Social justice: A house divided against itself

[Oliver Phillips]

Social justice, the term, has been officially banned from all literature and communications from the US/Canada Regional Office. At least, that was the directive given by the Regional Director under whom I served.

It seems that such a drastic move should demand a referendum of sorts. Such a move from one world mission region only serves to nurture divisiveness in the global family. The term social justice, it was explained, evinces concern by segments of the Nazarene tribe in the United States and Canada.

In no other world area has such a drastic step been taken. The Church of the Nazarene Manual makes reference to the term, but it has been quarantined from official literature from the UCRO department.

• The Manual reference is: 903.19. Value of Children and Youth
“Thus, holistic and transformational ministry to children and their families in every local church will be a priority as evidenced by:
• providing effective and empowering ministries to the whole child—physically, mentally, emotionally, socially, and spiritually;
• articulating Christian positions on current social justice issues that affect children;

• In a Grace and Peace article, (“What Makes a Nazarene a Nazarene”, May 22, 2010, Jeff Barker stated, “Let me just put it out there. As I’ve read, wondered, and reflected . . . I’ve tentatively concluded that part of what makes a Nazarene congregation Nazarene and helps to form “Christlike disciples in the nations” is a shared commitment to holiness, education, social justice and compassionate ministry and being an international church.

• In a Holiness Today, The Ancient-Future Generations, (March/April 2008) Keith Schwanz stated, “Evangelism shifts from a method to a journey as they share life with others moving closer to becoming Jesus followers. Their concern for social justice and environmental issues emerges from their identity in Christ.”

• At Trevecca --- “The J. V. Morsch Center for Social Justice is named in honor of the Rev. James V. Morsch, a former pastor of First Church of the Nazarene in Nashville, a lifelong church leader, and the founder and national volunteer liaison coordinator for Nazarene Disaster Response.”

• At Nazarene Theological Seminary --- “Students for Social Justice (SSJ) is a student organization that exists to be a resource for understanding issues of social justice around our world and in our community. It seeks to engage and implement the holistic message of the gospel in both compassionate practices and theological reflection as Christains seek to extend the love of Christ in the world.”

I hope the day would come soon when we would not be a house divided against itself.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Eventually, there will be a recension, or at least a revision. Probably there's already a reconsideration underway. Sometimes that is accompanied by an "oops."

Also, as recently as yesterday, this blog appeared in Holiness Today.
http://blogs.nazarene.org/holinesstoday/

Oliver is always at the front of new things: HT editors apparently didn't get the memo.

Oh, that's what you meant as a house divided.

[Charles W Christian]

It's time we get real theologians/ethicists dealing with these issues, and not just people who are populists/salespeople seeking to tickle ears of segments of the population.... Wow. Thanks for sharing, Oliver. I am saddened that a Mormon talk show host (Glen Beck) has such influence among our general leadership. Wow....God help us.

CWC

[David Stevens]

I agree. On this and several other issues the COTN remains a 'house divided'. I hope our leadership can move to a moderate position balancing Social Justice issues with all of the other issues that concern the voting membership. I have lately been wondering how long our 'representative' form of government will survive. The current elected representatives do not really represent all of the members around the Globe. It couldn't be helped, we started in the USA/Canada and then joined with those of similar conscience around the world. In a system that requires election, how can we avoid this kind of policy? No elected leader wants to 'ruffle the feathers' of the electorate.
One question: "Did the leadership you mention offer another, more acceptable term or label?"

[Hans Deventer]

Does make one wonder. The prophets of old were rarely appreciated, yet they did speak the word of the Lord. Of course, there were many false prophets as well. Seems our main problem is that we actually don't have a clue what the word of the Lord is for us, and nobody seems to have the authority to decide.

[Cam Pence]

Social justice, the term, has been officially banned from all literature and communications from the US/Canada Regional Office. At least, that was the directive given by the Regional Director under whom I served.

It seems that such a drastic move should demand a referendum of sorts. Such a move from one world mission region only serves to nurture divisiveness in the global family. The term social justice, it was explained, evinces concern by segments of the Nazarene tribe in the United States and Canada.

In no other world area has such a drastic step been taken. The Church of the Nazarene Manual makes reference to the term, but it has been quarantined from official literature from the UCRO department.

• The Manual reference is: 903.19. Value of Children and Youth
“Thus, holistic and transformational ministry to children and their families in every local church will be a priority as evidenced by:
• providing effective and empowering ministries to the whole child—physically, mentally, emotionally, socially, and spiritually;
• articulating Christian positions on current social justice issues that affect children;

• In a Grace and Peace article, (“What Makes a Nazarene a Nazarene”, May 22, 2010, Jeff Barker stated, “Let me just put it out there. As I’ve read, wondered, and reflected . . . I’ve tentatively concluded that part of what makes a Nazarene congregation Nazarene and helps to form “Christlike disciples in the nations” is a shared commitment to holiness, education, social justice and compassionate ministry and being an international church.

• In a Holiness Today, The Ancient-Future Generations, (March/April 2008) Keith Schwanz stated, “Evangelism shifts from a method to a journey as they share life with others moving closer to becoming Jesus followers. Their concern for social justice and environmental issues emerges from their identity in Christ.”

• At Trevecca --- “The J. V. Morsch Center for Social Justice is named in honor of the Rev. James V. Morsch, a former pastor of First Church of the Nazarene in Nashville, a lifelong church leader, and the founder and national volunteer liaison coordinator for Nazarene Disaster Response.”

• At Nazarene Theological Seminary --- “Students for Social Justice (SSJ) is a student organization that exists to be a resource for understanding issues of social justice around our world and in our community. It seeks to engage and implement the holistic message of the gospel in both compassionate practices and theological reflection as Christains seek to extend the love of Christ in the world.”

I hope the day would come soon when we would not be a house divided against itself.

Sad....once again politics take the day.

[John Dahl]

One question: "Did the leadership you mention offer another, more acceptable term or label?"

I think the "more acceptable term or label" is already being used. That label is "disciple of Christ". Being a disciple of Christ covers everything.

The term "social justice", in my opinion, is a politically charged and agenda driven title for a movement to try to balance out wealth distribution according to some third party's ideal.

[Gina Stevenson]

Good question, David (Stevens). Welcome to NazNet, BTW.

[Wilson Deaton]

I think the "more acceptable term or label" is already being used. That label is "disciple of Christ". Being a disciple of Christ covers everything.

While it is certainly and absolutely true that disciples of Christ will practice SOCIAL JUSTICE, the suggestion to replace the term with "disciple of Christ" is just downright silly.

Think of how that would work in other areas:

Statements like this:
As Christians we believe in the sanctity of marriage and also in the sanctity of human life.

Would become:
As Christians we believe in being a disciple of Christ and also in being a disciple of Christ.

Wilson

[Dan Henderson]

I don't think stringing these two words together make a lot of sense. Justice implies in modern language to give someone what they deserve, mostly compulsory. Under Christ, we are freely given gifts, we deserve nothing except death. So I think that for those of us who are rich (that's almost everyone in America) we have a charge from our Lord to care for the poor and the widows. Our social concerns should be coming out of the abundance of our love for one another. I agree with another post that Social Justice is a political term. I think that it implies forcing the wealthy to care for the poor, thus, I don't think it has any place in Christian liturature. An appeal among Christians to compassion is more appropriate than an appeal to justice.

[Dwayne Petry]

So that I may do my own biblical research, could someone please give the bible references for the belief listed below.

"Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution."

I am serious, so please do not snipe at me! I read where Jesus teaches taught me to sell my possessions (rich young ruler lesson) and help the poor, but I missed the biblical teaching that I should take your possessions and give to the poor. I know that their are many on NazNet with more theological education than I, and I would appreciate the scriptural references so that I might better understand this concept of redistribution.

Thanks

Dwayne

[John Dahl]

While it is certainly and absolutely true that disciples of Christ will practice SOCIAL JUSTICE, the suggestion to replace the term with "disciple of Christ" is just downright silly.

Think of how that would work in other areas:

Statements like this:
As Christians we believe in the sanctity of marriage and also in the sanctity of human life.

Would become:
As Christians we believe in being a disciple of Christ and also in being a disciple of Christ.

Wilson

Well then, just as in the examples you cite, a proper definition is vital to the discussion. What defines marriage and what defines life are central to these issues. So what is the definition of social justice? My working definition of social justice is guaranteeing equal protection under the law(rule of law) which would imply equal opportunity, private property rights, and free markets. Since my definition and yours are probably different, this is probably a good reason why this term should be removed from church literature. When up a half of your audience is working off of a different definition it breeds confusion.

As you can now see, by my definition, I'm all for social justice.

[Dennis M. Scott]

So that I may do my own biblical research, could someone please give the bible references for the belief listed below.

"Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution."

I am serious, so please do not snipe at me! I read where Jesus teaches taught me to sell my possessions (rich young ruler lesson) and help the poor, but I missed the biblical teaching that I should take your possessions and give to the poor. I know that their are many on NazNet with more theological education than I, and I would appreciate the scriptural references so that I might better understand this concept of redistribution.

Thanks

Dwayne

I'm a little behind everyone else, but where did this definition originate?

[Craig Laughlin]

I think the real issue here is not social justice itself but the assumption that a denominational leader can exercise the power we have given them to ban the debate itself. Banning the phrase is way over the line in my opinion. I would think both sides could agree on this. The issue is really about exercising power to truncate legitimate debate within our denomination. It flies in the face of both our congregational and compassionate roots. This is especially egregious if it has comes from someone other than the Generals. No one has the right to define our theology by edict.

[Wilson Deaton]

I'm a little behind everyone else, but where did this definition originate?

Dwayne's quote comes from the second paragraph of the Wikipedia article on social justice...

Wilson

[Craig Laughlin]

I posted to the Official Nazarene Facebook page and received the following response.

"We are unaware of any ban on any phrase. Such rumors are usually notoriously unreliable."

http://www.facebook.com/NazareneOffi...t=feed_comment

Oliver could you provide some more clarity?
I think we need to be careful from this point forward.

[Dan Henderson]

I think the real issue here is not social justice itself but the assumption that a denominational leader can exercise the power we have given them to ban the debate itself. Banning the phrase is way over the line in my opinion. I would think both sides could agree on this. The issue is really about exercising power to truncate legitimate debate within our denomination. It flies in the face of both our congregational and compassionate roots. This is especially egregious if it has comes from someone other than the Generals. No one has the right to define our theology by edict.

Banning phrases and ideas are relatively common. Those in control of the media outlets, including our own, call it editing.

[Dan Henderson]

Selective reporting is also a form of banning words, phrases, and ideas.

[Wilson Deaton]

I think the real issue here is not social justice itself but the assumption that a denominational leader can exercise the power we have given them to ban the debate itself.

Speaking for myself, Craig, the fact that the issue happens to be "social justice" is an important part of this...

Wilson

[Dennis M. Scott]

Dwayne's quote comes from the second paragraph of the Wikipedia article on social justice...

Wilson

Maybe somebody from Wikipedia could best respond to Dwayne's question regarding that specific definition. Fortunately, Wikipedia is not the source of definition of social concern and responsibility as being taught in some Nazarene schools, which have intentionally moved away from such arbitrary terms.

[Craig Laughlin]

Speaking for myself, Craig, the fact that the issue happens to be "social justice" is an important part of this...

Wilson

I agree that our denomination's stance on social justice is important. However for me the larger issue, because it represents the possibility to shut down debate, is the exercising of power to ban the use of words or phrases. These are both important issues but they are distinct.

That being said they have officially stated that this is not the case. If the official response is mistaken I think we need to see some sort of evidence of that. I believe it is possible for such a directive to happen without official approval but until we see more I will give the official page the benefit of the doubt.

[Dan Henderson]

I agree that our denomination's stance on social justice is important. However for me the larger issue, because it represents the possibility to shut down debate, is the exercising of power to ban the use of words or phrases. These are both important issues but they are distinct.

That being said they have officially stated that this is not the case. If the official response is mistaken I think we need to see some sort of evidence of that. I believe it is possible for such a directive to happen without official approval but until we see more I will give the official page the benefit of the doubt.

Going back to the original post, you will note that the writer states he received that directive from the regional director under whom he served. Though it may not be Big Naz official, it was at least, according to this satement, official enough for a director to have made a pronouncement. It could have been that individual director's opinion or a comment heard from a superior then acted upon.

I see this happen in the military all the time. A general will make a small statment like I wonder if we should ... then their underlings will run all around the kingdom proclaiming the general's "will". I think some knights split a priests skull once off such an off-handed comment ....

[Dwayne Petry]

Maybe somebody from Wikipedia could best respond to Dwayne's question regarding that specific definition. Fortunately, Wikipedia is not the source of definition of social concern and responsibility as being taught in some Nazarene schools, which have intentionally moved away from such arbitrary terms.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that most people associate social justice with the above definition. I believe that is the definition that President Obama believes, which means that at least 45% of the citizens believe it. That is the problem with words having many meanings, we have difficulty communicating among ourselves. If 65% of people think social justice means the Wikipedia definition and 35% think that it is the CotN definition (what ever that is), all we have is confusion and misunderstanding. If I talk about marriage (with the age old meaning) or assault weapon (not the semi automatic military style) and someone applies the current media definition to the conversation, again, all we have is confusion and misunderstanding.

Words mean something.

What then is the definition of social justice?

[David Stevens]

Well, I stay very far away from politically charged debates, especially in election years.
Now, to wade right in to this one;
Did Jesus Christ specifically tell us to give anything to the poor? In the passage cited by another commentor: Mark 10:21 or Luke 18:22 the command was not generic. It was given specifically to the young man asking the question. In my opinion the 'real' question he asked was, "What is the least I must do to get to heaven?" And the answer is, "You must give all." I'm afraid the application to social justice today is stretching it a bit.
Taking care of the poor is specifically addressed by the Lord in Matthew 25:31-46. Feed the hungry, give water to the thirsty, and give clothes to the naked. One of the characteristics of the sanctified heart is to be compassionate and generous with everything I have. It becomes more difficult when you try to carry this to the governmental level. I would bring to your attention one of the earliest policy statements of the Church, 2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” (NIV1984)
We could lower ourselves in this discussion to arguing about words, something forbidden in the books of Timothy. Instead I will just give my humble opinion; It is about lost people. If we can help someone grow in grace and the knowledge of the Lord (2 Peter 3:18) through compassionate ministry, we must do it. If it is possible to accomplish this goal of "edifying" disciples or winning lost people through political activism for Social Justice, we should do this. The mistake is made when a Church organization begins to think of the activity as an end in itself that so many have lost their vision. When it stops being about redemption, it stops being our main purpose.

OK, Brother Phillips, what was the question? Should we use a politically charged term like "Social Justice" in our official publications? Only if it helps us reach lost people, or strengthen the faith of the existing disciples. If the use of a term like this detracts or distracts from the Mission and Vision of the COTN, then maybe we should find other labels.
Blessings on you all!
David

[Jim Chabot]

Going back to the original post, you will note that the writer states he received that directive from the regional director under whom he served. Though it may not be Big Naz official, it was at least, according to this satement, official enough for a director to have made a pronouncement. It could have been that individual director's opinion or a comment heard from a superior then acted upon.

I see this happen in the military all the time. A general will make a small statment like I wonder if we should ... then their underlings will run all around the kingdom proclaiming the general's "will". I think some knights split a priests skull once off such an off-handed comment ....

Bingo! There is a world of difference between a global directive and one given from a superior to a subordinate. Since Dr, Phillips is no longer in this position, perhaps we are discussing "much ado about nothing: here.

[Wes Smith]

I have something to say about the subject of this thread, but am going to decline adding anything until we discover if this is one of Oliver's "shoot and scoot" posts.

Friend,

Wes

[Dennis M. Scott]

What then is the definition of social justice?

Who, then, is my neighbor?

[Dwayne Petry]

Who, then, is my neighbor?

I, as well as you, understand the biblical teaching of you and I helping our neighbor. That, in my understanding, is not social justice. My wife and I took a 12 year old girl into our home because she was put out by her drug addicted mother. She stayed with us for about 6 months, until some of her family stepped up and took her in (talk about turn our world upside down). We have helped some in my family with drug and other problems. Don't need to bore you with how we as Christians live out the teaching of caring for the needy.

What I want is a definition of social justice, if it is not the one I submitted earlier, so that I might have a better understanding of how I, as a Christian, am to believe in social justice.

[Dennis M. Scott]

I, as well as you, understand the biblical teaching of you and I helping our neighbor.

Sounds to me like you are demonstrating a working definition. It also sounds like you believe in it. Keep believing and living out your belief. The Kingdom to which you and I are committed has its own behavior, leader and maybe even definitions.

[Sarah Smith]

If by social justice we mean trying to make the world of unsaved people live like Christians, ain't gonna work any better than prohibition did, methinks.

I've watched the right wing side of the SBC try to take over and rule the world, and am no more willing for the left leaning crowd to do so.

But saved people acting like it? All for it.

[Greg Farra]

It's time we get real theologians/ethicists dealing with these issues, and not just people who are populists/salespeople seeking to tickle ears of segments of the population.... Wow. Thanks for sharing, Oliver. I am saddened that a Mormon talk show host (Glen Beck) has such influence among our general leadership. Wow....God help us.

CWC

Charles, I would take your statement further. I am saddened that Glenn Beck has the influence that he does in the church as a whole. I've only listened to him a few times, and heard Mormon theology being taught. He is quite sly about it.

[Oliver Phillips]

I have something to say about the subject of this thread, but am going to decline adding anything until we discover if this is one of Oliver's "shoot and scoot" posts.

Friend,

Wes

Wes, I am not sure what you mean by "shoot and scoot." My only intention by posting is to encourage open discourse on a subject that is of grave concern to me, personally. I thought that the premise of my thesis was laid out succintly, i.e. the Manual of the Church of the Nazarene is not averse to the use of the term "social justice." The task of church leaders should not be to censor the use of theological terms, but to define them according to official policy, polity, preferences, and pronouncements.

IMHO, we should not allow the talking heads "outside" the evangelical community of faith to define what we mean by the terms we choose to use. Why should we allow others to colonize well-meaning terms? I doubt that John Wesley would have the difficulty that we have with the term; he would define those terms.

[Jim Chabot]

Wes, I am not sure what you mean by "shoot and scoot." My only intention by posting is to encourage open discourse on a subject that is of grave concern to me, personally.

I believe what Wes is saying here is that you do tend to post and then fail to stay engaged in the conversation. If you would like to discuss this subject, then great, we are here. If your intent is merely to foster a discussion among us, then may we remind you that the primary purpose of this site is for fellowship among Nazarenes and friends of Nazarenes.

In other words, if you come in to chat, great! However stopping in to encourage discussion and then leaving the room is considered impolite. No sense talking about a subject if the proponent of the discussion isn't also active.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Wes, I am not sure what you mean by "shoot and scoot." My only intention by posting is to encourage open discourse on a subject that is of grave concern to me, personally. I thought that the premise of my thesis was laid out succintly, i.e. the Manual of the Church of the Nazarene is not averse to the use of the term "social justice." The task of church leaders should not be to censor the use of theological terms, but to define them according to official policy, polity, preferences, and pronouncements.

IMHO, we should not allow the talking heads "outside" the evangelical community of faith to define what we mean by the terms we choose to use. Why should we allow others to colonize well-meaning terms? I doubt that John Wesley would have the difficulty that we have with the term; he would define those terms.

I think after Craig looked into it he found that maybe your OP wasn't as clear as maybe it could've been. In his post he said that there was no official position denying the use of Social Justice and asked for clarification.

[Wilson Deaton]

...he said that there was no official position denying the use of Social Justice and ...

Actually, the Nazarene Facebook "guy" said he was not aware of such a position. That is not the same thing as saying there is no official position. That could simply mean that the Facebook guy "didn't get the memo." The jury is still out on this one.

Wilson

[Todd Erickson]

God's justice is restorative in nature, rather than focused necessary on the punative, though it may contain those elements.

When we speak of social justice, we speak of addressing society from a restorative, Christ centered mindset. Certainly, many things about the world are fallen and broken, and our attempts at justice will be imperfect.

All the same. If you keep having to rescue people who are helplessly floating down the river, at some point you have to begin addressing who is pushing them in, and what can be done to stop it...

[Oliver Phillips]

I believe what Wes is saying here is that you do tend to post and then fail to stay engaged in the conversation. If you would like to discuss this subject, then great, we are here. If your intent is merely to foster a discussion among us, then may we remind you that the primary purpose of this site is for fellowship among Nazarenes and friends of Nazarenes.

In other words, if you come in to chat, great! However stopping in to encourage discussion and then leaving the room is considered impolite. No sense talking about a subject if the proponent of the discussion isn't also active.

Point well taken, Jim. You should understand that as much as I am an avid follower of discussions that take place on Naznet, as an employee of the General Board, I have not been at liberty to be engaged as much as I would have loved. Now, as one without those restraints, I am released to be more engaged. Thanks for your understanding!

[Shea Zellweger]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that most people associate social justice with the above definition. I believe that is the definition that President Obama believes, which means that at least 45% of the citizens believe it. That is the problem with words having many meanings, we have difficulty communicating among ourselves. If 65% of people think social justice means the Wikipedia definition and 35% think that it is the CotN definition (what ever that is), all we have is confusion and misunderstanding. If I talk about marriage (with the age old meaning) or assault weapon (not the semi automatic military style) and someone applies the current media definition to the conversation, again, all we have is confusion and misunderstanding.

I would venture that the definition you linked to from wikipedia is, in fact, the current media definition, rather than the age old meaning. To say that progressive taxation is part and parcel with social justice is to assume that the term is intrinsically political. This is not the case. Actually, it is rooted firmly in religious tradition, and in the concept of Christian responsibility, and if you'd continued reading that same Wikipedia article, you'd have discovered that pretty quickly. The term was coined by a Jesuit priest (Luigi Taparelli) in the 1840s, who used it to describe Thomas Aquinas' social ethics. John A. Ryan and Charles E. Coughlin were both major proponents of Social Justice in the early 1900s. Ryan endorsed FDR and the New Deal, while Coughlin opposed both the man and the plan in favor of a 3rd party candidate. The founders of the CotN left the Methodist church in large part because they thought the Methodists were neglecting the Social Gospel, which had been a key aspect of Wesleyanism/Methodism until the Methodist church strayed away from it in the latter part of the 19th century. Ever since Social Justice entered the Christian lexicon, it has been a part of Catholic and Protestant Teaching (see: Social Gospel) but it has not been a Democrat or Republican thing. Until recently, the question was not "should we support Social Justice?" But "how should we go about achieving Social Justice?" It was only in the latter part of the 20th century that certain talking heads began to make Social Justice a partisan issue, which is not surprising, given that in the current political climate, I'm pretty sure the likeability of Bacon is the only thing which is not in danger of becoming a subject of partisan politics.

We, as Christians, are called not to conform to the patterns of the world. While that verse is extremely overused, I think a huge part of it is not allowing the secular world to define Christian reality. Social Justice is an explicitly Christian term, which connotes explicitly Christian ideals- helping the less fortunate (both by "catching fish" and "teaching them to fish," to reference the oft-used aphorism), embracing unity, forsaking excessive wealth, and just generally caring for our neighbor. It is the doctrine which evokes the spirit of the Good Samaritan. And while Democratic and Republican politicians might want to play fast and loose with the definition of that doctrine, and make it yet another battle-field in the ever-escalating war for America, I for one refuse to allow either party to tell me what side of the political spectrum my belief in Social justice falls on. In fact, I am increasingly convinced that true belief in Social Justice should lead us to forsake the political spectrum entirely, and return our focus to where it should be: Serving as Christ's body in a broken and needy world. And you'd better believe that includes Social Justice.

[Dwayne Petry]

I would venture that the definition you linked to from wikipedia is, in fact, the current media definition, rather than the age old meaning. ....and if you'd continued reading that same Wikipedia article,

Thanks Shea,

Shame on me, I did not continue reading. The term social justice did not register with me until it was used in Obama's campaign for president, (as I recall he talked about using the courts in order to implement social justice, but neither did I pay a lot of attention to radical Islam until 9/11). I just wish that the media and current politicians had the intellectual honesty to come up with a "new word" instead of concocting a new meaning for an age old word.

[David Pettigrew]

You know, we were once the Pentecostal Church of the Nazarene, but fear of being associated with "those" people led us to change our name. Now the term is entirely defined as tongues-speaking.

Maybe instead of waving the white flag on justice, we should just proclaim it all the louder until the world adopts our meaning.