Why Missions and Ministry Look like Movements

This post might seem like a complete non-sequitur, but I just came back from seeing the opening debut of the Cesar Chavez movie with my Ethnic American Biblical Interpretation class. Wow! What a powerful movie! In my EABI class, we just finished reading through Gonzalez's Mexicanos: A History of Mexicans in the United States (2009) which has a short chapter on the Cesar Chavez and the Mexican American struggle to unionize for fair wages in California's grape industry. And while I understand that Hollywood probably exercised some artistic license, nevertheless this film powerfully dramaticizes the kind of perseverance and sacrifice that is required for social change. I want to bring my sons to see this film. 

Image Credit: Lionsgate Films

If I might offer a few brief reflections about the movie, I would highlight 3 comparisons one can make between the farmer workers labor movement lead by Chavez and the call to Christian missions/ministry. 

   First, compassion. The film starts by Chavez quitting his previous position with the CSO (Community Service Organization) to live among Latino/a American farm workers, work with them in their back-breaking conditions, and encourage them to seek more for their families than the camp-like conditions in which they lived.  We can't share the gospel unless we walk with people in their sufferings.

   Second, sacrifice, fasting, proclamation, unity, courage, and creative wisdom are stronger weapons in the war against evil than violence. Here I would say: watch the film! See the kind of sacrifices that Chavez made, even straining his relationships with his wife and children (especially with his eldest son), his 25-day fast (and as a Christian, it's not enough to starve but I would add that prayer must accompany fasting), and his perseverance through some major disappointments over a long, painful 5-year strike. When you do, it is quite a challenge to the church to exercise the same moral courage and even go beyond this. Fear paralyzes, but faith can overcome fear.

   Third, humility. Every leader needs to be able to take corporate responsibility for what his group or church does. There is a climatic moment in the film when Chavez addresses his closest followers and makes this confession: "I failed you as a leader." On the heels when some of his closest followers let the rage get the best of them and they resorted to violence, Chavez felt responsibility for what they did. Pastors need to be able to say: "I failed you" when our congregation sins, but also encourage them: "But let's repent together." 

    Cesar Chavez was not a perfect person in any sense of the word, nor does the film try to portray him as one. His very real broken relationship with his eldest son makes it all so clear how fragile human beings can be. But I don't think any missionary or pastor can ignore the moment (and the knife in one's heart) when Chavez's son shows how angry he is over his father's unavailability and absence. Chavez was just so busy with the mission at hand, he could not help his son when Fernando was viciously bullied at school for his father's work. Ministry, like movements, involves putting our families through tough situations. We see them suffer at times because of our callings. This film brings out vividly some of those moments. It made me theologically reflect on my call to ministry and ask what sacrifices I and my family have had to go through so we can all be faithful to the Lord and his people. 

    Hope you have a chance to see the film! It's well worth the effort to catch it in its limited engagement at the theaters.

Idol Food Is No Idle Business at Corinth

Whew! Just turned in the proof's for the Seyoon Kim Festschrift yesterday. That was brutal. I went through several pots of coffee and about a half-bottle of Advil to get this done... and all this with the help of a TA (Thanks Kerry!) who did fantastic work. But back to where I left off.
   Pardon the pun, but idol food was no idle business in the Roman Corinth of Paul's day. To the contrary, it was a thriving enterprise that produced a high-quality item in mass quantities with amazing efficiency at an affordable price. While we are not sure of the exact location of the butcher shop which took left-over food sacrificed to idols and prepared it to be sold in the marketplace before it could spoil, historically we have three competing locations based on the recovery of inscription fragments found around the area of the Corinthian agora. These have been mapped out below (in burgandy, green and blue): 

Map of Ancient Corinth (credit: www.planetware.com)

(1) The least likely location was once argued by Broneer who later retracted his initial assertion that based on the discovery of an inscription at the crypto-porticus near the South Basilica (dotted burgandy rectangle on the map), the shops of the south forum was where the macellum was situated. But this location was based on an earlier (mis)conjecture that the fragment read: ΛΟΥKIOC  ΛAN[IO]C ("Loukios the but[che]r"). But it was later determined that the better reconstruction was ΛΟΥKIOC  ΚAN[IO]C ("Loukios Kan[io]s") where the second word is not "butcher" but the nomen "Kanios" [See the discussion by David Gill in his "The Meat Market at Corinth (1 Cor 10:25)," Tyndale Bulletin 43.2 (1992) 391-92; cf. O. Broneer, "Studies in the topography of Corinth at the time of St. Paul," Archaiologike Ephemeris (1937) 125-133].

(2) Bruce Winter mentions the possibility of its location at the basilica near the Lechaion Road where the Roman market existed (green circle; see his After Paul Left Corinth, 294). 

(3) But the most likely location remains the Peribolos of Apollo where a series of shops built by the Romans are located, and these and the Peribolos are built on top of the former location of the old Greek meat market (mentioned by Pausanias in his Description of Greece 2.3.2-2.3.3; see blue circle on the map). Fotopoulos gives a detailed summary for why the Peribolos is the most likely location based on how other macella (e.g., the macellum at Pompeii) are similarly constructed near a water source so live fish can be kept and then butchered on order (see his Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth, 139-42).  

(4) Perhaps the safest estimation is by Gill who simply says that the location of the butcher shop, though unspecified, nevertheless was likely near the Lechaion Road. 

   The point, however, is that the butcher was close by the temples. From the Temple of Apollo, it was roughly 15-20 yards away from the Roman market place (green circle) and 25-30 yards away from the Peribolos (blue circle). Or, as I like to say, the butcher shop was just two "first down's" on the football field away from the temple. Not far at all. The food was quickly butchered and sold immediately before it spoiled. It met a real need after major festivals and religious holidays by providing high-quality food at an inexpensive price to the common person off the street. 

   And Paul, against his Jewish instincts, appears to have no qualms about eating idol food sold in the macellum (ἐν μακέλλῳ; 1 Cor 10:25). Much good discussion has already been made about a theology of creation (based on Paul's quotation of Psalm 24:1 LXX  [= 23:1 LXX] in 1 Cor 10:26) which informs Paul's permissibility. But what I find intriguing is the non-sacramental view Paul has towards idol food when it comes to the elements (or meat) themselves. What makes idol food idolatrous (and possibly sacramental) is not the elements or food, but the cultic setting in which pagan worship and fellowship took place. I believe this foil has enormous theological implications for the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor 10:12-24. But more on this next time.

Proof that the Life of a Scholar Is in the Mundane Details

Well, in case anyone is wondering why I have not posted a follow up yet on idol food at Corinth, here is the reason why: 

I just received the proof's for the Seyoon Kim Festschrift. All 312 pages (not including the front matter or indices). Wow! This is painstaking detailed work. Pardon the pun, but checking proof's is proof that the life of the scholar means doing the mundane well. I can't tell you how many odd breaks I'm finding between lines, sentences, paragraphs, and pages. Arghh! I have not focused this intensely on minutia since I spent a college summer working in an entomology lab counting spider mites on grape leaves for a U.C. Berkeley professor. 
    In any case, until the proof's are sent to Wipf and Stock, I won't be posting on idol food. But my TA and I are almost done. It's well worth the effort. Just need to dig deep for the final 100 yard dash!

The Mystery of the Missing Fragment from the Butcher Shop Inscription at Corinth

[Warning: Going turbo nerd here!] Besides the Gallio inscription at Delphi and the Erastus inscription near the theater at Corinth, another inscription that drew my attention during the Greece trip was the dedication of the butcher shop by the family of Cornelii (Murphy-O'Connor, St. Paul's Corinth, p. 30). Paul, in his discussion of idol food (1 Cor 10:25) instructs that any idol meat sold ἐν μακέλλῳ ("in the market") is permissible to eat, although he was willing to relinquish this right for the sake of his brother and sister. 
    The Greek word μάκελλος is a Hellenized transliteration of the Latin macellum. The inscription dedicating the macellum (meat market) and macellum piscarum (fish market) is supposed to be on display at the Museum on site in ancient Corinth. When I went there, this is what I found (next 4 photos taken by Max Lee at the Corinth Museum © 2014): 

Outdoor display at the Museum in Corinth

Close up (right-bottom of the display): description/date of the inscription

Close-up (left top of the display):
Q CORNELIV

Close-up (right top of the display):

NDVS                         ET

Q CORNELIV

Q L CLEO...ENIS

SCARIO E...... 
...NIB(P?)V...                     

And that's it. Two fragments (one of which is a composite cemented back together) and the display description, and no other fragments. I looked. There was no sign saying that some of the fragments were going to be displayed later and are being prepared (which I hope is still the case because so much is missing!). So my question is: where's the rest?
   In David Gill's article "The Meat Market at Corinth (1 Cor 10:25)," Tyndale Bulletin 43.2 (1992) 391, he reports and transcribes the fragmentary marble inscription uncovered in 1898. What I have tried to do is take Gill's transcription and match, to the best of my ability, what I found on display at the Corinthian museum:

Q(uintus) Co[r]nelius [.] f(ilius) [A]em(ilia) Secundus [et]      

Maec[ia Q(uintus)] f(ilia) vxor [eius] [.] [Cornelius Secundus      

M]a[e]cianus f(ilius) Q(uintus) Corn[elius]                                  

Secu[nd]us f [Co]rn[elia Secunda f eius vxor Q(uintus) M]a[e]ci

Q(uintus) l(ibertus) Cleogen[is]                                                     

macellu[m--- cum----] et pi[scario ----]                                    

Key: [brackets] indicates missing letters conjectured to be there; (parentheses) indicated the spelled out word that the initial letter abbreviates; the red color font indicates what fragments of the inscription are on display at the Museum of Corinth at the time when I took these photos on 1/10/2014; the black color font indicates parts of the inscription that are missing from the display but have been published by Gill (see also Cadbury 1934), and especially missing is the crucial MACELLV (market) shown in bold.
    The English translation by Gill of the butcher shop inscription is as follows (again parts of the inscription on display in red, with the missing fragments not display in black):

Quintus Cornelius Secundus, son of [---], of the tribe Aemilia, and

his wife Maecianus, daughter of [Quintus], his son [--- Cornelius         

Secundus] Maecianus, his son Quintus Cornelius Secundus, his         

[daughter] Cornelia [Secunda, who is the wife of Quintus] Maecius        

Cleogenes the freedman of Quintus (Maecius) [built (?)] the                 

meatmarket [---] along with [---] and facilities for fish [-----]         

There are several odd things when you compare the museum display with Gill's transcription. 
   1) Some of the inscription that are conjectured by Gill [in brackets] actually appear quite clearly in the display fragments: notably, the family name Cornelius. Where Gill transcribes only CORN---, in both the fragments I saw at the museum, it clearly shows more letters: CORNELIV... Another example is the word for fish (piscarius). Gill transcribes only PI... and conjectures the rest PI[SCARIO]. My photos instead show the PI to be missing and shows alternatively [PI]SCARIO. 
   2) Secondly, everything in black and especially the crucial word for "meat market" (= the Latin MACELLV[M]) is missing from the museum display. By comparison, the parts of the inscription that are displayed at the museum are shown in red, and even here I'm just guessing. 
   3) Lastly, the last illegible line of the displayed fragment ..NIB(P?)V... is simply not mentioned at all by Gill and omitted from his transcription.

    Did someone make a mistake? Am I even looking at the same fragments that Gill writes about? Did the museum lose some of the fragments? Where is the rest of the inscription? Are the missing fragments stored somewhere? ... A million questions were darting through my mind since the one fragment with the word "meat market" was absent from the display. 

    For the record, the missing fragment with the word MACELLV[M] has been published and a black-white photo of it can be seen in Henry Cadbury's famous 1934 article "The Macellum of Corinth,"JBL 53/2 (1934), 134-41. If you search the web, in the public domain, this photo (credit: Ferrell Jenkins) can be found of the exact same fragment that Cadbury shows: 

Q CO

MAEC

SECV

MACELLV

INEA LOC

To my disappointment, I did not see the above fragment anywhere in the museum display at Corinth. I hope they did not lose it, and it's in the museum basement somewhere, ready to be "rediscovered" and put back on display. At least, we know that the fragment exists and is not a hoax. 
   Well, if anyone who is reading this post happens to be visiting ancient Corinth any time soon, could you please visit the museum on site and see if you can find the above missing MACELLV fragment? Ask the procurator of the museum if they have this fragment on display anywhere or if it is possibly in storage. If you happen to find it, I would be in your debt if you could take a fresh digital photo of it (high res) and kindly send me a copy via email. Many thanks to anyone who can make this happen!
   That said, in my next post, I'm going to talk about the proximity of the butcher shop to the temple cult (of Apollo) at Corinth and its relevance for Paul's teaching on idol food. But it sure is a mystery as to what happened to the missing MACELLV fragment!

More Pastoral Reflections on the Life of a Slave and Paul's Letter to Philemon

One of the more difficult texts in the New Testament has been what Paul says (or rather, does not say) concerning slaves in the Greco-Roman era. Past interpreters of the Bible, for example, are puzzled by Paul's lack of explicit injunctions against slavery in his Letter to Philemon. Why does Paul not exhort Philemon to emancipate the slave Onesimus who has recently converted to Christianity? Why leave room or ambiguity in his letter, so that centuries later, white Southerners during the Civil War era can misinterpret what Paul says to Philemon and claim: 

• The Bible's defense of slavery is very plain. St. Paul was inspired, and knew the will of the Lord Jesus Christ, and was only intent on obeying it. And who are we, that in our modern wisdom presume to set aside the Word of God... and invent for our selves a higher law than those holy Scriptures?... Paul sent back a fugitive slave [Onesimus], after the slave's hopeful conversion, to his Christian master [Philemon] again, and assigns as his reason for doing that master's right to the services of his slave -- John Hopkins (1864), an Episcopal pastor (excerpt taken from Swartley, Slavery, Sabbath, War and Women, 1983)

There are many reasons why Hopkins above makes a horrific misreading of Paul. But let me start by saying that Paul, in my opinion, is quite explicit when he states: 

• 15 For perhaps on account of this he [Onesimus] was separated (from you - Philemon) for the hour, in order that you might receive him as a receipt paid in full eternally -- 16 no longer as a slave, but above a slave, a beloved brother, very (beloved) to me, but how much more (beloved) to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. (Philemon 1:15-16; Eng. trans. my own)

When Paul says to Philemon to receive Onesimus back not as a slave but as a "beloved brother (ἀδελφὸν ἀγαπητόν)... in the flesh and in the Lord (ἐν σαρκὶ καὶ ἐν κυρίῳ)," what does he mean by ἐν σαρκὶ (v. 16)? I know what "a brother in the Lord" is (i.e., a fellow Christian believer), but what is a "brother in the flesh"? I think ἐν σαρκὶ καὶ ἐν κυρίῳ points to the heart of Paul's message: to let Onesimus' new found status as a Christian brother be reflected in his social status in the real world. If Onesimus is a "brother in the Lord," then make him a "brother in the flesh" as well: free him. A "brother in the flesh" is a freed Christian whose emancipation in the Greco-Roman world is a natural theological outworking of his identity as a member of God's family. Otherwise, Paul need not have included the phrase ἐν σαρκί. 
    So why does not Paul simply say: "Emancipate Onesimus! Free him!"? To quote Lloyd Lewis: "his [Paul's] ambiguity [over emancipation] may not be so much a matter of his indecision as his unwillingness to canonize the social roles found in his environment" (Stony the Road We Trod, 246). If Paul simply said, "emancipate Onesimus," Onesimus' newfound status as a freed slave would only be one step above the bottom rung of Greco-Roman society. The freed slave is not at the same social level as that of a free person, as the diagram below indicates. 

© 2014 Max Lee 

Above is a diagram of the Patronage Pyramid (a good introduction to how the patronage-client system works in the ancient world can be found in Richard Saller, Personal Patronage under the Early Empire, 1982; David deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity, 2000; or the more recent and technical treatment by John Nicols, Civic Patronage in the Roman Empire, 2014). 
    Notice that freed slaves are just above (unfreed) slaves but socially still below everyone else. Free persons were a higher and separate class but even among free people there was a very wide spectrum of privilege and position: some were manual laborers, others merchants, still others were magistrates, and even fewer were nobility who occupied the upper echelons of the Roman Empire .
    Did Paul simply want to make Onesimus a freed person, canonizing Onesimus' social role for his time and ours, or did Paul have something much grander in mind? 
   A freed person would still require help from his former master to make a jumpstart in life. The freed person, just emancipated, would require a patron who could sponsor, write letters of recommendation, and provide the initial resources or raw materials to open a new business. The freed person would become entangled in a web of financial and personal obligation under the patronage-client system and never be truly free. At the festivals and banquets, when people sat by social class, the freed person could never recline and eat at the same table of his former master.  
   In contrast, only in the church were slaves treated as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. The church was called to think creatively about how our new identity as members of God's family can be reflected in our social relationships in the wider world. Making Onesimus a freed slave would be too easy. Philemon was challenged by Paul to do more. Yes, emancipate Onesimus (make him a brother in the flesh), but more importantly treat your former slave as a brother in the Lord, beloved, for whom Christ died (1 Cor 6:20). Slave and free persons would share the same table and break the same bread at the Lord's Supper. Their communion would be nothing short of a revolution in a world where the privileged stayed on top of the pyramid at the expense of the masses. 
   The church was called to flip the patronage pyramid over on its heels and turn the world upside down with the Gospel. The good news is that in Christ a former Diaspora Jew (Paul), a wealthy patron (Philemon) and a freed slave (Onesimus) can be called brothers and share a common identity as members of God's family, paradoxically serving one another as "a slave of all" (πάντων δοῦλος; Mark 10:42; cf. 1 Cor 9:19).

Postscript 06/13/14: Exegetical Exercise: 1) Read the above post. 2) Go to the bible dictionaries/encyclopedias in the reference section of the university library and learn more about slaves/slavery in the Greco-Roman world (in Greek doulos/δοῦλος). 4) Interpret 1 Cor 7:20-23 drawing insight from your background study. In other words: how does understanding the status and function of slaves in the Greco-Roman world help you to understand Paul's message/exhortations in 1 Cor 7:20-23? 4) Be sure to consult at least one academic commentary on your biblical text from the reference section.

Pastoral Reflections on the Days in the Life of a Slave

There are two types of insights born from a trip like the travel course to Greece. One insight comes in the immediate moment when a person experiences an archaeological site for the first time (e.g., my post on being at Mars Hill, or the amphitheater at Epidaurus). The other type comes from catching a running theme that cuts across several sites, like the constant reminder of the slave industry in the Greco-Roman world. As I think about the Corinth canal, the Diolkos, the Polygon wall, and the votive relief at the Athens museum (below), there are several points of intertextuality between these narratives and the New Testament. 
   For one thing, it seems unfathomable how Paul can use such a painful and horrific aspect of Greco-Roman life positively to describe the incarnation of Christ in Philippians 2.6-7a: ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, 7  ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών. 

My interpretative translation of this verse that describes the descent of Christ is as follows:
   "who, although he was in the [pre-existent] form of God, did not consider equality with God as something [ἁρπαγμός ּּ= plunder from a royal treasury] to be held onto violently, but emptied himself [of power and privilege] by taking on the form of slave (δοῦλος)." 

   Whatever was emptied (ἐκένωσεν) at the incarnation (i.e., power/privilege but not Christ's divine nature), there was no other way to describe the depth of the descent other than to say Christ took on the form of a slave. The slave who was at the bottom rung of Greco-Roman society, who was typically the alien and outsider (i.e., the non-Roman, even a prisoner of war, like many of the Jewish slaves used to cut Nero's canal), and who had no real power to change one's destiny -- it was in this form, the slave, that Christ epiphanied as He entered into human history. There are several theological implications to be drawn from Christ's identification with the slave, but let me comment on just one.

   Most importantly, Christ inverts secular notions of power and freedom upside-down. Most kings show their power by conquest and plunder (ἁρπαγμός). Christ demonstrated the character and divine nature of God by giving up power (ἐκένωσεν) and identifying himself with the lowest form of human existence: the slave.

   Not only does Christ take on the form of a slave and so identify with the whole of humanity, even with its lowest and marginalized members, but He calls all Christians to intentionally live as "a slave of all" (πάντων δοῦλος; Mark 10:42; cf. 1 Cor 9:19) by giving up our rights and paradoxically using our freedom to serve our neighbor. 

   At the end of the day, the incarnation is a mystery. None of us will ever know this side of heaven exactly what it cost the Son of God to take on flesh and bone. But Paul in Phil 2 thought that at least knowing the struggle, suffering, pain and humiliation of a slave's life was one way to partially understand the descent of Christ and the depth of His love for us. So much is said with just three poignant words: μορφὴν δούλου λαβών ("he took on a slave's form"). 

Photo taken by Max Lee at the Athens Museum © 2014

This photo of a votive relief (ca. 2nd century AD; Athens museum) features a young man (center) along with a slave (right corner). 

Notice that the young man in the center is heroized (shown by his features as nude, feeding a snake, next to a horse). To the very right is what looks like a child holding a helmet. But this is not a child but the slave of the young man. Slaves in reliefs are typically portrayed in diminutive size (like children) to signify their insignificant or minor status in the Greco-Roman world. No one would want to identify with a slave. But our God does!

The Final Day in the Life of a Slave

When you drive up to Delphi, you cannot help but pause and just marvel at the beauty of Greece. The site of ancient Delphi is located in a mountainous range, part of the southwest spur or lateral ridge of Mt. Parnassus. The photo below gives you a glimpse of an awe-inspiring view from the vantage point of the archaeological remains of the Temple of Apollo. 

The site of the Apollo Temple in the Mountain Range of Delphi

Though famous for many reasons, including the myth that Delphi is the ὀμφαλός ("navel") of Gaia ("Mother Earth") and therefore the center of the world, ancient Delphi was ultimately known as a place where oracles were received. Every spring, pilgrims would take the long trek up the Via Sacra ("Sacred Way"; see the map below) to Delphi in order to receive an oracle from the Pythia, i.e., the priestesses or sibyls through whom Apollo spoke. Prophecy at Delphi goes as far back as the 6th century BC, but continued through the first century AD and beyond, including a famous oracle recorded by Seutonius concerning the death of Emperor Nero (Nero 40.3). 

Map of Ancient Delphi (credit: www.planetware.com)

In the above map, not only can you see the path or "sacred way" walked by the pilgrim, but I have also highlighted where the Polygon wall is located along the foundation of the Temple of Apollo (blue and green arrows). If you look at the carefully cut stone (in the photo below), you can easily see why it was called the Polygon wall. However what makes the wall unique is not just its precisely cut and fitted stones, but the inscriptions that are written upon them.

The Polygon Wall (blue arrow on the map) along the foundation of the Temple (remains of the temple seen above with top three colonades)

There are about 800+ inscriptions along the face of the Polygon wall, some of them include the civic laws which governed the city. The date of the inscription is about the 3rd century BC.

Inscription of Delphic Civic Laws on the Polygon Wall

But most of the inscriptions deal with the manumission of slaves. It is estimated that the names of more than 1200 slaves are inscribed along the walls.

On this part of the wall (left along the steps of the Via Sacra; see the green arrow on the map), one slave's name is highlighted (next two photos)

One of the Stones with the Names of Freed Slaves (I highlighted one name in yellow here and below)

Close-up of the Name of the Freed Slave ΦΙΛΟΠΑΤΡΙΣ 
(in Latin, the name would be: Philopatrus)

When I asked John Kremidas (Prof. of NT at the Greek Bible Institute in Athens) why the names were inscribed in stone, he said that if a slave's freed status was ever questioned, that slave could go to the Polygon Wall and point to his/her name and say: "See! I have been freed!" 
    One can only imagine the thousands of untold stories behind the names of the manumitted slaves. For every freed slave there were a hundred others who died a miserable death by being worked to the bone on civic projects like Nero's failed attempt to cut a canal across the Isthmus, or by back-breaking labor dragging vessels and cargo along the Diolkos. Even if a slave managed to find oneself doing domestic work in a Greco-Roman household, there was no guarantee that he or she would ever be freed. The manumission of any slave was completely up to the whim and mercy of the owner. 
    So it was a truly moving sight to witness name after name after name of men and women who were emancipated by Delphic law from the hard life of slave. So many more never made it to the wall. 
    But to be freed in the Greco-Roman world is not the same as being free. A freed slave could never receive the same social status as a free person. Often the freed individual would still depend the patronage of one's former master in order to start a new business and a new life. But more on this in the next post concerning exegetical connections and pastoral reflections on slavery texts in the New Testament.