Knowing the Name
by Mark Gutman
In a recent Sabbath School class discussion on witnessing, one of the class members stated that there is a “passage” that says people in heaven will ask Jesus what the wounds in his hands are. The member was probably referring to Zechariah 13, but Zechariah 13 refers to a false prophet,1 and it takes some stretching to get it to apply to Jesus. See my February 2012 column on “Reading Into Isaiah” for the issue of context for Old Testament texts. But this column is not dealing with the context of Bible verses; its concern is about why we care if people in heaven will ask Jesus about the wounds in his hands.
Some believe that people who have lived since Jesus lived on earth (in human form) and do not know about him will not be in heaven. They envision the same fate for those who lived before that time and did not offer some version of the sacrifices of the Levitical sanctuary system. When I was in college, a classmate pointed out a huge problem with any theory that allowed people to reach heaven without knowing about Jesus. “Why would we bother to send out missionaries?” Later, I took a religion class that got some publicity because the professor held this “restrictive” theory. The week of prayer speaker that fall used an Ellen White passage from Desire of Ages that seemed to disagree with the professor’s theory. “Among the heathen are those who worship God ignorantly, those to whom the light is never brought by human instrumentality, yet they will not perish. Though ignorant of the written law of God, they have heard His voice speaking to them in nature, and have done the things that the law required. Their works are evidence that the Holy Spirit has touched their hearts, and they are recognized as the children of God.”2
My professor was quite distressed when “the other side” used this passage, and he asserted that it was a “clouded” statement because it disagreed with everything else Ellen White had written on the subject. He invited the week of prayer speaker to our class, an invitation that was accepted. As I remember events, both the professor and the speaker came away from the class with unchanged beliefs.
Will people alive today who die without ever hearing of Jesus be allowed into heaven? While I do not claim to have the definitive answer, I would point readers back to my earlier column, “The Good WHAT?” from Sept 2011. The sheep and the goats in Matthew 25 were not sorted by theology; they were sorted by how they treated people.
Uh-oh. That sounds like salvation by works. It certainly can sound like it. But to use an analogy I heard Morris Venden use: “An apple tree produces apples because it is an apple tree, not in order to become an apple tree.” Could the person in an African village who never hears anything about Jesus be living with Christian motives even though she doesn’t know all the specific rules? Might she be able to show evidence that the Holy Spirit has touched her heart? Or does that only happen if people hear the name of Jesus?
If hearing the name of Jesus is a necessity, I’m glad I chose to be born in North America. Wait a minute! I didn’t choose where to be born any more than I chose my parents or my eye color. I guess I’m just luckier than those sinners/reprobates who were born in the outback.
But doesn’t the Bible say that there’s no other name under heaven by which people can be saved?3 Sometimes we read too much (or the wrong meaning) into “the name.” For instance, some fear that God will ignore a prayer that does not have the words “in Jesus’ name” included somewhere because Jesus talked about praying in his name.4 Leaving aside the issue of what praying in Jesus’ name means, Jesus did not say that God would not listen to prayers that were not thus prayed. Can you imagine a loving God who refuses to listen to people unfortunate enough to be born in the wrong locality?
But let’s carry the question to the next step: what about the people who actually hear Jesus’ name? Or going still further, What about people who are baptized members of a Christian church? How clear does their understanding of “the atonement,” “justification,” “sanctification,” or “expiation” need to be? I remember struggling to answer something about that as I neared college graduation, as the college had just instituted a new test for senior theology majors. If my getting into heaven depended on how well I explained the plan of salvation that day… Never mind; I lived long enough to gain more understanding. On second thought, I’m not sure how good my theological understanding is even now.
So to summarize my problems with the belief that only those who know about Jesus get to heaven: You get to heaven only if (1) you are lucky enough to be born in a place where Christianity has a chance to be promoted, and (2) you get an understanding that would get at least a B+ in a theology test on “the plan of salvation.” I have trouble putting that with the sheep and goats story in Matthew 25 or the Good Samaritan story in Luke 15.
By the way, don’t confuse correlation with cause-and-effect when you read about the sheep and the goats. In one of my seminary classes, Dr. Elden Chalmers informed us that the more ministers there were in an area, the higher the crime rate. His statement, of course, caused some gasps, but he quickly explained. Usually more ministers in an area means the population is higher, which usually means a higher crime rate. The ministers do not cause the higher crime rate (we hope); more ministers and higher crime rate are both caused by higher population (or higher population density). In the same way, the sheep met other criteria but happened to have helped needy people without keeping score. Sheep are more likely to help others. But helping others doesn’t make them sheep. Borrowing from Venden, animals don’t help others in order to become sheep.
So if you encounter a person who has never heard of Jesus but who acts as the sheep do, might it be that the uninformed person will be classed as a sheep? Is that too shocking an idea? Or too disgusting? Sometimes we want to draw small salvation circles. To quote Edwin Markham:
He drew a circle that shut me out –
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle that took him in.
In Mark 9:38, John tried to draw a small circle, but Jesus told John, “He who is not against us is for us” (verse 40). I have trouble picturing Jesus as then turning to Christians and saying, “But don’t you dare call a kind person a Christian if she hasn’t heard of me or can’t give a decent explanation of the atonement.” I similarly would picture heaven as more in line with Edwin Markham’s philosophy than with John’s theology in Mark 9. Holding to good theology does carry benefits; “bad” theology does carry disadvantages. But good theology does not ensure heavenly reward, nor does bad theology rule it out. Not every sheep will be able to expound on the scars in Jesus’ hands.
1Zechariah 13:2-6
2 White, The Desire of Ages (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Publ. Assn., 1940), p. 638
3Acts 4:12
4John 14:13, 14
How many angels can sit on the head of a pin? OK, I realize this is an exercise in religious rhetoric like the angel and pin thing. But to enlist proponents hehind such silly propositions appears to be a monumental waste of time similar to stacking cards on each other to see how high they can stabilize. A puff of wind and all is reduced to nothing.
If this excercise represents the core of Christianity (I know, you haven't said that it does) then Christianity is nothing but a joke, a monumental waste of time.
My point is, to be concerned about this factless, manufactured issue reminds me anew of the inanity of religious discussion.
Guilty, I just contributed to inanity by commenting on it. You would think I should have better things to do with my time?!?
People believe the “silly proposition” that vaccinations cause autism. That belief results in fewer vaccinations, which results in more infectious disease. Even if I think the “vaccinations cause autism” theory is baloney, I can present arguments against the theory to people who believe it or who are sympathetic to it. Such arguments just might result in less harm as people revise their thinking.
Believing that others who don’t subscribe to my beliefs are headed for hell has effects – on me and on the people I deal with. Someone who thinks that both my beliefs and the beliefs of “the other side” are baloney has reason to try to help both sides get a bigger perspective – to be less narrow.
The operative word in your statement above is "belief." Belief is not a logical step to verify a premise. The truth of a proposition is neither confirmed nor denied by belief. Facts seldom get in the way of belief, believers in vaccine induced autism are good example.
Yes, belief can affect behavior. However, I can't imagine how a believer in either side of your proposition would have their actions affected opting for one or the other outlook.
Your premise is imaginary. And if your premise was a bucket, it would be hold no water. Speculation is mentally messaging but that is all it amounts to.
I can understand the disquiet caused by this opinion piece, but I can vouch that our young people wrestle with these issues, with or without reading Adventist Today. I certainly did when I was young (long before AT was a glimmer on a printer's plate), and I determined that before I would be baptized, I would need to satisfactorily answer the compound question, "Is the SDA denomination advocating salvation by information, or by faith, and if by faith, faith in whom or what?" Perhaps my callow youth caused me to misrepresent these questions as important, when in fact I was simply balancing angels on the tips of theological pins. But I don't think so. I am a lifelong Adventist who grew up in a relatively "protected environment" but "waited" until age 17 to be baptized—not because I was a rebellious fellow, but because I wanted to make sure in my mind that the step I took into the water was more than a concession to social pressure to "be a joiner," and I can assure you I felt that pressure as my friends of both genders joyfully were baptized at 12 and 13 years of age, while I held back.
As far as I'm concerned the topic raised here is more than peripheral to our belief system; it may not be absolutely central, granted, but it does have serious ramifications to those of us, especially, who have devoted in some cases decades of our lives to mission service. My personal response at age 17 (to this conundrum of proclamation) is that proclaiming the name of Jesus was a privilege rather than an obligation; preaching the gospel would be an inevitable result of my conversion, and serving as a missionary would be my manner of following Jesus. I have yet to come to terms with the concept that we "must force ourselves" to carry the gospel throughout the world, as if it were a heavy burden to show ourselves worthy of the Kingdom. I determined (in addition at age 17) that I would NOT join the Church either out of guilt or a desire to earn salvation. These are decisions I revel in yet today as (I hope) a positive and joyful Christian who also believes there is indeed immense power in the name and person of Jesus. I am His willing follower.
Edwin, I don't understand the "disquiet" about this piece. Angst is unnecessary where answers cannot be known to questions that are questionable.
As to your experience, the efficacy of your missionary investment does not depend on either the question raised or the "answers" supplied.
Mother Teresa suffered decades of tormenting darkness doubting the existence of God. Her legacy lives because of what she offered and achieved, not because of her torment.
Your last line is your testimony to your life's effort. Skip the torment (which it appears you are doing)!
I don't know which disturbs me the most–the commenter who feels this subject is irrelevant or the writer who hasn't thought it through–or studied it through. After salvation through Christ alone, it is probably the most important question to be asked of Christians. It is one I have worried over, contemplated about, and studied ever since I was a young adult. Actually I cannot imagine believing in a God so unfair as to destroy everyone that hadn't heard of Him. If this is how some Adventists are thinking, I wonder if I am in the wrong church!
I don't think so, because some have said that Adventism has more room in it for a broader salvation than the rest of evangelical Christianity. I take very seriously the NT when it says that many will see God in nature and Ellen White's comment made in DA and noted above.
One day I found a book by Neal Punt that opened my eyes and shortly after an evangelist came to give a Week of Prayer at the GC where I worked. His amazing message gave me hope. He was part of a movement that was first discussed in 1888 and emphasized by returned missionaries, Donald Short and Robert Wieland.
Christ's death was for ALL humanity as is repeated many times in the NT. It is retroactive to the "foundation of the world" Everyone is saved through Jesus whether they know Him or not. This good news was to go around the world. (We treat people differently when we see them as equal and do not respond to them as "lost.") "Believe in Christ Jesus" was said to those who did hear Him and see His witnesses.
There are a number of Adventists who have accepted this as part of the three angels message–the righteousness of Christ given to all who do not reject His Holy Spirit of love for one another (see the judgment scene in Mt 25). Think of the Book of Life–we hear about some being blotted out but never put in. Perhaps all born into life are in the Book of Life.
This is not universalism, and we need missionaries for the millions who have rejected or will reject Love There are vicious sinners who could change. The world also needs missionaries for spiritual learning, education, health, relief work and witnesses.
To get into theo-verbage this is often called legal justification and must be accepted on the individual's level as he or she grows and is led by the Holy Spirit. This means children who die are saved.
This news is vital to the character of God, since many reject an exclusive God that you MUST hear about and then must buy into all the misrepresentation given by Christians.
Most of us will be satisfied by saying that people are saved on their level of understanding truth, but there is more to it. I rarely hear this discussed in evangelical meetings,and it is important, especially to thinking and educated people. Perhaps that is why so many aren't interested in an exclusive God of the formula.
PS: there are Bible studies available on this
My point, Ella, is that there is no definitive answer to the question raised, except, it appears, in your mind. That is fine for you. So, there is no reason for you to be "disturbed." Rejoice in your understanding.
I believe believe there enough problems in life without wasting energy on imaginary ones.
Religious discourse is based on belief (faith), not facts. You, like everyone else, chooses your belief beause you like the tenents, the arguments, selected. Whatever points you find in favor of your conclusions are not facts, just opinion.There is no "rightness" nor "wrongness." Not one soul will be lost or found because of what you believe.
It violates the first commandment to think that your belief should be imposed on anyone else.
I am interested in what you think it means to be "saved." From what, or for what?
Excuse me–this is hardly petty or imaginary, since it seems to be the major reason people have for not joining a church or believing in God.
There is also plenty of biblical evidence if one searches it out–but they must first find the salvation of others to be very important (and not imaginary).
You said: Not one soul will be lost or found because of what you believe
I disagree with that one. We are to be witnesses for God, and if we fail to present His fairness and goodness, it will cause others to reject Him.
The last questions about eternal life (salvation) I don't understand. Do you not believe in it? If not, I apologize for I don't always know who are believers on here or who are not.
You are right that our salvation does not depend on correct theology, for none of us knows everything. However, it does depend on how we behave and what picture of God we communicate to others. It's the old idea of the root (understanding) coming out as good fruit (behavior).
BLG: post-script
Are you concerned that we might "impose" Christ on others in spreading the good news? It would seem so if you think sharing it is imposing.
Yes, your concern is petty and imaginary.
Why do you think you are so important that you could stand in the way of someone believing in God? And why do you think you are so smart that you have concluded that the major reason people have for not believing or in a church or believing in god rests on what you think? Relax. You are not that important. And you are not responsible for others. Only for yourself. You can be witness for God by your definition, if you choose. You cannot chose any mode that will cause anyone to reject him. Relax. Surrender the guilt, it isn't necessary. Lighten up.
Why does it matter who are believers and who aren't? Are you in tune with only those who believe like you? Are you afraid of having your suppositions questioned by those evil "nonbelievers?"
Ella, Jesus once said, "my yoke is easy and my burden is light." Maybe there is something there for you.
All I can say to this–and nothing more–is that you do not understand what I said, and are in fact on the edge of abusive. I even agreed with you on one thing. Have you noticed this blog section provided by AT is for sharing our opinion, and that is what we do here? Why be so judgmental of others opinions as to attack them personally? That's not the purpose of AT. Lighten up!
There are issues which we cannot resolve and things we cannot understand. We can choose to get hung-up on them and spend our time wrestling to find what we cannot know. Or, we can devote ourselves to discovering the presence of God and the lessons He has for us each day. I choose the latter because it is so vastly more beneficial.
BGL raises some interesting questions. I am amazed that SDAs waste their time on such nonsense. The bloggers here are all entitled to their particular "beliefs" but those beliefs indeed do not verify the premise. A little more hospitality to your neighbor or sharing your lunch with someone who is really hungry makes much more of a difference than worrying about hearing the name of Jesus as a condition for salvation. This is gods problem not ours. If god is concerned with such silliness why would I want to know to know such a god?
Doctorf,
Like you, I've long puzzled over why people would spend so much time trying to resolve what they could not and seeking to understand what delivered no applicable value. While working on my BA in Theology one of my classes required extensive reading from the writings of different theologians. I remember asking my professor why we were being required to read the works of people who were far more skilled at asking questions and debating points than finding answers. Let's just say my question tested his self control because he had spent so much of his career studying the works of those theologians!
I prefer seeking knowledge that can be absorbed and applied in practical ministry.
Doctorf and Bugs-Larry,
Probably most of the blogs on the website serve as a type of entertainment, resulting in little or no real-life action by the readers and commenters. Probably most of the reading of the blogs and the comments is to reinforce our current beliefs. I was writing about something that I know is a concern to many people, hoping to add some perspective. My college professor spent half the semester on the topic. I did not even think about writing on the issue until I heard a comment about it in my Sabbath School class recently.
The sheep were showing hospitality and sharing lunch, but I try to stay close to 1,200 words in my blog, so I did not elaborate on the sheep’s activities this time. I touched on the activities in "Overlooked Themes in Amos." I've also discussed dealing with those who believe differently. (See "Listening to Another Side" and "If You Only Knew.") If someone’s big topic seems silly to me, I can probably help her more by treating her respectfully and speaking a language she understands than by emphasizing how ignorant she appears to me.
How we treat others (sharing) has a lot to do with our concept of God. A concept of a God that destroys people who never heard of Him is hardly attractive.
I have never been aware of anyone that hadn't heard of god. And any concept of god is a human creation. A god too small is one created in our image. Superguy. If that is what god is, he is a buffoon.
Christ said something different. God is Love. No superguy there. No demands.
Great article.
Can those who have never heard of Jesus be saved?
Yes.
For me personally, I do believe those who have never heard of Jesus can and will be saved. I don't need to go to Ellen White, because Paul seems to say as much in Rom 2:12-16, which talks about Gentiles who don't have the Law being called righteous on the Day of Judgment.
Why do we then send out missionaries?
For me, it is not to save them as much as share the Good News that they are already saved. A nuanced difference.
For me, it is not to save them as much as share the Good News that they are already saved. A nuanced difference.
Thank you Stephen, that is what I am trying to say, and I know many Adventists have come to this conclusion.
The difference is far more than merely nuanced. There is a day/night difference between living in accordance with the principles of God without knowing Him and learning about the magnificence of the loving God who implanted those principles in nature so we could intuitively understand them.
Be careful what you wish for. Suppose the concept of being saved, eternal life, is just a pipe dream imposed by the spectre of death. Death removed is meaning removed. Food, air, transportation, relationships, hobbies, jobs, blood, bodies, time, physical laws, to name a few wouldn't be necessary or have any value.
And where would this eternal life happen? The universe is an unstable miasma of recycling of all the material and energy in it.
I think, past the prospect of death, the idea of eternal life sprouts from the Genesis implication that Adam and Eve were perfect in a perfect world that they screwed up by willful choice. However, there is no reason to believe the universe was ever different than it is now, a chaotic gravity-driven machine of unimaginable size and intesity that burns, explodes, dies, and rebirths endlessly. Our earth is part of that destuctible mix eventaully to be crisped by the sun as it depletes its hydrogen fuel and flares out with furnace flames.
And soppose eternal life is everything humans hope for. If emotions are intact, is an eternity of grief in store because of missing family and friends who didn't qualify for the trip?
Hope. Hope trumps all in the face of death. For me too.When I die either I won't have any more congnition or something else will happen. I can wait to find out!
If there was no hope for life after death, would we live differently here? Would we not want to make the most of our time in ways beneficial to ourselves and others? What difference should there be in our lives whether there is or is not life after death? We will have lost nothing; since we cannot for certain know what lies beyond he grave why not think of this gift of life as all there is. Is it not sufficient? Why should we expect more?
Elaine, There is an old story that may be true: If one chooses to reject Christ and all that He represents, they will be lost. If he chooses Christ, he will be saved. Let's say neither one is sure. If there is no future, it doesn't matter which choice was made. If there is a future, guess who loses?
However, in the beginning of our spiritual journey, we are immature and make choices for selfish reasons and "to be saved." Because God is love and He may "wink at our ignorance" yet we are not reflecting Christ who took the risk of losing His eternal life for us. The highest level for humans may be to reach that placed (as Moses did) that we would be willing to give up our eternal life for others (Christ did this).
Ella,
Not true. Whether one believes in life after death or not, has no bearing on what might be. Beliefs are just that: not facts. Nor is heaven a physical place that one can identify and locate. If believing made all things possible, there would not be this discussion. There will be millions in heaven who never believed in heaven, and millions lost who also believed. A huge fallacy.
Or, do you suggest that we create our own heaven by believing ?
You must have misunderstood something or I didn't communicate well. I didn't say it had any bearing.
I really don't know where heaven is or what it is like. The Bible only gives some clues, and that Christ will be with us. Beyond that is only speculation that has no bearing on reality. If using our creativity and imagination is fun, then go for it. I agree with your concept of the millions/billions–a more open salvation not based on limited knowledge.
Noel- "There are issues which we cannot resolve and things we cannot understand. We can choose to get hung-up on them and spend our time wrestling to find what we cannot know."
In this case I must agree. It seems not to matter whether the wrestlers are liberal or conservative, persons from both groups seem to get caught up in the endless debate that has no solution in this world.
Maranatha
I suspect that those who participate in Adventist Today discussions have learned to expect a certain degree of out-of-the-box non-traditionality here—a willingness to tolerate discussion topics that would not ordinarily be focused on in a mainstream adult Sabbath school class. While some who may not like a particular topic "vote with their mice" and choose not to become involved, it's amazing how many readers do join in these fine-pointed discussions.
For one, I do not see this particular topic regarding the name of Jesus as being esoteric to Present Truth, especially in a church where I was taught a few years back that Jesus was a created being and that it was therefore improper to pray to Jesus, but only in the name of Jesus. I remember as a kindergartner being repeatedly told that I should pray only to God, and when asked to pray out loud in Sabbath school, always to make sure I addressed "Our Father in heaven," and concluded "in Jesus' name, Amen." In fact I learned that unless that "in Jesus' name" were included in the prayer, God would be forced to disregard everything in that prayer, as surely as He would disregard it if it were inappropriately addressed specifically to Jesus…
I remember once crying in the car on our way home from church (I was about four years old then), explaining to my Mom that I had "goofed" in a Sabbath school prayer and had mistakenly said "Dear Jesus" instead of "Our Father in heaven," at the beginning of the prayer. I was surprised when she replied, "Eddie, I think God knows what you meant. He heard your prayer, and He will answer you. God loves to hear our prayers, and He listens even when we make mistakes…." More recently I have had discussions with individuals who believe that God is highly offended if we do not address Him as "Jehovah" and that our prayers are worse than worthless if addressed to Jesus. These are people directly descended from the Millerite movement, and I suspect some years back, traditional Adventists may have held the same strong opinions, expressed in slightly different ways. Perhaps the reason some of us feel uncomfortable with this topic is that it brushes off old bones we'd really rather leave in the crypt of our cultural history. For example, what if someone were to rise and pray to "Allah" in our church? I have very close conservative Adventist friends who assure me that "Allah" is not the God of Abraham and Isaac, and is in fact a pagan deity. This topic is very appropriate for our time, if we'll relax, ask God for his blessing, and let it guide us to a better understanding of why names are extremely important, at times, and how they can become terrible stumbling blocks if allowed to raise barriers where none are needed….
Edwin,
It is hard to imagine that people did (and maybe some do) had such a picture of God. It lacks common sense at the least and is blasphemas superstition at the worst. I wasn't in the church growing up, but from what I hear the 1950s were a dark period in the SDA church for a number of reasons (discrimination, rigidity, etc.). It didn't seem so much that way during EGWs time, even though that era did reflect society. I don't know what happened after her death, but women were less engaged in the church and it seemed to pick up the worst of society's conservative ideas.
(Now that is my opinion based on what I have read.) I would say there was about as much superstition in the church as in pagan religions.
'If there was no hope for life after death, would we live differently here? Would we not want to make the most of our time in ways beneficial to ourselves and others? What difference should there be in our lives whether there is or is not life after death? We will have lost nothing; since we cannot for certain know what lies beyond he grave why not think of this gift of life as all there is. Is it not sufficient? Why should we expect more?'
Good questions – probably debated since ancient times, given the Sadducees denied all post-mortem existence. If you can live without hope of an afterlife – good for you. Most humans beings can't. In the West, we try to live without it by simply making death the last taboo.
For some, without hope of an afterlife would make us better citizens of this world. However, I am not convinced that is the case for everyone. For some, it might well result in a more selfish, self-centred life. Thus, for some it does make a difference. The Gospel writers obviously thought it important, because the central message of Christianity is that Jesus is resurrected from the dead!
The Muslim bomber have a very strong hope for an afterlife; so strong that they are ready to take many others with them in an effort to get their reward promised them by their religion.
If one is unable to live a life that helps others and enjoy what he has been given, is he really worthy of an afterlife? If so, then has he EARNED it? Must heaven be EARNED?
Why is is it so difficult to understand that there are millions who have not a single concern about what occurs after death? Do they believe they have control over their bodies after death?
Millions might not worry about what occurs after death – and good on them. I don't disagree with your comments about how belief in the afterlife can be used to justify horrible things occuring in this life. I have often thought the idea of karma and reincarnation also open to such abuse, because it says poor and sick people deserve their misfortune for something bad they did in a previous life; and good poor and sick people don't need to be helped in this life because they will be rewarded in the next.
However, I believe my primary point stands – whilst millions don't need an afterlife, billions do! Christianity's success as a 'myth' (by which I mean a story we can't historically prove or disprove with historical-critical tools) is its central message of a Resurrected Christ.
Most people do need hope in an afterlife. It doesn't matter how eloquent or logical your observations are Elaine, it won't matter – because as Karl Barth taught religious belief, especially in Christ, is essentially beyond scientific-rationalisation.
i believe every person has the right to choose their salvation, or their acceptance of one lifetime only. What gives you comfort, peace, and contentment. Believe in resurrection and its yours, no harm done to others. As an individual believe in this lifetime only and its yours. However if everyone believed in this lifetime only, no god, nothing else, nada, no golden rule (there wouldn't be one) then every day would be a living hell. We would still be living in caves, communes, ghettos, as there would be no constraints of organized communities. Much like the mountains & plains of the warlord kingdom of Afghanistan, or worse.