Is it "SIN" for women to teach men?

[psycheives]

As a woman who wants to become a teacher, I am looking for real answers to this question. I'm not asking what your church does or your church's rules. I'm asking "what is sin" and what isn't sin? 1 Tim and 1 Cor 14

- What does the bible mean by "teaching" and "authority" and in what context?
- Is it SIN for a woman to be "a teacher" of men in ANY setting: bible study, college, work, trainings, etc? Why?
- Is it SIN for a woman to "a teacher" of anything spiritual only in ANY setting? bible study, missions, etc?
- Is it SIN only for a woman to be a Pastor/Elder because "GOD called men to these only"?
- Is it SIN for a woman to teach a bible study even if the church has appointed and approved her to teach? What if it's at her home?
- Must Christians get "permission" from their church to teach Bible study at their home? Is it is sin?
- Is it a SIN for a woman to teach her own son Christianity? What if the husband died? Will it become a "sin" when he "becomes a man?" So one day it will be good for a mother to teach her son but the day he becomes a man (which may be unknown), she suddenly sins?
- It is NOT a sin to?
- Why do some Reformers say it is SIN for a woman to be a manager, boss, in government or any position of "authority" in secular world too? Then women will be stuck on low paying jobs forever and unable to make much of a living. What about us unmarried women or single women raising 5 kids on our own? So a woman can't even be an assistant manager at Starbucks?
- Some say it is SIN for a woman to be a teacher of any sort, claiming she is then in a position of "authority." Must authority be God-given or man-given or just a position without any authority (such as a bible study).
- What does "authority" mean?

Please explain your answers biblically or with quotes from reputable Reformed authors. Thank you

 

[SinnerSavedByChrist]

After filling out this poll, I must confess that I need to read the Scriptures left to right over and over and over again... I know the passages in 1 Timothy 2-3, 5; Titus 2, 1 Peter 3.... then there are the passages on supposed "Women deacons" which Brother Timothy Keller will use...

Great questions and I'm going to have to do a lot more reading!!! Thanks

 

[KevinInReno]

Ugh... I answered this poll reading haphazardly... I was tired and didn't see the secular aspect in the 3rd poll option. Because it also has a secular qualifier... ignore one yes vote there.

Ultimately any position of Elder/Pastor, unbiblical and sin in all cases.

In a household likely enjoyed by most on this forum, for a woman to be head, unbiblical and sin. I do think there are environments though where the woman would need to subvert the man's authority if he was a danger to her or her children, or of course abusive, etc. I wouldn't say she should divorce him (I believe in the permanence view) but I do think she should and could leave the household in certain circumstances as ministry. Any woman doing so though, should quickly look to her church leadership for help through those waters.

Most will disagree with me, but I do think women can be a leader in "care ministries" aka deaconess. I do not consider deacons to be a teaching position, or a position of authority and discipline. So because of that I would have no problem with women in those roles.

As for women leading bible studies with men in them, etc. I disagree with that, due to it once again being a teaching position over men within the church. I would state Children's ministries because there are no men in them is fine in my opinion, though I do think an elder is preferable, and should be the first option.

As for a secular workplace I don't see restrictions as applying.

 

[Logan]

I venture very cautiously into this discussion. Sometimes we lose the principles in the "do this, don't do that" mentality. So I can't really answer the poll because there are some categories that I think are sometimes correct and sometimes incorrect.

The general principle here, as I understand it, is not to usurp the authority of the men in the church.

God has intended the men to be the leaders and the women to show respect and submission and to be a help to them. If a man is dying and the only person there to share the gospel is a woman, it would be sin to remain silent. We have examples such as Timothy's mother and grandmother teaching him, and Aquila and Priscilla teaching Apollos. The latter one is a good example because Priscilla certainly did help, but it apparently was under the authority of her husband. I love it when my wife joins me in discussions with other men and offers insight and instruction, but she does it respectfully under the umbrella of my authority.

Calvin on 1 Cor 14:34

What connection has the object that he has in view with the subjection under which the law places women? “For what is there,” some one will say, “to hinder their being in subjection, and yet at the same time teaching?” I answer, that the office of teaching is a superiority in the Church, and is, consequently, inconsistent with subjection. For how unseemly a thing it were, that one who is under subjection to one of the members, should preside over the entire body! It is therefore an argument from things inconsistent — If the woman is under subjection, she is, consequently, prohibited from authority to teach in public.

And on 1 Tim 2:12

Not that he takes from them the charge of instructing their family, but only excludes them from the office of teaching, which God has committed to men only....He adds — what is closely allied to the office of teaching — and not to assume authority over the man; for the very reason, why they are forbidden to teach, is, that it is not permitted by their condition. They are subject, and to teach implies the rank of power or authority. Yet it may be thought that there is no great force in this argument; because even prophets and teachers are subject to kings and to other magistrates. I reply, there is no absurdity in the same person commanding and likewise obeying, when viewed in different relations. But this does not apply to the case of woman, who by nature (that is, by the ordinary law of God) is formed to obey

Now Calvin also adds in both places that he believes government (even secular) by women is against nature, it is unclear to me if he believes it is against God's law. Poole talks exclusively of the church, assuming a woman will teach her family at home. Trapp sees this as a command not to usurp the men's authority in the church.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Please explain your answers biblically or with quotes from reputable Reformed authors. Thank yo

Egalitarianism is not what I see taught in Scripture on this matter. The matter of concern is the proper roles of women and men as ordained by God in accordance with His good and perfect will. Even before the Fall, man was established as head and authority over all creation, including the woman made to be his helper, and so named by him. God called this arrangement of authority of the man and the role of woman, "good". After the Fall, it is clear the arrangement and relationship is strained, wherein the woman is now more subject to the man. The headship ("authority over") of man is declared in the NT (e.g., 1 Corinthians 11:3, 14:35; Ephesians 5:22-24; 1 Pet. 3:1-5, Col. 3:18). Then there is 1 Timothy 3, which I do not find within any warrant for female office leadership within the church. This should come as no surprise given the didactic nature of 1 Timothy 2:12-13--note also that Paul here refers back to Genesis. As for your comments earlier about women pastor/elders, how can anyone argue that a woman, who is to be subject to her husband’s authority, can be lawfully ordained to any church office and thereby have authority over him? This would be an act of rebellion against God.

Since you asked, here is a quote from Calvin on the passage from Genesis which aligns with my comments:

The second punishment which he exacts is subjection. For this form of speech, "Thy desire shall be unto thy husband," is of the same force as if he had said that she should not be free and at her own command, but subject to the authority of her husband and dependent upon his will; or as if he had said, 'Thou shalt desire nothing but what thy husband wishes.' As it is declared afterwards, Unto thee shall be his desire, (Gen. 4:7) Thus the woman, who had perversely exceeded her proper bounds, is forced back to her own position. She had, indeed, previously been subject to her husband, but that was a liberal and gentle subjection; now, however, she is cast into servitude.

 

[SRoper]

The questions are really confusing. Some say "It is SIN..." while others do not. I thought at first that the ones that didn't were the ones that are acceptable until I got to "Teach a bible study with men at church (even if appointed)" since the parenthetical phrase doesn't make sense with that assumption. I'm guessing that we should take "It is a SIN for a woman to:" as a part of each statement even though it is redundant in many of them.

I'm a bit uncomfortable with the "it is a sin" language as it suggests that it is the woman who is necessarily sinning in all the cases mentioned. I think some cases, like Deborah's leadership, are results of sinful situations but not indicative of sin on the part of the woman involved. Perhaps "not in good order" is better.

I'll only answer as far as scope. I don't see how Paul's teaching in 1 Tim. 2 can only be limited to the church. The principle he builds on is nature, so it has nature as its scope. If he meant to only argue for the church then his argument proves too much.

 

[SRoper]

By the way, I like the calibrating question of "It is a SIN for anyone unappointed by the church to lead a Bible study even in their own home."

 

[lynnie]

You might enjoy reading this piece: Moore to the Point – Women, Stop Submitting to Men.

( I offer it as one who believes wives are to wear head coverings in church, so I'm definitely complementarian)

 

[JBaldwin]

I think it is important to differentiate between teaching and authority and to define "teaching". If you mean authoritative teaching, I would agree that it is wrong for a woman to teach a man. To 'teach' in the sense of sharing what God has taught her with the understanding that it is not necessarily authoritative for the church is another thing all together. Authoritative teaching is left for the men in the church and in the home. I would highly recommend reading John Piper's book on the subject "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood". As I spent a lot of my time in the church in a position of leadership under the direction and authority of the elders, this was a very touchy matter for me, and one that took me a long time to come to grips with.

 

[Jack K]

I think it is important to differentiate between teaching and authority and to define "teaching". If you mean authoritative teaching, I would agree that it is wrong for a woman to teach a man. To 'teach' in the sense of sharing what God has taught her with the understanding that it is not necessarily authoritative for the church is another thing all together.

Well put. This is the key distinction that needs to be kept in mind. Some situations aren't quite clear-cut enough to give a simple yes/no response to a poll question. The details of the specific situation and often the attitudes/approaches of the men and women involved have to be taken into account.

 

[jandrusk]

What I have found in the past is that it usually comes down to the definition of "church". Some think it's OK as soon as your outside of the church building, but I do not think this is an accurate definition of the church. I would reference the WSC Chapter 25 Section 2: "The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation."

So if we take the context of teaching in the seminary and the teacher and the students are members of the visible church, then the same prohibitions would be in effect as far as only men having the authority to teach.

I think there are circumstances in which this would not apply; such as a married couple where the wife is a believer and the husband is not. The wife should be teaching and instructing her children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

I think the main reason why this question is even brought up in this day and age is the failure of Christian men to take the leadership role that God has called them to, and therefore the woman are left to fill in the gaps in a number of cases.

 

[ZackF]

Would you cancel out the poll and rewrite it more clearly?
Totally lost here.

 

[THE W]

It's not a sin for a women to teach a man how to make pancakes..

I didnt answer the pole. A little to cut and dry.

1 cor 14:34-35 and 1 tim 2:11-12 are pretty clear. In the context of church, women are not to teach MEN, have authority over MEN, and their various questions and inquiries regarding teaching or authority should be saved for when they get home.

I would see the question then being, when should boys be considered men?

Puberty?

I also question whether women should be gainfully employed but that's a whole other thread.

 

[a mere housewife]

Psyche, I think embracing our role, and learning in context of it, enriches what we are able to say to men. I am not sure that all the particular situations listed will be the same in every circumstance, but am more comfortable with the concept of women teaching other women and children in more formal situations in the realm of the church.

Yet we are all to be teaching one another and I am afraid that a man who is averse to learning anything from a woman is also much diminished. Nabal could not take Abigail's advice and David could -- Nabal seems an apt example then of the 'fool' (a word I use quite timidly, considering Matthew 5, but in this instance I'm just repeating a wise woman): wisdom in Proverbs is feminine. I wouldn't want to base too much on such a point, but it is suggestive to me, placed next to the passages about a woman's created place and what that means in the family and the church. The feminine is, not apart from but somehow in keeping with that submissive role, an apt vehicle for the personification of treasures of knowledge that a man is enjoined to seek. (I'm sure I'm not saying this very well: it is more of a suggestive thought to me at this time than something I quite know how to express; but I certainly don't mean that all women are wiser than all men, etc. I wonder if it has a relation to the submissive role of Christ, our Wisdom, and His submission to the Father as an aspect of that Wisdom He is to us.)

PS. I returned to clarify that I am not sure that I would call it 'sin' for a woman to do some things I might still consider 'unwise'. But while I am at it, please forgive the tortuous phrasing of this post. I am under a tortuous phrasing spell lately.

 

[psycheives]

The questions are really confusing. Some say "It is SIN..." while others do not. I thought at first that the ones that didn't were the ones that are acceptable until I got to "Teach a bible study with men at church (even if appointed)" since the parenthetical phrase doesn't make sense with that assumption. I'm guessing that we should take "It is a SIN for a woman to:" as a part of each statement even though it is redundant in many of them.

Thank you all for your replies. I have a lot to consider here. The reason I wrote "It is a SIN" is because people keep saying "A woman can't..." by who's command? Mans? Then it doesn't count unless he is her husband, pastor, etc. If God's command, then it is "a sin" to disobey. I wanted to use "SIN" to filter all out claims that "a woman can't because... I don't like it... my church doesn't like it..." and get to what God says a woman can and can't do "because it is a SIN." So, yes, Scott, the poll is meant to be taken as "It is a SIN for a woman to:" do each of the poll questions. (The poll limited me in characters so I had to cut it out of each poll question ).

It seems most of the disagreement lies about "the context" = is it to "the church", "the home", "the secular environment" or a combo or all them.

It also seems there is great disagreement with what constitutes "authority over a man". Dictionary terms nearly always demonstrate that "having authority" requires there be a way to enforce, correct, punish, or enforce some sort of consequences. In a home bible study where a woman leads as 1) a teacher OR 2) as the facilitator in a discussion group, does she have "any authority" over the 10 adults who attend? I don't think so, but some seem to think so. What can she do if someone disagrees or leaves or is late?

I appreciate your thoughts. I have assignments due so I might not be able to reply right away. Thank you all!

 

[Mushroom]

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Does this mean to teach WITH authority, or does it mean to teach OR exercise authority - is it one thing forbidden, or two? Anybody have a grip on the Greek that can clarify that for us?

 

[JP Wallace]

1 Tim 2: 12 διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ’ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.


Literally: but to teach (infinitive) a woman (dative -ἐπιτρέπω always takes dative direct object) I do not permit, nor to govern/excercise authority over (infinitive) a man (genitive), but to be in silence.

So I think it is two things. οὐδὲ means not, not even, and not, neither.

 

[Scott1]

While it was a valiant effort, I can't navigate through the poll choices with the care necessary to answer this broad kind of question....

Biblically, the pattern of creation is what is looked to first, then the explicit and implicit commands and normative patterns in specific Scripture passages. God created man, then woman from man.

Hopefully, it is beyond needing to say to a Bible believing Christian that does not mean either gender is in any way inferior, not talented, etc. Both are of great worth, and need one another, according to plan. It is a beautiful thing when men and women work together according to God's plan, especially in the church! (Our world while increasingly promising 'equality' is more and more bearing the fruit of discord between the genders, perversion of them, while hypocritically claiming tolerance).

"Serving" (as Phoebe in Romans) is not to be confused with church office, e.g. Deacons are qualified as being husband of one wife, not wife of one husband (though some will read their own opinion into the word, a form of idolatry), etc.

Women are not given to ecclesiastical teaching of adult men or mixed audiences. It is not normal and is a reflection of all sorts of things being out of order from the (obvious) creation pattern, as well as the specific Scripture texts.

Generally, and this is less clear to me at this time from a Scriptural basis,
women can lead in business, politics and other realms (but as with all, home and worship priorities must be in place). Women may teach young children. Older women ought be teaching younger women, especially. I think that even means more mature, it can be taken in that sense.

But no church offices, except there is a servant widow type office particularly described in Scripture in I Timothy 5, not to be confused with the I Timothy 3 office of deacon, certainly not of elder, bishop or apostle.

Remember, serving does not require a title. Much of the Christian life is about serving, quietly, out of sight, out of mind, maybe with little or no recognition, not feeling "appreciated." Those who understand this, men and women will gain a steadfast assurance of their faith and great reward in the life to come.

Teaching their children, this has become something of a lost concern in this generation, and we are reaping the whirlwind for it.

Keep that in mind when asking these kinds of questions.

 

[jandrusk]

The questions are really confusing. Some say "It is SIN..." while others do not. I thought at first that the ones that didn't were the ones that are acceptable until I got to "Teach a bible study with men at church (even if appointed)" since the parenthetical phrase doesn't make sense with that assumption. I'm guessing that we should take "It is a SIN for a woman to:" as a part of each statement even though it is redundant in many of them.

Thank you all for your replies. I have a lot to consider here. The reason I wrote "It is a SIN" is because people keep saying "A woman can't..." by who's command? Mans? Then it doesn't count unless he is her husband, pastor, etc. If God's command, then it is "a sin" to disobey. I wanted to use "SIN" to filter all out claims that "a woman can't because... I don't like it... my church doesn't like it..." and get to what God says a woman can and can't do "because it is a SIN." So, yes, Scott, the poll is meant to be taken as "It is a SIN for a woman to:" do each of the poll questions. (The poll limited me in characters so I had to cut it out of each poll question ).

It seems most of the disagreement lies about "the context" = is it to "the church", "the home", "the secular environment" or a combo or all them.

It also seems there is great disagreement with what constitutes "authority over a man". Dictionary terms nearly always demonstrate that "having authority" requires there be a way to enforce, correct, punish, or enforce some sort of consequences. In a home bible study where a woman leads as 1) a teacher OR 2) as the facilitator in a discussion group, does she have "any authority" over the 10 adults who attend? I don't think so, but some seem to think so. What can she do if someone disagrees or leaves or is late?

I appreciate your thoughts. I have assignments due so I might not be able to reply right away. Thank you all!

As to the question on the SIN question if it's man's command or God's, if it's in the Scriptures then it's God's command unless specifically qualified. An example would be in 1 Corinthians when Paul is talking about marriage when he qualifies it with "...me and not the Lord...". If a man is attempting to defend this position without the using the Bible as the foundation then of course he is in error.

 

[JP Wallace]

An example would be in 1 Corinthians when Paul is talking about marriage when he qualifies it with "...me and not the Lord...".

Off topic (kind of) but I'd say Paul's command still comes with divine authority because (as you say later) it is in Scripture. It seems to me Paul must be saying 'I have not got a specific instruction from the risen Lord on this matter', yet he still writes as the Holy Spirit inspired author. Thus we are to understand verse 10 as being Paul's citation of Jesus earthly teaching on divorce, and verse 12 as his (Paul's) inspired teaching. Both however are God-breathed Scripture and have divine authority.

1 Corinthians 7:10-12 10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. 12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.

 

[Loopie]

As to the question on the SIN question if it's man's command or God's, if it's in the Scriptures then it's God's command unless specifically qualified. An example would be in 1 Corinthians when Paul is talking about marriage when he qualifies it with "...me and not the Lord...". If a man is attempting to defend this position without the using the Bible as the foundation then of course he is in error.

With all respect, I have always been taught that when Paul says "me and not the Lord" he is not saying that this command is less authoritative, or should not be considered to be divinely inspired. I understand it to be that Paul is simply differentiating between what Jesus himself had said during his ministry (which the Corinthians should have been familiar with), and the additional teaching given by Paul. Jesus never addressed the situation of an unbeliever being willing to stay married to a believer within the context of marriage. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16, was simply giving additional instructions regarding a situation that Jesus had not previously addressed. So when Paul says "I, not the Lord" he is simply telling the Corinthians that this is a new instruction, and is not something that Jesus addressed during his ministry. It is just as equally authoritative, since Paul is certainly writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and is, as an Apostle, giving instructions and commands to the Church. Thoughts?

 

[JP Wallace]

Thoughts?

See above I agree!

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

If a woman wasn't allowed to teach in any situation then these excellent works would be out of bounds. And they are excellent.


http://reformedlafayette.com/home/w...Revelation/JF OT Q1 - Creation to Abraham.pdf


http://www.reformedfellowship.net/i...hap-pdfs/Grade-6-Gods-Unfolding-Prom-3-16.pdf


Of course the above works are meant for the training of Children. But those young in the faith would greatly benefit from them as some people who don't have much of a theological background would also.


Some of the best instruction I have gained has been from women. Heidi Zwartman has been used of God in excellent ways for me as she has posted on the Westminster Confession of Faith and other historical things. Especially when I was moderating another theological forum that was prone to have a tendency towards aberrant theology in the Confessional Church. She never assumed a place of authority but did gently guide me a lot and expose the truth behind our Confessional heritage. I praise God for her. I also believe that her note concerning Abigail's appeal and instruction to Nabal / King David should be noted. Men would be negligent of the gift God has given to us through women if we didn't listen to their counsel in many situations. We will also be held accountable for not listening to them and considering what they might bring us from God's word. This is not to say that it isn't sin for a woman to teach and hold authority over men in situations that St. Paul is referring to.

Don't forget St. Paul's admonition to teat the older women as mothers. I have greatly appreciated the older woman who have put me in my place a few times.

1Ti 5:2    The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.

 

[JOwen]

My wife teaches me constantly about piety, godliness, unconditional love, and the simplicity of the gospel. She is a Sunday school teacher, VBS teacher, and teacher of her pastor. Where would I be without her? She would never teach another man on purpose, but children, and younger women, all the time. She will never be a deacon, elder, or pastor as she well understands. But be it far from me not to learn of one so well taught of the Spirit.

 

[jogri17]

None of them. It is a sin for a woman to be ordained to the office of Elder or Minister, but I do not believe you need to be ordained in the office of Elder or Teacher to be able to teach in any of the situations in the poll.

 

[Afterthought]

With regards to the passage in Titus, I found this thread quite helpful in understanding not only that, but the concept of "teaching" too: http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/titus-2-about-familial-ecclesiastical-relations-75979/

 

[jandrusk]

If a woman wasn't allowed to teach in any situation then these excellent works would be out of bounds. And they are excellent.


http://reformedlafayette.com/home/w...Revelation/JF OT Q1 - Creation to Abraham.pdf


http://www.reformedfellowship.net/i...hap-pdfs/Grade-6-Gods-Unfolding-Prom-3-16.pdf


Of course the above works are meant for the training of Children. But those young in the faith would greatly benefit from them as some people who don't have much of a theological background would also.


Some of the best instruction I have gained has been from women. Heidi Zwartman has been used of God in excellent ways for me as she has posted on the Westminster Confession of Faith and other historical things. Especially when I was moderating another theological forum that was prone to have a tendency towards aberrant theology in the Confessional Church. She never assumed a place of authority but did gently guide me a lot and expose the truth behind our Confessional heritage. I praise God for her. I also believe that her note concerning Abigail's appeal and instruction to Nabal / King David should be noted. Men would be negligent of the gift God has given to us through women if we didn't listen to their counsel in many situations. We will also be held accountable for not listening to them and considering what they might bring us from God's word. This is not to say that it isn't sin for a woman to teach and hold authority over men in situations that St. Paul is referring to.

Don't forget St. Paul's admonition to teat the older women as mothers. I have greatly appreciated the older woman who have put me in my place a few times.

1Ti 5:2    The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.

Well said we need to pay attention to whom the directive around authority is given. It's given to men with the assumption that there are men around who are educated in the doctrines of God. As long as a woman is not teaching in place of a man in the context given we need to accept it at that.

 

[One Little Nail]

In a Church,Kirk,Assembly,Congregation call it what you will, Women are not to Teach,
nor to exercise Authority over a Man but are to remain in Silence which also means they
are not to Read the Scriptures nor Offer Prayer out Loud as part of the Formal
Congregational Worship of God.

 

[Eoghan]

Sin is too strong. It is wrong for women to preach - I would not remain in a service where the preacher was a woman. I was uncomfortable at London Bible College with female lecturers (never really sorted that one out) but could not bring myself to attend worship when women were preaching. To my knowledge I was the only one who held that opinion.

When "the weekly bible study" becomes "all female" through a dearth of men, should the women discourage men from attending because they feel inhibited from speaking?

 

[Eoghan]

Call me a hypocrite ...

Sin is too strong. It is wrong for women to preach - I would not remain in a service where the preacher was a woman. I was uncomfortable at London Bible College with female lecturers (never really sorted that one out) but could not bring myself to attend worship when women were preaching. To my knowledge I was the only one who held that opinion.

When "the weekly bible study" becomes "all female" through a dearth of men, should the women discourage men from attending because they feel inhibited from speaking?

Ironically one of the speakers I really want to hear at the Strange Fire Conference is Joni Eareckson-Tada. Call me a hypocrite if you want but I do notice her contribution is labelled "testimony".