wow

So, what about cohabiting (non-married) monogamous heterosexual couples? Should they also be "sanctioned and blessed by church and state"?

"...should be afforded all of the cultural and ecclesial benefits that I am."

/facepalm

For better or for worse, in many people's minds Tony is speaking for more than just himself. And while there are many who appreciate the ways that the emerging church has pushed the Church to think through issues of contextualization and relevancy, there comes a point where the baggage and leftward tilt is just a bit too much...

Time will tell whether 2008 and these comments and some of the books published this year were what pushed the evangelical church to be "over" the emerging church. I think it will be. And I think it's a shame.

For not wanting to get it wrong, he sure did. As I wrote on his blog, one only arrives at Tony's position after abandoning confidence in either the infallibility of the Bible, the authority of the Bible, or the sufficiency of the Bible (or a combination of the three). After some initial enthusiasm for the emerging church movement, it's this kind of Bible-jettisoning that causes me to treat it with suspicion and, candidly, a fair amount of disdain.

Are we supposed to be surprised?

It is simple, Tony Jones is wrong. Not about "gay persons being fully human" they certainly are as is my lesbian sister. Believers practicing sin are subject to the discipline of the church and do not enjoy all the "cultural and ecclesial(?) benefits that I am" at least if I am not practicing sin. That is the real issue - sin. When truth is based on a community conversation what one gets is a reflection of the community. Tony Jones is certainly reflecting the community's changing understanding of homosexuality as sin. Perhaps we should reflect the Word without the semantic gymnastics it takes to claim it doesn't identify homosexual behavior as sin.

Bob Hyatt's comment (above) captures my sentiments on this as well.

The questions and struggle to reform, renew and/or revive won't go away, however.

Tony has forgotten that the Bible, in addition to being infallible and such, is a static document. Sure, our interpretations of it regarding slavery, orbital mechanics, and women's issues may change from time to time, but when it comes to something sinfully sinful like gay marriage, static is the way to go.

I believe he gets it right. The argument is well thought out and in line with the truth of the Gospels. Paul would not like it, nor would the priests from the 8th BCE, nor would the ecclesial councils and Iraneus who codified the bible. But the over theology is sound and in line with overall truth of the bible.

The Church has to move beyond the 8th BCE 2AD to the present and respond to the situation today. To deny this is say that God's creation is over and that we are stuck with what we have. It is to literally say that man's institution of the church and its judgment replaces God's desire for reconciliation with ALL creation.

Either Christ died on the cross for all of us or he didn't. Either all of us are in Christ equally or that sacrifice is in vain and is a fraud of the highest order. Either God is for all people or God is subject to the prejudice and discrimination of man. Why do we need to replant a hedge that God has torn down through Christ's sacrifice?

People we so sure that owning slaves was both ethical and biblical, and those same folks believed that a womans place was in the home and now they have chosed to die on this hill. Maybe the people who judge God's creation are the ones outside of Grace and in true need of salvation.

Bob...I think the emergent movement has been over what has become to be known as "evangelical" for a long time. So who cares. Evangelical is just as meaningless a term as Emergent. Both are socially infored words depending on which milieu you swim in.

It's funny to me that while Url doesn't want us to accidentally identify Tony's position with the Emergent Village (or the larger Emergent movement), and yet feels compelled to tie him to just that movement in the first line. I understand the need for a bio-background, but couldn't we have found something he is still involved with be used instead of the very group we believe "shouldn't be projected upon"?

It's muddying the issues to assume that the Emergent conversation leads us to abandoning the "infallibility of the Bible, the authority of the Bible, the sufficiency of the Bible (or a combination of the three)".

This just goes to show that even those in the Emergent conversation can get it wrong. They are exactly as human as claim to be. Why are so many eager to throw the baby out with the bath water?

Personally, I feel that many evangelicals and fundamentalists left the Church and the tradition of salvation a long long time ago. As protestants we are supposed to be protesting that the Word is equal with and just as valued as liturgy. We are supposed to be a witness to the fact that the table is open to all and not the domain of the priest alone. Our goal was to ultimately come to one communion one church one word one faith.

This discussion around the emergent church is an attempt to kill the protestant movement and literally split the Church in two never to be reconciled and that is against what Christ wants. He wants one Bride and not a polygamous relationship!

The emerging church and the X'ers and younger engaged with it are trying to continue in rebuilding that one Church again. One Faith, one table in conversation with the greater Church. No one but God is 'right'.

The evangelical and fundamentalist movements have slowly moved towards heresy for sometime now. First they stripped the ancient sacred music, then the liturgy, then the building itself and now the very word and made it a process akin to processing a big mac. Just say the word and you are saved,this makes salvation a institution of man and not an institution of universal grace.

At what point does someone fight for the tradition handed down to us? At what point do we resume our discussion with God? Can we get past the adulterous love affair with Paul and return to our groom? That is what the church is challenged to do and that is why the discussion around who can be at the table is so important. This is not just a social issue for conservative political wonks. Literally who is saved and who is not deserves a higher level of thought and argument than what is happening here. Our tradition is one of discussion, reason,tradition AND word not word alone!

It is not a simple verse and it is not parsing out of context(no pun intended)words to support an argument. We are a living church and not a static institution let us reason together!

Why are so many eager to throw the baby out with the bath water?

Because, regardless of all their pandering to the contrary, there is a clear ideological bent among the artists currently-known-as-and-formerly known-as-but-not-wanting-to-speak-for the Emergent Village. When is the last time you heard someone say "I think a lot of us don't know what we believe about homosexuality" (a la Brian McLaren) and then come down on the conservative side of the issue?

The back of Scot McKnight's book The Blue Parakeet sums it up best when it says, "What if I'm too conservative to be liberal, and too liberal to be conservative?" This is not a question a conservative asks, and in a world where the idea of being a moderate is about as fallacious as EV's claim to not have a position on homosexuality, the only option left is that you are liberal. So what? If you are so confident in your beliefs then claim own up to them and quit pretending we don't know where you stand.

And yes, I vote that emergent has jumped the shark (if you need proof, read Tickle's sorry apologetic for the necessity of the EV).

If we had been wrong on gays,
it is not as simple as asking them to forgive us, on account that we are all sinners and may make mistakes.

I thought Q stood for "questioning."

BTW, re: the B

Bisexuals, by definition, cannot be monogomous since to be with a male and a female requires a relationship with more than one person.

I am certainly for every person experiencing his or her rights; however I am absolutely in favor of righteousness....

ericpo, if i read you correctly, you are saying that Paul got it wrong? if Paul wouldn't like Tony's argument, what is your view of the NT? how do Paul's letters contribute to our understanding of the Triune God? are they Scripture or invalid because they are static? what do you subscribe to as canon?

yes, no one but God is right, but can we know what God says is right? if we can, to what extent can we proclaim what is right?

if the evangelical and fundamentalist movements are not following the Word, are you asserting that the emerging movement is the one to get folks back on track?

for the sake of discussion, could explain to me why the emergent movement is homogeneous with regard to race. why do they lack the diversity described in Revelation? as you have turned the phrase, what part of the Bride do they leave out and why?

what "tradition(s)" are you fighting for and say has been left behind? what does ancient sacred music sound like to you? is it limited to Western European (or even Greek) perspective? how does your tradition fit with the rest of the world that Christ died to save -- asians, africans, hispanics/latinos? do we (the "minority" population) need to follow your tradition to have a right understanding of God?

how would you characterize the demographics (race, education and age) of the emergent population?

if you're going to knock movements you disagree with, hope you understand your own movement's limitations.

To over-simply the Bible is very different from obeying it's overarching message of redemption. What sort of homosexuality is condemned in the Bible? Before the operation of the grace and truth of Christ in history, so much was explotive and brutal, perhaps most especially powerful men using and abusing the powerless of both sexes. This is so obviously against Jesus's summations of the Commandments(love thy God with..., love thy neighbor as...)that we can obviously see it as sin.

But devout gays who seek the discipline and commitment of marriage or ordination? Does it truly fit them?

If we have any doubt, not about the Bible, but about how the Bible applies in this situation -- why not follow another Biblical directive --judge not, show mercy, love? Why not leave this descision to God and his judgement. If we have erred on the side of mercy, humility and love, don't you think God will gently correct and forgive us? If gays have spent their life serving God, do you think He would condemn them on the grounds of sexuality alone? Are you sure?

Why do we try to appropriate God's right of judgement when there are serious, viable questions as to our take on what the Bible says about the sort of homosexuality practiced here and today by men and women of faith? Perhaps it's up to God to deal with this one.

Perhaps he might even find our resulting humility, so hard for us humans, a sign that we might have actually understood a bit of the message of his Son -- which, perhaps, would greatly please him.

The real question is, when will sin become obsolete? It’s harsh, judgmental, and cruel. Wouldn’t we all be happier if we put this sin thing to bed for good, pardon the pun?

ThriceBroad, you just committed one of my pet peeves by applying "judge not" to the Church's inner relations. Please see 1 Corinthians 5, particularly verses 9 to 13.

We are not to judge each other based on opinion or extra-scriptural rules, nor by scriptural rules while we ourselves are unrighteous. But when we are made righteous by the grace of God, we are to distribute His love, mercy, and grace to all, and His judgment within the Church.

The judgment we issue is for the purpose of teaching in preparation for the final judgment, and it may be sinful. So it must be dealt with the meekness appropriate to a teacher (James 3:1) and mixed generously with love, mercy, and grace.

As for the issue at hand, temptation is not sin; a homosexual urge is not sin, but to obey that urge is. Claiming that God makes homosexuals is like saying He makes liars or thieves, and that goes back to original sin.

I was ordained in a Lutheran denomination and denied my homosexuality - something I did not and would not choose - until I wasr 46 years old. I decided to be honest with myself, God and others I was forced to leave that denomination and told that prayers would be said to save my soul from hell.

After 8 years of self destructive living separated from God - thinking I was worthless - God sought me out and showed me differently through the United Church of Christ, which accepts me and loves me like I believe Christ does. I now serve as full pastor again and know the depth of God's grace like never before. Like the leper, I have been healed and am more excited than ever before in sharing the Good News of God's love in Christ for all people.

In the local community I now serve several of the ministeral associations members came to my office recently, with their Bibles -
I had mine too - asking me not to attend their meetings. The homophobia, judgmentalism and hatred was unbelievable.
They too condemned me to hell.

Much of my ministry is now spent with people who have been wounded and left to die by Christians in the name of God (more than just gay people) - with Bible in hand speak the "truth" in "love."

I lived in fear for a while, because my life has been threatened for living and speaking the truth of God's love in Christ. Now I no longer fear but remember the words of Jesus, "for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

I thank God for Christians like Tony who are willing to put their lives and reputations on
line by speaking the truth and standing up for those who are "outcasts" - reminds me of Jesus. Look what it got him.

We ("we" being the 20th-21st Century North American Church) get the whole sexuality discussion totally wrong.
We debate, we argue, we pronounce anathemas against one another, but do we engage in meangful conversations about the oversexed culture we live in and the word the scriptures have to say about how Christians are called to live and love in that culture?
Anyone care to read Paul's letters to the Corinthians and say that oversexed culture is new to our time? I don't think so.
People are more than their drives and hungers. And our faith calls us to rely on the Holy Spirit, the fruit of which includes self-control, including control over our sexual drives and attractions.
Marriage is the place where God calls us to live out our sexuality. The scriptures also limit marriage to a man and a woman.
If we begin there, then the rest of the discussion can be carried with mutual respect, ministering to single, married, gay and straight alike.

Ericpo, your statement that Christ died for us in the context of equality is in error. True he died so that "all" that would believe in him (faith)and through the demonstration of their fruit (changed lifestyle) through the first two greatest commandments Jesus gave us; loving God first then loving your neighbor. Jesus said in John 15 "if you love me obey my commands." Should a child molester twist scripture to parallel Jesus talking about having all children come to him? Or someone with an addiction advocates a life of "freedom" while still in the addiction? Becoming Christian means taking the road less traveled while picking up your cross daily. It's a life change fully, and totaly focused on Glorifying the King. Our desires, wants, needs, and ambitions are to always be second to His kingdom and commandments.

Jesus said in Matthew 19:4-5
Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.

A man and a woman can have children. This is a large part of marriage. so if Jesus said a man and woman are joined in marriage, it seems that is the way it is.

Of course if you want to disregard what the Bible says, then you can believe whatever the culture says is ok.

Science has not been able to prove that Homosexuality is genetic and even if there were a gene, many other genes are turned on or off by circumstances. So there is no arguement that God created homosexuals as the Very Good Human Being.

Who is Tony Jones and why is his opinion more important than scripture? Everyone is human and loved by God, but that doesn't make sin right. I could cheat on my wife and she would might still love me, but that doesn't make it okay. What are the implications for future generations if we remove all moral truth? For example, what if it is okay for medical school students to cheat on tests and then do heart surgery.

I like how people try to find a cultural context for why "maybe" homosexuality was wrong in scripture. "Maybe" it has more to do with the powerful abusive types. But here's the thing, the Bible addresses people who "lord" it over others. Yes, Jesus didn't like it, but what part of "a man shouldn't lie with another man as he would with a woman" is hard to understand.

If one of these EC leaders, ala Tony or Brian, said that homosexuals are to be afforded all the ecclesiastical privileges that I am until such time as they PRACTICE their homosexuality, I would agree with that. If they said, its good that homosexuals get married, as long as it's to a person of the opposite sex, I'm OK with that, too.

There are plenty of people who see themselves as homosexual who truly do not want to sin, just as there are men with porn problems who don't want to sin, or women with alcohol problems who don't want to get drunk. If any of these fall, but are eager to repent, they deserve our love and support and prayers. But the key word is repent.

I read some of you talking about salvation, judgement, etc. That is not the question. The question is should gays/lesbians marry.
I do not seek to judge my gay and lesbian brethren. That is God's job. God will save who he wants to save. But as a society and as a church we have the responsibility to live as His word provides instruction. Whether you like Paul or not it is God's Word and we must live out that part of His Word even if we don't agree with it. So many today want to dilute the Word or say that it has to be interpreted according to today's societal mores. Christians will be judged by God on our obedience to His Word not on how good we looked to others in disobeying His Word. The same goes for ordination. God calls his priests to obedience of His Word. Those that do not obey risk His Judgment.

If God calls something 'sin' and we try to accept it as viable or acceptable for some, then who is being discriminating? This is like saying someone can buy a house, except they can't use the basement. I wonder what God thinks when we invite Him into our lives while yet allowing physical desires outside His will to fluorish in the basement? Supposedly alcoholism is also a genetic/hormonal desire...why don't we promote that also as an area where people should be given special rights? Look at CDC rates of STD's and one will find scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a good use of God's holy temple as it promotes much higher rates of disease within the body.

Homosexuality is sin. Yes, one can be saved from it and yes, one can be forgiven. But it IS sin and it needs to be repented of just like all other sin- you can't be unrepentantly gay and still live in accordance with Biblical truth. The Holy Spirit convicts of sin- if He is not doing that in a gay "Christian", is He really present in that person?

Bottom line, Tony Jones is a heretic, and not just about this. I suggest not following or condoning his opinions.

Also, when you begin to consider the Bible as not totally infallible, authoritative, or sufficient (like the Emergent church does), this is the natural outcome. It's only a matter of time before other Emergents follow suit. Get off the slippery slope.

I am alarmed and dismayed by the ignorance that seems to prevail on both sides of this issue, about what salvation is and the grace from whence it comes, and what it is to be a disciple, which is a walk that starts with salvation, not ends with it. Any sinner in any state can receive salvation, but to then walk with the Lord means leaving worldly things behind and seeking His truth, not your own inner "truth", which is not based on scripture. God's word is truth even if no one believes it, which is nearly true these days. I wonder why this issue is even being validated by a discussion? The issue is far larger than a question of lifestyle and choice. The goal is to steal away peoples' faith in the integrity of God's word, the same as the enemy's goal in Genesis chapter 3. i.e. "God doesn't realy mean what He says, we can just make up our own situational interpretation that fits with our own aims."

To me, scripture is clear about homosexuality, so there is really nothing to discuss. Why do we feel that because times have changed, that maybe our understanding of sin should change? Some say that because Jesus didn't say anything about gays that it must be alright. I don't think so. Some things are just plain common sense. If it was important, then Jesus would have made sure to comment on it. Its not as if gay people were not around then. And what we don't look at is if this is okay, then how about pologamy? adultery, bestiality, pedophilia? I believe we need to treat gay people with love and respect and cut out the nasty rhetoric. Speak the truth in love. We have to remember that it is God who is going to bring about the change in the person. Remember the rich young ruler? Jesus looked at him and loved him and gave him the truth. He didn't change his message to get the man's approval. The ruler was the one who turned away, not Jesus. All those who can accept God's truth will do so. Those who can't will turn away. Remember, Jesus didn't win everybody over to him.

"If gays have spent their life serving God, do you think He would condemn them on the grounds of sexuality alone? Are you sure?"

Answer: Yes. Just as I am sure that God would, in the end, condemn me if I spend a life browsing porn sites while preaching the holiness of God, or having serial affairs or visiting prostitutes and justifying all this with "God understands." When Paul wrote of the sins of the flesh in Gal. 5, he was quite specific: "I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." To pretend that God cares about my money, my words, my temper, but not who I sleep with, is short-sighted. And I simply will not dare to claim that I have a deeper walk with God, and more insight to Him, than did Paul.

This will no doubt be called "judgmental." But God judges. He forgives, He transforms, but in the end He also judges. If we are willing to confess sin, He forgives; but "if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." Redefining sin from what the New Testament consistently teaches is simply heresy; and its teaching on homosexuality is consistent. Its teaching on slavery. . . well, in neither the Old nor the New Testament is slave-owning counted as righteousness. Acceptable, maybe, but not holy. That's just apples to oranges.

as christians we should be loving the sinners but not the sin - in accepting GLBTQ and their lifestyle, are we crossing the fine line of loving the sin as well?

is homosexuality a sin? it is pretty clear in the bible - read about sodom and gomorrah - read leviticus.

The Bible says that "the two shall become one flesh" I don't think God ment two men. Marriage is a Holy union. Many on the left whant to separate church and state. But when it comes to this one they want inside the church. I recomend a book named ,How christianity changed the world, by Alvin Schmidt. It takes us from the horrible savages we where before christ came. And how his influence have changed the western world. But that in the last half of this century we are beginning to go back to the lack of sanctety of human life (abortion) and sexual depravity. We must be careful with what we except in our society. If we legalize it, it will be taught in school as normal.

Tony Jones sounds very confused. To "sanction and bless" those involved in GLBTQ lifestyles is to declare their sexuality beyond (and not in need of) redemption. It is to endorse and normalize behavior, that, in many instances, these people wish to escape from. It is to declare that they are beyond needing ministry. Tony should do some research on how many lifetime monogamous couples (or "triples" in the case of bi-sexuals, I guess) actually exist among those who practice the lifestyle. He will be shocked at how few he is basing his shallow argument on. The Emerging movement deserves better.

It's one man's view and that does not mean that all of what Emergent churches stand for should be condemned. As in everything, we need to evaluate what people say against Scripture and this one is very clear biblically.

Cornelia Seigneur

RDM:

RE: Bisexuality

I think you might be a bit fuzzy on how you define sexuality.

Bisexuality doesn't mean there is a necessary polyamorous stance in the world.

Emergent has jumped the shark.

I don't think its about accepting them as people. We should accept all as Jesus did. Just not the sin as Jesus didn't. Where the church got it wrong in times past is they didn't love the sinner and hate the sin - they showed the sinner hate too (remember those that picketed funerals when one died of AIDS). But those days are long gone and should be. They are a huge black mark on the church. However - we still shouldn't condone sin. But remembering that we all do sin at times and we all need God's grace, we shall not sin more to have grace abound more...

I am thankful for Tony Jones's essay on this subject. I much prefer his honesty to his previous disingenuousness, which was echoed by McLaren, Campolo, et. al. My guess is that this is a revealing of what has always been a core belief rather than an announcement of a new position.

It is inevitable that the Emergents, or any other "movement," will have to draw distinctions, whether those lines in the sand are represented by Jones or not. This will enable Christians who observe from a distance to discern whether would-be leaders are embracing truth or error.

There is really no debate needed on this subject. It is as clear as the sin of murder. It is an attempt of satan to destroy Gods creation, using his most powerful weapon, "lust." God said be fruitful and multiply. Leviticus 20:13 makes it crystal clear. Man lying with man
is called an abomination and the sentence was death. It is a deviation of Divine Order and Purpose. Repentence and deliverance is needed.

1ST - I knew Tony as a teenager and have been pleasantly and happily surprised at his growing influence.
2nd - I appreciate his struggle with the issues of defining right and wrong belief and behavior.
3rd - I'm confused at what will become the basis for Tony's saying "No" to anything for any belief or behavior. And that also leaves his "Yes" as apparently highly personal, experiential and subjective. Can I trust either? With no outside foundation for authority, it seems to become just one person's word against, or for, another with no lasting, common point of reference. And that leaves me with an empty feeling of meaninglessness. :(

Preachersmith, there are actually two questions involved here: that of gay marriage, and that of gay ordination. I'm discussing the latter, which involves judgment of the prospective minister's character. Scripture is very clear that Christians practicing sin should be forbidden from participating in the Church.

As for gay marriage, I do not condone it in the least. However, I'm beginning to believe that government has no right to forbid it. I do think an individual Justice of the Peace or cleric should have the right to decline to perform a ceremony based on morality. And of course such a ceremony would be a valid reason to forbid the couple from participating in the Church.

BTW, GLBTQ, may take the narrow, thorny, rugged, uphill, long and winding, less traveled road, that can make all the difference – Celibacy.

The lonely journey is fueled by the fusion of the calling of the Promised Land outweighing the calling of the famished gland.

Julia Duin, whose conversation with the editor led to a column in the March 26, 1986 Christianity Today titled “Celebrating Celibacy” wrote in her book “Purity Makes the Heart Grow Stronger: Sexuality and the Single Christian”:

“Our commitment to a chaste, single existence is a risk, a gamble that as Christians we can be content there. ‘Voluntary chastity,’ writes Groeschel, ‘is not a vocation for the faint-hearted.’ He points out that persons who mock chastity – and there are plenty – will in the next breath express admiration for Mother Teresa, not realizing that the nature of her work obligates her to be chaste. Mother Teresa has managed to draw a large number of single, chaste women into her order, the Missionary Sisters of Charity, to spend their lives on the poor and unwanted. Describing these women in a recent documentary on her life, Mother Teresa said, ‘The person who Christ has chosen for himself: she knows. Maybe she doesn’t know how to express it, but she knows.’”

Some of us may look at some of the GLBTQ like the “Beast,” crippled and hunched back. But the “Beauty” of God’s love looks at them through the pure eyes and sweet mouth of a child intimating to his crippled hunched back friend, “Do you know what is on your back? It is the box that holds your wings, and someday God is going to break it open, and you will fly away to be an angel.”

Awaiting them at the finish line is a crown called “Royal Priesthood”.

This discussion is enlightening and disturbing. The emergent subjectivity in the aproach toward truth has created an inability to state anything clearly. Words in the "past" have had clear understood meanings. In discussions or cross-cultural exchanges where words were not clearly understood the need was to clarify meaning for the purpose of the discussion.

The discussion process has broken down to discounting the meaning of words, changing the meaning to whatever we feel like, and ignoring words meanings altogether in order to become "relevant" with a society in confusion.

The process of thought, study, truth and discussion has apparently lost to the forces of self expression and personal belief.

Feel free in that case to take my post in any way you like. There are no apparent limits to the confusion and reinterpreting of what words mean.

I am obviously (to me at least) limited to my love and faith in the Word of God and in the truth revealed from heaven in clear and meaningful words that are meant to 'change' us not be changed by us.

***Editor's Note***

For those concerned about what the "Q" stands for in GLBTQ, my editorial research has concluded that it sometimes stands for "Queer" and at other times "Questioning." This has also been confirmed by Wikipedia (and we all know Wikipedia is never wrong). I have amended the post to reflect both meanings.

Can anyone post a link to his blog where he states this? I can't seem to find it.

It is interesting to note that while Tony Jones uses the term "benefits" to describe what the culture and the church may confer upon persons of all persuasion the underlying assumption of nearly all posts is that discipline itself whether ecclesial or civil is not a benefit. I am not sure what Tony has in mind when he employs the term (he may well agree that a benefit cannot include a sanction) and yet any parent knows that correction is as intrinsic to parenting as permission. True "benefits" not only our satisfy desires they redirect disordered desires. It used to be called sanctification.

Troublesome and disturbing, but unfortunately not surprising.