Dodson/Brooks Debate on Scriptural Silence

 
 
 The silence of the scriptures constitutes liberty for the New 
Testament church in its work, worship and service.

Affirm:  Ray Brooks
Deny:  Randy Dodson

I am before you now for my third negative article, and the last 
article of this debate.  Friends, I must say honestly that Mr. 
Brooks and I obviously have a very different concept of what a 
debate actually is.  My idea of a debate is where each disputant 
takes up the arguments of his opponent and makes every effort to 
show that they do not follow.  Every time this man introduced a 
passage of scripture, I discussed it in detail.  In every 
instance I did one of two things:  I either demonstrated that the 
passage in question had nothing at all to do with the 
proposition, or it taught my position.  Unfortunately in six 
articles, I could not induce Mr. Brooks to do likewise.  By the 
admissions contained in his third affirmative, my arguments pass 
unanswered.

Mr. Brooks has consistently busied himself with superciliously 
ascertaining his opponent's obligations in this debate, while at 
the same time ignoring his own.  Frankly, I find his efforts 
disappointing, particularly in light of his comments in the third 
affirmative.  I would presume Brooks has made the best defense of 
his position he possibly could.  His failure therefore, is not to 
be attributed to personal weakness, but to his position.  It is 
not Mr. Brooks' fault that he can do no better.  If a better 
effort were possible, he would have provided it.  The problem is 
that his doctrine simply cannot stand the test of truth.

Now in this final article of the debate, I will do three things.

1. Discuss the passages introduced in this debate dealing with 
silence of the scriptures.
2. Refute Brooks' third affirmative item by item.
3. Provide a summary list of "Brooks' Blunders".

Only one debater in this discussion has introduced any passages 
at all which (by Brooks' own admission) remotely deal with the 
issue at hand, and those passages were introduced by this 
disputant.  I state this as fact, nothing else.  Let us review 
those passages here.

Deuteronomy 4:2.   "2 Ye shall not add unto the word which 
Command you, neither shall ye diminish from it,"

Proverbs 30:6.  "6 Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove 
thee, and thou be found a liar."

I Corinthians 4:6.  "…learn not (to go) beyond the things which 
are written…"

Revelation 22:18-19.  "18 I testify unto every man that heareth 
the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto 
them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in 
this book: 19 and if any man shall take away from the words of 
the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the 
tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this 
book."

These passages demonstrate that what the Bible does say restricts 
our actions.  New Testament Christians are not at liberty to step 
outside what the Bible says.  Brooks responded weakly by stating 
the first two passages were from the Old Testament, thus having 
no application today.  He did not respond to I Corinthians 4:6, 
and argued (again weakly) that I took Revelation 22 out of 
context.  The point that he missed and never responded to was 
that the inspired writers here delineate an eternal principle of 
scripture.  Brooks never replied to that aspect of my argument at 
all.  If the principles within these passages are eternally true 
(and they are), his position goes down into the dust.  The 
instruction to stay within divine revelation is actually a 
fundamental precept of law, applicable to any and all covenants 
(religious or civil).

Jeremiah 7:31.  "31 And they have built the high places of 
Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn 
their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded 
not, neither came it into my mind."  

Leviticus 10:1.  "10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, 
took each of them his censer, and put fire therein, and laid 
incense thereon, and offered strange fire before Jehovah, which 
he had not commanded them."

Zechariah 7.  Unauthorized feast days.

Hebrews 7:14.  "14 For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung 
out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning 
priests."

Brooks discussed none of these passages individually.  His lone 
rejoinder was to errantly assert that they were all from the Old 
Testament, thus having no application to us today.  I asked him 
at that point if the Old Testament contained any lessons for us 
at all (Romans 15:4; Galatians 3:24-25); no response.  I pointed 
out again that these passages contain lessons intended to be 
eternally true.  What did Brooks' say about that?  Nothing.  The 
fact that silence binds is a fundamental precept of law, always 
has been, always will be.  If the principles within these 
passages are eternally true (and they are), Brooks' position 
fails.  Brooks made the only reply he possibly could:  "The New 
Covenant contains no law."  I will discuss this in more detail in 
"Brooks' Blunders".

Genesis 2:17 – Silence restricts Adam and Eve concerning the tree 
in the midst of the garden.

Genesis 4:14-16 – Silence restricts Noah in the construction of 
the ark.

I Samuel 15 – Silence restricts Saul in dealing with the 
Amalekites.

I Kings 5:1-15 – Silence restricts Naaman concerning the 
prophet’s instructions in cleansing his leprosy.

Acts 10 – Silence restricts Peter in preaching to Cornelius.

All of these passages demonstrate an eternally true fundamental 
precept of law -- silence binds.  Brooks closed his six articles 
without referring a single time to this argument.

There they are, friends – the only passages introduced in this 
debate dealing even remotely with the topic at hand.  We leave it 
to the unbiased reader to determine which position is based in 
Scripture, and which is not.  Bear in mind that Brooks admits in 
his third affirmative that his position has no Scriptural 
foundation.

Now let us look in detail at Mr. Brooks' third affirmative.

As he begins his article, it appears to me that Brooks almost 
presumes to speak for me in his "General Disclaimer".  I assure 
you he does not.  He avows that silence constitutes "alack of 
information".  He is mistaken.  Silence in the Scriptures 
constitutes a lack of authority.  Brooks has contradicted himself 
here.  He admitted that pizza and Coke on the Lord's Table would 
be in error.  Thus by his own admission, silence does not 
constitute a lack of information at all.  He admits that silence 
restricts here.  See "Brooks' Blunders"…

He then claims that "Silence can neither grant liberty nor 
restrict behavior."  Well friends, it does one or the other.  
However, he repeatedly refused to answer my questions in that 
regard.  Brooks affirms that silence grants liberty.  Therefore, 
silence does not restrict rosary beads in worship, pig-racing, 
blowing up buildings, and the like.  Brooks is unprepared for the 
logical extension of his position.  See "Brooks’ Blunders"…

Brooks then twists my position in the following statement: "Randy 
used the term "qualified silence" to defend his position. He 
started with what God actually says, then (sic) proceeded to 
explain what happens when you do something God doesn't say." That 
is not the point at all, friends.  The question is does the Bible 
instruct us concerning its own silence.  As noted previously it 
does indeed.  The sacred pages tell us how to behave when they 
are silent.  This point supports my position without response 
from Brooks.

Brooks contends that he "proved that when we have no information 
(silence), we must turn to other forms of authority and biblical 
principles to determine what we may do."  Now how in the world 
did he prove anything when by his own admission he did not use a 
single passage of scripture which referred to the topic at all?  
The proposition he signed to affirm reads "The Scriptures 
teach…"  We leave it to the unbiased reader to ascertain what 
Brooks has proved here (nothing).

He moves now to rediscuss his definitions.  In like manner I 
restate my objections here.  Brooks defines "Silence of the 
scriptures" as referring to lack of instruction.  It means 
nothing of the kind, and I have pointed out his error in this 
regard repeatedly.  Silence does not indicate lack of 
instruction, and he admitted as much concerning the Lord's 
Supper.  Silence indicates a lack of authority, thus restricting 
actions.

I have continually pointed out that Brooks is entirely unprepared 
to fully apply his definition of the phrase "constitutes 
liberty".  Brooks stresses here that "we can do what seems best 
to us in our culture to accomplish the purpose of the church's 
task." Yet he disavows pig-racing, rosary beads, and blowing up 
buildings in worship.  Why, Ray?  By what objective means do you 
exclude these activities, and include a mechanical instrument?  
See” Brooks' Blunders"…

Both Brooks and I have pointed out that we disagree on the 
definition of the New Testament church.  The fact is that his 
definition defines a local congregation, not the New Testament 
church.  The church of the New Testament is the blood-bought un-
denominational institution of which I am a member.  It is the 
church established on Pentecost as recorded by the inspired and 
beloved physician, Luke in Acts 2, the church which belongs to 
our Lord, the church of Christ.

I would remind the reader that Brooks' definitions contain a 
significant omission.  Not one time did Ray Brooks ever attempt 
to define the words "worship", or "law".  Having defined those 
terms in my second negative, he passes on them entirely, and 
inherently acquiesces to mine.  I pointed out that Ray's case 
cannot be sustained absent an in depth definition of those two 
words. See "Brooks' Blunders"…

At this juncture, Ray reviews the seven points of his first 
affirmative.  I will come back to that later in this article.  At 
the end of his third negative, Ray rebukes me for pointing out 
repeatedly that none of his passages support his position.  Now 
he has contradicted himself again.  Ray already admitted that he 
has introduced no passage of scripture dealing with the topic.  
Why chide me for pointing that out when you already admitted as 
much, Ray?  See "Brooks' Blunders"…

Note further that Ray makes it appear here as if my repeated 
insistence that his passages had no relevance to the topic was 
the only argument I presented.  What if it was?  He admits in the 
third affirmative that none of his passages apply to the topic, 
so I must be on the right track.  However, Brooks knows better.  
In fact he has contradicted himself again.  He admits that he 
answered none of my arguments in the second negative, while 
implying that this is the only argument I made.  See "Brooks' 
Blunders"…

Brooks reproves me at this point for the length of my second 
negative (13 pages).  Of course it was perfectly all right for 
him to submit 10 pages in his second affirmative.  Really, Ray…  
Perchance should you remove the beam in your own eye before 
attempting to remove the speck from mine?  (Matthew 7:3-5).  
Perhaps Ray will act with greater wisdom in the future to make 
these discussions more productive.  Actually the only way to make 
this discussion more productive was for Ray to answer my 
arguments, which he steadfastly refused to do.

Brooks ends his third affirmative with this statement "You read 
it for yourself, folks. Randy states that there is no connection 
between my passages and the topic. But he refuses to prove it." A 
couple of things bear mentioning here.  First, I have debated 
academically in the past.  That does not make me an expert, 
neither am I a total novice.  One of the fundamental precepts of 
disputation is that the status quo (the negative position) is 
inherently sustained until the affirmant demonstrates otherwise.  
Thus, in defending the negative position I have no burden of 
proof here.  Brooks once again advises me concerning my 
obligations while failing to discharge his own.  Acting in the 
affirmative, if Brooks introduces a passage in support of his 
position, it is his responsibility to demonstrate that it teaches 
his doctrine (and he admits that they do not).  Second, Brooks 
makes it sound here (unbelievably) that this is the only argument 
I presented on each of his passages.  I was frankly astonished 
that he leaves the reader with that impression.  One of two 
things is true here.  Either he did not read my second negative 
carefully, or he seeks to create prejudice on the part of the 
reader.  Ray knows better.

Despite all this, I demonstrated time and time again that the 
passages he introduced have no bearing on the topic at all (more 
on that below).  Moreover, Brooks admitted all this in his third 
affirmative.  "My use of passages referring to Christian liberty 
do not address silence…"  See "Brooks' Blunders"…

Now let us review the seven points of his affirmation.  

1. Everything is permissible, but we choose those activities, 
based on culture and the Word, that edify the body. (I 
Corinthians 6:11-14; I Corinthians 10:22-24).

I Corinthians 6:11-14.  I made the point here that Brooks has 
applied these passages far outside the boundaries intended by 
Paul.  Paul is discussing solving personal or private problems in 
courts of law.  I pointed out further that Brooks meets the "Law 
of Christ" all throughout I Corinthians 6.  Response from 
Brooks?  None.  Remember friends Brooks is not prepared for the 
logical end of his argument.  If a certain culture endorses pig-
racing in worship, how can Brooks objectively exclude it?  Brooks' response?  None.

I Corinthians 10:22-24.  Ray agrees with me in saying that these 
passages discuss matters which are indifferent to God.  However, 
they also teach that we cannot as Christians do something to 
cause another to violate their conscience.  I asked Ray whether 
or not that was a law.  Brooks' response?  None. In fact, Brooks' 
view is that Paul placed no bounds at all on matters of 
expediency.  So it is his view that worship on Sunday is 
optional, Tuesday or Thursday would be just as good.  Using a 
mechanical instrument of music is ok, even though it causes 
division (a violation of the conscience).  An alien sinner does 
not have to repent, it is optional.  The passage simply does not 
teach his doctrine.

2. We may use whatever means necessary to minister to the lost 
and preach the gospel, within a moral and cultural context. (I 
Corinthians 9:19-23).

Paul introduces these passages by submitting that he is under law 
to no man in verse 19. This point is key. Paul admits that he is 
under law to no man.  I accept this. However, never in this 
passage (or anywhere else) does Paul assert that he is not under 
law to God. The very fact that Paul describes his efforts at 
evangelism here means that he accepts God's divine precept to 
preach and teach the lost (Matthew 28:18-20).  I asked Brooks if 
the command to preach and teach the lost constituted law.  
Brooks' response?  None.

Paul will later specify that he is under law to Christ. I asked 
Brooks whether or not Paul said this.  Brooks' response?  None.

So Paul did these things (became all things to all men) that the 
unconverted Jew, Gentile and weak might partake of the Gospel.  
The implication is that prior to conversion these three groups 
did not partake of the Gospel. When do we partake of the Gospel? 
After conversion. How are we converted? Through the Gospel.  Paul 
affirms that being taught of the Gospel precedes salvation.  
Brooks affirms that we are saved by faith plus nothing.  The 
requirement to hear the word precedes belief (verb form of 
faith), Ray.  Romans 10:17.  Brooks' response?  None.

3. Lifestyle issues, outside of explicit word of God morality, 
are none of our business. Liberty in lifestyle is a KEY to 
understanding the New Covenant. (Romans 14:1-8).

Ray applies Romans 14 far outside the boundaries of Paul's 
original delivery. This chapter of Romans discusses matters that 
are indifferent TO GOD.  Brooks alleges that these passages 
discuss matters indifferent to men.  So I asked Ray, "Could we 
participate in Sunday morning worship naked?"  Now Brooks 
alleges, "ALL ACTIONS OR METHODS are matters of indifference." 
Thus Brooks is forced to take the position that New Testament 
Christians may worship God publicly while naked, and maintain his 
approval. Now friends, that utter absurdity is where Brooks' 
logic leads. Brooks' response?  None.

We note here that Brooks dropped his ridiculous argument 
distinguishing between methods and elements.  Just as well.  As I 
have repeatedly pointed out, this is nothing more than a semantic 
subterfuge.  There is no point to be made here.  First, methods 
and elements cannot and do not exist separate and apart from one 
another.  Second, if silence grants liberty, one may substitute 
coke and pizza on the Lord's Table. If not, why not?  
Brooks'response?  None.

He also dropped his argument concerning my (so-called) obligation 
to provide scripture stating consequences for rebellion.  This is 
a very unfortunate point for him to miss.  Brooks admits that pig 
racing in worship is wrong, thus constituting vain worship 
(Matthew 15:9; Colossians 2:23).  I then asked him "Does vain 
worship constitute sin…? Yes or no. Is the wages of sin death 
(Romans 6:23)? Yes or no." How much more consequential could it 
be, friends? Brooks' response?  None.

4. Freedom in worship.  (Ephesians 3:12; Galatians 5:1).

Ephesians 3:12.

"12 in whom we have boldness and access in confidence through our 
faith in him."  Not only does this passage have nothing to with 
silence of the Scriptures, it has nothing to do at all with 
freedom in worship.  The passage teaches us that we can approach 
him boldly.  I embrace that.  I have no problem with anything 
this passage teaches whatsoever.  However, the passage does not 
say we can be boldly disobedient, or boldly step outside what the 
Scriptures teach.  Brooks' question remains unanswered by this 
passage –"Does silence grant liberty?"  The fact is that this 
passage teaches my position.  Our boldness in approaching the 
throne is predicated on our obedience to God's precepts.  Matthew 
7:21. "21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall 
enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of 
my Father who is in heaven."

Galatians 5:1.

"1 For freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and 
be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage."  Paul's message 
here is "do not go back to the Old Law". The Old Covenant, absent 
saving grace, did represent a yoke of bondage – no question about 
it.  However, that does not mean that the New Covenant is void of 
law. Galatians 6:2.  "2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so 
fulfill the law of Christ."

Brooks only response here (in the second affirmative) was to say 
that Galatians 6:2 was irrelevant.  Well, Ray is entitled to his 
opinion.  I prefer the opinion of the inspired apostle, thank you 
very much.

Jesus condemned vain worship (Matthew 15:9), so He must require 
that we worship properly. Jesus required repentance (Luke 13:1-
5), making repentance a requirement of law. Jesus required love 
(John 13:34), making love a requirement of law. On and on the 
list goes, but Brooks says the "law of Christ" in Galatians 6:2 
is irrelevant.  Brooks' response here?  None.

5. The books of Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews are based on 
Habakkuk 2:4, which states that we live by faith (as opposed to 
law). Paul goes to the point of being obnoxious to prove that 
judging others or approaching God based on law receives the 
highest condemnation possible by God.

I find Brooks' approach to this argument interesting.  He here 
points out that Paul bases his arguments on grace in these three 
epistles on an application of Habakkuk 2:4.  The apostle Paul 
takes a precept from the old covenant (Habakkuk 2:4) and applies 
it in the New Covenant.  Now friends, how is it that Brooks in 
the affirmative can take an argument (Galatians, Romans and 
Hebrews) based on Old Testament law, and apply it to his 
affirmation, but when I take an argument (Hebrews 7:14) based on 
Old Testament law and apply it to my affirmation, it's all 
wrong?  I should add this to the list of "Brooks' Blunders", but 
the list is just too long.

I embrace everything the inspired writers have to say in these 
epistles.  I have no problem with them whatsoever.  Brooks’ 
problem here is that he presumes that since Paul makes a case for 
grace (he does indeed), that the case for law is excluded.  Yet 
these same books embrace New Testament law:  Galatians 6:2. "2 
Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." 
Romans 3:27. "27 Where then is the glorying? It is excluded. By 
what manner of law? Of works? Nay: but by a law of faith." 
Hebrews 8:7-10. "7 For if that first (covenant) had been 
faultless, then would no place have been sought for a second. 8 
For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, 
saith the Lord, That I will make a new covenant with the house of 
Israel and with the house of Judah; 9 Not according to the 
covenant that I made with their fathers In the day that I took 
them by the hand to lead them forth out of the land of Egypt; For 
they continued not in my covenant, And I regarded them not, saith 
the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the 
house of Israel After those days, saith the Lord; I will put my 
laws into their mind, And on their heart also will I write them: 
And I will be to them a God, And they shall be to me a people:"

6. We live by faith in relationship, not law to gain approval.

Brooks has three fundamental problems here.  First, there is no 
passage of scripture which teaches his doctrine.

Second, Jesus said that "belief" (verb form of” faith") itself is 
a work (something we have to do; a requirement of law), so his 
position here is both self-contradictory, and in clear conflict 
with the scriptures.  John 6:28-29.  "28 They said therefore unto 
him, What must we do, that we may work the works of God? 29 Jesus 
answered and said unto them, This is the work of God that ye 
believe on him whom he hath sent."

Third, there is a passage (actually many) that DOES teach my 
position.  This is the point where Ray assumed that love and law 
cannot and do not coexist.  Of course he is in error.  John 
14:15.  "15 If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments."  Review 
my argument here for the interested reader to which Brooks made 
absolutely no reply.  A motive is a "reason or driving urge for 
an action."  He assumes here that one cannot obey out of love and 
fear of law.  Yet we do it all the time. I love my country. For 
that reason I keep the speed limit. I also fear the fine that 
goes with speeding. Thus both motivate me. The two co-exist. I 
love God. For that reason, I keep His commandments (John 14:15). 
I also fear God. For that reason, I keep his commandments. Thus 
both motivate me, and the two co-exist.

7. Our approval from God is based on being in Christ by faith.

Brooks has two basic problems here.  First, there is no passage 
of scripture which teaches his doctrine.  Second, Ray never 
really expounds on what all this means according to his 
doctrine.  I asked him how an alien sinner gets "in Christ" (his 
words).  No response.  I asked him where faith comes from.  No 
response.  I asked him if Colossians 3:17 explains how we obtain 
and maintain God’s approval and approbation.  No response.  
Brooks refuses to support his position by argumentation.  My 
position is sustained due to his lack of response.

In closing this section of my article I do want to mention that 
Brooks has completely dropped his argumentation concerning John 4 
and the definition our Lord provides of Christian worship.  I 
discussed these passages in detail, demonstrating the error of 
Brooks' position.  That passage was central to his case, and my 
refutation thereof stands unanswered.  Those arguments flow 
negative.

Now friends, that covers his third affirmative article item by item without a single omission.

Now let us note specifically the difficulties Ray has had in 
sustaining his position.  I have noted several of them throughout 
this article.  There are several more.  I list them below and 
entitle them "Brooks' Blunders".

Brooks' Blunders

*Ray failed to answer my questions concerning pig-racing blowing 
up buildings, blood-letting, pet days and the like in worship.  
These questions present him with a dilemma. If he answers "yes" 
to a single question, he admits that the Bible legislates in its 
silence where worship is concerned, which of course it does, but 
which he does not believe. If he answers "no", he endorses the 
outrageous behavior herein described.

*Brooks tells us that "...the scriptures do tell us to use juice 
and bread" on the Lord's Table.  I'm still waiting on book, 
chapter and verse for that one.  Of course they do not.  We use 
those emblems by the example of our Lord.  The debate closes 
without a scriptural reply from Brooks.

*Concerning the elements of the Lord's Table, since there is no 
direct command for them, by Brooks' own logic, he faces another 
dilemma.  Either Romans 14 applies, and Brooks cannot objectively 
exclude Coke and pizza on the Lord's Table, or the Scriptures 
bind in their silence (which he does not believe).

*Brooks asserted that because the Old Covenant has passed away 
that Christians are no longer under law of any kind.  I pointed 
out that just because the laws of God are in the heart does not 
mean we are without law (Psalm 119:11). Brooks presented himself 
with another dilemma here.  Paul affirmed that where there is no 
law, there is no sin (Romans 4:15). Therefore, Brooks' must 
affirm one of two positions. Either Christians do indeed operate 
under law, or they are without law and incapable of sin.

*Brooks repeatedly claimed that the New Covenant contains no 
law.  Yet he refuses to answer my question concerning the Lord’s 
Supper, providing him with yet another dilemma.  Do the 
Scriptures teach that only unleavened bread and fruit of the vine 
may be used?  If so, friends, that is law, the existence of which 
Brooks denies under the New Covenant.  If not, how are pizza and 
Coca Cola excluded?  On what objective basis does Brooks use one 
and exclude the other?

*Brooks claims that "Silence can neither grant liberty nor 
restrict behavior."  Friends, it does one or the other.  Brooks 
believes this as well, or he would not have signed to debate.  So 
either silence allows rosary beads, pig-racing, blowing up 
buildings, and the like in worship, or silence restricts.  Brooks 
is unprepared for the logical extension of his position.

*Concerning cultural applications to the church's work, worship 
and service Brooks stresses that "we can do what seems best to us 
in our culture to accomplish the purpose of the church's task.” 
Yet he disavows pig-racing, rosary beads, and blowing up 
buildings in worship.  Why?  By what objective means does Brooks 
exclude these activities, and include a mechanical instrument?

*Not one time did Ray Brooks ever attempt to define the words 
"worship", or "law".  Ray's case cannot be sustained absent in 
depth definitions of those two words.

*At the end of his third negative, Ray rebukes me for pointing 
out repeatedly that none of his passages support his position.  
Ray contradicts himself in this effort.  Ray already admitted 
that he has introduced no passage of scripture dealing with the 
topic.  Why chide me for pointing that out when you already 
admitted as much, Ray?

*Ray implied that my repeated insistence that his passages had no 
relevance to the topic was the only argument I presented.  Brooks 
contradicts himself again in this regard.  He admits that he 
answered none of my arguments in the second negative, while 
implying that this is the only one I made.

*Concerning Galatians, Romans, Hebrews and Habakkuk 2:4...  How 
is it that Brooks in the affirmative can take an argument 
(Galatians, Romans and Hebrews) based on the Old Testament, and 
apply it to his affirmation, but when I take an argument (Hebrews 
7:14) based on Old Testament law and apply it to my affirmation, 
it's all wrong?

I have enjoyed this debate, and the mental and spiritual exercise 
involved in developing the argumentation for my position.

My thanks to all for your kind attention.

Randy Dodson