In these dying days of evangelical patriarchalism, many believers in male superiority and male authority over females try to soft pedal their views. When patriarchalists--who prefer the name "complementarians"--are challenged that their interpretations of Scripture are actually a belief that males are superior to females, and that they are teaching females were only created to enrich the lives of males, they cry "foul" and object to such a characterization of their views on men and women.
However, John Calvin, one of the fathers of evangelical patriarchalism in protestant circles, was quite consistent in applying his patriarchal theological views to daily life. What he theologically believed regarding women was practically applied in every day living. The consistency of the way he lived with the things he believed is evident. Calvin wrote in his commentary on I Corinthians the following:
"As far as the external connections and social propriety are concerned, the man takes his lead from Christ, and the woman from the man, so that they do not stand on the same level, but this inequality exists ... Because he is made subject to Christ and that includes the condition that he take first place in the control of the household and its affairs. For in his home the father of the family is like a king... The man is in authority, and the woman is in subjection to him ... In I Tim. 2:12 he debars women from speaking in church altogether ... because of the pre-eminence which God has given to the man, so that he might be superior to the woman ... The woman took her origin from the man, and that therefore she has a lower standing ... The woman was created for the express purpose of greatly enriching the man's life ... Paul looks higher, viz. to the eternal law of God, which had made the female sex subject to the authority of men. Therefore all women are born to submit to the pre-eminence of the male sex ... Let the man therefore carry out his function as the head, having supremacy over her; let the woman perform her function as the body, giving help to him ... Let the woman be content in her position for subjection, and not feel indignant because she has to play second fiddle to the superior sex"(translated by John W. Frazer, Eerdmans, 1996, pp. 229ff.).
I do wish modern patriarchalists would be as bold in their declarations as Calvin. Faulty interpretations of Scripture are not nearly as evident when the application of the theology is covered up. In other words, we have a great many professing "complementarians" (patriarchalists) who are functioning egalitarians. Such hypocrisy is not healthy for anyone. I personally told Paige Patterson I admired his consistency in removing Sheri Klouda from her position as Hebrew at Southwestern--he was living the way he believed. I then told him I would do everything in my power to help people see his beliefs were totally, one hundred percent diametrically opposite of the Scriptures and the teachings of Jesus Christ.
One of these days the Scriptural teaching of the equality of men and women in Jesus Christ will be the standard view of conservative, evangelical churches because it is precisely what the Bible teaches. Until then, it would be helpful if those who theologically believe in male superiority and male authority over the female gender would be as bold and direct as Calvin in terms of the application of that theology into daily living.
It would help people see the utter ridiculousness of their beliefs and the tragedy of falsely interpreting the Bible to support such absurdities.
248 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 248 of 248Help! Call the Police!... “… my character was attacked by several people.”
Sounds like a guy complaining about heat ought to stay out of the kitchen.
And speaking of the kitchen, would D.R. command Jesus to put Mary in her place of rattling pots and pans rather than ‘HER CHOICE’ of being with MEN listening to Him?
I’m sure D.R. would have many references from his debate preparation to teach Jesus “….man-made ideas as commands from God.” (Matthew 15:9 NLT)
I believe D.R.’s problem is:
“But, of course, there must be divisions among you so that you who have God’s approval will become known and recognized!” (1 Corinthians 11: 19)
‘Ego’ stands for ‘edging God out’.
D R......quick simple question: are you friends with Mike Everson?
I know you know him since I believe you are a Baptist Pastor In GA and he was recently the G B C Chairman of the Executive Committee.
Just answer yes or no and tell me how you know him please and any relationship to him. Pretty simple OK
Yeah, DR is saving his amo for his heavy weight bout with Wade Burleson. He has refused to spar with me.
Let's think about what might happen in SBC circles if BM&W is somehow adopted as normative.
Churches would be leaving left and right.
Dr. Who,
Just an observation, I haven't read all of DR statements or anything else, but just because someone is a pastor in a state does not mean they know, especially in any meaningful way, a person just because he or she is on a state-wide committee.
This includes being chair of the state executive board. I'm in a smaller state than Georgia, and I, honestly, can't name the president of my state convention or the chair of the executive board.
Now, he may know Mike Everson and he may not, he can answer for himself, but that know he knows him because of Everson's position isn't valid. Don't assume that all pastors know each other or the people that are the "great powers" in their state convention.
Most of us are much more concerned with learning who the lost people are in our community and the members of the churches we're called to serve. Most of the exec board members I know haven't bragged about it. The ones that do, well, I'm liking Rex Ray's statement about ego, because it relates.
John H
This woman would have insecure little men like DR and Piper sucking their thumbs and crying into their pillows at night.
John H.
Thanks for you comment to me. I think I already know what his answer will be IF he will answer that simple question.
He probably will not answer it because he knows where it will lead.
I see no reason for your protecting D R with the "I do know ...." statement before he even answers though.
Waiting.....D R......tick tick tick
Do you Know Mike Everson and or those who associate with this man in GA. and what is your relationship, if any ?
Wade, I don't think you have to worry much about him now. I think he may go back with his head and "Bury it in the Sand"....
Dr. Who,
Why does it matter if DR knows Mike Everson? Even if he does know him what would the implications of that be? It would make sense that at least in some way an SBC pastor would know his state executive committee chairman.
I know DR is the man everyone loves to hate at the moment, but he's just a sincere complimentarian, I am too. That doesn't mean we are somehow sinister or are trying to demean women. I have a wonderful wife and 3 daughters who absolutely have my heart. I told my wife if she ever gets to where she wants to leave to hold on I'll go with her...lol
I want to be very careful here because I'm really not trying to offend anybody, but the issue here is not insecurity, it's fear. Not the fear of losing control, no doubt some will make such accusations, it's the fear of where all this will lead. The egal position, denominationally speaking, almost always leads to a move toward outright liberalism. In their 2001 annual meeting the CBF voted to retain their policy prohibiting the hiring of homosexuals of sending gay missionaries, but the vote only won by 199 votes, indicating that a number of CBF messengers (40%) think sending out gay missionaries is fine.
My point? Look at the denominations that move toward an egal position, with few exceptions they move toward accepting open immorality. Why? Because once you reinterpret certain scriptures to suit culture you open the door for other passages to be reinterpreted. The Metropolitan Community Churches use the Bible to promote homosexuality.
I know I just opened myself up for a major hailstorm of criticism, at least please understand that I'm not trying to control or demean anyone. And I think we can at least set a comment stream record for the most posts...lol
Just hang on everyone until D R answers my question about Mike Everson.
I will have a point that may show why this D R is so harsh and arrogant towards Wade and his wanting to debate.
So let's get this man to answer the question ( do you have any association or know Mike Everson from within the GBC and GA) and I will then respond.
You, John, should know I learned my lesson about jumping to conclusions :)
D R tick tick tick come on Pastor
Dr. Who,
I'm not saying you jumped to conclusions, i just didn't understand the implications of him knowing Mike Everson. Just curious, not at all looking for a fight.
"The irony of this passage is that Packer's wife leans egal and does not even attend the same church."
Ha!
If this is true, it's hysterical.
Imagine: an egal and turkey in the same cage FIREWORKS !!!!!!!
Imagine: an egal and turkey in the same cage FIREWORKS !!!!!!!
No fireworks at all. Many preachers who teach the complementarian position in the pulpit live a completely unremarkable lifestyle at home.
They are a lovely couple, but Dr. Packer did comment in an interview which was later published in a book that his wife disagrees with his position on women.
His wife was also at Dr. Packer's side when he was inducted into to the province of the Southern Cone.
While I believe that what Dr. Packer teaches and preaches is wrong, I have nothing to say against him personally.
Wade
I kid around with you a lot and your a great sport, however I do have a serious question. Do you at this time consider yourself a eagle vs your previous position as a comp? It seems like you have made the switch, or that you are still leaning that way but still undecided? Not looking for a squabble at all, just curious
Dr. Who,
I usually don't respond to baiting, but you can't seem to let this go, so allow me to correct what you "already know."
I have absolutely, unequivocally no clue who Mike Everson is - NEVER met him, NEVER heard of him, NEVER heard anyone even mention him or even seen his name in print.
Essentially, I only know my reps on the Exec Committee and maybe one or two other committee members. I've only been here 2.5 years.
See John H's post. He is exactly right about knowing folks.
John, The comp position leads to more and more legalism and patriarchy as we are seeing before our very eyes in this denomination.
More Dr. Klouda's. Oops, I forget...they cleaned that out, too.
More Papa Pilgrims?
Besides, Patriarchal cultures have historically had lots of homosexuality. And still do if you care to do your homework. It is the dirty little secret. So, I suppose I could say that is where this denomination is heading? It would fit your logic.
For both sides what you are speaking of is a sin issue. It has NOTHING to do with women as a gender.
I am about as conservative as you can get theologically and poltically an egal. If you think about it, the SBC is very liberal when it comes to sin in leadership circles.
I am about as conservative as you can get theologically and poltically an(d) egal.
As am I.
Look at the denominations that move toward an egal position, with few exceptions they move toward accepting open immorality. Why?
Perhaps because in the denominations that move toward a strict legalistic, comp position, the immorality is usually kept in the closet.
Lydia is right. It's not a "gender" issue. It's a sin problem.
Lydia,
I have no doubt you're a conservative. I've read carefully your comments on various issues. I'm not saying all egals are liberals, what I am saying is that with few exceptions denominations that have gone to the egal position have went on to accept open immorality. The reason I believe that this is true is because of the danger of explaining passages away on the sole basis of culture. As our culture becomes increaingly tolerant of immorality if we begin to reinterpret or in some cases explain away historically settled passages of scripture we have opened the door to call all scriptures into question.
As I said before the Metropolitan Community Churches do the same thing. They reinterpret historically understood passages, using every minor nuance of words in the original languages (I'm for language study btw), and when that doesn't work they say that the passages in question are to be simply applied culturally.
In Baptist rank and file this trend has been very noticeable. I mean look at the BWA, Alliance of Baptists, Baptist Union, ABCUSA, and CBF. Everyone of these egal groups have a significant element that openingly affirms homosexuality.
I would like to reiterate that I'm not accusing you of being liberal, I just believe the comp position, you believe the egal position.
I meant "every one" not "everyone"...lol
Oh yeah openly not openingly...duh
"I read it the same way that the majority of the Church has now for 2000 years... I would think all of you who are "egalitarians" would like the idea of a fair debate."
uuuhhhh, would that mean that you read it like all the MALE jewish men and all the MALE jewish men who became christians, AND MALE SCRIBES AND MALE INTERPRETERS, AND MALE SCHOLARS, AND MALE SEMINARY TEACHERS, AND MALE PREACHERS.
gee, no predudice towand a slanted, male bias there.
... and "gone" not "went" but that's okay. Or maybe it's "Okie."
:-)
I've read some very in-depth studies of the scriptures in question that aren't being interpreted through a "cultural" lens. Here are three good sources, and I'm sure Lydia and Thy Peace or someone else can provide others.
Women in Ministry
Suzanne's Bookshelf
Words of a Fether
You can certainly disagree with their conclusions, but you can't accuse them of "explaining passages away on the sole basis of culture."
Now, for a few of you (**coughDRcough**) this does present that old conundrum of a woman teaching a man, so you guys read at your own risk.
New BBC,
Okie...that's funny. I know my grammar is deplorable. Lol
Thanks for mentioning my blog. It is in a state of disrepair at the moment, as I have been busy elsewhere.
I would not consider myself a conservative by any count, although I was up until a few years ago. However Paula is conservative. There has always been a strong history of conservative women who believe the authority of scripture and the equality of women.
In British Columbia, one of those was Bernice Gerard.
Personally, I am not interested in using scripture to prove the functional equality of women. I function as an equal regardless of what any writing says, I am obliged to do so in order to be a parent.
Discovering the way the meaning of scripture has been altered by exegetes, has convinced me completely that complementarianism is a human invention, of the very recent past. Like television, it is a curiosity of the last century that we can all live without.
"I'm not saying all egals are liberals, what I am saying is that with few exceptions denominations that have gone to the egal position have went on to accept open immorality."
John, we have a huge problem with hidden immorality and unethical behavior in our patriarchal SBC and other celebrity Christian cirlces. You just have not been paying attention. Or something else.
This is why they hate bloggers so much. We are talking about their behavior.
On another note, what we are seeing is that over the last 20 years or so the comp leaders have been steadily moving toward full blown Calvin style patriarchy. Of course they do not announce this fact and they do have some problems such as accepting equality in the civil sphere with the likes of Margaret Thatcher and Palin.
Do you really agree with what Piper says? That is where it has gone. There is even an article over atr CBMW that suggests we will be under the authority of our husbands in heaven! They are postively Mormon! (With ESS, too, because all cults tamper with the Trinity)
But you probably have not noticed the move toward patriarchy in it's worst sense. There is the quiverfull movement, Scott Brown and his cult, Doug Phillips and his cult, Doug Wilson and his cult, Russell Moore calling comps wimps and calling for more patriarchy. Bruce Ware and his teaching that women are NOT made in the indirect image of God. These are well paid SBTS profs and Deans!
The writings of several who claim the husband as priest of his family. Dr. Klouda's firing was a big move toward this patriarchy. Patterson bragging about telling a woman to go back to her beating husband and just pray more.
this is the point of Wade's post. The comp leaders (CBMW and others) are not really being honest. As someone else said, "Complimentarian" is bascially Orwellian. It is NOT what it is. And it is moving more and more toward full blown patriarchy in some leadership circles.
It is starting to resemble Islam in principle but not in practice, thank God, except for the Papa Pilgrims out there and the likes of Voddie Bacham who say it is sin to send your daughter to college. She must stay home and serve her father until she marries. That is big in these patriarchal circles and we are headed there with our MRS degree program at SWBTS.
Instead of focusing on Jesus Christ...this movement is having evryone focus on gender and if everyone is "playing" their assigned roles. Satan loves it.
Let’s be rational and not fall for or entertain the slippery slope argument. Ideas aren't always connected like a conveyor belt but instead rest on an entire set of beliefs and intellectual orientation. The fact is not that one idea leads to another (like a slippery slope), but that an underlying ideology leads those with that mindset to embrace less than biblical or orthodox ideas. The issue here is not a slippery slope. Liberals who are prone to deny all kinds of classical doctrines is a different issue.
One major issue that must be addressed is the number of us who are egalitarian yet also stand the complementarians other test cases (Trinity, homosexuality as sin, etc). Are we inconsistent or is it that another issue is actually at work in the liberals you are addressing, namely an entire set of unbiblical beliefs? Equality is not liberal on its own. Strong orthodox Wesleyans, have long supported women in ministry.
There is the quiverfull movement, Scott Brown and his cult, Doug Phillips and his cult, Doug Wilson and his cult, Russell Moore calling comps wimps and calling for more patriarchy. Bruce Ware and his teaching that women are NOT made in the indirect image of God.
Then there are the Gothardites and a lot of others. Promise Keepers wasn't the beginning, but for me, it put a face on it.
I don't put all comps in the same category any more than I put all egals on the slippery slope or consider all Muslims terrorists. Those are the extremes, but the above examples are extreme.
Hi, John Wylie.
I appreciate how kind and reasonable you seem to be. Truly like cool water on dry ground.
Concerning your point (from 12:54 pm) that a move toward an egal position usually = a move toward accepting open immorality (defined as homosexuality):
There are a whole host of immoral things that seem to get sidelined in the hunt for anything liberal and homosexual. It feels as though the dogs have been let loose, and the hunters are not far behind running & carrying their torches, all of them hungry for blood on these 2 issues only. Why such myopia? Why oh why such a relentless focus on these things when other things seem to warrant just a tsk tsk? Things like dishonesty, lack of integrity, hate, poor stewardship, irresponsiblity, self-serving, ...gluttony(hmmm?) -- clearly, these things are not all that horrible to christian culture (they are obviously tolerated, if not accomodated) -- but they are to God.
Lydia,
I absolutely do not believe women will be under the authority of their husbands in heaven. If I understand Jesus correctly in Matthew 22:30 there will not be any marriage in heaven. Except, of course, our marriage to Christ.
Anyhow, I respect your views on this issue, even in the areas I don't agree with.
Elastigirl,
Thank you. I understnand your point, we should all hate the sins in our own lives the most.
John Wylie said...
I know my grammar is deplorable.
John, you really shouldn't talk about your grandmother like that. I'm sure she's a wonderful elderly lady, just like Christiane. :)
-----
Tom
Tom Kelley,
Lol...that's funny.
"Anyhow, I respect your views on this issue, even in the areas I don't agree with."
John, We are trying to help you see the fallacy of your slippery slope arguement. Of course you can disagree but be prepared to be corrected. Your slippery slope cannot stand under intense scrutiny. And the arguement can be made that Patriarchy breeds abuse as we see with the patriarchal cults within Christendom. CBMW has moved in that direction as we can see with Piper, Ware, Patterson and many others' teaching on domestic violence within Christendom. It is appalling.
And, one can go back thousands of years to see that the Patriarchal culture was rampent with homosexuality. And, with no egals!
We have much more to fear from a patriarchal culture. There is NO mutuality.
“I simply desire to follow the Word of God. I read it the same way that the majority of the Church has now for 2000 years. Wade seeks to “reform” its teachings.” Fri Sep 24, 03:47 PM 2010
Does D.R.’s statement of “majority” and ‘tradition’ sound like this?
“These laws of Moses have been preached in Jewish synagogues in every city of every Sabbath for many generations.” (Acts 15:21)
I believe when “the multitude was silent” after Peter’s speech, if the first church counsel had adjourned, the majority would never have been “zealous for the law”. (Acts 21:20)
If we do not learn mistakes from the past, then Wade will loose the debate just as Paul lost.
Following the ‘advice’ of the majority, Paul was sent to prison. After many years of no communication from the ‘majority’, he realized they could have ‘saved’ him at his trial and wrote perhaps the saddest words in the Bible – “No man stood for me.”
Impertinent question to literalists.
Should any man wearing a cowboy hat or baseball cap be considered a sinner?
I Corinthians 12 4-7 NASV
4Every man who has something on his head while praying or (H)prophesying disgraces his head.
5But every (I)woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is (J)shaved.
6For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.
7For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the (K)image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
Are you picking and choosing what you want to accept as commandments by Paul? This passage is smack dab in the middle of the passage used to assert your insistence that women be submissive to husbands.
Do you insist that women wear the little white head covering that the Amish and Menonites do?
P M Prescott,
Your post hits the nail on the head. If we are to carry these things out literally, then we must be consistent in every area.
The absurdity of that consistent application will be the undoing of their argument.
I thought some of you might like this:
"Why can't I own a Canadian"
http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html
Just an absurd look at 'taking the Bible at its word.'
"There has to be a leadership structure in place for every facet of our lives... If not, there is chaos."
May I offer this suggestion as 'a leadership structure', for your consideration:
the leadership of one's own informed Christian conscience.
""Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey.
Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . .
For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . .
His conscience is man's most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose Voice echoes in his depths."
excerpted from 'Gaudium et Spes'
A memory:
I once asked a question that triggered a loud brawl at a Presbyterian Church hall. The author of a book 'Bloom Where You Are Planted', was speaking about how a wife ought to obey her husband in all things. When the question and answer period began, I asked her this question:
'But suppose a wife is asked to do that which violates her own conscience?
The explosively loud reaction of the audience to my question went 'out of control',
and I still remember it as not one of my better days.
Oh well.
From the reaction, I guess I wasn't the only woman trying to sort out that question.
So, if a woman preaches the cross of Christ and salvation through His bolld and that person gives thier life to Jesus and is saves...who saved them?
for the election crowd would it nullify the salvation if a woman was preaching because the person was predestined beforehand?
for the men only club, can a person be convicted while listening to a woman preach?
If a woman is pastor and preacher and she leads folks to Jesus and a couple in the church comes to her for counseling and he wisdom leads them to Jesus and the marriage is saved, is is predestination to be saved? is the counsel Godly if it is biblical? the results? are they Gods active will or his passive will?
thought I'd ask
WHY CAN'T YA THROW OUT ALL THE FAVORITE SCRIPTURES THAT YOU BEAT WOME WITH AS YOU THROW OUT THE ONE ON TONGUES "DO NOT FORBID......"
note to self, use the spell checker, that is embarrassing
Thank-you Wade for speaking out on this issue!
What does the "likewise" in I Peter 3:7 mean? "Likewise, ye husbands dwell with them according to knowledge..." Is it a word to be ignored? Or does it mean that husbands, too, are to submit to their wives? What is dwelling with them according to knowledge and giving honor? Do these directives spell authority? or submission? How can one get authority out of "likewise" when the rest of the passage is talking of submitting to one another?
Notice that the command to husbands is the only one that assumes the person he is relating to is also a follower of Christ.
MJ says: "It is patently foolish, and downright rebellious to go 40 miles around a plain scripture just to try and explain it's simplicity away."
Would you explain to me, MJ, why complementarian leaders "go 40 miles around Eph 5:21 to explain that some are to submit more than others? Doesn't the plain reading and simplicity of Eph 5:21 "Submitting yourselves on to another in the fear of God" mean exactly what it says? Why do complementarians deny this verse and its meaning?
As I indicated to Wade during a private conversation, my last comment on this thread is the announcement that Wade and I have agreed to debate our viewpoints on the roles of men and women in the Church and Home during the SBC Annual Meeting in 2012 in New Orleans. He will take the Egalitarian Position and I will take the Complementarian one. We will focus on the exegesis of Scripture, particularly Ephesians 5 and 1 Timothy 2, as well as other pertinent texts.
I am currently working to secure a venue and any sponsors needed to make this event viable. You can check out my blog for updates. You can find me at www.danielrandle.blogspot.com.
DR,
This is a great career move! Just think of it...100% of the SBC leadership is in agreement from the start with your position. Add to that that many cannot stand Wade. You cannot lose on this one, buddy. You might even get a mega church position out of it! (wink)
Wade,
Years ago, do you remember asking what we would do if we were president of the SBC?
I believe that was the time I suggested having debates on different subjects.
Each side would have a team that would make their statements on a blog. Suggestions by anyone could be sent to the team of their choice.
Judges would not decide which team was ‘Right’; but decide which team won in making their statements clearer/best etc.
Which team was ‘Right’ would be decided by the total vote of all member in all Southern Baptists churches that took part.
I remember your saying it would never happen but if it did; to count you in.
Well…what about this debate in 2012? I believe D.R. would have no trouble in getting Jack Maddox on his team. :)
I respect DR for his energy and directness in dealing with this issue. However, I am not sure whether he intends to defend a complementarian or a traditional interpretation of scripture.
A traditional interpretation would suggest that women are intellectually inferior by nature, and therefore in subjection - by their nature.
Whereas a complementarian interpretation tends to suggest that women are not exactly inferior, although differing in their analytic abilities, but equally gifted to lead a nation, although not a church or a home. This is clearly NOT a traditional interpretation.
So, I am not at all sure that we know, from what DR has said so far, what position he will take.
In addition to this, Bruce Ware, whom DR references, does not agree with a traditional interpretation of Eph. 5 or 1 Tim. 2:12, but rather suggests that "some are to submit to others" and "a woman is not permitted to lead a man." The traditional interpretation is that submission is reciprocal and mutual in Eph. 5:21, each to his neighbour, and that a woman is not permitted to usurp the authority of (or dominate over) a male.
I hope that DR will clear this up and will articulate clearly whether he intends to defend the traditional, or the complementarian interpretation of scripture. This kind of clarity is so often lacking in this debate.
Sue,
I think you would probably choose to be on ‘Wade’s debate team’. :)
Good thoughts.
Yup - I would definitly love to be on the team!
Sue, I like your style!
Lydia, your advice to DR about a mega church reminds me of a school principal declining a challenge to a golf match. He said:
“This is a no win situation for us.”
“What do you mean?”
“If you beat the coach and me, you can crow all over town, but if we win, what do we have to brag about?
D.R.,
Just curious - so which version of male only leadership will you be defending?
Wade,
I just wanna say thanks for your words regarding complementarianism. As someone who attends a Southern Baptist seminary, I experience first-hand what it means to deal with twisted interpretations of Scripture.
I have a blog on this subject, titled "Men and Women in the Church." Just to let you know, I've linked your article to my "links" section on the blog. Feel free to read my blog and even link to it on yours. Contact me at the blog if you desire to talk more. Thanks again for your words...and may God bless you to proclaim the truth of God's blessings upon women.
Post a Comment