Kriste Patrow, Events Coordinator at CBE

The doctrine of Trinity has been the cause of much theological controversy over the centuries. In the 4th century, a preacher named Arius argued that Jesus was less than God the Father. In response, the council of Nicaea developed a comprehensive statement of faith upon which subsequent doctrine and theology has been measured for centuries. The Nicene Creed affirmed the divinity of Jesus and the co-equal, co-eternal nature of members in the Trinity.

For centuries, Christians sang a hymn that affirmed this creed. Tantum Ergo Sacramenetum was written by St. Thomas Aquinas and was part of the communion celebration. Two verses read:

“Procendenti eb utroque, 
camper sit laudation.”
“Proceeding from each other,
Equal may they be praised.”

From early on, theologians set up no hierarchical pyramid of authority within the Trinity. Yet, in recent years, Evangelicals have reshaped the accepted teachings of the Trinity, importing hierarchy—the very issue the early church worked to eradicate! Here is what one scholar says:

“In his new book, Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity (Zondervan, 2006), Giles shows how a whole generation of conservative evangelicals has embraced a new-fangled version of the ancient Trinitarian heresy of subordinationism. They do not hide their motives. They are determined to see in God what they wish to see in humanity: a subordination of role or function that does not compromise (they insist) an essential equality of being. Therefore, they teach that just as woman is created equal to man but has a subordinate role at home and in church, so the Son of God is coequal with the Father in being or essence but has a subordinate role in the work of salvation and in all eternity. They even think—quite mistakenly, as Giles shows—that this is what the Bible and Christian orthodoxy have always taught.” Philip Carey (PHD Yale), Professor of Philosophy at Eastern University, St. Davids, PA.

Concerned about such developments, evangelicals from both sides of the gender conversation stand together in publishing an Evangelical Statement on the Trinity, written by William David Spencer in consultation with Aída Besançon Spencer, Mimi Haddad, Royce Gruenler, Kevin Giles, I. Howard Marshall, Alan Myatt, Millard Erickson, Steven Tracy, Alvera Mickelsen, Stanley Gundry, Catherine Clark Kroeger, and other theologians, exegetes, philosophers, and church historians.
You too are invited to add your name in support of the Evangelical Statement on the Trinity by signing at www.TrinityStatement.com/sign. Stand with us and help us hold up the measuring stick, crafted so faithfully by early church leaders, to this new doctrine.

I’m about as much a literalist as any complementarian. The rule I learned, and largely use, is: “If the common sense of Scripture makes good sense, seek no other sense.”

Biblical interpretation is so much about context, context, context. So, when we read I Timothy 2 about female submission and silence, we need to see the context so we can see the common sense of this part of Paul’s instructions.

Does the complementarian argue that men must raise their hands whenever they pray? Are women in the church never allowed to have stylish hair? What about those golden wedding rings? How about that really nice coat she got for Christmas last year?

They’re not doing all of this? Then why is the female submission and silence part taken so differently? The first part is obviously a localized command with a general lesson in it that we should always be praying humbly and thankfully and be more interested in living godly rather than being involved in just “looking good.” We understand the specifics of the injuctions are localized in time and place. Why should this one part be general to all times and all places? To me, the answer seems relatively simple to deduce. If everything but one part of a multi-part instruction is for a certain time and place, with those instructions having informative use elsewhere but are not binding elsewhere, then the one part is also specific to a certain time and place.

Mind you, there are more radical groups that require their women to not cut their hair, to wear head coverings, to not wear jewellery, men’s pants, etc. I’ve got to give them this: Their exegesis is more consistent than the less radical. This simply makes their errors greater, but they are more logical and more consistent.

John R. Rice was a major theologian for me in my youth. Try out his “Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives and Women Preachers” sometime. Really radical.

I draw encouragement from the fact that mainline complementarian thought has reached the current, less logical stance. It’s a movement in the right direction. Now, we need to pray for our sisters and brothers to take the next step toward understanding the context of this part of Scripture.

Recently I read a poignant reflection on Colossians 3:11, which argued that Paul’s vision expressed in this verse erases all social divisions within the church. When we look at others in the church, ran the argument, we don’t see race, age, economic status, etc.—all we see is Christ.

What made this argument remarkable to me was that it was written by a well known complementarian scholar and posted on a well known complementarian website. So I asked the author whether gender should be considered one of those social divisions that are erased in the church. And then it became clear that like things were going to be treated differently. The author responded that, according to Paul, males and females are equal with regards to justification, but that didn’t mean that gender divisions are erased within the church. After all, Paul continues to address men and women separately.

This was not the first time I had heard the standard complementarian argument against egalitarianism, i.e., that gender equality is merely spiritual (pertaining to justification only) and not social/ecclesiological (pertaining to the church), and that making gender equality more than merely spiritual leads to an undifferentiated, androgynous race, thus implicitly endorsing homosexual practices. But what struck me is how inconsistent this standard complementarian logic was with the logic of the author’s own reflection on Colossians 3:11 just offered. After all, race and age are much more than merely social divisions too. They are arguably every bit as determinative of one’s personal identity as gender. Moreover, in the very passage under discussion, Paul not only goes on to address wives and husbands separately (3:18-19), but also children and fathers (3:20-21) and slaves and masters (3:22-24). But, while he still employs these distinctions, he concludes by stating that “there is no favoritism” (3:25).

So it seems that there are three ways to read this passage: either (1) these social barriers do still exist within the church, which is why Paul continues to address different social categories in vv. 18-24, or (2) all social barriers with the exception of gender are erased in the church, or (3) truly all social barriers are erased within the church.

If we adopt option (1), then it appears Paul’s vision doesn’t really erase social barriers after all. Maybe Paul is only referring to our spiritual equality with regards to justification, and his argument has no bearing on our ecclesial (church related) practices. Maybe Paul would be okay with our generational, racial, or socio-economic—not to mention gender—divisions within the church. I would suggest, however, that this reading should be rejected by anyone who follows the logic of Paul’s argument, which concludes with his rejection of any kind of favoritism. (Certainly the complementarian author who offered the reflection on this passage would reject this option.)

If we adopt option (2), it seems that we would be treating like things differently.  On this option, Paul believes that in Christ all social divisions within the church are erased—except perhaps the historically greatest division of all: gender. But why would gender be excluded from Paul’s vision? As we’ve already noted, these other social divisions are also more than merely human inventions. Some of them—e.g., race and age—are just as much biological as they are sociological. Clearly the point of Paul’s argument isn’t that these markers are literally eliminated. His argument is rather that they are superseded by our identification with Christ. But, then, why would gender would be any different? After all, in a strikingly parallel verse (Galatians 3:28), Paul explicitly includes gender along with these other social categories.

Thus, it appears that (3) is the best option. It fits the logic of Paul’s vision much smoother and doesn’t run into the seemingly overwhelming difficulties of (1) and (2). But, of course, option (3) is precisely what we would call egalitarianism.

I presented this trilemma to the complementarian author, and I wish I could report that it changed the author’s mind. (It didn’t.) But, minimally, I trust that reflecting on the similarities between race, age, and gender should clarify why the standard complementarian objection to egalitarianism is flawed. Just as our equality in Christ within the church doesn’t create a literally raceless or ageless society, neither does it create an androgynous one. Rather, gender distinctions—as with race and age ones—are superseded by our identity in Christ, in which there is no favoritism. And that is treating like things the same.

ONTOLOGY: The study of the fundamental nature of being, what makes something what it is. (Ontology is also a word used in Information Science in another way not related to our issues, in case any of you are in I.S.)

ESSENCE and ACCIDENT: Similar to Ontology, Essence means that some quality or attribute is necessary for something to be what it is. Accident does not mean “accidental” in this case, it means something that a thing is that is not necessary to the essence of what it is.

NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT: These terms mean pretty much what you’d expect. Is this attribute of something necessary to it being what it is?   Is it sufficient to make something what it is?

In my reading, I usually hear ontology used for all of the functions of the words above. There are two areas in the egalitarian/complementarian debate where these come up: The gender of God and how humans are made in the image of God.

Complementarians often argue that God is ontologically male. That is, maleness is an essence of God’s being. Maleness is necessary for God to be God. Christians believe humans are made in the image of God. If God’s essence is male, then only men are complete images of God. Complementarians use this to establish a hierarchy of men over women in the church and in marriage.

Egalitarians refute this, saying that the Genesis account clearly treats the creation of humanity in God’s image, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Gen. 1:27 and “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” Gen. 5:2  (KJV) So, while Jesus was born a human male, God is not in His essence, male In fact, it is only the body of Jesus that is male. The God side of the Son’s dual nature is not male at all. God is supra-gender. So, any human hierarchy based on God’s maleness has a fatal flaw in its logic. Both male and female words used to describe God in the Bible are images, not ontological statements.

God’s “maleness” being essential, according to complementarians, for God to be God, means that it becomes  necessary for God to be male. So, the question becomes whether a person’s gender makes them essentially different from humans who are of the other gender. Neither side argues that a person’s gender does not impact them. The question is how necessary that impact is to his/her being in the image of God. Complementarians argue it is necessary for an image of God to be male. This convinces them as to why God has only men in leadership positions: males have leadership built into them by reason of their being God’s exact, necessary image, and women do not. Complementarians apply this both in marriage and in the church. Egalitarians argue that God is God, and God is supragender, so it is neither necessary or sufficient to be male to be in the image of God. So, all of us being in essence human and humans are made in the image of God, we are all necessarily in the image of God and we can act and interact as equals.

Let me toss in one more term, this one a logic term: STRAWMAN. A strawman is an argument written in such a way that the writer can tear it down. I have tried to avoid building strawmen in my discussion above, but I want to encourage you to seek out original sources for both complementarian and egalitarian reasoning in these matters.

Any questions? Any comments?

P.S.: I’d like to make a note of thanks to my nephew, Harvey, who’s a Ph.D. in philosophy, for helping me with this blog.

Kevin Giles, a prominent evangelical-egalitarian, has written a lengthy response to the conference.

Giles spends a lot of time discussing Greek words like exousia and authentein. It may seem that continued discussion about such words won’t move the discussion forward. But Giles’ definition of ‘moving forward’ may differ from how others see it. He sees the issue as having the same impact in our society as slavery did last century. Retrospectively, we would not say slave owners and liberationists agreeing to disagree about slavery (but affirming their shared belief in the glory of God, reflected in humanity), is evidence of ‘moving forward’. Likewise, we must do more than simply agree to disagree on different interpretations on the Bible. The slavery example can be called an emotive and inadequate comparison, but ‘the woman issue’ looms large for many women and men in today’s churches.

Giles turns to the Bible, the site of the disagreement, because he must use it to challenge the source of hierarchical-complementarians’ views. As Giles says, ‘To settle the matter the two sides need to sit down and honestly assess the [Biblical] evidence” (p. 34).

As highlighted in his response, some of the Reformed slave owners wouldn’t have changed their views without the convincing presentation of a different interpretation of the Bible.

In egalitarian/complementarian discourse and that of other so-called ‘secondary’ issues, it seems that a dichotomy between unity and truth exists. Evangelicals are wary of unity with other Christians when it seems truth may be compromised, emphasising verses like 2 Tim 4:2-5. On the other hand, other evangelicals and, at the extreme end, liberals, prioritise Christian unity e.g. John 17:21-23. The challenge is: how can we be unified yet hold onto truth?

People on both ‘sides’ emphasise that the truth of their interpretation must supersede unity. People closer to the ‘unity’ end of the spectrum use Paul’s language of ‘first importance’ in 1 Cor 15:3 to differentiate between ‘first order’ and ‘second order’ issues. They label the Gospel a ‘first order’ concern, and the place of women, a ‘second order’ matter. This seems like an apt solution to being unified but not losing truth.

But what happens to a distressed individual when we are unified in our difference of opinion? Discussions of first and second order fail to validate their being. For instance, let’s take Giles’ example:

“Let’s imagine what the Black man would think when a Reformed and evangelical white man in the Apartheid days said to him, ‘the Bible says we are truly equal but your role must always be subordinate to mine. I am born to lead; you are born to be under my authority. Simply because of your skin colour given in birth you can never have a leadership role.’ I suspect the black man, would say to himself, ‘This is a funny kind of equality: it has no content in the world in which I live’” (p 28).

Accordingly, I remain unconvinced by hierarchical-complementarians’ insistence that the nature of a woman’s being, as equal with men, has no bearing on their ‘equal but different’ role. I thus support Groothius’ analysis that function and essence have a dynamic and inseparable relationship. In Groothius’ words,

“Regardless of how hierarchicalists try to explain the situation, the idea that women are equal in their being, yet unequal by virtue of their being, is contradictory and ultimately nonsensical” (Rebecca Groothius, ‘Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997, p.p. 53,55).

How then, do we work with someone of a different view?

Whilst each ‘side’ challenges the views of the other, unity in love and in our purpose of bringing the Gospel to others must be expressed more readily by all.

Here are three suggestions we could all agree on

1) to pray that God would inform our view of Scripture, and change our views as necessary

2) to be open to changing our ideas through discussion

3) to refrain from using a particular position as a ‘badge’ of theological orthodoxy.

In the past, my ‘solution’ to working with hierarchical-complementarians has been to humble myself, giving up any roles I’d like to have, like Christ in Philippians 2. I think this is an appropriate response. But this response itself does not change the situation. In certain contexts, I choose to not grasp social equality with men.

Let me make myself clear: making the Gospel known is of primary importance. But once this is prioritised, the significance of the issue of biblical equality requires that I humbly continue to present a different view. Being told that one’s skin colour prevented you from performing certain ‘roles’ had little currency for many black people. I suspect that many women in today’s churches remain similarly unconvinced.

*I’m aware that the language of ‘sides’ in this post is unhelpful for promoting unity. I apologise that I was unable to find a better term.

Elizabeth Culhane was born in Marvellous Melbourne, Australia’s second biggest (but the best) city in the south of the continent. She studies at Melbourne uni, having just completed a BA in History and Politics, and will continue with History Honours in 2011. She is also undertaking some volunteer work for CMS (Church Missionary Society) interviewing and writing up the stories of former missionaries. She loves God, new and challenging ideas, and books, in that order.

Davis gives three arguments in favor of the ordination of women to office in the church. The first has to do with the nature of ordination as understood in the Reformed tradition. Davis argues that the prohibition of women’s teaching contained here is not normative because of the historical context. In other words, Paul writes as the apostolic age is closing and the church is about to move to a period of time prior to the canonization of Scripture and prior to the classical doctrinal formulations found in the Ecumenical councils. Davis concludes that we should expect Paul’s counsel to err on the side of limitation given that the survival of Orthodoxy was not guaranteed from a human perspective.

The second has to do with Paul’s usage of creation narratives. Davis argues that Paul uses a single Old Testament passage to arrive at a variety of theological conclusions. He uses texts to arrive at applications that are church-specific. For example, in writing Romans Paul singles out Adam as the representative figure who brought sin upon humanity in the Fall (Romans 5:12-20). He also applies the creational-grounding of the headship principle as recognition of the mutual-dependence of men and women (I Corinthians 11:2-16). The deception of Eve is applied to all believers in the context of II Corinthians 11:3ff. These examples, claims Davis, show that Paul used the creation narratives in a context-specific rather than an absolutist way.

Paul’s hermeneutical approach is, Davis claims, analogous to his teaching on eating food sacrificed to idols. He writes, “While in principle the Gentile brethren could insist on their ‘creational rights’ to eat meat, Paul urges them to forebear in Christian love out of regard for the consciences of their Jewish brethren” (Davis, 3). Consequently we can determine that a creational right does not result in a blanket permission, and that a creationally endorsed prohibition does not necessarily imply prohibition under different circumstances: “…creational principles are to be applied in such a way as to further the redemptive ends of the unity of the church and growth in Christian maturity” (Davis, 3).

The third is Paul’s root concerns for the health of the churches. Davis summarizes these root concerns as follows: (1) the preservation of sound doctrine; (2) the unity and good order of the church; (3) the solidarity of the Christian family. In the context of I Timothy, Davis outlines examples of problems in all three of these areas. He concludes therefore, “If this reading of the historical circumstances surrounding the pastoral epistles is valid, then it could be argued that, given different conditions, Paul’s ‘root concerns’ could be maintained with polity forms differing from the one’s envisioned [in 1 Timothy]” (Davis, 3). As a result, each candidate for ordination, whether male or female, ought to be considered in light of these three root concerns. Quite simply, candidates should not be barred from ordination simply because of their gender as male or female.

Is Davis compelling to you?

Bibliographical information: Davis, John Jefferson. “Ordination of Women Reconsidered: Discussion of I Timothy 2:8-15.” Presbyterian Communiqué. November/December 1979.

John 17:22-23  (Jesus speaking) I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

1Co 12:20-25  As it is, there are many parts, but one body.  The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other.

Eph 4:1-3  As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

Ephesians 4:9-13 (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions   He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

As a believer in Jesus, I understand the above verses to say that Jesus desires all believers to be in unity, that God desires there be no division in the body of Christ, and that I am to do my best to maintain the unity of the Spirit and work towards attaining the unity in the faith.  I look around and see division in the body of Christ and it saddens me, especially as unity would be such a witness to the world.  However, as I study various subjects and learn more, I sometimes end up changing my beliefs about what God wants from me based on what the Bible says in context.  What should I do about the call to unity?  Here are some suggestions:

1. Love all believers, according to Jesus, this is THE mark of a disciple.  John 13:34-35.

2. Be humble and do not think you know it all. 1 Cor. 13:12.

3. Live in the freedom you have in Christ.  For example, one can live a partnership marriage of full equality even if a church you attend teaches otherwise.

4. Be willing to explain with gentleness and love why you understand some Bible texts as you do.

5. Realize that congregations and denominations can change their understandings, but it may take time.  God may have placed you in a congregation as an agent of change.

6. Decline to declare that others that do not agree with you are outside the faith, except in matters of salvation itself.

7. Salvation is defined by the work of Christ and his victories which we inherit through faith in Jesus. Thus the body of Christ consists of those who embrace the gospel, and are therefore your brothers and sisters in Christ.

8. Realize that God is working in each of us and we are to help each other.

What other ideas do readers have that help maintain the unity of the Spirit until we achieve the unity in the faith?

–Don Johnson

“Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says… it is disgraceful for a women to speak in the church.” (1 Corinthians 14:34, 35b TNIV)

Feel the strong undercurrents “disgraceful” carries. To be disgraced is to have brought shame upon one’s self and to have lost favor and respect. So when the above verses are isolated, they appear to tell all women that if they do not silence their voices and become mute within the church, then they will be viewed with shame and dishonor. Words from their mouths are unwelcome.

These verses seem to denounce women believers and condemn them to a permanently lower spiritual level than men. Taken at face value, these words contradict the equality and mutuality between male and female expressed in Galatians 3:28. Spiritual maturity becomes irrelevant where gender is concerned. Gender restrictions overrule and prohibit women from exercising certain spiritual gifts. Women are still viewed as being spiritually inferior and under a form of condemnation because God created them female instead of male. Ultimately, these isolated verses even infer that God created women’s voices to be contemptible and unredeemable.

The misuse of these verses to restrict women also attempts to keep them under the law. No wonder women can feel dragged down and stifled. So how do these detached verses make sense within the greater context of scripture? Since no written law is found anywhere in the Old Testament that fits the description in verse 34, Paul seems to be referring to the misogynistic oral law of the Judaizers. Rather than agreeing with this oral law, many believe that Paul was offering a rebuttal in the verses immediately following after it.

“(What!) did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If any think they are prophets or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. Those who ignore this will themselves be ignored. Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.” (1 Corinthians 14:36-40 TNIV)

In commenting on this section of scripture, Katharine Bushnell wrote:

“Paul’s contention is, that since the spirit of prophecy, which is “the word of God,” did not, as its very terms imply, come forth from anyone but God, to attempt to control prophecy by restrictions as to who may utter it, means a dictating to God as to what instruments He may employ.” [1]

If you are a woman who has felt weighted down and condemned by Bible verses misused to entangle you and to keep you under the law, grab hold of the following life preserving words:

“Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.” (Romans 8:1, 2 TNIV)

Christian women have also been released from all guilt and shame through their Savior and Redeemer. They are no longer under any condemnation. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was poured out on both sexes. Women filled with the Holy Spirit were not silent but spoke out the words given to them by God.

If you would like to read a more in-depth explanation on “Shall Women Keep Silence?” click on the following link to an online copy of Katharine Bushnell’s book God’s Word to Women (first published in 1921) and read lessons 25 through 28.  http://www.godswordtowomen.org/gwtw.htm

If anyone would like to purchase a copy of Katharine Bushnells’ book, please go to the CBE online bookstore
http://www.equalitydepot.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=5592

My life was a series of contradictions before I confronted the issue of biblical equality. Growing up, my family went to a restrictive church, but my parents were very egalitarian. They encouraged me to do whatever I wanted to do. From the outset, the church sent one message, my personal life sent another.

Life turned around when I became a Christian. My relationship with Jesus was joyful and full of possibilities, but the church I was attending kept putting restrictions on how I could express that. I wanted to study Scripture and teach; to tell everybody what God had done in my life! But once I started going to church again, I encountered walls – ‘you can’t’ ‘there’s no place’ or people would literally ignore me when I spoke!

During this time I got married and struggled with the issue of submission, which in this case meant doing what others told me to do. I found that I was trying to live under multiple masters. Jesus said that a person can only have one master – God. Yet the voice that was speaking in my heart was the one I listened to the least! I found that I was walking through a maze trying to figure out what messages I should obey.

We didn’t have kids for 6 years, which made me an outsider- the subtle message in my church was that to be ‘spiritual’ was to have many children. I wanted to go to medical school but didn’t go because of the messages I received about my role as a woman. If I obeyed others ‘in authority over me’ I was told I would also be obeying God.

25 years later, I was severely depressed. I saw no future in the church, I had foregone my chances at education, my marriage was in shambles and there seemed to be nothing worth living for except my kids – all because I had an incorrect understanding of biblical submission. The ramifications of the church’s teachings in my life were misleading and very damaging. I finally realised that I needed to know just who I was in God. I literally had nothing left to lose. My sister put me in touch with CBE and I found the materials I desperately needed! I began to read Katharine C. Bushnell’s “God’s Word to Women” and it was like a salvation experience all over again. I went from death to life, when I learned what the Bible really says! CBE literally saved my life!

Before I was connected to CBE, I had lost everything that had any meaning, including my dignity as a human being. To all the authors who spent their time and money, along with those who have endured the costs to health, family and work to seek the truth, I want to say thank you! You are a prophetic voice to the world. I believe there will be many people in heaven who will line up to shake your hand, give you a hug and tell you how your writing changed their lives. Most importantly, our Lord will say “Well done, good and faithful servant. Enter in to the joy of your master!”

It would be good to hear others’ stories of how they came to see things differently and how it changed their lives. Every person is unique and yet there are similarities in the story – it sounds familiar!