The study of Frederick B. Meyer is now posted at the link below:
F. B. Meyer, Keswick / Higher Life Leader: a Biographical Sketch
Please click on this link to read the study.
Friday, August 18, 2017
Thursday, August 17, 2017
Race and Culture
Let's start with a definition of race from Martin Luther King, Jr. in his I Have a Dream speech on August 28, 1963:
God in His Word teaches us to judge. Scripture says a lot about judgment and how to judge. We must judge and the judgment should be righteous. For instance, many of you reading know that scripture says that Jesus taught in Matthew 7:16, "Ye shall know them by their fruits." Fruit inspection is judging the content of someone's character.
If men are going to judge, then there must be a standard of judgment. They must know what is the basis of judging someone. People who don't believe in objective truth don't have a standard for judging except for their own opinion, which has no authority.
Race isn't a basis for judging someone. Culture is. We should not judge based upon race, but we should judge based upon a way of life or the content of someone's character.
If there is objective truth and an objective, authoritative standard, it is not only possible but it is necessary at times to judge people to be wrong. We must do that. It is necessary to judge people based upon their way of life or their lifestyles.
Not only can we judge people to be wrong based upon an authoritative standard, but we can judge both sides of an issue to be wrong. Two sides can be wrong. As some have said, two wrongs don't make a right. I very often say to people that two contradictory sides can't both be right, but both can be wrong. Just because one side is wrong doesn't mean the other side is right. Both can be wrong.
Two ways of life opposing one another can both be wrong. Both can be problematic. Both can have the wrong content of their character. Both can have a wrong way of life, as judged by an objective standard. I very often judge two opposing sides both to be wrong.
An Ethiopian cannot change his skin and a leopard cannot change his spots (Jeremiah 13:23). We can't judge a person by the color of his skin. But we can judge someone by the content of his character or how Jeremiah 13:23 ends, someone who is accustomed to doing evil.
We cannot judge one race to be superior to another. We can judge a certain way of life to be superior to another. One way of life might be better than another one. One way of life might be wrong and another might be right. Some actions are better than others. Some activities have greater value. Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 2 in C minor is greater than finger painting or playing video games.
I ask that you apply the above to Charlottesville and then keep applying it through the rest of your life to situations and people. Enjoy your day.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.Race is the color of the skin, according to King. One definition in Merriam Webster Dictionary says:
a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traitsFor purposes of understanding this brief essay, culture is a way of life. Again, Merriam Webster Dictionary in part says:
a : the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations"Way of life" makes it easier to think about this issue. In King's speech, race could be the "color of the skin" part, and culture could be the "content of their character" part. King in his speech was not asking for his children to be spared judgment. They could be judged. In a sense, they should be judged, but the criteria of that judgment should be the content of the character, what I am calling culture.
b : the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (such as diversions or a way of life) shared by people in a place or time
c : the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization
God in His Word teaches us to judge. Scripture says a lot about judgment and how to judge. We must judge and the judgment should be righteous. For instance, many of you reading know that scripture says that Jesus taught in Matthew 7:16, "Ye shall know them by their fruits." Fruit inspection is judging the content of someone's character.
If men are going to judge, then there must be a standard of judgment. They must know what is the basis of judging someone. People who don't believe in objective truth don't have a standard for judging except for their own opinion, which has no authority.
Race isn't a basis for judging someone. Culture is. We should not judge based upon race, but we should judge based upon a way of life or the content of someone's character.
If there is objective truth and an objective, authoritative standard, it is not only possible but it is necessary at times to judge people to be wrong. We must do that. It is necessary to judge people based upon their way of life or their lifestyles.
Not only can we judge people to be wrong based upon an authoritative standard, but we can judge both sides of an issue to be wrong. Two sides can be wrong. As some have said, two wrongs don't make a right. I very often say to people that two contradictory sides can't both be right, but both can be wrong. Just because one side is wrong doesn't mean the other side is right. Both can be wrong.
Two ways of life opposing one another can both be wrong. Both can be problematic. Both can have the wrong content of their character. Both can have a wrong way of life, as judged by an objective standard. I very often judge two opposing sides both to be wrong.
An Ethiopian cannot change his skin and a leopard cannot change his spots (Jeremiah 13:23). We can't judge a person by the color of his skin. But we can judge someone by the content of his character or how Jeremiah 13:23 ends, someone who is accustomed to doing evil.
We cannot judge one race to be superior to another. We can judge a certain way of life to be superior to another. One way of life might be better than another one. One way of life might be wrong and another might be right. Some actions are better than others. Some activities have greater value. Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 2 in C minor is greater than finger painting or playing video games.
I ask that you apply the above to Charlottesville and then keep applying it through the rest of your life to situations and people. Enjoy your day.
Monday, August 14, 2017
As the Church Is Subject Unto Christ
To help wives understand their responsibility to their husbands, Paul uses the church as the model, when he writes in Ephesians 5:24:
First, the church is subject to Christ. The relationship of the church to Christ is subjection. What would a wife learn from looking at a church? Would it be subjection?
The name "Christ" is the title of the Messiah. He is the descendant of David, who will rule over the world. He is that King. In the present, He rules through the church in the midst of His enemies (Psalm 110). John presents salvation as believing that Jesus is the Christ. If Jesus is the Christ, believers subject themselves to Him. That is believing in Him.
Ephesians 5:24 assumes the church subjects to Christ, so that a wife can have the church as an example. Regenerate church membership assumes that the church subjects itself to Christ. Yet, today churches today do not subject themselves to Christ. Is this because the membership is unconverted?
If a woman is to look to the church for an example of subjection, how can she do that when churches aren't subject? Perhaps you have a woman, who is subject to her husband. Should the church not look to the woman as an example of subjection unto Christ? This is not the scriptural teaching though. God says the woman looks to the church. This assumes lordship. No one in a church is someone who hasn't received Jesus as Lord.
Second, as an example to the woman, the church is subject to Christ in everything. If the church is subject to Christ in everything, it must know everything. If it is subject to Christ in everything, then it is not subject only in the so-called essentials. If the church can pick what is most important and subject in that only, then the woman can do that too. She can interpret what is essential from her husband and only subject in that.
Third, if the world has a role reversal, the church must stand responsible for that as well. The woman has the church to look to as her example. Church to woman in the teaching is greater to lesser. The church has the greater responsibility, because it is the example, not the woman to the church. Churches can't expect their own women to be subjecting themselves to their husbands, when the church itself doesn't expect full subjection to Christ.
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.Wives are to be subject to their own husbands in every thing as the church is subject unto Christ. Wives are to look to the church for an example of subjection. They are to be subject unto their husbands in everything, because the church is subject to Christ in everything. Is this the position of the church today, that the church is subject to Christ in everything?
First, the church is subject to Christ. The relationship of the church to Christ is subjection. What would a wife learn from looking at a church? Would it be subjection?
The name "Christ" is the title of the Messiah. He is the descendant of David, who will rule over the world. He is that King. In the present, He rules through the church in the midst of His enemies (Psalm 110). John presents salvation as believing that Jesus is the Christ. If Jesus is the Christ, believers subject themselves to Him. That is believing in Him.
Ephesians 5:24 assumes the church subjects to Christ, so that a wife can have the church as an example. Regenerate church membership assumes that the church subjects itself to Christ. Yet, today churches today do not subject themselves to Christ. Is this because the membership is unconverted?
If a woman is to look to the church for an example of subjection, how can she do that when churches aren't subject? Perhaps you have a woman, who is subject to her husband. Should the church not look to the woman as an example of subjection unto Christ? This is not the scriptural teaching though. God says the woman looks to the church. This assumes lordship. No one in a church is someone who hasn't received Jesus as Lord.
Second, as an example to the woman, the church is subject to Christ in everything. If the church is subject to Christ in everything, it must know everything. If it is subject to Christ in everything, then it is not subject only in the so-called essentials. If the church can pick what is most important and subject in that only, then the woman can do that too. She can interpret what is essential from her husband and only subject in that.
Third, if the world has a role reversal, the church must stand responsible for that as well. The woman has the church to look to as her example. Church to woman in the teaching is greater to lesser. The church has the greater responsibility, because it is the example, not the woman to the church. Churches can't expect their own women to be subjecting themselves to their husbands, when the church itself doesn't expect full subjection to Christ.
Friday, August 11, 2017
Preaching with Power, Like Jesus Christ Did
Luke 4:32 reads:
And they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was with power.
και εξεπλησσοντο επι τη διδαχη αυτου οτι εν εξουσια ην ο λογος αυτου.
And they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was with power.
και εξεπλησσοντο επι τη διδαχη αυτου οτι εν εξουσια ην ο λογος αυτου.
Would you like to preach with power, the way Christ did? Many people have unbiblical ideas about what this would involve. The word "power" in this text is the Greek word exousia, which means "power" in the sense of "authority." In other words, Luke 4:32 teaches the same truth as Matthew 7:28-29:
And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
και εγενετο οτε συνετελεσεν ο ιησους τους λογους τουτους εξεπλησσοντο οι οχλοι επι τη διδαχη αυτου: ην γαρ διδασκων αυτους ως εξουσιαν εχων και ουχ ως οι γραμματεις.
Christ preached with power because He authoritatively proclaimed the Word of God as Jehovah's great Prophet to His people (Deuteronomy 18:15-18). If you want to preach with power, the way Christ did, then you should do the following:
1.) As a regenerate saint, strive after greater holiness by the grace of the Father through the Son by the Spirit, that you might be like Christ in all things.
2.) Take great pains to very carefully study the Word of God.
3.) Properly and with laborious study exegete the Word properly, trusting in the illumination of the Holy Spirit.
4.) Boldly and authoritatively apply that Word after you carefully unpack and exegete it to the minds and hearts of your congregation (or the lost, if you are preaching on the street, etc.)
We can see that a godly pastor who practices expository preaching, going verse-by-verse through Scripture and carefully applying it, should rejoice that he is able to preach with power--Divine authority--in this manner, and can expect the blessing of the Trinity on his preaching. Hallelujah!
We can also see from Luke 4:32 and Matthew 7:28-29 that someone who thinks he is preaching with power because, while ripping a verse or two of God's holy Word out of context, he yells a lot, gives a lot of tear-jerking illustrations, walks around during his message, and gets many people to walk forward and kneel at the front of a church auditorium by manipulating them at an invitation is not preaching with power.
If you have thought that doing the latter was preaching with power rather than the former, you should repent now, because otherwise it will not be very good for you at the judgment seat of Christ when you find out that what you thought was power was actually wood, hay, and stubble.
If you have been preaching with power the way Christ did, be encouraged to continue very carefully expositing and applying the Word, and grow in your practice of these spiritual disciplines, that you might preach with greater power or authority the holy Word to the glory of the holy Trinity.
As an addendum, the Spirit illuminated the truth in this post to me while reading my Greek Textus Receptus. Consider taking the time to learn Greek well, that you might preach with more power.
As one more addendum, you can hear great preaching with great Christ-like power by listening to the expository preaching at Bethel Baptist Church here.
Wednesday, August 09, 2017
What About Special Music in the Church?
Sometimes at our church, our people will hear me (pastor) say, "When I say special music, I don't mean special like special education." If it is special like I mean it, then it should be special.
Last week, I made mention of a discussion or argument among certain evangelicals and fundamentalists (see here, here, and here) about the use of special music in churches versus congregational singing. Perhaps sometime I'll do an entire series of posts on this, because I have very definite thoughts about the subject. For now, however, I want to encourage "special" music. If it is "special," it should be "special."
What is "special music"? If a church is going to have it, the church should understand what it is first. Special music is not something to "get your heart ready for the preaching," which is a thought not in or from the Bible. Churches very often will sing congregational songs, and then right before the sermon, a person or small group will sing a special number, intended to prepare the hearts of the people for the preaching.
Also by special, churches mean music that is very good, so it will be attractive to visitors or guests. You do your very, very special music for the purpose of luring visitors, because hearing this music will supposedly motivate them to come. Even if it isn't the sole reason, the idea here is that you are attempting to blow away a guest, so that he'll want to return to the services, just for another opportunity to hear the music. These churches surmise that great music is a motivating factor for visitors.
Sometimes using special music as an attraction is referred to as a "selling point" for a church. The thought again is that the special music can be used when church members invite people they know to church. They might not know exactly what to say, so they can say things like, "You'll really like how friendly it is, all of the programs our church has for young people, and you'll also really enjoy the special music -- our musicians are very talented, you should hear them."
It isn't unusual that special music is some kind of version of High School Musical. You've got your very musical crowd, who like to sing in small groups or a choir. Your church needs special music, so these people can have something to do. They can come to choir practice and it is a place to keep being in a choir after high school. They like to harmonize and work on numbers, because they enjoy music. It's another selling point for a church. Parallel to this are the people who like to do something musically like karaoke, love the idea of singing, think they have a great voice, even if others don't, so that they want to be in a church choir as part of their musical ambition. Churches will put choir on the website for the notice of these musical types of people, that many of you reading this will know.
I've read of a well-known Southern Baptist pastor, who once every year on a Sunday night service, had a special music night. On that night, people who wanted to sing a special number would have their one opportunity, so that they could say that they had their one opportunity. They could fulfill that yearning to sing in front of people, like an edition of Church's Got Talent.
None of the above are reasons for special music. I love special music and I think that in addition to congregational singing, churches should strive do special music, but it, as I wrote before, ought to be special. Psalm 48:1 says, "Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised." God is so great that He deserves better praise than even the congregation should do. Churches should work on special music so that God gets better, practiced, and skilled music. Congregational music isn't necessarily skilled. It has a lot of participation, but very often many unskilled participants.
Fifty-five of the psalms were delivered to the chief musician in Israel or it choir director. Some of the psalms were for smaller groups than the whole congregation of Israel, including Psalm 48 itself, which was for "the sons of Korah." There were eleven such psalms among the 150. The choir is part of the music of Israel, so God ordained special music (see 1 Chronicles 15:16-24). In 2 Chronicles 20:21, Jehoshaphat appointed special music to lead the army into battle, as a matter of faith in the Lord.
Some churches are not ready for special music because they don't have trained singers. They don't have people who can sing well. If a church is going to have special music, it should set a high standard, so it can do music very well for the Lord. This might and probably will require paying for lessons, and doing a lot of practice under skilled leadership. God wants to hear congregational praise, but He also wants to hear skilled praise (Ps 33:3). God is so worth it, that churches should do their best to praise him in the most skilled, most beautiful, and special way, and that's the reason for special music in a church.
In our church, if we don't have something special ready for God, we don't do it. We're not required to have a solo or small group every week. We will sing when something is ready to sing, or we're missing the point of special music in the Bible.
Last week, I made mention of a discussion or argument among certain evangelicals and fundamentalists (see here, here, and here) about the use of special music in churches versus congregational singing. Perhaps sometime I'll do an entire series of posts on this, because I have very definite thoughts about the subject. For now, however, I want to encourage "special" music. If it is "special," it should be "special."
What is "special music"? If a church is going to have it, the church should understand what it is first. Special music is not something to "get your heart ready for the preaching," which is a thought not in or from the Bible. Churches very often will sing congregational songs, and then right before the sermon, a person or small group will sing a special number, intended to prepare the hearts of the people for the preaching.
Also by special, churches mean music that is very good, so it will be attractive to visitors or guests. You do your very, very special music for the purpose of luring visitors, because hearing this music will supposedly motivate them to come. Even if it isn't the sole reason, the idea here is that you are attempting to blow away a guest, so that he'll want to return to the services, just for another opportunity to hear the music. These churches surmise that great music is a motivating factor for visitors.
Sometimes using special music as an attraction is referred to as a "selling point" for a church. The thought again is that the special music can be used when church members invite people they know to church. They might not know exactly what to say, so they can say things like, "You'll really like how friendly it is, all of the programs our church has for young people, and you'll also really enjoy the special music -- our musicians are very talented, you should hear them."
It isn't unusual that special music is some kind of version of High School Musical. You've got your very musical crowd, who like to sing in small groups or a choir. Your church needs special music, so these people can have something to do. They can come to choir practice and it is a place to keep being in a choir after high school. They like to harmonize and work on numbers, because they enjoy music. It's another selling point for a church. Parallel to this are the people who like to do something musically like karaoke, love the idea of singing, think they have a great voice, even if others don't, so that they want to be in a church choir as part of their musical ambition. Churches will put choir on the website for the notice of these musical types of people, that many of you reading this will know.
I've read of a well-known Southern Baptist pastor, who once every year on a Sunday night service, had a special music night. On that night, people who wanted to sing a special number would have their one opportunity, so that they could say that they had their one opportunity. They could fulfill that yearning to sing in front of people, like an edition of Church's Got Talent.
None of the above are reasons for special music. I love special music and I think that in addition to congregational singing, churches should strive do special music, but it, as I wrote before, ought to be special. Psalm 48:1 says, "Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised." God is so great that He deserves better praise than even the congregation should do. Churches should work on special music so that God gets better, practiced, and skilled music. Congregational music isn't necessarily skilled. It has a lot of participation, but very often many unskilled participants.
Fifty-five of the psalms were delivered to the chief musician in Israel or it choir director. Some of the psalms were for smaller groups than the whole congregation of Israel, including Psalm 48 itself, which was for "the sons of Korah." There were eleven such psalms among the 150. The choir is part of the music of Israel, so God ordained special music (see 1 Chronicles 15:16-24). In 2 Chronicles 20:21, Jehoshaphat appointed special music to lead the army into battle, as a matter of faith in the Lord.
Some churches are not ready for special music because they don't have trained singers. They don't have people who can sing well. If a church is going to have special music, it should set a high standard, so it can do music very well for the Lord. This might and probably will require paying for lessons, and doing a lot of practice under skilled leadership. God wants to hear congregational praise, but He also wants to hear skilled praise (Ps 33:3). God is so worth it, that churches should do their best to praise him in the most skilled, most beautiful, and special way, and that's the reason for special music in a church.
In our church, if we don't have something special ready for God, we don't do it. We're not required to have a solo or small group every week. We will sing when something is ready to sing, or we're missing the point of special music in the Bible.
Sunday, August 06, 2017
Moving the Goal Posts on Christian Liberty
Where do Christians have liberty? They have liberty on non-scriptural issues. Where the Bible is silent, believers have the liberty to do what they want, but with certain guidelines. Believers don't have liberty to disobey scripture (Romans 6:1). If it is scriptural, they must do it, whatever scripture says to believe and do. They don't have liberty not to do it. If it is unscriptural they must not do it and they don't have liberty to do it. However, if it is non-scriptural, they have liberty within some parameters to do whatever they want.
In the New Testament, even if a practice is non-scriptural, it still must be limited or regulated to varying degrees by certain principles laid out in 1 Corinthians 6-11. A believer might have liberty to practice something non-scriptural, but it also might not be advantageous or the best practice. He should regulate his practice by that principle, prioritizing the best practice above a merely permitted one. Liberty is for glorifying God, not for gratifying self, even if it is lawful. Believers don't have liberty to cause a weaker brother to stumble, even in a practice where they have liberty.
Evangelicals and fundamentalists among other professing Christians today have moved the goal posts on Christian liberty. Here's how they do it. Instead of having liberty only on non-scriptural issues, they say there is liberty in at least two other ways. In saying so, they have expanded the meaning of Christian liberty in unscriptural ways. They are taking liberty with liberties in ways they don't have liberty to do so.
First, many professing Christians now say they have liberty where the Bible isn't clear. More and more belief and practice has been shifted into the unclear category. If a person doesn't want to do what the Bible says to do or wants to do what it doesn't say to do, he needs only to say that the teaching isn't clear. If someone deems some scriptural teaching to be unclear, it becomes a liberty issue. More is unclear in Christianity than ever and there is an ever growing list of liberties.
Second, many professing Christians now say they have liberty in areas that are unimportant or non-essential. They are free not to believe or practice whatever teachings are unimportant or non-essential. They can do what they want in those areas. Only essentials or important teachings are necessary or required. Everything else is a liberty.
Today, if a Christian judges another professing believer in an area that he deems unclear or unimportant, the one judging is the one in trouble. Now very often a Christian does not have liberty to judge someone else in an area or issue of liberty, which happens to be where scripture is either unclear or unimportant or not essential. That considered by many now to be unclear or not essential in the Bible is now also treated by many like it is non-scriptural. They have moved the goalposts on Christian liberty.
New Christian liberties are really faithless disobedience to scripture. These are means by which professing believer either use grace as an occasion to the flesh or they turn the grace of God into lasciviousness.
Friday, August 04, 2017
Frederick B. Meyer: "Baptist" Kewsick Advocate & Apostate False Teacher, part 3 of 4
The study of Frederick B. Meyer is now posted at the link below:
F. B. Meyer, Keswick / Higher Life Leader: a Biographical Sketch
Please click on this link to read the study.
Wednesday, August 02, 2017
Two Posts of Interest in the Near Future
I didn't post this morning, because I have more going on then I normally do, that I'm forced to get done. However, I really want to write on two issues of interest in the near future. Both of them would take longer than I have right now. They are somewhat unrelated.
The first one is concerning a kerfuffle over special music in church that started when Mark Dever of 9 Marks, over at TGC, in promoting congregational singing somewhat put down special music in churches. Then the FBFI through its blog, Proclaim and Defend, pushed back against what Dever said. I have very specific thoughts about special music in church and I want to write about it.
The second one relates to a post that Roger Olson, renowned Arminian very loose evangelical, wrote at Patheos about the definition of fundamentalism. I want to speak to his definition and what I think of it.
I'm not sure when I'll get to it, because Thomas Ross posts on Friday, and I'm not sure I want something standing for less than a day before he posts. Stay tuned.
*****
In many instances, if one finds something on the internet, the polite, good mannered thing to do is to give a "hat tip," like what a professional baseball player does to the crowd after he hits a home run. No one asked me to do this, but I give an ht (hat tip) to SharperIron and its moderators, because I was led to the two above articles by looking over at SharperIron.
Along the same line, I was happy that Tyler Robbins emailed me with the following link at Banner of Truth, arguing for door-to-door evangelism. He thought I'd like it, and I do. I think they could do better in their presentation of how to start with someone at a door, but what they do offer is much, much better than nothing.
Since I'm talking about articles now, I may as well give an ht to Dave Mallinack, because he sent me to an article against pragmatism by Steve Damron at the Fairhaven Fundamentalist (you'll have to go to p. 8, the format doesn't do that automatically, so keep pushing the right arrow button until you arrive). Some of you might say, it's not that great an article and isn't Fairhaven pragmatic? OK. Even though it has some interesting and worthwhile content, it isn't what or how exactly how I would have written it, but I was happy he wrote it. It means a lot, and I think people should be happy to read it, and support the thoughts overall he writes therein.
The first one is concerning a kerfuffle over special music in church that started when Mark Dever of 9 Marks, over at TGC, in promoting congregational singing somewhat put down special music in churches. Then the FBFI through its blog, Proclaim and Defend, pushed back against what Dever said. I have very specific thoughts about special music in church and I want to write about it.
The second one relates to a post that Roger Olson, renowned Arminian very loose evangelical, wrote at Patheos about the definition of fundamentalism. I want to speak to his definition and what I think of it.
I'm not sure when I'll get to it, because Thomas Ross posts on Friday, and I'm not sure I want something standing for less than a day before he posts. Stay tuned.
*****
In many instances, if one finds something on the internet, the polite, good mannered thing to do is to give a "hat tip," like what a professional baseball player does to the crowd after he hits a home run. No one asked me to do this, but I give an ht (hat tip) to SharperIron and its moderators, because I was led to the two above articles by looking over at SharperIron.
Along the same line, I was happy that Tyler Robbins emailed me with the following link at Banner of Truth, arguing for door-to-door evangelism. He thought I'd like it, and I do. I think they could do better in their presentation of how to start with someone at a door, but what they do offer is much, much better than nothing.
Since I'm talking about articles now, I may as well give an ht to Dave Mallinack, because he sent me to an article against pragmatism by Steve Damron at the Fairhaven Fundamentalist (you'll have to go to p. 8, the format doesn't do that automatically, so keep pushing the right arrow button until you arrive). Some of you might say, it's not that great an article and isn't Fairhaven pragmatic? OK. Even though it has some interesting and worthwhile content, it isn't what or how exactly how I would have written it, but I was happy he wrote it. It means a lot, and I think people should be happy to read it, and support the thoughts overall he writes therein.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)