|
"Take
Heed" Ministries
|
|
Cecil Andrews, PO BOX 13, Ballynahinch, BT24 8AL, Northern Ireland. Telephone/Fax 028 9756 5511. E-MAIL - takeheed@aol.com WEB-SITE - http://www.takeheed.net |
|
THE MENACE OF THE RELIGIOUS
MOVIE |
When God gave to Moses the
blueprint of the Tabernacle He was careful to include every detail; then, lest
Moses should get the notion that he could improve on the original plan, God
warned him solemnly, "And look that thou make them after their pattern,
which was shown thee in the mount." God, not Moses, was the architect.
To decide the plan was the prerogative of the Deity. No one dare alter it so
much as a hairbreadth.
The New Testament Church also is
built after a pattern. Not the doctrines only but the methods are divinely
given. The doctrines are expressly stated in so many words. Some of the methods
followed by the early New Testament Church had been given by direct command;
others were used by God's specific approval, having obviously been commanded
the apostles by the Spirit. The point is that when the New Testament canon was
closed the blueprint for the age was complete. God has added nothing since that
time.
From God's revealed plan we depart
at our peril. Every departure has two consequences, the immediate and the
remote. The immediate touches the individual and those close to him; the remote
extends into the future to unknown times, and may expand so far as to influence
for evil the whole
The temptation to introduce
"new" things into the work of God has always been too strong for some people to resist. The Church has suffered
untold injury at the hands of well intentioned but misguided persons who have
felt that they know more about running God's work than Christ and His apostles
did. A solid train of boxcars would not suffice to haul away the religious
rubbish, which has been brought into the service of the Church with the hope of
improving on the original pattern. These things have been, one and all,
positive hindrances to the progress of the Truth, and have so altered the
divinely-planned structure that the apostles, were they to return to earth
today, would scarcely recognize the misshapen thing which has resulted.
Our Lord while on earth cleansed
the
We of the evangelical faith are in
the rather awkward position of criticizing Roman Catholicism for its
weight of unscriptural impedimenta and at the same time tolerating in our own
churches a world of religious fribble as bad as holy water or the elevated host.
Heresy of method may be as deadly as heresy of message. Old-line Protestantism
has long ago been smothered to death by extra-scriptural rubbish. Unless we of
the gospel churches wake up soon we shall most surely
die by the same means.
Within the last few years a new
method has been invented for imparting spiritual knowledge; or, to be more
accurate, it is not new at all, but is an adaptation of a gadget of some years
standing, one which by its origin and background belongs not to the Church but
to the world. Some within the fold of the Church have thrown their mantle over
it, have "blessed it with a text" and are now trying to show that it
is the very gift of God for our day. But, however eloquent the sales talk, it
is an unauthorized addition nevertheless, and was never a part of the pattern
shown us on the mount.
I refer, of course, to the
religious movie.
For the motion picture as such I
have no irrational allergy. It is a mechanical invention merely and is in its
essence amoral; that is, it is neither good nor bad, but neutral. With any
physical object or any creature lacking the power of choice it could not be
otherwise. Whether such an object is useful or harmful depends altogether upon
who uses it and what he uses it for. No moral quality attaches where there is
no free choice. Sin and righteousness lie in the will. The motion picture is in
the same class as the automobile, the typewriter, or the radio: a powerful
instrument for good or evil, depending upon how it is applied.
For teaching the facts of physical
science the motion picture has been useful. The public schools have used it
successfully to teach health habits to children. The army employed it to speed
up instruction during war. That it has been of real service within its limited
field is freely acknowledged here.
Over against this is the fact that
the motion picture in evil hands has been a source of moral corruption to
millions. No one who values his reputation as a responsible adult will deny
that the sex movie and the crime movie have done untold injury to the lives of
countless young people in our generation. The harm lies not in the instrument
itself, but in the evil will of those who use it for their own selfish ends.
These pictures are produced by acting
a religious story before the camera. Take for example the famous and beautiful
story of the Prodigal Son. This would be made into a movie by treating the
narrative as a scenario. Stage scenery would be set up; actors would take the
roles of Father, Prodigal Son, Elder Brother, etc. There would be plot,
sequence and dramatic denouement as in the ordinary tearjerker shown at the
Bijou movie house on
The "service" where such
a movie would be shown might seem much like any other service until time for
the message from the Word of God. Then the lights would be put out and the
picture turned on. The "message" would consist of this movie. What
followed the picture would, of course, vary with the circumstances, but often
an invitation song is sung and a tender appeal is made for erring sinners to
return to God.
Now, what is wrong with all this?
Why should any man object to this or go out of his way to oppose its use in the
house of God? Here is my answer:
1. It violates the
scriptural law of hearing.
The power of speech is a noble
gift of God. In his ability to open his mouth and by means of words make his
fellows know what is going on inside his mind, a man shares one of the
prerogatives of the Creator. In its ability to understand the spoken word the
human mind rises unique above all the lower creation. The gift, which enables a
man to translate abstract ideas into sounds, is a badge of his honour as made
in the image of God.
Written or printed words are sound
symbols and are translated by the mind into hearing. Hieroglyphics and
ideograms were the first symbols used to represent ideas. These ideograms were,
in effect, not pictures but letters, and the letters were agreed-upon ideas.
Thus words, whether spoken or written, are a medium for the communication of
ideas. This is basic in human nature and stems from our divine origin.
It is significant that when God
gave to mankind His great redemptive revelation He couched it in words. "And
God spake all these words" very well sums up the Bible's own account
of how it got here. "Thus saith the Lord" is the constant
refrain of the prophets. "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit,
and they are life," said our Lord to His hearers. Again He said, "He
that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting
life." Paul made words and faith to be inseparable: "Faith
cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." And he also said, "How
shall they hear without a preacher?"
Surely it requires no genius to
see that the Bible rules out pictures and dramatics as media for bringing faith
and life to the human soul.
The plain fact is that no vital
spiritual truth can be expressed by a picture. Actually
all any picture can do is to recall to mind some truth already learned through
the familiar medium of the spoken or written word. Religious instruction and
words are bound together by a living cord and cannot be separated without fatal
loss. The Spirit Himself, teaching soundlessly within the heart, makes use of
ideas previously received into the mind by means of words.
If I am reminded that modern
religious movies are "sound" pictures, making use of the human voice
to augment the dramatic action, the answer is easy. Just as far as the movie
depends upon spoken words it makes pictures unnecessary; the picture is the
very thing that differentiates between the movie and the sermon. The movie
addresses its message primarily to the eye, and the ear only incidentally. Were
the message addressed to the ear as in the Scriptures, the picture would
have no meaning and could be omitted without loss to the intended effect. Words
can say all that God intends them to say, and this
they can do without the aid of pictures.
According to one popular theory
the mind receives through the eye five times as much
information as the ear. As far as the external shell of physical facts
is concerned this may hold good, but when we come to spiritual truth we are in
another world entirely. In that world the outer eye is not too important. God
addresses His message to the hearing ear. "We look," says
Paul, "not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are
not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are
not seen are eternal." This agrees with the whole burden of the Bible,
which teaches us that we should withdraw our eyes from beholding visible
things, and fasten the eyes of our hearts upon God while we reverently listen
to His uttered words.
"The word is nigh thee, even
in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we
preach." Here, and not somewhere else, is the New Testament
pattern, and no human being, and no angel from heaven has any right to alter
that pattern.
2. The
religious movie embodies the mischievous notion that religion is, or can be
made, a form of entertainment.
This notion has come upon us
lately like a tidal wave and is either openly taught or tacitly assumed by
increasing numbers of people. Since it is inextricably bound up with the
subject under discussion I had better say more about it.
The idea that religion should be
entertaining has made some radical changes in the evangelical picture within
this generation. It has given us not only the "gospel" movie but a
new type of religious journalism as well. It has created a new kind of magazine
for church people, which can be read from cover to cover without effort,
without thought---and without profit. It has also brought a veritable flood of
religious fiction with plastic heroines and bloodless heroes like no one who
has ever lived upon this well-known terrestrial ball.
That religion and amusement are
forever opposed to each other by their very essential natures is apparently not
known to this new school of religious entertainers. Their
effort to slip up on the reader and administer a quick shot of saving truth
while his mind is on something else is not only futile, it is, in fact, not too
far short of being plain dishonest. The hope that they can convert a man while
he is occupied with the doings of some imaginary hero reminds one of the story of the Catholic missionary who used to sneak up on
sick people and children and splash a little holy water on them to guarantee
their passage to the city of gold.
I believe that most responsible
religious teachers will agree that any effort to teach spiritual truth through
entertainment is at best futile and at worst positively injurious to the soul.
But entertainment pays off, and the economic consideration is always a powerful
one in deciding what shall and what shall not be offered to the public---even
in the churches.
Deep spiritual experiences come
only from much study, earnest prayer and long meditation. It is true that men
by thinking cannot find God; it is also true that men cannot know God very well
without a lot of reverent thinking. Religious movies, by appealing directly to
the shallowest stratum of our minds, cannot but create bad mental habits, which
unfit the soul for the reception of genuine spiritual impressions.
Religious movies are mistakenly
thought by some people to be blessed of the Lord because many come away from
them with moist eyes. If this is a proof of God's blessing, then we might as
well go the whole way and assert that every show that brings tears is of God.
Those who attend the theatre know how often the audiences are moved to tears by
the joys and sorrows of the highly paid entertainers who kiss and emote and
murder and die for the purpose of exciting the spectators to a high pitch of
emotional excitement. Men and women who are dedicated to sin and appointed to
death may nevertheless weep in sympathy for the painted actors and be not one
bit the better for it. The emotions have had a beautiful time, but the will is
left untouched. The religious movie is sure to draw together a goodly number of
persons who cannot distinguish the twinges of vicarious sympathy from the true
operations of the Holy Ghost.
3. The
religious movie is a menace to true religion because it embodies acting, a
violation of sincerity.
Without doubt the most precious
thing any man possesses is his individuated being; that by which he is himself
and not someone else; that which cannot be finally voided by the man himself
nor shared with another. Each one of us, however humble our place in the social
scheme, is unique in creation. Each is a new whole man possessing his own
separate "I-ness" which makes him forever something apart, an
individual human being. It is this quality of uniqueness, which permits a man
to enjoy every reward of virtue, and makes him responsible for every sin. It is
his selfness, which will persist forever, and which distinguishes him
from every creature, which has been or ever will be created.
Because man is such a being as this
all moral teachers, and especially Christ and His apostles, make sincerity
to be basic in the good life. The word, as the New Testament uses it, refers to
the practice of holding fine pottery up to the sun to test it for purity. In
the white light of the sun all foreign substances were instantly exposed. So
the test of sincerity is basic in human character. The sincere man is one in whom is found nothing foreign; he is all of one piece; he
has preserved his individuality unviolated.
Sincerity for each man means staying
in character with himself. Christ's controversy with the Pharisees centred around their incurable habit of moral play acting. The
Pharisee constantly pretended to be what he was not. He attempted to vacate his
own "I-ness" and appear in that of another and better man. He assumed
a false character and played it for effect. Christ said he was a hypocrite.
It is more than an etymological
accident that the word "hypocrite" comes from the stage. It means actor.
With that instinct for fitness, which usually marks word origins, it has been
used to signify one who has violated his sincerity and is playing a false part.
An actor is one who assumes a character other than his own and plays it for
effect. The more fully he can become possessed by another personality the
better he is as an actor.
Bacon has said something to the
effect that there are some professions of such nature that the more skilfully a
man can work at them the worse man he is. That perfectly describes the
profession of acting. Stepping out of our own character for any reason is
always dangerous, and may be fatal to the soul. However innocent his
intentions, a man who assumes a false character has betrayed his own soul and
has deeply injured something sacred within him.
No one who has been in the
presence of the Most Holy One, who has felt how high is the
solemn privilege of bearing His image, will ever again consent to play a
part or to trifle with that most sacred thing, his own deep sincere heart. He
will thereafter be constrained to be no one but himself, to preserve reverently
the sincerity of his own soul.
In order to produce a religious
movie someone must, for the time, disguise his individuality and simulate that
of another. His actions must be judged fraudulent, and those who watch them
with approval share in the fraud. To pretend to pray, to simulate
godly sorrow, to play at worship before the camera for effect---how
utterly shocking to the reverent heart! How can Christians who approve this
gross pretence ever understand the value of sincerity
as taught by our Lord? What will be the end of a generation of Christians fed
on such a diet of deception disguised as the faith of our fathers?
The plea that all this must be
good because it is done for the glory of God is a gossamer-thin bit of
rationalizing which should not fool anyone above the mental age of six. Such an
argument parallels the evil rule of expediency, which holds the end is
everything, and sanctifies the means, however evil, if only the end be
commendable. The wise student of history will recognize this immoral doctrine.
The
It is not uncommon to find around
the theatre human flotsam and jetsam washed up by the years, men and women who
have played false parts so long that the power to be sincere has forever gone
from them. They are doomed to everlasting duplicity. Every act of their lives
is faked, every smile is false, every tone of their voice artificial. The curse
does not come causeless. It is not by chance that the actor's profession has
been notoriously dissolute. Hollywood and Broadway are two sources of
corruption, which may yet turn
The profession of acting did not
originate with the Hebrews. It is not a part of the divine pattern. The Bible
mentions it, but never approves it. Drama, as it has come down to us, had its
rise in
The Miracle Plays of medieval
times have been brought forward to justify the modern religious movie. That is
an unfortunate weapon to choose for the defence of the movie, for it will
surely harm the man who uses it more than any argument I could think of just
offhand.
The Miracle Plays had their big
run in the Middle Ages. They were dramatic
performances with religious themes staged for the entertainment of the
populace. At their best they were misguided efforts to teach spiritual truths
by dramatic representation; at their worst they were shockingly irreverent and
thoroughly reprehensible. In some of them the Eternal God was portrayed as an
old man dressed in white with a gilt wig! To furnish low comedy, the devil
himself was introduced on the stage and allowed to cavort for the amusement of
the spectators. Bible themes were used, as in the modern movie, but this did
not save the whole thing from becoming so corrupt that the Roman Church had
finally to prohibit its priests from having any further part in it.
Those who would appeal for
precedent to the Miracle Plays have certainly overlooked some important facts.
For instance, the vogue of the Miracle Play coincided exactly with the
most dismally corrupt period the Church has ever known. When the Church
emerged at last from its long moral night these plays lost popularity and
finally passed away. And be it remembered, the instrument God used to
bring the Church out of the darkness was not drama; it was the biblical one of
Spirit-baptized preaching. Serious-minded men thundered the truth and
the people turned to God.
Indeed, history will show that no
spiritual advance, no revival, no upsurge of spiritual life has ever been
associated with acting in any form. The Holy Spirit never honours
pretence.
Can it be that the historic
pattern is being repeated? That the appearance of the religious movie is
symptomatic of the low state of spiritual health we are in today? I fear so. Only
the absence of the Holy Spirit from the pulpit and lack of true discernment on
the part of professing Christians can account for the spread of religious drama
among so-called evangelical churches. A Spirit-filled church could not tolerate
it.
4. They who present the
gospel movie owe it to the public to give biblical authority for their act: and
this they have not done.
The Church, as long as it is
following the Lord, goes along in Bible ways and can give a scriptural reason
for its conduct. Its members meet at stated times to pray together: This has
biblical authority back of it. They gather to hear the Word of God expounded:
this goes back in almost unbroken continuity to Moses. They sing psalms and
hymns and spiritual songs: so they are commanded by the apostle. They visit the
sick and relieve the sufferings of the poor: for this they have both precept
and example in Holy Writ. They lay up their gifts and bring them at stated
times to the church or chapel to be used in the Lord's work: this also follows
the scriptural pattern. They teach and train and instruct; they appoint
teachers and pastors and missionaries and send them out to do the work for
which the Spirit has gifted them: all this has plain scriptural authority
behind it.
Now, for the religious movie
where is the authority? For such a serious departure from the ancient
pattern, where is the authority? For introducing into the Church the pagan art
of acting, where is the authority? Let the movie advocates quote just one
verse, from any book of the Bible, in any translation, to justify its use. This
they cannot do. The best they can do is to appeal to the world's psychology or repeat
brightly that "modern times call for modern methods." But the
Scriptures---quote from them one verse to authorize movie acting as an
instrument of the Holy Ghost. This they cannot do.
Every sincere Christian must find
scriptural authority for the religious movie or reject it, and every producer
of such movies, if he would square himself before the faces of honest and
reverent men, must either show scriptural credentials or go out of business.
But, says someone, there is
nothing unscriptural about the religious movie; it is merely a new medium for
the utterance of the old message, as printing is a newer and better method of
writing and the radio an amplification of familiar human speech.
To this I reply: The movie is
not the modernization or improvement of any scriptural method; rather it is a
medium in itself wholly foreign to the Bible and altogether unauthorized
therein. It is play acting---just that, and nothing more. It is the
introduction into the work of God of that which is not neutral, but entirely
bad. The printing press is neutral; so is the radio; so is the camera.
They may be used for good or bad purposes at the will of the user. But play-acting
is bad in its essence in that it involves the simulation of emotions not
actually felt. It embodies a gross moral contradiction in that it calls
a lie to the service of truth.
Arguments for the religious movie
are sometimes clever and always shallow, but there is never any real attempt to
cite scriptural authority. Anything that can be said for the movie can be said
also for aesthetic dancing, which is a highly touted medium for teaching
religious truth by appeal to the eye. Its advocates grow eloquent in its
praise---but where is it indicated in the blueprint?
5. God has ordained four
methods only by which Truth shall prevail---and the religious movie is not one
of them.
Without attempting to arrange
these methods in order of importance, they are prayer,
song, proclamation of the message by means of words, and good works.
These are the four main methods, which God has blessed. All other biblical
methods are sub-divisions of these and stay within their framework.
The whole preach-the
gospel-with-movies idea is founded upon the same basic assumptions as
Modernism, namely, that the Word of God is not final, and that we of this day
have a perfect right to add to it or alter it wherever we think we can improve
it.
A brazen example of this attitude
came to my attention recently. Preliminary printed matter has been sent out
announcing that a new organization is in process of being formed. It is to be
called the "International Radio and Screen Artists Guild," and one of
its two major objectives is to promote the movie as a medium for the spread of
the gospel. Its sponsors, apparently, are not Modernists, but confessed
Fundamentalists. Some of its declared purposes are: to produce movies
"with or without a Christians slant"; to raise and maintain higher
standards in the movie field (this would be done, it says here, by having
"much prayer" with leaders of the movie industry); to "challenge
people, especially young people, to those fields as they are challenged to go
to foreign fields."
This last point should not be
allowed to pass without some of us doing a little challenging on our own
account. Does this new organization actually propose in seriousness to add
another gift to the gifts of the Spirit listed in the New Testament? To the
number of the Spirit's gifts, such as pastor, teacher, evangelist, is there now
to be added another, the gift of the movie actor? Instead of the
Holy Spirit saying, "Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work
whereunto I have called them," these people will make use of what they
call a "Christian talent listing," to consist of the names of
"Christian" actors who have received the Spirit's gift to be used in
making religious movies.
Thus the order set up in the New
Testament is openly violated, and by professed lovers of the gospel who say
unto Jesus, "Lord, Lord," but openly set aside His Lordship
whenever they desire. No amount of smooth talk can explain away this serious
act of insubordination.
Saul lost a kingdom when he
"forced" himself and took profane liberties with the priesthood. Let
these movie preachers look to their crown. They may find themselves on the road
to Endor some dark night soon.
6. The religious movie is
out of harmony with the whole spirit of the Scriptures and contrary to the mood
of true Godliness.
To harmonize the spirit of the
religious movie with the spirit of the Sacred Scriptures is impossible. Any
comparison is grotesque and, if it were not so serious, would be downright
funny. Try to imagine Elijah appearing before Ahab with a roll of film! Imagine
Peter standing up at Pentecost and saying, "Let's have the lights out,
please." When Jeremiah hesitated to prophesy, on the plea that he was not
a fluent speaker, God touched his mouth and said, "I have put my words
in thy mouth." Perhaps Jeremiah could have gotten on well enough
without the divine touch if he had had a good 16mm projector and a reel of
home-talent film.
Let a man dare to compare his
religious movie show with the spirit of the Book of Acts. Let him try to find a
place for it in the twelfth chapter of First Corinthians. If he cannot see
the difference in kind, then he is too blind to be trusted with leadership
in the Church of the Living God. The only thing that he can do appropriate
to the circumstances is to drop to his knees and cry with poor Bartimaeus,
"Lord, that I might receive my sight."
But some say, "We do not
propose to displace the regular method of preaching the gospel. We only want to
supplement it." To this I answer: If the movie is needed to supplement
anointed preaching it can only be because God's appointed method is inadequate
and the movie can do something which God's appointed method cannot do. What is
that thing? We freely grant that the movie can produce effects which preaching
cannot produce (and which it should never try to produce), but dare we strive
for such effects in the light of God's revealed will and in the face of the judgment
and a long eternity?
7. I am against the
religious movie because of the harmful effect upon everyone associated with it.
First, the evil effect upon the
"actors" who play the part of the various characters in the show;
this is not the less because it is unsuspected. Who can, while in a state of
fellowship with God, dare to play at being a prophet? Who has the gall
to pretend to be an apostle, even in a show? Where is his reverence?
Where is his fear? Where is his humility? Any one
who can bring himself to act a part for any purpose, must first have
grieved the Spirit and silenced His voice within the heart. Then the whole
business will appear good to him. "He feedeth on ashes; a deceived
heart has turned him aside." But he cannot escape the secret working
of the ancient laws of the soul. Something high and fine and grand will die
within him; and worst of all he will never suspect it. That is the curse that
follows self-injury always. The Pharisees were examples of this. They were
walking dead men, and they never dreamed how dead they were.
Secondly, it identifies religion
with the theatrical world. I have seen recently in a Fundamentalist magazine an
advertisement of a religious film, which would be altogether at home on the
theatrical page on any city newspaper. Illustrated with the usual sex-bate
picture of a young man and young woman in tender embrace, and spangled with
such words as "feature-length, drama, pathos, romance," it reeked of
Thirdly, the taste for drama,
which these pictures develop in the minds of the young, will not long remain
satisfied with the inferior stuff the religious movie can offer. Our young
people will demand the real thing; and what can we reply when they ask why they
should not patronize the regular movie house?
Fourthly, the rising generation
will naturally come to look upon religion as another, and inferior, form of
amusement. In fact, the present generation has done this to an alarming
extent already, and the gospel movie feeds the notion by fusing religion and
fun in the name of orthodoxy. It takes no great insight to see that the
religious movie must become increasingly more thrilling as the tastes of the
spectators become more and more stimulated.
Fifthly, the religious movie is
the lazy preacher's friend. If the present vogue continues to
spread it will not be long before any man with enough ability to make an
audible prayer, and mentality enough to focus a projector, will be able to pass
for a prophet of the Most High God. The man of God can play around all
week long and come up to the Lord's Day without a care. Everything has been
done for him at the studio. He has only to set up the screen and lower the
lights, and the rest follows painlessly.
Wherever the movie is used the
prophet is displaced by the projector. The least
that such displaced prophets can do is to admit that they are technicians and
not preachers. Let them admit that they are not God-sent men, ordained of God
for a sacred work. Let them put away their pretence.
In conclusion
One thing may bother some earnest
souls: why so many good people approve the religious movie. If it is an evil,
why have not these denounced it?
The answer is,
lack of spiritual discernment. Many who are turning to the movie
are the same who have, by direct teaching or by neglect, discredited the work
of the Holy Spirit. They have apologized for the Spirit and so hedged Him in by
their unbelief that it has amounted to an out-and-out repudiation. Now we are
paying the price for our folly. The light has gone out and good men are forced
to stumble around in the darkness of the human intellect.
The religious movie is at present
undergoing a period of gestation and seems about to swarm over the churches
like a cloud of locusts out of the earth. The figure is accurate; they are
coming from below, not from above. The whole modern psychology has been
prepared for this invasion of insects. The Fundamentalists have become weary of
manna and are longing for red flesh. What they are getting is a sorry
substitute for the lusty and uninhibited pleasures of the world, and it saves
face by pretending to be spiritual.
Let us not for the sake of peace
keep still while men without spiritual insight dictate the diet upon which
God's children shall feed. The religious movie represents amateurism gone wild.
Unity among professing Christians is to be desired, but not at the expense of
righteousness. It is good to go with the flock, but I refuse mutely to follow a
misled flock over a precipice.
If God has given wisdom to see the
error of religious shows we owe it to the Church to oppose them openly. We dare
not take refuge in "guilty silence." Error is not silent; it is
highly vocal and amazingly aggressive. We dare not be less so.