The Divine Embrace or Divine Romance?

A dreamer’s attempt to reconcile Webber and Quixote

I picture a grandfather clock standing stately and tall, its pendulum swings marking time. Within the bounds of generous orthodoxy, the pendulum swings in response to culture and pathos. It reacts and stands in prophetic tension, pulling the whole to the center in God’s story. When the culture of the church and world is material it sets up camp in the lonely desert. When the culture of the church and world is heady, national, and normal, it calls again to the transcendent. To be sure there is danger in staying out there at the extreme, but the whole movement of pendulum is precious.

Is Romanticism Wrong?

The first half of The Divine Embrace left me wondering if Webber didn’t prefer that the clock stopped and the pendulum sat dead center. In particular Webber seems harsh to the romantic notions of late-medieval mysticism. “A new kind of mysticism was born,” writes Webber, “a mysticism that often escaped into intellectual fantasy and Spiritual romanticism.”1 He footnotes this statement adding this indictment, “McGinn deals particularly with the new mystics, their renunciation of this life, and their visions, which ‘were often (though not always) mystical, involving personal, deeply emotional and even erotic encounters with Jesus, the Divine Lover.’”2

Webber then traces this romantic strain to the modern time.

God is not my boyfriend or girlfriend with whom I sustain a romantic relationship. Yes, we are to love God, to have a relationship with God, but much of the current talk about “falling in love with Jesus” and the language that speaks of our relationship with God using sexual innuendo is derived from our current MTV culture that is obsessed with sexuality.3

My first reaction to his statement is incredulity. How can he say that the imagery of even sexual intimacy is something new, an innovation of our MTV culture? As he has already noted, the late-medieval mystics employed this imagery, but they were not alone. John Donne utilizes shockingly sexual imagery in his Holy Sonnets.

Take me to you, imprison me, for I,
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.4

Scripture itself is full of sexual imagery. Hosea, where we find God’s wrath being outpoured, is written in the language of lovers. We uncover the intimacy of husband to wife, and the tenderness of father to child. Hosea is instructed to marry a prostitute, to show God’s love for adulterous Israel. In obedience Hosea named his children Jezreel, the place of a massacre God abhorred, Lo-Ruhamah, not loved, and Lo-Ammi, not my people. God said, “Say ye unto your brethren, Ammi; and to your sisters, Ruhamah. Plead with your mother, plead: for she [is] not my wife, neither [am] I her husband: let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts…”5 Even the intimacy of sex is not too extreme to demonstrate the relationship of man to God.6 The God of scripture is not boyfriend or girlfriend, but certainly is Spouse and Lover.

What is Webber really saying here? Does his basically Calvinist approach predispose him to exclude the personal experience of Divine Love or is he saying something else? His own imagery of embrace is a function of Eros. Later he affirms the romantic as he laments with Peter Fink,

I weep when the Enneagram or the Myers-Briggs analysis replaces the almost erotic intimacy with Christ described by John of the Cross in his “Dark night of the soul,” or the stunning challenge to discipleship and companionship presented in some of the great Ignatian meditations on the mystery of Christ… I grow very sad when the paradoxical wisdom of our heroines and heroes is replaced by the strategies and stages of the psychological paradigm.7

Webber tells us the intention of his book is to center us on true Christian Spirituality seated in God’s story of Divine Embrace. Is that spirituality to be found in the desert fathers, the new mystics, the reformers, evangelicals, or postmodern cultural reapropriators? What are the dangers throughout history from which the true spirituality needed rescuing? He essentially asks throughout the book the question of John Donne:

Show me, dear Christ, thy spouse so bright and clear….
Dwells she with us, or like adventuring knights
First travel we to seek, and then make love?
Betray, kind husband, thy spouse to our sights,
And let mine amorous soul court thy mild dove,
Who is most true and pleasing to thee then
When she is embraced and open to most men.8

Quixotic Spirituality

Like Donne’s image of adventuring knights, Webber’s treatment of romanticism reminds me of one of my favorite characters in literature, Don Quixote de La Mancha. The impoverished country gentleman goes mad on his knowledge of romances of knights and chivalry. He wholeheartedly believes the accounts he reads of knightly chivalry, that is his madness. The sane outcome is that he decides to model his life on them. The end of the novel brings a double death. The persona, Don Quixote, is abandoned, the madness broken, and Alonso Quixano sanely dies.

Throughout history different views of Quixote have surfaced. From one extreme Quixote was “naught but a gaby whom only the lash could cure his delusions.”9 In this view, in his renunciation of his life he turns back to true Christianity. The other side of the argument sees in mad Quixote a noble hero.

When we first meet Don Quixote … [h]is situation, in fact, is aesthetically uninteresting except in one thing: his passion is great enough to make him sell land to buy books. This makes him aesthetically comic. Religiously he is tragic; for he is a hearer not a doer of the word, the weak man guilty in his imagination of Promethean pride. Now suddenly he goes mad, i.e., he sets out to become what he admires. Aesthetically this looks like pride; in fact, religiously, it is a conversion, an act of faith, a taking up of his cross.11

As with Webber we may question the intent of the author. How did Cervantes see his Quixote? He says that he is setting out to satirize the romances of his day, yet in so doing he reveals remarkable empathy with them. Quixote, far from being the butt of his joke, is revealed to be our hero, we sympathize with him in his humanity, and honor his fidelity to his vision. The romances of chivalry and knight errantry had ruled the 16th century imagination. They come from the same culture as the late medieval mystics. “So, for example,” says Webber, “the dominant theme of medieval mysticism was a romantic relationship with God, a love union, stimulated perhaps by the twelfth-century Renaissance of courtly love, the Aurthurian myths, and the poetry and songs of the troubadours.”12 Reportedly these romances were subject for St. Teresa and St. Ignatius, “claiming for a time the[ir] passionate interest.”13 By the time Cervantes wrote Don Quixote, the form had lost its power. The ideals dealt with were only left as grandiloquent echoes. Don Quixote stood as a criticism of the loss of the genre, much as one who admires An Affair to Remember might criticize today’s teenage love movies.14

Perhaps Webber too, seems critical because he must deal with the excesses that made Spirituality an empty form divorced from the reality of God’s Story. If this is so perhaps a clue to resolve his conflict with romance can be found in his statement, “Our spiritual life, then is not just a feeling, an idea, or a spiritual romance. No! It is an embodiment of God’s vision for humanity clearly spoken in the words of Jesus and visualized in concrete ways and actions.”15

For Webber, romance means idealism and sentimentality, like the teenage ideals of romance in courtship. As I have grown in my marriage, I have learned that every night is not candlelight and dancing. I have learned that true romance comes in seeing the reality of my wife’s person, of participating in her individuality. I still see that as romantic, though it is real. In the end, Webber doesn’t deny the emotion and sentiment in our relationship with God but claims it is more real than feeling.

Cervantes needed Sancho to bring realism to Don Quixote’s idealism. The interplay of Don Quixote’s ideal world with the real world embodied by Sancho is what made this a new genre, the novel.16 Just as Webber claims spirituality needed to be rescued from romanticism, so romanticism needed to be rescued from fantasy.

Orthodoxy

Chesterton claims that while the world has seen orthodoxy as madness, “ It was sanity: and to be sane is more dramatic than to be mad.”17 Perhaps Chesterton would have also seen Don Quixote as a Saint holding to a forgotten orthodoxy, living in and seeing the Kingdom of God as real and present around him.

Chesterton has what at first appears to be a different view of church history than Webber. “Christianity was like a huge and ragged and romantic rock, which, though it sways on its pedestal at a touch, yet, because its exaggerated excrescences exactly balance each other, is enthroned there for a thousand years.”18

Last and most important, it is exactly this which explains what is so inexplicable to all the modern critics of the history of Christianity. I mean the monstrous wars about small points of theology, the earthquakes of emotion about a gesture or a word. It was only a matter of an inch; but an inch is everything when you are balancing. The Church could not afford to swerve a hair’s breadth on some things if she was to continue her great and daring experiment of the irregular equilibrium….She swerved to left and right, so exactly as to avoid enormous obstacles. She left on one hand the huge bulk of Arianism, buttressed by all the worldly powers to make Christianity too worldly. The next instant she was swerving to avoid an orientalism, which would have made it too unworldly. The orthodox Church never took the tame course or accepted the conventions; the orthodox Church was never respectable. It would have been easier to have accepted the earthly power of the Arians. It would have been easy, in the Calvinistic seventeenth century, to fall into the bottomless pit of predestination. It is easy to be a madman: it is easy to be a heretic. It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one’s own. It is always easy to be a modernist; as it is easy to be a snob.19

Here Chesterton’s view and Webber’s intersect. Near the end of the first half of The Divine Embrace, he shows a diagram with God’s Story in the center and first and secondary implications branching off.20 Just like Chesterton’s rock, it is the center that cannot move a hairs breath, so that the outer rings may be flexible.

So perhaps Webber’s condemnation of Late Medieval Mystics is hyperbolic perhaps he doesn’t mean that they were heretical, but just that their experience is unhelpful to postmodern minds as we search for the ancient spirituality of the church. It was after a product of its period. I started to sense this meaning when he was referring to my own tribe. I found it easier to look critically at my roots than those of the mystics, perhaps because I had looked to them with romantic desire. I need mysticism as a corrective to my fundamentalist heritage. Webber rightly points out the flaws we fundamentalist evangelicals have. His indictment of spiritual legalism cut to the heart of the past my church fellowship is still wrestling with. His description of the “desupernaturalized” baptism echoed my longing for baptism to mean something.21 Yet though he treats my tribe with the same harsh lens of criticisms that he levels at the Romantics, I don’t feel excommunicated or a heretic.

Webber tells us the answer to his question of true spirituality is found in participation with God’s own story. He gives an image of baptism that is mystical and a performative symbol.22 It actually does something! Webber tells us it reveals God’s working in us through death and resurrection. It discloses God’s embrace and gives us opportunity to embrace him back. I remember crossing my arms as I was immersed. It is as though God was symbolized by the waters and I was actually hugging him back. Immersion, as is experienced in my church tradition, tells of the abundance of grace, that we are enfolded in it and it is perpetual. Our baptism unites us with the community of faith and reveals God as community. “Communion with one another in the church bears an eternal meaning because it participates in the fellowship of Father, Son, and Spirit, which is God’s goal for creation.”23 Baptism reveals the final victory, we do not stay in the water but come out. These are powerful symbols. They are symbols that actually do something, they reveal, connect, and unite. They remind, embrace and invite participation in God’s Story.

Webber rightly encourages us to look to God and his story in worship. No other sight is worthy. To experience transcendent worship we must focus on God. We must proclaim his attributes, make known his deeds, and shout out his reality. Above all we must gaze into his glory alone. As we worship we must forget ourselves. Even in looking at how unworthy we are of God, we take our eyes of God and put it on ourselves. Our sinfulness, baseness, and depravity provide no basis for worship. Our blessedness, salvation, and ministries provide no basis for worship. God Transcendent, God Infinite, God alone is worthy of thoughts of worship. On God alone we must fix our gaze.

Still the mystery of the Divine Embrace is that God, the transcendent creator desires relationship with his creation. We have been invited to participate in the story. God has wooed us and proposed. We have a part in the celebration. Webber, in his zeal for the sovereign God, glosses over the fact that our participation is a thing to celebrate and is by no means narcissistic.24 God desires to romance us, he desires that we glorify and enjoy him forever. He actually desires that we return his embrace. This is a glorious truth and wonderful mystery. It is enough to drive any individual mad with quixotic passion, and when baptized in God’s story, that is not a bad thing.

1 Webber, Robert E. The Divine Embrace. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. 2006. Pg. 52

2 Webber. Pg. 250

3 Webber, 95.

4 Donne, John. Poems of John Donne. vol I. E. K. Chambers, ed. London: Lawrence & Bullen, 1896. 165.

5 Hosea 2:1-2

6 I have never heard of a sermon preached on Ezekiel 23 with its raw sexual images.

7 Webber. 170.

8 Donne, John. “Holy Sonnet 18.” The Norton Anthology of English Literature, 6th ed., v.1. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1993. 1117-1118.

9 He was so treated by the plagiary who published a false sequel during Cervantes’ life time. The success of this offense lead Cervantes to publish a second part that did away with his Quixote once and for all. (Mann, Thomas. “Voyage with Don Quixote.” Cervantes: A Collection of Critical Essays. Ed. Lowery Nelson, Jr. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1969. Pg. 52.

10 Auden, W H. “The Ironic Hero: Some Reflections on Don Quixote.” Cervantes: A Collection of Critical Essays. Ed. Lowery Nelson, Jr. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1969. Pg.73

11 Auden. Pg. 76-77

12 Webber, Pg. 51.

13 Cervantes. 5

14 Norton Anthology of World Masterpieces, Miguel de Cervantes. Ed. Mynard Mack. W.W. Norton and Company. 1995. Pp. 2539

15 Webber, pg 175. Italics mine.

16 Norton. Pg. 2539.

17 Chesterton, G.K. Orthodoxy. 1.0 ed. eBook. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, n.d.

18 Chesterton

19 Chesterton.

20 Webber. Pg. 98.

21 Webber. Pg 65.

22 Webber. Pg. 152. The following implications on baptism are based on Pp. 156-164.

23 Webber. Pg. 162.

24 Webber’s gloss on the subject is found on page 233. “There is a personal dimension to worship. Worship is the contemplation, the delight in our own heart that comes from hearing and enacting the story of how God renews the face of the earth trough his Son and Spirit.”

In Holy Longing Ronald Rolheiser suggests that Social Justice is different from personal charity, that if we are to engage in Social Justice, we must address the systemic concerns of injustice rather than just meeting the needs that result from the injustice.

A few years back, our local ministerial association started what we called Project Caritas to be an arm of our collective churches to address social justice concerns. The main effort of the project was a fund, fueled by our community Lenten offerings. Since I was so gung ho about engaging in social justice, I became the treasurer. We used the money to meet the urgent financial needs of people who came to us. A couple weeks back we ran out of money, and decided to end the project.

The question remains, “did we engage in social justice at all?” Did we address any of the underlying injustices that caused these problems. We talked about them… Things like unemployment, health-care costs, a difficult economy, but what could we do? Addressing such systemic issues seem too big for state or even federal government to handle. What can we do?

I wished we could start a revolution like Che, but without the guns.

The task is too much, I feel like a solitary Quixote in a world of injustice. Yet Rolheiser calls this work, our tilting at the windmills, a non-negotiable essential to our spiritual formation.

I am reminded of Willard’s Divine Conspiracy: we undermine the world’s system by living in the kingdom of God, by becoming like Jesus, so that the kingdom rules in the areas of our influence. In so doing we subvert the world and chip away at evil’s hold, the devil’s injustice.

Rolheiser agrees. “The struggle for justice and peace is not ultimately about winning or losing but about fidelity.”

We go on tilting at windmills, regardless of our results, because ultimately our motivation isn’t our own gain, or notoriety, nor is it even about humanity and making the world a better place. Our motivation is that divine fire within that compells us to live, and to love. It is the beating of a heart much to big for our chest, indeed to big for the universe to contain. So we fight on. Not with the arms of Quixote or Che, but with peace, love and a subversive spirituality.

His first temptation experience we are told, happened because the devil “wished to cordon him off from his righteous intention” and so he paraded before Antonius a host of memories about what he was leaving behind: “the guardianship of his sister, the bonds of kinship… the manifold pleasures of food,” and the like. At first all of this raised “a great dust cloud of considerations” in Antonius’s mind. But his resolve stood firm. Next the devil “hurled foul thoughts” at him, but Antonius “overturned them through his prayers.” So the devil, “resorted to titillation,” but Antonius, “seeming to blush, fortified the body with faith.” So turning to more blatant sexual temptation the devil decided to “assume to form of a woman and to imitate her every gesture,” but Antonius “extinguished the fire of his opponent’s deception.” Back and forth they went, Antonius winning round after round until the devil “fled, cowering at the words and afraid even to approach the man.” Concerned that we understand whose power was be hind these victories, Antonius’s biographer writes, “This was Antonius’s first contest against the devil – or, rather was in Antonius the success of the Savior.” Well it may have been “his first contest,” but it was far from his last. -Richard J Foster

How different is St. Anthony from Goethe’s Faust! In heaven God gives Mephistopheles permission to test Faust, just as he did Job. But this Faust doubts the existence of Heaven or Hell and accepts Mephistopheles’ friendship as a test to the power of his own convictions about the nature of the world. He is willing to accept all the power and delight Mephistopheles has to offer with out accepting the reality of the spiritual world he came from. Mephistopheles parades the same sort of temptations before Faust as the devil did before St. Anthony. Faust fails, quickly overcome by the beauty of a woman, drunk on a vile elixir of lust. He damns his soul to eternal punishment, while costing the life of Gretchen and her brother. He watches from hell as Gretchen is escorted to heaven, completing his own personal hell.

It is sobering the battle to come as we draw near to God. It is only those “who believe his is and rewards those who earnestly seek him,” who can please him, who can overcome the enemy. In Invitation to a Journey, Mulholland talks about the Awakening, the Purgative, Illumitive and Unitive way.

Lord God, if in drawing to union with you I must pass through the dark night of the senses, and the dark night of the soul as saints have through ages past, Lord let it be. Though tears come to my eyes at the thought of not feeling your closeness—of sensing with Jesus on the cross your abandonment, still I will love you!

His first temptation experience we are told, happened because the devil “wished to cordon him off from his righteous intention” and so he paraded before Antonius a host of memories about what he was leaving behind: “the guardianship of his sister, the bonds of kinship… the manifold pleasures of food,” and the like. At first all of this raised “a great dust cloud of considerations” in Antonius’s mind. But his resolve stood firm. Next the devil “hurled foul thoughts” at him, but Antonius “overturned them through his prayers.” So the devil, “resorted to titillation,” but Antonius, “seeming to blush, fortified the body with faith.” So turning to more blatant sexual temptation the devil decided to “assume to form of a woman and to imitate her every gesture,” but Antonius “extinguished the fire of his opponent’s deception.” Back and forth they went, Antonius winning round after round until the devil “fled, cowering at the words and afraid even to approach the man.” Concerned that we understand whose power was be hind these victories, Antonius’s biographer writes, “This was Antonius’s first contest against the devil – or, rather was in Antonius the success of the Savior.” Well it may have been “his first contest,” but it was far from his last. -Richard J Foster

How different is St. Anthony from Goethe’s Faust! In heaven God gives Mephistopheles permission to test Faust, just as he did Job. But this Faust doubts the existence of Heaven or Hell and accepts Mephistopheles’ friendship as a test to the power of his own convictions about the nature of the world. He is willing to accept all the power and delight Mephistopheles has to offer with out accepting the reality of the spiritual world he came from. Mephistopheles parades the same sort of temptations before Faust as the devil did before St. Anthony. Faust fails, quickly overcome by the beauty of a woman, drunk on a vile elixir of lust. He damns his soul to eternal punishment, while costing the life of Gretchen and her brother. He watches from hell as Gretchen is escorted to heaven, completing his own personal hell.

It is sobering the battle to come as we draw near to God. It is only those “who believe his is and rewards those who earnestly seek him,” who can please him, who can overcome the enemy. In Invitation to a Journey, Mulholland talks about the Awakening, the Purgative, Illumitive and Unitive way.

Lord God, if in drawing to union with you I must pass through the dark night of the senses, and the dark night of the soul as saints have through ages past, Lord let it be. Though tears come to my eyes at the thought of not feeling your closeness—of sensing with Jesus on the cross your abandonment, still I will love you!

This book kicked my butt. Like Foster said “it is the book I have been searching for all my life.” It seems to so beautifully present all my life is becoming as an apprentice of Christ! When ever Year A in the lectionary cycle affords nine weeks of epiphany, I will use weeks 4-9 to preach the divine conspiracy!

I think I know why people think War and Peace is so hard to get through. The second epilogue takes a year to get through and only the most determined will make it through, even though its only 10 pages. The book was delicious. I loved the stories, but the second epilogue doesn’t have any narrative. It is all an essay on why there is a law of inevitability when studying history. Why should I even read on when I’m not going to hear anymore about the characters I love? Let that be a lesson to me when preaching. Don’t stop the narrative to explain the point!

In a new country, amid new conditions, Prince Andrew found life easier to bear. after his betrothed had broken faith with him – which he felt the more acutely the more he tried to conceal its effects – the surroundings in which he had been happy became trying to him, and the freedom and independence he had once prized so highly were still more so. Not only could he no longer think the thoughts that had first come to him as he lay gazing at the sky on the field of Austerlitz and had later enlarged upon with Pierre and which had filled his solitude at Bogucharovo and then in Switzerland and Rome, but he even dreaded to recall them and the bright and boundless horizons they had revealed. He was now concerned only with the nearest practical matters unrelated to his past interests and he seized on these the more eagerly the more those past interests were closed to him. It was as if that lofty, infinite canopy of heaven that had once towered above him had suddenly turned into a low , solid vault that weighted him down, in which all was clear, but nothing eternal or mysterious.

How often have I felt this way? I find myself frustrated with Prince Andrews many swings. Just as he seems about to touch something significant and larger than himself, something sends him back to the base life of the crust of the earth. Yet this passage rings so true to me. Those great experiences of the boundless Eternity seems so easily eclipsed by the daily work of living.

In a new country, amid new conditions, Prince Andrew found life easier to bear. after his betrothed had broken faith with him – which he felt the more acutely the more he tried to conceal its effects – the surroundings in which he had been happy became trying to him, and the freedom and independence he had once prized so highly were still more so. Not only could he no longer think the thoughts that had first come to him as he lay gazing at the sky on the field of Austerlitz and had later enlarged upon with Pierre and which had filled his solitude at Bogucharovo and then in Switzerland and Rome, but he even dreaded to recall them and the bright and boundless horizons they had revealed. He was now concerned only with the nearest practical matters unrelated to his past interests and he seized on these the more eagerly the more those past interests were closed to him. It was as if that lofty, infinite canopy of heaven that had once towered above him had suddenly turned into a low , solid vault that weighted him down, in which all was clear, but nothing eternal or mysterious.

How often have I felt this way? I find myself frustrated with Prince Andrews many swings. Just as he seems about to touch something significant and larger than himself, something sends him back to the base life of the crust of the earth. Yet this passage rings so true to me. Those great experiences of the boundless Eternity seems so easily eclipsed by the daily work of living.

In a new country, amid new conditions, Prince Andrew found life easier to bear. after his betrothed had broken faith with him – which he felt the more acutely the more he tried to conceal its effects – the surroundings in which he had been happy became trying to him, and the freedom and independence he had once prized so highly were still more so. Not only could he no longer think the thoughts that had first come to him as he lay gazing at the sky on the field of Austerlitz and had later enlarged upon with Pierre and which had filled his solitude at Bogucharovo and then in Switzerland and Rome, but he even dreaded to recall them and the bright and boundless horizons they had revealed. He was now concerned only with the nearest practical matters unrelated to his past interests and he seized on these the more eagerly the more those past interests were closed to him. It was as if that lofty, infinite canopy of heaven that had once towered above him had suddenly turned into a low , solid vault that weighted him down, in which all was clear, but nothing eternal or mysterious.

How often have I felt this way? I find myself frustrated with Prince Andrews many swings. Just as he seems about to touch something significant and larger than himself, something sends him back to the base life of the crust of the earth. Yet this passage rings so true to me. Those great experiences of the boundless Eternity seems so easily eclipsed by the daily work of living.

In a new country, amid new conditions, Prince Andrew found life easier to bear. after his betrothed had broken faith with him – which he felt the more acutely the more he tried to conceal its effects – the surroundings in which he had been happy became trying to him, and the freedom and independence he had once prized so highly were still more so. Not only could he no longer think the thoughts that had first come to him as he lay gazing at the sky on the field of Austerlitz and had later enlarged upon with Pierre and which had filled his solitude at Bogucharovo and then in Switzerland and Rome, but he even dreaded to recall them and the bright and boundless horizons they had revealed. He was now concerned only with the nearest practical matters unrelated to his past interests and he seized on these the more eagerly the more those past interests were closed to him. It was as if that lofty, infinite canopy of heaven that had once towered above him had suddenly turned into a low , solid vault that weighted him down, in which all was clear, but nothing eternal or mysterious.

How often have I felt this way? I find myself frustrated with Prince Andrews many swings. Just as he seems about to touch something significant and larger than himself, something sends him back to the base life of the crust of the earth. Yet this passage rings so true to me. Those great experiences of the boundless Eternity seems so easily eclipsed by the daily work of living.