- Видео 200
- Просмотров 261 296
Daniel Hixon
Добавлен 4 ноя 2013
Celebrating Classic Christianity with Reverend Daniel M. Hixon
Full Armor of God - Communion Service 9/1/24
Service from Sept. 1. Sermon on Ephesians 6:10-20
Просмотров: 107
Видео
The most important page in your Bible?
Просмотров 2625 месяцев назад
Southern Baptists, Church Authority, and the Nicene Creed
UMC General Conference? Talk with Jordan Peterson?
Просмотров 4 тыс.8 месяцев назад
UMC General Conference? Talk with Jordan Peterson?
Why join a larger Fellowship or Denomination?
Просмотров 5498 месяцев назад
Why join a larger Fellowship or Denomination?
Reflections on seeing Jordan Peterson
Просмотров 5898 месяцев назад
Reflections on seeing Jordan Peterson
In this World, to Love is to be Vulnerable
Просмотров 1019 месяцев назад
In this World, to Love is to be Vulnerable
Why, as a Methodist, I'm going Anglican
Просмотров 11 тыс.11 месяцев назад
Why, as a Methodist, I'm going Anglican
Endeavoring for Unity (John 17; Eph. 4:1-6)
Просмотров 25211 месяцев назад
Endeavoring for Unity (John 17; Eph. 4:1-6)
When I was learning about Orthodoxy, I attended a few Orthodox services. I expected it to be like Anglicanism, only more elaborate in the liturgy and worship. What surprised me was that the laypeople were mostly observers. They sat and watched the leaders, listened to the choir sing, and one person even got up doing the service and went a lit a few of the prayer candles. Being there, not participation in worship, seemed to be the requirement. I didn't want to exchange the passive listening of low-church Protestant for the passive watching in Orthodoxy.
I have also had this experience in various churches (including Eastern Orthodox). Liturgy is supposed to be participatory by definition; it is "the work of the people."
Here you go, available in both hardback and leather editions: The New Oxford Annotated Bible With the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books: Revised Standard Version, Expanded Edition The notes tend to be on the liberal side but the leather edition that I have is very solid as far as quality goes.
I believe the RSV is out of print for that (but would be interested to find they've brought it back), but the New Revised Standard Version is still in print. I have an older edition myself.
I started as Methodist. Jumped to Baptist when my mom moved us over to the Baptist. I went through several iterations of Baptist before finding Orthodoxy. I’m very thankful for my Protestant upbringing. I was comfortable with the liturgy because of my Methodist childhood I think than if I had been a Baptist my whole life. But there are also things I learned at the Baptist church that led me to the Orthodox Church.
Anglicanism was my baby step into Orthodoxy. I loved my Anglican church, but the threat of change, the lack of aesceticism, discipleship, confession, and penance caused me to leave for Russian Orthodoxy. Blessings to my Anglican fathers Brian, Gregory and Lorenzo.
Dr. Constantine Cavarnos wrote numerous books in English that are excellent in their presentation of Orthodoxy.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon, a sinner.
Rubbish. Protestantism's chickens have come home to roost. It is an obsolescent disaster. No future.
I really like the RSV. I've heard it's less wordy than some other translations. I'd like to see a few more editions such as a large print personal size or a thinline.
Typing this on my phone so I can’t elaborate as much but I’m pretty skeptical about this. Take the point about being closest to the fount. AFAIK, few to none of the ECFs were Jewish, so cultural similarities to Jesus and the Apostles would’ve been limited. Two other things: How quickly does culture change over a few hundred years, especially with major events like the Jewish-Roman wars? If they did know the Jewish cultural context, it would’ve been the culture of their day, not the Apostles. Finally, I doubt oral tradition would’ve been reliable on complex, nuanced, unclear doctrine for a few hundred years. As I understand it, oral tradition can be reliable, but is generally only reliable in cultures that cultivate it and only good at keeping the core of the message-things can be added or taken away in retelling as of the tradition. So, at best, the only Fathers who seem to hold any weight would be the Apostolic Fathers, though with the norm the OT and NT (as well as other religions) seeming to be rapid development of errors, accretions, and divisions, even their reliability on technical theological doctrines is probably worthy of questioning.
From the article, "Conversion means that he now must frequently attend confession, recite prescribed prayers, and endure extreme fasting, sometimes over 40-day stretches. Weekly services are also highly ritualized and regimented, and can last up to two hours." CAN last UP TO 2 hours?!? Lol.
Five hours, the article says 5 hours.
@@DiMacky24 That is a literal copy/paste. The article does say "two hours." Never mind that it thinks fasting can "sometimes" be 40 days. Lol. Regardless, it's pretty funny.
Brother, Anglicanism is a complete mess. It was founded on bad intentions and the fruits are shown today. It has become an LGBT propaganda hub.
So wrong on Patristics! They employed shoddy hermeneutics, tinged with Hellenistic methodology-especially the allegorical method. Their non-Sola-Scriptura praxis, laden with sacramentalist grace brokered only by an authorized priesthood had to eventuate in the Reformation, later the Fundamentalist resurgence when Mainline churches had devolved into liberalism.
This is the way I currently lean, personally but it’s one of the first times I’ve seen it expressed. Do you know of any sources that share your perspective so I can read them?
I have become Orthodox through marriage ten years ago. Before I was a lapsed liberal Protestant. I have read a lot on Christian theology since then and I have truly come to believe that the Apostolic Churches are essentially correct when they say that Jesus left us The Church and salvation is not possible outside of it. My fervent hope is that over the next three hundred years that the surviving Protestant denominations revert to Orthodoxy and form national orthodox churches in their nations. As for the Catholic Church it is simply a question of Pride and forgiveness. Rome must confess its errors and return to the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church as a penitent. A process of instruction will ensue where Rome will relearn how to be orthodox. I am sure given the failure of sexual continence that plagues Rome that orthodox marriage rules for priests will be welcomed and go a long way to mend them from their errors.
Well there's things like "feminist catholicism" which are widely accepted in many Catholic circles, and promotion of immigration, etc, among other more mundane issues. In my country for instance the Catholic Church is strongly associated with left leaning policies and positions. This for sure helps to drive off young men who are becoming increasingly more conservative, and eager for institutions that reflects their worldview.
"Masculine" lol
The Church of England is a joke. In fact, it is merely reflecting the zeitgeist of the Anglo world, the zeitgeist of the people. As a state institution, it is more than predictable that it reflects the popular belief of the state bureaucrats and the popular belief of the elite.
I find practicing the Way and following the teachings of Wesley is solid, challenging, sacramental, historical, stable, and evangelical, and has me connected with the early church and its Saints. This grounds me and along with reading the BCP holds me in scripture and in His shadow. Amen. Chris x
I really like my RSV and don't regret waiting on the pre-order for mine. It's easy to read while maintaining the beautiful language. I do question some of the translation in places (1 Cor 6:9 for example) but overall it's pretty good.
Glory to God. Come back home all you heavy laden.
Let's remember that Christianity is about Christ, not which ever "one true church" meets your desires.
And you can find Jesus in his father's house, the church he instituted and lasts until today.
I converted to Orthodoxy at 64 years old. I was a Baptist, then became a nondenominational Christian that was active for decades. I even went to an Anglican congregation (non traditional) before I became a nothing, just a believer who trusted scripture, but lost trust in what I seen in organized religion. After I lost my daughter at 26 I knew I needed to be a better person and the Mother of God provided comfort that was unimaginably difficult. No liturgical background but she came I believe at the prompting of Gods Holy Spirit. Her heart was pierced as she saw her son and I began to understand the role of Saints in lives of the living among us. Though it was some time I found myself praying the Jesus prayer. Lord Jesus Christ Son of God have mercy on me. It was something cathartic and real. When I went to Divine Liturgy I experienced Exodus and the Sinai, the burning bush, the tabernacle and the Word made flesh that dwelt among us with the entrance of the saints. Time stood still and I saw revelation and Elders bending their hearts low and tossing their crowns before the Alpha and the Omega. When flesh that dies or Icons that represent the Saints as material in this world become fragrant with incense and flesh becomes uncorrupted ,we know God walks among us. Its a mystery. I think Orthodoxy embraces the mysteries because life is mysterious we don't have quick answers, we are broken and made whole in world that was fallen, we look to a coming Redeemer who will make a new heaven and a new earth here in us. There are men who have been broken by a fallen creation who have lost their purpose and their meaning and they come to Orthodoxy, not just for the smells and the bells but to embrace the mystery.
Luke 2:35 "and a sword will pierce through your own soul also..." I completely understand why a parent in your shoes would feel a special connection to St. Mary, the Mother of Christ, our Lord and God. I will say that I, too, have found the Jesus Prayer to be very helpful. Actually spent a few minutes with it (and some Anglican Prayer beads) yesterday. As Jonah Saller (an Anglican seminarian at the Mere Catholicity RUclips channel) has said: "It is the Gospel in the form of prayer."
The 'orthodox' tradition is appealing to young men, it is an obvious reaction to the dire results of the patriarchy being undermined. If people find Christ therein, one must wish them peace in that. I could not follow them in that, as i have too much knowledge of doctrine.
Uhh... Patriarchy has nothing to do with it. Theology has everything to do with it and the truth.
The universal Church is the Orthodox Church, hope this helps
I am not in the orthodox church. I probably agree with them on a significant number of doctrines. Am i in the universal church? That is to say if i agree with orthodox bible doctrine but disagree on say liturgy, icons etc, am i in the universal church?
johornbuckle5272 The "universal church" is not an abstract, invisible entity. It is concretely expressed in the visible, sacramental life of the Orthodox Church and it's continuity. The Orthodox Church understands itself as the one holy catholic and apostolic Church as professed and has yet to be fully compromised (like the west) in the Nicene Creed. Full membership in the Church is defined by communion in the doctrines the sacraments and the ecclesiastical life. Agreement on some doctrines !=(is not equal to) constitute full participation in the Church. The church wants you to enter into the fullness of its sacramental, liturgical, and communal life, not just to be intellectually alligned. This is where true unity with the universal Church is found, not just in belief (a protestant idea), but in participation.
@@johornbuckle5272 I'm a Protestant (that is a "reformed catholic" - and an Anglican specifically) so, of course, I believe that if you are a baptized Christian you are most certainly part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church. One of the biggest differences between the East and Rome on the one side and the Reformational churches on the other is that we heirs of the Reformation do not equate the one universal church with a single ecclesiastical institution. So, the Roman church and the Eastern Churches... and the Ortiental... and the Syriac... each one of these claims to be THE one true church, leading to the absurd situation that one essentially has to have a Ph.D. in ancient history and languages to decide which "one true church" is the real one true church. The Reformation, on the other hand, takes a wider view of "catholicity" - that the word actually means what it originally meant: "universal." All baptized believers are part of the universal church. But the sad truth is that the community of Christ is outwardly divided (just as the kingdom of Israel became divided in the Old Testament). Something like "branch theory" - that the original one true Church is now actually divided into several branches that each are genuine continuations of that original church (but none simply IS that original church) - is simply more historically honest than any claims of institutional exclusivism. Now, I also argue that some churches and denominations express that catholicity and ancient faith more fully than others, but even the most imperfect or deficient church that still has the Bible and Baptism and the Lord's Prayer, etc. still has access to some of the "means of Grace" that God uses to share saving grace with his people. I do think, however, that having bishops and (along with them) the assurance of valid ordinations is so important that I would not want to join a church or denomination that lacks them - unless I had no other option.
@@danielhixon8209 ah, now that does help. I agree with you
No sorry friend one must be Baptiste in the orthodox church all other churches have split off from the Orthodox church. But go to one Russian, Greek, Serbian, or others. Just be mind of the heretical churchs like syrian, Ethiopian, and coptic May God bless you.
I had a similar conversation with my District Superintendent. It was from the angle that we, as a church, need to develop a culture rather than trying to integrate a culture with the world/society/community where we are found. That's the short of it, but it's based in a lot of the ideas found in the article and especially in what you are sharing here.
I'm a convert from Anglicanism to Orthodoxy. The Celts and the Anglo-Saxons were Orthodox before the Norman Invasion. Christ is King. Become Orthodox. ☦️
This is just nonsense and it hurts Christianity at large to retrospectively come up with myths like this to justify your own behavior. You are rooting your entire conversion in the grounds of a 12 year period that was ~900-1,500 miles away from the epicenter of the great schism. This is folly. Deconstruction and shame are leftist tools and Eastern Orthodoxy is just a right-coded expression of those tools.
Why do you say that the Celts were Orthodox?
@Alexander44665 A number of reasons. The entire Church was Orthodox, even Rome, until 1054. The church in the Isles, better called the Insular Church rather than the Celtic Church since the Celtic Church didn't only include Celts but also included Anglo-Saxons and various other Germanics, while in communion with Rome exercised her own authority and autocephaly and maintained her own customs and traditions not disunited from but distinct from Rome and this was the case until St. Augustine of Canterbury, the Council of Whitby, and the official conversion of the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity. Even Anglicans agree with this as they used the autonomy of the Insular Church to justify the English Church's Independence from Rome. On top of that, the way the church was organized in the Isles more mimiced the Eastern style of organization. It was conciliar, matters were determined by councils rather than a top down declaration, as was shown by the Council of Whitby, and oftentimes local abbots held more sway than bishops far off in the big cities. Which brings me to my third point, monasticism. Monasticism in the Isles also has a clear influence from the East. We have stories of Egyptian monks going up to Ireland seeking solitude and seclusion and their mark was left by the beehive shaped monastic cells which were made of cobble stone in the Isles but has a clear influence from the sandstone beehive cells of Egypt. On top of that, many cities were founded by people seeking holy hermits or monks in monasteries, which is why the abbots had so much influence as previously stated. The monastery was the center of the town for many ancient sites, which is quite a common phenomena in Orthodox history, especially in Russia. Monasticism was a very important part of the ancient Insular Church as it is for modern day Orthodoxy. It's interesting then that while borrowing from the independence of the Insular Church to justify their own church, the Anglicans would do away with monasticism, a component as vital to the Insular Church as her independence was. Then there were the Norman Invasions, condoned by the Pope because the Brits were accused of heresy, they weren't in line with Rome and the Pope didn't like that. The Norman Invasions would fully Latinize the Insular Church and give us the Irish Catholic Church and later the Anglican Church which we know today. Now when I say the Celtic Church was Orthodox, I do not mean that it was Eastern. That's very key. Rather the Celts, and the Anglo-Saxons by extension, had their own native Orthodoxy, a sort of "Western Orthodoxy" for lack of a better term. However it is also important to note that even tho the Insular Church was autonomous, it always had some level of influence from Rome and that the Anglo-Saxons when the kings became Christians chose to go the Roman way instead of the Celtic way and so they've been more heavily Latinized or Romanized than the Celts.
@@Alexander44665everybody who is Roman Catholic was Orthodox Catholic before the great schism, including the Celts.
The Irish church was considered an autonomous Orthodox Church by the Eastern Orthodox. As it developed cos monasteries which is how EO tended to develop and be structured around
The Protestant reformers certainly were attempting to go back to some idea of the early church. But their ideas of what the early church was like, as seen from the early modern period, was inaccurate. And these inaccurate assumptions, at best, are now frozen in those church bodies. They assumed that early modern Jewish synagogues were identical to pre-Christian Second Temple Judaism. They had weird liberal ideas ideas evolve from simple to complex, therefore the early churches were must have been simple and could not have the complex rituals of medieval churches (this is wrong). The actual churches that stretch back to those times maintained those traditions much better than the reformers guessed. Obviously people who grew up in Protestant traditions are going to rationalise and justify their traditions and I don't expect to convince anyone. But I am certainly not joining a church that has lesbian priestesses, that's blatantly not Christianity.
I think there is actually some truth to this critique. I believe the Anglican Reformers were right to both reform some medieval errors on the one side, but also resist the temptation to go "full Puritan" on the other side. Many of the reasons that I'm not a "non-sacramental" or "non-liturgical" evangelical is precisely because I believe there were some beginnings of modernist assumptions built into some of the more Puritan-Reformed theology that don't actually fit with a Biblical world-view; I mean things like individualism, skepticism towards God's sharing grace through physical means, etc. The more liturgical Protestant Traditions - especially Anglicans and Lutherans and (to a lesser degree) Methodists and Presbyterians have preserved (and in some cases, recovered) more the pre-modern Christian inheritance, and I believe this is absolutely crucial as the vestiges of Modernity are now collapsing all around us.
@danielhixon8209 As an ex-atheist I found the lack of doctrine in Anglicanism confusing. My local diocese is extremely liberal but I guess I could have "shopped around" for a particular church within the diocese that was more conservative, is that right? It seemed strange to me to convert to a church where I disagreed with the bishop so I found an English-speaking Eastern Orthodox church where I could just focus on becoming a Christian.
@@knightrider585 "Just focusing on becoming a Christian" is exactly where all of our priorities should be. I don't know where you live, so I cannot comment on your local (Anglican diocese), but I will say that Anglicanism world-wide is now undergoing a global "realignment" (you can even read about Anglican Realignment on wikipedia). As you have seen, there are many revisionist/unorthodox dioceses and bishops - particularly in Western Provinces like the Anglican Church of Canada, the Church of England, the Episcopal Church in the US, etc. However, there are MANY MORE traditional and orthodox dioceses and provinces globally, and their leaders are deliberately working - through organizations like GAFCON - to "sideline" the Revisionist dioceses and Provinces - which will whither over time if they do not repent. And there are still a few orthodox dioceses within the liberal Provinces. It will be a very slow process, but it is well underway. We already have more orthodox Provinces like the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) up and growing, plus various "Continuing Anglican Churches" (which are very traditional, and starting to talk more about greater unity with the Realignment groups) and in the coming years there will be well-organized, increasingly-united, and growing Anglican expressions "bearing the torch" of historic Anglicanism in every part of the English-speaking world.
@@danielhixon8209 Yeah I am in Australia. I looked into the very small GAFCON-style split from the Anglican church here in Australia among the denominational options I when I was trying to work out what church to join. Ultimately I did not go that way.
I agree. Their ideas of the early church were wrong. And. Is those ideas are starting to grow bad fruits. As their assumptions were based off of what the Jews were doing in the 1500s and not on the 00s. Which as you said led to liberal and other wrong ideas mixing into the doctrines.
Great words of encouragement as related to embracing your tradition as a component of the life of faith.
This is a great take. My family and I recently began attending Anglican churches after being a "closet-Anglican" for a number of years. I think we as people require structure and rhythm. I like to compare it to people who live in the extreme reaches of Alaska, who do not get sunlight for long periods of time. They become dysregulated, irritable, and ultimately very depressed. I think when we throw out things like liturgy and the church calendar, it has a similar effect on people.
I like to say that just like brushing my teeth is a ritual AND it's good for my health, so also the traditional rhythms of liturgical prayer are both ritual AND life-giving.
I'm a big fan of the RSV. It struck me one time, as me and my family were reading the RSV but couldn't find good audio for it to go along with out reading--so we decided to try listening to ESV audio while reading (since it's close to RSV), just how unnaturally phrased things were in the ESV which were perfectly phrased in the RSV. I was shocked. My family started out as KJV-onlyists. I, however, moved to NASB to get a slightly more "accurate" translation. Soon, though, I found that idioms seemed too stilted due to the slavish devotion to literal, word-for-word, translation. So, I moved to RSV. That encounter with the ESV in comparison to the RSV solidified my choice. RSV (the older version with traditional language) is the one for me. However, I'm having a hard time finding an RSV with an expanded Apocrypha, having missed my chance at getting one of the Schuylers. Do you know of any that you could recommend? I like ones with decent paper and nice, dark, bold print. I don't care much if it's a hardcover, faux leather, leather, etc., just as long as it isn't paperback. If the print were better, and they weren't modified, then I would be fine with something like an Ignatius Press RSV-CE. I prefer without the CE, and I definitely prefer the traditional language of the RSV over the RSV2-CE.
Is Schuyler no longer selling them? If not then the only options I know of - apart from the Sovereign - are the Roman Catholic editions (CE and 2-CE - both of which have the Apocrypha) or maybe getting something in good shape off of Ebay or a second-hand dealer. Lots of mainline Protestant church libraries are stuffed with unused RSV's from the 70s - you might be able to find a church that would give you one.
@@danielhixon8209 The only one that I've been able to find is a full-yapp, but non-Apocrypha, edition on the Evangelical Bible website.
The Friday fast is a great "treasures old". Fasting the vigils as required by the 1662 as well. The Litany Wednesdays, Fridays, and Sundays. The daily office, twice daily. The Athanasian Creed at mattins for principal feasts as in the 1662.
May GOD bless you abundantly for speaking the truth in love.
Wouldn't the true Church be named after Jesus Christ? Wouldn't his Church have Apostles and Prophets? After in Ephesians he called Apostles and Prophets.
What I hate the most is that the older versions stop being made! So if you prefer the older version for some reason, you can no longer find it. Or you end up paying ridiculous amounts of money to get it secondhand.
This has shed a light on what I have been watching take place within our church. Our family has been uneasy with the changes and have been praying about our next steps.
God bless you in your discernment.
It bothers me a lot honestly… makes me start to agree with the KJV only people
Any church that rejects marriage equality isn't worth considering.
As one commenter later noted "United Methodist Church Changes Its Pronouns to Was/Were" :ruclips.net/video/iIWx6JDcCNY/видео.html
It is really sad how many of the once-great Historic/Mainline churches have tried trading off Biblical faithfulness for cultural relevance... and end up with neither.
From st. John aglican black river. How can I get the colors
A quick web search should yield explanations or calendars of when to use which colors. If you are asking where these particular stoles were purchased, it was (if I recall) Living Grace Catalog: www.livinggracecatalog.com/product/YC456-Avignon-Collection-Overlay-Stole
Brother ive been waiting on another video i hope you are okay
Yes, I'm doing well. Truth be told, since baby #4 came, I haven't had much time/energy for videos, and (even when I have) it's pretty hard (either at the home office or the church office) to get a space of quiet and uninterrupted time to film. But I've got some ideas, so more are definitely coming, God willing.
@ glory to God focus on your family and perish God will bring you back when its time
Excellent review, thank you!
25:50 25:50
🌟💐🌹🔥💐🌟
I enjoy your video's, thank you. My wife and I joined a ACNA church a few weeks ago. Looking forward to next steps.
Christians use pre-written scripture and hymns. So, why shouldn't we use pre-written prayers?!?!?!?!?!? Cite one verse of Scripture that prohibits their use!
There is no such verse. As you see in the video, I'm an advocate for using pre-written prayers; in fact I think it is a deeply Biblical (and really unavoidable) practice.
Hey, ive been watching you for a while now and i was wondering. Can you do a video on some advice you’d give to either your younger self about going into ministry or maybe a video for someone who is trying to get ordained in the anglican communion and what cross overs and differences to expect feom methodist to anglican
Very well explained. Thank you!
Who are you?
I'm curious how you view the Jewish response to John's Baptism. Did they see that as a fulfillment of circumcision as well?
John's baptism occupies a curious place: on the one hand virtually everybody agrees that Christ's submitting to John's baptism is exemplary for Christian baptism, but on the other hand it is clear (from Acts 19) that John's baptism is not the same thing as Christian baptism. It is clearly related to the idea of cleansing and with repentance (which is also true of Christian baptism). I don't think it is necessarily connected to circumcision, but it is clearly connected to the Exodus journey: just as the people began their journey to freedom by passing through the Red Sea (and being 'baptized' there - 1 Cor. 10), so they passed through the Jordan River to come into the Promised Land (and brought their children through the water with them). So there is the idea of being renewed as the People of God in the Land of Promise in John's baptism.
In my Inductive Bible Study class in seminary, we use the RSV as our common english translation for work within the class.
What seminary is it?
I have totally left the United Methodist church,I am now a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.I was raised in the New Providence UMC, in Clarksville, Tennessee.and left in 1980.My faith has clear doctrinal standards, no gay marriage allowed, no drag queens, and those who attempt to teach false doctrine with the intention to mislead or cause contention are quickly dealt with.We do not enjoy using a church court to disfellowship or excommunicate wayward souls, but if they persist in their rebellion, it is regretfully used as a last resort.I have noticed a pattern taken by those who were once members of my faith, but who grew cold in their affections for the light of the gospel.They usually begin to find fault with their Bishop(pastor) and then it spreads to other vital areas like doctrine, and finally they abandon their faith in the Savior and His Lordship over their actions and attitudes. Such individuals also seek to drag others into their rebellion,and spiritual wilderness.The other side of this is called grace. The door is always open for their return if they will only just come home to their first love,which is the Savior, and the reconcilliation He is willing to offer.As a note of caution all of us are able to fall from grace, and none are immune to deception so really, there is nothing to boast about, certainly not in our own strength.