My Last Post on Race

by The Late Frank Turk

Since coming back from Hiatus, I have laid down a lot of self-imposed blogging limits.  No more Mark Driscoll posts.  No posts which wouldn't serve as Sunday School material.  No more Global Warming posts, no more political posts (those two I haven't made much of, but note it).  No more posts about TGC.  It seems like all the things you might expect from a menace who must be stopped is ending, and the show is getting new writers.

Anyway, this video turned up last week:


Black and White: Learning from Ferguson Together from Desiring God on Vimeo.

And Thabiti is, frankly one of those guys I only want the best for. He seems like the most human and the most natural of the T4G luminaries, and frankly I just like him.  I like his books.  I like his blog.  Every time I see him speak to people, I like the way he treats people.  I want to actually meet him someday, but because I am also swearing off conferences which are not at my local church I think that's entirely unlikely.

Also, while I hold him in high esteem, I am still a fan of him as a public mediator on the subject of race in America.  I am 100% certain he is one of the guys who is rightly theologically moored to handle the discussion; I am also certain his personal experience has something to teach us about this issue.

Last, before I say what I have to say here, I had a private on-line conversation with him about this subject which, frankly, was not my best interpersonal moment, and while you will never see it, let me say that he was the better man in that exchange who called a brother to repent and to turn away from sin, so I also owe him a spiritual due.

I cannot say enough good about Thabiti because he's obviously full of grace and truth.

So in order to not hurt myself by now saying, "yeah but ...," I am going to offer some bullet points about this video, and this will be my final post about race and theology ever on the internet.

• Time 0:44 - 2:44
• While Thabiti starts by saying there is something he has learned, it's actually about something he wants other people to learn.  While I think what he says in the last 60 second of that piece of this video is interesting and useful for me personally (it's a version of this post from 2008), I think that there is something being missed in making that point.  Personally, I am 100% confident that the police have done wrong to young black men in America.  I'm not sure conflating that with the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson (which is what Thabiti does in making his point) makes this discussion better.
• Time 2:44 - 3:12
• The reason why we shouldn't say more about the issue in the previous 2 minutes is that Thabiti cleans it up himself.  He recognizes that there is a problem of conflation, and a problem of profiling on both sides due to (using his phases) the history between blacks and the police.  It's right of him to point it out.
• Time 3:12 - 4:15
• My first reaction to this segment about the center of modern civil rights leadership is, "from your lips to God's ear."  If this were also true about "white" America, I think a new and more productive dialog could take place.
• Time 4:15 - 6:32
• The question of the discipline of the original civil rights movement vs. the current iteration of community action is a very good one, and his point about the Christian roots of the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's is utterly necessary.  Anyone who ignores this is missing a huge difference between what happened then and what is happening, and how it is lead, right now.
• Time 6:32 - End
• I think this is the weakest part of the whole video for one reason only: the side being tarred as evil (I think: unjustly) is also being lectured for somehow usurping the dignity of the other side for complaining about the injustice of the charges against them.  What I think Thabiti has meant to say here is that there's a way to mourn with those who are mourning that gives them dignity while they are mourning, and that there should be a way to distinguish between language from pain and language meant to advance the conversation.  What he has instead wound up saying, it seems to me, is that when one group lashes out in pain and labels another group "X", the group labelled "X" doesn't have any ground to object until the time of mourning is over.

That's it.  Saying more than that would be piling on.  If you want to know what I really think about race and the Gospel, go here and read all the posts.

---

If I could change Christian vocabulary: "Closed Canon"

by Dan Phillips

I've remarked in the past that it often seems as if bad doctrines (and problematic denominations/cults) have all the best names, while orthodoxy gets stuck with negative terms. More than once, I've tried to spur a search for more positive terminology...with varying degrees of success. I've also tried to find less gauzy, more realistic descriptors for bad doctrine.

Wellsir, well ma'am, I'm back with another.

We're wont to talk about the closed Canon. By that we mean a great thing: we mean that the millennia-long process of revelation has reached its climax (Heb. 1:1-2), and no fresh revelation is being imparted.

It's a wonderfully robust truth. But the term is negative. It just says closed. No more. It doesn't mean that the process was successful or satisfactory; just that you aren't getting any more. Closed. You've gone to the pharmacy to get some medicine for your flu... but it's closed. You wanted to take your honey to your favorite restaurant... but it's closed. You wanted to register for the Sufficient Fire conference, but... well, thank God, that's not closed yet. But it will be.

See? Closed. Disappointing, dissatisfying. Final, yes; but not happy. Not gladsome connotations.

So what if in stead of "closed" we spoke of the...

Full Canon

"Full," as in "No, thanks, really, I'm stuffed. Not another bite!" As in "Everything I could possibly need." As in "Replete, well-stocked, abundantly furnished, neither room nor need for one bit more." Full.

Doesn't that describe the situation better and more truly both connotatively and denotatively? It isn't that the last apostle had a bunch he needed to say, but just expired before he could, and now the doors are closed. It isn't as if it's an inadequate product, but it's the one we've got, so we've got to make-do.

It's that God has given us everything for which we need a word from God. It's bursting with His wisdom, His mind, His heart, His direction, His instruction. It has more in it than we will ever be able to take in, process, savor, and put into practice! It has enough to make us wise to salvation (2 Tim. 3:15), and fully to equip us for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17)! It's full!

Which then correctly depicts the sort of person who'd try to come up with some sort of lame supplement in the light he deserves: foolish, futile, ignorant, and in the final analysis of-little-faith.

So I submit that for your mulling-over and discussion. What if we began speaking of the "full Canon" instead of the "closed Canon"? Would the newer phrase say all the older one did even better, and say more besides? Plus, it makes a nice set with another contribution of mine, "leaky Canon."

Have at it.

---

Things which cannot be shaken

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from the lifetime of works from the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon.  The following excerpt is from Morning and Evening, June 22, McDonald Publishing Company.

"We have many things in our possession at the present moment which can be shaken, and it ill becomes a Christian man to set much store by them, for there is nothing stable beneath these rolling skies; change is written upon all things." 

Yet, we have certain "things which cannot be shaken," and I invite you this evening to think of them, that if the things which can be shaken should all be taken away, you may derive real comfort from the things that cannot be shaken, which will remain.

Whatever your losses have been, or may be, you enjoy present salvation. You are standing at the foot of His cross, trusting alone in the merit of Jesus' precious blood, and no rise or fall of the markets can interfere with your salvation in Him; no breaking of banks, no failures and bankruptcies can touch that.

Then you are a child of God this evening. God is your Father. No change of circumstances can ever rob you of that. Although by losses brought to poverty, and stripped bare, you can say, "He is my Father still. In my Father's house are many mansions; therefore will I not be troubled."

You have another permanent blessing, namely, the love of Jesus Christ. He who is God and Man loves you with all the strength of His affectionate nature—nothing can affect that. The fig tree may not blossom, and the flocks may cease from the field, it matters not to the man who can sing, "My Beloved is mine, and I am His."

Our best portion and richest heritage we cannot lose. Whatever troubles come, let us play the man; let us show that we are not such little children as to be cast down by what may happen in this poor fleeting state of time.

Our country is Immanuel's land, our hope is above the sky, and therefore, calm as the summer's ocean; we will see the wreck of everything earthborn, and yet rejoice in the God of our salvation.

---

Some here, some there — November 7, 2014

by Dan Phillips

Here we go:

• Pyro Health News: in the market for a panacea health drink? May I direct you to a cup of Joe? And then another?
• Todd Pruitt offers seven lessons pastors (and congregations) could learn from The Driscoll Affair.
• So... what would end TGC's smug "We're all together, no major changes needed, nothing to see here, keep our stats up/buy our books/fill our conferences and move along" stance? We've seen what evidently won't do it. So what would do it?
• Have you heard that the Bible condones fathers selling daughters into slavery? If you haven't, when you do, you'll be glad to have Fred Butler's response ready at hand.
• Seeing an article about God-talking wire-walking Nik Wallenda, I tweeted this Monday:

Is this a violation of the Sixth Commandment? http://t.co/ddmuTpd9Zf I'm leaning "yes"
— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) November 3, 2014

• The next day David Murray posted a very fine expansion of Biblical thinking about such things, which I would apply to a whole slew of daredevil things men (husbands! fathers!) sometimes do, and sometimes die doing. Yet note the appalling comments. Perhaps they came from Challies, who commendably (reportedly) saw and linked to a good article. Whatever the reason, they clearly weren't prepared for a clear-minded, unsentimental Biblical analysis of the sort of thing Americans admire — men with wives and children acting like boys to prove something and accomplish nothing, at best, or a pointless death leaving a widow and fatherless children, at worst.
• A couple of SHSTs ago we noted the leading-evangelical-ethicist-who-no-one-has-ever-heard-of, David Gushee, who decided to go with the world's thinking on a cluster of perversions while continuing to profess some sort of Christian faith. Worse, he professes to be an evangelical — and yet sets out a way of thinking and (ironically) of ethical processing that could hardly be more opposite.
  
• Aside: I will understand if it irritates anyone for me to note this, but when I read this, I think that this is exactly why I wrote TWTG. What passes for Christian conversion these days is a shallow, pale, inconsequential minor course-adjustment. It isn't the radical earthquake of total paradigm-shift that the Bible envisions, and which I try to depict at accessible length.
• It sounds as if TWTG anticipated the line adopted in a pro-homosexual video that Rick Phillips thoroughly takes down.
• Denny Burke responds to Gushee appositely, as usual.
• As you know, this is one of those topics on which Michael Brown is biblically sound, which is what makes his advocacy of Charismatic error so disappointing. As if in anticipation of Gushee's dismissive piece, Brown lamented that homosexualist advocates are averse to debate. And since Gushee slams Gagnon as well, it seems fitting to link a second time to Gagnon's excellent piece responding to Gushee's defection.
• For the moment, thanks to a ruling from the Sixth Circuit, sanity reigns on the same-sex mirage issue for Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Even a glance at the majority opinion is like a breath of fresh air — if only a breath. (h-t Robert Sakovich)

Hey kids! Let's relive one of the most horrific events in history! pic.twitter.com/Pendeh233i
— John Downey (@REALjdowney) November 6, 2014

• I doubt I'm the only one who wishes we could hold non-threatening visitor-exit interviews. How did you decide you did not want to come back? Was it something non-negotiable, like our core convictions; was it a misunderstanding, that could have been clarified if we'd had a chance; or was it something easily-correctible that we should work on changing
• Thom Rainer offers a list from a twitter poll listing top ten ways churches drive away first-time guests. The first two seem in conflict to me. What do you think?
• Maybe the resolution in part is in the observation that people aren't so much looking for friendly churches as they are looking for friends?
• That said, I still come back to my own bottom-line: if you're hungry for God, the preached word, and genuine Christian fellowship (in that order), you can work through a lot.
• Here's a tract y'all might enjoy (h-t Sir Aaron).
• You'll want to get this commentary on Philippians. Eventually, I'll likely review it. But I had the privilege of reading and offering comments on the manuscript, and it really is stellar.
• Well well. The Vatican is hosting reps from many religions to talk about marriage. One of those religions is Christianity, represented by Rick Warren and Russell Moore. Would you go? (I would.)  What do you think you'd say? What do you think Rick and Russ will say?
• Thinking of preaching or teaching through Philippians? Great idea... but I'd wait until late January...
• You won't believe who this rapper cites as his main inspiration; at the end of the article.

Check back later for some more; but today's a Date Day. So probably not!

---

The intersection of Truth, Unity, and the Church

by Frank Turk

From 2006 to 2012, PyroManiacs turned out almost-daily updates from the Post-Evangelical wasteland -- usually to the fear and loathing of more-polite and more-irenic bloggers and readers. The results lurk in the archives of this blog in spite of the hope of many that Google will "accidentally" swallow these words and pictures whole.

This feature enters the murky depths of the archives to fish out the classic hits from the golden age of internet drubbings.

The following excerpt was written by Frank back in October 2011. Frank discussed proper and improper views of Truth and Unity within the church.

As usual, the comments are closed.

I have three pictures for you today to think about.

Figure #1

Here's a picture we might call "Unity in Truth," right?  A simple Venn diagram which puts all aspects of "Unity" as a subset of "Truth," and I think it's easy, when you see "Unity" this way, you can (and must) believe that as long as you're talking about "Unity," you must be talking about "Truth."

There are some transparent problems with this.  For example, if you start talking about having spiritual solidarity with Muslims because all Unity is a subset of Truth, you are off the rails -- because you are denying some part of what is True in order to obtain Unity. This view of Unity and Truth doesn't actually work.

So let's try another one:

Figure #2

This one eliminates the problem that the first one had by illustrating that there are some aspects of "Unity" which are actually not part of "Truth" -- but it assumes that if you are talking about "Truth" you will automatically demonstrate "Unity."  That is, all Truth is in Unity, but some Unity is outside Truth.

Hey: this is the Internet, folks.  You don't have to go very far to find contrafactual evidence for that statement.  So let's toddle over to yet another attempt to diagram the relationship between "Truth" and "Unity" in order to have a reference point mentally for what we ought to be talking about when we say something like "Unity in Truth."

Figure #3

To which all the readers say, "Aha!"

On the one hand, we have the kind of Unity which is absent from the Truth; on the other hand, we see that some kinds of Truth have nothing to do with Unity; and on the third hand we see that there is a place where we find Unity and Truth together.  This is the one which should help us visualize the relationship between Truth and Unity.

But so what?  Why break out the Gadfly color scheme and make us think using something other than words on a Friday?  Well, here's what:

Figure #3A

This is what we need to talk about.  There are probably 10,000 applications of Figure 3 -- like how to think about the "Occupy" movement, for example -- but Figure 3A here now makes us think about US for a second in a way that isn't going to be self-congratulatory.  Because the first thing we have to realize or recognize is that the church, walking around today (as it has from the day after Pentecost) really looks more like this:

Figure #4



That is: while we would love it that the Church actually is the place where Truth creates Unity and Unity reinforces Truth, we actually have some places where we are unified over the wrong things, and we are clinging to kinds of Truth in a way that harms Unity, and we also have things we do which are neither in Truth nor in Unity -- and these are, by a lot, our worst moments.  This is what the LBCF means when it says, "The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name."  The Church ought to be the place where Unity and Truth intersect, but because we are talking about people here and not a bag of dimes, it's not going to be a uniform thing from the standpoint of what is and isn't inside it.

We can make a big thing of this because the church is actually tasked to be Figure #3 in spite of actually being Figure #4 -- in fact we must make a big thing of it, if we believe our Bibles as we say we do.  We make a big thing out of it because what the Confession warns us about is becoming this:


What we categorically do not want is to become so concerned with Unity that we are simply giving up on Truth for Unity.

Last thing today: this is the struggle which produced the confessions and the creeds.  This concern about how much truth needs to be present in our unity is what caused the Church (big "C") to make creeds and confessions so that the clarity of the Gospel -- the whole Gospel, and all its necessary consequences -- can be both proclaimed and received.  When we choose a path -- no matter who we are, no matter what else we have accomplished for Christ's sake in the course of out lives -- which abates the drift, above, we are doing it wrong.  We are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

---

Election Results, 2014

by the Late Frank Turk

This is a brief note to you all about what just happened in the United States. Sorry to bore our international friends.  It is a reprint of a classic from November 2011.

There were no surprises last night, least of all to God. This seems like a really hackneyed point of God's sovereignty, but I think that those thinking that are not really thinking very hard.

See: when Barack Obama was elected president, God wasn't surprised. His plan wasn't sent into a tailspin -- not for the U.S., and not for the grand scheme to glorify himself and save people. But many of our dear friends were very undone by the election of President Obama -- and today I think we will see many of others outdone by the results from yesterday.  Some may in fact put too much confidence in those results; others will despair too much.

That doesn't mean it doesn't matter how you voted or how you should vote. What it does mean is that we cannot trust in salvation through politics. We also cannot trust in salvation through our nation.

We have to trust in a salvation which actually addresses our true danger, a salvation which saves us from what we are actually dying from. This is what God is working on.

And those are the election results we should be focused on.

---

"Problem of evil" syllogism, reworked

by Dan Phillips

I'm sure you're all familiar with some form of this:

1. If God is all-powerful, He can prevent evil.
2. If God is good, He would want to prevent evil.
3. Evil exists.
4. Therefore, there is no God. (Or: God is either not all-powerful, or He is not good.)

But it's a loaded syllogism — well, both loaded and unloaded, if you follow my meaning. It snips a couple of Biblical truths, but holds them in isolation from everything else the Bible teaches.

A more honest version would be:

1. If God can do anything He wishes, He could prevent evil if He wished.
2. If God is good... I can't think of a reason why he would not prevent evil.
3. Evil exists.
4. Therefore... um, I don't know why God might choose to permit evil.

That's a lot more truthful, and it leaves the problem where it belongs: not on God, but on the arguer. Here's another:

1. If God can do anything He wishes, He could prevent evil.
2. If God is good, He would want to prevent evil.
3. But I don't believe in God anyway, so I can't have an opinion on what "evil" is or whether it exists.
4. Therefore, what's for dinner?

Or this:

1. If God can do anything He wishes, He could prevent evil if He wished.
2. If God is good, He would want to prevent evil.
3. I have the vague feeling that the Bible says more about God than that He's almighty and good, but I just really haven't cared enough to study it out for myself.
4. Therefore... well, nothing about the God of the Bible. But the God I made up might have issues.

Here's the best of the lot:

1. If God can do anything He wishes, He could prevent evil if He wished.
2. If God is good, He will not allow evil to go unpunished or reign forever.
3. Evil exists, will be punished, and it both has been and will be dealt with permanently.
4. Therefore, repent and believe in the Lord Jesus, or be part of that evil that will be judged and dealt with.

(I give more on the subject, here. You must admit: it's nothing if not red.)

---

How not to be disappointed

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from the lifetime of works from the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon.  The following excerpt is from John Ploughman's Talk, pages 66-68, Pilgrim Publications.

"He who boasts of being perfect is perfect in folly."

If we would always recollect that we live among men who are imperfect, we should not be in such a fever when we find out our friend's failings; what's rotten will rend, and cracked pots will leak. Blessed is he who expects nothing of poor flesh and blood, for he shall never be disappointed. The best of men are men at best, and the best wax will melt.

It is a good horse that never stumbles,
And a good wife that never grumbles.
But surely such horses and wives are only found in the fool's paradise, where dumplings grow on trees. In this wicked world the straightest timber has knots in it, and the cleanest field of wheat has its share of weeds. The most careful driver one day upsets the cart, the cleverest cook spills a little broth, and as I know to my sorrow a very decent ploughman will now and then break the plow and often make a crooked furrow. 

It is foolish to turn off a tried friend because of a failing or two, for you may get rid of a one-eyed nag and buy a blind one. Being all of us full of faults, we ought to keep two bears, and learn to bear and forbear with one another; since we all live in glass houses, we should none of us throw stones. 

Everybody laughs when the saucepan says to the kettle, "How black you are!" Other men's imperfections show us our imperfections, for one sheep is much like another; and if there's an apple in my neighbour's eye, there is no doubt one in mine. We ought to use our neighbours as mirrors to see our own faults in, and mend in ourselves what we see in them.

I have no patience with those who poke their noses into every man's house to smell out his faults, and put on magnifying glasses to discover their neighbour's flaws. Such folks had better look at home, they might see the devil where they little expected. What we wish to see, we shall see or think we see. Faults are always thick where love is thin. 

A white cow is all black if your eye chooses to make it so. If we sniff long enough at rose water, we shall find out that it has a bad smell. It would be a far more pleasant business, at least for other people, if fault-finders would turn their dogs to hunt out the good points in other folks, the game would pay better, and nobody would stand with a pitchfork to keep the huntsmen off his farm. 

As for our own faults, it would take a large slate to hold the account of them, but, thank God, we know where to take them and how to get the better of them. With all our faults, God loves us still if we are trusting in His Son. Therefore, let us not be downhearted, but hope to live and learn, and do some good service before we die. 

---

Some here, some there — October 31, 2014

by Dan Phillips

Happy Reformation Day! I hope your family and/or church have something planned to lift up the glorious Biblical truths that were recovered and held high by this movement. It's my family's ~25th year, and our church's 3rd annual.

Feel free to share what you're doing to celebrate the Reformation's accomplishments in the comments. (Not you, Frank.) One of the traditional dishes the saints at CBC will be enjoying is the traditional Diet of Worms cake. Yum.

• Steve Lawson offers one of his marvellous little bio's on England's prime reformer, William Tyndale.

Haters. They Gonna Hate. Shake It Off. ~Martin Luther #ReformationDay pic.twitter.com/BJogE5iRWL
— Todd Adkins (@ToddAdkins) October 31, 2014

• Appropriate to the occasion, a Kindle reader named KevinR highlighted this from The World-Tilting Gospel:

• Over at Cripplegate, Eric Davis' list of ways in which the Roman Catholic Church would have to change for Christians to join hands with it had two effects on me: first, appreciation. It's a very good list, well-explained and well-documented. Second, discouragement. Even after reading the list, I still think of so many ways in which Rome deviates fatally from Biblical Christianity — the scapular, worshiping dead people, adding books to the Bible...
• So in place of Eric's list, I'd be tempted to say Rome needs to change in one way: it must affirm and apply the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, limited to the previously-accepted 66-book Christian canon. That done, we'd be rid of everything Eric specifies, everything I mentioned, and much else besides.
  
• That is why a robust understanding, affirmation, proclamation, and embrace of the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture should be our central concern today.
• On that last note, let me point out: today is the last day to pre-register at a discounted price. You should come to the conference. It will be fun, encouraging, instructive, and a great time of worship, followship, preparation and strategizing. Giveaways are planned. Don't miss it!
• If you go to The Aquila Report and David Murray's site (often sources for some of my finds), you get a good tour of some of the best items on the intarwebz. I commend them to you yet again. They've got a good eye for what matters to us, like [insert RPB name here] used to.
• For instance, David Murray notes and discusses Ligonier/Lifeway's extensive survey of the state of theology in America. No Pyro reader will be surprised, though all will be saddened and renewed in our conviction to do something about it.
• Erik Parker gives a healthy reminder in 7 reasons church isn't for you. And almost as a companion-piee, Nicholas Batzig offers 7 wrong reasons to join a church.
• I may have to write a post: 14 reasons I like lists.

Today, he'd be posting on the Twittenberg door and hoping for 95 Retweets.
— Church Curmudgeon (@ChrchCurmudgeon) October 31, 2014

• Religion writer Sarah Pulliam Bailey seems to be on a minor tear lately. First, this on Monday:

Standing ovation for the owner of Washington florist who declined to sell flowers to a gay couple. #erlc2014 https://t.co/0pJP561gqb
— Sarah Pulliam Bailey (@spulliam) October 27, 2014

• Of course, they did no such thing — unless it's accurate to report that a flag company "declined to sell flags with right-angles" when what they're refusing to sell is flags with swastikas. The couple in question refused to sell flowers for a "gay" "wedding." So Ryan T. Anderson rightly took her to task for it, as did yr obdt svt. (Brian Mattson has as well.) Bailey did not particularly express appreciation.
• Then Bailey tweeted this Tuesday:

Evangelical leader Russell Moore denounces ex-gay / reparative therapy http://t.co/Ym0foHOQDN #ERLC2014 pic.twitter.com/D0sUMHorHQ
— Sarah Pulliam Bailey (@spulliam) October 28, 2014

• I asked Dr. Moore what he thought of this characterization, and regrettably he answered me the way he usually does these days.
• Then Bailey reported this:

Rosaria Butterfield who just spoke at #ERLC2014 is trending nationwide. She was a lesbian, denounces ex-gay ministry http://t.co/Ym0foHOQDN
— Sarah Pulliam Bailey (@spulliam) October 28, 2014

• So; wow, it's a rough time to be trying to help homosexuals. Everyone's "denouncing" you! Well, Bailey did report one different viewpoint:

"Those who meet Jesus change." -@JackieHillPerry, a former lesbian now married to @Preston_n_Perry #ERLC2014 pic.twitter.com/X57SoaCsyW
— Sarah Pulliam Bailey (@spulliam) October 28, 2014

• What do I think? I think if you're going to speak publicly about these matters, you have to know how you'll be spun. I think you have to know that anyone trying to help homosexuals find freedom from their destructive passions — or even suggesting that it can be done — becomes Public Enemy #1. I think you have to know that "denouncing" such groups will be misunderstood and misused. So I think you have to load your statements in some such way that can't be disentangled by the enemies of God.
• Like this: "Much as I appreciate all goodhearted attempts to help folks who are in the grips of destructive and degrading perversions, mere therapy both mis-identifies goals and does not go far enough. Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ transforms hearts, natures, complexes of attraction. Only Christ gives hope, life and freedom to sinners — of any variety."
• Of course in my case, it probably would be reported like this: "Asked whether he believed that homosexuality was a sin, Phillips looked at the reporter as if he had sprouted a third eye, and said, enunciating with painstaking clarity, 'I'm a Christian. Look it up.'"
  
• And now, a meta-item aimed at fellow-bloggers. The post I'm about to link to may be a good article. I don't know. But when you look at it, do you want to read it, aesthetically? My large work monitor fills with text, text, text. Whole screens without paragraph-breaks. So: do you want to be read? Don't overwhelm the not-already-sold with giant text filling a screen without the possibility of a scan or a breather.
• Carl Trueman offers broad-ranging thoughts and historical perspective on the current fad of discovering that the Bible means the opposite of what it says about homosexuality. It's a worthy read both for substance, and for the introduction of "chattocracy" and an allusion to "finding dark thrills through collecting old pieces of string." That one was new to me. I'm sure the mayor of Houston is preparing a law to protect it.
• I'm also sure you all heard that a "leading Evangelical ethicist" whom none of us has ever heard of ("David Gushee"; see, I told you) decided that he's all pro-LGBT and the rest of it. One of the leading thinkers from a more Biblical perspective, Robert Gagnon, has responded. It's a brutal takedown. I like it.
• Interesting: apparently Gushee "TGC"-ed Dr. Gagnon from his Facebook page. Well, isn't that nuanced and scholarly?
• There's good Bibley sanity in Matt Moore's I Love Jesus Too Much To Call Myself A Gay Christian.
• Todd Pruitt lets us know he plans a series of sermons on Gender Confusion, Sexuality, and the Image of God, and he gives some book recommendations. To Todd's list, I would heartily add Rick Phillips' (no relation) Masculine Mandate, a book I used to great profit for this series.

• Not our usual, but... a woman did a video walking through the streets of NY, and mostly seemed to be horrified that men said appalling things like "Hi" and "Good morning" and "God bless you." So Funny or Die sent a pale white guy through the streets, and...well, I pick "funny."
• Biblical Christians are constantly frustrated in our attempts to reach out to Charismatics, frustrated both by them and by the cloud of open-but-clueless defender/enablers. I think I've figured out one reason for the disconnect: Critics deal with Charismaticism-that-is, while enablers defend an idealized dream that doesn't exist.
• That's it. Write it down.
• Let's try it this way. Show of hands: how many of you think that being near a heretic's corpse is a good way to seek an experience of the Holy Spirit? (Hands go up.) Besides Charismatics, I mean. (All hands go down.) Here's what I'm referring to:
• Charismaticism-that-is is on constant display, on the TV, at YouTube... and at Charisma Magazine. You know Charisma: that's where you can read a person named Dutch Sheets who has a spiritual experience he attributes to God at the grave of an Gospel-perverting false teacher named Charles Finney. This is an article in which you can actually read the line "I reminded the Holy Spirit..." Seriously. Whether "the Holy Spirit" replied "Hunh, good point, thanks for that," is not recorded. (The article is worth accessing, if only for Lyndon Unger's comment, as well as a wonderful word from someone called OAM.)
• Without the slightest nod to the irony, this same magazine which extols an experience at the graveside of a heretic also solemnly warns against letting demons into one's house.

• ...and tweeted this:

When pursuing an encounter with God, don't forget to watch out for other supernatural forces. #witchcraft #occult http://t.co/XKtI6MM2F4
— CharismaMag (@charismamag) October 31, 2014

• Oh well, I'm sure there's a perfectly rational, Biblical response. Like, "Martin Luther hated Jews!" Or "Servetus!" Something like that.
• Oh, and there's this gem from a year ago: open letter (from beyond the grave!) by Tozer to MacArthur. Once again, most valuable for Lyndon Unger's comment, but no less for Kofi Adu-Boahen's poignant question: "Why would Dr MacArthur not agree with this again?"
• And now, just an interesting thought: while The Gospel Coalition has blocked me in Twitter, Charisma Magazine has not. Mull that one over.

Find some way of lifting the glorious Biblical truths of the Solas high today!

---

Why fornication is peculiarly evil

by Phil Johnson

From 2006 to 2012, PyroManiacs turned out almost-daily updates from the Post-Evangelical wasteland -- usually to the fear and loathing of more-polite and more-irenic bloggers and readers. The results lurk in the archives of this blog in spite of the hope of many that Google will "accidentally" swallow these words and pictures whole.

This feature enters the murky depths of the archives to fish out the classic hits from the golden age of internet drubbings.

The following excerpt was written by Phil back in January 2011. Phil explained what makes sexual sin especially evil.

As usual, the comments are closed.

At the heart of all the problems in the church at Corinth was a tendency to let the values of that debauched culture seep into the church. That's something for missional Christians to consider today: cultural assimilation as a strategy for church growth in a pagan culture is fraught with serious dangers. Especially in a city filled with both temples and brothels—where fornication was literally deemed a religious rite—the worst thing the church could do would be to take a lax attitude toward sexual sin.

The vast majority of the Jewish community in Corinth had rejected the gospel (Acts 18:6). So the church was made up of mostly Gentiles who, of course, came from a culture that was not inclined to see sexual sin as unspiritual. Just the opposite. Most of the "religion" in Corinth involved temple prostitution and debauched sexual behavior.

That may explain somewhat why the Corinthian church would receive into their membership a man who was fornicating with his father's wife (1 Corinthians 5:1). Perhaps they thought they could connect with their culture better if they casually accepted the man's sin without flinching. In fact, it seems clear that some of the people in the Corinthian church did indeed wear extreme tolerance like a badge of honor. First Corinthians 5:2 says people in the Corinthian assembly were puffed up. They actually took some sort of perverse pride in their liberality towards such a grossly immoral act.

Not only was this guy's incest a supremely immoral and deeply shameful sin; it wasn't really impressing even the most immoral people in the Corinthian culture. Incest was a sin that even shocked the grossest pagans of Corinth (v. 1).

Paul wasn't gentle in his rebuke. He ordered the Corinthians to excommunicate the man (vv. 7, 13).

Notice: Paul wasn't impressed with how sophisticated and missional the Corinthians were. In fact (this can hardly be stressed enough) Paul never encouraged the Corinthians to blend into their culture by adopting an easygoing familiarity with or an extra-tolerant attitude toward the distinctive sins of that culture. On the contrary, he stressed the importance of avoiding the sins associated with Corinthian paganism.

No, I take it back. "Avoiding" is too mild in light of what Paul actually told them: "Flee from sexual immorality" (1 Corinthians 6:18).

But first he hammers them with several reasons why fornication is such an unholy, degrading, defiling sin:

It dishonors the purpose for which God made our bodies. (1 Cor 6:13)
It defiles our spiritual union with Christ. (1 Cor 6:15-17)
Such sins of the body also desecrate the Temple of the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor 6:19)

Now, put all this together. You want to know why fornication has always been regarded as a particularly heinous sin? Because it involves personal and direct transgressions against each Member of the Trinity. It debases and dishonors the body, which (v. 13) is "for the Lord." God created it for His purposes. To use it for any other purpose—especially a purpose as evil as an act of fornication—is a sin against God the Father. It's a sin against Christ as well (v. 15), because it takes our members, which are Christ's by union with Him, and joins them to a harlot, defiling our holy union with Christ. And it's a sin against the Holy Spirit (v. 19), because it desecrates the temple in which He dwells.

And notice Paul's counsel to the Corinthians. He doesn't urge them to get into a recovery program for sexual addicts. He doesn't suggest that they get therapy. He just tells them to stop it.

---

Something for Nothing

by The Late Frank Turk

I wasn't going to post anything today because I have had a full week, but a few things have happened this morning which have caused me to reconsider, and I think they are worth the 15 minutes it will take to write this, and the 3 minutes it will take you to read this.

When I owned the Bookstore, with nothing but true love and affection for those people who did shop there, the singular lesson I learned about "Christian" retail and publishing is that it is what it is because that's how people are willing to spend their money.  People who wants something different from a Christian bookstore than what you can find at any ol' Christian bookstore aren't willing to spend their money on the stuff they say they wish was in there, and the people who are willing to spend their money on what they wish was in there don't want what's actually good for them: they want what they want to make them feel good about who and what they are.

That's why Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyers are such big hits, and why they make tens of millions of dollars every year.  They are delivering the goods.

That's also why this is a hobby for me and not a way to make a living: nobody is going to pay for this stuff.  When we sound the horn that the problem is not gay activism but that the church abandoned marriage a long time ago (here and here), we didn't get even a HT from people who are now actually saying it publicly.

What I am not asking you to do, BTW, is to pay me or Dan for anything.  Our collective problem is that we simply cannot shut up, so paying us to do what we're going to do until they come for us to take us away seems like asking you to do something for nothing.  But I want you to think about this carefully, and ask others to do so also: even if you are not spending your money on TBN merchandise and the next Osteen book, what are you spending your money on, and why?  And if you can't explain it, then I think you're probably not as upset about the state of the local church as you might say that you are.

---

Encouragement from Gurnall: God's strength for me

by Dan Phillips

As part of my morning devotional reading I'm going through William Gurnall's The Christian in Complete Armour. Though I have the hard-copy, I'm using the Logos edition.

I've just started preaching through Ephesians. My fourth sermon got me partway through verse 1a. So I figure that, given my rate of preaching and Gurnall's weigh-in of 1240 pages, I ought to be mostly through it by the time I get to the armor of God in chapter 6, DV.

You know that Gurnall is a Puritan writer, and perhaps some acquaintaince with Owen prepares you for difficult, turgid prose. That's what makes reading him such a delight. He so often uses quaint, everyday, homely turns of phrase. He's Puritanism at its best, mulling and chewing over the morsels of Scripture until we get the whole sweetness.

So that said, let me give you an extended excerpt that just encouraged and strengthened me. He's in his fourth chapter dwelling on "be strong in the Lord" and developing the implications of that charge. I'll add some paragraph-breaks to make it a bit more readable, and I'll bold a few particularly-notables.

Hear Gurnall and be encouraged:

First, In agonies of conscience that arise from the greatness of thy sins, fly for refuge into the almighty power of God. Truly, sirs, when a man’s sins are displayed in all their bloody colours, and spread forth in their killing aggravations, and the eye of conscience awakened to behold them through the multiplying or magnifying glass of a temptation, they must needs surprise the creature with horror and amazement, till the soul can say with the prophet, for all this huge host, ‘There is yet more with me than against me.’ One Almighty is more than many mighties. All these mighty sins and devils make not any almighty sin, or an almighty devil. Oppose to all the hideous charges brought against thee by them, this only attribute. As the French ambassador once silenced the Spaniard’s pride in repeating his master’s many titles, with one that drowned them all.

...The very consideringas none can bind God but himself, so none can break the bond himself makes; and are they not his own words, that ‘he will abundantly pardon?’ Isa. 55. He will multiply to pardon; as if he had said, I will drop mercy with your sin, and spend all I have, rather than let it be said my good is overcome of your evil.
God to be God, supposeth him to be almighty to pardon, as well as to avenge, and this is some relief; but then to consider it is almighty power in bond and covenant to pardon, this is more: 

...Thou mayest, poor soul, when accused by Satan, molested by his terrors, say, It is God that justifies; I have his hand to it, that I should have my life given me as soon as I laid down my arms and submitted to him, which I desire to do; behold the gates of my heart are open to let the Prince of Peace in, and is not the Almighty able to perform his promise? I commit myself to him as unto a faithful Creator.

Secondly, Improve this alstands in sight of thee while thou art in the valley fighting, and stays [refrains from helping] but for a call from thee when distressed in battle, and then he will come to thy rescue. Jehoshaphat cried, when in the throng of his enemies, and the Lord helped him; much more mayest thou promise thyself his succour in thy soul-combats.

mighty power of God and thy interest therein, in temptations to sin; when thou art overpowered, and fleest before the face of thy strong corruption, or fearest thou shalt one day fall by it, make bold to take hold of this attribute, and reinforce thyself from it; again to resist, and in resisting, to believe a timely victory over it. The Almighty God 

Betake thyself to the throne of grace with that promise, ‘Sin shall not have dominion over you;’ and before thou urgest it, the more to help thy faith, comfort thyself with this, that though this word Almighty is not expressed, yet it is implied in this and every promise; and thou mayest, without adding a tittle to the word of God, read it in thy soul; ‘Sin shall not have dominion over you,’ saith the Almighty God; for this and all his attributes are the constant seal to all his promises. Now, soul, put the bond in suit, fear not the recovery, it is debt, and so due. He is able whom thou suest, and so there is no fear of losing the charge of the suit; and he that was so gracious to bind himself when he was free, will be so faithful, being able, to perform now he is bound; only while thou expectest the performance of the promise, and the assistance of this almighty power against thy corruptions, take heed that thou keep under the shadow of this attribute, and condition of this promise, Psa. 91:1.

The shadow will not cool, except in it. What good to have the shadow, though of a mighty rock, when we sit in the open sun? To have almighty power engaged for us, and we to throw ourselves out of the protection thereof, by bold sallies into the mouth of temptation? The saints’ falls have been when they run out of their trench and hold; for, like the conies, they are a weak people in themselves, and their strength lies in the rock of God’s almightiness which is their habitation.

Thirdly, Christian, improve this, when oppressed with the weight of any duty and service, which in thy place and calling lies upon thee. Perhaps thou findest the duty of thy calling too heavy for thy weak shoulders; make bold by faith to lay the heaviest end of thy burden on God’s shoulder, which is thine, if a believer, as sure as God can make it by promise. When at any time thou art sick of thy work, and ready to think with Jonas to run from it, encourage thyself with that of God to Gideon, whom he called from the flail to thresh the mountains: Go in this thy might; hath not God called thee? Fall to the work God sets thee about, and thou engagest his strength for thee. ‘The way of the Lord is strength.’ Run from thy work, and thou engagest God’s strength against thee; he will send some storm or other after thee to bring home his runaway servant. How oft hath the coward been killed in a ditch, or under some hedge, when the valiant soldier that stood his ground and kept his place, got off with safety and honour?

...He can give thee so much comfort in hand, as thou shalt acknowledge God is aforehand with thee, for all the shame and pain thou canst endure for him. And if it should not amount to this, yet so much as will bear all thy charges thou canst be put to in the way, lies ready told in that promise, 1 Cor. 10:13. Thou shalt have it at sight; and this may satisfy a Christian; especially if he considers, though he doth not carry so much of heaven’s joy about him to heaven as others, yet he shall meet it as soon as he comes to his Father’s house, where it is reserved for him.

In a word, Christian, rely upon thy God, and make thy daily applications to the throne of grace, for continual supplies of strength; you little think how kindly he takes it, that you will make use of him, the oftener the better; and the more you come for, the more welcome; else why would Christ have told his disciples, ‘Hitherto ye have asked nothing,’ but to express his large heart in giving, loath to put his hand to his purse for a little, and therefore by a familiar kind of rhetoric puts them to rise higher in asking, as Naaman, when Gehazi asked one talent, entreats him to take two. Such a bountiful heart thy God hath, while thou art asking a little peace and joy, he bids thee open thy mouth wide, and he will fill it.

Go and ransack thy heart, Christian, from one end to the other; find out thy wants, acquaint thyself with all thy weaknesses, and set them before the Almighty, as the widow her empty vessel before the prophet; hadst thou more than thou canst bring, thou mayest have them all filled. God hath strength enough to give, but he hath no strength to deny: here the Almighty himself, with reverence be it spoken, is weak; even a child, the weakest in grace of his family that can but say Father, is able to overcome him, and therefore let not the weakness of thy faith discourage thee. No greater motive to the bowels of mercy to stir up almighty power to relieve thee, than thy weakness, when pleaded in the sense of it. The pale face and thin cheeks, I hope, move more with us, than the canting language of a stout sturdy beggar. Thus that soul that comes laden in the sense of his weak faith, love, patience, the very weakness of them carries an argument along with them for succour.

[William Gurnall and John Campbell, The Christian in Complete Armour (London: Thomas Tegg, 1845), 19–21.]

Isn't that good? Better still, the truth Gurnall relished.

Be encouraged, Christian friend; and be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might.

---

May the icebergs melt!

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from the lifetime of works from the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon.  The following excerpt is from The Teachings of Nature in the Kingdom of Grace, pages 154-55, Pilgrim Publications.

Heaven will consist largely in the communion of saints, and if we would enjoy heaven below we must carry out the words of the creed in our practice,—“I believe in the communion of saints.”

Let us show that we do believe in it. Some persons sit still in their pews till the time to go, and then walk down the aisle in majestic isolation, as if they were animated statues. Do children thus come in and out of their father's house with never a word for their brothers and sisters?

I know professors who float through life like icebergs from whom it is safest to keep clear: surely these partake not of the spirit of Christ? It is well when such icebergs are drawn into the gulf stream of Divine love and melt away into Christ and His people.

There should be among those who are children of the common Father a mutual love, and they should show this by frequent commerce in their precious things, making a sacred barter with one another. I like to hear them making sacred exchanges: one mentioning his trials, another quoting his deliverances; one telling how God has answered prayer, and another recording how the word of God has come to him with power.

Such converse ought to be as usual as the talk of children of one family. “Thou that dwellest in the gardens, the companions hearken to thy voice.” They do not merely hear it, and say to themselves, “I wish she would be quiet,” but they hearken, they lend an ear, they listen gladly.

I know some Christians whose lips feed many. I could mention brethren and sisters who drop pearls from their lips whenever they speak. We have still among us Chrysostoms, or men of golden mouths; you cannot be with them for half an hour without being enriched. Their anointing is manifest, for it spreads to all around them.

When the Spirit of God makes our communications sweet, then the more of them the better.

---

Some here, some there — October 24, 2014

by Dan Phillips

Well, another week! Got my beautiful wife back from helping with my beautiful granddaughter, Zoé Isabelle Allen... oh, what's that you say? Do I have another picture? Mm, let's see, I'm sure there's one here somewhere... Ah:

Ahem. Now to business. Remember to check back at day's end for updates.

• Let me say at the outset: one of the sites that refers me to great posts and articles is The Aquila Report. I tend to use their links and read the articles at the sites, and when I use the articles, I link to that site. But I'm putting The Aquila Report in our blogroll prominently, and commend it to you.
• You probably will have heard by now that Mark Driscoll's elders, who notably softballed the process as it was by excluding should-be issues, have shared that he resigned rather than submit to any process of restoration. No price too little to pay, evidently.
• Joel J. Miller is not even evangelical, and he gets what many don't. Miller's apparently Eastern Orthodox and, to be as candid as you expect me to be, I'll say I think that's a bad thing. Yet Miller gets what some evangelicals don't as clearly seem to see: that there are points on the line between wishing Mark Driscoll hell and destruction on the one hand, and wanting to see him restored to pastoral ministry on the other. Restore him? Yes, says, Miller, who then asks, "...but to what?" For instance, "what’s wrong with Driscoll becoming a lawyer or waiter or what have you?" Further:

Since when does welcoming someone back to fellowship mean that you have to welcome him back to a post he abused? What’s wrong with a pew, even up front if he wants it? But just a pew? Laity, as the kids might say if the idea ever entered their heads, rocks!

...The truth is that Paul’s criteria for pastoral leadership are pretty stringent. I daresay few of us really qualify. Maybe Driscoll is simply not pastoral material.

That’s not bad or shameful. Some would say it’s just blisteringly obvious. I don’t know. I just don’t see any point in crucifying him—or giving him back the keys to the building. That’s a bogus choice.

Having said that, I’d be happy to sit with him anytime.

• Miles Mullin draws an extended parallel between Driscoll and another living, breathing cautionary tale, the trainwreck that is Bill Clinton, and makes application to what we should (and shouldn't) look for in church leaders (h-t Aquila Report).
• Now, I won't even bother to link to any of the posts saying "Stop gloating" and all that. Instead, let's observe the process.

1. Some warn of the impending disaster.
2. They are shushed, criticized, ignored, blacklisted.
3. The disaster happens. Even enablers are forced to take some small note.
4. Almost immediately, the former enablers say "Don't gloat! Maybe we were wrong, but you were wronger (because: tone)! Move on!"
5. Any suggestions of preventative systemic change are thereby snuffed out a-borning.
6. Nothing changes.
7. Cue the next slow-mo train wreck.

• Well, nevermind anyway. Apparently "God" has "told" Mark it's all-good, and going to get better. (Thanks again, open-but-clueless crowd!)
• As You Wish! Ooh, lookie: Christmas is coming, and here's the Princess Bride Monopoly game.
• Mark Snoeberger reminds us that the need for churches to have documented policies regarding marriage and weddings is increasing, not decreasing. He advises documentation, and in a comment I asked for examples. Can any of you link to such examples?

Despite TGC tarring it as "careful," this review of Enns' bk by Michael Kruger is an excellent, vigorous read: http://t.co/isQnGlVqOW
— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) October 20, 2014

• Ryan T. Anderson maps the path forward in waging a "long war" against the redefinition of marriage in attempts to legitimatize pseudogamy (h-t Turk for that term).
• In case you missed it, I think you'll enjoy this word from Gurnall on love, the master-affection in God and man.
• Here's a good word from Christina Fox, reminding the depressed and despairing Christian that God is always at work. I'd add Isaiah 50:10 to her thoughts.
• Save The...um...Snails?
• The previous entry is best enjoyed with the chorus of this song as accompaniment. (Note: one d-word, and allusion to Presbyterian beverages.)

Silly @JoelOsteen Moses dead already was. pic.twitter.com/rSkmSoYPjs
— yoda (@CalvinistYoda) October 24, 2014

• I really have come to think very highly of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. They are not as well-known as they deserve. Here they make available the talks from their recent conference, Striving Together for the Faith of the Gospel.
• Like a zombie impaling itself ever more deeply on a stake, California continues its slow serial suicide, by reportedly forcing churches to cover abortion in their health insurance. I did not get out a second too soon.
• Apparently I had a brush with Rachel Held Evans.

• Seemed like a simple enough question. But she never answered it. Snif! When I brought it up, she asked what I was talking about, so I linked her to my tweet with the question. She never responded. I mean, unless this is in the place of a response...

@BibChr @mriccardi23 @JasonMWoelm All this glib condescension is getting old. At least atheists don't call me names & treat me like crap.
— Rachel Held Evans (@rachelheldevans) October 22, 2014

• No, you're not missing a tweet where I myself called her a name or treated her like, um, bad stuff. I asked a question, then noted I wasn't answered. So, there you go. It's like...

Evangelicals are too much, "It is written," and not enough, "My opinion."
— Fake Liberal Xian (@FakeLiberalXian) October 21, 2014

• UPDATE: someone else pressed RHE, and received her response that she is "pro-life." The other question, which goes to the heart of...well, everything... remained unanswered.
• Here's how to win today:

• In this edition of SHST, I discussed with you dear brother Doug Wilson's lamentable attempts to tone down the content-aspect of "saved by grace alone through faith alone." Well, God help him, he's trying again. I actually think he makes it worse by doubling down. 
• Most of us gladly allow that there are saved people attending RC churches who don't yet get how opposed Rome is to that Gospel and Savior in which they savingly trust. But Doug now specifically indicates instructed, faithful-to-Rome Roman Catholics, and says they're saved if they believe the version of the Gospel he gives. He says it's the Gospel that matters, not so much our response, saith Doug.
• However, Doug seems to be aware that Galatians tears that theory all to heck. Specifically Galatians 5:3. Can we really think that the apostle who said "if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you...you are severed from Christ...you have fallen away from grace" (Gal. 5:2, 4), would not equally say "if you accept a sacramental, works-system of salvation, Christ will be of no advantage to you," and all the rest, including 1:8-10? Indeed, we are saved by grace, through faith — and not just any "faith."
• Glass strength: check.

• A sister who works with Creation Ministries International appreciated one of my sermons from the Proverbs series, and asked that I convert it to an article for them. I very much appreciate the work of organizations like theirs, and was happy to do so. The comment thread, though... whew.
• M'man Prof. David Murray writes about the most honest atheist in the world.

That's it for now. Be safe.

---