Category Archives: Restoration Movement

Preaching and the Mission of God

Per the request of a few people, I am uploading the paper I wrote for my first Doctor of Ministry class at Northern Seminary, Missional Ecclesiology, with Dr. David Fitch. I have reformatted the paper as a single-space, 13-page pdf.document.

This paper, which I have titled Preaching and the Mission of God, critically examines my own practice of preaching within the Columbia Church of Christ as we strive to participate in the mission of God. I begin by describing the doctrinal and ecclesiological formation of the Churches of Christ in order to understand how this bears upon my own preaching. Following this, I explore this formation in light of the cultural transition from a modern and Christendom culture, which the ethos of the Churches of Christ emerged in, to a postmodern and post-Christendom culture. The paper the turns with a focus on the mission of God and the role the church is to play within this mission in order to understand how I must engage in the practice of preaching.

Though the paper focuses on my own practice of preaching, I hope it will help others think critically about the practice of preaching — especially those who minister among Churches of Christ. So here is the paper:

Preaching and the Mission of God

Misreading the New Testament

There are many Christians among the Churches of Christ who continue to read the New Testament as though it is a law from God.  Perhaps the best example of this reading is found when dealing with the issue of a cappella vs. instrumental worship and passages such as Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16, and other passages deemed relevant to the subject.  The argument goes that God’s word instructs to “sing” and that this excludes any mention of instruments.  This argument is accompanied with other ad hoc proof-texts from scripture, both Old and New Testaments, to warn Christians about the dangers of adding to God’s word and offering unauthorized worship to God (e.g., Lev 10:1-2; 1 Cor 4:6).

There are various assumptions at work that lie behind this legal reading of the New Testament.  One of those readings is the binding nature of silence among scripture which I have already written about in a post called The Silence of Scripture or Freedom in Christ?.  But another assumption, perhaps the biggest, is that the New Testament is to be read as though it is a law from God, one that replaces the Torah or Mosaic Law of the Old Testament.  Under such assumption, the New Testament is treated as though it is a constitution or instruction manual for following the assumed (yes, another assumption) one single pattern of Christianity called the New Testament Church.

This legal reading of the New Testament is wrong and it needs to be explained why because in the end it only produces legalism (see the video below).  Think with me for a moment.  The apostle Paul said this to say about the Law in Romans 7:12-13:

So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.  Did that which is good, then, become death to me?  By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

Do you see what Paul is saying about the Law and humanity?  The problem of sin is not and has never been the Law.  Rather the problem with sin is and has always been humanity, you and I.  By the grace of God, that problem is rectified in Christ.  But here is the big question that must be asked which pertains to the issue of reading the New Testament as a new Law: If God’s aim or purpose in the gospel is to keep humanity living under a written law, why would God just not have us following the written Law of the Old Testament since it is already “holy, righteous, and good” law?  A secondary question: Assuming the New Testament is a new written Law, what makes us think we can faithfully keep that Law if we could not faithfully keep the written Law of the Old Testament?

The fact of the matter is that if God’s intention for redeeming humanity in Christ was to bind them to a covenant that requires following any written law, then God already had a perfect—a holy and righteous—Law established for this purpose.  Yet any cursory reading of the New Testament and the apostle Paul’s instruction to Gentile Christians is suffice to show that this was not God’s intent.  This is not to say that there are no commands for Christians to obey or that Christians can live a “lawless” lifestyle.  Loving God and neighbor (cf. Mk 12:29-31) are still the greatest commands that Christians are to obey; living by the Spirit (cf. Gal 6:13ff) is still a non-negotiable practice for all who profess the name of Christ.  But obeying the two great commands and living by the Spirit is one thing, it is quite another matter to turn the New Testament into a legal code that prescribes how every local church must worship, organize itself, and regulate its practice of ministry.

In Christ, we have been set free.  May we use that freedom responsibly and with integrity but may we also enjoy that freedom rather than being shackled by our own misunderstanding of the gospel and New Testament.

*******

I have posted this video before of Rick Atchley, Preaching Minister of The Hills Church of Christ in Fort Worth, TX but I am posting it again because illustrates well the legalism that is produced by reading the New Testament as a law.

Missional and Radical Christianity: Necessary or Legalism?

A lot of chatter has been flying around the world of social media about whether the emerging movements towards a Missional and Radical Christianity is becoming the new legalism.  This concern was raised by Anthony Bradley and judging from the number of times I’ve seen this article tweeted (and from one Christian who emailed it to me), I assume others share this concern.

Of course, Bradley is not the first to raise this concern with neo church movements.  A few years earlier, Jim Belcher raised a similar concern about the Emergent Church movement.  Observing the strong deconstructive critiques of the emergent church on traditional evangelicalism, Belcher wrote:

…this iconoclasm is not fair, and if not tempered it will handicap this reform movement, potentially leading it into a new kind of sectarianism, mimicking some of the same mistakes of the past—anti-intellectualism, anti-tradition, and tribalism (Deep Church, 48).

I blogged here about Belcher’s observation in relation to my own church tribe because this is the path that the Churches of Christ took.  The history of the Churches of Christ began as a non-sectarian unity movement that had mission stamped all over it but eventually the values of the movement resulted in an unwritten creed that turned us into sectarian legalists.  With little exception, we came to believe that we were the only Christians (fortunately that view is fading fast among us).  So I understand the concern that people have with new movements letting their critique morph into legalism tends to produce sectarianism and vise versa.

However, before we point fingers and issue warnings, I think we need to ask what we mean by “missional” and “radical” Christianity.  I’ve not read David Platt’s book Radical but I have read a fair amount of books on missional church, living, etc… (and I’m beginning a Doctor of Ministry cohort in missional leadership this June at Northern Seminary).  So I’m more familiar with the reforming call for Missional Christianity.  In his article, Bradley contrasts the missional and radical movements with “ordinary God and people lovers” to which I assume he means Ordinary Christianity.  That raises another question then: what do we mean by ordinary Christianity?

I don’t want to waste time by trying to define what is meant by Ordinary or Missional and Radical Christianity.  There are two things we must recognize though.  First, the term Christian is a very broad ranging term that can be used today to describe people with a very minimal faith/commitment to Christ.  So that almost always forces Christian leaders to find some adjective, such as Ordinary, Missional, or Radical (or Evangelical, Orthodox, etc…) to define what they mean by Christianity.  Second, like Jesus, none of the apostles ever called people to be Christians, rather they called them to become faithful believers who lived their lives as disciples of Jesus.  That is to say that they were not calling people to just a different religious identity but to a new way of believing and living that demanded uncompromising commitment.  So while I share the concern about the calls for Missional and Radical Christianity morphing into a new legalism, forgive me if I’m a little concerned about the idea of Ordinary Christianity among a post-Christian North American culture that has become very secularized.

The problem is that even though the Christian church is shaped and guided by scripture and tradition through the power of the Spirit, it is still comprised of people.  That is, the church is  one big jar of clay and made that way in order to show the “all-surpassing power” of God (cf. 2 Cor 4:7).  But that also means that in weakness, the church will always make mistakes, get off track, etc… and need leaders calling it back to Jesus and the kingdom way of life.  Jürgen Moltmann writes:

A Christianity that departs from its beginnings in order to adapt itself to the present-day state is bound to evoke the Christianity of reform.  A Christianity that surrenders its messianic hope is bound to evoke the Christianity of prophesy (The Church in the Power of the Spirit, 321).

Thus as the church rests upon grace to the neglect of obedience, it will need leaders to call for more obedience.  Yet as the call for more obedience begins obscuring the grace upon which the church lives, it will need leaders who speak up for grace.

Let me say that whatever is meant by Ordinary or Missional and Radical Christianity, I am glad that there are reforming and prophetic leaders among Christianity calling American Christians back to the gospel.  Yet, as one of these voices—though certainly lesser known than others :-)—I do agree Matthew Lee Anderson who said, “if the message is going to critique the American dream for the people in the pews, then we may need pastors willing to show us the path of downward mobility with their lives.”

While obedience apart from grace is legalism and often leads to sectarianism, from where I sit the grace without obedience that Dietrich Bonhoeffer coined as “cheap grace” seems to be the problem that must be contended with.  So whether we like or dislike adjectives such as Missional and Radical, let’s remember that we are called to be faithful believers who live as disciple of Jesus.

Churches of Christ…Iconoclasm

I’m reading the book Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional by Jim Belcher for an upcoming D.Min class.  The book is thus far accessing the conversation and clash between the emerging and traditional expressions of Evangelical Christianity, in which the former has become a sort of new reformation protest against the later.

Among emerging voices, who see traditional Evangelicalism fraught with serious problems (too wedded to modernism/enlightenment philosophy), there is a strong tone of deconstruction before there is any reconstruction.  While deconstruction is necessary when there is a perceived problem, Belcher says that the “protest is too sweeping.  At times it borders on iconoclasm” (p. 48).  He goes on to say:

…this iconoclasm is not fair, and if not tempered it will handicap this reform movement, potentially leading it into a new kind of sectarianism, mimicking some of the same mistakes of the past — anti-intellectualism, anti-tradition and tribalism (p. 48).

When I read this I just dropped the book in my lap and thought how much he could of easily spoken these words to my own tribe, the Churches of Christ, many years ago.

For those who don’t know, iconoclasm has to do with attacking and destroying cherished beliefs of an institution, such as Evangelicalism.  Because this is a blog, I won’t take the time to document all the ways in which the Churches of Christ fell into the trap that Belcher warns emerging Christianity of.  It’s suffice to say here that as part of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement, the Churches of Christ saw themselves as restoring the church read about in the New Testament.  Somewhere along the line this restoration project which began as a unity movement (“Christians only but not the only Christians) began asserting itself as the only true church, attacking all other denominations as false teaching and unchristian.  The result became an anti-intellectual, anti-traditional, and tribalistic form of sectarianism.  Of course, those still steeped in this sectarianism will cry foul at my assessment here but that may only show just how much we became a victim of our own iconoclasm.

While many among Churches of Christ have rejected this sectarian approach, it is worth mentioning as a living example of the warning Belcher offers:  Learn from history or repeat it!  For surely the Churches of Christ are not the only group of reforming/restoring Christians to become ensnared in this iconoclastic trap.

Future Church:

Churches of Christ are declining!  That’s what I’ve been reading about in the blogosphere as of late.*  I tend to agree bur beyond the reasons for decline, I want to talk about the way forward…at least where it begins because I don’t believe in waiting around for the bells to finally toll.

As far as decline is concerned, the reasons are larger than any simple answer.  Part of the problem is that like many other Christian tribes, the Churches of Christ came of age among Christendom era where almost everyone understood the basics of Christianity and the Bible.  For Churches of Christ, who became very sectarian, evangelism was often nothing more than convincing others why we were the “right” church.

This became the tribal DNA but as things have changed, this has been found in wanting.  For instance, many Churches of Christ have shed their sectarian skins and therefore what motivated evangelism has lost power.  I suspect this has also created something of an identity crisis (if not the only right church, then what reason is there for existance?).  I also suspect that some congregations see the need for new wineskins but keep pouring new wine into old wineskins (cf. Mk 2:22).  Added to this is two other fairly new realities that has created much confusion.  First, there is the reality that North America is now a post-Christian world of religious pluralism where the religious question of society isn’t “which church” but “which god or gods.”  Added to that is the increasing number of “dechurched” people (those who at one time belonged to a church) who are never going to encounter our churches unless it is outside the confines our Sunday gathering

Of course, not every Church of Christ is in decline.  But for those that are, what should the response be?   Some churches will remain as they are, either denying the reality before them while spurning any change or hold out hope that members of another congregation might transfer (which only prolongs the inevitable).  Other congregations might see the situation as hopeless and, throwing in the towel, die a slow and sad death.  I, on the other hand, believe there’s another option that is future oriented…mission oriented.

Where Future Becomes the Present

With the increased number of people who either do not or no longer believe in and follow Jesus, I certainly believe the need for churches living on mission with God is clear.  But how?

I serve as a minister for the Columbia Church of Christ and we are a small congregation that has been in decline for some time.  We could pursue one of the options mentioned above but we’re not.  We believe God still has a place for us to serve in his mission as we follow Jesus and so we are trying to do just that — following Jesus into our world, beginning in a neighborhood.

For the last six months a few of us have been meeting every Sunday after worship to pray specifically for our church and how God is calling us into the future (prayer should always proceed and envelope mission).  The shepherds and I have also started journeying with Mission Alive as we seek church renewal.  In the meantime, my neighbor has been battling with breast cancer (she expects to be declared in remission this coming May).  Consequently, this has opened up some opportunities for our church to help her while she goes through this ordeal with her health.  However, come this May we plan to throw a BBQ and invite the entire townhouse complex to come and celebrate my neighbor’s new lease on life.  Not only is this a great way to celebrate with my neighbor but it is also a great way to begin subtly saying to the townhouse complex that the kingdom of God is here.

What might come of this?  That’s a good question and we won’t know the answer until it happens.  In some ways, this is an experiment.  We’re not throwing the BBQ with any other motives other than to live as kingdom people among our neighbors, loving them and sharing the beauty of life with them.  But we have to believe that as we follow Jesus into the neighborhoods, that there are those who are seeking God (even if they don’t have the language to express that desire) whom we can share the good news of Jesus Christ with.  That’s why we can believe that there is a future full of mission and therefore a future for our church as participants in the mission of God.

I am not so naïve to believe that this is it.  There will be other systemic changes that we will need to make in time as they are revealed.  But this is where we start, where the future church begins.  So if your church is in decline, I hope this post offers you hope as a way forward beyond decline and eventual death.  While every church has different circumstances, the future church always begins with a renewed commitment to following Jesus.

——————–

* If interested, check out James Nored, who has written a series of posts on this issue (read here, here, and here), and Sean Palmer, who recently wrote a guest blog post for Jason Locke’s blog about this issue (read here).

It’s Time to Fly

For centuries, the desire to fly has interested humanity.  Despite this interest, the attempts at flying were frustrating endeavors resulting in failure that sometimes came at a great cost, as people died while attempting to fly [1].

You might recall seeing pictures of people harnessing themselves in bird-like wings.  They believed that by emulating the wings of birds that they might successfully fly as birds do.  The assumption was that reduplication of the reptilian form was the only way in which humanity would achieve the same function of flight.  Of course, this was wrong.  More importantly though, on December 17, 1903 in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, the Wright brothers became the first humans to succeed in flying and they did so not by emulating the reptilian form but by pioneering a new innovative approach to aviation.

Similarly, in metaphorical terms, churches long to fly as well [2]. That is, most churches I know want to be a community whose faith is thriving through great worship, fellowship, and mission that includes both evangelistic and service oriented ministries.  

For many churches within the restoration heritage, the attempt to fly has been to try and reduplicate the pattern of the first-century church.  This assumed first that one single pattern existed and that such pattern could be mined from the New Testament.  That assumption reduced the New Testament to a flat text which was read like a set of by-laws on church polity rather than a dynamic collection of Christian writings which both reveal and shape true living faith in Christ.   Secondly it assumed that by such reduplication — restoring churches to that assumed single pattern within the New Testament — that contemporary churches would function as the conduits of God’s mission as they are called to be.

Rarely has anyone considered that, as followers of Jesus, God is asking his people to pursue an innovative vision that only God can bring about among the church.  I believe it is time for an innovative dream to be pursued!

It’s Time to Fly!

In scripture, we hear the call from Jesus, the invitation to follow him (cf. Matt 4:19; Mk 1:17; Lk 5:10-11; Jn 1:35-51).  So I begin with the assumption that pursuing an innovative dream for the future of our church must oblige us towards growth as followers of Jesus.  Such an obligation happens as we take the information we have in scripture so that we can imitate Jesus as his followers and eventually innovate his way of life in our own cultural context just as the early Christians did in Jewish and Gentile contexts [3].

The vision, in short, is to live as a kingdom community within the larger community and culture.  It’s living as participants in God’s mission of restoring creation; living as a people who offer good news to the weak, the poor, and the blind; living as a church that is attractive to those longing for hope yet so committed to Jesus that it is impossible to confuse the church’s identity.

What must change among church for this vision to become reality?  That is a question worth asking!

——————–

  1. I wrote a similar yet different article of the same title that was published in Connecting, 28 (January 9, 2013), a biweekly publication of the Columbia Church of Christ.
  2. The relating of the Wright brothers successful flight as an illustration for churches comes from Tim Woodroof, A Church That Flies: A New Call to Restoration in the Churches of Christ (Orange, CA: New Leaf Books, 2000), 5-7.
  3. The triadic language of information, imitation, and innovation comes from Mike Breen and Steve Cockram, Building a Discipling Culture, 2nd ed. (Pawleys Island, SC: 3 Dimension Ministries, 2011), 48-51.

Who or What Is A Christian?

In his book The Reason for God, Tim Keller asks the question “What is Christianity?”  He then answers the question by pointing back to the Nicene, Apostle’s, Chalcedonian, and Athanasian creeds, and then providing his own summary saying Christianity is:

…the body of believers who assent to these great ecumenical creeds.  They belief that the triune God created the world, that humanity has fallen into sin and evil, that God has returned to rescue us in Jesus Christ, that in his death and resurrection Jesus accomplished our salvation for us so we can be received by grace, that he established the church, his people, as the vehicle through which he continues his mission of rescue, reconciliation, and salvation, and that at the end of time Jesus will return to renew the heavens and the earth, removing all evil, injustice, sin, and death from the world (p. 121).

Without dissecting and doing exegesis with Keller’s definition of Christianity, I think it is a good summary of Christian belief.  But is this what makes one a Christian?

Some will object to the use of early Christian creeds, opting instead to ask the question, “What does the Bible teach?” and then suggest the answer to that question is what constitutes Christianity and being Christian.  I understand that and sympathize with that thinking to a certain extent.  That has been the approach in the Churches of Christ and the larger Stone-Campbell Restoration movement.  A problem with this approach is that their is no uniform agreement as to what the scripture teaches and what of that teaching is essential.

However, there seems to be a bigger problem that does not get addressed enough.  Is right belief the only thing that matters in what constitutes Christianity and whether a person(s) is considered to be a Christian?  What we believe is certainly important but what about the way we live?

A few weeks ago I finished a sermon series on Acts 1-11.  One of the things that stands out when reading through the book of Acts is the way of life the early Christians were committed to living.  In fact, Luke wants us to know that these believers are also “disciples” (used 9 times in ch. 1-11).  Then in Acts 11:26 we are told that the “disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.”

So in Acts, believers are called Christians because they are disciples, committed to living the life of Jesus whom they confess as Lord.  How ironic is it that in the first century one was a Christian because they were a disciple whereas in the twenty-first century a person can regard themselves as Christian without any commitment to Jesus as his disciple.

My point in this post is not to determine what sort of beliefs and practices are necessary to truly be a Christian.  I simply want to point out that Christianity and being a Christian must be defined by more than just belief.  The “Christianity” Jesus had in mind also calls us to a way of life.  Beliefs are important but so is the way we live.  Any answer to the question of “What” or “Who” is a Christian that does not give attention to both our beliefs and our way of life is an inadequate answer.

Are We A Praying Church?

“Are we a praying church?”  That’s the question that needs to be asked by every church.  Of course, every church wants to answer “yes” to that question but…

Growing up in the Churches of Christ, I can remember having congregational singings, area-wide singings, gospel (revival) meetings, Bible studies…but never any prayer meetings.  In my experience as a preacher/minister with Churches of Christ, with a few exceptions, it has been like pulling teeth to get the church to gather to do nothing else but pray together and pray for each other.  I can get a lot of church members to come out for a praise and worship service or for a fellowship gathering such as a BBQ but suggest that we get together for the express purpose of prayer…that doesn’t happen easily.

Now that is ironic because as heirs of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement, we in the Churches of Christ have claimed to be patterned after the church we read about in scripture.  Yet the church we read about in scripture was a church in which prayer was one of their four main practices (Acts 2:42).  In fact, prayer was such a way of life for the church that when faced with threats the church automatically responded by raising “their voices together in prayer to God” (Acts 4:24).  So it seems that when it comes to prayer, there’s still some restoration left undone.

I’m not trying to dog on my church tribe.  Every tribe and every church within that tribe has its strengths and weaknesses.  What I am trying to do is raise the awareness of the need for Christians to spend more time praying together.  In yesterday’s post (you can read it here), Francis-Xavier Sosu concluded his comment saying, “[The] power of the Holy Spirit only comes through prayers. So a Prayerful Church is a Powerful Church because it is a Spirit-filled Church.”  He is right.  That’s what happened in Acts when the church prayed for boldness in the face of threats.  “After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken.  And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly” (Acts 4:31).

So as we hear more reports about the decline of Christianity in North America, which is also true of Churches of Christ, will we give more attention to praying together as a church?

Let me also throw another question on us.  In most Churches of Christ, the Sunday morning gathering begins with Sunday School and then is followed with worship.  What mighty things might happen by the power of the Holy Spirit if all of the adults stop their Bible study (we can do away with one Bible study) and instead spent the hour just praying for what would transpire in the assembly, for the people (members and visitors) who will be their, for the worship leader(s) and preacher, for the communion to speak as a living story that we are part of, for the Holy Spirit to be at work, and so on?

What if we became a praying church?

69th Annual Pepperdine University Bible Lectures

It’s that time of year again.  Tomorrow I will be making a pilgrimage to Pepperdine University for the 69th annual Bible Lectures.  The theme for this years lectures, Living Between the Times, will be based on Romans 5-8.

This will be my third time and hopefully not my last.  The teaching is always outstanding, encouraging, challenging, and inspiring.  I’m looking forward to catching up with many friends and colleagues, and all the other great fellowship there is.  I am also making the trip with the shepherds from the Columbia Church of Christ, so I hope that will spark some fruitful conversations regarding the mission of our church.

Lastly, this is in Malibu, California…warm sunny blue skies along the Pacific coast and the Santa Monica Mountains.  What can I say?  It’s a hard like but someone has to live it :-).

How Shall We Preach: Thoughtfully

“Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.  Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is‒his good, pleasing and perfect will.”  – Romans 12.2, NIV

Growing up in the Churches of Christ, our approach to Christianity seemed very cerebral.  With scriptures, such as, “Come now, and let us reason together…” (Isa 1.18, KJV) and “Study to shew thyself approved unto God…” (2 Tim 2.15, KJV), we dared not neglect Bible study.  And so we studied and studied.  Sunday School classes and Wednesday Evening BIble Study, didactic sermons, scripture memorization, Bible bowls.  It felt like we were the champs of Bible study.

Looking back, I have mixed thoughts.  On the one hand, it was good that we knew our Bible’s.  Ignorance is never bliss.  I am amazed at how many Christians I meet who do not know their Bible.  Not so among the Churches of Christ.  Whether we were right or wrong, we knew what we believed and we could explain why from the scriptures

The downside to this was the fallacy of modern thought that had a very exaggerated view of human ingenuity.  Restoring New Testament Christianity was something we did.  Consequently, we seemed to believe we were the only ones going to heaven because, in part, we studied the Bible and did what it teaches.

Along the way, many began to see the ugliness of this downside and changes started to come about.  Among these changes, worship and preaching began attending to the matters of our heart more and more…sometimes, it seems, at the expense of the rational.  For the most part, I believe this has been a very healthy change, as scripture clearly portrays faith as something our emotions, our hearts, are deeply engaged in (just read the Psalms).  But here comes the “but”…

To use an old cliché, we cannot throw the baby out with the bath water.  Attending to heart matters does not mean we need to ignore the formation of our minds.  If we are to understand and practice our faith, we must give attention to the mind.

Here is what I mean: As Christians, we rightfully confess that Jesus is God Incarnate.  But we must also understand what it means for God to have become a human being, which is a theological question.  Added to this, if our belief is to become practice, we must consider how taking the this doctrine seriously ought to shape the way we live as followers of God Incarnate.  This requires thoughtful reflection that challenges us to think critically while endeavoring to awaken our imaginations to the possibilities for turning our confession into practice.

For this reason, I want to uphold the value of preaching thoughtfully.  This does not mean that sermons are meant to be an exercise in academics nor does it mean that preaching is the only way to renew our minds.  But it does mean that preaching plays a part in this and as such, I want my sermons to serve this goal of helping to renew our minds as Christians.  That means I want my sermons to thoughtfully engage the Christian intellect as well as the heart, encouraging us all  to think and act upon what can be if we take our faith seriously.

What are your thoughts?

——————–

See also these previous posts: