs, a better way forward is at least within grasp. In this I hope I have been fair to all. Now to the point.
England is now in the midst of a very serious argument over the implementation of women bishops in the life of the church. The decision to have women deacons and priests having been made years ago, a growing majority decided that having women bishops was therefore inevitable. A significant minority comprised of both catholic and evangelical members of the Church of England (CofE) felt otherwise, and have said that if the women bishops decision is to be implemented, there has to be a workable provision for male episcopal oversight for those who can't receive the ministry of women bishops. The Episcopal Church in the United States (TEC) wasn't able to or desirous of accommodating similar church members over the last two decades since 1989, and now the CofE seems poised at the same precipice.
The catholic and evangelical Church of England members seem willing to stay within the CofE if their views can be accommodated, and have asked for provision of male bishops to minister to them. The aggressive liberal wing insists on no accommodation, since that would somehow tarnish the office of a woman bishop as being less than adequate. A recent vote of the General Synod in England over the implementation scheme, but with inadequate provision for the minority, failed by a few votes in the House of Laity. It actually had a majority, but not a sufficient majority, and so, failing in one house, it failed entirely.
This caused a great deal of anger and a desire to punish anyone who contributed to the loss, and in particular someone who could be scapegoated. The more elite progressives would not admit to such behavior, but have cloaked their anger by questioning the leadership and ability of any who might be blamed for the failure. The idea is to destroy those who might have contributed to the loss such that the next try will surely pass, and without any "degrading" provisions.
One person singled out for progressive anger is a friend of mine, Dr. Philip Giddings, who
 | |
Dr. Giddings
|
is the elected chairman of the House of Laity. Within their tradition it is the duty, in part, of the chairman, to argue against the tyranny of the majority over the vulnerability of the minority by speaking on behalf of the minority for fair treatment. Dr. Giddings did speak clearly and eloquently, and some attributed his points to the decision to not proceed in the Laity.
Then the post-Synod anger became focused on Dr. Giddings, and some members of the House of Laity called for a vote of no confidence in his chairmanship. Such a vote is not provided as a means of unseating the chairman, but the progressives saw it as an opportunity to punish and shame him by questioning his ability, motive and loyalty.
The argument seemed to be that he should have been loyal to the majority and kept quiet, and that to be loyal to the Church of England required him to agree with them. One of the hatchet people to go after Dr. Giddings was Elaine Storkey, sometimes identified as a philosopher, sociologist and theologian. She is known in part for her lecturing, writing and broadcasting, and her heading of the large English philanthropic aid group, The Tear Fund. Her speech is appended below.
Her comments were clever as she attempted to change the job description of the
 | |
Dr. Storkey
|
chairman to something fitting her preference, and to establish a standard for Dr. Giddings that she herself and others of her persuasion would have trouble meeting. The checks and balances within a proper democratic body politic should prevent the tyranny of the majority over the vulnerability of the minority, and especially on an island nation it is a dangerous combination of power and privilege for her to suggest that things should be her way or no way. One can only wonder how she conducts the business of Fulcrum and the Tear Fund if this is her approach to those who don't agree with her in the church.
With Dr. Storkey's attack on Dr. Giddings out in the open, it becomes fair to ask whether the same test questions she put to him could be actually and honestly met by Dr. Storkey herself. Could someone who had a winner-take-all, our-way-or-no-way attitude as she evidences, really be a focus of unity of the church? Is her loyalty to the church and its unity above question when the issue of women bishops is on the table? It would appear not, since her resistance to adequate provision for those who disagree with her stance, and her insistence on all or nothing suggests that she holds deep and divisive beliefs which somehow require not only her point of view to triumph, but that others be crushed, and that just isn't fair.
Storkey's desire to discredit Giddings based on his participation in the full life of the community and church is odd since her participation in Fulcrum and the Tear Fund should prove to keep her plate also quite full, and in fact raises questions about her leadership in the Tear Fund, and whether it is being used to advance a sectarian point of view that she holds. The Church of England has forced others out of the church in times past, and in retrospect one must wonder at the lack of wisdom and caring exercised then. It would seem that if you don't agree with Elaine Storkey and her cadre of power politic believers in the church, one should quickly learn to swim, for she will vote you off the island. England has experienced this type of extremism in the past, and it wasn't pleasant or healthy.
Whether the Church of England should have women bishops, rightly or wrongly, has been decided, but the question that will govern the future of the Church of England is how they provide for those who for Biblical and theological reasons cannot accept the ministry of women bishops. If those who advocate for women bishops and oppose any provision for dissent prevail, it will bring to mind the work of Oliver Cromwell and his approach to church.
From North America, the American Anglican Council welcomes the victory of common sense and fairness that the vote upholding Dr. Giddings' chairmanship represents. We know him to be devoted to the Church of England, and to seeing that it proceeds forward in its life in a manner respecting both the determination of the majority for those who can receive it, and an adequate provision for the minority for those who cannot. One would be hard pressed to find anyone exceeding him in wisdom, devotion and fairness within the counsel of the House of Laity.
May the Lord be merciful to all those who sit in the councils of the church.
Now we move to breaking news from South Carolina. The authentic and historic Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina with Bishop Mark Lawrence as Diocesan has filed an injunction in South Carolina Court asking for relief from the Episcopal Church trying to do business in South Carolina masquerading as the official Diocese of South Carolina. Mark Lawrence's diocese has also filed for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the TEC faux diocese to stop the immediate use of trademarks, logos, seals and other representations of the official diocese that could cause confusion and irreparable harm, and this was granted ex parte.
TEC Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori is still planning on holding an organizing convention in Charleston this weekend, according to the faux diocese's website as of Thursday noon. The question for this weekend might well be, will the Presiding Bishop of TEC put herself in direct defiance of the SC court over the organizational meeting, election of her hand-picked lackey, and continued attack on the official diocese, or will she back down and comply with the law?
This weekend is also the Mere Anglicanism Conference in Charleston, hosted by the authentic and historic Diocese of South Carolina under Bishop Lawrence. With all of this going on this weekend in Charleston, it definitely would be worth the price of airfare to be in the midst of this moment in time.
Blessings and peace in Christ Jesus,
+David
The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council
________________________________________________
DR. STORKEY'S SPEECH AT THE SPECIAL MEETING OF NO CONFIDENCE
Elaine Storkey:
I just want to clear away a few things this debate is not about. It is not about personal frustration, irritation or wanting to scapegoat someone. It's not about the Church Punitive. There is no desire to humiliate Dr Giddings whatsoever. Many of us find this debate extremely distasteful, embarrassing and we are sorry that we are here. It's not about Dr Giddings right to hold views and convictions nor is it about Dr Giddings right to express his own views and convictions in the public arena. It's not about anger. Its interesting that most of the anger expressed has been by those who did not want to come to the debate in the first place.
It's actually about whether we have confidence in the leadership of Philip Giddings to lead the house of laity into the next phase of the Church's journey as witnesses to God's Love and the saving power of Jesus Christ to our culture and our generation.
Do we have confidence in his leadership to do that? And what would give us confidence? Dr Giddings' inclusion on panels, which address the future for our Church? No. Because he is on these panels precisely by dint of his role as chair of the House of Laity. Would it be his work for the church in the past? No. We have very specific needs and duties now and very specific tasks which have to be attained today. Would it be his letters to the press or his contributions on radio? Well, no. Because in many times he has invariably expressed personal views and opinions rather than those that in any sense reflect the House of Laity. We would have to get confidence that Dr Giddings' loyalty to the House of Laity does not come second, to be at variance with his loyalty to any other groups, including Anglican Mainstream. We would have to be assured and have confidence that his wise leadership would continue to be wise and embracing and reassuring that he is at the very heart of our church's concern in its mission in the world today. We would have to have confidence in Dr Giddings' focus of unity in our church. We would need to believe that he has the persuasion and relevance in the public square when representing lay members of the church. We would need to trust Dr Giddings to present the positions of the laity, all the positions, with accuracy, faithfulness and truth when actually some of us believe that he has been manipulative with figures and not done that.
We have not only a right to call this meeting we have a responsibility and a duty to ask the fundamental question 'Do we have confidence n Dr Giddings to lead us into the future with the Church of England with all the things he has on his plate?' If you believe like I do that we do not, that we lack some confidence, we lack some trust, we have a right to express it and an importance to make that felt when we take a vote.
|
Anglican Perspective: Philip Giddings
|
This week, Canon Ashey discusses the recent defeat of a proposal for a vote of no confidence in the leader of the Church of England's House of Laity, Dr. Philip Giddings.
View Anglican Perspective here.
Back to top
|
Message from Canon Phil Ashey
|
 | |
Canon Ashey
|
.Surely there must be a better way...
"Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way..." Romans 14:13 NIV
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
I am writing in the wake of the defeat of the 'no confidence' vote in Dr. Philip Giddings, a well-respected leader within the Church of England and Chair of the General Synod's House of Laity. Some of you will remember that in November, the Church of England General Synod debated legislation that would approve the consecration of women as bishops. The legislation failed by a very narrow margin in the House of Laity.
During that debate, Dr. Giddings gave a speech in which he stated that the legislation was flawed because it did not safeguard the theological minority who, for reasons of conscience, cannot accept the ministry of women bishops. In fact, this is what he said in the spirit of Romans 14:13:
"On 7 February this year in Westminster Abbey, representatives of the Church of England and the URC took part in a service of penitence and reconciliation to mark the 350th anniversary of the Great Ejection of non-conforming ministers in 1662. In November 2003, this Synod endorsed the covenant for unity with the Methodist Church 'in a spirit of penitence for... our past divisions, believing that we have been impoverished through our separation and that our witness to the gospel has been weakened accordingly.'
Surely we do not want to make the same mistakes again? Can we not find a better way of taking this historic step of allowing the consecration of women as bishops without unchurching those who cannot in conscience accept it?"
On the principle that no good deed remains unpunished, Dr. Giddings was rewarded with a motion for a vote of no confidence - essentially, a motion to unseat him as Chair of the House of Laity. And the grounds? Those who moved the vote alleged that Dr. Giddings speech was "a significant contributor to the reputational damage the Church of England is already suffering at the hands of the press."
The House of Laity defeated the unprecedented vote of no confidence by a comfortable margin of 80 votes to 47. But the damage has been done to the spirit of penitence and reconciliation that ought to govern the way brothers and sisters in Christ in the church resolve "disputable matters" (see Romans 14:1). A rift has emerged between those who believe the church ought to speak and act in controversies over such matters with grace and charity towards the minority, and those who believe that the culture of the church must conform to the culture around us - especially as it is defined by the secular elites and media. After all, it's the "reputation of the church" that matters.
On this latter point, may I briefly make two observations: first, Ruth Gledhill, the highly respected Times religious correspondent, said on BBC radio on December 30 that "The legislation which I reread recently was not actually very good - many would say it is a bit cobbled together and maybe in the long term it might be seen to be the right decision that it did not go through this time." So much for reputational damage at the hands of the press. Even the press recognizes that Dr. Giddings speech helped the Church of England dodge a bullet.
Secondly, applying discipline for the sake of "the reputation of the church" is no different than what The Episcopal Church (TEC) is doing under its revised Title IV Disciplinary canons to any deacon, priest or bishop who dares "threaten the welfare of the church." Those who follow the news will know that Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and her bishops have used Title IV in draconian ways to silence and remove by canonical force any voice that they deem to "threaten the welfare (read 'reputation') of the church." As a result there is no longer any procedural safeguard, due process or fair play for clergy who are charged under Title IV. In fact, the situation is so dire for TEC clergy that Michael Rehill, the former Chancellor of the TEC Diocese of Newark who successfully defended Bishop Walter righter for ordaining to the priesthood the first avowed homosexual, has sent a letter to TEC clergy advertising his services to defend them against the anonymous and unsubstantiated charges that TEC bishops can now bring under Title IV - all in the interest of protecting the reputation/welfare of the church.
Is this really the path the Church of England wishes to take?
The motion for a vote of no confidence was and is a manifestation of a mindset that says theological minorities - or as the Apostle puts it more generously, "those with weaker faith" (Rom 14:1 et seq.) - must either shape up or ship out. We have seen what happened to hundreds of clergy in TEC who were unlawfully inhibited and deposed because in good conscience they could not accept the departures of TEC leadership from the faith once delivered. Right now, that same tragedy is unfolding in the charges and legal actions being prosecuted by the leadership of TEC against Bishop Mark Lawrence and the Diocese of South Carolina. Such actions are inevitable because they are driven by a secular, utopian vision of what the society of the church should be - a place of justice, inclusion, diversity and "equal access." Noble as these aspirations may seem, apart from Christ and His word, such utopian visions can only be sustained by the use of force. In fact, the 20th century is a testimony to how such secular utopian regimes will inevitably degenerate into violence.
Fortunately, we no longer have ecclesiastical prisons and violence for dissenters. If we did, many of us who could no longer accept the theological and doctrinal innovations of TEC would not be here today. Instead, we suffered the current ecclesiastical form execution - inhibition and deposition from Holy Orders. Fortunately, the majority of Anglicans globally recognize that TEC's inhibitions and depositions are null and void.
The vote for Dr. Giddings should be very encouraging to those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops. But even more encouraging is the margin of that vote - 80 votes, 74 more than the 6 who defeated the flawed legislation in November. This vote clearly includes those who favor the consecration of women as bishops, but not at the expense of unchurching those who cannot. Is this a step back from the cliff that aggressive revisionists, following the agenda and tactics of TEC, have been leading the Church of England towards? If not, how much farther down this road must the Church of England march before it faces the same situation for those Anglicans who do not "shape up" and "get with the program?"
And the "program," very reminiscent of TEC's, continues apace in the Church of England. By executive action, the House of Bishops has now made it possible for male clergy in a same-sex civil partnership to be candidates for bishop - without any consultation with other Anglican churches. Predictably, this TEC-type unilateral departure from Biblical standards has further fractured the Anglican Communion with condemnations from the vast majority of Anglicans in Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria and the Global South. Again, is this really the road the Church of England wishes to take? There is another road; it's the road Paul lays out in Romans 14 and 15. It is the biblical, Christ-centered way of dealing with conflict.In his excellent commentary, The Message of Romans (IVP: 1994), John Stott observes the following principles from the scriptures themselves:
1. In essentials let there be unity:
Is salvation through Jesus Christ alone an essential of the faith? Yes; the scriptures are crystal clear. On this issue Christians must be of one mind, in keeping with Scripture. Is the authority of Scripture an essential of the faith? Yes again. Jesus bears witness to the authority of Scripture, the Scriptures themselves bear witness to their own authority (2 Timothy 3:16) and the Anglican Church bears witness to their final authority (Thirty Nine Articles) Is the consecration of women bishops an essential of the faith? No. How do we determine what is essential and what is not? Stott offers the following guideline:
"Although it is not always easy to distinguish between them, a safe guide is that truths on which Scripture speaks with a clear voice are essentials, whereas whenever equally Biblical Christians, equally anxious to understand and obey Scripture, reach different conclusions, these must be regarded as non-essentials." (Stott, p. 374)
What then about clergy in same-sex relationships? What about clergy in civil-partnerships? Should they be bishops? Not according to the clear voice of the Scriptures. The Bible speaks clearly that sexual relations are reserved for a man and a woman in a lifelong marital commitment, and chastity in all other cases.
2. In non-essentials let there be liberty:
"One man considers one day more sacred than another, another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." Romans 14:5 NIV
This is the principle that everything in the church should be done "from faith" (14:23). As Stott observes, "we need therefore to educate our consciences by the Word of God, so that we become strong in faith, growing in settled convictions and so in Christian liberty." (Ibid., p. 374). Perhaps it is time to dust off the Rochester Report and to review and receive at a deeper level what the Bible has to say about women in Holy Orders. Such a careful study and submission to biblical authority might lead to different conclusions on this non-essential... but with it could come the respect that would enable each to move forward without unchurching the other; "to make every effort to do what leads to peace and mutual edification," and not to destroy the work of the Kingdom for a winner-take-all victory on a non-essential (Romans 14:19-20). Isn't this the commitment for which Dr. Giddings spoke so passionately?
3. In all things let there be charity:
Love respects the conscience of others. That is the whole point of Romans 14:1-15:13. In fundamentals of the Christian faith, love can never be used as an excuse to deny the essentials. But as Stott observes, in non-fundamentals love is primary and respects the conscientious differences of Christ followers who come to different conclusions in submission to the Scriptures on non-essentials of the faith. And in such cases, "we may not appeal to zeal... as an excuse for failures of love" (Ibid.)
There are two roads before the Church of England. Which road will the Church take?
Yours in Christ,
Phil+
The Rev. Canon Phil Ashey
Chief Operating and Development Officer, American Anglican Council
Back to top |
|
Court blocks loyalist convention for Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina
| Source: Anglican Ink
January 23 2013
By George Conger
The First Judicial Circuit Court in South Carolina has issued a Temporary Restraining Order forbidding any "individual, organization, association or entity" from using the name, symbols or seal of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina - save for Bishop Mark J. Lawrence and the trustees of the diocese.
The 23 January 2013 order handed down by Judge Diane Goodstein effectively blocks the Episcopal Church and its allies from electing a bishop and standing committee for the minority faction loyal to the national church for the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina.
However, canon lawyer Allan Haley notes the ruling does not prevent those in the diocese who wish to remain affiliated with the national Episcopal Church "from meeting, but they will have to adopt a different name."
After reviewing the order, Mr. Haley told Anglican Ink the TRO was "granted ex parte as a matter of urgency, and holds in place only until the Court can hear argument on a preliminary injunction pending trial of the matter. As such, it was granted without ECUSA or its faux diocese having made an appearance in the case, and will be in effect only until the hearing set for Feb. 1."
On 4 Jan 2013 the trustees of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina (including Bishop Mark Lawrence) and 15 congregations filed suit against the national church alleging that its agents had committed identity theft by using its name, symbols and seal and by holding out the Presiding Bishop the "steering committee" of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina as the lawful diocesan ecclesiastical authority. The complaint further alleged the national church had slandered the title to diocesan and congregational property by stating it held an interest in all church property in South Carolina....
The rest of the article may be found here.
Back to top |
|
Anglican Church leaders to gather in Washington to support life
| Source: Anglicans for Life
January 19, 2013
Pittsburgh, PA - Fifteen Anglican bishops, including the Archbishop Robert Duncan, are  slated to join Anglicans for Life and thousands of others from across the nation on Friday, January 25, 2013, in Washington, D.C. for the 40th Annual March for Life. The Anglican bishops will start the day in prayer by attending the ecumenical service at Constitution Hall (1776 D Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.) called the National Memorial for the Preborn and their Mothers and Fathers.
"I am honored to stand, along with my fellow bishops of the Anglican Church in North America, in recognition of the millions lost through abortion and to demonstrate our commitment to uphold the sanctity of life for all of God's children," said Archbishop Robert Duncan.
"The Anglican Church in North America has a deep commitment to the sanctity of life," said Bishop John Guernsey of the Anglican Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic. "Our hope is that the presence of so many of our bishops for the March for Life this year will help spur the Church to even greater support for the sanctity of human life."
The bishops will join hundreds of fellow Anglicans marching under the Anglicans for Life banner as they mark the 40th anniversary of the landmark ruling Roe v. Wade that permitted abortion on demand in the United States. Since then, over fifty-five million babies have been aborted leaving a tremendous impact on an entire generation and the nation....
The rest of the article may be found here.
Back to top |
|
UK: MPs set to vote on gay marriage proposals for the first time
| Source: BBC
January 24, 2013
MPs are set to get their first chance to vote on plans to allow same-sex marriages in England and Wales. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill will be debated in Parliament on Tuesday 5 February, the leader of the Commons Andrew Lansley has announced. The bill will allow same-sex marriage and let religious organisations which want to, to offer them, the culture department says.
The plans have divided the Conservative Party - its MPs will get a free vote. Labour and the Lib Dems back the proposals to legalise same-sex marriage, but Labour said the exemption for the established Church was "disappointing".
The Church of England and Roman Catholics, among other denominations, have voiced opposition to the plans and are expected to oppose the bill, even with its caveats....
The rest of the article may be found here.
Back to top |
|
South Sudan: Bishop Urges African Leaders to Act On Sudan's 'War of Horror'
| Source: Anglican Communion News Service
January 23, 2013
Nairobi - A panel of African civil society leaders, including Bishop Andudu Adam Elnail,  were joined today by the former UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan, Dr. Mukesh Kapila, in urging African political leaders to use the upcoming African Union (AU) Summit in Addis Ababa to end the humanitarian suffering in Sudan's Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states.
The panel identified the January 25 Heads of State meeting on Sudan as a key test of the AU's "credibility" and urged African leaders to recognise the importance of addressing the conflict in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile for wider regional security.
Having just returned from a visit to the region, Dr Kapila called for an independent commission of enquiry into the conflict amongst warnings of "ethnic cleansing".
Bishop Andudu of Kadugli in the Nuba Mountains said: "I am here on behalf of my people. This is a war of horror where children are dying every day. There are no vaccinations, medicine, there is nothing. In December there were over 230 bombings. We are calling for AU leadership at its summit next week. This is a rare opportunity that we mustn't miss."...
The rest of the article may be found here.
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
