theology – fruitful faith

ordinary sin

The doctrine of Sin has been something I’ve had an interest in for a while, and some of my research and writing has touched on both sin and the forgiveness of sin. I think it’s a very important doctrine, and thus very important to understand with clarity and balance.

Scholars of Aristotle and Aquinas will be able to articulate it better than I, but I find the concept of the ‘mean’ or middle to be helpful here as at many points (nod to Aristotle). Just as a ‘virtue’ seems to be flanked on both sides by two opposing ‘vices’ (nod to Aquinas), so also a healthy view of a doctrine (or dogma) seems to in between two extreme distortions of it. Here’s a quick attempt to sketch this with regard to Sin.

The extreme of “totally evil”

At one extreme, the “totally evil” view is based on the persistent and tragic experience of everything from indifference, busyness and rudeness to violence, terrorism and death.

The positive of this view is its ability to summarize (though perhaps generalize) and account for all of this activity with a single concept. All of this ‘bad stuff’ is eventually the result of ‘sin’ at the personal level, and ‘Sin’ at a cosmic level. Humanity and all of creation is ‘fallen’. Like it or not, there is a great deal of accuracy for this view, both in terms of experience of reality and interpretation of Scripture. A patient and discerning assessment of human nature can see past the cosmetic self-righteous and moralistic posturing that masquerades as ‘goodness’. The best statements of so-called “total depravity” are about the full sweep and scope of Sin, reaching to every part of nature and human nature. There is no ‘part’ of creation that is free from the influence of Sin and evil. The brokenness and rebellion goes ‘all the way down’. And the irony is that trying to deny one’s sinfulness and assert one’s goodness is itself one of the surest examples and breeding grounds for sin.

The negative of this view is… well.. its negativity. In extreme form (hence me calling it an extreme view), it doesn’t appreciate or recognize any goodness to human nature. And a thoroughgoing doctrine of Grace is thus undermined, because Grace creates and sustains at least some good in all people.

The extreme of “basically good”

This leads to the positive “basically good” view. In a way, the very presence of the word “basically” is illustrative. Philosophically, it can signal a nod to Locke’s notion that the ‘basic’ or original state of human nature is a ‘tabula rasa’ or blank slate. In terms of modern usage, it can also signal a tempering of what could be seen as an absolute rejection of any evil in human nature. Few people would want to say that humans are “totally good” and I’ve yet to meet anyone who serious defends human perfection. So the “basically good” view is a very attractive option for those who wish to assert the dominance of human goodness, whilst not totally denying the ‘accidental’ circumstances of human ‘wrongdoing’.

The positive of this view seems to be the fact that it inherently avoids the absolutism of saying that humans are perfect. It allows us to enjoy the widespread acceptance and agreement of modern society, which is quite nervous and concerned about those who think that there is something ‘wrong’ with us. After all, that kind of talk makes people feel bad, and feeling bad is of course what makes people (accidentally) get tripped up into doing bad things, whether to others or to themselves. Surely the way to fix things is to avoid this talk of ‘sin’ and restore people’s self confidence!

And here we see the weakness of this view. At its core, this view is basically a way to justify oneself, and avoid responsibility for the ‘bad things’ that happen, either in the world or in one’s own life. It is a ‘weak’ view in that it is not strong at helping to understand, account for, or of course do anything to change, the very real and tragic things that people do. And wise therapists, social workers and addicts will testify that taking responsibility for one’s actions is the best way to work for change.

It seems that these extreme ways of looking at human nature tend to feed off of one another, rather like (and probably not unrelated to) right wing and left wing politicians. The more one person asserts human evil (more need for government and legislation?), the more another will assert human good (less need for government and legislation?); and vice versa. What is needed is a view that avoids the extremes and includes the positives.

The Doctrine of Sin

It could be true that the biblical content on human nature may tend towards an emphasis on human guilt rather than human glory. But the first thing to say about the Judeo-Christian notion of Sin is its remarkable breadth. Humans are “very good” (Genesis 1), and “crowned with glory and honour” (Psalm 8). To be a human is a glorious thing. But at the same time, there are “none righteous” (Psalm 14 & 53), and too often it is true that we continually think evil in our hearts (Genesis 3).

The second thing to say is that there is something quite ‘ordinary’ and everyday about sin. Every week at my church (Anglican/Episcopal), we are led by the worship leader or the priest in a confession that includes that we have sinned “in ignorance”, “weakness” and “through our own deliberate fault”. That seems true to my life and the lives of people I trust to be honest. Another great local Anglican confession prayer observes that “some sins are plain to us, some escape us, [and] some we cannot face.” I’m thinking here of the vast spectrum of ways in which we all “get it wrong”. We walk past one another without giving the human acknowledgement we all deserve. We steal and cheat. We parade our acts of charity on social media. We lust after power, sex, status, moral standing, theological achievements, acceptance and a thousand other things that may be fine to pursue, but not lust after. Even the ‘best’ person we can think of, if they are honest, has all manner of ‘ordinary sins’ the would admit to.

The third thing to say about Sin has to do with the implications… the ‘so what?’ of Sin. So we are sinful. So what? Well, if we are sinful, then we ultimately need forgiveness, and need Ultimate forgiveness. The forgiveness on offer through the gospel of Christ is something that is both a single once-for-all Act that cannot be repeated, and an on-going continual work that we must enter into more deeply. Another bit of local Anglican brilliance announces that “God forgives you”, as a once-for-all fact. But the stark announcement is followed by a gentle admonition: “forgive others… forgive yourself.” This is an ongoing process to deepen for the rest of our lives.

the uncomfortable freedom of Grace

I just finished a job at work, and not only did it take longer than I thought (I had to return to the job site to fix things), I didn’t do as good a job at it as I would have liked to. The clients are satisfied and will pay the invoice, but the workmanship was not my best. My errors involved trying to same time and effort: a.k.a. rushing and being lazy.

I was doing another follow-up job last week and I noticed a mistake that had been made by another team member. It seemed that he had also tried to save time and effort.

It is so much easier to focus on the mistakes that others make than my own. My tendency is to maximize and catastrophize the seriousness of others’ mistakes (“Wow, that’s pretty bad…“) and minimize and normalize the seriousness of my own (“Ahh, it’s good enough…” or “It’s not as bad as…“).

Grace is good news. We are loved as we are in spite of our mistakes. Grace covers our sin and shame.

But that’s not all Grace does.

Grace-powered love casts out and frees us from our fear, saying with the authority and voice of Christ, “Fear not.” (Me phõbos) One type of fear we can let go of, thanks to Grace, is the fear of not being perfect. When we don’t have to be perfect, we can admit our mistakes (or sins), even the serious ones; and we can be a bit gentler on the mistakes (or sins) of others.

This may be one example of the less “comfortable” work of Grace. After all, Grace “teaches” (paideuousa) us (Titus 2:12). This word for teaching is diverse enough to include usages concerning discipline and punishment or training.

I can’t speak for others, but I am grateful for the ‘uncomfortable’ help of Grace in assisting me to admit my mistakes and accept the failings of others.

fruitful engagement with ‘other’ beliefs

I’ve had various interactions with various ‘non-orthodox’ (a.k.a. heretical) religious movements, and I grew up within one. In my earlier, younger and sadly more arrogant stages, these interactions could easily become more heated, longer, and less productive than they should have been. I just had another much more positive interaction with three young, polite Mormons. There are two ways at least that I’m learning to make those interactions fruitful.

Patient Intent. My aim is to strike a middle ground between sending them away or trying to ‘convert’ them in one fell swoop. I want, instead, to have a respectful conversation that gives them, and me, something to think about afterward.
Respectful Engagement. Instead of using whatever understandings I (think) I have as weapons to win a debate, I use those understandings as points of discussion. This looks more like asking questions than making declarations. For example, instead of saying (effectively) “You guys are wrong because you don’t believe in the Trinity”, I ask the question, “Could you tell me what you believe about God… you know… Father, Son and Spirit?” This way they get to say what they believe in their own words, instead of having their beliefs described in worst form and then disregarded.

Having said that, here are a couple of those ‘discussion points’ for Mormons.

The nature of God. Mormons believe that ‘God’ was once a human, and that we humans can become ‘God’. This relates to their belief that God the Father has a physical body. They will use the language of “image of God” to support this, implying that to be made in God’s image includes being made in his physical form. Here, it may be useful to point out the Christian distinction between the attributes of God that are God’s own unique attributes (Creator, divine), and those that we are meant to share as image-bearers (beauty, wisdom, justice, mercy, grace, etc.).
Revelation. Mormons believe that God is still revealing truth to humanity. Significantly, this underlies their understanding of the Book of Mormon as an equal-level text to the Old and New Testaments. Here, it is useful to point out the Christian conviction that whilst God is indeed still active in revealing truth to humans through Scripture and the Holy Spirit, Revelation has met its ‘finished’ point in the person of Jesus Christ. No more is needed to reveal God to humanity. And for Christians, the New Testament documents form together a sufficient and complete witness to that full revelation of God. Other texts (at best) compliment that witness, or (at worst) confuse and conflict with it.

‘media’ and liturgical formation

James K. A. Smith has written and spoken much about liturgical formation; that is, how humans are formed, shaped and influenced by ‘liturgical’ actions, rites or practices. For Smith, all of life can be seen with a ‘liturgical’ lens, as the human species (‘homo-liturgicus’) engages in various patterns of repeated activity.

One colourful example is that of a shopping mall, where seemingly mundane and ‘normal’ actions such as parking, entering, wandering, browsing, purchasing, exiting (and whatever else one does as part of a standard ‘trip to the mall’) are seen as liturgical rituals, that form us. In the case of the mall, the repeated practices just mentioned form us into the mold of a consumer. Through repeated participation in shopping at the mall, we learn and practice consumerism.

I had a related thought the other day, and I wanted to tease it out here. Essentially, it’s taking the liturgical and formational insights of Smith and reading them through the lens of the language of ‘media’…

It’s been a couple years since I’ve worked as a minister, and I’ve been increasingly exposed to ‘tradies’. Many of these are people who don’t go to church (and aren’t likely to want to soon…). These interesting people use different language, have different political views, listen to different radio stations, watch different TV/movies/videos, and have different approaches to social media than I’m used to. Many of them (not all) haven’t shared my high standards for coffee shops.

Ironically, I’ve also been attending a different church, with a different form of worship in a different theological tradition. I’ve also been listening more to Christian radio (including songs, advertisements, and teaching programmes). In short, I breathe the air of different ‘media’ than I used to. Life feels different… I feel more in touch with the tension between the Gospel and the world, and more pulled this way and that way by different ‘media’ that I am exposed to…

I find it interesting how (with exceptions, of course) people with ‘x’ political views might tend to gravitate towards this or that kind of radio, TV programmes, eating venues, Facebook groups, hobbies, brands of beer and chips, etc. Whilst I don’t think it would be possible (or interesting) to make too direct a link between, for example, your particular political orientation and the particular band you listen to, I have been thinking about the extent to which the various (and many) kinds of ‘media’ we imbibe has a formative effect on us.

Just as life can be viewed through the lens of ‘liturgical’ rites and practices that we engage in, so also it can be viewed through the lens of ‘media’ that we consume.

As one who has done some study into gathered worship, I find the language of ‘media’ to be very fruitful.

I am suggesting here that all worship is shaped by the media that the worshippers (including worship planners and worship leaders) consume.

Think of various kinds of worship gatherings. Not just what happens in the service, but what the space looks like, how it feels, what it communicates. And yes, of course, what happens in the service. How it begins, what the climactic moment is (if it has one), what seems to be important, etc.

Arguably, ‘good worship’ should be rooted in the ‘media’ of the gospel, and relevant to the ‘media’ of culture. The result being that worshippers are formed more into the image of Christ. What do I mean here?

One the one hand, worship should be dripping with gospel ‘media’, including (but not limited to):

Symbols of the Story
- (most churches at least have a cross, right?)
Language of the Scripture
- (the Bible is read – or at least referred to!? – at least a few times, right?)

On the other hand, worship should be expressed in the ‘media’ of culture, examples include:

sounds
- (language and wording that ‘these people’ can understand)
sights
- (imagery and art that is intelligible and moving for ‘these people’)

In terms of a service of worship being ‘rooted in gospel media’, it is a matter first of whether or not it is, and then to what extent it is. It is possible to conduct a ‘worship service’ in which very little of the Gospel is presented. Perhaps the service consists of images and language that is entirely cultural and devoid of any symbols or words of Scripture. Indeed, the very notion raises the question of just what ‘gospel’ is believed by this community? If they do and say ‘this’ when they gather in ‘this’ kind of space, they must believe the gospel to be ‘this’.

In terms of a service of worship being ‘expressed in cultural media’, it is not a matter of ‘if’ it is or not, but rather how deep this expression is, and whether this cultural expression is with or against the ‘grain’ of the Gospel. A few examples may be helpful, and I’m trying not to obviously signal this or that style of worship.

On the one hand, sometimes the ‘media of culture’ expressed in a service can go against the grain of the Gospel. This happens when a cultural medium is used that is rooted in a cultural pattern that the Gospel subverts or judges.

worship shaped by the ‘media’ of consumerism may unintentionally (or deliberately!?) use language or symbols that can present the Gospel as offering a product to be enjoyed.
worship shaped by the ‘media’ of moralism may commit the opposite error of using language or symbols that present the Gospel as being concerned primarily with good behaviour.
worship shaped by the ‘media’ of modernism may use language or symbols that witness to the underlying modernist worldview that newer is always an improvement on the old.
worship shaped by the ‘media’ of traditionalism may commit the opposite error of using language and symbols that are always suspicious of new expressions.
worship shaped by the ‘media’ of individualism may use language or symbols that focus entirely on the faith, experience and interests of the individual.
worship shaped by the ‘media’ of rationalism may use language or symbols that frames the gospel as mainly a matter of having correct doctrine.

The goal at work here, particularly for planners and leaders of worship is three fold:

Be very familiar with the ‘gospel media’: the Scriptural story, biblical imagery…
Be in touch with cultural media: the sights and sounds of a particular place and time…
Having done that, be patient in discerning which cultural ‘media’ will point to the Gospel, and which will distract from it.

A controlling image here may be stained glass. The light of the gospel can (and must!) shine through many different coloured panes of culture. On the one hand, if there is no gospel media in the service, there is no light! On the other, if the panes of cultural media are contrary to the gospel, the light won’t shine through!

Coming back, finally, to the theme of Christian formation, the idea here is that worship is most effective at forming disciples into the image of Christ when the service is both rooted in the trans-cultural, trans-temporal and Christ-shaped Scriptural media, and reflected in the language and symbols belonging to ‘these people’.

human sin: an example

The sinfulness of humanity is nothing I am ‘proud’ to believe in. Sin is tragic. But, rather an illustrate this with a list of actions that are easily diagnosed as harmful, it’s more interesting to give an example where sin may not be so obvious. Whether it’s an Olympic opening ceremony, a corporate philosophy or a debate over gun legislation, I am continually reminded of how easy it is to forget how deeply flawed we all are. Human history and nature, business goals, or one’s ability to handle immense power are not as flawless as we may be tempted to imagine.

One simple example is giving a gift. How selfless, generous and wonderful, right? But, speaking honestly about my own experience of giving gifts, our motivations can be very often quite mixed. Giving a gift can be motivated, partly or even mostly, by a desire for the benefit of the other. However, other motivations can settle in among this, including but not limited to: being the best (generous/lavish), being the most (creative), being first, being included (“people like being around people who give gifts”), etc.

Our motivations tend to show up when our gift is refused, disregarded or otherwise received in a way we did not expect. I recently found myself giving something that I’d hoped would be received and recognized in a particular way, and when it wasn’t, I had to check my motivations in giving it.

It can be confronting to face our mixed motivations, especially if/when we take pride in being a ‘good person’. Of course, the point of this reflection is not to deny that we have any goodness, but that the very notion of human sinfulness, particularly in the Christian theological tradition, is that we are not only flawed in obviously ‘bad’ ways, but even our ‘good’ actions and characteristics can be hindered, blunted and shaped by the influence of sin.

And if you don’t know me well, you need to know that my understanding of sin (from Scripture and theology) has less to do with us feeling constantly like a failure for breaking a significant amount of a very long list of specific actions which are ‘wrong’, and more to do with us being beautiful-and-broken all the way down to our motivations and identities. And more importantly the great thing about the Gospel of Jesus is that God has eternally decided to love and work on, in and through us anyway.

May this work of transformation be something that we surrender to and collaborate with.

foolishness

This year, Resurrection Day falls on April “Fools Day”. How fitting… Only a fool would believe in something like Resurrection, right?

Well… yes. One of the more unpopular and counter-cultural aspects of Christian faith is its ‘foolishness’. The Lord of all existence, meaning and being chooses not to select the best, the smartest, the most moral, the most successful, the strongest, the most desirable, to work through. No. In God’s economy, what society tells us are our assets are so often (if we hold them with pride) our liabilities.

Sure, in one sense, it is ‘foolish’ to deny the possibility of a thing like Resurrection. How ‘unscientific’ is the emotion of disgust that poisons the well of honest and patient consideration of just what might be possible in this mysterious existence.

But the label ‘fool’ will inevitably be found on the backs of those believing in the impossible; that the days of Death are numbered, that another level of Life has emerged, undying, from the Tomb. So be it. I’m a fool.

¹⁸For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. ¹⁹For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

²⁰Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? ²¹For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. ²²Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, ²³but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, ²⁴but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. ²⁵For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

²⁶Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. ²⁷But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. ²⁸God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, ²⁹so that no one may boast before him.

1 Corinthians 1:18-29

development in divine dealings with sin

Progressive revelation is the theological understanding for hermeneutics (biblical interpretation) which acknowledges the way in which themes that emerge early in Scripture go through development and change. The big framework for this is the Old and New Covenants/Testaments, where it is often said that Christ is “in the Old concealed and in the New revealed”.

I was listening to an excellent sermon at church a couple of weeks ago, and the following progression or development occurred to me, so hence I had to blog about it. It reflects how I understand Scripture’s progressive revelation of how God deals with humans when they sin. I’ll list them first, and then offer comments on each one:

Seek Them Out
Wipe Them Out
Spread Them Out
Straighten Them Out
Lift Them Out

First, the response is seek them out. This is key. In the garden, God responds to direct disobedience by looking for them. God seems to want to maintain relationship with them, and wants them to grow.

Before long, the next response is wipe them out. This is severe. Leading up to the flood, humanity is described as being continually bent on evil. It’s as though humans have become like an animal so riddled with disease that the only thing left to do is put it out of its misery. Or one thinks of how a farmer will set fire to a field so it can grow fresh new grass.

Soon after, the response becomes spread them out. This is unexpected. The story of the Babel tower portrays humanity as arrogantly trying to ascend to the heavens. Taking God’s place. Human languages multiply and the people divide, being scattered all over the earth. It’s as though human arrogance is like a heap of manure that smells horrible when concentrated into one heap, and so must be spread out. This response finds an early hint in the expulsion from the garden.

Summarising a huge amount of remaining content in the Old Testament, the response progresses on to straighten them out. Through everything from Law codes and prophetic instruction to exodus and exile, the message is to live according to the ‘straight and narrow’; to live in ways that ‘choose life’. I cannot help but think of how I like to re-use nails that have been pre-used and bent. I take them over to a hard surface and bash them (sometimes gently) with a hammer until they are useful.

Finally, the response matures and comes into focus as lift them out. The image here is of God stepping into the pit (Psalm 40) that we’ve got ourselves into, laying his hands on our exhausted bodies and lifting us out. This is embodied (deliberate pun) in the incarnation of Christ, who we may imagine as stooping to the lowest and most sinful levels of human nature, and raising it to new life.

One final thing to say about progressive revelation is that the final and full revelation seems to be hinted at early on. The lifting of Grace is seen as early as the clothes that God makes for the pair in the garden. God’s dealings move from justice (harsh!) to mercy and then to Grace.

active faith

Trust and obey, says the grand old hymn. A lovely pairing, and a very biblical one. This pair captures the nice middle ground between two extreme ways of understanding Christian life and discipleship.

At one extreme (hint: extremes are bad… almost always), we have faith that is ‘aggressive’ in the sense that it is all about doing and obeying. Trusting hardly gets any air time, if it features at all. People who advocate this kind of faith usually are pushing back against believers who do nothing…

At the other extreme, we have faith that is ‘passive’ in the sense that it is all about knowing and trusting. Obedience, if the topic comes up at all, is usually something that you are not to ‘do’ but happens automatically. People who advocate this kind of faith are often pushing back against a ‘religious’ or ‘strict’ approach to faith, full of ‘dos’ and ‘donts’…

In the middle, we have a faith that is active or assertive. Faith and belief are married to deeds and actions. The two mutually reinforce one another.

Jesus loves to describe the kingdom life with vivid metaphors. Sometimes we get too used to them, and other times we just read them wrong, in the light of our pre-existing frameworks.

One of these metaphors is the image of the fruit tree. Good trees bear good fruit. One extreme (‘aggressive’ faith) sees the fruit as being all our work, which legitimates our faith. The other extreme (‘passive’ faith) sees the fruit as all God’s work, and not ours. We don’t ‘produce’ the fruit, we just ‘bear’ it…

The ‘aggressive faith’ folk have to remember that Jesus’ metaphor assumes sunlight and water and that ‘God gives the increase’ wherever there is growth. The ‘passive faith’ folk have to face the reality that the word behind ‘bear’ is the same word used throughout the New Testament for a lot of doing, working, etc.

The strange mystery is that as we trust and obey God, we are enabled to be and to do. We hoist the sail, God’s spirit blows, the boat moves.

ordinary

This Christmas I sit in our living room before heading to bed, typing out a festive blog post. The room feels and looks very ordinary: couches, pillows, television, computer, DVD’s, books and more. Life, most of the time, is ordinary.

Life is exciting and varied enough as it is. We don’t need too many sensational experiences. Highs come. We are property owners for the first time, and are excitedly settling into our new home. Lows follow. My beloved Grandpa passed away the day after my son’s 9th birthday. Even those highs and lows have an ordinary feel to them. The joy of a new dwelling to own, enjoy and remake is tempered by frustrations of having too many things, facing the financial and time cost of renovations, and more. The grief of losing a loved one didn’t fully negate the happiness of waking up Christmas morning to presents and pancakes.

The nativity narratives are laced with the spectacular, and awe-inspiring and the miraculous. Angelic epiphany. Prophetic insight. Virginal conception. It could be just me and my phase of life, but I’m drawn to imagine the lingering ordinary feel that life would have had for Elizabeth, the shepherds, Anna, the wise men, Mary and the others. Elizabeth’s formerly-barren womb would still be subject to the pain of giving birth. The shepherds, hurrying to Bethlehem after the angelic revelation, would have faced all of the familiar and mundane issues of getting themselves there. Mary, despite her exemplary encounter with the angelic messenger, would have three full trimesters of watching her body and womb swell and transform.

And all of this has a beautifully Jesus-shaped dynamic to it. For it is in Him that the spectacular resides within the everyday. Eternity meets time. God joins with humanity. Creator with creation. Word becomes flesh.

Nowadays I am more aware than ever of my simple need for God’s extraordinary strength in every ordinary moment. Highs and lows; strengths and weaknesses; progress and stumbles, what I need is always to open myself to the ordinary process of participating with the Power who makes me just a little bit better, moment by moment.

quarks, plants, and universes

A local apologist blog recently discussed Antony Flew, famously an atheist turned deist. The good and accurate point discussed in the post is summarized as follows:

…the question [of God’s existence] should be placed under the jurisdiction of philosophers; for to study the interaction of subatomic particles, he notes, is to engage in physics; but to ask why those particles exist or behave in certain ways is to engage in philosophy.

I agree. And it struck me that such a distinction goes all the way up from the micro (e.g. quarks), to the observable (e.g. plants), to the macro (e.g. the cosmos).

A slightly more negative way to say that is: you don’t need modern scientific microscopic or telescopic insight to go beyond the mechanics of how something (e.g. grass) functions, to pondering ultimate questions of existence, purpose and meaning.