A Short Consideration of Biblical Anti-Feminism

Early this week, I was approached by a female (Christian) college student who had some questions about the Bible, and specifically how she, as a young woman, ought to feel about some of the anti-woman passages the Bible contains, especially those in Paul’s writings in Corinthians. I was deeply flattered that she came to me to ask for my take on some of those scriptures. I am not at all an authority on the Bible, or on theology, or on scriptural interpretation. But this particular young lady is well acquainted with my personality, and knows that I consider myself something of a low-level feminist, in addition to a Christian. I’m not sure how much of a scholarly response she hoped for, but I am certain she wanted my opinion, and that I have in abundance.

As a woman who was raised from birth in a godly home, I too have had these questions and these struggles along the course of my faith journey. Crafting my response to this query was something that required me to revisit some of my own questions, doubts, and even frustrations with what sometimes feels like an incompleteness in Scripture. Sometimes I think it would be nice to have Jesus-in-the-Flesh so I could ask questions like this when they come up. But then I remember how, every time someone in the Bible has a question for Jesus, the riddled answers he gives leave the recipient just as confused as he was before he asked, if not more so. That Jesus was one tricky fella.

Still, though, coming up with a response to the question of how to approach anti-feminism in the Bible forced me to think through some of these things again, and it made me wonder how others handle it. So I’ve decided to share, in its entirety, the response I drafted and sent, in the hopes that some discussion will be generated. I’m deeply interested in other people’s thoughts on the matter. Keep in mind, I don’t have a degree in anything even close to religion, theology, or the Bible, so my thoughts are more ‘Audra’ than they are ‘educated.’ If you disagree with something I’ve said, that’s fine. I’d love to hear from you. I only ask that you please not be rude.

One final note: I wrote this response without actually looking up the Corinthian scriptures. I probably shouldn’t have done that. Still not having looked them up, I now wonder if what my response addresses is actually contained in Paul’s letters, or if it possibly belongs to a different New Testament writer. The bulk of my response addresses the scriptures that talk about how women don’t have a place in church participation and/or leadership because, when I hear someone talking about the Bible being anti-women, these are the first scriptures I think of, and they are the ones I myself have personally wrestled with the most. I won’t pretend to know off the top of my head what book they come from. Perhaps, though, at a later date, I’ll examine things more thoroughly and find I have more to say. If so, I’m sure you’ll hear from me.

That being said, following is the full, verbatim, unedited text of my original response:

Hey, got your text. Had a much longer answer than could be contained in a text message, or than I wanted to use Swype for. So here we are.

Your question is rather loaded, but I find the answer to be fairly simple, at least for me. First off, it’s important to remember how highly contextualized the Bible is. The books were not really meant to be passed down thousands and thousands of years. When I say “meant,” I am of course only speaking of the authors’ intentions. No author of Scripture intended for his words to be read in 2013, and certainly not adhered to as gospel truth.

It is my opinion that if Paul or any other writer of any other book of the Bible – especially the New Testament books – came back today and saw the way that Christians and the church misapply his contextual words, he would both laugh and cry. And then he’d probably write a letter to the new world, chastising us for being such incompetent fools that we can’t even take the spirit of Scripture and figure out how to apply it to our own contexts.

Now, (*Obama voice*) let me be clear: I think the Bible is important. But there are contextual details in Scripture that do not apply to the world we live in today, and how could they? It’s just not possible.

When I read Scripture that feels misogynistic or seems to disagree with the world I’m encountering (this includes the anti-homosexual scriptures too), I run it through the Greatest Commands filter:

1) Does this scripture – beyond the surface – speak to Jesus’s command to love God? If so, how can I apply it in that way? Loving God does not mean not being who you are (as a woman, in this case; as a gay person, in other cases; as a myriad of other things in a myriad of other cases).

2) If the answer to the first question is no, then it should be yes here: Does this scripture – beyond the surface – speak in some way to Jesus’s second-greatest command to love others? If so, how can I apply it in that way?

The writers of Scripture were human, and they were not without sin. Paul contradicts himself a zillion times. Some of this is because he has different things to say to the different towns/churches because they have different problems. What’s true for Galatia is not true for Corinth, and vice versa. Otherwise, he could’ve just written one document for everyone. Paul wrote from prison, trying to put out specific fires in specific communities. I highly doubt he had any concept or inkling that his writings would survive thousands of years and be taken at total face value in 2013.

Those who chose and compiled the canon were also human, and not without sin. I’m not saying that I don’t believe the Bible is inspired by God; I do believe God inspired Scripture; but I AM saying that I don’t believe in the concept of inerrancy of Scripture, at least not in the literal sense. Especially when the versions of the Bible we have today are so doctored and transformed from the original texts. It blows my mind when someone dissects a paragraph for me and explains all the various meanings that could be meant by one Greek or Hebrew word. The difference is too vast for me to say that my NIV, modernized, Anglicized, translated-into-American-English version of the Bible is totally without error or fault.

When I memorize Scripture, I don’t find it important to memorize the potentially divisive ones that are so highly embedded with contexts and cultures that are dead today. I find it important to memorize the ones that transcend context and culture, such as the one I tattooed on my arm, Philippians 4:12. Oppression of women does not transcend context and culture, but trusting God enough to be “content” (wherever the various nuances of that definition may take me) in any circumstance – that does transcend. It’s a totally timeless concept, as are the two commands to love God and love others.

If the anti-women scriptures are that important to you, dig into their history and find out why exactly that view was important enough to Paul to write it down. And find a way to prove why it’s irrelevant today. Heck, find a way to reapply the Scripture so that the word ‘woman’ isn’t what’s important. Why did he not want women leaders in the church? I doubt very much it was because they were women. Today the application of that Scripture might be more along the lines of, “Hey. Don’t let someone who hasn’t studied up on theology lead your church.” Back then women were not allowed to be scholars. So should they have been leading congregations? Probably not. Today, should someone who has never studied the Bible, or its culture, or its history, or the ancient languages surrounding it, or any type of theology whatsoever, be leading a congregation in a significant way? Probably not. Saying ‘women’ could have been an easy (albeit, lazy) way to say that the uneducated person should not lead the church. I don’t know. I haven’t dug into it myself.

I’m really glad this question and consideration has become important to you. We serve a good God, and we serve a God who made both of us, and called it ‘good.’ Love God; love others. Not easy concepts; but simple. Also, this is the tip of a pretty contentious iceberg, so good luck and be careful digging in!

PS I mentioned this conversation to a friend, and he recommended a couple of resources. The first takes an open perspective and theology on the importance of both genders and God’s original intent for both men and women (the most important detail being that the inequality is a result of the fall, and of a broken world).

And here is one that Nazarene Publishing House published that is no longer in print, that specifically addresses Paul.



Filed under bloggy

23 responses to “A Short Consideration of Biblical Anti-Feminism

  1. As an Eldee & Youth Leader in my church (Where women are promiant in the leadership) I think you’re pretty spot on. If I were asked this question off the cuff and gave an off the cuff answer this is pretty much what I’d say. Especially on passing The Greatest Commandment litmus test.

  2. b longfellow

    I think you’ve covered my own thoughts perfectly here, and added to them as well, all clearer and more thoroughly than I could have explained to anyone.

  3. Couple of quick points:

    Most scholars (that aren’t fundamentalist) agree that the scriptures containing the “household codes” were written by someone else claiming Paul’s name, not by Paul himself. It is obvious throughout Paul’s ministry that women play an important role, a fact that is usually overlooked in the face of these household codes. They were written as a way of keeping this budding religion out of trouble with the Roman Empire. The Empire frowned upon movements that allowed women to express themselves freely and empowered them to lead. Women were supposed to be subordinate to men in order to maintain the overall hierarchical structure of the Empire. By commanding women to keep silent or submit to their husbands, it made their religion more palatable to the wider culture. The question these scriptures should raise then is, “Should Christianity play into societal structures, or should we resist and subvert the values of Empire?”

    The Bible is not God. It points to God. Some scriptures should be preached against. As you said above, there are some passages that were intended for another time and place, and as they are now irrelevant to our current context, should be debated. In this way, they still maintain their inspirational quality, because they inspire critical thinking and in-depth study and analysis. Scripture should rarely, if ever, be taken at face value. In the case of misogynistic texts, I believe we cannot let them support further oppression of women.

    • Adam,

      Thanks for adding your thoughts! I appreciated reading them. I especially enjoyed your statement that some scriptures need to be preached against. I do think the church has done much of the world a great disservice in acting like, just because it’s in the Bible, that means it’s something God ordains or approves of or something. Interesting thoughts too on the Roman Empire stuff. I did not previously know that detail. Super interesting. Thanks for sharing.

  4. gigi

    I have also asked these same kind of questions. Here is what I have been taught and teach as well. Jesus is the clearest manifestation of the Father. So when things don’t make sense to us in the Old Test. as well as the New Test. we can look to what Jesus said and did that addresses those kinds of situations. So in the case of women, I look at the story of the Woman at the Well. Jesus does not condemn instead he reveals himself to her and in doing so sets her free to become who she was designed to be….the first evangelist to her town. I have a sermon from Dr. Hahn that is just glorious in its description of how Jesus addresses all of her issues within the context of a simple conversation. I can share that with you if you are interested. Another case to look at is the woman caught in adultery. The law would have her stoned to death. But Jesus sees through the hypocrisy of the situation and will have none of it. If she was caught in the act, there had to be someone with her. WHERE IS HE?? The question screams out in the story. And Jesus without tearing down the law upholds the spirit of the law of purity and sets her free. This example answers for me many of the questions that come to my mind in the inequity issues of gender in the scriptures.
    So when things don’t make sense, look to Jesus. I think your comments about the culture are probably correct but if you read the story of the woman at the well you can see she does have a grasp of her history and her people and what they believe.
    All other teaching other than Jesus’ is subject to His example and His words. He is the ultimate screen for understanding what the Father wants and planned for us. Everything must pass through Him, including Paul. And if we did that, our world and our churches would be revolutionary and radically different than what we have today.

    • Gigi,

      Thanks for chiming in! I do think you and I have talked about this before, and I agree about Jesus. He was the ultimate feminist. I love the Woman at the Well story, and the adulterous woman story. Jesus is a wonderful example of how we ought to treat not just women but anyone in society who is considered less than others. Thanks for your thoughts!

  5. Pete

    I came across this blog because I recognized your name through RR, and I was pretty surprised but very happy to see this type of content here. I wrote a response to this post, but it started to verge on Rany length, so I thought it’d be kind of rude to post as someone brand new to your blog. If you’re interested I’d be glad to send it to you via a DM on twitter and if you don’t mind I’d post it as a comment here. If not know that I really appreciate that you are honestly and sincerely pursuing God, which is refreshing to see as a fellow young Christian, even if I do somewhat agree with what you have to say on this issue

    • Pete,

      Haha. I appreciate your consideration of a very long comment from a relative stranger to the blog would make me feel, but I’m more interested in your thoughts than I am in how new you are or how long the comment is, so feel free to post it! Would love to hear what you think on the matter.

      • Pete

        I reread what I wrote and really didn’t like it enough to want to submit it. (I’m sure that’s something you can identify with as someone who writes professionally.) I can give a couple of thoughts on this subject however.

        1) The context of the verse in Corinthians makes it apparent that the word “speak” refers to preaching or prophesying. A church meeting looked very different 2000 years ago, so you are correct in saying that we need to understand the time and the context to apply this passage, but this doesn’t invalidate the passage. In the context of a modern church service, we can take it to mean simply that women aren’t intended to preach to a congregation, not that women are completely powerless in a spiritual setting.

        2) This may seem discriminatory but just 2 chapters prior to when Paul says that women shouldn’t speak in church, Paul explains that every member of the church is like a part of the body and that every part of the body has a different role and a different gift. “if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell?” (1 Corinthians 12: 16-17) So Paul explains that different people have different gifts and that each person contributes something that is important and valuable to ministry — every Christian woman plays an important role in ministry, but that role just won’t be teaching. This still seems to be in opposition to feminism, but these different roles that people possess are not said to be of their own ability or own work. Paul uses the word “gift” because these roles are given to Christians by God for use in ministry. They are not in any way connected to the ability, education, or background of the person receiving them, so Paul does not say that women aren’t worthy of preaching, just that that is not a gift that women are given. Therefore if a women does preach, she will be doing so not of a gift that God has given her, but of her own ability, and Paul of course believes that preaching through a Gift from God is better than through a person’s own ability.

        To be clear, this only applies to ministry. This passage is by no means advocating gender roles. It doesn’t say that women should stay at home and that men should work, nor does it say that women are unable to hold leadership roles in business, government, etc.

        P.S. Sorry to be preachy, this is my best understanding of theology in this area, but I am not even close to being an expert in theology or the Bible. I’d be quite thrilled if someone came along and picked apart parts of my argument because that would help give me a deeper understanding of this issue for the next time it came up.

        • Hmm, at this point, I’m not sure how to respond because I just don’t agree with that. The problem, though, is that I’m not a scholar, so I don’t know how to explain in an intelligent way with appropriate background support why I don’t agree. But your take is a less offensive interpretation than some others have put forth, so I at least will refrain from getting upset with you! I appreciate you sharing your thoughts, despite the fact that we are strangers!

  6. I read this when you first posted it and have been mulling it over since. I always find it interesting to read your posts on faith and God, because as you know we do think differently about a number of issues, and I like challenging myself to think about WHY I actually do believe certain things about what reason I give. That being said, I thought what you had to say about Paul perhaps not meaning women specifically but as a general term for someone who is uneducated or poor or outcast, etc., was interesting. I’d never heard it put quite that way before. I was going to bring up something that’s already been mentioned in a few comments, which is that Jesus, Paul, and other writers of the NT were definitely not anti women. We’re studying Luke in church right now, and already Luke’s gospel shows an honor of women and the role they play in the Christmas story. I think the main part I wanted to focus this comment on is this statement, which I’ll quote but not because I’m trying to be rude, just so I can have the quote here to reference: “When I memorize Scripture, I don’t find it important to memorize the potentially divisive ones that are so highly embedded with contexts and cultures that are dead today. I find it important to memorize the ones that transcend context and culture…”

    Whenever I have conversations with Christians who, for example, don’t think homosexuality is something that’s against God’s will, I wonder how they handle the texts in the Bible that clearly speak against this. There are many sins that are not mentioned that Old or New T writers could have never imagined, but this (homosexuality) is mentioned by name more than once. That issue is a whole post of its own, but the quote in question (above) gave me a bit of insight into my confusion.

    What it sounds like you’re saying here is that you are choosing to not find important certain scriptures that don’t fit your view of what love or grace or redemption means. So you choose to memorize or study scriptures that appeal to your worldview and only focus on those that affirm what you believe or what you would like to believe. Yes, there are no doubt cultural contexts that should be considered when studying the Bible. I won’t argue with you there. And obviously Paul had no idea his letters would be read 2,000 years later. But God, in his sovereignty, knew that, and he inspired the letters and the eventual closing of the canon, so I have to believe that the entire Bible is there for us to read and study, and we can’t just take out some of the parts that we don’t like.

    As far as your statement about the Great Commandment, I believe you CAN love people while still thinking that what they do is against what God designed, and that goes for many issues, one of which is the issue of feminism in the Bible and their roll in modern-day churches. I actually had a discussion with some friends about this not too long ago, because it offended me that one of them said they wouldn’t even want to be a member of a church where the main pastor was a female. I will say that ultimately, though I am still offended on principal, they did make a compelling argument, which I now begrudgingly agree with (there, I said it). I actually intend to send him your post and get his thoughts. So I think this is a timely discussion and one that bears further study on my part.

    Anyway, I think that’s it for now. The main points, at least. Sorry for the crazy long comment. As I said, I’ve been thinking about this for a few days now, so hopefully this didn’t come out as a jumbled mess. Interested to hear your thoughts.

    • It’s hard to know how to respond to this, but there is one very important thing you should know: I do not discard scriptures I’m uncomfortable with just because they make me uncomfortable. I question, examine, and study scriptures that make me uncomfortable for that very reason. It’s rude to accuse someone of piecemealing together a worldview based on proof-texting. Furthermore, taking the Bible at total face value (including the Leviticus portions) is more of a false way to operate than digging in to discover the truth and context of Scripture, and what it’s REALLY trying to say, rather than surface-level blanket-applying it to a modern context that has nothing to do with what the Scripture was/is really about.

      There is a lot about faith and Christianity and the Bible that I’m absolutely not comfortable with, or at the very least, that I have questions about. But I cannot believe in a God to whom women are inferior, and I also cannot believe in a God who would make people a certain way (i.e., gay people) and then choose to condemn them automatically, simply for being who they are. God looked at creation and said it was good. That includes both women and homosexual people. If I’m wrong about homosexual people, fine. I would rather be loving toward someone than be hateful/judgmental/condemning, and find out later that I was “wrong.” Love is never wrong, at least not in its true, biblical sense. However, this post really isn’t about the rightness or wrongness of homsexuality, so I won’t go further into that because here is neither the time nor the place.

      It’s true that you and I don’t see eye to eye on a lot of matters regarding faith, and I think that the reason for that is simply that I’m willing to believe in gray areas and you aren’t. Everything is black and white for you. My world and my brain just aren’t that simple. Faith and Christianity and living like Christ and loving God and loving others all become very complex once you get to know other human beings. Nothing about faith has ever been black and white for me, and that’s the fundamental difference between you and me. Grayness allows for holy grace. And I lean heavily on grace.

      I encourage you to read through the thoughtful discussion that was had on my FB page regarding this post. There are some scholars there who have studied far more of the Bible than I ever will who wrote some detailed and educated and wonderful responses. It was rather an enlightening discussion: https://www.facebook.com/audra.marvin/posts/628112162404

      • Thanks for the response. At the risk of beating a dead horse, I just want to add here that I do not see everything as black and white. I examine and question and think about why I believe what I do. I don’t take things just because my parents believe them or whatever else. That’s why I really do enjoy reading posts like this from people who think differently than me. And I enjoy educated discussions on topics of faith.

        I do believe in grace. But I also believe in a holy fear of the God who created the universe. His message wasn’t meant to make everyone happy, and he wasn’t trying to get along with everyone. They killed him for his message, and so I don’t think it’s too far out there or close-minded to take a firm stance on issues that may appear outdated to modern culture.

        • I don’t necessarily disagree with the point you’re making, but I do usually disagree with the implication of judgment that comes along with a stance like that. If a person believes that s/he will be eternally punished if s/he doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ, fine. But it’s not okay to make other people feel like *they* will be.

          Our job as Christians is *only* to love people, to show them Christ. Unfortunately, when we make judgments about their behavior or lifestyles, that prevents us from loving them *or *showing them Christ. Jesus did not tell sinners that what they were doing was wrong or that he didn’t “agree” with their behaviors or lifestyles (as many Christians feel the need to do with gay people). Instead he ate with them. Got to know them. Sometimes they were inspired to better lives because of his example of extravagant love and forgiveness. And sometimes they weren’t. But it was their choice.

          Paul says in Corinthians that spiritual gifts mean nothing if they are not accompanied by love. Being right about scriptural interpretation or faith or any other aspect of religion is worthless if there is no love.

  7. As a spiritual, non-religious, semi-feminist who has read the Bible, has a brain and loves bigger than you can imagine, I’d like to take the time to say THANK YOU.

    You are the kind of Christian that is exemplary of Jesus himself. You don’t waste time (for lack of better words right now) memorizing scripture that’s clearly not intended for you or 2013. You don’t try to dictate what others should be doing/be called to. You truly take the time to understand the context and weigh against the principles that Christ laid out. I’m glad that young lady asked you about this questions. I think you gave a heartfelt, honest answer that will help her grow into the woman of Christ she’s clearly being called to.

    As for homosexuality… Are we seriously still even debating equal rights? Huh. Weird.

  8. Apollos

    As I read this post, I had 2 primary questions. The first being, why were the verses not examined by yourself when this friend asked your opinion on the verses in question? You indicated that you thought the verses in questions were in Corinthians but then weren’t even sure if they were contained in Paul’s letters or not. Based on that clue, I can only assume the scripture reference is 1 Corinthians 14:34-36, although there is a similar passage in 1 Timothy 2:11-15. This just surprises me seeing how you went to great lengths to explain that studying the context of a particular passage of scripture is crucial when understanding the meaning. You mentioned the possibility of researching and finding the particular verses at a later date, so I hope those references help.

    The second question I had being: why do you think that the bible is not necessarily inerrant or complete? In your e-mail to your friend, you mentioned that Paul contradicted himself a zillion times in his letters. Can you provide one example out of the zillion where he does this? It is true that Paul had different instruction to provide to different churches so naturally the tone and topics would vary, but in my examination of the totality of all scripture (not just Paul’s epistles), the best evidence of the bible being the accurate word of God is its congruity and harmony. I’m also perplexed at how you arrive at the conclusion that Paul or any other author of the bible did not know or intend that their writings would be read or followed throughout the church age. Paul writes in 1 Timothy 3:16 that all scripture is inspired by God (or literally “God-breathed”), and if that were the case then why wouldn’t God preserve His word for all time? There are also instances where NT authors refer to other NT passages from different authors as scripture (see 2 Peter 3:15-16, 1 Timothy 5:18 which provides a reference to Luke 10:7, 1 Cor 14:37 Paul says that “what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord” which the use of that language indicates that he clearly thought of that specific letter as scripture).

    At any rate, I am appreciative of this post for making me think and examine my own thoughts and beliefs on scripture.

    • Apollos,

      Thanks for sharing your thoughts. The best and most honest response I can give to your questions is that I didn’t do all that work because I’m not a Bible & theology scholar. She asked for my opinion, not a research paper. I gave what I thought was enough disclaimer at the top of this post to make it clear that I’m not ever to be thought of as an authority on this. In fact, any time I write a post that trends toward the theological realm, I make that disclaimer. Part of it is laziness on my end. Part of it is also a lack of interest. My interest does not go to a a depth that leads me to research and investigate the way I’ve suggested my friend do. The only reason I DO suggest to her that she research and investigate is so that she doesn’t rely on me (a non-authority) for the final word because I don’t know enough to be trusted by someone truly seeking the depth of answer that she is.

      In response to your other comments, I think that anyone who has lived for more than a decade and has studied and read the Bible and discussed it in ANY capacity could agree that one thing that is consistent is that interpretations differ. You say you find only harmony among all the scriptures when you read the Bible. Well, my experience has led me to find a broad narrative arc, but I would not equate that with comprehensive harmony. I have found there to be lots of scriptures that seem to contradict other scriptures, and yes, some of them include Paul’s own writings.

      Other comments: I happen to be someone who views the Bible as a “why” book more than a “how” book. I don’t think it’s important in a literal sense but only in a symbolic sense. I also happen to be someone who thinks that there are myriad scriptures and texts that are not part of the canon that are important, formational, and life-changing, and I don’t think they should be excluded from study or consideration just because a certain community/council of people decided to exclude them from THE BIBLE.

      God-breathed or not, humans are humans, and they will always make mistakes.

      Thanks for taking the time to read my work and add to the discussion.

      • samantha

        Nobody on this post said that they find only harmony in the scripture. That is not true at all. I find it funny that you falsely accuse the Bible of being a happy thing to read. If Christianity and the Bible were easy to understand then we would never need to look to God for answers. Like someone on here said look to God to gain answers. You don’t have to be a scholar either I don’t know why you think you need to. The Bible is for everyone. If you don’t understand it that is why people have made different translations so that it can relate to our world at this time. You seem like your stuck on older versions and refuse to learn more yet you still redicule the Bible and Christianity. God did not create people gay they chose to be gay just as we choose to sin. He would not create sin in us because then what’s the point of repenting and turning to him.. man created sin and evil.. Another thing is you don’t even bother to hear what Christians have to say. You have it set in your mind that we are rude and that the Bible is wrong and confusing. I will pray for you because I feel that the Devil is really weighing you doown. You want to believe but he’s not letting you.. rebuke him in Jesus name and the Bible will be more clear. You can not just fully understand the Bible until you have complete faith in God and his word.

        • Samantha,

          It’s getting harder and harder to reply to you with kindness with each comment you leave on my blog. Please stop judging me as not being a Christian. I am one, and if you can’t tell that from reading my posts, then please do not read any more of them.

          Respectfully, A

          • samantha

            I am not judging you. I am replying just as everyone else is. If you do not like what I have to say just remember not everyone is going to agree with you. I am entitled to my opinion and meant no disrespect. I simply did not agree with your comment. If you feel judged then that’s something you need to deal with. Someone cannot say they are a Christian and have so many doubts. Questioning is fine but you have so many doubts that its draggingyou down ffrom what I read. A true Christian would have complete faith in God and believe the Bible to be true. This is the problem with “christians” now days they get caught up in worldly ideas and it gets their focus off God. I will continueto pray for you and others who are struggling in their faith. God Bless You.

            • There is so much in what you’ve said that is not true, and is condescending, that I don’t even know where to begin. So I’ll just acknowledge that I read your comments and leave it at that. I don’t mind being disagreed with, but you’re something else entirely. Thanks for coming around.

            • PS I love Jesus intensely, and have since I was a small child. But that doesn’t mean I automatically know all the answers.

              PPS A small tip. People never choose Christianity as a result of being condescended to. I suggest you change your tactics. Perhaps start by speaking lovingly to people you actually know, rather than cutting down strangers on the internet.


Your thoughts?

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s