SBC Prez Bobby Welch has written an article criticizing strongly Calvinistic churches associated with Founders.Org for being smaller, less evangelistic, and baptizing a smaller percentage of individuals than other (Arminian?) churches. It might be funny if what he said wasn’t so ignorant and condescending. The interpretation of the data presumes that greater numbers is always good, and less numbers is always bad. Check out a few responses here and here. I am eager to read how Founders Ministries will respond. If they do not, I will.
I bring this up because this is one more reason people are leaving the SBC. Young, Reformed brothers and sisters do find resistance to their theology and ministry from their Convention. I hear about it quite a bit actually. The whole thing is ironic since the SBC was dominated by Calvinistic churches at its inception.
I am the Lead Pastor of Redeemer Fellowship; husband to Jen; Dad to Katherine, Elias, Madeline, and Kilian. If you're in town you can probably find me in the local coffee house or running through the neighborhoods.
{ 21 comments }
I don’t find Welch’s comments as annoying as Lemke’s paper. Lemke never puts any of his statistics in context. He deplores Founder’s churches membership stats and then a few paragraphs later in a different section says:
In this day ofmegachurches, we may easily forget that just about 7,000 of our 43,000 SBC churches run more than 200 in Sunday morning worship, so 85 percent of our churches have less than 200 in weekly worship attendance. These smaller churches are feeling increasingly disenfranchised and have a perception (rightly or wrongly) that they are neglected by the convention.
another example is in a footnote
Student tuition has increased from under $10 per credit hour in 1975 to over
$130 per credit hour in 2004, an increase of 1,300 percent!” The figures aren’t explained in light of a context of 20 years of price/wage increases. For all we know it might be more financially feasable to attend seminary today than 20 years ago.
I’m really surprised at the laziness of the research of Lemke’s report. He seems to be throwing mud and hoping that it sticks(or at least sticks in peoples’ minds).
Agreed. Lemke’s paper is terrible on several levels, not the least of which is how he interprets his data. I emailed someone from Founders and asked if they planned on responding.
Joe,
That picture is too much dude. Where is the shofar when you need it?
I recall the story of a king who, despite being told to do the contrary, insisted on performing a ‘head-count’ in order to acertain how ‘important’ he was. The results were not what he had hoped for. (So much for the power of statistics.)
Also, if numbers on a baptismal roll are to be used as a measure of evangelical effectiveness then the SBC has a long way to go before we can compete against the Roman Catholic Church, and is this really the company we would choose to keep?
Now that I think about it, the Mormon Church has a pretty good ‘baptismnal ratio’ as well. Perhaps the sacrifice of orthodoxy is the price one must pay for numeric excellence.
jl
Joe,
I remember while doing research on my dissertation that Broadas made the comment that nearly all of the students coming in to Southern were not Calvinists. However, when they left, after having theology under Boyce, they were Calvinists. I drew two conclusions from this. 1. Calvinism in the SBC might have been held mostly by the highly educated Baptists. 2. Unfortunately, Southern was only graduating about 20 students a year, if that much, at the time. Thus, it was hardly a “calvinist theology mill.”
I don’t really remember reading stats about how many Baptists were calvinistic early on. Certainly William Carey’s struggle might lead one to believe that the SBC was “dominated” by Calvinist churches. I’m interested in where your information regarding the number of Calvinistic churches comes from. I graduated a while back and we really didn’t talk too much about Calvinism back them so I’m sure my assumptions may be wrong.
Anyway, I was talking with D.R. today about the Welch baptism drive and I stated that I wonder of it would be better to baptize 100 people and only see less than fifty of them on a regular basis or baptize and disciple 10 and see them become disciples.
My guess is that Welch might prefer the 100!
Virtually all of the history I have read (hobby of mine) touching on Baptist origins connects General Baptists to Smyth and Helwys (a stream of Baptists which quickly left orthodoxy and died out). A few decades later Particular Baptists emerge from the Puritan/Separatists. From here streams begin to diverge but the majority of Baptist churches remained generally “Reformed” for a longer period of time. This can be seen in the early confessions that were most commonly used. In 1845 most of the Baptist churches in the South were typified by Calvinistic theology. You can see this in our early theological works (Dagg, Boyce, etc) and later even in some of the material put out by the “Sunday School Board.”
Part of the problem here, and with the related papers I am complaining about, is not that people reject Calvinism, but that they misunderstand it, and it’s place in our history. Reformed theology is not right because it was what our founders believed. They believed things I completely disagree with. But it does help to understand where we came from, and in this case demonstrates the irony I refer to at the end of the post.
If I had time I would pull out all the references for you. But like you, I am too busy.
I hate to the C of an A and B conversation, but I think what Mark was saying is that Dagg and Boyce may not reflect the theology of all of the churches of the early SBC. I think it would be similar to saying our seminaries use Grudem and Erickson therefore our churches are Calvinistic. That’s a bit of the problem I’ve always had with the whole Founder’s explanation of things. They seem to say, our writing theologians were Calvinists and the confessions were Calvinist therefore SBC churches were Calvinist. The churches might have affirmed the confessions, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that Calvinism was at the heart of their theology and preaching. Although I’m sure the early SBC was more Calvinistic than it is now. My other problem is, even if the early SBC churches were dominated by Calvinism, how long was Calvinism the dominant expression? I think the non-calvinists have more years on their side. Also most SBC churches didn’t begin in the mid 1800′s. Their founders were not Calvinists.
Having said all that, I do believe in open and HONEST discussion. Cheap shots come from both sides. The shots are fired at the extremes of both ends. Dr. Allison at Southern is trying to get a motion to next years convention asking for study group to deal honestly with Calvinism to clear up the caricatures.
JM,
My brief argument was based on 1) the writing theologians that influenced other leaders, 2) confessions which did define the theology of the churches who adopted them and 3) the early lit’ coming out of the SSB.
The major shift toward Arminian theology seems to have been happening quickly by the 1920′s.
Of course most of the SBC churches were started/planted in the 2oth century. The SBC began in 1845 and the bulk of our numbers were gathered in the following full century. Though the Convention did not start until 1845 our history goes back to the 17th century.
Again, in my reading the bulk of historians make this argument – but in more detail and more effectively.
Joe,
That picture is hilarious. I’m curious if some our more prominent, Calvinist influenced leaders are as disturbed as I am about targeting Founders affiliated churches like this. Do you think it warrants a responce from Mohler or someone like Dever? I know that might cause further polarization, but this stuff is serious. When a SBC President makes comments like this, it’s obvious that he percieves them as a threat. There are a lot of people loosely affiliated with Founders that don’t even appear listed on their website. I attended the Founder’s breakfast with R.C. Sproul at the SBC in Nashville and the place was packed. I think their influence is being felt.
Gentlemen,
I noticed that you referenced the paper that I gave at MABTS. I’ve not seen how it was introduced or used on Bobby Welch’s web site yet, which may have shaped the way you perceived my paper, but I must confess to feeling both humor and horror at your reading of it! Or, perhaps you haven’t had the opportunity to read my whole paper yet.
First of all, my paper was not about Calvinism. It was entitled “The Future of Southern Baptists as Evangelicals,” and that title was assigned me by the organizers of the “Maintaining Southern Baptist Distinctives” conference at MABTS. In the paper, I voiced concerns about the direction of a few trends in the SBC, and made some predictions about what might happen if we continued in these directions unchecked.
Second, I was very deliberate in expressing my appreciation and respect for Calvinism. In particular, I expressed appreciation for its bringing a healthy corrective regarding a renewed interest on the sovereignty of God against the overly anthropcentric church growth methodologies.
Third, I also defended Calvinism against the assertion that it was not a significant part of the Baptist heritage. I emphasized that it was a legitimate part of the Baptist heritage.
Fourth, I also included an extended section in which I emphasized that there are many varieties of Calvinism, and distinguished a sofer “ROSES” version of Calvinism (i.e., Timothy George) from a harder line “TULIP” kind of Calvinism. My concerns were voiced not about Calvinism in general, but a trend line toward a particular kind of Calvinism.
Fifth, I also repeated several times that I was of course aware of some very evangelistic Calvinists (i.e., Whitefield, D. James Kennedy, etc.). I have some friends whom I greatly admire who pastor Founder’s Fellowship churches, and I believe them to be very evangelistic and excellent ministers.
I say all these things to emphasize that my paper was not primarily about Calvinism, that it was not discounting or criticizing Calvinism, and in fact that I said some very appreciative things about Calvinism as a part of our Baptist heritage.
Now, what did I say? The demographic/statistical evidence I presented compared the 233 Founder’s Fellowship churches with the SBC as a whole in a number of statistical categories, and I found that they had fewer baptisms, smaller churches, and a slower rate of increase than the average SBC church. Now, is anyone really shocked at that? Was anyone really under the impression that the Founder’s Fellowship churches were coextensive with the Mega-metro churches? In fact, some strongly Calvinistic friends have suggested to me that they are somewhat proud of those statistics, because they would account for churches that are strongly Reformed in orientation having fewer baptisms, etc., because those who come are genuinely saved, while they have some questions about those at some other churches (as Mark suggested).
John Mark and Joe both had some questions about methodology. Research is like a prism that you can look at from a variety of perspectives and see new things from each perspective. And, no matter from how many perspectives you look at it, there’s always another perspective you could have examined it from. However, when you present a paper in this kind of setting, you eventually have to come down to conclusions without citing the entire trail of how you got there (just as in preaching you might utilize a word study from Greek or Hebrew without boring your congregation with all the grammatical details). Were my paper only about Calvinism, I might have gone into more detail, but this was a very broad survey of trends in the SBC, and this was just a single point among several others. In this case, I can assure you that I and the colleague who worked with me in this research studied this at length before making the claim. We actually developed an entire Powerpoint presentation comparing the Founder’s Fellowship churches to the average SBC church in a number of categories, including the state they’re located in, size of church, type of neighborhood (urban, suburban, rural), age of the church, worship attendance, Sunday School attendance, etc. Obviously, baptism and increased enrollment is not the end all of everything. In another section of my paper, I emphasized that in order to obey the Great Commission we must not just baptize, but make disciples.
So, while expressing my own beliefs and serious concerns about the future of our convention, I had no intent to insult or infuriate. I would be open to further dialogue, particularly, for example, what specifically John Mark and Joe have questions about. Let’s keep talking rather than throwing stones!
swl
Dr. Lemke,
Thank you for taking the time to visit my blog and address us so kindly. I guess I have been responding to Bobby’s article more than anything, only looking at the relevent portions of your paper as it relates to his words. I have now read your paper in full and will put up another post interacting with it directly. Thanks for the encouragement to keep talking about the whole. And I promise – stones will be left outside.
I was pointed here by a friend who asked if I was the “john Mark” above. Just for the record it is not me and I am a different “johnMark”. Interesting articles here though. Glad I was directed here.
Mark
Dear Steve,
I had set out to write at more length in response to your response but other guys on this site have addressed some of the issues (these guys are quick!). I have not yet read Tom Ascol’s response. But I wanted to write briefly to say in essence; “Come on!” You put a very positive spin on your paper in the response posted here, but it does not seem to fit with the actual paper. I read Bobby Welch’s piece and your paper when all this came out. I think Welch understood you the way any reader would. Others here have pointed out in detail the error of calling belief in the TULIP hyper-Calvinism. They are absolutely correct and you should have been more careful here. If we want to foster good discussion and avoid fracturing we must avoid unfair, untrue generalization like this. In fact this generalization is slanderous. No one in the leadership of the Founders is a hyper-Calvinist though your paper makes it sound like they are. This is damaging and should probably require a public clarification. Though you set out to clarify that you only have a certain type of Calvinism in mind, your description then covers most people who affirm Reformed soteriology (T George is not refuting the typical understanding of TULIP but restating in a way to clarify).
Here are some points from your paper.
1. You ask if Baptist Calvinists will distinguish themselves clearly and definitively from hyper-Calvinists. They already have done so, clearly, directly, and often. It will be important for those who are going to criticize or even worry about (the category of your paper, perhaps) Calvinistic Baptists to actually read the writings of such people. Then your answer would be clear.
2. You also wonder about continuing “on the current trajectory”. What is this trajectory? Simply the wording here suggests that anti-missional Calvinism is on the rise. If so where is it? I am sure you could find it somewhere (you can find almost anything somewhere in Baptist life!), but I have not seen it. In fact some of the most passionate young pastors we have would describe themselves as Calvinistic. I am worried that careless talk like this will continue to drive them away from the SBC. This line is continued later when you ask whether this newest generation of SBC pastors will “continue moving toward hyper-Calvinism.” Continue? These kinds of charges continue to be thrown around without any real justification. This is not helpful.
3. Just in passing you state that you do not believe that the SBC will ever require belief in the five points. Does anyone else believe this?! Is anyone seeking this? No one I know of.
4. Lastly, in your response you suggest your data on baptismal ratios, etc. are really no surprise and no big deal- “Was anyone really under the impression that the Founder’s Fellowship churches were coextensive with the Mega-metro churches?” But if this is the case, why did you in the paper describe the results as “startling” (p. 16)? Why did you include this inflammatory statement:
“But do churches who emphasize hard Calvinist theology tend to be less evangelistic? Look at the hard evidence and you be the judge!” (p. 17)
What is this? Note the exclamation point. Why would anyone not read this as a warning against ‘those Founders people’? You must know that Reformed thinking Southern Baptists are a much maligned group and that therefore such careless talk will lead not to healthy conversation but bashing by others- whether intended by you or not. There is a high responsibility for carefulness with our words here. You seemed to lightly chastise these guys on the blogs for casting stones, but this paper sounds like stone casting to me.
I heartily agree that we need to keep talking rather than throwing stones. With good, careful conversation we can see growth rather than division
Lemke writes: “Fourth, I also included an extended section in which I emphasized that there are many varieties of Calvinism, and distinguished a sofer “ROSES” version of Calvinism (i.e., Timothy George) from a harder line “TULIP” kind of Calvinism. My concerns were voiced not about Calvinism in general, but a trend line toward a particular kind of Calvinism.”
This is one of the problems with the paper, however. Are George’s “ROSES” softer than “TULIP”, or is it a restatement of the exact same doctrines in phrases that are less likely to lend themselves to misinterpretation? For instance, R.C. Sproul changes the phrases so that he ends up with RSDEP or something like that, which is completely useless as a memorable acrostic. Which is why TULIP uses the phrases it does; TULIP is easier to remember that RSDEP (or whatever it is). For instance, take the “T”, total depravity. Adrian Rogers tells us that this means that Calvinists teach that man is as depraved as he can be. But if you read anything by any Calvinist (even the “harder line”) who affirm TULIP, they will start out the discussion by saying that this is NOT what total depravity means. So a rephrasing of TULIP doesn’t necessarily make it any “softer”. It just may make it more understandable.
In his paper, Lemke goes through Timothy George’s ROSES and contrasts it with TULIP. But the contrast seems to be with something that doesn’t exist. For instance, “Compared with total depravity, radical depravity agrees that we can do nothing to save ourselves, but affirms that humans are not totally evil because we treatin the image of God despite our fallennes.” What 5-point TULIPer believes otherwise? All of the definitions for the terms in ROSES are the same definitons for the phrases in TULIP. So it is no softer. And by saying “in contrast to” Lemke suggests that TULIPers do believe that humans are totally evil, or that election is mechanistic that doesn’t “allow for human responsiveness.” In fact, Unconditional Election is what insures human responsiveness!
Another thing that has gotten people riled up is this comment in Lemke’s paper: “One stream is what we might call hard hyper-Calvinism (often associated with the Founder’s Movement)…” I do not know anybody associated with the Founders ministry who denies the duty of man to repent and believe or who denies the need for holy living in believers (the two major tenets of hyper-Calvinism). I’m not saying for certain that these people dont’ exist. But they are few, and the majority of the people involved in the Founders ministry would be quick to object to that person’s hyper-Calvinism. But, since Lemke associates the Synod of Dort (where Calvinism was really first systematized into points) as hyper-Calvinism, then this discussion is meaningless. We are working with two different definitions. With this line of thinking, Calvin was a hyper-Calvinist! That somebody can believe more than he believes is nonsense. And this is not taking into account the question of whether or not Calvin believed in particular redemption. Even if he didn’t, (though i think he did), he still definately affirmed the other four points, which is more than Lemke is allowing to belong to regular Calvinism. This all reminds me of people like Norman Geisler who calls himself a Calvinist by redefining all the points of doctrine. But what does the history of Calvinism say a Calvinist is? I think the answer would be at least someone who holds to TUIP, but for most people in church history, the answer would be someone who affirms TULIP. Lemke can redefine that to mean “hyper-Calvinist” but he has no historical precedent for doing so.
Ray and Stephen,
Thanks for adding to the discussion on this blog – and the conversation in general. Good words!
ya know i may not have a seminary edu. but i did go to an rp school – which i think we could all agree is calvinist – but i’m proud to be a bapt-which if ya think baptist where not influenced by calvin – your in one of our pa potholes i guess – cause before i joined the sbc – i was from a non-demon. before – i too just some of my own research – i was in college at my rp school at the time – i was surprised to see how calvin’s teachings were threaded throughout the sbc – but because the hyper-calvinist have given calvin’s teachings a bad name – folks in the 70′s and 80′s didn’t want to be associated with that – i’m from the north – and live in presbyterian land – as i like to say – i’m realizing that southerners don’t want to be associated with anything northern – that would be – what they precieve to be calvin as well – we need to quit knocking calvin and just listen to what he was learning from God – he’s not perfect and some of his thoughts are – in my opinion – a bit squed – but ya got to respect him – he was just writing what he was wrestling with during his day – just as we are in our time – but one thing is for sure – the God that Calvin was seeking to know is the same God we are – thus, His word’s are truth and life – no matter whether we belief in free will or election – i’m one who believes in both – it’s a divine mystery – who am i to try and put God in my little box – He’s my creator – can’t He work in other my free will and in His irrestable calling of me? – we need to stop to make it about sides – there are no right or wrongs – as long as we understand correct theology – the cradle, cross, and crown – i would agree with Dr. Lemke that the calvinistic resurregance – (sorry – my spelling stinks) – is a good way to check ourselves into holding close to God’s errant words and not watering them down to be more expected — the truth hurts — Jesus was all about tough love – ex: Samartian woman at the well – i’m sure it hurt her to be confronted with who she really was – but scripture says she followed Christ – His love won her not his persaive and car-salesmen words. — sorry i’m rambling now – thanks for allowing me to post – enjoying the discussion – in his grip, your calvinist bapt. from pa
You are welcome to join in our conversations here. You’ll find I am reformed and baptist in theology. Thanks for reading the blog!
Joe,
You wrote…
“The whole thing is ironic since the SBC was dominated by Calvinistic churches at its inception.”
Really? Is that a gut feeling or statement backed by numbers? Can you point me to the data supporting this statement?
It will help me see the big picture on this matter…
Thanks,
Charles
Charles,
Thanks for visiting my blog and engaging the conversation. I base my assertion on a a few things: here are two biggies:
1. The confessional identity of early Southern Baptists was Calvinistic. For example, the delegates at the founding meeting of the SBC in 1845 were all from churches who embraced the Philadelphia Confession (http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9905/articles/george.html). The first confession drawn up by Southern Baptists, The Abstract of Principles, is clearly Calvinistic, and even the 1925 BFM reflects a Calvinism (though fading at that point) in its articles on Regeneration, Faith and Repentance, Election and Perseverance.
2. Our early Seminary, College and Convention Presidents and writing theologians were Calvinists, as were notable Convention and agency leaders: W.B. Johnson, R.B.C. Howell, Richard Fuller, Jesse Mercer, John Dagg, P.H. Mell, Basil Manly Sr. (and Jr.), James Boyce, John Broadus, F.H. Kerfoot, E.C. Dargan, J.B. Gambrel, J.B. Tidwell, B.H. Carrol.
The churches of the SBC in the late 19th century were largely Calvinistic. But this does not prove that we should be Calvinists today. It’s just our background. But this is what makes the whole anti-Calvinism rhetoric “ironic.”
Sources for all think kind of stuff? Well, you can read the sermons and books by some of these men, or check out the histories. Everything I have said here can be read in:
The Southern Baptist Convention 1845-1953 by WW Barnes.
By His Grace and For His Glory, Tom Nettles
A History of Baptists by Robert Torbet
Ahhh, good information, Joe. Nevertheless, since you have no explicit numbers, then your declaration is an assumption.
Prudence should encouragement me to stop here…
Still, if I present the fact that the Georgia Baptist Convention (in Georgia, where the SBC was founded over 20 years later) was originally founded as “The General Baptist Association of the State of Georgia” in June 1822, can I fill in “the blanks” with my own presuppositional statements? Such as… “the Georgia Baptist Convention was originally dominated by non-Calvinistic churches?” Or even better… “most of the Georgia churches were non-Calvinistic before the Calvinists high-jacked the convention? Certainly not!
Also, what exactly does “dominant” mean in the eye of the writer and the beholder? Fifty-one percent? Ninety-one percent? Etc.
In all fairness, perhaps your statement, “the SBC was dominated by Calvinistic churches at its inception,” is dead-on, for your details are compelling. Yet, since you have presented no ‘clear’ data, your statement is built on a good guess, and you should acknowledge that to your reader. Without someone asking for your supporting numbers, most of your readers might suppose the statistics were clear, unbiased and in your hands.
At this juncture, you may think I am nit-picking. Maybe I am.
Nonetheless, I think subjective argumentation is a problem on both sides of this unceasing theological argument. And, in my opinion, the fracas [and I believe it is often a fracas] is often more about “Who’s your daddy?” between both sides. And I don’t mean the Real Almighty Heavenly One!
The Reformed camp is currently ‘slicing the hairs’ in the comments of both Lemke and Welch. And for what it is worth and in my opinion, it could be argued that Lemke’s correlations and conclusions [if I understand correctly] may be deemed weak and premature, respectively. [Are there truly sufficient numbers out of 42,000 churches? And what about time?]
How many years has the new “Reformed” movement been at work in the U.S. (SBC) churches? Ten? Fifteen? Twenty? Is that a fair time for godly “reformation” or an adequate period to observe a trend, in order for anyone to make correlations, positive or negative?
Now, that the real or imagined hand grenade [Reformed churches will weaken the SBC...] has been thrown, and the howitzer [no, it’s the wicked non-Calvinistic churches that are killing the SBC...] has retorted, subjectively, who can truly sit in judgment of this matter? Who but God can truly (know the hearts of men and) say that all the baptisms of Reformed churches are “more genuine” and that those in un-Reformed churches are mostly suspect (strongly stated or implied by Calvinists) OR vice versa?
Left to themselves, are the Reformed churches more obediently walking in step with God and adding the elect from the white-fields at just the right pace? Or are the un-Reformed churches still being used by God for a greater (and messy as it might be) harvest of the chosen?
Both sides have their opinions. But I believe Lemke is premature in his speculations.
Nevertheless, and back to my original point. In twelve years of research I never observed anyone being allowed to make such an extrapolated leap (such as your original ‘dominant’ statement above) without prefacing it with other expressions, such as “in my opinion…,” “I believe…,” “it seems to me…,” “I think it is a fair assumption…,” “one can easily surmise…,” etc.
I have my own concerns about this C and A argument. But please remember this!!! The Reformed camp keeps telling others that the new reformation is needed to bring more godliness into the (universal) church. Well then, IN MY OPINION [for what it is worth] the Reformed camp has the greater responsibility to exemplify that godliness in how they present Christ, Truth (not their case) and deal with those in the opposite camp.
May God truly bless you, brother…
Respectfully in Christ,
Charles
Charles,
Just a few repsonses to your comment.
1. I would say my statement is not an assumption, but a conclusion. There seems to be a difference.
2. This is a weblog, a place where I think out loud, encourage and admonish, all in a pretty casual way. Most people seem to get that, but for the record, this is not a collection of research papers. It is just the thoughts of a pastor about Jesus, the church and culture.
3. The vast majority of historians I know, have read or spoke with draw the same conclusion; the SBC was predominantly Calvinistic at its inception. Some of these are men who would reject that brand of theology, and its place in the Convention today.
4. “Calvinistic” does not equal being thoroughly “Reformed,” but characterized by a theology that reflected – to a greater and lesser degrees – what is commonly thought of today as Calvinism.
5. Read my blog and you will see the vast majority of my admonition,correction/finger-pointing is directed toward the Reformed camp. My camp. I think we need a lot of help, a lot of change. Only when Bobby and Lemke’s remarks got some press did I feel the need to address the issue.
6. I find it amusing that you want to take issue with a side-note. The assertion you are calling into question was not the point of my article, which is why I did not feel the need to “show my work” there. But now in the comments I have done so, giving the reason why I draw the conclusion I have. Clearly it does not meet your approval, and I am okay with that.
To get a better picture of where I am coming from flip through some of the past posts. It might help you interpet me.
I appreciate the dialogue.
Comments on this entry are closed.