Please have a seat, class. Today’s lecture isn’t on the printed syllabus.
Every so often, something reeeeeeeeally interesting happens in the comments of the Reformed (truly or otherwise) blogosphere, and such an episode occurred at Justin Taylor’s blog over the past couple of days.
To make an inexplicable story more simple, several commenters wanted to know where one Tim Challies- a lowly Canadian layman, web designer and blogger- got the (and here I choose my word carefully) “authority” to write a book on spiritual discernment.
Chew on that one a while, astute observers of Calvinism. Where did that ordinary Christian writer get the “authority” to talk to us like he’s up there with the Macarthurs and the Pipers?
In the reaction that followed- taking place on Taylor’s blog and at Challie’s blog– where he answered the criticisms of his endorsers- it became obvious that at least a few bloggers out there were awash in cynicism over what they observed as the following relationship:
Challies blogs. For years.
Challies is successful as a blogger.
Challies blogs book reviews.
Lots of them.
I mean LOTS of them.
Challies is asked to live-blog conferences.
Many of them.
Low and behold, Challies is writing a book for a publisher frequented by the sort of folks that read his blog. (Gasp! How??…Wha….???)
I’ll make a prediction: If Challies’ book does moderately well, he’ll be writing another. (I’m a regular Kreskin.)
“Good grief, Margaret…WHERE WILL IT ALL END??!!”
Now class, take some notes.
1) A person who does as much work on a blog as Mr. Challies or yours truly actually harbors dreams of being a real writer. Shocking, I know, but the truth is out. Ask us to write a real book, and ambitious fellows that we are, we’d say yes. We want the limos, the adoring fans, the blog tours…
2) Blogging is appealing to aspiring writers precisely because the medium levels and simplifies the playing field. All of us, from the President of Iran to my blogging dog Van Til, are sitting in front of a screen doing the same thing. We write it. We post it, and the world comes to read it. Or not.
I’ll never forget when I got an email from a “name” who had read my blog. It freaked me out. It still does. When Time called me for a quote, I thought it was a goof. But when you’ve worked hard at this “thing,” it is great to get whatever comes back to you that says “we’re reading!”
3) Mr. Challies’ and I persist in this hobby out of a set of motives that are quite similar, I’ll wager: We love to write. We love to be read. We like working for ourselves. We like knowing there’s someone out there reading and being encouraged or entertained or informed. We have too much of a real life to do all the things real writers have traditionally done to be published, so we love our blogosphere. When it turns, as it has for Tim, into a book, we love it even more. In a way, Tim or any one of us who experiences some success via the blogosphere has all of you to thank.
4) So yes, there you have it: Blogging is the medium of the hoi polloi. The untrained, unwashed and unordained regular Joes. And when people find out we get hundreds of thousands of unique visitors in the door, our blogging hobbies take on other dimensions. All I can say is “you can do it too!”
5) For example, I am going to do seminars at the Cornerstone Festival this July. Just like I was someone with something to say, and not some overweight, overlooked, overwrought former youth minister and second class pastor. My writing on this blog for seven years opened the door, and I went through it. When you’ll see me there, I’ll be acting like I belong, even though I know it’s all because of this medium and what it’s created for me and others that wasn’t there in the past.
Now…deep breath.
6) How in the world does this raise “authority” issues? Maybe it doesn’t. Maybe it raises jealousy issues for other writers and some readers. Maybe it annoys the easily annoyed. (Which I pretty much count on 🙂 Maybe it reveals the reality of incredible ignorance on the part of many people about writing, publishing and how it works in today’s world. I mean, if it bothers you that some bloggers actually get treated with respect for their work, whether its Challies or Kos or Perez Hilton….well boo hoo. What can I say. Welcome to the new media.
7) But I actually like the “authority” critics, because they are showing us something that shouldn’t be forgotten. There really are people in the reformed world who don’t believe a layman like Challies should be teaching. It’s astounding. Incredible.
Among the factors mentioned by critics were “age” and “maturity.” Like….hmmm…..David Brainerd? Spurgeon at New Park Street at 20? Josh Harris? If Challies was too immature, etc. to say anything worthwhile….how did he earn his audience? He’s not exactly running pictures of girls in swimsuits over there.
In my Southern Baptist upbringing, most churches had one ordained guy, no educated clergy and lots of Bible teachers in Sunday School classes and so forth. I’m not advertising that as the way things ought to be, I’m just saying that our protestant, Baptist, evangelical tradition- like the reality for most Christians in the world- was that you were taught most of the time by laypersons. Untrained, Bible-loving, faithful, gifted laypersons. Men, women, all ages, but no degrees and no one sitting there with a buzzer if they said the wrong thing about justification. The idea was that I was supposed to get my Bible open and see if these things were so. (I know my Roman Catholic readers are shaking their heads, but trust me, it’s great fun.)
I thought that it was real reformational to say every plowboy and milkmaid were “preachers” wherever they found themselves. I thought the point of the Bible in the hands of the laity was to encourage that? I thought we knew that when the official hierarchy isn’t dependably orthodox, God raises up his prophets and teachers as needed. I thought that we were Protestants precisely because we rejected the imprimatur system, i.e. the notion that all teaching and writing must be approved by the bishop.
Christian history is full of people who were called and gifted to preach and teach as layman and lay preachers. Methodism thrived on it. Baptists wouldn’t be much today if only the educated clergy had been able to teach.
And don’t even get me started on the strange idea running around in someone’s head that Challies writing a book somehow deputizes them to exercise their freelance ministry of discernment saying “You’re no John Macarthur.” Better to go ahead and adopt the Barney Fife mantra: “We gotta nip it in the bud. Nip it!” Where did these people get their sudden endowment of authority to questions Challies’ authority….sheesh…Catholics must love this stuff.
Well, as I started out saying….it was just one of those moments. One of those instructive little moments where I can see why some Calvinists wind up being Roman Catholics in order to result their torturous problems with authority. One of those moments when you realize the simple realities of writing and publishing are apparently completely missed by a lot of people sitting there waiting for the next word to fall from the pen of their favorite teachers.
Tim Challies is no iMonk, and for that we can all be grateful. (Can you imagine me live-blogging these conferences? Hoot!) But I have often called the best of the blogosphere a kind of “pirate radio,” i.e. turning out the content that’s needed without the permission or endorsement of the gatekeepers and Barney Fifes. I congratulate Tim, a regular blogger like thousands of us, for sticking with it and getting to one of the goals most of us assume we’ll never reach: real publication. Dreams coming true are great gifts in this life of ours. Enjoy them.
Blog on, brothers and sisters. Don’t let ’em get you down.
The Internet Monk Archives 
J. Michael and Mad Minerva:
Well said.
LikeLike
What qualifications does it take to be an evangelical author anyway? How many such authors get book deals for just being a former general, sixties rock star, actor, drug dealer, or satanist high priest?
Even if the “Satanist High Priest” is all a hoax?
All this is, is “Just like on Oprah, except CHRISTIAN!” BrittneyLindsayParis with some Bible verses painted on.
LikeLike
In regard to Nicholas Anton’s comment that “I believe “Academia†to be one of the dominant intellectual diseases of the 20 and 21 centuries, in that the “paper trail†of an academic’s education, however acquired, has become more significant than their actual knowledge and their ability to use it.”
I live and work in Academia, the world of universities and higher education, where I’m a researcher and instructor. I’ll be the first to concur that some over-emphasis on “credentials” can be very harmful, and it has created a snobbery and intellectual elitism that’s self-destructive and, ironically, small-minded. I’m sorry to see that the egotistical wrangle over “authority” has bled into Christian circles.
Even so, I feel compelled to add a corrective as well. Giving a blanket, general statement that “academia” is a “disease” is much too simplistic, and, frankly, I find it just a tad on the offensive side. I’m sure Nicholas didn’t mean it in any offensive sense, though! But I have to say too that there are good and honest folks in academic circles who care more about learning than name-dropping resumes (I flatter myself thinking that maybe I’m among them, and yes, Virginia, there are real Christians in academia too), but as always “the squeaky wheel gets the grease,” and usually the academics who get attention are the ones who make the most noise, usually in a negative way (the sorts of people that, really, the honest academics find embarrassing to the profession).
Also, three little points and then I’ll dry up, I promise:
1. An academic or expert is really only qualified to speak with special authority in the narrow field of his or her specialization. This has been distorted nowadays with various professors, etc. becoming involved in politics, advocacy, and activism, in which possession of a PhD (or whatever) becomes a free pass to yap about everything and anything. Strictly speaking, if I have a PhD in (say) Renaissance Italian history, then I’m only expert in that field, and even then, my expert opinion could be wrong. Academics/researchers in a given specialty argue all the time–and interstingly, everybody has “authority,” but in the end, it’s the evidence that matters. Also, my opinion on something outside my speciality, such as (say) the French Revolution, is not expert and could well be inferior to that of a non-PhD amateur history buff who’s obsessive about the French Revolution.
2. There’s been a great deal of arguing that lack of an official qualification (whatever that means)does not mean that a person is unworthy to speak. This is true. On the other hand, possession of an official qualification doesn’t mean that a person is unworthy. Sometimes a qualification really does mean something — unless you’re going to tell me that all my years in graduate school count for nothing. Also, in some Christian circles, I’ve seen a lamentable anti-intellectualism and some shockingly actual hostility to higher ed (some evangelicals urged me not to go to graduate school because I would be “pursuing a perishable crown” of man’s wisdom, etc.). I’m not saying this attitude is here, but I’ve seen it before, and I think Michael has an essay on this somewhere in the archives.
3. In the end, though, the kerfuffle over “authority” or lack of it or whatever is not about degree plans, PhDs, expert opinion, official pieces of paper, egotistical posing, foggy criteria, or the approval of whatever self-involved group thinks it’s qualified to grant approval. In the end, what matters is the ACTUAL SUBSTANCE OF THE ARGUMENT/EVIDENCE. What gets lost in talking about slippery qualifications is this very point. Instead of arguing “Is X even qualified to talk about Y?” we ought to be asking “X says this about Y. Is it valid or not? Why? How? Let’s discuss.”
Well, kudos to Tim for writing. And to you too, iMonk. We should all be reading, writing, learning, and talking about substance. I suspect part of the ugly mess about “authority” is about intellectually lazy folks who want to sit back and to be spoon-fed “safe” pre-digested little life lessons from “approved” Christian sources — are we back to the celebrity preacher/teacher again?
LikeLike
Aye, can anything good come out of Nazareth?
LikeLike
Didn’t the heretical preachers who hassled the Apostle Paul carry letters of commendation? Paul had every qualification, but counted them all as dung “for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord, for whom I suffered the loss of all things, and count them nothing but refuse, that I may gain Christ ” (Phil. 3:8, WEB).
What qualifications does it take to be an evangelical author anyway? How many such authors get book deals for just being a former general, sixties rock star, actor, drug dealer, or satanist high priest? Is being senior pastor of “First Mega-Church of the Extremely Gullible” a qualification?
I don’t think qualifications are as important as spiritual accountability; every author needs to start somewhere, but they should do so with some oversight, such as a pastor. I assume Challies had someone proof-read his manuscript to check for doctrinal errors; however, I have never seen the equivalent of a “nihil obstat” or “Imprimi Potest” in an evangelical text before. I wouldn’t think MacArthur would associate his name to anything with which he didn’t agree.
LikeLike
Jesus didn’t seem to promote authority a lot did he. He certainly didn’t seem to suggest that authority equals credibility.
Many people who will never be considered experts or authorities have something very valuable to say. Anyone who listens to children will hear the occasional profound question come from their minds and mouths. William James asked, “Who are we to assume the Nature uses only sane minds to relay her Wisdom?” How do “authorities” represent themselves anyway?
There are countless examples in our time and throughout history of authority acting in ways that are deplorable, so insights from them might not have been all that helpful, while an illiterate peasant could share the truths of the way of Christ.
About 25 million people see Dr. James Dobson as an authority. Others, both with degrees and without claim he does not follow Christ or practice intelligent psychology with his efforts to work against the rights and respect of homosexuals. (That is my observation, I will admit. I am heterosexual so it’s not a personal axe to grind, but it seems clear that this person of “authority” often leads people in ways that are not the ways of Christ, which presumably is the reason for discussing authority.) Dobson is not an ordained minister, but he’s seen as a Christian authority. He is a psychologist, but every mental health association on the planet disagrees with his stance on homosexuality and the treatment of homosexuals. This is not the place to bring up such a weighty tangent perhaps, but Dobson may serve as an interesting example of authority being determined (for better or worse) by the subjective perceptions of others.
LikeLike
Wow…I just read the comment secttion you linked to. What I want to know is this: who gave those Bethlehem broomstick priests Justin’s Blog address?
LikeLike
The whole “Challies-Gate” things has been shocking for me to witness. A real train wreck of sorts that I just can’t seem to stop looking at. Because I can’t believe it happended.
I’m trying to grasp the logic. Is the fear that because certain writers produce bad books full of bad theology (which does happen) we must now create an artifial hierarchy of approved writers to weed out the bad ones? Is the thinking that unless a person is a pastor of a certain brand or denomination of church, every other author should raise suspicion?
About 6 years ago I was at a church where the Women’s Bible study was having their annual “share about your favorite book and what impact it’s had upon your life” event. The wife of one of our interns was there, and, annoyed with what she was hearing, came over to his office to report that one woman shared how Warren’s PDL book had impacted her in a positive way. The wife was not happy about this at all as she was trained in college that Rick was on the naughty list.
Anyway, said intern comes into my office, a bit shaken, and reports this all to me and asks, “Should we allow this book to be promoted at our church?!!?”
I just looked him and thought, “You’ve got to be kidding me.” (I wondered if I allowed him to go through our church library how many books he would toss because they weren’t in his approved sphere of writings and authors.)
Now, I’m no big fan of Warren, but I couldn’t believe the level of control and censorship this person had in mind. It nauseated me, in the same way “Challies-Gate” has sickened my stomach.
All of this left me with two questions:
Does Steve Camp believe he is approved to speak or write for God? And if so, why? Because that cat is writing up a storm on his blog.
What I believe is happening is that we are seeing the next level of what I experienced six years ago with that intern. Now even guys like Driscoll have to pass all sorts of litmus tests before a certain group of people will give them the okee-dokee regardings their ministry. I love how Driscoll, when interviewed by Adrian Warnock said, “[I] am trying to be biblical, even when it makes a mess of my systematics.” Right on. Let’s the Bible be our consience and guide, rather than a gaggle of self-appointed theological approval committees. May we be driven by Scripture, even when its a bit confusing, rather than someones orderly systematic.
Challies has proven himself to be a capable, readable and enjoyable writer on his blog. Now he’s tackled a singular subject and put words on a page rather than the computer screen. Good on him.
LikeLike
Challies blogs. For years.
Challies is successful as a blogger.
Challies blogs book reviews.
Lots of them.
I mean LOTS of them.
Challies is asked to live-blog conferences.
Many of them.
Lo and behold, Challies is writing a book for a publisher frequented by the sort of folks that read his blog.
Makes sense to me.
He’s done his apprenticeship (and NOT as a televangelist), he’s built his rep (and NOT on Oprah), so now he’s built up enough of a track record and buzz to hit the big time.
Nicholas Anton: Edison and Ford also had a very nasty dark side; completely self-educated, they had this visceral hatred of anyone with more “book learning” than themselves.
LikeLike
Thank you, Michael. I enjoyed your writing. And to me, that all the authority required.
And thank you, Amy, ’cause I enjoy Garry Wills, Rolheiser, Nouwen as well as Merton….
LikeLike
Isn’t the ‘appeal to authority’ a fallacy anyway?
Arguments should be critiqued on their merit, not based on the person delivering them.
LikeLike
Although I’m supportive of your argument here, the ultra-low quality theology in the Christian book industry shows just how important the issue of “authority” is.
If there was some arbitrary, man-created “line” that prevented someone like Challies from publishing a book, I’m certain that, if applied to all Christian authors, there would be better quality Christian books out there.
Not that I approve of such an arbitrary line of course.
LikeLike
I believe “Academia†to be one of the dominant intellectual diseases of the 20 and 21 centuries, in that the “paper trail†of an academic’s education, however acquired, has become more significant than their actual knowledge and their ability to use it. Note the credentials of some of our greatest scientific minds of the past;
“In 1854, Reverend G. B. Engle belittled one of his students, seven-year-old Thomas Alva Edison, as “addled.” This out-raged the youngster, and he stormed out of the Port Huron, Michigan school, the first formal school he had ever attended. His mother, Nancy Edison …withdrew her son from the school where he had been for only three months and resolved to educate him at home. Al though he seems to have briefly attended two more schools, nearly all his childhood learning took place at home.â€
“Ford was born in what is now Dearborn, Michigan. His formal education was limited…â€
“Bell was not a scientist in today’s sense of the word: he never attended university, and he relied on intuition for his intellectual breakthroughs.â€
The Wright brothers’ “…formal education ended with graduation from high school, they became in the course of a few short years self taught engineers and renowned for their original thinking in matters of science…â€
“Though Newton did not excel in school, he did earn the opportunity to attend Trinity College Cambridge where he wanted to study law. …while at college he worked as a servant to pay his way. Newton also kept a journal where he was able to express his ideas on various topics. He became interested in mathematics after buying a book at a fair and not understanding the math concepts it contained (extra academic learning). Newton graduated with a bachelors degree in 1665. The further pursuit of an education was interrupted by the plague.â€
While there were many people of the past who had considerable academic education, those who did not have that advantage still had a platform on which to present their ideas and to gain respect in spite of that seeming lack. On the other hand, non of the above would be respected in our present academic climate. One of the many causes of this dilemma is labor unions who create artificial barriers to protect their members from competition.
I am not a blogger like Michael Spencer or Tim Challies, but I would suspect that they process considerably more material in a given year than most college and university students, both in what they read and in what they write. Both have shown and are demonstrating that they do not lack the knowledge and ability to process , discuss, and evaluate information, nor to express qualified opinions, including writing articles and books, on the various subjects. I will not always, and am not required by law to agree with them as seems to be the case in the contemporary world of science, but I nevertheless respect their opinions.
After being informed at one of the premier rehearsals of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony that the sopranos could not reach the high notes in the finale, Beethoven is to have responded, “Then get me some who canâ€. “Those who can†are frequently the ones who are too uneducated to know that “it can’t be doneâ€.
LikeLike
It seems like C’s book is being treated as though he were trying to enter it into the Biblical canon; or as though it were his dissertation for being ordained. In fact, he’s just writing about his insights on a particular topic related to the Christian life.
Consider this passage from 1 COR. 14: “26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. 27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.” Notice especially “each one” (vs. 26) and “all prophesy” (vs.31). There is a principle of liberality here that can also be applied to a Christian writing a blog or a book.
(I also posted this @ Mike Leake’s blog.)
LikeLike
In the spirit of “blogging on”, I’ve tried answering the central question offered by Steve Camp,here.What qualifies someone to speak for God and His Word. Let me know what you think. I welcome your suggestions, responses, and rebukes where necessary.
LikeLike
1) I wish there were more laypeople like Tim.
2) I wish there were less authors with PhD’s.
3) I wish there were less authors without PhD’s.
4) I wish authors stuck closer to Scripture, which is our authority as believers.
5) “Priesthood of all believers” (notice the plural) has nothing to do with Scripture interpretation.
LikeLike
Good for you Michael.
I read your comment at Tim Chailles and was relieved to see you are hosting a day of his blog tour.
Tim, his book and his ideas will be treated respectfully.
LikeLike
Brendt: at least you didn’t think it was a typo (ir-O-nic). 😉
Michael: WOW! That post to Amy about Reformed underground papal longings!! And you’re really making me think, connecting “inerrancy” with such inclinations. Is it possible that since so many of them already in essence regard Calvin as their pope (I know that our pastor does—WSC grad/Mercersburg aficionado)—not that they’d ever admit that, of course—it’s not much of a “leap” of faith to switch to Rome’s Papa? (Think Eric Hoffer’s TRUE BELIEVER.)
LikeLike
I just went and read the entire comment thread at JT’s blog, and I am saddened. That’s one of the ugliest things I’ve ever seen in the Christian church since I was a kid and our church business meetings would typically devolve into shouting matches. “Qualifications” indeed.
What must a nonbeliever be thinking if he stumbled across that post?
LikeLike
i too am a nobody blogger from nowheresville, MI who’s been doing it almost 3 years…can’t believe it. I love the new media and can’t wait to see where this thing goes. The beauty of someone like you and Tim and me and others is that we are just writing our hearts out and bleeding our souls all over the blogosphere. If someone is touched and challenged and healed and restored in the process then it adds just a bit more motivation to keep doing it.
Anyway, thanks for the post and I’ll toast to blogging, the New Media, and book deals and speaking gigs that arise out of both 🙂
-jeremy
LikeLike
Amy:
I’ve never personally assumed that the RCC extended its authority to the discussion of spirituality unless a person was making implications on the interpretation of scripture or on aspects of spirituality that DO impinge on authority issues, i.e. visions, etc.
I do believe it is legitimate to raise the issue of whether some Reformed people are longing for a more Papal experience of authority. I can direct you to the pertinent blogs and books. Let’s just say that it is no surprise to me that the claim of infallible authority does prove extremely attractive to people who are already running around insisting on inerrancy. It does strike me as odd how many Calvinists will eventually go to the RCC where the authoritative doctrines of the church are often far more liberal in comparison to their former belief system.
Take the issue of evolution. I’ll wager that a Scott Hahn was pretty unlikely to endorse the RCC position on evolution as a Protestant. Same with the view of other religions or the issue of Biblical inerrancy itself. The move is to more “authority,” but the actual authoritative positions that must be held are often at great variance with what was considered “no compromise” issues in their Protestant days.
peace
MSpencer
LikeLike
I am one reformer who very much supports Tim’s writing of this book and for the very reasons you gave on this post Michael.
LikeLike
Jazzki, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. iMonk is the only one on this blog who is allowed to send me to the dictionary. 😉
But now that I know what “irenic” means, I agree with you 100%.
LikeLike
Very good points; well argued
LikeLike
Ok,so you get a +1 for actually using the term “hoi polloi”.
LikeLike
I was surprised that anyone from the Reformed Camp (pardon the pun) would attack Challies, of all people.
It was thus a relief to discover that the naysayers’ comments there @ JT’s blog were a tiny minority.
If there ever was a more irenic blogger than Challies, I’d like to know who it is.
LikeLike
Good point. Edited.
LikeLike
I just have one nit to pick, but it kinda bolsters your point — it certainly doesn’t take away from it.
You alluded to the fact that Tim defended himself on his blog. In actuality, he didn’t. Even though he was slandered viciously, his defense was only of others who weren’t defamed nearly as badly.
As I said over at JT’s blog, I hope that I’m that “immature” some day.
LikeLike
The authority in teaching business is an interesting one and not as clear-cut in Catholicism as is implied particularly when it comes to matters of spirituality. Especially there.
After all, if I were to grab the three Catholics from the past regarded with the most authority to teach on spirituality, the top of my head produces three:
1) St. Francis of Assisi
2) St. Theresa of Avila
3) St. Terese of Liseaux
None formally educated to the point of degrees, none academics, but revered for the witness of their Christian discipleship and even (in the case of the latter two) for their writing, the last being a young woman who died at the age of 24 in obscurity in a French cloister.
I’m not saying Challies is any of these, nor am I obviously making any point about the segue between blogging and publishing. I’m just adding my annoying Catholic two cents to attempt to nuance the conversation about teaching with authority in the Catholic context, lest we fall into easy dichotomies.
LikeLike
I think the key word here is jealousy. There are a lot of folks that would really like to be seen as an authority and aren’t. Some have an academic background; some have an experiential background. Both types think the other lacks depth or breadth or wisdom, but that’s only because they’re trying to justify their own standing.
If Challies believes he knows something about spiritual discernment, he has an obligation as a member of the universal Church to share it with others for the building up of the body of Christ. If he’s wrong, others can write their books explaining why that’s so. (No doubt others will; the rebuttal market in publishing is mighty huge, especially among Christians, particularly among jealous Christians.) If he’s right, many will profit by the information.
Ultimately, it will all contribute to the good of the Kingdom. The only folks who don’t think it good are the people who think they should be heard — and I wish they’d recall Jesus’s many responses when His disciples fought one another about who was greatest.
LikeLike
Well said, Michael. Well said.
LikeLike
like what you are saying.
how-ever, i followed some links and read a forward by mcarther. i keep trying to get this thought out of my head, “thats all i need to know”.
LikeLike