Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Aimee Byrd)

Status
Not open for further replies.

BottleOfTears

Puritan Board Freshman
be addressing a perceived problem we had never noticed
I think WCWBF makes a lot more sense for people who have grown up with purity culture and have been told all sorts of strange things.

The discussion surrounding it has the same problem this one has. Aimee Byrd questions some of the teachings of purity culture, makes some problematic statements, and in response she gets accused of being a feminist.

I'm not sure why people can't admit that American Purity Culture has taught some very strange things. Especially to someone who is not American like me, even Christians over here find it strange. We managed to avoid the extremes of modern culture without all that.
 

Andrew35

Puritan Board Freshman
I think WCWBF makes a lot more sense for people who have grown up with purity culture and have been told all sorts of strange things.

The discussion surrounding it has the same problem this one has. Aimee Byrd questions some of the teachings of purity culture, makes some problematic statements, and in response she gets accused of being a feminist.

I'm not sure why people can't admit that American Purity Culture has taught some very strange things. Especially to someone who is not American like me, even Christians over here find it strange. We managed to avoid the extremes of modern culture without all that.
To clarify, my wife is from East Asia and grew up in a Catholic family. She couldn't relate to it at all. Maybe she just wasn't it's target audience, as you seem to be implying.
 

BottleOfTears

Puritan Board Freshman
To clarify, my wife is East Asian and grew up in a Catholic family. She couldn't relate to it at all. Maybe she just wasn't it's target audience, as you seem to be implying.
Yeah it makes a lot more sense if you grew up with that I think.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
I think WCWBF makes a lot more sense for people who have grown up with purity culture and have been told all sorts of strange things.

The discussion surrounding it has the same problem this one has. Aimee Byrd questions some of the teachings of purity culture, makes some problematic statements, and in response she gets accused of being a feminist.

I'm not sure why people can't admit that American Purity Culture has taught some very strange things. Especially to someone who is not American like me, even Christians over here find it strange. We managed to avoid the extremes of modern culture without all that.
Of course, Purity Culture is a lot better than the modern Promiscuity Culture that is abounding.

Fundamentalist over-reactions to prevailing cultural ills are often silly and problematic, but not usually anywhere near as problematic as the prevailing sins that Fundies are over-reacting against.

Sure, "Virginity Promise Rings" or whatever they are called are weird and sort of creepy, but girls having double-digit sex partners by the time they leave college is far worse. And it leads to high rates of divorce (men do prefer debt-free virgins without tattoos, it is true). I just read that 25% of all American teens/adults has an STD. That is far worse than Purity Culture.

So sure, Byrd writes against an over-reaction. But have we forgotten what we are reacting against?
 

BottleOfTears

Puritan Board Freshman
Of course, Purity Culture is a lot better than the modern Promiscuity Culture that is abounding.

Fundamentalist over-reactions to prevailing cultural ills are often silly and problematic, but not usually anywhere near as problematic as the prevailing sins that Fundies are over-reacting against.

Sure, "Virginity Promise Rings" or whatever they are called are weird and sort of creepy, but girls having double-digit sex partners by the time they leave college is far worse. And it leads to high rates of divorce (men do prefer debt-free virgins without tattoos, it is true). I just read that 25% of all American teens/adults has an STD. That is far worse than Purity Culture.

So sure, Byrd writes against an over-reaction. But have we forgotten what we are reacting against?
This sort of reply is my exact problem with this whole discussion.

Nowhere is Mrs. Byrd advocating to join the "promiscuity culture". Just because Purity Culture is "better" does not remove it from critique. Furthermore, "promiscuity culture" does not equal feminism. There are plenty of misogynists who indulge in the same.

Maybe its better to admit that purity culture said some rather problematic things, and then push back on Aimee when she says problematic stuff? Instead, what I mainly see is accusations of feminism and of leading the Reformed church astray.

The real problem with Purity Culture is that it is Pharasaical and that it pushes more people into over-reaction unneccesarily. Our best course of action is to critique it, and offer an alternative, not defend it to the death.

Should we defend those who legalistically ban the consumption of alcohol because drunkeness is worse? Should we defend those who attack the man who eats with prostitutes and tax collectors because prostitution and tax collecting are worse?
 

BottleOfTears

Puritan Board Freshman
A number of the advocates seem to find many commonalities within the red pill and pick up artist communities
I find that many conservative Christians assume that the only enemies they have are extreme feminists. Honestly, some of the stuff the PUA people come out with is disgusting. I don't think people realise that red pills are the people feminists hate the most.

The worst part is, I have seen the same psuedo-science graphs and statistics used by Red Pill people to argue that women are manipulative and only like jerks referenced on this very forum.

As a guy this troubles me very greatly. I do not see myself as some big burly, outdoorsy, shoot from the hip ask questions later kind of guy. I was taught that it is not only rude but provocative and unChristlike. So many of the definition s for manhood from these people, so many of the necessary traits, do not come across as Christlike, compassionate or gentle. I'd like to think I am a 'nice guy' and not a 'bad boy.'
I think this is exactly the sort of thing that Mrs Byrd is questioning. I think some better resources need to written on this. If people are afraid of the "direction this is going" it would be better if we had somewhere to look for a balanced approach to all this, rather than accusing and maligning.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
This sort of reply is my exact problem with this whole discussion.

Nowhere is Mrs. Byrd advocating to join the "promiscuity culture". Just because Purity Culture is "better" does not remove it from critique. Furthermore, "promiscuity culture" does not equal feminism. There are plenty of misogynists who indulge in the same.

Maybe its better to admit that purity culture said some rather problematic things, and then push back on Aimee when she says problematic stuff? Instead, what I mainly see is accusations of feminism and of leading the Reformed church astray.

The real problem with Purity Culture is that it is Pharasaical and that it pushes more people into over-reaction unneccesarily. Our best course of action is to critique it, and offer an alternative, not defend it to the death.

Should we defend those who legalistically ban the consumption of alcohol because drunkeness is worse? Should we defend those who attack the man who eats with prostitutes and tax collectors because prostitution and tax collecting are worse?
You make fair points.

Yes, Purity Culture is legalistic. It leads to less STDS, though.

And how much feminism is necessary before we can label someone a feminist? If a drop of poison is dropped into your coffee, are you poisoned yet? An ounce? A half-cup? At what point are we allowed to call a female Christian a feminist if she advocates for "feminist-y" things or pushes back against traditionalist things?

But yes, I essentially agree with your reply. Purity Culture may need a critique, but I don't trust her to do the critiquing. It needs to be from someone more trustworthy.
 

BottleOfTears

Puritan Board Freshman
You make fair points.

Yes, Purity Culture is legalistic. It leads to less STDS, though.

And how much feminism is necessary before we can label someone a feminist? If a drop of poison is dropped into your coffee, are you poisoned yet? An ounce? A half-cup? At what point are we allowed to call a female Christian a feminist if she advocates for "feminist-y" things or pushes back against traditionalist things?

But yes, I essentially agree with your reply. Purity Culture may need a critique, but I don't trust her to do the critiquing. It needs to be from someone more trustworthy.
I think the problem I have with feminism is that is just a very vague word most of the time. I would prefer a more specific critique.

That said, I think this thread contains a lot more balanced discussion than previous threads have.
 

RWD

Puritan Board Sophomore
Scripture is God breathed. As such, it’s neither a woman’s voice nor a man’s voice. God is Spirit.

Notice the emphasis. A woman believer is my sister in the Lord (Romans 16:1; 1 Timothy 5:2), but how about that we are all sons by gracious adoption and consequently co-heirs with Christ?

Aside from the obvious, it’ll be interesting to see the trajectory and conclusion. (As if we can’t already guess.) At the end of the day, the regulative principle forbids women reading Scripture in congregational worship (unless it can be shown that Scripture requires women to lead in reading.)
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
I think the problem I have with feminism is that is just a very vague word most of the time. I would prefer a more specific critique.

That said, I think this thread contains a lot more balanced discussion than previous threads have.
True. It is a spectrum. I am not sure at what point a person becomes a feminist. What needs to be there to earn the label. Yes, it is vague sometimes.
 

ZackF

Puritan Board Graduate
True. It is a spectrum. I am not sure at what point a person becomes a feminist. What needs to be there to earn the label. Yes, it is vague sometimes.
Yes. That’s one of the problems with the label Protestant. That’s an identity in opposition to something. If our identity is becomes not-Feminist, similar pitfalls await us for being not-RC. Like munging up the doctrine of the Trinity.
 

RWD

Puritan Board Sophomore
I hope that I am mistaken, but I do not think what is being advocated here is going to end well. It seems to be part of a push towards increasing acceptance of feminism in conservative Reformed circles (just so long as women are not being ordained). Also, talk of a "female" voice in scripture sounds troubling.

There’s a fabricated problem out there that “theologically gifted” women have no outlet in the church, even that they’re not cared for in such a way as to be able to employ their gifts.

I’d be interested to know how young males and even ruling elders that are “theologically gifted” are encouraged and cared for (“nurtured”) in ways that theologically gifted women aren’t. There are men’s bible studies and women’s bible studies. Older men and older women who teach younger men and younger women respectively. There are also theological message boards and seminaries for sharpening and refining one’s thoughts. How about encouraging one another in fellowship? Or is that too mundane? Obviously I’m missing something because I can’t think of any theological outlet available to me that’s not available to my wife other than a mixed adult study. (And since very few in the church are called to preach, I don’t see that as tipping the scales away from women toward unordained men.)

One Reformed woman stated, “…the leaders of my very traditional church didn’t know what to do with me.”

That’s a shame. Maybe they’re trying to solve a problem that doesn’t truly exist. What does she want to do? How is she less able to work out her salvation than I am?

And then this from the same person:

“My chapter recounts how we muddled through more than a dozen years together, in that context and with my gifts of study and teaching.”

Again, I’m at a loss. How does a man whet his theological appetite in ways not available to a woman?

I remember Danny Bonaduce (actor that played Danny Partridge) lamenting on a talk show that he no longer had any outlet to act. After playing the precocious Danny Partridge for four seasons, he was unavoidably typecasted and washed up as an actor. The self-pity was striking. One astute person from the audience said to him that there was an abundance of opportunity to act. What was brought to light was that what the grown up Bonaduce wanted was not just to act but to be a star! (The audience erupted in applause.) The grown up child actor had become self-absorbed. Acting to him was a means to be recognized. The intrinsic value of acting wasn’t the issue at all.

I see a parallel. So, whenever we hear something like:

“…the leaders of my very traditional church didn’t know what to do with me...”
I would call that a false premise based upon the Danny Partridge fallacy.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
There's millions of gender-segregated Muslim women who need theologically-minded women to teach them. Let them go to the Muslim world and smash the Patriarchy there.
 

C. M. Sheffield

Puritan Board Senior
I have noticed the way ESS is used in these discussions to dismiss or shut down those raising questions about any perceived drift toward feminism. It's a red herring. But it has been used effectively by some who are ever interested in changing the subject.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Puritanboard Commissioner
From what I have observed, ESS is partly the fruit of people having too high a view of complementarianism. And, yes, purity culture can sometimes be creepy and legalistic. But these points are largely red-herrings, as none of the critics of Mrs Byrd here is defending such weirdness.
 

Susan777

Puritan Board Sophomore
There's millions of gender-segregated Muslim women who need theologically-minded women to teach them. Let them go to the Muslim world and smash the Patriarchy there.
Hmmmm. I’m a theologically-minded woman but telling me to go smash the Patriarchy is demeaning. You are combining two categories. I think I understand your point but perhaps you could have said it better.
 

Susan777

Puritan Board Sophomore
You make fair points.

Yes, Purity Culture is legalistic. It leads to less STDS, though.

And how much feminism is necessary before we can label someone a feminist? If a drop of poison is dropped into your coffee, are you poisoned yet? An ounce? A half-cup? At what point are we allowed to call a female Christian a feminist if she advocates for "feminist-y" things or pushes back against traditionalist things?

But yes, I essentially agree with your reply. Purity Culture may need a critique, but I don't trust her to do the critiquing. It needs to be from someone more trustworthy.
Ami the only one who never heard of the Purity Culture ? I didn’t know it existed until a certain Lutheran pastrix started to rail against it. (One of the blessings of being in a Reformed Presbyterian Church?) anyway, I thought it was over years ago. Why are we even discussing it now? Can’t we just agree that the overall motive of challenging young people to sexual purity was a worthy one even if somewhat flawed in practice?
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Hmmmm. I’m a theologically-minded woman but telling me to go smash the Patriarchy is demeaning. You are combining two categories. I think I understand your point but perhaps you could have said it better.
I could probably say everything better.

I saw some "reformed" women jokingly refer to "smashing the Patriarchy" on Twitter just last month (about 3 weeks ago). One had written articles about biblical manhood and womenhood and attends a reformed church in good standing. I believe she said it partially tongue-in-cheek (jokingly), but she still said it and seemed (at least partially) to mean it. They seemed awful tired of men telling them what their proper place was in the church and society. So I have quoted this phrase above as I also respond half-jokingly.

If these theologically-minded women have so much to teach and they are not appreciated in the West, they could do a lot of good among Muslim women and in cultures where women are only newly allowed to drive and where "women's rights" do not exist, and where a true Patriarchy exists.

Theologically minded women could do a great deal of good on the mission field where many single women have found respect and where they have found fertile fields to work in, often where men are unable or unwilling to go. We could then cultivate more Mary Slessors than Aimee Byrds and bless the world immensely.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Ami the only one who never heard of the Purity Culture ? I didn’t know it existed until a certain Lutheran pastrix started to rail against it. (One of the blessings of being in a Reformed Presbyterian Church?) anyway, I thought it was over years ago. Why are we even discussing it now? Can’t we just agree that the overall motive of challenging young people to sexual purity was a worthy one even if somewhat flawed in practice?
I agree with you Susan,

Purity Culture was only a very small blip on the radar screen. But it was so weird that it became an easy punching bag for certain types (like that Lutheran pastrix).

It is important that we assess a viewpoint by what sort of enemies it gathers.

The last articles I read against Purity Culture railed against this movement because "it made me ashamed of my body" - the writer's solution was to not be ashamed of her body, but to learn how to dress more sexy.

Another writer against Purity Culture derided it as causing her to view sex as a harmful thing. But again, if 25% of all Americans have an STD and if rates of divorce are tied into how many sexual partners a woman has prior to marriage, then, YES, sex can be a harmful thing. Yes, virginity still has value (probably moreso now, since it is exceedingly rare), and abstinence-only education is still useful.

A major theme in denunciations of Purity Culture is that is caused shame. But we now have a culture that feels no shame and blushes at NOTHING. Is that really superior?

I am not defending Purity Culture. But those deriding it are almost always much worse.

See this example (which sounds sort of like the creation of the golden calf): https://www.christianpost.com/news/...-sculpture-presents-it-to-gloria-steinem.html
 

Stephen L Smith

Moderator
Staff member
On another forum you said:
Read less
But you must be reading more to read on Twitter.
I saw some "reformed" women jokingly refer to "smashing the Patriarchy" on Twitter just last month
You recently said:
Theologically minded women could do a great deal of good on the mission field
To be theologically minded is to read more :)

My comments are a little tongue in cheek but I do think you need to qualify your statement "read less". You have made that statement a few times; it makes me nervous because in a day of watered down theology (it plagues my family), I agree with Martyn Lloyd-Jones that we need to read more, not less.

In the context of woman on the mission field, we need godly woman to read a lot, then apply that reading in service for Christ.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
On another forum you said:

But you must be reading more to read on Twitter.

You recently said:

To be theologically minded is to read more :)

My comments are a little tongue in cheek but I do think you need to qualify your statement "read less". You have made that statement a few times; it makes me nervous because in a day of watered down theology (it plagues my family), I agree with Martyn Lloyd-Jones that we need to read more, not less.

In the context of woman on the mission field, we need godly woman to read a lot, then apply that reading in service for Christ.
You still mad at my "read less" comment, brother? Ha ha.

Yes, I need to read less Twitter. That place is a dumpster fire. I only post or comment on things pertaining to my place of ministry on Twitter. I save my discussions for the PB because we are more civil on here.

I believe the reformed tradition reads a lot. Sometimes too much. Hours a day of Puritans while the world around them burns.

I believe if folks just read the confessions and ancient creeds of the church, that would help. That is not really substantial reading. A little each day. One could even read through the bible once a day (or listen on audiobook while hiking) and that is not excessive. Charlton Heston does a great bible narration, Moses himself, reading the law!

I am not saying "water down your theology" - I am saying "Get off your butt and do something." I know folks who read so much theology, but take so little action.

To be biblical is to do more.
 

EcclesiaDiscens.

Puritan Board Freshman
Can I just point something out here that I think was glossed over? It’s a point made in this thread by a few posters.

At 2:30 in the video she admits that she didn’t like what her church was teaching so she had to step up and teach her own opinion. Big yikes.

As has been said before in this thread that’s a very fundamental attitude of rebellion. I don’t wish to cast aspersions or be uncharitable towards Mrs. Byrd but how long will that be tolerated by supposedly confessional denominations before we move to “because women have been abused and marginalized we need semi-ordained women to make sure men aren’t mucking it up!”

Oh wait, we already have that in the form of the push for deaconesses and women essentially governing ordained men on the mission field. Then like a boiling frog we will end up with ordained women because if they can do all that other stuff why can’t they be ordained? Just like the CRC.

It reminds me eerily of Carolyn Custis James.
 

a mere housewife

Not your cup of tea
Ryan, I think she spoke about reading resources at that point in the video and how she was stumbling over claims in the books that affected her discipleship in the church, so she began researching and then writing out of that research.

When people make assertions that aren't what Scripture (or some other source) actually says, women as well as men are responsible not to swallow it. It's the Berean attitude (in a context of prominent women converts) of searching the scriptures to make sure even an apostle is not saying something otherwise. It's submission to God, rather than men -- not rebellion. And it's actually a huge part of our reformed heritage, in women as well as in men. Sarah who is educated as a historian reminded me recently that historically the reformed have put a tremendous emphasis on educating women to read and interpret Scripture rather than being dependent on someone else to do that for them. (I hope she writes more about that someday.)

I do think that much of what we understand to be a problem worth addressing will depend on what we have experienced and on our blindspots to what we may be contributing to the experiences of others. A woman told me recently that she expressed an interest in the theology group at her NAPARC church to be told it was just for men. They had nothing similar for women. Women do come up against this kind of thing (which I would place on the milder end of the spectrum, as did my friend -- though it is isolating and confusing) -- and much more serious issues that really do demonstrate poor understanding of a woman's dignity in Christ and her full humanity. In my own experience they come up against them as a matter of course.

Surely the standard for addressing a problem is not 'the lesser of two evils' (I would avoid that sort of yardstick except in the political sphere); but what the Bible actually teaches and where we are getting it wrong. The fact is that these problems have fallen far more heavily on women and children. In the nature of the case, they have.
 

Susan777

Puritan Board Sophomore
A woman told me recently that she expressed an interest in the theology group at her NAPARC church to be told it was just for men. They had nothing similar for women.
Our men’s group studies theology and I’m so grateful for that but sometimes I succumb to envy (not resentment) because there’s nothing similar for women. But to be honest, I don’t think there’s much interest anyway among our ladies. So someone with no husband and no access to the elders is stuck with the PB. Just kidding! Really, just kidding. I’ve learned a lot here and hope to learn more. But I often wish I could kick things around with people who are interested in the things I see here. Virtual conversation has its limits.
 

a mere housewife

Not your cup of tea
Other women here have expressed the same, Susan -- that they feel isolated in their theological interests in their churches sort of all around.
I don't think the mens' theology groups are at all intended to demean -- it's true that many women are running after little ones all day or gifted in different areas and not interested! But it is the reality that theologically minded women in the church often have less opportunity than men for fellowship and engagement and growth in those faculties. Saying so should not necessarily be taken as rebellion or self pity (we all have isolating struggles in different areas: and I think ultimately they help us to reach out to one another across our differences because we can understand what isolation is like -- ie a mother of young children often feels very isolated).
 

RWD

Puritan Board Sophomore
Ryan, I think she spoke about reading resources at that point in the video and how she was stumbling over claims in the books that affected her discipleship in the church, so she began researching and then writing out of that research.

When people make assertions that aren't what Scripture (or some other source) actually says, women as well as men are responsible not to swallow it. It's the Berean attitude (in a context of prominent women converts) of searching the scriptures to make sure even an apostle is not saying something otherwise. It's submission to God, rather than men -- not rebellion. And it's actually a huge part of our reformed heritage, in women as well as in men. Sarah who is educated as a historian reminded me recently that historically the reformed have put a tremendous emphasis on educating women to read and interpret Scripture rather than being dependent on someone else to do that for them. (I hope she writes more about that someday.)

I do think that much of what we understand to be a problem worth addressing will depend on what we have experienced and on our blindspots to what we may be contributing to the experiences of others. A woman told me recently that she expressed an interest in the theology group at her NAPARC church to be told it was just for men. They had nothing similar for women. Women do come up against this kind of thing (which I would place on the milder end of the spectrum, as did my friend -- though it is isolating and confusing) -- and much more serious issues that really do demonstrate poor understanding of a woman's dignity in Christ and her full humanity. In my own experience they come up against them as a matter of course.

Surely the standard for addressing a problem is not 'the lesser of two evils' (I would avoid that sort of yardstick except in the political sphere); but what the Bible actually teaches and where we are getting it wrong. The fact is that these problems have fallen far more heavily on women and children. In the nature of the case, they have.
A woman told me recently that she expressed an interest in the theology group at her NAPARC church to be told it was just for men. They had nothing similar for women.​

I host an ad hoc theological / philosophical discussion group. We discuss over bourbon and cigars (though partaking is not requisite) deeper points of theology, epistemology, metaphysics and ethics. Indeed, women can be just as equipped to engage on those subjects but they’re not welcome. In fact, most men aren’t welcome; I was asked to host the group for males 20s and 30s. Similarly, my wife is currently organizing a women’s retreat. She has organized several over the years. Rather than bourbon, more likely tea. But my question is, what’s wrong with offering a study like mine (or her study) that’s not a available to the opposite sex? It’s a matter of meeting a need, I’d think. I think as a general rule men are more interested in the differences between Van Til and Gordon Clark than are women.

That said, if there was a need, I’d enjoy hosting a theological cigar night for women, if women wanted such a thing. My wife would join me though she doesn’t prefer cigars.
 

Susan777

Puritan Board Sophomore
I agree with you Susan,

Purity Culture was only a very small blip on the radar screen. But it was so weird that it became an easy punching bag for certain types (like that Lutheran pastrix).

It is important that we assess a viewpoint by what sort of enemies it gathers.

The last articles I read against Purity Culture railed against this movement because "it made me ashamed of my body" - the writer's solution was to not be ashamed of her body, but to learn how to dress more sexy.

Another writer against Purity Culture derided it as causing her to view sex as a harmful thing. But again, if 25% of all Americans have an STD and if rates of divorce are tied into how many sexual partners a woman has prior to marriage, then, YES, sex can be a harmful thing. Yes, virginity still has value (probably moreso now, since it is exceedingly rare), and abstinence-only education is still useful.

A major theme in denunciations of Purity Culture is that is caused shame. But we now have a culture that feels no shame and blushes at NOTHING. Is that really superior?

I am not defending Purity Culture. But those deriding it are almost always much worse.

See this example (which sounds sort of like the creation of the golden calf): https://www.christianpost.com/news/...-sculpture-presents-it-to-gloria-steinem.html
I totally understand your concerns about these women who are pushing this false sense of outrage about it. Last year I read an article in a popular reformed magazine that purported to offer a serious evaluation of the horror of the movement and its long lasting damaging effects on girls and young women./sarc. They brought up the ladypastor and the disgusting statue. It was written by 2 ladies, one of whom was the editor of the mag. So I felt I had to write a letter of rebuke. I was polite but forceful I guess.These ladies do not speak for me or anyone that I know. Of course I didn’t get a reply but it made me feel better anyway.:doh:
 

RWD

Puritan Board Sophomore
But it is the reality that theologically minded women in the church often have less opportunity than men for fellowship and engagement and growth in those faculties.​

Danny Partridge. My wife is currently leading a young woman through Pink’s Sovereignty of God. (She is always engaged in such activity.) She also needed to get her own copy of Letham’s ST since I didn’t want her marking up mine! :) The point is, my wife is extremely theological and outlets always are available. However, if women think there aren’t other women to fellowship with and grow with, then either those particular women have a low and skewed view of other women or else women are not as theological. (I think it’s the former.) Either way, I’d like to know in specific terms how a woman is deprived in fellowship and growth.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top