1 Corinthians 11 2 thru 16

---

1 “Head Coverings and the Angels,” 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (May 18, 2014) 2

Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God. PRAY After this Sunday we will take a break from 1 Corinthians until later in the summer, if the Lord wills, and we picked a good one to end on. Because this is one of the most difficult passages in the New Testament. It’s difficult for a number of reasons – it’s difficult exegetically (in other words, we’re just not completely sure about some of the details of the actual Greek words Paul uses in these fifteen verses). It’s difficult contextually, because we’re not sure what the issue was in Corinth precisely that Paul is addressing in these verses. There’s a lot we aren’t sure of when it comes to the cultural practices in Corinth two thousand years ago. Paul is obviously addressing something common to that culture, they all knew what he was talking about, but we don’t, so that makes it difficult. But what really makes it difficult I think in our day and age is that Paul, in these verses, is addressing the status of women in the church. If this passage weren’t addressed to women, I don’t think you’d have nearly the debate over it. And few topics have been more controversial in the church in the Western world over the last fifty years or so than that one. Scholars and pastors who have a more liberal bent to their theology tend to really dislike these verses. They tend to either ignore them altogether, they just cut them out of the Bible (because they sound like Paul is oppressing women, they sound too “patriarchal”) or they neuter these verses. They take the plain meaning of some of the verses and interpret them so oppositely that by the time some liberal scholars get through with them © 2014 J.D. Shaw

2 they might as well not be in the Bible. They’ve been eviscerated, neutered, they don’t really mean anything, certainly not for us in the church in the 21st century in America. Scholars and pastors who have a more conservative bent to their theology, however, tend to really like these verses (and, full disclosure, I would categorize myself as conservative theologically), but many of them read stuff into the text that’s just not there. They write wild articles about what women were doing and advocating in Corinth. They make the women in Corinth sound crazy. And when you study what they argue, it makes you feel that for a lot of conservative pastors and scholars their view of this passage has a lot more to do with their view of women in general than it does with their actual study of this passage. I’m pretty sure of this – everyone in Corinth two thousand years ago may have been crazy, but the women in Corinth were no more crazy than the men were. This is a hard passage to interpret. And, by the way, if we weren’t committed to expository preaching at Grace Bible, where we start in chapter one, verse one of some book of the Bible and cover all of it, I’d never preach on this. It’s not like I woke up one morning and said, “Hey, I think I’ll preach on head coverings this week.” But we do believe that these words, as difficult as they are to understand properly, are the Word of God. We do believe that all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking, and training in righteousness, even the hard parts, even the parts that, at first glance, appear anything but inspirational in 21st century America. So here we are. But the one thing all the scholars that I consulted last week agreed upon was this: whatever else Paul was saying in these verses, he was saying it to women in the church. No one thinks Paul is addressing the men. When Paul does address the men, like in verse 4, everyone agrees that he’s not really interested keeping the men from wearing head coverings (and we’ll talk about what that was in a moment). That wasn’t an issue in Corinth, there was no danger of men doing that; rather, he says that to frame what he wants to tell the women. So, we’ll look at 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 through that lens, under three headings: first, what is Paul telling the women in Corinth? Second, why is he telling them? Third, how did Paul encourage them? First, what is Paul telling the women? Verse 5: 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. Paul says it’s dishonorable for a woman to pray or prophesy “with her head uncovered.” What does that mean? It’s clear from all the sources we have that in the ancient world it was sign of respectability and dignity for a woman to in public cover their head in some way. We’re not sure what a “covered head” was precisely back then. Paul could have meant that a woman should wear a veil, scarf, or a hood over her head, or just that a woman must wear her hair “up,” bound on the top of her head, rather than loose and hanging down around and over her shoulders. We just don’t know for sure. © 2014 J.D. Shaw

3

And we don’t know exactly why covering the head was a sign of respectability for women, nor do we know precisely what a woman would have been communicating by appearing in public without having her head covered. Some commentators have argued that any woman in Corinth two thousand years ago who walked around with a covered head indicated that she was lawfully married, but those who walked around without her head covered would have been communicating that she was a prostitute, or at the very least “available” to men. One commentator compared being able to see the long, unbound hair of women in Corinth would be like, today, seeing a woman topless. But we really don’t know except to say that a covered head was a sign of respectability for women. It was proper, it was what was “done,” it was what you taught your daughter to do, it was “right.” Of course, it’s still true in many cultures: Muslim women from many Muslim cultures always wear some kind of covering over their heads in public. And it wasn’t that long ago in Western civilization when it was considered proper. If you grew up watching Westerns or pioneer television shows like Little House on the Prairie, the women in those shows always, in public, wore their hair “up,” and often with a bonnet of some kind over their heads. They only let their hair down in those shows when it was time to go to bed. Some of you might remember the Charlie Rich song “Behind Closed Doors,” where he says he’s proud of his “baby” because she doesn’t make a scene in public or hang all over him in front of others. But, when they get behind closed doors, “and she lets her hair hang down,” then she makes him feel like a man. More recently, if any of you saw Downton Abbey, the ladies in that show always have their hair “up” during the day, then down at night. Some of you can remember going to church, perhaps, when a lot of women wore hats to church – that’s probably a cultural holdover of some kind from this passage. So, Paul is telling the Corinthian women that they must cover their heads, particularly in worship. We don’t know exactly what the covering would have been, nor do we even know precisely why other than it was “proper,” but that’s what he’s telling them. Second, why does Paul tell them this? This is the big question: I’ll give you three reasons why Paul did not tell the ladies of Corinth to cover their heads, and then what I think the reason was that he did. First, Paul did not tell the women to cover their heads because some kind of feminist revolution was taking place in Corinth. That’s the theory of a lot of conservative commentators. In Corinth, the women were using their new-found “Christian liberty” to throw off all societal and familial constraints. For centuries, women had been oppressed in that culture. So they turned their new position as Christians into a license for social revolution. They no longer wanted to show any deference to their husbands. They became loud and disrespectful in church, perhaps going so far as to interrupt the teachers in the worship service, maybe even heckling them. And some commentators say that these revolutionary women wanted to eradicate all distinctions between genders, and cut © 2014 J.D. Shaw

4 their hair short like men or even shave their heads. Or they were flaunting their sexuality in the church by wearing their hair down and unbound like prostitutes in Corinth would have. Either way, these scholars argue, a full-bore feminist revolution was going on in Corinth, and that’s why Paul tells the women to cover their heads. There are many problems with this view. First, look at verse 2: “Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.” That’s how Paul begins this passage, addressed to women. Would he begin so kindly, so complimentary, if that’s what he was facing? It’s not like Paul doesn’t know how to rebuke the Corinthians when he needs to. 1 Corinthians 5:1-2: “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. 2 And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.” Now, Paul is shocked and appalled when the people of Corinth tolerate one man who has an incestuous relationship with his step-mother. Don’t you think he would be at least as firm and angry if more than half the church (the women) were engaged in some kind of social and sexual revolution? But he’s not. Paul is never harsh, nor even stern, really, in these verses – he has, I think, an affectionate tone as he addresses the women, a tone which doesn’t fit the scenario in Corinth some commentators have dreamed up. Plus, you’ve got to remember, when Paul wrote this letter to the church in Corinth, the church was at most five years old. That’s it – five years (and more likely three or four years) that the gospel has been known in Corinth. That’s not enough time for a gender-wide revolution to foment and break out among the church, especially given the place of women, their almost non-existent legal rights, and how they were viewed and treated in antiquity (about which more later). And one last thing: none of these scholars (almost all men, by the way) explain why in the world the women in Corinth, who presumably are Christians, would want to be confused with prostitutes! No one explains why these Christian women wanted to put themselves in a position to be propositioned by men! If that’s what Christian liberty gets you, virtually every woman I’ve ever met (Christian or not) would say, “Uh, no thanks,” and I don’t think the women in Corinth were all that different. Again, I think some of these theories say more about what these scholars think about women than what they’ve really found in the text. Sometimes Christian teachers are their own worst enemies – in my own relatively short tenure as a Christian minster, I have personally heard supposedly Christian pastors and teachers say stupid, foolish, ignorant things about women from the pulpit. I know it happens, so if you are here this morning and you are very suspect about Christianity because you’ve also heard teaching like that, then just know I sadly admit that it’s out there, but that teaching does not reflect the consensus of historic, biblical Christianity throughout the centuries. © 2014 J.D. Shaw

5

Second, Paul was not telling women in Corinth to cover their heads because he wanted to “keep them in their place.” The very fact that Paul would tell women to do anything, certainly to tell them to “cover up,” the fact that Paul would say that “the head of woman is man,” or that “woman is the glory of man,” just proves that Paul hates women. He’s a misogynist, he wants to keep women in their “place”. It’s commonplace to assume Paul hates women. Now, I’ll admit: if you come to these fifteen verses “cold,” given the age in which we live and given our culture, you can understand why some people would think that about Paul. It’s hard for me to hear them – if you pluck these verses out of context they do, in our time and place, make Paul really sound bad. But here’s the thing: that’s not a legitimate way to read someone who lived in a different time and different place. We don’t judge historical figures according to our standards; we judge them according to the standards of their time and place. And this is the cultural setting Paul lived in: in the ancient world, women weren’t just second-class citizens. They were viewed as sub-human. In the Roman world, they were viewed as valuable only to the extent they could produce legitimate male offspring for their husbands (girl babies in ancient Rome could be tossed out after birth to die of exposure). In ancient Greece, women were viewed as “silly” and “worthless.” They received no education, were often forced to marry before the onset of puberty, and their husbands could divorce them simply by ordering them out of the household. If they were raped, their husbands were legally required to divorce them. They also could not own property, and in fact were basically viewed as the property of either their father or husband. And among the Jews, we know that it was seen as highly improper for a man to speak to a woman in public, even his own wife. We know that women could not participate in worship. They could not approach the temple itself in Jerusalem (they had a separate court from the men, further from the building that the court of the men), and in the synagogue they were segregated completely from the men in a shut-off gallery or other part of the building. And every Jewish man at one point in history prayed this prayer every day: “God, I thank thee that I am not a woman, a slave, or a gentile.” That’s Paul’s cultural setting. And into the setting, what did Paul say? He said this (Galatians 3:28): “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Paul reverses the prayer. He says in Christianity the inherent worth of a human being is not determined in any way, shape, or form by gender – all that matters is that you are in Christ. That was a revolutionary verse when it was written; you cannot overstate how radical that verse would have been in the first century. I love Romans 16 – in that chapter, Paul greets personally 27 of the people in the church in Rome, obviously friends of his, with whom he’d worked closely for the cause of Christ. Are all of them men? No – ten of the twenty-seven are women, and as you read the list you can feel the affection he felt for them, how he must have at one time worked closely with them. He calls one of the women a deaconess, which was an office of © 2014 J.D. Shaw

6 considerable importance in the early church – they oversaw the benevolent and charitable work of the church, and clearly Paul thought it was appropriate for a woman to hold that office, to have that kind of authority over the work of the church. And then there’s this (again, 1 Corinthians 11:5): “[B]ut every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.” The news here isn’t that Paul wants women to cover their heads in Corinth; that would have been trivial. The news is that in a church Paul established women were praying and prophesying – publically! With men in the room! Who were listening attentively to what the women had to say! For this to happen in the first century would have been a radical change in either the Jewish, Greek, or Roman approach to what women should be permitted to do. Paul didn’t hate women; he wasn’t trying to keep women down. Instead, he wanted women to speak in the church, to pray publically, and for men to hear them and learn from them. Friends, outside of the Lord Jesus Christ himself, no one has done more in his own time to improve the lot of women and give them equal standing in society and full rights as human beings made in the image of God than the apostle Paul. He is no misogynist, and anyone who believes differently is simply ignorant of Paul’s teaching and the first-century setting in which he lived. Wherever Christianity has gone in the world, it has always elevated the view of women above that of the existing culture. Christians were the first in the western world to insist on the education of women, and it continues to this day. In fact, if you’ve followed the story of the Nigerian girls kidnapped by the Islamist terrorist group Boko Haram, then you know the reason those girls were targeted is because they were Christian girls, attending school in a Christian part of the country. They were actually at the school that night because they were taking their final exam in physics. Boko Haram does not want educated women around, but historic, biblical Christianity was the first to promote their education. You say, “OK, J.D., it says that women can pray and prophesy in church – I know what praying is. What’s prophesy?” And I will tell you … this fall, when Lord willing in September I make it to 1 Corinthians 14. We’ll cover it then, the last half of that chapter goes into the details of what the women were saying in church; we just don’t have time today. But the women were talking, and the men would have listened. Third, Paul did not tell the women in Corinth to cover their heads because all women at all times in the world must do so. Some people have throughout church history, and in the church today, argued that women must cover their heads during the public worship services of the church. The teachers in church history who have argued for this are like a who’s-who of Protestant Christianity: Calvin, Luther, Matthew Henry, and Charles Spurgeon all either taught or encouraged the women in their churches to wear a head covering. Today, we know that many Amish and Mennonite women continue to wear head coverings. I think it’s true that R.C. Sproul, a man for whom I have much respect, to some degree encourages women to wear head coverings in his church (I don’t think he © 2014 J.D. Shaw

7 mandates it), and his wife, Vesta, I believe always wears hats to church because of this passage. Head coverings, many teachers argue, is a creation ordinance, and therefore it applies to all people at all times in creation, so women must cover their heads, and they point out, rightly, that prior to some point in the twentieth century all women in the Western Church covered their heads in worship. In light of that, if you look under your chair, ladies, I’ve taken the liberty to put out some veils… No, to the contrary I don’t think Paul is teaching that. It’s an unnerving thing for me to seemingly contradict Calvin, Luther, Henry, and Spurgeon, though I’m not sure I am. Read 1 Corinthians 11:13-15: 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. What’s Paul saying here? He’s not saying in verse 14 that it’s some kind of immutable, natural law of creation that long hair is disgraceful to men, nor is he saying that long hair is always to the glory of women. Even Calvin in his commentary acknowledges this: Paul uses the word “nature” here the way we would “custom.” In Corinth, it was an established custom (so much so that it felt natural) for women to wear their hair long (and, in polite society, “up” and/or covered), and men to wear their hair short. That’s all Paul’s saying here. Guys, those of you with longer hair, don’t schedule your barber appointment just yet. Calvin goes on to point out that in the centuries before Paul lived men always wore long hair. The Greeks talked about their heroes being “unshorn.” It wasn’t until the second century B.C. that barbers began to be employed in Rome, and when Paul wrote to Corinth men still wore their hair long in Gaul, in Germany, in the other “barbarian” nations outside the Roman Empire. It was an established custom in Corinth for women to cover their long hair in order to communicate propriety, but is that true today? And of course the answer is no. Long hair, hair worn up, covered heads doesn’t communicate the same information in Oxford, Mississippi today that it may have one hundred years ago, and certainly it does not communicate the information it did in Corinth two thousand years ago. Women don’t have to wear their hair that way in order to be considered proper, decent, or godly, nor do they have to wear their hair like that in order to communicate to men “by the way, I am not a prostitute.” It’s just not our culture. I really believe that if you could plop Calvin, Luther, Henry, Spurgeon down in Oxford today (by the way, wouldn’t that be great – I’d go to that revival), and they could see a culture where nothing improper or undignified was communicated by the lack of head coverings on women, they wouldn’t object. I don’t think I’m really contradicting them by teaching this. By the way, in teaching this, I’m not implying at all that if a woman feels that it is her conscience-driven duty to wear a head covering in church, it’s wrong – not at all. You © 2014 J.D. Shaw

8 are free to do that – I’m just not going to be encouraging it, nor will I recommend that the elders of the church mandate it. So, we’ve spent a lot of time deconstructing all the wrong theories about Paul’s teaching in this passage, but I think we had too – there’s been so much of it in the church and in the culture for so long. This has been a very misunderstood passage over the centuries. But now, we’ll address what Paul was saying to the women in Corinth. Fourth, Paul was telling the women in Corinth to cover their heads because it was a public way to honor their husbands as the heads of their households. 1 Corinthians 11:3, 7-9: 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God… 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. There is a creation ordinance in 1 Corinthians 11, it’s just not head coverings. Paul points the women of the Corinthian church back to creation (that’s verses 8-9 in particular) and reminds them that God made man first in creation, that woman was made as a “helper fit for him,” and that inside of marriage between a man and a woman, the husband is the head of the household. Head coverings are a cultural phenomenon, but headship is not. Headship is a creation ordinance, so it applies to families today. But Paul’s still not content to leave it at that; he returns to his new, “radical” view of women in verses 11-12: “11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.” Yes, Paul says, woman was made for and from man in creation, but now man is born of woman – so don’t get ahead of yourself, guys. Don’t think too much, husbands, of your headship. I think the situation in Corinth that prompted Paul to write the women this was very simple: churches met in private houses back then. Houses obviously were not public places; they were private. So women did not normally have to “cover up” in the same way when in a home than when in public. And so some of the wives in the church did not “cover up” when they gathered as the church; it was extra work to do your hair for church. But as the church grew, and more and more men began to attend, the private nature of the church gatherings began to shift into public ones that more people in the city were aware of, Paul wrote to gently remind the women that the church is now “public,” so please, out of consideration for your husbands, and out of consideration for all the Corinthians in the community who aren’t yet a part of the church but might be offended by the improper behavior of the women there, out of respect for the customs of Corinth, please go ahead and take the time to dress appropriately. So, there we are – that’s what Paul meant. But I can’t finish the sermon like that, can I? I haven’t really applied it to us today, and no application makes for a bad sermon.

© 2014 J.D. Shaw

9 Third, how did Paul encourage the women? 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 1 Corinthians 11:10. Of all the tough verses in this passage, this is the one where scholars throw up their hands and say, “We just don’t know what Paul is talking about – we just don’t know for sure what Paul meant by connecting head coverings, women, and angels.” But I’m going to give it a shot. Leave verse 10 up – the word “symbol” is not in the Greek; the Greek just says, “a wife ought to have” and then the Greek word exousia, which most of the time means “authority” but it can also mean “control”; we can often interchange “authority” and “control” in English, and I think that’s the best sense of it here. So here’s how I’m going to read verse ten: “That is why a wife ought to take control over her head, because of the angels.” But what does Paul mean by angels? We don’t know for sure. But here’s what we know about angels in general. They are the elder race – God created them first, they are spiritual beings, they’ve been around a long time, they’re smart, they’re far more powerful than we are. Yet angels exist to serve us. Angels serve humans – the greater serve the lesser! 14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation? Hebrews 1:14. And the people in Corinth knew this – we know that Paul instructed the church in Corinth on their role with regard to angels, because in 1 Corinthians 6:3 we read this: “3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels?” Angels – the elder race, very smart, superior to us in every measurable way – yet they serve us. Here’s what I think Paul is saying to the women of Corinth: you are the equal of men in every single way. In Christ Jesus, there is neither slave nor free, Jew nor Greek, male nor female. Women, you are not inferior to men at all. But inside marriage, God has made the husband the head of the household, so please, because of the culture you’re in, because this is how you respect custom, cover your heads. I know it’s not necessary to salvation. I know it’s work, I know a lot of you don’t want to do it, but do it anyway – if not for your husbands, if not for the people in Corinth watching you, if not for me – do it for the angels. If they can serve you maybe you can serve in this way. But how could the women do it joyfully? Because that’s the deal with Christianity, you know – Christianity is not about doing things under compulsion, obeying the law but doing it grudgingly, Christianity is all about joy. So how could the women cover their heads in Corinth with joy? Maybe Paul turned to angels for help with this, too. I love 1 Peter 1:12 – it’s one of my favorite verses in the Bible. Here’s 1 Peter 1:10-12: 10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, 11 inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. 12 It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been

© 2014 J.D. Shaw

10 announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look. Do you realize what Peter’s saying there? Angels never get tired of looking at the gospel. We think we get tired of looking at the gospel – we tend to say, “Oh, yes, the gospel – I know that. Jesus died for my sins on the cross and now I’m saved; now I need the more advanced stuff.” No! We must never say that. As one pastor put it, the gospel is not the A-B-C of salvation – it’s the A to Z of salvation. You never get beyond the gospel; the power for everything in the Christian life comes from the gospel. The power for joy comes from looking intently at how someone much greater than an angel – the Lord Jesus Christ himself – took on flesh, became a baby in the womb of an unwed, teenage mother. The Lord of the Universe became an embryo; can you believe that? It comes from looking at and thinking on how he grew up in poverty and oppression. How he lived a sinless life for you, then died a horrible death in your place on the cross, and how God raised him up three days later from the grave, and now he sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, living always to intercede for you. And the way you grow in joy as a Christian is by doing what the angels do – you long to look at, think on, meditate on that gospel. The angels can’t get enough of that gospel – that God would become a man and die for us. And that’s probably why they can joyfully serve us. They know Philippians 2, where Paul says: 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:5-11. Close with this application: we will have to do all kinds of things as Christians that we think are beneath us – wives in Corinth wearing head coverings, wives today submitting to the leadership of their husbands in the home, husbands today submitting their desires to get their own way and instead putting the good of their wives and children ahead of their own, children submitting to parents they think don’t have a clue, employees submitting to bosses they don’t really respect, students submitting to teachers they don’t really like, over and over again. But we can, because someone much greater than the angels, Jesus himself, submitted himself to something far beneath him, death on a cross, for you. So Paul says, “Have this mind among you – serve each other, love each other, and you can, because of angels and Jesus.” Amen.

© 2014 J.D. Shaw