The Muhammad Seminar?

Two years ago, the Washington Post reported that Turkey's religious leaders planned to issue a revised version of the ahadith which will remove anything which is misogynistic, patriarchal or just plain nasty. According to Today, the job is very nearly complete.

The Post article quotes a few rather vile examples of the kind of thing the scholars want to get rid of, but what interested me was a quotation from one of these scholars, a feminist theologian called Hidayet Tuksal, who said,

I can't imagine a prophet who bullies women. The hadiths that portray him so should be abandoned.

This is the sort of scholarship that gave us Funk and Crossan: it conflicts with my idea of what Muhammad was, so it can't be true. The funny part is that the ahadith aren't strictly binding on Muslims; they're about as canonical as, say, the Shopping List of St. Paul to the Tescos. All they'd need to do is say that everyone has moved on since then, and no-one would be any the worse off.

The other fun quotation from the article was

Since [the 1980s], a flourishing Muslim bourgeoisie has emerged, and members are wittily called "Islamic Calvinists" for their religiously inspired capitalism.

Who said no news is good news?

Mandatory DNA database rejected (BBC)

The Home Office minister spoke to the BBC, squashing any notion that a DNA database would be made mandatory. Over-night, I thought about my idea a bit more and realised that the Sex Offenders' Register is for life, so there's no reason why serious offenders (murder, rape and the like) shouldn't have their DNA taken for life, too.

Tate & Lyle sugar to be Fairtrade (BBC)

After the sugar, they hope to have their entire range Fairtrade-accredited by 2009. This is a great news for farmers in the developing world, and I can well understand why the Fairtrade Foundation could be over the moon this morning. As if that wasn't enough, this also means that my Tate & Lyle shares are now my favourites: not only are they the only ones showing a capital gain [not that that means much over such a short time-frame], but they're also the most ethical.

When should the police have our DNA?

Independently, two brutal sexual murderers were convicted today, in large part thanks to the wonders of DNA evidence. Some police have said that they would like a national database of DNA which they could use to find criminals more quickly. The country needs to have a serious discussion about this: DNA really does some amazing work in investigations and trials. But do we need a universal national database?

By the police's own admission, such a database would never stop such crimes, but may speed up arrest and conviction. So there is no direct preventive effect, unless an increased likelihood of conviction deterred potential offenders. Moreover, our DNA is one of the most personal things we have, and I for one would feel my privacy had been violated if someone took a sample of my DNA without my permission and checked it against a database of scene-of-crime samples. That goes for being registered on such a database from birth, too.

The question is simply, at what point can the law force people to hand over a DNA sample? While I don't have full knowledge of all the mechanics of police investigation, I think there are two basic classes of evidence: the freely-given and the forcibly obtained. In my view, DNA should be treated on those terms.

If someone agrees to give a sample to allow the police to eliminate them from their enquiries with regard to a specific crime, then the sample should be used for that purpose, and that purpose alone; and it should be destroyed once there is no further need of it. No questions, no fuss. They have co-operated with a police enquiry, and the police must respect the individual's privacy. If the police don't co-operate with that person's wishes, they will rapidly find that the second part of the traditional British formula of policing by consent breaks down.

If, on the other hand, someone is convicted of a crime—accepting that there will need to be some caveats to avoid abuse—then they have lost, to an extent, their right to privacy. In particular, I think it entirely justifiable that an imprisoned criminal be forced, as part of his punishment, to give a DNA sample, to remain on a database until the end of his sentence, even beyond any early release from prison. Thus, if he has committed other crimes, he can be found out quickly, and even while he is on parole or early release, his DNA will remain on the database and he will the more easily be caught should he commit a crime in that period. Beyond his sentence, of course, he is to be treated as an innocent member of society and his DNA samples must fall back into the first category of freely-given.

It seems to me that this solution recognises that there is no direct preventive effect from a DNA database, its invasive aspect, and also its investigatory benefits, by making enforced DNA sampling a punitive measure. Why isn't anyone talking about it?

Which Jesus tells your story?

The book of Ecclesiasticus concludes with a prayer of Jesus the son of Sirach. In it, he says,

Draw near to me, ye unlearned, and gather yourselves together into the hours of discipline. Why are ye slow and what do you say of these things? your souls are exceeding thirsty. I have opened my mouth, and have spoken: buy [wisdom] for yourselves without silver, and submit your neck to the yoke, and let your soul receive discipline: for she is near at hand to be found. Behold with your eyes how I have laboured a little, and have found much rest to myself. (Ecclus. 51:31–35)

He has gone in this vein for some while, and continues in it a little further, before concluding,

Work your work before the time, and he will give you your reward in his time.

This Jesus is someone who has no time for the slow, and will only deal with those among the unlearned who wish to be taught. He attained wisdom from God as a reward for his patient yearning and praying, and will in turn dispense her to those who will learn. Wisdom is a matter which is, fundamentally, up to us to achieve. And so if we do our works, God will reward them. What a note to sound as a conclusion to one's book!

But there is, as we know, another Jesus. This Jesus is he who said,

I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. (Matt. 11:25–30)

Can you hear the difference? Jesus, son of Sirach was a child who sought wisdom and was granted it as a reward; Jesus, son of God declares that the Father hides his wisdom from the wise and grants it freely to little children. The son of Sirach reveals wisdom to those who seek it; the son of God reveals wisdom to those he seeks. The son of Sirach tells the unlearned to draw near and learn; the son of God offers the weary and the heavy-laden heart's rest for hard trouble. The son of Sirach lays upon his hearers a heavy yoke of self-attainment and reward; the son of God gives his people the lightest yoke of gracious gift.

Which Jesus tells your story?

An interesting point

I'd not thought of it this way before.

Government is a very large,very diverse conglomerate covering innumerable areas of expertise — agriculture, broadcasting, defence, child welfare, employment, energy, pensions, policing, prisons, sports, taxation.

Only a few people such as Arnold Weinstock of GEC, Owen Green of BTR, and James Hanson of Hanson Trust, have run successful conglomerates, but no conglomerate since the war has survived intact for more than five years after the retirement of the person who provided the driving force behind it. No one person could understand the needs of the customers, nor the means of satisfying them, for such a complex array of services that are currently managed by politicians. The only reason government has survived, however poor the result, is because it provides protected monopoly services.
(Source; emphasis theirs)

Please note that I'm not defending the entire document, and certainly not every political position or viewpoint held by the publishing organisation. But the specific point, which simply relates to the question of whether government is the most effective way to deliver its services, is quite a good one. Government is a monopoly, maintained by the force of law, and it does a heck of a lot of things. If it were a private company, it would probably have been bankrupted or broken up by now.

In a sense, this relates to some of my concerns about the Northern Rock fiasco, as well as the business about public listing I went into here. The Government will be exempting the Rock from freedom of information in order that commercially-sensitive secrets can be maintained. But, because the Rock isn't publicly-listed, there will be no obligation on the company to publish its books or be open to general scrutiny. In short, the Government could treat the Rock as private equity has treated other companies, and we'd be none the wiser. This is described, and I've used the phrase, as "public ownership" but there's a very real sense in which the Rock is leaving public ownership and is entering private ownership.

And it relates, then, in this way: why do we assume that government is the way to solve all our problems, especially of an economic nature? If the market couldn't find a solution to the Rock's crumbling finances, why should we think that government will manage?

Banking (Special Provisions): worse than it sounds

Not content with simply nationalising the Northern Rock, the Government is passing a bill with a far wider remit. The rumour has turned out to be true: the Government will be able to nationalise, by order, any "authorised UK deposit-taker", which is basically a retail bank, 1 [1]. In fact, it will also be able to transfer control to any "body corporate" it wishes, 3.(1d) 6.(1b). The Government is also insisting that to determine compensation, the basis for calculation will assume that all state support had been withdrawn and will not be forthcoming, 5.(4) 7.(3a). There are some aims and objectives set out for any nationalisation, 2.(2)-(5), but they probably mean very little in practice. About the only saving grace is a "sunset clause" which limits the duration of the Act-once-passed to a year, 2(8).

But it's far wider than necessary. Why "any body corporate"? Does Alistair Darling want to set up a corporation sole and make Barclays his private plaything or something? And why any bank? Does the Government seriously expect to have to do this for more than the Rock? And anyway, this mess has gone on for about eight months; who's to say the next won't take longer? It's a horrible bit of legislation, and I don't trust the Brown brigade not to quietly revoke 2.(8) when they get the chance.

The Government could have passed a very tightly-defined bill nationalising the Rock and the Rock alone. It could have made it clear that they would go to Parliament if they needed to do it again, as nationalising a bank "must not be undertaken carelessly, lightly, or selfishly, but reverently, responsibly, and after serious thought" [2].

I feel another Sir Humphrey quote coming on:

If you must do this damn silly thing, don't do it in this damn silly way.

[1] John, if you're reading this, what's the proper style for referencing bits of statutes?
[2] Have an e-biscuit if you get that.

It'll end in tears, mark my words

The saga unfolds, as does the Rock's balance sheet, probably. So the tax-payer is now exposed to twice the liability he was before, according to the fount of irresponsible press speculation, Robert Peston. I assume that means twice the net liability, since the state will take control of all the assets, off-setting a large amount of the borrowing. But just think: this is what a "fair deal for taxpayers" amounts to. Of course, I don't pay tax so, my inexplicably bilious views of this débâcle notwithstanding, I can watch as other people's money is wasted.

The shareholders will, after all, be compensated with a sum determined as "fair" by an independent valuer, which shows that someone in Her Majesty's Trickery has some idea of what's involved in order to avoid actually nicking the company wholesale. I should have said that Friday's close of 90p, putting the value of all the shares at about £380mn, was probably a reasonable figure. Surely that's the most democratic way to decide?

But why on earth didn't the Government just leave it to go to the wall? The City was quite content to be let play with the matches; they have to learn that they may get their fingers burnt. So rather than public ownership, we should have a system of public receivership like the US. It's not the Government's job to get involved in the system, it's there to ensure a level playing field.

The referee has just started kicking the ball around, and no-one's quite sure whose side he's on.

In the week's news…

Govt to speed up land redistribution (Mail & Guardian, SA)

South Africa has been expropriating land to be distributed to black farmers, presumably following the storming success of a similar policy in Zimbabwe. The reference to foreign ownership regulation was part of a package, according to the BBC, of regulations which would require the owners of land to register their nationality and ethnicity. Then foreign and white owners of land would be required to sell first to black South Africans.

There are times you can do little more than quote Yes, Minister.

Sir Humphrey: He's also against oppression and persecution in Africa.
Hacker: Well, so are we.
Sir Humphrey: But he's against it when it's practised by black governments as well as white ones.
Hacker: Oh… so he's a racist?

US plans missile launch to destroy rogue spy satellite (The Guardian)

The US have a spy satellite which is expected to crash into the Earth, unless stopped, next month. To stop it, they plan to fire a missile at it, breaking it into little pieces which should burn up rather than going haywire and hitting who knows what with its toxic fuel. It would probably be the sea, of course, but it's better not to take any chances.

Given that the Chinese blew up a 'dead' weather satellite recently amid protest from the US, people have been asking about the double standard. The US' deputy national security advisor said, "This is all about trying to reduce the danger to human beings." Well, yes; but it's also very convenient.

UK supermarkets set for shake-up (BBC)

The Competition Commission has released its report, making recommendations for preserving a competitive environment for food retail. The report is rumoured to contain provisions forcing supermarkets to stop behaving restrictively with respect to their land banks (holding onto land solely to stop development, selling land with contractual clauses against building new supermarkets), and Today was reporting on the effect—or not—that all this may have on independent retailers. Robert Peston (yeah, him) said on the programme that neither side would emerge terribly happy about the proposals.

I should hope not: if the Competition Commission makes anyone happy, it's a sign they've just reduced competition. It's not the job of the Commission to help any sort of business; it exists solely to help competition. And that's good, isn't it? I mean, if people want to pay over the odds for free-range cucumbers, they have that choice. But I can't afford organic mineral water, so I'll stick with the cheap place just round the corner.

While I'm on a roll…

…here's a bit of the Didache I'd like to propose for inclusion in 3 Corinthians, if we ever get round to writing it. From the conclusion of chapter sixteen,

But whoever saith in the Spirit, Give me money, or something else, ye shall not listen to him.

O televangelists, learn from our forefathers in the faith. In fact: O saps who watch televangelists, learn from our forefathers.

It's like Pringles!

Scott Clark, of the Heidelblog, linked to an article discussing the future of the Christian Reformed Church in the United States, which is revising its form for confessional subscription. Would that evangelical churches in the UK had confessions to subscribe to, and forms to revise; but I digress.

The basic point is that the liberals in the CRC have, as with other denominations, done their hatchet work and are positioning themselves to administer the coup de grâce, which is to say, the evisceration of the form of subscription. It appears it'll be the usual liberal trick of saying, in effect, "this is something this denomination used to believe." Once you get that through, the dishonest liberals who lied their way in can regularise their positions, and the honest ones who stayed away can now join in the wrecking party.

And what's part of the rationale for the change? Well, as usual, it's changing circumstances and changing culture. In particular, Rev. William Veenstra of Ancaster, ON, was interviewed as citing "issues of technology or abortion [and] racial reconciliation," in favour of the change. Issues such as technology, because we only invented anything in the last hundred or so years. Issues such as racial reconciliation, which haven't been a live issue since the Zeroth Ecumenical Council of Jerusalem, nosiree. And abortion; the fact that Christians have been opposed to abortion since the Didache isn't relevant to the issue, I imagine.

Revisionism is like Pringles: once you've popped, you just can't stop.

Making it up as we go along?

Or, how Anglicans get it wrong and Baptists just don't get it.

Does God care about how we worship him when we are gathered as his people? [1]

Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, which he had not commanded them. And fire came out from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord. (Lev. 10:1–2)

But when [Uzziah] was strong, he grew proud, to his destruction. For he was unfaithful to the Lord his God and entered the temple of the Lord to burn incense on the altar of incense. But Azariah the priest went in after him, with eighty priests of the Lord who were men of valor, and they withstood King Uzziah and said to him, “It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the Lord, but for the priests, the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense. Go out of the sanctuary, for you have done wrong, and it will bring you no honor from the Lord God.” Then Uzziah was angry. Now he had a censer in his hand to burn incense, and when he became angry with the priests, leprosy broke out on his forehead in the presence of the priests in the house of the Lord, by the altar of incense. And Azariah the chief priest and all the priests looked at him, and behold, he was leprous in his forehead! And they rushed him out quickly, and he himself hurried to go out, because the Lord had struck him. And King Uzziah was a leper to the day of his death, and being a leper lived in a separate house, for he was excluded from the house of the Lord. And Jotham his son was over the king's household, governing the people of the land. (2 Chron. 26:16–21)

Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it. (Deut. 12:32)

It seems rather hard to conclude that Israel was free to make up her gathered worship as she went along. If Israel was weak and unable to determine how to worship God aright, what makes us any better? If God gave Israel principles and commands concerning gathered worship, has he not also given us such principles and commands?

Of course, some of those principles carry over from worship under the former administration, but we have to be careful. For example, Christ's one sacrifice has rendered any attempt to offer a further atoning sacrifice blasphemous; but we do seek forgiveness on the basis of God's promise just as Israel did.

So what principles are there which we find? From the Old Testament, there is the seeking of forgiveness and the offering of support to the work of the church. The mere existence of the book of Psalms, as well as our knowledge of its use, tells us that corporate singing is to be expected in our gatherings, and Paul repeats this in the New Testament. Ezra sat down and taught the people from the Law of God, and we ought to be taught from God's word today, being devoted to the apostles' teaching. Clearly this requires the public reading of Scripture. Apart from the apostles' teaching and the concomitant reading of Scripture, Luke also mentions the fellowship, which may be supported in the offerings as well as the ritual consumption of Coffee and Biscuits; the breaking of bread, which we may take as a synecdoche for the sacraments; and prayer, which is obvious enough and also comes from the Old Testament worship. This pretty much covers the range of things we put in our services; but given that all things must be in order, how do we structure them?

Well, the Bible doesn't lay down a specific order, of course, so we are free to vary it as appropriate, but there are some general principles which ought to inform our structuring, and these flow from an understanding of what the church is, with regard to the Gospel. The church, you see, is the people God has gathered by his word. Thus, our gatherings occur by the calling of God, and we respond. The structure may seem dialogical, but it is always God who speaks first. In what follows, I'll give a model order, which isn't to be followed slavishly but rather demonstrate that there are things which are moveable (notably, songs and prayers, and to an extent, Scripture readings) and things which must be fixed.

It is right, therefore, to open the service with a call to worship from Scripture. And having been called, we respond, in song or perhaps in prayer. What then?

Before we reach the word of God's grace, we must hear his Law. Therefore, it is proper that the Law be read: either the Ten Commandments, or else the Lord's summary of the Law. The only proper response to God's Law is to confess our sin and manifold wickedness; and God's promised response, which all Christ's servants have the authority to proclaim, is forgiveness. We respond in song, perhaps, and more fittingly after a confession of sin, a confession of faith. The content for this is customary, but of course, the Bible doesn't require us to use an ecumenical creed. You may argue that the Bible doesn't require us to confess our faith. I would counter that this is an elaborate "Amen" to God's word of forgiveness: we believe that you forgive us, God, because we believe you have shown yourself to be this God.

If there is only one Scripture reading, then it is appropriate to place it here; if there is more than one, they may need to be distributed somewhat more widely. Having come from a tradition in which "This is the word of the Lord: thanks be to God" was not a common feature of worship, although the front-led "May God bless the reading of his word today" was, I've come to understand and appreciate the reasoning behind that particular response to God's word. That, or something similar, is good to use, to involve the congregation in an immediate response to God's word. Then we respond more fully, perhaps in song, and certainly (because they must go somewhere…) in prayers on intercession.

And then we reach the sermon. Oh, this is the fun one. If the sermon is declaring God's word to us, then it must be declaring the Law in all its sharpness and the Gospel in all its sweetness, surely. And having so heard God's gospel once again, we respond with offerings of thanksgiving and song.

If Communion is celebrated, then we continue through the dialogical structure: God calls us to his table, we respond in song and prayer, Christ tells us that before us are set his body and blood and then feeds us, and then we sing or pray in thanksgiving.

Finally, God blesses us as we depart. Wot, no response? you ask.

We respond by living lives of thankful service throughout the week.

[1] If I use the word "worship" loosely here, I am referring to our gathered worship as the people of God, and not to worship in the sense of the whole life lived. This, certainly, is our spiritual act of worship and the spiritual sacrifice acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (Rom. 12:2, 1 Pet. 2:5). And as you will see, what we do on Monday is firmly linked to what happens on Sunday.

A non-violent atonement?

I've been reading, some time after the fact, some discussion on penal substitutionary atonement and the notion of a "non-violent atonement". The theory of non-violence, as far as I can make out, is a re-heated form of the Grotian governmental theory, in which Jesus suffers as the satisfaction of our sinful, violent desire to see a victim. Classical Grotianism, as you will know, posited that God demonstrated the sinfulness of sin in the death of Christ. I presume that in this modified form, God demonstrated our injustice. But quite apart from its flagrantly unbiblical nature, there are some big problems with this approach to the cross.

Firstly and chiefly, it is simply another attempt to justify the ways of God to man [1]. The idea that God should require a man to die for his sin is unpalatable to some people, and they will try to get out of the difficulty by hook or by crook. They cannot worship the God of Scripture, whose righteous anger is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness, so they try to strip away his justice and leave only his grace. But that will not work, for such a god could never be both just and the justifier of him who has faith in Christ.

Secondly, it is fundamentally antinomian. God, as he is revealed in his holy law, is terrifying: in his justice, he demands the proper punishment for sin from each one of us. To deny that this is true is to deny what the Law tells us is true, and this is the heart of antinomianism. How can someone with a firm belief in this "non-violent atonement" understand or preach the Law as God's (alien) word? And how, then, can they truly understand or preach the Gospel as God's (proper) word?

Thirdly, this idea fails to recognise God as God. The idea of a non-violent atonement is bound up in the philosophy of libertarian free will, since a god who is non-violent is also a god who doesn't impose himself. He doesn't want to do violence to the will of his creatures, and so he won't bring any of them into fellowship. As one proponent put it,

By making the first move toward reconciliation with us, God incarnate as the only genuinely innocent party in history, opened up the possibility of reconciliation within God’s cosmic creation. (Source)

Notice that: God made the first move, he opened up the possibility. It's up to us, now. This god is the Bad Physician who will do us no pain, even in our own better interests. Thompson's "hound of heaven," and Lewis' "dejected and reluctant convert," both alike are fictions. This, above all else, is why I say that the god of the non-violent atonement cannot save anyone.

Fourthly and finally, the name (chosen by its advocates, not by me) is utterly mis-leading. The atonement, whether we like it or not, is violent. If you're really committed to the notion of a non-violent atonement, then take up Jainism or something. But if you're convinced it's God-in-Christ who takes the atoning initiative, then you'd better accept his way of doing it.

However, to say what I did of the Law is not to tell the full story. Indeed, the stories of punishment from the Old Testament, illustrations as they are of the terror that is God's just punishment, cannot be told apart from the story of the cross. For it is in this story that we learn of Jesus, the head of the new humanity who, as lead defendant in our case, bore fully the sentence handed down by the Father so that the curse would be spent, and we could inherit the righteous report given to Christ in his resurrection.

The terrors of Law and of God
with me can have nothing to do;
my Saviour's obedience and blood
hide all my transgressions from view.

[1] Goodness knows we Reformed get accused of this enough, and sometimes it's a correct criticism. I'll try to watch where I point this thing, because it's been pointed at us enough times.

But what did she say?

There was once a minister whose burning desire was to see his whole congregation love the Lord. A worthy goal, indeed. He decided that the way to approach this subject was to preach on the necessity of loving Jesus, loving him fervently and loving him totally. He took as his text the story of the rich young man, Matt. 19:16–30, and delivered a sermon structured around those very three headings.

In his congregation that morning, as every Sunday morning, was a young lady who was working in the city, living far from home. And in the mysterious movement of providence, this week a new congregant turned up, a young chap who had moved to the city not six days earlier. Handsome, funny, gentle, intelligent—and best of all, he clearly liked her. Taking "Faint heart never" as his motto, he asked her out on that Monday, and the following evening, she plucked up the courage to ring her extremely protective parents.

"Dad, I've met this guy—" she began, although she got little further.

"Oh really? Is he nice? Will we like him?" demanded the father.

Oh dear, she thought, How am I going to convince them?

Socialist ends, capitalist means?

It's one of the better principles of communism that the means of production should be in the hands of the workers. Honestly, it is: I'd much sooner that ownership of companies and so on was as widely-distributed as possible. It's more open, it's more equitable, it's more transparent.

But to my mind, it is impolitic and immoral to attempt to enforce such a state of affairs. You can't simply take a company, which an individual owns and has worked to build up, and give it to someone else, or even a group of Someone Elses. The rule of law and the principle of free exchange should apply. On that basis, I contend that if you try to construct a situation in which the principle of free exchange and the rule of law are maintained, and in which ownership of industry is as open as is practical, then you end up with something quite abhorrent to communists and a good many socialists: you get capitalism, with a twist.

What is this twist? It is that workers are also shareholders, not necessarily in their own companies, but in companies in general, and they are active shareholders who vote in meetings and hold the directors to account. The twist tells us that the system is roughly sound, give or take; it's the people who are wrong. In the communist dream, the workers have over-thrown society, wresting control of industry from its lawful owners, and used force to achieve their ends. In my scenario, the worker-shareholders have respected the rule of law, engaged in free exchange and crucially, they have worked to achieve their goals.

The idea for this post was brought to you by the rather dopey comments of Tony Woodley, joint general secretary of Unite, who was reported in the Guardian calling for a "windfall tax" on Shell's latest profits thus:

"Shell shareholders are doing very nicely whilst the rest of us, the stakeholders, are paying the price and struggling," said Woodley. "Record profits of over £13.5bn at Shell and cumulative oil industry profits in excess of £50bn in the past three years are, quite frankly, obscene. It is time the government acted." (Source)

Memo to Tony: you and your members could be Shell shareholders too, you know.