Man Rampant Idea
I humbly request to invite Vishal Mangalwadi on Man Rampant, if possible. I read his book The Book That Made Your World and here is a description on Amazon about it.
“Indian philosopher Vishal Mangalwadi reveals the personal motivation that fueled his own study of the Bible and systematically illustrates how its precepts became the framework for societal structure throughout the last millennium. From politics and science, to academia and technology, the Bible’s sacred copy became the key that unlocked the Western mind.”
Thank you for your faithful plodding.
Ratna, great idea. I need to read that book first though. You are not the first to suggest it.
I see y’all over at Canon are releasing some poetry books. I’m just your average young man who has never really read poetry (outside of the Psalms) because everything I’ve ever come into contact with in the poetry world has been super gay. How would you recommend a young man develop a taste for poetry, and really dive in without getting lost?
BCB, that hurdle is a common one for modern young men. I would start with Rudyard Kipling, and then move on to Beowulf.
What Goeth On, She Wots
Ah, such a lovely post. Though I prefer reading the New King James these days, I was raised on the old KJV and memorized hundreds of verses in that lingo, primarily through Bible Memory Association. They are sadly gone, but what an impact in my and other’s lives.
Women and Academic Theology
My wife recently came across an Instagram post dealing with some of Dale Partridge’s recent comments about how women should not teach “academic” theology to each other. We are saddened that he is being misrepresented and misunderstood by so many people. However, that being said, we would love to hear more from you about where you draw the line, specifically regarding Titus 2:3-5. People seem to think “teach what is good” means that leading a walk-through Bible study of the book of Ephesians fulfills the rest of the statement saying “and so train the young women to love their husbands and children.” My wife is especially curious why Nancy chose to write a book about contentment, and Rachel has written a book about identity when those topics don’t appear on the surface to deal directly with husbands and children. We appreciate the ministry of you and your family so much, and we want to be prepared with a thorough defense for our patriarchal position when the need inevitably arises.
Phillip, great question. Truth be told, I have a problem with men teaching a lot of what passes for “academic” theology also. The problem with women doing it is when they are trying to break into a historically male dominated profession, and put on the trappings of masculinity as part of that attempt. But to write intelligently about the Bible, with applications to the everyday lives of women, is well within the Pauline parameters.
Mere Christendom in Texas
For most of my 30+ years of working in and around the Texas Legislature, I have tried to bring a biblical perspective to my analysis and recommendations toward improving the world of public policy. Of late, though, increased knowledge and opportunity have led me to more often incorporating the Word of God explicitly into my work. For instance, I’m writing a paper on the problems with occupational licensing and have used, for example, Leviticus 22:5, 25 and Deuteronomy 22:8 to help explain the mistaken approach of modern occupational law and suggest how to right the ship. Too often, though, I find myself using a search engine to look for “Bible verses on ??????” Though this can bear some fruit, I don’t want to fall into the practice of cherry-picking verses to fit my take on things.
Which brings me to my question. Where today can we find folks taking a biblical, i.e., reformed, approach to law and public policy? To the extent that there is Christian influence on law these days, the Catholics have that pretty much locked up through their (flawed) approach to natural law. Even most evangelicals and Christian law schools I’ve run across seem to fall back on Aquinas and natural law. I’ve yet to find a law school or legal school of thought that begins their analyses with passages from Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, or Deuteronomy. Much less with Genesis 1:1.
I have Jim Jordan’s book, The Law of the Covenant, and that has been helpful. But we folks doing the grunt work of Mere Christendom in the areas of law and public policy need more help. Other than digging deeper into God’s Word, which I am striving to do, any biblically sound, reformed resources (books, law schools, lawyers, etc.) out there you could point us to?
Bill, this is where a lot of the books by the recons in the eighties can be helpful. Even when you disagree with their policy prescriptions, theydo bring the Bible into the discussion, often in fruitful ways.
I read a blog post by Toby awhile back on the lie that is hidden within school choice legislation. I hadn’t thought critically about it before, so it made me realize that if the state is still taking tax money and then requiring me to “spend” it in a certain way, I’m not really free to supposedly “educate however we want.” This is especially the case if the obligations dictated by the state prevent us from educating our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord, that is, under the guise of secular neutrality. So far so good, I am in agreement, and I get the point. But . . . what is the alternative? School-choice seems like a step in the right direction, albeit a small one; it feels similar to the incrementalist/abolitionist debate in the pro-life movement. If we abolish the government education system root and branch, we remove the only means of schooling that some families currently have. However, I agree that you get more of what you subsidize, and the longer the system is in place, the longer the problem festers. But if a rip-the-bandaid-off approach of shutting down public schools isn’t a feasible strategy, what does the off ramp look like? I’m hoping there are a pages on this topic in Mere Christendom, but I wanted to ask regardless.
Tim, I think the off ramp is going to be really messy, but I don’t think we will need to arrange it. I believe that a massive crack-up of the educational system is coming, and we just need to be ready with an alternative when the refugees start to arrive.
Optimism to Stand On
As a relatively recent convert to post-mill it’s interesting to see how averse many Christians are to the plain meaning of the text of Scripture regarding the nature of the implications of the salvation purchased for us in Christ. What’s so attractive about PM is not just that it’s true to the biblical text more than the other options, but as you put it in a conversation when I was just considering it, PM gives us a theological justification for optimism. That was the bingo moment, and it’s impossible to look at redemptive history the same way after that. Thanks for leading the way.
Mike, thanks, and yes.
Christian Nationalism and a WW2 Illustration
Sir, firstly, I haven’t had time yet to read your Mere Christendom book yet; looking forward to doing so; apologies if you’ve already addressed this question therein…
I’ve followed various discussions of Christian Nationalism with deep interest, but I remain conflicted on one particular point. In essence, I can say I agree with your position nearly 100%, but I wrestle with the *immediate* relevance. Perhaps an historical naval illustration may help me explain:
I feel as if I’m in the wardroom of USS HORNET en route to Midway in 1942 . . . And I’m listening in on a very long & protracted conversation between two senior officers in a heated debate about the final end state of the war: One is arguing for peace through diplomacy by making enormous political concessions; the other is arguing for complete military victory resulting in unconditional surrender.
On the one hand, I find myself in complete agreement with the latter officer—*IF* we survive the upcoming battle(s), and somehow, someday, find ourselves in a position to achieve such an unconditional surrender, then I would agree wholeheartedly with that approach. And to the degree that understanding such larger policy goals impacts our immediate strategy and tactics, then it is indeed vital to have a clear understanding of the final end state.
At the same time, here we are, with only 3 carriers (one badly damaged and limping along) en route to Midway to face 4 Japanese carriers and a much larger battleship force . . . All the talk about demanding an unconditional surrender seems so remote and disconnected from our immediate circumstance . . . and to some extent, seems an unwise use of time given the current situation . . . Would not these officers’ time be better spent looking at maps and charts of Midway Island and the specific strengths and weakness of the Japanese fleet currently en route to the island, be inspecting our ship for battle-readiness and analyzing every possible tactic in order to achieve success in tomorrow’s battle? Success in tomorrow’s battle is, after all, an absolutely crucial step if we ever hope to achieve that desired unconditional surrender in the future?
This is largely where I find myself as I listen to this discussion—I agree 100%, wholeheartedly, that if/as/when we convert enough of our neighbors that we Christians find ourselves with the enough numbers and influence again to establish policy through legislation, etc., then it should indeed be largely as you describe it—with Christ as Lord of our country and reflected in our laws and policies, etc. I can find no significant disagreement.
But at the same time, short of a near-miraculous revival, that day seems quite far off . . . And I can’t help but think . . . should not these senior officers (I mean, influential and experienced pastors) be spending more of their time teaching, exhorting, equipping and guiding us sheep in the evangelistic process, so that enough of our neighbors might be converted . . . since success in that immediate evangelistic endeavor is, after all, an absolutely crucial step if we ever hope to achieve the “Mere Christendom” that we agree we hope to achieve?
To some extent, my thoughts on this question are influenced by Lewis’s somewhat similar advice about “rebaptising England” in his essay “On the Transmission of Christianity”: “A society which is predominantly Christian will propagate Christianity through its schools: one which is not, will not . . . I do not, therefore, think that our hope of re-baptising England lies in trying to ‘get at’ the schools. Education is not in that sense a key position. To convert one’s adult neighbour and one’s adolescent neighbour (just free from school) is the practical thing.”
Would very much appreciate your thoughts.
Grace and Peace,
Daniel, great illustration, by the way. I quite agree that all the officers ought to be doing everything they can toward victory in the upcoming battle. But I also believe that men who are fighting for victory and men who are fighting toward a future negotiating point are men who fight differently. I don’t think they would just “fight the same” if only they would get on with fighting. That being the case, it is important to identify who is who early on. Alan Jacobs has a great book Year of Our Lord 1943, which is a history of all the discussion in that year of what a post-war era would look like. And that year was only six months after the battle of Midway.
An Unattributed Cartoon
The Friday Funny for May 12
it’s a great commentary on a bunch of levels, but you really should link or at least give attribution when you use someone’s work.
Plus, the alt-text always adds another layer.
Tom, happy to give credit or a link when I know. But I came across that cartoon in the wild.
My Discussion With Scott Aniol
I’ve enjoyed the online conversation between you and Scott Aniol in regards to ‘Mere Christendom.’ If only more debates between believers were as constructive and charitable as this one. I can say that I personally agree with Aniol when he writes, “Where I may differ practically from Wilson and his followers is when they trend toward what I would characterize as political agitation.” His entire paragraph is good, but the second half includes some concrete examples: “I’m not sure what real value there is in posting billboards just to poke at pagans or intentionally disobeying the state on matters that don’t actually prohibit the church’s free worship. I’m not sure how this is ‘leading a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way’ (1 Tim 2:2) and obeying the command to ‘if possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all’ (Rom 12:18).”
To put my own linguistic spin on it: a Christian knows that Christ and his message are an inherent stumbling block (1 Corinthians 1:23). There’s a difference, however, between merely presenting someone with the “stone of stumbling” that is Christ (1 Peter 2:8) and setting up an additional trip wire to cause further and unnecessary injury.
Can you speak to Aniol’s (and my) specific concerns?
Cap, yes, I believe I can. First, the billboards simply say “Christ is Lord,” which is not the same thing as a billboard that says “Down with Woketards.” It is simply a gospel declaration—it is an example of postmills leading with gospel, and not politics. And second, when it comes to our “disobeying” the government—if you are referring to the psalm sing arrests—it was the government there that was violating the law. The federal judge was quite clear on the point. And so there is a difference between disobeying the law, and disobeying what some functionary says is the law.
I came across this little gem in your response to Scott Aniol: “I was also grateful that Scott kept to the issues I addressed in the book, not getting into side issues like what kind of font some Christian Nationalists used for their web statement. This was a helpful and wise move because Presbyterians and Baptists have ever and anon had historical difficulties whenever it comes to discussing issues regarding the font.”
I just have to say that that was really funny. At least it was to me. Thanks for the laugh(s).
Chuckling in Wisconsin
CIW, it is good to know that in a country of some 300 million, somebody out there shares my sense of humor.
Grace and peace! I know a brother who has begun to deny the masculinity of God, saying that, therefore, the woman should not submit to her husband for an ontological question, but he should serve her. He says that since God does not have genitals he is not a he, but that God’s fatherhood and masculinity are anthropomorphic metaphors. My answer to him was that we are theomorphic images, we are his reflection, so he is a masculine and paternal being, who revealed himself as an Angel, a warrior, a Lion, a judge, and finally incarnated as a man, in whom dwells the fullness of the Godhead “in bodily form”: you have seen Jesus then you have seen the Father. Am I wrong?
Joaquin, no. Stick to your guns. It makes no sense to say that God reveals Himself as a Father and as masculine in a metaphor, and that we can therefore ignore the meaning of the metaphor. The fact that He does this in a metaphor (which He does) tells us that in reality He is ultimately “masculine.” The reality is always greater than the symbol.
Excellent use of Foie Gras, but you probably realized later that it is supposed to rhyme: /ˌfwɑː ˈɡrɑː/—New Orleans native, born on
Jonathan, yeah, well, that might be the way you Francophones say it . . .
This probably just exposes my ignorance, but I do not understand the reference to “Chamberlain’s keynote address to the Gospel Coalition.”
A link would be most helpful.
Michael, apologies for being opaque. Chamberlain was the British prime minister who tried to appease Hitler, and so I put him in a mash-up metaphor, speaking to the Gospel Coalition, speaking soothing words.
A Struggling School
I’m writing on behalf of a small, Christian Classical school in Western Canada. We opened our doors 5 years ago (and were in planning stages long before that). I personally have read almost every works you’ve published on Classical Education and attended teacher trainings in Moscow several times. We’re happy and blessed to be offering Kindergarten through Grade 10 this coming fall and have seen tremendous fruit from our efforts for God’s kingdom.
However, let’s just say that a combination of the high cost of living up here, trying to stay competitive in our tuition (which is going up again), not receiving any government funding, and offering financial aid to struggling families have put us in an unenviable financial position going into next school year. Some of our teachers—who are already paid so little—have already agreed to take less pay, and even with their sacrifice other staff likely won’t have their contracts renewed.
We continually recall to mind Hudson Taylor’s words that God’s work done in God’s way will never lack God’s supplies. I’m writing to you for your prayers, but also to ask if you know of any people in British Columbia looking to support a Classical Christian school and help us preserve this bulwark against the horrendous cultural norms we see up here and faithfully build God’s kingdom.
Thank you for your time and influence.
Dustin, may God bless your efforts. And may other saints in BC find themselves in a position to rally around.
I have a question for you Pastor Wilson, my wife, my baby-boy (1) and I are currently at a Reformed Baptist church, mainly due to the lack of faithfulness in Presbyterian churches in the area. This upcoming Sunday they are doing ‘infant dedications’. I think these are a poor excuses for what should actually be infant baptisms into the Covenant. Nevertheless, I am aware that this covenant-body is where my wife and I are currently members of, and I don’t want to be absent from our involvement there. I struggle in knowing what to do, if I go through with this dedication (I find no Biblical precedent for it), am I disobeying God? If I don’t go through with it, am I to just wait for the day that I can baptize my children and disregard such practices as dedication? I hope this makes sense. I want to obey the Lord and His Word, and I want to do everything possible to disciple and raise my kids right to love and serve Jesus with everything. Would love to hear your thoughts, blessings.
Ben, I hope this doesn’t come too late for your decision, but I would do it. You are not in a position to do what God fully requires, but you are in a position to dedicate your child to God, which can’t be wrong.
What are your thoughts on the Theopolis movement and high church within reformed churches? Is high church the way the CREC is moving? What are the Biblical grounds for high church?
C&K, I would distinguish “high church” and “high liturgy.” With regard to the CREC, some of our churches have a higher liturgy than others. Christ Church here in Moscow has a disciplined liturgy, but not particularly high—I regard high liturgy as ultimately a distraction or encumbrance. But all of our churches are high church in the sense that we place particular emphasis on the importance of worship. To help make the distinction, in this sense, an old school Plymouth Brethren church would be low liturgy/high church.
Till We Have Faces
You have been a good influence in my life, in the past, especially with being a husband and a father and homeschooling/Christian education; and more recently, with your Biblical/Christian analysis on current events, how you apply the Bible to various, manifold situations in life, etc., (just to name a few specific things)—and your reading routine.
Because of you I have been reading more, and more consistently, partly because I have begun listening to audio books in the car, and partly because I have begun keeping a reading log. The reading log helps me to stick with—and finish—books, so I can check them off and comment on them when I’m done. And you have influenced *what* I read, for example you have revived my long time appreciation of C.S. Lewis . . . Which leads to my question, please…
I recently finished listening to “Till We Have Faces.” It is an engaging book. And especially in the final pages/chapters C.S. Lewis seemed to be saying something really profound . . . or several profound things. It’s supposed to be his masterpiece, correct? But I’m left sort of empty to understand exactly what the point of the book/his message was. Is there one central point? . . . or is it just several insightful observations about human nature, etc. e.g.:
* true love vs. selfish love and the complicated interactions in such relationships (Orual as an ant carrying seeds for Psyche)?
* blaming God for our lot in life (Orual reading her complaint to the judge/god)?
* Seeing God as our worst enemy vs. seeing God as our best friend depending on our viewpoint (like Lucy upstairs in the Magician’s house before and after seeing the Lion)
Is there a cohesive, unified “Christian” message here? . . . e.g. Christian Justification/Sanctification “abstracted” into the form of a pagan story?
There seems to be something really deep and profound going on, and I have no idea how to tie it all together. Any help you might give to help me understand what “Till We Have Faces” is all about would be much appreciated.
Robert, pardon me if I tell you something you already had grasped from the title. The main point of the book is that we are incapable of relating to the tri-personal God unless we are first made into persons. The raw material is wreckage of person, and from that wreckage, God assembles a true person—who can then enter into relationship with Him. How can we meet the gods face to face till we have faces?
One can argue whether God the Father is male, in the strict sense of the word, it seems purely speculative, beyond knowing that God the Father is a “he”. But Jesus Christ (God the Son) was and is just as much of a man, physically speaking, as I am. But the devil is also a “he”, and I suppose there are probably both he angels and she angels (and demons), though the Bible doesn’t say so explicitly. So God being a he doesn’t mean that masculinity is superior to femininity, and in Heaven, men and women will both be whatever… Read more »
Once you work out the relationship between masculine and feminine, it’s obvious that the masculine is primary and of superior rank. When it comes to the human race, male and female are interdependent, but the woman was made for the man and not vice versa. It’s a beautiful hierarchy.
I wonder whether an out of control individualism doesn’t make it hard to understand these things. It isn’t that every woman is subordinate to every man, but rather Woman is secondary to Man.
Re Masculinity Issues: Doug, the problem with your position is that the Bible has lots of female metaphors for God too. In John 3 we find the Holy Spirit giving birth, which is about as feminine a metaphor as can be imagined. We find God engaged in the women’s work of making clothes for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Metaphors for God include a mother hen, (Jesus weeping over Jerusalem) and a mother eagle (I bore you on eagles wings, which refers to mother eagles teaching their young to fly). There’s a metaphor in a conversation between… Read more »
Note: I have said that my favorite Peanuts character is Marcie, because she reminds me of myself (she is a little socially awkward and a little geekish, like me). I am a masculine man; I have a full beard and wear plaid shirts and want to be married to a woman. Just because God may identify with some female things doesn’t mean he’s a hermaphrodite, and Jesus most certainly was not.
I don’t think God is a hermaphrodite. (Does God even have genitals? Who knows?) I do think it’s incredibly dicey to use Biblical metaphors to prove much of anything. We learn in the Psalms, for example, that God has feathers, but most of us have no difficulty understanding that it’s just a metaphor and God does not in fact look like a bird. But it’s certainly possible to be fully and completely male and yet have a feminine side, and vice versa. I suspect that’s the case with God too, and it’s a subject on which Scripture doesn’t go into… Read more »
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God was able to envisage the concept of woman and then create the reality without actually being in any sense feminine. Authoresses like Jane Austen can write about male characters in her novels without trying to be a man to do so. The image of God we all share to my mind is more to do with self-awareness, volition, thinking. Our non-physical aspects. The authority/responsibility implied by fatherhood, both God and human fathers is where men reflect the… Read more »
Speaking of Jane Austen… what do men think of Fitzwilliam Darcy? We women really like him, of course, but he was created by a woman writer to appeal to women.
Was he created to appeal to women? Or was he created to play the role in the story that she wrote? Austen was not writing romance novels where the goal is to get you to sympathize with the heroine by making you fall in love with the hero yourself.
I would say that her men of sterling character have been created to be attractive to one particular woman–the heroine. The men whose manners and attentions would be attractive to a lot of women, even the women reading her fiction centuries later, are often her wrong’uns.
But so many of us love Mr. Darcy and disdain the Wickhams and Willoughbys.
I have a strong tendresse for Mr, Knightley.
Are you doubting God’s preferred pronouns? ;)
I don’t find the metaphor argument at all convincing. Female metaphors are sometimes used on male human beings, i.e. those are undoubtedly men, without in any way diminishing the clarity of the fact that they are men. It is just that those particular attributes or actions are best pictured to the mind using metaphors involving female creatures. There simply isn’t any doubt that when God is non-metaphorically presenting Himself to us, it is in the masculine. That is how He intends us to understand Him. Not as “male” in the human sense, but as a father, not a mother, as… Read more »
RE: Poetry Schmoetry: I’m a little disappointed you didn’t mention Ogden Nash as the place to begin.
Longfellow is a manly poet that many great men have read and enjoyed. His poetry was one of the things that fascinated CS Lewis in his early days. I recommend getting a bargain Everyman copy and digging in.
Hillaire Belloc’s “Cautionary Tales for Children” may have inspired Ogden Nash.
The Chief Defect of Henry King
Was chewing little bits of String.
At last he swallowed some which tied
Itself in ugly Knots inside.
Physicians of the Utmost Fame
Were called at once; but when they came
They answered, as they took their Fees,
“There is no cure for this disease.
“Henry will very soon be dead.”
His Parents stood about his Bed
Lamenting his Untimely Death,
When Henry, with his latest Breath,
Cried – “Oh, my Friends, be warned by me,
That Breakfast, Dinner, Lunch and Tea
Are all the Human Frame requires…”
With that the Wretched Child expires.
Don’t forget Robert Service who brought us tales of the Great White North and the struggle for gold.
Allow me to +1 BCB on most poetry being gay.
I kill, skin, flesh and butcher animals to eat. I get covered in engine grease working on my old trucks and I sing Hymns with my family like “The Son of God Goes Forth to War”.
I don’t read gay poetry, but I’m open to some masculine poetry. And don’t get me started on giving wet sloppy kisses to my Boyfriend Jesus via modern CCM garbage.
The only poetry I’ve found that I’ve enjoyed was some of Shakespeare’s witty poetry where he can wrap up an insult in colorful phrases.
Kipling and Tennyson were both poets who wrote about war and adventure, and were married and had children. Robert Louis Stevenson, also married, wrote many poems which suggest the perspective of an adventurous and imaginative little boy who will grow up to be a manly man. Coleridge wrote quite an adventure story in the ancient Mariner, he had opium problems, but I think he was married and had children. Those are four fine British poets who wrote manly poems that men and boys can enjoy, in addition to the American Longfellow, and who I have never even heard accused of… Read more »
Matters have gone from bad to worse
No happy man has written verse
Excellent! I’ll give them all a good read. I wish I had learned of them in public school.
Also, Tolkien has some great poetry as well, I forgot to mention him, and C.S Lewis as well of course.
Chesterton’s poem, Lepanto, is a very masculine poem.
Kipling’s “The Ballad of East and West” is rugged and manly enough for anyone. It also has a really good conclusion.
I was taught Wilfred Owen’s Dulce et Decorum Est by a teacher who, like Owen, was probably taught Kipling as a boy.
The contrast between the rosy optimism of the one and the bleak pessimism of the other explains the difference between the late 19th and mid 20th centuries in a way that prose cannot.
Perhaps, God willing, we’re due for a return to optimism here in the 21st.
What poetry are you reading that is “gay?” Most of the canon is decidedly non-gay and much is downright martial. Try classics like “Charge of the Light Brigade” or “Bannockburn.”
Re. “Down with Woketards.”
You have to admit there are various subtexts behind the billboards’ “Christ is Lord”. “Caesar is not Lord”, just for starters. I think “Progressive Christians are Pansies” is another. It’s not quite as harsh as calling them Woketards but it’s getting there. Blessings!
Yeah, we shouldn’t compare those with mental disabilities (not their fault) with those who willingly choose to believe things like “I can’t define a woman,” “birthing people,” and “whiteness is the root of all evil.” Yours is better, but should we be so harsh on flowers?
Beg pardon! No offense intended to flowers. My point is I think our esteemed host is deliberately provoking Christians who think “He Gets Us” is what the world needs to hear. That’s not his main point but I like it.
Robert, I loved Til We Have Faces. It’s a novel, so of course there is going to be more than one theme. Others, which you didn’t mention, that really stood out to me: -the horrors of paganism – how the pagans can have a horrible religion, and yet be on to something -the relief of atheism to someone who hates and fears God or the gods. I am thinking of that moment when Fox gives a rationalistic explanation for the shepherd having seen The Beast, and the relief that Orual feels. -Orual’s discovery of her own sinful nature: “I am… Read more »
Pastor Wilson, thanks a lot for addressing my letter on “Till We Have Faces”.
I think I remember getting that main point when I first read it 10 or 15 years ago… ha but that didn’t hit me this time. Thanks!
1) The comments section isn’t letting me sign in via Twitter in either of my desktop browsers. 2) Another vote for <I>The Book That Made Your World</I>. The author’s joyful gratitude made it a great read. 3) Teaching women to be into husbands and kids isn’t limited to technical advice about marriage and parenting, because those things don’t happen in a vacuum. For instance, re Nancy’s contentment book, without understanding contentment, there’s no living up to the ideals of Proverbs 31 (not fearing the snow, smiling at the future). And you can’t begin to explain biblical marital roles without rooting… Read more »
Huh. When I click on the Twitter icon, I get the message “Could not authenticate you,” but then it’s showing me as signed in via Twitter. ’Tis mystery all…
i just like the #gif its me minus the cigarettes…I am NOT that jittery yet i am easily amused without justice #psuedojustice ..#racism product of #darwins Theory