Fr. Brian Cox: To Heal A Diocese Or Not

TO HEAL A DIOCESE OR NOT

by

Brian Cox

In early February 2008 when the Presiding Bishop asked me to serve as a Co-Pastor in the Diocese of San Joaquin, I agreed to do so with two clear understandings.  First, I was to have a key role with conservatives in the diocese, both to articulate their perspective and to create options for them other than leaving the Episcopal Church to join the Province of the Southern Cone.  In the course of my work in the diocese from the beginning of February until the end of April, it became obvious to me that many conservatives, including most of the former Standing Committee, did not want to follow Bishop John-David Schofield to the Southern Cone.  Hence, the characterization of Remain Episcopal as a “bunch of liberals in the diocese” was simply not true.  My experience of Remain Episcopal was that it consisted of clergy and laity from across the theological and political perspective who were united by one goal: remaining faithful to their walk with Jesus Christ within the Episcopal Church.

At the same time, the American Anglican Council newsletter, Encompass, hailed Bishop Schofield as “making Anglican history.”  From the AAC perspective the Diocese of San Joaquin’s departure from the Episcopal Church was the first giant step in a fundamental realignment of the Anglican Communion by establishing an alternate province of the Communion in the United States that would eventually receive recognition from the Archbishop of Canterbury.  Bishop Schofield became the AAC’s “Sea Biscuit” going up against “War Admiral” consisting of the Presiding Bishop and the might of the national Episcopal Church.  I have known Bishop Schofield for thirty years.  He is a godly man who loves Jesus Christ and has sought to be a faithful shepherd both as a bishop and priest.  It breaks my heart to see the way that he has been demonized by so many in the church.  It broke my heart to see the House of Bishops vote in March to depose him.  At the same time, I must say that his efforts to take the Diocese of San Joaquin out of the Episcopal Church were misguided and hurtful to many people, both clergy and laity, in the diocese.  On my first visit to the diocese in February I discovered a whole fabric of broken relationships at every level and a history within the diocese of ostracizing moderate and liberal church members.

What I discovered was complex.  On the one hand, there was the bishop and a core of conservative clergy who sincerely believe that the Episcopal Church under the current leadership is in error and leading the Episcopal Church into an apostate form of Christianity that is inconsistent with the heart of the Anglican tradition and the mainstream of the Anglican Communion.  They were tired of feeling unheard by the leadership of the Episcopal Church and were convinced that it was beyond reformation.  They believed that leaving and establishing an alternative province of the Communion was their only feasible option.  They resented the accusation that they were schismatic, saying that militant liberals were firmly in control of the machinery of the Episcopal Church and were not seriously committed to a pluralistic and inclusive vision of the church.  They fully expected the church hierarchy to come after them and to go for the jugular vein and were prepared to stand their ground.  They were open to the possibility of reconciliation but defined that as “the parting of friends.”  In their own hearts they had already left and there was no turning back.  In general, they were cynical about any possibility of reconciliation and described 815’s version of reconciliation as “We won, you lost.  You’ll come around to our way of thinking or get out.  However, we won’t let you take the property with you.”

On the other hand, there were at least as many conservatives in the diocese who shared those same concerns but, for reasons of conscience, were choosing to live with the uncomfortable diversity within the Episcopal Church.  Unfortunately, the voices of these conservatives were largely drowned out by the escalating nature of the conflict between the bishop and officials in the national church.  Hence, it is not and never was a conservative vs. liberal conflict despite AAC’s efforts to put that spin on it.

There were also those regarded as moderates and liberals in the diocese who had faithfully endured the experience of being marginalized, not unlike the experience of many conservatives in liberal dioceses.  As Canon Mark Hall constantly reminded us, “A liberal in San Joaquin is not the same as a liberal in Newark.”

My colleague, Canon Robert Moore from the Diocese of Olympia brought a very much needed healing touch to those who had been deeply wounded during the Schofield episcopacy.  He was able to establish an immediate rapport with them and gain their trust in a way that came with much more difficulty in their relationship with me.  Ironically, although Bob was a self professed liberal and I was a self professed conservative, we mostly agreed in our analysis of the conflict and our sense of what needed to occur.

I met with clergy, vestries, concerned laity, the leadership of Remain Episcopal and the former Standing Committee.  I attempted to meet with a group of clergy who were committed to the Southern Cone, but Bishop Schofield prohibited that meeting.  I was willing to meet with Bishop Schofield but was instructed to avoid such a meeting until after the Special Convention.  My goals were twofold:  First, put together as broad a coalition as possible of people willing to find some way to live together in the Episcopal Church.  Second, conduct a faith-based reconciliation seminar and invite both those who were committed to remain in the Episcopal Church and those committed to leaving for the Southern Cone.  Even if reconciliation meant “the parting of friends”, I believed that reconciled relationships benefited all Episcopalians in the San Joaquin Valley and their witness to the world.  The Presiding Bishop and Bishop Jerry Lamb were willing to work with that approach.

Unfortunately, from the beginning of my involvement in the conflict the specter of litigation loomed in the background.  Bishop Schofield, operating out of a win/lose paradigm, made the first move by seeking to change the title on Corp Sole.  This was a significant aggressive move since Corp Sole held the title on 95 percent of the diocesan property, including most parishes and missions.  From the beginning the church hierarchy assumed that litigation would be necessary to block Schofield’s efforts to take all the property with him.  The subject of litigation was the source of more than one heated exchange I had with national church chancellor David Booth Beers.  I explained my position that swift and broad litigation would guarantee the worst possible result in San Joaquin.  I felt that litigation would so poison the atmosphere and relationships in the diocese that it would make any efforts at reconciliation next to impossible.  That has proven to be the case.

I was in Israel working on a faith-based reconciliation project when the litigation began.  I learned about it by email.  I must confess that, although I was aware of the possibility of litigation from the beginning, when it actually happened, I felt a profound sense of sadness.  The depositions of Bishops Schofield and Cox by the House of Bishops added to that sadness.  I realized that the old paradigm of win/lose advocacy would prevail in San Joaquin and that my efforts at reconciliation would be mere window dressing.  That brings me to the second reason that I accepted this assignment from the Presiding Bishop.

I agreed to serve out of a profound sense of call from the Lord, regardless of the outcome or any assumptions about my motives.  Many of my conservative friends were convinced that I had “gone over to the dark side” by agreeing to accept this assignment from the Presiding Bishop.  I received a large and diverse volume of email from around the country which ranged the whole spectrum.  Some expressed gratitude that I offered my skills and experience as a reconciler and peacemaker to the highly volatile and complex conflict in the Diocese of San Joaquin.  Others expressed anger at my ignoring the “godly admonition” of Bishop Schofield to “stay out of his diocese.”  Still others questioned my sanity for intervening in a conflict that had all the characteristics of a lose/lose scenario.

Before I accepted the assignment I prayed and fasted, sought counsel from a number of my friends including several bishops and received the blessing of my wardens and vestry.  In the end, I came to the conviction that this was God’s will for me and I surrendered my concern about the outcome or about people’s perceptions of my motives.  I became involved because I saw for a fleeting moment the possibility for this conflict to be approached from a wholly new paradigm of faith-based reconciliation instead of the prevailing paradigm of win/lose advocacy.  I dared to dream that God could be glorified by the Diocese of San Joaquin becoming a model of how the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion could deal with their deepest differences and continue to live together or to “part as friends.”  But, it was not to be.  Upon returning home from Israel I contacted Bishop Jerry Lamb and informed him that I was withdrawing my offer to conduct a faith-based reconciliation seminar in June.  He was saddened by my decision.  I understand this.  I have great respect for Jerry Lamb and realize that he has taken on an extremely difficult assignment.  I realized that my decision was not making his task any easier.  Nevertheless, the decision to withdraw my offer came from a sense of conscience.  The existing paradigm of win/lose advocacy currently being practiced by protagonists on both sides of the conflict has created a toxic environment in our church.  In the end it really doesn’t matter who wins and who loses.  Relationships are destroyed and Episcopalians live in a state of hostility toward each other.

What is needed in the Episcopal Church if we are to have any future as an institution is a paradigm shift from win/lose advocacy to faith-based reconciliation.  Without it there does not exist a sustainable environment for living with our deepest differences.  In September 2006 one of my colleagues and I went to see Katharine Jefferts Schori in Reno to talk about the subject of faith-based reconciliation.  We all agreed that what was needed in the church was a paradigm shift, a change of culture, from win/lose advocacy to reconciliation.  As I looked into the eyes of Katharine Jefferts Schori that day I believed in my heart that she sincerely wanted to create a reconciling spirit in the Episcopal Church that would find a respectful place for all of us.  The experience in San Joaquin has given me pause.  I believe that God was giving us a historic opportunity to approach our deepest differences from a wholly new paradigm of faith-based reconciliation and we let that opportunity slip from our grasp.  Israeli leaders used to say of Yasser Arafat that “He never missed a chance to miss a chance.”  Will that be our legacy?

The Reverend Canon Brian Cox is Rector of Christ the King Episcopal Church in Santa Barbara, California.

18 Responses to “Fr. Brian Cox: To Heal A Diocese Or Not”


  1. 1 William Tighe October 1, 2008 at 8:31 pm

    I do not see the point of this article. Its author, although describing himself as a “self-professed conservative,” seems to be unable to envisage that while there are always two sides (at least) to a conflict, sometimes they may justly be characterized as “good” and “evil” — or, as in this case “traditional Christian orthodoxy” and “newfangled heresy.”

    My impression of Bishop Schofield is that he is the closest thing to a latter-day Athanasius in TEC (until, at least, he is joined in November by Bishops Iker and Ackerman), and that in his opponents we see a latter-day equivalent of Eusebius of Nicomedia or George of Cappadocia (in the person of Bishop Lamb), and simple straightforward “trimmers” (such as the author of this piece, seemingly), who labor under the delusion that one can find a “middle way” between orthodoxy and heresy (or apostasy) and that such a twilight pomoerium (if one can find it) is worth inhabiting, despite the ancient taboo on dwelling in such purlieux.

    An additional reason for my admiration of +JDS is his constant and unshaken awareness (in this, alas, unlike even many of his admirers and followers, even in his own diocese) that the necessary precondition for the present conflict over SS (= Sanctified Sodomy) is the previous conflict in TEC over WO (= Women’s “Ordination”), and the example that it has given that, with time, yesterday’s heresy can become today’s accepted practice; and that he remains stalwartly opposed to WO as well as SS, indeed, for the same reason. It has been some years since I had any contact with Bishop Schofield, but I understand that the ambiguous stance of the Southern Cone over WO (they “ordain” women only to the diaconate, but are prepared to allow Pittsburgh to continue to “ordain” women to “the presbyterate” even if it acceeds to their province) is why the sojourn of Fort Worth and Quincy in that province is likely to be temporary (unlike that of SJ). I hope and trust that if Bishop Schofield modells himself on St. Athanasius or any other past episcopal contenders for the faith he will not settle for a partial or qualified orthodoxy — and so call to mind the echo of the verse which circulated among Puritans about Queen Elizabeth I shortly after her death in 1603, “Thoroughly she swept the floor, but left the dung behind the door” — but rather insist that the precedent set in 1976, as well as that in 2003, must be reversed and abrogated.

  2. 2 Bob Maxwell+ October 1, 2008 at 8:56 pm

    As I remember [and I may be incorrect,] in the process used by Fr. Cox, one of the key ingredients for the process to begin is that all involved have to state a belief in <i>the Atonement through Jesus Christ alone. This disqualifies KJS.

    She believes and does everything at her command to see that our the belief and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ as the exclusive Way, Truth and Life ceases not only in TEC but also among all Christian Churches. There is no way to “firewall” her, her staff and all her co-apostates [per the Athanasian Creed,] from any diocesan level reconciliation or “Companion Dioceses” wouldn’t be hemorrhaging faithful laity and clergy at the rates we see. WL would be a haven of rest.

    If KJS and all those like minded in their universalism [including laity] renounced their ministry/office, such a process has a chance under the authority of Holy Scripture.

  3. 3 robroy October 2, 2008 at 12:44 am

    Looks like Brian Cox+ is waking up to see that he was being used. Ouch.

    Cox+ is waiting for a fundamental paradigm shift to faith-based reconciliation from the win-lose advocacy??? Surely, it must be obvious that the TEO is moving more and more to the win at all costs strategy as evidenced by the “deposition” of Bp Duncan. Perhaps, he could review Bp Lawrence’s letter about the matter if he still harbors any doubts. He looked in Ms Schori’s eyes… C’mon Brian, give me a break and don’t be so naive.

  4. 5 robroy October 2, 2008 at 10:19 am

    “I have great respect for Jerry Lamb and realize that he has taken on an extremely difficult assignment.” I find this more telling of Brian Cox+’s gullibility. Jerry Lamb was chosen for one purpose – to sue Bp Schofield.

    “From the beginning the church hierarchy assumed that litigation would be necessary to block Schofield’s efforts to take ALL THE PROPERTY with him.” [emphasis added]

    This is nonsense. Bp Schofield has always stated that he would allow parishes that did not agree with the diocesan decision to remain in the Episcopal denomination WITH THEIR PROPERTY. Has the TEO been so gracious?

  5. 6 Scott October 2, 2008 at 11:44 am

    A very quick note, which is why it is so long. Fr Cox has been my pastor in the past and he is a very pastoral priest. I know him to be devoted to the mission of reconciliation.

    Now to make a few quick comments.

    Scott+

    Said above: I was willing to meet with Bishop Schofield but was instructed to avoid such a meeting until after the Special Convention.

    I assume that those orders came from KJS. In any event it was a fatal flaw in the mission plan. How can reconciliation be accomplished if discussion with the leadership on one side is forbidden.

    If there was going to be true effort for reconciliation offered by ECUSA, then only Father Cox should have been sent. Father Cox should have started with a meeting with Bishop Schofield. A lone reasonably conservative priest, sent by 815, might have been seen as a neutral party. Adding a libel to the team was at least in my eyes, seen as a take over attempt.

    Said above: At the same time, I must say that his efforts to take the Diocese of San Joaquin out of the Episcopal Church were misguided and hurtful to many people, both clergy and laity, in the diocese. On my first visit to the diocese in February I discovered a whole fabric of broken relationships at every level and a history within the diocese of ostracizing moderate and liberal church members.

    The choice to take DSJ out of ECUSA was taken after a long period of conflict. I have no question that there were ostracized moderate and liberal church members, at least in their own minds. In the conflict with ECUSA I would suggest that to some degree what will be viewed by some as ostracizing is really discernment. Discernment in that it is a problem to have those who support a non-orthodox view in leadership when you are fighting to save the church.

    For the reasons that Bishop Duncan has given, and many more, it would seem that the dioceses which are orthodox have no choice but to leave and leave now. Father Cox has a mission in upcoming events, it is reconciliation after dioceses, parishes, and people have left with the people who did not leave.

  6. 7 Rick Arllen October 2, 2008 at 1:34 pm

    Long and rambling, but I guess that is the way one needs to write when trying to defend the indefensible. Good luck to Cox+ as he vainly tries to square the circle in his own mind.

  7. 8 BabyBlue October 2, 2008 at 7:07 pm

    I am sorry. I feel bad for Brian, whom I knew during his days as an associate rector at Church of the Apostles, Fairfax (which has also separated from The Episcopal Church and joined CANA). He’s always been a visionary who lived in the realm of what could be rather than what is. As we learned through the work of the Diocese of Virginia Reconciliation Task Force (and what led ultimately to the creation of Bishop Peter James Lee’s Protocol for Departing Congregations) was that we had reached a conflict level of Level 5 – the most severe level. For those of us who have been engaged on the Diocesan and General Convention level for the last ten, fifteen, twenty years – so much work was done to try to find ways to reconcile, including the R-7 Group in the Diocese of Virginia that went on regularly for seven years and finally dissolved. It was impossible. The chasm is too wide and too deep.

    To have engage in faith-based reconciliation one must have some common ground to stand on and the trust to stand there together. The deeper that we explored the faith – and that is ultimately what is breaking up here – the more we recognized that there is no agreement on even the basic tenets of the faith, including the identity of Jesus, the moral weight of scripture, and the validiation of personal revelation.

    I do feel bad for Brian – it’s a journey many of us have walked – I spent five years as an officer in the Diocese of Virginia, two of them as a Region Lay President and I loved those that I disagreed with. It is still quite painful, the feelings of betrayal are on all sides, we’re not through this yet, and yet, even now, I still pray – even at this late hour – that we can find some way to separate peacefully until that day when we can reconcile. Hope is still not lost. “It’s not dark yet,” as Dylan says. “But it’s getting there.”

    We had a way through in Virginia and that was destroyed through the sudden intervention of the new Presiding Bishop and her chancellor (was she invited or was she not – that we still don’t know). Trust was completely demolished and that may be the other elephant in the room. When trust is broken – and it is broken – we have reached a Level Five Conflict and that is when the next step is bitter divorce.

    I continue to pray that we may not divorce but have a legal separation until such time we can begin to rebuild trust. That is what I see happening as individuals, parishes, and now dioceses realign with other Anglican provinces from around the world. It is a separation but not a divorce. We are all Anglican. There is still hope – but playing the self-appointed savior who will save the church – no matter what our best intentions might be – will not make it happen. In fact, it can make things worse.

    That being said, I can imagine that this is still a major disappointment for Brian – I do remember him and Richard Kew walking through the AAC offices at the Denver General Convention and then they were gone. I know it’s been personally painful for both – Richard retreated back to England and Brian stuck a toe in and found out what we know is all ready true – the water is ice cold.

    We should, however, never disparage someone who sincerely attempts reconciliation. They can only be called fools – and we know that God has a special place in His heart for fools such as we all are – as I am. We dare to dream of what could be and we fall into despair when our dream is lost. It causes us to question whether we heard from Him at all and we fail to consider that God loves us all so much that He gives us individual will, the freedom to choose. Even to choose unwisely or to pretend we have no choice at all. We cannot know the condition of another’s heart nor what may drive anyone to make one choice and not another.

    I am also reminded of something John McCain said during his speech at the convention. He was quite a confident man, even in the midst of the terror of being captured and tortured by the enemy in Vietnam. But at a certain point, the enemy broke him. He failed. But what Sen. McCain said was that in fact when he failed he discovered the power and healing of community – that it wasn’t all up to him, that he didn’t have to do it alone, that when he was weak he could be strong, not because he was on his own, but because he had friends.

    I pray that Brian – and others who feel the depth of the pain of this conflict – will know that in the end, when we are weak, we are strong for only when we know the depths of our weakness, our inability to fix it all and be it all, only then do we recognize that our Risen Lord lives and greater is He that is in me than he than he that is in the world.

    bb

  8. 9 Scott October 2, 2008 at 8:43 pm

    William Tighe I see what is going on with Southern Cone as a form of faith-based reconciliation. In respect to women as priests, there is room for reconciliation. There is enough common understanding of scripture and tradition for DJS and Pittsburgh to engage in reconciliation. This is where ministries like Father Cox’s ministry could be of value.

    What is the maximum amount of intercommunion between these dioceses? What is the maximum amount of communion with these various dioceses and groups already outside ECUSA? I do not have a long term answer. I do see where a ministry of reconciliation could make the amount of intercommunion more than it otherwise might be.

    This is not the time or place to get into the pros and cons of women as priests. I will say that many on the outside were surprised when AMiA came out opposed to women as priests. I know many were surprised when the Charismatic Episcopal Church reached the same conclusion. When the politics are quite enough for discernment better choices are made.

    Rick Arllen: As BB indicated, Father Cox is a dreamer. We need dreamers. While I disagree with much of what Father Cox said above, I know his motivation is love of the Lord and love of the Church. May God bless Fr Brain and his ministry.

    Scott

  9. 10 Creighton+ October 3, 2008 at 2:35 pm

    I think it is profound that the Rev. Brian Cox who believes in godly reconciliation not compromise, not accommodation, neither capitulation has come to this conclusion that neither sides is interested in reconciliation. It seems many are angry and ready to criticize him for various reasons ranging from working with the enemy or simply not getting it.

    But here is the point being missed. He does now. The reality that we all come to this moment in time differently does not makes us enemies. It is not hard to understand why some would be amazed that it has taken some this long to reach this point. But that is simply the way we are.

    His word to us is that he has not given up hope but is seeing things in a different way and can no longer cooperate when the sides are not willing to engage. You can put blame where ever you want to put it.

    I have respected Fr. Cox over the years. I still do. I trust that God will continue to use him in the days ahead and I am thankful for this account of where he is today.

  10. 11 Bob Maxwell+ October 3, 2008 at 5:51 pm

    Thank you BB and Creighton for highlighting this Fool for Christ that I’ve respected since he was an associate in St. James, Newport Beach. I was impressed with his vision as a candidate for Bishop in the Rio Grande.

    In the RG, where most of the moderates and liberals believe in the Atonement, Fr. Brian’s process would have a better chance of achieving reconciliation than than the “New Life” process now implemented.

  11. 12 Alice C. Linsley October 4, 2008 at 11:18 am

    Hey, Brian, watch out for that elephant!

  12. 13 Sarah October 4, 2008 at 5:23 pm

    I also don’t have a problem with Father Cox attempting to do what he did — although I’ve always believed that he was merely a token window-dressing to make Schori/Beers look as if they were trying. And in that way, Father Cox fulfilled his purpose there, although that was not his intended purpose.

    But I am puzzled over something. He says:

    “In the course of my work in the diocese from the beginning of February until the end of April, it became obvious to me that many conservatives, including most of the former Standing Committee, did not want to follow Bishop John-David Schofield to the Southern Cone. Hence, the characterization of Remain Episcopal as a “bunch of liberals in the diocese” was simply not true.”

    I totally agree with his first sentence. There are loads of conservatives — like me — who have no desire to leave TEC. One of the reasons for that is that I do not wish to go where Common Cause is attempting to go. So when I leave TEC, I’ll need to leave Anglicanism entirely, and I’m not ready for that.

    However — I don’t believe that those conservatives within San Joaquin were members of “Remain Episcopal.” They were simply out there . . . being conservative and not wanting to leave TEC. Remain Episcopal was rightly called Remain Revisionist.

    This is a different cause in the Diocese of Pittsburgh, where the two groups have seemed to attempt to work together. But in San Joaquin — no. The conservatives who wished to stay in TEC and the revisionists did not work together, and it was the revisionists who were in “Remain Episcopal.”

    I find it troubling that Father Cox was supposed to heal a diocese and work with conservatives, when he does not seem to know some basic facts about that diocese.

    Or perhaps some conservatives — known conservatives, please, like Rob Eaton — could correct my impression. Was Rob Eaton or Dan Martins in Remain Episcopal in San Joaquin? If so, hopefully someone will step in and let me know.

    There is one other area that I find troubling in his piece. He says:

    “They fully expected the church hierarchy to come after them and to go for the jugular vein and were prepared to stand their ground. They were open to the possibility of reconciliation but defined that as “the parting of friends.” In their own hearts they had already left and there was no turning back. In general, they were cynical about any possibility of reconciliation and described 815’s version of reconciliation as “We won, you lost. You’ll come around to our way of thinking or get out. However, we won’t let you take the property with you.”

    And “they” — the departing conservatives — were completely right.

    What puzzles me is . . . how on earth has Father Cox been so completely naive and oblivious to those facts over the past five years? Where has he been? Does he read blogs? Keep up with news? Track various meetings, like the HOB meeting in New Orleans, the past two General Conventions, the Lambeth Meeting?

    I do agree with Baby Blue’s excellent comments. It’s no shame to try something, even if it fails. I particularly like this comment — it is crystal clear and so true:

    “To have engage in faith-based reconciliation one must have some common ground to stand on and the trust to stand there together. The deeper that we explored the faith – and that is ultimately what is breaking up here – the more we recognized that there is no agreement on even the basic tenets of the faith, including the identity of Jesus, the moral weight of scripture, and the validiation of personal revelation.”

  13. 14 robroy October 7, 2008 at 12:44 pm

    I don’t think that Father Brian is above criticism on his way to beatification by some here. I do appreciate working for the long defeat. We are to be innocent as doves BUT also wise as serpents. (To be honest, I am not entirely sure what our good Lord meant by this.)

  14. 15 Sandra R September 9, 2009 at 4:28 pm

    Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog. 🙂 Cheers! Sandra. R.

  15. 16 megan fox September 11, 2009 at 3:40 pm

    Sign: umsun Hello!!! rcuwwymhyw and 1577ssgfhphzye and 5613I love your blog. 🙂 I just came across your blog.

  16. 18 Ramiro Vega November 4, 2013 at 2:17 pm

    Dearest Brian:

    I hope you will remember me. I am Ramiro Vega from Ambato Ecuador. I always pray for you as you were the chanel my good Lord Jesus used to get me to Him. Thank you very much my dearest brother in Christ and now I just ask my Lord to have the oportunity to contact you and hopefully to see you again.
    May the God of peace and love bless you always and bless your wonderful ministry.

    Ramiro & Jenny Vega


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s





%d bloggers like this: