Your Weekly Machen Fix: The League of Evangelical Students

This piece originally appeared in “The Presbyterian Guardian,” in 1935.

On Saturday evening, November 30th, I had the pleasure of attending the banquet of the regional conference of the League of Evangelical Students in Philadelphia.  One always gets the impression at these meetings that being a Christian is a joyous thing, and that this fine company of young men and young women is not a bit dismayed by all the opposition of the world.

The League of Evangelical Students is doing a work which is entirely unique.  No other consistently Christian organization of national scope is even attempting to enter the field in which the League has been laboring during the last ten years.

That field is one of the most needy fields for Christian service to be found anywhere today.  It is the field of the student world of America.

Have you ever stopped to consider what the present condition of the students of America is?  Here are thousands upon thousands of men and women in these universities and colleges and other educational institutions.  What is their condition from the point of view of the Word of God?

I tell you, my friends, it is a condition of really appalling need.  There are great universities in this country, with hundreds in their faculties and thousands in their student bodies, where you could count on the fingers of one hand those persons on the campus who are giving any really clear evidence of being saved men or women.

Formerly there were Christian organizations in those universities, but those formerly Christian organizations have ceased to be Christian and are now either altogether quiescent or else are active agencies of unblief.

The church colleges are often even worse from the Christian point of view than the large universities.  At the large universities courses in “religion” are for the most part optional; but in the church colleges they are often required, and they are often used to undermine the faith of the students.

In this hostile environment, there are in many colleges and universities individual Christian men and women.  But they have never been brought together, and each of them is often tempted to think that he or she is standing alone.  Who can form any adequate conception of the terrible loneliness which faces many a Christian boy or girl in many a college room?

They were brought up in Christian homes.  They learned to read their Bibles; they learned to pray.  But now they find themselves in an environment where public opinion is overwhelmingly against these things.

Perhaps you will say that because any real Christian ought to stand on his own feet, therefore he ought not to need the comradeship of other Christians.  Well, you may say that, but the Bible does not say it at all.  The Bible presents very strongly the need in which a Christian stands of the companionship of his fellow Christians.

It is that companionship that the League of Evangelical Students is helping to supply.  It is saying to Christian students in the colleges and universities and other educational institutions of this country: “No, you are not alone; we are with you in holding that the Bible is true; and we hold furthermore that man or woman does not have to cease to be a student in order to hold that belief, but that the truth of the Bible can be reasonably and triumphantly defended.”  Then the League seeks to gather the groups of Christian men and women in the individual institutions for the study of the Word of God, for prayer, and for Christian companionship and Christian service.

The work of the League is rendered possible through the work of the General Secretary.  I want to say just a few words to you about him. 

For a number of years the General Secretary was the Rev. William J. Jones, and splendid service did he render.  The present General Secretary is Mr. Calvin K. Cummings.  His office is at the Reformed Episcopal Seminary, 25 South 43rd Street, Philadelphia.

Mr. Cummings was educated at Lafayette College and Westminster Theological Seminary.  He is a man of excellent intellectual gifts and intellectual equipment.  Then, when he came up for licensure, he was rejected by the Presbytery of Baltimore, because he would not deny his Lord by promising a blanket allegiance to the Boards of the Church.

The Presbytery of Philadelphia, to its undying shame, adopted a similar attitude, and refused to receive Mr. Cummings.  He had committed the unpardonable sin of speaking the truth about certain matters, and he would not put any human agency in the position of authority that belongs only to the Word of God.

I wonder whether all of you fully understand what these actions of presbytery mean to a man like Mr. Cummings.  To enter the ministry has been the high ambition of his life.  He had done long and faithful work in his preparation in collegea and at the theological seminary.  He was well equipped.  He was in full agreement with the doctrine of the church of his fathers  He was ready at last to enter the gospel ministry.

Then what happens?  Does the presbytery receive him gladly and pray God to bless him in the work of preaching the gospel?  Not at all.  It closes the door in his face.  I tell you, my friends, that is a bitter experience for a man in Mr. Cummings’ position.

But God overrules the sins of men for His own purposes.  The presbytery closed the door to Mr. Cummings.  But God opened the door.  As General Secretary of the League of Evangelcial Students, Mr. Cummings has been doing one of the  most notable pieces of Christian service which have been seen for many a day.  It would be difficult to oversestimate the blessing which has been brought to the students of many an institution of learning by this truly statesmanlike, truly clear-minded, and truly consecrated Christian man.

Jon Moersch Ordained at OURC

Jon Moersch was ordained this past Lord’s Day at Oceanside United Reformed Church.  Jon is a graduate of Westminster Seminary California and is working on a church plant in South Orange County.  Check out his blog and get the info on the church plant.  

 

Subscription

 

The laying on of hands

Jon awarded the Genevan robe

 

 

Rev. Mike Brown gave the charge

Jon's first benediction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All photos by Michael Spotts.

You Want Me to Actually Read the Bible?

Newsweek has an excellent article about a Jewish man who decided to actually read the Old Testament.  What a novel idea.  He discovered that it contained, not just timeless truths to live by, but historical accounts of people and events.  Some of the stories are not so pleasant (he references the account of Dinah) and they are often messy and complicated.  The point of these stories, and the Bible as a whole, is to reveal the sinfulness of man, but also the promised redemption from God that comes through Jesus Christ, for those who believe.  Unfortunately, I assume that he missed the part about Christ.

Your Weekly Machen Fix: The Second Part of the Ordination Pledge

This article originally appeared in “The Presbyterian Guardian,” in 1935.

In the last issue I said a few words regarding the declaration of purpose in the Constitution of the Presbyterian Constitutional Covenant Union, which declaration of purpose is, as I pointed out, very similar to the ordination pledge required of ministers, elders and deadcons in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.

The first paragraph of the pledge means that the candidate accepts as true everything that the Bible teaches.

But what, then, does the Bible teach?

Widely different answers have been given to that question.  Widely different systems of doctrine have been held by persons who agree in holding to the full truthfulness of the Bible.  The Roman Catholic Church, for example, holds to the full truthfulness of the Bible; yet no one would doubt but that its system of doctrine is widely different from ours.

Moreover, even among those who, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, hold that the Bible is not only an infallible rule of faith and practice but the only infallible rule of faith and practice, there have been great differences of opinion as to what the Bible teaches.

The differences do not concern merely one or two small details, but they are so extensive that they have led to the establishment of various systems of doctrine, each of which, be it remembered, claims to be the system taught in the Bible.

The Lutheran system is one system; the Arminian system, widely held in the Methodist churches until it gave place to the completely destructive Modernism which generally holds sway there now, is another; the Reformed system (often called, chiefly by its opponents, the Calvinistic system) is still another.

Which of these systems of doctrine, which of these ways of interpreting the Bible, does the ordination pledge require ministers and elders and deacons in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. to hold?

There can really be no doubt about the answer to that question.  The ordination pledge requires the candidates to hold distinctly the Reformed or Calvinistic system.  That is the system which is set forth with a clearness which surely leaves nothing to be desired in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, which are the Standards of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.

Be it noticed that the candidates do not subscribe to the Reformed system of doctrine merely as one allowable system among many allowable systems.  They do not even merely subscribe to it as the best system.  But they subscribe to it as the system that is true.

Being true, it is true for everyone.  It is true for Methodists and Lutherans just as much as Presbyterians, and we cannot treat as of no moment the differences which separate us from Methodists and Lutherans without being unfaithful to the Word of God.

Does that mean that we cannot have Christian fellowship with our Methodist or our Lutheran brethren?

It means nothing of the kind.  On the contrary, we can have very precious Christian fellowship with them.

At that point I want to utter a word or personal testimony.  I just want to say that in these struggles of the last few years against blatant unbelief in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., one of the most precious gifts that God has given me – and I have no doubt that many of those with whom I have been associated would say the same thing – has beent eh Christian fellowship that I have enjoyed with many of my Lutheran brethren, especially those of the “Missouri Synod.”  How often, when I have felt tempted to be discouraged, has some message come to me from them bidding me be of good courage and remember that the battle is the Lord’s!  How often have I in turn rejoiced when I have thought of the way in which that noble Church – I mean the Missouri Synod – cultivating Christian learning at its great Concordia Seminary and bringing up its people truly in the murture and admonition of the Lord, has stood firmly against the unbelief and indifferentism of the day!

Will those brethren be offended if they read what I have written regarding my devotion to the Reformed Faith and my belief that it is the system of doctrine taught in God’s Word.

I feel rather sure that they will not.  You see, one of the things that unite me so closely to them is that they are not indifferentists or inter-denominationalists, but are profoundly convinced that it is necessary to hold with all our souls to whatever system of doctrine God’s Word teaches.

I wish indeed that they were adherents of the Reformed Faith, and they no doubt wish that I were a Lutheran.  But I stand far closer to them than I should stand if they held the differences between the Reformed and the Lutheran system to be matters of no moment, so that we could proceed at once to form an “organic union” based upon some vague common measure beteween the two great historic branches of the Protestant Church.

No, my brethren, we do not risk losing our Christian fellowship with our true brethren in other communions if we hold honestly to our ordination pledge.  Let us hold to it honestly; and let us not abandon, in the interests of any vague inter-denominationalism or anti-denominationalism, that great system of revealed truth which is taught in holy Scripture and is so gloriously summarized in the Standards of our Church.

Smoke ‘Em if Ya Got ‘Em

Tim Challies (HT: Daily Scroll) asks the question, “Is Smoking Sinful?”  He writes, “It seems to me that it is hard to sustain a consistent biblical argument which would conclude that smoking is always and ever sinful. I think it is difficult to bind another person’s conscience without resorting into some kind of inconsistency or legalism. I see the logic behind these arguments, but those same principles seem to fail when they are extended to the rest of the Christian life. There is part of me that feels I should say with certainty that smoking is sinful. But I don’t think I can do so in good conscience.”

While I like Challies’ conclusion, which part of him feels that he should say with certainty that smoking is sinful?  Is he referring to his respiratory system or the imbedded Fundamentalist?  The arguments against casual smoking are weak.  What about 1 Corinthians 6:19 that refers to the body being a temple of the Holy Spirit?  This is a specific argument against sexually immorality, written to a church in a city rampant with sexual immorality.  Read the context.

Most of the red-faced, white-knuckled preachers that I have heard pound the pulpit against smoking and alcohol look as if they have never said no to a buffet.  Why do we not consider gluttony a sin?  Is it a sin to smoke a cigarette, but perfectly okay to down an entire bucket of chicken?  The only real sin is smoking cheap cigars.

It amazes me that we are still having these arguments.  This type of moralism is what has driven many to the Emerging/ent Church or to unbelief.  Christianity that is primarily about a list of man-made rules and not about a vital faith rooted in history can only produce two results: 1) Pharisees who fool themselves into thinking that they actually keep the Law, or 2) The Disillusioned who have tried to keep the Law, realized that they could not, and have given up, walking away from the faith.  I have lived as both.

The same people who preach against cigarettes and alcohol rarely preach the gospel.  By the gospel, I do not mean conversionism (aka revivalism).  A weepy, pleading, emotional altar-call is not the gospel.  It is conversionism.  See Charles Finney.

The gospel concerns the historical facts that we confess about Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection and the benefits that are promised to us, thereby.  The gospel is what motivates us to live in obedience out of gratitude, not fear.  The gospel also gives us the power to live in some measure of obedience, while still remaining sinners, not Pharisees.

The Fundamentalists can argue about smoking all they want.  I’d rather fire up a stogie and meditate on the gospel.

Protestants are more loyal to their toothpaste than denomination

USA Today has an excellent article detailing the lack of denominational loyalty within Protestantism.  Loyalty to a denomination ranked lower than brand of toothpaste, but higher than appliances.  Here’s another call for having only one confessionally Reformed denomination.

Your Weekly Machen Fix: The Purpose of Covenant Union

This article was originally published in “The Presbyterian Guardian,” in 1935.

The constitution of the Presbyterian Constitutional Covenant Union contains three principal articles in which the purpose and character of the Union is set forth.  These are aricles II, III and IV. 

Article II sets forth the occasion for the forming of the Union.  The occasion is the increasing dominance of Modernism in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. 

Article III sets forth the purpose of the Union.  The purpose is to maintain the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. against the assaults of Modernism. 

Article IV contains the pledge or “Covenant” to be subscribed to by those who are members of the Union.  The pledge obligates the members of the Union to maintain a true Presbyterian Church, either by reform of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., or, failing that, by continuing the true succession of that Church separately from the existing Modernist-indifferentist organization. 

Just now I want to say a few words about Article III, setting forth the purpose of the Covenant Union. 

That article states that the purpose of the Union is to defend (1) the Bible, (2) the Reformed Faith as being the system of doctrine taught in the Bible, and (3) the Presbyterian principles of church government as being the principles of church government taught in the Bible.

These three parts of the purpose of the Covenant Union are closely related.  You cannot really fulfill one of them if you do no also fulfill the others.

All three of them, it will be observed, are included in that defence and maintenance of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. for which the Covenant Union exists.

In the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., a formulation very similar indeed to this article of the constitution of the Covenant Union occurs in the ordination pledge required of all who shall be ministers or elders or deacons.  That ordination pledge, exactly like this article of the consititution of the Covenant Union, obligates those who subscribe to it to maintain (1) the Bible, (2) the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Bible, and (3) the Presbyterian form of church government.

Let us take just a look at the first two paragraphs of that ordination pledge – if we may now confine our attention to them, leaving the (very important) matter of church government to future discussion

Those two first paragraphs of the ordination pledge read as follows:

1.  Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the infallible rule of faith and practice?

2.  Do you sincererly receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures?

The former of these two paragraphs requires the prospective ministers and elders and deacons to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.  Surely the meaning of that is not at all obscure.  The paragraph simply means that those who take the pledge regard the Bible as absolutely true in matters of fact ( the only infallbile rule of faith) and completely authoritative in its commands (the only infallible rule of practice).

Very well, then.  All honest subscribers to that pledge are obligated, when they find that the Bible really teaches anything, just to take what the Bible teaches as true; and when they find that the Bible really commands anything, just to do what the Bible commands.

But the trouble is that a great many people who have taken the Bible as true have fallen into serious error.  Why?  Because there is anything wrong with the Book that they have taken as their authority?  Not at all.  But because they have been wrong in their interpretation of the Book.

The second part of the ordination pledge takes care of that.  It obligates those who subscribe to the pledge to avoid misinterpretation of the Bible.  It requires that in their interpretation of the Bible they shall hold to the “Reformed” or, as opponents are more inclined to call it, “Calvinistic” system of doctrine as over against other system.  No man who is an Arminian, for example, in his view of God’s grace and the plan of salvation has any right whatever to be a minister or elder or deacon in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.

In the discussion of the past few years, the chief stress has been laid upon the first paragraph of the ordination pledge as over against the second. 

There is a certain justification for that.  The Modernism that is now largely prevalent in the Presbyterian Church in the  U.S.A. does not merely attack the Calvinistic interpretation of the Bible, but it attacks the Bible.  It attacks not merely those things in our systerm of doctrine wherein that system differs from other systems like the Arminian system, but also, and particularly, those things that are held by all historic branches of the Christian Church.

Yet there is danger to our Christian testimony if we forget the second part of the ordination pledge in our eagerness to defend the first.

What does that involve?  I cannot tell you now because I have come to the end of this page.  But I hope to say something about that question in a subsequent issue of THE PRESBYTERIAN GUARDIAN.

Joel Beeke at OURC this Lord’s Day

Rev. Joel Beeke will be preaching twice this Sunday, February 15, 2008, at Oceanside United Reformed Church.  More info here.

Your Weekly Machen Fix: What is Orthodoxy?

This article was originally printed in “The Presbyterian Guardian,” in 1935.

Many years ago, in that ancient time when jokes now hoary with age had the blush of early youth upon their cheeks, when a man first asked “When is a door not a door?” and when the answer seemed to be a marvelously fresh and brillian thing – at some happy moment in that ancient time, some brilliant person said: “Orthodoxy means ‘my doxy’ and heterodoxy means ‘the other man’s doxy’”.

The unknown author of that famous definition – unknown to me at least – may have thought that he was being very learned.  Knowing that the Greek word “heteros,” which forms a part of the English word “heterodoxy,” means “other,” he built his famous definition around that one word, and “heterodoxy” became to him “the other man’s doxy.”

Possibly, however, he knew perfectly well that he was not being learned, and merely desired to have his little joke.  As a matter of fact, the Greek word “heteros” in “heterodoxy” does not just mean “other” in the ordinary sense of that word, as when we speak of “one” man and “another” man, but it usually means “other” with an added idea of “different.”

So if we are really going to indulge in a little etymology, if we are really going to analyze the words and have recourse to the origin of them in the Greek language from which they have come, we shall arrive at a very different result from the result which was arrived at by the author of the facetious definition mentioned above.  The word “orthos” in “orthodoxy” means “straight,” and the word “heteros” in “heterodoxy” means “other” with an implication of “different.”  Accordingly, the real state of the case is that “orthodoxy” means “straight doxy” and “heterodoxy” means “something different from straight doxy”; or, in other words, it means “crooked doxy.”

Now I am not inclined to recommend etymology indiscriminately to preachers in their treatment of their texts.  It has its uses, but it also has it abuses.  Very often it leads to those who indulge in it very far astray indeed.  The meanings of words change in the course of centuries, and so the actual use of a word often differs widely from what one would suppose from an examination of the original uses of its component parts.  Etymology has spoiled many a good sermon.

In this case, however, etymology does not lead us astray at all.  “Orthodoxy” does not mean “straight doxy,” and it is a good old word which I think we might well revive.  What term shall we who stand for the Bible in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. use to designate our position?  For my part, I cannot say that I like the term “Fundamentalism.”  I am not inclined, indeed, to quibble about these important matters.  If an inquirer asks me whether I am a Fundamentalist or a Modernist, I do not say, “Neither.”  Instead, I say: “Well, you are using terminology that I do not like, but if I may for a moment use your terminology, in order that you may get plainly what I mean, I just want to say, when you ask me whether I am a Fundamentalist or Modernist, that I am a Fundamentalist from the word go!”

However, it is a different matter when we are choosing terminology that we shall actually use about ourselves.  When we are doing that, I think we ought to be just as careful as we possibly can be.

The term “Fundamentalism” seems to represent the Christian religion as though it had suddenly become an “ism” and needed to be called by some strange new name.  I cannot see why that should be done.  The term seems to me to be particularly inadequate as applied to us conservative Presbyterians.  We have a great heritage.  We are standing in what we hold to be the great central current of the Church’s life – the great tradition that comes down through Augustine and Calvin to the Westminster Confession of Faith.  That we hold to be the high straight road of truth as opposed to vagaries on one side or on the other.  Why then should we be so pronte to adopt some strange new term?

Well, then, if we do not altogether like the term “Fundamentalism” – close though our fellowship is with those who do like that term – what shall we actually choose?

“Conservative” does seem to be rather too cold.  It is apt to create the impression that we are holding desperately to something that is old, just because it is old, and that we are not eager for new and glorious manifestations of the Spirit of God.

“Evangelical,” on the other hand, although it is a fine term, does not quite seem to designate clearly enough the position of those who hold specifically to the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith, as distinguished from other systems which are near enough to the truth in order that they may be called “evangelical” but which yet fall short of being the system that is contained in God’s Word.

Therefore, in view of the objections that face the use of other terminology, I think we might do far worse than revive the good old word “orthodoxy” as a designation of our position.

“Orthodoxy” means, as we have seen, “straight doxy.”  Well, how do we tell whether a thing is straight or not?  The answer is plain.  By comparing it with a rule or plumb-line.  Our rule or plumb-line is the Bible.  A thing is “orthodox” if it is in accordance with the Bible.  I think we might well revive the word.  But whether we revive the word or not, we certainly ought to hold to the thing that is designated by the word.

Cult of Personality Quiz

Is your church a personality cult?  Take the quiz and find out.  (Read more about personality cults here.)

Disclaimer – This is not a critique of megachurches in general.  Personality cults develop in large and small churches alike.  Also, these descriptions are not necessarily the fault of the pastor.  Any resemblence to known personalities is purely intentional. 

1.  Your pastor autographs people’s Bibles – As if he wrote it.  Maybe he did – see #14

2.  Your pastor’s interpretation/opinion is viewed by the congregation as virtually infallible - “Well, Pastor John Doe says that it means this, so that basically settles it.”  Is he the pope?

3.  In sermon illustrations/stories, your pastor is often the hero – If people remember the cool thing that he did in the story, rather than the text or Christ, he has failed as a preacher.

4.  Your pastor cannot name 3/4 of the church members - I think that 3/4 is pretty low, but I’ll cut him some slack.  After all, he has lots of Bible to sign.

5.  You have been a member of the church for five years and your pastor has never invited you to his house - Probably because you are one of the 1/4 that he does not know by name.

6.  The other pastors on staff copy your pastor’s preaching style - Including his mannerisms and regional/foreign accent.  Why does your associate pastor from Maine sound like he’s from Alabama?  Because the senior pastor is from Alabama.

7.  Your pastor uses catchphrases in his sermons – People are upset when he has not said ____ in a while.

8.  Your pastor’s salary is not published in the church budget – President Obama is considering a cap on your pastor’s salary, just like the Wall St. CEO’s.

9.  Your pastor has a ghost-writer – He’ll slap his name on anything with a barcode.

10.  Your pastor wears make-up in the pulpit, in order to look better on television – If he has had plastic surgery, run before fire and brimstone consume the church.

11.  Your pastor has visible bodyguards - Sure, some pastors have threats on their lives, but do they have to make it obvious?  Some just pay off-duty cops to act like their friends.

12.  Your church receptionist will not confirm or deny if your pastor is or is not preaching this weekend - Why come if he’s not there?

13.  Church attendance drops significantly when your pastor is not there – see #12

14.  Your pastor has a product named after him - “John Doe’s guide to ___.”  “John Doe’s method of ____.”  “The John Doe Study Bible.”

15.  Your church has multiple campuses which all broadcast the same sermon by your pastor - Very popular, but still wrong.  Are his sermons so special that a live pastor is inferior?  I’d rather stay home and watch on the internet in my pajamas.

16.  Your pastor/church started a fellowship/association of churches – “Do not call it a denomination!  I am not starting another denomination!”  Seriously, it’s a denomination.

17.  All church plants started by your church have the same name as the mother church – Greentree Bible Church – Miami; Greentree Bible Church – Boca Raton; Greentree Bible Church – Orlando; Greentree Bible Church – Del Boca Vista; etc.

18.  Your pastor has multiple members of his immediate family working on the church staff – The church is not a family business, even if your pastor is treated like the Godfather – see # 2

19.  The congregation keeps a mental note of your pastor’s neckties - “He wore the green paisley just last month.”

 20.  Your pastor’s wife is referred to as “The First Lady” - And she has her own ghost-writer.

21.  People brag about being baptized by your pastor – I am of Peter, I am of Apollos…

22.  Your pastor attracts Christian celebrities to your church- “You know that guy who does the voices for Veggie-Tales?  He goes to our church.  So does the guy who played lead guitar in Stryper.”

23.  People move across the country to go to your church – “I moved from Spokane all the way to Atlanta just to go to John Doe’s church.  We just couldn’t find anyone like him in Spokane.”  When your pastor moves to a bigger church, they move with him.

24.  Other pastors identify themselves and their churches with your pastor - “What is your church like?“  “Well, we are sort of like a John Doe church.  I admire his ministry and we share the same doctrine.  I try to do what he does, just on a smaller scale.  I’ll never be as good as John Doe, chuckle-chuckle, but I sure try to come close.”

25.  Your pastor has an agent - “Have your people call my people; we’ll do lunch.”

Grading:

• If your pastor scored more than ten, you’d better learn the secret handshake because you’re in a personality cult.
• If your pastor scored between five and ten, be on the lookout for a new ministry that involves selling fake poppies.  The cult is on the way.
• If your pastor scored less than five, be thankful.