09 September, 2008

CBMW and Voddie

What to do with Voddie Baucham, the hottest evangelical speaker on the conference circuit, who teaches another 'woman' gospel from CBMW.

According to Voddie, a woman as VP is a 'judgement' on America. He even uses a horrible translation of Isaiah 3:12 to make his point. Check the Septuagint for the correct translation of this passage.

21 comments:

Scott said...

Lets get a text perspective first...

The Septuagint (LXX) is in Greek. Presumably, you probably mean an English translation from the Greek which would then inherit translator biases. Therefore, probably not a good basis for further argument.

That said, Rev. (as used in the video) Baucham, while correct in the role of women from a church leadership role IMNSHO, used a very poor hermeneutic with the Isaiah 3:12 text. He totally ripped it out of the contextual setting as words given in judgment to Judah, not the United States.

Is there application for the United States? Maybe, but only if the United States were to elect a Jezebel styled woman, which Palin is not, to a high elected office. This is a big part of the Isaiah passage, making Judah look to the destruction of Israel and why Israel was destroyed. It wasn't because a woman was in charge (Jezebel basically ran the show in Israel behind Ahab) but that Israel allowed worship of Baal. Baucham insinuates that Palin would run the show and allow worship of false Gods. This is a false dichotomy.

[Why for instance does Rev. not say Isaiah 3:12 speaks of the worship of youth and the demasculination of the culture ie. homosexuality et al.?]

As Baucham rightly stated in the beginning of the interview, Senator Obama, due to all the reasons Rev. stated, cannot and should never be a choice for evangelicals which leaves only the McCain/Palin ticket.

Lindon said...

Some considerations:

Adam Clark Commentary

Verse 12. Err-"Pervert"
billeu, "swallow." Among many unsatisfactory methods of accounting for the unusual meaning of this word in this place, I choose Jarchi's explication, as making the best sense. "Read billalu, 'confound.' Syriac."-Dr. Judd. "Read beholu, 'disturb or trouble.'"-Secker. So Septuagint.

This verse might be read, "The collectors of grapes shall be their oppressors; and usurers (noshim, instead of nashim, women) shall rule over them."

This is from Katherine Bushnell:

621. I think we find another case of prejudiced translation in Isaiah 3:12. The word translated “children” in this verse in Isaiah, is a plural masculine participle of the verb “to glean,” “abuse,” “practice.” It is translated “glean” in Leviticus 19:10, Deuteronomy 24:21, Judges 20:45, and Jeremiah 6:9. The word has no translation such as “children” anywhere else in the Bible, and it occurs 21 times. Another word altogether is used for “children,” and “child,” in verses 4 and 5 of this same chapter; the sense seems to have been fixed by the supposed context, to correspond with “women.”

As to the word translated “women”: Two words, without the rabbinical vowel “points,” are exactly alike. One is pronounced nosh-im and the other na-shim. In appearance the only difference is a slight mark under the first letter of the Hebrew word na-shim. The first word means “exactors;” the one with a vowel mark under the initial letter means “women.”

The entire decision, therefore, as to whether the word means one or the other depends upon OPTION.

Those who pointed the word, evidently thought the nation could sink no lower than to pass under women rulers, and then translated the word “children” to match it.

Commentators frequently call attention to the alternate reading. See Adam Clarke on the passage. The Septuagint translates: “As for my people, tax-gatherers (praktores) glean them, and exactors (apaitountes) rule over them.”

622. There seems little in the context to support the translation “children” and “women.” But study the context as regards the other reading. After complaining of the “gleaners,” (that is, “tax-gatherers”) and “extortioners,” they are threatened in the following language: “The Lord standeth up to plead and standeth up to judge the people. The Lord will enter into judgement with the elders of His people, and the princes (“rulers,” masculine, not feminine gender), thereof for ye have eaten up the vineyard (the conduct of extortionate tax-gatherers), and the spoil of the poor is in your houses. What mean ye that ye crush (R. V.) my people, and grind the faces of the poor?”

Here we have a problem. Let's take another look at the word 'children' in this verse:

In the Strong’s Online Concordance, the word translated “children” in Isaiah 3:12 is “alal” - a primitive root verb. Here are the meanings:

1) to act severely, deal with severely, make a fool of someone
1. a) (Poel) to act severely
b) (Poal) to be severely dealt with
c) (Hithpael) to busy oneself, divert oneself, deal wantonly, deal ruthlessly, abuse (by thrusting through)
d) (Hithpoel) to practise practices, thrust forth (in wickedness)
2) (Poel) to glean
3) (Poel) to act or play the child
4) (Poel) to insert, thrust, thrust in, thrust upon

According to Gesenius’ Lexicon: the meaning is: To quench thirst over and over, thus figuratively to satisfy one’s lust or desire, and in the abstract, to be petulant (childish, bad-tempered); hence, a petulant boy.

The word “women” there is translated “women” in the Strong’s and in the Scripture 4 All Online Hebrew Interlinear. However, based on the meanings of the word “children” as rendered above, it seems likely that Bushnell is right and that “women” is a misreading of the Hebrew letters.

BUT– even if there is not a misreading– even if it’s proper to translate it “children” and “women” – the word for “children” there would clearly be metaphorical, not literal, because it is not a word that means literal children. It would be better rendered “childish ones” or “selfish ones.” (As in, “you’re acting like a child,” as we say today). And in context as well, this reading would have to be metaphorical. God is not really lamenting that actual children and women are ruling over His people– because, as we know from the context of the history in which Isaiah lived, children and women were not actually ruling! If “children” and “women” is correct, then the passage must be read metaphorically as a statement that those who are not trained or qualified to rule (as children are not, and women were not in that culture) are ruling His people.

In any event, the one way of reading the passage that is most inaccurate is to take it literally, that God is lamenting that women and children are actually leading, meaning He doesn’t want women to rule in the same way He wouldn’t want children to rule– because historically, God did deliberately, indisputably, pick Deborah to rule. To read it this way is to read an outright contradiction into the word of God.

simplegifts3 said...

I believe if you go to the Greek of the LXX, you will not find them using the word "women" in Isaiah 3:12, so "translator bias" is a weak argument.

I'm going to check this one out, though. The LXX is in Greek online, and it can be easily verified.

Lin said...

FYI- as to credibility of the Septuagint here are Instances where the LXX is quoted in NT scriptures:

Enoch was not, because God translated him
Gen 5.24 quoted in Heb 11.5
To thy seed
Gn 12.7 quoted in Ga 3.16

Jacob ... worshipped, leaning on the top of his staff
Gen 47.31 quoted in Heb 11.21

Wouldest thou kill me, as thou killest the Egyptian yesterday?
Ex 2.14 quoted in Ac 7.27-28

My name might be published abroad in all the earth
Ex 9.16 quoted in Ro 9.17

A royal priesthood
Ex 19.6 quoted in 1 Pe 2.9

The Lord knoweth them that are his
Nu 16.5 quoted in 2 Tm 2.19

Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God
Dt 6.13 quoted in Mt 4.10 and Lk 4.8

Put away the wicked man from among yourselves
Dt 17.7 quoted in 1 Cor 5.13

Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree
Dt 21.23 quoted in Ga 3.13

Cursed is everyone who continueth not
Dt 27.26 quoted in Ga 3.10

Let all the angels of God worship him
Dt 32.43 quoted in He 1.6

Why did the Gentiles rage?
Ps 2.1-2 quoted in Ac 4.25-26

Their throat is an open sepulchre
Ps 5.9 quoted in Ro 3.13

Out of the mouth of babes
Ps 8.2 quoted in Mt 21.16

What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
Ps 8.4-6 quoted in He 2.6-8

Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness
Ps 10.7 quoted in Ro 3.14

They are together become unprofitable
Ps 14.1-3 quoted in Ro 3.10-12

Thou wilt not leave my soul unto Hades
Ps 16.8-11 quoted in Ac 2.25-28

Their sound went out into all the earth
Ps 19.4 quoted in Ro 10.18

I will declare thy name unto my brethren
Ps 22.22 quoted in He 2.12

Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not
Ps 40.6-8 quoted in He 10.5-6

That thou mightest be justified in thy words
Ps 51.4 quoted in Ro 3.4

They are together become unprofitable
Ps 53.1-3 quoted in Ro 3.10-12

Let their table be made a snare
Ps 69.22-23 quoted in Ro 11.9-10

He gave them bread out of heaven to eat
Ps 78.24 quoted in Jn 6.31

Today, if ye shall hear his voice
Ps 95.7-8 quoted in He 3.15 and He 4.7

Today, if ye shall hear his voice
Ps 95.7-11 quoted in He 3.7-11

And they all shall wax old as doth a garment
Ps 102.25-27 quoted in He 1.10-12

I believed, and therefore did I speak
Ps 116.10 quoted in 2 Cor 4.13

The Lord is my helper
Ps 118.6 quoted in He 13.6

The poison of asps in under their lips
Ps 140.3 quoted in Ro 3.13

For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth
Pr 3.11-12 quoted in He 12.5-6

God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble
Pr 3.34 quoted in James 4.6 and 1 Pe 5.5

And if the righteous is scarcely saved,
where shall the ungodly and sinner appear
Pr 11.31 quoted in 1 Pe 4.18

If thine enemy hunger, feed him
Pr 25.21-22 quoted in Ro 12.20

Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed,
we should have been as Sodom
Is 1.9 quoted in Ro 9.29

By hearing ye shall hear, and in no wise understand
Is 6.9-10 quoted in Mt 13.14-15 and Mk 4.12

By hearing ye shall hear, and in no wise understand
Is 6.9-10 quoted in Ac 28.26-27

Lest they should see with their eyes ... and I should heal them
Is 6.9-10 quoted in John 12.40

Behold, the virgin shall be with child
Is 7.14 quoted in Mt. 1.23

I will put my trust in him
Is 8.17 quoted in He 2.13

It is the remnant that shall be saved
Is 10.22-23 quoted in Ro 9.27-28

On him shall the Gentiles hope
Is 11.10 quoted in Ro 15.12

When I shall take away their sins
Is 27.9 quoted in Ro 11.27

He that believeth on him shall not be put to shame
Is 28.16 quoted in Ro 9.33, 10.11 and 1 Pe 2.6

Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men
Is 29.13 quoted in Mt 15.8-9 and Mk 7.6-7

I will destroy the wisdom of the wise
Is 29.14 quoted in 1 Cor 1.19

All flesh shall see the salvation of God
Is 40.3-5 quoted in Lk 3.4-6

The voice of one crying in the wilderness
Is 40.3 quoted in Mt 3.3, Mk 1.3 and Jn 1.23

All flesh is as grass
Is 40.6-8 quoted in 1 Pt 1.24-25

Who hath known the mind of the Lord?
Is 40.13 quoted in Ro 11.34 and 1 Cor 2.16

And in his name shall the Gentiles hope
Is 42.4 quoted in Mt 12.21

A people for God's own possession
Is 43.21 quoted in 1 Pe 2.9

To me every knee shall bow
Is 45.23 quoted in Ro 14.11

At an acceptable time I hearkened unto thee
Is 49.8 quoted in 2 Cor 6.2

For the name of God is blasphemed
among the Gentiles because of you
Is 52.5 quoted in Ro 2.24

They shall see, to whom no tidings of him came
Is 52.15 quoted in Ro 15.21

Who has believed our report?
Is 53.1 quoted in Jn 12.38 and Ro 10.16

He was led as a sheep to the slaughter
Is 53.7-8 quoted in Ac 8.32-33

Neither was guile found in his mouth
Is 53.9 quoted in 1 Pt 2.22

Rejoice thou barren that bearest not
Is 54.1 quoted in Ga 4.27

The holy and sure blessings of David
Is 55.3 quoted in Ac 13.34

To set at liberty them that are bruised
Is 58.6 in Luke 4.18

He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob
Is 59.20-21 quoted in Ro 11.26-27

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me
Is 61.1-2 quoted in Lk 4.18-19

I was found of them that sought me not
Is 65.1 quoted in Ro 10.20

A disobedient and gainsaying people
Is 65.2 quoted in Ro 10.21

Behold, the days come
Jer 31.31-34 quoted in He 8.8-12

I will put my laws on their heart
Jer 31.33-34 quoted in He 10.16-17

I will call that my people, which was not my people
Ho 2.23 quoted in Ro 9.25

I desire mercy, and not sacrifice
Ho 6.6 quoted in Mt 9.13 and 12.7

O death, where is thy sting?
Ho 13.14 quoted in 1 Cor 15.55

I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh
Jl 2.28-32 quoted in Ac 2.17-21

Ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch
Am 5.25-27 quoted in Ac 7.42-43

I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen
Am 9.11-12 quoted in Ac 15.16-17

For I work a work in your days,
which ye shall in no wise believe
Hab 1.5 quoted in Ac 13.41

But my righteous one shall live by faith
Hab 2.3-4 quoted in He 10.37-38

Lin said...

"I believe if you go to the Greek of the LXX, you will not find them using the word "women" in Isaiah 3:12, so "translator bias" is a weak argument."

I agree. However, I am confused about your reference to translator bias. I believe that was in reference to the modern translations of Isaiah 3:12. It is easy to see that the word 'children' was not a good translation and would have to be metaphorical.

In any event, the words noshim and nashim could easily been mistranslated when points were added. I am basing this on the context and the word children which does not fit.

simplegifts3 said...

I agree. However, I am confused about your reference to translator bias.

See Scott's point in his opening statement.

He said, since we're using the English version of the LXX, which has translator bias, then you have no good basis for further argument.

However, if you look at the original Greek of the LXX, Isaiah 3:12 in the LXX does not mention women. The Greek version can be found online.

So Scott's point is moot. The LXX translators did not use a word for women in verse 12, and saying something about women is the main point of dragging that verse into the limelight in the first place -- the patriarchal crowd think's it's a slam dunk against women in government. That it's a sign of the judgment of God.

According to the Greek LXX, and the English translation of the LXX, it is NOT.

Lin said...

Thanks, simplegifts, I see what you mean.

Lin said...

Another reason I am not so sure I trust the translation for Is 3:12 is because what was done to Psalm 68:11, too. These verses are worth looking into very deeply.

Scott said...

Actually,
What simplegifts3, you just bolstered the exact point I was making. The Rev. was wrong in his hermeneutic but not because of a poor translation (which none in this thread are even remotely qualified to ascertain) but because of his starting point of reference. The passage is not about the United States. Period. Regarless, that I still believe he makes the right point (at least from the NT), just poorly based from the OT.

Lin said...

"(which none in this thread are even remotely qualified to ascertain) "

Gee Scott,
That sounds a bit 'pope-ish'.

Scott said...

Lin,
Reread the thread. Am I not a part of the discussion? [yes]

then do I mean me as well? [yes]

Is that pope-ish? [no]

The Rev. used eisegis (reading meaning into the text)in his hermeneutic of the Isaiah passage. Exegesis is the correct method. I believe a fellow non-pope-ish sort of guy would agree -- Luther.

oren said...

At the least, one point of clarification must be noted: Voddie does not hold the same position on this issue as CBMW. CBMW contends that the roles of women in Scripture are in the context of the home and church, not public office. Therefore, they are not advocating a vote against McCain/Palin over this issue.

Lin said...

Sorry, Scott. I apologize. My bad.

Which brings me to another very interesting point. Will not the Holy Spirit reveal the truths of scripture to us if we seek it consistently and prayerfully?

It has recently been brought home to me the passage in James about asking for wisdom and not doubting. This applies to wisdom in understanding scripture, too.

You and I are going to disagree about women and 'roles' (which I believe is the most insidious term because it is about 'acting a part' instead of 'being' in Christ) but we can do so with charity and love. I love the Lord as I know you do and seek to please Him as I know you do, too.

After seeing the what was done to the translation of Psalms 68:11, I decided to check into Isaiah 3:12 much deeper a while back and the journey has been interesting to say the least.

Lin said...

At the least, one point of clarification must be noted: Voddie does not hold the same position on this issue as CBMW. CBMW contends that the roles of women in Scripture are in the context of the home and church, not public office. Therefore, they are not advocating a vote against McCain/Palin over this issue.

7:48 AM

I am afraid I did not communicate that well at all, friend! Thanks for pointing it out. I totally agree but Voddie is the hotttest speaker out there on the circuit and many churchs (both comp and patriarch) are inviting him in to teach. Voddie is more patriarchal like Russell Moore or Bruce Ware. did you read what he wrote about Palin?

However and quite ironically, I think Voddie is more consistent in his views than CBMW. I believe CBMW is painting themselves into a corner and it is obvious when I read their articles about Palin and read thier discussions on this. They have a conumdrum. They do not want Obama and since they are also political, Palin has thrown them for a loop and their explanations are less than steller for why it is ok for her to do this.

See, Palin describes herself as a Christian. So, as a Christian woman she does not have a 'civil' realm and a spiritual realm. She is a Christian all the time. According to what CBMW is teaching us, Palin is ok UNLESS she decides to lead a bible study for her mixed gender staff or something of that nature. It seems it is also ok for Palin to be her husband's civil authority. It is only when it comes to 'scripture' that women are not to dare teach men anything.

They will also try and tell us this has to do with 'local church' governance as well. But the church is not a building as we all know. So, would Palin be in sin if she happened to teach what some scripture means in a speech to a mixed audience?

CBMW needs to write us a Christian Talmud so we can keep up with all the rules, roles and formulas. :o)

Clellie said...

CBMW needs to write us a Christian Talmud so we can keep up with all the rules, roles and formulas.

Hahahahaha! I was thinking of this very thing myself - wondering when we would realize that all this talk about who can do what and when and where and how is so very like what Christ said in Matthew 5:20 -> "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Lin, I agree with you that we pray and seek God's will and wisdom from Him. And we can all do that. It is not just for a "select few elders" who can then pass it on to the rest of us.

Even Paul had disagreements with other disciples. He and Barnabas disagreed over Mark to the extent that they parted company. And God blessed both of their work.

My point being, we might not all come to the same conclusion about how Scripture defines (or doesn't define) the role of women in the home, church and society.

And even if some of us come to the wrong conclusion, God alone judges the heart and Christ alone provides the remedy.

I am just astonished (well, okay, having sat under Scott Brown, not really) at the level of certitude that Baucham, Phillips, Brown and others have on this issue. I am still shocked that Phillips would write about the Bride of Christ, "The IQ of the Christian community has dropped 50 points" with regards to the acceptance of Sarah Palin.

I'm not sure the Pope himself would be so derogatory towards the Church on an issue. It certainly does not line up with "one anothering" and not being divisive and all of his past teachings on slander, gossip, etc..

Lin said...

Clellie!!

It is marvelous to hear from you. I thought of you just the other day and prayed for you.

Yes, all of this should sound quite familiar to you. I think this public discussion is a very good thing because it is forcing folks to look at this issue and see that is not what we should be focusing on as the Bride of Christ. It is leading all of us away from Christ and seeking His kingdom first. (Including me)

It has been the primary focus for the church too long.

It is so confusing. We have CBMW (which includes Mohler) writing about how Palin is ok...but with reservations:

http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Page-2

If you read that you will notice he slogs through this even using the Queen of Sheba as an example! (Yikes) It gave me pains to read it. This had to be hard for him.

But there is a bigger problem for CBMW because they do NOT want Obama so they have to be very careful and less dogmatic than they have been in the past.

Yet, they are political and as such they have to explain this away. But enter Russell Moore who works for Mohler,teaches and writes for CBMW, and is a popular circut speaker for the comps. Moore says that comps are wimps and we need more Patriarchy. Here is one of his articles on this:

http://www.henryinstitute.org/documents/2005ETS.pdf

We have all of this PLUS such luminaries as John Piper who taught in the book with Grudem that if women have to give men directions they should do it so as to not look like they are 'teaching' them. (How do you do that?)

So, what is a Christian gal like Palin to do? Give her a Christian Talmud so she can keep up with new rules and roles as they change and stay in good standing with the men here on earth who are our leaders. She will never please Voddie, Phillips and Scott Brown.

Ok, sarcasm over. Let us all seek first the Kingdom of God and all these other things will given to us. (That includes the gals even if some of our brothers believe we have to go through men to do it. We just ignore them and press on for the goal!)

Clellie said...

Lin - it is always so good to stop by your blog. You are cogent and very cerebral! (the whole LXX thing is just beyond where I can go right now). And did I mention witty? :-)

Another thought I had just this week, while in conversation with another "survivor" of Patriarchal teachings: all this talk of Palin being "under" another man than her husband is just ridiculous. I have a HUGE news flash for all the Patriachialists: all women in this country have to submit to men that are not their husbands. Unless of course they really think that if their wife breaks the law and the (male) police officer shows up that the PO will have to ask the husband's permission to arrest his wife! (I would like to see a news story on that!)

And I still maintain that these people are total hypocrites if they use utilize the services of female OB's or fail to take to task their Christian female Bank Teller or, gasp, employee a woman to clean their house. Or at least fail to "Matthew 18" them.

I remember when I was falling into the whole Pat thing, I was very conflicted about having a female doctor. And I asked Deborah Brown (Scott Brown's wife) for a recommendation and she saw a woman, too! I just really thought that if it was truly God's will that no woman work outside the home, then why were we spending our money at places that employed women? (I was so naive!)

And then we were visiting at Jason Dohm's house and I was just marveling at how his wife Janet kept up with the all the kids and her house was so neat and clean. She told me that they had hired a cleaning lady to come twice a month.

Again, I was pretty confused and had to think about that. Is the word of God only for certain people? Janet can't work outside the home, but she can employ another women? Or had they just decided that the cleaning woman wasn't part of God's "elect" and was headed to hell anyway, so it was okay? Jason is the one who said that this issue of women working outside the home was of such importance that it was an issue the church could and should divide over!

ARGHH!
Sorry for the long post.

BTW, I really appreciate the "people dying" counter you have on your website. This is what it is all about - that Christ came to seek and save the Lost.

The Gospel according to Phillips/Baucham/Brown/VF is incredibly elitist. We have dear friends who minister in India and came and stayed with us for about a month last summer. We saw pictures and heard stories of precious brothers and sisters who are barely surviving with both parents doing all they can to make money and provide. We have other friends in China who can tell the same story.
Are Baucham and co. going to really assert it is because these brothers and sisters don't have enough faith to believe that God will provide just through the husband? That these people are in sin because the woman is working?

This "strange, new Gospel" is obviously for middle to upperclass, mostly white Americans (or people of European descent) who can choose to play-act living in another era.

Scott said...

Lin,
You are a blessing and you don't even know it half the time!

Ok...

You said: You and I are going to disagree about women and 'roles' (which I believe is the most insidious term because it is about 'acting a part' instead of 'being' in Christ) but we can do so with charity and love. I love the Lord as I know you do and seek to please Him as I know you do, too.

We do disagree. But probably not as much as you think. When a ministry is centered on "roles" or "equality" then it is wrongly focused. My reasoning is holistically derived meaning I look to the whole of the group and who is able to go forth in obedience to God. I merely start from what I read (from Scripture)until what I read leads me in another direction. Even then, it still needs to be put together and not be understood apart from each other.

This whole supposed issue of men vs. women is divisive and to allow it (the issue) to rule over ministries is to turn the focus away from God and instead be focused on Man.

The Rev. Voddie and et al (both sides of the issue) are wrong to enter into the conversation using this as a pretext.

Lin said...

"You are a blessing and you don't even know it half the time!"

Wow, that is the most edifying thing I have been told in ages.

I just love it when we believers seek truth together. :o)

Lin said...

"Or had they just decided that the cleaning woman wasn't part of God's "elect" and was headed to hell anyway, so it was okay? Jason is the one who said that this issue of women working outside the home was of such importance that it was an issue the church could and should divide over!"

Oh my. Very good point. That is why Talmudic rules just lead to more Talmudic rules. I heard one the other day about sitting in chairs outside the tent or temple and if they fell off the chair then that was 'plowing' up the ground with the chair and a sin on the Sabbath. That is what all the above you wrote sounds like. But, it keeps those guys employed like it did the Pharisees dealing with every single legalistic conumdrum that comes down the pike from their 'letter' of the law that kills the Spirit.

You wrote: We have dear friends who minister in India and came and stayed with us for about a month last summer. We saw pictures and heard stories of precious brothers and sisters who are barely surviving with both parents doing all they can to make money and provide. We have other friends in China who can tell the same story."

This is what keeps me grounded. I visit VOM quite a bit to keep perspective. I often wonder if we will see the day when Chinese or Indian missionaries will have to come here to teach us what following Christ is really all about.

I praise God you are out from under that bondage, my sister.

Marcian said...

Wow, this is one of the best and most edifying discussions I have yet read on this topic. Kudos, all, and thank you. You gave me a lot to think about.