The Lord’s supper is a continued reminder of God’s covenant with the Church. On the night of his betrayal, Jesus instituted the only sacrament attributed to him. It is called the Lord’s Supper, Lord’s Table, Holy Communion, or the Eucharist. All three Synoptic Gospels record this significant event (Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-25 and Luke 22:19-2), along with the Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 11:23-29) who corrected its abuse in the Corinthian church.

The synoptics speak of it in reference to Jesus’s return and God’s earthly Kingdom, while Paul told his audience to use it to “proclaim the Lord’s death until he returns.” In many Protestant churches, the celebration of Jesus’s death, burial, resurrection, and return is often treated as an afterthought—something to be checked off once a month, or so. Yet Francis Chan went so far as to call it the “New Testament holy of holies.”

Although it has been open to dispute over the intervening centuries, most scholars believe the words Jesus used would have been most appropriate during the Passover meal. It was common practice to set aside a cup for the Messiah, should he come during the celebration of Israel’s salvation. And we should consider the symbolism common to the Passover and the atoning sacrifice of Jesus.

Just as God redeemed his enslaved people from Egyptian captivity, he was preparing to do so again—this time through Jesus. Like the slain lamb whose blood was placed on the doorposts to save the Israelites, Jesus’s blood covers the sins of those he has redeemed. He is the true Passover lamb, (1 Corinthians 5:7) the “Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world,” (John 1:29) sparing those who trust in him sin’s penalty.

We would do well to remember the words salvation, redemption, and holy of holies all first appear in the Bible in connection with the Exodus. On that first observance God required no bones be broken and the entire paschal lamb to be consumed during the meal. With the words “do this in remembrance of me” Jesus linked himself to the Passover lamb as the true savior of all humankind, not just Israel.

He called himself a sacrifice. “It is by the Holy Spirit alone, that the bread and wine, as they are partaken by faith, convey the realities they represent, and that the Supper gives us participation in the death and resurrection of Christ, and the kingdom of God..”[1] Jesus’s presence in the elements is a function of faith, not magic or ritual.

In John 6, Jesus, after feeding 5,000 men plus women and children, proclaimed himself “the bread of life” (v 48) and went on to assert, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (V.51) Naturally, this caused no little concern. Not only did he say that he came from heaven, but that they were expected to eat his flesh and drink his blood if they were to have eternal life. (vv.53-57)

Cannibalism was forbidden by Jewish law. His suggestion freaked his listeners out. John records that, From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. (V.66) His words have been interpreted in several ways giving rise to three primary views of the sacrament. On one end of the spectrum are those who believe the elements to be the actual body and blood of Jesus, while at the other end they are considered a representation of his body and blood as a memorialization of his death, burial resurrection and promised return.

 The writings of Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215), Eusebius of Caesarea (263-339) and Athanasius (c. 293-373) contained in the Didache described the proper way of celebrating the Eucharist for the early church. It was an integral part of worship. That changed when Ulrich Zwingli replaced the Lord’s Table with his pulpit. Here are the three prevailing views on the Eucharist.

 Transubstantiation. Paschasius Radbertus (785-860), is credited with the doctrine of transubstantiation; “namely, that in the supper the substance in the elements of bread and wine is changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, while the accidents—i.e. the appearance, taste, touch, and smell—remain the same.”[2] The church accepted the doctrine in 1059 and it was officially adopted by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.[3]

The practice has evolved into concomitance and consecration. In concomitance, both the body and blood are in both elements, allowing the wine to be withheld from the laity who are given only the host (bread). Consecration requires the work of a priest to initiate the transformation of the elements into Christ’s body and blood. This is the practice of the Roman Catholic Church and is normally open only to Catholics in a state of grace, those free of any grave or mortal sin.

Consubstantiation. Consubstantiation began with the Protestant Reformation to explain why there was no physical change in the bread and wine, although Christ’s body and blood were very much present alongside, according to Martin Luther, “with, in, and under.” The body and blood coexist with the bread and wine. Consubstantiation is commonly—though erroneously—associated with the teachings Luther and Philipp Melanchthon although some Lutherans still use that term for the sacrament.

 Symbolic. (Zwingli and Calvin) Ulrich Zwingli, a Swiss Reformer and contemporary of Luther, disagreed with Luther’s notion of “real presence.” Rather he believed Jesus was present in the sacrament spiritually, but not physically and the sacrament was an act of remembrance, not salvation.

Christ is received in a spiritual sense by the eating and drinking of the bread and wine. It is communication with Jesus as a means of grace. The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. (John 6:63 | NIV) The Colloquy of Marbug in 1529 brought the matter to a head. But no agreement on the presence of Christ in the Eucharist was achieved, leading to a clear divide between those who followed Luther and those who followed Zwingli.

John Calvin agreed more with Martin Luther about Jesus’s presence in the sacrament, but not in the elements themselves. He considered Holy Communion a “spiritual banquet” at which Jesus is present, spiritually—just not in the bread and wine. He disagreed with Zwingli by maintaining that the Lord’s Supper is more than a symbolic ritual.

Yet, he was at a loss as to exactly how it happens. “They are greatly mistaken in imagining that there is no presence of the flesh of Christ in the Supper, unless it be placed in the bread. . . Now, should anyone ask me as to the mode, I will not be ashamed to confess that it is too high a mystery either for my mind to comprehend or my words to express; and to speak more plainly, I rather feel than understand it.[4]

There is no way to know which view is correct. But we can be certain of one thing, our participation proclaims our belief in what Jesus did, is doing and will do. And we should do so reverently and only after examining ourselves.

So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. (1 Corinthians 11:27-29 | NIV)

[1] R.S. Wallace, “Lord’s Supper,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2^nd ed., Edited by Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001) p.704.

[2] M.E. Osterhaven, “Lord’s Supper, Views of,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2^nd ed., Edited by Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001) p.705.

[3] Ibid.

[4] John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion (Orlando, FL: Signalman Publishing, 2009) Kindle Edition, Locations 25613-25620

The bedrock of Christianity is the grace of God. Without grace there would not have been an incarnation and without Jesus, there would be no Christian faith. In Hebrew the word for grace is channun and in Greek, charis, they mean favor, blessing and kindness. It has been described as “God’s unmerited favor.” Grace is God choosing to bless us rather than punish us for our sinful rebellion. It has been said that grace is getting what we don’t deserve and not getting what we do.

Being gracious is a part of God’s self-described character. He is gracious in all his dealings with humankind. We see that early in Scripture in God’s encounter with Moses. The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness . . . (Exodus 34:6 | ESV) His saving grace is connected to his love and mercy along with his justice, righteousness and holiness.

God punishes sin because he is just. Let’s look at the verse following the one quoted above, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.” (Exodus 34:7 | ESV) Fortunately, we are now only held accountable for our own sins, not those of our ancestors.

He punishes those who do not repent of their sins, but that is not what he prefers. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9 | NIV) Repentance leads to salvation by grace through the faith God provides. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— (Ephesians 2:8 | NIV) We cannot even come to Jesus in faith unless God gives us the faith necessary. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, (John 6:44a | NIV)

Grace is divided into two types, common and special. Common grace, as the word implies, is common to all humankind. It includes the good things in our lives, including our human conscience.  “The conscience is the focus within each person, as a being formed in the image of God, not only of self-respect and respect for others, but of respect for God.”[1]

Special grace is God’s saving grace. It justifies and sanctifies those who trust in Jesus for their eternal salvation. Unlike common grace, which is universally given, special grace is bestowed only on those whom God elects to eternal life through faith in his Son, our Savior Jesus Christ.”[2] It is special grace that transforms us into the likeness of Jesus.

There are four kinds of special grace. Prevenient grace is God making the first move to reconcile sinners to himself. It is best described by the apostle John. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. (1 John 4:10 | NIV) Efficacious grace accomplishes God’s purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (Romans 8:29-30 | NIV) Sufficient grace sanctifies and eternally saves the believer.

Irresistible grace cannot be ignored. One of the best examples of this is what happened to the apostle Paul on the road to Damascus. Calvinists believe that the “elect” cannot resist God’s saving grace. Arminians maintain people can exercise free will and reject God’s saving grace. An example of this would be the rich young ruler. (Matthew 19:16-22 and Mark 10:17-22) Those who reject the gospel will pay an eternal price for their rejection.

[1] P.E. Hughes, “Grace,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2^nd ed., Edited by Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), p. 520.

[2] Ibid.

No one, this side of heaven can fully explain the concept of trinity. In Christian doctrine, trinity refers to three divine persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit united in what is called “the godhead.” The Father is God. The Son is God. And the Holy Spirit is God. Yet, rather than three gods, there is only one God (Galatians 3:20 and James 2:19) who exists in three simultaneous, distinct, persons fulfilling their individual responsibilities. Trinitarian doctrine is accepted by most Christians as a matter of faith, yet the word does not appear in Scripture.

The two passages that come closest to describing the concept of trinity are 2 Corinthians 13:14 (NIV) May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. The second one would be Jude 20-21 (NIV) But you, dear friends, by building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life. Although they are co-equal, there is a hierarchy: Father, Son, then Holy Spirit.

In 325, at the Council of Nicaea, it was decided that the Son is of the same substance, homoousios, as the Father, but the Holy Spirit was not addressed in detail. We know the Father is God and has eternally existed, the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and Son. “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.” (John 15:26 | NIV, see also Galatians 4:6 and Philippians 1:19)

The Spirit was with God at creation. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (Genesis 1:2 | NIV) And Jesus was with God from the beginning.  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. . . The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:1-2 & 14 | NIV)

All three persons play a role in our salvation. The Father made a way of reconciliation by sending the Son to be an atoning sacrifice for our sin. We receive and respond to the gospel through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. Finally, we are saved by grace through faith in the Son and are sanctified through the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Click to see a drawing depicting a close approximation of the trinity.

Pentecostalism is a Christian religious movement tracing its roots to an event recorded in chapter two of the Book of Acts.

When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. (Acts 2:1-4 | NIV)

Pentecost is derived from the Jewish Shavuot or Feast of Weeks which occurred 50 days after the Passover Sabbath. It was one of three annual pilgrimage feasts that required all males to travel to Jerusalem to present their gifts to God. The Holy Spirit descended on 120 Jesus followers while Jerusalem was filled with visitors satisfying that requirement. Pentecost is traditionally celebrated by Christians seven weeks after Easter Sunday.

In the minds of the early Church, what was experienced on Pentecost fulfilled an Old Testament promise. “. . . I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. (Joel 2:28 | NIV)

It also satisfied promises Jesus made to his disciples.

 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 1:4-5 | NIV)

Prior to the adoption of the biblical canon, church worship services were characterized by submission to the leading of the Holy Spirit as Jesus had promised. “When the Holy Spirit, who is truth, comes, he shall guide you into all truth, for he will not be presenting his own ideas, but will be passing on to you what he has heard. . . “ (John 16:13 | TLB) People would gather to sing, share the gospel, celebrate the Lord’s Supper and await the leading of the Holy Spirit through a member or members of the congregation.

There are many references to the working of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament Church, but the letters written by the apostle Paul to the Church in Corinth demonstrate how he functioned in worship services through Spirit-filled individuals.

“The Corinthian letters, in particular, indicate that the assembled churches relied on the spontaneity of the Spirit rather than on official authority for the life and direction of their meetings.”[1] This is supported by Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) “For the prophetical gifts remain with us even to the present time.”[2] Later in the same work, he says, “Now it is possible to see among us women and men who possess gifts of the Spirit of God.”[3]

Pentecostals, in general, believe in a post-conversion experience called “baptism with (or in) the Holy Spirit” demonstrated by “speaking in tongues” or glossolalia (speech in an unknown language) or xenoglossy (speech in a language known to others but not the speaker). It emphasizes the work of the Holy Spirit in the direct, powerful experience of God in the lives of believers. Many maintain that the initial evidence of the baptism is speaking in tongues.

Those who have been filled may also receive one or more of the “Apostolic Gifts” or Gifts of the Spirit outlined in 1 Corinthians 12:7-11 (ESV):

To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

According to Hyatt, the Holy Spirit has maintained a low-key presence in some form from that first Pentecost to the present. After years of being absent from mainstream Christianity the Pentecostal movement emerged in Topeka, KS at Bethel Bible College.

The college’s director, Charles Fox Parham, a former Methodist preacher, instructed his students to fast, pray and meditate on Scripture until they received the Holy Spirit baptism. On New Year’s Day 1901, a woman named Agnes Oznam became the first of Parham’s students to speak in an unknown tongue. Others soon followed.

In 1906, the Spirit fell during a service conducted by William Seymour, a Black Holiness preacher and student of Parham. It occurred at Apostolic Faith Gospel Mission, an abandoned African Methodist Episcopal church, located at 312 Azusa St, Los Angeles, CA.

As their numbers grew, many Pentecostals sought to impact their home church congregations by using their spiritual gifts. But that made some members and pastors uncomfortable causing many Spirit-filled people to move on to Pentecostal congregations. Still. opposition increased. Pastors who endorsed charismatic ideas were removed from their pulpits and missionaries lost financial support.

As a consequence, new fellowships and denominations emerged, largely from Holiness backgrounds. But other Holiness denominations rejected Pentecostalism, including the Methodists, Church of the Nazarene and Salvation Army, among others. Yet, it spread rapidly worldwide after 1906. But that expansion was not without controversy and division. The two primary doctrinal divisions were the Trinity and sanctification.

The sanctification controversy was linked to the Holiness tradition of many Pentecostals including Parham and Seymour. William Durham developed what he called the “finished work” theory comprised of three “works.” They were, salvation, Spirit baptism and sanctification. His view was adopted by the Assemblies of God which began in 1914. The majority of Pentecostal denominations are based on the Assemblies of God model, including the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel.

By far, the most significant schism grew out of the “oneness” or Jesus-only doctrine that began in 1911 in Los Angeles. The doctrine, similar to Modalism, also known as Sabellianism, is the unorthodox belief that God is one person who manifested himself in three forms or modes in contrast to Trinitarian doctrine where God is one being eternally existing in three persons. Oneness adherents maintain God does not exist as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time. Rather, he is one person and has merely adopted one of the three modes as necessary at various times.

According to oneness doctrine, Jesus is simultaneously Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And Jesus is the “name” of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit referenced in Matthew 28:19. Therefore, they perform water baptism “in the name of Jesus” as directed by the apostle Peter in Acts 2:38. This controversy caused a split in the Assemblies of God leading to the formation of the United Pentecostal Church and the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World.

Post-World War II, Pentecostalism became increasingly acceptable to middle class Americans. In 1943, the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, Assemblies of God, Church of God (Cleveland, TN) and the Pentecostal Holiness Church became charter members of the National Association of Evangelicals, NAE, completely disassociating from the fundamentalists that had disfellowshipped them in 1928.[4]

The ministries of Oral Roberts in the 1950s and the founding of the Full Gospel Businessmen in 1952 by Demoos Shakarian helped mainstream the movement.

What became known an “Neo-Pentecostalism” emerged in the 1960s in the Roman Catholic Church, led by Joseph Leon Cardinal Suenens who was named by two Popes to be episcopal advisor to the renewal. And it exploded when an Episcopal priest, Dennis Bennett (1917-1991) detailed his Charismatic experience in Nine O’Clock in the Morning. He was forced out of his pastorate in Van Nuys, CA, but relocated to Seattle where he pastored an inner-city parish that grew rapidly, becoming ground zero for the Protestant Charismatic renewal.

A.B. Simpson defined what many consider to be the four cardinal doctrines of the Pentecostal movement: salvation, baptism in the holy Spirit, divine healing and the second coming of Jesus. A subsequent addition was belief that the initial evidence of Holy Spirit baptism is speaking in tongues. Finally, most Pentecostals also believe in the premillennial return of Jesus.

By 1995, the global number of Pentecostals and charismatics had reached 463 million, second only to the Roman Catholic Church. And sixty-six percent of all Christians in developing nations identify as Pentecostal or charismatic.

[1] Eddie L. Hyatt, 2000 Years of Charismatic Christianity: A 21st Century Look at Church History from a Pentecostal/Charismatic Perspective (Lake Mary, FL:Charisma House, 2002) Kindle edition, p.9.

[2] Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Christian Library, ed Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Edinburgh;T&T Clark, 1874) p. 240.

[3] Ibid., p. 243.

[4] V. Synan, “Pentecostalism,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., Edited by Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), p. 901.

Religious syncretism is commonly used to describe the intermingling of non-Christian beliefs with the basic, scriptural tenants of Christianity. The first use of the Greek term synkrētismos or sunkrētismos, was by Plutarch (ca. A.D. 46-120), to describe the joining together of Cretans in opposition to a common enemy. “In the early 17th century, English speakers adopted the term in the anglicized form syncretism to refer to the union of different religious beliefs.”[1] The term has since been applied to the fusion of different philosophical and political ideologies as well. Often the result is a new belief or teaching system.

“From the early 1600s, however; the term in Christian writings has generally referred to the replacement or dilution of essential truths of the gospel through the incorporation of non-Christian elements.”[2] African churches have allowed spiritualistic practices to creep into worship. The Day of the Dead and other indigenous rituals continue among practicing Latin American Roman Catholics. And it is being incorporated into some American congregations through Christian Nationalism. God has a people, but they are not solely white evangelicals; and he has a kingdom, but it is not the United States. When it comes to Christianity, there is no warrant for modification. It is what it is and God expects it to stay that way.

“From its inception until the present, the church has faced questions of culture and religious practices that stand in contrast to the faith revealed in the Bible.”[3] When a congregation moves away from Scripture and ceases to listen to the Holy Spirit, it opens the door to syncretism. Both Testaments contain numerous examples of syncretism, and the unavoidable message is it has no place in the Body of Christ. God doesn’t change. God’s people were exiled for doing it and Christians were constantly warned against it by the apostle Paul and the writer of Hebrews.

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6 | NIV) Anything that takes our eyes off Jesus violates the first commandment. “In claiming allegiance to Christ, the only standard on which the Christian can rely is the normative framework of the Scriptures.”[4] Religious syncretism is not compatible with genuine Christianity. It is analogous to saying, “The God I believe in.” There is only one God. We have two choices—take him or leave him. The same holds true for Christianity. It is not a junkyard stew, a little of this and a little of

[1] Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, “syncretism,” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/syncretism, accessed January 12, 2023.

[2] A.S.Moreau, “Syncretism,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2^nd ed., Edited by Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), p.1158.

[3] Ibid., p.1159.

[4] Ibid., p.1160.

Arminianism is a theological doctrine that holds humans have the free will to accept or reject God’s grace and may turn from him and lose their salvation. Named after Jacobus Arminius, (1560-1609), a Dutch Reformed theologian, it is a Protestant theological movement. Arminius considered the unconditional view of predestination held by Augustine, Luther, and Calvin to be unscriptural. He thought they had reversed the process by concluding people were either lost or saved prior to hearing the good news of the gospel and went so far as to conclude unconditional predestination makes God the “author of sin.”

He maintained free will and God’s sovereignty are compatible and holds a view of predestination because it is found in Scripture but defines predestination as God’s decision to save those who repent and place their faith in Jesus. The underlying contention is that God knows who will freely accept his offer of saving grace. His Five Articles of Remonstrance stood against Five Point Calvinism (TULIP). The two theological views were at the core of the Dutch Remonstrant issue.

Arminius’s five points were:

1. Free Will or Partial Depravity. All are sinful but all may come to God to be saved by grace. Although we are all sinners and cannot do anything good, including overcoming sin without divine intervention, anyone may be drawn to faith in Jesus by the Holy Spirit and saved by God’s grace.

2. Conditional Election. God “chooses” those he knows will accept his gift of grace.

3. Universal or Unlimited Atonement. Arminius believed that when the Bible says Jesus suffered for all, that is what it means. Jesus suffered for all but did not pay the price of sin for all. Otherwise, everyone would be saved. He died for the sin of those who repent and believe.

4. Resistible Grace. While it is not God’s will that any should die lost, people may resist God’s grace to the point the Holy Spirit quits calling them to repentance and faith.

5. Fall From Grace. A person can lose his or her salvation.

Arminianism is often mischaracterized as Pelagianism, a form of theological liberalism, and syncretistic.^[1] Arminianism was an important influence on John Wesley and a more liberal version went into the making of American Unitarianism.

For a divergent view, see Calvinism.

^[1] J.K. Grider, “Arminianism,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2^nd ed., Edited by Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), p.98.