July 30, 2005

Creationists' Periodic Table of the Elements

Filed under: Random Stuff — Bob Gifford @ 7:45 am

This jpeg was emailed to me by a friend absent any information on the originator other than the reference at the bottom to “Loren Williams Georgia Tech 2005”. After googling for a couple minutes, I tracked it down to the back cover of the latest issue of Skeptical Inquirer magazine. Loren Williams is a professor of biology and chemistry at Georgia Tech, and has published a prior version of the table on the reDiscovery Institute‘s website.

Enjoy!

creationist periodic table of the elements

July 26, 2005

Straight to the Point: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?

Filed under: Random Stuff — Bob Gifford @ 9:07 pm

Update June 30: While the abortion debate has been going on here, a similar debate has been going on in response to Father Jake’s post on abortion at the Christian Alliance for Progress. Check it out and add your thoughts.


The abortion discussion has been raging on among commenters to this blog, and it is no longer entirely respectful. Before I get into my personal views on this topic, a warning — I will delete any comments that include personal attacks, and the commenter will be permanently blocked from commenting here in the future.

In my previous post on abortion, my intent was to highlight the moral complexity of the decision to abort. Many commenters assumed from that post that I’m pro-choice, which isn’t true. The abortion-on-demand argument misses something very important — when a woman conceives, something has happened that can never be undone. The world has changed in a fundamental way. A potential life exists where none did before. To treat abortion as a trivial clinical procedure is to deny the fundamental fact that something very profound is taking place.

Pro-life advocates argue that a fetus is a human life, while pro-choice advocates argue it is not. I find this clouds the issue rather than clarifying it. A fetus is not a human being, at least not yet, but it is far more than inert matter. We need to see a fetus as it is — not yet a fully developed human being, but much more than superfluous tissue. So I won’t argue the point that a fetus is a human life, mainly because I find this distinction irrelevant. A fetus is what it is — a potential human being, and as such deserves protection and care in its own right. Given this, I start with a strong opposition to abortion.

But is abortion always immoral? Is it always counter to the will of God? In the case of incest or rape, it’s hard to imagine that God’s will is always for the mother, already a victim, to be forced to carry the fetus to term.

Unfortunately, the Bible is silent on abortion. Yes, I know there are verses that can be used to make the case against abortion, but if abortion is so antithetical to God’s will in all cases, why doesn’t the Bible come out and say so? Since it doesn’t, we can only look to the examples of compassion and love shown us by Jesus. Love and compassion need to be shown to the fetus as well as the mother, but still, rape and incest seem to me situations where abortion may be in accordance with God’s will.

Are there other situations where abortion is moral? If abortion is immoral sometimes, but moral others, where do we draw the line? I don’t know. And this is why, in spite of my personal opposition to abortion, I am also opposed to criminalizing abortion.

Many argue that a woman controls her own body. This is clearly true, not only as a statement of principle, but as a statement of empirical fact. Women do control their bodies, as demonstrated by the high number of illegal abortions before Roe v. Wade. Women will always be the ones to make decisions about whether to continue their pregnancy or not, regardless of the law.

Given that I don’t know how to draw the line between moral and immoral abortions, plus the fact that I’m a male and can never experience pregnancy for myself, I am really uncomfortable with laws that restrict a mother’s ability to choose to abort.

So there you have it, in all its self-contradictory, ambiguous moral uncertainty: I am opposed to abortion, and opposed to making abortion illegal.

I would feel a bit embarassed by straddling the fence on this issue and not clearly coming down on one side or the other, except that as it turns out, my denomination has taken the same stand. From the ELCA Social Statement on abortion:

The position of this church is that, in cases where the life of the mother is threatened, where pregnancy results from rape or incest, or where the embryo or fetus has lethal abnormalities incompatible with life, abortion prior to viability should not be prohibited by law or by lack of public funding of abortions for low income women. On the other hand, this church supports legislation that prohibits abortions that are performed after the fetus is determined to be viable, except when the mother’s life is threatened or when lethal abnormalities indicate the prospective newborn will die very soon.

Beyond these situations, this church neither supports nor opposes laws prohibiting abortion.

Unlike gay marriage and the ordination of gays, I think my church is right on target on this one.

Just because the mothers must make the difficult moral decision regarding abortion doesn’t mean they will always do so in accordance with God’s will. This is why, as I stated in my previous post, we must work to help women avoid unwanted pregnancies. Abstinence-only programs are not the answer. Young people must be told to abstain if they can, but use a condom if they can’t. The way to make sure that mothers make the right decision about abortion is to make sure they never have to consider it to begin with.

July 24, 2005

Comment Form Problem Fixed (I Hope)

Filed under: Random Stuff — Bob Gifford @ 10:21 pm

Get Firefox!Many of you have complained about the spill-over to the right on the comment form. It only happens with Internet Explorer, and since I use Mozilla Firefox (a much better and safer browser, by the way), I was unaware of the problem for quite awhile. When I learned of the issue, I asked for help, and was told it was caused by Microsoft’s lack of compliance with style sheet standards and was not a problem with my style sheet and html. At this point, I felt vindicated, and waited for Microsoft to come around to properly supporting global standards.

Alas, it has not happened, and I have heard your continued cries of outrage and anguish. So, I’ve tweaked the comments form in the style sheet, and it looks to me like it should be working for IE as well as the rest of us.

Let me know if this does in fact solve the problem for you, and if you find any other glitches I’ve overlooked. And thanks for your patience as I struggle learning to use the Internets.

July 23, 2005

Freakonomics on Abortion

Filed under: Random Stuff — Bob Gifford @ 9:24 pm

In a bit of synchronicity, a spirited but respectful discussion of abortion has broken out among commenters to a previous post. Meanwhile, I was reading an analysis concerning abortion in the bestselling book Freakonomics. I have addressed the gay issue extensively here, but I have not addressed the second of the Big 2 conservative Christian issues, namely abortion, so I suppose it’s about time. However, for those looking for simple answers, I have none. I guess that’s why I’ve avoided the topic.

Wildwest said in a comment:

Abortion, of course, is a complicated issue. Right-to-Life hardliners are like pacifists. The idea is a good one on the face of it, but hard questions begged to be asked.

This could be the theme underlying my thoughts on abortion. Similarly, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner write in Freakonomics:

Morality, it could be argued, represents the way that people would like the world to work — whereas economics represents how it actually does work.

I’ve argued before that religious extremism (whether on the right or the left) comes from seeing the world as it ought to be rather than as it actually is, so Levitt and Dubner didn’t need to convince me.

Levitt (the economist that actually did the analytical work in the book — Dubner is a journalist who helped Levitt write the book so that it’s comprehensible) shows that there is a strong correlation between the crime rate and the availability of abortion. The steady drop in crime in the US began 17 to 18 years after Roe v. Wade. Children that would have been born to single mothers too young or too poor to raise a child, were instead aborted. The result appeared when these fetuses would have reached young adulthood, but did not.

Levitt doesn’t have an agenda. He seems to be a “quant jock” who enjoys poring through data to find correlations, and ultimately, causes. He doesn’t advocate abortion. In fact, in an analysis that only an economist would think to perform, he shows that one murder was avoided for each 100 abortions. If you believe that an aborted fetus has more worth than 1/100th of a person, then the trade-off between abortion and crime is not worth it.

Neither is Levitt saying that poor, young single mothers raise criminals. He is simply looking at the data that show that children of poor, young single mothers are more likely to engage in crime when they reach adulthood than other children. These are the same mothers that could not afford an illegal abortion before Roe v. Wade, but could afterwards. The moral here is that women know very well whether they are ready and able to raise a child. The women that began getting abortions after Roe v. Wade did not do so to avoid an inconvenience, but because they understood they were in no position to be a parent.

But what light does this shed on the abortion debate?

In a perfect pro-life world, every mother of an aborted fetus is selfish, and every aborted fetus is a potential Mozart, Einstein or Billy Graham. In a perfect pro-choice world, every mother is a selfless saint, and every aborted fetus is a meaningless piece of tissue. But here in the real world, there is much more ambiguity, much more uncertainty, and the moral decision is much less clear. Levitt’s analysis shows us just how little we understand about a mother’s decision to abort. What activists on both sides don’t want to see is the real world as it truly is — where the issues are not clear cut, the moral certainties are few, and the implications are far-reaching.

The only thing I know for sure is that every unwanted pregnancy is a tragedy, and that unwanted pregnancies should be avoided by abstinence when possible, and by birth control when not. Each unwanted pregancy that is avoided is one less difficult, ambiguous decision that need not be made.

July 19, 2005

Some Final Thoughts on the Braaten Letter

Filed under: Random Stuff — Bob Gifford @ 8:41 pm

My brick-and-mortar life has been crowding out my point-and-click life lately, so my blogging has been light. Last week I posted in full an open letter from Dr. Carl Braaten to Bishop Mark Hanson of the ELCA. I posted it without any commentary or opinion, because as I noted at the time, I didn’t yet know what I thought about it. Ever since, this has been a loose end that I’ve felt I really needed to tie up, but haven’t been able to get to it. Until now.

Shortly after I posted this letter, I left the following comment in response to a post on the letter over at Versus Populum:

I agree with the complaints about the encoded language here. This is an “insiders” letter, and apparently I’m not an insider in the ELCA, because I don’t have a clue.

When I first read it, I didn’t know what to think. Now I’m just getting angry that Braaten broadcasts this out there without providing a secret decoder ring. I’m feeling a bit left out…

Now, I realize that Dr. Braaten is a theologian using the language of theology to speak to other theologians, and I am certainly no theologian. But what frustrated me was that Braaten was warning a general audience of a dire situation, but didn’t communicate in a way that any but a few would understand. After all, Braaten wanted his letter to be distributed as widely as possible. I wouldn’t have minded if he had cried “FIRE” in a crowded theatre (assuming there really was a fire.) But instead, Braaten cried “KULTURPROTESTANTISMUS” in a crowded theatre without considering that most of those present (me included) would have no idea what that meant nor what to do about it.

Fortunately, Pastor Frontz provided a lengthy exposition of the letter in a comment following mine.

Braaten drops the name of Karl Barth a lot and refers to “liberal Protestantism” or “Kulturprotestantismus.” (Caveat: “liberal” does not mean “21st-century Democrat:” in the letter, Braaten mentions that he is against the Iraq war.) “Culture-Protestantism,” obviously a put-down term rather than a school of thought, might be generically described as a Christianity that gives lip-service to creeds and confessions while in actual doctrine and practice taking its cue from the contemporary culture….The term can also illuminate those Christians who live uncritically to the culture and are not formed by the culture of Christ.

Thus, Braaten is criticizing the abandoning of tradition and Scripture in favor of the views of popular culture. Pr. Frontz also sees in Braaten’s letter a critique of the view that “truth” can be decided by each individual based on their own experience rather than by the entire body of Christ based on God’s will as revealed in Scripture and tradition. This tendency is apparently exhibited by the liberal side of the homosexuality debate, but this is not the only place it appears.

The discussion on Versus Populum eventually moved to the ordination of women, and whether the ELCA’s predecessor bodies’ decisions to do so represented Culture-Protestantism, or a clearer understanding of the Gospel in light of its traditional interpretation.

Carl would (I hope) and I do deny that the decision to ordain women was a deviation from Church teaching. (It, surely, represented a substantive departure from Church practice and discipline over virtually all the life of the Church, but as I try to explain, it was not really a violation or denial of the teaching of Scripture.)

I would point to the quite serious study of the issue by predecessor bodies of the ELCA, the LCA and the ALC (ah, the glories of Lutheran alphabet soup): Those studies looked at Scripture very carefully, along with quite serious — though with not hearly enough exposition– of the history of the issue. And both groups concluded that the Scriptures do not, at minimum, foreclose ordaining women.

As other commenters noted, many of us theologically orthodox Lutherans see the homosexual issue in exactly the same way. So finally, here is what I think.

Dr. Braaten’s critique has nothing to do with me. I do not feel free to pick and choose Scripture based on the current culture, but believe that God calls us to ever deeper understanding of God’s will as expressed in Gospel. I feel rooted in tradition, and recite the Apostles Creed every Sunday, but like Luther, I believe we are called to correct the errors of my Christian tradition. I proudly consider myself part of liberal Protestantism in the US, but that does not take away from what makes me Lutheran: the theology, liturgy, traditions and community of my denomination.

The GLBT debate going on in the church in the US is another in a long line of evolving discernments we have made regarding God’s will, including the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, civil rights, divorce and remarriage, and the ordination of women. None of these issues have been decided based on the current culture, but often the culture has made it untenable to avoid wrestling with them. Fleeing to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy doesn’t allow one to avoid the search for God’s will for these most difficult of questions.

(Thanks to Dwight, Dash, LutheranChik, Melancthon and others for their insightful comments at Versus Populum.)

July 17, 2005

The Dallas Morning News on Progressive Christians

Filed under: Random Stuff — Bob Gifford @ 10:17 pm

Welcome to readers of the Dallas Morning News — please enjoy my humble blog, and check out some of the other blogs and organizations listed on the sidebar on the right.

For those of you not coming here by way of the Dallas Morning News, here’s an excerpt from an article in today’s paper:

Progressive Christians speaking up

02:52 PM CDT on Sunday, July 17, 2005

By COLLEEN McCAIN NELSON / The Dallas Morning News When pundits dubbed conservative Christians “values voters” last year, churchgoers on the losing side took notice – and offense.

“Those of us on the left looked at each other and said, ‘We’re values voters. We love Jesus Christ,’ ” said the Rev. Tim Simpson, a Florida minister.

Now, like-minded Christians are getting organized.

They are preaching tolerance and a focus on helping the poor. And they want conservatives to know it’s possible to believe in abortion rights, gay rights and God. Long outgunned by the religious right’s political machine, progressives are proclaiming that fundamentalism isn’t the only brand of Christianity, with new grass-roots groups and Web sites such as www.iamachristiantoo.org.

By the way, Tim Simpson, mentioned in the article, blogs at Public Theologian, and is one of the founders of the Christian Alliance for Progress, both sites worth checking out.

Thanks to Collen McCain for running with this story and doing a very nice job with it. We progressive Christian bloggers have long been hoping to get the media’s attention so that we can end the monopoly of a minority of Christian leaders that presume to speak for all of us.

After all, I am a Christian too.

July 13, 2005

Open Letter to Bishop Mark Hanson From Carl E. Braaten

Filed under: Random Stuff — Bob Gifford @ 7:33 pm

The following is an open letter circulating around a few blogs and ecunet. I post it here in its entirety without comment, mainly because I’m not yet sure what I think about it. I will say, though, that the concerns Braaten describes have never occurred to me.

An Open Letter to Bishop Mark Hanson From Carl E. Braaten

The Reverend Dr. Mark Hanson Bishop,
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
8765 West Higgins Road
Chicago, Illinois 60631

Dear Bishop Mark Hanson:

Greetings! I am writing out of a concern I share with others about the theological state of affairs within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. The situation might be described as one of “brain drain.” Theologians who have served Lutheranism for many years in various capacities have recently left the ELCA and have entered the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church in America.

Why?

When Jaroslav Pelikan left the ELCA and became a member of the OCA, I felt it was not terribly surprising. After all, he had been reading and writing about the Fathers of Eastern Orthodoxy for so many years, he could quite naturually find himself at home in that tradition, without much explanation. A short time before that Robert Wilken, a leading patristics scholar teaching at the University of Virginia, left the ELCA to become a Roman Catholic. Then other Lutheran theological colleagues began to follow suit. Jay Rochelle, who for many years was my colleague and the chaplain at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago joined the Orthodox Church. Why? Leonard Klein, pastor of a large Lutheran parish in York, Pennsylvania, and former editor of Lutheran Forum and Forum Letter, last year left the ELCA to study for the Roman Catholic priesthood. Why? This year Bruce Marshall, who taught theology for about fifteen years at St. Olaf College and was a long-standing member of the International Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, has left the ELCA to enter the Roman Catholic Church. Why? David Fagerberg, formerly professor of religion at Concordia College, although coming from a strong Norwegian Lutheran family, left the ELCA for the Roman Catholic Church, and now teaches at the University of Notre Dame. Reinhard Huetter, a German Lutheran from Erlangen University, came to the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago fifteen years ago to teach theology and ethics, now teaches at Duke Divinity School, and this year became a Roman Catholic. Why? Mickey Mattox, a theologian who recently served at the Lutheran Ecumenical Institute in Strasbourg and now teaches at Marquette University, has recently begun the process of becoming a Roman Catholic.

In all these cases the transition involves spouses and children, making it incredibly more difficult. Why are they doing this? Is there a message in these decisions for those who have ears to hear?
(more…)

July 12, 2005

To Be Ruled by God or Ruled by the Mob?

Filed under: Random Stuff — Bob Gifford @ 7:18 pm

A few weeks back I followed a link from Christian Dissent to a blog by Rob French, a conservative evangelical and member of the US Air Force. After I left a comment on his blog, I was pleasantly surprised to see that Rob had visited my humble blog and responded at length in this post.

While we disagree on many political and religious issues, Rob reminds us that, regardless, we both share redemption through faith in Christ:

[S]alvation is obtained by the grace of God alone…It’s not based on how well I do or don’t adhere to a given doctrine (caveating that, of course, with the fact that certain aspects of faith, if lacking, detract from the credence of an individual’s profession of Christian faith). Point being, for either you or I [sic], salvation is the work of God, not us, and we share the name “Christian.”

Rob French and I are brothers in Christ, despite our differing views. I’m also reminded of the statement by a commenter on this blog (I can’t find it right now) that the gates of heaven will be echoing with the sound of us all slapping our foreheads as we enter the Kingdom, saying “oh, God, so that’s what you meant!” I’m sure both Rob’s and my forehead will be red as we see God face-to-face.

Now to respond to some of Mr. French’s views. In a post on theocracy, he says:

This, then, is [theocracy]–not rule by leaders who are thought to be divinely inspired, but ruled by, no kidding, God Himself.

How much I would love to be ruled by God. And of course that is what we look forward to when we someday “shuffle off this mortal coil.” Rob continues:

Certainly, He uses men to accomplish His sovereign and immutable will; we, in turn, have the tools available to ensure that the work that those men does [sic] is indeed in accordance with the will of God: namely, we have the holy Scriptures, which are, to paraphrase Paul to Timothy, useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking, and instructing in all righteousness, and contain both general principles as well as specific examples touching upon every facet of human relationship and existence.

And there’s the rub! The Bible does not provide clear instructions for running a government, especially not one in an era of the Internet, global trade, stem cell research, nuclear proliferation and feeding tubes. Christians can’t agree on the ground rules for baptism, much less whether the judicial filibuster should be allowed. Even the worst dictators in history have believed they were on God’s side, or at least that they were doing the “right thing”, as they resorted to force to impose their will.

So how do we ensure that our civic leaders truly are governing morally? In the US, we limit their power through the Constitution, and we hold them accountable through elections. Regarding the popular vote, Rob says:

[Y]ou and I will serve either the theocracy of God, or one of the theocracies of any of a myriad of other gods–the mob (Demos in the articles above) being one.

Except that he has it backwards. We don’t serve the mob, the mob serves us by restraining the power of political leaders. Majority rule, along with the guarantee of minority rights, makes sure that our leaders can’t do too much damage. Of course, they also make sure that they don’t have an unfettered ability to enact God’s will as his agents. But history has shown that earthly rulers claiming to act for God have done far more damage than good.

Here’s a short list of some history the framers of the Constitution would have been familiar with. Mary I of England (“Bloody Mary”) made a practice of burning Protestants at the stake, as she tried to restore Roman Catholicism to England. The Pilgrims fled religious persecution by the Church of England, settling first in Holland, then in America. Thousands of Anabaptists were killed for their faith during the 16th century by both Protestants and Catholics, leading the Amish and the Mennonites to come to America. The Thirty Years War between Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists laid waste to much of Germany. Back in the US, Roger Williams was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony because of his hostility to the Church of England, so he founded the Rhode Island Colony where he became a Baptist, and then a Seeker. Meanwhile, Quakers were imprisoned, banished and flogged throughout much of New England by the Christian authorities.

You may have noticed that all of these conflicts were between fellow Christians. Both sides claimed to be acting as God’s agents, accomplishing his will. And so I return to Rob’s comment regarding the means of salvation. All these Christians were saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, and thus shared the name “Christian”, even as they set about killing, capturing, torturing and banishing each other.

Democracy is not biblically ordained, and I would happily cast it aside if something better came along to ensure good and just government. But in the history of humanity so far, it’s the best we’ve found.

I look forward to a true theocracy in heaven, and someday on earth, under Christ’s kingship. In the meantime, I’m sticking with democracy.

July 9, 2005

The Latest on Gays and Christianity

Filed under: Random Stuff — Bob Gifford @ 9:42 pm

There have been some recent news stories and some good posts regarding the ongoing struggle to gain acceptance for gays withing the body of Christ. Here’s a round-up:

  • The UCC’s General Synod voted to endorse the blessing of gay unions. Woo-hoo!
  • A UCC church in Virginia was the target of arson and anti-gay graffiti, apparently in reaction to the vote. “‘Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.*
  • Tim Simposon, aka Public Theologian, has a post on the Christian Alliance for Progress blog explaining why Romans 1 doesn’t really say about gays what conservative Christians claim it says.
  • And lastly, I stumbled across a list of 12 reasons why gay marriage is bad (another sarcasm alert here). A sampling:

    2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
    3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
    7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That’s why we only have one religion in America.
    8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.

July 5, 2005

Natalee Holloway and the Headship of Her Father

Filed under: Random Stuff — Bob Gifford @ 9:29 pm

I ran across this post at Slice of Laodicea via Bad Christian. In it, Ingrid criticizes Natalee Holloway’s father for not providing a proper biblical headship to his family.

The cameras were rolling, the distraught parents were sobbing in front of microphones and a prayer vigil was set up in the local Baptist church. Natalee Holloway, an 18-year-old high school graduate from Alabama, had gone missing May 30th while on a trip to Aruba with over 100 other partying high school seniors. As I write, she remains missing while several men are investigated for their possible role in Natalee’s disappearance.

Amid the emotion, blogger speculation and celebrity-style media coverage, a critical factor in the disappearance of this teenager has been ignored. What in the world was an 18-year-old girl doing in a nightclub at 2:00 in the morning, on a Caribbean island, consorting with strange men? What does it say that in all of the hours of media coverage and exhortations to, “pray for Natalee”, so little has been said about the scandalous state of fatherhood in our land that allowed this girl to be in such a terribly risky situation in the first place?

A young girl’s first line of defense is her parents, namely her father. God set up a father’s headship as a protection against the dangers of a world that preys on beauty and innocence. The daughter of a loving father is the beneficiary of a precious oversight that keeps her from the very real threats that menace her purity and safety. But America has thrown out God’s headship and authority in the biblical model of the family. Much of the church has, as well. Natalee is the unfortunate heir to a legacy of bitterness and death called feminism. Feminism laughs at the notion of loving headship. Feminism declares that females can take care of themselves, that they have need of nothing and that the very notion of innocence and purity is laughably archaic. Effeminized fathers go right along with this notion now, sending their daughters off to war in Iraq while their sons win football scholarships and sending their teen-age daughters off to Caribbean islands to party all night with strange men.

sarcasm warningIngrid is obviously not a Bible-believing Christian. She entirely disregards Paul’s admonition that women should remain silent and be in submission. How dare Ingrid, a woman, question the headship of Natalee’s father, a man? Mr. Holloway is certainly acting as the head of his family, and in his biblical role as ruler of the family, he decided to allow Natalee to go to Aruba. The problem isn’t Mr. Holloway’s headship, it’s that Ingrid is unable to submit to Mr. Holloway’s headship. The problem isn’t “effeminized fathers”, it’s emasculating women, and one in particular named Ingrid.

Now if Ingrid’s husband or father wants to challenge Mr. Holloway’s headship of his family, that’s fine. But if Ingrid truly believes in the biblical family and biblical roles for men and women, she should restrict her blogging to subjects appropriate to women: sharing recipes, tips on homeschooling children, and lessons on being a good helpmate. Obviously, Ingrid’s husband or father isn’t providing proper biblical headship for her. She can’t have it both ways: be an outspoken, opinionated blogger criticizing the parental decisions of a man she’s never met, and also a firm believer in the God-ordained submission of women to the headship of their husband and father.

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress