I don't think so. Here's why. The JD (full text below) offers several difficult clauses:
(a) when so much of current Anglican debates turns on the interpretation of Scripture the following sentence in Clause 2 (C2) of the JD is an inadequate statement of what Anglicans might agree together about the interpretation of Scripture:
"The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading."
What does 'plain and canonical sense' mean? What is 'the church's historic and consensual reading?' Given that the JD brought together both anglo-catholic's and evangelicals, this is a surprising sentence because what is 'plain' to evangelicals and 'plain' to anglo-catholics are quite different understandings of the eucharist. 'Canonical' sense to anglo-catholics includes giving more weight to the Apocrypha than evangelicals give (and thus greater anglo-catholic openness to praying for the dead)' As for 'historic' reading, how far back does history reach? The English Reformers understood the Bible differently to (say) St Augustine and St Anselm of Canterbury. 'Consensual' begs a lot of questions, including why evangelicals do not read the Bible 'consensually' with Roman Catholics (who have a strong argument in favour of their readings being the oldest and most widely subscribed to in the history of Christianity). Better by far are the careful and more elaborate statements about Scripture and its interpretation in the Anglican Covenant (S1).
(b) when a number of those involved in forming the JD were also involved in episcopal cross-territory administration in North America it is quite shocking that the JD would include this sentence (C3):
"We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church."
Those four Ecumenical Council include the Council of Nicea and one of its canons specifically forbids more than one bishop per territory. That is the JD upholds something some of its adherents disregard. Integrity calls for a different relationship to the first four Ecumenical Councils than expressed here. (Incidentally, such upholding of the four Ecumenical Councils goes well beyond what the 39A themselves say about the Ecumenical Councils!)
(c) the statement (C4) on the Thirty Nine Articles (39A) is implausible:
"We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today."
First, again referring to the involvement of Anglo-Catholics in the formulation of the JD, this is a surprising statement given the great difficulties Anglo-Catholics have had in agreeing to the 39A jot and tittle, including some specific disagreements with the notion of the church tied up in the word 'congregation' in A19.
Secondly, the 39A are regularly disregarded by all Anglicans, of all hues and stripes. A35 requires ministers of the Church of England to read the homilies in the first and second Books of Homilies to their congregations. Anyone doing this?
Thirdly, the 39A includes articles which are now irrelevant to the life of the church (and the life of the churches of the Communion). A21 forbids the calling of a General Council of the church except with the concurrence of 'Princes'. But we have moved a long way in the Communion (and even in the C of E) from being beholden to 'Princes' when we wish to meet together. GAFCON itself invoked no princely or magisterial authority in coming into being and we don't expect the ABC to seek permission of either the British Prime Minister nor the Queen before calling the next Lambeth Conference. Such a clause is not authoritative for our life today.
Again, the Anglican Covenant has a better considered, relevant way of speaking about the role of the 39A in the life of Anglican churches today (S1.1).
(d) No definition of 'orthodox' is given in relation to C13,
"We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord."
One might presume that 'orthodox' has to do with treating the 39A as authoritative (which rules out a lot of people not prepared to do that because not all the Articles are relevant to today), with upholding the four Ecumenical Councils (which rules out the North American, African and South American bishops who do not do this), with reading the Scriptures according to their plain and canonical meaning etc (which only begs questions of definition), and, noting C6, upholding the 1662 BCP as the authoritative standard of worship (which rules out a lot of Anglicans who otherwise are creedally orthodox) but do not hold the BCP as 'the' authoritative standard of worship, not least because they have been party to considerable liturgical revision within their own Anglican churches.
There is much that is agreeable in the JD and many of its clauses offer clear and concise statements of beliefs that all Anglicans, if true to their heritage in the Church of England as part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, should welcome. But there are problems in its wording, the most important difficulties, in my view, being noted here. It is not yet a statement to bind Anglicans together en masse.
THE JERUSALEM DECLARATION
"In the name of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit:
We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, have met in the land of Jesus’ birth. We express our loyalty as disciples to the King of kings, the Lord Jesus. We joyfully embrace his command to proclaim the reality of his kingdom which he first announced in this land. The gospel of the kingdom is the good news of salvation, liberation and transformation for all. In light of the above, we agree to chart a way forward together that promotes and protects the biblical gospel and mission to the world, solemnly declaring the following tenets of orthodoxy which underpin our Anglican identity.
1.We rejoice in the gospel of God through which we have been saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Because God first loved us, we love him and as believers bring forth fruits of love, ongoing repentance, lively hope and thanksgiving to God in all things.
2.We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation. The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading.
3.We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
4.We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.
5.We gladly proclaim and submit to the unique and universal Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, humanity’s only Saviour from sin, judgement and hell, who lived the life we could not live and died the death that we deserve. By his atoning death and glorious resurrection, he secured the redemption of all who come to him in repentance and faith.
6.We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage as an expression of the gospel, and we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture.
7.We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.
8.We acknowledge God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family. We repent of our failures to maintain this standard and call for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married.
9.We gladly accept the Great Commission of the risen Lord to make disciples of all nations, to seek those who do not know Christ and to baptise, teach and bring new believers to maturity.
10.We are mindful of our responsibility to be good stewards of God’s creation, to uphold and advocate justice in society, and to seek relief and empowerment of the poor and needy.
11.We are committed to the unity of all those who know and love Christ and to building authentic ecumenical relationships. We recognise the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice, and we encourage them to join us in this declaration.
12.We celebrate the God-given diversity among us which enriches our global fellowship, and we acknowledge freedom in secondary matters. We pledge to work together to seek the mind of Christ on issues that divide us.
13.We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord.
14.We rejoice at the prospect of Jesus’ coming again in glory, and while we await this final event of history, we praise him for the way he builds up his church through his Spirit by miraculously changing lives."
23 comments:
Peter, you are not the only one to question the JD. Ironically, the very conservative Church Society (England) has also questioned significant aspects of the JD - see http://www.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_115_BeingFaithful.pdf.
Some interesting quotes:
on justification - "The Council [of Church Society] is concerned that the Jerusalem Declaration, in referring to the gospel of justification by grace, through faith, does not affirm that we are justified by grace alone, through faith alone ... The present omissions from the Jerusalem Declaration and Commentary are serious and in need of urgent rectification";
on the atonement - "we believe that it is important to be clearer about the nature of the atonement";
on the JD's account of Anglican faith - "we remain unclear as to what is, in the final analysis, considered to be the necessary core of Anglican belief";
and on the JD's affirmation of ecumenical relations with RCs and Orthodoxy - "it is impossible to think that orthodox, biblically faithful Anglicans can enter into ecumenical dialogue or partnerships with Roman Catholics or the Orthodox Churches".
So not only is the Covenant unacceptable to some 'conservatives' ... so too is the JD!
Thanks for confirmation!
Peter, I for one do affirm your doubts about the Jerusalem Declaration. Whenever a new 'Creed' is raised up 'against' another part of the Church; its derivation and motivation can be suspect. All the J.D. does is to confirm some parts of the tradition, while not accepting the fact that Biblical hermeneutic requires ongoing attention to meet the conditions of an emerging new society.
With a growing scientific understanding of the creative process, the Church must be seen to acknowledge new revelation of the process with all that means in the way of enlightenment about human biology, and a proper respect for ALL humanity - regardless of race, social status, gender or sexual-orientation. And that's just the beginning of how the Church needs to keep up with the contemporary world - if it is to be respected.
Thanks for your thoughtful willingness to challenge the supposed authenticity of the Jerusalem Declaration, which, after all, was an attempt to replace traditional Anglican thought.
Hi Ron,
Thanks for supportive comment. My questions, of course, are not about every clause, and I find much that is agreeable in the JD both as a Christian and as an Anglican. With more work it could be a plausible alternative to the Covenant for consideration around the globe.
Peter, sometimes you strain at gnats to get people to swallow your camel du jour!
Can two play the same game?
1. Nobody but Nobody observes ancient canons! (NB A canon is not a creed!) Otherwise there would be no married clergy - or female ones. Do you seriously want to go down that rhetorical road?
Have you not heard there was a Reformation?
2. A Lambeth Conference (unheard of in 1549 except in the most local of meanings!) is not a General Council of the Church. Though I suspect the former is still called at the behest of the Supreme Governor of the Church of England!
3. Even a moderate Augustophile like myself is far from endorsing all his views or exegesis. Imagine if he had known Greek!
The catholic purpose of the JD is to unite Christologically orthodox and morally biblical Anglicans, as they have historically been, not to answer every question of theology.
+Martin
Hi Martin,
I don't buy your line of criticism at all.
Because I do not keep all the ancient canons I do not make wild statements about upholding the ancient councils that made them.
Canons about bishops relate to orthodoxy because bishops are teachers and upholders of orthodoxy so it is quite important to be clear whether one is an upholder or not of such canons.
A Lambeth Conference is the nearest thing we Anglicans have to a General Council; but the point remains, if Anglican, other Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox were to call a General Council (and it would be jolly useful if we did re certain matters) we would not be bound by that article. Again, you won't catch me saying I subscribe to all 39A as authoritative because while I subscribe to some, think there is something to learn from all, and believe no serious attempt at defining Anglicanism can avoid engagement with them, the fact is if I do not live by all (and I have never read the homilies for myself let alone for a congregation) then I am not going to make pretentious statements which indicate otherwise.
The St Augustine I was thinking of (but was not clear enough about) was the first ABC, sent to England at the behest of the Pope to uphold Roman doctrine, practice and mission.
How can you say the catholic purpose of the JD is to unite etc when they include statements that those its seeks to unite do not in practice subscribe to?
Peter,
(a) when so much of current Anglican debates turns on the interpretation of Scripture the following sentence in Clause 2 (C2) of the JD is an inadequate statement of what Anglicans might agree together about the interpretation of Scripture:
"The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading."
I think it is adequate. The Jerusalem Declaration identifies Scripture as the word of God written and its unique role in expressing God’s authority over his people. Scripture is sufficient; it needs no additives or extras. Scripture alone is enough. The Word of God is unified, it is canonical. So we can translate it, read it, preach it and teach it and understand it. In other words, because the Bible is God’s Word written it is clear and effective and the reader can be confident that its plain meaning (plain – the meaning that is intrinsic to the text) is accessible when it is read prayerfully with due thought to its context and its genre.
It is only inadequate I think to those who think the Bible is not God's Word written, is not unified, canonical, etc.
Hi Joshua
If Scripture is adequate in the way you say it is, on what basis do you distinguish between the Apocrypha (deemed to be Scripture by some ancient churches) and Apocrypha (deemed not to be Scripture by other churches)?
Scripture sheds a vast amount of light on Scripture, but that has never stopped evangelicals, including evangelical Anglicans writing commentaries and other books on the interpretation of Scripture. If Scripture is adequate in the way you say it is, why have so many commentaries by so many evangelicals been written through the centuries?
If the plain meaning of Scripture is as clear as you make it out to be, why do Baptists and evangelical Anglicans, both inheritors of the Reformation, arrive at such different conclusions regarding who may be baptised? Similar questions can be asked about differences between Calvinists and Arminians.
I am sorry but saying that you think the JD statement is adequate does not make it adequate.
Finally, does the Bible tell us to take account of context and genre when we interpret it? The answer is (a) "No" and (b) it is a poor model for doing so as often a writer within Scripture quotes another part of Scripture out of context and with no regard for genre.
Essentially Scripture is a very complicated book and evangelicals should not offer an over-simplified picture of the challenges of interpreting it.
On one matter I think you, I and the JD would agree: on the matter of salvation Scripture is understandable, adequate, sufficient, and unified. But on other matters ... it's complicated!
Ron,
"Whenever a new 'Creed' is raised up 'against' another part of the Church; its derivation and motivation can be suspect."
The problem is that this principle would also apply to the creeds themselves. They were raised up against another part of the Church (arians). So they too would be suspect.
A far better analysis of any creed or statement of faith is whether or not it tries to genuinely reflect Biblical teaching.
Also, the affirmation of homosexuality in statemnts by "inclusive" churches is itself a new "creed" raised up against another part of the Church.
"the Church must be seen to acknowledge new revelation of the process with all that means in the way of enlightenment about human biology, and a proper respect for ALL humanity - regardless of race, social status, gender or sexual-orientation. And that's just the beginning of how the Church needs to keep up with the contemporary world - if it is to be respected."
So much here to deconstruct, and so little time!
""With a growing scientific understanding of the creative process,"
What has this to do with Church teaching? Science changes constantly. What is "understood" one moment is found to wrong the next. Scientific theories about many things have changed radically in my lifetime alone, and they will continue to do so. Science is a useful tool, but cannot be the arbiter of what is and is not Christian doctrine, lest we build the Church on shifting sand.
I suggest we should always be suspicious of those claiming "new revelation", especially when it is so easily identified, not as revelation from God, but as merely the political ideology of white, Western liberals.
"and a proper respect for ALL humanity"
A proper respect for all humanity does not require us to call sin anything other than sin. It does not require us to affirm and bless serial murder, despite the fact that there is evidence that some serial killers are born with a strong genetic propensity towards violence. We know now that many sociopaths are effectively born that way. Do we then bless the inability to empathise with other people and their pain? Of course not.
"And that's just the beginning of how the Church needs to keep up with the contemporary world - if it is to be respected."
Jesus told us to be IN the world not OF the world.
And your not really talking about the "contemporary world", your talking only about a small portion of it, the world of secular, humanistic, Western liberalism.
The people you want to appease will never respect the Church.
Mainline denominations have gone down the path your advocating for close to a hundred years. Are they any more respected by Christianitie's cultured despisers? No. Not at all. Far from gaining respect, those churches have lost vast numbers of members, and been reduced to minority status, powerless to critique the world and ignored when trying to do so.
People respect the Church when it refuses to compromise, when it stands clearly as a real alternative to "the World".
Thats why Evangelical churches are growing so fast, and liberal churches dying out. Thats why young people are flocking to conservative churches, not liberal ones. They want a radical alternative to the ways of the World, not appeasement and compromise.
For Martin, Joshua and Peter.
I cannot recommend highly enough "Words of Life" by Timothy Ward.
http://www.ivpbooks.com/9781844742073
Ward's book delves into the many issues being raised above and does so with far more theological rigour tham most books on Scripture.
The Articles cover this. Article VI.
I am sorry but saying that you think the JD statement is adequate does not make it adequate.
No need to be sorry. The same works the other way, saying that the JD is inadequate does not make it so.
Scripture sheds a vast amount of light on Scripture, but that has never stopped evangelicals, including evangelical Anglicans writing commentaries and other books on the interpretation of Scripture. If Scripture is adequate in the way you say it is, why have so many commentaries by so many evangelicals been written through the centuries?
If the plain meaning of Scripture is as clear as you make it out to be, why do Baptists and evangelical Anglicans, both inheritors of the Reformation, arrive at such different conclusions regarding who may be baptised? Similar questions can be asked about differences between Calvinists and Arminians.
The reason I would say is because although the Scripture is clear, this does not mean we are.
Allow me to put it another way, Scripture may be inerrant, but we are not inerrant, our reasong is not inerrant and our hermeneutics are not inerrant. This does not mean Scipture is not clear.
Also I think there is a difference between disagreements between Arminians/Calvinists; Baptists/Anglicans and the disagreements between Rivisionists and Reformed. The former are over secondary issues; the latter is over the very essence and definition of Christianity itself (and all that pertains to Christianity - the Gospel, justification, sin, authority of Scripture).
Essentially Scripture is a very complicated book and evangelicals should not offer an over-simplified picture of the challenges of interpreting it.
I agree with your comments about over-simplify hermeneutical challenges that face us at times when we read God's Word, but I think the bigger danger is the assumption of revisionists who claim that one cannot what truth is and with this is the assertion that the Scripture are merely a human witness to God and inspired in the same way that music can be inspirational and drawn together as a sort of human compendium of inspired human reason.
Hi Shawn // Joshua
Thanks for responses - will look up the book.
I am more in agreement with what you say in this latest comment Joshua: the Bible does offer clarity and it is a tragedy when some sections of the church at large make the clear out to be obscure. You also offer recognition of the difficult bits of the Bible being, well, difficult!
A deeply religious Orthodox Russian peasant, and a Pentecostal believer in the Appalachian mountains, probably have more in common with each other, despite the differences between their churches, than either would with urban liberals in New York or Moscow.
Doctrinal differences between Churches on issues like the sacraments can obscure the fact that there is a deeper divide that cuts across denominational lines, between those who accept a pre-modern Biblical worldview, complete with demons, angels and miracles, and those who have surrendered to the idolatries of the de-sacralised modern world.
Some people assume that because I am Refromed Evangelical that I would never read the works of members of other religions, but that is not so, and on the issue of the modern world and its underlying ideology, few have written better than Rene Geunon, especially in 'The Crisis of the Modern World', and 'The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times'. Geunon was a French Traditionalist who converted to the Sufi branch of Islam. While I do not agree with his theology, his analysis of the problems of modernism is profound and worth taking the time to read.
Peter Carrell
I am utterly amazed that you would make these arguments against the JD. I have made similar arguments to you against using the Creeds as a defining doctrinal statement unless limiting definitions were also provided and you immediately moved in the opposite direction. With the Creeds you seem to cherish ambiguity, but with the JD you suddenly find reason to attack it. Curious since the Creeds are the only statement of doctrine referenced in the Covenant, and the Creeds allow for much more maneuvering room to those who wish to escape the confines of Christian orthodoxy.
carl
Hi Carl
Try thinking about the difference between ambiguous statements and false or untenable statements. Then you might be less amazed by my sober analysis of the JD, an analysis which no less a conservative body than the Church Society supports as it brings its critique.
Peter Carrell
It was specifically this statement that caught my attention.
(d) No definition of 'orthodox' is given in relation to C13
The statement in question is neither implausible nor untenable. Your response is an assertion of ambiguity. Isn't this also the exact question that I have asked you about the Creeds? You have resolutely refused to answer it. You have instead argued for ambiguous boundaries to allow for as much inclusion as possible. And yet here you argue against the JD for not providing a definition of the very thing you won't provide for the Covenant.
What does 'plain and canonical sense' mean?
The statement in question is neither implausible nor untenable. Your response is once again an assertion of ambiguity. You go on to support that assertion of ambiguity by making the point the Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals will not agree on its meaning.
(c) the statement (C4) on the Thirty Nine Articles (39A) is implausible:
The statement in question is neither implausible nor untenable. It is an assertion by those who wrote the JD. Others are free to accept it or reject it as they wish. But if you reject the 39 Articles, then what would you offer in their place? The Creeds are simply not sufficient unless the meaning of each Creedal clause is likewise specified. You seem to be in the interesting position of arguing against the JD because it contains an insufficient definition of orthodoxy even as you argue against the 39 Articles because they contain too detailed a definition of orthodoxy.
(b) when a number of those involved in forming the JD were also involved in episcopal cross-territory administration in North America it is quite shocking that the JD would include this sentence (C3):
The statement in question is neither implausible nor untenable. It's also not shocking at all when you consider that TEC is a functionally apostate church. There is no requirement to respect the borders of a heretic.
carl
Hi Carl
You might have to put your question again which apparently I have resolutely failed to answer.
I think if we are going to recognise orders and such then we need some elucidation of a word which defines which orders we are going to recognise and which we are not. So, yes, in the context of the JD, especially given my critique of other parts, I would like either corrections responding to my critiques or a definition of orthodox.
Some things, by the way, are a bit ambiguous, in life, in the Bible and in theology, and when those involve important matters (such as, in the midst of controversy over interpreting the Bible, statements about how we are to interpret the Bible) then I think one is entitled to press a bit for clarity.
Are you misunderstanding what I am saying about the 39A? I am not arguing for them to be rejected/accepted but for a more considered statement (such as the Covenant has) which does not press people to accept the 39A in toto when, frankly, that is impossible in the 21st century in a church which is not the C of E.
Indeed, generally the problem with the JD is that it is touted as a kind of litmus test of Anglican orthodoxy. My appeal here is for that litmus test to be better constructed.
Would it not be a pity to find that one's best friends and colleagues in ministry were being determined as unorthodox goats instead of orthodox sheep on the basis of a faulty means of measuring orthodoxy? I think it would be.
"Because I do not keep all the ancient canons I do not make wild statements about upholding the ancient councils that made them."
Who is making "wild statements"? Canon are not Creeds (= doctrinal statemtns inteneded to be permanent)- they are disciplinary rules of a certain time and place. There are 21 attached to Nicea. Do you wish to enforce them today?
"Canons about bishops relate to orthodoxy because bishops are teachers and upholders of orthodoxy...." - yes, that's the theory - Richard Holloway, can you hear me?)
"....so it is quite important to be clear whether one is an upholder or not of such canons" - and more important to be an upholder of orthodoxy, no?
"A Lambeth Conference is the nearest thing we Anglicans have to a General Council"
- no, a national church as depicted in the 39A can't summon a General Council, which had a particular ('ecumenical') meaning in the 16th century - but I won't bust a gut over this one. I consider this article a dead letter in a divided Christendom.
The point is that different articles (those of a more 'political' character, not the doctrinal ones) have different levels of force as some fall into desuetude. The JD recognises this very point.
"How can you say the catholic purpose of the JD is to unite etc when they include statements that those its seeks to unite do not in practice subscribe to?"
The proof of the pudding lies in the tasting. If the bumble bee listened to its aeronautical critics, it would be convinced it couldn't fly.
@Martin
Shawn,
I read Tim Ward's book a while back and found it a very useful restatement of Reformed doctrine of 'claritas Scripturae' in the light of current literary theory.
Peter's strong statements on the difficulties of understanding Scripture would not have been out of place on the lips of a 16th C. pope - along with the need for a definitive Magisterium, I suppose. (And if the Vulgate was good enough for St Paul, it's good enough for me.)
I have dipped (via Google Scholar) into Ward's doctoral thesis 'Word and Text' and would like to read it one day.
#Martin
Hi Peter,
Can I draw your attention to the commentary on the Jerusalem Declaration, Being Faithful? This may give you more insights into the thinking behind the JD and what they are intending to communicate, although they may not address your objections directly. When work commitments allow, I will post my own response.
http://www.gafcon.org/images/uploads/BeingFaithful_JD_Commentary.pdf
Blessings,
Andrew
Peter, a very short answer to the topic's question: "No it is not!"
Unfortunately, Andrew, that link is not working (at least not to download to my computer a readable version of the file). If it is the book I think it is and have had a look at, then it is not in fact a very good book and, as I recall, offers a weak case for supporting the JD at the points where I have critiqued it.
Unfortunately the problem with the JD stems from GAFCON not being able to enlist theologians of the highest calibre in its cause. Consequently both the statement and its apologia have problems.
It would be simpler if a revised JD was offered rather than persistence in making the weak appear stronger than it is.
Sorry...should be available at this link.
http://www.gafcon.org/news/being_faithful_now_available_for_download
Post a Comment