Kingdom Triangle Discussion

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Moreland's Response to CT Blog

Here is JP's response to the CT Blog and its comments concerning his ETS paper, "How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What Can Be Done About It":

My paper was read at an academic conference for an audience of professors. Thus, precision was a premium. It was not intended for a lay audience because lay folk have a tendency---and this is not meant to be harsh—of running with ideas beyond the context in which they were originally given. A professorial friend of mine preached at a church I used to attend and argued that, while he was totally against condom distribution in the public schools, nevertheless, a widely used argument by Evangelicals was a bad argument, and he showed why. After the service, I personally heard several parishioners criticize him for promoting condom distribution in the schools!

While I am sure it was well intended, the CT editor’s summary of my paper is generally fair (though the use of “bibliolatry” in the title is a bit sensationalistic—I used it once in my paper and clarified it’s meaning by the over-commitment claim), but it is still a summary, and as such, did not and could not provide the needed context for understanding my paper. What followed was a large number (but by no means all) of misleading, irrelevant and tangential comments that had little and, often, nothing to do with my paper.

In the paper, I make clear that no one could be over-committed to the Bible (the inerrant Word of God) in loving, promoting and seeking to obey it. By over-commitment, I mean specifically that too many Evangelicals do not believe we can have extra-biblical knowledge or justified beliefs about God, morality, and other important, related matters: e.g., the existence of God and some of his attributes; the nature of the moral law and some of the absolutes that constitute it; the nature of the human soul and its functional relationships to the brain, parenting, defense mechanisms, childhood development, etc.; the reality of demons and important information about how they work in a specific culture along with important and effective ways to deal with them; and God’s guidance and speaking though impressions, circumstances, prophetic words, words of knowledge and wisdom, dreams, and so forth. In all these cases, information that is contrary to scripture is to be rejected, but extra-biblical truth and the knowledge thereof is very, very important.

We are harming people terribly, we are embarrassing the cause of Christ, and we are failing to help people appropriate and wisely use these sources of information when we are over-committed to the Bible in and only in the precise sense I define in the paper. It is time for us to mature as a community in this way and overcome the secularist socialization that lead to our over-commitment, a position that I claim in the paper cannot be justified biblically or theologically. Does anyone seriously think that non-Christians who have never seen a Bible have no knowledge of God or the moral law? That folk in Brazil have no knowledge of how demons work even though they have never seen a Bible? That God never speaks to people and guides them in ways that carry an appropriate degree of authority in their lives (under scripture and to the degree they are justified in believing it was God who was guiding them)? Are there abuses in all these areas? Of course, but that was not part of my talk which was, after all, a mere 40 minutes including Q & A!! Besides, the proper response to abuse is not Ostrich-like denial of the reality of these areas of knowledge, but rather, wise and mature usage. Am I becoming a Catholic? I am a Protestant Evangelical of the Third Wave sort, and I have no inclination whatever to change my views on that. Finally, my paper should not be faulted for not addressing things for which I had no time or which I was simply not addressing. Nor should people fault me for a lack of clarity or charge me with “having plenty of explaining to do” when my paper is, in fact, quite clear within the limited scope of my intentions. And please do not attribute to me views or implication that I do not hold or draw.

I am posting a version of my paper on the website for my book: I would also recommend reading my book Kingdom Triangle (Zondervan; just released about 6 months ago) for additional discussion and bibliography about how to avoid abuses in employing the sorts of extra-biblical knowledge I mention in the paper.


JP Moreland


First said...

Is there anyone out there interested in discussing this subject here? I was on Christianity Today, but there are so many comments there already. Plus this is the home site for Moreland, I hear. Let's see if anyone wants to pick things up here.

Let me just say that I have a lot of respect for J.P. Moreland, and what he is saying I think is something Bible believing Christians really need to be reminded of in order to get back to our roots. I think it's only a pretty recent phenomenon that Christians would have objected to a paper like this. Why on earth do some of these people get so fired up about it?

Here's something that might help some of the more fired-up people simmer down a bit. A few months ago I heard an online call in show run by several Dallas Seminary grads called Converse with Scholars. The people who run the thing are just good doctrinally rock solid people with a real heart for the Lord, and they do regular interviews with top Christian thinkers and theologians and even run an online seminary kind of thing. The time I listened, they were actually interviewing J.P. Moreland, and it was on the Kingdom Triangle book. Since part of the book talks about, among other things, the possibility of modern signs and wonders in the church, and since the radio host is a Dallas seminary grad (a non-signs and wonders kind of school), you could tell he wouldn't have been predisposed to favor Dr. Moreland's view on that point. Over the course of the show, Moreland made a real compelling case for the continuance of miracles, signs, and wonders, and evidently, so did the host, because at the end he said something like "you've really given me something to think about." But what was most interesting to me about the whole thing was that at the end of the show he told his listeners very emphatically that Moreland is one of the greatest Christian thinkers around today, and that whatever you want to make of his view, you can't chalk it up to him being unaware of the arguments, the objections or the Biblical issues. I see a lot of people doing that, though.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Sola scriptura has always allowed for other sources of knowledge and Moreland has now brought it to my attention. Thanks.

Tim said...

For the record, I'm on board with the thrust of Moreland's ETS paper. I've been to the Converse with Scholars site before, actually, so it's funny that you mention it.

I don't have any idea why knowing something outside the Bible is generating this much talk. I just read something today by someone who didn't have any kind of argument, but attempted to reply to the idea by satirizing the Christian appeal to philosophy. Basically, the guy was unhappy with the entire project of natural theology. No substance, just satire.

I agree that the CT website at times sounds a little too rant-like and it's hard to have a back and forth discussion there. I can't tell if people are posting and running, or what.

Tim said...

For anyone who came over here from the Christianity Today site…here are two concerns I have as I read over some of those posts:

First, people are both disagreeing with and getting upset over a Christian endorsing what seems to be a plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face notion. Why is this?

The "why" question leads to my second concern, namely, that this frequent inability to even articulate a logically valid reason for disagreement is representative of a more general problem in the church at large. Many of the CT responses, in my opinion, give testimony to the fact that we in the church have adopted an anti-Christian (i.e. worldly) habit of thinking which stands at odds with our ability to be fully-functioning disciples and representatives of Jesus. A lot of the responses have been impatient and defensive in tone, shallow in substance, as well as terse and demeaning. Why? We should be representing the Lord better in our ability to patiently think through an issue--even one we might disagree with or have great emotional reaction toward. There's a venerable tradition of thinking Christianly in the history of the church, characterized, at least in part, by being familiar with how to develop valid arguments (i.e. acquaintance with the laws of logic), and by being patient and charitable enough to do the spade-work of researching and understanding someone else's view before criticizing it. This would save a lot of the bluster out there, in my opinion, and help us get to clarity quicker.

If the Christianity Today comments are indicative of the way we reason with non-Christians at the water cooler, in the editorial column, and on blog-comment pages, then we as the church (at least, the evangelical church) have our work cut out for us if we're to regain our saltiness in our culture.

Curt said...

I agree with the concern regarding the tone and substance of many comments on CT's blog. Unfortunately, Christian blogs can be very discouraging at times. I hope that none of my comments were unedifying. Here is a comment that I posted at CT (slightly updated):

Dr. Moreland:

Thank you for making your paper available. This helped clarify your points and showed the nuances of your argument. There are a few details with which I might quibble, but let me focus on the bigger issues.

You describe a certain leader as 'painting with a broad bush.' I find this ironic, since it seems to me that, in many ways, you have done the same thing. There will be a vast number of evangelicals who will agree with many of your concerns, but not with the scope and severity of your conclusions. Regarding some of your observations, you are preaching to the choir and many churches are not greatly struggling with these issues. Just how ubiquitous is this biblical over-commitment? One example you give is the refusal of the Biblical Counseling movement to consider extra-biblical input. But what of the myriad books filling our bookstores that draw directly from psychology and non-biblical sources? What you are decrying in this case is arguably in the minority of American evangelicalism. This is a real problem, but is it truly characteristic of evangelicalism in general?

Your thoughts on the spiritual realm are intriguing, but you don't give adequate consideration of the very real differences between archaeology and demonology. Yes, they are both real, and, yes, the Bible does not give us exhaustive knowledge of either. But we simply do not have the same access and ability to study the spiritual realm as we do the physical. You dismiss the desire of Priest et al. for "careful scrutiny" of such insights as simply a rejection. I assume that your inference is based on some actual indication of such rejection on their part. But, setting aside any a priori rejection, would not careful scrutiny be the prudent and appropriate response to claimed extra-biblical knowledge of the spiritual realm? (And, btw, how is a teaching that is authoritative for faith and practice not doctrine?)

Your inclusion of different forms of revelation brings much of this discussion into focus. Yes, many within the church dismiss such revelation out of hand. However, others readily accept any claimed revelation without proper evaluation, often resulting in ludicrous circumstances. You don't acknowledge this other danger, which is also very common. The elders, in your example, returning from a retreat with spiritual guidance for the church would be accepted by many, once again calling into question how universal this problem is. When faced with revelation many would not treat it with contempt, but would weigh carefully what is being offered as revelation---and they would do so because of a commitment to Scripture.

I share some of your concerns, but question whether the problems you describe are as pervasive as you indicate. I also would question the terminology of "over-commitment to Scripture." Perhaps this is merely a matter of semantics, but this charge, while admittedly provocative, will be unnecessarily inflammatory to many.

Curt Parton

ChosenRebel said...

Just a hello from an old friend. Saw your article at ETS and i'm in the process of digesting it. Intial response: A hearty amen!

Trust your bride and the kids are well. Always encouraged by your defense of the truth.

Marty Schoenleber

Stephen said...

This sounds like a lot more peaceful than the CT blog to discuss the matter!

Our objection is not to Moreland's position on miracles, signs, wonders, the gifts etc., we are not cessational and live in constant reliance on God to fill us with the power of the Holy Spirit for ministry.

We are saying that Sola Scriptura and natural theology cannot exist in harmony because Scripture refutes natural theology (this assumes that sola scriptura and natural theology are both correctly understood). The complaint is with the damage that is done to young men that end up at our church and apologetics classes that have had their minds filled with the "wisdom" of the philosophers. These young men are students of Moreland, some which have said that Plato and Scripture are equal forms of authority.

Scripture tells us not to lean on our own understanding. Scripture reveals that the entire world outside of Israel was in total darkness. God's Word alone is the light and lamp.

When God looked down on the sons of man and saw that none understood and that none were seeking Him, this included Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, etc.

Natural theology, natural law, human autonomy etc., are unbiblical concepts. Scripture does not allow these concepts to develop far enough to be included in Christian thought.

So for those that ask "why?," that's pretty much the complaint in a very small nutshell. Dr. Morey will complete his exhaustive refutation of Natural Theology in a couple of months, and the discussion should be very lively then. We agree that "Bibliolatry" or in other words "Sol=O Scriptura" is nonsense and embarrasing.

Aaron Snell said...

Could someone please explain to me why Natural theology entails human autonomy? I see the two joined synonymously a lot, but just don't see the logical necessity of it.

Stephen said...

“Human autonomy is the assumption or presupposition that man, starting from himself, with himself, by himself, rejecting any outside or special revelation, can construct a unified field of knowledge within which he can understand himself, the world around him, and all the interrelationships involved. This is found in Greek philosophy. A man by the name of Protagoras once said “man is the measure of all things.’” Dr. Robert Morey - Introduction to Defending the Faith (10 disc audio lecture)

We reject this idea because of what has been revealed in Scripture and maintain that without special revealtion, man cannot and will not understand himself, the world around him, and all the interrelationships involved.

To see just how untenable natural theology is, you must suck out every biblical idea from your mind, from the country, and from the world, that has its origin in special revelation, so that all you are left with is nature.

From that point, natural theologians teach "Christian audiences" that man can discover the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by way of his reason alone. Autonomous man believes that he alone is the measure of all things.

The problem is that it is taught to Christian audiences that already believe in the God of the Bible. But if the biblical idea of God was sucked out, natural theology cannot reveal the God of the Bible, you end up with a finite god, maybe slightly bigger than the universe.

properly basic said...

Stephen wrote: We reject this idea because of what has been revealed in Scripture and maintain that without special revelation, man cannot and will not understand himself, the world around him, and all the interrelationships involved.

In what sense do you suppose man cannot understand himself, the world around him, and all the interrelationships involved without ‘special revelation?’ Are we not created in such a way (being rational creatures and image bearers) that upon reflection and introspection certain aspects of reality are in fact knowable? I have always been puzzled by what folks mean by special revelation. What do you mean when you use those terms?

properly basic said...

Stephen wrote: We reject this idea because of what has been revealed in Scripture...

What scripture[s] do you have in mind?

Stephen said...

properly basic, you asked: " Are we not created in such a way (being rational creatures and image bearers) that upon reflection and introspection certain aspects of reality are in fact knowable?"

Yes, we are. Those "certain knowable aspects" of reality do not include the "certain knowable aspects" of reality that God has revealed in His self-disclosure to man.

Apart from revelation (which makes certain aspects of reality knowable), natural man cannot reach the understanding of for example, himself as being created in the image of God, that he's corrupted by the fall, and that there will be a redeemed state to enter through faith in Christ alone, God's provision for redemption. Man can only know that about himself by way of special revelation.

When I say special revelation, I'm referring God's self-disclosure to man, which was progressive in nature (Heb. 1:1-2).

You asked what scripture[s] I had in mind. Are you a Christian asking for Bible verses so that you can evaluate my interpretation of the verses, or are you asking which scripture[s] as in texts, or are you oblivious to the fact that God has revealed in Scripture that man is in darkness, to which His word is light and would like for me to provide those references for you because you are interested in reforming your thoughts to God's thoughts?

Let me know!

Stephen said...

Typo, remove "the" before the second "certain aspects"

Should have wrote: Yes, we are. Those "certain knowable aspects" of reality do not include "certain knowable aspects" of reality that God has revealed in His self-disclosure to man.

properly basic said...

Stephen wrote: Apart from revelation (which makes certain aspects of reality knowable), natural man cannot reach the understanding of for example, himself as being created in the image of God, that he's corrupted by the fall, and that there will be a redeemed state to enter through faith in Christ alone, God's provision for redemption. Man can only know that about himself by way of special revelation. When I say special revelation, I'm referring God's self-disclosure to man, which was progressive in nature (Heb. 1:1-2).

Stephen, it is not at all obvious (in scripture or otherwise) that the unsaved cannot know he is created in God’s image, or that he is fallen, and everything else you noted. This knowledge (it seems to me) is the precondition for belief, genuine humility, submission to God, and repentance--perhaps you believe we are born again before we believe. Moreover, based on your slim view of special revelation (God incarnate) it is strange to think folks temporally prior or posterior to the incarnation can have a special knowledge of God. According to your note, we only have access to a general revelation of God. Moreover, before you use these terms further, please take note that I am paying close attention to their grounds in scripture--And I am a Christian.


Chip M Anderson said...

Dr. Moreland, as one who was not at ETS, and has somewhat reacted to the CT Blog, I appreciate your clarifications. Now for digesting your paper and considering it on its merit as an idea...can't wait to read the book.

Thanks again.

Chip M Anderson

properly basic said...

Is there a video avalaible by chance of the ETS conference?

KT said...

To our knowledge, there is not a video of the ETS presentation.

- KT Admin

Dale Fincher said...

One thing that I struggle with as an itinerant speaker is how suspicious some laypeople in the church are of new ideas. The academy may be 20 years ahead of them on certain ideas.

It's an attitude that the church, not the Scripture, is the final authority for faith and practice.

Much of what Moreland covers I consider old and obvious news that needed refreshing to the ETS audience and the broader evangelical church.

I wish more scholars had the gumption to stand before their peers and call them out on suffocating the gospel and the dual revelations God has put into this world (nature and Scripture).

By the way, if it's true the Reformed view believes the non-regenerate man cannot understand God's revelation -- nature or scripture -- without the work of the Holy Spirit, their point is rather moot since it slices both ways, IMHO.

What what do we do when we see Plato, et al, saying things that line up with Scripture? Doesn't that evidence alone show that we some need to update the nuances of what the Bible is saying?

And, yet, beyond that it also smacks against reality and experience, which is a helpful check and balance against errant understandings of Scripture (Sola Scripture, yes, but not Sola Interpretationa). If David says the stars proclaim the truth of God (Ps 19), or when Solomon says wisdom can be found in watching ants (ants aren't Israel yet they are conveying revelation), and when Jesus shows up to Muslims in dreams regularly today, or the pre-conditions of learning like reason, logic, language, etc, that even make the Bible accessible, then the Reformed view (as mentioned above) faces a contradiction in their interpretation of the text.

C. S. Lewis candidly pointed out, "The Bible tells us to feed the poor, but it doesn't teach us how to cook." Special and general revelation each have their place and have their own helpful, sometimes overlapping, sets of revealed knowledge.

I held JP's view before I studied under him at Talbot (in fact I had never read anything by him prior to Talbot). I grew up with more a Reformed view of Scripture, but found it choking my faith as I distrusted the Scripture (or the glasses given me to read it certain ways). I came to my conclusion with lots of prayer (to whatever God would listen), reading the Bible, and learning to pay attention to nature, experience, relationships, and how God has guided me into faith on this beautiful but strange planet of people.

Hello, from snowy Colorado, JP! Thanks for your ministry of getting people to pay attention.


ChosenRebel said...

Amen to the last post with one clarification. It was not Reformed theology that truncated your view of natural revelation but the the particular group of Reformed theologians among whom you learned it.

Dale Fincher said...

chosenrebel, thanks for the distinction. That helps.

I also looked at your profile. We have overlapping interests... I, too, am a huge fan of Rich Mullins who helped me see God when the church wasn't speaking my language.

ChosenRebel said...

I look forward to the day when Rich M. leads the choirs of heaven in the praise of the Lamb.

KT said...

Its definitely the case that Mullins made an important contribution to Christianity.

Nonetheless, lets try to stay on topic as it relates to this post.

- KT Admin

litchpastorman said...

I have not yet read Dr. Morelands paper, but from the reactions to it and his response I have to say that I agree with his basic conclusions. In dialogue with other pastors I am sometimes frustrated by their dismissal of other types of knowledge. They do not understand how much proper interpretation of scripture depends upon knowledge not gained from scripture itself.

For instance, proper hermeneutics relies trusting our senses, trusting our logic, and trusting that the author had something in mind when he wrote the words. We have to assume our existence and the existence of the Bible itself. These may all seem to be very basic pieces of knowledge, but I do not have to have read a Bible to know any of these things.

Likewise, there are many other truths that we can know that the Bible does not address, and some of them are important to life. Now because God has revealed Himself specifically through the Bible, we have an explanation for why all truths, those found in the Bible and those found through other observations are true. Namely, that all truth is God's truth.

I would agree with an earlier poster who said that in general this is not a problem for evangelicals, but I know enough of them for whom it is a problem (many in my own church) that I am glad Dr. Moreland addressed it. For example, I know a number of people who insist on eating organic foods or on laissez faire economics because the Bible says so. (As an aside, these are some of the same back to nature people that CT has been extolling lately.) Not only am I not convinced that the Bible says so on these points, in some cases sound Biblical principles may even speak against such things. In other words, in many of the cases that I have seen people who have this Bible as the only source of knowledge idea are in fact using the Bible to justify their own position, often in the face of good logical facts to the contrary.

This turns into legalism that can lead away from a daily walk with God and often into self-righteousness. Perhaps this form of biliolatry is not exactly what Dr. Moreland was intending to address, but it is how I have seen these ideas work out in real situations.

kwekeljo said...

I did read Moreland's paper and agree with much of it, but failed to see why he didn't make the distinction between epistemology and soteriology. The fact that scripture is the SOLE source of authority on soteriology (as it contains the gospel of Christ which is necessary for salvation) seemed to be missing from the otherwise excellent paper.

I appreciated the discussion between "Stephen" and "properly basic" above. I would say special revelation is scripture. No man can be save apart from the gospel which is necessarily contained in scripture.

I would say that natural theology has some problems depending on how you define "knowledge of God" because scripture definitely says that all men have some knowledge of God being made manifest from what was made (Rom 1). But that knowledge is necessarily darkened by his reigning sin; thus only the Christian via a Christian worldview can see reality aright. But i would say that sinful man can and regularly does make real and true discoveries about reality that Christians should consider within the Christian worldview. The trouble is, the sinner can not interpret those discoveries aright because of his sin, but the Christian can take those discoveries, interpret them rightly and use them for glory of God.

So this discussion is very interesting!

bishop said...

Thoughtful reflection and respectful question asking are to be prefered to knee-jerk reaction; this usually happens when others are not able to make distinctions in theological or philosophical content. Unfortunately, we don't want to leave out those who want to engage in a more robust discussion regarding the suject at hand. Let this be a lesson to those who have a large readership and broad theological backgrouns.

John said...

From J.P. Moreland's response to critics of his original ETS paper: "Does anyone seriously think that non-Christians who have never seen a Bible have no knowledge of God or the moral law?"

Which moral law?

Knowledge gained from archaeological digs is in now way the same as the knowledge of how to be saved. Archaeology (or whatever hard experimental science) will only give you interesting facts. The framework in which they are put must come from somewhere else. You won't get this framework experimentally. Neither will you get a salvation framework experimentally.

Dale Fincher said...


Moral law and 'knowledge about salvation' are different things.

Was Moreland talking about archeology being the source of the moral law?

However someone debating the 'source' of the moral law is different than simply acknowledging THAT there is a moral law. And it does seem a bit intellectually dishonest to say non-Christians have no knowledge or God or the moral law. It's as plain as pototatos that they do.

kwekeljo said...

Yes, i agree, thats why i made the comment about Moreland's failure to distinguish epistemology from soteriology. Rom 1 assumes *some* knowledge of God from general revelation, this is true, but he fails to make a quite important distinction that this type of knowledge is not sufficient for salvation (soteriology) and as such, THIS is the major reason why Evangelicals have been "overcommitted" to the Bible. Which i would still agree with, but i would be more CAREFULL and PRECISE than he was in making this distinction. Such lack of precision is probably legitimate cause for a little heat from evangelicals.

Dale Fincher said...

Well, epistemology is tied up in soteriology (the latter stands on the former) so at some level it is difficult to distinguish them.

Yet, even still, while I know Romans 1 is a key and clear passage on depravity, Paul does say in verse 20 that the knowledge gained through creation is 'without-excuse' knowledge. It seems the knowledge would have to be enough that would not excuse anyone from missing God and his redemption of humans.

And we want to be careful that Paul is not just referring to people who exist after the canon is closed. "Without-excuse" knowledge is available before there was Scripture and in places where there is no Scripture at all. I can't slant Paul's words like that and so infer there is some form of knowledge sufficient for salvation in nature, just by reading Romans 1.

Whether people want it is another matter.

I actually never put those two things together till just now when you pointed it out (to make the opposite point).

Also see my earlier post in this comment section. I think it is important we not mistakenly treat forms of revelation as so black and white. They each serve the other and both are vital.

I know Moreland believes that the more knowledge we have of Jesus the better. So he certainly isn't against special revelation at all and it's keys to knowledge and love.

I do think if evangelicals stopped to think that God is the authority, not the Bible, they they'd start re-thinking just who this Person is who intersects our lives and interacts with us. They need to reorder the hierarchy.

This is one of the primary issues I find, one that doesn't set right with cultural-evengelicals, but aligns so well with Scripture itself.

As an evangelical I can say, my people have put the whole thing on its head. We are to have a relationship with Him, not with his book. Our over-emphasis on 'daily devotions' is a symptom of this. We turned a discipline into a spiritual mandate and ensure our younglings engage in the practice to keep the lifeline open to the blessings of God. We equivocate Bible reading with spending time with God... and that, as religious addiction literature emphasizes, is missing the point.

kwekeljo said...

yeah, i would agree with a lot of what you said. The hierarchy starts with God not with the Bible.
One other point on the previous discussion regarding general epistemology and (specifics) of what is required for salvation: I think a proper understanding of the gospel requires both a proper diagnosis of the problem (sin) and proper prescription of the antidote, Christ (also obviously personal appropriation; not just knowledge and assent to certain propositions, but active trust in the person those propositions point to). But back to my point that i think general revelation or whatever Paul was talking about in Rom 1 could be simply an accurate diagnosis, a proper understanding that 1) some type of deity exists, 2) moral categories exist and 3) man is deficient with respect to those moral categories. I think general revelation could tell you those three things. But the knowledge, assent and trust in Christ, the antidote, is what special revelation alone brings. Even then this is what we call in science: necessary but not sufficient, meaning even with correct diagnosis and prescription we still need the activity of the Holy Spirit blessing those things in order for the true active trust to be produced in the first place.
Anyway, sorry so long again, but what are your thoughts regarding that?