the weblog of Alan Knox

I’ve been re-mixed

Posted by on Dec 10, 2010 in elders, guest blogger, office | 31 comments

I’ve been re-mixed

Turnabout is fair play. A reader named Harper took a statement that I made in my post “Why I’m glad not to be that kind of pastor” and turned it around. Then, he used my own strike-through “re-mix” style. (Unfortunately, he couldn’t post this as a comment, so he emailed it to me and I’ve published it here.):


Here is the first installment of “Scripture Alan……As We Live See It #1”:

Actually, I don’t think the problem is with being a “pastor” per se, but with the unscriptural expectations control that many Christians leaders (especially elders or “pastors”) place on demand over those they recognize as leaders followers (especially elders The Church or “pastors” “sheep”).


By the way, I think the church needs a “course correction” (punt and do-over?) in the area of leadership. And, I believe that this course correction must come from both directions: both from those who are recognized as leaders and from those who are not recognized as leaders.


Comments are closed. If you would like to discuss this post, send an email to alan [at] alanknox [dot] net.

  1. 12-10-2010

    In what way are we to recognize people as leaders? Should we tell them that we recognize them as a leader? -or- should we simply love them and follower their example when it lines up with the teachings of Christ and is worth following? I guess I’m confused about how we recognize someone as a leader. Do you mean we give them a title? If we do recognize someone as a leader, does that give them any authority outside of their example? -or- is their example, the extent of their leadership, they lead us by example and we follow that example when it is Christlike?

  2. 12-10-2010

    BTW, I consider you to be a leader, your example is worth following. IMO, I am to merely love you and follow your example, and “give consideration to-pay attention to” what you say in light of your example and lifestyle.

  3. 12-10-2010

    I would add that is IMO the extent of your “authority”.

  4. 12-10-2010


    I could be wrong – and perhaps Harper will answer for himself – but I believe Harper’s post is similar to my “Scripture… As We Live It” posts. In other words, Harper took my statement and “re-mixed” it to what we actually “see” in the church today.


  5. 12-10-2010


    But, to answer your question, I think it is good for a church to publicly acknowledge who they recognize as being good examples of a disciple of Jesus Christ. I think this is what Paul and Barnabas helped the church do in Acts 14, and what Paul encouraged Timothy and Titus to do in Timothy 3 and Titus 1.


  6. 12-10-2010

    Alan, I hear what you are saying about the course correction needing to come from both directions. However, I think it needs to start with mature believers. I am not an official leader in the Sunday morning church that we attend, and I have made appeals to the pastor and other leaders that there needs to be a change.

    For the most part it falls on deaf ears. Small changes have occurred, but the church is still pastor, sermon and Sunday morning centric.

    One elder has complained to me about the members wont do anything or “they just need to grow up”, etc. Well, I say “It’s the system.” People are trained to sit in pews and listen to a 3 point hermeneuticaly correct sermon and think they have experienced church. Until the pastor publicly renounces his role as THE pastor, and the eldership publicly renounces the system they currently subscribe to, then how will the church know?

    God, in once since, has been very gracious to me since I have to work most weekends and I have only been able to attend the Sunday morning service a few times this year. My ecclesia life comes from meeting with brothers and families at different times of the week.

    What I wrestle with is, if it is indeed to come from both sides, how is that going to happen? Most people are content to be preached to and most preachers are content to preach. Preachers have too much vested interest to change, and when a church member sees the need for change they are no longer welcome. Too many golden calves on the alter.

    I like what you guys do and how you approach leadership. Anyway just needed to rant a little. Thanks for your leadership. I echo what Mike said.

  7. 12-10-2010

    I see what you mean from those passages Alan, I guess the question I have is was Paul’s instructions to appoint elders publicly an ongoing practice or do we see him moving away from that practice even during his own lifetime/ministry? We see Paul at the beginning of his ministry planting/establishing a number of churches quickly and then having elders appointed from among very new believers, IMO a very inefficient practice, then he seems to move to a more effective model of sending/leaving temporary apostolic workers to stay and work among his new church plants for a season until they could meet on their own simply as equal brothers and sisters with only one leader, teacher and LORD, then we see him leveraging his time even better by staying in Ephesus for three years teaching and in that many churches were planted throughout Asia as those who listened to Paul and learned from him left and established other churches. So, we see Paul changing his approach at least twice, leading me to believe that Christ did not give Paul explicit blueprints on how to establish and structure local assemblies and that Paul changed his approach at least twice to achieve better results. IOW, we have an inerrant account in the scriptures of Paul figuring some things out as he went, but he eventually arrived at a more efficient practice that did not violate Christ’s teaching on leadership in: Matthew 23:8-11 But you are not to be called rabbi (teacher), for you have one Teacher and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone (in the church) on earth father, for you have one Father, Who is in heaven. And you must not be called masters (leaders), for you have one Master (Leader), the Christ. He who is greatest among you shall be your servant.

  8. 12-10-2010

    Harper! Nicely done.

  9. 12-11-2010


    Exactly. If those in “leadership” aren’t interested in changing course, then the organization will not change. But, the same is true for those who are not in “leadership.”

    However, I will add this: It is possible for anyone to begin following those who are leading in the scriptural sense (i.e., serving) regardless of what others around them are doing.


    I believe that Paul did change his approach. But, I don’t think this nullifies the fact that it is good for groups of believers to recognize those that are living as good examples of disciples of Jesus Christ. For one thing, this kind of recognition is good for new believers who may not know what a disciple should actually look like. By recognizing elders, the entire community is saying, “They are good examples. Follow their example of following Christ.”


    Yes, it is.


  10. 12-11-2010


    Great points regarding recognition of a good example of one who is a maturing disciple instead of setting apart those to be considered a super-initiated caste of experts. So, when we recognize a maturing disciple how exactly do we do that, is there a ceremony that is done, or is it merely a statement that this individual is maturing and worth giving consideration to his life and teaching? I guess what I’m struggling with is how are we to recognize them other than seeing what they do as sacrificial servants and giving consideration to what they say and heeding and emulating their lives as they follow the life of Christ? I’m not trying to be contrary, I sincerely wish to know, how is this done?

  11. 12-11-2010


    I don’t think the “how” people are recognized is important. I think if it was important, it would be spelled out for us. What’s important, to me, is that the community works together to recognize those who are mature believers and good examples for others to follow.


  12. 12-11-2010

    Hutch, I really like and agree with what you say in these comments above. However I want to explore one point, upon which everything that we believe about church authority hinges.
    You said.
    “I see what you mean from those passages Alan, I guess the question I have is, was Paul’s instructions to appoint elders publicly an ongoing practice ”

    I am issuing a challenge to the very foundation of the church structure by saying- THE APPOINTMENT OF ANYONE TO BE AN ELDER IS AN ABUSE OF SCRIPTURE.

    I shall demonstrate this shortly, but before I do, let me ask some questions.
    The early church in the book of Acts was having members added at a crazy rate, even three thousand on the first day it seems. If ever there was a need for some structure, it was right then, at the point of critical need.

    The apostles who walked with Jesus must surely have been well aware of the necessity of elders long before Paul came to straighten out their incompetence with his expert touch.
    Therefore, if APPOINTING of elders is so important, WHY is it not mentioned at the time of real crisis?

    Please someone tell me how the original apostles managed the thousands of new believers before Paul arrived? Does the book of acts show the church in chaos before Paul?

    In fact the only evidence of appointments of any sort is the seven deacons, who were asked to handle a very specific problem.

    Before anyone shouts at me, yes I am taking evidence from silence. However that silence is extremely loud!

    The apostles were not just learning by trial and error as they proceeded along the way, they were following the leading of the Holy Spirit. If it was a simple learning curve they were using, then their knee jerk reaction to the overwhelming numbers would, with absolute certainty, have led them to appoint a host of elders at great haste, well before the numbers made the church impossible to manage.

    So where are the elders in acts?

    To come back to my challenge at the beginning of this comment. The key scripture to oppose my statement is obviously Paul’s letter to Titus. Chapter1v5″……..set in order the things that are wanting and ORDAIN ELDERS in every city…….”

    On first reading this verse blows my statement out of the water. However I said NOBODY WAS EVER APPOINTED/ORDAINED TO BE AN ELDER, and clearly none of these were ordained TO BE elders. Verse7 shows that THEY WERE ORDAINING THEM TO BE OVERSEERS. This is because they were already elders! The qualifications listed in verse 6 onwards are unlikely to be found in an inexperienced youth.

    I will illustrate by example. Suppose a denominational board wanted to start a children’s ministry in their churches. They might send a letter around to all churches. “It has been decided that now is the time to start the childrens’ work. Therefore we request that you ordain women in every church for this work.”
    This is a parallel to Titus. WERE THEY ORDAINING ANYONE TO BE WOMEN? or were they ordaining women to be childrens’ ministers? If the latter, then Titus also never ordained anyone to be an elder.

    Scripture shows that contrary to popular belief an elder is just a mature/older person of which a healthy church should be filled to the brim. Because we have perverted the meaning of elder we have also emasculated the saints and infantilised the church.

    The teaching that elder/pastor/overseer are all interchangeable is an insult to the various passages. If we start again with a belief that an elder is a mature person then it makes a whole lot of sense of the scriptures and also massively empowers the church to become what God ordained it to be. The responsibility is no longer in the hands of a special few experts.

    We all grow up to be elders. We don’t all grow up to be mature though!

  13. 12-11-2010

    Hi Frank,

    Have you considered the implication of Acts 15:22-23?

    22Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

    23And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.

    Personally, I think we see the first elders recognized in Acts 6:1-7. I can expand on that, but I think Acts 15 suffices to demonstrate elders in the Jerusalem church.

  14. 12-12-2010

    Hi Art,

    I don’t think that Frank was suggesting there were no elders only that none were appointed to be elders (as being an elder is related to age). Alan, I would definitely be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.


  15. 12-12-2010

    Sorry, should have put “in his opinion’ at the end of my bracketed section as the jury is still out for me 🙂

  16. 12-12-2010

    Hi Rob, Frank,

    Overall, I’m alongside Frank with what I think he is trying to achieve.

    I think one of Frank’s issues with elders is the unbiblical roles they have in church rulership. You said: “Because we have perverted the meaning of elder we have also emasculated the saints and infantilised the church.” Frank, I think if you saw elders/overseers/bishops/pastors in the way Alan and others here see them, you would see we agree. I’m not sure the answer to this is to define elder as simply “old guys” and try to make rulership go away by that redefinition.

    Rulership is what is unbiblical. That can go away without reframing whether elder means overseer/bishop/pastor.

    Frank, I think this point in your case is weak:

    “In fact the only evidence of appointments of any sort is the seven deacons, who were asked to handle a very specific problem… Before anyone shouts at me, yes I am taking evidence from silence. However that silence is extremely loud!… So where are the elders in acts?”

    They are first mentioned in Acts 11:30, and we see them clearly recognized throughout Acts 15 and into Acts 16. If the only evidence is silence to make your case, then can we make the claim there is no evidence?

    In Acts 20:17 the men Paul asked the elders to join him. Was Paul asking all the old guys to come? He did not specify just the old guys recognized as overseers, but he later refers to all those elders who assembled as overseers.

    I think your case is better made going directly to clarifying the role of these men, not their labels. Alan’s blog is chock full of correction on this key point, which you stated well as, “we have perverted the meaning of elder we have also emasculated the saints and infantilised the church.”

    But I think it better put that not just elder, but it is elder/overseer/bishop/pastor to which we have “perverted the meaning” and correspondingly “emasculated the saints and infantilised the church.”

  17. 12-12-2010

    Hi Art, thanks.
    Yes I have, and your references are not the earliest example in acts. See also-
    Act_11:30 And they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.
    Act_14:23 And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

    This in no way challenges my point, which is that ELDERS ARE NOT APPOINTED PEOPLE. I was not denying their existence, just where they came from. They are just believers that are older and more mature than those that are younger novices! Therefore according to both tradition and law that commanded respect and limited authority.
    This is clearly defined in 1Tim5-
    1 Do not rebuke an ELDER harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, 2 ELDER WOMEN as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.
    In this context the word elder is juxtaposed against elder woman and younger men and women. This demonstrates that it is not an appointed position BUT SOMEONE FOUND IN EVERY FAMILY, both male and female!

    Regarding your reference to Acts 6v1-7 as the first time that elders are recognised, I believe that this is merely the time that the church asked that some of the existing mature trustworthy saints (elders) agreed to take specific tasks in hand.

    In the world, every organisation must have a hierarchical structure in order to work. This is because humanity lacks the omniscience to know what is happening everywhere in an organisation. Humanity also lacks the ability to make a boss’s desires known to every member of his organisation, nor can every member of an organisation speak directly to the boss at any time.

    On the contrary, Jesus Christ as head of his body, has all the attributes needed just like my own head knows how to command my physical body, and can tell exactly what the senses of my body report.

    The importation of the world’s system of ORGANISATION into the ORGANISM of the church, is a gross act of unbelief and rebellion against God’s personal reign over his own children. This is exactly the same as when the israelites demanded a king to rule over them, JUST LIKE THE NATIONS!

  18. 12-12-2010

    Hi Rob Art. There is a time lag in my response, because I am over the pond in the UK, so I only saw Art’s first comment prior to hitting the submit button.

    I respect your response but still believe that elders are not appointed. I will come back when I have a little time to think.

  19. 12-12-2010

    Hi Guys.
    Just a quick pass back.
    There have been many reports in the MSM about the ordaining of homosexuals into the ministry.

    Do we ever for a moment think that these people were being ORDAINED TO BECOME HOMOSEXUALS?

    Without a doubt we understand the meaning of this simple sentence. Yet when we come to Titus1v5 we totally reverse the linguistic rules.

    We do this simply because we have a prejudicial view of what we think the verse is supposed to mean.

    We do this despite the fact that even Titus itself qualifies the meaning of verse 5 in verse 6 onwards. They WERE APPOINTING OVERSEERS. I trust there is no dispute about this.

    The problem is that many believe that overseer and elder are synonymous. In a large part they were, except that an overseer was appointed where an elder just grew up.

    This again is proven in Titus itself. Titus 2v is clearly all about the responsibility of the (unappointed) elders (male AND female) to walk as an example which that the youngsters, male and female could look up to. THIS WAS WHAT BEING AN ELDER WAS ALL ABOUT, AND IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH A BADGE OF OFFICE.

    The minute we appoint elders to office, the responsibility of all mature saints is demoted.

    I would like to hear a response to these specific points from Titus.

    Why change the accepted norm of linguistics for verse5?
    Why deny the linked qualifying description of “overseer” in verse6 onwards.
    Why deny the description of male and female elders in titus2 which show it was age related, not an appointment?

  20. 12-12-2010

    Good discussion…

    The Greek term translated “elder” simply means “older man/person”. However, it can be used to refer to any older person, or to a specific subgroup of older people.

    We see this in Jewish society, where all older people would be called “elders”, but not all older people were “elders” in the sense that they were not all leaders in their community. This dual reference seems to have carried over into usage by the church.

    In the NT, this dual usage can be seen when referring to Jewish elders. For example, see Matthew 26:3.

    The dual usage can also be seen in the NT in reference to Christians and the church. Now, I agree that MOST references in the NT (even those traditionally used to refer to some specific role) can refer to all older Christians or are ambiguous at best. For example, there is nothing in the context of 1 Timothy 5:17 to require a specific subset of older people to be in reference. In other words, Paul could have meant, “Let the older people who lead well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in the word and teaching.” That is a perfectly valid translation, and in the context of widows and younger men, may be more likely.

    Similarly, in context, Peter could have written to all “older people” as an “older man” in how they should all shepherd the church of God. Of course, this does not mean that they were all living as they should, but that doesn’t change Peter’s reference.

    The same thing can be said of James 5:14. It is very likely that James is tell the “sick” to call for the older people among the church to pray for them, not just a certain group that hold a particular position.

    However, there are a few passages that seem to reference a subset of these “older people.” Acts 14:24 has already been mentioned. In this passage, Paul and Barnabas “appoint” elders in every church. The verb here (“appoint”) indicates selection, choosing, or installation.

    The same can be seen in Titus 1:5, where Paul instructs Titus to “appoint” elders in each city. In this case, a different verb is used (translated “appoint”). This verb can mean appoint, authorize, or even make.

    Finally, there is parallel usage of the term “elders” for Christian and Jewish subgroups of older people (especially in Acts). For example, compare Acts 15:2,Acts 15:4,and Acts 15:6 (concerning Christians) with Acts 23:15 and Acts 25:15 (concerning Jews). I don’t think Luke meant to refer to all Jewish older people, and so he probably did not intent to refer to all Christian older people either.

    Now, having said all that, I agree with the point that many are bringing up here. ALL Christian older people should live and act in a way that they are mature believers helping others grow in maturity. In other words, they should all act as “elders”. But, all do not act that way. Therefore, I do think it is important for the church to recognize (appoint, if you prefer) who is living as a good example of a follower of Jesus Christ. I am not talking about some kind of authoritative position here. I’m talking about pointing out who is living as all believers should live.


  21. 12-12-2010

    An amusing anecdote.
    Over 20 years ago, I was a house group leader in a strong bible teaching charismatic church. God had been speaking to me about eldership for a number of years and was frequently illustrating it from real life examples.

    It was the policy of the Elders to plant their wives in certain house groups which they were concerned about. (ie. the house group leaders who didn’t necessarily toe the party line). The wives gave feedback to the elders of what was happening in the groups. Spies in the camp!

    At one home meeting this wife brought a verse “from the Lord” and expounded its meaning. Only she got it wrong. I gently corrected the meaning but unfortunately she took umbrage. I knew that there would be trouble, and sure enough it came a few days later in a summons to see her Elder husband for upsetting his wife.

    The church had been started by an international bible teacher, and I had taken the precaution prior to this meeting of checking out the meaning of the verse with him, and he confirmed that my understanding was correct.

    I apologised to the elder for upsetting his wife but held my ground on the scripture. I never mentioned what the bible teacher had said. This Elder severely disliked me, and made it clear that he considered me unsubmissive and rebellious. He would not let go of his interpretation of the scripture.

    Inside I was enjoying the dressing down because I knew that my personal standing was safe in God’s hands, but I knew that God wanted to me to see where the confrontation would lead. I finally asked the Elder what it was that automatically made his biblical viewpoint more valid than mine.


    I could hardly contain myself. I wanted to punch the air and dance around. I had actually heard it from his own mouth.

    Although most would deny such thoughts, God knows the heart. Whether you call the man Elder, pastor, minister, vicar, leader, the same danger is there.

    The twin issues around leadership in the church are pride in the appointed status, and idolatry towards that status.

  22. 12-12-2010


    Regardless of what position or title that man you described held, he was not a leader in the scriptural sense. I am not using the term “elder” to describe what you’ve described in your anecdote.

    Of course, the problem is that the church has been taught that this is exactly what Scripture means by “leader”, “elder”, or “overseer”. If someone disagrees, then they are rebellious or not submissive. (As your story demonstrates.)

    My God open the eyes of his church and raise up more “leaders” who are concerned more with (actually) serving people and less about their own authority or position.


  23. 12-12-2010

    Chewing the cud, or to be more precise tearing at Paul’s meat as opposed to suckling milk is a joy.
    I know we are on the same side, and that God desires the truth to come to the fore.

    I have no problem with what you say above, about “appointing” elders. However my point is that for them to be recognised as different to all the other, non appointed elders, they would become something else like “overseers”. Which is clearly described in Titus1.

    This is what Acts6 shows, the seven faithful saints were now recognised as having a specific task or responsibility amongst the Grecian Jews.

    All the time you establish a specially appointed group, you will remove the authority of those considered none special. The clergy/ laity divide is created by this action above all actions.

    My viewpoint puts the responsiblity in the hands of every mature believer. Nobody can say they are above another.

  24. 12-12-2010


    “Nobody can say they are above another.” I agree completely. We agree that some are recognized (appointed) because their life is a good example as a follower of Jesus Christ. Whether we call those so recognized “elders” or “overseers” (I think Scripture uses both terms), the temptation is there to see them as “above” others. However, Scripture strictly forbids this kind of thinking. We see this prohibition especially from Jesus (Matthew 20:25-28) and from Peter (1 Peter 5:1-3). If someone sees an overseer/elder as above them, or if an overseer/elder sees himself as above others, then those people have completely misunderstood the scriptural teachings and examples concerning overseers/elders.


  25. 12-12-2010

    Overall, this seems to me part of a larger problem we have in the church. We believers have a hard time discerning between biblical and worldly values and practices. Leadership is especially visible, but not alone.

    Finding the right mix of cultural relevancy and a biblical counter-cultural contrast “OMG-what-are-these-strange-Christians-about” in key “supracultural” areas is something we haven’t done well in general as the church.

    The biblical supracultural contrast with western culture includes leadership/servanthood, but also extends into other areas such as mutual submission/self promotion, sacrifice/rights, wealth/contentment, association/appearances, grace/fairness, acceptance/social strata, and so many other areas. We believers have a hard time renewing our minds and values on these sort of topics. We read them into scripture and enfold them into our values and practices without realizing the differences.

    Adopting the world’s methods and values in these areas–and in this case, in the areas of leadership–always has detrimental effects on believers and the people among whom we live.

  26. 12-12-2010

    Great dialogue, my experience dove-tails many of the stories and perspective being shared. That is why I am so cautious on this issue, it’s not about my having a desire to not submit to leadership, it’s that biblical leadership is rarely on display. In fact, when I see sacrificial servant hood in action, I recognize it! When I see it, I take note of my own selfish ways and attitudes in light of the example being lived out and it bears witness with the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit and I say, that it, that an example worth following, that is Christlike! I know I should live like that, God help me to live like that and to submit my life to that example.

    That’s how I think we are to recognize leadership when we see it, we are to “give consideration to-take note of” = submit.

    Thanks Frank, Alan, Art & Rob.

  27. 12-12-2010

    Can someone please answer the challenge I made a few comments ago, part of which which I repeat here.-

    There have been many reports in the MSM about the ordaining of homosexuals into the ministry.
    Do we ever for a moment think that these people were being ORDAINED TO BECOME HOMOSEXUALS?
    Without a doubt we understand the meaning of this simple sentence. Yet when we come to Titus1v5 we totally reverse the linguistic rules.

    Come on, someone please respond as to why we change the rules of linguistics for Titus? In my mind everyone cheats on this, and refuses to address it, yet its false treatment is fundamental to the defense of error on eldership.

  28. 12-12-2010


    I’m not concerned about “ordaining” anyone.

    If you believe that presbuteros in Titus 1:5 refers to all older people, then you are correct, there is no reason to appoint older people. However, the verb “appoint” is there. Some people are being appointed to something. What are they being appointed to? I believe they are being appointed to a subset of older people also called by the term presbuteros in the same way the term was used in their (previous) Jewish context.

    I think Acts 14:23 shows the same type of appointing.

    If presbuters refers to a subset of older people (as I believe it does), then there is no linguistic rule change required.


  29. 12-13-2010

    Alan, how can you say that, when the next verse clearly tells you that these presbuteros were appointed to be overseers!
    I don’t understand how you can make your claim that they were appointed to be presbuteros/elders. You have no basis for it especially when the answer that you ignore is in the text?

    The repeated point I am making is that Titus appointed presbuteros/elders to be episcopos/overseers. There is not a jot of evidence that they were appointed TO BE elders.

  30. 12-13-2010


    Actually, the text in Titus 1:5 does not say that Titus is to appoint overseers. It says that Titus is to appoint “elders” (presbuteroi). The term “elders” is in the accusative case which means it is the direct object of the verb “you should appoint.”

    In Titus 1:7, the noun “overseer” (episkopos) is used, but it is not in a direct linguistic relationship with the verb “appoint.” If it is related, then it is in apposition to the noun “elders” which shows that nouns elders and overseers have the same referent.

    By the way, in Act 14:23, we also see Paul appointing “elders,” and the noun overseer is nowhere to be found.

    Apparently, Paul (and Titus) DID appoint elders.


  31. 12-13-2010

    Praise Jesus!!!

    You guys are way cool. Really great discussion all around. 😉

    There might be some hope for the body of Christ.

    Kinda wish we were all sitting around face to face.
    With a good cup of coffee or tea having this discussion. I think I would enjoy that. 🙂