FROM OUR DEACON CANDIDATE — 20170716

Posted on by

TOPIC: Theology of Liturgy
By Len Mier

Thy Kingdom Come: Social Justice and Salvific Outlook in the Anaphora of St. Basil the Great


Liturgy literally means “the work of the people” in the view of Christian worship of God. It can also be taken to mean “public service” in secular terms as the view of ancient Athenian culture. The second meaning seems to have no connection to the first meaning until you start to look at the thought processes of the Cappadocian Fathers and the social justice homilies of St Basil the Great. Once you connect the thoughts of St Basil and look at the Basilian Anaphora you can see that liturgy is the work of the people to praise God and of the called to a life of service to one’s neighbor, transforming the worshiper into the same kind of being that they are worshiping.

The ancient world view on care for the poor
In the late Roman Empire the care for the poor was seen as a civic duty. It was to be based solely on what Romans paid to the state. Resources were allocated not only on the basis of need but also by the belonging to a specific group, for example a citizen of the city or member of a family unit. After the Christian faith took hold there was a change in attitude toward the poor and how people react to them. Christian bishops looked to the Semitic or Jewish notions of care for the poor.
This new outlook can be characterized love of the poor and the bishop as the lover of the poor since they had at their disposal the resources of the church. In his book “Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman Empire.” Peter Brown describes this role of the Christian bishop:

The Bishop was presented, above all, as the oikonomos, as the ‘steward’ of the wealth of the Church. This wealth was to be used by the clergy for the benefit of the poor. In some circles, even private almsgiving was discouraged: ideally all gifts to the poor were to pass through the Bishop and his clergy, for only they knew who needs sup-port. (Brown, 2002)

The Cappadocian Fathers were much more sensitive to the plight of the poor. This sensitivity is probably due the physical environment in which they lived. The area of Central Anatolia in present day Turkey is an environment that if the seasonal rains did not happen, drought and famine were very real occurrences. St Basil and the Cappadocian fathers lived and ministered during one such drought and famine. This gave rise to St Basil’s social justice sermons. This also gave rise to the Basiliad, a new form of monastic life within the Christian community.

[The] Basiliad is not primarily a new kind of charitable institution, but rather a new set of relationships, a new social order that both anticipates and participates in the creation of ‘a new heaven and earth where justice dwells.’ In the Basiliad, people living together involuntary simplicity and service to create a new kind of community with the involuntary poor…. The new city is present wherever people live together in this way, waiting for the Kingdom of God even as they constitute a sign of its presence in our midst. (Schroeder, 2009)

It is said that Basil’s invention, in his years as a priest and bishop in Caesarea, was to harness the new monastic form to a new socially useful aim. (Brown, 2002)

St Basil in his preaching gave the church several homilies that deal with our call to Christian social justice along with his anaphora that stems from his thoughts on Christian living. The themes and titles of his sermons give us much insight to St Basil’s thinking on living a Christ centered life. “To the Rich”, a homily which is a call to the rich to become more philanthropic, it provides a good overview to his thinking. “I Will Tear Down My Barns”, a discourse on the rich man who has an abundant harvest tears down his barns to build larger ones, only to be called to God before enjoying the fruits of his labors. One passage from that homily that sticks with me is “Wells become more productive if they are drained completely, while they silt up if they are left standing. Thus wealth if left idle is of no use to anyone, but put to use and exchanged it becomes fruitful and beneficial to the public.” (Schroeder, 2009)

“In Time of Famine and Drought”, a Basilian call to social action in Christian life, St Basil so appropriately says:
“We should be put to shame by what has been recorded concerning the pagan Greeks. For some of them, a law of philanthropy dictates a single table and common meals, so that many different people might almost be regarded as one household. But let us dispense with those outside the Church, and proceed to the example of the three households mentioned in the Book of Acts.” And again “Do not enrich the present life while leaving the other naked and clothed in rags (Schroeder, 2009).

This common meal resonated with that of the Eucharistic table and links St Basil’s social justice with that of liturgy. This common meal resonated with that of the Eucharistic table and links St Basil’s social justice with that of liturgy.

His final social justice themed homily is based on the psalms, “Against Those Who Lend at Interest, ”a discourse that puts the plight of the poor front and center against those who fail to help the poor by placing extra burdens on them preventing them from relief of their situation.

What is most interesting in St Basil’s social justice homilies is that they are just as relevant to modern man as they were in the time that they were written. St Basil lays out the timeless message of the Gospels in a way that makes them livable and helpful in obtaining salvation. His teachings give rise to the idea of “possess with justice and dispense with mercy.”(Schroeder, 2009)

St John Chrysostom also spoke of this new imagery of the poor and service to the poor in the late Roman Empire, as seen in several of his homilies, his homily on the last judgment being most prominent.

(To be continued)

Gaining a Deeper Understanding of the New Testament — 20170716

Posted on by

I presented in the last issue that there were several writings in the early Church that were labeled Apocalypse. The other apocalypse, that of John, attained canonical status only with some difficulty. At first it seems to have been accepted; it is the only apocalypse endorsed by Origen. Some attached the Apocalypse of Peter as well as John on theological grounds – the only true indi-cation of opposition to the Apocalypse in the Western Church. In the Greek Church, Dionysius of Alexandria (ca. 250) maintained that John, son of Zebedee and author of the Gospel, did not write Apocalypse (Revelation). Dionysius did not reject the book but was worried about the use being made of it by the heretical chiliasts (i.e., a sect deemed heretical). His critical judgment distinguishing two different writers for John and Apocalypse was certainly correct, but his denial of apostolic authorship to Apocalypse had the effect of weakening the acceptance of Apocalypse as a biblical book in the Greek Church. Eusebius wavers in whether to list Apocalypse as genuine or spurious. It is not included in the list of Cyril of Jerusalem (350) or in the list of the 60th Canon of Laodicea, or in the list of Gregory Nazianzen that was accepted bin Trullo II (692). The Apocalypse was not accepted in the Syrian Church.

Next I would take up the Epistle to the Hebrews, attributed to Paul. This epistle probably was composed in the 80’s or 90’s by a Jewish Christian well educated in the Greek oratorical techniques of Alexandria. Although the work is in epistolary form, it is essentially a highly literate theological disquisition on the relation of Christianity to Jewish institutions. There is little evidence of clear citations of Hebrews in the 2nd century. The discussion of the acceptance of Hebrews is centered around its attribution to Paul. If Apocalypse was accepted in the West and rejected in the East, the reverse holds true for Hebrews. In the West, Hebrews is not mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment or in the Lat list of the Codex Claromontanus, or in the African Canon of 360. In the East, Hebrews is mentioned in Origen’s list, but he admits doubt as to whether Paul wrote it by his own hand. Eusebius himself accepts Hebrews, even though he knows that the Roman church denies that it is the work of Paul. Its acceptance in the East is attested by the canons of Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and Gregory Nazianzen. In the West, in the latter part of the 4th century, Hebrews won acceptance through other Fathers of the Church.

Understanding Our Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church — 20170716

Posted on by

As stated in the beginning of this article, there are two icons of the Mother of God which are essential to understanding ourselves who worship in the Kievan tradition. The first of those icons is that of the Annunciation. The East deals with the whole person. To make that point, our Church observes the Feast of Annunciation even when it coincides with Good Friday Making an exception to the solemnity of Christ’s burial, we celebrate the Divine Liturgy By doing this, the Church liturgically stresses the importance of our personal thought process and commitment. Through the liturgy we should understand the Mother of God as THE type par excellence of human fulfillment in Christ, regardless of gender. The Annunciation as an icon and a holy day is pivotal in understanding the Eastern Christian approach to holiness in general and Kievan spirituality in particular.

The second image is that of Mary of the Sign. Here is the Mother of God with a medallion positioned over her chest. Inside the medallion is an image of a very mature for His years Christ Child with His right hand raised in the gesture of blessing. It summarizes the Mother of God’s life from the moment of the Annunciation to eternity. She was not just the Mother of Jesus. The Mother of God needed salvation as any one of us. Her life was Christ centered and Christ filled. Mary was and is the Mother of God because she internalized Christ’s message throughout her entire life. The icon of the Sign is a constant reminder that the source of all holiness is Christ, the Son of God and our Savior.

We are called to carry, just as Mary did, the Lord Jesus within our hearts and to allow His blessings to come forth from us by the way that we treat our fellow humans. We are called to be Christ-bearers and bring His message of hope and love into the world in which we live. Our lives, like hers, must be Christ centered. That is the spirituality of our Church.

Our Church espouses a life which is not based on “keeping rules,” but, rather, on bring the peace and love of God into our world but living like Jesus. Our spiritual efforts must be placed on become more like Jesus – like God as expressed in human form.

This type of icon is also sometimes called the Platytéra (Greek: Πλατυτέρα, literally wider or more spacious); poetically, by containing the Creator of the Universe in her womb. Mary is Platytera ton ouranon (Πλατυτέρα των Ουρανών): “More spacious than the heavens”. The Platytéra is traditionally depicted on the half-dome that stands above the altar.

The term Virgin of the Sign or Our Lady of the Sign is a reference to the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14) “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.”

One additional icon to come!

Learning Our Faith From the Greek Fathers of the Church — 201707016

Posted on by

I have been sharing St. Gregory’s thoughts about the “mystery and wonder of the Trinity.” Indeed it is the one dogma – the Trinity – that makes our Christian religion so very different from other religions. It is an idea about God that retains the idea of ONE GOD Who is also THREE DISTINCT PERSONS. And, as I have repeatedly stated, it is the one understanding of God that directly connects us humans to God since the Son, the Second Person, was incarnate as a human person and still retains a glorified body. He did not stop being the GOD-MAN after his death and resurrection.

Because of this great mystery, we have a real and intimate connection with our God. He is our model of how to live this earthly life and to gain a real and true understanding of the meaning and purpose of this earthly life.

Gregory continues in this fashion. A further question presents itself. If the Father as unbegotten and the Son as begotten are indeed distinct from one another, they are obviously not the same. How can they both be the same God? Gregory poses the question as follows: “For if to be unbegotten is the essence of God, to be begotten is not that essence; if the opposite is the case, the unbegotten is excluded. What argument can contradict this?

All depends. Gregory argues, on what we mean when we say that the unbegotten and the begotten are not the same. Certainly, he agrees, “the unoriginate and the create are not of the same nature.” Is such the case with the Father and the Son? “But if you say that he that b begot and that which is begotten are not the same, the statement is inaccurate to say the least. For it is in fact a necessary truth that they are the same. For the relation of father to child is this: that the offspring is of the same nature with the parent. Think, Gregory coaches, of Adam. “Was he not alone the direct creature of God,” created in a unique manner by God? Does this mean that Adam was the only human being? Hardly. Other humans “begotten” by normal procreative means are clearly also human. What is Gregory’s point? “Just so neither is he who is unbegotten alone God, though he alone is Father.”

I present Gregory’s arguments to stimulate you, my readers, to think about Who God Is For You!

Reflections on the Scripture Readings for this Weekend — 20170709

Posted on by

Our first reading this weekend is again taken from St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. In the portion we hear, Paul is considering Israel’s failure to accept Christ from the standpoint of God: it does not mean that God’s promises have failed, nor that this was not foreseen by Him in His gratuitous election of Israel.

Israel, Paul states, has failed to recognize that uprightness comes through Christ, the END OF THE LAW. He then adds that “The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart” – that is the word of faith in Jesus.
This conveys the major idea that Jesus is God’s revelation to humankind about the way to live. It requires persons to think and behave like Jesus. Instead of trying to keep “a written law,” humans need to try and imitate Jesus. Its all about having a relationship with God.

Our second reading, the Gospel, conveys the story of Jesus expelling demons from two men. It is in the section of Matthew’s Gospel wherein he shares ten miracles of Jesus. In the ancient world, Jewish and Gentile, ailments which exhibited some unusually repulsive features or for which there was no explanation, were often attributed to demons. It is rarely possible to define the ailment that is explained in this way. The important feature of this and other exorcisms Jesus performed is not whether he accepted this common belief. Those who formed the Gospel traditions could not have represented him speaking in terms other than those familiar to the people. The important fact is that the exorcisms show that Jesus liberates men from the fear of demons. Demons have no real power and are instantly subdued by a word from Him. The power of God overcomes any other power. The significance of exorcism is not that the Christian should or should not believe in demons or their power, but that they should, because of their belief in Jesus, treat demonic power as absolutely nonexistent. If we focus our lives on believing and living with Jesus as our Savior and Lord, and embrace His way of living, nothing else matters. We must make Jesus, and His way, the absolute rule of our lives. We must be sure to keep our “eyes fixed on Jesus”, as St. Paul would say.

The message I received from today’s readings is: Keep your life focused on trying to actualize your potential to be more like Jesus.

FROM OUR DEACON CANDIDATE — 20170709

Posted on by

TOPIC: CHRISTOLOGY
By Len Mier

The God-Man Jesus Christ and Kenosis

Jesus was the God-Man and He revealed an extreme humility in His earthly life. This is key our understanding the goal of humankind’s salvation. This is also exemplified in the life of the Theotokos. While Jesus’ incarnation had a kenotic dimension of His own volition, His mother’s life was kenotic by the grace of God. (“Kenosis,” has become a technical term for the Son’s emptying Himself of certain divine attributes, especially of omniscience).

Jesus Christ was both God and man. He had a nature that was Divine and a nature that was human, but He was one person. Having both natures in one person was the most important debate in the early Church, taking several Ecumenical Councils to define this teaching of the person of Jesus and His relationship with the Father, along with the nature of Jesus’ relationship with the Holy Spirit.

One question that theologians explored was, how the incarnation of Jesus saves mankind. If He was Divine, did this divinity reside in fullness before His death and resurrection? If so, how does that set an example for us to copy since we are not divine by nature. Saint Paul, in his letter to the Philippians, may help mankind understand this question. I am referring to the following passage in chapter two:

…though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as some-thing to be exploited, but emptied him-self, taking the form of a slave, being born in human form (Revised Standard Version, Catholic Translation).

This passage refers to Jesus’ kenotic life and His life of extreme humility. Father Dumitru Staniloae states, “The kenosis consists in the fact that the Son of God assumed, made His own, the human nature and its weaknesses not imprinted with sin” (Staniloae, Ionita & Barringer, 1944). This kenosis is what makes it possible for Jesus the God-Man to assume our sufferings and our limitations – it is in putting aside His glory that He can show us how to live. It shows us the way of Theosis. By his being empty of the glory of God, but still fully God, man is shown the way to obtain that divine image that resides within us. It is as St. Maximus explains, Christ achieved our salvation because He was able to share in our bodily sufferings as a man, and through signs of His Divine powers in the miracles He performed. It was through His resurrection we are saved from sin and given deification through His grace.

Father Dumitru Staniloae also states “[Kenosis is] to facilitate the direct participation of the Son of God in the strengthening of human nature, in order to make it an active medium of divine love through the manifestation of power and through the bearing and overcoming of suffering” (Staniloae, et al., 1994).
It is important to understand that in His kenosis and the weakness of human nature He was sinless. Jesus’ human nature was so in tune with His Divine nature in the one person that He could not sin or have sin. It is also true that His Divine nature was so much in tune with the will of the Father because they are of the same essence, that sin would be impossible. It is important for us to know that the Church insists that the Savior must be without sin as Saint Cyril of Alexandria states, “that one can enter into God’s presence only in a state of pure sacrifice, and no human being could do this on his own because of sin. Only Christ, as man without sin, was able to en-ter into God’s presence as a pure sacrifice, and only in Him can we do the same.” Without His sinlessness, our redemption and salvation would be impossible.

Jesus’ virginal birth by the Theotokos is a necessity in God’s redemptive plan. Her vocation is to be a vessel in which the incarnation of Jesus Christ took place, without her God could not take on flesh as a human and become man. She is the means along with the actions of the Holy Spirit by which the Son of God saves mankind. This is important because one’s nature is not born, but only that one’s person or physical existence comes into reality. As Staniloae states, “The Person born of the Virgin Mary is identical with the Person of the divine Word, Who also becomes through the Incarnation the Person of the human nature” (Staniloae, et al., 1994), thus bringing about God becoming man. The miraculous and virginal birth is important to the teaching of the Church because this birth does not occur by natural means. Instead, the birth of Jesus happens because God, in the Person of the Holy Spirit, takes over natural events in the same way that, in the creation narrative of Genesis, God’s Spirit gives life to Adam, the first man of creation.

Jesus, as man, comes into existence as a divine creative act in the same way that Adam was created in an act of Divine Love, making Him the new Adam. He does not come into existence through worldly desires or sensual desire or pleasure. It is His outgoing love for mankind that causes this to happen.

The Theotokos has a kenotic life also. Her kenotic life, however, differs from that of Jesus’ kenotic life in one very important aspect. In Jesus, kenosis happened of His own doing. He emptied Himself as St Paul says. The Theotokos, however, could not do this on her own. It is through Divine grace and the incarnation of Christ within her that she was able to accomplish this. The emptying of Jesus paved the way for Him to take up what He gave up in His life, death and resurrection.

This is salvation for us, in the same way that the Theotokos emptied herself with God’s grace, accepting her vocation as the bearer of God, achieving Theosis and salvation. This is the example we Christians must follow. To be self-emptying of those things foreign to the life in Christ and by following the example of the Theotokos, we too gain salvation in living a kenotic way of life.

I would again compliment Len on his essay and thank him for sharing it with us!

Learning Our Faith From the Greek Fathers of the Church — 20170709

Posted on by

It is obvious, if we consider Trinitarian language, that we are stretching the capabilities of human reason and also language. God’s begetting of the Son is indescribable or “ineffable.” Just as the Son’s “generation according to the flesh differs from all others – for where among men do you know of a virgin mother? – so does he differ also in his spiritual generation. Or rather he, whose existence is not the same as ours, differs from us also in his generation.

“Who, then, is that Father who had no beginning?” Gregory asks. Well, for one thing, he is a father unlike any other. For while other fathers must first be born, grow into maturity and then father children, this Father has always been a Father. It is his nature to be Father, to generate the Son and to emit, spirate or breath the Spirit. In addition, the Father is Father as distinct from the Son. He is neither the Son nor the Spirit, just as the Son and Spirit are not the Father. While a human may occasionally function as a father or a son, within the wonder of trinitatian relationships, the Father is Father in an absolute sense, as is the Son as Son and the Spirit as Spirit. Thus the fatherhood of God, while occasionally analogous to human fatherhood, is utterly unique.
Gregory rebukes the tendency in all of us to reject that which we cannot comprehend. Gregory’s theological opponents insist, for instance, that the Son could not be “begotten,” because such a generation fits no reasonable categories. Part of the problem, Gregory responds, is that the model these theologians use to picture the divine generation is itself faulty.

Gregory first advises that we must cast away any notions of flow or concepts of immaterial as if it were material birth and then we may perhaps worthily conceive of the divine generation. And what is a worthy conception of such a mysterious generation? Who can say? “The begetting of God must be honored by silence. It is a great thing for you to learn that he was begotten. But the manner of his generation we will not admit that even angels can conceive, much less you.” Only the Father, Son and Spirit could possibly comprehend it. “It was in a manner known to the father who begot, and to the Son who was begotten. Anything more that this is hidden.

CALLED TO HOLINESS — 20170709

Posted on by

If you have been following this article, you already know that it is my belief that the call to holiness is many, very different things. It is, of course, a call to “change our hearts and minds” – to change the way we think and live – so that we more fully actualize the potential that God has planted within us to become more like Jesus.

The reason why we remember the life of Jesus and all that He did and accomplished, is so that we might become deeply immersed in the process of changing our thinking and living. Personal change is the goal. This goal is closely connected by discovering the meaning and purpose of life. The meaning and purpose of life is intimately and intrinsically connected with Jesus because He is God’s revelation to us about the purpose of human life.

Given all this, it is important that we understand that God created us with an intellect and free will. He calls us to use your intelligence to understand these things. In the process of understanding this, we cooperate with God in gaining salvation and achieving eternal life. This process begins now in the present moment. We are called to try to do good and avoid evil not because we are afraid of being punished but because we see that this way of living can bring us to a deeper understanding of life. Living this way makes us more and more like Jesus, the revealed likeness of God.

When we develop the habits of (1) accepting all others; (2) not judging others; (3) treating all others as we want to be treated; and (4) unconditionally love others, we become more like Jesus. As we attempt to become more like Jesus, life changes. We begin to see the beauty of the life that God is sharing with us and the wonder of His creation. In living this way, we come to understand that we are God’s children.

Gaining a Deeper Understanding of the New Testament — 20170709

Posted on by

In this article I have currently been presenting information about the Canon – collection of books – that are included in the New Testament (NT). In the last issue I started sharing information about ACTS, a history of the works of Jesus’ disciples. A work such as Acts, which gives prominence to the Twelve, holds them up as a standard of apostleship and shows a continuity from them to Paul.

We are uncertain when ACTS was put on a plane with the Gospels, an account of Jesus himself; but such an evaluation shows a mature under-standing of the role of the church in continuing the role of Christ. There is every evidence that Acts was accepted as canonical from 200 CE on; but from 150 there were also in circulation various apocryphal acts of individual apostles (i.e., John, Paul, Thomas and others). Generally, they were writings of heretical tendency and highly romantic. Tertullian tells how sometime before 190 the priest who fabricated the Acts of Paul was caught and punished. The Lat list (ca 300) in the Codex Claromontanus includes the Acts of Paul, but seemingly puts it on a questionable basis along with Hermas and Barnabas. Eusebius lists it as spurious.

The Apocalypse or Revelation is a species of prophecy and was familiar to the early Christians as part of their Jewish heritage. Yet it is interesting that Revelation is prefaced by the letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor – an innovation in apocalyptic literature, and perhaps an indication that Christians were more accustomed to epistolary writings. Presumably, Revelation was written in the 90’s; it belongs to the Johannine school of writing.

The Muratorian Fragment (Rome, before 200) mentions two apocalypses one of John and one of Peter, with a notation that some do not wish to read the latter in church. This Apocalypse of Peter, written ca 125-150, seems to have been accepted as canonical by Clement of Alexandria. It appears in the Lat list, seemingly marked as questionable; and ca 325 Eusebius places it among the spurious books, stating that neither in the earlier days nor in his time had any orthodox writer made use of it. Jerome also rejected it, but in the 5th century it was still being used in the Good Friday liturgy in Palestine.

As you may or may not know, there is a vast amount of religious writing from the early Church which has not been recognized as “canonical” or as excepted as authentic or inspired. Many of these writings are just being translated into modern languages and made available to people.

 

The Divine Liturgy and Our Worship of God — 20170709

Posted on by

Mystical Supper

As I have previously shared with my readers, although the Divine Liturgy has several distinct parts, nevertheless it is a single, though multifaceted, sacred rite, a single sacrament, in which all its “parts,” their sequence and structure, their coordination with each other, the necessity of each for all and all for each, manifests to us the inexhaustible, eternal, universal and truly divine meaning of what has been and what is being accomplished.

Such in any case is the tradition of the Church, such is her living experience, in which the sacrament of the eucharist is inseparable from the divine liturgy. For its setting, its entire sequence, order and structure consist in manifesting to us the meaning and the content of the sacrament, in bringing us into it, in converting us into its participants and communicants. It is meant to involve all of us into the mystery of God revealing Himself to us through the Person of Jesus and calling us to greater union with God. That is why it is critical that we all, both clergy and laity, own the actions and prayers that we perform together. It is OUR WORSHIP of God as Church, that is the gathering of those who believe in Jesus, the Christ.

Meanwhile, it is precisely this unity, this integrity of the eucharist, the indissoluble link of the sacrament with the Liturgy, that requires us not to think just of one moment or action in the Liturgy, like the transformation of the Gifts, but rather to embrace the entire ritual action. The entire Liturgy speaks to the question: what is accomplished in the eucharist? If for the Church not only the answer to this question but also the question itself, (i.e., its correct “context,” is rooted in the liturgy), it is because for her, the Church, the eucharist is the crowning and fulfillment of the liturgy, just as the liturgy is the crowning and fulfillment of the entire faith, the entire life and the entire experience of the Church.

What I am trying to say is that the Eucharist, which is the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in our midst, is a part of the entire liturgy which calls us to be one with all the past events of God breaking into history and showing us how to live. This real and truthful remembrance of these past events is meant to “transform” as well as the Gifts that we pray over and offer to God. It is through the Eucharist that we truly become Church, that is real believers in God-Incarnate, Jesus. It calls us to unity in the Lord! It highlights the meaning of life, that is real, personal transformation.