Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities – Theology of Hurt Feelings – Why Christians Are Reluctant To Call Out Sexual Sin

Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities – Theology of Hurt Feelings – Why Christians Are Reluctant To Call Out Sexual Sin

(Before I get to the link proper, here is a long introduction by me.)

I agree with this guy’s editorial (linked to farther below). I’ve written of this phenomenon before on my own blog, going back a year or maybe as long as three years ago (see links at the bottom of this post under the “Related Posts” section).

I do not like legalistic jerks. I don’t think Christians should be rude, mean, hateful jerks to other people, even when condemning certain behaviors as being sinful.

However. HOWEVER.

I can’t say as though I’m a whole-scale supporter of legalism’s opposite characteristics, either – which amounts to extreme leniency and “watering down of standards” in the name of Love and Tolerance.

I have seen some Christians so very afraid of hurting the feelings of Non-Christians (or even that of fellow Christians) who are in sin, or in confronting Christians who are openly supportive of behaviors the Bible condemns, they tip toe around the sin in question to an absurd degree – where they end up practically supporting, condoning, or excusing said sin (whatever it may be).

These Christians are hyper-sensitive to other people’s feelings, and it is a huge annoyance to me.

This tendency to treat other people’s feelings with kid gloves has gotten so bad in Christendom (particularly in regards to sexual sin), that some preachers have admitted they are afraid to speak out against sin in public, in their blogs, TV shows, books, or from the pulpit.

It’s also very common among Christian lay persons, or by ex-Christians or liberal Christians, who confuse God’s propensity to love and forgive with the notion that God (and Jesus Christ) are hunky-dory with behavior the Bible thoroughly condemns, such as hetero pre-marital sex or homosexual sex acts, for example.

(Transgenderism is a sexual state which has become the new liberal Christian, moderate Christian, Theology of Hurt Feelings Christian, ex-Christian, and left wing secular Sacred Cow that you may not criticize at all.)

It’s also intriguing to me that on the spiritual abuse blogs I have visited, whose owners and members champion the downtrodden (i.e., adults who have been mistreated by churches, or victims of sexual abuse whose abuse was swept under the rug by their fellow church members), have forum or blog participants, who will, on one hand, quite understandably call for the heads of such abusive church members on a platter, rightly call out Christians as being naive fools about abuse in churches, but – many of these same people are also very dismissive of, or blind to, abuses by Muslim militants and homosexual militants.

They are very naive of abuses by Muslims and homosexuals. They seem to have a huge blind spot in those areas.

How they can so easily spot and repudiate Christian and church bungling of spiritual and child sexual abuse, or of preachers who exploit their church members, but fail to recognize the dangers of Muslim and homosexual militancy in American society and other regions of the world, I will never understand.

The blindness and naive nature by folks on those sorts of forums and blogs also extends to Roman Catholicism.

I have had a few Roman Catholic friends in the past, and they are fine people, but their church? No.

The Roman Catholic Church used to burn people at the stake, but one Roman Catholic individual recently thanked a (Protestant) blogger for bringing to everyone’s attention the anti-Roman Catholic commentary expressed by yet another blog (a Protestant one which was critical of perceived sinful RC behavior).

I mean, really? Some Protestant writing a critical comment about Roman Catholic behavior in general on a blog is thought somehow worse than the Roman Catholic Church in years past doing things such as:

-Covering up priest sexual abuse of children, or….

-Burning people to death for refusing to convert to Roman Catholicism, or for (Link to Wiki page): translating the Bible into English, or….

-The same Roman Catholic Church that historically has held the position that the Gospel (which includes sola fide) is anathema (to be damned)?

        (Off site link for more on that:

      Roman Catholic Church condemns the Gospel itself

          )

        Seriously?

        But you can’t easily point these issues of the Roman Catholic Church out at some forums or blogs – the ones who are into The Theology of Hurt Feelings – as it might offend a Roman Catholic somewhere.

        The Roman Catholic Church historically persecuted a lot of people (see again: burning people to death at the stake for things like not converting to Catholicism), but criticism on the internet of their church is considered by some of them to be the height of persecution against Roman Catholics.

        At any rate, I agree with the gentlemen quoted below.

        There is most certainly a Theology of Hurt Feelings, where-in some Christians are so incredibly concerned with not offending various classes of sinners (e.g., hetero fornicators or active homosexuals), they think Christians speaking out publicly (on blogs, radio shows, in church services, etc) is “unloving” and therefore Christ would object to it.

        The mind boggles at this. Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay for hetero fornication and homosexual sex acts, among other sins of humanity. But these “lovey dovey” types want other Christians to pipe down about all this and act as though God is totaly fine with, and accepting of, all manner of sin.

        The Bible presents a God who is not only loving, forgiving, and gracious, but also one who is Holy, just, and who does not tolerate sin, he does not like sin, and he won’t put up with sin indefinitely. God is not fine and dandy with sin. And the Bible does in fact call out hetero pre-marital sex, and all homosexual sex acts, as sin.

        I suspect that this well-meaning, yet wrong-headed, tendency to want to be Very Loving, Very Accepting, and To Spare People’s Feelings, is partially responsible for what gave rise several years ago to the ridiculous, non-sensical, un-Biblical habit of referring to fornicators as “Born Again Virgins,” “Spiritual Virgins,” and similar monikers (see links below, this post, for more about that).

        (Link): Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities

        Excerpts.

            BY ALEX MURASHKO , CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER 
            July 25, 2014|8:33 am

          Advocates for behavior considered immoral by Christians who believe the Bible is God’s inerrant word, have successfully used the idea of “love” to affirm homoerotic behavior, to redefine marriage and family, to justify pedophilia, and as theologian and pastor James Emery White recently pointed out, to justify assisted suicide.

          The problem, White writes in his blog, Church & Culture, is that the “love” described to normalize these behaviors is “not the biblical idea of love.”

          Continue reading “Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities – Theology of Hurt Feelings – Why Christians Are Reluctant To Call Out Sexual Sin”

          Taking the Opposite Position from Neo Calvinists Just Because It’s the Opposite of Neo Calvinists

          Taking the Opposite Position from Neo Calvinists Just Because It’s the Opposite of Neo Calvinists

          I touched on this in an earlier post or two, such as this one: (Link): No Man’s Land – Part 2 – On Post Evangelicals or Ex Christians or Liberal Christians Ignorantly Hopping Aboard Belief Sets They Once Rejected.

          But this time, I wanted to discuss Neo Calvinism and spiritual abuse blogs and advocates in particular.

          I do not support Neo Calvinism, or even old school Calvinism. I think Calvinism is a crock of crap.

          Many of the NC’s (Neo Calvinists, aka YRRs), are arrogant, narrow minded jerks.

          My problem with seeing NC guys, their churches, or their positions discussed and picked apart by some bloggers is that the anti NCs go into reactionary mode.

          Their positions often time seem not so much well thought out in and of themselves, but that they will take a position opposite of that held by most NCs just because it’s the opposite of that held by NCs.

          I do know a little bit about NCs and their theological beliefs, but not as much as their frequent critics.

          According to their frequent critics, NCs believe in a literal six day creation, not an old age of the earth.

          (As for me, I am NOT an NC, and I believe in a literal six day creation.)

          My issue when I visit blogs or Twitter accounts by people who are vehemently anti NC is that they will, it appears to me, automatically take the opposite position on anything John Piper, The Gospel Coaltion, and other NC guys say just to be contrary.

          Continue reading “Taking the Opposite Position from Neo Calvinists Just Because It’s the Opposite of Neo Calvinists”

          Brief Critique of the J. Daly editorial: Does Casual Sex Empower Women?

          Brief Critique of the J. Daly ed: Does Casual Sex Empower Women?

          In the midst of looking up Jim Daly’s contact information (so I could tweet him a link of my previous page), I found this linked to on his Twitter page (he wrote it):

          (Link) Does Casual Sex Empower Women? by Daly

          Here is the part that caught my attention:

            The cultural impact of casual sex

            Sadly, the cheapening of sex is having a long-term impact on marriage… which, in turn, negatively impacts parenting. It’s a tragic chain-reaction of events that work together to undermine the institution of family.

          I know that Focus on the Family has a new family-centric film to promote ((Link): unfortunately), and I see the heading there says “cultural impact,” but Mr. Daly, the fact is, some women never marry and never have children, including Christian women.

          The Bible does not say God promises all women a marriage partner not even the ones who pray for one and who want one.

          If you see my previous post (link), you can see the stats on the number of singles in America.

          Many women today are staying single these days, some against their wishes.

          (That’s right, the typical conservative Christian canard that women are choosing to stay single because they hate marriage, hate men, or put career above marriage, or had tons of marriage proposals but turned them all down because they were too picky, are false).

          There are plenty of Christian women such as myself (though I am half-agnostic now), who were raised in church and by Christian parents to expect, plan for, and count on marriage.

          I had hoped for marriage. I still find myself single. I did not plan on being never-married into my 40s. I may never marry.

          I am still a virgin. I have never had children.

          The church does not support adult virginity – they ignore or shame adult celibate singles (a few links with examples of that can be found at the end of this post, and all over this blog if you search).

          It makes no sense, and I see no biblical support, to suggest the only or main reason to argue against casual sex is on the basis of how it may “impact marriage and family.”

          Continue reading “Brief Critique of the J. Daly editorial: Does Casual Sex Empower Women?”

          No Man’s Land – Between Agnosticism and Christianity / Also: It’s Emotional Not Intellectual (Part 1)

          No Man’s Land – Between Agnosticism and Christianity / Also: It’s Emotional Not Intellectual (PART 1)

          This will be a series of posts where my thoughts wander in and out and all over, and it rambles, but there is a point or two behind it.

          Since I’ve been in a faith crisis the last couple of years, somewhere between being an agnostic and a Christian, I have noticed I don’t fit in anywhere. I reside in No Man’s Land.

          (Even before then, when I was a total, committed Christian, and politically, I was, and am, right wing, I still didn’t fit in at most blogs and forums, including political ones, and including ones for right wingers!

          I tend to be one of those personalities who annoys or angers everyone, even those on “my side” of an issue, except a small number of people, who are either on my side of a topic or not, who “get me” or who appreciate where I’m coming from – again, this is true for even the ones who disagree with me on whatever topic we are discussing.)

          I am in this really weird place now, where I am critical of some aspects of conservative Christianity, and see where conservative Christians get some doctrines and other things wrong, but, too, I am not fully on board with militant atheism (I find the New Atheists to be arrogant, vile, hateful and rude), and I don’t even care for lukewarm atheism.

          Nor am I in the camp of anything and all things liberal Christianity, except where I think they get the occasional point correct (such as their rejection of gender complementarianism).

          Since drifting away from the Christian faith more the last few years, I more often began frequenting forums or blogs for and by atheists, ones by liberal Christians, ones by ex Christians, or by Christians who were abused by a former church who remain Christian but who dropped out of Church, or who now are on a crusade to expose abuse by preachers or the absurdity and harm of current evangelical gimmicks.

          THE MILITANT ATHEISTS

          A clarification: when I say I have been visiting atheist forums and blogs more often, I am very picky about which ones I regularly visit.

          I do not like the frothing- at- the- mouth, extremely bitter, biased- against- Christians- type atheistic communities.

          The bitter atheist groups sound like a bunch of irrational, hate-filled loons who reject Christianity for emotional reasons, but who lie to others and themselves and say, “Oh no, it’s purely intellectual.”

          But their unrelenting, insane amount of hatred at any and all things God and Christian, is just a total turn-off to me, so I try to avoid such sites.

          These angry, always-ranting atheists are really nothing more than Fundamentalist Atheists or Taliban Atheists. They are just as dogmatic about their atheism as Muslims are in their Wasabi Islam or Baptists are in their Neo Fundamentalism.

          Really, those types of atheists are just as bad as the religious groups they claim they hate, but they don’t seem to spot that they are. It’s ironic – and it’s hard to stomach the day in, day out anger and hatred, so I try to avoid their sites.

          HYPOCRITICAL CHRISTIANS VS NON HYPOCRITICAL CHRISTIANS

          Also, you have to be honest with yourself, which I do not find militant atheists to be, by and large: not every single Christian is a hypocrite, jerk, idiot, dullard, or complete jackhole.

          I say this as someone who is very fed up with Christianity and Christian persons myself these days.

          But your average militant atheist will never admit that some Christians are in fact okay and not being hypocrites.

          I have known and met a few Christians who were sincerely trying to live the Christian faith out, such as my mother, who is now deceased, and her mother before her (my grandmother).

          I’ve met a few honest, sincere Christians online who do help people and show compassion to the wounded.

          So it’s not fair to completely dismiss the entirety of Christians and their faith or treat them all like jerks because some are liars, mean, or abusive.

          Which is not easy for me personally, because at the same time, I do keep noticing that a lot of self-professing believers do NOT live out what the Bible says.

          Many self professing Christians today, for example, do not protect victims, such as young church members who have been sexually molested by preachers.

          Nor do many church goers today hold accountable preachers who bilk their church goers out of millions to buy big mansions and jets.

          These idiots, these lemmings, actually defend their greedy pastors online, which I’ve written about here: (Link): Your Preacher Sucks – and People Have a Right To Say So And Explain Why.

          Then you have a conservative or evangelical culture, which claims to care deeply that people preserve sex until marriage, but if you actually find yourself 40 years of age and still single – and therefore still a virgin, such as myself – these same churches and Christians do not offer you any support.

          You either go ignored, or preachers and talking heads of such groups “run down” and insult celibacy as well as older, celibate adults. Churches treat single (and especially celibate) adults as though they are flawed, lepers, weirdos, or losers.

          Churches wrongly counsel abused wives to return to their spouses – this is particularly true, again, of churches or Christian groups who buy into “biblical womanhood” (aka “gender complementariansm”) or “patriarchy.”

          Churches and average Christians also remain ignorant or callous about matters pertaining to mental health issues, from P.T.S.D. to depression and anxiety attacks.

          Some Christians wrongly and insensitively teach that “real Christians” can never get depression or other mental health maladies.

          Or, some Christians believe and teach that prayer, faith, service to the poor, or Bible reading alone can cure one of mental illness.

          Still other Christians (or the same type) will shame and guilt suffering Christians for using anti-depressant medications, or for seeing secular or Christian psychiatrists and therapists (see this link for more, “Over 50 Percent of Christians Believe Prayer, Bible Reading Alone Can Cure Mental Illness (article) – In Other Words Half of Christians are Ignorant Idiots Regarding Mental Illness”).

          Yet other Christians are incompetent at, or unwilling, to provide more ordinary, “every day,” run- of- the- mill comfort to other Christians who are hurting, such as a Christian who is stressed out over a job loss, someone who is in mourning for a deceased loved one, etc.

          Christians are dropping the ball in numerous ways.

          And this failure, this huge failure, causes life long Christians like me to look long and hard at the faith and wonder if it’s true at all.

          It causes even someone such as myself to ask if the faith is true, because

          • it doesn’t appear to be working,
          • it doesn’t make a difference in people’s life who profess it,
          • most who claim to follow Christ don’t actually do what he taught,
          • and some Christians refuse to hold Christians caught in bald faced sin accountable but excuse them for the sin,

          ~ and it makes you wonder “what is the point, then.”

          I find this discrepancy between confessed belief and actual practice shocking, because I myself sincerely tried living out the faith since childhood.

          Also, my Christian mother was a role model for me, and she genuinely, consistently lived out and by biblical teachings, including getting up off her ass and actually HELPING people (giving them money if they were in a bind, cleaning their homes for them when they were sick, listening to them cry and rant about their problems for hours without judging them or interrupting them, etc).

          I am not seeing most other Christians do any of this. They say they believe in those things but then they do not do them.

          BLOGS AND FORUMS FOR SPIRITUALLY ABUSED OR THOSE HURT BY CHURCHES

          Before I actually get into this topic (which I discuss more in Posts 2 and 3), here is some background leading up to it.

          As far as the sites I have visited by liberal Christians, ex Christians, atheists, as well as sites by Christians for the spiritually abused:

          By and large, these have been wonderful, supportive sites and groups to visit (the ones run by Christians for hurting Christians).

          I have noticed, though, that there are problems even within these types of communities, and I don’t entirely fit in at them, either.

          Continue reading “No Man’s Land – Between Agnosticism and Christianity / Also: It’s Emotional Not Intellectual (Part 1)”

          The Wartburg Watch Blog – YEC, Calvinists, Gender Roles etc

          (Please click the “more” link to read the entire post)

          I found a blog called “The Wartburg Watch” about a year ago while doing a web search on some topic or another, and then forgot about it, until I found it again about a week ago.

          Here is the link to the Wartburg Watch blog:

          The Wartburg Watch

          In this post, I discuss (sometimes only very briefly), Reformed Theology (Calvinism), gender roles (complementarianism), Young Earth Creationism, Christian speaker Beth Moore, New Evangelicalism (i.e., how important is “secondary doctrine”), spiritual abuse in churches, and other subjects, and how they are addressed at the WW blog.

          Areas of Agreement

          I do agree with many of the positions taken on the blog by Dee and Deb, who started the blog.

          I agree with them on many of the topics they post about, such as authoritarianism and Neo-Calvinism are problematic in Christianity; that the very un-loving tone Christians take towards others can at times cause other Christians to walk away from the Christian faith; and that patriarchy and gender complementarianism are unbiblical and sexist teachings that are doing damage to many women and to the doctrine of the Trinity.

          I also agree, to a point, with the blog owners that some Christians wrongly make issues that most would consider secondary into primary- level concerns, which can lead to needless divisions among Christians. (On the other hand, I sometimes get a little bit nervous by Christians who start saying love always trumps doctrine).

          The blog owners are also very concerned about spiritual abuse in churches and how to prevent or rectify it, and they are also rightly concerned with the sexual abuse of children by pastors and priests.

          So on those fronts, I do recommend their blog.

          Areas of Disagreement

          I do however, have one or two concerns or disagreements with the ladies behind that blog.

          Deb and Dee seem concerned that Christians should be respectful and loving towards other Christians, even when disagreeing on secondary issues – which is a fine and laudable goal.

          Young Earth Creationism

          However, I don’t see them fully demonstrating that philosophy in regards to secondary issues such as YEC (Young Earth Creationism).

          Repeatedly at their blog, I see much disdain for YEC. And I don’t pick up that the disdain is due to their assertion that some YECs are trying to push its relevance.

          They claim that some YEC advocates conflate YEC with salvation or the Gospel itself, which I have not seen (though I am not denying that some YECs may do this, but I don’t think it’s as rampant as they make it appear – I have never personally seen or read of an occasion of a YEC saying “Agreement with YEC = necessary for salvation”).

          About the only name I have seen them cite as far as YECs, especially famous YECs, who elevate YEC to salvation-level proportions is Ken Ham. (Ham’s site, Answers Outreach)

          I’ve read Ham’s material before and have seen him interviewed on TV shows about his views on evolution and creation.

          I have personally not seen Ham equate YEC to the Gospel itself.

          I have only seen Ham make an argument along the lines that questioning YEC (which usually involves denying a literal interpretation of the Bible and/or allowing a secular / naturalistic-materialistic worldview to color one’s reading of the Bible, including the book of Genesis) can lead people (young people in particular, who are immersed with secular views on evolution during school and college) to question other portions of the Bible.

          That is, rejecting a literal, six- day creation interpretation in turn can, or may, ultimately lead them to question if the Gospel is true and accurate, or cause them to wonder if other aspects of the Bible are true.

          I think Ham actually has a decent and legitimate point there, and I don’t see that as necessarily “equating YEC to the Gospel,” or to making a belief in it a requirement for salvation.

          In one thread on one blog page at Wartburg Watch, one of the blog owners seemed to ridicule or mock YEC Christians who believe that dinosaurs may have existed at the time of Noah and that dinosaurs were led on to Noah’s Ark, or that this could have been a possibility.

          This is not the specific thread I am thinking of, but is close to it in content and tone:

          The Fred Principle Fundamental Evangelicals Rejecting Reason (Wartburg Watch blog post)

          As a YEC, I and other YECs do not “reject science,” we do not “reject reason,” and we are not “anti science,” as we are so often depicted as (including in the Wartburg Watch post above, sadly).

          Most of us YECs merely disagree with other people over scientific topics, or how to approach scientific topics.

          Disagreeing with someone else on the topic of evolution or the age of the earth does not mean we YECs are “anti science” or “anti reason.” To keep saying we YECs are “anti science” is a strawman and is mischaracterizing our views and beliefs.

          In the discussion on YEC, one comment from the Wartburg Watch says (which is again at this blog page):

          “No matter what the anointed would have us believe, the age of the earth, complementarianism, the size of our church, and the governing structure of the church are not primary issues. Folks, we have been given a brain. We need to use it.”

          I do not believe that the earth is millions or billions of years old or that God used evolution to create and change life forms.

          From this blog person’s comments at Wartburg Watch, one would assume that those who do not agree that the earth is millions/billions of years old have not been given brains or do not use their brains. I’m unsure if the bloggers mean that, or if it was an unfortunate choice of words.

          (I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some Christian Old Earth advocates and believers of theistic evolution who make the age of the earth or evolution a primary issue, who tell YECs they are unsaved and going to hell.)

          This comment is from a blog owner of Wartburg Watch (at the same page)…

          “So what was his [the YEC person] solution [when confronted with material that disagreed with YEC views]? He refused to read anything more because it challenged him to the core. He said he would choose to believe Young Earth in spite of the evidence because ‘he couldn’t take it.'”

          …Was somewhat uncharitable. Not all YECs are “afraid” to look at the opposition’s view points nor do all YEC advocates recoil in horror, in disbelief, or go into denial after having read work critical of YEC views.

          I have read arguments for both sides of the evolution and age of Earth debates in the past, and I remain a YEC.

          I was subjected to years of secular macro-evolution education in public schools and a bit in college and was told as a student that the earth is millions and millions of years old, but I still remain unconvinced for old-earth or macro evolution beliefs.

          I have listened to Christian scientific personality Hugh Ross, who believes in theistic evolution (or some variety of it) and in an old earth, many times on Christian shows over the past fifteen years, arguing in favor of an old earth view (Hugh Ross’ site, Reasons To Believe).

          Ross seems like a very nice man (and very intelligent, too – though he can, in my view, get a bit prickly or condescending at times when debating YECs), and I have no doubt he believes in Jesus as much as I do, but I disagree with him on these particular issues.

          I did not find the “old earth” arguments, or arguments in favor of evolution, by Ross or by other Christians, journals, blogs, or TV shows I’ve read or watched compelling, nor was I convinced by secular sources who argue for old earth and for Darwinism.

          I am college-educated and made mostly straight A’s while in college, so I am not a hick or a dummy. I made a “B” in a math class (college algebra), a “B” in one science class, and a “C” in one science lab course – everything else, I got an “A” (including one or two other college- level science courses).

          I have read material that questions and criticizes the YEC and Intelligent Design view, both by Christians (who believe in theistic evolution and an old age of the earth view) and by atheists – and I am still a YEC.

          There seems to be a belief held (and it is condescending), by Old Age proponents, that if only a YEC is confronted with criticisms of YECism by old-earth proponents, we will abandon our views of YEC, because, by golly, Fact, Science!, and Truth are so obviously on the side of the intelligent, educated, old-earth proponents…

          And that further, it seems there is also a belief, or attitude, that simple-minded, doofus, red-neck, inbred, wrongly- paranoid- of- liberal- tinged public school system education Young Earth Creationists (who also watch NASCAR, marry their first cousins, have only one tooth, and keep broken washing machines on their front lawns, next to the pink, plastic flamingos) simply cannot challenge or refute anti-YEC teachings, or we are so weak minded, we will faint upon hearing them.

          If the situation about the origins of life, creation of the earth and of mankind were as simple as all that, there would not be an old-earth / young-earth / evolution debate at all; all Christians would have converted to old-earth / theistic evolution perspectives many years ago. Obviously both sides have excellent points, intelligent people, and facts to back up their positions.

          Dee and Deb of the Wartburg Watch blog may not be questioning the salvation of a Christian who believes dinosaurs co-existed with Noah, but in my view, it is no less alienating, or uncharitable to imply people who do believe that way are rubes, out- of- touch, un-scientific, anti reason, ignorant, or that all YECs everywhere equate YEC to the Gospel – and I do pick up that tone in some of the posts at the WW blog on this issue. I find that baffling, since both ladies usually seem very sensitive to other people’s feelings and concerns.

          I am a YEC myself. I do not believe a person has to be YEC or agree with it to “be saved.” (Click the “more” link below to read the remainder of this post…)

          Continue reading “The Wartburg Watch Blog – YEC, Calvinists, Gender Roles etc”