Many marriage counseling sessions end up with the counselor/pastor talking to the man about passivity and his consistent lack of leadership in the marriage. This is not always the case, but many times it is. For the next several months, I am going to be doing some posts called "Intentional Manhood." These posts are intended to help sharpen and encourage guys to a biblical view of manhood and application of what we often know in our heads, but lack in our daily lives.
Purposeful Pride Killing:
Have you ever been in a situation when you were getting credit for something you did not do? Did you say anything about it? Did you bring correction and clarity to make sure that the appropriate people received the credit? Do you have "purposeful pride killing" as a category in your mind.
There are many moments throughout this week and month that you will be given the opportunity to kill pride in your life. You will sin against your children or spouse and you will need to humble yourself and ask forgiveness. You will mess up at work and need to take the blame for your failure or oversight. You will lust and need to humbly confess your sin to your accountability partner.
Life is full of purposeful pride killing moments.
A few weeks ago, I sent an e-mail to someone and realized that in the e-mail I was trying to impress the individual with my "knowledge and expertise." This was pride and as soon as I hit "send" I was convicted. (I know...I should have been convicted sooner, but I am a little slow). As I sat at my computer and continued to work, I wrestled with excusing my pride and seeking to suppress the conviction. Finally, after about and hour, I wrote another e-mail to the person and confessed my desire to impress them and asked them to forgive me. They forgave me and I was thankful for the mercy and grace of God to grant me forgiveness.
Biblical manhood (and actually womanhood too) is full of opportunities where we can humble ourselves and receive the grace of God shown to us through the cross of Christ. When we confess our sin, He is faithful and just to forgive us of our sin (1 John 1:9) and we are given grace in our humility (James 4:8). So, what are we waiting for? Where is there an area of "purposeful pride killing" that needs to take place in your life?
40 comments:
You know, I hit a dilemma of sorts in this area when looking for employment. I haven't figured out yet how to be appropriately humble in a resume, cover letter or job application. I'm fairly confident I was turned down in a bank application because I was more honest about my capacity to make mistakes than the automated questionnaire was looking for.
My understanding is that "pride killing" is not a gender issue, it is a human issue as humans we are tempted to pride. As such it does not really have much to do with roles as taught by non-egals, it is just Christian truth.
All of us need to know that we can have the sin of pride and can also be blind to it, so we need to take steps (some steps are mentioned in your post) to fight it. It is an active discipline, we need to always be aware we can fall into pride.
Mike, I found your blog to be extremely interesting and going along the same lines God has been speaking to me! I'm interested to see if/how you continue to flesh this out and challenge each of us to lay down the flesh for the cause of Christ!
Apart from the first paragraph this has absolutely nothing to do with manhood or gender.
Why try to turn every aspect of discipleship that is for all Christians into something where we are divided by something as irrelevant as gender?
Good word although it has nothing to do with gender really.
Kyle, you are probably right. There is a time and place for everything. Resume's need to be positive. Our honesty may need to be in our ability to do the job.
Hope you aren't looking for a job now. Jobs are scarce here.
Believer -
Sorry to dash your hopes, but I am looking. And yes, it is an awfully tough market right now. But God has never yet failed to provide. He just has a tendency to be awfully last minute about it.
KB
Kyle,
I have high hopes in our Lord that He will find that perfect job for you at this time. I love that last minute thing He does too! :)
Why try to turn every aspect of discipleship that is for all Christians into something where we are divided by something as irrelevant as gender?
7/30/2008 12:45 PM
This is one of my great frustrations about comps. This is excellent teaching for all Born Again Christians who want to seek righteouness.
Hello everyone,
Many of you who come from the egal camp have noted a struggle that I would write this post linking gender (specifically men) and pride.
I write it to men because it is my observation that men often stuggle with outward signs of arrogance more...and I am one, so I have some experience here. I think it would be foolish to write a post talking to women about their pride...I'd let me wife do that.
Also, I view this blog as a conversation to comps and egals...not just egals, so I am encouraging my comp bros to lead well by leading in confessing sin. I encourage husbands to be the first to confess sin and I have seen this serve many marriages.
I am not seeking to isolate "pride killing" to only comps...I know we all struggle with this and it is basic Christian discipleship...I just want to encourge men to step it up a bit in this area...being intentional.
I hope that helps clarify...
God bless,
mike
"I think it would be foolish to write a post talking to women about their pride...I'd let me wife do that."
I am assuming you preach to both men and women, right?
Lin,
Yes, I preach on pride to both men and women...I was talking about doing a blog post strictly for woman...I do not intend to do that. Nor do I think it is wise for me to do so. I think many woman could write a blog post for woman better than I could. This would be where I think Titus 2 fits in...this is also where I would say the Girl Talk blog does a good job as well as the Radical Womanhood blog.
God bless,
mike
It could be pointed out that, when preaching, the speaker gets to hide behind the authority of the text of scripture in a way that he doesn't usually when blogging.
Mike,
You gave your original post the title "Intentional Manhood 1: Purposeful Pride Killing".
I am glad you got to clarify that you agree "pride killing" is not gender specific. Perhaps you will want to change the title to "Intentional Christlikeness 1:...". It is a good message for every believer.
Mike, Jesus did not hire older women to teach younger women. He taught all. Same with the Apostles.
You are taking one verse in a specific time and culture and building a whole method of ministry around it. This is what scares me the most about comps.
How is a woman's pride different than a man's pride? Is there a difference in it as far as sin goes?
Don -
Then it wouldn't work as a part of a series on intentional manhood, would it? Just because a particular struggle is universal doesn't mean that it can't be addressed specifically to certain roles.
Part of the premise of a complementarian perspective is that there is a certain aspect of leadership that pertains to being male. By definition, leadership must cope with pride in a particular way, so it's appropriate to ask how it might specifically be addressed.
Kyle,
I agree leaders could have temptations to pride that non-leaders might not have. But even non-egals agree that woman can be leaders in some sense, for example, older women teaching younger and mothers teaching children.
FWIIW, I see this pride potential and the need to fight it as one of the advantages of being egal, I am NOT put into a position OVER someone just because I am male. So it is one less thing I might have a false pride about.
Two thoughts:
1. It's totally appropriate for a person to assume a certain premise and spend some time working out some of the implications for different kinds of people affected by that premise, even if the premise is something that you don't actually agree with. If the premise is true, then working out the implications is good in its own right. If the premise is false, then it may be that we come to some implications that are so intollerably inconsistent with scripture and the gospel that we finally realize the premise actually is false. In any case, it isn't fair to object to a person who is working out those implications by pointing out that you disagree with his premise. It has nothing to do with the question at hand.
2. Don - An egalitarian perspective doesn't free a person from the danger of pride in relation to leadership. For instance, you could be proud of yourself for not pursuing leadership on the basis of being male and congratulating yourself for not being like complementarians who place themselves over people just because they are male. Even Deborah wasn't too impressed with Barak's egalitarian-sounding proposition that an untrained woman should lead the fighting men into battle. Maybe it was pride more than fear that led him to say "I'll go if you'll go with me."
I have known people for whom leadership was an opportunity to lord it over others, and I suppose that being complementarian could have given them a sense of entitlement. But for me, as a reluctant complementarian, being the leader of my home is more a source of humility than of pride. Since I don't consider my position of leadership in my family to be the result of any particular qualification that I might have, but to be wholly based on the accident of my being male, how could I take pride in it? If anything, I ought to be almost embarrassed about the delicacy of my situation.
This is becoming an interesting conversation. I agree that there is an appearance of pride that hierarchical thinking men share. How could they not. They give themselves special privileges that they deny women. The system itself promotes a certain pride. And I consider it commendable that Mike is wanting to address the pride itself in particular areas relating to men. And in fact that is helpful. Being specific about areas of relationships where pride is esily found is a great discussion.
The other thing is that all humans share in every emotion. It’s a human condition. And one does not need to address wrong emotions from a gender distinction rather than a human distinction in order to be effective. Because of this women are just as capable as men in discussing, admonishing, noting and addressing wrong emotions in men or in women. It’s just not a gender problem.
Since I don't consider my position of leadership in my family to be the result of any particular qualification that I might have, but to be wholly based on the accident of my being male, how could I take pride in it? If anything, I ought to be almost embarrassed about the delicacy of my situation.
Maybe this is because the Bible does not actually tell the husband to be the leader and you are sensitive to God's spririt questioning this paradigm. Just a thought.
Kyle,
If you are a reluctant non-egal, I have good news in that you do not need to choose the way you interpret a very few verses in a non-egal way, you can (try) to understand them in the egal way. My take is this is an area where one MUST read both sides of the issue, reading just one side (and what that side may say about the other) does not give the other side a fair hearing. This is what I attempt to do and I have learned for both sides.
On pride, I am sure one can have pride about almost anything.
I agree one is to try to be faithful to one's current understanding of the Bible, else one would never act from analysis paralysis. But we are also always to be seeking to learn more and be teachable.
One of the kinkers in the non-egal positions plural is that they do not even agree among themselves, one non-egal will zig off in one way and say X is forbidden and another non-egal will say X is allowed. Everyone needs to ask themselves, if the supposed "plain meaning" leads to so many different answers by (assumed) faithful people, how can it be so plain? At least the egal position is mostly unified in this sense, altho it is possible to be a church egal and not a home egal and vice versa.
I don’t think my post went through or else I forgot to submit it or ? So I’m adding to it.
This is becoming an interesting conversation. I agree that there is an appearance of pride that hierarchical thinking men often (but not always) share. How could they not. They give themselves special privileges that they deny women. The system itself promotes a certain pride. And I consider it commendable that Mike is wanting to address the pride itself in particular areas relating to men. And in fact that is helpful. Being specific about areas of relationships where pride is easily found is a great discussion.
Anything or any position or privilege that we attain that we did not earn can either evoke feelings of specialness or humility as Kyle suggested. More often when people have something they do not deserve, the response is to think they are special and to invoke that ‘specialness’ over those who did not get the particular privilege. Does anyone remember the big Bruha when the very influential men’s golf clubs kept women out of the professional aspect of the sport, many years ago. Finally, they ‘allowed’ the women to have their own private clubs, but they still retained the primary finances and privileges to themselves. Also, think about children of the wealthy who did not earn their money the hard way. They were some of the worst in flaunting it. And how about corporations where the owners son gets to run things but he isn’t really qualified.
The other thing is that all humans share in every emotion. It’s a human condition. And one does not need to address wrong emotions from a gender distinction rather than a human distinction in order to be effective. Because of this women are just as capable as men in discussing, admonishing, noting and addressing wrong emotions in men or in women. It’s just not a gender problem.
And of course, as has been noted, women can experience pride for various reasons also. On the opposite end of the same coin, I’ve seen women display great pride for pummeling themselves down into a proper appearance of obedient submission to their husbands. They give up a great deal of their personality, will, desires in order to take up their husbands will, desire, personality and they take pride in their achievement. This would also be a good discussion.
In saying that I was a reluctant complementarian, I did not mean that I hadn't done my research. Quite the opposite. I have spent hours with my Greek new testament, pondering how it could be that the genitive case could possibly be translated "over a man", and if that distinction somehow helped my case. I've also spent a lot of time thinking through the nature of authority and how much of it is ordained by God or seized by man. I said I was reluctant because my instincts are to be much more egalitarian than I am, but I have come to the conclusion that my instincts are often sinful.
I think there are at least as many options along the egalitarian end of the spectrum as there are for complementarians. Does egalitarianism extend merely to leadership in the church, or to roles in the home? Is it egalitarian for dad to stay home while mom works, even if it means mom has to agonize about milk supply because pumping at work is awkward? Is it more egalitarian for both parents to work part time, even if it means seeing the kids more, and each other less? Is it egalitarian for dad to threaten "just you wait till your mother gets home!"? (This was a joke in my family - my dad never said it, but we all knew who the enforcer was at home.) Does egalitarianism merely address hierarchy, or does it extend to personality, affinity, and genetics?
My point above isn't to actually raise all those questions for discussion (please, no!). I just wanted to demonstrate that there is a complete spectrum on the issue. I remember being surprised at a friend for being offended that a woman was on the board at a certain Christian university, even though we were working at a ministry, and our VP was a woman. I had a professor who insisted that there was no reason a woman couldn't become a pastor, provided she submitted to her husband at home. I on the other hand, only really became persuaded about male leadership in the home as my wife made it very clear to me that she didn't appreciate me foisting that role on her.
“I have spent hours with my Greek new testament, pondering how it could be that the genitive case could possibly be translated "over a man", and if that distinction somehow helped my case.”
The answer is that it cannot. There needs to be a word for “over”. However, the word authentein itself carries the intent of domination, which covers the ‘over’ aspect. Thus Paul is saying that Timothy is to LET LEARN the woman which is the subject and point of his admonishment. And also (an assumed, while she is learning) she is to learn in quietness (same word in vs. 2, lead quiet lives) which is the normal attitude of students, and also Paul is not yet permitting her to be authentein/domineering a man. Domineer is probably an insufficient translation and interpretation of authentein which had some very interesting negative uses in that era.
Egals in general hold to 2 simply beliefs:
1. In the home, the parents get to decide what works best for them. No wondering if some "magic boundary" has been crossed, as they get to decide.
2. In the church, ministry is based on gifting by the Holy Spirit, not race, not gender, not wealth, not culture.
Of course, the normal things about being responsible for self apply, as well as submitting to others. And the above assumes we are dealing with fully functioning adults ABLE to be responsible for themselves. The love principle is over all.
So many egal marriages look like traditional ones, it is just that it is their choice what is best for them, many times it will be the husband is the breadwinner with a stay-at-home mom if that is feasible.
Kyle,
“I on the other hand, only really became persuaded about male leadership in the home as my wife made it very clear to me that she didn't appreciate me foisting that role on her.”
Every woman and every man is different, with different skills, different personality, different desires in life, etc. Some women may like to have a husband who organizes their life in all aspects, others only in the financial or business aspect, others still in the home and children decisions, and so on. Some men want nothing to do with the home, others want to have it revolve around them, others still want to order all their life to make sure their spouse is happy, and so on. There is no such thing as one “role” fits all types of men and women.
You adjusted your life to please and make comfortable your wife, which is a commendable decision. We should all do so, both men and women, remembering that all our spouses are not the same.
I on the other hand, only really became persuaded about male leadership in the home as my wife made it very clear to me that she didn't appreciate me foisting that role on her.
8/04/2008 2:24 PM
This is the part of comp thinking I cannot understand. Jesus Christ is the leader of a Christian home.
In comp thinking, the husband replaces the leading of the Holy Spirit for the wife. After all, she does not have two 'heads' (if we look at how comps interpret head)
Let me clarify myself: I became persuaded to rethink my understanding of how roles are established in the home. The incipient cause was how disturbing it was to my wife for me to attempt to share or give over to her aspects of leadership in the home. Leadership, (authority - whatever you want to call it) for both of us was not some kind of privilege to be grasped, but rather an unpleasant burden to be undertaken out of necessity. From her perspective, I was leading the home in all aspects, no matter what I did. My attempts to share that leadership with her were not so much sharing as they were unfairly foisting responsibility on her as I abdicated from my duty.
As I seriously considered her perspective, I was forced to go back to the scriptures and re-evaluate my understanding of what authority is and where it comes from. I suppose it could be said that I see accepting the burden of responsibility for my house as a masculine form of purposeful pride killing.
As for the stuff about having two heads, that strikes me as willful misunderstanding in the light of verses that say that "the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." There are a lot of assertions in the scripture about the roles of men and women that are not only hard to swallow but hard to understand. Hierarchy isn't one of them. You may think hierarchy is wrong, but I have a hard time believing you don't get it.
kyle,
Is there some reason why your wife would not be ABLE to accept household responsibilities? If this is the case, of course you should love her and take over as much as possible.
How do you know you are not facilitating her avoiding the normal responsibility of being a adult and making choices for herself?
I am not trying to be insulting, I am trying to understand better, as you raise points I have not seen before.
Don -
I'm not offended. We are both fully capable, normal adults. We both know how to cook and clean and balance a checkbook, and we were both doing just fine independent of each other. But there's an added dimension of responsibility that comes from making decisions that affect the family as a whole. She is a lot more practical than I am, and I tend to be academic and a little lost in the clouds, so that responsibility affects us each in different ways. She'd rather be COO than CEO. I'd rather be chief software architect.
As an egal, my take is it is a free choice among the 2 adults how they want to structure their marriage. It seems this is the free will choice of both of you. Many egal marriage look traditional, but it is the spouses choice.
If she later chooses to change her mind on this, would you respect that?
Even if the grounds for that free decision is a faulty interpretation of scripture? I'm glad you approve.
As to your question, I'm not quite sure how that would work. Can someone simply choose to change their mind about what is right and wrong and still be honest? Frankly I'm having a hard time imagining what it would look like. If she became persuaded that the scriptures communicated something different that what she had thought previously, I'm sure I could respect that. But then, it would lead to a great discussion between us. Probably our views would change together. But as I said, the whole scenario is very difficult to imagine, and I don't know that I can see even how it would affect the way we actually work in our family at all.
It is my estimation that most people do not understand what hierarchy entails. True hierarchy is a ladder of one person above another and another above him and another above him. The person on the bottom is only responsible to the person above and must go through the one above in order to reach any others above that one. This is where we get the modern terminology of going over one’s immediate head. The first person above is only responsible for the one person below him. People higher in the hierarchy are responsible for all those below them including promotions, discipline, approval, permissions, and advancement in the hierarchies. This is the modern model of corporate structures.
It should be pretty easy to understand that neither God, nor church, nor families have any such structure. Rather the body of Christ works as a team to further the goals of God, each having skills to minister in their areas of responsibilities. None gives orders to others in the team, just like none in the Trinity gives orders to any others. The marriage is supposed to work as a harmonized unity of two, taking responsibility together for the upbringing of their offspring until their children reach adulthood.
Within that model of unified teamwork there is freedom to be creative and grow more into the fullness and maturity of the examples Christ has given to us.
That is my understanding.
Kyle,
Do complementarians really believe that mothers have less responsibility for their children than fathers? I simply can't believe that. Nor do personal anecdotes solve anything. In one family the child was saved from drowning by the immediate action of he father, but in the next family by the mother's immediate action. You do not honestly believe that theew is the tiniest iota of difference in parental responsibility, do you?
"As for the stuff about having two heads, that strikes me as willful misunderstanding in the light of verses that say that "the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." There are a lot of assertions in the scripture about the roles of men and women that are not only hard to swallow but hard to understand. Hierarchy isn't one of them. You may think hierarchy is wrong, but I have a hard time believing you don't get it."
Well first of all head (kephale) does not mean authority over in this passage. If we interpret it your way then there is a layer between a married woman and Christ. That does not make biblical sense. She would, in effect, have an earthly priest...her husband. How could that be?
If that is the interpretation of head (Authority over) and you tell me she does NOT have an earthly layer between her and Christ then she does have 'two heads'. Her husband and Christ.
Kyle: >>We are both fully capable, normal adults. We both know how to cook and clean and balance a checkbook, and we were both doing just fine independent of each other. But there's an added dimension of responsibility that comes from making decisions that affect the family as a whole. She is a lot more practical than I am, and I tend to be academic and a little lost in the clouds, so that responsibility affects us each in different ways. She'd rather be COO than CEO. I'd rather be chief software architect.<<
Kyle, I've been reading your dialogue with Don with interest. I hope you (and Mike) don't mind if I interject a question or two.
Why do you believe that it is the husband's responsibility to "make decisions that affect the family as a whole" rather than allowing that responsibility to be the Lord's and to be discerned by both believers in the marriage? And if you do believe this, then what do you see is your responsibility to make decisions as the husband? Thx!
I'm not sure that I can respond to everybody in one comment - it would take too long and take up too much space. So I hope you'll forgive me Lin for skipping over the in-depth exegesis. That one alone would take pages! :)
I will say that I believe I have a very different understanding of the meaning of such words as authority, dominion, and hierarchy. I keep getting the impression that some people are wont to use these words exclusively as if they referred to a cosmic game of king of the hill. But I think we can all agree, comp or egal, that that is certainly not what the scriptures teach. It isn't even what the church has done, historically, even in it's most hierarchical phases.
Believer333, I thought your image of hierarchy as a ladder to be one of the most awful descriptions I've ever heard of. If you'll forgive me for being allegorical with the scriptures, it reminds me of the Old Testament injunction for the priest not to approach the temple via a ladder - it would simply be indecent. The rungs on a ladder are only incidentally above or below each other: they have no direct relationship to each other. You are right that "neither God, nor church, nor families have any such structure," as you describe, but from my corporate experience, neither do businesses, clubs, armies, or any form of government. But they have all been at various times described as having hierarchy. Even the Nicene creed describes a hierarchical relationship among equals - the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and, depending on who you ask, also proceeds from the Son). But the Father isn't begotten or proceeding or anything else, because everything comes from Him. Hierarchies are always interrelational, and there are often times when it is appropriate to "go over one's immediate head" (except, of course, when there is no head above the One you want to go over).
Robin, I don't know that it's helpful to push the decision-making responsibility back to God. Quite often God leads by providence rather than by prophecy, and even in the event that his will is clearly known, the decision to obey is still a decision. As for why we don't divide up that responsibility evenly between us, I could point out that the choice to do that would be my decision that I was forcing on my wife. I think she would ask why she was required to invest her attention in an area that might cause her to worry, rather than praying and trusting God to lead me correctly.
So: I'm unemployed and we're quickly running out of money, so we have decided to move in with my wife's parents. It was a rather inevitable decision, but it was my job to finally come to it. I chose to move in with her parents rather than mine, and I had to pick the final moving date. We might have moved in with my parents, but it would have been a bad decision, and my wife would have been right to point out to me all the reasons. Then it would have been my responsibility to admit she was right and decide correctly. Having decided to move, I put her in charge of administering the move. Having received that charge, she returned to me with a list of logistical decisions to make. It's a pretty reciprocal process.
Suzanne - I don't think any complementarians believe that one parent or another has more responsibility than the other. Just a different kind and a different scope.
Actually kyle, that is the exact meaning of hierarchy…. Check your dictionary. It is unfortunate that since the establishment of the Catholic institution, hierarchies have been embedded in traditional Christianity even though they do not exist in Scripture. This way churches make them any way they want which is sometimes confusing.
A couple dictionary definitions ;
1. A body of clergy organized into successive ranks or grades with each level subordinate to the one above.
2. an organized body of ecclesiastical officials in successive ranks or orders:
3. any system of persons or things ranked one above another.
As for corporate structures, there is a definite hierarchal order and going around or over your superior can be a risky thing to do. In my senior age I’ve seen it done many times, sometimes resulting in the loss of a job for either the subordinate who went around his superior or for the senior ranking person who had failed to do his job properly.
Now seeing the correct definition of hierarchy perhaps you can understand that there is absolutely no hierarchy, no ranking, and no more or less, no above or below in the Trinity. What needs to be understood is that while there is differentiation in the Trinity those differences do not constitute either a ranking of above or below, or of one will to which the rest are subordinate.
Excerpts from the Athenasian Creed:
“And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance [Essence]. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.
“The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other; none is greater, or less than another; But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.’
"Even the Nicene creed describes a hierarchical relationship among equals - the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and, depending on who you ask, also proceeds from the Son). But the Father isn't begotten or proceeding or anything else, because everything comes from Him. Hierarchies are always interrelational, and there are often times when it is appropriate to "go over one's immediate head"
Jesus Christ as "Incarnate" Son is begotten of the Father. But eternally Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. God is God. They do not have separate wills as a hierarchy would have. They are united in will. Jesus gave up the Glory and Splendor of heaven for a time to be the Son and a sacrifice for us.
Please, Please, Please! Do not lessen our Savior eternally in Sovereignty and Deity.
And please do not bring the worlds system of hierarchies into the New Covenant Body where all are part of the Holy Priesthood.
Good thoughts Lindon. one thing some forget is that when the Savior jesus Christ was born, God did not change. For the eternal God is the same yesterday, today and forever.
Post a Comment