Bandits No More

Yahoo! News – ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ gets ‘axis of evil’ premiere:

“And even though his twenty-something son quipped in to say he was ‘disappointed’ by the film and asserted ‘politics is not as important’ for Iran’s younger generation, he did envy Moore’s position.

‘It sure is a great country, where someone like Moore trashes the president and gets away with it — and makes so much money!’ he laughed.”

Does this tell you something about America? People here see Fahrenheit 9/11 (I have not and probably won’t) and think, “Oh, we’re a horrible place!” Yet we often forget the tremendous freedoms we have.

When we talk about finding our purpose in life, more is in view than just “my life.” God made each of us with a role to play in creation. Each of us are unique, and our purpose in life is related to our uniqueness, but if we only pay attention to our uniqueness, we will never find our purpose in life. We must look outward, first toward God, secondly toward the activity of God in creation.

What is God’s role in all this? God wants us to know our purpose. He doesn’t create us and then tell us to grope our way towards purpose. No, he loves us enough to reveal himself, his purposes and his ways to us in the bible.

We also find our purpose through relationships: our relationship with God, our relationships with other people, and our relationship with creation itself. When sin has its way in our lives, these relationships are broken or warped, so we fall short of the purpose God has for us.

Our church is starting the 40 Days of Purpose Campaign Saturday, October 9. The core of this campaign is Rick Warren’s book, The Purpose Driven Life. This book has forty chapters – one for each day of the campaign.

Rick Warren is pastor of Saddleback Church in California. Ostensibly a Southern Baptist congregation, they don’t make much of their denominational affiliation. From what I’ve seen of Rick Warren (I first heard him back in the early 90s while I was living in California), he and his organization honestly seek to be a blessing to other churches, whatever their denomination. They present their stuff – including the 40 Days of Purpose – as plain old basic Christianity. For the most part they’re right on target. But by downplaying their baptist heritage, there are elements of that heritage that come through without the label. What is presented as basic Christianity is actually the baptist take on basic Christianity. I’m not in the least perturbed by this. I’m United Methodist and I’m sure my tradition comes through the same way in what I write and say. Saddleback is also an extremely large church in Southern California, so some of what we find in the material may also represent a large church and a California take on basic Christianity. I share these obvious points simply so we will be aware while we read.

The Purpose Driven people strongly advise every church that uses their material to adapt it to their situation. That’s great advice, and the rationale for my blogging the book. I will be blogging each chapter of the book, offering my comments and questions. Hopefully it will be good for you. I know it will be good for me.

Introduction
Warren’s book is all about answering what he calls “Life’s most important question”: “What on earth am I here for?” It is comon to think that the best way to answer this question is to look inward: Who am I? What do I want? What are my talents and abilities? What makes me happy? Although these questions aren’t irrelevant, they will inevitably lead us astray if we don’t consider them in the context of who God – our Maker – is, and what God has done, is doing, and will do in our world. We’re part of something bigger than us!

Here are some pointers as you read the book.

1. Remember that it’s not the bible. It’s a devotional book. Measure what you read by the Bible.
2. Read only one chapter a day. Take time to digest it.
3. Interact with the book. Ask questions of it. Ask questions of yourself.
4. If you own the book (and you should), write in it. Underline or highlight parts you think most relevant.
5. Don’t take this adventure alone. Be part of a small group doing the book. Talk about it with your family. As we talk things over we engage our senses more fullly and learn more.
6. Pray. Allow God to be your partner. Ask for ears to hear what He wants to say to you.

Compass Direct

Once again bad news is coming out of Iran. Time to keep praying.

Hugh Hewitt comments on today’s LA Times article on blogs.
HughHewitt.com

The dominant theory of knowledge in the modern era is foundationalism. Foundationalism is the notion that we need an indubitable foundation upon which we can build our knowledge. Nothing certain? Then no real knowledge. Descartes got the ball rolling (I’m simplifying a bit) with his Cogito ergo sum, but Locke, Kant, and others followed the same path.

One requirement of the foundation of one’s knowledge structure was univeralizability – it had to be equally available to anyone. Thus the guardians of real knowledge had to be neutral observers – freed from all particularity. With this scheme the universal and the abstract held sway over the local and the particular.

Fast forward to today. The MSM sees itself as the neutral guardian of knowledge. They are the experts, properly trained in the skills of acquiring and building knowledge into a structure. The bloggers? They’re chaotic elements hovering on the edges. If we want real truth, they (the MSM) think, we must stick with those who are neutral.

Problem: Nobody’s neutral. No one stands nowhere. Thomas Nagel wrote a book years ago – The View from Nowhere. His aim was to describe a truly objective epistemology. His title, however, has been claimed by “the other side,” those who reject the possibility of standing nowhere.

According to moderns, knowledge IS built on foundations. If there are no foundations, then there is no knowledge. This is their take on the bloggers. The bloggers have no foundations. No universitality. They are to the media, what Nietzsche (and Nietzsche’s recent followers – I think of Derrida and Foucault here) is to the theory of knowledge. Real knowledge is foundational in structure, you [Nietzscheans, bloggers) say there is no foundation (only difference), so there is no knowledge. BUT: we all want knowledge, so we need the MSM, not the bloggers. QED.

But there are other postmoderns – and though I am fairly new to blogging, I think I would be right to think that whether bloggers consider themselves postmodern or not, the phenomenon itself IS – who refuse to accept that all knowledge must be conceived foundationalistically. Once we make that move, no longer do we have to worry about the lack of foundations.

So how might the blogs become producers of real knowledge given non-foundationalism? Well, it looks like they talk with each other. They push each other. They provoke each other. They argue. They critique. They learn.

Oh – but what if Blogger A is not really who or what he says he is? Eventually, if that is relevant to the piece of knowledge pursued, I believe it will come out.

Finally (it’s getting late) let me turn this around for a moment. I think it possible that what we’re seeing with the blogs vis-a-vis the MSM not only is a picture of the demise of foundationalism, but also might very well be an agent of the demise in broader culture. We’ll see.

For the past several months I’ve been hearing people describe Iraq as “another Vietnam.” We all know what “Vietnam” means, don’t we? The American armed forces leaving the field of battle with their tail between their legs, whipped and defeated. Our first loss in warfare. The mightiest nation on earth humbled.

But from what I’ve read of the history of the war (as opposed to the feelings associated with it), this picture is highly inaccurate. My main source has been Lewis Sorley’s Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America�s Last Years in Vietnam. The book tends to be repetitive, and thus longer than necessary, but the picture it gives of the war is very different than the “Vietnam” that lingers in public consciousness.

Sorley presents the work of Vietnamization – the plan to equip and enable the South Vietnamese to provide their own defense against the North. Under General Creighton Abrams, this strategy proved very successful. In theory, this strategy, combined with the treaties we signed with the North Vietnamese, left the South Vietnamese in fine shape. Every North Vietnamese offensive as far back as Tet 1968 (roughly the time Sorley’s coverage begins) had been stopped – with devastating effects on the North Vietnamese. Abram’s approach was also characterized by a concern for the security of ordinary South Vietnamese people. Sorley’s contention is that this effort was so successful that by the time of the American withdrawal in 1973, the Viet Cong was no longer a force to be reckoned with. So if we and the South Vietnamese were victorious on the battlefield, what happened?

First, the success of the policy of Vietnamization depended not only on the rise of the South Vietnamese armed forces in numbers and fighting capacity, but also in the continued support of the US in terms of money and war materiel. Although the US leadership promised to do this, they didn’t.

Second, the treaty specified that the North Vietnamese would withdraw all their troops from South Vietnamese territory. Makes sense, doesn’t it? After all, it’s a lot easier to conquer a territory if you already have troops there. But our leadership pretended that the North Vietnamese were honest on this – or engaged in wishful thinking.

Third, North Vietnam continued to receive aid from its allies – China and the Soviet Union. If it was only the South versus the North, the South might have won without us. But with the combined effort of such powerful patron’s, the North prevailed.

So – if this is a more accurate picture of Vietnam, what might it mean to say that Iraq is “a Vietnam?”

First, it would mean that we were unwilling to stick with our allies and keep the promises we made to them. The new Iraqi government, like the old South Vietnamese government, will most likely fall well short of our American ideals of democratic government. But in both case promises were made to those governments. We didn’t keep our promises to the South Vietnamese. If we fail to keep our promises to the people of Iraq (and I take a key element of those promises to be something like: “Democracy will not only work in Iraq, but it will be a blessing to your people. It will be lots of work, but it will be well worth it. And we will help you achieve that goal”) then we can truly say that Iraq has become another Iraq.

Second, if Iraq were to become “another Vietnam” it would mean that we stopped speaking the truth about the situation there and let sentiment and mere ideology (and perhaps even electoral popularity) prevail. Like the South Vietnamese, the Iraqis have multinational forces arrayed against them. These forces are quite different than what the North Vietnamese had, in terms of fighting capacity, but they are very numerous.

Am I saying the the war in Iraq was the right course of action? No – I’m just saying that it is not yet “another Vietnam” though we could very easily turn it into one by disengaging and leaving the Iraqis on their own.

One more piece of historical analogy before I quit. With the help of US armed forces, the allies prevailed in World War 1. We won! But then we disengaged. We left the Germans facing huge reparations. After years of postwar devastation Hitler came in and picked up the pieces, restoring Germany to its former glory – but more bellicose and dangerous than ever. We again mobilized, working with our allies to defeat Germany. This time, we didn’t disengage. We did the hard – and extremely expensive work of rebuilding Germany. We might have more clarity – and less emotion – if we face the decision in Iraq as whether it will be another World War 1 or another World War 2.

There are hints of a spread of reforming (some might say liberalizing) tendencies in Islam. Ziauddin Sardar presents several movements in this direction in the New Statesman. Islam is a complex tradition (and a complex of traditions), as is any other major “religion.” If Islam can learn to incorporate historical progression and find acceptable theories of cultural diversity (by “acceptable” I simply mean “acceptable in terms of Islam”), that would be progress. There has been a strong tendency in modern Islam (I am not an expert in any form of Islam), to see a lack of differentiation between the various levels of society (self, family, clan, state, religion, etc.) but rather to conceive of them monolithically. Thus Sharia is understood to apply on all levels and in all situations without deviation – and apparently without admitting that the Sharia of one culture or country differs from that in another, and both differ from 7th century Arabia.

I have been a United Methodist longer than I have been a Christian.

Sure, I was born and baptized in the church, and was confirmed a member of the United Methodist Church in the early 70s. The only real memory I have of confirmation classes, though, was that after going through them, I would receive my own set of offering envelopes. I did not say that was all I was taught in confirmation; I said that’s all I remember. I was a reasonably bright youth, and that’s all I got out of the class.

A few years later, at a Houston North District youth rally, I accepted the invitation to begin a relationship with God and accept Jesus’ gift of eternal life and forgiveness of my sins. Finally, during the summer after my sophomore year of high school, I was both a United Methodist and a Christian.

Like my older brother, Richard, I was called to ministry soon thereafter. Also like Richard, I am committed to this ministry within the United Methodist Church until God or the System decides otherwise.

Brad Ramsey, a UM pastor and mentor of mine who died far too soon, told me a story once of his early years in ministry. Fairly fresh out of seminary, he was an associate pastor in a church where he had previously served as youth minister.

In a conversation with his senior pastor, Brad said some things that showed his naïveté about the politics of being a United Methodist Clergy. His senior pastor turned to him and said, “Ah, I see you have not yet been tainted by the system.”

Brad told me this story before I was tainted by the system. That was back when I was so fresh out of seminary that I thought being a United Methodist Clergy was about ministering the Gospel more than about being a functionary of the bureaucracy. Every year I am in the system, I find it more of a struggle to fight the tainting.

The “tainting” I fight is the one that would make me more interested in maintaining the system or “moving up” within it than in winning people to Jesus and leading a congregation in being a place that is about embodying the grace of God.

Please don’t misunderstand; this is not a condemnation of the current leadership of the denomination or of the Central Texas Conference, of which I am a member. It is, rather, recognition of the life that organizations seem to take on a life of their own. Most organizations, and The United Methodist Church is surely one that has, tend to start with noble purposes, goals and visions.

Yet, as an organization survives across generations, there is a tendency to build into it systems that are more about the sustaining of the organization than they are about the original purposes, goals, and visions. Stanley Hauerwas warns that a pension system signals the death knell of a denomination. Though I hope to live long enough to receive a pension, I also hope my ministry never becomes motivated by the maintenance of such a benefit.

To conclude my introductory offering to this site, I assure you I am not opposing to denominations in general or to The United Methodist Church in particular. I do think, however, that we have got to be about more than sustaining a system. We have to be about making disciples of Jesus Christ. Who, as far as my research indicates, never had offering envelopes

Here’s an informative post on Beslan and Chechnya from Winds of Change.

The question of “amicable separation” was broached at General Conference this past spring, though not in a substantive manner. Good News, a renewal movement within the church, has produced a research document laying out what they see as the major options facing the church.

The 2004 General Conference of The United Methodist Church in its closing hours overwhelmingly approved a resolution proclaiming unity in Christ. In so doing it professed a desire for dialogue and finding means by which the diverse theological perspectives of The United Methodist Church could continue to exist together. In theory, this is a laudable and worthwhile goal that all who call themselves United Methodist should be willing to commit themselves to. However, the resolution failed to address the reality of the position we find ourselves in as a church.

My impression of this unity declaration when I first heard of it was that it was wishful thinking. If we only deny a problem long enough, maybe it will go away.

Unity is definitely a good thing. Jesus said, “”My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” John 17:20-21 This prayer of Jesus has been the foundation of the Ecumenical Movement for at least a century. Do we now have this kind of unity – are we ONE, just as the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father? Is the world seeing something in us and our relationships with each other that attracts them to Jesus? The world certainly sees that we have the word “United” in our name, but the reality backing it up seems purely institutional.

The UMC has pursued unity during its entire existence:

The reality is that for more than 30 years our denomination has tried to find that common ground. The reality is that, in that time, instead of growing closer theologically, we have grown farther apart.

Why is this? At least two factors. First, United Methodism mirrors the broader American Culture. As a fairly normal cross-section of America, it is not surprising to find the same polarization in the church that we find in the culture. Second, the process of dialogue itself has heightened the articulacy of conflicting positions. If we ignored the situation and just went about our business in the local church (following the advice of some), we wouldn’t know how far apart we really are on some issues.

A third factor may be the rise in the number of pastors who do not attend United Methodist seminaries. As a graduate of Asbury Theological Seminary, I find that Methodist doctrine seemed to play a more central role in my education than in that of some peers who attended UM seminaries. What we lacked, however, were the close ties to the denominational leadership and bureaucracy that those seminaries have. As the mass of pastors who see a conflict between the official doctrine of the church and the actual practices of the church reaches criticality, those pastors likely become more articulate and stubborn in their positions. Similarly, those who are taught a revisionist version of doctrine in seminary find an increasing gap between what they see as “real, biblical Christianity” and the traditional expressions of that faith.

We must face up to the reality that the holders of the diverse theological perspectives are firm in their beliefs, and that we as a “united” church lack common agreement on the foundation of our Christian doctrine. We are house divided. Over the past 30 years, too much time, energy, and resources have been spent on holding the United Methodist Church together in the face of our theological schizophrenia. One can only imagine what could have been done to minister to the least, the last, and the lost of the world with those resources.

Yes, people in the UMC firmly hold widely divergent beliefs. I have no trouble attributing sincerity to them all. I have no trouble admitting that each group thinks what they are saying and doing is for the good of the church and truly “of God.” The problem is that what we say and what we do has consequences, not only for ourselves and our churches, but for each other. We find ourselves working at cross purposes. We find ourselves having to undo or redo the work of others. After 30 years, yes, this does get tiring. Yes, it does sap our energy and resources that we could be spending reaching outsiders. But I have a couple of questions.

First, in historical terms, 30 years really isn’t very long. It’s certainly not long enough to adjudicate between traditions. It is, however, long enough to recognize that in the “liberal” and “evangelical” branches of the church we do indeed have different and rival traditions, pursuing different trajectories.

Second, if everything turned around tomorrow and we suddenly had the unity General Conference “celebrated,” would we know how to live in it? I’m not sure I would. If you train someone to be adversarial and defensive for years, how can they suddenly change their ways?

This is more than an intramural ecclesiastical squabble. It raises first order questions of whether United Methodism has a future as an effective tool for making disciples throughout the world and, if there is such a future, how United Methodists are to move beyond our current mode of quadrennial conflict, a high level of distrust, and widely held cynicism. The conflict, distrust, and cynicism marking our denominational life today are not simply emotional reactions, but grow from longstanding experiences within an ineffective and unfocused institution.

I don’t understand those who say they are the “Great Methodist Middle,” who say they feel caught in the crossfire between the two warring factions. What is their understanding of the nature of doctrine and its role in the church? Are things like the resurrection of Jesus, the Incarnation, biblical sexual morality merely adiaphora – indifferent items – to be held lightly as we live and let live? Sure there are some petty squabbles in the church, rooted in personality differences and power struggles. But most of what I see is based in real substantive disagreement.

Is our present system the one we need to maintain? Again our answer must be a resounding NO! The irreconcilable differences that exist between evangelical/orthodox Christians and revisionist Christians within United Methodism has led to ideological oppression by United Methodist leaders who expect denominational loyalty while undermining our covenant of doctrine and polity. This problem is systemic and not limited to a handful of bishops and board or agency officials.

Wesley’s original Model Deed was a way to control the preaching at the local Methodist stations. The assumption was that the Methodists would be ok at the top (after all, Wesley himself was in firm control in those days) and that problems, if they came, would come from below. Wesley had some experience with preachers “going bad,” so this wan’t an idle fear. The UMC has maintained the tradition of the Model Deed with the current Trust Clause vesting ownership of all church property in the Annual Conference and not in the local church. What we have come to see in the days since Wesley, however, is that departure form Methodist doctrine is not merely a local concern, but is a concern about the leadership of the church even on the highest levels. Whereas the leadership of the church – since Wesley himself – has seen the Model Deed /Trust Clause operating in a one way direction (local churches must be faithful), local churches have seen it as a two way relationship of accountability. Not only are they responsible to uphold Methodist doctrine, but of the leadership above them has departed from that doctrine, then a breach has occurred just as much as if the local church had departed. Having spent some time in the Western Jurisdiction, I’ve seen this in play. The hierarchy of the church, however, rejects such a possibility a priori.

The document goes on to lay out the four options they see. These are adapted from Lyle Schaller’s new book, The Ice Cube is Melting.

A. Continue Current Renewal Strategies (Patching the Old Wineskin)

This option sees the tide of “battle” turning in our favor. It believes that if we continue steadfast in pushing for renewal, we will continue to make incremental progress in improving the spiritual and institutional climate of the denomination. It is just a matter of getting the right people elected as delegates and members of agency boards to bring about the cultural changes in the church that will foster spiritual vitality and growth.

This option is a type of Forced Departure, which is based on the model of church discipline, wherein the majority party within the church would essentially expel the minority party in order to create unity. The expulsion can be done either indirectly or directly. It would be done indirectly through making the environment of the church so hostile to the minority party that they choose either to leave or to agree to amicable separation. It would be done directly by requiring some type of “loyalty oath” or other enforcement mechanism that would require individuals and congregations to choose to leave if they could not live with the current majority policy.

This option starts off sounding positive – “Let’s keep doing what we’ve been doing.” After all, no change is usually the easiest position. But notice how it works out in light of our real and substantive differences – it becomes “Forced departure.”

B Work for a Heterogeneous Denomination

This option believes that we will never get the United Methodist Church as a whole to agree to our vision of a renewed church. Rather than continuing to fight against the revisionists for control of the denomination, we would seek to decentralize control in the denomination and make a safe and healthy place for evangelicals to do ministry within the United Methodist Church.

I think this might go over better with the “unity first” crowd, but I’m not sure anyone else would like it in the long run. The hierarchy won’t like it because it will entail huge power shifts and decentralization. Those who are theologically polarized won’t like it, because they will see the American public (wrongly) perceiving them as the same as their opponents. But maybe I’m too cynical.

C Refashion United Methodism as a High-Expectation Covenant Community

This approach would also allow us to retain the name and heritage of United Methodism, while creating within it a new church that would emphasize high expectations, high commitment, doctrinal certainty, and covenant accountability. This approach would be to jump immediately to the end state of what we hope our incremental changes under Option A would bring about. At the same time, there would need to be a renewal of the restated covenant for every member, pastor, and congregation. Those churches and individuals who could not affirm the renewed covenant would have to leave the denomination, and provision would need to be made for retaining property, pensions, and the like.

After at least a century of little or no doctrinal discipline, this would surely be a shocking move. I’m not sure we are close to havig a theory of doctrine that would accommodate this model. We can handle the “I’m right, you’re wrong” model, We can handle the “Doctrine divides, service unites” (relativistic) model. Doctrinal clarity and accountability – with love and compassion – I’m not sure we’d know what to do with it. Even more, I’m not sure that we have a solid enough consensus in any group within the church to form a clear majority.

D. Work for a Structural Separation of Methodism

This option believes that it will be impossible to renew the current United Methodist denomination. A new start for all the various factions within Methodism would allow for greater creativity, smaller and (hopefully) more effective denominations, and homogeneous denominations that are outward-focused, rather than quarrelling as factions within a larger whole….

There appear to be two options for bringing about a structural separation within United Methodism: amicable separation and voluntary departure.

Amicable Separation

The option of amicable separation is based on both sides agreeing that a separation needs to take place. This option can be precipitated by one or the other side, but to go forward, it needs the agreement of both sides in the debate. The proposal worked on at General Conference calling for some type of commission or task group to create a plan of separation is the likely form this option would take. The appeal of this option could be broadened by creating the possibility of more than two options for new denominations. Lyle Schaller outlines five different denominations that could emerge (p. 206):

1) A new Methodist denomination closely resembling today’s UMC, without the Restrictive Rules and with a reworked annual conference and general agency structure.

2) A new Methodist denomination retaining current UM doctrine, but with a new polity, organizational structure, and system of accountability.

3) A new Protestant denomination with its own distinctive doctrinal statement and an episcopal system of governance.

4) A new Wesleyan denomination with a new self-defined polity and doctrine.

5) A new Christian religious body with a self-defined polity and doctrine.

The labels “Wesleyan,” “Protestant,” and “Christian” relate to how closely the new denomination’s doctrine and polity resembles historic Methodism. Central Conferences would have the choice of becoming autonomous Methodist churches or affiliating with one of the new denominations. Under amicable separation, the United Methodist Church would cease to exist, and every individual and congregation would be forced to make a conscious choice of which new denomination to become part of (or to become independent).

This option has the advantage of bringing an amicable spirit to the process of structural separation, since both sides agree to its necessity. It poses the least potential for disruption, since minimal energy is spent fighting the separation and most of the energy is devoted to constructing the two new entities.

The drawback to this option is its requirement that both sides agree, in order for it to be effective. One side can hold the other hostage by refusing to agree, either to the need for separation or to some particular elements in the plan of separation. It would also require a high level of agreement by General Conference delegates, who tend to be institutional preservers and unlikely to easily come to such agreement.

Voluntary Departure

The voluntary departure of an organized group from the church is an option that is within the realm of possibility. It is the most frequent model of structural separation in the history of Methodism, including the formation of such denominations as the African Methodist Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal Zion, Wesleyan, and Free Methodist, among a number of others.

The advantage of this option is that it does not require creating a high level of hostility within the denomination in order to succeed. It can be implemented by a highly committed group within the church, with minimal need for agreement by the General Conference. Thus, this option is most under the control of the group initiating it, where they are not at the mercy of other groups.

The disadvantages of this option are that it may require some congregations to leave their property behind (although one hopes a large enough critical mass of those departing could work around this problem). It also leaves the United Methodist denomination somewhat intact, with the accumulation of resources to potentially continue for decades on a progressively revisionist track. It will also require great investment of time and energy to create a new denominational structure, with the potential for further division among the departing group over the shape of that structure.

This is a variant of the position that generated so much heat at General Conference. The key recognition is that there is already a divorce between our theory and practice, and that at least one cause of this is a confusion as to whether our official doctrine is also to be considered operational (I take the distinction from George Lindbeck’s The Nature of Doctrine). As it stands, the way we do doctrine doesn’t seem to fit with the way we do polity, and because there is a strong push to treat our official doctrine as non-operational, polity becomes the driving force in United Methodism. Given that we are Methodists, this might make sense, but I think being method driven as opposed to mission/purpose driven is fatal in the long run.

This document draws no conclusions about what steps the United Methodist Church (or Good News) ought to pursue. Some ineffetice strategies (withholding apportionments, sleective withdrawal) are mentioned. The most effective mentioned is networking with like-minded people.
We’ll see what happens.