I have always been concerned that no one chorused with my somewhat harsh statement that I make to my wife often. It goes like this, "I'm not losing you to our children. We will give those kids to a babysitter as often as possible. We will not lose our marriage. As soon as they can be left alone with a babysitter for multiple hours, we're out." I have gotten some funny looks for that but I have to think that it's true. I have seen far too many husbands and wives who have children and suddenly never talk to each other. No more flirting, no more building up, no more talking, just get those kids taken care of. Usually this descends into incessant bickering, no major screaming matches, just bickering, and if there is one thing I hate more than all things when I look at a marriage it is a couple bent on bickering constantly.
Rosemond nails it,
"Forty-plus years ago, men (I am aware I'm speaking in general, but nonetheless accurate, terms) understood that one became a good father by devoting oneself to being the best husband one could be. Those men came home from work not to get down on the floor and play with their children, but to catch up with their wives.Today's men (and I speak in general terms again) are trying so hard to be good dads that they've all but forgotten how to be husbands. (In all fairness, however, today's typical wife is acting as if she took a vow on her wedding day that said, 'I take you to be my husband until children do us part.')"
Yeah that's about right. Now why would this be? Don't miss this,
"My theory is that all too many men have bought in and therefore caved in to feminist propaganda to the effect that we're insensitive aggressors who only want to subjugate women and children so they will not hinder the progress of the patriarchy or some such nonsense. In the process of cooperating in this emasculating, a father ends up providing his kids with a second mother of sorts.
The only vestige of masculinity that remains in his fathering is the high-five he frequently gives his kids. But the high-five completes the transformation: He's no longer a truly masculine father, and he's no longer an adult either. He's his kids' best buddy. Ergo, he will not discipline them for fear of damaging the relationship — which further damages his relationship with his wife.
The more I think about it, the more convinced I become that the good old days — when dads came home fully prepared, at a word from their wives, to strike terror into their children — were far preferable to the current state of affairs.
Is it too late to bring back the patriarchy?"
Incredible. Listen well friends and don't abandon the most beloved person you will ever have just to "be a better parent." Being a better parent means being a better spouse.
Loving Christ with You Friends,
R. D. Thompson
That was incredible.
ReplyDeleteThat was...edifying?
I bet his inbox is ringing off the hook.
That article was great, I read the whole thing.
ReplyDelete"The good old days — when dads came home fully prepared, at a word from their wives, to strike terror into their children — were far preferable to the current state of affairs."
My dad did that. "Thems was good times." Really, I had profound respect for his authority and I really believed he cared, since he protected me from doing what I knew was wrong.
Did he "hang out" with me all the time? No, and I'm independent for it, thank God. We had some nice times each week; a conversation, a fun moment. For the most part, however, he was an example of what I must become - a working provider who loves his wife.
Once in a blue moon he would come home and toss me a candy bar, but almost weekly he brought my mother flowers. Every evening he greeted her with a kiss.
"If there is one thing I hate more than all things when I look at a marriage it is a couple bent on bickering constantly."
Amen!
So the choices are: Have a good relationship with your children or have a good relationship with your wife?
ReplyDeleteThe only way to be a good husband is leave all the child rearing to one's wife, with the exception of "strik[ing] terror into their children?"
I have never in my life met a mother who doesn't either appreciate that her husband puts equal effort into parenting their children, or else wishes that her husband did so.
The idea that you can't both be good parents and also work together on your romantic relationship is moronic. Not to mention that if one partner is left doing all the parenting s/he (probably she) is likely to resent the other, ruining their romantic relationship.
Ben (Fritz?): "The idea that you can't both be good parents and also work together on your romantic relationship is moronic."
ReplyDeleteNever said that was the premise or the conclusion.
Don't build a straw man.
it's not a straw man. it's the premise of the article you cite, unless you define good fathering as making money for the family and then, when you come home, serving as "bad cop" for your wife.
ReplyDeletethe idea that fathers becoming less distant and more involved in their children's lives is a negative for the family or marriage is absurd. As is the idea that we need a return to sexism in order for parents to devote time and energy to their romantic relationship.
Fritz (if that's who you are, and it sure sounds like it): We're talking over each other.
ReplyDeleteMy mum always told me not to try to respond to things like this late at night so, unfortunately, I shan't respond this instant.
I shall though. I think you misunderstand my position.
I really want to know how on earth you, a bestselling author with multiple NPR appearances, found this blog.
and not only found this blog but care enough to continue commenting on this blog....
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure John Rosemond's (and our) point was made through hyperbole. No one is in fact suggesting to ignore one's kids.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is of setting the right priorities. Time with wife first, kids second. Ideally and responsibly men will have time for both, but it sends a negative message to children when their father neglects first greeting and cherishing his wife, to whom he made his sacred vows, so that he can play catch or house. While the kids may have fun, they are impressed with a silent statement that, "marriage is secondary, circumstantial to our wanting children."
Enjoy your day.
When I was growing up, my dad told us repeatedly that he loved my brother and me very much, but that he loved my mom more. This actually made me feel very secure, because I knew he loved me, so how much more did he love my mom? I never once felt any concerns that the family would break up, and I wasn't fearful for their relationship. This security was very instrumental in the my own childhood.
ReplyDeleteContrast with an observation I've made: Out of all my coworkers with kids, maybe only one in ten of them ever talks about his or her spouse in an endearing manner. But they talk about their kids all the time. They have all sorts of pictures of their kids at their desks, but not their spouse. When I'm on a business trip and I hear a coworker call home to check in, they usually spend way more time asking about what the kids have been up to, and asking to talk to the kids, and they rarely end the call with an "I love you".
Parents today spend so much time trying to make their kids feel loved that they often end up sacrificing their relationship with their husband or wife. I think this cultural shift is what Rosemond wrote against. We've tilted too far in the other direction and we need to start tilting back.
I would push back against Rosemond a little bit and argue that the father should not be emotionally distant like he says. But I also wholeheartedly agree that the father should not put himself on the same level with the kids because there needs to be a degree of respect. When I was in elementary and middle school, I didn't respect anyone who was my equal.
Love your kids more than your wife, and your relationship with your wife will suffer for it. Love your wife more than your kids, and the kids will feel even more loved because of it.
I am not so sure there is a clear division between the two roles of father and husband.
ReplyDeleteWhen I kiss my wife as her husband it teaches my children as their father that a husband is a father who kisses his children's mother.
When I teach my children the gospel before bed as a father, I am loving my wife as her husband by holding her children worthy of my time.
And, when at work, and I get a call from my wife because our son mouthed off at her, I discipline one of my five children by declaring their sin as their representative head and father (and in part responsible for sin in our family), and pointing them to God's love for them in Christ's death on the cross, I am showing the entire household that a father is a husband who loves children enough to defend their mother, pointing to the Christ-Church relationship.
Amen, Brook.
ReplyDeleteha well i'm touched you looked up some of my credits. i don't remember exactly how I found the blog, but earlier this year I went through a bizarre (for me) and unexplainable kick of reading a lot of Christian blogs and I imagine I discovered it through a link on one of them and found it memorable enough to check back every few weeks. i obviously don't comment most of the time but as someone who has seen a lot of marriages go wrong, and who is in just the second year of my own, i have very very strong feelings about the need for equality in a relationship and the harm of patriarchy.
ReplyDeleteif I'm misunderstanding your position, i apologize. i guess i'm responding more directly to the article you recommend than your post (and I obviously find the article abhorrent).
Fritz,
ReplyDeleteI think you misunderstand the Christian understanding of equality and the so-called "patriarchy."
As my friends have mentioned above, we DO NOT mean that men shouldn't father, that men shouldn't be friends with their children, or that men shouldn't be doing both jobs (romancing their wife and loving their children) at once.
I do wonder what you find abhorrent about rejecting the results of the feminist position: women who love their husbands and husbands who love their wives up until kids show up. And then what happens? The wives begin ignoring their husbands ("til children do us part") and the husbands hide in their testosterone-itized basement doomed to live out the rantings and naggings of an over-feminized woman who now finds her ultimate happiness in her children and could care less what happens to that guy who lives in her house. Life thus becomes about children and loses its pizazz and meaning in the area of marriage. Marriage has been devalued because neither side actually understands their role and neither side cares to continue investing in each other.
THIS IS HYPERBOLE AND WORST CASE SCENARIO BUT I SEE IT AN AWFUL LOT!
THAT can be the result of the "equality" the feminist position pushes.
Marriage may look great at first in the feminist position. But eventually it turns into women whose only desire is to get their husband under their thumb so that she can direct him as she wants.
Inside of the so-called "patriarchy" of the Biblical Complementarian position (which should really be referred to as "Biblical hierarchy") men and women are equal because they were created equal. They do have different roles. Unfortunately, the Biblical Complemntarian position is misrepresented both by Christians who hold the position (and act as tyrants in their misrepresentation) and by Feminists (who don't even care to listen anymore).
I do not base my position off of any secular standing. I base my position off of a norm for life and morality: the Bible.
My marriage is going strong now at three years. We have functioned inside of our roles as husband and wife Biblically. My wife is happy (and not deluded...if you met her you would understand) and I am happy (and I am sure not deluded...my wife is incredible and I am content with her and with my life in Christ). We work TOGETHER in marriage to honor God and keep His commandments. As soon as I say, "But as husband I have the final word," I know that you will be throwing red flags all over the place but that is simply how it is. Understand, the Biblical position NEVER allows for that male headship to result in tyranny. NOWHERE in the Bible is TYRANNY (which I think you unfortunately equate with "patriarchy" as most feminists do) what "headship" means. Keep this in mind when you respond.
Also, ad hominem remarks and arguments will get you nowhere on this blog. In calling our position "moronic" or "absurd" you actually lose your argument and our ears because all you essentially do is "sling mud" and "poison the well" and thus fulfill every stereotype WE have of the other side. I have no interest in name calling battles and I see no reason to hurl insults. NO ONE WINS ARGUMENTS OR MAKES FRIENDS BY HURLING INSULTS! It is a whole and entire section of every logic book I have ever read (and I have read many) that makes it plain that in intellectual conversation one does not call ones opponents "moronic" for holding the position they hold. You have no argument if that is your tact. Please refrain from ad hominem attacks on this blog.
I appreciate your readership. I appreciate your comments. You can only help to make us think more clearly.
Thanks!
I kind of see marriage as a 51/49 split. I've been married for two years now--Kevin and I have made some important decisions during this time, but never have we come across anything where we couldn't agree on an alternative after discussing the matter. I believe he has the final authority should we ever find ourselves at a place of completely irreconcilable odds, but we have never come to such a place and we may very well live our entire lives without having done so. However, if we ever DO find ourselves at this place, divorce is not an option, so someone must decide on what to do. Why not the husband? To me the matter seems to have less to do with the husband keeping his wife under his thumb as it does to the practicality of staying married.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, just FYI, my name is Ben. Fritz is my last name.
ReplyDeleteI guess if you don't believe men shouldn't be a friend to their children and a good husband, I'm only left to wonder why you would approvingly excerpt an article that praises men who "came home from work not to get down on the floor and play with their children, but to catch up with their wives," as if it's an either/or choice and the latter is preferrable.
More importantly, I'm baffled why you think it's the "feminist position" to stop loving your spouse once kids show up. I would challenge you to cite a single feminist essay or book or other work that encourages doing that. I've read a decent amount of feminist literature and I can tell you it doesn't exist.
And feminism is most certainly not about women getting husbands "under their thumb." That's a ridiculous stereotype. Feminism is about equality, not control
Of course it can happen that couples forget about romance because they get too focused on their children (and usually their jobs as well). But that doesn't have to do with feminism. It's a simple matter of people having a difficult time prioritizing.
It's tough to work and raise children and find time for the romantic relationship. Sure I suppose you could argue those pressures were less when women couldn't work outside the home and men couldn't express emotions, but if you think marriages were healthier when that was the case, well, I think you're profoundly wrong. That brought its own set of pressures, most obviously women resenting their husbands and men not understanding/appreciating their wives.
And sure it sets off red flags when I hear about a relationship where one person gets to tell the other "I have the final word." That is not equality. The model of equality you are presenting sounds like "separate but equal" education in the old south. Separate is not equal. Equality means we all get the same opportunities, whether at school or work or home.
Of course, if two people choose to live their lives in an unequal relationship, that's their business. I wouldn't presume to say you or your wife, who I don't know, are deluded in your happiness. Generally speaking I would question what kind of self-esteem issues a woman has that she thinks she needs a man to make decisions for her. But every marriage is its own unique thing and as long as there's no abuse going on, it's nobody else's business.
(I would note, however, that most abusive relationships are hierarchical ones, though obviously not all hierarchical relationships are abusive)
The only thing that really bothers me is when people argue, as you did in your post, that the problem with modern families is that men pay too much attention to their children, that they have caved into "feminist propaganda," and that we need to bring back patriarchy. I'm sure this will set off red flags to you, but hearing someone say that the solution to modern marriage problems is bringing back patriarchy is, to me, the equivalent of saying the solution to modern race problems is bringing back white supremacy.
On a personal note, I have seen a lot of marriages break up. As of today my parents have been divorced five times between them (how's that for timing?). While I can't know for sure what the future holds, I feel strongly that I have a much stronger marriage than the ones I have seen break up and the reason is that my wife and I relate as equal partners. I trust her judgment and intelligence and values just as much as she trusts mine and so we make all of our important decisions together. We have no "roles" determined by our sexual organs (except, of course, in situations where we use those sexual organs) and that's why our relationship works so well. If I ever tried to have the "final word" on an important issue, I have no doubt she would leave me, and vice-versa.
Inequality and hierarchy breeds distance, mistrust and resentment. Equality breeds intimacy, trust, and connection. That makes sense logically and I have seen from experience that it's true.
(And yes, you're right, hastily made ad hominem arguments aren't useful. I apologize.)
Ben (I just like to call people by their last names and yours is especially fun to flow off of the tongue. It's an onomatopoeia almost :-)
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Spotts (notice last name usage) then: We used a great hyperbolic article to drive home our point just a bit too hard.
You must understand again: hierarchy does not equal inequality. Never. Nowhere in the Bible does hierarchy equal either tyranny or inequality.
I do apologize for my blatantly steroetypical ramblings. I was feeling just a bit stereotyped myself...shouldn't have stereotyped back. It is my unfortunate condition though :-(
While feminist essays and writings (many of which I have read) do not purport to simply get their men "under their thumb" that is, unfortunately, what happens. I suppose that the flipside could be argued that hierarchy produces abuse (though I would immediately argue that such a hierarchy is not Biblical hierarchy but misinterpreted tyranny).
Thus, arguing from results falls on its face and I am unsure why I attempted to use such a weak base for an argument.
I have only one base to stand my argument on: the Bible. The Bible is clear that the man is the head of the woman and Christ is the head of the man (1 Cor. 11:13). There is a clear hierarchy in the Bible. I argue as well, men and women, IN CHRIST and in the view of God are equal beings (Gal. 3:28).
I do not believe that women have been in bondage through history and in fact have numerous examples of women through the ages who loved and enjoyed taking on their God-given and Bible commended role. This is not just "men telling their women what to do." That isn't how it works.
My wife and I come to agreement on almost every issue. When the issue isn't pressing I attempt to be humble and consider my wife's interests as greater than my own (Philippians 2:4-6). This is the norm 99% of the time.
However, when it comes to things like, "The Lord has called us to missions in Italy," or, "It is time for us to move to a different state," and my wife finds some hesitancies in those things the final word lies with the husband for the good and direction of the family. I know, I've heard it a gazillion times, "But that's tyranny!" No, it isn't. Because I have made a decision because I feel God has called us to a different geographical location to witness for His name there doesn't mean I'm a tyrant. Tyrants don't care about their charge nor do they care to listen to their charge. You can bet I won't be making any long term decisions because I'm the head of the home without seriously and prayerfully considering my wife's hesitancies.
I think it is possible I posted Rosemond's article as a reaction to a cultural drift that disturbs me. You have to admit it: women run the home and, often, put the bread on the table as well. Men have been degraded in our culture and I honestly believe it is a result of feminism.
"NUH UH!" comes the automatic response. Have not men been degraded to their testosteronized basements? No longer is a man's house his castle. No longer is a man looked to for strength and protection. What is left is women who fire feminist jokes at their husbands and tell them how stupid they are while expecting them to come home and be mothers not husbands. The men jokes are incessant now. All men are viewed as Homer Simpson: stupid, drunk, poor choice making, doughnut hogging, sex crazed beasts. Is this not the result of a feminism that says that women can and should do whatever they want and that any man who attempts to stop them is an idiot who just wants power? That any man who holds a door is degrading the woman's ability to open the door for herself? Look at what we have lost in moving away from a Biblical hierarchy! Women who trust their men to follow Christ and find it romantic when the husband focuses his sole attention on them and their needs!
Again, those are impassioned statements. Perhaps a bit stereotyprical but not too. I have had many women intentionally take the door out of my hands in an attempt to hold it for them. I have been the brunt of far too many "boys are stupid" tirades. I had to convince my wife for years to trust me that I wasn't telling her I thought she was stupid in my attempts to decide for her and give her leadership in certain areas.
Thus, I posted an article that may have been a bit too hyperbolic to prove a point. And I just realized this isn't about parenting anymore...
I adore my wife and would climb any mountain or clean any mountain of dishes for her. She is now carrying our first child and I cannot wait to be a father whom my children can't wait to get home.
I can say those things and live quite peacefully and contentedly knowing at the same time that I have the firm moral base of the Bible to stand upon when I say that I am the HEAD of my home and that I will likewise be the LOVER of my wife in the home and the DISCIPLINARIAN of my children in the home. These are the God given roles of man, woman and child in the home.
If our culture would return to it I do not think it would be a return to slavery and black/white supremacy.
I'm also fairly confident that Rosemond was using hyperbole to make his point. I doubt seriously that he never once got on the floor to talk to his children :-)
Thank you SO much for your reasoned response. I have a million times more respect for someone who argues logically instead of arguing with insults.
Ben, why does equality necessarily make sense? Obviously the owner of this blog, and myself, are going to be arguing from the position of scriptural precedent, which I doubt you are going to agree with. But if you look at it with strict logic, the concept of equality is not only impossible to achieve in this world, but is destructive when attempted. Just look at the "equality" of Communism, or the chaos of families where children are equals with their parents as opposed to subjects to their parents.
ReplyDeleteThe simple fact of life, outside of Christianity and the Bible, is that without inequality there can be no function. If my boss and I have a disagreement, my boss is the one who "wins" in the disagreement. However, if my boss is worth his salt, he is going to discuss the situation with me and 99 times out of 100 I will end up convincing him that I am right or agreeing with him. But even if he doesn't explain his position to me, I MUST obey him if I want to keep my job. That's just how the world works.
It doesn't make sense to accept that structure in government and the workplace, but then demand total equality in Marriage. Someone HAS to be in charge in marriage, or there is eventually going to be an argument that leads to dissolution, as Amanda was saying. If there is an established authority structure then that sort of an argument can be avoided, because there is someone who is not equal.
Biblically and societally, it only makes sense for the man to be the one who has the final word in that sort of situation. Scripture is clear on it, but again, I doubt that is going to do much to help you understand our position. However, if you look at society, and individual families in it, there is no such thing as equality in marriage. There is either a woman in control or a man in control (gay marriage aside). I obviously have no statistics to cite because they do not exist, but anecdotally I can say with confidence that more often than not it is the relationships with the wife in charge that are the most dysfunctional.
There is a natural order of men and women that was around for thousands of years. While I think this natural order was used in a horrible way to repress women, the fact of the matter is that there was some truth to that natural order.
(sorry for typos. I just woke up...)
And one last question before I move on. What if you/your wife disagreed utterly about something crucial, Ben? How would you resolve such a situation? (I am being genuine here, not trying to pry or be a prick.)
ReplyDeleteI feel like maybe I should say that I am very much in support of women's lib and equality in the workplace and government. I don't have a problem with a woman being my boss, or my governor, or the president (not that we had a very good choice this election... ). I think the tyranny and abuse that has gone on for the past several thousand years is horrible and destructive, and I believe that God hates it as much as I do.
ReplyDeleteI am definitely not chauvinistic in my inclinations. (though I think that women in the military need to be held to the same physical standards as men, so that inequality is stupid, in my estimation)
Sorry about the blogspam.
Philosomo: We are all equal in Christ--men and women both. We are all to be submissive to each other--men and women both (Eph. 5:21). Deciding on a structure of authority in marriage should a major decision require it does not negate equality.
ReplyDeleteAs a Christian, yes, we would be equal in Christ. However, having a different standing in a relational aspect is what is being discussed here, and it was for that reason I stated that there is an inequality in marriage.
ReplyDeleteWell yea people calls me "Fritz" in person all the time, so I guess that's fine.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate all the thoughts here. As you gathered, the fact that the Bible commands that men are the head of the household -- Isn't there some disagreement on this point amongst those who interpret the Bible? Anyway I'm no expert so I'll just take it as a given -- isn't a convincing point to me. I don't use the Bible as a definitive guide for my life.
My simple question is this: Do you believe that it is good for people who aren't devout Christians to make men the head of their households? If so, is there any argument you can offer beyond "the Bible says so?" Let's even take it as a given that somebody has to be in charge in a marriage (I don't). By what logic should it be the man? Is there any scientific or historical evidence that males are smarter, more thoughtful, better decision makers, etc. (holding aside the fact that men used to be better educated)? The answer is obviously "no."
Equality makes sense, to answer Phil's question, for a simple reason: Evidence, logic and experience tell us that healthy adult human beings are equal in pretty much every way that matters. Even in the ways where we are not (men tend to be stronger), there are enough exceptions (I have met women who can kick my ass) that there's very rarely a reason for hard-and-fast rules based on gender (or race or sexual orientation or whatever).
And I simply don't accept the premise that someone has to be in charge. The household is not a military unit or even a workplace. It's two people voluntarily coming together to share a life.
When there are big decisions to be made, my wife and I talk it out. Sometimes it takes a long time. The key is that because we respect and love each other and value our relationship above all else, one of us is always willing to sacrifice for the other if necessary.
Phil, you ask a fair question and it illustrates what may be a difference between me and everyone else on here. Theoretically speaking, if my wife and I got to some insurmountable disagreement, like where to live or whether to have kids, we would probably get a divorce. Unless they have children, I think that's what two people with fundamentally different values or life goals should do. But practically that would never happen, because my wife and I made sure our values, our goals, and even our habits are compatible before we got married. There is no chance I am going to wake up tomorrow and want to be a missionary in Indonesia or she will want to have eight children.
That's why we dated for five years and lived together for almost three before I got married. To me that is the most important factor in a successful marriage: Live as a married couple for a little while before you actually make the commitment.
I do agree that pop culture degrades men somewhat. It has become a bit more acceptable to make fun of men than women. So yes, you've pointed to one negative effect of feminism.
But is that really such a big deal? Women still earn less money than men, on average, for the same jobs. There are very few females CEOs or members of Congress. I see all around me women subtly discriminated against professionally because men more naturally want to work with their buddies or because they see a woman who looks young and cute (like my wife) and thus don't take her seriously. The advantages of being a man in modern American culture are still blatantly obvious.
Even personally, most men aren't actually OK with a woman who is their equal. My wife, who is a fairly successful screenwriter, spent years dating men who clearly couldn't handle her career accomplishments and felt the need to be superior. I know one of the reasons she loves me is I'm not threatened by her at all. There have been times in our relationship where she makes more money and where I made more money. Times when she gains more acclaim and when I do. Times when she has more energy for household chores and when I do. Who cares? After all, we're partners in life together.
Sure, there are some women who get mad when a man is "chivalrous." But how often does that happen? I know lots of professional, feminist women (like my wife) who still love it when a man holds a door or buys flowers. The difference is that, thanks to feminism, it's a woman's choice to be interested in those things. Maybe some people like yourself feel looked down on ocassionally for living with conservative values. That's not cool. But it used to be that women had no opportunity to have a professional career or defend themselves from physical abuse or have husbands help with housework and child care. Surely you can't argue the former is worse than the latter.
To be honest, the "cultural drift" that disturbs me is men like Rosemond who complain how men are being dominated by women. It's like we've gotten 80% of the way towards equality and the formerly dominant group is already complaining that things aren't fair. Sure there are areas where males have unique problems that need to be addressed, especially in education. But blaming feminism sounds to me like a sexist finding a justification for his bigoted views. If you're complaining about feminism and not addressing issues like the pay gap, for instance, you're not very serious in my book.
By the way, I'm not recommending everyone live like me. The wonderful thing about a pluralistic society where all human beings have equal rights is that people, within reason, can live however they choose. If your wife has gotten a good education and is fully informed and chooses to let you make the big decisions for your family, that's fine. Yes, I have my opinions and will share them when appropriate, but I wouldn't diagnose the main problem with modern society as the fact that everyone doesn't live like me. I really resent it when others, often conservative Christians, do.
Unfortunately I have graduation and my family here for the next few days.
ReplyDeleteI will respond when my schedule relaxes :-)