Chrysostom speaking to the
twenty-first century Romanians
Poverty and wealth in
twenty-first century Romania
The economical and social
situation of Romania
Romania is a social state. The 22 years that passed since Communism
fell moved Romania from the centralized system of social protection to a more
flexible, but still centralized system of social protection. In fact the whole
of European Union is a big socialist project in which each of the States have
their own centralized system of social protection. The protection that the
system offers to the poor of Romania is very weak though. The Health System is
changing right now to becoming more capitalistic
and will offer hospitalization just to the contributors to the system. Most of
the chronically poor are not part of the system.
Most of the poor are over 50 years old: 60,2%
. Because
Romania has dropped its birth rate with almost 50% since 1990, the poor that
are old and the poor that will be approaching retirement age in the next 20
years see no bright future as the populace would not be able to sustain the State
Pensions for the retired. At this point all of the pensions in Romania are paid
by the State Insurance. Three years ago it was introduced a private compulsory insurance
for pensions, but this is a small amount of the pension and it is going to have
a small effect in the overall financial situation of the retired population as
a whole.
Romanian Economy is placed 17
th in EU
,
but being the seventh as the number of population
.
But as I already mentioned, Romania is on the first place in EU in terms of
poverty of the employed population. There is no wonder as 54.8% of the employed
population had monthly salaries in between $ 180 and $ 420 US; 7% makes less
than $180 and 27,2% between $ 500 – $ 1000 US; 7,5% of the population makes
between $ 1000 - $ 1600 and only 3,5% over $ 1600 US month
.
Not withstanding that Romania is on the second place in UE in terms of
cheating on the taxes due to the State with an black economy of 29,6% of the
GDP according to a Report of European Commission
,
we still have an economy with a lot of discrepancies between the rich and the
majority poor (9 million on the threshold of poverty out of 19 million).
The most visible and exposed segments of the population are the
gypsies and the orphans that are the product of the Orphanage System of
Romania. The number of gypsies an illusory number. Most of them do not want to
declare themselves gypsies because even the word “gypsy” is an stigma word.
They can be 620000 out of 19 million, which makes them 3,2% (official numbers
from the 2011 Romanian Census)
or
somewhere around 2 million in an unofficial estimate
.
Probably the truth is somewhere in between. But even at an estimate of 1,1-1,3
million they would make a population of gypsies the second largest ethnic
minority with 5,7 to 6,84% of the population. Most of them are uneducated and
they do not complete the required minimum school cycle (49% of them did not
completed the minimum school requirement of eight classes
)
and are living under a stigma barrier that they feel all the time. This barrier
bans them from raising over the poverty mentality that they inherited.
The living standard is much bellow the poverty level for them as most
of them are not employed, or they work temporary jobs. (just 22% of them have
stable jobs and 17% temporary jobs)
Wherever
they live in the country side or in the cities, the vast majority of them are
living in separated areas in ghettoes, many times in cubicles or houses in
which 5-15 people are jammed in a single room. The criminality level is very
high.
The other population that is especially vulnerable are the children
that are the product of the Orphanage System of Romania. These are kids raised
in Institutions till they reach the age of 18 and then they are thrown on the
streets. In Romania 23000 children are still raised in Institutional Orphanages
out or the 70000 children that are raised by the State.
Romania
still has the largest number of orphans in Europe
and as long as an Institutional System is still in place for them there will be
future ‘victims’ of the system.
The Church‘s Solutions to
the Plight of Poverty in Romania
There is social work established by the Romanian Orthodox Church that
addresses the problems of the disadvantaged. Most of the Orthodox social work
is done through Foundations and Associations related to the different
Metropolitan Chairs or Regional Bishops in the different parts of the country.
Here are the
report of the Romanian Patriarchate regarding the institutions of social work
blessed by the Patriarch: 121 Centers for children, 35 centers for elderly
people, 106 social canteen and bakeries, 52 centers of diagnosis, treatment,
medical consulting rooms and social pharmacies, 23 centers of counseling for
the families with difficulties, 2 centers for the victims of the human
trafficking.
Almost
all these social institutions function besides monasteries of Metropolitan
Chairs or generous parochial dioceses. All these institutions amount to 339
institutions of social work, which is half of the number of monasteries (637) under
the same National Church.
Most of if is
solving church related problems and addresses poor people related to the local
communities in which the Foundations and Associations function. I am not aware
of any serious missional activities of the Orthodox Church to the gypsies. A
singular gesture came when the first and only priest of Gipsy ethnicity was
ordained in the Romanian Orthodox Church.
The
total of the population that belongs to the evangelical denominations in
Romania is ~ 4% according to the census of 2011
,
but the missionary and missional activities of these denominations are far more
extensive among the gypsies than those of the Majority Church when compared to
the limited resources and numbers of member. There are hundreds of new
evangelical churches planted in the colonies of gypsies in the villages of
Romania. Also, there is extensive social
work going on with evangelical voluntaries to further the welfare of the gypsy
ethnicity as a whole.
The same can be said about the activities of the churches and of the
charitable institutions regarding the orphans in Romania. There are significant
local charitable organizations among the evangelicals in almost all the
counties of the Country. Not the same can be said about the organizations
belonging to the Majority Orthodox Church of Romania. There are several
initiatives of some illuminate priests like Father T
ănase or Father Negrea
that either create large orphan institutions or serve several children, but the
established works of Orthodoxy toward the orphans do not make a significant impact
on the situation of these children. Also the practice of the Orthodox laymen in
the area of service to the orphans of Romania is almost inexistent.
The Evangelicals have foundations working with orphans in most of the counties
of the country. Also there are hundreds of adoptions
and
foster care programs happening that are supported and run by Evangelicals in
Romania.
Poverty and The Kingdom: The
Christian living and Its Idolatrous Competition.
If Chrysostom was upset by the way the rich persons in his church were
acting with insensitivity toward the poor, one can feel something similar when
watching that the vast majority of all the rich persons of Romania call
themselves Christians and they are insensitive toward the poor. There are
foundations set up by some of the richest people of the land to help the
educational system or they fund scholarships for different special programs, or
intervene from time to time when disasters hit. Almost all they do is
accompanied by press attention and people wonder why they are serving when it
seems that everything good they do is for the sake of the praise they get out
of their generosity.
The Orthodox church itself in most of the cities, towns and villages
of the country rarely sets up charitable projects and associations. Most of the
charitable association are initiated by the priesthood, or the Metropolitan
Chair and most of the funds are supervised and administered through the church.
Nobody knows exactly the amount of private funding that goes to the
National Church, but a lot of the funds that are now intended for the welfare
of the poor go into the thousands of ecclesiastical construction projects
spread all over he country. These buildings for churches and monasteries
require the “splendor” worthy of the house of God. So, millions of Euro are
eaten up yearly from the State and from the members to sustain sometimes
megalomania of some priests or bishops reflected in huge construction projects.
I suppose that most of the population required to support the church
would prefer the money to be used for the poor, but as long as the “holy
building of the church” stays unfinished, it seems that construction has
priority over the poor in the eyes of clergy. The steep separation of clergy
and laymen leave Romanians thinking that the State and eventually the illumined
clergy are to take care of the poor in Romania.
There is a illustrious lack of laymen initiated charities or social
projects among the Orthodox. The Orthodox Hierarchy does not seems to encourage
or like very much the laymen initiatives in any area of Social Work. There are
exceptions, but they are very few in comparison with the size of the need.
Perhaps most of the monasteries and some parochial churches provide at
a small scale help for several poor “clients” of the institutions, but they do
not intend to create programs that will extend their social impact into more
needy people even locally. The social service of the monks and cenobite
communities in Orthodoxy is much less involved in service to the poor that
their Catholic western counterparts do. They tend to be more dedicated to the
communion with God and ascetic practices than to alleviate the ills of society
around them.
The Orthodox Church shines by its correctly preserved dogma and poetic
- mystic theology and aphophatic practices of its elite members. It also exults
through several great Fathers that share their wisdom with the people that
attend their monastic cells. The Church also excel through some illustrious
believing intellectuals that defend the Orthodox faith and sometimes its
nationalism. But as a whole the Orthodox church is far from being an
significant change agent for the needs of its destitute people.
It is of no wonder that this is the Christ of the Christianity and His
reign is an unknown reality for the most of the 86% of the population of
Romania who consider themselves Christians. A sign of the indifference of the
people is shown in the percentage of the men that attend at least once a week
(18,1%), or once a month (16,1%) the church. Most of them (32%) attend just at
Easter/ Christmas celebrations.
The clergy is known for its preference of this earthly Kingdom
realities (wealth, status and pleasure) There is a lot of resentment built up
in the relatively poor population of Romania against the clergy. An expectation
is that the clerical person has established a fairy good fortune. For the old
order of things was a good thing as this person was the representative of the
whole community. Now the picture has changed. The Media regularly publishes
articles that inflame the public opinion toward the clergy.
A
lot of the people envy, judge and resent the clergy and the Church
.
With such role models that a lot of the clergy exhibit there is no
wonder that the laity of the Orthodox Church are not interested in serving the
poor. Their fate is well taken care by the National Church who sends them to
the “everlasting green pastures” even if their life on earth did not
encountered at all the living Jesus and did not count at all for the the domain
where He is King.
Stark, talking about the National Churches of Europe explains why the attendance
and significance of religion is low for their members. He quotes sociologist
Andrew Greeley who wrote: “Christian Europe never existed.”
After Constantine, “Christianity left most of the rest of Europe only nominally
converted”
. The result was an
unconverted population with kings and nobles that nominally accepted
Christianity and the apparition of lazy, obstructionist State Churches with
“believing nonbelongers”
in them - unchurched people.
Generally speaking the Romanian Evangelicalism is active by comparison
with the larger Orthodox Church. Still most of the communities of Evangelicals
in Romania do not have a missiollogical conscience and are not involved in any
social helping program. Many of the Evangelical communities follow the Romanian
version of the American dream forgetting about the Great Commandment and the
Great Commission to the people of Romania. There is a spread minoritarian
victimization conscience that permeate much of the Evangelical communities in
Romania that hinders an active social involvement of these communities. Also
there is a strong tendency toward legalism, isolationism and authoritarianism
that are all symptoms of institutionalization of many of the Evangelical
Churches.
As an very astute Romanian Theologian affirms that in Romania we are
in a crisis of discipleship
.
We have converts, we do not have disciples that follow Jesus. Activism as
Bebbington would say is one of the four characteristics of Evangelicals, but
this activism is not actuated if there is no discipleship toward it
.
We have enough “vampire Christians” as Scott McKnight would say, that apply
just the blood of Jesus to their guilty conscience and then get busy with the
Romanian American dream, forgetting about the poor and about the love that
Jesus is waiting to pour from Him, through them, to the needy.
The Christian Response Now: Its
Success and Failures
How does an ordinary Romanian perceive the all present reality of
poverty? We meet daily beggars and the children that beg in almost all the
Railway and Bus stations and in most of the important junctions in the cities.
The minimal social protection offered by the State leaves most of its
beneficiaries on the threshold of poverty. It is in most cases the basic minimum
for survival. But among those in the two most neglected categories of poor
(gypsies and orphans raised in the Institutions) the State Social Protection
System is not very efficient in meeting needs. There is no help to be provided
by the System as there is no official employment for 77% of the gypsy
population
and there is no help and
no possibility to work if an orphan is thrown into the streets and no employer
would employ a person with no place to stay or without ID.
As I mentioned before there is not a significant desire in the
Majority Church to mingle with the ill reputed gypsy community. Regarding the
orphans, there are beautiful cases of several Orthodox Priests that receive a
lot of media coverage that formed Huge Private Orphanages in which they invested
in hundreds of kids that were either abandoned at birth or were not killed
through abortion, but carried until birth by the single pregnant mom.
The numerous new Evangelical churches planted in the gypsy colonies of
the villages of Romania bring a ray of hope in the general landscape of desperation
that generally encompasses the life of this ethnicity. New economical
initiatives and a new work ethic accompany many of the conversions among the
gypsies. In most of the cases there is no profound discipleship that follows,
but the effect is visible in many of the gypsy communities even because the
veil of stigma is broken and they were accepted by the Evangelical Christians
that belonged to the majority ethnicity.
There were several cases (Toflea, R
âmnicelu, Slobozia,
Teccuci, etc.) where whole
villages or ghettoes of gypsies came to Christ and as a result the criminality
rate basically hit zero. Fact that was unheard of in their history. Also the
level of eagerness for education hit the roof and the people were searching for
honest work in all the ways they could.
There are also several Evangelical Charitable Foundations and also
several Evangelical missionaries that are willing to adapt and live among the
gypsies. These have the greatest impact because they offer a holistic Gospel
and they are the real Jesus’ hands and feet among the most forgotten ethnicity
of Romania. They are there to disciple, to “teach them to obey”, not just
“teach them to know”. There are several heroes like this among Evangelicals and
also there are perhaps hundreds of pastors and Evangelical leaders that would
come to teach and preach in the gypsy churches every week.
Still there is the call for real missionaries from among Romanians
among gypsies. The churches are still segregated. The churches where gypsies
are allowed to worship together with the Romanians experience many times
frictions and many Christians demand the segregation. The stigma is not easy to
fight for many Romanian Evangelicals. Many times the new gypsy converts are
looked upon with suspicion and their motives are questioned by the Romanian
Evangelicals.
The stigma and the built in prejudices are hard to overcome in the
Evangelical communities toward gypsies and toward the orphans.
Conclusion
Lines of Continuity and Discontinuity
with the Situation in the Fourth Century
Similarities
Wealth and Poor and the
Pursuit of Happiness
Looking for similarities between the situation of the poor of the
fourth century and the situation of Romania, one can find several that seems to
be perennial.
First of all, as it is specific to the more Oriental countries, there seems
to not be a favorable environment for the creation of a consistent middle class
that can upgrade the general standard of living. There are rich people that go
somewhere around 7% of the population and then a small middle class. Most of
the people are just above the subsistence level or right on that threshold. In
this sense we can note a continuity between the Roman times of the cities of
Chrysostom and the situation in Romania.
A second similarity between the two worlds consist in the worldly
pursuit of material gain. The capitalism of the free market economy brought
Romanians into the rat race of materialism. Because there are structures that
are very resistant to change in the economical sense, Romanians that did not
leave Romania to find a better future in the western states of Europe find
themselves really unhappy. In the 2012 edition of the yearly study that Worldwide Independent Network of Market Research, is doing
in 58 countries from all continents, Romanians score first at unhappiness. 39%
are unhappy and 30 percent are neither happy or unhappy.
Jesus said that “it is more blessed to give than to receive”. As the
materialistic mantra is “take, take, take for yourself”, there is no wonder of
the inner misery and auto victimization in which Romanians are living. When
Chrysostom describes the Christians of his time, he is condemning the savage
pursuit of material gain and the hardening that is happening on this trail for
the soul. He is presenting the pursuit
of material security as “fleeting” and as a “tantrum”
and the result of it is “oppression and avarice”
Sadly in most of the cases the first obvious mark of the Orthodox and
Evangelical Romanian Christians is the pursuit of material gain. There is no
point in generalizing, but there are evidences that Romanians deemed themselves
as Materialists rather than Post – Materialists in orientation. As explained in
a Class for social studies at Harvard
the
meaning of Post – Materialism is the term used by Inglehart as referring to the
social and self – actualization needs of the Maslowian Value Hierarchy as
compared to the basic material needs of safety and sustenance. 80,2 % of the
Romanians placed themselves on the first three levels closer to the
materialistic option out of range of six offered for consideration between the
extremes of materialistic and post – materialistic attitudes. Just 19,8% of
them placed themselves on the last three levels closer to the post –
materialistic extreme.
Ethnicity was a important factor in the help one would give in the
fourth century. In the cosmopolite Antioch there would be riots and open
conflicts between the eighteen ethnicities present and sure enough everybody would
have preferred their own poor. This is similar today. Help is available
considering the color of the people’s skin. Gypsies are strangers in their own
country.
Similar to the poor without patronage and possibility of work of the
fourth century Antioch, there are categories of poor people (gypsies and
institutionalized orphans) in almost the same blockage. Different solutions
were tried by the State especially after we adhered to the EU, but the problems
are far from being eradicated. Also there is a similar insensibility in the
eyes of the more well to do Christian members of society toward the plight of
the chronically poor.
Similarities: Awareness and
Practice of the Individual Christian
There are similarities at the level of the awareness and practice of
the individual Christians between the times of Chrysostom and modern Romania.
Like in the fourth century, in today’s Romania, there are individual
Christians who venture outside of the security given by the pursuit of the
Romanian – American dream. I do not know what were the exact expectations that
Chrysostom had quantitatively from his congregations. One can infer that there
was much more he would expect especially from the well to dos of his times. In
this sense, there is a lot more quantitatively that Romanian Christians can do
to alleviate the general state of poverty and especially the situation of the
chronically poor.
I do believe that just good models and consistent models of actions
from Christian leaders who live in self discipline, simplicity and philanthropy
will do the job of discipling the Romanian Christians into serving the poor.
These models will raise the level of awareness and challenge people’s
stereotypes and prejudices toward the needy. Chrysostom played that role model
for his congregations and many other godly leaders of that time (like his
Antiochian Bishop, Flavian, or Gregory of Nazianzen) that lived in self imposed
poverty in order to serve the poor.
Gypsies are perhaps some of the closest people on the planet to the
filth and density of population per square meter when it comes to housing. A
considerably good portion of the gypsy population is imitating the hygienic
conditions of a fourth century cubicle. Most of the time they do not have
running water, electricity and gas for the stove. Also the sanitation level is
low for the gypsies and the criminality is high. These can be similarities
between the societies.
Similarities: Awareness and
practice of the Church and Society
As in the fourth century, the church today is not without a witness
among the poor of the society. There are religious NGOs that serve as charities
and institutions and social projects that tackle the different needs of the
disadvantaged.
As then there is the need that the contemporary church can address to
have the individual Christian step up and involve themselves personally in
service to the disadvantaged. The charities mediate the contact between the
Christian and the poor.
I do believe that the more organic the approach in solving the
problems of the poor the better and the safer the results. I believe in the
potential that stays too many times unearthed in the ordinary Christian. There
is a huge potential of service and social redemption in the hearts and hands of
the Christians empowered to serve according to their makeup and passions.
The most important institution that remained in place over the
centuries for the support of the poor is the “righteous poor”. Be that the
Abbot of a monastery or a famous hermit, or a generous priest, all these are
considered the benefactors. They are the ones that after fulfilling the needs
of their ministries give to the poor “clients” that they already know and trust
or even in some cases to unknown needy persons.
They receive the support of the Romanians as the Antiochians would
give their support to their “ascetic voluntary poor”. Most of this support is
administered through the monastery, or the famous priest himself.
Dissimilarities
Wealth and Poor and the
Pursuit of Happiness
There are much more possibilities and options for a contemporary poor
to try to help himself than for the fourth century poor. The patronage was the
only option that an fourth century poor would have. In Romania the State System
is sustaining and keeping in check the most of the poverty. There is for most
of the population the possibility of work even if it is done in less than
rewarding conditions, but still I think there are jobs now in contemporary
Romania that most of the Antiochian beggars or widows would want to do, but did
not have the opportunity to do.
Even when somebody compares the numbers given above about the level of
poverty in the Roman Empire and Contemporary Romania, one cannot but observe
that quantitatively Romania is far better off than the antique cities. The general
conditions of living per individual are far better now for most of the
population in Romania when compared with the multi store cubicles living of the
Roman Cities.
Dissimilarities: Awareness
and Practice of the Individual Christian
I guess there are much more nominal Christians in Romania than in
either Antioch or Constantinople of the fourth century. Romania was one of the
countries who was not evangelized naturally, but politically.
Also, in Romania now, there is a level of nominalism that did not exist
yet in the period of Chrysostom. Antioch was divided almost equally between at
least three major faiths. In Romania according to the census of 2011 only 0,24%
of the population
and just 1,8 % of the population declares themselves as a different religion
than the Christian one. So, Christianity is dominating the religious landscape
with 98% of the population.
This sea of nominalism explains why there is a lot less social
activity on the part of the ordinary Christian in Romanian Orthodoxy then in
the times of Chrysostom. Also, the nominalism is entertained by the laxity of a
good part of the Romanian clergy. The anti luxury canonical laws that
Chrysostom issued as Patriarch would sure cost him a second deposal if not
worse, if he would be in power and dare to issue them in the Autocephalous
Orthodox Church of Romania. He would probably have to issue the same canonical
laws regarding the situations of most of the Pentecostal Wealth and Health
preachers.
Dissimilarities: Awareness
and Practice of the Church and Society
Beside the generally greater social protection that the population has
in the modern times, today the discrepancy is greater between the chronically
poor person of Romania (like gypsies) and the rest of the poor population. In
Chrysostom’s time all of the city people with the exception of few privileged
ones, were experiencing the filth and the sweat and the horrible smell and the
basic lack of sanitary protection. To be a citizen of the city would mean then
to be a part of the chaotic and raw life of it.
Modern poor of Romanian cities with the exception of the ghetto
gypsies are enjoying for the most part the modern sewage and the clean water
system and electricity and perhaps even gas for the heating. None of these
facilities were available in those times back in Antioch.
Comparing the numbers, the church under the supervision of the bishop
or the pastor was much more involved then in social work projects than now. Now
the secular system of social protection of the state is what a sick person
experiences more often. Then for sure the poor would feel much more the
preeminence of the Christian help and care.
Lessons from Chrysostom to
the Romanian Christians
For Evangelical Christians plunging themselves radically in serving
the poor of Romania would be one of the most significant way to testify about
the living Lord Jesus. Mike Bickle teaches out of 1 Peter 2.9-15 that one of
the most powerful testimonies that the Christian community has at its disposal
toward an unbelieving community is serving the poor with steadfastness.
We need long term, steadfast commitments. This would dispel the myth that the
world believe that we serve only to proselytize and not because we really care
and want to give the love of Jesus away.
This is one of the lessons that Chrysostom’s sermons emphasize. We are
to love in order to be in the likeness, not just in after the image
of God. This is where most of the Eastern Fathers see the place of good works
toward the needy ones.
There are many similarities between the two worlds that are separated
by more than 1600 years: The aspirations of the people, and the idolatrous and
destructive ways in which they pursue material security. The desperate
situation of the chronically poor. The struggle of the Christians to live up to
the ideal of Christlikeness in serving the poor. The tendency to support
indirectly the poor, by using he “righteous poor” as a mean of avoidance the
direct encounter with the ugly face of the needy.
Because Chrysostom besides the resistance he faced, he enjoyed a great
level of success in determining his congregation to act in accord with Christ’s
heart toward the poor and because of the similarities of many aspects of the
multifaceted poverty issue, we would do good to ourselves to expose ourselves to
the teachings about the responsibilities of the Christian toward the poor of
this great teacher of the Orthodox Church
One of the first lessons from Chrysostom that we can apply to our
situation is the advice to stop our frenzy pursuit of earthly accumulation of
wealth when beside us are people that do not have the basic necessities of
life. We need to let the Holy Spirit to sensitize our heart and to move us
toward action. We need to discipline our use of earthly excesses and to learn
and practice restrain and simplicity and with the goods thus saved to serve the
poor.
Another lesson is to seek personal contact with the poor. To do it in
an organic way where we let the Holy Spirit’s philanthropy to make us more
merciful persons, not just better activists.
Another personal lesson that we can learn from John, and one that I
have learned the hard way is to persuade people more through personal example
than through manipulation techniques.
Many times Chrysostom’s appeal although very well intended, is resorting
to threats and intimidation. We can learn from the ascetic and generous life
style that Chrysostom had. Almsgiving should become a life style for every
leader in the Church. Also, we can avoid trying to manipulate the audience into
good deeds. We need to just preach (with passion none of the less) and remind the
people and expect the Holy Spirit to work. We can give stories of impact.
The situation of the gypsies and orphans in Romania would require
though a different approach when it comes to the irrespective giving. An
Catholic Charismatic Community in Texas serving the poor of the poor in Mexico
illustrate how they applied the verse: “whoever would not work should not eat”
(2 Thessalonians 3.10) to giving to the poor
. There is a proverbial laziness that is
characteristic to gypsy communities. Begging is a far more productive activity
for them that produces them more than an normal day wage for work. So giving
irrespectively will generally produce just more addiction to begging.
Also I think we should pay attention to the advises of Chrysostom
toward becoming houses of mercy. Philanthropy needs to be learned by practice
and also need to be taught by preaching and by example.
Romanians need to take heed at the approach Chrysostom has toward
involvement of the State toward the poor. Basically there is no mixture between
church and state. We should not expect the State to show Jesus to the poor. We
should not relegate to the State what Jesus commanded us to do. We are to love
the neighbor as ourselves and also to love sacrificially as Jesus loved us.
We can also learn that all the earthly possessions that we have should
be held with an open hand and we should recognize that God is the ultimate
owner of everything we have and we should be able to distribute what is His in
His time and according to His directions.
