Pastor Martin Luther King, Jr.

I had just completed another lecture in the course, Religion in America. That day we viewed the film, “We Shall Not Be Moved.” The film chronicled the non-violent civil rights struggle of the fifties and sixties. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was portrayed as a pastor and civil rights leader.

At the end of the class I was approached by an African American student. He was stunned to learn that Dr. King was a real pastor. Although he had done a course in African American history in high school, Dr. King was always presented as a civil rights advocate.

Today’s skewed commentaries on the life of Dr. King also make very little reference to his pastoral passion. “According to Dr. Lewis Baldwin, Professor of Religious Studies and Director of African American Studies at Vanderbilt University, “Many labels were attached to him during his lifetime - Dr. King was called a civil rights activist, a social activist, a social change agent, and a world figure. But I think he thought of himself first and foremost as a preacher, as a Christian pastor.”

“The pastoral role,” says Baldwin, “was central to everything, virtually everything Dr. King achieved or sought to achieve in the church and in the society as a whole.”

Dr. King was twenty-five years of age and finishing his doctoral dissertation at Boston University when he was appointed to his first job as a local pastor at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. In a sense he was carrying on a family tradition. His father was a pastor. His grandfather had been a pastor. His great-grandfather had been a pastor.

The church hired Dr. King in 1954. After a time of internal tensions, church leaders said they were looking for a noncontroversial pastor who could help restore morale. Rather than accept an invitation to be with his Dad at a larger congregation in Georgia, Dr. King accepted the smaller and quieter church in Alabama. Such a setting afforded him the opportunity to complete his doctoral dissertation.

As King was establishing his pastorate, racial tensions were rising in Montgomery. About a year after his arrival, Montgomery seamstress Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to yield her seat on a bus to a white passenger. King began speaking out and leading peaceful protests. From the church, he helped ignite the Montgomery bus boycott. 

King saw this as a natural extension of pastoring his people. Being a pastor for him included being a civil rights leader. It would therefore be correct to say that it was the African-American church that nurtured him and gave him the sense that God was a God of justice and mercy.

As Dr. King was pulled more and more into the national limelight, he became concerned that he was neglecting his responsibilities at the church. Often he did not have sufficient time to engage in counseling, to do funerals and weddings, to do the kind of administrative work that comes naturally with the pastoral role.

King resigned from the Dexter Avenue church in 1960 to devote more time to the civil rights cause. Even though he was now a leader at the national level, he wanted to maintain a pastoral role, so he became an associate pastor at his father’s Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta.

As we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of his “I Have a Dream” speech, we need to be reminded that the heart of Dr. King was not seen so much in that speech as much as in his writings – and more specifically his volume, Strength to Love. According to his late wife, Coretta Scott King, "If there is one book Martin has written that people consistently tell me has changed their lives, it is Strength to Love." This book best explains the central element of Dr. King’s philosophy of nonviolence. 

The book is a compilation of his sermons reflecting a biblical and passionate denunciation of racial prejudice and of the tangible injustice that springs from that phenomenon. 

He was also critical of those sectors of the Christian world that have historically used the Bible and Christian theology as tools for promoting slavery and racial segregation. His criticism extended to Black churches that have “reduced Christianity to either a frenzied form of entertainment or a snobbish social club.”

Why aren’t we told about the heart of this pastor during this season of remembrance? Interestingly, it was during the extemporaneous moments of his “I Have a Dream” speech, his pastoral passion became most visible as he cited references from the Minor Prophets to justify his theses of justice and mercy.

Fellow-Christians in Egypt are in Trouble

Across Egypt, at least sixty churches have been targeted by Muslim extremists, along with Christian schools, homes, businesses and even an orphanage. Some Christian homes and businesses have received leaflets warning them to leave or face reprisals.

According to Catholic World Report, Muslim extremists torched a Franciscan school and then paraded three nuns on the street like “prisoners of war”. Also, a Bible Society of Egypt statement posted online Wednesday reported the "complete burning and destruction" of its bookshops in southern Egypt.

Egypt's Christian minority has been the target of a number of attacks in recent years. The bombing of a major church in Alexandria in January 2011 killed 21 persons and sparked worldwide condemnation.

The situation has only become worse since Egypt's popular revolution overthrew former President Hosni Mubarak in 2011.

In the past two-and-a-half years, Christians in Egypt have witnessed more deaths than in the last twenty years. Interestingly, Christians have been in Egypt since the first century and were, for centuries, the majority. Some 90% of Coptic (Egyptian) Christians still live in the country, making up the largest Christian community in the Middle East.

These Egyptian Christians were targeted by the Muslim Brotherhood because they were widely seen as being supportive of the military that kicked the Muslim Brotherhood administration out of power. Actually, Coptic Orthodox Pope Tawadros II, the leader of Egypt’s largest Christian denomination, publically supported the move.

Paul Sedra, an associate professor of history at Simon Fraser University, believes that the violence is an extension of an ongoing demonization campaign by the Muslim Brotherhood against Christians.

According to Professor Sedra, “since the Muslim Brotherhood has been deposed from power, they have engaged in explicitly sectarian appeals that have aimed to vilify Copts as their chief antagonists in Egypt.” When Islamists are loathed to attack the state directly, they often settle for attacking Copts, because they are an easy target.”

One would expect that Muslims, who are not extreme in their worldview, would display outrage against the Muslim Brotherhood. Instead, there is a deafening silence:

The REAL Muslim Brotherhood (8.14.13)

When I heard that the American Muslim Political Action Committee (AMPAC) was planning to hold a Million Muslim March in Washington D.C., I honestly thought the objective was to take a stand against what was happening in Egypt. I thought, since they did not march when Muslim extremists showed their anti-American position after 911, AMPAC was now covering lost ground.

I was wrong. The Million Muslim March has nothing to do with protesting about what is happening in Egypt, or what happened by Muslim extremists in Benghazi last year. Instead, they are using the 911 anniversary date to demand that the free speech rights of American Muslims be protected.

This is how the event is described on AMPAC’s website – “we are demanding that laws be enacted protecting our first amendment. We are asking President Obama to fulfill his promise from his first campaign... Lastly, we are asking for the release of the 911 commission report to the American people.”

AMPAC distances itself from the events of 911. As a matter of fact, the current leader of AMPAC believes the events of 911 were conspiracies involving Israel. Hence, according to AMPAC, there is no need to condemn something for which Islam is not even tacitly responsible.

Thankfully, Egyptian Christians are choosing to react differently from others in history who were provoked and attacked by Muslims. Rather than resort to “crusader tactics,” today’s Egyptians are choosing instead “to pray for those who hate you.”

Some have returned to the charred house of worship, with their pastor vowing the violence suffered by his flock will make them better Christians. This will teach us to be better Christians," said Pastor Sameh Ibrahim. In that community, some fourteen churches were reportedly attacked in recent days.

For Christians, revenge is not an option. In writing to the Romans, the apostle Paul said we must “hate what is evil.” In addition he says, “do not repay anyone evil for evil...do not take revenge...but leave room for God’s wrath...do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:17-21).

As our brothers and sisters in Egypt seek to live out true Christianity, let us pray that God would grant to them courage and hope, so that their faith would not crumble under pressure.

Should Dads Get Paternity Leave?

As a helicopter pilot in the Royal Air Force, Prince William was the first senior member of the royal family to take paternity leave. Following the recent birth of his son, Prince George, he took two weeks leave with pay, a benefit to which he was entitled. 

According to Ken Matos, director of research at the Families and Work Institute, a New York City-based nonprofit organization, the decision of Prince William sends a powerful message to the public. “Not only does it seem like William genuinely wants to be a present father, the royal couple knows that everything they do is aspirational.” It is possible that Prince William may be trying to set an example for fathers to take advantage of any paternity leave their company offers.

While the U.S. does not federally mandate paid paternity leave - as is practiced in England, increasingly companies are moving to offer men more time off with pay. For instance, earlier this year Yahoo extended its parental-leave policy to provide up to eight weeks of fully paid leave for both mothers and fathers.

In the United States, the only mandate for parental leave is the Family Medical Leave Act, which ensures that men and women receive twelve weeks of job-protected unpaid leave. Paternity leave isn't even an option for most American workers. According to a story published in Forbes recently, only 13% of American employers offer paternity leave.
I am an advocate for fathers getting paternity leave, when responsibly administered. Just by perusing David Popenoe’s classic on Life Without Father, one cannot help but be convinced that fathers need to spend more time with their children. 

Popenoe contends that “even from birth, children who have an involved father are more likely to be emotionally secure, be confident to explore their surroundings, and, as they grow older, have better social connections with peers.”
In addition, these children also are less likely to get in trouble at home, school, or in the neighborhood. Infants who receive high levels of affection from their fathers (e.g., babies whose fathers respond quickly to their cries and who play together) are more securely attached; that is, they can explore their environment comfortably when a parent is nearby and can readily accept comfort from their parent after a brief separation. A number of studies suggest they also are more sociable and popular with other children throughout early childhood.

One would expect that with such positive outcomes, many would welcome the idea of dads spending structured time with their children. Countries around the world, such as Sweden and Portugal, have mandated leave for fathers, but leave in America remains stubbornly short—if it is taken at all.

One study published in the Journal of Social Issues found that caregiving men get treated more disrespectfully at work than men who adhere to traditional gender roles. Maybe that's why, following the birth of a child, less than 5% of American dads took one month off, and 16% took no time at all, according to data released by the Center for Work and Family at Boston College.

Many men who openly identify with their parental role at work face pressure or resentment from co-workers. Recent research from the University of Toronto's Rottman School of Management found that men who are active caregivers get teased and insulted at work more than so-called traditional fathers and men without children. Active fathers are seen as distracted and less dedicated to their work. According to Jennifer Berdhal, the author of this study, “active fathers are accused of being wimpy or henpecked by their wives.”

When one combines the impact of these findings with the declining role of fathers in the wider society – no wonder our children are so directionless. Today’s children are victims of decades of social experiments in free sex, women’s liberation and divorce. 

Interestingly, with the growth of biblical illiteracy, we are witnessing the decline and demise of social institutions. Frequently, the Psalms introduced God as the Father of the fatherless. The inference is clear – the absence of a father’s influence required divine intervention.

The problems posed by absent fathers in the days of the psalmists, are no different from today. Our social experiments to remove fathers from family life are doomed to fail. The apostle Paul was correct, “let God be true and everyman a liar” (Romans 3:4).

As far as I am concerned, paternity leave ensures that fathers can be clearly identified and be given opportunities to function responsibly in the interest of the child and the wider community.

Who Needs Daddy?

Shortly after giving birth, my daughter felt a hospital social worker was suggesting to her that it was better not to have the child’s father around. “If you do not have a husband with you, we will pay for the baby’s diapers and formula.” My daughter declined the offer. The social worker offered again, at which point our son-in-law walked into the room. “Do you want him in here?” was the daring question that came from the social worker.

I wish I could say that that interaction at a suburban hospital was exceptional – it was not. The interaction represented an attitude to the role of fathers in the lives of their children. He is merely viewed as a bank, both for sperms and financial support. If he is absent, the government will provide the funding. There are situations where it would seem more economically profitable for mothers, if fathers would simply be absent. 

However, the economic cost of absent fathers is staggering. In his book, Life Without Father, sociologist David Popenoe contends that “the decline of fatherhood is a major force behind many of the most disturbing problems that plague us.” He further contends that "child-rearing encourages men to develop those habits of character - including prudence, cooperativeness, honesty, trust and self-sacrifice - that can lead to achievement as an economic provider." Poor women and their children are more likely to escape poverty in a stable relationship with a man who is an active father of the children. 

Edward Kruk, writing about father absence, father deficit and father hunger in “Psychology Today” produced a list of woes: children without fathers actively in their lives have diminished self-concept, and compromised physical and emotional security. These children consistently report feeling abandoned when their fathers are not involved in their lives, struggling with their emotions and bouts of self-loathing.

Kruk also underlines the behavioral problems - fatherless children have more difficulties with social adjustment, and are more likely to report problems with friendships. Many develop a swaggering, intimidating persona in an attempt to disguise their underlying fears, resentments, anxieties and unhappiness. Gangs and violence and the adoration of the gun as power spring out of this condition.

Fatherless children show greater truancy from school and poorer academic performance. Kruk points out that some 71% of high-school dropouts are fatherless. Fatherless children have more trouble academically, scoring poorly on tests of reading, mathematics, and thinking skills.

Fatherlessness is a driver for delinquency and youth crime, including violent crime, Kruk notes, with 85% of youth in prison having an absent father.

The above statistics explain why I become so incensed with social workers like the one my daughter met in the hospital. She, like many in our society, would be willing to affirm the worth of mothers. But fathers? that is another matter. With such persons, fatherhood is viewed merely as a social role. And if merely a social role, then perhaps anyone is capable of playing that role. Players could include mothers, partners, stepfathers, uncles, aunts or grandparents. In essence, biological fathers are dispensable.
Miami Heat basketball superstar Dwayne Wade would disagree with that view. In a recent article, the single father said, “being a father is the most important and rewarding thing I will ever do, and I strongly encourage all fathers to love and take responsibility for their children.”

Last year, Wade wrote a book about his experience and the importance of all fathers being present in their children's lives. Addressing the fatherlessness issue across the country, he also teamed up with President Obama to support his Fatherhood & Mentoring Initiative.
One of the better books I’ve come across on the subject of fatherhood is Kyle Pruett’s, Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. According to Publishers Weekly, Pruett’s book is “thoughtful, inspiring, and eminently practical, [it] belongs at the top of the ‘must have’ list for every father.”

Interestingly, after relegating the Bible to the archives of ancient literature, many are now finding themselves going back to its teachings. Even a casual reading of the book of Proverbs will highlight the importance of fatherhood. In the New Testament book of Ephesians, fathers are encouraged to nurture and encourage their children in Christian values. Fathers are charged not to abuse their influence and exasperate their children (Ephesians 6:4).

Personally, I wish I had known this stuff when I became a father 36 years ago. I believe I would have been a much better father to our three children.

Not Black Enough?

Shortly after arriving in the United States with my family, I had the opportunity to attend a national conference for black evangelicals in Detroit. I was eager to learn about what distinguished black from white evangelicals. The conference was well represented with black leaders from various communities across the United States.

During the evaluation session at the end of the three day event, participants were invited to be candid in their appraisals. I publicly expressed my delight to be in attendance and took the opportunity to suggest that if sessions were more punctual and presenters had used more contemporary tools for communicating their presentations, the conference could have been much more effective.

In response to my observations, one of the organizers thanked me for participating. He went on to inform me that the organizers did not define effectiveness in the same way as their white brethren did. I guess he was saying that punctuality and utilization of effective tools to communicate were not appropriate indicators for assessing success among blacks.        

When that experience was put side by side with opinions shared by white evangelicals, I sensed that my Afro-Caribbean family was sandwiched between two cultures. For instance, it was not unusual to hear white evangelicals say to us, “we do not see you guys as being black.” Initially this was very confusing to us, but slowly we began to realize that in America, black is more than a color – it is also a culture.

It is a culture in that there are some experiences some blacks accept as being distinctly black. For instance, some would refer to the use of proper diction by blacks as pretending to be white. Such blacks would consider the occasional use of Ebonics to be culturally sensitive. However, that sensitivity may provide cultural acceptance, but it is totally inappropriate in the marketplace of ideas.

The Cosby Show provided a good illustration of this point. The show was well received by both white and black audiences. Earlier commentators felt that one of the show’s assets was its help in improving race relations by projecting universal values with which both whites and blacks could identify.   

However, a few more recent commentators suggest that the Cosby Show’s popularity has set back race relations. These more recent commentators believe the Show failed to take into account the context outside of the walls of the home in which the main characters lived. The fact that the Show failed to confront race relations in America is often viewed as a sell-out to white audiences and advertisers. However, I concur with the view that the positive role of the black Huxtable family served to reduce the negative stereotypes of blacks in the wider society. Interestingly, since the final episode more than 20 years ago, reruns of the Cosby Show still bring healthy laughter across races and generations.   

The same healthy laughter cannot be used to describe much of what is called black entertainment today. Bill O’Reilly has been ridiculed by many black leaders because he dared challenge the negative impact of some black entertainment.

According to O’Reilly, the black entertainment industry needs to stop peddling garbage. “Hey listen up you greed heads, if a kid can't speak proper English, uses the "f" word in every sentence, it's disgraceful, it's disrespectful -- it's disrespectful in his or her manner. That child will never, never be able to compete in the marketplace of America... never. And it has nothing to do with slavery. It has everything to do with you Hollywood people and you derelict parents. You're the ones hurting these vulnerable children.”

CNN host Don Lemon felt O’Reilly did not go far enough in analyzing the situation among blacks in America. As a black public figure, Lemon went on to list five critical areas that must be addressed in black communities today. Like O’Reilly he felt the most critical was the more than 72% of black children being born out of wedlock, often resulting in fatherless children.

One would think that Lemon’s opinions would earn the applause of the black community. Rather, it has inspired just as much hatred from the black community as O’Reilly’s comments did. MSNBC’s Goldie Taylor calls Lemon a “turncoat mofo,” while Toure also took to twitter to revile the common sense points Lemon made. Many others in the black community took to social media to excoriate Lemon’s remarks.

We need to take time to applaud Don Lemon, Bill O’Reilly, Bill Cosby, Ben Carson and every leader who risks ridicule and calls garbage trash and not treasure. As a Christian black man, I refuse to be defined by art forms that dehumanize others. My creative expressions are honed only by my Christian worldview. A proper understanding of that worldview enriches others, embraces healthy cultural expression and celebrates ethnic differences.

Let's Talk Race

What was intended to be a simple hospital visit, turned out to be anything but simple. I was visiting a member of my congregation who was seriously ill. I was not very familiar with the surrounding area in Minneapolis, so two friends accompanied me. The patient, her husband, my friends and I were engaging in small talk at the bedside when a male nurse entered and addressed me specifically.

“Who are you?” he asked. To which I answered by giving my name. He proceeded to ask, “And what are you doing here?” Before I had a chance to respond, the husband of the patient answered that I was their pastor. With that, the nurse left the room.

We looked at each other baffled at what had just happened. We were baffled because, of the four persons in the room, I was the only one who was black. Because of the severity of the illness and the tension the white nurse created, no one dared discuss what had just happened. 

It was on our way to the car, my two friends steered the conversation to what had just taken place. They were confident that they had just witnessed a display of racial prejudice. They were so disgusted and embarrassed that they offered to support me in whatever way I chose to respond to the matter.

More than 15 years have gone since that incident, and although it never altered my sense of worth as someone of value, the memories of bigotry have not left me. Unless one has experienced racial prejudice, one is not fully disposed to understanding it.

Prejudice is a bias, favoring or opposing something based on personal opinion or feelings. It means to "pre-judge" or to make an assumption beforehand without any knowledge, factual reason, or objective consideration. It is an unjustified or incorrect attitude (usually negative) towards an individual based solely on the individual’s race, gender or disposition.

Racial prejudice is the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others. It is those feelings of superiority that cause some ethnic groups to feel entitled to discriminate against other groups that are different. 

Historically, these feelings of superiority have been influential in establishing institutions that protect and advance varying forms of prejudice. Thankfully, with increasing ethnic diversity and academic opportunities, many of these color structures are dying.

Isn’t it ironic that we appreciate variety in the colors of the rainbow, in nature, in floral arrangements and interior designs? However, when it comes to fellow human beings, we discriminate. Have you ever heard of a hospital advertising for blood from black, white or Hispanic donors?

It is equally ridiculous to believe, that although the best dressed among my colleagues at the hospital, my skin color disqualified me from visiting a patient. In a carefully worded letter I expressed my disgust to the hospital administration. The hospital called to verify the authenticity of the letter and promised to investigate the matter. The process of enquiry was as pathetic as the conclusion reached.

Among the options available to me, I knew my reaction had to be guided by my Christian worldview and not my ethnicity. In addition, I was not prepared to affirm someone else’s warped understanding of superiority with any uncivilized reaction. Like the apostle Paul, when imprisoned for no cause, he used his incarceration as a platform to advance the cause of Jesus Christ. 

Martin Luther King, Jr. was no different. When beaten and imprisoned for righteousness, he refused to resort to violence. He even dissociated from others who felt violence was justified. Dr. King was determined to be guided by his Christian convictions and not by what his alleged superiors expected. Hence, when he is remembered today he is referred to as a godly leader and not a militant filled with hate.

Racial and social prejudices are not contemporary phenomena. In his New Testament epistle, James confronted prejudice. Simply put, he said, “...don’t show favoritism” (James 2:1). James went on to remind his readers that “God has chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith...”

In Galatians the apostle Paul challenged Peter for being prejudicial in his treatment of Gentile Christians. Paul contended, “...as for those who seemed to be important-whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance...” (Galatians 2:6).

The same should be said of Christians today – we should not judge by external appearance. To me it is sad when one’s claim to superiority is only skin deep.

Innocent or Not-Guilty?

Within recent days the nation has been divided on hearing the verdict of the George Zimmerman trial. Much of the reaction however, does not concern the trial. Many used the trial as a metaphor, or as a mirror of other national issues. Some of these would include gun control legislation, racism, civil rights or even Florida’s “stand your ground law”.

The 27 pages of jury instructions reminded the six jurors of what the case was all about. It was not about who killed Trayvon Martin. Rather, it was about the reason for killing Martin. The jury was told if they had any reasonable doubt on whether Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force, they should find him not guilty.

According to the judge's instructions, "The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person ... would have believed the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force."

The jury was never asked to declare Zimmerman to be innocent. Innocence presupposes blamelessness or freedom from moral wrong. In addition, innocence implies the absence of evil intent. To declare someone to be innocent requires knowledge no court of law possesses.

In order to come to a reasonable conclusion the court required truth. One reason that could not be determined was because one of the two witnesses was dead. In his absence, attempts at determining truth required various branches of forensic science. From this scientific evidence, the court concluded that there was reasonable doubt as to what actually happened, and as such, Zimmerman could not be held liable on the charge of second-degree murder or manslaughter.

In order to determine if justice was served, one must ask the hard questions. The judicial system was not designed to take revenge. Rather, it was intended to ensure a just outcome, based on available facts.

The prosecution had the responsibility to present those facts. The prosecution also had the responsibility to share those facts with the defense. The prosecution should never attempt to withhold information that could influence the outcome of a case. In the Zimmerman trial, the prosecution sent the case to the judge, and attempted to willfully withhold exculpatory evidence. Interestingly, the Director of Information Technology who disclosed what was happening has since been fired by the Florida State Attorney’s Office.

According to Harvard Professor of Law, Alan M. Dershowitz, “The prosecutors denied the judge the right to see pictures that showed Zimmerman with his nose broken and his head bashed in. The prosecution should be investigated for civil rights violations, and civil liberty violations. Prosecutors violated a whole range of ethical, professional, and legal obligations. Moreover, they withheld other evidence in the course of the pretrial and trial proceedings, as has been documented by the defense team.”

The American legal system is one of the best in the world - however, it is not perfect. Like in the case with the prosecution in the Zimmerman trial, those who use the system try to manipulate the system for political and financial gains.

Every civil system operates on an assumption of truth. To undermine truth is to undermine reality. Hence, to swear and then fail to tell the truth is perjury – a felonious act, which can result in a miscarriage of justice. Other than its mention in the Ten Commandments, the Bible speaks strongly against perjury (The false witness will not go unpunished; no one who utters lies will go free Proverbs 19:5). For this, I believe both the prosecution and the defense will be held accountable.

Since the not-guilty verdict, there has been much hostility and requests for a civil trial. Within the American legal system that route can be pursued. I believe the outcome of such a trial might bring about some healing in the nation. It is best when civil outrage can be addressed in a court of law, rather than on the streets, as persists in many countries.

However, I long to see similar outrage about the other killings. In the 513 days between the death of Trayvon Martin, and the George Zimmerman verdict, more than 11,000 African Americans were murdered by other African-Americans. As a matter of fact, almost 22 African-Americans are killed every day in America. And that is separate from the 1,875 black babies that are aborted daily.

In these killing fields of America there ought to be outrage and a refocusing on the message of wholesome living offered by Jesus. It was He who said, “I came so they can have real and eternal life, more and better life that they ever dreamed of” (John 10:10 – The Message).