Current

Seeker-Hostile Ministry

An excerpt from Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians.

Statistics can be misleading – not the numbers as such, but the way they are gathered, presented, and interpreted. Even if the methods are honest and the numbers are accurate, there are some important questions that we must ask before accepting the interpretations offered about the statistics. When it comes to quantifying our obedience and effectiveness in evangelism, it is important to consider what we are counting. Many reports of evangelistic programs are characterized by ambiguity. The problem is most pronounced in ministries that spurn doctrinal precision but that at the same time practice mass evangelism. The relevance of doctrine to accuracy in reporting will become apparent in a moment. Of course, we are not against ministry statistics and mass evangelism themselves, but right now we have in mind a particular kind of ministry outreach and mentality.

What are we counting? Many ministries report the number of professions, that is, the number of people who say in one way or another that they have become Christians as a result of the evangelistic outreaches. The soteriology that is assumed by a ministry determines what counts as a credible profession of faith. In many cases, it is considered sufficient for a person to repeat a prayer in order for him to be pronounced a believer in Christ, after which all questions regarding the genuineness of his profession are discouraged. The prayer often lack any doctrinal substance or biblical basis, such as the common practice of asking Jesus to come into one's heart, whatever that means. The message that persuades the person to repeat such a prayer is often equally indefinite and non-biblical.

One female charismatic evangelist of international reputation, who ministers together with her husband, once addressed an audience that mostly consisted of professing believers. The gathering was for some sort of ministry training. Near the beginning of her presentation, she asked those in the audience to repeat a prayer, which turned out to be a prayer for salvation, asking Jesus to come into their hearts or something to that effect. Then, she said, "Notice that I did not ask them if they wanted to get saved. I just said, 'Repeat this prayer after me,' and they did it."

As expected, this couple claims large number of conversions as a result of their outreaches. But what are they counting? The numbers represent not people who have come to faith in Christ, but those who have been tricked into saying the words that she would tell them to repeat. Their statistics might accurately report the number of people that have been manipulated and added to their tally, but they are irrelevant as indicators of success in evangelism, since very little evangelism has been done. So the numbers discredit the ministry rather than endorse it.

To prevent invalid interpretations, statistics must be placed in their contexts. Counting converts is an acceptable practice that the first Christians also found useful, although unnecessary, since the numbers were not emphasized in every outreach. Perhaps numbers were not even gathered every time. Acts 2:41 reports that "about three thousand were added to their number that day." This figure is useful for measuring the impact of an outreach because it is placed in the context of a genuine presentation of the Christian faith.

The preceding passages describe the signs accompanying the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. When the people wonder at the sights and sounds, Peter stands up to preach. He confronts the Jews with the person and work of Jesus Christ, his miracles, his death, and his resurrection, reminding them that they were the ones who murdered him, their own Messiah. He tells them that the coming and the resurrection of Jesus occurred to fulfill prophecy, and that the outpouring of the Spirit that they presently witness is a fulfillment of Joel's prediction. Hearing this, the Jews are "cut to the heart" (Acts 2:37) and asked the apostles what they should do. They are told to repent and turn to Jesus Christ.

So the Jews are confronted with the truth, much of which the natural and sinful man would oppose (1 Corinthians 1:18). They are even told that they murdered Jesus, so that to affirm the gospel in this context would entail an admission that they committed this murder. Against this background, the report of three thousand converts is indeed meaningful and significant. In the face of challenge and offense to their sinful nature, they are able to undergo informed conversions to the Christian faith. There is no trickery, gimmick, or evangelistic sleight of hand.

Compare this to the numbers we would be presented by the evangelist couple mentioned earlier. Even if the numbers are accurate in the sense that they offer a true report of the number of people who repeated the words they were told to say, they carry no meaning and no significance where the impact of an outreach is concerned. At best the numbers indicate the number of people that they have tricked into saying words that they might not mean or even understand, and if the message and the prayer fail to convey the essential content of the gospel, then no known conversion is indicated by the numbers at all. Numbers, then, are useless unless we know the context. And if the context indicates that no true gospel ministry has been offered, then no matter how large the numbers, they cannot demonstrate that an outreach has achieved any measure of success.

In what we refer to as the Great Commission, Jesus instructs Christians to "make disciples…teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19-20). This is the biblical standard by which we should measure our obedience and effectiveness in our ministry outreaches. And this is what Paul sets out to do in his ministry by the power of God: "We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ" (Colossians 1:28). His method involves preaching, admonishing, and teaching. And he does these things so that "we may present everyone perfect in Christ," and not so that "we may trick everyone to make a profession of Christ."

A biblical ministry should have as its explicit purpose throughout its agendas and methods the perfection of those people it reaches and not mere profession. This is why a "hit and run" method of evangelism does not even begin to obey the Great Commission, especially when what we "hit" people with is not even the gospel. This approach does not even attempt to teach people "everything," or as Paul puts it elsewhere, "the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27, ESV). And it does not aim to produce lifelong disciples that constantly strive for perfection in Christ. A true gospel outreach expounds and enforces the complete revelation of Jesus Christ – all the doctrines of the Christian faith – and thus propel those under its influence and authority toward perfection.

Therefore, to carry out the Great Commission requires ministers (or teams of ministers) who possess extensive, even a "complete," knowledge of the Christian faith as set forth in the Bible. Another way to describe this is that it requires competence in systematic theology, biblical exposition, and the ethical application that follows from these first two items. This disqualifies most of the evangelists in the field today. Those who boast that they care nothing for doctrine but that they only preach a simple gospel represent a departure from the Lord's command and the apostles' practice. The requirement to "teach everything" can often be satisfied, or partially satisfied, through the distribution of publications. We will mention this again later.

The comprehensive nature of the Great Commission in turn requires the minister of the gospel to devote a substantial amount of time to those who hear him. Take Paul as an example. Instead of preaching for only a few hours, he stayed in Corinth for more than a year and a half (Acts 18:11, 18). And instead of teaching for only several days or weeks, he held daily discussions in Ephesus for two years (Acts 19:10). He was unable to remain in Thessalonica for more than several weeks, because the Jews stirred up a violent mob and forced him to leave (Acts 17:2-10; 1 Thessalonians 2:15). Thus he considered his work there incomplete (1 Thessalonians 3:10), and became concerned about the spiritual welfare of the new converts (1 Thessalonians 3:5).

We may regard this as an issue of "follow-up." This stresses that evangelism should involve more than an initial contact with the target audience. However, it would be unbiblical and counterproductive to make an overly clean distinction between first contact and follow-up. Rather, throughout all stages of planning and execution, the evangelistic enterprise should be considered a long-term process. It is indeed possible to preach the gospel and make genuine converts even in an hour, and some people see "evangelism" from this perspective, and regard all subsequent contact with the audience as "follow-up." But as we have noted, this conception departs from the scriptural perspective because the Great Commission commands us to make disciples by teaching them everything about the Christian faith. Therefore, what is often considered follow-up should, in fact, be in the forefront of our thinking at the beginning of our evangelistic effort. It should not be relegated to an inferior, less intense, or even optional position in a gospel ministry.

The Great Commission commands Christians to teach "everything." Paul says to the elders of Ephesus, "I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you" (Acts 20:20). One pastor used this statement as an excuse to advocate and distribute homeopathic cures to his congregation, but the next verse narrows the context to Christian doctrines. The point is that Paul shares our understanding of the Great Commission, and attempts to fulfill it everywhere he goes. He continues in verses 26 and 27, "Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God" (Acts 20:26-27). His declaration of innocence is based on his comprehensive teaching ministry. This implies that a person who refrains from teaching everything about the Christian faith even when he has the opportunity shares the moral responsibility for the failures of those that he is supposed to instruct as disciples and bring to maturity.

Paul is anxious about the condition of his converts in Thessalonica. He was unable to communicate a full body of Christian knowledge to them before the Jews chased him out of the city through the aggressive use of slander and violence. However, he managed to emphasize an important point to them, namely, that they would be persecuted for their faith in Jesus Christ, that they should expect harsh treatment from some of the unbelievers. He writes, "In fact, when we were with you, we kept telling you that we would be persecuted. And it turned out that way, as you well know" (1 Thessalonians 3:4). The apostle gave it more than an isolated and obscure mention. He stressed and repeated this to them during his time there.

Paul's message is not what we would call "seeker-friendly." Although he takes care to remove unnecessary offenses that might hinder people from considering the Christian faith, he makes no effort to make his message palatable to the sinful man. The sinful man is possessed by evil dispositions that render him naturally antagonistic to truth, repentance, and holiness. From this perspective, there is nothing that the preacher can do to make the Christian faith attractive or "friendly" to the sinner without compromising the truth about what this religion teaches and produces. Will the Christian obtain great wealth? Perhaps, but to be a Christian under certain circumstances might mean the loss of freedom and property (Hebrews 10:34). Will the Christian attain a better marriage? Perhaps, but a Christian who is married to an unbelieving spouse,  might become a victim of desertion (1 Corinthians 7:15). Will the Christian achieve harmony in his family? Perhaps, but a Christian who has unbelieving family members might be betrayed to his death (Matthew 10:21-22).

The gospel is "good news" in the sense that it proclaims God's gift in Jesus Christ, through whom forgiveness, restoration, eternal life and bliss, the knowledge of the true God, and many other blessings, are extended to the chosen ones. But these things are "good" only from the perspective of divine knowledge and righteousness, and not from the perspective of rebellious and disbelieving sinners. It is good from the perspective of truth and wisdom, but sinners are ignorant and foolish. For essential aspects of the gospel to become "friendly" to sinners, the preacher must either change the gospel so that it becomes as ignorant and foolish as the sinners, in which case the message has turned into a private philosophy and no longer a revealed message that God honors with his saving power, or, God must change the sinners so that they could perceive truth and wisdom, and thus find the things of God attractive.

In other words, some offenses are necessary and unavoidable. They occur not because of the personal offensive nature of the preacher, but because the truth of righteousness naturally and necessarily offends the sinful man whose heart has not been opened by God, so that his intellectual and ethical dispositions are always contrary to wisdom and holiness. A sound exposition of the Christian faith will include mention of certain aspects of confessing Jesus Christ that might be difficult to hear – so difficult, in fact, that they will tend to repulse unbelievers and pretenders.

Paul does not preach, "The Christian faith is all about fun. Our church has it all – good songs, comfortable seats, delicious snacks, and conversations without all the confrontations. Come one, come all!" Such a message would indeed be seeker-friendly, but it is powerless to save anyone, and it would attract the wrong people, namely, those who would continue to indulge in their unregenerate thoughts and practices, but who simply desire a change in environment. Instead, Paul declares, "What I say to you about Jesus Christ is the truth, and the only way to salvation, to eternal life, and to escape the wrath of God. However – and I will keep telling you this – if you believe in this gospel that I am preaching, if you become one of us, then you will be persecuted by those who remain in unbelief. They will make life difficult for you, make fun of you, lie about you, and even imprison or kill some of you."

The only sense in which the preaching of the gospel should be "seeker-friendly" is that it should welcome all kinds of people to repentance toward God and faith toward Christ. It does not turn away anyone based on their race, gender, and social or economic background. It does, however, condemn all those who remain unrepentant, unbelieving, and who are unwilling to renounce their non-Christian religions, philosophies, and lifestyles. This is not an attractive message to those whose heart has not been softened and enlightened by God. But to those whom God has chosen for salvation, it is irresistible, for they are the ones who hear the voice of the shepherd therein.

The preaching of the gospel, therefore, should stress truth and not comfort. If God does not perform the work of regeneration in the heart, a person would never believe the gospel in the first place – it is against his wicked and foolish nature. But when God regenerates and transforms a person's heart, his work is characterized by excellence and endurance. It cannot be destroyed by offense or suffering, still less by some minor discomfort, but it is rather refined by testing and strengthened by pressure. In fact, the work that God performs in the heart is so pure and robust that it becomes all the more accentuated when confronted by those Christian doctrines and demands that would offend the unregenerate and the pretenders.

When Jesus called Peter, Andrew, James, and John to become his disciples, he said to them, "Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." At this, they left their vocation, their lifestyle, their family, and what sense of psychological attachment and security associated with these, and followed Christ (Matthew 4:18-22). The demand was straightforward, and even severe by some standards, but they complied and their lives became entwined with their master's forever.

Later, Jesus said to a young man, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me" (Matthew 19:21). This dismayed him, and he went away. The young man was indeed a "seeker," and came to ask a question that appeared to demonstrate a willingness to follow Christ. The Lord's response was outright seeker-hostile. It was blunt and extreme, demanding total abandonment of the young man's previous lifestyle. It would have been more seeker-friendly to let him follow at his convenience, so that perhaps he might pick up some truths along the way. Instead, Christ said perhaps the most demanding and disheartening thing to this seemingly sincere seeker.  This is contrary to all the principles and methods of seeker-friendly evangelism.

We acknowledge that the young man possessed great riches, but it remains that Peter and the others left what they had, their income, routine, security, family, to follow Christ. The same passage confirms the significance of their action. When Peter mentioned that they had left everything to follow him, Jesus did not belittle this just because what they left behind, in terms of wealth, was less than what this young man possessed. Rather, he said, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first" (Matthew 19:28-30).

In other words, the disciples provide a meaningful contrast to the young man – the difference in wealth does not void the comparison. In principle, the same seeker-hostile demand was placed on both – in fact, the young man appeared more eager than the disciples, and initiated contact with Jesus – but the disciples complied and the young man refused. A seeker-hostile approach cuts through mere appearance to test the heart. If God is at work to convert the person, a harsh (but righteous) demand or offensive (but true) comment will not repulse him, but if God is not at work to convert, then it will bypass the mask of the eager seeker and expose the true condition of his heart.

Another example of Jesus' seeker-hostile method is taken from the case of the Gentile woman who comes to request healing for her daughter:

Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."

Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."

He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.

He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour. (Matthew 15:21-28)

The woman is in great need, and she comes crying out to Jesus in eagerness and reverence. Contrary to a common misrepresentation of Jesus and of the Christian faith, Jesus repeatedly responds in a seeker-hostile manner. Although the woman calls him Lord, recognizes him as the Son of David, cries out for mercy, and requests help for her daughter who is "suffering terribly," Jesus ignores her. He does not speak to encourage her. He does not reach out to comfort her. Whereas the seeker-friendly approach aims to entice seekers, this woman needs no gimmick to attract her. She comes willingly, actively, eagerly, and it seems she could hardly be any more open to Jesus' message and ministry, but he pays her no attention.

Then, when the woman continues her cries, and it appears that Jesus is not going to help her, the disciples persuade Jesus to send her way. And it seems that he proceeds to do this, for he says, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." In effect, he tells her, "I am sent to minister to some other group of people. I am not sent to help you." This is his response to the woman's cries, and there is nothing in his statement that would encourage her to pursue the issue further. The statement itself leaves very few options for the woman. He even gives the reason for his apparent rejection of the her request, and the reason is such that there is nothing she can do to alter it.

She persists: "Lord, help me!" By this time, many people would expect Jesus to break down and weep, and rush right to her daughter to cure her. Instead, he suggests that it is "not right" to help her, and even insults her by calling her a dog. If not for the fact that it is Jesus doing this and that this is recorded in Scripture, many Christians would call such behavior cruel and heartless. Perhaps they would even say regarding this kind of treatment, "It is not Christ-like"! This reaction arises because they have a false conception of what Jesus is like and how Christian ministry should operate. At this point it seems that the only way for Jesus to be even less seeker-friendly is to punch her in the stomach and kick her down a hill so that he could be rid of her.

Sometimes it is noted that the Jews are accustomed to referring to Gentiles as dogs, as if this makes Jesus' use of the term less offensive. But does this make it better or worse? What if I were to select one of the culturally popular racial slurs to address someone in church? Some Christians would prefer that I commit blasphemy or adultery than to make a statement that would sound racist or sexist. Even Christians are prone to identify with their race, gender, or nationality more than their identity as believers. What a disgrace. So this so-called explanation does not reduce the offensiveness of Jesus' use of the term, but rather highlights and accentuates it.

The way that Jesus deals with this woman is not even slightly encouraging, and not remotely close to what we would call seeker-friendly. And those who would claim that Jesus is an exception are hypocrites. To them, Jesus is a model to follow on those things that they approve, and an exception to admire (or simply puzzle over) but not to imitate on those things that they disapprove or wish to forbid in others.

The woman remains undeterred, and answers, "But even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." This could be taken as an admission that Gentiles are but dogs, although not necessarily so, but it is not a denial. At least for the sake of argument, but perhaps also in reality, she accepts the derogatory designation and employs it to reissue her request. The way that she manipulates the image of children at the table is significant, since it expresses a high level of faith. She implies that God is her master, and that even the "crumbs" of Jesus' power would be sufficient to cure her daughter. She believes so much in his authority that she thinks performing a miracle for her daughter would not at all take away from Jesus' mission or the share of God's blessings that he is sent to provide for Israel. In terms of the analogy, she believes that even an unconscious and accidental release of Jesus' power would satisfy her urgent need.

As it turns out, Jesus' harsh and offensive approach to the woman compels her faith and resolve to surface. The work of God in the woman is robust, and thrives under testing and pressure. It is possible that Jesus intends to induce this effect in the woman, but this does not change the fact that he indeed uses a seeker-hostile approach, so that to be unfriendly in this sense cannot be wrong in principle. And recall that the same seeker-hostile approach did not draw out faith from the rich young man, but turned him away. Thus even if Jesus intends to draw out faith in some people by a tougher approach toward them, this does not mean that he would necessarily use a softer approach when dealing with someone who could not endure this kind of treatment. The seeker-hostile method stimulates the faith of the elect, and exposes the pretense of the non-elect. Although Jesus does not always treat people this way, the examples that we have refute those who insist on a seeker-friendly or a gentle and welcoming approach as a matter of principle.

Our final example from the ministry of Jesus is taken from the Gospel of John, where the Lord declares that it is necessary for a person to eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have life:

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."

From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.

Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."

Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.) (John 6:53-71)

The teaching is bizarre and repulsive to those present. Of course Jesus knows this, but he gives the teaching anyway, and it is as if he chooses to state it in a way that maximizes its offensive effect. When some in the audience become alarmed at what he says, he presses on and offends them even more. He realizes that some of those who have been following him do not really believe. He tells them this directly, and without any effort to remain subtle or polite, or to provide any hope for improvement or any incentive to remain loyal to him.

Then, when some of them turn away and no longer follow him, he does not chase after them to explain himself or to somehow attract their attention again. Instead, he turns to the Twelve and asks if they would like to leave also. There is no trace of desperation in him. He feels no pressure to attract and retain a crowd. He believes his own statement, "No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." If the Father does not cause a person to believe, then there is no use in trying to attract him with seeker-friendly gimmicks. But if the Father does cause a person to believe, then all gimmicks are unnecessary – the person will come, believe, and remain. No demanding doctrine can drive him away, even if it sounds unusual and extreme to unspiritual ears. This person recognizes and follows the voice of the shepherd (John 10:25-30).

We again discern a contrast between the elect and the non-elect from the disciples' response. Both groups hear the same teaching. The sinners who have not been changed by God become offended and abandons the Lord. As John writes, "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us" (1 John 2:19). But when he asks if the Twelve would also like to leave, Peter answers, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God." Jesus' seeker-hostile approach drives away false disciples, cleansing the community of his followers.

At the same time, the proper reasons for following him come into sharp focus in his true disciples, and they are compelled to article these reasons, that Jesus has the words of life, and he is the Holy One of God. Peter's rhetorical question, "Lord, to whom shall we go?" signals his awareness that there is no alternative, that Jesus is the only one with the words of life and that he is the only "Holy One of God." Therefore, Jesus' seeker-hostile approach is both efficient and effective in forcing both the elect and the non-elect to clarify and articulate their motives, reasons, and options. In contrast, the seeker-friendly approach dulls spiritual awareness and enables spiritual motives and reasons to remain hidden. The crowd might look bigger, but the ministry is far less faithful and effective in pursuing the mandate of evangelism and discipleship.

Seeker-friendly ministry is unbiblical, because the Bible teaches an almost opposite approach. It is unfaithful, because it fails to preach the true gospel. It is unbelieving, because it does not depend on the Spirit of God to draw and to convert sinners. It is unproductive, because it does not produce genuine and lasting faith in the people it reaches. And it is unnecessary, because the gospel will compel the elect to come to Christ in repentance and faith even if we say and do things that would offend the sinful dispositions of the unregenerate.

On the other hand, a biblical, elect-friendly, and seeker-hostile approach that declares the Christian faith in a straightforward manner will keep away those who would otherwise enter the church, not as believers but as pretenders, and it will repel those spiritual imposters – intellectual and ethical garbage – that have already infiltrated our community. If this offends you, is it because I am out of line, or is it because I might be talking about you – perhaps you are this spiritual garbage? If this offends you, it is an indication that there is something wrong with you. Examine yourself, and see if you are in the faith.

The biblical method of evangelism and discipleship is seeker-hostile. This term is selected to provide a contrast against the seeker-friendly approach, but it is accurate if understood correctly, and we have already defined it earlier. That is, relative to what is usually meant by a "seeker-friendly" approach, the biblical way to ministry is outright seeker-hostile. It is not that the biblical approach is to be obnoxious, although Christ himself was considered irksome and offensive by the reprobates. So you should not try to be obnoxious in order to be biblical, but if you try to be biblical, reprobates will find you most obnoxious. If you set out to preach the gospel without attempting to please the sinful dispositions and demands of the unregenerate, even though some of them present themselves as interested "seekers" that desire to investigate the Christian faith, then you will appear obnoxious and hostile to the reprobates. If the content and manner of your presentation attract and retain a substantial number of reprobates, including those who pretend but do not in fact believe, then it can only mean that there is no truth and power in your message.