Over at the “No Life” blog of Dr. Darryl Gnostic Hart we find my name being invoked. Darryl just can’t seem to get enough of me. Dr. Hart insists that two quotes he gives from Dr. David Van Drunnen could, in no way, elicit objection from myself or others who are opposed to Radical Two Kingdom Theology (R2K).
Unfortunately, I do object. I strenuously object. Why, even my Objections Object.
Let us consider why,
Here are the quotes Darryl offers from R2K Kingpin Van Drunen
“I like to describe the two kingdoms doctrine briefly as the conviction that God through his Son rules the whole world, but rules it in two distinct ways. As creator and sustainer, God rules the natural order and the ordinary institutions and structures of human society, and does so through his common grace, for purposes of preserving the ongoing life of this world. As redeemer, God also rules an eschatological kingdom that is already manifest in the life and ministry of the church, and he rules this kingdom through saving grace as he calls a special people to himself through the proclamation of the Scriptures. As Christians, we participate in both kingdoms but should not confuse the purposes of one with those of the other. As a Reformed theologian devoted to a rich covenant theology, I think it helpful to see these two kingdoms in the light of the biblical covenants. In the covenant with Noah after the flood, God promised to preserve the natural order and human society (not to redeem them!), and this included all human beings and all living creatures. But God also established special, redemptive covenant relationships with Abraham, with Israel through Moses, and now with the church under the new covenant. We Christians participate in both the Noahic and new covenants (remember that the covenant with Noah was put in place for as long as the earth endures), and through them in this twofold rule of God—or, God’s two kingdoms.
The “transformationist” approach to Christ and culture is embraced by so many people and used in so many different ways that I often wonder how useful a category it is. If by “transformation” we simply mean that we, as Christians, should strive for excellence in all areas of life and try to make a healthy impact on our workplace, neighborhood, etc., I am a transformationist. But what people often mean by “transformationist” is that the structures and institutions of human society are being redeemed here and now, that is, that we should work to transform them according to the pattern of the redemptive kingdom of Christ. I believe the two kingdoms doctrine offers an approach that is clearly different from this. Following the two kingdoms doctrine, a Christian politician, for example, would reject working for the redemption of the state (whatever that means) but recognize that God preserves the state for good purposes and strive to help the state operate the best it can for those temporary and provisional purposes.”
Your Honor I strenuously object for the following reasons,
1.) VanDrunen has Christ ruling the common realm according to a common grace by a common revelation (Natural law). The upshot of this is that VanDrunen (and his chief disciple Hart) does not allow God’s revealed word to norm this common realm.
2.) VanDrunen’s two Kingdoms does not account for a third Kingdom that needs accounting for.
VanDrunen’s two Kingdoms are
a.) The Redemptive realm
b.) The Common realm
But what about “this present wicked age?” Where is the Devil’s Kingdom at in all of this R2K “theology?” Certainly Christ’s Kingdom in the Church is not the Devil’s Kingdom. And certainly neither Dr. VanDrunen or his main disciple Dr. Hart would posit that the Devil’s Kingdom equals the common realm for that would be classic Anabaptist doctrine. So where exactly do our twin spin Doctors put the Devil’s Kingdom? Non R2K minds want to know.
3.) VanDrunen asserts without proving that the Kingdom of Christ is restricted in its identification to the Church. That is a tenuous supposition that has been debated for centuries in the Church.
4.) God’s ultimate purpose in Scripture is save both the common realm and the redemptive realm. God’s purpose is to “save the world” (Psalm 2, Romans 8:22, I Corinthians 5:19, I John 2:2,), thus gaining great glory for Himself. Because this is true, Dr. VanDrunen’s statement that God has different purposes for different realms is just not true.
5.) Is Dr. VanDrunen saying that the Christian’s purpose in the common realm should not be to Glorify God? I mean, if God has a different purpose for each of the Kingdoms then it would seemingly stand to reason that we should only seek to glorify God in the Kingdom that was created for that purpose. If both the common realm and the redemptive realm exist for the purpose of glorifying God then it would stand to reason that we should live in terms of His unique revelation so as to glorify Him in those respective distinct but related realms.
6.) God promises Noah that he would preserve the cosmos so that the elect may be drawn into the Church. God’s preserving of nature is bound up with His collecting and preserving of the Church, and as such we dare not form the Gnostic type dualism that R2K always does.
7.) Revelation 21:24 suggests that there is a relationship between VanDrunen’s (and his chief disciple, Hart’s) two Kingdoms that is so impermeable that the glory of Kings from the putative common realm is brought into the eschatological Kingdom. John the Revelator was not being very R2K with that inspired Scripture.
8.) As a Reformed Pastor and Theologian devoted to a rich covenant theology, I think it is helpful to see these two kingdoms in light of the biblical covenants. In the covenant with Noah after the flood, God promises to preserve the natural order and human society with the purpose that out of that natural order and human society He would redeem a people who were called to be a light to the nations and who were envied for having God’s law — a law that covered every area of life. God then also established special, redemptive covenant relationships with Israel through Moses and now with the Church but that God intended that special, redemptive covenant relationship to have ramifications beyond the cult was seen in the ministry of Jonah who demanded repentance from the Assyrians for their sins committed in the common realm. Notice also that God judged the Canaanites for their sins in the common realm by sending His redemptive people to exterminate them. All this suggests that God has the same purpose of submission to His revealed law-word among all Nations in the common realm. Hence, we can see a distinction between two Kingdoms perhaps but not a Gnostic separation of them.
9.) Dr. Van Drunen says that the “state is preserved for good purposes.” By what standard are we judging “good purposes.” I would say that State’s good purpose is to provide justice and I would say that justice can only be defined by God’s revealed word. But, Dr. Van Drunen will have none of this.
10.) If Redeemed people are creating and manning social order institutions how can it not be the case that those institutions will themselves be Redeemed. Keep in mind that by Dr. VanDrunen’s reasoning there can be no such thing as a Christian family, Christian Education, Christian law, Christian culture etc. because those are not redeemable institutions.
The second:
“I don’t think the church has any different responsibilities in an election year from what it has at any other time. The church should proclaim the whole counsel of God in Scripture (which includes, of course, teaching about the state, the value of human life, marriage, treatment of the poor, etc.). But Scripture does not set forth a political policy agenda or embrace a particular political party, and so the church ought to be silent here where it has no authorization from Christ to speak. When it comes to supporting a particular party, or candidate, or platform, or strategy—individual believers have the liberty to utilize the wisdom God gives them to make decisions they believe will be of most good to society at large. Politics constantly demands compromise, choosing between the lesser of evils, and refusing to let the better be the enemy of the good. Christians will make different judgments about these things, and the church shouldn’t try to step in and bind believers’ consciences on matters of prudence. It might be helpful to think of it this way: during times when Christians are bombarded with political advertisements, slogans, and billboards, how refreshing it should be, on the Lord’s Day, to step out of that obsession with politics and gather with God’s redeemed people to celebrate their heavenly citizenship and their bond in Christ that transcends all national, ethnic, and political divisions.”
1.) The Scripture does speak to areas in which the State, aspiring to be God, aspire to overthrow. For example, the Scripture teaches “Thou Shalt Not Murder,” and yet the State pursues policies where Murder is legitimated (i.e. — Abortion, Death Panels, Euthanasia, etc.) and so the Church must speak against the State or Party Politics that support these matters. However, according to R2K Dr. VanDruen the Church must be silent on these subjects. Indeed, Dr. VanDrunen is teaching us that it would be unbiblical to speak to these matters.
2.) Dr. VanDrunen tells us that the individual Christian may advocate for what they believe is a Biblical position but what Dr. VanDrunen doesn’t tell us is that such a anarchistic approach leaves us with the possibility of individual Christians insisting that God supports Abortion, or that God supports Bestiality, or that God supports Cultural Marxism and there is no way that these people could be disciplined since it is not the Church’s business to speak to these matters. The Church must be silent. Each Christian is left to do what is right in His own eyes and the Church must countenance that.
3.) Dr. VanDrunen writes, “Politics constantly demands compromise.”
So does this mean that a Christian who is a politician may compromise on issues that God has clearly spoken to? Must he compromise when God says, “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery,” and advocate for laws that will countenance adultery?
In the end Dr. Van Drunen repeating his assertions does not just settle the matter:
1. Civil kingdom ruled by common grace
2. Civil kingdom not to be transformed according the pattern of the redemptive kingdom
3. Redemptive kingdom is essentially equivalent to the church.
3. The civil kingdom’s standard is one of “excellence”.
The objections still stand:
1. Civil kingdom is normed by principles of the Word of God.
2. Civil kingdom transformed more and more according the pattern of redemption, i.e, submission to God
3. Kingdom of God is more than just the church.
4. “Excellence” is defined by what? Natural law? Common grace? What about the standard of righteousness defined by the Law?
I’m sorry that Darryl finds my objections so objectionable.
I have seen a common dollar bill pass into the coffers of the Church for the purpose of promoting Christ’s Mediatorial Kingship in this world. Doesn’t that mean that the secular items can be used for Christ and his Kingdom? Can’t the secular be brought under that headship for the peace and prosperity of all mankind? Isn’t that spiritual? A common dollar bill.
BTW, I am not impressed by his statement “As a Reformed theologian devoted to a rich covenant theology, I think it helpful to see these two kingdoms in the light of the biblical covenants.” Klineanism is more Baptistic than the Rich Covenant Theology of our Westminster Divines. Dichotomizing Law and Gospel is not the Rich Covenant Theology of our heritage.
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/herman-bavinck-law-gospel-611/
Martin,
Good observations.
Thank you for leaving them here.
I would only question the whole concept of “secular.” Even if that dollar bill isn’t dropped in the offering plate at church, the spending of it should be done in the enjoyment of and the extension of God’s Kingdom.
Substantive objections.
What does the judge say in a courtroom? Something like: “Objection sustained!”
TUAD
The Judge says not only “Objection Sustained,” but he also says to the lawyer whose lawyering led to the objection being raised, “Sir, if you ever do that again in my courtroom I will hold you in contempt of court.
“As Christians, we participate in both kingdoms but should not confuse the purposes of one with those of the other.”
What does VD imagine the words “come out from among them and be separate” mean? Leave the planet? The Christian does not “participate in” both kingdoms. He participates in the Kingdom of Christ and in doing so must deal with the Kingdom of this world by pulling it down as the very seat of all strongholds that are antithetical to Christ’s dominion. There are not two distinct spaces in this world occupied by different kingdoms for the kingdoms are systemic, not spatial. The is one realm where the two world views are (or ought to be) locked in a life and death struggle for dominion. VD is sleeping with the enemy and his crime is high treason.
Excellent observation Mark. I hope VD’s chief disciple, Dr. D. Gnostic Hart sees your comment.
Not so excellent, Mark. What do you imagine Paul means in 1 Cor 5 when he says that to not associate with the sexually immoral, greedy, and idolatrous doesn’t mean to leave this planet but to keep the kingdom of God on earth (that is, the church) free from such things? The very qualification Paul gives seems to clearly suggest that we do indeed participate in this present evil age. Paul made tents. Do you really imagine he thought he didn’t participate? And I’m willing to bet that you have done way more participating than tearing anything down today. Why not sync up your theory with your practice instead of flexing your spiritual muscles?
Zrimec wrote,
Here we have it explicitly said, it all its technicolor glory. For the R2K clan the common realm = this present evil age. This is Anabaptist theology. It is why the Amish, for example, live in their unique communities. The Amish believe that outside those communities is “the world,” that they must avoid. R2K agrees with them that it is “the world,” but they disagree with them that “it must be avoided.”
Paul made tents and by doing so he participated in this present evil age.
Bret has a family and because he does he participates in this present evil age. (Since for R2K Christian family is not possible.)
Mark sends his children to Christian schools and so they participate in this present evil age. (Since for Zrim Christian education is not possible.)
We have learned conclusively here that for these gents the common realm is equal to “this present evil age.” It is not redeemable. It is, by definition, inherently evil. The fact that Redeemed people handle these things to the glory of God makes no difference whatsoever because these things, like tentmaking, participate in this present evil age by nature and so can’t be connected to the Kingdom of God.
Dualism folks … Anabaptist dualism.
“Not so excellent, Mark.”
Yes it was. It was most excellent. Bret said so.
“What do you imagine Paul means in 1 Cor 5 when he says that to not associate with the sexually immoral, greedy, and idolatrous doesn’t mean to leave this planet but to keep the kingdom of God on earth (that is, the church) free from such things?”
Well Zee Rim it has nothing to do with the imagination. Since R2Kt is both immoral and idolatrous it means that men holding to it should be purged from the church. We are not to have traitors among us. Aberrant theology, like a cancer, rots a body from the inside out. And a bullet to the chest is preferred to a knife in the back.
“The very qualification Paul gives seems to clearly suggest that we do indeed participate in this present evil age. Paul made tents. Do you really imagine he thought he didn’t participate?”
Clear? Is English your first language Zee Rim? It seems you find the distinction I used i.e. “participate in” and “deal with” conceptually challenging. Or are you just being intentionally obtuse? Where do you imagine the enemy is to be engaged Zee Rim? Between your ears? But if you actually think that walking around on the surface of this planet; eating, drinking, working, raising families, engaging the enemy is to have one foot in each kingdom; if you think doing those things that are common to all men while engaged in pulling down strongholds is to share in some sense in the kingdom of the world then you really are a dullard and thinking spatially just as I indicated. Were the Allies sharing in German culture when they marched into Berlin?
“And I’m willing to bet that you have done way more participating than tearing anything down today.”
And now that you’ve lost the bet how will you pay up?
It’s a cousin of the Anabaptist approach, but a weird cousin. The Anabaptists believe in separating from the evil world and, in essence, having the Church run everything on Biblical principles– schools, courts, corrections (as church discipline), care for the poor— but just for Christians. The R2K advocates believe in separating the Church from the evil world, but not the Christians, who are, however, to live as non-Christians in their interactions with the world. He denies that, of course, but what else does it mean for Christians not to try to reduce sin in the world, not to proclaim Christian principles in their interactions with the World?
Eric,
I’ve often thought the only difference between the Anabaptists and the R2K’ers is that Anabaptist use the word “evil” for the common realm whereas the R2K’ers use the word “Common.” However, both agree that it can never ever be Christianized.
Thank you for visiting.
Mark,
Does your theology have a place for common grace? Just as hyper-Calvinists eclipse the free offer of the gospel in their zeal for the doctrine of election, so it seems that opponents of 2K eclipse the doctrine of common grace in their zeal for the antithesis.
“Does your theology have a place for common grace?”
Depends on how one defines common grace. What do you mean by it?
“Just as hyper-Calvinists eclipse the free offer of the gospel in their zeal for the doctrine of election, so it seems that opponents of 2K eclipse the doctrine of common grace in their zeal for the antithesis.”
I’m sure you know what you mean by that. But unless you explain exactly what you mean by “eclipsing the doctrine of common grace in their zeal for the antithesis” there is nothing with which to interact. Just what do you mean by common grace and precisely how is it eclipsed by the R2K opponents?
Mark Chambers,
One of your comments was highlighted in one of Darryl Hart’s prior posts. I made reference to it in his post on 2K Cherries. I just wanted to let you know that I thought you made an inaccuracy, and I corrected it according to how I understand the situation. See below, along with Darryl Hart’s and Zrim’s responses:
http://oldlife.org/2010/06/hard-or-soft-the-anti-2k-position-displays-the-judaic-folly/
From the above linked post by Darryl Hart:
“Well I’d rather describe it a bit more graphically. Both the agressive and passive methods end in cultural rape. The liberal is an agressive rapist. The passive R2Kers on the other hand, like Hart and his ilk, strip naked, lay on their backs and say “take me”.”
IMO, this analogy isn’t quite right.
As far as I can discern, the R2Kers are the ones who are tying and holding back the hands of those Christian Pastors and Churches who want to stop the rapist. They will observe that the on-going rape is a state matter and that the church is not to “meddle” with state affairs. Or they will say that the rape is a political act or a cultural act or a social act. And the R2Kers will argue that if the Reformed Pastor or Church were to speak out against the Rape, then the Gospel is compromised because the Church should only be preaching and teaching Word and Sacrament, and not stopping rapes. Natural law teaches that the State will stop and punish rapes. R2K’ers don’t seem to stop and ponder when and whether the State becomes a rapist.
D. G. Hart
Posted March 27, 2012 at 1:32 pm | Permalink
Truthdivides, well finally you peep more than simply linking to what other people say.
I have to caution you against using such a loaded term. You sound like a feminist who needs to raise the stakes and gain attention by throwing around a word that creates fear. Now, I think your use of the word is apt because it strikes me that critics of 2k can’t tell the difference between societies that limp along and those that are bad. Your standard appears to be one that no society can reach — not even when run by the elect, like Israel.
So I’ll give you a chance to back away from your analogy.
But if you want to stick by it, you will need to consider what Christ and the apostles did when confronted with a society that made life much harder for Christians than our current state does. Did Christ and the apostle speak out against the persecution of believers either by Jewish or Roman authorities? If not, were they holding back the hands of pastors?
You really do need to consider that 2kers are closer in following Christ and the apostles than 2k’s critics are. Remember, Christ told Peter to put the sword away.
Zrim
Posted March 27, 2012 at 1:34 pm | Permalink
TUaD, and what anti-2kers never seem to consider is that Jesus’ and Paul’s magistrates were likely the sort that would be construed by moderns as tyrants. Yet nary a word about stopping the overreaching. Why do you think they were so amazed in Mark 12? Because the command was to pay your bills? Sorry, not very amazing. Maybe it was because they expected anyone who called himself the salvation of the Jews would give room to intermeddle and stop those who trampled the Jews. But only a command to obey. Gasp. Not good for inspiring 2012 Americanism against certain goings on in 1930 Germany.
Well, briefly, I would say that the antithesis points out the stark opposition between God and Satan, the domain of darkness and the kingdom of Christ, Christian theistic vs. atheistic thought, the flesh vs. the Spirit, death in sin vs. being alive with Christ, and all the other biblical contrasts that highlight the absolute enmity between God and fallen man in his rebellion.
Whereas common grace is the principal whereby God’s hand of judgment against sin and unbelief is temporarily stayed, the wheat and tares grow up side by side, believers and unbelievers dwell together and share a common culture with common vocations and duties, and God’s generosity ensures a common distribution of temporal goods, while his restraining hand ensures a relative level of peace and order.
I find that in this discussion, the opponents of 2k seem to have the antithesis down pretty well, but they don’t have much (if any) room for common grace. Your comment appears to suffer from this imbalance, don’t you think?
‘I am of a mind to reject the common understandings of Common Grace. If we look at the matter teleologically and from the standpoint of God”s eternal dispositions, there is no grace given to the reprobate, for even the good that they experience, even the good that they promulgate, does nothing for them except heap up condemnation for the day of judgment–for they both reject the Giver, and attribute to themselves the accomplishment.
The effects of Common Grace are more particularly for the benefit of the elect. If sin was not restrained by the civil magistrate and by the inconsistency of the unregenerate, then Christians would face a far more difficult task in the face of their own remaining sin and their efforts to inculturate Christ throughout the world. Indeed, where pagans have been the most epistemologically self-conscious, Christians have suffered the most persecution at their hands.
What ultimate purpose does God”s sending rain upon the reprobate serve? It may serve a temporary benefit to the reprobate, but when we come to the temple of God (which is in the heavenly places) and contemplate their end, we realize that they benefit nothing from God”s provision for their lives, for it only heaps up His wrath upon them for the day of judgment.’
God extends favorS to the reprobate without extending favor. Certainly, read teleologicaly, (or decretively) there is no common grace in an absolute sense. However if we read the story not from outside the story but rather from inside the story then something like common grace exists. I would also insist that common grace is more particularly to and for the elect.
The ironic thing though is that the amillennialists while trying to avoid immanentizing the Christian eschaton end up immanentizing somebody else’s eschaton by their retreat. That is to say that by insisting that the common realm belongs to common grace and natural law what they end up doing is creating a vacuum in which the other adherents of other gods will try to immanentize their respective eschatons. So while at least some amillennialists want to avoid immanentizing the Christian eschaton what their retreat ends up doing is allowing the immanentizing of other non-Christian eschatons. We must remember that it is never a question whether or not if some eschaton will be immanentized but only a question of which eschaton will be immanentized. I vote for the Christian one.
The agenda of Westminster West teaches that the Scriptures do not speak to Musicology, Bridge building, Medical research, or playing baseball. According to the radical two Kingdomists the anti-thesis doesn’t exist in these areas and as such it is not possible to take captive thoughts in these areas to make them obedient to Christ because Christ doesn’t give biblically revealed thoughts on these disciplines. I am not sure that according to radical two Kingdomists that it is true that music doesn’t make sense apart the reality of the Triune God since the Scriptures are not about music. \n\n
As to VD’s statement that, ‘Christian modus operandi (must) try to find agreement and consensus so that shared cultural tasks can be accomplished as well as possible in a sinful world,’ we must emphasize that the agreement and consensus that we can find is only where the non-Christian is being inconsistent with their otherwise God hating Worldview. In other words, the fact that we can play beautiful music together with non-Christians in a local symphonic band is because the non-Christians, being gifted with common grace, have not yet worked out their God hating convictions to their inevitable conclusions. It is at least an open question if it would be biblically right, before God, to play in a symphonic band that was committed to preforming pieces and concerts that were dedicated in communicating that music was meaningless, just as it would be disobedience before God to support an art gallery that was committed to anti-art or stocked with works like Andrew Serrano’s Piss Christ.
We must not continue to ignore the reality that the common grace of God may mitigate in any given society the degree of hostility that pagans have towards Christians. Because of this the godlessness in one culture may not be as far advanced in one society that is against Christ as it is in another. Even a Ph.D. ought to be able to understand this Darryl.
\n\n
To make it as explicit and simple as possible for you Darryl, some godlessness is not as bad as other godlessness because some godlessness remains comparatively muted due to the reality that the worldview of the muted godlessness is being muted because of the remaining capital of Christianity that remains in the comparatively muted godless Worldview that is informing that society. In short the contradictions have not yet worked themselves out in the direction of full throated godlessness. So, people are either for or against God’s people but that for(ness) or against(ness) is comparatively stronger or weaker depending on how far the anti-thesis has worked itself out.
I agree with much of what you say in your first four paragraphs, but the question here is not really whether or not the reprobate ultimately benefit from common grace, but whether there IS such as thing as common grace, operating alongside the antithesis between Christian theism and atheism, that makes it possible for believers and unbelievers to live together and pursue the same vocations.
As for the question of immanentizing the eschaton, you vote that we usher in the Christian one; I vote that we wait for Christ to usher in the eschaton.
In other words, the fact that we can play beautiful music together with non-Christians in a local symphonic band is because the non-Christians, being gifted with common grace, have not yet worked out their God hating convictions to their inevitable conclusions.
I don’t think see anyone denying this.
As for the question of immanentizing the eschaton, you vote that we usher in the Christian one; I vote that we wait for Christ to usher in the eschaton.
David,
On ushering in Eschatons. You seemed to miss the point that there is no neutrality on this issue. The question isn’t, “Will we or will we not usher in a eschaton,” the question rather is, “Which eschaton will we work to incarnate?”
Keep in mind that culture is the consequential manifestation of what we believe concerning ultimate theological reality. Now since all theology is teleological and always has the end (eschaton) in mind, it simply is impossible for humans, to build cultures where no consideration (whether epistemologically conscious of that consideration or not) is given of immanentizing the eschaton. The culture that we live in right now is the result of some successful theology managing to bring its vision of the future into the present.
No I don’t think so. Frankly it is only a proper recognition of the antithesis, and the faithful commitment to honor Christ by tearing down all those things that raise themselves up against Him that ensures the extension by God’s hand of those things you call commom grace. For when Christian men fail to operate in terms of the antithesis and fail to assert the crown rights of Jesus Christ over all things His restraining hand is lifted and culture collapses under the weight of its apostasy. Take a look around David.
Mark, So common grace isn’t really grace at all, but actually a reward for good works, and especially the good work of national covenanting?
“As far as I can discern, the R2Kers are the ones who are tying and holding back the hands of those Christian Pastors and Churches who want to stop the rapist.”
Which is just to say go ahead and rape me. And of course “natural law” is nothing more than men doing what is right in their own eyes.
‘The new world of ideas and forms for many neoplatonists in the Reformed tradition is “common grace”, a new word of natural law, ideas, forms, and universals in which our “Reformed” Platos find their freedom from the restrictions of Scripture.’
-Rushdoony, The Flight from Humanity.
Mark, So common grace isn’t really grace at all, but actually a reward for good works, and especially the good work of national covenanting?
David I’m beginning to think you dull. What do you think the fall was David? What did Adam do to earn his antelapsarian blessings? Do you imagine that sowing and reaping have no temporal ramifications? There is a lesson in the structure of divine covenant in those questions David if you’re not too dull to grasp it.