How a Dad Loves a Prodigal

My dad and I are really close. In fact, we're so close that I worked for him doing all of his bookkeeping for the year before my twins were born. I loved talking to him nearly every day, especially since he lives so far away from me now. But we weren't always so close.

I was once a prodigal daughter.

For nearly two years I ran from my parents, family, and the Lord. I liked sin and liked living in sin. Talking to my dad (and mom) meant conviction, and I wanted nothing to do with it. If you peered through the window of my past you would have seen that I perfectly fit the profile of the son in Luke 15:11-32. I was wild, impulsive, and opposed to authority on every level.

A quick survey of the families in your church would probably reveal that many have or had children who in some way have strayed from the faith of their upbringing. Parenting is hard work with no real guarantee of the outcome. While every situation is unique and has its own challenges, one thing is certain—prodigal children need to know they are loved. And my parents made sure of that.   Continue at Courtney Reissig

Why God Loves People Who Hate Each Other

The church is filled with lots of dangerously different people. 

There are rich and poor, old and young, male and female. We have families with fifteen children and fifty-year-old unmarrieds. There are Republicans and Democrats, executives and janitors, athletes, artists, and teachers. And the differences get even deeper — American, African, Asian, Latin, and Middle Eastern.

Not to mention our personalities — outgoing and shy, bold and meek, patient and ambitious, emotional and unaffected, rational and relational. There’s no mystery why the Bible has so much to say about stress, conflict, and reconciliation between believers. How could there not be friction in a family like ours?   Continue at  Marshall Segal

Ways to Love the Church More

Let me say this plainly: I love the people of Grace Fellowship Church. I totally felt what John Piper was saying in a recent interview on his experience as a pastor at Bethlehem:

I never felt that I was the church’s privilege, but that she is mine. To be at Bethlehem was gift, all gift.

I have felt that to be my reality in increasing measure since we planted, almost three years ago now. And I know that Paul, my fellow pastor, feels the same way.

That being said, I have known enough churches and enough pastors over the years to realize that the relationship between pastor and congregation isn’t always exclusively a love-in. Even in the privileged ministry that the Lord has given me, there have been opportunities for anger, strife, malice, bitterness, and all the rest of that to take root.

So how do we fight those temptations when they come? Here are some ways I’ve found helpful to grow in love for the members of the church:   Continue at Julian Freeman

What’s Love Got to Do with It?

First Corinthians 13:4-7 is probably the world’s most cross-stitched passage of Scripture. The poetic beauty of its truth is celebrated and admired. It’s also the Scripture that is most used on greeting cards that are given to newlyweds. However, there is nothing in the context that hints that marital love is what the apostle Paul had in mind when he wrote his words. Certainly they apply to marriage, but they also apply to any horizontal, human relationship. Most clearly, what the apostle had in mind is the relationship of believers to one another—brothers and sisters in the family of God.

The Priority of Love

Chapter 13, is of course, nestled between chapters 12 and 14. Chapter 12 gives instruction concerning the sovereign will of the Holy Spirit in dispensing gifts for the edification of the entire body. Some believers in Corinth viewed themselves as less-gifted because they did not possess the spectacular gifts. Others–those who did possess the miraculous gifts of that age–were tempted to think they did not need the lesser members of the church. Both groups lacked biblical love.

Chapter 14, of course, follows chapter 13, the “love chapter.” Chapter 14 is corrective in nature. It is a rebuke of the immature believers’ misuse of the miraculous gifts that were given to the church for its infantile stage. Tongues, in particular, were being used not for edification, but for self-glory. These believers had the same problem—a love problem. Therefore, they were commanded to “pursue love” (1 Cor 14:1).   Continue at Paul Tautges

Abortion and the Negation of Love

Those of us in the pro-life movement often claim that we live in a "culture of death." But most of us don't believe it. Not really. We may use the phrase as a rhetorical tool, but deep in our hearts we think that our family, friends, and neighbors wouldn't knowingly kill another human being.

We convince ourselves that they simply don't realize what they're doing. If only they could see—and honestly look at—the ultrasound pictures of an unborn child. If only we could convince them that what they consider a "clump of cells" is a person. If only they knew it was a human life they were destroying. If they only knew, they wouldn't—they couldn't—continue to support abortion.

But they do know. And the abortions continue. Not because we live in a culture of death but because we live in a culture of me.

A prime example is Amy Richards, an abortion rights advocate who has worked with Planned Parenthood, as well as a co-founder of a feminist organization, the Third Wave Foundation, which has financed abortions. On the website Makers -- an initiative of PBS and AOL that shares stories from women -- Richards talks about having a selection reduction when she learned she was carrying triplets, and the uproar her story caused.   Continue at Joe Carter

Love Is More Than a Choice

This is a gentle pushback on a popular slogan.

There is truth in saying, “love is a choice” or “love is a decision.” It is true that if you don’t feel like doing good to your neighbor love will incline you to “choose” to do it anyway. If you feel like getting a divorce, love will incline you to “choose” to stay married and work it out.

If you shrink back from the pain of nails being driven through your hands, love will incline you to say, “Not my will but yours be done.” That’s the truth I hear in the statements: “Love is a choice,” or “Love is a decision.”

But I don’t prefer to use these statements. Too many people hear three tendencies in them that those who use the statements may not intend.

1. Saying “love is a choice” sounds like the tendency to believe love is in our power to perform, even when we don’t feel like it.
2. Saying “love is a choice” sounds like the tendency to make the will, with its decisions, the decisive moral agent rather than the heart, with its affections.
3. Saying “love is a choice” sounds like the tendency to set the bar too low: If you can will to treat someone well, you have done all you should.

I disagree with all three of these tendencies.

In their place I would say:   Continue at John Piper

Abusers at the Communion Table

I read an article last week written by an abuse survivor on the ramifications for a victim when his/her perpetrator is welcome at the communion table. I had a strong reaction to the article, at first negative and then positive. I think the article raised a good point, and it is valuable to think through the implications from both angles.

First, I can't say in strong enough terms that we have NO GOOD NEWS if we deny repentant abusers a place at the communion table. We might as well pack up our hymnals and Bibles and just go on home. We deny the gospel and suction out every last bit of hope we have in Christ if we do that. I will die a bloody death on that sword. Repentant sinners are WELCOME at the communion table.

However, we must also consider what simple love demands. Love is after all the GREATEST command. We must show consideration to one struggling as a victim in such a circumstance. We must lay down our rights. I have some personal experience that helps me navigate the difference in my first point and my second – the absolute necessity that the gospel not just allows but WELCOMES the repentant abuser to the communion table AND the absolute necessity to love the victim in a way that removes stumblingblocks to faith. Before I was married, my family went through a trial. Without going into detail, we ended up at a different church in our community. We deliberately went there to start over. To rebuild in a new church community, leaving our previous church which included the person who had deeply hurt our family.    Continue at Theology for Women

The Marriage Debates: Sometimes, the Slope Really Is Slippery!

There is no doubt that the slippery slope argument is abused and has earned its position as a logical fallacy. Politicians use the argument to create fear and loathing against the policies they oppose. “If we allow this, the whole world will fall apart.” Because the argument is often abused, it tends to be discounted whenever it is used. “That is just a slippery slope argument.” It must be invalid. 

But, folks, sometimes the slope really is slippery. Sometimes, a relatively small step can lead us over the edge and send us sliding down a dangerous slope.

I have lived in Iowa for 31 of my 55 years. I know a little bit about snow and snow sledding. When the kids were young, we loved snow days. We’d pile everyone into the van along with our sleds and we’d head to Boyson Elementary or Jones Park and ride some slippery slopes. You are poised at the top of the hill in your sled and you push yourself or scoot along an inch or two at a time until suddenly you reach the tipping point. You start to slide on your own and pick up speed. There is nothing to stop you until you reach the bottom of the hill. It’s a slippery slope.

A day or two ago, I read one of the most disgusting and disturbing statements I have heard, coming from Hollywood director Nick Cassevetes. He directed CB Scott’s favorite movie, “The Notebook.” He is releasing a new movie called Yellow, that evidently explores a theme, incest, that even our perverted, morally sick world has considered taboo. In an interview with “The Wrap” Cassevetes made this statement.

(There is a swear word in the quote. I normally delete those, but I thought it best to leave this one in. I hope the use of that word does not offend, but it demonstrates the utter contempt for moral standards in Cassevetes’ statement and I left it in for that reason. And, frankly, if the four letter word is what offends you about this statement, you might be missing the point!)   Continue at Dave Miller

Be Counseled by Thomas Chalmers

“The Expulsive Power of a New Affection” is the classic sermon of Thomas Chalmers, Scottish mathematician, political economist, and a leader of the Free Church of Scotland. Many months ago, I printed off this sermon and it’s been in my briefcase ever since. Yesterday, when I needed to get out of my office into the fresh air, I grabbed my briefcase and headed to a local park. After finding a picnic table in the shade, I fingered through my papers and decided to pull out “Expulsive Power.” I’m so glad I did. This sermon is an important contribution to our understanding of how we are converted, namely, by the Spirit’s regeneration and granting of a new heart of faith. It is also an important contribution to our understanding of how we grow in holiness, namely, by the consequent replacement of our natural affections with a new, supernatural affection for God which is birthed by the gospel.

CHALMERS’ MAIN PREMISE: There are two potential ways to stop loving the world (to be sanctified, to become holy). [1] You may withdraw from the world’s allurement having recognized its vanity (Put Off), or [2] You may replace love for the world with something more worthy (Put On). Chalmers wrote, “There are two ways in which a practical moralist may attempt to displace from the human heart its love of the world; either by a demonstration of the world’s vanity, so as that the heart shall be prevailed upon simply to withdraw its regards from an object that is not worthy of it; or, by setting forth another object, even God, as more worthy of its attachment; so as that the heart shall be prevailed upon, not to resign an old affection which shall have nothing to succeed it, but to exchange an old affection for a new one.”

CHALMERS’ MAIN PURPOSE: “My purpose is to show, that from the constitution of our nature, the former method is altogether incompetent and ineffectual and that the latter method will alone suffice for the rescue and recovery of the heart from the wrong affection that domineers over it.” In other words, Chalmers is convinced that we are transformed in holiness by first having our desires transformed.   Continue at  Paul Tautges

Meeting Muslims and Islam: On Love and Discernment

Eboo Patel is the author of  Sacred Ground: Pluralism, Prejudice and the Promise of America and founder and president of Interfaith Youth Core.  He recently penned an opinion piece for CNN entitled “How Evangelicals Can Learn to Love Muslims.”  Caught my eye.  Patel marvels at the evangelical political embrace of conservative Roman Catholics, a group that just 60 years ago would have faced the same kind of suspicion and scrutiny that Mormon presidential candidates deal with.  In the piece, Patel describes Islam as “the new Catholicism.”  To make his point, Patel quotes no less an “evangelical” authority than Norman Vincent Peale:

“Our freedom, our religious freedom, is at stake if we elect a member of the Roman Catholic order as president of the United States,” Norman Vincent Peale told a conference of evangelical leaders in September 1960.

Materials handed out at the Peale conference claimed ‘Universal Roman Catholicism’ was both a religion and a political force whose doctrines were ultimately incompatible with the American ideals of freedom, equality and democracy.

Then Patel makes his analogy:

Replace “Roman Catholic” with “Muslim” and “Church hierarchy” with “caliphate” in those pronouncements and today we are witnessing a similar energy directed against a different faith community using largely the same categories.

In today’s parlance, Kennedy was part of a stealth jihad meant to replace the U.S. Constitution with sharia law and practicing taqqiyya to mask this dawa offensive.  Continue at Thabiti Anyabwile

See also: Christ & Islam

Lust & Chastity

We often think that “our day and age” differs significantly from previous eras. We tend to think that our day presents more dangerous and stubborn problems, requiring more complex and sophisticated solutions, from wiser and nobler people, namely ourselves. Someone has dubbed this attitude “chronological snobbery.” 

But one thing puts the lie to this self deception — the continuing existence and destruction of lust.

Earlier Christians wisely included lust among the deadliest sins. For lust is the impregnated parent of all forms of sin. James explained that “each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death” (James 1:14–15).

From the first stolen bite of forbidden fruit to the avaricious gaze of mall-bound window shoppers, lust has coursed through the hearts of men like the most poisonous venom. 

Lust involves any strong desire, craving, or want that opposes the holy will and command of God. Lust perverts, twists, and defiles all that is good and beautiful, and this is particularly true with sexual or carnal lust.

For example, some people today tout homosexuality as an “orientation” equal in virtue to heterosexuality. They appeal to the “love” shared between two persons of the same gender, and on that basis, contend that equality and public acceptance must be guaranteed. To some, these sexual passions are so strong as to appear innate. Moreover, we are told that homosexual desires are private, harmless to others, and beyond the censure of society.   Continue at Thabiti Anyabwile

An Objection to God’s Sovereignty that Proves It

In Romans 9, Paul discusses God’s absolute freedom in His saving purposes. He uses the illustration of the twins, Jacob and Esau, stating that God’s choice of Jacob over Esau had nothing to do with either of them. Rather, God chose “so that [His] purpose according to His choice would stand.” This choice was “not because of works but because of Him who calls” (Rom 9:11). He goes on to say that salvation “does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (Rom 9:16), and then supports that claim by referring to God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart for the expressed purpose of demonstrating His power and proclaiming His name through the events that followed (Rom 9:17; cf. Exod 9:16). Paul then summarizes his point by declaring: “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires” (Rom 9:18).

Then, Paul anticipates an objection: “You will say to me, then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?’”

First, let us understand the objection itself. Paul’s imaginary (or perhaps not so imaginary) interlocutor has understood all that Paul has said about God up until this point.

• He understands that salvation is entirely a work of God’s grace, and owes to nothing in man.
• He also understands that it is God’s will, not man’s will, that is determinative and decisive in salvation (again, Rom 9:16; cf. John 1:13). He asks a rhetorical question to underscore this very point: “Who resists His will?” That is to say, “No one resists God’s will.” “Our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases” (Ps 115:3). He accomplishes all His good pleasure (Isa 46:10), and no purpose of His can be thwarted (Job 42:2).
• The objector also understands that God still holds man accountable. “He still find[s] fault.”

So the question is, “Since no one can resist God’s will, how is it fair that He still finds fault?”   Continue at Mike Riccardi

One-Way Love

We love the “if/then” proposition: “If” you do this, “then” I will do that; we are inveterate slaves (at worst) or grumpy employees (at best). We militate against the freedom of inheritance and the dependency of sonship. We love living as though “what goes around comes around” conditionality were true. That kind of conditionality makes us feel safe. It’s easy to comprehend. It’s appropriately formulaic. And best of all, it keeps us in control. We get to keep our ledgers and scorecards. The equation: “If I do this, then you are obligated to do that” makes perfect sense to our grace-shy hearts.

Unconditionality, on the other hand, is incomprehensible. We are deeply conditioned against unconditionality because we’ve been told in a thousand different ways that accomplishment always precedes acceptance, that achievement always precedes approval. When we hear, “Of course you don’t deserve it, but I’m giving it to you anyway,” we wonder, “What is this really about? What’s the catch?” Internal bells and alarms start to go off, and we begin saying “wait a minute…this sounds too good to be true.”

You see, everything in our world demands two-way love. Everything is conditional. If I achieve, we reason, only then will I receive everything I long for: love, approval, significance, respect, and so on. Be good. Bring home the bacon. Keep your act together….Then (and only then) will you have what you want. That’s how our world works. But grace isn’t from our world. It’s otherworldly. It’s unconditional. Grace is upside-down, to-do-list wrecking, scandalous and way-too free. It’s one-way love.  Continue at Tullian Tchividjian

Teach Children the Bible Is Not About Them

When I go into churches and speak to children I ask them two questions:

First, How many people here sometimes think you have to be good for God to love you? They tentatively raise their hands. I raise my hand along with them.

And second, How many people here sometimes think that if you aren't good, God will stop loving you? They look around and again raise their hands.

These are children in Sunday schools who know the Bible stories and probably all the right answers, and yet they have somehow missed the most important thing of all.

They have missed what the Bible is all about.

They are children like I once was.

As a child, even though I was a Christian, I grew up thinking the Bible was filled with rules you had to keep (or God wouldn't love you) and with heroes setting examples you had to follow (or God wouldn't love you).

I tried to be good. I really did. I was quite good at being good. But however hard I tried, I couldn't keep the rules all the times so I knew God must not be pleased with me.

And I certainly couldn't ever be as brave as Daniel. I remember being tormented by that Sunday school chorus "Dare to Be a Daniel" because, hard as I tried to imagine myself daring to be a Daniel, being thrown to lions and not minding . . . who was I kidding? I knew I'd be terrified out of my skull.

 

How could God ever love me?  Continue at Sally Lloyd-Jones

Columns from Tabletalk Magazine, February 2012

The February edition of Tabletalk is out. This month’s issue examines what Jonathan Edwards called charity as described by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:1–13. This passage rings familiar to many people on account of its frequent use (or misuse) in wedding ceremonies and other occasions demanding a proclamation of love. Yet the truth of Christian love as laid out in 1 Corinthians 13 reaches far beyond these settings. Contributors include R.C. Sproul along with Joel Beeke, D.A. Carson, Michael Haykin, Joe Holland, Steven J. Lawson, Keith Mathison, Ray Ortlund, John R. Sittema, R.C. Sproul Jr., and Cal Thomas.

We do not post all of the feature articles or the daily devotionals from the issue, so you’ll have to subscribe to get those. But for now, here are links to a few select columns and articles from this month:

• True Love by Burk Parsons
• For Glory and Beauty by R.C. Sproul
• Love’s Shroud by Ray Ortlund
• Smart is Not a Fruit by R.C. Sproul Jr.
• Theology and Doxology by Michael Haykin
• Soft Hearts, Solid Spines by Joe Holland
• Repairing the Ruins: An Interview with Cal Thomas
• A Child’s (Mis)understanding by Keith Mathison

---

If you have not yet subscribed to Tabletalk, now is the perfect time. It’s only $23 for a year, and $20 to renew. You save even more if you get a 2- or 3-year subscription (as little as $1.36 per issue). We offer special discounts for churches or businesses who want multiple copies of each issue.

Get your subscription to Tabletalk today by calling one of Ligonier Ministries’ resource consultants at 800-435-4343 (8am-8pm ET, Mon-Fri) or by subscribing online.

Satan's Great Desire

I have been engaged in a study of the second half of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, and, not surprisingly, the themes from that letter have been resonating in my mind over the past few weeks. I have been struck by Paul’s emphasis on the importance of love and unity in the local church. On the one hand it’s kind of obvious—we need to love the Christians around us—but on the other hand, the personal implications are profound. I’ve always known that God calls me to love the people I covenant with in my local church, but until now I haven’t been quite so aware of the danger of falling out of love.

Paul did not seem to have any particular concern with the unity of this church in Ephesus. As far as we can tell he wasn’t writing because the church was splintering apart or because he had heard rumors of their disunity. But perhaps this was even more reason for him to address the issue. Paul knew that Satan is the great enemy of God and his people, and one of his enduring tactics to disrupt the church and to hinder our witness to the world is to bring about disunity. How does he do this? He does it by first eroding the love between brothers and sisters in Christ.

Wherever there is disunity there will first be the absence of love and the presence of pride. Satan’s great desire for your church and for mine is to fracture the people in those churches into camps, into groups built along lines that have no business dividing us. We may know this in the abstract, but we need to make it personal. Here is what we need to see: God wants me and commands me to love the other people in my church; Satan wants me to hate them. God wants me to feel a great deal of unity with those people; Satan wants there to be an issue between us—something, anything, to drive us apart. Continue at Tim Challies

IMAGE

How to Stone People Without the Inconvenience of Picking Up Rocks

Shepherding those who struggle with life dominating sin is not unlike swimming out to a drowning victim. There’s always the potential of having your nose broken by the very one you are trying to save. It’s an exhausting sort of love, but sincere. Churches that truly love their members swim out to each other’s lives in light of the risks.

It’s unloving to let a brother drown. Accountability, or church discipline -as we call it – is part of what makes for a loving community. It’s necessary if we are to be biblical churches. Churches that don’t practice accountability as mandated by the Lord aren’t really churches. Confrontation is a part of true love. If I love you I will not let you leave your wife and children without a fight. Right? Some of my biggest fans as a pastor are people who once hated me for interfering in their lives. Some of my dearest friends are those who have stepped in and confronted mine when I most needed it.

But, having noted the importance of church discipline, I do think we most often get it wrong. Mainly at the level of motivation – not to mention the misapplication of method. We can seem more committed to practicing church discipline for the sake of practicing church discipline than loving people. Yet, the aim is love. Based on Jesus’ description it might just as well be called church loving as much as church discipline. Keep Reading >>>

Are You Righteous?

“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” 2 Corinthians 5:21

Ethical behaviorism is a term Psychologists use which defines righteousness exclusively in terms of what a person does or does not do. In this sense, a righteous person is one who does the right things and avoids the wrong things. An unrighteous person is one who does the wrong things and avoids the right things. Defined this way, righteousness is a quality that can be judged by an observation of someone’s behavior. Virtue and uprightness is purely a matter of outer conduct without any hint of what goes on inside you.

William Hordern illustrates well how this definition of righteousness is the definition held by the world:

The law enforcement institutions of society are concerned with right behavior. They do not care why people obey the law, so long as they obey it. The person who breaks no laws is righteous in their sight regardless of the motivation that produces law abiding behavior.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus breaks radically from this definition of righteousness. He cuts through the outer behavior of a person and looks at what’s in the heart. Jesus insists that righteousness is not simply a matter of what we do or don’t do but rather a question of why we do or don’t do it.

A few years ago when my boys were younger, they would gather all the neighborhood kids in our yard to play football. And every once in a while a pass would be overthrown, landing in my neighbors grass. My neighbor (an angry, grumpy, old curmudgeon) would always come outside and scream at my boys and their friends, threatening to confiscate the ball if it happened again. My boys, being young at the  time, would always come inside with tears in their eyes, lips quivering, because they were scared of our neighbor. Well, being the scrapper that I am, there were countless times that I wanted to march over to my neighbor and give him a piece of my mind. I wanted to make it clear that if he ever yelled at my boys again…well, you get the idea. I never did, though. I would stare him down from time to time, but I never went next door to let him have it. Some would assume that my refusal to let loose on my neighbor was an act of righteousness: I was exercising love, patience, self-control. But was it?  Keep Reading >>>

Warning to Calvinists: Don’t Let Your Love for Truth Excuse Factionalism

Two new books address a familiar controversy:

• Michael Horton. For Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.  [PDF sample]
• Roger E. Olson. Against Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011. [PDF sample]

(Horton wins hands-down on the more attractive book cover—not to mention the argument!)

Horton’s last chapter is entitled “Calvinism Today: A SWOT Analysis.” Here’s how he introduces it:

We know from daily experience that our greatest strengths can also become our greatest weaknesses.

1. Persistence can become stubbornness;
2. sympathy can devolve into sentimentality; and
3. genuine concern for others sometimes turns into an obsequious craving for approval.
4. Remarkable gifts of leadership and creativity can be used for good or ill, depending on the motivation and the goals.
5. The same is true of movements, since they are largely the collective activity of people like us.

It has become popular for businesses and organizations to conduct a periodical “SWOT” analysis, exploring

1. Strengths,
2. Weaknesses,
3. Opportunities, and
4. Threats.

Read the rest HERE

Do Looks Matter?

"I don't care what she'll look like," the young man declared about his yet-unknown future bride. "I'll love her for who she is inside." Everyone in the small gathering of young people looked at him with distinctly unconvinced expressions. But this was a church gathering, and we all knew he was saying the spiritual thing. Such piety simply couldn't be challenged. That is, until one guy ventured what was to him a sincere question: "Yeah, but don't you want her to be hot?" 

As if something appalling had been said, we collectively turned to the youth minister, who had been quietly backing away from the conversation. With an uneasy smile, he said, "Well, you can make a pretty girl spiritual, but you can't make a spiritual girl pretty."

Everyone sensed the sarcasm in his maxim, but it didn't bring much resolution to the dilemma. Do looks matter? This question comes up a lot in my current ministry, too, usually in the form of a single friend feeling guilty for not being attracted to an otherwise worthy romantic candidate. I usually tell friends they shouldn't feel guilty for not being attracted to someone---but they shouldn't think the matter is necessarily settled, either.  Keep Reading...