The Healing Cross

Back to the cross again.

Most people know John 3:16. And often that verse is extracted from its surroundings and used in evangelical meetings where the cross is explained as Jesus paying the “penalty” of sin by suffering the wrath of God. The point being: someone has to pay – Jesus took the heat so that we wouldn’t have to.

But it’s the verses above it that really explain Jesus’ interpretation of v.16. Here are verses 14 and 15: “And as Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him will have eternal life.” Verse 16 follows: in this way, God so loved the world that he gave his son. So, what way is Jesus talking about here?

He’s referring to Numbers 21, where the Israelites in the wilderness are attacked by poisonous snakes. Moses prays to God for relief and God says in verse 8: “Make a replica of a poisonous snake and attach it to a pole. All who are bitten will live if they simply look at it!” So that’s what Moses does – he made a snake image of bronze, attached it to a pole, and lifted it up for everyone to see. Those who looked were healed.

Jesus uses this passage to explain not only why but how the cross brought life to humanity. The cross wasn’t for God. It was for us. We were poisoned and diseased. Jesus was the anti-venom. He was the great physician. Now, if we’re obsessed with the prospect of forgiveness in the cross, then we’ll miss the deeper reason for it: eternal life. See, when God banished Adam and Eve from the garden, it wasn’t an act of punishment. It was an act of mercy…and here’s why. Had God not removed them from the Garden, they may have eaten from the Tree of Life, forever damning themselves to an eternally diseased state where they would remain alienated from a loving God. So, by removing that possibility, God could later enter into our humanity, heal us from sin and return us to a state of everlasting life.

Sin was surely something to be overcome. But it was little more than something to be dealt with in order to reach the cross’s larger goal: the healing of humanity to a state of eternal life. In using the serpent passage from Numbers, Jesus radically shifted the understanding of the cross away from legal terms towards a more organic plan of healing and reconciliation. A rescue mission to the sick. It was for this reason that God loved the world by sending Jesus to express his full and passionate commitment to their healing.

Book Review: Not Even God

I’m not a big book reviewer. I may tell you what I’m reading and write a sentence or so about it. But this one is worth the effort.

A few weeks ago, a pastor named Bryan Rocine sent me his book to read and review. Bryan pastors Living Word Church in Syracuse, NY. Not Even God: The Curious Partnership of God and Man is a really interesting book simply for its ability to express complex theological issues in a pragmatic form. And that makes sense – Bryan is a pastor and thinks about things from a practical perspective that meets people where they are. Not Even God is a set of fifteen chapters that treats deep theological issues in a competent and unassuming way, similar to The Shack.

And this makes it a great book for average church members. Each chapter is laid out in the following way. Bryan tackles a serious theological topic usually associated with theodicy, God’s interaction with humanity, or the attributes of God. He then launches into a story/testimony of someone who is a part of his congregation at Living Word. The reason for this is to show that average people and everyday problems can provide good answers to tough questions. There’s no need to look for some outlandish story when the stories of those around you make the same point. After telling the story of salvations, tragedies, struggling marriages, and drug addictions, he often ties his original thoughts to the story, providing answers for serious life questions without requiring the reader to consult an entire Bible dictionary. For that reason, the book is pastoral and intelligent. Not Even God actually (unlike most books) asks the right questions – the relevant ones average Christians are asking.

For example, if you are interested in God’s response to prayer and the contingencies associated with a partially open future, you can go read John Sanders’ The God Who Risks…or you can read chapters one, four, and seven. Rather than take your congregation through Abraham Heschel’s The Prophets or tackle Old Testament views of God’s omniscience with Walter Brueggemann, just read chapter five. To understand the book of Job, you can drudge through Fretheim’s God and World in the Old Testament, Boyd’s God at War or Clines’ contribution to the World Biblical Commentary…or you can simply read chapter eight. Bryan sums up modern scholarship in five pages with great accuracy. Hellenistic intrusions on the attributes of God? Chapter thirteen. In chapter twelve, the book of Jonah is accurately interpreted in just a few pages. Is the book perfect? No, but Bryan has the gift of making complex theological topics understandable. Down-to-earth writing with not an ivory tower in sight. Not Even God manages to make theology accessible without being simple.

Now, that won’t impress those who consider themselves scholars. But that’s what’s so great about this book.  It wasn’t written for scholars. It was written for everyday Christians who don’t have the time or energy to sift through a thousand footnotes, but still have questions. And that makes it an invaluable tool in the hands of ministers. Those of the Reformed persuasion won’t agree with much in this book. Bryan takes a very strong stance in maintaining free-will as a pivotal trait of God’s interaction with humanity – I suppose the term “relational theology” is most accurate. But that’s the way most people live out their Christianity anyway, even if they’ve been taught something different. The Westminster Catechism can’t help you with a rocky marriage – this book can.

For the average church-goer, this book is gold. For pastors, this book can shed light on some questions that we may skirt around in sermons and never really confront with our congregations. It’s a great introductory tool into understanding some of the complexities that surround our Creator. And for this reason, Not Even God is a step in the right direction.

Time Can Change a Man…

I was up early this morning and was looking out the bay window of our kitchen. This was the view: sunrise over the lake. I went outside barefoot in the 40° weather and took this picture. I used to look at the sunrise and sunset all the time…

I’ve been think about something lately. Unfortunately, time determines my disposition much more than I would like for it to. When I was home for two years finishing my doctoral dissertation, I had plenty of time. Lots of time to reflect. Lots of time to take an extra ten minutes to accommodate my kids’ whims and join in on the folly. Lots of time to read. Lots of time to look at all the cotton fields around our neighborhood grow to harvest.

Now, I don’t feel I have that same amount of time. Things that my children did previously irritate me now because they make us late. I just don’t feel like I have as much time to watch the seasons change. I still read heavily by most people’s standards, but not nearly at the rate I would like to. I find myself “pushing back” against the things that take my time, whether it be a longer-than-normal red light or a child who believes being “high maintenance” is a worthy goal. I’m the same guy, believe the same things, love my children the same way. But now there’s a difference: time. In this way I’m still adjusting speeds of life. And at the moment, I see the biggest enemy in my life as the tyranny of the urgent. One of the things that angers me the most is realizing I had free time and that I squandered it on things that have no real value or permanence.

There’s a pretty good book out there – Stephen Bertman’s Hyperculture: The Cost of Human Speed. This should be required reading for all those who believe life should be driven in the “fast lane.” The problem is that we’re not created to live at our present cultural speed. Bertman dissects this very problem and the relational, physical, and emotional problems it creates.

I don’t need to fight a whiny kid or a task list or a reminder chime on an Outlook calendar. I just need to fight the feeling that I have to rush everywhere I go. My relationships suffer for it. And though I have heard the phrase I used for my title used in a different way, it’s in this present sense that I struggle with it. Time can change and man or woman when they respond to the threat of time loss at the expense of healthy life choices.

Why Oprah Just Might Be the Antichrist…

For all you wonderful people who think Barack Obama might be the Antichrist…

I taught a small group on end times beliefs about four years ago. During our examination of Revelation, we inevitably stumbled upon the passages believed to describe the Antichrist. Immediately questions arose: who is he? When will he come? Will he start the tribulation? Will Christians be raptured before then? Boy, could I feel a headache coming on! I’ve said in this post how much I hate popular forms of eschatology for this exact reason. So, this time around, I decided to have a little fun:

“Oh, the Antichrist is already here.”

“What!! Who is it?”

“It’s Oprah Winfrey.” 

“WHAT!!”

Then I took them to the only  place in the Bible where the term “antichrist” is mentioned: the epistles of John, specifically 1 John 2:18-19. What I love about these two verses is the fact that John says there were many antichrists who had come – most of them were part of the church at that time before they left it. So, if John is using the term correctly, we must assume that “antichrist” does not mean “Antichrist” in the popular sense of one rival messiah sent to deceive the world. So what does it mean?

Well, “Christ” means “Messiah” – that’s obvious enough. It’s the “anti-” part that we get wrong. We assume that “anti-” means “in opposition to” or “antagonistic” – like anti-abortion. But it doesn’t. In means “in place of,” “instead of,”or “substitutionary.” So, “antichrist” means “in place of Christ.” 1 John 2:22 goes even further by saying that anyone who denies not only the Son, but also the Father, is acting as an antichrist.

So, why Oprah? Well, it actually doesn’t have anything to do with Eckhart Tolle. It has to do with Oprah’s power and cultural influence. Like most media figures, Oprah often establishes her influence outside of Christianity and many people look to her for answers about life’s deeper issues. She’s one of the most popular and well-recognized individuals in our nation and often serves as a cultural substitute where spiritual issues are concerned.

In that sense anything can be antichrist – government officials, sports figures, musicians, teachers, world leaders, philosophers, and even preachers. Any person that others may substitute for Christ is, in some sense, antichrist. That list includes Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. And it could include John McCain just as much as Barack Obama. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are wrong or unworthy of admiration. But I think it’s safe to say that they aren’t God. And to subsitute them for God inapproriate.

In most cases, the problem is not with the “Oprahs” of the world but with those who substitute their wisdom for a deep relationship with God. Notice that John didn’t write to the “antichrists” of his time, but rather to the people who gave them undue authority and influence. And that’s the key. Anyone can warn about the “Antichrist” of the Left Behind Series, but what are we doing about those who give to others the influence that only Christ should have? People succumb to “antichristism” when Jesus is their savior in doctrine but in matters of life, Oprah (or anyone else) is their lord. The only time people look for substitutes is when what they have isn’t satisfying their deeper needs. Don’t blame Oprah, people. We Christians alone share the burden for “wandering” spiritual seekers. It just so happens that Oprah has a some spiritual advice for people now. But, for her followers, her cultural influence eclipsed the practical aspects of Christianity long ago. Eckhart Tolle just made Christians stand up and take notice.

Jesus Come Into My Heart…

Claire Grace has been talking a lot about God lately. At age four, she seems to be able to effectively grasp what it means to have Jesus “in your heart.” She also likes to talk about how much God loves her and mommy and daddy and everybody. She usually gets a look of wonderment on her face with that last category – how could he love everybody? I’m not sure, but I do know this: dwelling on that one revelation keeps me happy for days on end.

I was fairly certain CG understood the metaphorical reference of  Jesus in her heart. After all she’s a genius, right? – just like your kid is to you. Or, at least, it seemed like she did until Beth took her to a Christmas play at a local church last year. One of the youth members was dressed up as a ”grown up” Jesus. CG turned to Beth and said, “Look mom – Jesus jumped out of our hearts and now he’s on stage!” Okay…so maybe she didn’t get the whole metaphor thing. Then I got to thinking that most people probably don’t understand the implications of that phrase either. So here it is…

The Hebrew word for heart (lev, pronounced with a long e) doesn’t necessarily mean an organ in the body. It stood for the center of a person where all emotion, will, desire, and intention originates. In essence, lev means the “life seat” of a person. The main controls that set all else in order. So when a child prays “Jesus, come into my heart,” they are actually saying, “Jesus, come and occupy the life seat of all present and future decisions, intentions, and motives.” Now, that’s a little different than tallying “professions of faith” in a church bulletin, don’t you think?

The first thing that strikes me about that idea is that is affects the entire person. From a Hebraic perspective God intended to save the whole man, not just his spirit that floats to heaven one day. That’s why the Hebrews had no real doctrine of the afterworld. They solely concentrated on this life. They understood “heart” decisions as present life decisions. Second, the level of commitment within this little phrase is far beyond what most Christians are comfortable with. Third, Paul reflects that same idea when talking about being filled with the spirit and what that means exactly. I already blogged about that here. Finally, the implications of that phrase make me realize that Christianity, though it certainly has a beginning point at conversion, is more about growing into maturity as a life quest – a slow process of regeneration and sanctification.

So, there you go. As with any Christian parent, my goal is to help CG understand the implications of what she is saying when she says, “Jesus lives in my heart.” Come to think of it, it’s my personal goal for my walk with the Lord as well…

“My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?”

Everyone in Christian evangelical circles has had this quote explained to them in the following way: “God is unable to look upon sin and hates it so much that he turned his back on Jesus. And Jesus cried out in that moment of loneliness and isolation: why have you forsaken me?”

Though that makes for good theatrics, it’s not really accurate. Jesus isn’t just saying some random phrase – he’s actually quoting Psalm 22. And throughout the majority of the New Testament, Old Testament passages that are quoted sparingly are meant to be interpreted in light of the of the whole passage, not just the snippet that, say, Paul or Luke might give you. It’s kind of like a song or hymn. Though most pop songs derive their titles from the chorus, hymns or praise and worship anthems use the first line. So, “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” is actually the first line; so is “I’m Trading my Sorrows” or “As the Deer.” Jesus was actually quoting a song title – Psalm (song) 22 to be exact. He quotes the first line (verse 1), knowing that we’ll know that he meant for us to read the whole text in light of his crucifixion.

But we don’t. We lost that little cultural clue along the way. And our accepted legal model of the atonement is happy to see God turning his head away from his object of wrath: Jesus. So, why don’t I give you the rest of the song?

My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?
      Why are you so far away when I groan for help?
 Everyone who sees me mocks me.
      They sneer and shake their heads, saying,
“Is this the one who relies on the Lord?
      Then let the Lord save him!
 If the Lord loves him so much,
      let the Lord rescue him!”

 My enemies surround me like a pack of dogs;
      an evil gang closes in on me.
      They have pierced my hands and feet.
 I can count all my bones.
      My enemies stare at me and gloat.
 They divide my garments among themselves
      and throw dice for my clothing.

 Praise the Lord, all you who fear him!
      Honor him, all you descendants of Jacob!
      Show him reverence, all you descendants of Israel!
 For he has not ignored or belittled the suffering of the needy.
      He has not turned his back on them,
      but has listened to their cries for help.

 The whole earth will acknowledge the Lord and return to him.
      All the families of the nations will bow down before him.
 Our children will also serve him.
      Future generations will hear about the wonders of the Lord.
 His righteous acts will be told to those not yet born.
      They will hear about everything he has done.

So, what’s going on here? Well, like every Psalm, this one tells a story. Psalm 22 tells of possible abandonment and affliction by enemies. It even describes some of the events surrounding Jesus’ crucifixion (another reason why Jesus chose to quote it). But in the “song,” when things seem the darkest, God rescues the afflicted. And though the Psalmist in verse one believes God is turning his back, verse 24 tells us God has not done so. That’s the point Jesus was making. God (identifying with Jesus) is on a rescue mission to save the world so that everyone will “hear about everything he has done.” If we believe that the fullness of the Trinity was reconcilling the world, they were all there with Jesus at that moment. All three were completely invested in the death and resurrection of Jesus.

We’ve asked countless times why Jesus died on the cross. Yet, we fail to read the rest of the “song” after Jesus quotes its title. Psalm 22 explains the cross as a moment when everyone can see the depths to which the Trinity will go to reconcile the world – to heal and deliver it from certain destruction. God doesn’t turn his head. He does the opposite. He dives directly into the human condition by becoming one of us. He’s not too holy to look at sin. He’s too holy to let sin hold humanity captive. And like the Father who hugs his prodigal son whose covered in pig filth, God in Jesus surrounds himself with sin so he can explode sin from the inside out.

Now, that makes more sense, doesn’t it?

Lynyrd Skynyrd and Funerals

I officiated at a funeral yesterday. The guy was unchurched and had made a commitment to Jesus at some point but lived a life relatively devoid of Christianity’s practical aspects. The wife had been involved in various churches, but the husband had not. So, they really didn’t have a “home church” where they could request a “Christian burial.”  Out of the blue, they asked me. And Methodists will take anybody, right? 

 The funeral crowd was a wild one – a lot of what people in the South would call “unchurched.” There were several firsts at this funeral for me, but probably the biggest one was the music the family had chosen for the postlude. They played “Free Bird” by Lynyrd Skynyrd. Excellent song…though a little out of place at a funeral home chapel. After I said yes to officiating, I got to thinking about something: who actually deserves a “Christian” or a “church” funeral?

I know of plenty of folks considered occaisional attendees or inactive by a church who have been turned down by ministers. Senior ministers often have the luxury of choosing which funerals or marriages they can officiate. But what about everyone else who wants to get married or properly bury a loved one? Though the church doesn’t think about this too often, I wonder what type of message we send to those we refuse. Are we telling them that they’re not good enough? Or maybe we feel that if we perform a funeral for someone who isn’t a shining example of Christianity, that we are condoning their behavior.

Beth and I watched that musical “Rent” several months ago when it came on TV. The whole story revolves around behavior the church would never condone and even the “TV version” was a little much for me. One scene was particularly interesting, though. After one of the main characters (a drag queen I believe) dies, they have his funeral inside a church. In a church. Beth actually paused the movie and asked me what I thought about that. I honestly wasn’t sure what I thought about it. The questions that finally came to my mind were, “Is the church doing more by refusing a gay funeral than it is by hosting one?…and if the church does host one, is that seen as condoning homosexual behavior?”

I thought about those same questions during “Free Bird” yesterday. Was I codoning the behavior of this family by officiating their funeral? I don’t think so. If anything, there were a whole lot of people who heard about a side of God (a loving, gracious Father) that they rarely see from those who go door to door in their neighborhood. To me, that was worth the “risk” of others thinking I agree with immoral or unscriptural behavior. Same with the funeral in “Rent” – does the chance to minister to the gay community increase once they are inside the church or are we appropriately “admonishing” them by rejecting their overtures for a church funeral? That assumes they are interested in a Christian funeral at all. I have to say I would be compelled to invite them in…just for the chance to minister to them. Last time I checked, a church building is just that: a building. So, the funeral on screen and the one from yesterday were similar. That may get me in trouble with some of my blog readers. You can disagree and there’s a comment section below where you can tell me all about it. But I suspect any chance to minister to someone is better than no chance at all.

The Other Side of Forgiveness

I heard an illustration concerning forgiveness by Miroslav Volf a few years ago that deeply impacted me. At that time in my life, I was wrestling with exactly what forgiveness meant and how I could forgive in a more complete way. The tired rhetoric of “just forgive and forget” or “you better forgive or God won’t forgive you” really rubbed me the wrong way. Comments like that seemed “cheap.” It dismissed the individual’s pain from the incident and seemed condone the perpetrator’s acts. His illustration helped me tremendously with this so I wanted to share it with you.

Volf says forgiveness is like a present. It is given as a gift to another. People are happy to take the gift of forgiveness…but they have to open the box in order to receive it fully. What’s inside the box? The accusation of wrong-doing. In order to take the gift of forgiveness, the offender must take the responsibility for the fact that his or her decision crushed the heart of another. Forgiveness is not only a gift – it’s a scathing indictment.

Similarly, receiving forgiveness requires us to admit that we need to be forgiven. Obviously this is true with the gift of the cross. We receive forgiveness from Christ after we admit that we need that forgiveness. And that’s usually the hardest part. Though we are happy to do this with Jesus, what about with each other? That was my question. How do I grant forgiveness without giving the impression that I condone the betrayal? That’s when I begin to understand that forgiveness happens in stages – it’s a process. A Christian needs to extend forgiveness to others, but that doesn’t mean their forgiveness will be fully received, simply because of the indictment it contains.

So, what we find mostly among people is partial forgiveness. The victim has forgiven but the accused refuses blame. Or the accused qualifies their actions were necessary for some greater good – something seen as more important than the victim’s betrayal. Or the accused dies before forgiveness can be extended to them. On the other hand, sometimes a perpetrator desires forgiveness, but the victim refuses to grant it. In all these cases, partial reconciliation is a best case scenario. Forgiveness remains in a partial state of completion. Sometimes things stay that way until the end of time – when both people can see forgiveness in the light of heaven.

So what are you saying, Sambo? I’m saying that forgiveness takes time. Forgiveness should occur when both people are ready. Forgiveness is not a cheap out for either party – the accused is not let off the hook and the victim doesn’t sweep their feelings under a rug of “Christianese.” True forgiveness is more than a concession to what we were taught in Sunday school – it is about making things right. Accepting forgiveness requires the accused to take the time to regain the trust of the betrayed – that long arduous journey is part of forgiveness. Because of this, forgiveness in our fallen world happens in shades of completion. We should be patient with others as they come to terms with the cost of forgiveness.

If you receive the forgiveness of another, make sure you are willing to accept what’s inside the box…

What’s the Point of Reading the Bible?

I grew up hearing a pastor exhort me to “get in the Word!” practically every Sunday. It didn’t matter which denomination or church I attended. The message was the same: good Christians read their Bible everyday. It makes you a better Christian. My oldest daughter came home from pre-school the other day singing, “Read your Bible, pray everyday/and you’ll grow, grow, grow/Don’t read your Bible, forget to pray/and you’ll shrink, shrink, shrink.” That exact mentality was the one I grew up with. But if I am to be honest with myself, for most of my Christian upbringing, I was not overly-enthused about reading my Bible. I saw scriptures that answered some of my questions. But I really didn’t know what I was supposed to be looking for. All I knew was that I better read my chapter a day so I could “grow” whether I understood it or not.

Things have changed now. I still retain a high view of scripture – it is certainly inspired – but now I approach it differently. I don’t engage in bibliolatry. Bibliolatry is placing a text at the center of worship rather than the “person” behind the text. In the Christian’s case, many people worship the Bible but rarely understand it’s Author. I now approach scripture from the opposite end of the spectrum. I read it as an expression of my relationship with God, not as a way to gain that relationship. I read it because I love him, not because I want to learn how to love him better. “Christ in you” (not the Bible) is the “hope of glory.” Am I saying you shouldn’t read your Bible? No, silly person. But I am saying that you should do it for the right reasons.

I like to use this illustration. Suppose I am halfway around the world for a year. Beth writes me a letter/email everyday. I check my email everyday and there’s her love letter to me. Now, after a little while, I’m gonna know pretty much what she’s going to say to me. Do you think that would stop me from reading her love letters? Hardly. I’d read every one simply because I love her. No one is forcing me read them – my love for her causes me to leap at the chance to read her words everyday.

In my home halfway around the world, do you think I would frame one of Beth’s letters and proudly display it to all visitors? No, that’s crazy-talk. But I guarantee you that a bibliolatrist would frame the letter and talk of its perfection. What would I frame? A picture of my wife. The person, not the letter. In the same way, there are a lot of people who would frame the Bible and not the Savior. God certainly didn’t do that. We are his “workmanship,” his picture of himself reflected in our goodness to others. We are his picture. The Bible is not an end unto itself – it points us to the Father. In your life, do you frame the book or frame the Savior?

George W. Bush: The Worst President Ever?

George W. Bush. I’ve thought about our exiting president over the last year each time I see the latest poll tallying his world-wide unpopularity. The man just can’t seem to catch a break. The insults range from his intelligence to his southern drawl and he’s currently being blamed for all present national and international conflicts. And maybe he is the problem. Maybe he deserves his popularity rating.

I was having dinner with someone over a year ago. The topic turned to GW. “I’ll tell you what I think,” my friend said. “I think he’s an idiot.” I asked, “Why is that?” “Because he’s a horrible leader, he’s unintelligent, he doesn’t know what he’s doing, and he’s incapable of governing the Iraq war.” “Wow. You really don’t like him do you?” I said. He responded, “No, he’s a horrible president.”

Now this young fella I was speaking with has significant “domestic policy” issues in his own house. From money problems to marriage problems – he’s got them all. I was stuck by his confidence in his own estimation of our fearless leader. And I’m sure he has a lot of companions who have the same opinion of GW – roughly 65% to be exact.

“You know what I think?” I asked my friend. He looked at me: “What?”

“I think he’s a man. A man with blind spots and faults but someone who generally is doing the best he can with the situations he’s been given. I have to be honest and say that I don’t envy him. Even if I was smarter than our president, I don’t know that I would’ve handled the immense pressure he’s been under any better. He’s had more international conflict, domestic complications, and natural disasters in his tenure than any of his recent predecessors combined. I think we’re too hard on him. And I would never call him an idiot or a buffoon. He’s merely a man doing the best he can at an impossible job while attempting to meet the impossible expectations of people just like you who make judgment calls based on what they see on TV.”

That was pretty much the end of our conversation about President Bush.

I posted this picture of GW because of his facial expression. He’s receiving applause from his staff and wife – the people that are closest to him. I see a lot of things in his eyes. I see public exposure and criticism. I see misunderstanding. I see Hurricane Katrina. I see the Iraq War. I see a father trying to hold his family together. I see the collapse of the Twin Towers. I see the capture of Saddam Hussein. I see hurt feelings and harsh words. I see uneasy relations with North Korea, Russia, China and a host of other nations. I see economic turmoil and political unrest. I see the toll the most difficult job in the world takes on a person. I see a very tired man. He deserves our support and respect. He’s not perfect. But he certainly deserves more than the comments of my friend.