I’ve finally got there. I’ve finally got the balance between trying to be gracious, and being angry. And if you believe that, then you’ll know I’m also the Queen of Sheba, Wimbledon Ladies Champion, and a Visiting Professor at Oxford University (well, if I’m going for wish fulfilment I might as well aim high).
There’s the give-away in that second sentence. I am angry, I am trying to be gracious. It’s a shame it’s not the other way round. I’m trying to keep calm and carry on in the face of discrimination by my beloved Church of England. Yes, I knew what I was signing up for. No, I didn’t know what it would feel like – and I say that after twenty years in the energy industry. Because, with my engineering degree, and my MBA, by doing a good job, other doors opened. They sometimes took longer than others, acceptance into new jobs sometimes took a while, but I always got there, I always became part of the team on my own merits. The only bar on my career was that imposed by my own imagination, and by the limitations of my abilities.
I don’t mind being limited by my abilities. I have a very dodgy ankle, which means I couldn’t make it through a knock up at my local court, let alone a tennis tournament – at any level. I don’t mind that I didn’t have the kind of brain which wanted to run market research, or call centres. I like being a bit of a geek, who loves graphs and maps and process diagrams. I like a lot of who I am.
But now here I am in an institution which tells me I have a calling, but I am limited in the places in which I can follow it. People who don’t fancy the idea of a woman priest can pronounce a theological objection (really, I don’t think there are many who object on theological grounds, if pressed) and never ever even make the effort to see if they can work with me or not. And no matter how it’s dressed up, that comes down to having a vagina not a penis. This isn’t trying to limit me based on my ability or my imagination or my discerned calling. This is limiting me with a huge part of my fundamental identity.
Twenty years in the energy industry taught me, really really taught me, that gender doesn’t matter, that what matters is getting the right person with the right abilities in the right place with the right resources and the right people around them. That if those things come together, human beings achieve amazing things, and have a lot of fun at the same time.
So I’m angry. The secular world gets it. I just wish Christian institutions got it too.
This post has broken my rule of trying to be gracious, of trying to listen to others. I’ve listened really hard, and all I can hear is the shouting of old arguments. I’ve heard them about women bishops, I’ve heard them about how women clergy dress (oh grow up and get over it) and I’ve heard them about who can and can’t teach others under particular conditions. I’ve heard them, and I’ve had enough. I’ve gone to the dark side and joined those who shout.
You may wonder where this leaves my desire to serve all those in my community as a parish priest. Alive and kicking, don’t worry. Because we asked our congregations what they thought. The one person who doesn’t want women bishops ever (and also had the decency to sign his name to the statement, which I think is gracious in itself) takes communion at my hands. There are a small number who either weren’t in church to respond, or who take home communion, who will not accept women priests or bishops. But the vast vast majority are supportive.
In the parishes, I’ve never been turned down for a baptism or wedding – which are randomly assigned, and I note they generally involve people in the younger half of the population at large. I’ve had a couple of funerals mooted where the family decided they wanted a man (before they met me), and know that funeral directors do a fair amount of filtering before deciding which clergy to contact – but funerals inherently tend to be for the older part of the population.
I’m still not joining any organisations, but I might just get louder. This situation in the Church of England is blatant discrimination, and it shouldn’t be allowed to continue.
I’m leaving comments open, but will remove any that tell me to calm down, or that I’m being shrill, or that I’m doing my cause no good by shouting, unless they suggest constructive, practical alternative courses of action.
Rev'd Claire 
Well said. I vacillate between fury and trying to be understanding. It’s pretty exhausting. I’ve been turned down for 2 funerals in the 2 years I’ve been here and we have a very sick parishioner who is determined not to die when Fab TI is away in case I might do the funeral. But I can live with that. It’s an unjust world. Wish it was a more just church.
Working as I do in a parish which has a lot of mixed marriages Catholic/Anglican (I’ve never used the term protestant in anything other than ‘the opposite of Catholic’ abroad until I came here!) I’ve made the point of asking when I ring to book a funeral visit if it’s ok if it’s me, and have never yet met with anything other than absolute welcome. Indeed one very sweet example of the Catholic widow saying her husband would have been delighted, as he’d spent many years trying to persuade her mother women priests would be ok!
Well done also for being angry. My TI told me last week not ever to apologise for being passionate – we need more not less in the church. Righteous anger from someone presuming to reduce your identity in God to what they feel is truth is entitled to hurt. I’ve struggled to get beyond hurt to angry, but I’m also struggling to keep gracious. I made the mistake of browsing some of the other ‘resources’ on the UCCF site this morning and find myself finding it trickier and trickier to work out how graciously providing whilst denigrating ourselves and those who want our ministry can possibly work out positively….hang in there. Big hugs for honesty xx
Well said, Claire. I am not a priest but a Reader, and I have had someone walk out the first time I got up to preach, and get up from the altar rail rather than receive communion at my hands.
That tells me this is not about sacramental assurance or headship – the ‘theological objections’, since neither was relevant in my case; it is about a deep fear of the words and touch of women, which is primitive and irrational, and has no place in the modern church. I wrote, as asked, to my bishop to comment on the result of the synod vote and said it is about time the leadership of the C of E came off the fence and said this.
You have shown in your last few points that you are being gracious – but be angry too. Anger at unjust situations, channelled into activity is right. We have Jesus’ example for that.
I couldn’t agree more about “theological objections”. I’m saddened by your experience – as by some of mine.
It bemuses me that the Church of England has “done” the theology, and agreed that there is no bar in principle, and yet people are still trying to revisit those arguments.
Many thanks for your comment.
Well said Claire – the church needs all of you right now including your passion and your anger. If Jesus can be angry at injustice, so can you. End of.
I think you’re right, and perfectly justified in what you say. It’s about time we all got angry about this, in my view. Mind you, as you know, I’ve always been on the dark side. Then again, God isn’t afraid of the dark! Lots of hugs from me xxx
If all the women working to ensure that everything ran smoothly week in, week out; the choristers, the servers, crucifers, sidesmen, PCC members, cleaners, caterers, etc. didn’t do these acts of service, the good old C of E would collapse.
Just adding, I dislike the term ‘sidesperson’ , also I accept that there are male church cleaners (my dear husband is one). In almost all cases of female clergy I have known I would go to them if I had a problem, whether spiritual or secular, certainly rather than our present parish priest and some of his predecessors too.
It’s interesting to hear your change of direction from gracious, if reluctant acceptance to a form of passionate anger which becomes you.
You have been a lot calmer than many others that I have read, and when the writing is measured, calm and reflective, it;s worth reading. But if it is spiteful and a bit hysterical, I don’t bother. And, I certainly wouldn’t share it.
You know my views. I always recruited the best person for the job when I was working – whether for a military post or a civilian one. I can remember having to interview two female candidates for a job. One was white and one was Asian. The Asian lady was the stronger and the preferred candidate for the panel (I was chairing) and got the job.
I was than accused of reverse discrimination by the While lady, who said that I we had made a token gesture. I was really angry about this.
I overheard a conversation that she was having with another work colleague when she said this. I could have ignored it, but stepped straight in and told her that was she was saying was offensive both to my integrity and implied that she had a racial bias in her judgement. and attitude. She was shocked that I would challenge her – “I was only joking she said”. I had to point out that such jokes are not acceptable in any circumstances. If it came to my attention again, further action would follow.
This is perhaps symptomatic of people, whose prejudices would normally be hidden, but are prepared to air them when they believe that they are safe, out of earshot – this sort of conduct undermines people, is pure spite and gossip. I dislike it and am I afraid, will not tolerate it from anyone. Does that make me intolerant? I don’t see it that way. I feel a similar form of anger that you do – that people are unable to accept others for who and what they are – and I find this difficult to accept in a Christian context.
I hear quite often that those who can’t accept the ministry of women are working with them in ministry or across deaneries or dioceses – but I find it difficult to see how such, supposedly serious objections to the ministry of women allows them to do so, unless the Grace of God is working. If Grace can work in this context, why can’t they allow it to work in the context of Women as Bishops? It doesn’t add up to me?
Sorry for the rant, but you’ve drawn me out of my closet.
I’m very glad to hear your (not ranting) rant too!
I firmly believe that’s God’s grace is working extra hard in all this mess somewhere.
It’s good to be angry sometimes and you have every right to be as am I. Please don’t be angry at men for what has happened. In our Diocese the majority of the laity who voted against we’re women.
I’ve been working with men for 25 years Dave, and I’ve not been put off them yet. Don’t worry, I like people, lay and ordained.
Many thanks to all for comments, and for support.
On rereading this post, I stand by it. It contains a sweeping statement about people with theological objections, saying that there are very few of them. Being in a minority is no reason to be silenced – but it doesn’t necessarily mean that the minority is more right or more prophetic than the majority. And being in a minority that requires legal protection from properly ordained people seems to me to be unsustainable. If my Church of choice reflects for years theologically and then concludes that all sidespersons must be redheads, and the law of the land colludes to defend that decision, then I can fight from within. And either I eventually agree (or at least put up with it), or I eventually succeed in removing the restriction or I leave. This is an unpalatable thing to say, but there are no other sustainable logical outcomes.
I have had many conversations over the past few days about emotional reactions, about acting like victims in a situation. One reason I have waited this long to shout is so as to give the emotions time to settle, to be able to be logical again. And I am not a victim, and will not accept that label or act in that way.
It’s interesting that several comments here and on FB have referred to me “getting off the fence”. I thought I’d been pretty clear already which side of the fence I stand! I’ve said “single measure, abolish resolutions A, B and C” at least twice in this blog! The difference is that in this blog I have tried to express some of the anger I feel.
Thanks all for reading, for comments, for prayers, keep ’em all coming!
Pingback: drbexl.co.uk » Blog Archive » #AdventBookClub: Day 6·
Sometimes turning over tables is just the thing. Well said!
Not knowing how old you are, your apparent ease in your business world life was unthinkable 40 years ago… just as women biships seem *impossible* somehow today… it will happen. and probably sooner than later.
Lynn, the difference between my early and later experiences in industry is huge. I was fortunate enough to live through, and be part of, that change. And the most profound changes happened when people _had_ to work together, regardless of their gender, personality, or anything else, because they had a job to do. That gave relationships a change to develop – and it is difficult to rant against the “other in general” when they have a name, a face, and a presence in day to day life.
The difficulty with the current provisions is that one side feels limited and excluded, and the other adopts a siege mentality. Neither is healthy, neither is of God in my view.
Thank you so much for this… In an effort to calm myself down I was reading The Imitation of Christ – a section on enduring the faults of others. As it was a bible study guide edition it came with biblical references for passages to meditate on… I duly looked up 1 Thessalonians 5.14 and was a bit gobsmacked by the unexpectedly robust approach to conflict resolution – until I realised I’d mistakenly read Galatians 5.12 ‘I wish that those who unsettle you would castrate themselves.’ Guess even Paul got angry sometimes…
Far too extreme a solution for me Lindsay! 🙂
Please don’t make redheads become sidespeople, Claire! I’ve managed to avoid it thus far, God be praised! 🙂 🙂
Well said, Claire. I try to believe that (perhaps) those in the laity whose voting caused the measure to fail, were in fact the ones truly in favour of the Ordination of women to the episcopacy and of an end to discrimination. If the measure had passed last month, the clauses that “safeguarded” the consciences of those who, for whatever reasons, are against Women priests and Bishops, would have continued to discriminate against women by making them “second class” Bishops.
Now that the Bishops realise that the church, the country and Parliament have become impatient over this issue, and the “anti” groups are on their back foot/wrong foot it might be time to really raise a voice (angry or not) which insists that when the measure is re-presented to synod, that it excludes any opt out clauses. If this is really
what the Holy Spirit wants of the Church of England (and I believe it is*) then perhaps those who find it unacceptable should move their pew cushion to another denomination which more fits their intractible views.
* Doesn’t it seem as though since Synod is not making itself a prayerful channel for the Spirit’s work in this, then God is stirring up hearts and minds elsewhere (in society/parliament) to achieve what’s needed.
Perhaps those who voted the motion down were actually enabling God to be revealed in Society, even in Parliament, in ways we hadn’t really perceived.
But, final point. I do think that now is the time to Go For It, big time. Equality in all levels of the Church, without let out clauses and without discrimination based on gender or sexuality.
I sense it is no co-incidence that today we hear of the Government’s plans for a vote on same-sex marriage which will include allowing these marriages to take place in places of worship.
The Church has to learn that the Love of God does not discriminate and that people find blessings as well in the Ministry of Women as in the ministry of men, and of men and women who might be gay/lesbian as well as men and women who are straight.
You’ve relected some of the conclusions I’ve come to, Stephen. Although very sad on the day of the vote, I came to think that maybe a better, less discriminatory measure might result, especially given the reactions in both the church and society as a whole. Perhaps this is God moving in a mysterious way.
So true, Stephen – so very true. I’ve just written to the Archbishop and put in a statement along the same lines as you. It is indeed time to be angry …
Dear Sister, I am a retired priest in the US and know of what you speak. I also grew up in the Southern states where being ‘nice’ was an art form. But what has happened in the UK re. the bps. is WAY past being nice. It is time for all of you–do not do this alone. All of you must rise up and say ENOUGH. You have the support–just look at the vote of the dioceses. It is time for the women and the men who support us to go to the barricades. Every once in a while in history we must say to those who would kill our faith through intransigence it is time for a change whether it falls on deaf ears or not. Change is there for the taking of those who are bold enough to take it. Organize! Organize! Organize! The time for this has come and you do not have the right to merely grin and bear it. Open rebellion would be healthy for the CofE that has become so comfortable that it has lost its way.
Thank you for your comment, appreciated. I am very aware of the support from all parts of the CofE, and that this is a matter of “when not if”. This blog is my small part in the raising of many voices. I’m not sure I’m ready for open rebellion!
Hi, I have theological objections, or rather biblical objections, to a woman teaching doctrine in the church of Jesus Christ, or being in authority over a man. Here in Oxford, there is a sizeable church called St Ebbes, with a gracious minister called Vaughan Roberts, who likewise has such objections (I am not a member of that church, or even of the Church of England). I heard that he has said from the pulpit that they would have to leave the C of E, if no proper provision was made for them to be under the authority of a man, according to the scriptures. I am sure 1 Timothy 2:11-14 would be the basis of their objections, as it is of mine. I would genuinely like to know why you do not believe the instructions the apostle gave to be binding on us today – the reasons he gave fro them were from creation and the fall, so there is no obvious reason why they should be limited to a particular place and time. In peace, Andrew Chapman
We do not believe this particular instruction from an unknown follower of St Paul (The Pastoral Epistles were probably not written by Paul but by a follower of his a generation later) because they contradict other statements, and the clear practice of St. Paul, and much more importantly, of Jesus, both of whom worked with women and gave them important teaching to convey to others. Both the creation accounts give male and female equal status – and the consequences of the Fall were reversed by the life and death of Jesus, so are not relevant to the Church or to Christian family life, are they? Your theological/ biblical objections to women in positions of teaching authority come from giving a selection of verses precedence over others. Those who support women as priests, bishops, preachers and teachers give different verses precedence.
Since Jesus thought it appropriate and right to let a woman be the first to see Him after the resurrection and to give her the commission to tell the other disciples, I don’t see how you can justify limiting the ministry of women on the basis of any one else’s teaching. God did not stop speaking to man when the final verse of the Book of Revelation was written, the work of the Holy Spirit continues even in our own day revealing ultimate truths, some of them clearly more challenging than we would like. I think, if you read the gospels again, you will find several instances where Jesus is happy for the ministry of women and encourages their work. And, this season reminds us, it is a woman who reveals to us the Word made Flesh. God did not choose to by-pass using a woman to teach the world the ultimate truths of Love. It might be seen as arrogant or lacking humility that we feel we have greater, better insights.
Stephen, I don’t understand how you can describe passing on a piece of news as teaching. I would describe it as the first act of evangelism, and am all in favour of women serving as evangelists, including ministering in healing and deliverance. Preacherwoman, I can only guess that you are referring to the Phoebe-expounded-Romans speculation, for which there is no evidence. I read Alan Chapple’s article and in the end he goes no further than saying that it is a possibility. I am quite surprised that you take 1 Timothy out of the bible. I understand that only those who can say ‘I, A B, do so affirm and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures’ without lying can be ordained in the Church of England. Surely that includes the whole revelation and not just part of it?
Jesus chose only men to be with him as the twelve to train and prepare them to be the foundation of his church. It was their doctrine which the first disciples continued steadfastly in. Jesus chose Paul personally to be a teacher of the nations in faith and truth, took him into the third heaven and instructed him at various times, so if we reject Paul, it seems to me that we reject the Lord Jesus also, and the Holy Spirit who inspired him to write. Hallelujah, for His word is perfect and without blemish.
Andrew
Andrew, you make a number of assumptions in your last comment which are incorrect. I had never before heard of Alan Chapple’s ‘Phoebe expounded Romans’ article. Thank you for pointing it out to me; an interesting addition to the growing literature adding to the evidence that Paul regarded women as his co-apostles in the early church, which is consistent with his statement in Galatians that “in Christ there is no male of female” which to me is the most important statement he makes about the roles of men and women in the church. I don’t reject Paul, but I do reject the Pauline authorship of Timothy, which is a position held by many respected Biblical commentators. As Stephen illustrated, Jesus gave important messages about himself to women, so I cannot see why you should conclude that he would disapprove of women holding positions of teaching authority in the church today – except of course that you have been taught to interpret the Scriptures that way. Making the good news of Christ known (evangelism) is one of the tasks of a bishop, so you seem to be agreeing that there is no bar to women exercising that ministry.
As far as I know, Jesus never met Saul/Paul in the flesh, and there is little evidence that he intended to found the church as we now know it. We don’t actually know anything about the ‘doctrine’ which the Twelve held, but as far as I am concerned to say ‘the fist disciples continued steadfastly in’ that doctrine is to ignore massive evidence from the New Testament and the Church Fathers that there was considerable disagreement about doctrine in the Early Church and the Apostolic Age.
You assume I am ordained in the Church of England. I am not. I have however made the affirmation to which you refer, without lying, as I believe the Scriptures do reveal the faith – but that they require study to understand what they reveal, since they contain many contradictions and difficulties; there is not one simple view on every subject which can be deduced from them, as you seem to believe. Furthermore, as an Anglican and a Methodist and a modern 21st century Christian, I also believe the faith is revealed not simply through the Scriptures, but also through the tradition (which again contains many contradictory views), reason, and experience.
Dear preacherwoman, it’s surely a non-sequitur to say that because I accept that women can perform one (or more) of the functions of a bishop, then I accept that a woman can serve as a bishop. No I don’t, because I don’t believe she can teach doctrine or be in authority over men in the church of Jesus Christ, which are other essential components of the ministry of a bishop.
I don’t have to be taught a method of interpretation to understand ‘I do not permit a woman to be teaching, nor to have authority over a man’ to mean that a woman is not permitted to be teaching nor to have authority over a man. This is not just one scripture among many – it’s the only one in the bible which directly addresses the question of whether a woman may teach doctrine or not. Titus 2 is the next, since the apostle exhorts the older women to be teachers of good things, and then immediately explains what he has in mind – namely the training of the younger women in godly Christian living.
Galatians 3:26-29 says that both men and women are sons of God if we have believed in Christ Jesus, and have put on Christ if we have been baptised into Him. Glory to God for this wonderful salvation!
Andrew
Andrew, thank you for choosing to engage here. A brief view of your own blog indicates we are unlikely to agree about the role of women in ministry. I could counter your verse with Galatians 3:28, and we would never agree which verse took precedence.
However, I am a member of the Church of England which accepts women to a threefold order of ordained ministry, to the Diaconate, the Priesthood and (in principle) to the Episcopate. The Church of England tries to hold within it those who disagree, just as it contains many theological perspectives from high Anglo-Catholic to Conservative Eavangelical, with all shades between. The Anglican Church holds scripture, tradition and reason in tension together. My vocation has been tested and accepted by the church, so I don’t feel I have to justify it.
The most useful dialogue I have had has been with a member of the CofE who does not accept the priesthood of women, when we talked about the nature of our calling. He was surprised by the similarities of our calling.
In my Father’s house there are many mansions – may all our ministries be blessed.
Thank you, preacherwoman and Stephen for your very helpful contributions, which are appreciated.
Thank you for your courtesy in allowing me to post a few comments here. You pushed me into it by claiming that most of those who have theological objections give them up when pressed. May the Lord lead us into all truth.
Andrew, as Claire has already remarked, given the beliefs you have been taught to regard as fundamental, it is unlikely that you and I will ever come to an agreement about the ministry of women in the church. Methodism has had women as local preachers since its earliest days.The Church of England decided in 1975 that there were no fundamental theological objections to the ordination of women, and has allowed women to preach and teach in its churches for far longer than that. I am afraid those who interpret the Bible as you do are in a minority. The C of E has made, and will make provision for them to continue to be part of the church when female bishops become a reality, but if people like the Oxford priest you quote cannot accept the provision, then they will have to make the decision to go. No-one will have pushed them into it, just as no-one pushed you into making comments here.
No-one taught me to believe that women are not allowed to be teaching doctrine, nor to have authority over men, in the church of Jesus Christ – I read it in the bible, and believed it.
Shalom.
Andrew, if I understand you correctly, your original reason for posting here was to demonstrate that some people hold theological positions from which they will not be moved. Your own position is based on your reading of verses from 1 Timothy, and additionally from Titus (and possibly others you have not cited).
You have heard from others that different verses could also be quoted in isolation in contradiction, that the Church of England does not read scripture in isolation from tradition and reason, and that Methodism would add experience too.
None of this changes your own theological position, nor indeed would I expect it to.
Many thanks for your contribution.
Well, that wasn’t my main reason for posting, it was what stirred me to make a contribution. I should perhaps have said ‘prodded’ rather than ‘pushed’ – I meant as in push-starting a car, not as in forced.
I followed a link from Thinking Anglicans, and was concerned to see that there was no expression of the conservative view. My reason for posting was to share what I believe is biblical truth, and I trust that the Holy Spirit will act to confirm whatever is of Him. My wife says that when she was at bible college in England, only the egalitarian viewpoint was presented, (she actually wrote a paper arguing passionately for that position) and it wasn’t until several years later when the husband of a friend of hers shared with her, and when Wayne Grudem spoke at her church, and when she spent time in Israel and saw how the men and women related in the body of Christ there, that she began to see things differently.
Thank you again for allowing me to post on your site.
Whilst I don’t want to skew the discussion away from the Ordination of Women to the Episcopate, I would just like to ask Biblical “Fundamentalists” who base arguments on particular verses, whether they take seriously, for example, the word of Leviticus and stone to death any homosexuals they come across? (Just wanting to know whether I need to take cover?)
It must make life really difficult to live when the Bible is viewed as the ultimate authority in matters of Church/Life, rather than being open to the moving in our own times of the Spirit of God and being led to wherever He/She wants us to be and understanding the Truths for our age. If you can only believe what is written in the Bible, then you deny that the Holy Spirit is living and working today and re-interpreting Society for us as He/She moves and transforms it. Just saying. And also, I feel certain in my heart, that whatever the Bible says, The Holy Spirit is on the side of Love and Justice. And, as far as the Ordination of women to the priesthood and to the Episcopate is concerned, what is moving amongst us now is a sure sign of the Love of God and of the Spirit finally working for Justice in this area. This will not be the end of the story.
Hi Stephen, the law of Moses was given to Israel. There was a discussion recorded in Acts 15 about whether Christian believers were under this law, and there was agreement (including with the Holy Spirit, verse 28) that we are not to be under this law. The letters to the churches are a different matter, as they were written to Christian believers, and we are instructed to keep the traditions (2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6, 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Timothy 1:13) and pass them on unchanged to future generations (2 Timothy 2:2) until the Lord’s return. Hallelujah, He is coming soon and His reward is with Him. Andrew
Blimey this is brilliant! You shout girl with all your might. I am not ‘churchy’ but followed this story with interest, disgust and disbelief. Church of England get with it, move with the times or you will be left behind!
Nuts! I missed all the fun 😦
For everyone quoteing scripture and verse on this issue
You seem to have missed the point.
You’ll notice there are as many quotes for or against female preists.
Ergo, you have to decide yourself. Tricky for those who like/need to be told what to think.
The Church of England absolutely sucks and has done for decades, it is now getting better.
Why is that? I hear you ask.
Balance is the answer, at last at least females may be ordained.
One day soon there will a female bishop.
One day eventually there will be a female arch bishop.
In the very very distant future the Roman Catholics may catch up admittedly hell may freeze over first. But it is concievable that there will be a female pope. Because it will eventually be recognised that any job should always go to person most suited to the job. And guess what?
Women make just as good a priest as any man.
Probably better than most.
Oh sorry was that out loud?
It is not a mans world.
It is everybodies world.
If you dont like it, leave :p