Jul 292014
 

timthumb.phpAnother look at how we view the Bible…

The loss of pastoral credibility in the age of the internet…link of the week, in my opinion.

Can traditional religion survive a wired world?

Hey, Mark…this is how it’s done…

IRS to investigate pulpit freedom pastors…

Choosing which hills to die on…

The next chapter for Christian publishing…

When humble isn’t humble…

The most vexing question…

The hard parts of pastoring…

Samaritans Purse doctor contracts ebola…

From faith atheism, back to faith…

“N” is for Nazareth…

The kids who stay in church…

Christ confesses us…

New poll data on immigration and refugees…

Why grace requires honesty…

Updated: The insane rants of Mark Driscoll in 2000, posting as William Wallace II (graphic language alert)

  70 Responses to “LINKS!”

  1. “Can traditional religion survive a wired world?”

    Christianity can – the article makes it sound like Christianity works like everything else in this world … but alas, the writer has forgotten about the Holy Spirit and the fact that the Gates of the Internet will not prevail over the word of God.

    There is not a person roaming the earth today who is not a Christian because of the internet.

  2. Thanks Michael. A lot to chew on this week. A few 180 degree interviews to be done.

  3. “fissiparous echo chambers”

    my lexicon is rapturously enriched

  4. OK, I’m gonna duck after saying this, but MD was 1/3 right in 2000. It also means that he was 2/3 wrong (view of women, misrepresentation of Jesus), and his delivery and language are intentionally crazy, as he was trying to build his cred Ted Nugent/Howard Stern style.

    That fact remains that 90% of the men I know are selfish little girls.

  5. Re reading some of these articles about the impact of the internet on the church and the ‘going to hell in a hand basket scenarios remind me of the days when Rock n Roll music was going to be the downfall of the church.

  6. Jim. Word.

  7. Read the Mark Driscoll posts. The guy not only hates women, he hates men as well. Basically, he hates everybody. He did say something about a church of non “pussified” men being able to fit in a phone booth, which suggests to me that the only person he thinks has things right is himself.

  8. MD may be the most provocative, but the ideology “masculine” Christianity is recognized and perhaps mainstream in some (many?) conservative streams of the Church. For those looking to get their manhood on, here are just a few of the best selling bible studies at Christianbook.com:

    Manhood Restored – “get your…entire congregation, on the same page about masculinity”

    The Real Win – “explore the essence and purpose of biblical manhood”

    Fight – “a five-week church campaign that helps men uncover who they really are – powerful men with warriors’ hearts.”

    MLD, would any of these fit in your Bible Study 🙂

  9. anytime a guy uses a term like “pussified”, its a sure bet he’s threatened in his masculinity

  10. …then, follow him out to his jacked up pickup truck parking across 2 spaces and check the trailer hitch for how low his truck nuts hang, you pretty much know all you need to know

  11. G,

    The compensation line is old and erroneous. No guys really like trucks, muscle cars, or guns, they’re all making up for inadequacies, right?

    It’s like saying that you and I play guitar because we failed piano.

  12. Since there is a link to the immigration problem, this is as good a place as any, I suppose, to review Murder City, a book that Michael has recommended.

    There is the matter of the situation south of the border and there is the matter of the book itself.

    I do not believe that anything can be done to fix Mexico and the rest of Central America. It’s too late and it’s been too late for centuries. This is a culture that has always been based on corruption and bribery and the current violence is the culmination of this culture.

    Mexico, outside the big cities, was a medieval society based on small farming villages. This is where the Mexicans who are mostly Indian lived out their traditional corn-based culture. They practiced a form of Roman Catholicism mixed with indigenous religion, a religion that occasionally bore a superficial resemblance to Christianity. These people were dirt poor and there’s no need to romanticize village life but at least they had a culture. NAFTA destroyed all this. Farmer’s sons had nothing to do except move to the US border and work for pennies at a factory. That is, until the jobs went to China where you could get your slave labor even cheaper. The flimsy Christianity of most people wasn’t up to the task of resisting the lure of the gangs which promised food and bling. Even if NAFTA were to be repealed, it’s too late: none of these gangsters are going to ever want to return to their native village to hoe corn. They have been ruined. Once you have killed a few people, your conscience is seared. You are almost beyond redemption, short of a miracle. What percentage of Mexicans have fallen into this abyss? God only knows. They worship Santa Muerta, Holy Death. In other words, Satan himself. Can a culture of death ever transform itself into a culture of life? For Mexico, I think it is too late.

    So that’s my take on the situation down there. It is hopeless. We can tell Americans to quit taking drugs but to be honest, the thin veneer of Christianity in America is not up to the task, either. The only thing that can help is a revival of the Mexican people and a revival here in American. Not really a revival, that assumes there is something still alive that needs to be fanned back to life. More like mass conversions to Christianity. Because it will take a miracle to make any kind of change.

    As to the book, I read the first 100 pages and that is probably as far as I am going to go with it. I get that the author’s chaotic writing style reflects the chaos in Juarez, but every chapter is a repeat of the chapter before it. Same chapter over and over without really imparting any new information. Maybe it’s a tone poem.

  13. Jean,
    “MLD, would any of these fit in your Bible Study’

    No it would not, but probably for a reason other than what you think. When do we get authority to preach the Christian instead of the Christ. When you teach about me and how I could live better etc, you have removed Christ from the discussion.

    If people would just teach / preach Christ and him crucified, our churches would be in much better shape. Teaching in church how to be a better husband, a better parent, how to handle your money are all from satan to distract and misdirect away from Jesus.

    Perhaps you can teach that stuff at the church picnic.

  14. Wait! That WWII thing is really MD?

  15. Wenatchee the Hatchet put those up a few days ago…he’s done perhaps the most amount of footwork in chronicling the mess with Driscoll and Mars Hill and deserves the credit.

    However, he took them off his page (they’re still available in my Feedly app)

  16. Perhaps not in a Mark Driscoll way, but the church does need to “man up” (this can include women also) – but we are a bunch of wimps who let the world push us around … as if they should have some say in what constitutes church.

    http://alienrighteousness.org/2014/07/23/pauls-conscience-in-acts-here-we-stand/

  17. Jim,
    Some guys really like trucks, but I really need to understand the value of an urban assault vehicle jacked up as high as a semi with rubberized fake t*sticles hanging off the trailer hitch. At least they’re not real, tanned leather, a trophy from a bar fight.

    Some guys really like muscle cars, but tell me why they insist on such horsepower, obnoxiously loud engines that guzzle gasoline, and mods that clearly display their need to impress someone? Is it purely a masculine version of cosmetic surgery?

    Some guys really like guns, but the insistence of wearing a clearly visible firearm on a holster IN PUBLIC or bringing in their open carry weaponry to Target is purely small p*nis syndrome.

    I play both piano and guitar to impress absolutely no one, never have, never will 😉

  18. MLD #13,

    Last year, a pastor (not at my church) asked me to review some bible study options and provide feedback for use with a large men’s group. The materials were like the ones I listed in #8. The first thing that characterizes these types of studies is that they utilize military and/or sports themes to appeal to men. The next thing you realize is that because they use military and/or sports themes, they use bible material primarily out of the OT (e.g., David vs. Goliath, Sampson, etc.). There’s very little from the Gospels and very little about Jesus.

    Well, I was initially shocked to learn that these types of “Christian” studies even exist, and I told the pastor that I thought the emphasis should be on Jesus, because, after all, we’re His disciples and we’re to follow Him. Here’s the response I got: My concern was valid, however, focusing a study on Christ wouldn’t hold the men’s attention; we wouldn’t get the regular attendance the pastor wanted. Therefore, he wanted a Bible Study which would draw people in using cultural symbols and self-improvement themes.

    I don’t agree with that pastor’s approach, but I’m fairly confident he’s not an outlier in his outreach approach.

  19. Jean,
    The church is influenced more by Barna than it is the Bible.

  20. #20, So true 🙁

  21. #12 Xenia, Thank you for your analysis.

  22. If you ask people what they want in a church and you give it to them, they will come in droves.

    That is what Rick Warren did to begin his church – he went door to door and asked people why they didn’t go to church … and he gave them the church of their dream. None of that stuff that pricks you spiritual conscience.

    The First Church of You.

  23. Probably only traditional religion will be able to withstand a wired world.

  24. Sometimes I wish Christian men would be more manly. A few years ago a Christian man in the neighborhood took in a homeless person. He made his wife do all the work (clean up his diarrhea, etc.). He had me drive the guy somewhere he could get some help and in the car, this guy tried to sexually assault me. He didn’t succeed but he gave it his best effort. So I turn the car around and take him back to the sponsoring neighbor (should have taken him straight to the police.) Neighbor hid behind his newspaper and said “Oh, how awful.” Kept the guy in his house with his wife and me and my exquisitely beautiful daughter next door. No males in my family could bring themselves to set their newspapers down, either. “Oh, that’s awful!”

    So we have this pervert living next door with my best friend cleaning up his diarrhea and no male in the neighborhood wants to do anything except bury their heads in the sports section and say “Oh my!”

    Neighbor at my insistence finally called the cops a few days later but the creep had already sneaked away.

    So yeah, sometimes I wish there were some more manly Christian men.

  25. Xenia’s 25….. Wow….that’s sad.

  26. “Some guys really like guns, but the insistence of wearing a clearly visible firearm on a holster IN PUBLIC”

    “Oh my!”

  27. G, as you well know, strength, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with trucks or guns.

  28. Jim,
    Strength is being oneself without displaying aggression, being peacable, pretty much how we see Jesus acting in the gospels

  29. “drawing all to Him” is polar opposite to the swaggering I see passed off as “manliness”.

  30. The IRS needs to keep its nose out of many things. The least of which is the pulpit.
    The IRS has been proven this last year to be a hack organization that pretty much tries to scare people and to neuter organizations with certain political views.
    The less power they have the better.

  31. Really this is not just a Christian publishing issue. The whole world of publishing is in flux right now.

  32. Brian Freaking D!!! PP Legend!

  33. BrianD,

    Good to see you here…on the thread you originally created. 🙂

  34. It’s beyond all comprehension how anyone can read Driscoll’s words and think he’s qualified for anything but therapy.

  35. Michael,

    I see his 2000 era nonsense as schtick. I was defending an idea, not a man or his style, or even the totality of his message on this issue.

    He is correct that modern men are wimps.

  36. Jim,

    I don’t see it as schtick based on his history since he wrote the comments.
    I think he’s a sick, dangerous, son of a …..
    I live in Southern Oregon…it would not be wise to say that most men are wimps in a public setting here.

  37. And wimps have always hidden in the church, where the ladies amen their “oh my!s”. This bothers me, as I feel the church is where we should find the men who will stand for something.

    Mark’s early 2000’s “he’s a nice boy. He should be a pastor” rap resonates with me.

  38. I live in Florida, where men shave their bodies for the beach, and North Easterners retire.

  39. I would like to have a better understanding of what constitutes a “wimp” and what constitutes a “manly” man.

  40. j2theperson,

    Your #41 is an interesting question. As soon as you identify a trait as “manly” does that disqualify it as a virtuous trait for a woman?

  41. j2,

    Some random thoughts…

    I don’t use the term “manly man”, and I don’t think masculinity equals any kind of machismo. I was playing off of G’s tired old rhetoric regarding trucks and guns. I know plenty of weak guys with trucks and guns.

    I think that men provide and protect, whether they weigh 120 or 200 pounds. God told Adam that he would work hard, and that it wouldn’t be fun. We don’t whine, we suck it up and do what needs to be done.

    I prefer strong/servant vs weak/selfish in regards to defining terms. A man may be physically weak, yet exhibit strength by standing up and continuing to put one foot in front of the other, even when their feet hurt.

    The weak run away or curl up and cry for mommy.

    I blame America’s lack of marriage and divorce rate on selfish, weak men, who somehow came to believe that life is supposed to be easy and don’t have the strength to commit to anything but their personal comfort.

  42. I like how Jim thinks

  43. I think Xenia’s comment @ #12 is right on the money.

  44. I agree with most of Jim’s #43, but blaming divorce rate on men mainly is too simplistic to me.

  45. It just seems ridiculous to me to excoriate men for being wimps when there seems to be no consensus or clear definition of what constitutes true godly manliness. Driscoll certainly isn’t clear about what he thinks a godly “nonpussified” man; for him appearance and the way in which someone presents himself on a surface level certainly does seem to be part of his definition of what makes a man manly and godly.

    Even your thoughts Jim don’t seem to be particularly specific. I don’t think that putting one foot in front of another and curling up and crying for mommy are mutually exclusive. People who are faced with a lot have moments of despair and at times, at least temporarily, give up and beg for help. They might get up after doing so and continue going forward, but it’s not an all or nothing thing.

    And needing to be able to provide and protect pretty much means that any man who is disabled will never be able to be a real man (or whatever term it is you want to use). As someone who is married to a disabled person, that seems wrong to me. My husband is not physically able to suck it up and do what needs to be done–to provide for us in the way he would desire to, in the way he ideally would be able to–but that doesn’t mean he’s not a man or not godly or whatever. He’s committed to me and to our daughter and he interacts with us and has a relationship with us and adds to our lives immeasurably even though he can’t provide the amount of financial support that a husband generally should be able to.

  46. I wonder if the conversation would be the same if we tried to describe a lady vs a shrew (the woman type … not the mouse)?

  47. j2,

    You’re correct that I’m not being particularly specific. I’m not playing games, I’m just tired and mushy headed. I think in the case of those with physical infirmities, it’s more a a case of, what would he do if he could.

    I’ll bet that you have a way of defining strength, and that those qualities reside in your husband.

    Not sure if it was your intention, but you got me good. I in no way meant to offend you, and I’m very sorry.

  48. Real Men Love Jesus.

  49. Thank you Jim for being man enough to back down. You have represented yourself well tonight and I respect you. We don’t all have to agree but admitting a mistake is not only manly but more importantly it’s godly. The word that I believe best describes a manly man is meekness. The best definition I ever heard on this word is, inner strength. I know you don’t like the term manly man but I couldn’t think of a better term.

  50. Thank you Jim.

    I drive a pickup, 4wd, slightly raised. The person who had it before me needed to beef up the suspension to carry heavier loads off road. I routinely take it into the woods, not for play, but for work. And I carry a handgun holstered on my waist, for any possible encounters with predators in the woods. I much rather discharge a round in hopes to scare off a cougar, bear, bobcat, or pack of coyotes. Open carry is legal here and I sometimes forget it is still on my hip and go into a store, but then again, it is more responsible to keep a weapon on me than to risk it getting stolen out of the cab of my truck. And to whatever the hell is hanging from a trailer hitch, well, that must be some stupid Southern California thing, we don’t play that here in my neck of the woods.

    I think Mr. Charlie Daniels say it well, with his guitar no less.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs4y5si8DGs

  51. Ixtlan,

    Out here you are far more likely to see some goof walking around with a $200 Dr. Dre Beats around his neck as an accessory….I saw TWO such “men” at the DMV just last week.

    I’ve heard far more conversations in my life of two ,guys comparing their new guitars or amps than comparing their trucks…

    Just another example of the ease in dissing a part of the country of which one is not a part…..

  52. I look at vehicles as a means to get from point A to point B. I’m listening to a love song by Bread right now. Gotta finish Sleepless In Seattle. Night all! 🙂

  53. Steve,
    “Just another example of the ease in dissing a part of the country of which one is not a part…..”

    Yep.

    “$200 Dr. Dre Beats”. What are those?

  54. “The most vexing question”

    It my neck of the woods that’s “red or green?”

  55. update, the posts that went up Sunday are back online with a few other things.

  56. Dr. Dre Beats are $14 non-linear headphones with Dr. Dre’s branding. it’s all about the brand because it is NOT about the sound.

    Get some of these instead…
    http://www.shure.com/americas/products/earphones-headphones/headphones/srh440-professional-studio-headphones

  57. ***Not sure if it was your intention, but you got me good. I in no way meant to offend you, and I’m very sorry.***

    I’m not offended, Jim. Not at all. Just pointing out a problem as I see it with your definition.

  58. The most vexing question…

    Here’s a proposed answer:

    http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/49951

    Quite sobering.

  59. ***I wonder if the conversation would be the same if we tried to describe a lady vs a shrew (the woman type … not the mouse)?***

    Hah. I’d be way more pissed off than I am talking about this, that’s for sure. 😉

    Basically, I do agree it’s as ridiculous to categorize men as manly and wussy as it is to categorize women as ladylike and bossy. There’s so much variation in personality, interests, and general type that people can’t really be grouped so narrowly.

    I guess the Bible suggests that a good christian will demonstrate the fruits of the Spirit. Those aren’t masculine or feminine. They don’t cause you to be a better man or woman; they cause you to be a better person period.

    When I read Xenia’s account of the creepo neighbor who took in a dangerous homeless pervert and didn’t take any sort of responsibility for doing so, I didn’t think he was less of a man, I thought he was less of a person. I also don’t understand why the men in the neighborhood (outside of the guy who took the homeless man in) had a greater responsibility to report the situation to the police than the women did. They were all adults, and if you, Xenia, who were actually almost sexually assaulted by this man and had seen first hand how dangerous he was was unwilling to report him to the police yourself then why would the men who had not seen or experienced what happened be willing to report him?

  60. In retrospect I should have called the cops myself, j2.

  61. Because men are to be the protectors.
    1.) it’s the reason us men gobble our food, so we can then keep an eye out for danger while the women and kids eat.
    2.) it’s the reason that men walk next to the street and women walk on the inside – to take the hit from runaway cars
    3.) it’s the reason men SHOULD protect the women from creeps in the neighborhood.

    It’s the reason men used to go off to war – I am never comfortable that we now send our women off to war … I know, it all makes me sound like a knuckle dragger.

  62. This man has not been held in high esteem here, including by myself, however, now is the time to pray for he and his family. Ergun Caner’s teenage son took his own life.

    http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2014/07/29/the-judge-of-all-the-earth-will-do-right/

  63. My take would be similar to the infamous statement by a judge some time ago – he could not define p*rn*graphy, but knew it when he saw it.

    I could agree with Jim’s comment about providing, without even thinking about exceptions for those unable to do so – so rather than a straight definition, on a case by case basis one “knows it when one sees it” – and unfortunately I “sees it” far too often.

    If I said a person serious about their relationship with God will read the Bible regularly, I do not intend to exclude blind or illiterate people from ever being considered serious about their relationship with God.

    And that is one of dozens (hundreds?) of examples as to what men should do (or not do depending). Again, one knows it when one sees it.

    I do see the distinction MLD mentions, while admitting to J2’s point about some things being right whether one is a woman or man.

    I still believe in women and children first, and I know a whole lot of men in this country would just run to save their own behind first….

  64. Kevin H…I hadn’t seen that.
    Thank you.

  65. I think women should be protectors too. Whether male or female, if you are an adult, you have a responsibility to look out for those who are weaker or more vulnerable than you–definitely your family members but then, at least to some degree, people outside your family and strangers as well. This may not mean physically intervening, but, at least being willing to respond in some way, be it calling the police, or offering assistance, or verbally responding or whatever.

  66. I still just don’t get what Driscoll does and does not think being a “man” entails. On the one hand, he says in Confessions of a Reformed Rev “I preached for more than two hours about manhood and basically gave the dad talk to my men for looking at porno, sleeping with young women, not serving Christ, not working hard at their jobs, and so on.”

    That all seems admirable and understandable. Men are sexually pure, serve Christ, and work hard at their jobs. It’s not really something that women shouldn’t also be doing, but, whatever, it’s true and basically easy to understand.

    But then in his William Wallace II rants he somehow links James Dobson with pussified men. Most everybody here probably knows that I have serious issues with Dobson’s beliefs, but the idea that he’s somehow not manly seems pretty ridiculous to me. He plainly advocates for people to not look at porn or have sex outside of marriage, to serve Christ, and to work hard at their jobs. (Beyond that he’s also into doling out “tough love” which seems totally down Driscoll’s alley). So why is Driscoll linking him with the pussified nation?

  67. Here is Tom Wright’s take on gender identity from a biblical perspective. Sorry for the lengthy quote. I thought about trimming it, but I couldn’t find any fat.

    “At the start of the twenty-first century, it has been remarked that it is harder than ever to be a boy.

    Today, in the supposedly civilized and sophisticated countries of the world, there is growing up a whole generation of young men who feel themselves discriminated against simply for being male. They have energy and drive—often turning into aggression and violence—with nobody to help them direct or channel it. Often they grow up in broken homes where their natural father has gone for good and a succession of other men come and go. Few, if any, care much for them. Still less do they provide appropriate role models.

    The teachers at the schools they are supposed to attend—though they often play truant—are mostly female. Often the message they pick up is: it would be much better to be like girls, to think and feel like girls. Girls are better. Boys—and men—are part of the problem in the world. Only by radical change can they be part of the solution.

    The results are well known. Many boys end up in gangs. They use drugs; they become violent. They end up in jail. Many die young.

    Of course, there are many boys who don’t go this route. Often, though, they are the fortunate ones, who come from good homes, or who have been able to develop their minds and bodies by good education. But the point to note, which influences the way we approach a passage like this in Paul, is that the Western world has for an entire generation now reversed what used to be the assumed stereotype. Since Aristotle at least, men have regarded women as an inferior species, and many women have agreed with the assessment. In the last few decades this has been reversed in popular consciousness. Now it’s the men who have to apologize for being male. The word ‘testosterone’—which refers to the hormone that produces and sustains secondary male characteristics—is used dismissively or abusively, to indicate that some young male is displaying an unfortunate tendency to be, well, male.

    In this climate of thought, for Paul to tell wives to be subject to husbands looks to many like an unfortunate social or cultural gaffe. People who cheerfully ignore traditional morality, and believe in freedom of expression, suddenly become heavily moralistic and say that passages like this are wicked and shouldn’t even be read out aloud. But—as so often when reading the Bible—there’s a lot to be said for checking our natural, and (let’s admit it) sometimes aggressive attitude to passages that strike us as objectionable, and for thinking through why we react like this, and whether we have really understood the passage or not.

    The fascinating thing here is that Paul has a quite different way of going about addressing the problem of gender roles. He insists that the husband should take as his role model, not the typical bossy or bullying male of the modern, or indeed the ancient, stereotype, but Jesus himself. But, you say, Jesus wasn’t married. No; but throughout this letter Paul has spoken of the church as the body of the Messiah, and now he produces a new twist from within this theme. The church is the bride of the Messiah, the wife of the king.

    The church became the Messiah’s bride, not by being dragged off unwillingly by force, but because he gave himself totally and utterly for her. There was nothing that love could do for the Messiah’s people that he did not do. Although the crucifixion plays a central role in Paul’s thought in almost every topic, nowhere else outside this passage is it so lyrically described as an act of complete, self-abandoning love.

    Paul, of course, lived in a world where women were not only regarded as lesser beings but, as often as not, as impure. Their regular bodily functions were deemed to make them dangerous for a man who wanted to maintain his own purity. Paul sees the action of Jesus—and, by the parallel he has set up, the action of the husband—as taking the responsibility to bring the wife into full purity. Instead of rejecting the wife at times of technical ‘impurity’, the husband is to cherish and take care of her, to look after her and let her know at all times that she is loved and valued. If husbands—not least Christian husbands!—had even attempted to live up to this wonderful ideal, there would be a lot less grumbling about bossy or bullying men in the world today.

    Paul assumes, as do most cultures, that there are significant differences between men and women, differences that go far beyond mere biological and reproductive function. Their relations and roles must therefore be mutually complementary, rather than identical. Equality in voting rights, and in employment opportunities and remuneration (which is still not a reality in many places), should not be taken to imply such identity. And, within marriage, the guideline is clear. The husband is to take the lead—though he is to do so fully mindful of the self-sacrificial model which the Messiah has provided. As soon as ‘taking the lead’ becomes bullying or arrogant, the whole thing collapses.

    If this guideline still seems outrageous in today’s culture, we should ask ourselves: do our modern societies, in which marriage is often a tragedy or a joke, really offer a better model of how to do it? Does the spectre of broken homes littering modern Western culture indicate that we’ve got it right and can tell the rest of human history how we finally resolved the battle of the sexes? Or does it indicate that we still need to do some rethinking somewhere?

    Paul underlines the rule of life he has sketched with a quote from Genesis 2:24, the passage about the man leaving his father and mother and cleaving to his wife. That is full of psychological insight. Often what pulls a marriage off course is the failure of one or other partner to distance themselves emotionally from their parents and devote themselves totally to their spouse. This is worth pondering in itself.

    But Paul takes it in a different direction as well. Back there in Genesis, even before human rebellion had tainted the world in general, and the relation between the sexes in particular, he sees a glimmer of God’s ultimate intention in creation. The man—the Messiah—will leave the place where he was at home, and go in search of a bride. Read Philippians 2:6–11 or Colossians 1:15–20 in the light of this rich and fascinating suggestion. Contemplate the many-sided way in which the truth about God himself, and the truth about how we live out our most precious relationships, intertwine and create a God-given beauty the world never dreams of.”

    Paul for Everyone: The Prison Letters. (Commentary on Eph 5:21-33, Wives and Husbands)

  68. If you are at all interested in the transformation of the publicsing world at large, you need to read this answer to Hatchette by Amazon on the price elasticity of ebooks.
    http://www.amazon.com/forum/kindle/ref=cm_cd_tfp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1D7SY3BVSESG&cdThread=Tx3J0JKSSUIRCMT

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)

%d bloggers like this: