Baptists? Who, us?

I think this is an American trait. In a different circumstance, I'm reminded of the Soviet training manual that warned military officers not to attempt to predict American tactical moves on the battlefield. It seems the Russians were aware that few American even knew their written doctrine, and even fewer actually followed it. The Germans had the same complaint in World War II.

In my area, the Baptist churches (RCC are in just as bad shape) are having a very hard time because we have so many non-denominational churches and those are the ones that are growing fast. In my area (I am not sure if this is in all areas again so no need to comment this is just my area) these newer churches have the best cars in the parking lots & the wealthiest people attending. This sounds kind of cynical but you are judged (by other Christians in the community) by which church you go to.

There are two Baptist churches in my town & both of them took the Baptist part out of their names. They feel that this will give them a better opportunity to reach out. The Southern Baptist church we were attending went through the same thing. Boy you want to talk about the great divide. That and they all want to build better & bigger churches to attract people. Sounds bizarre, but true.

Having spent years in the S. Baptist & community churches I didn't find much difference. It seems as if everyone is more concerned about how many people attend, how much they gave, and were far more materialistic than the average non-Christian. By this I mean using the "coolest" music, going to the ""coolest" Christian concerts, buying every latest Christian book that has come out, etc.

My husband was a RC when we met & we were married, but our problem here again was that from priest to priest, parish to parish things did not match. One priest would say birth control was fine, the next would say you were committing a mortal sin, etc. I have to laugh when I hear the RCC church being referred to as having absolute rules. Believe me they varied as much as the protestant churches they didn't like.

Baptists believe everyone, unless they've been born again, is going to hell. Catholics believe they are the one "true" church, but after reading this blog I think the orthodox church thinks it is the true church. Confusing at best......

Rod,

Very accurate observations, and sadly very applicable to the American Orthodox Christian Church as well. I used to help the pastor of a large Orthodox cathedral prepare his weekly homilies, and he was constantly reminding me that most American Orthodox have a "2nd grade church school education," and that even the most basic doctrines of the faith would frequently catch the congregation by surprise. This is why he felt it necessary to respond whenever something like "The Gospel of Judas" would make the news, because his Orthodox parishoners had no idea that the Church was aware of such texts and history, and had a response ready.

I cringe a little when I you refer to our "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism" because I think the reality is that most sincere churchgoers in America are simply not ready for the meat of direct Christian teachings. I once heard an Orthodox teacher say that one reason we read the writings of the Fathers is because Scripture is often so bright, so pure, that we can't handle it. We need the lesser light of the Gospel as filtered through the saints.

Likewise, I think today there's virtue in the lesser light of Christianity filtered through "MTD". You worship with the congregation you've got, you praise people for whatever progress they do make on the long road towards Christ. As a personal trainer, my wife has helped post-operative folks start exercise routines, people who might start out unable to do a curl with a five pound weight. What these people needed more than anything was encouragement, so that they wouldn't give up in despair because they were so far behind where an "average person" should be.

It's a delicate balancing act, but dedicated and knowledgeable Orthodox Christians - and I expect traditional Christians of other communions as well - need to be careful of the kind of pride that can come when one believes that the Church is only for "true Christians" who understand and care about doctrines. I've seen plenty of examples of people who have succumbed to the idea that the Church should be composed of "the few, the proud, the Orthodox" and that anyone looking for, or satisfied with, "MTD" should go elsewhere. I think that kind of exclusionary approach to building the Church may lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy of a new Catacomb Christianity.

Bless,
Doug

This is such a tough issue. On the one hand, you want to see Christians standing up for orthodoxy. On the other hand, you don't want to see the church splintering into so many fragments. There is an enormous challenge to traditional denominations by the non-denominational movement. It is popular with young people who want to be earnest Christians but see no use for the history, traditions, and yes, baggage of being an identifiable stripe of Christian. I went to a non-denominational but evangelical Christian college and this was all the rage.

Like the challenge that Rod mentioned of trying to connect to your culture while still maintaining your beliefs, trying to uphold Christ's charge to be unified while standing up for your essential doctrines is a constant balancing act. What I find telling, and reassuring, is that at least in my divided denomination the biggest churches are the ones standing up for the truth and relevance of the Gospel. There will always be people who will go to a church for the feel-good aspect of it, but there will always be more people who are craving Truth and will find themselves fed at a church that is preaching both the comfort and the challenge of Christ.

I'm not a believer, so I don't have a dog in this fight. However, I wonder if religious pluralism has contributed to both MTD and declining church attendance here and in Europe.

In the Middle East, Islam is the dominant faith, often to the utter exclusion of any other belief system. Many of those nations have no secular protections of worship for non-Muslims.

Christianity, on the other hand, is the dominate belief system in the U.S., but constitutional protections for other faiths and the seperation of church and state have rendered its majority status largely meaningless. So over time, you see a little more mingling where there used to be clearly drawn lines between, say, Roman Catholics and Baptists. Natural assimilation.

In centuries past, the Catholic Church had armies and territories, and, in many instances, played the role of king-maker. It has nothing like that role today, and its influence as an institution is diminished. Islam, on the other hand, while not formally institutionalized, plays a huge role in governance, military and politics where it is a dominant force and where secular protections are lacking. I am not suggesting that the Catholic Church--or any Christian faith--has been rendered the equivilent of some nut ranting on a soapbox in Bughouse Square. But pluralism (and the American experiment) has certainly weakened the influence it wielded just a few hundred years ago.

I'm sure pluralism outside the church is a cause, but I think also that pluralism inside the church is more of a cause. In England, I don't think you can overstate the impact of the wobbliness of the Anglican church on theological issues on the lack of appeal of the church. Why bother going to a church that won't even stand up for itself against the many forces arrayed against it?

On the other hand, John Stott's theologically rock-solid church at Langham Place is packed to the rafters nearly every service.

Doug,

On the other hand, what I heard a very wise person say once is that the problem with minimums is that they have a tendency to become maximums. Not that we all should act like we're monastics, but if people need the milk of MTD because they're not ready for the meat of Christianity, it at least needs to be made clear that they're drinking milk, and they need to know that meat will eventually be on the way. Recalling Iannaconne's seminal article, "Why Strict Churches Are Strong," it should at least be made clear what the practice should be, and if there is economy being extended temporarily, that it is economy being extended temporarily. As soon as you've got a generation of people who are used to the economy, it's the expectation, and good luck trying to change it. Otherwise, what do you do? Designate parishes as "beginner," "intermediate," and "advanced"?

I don't exactly agree with the attitude of "the few, the proud, the Orthodox," but I do agree that MTD isn't what Orthodox, capital or lowercase "o", Christianity teaches, and that Christianity does neither for itself or for the people looking for it any favors by trying to pretend it is MTD. In principle, I agree with the current pope when he suggests that a smaller church might be a stronger church. Either the Faith is the Faith, and the Tradition is the Tradition, and we want to bring people to the fullness of it, or it isn't and we don't.

To use swimming as an analogy--of course you have somebody learn to swim in a shallow pool rather than the ocean, but if the goal is to get them to swim in the ocean, you should at least be letting them know that there is such a thing as an ocean and eventually that's where you want them, and it's probably a good idea to have them be around people who do swim in larger bodies of water--for their own good. If you only ever show them the kiddie pool and then one day take them unawares by dropping them by helicopter 30 miles from shore--assuming they don't drown, do you think the person is ever going to want to see water again?

Richard

Last night, our ELCA congregation, to celebrate the Week of Christian Unity, had a Catholic bishop speak and take questions. The confirmation students (ages 12-14) were assigned to write a paragraph on "Why it's important for Christians of different traditions to work together." I told our pastor that was a lot to ask of the kids.

Recently I've had many doubts about whether or not our congregation is the right place for our family. However, when I think about the practical alternatives, it's difficult to envision us outside the ELCA, a tradition whose doctrines I know, believe, and like. But if the current situation isn't working, and alternatives involve either a drive that ensures we aren't really part of the community or switching traditions, what is one to do?

Great post Rod. This post represents the flip-side of a conversation that I have been having with some of my friends recently. We all come from Protestant backgrounds, and many of my friends are die-hard Calvinists. The conversation that we have been having is that sometimes doctrine can interfere with our intimacy with God. It seems that the mainstream Protestant denominations have focused so much on the importance of doctrine (and their ability to fully understand scripture) that they have neglected the mystery and awe that the Catholic church has mostly preserved. The result is that people (myself included) who are not in agreement with Catholic doctrine search for some seemingly non existent balance between the head and the heart.

I think that it is extremely unfortunate that churches focus so much on how to market themselves to people. I don't particularly care whether a church has "Baptist" in the name or not, but the fact that they are purposefully leaving it out because people don't want to go to a Baptist church is pretty disturbing. You either believe that what you teach is right and is the best thing to teach people or you don't. I know I'm living in a dream world, but I am quite sure that God didn't intend for his Church to be a marketing company.

Connie:

This is from something I wrote on my own blog (leitourgeia.wordpress.com) yesterday. You're not alone.

--

Personal engagement of one’s faith is a really tricky thing. We are well past the days, for good or ill, when you simply were whatever your family was when you were born and you could count on your parents being the same thing, at least nominally, because they would have to be in order to get married. I would never have been born under such a societal expectation, because my parents have wildly divergent religious beliefs, and neither of my parents really are exactly what they were raised. Mom was raised Lutheran and left that in her 30s for Evangelical shores; Dad was raised nothing exactly, but my grandfather apparently believed in God at some level, and Dad, well, doesn’t. Mom had me baptized Lutheran, we were both baptized again by the non-denominational congregation she chose when I was seven, we drifted through Baptist waters briefly when I was a teenager, I received adult confirmation as an Episcopalian, and was received into Orthodox Christianity by chrismation. Call it “church shopping” if you want, for me, or Mom, or Dad. I call it doing the work of figuring out what you believe and taking it seriously. My father is an atheist because he takes very seriously his beliefs about the nature of the universe, and those beliefs make God irrelevant at best, assuming He even exists. My mother became an Evangelical because she became committed to the things which are distinctive to Evangelicals. I was confirmed as an Episcopalian because I found myself having to take seriously the concept of being in continuity with the Christianity of history when it was manifestly obvious to me that mainline American Christianity did not care about that continuity; I left the ECUSA because it was clear to me the ECUSA as a body was no longer actively interested in maintaining that continuity or even passively allowing for it.

Truth be told, however, I suspect a lot of people, if they were honest about it, would ask, “Why bother?” I’ve read opinions before from people who say that apologetics and convert stories are inherently unconvincing to Joe Average because they’re written from a point of view which already takes this stuff far more seriously than most people ever will. It’s extremely unusual, so the argument goes, for the average person to actually engage faith on such a level–more often than not, people will just fall away rather than attempt to go deeper. Maybe that’s true; I don’t know. So, sure–”why bother?” I can’t really speak for either of my parents, but I bother because my belief that Christianity is true compels me to engage it and take it seriously. It is, as I like to say, that simple and that complicated.

Doug:

The analogy breaks down though because of the sacraments. The central mysteries of the faith are only found in the deep.

Agreed!

Somewhat tangentially--what's interesting about what you say, however, is your use of both C. S. Lewis, who despite his being co-opted by Evangelicals in this country was Anglican, and the idea of the "middle zone." My seven years as an Anglican (ages 19 through 26, basically), initially in the liberal, Modernist mold but ultimately as an Anglo-Catholic, had me constantly wondering--where is everybody in my age group? Particularly as I found myself trending more towards the Anglo-Catholic end of the spectrum, I also wondered--where are the rest of us? When I started to read Catholic and Orthodox apologetics, it appeared that the answer to the latter question at least was--they've all moved on!

Particularly after reading the little book Anglican-Orthodox Pilgrimage, I started wondering if, effectively, the ECUSA doesn't function as a kind of "transitional communion"--a "middle zone," as you put it. The more seriously you take it, you more you find you have to go someplace else to fulfill its ideals. Maybe that's a useful function--I don't know.

Richard

Calling Richard Barrett! How do we find your blog?

"I also wondered--where are the rest of us?" I've often wondered the same thing on my journey to Orthodoxy. I'd heard that the road is narrow, but this is ridiculous! ;)

Kirk: leitourgeia.wordpress.com.

Regarding the "co-opting" of CS Lewis by Evangelicals in America, one thing I found really interesting about living in London was how comfortable I was as an Evangelical attending church there. The Evangelical Anglican churches, for lack of a better term, are pretty similar to Evangelical churches in the U.S. (or maybe the American churches are similar to them). I think of the influence of figures like John Stott and CS Lewis for example, or the popularity of the Alpha Program in Evangelical churches in the U.S., and it's clear that the UK is having a really positive influence on faith in the American church, which for all the eulogies for the Church in England that have been given, is a pretty cool thing.

Marian: I would assume that depends on the aims of the conversation. If the goal is unity around the altar, Communion, then that's where you have to start. Without a common faith, it's pretty tough to get any farther.

Richard

"If there is no culture of orthopraxy, you can't expect orthodoxy to thrive."

Amen and Amen, Mr Dreher.

I sometimes wonder if I would have left the Roman Catholic Church at 16, had there been a continuity of good IN DEPTH teaching. I had great religious education my first two years of grade school at Mount Carmel school in Hampton Roads, VA. I had a good teaching team pair around in my middle school years, though they were hampered somewhat by their teaching materials, which were not terribly specific. I don't remember much of what they said, but I remember them being very dedicated gifted women. Other than those years, though Sunday School/CCD was very touchy feely and not very heavy on specific doctrines. By the time I hit confirmation class, I had long since heard the siren call of the Bible Belt evangelical churches, and at 16 I made the final call and did not stand for confirmation. Part of what drove me away (aside from the doctrinal issues from adopting an evangelical viewpoint of course) was the fact that my classmates did not take the teachings against premarital sex and other "recreational activities" seriously. At all. They straight-up laughed at them, but they were okay with standing for confirmation, and as near as I could tell, the teachers and priests were okay with it. I couldn't see the point? Why stand up and affirm in a religious ceremony, what you do not hold to be true? I couldn't do it in good conscience.

I find myself wandering back towards received tradition and liturgy now. I was homesick for it without knowing it, though I still can't accept a lot of the classical protestant sticking points with the Catholic Church itself. I'm glad evangelicals are more openly embracing traditions they were so eager to do without. I'll likely end up Anglican before it is all said and done, despite all the problems they have been having in this country. I tend to hope that the third world, which is out-growing us both in numbers and vitality, holds the future of Christianity. Christianity has always done best when it is humble and still overcoming great odds. That is its true character, not material wealth and comfort.

John, Again all churches are not exactly alike (even Baptist). I only attended a southern baptist denomination so this could be the difference. If you ask any southern Baptist that I know they will tell you that you have to be born-again. To be born again you must 1)have a full immersion baptistm 2) declare it in front of the congretation (that you have accepted Christ as your Lord & Saviour & sometimes you must state why you accepted Christ). Do other churches do this - yes, but many do not. This is why they don't believe others are "saved". If you (as another denomination) ask them about this they will usually not answer the question, but I have found that behind closed doors they don't believe others are going to heaven.

John Rich,
John 3:16 doesn't include the word "believing" in it. Let's not add words or assume that Jesus meant something other than what he clearly stated. A close study of scriptures shows that he and the writers of scriptures were extremely intelligent communicators, so we can surmise that if he meant to say that no one comes to the father but by believing in him, he would have done so. You can make your argument using other verses, but it's hardly so black and white as you've assumed.

Besides, how does your interpretation (ie adding in the word believing) of John 3:16 square with a verse Like 1 Timothy 4:9-10 which states: "Faithful is the saying, and worthy of all acceptation. For to this end we labor and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of them that believe."

Anyhow, I don't want to get into an argument, but I can't let this sort of statement pass unchallenged.

Actually, there are some interesting things going on regarding this shedding of denominationalism within protestant churches and it's not necessarily the same thing as MTD at work or shedding of doctrine. In many ways it could pan out to be a good thing, although there are and will continue to be plentiful examples of garbage along the way. A big part of what is going on is a growing realization that having the church divided into 20,000 denominations is not God honoring, necessary or good. So there is a definite move to try and rectify this. While to an uber-traditionalist, this can be alarming because it can entail leaving certain distinctives of various denominations by the wayside, this is really only bad if you value continuity over God's desires. In scriptures Paul tells us that we should not squabble over disputable things. So some of this is having to work out what disputable things we need to let go of to restore some of the unity which Jesus and Paul clearly viewed as paramount in the body.

One of the most interesting manifestations of this movement is the emerging church movement. There are various permutations of this movement, but at its best one of the things which people who are interested in these things are doing is recovering some of the ancient wisdoms which got left behind. So rather than signalling a further abandonment of tradition, these are folks exploring practices like lectio divinia, the use of art in worship, ancient prayers and such. There are certainly some problems with people abandoning anything which resemble Christian doctrine, but they are probably a visible, obnoxiously loud minority. There are many people who are trying to find the balance between the obsession with heterodoxy which has torn apart protestants and the desire for better praxis and doxology (how we live as Christians and how we "do church"). In this context the popularity of dropping denominational names from signs and such isn't at all a bad thing or necessarily a harbinger of turning away from tradition and good theology. It's really a move away from the factionalism which has divided the body.

BTW, if you are interesting in these things, I am in the middle of a series on my blog about the emerging church. (I had to take a couple of weeks off, but am planning on getting my next post on it up tonight). the blog is theupsidedownworld.wordpress.com

Is that all the RCC considers worth talking about, either within their own church or between churches? This sounds inconsistent with gospel values.

Doctrine isn't the only thing the Church considers worth talking about, but some sort of clear doctrinal commitments are a precondition to any fruitful dialogue. One cannot share what one does not have. Here is Cardinal Kasper:

"The Catholic understanding of unity, understood as full communion in faith, sacraments and Church ministry, corresponds in principle with the understanding of our Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox sister churches, but unfortunately differs from the most usual interpretation of the mainline Protestant position .... But in the same way as unity should not be confounded with uniformity, so plurality should not be identified with contradictory doctrinal pluralism or indifferentism about our respective confessional positions. Indifferentism can never be a solid basis to build upon.

"Dialogue presupposes partners who have their own clear identity; only then can they appreciate another and different identity and enter into a meaningful and fruitful dialogue. .... Such dialogue is much more than simply an exchange of ideas; in some ways it is an exchange of gifts that each of the respective churches receive. In dialogue we can learn from each other. The result will not be a united new super-church. In the same measure that we grow and mature by dialogue to the fullness of Jesus Christ (cf. Eph 4,13), the Church also realizes more concretely what she is, what she has always been and ever shall be; she achieves a fuller concrete realisation of her catholicity. This is not a so–called ecumenism of return, not a way back, but the Christ- and future-oriented guidance of the Holy Spirit into all truth (Jn 16:13). "

Simon: no, not me, although I don't disagree with it at all. Doug Cramer said it.

Simon, that is good to know.

What needs to be explained is how and why one endangers one's soul by being wrong about basic points of theology if one is living right.

Because....Jesus said, "The most important thing is that you get your doctrine right?" Oh. He didn't say that?

If you are endangering your immortal soul by honestly holding an incorrect belief, what kind of a God are you talking about? There are thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of varying Christian beliefs about every imaginable topic. And my eternal fate depends on me picking the right ones?

Because....Jesus said, "The most important thing is that you get your doctrine right?" Oh. He didn't say that?

"If you continue in my word you will be my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." John 8:31-32.

I can't speak for Susan and perhaps I'm misunderstanding the meaning of her words, but here's how I interpret her intent:

There are some differences between the literal words of Jesus (and the early church apostles such as Paul) and the doctrines of Christianity - "doctrines" defined the extrapolation of intent for the purposes of a cohesive structure within various Christian churches.

Some things both men said can only be applied within the historical/cultural context of when they were spoken. Church doctrine is necessary to sort it all out. Other things can be applied more literally.

The "truest" interpretation, for each of us as individuals, results in deciding whose church doctrines are the most convincing.

Margaret Fell, one of the founders of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) is believed to have said, "Theology divides. Service unites."

Cleveland, Jesus never said, "He who has my laws and keeps them"! He said variously whoever keeps my words or teachings, but it is utterly false to claim that he spoke of laws and doctrines in the way that you are claiming. Besides, as Susan so accurately points out, Jesus had already made clear that the sum of the law (which he was the author of anyhow) was to love God and neighbor. Surely even you wouldn't dispute that simple fact?

And if the pope in Rome is directly in the line of Peter,
I'm a donkey and every history book about Christianity ever written is chock full of lies.

You can believe what ever you want. You can even come here and advocate for your POV, but if you're going to take what you believe, which is so easily refuted by facts, at least have the good sense not to turn it on others as if they are stupid and you are the keeper of all truth. A little bit of humility (which I believe the church still teaches us to have) would go a long way, my friend. Try it some time, would ya?

I can't speak for Susan and perhaps I'm misunderstanding the meaning of her words, but here's how I interpret her intent:

There are some differences between the literal words of Jesus (and the early church apostles such as Paul) and the doctrines of Christianity - "doctrines" defined the extrapolation of intent for the purposes of a cohesive structure within various Christian churches.

Some things both men said can only be applied within the historical/cultural context of when they were spoken. Church doctrine is necessary to sort it all out. Other things can be applied more literally.

The "truest" interpretation, for each of us as individuals, results in deciding whose church doctrines are the most convincing.

That's fair enough, I think. Always assuming that nothing interferes with the practice of the love of God, and the love of our neighbor. I wouldn't go so far as to say that any doctrine which encourages breaking the two great commandments is incorrect, but I would certainly say that anyone who breaks either one, whatever his or her intent, has left the Way.

"The Good News is Jesus said To Peter, after making him head of His Church: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." "

Would you please point out what verse says this? A lot of people believe that Jesus said on this rock (meaning foundation, what he taught - not on a person, Peter).

Well, I think we've now established that intelligent people of good will can and do differ on the meaning of that one verse, and that the Roman Catholic interpretation is not the only possible interpretation. Cleveland and those who hold with him/her (I am assuming that Cleveland is a bit on the right of the Catholic spectrum) would say first, that other interpretations are wrong, and second (maybe) that holding those divergent views endangers your immortal soul.

Then there are the more energetic Protestants, who say that agreeing with Cleveland on this one endangers your immortal soul.

I don't think the Orthodox accept the infallibility of the Pope, so I'm assuming they'd have another interpretation yet. Perhaps they say that if you don't agree with them your soul is in danger.

I think that all these people have a problem with their image of God. Or at least I think it's a problem. Any god who so severely punishes honest differences of opinion....well, I don't want to be counted among his worshipers.

mom, I say too, more power to those who remain with the RCC, if that's what works.

A piece of advice though. If God is real, you might want to worship him/her/it. Just as a part of being human, and being grateful to be here. That does NOT mean you have to submit to any church, however. :) As you point out, they're a devious lot if you take them seriously.

"Cleveland, Jesus never said, 'He who has my laws and keeps them'! He said variously whoever keeps my words or teachings, but it is utterly false to claim that he spoke of laws and doctrines in the way that you are claiming... if you're going to take what you believe, which is so easily refuted by facts, at least have the good sense not to turn it on others as if they are stupid and you are the keeper of all truth. A little bit of humility (which I believe the church still teaches us to have) would go a long way, my friend. Try it some time, would ya?" rebeccat

"I'd have to agree here, rebeccat.
Cut the patronizing, Cleveland. I probably know more about Roman Catholicism than you do." Susan

Please read the following, ladies:

>
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"He who has My commandments and keeps them..."
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"Whoever knows and obeys my commandments..."
King James Bible
"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them..."
American Standard Version
"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them..."
Bible in Basic English
"He who has my laws and keeps them..."
Douay-Rheims Bible
"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them..."
Darby Bible Translation
"He that has my commandments and keeps them..."
English Revised Version
"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them..."
Tyndale New Testament
"He that hath my commandments and keepeth them..."
Weymouth New Testament
"He who has my commandments and obeys them..."
Webster's Bible Translation
"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them..."
World English Bible
"One who has my commandments, and keeps them..."
Young's Literal Translation
"he who is having my commands, and is keeping them..."

Ladies, do you think we ever can have a discussion without you two always getting your noses out of joint? When a debater gets snippy and flies off the handle, according to the good nuns who formed my Catholicism and my philosophy, it always signals that he lost the debate and is embarrassed, and is trying to cover it up with ad homen attacks.

Excuse me, I shouldn't bother to answer you. Don't feed the troll, as they say.