Diversifying, Not Disintegrating

The wind that once filled the sails of many, if not most, members of the church of Christ has died down. The wind which was strong and steady was the wind of certainty that an honest reading of scripture would produce a unified Christianity which would render denominations pointless, or at least defenseless in debate. Quick access to truth (or should I say Truth?) was assumed. Truth was considered an obvious object which required only observation. Once observed, truth was self-evident.

This kind of optimism has waned for many in churches of Christ and completely died for others. Many have set up their lived experience of spirituality against the simple notions of truth espoused by the Restoration Movement and been left wanting, or worse, buried in guilt because something must be wrong with them and their experience.

Although some of these disillusioned members have either moved on to other churches who do non-denominational “bettter” than churches of Christ or have just had their faith evaporate, there are many more (I hunch) that have remained within the bounds of the Restoration Movement fellowship. Many are in various stages of a theological shedding process while maintaining the social networks via their churches.

In short, the optimistic (perhaps naive) impetus of the Restoration Movement, that of simple and quick access to an easily understood truth, may be what got the movement going in the early 1800’s, but it can be said with growing confidence that this same notion is not what is keeping it going today. Churches of Christ are diversifying.

Diversity on matters of worship and “women’s roles” are well documented. Diversity on epistemology (ways of knowing what is true) is less well documented. It can no longer be said that the typical church of Christ person knows truth because they read it in the Bible. Although the Bible is probably considered the primary cource of truth for the typical member, it is now not alone and the exclsuive source of truth. Many people who have no desire whatsoever to leave churches of Christ have learned about how to know something is true by the Experiencing God bible study and toehr sources which suggest truth is not contained only in scripture. Some have a special prayer language through which they believe God reveals truth. Some find Jesus through service in poor urban areas – it is their truth. Some have found truth in nature while others have seen it in the wonders of science. Going further, there are many people in churches of Christ who believe that there is a lot less truth out there, but that the Truth that is there is bigger and even more important than ever.

Spiritualities (and I do mean it plural) have emerged within churches of Christ which transcend the simple, yet confining, pattern which evolved out of the early pioneer’s efforts.

The range of spiritualities of members of churches of Christ has diversified. Churches, though many leaders and members might not be aware of it, rely more heavily on social networks and relationships as a means by which not to lose members than they do on members’ theological agreement. Theological and spiritual diversity represented in churches of Christ, were it fully known, would shock most members. Some would be pleasantly shocked while others would be devastated.

What is so ironic (and beautiful) is that even though the Restoration Movement has a long history of the necessity of theological agreement as the operating system of unity (which has a dismal record for causing untiy), the strength it has for maintaining its existence rests in the relationships that have been developed wihtin that context of a failed plan for unity. God is able to take flawed theology and redeem it.

Churches of Christ are not disintegrating in this increasingly postmodern era, they are diversifying.


Feedback of all kinds is welcomed here. Please be respectful of everyone who writes and comments on this blog. Disagreement is welcome. Disrespect is not.


Tags: , , , , , ,

28 Responses to “Diversifying, Not Disintegrating”

  1. Don Prather Says:

    I appreciate sincere searching – I join with the sincere searcher who said, “Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief.” I think that is me.

    That being said, I’m afraid you have missed something important in your search (or I have missed my meds).

    Just because society shifts the definition of “truth” all over the place and identifies multiple and conflicting sources of truth does not mean that we cannot know the truth.

    Truth is not a societal construct. Consequently, society’s confusion about truth does not deconstruct truth’s meaning.

    Truth is a Bible doctrine. Jesus referred to truth. Oddly (this is sarcasm) Jesus did not engage in the kind of meandering discussion about truth that you indulge. My point: I do not hear anything like your “multiple spiritualities”/”lived experience”/yadayadayada (not sarcasm; just a manner of speaking) in John 8:32. That passage certainly sets forth a simple and easily understood truth, whether espoused by the restoration movement or not.

    Let’s make a deal: conduct this discussion without mentioning the restoration movement. If you do, the current epistemological malaise contrasts with Jesus’ confidence that the truth can set us free. You see, mediating the discussion through 19th century preachers actually muddles the discussion, and the debate is actually between Jesus and the prophets of epistemological emptiness.

    How refreshing to believe that we can know the truth and that the truth shall set set us free. This simplicity is especially refreshing when compared to your complicated assertion regarding flawed theology, failed unity, diversification in increasingly postmodern times, and -oh yes – bigger truth (?).

  2. Don Prather Says:

    PS: “Disputing, not Disparaging”

  3. fajita Says:

    Don, thanks for the response. I agree that mediating the conversation through preachers from the days of yore does muddle things a bit – and that is just part of my point. Your line about truth and society is powerful.

    You said:
    “Just because society shifts the definition of “truth” all over the place and identifies multiple and conflicting sources of truth does not mean that we cannot know the truth.”

    I agree with you today and I agree with you 200 years ago when the RM pioneers were doing the same thing with truth that people are doing today. campbell and Stone are not closer to Truth than today’s leaders. Their take on truth back then was engulfed in a social and cultural philosophy every bit as much as it is today. I can’t leave out our religious ancestors when they were just as vulnerable to societal infleunce as people are today – maybe even more so.

    I do believe we can know the truth as Jesus stated. And i belive it will set us free as Jesus stated. But I do not believe knowing truth is tantamount to knowing facts. It is more like getting to know a person. No person is ever fully and completely known by another, but there are increasing amounts of knowing.

    Jesus is truth. Jesus is also a person. Getting more into Jesus and therefore God is whole different thing than knowing what scripture says and agreeing with the dominant or institutionally (historically) prescribed interpretation of it.

    Please volley back. this has the makings of a good conversation.

  4. Don Prather Says:

    The invitation to “volley back” is a bit off-putting. While I dearly love thoughtful reflection, soulful discussion, and humble presentation, “volleying” brings to mind rancorous discussions that are more about heat than warmth. In those volleys, the heat of disagreement just intensifies the heart burn.

    But to blog volley with a fajita is inviting! My South Texas roots allow
    me to volley with a fajita with a smile on my face (and with salsa running down my chin). In this kind of volley, the spicey heat intensifies the flavor.

    You might be disappointed with my volleying though. Your’s is the style of a chef, philosophical and theological. I’m just an old backyard book, chapter, and verse barbequer. That is not said with pride, nor with any assumption that my conclusions are necessarily correct or that my dishes are necessarily superior. (I have wondered, though, and have just about concluded that many differences among our brethren result from different styles of cooking thoughts).

    You seem to be saying that, yes – the truth can be known, but that knowing truth is more like coming to know the nuances of a person in a relationship than knowing facts.

    Volley #1 – there is great epistemological distance betwen grasping facts and appreciating another person.

    The very best Mexican food restaurants have salsa bars that offer a whole range of sauces from droopy mild to searing hot with “just right” options in between. Similarly, I believe that we are not limited to two opposing metaphors for knowing the truth: either grasping facts or appreciating people.

    Neither facts nor human relations adequately represent the truth. I think that knowing the truth falls somewhere between grasping and appreciating. I propose another representation of knowing the truth: counting the cost (Lk. 14:28) before making the ultimate investment of your life (Mt. 13:46).

    Extending the metaphor goes somthing like this; (1) like a prospectus, the Bible presents opportunities and obligations, (2) we invest by writing the check with “obedience of faith” and “obedience to the faith,” so (3) the knowing is the weighing of and deciding on in between. We will surely come to appreciate the opportunities described in the Bible more and more, but the obligations remain unchanged (though we can and should increase our respect for Christian obligations – respect intensifies but does not alter understanding).

    Volley #2 – Bible passages speak of truth in ways that have been fairly characterized as “absolute and attainable” (sorry – but those old barbeque tools sometimes come out). Examples: Ps. 117:2, 119:42, 119:151; Jn. 8:32, 17:17; Rom. 2:8; II Cor. 6:7. Another example: pickled cabbage and poached tilapia fajitas really arn’t fajitas – they just don’t fit the standard definition.

    As I see it, there are two great human challenges; (1) to mix love with truth, and not to mix-up truth, and (2) to weigh and decide honestly, and not to rely on dominant, institutional interpretations.

    The book, chapter, and verse idealist in me (yes – we can be idealists, and good cooks too!) continues to believe that by not mixing up the truth and by interpreting honestly and prayerfully, a very high degre of unity will result, especially if we are careful to add love for each other and avoid prescribed interpretations.

    Too much volley?

  5. fajita Says:

    Sorry to sound off putting. Meant to sound playful.

    Good metaphors, especially the awful fish fajita image. Yuck!

    I am thinking about what makes a good steak and what makes a bad one. Clearly, rotten meat makes a bad steak. It is unhealthy and could get you really sick. Also, I recall one time I went to Baker’s Square and ordered a steak, medium. It was cooked to death. I like some pink and there s no trace of pink. It was tough and had no flavor.

    To me, this was a bad steak, hardly worth wasting my capacity for calories. However, I know people who would eat this very same steak and praise it like crazy.

    So, part of what makes a good steak has to do with the steak itself and part of it has to do with the steak consumer. Ah, but then there is a context that might matter. If I am feasting on a fabulous steak which was cut out of a stolen cow from a poor family, and I knew of the steak’s origin and was eating it right in front of the family whose cow was stolen, there might be some new definitions about what a “good” steak really is. The meat itself might be good, the consumer might love the way it is prepared, but are there not still complications with the steak?

    I am not going to get into a line by line analysis of the steak metaphor, but saying that the Bible is the truth is like saying steak is good. Well, yes the bible is truth, but there is perspective, there is context. The Bible has been used for so much good, but has also been used for murder. I am most confident that the people who have used it for murder claimed that they were coming about it honestly.

    Shifting gears slightly: Unity through honest approach to scripture might be attainable for the privileged who have not bee abused by ungodly people (many of whom have abused in the name of god), who have a social/family/cultural context which does not punish such approaches, and who have had a background that allows for accepting that the Bible is true.

  6. Don Prather Says:

    Wow – now we’re really (metaphorically) cooking!

    From fajitas and steaks to truth and human responsibility – this is some ground we are covering.

    By the way, I wasn’t really put off by your invitation to volley. I accept invitations to volley only after reprocessing memories of unpleasant volleys. I sorta have to recalibrate my approach to make sure that I approach important subjects with an appropriate balance of playfulnes and seriousness.

    Volley #3 – the steak metaphor doesn’t work for me, and I fear that it doesn’t work at all.

    In the first place, the steak metaphor doesn’t work for me because, as your evocative writing led me to mentally savor mouthfuls of sirloin, I could actually hear my doctor’s warning and my wife’s (sweet) nagging about reducing my red meat intake.

    In the second place, we have come to a terribly criticle place.

    I mentioned earlier that I have just about reached the conclusion that diferent ways of cooking thoughts seem to be at the heart of many of the diferences among our brethren. Your steak metaphor falls right on that plate.

    Can an individual’s assesment of the quality of a steak be influenced by a zillion factors? Absulutely. In matters of individual taste, only individual taste matters.

    Can an individual’s grasp of God’s word be influenced by a zillion factors? Absolutley. Upbringing, life experiences, even abusive experiences (it is those memories that make me tentative about volleying) do create lenses through which all other experiences (secular and spiritual) are seen.

    Here’s the question though: even though we all have our lenses, are our lenses valid outside of ourselves to such an extent that lense focused conclusions about the word of God are valid.

    My counseling background causes me to honor the impact of experience on perceptions – YES, YES, YES, WE HAVE LENSES. I certainly have mine.

    My Bible study background causes me to ask with respect, however, are our lenses so important that they should be honored as having equal significance with the word as we struggle to understand the word?

    This is what I hear in your steak metaphor – an I miSTEAKen?

    As early Christianity struggled to develop and maintain the unity of the spirit and the bond of peace, Christians were called on to be neither Jews nor Greeks. More than national identity had to be dropped as fellowship increased among both bond and free. Neither male nor female lenses were more more important than being one in Christ.

    Were there many lenses among the first generation of converts? Certainly there were. Were those lenses difficult to acknowledge and factor out. Certainly they were. Are there lenses today. Certainly, but they are to be saccrificed just as male Greek slave owners of the first century had to saccrifice their particular and peculiar mind to the mind of Christ.

    I do not believe that acknowledging all lenses and polishing them clear so that we can through them to the Gospel is easy. I just believe that without polishing out and seeing through all of our particular and peculiar presuppositions and prejudices, we will all end up cooking thoughts in different kitchens.

    Allow me to speak in terms of Phillippians 3:12+, of apprehending, of pressing, and of the mark. No Christian can ever count themselves as having apprehended. Faithfulness is found in pressing toward the mark. Every individual press is a press against past experiences, including individual lenses. But while each press is individual, the mark remains absolute and unchanging.

    Some among us have not sufficiently honored the challenges of different presses.

    Perhaps others among us have honored the challenges of different presses too much, confusing the struggle toward the mark with the mark itself.

    Woah – I’m thinking too hard!

  7. fajita Says:

    Good reflections. As I stated in my previous comment, there is bad steak. Steak which is unhealthy, rotten, diseased etc. It is always bad for everyone. This indicates that there is a truth.

    As for the lenses, we agree that everyone has them.

    In reference to lenses you said:

    “are our lenses so important that they should be honored as having equal significance with the word as we struggle to understand the word?”

    I am skeptical that a human is ever capable of peeking around their lenses. And if such a feat were ever accomplished, then there is another lens that may be just as difficult if not impossible to become aware of. It is not so much a case of honoring lenses as it is underestimating their influence.

    Could it be that God is not only trying to remove lenses, but at the same time does not require lens removal in order for divine/mortal collaborations? Could it be that God uses these broken lenses redemptively while trying to remove them (perhaps over centuries) in order to move the story onto new stages and venues? Could it be that God uses or allows one set of lenses to emerge in order to expose another set of lenses?

    About the word, “mark.” The word mark, in my mind is a small, narrow, and very specific thing. What if the mark were the size of the sun? What if it were a huge thing? What if we could each hit the mark, but in different places?

    If I have a telescope which can see the sun and I use data collected using that telescope to try to shoot a rocket to the sun, I am likely off because the telescope is not perfect. I still mght hit the sun because the telescope was adequte. I still perfectly hit the mark although I used imperfect means by which to accomplish the task.


  8. Don Prather Says:

    The sun metaphor, now that’s one that I can really buy.

    I buy it because, unlike personal tastes in food, the sun exists as an absolute.

    I buy it because, like the mark to which you refer, hitting or missing the sun is an absolute (perhaps so absolute that all human frames of reference can by it be overcome?).

    I buy it because, even if we disagree about how big or small the sun looks, the sun is still the sun. This is important because unkind misuses of terms like “conservative” or “liberal” (even “traditional” or “postmodern”) are, at best, relative measures reflecting the perspective of the one using the term. The sun SEEMS a small or a large target depending on one’s perspective.

    Without reference to doctrinal specifics, are we on the same menu here? Can we agree that the truth exists in God’s word and that we can hit or miss the mark established in/by the word?

    Such agreement is most fundamental.

    Two sidebars:

    1. Among my favorite passages is I John 1:5-9 which releives the redeemed from the impossible burden of perfect mark hitting.

    2. Can we also agree that, just as discussions such as these are muddled and not effectively mediated through the RM, neither is the search for truth effectively mediated through painful experiences of abuse at the hands of aggressive brethren?

    3. I am enjoying our volleys. I can only rarely devote time to such as this. I’m a school person and summers provide the bliss and blessing of being between employment obligations.

  9. Don Prather Says:

    PS: where in the world is it 7:45 P.M.?

  10. fajita Says:

    Don, my time stamp is messed up and I need to fix it. I am on Central Time.

    Yes, we can in general agree on the sun as a metaphor. I really like it because there is a TRUTH about the sun, some of which we know, much of which we do not – though we are getting better.

    Daily we enjoy and live off the endless benefits of the sun just like people enjoy and live off the benefits of truth. At the same time, sometimes the sun isn’t obvious (at night; on cloudy days) and sometimes it is obvious less (winter) or more (summer).

    Then there are the weird and wonderful things about the sun that we observe, but do not understand. Why and how does a storm onthe sun interact with ions in the atmosphere to create the Northern Lights?

    The sun is also constant in many ways, but dynamic in others. I think truth might be the same way.

    About mediated conversations, I have to say that it depends on who I am talking to. One of the great failures of the RM is that is concoted a non-traditional tradition, a noncredal creed. it intentionally set up a system by which history was easy to forget. That is not only isolating from otehr Christians and the conversation that could be had, but also a set up for future failures whch resemble past failures. I have a strong belief that the way forward must in some way be informed by the past – even if the past is an example of what not to do.

    I am a school person as well and summers are great blogging time. Peace brother.

  11. Don Prather Says:

    Wait a second – if you are a school person and you are writing about steak (remember, I just borrowed your metaphor) you must be an administrator! Me, I’m just a middle school counselor. I chop up cheap cuts and spread them across dozens of fajitas! My Life Skills teaching wife has to take in laundry (just kidding).

    Since we live at the middle of the universe on a flat earth (just kidding again) I’m becoming a little tentative with the sun metaphor.

    This is actually what I asked, “Can we agree that the truth exists in God’s word and that we can hit or miss the mark established in/by the word?”

    Check one: [ ] yes; [ ] no.

    I fully stipulate (a) the blood of Christ continuing to cleanse walkers in the light of misses, and (b) maturing growth in grace and in knowledge.

    If this seems definitive, then we might be getting somewhere.

    Without elevating two school people to the level of brotherhood representatives, this conversation might very seriously be engaging the heart of our heartache.

  12. Don Prather Says:

    Before I got onto the counseling side of things, I was a social studies teacher. History then and roots are important to me.

    But not that important.

    The seed is the word; God gives the increase after planting and watering; we reap what we sew.

    Back to the idealism I spoke of, I honestly enjoy the freedom from roots, and the confidence in the seed that like produces after its own kind.

  13. fajita Says:

    Ha! I am a PhD student. I do not eat steaks.

    I am going to check the YES box, but with a series of asterisks.

    #1 Defining what God’s word is would end up being a long conversation which from my perspective includes but is not by any stretch limited to the Bible.

    #2 The threshhold for truth is individualized. e.g. where much is given, much is required.

    #3 Truth is as much or more a process as it is a selection of content pieces.

    I could further, but in general, we can agree.

  14. Fajita Says:

    Don, I just re-read my post and realized that my “ha!” could be misunderstood. I was laughing at your thinking I could be an administrator.

  15. Don Prather Says:

    No worries – I think we are well beyond worrying about each other’s “Has!”

    Stand by for a coincidence – I’ll receive my Ed.D. in December.

    Sheesh – all the stereotypes fit: “out there” PhD; restrained and practical EdD. You don’t eat steak – don’t tell me that you are also a vegetarian!!!

    In a vacume, all of our stipulations and asterisks would be tedious. In the real world of brotherhood tensions, we come out of our corners slowly and only after protecting ourselves, don’t we?

    I am for some reason deeply pleased that we have reached agreement that the truth exists in God’s word and that we can hit or miss the mark established in/by the word, no matter how well-stipulated and asterisked that agreement might be.

    I feel as if I have pushed the discussion toward this agreement. I would be pleased for you to “lead on brother” regarding (a) truth not being limited to the Bible, (b) the truth threshold being individualized, and (c) truth as process. Asterisk: I’ll also look forward to the truely rewarding opportunity to volley in reply.

    By the way, I also preach “bi-vocationally.” There have been few blessings more deeply satisfying than providing a small church with something a bit better than low quality ministry. It saddens me to think that, sitting through my classes or sermons, you might have a heart attack and die.

    Central time zone huh?

    Central time zone here too. Curious about where – I’ll give you a hint: the humidity is about 100% just now and my mother-in-law has had me out trimming pine trees!

    As you address your asterisks, please also tell me why you are so intent on the RM.

  16. fajita Says:

    I’ll post about the asterisks. You might be in Houston.

    I am so intent on the RM because I am a son of the RM. The RM is my heritage, my people, and I care about them. THey are family to me in so many ways. I have hope for the RM. A little constructivist or postmodern infuence on the RM could redirect their 200 year old initial drive into something that could be appealing to 21st century people.

  17. Don Prather Says:

    If I was in Houston, I’d have many more choices for shopping and eating. You’re getting warm, and I’m still wringing wet from my morning walk.

    The RM are also my people. I have visited the grave of Andrew Prather in the Pipe Creek cemetary north of San Antonio. Bro. Andrew (1809-1882) was a pioneer Gospel Preacher in Central and South Texas and was probably one of “mine.”

    Two things have crossed my mind since our last volley (by the way, we should not feel obliged to volley any more regularly than our busy schedules allow): returning idealism and increasing discouragement.

    Idealism is easily pounded out of us. The hammer and anvil of daily living is totally pragmatic. Our volleys have rekindled an appreciation for this ideal and an appreciation in me that I still possess it: the truth shall make you free. Extended, I truely believe that all personal sins and brotherhood confusion can be overcome by what is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword. Idealism, by the way, is neither defensive or defeatist.

    But is that the clanging ring of a pragmatic problem I hear?

    I have to acknowledge some discouragement. How very distant we are from one another, Bro. Fajita. How very distant are those whose ideal is, on the one hand, based completely on the written word, and those, on the other hand, whose ideals are found in multiple spiritualities, truth not limited to the Bible, and truth processed through any number of lenses. Discouragement, by the way, is a personal feeling of challenge and not a caustic projection of blame.

    What would Andrew do?

  18. Asterisks: Introdcution « Emergent Church of Christ Says:

    […] “asterisks” flows from a rather pleasant conversation I have been having to this blog post with Don Prather. The title asterisks comes from a general agreement Don and I have that […]

  19. Don Prather Says:

    As I read across several blogs dedicated to these topics, I think I see a repeated theme. Pardon me for reading between the lines, but the theme seems to be “those mean-spirited conservatives really hurt me.” Some posts reference hurts that are at least three decades old.

    I would hate to think that the conclusion is somehow out there that only traditionally-minded conservatives can be hurtful. I would hate to think that really big conclusions are being influenced by this broad-brush prejudice.

    If that prejudice is out there (that only traditionally-minded conservatives can be hurtful) and if that thought is influencing conclusions, then the train of thought would go something like this: 1) conservatives are hurtful, 2) being hurtful is being bad, and (here’s the leap) 3) bad hurtful people must believe bad hurtful doctrines.

    Traditionally-minded conservatives have hurt me too. But they are not alone, and their hurts should not necessarily be attributed to what they believe. I have been slammed pretty hard by moderates and by liberals too, and once by a particularly sharp-tongued Baptist – that really crashes the prejudicial conclusion that only the traditionally-minded among our brethren can be hurtful.

    I think that ____ people hurt (insert any and all labels in the blank space). Another way of saying this is that people hurt (period). Extending this, our hurtfulness does not necessarily reflect on our doctrines and practices, and no conclusion should be drawn (logical or emotional) about doctrines or practices based on a hurtful act.

    I’ve been at this a while (talk about hurtful – the acknowledgement of years really hurts!) and I kinda look back on the hurts as a sad but common part of the human experience and the hurtful as being no more or less scoundrelly than I am.

    Would assuming that past hurts automatically negate the beliefs of those who did the hurting be an argument against the entire human race?

  20. Don Prather Says:

    Is your good/bad theology/people a reply?

  21. Fajita Says:

    Don, yes it was. Your point was great and I wanted to post about it.

  22. Don Prather Says:

    How come if get the blue goofy-looking guy icon?

  23. Don Prather Says:

    That “I get,” not “if get.”

  24. Don Prather Says:

    By the way, I am deep withim my dissertation and my involvement will be a bit hit or miss. Do not assume that I have become too discouraged to continue or that I have left the field blugeoned (bloggened?) and bloody.

  25. Don Prather Says:

    As to your proposition, Asterisk #1:

    a) Defining what God’s word is would end up being a long conversation which from my perspective includes but is not by any stretch limited to the Bible.

    b) Truth (and God’s word) is not limited to the Bible.

    There are several ways you could be taken. Listing them is a bit counterproductive. I’m goinmg to proceed as if I think that I understand you.

    In Psalm 119:30, 142, and 151, the Psalmist associates truth with God’s judgments, commandments, and law. Similarly, Jesus said, “Thy word is truth” (Jn. 17:17). What mistake would a reader of these passages make to believe that “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (II Pet. 1:3) are found in the Bible and that the Bible”thoroughly furnish(es) us unto all good works” (II Tim. 3:17)? I am excluding truth contained in mathmatical calculations, etc. from this discussion. I think that we are both concerninmg ourselves with the thruth that illuminates the pathway to God.

    As comfortanle as I am in my conclusion, I eagerly await your explanation.

  26. Don Prather Says:

    By the way – rural Liberty County Texas.

  27. lose weight fast how i lost Says:

    Hello, I check your new stuff daily. Your humoristic style is witty, keep doing what you’re doing!

  28. http://bearsrants.com/where-do-lice-come-from Says:

    I like looking through an article that will make people think.

    Also, many thanks for allowing me to comment!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: