Narrowing the Parameters of Cooperation

“The slippery slope of Coerced Conformity”

An open letter to the Pastors and Churches of the Holmes Baptist Association.

(For the full story of what necessitated this letter click here)


May 31, 2007

Dear Brothers,

I am writing to you concerning what I believe to be a grave danger to the future of our association: The attempt by some powerful individuals in our state convention to narrow the long established and historic Southern Baptist parameters of cooperation.

For over eighty years the Baptist Faith and Message (1925, 1963, 2000) has been the one document that has defined, not only for ourselves but for the world as well, what it means to be a Southern Baptist. The Preamble to the BFM2000 says:

Baptists are a people of deep beliefs and cherished doctrines. Throughout our history we have been a confessional people, adopting statements of faith as a witness to our beliefs and a pledge of our faithfulness to the doctrines revealed in Holy Scripture.

Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability. We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice.

The Baptist Faith and Message is the exclusive “Doctrinal Contract” adopted by the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1925, 1963, and 2000 to be used as an instrument of doctrinal accountability. Yet increasingly we have powerful individuals in our state convention who desire to “discipline” or “exclude from service or membership” individuals or churches who do not agree with them on doctrines and issues not addressed in the Baptist Faith and Message.

This attitude of intolerance toward their fellow Southern Baptist who do not believe precisely as they believe on every doctrine is a deadly and infectious disease that if left unchecked will cripple cooperation between our Churches. As Southern Baptist we must be clear in our understanding that Coerced Conformity is not Cooperation.

The narrowing of the parameters of cooperation to discipline or exclude fellow Southern Baptist based upon the personal opinions of a few powerful individuals in the state convention is slap in the face to the Baptist doctrines expressed in our statement of faith; the Baptist Faith and Message:

XIV. Cooperation

Christ's people should, as occasion requires, organize such associations and conventions as may best secure cooperation for the great objects of the Kingdom of God. Such organizations have no authority over one another or over the churches. They are voluntary and advisory bodies designed to elicit, combine, and direct the energies of our people in the most effective manner. Members of New Testament churches should cooperate with one another in carrying forward the missionary, educational, and benevolent ministries for the extension of Christ's Kingdom. Christian unity in the New Testament sense is spiritual harmony and voluntary cooperation for common ends by various groups of Christ's people. Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations, when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament.

XVII. Religious Liberty

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it…

When the Southern Baptist Convention meet to consider the adoption of the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message it was not a sure thing that it would pass. Some considered it to broad and moderate a statement to be used as a document of doctrinal accountability. Southern Baptist statesman, theologian and President of the SBC, E.Y. Mullins address the convention with these words that still ring with great wisdom for all Southern Baptist some eighty years latter:

Members of the Convention:--

There is one thing that I believe a man can always do with safety, and without disappointment, and that is to appeal to the sense of fair play of a Baptist body. Now there are individual Baptists to whom you can not make that appeal, but there are now present a great body of Baptist people, and down in the bottom of their hearts there is honesty and there is common sense, and there is a spirit of fairness; and I come to you this afternoon simply and solely with a plea for Christ and his truth, for the work of his Kingdom, and for fair play with all the brethren.

I hope to make good the basis of that plea for fair play in a few moments, and I believe that this great body of splendid Baptists will respond to that appeal, and that is all I ask…

Now, brethren, I might say this, although I don’t suppose it is necessary to dwell on it, if we were to undertake to put our personal preferences in the doctrinal statement and insist upon our personal group preferences being put in the confession of faith, for Baptists covering eighteen states like this, where would we ‘fetch up at’ I can just think of things I know some men would put in. Some people would want to insist on a twenty-four hour day in Genesis, and some a period day. Some people would insist on post-millennialism, and some people on premillenialism. Some people would insist on church succession and some on anti-church succession. Some would insist on a universal church and some would oppose the universal church.

Why, there is no end to where we would go… Brethren, I appeal to you for fair play. I don’t believe it is fair play for a group of brethren who are particularly committed to this standpoint, to come here and inist that everybody in the conference confrom to that standpoint.

…I believe that one thing about the Baptist conscience is fair play. One thing about the Baptist conscience is straight-forwardness. One thing about the Baptist conscience is its willingness to recognize the opinions of other people and rights of other people, within gospel limits.

(The above quotes were barrowed from Wade Burleson blog: here)

Any call to “discipline” or “exclude from service or membership” any individual or church is a grave and serious matter among Southern Baptist and should not be entered into lightly.

Cooperation is at the heart of who we are as Southern Baptist and in the end if we only cooperate with those who agree with us 100% of the time on every doctrine and every issue we would soon be pretty lonely.

I close with these previous words; “Coerced Conformity is not Cooperation.”

Respectfully,

Greg Alford
Senior Pastor
First Baptist Church
2877 Highway 81 N.
Ponce de Leon, Florida 32455

Is the Convention System Outdated?

The SBC claims to be the world’s largest protestant denomination with some 16 million members and 45,000 churches. Yet it was reported that only 9,000 messengers representing 2,000 SBC churches were present at last year’s 2006 Southern Baptist Convention.

Here are some statistics worth considering:

(2,000 / 45,000 = 4.44%) That means that less than 4½ percent of all Southern Baptist Churches were represented at last year’s convention… Ouch!

When you reverse that statement it becomes even clearer: Over 95.5 % of all Southern Baptist churches were not represented at last year’s convention… Again OUCH!

Regardless of how you run the numbers… it is a sad indictment on our claims of being a Democratic Convention, and for anything coming out of any convention as being a representation of the will of all Southern Baptist or what all Southern Baptist believe.

Do you believe the Convention System is representing you?

Question on Salvation

I had the wonderful privilege this week of witnessing to an eighty three year old man in the hospital with massive heart failure and seeing him respond to the gospel in brokenness and repentance. To see someone who had walked in darkness for eighty three years come to saving faith in Christ Jesus was to say the least an awesome moment!

Therefore the doctrine of salvation has been on my mind a lot this week and I would like to pose a question concerning the salvation of sinners.

When a person is saved:
· Is it the case that God is at that particular moment intervening in their life?
· Or is it just that they have wised up and made the correct choice?

What do you say?

Saying Goodbye to an Old Friend

Wade Burleson writes on his blog: Has the Gospel's Power Been Lost in the SBC?

...Though we say with our lips salvation is by grace through the work of Christ, we sometimes broadcast with our lives that salvation is really only found in our church, our message, and our baptism.

…Recently the new (IMB) policy on baptism was shown to Ray Hugget, High Priest of the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints and a direct descendent of Joseph Smith, and asked him what he thought of it. Ray read it carefully and then proclaimed that the policy is just like his church's view on baptism. I asked him to clarify and he said, "A legitimate baptism is one performed only in our church, because we are the true church of Jesus Christ on earth, and we would not accept any other baptism."

I have documented my strong opposition to these new and unauthorized (extra-BFM2000) doctrines/guidlines that have been adopted by the IMB here: The IMB “Canonizes” its policy on Baptism and Tongues

The Board of Trustees of the IMB have had over a year to correct these new policies and have decided instead to simply restate them as “guidelines”, which in effect leaves them in place unchanged. This means that according to these new (narrow) parameters of cooperation certain members of FBC Ponce de Leon, which were before these new guidelines were adopted qualified for service with the IMB, are now considered unqualified to serve as a missionary with the IMB.

Therefore, I have drawn up the following new guideline for FBC Ponce de Leon when considering cooperation with any International Missions Agency:

Guideline on International Missions Agencies

If an International Missions Agency “narrows the parameters of cooperation” beyond the doctrines expressed in our Statement of Faith (BFM2000), without satisfactory scriptural support, to such a degree that the members of this Southern Baptist church are no longer qualified to serve, the International Missions Agency has eliminated itself from being a representative of this church.

It is with great regret and the deep emotions associated with loosing an old friend that the Executive Committee of FBC Ponce de Leon, meeting at our regular monthly time, reached the decision that the IMB has “eliminated itself from being a representative of this church” and will no longer receive financial support from this congregation.

Grace to all,

Cautious Cooperating Southern Baptist

I have noticed that many bloggers have started identified themselves as “Cautious Cessationist” when stating their position on miraculous works of the Holy Spirit in our day. On this same subject others have identified themselves as “Cautious Continuationist”.

I have no problem with these definitions and I fully understand the need to be cautious… for I have learned that in this current political climate of “ever narrowing parameters of cooperation”, and increasing “Landmark influence” throughout much of the convention, that one needs to be “Cautious” in order to survive in the SBC today.

So I guess you could call me a “Cautious Cooperating Southern Baptist”. And if I were a Missionary with the IMB I would be very cautious! It is a sad day when Missionaries have to be protected from the very ones who sent them… from hostility in the field and at home.

“Cautious” is indeed the word that best describes life the SBC today…

Grace to all,

Before I formed you in the womb

My wife and I were discussing (Jeremiah 1:5) last night.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

(I love having a wife that I can discuss theology with…) During this discussion the thought occurred to us that throughout our lives we are in the constant process of learning who we really are, and who others really are. But not God... He already knows who we really are… to such an extent that “God never learns anything new about us”.

He is never surprised by our sin or our actions. His love is not conditioned upon His foreknowledge of our right behavior. Quite the opposite, His foreknowledge revealed our sinfulness while we were yet “in the womb”... and still He says “before you were born I set you apart”…

Our lives are novels upon the shelves of His personal library. Each day is a page in the novel of our life, and the pages that lay ahead are utterly unknown unto us. But not God... He has read every word of the novel that is our life, even before we turned the first page. And having read this novel, that at times filled his heart with joy and at other times caused him to weep with sadness, God placed us in His basket to take home… to treasure us forever…

This is a wonderful thought; it is too high for me…

Overcome by Grace,
Greg

Calvinism and mental health: have you been exposed?

Bill Lollar has written a rather humorous article on Calvinism that is also very true.

Check it out: Calvinism and mental health: have you been exposed?

Grace to all,

The IMB “Canonizes” its policy on Baptism and Tongues

Here is the full report…

Report of the Mission Personnel Ad Hoc CommitteeMay 2007

In March of 2006 an ad hoc committee of Mission Personnel Committee received the charge to revisit the approved board policy on tongues and prayer language and the approved board guideline on baptism, both adopted in November 2005. The ad hoc committee has met over the past year during board meetings as well as a two-day special meeting to consider the vast amount of material gathered from leaders, scholars, and pastors across our denomination. The committee solicited this material in an attempt to be faithful to its task. The committee has also spent considerable time praying, fasting, and seeking God’s heart on these issues. The committee has no desire to create further controversy. Rather, our desire is to bring this study to completion and allow the board to maintain its focus upon our world mission task.

The ad hoc committee has concluded that even though field related data and consultation with regional leaders has not indicated a systemic problem with charismatic practices among field personnel, the rapid spread of neo-pentecostalism and its pressure exacted on the new churches in various regions of the world warrants a concern for the clear Baptist identity of our missionary candidates. Furthermore, the diversity of denominational backgrounds among missionary candidates requires a clear baptism guideline to guide the work of our candidate consultants as they consider the qualifications of candidates.

Therefore, we recommend that the full board adopt the following two guidelines to replace Policy 200-15 and Guideline 200-3a. The Mission Personnel Committee approved this recommendation on March 20, 2007 by a three-fourths majority.

Guideline on Tongues and Prayer Language

GLOSSOLALIA
1. The New Testament speaks of a gift of glossolalia that generally is considered to be a legitimate language.
2. The New Testament expression of glossolalia as a gift had specific uses and conditions for its exercise in public worship.
3. In terms of worship practices, if glossolalia is a public part of the candidate’s current practice and it does not fall within the definitions of Parts 1 & 2 above, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC.

PRAYER LANGUAGE
1. Any spiritual experience must be tested by Scriptures.
2. New Testament teaching is that prayer is to be made with understanding.
3. The board is not persuaded that ecstatic utterance as a prayer language is a valid expression of the New Testament teaching on prayer.
4. Therefore, if an “ecstatic utterances as a prayer language” is a part of the candidate’s current practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC.

APPLICATION
1. This guideline is not retroactive.
2. Any exceptions to the above guideline must be reviewed by the staff and the Mission
Personnel Committee.

Proposed Guideline on Baptism

THAT each candidate’s baptismal experience be examined, during the application process, in light of the Baptist Faith and Message statement and the points listed below:

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper. 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, Article VII

POINTS TO BE COVERED DURING THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS

1. The individual

(a.) Believer’s baptism by immersion. Baptism by immersion follows salvation.
(b.) Baptism is symbolic, picturing the experience of the believer’s death to sin and resurrection to a new life in Christ.Baptism does not regenerate.

2. The Church

(a.) Baptism is a church ordinance.Baptism must take place under the authority of a local church that practices believer’s baptism alone, embraces the doctrine of the security of a believer’s salvation and does not view baptism as sacramental, regenerative or essential to salvation.
(b.) A candidate who has not been baptized under the authority of a local church which meets the standards listed above is expected to request baptism in his or her Southern Bapist church.

3. The Candidate

The candidate is responsible for requesting their home church to assist them in meeting this doctrinal commitment to the above points.

4. The Consultant

While the candidate consultant should have a working knowledge of many denominational groups, he or she is not expected to investigate every church.

APPLICATION

1. The guideline is not retroactive. Any exception to the above guideline must be reviewed by staff and the Mission Personnel Committee.

(End of committee report)


My Commentary on this issue:

This is not a trivial matter!

The Board of Trusties of the IMB has taken it upon themselves to define for the Southern Baptist Convention what is acceptable doctrine and practice in the areas of Tongues and Baptism. Others like Wade have posted a great deal on the issue of Tongues so I will concentrate specifically on the doctrine of Baptism. I have made a few comments on Wade’s blog that I need to bring over here for discussion.

Here are my post on Wade’s blog:

I am a life long Southern Baptist Pastor who, in the past, has ALWAYS supported the various agencies of the Southern Baptist Convention. I have consistently motivated each church I have pastured to greater support of our Southern Baptist Mission efforts through increased giving.

A few years ago (due to what we felt were inappropriate actions by certain Florida Baptist Officials) the Leadership of my current church decided by unanimous consent to stop funding the C.P. and send our support directly to NAMB and IMB.

We have continued to support both NAMB and IMB as they faced controversy these last couple of years. I can honestly say that I was impressed and yes even PROUD of the way that NAMB responded to their difficult situation and because of their willingness to address each and every concern that was raised, I have even more confidence in NAMB today than I did before. I regret that I cannot say the same of IMB.

Because of NAMB’s willingness to address, and yes make the proper corrections, NAMB will continue to receive my full support. Because the IMB has refused to follow the example set by NAMB (see the comments by Micah Fries above) I can no longer recommend that my church send support to IMB until these guidelines/policies (there is no difference) are changed.

Why would any Southern Baptist Church send its missions support to any agency that would not accept its own Pastor or Members? There are options…Grace to all,

Wednesday, May 09, 2007
___________________

Beth,

Thank you for the compliment… I do “immature” quite well don’t you think? Kind of like the IMB BOT saying to “All” Southern Baptist “if you don’t play by our rules you don’t get to play at all”… sounds a little immature on their part if you ask me.

Notice, I did not say I was no longer going to support Southern Baptist Missionaries… “There are options…”

Beth, just what would you suggest would be an appropriate response to this decision of the IMB BOT (not unanimous I am sure) to force their Neo-Landmark doctrines upon all Southern Baptist? Just what is a local church pastor to do? I am really open to other ideas as to how to respond to all of this… if someone can come up with a better solution than pulling our support for IMB I would like to hear it?

Perhaps the IMB could come up with a “Two Track” system where those who wish to serve under their new Landmark rules can apply, and those churches who wish to support Landmark missionaries can support them… And another of us who were very satisfied and happy under the old system can still serve as missionaries and send support also? I suppose that is asking too much though… for a Southern Baptist Church to be able to send a missionary through the Southern Baptist IMB that reflects its own beliefs instead of those of others.

Wade,

Thank you so much for the compliment, you are too kind… Not sure I am ready for the BOT yet; I have a long way to go before I learn to handle myself with the grace and gentleness that you show in the face of such difficult issues…

But, thanks for the encouragement and you can be sure that I will ALWAYS support Southern Baptist Missionaries… where there is a will, there is always a way.Grace to all,

Wednesday, May 09, 2007
____________________

Katya,

I have not broken fellowship with the IMB, the IMB has broken fellowship with me.

In following the language of the International Mission Board I have drafted a new “guideline” for my church when considering International Missions Agencies.

Guideline on International Missions Agencies

If an International Missions Agency “narrows the parameters of cooperation” beyond the doctrines expressed in our Statement of Faith (BFM2000), without satisfactory scriptural support, to such a degree that the members of this Southern Baptist church are no longer qualified to serve, the International Missions Agency has eliminated itself from being a representative of this church.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding on who has initiated this breach of fellowship… it was not I!

Grace to all,
Thursday, May 10, 2007
__________________


Wade,

I have only one, perhaps two, members in my church of whom I am aware that have a “private” prayer language…

On the other hand, I have many members who have come to us from different denominational backgrounds (Presbyterian, Assembly of God, Independent Baptist, etc.) all of whom were Baptized by immersion following their conversion. In other words their Baptism is (according to the N.T.) “PROPER”. Yet, according to the BOT of the IMB their Baptism in “unacceptable”…

The IMB BOT writes:

A candidate who has not been baptized under the authority of a local church which meets the standards listed above is expected to request baptism in his or her Southern Bapist church.

“There is one Baptism…” only one! Putting someone who has been properly Baptized according to the Scripture through the “ritual” of re-baptizing them is in fact not Baptism. It is a “MAN MADE RITUAL”. A person may submit to, or “request” that his or her Southern Baptist church perform as many “rituals” upon them as they wish… It is not Baptism.

As a Pastor called by God, not the IMB, I will not even one time stand guilty before my God for doing such a thing to one of his children.

Grace to all,
Friday, May 11, 2007
________________


What do you think? Am I off base in my assessment and response to this move by the BOT of the IMB?

Avoiding the Ditches of Liberalism & Legalism

Rodney Albert over on SBC OUTPOST ask “Is it that parameters are being narrowed, or is it that they’re being widened?”

There are some pretty deep ditches on both sides of the strait and narrow way… Turn to the left and you fall into Liberalism, turn to the right and you fall into Legalism. Both are deadly…

Both must be avoided… “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” (Matt.7:14)

So, how can we (the SBC) keep on the narrow way and avoid ditches? How can one guard against both Liberalism and Legalism?

Psalms 119:11 gives us the answer ” Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.”

Note, that Liberalism and Legalism are both unbiblical. One takes away from what the Bible teaches and the other adds to what the Bible teaches.

The SBC has (on paper at least) won the battle over the “Inerrancy of Scripture” that was necessary to keep us from slipping into the left hand ditch of Liberalism…

Now the SBC is facing the battle over the “Sufficiency of Scripture” that is necessary to keep us from slipping into the right hand ditch of Legalism…

Grace to all

Coerced Conformity – Sullivan’s Legacy?

What is taking place in the Florida Baptist Convention; "the narrowing of the parameters of cooperation" to include only Baptist who “hold to a total abstinence form alcohol conviction” has occupied quite a bit of my thoughts lately. There are several reasons why this has so captured my attention and caused me such concern.

#1. The concentration of “unquestionable power" is always dangerous, deadly, and unbiblical for any man to possess. History has proven this to be true over and over. That one man, the Executive Director/Treasurer of the Florida Baptist Convention, (Dr. John Sullivan) has been given such power to enact his will upon the Baptist of the State of Florida is undeniable. Yes, he will go through the proper channels to enact his will, but can anyone deny that in all but an extreme request whoever holds this powerful position in the State of Florida will get whatsoever he ask for? However, in asking that the parameters of cooperation be narrowed based upon his personal convictions a very “dangerous precedent” has now been established whereas the Executive Director/Treasurer of the Florida Baptist Convention, and not our confession of faith, is looked to for guidance on matters of what constitutes appropriate doctrine for cooperation among the individuals and churches that make up the Florida Baptist Convention. Future Executive Director/Treasurers will exercise this “new authority” to mold and shape the Florida Baptist Convention in ways that cannot now be predicted or known.

#2. The Executive Director/Treasurer of the Florida Baptist Convention is using the power of his position to “deny equal opportunity for employment or service” with the Florida Baptist Convention to all Baptist of the State of Florida who do not share his personal convictions on total abstinence from alcohol, instead of using the power of his position to educate and convince fellow Florida Baptist of the wisdom of his convictions. Once again a “dangerous precedent” is being established whereby Florida Baptist are being excluded, or denied opportunity of employment and service, based not upon some conflict with the doctrines contained in our Confession of Faith, but upon one man’s “personal convictions” which cannot be fully known at the time of his hiring. That one agrees or does not agree with the motivation for Dr. Sullivan’s actions is not the issue here. The issue is - if this “dangerous precedent” is allowed to stand, the seeds of future instability will have been planted within the Florida Baptist Convention. This is because the personal convictions of the Executive Director/Treasurer have now become the standard for acceptance and service within the Florida Baptist Convention, and his convictions on any and all matters of faith can never be fully known at any given time or can change at any given time. If this “dangerous precedent” becomes the foundation upon which cooperation is built within the Florida Baptist Convention it is not a matter of “IF” but “WHEN” an Executive Director/Treasurer will make a decision that will split or severely damage the Florida Baptist Convention.

#3. For the Florida Baptist Convention to elevate the position of total abstinence from alcohol to a “first level doctrine" of such importance as to break fellowship with all who do not agree is a “clear violation” of our own confession of faith as expressed in article XVII on Religious Liberty. This article reads – “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it.” Unless it can be proven Holy Scripture commands total abstinence from alcohol (which no honest person will say) then I do not see how the Florida Baptist Convention can maintain its position on total abstinence and not be in “violation of its own confession of faith.”

#4. It is inconsistent for the Florida Baptist Convention to maintain that it holds to the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scriptures and yet adopt a policy that denies the undisputed truth that wine (even if it was watered down, which is a point I do not concede) is one of the two “Holy Elements of Communion” and as such is most proper to partake. Either the policy is in error, or the Scriptures are not inerrant. Both cannot be true.

#5. For the Florida Baptist Convention to maintain that the ordinance of Baptism is to be according to the “literal example” of full immersion in water as found in the scriptures and that no substitutes for this example (sprinkling or pouring) is proper, and yet demand that the “literal example” contained in the scriptures for the ordinance of the Lords Supper consisting of the two elements of unleavened bread and wine are “NOT acceptable" is to be again inconsistent. If the “literal example” is true of one Holy ordinance instituted by Jesus Christ, then the “literal example” is true of the second Holy ordinance instituted by Jesus Christ as well. In other words, by what principle of interpretation can the Florida Baptist Convention insist on Baptism by full immersion and at the same time forbid the Lords Supper to be observed with wine? If a substitute is acceptable, yea even demanded, in the one then why is it not acceptable in the other?

#6. After having considered all the above, what troubles me the most about this new policy is it’s none too subtle attempt at “Coerced Conformity”. This, “tow the line or else”, mindset is very dangerous because it places the Florida Baptist Convention on the slippery slope of dictating to the Baptist Churches of the State of Florida “extra-biblical terms for cooperation.” I am deeply disappointed in the Executive Director/Treasures of the Florida Baptist Convention; that with all the resources at his disposal to battle the dangers of alcohol abuse in our society he has chosen “Coercion”.

Respectfully, Greg Alford