Letters Continue to Arrive, as They Are Wont to Do

Regarding the psalm 147 sermon,
Is it possible to ask Pastor Wilson who is the Watts he is referring to about the “cistern in the sky” comment? Also, he has some commentary about everything holding together in Jesus and he used a word like “archai”, what is the spelling of that word?
We are blessed by the ministry of the Moscow Mood!

Sara

I was extremely disappointed when I read your outline for your Resurrection Sunday message. In that outline you attacked Full Preterism in a way that you would not face-to-face in your interview with G. Ward Fenley. Either you think it is “heretical” or not. (That is it goes against the creeds and confessions, not necessarily Scripture). Either you received some pushback from friends for your the position you took (dual fulfillment of the new heavens and new earth and resurrection and judgement) or you were being disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. It has been the dishonesty that has turned me off throughout this whole debate. Why will nobody seriously get into the text. Everything falls back to a philosophical argument or the implications of FP. Are there not mysteries about God and His creation that we might never know? Yet you and others say they have cracked the code about the very end of history. What if that was never the intention of the Scriptures in the first place? What if we are not supposed to know how it all ends. I know for sure that every person will be judged. I know for sure that all who trust in Christ for salvation will live with Him forever. I don’t understand the need to know every detail about the future and then condemning others if they don’t see things through the same exact crystal ball you do. Sorry for the rant. I really still do appreciate you and your ministry. I have learned a lot and continue to. May God continue to bless your work

Jeremy

What do you think about putting kids in martial arts classes of any kind or doing it as an adult? The problem is that I’m not aware of any boys-only classes anywhere. That means that if I put my son in a class he will practice hitting and/or wrestling with girls as if they are the same as boys. But if I keep him out of it then I’m depriving him of the ability to develop the skill of fighting, which is important for a man. Or course, spiritual fighting is way more important, but I would argue that training in physical combat is also of some value.

Mitch

I recently read “Today’s Christian and the Church’s Bible” (I think it was at your recommendation?). Through that read, and though I’m not at all caught up on the textual criticism discussions, the practical reasons for the KJV convinced me to switch back to it. In my own reading of Scripture, I’ve greatly enjoyed and benefited from the switch.
I was ordained yesterday! I’m serving as Youth Pastor at my church and I have a question about how these play together. When I’ve taught from the KJV, I’ve heard the ole, “This language is confusing!” several times. Should I consider how my little flock is young and this could stumble them to the point that I don’t teach from the KJV? How would you handle this situation?

Chaz

Thank you for your response several weeks ago to my 3 concerns about CN as stated, primarily in the statement on CN (which to be fair, I do not believe you have endorsed).
To restate briefly, those were 1. no agreement on a definition 2. unconstitutional and 3. US is not a nation
In your response I wanted to further clarify and get your thoughts.
1. agree and I hope that a consensus arrives sooner rather than later
2. I do wonder why the Founders didn’t more explicitly put Christianity into the Constitution. Aside from that, I guess the deeper matter is if the fed formally recognizes Christianity in a creedal way, I would think they would have to define what is Christianity and what isn’t, which seems the same as blasphemy laws, which I believe you said in Mere Christendom is not a good thing. Is my logic off?
3. For the sake of argument, I will grant that we may have once had a unifying culture in America that gave us nation status, but I think you would agree it has not been that way since at least the War between the States, and I am skeptical that a country as large (both geographically and populationally) as ours could now have a single culture across the entire populace, especially as diverse as we are. I guess I would think a nation at the state level would be more possible. And that could bring us back to being a nation of nations, these United States, which seems better anyways.
God Bless!

Matt

Re: A Quick Christian Nationalism Walk Through
I agree with much your article. I agree that whomever we, by default, regard as the absolute authority is our de facto god. I agree that the state, especially the ‘deep state’ may seek to hold this position. I also agree that we—that is, as the church—must confess “the true God as the sovereign over all human society, and over every form of human society” and that “all moral agents are answerable to the God who created them.”
Nevertheless, I disagree with your foundational presupposition that “every society, of necessity, must have a final locus of authority.” This, in turn, implies the opposite of your conclusion, namely, the necessity of Christian Nationalism.
Given the topic of your article, it seems fitting that by society you mean nationality or people group codified together in an identifiable political and civil order. Now, since no man is an island, everyone, of necessity, belongs to a society either by birth or by ‘adoption’ (i.e., immigration), what society do you belong to? America, right? But, according to your assessment, what would you say is America’s ‘final locus of authority?’ (What metrics one should use to make this assessment is another question, but that is besides my point.) My point is this: since you say that America is in a state of idolatry and apostasy and since you are a moral agent that makes up part of this society, does that mean that your final locus of authority is the same as America’s?
If it is different, then how does every society have a final locus of authority if its moral agents who make up the society can have various and conflicting final loci of authority? Perhaps, one might argue that the majority or most powerful culture within a society determines the final locus of authority for the society, and, therefore, why we need Christian Nationalism to rise to power. Nevertheless, it still stands that societies, since they are made up of moral agents, consist of people who can and do have divergent views on final authority.
Therefore, though it seems self-evident that ‘every person, of necessity, must have a final locus of authority,’ is it correct to presuppose that “every society, of necessity, must have a final locus of authority?” Though nations are made up of individuals and though, yes, God will judge the nations, it is ultimately individuals who will stand before God, not wholesale nations with all its members regardless one’s actual allegiance to final authority. Indeed, will the judge of whole earth destroy the righteous with the wicked?
Therefore, it seems much more fitting to say that every person, of necessity, must have a final locus of authority, but not every society. Though all societies have an authority structure, why must all societies have a final locus of authority? Although totalitarian societies make such a claim and impose it on the people, must all societies do this? If all authority is from God and if God alone has all authority and if God has given authority to the government, then the authority of a society, of a nation, by nature, must be limited. Thus, could a society not function within its limited sphere of authority according to nature (and also informed by God’s word if God so graciously allows) and not claim, mandate, or otherwise impose or imply a final locus of authority for the society as a whole but leave that to one’s soul’s liberty?
Now, should the king, the emperor, the president, and all the magistrates of every nation of all the earth acknowledge and worship and serve the true God of heaven and earth and his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ? Absolutely! I mean, shouldn’t we all? He is God, right? He is worthy. Is God’s law supreme over all? Indeed, it is. Should societies and civil laws be consistent with God’s law? Of course. God is God. His word is truth; his law, final and absolute. But does this mean that the civil government should silence heretics by death or imprisonment, or should the church do this through denouement, theological refutation, and excommunication?
Moreover, should Christians speak the truth in love in politics and take political action? Absolutely! Should Christians name the name of Christ in the public sphere? Should they stand against evil in every form with the truth of God’s word and with the reality of the lordship of Christ. Yes, Christ is lord over all. But does that mean that Christians should use violence to oppose evil? No, but the state should but only within its limited sphere of authority. Indeed, for the state to bear the sword in spiritual matters is no different than for a father to usurp authority in the church because he has the authority to lead his family. Each sphere must keep to its own sphere, yet every sphere ought to function in accordance with God’s word.
Thus, when it comes to Christian Nationalism or to Two Kingdom Theology, the question shouldn’t be is God’s law supreme but how does God’s law and word apply to the nations—to the Gentiles—concerning civil government and laws. Though Christians may be true Israel in Christ, none of the nations are theocratic, old covenant Israel.
So, what should we do as Christians in a nation that is progressively becoming more sinful and hostile to Christianity? Gather the troops, load our guns, and march on the capital? Or should we stay on mission and make disciples? Indeed, we must seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness. Moreover, we must keep the faith and endure to the end despite the cost. We must renounce all, die to self, and pick up our cross daily and follow Christ, or we cannot be his disciple. We should speak the truth in love. We should have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness but rather expose them. We should submit to the civil authorities regardless of who they are or who they worship as long as it is consistent with God’s law, and we should pray for godly government. We should love the church and our families and our neighbors as ourselves, being salt and light in his world, naming Christ as Lord of all, calling all to repentance and faith. This is not Christian Nationalism. This is Christianity.
Thanks,
P.S. My main concern with Christian Nationalism is that it seems, in most forms, to conflate these two spheres of church and state to a degree, mixing forms of rule, authority, and actives that belong to the church with the state. It would be helpful to know what you think is the defining feature of Christian Nationalism and how religious freedom relates to Christian Nationalism since I would contend that a nation truly informed by God’s word would uphold religious freedom because these matters do not properly belong to the state per God’s authority.

Pip

Regarding ‘A Quick Christian Nationalism Walk Through’
I’m confident you will be familiar with C. S. Lewis’s article entitled ‘First and Second Things’. In that article he lays out the principle (he calls it ‘a universal law’) that when we make secondary things into primary things we actually lose BOTH the primary and secondary thing.
Is not this a danger with Christian Nationalism? If we seek political influence as a primary thing, don’t we risk losing both that AND the gospel?

Richard

I am currently a Baptist but trying to better understand biblical covenants. Through my studies I have begun to wonder if some of the confusion in the Christian Nationalism debate stem from misunderstandings of biblical covenants? I may have this wrong, but it seems as if your part of your argument for Christian Nationalism 1. Our Founders made a covenant with God to honor Jesus Christ as Lord of all during the founding.
2. We, as Americans, are covenantally obligated to remain faithful to that covenant. We are bound by that covenant being born into it.
3. This seems similar to how you view covenant children being born into the faith having an obligation to remain in the covenant.
I wonder if some of the pushback to Christian Nationalism is driven by En(darkenment) thought of individualism.
P.S. Do you have any book recommendations for understanding biblical covenants?

Ryan

Yes; well put. Add this as preface or postscript to next edition of Mere Christendom. But what actual problems, and what reputational problems, hinder Christian nationalism?
One actual is Christians in power taking for granted whatever the culture takes for granted about politics, instead of checking the Bible to see what triune Jehovah might have to say. The Bible is not a textbook of politics, or economics, or science, but it does have things to say about them.
But when Constantine gets saved, he takes Caesar’s job description for granted, and just tries to be a Christian Caesar. He’s pretty good at it, and he takes some Christian input (Leithart, Defending Constantine), but he’s not giving it the amount of thought some Christians are giving Biblical politics these days.
And . . .

Andrew

The article written about Josh Howerton by the Baptist News Global that you linked to. The author’s bio states, “He is a stay-at-home father of five children and produces music under the artist name Provoke Wonder.”
Sounds about right.
Thanks,

Roger

I’ll get straight to the point. There’s a girl I like and I want your advice. She is dedicated to Christ. Her father has been a mentor of mine in the faith for years, and he almost feels like a second dad. Her mother is a model of the Christian wife.
Here’s the thing, she and I are only in high school. Out of the six or so people I consider best friends, she is the only female. We see each other a lot. In school, in Bible study and youth group (she goes to a different church), and in group hangouts. (Just in case you’re wondering, I take your advice about odd numbers of guys and girls. Generally three guys and two girls.)
This is all fine and dandy, but it leaves me with a couple questions. First, a question of self-doubt. Am I too young to be considering this? After all, I do plan to go to a Christian college, so it feels slightly as though I’m worrying about buying coal while on my way to Newcastle. In other words, need I worry about finding a wife at all? I trust that the Lord will provide, I am not yet 18, and the world is big.
Now, I write these next questions based on the assumption that your answer to the one prior was a kind of nuanced “it depends.” First, in what ways can I display biblical manliness, specifically in such a way as to be attractive? The typical church-guy strategy of carrying eight folding-chairs at once doesn’t seem to be doing the job.
Should it bother me if other guys make advances? How can I keep a kind of lack-of-communication when I see her almost every day? Should I try to be around her less? How can I be attractive to her while we are not romantically involved? I think I would do well to avoid being ‘just a friend’ or ‘like a brother’ to her.
I should probably mention, the goal here, as far as I am aware, is to play the long game. I don’t believe in high-school dating, and marriage is a long way off, so I feel like this is a gray-area where most courtship advice is not quite pertinent.
Any and all advice is helpful, even (or perhaps especially) clichés. Illustrations are appreciated.
Yours in Christ,

Jesse

Another book recommendation. You could have written this yourself.

Rob

Wondering if you can slap me straight, or confirm that I may have a sort of an interesting idea here. I’ve tried to have the theological repository that is the Internet inform me, but I can find nothing.
As I was reading through the 4/5 digest of Blog & Mablog, I had it on my mind to ask a question about the Fall. Then I scrolled into “Empathy, Effeminacy, and the Fall of Man,” and I thought, “oh, goody! Maybe I won’t have to ask,” but alas, here I am.
This question has been on my mind for years, (or maybe it’s more of a statement) and that is, it seems to me that there is another thing that we need to add to the list of things that God cannot do. Along with not being able to lie, break his covenants, act against His own character, etc. (and really these are all forms of lying,) He cannot create a being that is sentient, has (alleged) free will, and is able to live perfectly (by God’s standards of perfection) with no outward assistance, because if He did, He would have essentially created another god.
I’ve heard many sermons about the Fall state that God knew we would fall, yet He made us anyway, but I think it goes beyond that. Such a statement smacks of God “staring down the corridors of time” and seeing what would “happen.” I think He Knew in the sense that it was consistent with His own character that we would fall, and need Divine intervention to be anything other than a failed experiment (I speak as a man.)
I also see God’s former created beings—the Angels—in a similar predicament in their history. Just as we are “actualized” when we are saved (to borrow the academic jargon), the Angels had their own moment of actualization when Satan fell and 1/3 of the Angels went with him. The Angels that remained with God are today in their “saved” state, such as it is, the remainder in their Sheol and on their way to actual Hell.
Then we agonize over how was it possible that any Angels fell at all, when they were so close to God and all that. As an analogy, I can’t imagine being the CEO of the company I work for, because a) I’m 60 and a mid-level lackey, and b) not that talented. Besides, I don’t want to work that hard. But someone who has an important job with an office down the hall from the CEO, runs into him on a daily basis, and is familiar with what kind of work he does may get it in his head, “Hey, I can do that too.” I think it was like that.
What do you think?

Lewis

We hope you’re doing well. We live in Southern California. Lord willing, that won’t be for long. However, there are those who are staying here and fighting the good fight. One of whom is a gent whose story reminds me quite a lot of yours, his name is James Riley. He owns a beautiful working farm up in Oak Glen, California. His farm is not only an actual farm, but it also hosts Revolutionary War and Civil War reenactments. He’s a fellow dominionist, and has been going through a slander case of his own.
I’m not, in any way, asking for any donations or anything. We just wanted to encourage you and let you know that you are not alone in your fight, and that there are many others like you who are also fighting slander. Could you also be praying for Mr. Riley as well? We are praying for both you and Mr. Riley, and we look forward to seeing how the Lord will vindicate you and Christ Church.

Olivia

Regarding: “Lig Duncan’s Infamous Clip”
Pastor Wilson,
You would have to get a stand-in for Ligon Duncan . . . but what if you set up a “mock” (seriously, no pun intended, at all!) debate between yourself and brother Ligon Duncan, all according to your specifications in the article/video, each with an unmarked copy of the WCF in hand, etc.
The whole thing would be set up making every effort at good-faith good-will toward Ligon Duncan. No “cheap shots”, etc., but a sincere attempt to represent just what he believes about the issues you choose to bring up.
Both of you would get very intense, focused, going for the jugular, probing each others soft-spots and weaknesses, etc. You could include humor, good-natured jibes, etc. . . . But keep it a 2-way street, with good give and take on both sides.
It would be a sincere attempt to represent Ligon Duncan’s beliefs/positions, etc. as he might appear in a serious debate. And to do this you would need someone who could accurately and faithfully “stand in” for, “channel”—LARP—Bro. Duncan. I’m thinking someone like Jared Longshore or “Wade” . . . (OR even yourself . . . if it were a video version, etc.)
One main point of this would be to help drive brother Ligon out of the woodwork so to speak and to encourage him to “defend” himself, clarify his positions, etc., etc. and might even lead to a real debate and/or closed room meeting.
What do you think?

Robert

Is Gary Demar the guy who has been dabbling with full preterism and if he is should I still be reading stuff from American Vision?

Joshua

My wife and I live in a southwestern town, close to parents, siblings, nieces, nephews—most of whom are believers. But our church situation is sad, and there is very little community outside of our family. We are not sure we should try to raise our yet-unconceived children in this place. We have the opportunity to move 2,000 miles away to a city in which I lived for a decade, with a very strong church, deep fellowship, and hundreds of saints, including lots of little saints. But the idea of leaving family is painful, especially as we anticipate having little ones who could have aunts, uncles, and cousins just down the road. So my question is this: when you have to choose between family and church, which one wins? Does the equation change as our hypothetical kids get older? Thank you for any advice you can share!

Andrew

I was wondering if you could expand on an idea described in one of your recent Chrestomathy entries, “Nothing Ad-Libbed”: “In Calvinistic synergy, God does one hundred percent, and I do the other one hundred percent.”
Reading this just about changed my soteriology on the spot. Does this refer to the act of putting one’s faith in Christ, or to the process of sanctification, or maybe both? And is this “simultaneous monergism” a typical Calvinistic understanding of God’s sovereignty, or is this a Doug Wilson special?
I ask because this view seems to fit with what my intuition already was re: God’s sovereignty over non-salvation-related matters, and it seems to make sense of a large number of biblical passages: Job can describe Satan’s evil as “received from God” without being guilty of “sin[ning] with his lips,” the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart seems to be attributed to both God and Pharaoh without distinction, we are to “work out our own salvation” while God “works in [us],” Paul can “[speak] in such a way that a great number of Jews and Greeks believed” while still crediting God with “giv[ing] the growth,” and the Lord can predestine some of us “for adoption to himself as sons” while still justly punishing others for choosing death/curse over life/blessing. And I’ve always found the “two 100%s” idea to be a rather satisfying framing of the hypostatic union.
For the longest time I’ve been a not-Calvinist, but I’ve become more sympathetic to it over the past couple years, and when I learned a few months ago that Arminius held to total depravity it kinda threw me for a loop. Plus, you recently said something about evangelicals “turning into Calvinists on their knees,” and I realized that the Arminian viewpoint didn’t offer a great basis for praying for others’ salvation, much less for thanking God for helping me come to my own senses

Nicholas

Regarding FAQs on Men, Women, and sexuality—and your answers: Having often enough written letters in opposition, I didn’t want pass on an opportunity to concur and commend. This is one of those times when you say (very well) things that hadn’t ought to need saying, but in our generation do, and not many other people seem to be saying them, so I hope plenty of people are paying attention here. Besides the ones looking to be outraged, I mean. The problem with what gets called complementarianism is that it flinches and stutters even when it wants to be honest…and I don’t think it always wants to do be honest. But complementarians CAN tell you all about what those bothersome verses do NOT mean. I always got the feeling some preachers just figure their bread is buttered on the distaff side; it’s a matter of pleasing women. Others have the right instinct but know what they are up against and are intimidated; it’s a matter of not dis-pleasing the culture. At least that’s the way it strikes me. Yet others may really be closet egalitarians who think they’re one of the cool kids, but don’t quite dare come out where they are in the church. Finally, there are the under-informed patriarchalists, the people you are talking about who are in the right direction but restricted in their understanding of the matter. These are folks you want to reach the most, the ones with whom you have a real chance, the ones who will accept it and respond if you explain it to them. What I figure anyway.
All that said, I wonder if you might say a little more about women deacons. Being that there is a precedent we see in Scripture, and assuming the function in any instance in question is properly that of a deacon and not that of an elder, why not women deacons? Maybe as special ministers specifically to other women, if nothing else. I don’t know if you are right or wrong, so I’d like to hear a little more of why. My own thought is women deacons are not categorically prohibited, but we first need to get deacon right.

John

Please explain the term “cotquean” used describing “cotquean church history professors.” I know the definition but you must have a broader meaning. Best précis of CN I’ve seen. Thanks.

Jerry

I am considering starting a Classical Christian school in my Canadian province, in which there are no such schools yet. I am having difficulty making the numbers work, however, if state funding is rejected. The Province would pay 50% of net costs, and provide access to other educational services—with strings attached, of course.
Without government aid my concern is that tuition would be too onerous for most Christian households—my own included. Most Christian families I know home school (a feat I greatly respect) or send their children to publicly funded Christian private schools, since these are relatively inexpensive.
How does one ensure that a thoroughly Christian education is not given only to the affluent? I assume that churches could subsidize student tuition, but most conservative Evangelical churches in my circles are small and can scarcely pay their pastor’s salary. In an ideal world, I think both the church and state ought to provide inexpensive Christian education to children—but what to do when church cannot and state will not do so? Is it acceptable to accept government aid and hope the quality of education is not significantly diluted thereby, even as most private schools do?

Matt

I’ve yet to find any wise advice on the subject about which I am asking. It has been long 8 years now that I discovered that my husband was secretly drinking liquor or too much beer. He had been stashing the bottles too high in the cabinet for me to see (he’s a tall man and I’m shorter than average). Thus began the struggle with knowing what to do about the whole thing. That first time I simply confronted him, but it went sour because he had already had too much at the time, so he was a sorrowful apologetic mess. But of course because of the discovery of his hiding place, he had to find a more difficult one for me to find. Anyhow, I’d say about once or twice a year he’ll dedicate himself to stopping. Then I’ll find another hidden place with an empty vodka bottle. I learned to not say anything about for a while until I knew it was currently being used by secretly checking back once a day. However after so many years of me confronting him, he seems to just get better at lying about it. So it’s been an exhausting play of secrecy and me not knowing what the wise thing to do is. He isn’t getting blasted every night. Or even ever that I can tell anymore. But just today I’ve found yet another one of those hidden empty bottles. So my dilemma here is in not knowing if I should expose him to the elders, who have no idea (and we go to a small church where we are actually friends with them) or confront him again first and ask his permission to talk with them. I want to be respectful. I do not want to shame him. I cannot find any help on this because things I’ve read say it’s a disease (which I believe it’s sin) or that he couldn’t be a true believer if he is doing this. I do believe he struggles greatly internally with this and does feel a lot of shame. But he also loves the alcohol. I’d just love some wise advice and I value yours greatly. Thank you for your time.

Can’t Say

This inquiry is in regards to the many teachings on empathy. I was one of those who used the term as a synonym for sympathy, but I have been tracking with what you all are saying. I do feel that you have hit a cultural nerve that needs addressing.
I am currently reading Knowing Scripture by R.C. Sproul, and I came across this passage in the chapter on “Rules for Biblical Interpretation”:
As we read the Bible, we ought to get passionately and personally involved in what we read. I advocate this not only for the purpose of personal application of the text but for understanding as well. What I am calling for is a kind of empathy by which we try to ‘crawl into the skin’ of the characters we are reading about, or as others have said, we are absorbed into the world of the text, and that world begins to shape us.
And this:
By trying to put ourselves in the life situation of the characters of Scripture, we can come to a better understanding of what we are reading. This is the practice of empathy, feeling the emotions of the characters we are studying. Such reading between the lines may not be regarded as part of the text of Scripture itself, but will aid in our understanding the flavor of what is happening.
I think quite highly of Mr. Sproul and am not trying to disparage him, but I am wondering what your thoughts might be on these passages. Does the area of Bible study provide a legitimate arena for the practice of empathy or is there also room for caution here.
Thank you,

L.K.

In Empathy, Effeminacy, and The Fall of Man, you said, “How the devil first sinned, how the devil got that way in a perfect Heaven, creates a similar problem, only more challenging, and that would be the subject for another time.” I get this question often in college ministry. How would you answer this?
Would you write another article on this?

Eric

Dear Pastor Doug, What are some books you would gift an unbeliever?
Thanks,

Peter

In your post “Empathy, Effeminacy, and the Fall of Man” you state “The only consistent thing for a federal head to do in such a situation would be to do what the second Adam in fact did do for us. Adam should have gone to the Lord and confessed that his wife had eaten the fruit, and to plead with the Lord to take him instead.” This brings up something that has perplexed me for quite a while. Since you so graciously offer your insights in this forum on a regular basis, perhaps you’d be willing to be willing to respond.
The Apostle Paul, in Romans 9:1-3, nobly expresses his willingness to be “accursed from Christ on behalf of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.” We might say he’s just waxing hyperbolic, but he rules this out in verse 1, stating “I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost . . .” If he could, he truly would give his *eternal* life in exchange for his Jewish kinsmen. Forever cursed. Forever separated from Christ.
How can Paul say this? Even Christ endured the cross “for the joy that was set before him.” Christ did what he did out of obedience and love, but also because of the reward. Paul sets a truly impossible standard that I don’t believe I could ever follow. Why would he say this? Christ paid a truly ultimate price, but there was eternal reward and joy on the other side. Is Paul’s willingness something that we should aspire to imitate? If not, I don’t understand why the Holy Spirit inspired him to write it, complete with Paul’s assurance that he was not lying. I’m interested in your thoughts.

Mark