CWoznicki Think Out Loud

Scary Close

Perhaps more than any other book Donald Miller’s Blue Like Jazz helped define a generation of evangelicals like myself. The 2000’s were a turning point for many evangelicals – many of us were looking for an identity. We had grown up in the church but somehow stuff felt too “churchy” to be real – we were craving authenticity we were craving reality. We loved Jesus but the “churchiness” of the church felt ineffective in reaching the world for Christ, we were trying to be missional but didn’t even know it. So a lot of us dabbled with the emergent church – there was a point in which everyone wanted to be emergent! Others of us planted our feet firmly in traditional evangelicalism. Well that phase passed and the emergent movement slowly died; however what emerged was something way better than that. What emerged was a more missional, more orthodox, form of evangelicalism. Donald Miller had a part to play in that – he showed us it was okay to be Christian, love Jesus, love the church, without being “churchy.” He showed us it was okay to be a Christian and not have our lives all figured out. Now, 12 years later Donald has written another book – this time it seems like Donald is finally getting some sort of resolution…. Donald is getting married!

Scary Close is a very personal look at intimacy and relationships through the lens of Donald’s engagement process. In it Donald reveals his tendency to perform or to play a role in order to get people to validate him. This of course took a toll on his relationships. As he put on this façade he found it harder and harder to find meaningful relationships – especially when it came to romantic relationships.

Using his signature conversational, snarky, and imaginative style Donald shows us the important truth that you can only be as loved as you are known. He shows us that we don’t need to control every aspect of our lives – in fact when we try to do that we tend to destroy relationships. He shows us that being vulnerable can be scary but that its essential to being in loving relationships.

Basically this book is a way for Donald to say to the reader that in order to experience love – you have to get scary close – but that its completely worth it.

I enjoyed reading this book. I enjoyed his stories, adventures, and conversation with random people along the way. It’s a quick read, its light and refreshing.

(Note: I received this book courtesy of the publisher in exchange for an impartial review.)

Fear & Loathing In… God?

Today, if you hear his voice,
⁸    do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah,
    as on the day at Massah in the wilderness,
⁹when your fathers put me to the test
    and put me to the proof, though they had seen my work.
¹⁰For forty years I loathed that generation
    and said, “They are a people who go astray in their heart,
    and they have not known my ways.”
¹¹Therefore I swore in my wrath,
    “They shall not enter my rest.” – Psalm 95

Moses Striking the Rock by Bartolomé Esteban Murillo (oil on canvas 1660’s)

God loathed that generation! If you are like me that is so hard to grasp – God Loathed them! Why because they complained against God and hardened their hearts against him. How can God loath his chosen people? How does that even make sense? In one of John Webster’s sermons on this very Psalm he addresses how this can be. Honestly its one of the best explanations of God’s wrath and hatred and anger that I have ever read…

Now, if we are to hear Holy Scripture aright at this point, we must be very careful. We read of God “loathing” this generation, of God’s anger against them. But if we are to make sense of that, we must not fall into the idea that God becomes another God—a God without grace, a God without mercy, a God who is not the redeemer and guardian of his people. God’s anger against this wicked generation does not mean that God abandons his covenant. It does not mean that God casts off his people forever, and that his promises are at an end. God’s purpose stands fast. His ways will be brought to completion. No sin, no rebellion, no refusal of God, can overthrow the determination of God. If our sins could stand between us and God, then no one would ever have been saved. God has never and will never go back on his avowed purpose that he will be our God and we will be his people of his pasture and the sheep of his hand. God is infinitely greater than all our sins.

Because this is so, then this “loathing” and “anger” of God does not mean that God rejects his people and that he is no longer with them. But it does mean that his presence is the terrifying presence of the judge of all. And that presence purifies by destroying evil. God’s anger is not just sheer destructive rage, the kind of thing which afflicts human beings and leads them to smash everything in their sight. God’s anger is God setting aside the evil which we sinners have allowed to invade us and take over our lives. It is the fearful energy of his holiness; it is his refusal to let sin have the upper hand. Through his anger, God eradicates sin and evil from the world. And he eradicates evil with a purpose: He eradicates it in order that righteousness and holiness might flourish; he attacks sin to establish the good order of human life. God’s anger is not God on the rampage; it is the form of God’s love. It is God refusing to let sin triumph; it is God not allowing his people to destroy themselves. God’s anger is his faithfulness to the covenant, the purifying power of his love. It doesn’t send us to hell; it rescues us from hell.

Webster, J. (2014). Confronted by Grace: Meditations of a Theologian. (D. Bush & B. Ellis, Eds.). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

I’m Going Paleo! (At Least For This Review)

All my friends are eating paleo nowadays – well many of them are. Some of them are on Paleo because they are doing intense workouts – Paleo is protein heavy – others are doing it for health reasons – it’s a very clean diet for those who have gastro-intestinal issues – yet others are just jumping on the bandwagon because its fashionable. I don’t fit under any of those categories – I just want to be able to cook a variety of types of cuisines, and since I have friends who have a strictly regimented diet I want to be able to make something they can eat.

In The Paleo chef – Pete Evans – gives us a fantastic cook book full of gluten free, grain free, and dairy free meals that are Paleo as well. Paleo cuts out processed sugary foods and replaces them with proteins, fats, fresh veggies and fruits, and nuts and seeds. You would think that this limits your possibilities for making great meals. But it doesn’t!

Tell me for a second how these breakfast options sound:

Hazelnut & Banana Pancakes
Stir-fried Beef with Basil, Chile & Fried Eggs,
Shrimp Omelet with Dashi Broth & Asian Greens

Now how about these meals:

Japanese Crispy Chicken w/ Miso Mayonnaise
Jerk Chicken w/ Papaya-Mango Sauce
Portuguese Pork Burgers w/ Piri Piri Sauce

Or these desserts:

Chocolate-Avocado Mousse
Pomegranate & Coconut Popsicles
Watermelon Cakes w/ Coconut Cream & Rose Water Poached Figs

And there is a whole collection of drinks too!

Its so good!

What I loved about the book was that all of the meals were “sophisticated” but also real. They all look like you put in a ton of effort but they are a cinch to prepare. Over the last few weeks I have been preparing meals out of this book and they have all been hits! They ingredients are quite simple, the directions are easy to follow, and the pictures are exquisite. I love this cookbook!

(This is the first post in my new category: “Food.” You will begin to see reviews of cook books and restaurants. I’m a big Yelper – so I thought I would combine these two worlds. And I also love food so much!)

Note: I received this book courtesy of the publisher in exchange for an impartial review.

Jonathan Edwards Week – A Recommended Reading List

So you want to get to know Edwards? But you don’t know where to start. I recommend that you start out with John Piper’s edition of The End for Which God Created the World in God’s passion for his glory. Then pick up they Yale reader which has a great collection of sermons. After that move on to Marsden’s Jonathan Edwards: A Life. This big book is a must read book on Edwards. After making your way through these books you might want to pick something off this list of books on Edwards (I have bolded some of my favorites):

** Bombaro, John J. Jonathan Edwards’ Vision of Reality: The Relationship of God to the World, Redemption History, and the Reprobate (Wipf & Stock, 2011).
* Caldwell III, Robert Communion in the Spirit: The Holy Spirit as the Bond of Union in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards. Wipf & Stock, 2007. ISBN: . Pub. Price: $
* Cherry, Conrad The Theology of Jonathan Edwards, A Reappraisal (University of Indiana Press, 1966).
** Cochran, Elizabeth Agnew Receptive Human Virtues: A New Reading of Jonathan Edwards’s Ethics (Pennsylvania State University Press, 2010).
** Crisp, Oliver D. Jonathan Edwards and the Metaphysics of Sin (Ashgate, 2005).
* _____________ Jonathan Edwards Among the Theologians. Eerdmans, 2015. [Circulated in mss. form upon request.]
** _____________ and Sweeney, Douglas A. eds. After Jonathan Edwards: The Courses of The New England Theology (Oxford University Press, 2012).
** Elwood, Douglas The Philosophical Theology of Jonathan Edwards (University of Columbia Press, 1960).
** Fiering, Norman Jonathan Edwards’s Moral Thought in its British Context (University of North Carolina Press, 1981).
** Guelzo, Allen C. Edwards on The Will: A Century of Theological Debate (Wipf and Stock, 2007 [1998]).
* Gura, Philip Jonathan Edwards, America’s Evangelical (Hill and Wang, 2005).
** Hatch, Nathan and Stout, Harry eds., Jonathan Edwards and the American Experience (Oxford University Press, 1988).
** Helm, Paul and Crisp, Oliver D. eds., Jonathan Edwards: Philosophical Theologian (Ashgate, 2003).
** Holbrook, Clyde A. The Ethics of Jonathan Edwards: Morality and Aesthetics (University of Michigan Press, 1973).
** Holmes, Stephen R. God of Grace and God of Glory, An Account of the Theology of Jonathan Edwards (T&T Clark, 2000).
** Lee, Sang The Philosophical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, Expanded Edition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000 [1988]).
** Lee, Sang Hyun ed. The Princeton Companion to Jonathan Edwards (Princeton University Press, 2005).
* Marsden, George Jonathan Edwards, A Life (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003).
** McClymond, Michael J. Encounters with God, An Approach to the Theology of Jonathan Edwards (OUP, 1998).
* McClymond, Michael J. and McDermott, Gerald The Theology of Jonathan Edwards (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).
* McDermott, Gerald R. ed. Understanding Jonathan Edwards, An Introduction to America’s Theologian (Oxford University Press, 2009).
** Miller, Perry Jonathan Edwards (William Sloane, 1949).
** Morris, William S. The Young Jonathan Edwards: A Reconstruction (Wipf & Stock, 2005 [1991]).
* Plantinga Pauw, Amy “The Supreme Harmony of All”: The Trinitarian Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Eerdmans, 2006).
** Rea, Michael “The Metaphysics of Sin” in Dean Zimmerman and Peter van Inwagen, eds. Persons: Human and Divine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 319-356. Also available at: http://www3.nd.edu/~mrea/papers/Metaphysics%20of%20Original%20Sin%20_final_.pdf
** Schweitzer, Don ed. Jonathan Edwards as Contemporary: Essays in Honor of Sang Lee (Peter Lang, 2010).
* Schweitzer, William H. God is a Communicative Being: Divine Communicativeness and Harmony in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards (T&T Clark, 2012).
* Smith, John E. Jonathan Edwards, Puritan, Preacher, Philosopher (Chapman, 1992),
* Stein, Stephen J. ed. The Cambridge Companion to Jonathan Edwards (Cambridge University Press, 2008).
** Strobel, Kyle C. Jonathan Edwards’s Theology: A Reinterpretation (T&T Clark, 2012).
**Studebaker, Steven M. and Caldwell III, Robert W. The Trinitarian Theology of Jonathan Edwards: Text, Context and Application (Ashgate, 2012).
* Sweeney, Douglas A. Jonathan Edwards and the Ministry of the Word: A Model of Faith and Thought (IVP Academic, 2009).
** Tracy, Patricia J. Jonathan Edwards, Pastor: Religion and Society in Eighteenth Century Northampton (Hill and Wang, 1980).
* Wainwright, William J. “Original Sin” in Thomas V. Morris, ed. Philosophy and the Christian Faith (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988),
** Wilson, Stephen A. Virtue Reformed: Re-reading Jonathan Edwards’ Ethics (E. J. Brill, 2005).
* Winslow, Ola Jonathan Edwards 1703-1758 (Collier Books, 1940).

denotes introductory to intermediate texts

** denotes intermediate to advanced texts

(This list was compiled from Oliver Crisp’s – The Theology of Jonathan Edwards – course.)

Jonathan Edwards Week – Sex & God’s Glory

Earlier this week we saw that Edwards believed that “God is a communicative being.” This significance of this is that God is all about his glory – specifically God is all about communicating his own glory ad intra (within the Trinity) and ad extra (to sentient beings he has created). Then we asked the question:

How do sentient beings, participate in the glorification of God? What is these beings role (whether humans or angels) in glorifying God? Two answer this other question we need to look at two other axiom’s Edwards’ Trinitarian theology… but we’ll save that for later.

Today we get to those two points and what it means for our sexuality.

Two Axioms

Axiom 1 – In the beauty of spiritual community the glory of God becomes visible.

Axiom 2 – The church glorifies God when it knows and delights in Him.

It is clear that for Edwards God’s self-glorification was fundamental to his theology. To put it quite simply, Edwards believed that God is all about his self-glorification. God is glorified when the beauty of the spiritual community becomes visible and when this same community knows and delights in him.

So What Does This Mean for the Church’s Sexuality?

First, we must take seriously the fact that sexual sin within the church is not merely a private matter, it affects the whole community and it is a violation of the love that ought to be seen within the church.[1] Second, we must oppose sexual morality done simply for the sake of being moral, rather we must encourage sexual morality by encouraging people to find delight in God. As people’s knowledge of and delight in God grow, their desire for sexual sin will begin to diminish. If the church would begin to do these simple things, the church would certainly bring much glory to God.

Do you want to know more about this these two axioms or Edwards understanding of sexuality in the church? Then come to ETS MidWest 2015, April 10 & 11 – I will be presenting a paper titled:

Bad Books and The Glorious Trinity:
Jonathan Edwards on the Sexual Holiness of the Church

————————————————————————————–

[1] Paul picks up on this in his letter to the Thessalonians: For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God;that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you. (1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 ESV)

Jonathan Edwards Week – Ontological Argument(s)

Jonathan Edwards makes an interesting (and prior to a few weeks ago unknown to me) ontological argument in one of his miscellanies. But before we get to that, a little bit on Ontological Arguments[1]:

Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists.

The first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th. century C.E. In his Proslogion, St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists—can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived—i.e., God—exists.

There are several types of ontological arguments

definitional ontological arguments;
conceptual (or hyperintensional) ontological arguments;
modal ontological arguments;
Meinongian ontological arguments;
experiential ontological arguments;
mereological ontological arguments;
higher-order ontological arguments; and
‘Hegelian’ ontological arguments;

The first three sorts of ontological argument are probably the most commonly thought of argument when we say “ontological argument.” The first one basically goes something like this:

1-God is a being which has every perfection. (This is true as a matter of definition.) Existence is a perfection. Hence God exists.

The second one goes something like this:

2- I conceive of a being than which no greater can be conceived. If a being than which no greater can be conceived does not exist, then I can conceive of a being greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived that exists. I cannot conceive of a being greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. Hence, a being than which no greater can be conceived exists.

Argument 2 is closest to Anselm’s type of ontological argument.

The third argument goes something like this:

3- It is possible that that God exists. God is not a contingent being, i.e., either it is not possible that God exists, or it is necessary that God exists. Hence, it is necessary that God exists. Hence, God exists.

Now lets turn to Jonathan Edwards’ argument then we can classify it:

27a. God is a necessary being, because it’s a contradiction to suppose him not to be. No being is a necessary being but he whose nonentity is a contradiction. We have show that absolute nothing is the essence of al contradictions; but being includes in it all that we call God, who is, and there is no one else besides him.

The Modal argument has several premises:

It is possible that God exists
God is not a contingent being
Hence it is necessary that God exists.
Hence God exists.

Edwards arguments can be parsed out this way:

A.It is possible that God exists.
B.God is a necessary being.
(Arguments for why God is a necessary being: It’s a contradiction to suppose God is contingent. No being is a necessary being but he whose essence is just being.)
C. God Exists.

But it could also be parsed out another way:

“God” includes being.
It is contradictory to have “God” without being.

This reading looks a lot like the first sort of ontological argument:

By definition, “God” is a being which has every perfection.
Existence is a perfection.
God exists.

All this to say – Edwards has a rather complex and maybe convoluted version of the ontological argument or maybe he has two in the same miscellany.

———————————————————————————

[1] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

Jonathan Edwards Week – Edwards and Atonement (Pt. 2)

Yesterday we took a brief look at a quote from Edwards that has been spun into a rather interesting theory of atonement (namely one that Edwards would never had agreed to). Today, I felt like we should look at what Edwards really believed about atonement. Here is Edwards in his own words:

If it be allowed that it is requisite that great crimes should be punished with punishment in some measure answerable to the heinousness of the crime because of their great demerit and the great abhorrence and indignation they justly excite: it will follow that it is a requisite that God should punish all sin with infinite punishment, because all sin, as it is against God, is infinitely hateful to him and so stirs up infinite abhorrence and indignation in him. (Works, 2:565)

We take it that it is required that crimes should be punished with a punishment equal to the heinousness of the crime. Thus it follows that sin against God (an infinite being) merits infinite punishment. Not that Edwards does not mention “justice” in this passage – rather Edwards main argument that sin deserves to be punished hangs on the fact sin is hateful to God and that it stirs up abhorrence and indignation to him. Sin is punished not out of a pure act of justice, rather it is punished because it is offensive to God’s holiness. Sin is not an abstract violation of justice rather it is an affront to a personal and holy God.

This punishment must be meted out upon the one guilty of the sin – no one can take the punishment for someone else, not even God for that would be unjust. Thank goodness for substitutionary atonement! The punishment can be meted out against one person if that one person somehow really is a substitute for the guilty. Mind you, this needs to be more than just a legal substitution, it needs to be a metaphysical substitution for the substitution to be real and not a legal fiction.

In Original Sin Edwards says,

Some things, existing in different times and places, are treated by their Creator as one in one respect, and others in another; some are united for this communication, and others for that; but all according to the sovereign pleasure of the Fountain of all being and operation. (OS 405)

In other words God regards John Doe at T1 and T2 as one being, even though materially they are not, thus metaphysically it is true that John Doe at T1 is the same person as John Doe at T2. Edwards applies this same logic to penal substitution. Edwards believes that God regards the believers as one with Christ and so, ontologically, the believer is one with Christ.

Jonathan Edwards Week – Edwards and Atonement

What does Jonathan Edwards believe when it comes to atonement? Well, its nothing terribly interesting – he takes the traditional reformed line when it comes to this doctrine. However – in one of his miscellanies he says something that has been used by other theologians (John McLeod Campbell initially) to argue that he might have theoretically been open to a different theory of atonement. Lets take a look at that miscellany real quick:

oo. Satisfaction. Now some may say why could not God, of his mercy, pardon the injury only upon repentance without other satisfaction, without doing himself any hurt? I also ask, why could he not of his mercy pardon without repentance? For the same reason he could not pardon without repentance without satisfaction. For all repentance man is capable of is no repentance at all; or which is the same thing, it is as little as none in comparison of the greatness of the injury, for it cannot bear any proportion to it. Now I am sure, it would be as dishonorable for God to pardon the injury upon repentance that did not bear the least proportion to the injury, as for him to pardon without any repentance at all. Wherefore, we are not forgiven now because our repentance makes any satisfaction, but because therby we reject the sin and receive the satisfaction already made.

Here he starts with the same sort of question Abelard asks in his commentary to the Romans – why could God just not forgive without satisfaction being made? It seems obvious to me that the his answer to the question is basically – “because that makes no sense whatsoever.” You see this in his second question – why could God not forgive without repentance? The answer is supposed to be obvious – he can’t – just like God cannot pardon when there is repentance without satisfaction. Why can’t God pardon without repentance without satisfaction? Because our repentance is not enough. Our repentance is too small in comparison to the offense we have committed at all. Therefore satisfaction needs to be made.

This is where other theologians come in – McLeod specifically. McLeod picks up on this supposed insight – that our repentance is not enough to merit forgiveness – and he says that if there were a sort of repentance that was equal or greater to the offense committed against God then that would merit satisfaction. McLeod goes on to argue that Christ – our substitute – makes exactly this sort of repentance. Christ repents perfectly on our behalf.

There are a few problems with this though…

1)How can Christ repent for someone else? Repentance can only happen at the hands of the perpetrator. This however is not actually as big of a problem as one might think. If Christ and the elect actually have an organic – real – and not merely legal union – then Christ’s repentance really is his peoples repentance and Christ can really repent for them because they are one metaphysical entity.

However there is a bigger problem…

2)At what point does Christ actually repent? Where do we see Christ’s vicarious repentance in scripture at any point? We don’t. Aside from the fact that vicarious repentance would have been an impossibility in Edwards’ mind, I think the lack of a scriptural basis for this is this particular theory’s fatal flaw.

Jonathan Edwards Week – God is a Communicative Being

One of the fundamental axioms of Jonathan Edwards’ theology is that God is a communicative being. Edwards says that “It is God’s essence to incline to communicate himself.” (Misc. 107) He also says that

“This disposition to communicate himself is what we must conceive of as being originally in God as a perfection of his nature. “(End in Creation, 207)

So what exactly is God communicating? We might say that in communicating himself God is communicating his own glory. Edwards’ miscellanies shed light on this concept. In miscellanies 247 Edwards says that “His own glory was the ultimate, Himself was His end – that is, Himself communicated.” This divine self-communication (or self-glorification) occurs in two different ways, it occurs ad intra and ad extra – that is within the inner workings of the Trinity and the external workings of the Trinity. Regarding the first Edwards says:

God is glorified within himself in two ways: 1. By appearing or being manifest to Himself in his own perfect idea; or in his Son who is the brightness of his glory. 2. By enjoying and delighting in himself by flowing forth in infinite Love and delight towards Himself or in his Holy Spirit. (Misc 448)

Because God is a communicative being, God tends toward further communication of himself. Thus God is inclined to enlarge, increase, and multiply his own self through a multiplication of beautiful relations. God does this, through the communication of his self-knowledge and self-love, which occurs through Christ and the Holy Spirit respectively. However we are still talking about intra-Trinitarian communication, and we know that God’s disposition to self-communicate can come to completion ad intra. However God’s glory is an infinitely self-enlarging glory so God makes it so that this same self-communication ad intra also occurs ad extra. This partly occurs in God’s creation of the world which is an exercise of of the divine disposition towards self-communication.

Regarding this self-communication ad extra Edwards writes:

It is a regard to himself that disposes him to diffuse and communicate himself. It is such a delight in his own internal fullness and glory that disposes him to abundant effusion and emanation of that glory. The same disposition, that inclines him to delight in his glory, causes him to delight in the exhibitions, expressions, and communications of it. (End in Creation 215)

But all this is about God’s self-communication and self-glorification which all flows out from the Trinitarian life of God. How do sentient beings, participate in the glorification of God? What is these beings role (whether humans or angels) in glorifying God? To answer these questions we need to look at two other axiom’s Edwards’ Trinitarian theology… but we’ll save that for later.

Win a Free Book – The Happy Christian by David Murray

The Happy Christian is…

A unique combination of biblical teaching, scientific research, and personal biography shows those who follow Jesus how to live joyful, purposeful lives.

In The Happy Christian, professor and pastor David Murray blends the best of modern science and psychology with the timeless truths of Scripture to create a solid, credible guide to positivity. The author of the acclaimed Christians Get Depressed Too, Murray exposes modern negativity’s insidious roots and presents ten perspective-changing ways to remain optimistic in a world that keeps trying to drag us down.

The Happy Christian invites readers to shed negativity and become countercultural missionaries by demonstrating the positive power of the gospel in their lives. (HT: Hand & Heart)

If you would like to enter to win a copy (paperback if you are in the contiguous US – digital if you are elsewhere) here’s what you need to do:

Comment below regarding why you want to read this book or how you have recently experienced joy in the Lord.
Like this blog post.
Re-blog this blog.
Follow me on twitter – @CWoznicki – and tell me why you want this book.
Retweet this blog post.

I will be announcing winners towards the end of this week. Good luck!