Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for January, 2013

woman combat gunWho lobbies for women in combat?  Is it with national security… or something else… in mind?

In light of terrorists and all-male armies around the world, should we regard serving in combat as an “equal job opportunity?”

Elaine Donnelly and the Center for Military Readiness, released a 42-page report mid-January exploring the unintended consequences of putting women on the front lines.  “It will do great harm to women in the military, especially those who will find themselves in the infantry – something there’s no indication they wanted.”  Mrs. Donnelly asks an important question: “Why is the Secretary of Defense ramming this on through?”

This, says Mrs. Donnelly, “is social engineering to achieve a political end in the name of diversity”. . . [but] it is unfair to the women, it’s unfair to the men, it’s problematic for the readiness and efficiency and effectiveness of infantry battalions.

Let’s Think About It

Q: Civilized cultures have always trained men to protect and defend women and children.  Christian fathers who follow the example set by Jesus mentor sons to be gentlemen and treat girls and women with upmost respect and care.  However, the effective utilization of women in combat requires that men put aside such behavior in order to treat a woman like just another man.  What kind of culture does this create?

A: Even non-Christians note that groups tend to disintegrate and face extinction when societies fail to train their men to protect and defend women.  Men on board the Titanic gave their lives for women, not because they were all Christian men, but because Biblical teaching for society had become the “law of the sea.”  The titanic chivalry of “women and children [into the lifeboats] first” flows from Ephesians 5:25.   There is also the issue of mentoring.  When we focus on “it’s my right” or perpetuate the myth that “equal means ‘being the same,’” how are we instructing a younger generation?  What is a young man taught to think about women as they endure the rigors of military training side by side?  What do boys learn from fathers who intentionally put women in harm’s way?  What is the carry-over to life outside the military?  If society will not tolerate male aggression toward women in everyday life, is it wise – or necessary – to make an exception in combat?  A civilization that wants to thrive does well to think beyond the present to the future.

Q: What are the realities of both training and battle conditions?

A: We may want to envision pleasant images of skilled women managing high tech equipment, young men and women successfully practicing self-control in close quarters, and enlisted men snapping to the attention of female drill sergeants, but evidence reveals much to the contrary.  There are reported increases of sexual abuse, unfaithfulness of spouses, unintended pregnancy, a supposed “need” for easier access to abortion, and deployment of single moms.  Jessica Lynch, pulled from her Humvee and taken prisoner in Iraq, was raped and sodomized by her captors (I Am A Soldier, Too; the biography of Jessica Lynch by Rick Bragg).

Q: “Equal means ‘being the same’” may sound good, but can we really ignore the differences between male and female anatomy?  Mrs. Donnelly says, “Women don’t have an equal opportunity to survive in combat.”  Why might this be?  How might the anatomy of a woman put her more at risk than a man?

A: In seeking a bush for privacy, how does a woman avoid sniper fire and landmines?  Men can quickly unzip and zip, but is it the same for women?  In addition to dignity and modesty, what about hygiene and gynecology?  There are drugs that “shut down” a woman’s menstrual cycle, but is this natural and healthy?  Feminists and social engineers may deny the differences between men and women, but will the enemy?  How might a female prisoner of war be treated differently than a man?  If he is obedient to his calling as a defender of women, what lengths might a male soldier go to in protecting a female soldier?  

Q: Rev. F.A. Hertwig asks, “If there is a threatening noise at the front door, who do you expect should be the first to investigate?  Will the man sit back and send his wife, daughter or mother while he goes to the basement?”  (“Letters” in The Lutheran Witness, June 2003, p. 4)  When Eve stood in harm’s way before Satan, how did Adam respond (Genesis 3:6, 12)?  What is the significance of these verses when it comes to the discussion of women in combat?

A: Genesis 3:6 reveals that Adam sinned when he failed to remember God’s Word and use it in the battle between life and death.  Adam failed to protect his wife from Satan’s attack.  He failed to bring order out of chaos for the sake of future generations.  Rev. Hertwig, a pastor in Lincoln, Missouri, explains Genesis 3:12 in this way: “When God stood at the door, a confused and fallen Adam sent his wife, Eve, to face the catastrophe.  He chose to deny the one who had come from his side.  For the rest of his 930 years, he lived with daily contrition each time he looked at his bosom friend.  His protecting embrace had all the more fervor mixed with regret that he had failed.”  Rev. Hertwig continues, “For a man to see his wife, mother or daughter writhing in the mud with a bayonet rifle is repulsive to the core.  When Adam retreats, yes even in the face of God, he has in a miserable moment surrendered to the devil.  To venture the ‘absence’ of specifics on our subject is an accommodating detail to the devil’s question, ‘Yea, hath God said?’” (The Lutheran Witness, “Letters,” June/July 2003)

Deborah is held up by many Christians as the Old Testament example of a woman in combat.  But, was she?  Part 4, the last in this series of posts, will take a closer look at Deborah and Jael.

“Bearers and Defenders of Life” is Lesson 11 of
Men, Women and Relationships first published in 1999 and revised in 2004.
If you’re curious about this collection of 12 studies on
Biblical manhood and womanhood, please contact
Lutherans For Life or Concordia Publishing House.

Read Full Post »

women combat waitingAmericans have developed a bad habit of turning social experiments into policy and code.  Do you know what I’m talking about?

A social experiment arrogantly opposes God’s created order.  It has the look and feel of liberty but, in reality, puts human life at risk.   Abortion and the “marriage” of two men or two women are social experiments.  So is the political correctness of putting women into combat.  Social experiments are reckless and foolish.

Let’s Think About It

During His life on earth, Jesus honored and elevated women in remarkable new ways.  Certainly, He could have chosen both men and women to serve as His apostles.  He did not.  Jesus was not only aware of the created differences of male and female (after all, He was present at creation Genesis 1:26), but of their differing yet complementary roles and vocations.  Equality does not mean that everyone does the same thing, but that male and female each have the opportunity to serve God and others according to their design.

Q: How might the Christian woman consider serving in combat in this light?

A: We might begin with some personal introspection.  I know that God created me.  I am His design for His purpose.  But, like Eve before me, I am tempted to doubt the Creator and, in fact, position myself as lord of my own life.  My choices are too easily influenced by personal feelings, circumstance, convenience, pride, envy, short-sightedness, and search for identity.

Dr. Leroy Vogel, retired U.S. Navy chaplain and professor emeritus at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, writes, “While it may be argued that there is no specific Scriptural passage that forbids a woman to serve as warrior, the apparent accommodation of some within the Church to the spirit of the age that turns warrior into a unisex role would appear, at a minimum, to be a departure from the divine wisdom of the Creator regarding the differentiation of the sexes.”

Q: What is the issue – sexual equality or ordered equality?

A: Dr. Vogel notes that when we ignore the Biblical account of creation, sexual differentiation and roles are viewed as “social constructs and, if society has created the distinctions, society can abolish them.”  To overturn the created order of differentiation and roles is to abandon Biblical faith.  “Scripture is clear,” writes Dr. Vogel.  “God made two sexes [genders], equal but with assigned roles.  Sexual equality is not the issue; ordered equality is.  Scripture and the tradition of the Church assign to man the role of defender, protector, warrior.  To woman is given the role of life-giver, nurturer, sustainer.”  Dr. Vogel offers a curious Hebrew interpretation of a Deuteronomy 22:5 (NIV translation): “A woman must not wear men’s clothing . . . for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.”  Dr. Vogel submits that this verse is about more than cross-dressing.  He explains that “men’s clothing” in Hebrew is translated keli-gerber.  Keli denotes “equipment,” specifically a soldier’s equipment.  The Hebrew noun geber denotes “mighty man” or “hunter” or “warrior.”  So, writes, Dr. Vogel, “a legitimate translation of the phrase uses language of a decidedly military flavor: ‘No woman shall put on the gear of a warrior.’”  It seems that the church fathers John Calvin and Martin Luther agreed.  “Luther knew Hebrew,” writes Dr. Vogel, “and comments on the verse as follows: ‘A woman shall not bear the weapons of a man . . . it is improper . . . Through this law [God] reproaches any  nation in which this custom is observed.’”  Why, you ask?  Dr. Vogel answers, “Because God created male and female with specific and complementary characteristics.  It is in their relationship with one another that the two constitute the full expression of humanity.” (“Women in Combat: Two Views,” The Lutheran Witness, May 2003, p. 16-20.)

Q: What is the significance of Genesis 3:20 for this issue?

A: Woman’s glory is found in her God-given role as life-giver and nurturer.  Dr. Vogel paraphrases Luther, saying that “women were created not to kill and destroy, but to be a vessel for life.”  A culture that encourages women to destroy life is a culture that rebels against God’s design for His creation.  A culture that doubts the created differences between the “defender” of life (male) and “bearer” of life (female) is a culture that has been deceived by Satan’s question: “Did God really say . . .?” (Genesis 3:1).

Q: George Gilder writes, “The ancient tradition against the use of women in combat embodies the deepest wisdom of the human race.  It expresses the most basic imperatives of group survival: a nation or tribe that allows the loss of large numbers of its young women runs the risk of becoming permanently depopulated.  The youthful years of women, far more than of men, are precious and irreplaceable.”  (Men and Marriage, p. 135).  What brings a society to the place where it forgets or ignores this truth?  What does the future hold for such a society?

A: There are two worldviews: God’s and all others.  The Christian who trusts God’s Word can be confident that the Creator of life has a way that things of life work best.  Consider the words of God to Job (Job 38-41).  God speaks His worldview to us through His Word – from Genesis to Revelation.  He speaks His Word to us through Jesus Christ who, literally, is the Word become flesh (John 1).  But, perhaps, when we are blessed with resources and exist without threat of enemy at our door, we can become complacent and self-absorbed.  At such times, might our hearts and minds be influenced more by the foolishness of the world than the wisdom of God?  What does 1 Corinthians 1:16-30 say about wisdom?  What does the future hold for people who seek after personal desires or the world’s view?  “. . . [T]he world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever” (1 John 2:15-17).

Before moving on to Part 3, here’s something to ponder.  Edwin Feulner, president of the Heritage Foundation, writes, “The reason we all know the idea of women playing pro football is absurd is because we’re serious about football.  It’s tough game, and if you allow yourself to be distracted by irrelevant issues like ‘sexual equity’ when you should be making your team the toughest it can possibly be, you’re going to get creamed.  So why are we letting feminists impose ‘sexual equity’ on an area that makes football look like a tea party; something that is  not a game, but a matter of life and death for our nation as well as for the ‘players,’ namely, our military?”

“Bearers and Defenders of Life” is Lesson 11 of
Men, Women, and Relationships first published in 1999 and revised in 2004.
If you’re curious about this collection of 12 studies on
Biblical manhood and womanhood, please contact
Lutherans For Life or Concordia Publishing House.

Read Full Post »

women in combat“Women in combat” is a life issue.  It is an issue to which God speaks.  In this post and several to follow, I would like to offer questions, answers, and commentary for Christians to ponder. 

The question, I think, that we need to be asking is not: “Can women be in combat?”  The question is: “Should women be in combat?”  I don’t know about you, but I’m looking for, shall we say, better ammunition for my argument than “if men can do it, so can women.”

Bearers and Defenders of Life

Discussions of men and women in combat bring mixed reactions.  Some people believe that women do not belong in combat because they do not have the physical capacity to endure the rigorous standards of training or the hardships of war.  Some believe that it is a woman’s “right” to defend her country and that she can do so as well as any man.  Besides, they insist, modern warfare seldom involves the physical force of front-line battle

Let’s put reason and logic to work: Consider the physical differences between men and women, such as their bone and muscle structures.  Gender-integrated basic training undermines rigorous standards.  But, this argument can be countered with examples of women who have developed body strength and can keep up with a man.

Consider the sexual attraction between men and women.  Gender-integrated training and combat duty creates an environment in which men and women are vulnerable to sexual misconduct and abuse.  But, this argument can be countered with practiced self-control.

This debate deserves more than opinion.   It deserves more than a simple “it’s my right.”

So, what are real soldiers saying?   A classmate of my son’s served on board ship in the Persian Gulf.  In a conversation, this 21-year-old woman confessed a breakdown in respect for both women and men.  Everything, she said, took on a “sexual connotation,” modesty was nearly “impossible,” and the rate of pregnancies on board ship was “higher than on shore assignment.”

Specialist Hollie Vallance was quoted in the Dallas Morning News (2-20-91) before being shipped to the Gulf War.  She said, “I never really thought about going into combat.  I never dreamed anything like this would happen in my lifetime, let alone right after I had my first child.”  She continued.  “I’ve built an ice wall around my heart to try to cool the pain, and sometimes I worry that [my husband and baby daughter] won’t be able to melt it away.”

In a commissioned survey of women in the Army, 79% of enlisted women and 71% of female noncommissioned officers said they wouldn’t volunteer for combat.  Only 10% of the female privates and corporals agreed with this statement: “I think that women should be treated exactly like men and serve in combat just like men.”  Less than one-quarter of mid-grade sergeants answered yes.  (The Washington Times, 10-5-98).

A young husband and relative of mine serving in the Persian Gulf was forced to share his tent with a woman soldier.  He told me “it was not a good situation any way you chose to look at it.”

Pfc. Jessica Lynch and Army Specialist Shoshana Johnson returned home from the War in Iraq in the spring of 2003 as heroines.  Although neither of them was technically in a combat position, they were, nonetheless, placed so close to the front line of battle that they were each captured by the enemy.  After being rescued, neither of them, it seems, wanted to be “poster girls” for women in combat.

Is there a problem with women serving in the military?  I don’t think so.  A strong, effective military respects and utilizes the abilities of women in medicine, teaching, and tactical maneuvers.  But, to pretend that women are no different from men, place them together in close quarters, lower standards of physical endurance, and compromise training is to place men, women, families, and country in harm’s way.

The question we need to be asking is not: “Can women be in combat?”  The question is: “Should women be in combat?”

In the end, it really doesn’t matter what our opinion might be or how we feel about it.  What does matter is what God says.

In gaining perspective on women in combat, do you find significance in the name of the first woman?  Genesis 3:20 tells us that Adam named his wife Eve.  Eve, in Hebrew, means “life.”  How this must have angered Satan who despises the humans that God so loves.  But, it was God’s plan that Eve became the mother of every living person.

During a Titus 2 Retreat, some women will tell me that having women in combat must be o.k. because, after all, Deborah went into battle against the enemy of the Israelites.  But, have they read the whole account found in Judges 4:4-22?  Did Deborah lead the troops into battle or fulfill the role of encourager?  Why didn’t the man Barak receive glory for the way his enemy died?  Was the enemy killed by a woman with a weapon on the battlefield… or not?  (Be patient.  We’ll come back to this in Part 3.)

The prophet Nehemiah told the men to do battle for their families.  He said, “Do not be afraid of them [enemies].  Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your homes (Nehemiah 4:1-14).

Want to continue this discussion with some Q & A?  Then please continue to Part 2 of this series.

“Bearers and Defenders of Life” is Lesson 11 of
Men, Women, and Relationships first published in 1999 and revised in 2004.
If you’re curious about this collection of 12 studies on
Biblical manhood and womanhood,
please contact
Lutherans For Life or Concordia Publishing House.

Read Full Post »

sandy hook school shootingThe Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre caught the attention of most Americans.  It should.  The brutal killing of students and teachers is a national wound.  It should be.  Parents and families mourned the loss of 26 human beings whose lives were cut short.  We all should.  What happened at Sandy Hook was evil.  Evil should always be resisted.

On this 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, 54 million other deaths should also capture our attention.  Be felt as a national wound.  Bring us to our knees in mourning.  But, 3,500 preborn babies are aborted every day in this country and people act as if nothing is happening.  An evil of monumental proportions is taking place before our very eyes, yet people who call themselves by Christ’s name appear unmoved and indifferent.

How can this be?

Rolley Haggard, writing for Breakpoint, observes that apathy and silence on abortion are evidence of a theological problem.  He notes that some will argue that Scripture is silent on abortion; after all they say, the term does not appear once in the Old or New Testament.  Nor are there any commands to “vote pro-life” or “peacefully demonstrate in front of Planned Parenthood.”  So, some Christians actually believe they have discerned the “letter of the law” and are obeying it by keeping silent.

But, asks Haggard, what about the “spirit of the law”?   The purpose and intent of the law?  St. Paul was  inspired to write, “He who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.  If there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’  Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.  The whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’  Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ” (Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:14; 6:2).

Haggard begs the question of us all: Can we hear and believe God’s commandment to love our neighbor and still maintain passivity on abortion?  “The sober reality,” Haggard writes, “is that ‘he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen” (1 John 4:20).  Modern technology allows us to see inside the womb.  Having seen, can we un-see?  Are we not compelled to speak of what we have seen?

It’s possible, Haggard writes, that our error in not speaking has been an honest one.  “Perhaps our embrace of the letter rather than the spirit of the law has been unwitting.  Perhaps.  This much is certain: ‘When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken, or cease to be honest.’” (Note: This quote is often attributed to Abraham Lincoln).

Have those of us who call ourselves “Christ followers” heard the truth?  Knowing the truth, how do we respond?  When we see babies (woven together in the womb by God’s own hands – Psalm 139:3-16) being denied their God-given right to life, how do we respond?  When we know that the majority of abortions are done for convenience (not the life and health of the mother), how do we respond?  When we know that abortion says “no” to a new generation of creativity and hope, how do we respond?

(My appreciation to Rolley Haggard, “Brilliant Darkness,” www.breakpoint.org 1/23/2013)

Read Full Post »

make abortion legal rallyI’m perplexed.  Can you help?

When I speak up against abortion and for the rights of unborn children and the well-being of women, I’m told: “What happens in the privacy of a bedroom is none of your business.”

Well, if that’s true, then why should I be forced to pay for what happens there?

Read Full Post »

people in churchOur “progressive” culture avoids any return to the past.  Questions and dialogue about traditions — or beginnings — are not generally welcomed.  This is arrogant… and deadly.

Until we go back to or re-visit things of the past, how will we know what works and what doesn’t?  Why we are where we are?   Until we re-visit our beginnings — either as human beings or as people with a particular worldview or ideology — how will we know who we are, or upon what we stand, or why?  If I see that my culture is in decay, can I really be of help to family, neighbors, or community if I don’t know why I believe what I say I believe or do what I do?  Many of us speak of what is “traditional” (in worship, marriage, morality, etc.), but if we can’t explain it, how can we defend it when someone wants to tamper with it?

For this reason, I am extremely grateful to my pastor.  Some people see him as “too catholic” or “inflexible.”  Some ask, “Why do we have to sing old hymns?”  Or, “Why do we have to use a liturgy?”  Or, “Why do we have to learn creeds or attach ourselves to the doctrine of a bunch of dead Europeans?”  Some wish he would just “lighten up” and “get with the movement of our day.”  Oh, how thankful our little flock should be that our shepherd resists the “movement of our day” in order to teach us why Christian Lutherans believe what they believe and do what they do.

My pastor has been gifted with a pair of worldview glasses that help him contrast God’s Word with the ways of the world.  My congregation is blessed — whether it knows it or not — because our pastor is not afraid to return to the past.

In his book, A Free People’s Suicide,” Oz Guinness writes,

A return can be progressive, not reactionary.  Each movement in its own way best goes forward by first going back.”

What does Guinness mean?  National, church, or even family  renewal happens by going back to its beginnings.  To its reasons for being in the first place.  Martin Luther knew this.  The Puritans knew this.  Thomas Jefferson knew this.  History, writes Guinness, “shows that when it comes to ideas, it is in fact possible to turn back the clock.  Two of the most progressive movements in Western history — the Renaissance and the Reformation — were both the result of a return to the past, though in very different ways and with very different outcomes.”

It is, in fact, a law of physics that things are preserved from destruction when brought back to their first principles.  Guinness calls this innovative thinking “outside the box” because it is “back to basics and not a mindless espousal of the present or a breathless chase after some purported future.”  Guinness states,

The most creative re-makings are always through the most faithful re-discoveries.”

I am a Biblical Christian of the Lutheran bent living in a hurting world.  For the sake of my grandchildren, I need to help re-build, in church or society, by re-discovering things of the past.  There is no embarrassment or intellectual shame in this endeavor.

So, thank you my dear pastor, for taking me back so that I might better move forward.  Thank you for helping me re-make what is good and right and true by re-discovering who I am.  Upon what I stand.  And why.

Read Full Post »

man at workIt has become tradition for me to read to my husband while he is driving.  Road trips provide opportunity to catch up on good books and engage in hearty conversation.

For a recent journey to the southwest, I selected The Book of Man: Readings on the Path to Manhood.  We began reading from William J. Bennett’s book on a previous trip.  It was good to return to his treasure trove of writings gleaned from thinkers such as Alexis de Tocqueville, Teddy Roosevelt, Booker T. Washington, and David Aikman on such topics as war, politics, women and family, faith, and work.  As a wife and mother of sons, I’ve always been fascinated by the gender opposite mine.  I want to know what they think.  What makes them tick.  This desire comes naturally to me as the one God called to “complete” or compliment the male being.  In my vocation as a “helper,” I am inspired to daily bring out the best in any male person whose life intersects mine.  How can I compliment or be of help if I haven’t taken the time to study and learn what men are all about?

If you’ve been reading Ezerwoman or have attended any Titus 2 Retreats, you’ll know I’m on a quest to help myself and others better appreciate Biblical manhood and womanhood.  Foundational to all discussions on this matter is our identity.  How we define ourselves matters.  How we see ourselves affects our behavior and choices.  If we call ourselves people of God in Christ Jesus, then we are compelled to live as sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty.  (2 Corinthians 6:16-18)

How does a son of God live?  He is called to daily live out his male vocation in a sanctified or holy way.  In other words, he is not called to obsess on himself or his sensuality, but to do all that he does – in married or unmarried life – in the light of what Christ has done for him and to God’s glory.  He is called to work, serve, protect, teach, and relate to other men and women in ways that honor his Creator and Redeemer.

How a man defines himself matters.  How he sees himself matters.  What he does as a man matters.  God’s Word in 1 Thessalonians 4 instructs man to live a life pleasing to the Creator.  It is the will of God and for a man’s sanctification (holiness) that he controls his own body and abstains from what is unholy.  God’s gift of sexuality, or anything having to do with intimacy and procreation, is for use within the parameters of marriage.  Sexuality has very real connections with fatherhood, children and family.

But, what if (as so often happens in this present culture) a man identifies himself as a sexual being?  What will become of him if he can’t live out his sexuality?  Will he simply wilt away into a pitiful heap useful for no good purpose?  Ah, but let us expose the lies and deception.  Man is more than a sexual being.  He is a human being.  A male human being.  Our gender – male or female – is to be lived every day, not reserved for marriage.  To be a man is, literally, a vocation.  To be a good steward who honors God’s created order is a vocation.  The culture is powerfully affected – for generations to come — by the way a man daily chooses to think.  Serve.  Work.

What is the value of work in a man’s life?  Indeed, God created man to be a worker; a good steward of the land, fully engaged in honest and, thus, joyful labor.  Work in a sin-filled world isn’t easy.  It can be frustrating, ordinary, or tiresome.  Nevertheless, work for a man is more than what he does.  Work for a man satisfies his most inner yearnings for order, stability, and significance.

In the prologue to his section on “Man at Work,” William Bennett writes,

Despite what popular culture might convey, we know there is something intrinsically satisfying in being able to plant your own garden, repair your own house, and fix your own car.  Recently, a friend of mine was recovering from life-threatening cancer.  His doctor told him that he could not work, exercise, or enjoy the other fruits of life – all things that men pride themselves on.  I asked him what hurts the most to be without. “Work,” he said.  “I don’t feel like a man.  Work has more to do with me being a man than sex or muscle.”

And so, I continue to study and learn.  And what I learn convinces me of what I know to be true.  God did not call us to a life of sensuality, but of holiness.  Holiness in our vocations as male or female.  Whether we are healthy or not so healthy.  Strikingly handsome or plain.   Married or unmarried.  In work or in play.  In service or at rest.  Not to our glory, but His.

Sensuality may be fleeting; something for this earth.  But, holiness leads to another life and the promise can be trusted.  A son of God lives forever.

(Link: “Heaven and Sexuality,” blog of July 24, 2012)

Read Full Post »