Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Mark Driscoll's "Vintage Jesus" isn't the True Jesus

I read a review of Mark Irreverent Potty Mouth Driscoll's latest book, "Vintage Jesus" which hardly seems to reflect anything close to the True Jesus and thus which doesn't elicit any fear in Driscoll. Erick Raymond's article is posted at Camp On This. I have to say that it seems to parallel the same obnoxious twisting of Mary that Emergent Scot McKnight does in his book "The Real Mary".

Sadly too many Christians were/are hoping for improvment with Driscoll, but what they don't realize is that the man is speaking things that flow from his heart. He won't get better until he has a new heart of flesh. Why "Reformers" don't get this (when they DO get it with others) is weird.

Erick Raymond lists some of the more offensive Driscoll quotes in his review:

For example, Driscoll, in his run through The Gospel According to Mark, describes Jesus as a guy who,

“[tells] a leper to shut-up

“does the equivalent of breaking into a church on a Sunday morning to make a sandwich with the communion bread..”

needs Paxil

needs sensitivity training

has his guys take a donkey without asking like some kleptomaniac donkeylifter

“[Is] an obvious workaholic who needed to start drinking decaf and listening to taped sounds of running water while doing aromatherapy so he could learn to relax.”

Sounds more like Kenneth Copeland's view of God--the irreverence is alarming. Criticism is reserved for Copeland who says that Jesus had taken on a sin nature and be born again in hell, but what Driscoll says is just as atrocious. Guess Driscoll gets a free pass because he mouths "TULIP" or "Reformed"? This is absolutely HORRIBLE!

More quotes from Driscoll:

“Jesus’ mom was a poor, unwed teenage girl who was mocked for claiming she conceived via the Holy Spirit. Most people thought she concocted a crazy story to cover the ‘fact’ she was knocking boots with some guy in the backseat of a car at the prom.” (p.11)

Jesus’ humor was often biting and harsh, particularly when directed at the Pharisees. For example, he called them a bag of snakes, said that their moms shagged the Devil, and mocked them for tithing out of their spice racks.” (pp. 40-41)

Joining them later at the party at Matthew’s house was nothing short of a very bad hip-hop video, complete with women in clear heels, dudes with their pants around their ankles and handguns in their underwear strap, lots of gold teeth, bling, spinners on camels, cheap liquor, and grinding to really loud music with a lot of bass. When word got out to the religious folks, they were perplexed as to how Jesus could roll with such a jacked-up posse. Jesus’ answer was purely priestly. Jesus said that they were sick and needed mercy.” (p.77)

“Some Catholic theologians taught that Jesus was not born in the normal fashion through Mary’s birth canal. Rather, they say he was born via something much like a miraculous C-section, as if Mary were some Messiah-in-the-box, and Joseph cranked her arm until the Messiah popped out of her gut.” (p. 93)

"On the cross as our substitute, Jesus was made to be the worst of what we are. This does not mean that Jesus ever sinned. Rather, it means that he was made sin. As a result, in that moment when Jesus cried out that he had been forsaken by God the Father, Jesus became the most ugly, wicked, defiled, evil, corrupt, rebellious, and hideous thing in all creation. In that moment, Jesus became a homosexual, alcoholic, thief, glutton, addict, pervert, adulterer, coveter, idol worshiper, whore, pedophile, self-righteous religious prig—and whatever else we are.” (p. 114)

Steve Camp wrote on Mark Driscoll and his blasphemy.

Driscoll also says in his book: "Jesus was born in a dumpy, rural, hick town, not unlike those today where guys change their own oil, think pro wrestling is real, find women who chew tobacco sexy, and eat a lot of Hot Pockets with their uncle-daddy. Jesus' mom was a poor, unwed teenage girl who was often mocked for claiming she conceived via the Holy Spirit. Most people thought she concocted the crazy story to cover the fact she was knocking boots with some guy in the backseat of a car at the prom."

Yet this is whom John Piper endorses and defends for repeatedly sharing the pulpit with him.

Scripture says we are to fear HIM:

Ecc 12:13 The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. Ecc 12:14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.

Pro 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.

Eph 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,

Psa 36:1 Transgression speaks to the wicked deep in his heart; there is no fear of God before his eyes.

Lighthouseresearchtrails : "Those who Driscoll admires were some of the greatest enemies of Christian doctrine of the 20th century." Driscoll has continued to promote the Emergent Church Movement garbage. Lighthouseresearchtrails has some VERY good information on Driscoll.

More horrific quotes by Driscoll here.

Driscoll is poison to the Body of Christ and John Piper is helping spread his poison willingly, as are other reformers (you know, those who say well, yes Driscoll's langauge isn't all that great, but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water....after all, he's one of US!" types). Yet these reformers are the same types who rip on Benny Hinn, but there's no difference, except maybe, in subtlety.

Driscoll has NO FEAR OF GOD in his eyes. NONE. He violates Scripture in continuing in course words and unfit language. He destroys the HOLINESS and FEAR for Christ Jesus. There is nothing worth taking from Driscoll's pig stye to sift through and find truth. Go to Scripture and find the pristine reverence for Christ, held up above all people and all of Creation, set apart as Master, Righteous One, and without spot or blemish, never acting like the pigs, dogs, and vipers of His day.

Scripture says of men like Driscoll:

Rom 3:10 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one;
Rom 3:11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.
Rom 3:12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."
Rom 3:13 "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips."
Rom 3:14 "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
Rom 3:15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
Rom 3:16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
Rom 3:17 and the way of peace they have not known."
Rom 3:18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."

Jud 1:10 But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively. Jud 1:11 Woe to them! For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error and perished in Korah's rebellion.

Jud 1:12 These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.

Jud 1:16 These are grumblers, malcontents, following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage.

Jud 1:18 They said to you, "In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions." Jud 1:19 It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit.


Truth and Zeal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Truth and Zeal said...

So, let me get this straight, this is all based on a "review" of "Vintage Jesus"? Have you actually read this book? I may not agree with Driscoll, but I actually bought the book to read it for myself, not just based on some review of it.

I admire your commitment to Scripture, but you could show a lot more grace in your speech. Don't take this too personally, but you really need to thoroughly do your research before making claims about other people (e.g. Keller, Piper, Sproul, etc.).

I noticed you quoted Phil Johnson and John MacArthur in your blog, but even MacArthur himself is good friends with Sproul and Piper (being keynote speakers at their conferences). They may differ on minor doctrinal issues, but they agree on the "essentials" (e.g. attributes of God, Scripture and Salvation). I have been reading your blog entries and the fact is that your blog entry on Sproul's comment of the Resurrection is based on the soundbyte that was taken out of it's context. I have read Piper and Sproul and I have listened to their sermons from their churches and conferences. I can say based on his books and sermons that Sproul believes in the Resurrection. Have you actually listened to all the sermons that Driscoll and Piper gave at his Desiring God National Conference? Do you know what they had said about each other after Driscoll gave that sermon at Piper's conference?

You say Driscoll has "no fear of God"? Do you say that because he doesn't fit your theology or that he doesn't fit your definition of the "fear of God"? The context that the apostle Paul is speaking of in Romans 3:10-18 (which you quote) is that all mankind is sinful and in need to be redeemed by Christ. Associating Driscoll with this particular verse in Romans is a misapplication of this verse. If you want to rebuke Driscoll for his speech, there are other verses you could use in Scripture. Is Jud. 1:10-18 really in reference to believers who have problems with vulgar language or is the context really in reference to unbelievers? Be careful that you do not assign people in particular categories that is too rigid or exclusive. It would be an error on your part.

I hope you realize that the sovereignty of God and "election" (which you note in your profile) are considered vital doctrines in "reformed" theology, which you just so happen to critique.

Denise said...


And where's your "grace" toward me? LOL I find your type quit hypocritical.

The quotes are enough for me to make a decision, which is what book reviews are supposed to do (not to mention summaries on the backs of books, flaps of book covers, and publishers' synopsis). Have you read the Satanic Bible to know its wrong? Are you going to say we must experience something before we take a stand against it?

Not only that I am familiar with Driscoll through the years, so this merely confirms again how he's poison. And you bet, Driscoll has NO FEAR of God. Otherwise he wouldn't treat as unholy Christ Jesus and Scripture. You figure it out.

I know MacArthur is friends with Piper. That's a problem and MacArthur isn't flying under the radar either. I'm watching him closely. But if you read their quotes, they are NOT endorsing Driscoll. Piper does. That's a big difference.

The Reformers are just as man-centered as the Arminians they love to criticize. In fact I have noticed the wide amount of error they tolerate as long as someone claims to be Reformed. This is wrong. I've noted the ever-extending list of heresy that is overlooked because one of their own at "least" holds to TULIP.

I suggest Zeal that you throw out your Magisterium and stick with Scripture alone, because a lot of these men do NOT pass the test of Scripture.

And there's no such thing as optional biblical doctrine. Its all necessary.

Denise said...


I often quote Eph. 5:3-15 (and in the link below I also use James 3), when dealing with Driscoll and others like him (I deal with him elsewhere, not just on my blog). I suggest reading this entry for a fuller treatment, "Touch not my seminary anointed and do my Reformed prophets no harm!"

neil said...

Wow, what a shameful review. I'm afraid that you're going to really regret this. You should read Drisooll's book and listen to some of his sermons. I think you will be sorely ashamed of yourself.
May God bless you and lead you to repentance over this bashing of our brother in Christ for no reason.
There are plenty of false teachers that you could beat up on. Driscoll is not one of them.

dweb said...

Denise, Your posts get more disturbing by the minute. People on here are being very kind and gracious to you. Don't be so stiff necked, although the Lord to correct you through your brothers and sisters in Christ. You are not the Theology Police, God does not need you to protect Him or His Truth. Truth will stand without your help, finite, fallable human beings will never fully grasp the depths of truths revealed in the scriptures and that is why we are left to remain humble in submission to the word. The Parable of the Weeds might be a good check for your heart, and I mean this is the most encouraging way.
24Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27"The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'

28" 'An enemy did this,' he replied.
"The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'

29" 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' "

Truth and Zeal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Truth and Zeal said...


You seem to be so defensive. Am I hypocritical because you didn't like my comment of your blog entry? You know, you could at least admit that you're not perfect and that you are willing to accept correction if the information you based your evaluations on are indeed insufficient or inexhaustive. The reason why I said you should show more grace in your speech is that you are making claims in a public blog. I'm not the one who is labeling other people. Therefore, I'm exhorting you to take caution before labeling someone immediately as a heretic. It would be unfair to you if I just labeled you as a "naive woman (who lacks gentleness/meekness) and a self-righteous Pharisee." I'm not saying that about you, but I wouldn't be so haste to label you like that without making an effort to know more information about you. Although, your blog entries may speak otherwise.

You do admit your evaluation of Driscoll was based off of quotes. Those quotes are NOT enough. The problem I'm telling you is that "quotes" are "tidbits" of information taken from a larger portion of work or explanations of a certain topic. You can use quotes to cite works, but you should not based your entire decision just on certain quotes. I'm not saying that you should "experience" something before you take a stand against it. Never did I used the word "experience", so do not put words in my mouth. I said you should read it thoroughly before you critique it. Your Satanic Bible analogy is a bad analogy, because the title of the book speaks for itself. You can find this book on and it blatantly says "Satanic Bible by Anton Lavey." This would automatically caution you against it.

Take, for example, Rick Warren's "Purpose-Driven Life" book. I STRONGLY disagree (if not opposed) with Warren's seeker-sensitive method of ministry. However, the book actually has a lot of commendable things (things on the topic of prayer), but yet it has a lot of erroneous things in it. So, the key issue is the people who are reading the book lacking the discernment to differentiate between the commendable and erroneous things. Yet, no reasonable person would label his book as being entirely bad (that would just be naive). They would just not recommend the book to other people.

From my understanding of Driscoll, he is passionate about Christ (I have friends who attended his church that can attest to his love for Christ). MacArthur and others that disagree with him don't say he's "evil" or label him as a non-believer. In fact, MacArthur states in a 2006 article that Driscoll's soteriology is correct. His main argument was about Driscoll's ministry philosophy of "engaging in culture." They don't like how he "contextualizes" the Gospel. Being too immersed in culture would hinder sanctification. Never did he say that Driscoll was evil, heretical or poison. I am not defending Driscoll, because his own works will speak for himself. I don't recall Piper "endorsing" Driscoll. Will you actually cite me that source or do you just say that because Piper invited Driscoll as a keynote speaker at his conference? If you actually listened to the entire conference sessions, you would have realized that Piper cautioned Driscoll about the dangers of immersing himself too deep into culture. Perhaps, you don't realize that I'm able to correct you on this statement, because I'm more well-informed by actually reading and listening a lot. And please, don't take this too personally thinking that I'm better than you. That's not what I'm saying. I'm just letting you know that I do my homework to stay informed, so just be sure that you don't say things based on assumptions.

You stated:
I know MacArthur is friends with Piper. That's a problem... I'm watching him closely.

Who do you think you are saying something like this? Now you're saying when it is okay or not okay to be friends with certain people? I mean, are you part of a cult or something? This comment itself sounds somewhat self-righteous. Perhaps, we should watch you closely, so we can remove the log out of your own eye, when you see the speck in other person's eye.

You should at least provide some background information about yourself. People that read this blog know nothing about you. You need to give a reason why readers should believe you (whom we barely know) rather than these men who's lifelong ministry and plethora of sermons (available online or from their ministries) have proven themselves to be faithful expositors of the Word. I mean, this is like a freshman college student trying to criticize a PhD scholar (and please, don't say that I'm trying to use their authority to belittle you. What I'm saying is that I know they are trained more theologically than you).

Why didn't you use Eph. 5:3-15 or James 3 when "dealing with Driscoll and others like him"? Instead you used Romans 3:10-18. I don't know why you would use this particular verse, unless you were proof-texting your point.

After reading your "About Me" section, shouldn't your heart really be set on being Christ-like? I mean, did God really call us primarily to be heresy-hunters and to show errors of various movements or did he call us to be conformed to the image of His Son (cf. Romans 8:29)? It's an entirely different thing if you said "discernment". There's nothing wrong with cultivating discernment, but heresy-hunting is a different matter.

I hope you read everything I wrote, because I do pay attention to every word you write.

Dan (T&Z)

terriergal said...

Truth and seal said:
"I admire your commitment to Scripture, but you could show a lot more grace in your speech"

Hm. So could Mark Driscoll.

So she trust Steve Camp's quoting of Mark Driscoll's book. You automatically distrust her. which is worse?

Maybe you should look up the quotes. If they are accurate she is certainly correct in being at a loss as to explain why some reformed folk thing Mark is A Ok because he preaches a mostly correct gospel with a filthy mouth.

Amazing that those who would defend a preacher with ungracious speech ...will turn around and slam someone who takes issue with that pastor's ungracious speech...accusing them of having 'ungracious' speech.

In addition Mark promotes authors with New Age teachings and therefore shows his lack of discernment.

Truth and Zeal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Truth and Zeal said...


I think you should read my last comment again, every single word. If you did read every single word, it would've answered all your questions and comments.

When I said Denise could "show more grace in your speech," I mean being loving in the way you communicate your words. However, I agree with you that Driscoll could use better choice of words in his sermons. But that's not the point, Denise's manner of critique is the point.

You stated:
"So she trust Steve Camp's quoting of Mark Driscoll's book. You automatically distrust her. which is worse?"

(On a side note, I do subscribe to Erick Raymond and Steve Camp's blog, so I am informed of what they write.)

When did I say I distrust her? Please don't put words in my mouth. I did ask why we should believe her when we know nothing about her. It's easy for people to hide behind a username on a computer and criticize and chop off the heads of others. I mean she criticized MacArthur for being friends with Piper and stated "that's a problem." What audacity for someone to say that? Do I tell you who you should be friends with? That's like me saying, "You're friends with Denise? Now, that's going to be a problem. You may become a legalist just like her: all head, no heart." That would be unfair of me to say that about you or even her, correct?

Don't you see the arrogance for some unknown blogger to discredit some preacher like that, especially for someone (like MacArthur), who's 40 years of ministry speaks for itself.

My point in the earlier comment was what you just clearly indicated now about how she trusted other people's quoting of the book. Her information was based on second-handed sources and not based on her own review of the book. There's nothing wrong with quoting from people like Raymond or Camp, but at least Raymond actually read the book. He thoroughly did his homework before making strong claims about it. If you read his review (the link that Denise provided), he actually does admit that he enjoyed Driscoll's other books and benefited from his ministry, yet he just didn't like this recent book. He commends and critiques Driscoll. I do not see him quick to label Driscoll as "poison", "heretic" or "false teacher".

My point is that Denise is too haste to "pigeonhole" someone with a label. When you critique someone, you commend them for the good things they have done and correct them for the incorrect things they have done. It should be a balance of both. I have yet to read any commendation on her blog. It's basically a firing squad. I understand if she was talking about Benny Hinn. His doctrine and actions are both incorrect. Basically, after reading her blog entries, this seems to be the impression I'm getting from her: Driscoll = bad, Keller = bad, Sproul = bad, Piper = bad, MacArthur = must be bad, since he's friends with Piper and eventually he will be bad. Doesn't this just seem absurd to you? I have listen to countless number of their sermons. One small tidbit of some quote taken out of its context does not invalidate their character or their ministry.

I did look up those quotes Denise listed in this blog entry. Actually, I have the book. I never said those quotes were inaccurate. What I'm saying is that she based her opinions on other people's opinions and not reviewing the sources herself. She is basically inheriting the bias of other people and not her own thoughts and words.

I never did say I defended Driscoll. Like I said before, you haven't really read my comments word-by-word. I specifically said that I'm not defending Driscoll. His own ministry speaks for itself. My point is that Denise should thoroughly (and not just being "familiar" as Denise states in an earlier comment, I mean thoroughly) research someone before you attempt to assassinate their character or discredit them in a public blog. It's one thing if she did it privately, but people need to be more responsible when providing information to the public.

Denise: What is your joy and happiness? What things do you delight in? Talk about it. Blog about it. From reading your blog entries, I'm getting the impression you're just a grumpy person. Do you plan on being the next Ann Coulter? Her outspoken and critical comments about other politicians have provided her with a negative reputation, when she could have used more tact in her public speeches.

Dan (T&Z)

Fusion! said...

Denise, where IS your grace towards Mark? Indeed have you read the book? Does it teach doctrines not fitting with scripture? I know his language is not the best at times (something he has since apologized for) but he's not a heretic. Indeed,his current series on Doctrine looks very much solid. I might add, he has gone out of his way recently to say that he would never have Maclaren, Piagett etc.. speak at his church. Lighthouses' research is outdated, and misleading.

Anna said...

I realize I'm coming into this conversation a bit late, but I feel that Driscoll has really been unfairly represented here. If you were to take the time to listen to and read Driscoll you would see that his view of Christ is completely contrary to what your post implies. Driscoll's sharp tongue is sometimes too harsh, but often it is exactly what is needed. Sometimes I think he uses language for it's shock value. I have listened to MANY Driscoll podcasts. I would really encourage you to give him a fair shot. Those quotes about Christ were quotes used to draw attention to Christ's incredible stand as being counter-culture. Everything He did was diametrically opposed to the Pharisaic culture in which He lived. Driscoll uses these "irreverent" words to illustrate the view of the world towards Christ. That is how the world ought to view us. We are radically opposed to the system of the world as was Jesus. I do not totally agree with Driscoll. I could give you several things to disagree with. However, I think that there are many people who would have good reason to disagree with me. In fact, in a couple years I will probably disagree with myself. We all have room to grow. If you follow Driscoll you know that he has acknowledged that. He is very willing to apologize, take the blame, and improve. Don't allow yourself to get caught up in your own traditional views that you view anyone with a different opinion as "poison." When there is an incorrect view of the gospel, by all means, expose and separate from it (i.e. Emerging/ent, Prosperity, etc.) However, be careful when you are dealing with methodology that you avoid being overly critical.

kcandkara said...

You'll prob delete this so I'll keep it short. You mis quote Driscoll. You need to pray about this. Seriously you are wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off base. Sounds to me like your nick name is fitting...."suffering"

With love and laughter,

Miriam said...

Here's the thing. When you play the "they aren't even really Christian/saved" card, especially when you have clearly not done your own research and/or are new to a ministry, you automatically forfeit the game.

The title of your post implies that Driscoll is not worshipping the True Jesus. So... you're questioning his salvation because you didn't like some few quotes out of a book somebody ELSE read? Using words like heretic, poison, etc. implies unsaved as well. For future reference, you might tread lightly & do your homework before using the words, "wolf", "goat" and "false teacher".

You have lost all credibility.

Denise said...


No, I want others to see what a Driscoll fan looks like, so I'm happy to post your personal insults.

Instead of explaining how Driscoll is biblically correct and I'm wrong, you want to insult me (you don't even have my nick name correct, but hey, that's ok).

Telling me to "pray about this" when its documentation straight from the man's book, plus all his disgusting remarks about other things including his sexually explicit topics and language, is something YOU should be doing.

Scripture clearly says this man is NOT qualified for the pulpit. If you can't see that, then you have very little fear of God and His Word in you and you need to stop telling those who stand for Truth to "pray about this" when in fact it is YOU who needs to pray about your X-rated man and your defense of such unholiness.

Denise said...

Certainly Miriam, you didn't give me credibility to beging with, I'm sure. So any "loss" of credibility in your eyes isn't saying much, I'm sure.

For you to defend a man who's one of THE most filthiest, sexually explicit, sex-obssessed, cussing men who loves to demean Jesus Christ by saying such UNholy things about Him, and wear a picture of Him on his t-shirt, shows the man is absolutely a wolf and UNFIT for the pastorship.

Defending Driscoll actually says a lot about those who defend him. It shows a low view of Scripture on things like: the FEAR of God, holiness in speech, faithfully preaching the Word "as taught", unchanging and clear Truth in Scripture, speech free from explicit language, and all the qualifications Scripture gives for elders.

Such man-centeredness is absolutely anti-biblical.

vimbai mugo said...

i have to say its very sad that a men who has such a following would say something like this,this men has no fear of God neither does he have the spirit of God 1corin12;3 one speaking in the spirit of GOD EVER SAYS"JESUS IS ACCURSED"....and from what this men says about Jesus we could conclude that he says Jesus is accursed.he plays fast and loose with scripture its so sad.

vimbai mugo said...

anyone in support of Mark Driscol i would say should examine yourself the bible say 2john1;10 if anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching do not receive him in your house or welcome him..and read from verse 1 of 2 john 1 to knw wat teaching he was talking about...

debfore said...

It continues to amaze me that so many will defend someone who speaks so flippantly against the LORD Jesus Christ. There needs to be less man worship and more LORD worship, and perhaps they too would be offended by that which is against a Holy God.
Love in Christ sister....keep up the good work in discerning, exposing and warning.
in Christ, debi

Denise said...

I so agree Debi. And thank you so much for your kind words of encouragement. May the Lord continue to strengthen you too, as you battle for the Truth for His glory! It's always good to hear from you, btw!