just because we disagree it doesn't mean we don't like you

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette recently published an article regarding the IMB's current status with Wade Burleson. The tone of the article is essentially straight forward, but I would add my two cents worth on two accounts.

IT'S NOT ABOUT TONGUES

First of all, the issue of the new policies is not about "speaking in tongues". We already have a policy forbidding the charismatic practice of public tongues on the mission field. Because the missionary is assigned to spread the gospel and to plant new churches, this policy is understandable and practical. The issue is "private prayer language." There is a difference. Rankin and others have repeatidly said that while they have a "private prayer language" they do not take that outside of their closet and into the public arena. I have found that many Baptists get a little twitchy when "tonques" are mentioned. The fastest way to get people to run to your side on an issue in Baptist circles is to tell them that you are the guy who is against the charismatic practice of speaking in tongues.

I fear that some people will read this article and think, "Oh, OK, that Burleson guy is the one who is for speaking in tongues." Not exactly.

It is hard to get all the facts into one article so I don't want to assign too much blame for this, but I do want to clarify the point for accuracy sake. Another point here to be accurate:

UNFLAPPABLE IS NOT THE SAME AS UNFRIENDLY

I was glad to read that chairman Hatley does not think that blogging is a problem. I have maintained from the beginning that I believe that a part of my responsibility as a trustee is to inform and inspire those to whom I have influence about IMB issues. My trust is to my church and to our convention as much as (more) than to the IMB BOD. As you know, this blog is my way of having an ongoing conversation with my church family specifically and a broader audience generally. It only makes sense that I talk about the IMB since I, as pastor, serve the board as a trustee. It would be the same if I preached a series of sermons about my work on the IMB for instance and those sermons were available to the public. Blogging is just a more direct form of communication that invites feedback and clarification. A gift to the church in my opinion.

I wish that many of my fellow trustees felt the same way about blogging. Without going into the sordid details, suffice it to say that the word "blog" was a new four letter word for many in our last meeting.

And it certainly seemed evident to me that Wade's blogging was a BIG PROBLEM for many. It in fact dominated discussion.

This is why I was a bit confused by this statement from our chairman,

"We are not against his blogging or anyone elses communication in public..." He described (the problem with Wade) generally as his "behavior toward his fellow trustees...just a general approach to his relationships on the board."

This is an interesting statement that I wish had better explanation. Again, I know that a short article cannot possibly exhaust all details and meaning, but I certainly would want to know what Tom meant by this.

I do not believe that there is another person on the board who can speak to this issue more thorougly than I can. I have been with Wade from the beginning, as we are good friends and fellow pastors from the same state. I have sat with him at all the meals, accompanied him to most of his meetings and have stood in the hallway with him in the normal discourse of fellowship between meetings. I have been with him when he has discussed difficult issues with fellow trustees and have heard his public statements to the board in plenary and executive session.

Believe me when I tell you that he has been gracious in his opposition. He has never lost his temper, blown his cool or discredited or disparaged others opinions that were different from his own. He has never shied away from an opportunity to bring closure to a disagreement. He has expressed his love and respect for others at every turn.

Wade may be guilty of being unflappable and unyielding and disciplined in his opposition, but from what I have observed, he has not been hard to get along with. He goes out of his way to show kindness and respect.

I suspect that what Chairman Hatley is referring to is Wades tendency to be resolute and to not bend when be believes he is right (even when he is greatly outnumbered). It is in his nature. When a man believes with all of his heart and soul that he is standing on the side of scripture, if it is his nature to do so no matter what the reaction or "vibes" he is getting in response, he will go to the wall with that conviction. This has been the dynamic at play, because Wade is one of those kind of guys. I am sure that some have been offended by this straightforward resolve.

Wade has told me on many occasions that he really does like many of these people who have voiced their anger and disgust at him. That is an admirable quality.

I love our diversity as Baptists. It is the essence of the cooperative program to invite others into a big tent that has been adequately defined by our confession. The BFM 2000 does that for us. To promote cooperation and to embrace diversity is to value dissent and open debate about issues of substance. In this environment, it is important to remember that just because we disagree it does not mean we don't like each other.

let's get on with it

Many of our church members have asked me about IMB issues. Of course, there has been enough public information lately to keep everyone interested. Instead of addressing it from the pulpit, I will address it in this venue.

I was pleased to see that that the IMB Executive Committee is now recommending to the full board that the motion to remove Wade Burlison be rescinded. This is the right thing to do and I do not believe there will be much of an objection to this recommendation from the full board. Despite what many may think, the IMB board is made up of men and women from around the country who absolutely want the best for the Kingdom and for SBC missions. I am sure that cool headedness will prevail in our next meeting.

As you know, I stand with Wade on these issues and my conviction has not moved one iota that the new policies adopted by the board last year are detrimental to our witness as Southern Baptists and to our strategy in world missions. I have heard from many missionaries around the world and from some of our own church members who serve with the IMB in foreign lands who have shared their concerns with me. I do not believe that it is the role of every trustee to be in full agreement with every policy passed by the entity. I know the argument that once a policy is passed, the board should stand as one. In most issues, this will be the case. But when a policy is especially divisive, I believe trustees have a responsibility to work within the system to see them changed and to communicate their concerns. I agree with Wade that once a policy is passed, it is a convention issue.

Speaking of Wade...

I believe the motion and vote to remove Wade was more kneejerk than malicious. There were many in our last meeting who had been worked into a frenzy by the high beam of blogger publicity that was egged on by some who felt indicted by his words. I think that now most trustees have had time to think, pray and reason about the issues involved, and the upcoming discussions will be more productive.

So what is wrong with the policies?

My main objection to these policies has always been that they are an infringement on the local church and are outside the theological parameters of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. I stated in my initial objections to these policies during trustee debate that I believed the result would be division in the SBC and the marginalizing of good conservative SBC churches around the country. I think the subsequent response to these policies has been evidence enough to this.

The new policies smack of landmarkism. This is an ideology that does not have a good track record in world missions and should not be tolerated by the board.

To be fair, I am still a virtual newcomer to the board and many of my cohorts have served for many years and the issues Wade and I addressed are ones they had hashed and rehashed many times. For those of you who wonder how this could have happened with this kind of emotion, the simple answer is that it was a lengthy process. On a board where new members rotate in every year, it takes a while to digest substantive issues with all the nuances of the arguments pro and con. It is a wonder that this kind of thing doesn't happen more often.

So what now...

Despite these objections and many others, my main concern now is that we as a trustee board stop straining at gnats and get on with the important work of world evangelization and church planting. Of course, some healthy discussion is in order. I am very hopeful that chairman Hatley will welcome and encourage this kind of discourse. We will need to have a heart to heart talk about the appropriateness of trustee communication outside the board meetings. I am talking about blogging AND trustee politicking in caucus groups. There are deep concerns about undo political influence from outside the board. I am praying that all that we have been through in recent weeks will serve to create a fresh new openness of communication among board members.

Let Rankin and his staff lead...

I am also praying that the ultimate outcome of this will be an open discussion of how a board should support it's leadership. Jerry Rankin was elected by our convention to lead the IMB. As a board, we should either get rid of him (if we have reason) or support him and his staff wholeheartedly and make life EASIER on him and not more difficult. Keep him accountable, yes, but otherwise find ways to assist him in the vision of New Directions and work with him to make it better. I am praying for the day that Jerry finds the board his greatest asset in advancing SBC Kingdom work. I think the convention is better served when this is the climate of the group that is charged to work with him.

In our church, our deacons are my biggest supporters and champions for our vision. They are also to keep me accountable. I cannot imagine a situation where I could not count on them to be behind me in the challenge of mission advancement. They are on the front lines WITH me, not shooting at me from behind the lines. If my deacons have a problem with me, they know that they have the freedom to come to me any time to work it out.

My feeling is this: Let's support Rankin or give the board reasons to get rid of him. If nothing can be found to fire him, get to the front lines to support him. The convention has spoken and he is the man whether we like it or not.

This will make us better...

Someone said the other day that they long for the day when the convention was more congenial. Oh yeah... when was that? The Cambellite controversy of the early 1800s? Landmarkism in the mid 1800s? The revivalism and Sunday School board controversy of the early 1900s? The education crisis of the mid 1900s? The conservative resurgence? When you read the history books you will find that we have always had periods of disagreement. When you put people of differing passions and gifts and personalities in the same room, you've got chaos. And chaos is absolutely necessary for kingdom growth and church health. Our struggle and our diversity makes us better. This controversy should cause you to embrace the convention even more! We are a dynamic and diverse people. I worry about a couple that doesn't argue and I don't trust a Body of Believers that always agrees.

And I am not just talking about the SBC. Start with the Jerusalem council and read forward to disputes between Paul and Barnabas, the Corinthian and Galatian church etc and you will find that Kingdom work is messy business.

But somehow all things work together for the good. God on His throne continues to use us in spite of ourselves and the miracle of it all is that it is often because of our hard times and petty struggling and infighting that His best work in us emerges from the rubble.

So...let's get on with it.

i've been tagged

Kiki tagged me so here goes:

Four Jobs I've Had:

1. T-Shirt shop screen printer
2. Waiter (for about 2 weeks)
3. Construction gopher
4. Youth Pastor

Four Goals I Set This Year:

To stop setting goals (carryover from about 5 years ago- I've started working on "preparations" instead)

Four Movies I Could Watch Over and Over:

I'm with Kiki on this one- I can't watch anything more than once.

Four Places I've Lived:

1. Waco Texas (sic em bears)
2. Albuquerque New Mexico
3. Columbia South Carolina
4. Wichita Falls Texas

Four TV Shows I Love to Watch:

Sports Center, Fox News, UFC, and History Channel Bios

Four Vacation Spots:

1. Israel
2. Alaska
3. Greece
4. Sri Lanka (Just kidding Vicky)


Four Websites I Visit:

1. CRBC
2. MSNBC
3. Blogs
4. Amazon

Favorite Foods:

1. Cheeseburgers
2. Steak
3. Fajita
4. Chili

Places I Would Rather Be Right Now:

1. Wherever the olympic snowboarding was last week
2. Breckenridge Colorodo
3. My buddy's hunting cabin in South Texas
4. Sitting in a cafe on Benahuda street in Jerusalem

I tag:

James Hunt
Jayme Thompson
Chris Wall (because if he doesn't blog soon he's out of my neighborhood)
Kristina P

joining God in his redemptive work

This week our staff has been working on vision and direction. We have been faithfully praying and dreaming together seeking God's heart and hand as we move into the next 18 months. In the words of Blackaby, we don't want to tell God what we are doing and then ask Him to bless it, we want always to see where God is already moving and jump on board. As we have sought scripture and looked at what God is doing, here are some of the conclusions we have come to:

1. Our vision has been too small. Our goals should not be about reaching x number of people or having x number in attendance in the building. Instead, we must join God in His redemptive work in our city. We must ask ourselves, "how can we be used of God to change our city!" Some answers:

2. We must teach the essentials of our faith effectively. As Tim Keller says, "We must teach people to 'think Christianly'. The erosion of a Christian world view in our culture has had obvious impact. We must not assume that people know the language and doctrine of scripture. It is not cultures job to teach them...it is our job. We will teach the Bible with conviction and boldness and clarity.

3. We will seek to become a congregation of missionaries. The church is not to be a congregation of consumers. We are not a business, we are a family. We must seriously minister to our community with the love of Christ. We call it our LP2C formula. We will agressively pursue outreach ministries to the poor, the displaced, the addicted and the outcast. We will adopt elementary schools, apartment complexes and nursing homes in low income areas. We will start more ministries to the homeless and the working poor through Celebrate Recovery, Men's Fraternity and the ROC clinic. These ministries will not be the "end all" to our ministry endevours, but only the entry points to a way of life and a beginning place as we present the gospel and find more effective ways to love our neighbor.

4. We will continue to focus on outreach to our community through the CUBE. In just one week, we have registered 1800 new contacts through our community facility. We will seek new and better ways to develop relationships with people in our community who are not connected to the Church and who don't know Christ.

5. We will greatly expand our community group ministry, with the ultimate goal of putting community groups in every neighborhood of western Oklahoma City. Biblical community is key in spreading the gospel. These groups will become bastions of prayer and community outreach. Each small group should be an "open door" to friends who don't know Christ.

6. We will continually utilize the arts as an effective way of connecting to culture. The arts spring out of culture and are therefore a natural way of creatively communicating the gospel message. While the arts are benign and contain no spiritual content in and of themselves, they can be used of God to draw people to Him. Council Road has always valued the arts; we will build on that tradition and continue to build this ministry and invite new generations into it.

7. We will become more and more a people of prayer. We will emphasize the need for more concentrated prayer in our lives together in biblical community, as well as in our personal prayer discipline. We will continually call the church to times and seasons of prayer throughout the year.

8. We will employ an Acts 1:8 model of reaching the nations for Christ. We will not focus just on our "Jerusalem" but will lift our eyes to what GOd is doing around the world as well. This year alone, we are planning 11 short term mission trips in some of the most remote parts of the earth. We will continue to strengthen our International missions initiative as we become more "missional" at home.

9. We will seek more effective ways of engagning our culture with the gospel message, utilizing natural times of sustained interest such as Christmas, Easter and back to School. As the apostles stood in the Temple Collonade during the Jewish holiday, we will proclaim the message of Christ most assertively when the opportunity is ripe.

10. We will continue to emphasize the biblical vision God has called us to in loving people to Christ and helping them on their journey with God and others as we celebrate the goodness of God, connect to the truths of God's Word, engage in biblical community as we pursue His purposes of grace in our great commission cause.

I agree with Bob Reccord (President of the North American Mission Board):

A missional church is one with intentionality to equip its people with an authentic biblical faith and a desire to incarnate an Acts 1:8 lifestyle as a corporate body and as individuals alike. They are opening to ever changing methods to deliver an unchanging message in a relevant manner to the context in which they find themselves. Style does not become a hang up for them as they realize the issue is substance. They clearly understand the mission is not about them, but about Him and His Kingdom and are willing to stand side by side with others of like Biblical conviction on the historic tenants of the faith to accomplish the mission of taking the gospel to the world.

the "emertional" church.

So much of what I see in the emergent church movement excites me... and concerns me. I like how John Johnson from Village Baptist Church in Beaverton Oregon weighs in on the issue. His article follows. Your thoughts?

Having just finished Gibbs and Bolger’s newest book, Emerging Churches, I came away with this strange mixture of being both turned on and turned off. I left the traditional church years ago (at least philosophically) for many of the same reasons my brothers and sisters in emerging churches have left. But gaining a clearer picture of this “conversation,” I am unwilling to go where many of them are going. I am somewhere in what sometimes feels as no-man’s land; not ready to embrace the whole of what is referred to as Emergent, nor interested in going back to what is typically the traditional, institutional church. I agree with Gibbs that the church must embody its message and life within postmodern culture or it will become increasingly marginalized. I’m just not sure that what he describes is the kind of body I believe God has called us to live in. Could it be I belong to something like the emertional church (for lack of a better term, which sounds strangely baptistic but is not), a church that is somewhere in the middle?

It is tempting to set up contrasting models of Traditional and Emergent, and appear positively as something between the extremes. But I want to avoid this. Working in pastoral theology, as well as being a pastor, I find that many love to set up straw men they can easily confute. Behind this is a subtle, and not so subtle, expression of pride, which suggests some of us have found the way. We are God’s instruments to seize this runaway train called the church and bring it back to its biblical tracks. I hope this is not the tenor of this blog.
I both hear and read the distinctions between traditional and emerging. The list is long, and what follows is only illustrative:

• Ordered / Organic
• Church as place / Church as a way of life
• Building / Community
• Homogenous/ Diverse
• Constructed / Deconstruction
• Worship planned for the consumer / Worship arising out of the community
• Propositions to be known/ Narrative to be experienced
• Print & Ear / Image & Eye
• Reaching those turned on to church/ Reaching those turned off to church
• Modern / Postmodern
• Epistles, church / Gospels, kingdom
• Counter cultural through exclusion / Counter cultural through inclusion
• Attractional / Incarnational
• Monologue / Dialogue

These have sometimes been used to define the differences. The only problem is that they are simplistic and reductionistic (if that is a term); more imagined than real. Here’s what I know for sure. The following is a church I want to be a part of: Intimately large (not necessarily an oxymoron), a community devoted to one another, yet expanding in its capacity in order to create a movement; increasing its capacity to be global, doing the kind of cross cultural ministry that greater resources enable it to do.

This is a ministry that has not been done so well by traditional churches that assumed a Constantinian cultural context, nor is it discussed much by emerging churches. The Emertional Church is intent upon sending teams abroad with such collective energy that they partner with existing ministries to make incredible impact. It is a church that views size as an opportunity to gather momentum that, joining with other sizeable churches, can dissuade corrupt powers from attacking believers (standing with others to influence events in Darfur or Damascus). Size that creates the organizational expertise to establish specialized ministries that are then able to reach special needs (like Katrina disasters).

Critical to the Emertional Church is radical connections, where people are challenged at both a gathered and small group level to be community. A group of people that cannot know everyone, but challenged to powerfully engage with someone. Some will question the possibility of community in a larger church. I’m not convinced of its impossibility, but I also realize it will take great intentionality, using such passages as Colossians 3 as a guide.
It is a church that respects both ordered and organism, knowing that it is impossible to have sustained life without developed form. But suspicious enough of form to know it easily turns rigid.

The Emertional Church, while unapologetically committed to structures and policies and facilities and staff, is also dedicated to maintaining function over form. Structures are servants that lose usefulness when they become so inflexible they can no longer contain the fermenting Jesus. This requires that the Emertional Church also be deconstructionist, calling for the tearing down of structures, ways, habits that inhibit ministry, while continually constructing what is necessary to thrive in the world of today and tomorrow.
Here are a few more descriptions of this church. Modern, yet postmodern. Many of us come from a modernistic context, but live in a postmodern context. It’s up to us to figure out how to minister in light of this. There has to be the respect for foundations, things that are certain, things that are linear, things that are distinct. There is an unapologetic commitment to the authority of Word. Not all things are sacred. Spiritual can be cheapened to define things that are not. True spirituality cannot be experienced apart from the church. On the other hand, the Emertional Church rejects many of the modernistic claims. Modernity and rationalism have not necessarily led to a better world. There are mysteries that cannot be easily systematized, explained. Not everything fits in neat systems. Truth that really matters is not so much proven by arguments as verified by changed lives.

The Emertional Church values both incarnational and attractional. There is a place to gather. In fact, a body that reflects the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ can be a greater influence on the community than believers simply scattered. There are occasions when the church attracts, and the community responds. Easter, Christmas serve as immediate examples. But people in this model must come largely through people; not through events, programs, celebrities, slick advertising.

The Emertional Church places great value on monologue and dialogue. Preaching is not an option, but a mandate. But there is also room for dialogue, for community involvement in constructing worship, orienting the direction of a sermon, setting in motion creativity and the arts. There is a need to reach both ear and eye, and all the senses for that matter. The Word of God proclaimed with clarity, its message delivered by one with the posture of a preacher, amidst a community that values poetry as it values prose, silence as it values sound, sacraments as it values revealed Word. Counter cultural, both by being holy, unique, separate, and being engaged, involved, immersed in culture.

if the church is the only hope, what is the hope for the church?

In this post, one of our missionaries on the field reflects on the American church. She is responding to my assertion that if the trend in America continues, one day the biggest mission field in the world may be the one we live in. I thought her response was interesting. How would you respond?

I don’t have any answers Rick….only questions….and it is driving me crazy. I keep rolling a Bill Hybels’s quote around in my head. Hybels says, “The local church is the hope of the world.” What is the hope of the local church?I honestly didn’t know what you meant when you said ‘our biggest mission field is the one we live in.’ Did it mean the biggest mission field is the ‘land of the free and the home of the brave?’ Did it mean that the biggest mission field is the one that surrounds you wherever you are? I guess I like the latter meaning better than the former.

I don’t know how I feel about our beloved country being the ‘biggest mission field.’ I know it is certainly A mission field. About that, there is no doubt. I have a friend who says that no one should be allowed to hear the gospel twice before everyone has heard it once. I don’t totally subscribe to this; however, it is an interesting line of thinking. And what do you do with Matthew 10:14, Mark 6:11, Luke 9:5?

Seems to me that Evangelical America spends enormous resources to share the gospel with people who have already heard it again and again and again…. While there are 1000’s of people who die everyday having never even heard it even once. Like I said, I don’t have any answers….only questions.

Do you think the established church teaches people that the central theme of our faith is being a good church member?What if we all lived like we Jesus lived? Or at least like he called us to live? I guess the big question is…what would that look like? I don’t know. I do know that if we lived like this then we wouldn’t even have to use words like ‘missional.’ We wouldn’t have to have discussions on how to market the church. We wouldn’t have to rely on churches and parachurch organizations to organize service opportunities. People wouldn’t know that we are Christians by where are car was parked on Sundays and Wednesdays, they would know we were Christians by our love.

This is a little dramatic, but maybe we should let the organized American church die so we could start over. It seems to me like we’ve strayed pretty far from Acts 2. (I’m sure there is a good illustration to use here. Something about a plant that comes back stronger after it lays dormant, or a sports team, or bug, or the church in China… something, but I’m too jetlagged to come up with anything…sorry)Maybe I’m just being naive. Maybe I should have worked all this stuff out when I was 19. Maybe the millions of believers who do nothing more than occupy a pew once a week are right and I’m wrong. I don’t know.Like I said, no answers, just questions.

Local church….hope of the world?

straining at gnats and swallowing camels

This week two seemingly disconnected events took place on the world stage that accentuate the need for the advance of the gospel. Stay with me here.

The first was a lawsuit brought against the Catholic church. From cnn.com:

An Italian court is tackling Jesus -- and whether the Roman Catholic Church may be breaking the law by teaching that he existed 2,000 years ago. The case pits against each other two men in their 70s, who are from the same central Italian town and even went to the same seminary school in their teenage years. The defendant, Enrico Righi, went on to become a priest writing for the parish newspaper. The plaintiff, Luigi Cascioli, became a vocal atheist who, after years of legal wrangling, is set to get his day in court later this month.
"I started this lawsuit because I wanted to deal the final blow against the Church, the bearer of obscurantism and regression," Cascioli told Reuters.

The fact that this lawsuit even gets traction in the seat of Roman Catholicism is telling enough.

The second signficant event was the rise to political power of Hamas in the Palestinian territory. For those who have any question about the platform of this terrorist organization, take a look at their charter:

The Islamic Resistance Movement strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine... Therefore our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious...The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, killing the Jews. When the Jews hide behind stones and trees, they will say ‘O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him...’ Resisting and quelling the enemy is the individual duty of every Muslim, male or female. A woman can go out to fight the enemy without her husband's permission, and so does the slave: without his master's permission...”Thus, there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Ji’had. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with...The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion... It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, the Rotary, and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions...

Again, no explanation needed here.

Mark Steyn has written an excellent piece in the Wall Steet Journal in which he points out that the west might as well get used to a major democraphic shift toward radical Islam. There are now more muslims who attend mosques in England than Christians who attend church. This is the trend all over Western Europe. Tim Keller points out that Christiandom is now a thing of the past. Western Europe ceded it's Christian roots in favor secular humanism and the Church never saw it coming. The church in Europe saw every other part of the world as a mission field without noticing that their own cities were becoming increasingly post Christian.

The same thing is happening in America. According to the latest Barna research, 80% of the unchurched in America are people who have just stopped going to church. The fastest growing group of unchurched are from (guess who) Baptists. And the youngest generation is bailing disproportionately.

Steyn makes a great case that the biggest mistake of the west is that we worry about all of the things that don't matter without worrying about all the things that do. He was talking about economics, but he might as well have been talking about missiology.

I agree with Keller who reminds us that the church in America can no longer see herself as the seat of Christiandom (a shrinking market), but must now make the switch to a missional appraoch. Increasingly, our biggest mission field is the one we live in. And the world is transitioning more and more away from the influence of the gospel.

In this new reality, the Church no longer has the luxury of majoring on minors and narrowing our fellowship over the non-essentials in our doctrine (Hear Jesus: "these you should have done and not left the other undone"). God in His providence will accomplish His purposes one way or another. The question is whether we will join Him or be left behind because of our gnat straining camel swallowing ways.