For what business of mine is it to judge outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE EVIL PERSON FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.
We must stop treating our enemies like that are a brother with whom we are having a disagreement. These are demonic teachings and they must be treated as such. Excellent article per usual.
Thank you for this. It seems like the consequence of failing to destroy the altars to false gods in your community is that your own people inevitably end up bringing them into the church. I believe this is one of the main lessons from the OT that we (specifically within the LCMS, but generally in American Christianity) have failed to learn. Israel/Judah paid a heavy price for not learning it. Meanwhile we just keep hearing about “separation of church and state” as if maintaining very recent (as in the past 100 years) liberal political sensibilities is our priority. The Lord’s Church will inevitably prevail, but there is no guarantee the LCMS will be counted within it or even continue to persist for very long.
We all suffer for the gross sins done in our midst. This week we have more clear evidence that the fruit of this evil sort of kindness is cannibalism and sorcery. Let judgment begin in the household of God. It is our own fault for lacking perception, we forgot that man is evil. Hopefully this clarity will produce a purer zeal. The blood of the ignorant is on our hands unless we warn them of the wages of sin.
My point is not that any of these things are not “de-frockable” in principle. The issue is that we too often decide which sins matter based on which “side” someone is on. When it suits us, some sins are ignored, quietly managed, or explained away - while others are exposed, written about, and weaponized. That double standard is neither confessional nor faithful.
What gets swept under the rug versus what gets publicly condemned is not accidental. It reveals allegiance, not integrity. And it undermines our credibility when we claim to care about holiness, accountability, or truth.
If we are willing to speak loudly about the sins of those we oppose, we must be equally willing to confront the sins of those we protect.
Hi Peter, there is nothing comical about vice. What actually is terrifying, to use your term, is a holy God who is watching us in our secret sins. It is crucial that we, as God's people, work to encourage each other towards accountability and holiness.
It's impossible to believe a pastor is called to discipline sin. It's laughable that a Synod has bylaws to investigate misconduct and discipline it. All very mysterious.
Oh no, these aren’t accusations. I’m simply referencing what has been reported by a reputable newspaper, including accompanying photographs. Yet, regrettably, this has not drawn the same level of condemnation from many.
Obviously the LCMS should be following the advice of the law center and league that provided the authority in the appeal to authority argument that you are referencing. People that hate your guts are not ok to look to for reporting.
Emily and Joshua Salzberg describe each other as friends and have worked together on mutual causes, as you can see in screenshots of public social media posts, the podcast transcript, and videos.
Emily also knows Sarah Salzberg and has worked with her as you can see in screenshots of public social media.
You can see from her public social media posts, and from the public podcast transcript of her interview with Joshua Salzberg and Tim Ahlman, several of the ideas Emily has in common with Joshua Salzberg.
You can see from her public social media posts, Emily‘s political biases.
You can see from her public social media post, Emily recommends the “Truth & Light” publication, accurately described this way in the February 4th Ad Crucem News Stakeholder Survey Results,
“Truth & Light is a dark money political action committee for LCMS Liberals.”
You can see from her public social media posts, Emily promotes Lutherans For Racial Justice, calling it a “fantastic resource“ and calling on people to follow their social media to hold our Synod accountable.
Emily and Joshua Salzberg are political activists, inside and outside of the LCMS. They demonstrate this openly in their public social media posts and the public podcast transcript of the interview by Tim Ahlman of Joshua Salzberg and Emily. They are not just lay people with private opinions, they have been delegates at LCMS District conventions, pursuing political agendas. Read through the transcript, and their posts, and you can judge for yourself what their political agendas are.
As far as what Joshua Saltzberg believes, and the political agenda he and others who align with his beliefs are working to achieve in our LCMS, we all need to be aware of what they are doing, and where it is going. The agendas are astoundingly antinomian. Where Salzberg gets into his distinctions between doctrine and policy application, which he and Ahlman both joke about as “nuance,” that is how they can change the church, if LCMS officials and the rest of the LCMS lets them. The church can be changed by persuading at least lay people, and maybe commissioned church workers (especially if they are successful in increasing the percentage of those representatives in the voting delegates), to support unorthodox, destructive policy application, which effectively changes our doctrine. That is how they did it with worship; change the practice, and you change the doctrine, but in these current doctrinal issues, attempting to normalize such spiritually destructive disobedience of God’s Word is even worse. That is my opinion and my warning. Read for yourself what they say in their own words. (Also, I have screenshots of the entire podcast transcript, and all the social media posts I’ve referenced, just in case some people try to erase the public record from existence.)
In the podcast, Ahlman said, “a lot of our kids who have gone down an ideological path which I do not think, long-term, is helpful for them.” In response, Salzberg said, “Well, I’ll say, since we’re modeling, hey, we can have conversations and disagree. I didn’t agree with everything you said there, but I really respect what you had to say and appreciate it. Just in terms of yeah, I think we have some differences of opinions on whether or not certain life choices are beneficial or not… I think this is a bigger conversation about how does sexuality and gender work?“
Then the podcast transcript proceeds as follows:
J. Salzberg: 38:54
And I don't know if that's within the scope of this podcast, but what I will say is, either way, I think something that we're missing and again I'm including myself in this, this is, you know, our responsibility here is how do we start having conversations about application and opening up that conversation, for instance, to talk about a less controversial subject, abortion. Somebody could, you know, be a hardliner in terms of here's life begins in conception, here's where it's at. This is what I believe. I'm 100 percent here and also go. I don't agree with the that there's only one civic policy, that criminalizing abortion is the way to address this issue. Right, like both things could exist At the same time. You could also say I don't think life begins at conception, and yet abortion should be criminalized across the board. And so those are. I don't know why we can't have more conversation.
Tim Ahlman: 39:43
Nuance man.
J. Salzberg: 39:44
Yeah, around the application, and I'm saying this because I know that pastors have gotten trouble for speaking about nuance, about the application, how policies live out in the real world, and I go. That doesn't the theology I get. If somebody says I don't agree with the LCMS doctrine, the scriptural interpretation here, well I get it. But if we're talking about political policy, civic policy, why isn't this up for conversation in a public way? We're all doing this privately. Yeah, I just don't. That's something I'd like to figure out how to navigate more.
“Schulz has been openly blasphemous in the past, yet still has a welcome mat in many LCMS venues. For example, in an interview with Zach Zehnder three years ago, Schultz said,…..”
There you go. Should anyone be surprised when the rainbow agenda is allowed a voice in non-denominational LCMS congregations? What better venue to introduce edgy, new material? Just quietly sideload “progressive” theology inside the pop-Evangelical curricula!
@Ad Crucem News Did LCMS leaders honestly think they could convince the general public that church growth was just introducing a few harmless praise songs during a service?
Another strong article showing real weakness in LCMS leadership. I’m a new member, less than a year in, and I’ve been following both the national news and what’s happening locally. Frankly, I’m astonished. At this point, the claim that LCMS congregations are meaningfully “in communion” seems like a joke.
Last year my family and I joined a large LCMS church. The new-member course taught nothing from the Book of Concord. Never mentioned the creeds. The catechisms were mentioned but not taught, and no doctrine was covered at all. It was a total of 4 hours spread across a month of Sunday afternoons. Had I not already been studying the Book of Concord before ever stepping in a Lutheran Church, I would have no idea what it means to be Lutheran. At least, that is, confessionally. Granted I'm so new, I still don't really know what it means to be Lutheran beyond what is confessed. My point, is that how would I know as a new LCMS member what it is I have to leave at the door, what beliefs do I hold that put me in communion with other LCMS Lutherans?
Whether we like it or not, the majority of us are shaped by the world. New members come in with all kinds of beliefs that run counter to Scripture. The world teaches to be affirming, to avoid hard edges, to accept everything. If the churches are not catechizing new members, how would they know what must be rejected and what must be confessed?
Our children were confirmed after roughly eight hours of instruction. Had we not been teaching them at home from the Catechisms, we would not have been comfortable with them communing. The church did very little to prepare either the adults or the children. It should not surprise anyone that some of the families received with us were publicly aligned with LGBTQ+ causes and were later platformed by the church. That was a major reason we left.
We drove fifteen minutes down the road and found another LCMS congregation. Same synod. Completely different emphasis. The Book of Concord is visible. It is used in Sunday school. The creeds are actually taught and explained. At the previous church, what dominated from the pulpit was therapeutic deism. How is it that these two churches are in communion?
If anyone doubts the divergence within the LCMS, here’s a simple exercise: watch sermons from some of the largest congregations. Look at their social media. Listen carefully. We do not all confess the same thing in practice, despite what the About page says on their websites.
Leadership weakness is a major issue, and I appreciate Ad Crucem for regularly calling it out. But this problem runs deeper than a few undisciplined people at the top. It is in every one of our churches.
For example, in both churches, I've found elders who could not explain basic Christian symbols or articulate what the confessions teach. I was surprised how many did not know what VDMA meant or how it was relevant to the reformation.
If this is going to be corrected, it must happen from the top with strong leadership, yes, but it must also happen in the ranks. Insist that new-member courses actually teach the Catechisms and the Confessions. Attend the new members courses from time to time. Pay very close attention in Bible studies. Occasionally attend your children's Sunday school teaching. Always ask them what they learned. Simply asking the question lets people know that others are watching. It is often a self-correcting mechanism. We cannot maintain real communion do not know what we are all confessing. And I think we'll see more articles like this as this problem is being corrected.
Michael, thank you for sharing your thoughts. Just from reading through your comment, you seem to be pretty well equipped for the level of discernment that, I wish were not quite as necessary as it is, when one enters LCMS congregational fellowship. May our Lord grant you continued strength, courage, and loving guidance and fellowship in our church body.
One part of your comment towards the end, is an idea I would not entirely agree with, though. While I certainly agree that the ranks can try to be faithful and stand their ground as much as possible in faithfulness to God‘s Word and our Lutheran Confessions, the political dynamics overall usually don’t allow for that if a pastor of a congregation is of an opposing mindset. I’ve been in the LCMS all my life, and in a wide variety of roles, and I think most who have been, would tell you it is still true that most often congregants follow their pastor’s lead, or if they can no longer do that in good conscience, they leave the congregation. When someone in the ranks might try to insist on something like you suggest, if it is not something the pastor wants to do, it won’t happen, and if there is continued disagreement, the Our Savior Lutheran Church in Virginia incident referred to in this article, is a good example of what happens to congregants who try to insist on something the pastor does not agree with. Consequently, it is Synod’s role and responsibility to handle the problems of any doctrine or practice that should not be part of LCMS institutions. The executive branch of any government is the one responsible for enforcing the rules and laws to maintain an orderly community. As much as they would like not to have to do it, it is primarily their responsibility.
Excellent point about the Synod bearing primary responsibility. I agree.
The Virginia situation, is an excellent example of what can happen when people speak up. It's rarely received well, even when you have the best of intentions and the Truth on your side. You will face resistance, marginalization, sometimes even being pushed out. The case of the church I left, is exactly as you said, the church was going to do nothing to change. We had a choice: except what they were teaching or leave. Granted, we had only attended that congregation for 5 months, so it was relatively easy to leave.
That dynamic is not new in church history. Luther’s situation was obviously on a different scale, but the principle is similar: you speak up regardless of the cost. Doctrine matters and it's worth great cost to defend.
I would love to talk to you more on this in the future. God bless you, and thank you for your thoughtfulness.
The specious argument on male and female in Genesisc1 is an example of solo scriptura. Interpreting the Bible apart from the history of Christian interpretation of a Scripture. If we took the position that the traditional reading of Scripture is innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, we would avoid the mess of queer interpretation.
Women's ordination, homosexuality and transgenderism are supported by throwing shade on the text and asking what if... We should meathodologically reject this approach and require the highest standard of proof before rejecting the historic interpretation.
Thank you. Seems to me that the root of all this trouble lies in Schultz's comment, "if he were alive today."
"I said that I truly believed this was the kind of place Jesus would have been spending time if He were alive today."
Exactly. If slips can be Freudian, then he found the world's largest banana skin.
My mentor and friend, +Pr. Louis A. Smith said: God justifies the ungodly not ungodliness.
Well said. The church has no need for pastors if everything is permissible. Cheerleaders for sin are a dime-a-dozen and much cheaper.
We must stop treating our enemies like that are a brother with whom we are having a disagreement. These are demonic teachings and they must be treated as such. Excellent article per usual.
I was literally just in the middle of watching the video in footnote 6 when it was taken down
Incredible!
Thank you for this. It seems like the consequence of failing to destroy the altars to false gods in your community is that your own people inevitably end up bringing them into the church. I believe this is one of the main lessons from the OT that we (specifically within the LCMS, but generally in American Christianity) have failed to learn. Israel/Judah paid a heavy price for not learning it. Meanwhile we just keep hearing about “separation of church and state” as if maintaining very recent (as in the past 100 years) liberal political sensibilities is our priority. The Lord’s Church will inevitably prevail, but there is no guarantee the LCMS will be counted within it or even continue to persist for very long.
We all suffer for the gross sins done in our midst. This week we have more clear evidence that the fruit of this evil sort of kindness is cannibalism and sorcery. Let judgment begin in the household of God. It is our own fault for lacking perception, we forgot that man is evil. Hopefully this clarity will produce a purer zeal. The blood of the ignorant is on our hands unless we warn them of the wages of sin.
So glad that there’s a list of things and reasons for pastors to be defrocked…missing being a Neo-Nazi…we don’t defrock them…we keep them…
Which reasons for defrocking pastors do you disagree with, Emily?
Which Neo-Nazi pastors are on the roster?
Maybe more paid trips to Isreal to push dispensationalism on ignorant Americans.
Pay per post about anti-semitism?
My point is not that any of these things are not “de-frockable” in principle. The issue is that we too often decide which sins matter based on which “side” someone is on. When it suits us, some sins are ignored, quietly managed, or explained away - while others are exposed, written about, and weaponized. That double standard is neither confessional nor faithful.
What gets swept under the rug versus what gets publicly condemned is not accidental. It reveals allegiance, not integrity. And it undermines our credibility when we claim to care about holiness, accountability, or truth.
If we are willing to speak loudly about the sins of those we oppose, we must be equally willing to confront the sins of those we protect.
Hi Peter, there is nothing comical about vice. What actually is terrifying, to use your term, is a holy God who is watching us in our secret sins. It is crucial that we, as God's people, work to encourage each other towards accountability and holiness.
It's impossible to believe a pastor is called to discipline sin. It's laughable that a Synod has bylaws to investigate misconduct and discipline it. All very mysterious.
You made a specific charge about Neo Nazi pastors, and I presume this is what you believe is being swept under the rug?
Which sins are weaponized and how?
Which public sins by pastors are major problems for the LCMS?
Oh no, these aren’t accusations. I’m simply referencing what has been reported by a reputable newspaper, including accompanying photographs. Yet, regrettably, this has not drawn the same level of condemnation from many.
Obviously the LCMS should be following the advice of the law center and league that provided the authority in the appeal to authority argument that you are referencing. People that hate your guts are not ok to look to for reporting.
The people who are interacting with Emily, here, deserve to know about some of the context influencing her statements and assertions. https://docs.google.com/document/d/13t7p0-gcNTKBXr6icGG9YOE45VEm2Xh9N7a95FjNybo/edit?usp=drivesdk
Emily and Joshua Salzberg describe each other as friends and have worked together on mutual causes, as you can see in screenshots of public social media posts, the podcast transcript, and videos.
Emily also knows Sarah Salzberg and has worked with her as you can see in screenshots of public social media.
You can see from her public social media posts, and from the public podcast transcript of her interview with Joshua Salzberg and Tim Ahlman, several of the ideas Emily has in common with Joshua Salzberg.
You can see from her public social media posts, Emily‘s political biases.
You can see from her public social media post, Emily recommends the “Truth & Light” publication, accurately described this way in the February 4th Ad Crucem News Stakeholder Survey Results,
“Truth & Light is a dark money political action committee for LCMS Liberals.”
You can see from her public social media posts, Emily promotes Lutherans For Racial Justice, calling it a “fantastic resource“ and calling on people to follow their social media to hold our Synod accountable.
Emily and Joshua Salzberg are political activists, inside and outside of the LCMS. They demonstrate this openly in their public social media posts and the public podcast transcript of the interview by Tim Ahlman of Joshua Salzberg and Emily. They are not just lay people with private opinions, they have been delegates at LCMS District conventions, pursuing political agendas. Read through the transcript, and their posts, and you can judge for yourself what their political agendas are.
As far as what Joshua Saltzberg believes, and the political agenda he and others who align with his beliefs are working to achieve in our LCMS, we all need to be aware of what they are doing, and where it is going. The agendas are astoundingly antinomian. Where Salzberg gets into his distinctions between doctrine and policy application, which he and Ahlman both joke about as “nuance,” that is how they can change the church, if LCMS officials and the rest of the LCMS lets them. The church can be changed by persuading at least lay people, and maybe commissioned church workers (especially if they are successful in increasing the percentage of those representatives in the voting delegates), to support unorthodox, destructive policy application, which effectively changes our doctrine. That is how they did it with worship; change the practice, and you change the doctrine, but in these current doctrinal issues, attempting to normalize such spiritually destructive disobedience of God’s Word is even worse. That is my opinion and my warning. Read for yourself what they say in their own words. (Also, I have screenshots of the entire podcast transcript, and all the social media posts I’ve referenced, just in case some people try to erase the public record from existence.)
In the podcast, Ahlman said, “a lot of our kids who have gone down an ideological path which I do not think, long-term, is helpful for them.” In response, Salzberg said, “Well, I’ll say, since we’re modeling, hey, we can have conversations and disagree. I didn’t agree with everything you said there, but I really respect what you had to say and appreciate it. Just in terms of yeah, I think we have some differences of opinions on whether or not certain life choices are beneficial or not… I think this is a bigger conversation about how does sexuality and gender work?“
Then the podcast transcript proceeds as follows:
J. Salzberg: 38:54
And I don't know if that's within the scope of this podcast, but what I will say is, either way, I think something that we're missing and again I'm including myself in this, this is, you know, our responsibility here is how do we start having conversations about application and opening up that conversation, for instance, to talk about a less controversial subject, abortion. Somebody could, you know, be a hardliner in terms of here's life begins in conception, here's where it's at. This is what I believe. I'm 100 percent here and also go. I don't agree with the that there's only one civic policy, that criminalizing abortion is the way to address this issue. Right, like both things could exist At the same time. You could also say I don't think life begins at conception, and yet abortion should be criminalized across the board. And so those are. I don't know why we can't have more conversation.
Tim Ahlman: 39:43
Nuance man.
J. Salzberg: 39:44
Yeah, around the application, and I'm saying this because I know that pastors have gotten trouble for speaking about nuance, about the application, how policies live out in the real world, and I go. That doesn't the theology I get. If somebody says I don't agree with the LCMS doctrine, the scriptural interpretation here, well I get it. But if we're talking about political policy, civic policy, why isn't this up for conversation in a public way? We're all doing this privately. Yeah, I just don't. That's something I'd like to figure out how to navigate more.
@Ad Crucem News wrote:
“Schulz has been openly blasphemous in the past, yet still has a welcome mat in many LCMS venues. For example, in an interview with Zach Zehnder three years ago, Schultz said,…..”
There you go. Should anyone be surprised when the rainbow agenda is allowed a voice in non-denominational LCMS congregations? What better venue to introduce edgy, new material? Just quietly sideload “progressive” theology inside the pop-Evangelical curricula!
@Ad Crucem News Did LCMS leaders honestly think they could convince the general public that church growth was just introducing a few harmless praise songs during a service?
Another strong article showing real weakness in LCMS leadership. I’m a new member, less than a year in, and I’ve been following both the national news and what’s happening locally. Frankly, I’m astonished. At this point, the claim that LCMS congregations are meaningfully “in communion” seems like a joke.
Last year my family and I joined a large LCMS church. The new-member course taught nothing from the Book of Concord. Never mentioned the creeds. The catechisms were mentioned but not taught, and no doctrine was covered at all. It was a total of 4 hours spread across a month of Sunday afternoons. Had I not already been studying the Book of Concord before ever stepping in a Lutheran Church, I would have no idea what it means to be Lutheran. At least, that is, confessionally. Granted I'm so new, I still don't really know what it means to be Lutheran beyond what is confessed. My point, is that how would I know as a new LCMS member what it is I have to leave at the door, what beliefs do I hold that put me in communion with other LCMS Lutherans?
Whether we like it or not, the majority of us are shaped by the world. New members come in with all kinds of beliefs that run counter to Scripture. The world teaches to be affirming, to avoid hard edges, to accept everything. If the churches are not catechizing new members, how would they know what must be rejected and what must be confessed?
Our children were confirmed after roughly eight hours of instruction. Had we not been teaching them at home from the Catechisms, we would not have been comfortable with them communing. The church did very little to prepare either the adults or the children. It should not surprise anyone that some of the families received with us were publicly aligned with LGBTQ+ causes and were later platformed by the church. That was a major reason we left.
We drove fifteen minutes down the road and found another LCMS congregation. Same synod. Completely different emphasis. The Book of Concord is visible. It is used in Sunday school. The creeds are actually taught and explained. At the previous church, what dominated from the pulpit was therapeutic deism. How is it that these two churches are in communion?
If anyone doubts the divergence within the LCMS, here’s a simple exercise: watch sermons from some of the largest congregations. Look at their social media. Listen carefully. We do not all confess the same thing in practice, despite what the About page says on their websites.
Leadership weakness is a major issue, and I appreciate Ad Crucem for regularly calling it out. But this problem runs deeper than a few undisciplined people at the top. It is in every one of our churches.
For example, in both churches, I've found elders who could not explain basic Christian symbols or articulate what the confessions teach. I was surprised how many did not know what VDMA meant or how it was relevant to the reformation.
If this is going to be corrected, it must happen from the top with strong leadership, yes, but it must also happen in the ranks. Insist that new-member courses actually teach the Catechisms and the Confessions. Attend the new members courses from time to time. Pay very close attention in Bible studies. Occasionally attend your children's Sunday school teaching. Always ask them what they learned. Simply asking the question lets people know that others are watching. It is often a self-correcting mechanism. We cannot maintain real communion do not know what we are all confessing. And I think we'll see more articles like this as this problem is being corrected.
Michael, thank you for sharing your thoughts. Just from reading through your comment, you seem to be pretty well equipped for the level of discernment that, I wish were not quite as necessary as it is, when one enters LCMS congregational fellowship. May our Lord grant you continued strength, courage, and loving guidance and fellowship in our church body.
One part of your comment towards the end, is an idea I would not entirely agree with, though. While I certainly agree that the ranks can try to be faithful and stand their ground as much as possible in faithfulness to God‘s Word and our Lutheran Confessions, the political dynamics overall usually don’t allow for that if a pastor of a congregation is of an opposing mindset. I’ve been in the LCMS all my life, and in a wide variety of roles, and I think most who have been, would tell you it is still true that most often congregants follow their pastor’s lead, or if they can no longer do that in good conscience, they leave the congregation. When someone in the ranks might try to insist on something like you suggest, if it is not something the pastor wants to do, it won’t happen, and if there is continued disagreement, the Our Savior Lutheran Church in Virginia incident referred to in this article, is a good example of what happens to congregants who try to insist on something the pastor does not agree with. Consequently, it is Synod’s role and responsibility to handle the problems of any doctrine or practice that should not be part of LCMS institutions. The executive branch of any government is the one responsible for enforcing the rules and laws to maintain an orderly community. As much as they would like not to have to do it, it is primarily their responsibility.
Excellent point about the Synod bearing primary responsibility. I agree.
The Virginia situation, is an excellent example of what can happen when people speak up. It's rarely received well, even when you have the best of intentions and the Truth on your side. You will face resistance, marginalization, sometimes even being pushed out. The case of the church I left, is exactly as you said, the church was going to do nothing to change. We had a choice: except what they were teaching or leave. Granted, we had only attended that congregation for 5 months, so it was relatively easy to leave.
That dynamic is not new in church history. Luther’s situation was obviously on a different scale, but the principle is similar: you speak up regardless of the cost. Doctrine matters and it's worth great cost to defend.
I would love to talk to you more on this in the future. God bless you, and thank you for your thoughtfulness.
Excellent article; a helpful presentation of these issues. If only Synod would listen.
The specious argument on male and female in Genesisc1 is an example of solo scriptura. Interpreting the Bible apart from the history of Christian interpretation of a Scripture. If we took the position that the traditional reading of Scripture is innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, we would avoid the mess of queer interpretation.
Women's ordination, homosexuality and transgenderism are supported by throwing shade on the text and asking what if... We should meathodologically reject this approach and require the highest standard of proof before rejecting the historic interpretation.
It is simply a reprise of "Did God really say...", is it not? Satan going back to old reliable.
You have nailed it.