A Quiet Simple Life | Sallie Borrink

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23

A Quiet Simple Life

You are here: Home / Archives for Biblical Truth & Discernment

Biblical Truth & Discernment

Should Women Proclaim the Gospel to Men?


Denny Burk wrote a post about Christianity Today’s list of “50 Women to Watch: Those Most Shaping the Church and Culture.” The list ran the gamut in terms of theology and practice.

Burk’s biggest problem with the list was the mingling of complementarians and egalitarians. He writes:

The article doesn’t include much of a discussion about differences among evangelicals about gender roles. Even though there are both complementarians and egalitarians on the list, the article seems to assume an egalitarian framework. In general, it regards high-achieving women excelling in their respective fields as something to be celebrated. Make no mistake, everyone celebrates women excelling in roles that the scripture commends, but egalitarians continue to disagree with complementarians about what those roles are. In short, the report highlights the influencers without trying to sort out the differences that complementarians and egalitarians have over these issues.

In the course of the discussion in his comments, Burk makes clear that he doesn’t believe anyone should celebrate what a woman does if it is outside of the “roles that the scripture commends.”

As I read the discussion, the clear message I got was even if men and women are coming to true salvation knowledge of Christ, it is not to be celebrated if they are coming to Christ through the teaching of a woman. (Go read the comments yourself and come back and tell me if I’m misrepresenting what he was saying over there.) Burk clearly believes we should only celebrate the ministry accomplishments of women if they are functioning in what he deems is their Biblical sphere.

I finally stepped into the fray and asked:

Ten people are out on a boat. A storm comes up and they fear for their lives. The only person on board who knows Christ and can articulate the Gospel is a woman.

If I’m reading here correctly, it would be wrong for the woman to step out of her “biblical sphere” as defined by Mr. Burk and preach the Gospel to those who are about to perish. It would be better if they perish without hearing the Gospel rather than a woman step out of her “biblical role” and preach the Good News of Jesus Christ to the lost.

Is that really what I’m reading here?

Burk replied:

No. I’m afraid you have a misunderstanding of the compelementarian position. I would encourage you to read some good books by complementarians so that you can get a feel for what we are actually saying. I recommend Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood by Grudem and Piper.

I replied:

Thank you for your reply. I really don’t think you answered my question. It is a legitimate question based on the comments I’ve seen above. Are women called to proclaim the Gospel or not? If your answer was “No” then why can the woman proclaim/preach the Gospel in the boat but not elsewhere?

I’m very familiar with the comp/egal debate. I’ve been studying it for years trying to sort out my own beliefs and experiences. I write about it on one of my blogs when I’m able to get the time from the rest of my life. You might be surprised to discover how well versed in these issues many of us commenting on this thread are. But then I suspect that you probably don’t read blogs written by your brothers and sisters in Christ who hold to a different perspective. The fact that you automatically assume that commenters don’t know the topic and should read RBMW tells me a lot.

So, no, I don’t have a misunderstanding of the complementarian/patriarchal position. I can thoroughly explain it and believed it for many years. But I have to say that your responses here to some of the pointed questions you’ve received have surprised me even after all I’ve read over the years. Your views are much more troubling than most comps that I’ve read.

And, no, I’m not a flaming liberal feminist. I’m pretty conservative in most of my theology, worship preferences, and general lifestyle. I grew up Baptist and am now of the more Reformed persuasion, mostly because of the women in the church issue. But reading here what you’ve written, I wonder if I would even pass your test of being a true Christian. Your parameters are such that as a longterm comp who now leans heavily toward egalitarianism after spending many years wrestling with these issues from the Scriptures, I don’t even know if you would call me your sister in Christ.

And, frankly, I find it astounding that you can discern the validity of my walk with Christ, the Holy Spirit’s presence in my life, and God’s amazing works in my life time and again just because I don’t fully embrace complementarianism any longer.

Warmly,
Sallie

Someone else replied:

Ever heard of Elizabeth Eliot,she was the only woman who knew the gospel in the are she was ministering too.She taught the men there just like Priscilla.She ensured they became the leaders of the church.
That is complementarianism.If you get your definition from RHE she has basically tampered with it to promote her wicked agenda.

I replied:

Akash Charles,

That is not complementarianism the way it is currently taught and promoted by many prominent leaders in the movement. The inconsistencies (such as the one you cited with EE teaching men overseas but not being allowed to teach men in America) are what finally forced me to really look at complementarianism and evaluate it. I saw WAY too many inconsistencies and theological gymnastics. EE is held up as an example of comp, but she did many things that young women today are either discouraged from doing or are told flat out they shouldn’t be doing.

My comp definition does not “come” from RHE. It comes from reading widely on both sides of the debate. I find it so funny how often people try to shut down this discussion by either saying someone needs to read RBMW or else they throw out a controversial name as if that will make it all go away.

My experience has been that the average lifelong complementarian (by default) in the pew can cite a few verses re: why they believe this way. They cannot accurately articulate the egal view because they have never studied it in any depth. They only parrot that egals are dangerous people who have thrown off the authority of the Scriptures. The average egal who came to that view by conviction can not only articulate the egal view in great depth, but can also explain the comp view better than 90+% of the comps out there.

Warmly,
Sallie

Someone else replied:

It’s a simple yes or no question.

The same could be asked about the church in China. If men aren’t taking the initiative, or if there are no men to do so, is it sinful for women to do it?

Refusal to answer the question suggests you find yourself in a sticky place. You’re not fooling anyone by saying they don’t understand the complementarian position.

I never got an answer from Denny Burk although he responded to many other comments after mine.  The only answer I got was that I didn’t understand complementarianism.

So I ask again. Should the woman in the boat proclaim/preach the Gospel to the men about to perish?

If so, why can’t she proclaim/preach the Gospel elsewhere (like from a pulpit)?

If not, are you honestly telling me that Jesus would really rather see men damned to hell for eternity than to hear the Gospel from the lips of a woman? The same Jesus who sent the women forth from the tomb to tell the men that He was alive?

Photo credit

Category: 14 Comments

Voskamp, Challies, One Thousand Gifts, and What is Truly Ironic to Me


In recent weeks much was written about the exchanges between Tim Challies and Ann Voskamp regarding Challies’ review of her book, One Thousand Gifts. He didn’t like the book, she sort of responded, and he sort of backed down when she invited his family to dinner.

I will confess that I haven’t read the book. I have thumbed through it, but the writing style is not one that engages me. I do, however, have an online acquaintance with Ann Voskamp. We have read each other’s blogs over the years, commented, and exchanged a number of emails on various topics. We have always had a cordial relationship online. Some of her posts about homeschooling have resonated loudly with me and I have returned to them time and again for encouragement. But the more mystical, ethereal, symbolic writings… Not so much. They just aren’t what connects with me theologically and, honestly, after reading many reviews of the book I think I would also have some significant concerns about it. (I write this disclaimer at the beginning to avoid being dismissed by readers out of hand for not “knowing” Ann or not having read the book.)

Why Don’t the Women Speak Up?

What I found most interesting was not so much the back and forth between Voskamp and Challies regarding the book’s content. Instead, it was a link Challies endorsed on his blog to The Christian Pundit. In the post, Challies, Voskamp, and All Us Girls, Rebecca VanDoodewaard expressed her deep concern that more Christian women (specifically Reformed Christian women) had not responded to some of the theological problems that Challies pointed out in his original review. Why, she asks, had no Christian women come forward in eighteen months to warn people of the dangers of the book’s content?

I’m not sure why VanDoodewaard is surprised that no Reformed women responded to the book. This is precisely what women have been taught not to do, especially in the Neo-Reformed circles. In fact, this entire scenario is an excellent example of some of the significant problems with complementarianism the way it is being heavily promoted in these same circles. One could almost say it is inappropriate for anyone to call out the Neo-Reformed women for not responding with any theological depth since they have been repeatedly told in subtle and not-so-subtle ways that they should not do this very thing.

Complementarian Women Have Been Told to Know Their Place

Consider some of the foundational teachings that women hear over and over again from teachers such as Tim Challies, John Piper, C. J. Mahaney, Al Mohler, the Pyromaniacs, and other connected with the complementarian Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

According to John Piper, the church has a masculine feel and women should be grateful for the male leadership in that masculine church. He said:

“When I say masculine Christianity or masculine ministry or Christianity with a masculine feel, here’s what I mean: Theology and church and mission are marked by an overarching godly male leadership in the spirit of Christ with an ethos of tender-hearted strength, contrite courage, risk-taking decisiveness, and readiness to sacrifice for the sake of leading and protecting and providing for the community. All of which is possible only through the death and resurrection of Jesus.”

“It’s the feel of a great, majestic God who is by His redeeming work in Christ inclining men to humble Christ-exalting initiatives and inclining women to come alongside those men with joyful support, intelligent helpfulness, and fruitful partnership in the work.”

So men do the theology and the women cheer them on. Intelligently, of course, but still. There is nothing about women being risk-takers who contend for the Truth of the gospel. In other words, the subtle message is that women should wait for someone like Challies to tell them what is wrong with Voskamp’s book and then cheer him on when he does so.

Or perhaps consider the Pyromaniacs and their attack on women with The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Discernment Divas in which they write:

The following video (40+ minutes) is from the recent Psalm 119 Conference in Keller, TX, sponsored by “Wretched,” featuring Todd (“Freakishly Tall”) Friel. Todd dragged me on stage to discuss the Elephant Room and other issues related to wall-building, biblical discernment, bad discernment ministries, shrill-and-sharp-tongued women who fancy themselves called to ministries of full-time criticism—and a few other interesting topics.

And then there is the pronouncement of why it is wrong for women to read Scripture in church by Tim Challies in Men, Women and the Public Reading of Scripture. He writes:

Over the years there has been near-endless discussion and disagreement about 1 Timothy 2:11-12. There Paul writes to Timothy and says, “Let a woman learn quietly and with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” He goes on to ground this in God’s Creation ordinance. “For Adam was formed first, then Eve…” Some people hold that when Paul says, “I do not permit,” he is speaking from a personal perspective and his words do not carry the weight of God’s authority. Some people hold that this is a cultural command that is no longer relevant today. Some hold that the kind of quietness he advocated was limited to very specific circumstances that do not apply to our churches. What we can all agree on is that these words, whatever they mean, are in the Bible and are, therefore, given by God for our instruction. These are not sexist words; they are God’s words.

It is my conviction that these words are meant to be read and understood in the simplest sense. Speaking with God’s authority, Paul is saying that women are not to exercise teaching authority over men. In other words, it is men who are charged with authority in the church and the most important component of this authority is to declare the words of God. This puts me firmly in the complementarian camp which says that God has created men and women equal in value and dignity and worth, but different, complementary, in function. Men have been called to exercise headship in the home and in the church while women are called to different and complementary functions.

How and Where Are These Complementarian Women to Learn?

These are just a few examples. I could go on and on. The point remains. Why would these women EVER think of offering a detailed theological response to Voskamp’s book? They’ve been told over and over again that they can’t lead in church, they can’t read Scripture in church, they are more easily deceived, and they should focus on being wives and mommies.

VanDoodewaar herself says:

“Are evangelical women able to sort the wheat from the chaff? It is so easy, being the emotional creatures that we are, to engage a book (or blog, or talk show, or magazine article, etc.), on a purely or even largely emotional level. And that is so dangerous. Emotion itself is not wrong; emotion taking over thought is. We always need to be thinking and evaluating biblically.”

Great. So how are women to learn to do this? In church where they are not allowed to speak? In Sunday School classes where a woman challenging a man on a theological point would be social suicide and seen as an indictment of her husband’s lack of leadership in the home?

And would VanDoodewaard be asking the same question if the book were written by a man? Is it okay for women to pick apart a book’s theology if it was written by a woman but not a man?

This circle wants it both ways. They want women to know their place which is, of course, sitting quietly under the authority of men. They want the men to do the serious theological thinking and sparring in public.

They tell women that they need to focus on being wives and mothers. College for women is subtly discouraged by many in this circle. And while a woman can learn on her own, how many women have the time or resources to do so?

Where are women to learn to wrestle with theological meat? Public school? Hardly. Christian school? Most Christian schools I’ve interacted with do not place a premium on developing the higher level critical thinking skills necessary to engage in significant theological debate. Homeschool?  Yes, some women will learn much in a homeschool environment. But only if their father deems it important to thoroughly educate his daughters as much as his sons.

And why would the average young woman decide to invest much time in studying? What kind of outlet does she have for her learning? If she writes a blog with authority, she’ll be seen as too aggressive and stepping out of her natural sphere. (Unless she is speaking purely the Neo-Reformed party line. Then I think she gets a pass as long as she’s not too strong of a writer and thinker.) She shouldn’t be working so she doesn’t need her theology for that. She won’t be allowed to teach a mixed class at church. If a woman can find the time to study, what is she to do with it?

Are Women Supposed to be Bereans or Not?

VanDoodewaard writes:

Because while there are helpful elements in Voskamp’s writing, what we need are men like Challies: “…shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine” (Eph. 4:11-14).

No, we really don’t. We need more Bereans in the church. Men AND women. There is already an unhealthy dependence on well-known leaders and speakers among Christians today. We don’t need more of it. We need less of it. We need men AND women who study their Bible, not wait eighteen months for a prominent blogger to do a review of a book.

The leaders in this group have created a culture of dependence amongst the followers. Why were people writing to Challies, asking him for his opinion of the book?  Why weren’t they able to pick it apart themselves? Why aren’t they discussing it with their own pastor? Why do they need a word from on high from Challies, Piper, Mohler, or some other complementarian celebrity?

Complementarian Theology Leads to This

If they really want bold, theologically astute women who will raise the red flag when something is amiss, then they need to start approaching their teachings about men and women a bit differently. Because I think the average Neo-Reformed woman has gotten the message loud and clear.

When my husband and I went through a time where we were drawn to the Patriarchal movement, it completely destroyed my desire for the Bible and studying the Bible. I went from being a woman who devoured the Scriptures and happily spent hours studying them to someone who did not even want to open them. Why should I? I was being told that I was more easily deceived. I was told there was no appropriate outlet for my study. I couldn’t teach any longer even though I had taught to mixed groups for many years and had a clearly identified gift of teaching. Why bother studying any longer? The loud and clear message was that as a woman I couldn’t be trusted to handle the Scriptures.

Is that what these men are saying? Not explicitly. But that is the message that women are getting. Be sweet. Be submissive. Respect the men. Encourage the men in their leadership roles.

Why did the women not say anything about Voskamp’s book?

Because they are living out exactly what they have been told.

Category: Tag: 25 Comments

I’m Really Not Into the Postmodern Messiness


I recently left a comment on another blog that I tend not to read blogs written by younger women. There are exceptions, to be sure, but most of my blog reading is comprised of women who are closer to my own age, give or take several years.

A lot of it has to do with the writing style and focus. You know. Everything is messy. If there is one word that has become overused, I think it is messy. Everything is messy. The Christian life is messy. Messiness abounds. I think it is also related to the wallowing in sin that I wrote about before, but that’s a post for another day.

Jen Hatmaker and Postmodern Thinking

I came across an interesting post entitled Letting Go (archived link) based on a talk given at a MOPS convention. In the talk, Jen Hatmaker outlines the differences between modern and postmodern thinking. I don’t feel comfortable copying the lists and posting them here since they are lengthy, so you’ll have to click over and read them in the post. If you don’t read the lists and the premise of her talk, the rest of this probably won’t make sense.

I think the majority of the people who read this blog are in their thirties, forties, and fifties. I think the vast majority would lean more toward the modern list than the postmodern list. Not entirely, but to a great degree. Even though I clearly identify more with the modern list than the postmodern, it isn’t 100%. The twentysomethings who read here, I suspect, are not as postmodern as their peers. I just don’t think postmodern young adults would relate to how I write and that’s fine.

Modern or Postmodern?

Which leads me to my questions.

Where do you see yourself fitting?

Those of you who have children still at home… Do you see what Hatmaker is talking about in your own children?

I’m wondering how much the pull of the postmodern for youth today is peer driven and if homeschooling has an impact on that. How much of it is media driven?

It isn’t like children wake up and realize they want to be postmodern. That thinking is coming from somewhere. The thoughts are being planted. Where is it coming from? Where is it impacting your family? Are you driving it? Or are you fighting it yourself? Have you reluctantly capitulated?

The Fake Authenticity and Falseness Of Postmodernism

It is interesting that the postmodern is supposed to be all about the authentic (another word I’ve wearied of) and yet I find so much of the postmodern trappings to come across as anything but authentic. I find them really unappealing in so many ways. So Hatmaker’s belief that we as adults with a foot in both the modern and postmodern worlds need to more fully embrace the postmodern for the sake of our children… I don’t know. I guess I’m just not there.

I think it is because there is so much about the postmodern that seems unbiblical to me and so I have no interest in embracing it. But maybe it is because I am so thoroughly modern that I choose not to move past my own views.

It’s interesting being an older parent. I’m 45 with a 5 year old. I cannot even imagine the world that Caroline will have to live in. I can’t even say I’m really excited for her. Truth be told, I actually feel sorry for her at times. I don’t look at her future world with anticipation. Maybe I’m completely wrong, but the future doesn’t look rosy to me as an American, as a Christian, or as a member of the world community.

Is God at work? Absolutely! Is God at work in her life? Yes. But I’m not really excited about the future for her (or me, for that matter). I honestly don’t see postmodernism leading to good things. I know there are people who do, but I’m not one of them.

How are you preparing your children to live in this postmodern world? How are you preparing them to live for Christ in a postmodern world? Do you feel excited for them? Apprehensive? Do you find yourself embracing postmodernism for the sake of your children?

I’d seriously like to hear what people think about this topic.

UPDATE: Don’t miss the excellent conversations in the comments below. 

Category: 33 Comments

The Future of the Church Courtesy of Acts 29 Network and Mark Driscoll


Yesterday I turned 45. I’ve lived a lot of life and experienced quite a bit in those 45 years. When I said in Mark Driscoll Says Macho Men and Dudes are the Key to the Future of the Church that I believed we were going to see a person’s views on the roles of men and women in the church become a measuring stick for being a true believer, I think some who read here might have been skeptical.

So today I’m going to address that point a bit more. In order to make my point, please indulge me in a little background storytelling.

Views on Baptizing Babies

I grew up in the Baptist church. If you grew up in the Baptist church, you knew that anyone who baptized a baby was just wrong, wrong, wrong. You were even suspicious if they were really a Christian because baptizing an infant is just so wrong. The Bible clearly teaches that baptism is by immersion according to Baptist doctrine. I was very much an immersionist.

Through a long series of events, David and I ended up attending a Christian Reformed (CRC) church. We were childless (not by choice) and didn’t know if we would ever be blessed with a child. I was still not completely sold on infant baptism, but since we had no children the issue wasn’t completely relevant to us. I decided that if I was going to spend eternity with these people, then I certainly could attend church with them. I knew that salvation was not dependent on the mode of baptism.

When we discovered we were expecting on our ninth wedding anniversary, we had to make a decision. Do we stay in a Reformed church and baptize our baby or not? We decided to move to a Baptist church and Caroline was dedicated in a Baptist church.

Through another series of events, we left the Baptist church and returned to the CRC church where Caroline was baptized as a toddler when we all became members. (I had been immersed already and David has been both sprinkled and immersed.)

Changing Views on Infant Baptism 

So my views on baptism have changed. I went from being a strong immersionist to becoming rather practical about the whole thing. Frankly, the women’s issue became more important to me than the baptism issue. In other words, it was more important for me to be in a church where women had freedom than it was to practice a specific mode of baptism. That was the main catalyst for our return to the CRC from the Baptist church where Caroline was dedicated.

If you’ve been a Christian long in either the Baptist or Reformed traditions, you will know that baptism has been a divisive issue for a very long time. It still is in some circles. Should it be that way? No. Anyone who confesses Jesus as Savior and Lord will be in heaven regardless of whether they were sprinkled or immersed.

Acts 29 Doctrinal Requirements 

Given that background, I find it very interesting that in order to become a member of Mark Driscoll’s Acts 29 Network there are four areas that church planters and churches must agree on according to their doctrinal statement. One of them is that you must subscribe to the Reformed doctrines. You must also be Christian, Evangelical, and Missional.

There is no requirement concerning mode of baptism. They go to great pains to list all of the other areas where they do not have requirements such as views on the end times, alcohol, etc. I do think that is great. I don’t think modes of baptism should divide Christians as is evidenced by my own life.

Acts 29 is Complementarian

But there IS a requirement about complementarian versus egalitarian. They say in the list of things they are not:

We are not egalitarians and do believe that men should head their homes and male elders/pastors should lead their churches with masculine love like Jesus Christ.

Interestingly enough, in another letter posted by Mark Driscoll he wrote:

The following is a list of items I want focused on this year and would appreciate prayer for. As you read them, you will recognize we are not changing our beliefs or brotherhood. I just want to help promote and tell the stories of changed lives to help our churches grow by focusing on the air war and trying to catch it up with our ground war:

A manifesto on our core convictions: gospel-centered theology, Spirit-filled or empowered lives, complementarian relationships, and missional churches.

Yes, complementarianism is as important to them as gospel-centered theology and Spirit-filled lives. You can believe anything you want about baptism, the end times, alcohol, speaking in tongues, etc.

Think about that. These have been some of the most divisive theological issues among denominations over the past one hundred years and they have no requirements about them at all. As long as you subscribe to the rest of the doctrinal statement, you are good to go. But there is no leeway when it comes to men being the absolute leaders.

Acts 29 and Women

That might not seem like a big deal at first glance. The concern I have with it is that their take on complementarianism is much more extreme than that of the average Christian.

At Mars Hill, women have multiple restrictions on them. As Wade Burleson detailed the other day in Memo to Mars Hill: The Suppression of Church Women is Not the Cure for the Feminization of Church Men (bold mine):

Only males compose the church’s legal standing. Only males vote on church business. Only males serve on leadership teams. Only males determine pastoral salaries. Only males convene for business meetings. Only males determine matters related to the church. Only males are the true members of the church. Females, for the sake of ‘spiritual standing,’ can be called ‘members’ and have access to the church’s website, but females cannot be, in any form or fashion, in leadership at Mars Hill or considered as people with legal or moral authority.

Women cannot vote at Mars Hill.

Women don’t even attend the business meetings at Mars Hill which follows that they do not speak about issues in the church, even if they have the gift of discernment.

Women are not allowed to serve on leadership teams.

Is your church this restrictive?

Even the most conservative Baptist churches I participated in were not this restrictive. And this doesn’t even begin to address the fact that they believe it is the responsibility of men to read their wives’ emails in order to “protect them.” Is that your view of complementarianism? That a man should censor his wife’s personal email to “protect” her?

Again, people might think that this isn’t a big deal. After all, this is just a small group of churches out on the left coast, Seattle no less. What else would you expect?

No, it isn’t just the Mars Hill campuses.  The Acts 29 network currently has 400 churches.

Unfortunately it isn’t going to end there. Do you have any idea how widely they are already reaching into churches and their vision for the future? From a memo posted by Mark Driscoll:

Last year, 157 US churches were planted by A29. Last year we had 382 church-planting applicants, and right now we have 550. At our current pace, Lord willing, we could be over 1,000 US churches running perhaps 500,000 people on Easter 2016, if not earlier.

Their application has buttons to choose USA-Canada, Western Europe, Australasia, and South Africa. They plan on exporting these teachings around the world.

Not only that, their reach is wide through conferences, books, broadcasts, and other materials. Young men who aren’t even officially part of the Acts 29 network are taking these ideas with them into local churches and causing great upheaval in congregations.

This is the vision Mark Driscoll has for churches. Egalitarians and soft complementarians need not apply. If you think a woman should vote in church, forget it. If you think a woman should be involved with the general business of the church, forget it.

My heart breaks for the unsuspecting couples and families who will be impacted by this movement.

Acts 29 Doctrinal Statement

One last visual to leave you with. While researching for this post, I went to the WayBack Machine. I thought for sure they had listed something else on their Doctrine statement so I went back to check if it had recently changed. Apparently I was thinking of something else. But what I did find astonished me.

On their previous doctrinal page, there was a photo at the top. I’m sure if you think of the topic of doctrine, all sorts of possible images might come to mind. I am going to guess you would never think of what they posted on their doctrine page. You can check it out here: Acts 29 Doctrine. (It takes a few seconds to load, so be patient!) I’ve also added it here. 

Still think I’m overly concerned? Who in the world would put that on their Doctrine page? And what not-so-subtle message are they sending?

Category: Tag: 17 Comments