Question:  What goes pop?

Answer:    The weasel.

Then see if you can relate to this short fictional account of the effects of coffee on a person.

Hi all.  Here is the clucky Emu.  Well I don’t really know if Emu’s cluck, but I sure am clucky!!!!!  As you can tell I am quite different from my deep thinking reverent husband.  It’s all about fun fun fun for me!!  This is just to say gday to all you readers (there are 3 aren’t there Ali?). When I think of something fun to write about I’ll blog again. 

Seeya

In previous posts (”So Jesus really does matter? Parts 1, 2 & 3) I suggested that since the common factor among the people God has and is working through is their pre-eminent focus on Jesus and the cross, other issues and doctrine - while important - may not be as important as many of us like to think. In fact, especially in light of the Biblical example of issues to divide over, leaving a church because you disagree with its doctrine - even to the point of non-belief in inerrancy or affirmation of homosexuality - may not be a good enough reason to leave.

Exactly when you should leave a church is an interesting question, and I replied that when moving house or in attending a spiritually abusive church, moving church seems appropriate. Even if the church does not hold Christ and the gospel high the Bible does not seem to suggest that even that is a good reason to leave. As said before, God accepts churches with wheat and tares, and just because the tares outnumber the wheat does not mean someone should leave.

What would I do in reality? I don’t know. This is a thinking through process as opposed to firm convictions.

There is another facet of the question I would like to consider: How does this apply to leaders of a church?

Hopefully I haven’t given the impression that doctrine is not important. I think it is very important, and I think that leaders in the church should be vigilant to teach and operate in accordance with sound doctrine. But a leader should not discipline a general church attender for believing wrong doctrine, but for creating division (often by teaching wrong doctrine) and immoral behaviour. The Bible does not discipline for specific belief, but rather for aggressively propagating that belief, for actions that result from it or for biblically defined immoral actions.

But how does that apply to choosing leaders/ teachers/ missionaries (as in the case of the IMB)? Just what doctrine is important for them to hold to?

Hard question. My cop-out answer would be “seek the Lord” (a good answer all the same)! To a degree I believe that church leaders have a similar right as do parents (and especially fathers) to dictate how their household runs. Their preferences should be acknowledged as what they understand to be the best (and often correct) way of doing things for the purpose of believers’ growth and glorifying God through holding Jesus and the gospel high. In line with this acknowledgement should be the implicit (if not explicit) understanding that other church leaders may operate a different way without restricting involvement with them except in areas they deem sinful.

I have spent a considerable amount of time talking to egalitarians about gender issues in the church and finally I came to the decision to stop.

Here is the last post I wrote to a discussion board for egalitarians and complementarians where I was a moderator. (Note XXXX was a complementarian lady who stirred up the board for a short time and then left):

For the last little while I’ve been thinking about unsubscribing from
this list and just recently I made the decision that I would. Allow me,
in my last (long) post to explain why.

WHY DISCUSS? I am unsubscribing mainly because I see little point in continuing this discussion. I believe that, though there are many similarities, there are distinctions between men and women made in the Bible when it comes to certain roles in society, church and family. That means that I believe that the positions of elder/pastor and authoritative teaching in the church is restricted to men. I believe that husbands have godly authority in the marriage relationship and in the family (though authority with regards to wife and children has marked differences). I also believe that leadership of nations is a male task. The problem with discussing these things is that, no matter how ammicably it all begins, conversation follows a predictable pattern and in the end degenerates into quarrelling. Where is the value in that?
There are discussions that haven’t gone there, but this is largely due to
people keeping conversations short or avoiding certain topics. The best people at avoiding quarrelling are also the people who limit their
participation - and they admit they limit their participation because they know that if they get into the discussion they will start quarrelling. Have a look at amicable exchanges between comps and egals on this list - they are either brief, or they concern something they both agree about.
So the options are, participate and quarrel or don’t participate and
never get to the issues.

THE “HOW” OF AUTHORITY. The exercise of authority has been and can still be abused and HOW to exercise authority as a husband, father, elder/pastor, national leader is worth discussing. Even better, it is worth working it out in real life. Yet despite some valid concerns egalitarians have with regards to male authority, little to no value comes of discussions about the concerns with them - indeed, there are complementarians who have the same concerns and can provide much more beneficial ideas without having to work through all the confrontations.

INEQUALITY IN DISCUSSIONS. There is also an inequality in discussions between comps and egals. Egals link complementarianism with oppression and usually lead on to linking it with abuse. There are also links drawn with slavery, despotism, fascism, and any number of negative things. However, when comps link egalitarianism with anything negative, be it liberal Christianity (which is not seen as negative by many anyway), the increase in blatant sexual sin, the decline of civilisation, all of which can be historically shown (and currently the first two are being amply illustrated - it’s always difficult to objectively see the decline of a civilisation you are part of), a storm of protest arises that comps should do something that egals - as a major part of their argument - do all the time. I do not agree with everything XXXX did or said. In fact, I’ve explained to her that her approach (only part of which is on this board) was ungodly in great part and did not follow Biblical guidelines for dealing with people you think accept and promote false teaching. But I do think that she was responding in great part to what I have explained about comp -egal discussion above and I can understand that even if I don’t agree with how she went about it.

EGALITARIANISM IS A HERESY. Egalitarianism in it’s modern Christian form is unbiblical, despite appeals to the Bible. It takes valid concerns of oppression, abuse, and injustice and instead of turning to biblical reform, turns to invalid rejection of the biblical doctrine of gender. For many it is the first of a repeating pattern that leads them into Christian liberalism - valid concerns + turning away from biblical teaching. Some here will react and declare they are not like that and it is true, there are many who do not carry on down the Liberal path (though, again, some here won’t see liberalism as a bad thing). However, I have witnessed and I am witnessing that very thing in many egalitarians. The church my family went to when I was a child was an example of 2nd and 3rd generation Liberalism; the people and movements I am seeing today are a new first generation. I know where it goes. There is a difference with this new wave of Liberalism, though. Instead of denying the authority of the Bible, they state that they uphold the authority of the Bible and instead reinterpret what it says. Hence, we have evangelical homosexuals, evangelical Open Theists, and evangelical anything you want. It is no accident that many egalitarians move on to other heretical positions, all the while claiming biblical support. In fact, it would be interesting to survey those who hold to Open Theism and see how many are also egalitarian. Their method of biblical interpretation is the same.

Now, I don’t mean to imply that egalitarians are necessarily Liberal even though many of them interpret Scripture in a liberal manner, nor that individual Liberal Christians are necessarily unsaved - it is belief and acceptance of Jesus’ death and resurrection that saves, not evangelicalism. To tell the truth, there are people who unfortunately call themselves complementarians whose attitudes and actions lead me to question THEIR salvation! I’m sure I could quite happily fellowship with many people on this list based on a shared agreement in other areas, but since the purpose of this list is to discuss the very issue we disagree on, and I have not seen any evidence that it is possible in a worthwhile way (after trying for not an inconsiderable time), why continue?

THE BIBLE TEACHES US HOW TO RESPOND TO HERESY. The Bible is clear that endless discussions are fruitless. If someone opposes the truth, gently instruct them and pray that God will show them the truth. But if they won’t listen, leave them. But I have also been open to changing my mind on this whole area, not just coming convinced that I am right and egalitarians are wrong. Yet despite all that various egalitarians have said and the books/articles I have read, I remain unconvinced. I am even firmer in my convictions than I was before and even more concerned that egalitarianism is harmful to people and the church. Should the unthinkable be true and I am wrong in this, I trust God to show me that also.

CONCLUSION. Egalitarianism is a dangerous heresy and I wish with all my heart egalitarians here could see it, but they don’t. Therefore, having stated my case more than once, I will let them continue on in their belief and live out my life declaring the whole of Scripture, including the biblical truth of complementarianism. All the best to all of you.

Alistair.

Ochuk is moving hosts it seems so this link may not last too long, but here is a good post explaining another side to what I’ve been saying in my unfinished “So, Jesus really does matter?” posts.

The basic point is that God wants a people who (to quote Greg Boyd) “are united with Him in love”, not people who believe and do all the right things. All I would add is “through Jesus”. Jesus is the difference in a real Christian life…not doctine, not action, not words.

And one more thing…I find it interesting that Greg Boyd has been quoted as the one to bring this to Ochuk’s attention. Could it be that Boyd, being an Open Theist, is not bound in his thoughts by stultifying orthodoxy? Could it be that he can think his own thoughts without being afraid and that is why he can get at these sorts of conclusions that many others, afraid to step over the line, are not able to get at?

Just a question.

Aaron tagged me.  I know it’s voluntary, but…okay.  I’ll do it.  The only problem is I don’t have anyone to tag myself.  Aaron’s the only guy who reads this blog who actually blogs himself!  Glenn, would your technical one count?

FOUR JOBS I’VE HAD:

1. Library Assistant (paid more than the local supermarket).

2. Commercial Cleaner (that’s my mainstay - been doing that off and on for over 15 years).

3. Pedicab driver (A pedicab is a plusher rickshaw).

4. School Teacher (Good job, not me).

FOUR MOVIES I’D WATCH ON REPEAT:

1. I, Robot.

2. Wimbledon.

3. The Truman Show.

4. Chariots of Fire.

FOUR TV SHOWS I LOVE: (love is a bit strong…)

1. Law and Order - any of them.

2. The Simpsons.

3. Smallville.

4. Brainiacs. (British.  On Sunday nights, so rarely watch it.)

FOUR VACATION LOCALES I’D LOVE TO HIT:

1. Canada - revisit the birth country.

2. Scotland - visit the ancestor’s country.

3. Thailand - revisit the “temporarily home” country.

4. New Zealand - revisit the best country.

FOUR WEBSITES I VISIT DAILY: (often there are more than four)

1. Aaron’s Blog - not that there’s always something to read

2. Internet Monk - not that there’s always something there to read, either.

3. Yahoo.com/Hotmail.com - both for email. 

4. XtraMSN - I don’t have a choice, I am automatically directed there after signing out of one of my hotmail accounts.

FOUR FOODS I LUST AFTER:

1. Coffee.

2. Coffee.

3. Coffee.

4. Wife.

FOUR CHANGES I’D MAKE TO THE HOUSE:

1. Air-conditioning - everywhere.

2. Great gardens.

3. Decent flooring.

4. Live in servant.

FOUR BEERS I LIKE:

1. Tui.

2. Steinlager.

3. Heiniken. (Is that how it’s spelt?)

4. Ginger.

FOUR TAGS (only one of these actually has a blog):

1. Glenn.

2. Warwick.

3. Matty.

4. Phil.

Not too long ago I wrote to my friend Warwick and told him about this blog (suggesting he read it because I didn’t have time to write a decent length letter).  This was his reply…

[Reproduced with permission]

I enjoyed that. Especially the Scrabble bit. Tania and I beat each other fairly regularly at Settlers of Catan, and Mancala which leads to a happy relationship. (Note: not physical beatings. I feel that I need to make that clear) I think that you need to do two things to ensure a happy relationship. a) buy a dictionary (and read it). b) call Paula’s Mum. When she answers, get her to talk to Paula. Hopefully this leads to a long conversation. While she is on the phone, set up Scrabble with His and Her letters. Give her the ones like Q,W,J,Z,X etc. They have high values, so it is actually helping her. At least, this can be used to feed the conscience. Then try and memorise all the letters that are upside down. Now you can win when Paula gets off the phone, (but you probably won’t. Women have a built in ability to won Scrabble)

Alternatively, do what I do. Avoid Scrabble like the plague and play a game where it is easier to beat your wife. Monopoly is pretty good, because women get bored with Monopoly before us, and leave the game prematurely so we get to win by default.

Burn these little words of wisdom after reading. They should not fall into the wrong hands…

W.

Read this article from the New York Times (HT: One Salient Oversight).  Very good.  A slap in my war-supporting face, and that after I studied the behaviour of NZ churches in WW1.  Some of the responses of the majority of the church are listed below:

- recruitment and sending off of young men in their congregations as soldiers.  A Presbyterian minister recalled that he was “as good as a recruiting agent during the War.”

- support for conscription in 1916.

- vilification of those who did not choose to go or did not support conscription.  Heavily churched Maori from three areas opposed conscription and were abandoned by European Churches.  As a result, they went back to a tribal religion.

- blurring theology.  “The content of sermons linked fighting and dying in the war with the acceptance of God’s call and a path to heaven.”

- 130 chaplains sent overseas with the soldiers but…”As a rule chaplains were men whose moral conduct was unimpeachable, but who were not distinguished [from] ordinary men for courage and self-sacrifice…from the followers of One Crucified, whose primary business, according to their creed, was ‘to lay down their lives for the sheep,’ it was perfectly justifiable to expect much more than mediocrity.”

- preached to soldiers at the frontline, but in order to support the war and the military and ultimately the civilisation upon which their influence rested.  “Was there a parson at the Front who dared to preach: ‘Thou shalt not kill’, that all men are brothers and God the father of all, irrespective of race, creed or colour, and all things being so, the combatants on both sides should fraternize with the enemy?” (A non-Christian conscientious objector).

In conclusion…

“Supporting the war effort so wholeheartedly stripped the church of the ability to effectively present the message of the gospel which ostensibly is her task.  By enthusiasticly embracing the need to defend the culture they were in, the churches put their loyalty to civilisation before their loyalty to their God.  How far did the Churches support the New Zealand war effort in the First World War?  Too far.”

Knowing the disaster of that history, to read John Stott’s comment was a little kick in the gut:

“the Christian community’s primary mission must be “to hunger for righteousness, to pursue peace, to forbear revenge, to love enemies, in other words, to be marked by the cross.”
Is that me?  Is that you?  (Probably)  Is that the majority of evangelical Christians worldwide?

Stop drinking water only, and use a little wine because of your stomack and your frequent illnesses. 

I would like to suggest that this is not as much of an unrelated digression in the context (vv17-25) as all commentators I have consulted seem to think. 

What if……since vv17-21 is talking about the good vs. sinning elders…

…and vv22, 24-25 seem to be talking about ordaining elders by the laying on of hands and testing them first…

…cannot v23 be in the context of the fast that accompanies the ordaining of elders (see Acts 13:3 and Acts 14:23)?  In essence, Paul is saying, “When you fast during the ordination of elders, do not drink only water, but also a little wine because you have been ill a lot and need to watch your health.”

This would explain why Timothy would be drinking only water.

I have never found this explanation of this verse in any commentary, though I am not foolish enough to think I am the first to think it.  I do remember thinking it through and coming to the conclusion that the suggestion I make above didn’t work, but I can’t remember why.  So tell me if you can figure it out.

Maybe I am going to make people uncomfortable with all this, but stick with me. I am suggesting that just because your church no longer believes the Bible is the Word of God, or because it has accepted homosexuality is okay, that is no reason to leave. I have encountered some people who do not believe the Bible is the Word of God (not in the inerrantist sense) and I believe that they still have a genuine faith in Jesus and what He did for them on the cross. This must needs raise the question as to whether someone who accepts - and even practices - homosexual behaviour as okay and yet still holds a faith in Jesus and the gospel can be considered a Christian. My only conclusion can be yes. (What I don’t think is that they are likely to be able to effectively introduce others to saving faith - around them or to the next generation).

Can the same not be applied to churches?

The bizzare truth is that God actually accepts Churches with wheat and tares (Matt 13) - just because there seems to be more tares than wheat does not mean the church should be abandoned. In fact, you may learn more about grace there than in a local “doctrinally pure” church. I am not convinced that God anywhere gives us leave to go to another church because our church is heading in an ungodly direction.

How do you survive?

Obviously in a church where there is error and lifelessness, other avenues of teaching and fellowship are needed. In those cases, there are groups both inside and outside a church where these things can be gained. Again I think of the Methodist movement. Methodists were expected to go to a service at something like 5am-6am and then meet in groups about three times a week, then go to the local Anglican church Sunday morning and evening, and in between, go to the Methodist meetings.

Another question: Is it ever okay to leave a church?

At this stage I would say that in cases of spiritual abuse or where people are being damaged - that is a church to leave. Of course, in the normal course of things, people move from house to house or town to town - those are logical reasons to move church. And if a Church takes the step of denying Christ as God and Saviour? I would treat that with caution - again, it is very rare that the majority of the Church believes that and turn arounds are possible. But it is one thing where I think disfellowshipping is expected. If a Church no longer calls itself a Church…leave.

One more reason to leave…

If you are kicked out. If you believe the gospel and stand up for what is right, you will either effect change or be asked to leave. In that case, no blame can be attributed to you.

Go to:

So Jesus really does matter? Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

In part one I came to the conclusion that as long as Jesus and the gospel are paramount in a movement, God will honour it, despite it’s failings.

If this is true, How are we to respond today?

Thinking back to New Testament times, there was only one church. If there were problems in a church (and there were…all over the New Testament!) the answer was not to leave the church - and I don’t believe that is because there was nowhere else to go.

Matt 23:1-3…Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: The teachers of the Law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Throughout the early church, Jews who believed in Christ remained in Judaism - until they were kicked out. At the time of the Reformation Martin Luther remained (and wanted to remain) in the Catholic Church until he was kicked out. The Wesleys would not hear of the Methodists leaving the Anglican Church, and it was not until John was dead that they finally split.

Are we today too quick to judge a church and leave? Is there actually any reason to leave? Many people would say that a church that no longer embraced inerrancy was a church to abandon. Others would say that when a Church affirmed homosexuality, that is the time to leave. But is it?

History has shown a turn-around of more than one church sliding into liberalism, and also falling into legalism. And if we remember the good that God brings out of good mens error, are we denying ourselves the good God could bring us out of a Church going quietly off the rails?

My personal experience (though not infallible) seems to suggest this. My family church was a liberal Presbyterian Church - they did not believe the Bible was the Word of God. Through various means, I came to believe the gospel and it took me two years to leave that church. The bizzare thing is that as soon as I left that church, my Christian experience seemed to close down! I now believe I made a mistake leaving that church.

Below are four statements I came to accept via a couple of previous posts (here and here).

1. Being able to recognise faults in a movement helps free us from idolizing that movement (the Reformation, the Great Awakening, the Welsh Revival, the early Church etc).

2. The fact that God used those faults for His good purposes gives Him glory and takes glory away from the movement.

3. Our own movement (or even personal belief system) does not need to become perfect to be used by God (ie. don’t major on minors). This also means that just because God is using our movement - even something specific within our movement - does not mean that it is right.

4. Care must be taken if tempted to write off another movement just because you can see such blatant errors and mistakes.

A number of questions come from these statements, (including those at the end of one of the linked posts that I haven’t really answered).

First, a positive: What is the commonality between churches and movements who, though holding to widely differing doctrinal beliefs, are used mightily by God?

As far as I have noticed, the common factor is that Jesus and the gospel are held as paramount. I think of YWAM, who to me have so many extra-biblical doctrines and practices it is frightening, but they are used by God because they are focussed on evangelism, and Jesus and the gospel. I think of Sovereign Grace Ministries who are cross focussed. I think of John Piper, who has become more Jesus focussed as his influence has grown. On the other side of the coin, people whom I consider to have orthodox belief but who don’t have life are also the people who raise other doctrines and beliefs as high or higher than Jesus and the gospel. Therefore, my conclusion is that where Jesus and the cross is central and of paramount importance, God is working, despite whatever else is off beam.

A second question then, If Jesus and the cross are the most important thing, how important is other doctrine?

Please don’t assume I don’t think other doctrine is important - I think it is extremely important. I believe that correct doctrine brings greater freedom into people’s lives, gives us a greater understanding of God, helps the church to survive through various generations - basically, it equips and matures and stabilises the church. False doctrine is not to be passed over lightly. And yet, I don’t actually see much evidence in the Bible for disfellowshipping over anything other than doctrines that directly touch Jesus and the gospel (eg. the parousia has already occurred, Jesus’ divinity, etc). Strangely enough, the only other thing where I see disfellowshipping being called for is factions and disunity (see this article by Craig Blomberg for a survey of the New Testament on this). My thought is that we are called to put up with and work through a lot of things that many of us today would leave a church for.

I have not thought a lot about the ethics of cloning, and when I have, the thoughts have usually been negative.  Then I came across this article by John Frame.

Chrsitianity Today has an article about the restrictions the IMB have put on potential missionaries they will accept.  For Adrian Warnock and others (whom I got this link from), the biggest issue is they will not accept people who speak in tongues, but, as Aaron points out, that is not the only restriction.  Nor are we the only ones to comment on it.  But comment on it I will (based very closely on the comments I left on Adrian’s blog).

The last sentence in the CT article reads:“During the November meeting, trustees also voted to accept only those missionary candidates baptized in churches that teach believer security and that practice only baptism by immersion.”

While the IMB’s acceptance only of those baptised by immersion might seem reasonable considering they are Baptist (though personally I think it is unbiblical to set up even that restriction), how on earth does accepting only people baptised in “churches that teach believer security” do anything?

I’m all for conservative and reformed theology, but it seems to me that Southern Baptist organisations will soon restrict themselves out of all effectiveness. Already it seems that these lesser matters have been raised to the same level of importance as the gospel! Aren’t we saved by faith in Jesus? The IMB seems to be asserting that we are saved through cessationism, calvinism and full immersion!

Now, I don’t truly think that the IMB elevates those secondary matters to the same level of importance as the gospel. I think that they would be quite annoyed at the suggestion that they think people are saved through belief in cessationism, calvinism and full immersion.  I recognise also that missionaries sent out from the IMB are representatives of the Southern Baptist denomination, and as such their beliefs and practices are held to a stricter standard than the average believer. The IMB, I suspect, are concerned that the teachings they believe true not be misrepresented as Southern Baptist on the field - for their sake, and ultimately for the Lord’s sake.My concern, however, (and it may have been discussed before) is that if I am correct in the above, the IMB seeks to preach not only the gospel, but also the Southern Baptist way of believing and doing church. Can the accusations of missionaries “colonising” other cultures be accurate in this (and other denominational mission agencies’) case?

Why not preach the gospel, give them the Bible, and let them make up their own minds? Some of our controversies will likely never arise! Of course, a missionary will give his own opinion, but biblically none of the recent restrictions the IMB has placed on missionaries going out into the field seem to have been issues the apostles disfellowshipped people over - or even considered!

So while I do not think the IMB believes the restrictions placed on missionaries are salvation issues, I do think by insisting on adherence to certain beliefs they have ensured missionaries preach the gospel AND. (Or the gospel in a IMB-defined Southern Baptist clothing.)

I’m not Southern Baptist, or even American, but such moves worry me.

I was wondering what to put under such a great little take off of the common idiom and viola! Adrian Warnock posted a Piper quote I am going to steal (though, I have the book where, if the quote does not directly come from there, the essence of it does, i.e. Let the Nations be Glad. First British Edition, 1994, p65)

“Not only has God made the accomplishment of his global purposes of salvation hang on the preaching of the Word; he has also made the success of the preaching of the Word hang on prayer. God’s goal to be glorified in a world full of white-hot worshippers from every people and tongue and tribe and nation will not succeed without the powerful proclamation of the gospel by people like you and me. And that gospel will not be proclaimed in power to all the nations without the persevering, earnest, global, faith-filled prayers f God’s people. This is the awesome place of prayer in the purposes of God for the world. They won’t happen without prayer.”

When my wife and I saw the news about Ariel Sharon’s stroke, I turned to my wife and said, “Someone is going to say that Ariel Sharon has been punished by God for giving up the Gaza Strip.”

As I said that, I was thinking of Muslim extremists or angry Jews - I didn’t expect it to turn out to be Pat Robertson. But why not? His theology of the end-times and the way of thinking of those who adhere to the same eschatology leads easily to that conclusion.

Now I think it is possible for God to punish or strike down people for their actions - against the interests of Israel and against God. God promises this (Gen 12:3) and the Bible gives us examples of this (eg. Obad 10-16). I don’t think it beyond the realm of possibility that God would strike someone down for their actions against Israel’s interests.

And yet there is another side. When Jeremiah was prophesying, he was prophesying to the King and all Israel that they should abandon Jerusalem because the Babylonians would take it and he was condemned as a traitor (Jer 38:1-4). This shows that God is not uniformly for Jerusalem, nor is He uniformly for fighting to keep the land of Israel in Jewish hands. Wisdom is needed to know how to deal with the situation in the Middle East, but one thing is sure, God will secure the land of Israel for Israel - it was not necessarily a wrong move for Sharon to work toward peace. Nor is it up to him or any other politician to hold on to territory in the face of a possible solution to the unrest.

Did God strike Sharon down for giving up the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank? I don’t know, but I do know giving up the land like that was not ipso facto an ungodly move (Matt 5:38-42).

Until I have time, this is merely a notification of the beginning of the Thunker Blog at this web address. Hopefully I’ll be able to move my posts from my previous address here soon.