If you consider yourself a non-Trinitarian believer in Jesus, do I have a challenge for you!
With the permission and support of Michael Patton, I am proposing a formal debate on this blog on the subject of the doctrine of the Trinity, to be conducted over a six-week period (beginning sometime after the New Year; scheduling is flexible). I am looking for one individual to argue for a position contrary to the Trinitarian position, while I will argue for the Trinitarian view.
Here is how I propose we proceed:
Week #1: My opponent and I would set forth our understanding of the nature of God (his attributes, e.g., omnipotent or not, omnipresent or not, incorporeal or corporeal) to make sure everyone understands what, if any, differences we have on that subject.
Weeks #2 and #3: The two of us would each set forth our understanding of the identity/person of Jesus Christ.
Week #4: The two of us would each set forth our understanding of the identity, status (person or non-person), and/or nature of the Holy Spirit.
Week #5: The two of us would each set forth a case for our position with regard to the Trinity (I would be for it, my opponent against it).
Week #6: Each of us will post one closing statement, with those blog entries open for questions from anyone.
At each stage of the debate, each of us would have an opportunity to rebut the other’s arguments by commenting on each other’s blog entries, and each of us would be free to give a closing response defending our position and/or criticism of the other’s view. To prevent either debater from overwhelming the other with reams of material cut and pasted into the debate, we will each agree to keep our total word count per week (including rebuttals, etc.) to no more than 10,000 words. Note that each stage would be given one week except for the second stage, which will be given two weeks. The debaters may choose to continue Q&A with others beyond the sixth week at their discretion, but the formal debate will be over at the end of the sixth week.
During the sixth week, anyone who properly registers to leave comments will be able to ask both of us any questions pertaining to these issues relating to the Trinity. These questions are to be posted in response to our closing statements. The 10,000-word limit will not apply to the debaters’ responses to these questions.
After the formal debate is concluded, a poll will be posted on the blog asking four questions:
1. Setting aside your own opinion of the doctrine of the Trinity, how well did Rob Bowman, the Trinitarian, do in supporting his position?
A. Excellent defense of this viewpoint—could not have been much better
B. Good defense—reasonably well done defense
C. Passable effort—not bad, but not particularly good
D. Poor effort—did not represent this viewpoint adequately
F. Terrible defense—a disastrous embarrassment to this viewpoint
2. Setting aside your own opinion of the doctrine of the Trinity, how well did < Name to Be Determined >, the non-Trinitarian, do in supporting his position?
A. Excellent defense of this viewpoint—could not have been much better
B. Good defense—reasonably well done defense
C. Passable effort—not bad, but not particularly good
D. Poor effort—did not represent this viewpoint adequately
F. Terrible defense—a disastrous embarrassment to this viewpoint
3. In your judgment, who won the debate? Note: This question is not asking you which person’s viewpoint you think is correct, but whose viewpoint was better defended here.
A. Rob Bowman, the Trinitarian
B. < Name to Be Determined>, the non-Trinitarian
C. It was a draw
4. What is your own view with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity?
A. I am a Trinitarian
B. I am a non-Trinitarian
C. I am undecided
I am willing to debate anyone who agrees with the following terms:
1. The individual must use his or her real name. After all, I am putting myself on the line; I expect my opponent to do so as well.
2. The individual must defend a specific understanding of God, of Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. That is, the individual must defend a specific theological alternative to the doctrine of the Trinity. It can be anything — Mormonism, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrine, Oneness Pentecostalism, Biblical/Evangelical Unitarianism, etc. — but it must be a specific, identifiable, existing belief system. No “Lone Ranger” who thinks he alone knows the truth; no “Theological Sniper” who attacks my doctrine but offers no alternative position that can also be evaluated and critiqued. In order to put this doctrinal alternative in context, my opponent must identify the specific religious denomination, sect, group, movement, or whatever, with which he or she associates as a believer. I must and of course will also do the same; I will defend a specific understanding of these matters, namely, the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity common to evangelical Protestants, conservative Catholics, and traditional Orthodox believers. I am an evangelical Protestant, a member of a Baptist church, and will defend the Trinity within that theological context.
3. The individual must agree (as I will) that for the purposes of the debate, everything the Bible says pertaining to God, and specifically pertaining to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is true and authoritative, and that the purpose of the debate is to determine which of our two doctrines is most faithful to the teachings of the biblical authors as a whole. The Bible is stipulated here to be the 66 books of the Protestant canon of Scripture. My opponent and I may cite any published translation of the Bible or refer to the Hebrew and Greek texts; if the translation of a particular passage is disputed for some reason, each of us will be free to offer whatever justification we think best in support of our view. I don’t mind if my opponent gets his or her doctrinal ideas from some other source, but the debate must be focused exclusively on which doctrine best reflects or represents the teachings of the Bible.
4. The individual must agree (as I will) that the debate will focus solely and directly on the theological issues pertaining to the Trinity specified above. Both of us will commit ahead of time to refrain from attacking the other person’s religion, its history (e.g., alleged scandals), its leaders, or its teachings on subjects extraneous to the issues directly impinging on the doctrine of the Trinity. This means, for example, that if you’re a Jehovah’s Witness, I won’t be bringing up the Miracle Wheat scandal, Russell’s courtroom difficulties, Rutherford’s temper, the failed predictions concerning 1914, 1918, 1925, etc.; and likewise, my opponent will not be bringing up Constantine’s lack of baptism, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, Michael Servetus’s execution, etc.
5. The individual must agree (as I will) that at least two weeks prior to the beginning of the debate, he or she will provide in this forum a list of resources, which may include as few as two books and as many as six books, that best represent the viewpoint he or she will defend. The list of resources may also include from one to three websites or web pages defending that viewpoint. Neither of us is expected to agree absolutely with everything in the resources we list; the purpose of the list is to give each other, and those following the debate, some understanding of the general perspective from which we defend our respective viewpoints.
With these stipulations, I am willing to debate anyone. If any of the non-Trinitarians here would like to go find someone to come debate for their side, that would be fine. If more than one non-Trinitarian offers to debate me, we’ll set up a poll and invite non-Trinitarians only to vote for their champion. To nominate yourself or someone else (with that person’s permission), just respond to this post with a comment, identifying yourself or your nominee by name and indicating your agreement to the terms stipulated above.
Some of you already know me, but for those who don’t, I am an evangelical Christian apologist and the author of a dozen books, including Why You Should Believe in the Trinity (Baker, 1989) and Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ (Kregel, 2007), which I co-authored with Ed Komoszewski. I have worked at several well-known apologetics ministries, have taught several elective courses in The Theology Program, and am currently the Director of Research at the Institute for Religious Research.
232 replies to "The Great Trinity Debate Challenge"
The mystery defense is fine as an acknowledgment that there are things we do not know.
It is not an excuse to make logically incoherent statements. You can’t make a statement that affirms the very thing it denies, say “it’s a mystery,” and expect me to buy it.
You might as well call God a square triangle who lives a life of non-existence beneath a rock he created too large for him to lift.
“Mystery” is not a free hall pass to claim inherently self-defeating propositions.
Y’all might be interested in listing to this recent interview with Vern Poythress, as he discusses his new book In the Beginning was the Word: A God-Centered Approach to Language.
“The panel discusses Dr. Poythress’s multi-perspectival approach to Biblical studies and theology and specifically the trinitarian basis for language and the meaning of language.”
Poythress is also the author of Why Must Our Hermeneutic be Trinitarian and also Reforming Ontology and Logic in the Light of the Trinity:
An Application of Van Til’s Idea of Analogy.
My whole argument with the mormon Godhead is God said thou shall not have strange Gods before me. I know that the Jewish faith preaches one God and of course denies the Divinity of Jesus, and the Trinity.
Well, no problem then.
Because we Mormons do not worship “strange gods” before God the Father. So we’re all clear on that score.
Jeff, you trinitarain’s might do better reading what the scriptures actually teach concerning( John 1:1) in carefully in that passage and other passages particularly in (Psalm 33:6 the Septuagint) By the word/logos of the LORD were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
You cannot make a “God the son” out of the word from the breath of God’s mouth,(Clearly no another person but a metaphor for God’s power) no matter how you twist John 1:1 with your Greek grammar rules.
The term was already used there and the psalmist explains it in a better understanding that is ignored by those seeking to make the word what it is in truth rather than “another person of God” or a god period, which both undertsanding’s being ridiculous
Paul used the term in it’s inteneded meaning and usage that you ignore of two individuals in (2nd. Tim. 2:17)
And their word/logos will eat as doth a canker of whom is Hymeaneus and Philetus who concerning the truth have erred.
Paul did not hallow the term as do you and exclusively use it of another person of God and neither did John!
Instead of seeking out men who also have no understanding on the subject you would do well to exhaust the scriptures instead of adding a new twist never intended by John or ever taught by any Apostle.
Jesus turned water into wine. Can human logic explain this? No. It must be understood through the eyes of faith. How did Jesus restore sight to the blind? Or raise Lazarus from the dead? The finite mind with its strictures of time and space can never comprehend the mystery that is God.
How did he do it ? You might do well to read the scriptures! The father that dwelleth in me he doeth the works(Miracles John 14:10)
Jesus sa a real man said I can of mine ownself do NOTHING.(John 5:30)
Jesus did not even know the time of his own second coming But the father only (Mark 13:32)because the father only was the God indwelling him doing the works and miracles how gave the spirit by no measure unto the son(John 3:34)
Sorry Seth the mormon Godhead is polytheistic and three separate and distinct Gods. How about also a duality of God genders? Is God’s wife also a God?
God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One Manuel!
Alan J Eddy, that is the pot calling the kettle black. You have God equal to God in Philippians 2:6 and the only begotten God as opposed to un-begotten Gods.
In the beginning was the Word (Jesus) and the Word was with God and the Word was God, ……………Gospel of John
Yeah, I am Oneness Alan J Eddy, you just made a Oneness confession By saying the father ,son and spirit are One!
I’m surprised that it never occurred to creedal trinitarians that if you can make “One God” out of three beings, you can do the same thing with more beings by the same logic.
And by the way Alan, Jesus turning water into wine is not a good analogy at all. Turning water into wine is not a logically incoherent thing to do. Logically, if our own scientific knowledge was great enough, we might even do it ourselves.
But that’s not what the creedal Trinity is stating. The creedal Trinity is “one essence, but three essences”, “numerically one, but also numerically three”, “one person, but not one person.”
If you can start making statements like that, well… you can claim just about anything.
The word was not Jesus or”god the son” in eternity.
Let’s use your version see if that is so?
In the beginning was the word(Jesus, God the son) and the word (Jesus God the son)was with God(The father) and the word was God(God the father)
Your version is both polytheistic and silly!(God with God) The word was God the fathers creative Power which Included the coming Lord Jesus as God in flesh in the incarnation.(Gal.4:4)
You throw around words like “polytheism.” But I’m not convinced you even know what they mean.
Likewise, I’m not sure you’re doing a very good job of explaining your own religion’s stance on the the Trinity. Besides which, you are also avoiding my main points. I can only conclude that you either don’t have an answer, or you didn’t understand what I was saying.
Though honestly, I’m not sure how much longer Michael Patton will allow this exchange to continue, since the purpose of this thread was not to debate the Trinity.
Polytheism= the belief in a plurality of Gods.
Over a billion Catholics and Protestants define the Trinity as One Person but 3 distinct and separate natures, Still only One God.
Mormons believe there are 3 Gods or should I include God’s wife does that make 4 Gods??? What’s your answer Seth???
Mormons believe in multiple beings perfectly united in purpose, mind and love.
Problem solved. One God.
And your statement of “one person, but three distinct and separate natures” is basically the definition of modalism.
Are you a modalist?
Seth answer my question first ok for the second time are there 4 Gods in the mormon Godhead? God the Father, God the Son, The Holy Spirit and God the Wife?
Modalism is the unorthodox belief that God is one person who has revealed Himself in three forms or modes during the Incarnation where He revealed Himself as Christ or during Pentacost when He revealed Himself as the Holy Spirit. This is in contrast to the Trinitarian doctrine where God is one being eternally existing in three persons.
So to answer your question no I am not a modalist. I am a trinitarian,
This is way off. The only thing that should be posted here is clarifying points about the debate or suggestions. That is it.
Comment deleted.
All,
At this point I think we can assume that any genuinely clarificatory questions have already been asked. The burden will be on anyone posting a comment to make sure that his or her comment is genuinely asking a legitimate question to clarify (not to argue with) something in the original post.
Except for such legitimate clarifying questions, do not post a comment except to nominate yourself or another qualified individual as a potential participant in the debate. Any post that does not conform completely to this directive will be subject to deletion.
I wonder if Mr. Bowman would consider limiting the debate to the 10 favorite verses of Scripture of his own choosing and which he believes affirm the Trinity or the deity of Jesus.
KNS,
I’m not in favor of limiting either myself or my debate opponent as to how either of us wishes to make the case for our respective views from the Bible. I set up the parameters of a six-part series precisely so that both of us would have the time and space to develop our positions from as much of the biblical material as we want.
Very well.
But it would be a very good debate if ten of your most foundational Scripture verses were put to the test…. like John 1:1, 20:28, Hebrews 1:8, Titus 2:13, etc. etc.
This would also drastically reduce the chaos and confusion which is caused by attempting to throw absolutely everything on the table at once.
Such a debate would be far more clear cut and address the very heart of the foundational evidence Trinitarians think they have.
I could probably debate you, but I’m not sure I have the requirements. I go to an evangelical trinitarian church. I don’t know that I can point to one denomination or group that fully captures my view of the Godhead – I’m very close to Oneness Pentecostalism, but also to Biblical Unitarians as well. Also highly influenced by the Messianic movement/Judaism.
That does not mean that I can’t fully articulate to you my position in exact terms. I can and would do that.
I was a trinitarian for around 15 years, then started to reconsider about 3 or 4 years ago. I don’t publicly advertise to my church that I question the trinity because I don’t want to cause any to stumble over an issue that I don’t see as an essential, nor do I want to provoke my brethren to needlessly give me the left foot of fellowship.
I believe the Son is one with the Father, an outward expression of Him, and thus I worship Him. However, I no longer believer one needs the trinity model to believe that.
The original heading was Trinity (subordinationalism). So are you arguing for a view of the Trinity that includes subordination in the Trinity? Or are you arguing for the view Athenasian wrote of in his 5th century Creed?
I throw my hat in the ring, nominating myself. I accept Rob Bowman’s requirements for the debate. If selected, I will defend the Biblical Unitarian position. It’s precepts are as follows: (1) the one God of the Bible is a single person whom Jesus called “the/my Father,” (2) this God the Father and Jesus are separate persons, (3) Jesus was and is not God but a virgin-born, sinless man, (4) Jesus did not preexist but came into existence as the Son of God at his birth (Lk 1.32, 35), and (5) the Holy Spirit is not a full-fledged person but God’s spirit manifesting his presence and power.
When is this search over?
Rob – any takers yet?
I may be interested – I’m the author of this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/
Email me if you’re interested.
I accept all the terms of your proposed debate; after this debate, you will no longer be trinitarian. I look forward to hearing from you. I invite you to go first as I would love to understand how you perceive things. [email protected]
Daley’s arrogance should disqualify him right away. It is obvious that he is someone trying to feed his ego and make a name for himself. Rob, you are too respectful to waste time on kids like Daley who want their egos stroked.
Dale,
I am familiar with your article, but I am unaware of what alternative position you take or whether you are interested in debating the topic solely with regard to which doctrine best coheres with the entire teaching of the Bible.
Daley,
I did a search on your name and found it only here, on Parchment and Pen. We are looking for someone who can reasonably be regarded as representing a particular viewpoint on the subject, someone that others of the same viewpoint would know and respect. I’m afraid I agree with Sam’s assessment.
Steve,
Good question. I was about to close the nominations when Dale Tuggy posted his comment expressing interest. After I hear back from him so we can determine if he is qualified as a nominee, we will get on with the task of selecting the non-Trinitarian debater. Otherwise, I think we may consider the nominations closed.
Hi Rob,
This isn’t email – luckily, I checked back.
My view is that what used to be called a “humanitarian” christology best fits the Bible, all told, and that the holy spirit is not a divine person, but God in action, as the OT has it (and on balance, I think, the NT as well). In my view, “the” doctrine of the Trinity – I take it you mean to defend the creedal formulas – isn’t well supported by the Bible. God is the Father of Jesus, and Jesus is the unique Son of God and savior. I can see why people think the NT teaches his divinity and pre-existence, but I think arguments for the former are weak, and the pre-existence issue is largely irrelevant to the divinity issue, though the case for it is a good bit weaker than is commonly thought. And no, I don’t believe he existed before his conception. I would, if I thought the Bible taught it.
I think you could fairly say that I represent the “biblical unitarian” position on this; my views are similar to most of those why fly that banner. However, I don’t and never have had any real connection with any such group, and I more or less came to these views independently, although I’ve long been interested in 17th-early19th c. unitarians and their various biblical interpretations. I do call myself a (small-u) unitarian Christian, because I hold that the Father and the one God are numerically identical. My point is, I in no way represent anyone but me, but my aim has always been to get to what the Bible really says. I follow Jesus and the apostles, and where catholicism – I include American evangelicalism under that term – departs from them, I reluctantly say adios to it. I attended evangelical churches my whole life until 2005, when I decided, not because of this issue by the way, but rather on biblical and practical grounds, to go the house church route.
I’m actually *very* interested in the Trinity and its alleged basis in the Bible – I haven’t written on it (yet), but have intensely studied it for about the last 10 years, whilst working on the recent philosophical literature. I’ve sweated over the interpretation of all the main texts, and so would enjoy this chance to actually write up my views. If you look at the supplement on the history of the doctrine in the SEP, you’ll see that I’m very interested in the sort of arguments which you give, e.g. in your Putting Jesus in his Place, which I have read. The issue of the Bible isn’t wholly separable from the philosophical issues, because mysteries and contradictions (real and apparent) come into play during systematic interpretation. But I’m happy to not get into recent philosophical theories, which I call elsewhere “rational reconstructions” of the doctrine, i.e. most of the contents of the main SEP “Trinity” entry.
Now, I’d like to talk to you about some other things, if you’re interested in pursuing this further. So, email me, and if you want to talk on the phone, I’ll give you my number.
Best,
Dal
Please correct the polls on the blog. The SDA David Barron is not the same David Barron (Scripturaltruths.org) that I debated. Thanks.
Also, I would recommend David Barron of Scriptural Truths (not the SDA David Barron) to be entered into the poll, as he has written a book and is also an active JW who, as far as I know, is still willing to debate, which is a rarity.
Mike,
David Barron (the JW) emailed me about the mistake in the poll and I fixed it. I asked him if he wanted to debate and I’m waiting to hear back from him. I’m not sure what to do if he says yes because we’ve already had over 50 people vote. I’ll post a follow-up comment here ASAP.
Thanks Rob. Though I appreciated the advertisement for the debate I had with David, keeping it up probably misinformed some people (It wasn’t anyone’s fault, as I was confused as well with there being two David Barrons). I’m actually quite surprised that the JW David Barron didn’t jump at this opportunity. Personally, I feel that he’d be far more of a challenge than the rest of the candidates, which as you know, makes for the best debates. However, I guess this will be for the voters to decide.
Mike,
I’ve heard back from Dave (the JW), and he wasn’t looking to be considered. So we will let the poll run its course as it now stands. I too am interested in debating someone who can mount a good challenge, but we’ll let the non-Trinitarians decide.
Oh dear,
I missed reading the part on the poll that said it was open to only non Trinitarians and I put a vote on there. Sorry Rob, your poll is skewed by at least one vote.
Look forward to the debate. Know the writings of A. Buzzard and D. Burke. Suggest them for debating partner. But I don’t see how 10,000 word papers can work as a format each week. That is a lot of writing for a week unless a participant is going to cut and paste prepared material from their pre-existing stock of writing and tweak it for the debate. A debate should engage the other person and specific lines of argument and therefore it requires more the cut and thrust and back and forth of a forum that is watched by interested observers. Your format won’t be an actual debate with fresh engagement of the opponent if both rely on prepared written material. I would suggest a 500 word limit retricted to one point per day over six weeks. After an intial 2500 word opening statement. I debated with A. Buzzard on another topic in the 90s using this format and it worked very well. I would also advise narrowing the topic to an element of the doctrine of the Trinity rather than its entire scope. If one part falls the structure fails. You may succeed with objective of ‘making progress’ if the topic is narrower, such as the topic of equality. If you wanted to debate along these lines then I am free and we might be able to unravel the errors in this area.
Looking forward to seeing the debate. Interest in it appears to be hotting up!
I just noticed that overnight about 250 votes were registered for one of the candidates. This seems suspicious to me — not that I have any problems whatsoever with the candidate, only that it looks suspiciously like some sort of spamming. I’m going to investigate. Michael Patton, any way of checking to see how this happened?
Hi Rob!
I can tell you how this many votes were submitted so fast. On November 15 of last year, I told you that the Christadelphian movement “is STRONG in the UK and Australia, and it is beginning to move in North America as well. Having said that, David Burke has been EXTREMELY INFLUENCIAL to the layman of the Christadelphian movement MORE SO than many of the people such as Sir Anthony Buzzard, Servetus the Evangelical, and David Baron. He is WIDELY RESPECTED in the Unitarian movement of those not a part of the Christadelphian movement, and has spent countless hours online engaging and dialoguing with Christians from all denominations.”
Last night, his networking community discovered the poll was up and the word immediately spread about the privilege available for them to vote for the candidate of their choice. Keep in mind that over in the UK and Australia the times are different from that of the US, so while it might seem overnight to us, is wasn’t to them. I suspect that there will be about one thousand votes for him because the Christadelphians regard him to be one of their best representatives, so they will be very eager to see him cross swords with such a worthy advocate of Trinitarianism. They feel that no one that has informally debated him has really held their own, and have been trying to get a champion of Trinitarianism to engage him for years, but to no avail. For them, this is the moment they’ve been praying for for years, and they are the type to create T-shirts and flyers to get their community to vote. So, I assure you that spamming is not the explanation of the rapid amount of votes for Dave Burk! 🙂
Andrew,
It’s a bit late for me to change the format or content plan of the debate, although if the non-Trinitarian debater requests a change and I find it agreeable that would be fine.
Troy,
I thought something like that happened, but I was unable to find any place on the web where the word had been spread to the Christadelphians. Perhaps this was some sort of email that went around? Well, in any case, if there is that much interest among Christadelphians in such a debate, that’s fine. And here I thought Mike Richardson was going to run away with it!
Hello
Are you sure, 10,000 words is a lot for the silent audience to read x 2? Especially as there will be a lot to disagree with – it will be frustrating.
A.
Rob, having been somewhat overwhelmed by the poll myself, I feel I should put in a few words.
Ever since November 2009, when I was first directed to your blog by a friend, news of this debate has been spread throughout Christadelphia worldwide via email lists, online forums and word of mouth. Our community has only ~100,000 members worldwide and no central authority, but we are well organised and we enjoy a strong online presence.
I’m sure you can appreciate that the prospect of a Christadelphian debating a premier evangelical theologian has aroused considerable interest (though I am happy to say that no T-shirts and flyers have been made! That would just be embarrassing…)
My wife and I share a router and we’ve confirmed that we can only vote once for both of us (not once each) so I am confident that your blog is secure against double voting and spam. Your webmaster’s records will show that the overwhelming number of votes for me come from IP addresses in the UK, USA and Australia, where the majority of Christadelphians reside.
I am well known in the UK & Australia, having lived and worked as a Christadelphian pastor in both countries over the past 14 years. Troy’s praise does me more credit than I deserve, though it is accurate to say that I have a reputation in our community for Christological debates.
In the interests of transparency I can advise that this debate has been publicised at the following places:
Ecclesia-Discuss (Christadelphian mailing list: [email protected])
Mailing list for the Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith (sorry, I don’t have the address for this one)
Facebook Christadelphians (online Christadelphian forum: http://tinyurl.com/y9aj7sc)
Uplifting Christadelphian Discussions (online Christadelphian forum: http://tinyurl.com/yddgl9d)
BEREA (online Christadelphian forum: http://berea-portal.com/forums)
Bible Truth Discussion Forum (online Christadelphian forum: http://www.thechristadelphians.org/forums)
Christadelphian Discussion Forum (online Christadelphian forum: http://www.christadelphiandiscussion.com/forum)
These are the ones that I know of. They are all open to public membership and free to join. Some of the forums will have details of the debate in their member-only areas, which could explain why you’ve had trouble finding them.
I hope this helps to clarify the situation. 🙂