4.29 Doug Ponder • Reading • "After Complementarianism, What? Why Egalitarians Are (Still) Winning the Evangelical Gender Debate"

As I said from the outset, substance matters more than labels. For this reason, broad, thick, natural complementarians who maintain their preference for that designation over against biblical patriarchy do well to acknowledge the essential similarity of the two. Furthermore, these groups should stop pitting themselves against each other as if they held to different conceptions of the biblical sexes, for by and large, they do not.

Welcome to Christ Overall, a podcast dedicated to helping the church see Christ as Lord and everything else under his feet. My name is David Schrock, and today I'm introducing Doug Ponder's long-form essay, After Complementarianism, What? Why egalitarians are still winning the evangelical gender debate. When it comes to the question of language, names, and terminology, there is something of a debate around the word complementarianism.

In recent years, it has picked up a host of various adjectives. On one side, adjectives like narrow, thin, or ideological have been given to form a complementarianism which holds to a number of biblical commands for men and women. but it is one that is independent of natural distinctions between male and female. By contrast, another form of complementarianism, more aligned with nature, has used adjectives like broad, thick, or natural

to affirm all the commands of scripture, but also to ground them in a way that God made male and female with distinct, essential characteristics. Playing off this division among complementarians, some have affirmed the need for the use of terms like patriarchy, or biblical patriarchy, or patriarchal complementarianism to affirm the nature of things, while others on the thin or ideological side have continued to use the name complementarian

all the while affirming many of the views long held by egalitarians, the view that men and women are essentially the same in nature and in function with little to no restrictions on the commands given to them.

Indeed, in the last decade or so, there has been a fracturing going on in the complementarian House. And building on a conversation that has been carried by the likes of Jonathan Lehman, Kevin DeYoung, Joe Rigney, Denny Burke, and others, Doug Ponder retrieves the way that patriarchy as a term has been used in history, and he charts a path forward to affirm a natural complementarianism that parallels biblical patriarchy.

In the end, he responds to some of the critiques that Aaron Redd has offered against complementarianism, and he challenges all Bible-believing Christians to ground their views of men and women in something more than fiat commands divorced from human nature.

Indeed, God has made a world with natural differences between men and women, and the commands of scripture flow from that divine design, and not just God's arbitrary will. Accordingly, the language that we use and the terms that we choose should match God's creation. And that is what this article gets at as it finishes our month on making fatherhood great again. Indeed, if you haven't looked at the full scope of long-form essays and concise articles, they're now available at ChristOverall.com.

Equally, they will be sent out later this week in an email to all those who have signed up for our monthly newsletter. If you have not signed up for our newsletter, you should do that so that you don't miss out on any other resources that are being made available.

Also, if you want to help Christ Overall continue to provide the church with resources like this, you can give at ChristOverall.com slash give. It is our joy to bring these resources to you for free. And we are thankful for all those who help us to do that. Today, we give you Doug Ponder's long-form essay, After Complementarianism, What? Why egalitarians are still winning the evangelical gender debate. After Complementarianism, What?

Why Egalitarians Are Still Winning the Evangelical Gender Debate, a Christ of Our All long form written by Doug Ponder, read by Kevin McClure. On the second date with a woman who would later become my wife. i told her that i wanted us to make our relationship official there was a shift in her demeanor as she went on to explain that this felt like a big and scary leap i was stunned we had been talking regularly for months

We had been on two dates that went as well as they could have. In one sense, I wasn't asking for anything to change. I just wanted us to continue moving in the direction that we had been, only now with a conscious acknowledgement that we were, say, An item, a couple, boyfriend and girlfriend. I had a two-hour ride home to consider what my next steps would be. She didn't say that she wanted to stop talking nor that she wanted to stop seeing me.

She was simply hung up on terminology. And somewhere along the winding road from Lynchburg to Richmond, the wisdom of the bard came into my mind. What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet. So I decided that I didn't care what she called our relationship. I was going to keep pursuing her until she told me to get lost. And she never did.

of words and things. I think about that episode in my life whenever I encounter discussions about the substance of a thing and the label that we use to describe it. Like now, for instance. as debates about terminology emerge amongst conservative Christians who agree that God designed the sexes in complementary and non-interchangeable ways that correspond with callings in the home, the church, and society.

and that match our respective constitutions. In brief, some prefer the term complementarianism to express that vision of the sexes, while others prefer the term biblical patriarchy to describe the same. I suspect it's tempting for some to dismiss this debate as another iteration of Paul's infamous charge not to quarrel about words which does no good but only ruins the hearers in 2 Timothy 2, verse 14.

Yet certain words matter, as Paul well understood himself in Colossians 4, verse 4, as did the bishops who debated whether homoousion or homoousion. was the right term to express the nature of God the Son vis-a-vis God the Father. As Mark Twain once put it, the difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter.

Tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning. To say all this in an Augustinian mode, words are verbal signs. So there ought to be correspondence between the sign and the thing signified. So then, three cheers for precise terminology. Yet Shakespeare, no ignoramus when it came to choosing the right word for the occasion, knew that words can also get in the way of our ability to see the substance of a thing.

whether it's a rose or a Montague. The same goes for the biblical teaching on the sexes. Labels matter, but substance matters more. And it's my contention in this article, that a certain form of complementarianism is, in substance, the same as the view known as biblical patriarchy. Consequently, debates about terms, while not completely pointless,

should nevertheless take a backseat to this concession, allowing conservative Christians to build a lasting coalition that can counter the world's increasing confusion about gender and sexuality. The death of complementarianism?

Not long after Aaron Wren's first iteration of his Negative World article made him a well-known figure in Christian circles, he fired a shot heard around the world of evangelical gender debates. Wren declared, that complementarianism the view that men and women are equally created in the image of god but have complementary roles in god's design

He claimed that this is a modern system that will die off with the fading influence of the baby boomer generation. Wren offered several reasons for his conclusions, some of which relied on sociological observations about the origins. and organizations that promote complementarianism while i don't agree with every point that wren makes he was right on target about the growing trend among many complementarians to soften their views as much as possible he writes

Complementarianism has extended its position of absolute biblical minimalism to the point where it is breaking down. By absolute biblical minimalism, I mean that they ask, What is the absolute least amount of deviation from egalitarianism we can possibly justify scripturally? As an example of this trend, Wren highlighted the work of Kathy Keller.

in popularizing the slogan-esque statement that anything that an unordained man is allowed to do, a woman is allowed to do. Kathy's husband, Tim Keller, certainly practiced this approach at his church in New York City, as have many of the churches influenced by Keller. Wren notes this,

and the denominational rulebook about as far as they can towards egalitarianism. The many churches inspired by Redeemers seem to do the same. For example, my wife's former PCA church, a Redeemer clone right down to the name, attempted to get her to volunteer to be the chair of their pastoral search committee. Their rationale was that since the Bible doesn't explicitly say women can't lead the search for a new pastor, then not only is it allowed,

but they should deliberately attempt to place a woman into that role. This trend is far from being a problem unique to the PCA, the Presbyterian Church in America, which is the late Tim Keller's denomination. In the same article, Wren points to a popular suggestion made in 2018 that erstwhile Southern Baptist Beth Moore should be elected president of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Because the bylaws of the convention do not prohibit this possibility, Wren observes that this creates a farcical scenario in which a confessionally complementarian SBC holds that the Bible says a woman can't be the head of a church, but can be the head of a denomination. Other professing complementarians have followed a similar trajectory. For example,

British pastor and TGC mainstay Andrew Wilson has said, I would have been in a position 10 years ago when we did not have women on the preaching rota. And we do now in both the churches I serve.

And I would totally defend that on biblical grounds. Wren goes on to predict that complementarianism will die, partly from the passing of the boomers who popularized it, and partly from the liberalizing Moses is, quote unquote, within complementarianism, who may not personally cross the Jordan River, but having led multitudes to the edge of the egalitarian promised land, they're Joshua's in waiting.

likely will. Wren concludes, whether intentionally or unintentionally, complementarianism has arrived at a place that is untenable. The question is then, what comes after?

complementarianism after complementarianism what wren admits that the future is inherently impossible to predict but he predicts that A small but not insignificant group of people will move in a reactionary direction, embracing a thicker, more substantive sexual complementarity and even a patriarchal vision. He also says that this group will struggle to create an intellectually coherent theology slash vision that is viable in the today and tomorrow's world.

I think Ren is correct about the trends in complementarianism, even if I don't agree with his assessment of the movement at every point. I further think he was right that a growing number of people would embrace a more substantive vision for sexuality.

Many have already done so. And just as he predicted, some in this group have begun to use the term patriarchy to describe their view. But I disagree with Wren that such moves reflect a shift away from complementarianism at least in substance rather i think these developments entail the rejection of a certain form of complementarianism that is insufficiently biblical

and also ahistorical that form of complementarianism stands in contrast to a second view within the same movement which as i said previously appears to be the same in substance as the view that's sometimes called biblical patriarchy my argument is built on two truths first there are two forms of complementarianism a fact that has become increasingly apparent in recent years

Jonathan Lehman refers to the two groups as broad and narrow complementarians. Kevin DeYoung refers to the same as thick and thin complementarians. Joe Rigney calls them natural and ideological. complementarians. And Andy Nacelli has provided a helpful table that contrasts the two views. I've also written about the differences of these groups at length. So I will not rehash all that here. And as an editor's note,

You can see in the footnote all the places that Doug Ponder has written on this. The basic distinction relevant to this article is that narrow slash thin slash ideological complementarians hold to a limited number of explicit commands without the biblical vision of the sexes that grounds those commands. In other words, Thin slash narrow slash ideological complementarians have rules without clear reasons for why the Lord has given these rules.

This not only depicts God's commands as arbitrary, but it also renders this group incapable of applying the whole Bible's vision of the sexes to situations in life that are not explicitly addressed in Scripture. some of which did not exist at the time of the biblical authors. Meanwhile, broad or thick or natural complementarians have both rules and various reasons for said rules.

equipping them with a biblical vision of the sexes that's large enough to inform how men and women should think about the import of God's design in all of life. The second truth central to my argument. is that broad slash thick slash natural complementarianism is essentially the same as the traditional view of the sexes held by the likes of Tertullian, Chrysostom, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine.

Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Herman Boving, C.S. Lewis, Stephen B. Clark, the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and most of the authors of the book, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. All these authors and hundreds more represent a kind of mere complementarianism, which has been believed everywhere, always, by all in the church.

until the downgrade of mainline Protestantism in the mid-20th century. This view understands the difference between the sexes as the grounding for God's gender-specific commands with a view to the wider application of sexual differences.

in all spheres of life denny burke president of the council on biblical manhood and womanhood argued much the same in his response to ren's article burke writes that complementarianism is a new term

Coined to refer to an ancient teaching that's rooted in the text of Scripture, some version of what we now call complementarianism is what the church has assumed for its entire 2,000-year history. Or, as Burke says in another article, While the term complementarianism is a neologism, that is a new word, the core concepts of the system are a summary of what the Bible has always said about manhood and womanhood.

I think Burke is right, but only if by some version of complementarianism, he specifically has in mind the broad or thick or natural version described above. thin-slash-narrow-slash-ideological version of complementarianism is indeed a new development, being a significant departure from the core views of the church throughout the ages. Returning to Wren's Critiques.

Though Wren does not mention the distinction between two kinds of complementarianism, I think his criticisms largely, if not entirely, apply to those of the narrow slash thin slash ideological camp. He even comes close to affirming the second form of complementarianism when he predicts the emergence of a thicker, more substantive sexual complementarity and even a patriarchal vision.

Yet this development is not so much an emergence, but a resurgence. Not an innovation, but a recovery. It marks the rise of a generation of younger complementarians who, for a variety of reasons,

are less embarrassed by the Bible's quote-unquote unfashionable teaching on the sexes and who align more closely with how Christian theologians spoke about the sexes for centuries before the modern era. For example, Consider Stephen Wedgeworth's article entitled, Male-Only Ordination is Natural, Why the Church is a Model of Reality.

Interacting with the Apostle Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians chapter 14, verses 34 through 35, Wedgworth notes that the logic of ecclesiastical government is... consistent with and built upon the more basic hierarchy of husbands and wives in view of how paul argues in first corinthians chapter 11 verse 3 through 16 which worth further claims that

1 Corinthians 14, verse 34 is not some lonely example of out-of-place patriarchy. It is wholly consistent with the rest of the Pauline and the New Testament landscape. He also shows that theologians like Luther and Calvin interpreted these passages in unequivocally patriarchal, i.e. hierarchical fashion. Wedgworth concludes.

The logic of the New Testament's teaching of male leadership in the church is consistently based on the creational pattern of Genesis chapter 2. This is why churches who retain male-only ordination reject arguments that the restriction was based on human custom and only relevant to patriarchal cultures. This teaching was not only a cultural feature of the historical period,

but was indeed reflective of a natural law, the creation order itself. But if this is so, then we cannot laugh off the more wide-reaching comments of Luther and Calvin. The one and same logic underpins both, and thus we are left to choose. Do we retain their patriarchal logic because it is indeed the logic of the New Testament, even as it conflicts with our modern assumptions about

civil arrangement, and equality? Or do we reject that logic along with the New Testament logic? In any case, the middle way of narrow complementarianism

seems the least intellectually attractive. One will eventually feel the pull to one of the two consistent positions. It's noteworthy that Wedgworth's article preceded wren's article this means the former wedgworth was not writing to defend his own view against the latter's criticisms it also means that wedgworth anticipated the eventual demise of

narrow or thin or ideological complementarianism for reasons that are compatible with some of Wren's observations. That is to say, there is a form of complementarianism that is dying, just as Wren said. And it is dying because it is both sub-biblical, illogical, and contrary to the consensus of church history, as Wedgworth has ably shown. But none of this holds for...

broad or thick or natural complementarians who, in essence, are adherents of biblical patriarchy by another name. Why not embrace the patriarchy?

The essential similarity of the traditional or patriarchal view of the sexes and broad or thick or natural complementarianism has not always been appreciated by complementarians. Some have explicitly rejected it. For example, in the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, contributing editor John Piper cites J.I. Packer approvingly when the latter, Packer, writes,

I'm not keen on hierarchy and patriarchy as terms describing the man-woman relationship in Scripture. Nevertheless, hierarchy has always been a feature of complementarianism. Indeed, It's a central feature that distinguishes it from its ideological rival egalitarianism. Hence, the subtitle of the first two editions of the Egalitarian Manifesto, Discovering Biblical Equality, was this. Complementarity without hierarchy. Furthermore, David J. Ayers.

repeatedly used the term hierarchy and patriarchy in a positive light in his contribution to recovering biblical manhood and womanhood. Similarly, biblical theologian Andreas Kostenberger and his wife Margaret have argued that Patriarchy is an accurate description of the biblical teaching on the sexes. Others, like Catholic author Carrie Gress,

have openly defended the goodness of patriarchy and the disastrous consequences that have arisen from the world's departure from it. Even so, Denny Burke has argued that the term patriarchy is unhelpful. and need not be defended. In a recent podcast episode on the topic, Burke remarked, my argument is that the term patriarchy, not patriarch, but patriarchy,

is so loaded with feminist propaganda. And it wasn't our term to begin with. I don't even know why we would waste energy on it because every time you use the term, you have to define what you don't mean by it. You're having to tell people, I know that the dominant usage of this term by the feminists is that it refers to systems of misogyny and abuse in the culture, and we need to cast those off. That's not what we mean by it. We mean biblical patriarchy. And then they say, well...

this still sounds like misogyny. And so you're having this argument about words when, for me, prudentially, I want to get to biblical reality. I don't want to get tripped up on arguing over words. And it doesn't make any sense to use a word that's not ours to begin with and becomes an unnecessary stumbling block to people that I want to persuade to believe what the Bible teaches.

about the way that men and women are to relate to one another in the church, in the home, and actually also outside of that. Because there are implications for what the Bible says about every sphere of life, because we're men and women in every sphere of life.

It is true that Kate Millett popularized patriarchy among feminists and that she used the word in reference to systems of misogyny and abuse, which no broad or thick or natural complementarian or defender of biblical patriarchy would ever defend yet she did not coin the term itself nor does she have the authority herself to dictate the words original and proper meaning

The Oxford English Dictionary cites the first use of patriarchy to the year 1561. The English term was coined by Thomas Norton, son-in-law of Thomas Cranmer, in his translation of Calvin's Institutes. In context, Norton, via Calvin, was speaking about ecclesiastical authority, but other authors soon used the term to refer to broader social organization. For example,

Francis Bacon wrote about patriarchy as a synonym for paternity in reference to governance or rule by men. By the mid-1800s, the term patriarchy was used with sufficient commonality. to find newspaper references like the following. A great commonwealth blossoms in the wilderness. A political trinity appears, founded on the principles of theocracy, hierarchy, and patriarchy.

But even if these early uses of patriarchy did not exist, I wonder if the word designating father rule is the most fitting term for the biblical vision of the sexes in the social order that God instituted for humanity.

Ephesians 3, verses 14-15, which assert the rule of our Father in heaven over all persons, certainly describe a kind of divine patriarchy. Furthermore, the biblical use of the term patriarch which comes from Patriarches, which is found in 1 Chronicles 24, 31, 27, 22, 2 Chronicles 23, 20 in the LXX, and then also in Acts 2, 29, 7, 8 through 9, and then Hebrews 7, 4.

establishes lexical continuity between the kind of authority that father rulers possessed and the concept of patriarchy. And speaking of the rule of fathers, Texts like Numbers chapter 30 and Ephesians chapter 5, 22 to chapter 6, verse 4 certainly seem to lend support to this notion. Cross-reference also 1 Corinthians chapter 11, verse 3 through 16. In other words,

The concept of patriarchy, i.e. father rule, if not the term itself, seems to pervade the scriptures. Indeed, this was the conclusion of feminist Mary Daly, who argued that the scriptures are so hopelessly patriarchal, that it was impossible to salvage anything of the Christian faith while remaining a committed feminist. The alternative, of course, is to embrace both the Christian faith and its vision of

benevolent father figures who serve as heads in the family, Ephesians 5, 22 to 6, 4, the church, 1 Corinthians 11, 2 through 16, 1 Timothy 2, 8 through 3, 15, Hebrews 13, 7 and 17. See also, 1 Corinthians 4.15, and also father figures who serve as heads in the society, cross-reference Genesis 3.16-17, 1 Timothy 2.12, and Isaiah 3.12, all serving to reflect the rule

of our father in heaven embracing the patriarchy by any name i suspect that denny burke would not disagree with what i've just written though he might point out that the term patriarchy like the rainbow flag, has been so thoroughly abused in our time that defending the word is a foolish gambit. That is to say the substance, what Burke calls the biblical reality, is all that matters.

Perhaps he is right, but he did not always seem to think so. In 2005, Burke wrote about the best paper presentation that I have ever heard at the Evangelical Theological Society. saying that the presenter was right on target in what he was arguing. Somewhat surprisingly, given the author of that piece's current persuasion, the paper was written by Russell Moore. Its title was, After Patriarchy, What? Why egalitarians are winning the evangelical gender debate.

Drawing on the work of Brad Wilcox in the book Soft Patriarchs, New Men, more highlighted research showing that the surpassing benevolence of evangelical fathers is a result of patriarchy.

not an aberration from it. When men see themselves as head over their households, they feel the weight of leadership, a weight that expresses itself in devotion to their little platoons of the home. At the same time, more worried that evangelicals were increasingly guilty of integrating biblical language of headship with the prevailing cultural notions of feminism, notions which fewer and fewer evangelicals challenge.

The problem, Moore says, is that evangelicals don't seem to speak often of male headship in terms of authority, and certainly not patriarchy, but usually in terms of servant leadership defined as watching out for the best interests of one's family without specifics on what this leadership looks like. In this way, as Wilcox says, headship has been reorganized along expressive lines.

emptying the concept of virtually all of its authoritative character. Moore continues. This understanding of servant leadership, read as titular, undefined, non-authoritative leadership, is precisely the model of complementarianism several other recent works have observed in the evangelical subculture. So, as Fraser Crane would put it,

What is a broad, thick, or natural complementarian boy to do? Moore suggests, if complementarians are to reclaim the debate, we must not fear making a claim that is disturbingly countercultural. and yet strikingly biblical, a claim that the less than evangelical feminists understand increasingly, Christianity is undergirded by a vision of patriarchy.

Moore acknowledges that the use of this term is risky. Even to use the word patriarchy in an evangelical context is uncomfortable since the word is deemed negative even by most complementarians. Yet, more insists. Evangelicals should ask why patriarchy seems negative to those of us who serve the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God and Father of Jesus Christ, a fatherhood.

that is not just eternal and abstract, but realized in a divine relationship with Jesus as the representative man, an historic... father-son covenantal relationship that defines the covenant standing and inheritance of believers. Patriarchy then is essential. From the begetting of Seth in the image and likeness of Adam to the deliverance of Yahweh's son Israel from the clutches of Pharaoh, to the promise of a Davidic son to whom God would be a father, in 2 Samuel 7.14 and Psalm 89.26.

to the abba cry of the new covenant assembly in romans 8 15. for too long egalitarians have dismissed complementarian proof texts with the call to see the big picture trajectory of the canon I agree that such a big picture trajectory is needed, but that trajectory leads towards patriarchy. And the patriarchal structures that exist in the creation order point to his headship. A headship that is oriented toward redemption in Christ, a la Hebrews chapter 12, verses 5 through 11. Later in his paper.

More anticipated some of Wren's critiques of the health of the complementarian movement, pointing out that the vitality in evangelical complementarianism right now is among those who are willing to speak directly to the implications and meaning of male headship, and who aren't embarrassed to use terms such as male headship.

Moore also sounded like Wren when he said, Ironically, a more patriarchal complementarianism will resonate among a generation seeking stability and a family fractured Western culture. in ways that soft-bellied, big-tent complementarianism never can. Related to this point, Moore reminded his listeners that the question for us is not whether we will have patriarchy,

But what kind, he states. Right now, Western culture celebrates casual sexuality, cohabitation, no-fault divorce, alternative families, and abortion rights. All of these things empower men to pursue a Darwinian fantasy of the predatory alpha male in search of nothing but power, prestige, and the next orgasm.

Does anyone really believe that these things empower women or children? Instead, the sexual liberationist vision props up a pagan patriarchy complete with a picture of a selfish, impersonal, cruel deity. And ironically, the kind of patriarchy feminists rightly oppose the capricious use of power by men to objectify and use women is itself the product of changes the mainstream feminists championed.

It does not bear the imprimatur of divine revelation, but of the Darwinist, Freudian myth that sex is the measure of all things. This turns out to be patriarchy too, but there is nothing soft about it. In 2005, Moore lamented that egalitarians are winning the evangelical gender debate. Given all the trends that Wren highlighted, I think egalitarians still are.

winning the gender debate. But the situation need not remain this way. And as Moore concluded, the complementarianism response must be more than reaction. It must instead present an alternative vision, a vision that sums up the burden of male headship under the cosmic rubric of the gospel of Christ and the restoration of all things in him.

It must produce churches that are not embarrassed to tell us that when we say the Our Father, we are patriarchists of the oldest kind. Concluding thoughts. In the final analysis, I can see that the choice of whether to use the term biblical patriarchy or the term broad or thick or natural complementarianism or something else is largely a debate about strategy.

And despite my efforts in this article to show that patriarchy is a biblically and historically defensible concept, I suspect that many broad, thick, natural complementarians will continue to prefer the latter term. Yet, as I said from the outset, substance matters more than labels. For this reason, broad, thick, natural complementarians who maintain their preference for that designation over against biblical patriarchy

do well to acknowledge the essential similarity of the two. Furthermore, these groups should stop pitting themselves against each other as if they held to different conceptions of the biblical sexes, for by and large, they do not. Instead, these groups share the same frustrations and aims of Kevin DeYoung, who writes,

for many Christians, amounts to little more than a couple of narrow conclusions about wives submitting to husbands in the home and ordination in the church being reserved for men. If that's all we have in our vision for men and women, It's not a vision we will hold on to for long. We need to help church members, especially the younger generations, see that God created the world with sexual differentiation.

at the heart of what it means to be human beings made in His image. We cannot understand the created order as we should until we understand that God made us male and female. For my part. I wonder if the trajectory of complementarianism that de Young is concerned about might soon usher in a day, if it has not already, when patriarchy is the only word left.

to quickly distinguish the biblical vision of male headship from both feminism and syncretistic Christian forms of the same. At the very least, as Zefram Foster observed, the use of a word like patriarchy, would make the right people angry and the rest of us chuckle.