Off-Topic Discussion

This place is for any conversation that goes off-topic on current blog posts.  Have at it!

Note:  I may not be able to moderate this thread as well as other threads, so if you see personal attacks or things are getting heated, feel free to shoot me an e-mail:


123 thoughts on “Off-Topic Discussion”

  1. I wasn’t aware, being new to the site, that there was a section like this, but thank to Julie Ann’s message, I will discuss theology here Ed, if you wish.

    From your last post in the comments I have two points needing to be mentioned. First, no, Ed, I’m sorry but your beliefs are, as a matter of basic rationality, NOT based on the Bible alone. The Bible, or rather any book in it, is a written document. Neither it, nor any other book ever written, can interpret itself. Thus, while some passages of a written text may be seemingly more readily obvious in meaning and intent that others, no matter how “obvious and clear” a written text may appear to be it is still ALWAYS up to the reader to draw an interpretation from it, to discern for themselves what the text is “actually saying”. Thus, it is inescapable that in the end as a sola scriptura adherent you are not really relying on the “Bible alone” but rather on “myself and the Bible alone”. Now I know the reply to this so no need to make the case that “the Holy Spirit leads me into all truth” (leaving aside the fact that thorough and good hermeneutics of that passage shows this to be a promise made to the Apostles and thereby their successors, not every individual believer, and therefore actually a passage speaking to the teaching authority of the Church). The clear fact of history shows that this idea has not worked at all. EVERY believer of earnest heart that has embarked upon finding truth in Scripture in this manner has ended up finding themselves a spiritual island. Thousands of Protestant off-shoots, splintering and sects with NONE able to agree on a myriad of matters in theology, morality or the doctrines of the faith and practice, with more splintering happening all the time. Martin Luther, who you seem to admire, himself observed even in his time that every farm-hand thinks himself now a Pope. The fruit of the Protestant revolt is exchanging one Pope for more than a billion! And none of this resembles the Church Jesus prayed for so fervently at the Last Supper, asking over and over that we would be ONE, just as He and the Father are ONE. Martin Luther, were he alive today to look over the landscape of early 21st Century Protestant Christianity (and for the sake of convenience please let’s just agree to use the term “Protestant” to refer properly to anyone who does not or will not enter into or identify themselves with the Apostolic, original visible line of Christianity that extends today through the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Churches (yes, there is more than just the Latin or “Roman” rite within the Catholic Church), would find the results of his dissention detestible to the strongest degree. He would be utterly dismayed, I assure you.

    Other than this Ed, I have a question I’d like to hear your exposition on: where did the Bible come from? By that, specifically, I mean: how was the Canon of Scripture determined? In whom do you ultimately place your trust as to reliability when you read from any book of Scripture that that book is included correctly in the Bible as an inspired text conveying the written word of God, as opposed to the hundreds of various letters, purported Gospels, and other writings that existed within the first three centuries of the Church that were not included and deemed not inspired? In short: from whence our biblical Table of Contents?


  2. No worries, Blacksword. I just created this area and should have done it long ago 🙂

    I let Ed know that your comment is here. I’m sure he’ll respond when he gets a chance.


  3. Blacksword,

    I was just out the door to work when I commented last night (I work nights). I just got home. I need some time to wind down, and get a little shut eye before I respond.

    But, I will say this. You accused me of:
    “First, no, Ed, I’m sorry but your beliefs are, as a matter of basic rationality, NOT based on the Bible alone. ”

    My response:
    Yes, they are. Alone.

    If you click on my name, it will bring you to my blog. Scroll down to the topic:
    “Saving Faith vs. Faith…”

    Read the “whole thing”, and take out a pen and college ruled paper, and jot down all the “bible alone” references.

    I can assure you that none of it is my opinion.

    Consider my blog post, if you read it, as my response to your comment. Again, I work nights, and the commute is about an hour, so I am dog tired when I get home.

    I’ve been posting comments on Julie Anne’s blog from the beginning. If you wish to know where I come from theologically, read my “about” in my blog, as well as the comments to me, as it is a continuation.

    By the way, you are not the first Catholic that I have debated.

    I know full and well what Jesus meant when he said “Call no man your father”. I know full and well that it had nothing to do with your flesh and blood male sperm donor. It had to do with “Religious” leaders. And, in Catholicism, your religious leader is called Father…as a title, not flesh and blood relations. Paul, when discussing what you deem to equate to himself calling himself a father, it was not in the sense of a title. No one called him “Father Paul”. If I am not mistaken, people just called him “Paul”. They didn’t even call him “Apostle Paul”. Just Paul. When Paul introduced himself, he said, “Paul, an Apostle”.

    And, I stand by my statement that Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles…not Peter. Peter was never in Rome. Christianity became a lucrative money making business for the Catholics, hence the Reformation by Martin Luther. And, if I am not mistaken, the Reformers just wanted the Catholic church to reform…but they refused. They loved the money…indulgences. Pay a price in money for your dead relatives to get out of purgatory early. Hmmmm. Money hungry fools.



  4. Where did the Bible come from you ask?

    Really? That is the oldest Catholic trick in the book. All you did was to put staples on it. You can find the Hebrew scriptures (Genesis to Malachi) in any synagogue throughout the whole world.

    The epistles were in circulation to the churches. And, there is also indication based on Paul’s letters to the Corinthians, that we don’t have everything. All the Catholics had was “copies” of the same thing that everyone else had. No one sent the original to the “Home Office” of Rome for filing purposes. The Catholic church kept the general public away from the Bible for years, especially by using the Latin language, when nobody spoke Latin except the elite. People had no choice but to believe what your “leaders” said, as they thought that the way to God was through the Catholic church. And wow…the tails of Christianity got weirder and weirder as time went by.

    Thank God for people like Wycliff, and Luther, who countered the Catholic church, with a fight.

    Yes, I know a little bit about church history…but church history doesn’t matter at all. What matters is the words that are in the Bible alone. That is our source document. That is what we, as protestants go to. You…as a Catholic, goes to “church fathers”. I could care less what dead people say. What do the living say? I consult the living, not the dead. And, the words of Paul is not considered the words of Paul. They are considered the “word of God”, not the word of Paul.



  5. Ed,

    Let’s not do the Gish Gallop, m’kay? Let’s instead try to stick to one or two topics at a time. Your understanding of induglences is, as is typical, incorrect, as is your world history in a number of respects. Were there abuses by some priests and bishops in the late Middle Ages? Sure, you bet. There are abuses ALL THE TIME, just look at the Protestant luminaries who have abused and failed in their mission here in the U.S. alone in the last few years. The Catholic Church was ALREADY, again as in known in history, attempting to address the issue and discipline those in need of discipline, and in fact DID so. So you’re off here on history and the actual theology taught by the Catholic Church concerning what indulgences actually are, but let’s leave that where it is for now.

    And yes, Peter IS buried in Rome, that he went there and died there is EXTREMELY well attested by contemporary writers, history, and archeological finds. Try this for one quick reference:'s_tomb

    St. Clement write in 96 A.D. about his death in Rome, that’s about as contemporary and close as you can get! I don’t know where to begin on the rest of the irrelevant salvos you tossed, or if they are worth addressing, but suffice to say first the “Catholics” in the Early Church were the ONLY christians! There were no others Ed, and this is shown by looking simply at ALL the writings from the first three centuries of christians and seeing that they all had a catholic (universal) AND Catholic faith: they believed and practiced the exact same things. They didn’t keep the Bible away from people; rather, 99% of the people couldn’t read a thing to begin with! Again, facts Ed. You say you don’t care about dead people…um, ok, but a question: if you want to learn about the American Civil War, do you read historical accounts from dead writers of the time, or do you consult the Bible? Likewise if you want to know what early Christians in, say, 120 A.D. believed and practiced, you need to look at the writings from those people and secular historians writing about them from that time. On your last irrelevant salvo again, please leave behind the call no man father thing. It’s silly and tired. Jesus was not making a prophetic denouncement of Catholic Church titles, he was simply saying not to place any other authority in God’s place. Again, the title “Reverend” is EXACTLY the same in its basic intent, an honorary title for someone purportedly having some authority to teach in the name of Christ.

    As to my actual questions, you’ve deflected rather than answered. First, again, you’re not being rational if you won’t accept the simple, obvious truth that the Bible cannot “interpret itself” anymore than can any other written thing. YOU are the reader, you are thereby the interpreter. So it’s not Bible alone, it’s your interpretation of the Bible alone; what you happen to think it says. This is inescapable.

    Lastly, you didn’t answer my question at all. Who decided what books are in the Bible, and what are not? How did this happen? And why do you trust that they got it right in accepting that the books in the Bible are in fact the inspired word of God? Who made the Table of Contents? If you like you can leave out the OT and just address the NT, but this also would leave out the fact that there were multiple versions of the OT at the time of Jesus in use among Jews, and they themselves fought over which was authoritative, e.g. the Pentateuch, the Masoretic Text, etc. How do you know some books aren’t inspired and shouldn’t be in the Bible, or that some others, like the Letter of Barnabas, the Proto-Evangelium of James, or the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, for instance, are not also inspired and shouldn’t actually be included?


  6. Blacksword,

    You had said:
    “Let’s not do the Gish Gallop”…

    Hmmm. Never heard that term before. I stand by my Gish Gallop.

    No, someone of the Catholic nature claims that Peter is buried in Rome. The Catholic church lies.

    I haven’t read your comments to the fullest yet. I’m about ready to go to bed. But, I said that my response is my blog. Go to my blog, and scroll down to “Saving Faith vs. Faith.

    However, I will ask you a question:

    Do you consider non-Catholic protestants as Christians? In other words, the non-Catholics on this blog…are they Christians, even tho they refuse to step one foot in any church. There are people claiming to be Christians on this blog that do not step foot in a church building. Church has been their source of abuse.

    If you answer Yes, then you are acknowledging that no one needs the Catholic church to be a Christian.

    Next, do you agree with the current topic of the ex-wife being in church discipline? What is “The Church” according to you? Is there such a thing as a Matthew 18 process? Is a Matthew 18 process a first step? Does “The Church” have authority to forgive sins NOT committed to the individual personally? Again, WHO is “The Church”? I fight against abusive doctrines, and this is one of them, and that is why I began my conversation on the post. Anyone who defends a twisted interpretation of Matthew 18, I go after. I’ve done it before several times on this blog to several people who defend it. Bike Bubba is one of them.

    Again, I stand by my Gish Gallop. If you don’t want to play…fine. You can read my blog and find out where I stand on Bible alone. There are a few posts that you will find that I use Bible alone for determinations.



  7. Blacksword…well pat your self on the back for deciding what letters to staple. Yes, Christianity existed outside of the Catholic church.

    People were Christians without the letters that you claim responsibility for, that the whole world has a bible because of you.

    But what did you do with the Bible after you put it together? You fought with people over it, claiming that you are the only one who can read it, interpret it, understand it. You made it into a language that no one spoke. You abused it, by adding your own “traditions” to it, claiming it to be authorized by God, all because the word “traditions” was a word used by an apostle in a letter.

    And you pat yourself on the back for thinking that you provided the Bible to the world?

    I scoff at thee!



  8. Ed,

    You apparently aren’t familiar with the term “Gish Gallop”, so here it is explained, and no, standing by it is a very bad idea.

    It’s a debate technique named after Duane Gish, who was fond of basically throwing out multiple poor, irrelvant, bad arguments or counter-points that were not designed to lead to any truth or get anywhere, but rather to just drown a debate opponent in verbal garbage that they would essentially have to take nearly forever in just trying to dismiss each red herring and distracting notion.

    I’m not interesting in “winning” a debate, I’m interested in getting to-and maybe leading others along the way to-truth. So let’s, again, try to stay on point.

    The Catholic Church doesn’t lie as I’ve already shown. VERY strong evidence from several different forms (historical writings of 1st Century christians, actual archeological finds, etc.) that St. Peter was in Rome, was martyred there and buried directly beneath where the Vatican stands today. You have NO affirmative evidence to the contrary because there is none, none at all. You simply reject the evidence because you happen to not like where it leads. You’re free to do so, but I submit that this is really intellectually dishonest. There’s really no point continuing on that issue though as it cannot be affirmatively countered in any way, and if you still wish to reject the evidence anyway then in the state of denial is where you will stay. I’ll also point out though that I’ve accused no one of lying, not you, Martin Luther, the Calvinists who you also seem to take strong exception to, so I’d really appreciate it if you could maybe extend the same courtesy :).

    In answer to your question, though I note again you don’t seem to be able to give an answer to mine: yes, of course many earnest christians outside the Catholic Church are believers and may have salvation. But I must say I find this question whenever it is asked more than a little sad. The question assumes a minimalist perspective, one that asks basically “what is the absolute least thing I must do to be saved?” Saying as a result “well then you don’t NEED the Catholic Church” seems well enough, but it’s a half-understanding when there is SO MUCH more to be had. The intent of such a question doesn’t seem to me to really have love of Jesus at its heart, anymore than if I as a husband were to ask my wife “So, tell me, what’s the absolute LEAST I have to do to keep you around in this marriage?” (because that’s all I really intend to give). No, real love asks “How can I MOST fully know you, care for you, live for you? How is it that you MOST want me to love you?” There’s the least, and then there’s always more, you can decide which attitude is most proper in relation to following God.

    The Church is the Bride of Christ, it is his body. And Christ has ONE BRIDE, not 30,000 of them. The Apostles, and their successors, have the power to forgive sins, which also is as scriptural as it gets. The first words Jesus has for them upon appearing to them in the Upper Room after the Resurrection are “Receive the Holy Spirit. Whosoever’s sins you forgive ARE FORGIVEN, whose sins you retain ARE RETAINED.” He didn’t give them this power for them to not then USE it. And there’s nothing abusive about this, rightly understood. Can God forgive sins outside of the sacrament of confession? Absolutely! The sacraments, the life of the Church, these are the normal, ordinary way in which we are instructed to operate under Catholic teaching, they constrain the Church, not God. God is constrained by nothing, and can dispense grace and mercy and forgiveness whenever and wherever He choses of course.

    Now, if we could please NOT Gish Gallop all over the field and return to the issues I set forth…

    I can read your blog but that won’t change a thing. You are not, and CANNOT, rely on the Bible alone because you are interepreting it. You can say “Bible alone” until the second coming and this won’t change this basic fact of human comprehension: when you read the Bible or any other document, your brain makes an interpretation as to what the words you are reading are actually meant to express. You interpret every single thing you will ever read. That’s how the written word works. So you are relying on your fallible interpretive abilities AND the Bible for your faith.

    It’s interesting that you also stated that people were Christians without the letters of the NT because this is actually a claim PROVING the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Here’s why: first, you make a baseless assertion in stating, if I read you right, that Christianity existed outside the Catholic Church in the first Century. Again, literally tons of evidence shows that ALL Christians in the early church had the same, Catholic, beliefs and practices. Multiple Early Church Fathers confirm the early church was sacramental, universal in its beliefs, liturgical in worship form, and hierarchical in authority, having Bishops, Presbyters (priests) and deacons. Ed, there isn’t a SINGLE written document anywhere, from a christian or a secular Roman or Jewish writer, stating anything to the contrary. Not ONE. So this claim of yours rests on the worst kind of foundation: an argument from silence, while also rejecting ALL of the evidence available to the contrary. So, this being the case, the only way people of the first three centuries who couldn’t read anyway and didn’t have a compiled certified Bible to refer to could be Christian is by being TAUGHT, that is, by ORAL teaching through which they came to faith in Christ. This is precisely what the Catholic Church has always held to: that the Church taught by word of mouth, with authority, in the name of Christ, and this deposit of faith and Sacred Tradition carried through in proclaiming the Gospel. PART of that Sacred Tradition, part of that deposit of faith, was later set into the written Canon of the Bible. And, since you seem unwilling to answer that question I posed to you: it was the Catholic Church, and none other, who authoritatively determined which letters and books would be included in that Canon. If you refuse to accept the Church’s authority to teach at all, how can you accept the Bible that it codified as authoritative?

    Lastly, just to address your last points briefly, the Catholic Church fought to make sure the proper Canon was preserved, it indeed attempted to make sure that heretical versions (like for instance the versions published by the Jehova’s Witnesses today that pervert Scripture) were not allowed to get a foot hold. Would you have preferred otherwise, really?

    I’m also not sure why you seem to have an issue with Latin, since that seems to be coming up in your comments a lot. Guess what? Historically, Latin was the common language of the Roman Empire. It was the native language of all Romans, and was the language business, commerce, education, and international affairs were conducted in. It was the Lingua Franca of the time. Thus, most Greeks, Hellenistic Jews, and many millions of the other people’s ruled by Rome knew and understood Latin at least to the conversant level. Thus, the Catholic Church didn’t put the Bible in Latin to prevent people from reading it, they did it so that most people who could read at all COULD ALL READ IT! It maximized the possibility of any literate person being abe to read it in that time. How many Bibles do you suppose could even have been printed in that day if the Church had first said “Hey, let’s painstakingly translate this first into FIFTY languages or so, and then let’s start copying by hand each of those FIFTY or so translations, and then we can pass this around”?!

    Keeping the Bible in Latin because of all of these rather obvious reasons through to the Middle Ages was also highly appropriate. In the 12th Century, again, some 99% of the population was illiterate. Copying was by hand and took YEARS of effort, and books were exhorbitantly expensive and rare as a result. The only people who could actually READ at all were educated in LATIN, and only wealthy nobles would have the money to own a Bible. The big mean Catholic Church didn’t do or cause any of this: it’s just the way the world was. You need to review basic world history here, let alone church history. Speaking of this by the way, do you know who it was who actually commissioned the first Bible printing in a language other than Latin? Answer: The Catholic Church, into German!


  9. Besides the catholic-protestant conflict, there are a few interesting topics in this above debate. The most obvious one is that about “only and alone the bible”
    Here the protestant sais “sola scriptura” and means that his only source of information concerning God is the bible. Amen to that! BUT – the catholic has got it right when he sais, that we cannot but interprete every bit of information we get. That is true and obvious, if someone is able to use more than one language. You suddenly detect, that we attach a meaning to every word. This meaning is not “once and for all” defined, it is changing with time and culture. A nappy would not mean the same for an Englishman as it does for an American. The greek language, used for the majority of NT books is especially difficult, as it conveys often many different connotations and meanings with one single word. Therefor dear protestant – do not be stubborn on your interpretation of the Holy Bible as the only one that is correct.
    Be blessed, both of you, as I would love to reconcile both sides in the most important matters, those of Salvation or right-standing with God.


  10. Hi Daisy (and others),
    Here’s another youtube video with Josh Packard, sociologist, who has been studying the rising population of The Dones, committed Christians who are leaving the institutionalized church.


  11. Recommended article by Baptist pastor Wade Burleson on the whole comp doctrine/patriarchy and the Eternal Subordination of the Son:

    “Here’s the catch. Southern Baptist leaders have made the tragic error of believing that a husband should rule and a wife should be submissive because the Bible demands it. Truth be known, the Bible calls any desire to control and dominate–be it the husband or the wife– “the curse.” The divorce rate increases when Southern Baptists call “the norm” what the Bible calls “the curse.” When the first man (Adam) sought to rule over the first woman (Eve), Adam was manifesting a curse, not meeting a commandment (Genesis 3:16).

    Jesus came to reverse the curse. Redemption causes curse-filled people to become grace-filled people. Those who seek to rule over others by exerting authority, when they come to see what Jesus says about life, will turn loose of trying to control other people and will only seek to love and serve, NEVER exerting any alleged authority. Again, Jesus said that “the Gentiles lord over others” and “exert authority,” but “it shall not be this way among you” (Matthew 20:24-26).

    Southern Baptist Convention leaders have wrongly pushed for men to lord their authority over their wives, and called on wives to submit to the authority of their husbands because of a belief in and promotion of “the eternal subordination of the Son.” I’ve written about this doctrinal problem among Southern Baptists for years, but I recently came across a brilliant article by Dr. Keith Johnson (Ph.D. Duke), the director of theological development for Campus Crusade for Christ. Johnson’s article is called Trinitarian Agency and the Eternal Subordination of the Son: An Augustinian Perspective.”

    Dr. Keith Johnson’s article:

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Since we have been discussing the epidemic of child sexual abuse in the evangelical church, I found the story of pastor Jimmy Hinton who turned in his pastor-father for sexually abusing children in the church they have both pastored. Jimmy, his mom Clara (Finding a Healing Place blog), and his family have now become advocates of how to stop children from being sexually abused. Bless them for doing the right thing about a pedophile in their own family!

    Here is Jimmy’s webinar about protecting children.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Some other helpful resources dealing with child sexual abuse and prevention in the church:

    *Pastor Jimmy Hinton’s organization (the guy who did the video in the above post)

    *Pastor Les Ferguson’s blog about his painful journey of having his disabled son sexually abused by a church member and that church member murdering Les’ wife and disabled son. All of the things that Les has learned about abusers and his tough journey of healing (and struggles with faith).

    *Pastor Jimmy Hinton’s mom Clara Hinton’s blog called Finding a Healing Place.

    [Thanks to Brenda R. who posts on this blog who told me about Clara Hinton’s blog after I found the story of son Jimmy Hinton.]

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Thanks Julie Anne, hadn’t seen that one! Well wonder if the prayers worked! Maybe ill catch it tomorrow night…and let you know what I think. I do know prayer works and sometimes when we are in a battle the thing to do is pray. Of course draw the line when it becomes physical or puts the kids in danger. I was part if a moms prayer group in church and I did see men removed in ministry when I prayed for God to remove those that should not be there. Took some time…prayer also stops tge flesh from acting out, and lets God fight the battle.
    Have you ever seen the film ” poema de salvacion”? True story I think Brazilian with subtitles. Also the power of a mom praying or her wayward son who is down a destructive path. I own a copy and pass it around….

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Saw War Room. The happy complementarians I know all loved the movie. I found it distressing. The message I got was that all my problems in my family are my fault because I don’t pray enough, and I’m not serious enough about prayer to dedicate a special place in my home for prayer, and I don’t spend time writing out lists of prayers and scriptures and tape them to the walls of my special place. If only I’d been doing that over the years, my family would be fine.

    When I think of all the years I lay awake, night after night, in tears, pouring out my heart to God…

    I was just doing it wrong, I guess.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. So many thoughts on the subject. Do I pray rather than try in my own flesh to change others? I will admit that I don’t pray as much as I should and when I do my perception of myself and my relationships are more aligned with Gods will…tbc..


  17. @refugee,

    I am sorry you were made to feel guilty for problems in your family and that you hadn’t *done enough* or *the right way*. Sometimes stuff just happens in families, in life.


  18. Refugee, sometimes our prayers don’t get answered as fast as in this movie ..sometimes things don’t turn out as we planned….and we have to endure for a long time…and for me that hardened me a bit and I stopped praying or a long time, and bitterness and resentment creeped in..I think the movie addressed that a bit.


  19. Subject area: Patriarchy/Comp doctrine

    Commenter/poster/author/researcher Barb Orlowski, Canada, (blog is Church Exiters) posted these books on 8/25/15 on another Wartburg Watch article regarding the whole comp discussion as recommended reading.
    I would like to recommend three books by Susanna Krizo which attempt to expose the Complementarian agenda.

    *“Recovering From Un-Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Patriarchy”

    “Recovering From Un-Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Patriarchy” examines the main arguments in an easy-to-read dialogue format that allows the reader to reach his/her own conclusions while enjoying a deep, yet lighthearted, theological discussion.

    Here is an excerpt from one book review:

    “Thank God for Susanna Krizo! She makes complicated theology easy and fun to read. This is one of the most entertaining books we’ve ever read. At times it is so funny that you find yourself laughing and having a good time, and totally forget that theology is usually a dull topic to read! What we love most about her writing is that she works so hard to develop a full logical argument, address both sides of an issue, and really thinks things through to reasonable conclusions, all the while staying faithful to the Bible. Many theologians don’t like answering questions because they don’t really want to think things through because then their conclusions fall apart. But the Bible says “come let us reason together” because we need to really test all doctrine before accepting it. That’s what this book does so well.”

    *“When Dogmas Die: The Return of Biblical Equality”

    “When Dogmas Die” begins with a comprehensive look at Genesis 3:16 and the view that women are born inferior.

    Book Quote: “Always ask why—not who, but why—for if you ask who gave the man authority over the woman, you may not find out why the man was given the authority, but if you ask why the man was given authority over the woman, you will find that it was the man’s idea.

    Book Review Excerpt:

    “When Dogmas Die” is a stunning critique of one of the great handbooks of Patriarchy in the Church: “Restoring Biblical Manhood and Womanhood,” the collection of essays on gender roles compiled by John Piper and Wayne Grudem.

    Grudem is considered a scholar by many in the church, so it comes as quite a surprise to find his work so tainted with errors and omissions, as this book aptly demonstrates and documents.

    The subjection of women by men began as a result of the fall in the garden, and Krizo begins the book with a Chapter entitled “Genesis 3:16” to prove that point, and to show why Piper and Grudem’s attempt to teach a God-ordained hierarchy prior to the fall is in error.
    *“Genesis 3: The Origin of Gender Roles”

    Book Review Excerpts:

    “Witty and insightful, Susanna Krizo’s new book joins an ever-growing body of literature calling for the full recognition of women’s equality in all corners of the Christian faith. Challenging patriarchal assumptions carried over from ancient cultures, Krizo paints a picture of women and men sharing authority and celebrating what it means to be created in the image of God.”

    “If the creation account doesn’t mention the man’s authority, and if Ephesians 5 instructs husbands to love their wives the way they love themselves instead of exercising authority over them, why do our theologians nevertheless insist that Ephesians 5 confirms that the man was given authority over the woman as part of creation” (from Chapter 7)

    “The answer is simple: because men desire to rule women as a consequence of sin and no longer love their wives the way humans were created to love — unselfishly.” (from Chapter 7)


  20. Subject area: comp doctrine/patriarchy

    Recommended article by Baptist pastor Wade Burleson, The Wartburg Watch’s EPastor on Sundays, on the whole comp doctrine/patriarchy and the Eternal Subordination of the Son:

    “Here’s the catch. Southern Baptist leaders have made the tragic error of believing that a husband should rule and a wife should be submissive because the Bible demands it. Truth be known, the Bible calls any desire to control and dominate–be it the husband or the wife– “the curse.” The divorce rate increases when Southern Baptists call “the norm” what the Bible calls “the curse.” When the first man (Adam) sought to rule over the first woman (Eve), Adam was manifesting a curse, not meeting a commandment (Genesis 3:16).

    Jesus came to reverse the curse. Redemption causes curse-filled people to become grace-filled people. Those who seek to rule over others by exerting authority, when they come to see what Jesus says about life, will turn loose of trying to control other people and will only seek to love and serve, NEVER exerting any alleged authority. Again, Jesus said that “the Gentiles lord over others” and “exert authority,” but “it shall not be this way among you” (Matthew 20:24-26).

    Southern Baptist Convention leaders have wrongly pushed for men to lord their authority over their wives, and called on wives to submit to the authority of their husbands because of a belief in and promotion of “the eternal subordination of the Son.” I’ve written about this doctrinal problem among Southern Baptists for years, but I recently came across a brilliant article by Dr. Keith Johnson (Ph.D. Duke), the director of theological development for Campus Crusade for Christ. Johnson’s article is called Trinitarian Agency and the Eternal Subordination of the Son: An Augustinian Perspective.”

    Dr. Keith Johnson’s article:


  21. recommended by Todd Wilhelm/Thou Art The Man blog; Todd posts over at The Wartburg Watch
    “I highly recommend “Blight In the Vineyard: Exposing the Roots, Myths, and Emotional Torment of Spiritual Tyranny” by John Immel.

    The book was specifically written in response to Immel’s experience in Sovereign Grace churches, specifically Covenant Life Church, but it has broad application to all churches run by a heavy-handed authoritarian pastor. My former 9Marx/Mark Dever type church in Dubai (United Christian Church of Dubai) is in this category.”


  22. Subject: Calvinism/New Calvinism
    Max who posts over at The Wartburg Watch recommends these:

    For folks desiring to get your heads around TWW comments pertaining to the ails of reformed theology (Calvinism), I recommend a couple of books pertaining to the essential tenets of Calvinism and its 21st century progeny, “New” Calvinism, that is causing so much trouble in Christian ranks. Both are scholarly works, but written in a way that you can grasp the problem and begin to see it being manifested where you live … no doubt about it, New Calvinism is coming to a church near you!

    “What Love is This? Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God” by Dave Hunt

    “Against Calvinism” by Roger Olson

    One of the first articles that caught my attention about “New Calvinism” continues to be a good read on the subject, even if it is becoming dated a bit on the who’s-who of the current movement (TWW is doing a fine job flagging some of the new folks on the scene and problems associated with their ministries). You can find the article at:”

    “Young, Restless, Reformed: Calvinism is making a comeback—and shaking up the church” by Collin Hansen
    [Max noted recently the above link may only be for subscribers now]


  23. Subject: Sex offenders, including pedophiles. This is an interview between Corrections One (a professional organization for the corrections industry) and Dr. Anna Salter. This is interview is broken in to 5 parts.


  24. Velour,
    Nancy De Moss was giving marital, divorce, family advice long before she was ever married. It is a lot like a mechanic giving medical advice. No experience whatsoever and keeping women and their children at the hands of abuse. She is listed on ACFJ under the Blind Guides tab. Women looked to her for encouragement and what they got was a repeat of what they heard from the pulpit: A heaping portion of guilt and shame, do more, be a better wife, submit to your husband’s unrealistic expectations and all will be fine. Anything less than this and you will be doomed to hell and are obviously not a Godly woman. She reminds me of a female version of John Piper, except when he wrote all of his nonsense he was married.

    She is a permanence view person no matter that the Bible is clear that may not always be the case. I am thankful that I was divorced before hearing about Ms De Moss. I didn’t need to hear her opinions on top of all of the others that made no sense to me. If you haven’t read Barbara Roberts book, “Not Under Bondage” it is a real eye opener.


  25. Hi Brenda R,

    Thank you so much for your kindness in responding to my question when I know you were feeling under the weather. I have looked at the ACFJ website every now and again. I haven’t read Barbara’s book yet. I will check out the Blind Guides tab too over at that website.

    Thank you for your further insights about Nancy Leigh DeMoss. I have just found the whole rigidity of comp doctrine/patriarchy (which was espoused at my former California church) to be so insufferable. Ms. DeMoss seems like an enforcer of that system. I recently saw some news that she is engaged to be married to a widower she knows, whose wife died not too long ago from a serious illness.

    I am glad for older conservative Christians like Gram3 over at The Wartburg Watch who posts, has a keen mind, knows how to use an interlinear Bible online to study the texts, and can easily refute the arguments and how the proponents falsely arrived there. I am glad that she has told me that it wasn’t this way before, and much of it is fairly recent (Danver’s statement, etc.). Then there’s Bill Gothard, Doug Phillips, etc who have espoused it, and have been felled by sexual predator scandals. I don’t take my marching orders from shady types for my life.

    It all seemed odd and legalistic to me. Do these *cookie cutter* things and it will *all work out*. OK, it didn’t for Anna Duggar who married Josh. It didn’t for Katie Travis who married pedophile Steven Sitler in Moscow, Idaho.

    Life is more complicated than they make it out to be.


  26. Velour,
    All of what you said here is true. My personal hang-up is the spiritual abuse heaped on women by other women even more than men doing it. I have read posts along the way by women who are even worse than Ms De Moss. I think she did marry whoever he is. Being married more than once does not make me any less saved as Ms De Moss and company would say. That would be in my book, works righteousness. If I have to stay married to an adulterer, wife and child beater or an out and out fraud to be saved…..that is just nonsense and I find much scripture to the contrary.

    I have been in destructive marriages. Yes, more than one. I still believe that Christ saved me from sin and have burst out of comp and looking at who Jesus is. What would he do? What does the Bible/God really say that Anna and Katie have every Godly right to do with the so-called marriages they are in. Ms De Moss I am sure would agree with, the “cookie cutter” set, that they should remain faithful unto death. I believe that is hogwash and both not only have a Godly right to a speedy divorce, but are also able to remarry an honest to goodness Godly man. The vows/covenant have been broken by their husbands. None of this, “you only have to do your part” way of thinking. It takes 3 to make a marriage, a loving husband, a respectful wife and God. In my mind loving and respectful are interchangeable. As many in my own church have flat out said, “it’s not the divorce that is a problem, it is remarriage”. If I am fortunate enough, and I pray that a Godly man will look my way at some point, I will marry again. There will be a lot of scrutinizing going on as to whether they really love Jesus or just appear in church. As far as I am concerned, neither Katie, Anna or I had a true marriage as God intended it to be.

    I will have to make some time to follow the WW. I am very interested in looking at the interlinear Bible and learning more. Recently, I must admit that I have not been in the Word nearly enough. With the MS vision issues, reading can be difficult but need to make the added effort. It is all about what would God says, not what Gothard, Wilson, De Moss or any other human has to say.


  27. Hi Brenda R.,

    You are so right that women have been the spiritual abusers (I call them *enforcers*) against other women in enforcing this sick System. I just remembered that the woman who headed the women’s ministry at my former NeoCal authoritarian church had this attitude. In speaking at a ladies’ event she told us that a married woman had called her to speak about some kind of problem with her husband and the women’s ministry coordinator told us that she wouldn’t let the wife speak and *gossip* about her husband and repeatedly reminded her of her vows.

    I was troubled that she would *gossip* about a wife before an entire group of women and put that wife down. Maybe it was some legitimate problem that the wife needed guidance with. The one anothers. But just to silence and shame a woman, to put her down…no, I can’t agree.

    I am glad you are out of bad marriages. Sorry you had more than one. And yes, people should have marriages the way God intended them to be.

    Sorry to hear about your MS and vision problems. By the way, I have the Bible on CDs, it’s an entire audio set. I was recently thinking of donating it to charity as I simply haven’t been listening to it. If you would find it helpful, please email Julie Anne your mailing address and ask her to send it to me. I will mail you the Bible on CD set. (It’s a Word of Promise set by Thomas Nelson that I bought from Amazon and it’s less than 2-years old.)


  28. Velour,
    The “gossip” about the husband thing is a problem where I attend. For me, no more husband, no more problem. I would probably be publicly shunned if I were to find a man that I wanted to marry. I pray about finding a Godly man.

    The CD Bible would be special for me. I would like to accept your offer. You are very kind.


  29. Velour,
    PS I did give Julie Anne my mailing address/work address where I have packages sent. I’m here more than at home. Please let me know where I can send you the cost of shipping at the very least. I appreciate this.


  30. Hi Brenda R.,
    Oh great! I will mail them the box set to you. Something told me when I was dropping things off at the charity shop recently to NOT give that Bible on CD set away quite yet. I insist on picking up the tab for shipping. I’ll get your details from Julie Anne.


  31. Brenda R.,
    I will be praying for you.

    I wish these churches had a healthier way to practice the *one anothers*, without shaming people who are looking for bona fide help.


  32. I’m absolutely furious with Doug Wilson’s recent antics, throwing smoke bomb insults on his stupid POS blog to further distract from Wight and Sitler’s victims. As far as I’m concerned, I believe that Doug Wilson is as much a party to Wight and Sitler’s victims as if he had committed their crimes himself.

    God, if you exist, please let us get this guy. Please let us be your righteous arm of justice. Please let us tear his distorted theology to pieces before the world and run him to ground before the law to be tried in some way by some statute for his crimes. Please let his false pulpit be destroyed, his evil message silenced and his lies about your Word be burned to ashes. On behalf of all of Doug Wilson’s victims and in the name of Christ Jesus, I pray this to be so. Please show us that justice exists. Amen..

    Liked by 2 people

  33. These articles are written by Pastor Wade Burleson, a conservative Baptist pastor from Enid, Oklahoma, who is the pastor for E-Church on Sundays over at The Wartburg Watch blog. Wade is very concerned about the false teachings about women, not being able to teach men, submission, etc. He is a very fair-minded man and know his Bible and history.


  34. @Velour re: Wilkerson/Packard interview you posted Sept 7 on the topic of the Dones

    Had to laugh when the interviewer sort of gave short shrift to the idea of some Done’s opinion that organized church is the great whore of Babylon. Just this morning I had drafted, but deleted, a paragraph for a comment on this morning’s SSB Gathering, in which comment I expressed my own opinion that the Great Whore who sits on many waters, and who is the mother of prostitutes, is a metaphor for organized, authority-based, so-called Christianity.

    Liked by 2 people

  35. Velour,
    Enjoying the insights of Wade Burleson. There are very few mega guys that I have much good to say about. I like his humble, yet honest style.


  36. Classics. Very good books by Dr. Ronald Enroth about spiritually abusive churches.
    He has made them available for FREE here in electronic form.

    1. Churches That Abuse

    2. Recovering From Churches That Abuse

    You can also do an online search for “spiritual abuse” for good books and websites
    and the same type of search in an online bookseller.

    I will post more resources on this topic here another day.


  37. I’m having a lot of thoughts in the wake of the first lawsuit against IBLP.

    The main thought is that, when you strip away all the bullshit, all the false promises of reward for good behavior and false assurances of punishment for not being under Gothard’s “umbrella of authority,” all the false descriptions of heaven in payment for Gothard’s “49 non-optional principles of life” and all the lies about the nature of hell, what you finally discover when you strip all of that away is that hell is where you already are.

    I’ve been in hell my whole Life. IBLP, ATI, and Gothard put me there. I want my life back.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. @Dash,

    I hear ‘ya! I haven’t been in Hell my whole life, but recently (8 1/2 years) of this false doctrine being shoved down my throat by pastors/elders at my (former) *Bible-believing* church (aka cult). I emailed one of the pastors recently and asked him why the doctrines of men, and specifically the doctrines of boundaryless sex offenders, were shoved down our throats (Bill Gothard, Doug Phillips, etc. and that all of them are being felled by sexual abuse scandals, their own predation of young people). No response.

    Dude, play some guitar. Go for a bike ride. Watch something funny. Play with your cats. Eat right. Smile at a few folks. Compliment them. I don’t mean to sound trite. Not at all. It doesn’t take away our pain or trauma. But we need to SEIZE the joy in life and not let the [bad word] get us down!

    P.S. I liked what somebody else recently posted. “Bible-believing” = suspend critical thinking skills and believe anything we say.


  39. I am trying to consolidate some resources on sexual abuse, since the issue comes up over and over again regarding the epidemic of it in conservative evangelical churches.

    Attorney Richard Hammer at Church Law & Tax does a yearly list, after studying thousands of lawsuits every year against churches, and each and every year for years on end the Sexual Abuse of Minors it the No. 1 reason that churches get sued.

    Here is Mr. Hammer’s 2014 list of the 5 top reasons churches got sued:

    “1. Sexual abuse of minors (11.7 percent of cases). Sadly, for several years the sexual molestation of minors has been the number one reason that churches went to court. Victims in these cases generally allege that a church is responsible for their injuries on the basis of negligent selection, retention, or supervision of the perpetrator. Churches have lost many of these cases due to their failure to implement appropriate safeguards in the selection and supervision of employees and volunteers who work with minors.

    Incidents of sexual misconduct involving minor victims can be devastating to the victim, the victim’s family, the offender, church leadership, and the church itself.

    Because this issue remains the number one reason churches go to court, and because of the significant harm that can be done to children, their families, and church leaders, churches need to take an aggressive position on this matter. Churches must implement policies and procedures that demonstrate proper screening and training of staff and volunteers, proper processes for reporting actual and suspected cases of abuse, and specific attention to the types of arrangements and settings that the church will permit.” – Richard Hammer, attorney Church Law & Tax


  40. Here is a helpful brochure on child sexual abuse in the church from Church Mutual, the largest insurer of churches in the United States.

    There is an epidemic of child sexual abuse in the conservative evangelical church that exceeds that of the Catholic Church (which has been litigated for decades, had arrests of sex abusers, prosecutions, and convictions, and has had to *change its ways*). The liability is so great, that more and more insurance companies are pulling out of the church insurance business altogether as they simply can’t afford these expensive claims.

    Click to access SafetyTipsSenSubject.pdf


  41. Dash,
    I have spent a lot of time reading the stories of slaves, former slaves, blacks who lived through Jim Crow, the Little Rock 5 (who integrated the high school), and the stories of Holocaust survivors. I wanted to know how the human spirit could prevail in the face of profound injustice and loss. How???
    I think of you as a survivor…of some kind of war. Against your soul and person and spirit.
    Here’s a sweet, short documentary of a couple of Jewish retires in Florida who formed the Holocaust Survivor Band that was done by the New York Times.
    Play on.., Dash. Play on! (Your guitar.)


  42. I love this song, it captures & paints much of my life.

    Ray Lamontagne – Empty (song and lyrics)

    Well I looked my demons in the eyes,
    laid bare my chest, said “Do your best, destroy me.
    You see, I’ve been to hell and back so many times,
    I must admit you kind of bore me.”
    There’s a lot of things that can kill a man,
    there’s a lot of ways to die,
    listen, some already did that walked beside me.
    There’s a lot of things I don’t understand,
    why so many people lie.
    Its the hurt I hide that fuels the fire inside me.
    Will I always feel this way?
    So empty, so estranged.


  43. Oh and this line: “I never learned to count my blessings,
    I choose instead to dwell in my disasters.
    I walk on down the hill,
    through grass, grown tall and brown
    and still its hard somehow to let go of my pain.”

    Just coming off a tough week, anxiety crashed & I burned.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. Recommended by Virginia about marriage and divorce.

    October 25, 2015 @ 5:58 AM

    Books about the Bible and divorce that are often recommended by advocates for victims of domestic violence:

    Divorce and Remarriage in the Church by David Instone-Brewer:

    And Marries Another: Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New Testament by Craig S. Keener:


  45. I just discovered this thread a couple of days ago.

    So, I just returned home from seeing Spotlight. Hubby and the kids watched Mockingjay — Part 2 while I was in the other movie. I was crying as I walked out of the theater, and saw my family waiting for me in the corridor. My six-year-old asked me if it was a sad movie. I told her it was disturbing.

    When the screenshots of all the cities with scandals came up at the end of the film there was an audible gasp in the theater, and there were only about 15 people there.

    If people could only realize the lengths a church will go to protect its reputation.


  46. Spotlight is fantastic – so well done. The listing of cities/countries at the end was shocking. I wish they would have slowed that part down so we could have read more thoroughly. They did such an excellent job of portraying systemic abuse and the harmful effects. I left the theater fired up thinking about all the cases I have covered (and most of the time having personally connected with survivors). I’m not stopping any time soon!

    Liked by 1 person

  47. The listing of cities/countries at the end was shocking.

    Weren’t they? If you consider that the Protestant church may have an even bigger problem with this . . . it’s scary.

    I found these links through Christa Brown’s blog:

    The mainstream media has all but ignored the recent Associated Press report that the three major insurance companies for Protestant Churches in America say they typically receive 260 reports each year of minors being sexually abused by Protestant clergy, staff, or other church-related relationships. . .

    Responding to heavy media scrutiny, the Catholic Church has reported that since 1950, 13,000 “credible accusations” have been brought against Catholic clerics (about 228 per year.) The fact that this number includes all credible accusations, not just those that have involved insurance companies, and still is less than the number of cases in Protestant churches reported by just three insurance companies, should be making front page of The New York Times and the network evening news. It’s not.

    Finally, in the authoritative work by Penn State professor Philip Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests, it was determined that between .2 and 1.7 percent of priests are pedophiles. The figure among the Protestant clergy ranges between 2 and 3 percent.[xxii]


  48. Gary W wrote, “Just this morning I had drafted, but deleted, a paragraph for a comment on this morning’s SSB Gathering, in which comment I expressed my own opinion that the Great Whore who sits on many waters, and who is the mother of prostitutes, is a metaphor for organized, authority-based, so-called Christianity”.

    Gary, I believe the same thing. 100%. (I’m so glad to see someone else thinks the same as I feel like a loner on that note). I’m not sure if what we think is true, but it’s what I believe for now. Christianity is a religion which substitutes the reality of a relationship with God for a nasty idol. (which people hate you criticising)

    I’ve been walking (one step forward/two back) with Jesus for 15 years now and have been to every type of ‘Institutional Church’ available.

    Same tripe, different flavour.

    My husband and I will no longer step foot in any temple made with men’s hands for a so called “worship service”.

    My goal in life now is to be real with God in real 24/7. On off chats throughout the day. No ‘Sabbath Keeping’. Jesus is my rest. My righteousness.
    My salvation IS the object of my faith, not the measure of it (however great or small).

    I cannot give money to a ‘church’ where 50% of the offering pays for the building, and the rest goes to pay a guy who won’t work ‘willingly with his own hands.

    I respect some ‘pastors’ within Christendom. However, just because they seem sincere and talk about Jesus doesn’t legitimise what they are doing in my eyes.

    I simply do not find the Institutional Church in my Bible.

    I find hospitality, fellowship and servant ‘leaders’. Leading by servant example. Gentle shepherds. Not Alpha males who hide in offices studying Calvin during the week.

    My husband and I recently concluded that we ought to open up our home for fellowship whenever people want it. (without charge!).

    I just can’t imagine the Early Church gathered at someone’s house for fellowship, sitting in rows facing a ‘pulpit’, taking offerings to pay the elder folk (the shepherds/servant leaders). Pretty sure the offering money was for the widows, orphans and poor no?


    “God, please help us love like you, without charge” – said no salaried capital P pastor ever.

    That said, if any of you are in my part of Australia ever… coffee at my place yeah?



  49. Velour –

    I recently received an email from NLDM ‘revive our hearts’.

    The email was seeking to ‘revive’ my giving to her cause.

    The email just didn’t sit right with me.

    I said to my husband, “why do all these Christian ‘ministries’ ask for money?”

    Don’t these people WORK?


  50. If anyone gets this tonight, I ask that you would please pray for my daughter and her unborn daughter. Joy was transported from the OB’s office to the hospital with fever and pain. She is 29 weeks pregnant and they were hoping to keep baby inside until 36 weeks.

    Liked by 2 people

  51. Hi Julie Anne I wanted to post something here that Alfred from Discovering Grace has challenged me to do. He asked me to watch the first video of Bill Gothard’s basic seminar series to as he calls it humor him. I did so but because I am not sure he will post it I am posting it here. I hope you don’t mind.

    Okay watched it. I am going to be brutally honest with you. Bill Gothard could have made millions doing infomercials. There was nothing outstanding in his presentation that gives me any allure to his teaching. I have to question his anecdotes that he claims supports his 7 non optional principles as there is nothing by which they can be substantiated. The testimony from the psychiatrist and the story of the boy whose bones wouldn’t heal because his meals contained milk and meat together have no medical evidence to support them. This was an abuse of scripture in the first order which had nothing to do with the result of eating it the point of not boiling the kid’s meat in its mothers milk was a reference to the pagan ritual behind it. If meat inhibits the metabolizing of calcium then eating many greens should also be prohibited as the also contain calcium. The point here is that Gothard’s attempts to use scripture to support much of what he claims just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny either biblically or otherwise. I took the time to stop the video and compare the bible verses Bill quotes and place them within their context. Bill uses an acontextual ( Eisegesis) approach which on the surface seems fairly innocuous at first glance but can lead to wrong conclusions. The sales pitch is that if we use these principles we will have success and God will bless us. From the families I know personally who have followed Bill’s teaching I am yet to meet one which has had anything but hardship and heart break. Is it that because they didn’t follow the 7 non optional principles? No! It’s because this type of one size fits all, promise of success and prosperity has no more substance to it than the word of faith movement from which it springs. It lacks the razzle dazzle that the word of faith movement often has with it, but it gives the same hollow promise. It is nothing more than a Christianize’d version of all the self help and life coaching schemes that are out there. Let me know if you want more of my opinion. I am happy to oblige


  52. Thank you for sharing your review, Chrissymonds. Do you have a link you could post here? Maybe others would be interested in watching. Gothard had some very strange ideas and for some reason, he was able to say things and people would believe him wholeheartedly. I was always shocked about that. Even though we went to a few of his seminars, there was something off that told me NO about getting involved with the ATI homeschool program.


  53. Thank you Julie Anne,
    last call…..The fever has broke, all tests are negative except one so they have her on a monitor to make sure there are no contractions. If all is well by this afternoon, she can go home. Maggie is still in the incubator that she should be in. PTL

    Liked by 1 person

  54. Daisy,

    Thank-you for responding, I know it was a long read! If you lived near me I would invite you & Oasis over to my house for our Christmas Eve dinner. Kinda got choked up over your comment about how TV commercials impact you, never thought about that before, but I totally get what you are saying. FWIW, my dearest & only Christian friend from sicko church is my age, 62, she has never married and saved her virginity, just like you. We have had lots of discussions about how the church treats single people, especially women. Your comments have opened my eyes to how wrong it is of the church to treat people who are single, divorced, widowed, childless. People made in God’s image being treated as invisible is a tragedy. Enjoy your cookies. Merry Christmas. Hugs, Gail


    I just saw your prayer request, I will be praying for your daughter & baby Maggie. Please keep us posted. Gail

    Liked by 1 person

  55. Hi Julie Anne another reply to Alfred hope you don’t mind me posting it here So my friend asked me why I dismissed Bill Gothard’s claim regarding a certain psychiatrist that mental illness is the result of wrong thinking and or making bad decisions. Once that erroneous thinking was corrected the patients became better and were released from hospital. Here is my response

    I dismissed it in the same way I would i would mark down an essay for not verifying the source. Simply making the claim that a psychiatrist said mental illness is due to wrong thinking or making bad choices without naming the psychiatrist is dubious. It’s ironic that Bill Gothard challenges conventional wisdom, questions modern medicine, then conveniently uses an anonymous source from the very worldly expertise and wisdom he rejects to support his own arguments. That is called cognitive dissonance.

    You have an academic back ground Alfred. How can you be so noncritical of Gothard’s approach… How could Bill who also has a post graduate back ground make claims like this knowing that if he did this at college that his professors would fail him for making such an unverified claim? It is what we call academic suicide.

    How do we track the expert down who said this originally? How do we check the experts credentials and research method’s? Was this an off the cuff remark by this so called expert or is this his expert opinion based on research? Has he been peer reviewed in journals and what was their conclusions of his findings?

    Do you see my problem? I can’t I can’t go back to original sources. Bill Gothard is notorious for using this method of unverifiable anecdotal support for his own assertions. There is almost a plethora of very bad bible teachers who make claims of miracle headings and other phenomena. Many of them when asked to supply evidence for their claims can’t! Bill makes some very bold claims about the success of his own methods, the fruit that we van verify about Bill’s claims is that the evidence doesn’t support his claims.

    I posted here once before about Bill’s teaching and you deleted the comment. What did I say? I said by you posting Bill’s views here will be his own undoing because you are putting it in the public domain where anyone on the internet can view it. I am posting this response on my own website so that in fairness others can see my response. No one can say I chickened out of the challenge ( posted on )

    Liked by 2 people

  56. @ gm370
    DECEMBER 24, 2015 @ 6:40 AM

    Thank you so much for the holiday wishes!

    I hope you had a good Christmas.

    Valentine’s Day and the week leading up to it can be hard for never married or other types of singles. We have to sit through the lovey, romantic print ads and TV ads.

    I did bake a bunch of cookies, using store bought dough.

    I unfortunately burned a handful out of one batch but still have plenty left over that aren’t burnt. 🙂

    I am now in the process of trying to burn off all the calories from the cookies. I went out jogging today in the cold, snow, and some ice.

    But there wasn’t too much ice today. If there’s too much ice on the street, I would not go out and jog. I don’t want to slip on the ice and fall.

    I still have cookies left. I’ll have to space them out so I don’t put on weight. 🙂


  57. Thank-You Daisy!

    I had a lovely Christmas, face timed with my daughter in CA. I cried, I miss her so. However, I had my other daughter & grandkids & her hubby on Christmas Eve. Sorrow & Joy intermingle.

    FWIW, my radar on Christmas commercials of happy, loving family’s celebrating the holidays made me think of you every time one came on TV and I prayed for you. I suspect the same will happen now when I see Valentines Day drivel. You made me think & feel.

    If I may, married people, as least some of us, do not live happily ever after, it’s a hell of a lot of work. And I am married to a very good man.

    It sounds like you are being careful when you jog, ice & snow now freak me out. I use to do that, but now my knees & back have reigned me in. Cookies oh cookies, I believe there will be no calories in heaven, haha. Happy New Year.


  58. Hi Julie Ann,

    I didn’t know how to submit this. There is a piece at called “A sick abomination in southern baptist life”. The article written by someone named Bart Barber (name sounds familiar) regarding ESPN’s Outside the Lines covering the sexual predatory environment/sexual assaults at Baylor University and their handling of the crimes (they are no better than any other university). Their is also a link to a piece by a former Baylor student who was raped and the truly awful trials/tribulations she experienced. The comments are interesting–Sovereign Grace/CJ Mahaney and Albert Mohler’s friendship was brought up as well as Paige Patterson & someone named Gilyard.


  59. Thank you, Donna, I just became aware of the situation at Baylor. Over 200 students gathered tonight in support of victims of sexual assault. Interestingly, the President, Ken Starr, issued a public statement on Superbowl Sunday, of all days! I’m in contact with an alum who is sending me some info.


  60. hi Julie Anne you wont believe who I got a join request from on !! After three years of bagging Bill Gothard on Recovering Grace and then also on Alfred’s Discovering Grace I get a add request from the old fox……. I wanted to reply and explain how that would be a conflict of interests but I am not able to…… just as well I am not sure I could contain myself


  61. @livingwithporpoise,

    I too received the requests for monetary donations from Revive Our Hearts. I also tossed them. And I unsubscribed long ago to the emails. Nancy Leigh DeMoss has taught Patriarchy & other nonsense (and she is also wealthy)…and no, just no.


  62. This mess is happening in my neck of the woods:

    I went to the church website: no blog roll but in their “What we believe” link they link to TGC, T4G, ACE

    “We at Grace Bible Church regard the safety of our youth as among the highest of priorities, and we will continue to cooperate with the investigation when called upon to do so,” church authorities said in a statement.


  63. It looks like the senior pastor is a graduate. I don’t see that the sex offender is. Did you find something? I couldn’t find the sex offender’s name anywhere on the church site.


  64. Hi Guys,

    If you know anything about Linkedin, you may know that there are several groups which provide a forum for discussing various posted topics.

    Under the Biblical Leadership group, I have launched a new topic on the place of women in church leadership in our churches. Please join us for some discussion.

    It is curious that a number of people have clicked on the No-Likee button. Either they are not interested in this topic or worse, they are against women in church leadership and this is how they show it. Obviously, as per usual, this is a hot topic. We could use a number of people to drop by and hit the Like button. 🙂

    “What is Your or Your Church’s Belief and Practice About Christian Women in Church Leadership?

    What ministries can or can’t women do in your church and in your denomination, and why?
    What Scriptures do you base your belief and practice on?”


  65. Hello JA,

    I know you have a lot on your plate but I saw this story at the HufPo:

    Apparently a prison chaplain was teaching some program by Bill Gothard call PAL – Principles and Applications for Life, and wound up sexually assaulting/abusing several women in prison in Arkansas. He pled guilty to 3 charges. But he’s only going to do about 1/6 of his 5 year sentence.


  66. Velour on 05/23/16 – sorry I didn’t respond back to you but I see JA did. I usually forget about the off topc tab unless I have an off topic :).


  67. Ed, I am still recovering from a legalistic and authoritarian view of God and church. If you think of God as detached, harsh and legalistic, then your reading of scripture is going to be distorted by your harsh lens.

    Jesus came to dispel the myths about the Old Testament. The first myth was that the OT was a set of rules that could earn favor with God. The Sermon on the Mount was spoken against that. Jesus is saying, you think you can obey “do not murder”, but even the one who calls his brother a fool is guilty – enough to warrant hell. The second myth was that God was harsh, judgmental and legalistic. This is not so blatantly called out, but you see it in the interactions with the Pharisees. When Jesus heals on the Sabbath (against Jewish law) he says things like “But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.” (Matt 12:7)

    It’s this second myth that you are caught up in. The OT law had multiple purposes. The moral law was a statement of natural law – the moral rules that govern the universe, and the standard of righteousness in the covenant of works, that we failed, in Adam, to obey. So, that law points us to our inability to live righteously and our need for a savior. There were also laws that were prophetic of Christ – the temple, the sacrificial system, the kinsman-redeemer laws, jubilee, etc. But the last category of laws were the laws of the land – both laws which were declared, and laws which were a result of a case decision. For example, the law that women could inherit the land if there was no male heir came about due to Zelophehad, who had five daughters, but no sons.

    Again, if we are legalistic, then the OT laws look harsh and legalistic, but they would not have been so to an Israelite. As Jesus said, the laws were an expression of COMPASSION, not SACRIFICE, yet we recast them into sacrifice.

    For example, “an eye for an eye” was compassion. In that culture (and ours) the typical response to a grievance was to escalate. If you touch me, I’ll hit you and if you hit me, I’ll kill you. But God is saying, that’s not okay. Compassion should rule.

    So, instead of reading the law in terms of “necessary punishment”, you read it as “protecting the weak and powerless”, you not only understand the law better, but you also understand Christianity. James said, “Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” (1:27). The OT law says over and over that justice should be done to the widows and orphans – those that society would typically ignore.

    So, now, read the rape law, not as necessary punishment, but protecting the weak and powerless. A betrothed virgin would normally be put to death for not being a virgin, but the law is saying, “NO. A woman who is raped is not guilty of adultery.” It’s that simple. But, it’s only true rape in that case. A woman who has consensual sex and then claims that it’s rape later when she’s caught is still guilty.

    But, instead, legalists focus on the necessary punishment. It’s a checkbox. City? Country? Cry out? oh, well that’s not rape. That’s why, in Matthew 12, Jesus chastises the Pharisees when they condemn him and his disciples for “threshing grain”. Jesus doesn’t defend them by pointing to checkboxes. In fact, he says, look at David. He violated the checkbox, but he was innocent. Priests violate the checkbox, but are innocent. You don’t understand the law. It’s about compassion, not sacrifice. Duh!

    Yet, we are like dogs returning to their vomit. Jesus says the law is about loving God and loving our neighbor, yet we want to return to a view of the law where God’s purpose is for us to suffer (sacrifice) for his sake. Yes, we will suffer because the world hates us as it hates him, but we shouldn’t suffer because of incorrect interpretation of the law. Remember, Paul asks, “is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman and uncondemned?”


  68. Mark,

    I will get back to you a bit later about all this, but I can assure you that I am not a legalist of any kind. But I used the OT references to prove guilt of a sin, not to condemn. Time and time again, Paul and Peter and Jame and John reference OT scripture in order to remind, not to condemn.

    We must know what sin is. Sin cannot be invented, and we must have a reference.

    And in Acts 15 we see that we are to stay away from sexual sins which Acts 15 tells us where that came from…the law of Moses. So, we must go back to the law of Moses to find out what those sexual sins are, in order to stay away from sexual sins.

    It’s a reference point.

    The only reason that I mention the word “stoning” was for a reference in regards to the word “guilt”, not to condemn, but to show that there is sin that someone committed.

    This is just a starting point to my reply to you, but I will come back later to respond further.

    But, to show you that I am not a legalist, I will show you a post that I made myself regarding that belief system. I hope you will read it. I’ve posted the link numerous times on Julie Anne’s blog. I know that people read it from here, as I see the statistics. They should be aware from where I come from when discussing spiritual abuse topics.



  69. “not to condemn, but to show that there is sin that someone committed”

    This is bizzaro thinking. Condemn = “to pronounce to be guilty.” Someone who sins is guilty. So you are condemning someone by pointing out their sin.

    And, I want to define legalism. I find that there are shades of legalism. Everyone is offended by that term because they think that legalism = works salvation. That is, that when someone is called a legalist, it means that they are somehow relying on their own works for salvation.

    That is not what I’m saying. Legalism is measuring one’s own and others’ righteousness by their adherence to a set of moralistic principles. Those principles are based on a set of do’s and don’ts rather than being guided by love and compassion. That is the story of the rich young ruler. The rich young ruler said he had followed all the principles (the do’s and don’ts). Jesus said, yes, but where is your compassion? In the same way, he condemned the Pharisees for creating do’s and don’ts that allowed them to financially benefit from gifts to God that would otherwise be used to help their parents.

    There are some landmark things that Jesus said about how to understand the OT law. For example, conservatives like to say that “the law is perfect”. Yet, Jesus says, “it was for the hardness of your heart that God allowed divorce”. Divorce was not a “perfect law”, but an accommodation. The question is why. The divorce law is a protection for women, who would otherwise be unable to remarry when their husbands rejected them. Remember, compassion, not sacrifice. The divorce law was compassionate towards women.

    The OT law had provisions for slavery. Why? Because God wanted Israel to enslave the women and children of their enemies? No, because God had compassion on those the Israelites would enslave and wanted to prevent them from being abused.

    When you approach the OT law from a “sacrifice” perspective, you miss the compassion, and then, not surprisingly, like the Pharisees, you’re condemning the innocent. Remember Jesus plainly says “the Priests VIOLATE THE SABBATH yet they are innocent.” Why? Because the law is about compassion, not sacrifice. Until you understand that, you will continue to condemn the innocent.

    The OT law doesn’t say “sex is all about consent and here are all the situations (e.g. clergy sex abuse) where what seems like consent really isn’t”. That’s because in Mosaic Israel, there was no such thing as consent. Women in that patriarchal society were the property of their fathers and husbands, for them to do what they wanted with. So, the few protections that women had (e.g. divorce law) were about as counter-cultural as they could take, because the hearts of the Israelites were so hard. But, we’re in a different place today, one where we can more clearly understand the heart of God in this matter. One where we understand that rape isn’t just a man physically forcing himself on a woman, but one where we understand that “forcing” can include such things as having a “position of trust”, like a teacher or pastor.


  70. Interesting article, but I mostly disagree. Law has many meanings in the Bible, including the Ten Commandments, the ceremonial law, all of the law, etc. When the Judaizers were telling the Galatians to “keep the law” they were talking about circumcision, the Jewish feasts and the sacrificial system (the ceremonial law).

    You make a huge claim that Abraham was not under the (Mosaic) law, but you fail to comprehend the implications of that.

    By your logic, Cain was not under any law. The law given to Adam and Eve was “don’t eat the fruit”. Yet, Cain and Abel offered sacrifices. Why? Cain murdered Abel, but, by your logic, it was not sin, because no law had been given to Cain that said he could not kill Abel. Yet, God punishes him for killing Abel.

    Here is some discussion in 1 John 3: “By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother. For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another; not as Cain, who was of the evil one and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother’s were righteous. Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you. We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death. Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.”

    Neither the “law” nor the “Old Testament” began with Moses. The moral law is a representation of God, and therefore sewn into the fabric of the universe. We see that Abel followed God and was righteous and we see that Cain followed the devil and was evil.


  71. Mark

    I disagree with your following:
    “Law has many meanings in the Bible, including the Ten Commandments, the ceremonial law, all of the law, etc. When the Judaizers were telling the Galatians to “keep the law” they were talking about circumcision, the Jewish feasts and the sacrificial system (the ceremonial law…)

    According to Jews themselves, there are 613 commandments in the law of Moses…not Ten.

    And, in Acts 15, that’s exactly what the Judaizers meant by keeping the law. Did your read my article to its fullest extent in regards to Acts 15? Circumcision was set BEFORE the law of Moses under Abraham, not Moses, and then brought into the law of Moses.

    Jews do not consider the 613 commandments to be categorized like what you are doing, i.e. ceremonial, food, etc. Christians seem to do that, but Jews do not. I was reprimanded by Jews for stating what you have laid out, believe me. I tried that one already.

    Note Acts 15’s wording here, and notice the word “AND”:

    Acts 15:5
    But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

    Notice that first of all that this particular sect of Pharisees were “believers” of Jesus as the Messiah. Notice that there is the word “and” between “circumcise” and “to command them to keep the law of Moses.

    And, I might add, what I posted yesterday had nothing to do with the Ten Commandments except for one…adultery. Where is eating blood found? Where is eating meat offered to idols at? Those have nothing to do with the Ten Commandments. But we do consider those sins as well as the Ten Commandments, too. But we are not instructed in the NT to not steal, are we? What about the rest of the Ten Commandments? Are we off scott free now?

    The word “law” as you suggest does indeed mean TWO things, but not as you laid out.

    The Law of Moses, which spans from Exodus 20 to Deuteronomy. The Law of Moses is known by MANY names:
    The Law
    The law of God
    The Law of Mose
    The book of the law
    The book of the law of God

    And a few more as well.

    Torah, which spans from Genesis 1 to Deuteronomy and in THIS context, when the words “The Law and the Prophets” are mentioned, you know that it is discussing TORAH, not the Law of Moses.

    Again, Torah (Law) begins in Genesis 1:1. The Law of Moses does not begin in Genesis 1:1.

    You might want to look up the Hebrew word “Tenahk” which is really TNK, which is ALL of the Hebrew scriptures from Genesis to Malachi. The T stands for Torah. Again and again we hear “The Law and the Prophets” not only in the gospels, but by the Apostle Paul, too. In that context, you should see it as discussing “prophecy” of Jesus. Jesus is prophesied in Genesis, which is not the law of Moses, but the Torah. Torah is simply “The First 5 Books”. The Law of Moses begins in book 2 of 5, not 1 of 5. The Latin equivelant is the Pentateuch. Penta meaning 5, and the rest meaning book.

    So, while we wish to argue about the word “The Law” in MY context it is the Law of Moses which defines what sin is, beginning with Exodus 20. And guess what…it’s not categorized by the Jews, because I was reprimanded by Jews for my categorization. As it is said, break one commandment, you broke them all.

    Abraham was not under the law of Moses, but circumcision began with him, not the law of Moses. It was added to the Law of Moses, MEANING that when the Law of Moses ends, circumcision is still a requirement for Jews, and, I might add, that the Apostle Paul, while preaching against circumcision, actually circumcised a Jew believer. Why? Why would anyone have a need to look at this guys penis?

    The Law of Moses defines sin. Gentiles have never ever been under the law of Moses at all. Acts 15 tells us the limited scope as to what we are to do and the rest of the NT epistles tells us how to conduct ourselves as Christians, and what to avoid.

    Yes, absolutely we are to POINT OUT SIN when someone sins. You call it condemning, I say NOT. Condemning is “sentencing” one to hell. That’s not my job, that’s the job of Jesus. My job is to INFORM, aka point it out.



  72. Mark,

    Romans 5:13
    (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

    I kinda get the feeling that you did not dissect or read all of my post at all.

    Read also Deuteronomy where Children had no knowledge between good and evil.

    Read Romans 7 where Paul had no idea what sin was until he knew the Law of Moses.

    All of this and much more is in my post. How did you miss all that?



  73. Remember, the principle is that scripture interprets scripture. Jews do not interpret scripture, and the modern concept of Jewish law does not necessarily interpret what Jews in Paul’s day interpreted the law to be.

    Now to your argument. I read your article. There were a plethora of inaccuracies, incorrect statements and bad conclusions. The fact that I don’t choose to deal with every last statement you make does not mean that I did not read. I’m trying to point out the major issues.

    Your definition of condemn is simply idiotic. If you claim that Jesus is the only one who condemns, then, obviously NO ONE can condemn, except Jesus. So why even say that you’re not condemning? You’re accusing of sin. Just like the Pharisees in Jesus’s day they were quick to point out sin, and Jesus was just as quick to point out that they were full of crap.

    “Abraham was not under the law of Moses, but circumcision began with him, not the law of Moses. It was added to the Law of Moses, MEANING that when the Law of Moses ends, circumcision is still a requirement for Jews”

    Wow, that is truly scary! What about this?

    “and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.”

    If circumcision is a requirement for Jews then it is a requirement for all Christians, because we are all children of Abraham. Colossians 2 is pretty clear as well:

    “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.”

    Unfortunately, I think you are still stuck in the Old Testament rules and regulations. Jesus died to fulfill all that. Jesus died so that Gentiles didn’t need to become Jews to be saved, and that Jews didn’t have to follow all the bloody regulations.

    “Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.”

    You say: “So, while we wish to argue about the word “The Law” in MY context it is the Law of Moses which defines what sin is, beginning with Exodus 20.”

    So, again, you are speaking nonsense! You say the Law of Moses ends, but then you say that Jews are required to be circumcised because of Abraham. Yet the Bible says that those who are circumcised are obligated to keep the Law.

    This is why I can’t respond to your article point for point, you make a point, and then you contradict it a paragraph later to make another point. And, by your response, you seem to want to draw the debate into a gigantic game of theological Whack-A-Mole.


  74. Would love readers comments on how you overcame triggers in scripture. I came from an abusive church that beat me over the head with certain scriptures on who I was supposed to be with my emotionally abusive spouse (double whammy). I have trouble now, reading God’s Word without it triggering horrible feelings and thoughts. I end up slamming the Bible shut and throwing it across the room. Also, I have trouble with songs sung that have anything to do with the bride of Christ. Any help would be great!


  75. I can certainly feel with you, Toiler. I hope you’ve gone out of that spiritually abusive church and have been separated from that emotionally abusive spouse. Now, there lies before you the long and promising way of restoration. Be of good hope, it is Gods goal for you to come out of that terrible experience stronger, in better shape to fight the good fight of faith and to give and receive love. If God could do it with me, he certainly can do it with you.
    As a starter I would suggest you do the following things:
    1. Seek a trustworthy spirit-filled counsellor or a few really good friends who have been at your side during that whole ordeal.
    2. PRay a prayer of separation from that woman AND from that church. Separate yourself in Spirit, soul and body from all abusiveness you have encountered. Forbid any spirit of abusiveness to gain power over you in Jesus name.
    3. Ask God to show you the roots in your personality, that have allowed the church and that woman to gain control over you and to abuse you in the first place. It is your right and responsiblity to close evry door!
    4. In due time, there will be a moment, where you would be able to forgive that church and that woman what they have wronged. But do not do that too quickly! To forgive means to let go of any accusation and of any desire to revenge!

    Be blessed and do not accuse yourself for throwing the bible around. God is not irritated by that.

    [mod note: removed private e-mail address]


  76. Sorry Toiler, by peeking into your blog, it seems that I got your gender wrong. So in my above comment, just replace the genders I used for their opposite. What is said is still very true.


  77. Just reading the posts by Rachel on Tullian T… so maybe this is off topic and will post it here as well… you can ignore it on the original post if you want…

    one part of this that is really bothering me is Paul Tripp’s role… has there been any followup or anything more on him? I just have huge red flags on his part in this and his connection with TT… if anyone can direct me to additional information on him over the last year or 2, I am interested in that, because it seems he has significant influence with a lot of leaders in the Church that seem to abuse power and this makes me wonder about him… and how much he is hiding and covering up behind secular conventional confidentiality … maybe I’m wrong… but for me, this raises serious concerns in that direction… I have absolutely no access to him and know very little about him… am I the only one who is concerned here about him?


  78. I think this is a big issue, but mostly because Paul Tripp, who claims to be an expert on counseling and has written many books on the subject got completely duped by someone who seems by all evidence to be a wolf. And not just duped. He violated a bunch of stuff that he proclaims in his writings about not taking things at face value.

    More troubling, this appears to be a double-standard. If the abused comes to a counselor, the abused is typically very emotional. Perhaps angry and bitter, and the counselor is immediately supposed to question the story and make sure (he) isn’t being asked to take one side or another, etc., but in the case of the abuser, as evidenced by TT, Tripp bought his side of the story, did not remain neutral, did not question whether there was anything beyond what TT admitted openly, etc.

    I think Tripp was honestly duped, and it calls into question everything he has written about counseling, since his failure was so dramatic and seemed to violate everything he had written. As others have said, it calls into question his “gift”, since shepherds should be able to discern the sheep from the wolves.


Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s