Sermon preached by John A. Huffman, Jr.
January 22, 2006
Copyright © 2006, John A. Huffman, Jr.
All rights reserved.
FRANK TALK ABOUT MARRIAGE, SEX, SINGLENESS & DIVORCE
For whoever was called in the Lord as a slave is a freed person belonging to the Lord, just as whoever was free when called is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of human masters. In whatever condition you were called, brothers and sisters, there remain with God. (1 Corinthians 7:22-24)
Throughout the first six chapters of 1 Corinthians, the apostle Paul wrestled with the troublesome situations confronting that local congregation. He had set the agenda in response to disturbing information that he had received. As a result, he wrote out of his pastor's heart concern of those believers and that church.
There is a major difference in perspective between the first six chapters and the last ten. Beginning now with chapter 7, Paul addresses a new agenda. Whereas the first six chapters are his agenda determined by what he knew about what was going on at Corinth, the rest of his letter is set by the believers at Corinth themselves, who had conveyed to him a number of questions on which they were requesting his counsel.
Presidents have used this methodology quite effectively in press conferences. They step into the East Room of the White House and make some remarks of a formal nature, addressing the matters of greatest concern to them. They have the listening ear of the press and, to some extent, the country. In their remarks, they can pretty well frame not only the topics being addressed but the tone of the rest of the press conference. On some occasions, their opening remarks dominate the entire session, and they leave very little time for questions and answers. On other occasions, they open the floor to a free-wheeling question-and-answer session, in which they are peppered with the more existential concerns of the press.
Some teachers use this methodology quite effectively. They devote the first portion of classroom time to dealing with the tough stuff that they as professional academics know needs to be addressed. Then they field questions, sometimes submitted in advance in writing, sometimes spontaneously oral, under the stimulation of what they have already shared in their more formal remarks.
I tend to use this methodology when I visit some of the ministry groups at St. Andrew's. You hear me in my formal sermons on Saturday night and Sunday morning. You don't need to hear me sermonizing every time I speak. Though, for example, I've had a couple of sessions with the Tuesday night single young adults and a couple more sessions with the Wednesday morning men's breakfast in which I've opened with brief remarks, sharing my concerns in an area or two. Then I've spent the rest of the time responding to anonymously submitted questions on just about any topic of interest and also to spontaneous oral questions. Frankly, these are my most enjoyable times, because I know for certain that I'm speaking to the questions people are asking. There is an energy in such dialogue.
Obviously, we do not have the list of questions that the Corinthian believers had addressed to Paul, who was now ministering in Ephesus. Actually, we don't need them. You could almost reproduce the questions on the basis of his answers. It appears that he has the list before him as he writes. These were very specific questions dealing with issues facing them at Corinth.
Here, in the seventh chapter, he is answering questions about marriage, sex, singleness and divorce.
Chapters 8 through 10 deal with the matter of whether Christians should eat meat that had been offered to idols in pagan temple worship.
In chapter 11, he answers their questions about worship, the Lord's Supper and specific conduct in the church.
In chapters 12 through 14, he deals with a number of questions relating to spiritual gifts and their manifestation in the church, while at the same time making observations of his own about the importance of love being the underlying theme that unites us in our diversity.
Chapter 15 speaks to specific questions about the resurrection of the dead. It's one of the greatest chapters in the Bible, dealing not only with the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but our own human immortality. The way in which the chapter is structured makes much more sense when you realize he is answering questions raised by them, not giving his own essay or treatise on the resurrection. He would never have organized it the way he did if he were not responding to questions.
And in chapter 16, he addresses the various housekeeping matters, such as a plan he has for raising an offering from them for impoverished believers in Jerusalem, his own personal plans for the future, his final exhortations and special greetings.
Today, and two weeks from today, we address chapter 7. Keeping in mind what I've said already, you will see why at points it seems to be a bit disjointed. It includes some of the most puzzling, troublesome and controversial statements in the Bible. As you study this chapter, remember that it must be seen from at least three specific perspectives. One is the perspective of who Paul is. Two is the perspective of the specific questions being addressed by the Corinthians within their unique cultural context. We'll deal with these two perspectives today. As confusing and even controversial as they may be, if we listen carefully, we will find them helpful. The third perspective is of the long-term principles that can be extracted from this passage and also applied specifically to our circumstances today.
Perspective One: Just who is the apostle Paul?
We hear him quoted often as a major figure in Christian history. To some, he's quite controversial.
Back in 1978, during my first year as pastor here at St. Andrew's, I prayed that God would lay on my heart the names of 12 to 18 men with whom I could enter into a year of intimate "covenant group" relationship. This became the prototype for our covenant group ministry, which now involves many hundreds of you who meet on a weekly basis and thousands of men and women who have been involved in this ministry in the last 27 years.
I remember the first meeting as 16 or so of us gathered for breakfast at the Balboa Bay Club in September of 1979. I established the ground rules that this was to be an open meeting in which anyone was free to share whatever they wanted to share, and nobody had to say anything. Confidentiality would be respected. I knew that about two-thirds of the men were already professing believers in Jesus Christ, and a third were not. It would be an open forum for anything, any thought, any doubt, any moral question, and any relational struggle could be addressed. It would function with my presence for one year, after which if members of the group wanted to continue, it would be up to them. I would move on to start another group.
There would be three specific functions of the group. One would be Bible study, in which we would read a passage of Scripture and then discuss it, all of our inputs being equal. I would provide some background resources, if asked, but would not be the teacher. We would all share in a discovery method. We would begin with the Book of Philippians. The second function would be to share our own personal concerns on any matter, independent of what we had been discussing in the Bible. And our third function would be to conclude with prayer.
I'll never forget what happened at that first meeting. I had handed out paperback copies of the Bible. We opened to the New Testament Book of Philippians. Each man read a verse, until we had gotten through the first ten or eleven verses. I then asked, "What do you think of this?"
One of the men began the discussion by bluntly stating, "This book was written by Paul, wasn't it? I don't know why we're studying anything written by him! He was an anti-woman, male chauvinist. I would rather discuss what Jesus had to say."
That is not an uncommon perception of Paul. He has been accused by some of being a misogynist, a person having or showing a hatred and distrust of women. This particular passage we are looking at today is the basis of some of this thought. If you're not careful in reading1 Corinthians 7:1 yourself, you might think this, for it appears that he's saying that it is well for a man not to touch a woman. In verse 8, he seems to be saying to the unmarried and widows that it is well for them to remain single. And in verse 32, when he states that a single person is free from complex worldly affairs, he's implying that marriage is a second-best circumstance. And in verse 38, you might draw the conclusion that singleness is a better state than marriage.
In fact, some of you already have expressed concern to me that I'm even teaching through this passage of Scripture this weekend, when we're baptizing 25 infants, and wondering whether or not it is appropriate to talk about some of these controversial questions Paul is addressing.
Sooner or later, we have to find out more about Paul. Just what was his own marital status?
We know that he was single. Had he ever been married? We cannot answer this question with absolute certainty, but we can pretty much conclude that Paul at one time had been married. There are two primary reasons for us to conclude this.
First, Paul was a rabbi. Every so often, he stated how, prior to meeting Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus, he had been totally faithful to the Jewish law and the cultural expectations laid upon him as a rabbi. Orthodox Judaism emphasized the importance of marriage. A man was to marry and have children. The age for marriage was considered to be 18. It was quite unlikely that a Jew as orthodox and devoted as Paul would have remained unmarried. This was especially an expectation for rabbis.
The second reason to believe that Paul was married is that it appears that he had been a member of the Sanhedrin. The Bible says that he gave his vote against the Christians. This is recorded in Acts 26:10. It was a regulation that any member of this Jewish high court must be a married man. The feeling was that married men were more merciful than were single persons. Marriage has a way of mellowing people out. It tends to knock off the rough edges; and angular, opinionated brittleness is a luxury of being single and accountable to no one.
If Paul was married, what then happened to his wife? Perhaps she had died. That's a possibility. However, most scholars are inclined to believe that she left him and broke up his home when he became a Christian. It is quite possible that he actually did give up all things for the sake of Jesus Christ.
If Paul had been married, he was a very appropriate person to speak to the believers at Corinth on these matters. Why? Because many of them had been converted, coming to faith in Jesus Christ from either their orthodox Judaism or their Greek paganism. What were they to do if their husbands and wives were unwilling to confess a common faith in Jesus Christ? Paul had been down that road himself. Who, both through practical experience and through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, could speak more candidly to the problem?
Just who is Paul when it comes to marriage?
Was he a woman hater? Is he a person who is against marriage? Not for a minute! Even within this seventh chapter where he writes on occasion in such controversial terms, he also refers to the fact that many are called to be married; and he reemphasizes the importance of the marriage vows. This is the same man who wrote to the church at Ephesus in Ephesians 5, sensitively dealing with the issue of mutual submission in marriage. It is the same Paul who speaks with a radical, revolutionary understanding of man-woman relations in a both Jewish and Gentile first-century male chauvinist society, as he declares in God's eyes there is no supremacy of man over woman but that male and female are equal. He does note that there are gender differences and that there is not identical function in roles. But there is equality and, where there are differences, the man is to subordinate his own self-interest to the well-being of his wife and his children.
Let's give the apostle Paul a break, as one who was raised in a Jewish sub-culture in which many a man prayed daily, "I thank God I was not born a woman." He, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote words of radical liberation for women, articulating true freedom in Jesus Christ. His words were so liberating that he had to turn around and warn Jewish women, who, now because of their new freedom in Christ, were allowed to worship in the same room with men, not to be disruptive in worship nor argumentative or persons who were going to turn their newfound freedom into license. He urges discretion in both the home and in the church, so that men will not be preempted from leadership by women who have newly found freedom in Christ.
Perspective Two: Let's look at the specific questions Paul is addressing.
As we look at these, let's remember that Paul is not writing a general treatise on marriage. He is answering specific questions. They are being asked by some people who are holding very twisted views about marriage. They come out of the specific and unique circumstances of the Corinthian environment. All that Paul writes must be interpreted in the light of the inevitability of persecution and the feelings he had about the imminent return of Jesus Christ to earth. This passage of Scripture is not intended to be a "proof text" taken out of context from the rest of biblical teaching about marriage. It addresses specific questions against a backdrop of such biblical teachings as Genesis 2, Deuteronomy 4, Matthew 5, Matthew 19, Romans 7, Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3. Not any one text deals with everything. Truly biblical theology on any matter, including the issues of marriage, sex, singleness and divorce, must be dealt with against a backdrop of the entire Bible, not in isolated Scripture verses taken out of context and normalized as the final word. Nothing can be more detrimental to spiritual welfare than the Bible quoted out of context to establish a non-biblical emphasis!
Let's look briefly at four specific questions emerging from the Corinthian context.
Question #1: Should a married person continue to have sexual intercourse with their married partner after becoming a Christian?
Answer: Yes! Sex is a very important part of marriage. Both the man and the woman owe it to each other.
Perhaps you're surprised to hear such a question. Remember the background. Remember, we've already seen that Greek philosophical dualism saw the body as bad and the spirit as good. We saw how this encouraged some people toward license in extreme sensuality, who said therefore you could do anything with the body since it was bad. It encouraged sexual immorality. But remember how we saw the other extreme, which encouraged asceticism, a deprivation of bodily appetites? We have seen that there is to be no sexual intercourse prior to marriage or outside of marriage. Some had elaborated on that idea to say that sex should not be allowed within a marriage.
Paul, far from buying into this idea, is speaking against it. Paul declares that marriage is the norm. Marriage is not just spiritual. It is very real. A husband and wife have equal sexual rights. This is a revolutionary concept. Paul has articulated that there is to be sexual fulfillment for both the man and the woman in the marriage relationship.
Remember, he is writing 1900 years before the American sexual revolution, which only in the last several decades has emphasized the importance of sexual fulfillment for both the woman and the man. Sex isn't a one-way street built primarily for men. This is radical teaching in the first century. And for some, it's radical teaching today. To refuse sex to your partner is to defraud that person and to expose them to unnecessary external sexual temptation. The only exception to this is where there is, by mutual consent, a temporary sexual abstinence due to the need for intense prayer, reflection, spiritual decision-making, or some immediate pressing emotional or physical ailment.
Now do you see the progression of thought? 1 Corinthians 7:1 reads, "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: 'It is well for a man not to touch a woman.'" He's not saying that. He is quoting some in the church at Corinth, the extreme asceticists who somehow think that, in this division between body and spirit, the ideal marriage is a "spiritual marriage" that does not sully itself in sexual matters. Paul is emphatically denying this division between matter and spirit, declaring a wholeness of life that does not distort biblical teaching of human sexuality going all the way back to Genesis. Genesis 1:27 reads, "So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God He created them; male and female he created them." Genesis 2:24-25 reads, "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed."
So Paul writes, "But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control" (1 Corinthians 7:2-5).
Paul is once and for all establishing the importance of human sexuality within marriage. Again, I say he is repudiating the first-century concept of "spiritual marriage" in which two people who are married to each other strive toward the foolish ideal of a sexless marriage, assuming they've done something good by avoiding sex, which they wrongly viewed as bad. In essence, Paul is saying there is a danger of becoming "too spiritual."
Question #2: Should the unmarried marry?
Answer: There is a place for celibate singleness but only for those who have that gift.
Marriage and celibacy are both gifts of God. Not everybody is the same. Some are able to maintain a celibate existence. Some will find themselves driven by sexual passion. There is nothing wrong with either.
To deny the reality of one's sexual drives is to deny a basic fact of life. It is much better for a person to marry than to remain single and spend one's life struggling with sexual temptation. This is not a low view of marriage, but a realistic appraisal of God-given passions and the fact that God does give to some the gift of celibate singleness.
Perhaps you are saying, "Huffman, get with the 21st century; don't waste our time talking about esoteric, hypothetical issues once faced by Christians in the first century Greek, Roman and Jewish cultures."
The reality is this stuff is as up-to-date as today.
Take for example what we see as the lid has come off the secrets of the Roman Catholic church. There is nothing in the Bible that says that rabbis, priests and pastors should remain single celibates. To normalize that for all clergy is a humanly devised and terribly destructive requirement. There is a place for it, but it dare not be normalized as the operative function for all clergy.
A. W. Richard Sipe, former priest and author of seven books on religious celibacy, has recently written a book titled Living the Celibate Life. He writes that human sexual development is a process that ". . . involves the deepest physical, psychic, and spiritual capacities of what it means to be human." He goes on to declare that priests who think of celibacy merely as a prerequisite to ordination are bound to fail, as people who view celibacy as a negative. Why? "Because these persons will subject themselves to an inevitable self-deception, thinking that if they can rid themselves from the start of any sexual thought, word, desire, or action then they are celibate." He declares that practicing celibacy successfully, on the other hand, requires one "to be able to tolerate, think through, struggle with all sexual thoughts and desires, and to ask and answer the question: What do these sexual thoughts and desires mean for the individual and about him or her?"
Ironically, on Monday, December 26, 2005, in the Los Angeles Times review of his book, John Spalding, the reviewer, observes, "Indeed, self-knowledge is one of the rewards of celibacy. And in a culture so saturated with sex yet simultaneously so confused about it, perhaps less sex and more self-knowledge is just what we all need."
You see, the apostle Paul himself was gifted with the capacity to be single and celibate, so that he could devote his full energies to the service of Jesus Christ. As a single person, he could accomplish some things that otherwise could not be accomplished for the Lord.
Think of other persons to whom God has given this gift.
Henrietta Mears, for many decades, served as the Director of Christian Education at the Hollywood Presbyterian Church. She was single. She was celibate. She was married in a very special way to her unique ministry. Her energies were channeled into the enormous work of her church, the founding of Forest Home Christian Conference Center and the writing and publishing of Gospel Light Christian education materials. Some four hundred men were challenged to go into full-time Christian service through her years of dedicated ministry. She was able to devote her full energies in Christ's service unencumbered by the demands of domestic responsibilities.
Dr. John R. W. Stott, the great British Anglican Bible expositor and writer, is another prominent example of one called to a life of celibate singleness. He is able to target his time, talent and energies in ways impossible for a married person.
We here at St. Andrew's are the direct beneficiaries of Henrietta Mears and John Stott, along with others perhaps not so prominent who have been given this gift. Thank God for those to whom He has given the grace to carry themselves in godly celibate singleness in a way that models and ministers with fulfillments and results complementary to those of us who have been called to marriage. This is why Paul declares the rightness of marriage and sex within marriage. At the same time, he commends a viable alternative, writing, "This I say by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (1 Corinthians 7:6-9).
Question #3: Is divorce permitted to the Christian couple?
Answer: Divorce is not God's highest will for a Christian couple!
I realize this is a controversial statement to make in a society where divorce is so rampant, particularly in our church here at St. Andrew's where we have, in the last 26 years, led some 13,000 persons through our Divorce Recovery Workshops. You're probably saying, "John, how in the world can you be so inconsistent as to provide a safe environment for persons going through divorce while, at the same time, speaking out so strongly against divorce for a Christian couple?"
It is important that we stress once and for all that God, who is the one who has established and sanctified marriage, has done it for the welfare and the happiness of humankind. God is the author of marriage. God is not the author of divorce. God is against divorce. Divorce breaks the very heart of God, who yearns that the oneness of a man and woman united in Christian marriage be maintained.
Paul cites Jesus as the authority, quoting Mark 10:1-12. Paul doesn't mention the one exception which Jesus gave, that being sexual immorality as mentioned in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9. Remember, Paul was not writing a full treatise. He has answered a specific question. Separation is a possibility if the two cannot get along or if there is behavior going on in the relationship which is emotionally, spiritually or physically destructive. The Bible notes that the most healthy alternative open is reconciliation while the spouse is still alive.
Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, "To the married I give this command--not I but the Lord--that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife."
You say, "Get real. Wake up. Get into the 21st century."
Whether the first century or the 21st century, Scripture is holding a high view of marriage. Our business here at St. Andrew's is to uphold such a biblical view of the sacredness of Christian marriage. If you are a Christian married to a believer and you are struggling with problems in your marriage, I urge you not to opt out of the relationship. This simply is not God's will for you to be the instigator of divorce. You are to be the initiator of reconciliation. You are called to do everything within your power to lovingly minister in a way that enhances the quality of that relationship, not that moves to its dissolution.
If your partner refuses to work at the relationship and leaves you, we are here to help you transition through the pain and disruption of that divorce. The fact is, Jesus declared that Moses allowed divorce "because of the hardness of heart." We are not here to encourage you to settle for less, endorsing divorce as God's highest will for you, because it isn't.
Thank God for the new beginning many of you in this congregation have received after the brokenness of divorce. Divorce and remarriage are not the unforgivable sins. God is in the business of restoring human persons, and that is our business here at St. Andrew's.
At the same time, I would be guilty of professional, spiritual and psychological malpractice if I would shy away from upholding the high biblical concept of Christian marriage and God's hatred of divorce for fear of hurting the feelings of some in this room who have gone through this painful reality. Let me flip this whole topic around by saying I have yet to talk to anyone who has gone through a divorce who would recommend for anyone else the ripping of the fabric of trust that was theirs when they took their vows and the pain that they and their former spouse, their children and their step-children have gone through.
I beg you, don't chide your pastors when we faithfully teach God's highest will from Scripture. Let's not reduce the privilege of living at that standard down to the pragmatic realities of a society that trivializes the vows that should be sacred. At the same time, hold your pastors accountable to ministering not only to the high ideals of God's Word, but His grace to all of us who are broken people living in a broken world, needing His forgiveness, His healing, His new beginnings, in ways that are not guilt-producing but health-producing. What a delicate oscillation and tension there is between legalism and license. The heart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the reality of living a life that does not take the easy way out of difficulty but, with God's help, works through the issues in a marriage. And if the other is not prepared to do that hard work, remember, God does not turn His back on you, but loves you and yearns to give you a fresh start--not to replicate the pain that already has been too much to bear, but to find His strength to move into the future, realizing that your health and wholeness is not dependent on another person but by who you are, standing as a loved, forgiven, embraced person by the crucified and risen Christ.
Question #4: When one partner gets converted, should the marriage continue with a non-Christian spouse?
Answer: Yes! The Christian is not to leave the unbelieving partner, unless the latter desires separation.
If the nonbeliever is willing, the two should stay together. When one in the existing marriage becomes a believer, the one who has become a believer is the one who should do everything possible to see that the marriage continues.
The marriage is not to be broken by the believer. The whole family has a special blessing because of the belief of this one partner. This doesn't mean salvation for either the spouse or the children. But it does mean that this family will have the unique blessing of God upon it. Elsewhere in Scripture, there is strong teaching against the marriage of a believer and nonbeliever. This is not encouraging a believer to marry a nonbeliever. It is dealing with the situation where the marriage already exists and then one becomes a Christian, or wherein one who is a believer drifted away from the Lord and neglects God teaching in this area in regard to marriage.
If the nonbeliever wants to break off the relationship, the believer is not to force the marriage. There is a fundamental difference between a believer and a nonbeliever. Presumably, a remarriage is permissible for the deserted Christian partner, if that one marries a Christian. The ideal, though, is for the marriage to stay intact and for the nonbeliever, by testimony of the partner's long-haul, positive witness, to become a follower of Jesus. Paul puts it in these words in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16: "To the rest I say--I and not the Lord--that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. It is to peace that God has called you. Wife, for all you know, you might save your husband. Husband, for all you know, you might save your wife." Paul is taking responsibility for this suggestion and even strategy as his advice. Whereas, in the earlier matter of divorce, he says that his teaching comes from "not I but the Lord," in this case, he says, "I and not the Lord." He distinguishes between what Jesus says and what he adds to it.
I thank God for some men and women I know who have the courage to give their lives to Jesus Christ and then be all the more faithful and loving as partners to their nonbelieving spouses. In some situations, these are not easy marriages. The two love each other, but there is an organic difference of a spiritual nature at the very core of their existence that precludes the same kind of oneness they had before one of them was converted or that they would have if both of them loved Jesus.
It is understandable, Paul says, if the nonbelieving spouse decides to take a walk from the marriage. Don't force the person to stay. But, for God's sake, for your partner's sake, for your children's sake and for your sake, do all that is possible to hold that marriage together and love that nonbelieving spouse and adapt in every way possible, short of the violation of your biblically instructed convictions, to maintain the marriage.
Two people I know had been married some thirty-plus years. Several years into the marriage, the wife accepted Jesus Christ as her Savior. The husband belittled her faith. He did everything he could to pull her back into their previous lifestyle, which was anything but Christian in its moral orientation. He was demanding. He was selfish. She was sensitive and caring and yet refused to be intimidated. She was faithful in church attendance. She tithed what modest resources were available to her. Over a period of years, finally, her husband began to attend church with her. He couldn't deny that Jesus had made her a much better wife, a magnificently faithful partner. It was almost ten years after she became a Christian that he finally accepted Christ as his Savior and became enthusiastically involved in Christian community.
You see, she didn't make him stay. But she didn't push him out, when she had plenty of good reasons to push him out. Her life wasn't easy before he came to Christ. And, in some ways, it still wasn't easy, because they've had to struggle with the results of their own children being raised in that divided environment through those very critical, early childhood years.
But God has rewarded her faithfulness, as they now have that oneness they never would have had if she had become harsh, brittle, superior and rejecting of a husband, whom it took many years to come to a sharing of her faith.
This is a big topic. Our time is gone. Two weeks from now, after Anne, our daughters Carla and Janet and son-in-law Ryan have a few days of winter vacation on the ski slopes, I'll return to complete this topic and the rest of this chapter from a third perspective of the long-term principles of a practical nature that can be applied to our lives.