There is no in-between. At least, there shouldn't be according to Marc Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Washington.
In this video, Pastor Driscoll unpacks Luke 1:80 about John the Baptist's maturation into adulthood. He said the transition happened suddenly back then. Today there's an in-between stage called adolescence where "being a man is defined not by what you produce but by what you consume."
My favorite quote in the video: "What kills young men is this worldly thinking that this indefinite period of extended adolescence is acceptable, natural, and unavoidable."
Sadly, there's a lot of niceguys out there who fit this category.
"How mature should I be at my age?" That's a question that creeps up on me every once in a while. I'll look in the mirror one morning or reach a particular milestone in life and start to wonder, "Am I hitting the mark? Am I doing okay for someone my age?" and then I start to wonder, "Who am I supposed to compare myself to?"
I try to think of where my parents were at my age, but it's hard to have a clean comparison with them because they always seemed like established mature adults to me -- people who didn't need to grow in maturity. It's also complicated because I was a teenager when my parents were the age I am now.
And so I find myself thinking about mentors I've had over the years and what I remember them being like at my age or I'll compare myself with peers born around the same time I was or I'll even think of the early chapters in biographies I've read.
Sometimes these benchmarking efforts motivate me to step up and be more mature. Other times they leave me frustrated and thinking it's not helpful to compare.
Often I'll find myself just repeating Psalm 90:12. "Teach us to number our days aright, that we may gain a heart of wisdom."
Being a woman, and an American, I thought this might make for some interesting reading. After all, I'd like to know my state.
For the article, Time collaborated with the Rockefeller Foundation to conduct a "landmark study of gender attitudes in a changing economy." It was under these poll results that I saw the caption.
"Working Mothers Are Broadly Accepted ..." read one caption listing the following findings (and the "..." was theirs, not mine):
Seventy-four percent of men and 84% of women say women with children are just as committed to their jobs as women without children. Seventy-two percent of black women strongly agree vs. 57% of Latino women and 55% of white women.
Fifty-six percent of men and 63% of women strongly disagree with the idea that mothers cannot be as productive at work as fathers. This isn't to say there are no trade-offs: 25% of men and 26% of women say that women who work outside the home have less time and attention for their marriage or relationship. And men and women differ over the cost: 26% of men strongly agree that it is harder for a mother who works outside the home to establish a warm and secure relationship with her children than it is for a mother who does not work outside the home; 19% of women strongly agree.
Then the next caption read: "... And Yet, People Hold on to Traditional Visions for Family Life." It then listed these findings:
In the 1970s, a majority of children grew up with a stay-at-home parent; now that figure is less than a third. A large majority -- 70% of men, 61% of women -- believe this has had a negative effect on society. Fifty-seven percent of men and 51% of women agree that it is better for a family if the father works outside the home and the mother takes care of the children. Asked to rank what they value most for their own daughters, 63% of men and 56% of women put a happy marriage with children first; 17% of men and 23% of women said an interesting career; and 15% of men and 20% of women said financial success.
Acknowledging that polls aren't the Word, I found this fascinating. In other sections of the poll, the majority of Americans responded that women working was a positive thing for society, that they are comfortable with a family where a woman earns more than a man and they reject the notion that "women need to behave more like men to be taken seriously in the workplace."
Still, there's that "and yet ..."
It's as if we all understand that both men and women are capable and intelligent. They can do many of the same jobs. Women can do some of them better. But, when the blessing of children comes, what then? Just because women can perform just as well in the workplace, does that mean it's best for her, for the family and for the kids?
The majority of Americans don't seem to think so.
Also interesting to me was the priorities Americans had for their daughters. Overwhelmingly, they wanted them to have a happy marriage with children. Yet, is that the message we're sending? Are we teaching our daughters and young women how to have fulfilling marriages? Or do we emphasize education and career and just hope that their family lives will fall into place?
You Should Know by Suzanne Hadley Gosselin on 10/23/2009 at 10:13 AM
A couple of years ago, I wrote an article called "What Girls Wish You Knew." The motivation behind writing this piece was the Christian guys I knew who would make great husbands but were unknowingly doing or saying things that alienated the women around them.
The thing was, these guys tended to blame their lack of options on the wrong problems. The qualities I called for included:
Show some respect
Love your family
Take initiative
John Thomas wrote the complement piece (which received far more hits) called "What Guys Wish You Knew." Among the morsels John offered:
Drop the mask
Less criticism, more support
Remember the good guy
If you are a single guy, what do you wish the girls around you knew? If you are a single woman, what do you wish you could tell guys?
An older female relative of mine and I were sitting out on the back porch chatting. Eventually, the talk turned to marriages and family.
"You know," she said, "you two are one of the only families I know where you still do the traditional roles."
She paused for a second. "I think it's great," she finally said. "I really do."
She paused again. "I think it's really the best way for the family. But ..." pause again. "I wouldn't want to go back to the old days. When women had no rights. When they just had to endure whatever the men did."
Another pause. "Still ... it's a good way."
I wanted to tread carefully. I knew she had seen some abuse of male authority in her home as a child. So I thanked her for her kind words. But, I expained, it wasn't a traditional home I was after. It was a biblical household. One where I support, help, nurture and submit to my husband as to the Lord. One where he leads, protects, provides and serves our family as Christ does the church.
"You see," I said, "there are some things about tradition that are just fine. But there are also things that can go wrong. It's the biblical model I want to follow. Because God knows what He is doing."
She smiled warmly at me and sort of cocked her head to one side.
"I can see that in your marriage," she said. "And you know what I think?"
"No," I answered. "What?"
"I think you would follow and support Kevin even if you thought he was wrong."
I smiled back. Because that was the million dollar question. The question that I think many Christian women wonder about (or am I the only one?), but no one really talks about.
Would I?, I wondered. Would I follow him even if I thought he was absolutely wrong?
Every single day, men fall in love with women who wear their hair short.
"Longer hair" is a pretty loose term -- it does not require flowing tresses that extend more than halfway down a woman's back. Suffice it to say that if most of a girl's neck is exposed, she probably has what I would consider short hair.
Because I'm still anticipating a somewhat hostile response, here are a few more caveats:
Hair length on women has absolutely nothing to do with character and/or spirituality. Yes, there are a few Bible verses related to a woman's hair, but I have never seen a credible argument that longer hair is evidence of greater Christian maturity.
If a guy is attracted to or is already in a relationship with a girl and she decides to cut her hair short, the guy rarely stops liking her based on this act alone. (If he does, he's probably pretty shallow anyway.)
This preference typically begins to diminish with age. Younger men tend to prefer younger women who have longer hair, yet the closer one gets to retirement, the less hair length tends to matter.
During our several years of marriage, my wife has worn her hair both longer and shorter. My love for her has never changed, but I will admit that given the choice, I find her hair -- not her -- more attractive when it's not too short.
So, why am I talking about this? Is hair length really that important?
No, it's not; certainly not in the grand scheme of life and faith. But it's my experience that Boundless readers are genuinely interested in how and what the opposite sex thinks. And for all the women (including many Boundless readers) who devote time and attention to exercise, nutrition, clothing and makeup -- and there's certainly nothing wrong with those things as long as they are practiced in moderation -- they rarely consider something as simple as hair length.
But if most guys don't like short hair on women, then why do so many women cut their hair short? I can't say for sure, but I have a few ideas. Some women simply don't want to bother with caring for long hair. Others get bored with their hairstyle after a while and long for a change, any change. Still others see a short haircut they like on some other woman and decide to try it for themselves.
Have you ever noticed the reaction to this? When the newly shorn girl first appears at school or at work, other women tend to gather round and compliment her, usually telling her how cute she looks with her new "do." The men, meanwhile, usually look up only long enough to remark: "Sure, looks nice." Or they simply smile and say nothing. To be brutally honest, some guys barely even notice.
The point is that women with short haircuts are affirmed almost exclusively by ... other women. Ask their husbands or boyfriends, and most will admit -- though rarely to the woman's face -- that they kinda liked it better when her hair wasn't so short.
Let me quote a relationship columnist far more knowledgeable than myself -- one Candice Watters, author of Get Married: What Women Can Do to Help It Happen:
Of course, this concept pertains to men, too. A guy who sports a two-foot-long beard or is covered in tattoos certainly might appeal to some women, but probably not the majority of the female population.
Now before I get hammered by critics who insist that what's on the "inside" matters far more than mere appearances, let me say that I agree. Wholeheartedly. Yet let me quote once more from Candice's column on physical appearance: "The kind of man a Godly woman should want to marry would esteem a woman who strives to be lovely, both inside and out."
But what do Boundless readers think? Am I all wrong? Do male readers actually prefer it when their wives or girlfriends go "short and sassy"? At the same time, are there things guys can do to change their appearance that women generally prefer? (For example, I shaved off my goatee several years ago when I noticed similar facial hair on just about every mechanic and Chili's waiter in town, but maybe that's just me.)
Then again, it is only hair. Just because God has every one of them numbered doesn't mean they can't be short.
University of Louisville head coach Rick Pitino had sex with a woman named Karen Sypher in a Louisville restaurant six years ago and later paid her $3,000 to have an abortion.
There are many angles you could take with the Pitino story. You could talk about the poor example he is to impressionable student athletes in need of good role models (and to college students in general); or you could discuss why the University of Louisville chose to keep Pitino rather than exercising their "acts of moral depravity" clause in the contract.
But the angle I'd like to take relates to the abortion. Because it illustrates well the subject of a recent Dr. Mohler article about how the availability of abortion really empowers men, not women. In "The Hidden Reality of Abortion -- Empowering Men" Dr. Mohler writes:
The Culture of Death often presents itself in terms of liberation. Yet, at every turn, this liberation is actually an enslavement. The availability of legalized abortion has led to the deaths of over 40 million unborn children in the United States alone. Beyond this, it has produced a social catastrophe evident in patterns of female poverty and the abandonment of both women and children by irresponsible males. Furthermore, it has severely weakened the moral protections and obligations that bound men to women and children, effectively allowing men to demand abortion as a means of escaping their responsibility to marry and to take responsibility for their children.
And for married men, the natural consequences that help keep us faithful have been negated by 35 years of the Culture of Death. As long as we have legalized abortion and a fistful of money, giving in to our lust-filled desires seems a little less risky. It also helps to have an abortion-minded mistress, which was the case here.
The real difference, however, between men and women when it comes to being "liberated" by abortion is that the woman is the one who has to go through the procedure. She's the one who has to come to terms with ending the life of her child as it's vacuumed right out of her. She's the one who has to deal with the physical and emotional consequences in a way the man will never know.
I'm not saying that abortion is consequence-less for men. But who is more liberated in a scenario like this? Rick Pitino or Karen Sypher?
We passed by the "restaurant that Mommy doesn't like" the other day. I know this because every time we pass this particular establishment, my little guy pipes up from the back seat, "Oh, look, look. There's that restaurant Mommy doesn't like."
I force a little half grin. "Yep, buddy, it is."
How did this particular restaurant come to be known as that? Well, it had to do with little guy's brief fascination with owls. As we drove by one day, little guy suddenly takes a deep breath of excitement.
"Oh, mommy," he says, "Look! An owl store! Do they have owls there?"
"No, buddy," say I. "That's a restaurant."
"Wow! An owl restaurant," says little guy. "Can we go, Mom? Can we? Can we?"
Deep breath. "No, buddy," say I, hoping, but knowing this will not, end the conversation.
After a few more exchanges, I finally explain it, "Well, bud, Mommy just doesn't like that restaurant."
"Why don't you like it, Mom?" asks little gal, who has become intrigued with the conversation.
Hmmm ... teachable moment, I think. "Well, hun, you know how you and Mommy have talked about modesty?"
"Nope."
Great. My parenting is obviously sticking. "Well, it has to do with wearing our clothes and presenting ourselves in a way that is honoring to God. Do you understand what I mean?"
Pause. "Uh-huh," she says half-commitedly.
"Well," say I, "you see the people who own that restaurant have the ladies who serve the food wear something that's kind of like a swimsuit. And Mommy doesn't think that is appropriate or modest."
Little gal is appalled. "A swimsuit? To be a waitress? Mommy, that's just silly!"
Yep, it is. But it was also an easy target. It makes the point, but, in our world at least, it is an extreme.
I thought of that today when I was reading a blog about modesty. The gentleman was articulate and convicting. But then, inevitably it seems to me, he came to the extreme example: the halter top that's two sizes too small.
But that's not my problem, I told the computer screen, and I don't think it will be little gal's problem some day, either. We get that we shouldn't be wearing a halter top that's two sizes too small. It's whether we should be wearing the just-a-couple-of-steps-above-the-halter or the form-fitted-but-not-form-fitted-enough-to-bring-the-frowns-of-our-pastor's-wife. It's the in-between, not the extremes, where we have to make our daily decisions.
And while it's easy to poke at the owl restaurants and the tight shirts, it's not so easy to really talk about our hearts. To talk about how we dress reflects what we believe -- that our God is to be honored. To talk about how it's not just about avoiding immodesty, but pursuing modesty. I want little gal to know that, while there will be some hard and fast rules in our house, it's her heart that's most important in the battle to be modest.
I know I need to practice, and model for her, an attitude that says, "Sex is an amazing gift from God, but I will not abuse it for my own pride. Instead of finding power in turning a man's head, I will find the power in turning my heart toward God. Christian brother ... I've got your back."
Boundless is big on getting married. But there’s one thing our audience might not have thought about but which is one of the first big adjustments you’ll have to make once married: Do you sleep with the air conditioner on or off? Window open or closed? Lots of covers or just a sheet?
Personally, I love to sleep in frigid rooms. I sleep much more soundly. In fact, it’s a point of contention on vacation when we cram the entire family into one hotel room. My kids dread how cool I turn down the AC. And lest you think I’m selfish, I actually compromise by settling on a thermostat setting of 70 degrees. Given my druthers, it’d be 64.
I also sleep with my feet sticking out the end of the covers, all the better to savor the room’s frigidness. My wife piles on the comforters and double-tucks the corners on her side of the bed, even in the middle of summer, lest a square millimeter of flesh be exposed to air outside the covers.
According to my admittedly unscientific sampling, our situation is more or less normal: Men tend to like to sleep in cooler environments, women in warmer.
But it seems there’s now some scientific validation that my preference is the, ahem, correct one. Coolness lends itself to more restful sleep. (Of course, we’re referring to cool as in temperature. If it were referring to one’s hipness, his grooviness, his hep-cat-ness, his dudeness, I’d be a hopeless insomniac.)
How about you? Any recently marrieds finding themselves fighting the battle of the thermostat? And for those contemplating marriage, are you prepared for a possible point of contention never talked about in marriage counseling?
I just got back from an amusement park. I went upside down 15 times at 3.6 Gs. I had the ultimate theme park goodie. I learned that the former does not mix well with the latter. And I also did a whole lot of people watching.
People watching at a theme park is always interesting. I think I saw just about every age, color, shape, size and variety of person that exists on this earth. But out of the hundreds (maybe thousands?) that I saw, there is one young lady that I remember.
I saw her while waiting on the family to complete the obligatory bathroom/water bottle fill up time. I remember that she was lovely though, to be honest, I don't remember a lot about what she looked like. What I do remember was her t-shirt. It was hot pink and showed her frame off to, umm, advantage. Blazen across her chest were the words "Virginity Rocks."
I had two opposite reactions to this t-shirt. One was encouragement. I was encouraged that this young lady seemed to be making a stand for God's amazing plan for sexuality. But I was also discouraged.
You see, since being married I've learned a lot about the differences between the male and female mind. I've learned how something that may seem innocuous to me may be viewed as sexual by a male. I've learned that a young man reading "Virginity Rocks" on a tight, hot pink t-shirt is probably not going to immediately start contemplating purity. And it was discouraging that this young lady didn't seem to be aware that her message was not matching her medium.
I would have loved to talk with this girl and encourage her to ask some hard questions about clothing and beliefs and whether the two match up. But modesty is complicated -- it's a both profoundly public and intensely personal topic. One best not approached by a stranger at a theme park but by parents, sisters in Christ, pastors and Titus 2 teachers in a trusted community of faith.
So, instead, I looked at myself. I remembered how easy it is to slip into the world's definition of pretty, stylish and sexy. I realized that it's important to take the time periodically to reevaluate what I wear and ask myself the tough questions. What was my clothing saying that day? Was there anything about what I was wearing that disconnected with what I want my life to say? Was God gettting glory from my appearance?
Because, ultimately, modesty is not about me (although I know I benefit from following the command in God's Word to dress modestly). And it's not about men (though I know that I can serve my brothers in Christ through modest dress). It's about God. 1 Timothy 2 tells me why I should be modest -- because modesty is "appropriate for women who profess to worship God."
As C.J. Mahaney writes (in a really thought-provoking chapter on modesty in his book Worldliness):
"Make this your aim: that there be no contradiction between your gospel message and the clothes you wear. May your modest dress be a humble witness to the One who gave himself as a ransom for all."
In it, Dr. Burk outlines what he believes are the main points of contention between a biblical and secular worldview on gender and sex. First, Dr. Burk addresses the three main secular views:
Gender is something that you learn, not something that you are. "In other words, the idea of male and female comprises a set of stereotypes that we absorb from our culture. Male and female does not designate a universal, innate distinction among humans. Thus gender is merely a social construct."
Sex is for pleasure, not for God. "We might call this the Sheryl-Crow-philosophy-on-sexuality. If it makes you happy, it can't be that bad. This perspective affirms any and all attempts to get sexual pleasure so long as such attempts do not harm others. If it feels good and you're not hurting anyone, then how could it possibly be wrong?"
Marriage is cultural, not universal. "In other words, marriage is something that came from human culture, not from God. It has a human origin, not a divine one. With God out of the picture, humans are free to make marriage into whatever they want."
Dr. Burk contrasts those secular beliefs with three biblical truths:
Gender is something you are before you learn anything. "In other words, the distinctions between male and female find their origin in God's good creation, not in what we learn from culture. That is not to say that people do not absorb ideas about gender from the culture, some of which are quite unhelpful. But that fact should not be used to suppress the truth that in the beginning God differentiated humankind as male and female as a part of His original creation-work."
Sex is for God before there is any lasting pleasure. "When people treat pleasure as the goal of sex, not only do they inevitably end up in immorality but they also end up with less pleasure. God is not a cosmic killjoy when it comes to sex. He intends for His creatures to enjoy this great gift for His sake, and that can only happen when God's people realize that the body is not for immorality but for the Lord (1 Cor 6:13)."
Marriage is universal, not cultural. "From the Garden of Eden forward, God intended marriage to be an enacted parable of another marriage: Christ's marriage to His church (Eph 5:31-32). Thus, marriage is not defined by the culture, but by the gospel itself."
Good stuff. Reading Burk's article helped me to articulate some of the underlying assumptions in the debates over sexuality and gender in our society. But, my favorite part of the article was when Burk recommended that Christians emphasize a two-pronged approach to gender and sex in our culture -- both a countercultural message from the church and countercultural living among individuals and families in the church. By doing both, we both proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ and show its power in our lives.
Not too long ago, I was having a conversation with a friend and she mentioned how maintaining physical boundaries with her boyfriend was a lot more difficult than she expected. "I mean, we're not teenagers anymore!" she said. Basically, maintaining physical purity—even in a relationship consisting of two committed Christians—was more difficult than anticipated. Anyone relate?
My brother is a youth pastor, so I've thought a great deal about the messages Christian teens receive about sex from the church. Most of it is of the "true love waits" variety. If you ask, "Why does true love wait?" the party line answer is that sex will be more fulfilling if you do. Plus, you'll avoid those nasty consequences that label you with a social stigma—such as getting pregnant out of wedlock.
But the meaning of sex and God's call for purity goes so much further than that simplistic presentation. I recently read Theology of the Body for Beginners by Christopher West. The book really transformed my thinking on sex and chastity. Maintaining purity as a believer is not just about controlling inappropriate sexual behaviors and managing consequences, it is about allowing God to transform your heart and whole way of thinking. I wrote the following in today's featured article "Leaving the Edge:"
If you are in a relationship—even a godly one—a whole universe of purity choices presents itself. Is kissing OK? What about making out? What touch is appropriate and what touch is sinful? On the ladder of physical expressions that ends with sexual intercourse, at what level does one begin sinning?
The flaw in these questions is that the emphasis is on the wrong thing: the behaviors. Purity is a heart issue. Luke 6:45 says: "The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart."
This is a heart issue. Even self-control, as needed as it is, only manages sexuality. In response to my article, Daniel Weiss Senior Analyst for Media and Sexuality for Focus on the Family Action wrote the following:
One thing I would have added in this article is the idea of sacrificing a lesser love for a greater one. We sacrifice what we want now, for what we are promised in the future. I sacrifice sexual touch with my girlfriend now to enjoy uninhibited, chaste, complete intimacy with her later. Or, I sacrifice sexual activity in this life in order to experience the full communion of the saints in the next. These aren’t theoretical; but very real choices with eternal payoffs.
The main truth we need to grasp as believers is that God has a radically different—and infinitely better—design for sex than the world delivers. And keeping in step with the Spirit by embracing purity at every stage allows sex to be what God intended—a sacrificial covenant seal that reflects Him. Since the Garden of Eden, Satan has been trying to convince us to take something less than God's full deal for us. Pushing physical boundaries in relationships does exactly that. When we leave the edge, God has so much more for us.
According to the AAUW, the American Association of University Women, "to match men's earnings for 2008, women have to work from January 2008 to April 2009 — an extra four months. In recognition of this inequity, Equal Pay Day will be marked on April 28, 2009." They point to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics stating that full-time working women in America earn almost 78 cents for every dollar a full-time working man earns. This gap, the AAUW writes, is "evidence of discrimination, which remains a serious problem for women in the work force."
But is that really true? Do women earn less simply because evil men plot across the world to intentionally lower our salaries and keep us in our place? Or do we make less because of the choices that we make?
Allison Kasic, of the Independent Women's Forum, writes:
"Far from a crisis, the difference in median wages can be chalked up to different preferences and lifestyle choices. A mother, for example, who takes time out of the workforce to care for an infant or elderly family member likely decreases her future earning potential and therefore contributes to the wage gap. Ditto the mother who gives up higher wages for a more flexible work arrangement to assist with her childcare needs. So do women who forgo a high-paying career in laboratory science for a more social or family-friendly work environment that pays less, but is more personally rewarding for them. Each of these individual choices, which are perfectly rational for that unique person's situation, contributes to the aggregate wage gap.
The choices that men make matter too. The truth is that more men, on average, are willing to take on jobs that are dirty, dangerous, and distasteful to most women."
According to one Department of Labor study, the wage gap shrinks to almost nothing when young, childless, men and women of equal backgrounds and tenure are compared.
Even the AAUW's own literature admits that choices contribute to much of the wage gap. Though I'm not officially in those bureau statistics (I am considered a part-time working woman),my own life reads like a list of AAUW "what not to do." I chose a "female-dominated" field of study; I chose to work, for a time, in the non-profit job sector, and I have chosen to take a break from the work force because of motherhood.
I didn't make those choices because a patriarchal society indoctrinated them into me. I could have (and almost did) entered a "male-dominated" field, worked at a for-profit firm and placed my children in full-time child care. But I didn't because of deeply held convictions about biblical truths, my own personal passions and practicality.
If I decide to return to full-time salaried work someday, I will have less work experience resulting in a lower salary. That, along with my choice of field and my probable value on flexibility over money, will undoubtedly contribute to bringing down that all-women earning average.
So, mea culpa. If you're looking for a finger to point, you might just skip right over the supposed big, bad discrimination machine. You want to know why women earn 78 cents to a man's dollar? I can give you at least one reason: me.
We published an article a couple of weeks ago, "Mind The Gap," that asked why women tend to be more involved in community leadership roles than men, particularly in university and church.
Though he acknowledges the harmful effects of divorce, the author places primary blame on public and educational institutions, which have for the past four decades conducted a risky social engineering experiment whose
purpose is to eradicate any psychological and emotional differences between men and women, and the grounds that any concept of manliness inevitably leads to arrogance and violence towards women and to rigid hierarchies that exclude the marginalized and powerless.
But there are differences between men and women, beyond the mere physically observable ones. Obviously. If you push the square peg into the round hole hard enough, something will break. And something has broken:
All that 40 years of behavioral conditioning has done is drive maleness underground and distort it by severing it from traditional sources of masculine restraint and civility.
The author's simple solution: "We should stop trying to reengineer the human soul to prevent boys from being boyish, while encouraging all forms of self-expression in girls." He goes on to explain that
the point is to channel these energies into the development of character. Boys and young men still want to be heroes, and the way to educate them to treat girls and women with respect is to appeal to their heroism, not to try to blot it out.
Parents can help guide their children's character, of course. But how can we correct the skew in our own character? How can young adults fix the damage caused by divorce and false notions about what it means to be masculine or feminine?
Copyright 2009 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. The Line and Boundless Line are trademarks of Focus on the Family.
Recent Comments