Progressive Christianity: Vol 5
April 7, 2005
5. By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who know that the way we behave toward one another and toward other people is the fullest expression of what we believe…
Beliefs and doctrine vs practice and way of life. Is there one that comes first…? Does one become a Christian by behavior first…and then eventually start believing some of the Christian doctrine? There are many Christians who I think put a huge emphasis on what is believed - on the dogma of the faith - the propositional truths, the mission statements, the statements of belief, creeds, etc. But you could potentially meet them and wonder if they had ever read the gospels or any words of Jesus. (Obviously, the opposite is also true: one could meet someone who exemplified every aspect of Jesus and his life and teachings, and have no knowledge of any "Christian belief" — however, I’d be much more inclined to say they probably had a pretty good idea of what it meant to be a Christian without even knowing it).
Another thing I thought of while reading this was something I first read about in a McLaren book (not exactly sure which one it was though; he may have mentioned this idea in a few books) - the idea of belonging before believing. A lot of this idea is to fight against the "we’re in and you’re not" mentality that, unfortunately, many who visit today’s churches experience. Unfortunately, this mentality is prevalent in too many churches today, whether it’s because of an archaic or Christianese-language-driven liturgy or service, a lack of feeling accepted, or because one of the first things we want new people to sign up for is the membership class or the "Presbyterian 101: What does it mean to be a Presbyterian" course that’s just been started up by Betty the Elder.
Why can we not simply accept people into our community…? And not just accept them, but welcome them fully into the participation of our community, as we seek to bring the kingdom into fruition here and now.
So what does this look like? What does a truly progressive Christian church look like? Well…I’d be foolish (and a bit conceited) to claim that I had that answer - but I think I have glimpses of what that might look like. A community of people who are open to all…(see point #4), a community who welcomes all of those people into full participation of the life of the church. So, you may very well have someone who really doesn’t know what they think about Jesus collecting the offering. Or maybe you have a few youth group leaders who are struggling as to what they "really" think about the Trinity…they’re not really buying it, but…maybe. Perhaps there is a lesbian couple who insist on serving communion by intinction, even though one of them believes wholeheartedly in transubstantiation, and the other…well, she just thinks it’s a nice little ritual done, but doesn’t really see any true spiritual significance. They attend the church because they’ve never experienced a feeling of acceptance and love as they do at this church - they are experiencing God. I suppose this looks like a real mish-mash kind of thrown together, syncretistic community of strugglers…? Hmm…
But it wouldn’t even have to be so drastic. The key is to see that people are going to know (or should know, rather) that we are Christians primarily by our actions; and not because of the dogmas we claim to believe and hope to encourage others to follow. It is through our actions of love, acceptance, challenging others, transformation and welcoming…it is through these actions that people will truly see the example of Christ being shown — and perhaps, after that, after they are drawn to the love of Christ…to the strange wooing of the Spirit…perhaps it is then, after having been loved, drawn in, and having lived (& belonged) within the community…perhaps it is then that they start asking some questions about the Trinity, about the Sermon on the Mount…on issues that are important to Christ-followers, but not as important as our witness and actions in the world…
Tags: Liberal-Theology, Progressive Theology
Posted in Theology
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
April 7th, 2005 at 1:58 am
pomo writes, “By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who know that the way we behave toward one another and toward other people is the fullest expression of what we believe…”
again, is this really differnt from other Christian abominations, i mean denominations?
2ndly, is it possible to behave towards one another to the FULLEST expression of what we believe?
again, this sounds a bit too Utopian. I am still waiting for the installment of this “progressive” thing where you talk about the part when we join hands and dance and sing in circles….
do you really want to know what Emergent church says about:
just war
abortion
anthropology
the office of the pope
holy communion
free will/divine providence/open theism
liturgy
biblical authority
etc, etc.
???
come to the blog:
http://blogsdosuck.blogspot.com/
your pal, norm
April 7th, 2005 at 7:35 am
“belonging before believing” is a big part of Ancient-Future Evangelism, by Robert Webber. If you haven’t read it, put it on your list.
I like the idea of that form of evangelism. Though, along with the ancient church, I like the idea of reserving the Table for baptized believers.
April 7th, 2005 at 10:44 am
On the communion issue: I think Spencer Burke (TheOoze.com) said something about this in an essay he wrote for the late Mike Yaconelli’s book, Stories of Emergence. It was something to the effect of how since most Christians believe that anyone apart from Christ is doomed to hell, how does the “if anyone eats or drinks unworthily, he eats/drinks damnation to themselves” really make a difference? Perhaps, Burke suggests, the sacrament of Holy communion might become a powerful first encounter of Jesus.
It’s an interesting thought.
April 7th, 2005 at 11:30 am
I agree with a good deal of what is being said in this post. We definitely need relationship over religion. I’m not a big fan of the “we’re in and you’re not” mentality either. However, the apostle Paul did lay out some guidelines for those who want to be in spiritual leadership (see 1 Tim 3:8-13…interesting side-note about “not indulging in much wine”?!?) On that note.
Let’s break down Adam’s visions:
1. “So, you may very well have someone who really doesn’t know what they think about Jesus collecting the offering.”
What they think about Jesus??????? Why are they serving in your church if they claim to have no relationship with Christ? Isn’t this the essential key to being a part of the family of God. This statement is by far the most absurd of Adam’s vision!
2. “Or maybe you have a few youth group leaders who are struggling as to what they “really” think about the Trinity…they’re not really buying it, but…maybe.”
This statement is not so ludicrous because belief about the Trinity, though fundamental, is not essential. If these youth leaders claim to have a relationship with Jesus and cannot wrap their minds around the concept of the Trinity, that is understandable.
3. “Perhaps there is a lesbian couple who insist on serving communion by intinction, even though one of them believes wholeheartedly in transubstantiation, and the other…well, she just thinks it’s a nice little ritual done, but doesn’t really see any true spiritual significance. They attend the church because they’ve never experienced a feeling of acceptance and love as they do at this church - they are experiencing God.”
Well, we’re back to Adam’s, and the “progressive” church’s, most controversial subject of homosexuality. I am going to make myself unpopular on this site and defer to scripture on this one, Romans 1:26 “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
Homosexuality is a sin. It is the same as any other sin.
To be a sinner is to be human, but to go against scripture and say that sin is ok is BLASPHEMY. Is the lesbian couple leading others? They can take communion any way they want if they are not leading others.
I guess the overall idea that I’m trying to portray is that all should be welcome to attend, but not all should be allowed to lead.
April 7th, 2005 at 12:03 pm
Adam,
I really enjoyed your thoughts on this post, thanks for sharing them. I have a question for Andy about your statements regarding homosexuality. I don’t really know where I stand on this issue and excuse me for my ignorance, but I am wondering how any of us are EVER “allowed” to lead? If homosexuality is not our habitual “struggle” perhaps its greed, pride, etc. What’s the difference? Should a heterosexual family man be allowed to serve communion even though he lives in a $500,000 house, drives an H2, and vacations at his summer home in southern France? I’m in no way attacking your thoughts, just curious to hear what you have to say.
Blessings,
Sean
April 7th, 2005 at 12:52 pm
What about having those from the outside shape those on the inside? Follow me for a quick second. Those in churches usually welcome those from the outside in, but wish to shape them to fit their criteria of what a Christian should look like, act like, speak like, etc. Which almost seems sneaky. What if those on the inside were eager to have those from the outter rims in the church and allow them to somewhat happen them (if that makes sense). Obviously this could be taken to the extreme, but how could churches be more free to let those from the outside (again i hate using this language) shape us?
April 7th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
We’re in, you’re not… it assumes that we are judges. You‚Äôre point is that we shouldn‚Äôt be. I take no issue with that for those who do not consider THEMSELVES believers. We are not to judge those outside the church. We can and should confront issues of sin inside the church. For those who have judged their own heart, and consider THEMSELVES believers, they should be accountable to the community for issues of sin.
We should not judge those who do not consider themselves believers. God alone is the judge of those, but we do have a responsibility to not mislead them into thinking that judgment never takes place. (I am not talking about either of The Judgment but about temporal judgment, as to whether someone is ‘in’ or not.)
He knows the condition of our hearts, and there is an ‘in’ or ‘not in’ when it comes to whether we have accepted his grace or not, whether we have believed or not. Accepting God’s grace but openly rejecting His holiness, and the holiness that He calls us to is a dangerous action. I’ll let God be the judge, but the progressive ‘openness’ is doing nothing to prepare people to deal with this… as far as has been discussed here.
And Sean, someone is ‘allowed’ to lead because they fit with the foundations of leadership that paul set up for timothy. Paul writes about those visible qualities of a person because he knows that we cannot know the condition of someone’s heart. If someone does not have their house in order, has children who don’t respect them, or is a drunk, he or she is going to have trouble winning the respect of the church as a leader. Not that everyone has to have everything together to be used by God, but we should hope for honest leaders who have let God clean up their lives so they can worry more about sharing the gospel than getting sober.
I don’t know. It’s is hard for me to argue these points too because there are so many ways that I want to avoid having to discern… but that just doesn’t sit well when Jesus is always loving, but always discerning… He said, “Go, and sin no more”… He doesn’t just say ‘go in peace’ …
April 7th, 2005 at 1:07 pm
Sean, i had to say this too. It’s not about being rich or not. There is nothing evil about being rich. But being rich makes it very hard to separate yourself from greed… I guess all I wanted to say is that if someone is motivated by greed, they definitely should not be leading. But if God has just blessed them, and they give freely of it to bless others, there’s not really any problem that I see. By the standards of his day, Abraham was Bill Gates. I doubt he was so proud of himself that he rode the H2 of camels to show it off, but he was rich…
I agree with your point, i just wanted to qualify it with the fact that being rich isn’t evil. For the record, i am not rich, not a republican, and i never will be either of those two things.
April 7th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
Okay. At this point, I am tightly straddling the fence between the church that I grew up a part of, and my “progressive” beliefs.
My uncertainty lies in the subtext of the comment about the lesbian couples. Let me say that I view homosexuality as a sin the same as any other, and I believe that it can be overcome. However, there must be a distinction between accepting people for the way that they are, and accepting the sins of ourselves and others as something okay and natural. I hate to bang the Evangelic gong here, but God does require, and expect a change in us.
I wholeheartedly believe in an accepting and welcoming church, but what good are we doing if we do not seek to answer people’s questions, and lead them to salvation. Peace and love are great, but God also demands obedience.
April 7th, 2005 at 4:51 pm
i just don’t get it adam. why do people still get so hung up on homosexuality? why do people still think they have to let everyone know what they believe before going into their spiel? actually i do understand it, but it’s just so friggin stupid.
yesterday, i had lunch with one of the leaders of the youth ministry that i was hired by the church to lead. she is an open lesbian. she was asking my advice about whether or not she should move in with her girlfriend, future plans, going on toward her masters, etc. we talked about life. it was great and very meaningful. over the past two years, she has lead me into a deeper, richer relationship with jesus. she has led many students into deeper relationships with jesus. she also plays guitar in a band that leads our congregation as a whole in worship on sunday mornings.
peace and love are not options charles mac, as you suggest. those are commands that we are to obey. steve, i think your appeal to scripture, although well intentioned i’m sure, is not really all that helpful to the homosexual situation. that woman was caught in heterosexual adultery. a socially understood sin. everyone knew it was a sin, even her and the man she was with. whether we like it or not, not everyone is in agreement about homosexuality being a sin both those within the christian community and those who don’t align themselves with christians. a newer, more progressive kind of christianity needs to seek ways in which we can respond to a fairly new situation in our world and also gain a fresher understanding of leadership within the church that is faithful and actually helpful to our world. i think adam’s series is important to wrestle with, how ’bout we don’t ruin it by getting hung up on a relatively tiny matter.
April 7th, 2005 at 4:57 pm
Adam, I’m wondering what your take on Erwin McManus’ Mosaic church is. He would agree with the “progressive chrisitanity” piece that all are welcome (again, nothing new or progressive there) but to serve on “staff” at his church (which is to say to have leadership) means a huge commitment to Christ (Christ alone - not any other way to Heaven)and other very stringent requirements. Just wondering how that fits into your “progressive” paradigm where everybody’s in regardless of belief or practice.
April 7th, 2005 at 6:51 pm
Matt, equivocating “staff” and “leadership” is an erroneous move. If the only “leadership” a church has is its staff, then I’d say it’s a church in trouble. We need to make a delineation between those who are “spiritually directing” or “shepherding” the congregation, and thus set the spiritual direction for the flock, and those that lead in the daily life of the church through “full participation.” I doubt if McLaren or Adam are advocating putting an “unbeliever” (however we choose to define that word) into a spiritual shepherding/teaching role. Yet, can we not allow unbelievers to participate in “worship” fully? While I don’t necessarily agree with every direction that Adam pushes these possibilities in his post, the dangers and pitfalls are even greater if we go the “Christians only in leadership” route. Do you become like the charismatic church back home in Twin Falls, Idaho, that wouldn’t even allow people serve coffee in their church unless they evidenced the gift of the Holy Spirit by speaking in tongues? That may sound absurd, but truly, just slip in your own particular “tradition” in place of tongues, and you’d have almost verbatim the policy of many churches. “No leadership unless you can state the date and time Jesus came into your heart.” “No leadership unless you’ve been baptized.” “No leadership unless you’ve been through catechism.” “No leadership unless you hold membership.”
So, can we invalidate Adam’s call for “No leadership unless you exhibit the attitude of Jesus”? At least it has a scriptural basis, John 13:35. Again we have to hold this in tension with 1 Timothy to “guard our doctrine,” and so there are some places (teaching/shepherding leadership) that are likely inappropriate for those that do not hold the “qualifications” necessary (ie ‚Äì the ability to guard the doctrine). But this requirement in no way prevents them from “full participation” in the life of the community.
April 7th, 2005 at 6:55 pm
Also, in regard to communion as an evangelistic tool; Spencer Burke isn’t the first to promote this idea. In his ministry, John Wesley extensively used the invitation to the Lord’s table as an invitation to Christ, and it has roots in Christian tradition that predate Wesley.
April 7th, 2005 at 7:00 pm
That’s the whole thing about Mosaic is that staff is not staff as in leadership but that IS their membership status. All are recieved in “full participation” in the life of the community. All those on “staff” at Mosaic, as defined when Erwin was here, were not necessarily leaders but all those who had decided to become “members” of this church which really means that they are actively engaging the community. Maybe Erwin is just changing the language from “member” to “staff” but what I heard was him calling out believers to a HIGHER standard and calling them to accountable lives - something I think “progressive christianity” fails to do.
April 7th, 2005 at 7:17 pm
Sean,
You said, “If homosexuality is not our habitual “struggle” perhaps its greed, pride, etc.” I completely agree that we are all sinners. That none of us truly deserve God’s grace or the blessing of leadership, but you hit the nail on the head when you stated that homosexuality is a ‘habitual “struggle”‘ and not an inborn defining characteristic of a person. Therefore, a lesbian couple has chosen to sin (as we all do) and instead of turning from their sin, they have chosen to justify it and convince others that it is ok.
That is what I disagree with and that is why I believe that a lesbian couple should not be allowed to lead.
April 7th, 2005 at 7:30 pm
Jon,
You stated that “a newer, more progressive kind of christianity needs to seek ways in which we can respond to a fairly new situation in our world…”
However, homosexuality is NOT a new situation in our world. That is why it was addressed in a letter to the Romans 2000 years ago! The only thing that is new is the way popular culture (and the homosexual movement) are spinning the issue. They are trying to justify the homosexual lifestyle by claiming that a monogamous homosexual relationship is equal to a marriage between a man and woman. Sin is sin is sin. I will not lower my standards to be popular or to make people feel good about their choices.
I am sinner and will continue to pray for all who have my condition. But, it truly bothers me when someone says that their ‘habitual struggle’ is unavoidable and the exception. It is like spitting at Jesus on the cross and saying he didn’t need to do that because we can justify our standing with God on our own.
April 7th, 2005 at 9:13 pm
Andy,
I think the point being made by most homosexual advocates is that when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, there was nothing in the Greco-Roman world that came close to resembling a “monogamous homosexual union.” The only thing Paul knew, so it is argued, was heterosexual males who had sex with little boys or othe rmen on the side of an existing heterosexual marriage — not people who identified themselves as strictly “oriented” one way or another. The argument is that this difference removes the application of Paul’s letter to today’s “homosexuals.”
Whether there was no such category in the Greco-Roman world, in my mind, is still debatable, but we at least have to give such an assertion a fair hearing.
Kellen
April 8th, 2005 at 12:39 am
Jon Myers, I hope you get to read this — the comments section on your page isn’t working at the moment.
You’ll notice — as many others apparently have — that I mentioned the SUBTEXT of the example of the lesbian woman. The subtext was that we do not need to worry about repentence, and be conscious of the way we live our lives in the eyes of other believers. The reason I stated my ignorant beliefs before going into my spiel was to avoid the kind of reaction that I got from you, but apparently I didn’t do a good enough job.
And I did not mean to imply that peace and love are options — I know better than that. I was simply saying that they are not all that is required of us. We are called to embrace others, but also to help them overcome their struggles.
April 8th, 2005 at 12:48 am
Thanks for everyone’s comments - and Andy & Steve (two of my best friends from home) - thanks for chiming in - you are probably two of the only people from high school who read my blog, so thanks!
I’m going to try to leave a few comments about the conversation going on here. Sorry this will be a long comment, but that‚Äôs what you get!
*Well, once again, the issue of homosexuality has been brought up - and I suppose I only have myself to blame by bringing it up myself in the actual post. Like Jon said, it does seem that often this issue becomes something people get hung up on, and for some, it has to be resolved, before we can move on to other things…well, I propose that this is not an “issue” (I don’t even like the word “issue”, because it’s not about an issue, it’s about people, people who are hurting, who are discriminated against, and who have been called “sinners” their entire lives). [Sidenote, I am looking at a book by Stephen Ray called Do No Harm, in which he looks at social sin and Christian responsibility. In the introduction, he writes: "I want to help readers understand how even the best-intentioned sin-talk can participate in needless and, in many cases, malicious harm to marginalized persons and their communities." Our words carry more power than we realize, and even our use of the word "sinner" should be rethought (in my opinion).]
*I do remember reading that section of Spencer‚Äôs from the Yaconelli-edited book. I think that that some professors here at Princeton would about die if they heard me say this, but I think I‚Äôm open to the Eucharist being used as a way to bring people into an experience of relationship with Christ…I don‚Äôt know how that works out with polity (I‚Äôm sure it presents problems) but it‚Äôs definitely something I‚Äôm open to…
*Andy, you had some issues with some of the examples that I used. They may not have been the best examples, because I just picked them very quickly, but since they were chosen, let’s continue to stick with them.
1. “So, you may very well have someone who really doesn’t know what they think about Jesus collecting the offering.”
The first thing I’d probably say to this is that this is much more common than anyone would likely like to admit. I know in the church I served, we often let the youth assist with collecting the offering, and I know for a fact that many of them really didn’t know for sure what they thought about Jesus. I’m willing to bet that many of the adults didn’t either, and I’m willing to bet further that is the case for many of our churches in America (across denominations). I pushed hard to have one of my favorite youth group members help me lead worship and play drums – even though I knew he was in a pretty rough place spiritually and probably wouldn’t have called himself a Christian. You can take issue with that if you’d like, but it did wonders for our relationship, for allowing him to feel like he was accepted by the body of Christ, etc.
All of this is to say that I think we have many people leading in our congregations all across the US and the world who “don’t know what they think about Jesus.”
2. “Or maybe you have a few youth group leaders who are struggling as to what they “really” think about the Trinity…they’re not really buying it, but…maybe.”
We are in agreement – this is not an essential belief – so I think we’re all good here.
3. “Perhaps there is a lesbian couple who insist on serving communion by intinction, even though one of them believes wholeheartedly in transubstantiation, and the other…well, she just thinks it’s a nice little ritual done, but doesn’t really see any true spiritual significance. They attend the church because they’ve never experienced a feeling of acceptance and love as they do at this church - they are experiencing God.”
I‚Äôm not going to use this space to do any exegetical work on this issue. I‚Äôm not going to call homosexuality a sin. I‚Äôm just not going to go there again on this issue in this space for now. So, I hope we can move on from this issue and keep the conversation going within this post. Andy and I have talked about this before…I‚Äôd only want to urge that using words like ‚Äúblasphemy‚Äù ‚Äì those are strong words…
*Clark ‚Äì I love that idea. Our communities should constantly be changing by those on the outside (I think someone else mentioned something that Doug Pagitt said about this idea of ‚Äúchange from the outside‚Äù in another post)…
*Matt, I was there for most of Erwin‚Äôs lecture in the chapel, and I heard the thing about staff at his church. I guess in order to answer your question, I‚Äôd have to see what in fact IS expected of those who are called to be on ‚Äústaff.‚Äù I do have to admit that when you wrote ‚Äúcalling out believers to a HIGHER standard and calling them to accountable lives‚Äù ‚Äì it just didn‚Äôt sit quite right with me. Not sure why. I think there is some biblical support for that, but it seems to me that some of those perceptions of what a good Christian is (one who is living to a ‚ÄúHIGHER standard‚Äù) are not necessarily the most important thing to God, and perhaps, might rather be simply our Christian sub-culture/performance-driven culture‚Äôs attempt at defining what a good Christian will be: ‚ÄúA good Christian will be someone who is living to the best that they can ‚Äì always living with that HIGHER STANDARD of living in mind!‚Äù To some it may sound great and all, but we‚Äôre just setting people up for failure and causing to be too focused on something that I don‚Äôt think Christ is very concerned with (oh shit ‚Äì I think I just spoke for Christ…okay, I may have to take that back)…
This is seriously much too long of a comment (I feel like Chris P. here folks…which, speak of the devil, WHERE ARE YOU CHRIS???), but just some stuff I wanted to say before I took off for the weekend.
I just want to encourage us to continue with this conversation and not get too focused on just one issue…
April 8th, 2005 at 1:38 am
“I just want to encourage us to continue with this conversation and not get too focused on just one issue…”
I just wanted to call you out on this. Your last words indicate that you don’t want us to get “too focused on just one issue,” and yet your very next post is about homosexuality. Interesting, Cleave, interesting. ;)
Peace, buddy.
April 8th, 2005 at 4:42 am
anyone else notice there is no comment link on the aforementioned post…???
April 8th, 2005 at 8:34 am
mmmmmmmmmmmmm HM!
April 8th, 2005 at 10:08 am
*kellen you clarified my point about homosexuality being a fairly new situation in our world. thanks.
*charles mac sorry for my comments not working, i think it should be good now. i want to encourage you to know that you don’t always have to put a “but we have to….” after all things peaceful, loving, tolerant, accepting, etc. i’m not saying we should never have the “but we have to…” just not everytime.
*andy i have no idea where you’re at on your journey, and i definitely want to respect that, but chill out a little bit alright bro. trust me, i’ve done my fair share of sin bashing and it helps no one, including ourselves. it makes us bitter, unloving, unChristlike.
April 8th, 2005 at 10:54 am
jon,
Thanks for caring about me. God is not through with me yet and I guess I can come accross pretty harsh. I just don’t see the point in rationalizing my own sin and when others do it, it bothers me. Yes Cleave, I do buy into the ‚Äúcalling out believers to a HIGHER standard and calling them to accountable lives‚Äù thing. Also, I am under the impression that most readers of Adam’s blogs about Progressive Christianity would call themselves Christians and thus I am writing to a Christian audience.
Just so you know, I come in contact with homosexuals (I am a Doctoral student at UNC Greensboro and we have a very active LGBT community) all the time and I definitely do my best to love them as Christ would. I am positive that I do an imperfect job of that, just like I do an imperfect job of loving my wife. However, I do feel like this dialogue keeps me thinking about my positions and how I present them to the world. Thanks for the rational conversation. I hope everyone on this blog can say the same.
April 8th, 2005 at 10:56 am
It is necessary when those “but we have to’s” are all but completely ignored.
April 10th, 2005 at 12:16 am
The one piece of advice I try to keep in mind about what type of christian I want to be comes from one of the coolest verses that so many forget. I ask forgiveness for not remembering the verse number off the top of my head, but part of it goes, “as you do unto the least of men, you do it unto me”. Our actions speak louder for our beliefs then anything else. Christ loved and helped everyone, can we do otherwise if we are examples of him?
April 11th, 2005 at 1:48 am
Wendi - it’s Matt 25:31-46
The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
hth