Author Archives: Dan C.

You Have Been Warned—The “Duck Dynasty” Controversy

Posted by Dan C. on

You Have Been Warned—The “Duck Dynasty” Controversy

Al Mohler, Thursday • December 19, 2013

philrobertson

An interview can get you into big trouble. Remember General Stanley McChrystal? He was the commander of all U.S. forces in Afghanistan until he gave an interview to Rolling Stone magazine in 2010 and criticized his Commander in Chief. Soon thereafter, he was sacked. This time the interview controversy surrounds Phil Robertson, founder of the Duck Commander company and star of A&E’s Duck Dynasty. Robertson gave an interview to GQ (formerly known as Gentlemen’s Quarterly), and now he has been put on “indefinite suspension” from the program.

Why? Because of controversy over his comments on homosexuality.

Phil Robertson is the plainspoken patriarch of the Duck Dynasty clan. In the GQ interview, published in the January 2014 issue of the magazine, Robertson makes clear that his Christian faith is central to his identity and his life. He speaks of his life before Christ and actively seeks to convert the interviewer, Drew Magary, to faith in Christ. He tells Magary of the need for repentance from sin. Magary then asks Robertson to define sin. He responded:

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Christians will recognize that Robertson was offering a rather accurate paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

To be fair, Robertson also offered some comments that were rather crude and graphically anatomical in making the same point. As Magary explained, “Out here in these woods, without any cameras around, Phil is free to say what he wants. Maybe a little too free. He’s got lots of thoughts on modern immorality, and there’s no stopping them from rushing out.”

Phil Robertson would have served the cause of Christ more faithfully if some of those comments had not rushed out. This is not because what he said was wrong; he was making the argument that homosexual acts are against nature. The Apostle Paul makes the very same argument in Romans 1:26. The problem is the graphic nature of Robertson’s language and the context of his statements.

The Apostle Paul made the same arguments, but worshipers in the congregations of Rome and Corinth did not have to put hands over the ears of their children when Paul’s letter was read to their church.

The entire Duck Dynasty enterprise is a giant publicity operation, and a very lucrative enterprise at that. Entertainment and marketing machines run on publicity, and the Robertsons have used that publicity to offer winsome witness to their Christian faith. But GQ magazine? Seriously?

Not all publicity is good publicity, and Christians had better think long and hard about the publicity we seek or allow by our cooperation.

Just ask Gen. McChrystal. In the aftermath of his embarrassing debacle, the obvious question was this: why would a gifted and tested military commander allow a reporter for Rolling Stone such access and then speak so carelessly? Rolling Stone is a magazine of the cultural left. It was insanity for Gen. McChrystal to speak so carelessly to a reporter who should have been expected to present whatever the general said in the most unfavorable light.

Similarly, Phil Robertson would have served himself and his mission far better by declining to cooperate with GQ for a major interview. GQ is a “lifestyle” magazine for men, a rather sophisticated and worldly platform for the kind of writing Drew Magary produced in this interview. GQ is not looking for Sunday School material. Given the publicity the interview has now attracted, the magazine must be thrilled. Phil Robertson is likely less thrilled.

Another interesting parallel emerges with the timing of this controversy. The current issue of TIME magazine features Pope Francis I as “Person of the Year.” Within days of TIME’s declaration, Phil Robertson had been suspended from Duck Dynasty. Robertson’s suspension was caused by his statements that homosexual acts are sinful. But Pope Francis is riding a wave of glowing publicity, even as he has stated in public his agreement with all that the Roman Catholic Church teaches, including its teachings on homosexual acts.

Francis has declared himself to be a “son of the church,” and his church teaches that all homosexual acts are inherently sinful and must be seen as “acts of grave depravity” that are “intrinsically disordered.”

But Pope Francis is on the cover of TIME magazine and Phil Robertson is on indefinite suspension. Such are the inconsistencies, confusions, and hypocrisies of our cultural moment.

Writing for TIME, television critic James Poniewozik argued that Robertson’s error was to speak so explicitly and openly, “to make the subtext text.” He wrote:

Now, you’ve got an issue with those of us who maybe just want to watch a family comedy about people outside a major city, but please without supporting somebody thumping gay people with their Bible. Or a problem with people with gay friends, or family, or, you know, actual gay A&E viewers.

By speaking so openly, Robertson crossed the line, Poniewozik explains.

A&E was running for cover. The network released a statement that attempted to put as much distance as possible between what the network described as Robertson’s personal beliefs and their own advocacy for gay rights:

We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community.

So, even as most evangelical Christians will likely have concerns about the way Phil Robertson expressed himself in some of his comments and where he made the comments, the fact remains that it is the moral judgment he asserted, not the manner of his assertion, that caused such an uproar. A quick look at the protests from gay activist groups like GLAAD will confirm that judgment. They have protested the words Robertson drew from the Bible and labeled them as “far outside of the mainstream understanding of LGBT people.”

So the controversy over Duck Dynasty sends a clear signal to anyone who has anything to risk in public life: Say nothing about the sinfulness of homosexual acts or risk sure and certain destruction by the revolutionaries of the new morality. You have been warned.

In a statement released before his suspension, Phil Robertson told of his own sinful past and of his experience of salvation in Christ and said:

My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.

Those are fighting words, Phil. They are also the gospel truth.

_____________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/albertmohler.

Drew Magary, “What the Duck?,” GQ, January 2014. http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson [WARNING: explicit language used. Citation is here for the purpose of documentation.]

James Poniewozik, “Why Phil Robertson Got Suspended from Duck Dynasty,” TIME, Wednesday, December 18, 2014. http://entertainment.time.com/2013/12/18/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson-suspended/

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 2357. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#2357

Megan Townsend, “A&E Network Places Star on Indefinite Filming Hiatus Following Anti-Gay Remarks,” GLAAD, Wednesday, December 18, 2013. http://www.glaad.org/blog/ae-network-places-star-indefinite-filming-hiatus-following-anti-gay-remarks

AJ Marechal, “Duck Dynasty: Phil Robertson Suspended Indefinitely Following Anti-Gay Remarks,” Variety, Wednesday, December 18, 2013. http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/duck-dynasty-ae-suspends-phil-robertson-following-gay-remarks-1200974473/

Photo credit: A&E Network

Quick Quote from Van Til on Facts, Revelation and Romans 1:20

Posted by Dan C. on

SLIMJIM's avatarThe Domain for Truth

young vantil

 

Cornelius Van Til is the father of Presuppositional apologetics.  Here is a quick quote from The Reformed Pastor and Modern Thoughtpages 5-6:

All the facts of the universe are of necessity God-created, God-dependent facts. Therefore men ought to see that God is man’s Creator and his Judge. “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Rom 1:20).”

If God has indeed revealed Himself to all to such an extent that they are without excuse, shouldn’t this shape how we engage in apologetics with those who do not believe?

It should.  And Van Til was trying to be conscious of his Reformed and biblical conviction as what should drive and shape his apologetics.

View original post

Christian left pushes for ‘peace’

Posted by Dan C. on

Exclusive: Jim Fletcher tells faithful to resist pious politics

 I’m always semi-amused to observe the bias floating back and forth in various communities, and nowhere is this more evident than in the American church. Of course, I’m presenting my bias in what follows, but at least I admit it.

Often, what I view as the “left” doesn’t admit they are biased. They simply present their view as if it were pristine wisdom from on high, in sharp contrast to the brutish, primitive views of “the fundies.” In any event, a recent blog post from Scot McKnight caught my eye (although guest blogger Steve Norman was taking McKnight’s slot that day at Patheos).

Norman wrote this (titled, “Peacemaking, the Gospel and Churches”): “I don’t know a single local church pastor who doesn’t believe in peacemaking. After all, the angels celebrating Jesus’s birth come right out and sing, ‘Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests’ (Luke 2:14). Jesus himself champions the role of peacemaker in his Sermon on the Mount and, let’s be honest, nobody’s going to challenge Jesus’s direct words there.

“And yet, there is a clear gap between U.S. church leaders’ stated support of biblical peacemaking and our actual pursuit of peacemaking in our ministry initiatives,” Norman continues. “I recently conducted a research project that collected data from 15 pastors in personal interviews and 297 pastors through an online survey. Their feedback on this issue was almost unanimous: ‘Yes, I affirm the theory of peacemaking as a biblical value. No, it’s not something our church is currently doing. Honestly, we’d have no idea where to start if we wanted to.’”

Norman then goes on to chide those pastors who don’t jump on the peacemaking wagon: “Therein lies the rub. Pastors get stuck believing peacemaking is an elective; in truth, it is the very heartbeat of the gospel. Jesus’s declaration of kingdom invites us to experience, receive, and promote peace with God, with our enemies, among our broken families, and between warring tribes and nations.”

He then says that peacemaking is “the core of the gospel message.”

It is? Is it, really?

I thought the gospel was about the reconciliation of sinful people with the Creator. When did it become a social gospel, left-wing agenda?

And we need to define what is meant by peacemaking. One can plausibly assume it means what Jim Wallis or Brian McLaren say it means, which is oddly similar to the worldview of hippies, political social engineers, and other religious leftists. “Peacemaking” is a nice sentiment, usually, but it’s hardly an endeavor with which to bully hardworking pastors across the national landscape, most of whom are trying to shepherd as best they know how. Many are bi-vocational and don’t have access to the travel and administrative budgets of megachurch leaders who manifest narcissism by browbeating through piety.

McKnight & friends, those in the so-called “Emergent” community, routinely marginalize rank-and-file Bible believers (“fundies” to the religious cocktail party crowd). Chiding them for not engaging in peacemaking is just another manifestation of arrogance from the left.

Imagine this: These poor pastors – preparing sermons while also counseling couples with disintegrating marriages, and perhaps calling a repairman to check the church’s heat pump – are expected to also spend quality time discussing/implementing strategies to engage in vague “peacemaking.” What does that mean, being a signatory to the latest Israel-bashing letter sent to the president? Marching for nuclear disarmament? Running a 5K for the oppressed in Sierra Leone?

Leave these non-celebrity pastors alone, guys. Let them continue to faithfully guide their flocks. Stand aside as they minister to families and preach the real gospel.

Leave them in peace.

© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

Open Letter To Those Who Are Offended by “Merry Christmas”

Posted by Dan C. on

It is with all sincerity of heart and concern for your souls that I tell you this:

Your ‘offendedness’ is not my problem – it’s yours.

I say that because we all can be and are offended by something(s). I know I am. However, I was taught as a wee lad that getting mad/being offended was my choice. sixty years later I still get offended at things and need to be reminded of this little truth. Furthermore, as a Christian, I need to remember exactly what is causing you to be ‘offended’. It’s really not me, it’s the name of Christ, and by extension, being reminded of the God whom you are trying to obliterate from your life and thoughts offends you.

I have bad news for you concerning trying to remove external reminders of God from your life and our culture. It doesn’t work. You see, you know He exists and you are merely trying to suppress the truth that you inherently know. You know God IS, yet you are still living in rebellion against Him. If there comes a time when you are not offended by the mention or thought of God one of two things has probably happened. God has given you over to your own passions or God has opened your heart to hear the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ – that he came to this earth to die for the sins of his people and bring reconciliation and peace.

And while I could be probably be justly offended (by the world’s standards) at your lack of respect for the joy that saying “Merry Christmas” brings to my heart, I choose to not to be offended, for that would be giving into my sinful flesh. Rather, knowing your condition separated from the God who created you, as well as the pain and futility of running from Him, I pray that God would indeed open your heart to hear, and that he would somehow bring the message of the Gospel to that open heart.

So in all sincerity I say to you this morning, 5:00 AM Thursday, 12 December 2013:

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

‘Free Will’ or ‘Freed Will’?

Posted by Dan C. on

If we are all born spiritually dead, in bondage to sin, unable to please God, and since no man seeks God on his own, yet all who come to Christ come freely (are not forced), might it be more appropriate to say that we come to Christ because of a ‘freed’ will than by ‘free will’?

The Father’s Gift to the Son

Posted by Dan C. on

from May 13, 2011 Category: Articles

The motif of the gift of the elect to the Son is expressed by Jesus on various occasions, particularly in the Gospel of John:

This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day. (6:39-40)

In this passage Jesus makes it clear that He is concerned about every believer being raised up at the last day. This qualifies His statements about what the Father has given Him that would never be lost. It is believers who are given to Christ by the Father, and these believers will never be lost. This affirmation builds upon what Jesus declared only moments earlier:

But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. (6:36-38)

Jesus is emphatic in His assertion that all whom the Father gives to Him will in fact come to Him. The order here is crucial. Jesus does not say that all who come to Him will then be given to Him by the Father. We do not determine by our response who will be the Father’s gift to the Son. Rather our response is determined by the prior election of God for us to come to the Son as gifts to Him.

The concept of believers being the gifts of the Father to the Son forms a central element of Jesus’ high-priestly prayer in John 17. Jesus makes repeated references to this “giving”:

Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. (vv. 1-2)

Christ speaks of the authority He has received from the Father to grant eternal life to certain people. Those certain people are the ones the Father has given to Him.

I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me.

I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. (17:6-12)

In this prayer it is clear that believers are the Father’s gift to the Son, a gift that is not to be lost or destroyed. Jesus prays that these gifts may be kept and not discarded. He thanks the Father that all have been kept except the son of perdition, who is elsewhere described as having been a devil from the beginning. The son of perdition refers here to Judas.

The concept of our adoption in Christ as the Father’s gift to the Son is also declared by the author of Hebrews:

For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying:

“I will declare Your name to My brethren;

In the midst of the assembly I will sing praise to You.”

And again:

“I will put My trust in Him.”

And again:

“Here am I and the children whom God has given Me.” (2:10-13)

This text confirms that the elect are given to Christ as His adopted brothers and the Father’s adopted children. This is the astonishing love that would provoke John to utter later, “Behold, what manner of love is this?”

Excerpted from Loved by God

Was Christ a Calvinist?

Posted by Dan C. on

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” John 10:27-29

No need to answer, unless of course you would like to compare the above passage of scripture against the tenets of Calvinism and explain your ‘yes/no’ thoughts.

Reformed Rap Ruckus: Comments from the Empty Chair

Posted by Dan C. on

Dec 4, 2013, Midwest Center for Theological Studies

Due to the kindness and large-heartedness of my friend Scott Brown, I was one of the speakers at the NCFIC conference on the Worship of God. Sadly, despite the many good and helpful emphases of that conference, it is now famous for the controversial and negative statements made about Reformed Rap by a panel of speakers in a Q & A session towards the end of the conference. If you have viewed the video, you will notice an empty chair at the table of panelists. Though I do not actually know why that chair is empty, it holds a special significance for me since I could have been in it. I do not know whether to be sad or really happy that due to another conference obligation I had to leave the Worship of God conference early and could not participate in the panel. If I had been there, I hope I woould have had the boldness and wisdom to say something like what I will say here. This is why I entitle this blog: “Comments from the Empty Chair.”

Being old (Well 62!) and not particularly “Facebook and blog aware,” I was alerted to this controversy first by a much younger member of my church. After viewing the video and reading Ligon Duncan’s related comments, I wrote the following email to the to my younger, but like-minded, brother in the Lord. It is slightly edited for this blog.

Thanks for pointing out the article from Ligon Duncan addressing the Reformed rap furor caused by the panel at the Worship of God conference. It is pretty well known–at least I have made no secret of it–that I enjoy Shai Linne’s doctrinally solid raps. I have played them for college students in college classes with a good conscience and with gladness that they present the Christian religion in a different and contemporary cultural form. I think that as an art form and performance this may give them a helpfulness that other art forms and performance styles may not possess for today’s generation.

I certainly do not agree with many of the things the panelists said. . . . I am glad that Botkin apologized for the unfortunate things he said. I certainly do not agree with the very negative tone of the video as a whole about Reformed rap. Yes, Reformed rap does draw attention to the perfomer (or rapper), but all musical performance art does. I do not think that rap can be singled out for this reason as bad.

Having said all of this, my reservation about rap in a meeting of the church is the same as my reservation about a lot of contemporary and traditional music in church. I doubt if it has much or any utility in meetings of the church, because it is performance. If rap has any justification in the liturgy of the church it would be as music I suppose. Meetings of the church are not about performance, but about worship. By the way, the moment preaching takes on the indirectness and artificiality of performance I think it ceases to be true preaching with the authenticity and directness necessary. The part of worship involved here is singing the praise of God and particularly the congregational singing of the praise of God.

You mentioned as a speculative possibility a whole church rapping together. I have actually never seen congregational rapping and know of no instance of it. It would have to be a whole other world before any churches I know could do this. Indeed, rap seems to me to be essentially a performance style.

In sum, I have no problem with Reformed rap as performance or art form. I can see how it might be used in concerts or other gatherings with an evangelistic intent. I cannot see how it could have any utility or edification and thus place in a meeting of the church of the living God.

Since I wrote the above email both Scott Brown and Joel Beeke have issued apologies for aspects of their comments.  I think their apologies show wisdom and humility.  Both emphasize the distinction I am insisting on in this blog.  Let me only add that my ministry at the NCFIC conference emphasized the crucial distinction I was making at the Worship of God conference between the corporate worship of the church and other situations.  The question of whether Reformed rap may be a good and useful kind of performance art and thus evangelistic tool is very different from the question of whether any such performance art has any place in the formal worship of Christ’s church. These questions should be separated for a more fruitful discussion.

God Has an Elect People – Truth For Life Daily Devotional

Posted by Dan C. on

“I have many in this city who are my people.” Acts 18:10

This should be a great encouragement in proclaiming the Gospel, since among the people in our communities-the disinterested, the rebellious, the careless-God has an elect people who must be saved. When you take the Word to them, you do so because God has ordained you to be the messenger of life to their souls, and they must receive it, for so the decree of predestination runs.

They are as much redeemed by blood as the saints before the eternal throne. They are Christ’s property, and yet perhaps they are lovers of selfish pleasures and haters of holiness; but if Jesus Christ purchased them, He will have them.

God is not unfaithful to forget the price that His Son has paid. He will not suffer His substitution to be in any case an ineffectual, dead thing. Tens of thousands of redeemed ones are not regenerated yet, but regenerated they must be; and this is our comfort when we go to them with the quickening Word of God.

More than this, the ungodly are prayed for by Christ before the throne. “I do not ask for these only,” says the great Intercessor, “but also for those who will believe in me through their word.”1 Poor, ignorant souls, they know nothing about prayer for themselves, but Jesus prays for them. Their names are on His breastplate, and before long they must bow their stubborn knee, breathing the penitential sigh before the throne of grace

The predestinated moment has not struck; but when it comes, they will obey, for God will have His own. They must, for the Spirit is not to be resisted when He comes with the fullness of power-they must become the willing servants of the living God. “Your people will offer themselves freely on the day of your power.”2 He will “make many to be accounted righteous.”3 “Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied.”4 “I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong.”5

1 John 17:20
2 Psalm 110:3
3 Isaiah 53:11
4 Isaiah 53:11
5 Isaiah 53:12

Jesus’ Divine Mission

Posted by Dan C. on

Since we are entering the Christmas season, it seems appropriate to provide a reminder of Jesus’ Divine calling and mission. Amidst all the hustle and bustle, we tend to think of all sorts of things and neglect the fact that God sent His Son to us for a very specific reason that was revealed to Joseph:

“And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." – Matthew 1:19-20

John Gill expressed it well:

He shall save – This expresses the same as the name, and on this account the name was given to him. He saves people by dying to redeem them; by giving the Holy Spirit to renew them Joh_16:7-8; by His power in enabling them to overcome their spiritual enemies, in defending them from danger, in guiding them in the path of duty, in sustaining them in trials and in death; and He will raise them up at the last day, and exalt them to a world of purity and love.

His people – Those whom the Father has given to him. The Jews were called the people of God because he had chosen them to himself, and regarded them as His special and beloved people, separate from all the nations of the earth. Christians are called the people of Christ because it was the purpose of the Father to give them to him Isa_53:11; Joh_6:37; and because in due time he came to redeem them to himself, Tit_2:14; 1Pe_1:2.

From their sins – This was the great business of Jesus in coming and dying. It was not to save people in their sins, but from their sins. Sinners could not be happy in heaven. It would be a place of wretchedness to the guilty. The design of Jesus was, therefore, to save them from sin; and from this we may learn:

1. That Jesus had a design in coming into the world. He came to save his people; and that design will surely be accomplished. It is impossible that in any part of it he should fail.

2. We have no evidence that we are his people unless we are saved from the power and dominion of sin. A mere profession of being His people will not answer. Unless we give up our sins; unless we renounce the pride, pomp, and pleasure of the world, we have no evidence that we are the children of God. It is impossible that we should be Christians if we indulge in sin and live in the practice of any known iniquity. See 1Jo_3:7-8.

3. That all professing Christians should feel that there is no salvation unless it is from sin, and that they can never be admitted to a holy heaven hereafter unless they are made pure, by the blood of Jesus, here.

This year, as we buy gifts, decorate trees, sing carols, and gather with our families, let us not forget the reason for the season,