Archbishop Mouneer Anis To TEC HoB

Address of Archbishop Mouneer Anis to the TEC House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans

(Hat tip - Matt Kennedy @ Stand Firm)


Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Thank you so much for inviting me here to come and listen to you and for giving me the opportunity to share my heart with you. I am very aware of my own shortcomings and weaknesses, but every word I want to say is out of love and concern for the unity of the Church of Christ.

I do not come with great authority, nor am I the primate of a province with a great number of Anglicans; I do however, come from a region where Christ walked and where the Church was born. I come representing the Church of Jerusalem and the Middle East.

The Church ion this region has faced many challenges since the first century. Our brothers and sisters in the early centuries were ready to sacrifice their very lives to stay true to the Faith they received from the Lord and his Apostles. Their blood was not in vain; rather it became the seed of the Church across our entire region. Many disputes and heresies took place in our region. In face of all the challenges, persecutions, and heresies our ancestors—people like St. Athanasius, St. Clement, Origen, and Cyril from Alexandria, along with Tertullian, Cyprian, and St. Augustine from North Africa—kept the faith of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We are constantly learning from our ancient martyrs and forebearers how to serve the Kingdom of God faithfully.

Today our Anglican Church in the Middle East still lives within a very exciting and challenging context. We live among the Oriental Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox, the Catholics, the Jews and the Muslims. We greatly value our ecumenical relations and continue to work for unity.

We also deeply respect and appreciate our Muslim friends and value our interfaith relations while in no way compromise our faith. I have to tell you that many of these relations were severely strained after your decision to consecrate Gene Robinson as bishop in 2003. We are seen as the new heretics and this has hindered our ecumenical and interfaith relations as well as our mission in the region

My friends, like you, we want to be relevant to the culture in which we live. More importantly, we want to be salt and light to our societies. That is not an easy calling but it means we must remain distinct and humble at the same time. Without being distinct we cannot be salt and light; without humility we will not represent the one who said, “I am meek and lowly in heart.” We are also continuously challenged whether we should allow the culture to transform the Apostolic Faith we once received, or if we should allow the Gospel of Jesus Christ to transform our culture as it has in the past. As we struggle to answer this question we must never divorce ourselves from the faith that countless men, women and children died to protect. I believe that if we faithfully serve the Church of Christ, He will continue to fulfill his promise that the gates of Hades will not prevail against her.

Rupertus Meldenius said, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity”. Our hope is to be united on the essentials of faith which are defined only by the whole church. WE are not in any way trying to impose rigid views on you. Like you we celebrate diversity, but we believe that such diversity should not be unlimited and should not contradict the essentials of our faith. We are not schismatic, but we are diligent to preserve the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. We want unity but not unity at any expense.

Anglicans are aware with humility that we are not “the” church but we are one member of the body of Christ, the one Holy Catholic Church. We proclaim this every week in our churches. This places upon us the responsibility to listen to and respect our ecumenical partners.

My friends, you may believe you have discovered a very different truth from that of the majority in the Anglican Communion. It is not just about sexuality, but about your views of Christ, the Gospel, and the authority of the Bible. Please forgive me when I relay that some say you are a different church, others even think that you are a different religion.

I understand that it is difficult for you in your context to accept the standard teaching of the Anglican Communion. That is why you refused to accept Lambeth Conference Resolution 1.10. You also ignored all the warnings of the Primates in 2003, 2004, and 2005. Your response to the Windsor Report is seen by the Primates as not clear. You cannot say you value being a member of the Anglican Communion while you ignore the interdependence of the member churches. The interdependence is what differentiates us from other congregational churches. I would like to remind you and myself with the famous resolution number 49 of the Lambeth Conference of 1930 which declares “the Anglican Communion is a fellowship of churches that…are bound together not by a central legislative and executive authority, but by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference.” With respect, I have to say that those who would prefer to speak of laws and procedures, constitutions and canons, committees and process: you are missing the point! It is our mutual loyalty and fellowship, submitting to one another in the common cause of Jesus Christ that makes us of one Church one faith and one Lord.

It is clear that you actions have resulted in one the most difficult disputes in the Communion in our generation. You may see them as not core doctrinal issues. Many like me see the opposite but the thing that we all cannot ignore is that these issues are divisive and have created a lot of undesired consequences and reactions. For the first time in centuries, the fabric of our Communion is torn. Our energies have been drained and our resources are lost and it is difficult for both of us to continue like this.

My friends, if you really believe that the truth revealed to you is different from that shown to the rest of the Communion, then you need to uphold that claim with boldness even at the risk of losing unity. If you think it is right and necessary to ordain and consecrate practicing homosexuals and that you should bless same sex partnerships or even marriages, you should be true to what you believe is right and accept the consequences.

However, if you appreciate being members of the global Anglican family, then you have to walk along side the members of your family. Those who say it is important to stay together around the table, to listen to each other and to continue our dialogue over the difficult issues that are facing us are wise. We wholeheartedly agree with this, but staying around the table requires that you should not take actions that are contrary to the standard position (Lambeth 1.10) of the rest of the Communion.

Sitting around one table requires humility from all of us. One church cannot say to the rest of churches “I know the whole truth, you don’t”. Archbishop Rowan reminded us in his paper “Challenge and Hope” that “the whole truth is revealed to the whole church”. Sitting around one table requires that each one should have a clear stance before the discussion starts. It also requires that true openness and willingness to accept the mind of the whole. We do not have to be in the communion to sit around the one table. We do so when we dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox and with other faiths. It would be extremely difficult to sit around one table when you have already decided the outcome if the discussion and when you ignore the many voices, warnings and appeals from around the communion.

Today I appeal to you to respond with great clarity to the requests that were made in Dar Es Salaam. If you accepted the Primates’ recommendations, would you be able to give assurances to the Executive Committee of the General Convention of TEC would ratify your response? It is the responsibility of the bishop to guard the faith as we promise during our consecration. In many of not most parts of the Communion and the historic churches, present and ancient, matters of faith and order, is the responsibility and therefore the authority of the Bishops to safeguard and teach.

If you don’t commit yourself to the Dar Es Salaam recommendations would you be willing to walk apart at least for a period during which we continue our discussions and dialogue until we reach a common understanding, especially about the essentials of our faith? Forgive me when I say that for many of us in the Communion, we feel that you have already walked apart at least theologically from the standard teaching of the Communion.

I know that you value personal freedom and independence. The whole world learns this from you. You need to demonstrate this by securing freedom for the American orthodox Anglicans who do not share your theological direction. Show your spirit of inclusiveness when you deal with them. I am afraid to say that without this more and more interventions from other provinces is going to happen. No one wants this.

I pray for wisdom and grace, for myself as well as for you, and I pray that God will lead us both in the right direction. Remember the illustrious history of God’s church and remember future generations who will sit in judgment on us. Remember also that the whole world is waiting and watching what you do.

Please forgive me if I have said anything that offends you.

May the Lord bless you.

+Mouneer Egypt

16 Responses. Comments closed for this entry.

  1. Peter Dewberry Says:

    Archbishop Mouneer Anis has put the real issues before TEC’s HoB in crystal clear terms, challenging Presiding Bishop Schori and the rest of the HoB, either to take a clear stand on their own beliefs or to back away from the attitudes and actions that they have taken since 2003. His bold call to allow the same freedom of conscience that they claim to value so highly, to be accorded to the orthodox, is timely.

    Thank you Archbishop Mouneer.

  2. Father Ron Smith Says:

    With all due respect to Bishop Mouneer and Peter Dewberry, things are not so simply resolved as they propose:

    America’s House of Bishops has proceeded in its policy of the acceptance and ordination of homosexual clergy - in accordance with what it sees as a profound Gospel imperative.

    This is not a matter of approval or disapproval of the sexual activities of homosexual persons, but rather of the acceptance of the integrity of members of the Body of Christ who happen to be homosexual.

    For the Church to concentrate on proscription based on the presumed behaviour - rather than the status - instinct in homosexuality, is presuming that all gays engage in sexual acts which might mark them out from their heterosexual brothers and sisters. This is not the case.

    ECUSA has moved forward in an act of faith that needed to be recognised as a legitimate out-working of the Gospel. It has recognised, for instance, that human beings are not disembodied spirits, but rather possessed of a complex and deeply mysterious physical nature endowed by God in creation.

    We can no longer dichotomise this human nature - as was commonly practised by the Gnostics, but we need to understand that human loving is part and parcel of the lives of every single human being. How that loving is expressed has been a different experience for different cultures since time began. We now know a litle more about the process.

    The Church once declared - on pain of death - that the earth was flat. Let us not now turn back from the discovery that God’s gift of sexuality is actually more than just a partnership in procreation. It is something to be embraced by all God’s children and not only by those equipped to have children.

    If this matter had been of paramount importance to Jesus, he would surely have given a ruling about it. However, the only statement Jesus made about morality that might be interpreted as an allusion to homosexuality, can be found in Saint Matthew’s Gospel, chapter 19, verses 11 and 12.

    Having spoken about faithfulness in marriage (Matt.19: 1- 9) Jesus leaves that subject and speaks about ‘eunuchs’ a category of people who are either incapable or unwilling to procreate - for various reasons. Firstly Jesus mentions’Those who are eunuchs born that way from their mother’s womb.’ Is there even the slightest possibility that Jesus may have spoken of a category of human beings who were intrinsically homosexual?

    In the absence of any other statement of Jesus about this issue, I am inclined to think that it might have been one of the socio-cultural relics that he decided to leave for the Church to work out for itself - but with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who did not stop working after the publication of the king James version of the Bible

    May God bless Primate Katherine Schori and the bishops of ECUSA as they are nowe gathered in sacred conclave; and may the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of god our Father, and the fellowship and wisdom of the Holy Spirit, inform, direct and empower them in their mission of the Gospel. Amen

  3. Gerry O'Brien, Newfoundland, Canada Says:

    Ron:

    Peter Dewberry is spot on with his assessment of the words of Archbishop Mouneer Anis. 
    After so many weeks of reading your stand and interpretations on this and all issues concerning TEC and The Global South, I realize that offering any arguments to you is futile.  So be it, you have your opinion and the Orthodox of the Anglican Communion (a large majority who do not bow to the almighty american dollar and canadian loonie)have theirs.  The two shall not likely ever agree and it is with this thought that I shall wish you well but ask you to think about the following:

    I believe in the Scriptures and the Orthodox view of them.

        If I am correct, then I have gained everything, including eternity.
        If I am incorrect then I have lost nothing since evil will have won anyway.
        If you are correct, I’ve still lost nothing since evil has won.
        If you are incorrect, then you have lost the most important of all - eternity.

    Think about it Ron…. I just finished reading Second Peter and Jude for the (Lost count) however many times and I see nothing to support your stand.

    I just read Ephesians again and I see nothing there to support your stand.

    I have read Paul’s letters and see nothing in them to support your stand.

    In the Gospel’s, the words that stand out against your view are “Go and Sin no more”.

    I realize you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.  I am glad that I take the stand FOR the supremacy of Scripture and for God’s Word as written by the Holy Spirit inspired authors.

    In Christ’s Love,

  4. Father Ron Smith Says:

    Thank you Gerry for your thoguhful - but still uncomprehending - response to my last posting. you obviously are not taking on board my challenge to find any statement made by Jesus about the sexuality of “Gays” except, perhaps, that which may be contained in his remarks about the ‘eunuchs, who are so from their mother’s womb’, from Matthew 19:12.

    Frankly, your discernment of ‘evil’ in the substance of my remarks smacks to me of some sort of mindless and unspiritual divination. Please remember that on this important issue, Jesus reminded the Scribes and Pharisees: “Judge not, that you be not judged. I believe your faculty of divination to be distinctly un-Christian.

    Unfortunately, fundamentalism of any sort, that seeks to stifle theological input from any perspective other than one’s own, is seldom to be accounted trustworthy, and in fact might be considered spiritually dangerous. This is true of any religious fundamentalism - whether it of supposedly Christian, Jewish or Muslim origin.

    To suppose that the wisdom and enlightenment of the Holy Spirit was confined to past ages, and to the pages of a book - even that as holy to all three strands of Abrahamic descent as the Scriptures - is to preempt the saying of Jesus: “When the Holy Spirit comes, he will lead you into all the truth - about sin…..”

    Surely this suggests that the reality of what constituted ‘sin’ was yet to be discovered by generations to follow - an ongoing revelation, in fact, that is still being opened to us by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

    “Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees,...... etc.”
    (Matthew 23:13-36) - The self-righteous, who were constantly looking for the devil in other people were the sort of people whom Jesus was clearly against, and who eventually put him to death. His constant fellowship with ‘sinners’ was what made Jersus different from the ‘blind guides’ whose self-righteousness he could not abide.

    Let us not, dear brother, seek to condemn those whom God has created in the divine image and likeness of himself.

    May God have mercy on us all.

  5. Ian Welch Says:

    I do not follow the logic in Fr Ron Smith’s note.

    A majority in the TEC and some others argue that the issue of practising homosexuals and blessing of single sex unions is not, repeat not, a core doctrine. Then how can Fr Smith suggest that it is in some sense a ‘profound’ Gospel imperative?  If a thing is a ‘profound Gospel imperative’ how does it avoid being doctrinal in nature.

    There is no debate in the church about accepting homosexuals as full members of the Body of Christ. What is objected to is that a thing that is not clearly endorsed by Scripture, and is clearly in opposition to the historic view of the church, and the vast majority of practising Christians, is being advanced as acceptable.

    Archbishop Mouneer Anis is absolutely on the mark to say that if the majority (and we have no evidence to support the House of Bishops viewpoints from American Episcopalians at large) do endorse the current views of the TEC, then it is time for the TEC to withdraw itself from the Anglican Communion and behave honestly, openly and with integrity and affirm that it is not conforming to majority opinion in the Christian Church. But it should equally not seek to obstruct others who wish to leave the TEC by ungodly recourse to the civil courts.

    May I add my personal growing unease with what is becoming the more serious challenge to the Anglican Communion. The first is the action of overseas bishops with no territorial jurisdiction outside their own diocese to make bishops for another place. This is a major departure that is itself contrary to historic Anglican practice.

    The second is the assumption of bishops that they alone have the power to determine the faith and practice of the Anglican Church. There is now a major confusion between authority and leadership.

    If the present pattern of episcopal behaviour continues, along with the concept of a binding covenant, I would suggest that the future of the Anglican episcopacy itself, already threatened by the point in the previous paragraph, will be bleak indeed.

    There is nothing to keep Christian people in the Anglican Church except shared values and confidence in the leadership of the church. Weaken either and people will simply walk away, as indeed, the vast majority of nominal Anglicans in the West have already done in the past century.

  6. Father Ron Smith Says:

    Ian Welch, I do not share your despndency about the Anglican Church. But, I do think your comment about ‘the vast majority of nominal Anglicans’ who have already left. Indeed, those following the lemming path of the Global South Church are continuing the exodus.

    The truly Anglican Episcopacy, however, headed by Archbishop Rowan and those loyal to the liberal Anglican Way of Scripture, tradition and REASON - (this last, also a God-given faculty, exercised best by those without closed minds to on-going revelation by the Holy Spirit in today’s world) will survive the defection of the reactionaries.

    “I came”, said Jesus, “That you might have life, abundant life” - The Puritans have always hated that particular suggestion.

    The Catholic faith as espoused by the Anglican Church has always been more life-enhancing than the rigorists would have it. This is nothing new. The word ‘Protestant’ has never sat easily with those of us who see Jesus and the Gospel as the paradigm of fulfilled humanity in God’s Image and Likeness.

    The departure of the dissidents should never be taken to mean the end of our beloved Anglican Communion. Emancipation through the love and charity of Christ will still be our watchword.

    My prayers are for Bishop Katherine Schori and the House of Bishops of ECUSA as they are led by God’s Holy Spirit to follow the path of Christ in the midst of this present conflict.

  7. Peter Dewberry Says:

    “you . . . are not taking on board my challenge to find any statement made by Jesus about the sexuality of “Gays” . . .” two points:

    1. Implied in this challenge is that the only issue between the revisionists and the orthodox is that of human sexuality. By attempting to keep the focus on that one issue, revisionists are avoiding the fact that the underlying issue is the nature of authority in general and the authority of the Bible in particular.

    2.This ‘challenge’ to find any statement by Jesus on sexuality, is similar to the proof-texting method so beloved of fundamentalists. An argument from silence is a pretty weak one. It is also true that Jesus said very little about the Church, except for two statements in Matthew 16: 18 and 18: 17. There is nothing in those two verses about bishops, priests and deacons, or their qualifications. For teaching on these topics we go to the rest of the New Testament.

    Fr. Ron’s revionist argument is that Jesus did not say anything about same sex intimacy or unions. But surely, his teachings on adultery and divorce, in Matthew 5: 17 – 32, and Matthew 19: 1 – 11 show he endorses the traditional understanding of marriage as a union between, ‘a man and a woman’.

    In closing I would also like to comment on the oft repeated jibe, by some revisionists, that if one were to accept Leviticus 18: 22 as authoritative today, one should then accept the institution of slavery. This is also a weak argument, since the Leviticus passage is not the only passage on the topic of homosexual intimacy in the Bible. The NT speaks directly about homosexuality in both Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians.

    The Biblical view of marriage as being between a man and a woman both in Jesus teaching and in the rest of the NT is clear and strong. It is ironic that revisionists resort to a fundamentalist proof-texting method approach it suits them, but don’t seem willing to follow Scripture in most other ways.

  8. Gerry O'Brien, Newfoundland, Canada Says:

    It stands firm….that is…The Word of God!

    Ron, it is accepted by Christians around the world that the Holy Bible is the inspired Word of God.

    Therefore, since the Old Testament is the Word of God and Jesus Christ is one third of the Holy Trinity, I would think that basic common sense and ordinary logic would normally be enough to lead one to understand that if it is stated in the Old Testament (Leviticus) and it is referred to in the New Testament, what is the problem.

    You cannot have it any which way you want it!  If the Scriptures say it, then there it is.  It is pointless to debate or argue with you since it is somewhat like trying to convince you of something that your blinders will not allow you to see.

    Will it take Our Lord Jesus to meet you on the road somewhere and blind you and say Ron, why do you persecute me so….?  You cannot twist His Words and the Word of the Old Testament (That is what He studied as a Youth and Young Man, is it not)to suit your purposes; n’or can the rest of the Western Civilized World twist it to suit their higher scholastic thinking minds to make their perverted ways the way that the world should follow.  Jesus did not promote perversion or illegalities.  He promoted love, which Christians do, however, He promoted love in the spirit of righteousness, not unrighteousness.

    ‘nuff said.

  9. Father Ron Smith Says:

    ‘Nuff said’, indeed. But will that be the end?

    Jesus was put to death because of his refusal to accept the death-dealing and life-denying hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharisees.

    Any intelligent reading of the Gospels would confirm this. The “New Commandment” which Jesus enjoined upon his closest followers was meant to free them from the over-riding legalism, and self-serving hypocrisy of the Temple authorities.

    “They will know you’re my disciples by your love” this statement of Jesus specifically changed the perception of what God required of his children in the Church. No longer was sin to be solely identified by the codes of ritual cleanliness prescribed in Leviticus. (Jesus remarked on this when he spoke of those who washed the dishes and their arms up to the elbows but failed to measure up to the inner cleanliness and humility required of the soul and spirit.)

    Jesus also questioned the Temple authorities in their interpetation of the Sabbath Law - which, of itself would have put Jesus at odds with the rules of behaviour enjoined on his contemporaries

    In fact, when we examine all the stories of Jesus in the Gospels, we find that he was considered, by the Scribes and Pharisees, to be subversive, both ritually and theologically towards the accepted code of religious practice. For this, he was put to death.   

    His love of sinners and the outcast (the most compelling reason for his death) was the reason why Jesus was loved by them. In one of his parables, Jesus asked one of the crowd: Who would love his master more, the one who was forgiven much, or the one who thought he had no need of forgiveness?” The answer, of course, was the person who knew his deep need of forgiveness.
    The self-righteous were always the target of Jesus’ wrath.

    Judgement belongs to God - at least in the spiritual realm - and not to God’s servants. Our task in the proclamation of the Gospel is to walk into the midst of the world proclaiming God’s Love. We have no power to condemn anyone to hell!

    “God desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he turn from his wickedness and live”

    “He who says he has no sin is a liar, and the truth is not in him”

    These excerpts from the Book of Common Prayer are a clear indication of the Anglican understanding of where we stand in the sight of God.

    “Which of you has not sinned, let him throw the first stone” the words of Jesus to the Scribes who would have stoned the aduleress, who, by provision of the Law, should have been stoned!

    What sort of law was this that Jesus overturned?
    How can his Church be any less compassionate?

  10. Gerry O'Brien, Newfoundland, Canada Says:

    Ron wrote:

    “God desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he turn from his wickedness and live”

    “He who says he has no sin is a liar, and the truth is not in him”

    These excerpts from the Book of Common Prayer are a clear indication of the Anglican understanding of where we stand in the sight of God.”

    I’ved already alluded to the above to you many times Ron - don’t turn it back on me….I have admitted and confessed my many, many sins, many, many times - On this and other sites.  He that sins and DOES NOT CONFESS AND REPENT is in for hard times, maybe not in this realm but in the realm to follow….think about it.  Confess your sins Ron and Repent and turn 180 degrees from them, then come back and talk to the Believers of the Supremacy of Scripture.

    Ron….Jesus knew when He started His Ministries on this earth what His final destination was and what it was for.  In His humaness, He asked the Father to take this cup from Him IF it was His Will….Didn’t happen because if was preordained.
    Ron, Jesus’ death was intended by God and carried out by God in God’s way in God’s time….not by the Jews or the Romans or anyone else. 

    now…..........that is ‘nuff said!

  11. Father Ron Smith Says:

    If I were to have to choose between the words in a book and the Word-Made-Flesh in Jesus Christ the only-Begotten Son of God Himself, then I would have to choose the Christ - into whom I have been Baptised (Christened) and whose very self I receive frequently in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. I confess my faults and failings every day - before receiving the grace that Christ promises in that sacred Liturgy of his love.

    On the subject of personal righteousness - which none of us can ever claim for ourselves - Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the Publican says it all.  Bless you Gerry,  Fr. Ron

  12. Canon JIM Rosenthal Says:

    Bishop Mouneer has told us this report has errors. Can you tell where you found it or who sent it to you, JMR

  13. Gerry O'Brien, Newfoundland, Canada Says:

    Ron Smith said:

    “Any intelligent reading of the Gospels would confirm this. The “New Commandment” which Jesus enjoined upon his closest followers was meant to free them from the over-riding legalism, and self-serving hypocrisy of the Temple authorities.

    What an astounding definition of what the church in North America and Europe is now doing; that is:
    “over-riding legalism, and self-serving hypocrisy of the Temple authorities”. 

    The North American liberals have chosen to walk away from The Gospels and the Holy Scriptures and nowhere is this more exemplified than in the battles they are entering into using the legal system to try to win the properties from Dioceses and Parishes that have chosen to be true to Scripture and to try to stop the Global South and Southern Cone from sending help to the orthodox believers.

    “Oh the over-riding legalism, and self-serving hypocrisy of the temple authorities”.

    I remind you Ron that “The WORD” is a double edged sword.  Many righteous ones have turned away from “The Word” thinking that what they do is the “right thing” to do, only to find themselves being lost.  I was one but now, I have seen “The Light” and hopefully with God’s Grace I will not reverse my path back into the ways of the past.  God the Father, God the Son and God The Holy Spirit all are knit together and one cannot possibly accept one without the others.  God’s Word is written and we cannot twist it to suit our personal whims.  Unfortunately that is what many in TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada and Europe along with many other denominations are now doing. 

    Oh God, when will all of this end and when are You going to come back and claim Your chosen people for all time.

  14. Gerry O'Brien, Newfoundland, Canada Says:

    Bishop Mouneer has told us this report has errors. Can you tell where you found it or who sent it to you, JMR

    Posted by Canon JIM Rosenthal on 09/25 at 12:57 PM

    Hi Jim:
    Suggest you contact Global South Editor with your question.  Also, it would be interesting to know what the errors in the article are.

  15. Gerry O'Brien, Newfoundland, Canada Says:

    Canon JIM Rosenthal:
    The answer to your question is at the top of this article.

    (Hat tip - Matt Kennedy @ Stand Firm)

    Click on the “stand firm” and you will see the answere.

  16. Alice C. Linsley Says:

    God Bless Archbishop Mouneer Anis! If only TEC would listen, but the Episcopal House of Bishops has disregarded every sane voice and has chosen to walk apart.