Posted by Helen on: 10.02.2007 /
In the last few years my question about theology has shifted from “Is it true?” to “What does it do to people?” Does it help them be the best possible human being they could be? Does it set them free from fear or give them new things to be afraid of? Does it help them be more loving or make them more legalistic (rules-based)?
I’ve also found that of the two relational emphases in the Bible, I very much go along with one (the horizontal: human to human) but don’t know what to do with the other (human to God and God to human).
For these two reasons I don’t read many theology books by Christians. They tend to be too much about the vertical relationship and not enough about the horizontal for me. Also, they don’t focus on “What does it do to people” because you aren’t supposed to choose a theology that way. You’re supposed to believe it because it’s true, not because of what it does to you or for you.
I made an exception for A Community Called Atonement because it has a neat title invoking the horizontal relationship and it’s by Scot McKnight, whose thoughts often make a lot of sense to me. Moreover, he’s careful - so I knew I wouldn’t get frustrated by comments based on inadequate research; and he’s kind, so I knew I wouldn’t run into any unpleasant rants or write-offs of other people or theologies in his book.
Even so, I began the book a little hesitantly, but was drawn in right away with a story in chapter 1 about a nurse who was tending the wounds of a homeless man. When he said “thank you” to her, with tears of gratitude, she felt like she was seeing Jesus. She realized she was living out his words in Matthew 25: “Whatever you did for the least of these who are members of my family, you did it for me”.
Scot uses this story to show that ‘atonement works’ - wow, so much for theology books not answering the ‘what does it do to people?’ question!
So I was hooked and read the whole book. In general Scot paints a big picture. He weaves all the different atonement theories together which have been favored in church history - wanting to keep the value of each (hey this reminds me of Generous Orthodoxy although I’m not sure whether Scot would be ok with that) rather than narrowing down and saying “this is THE atonement theory which is ‘correct’ - all others are wrong”. And he doesn’t limit himself to the scope of those - he wants to ensure atonement means everything it was intended to mean. That it’s about Pentecost and the creation of a new community called to love one another and everyone else as well as about Jesus dying on the cross so my sins can be forgiven. He resists all views which narrow atonement down to an individualistic matter. Hence the title - a community called “atonement”.
I expect most reviews of the book are more helpfully detailed than this. Even so I did want to say that I read the book and enjoyed what Scot wrote. Also to mention that Nick and Josh did a podcast with Scot a couple of weeks ago, mostly about the book , which I very much enjoyed. That will also give you an introduction to the book if you haven’t read it (yet :-)).
Comment by: benjamin ady
1My (relatively smallish) experience of Scot Mcknight has led me to similar conclusions. which is to say he is on the (short but growing) list of people who create space within which Benjamin finds the idea of “being a christian” palatable. thankyou for highlighting the new book here.
Comment by: Steve S.
2YES!!!
This is the thing I love about Willard’s stuff. His whole contribution to the spiritual dialogue (IMO) is that Jesus was primarily concerned with the kinds of people we are becoming, and making a way for us to become the kinds of people God intended for us to become in the first place.
This is echoed in Wright’s phrase about Jesus providing an example of what it is to be “truly human”, and granting us the power to become “truly human.” (If you haven’t read it, I love McLaren’s little explanation of the phrase ‘Son of Man’ in GO)
Comment by: Jim Henderson
3I dont care for the “all atonement theories” are equal approach.
I think it is a cop out
Where does penal substitutionary fit with Christus Victor- they are mutually exclusive
One satisfies Gods wrath
The other satisfies his passion to free people
I disagree with both Brian and Scot on this point
Comment by: joe
4I agree with Jim. It makes for interesting writing, but it is illogical to claim you believe opposite things. In practice all you’re doing is taking aspects you like from different ideas and rejecting or ignoring the bits you don’t like.
Comment by: benjamin ady
5So Joe, Jim,
Are you going saying opposite, or mutually exclusive, things can’t both be true nor both be believed in. Or that they shouldn’t be believed in? Or are you *not* making generalizations, and only referring to this one specific case? And if the former, how do you reconcile this with the instances in which you *do* believe in opposite or mutually exclusive things?
Comment by: joe
6I’m sorry B, are you accusing me of being consistent?!? ;)
Comment by: benjamin ady
7Joe,
far be it from me … =)
I somewhat doubt that you are more inconsistent than myself.
Actually, it doesn’t have to be an accusation. Could be just an observation. What you desribe in your former comment, however, is just how a lot of psychologists operate (see: eclecticism in psychology) and it works reasonably well. In fact, it’s been demonstrated in “the literature” (god I love that phrase) that the Dodo Bird Verdict is true–that is, it really doesn’t matter which method or framework you use or ascribe to–they all work equally well because the important things are there in all of them.
Of course some people argue that this isn’t the case altogether, and they have some evidence to support their claims as well =). Which is fine by me. It’s okay to be inconsistent, as long as I *realize* and *admit* that I’m inconsistent. =)
Comment by: Helen
8My experience as a Christian was being taught to disarm my ‘contradiction rejector’ so I could handle theology that would keep triggering it all the time. The presumption was, the contradiction rejector operated based on a limited human perspective and couldn’t handle God’s truth.
But in recent years I wanted it operational again. I think having it disarmed was not such a good thing for me overall. I suspect it may have made me too willing to accept things I shouldn’t have accepted.
I’m glad to have it operational again.
I don’t really know what to say about the comments in this thread because it does seem to me that Christian theology is based on contradictions which have to be accepted as ‘they only seem to be contradictions; if we could see how God sees they wouldn’t be.’ Absolutely core teachings like the trinity: God is three and God is one. Who except Christians with faith would ever say that is not a contradiction? You either have to reject it, go for the ‘it only seems to be one because of my limited human perspective; it isn’t really; or choose a non-analytical approach to faith in which you just shrug and smile and be glad that God likes you. I never understood the third option when I was a Christian but now I think the third option has a lot going for it - it’s simple, easy and non angst-producing. What’s not to like about that? Anyway that’s not the sort of approach theologians like Scot take; but then, there are lots of people who appreciate Scot’s approach - it’s what they want.
Jim, I see penal substitution as a symptom rather than the core issue. The core issue is, if you believe in total depravity (Scot’s term cracked eikons is much kinder and gentler yet it still means there’s something congenitally morally WRONG with us) then I think you need penal substitution to solve it. So, to get rid of penal substitution you have to get rid of total depravity and then you have leapt into the land of heresies such as universalism.
I reject total depravity and it’s kinder gentler relative, cracked eikons, preferring to see all people as a mixture of good and bad, responsible for the choices they make. All that stuff about the fall and Adam’s sin affecting everyone and causing congenital total depravity - it makes no sense to me. Besides, if it’s so inherently theological I’d love to have someone explain to me why the Jews didn’t believe it; why did it arrive on the scene with Paul?
Back to Scot’s book - I think he makes the best of the story he believes; but I think the story is flawed.
Comment by: Steve S.
9Perhaps I don’t understand it correctly but, isn’t this exactly what the doctrine of original sin teaches?? It is what I always understood the doctrine to mean. People are inherently good and bad; the doctrine is an explanation of how we became so…
Comment by: Helen
10Steve, original sin says only the bad counts therefore humans are all hellbound except if God intervenes.
That’s the part I don’t like or understand: why should only the bad count and not the good? That’s not a fair system at all, imo. Imagine if schools graded that way - we throw out every passing grade and only the failing ones count. Imagine if courts assumed “presumed guilty, period; anything shared in evidence cannot exonerate you but it can prove your guilt”. Imagine if at work, your review was based only on things you got wrong or knew you didn’t do your best at.
Imo, humans are fairer than what original sin says about God’s way of looking at humanity.
Comment by: joe
11To be fair, Benjamin, I do try to be consistent in my thinking - I just don’t want anyone to imagine I have a fully consistent and worked out theology.
My base point is that unless there is a deity who is all-loving then there is no meaning in the universe. If there is no deity then everything is random. If the deity is not good and not loving then he is playing with us for his own amusement like the Greek gods, he is not consistent and not worth spending any time worrying about - as he takes favourites in a whim.
I then attempt to see if the theology fits that understanding. I would suggest that the Penal Substitutionary Atonement model falls down in several important ways.
First we need to believe that God takes offense at certain kinds of human behaviour, and as a result has prepared an eternal punishment. Well, by any stretch of the imagination, an eternal punishment without parole or any chance of redemption is an overkill, whatever the crime. Also it is pointless and heartless. I don’t believe a loving God would give up on people.
Second we need to believe that God needs someone to punish when something goes wrong - even if it isn’t actually the person who did the wrong thing. My fallible human brain does not consider that to be just, so if God is all loving I cannot see how he would either.
The problem with Scot’s argument is that it matters which atonement theory is correct as that influences how we think about God and how we treat others.
Comment by: Helen
12Joe wrote:
Exactly.
Atheists look at the Penal Subtitution theory and make the same objections to it. In other words, the same things you don’t like about it are some of the reasons other people reject Christianity - as explained to them - altogether.
Comment by: Jason Clark
13Great review of a great book Alan, thank you.
Comment by: Jason Clark
14…sorry for calling you Alan! I mean great review Helen of a great book.
Comment by: Helen
15Neat - I got mistaken for Alan Mann! :)
Thanks for your comment Jason!
Comment by: benjamin ady
16yeah! the thing is, you don’t have to believe in all this crap to be a christian. I mean to say there are clearly “christian” communities who *don’t* believe in this stuff. Legitimate ones with long histories.
It sounds like Scot’s pretty generous/open with his theology. Which is pretty kewl, since it seems to me a lot Christians are fairly mean/closed in their theology.
Comment by: joe
17Rather than that theology I made up yesterday in the shower…?
Actually I think it is pretty clear that Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a fairly recent theory - and is the latest in quite a long line of ideas to explain what happened at the resurrection.
Comment by: Helen
18Benjamin wrote:
Yes, I would definitely agree with that. I think that’s why I enjoy hearing Scot talk about theology or reading what he writes about it. That plus, he makes it seem very positive, compared to what I’ve been used to.
Comment by: Steve S.
19Hey Helen,
…what was your working definition of ‘original sin’ when you were a Christian, and where did you acquire it?
Comment by: Nathanael
20I will not get my copy until after November 1st. :( Where did you get yours?
I only have to live a few minutes with myself to fully believe in my own depravity.
I LOVE GRACE!
I fully understand your points, Helen (Alan) but I cannot argue against what I know to be true about my own fallen nature and its warfare against the Spirit of God within me.
Total depravity is my middle name.
Forgiveness is beautiful.
I don’t change the way I live so Christ will love me more…He loves me as I am, so it changes the way I live.
Comment by: Helen
21Steve, I think my definition was something like: original sin is something people are born with, mysteriously, ever since Adam and Eve sinned; it means they can’t go to heaven but go to hell instead; Jesus died to pay the price for it so people who believe in him can go to heaven.
I got that consistently from the conservative Christians who preached to me, who I went to church with, whose books I read, for the 20 years between when I became a Christian and when I quit church.
What’s your definition of it?
Comment by: Helen
22Hi Nathanael, the book is in stock at Amazon - how come you will have to wait so long?
I understand the struggle within - the last thing I want to do is imply otherwise. As a Christian I learned to describe it the same way as you. More recently I have come to believe every human experiences it, not just Christians, as they continually choose, for example, whether to serve themselves or others and whether to choose short-term gratification or short-term discomfort which leads to longer-term gratification. If everyone experiences it then either everyone has the Spirit of God or that is not the only way to describe it.
I agree!
But it is not beautiful to cause someone to believe they are worse than they are; which is my concern about some Christian doctrine.
Christians often are at pains to avoid thinking too highly of themselves. But I think it’s equally wrong if they think themselves worse than they are; it diminishes what God created in his image if they do that.
This is a good example of theology that helps rather than hinders - since you are saying that Jesus’ love motivates you to be better, rather than, you are striving to win his approval, from a position of not having it yet.
Comment by: graham
23Jim, I’ve think you’ve misunderstood what those who take a kaleidoscopic approach are actually saying.
How is it a cop-out to say that the reality of atonement - that scripture describes through a number of different models, pictures and metaphors - can not adequately be summed-up by any of the human-formulated doctrines espoused today?
Comment by: Paul
24thanks helen, much appreciated :)
Comment by: Steve S.
25The ancient Jewish scripture’s speak of God creating the world and pronouncing it ‘good.’ They then speak of God creating humanity, imparting His very Spirit/Breath into them, and placing them in the creation to care for it. They were stamped with the Creator’s image, they were to reflect His image into the world, to breath God’s Spirit/Breath out into the flowers and trees, waters and skies, fish and birds and animals. God said, “It is very good!”
Adam and Eve chose to step away from God and to step out of the place in creation that God had for them. The image was broken, the Breath was stilled, they no longer reflected God’s creative energy, inventive goodness, and potent beauty; instead they reflected brokeness and alienation.
Originally humanity was created to desire goodness, beauty, power, love and life. After the breaking of the world, humans desired these things, but also desired a life of darkness and selfishness. We became broken or ‘bent;’ the bentness is our ’sin nature;’ and that brokeness was inflicted on the whole of creation.
Much later on in the story (after the promises, the covenant, the calling of the people, the law and prophets, the Temples and the Kings) Jesus steps in to bring back the Breath/Spirit, to redeem the broken image of humanity (the Second Adam).
…I guess I understand ‘original sin’ as the explanation for the observable dual nature of humankind (both good and evil).
Comment by: Helen
26Lots of things about the doctrine of original sin make no sense to me, Steve. How did eating a piece of fruit irrevocably change Adam and Eve’s nature? How did it change their make up so much it was passed onto their children? How come what Jesus did doesn’t actually change people back as soon as they believe - or whatever they’re supposed to do - so they are like Adam and Eve were before they ate the fruit? How come whatever change is claimed to happen doesn’t seem to cause them to have a significantly different experience of the internal struggle to make good choices, from people who aren’t Christians?
I think a more believable story is, ever since humans had any sense of moral conscience they had that struggle - it didn’t happen one day when someone ate a piece of fruit. And it’s universal and no particular belief significantly changes or diminishes it. And weighting the downside more than the upside - as the doctrine of original sin does - is an unnecessarily negative way to view humans. I don’t think people are ‘broken’ - it’s part of being human that there is this struggle. Our very will to live drives us to take care of our own needs. Our moral conscience causes us to care about others. And that creates inner conflict as we decide which comes first. I don’t call that ‘broken’.
Comment by: benjamin ady
27helen: what you said.
and *also* I found that this whole thing that you describe led me to experience a sort of massive disconnect, because in the christian community of which I was a part, there was always this *talk* of “total depravity”, “how sinful we are/I am” “how wicked my heart/motivations are” etc. etc., *but* the *descriptions* of this “sin” which I heard voiced or which I read never matched up with the reality of the nasty stuff I found inside myself. Which is to say they always seemed to be talking about “sin”, but no one else ever seemed to have “sins” which were similar to nor as awful as my own. Hope that makes some kind of sense.
Comment by: David H
28My understanding of the Christian doctrine of original sin (and reading things on that subject) does not lead to an understanding of a dual nature. Humanity is fallen. It’s natural state is sinful. While capable of doing good things, none of those change the essential sinful nature. So, while capable of doing good, good is essentially irrelevant to our relationship with God. There is nothing dual about that. We are bad people, if you believe this doctrine, who can occasionally do good but that good will never do anything to alter our bad nature.
I was raised in a fundamentalist home and grew up believing in original sin. But as an adult I learned that Judaism has no such doctrine, making me wonder why it had to wait for Christians to invent it.
If Adam and Eve were actual people (and I am willing to believe that is possible) I can accept that their act may have changed their relationship with the creator and how that modified relationship could be passed down from generation to generation. What I don’t get is why I would be going to hell because of that. I am damned because of what they did? Moreover, if God is actually outside of time, how does their choice (selfish and senseless as it may have been) of greater precedence than the selfish and senseless choices I make on an almost daily basis. In the eyes of God, it would seem, all human sin should occur at the same time.
The timelessness of sin would seem to fit more with the Jewish view. They believe each person is responsible for their own choices and that the continuing broken relationship with the creator is because of the choices we each make every day.
Original sin, whether with total depravity or not, fits perfectly with the Christian obsession for conversion. My job on earth is to lead others to Christ. It is all body count — nothing else matters. Without original sin, it would seem, what I say (the various gambits for bringing in the sheaves) becomes far less important than what I do (not in a futile attempt to be perfect, rather with the understanding that I am responsible for my own life and the choices I make).
Perhaps this doesn’t take that much away from Jesus’ death and resurrection. I was told for much of my life that Jesus didn’t simply die for every sin that was committed, but also for every one that will be committed. I was told that every wrong thing I did was a lash to his back or an extra thorn in his crown. Perhaps Jesus did die for all of those sins, but his existence seemed to be a demonstration that the human relationship with God need not be exclusively defined by the choice made by Adam & Eve somewhere near the dawn of humanity.
Comment by: Helen
29Benjamin, I think what happens is, to some of us, those teachings have a very discouraging negative effect. We’re discouraged, alarmed, appalled at our own sin. Maybe we get so discouraged that it eventually drives us away in search of a way of framing our lives which is more hopeful for us.
The teachings don’t strike other people in the same negative discouraging way, so they never are driven the way we were - to get away from such negativity.
(I rewrote this because the way I wrote it the first time didn’t say what I meant to say)
Comment by: Helen
30David, thanks for your comments - you made lots of excellent points.
Comment by: Nathanael
31Helen,
You ask several wonderful questions in comment #26. And since I am familiar with your background in the Christian faith, I will do my utmost not to badger you with rhetoric.
You asked,
The over-simplistic, yet nonetheless true response is that their outward actions were just manifesting an attitude of the heart. The whispered accusation of the serpent held in question God’s trustworthiness (probably not a word) which broke that bond of faith. I’m sure you have had someone violate your trust. You may forgive that person from your heart, but the relationship will never be the same. When Adam and Eve, in an effort to be elevated to the same level as their God, violated a simple command, that trust was broken. I know this not a deep theological explanation, but it was the first thing that came to my mind when I read your question.
You also asked,
And David H. in comment #28 clarified it even more. I’m not a therapist or counselor, but I have seen the validity of generational sin, where abused become abusers, etc. And a deep spiritual violation to the degree of “the fall” will go much deeper. Again, not a deep theological truth, but immediate response.
Then you ask a question very near and dear to my own heart:
If my nature were altered to the degree that I no longer struggled with the same temptations as my non-Jesus-following friend, I would not be able to relate to him/her. Have you ever experienced intense pain? I have. I chewed up the tips of three of my fingers on a tablesaw in a wood-working accident. I remember it was the sharpest, most agonizing pain I have ever experienced. But I do not remember the pain itself. I just remember that it hurt. In the same sense, if my tendency to choose sin over God were suddenly, almost magically removed, I would be able to remember what it used to be like to be tempted. But it would just be a memory. As it is, my present struggle with sin, my present need of grace and forgiveness, enable me to join you (empathize, not just sympathize) in your present wrestling match. You are correct, that all mankind knows this struggle. I know I seriously rambled there…I have no idea if it even made sense.
Steve S. (comment #25) hits the nail right on the head. The gospel does not start with total depravity. The gospel starts with shalom in the garden. And Christ restores that shalom.
FYI Helen, I’ve linked you on my site.
Comment by: Helen
32Nathanael, thanks for your comments. I understand that broken trust is not easily restored - good point. The whole scenario is a little weird though. Why was it so easy for the serpent to encourage doubt about what God said? That could indicate God didn’t explain his prohibition very well. If so why didn’t he? And why was the ‘test’ so indirect i.e. it wasn’t poisoned fruit - it was disobeying God that would cause the breach not the act of eating itself. How does this make sense? “Obey me just…because; no other reason”. That’s inherently confusing. And they didn’t die right then and they were going to die anyway, by implication, since the next thing God did was keep them from the tree of eternal life. So in what sense was what God said about ‘You shall surely die’ true anyway?
The generational problem of the abused becoming abusers is not like the doctrine of original sin because nothing that happens during an abusers life congenitally alters their babies. The two reasons why the abused might become abusers are 1) they share genes their parent always had, from birth, which predispose them to be abusers; and/or 2) The abuse they are subject to after birth causes them to become abusers themselves.
What about Jesus? He was tempted and never sinned - are you saying that meant he had no empathy for the rest of us? I doubt you would say that :) If Jesus could be empathetic without sinning why can’t the rest of us?
Thanks - I added your blog to ‘Blogs which link here’.
I’m better at adding blogs to that list than removing them…someday I’ll go see if they all still link here or not…
Comment by: Karen
33The interesting thing someone pointed out to me once, that I’d never considered before despite studying Genesis multiple times, is that god was not truthful with Adam in Genesis 2:
But they didn’t die! And so the serpent was the one telling the truth in Genesis 3:
This story makes the serpent look like the more honest player in the scenario.
Comment by: Helen
34Ah but Karen, according to what I was taught, they died spiritually that day…so God was telling the truth!
Comment by: Steve S.
35Well…
…I must be the heretic here. I don’t believe in the doctrine of original sin as defined by Helen and David… ;)
As for the questions, Helen, I am assuming that they were rhetorical, as you dismissed them later in your comment, but I do think that those questions have answers that are remarkably profound.
David, it seems that you are defining Christianity in ways that certainly don’t fit with my own spirituality, nor that of what I would consider to be the global community of Christians (or the Bible for that matter, or the original community of disciples)…
…one of the earliest heresies that the early church had to face was the description of creation as you (seem to be) are describing. The Hellenistic view of an evil creation and a good spirit-realm outside of creation, was the foundational reality for both Docetism and Gnosticism. The early followers of Jesus clearly rejected such a view in favor of a life-affirming, world-affirming, view of a very good creation…
Helen, when I say that ‘the creation is broken because we are broken, and we have reflected our brokenness into the world;’ that is a far cry from saying the good creation has become evil. A broken mirror still reflects the sun. We are still fundamentally good. Our brokenness consists of our penchant for evil, not our becoming completely evil. (In fact, I would argue, that it is entirely impossible for one to become completely evil; evil is parasitic, it requires goodness to even exist…)
I think the problem has to do with concepts of hell that come along a thousand plus years after the concept of hell that was around during first-century Palestinian Judaism…
Comment by: Nathanael
36Yes, Helen, the generational sin rebuttal was pretty lame.
;)
And the empathy/sympathy comparison was far from perfect as well. The difference between Jesus and me is that Jesus was fully tempted, yet He did not acquiesce to it as I so often do. My stumblings make me less judgmental and more approachable than if my nature was changed to the degree that I did not sin or struggle with sin anymore.
You ask
Wouldn’t that be nice?
Shalom, friend.
Comment by: Helen
37Steve S wrote:
Since we don’t agree with it either then I would say that makes you not a heretic around these parts, in fact! Plus, I don’t call anyone a heretic; I simply say I agree or disagree with them.
My questions weren’t rhetorical but since you don’t agree with the original sin doctrine I was taught they wouldn’t be questions I’d be expecting you to answer.
Anyway I saw you have big news (baby Aidan Michael!) Congratulations!
Nathanael wrote:
How come, if what you are being changed into is the image of Jesus? That was the point I was trying to make :)
Shalom to you too!
Comment by: Steve S.
38Thanks!
I must say, I feel like the universe is smiling at me! I rode up the elevator with a couple who are hoping to finally take their child home with them after 12 WEEKS! of waiting for her to be healthy enough. I have friends who still can’t conceive…
…and yet we have three amazing children (not to mention my absolutely perfect wife!).
I must say, in all humility, I have experienced this. My whole way of seeing, thinking, being, and doing is irrevokably different than before. Do I still struggle? Of COURSE! But I am a completely different person from the inside out (I am not talking about teetotallism, but change in character ie from cowardice to courage; from indignant to open, from angst-ridden to intentional, etc.)
My sexuality is completely different (from within and then changing behavior, not a law imposed on the outside), my approach to money, to people, etc.
To answer your original question, I think it depends on how people are approaching holiness; negative holiness (don’t touch) as opposed to positive holiness (do/be this). The Master whom I love is constantly expressing a desire for us to be the second (care for the creation (Adam), be the light of the world (Israel), share good-news with the poor (Jesus), preach life to all of creation (Disciples), and revel in the spurting fountain of life that He has come to impart to us (John 10:10)…
Of course, there is a constant temptation for me to reduce that into the former concept of holiness. It is easier to refrain from alcohol than to embrace a life of sharp-eyed awareness and celebration; to refuse to ‘cuss’ than to embrace a vocabulary of blessing and encouragement, etc.
If I am approached by the God who invented garlic and cumin, roses and peaches, nebulae and waterfalls, children and laughter, alcohol and orgasms, rhythym and melody; then there isn’t much room for a life of judgment. I may cheerfully invite others along for the ride, but how could I possibly ‘condemn’ those who don’t want to partake?
Comment by: Helen
39Steve S wrote:
Steve, I love how positive your approach to your faith is. And I’m very happy the birth of your third child went well.