Douglas Wilson

[Daisy]

I didn't have a problem with the video. They were responding to a specific question. While not politically correct, I don't completely disagree with it. Educated (not necessarily limited to college degrees) women are a help to their husbands and a benefit to their children. While it may not be the ONLY reason a woman could pursue higher education it is an answer that might would satisfy the patriarchal male (which is what the question seemed aimed at).

 

I readily admit to being a complementarian though.

 

Anyway, I don't agree with Doug Wilson for the reasons I stated earlier, but since I've never read anything by the man except for his blog (some posts I like and some I disagree with), I don't feel the same level of passion many of you feel.

[SweetBean]

I'm with you...though I never read his text on Slavery, from discussions in our church, where most have read his works, I always believed that he didn't "favor" slavery, as much as that he disapproved of common conceptions of the civil war. I have thought based on other internet writings that Doug Wilson believes that in time as the gospel was spread, reform would have come the same way that it did in England, without a civil war. I don't think he is advocating that we should still have slavery today.

 

I may have to read Black and Tan after all. :-/

He claims there were blessings from slavery. Race relations were never so good as when white folks owned black slaves:

 

Unexpected Blessings

But in spite of the evils contained in the system, we cannot overlook the benefits of slavery for both blacks and whites. We refer here to several matters of some importance.

First was the influence of Christianity. More than one slave lived to thank God for his servitude — despite all the hardships involved. Martin Jackson of Texas puts it this way: "I believe that slavery in this country, taking everything into consideration, was a Godsend for the slaves. The twenty million Negroes are descended from four million sent over from Africa. If it had not been for the slave traffic, we would still be living in Africa. I would be a heathen and my children would be heathens."41 More than one former slave had reason to stand in the place of the biblical Joseph and say, "Men meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." The slavery they were delivered from was far worse than any they suffered in this country.

Slavery produced in the South a genuine affection between the races that we believe we can say has never existed in any nation before the War or since. Whatever its failures, slavery produced in the South a degree of mutual affection between the races which will never be achieved through any federally-mandated efforts. Listen to a few examples:

George Fleming of Laurens, South Carolina said: "I longed to see Marse Sam Fleming. Lawd, chile, dat's de best white man what ever breathed de good air. I still goes to see whar he buried every time I gits a chance to venture t'wards Laurens. As old as I is, I still draps a tear when I sees his grave, fer he sho' was good to me and all his other niggers."42 And, with this use of the word nigger, it is important for us to remember the mutable nature of human language. What today constitutes a gross insult did not have the same connotations a century ago.

 

Clara Davis of Alabama said this:

 

 

 

 

Dem was de good ole days. How ! longs to be back dar wid my ole folks an' a playin' wid de chillun down by de creek. 'Taint nothin' lak it today, nawsuh.... Dey tells me dat when a pusson crosses dat ribber, de Lawd gives him whut he wants. I done tol' de Lawd I don't want nothin' much ... only my home, white folks. I don't think dats much to ax' for. I suppose he'll send me back dar. I been a-waitin' for him to call.

43

 

 

Adeline Johnson, Winnsboro, South Carolina: "I hope and prays to get to heaven. I'll be satisfied to see my Savior that my old marster worshiped and my husband preached about. I want to be in heaven with all my white folks, just to wait on them, and love them, and serve them, sorta like I did in slavery time. That will be enough heaven for Adeline."44

There is a nobility to these old servants that humbles us: Nicey Pugh says, "I was born a slave but I ain't neber been one. I'se been a worker for good peoples. You wouldn't calls dat bein' a slave would you, white folks?"

 

:ack2:

 

I am always shocked when I hear anyone defend slavery, or the confederate view, referring to the Civil War as the "War of Northern Agression".

[mommaduck]

He claims there were blessings from slavery. Race relations were never so good as when white folks owned black slaves:

 

 

 

:ack2:

 

I am always shocked when I hear anyone defend slavery, or the confederate view, referring to the Civil War as the "War of Northern Agression".

 

Thing is, there were black Christians in Africa! To claim that they didn't know about Christianity before coming to America is to show a lack of education in history elsewhere. I know there were at least Oriental (Ethiopian/Eritrean) Orthodox and Coptic (Egyptian) Orthodox. I'm sure the Roman Catholics had a foothold there as well. Oh, wait, have to remember...those aren't the *Right Kinds of Christian* :banghead:

 

 

btw, I do refer to it as the War of Northern Aggression; that's because I'm from the other side of the Mason-Dixon. Up here there is a plaque in the middle of Lancaster City that refers to the War of Southern Rebellion ;) So it goes both ways. Civil War is a nice middle, politically correct term. But it's known by the other two as well...legitimately it's just the take from each side.

Edited August 2, 2011 by mommaduck

[herbalgirl]

(p.s. I tried to sell that set on the boards not too long ago... I had forgotten how creepy they were! I am embarrassed. What do you do with weird books? I don't really want to put them in the thrift store in case some impressionable person picks them up and is damaged by them.)

 

Toss 'em? Burn them? I find the good 'ol circular file method works just fine! :)

 

Off to read the slavery article. I've never actually read it before and want to read from the source although having been in the Reformed world for quite some time and reading other things about him, I sort of understand what I'm in for. :glare:

 

Funny thing is, my dh's stepmom was out here helping us with the kids since I have a new baby. When she left, she gave us a copy of DW's Reforming Marriage. Arrghh. :glare: (how many of those faces can I put in this post? It needs quite a few!)

[MSNative]

Dorothy Sayers wrote the Lost Tools of Learning.

 

Whoops. Need to read more carefully. Going back to lurking. :)

[QuirkyKapers]

Dorothy Sayers wrote the Lost Tools of Learning.

 

 

You're right. Ugh! I'm getting Dorothy Sayers book and his mixed up.

 

Douglas Wilson wrote Recovering the Lost Tools of Learning:

An Approach to Distinctively Christian Education (Turning Point Christian Worldview Series)

[simka2]

I am particularly disturbed by WHY these two men feel that a college education is acceptable for women. I had no idea how completely opposed to their worldview I was until this. From the horse's mouth. Ahem.:lol:

http://www.canonwired.com/ask-doug/women-college/

 

Dh just watched it with me and said, "So, the whole reason a woman goes to college is to educate her sons, not to better herself." :glare:

 

Other than that, it was a very confusing video. There seemed to be a bit of "hedging" around things, and "couching" them in just the right why. I though the very first response was the best. That when asked a direct question about if women should go to college he typically responds with an indirect answer. Interesting and telling.

[YLVD]

:iagree:

 

Those views alone are enough to turn me off to anything else he might say.

 

:iagree: Absolutely disgusting

[justamouse]

Revolting human being.

 

Bill

:iagree:

 

I would consider his stance on women abusive.

[YLVD]

Yes, I just re-posted it in my last reply, too!

 

I read it and was utterly sickened by it. What a vile man.

[littleWMN]

I'm feeling kind of sorry we are using VP this year (self-paced online course). :001_huh:

[YLVD]

The main theme was that a woman should attend college because an ignorant wife is a burden to her husband. It was all about being prepared to be a help-meet and had nothing to do with the value of education for the female herself. It was very male oriented, as if a female does not have value outside of marriage and that the education was for the purpose of making her fit for marriage and not for sake of getting an education and developing her as a person.

 

I knew a preacher (UGH) one time that said this from the pulpit, "The only reason to send a girl to college is so she can get her M.R.S. degree and will be fit to raise boys." STUUUUUUUPID man....he was taken out of the sanctuary and fired by the deacons and church board. Open big, fat chauvenistic mouth, insert big, fat, chauvenistic mouth. Bye, bye job...bye, bye!

 

So if you watch the video, keep a barf bucket nearby in case you hurl!

 

Faith

 

I'm honestly and truly amazed that people actually believe this way. It enrages me.

[YLVD]

:iagree:

 

I would consider his stance on women abusive.

 

:iagree:

[tntgoodwin]

I am particularly disturbed by WHY these two men feel that a college education is acceptable for women. I had no idea how completely opposed to their worldview I was until this. From the horse's mouth. Ahem.:lol:

http://www.canonwired.com/ask-doug/women-college/

 

I don't really have any issues with what was said here.

 

I do disagree with his Federal Vision theology, and his legalism...which translates into his views on slavery. (Which I also do not agree with.)

 

I have no issue with his belief in "paleo-Confederatism."

 

I have yet to see evidence of his "patriarchism."

 

Thank you ALL for helping me learn more about this man.

 

I definitely don't think he is comparable to Fred Phelps. He doesn't seem hate-filled, just incorrect in some things.

[justamouse]

I read part of that, it made my hair stand on end. I really could go off on how it makes me feel right now, but it wouldn't sound too intelligent.

 

I'll just add a :confused:.

 

 

 

Throw them away. I love and adore real books, but I've never felt remorse about tossing a few books.

 

I couldn't even bring myself to resell Omnibus, I tore it up and round filed it.

[Mimm]

Haven't read that link yet. I was referring to the text Bill quoted. I will definitely be reading the original work.:)

 

And I agree, the plagiarism is unacceptable.

 

The plagiarism seems a little insignificant in light of the blatant racism. ;)

 

I don't really have any issues with what was said here.

 

I do disagree with his Federal Vision theology, and his legalism...which translates into his views on slavery. (Which I also do not agree with.)

 

I have no issue with his belief in "paleo-Confederatism."

 

I have yet to see evidence of his "patriarchism."

Thank you ALL for helping me learn more about this man.

 

I definitely don't think he is comparable to Fred Phelps. He doesn't seem hate-filled, just incorrect in some things.

 

Um, that entire video was evidence of his patriarchism. You may say that you agree with his patriarchal views. But just because you agree with them doesn't make them less patriarchal.

[tntgoodwin]

Okay, I swear that this is a completely sincere question and not an attempt to stir the pot.

 

If you are a Biblical literalist, how do you respond to Wilson's analysis of Biblical passages about slavery? It's my understanding that the vast majority of Christians who believe that the Bible is inerrant and literally true and applies to all times do not agree with Wilson's claim that there is nothing wrong with slavery as long as you treat your slaves well. I would really appreciate if you could lay out how the anti-all-slavery argument is made from a strict Biblical perspective - in short, what makes Wilson's argument anti-Biblical.

 

I promise that I will listen respectfully and not try to use any responses to draw analogies to other social issues, or to attack Christians of any stripe. I am just really curious and interested to know how people who share Wilson's premises about the Bible respond to his Biblical argument.

 

I am a Biblical literalist (I guess you could call me that.)

I disagree with his theology that applies the Old Testament law to modern day Christians. Therefore, I think slavery is completely 100% wrong. And I don't think Old Testament slavery is analogous to slavery in the USA.

 

However.

 

In the time it occurred, it was very common to makes slaves of the nations you conquered. I believe at times God commanded Israel to completely wipe out and kill all people of the enemy forces. It is not up to me to compare God to my personal moral ideas of good and evil. If God does or commands something, it is automatically good, since He is good.

[YLVD]

The plagiarism seems a little insignificant in light of the blatant racism. ;)

 

 

 

Um, that entire video was evidence of his patriarchism. You may say that you agree with his patriarchal views. But just because you agree with them doesn't make them less patriarchal.

 

 

:iagree:

 

It's very obvious and clear.

[CAMom]

The plagiarism seems a little insignificant in light of the blatant racism. ;)

 

Again, haven't read the link to the blatant racism yet. I'm not denying it's there. I just haven't had a chance to read it yet.;)

[tntgoodwin]

The plagiarism seems a little insignificant in light of the blatant racism. ;)

 

 

 

Um, that entire video was evidence of his patriarchism. You may say that you agree with his patriarchal views. But just because you agree with them doesn't make them less patriarchal.

 

No, that video was them discussing how they could explain his college educating women to "masculinists," which is what I imagine the same as patriarchists.

 

He may be patriarchistic, but that video does not show that.

[justamouse]

No, that video was them discussing how they could explain his college educating women to "masculinists," which is what I imagine the same as patriarchists.

 

He may be patriarchistic, but that video does not show that.

 

Yes, it actually does. But you can't see it because you're not looking from the other side of the fence.

[FaithManor]

Thing is, there were black Christians in Africa! To claim that they didn't know about Christianity before coming to America is to show a lack of education in history elsewhere. I know there were at least Oriental (Ethiopian/Eritrean) Orthodox and Coptic (Egyptian) Orthodox. I'm sure the Roman Catholics had a foothold there as well. Oh, wait, have to remember...those aren't the *Right Kinds of Christian* :banghead:

 

 

Please, allow me to join you in the head banging for I feel your pain!

:banghead::banghead::cursing::banghead::banghead:

 

Faith

[tntgoodwin]

Again, haven't read the link to the blatant racism yet. I'm not denying it's there. I just haven't had a chance to read it yet.;)

 

I haven't seen it either. Saying slavery is Biblical isn't by default racist.

 

http://www.canonwired.com/ask-doug/complementarianism/

[FO4UR]

I don't really have any issues with what was said here.

 

 

 

 

 

The video there does not even broach the idea that woman's life is of value to *HER.* Her life is only viewed as it's useful to her dh, her sons (not her daughters though), and to God (as translated by her dh...b/c even with a college degree she has no value in and of herself...and can't be trusted to interpret scripture).

 

In short, it IS a patriarchal view. Not to mention, it's just plain selfish/self-serving to think that one person lives only to serve another...women, slaves...all the same to some...

 

I'd rather scrape out my eyeballs with a spork than live with a man who held these beliefs! (...and I'm a theologically conservative Christian, married to a seminary grad minister...I've met a few of these folks in my time.;))

 

 

:auto: :lurk5:

[YLVD]

Yes, it actually does. But you can't see it because you're not looking from the other side of the fence.

 

:iagree:

 

Thank you for saying this. I wanted to after noticing that the poster is a male but was afraid of inciting a riot.

[tntgoodwin]

The video there does not even broach the idea that woman's life is of value to *HER.* Her life is only viewed as it's useful to her dh, her sons (not her daughters though), and to God (as translated by her dh...b/c even with a college degree she has no value in and of herself...and can't be trusted to interpret scripture).

 

In short, it IS a patriarchal view. Not to mention, it's just plain selfish/self-serving to think that one person lives only to serve another...women, slaves...all the same to some...

 

I'd rather scrape out my eyeballs with a spork than live with a man who held these beliefs! (...and I'm a theologically conservative Christian, married to a seminary grad minister...I've met a few of these folks in my time.;))

 

 

:auto: :lurk5:

 

My life has no value outside of how I can be used by, serve, and glorify God... does that make me a feminist?

[EthiopianFood]

My life has no value outside of how I can be used by, serve, and glorify God... does that make me a feminist?

 

Why do you educate your girls?

[tntgoodwin]

Why do you educate your girls?

 

So they can reach their potential and thus-

 

be used by, serve, and glorify God.

 

 

I think that is the role of all creation - to glorify God.

[FO4UR]

Yes, it actually does. But you can't see it because you're not looking from the other side of the fence.

 

:iagree:

 

 

 

 

My life has no value outside of how I can be used by, serve, and glorify God... does that make me a feminist?

 

 

Ah...to make this a true comparison in a hypothetical world...your WIFE sees no value in your life except in how you help her fulfill her role in serving and glorifying God. She wakes up one morning and decides that God told her that (fill in the blank...use your imagination:D) is what must be done to be obedient to God. If you disagree with HER, you are disagreeing with GOD (said in a deep preacher voice). You now have no voice. No worth. No thoughts or opinions of any worth....except on the rare occasion that your gracious wife decides to bestow an ear. That scenario would set up a family for worshiping the wife, not God....same can be said for the other way around...

[Mimm]

No, that video was them discussing how they could explain his college educating women to "masculinists," which is what I imagine the same as patriarchists.

 

He may be patriarchistic, but that video does not show that.

 

Yes, it does. The language is subtle but we all know that "women serving God in the role that He has called them to as women" means that women are to be at home as wives and mothers and no other options are acceptable. They have one role, not many options as to what they may do with their lives. You see, in a patriarchal view, you must defend the idea that women might go to college. If you already believe in women having the freedom to do whatever they wish with their lives, it's not a question that you would even need to ask. Why would it be brought up? Of course women may go to college just like men may go to college because they may find college useful in all the same ways men may find college useful. The unspoken half of that question is "Should women go to college since they are just going to be staying home and raising the kids anyway?"

[EthiopianFood]

So they can reach their potential and thus-

 

be used by, serve, and glorify God.

 

 

I think that is the role of all creation - to glorify God.

 

As girls, do they do this primarily when adults by serving their husbands, rather than having their own calling from God?

[tntgoodwin]

:iagree:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah...to make this a true comparison in a hypothetical world...your WIFE sees no value in your life except in how you help her fulfill her role in serving and glorifying God. She wakes up one morning and decides that God told her that (fill in the blank...use your imagination:D) is what must be done to be obedient to God. If you disagree with HER, you are disagreeing with GOD (said in a deep preacher voice). You now have no voice. No worth. No thoughts or opinions of any worth....except on the rare occasion that your gracious wife decides to bestow an ear. That scenario would set up a family for worshiping the wife, not God....same can be said for the other way around...

 

Right. That would be patriarchalism. You extrapolated a lot that I didn't see in that video...because it wasn't said.

[Mimm]

I haven't seen it either. Saying slavery is Biblical isn't by default racist.

 

http://www.canonwired.com/ask-doug/complementarianism/

 

Denying that Slavery in America was a horribly unjust and racist situation is racist.

[tntgoodwin]

Yes, it does. The language is subtle but we all know that "women serving God in the role that He has called them to as women" means that women are to be at home as wives and mothers and no other options are acceptable. They have one role, not many options as to what they may do with their lives. You see, in a patriarchal view, you must defend the idea that women might go to college. If you already believe in women having the freedom to do whatever they wish with their lives, it's not a question that you would even need to ask. Why would it be brought up? Of course women may go to college just like men may go to college because they may find college useful in all the same ways men may find college useful. The unspoken half of that question is "Should women go to college since they are just going to be staying home and raising the kids anyway?"

 

He was answering the question, not asking it. The people he was addressing the answer toward are the ones that have this view. That was very clear.

 

As girls, do they do this primarily when adults by serving their husbands, rather than having their own calling from God?

 

It depends. For some, their own calling from God is to be a wife and mother. For others it is not. How would I know what God's callings on my daughters are?

[FO4UR]

Right. That would be patriarchalism. You extrapolated a lot that I didn't see in that video...because it wasn't said.

 

 

Extrapolated? My gizzards!!!:tongue_smilie:

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[Mimm]

Right. That would be patriarchalism. You extrapolated a lot that I didn't see in that video...because it wasn't said.

 

No, that wasn't said in the video, they were very careful not to say those in the video but the language in the video makes it clear that the woman's education has value only in light of the value she brings to her husband and children.

[EthiopianFood]

The unspoken half of that question is "Should women go to college since they are just going to be staying home and raising the kids anyway?"

 

Just to play devil's advocate here, you could believe women should be home with the kids, and still believe a woman's mind can be used on its own accord, that a woman's interests are just as valuable as a man's. He could have said that yes, women should go to college, because women's minds need to be educated just a men's do, and that, even while at home, God might have a unique calling for them that can be carried out. This would be seen as very limiting to many women, but I am just pointing out that it doesn't have to be either/or.

[justamouse]

So they can reach their potential and thus-

 

be used by, serve, and glorify God.

 

 

I think that is the role of all creation - to glorify God.

 

It's not a wrong answer, but you're not teasing out what Douglas Wilson *didn't* say in that vid. Simka was right, he didn't answer straight, he danced around the answer and made it sound good-for a reason. He's counting on you to make assumptions-the ones he wants you to make so you'll line up with his beliefs.

 

Carry out his answers fully.

 

And Mimm is right, saying that is slavery wasn't unjust IS racist.

 

You have to start paying attention to what people *don't * say, but imply.

[Mrs Mungo]

Assuring people that the holocaust, enslavement of Africans or genocide of entire American Indian tribes is because God planned it that way is inherently racist. It is also against the Bible, which says we have free will.

[Mimm]

He was answering the question, not asking it. The people he was addressing the answer toward are the ones that have this view. That was very clear.

 

 

 

It depends. For some, their own calling from God is to be a wife and mother. For others it is not. How would I know what God's callings on my daughters are?

 

You are simply uninformed or willfully ignorant if you believe that he doesn't share those views. Please research more before you make such arguments.

 

If he wasn't patriarchal, his answer would resemble something like, "Of course girls should go to college! God may call them into many paths in their lives and their education may serve them well." Instead he only spoke of a woman's education in terms of how it benefits her husband.

[tntgoodwin]

Assuring people that the holocaust, enslavement of Africans or genocide of entire American Indian tribes is because God planned it that way is inherently racist. It is also against the Bible, which says we have free will.

 

So, automatically anyone who believes in the total sovereignty of God is a racist?

[Mimm]

Just to play devil's advocate here, you could believe women should be home with the kids, and still believe a woman's mind can be used on its own accord, that a woman's interests are just as valuable as a man's. He could have said that yes, women should go to college, because women's minds need to be educated just a men's do, and that, even while at home, God might have a unique calling for them that can be carried out. This would be seen as very limiting to many women, but I am just pointing out that it doesn't have to be either/or.

 

But he didn't say that, did he? :) He said that women should be educated because they must help their husbands and educate their children.

[justamouse]

You're gonna make my eyes bleed again, aren't you? *sigh*

[EthiopianFood]

It depends. For some, their own calling from God is to be a wife and mother. For others it is not. How would I know what God's callings on my daughters are?

 

Right, but if they DO get married, do you think their education is only for the benefit of their husbands' path in life? That is the difference.

 

I'm going WAY out on a limb here, but I get the impression that you just don't want to be associated with liberals. I have to tell you, it's not either/or. To admit one in your own camp is wrong on certain points doesn't mean you are admitting your own views are wrong. I'll go further on the limb and assume my saying that doesn't influence you in the least, but I'll say it for whatever it's worth. :001_smile:

[Mrs Mungo]

So, automatically anyone who believes in the total sovereignty of God is a racist?

 

Sovereignty and willful total control of everything are not the same thing.

 

Are you suggesting The Bible is incorrect and that we do not have free will?

[FO4UR]

No, that wasn't said in the video, they were very careful not to say those in the video but the language in the video makes it clear that the woman's education has value only in light of the value she brings to her husband and children.

 

 

 

:iagree: That's what I was trying to say over the :lol:. That is the essence of patriarchy...that a woman's life/education/whathaveyou only holds worth as it's useful to her dh.

 

 

It's not a wrong answer, but you're not teasing out what Douglas Wilson *didn't* say in that vid. Simka was right, he didn't answer straight, he danced around the answer and made it sound good-for a reason. He's counting on you to make assumptions-the ones he wants you to make so you'll line up with his beliefs.

 

Carry out his answers fully.

 

And Mimm is right, saying that is slavery wasn't unjust IS racist.

 

You have to start paying attention to what people *don't * say, but imply.

 

 

:iagree: Take things out to their logical conclusion.

 

 

 

Would you want your dd's at the mercy of a man who only saw her as a tool for him to use? (be it her mind, body, or soul?)

 

 

 

My dh has a little saying he likes to keep prominent in his office. It reads, "People are not a means to fulfill my ministry. People ARE my ministry." If every man would look at his wife that way (and if every wife would look at her dh that way)...what a wonderful world it would be. People aren't stuff.

[EthiopianFood]

But he didn't say that, did he? :) He said that women should be educated because they must help their husbands and educate their children.

 

Certainly, I was just making an argument for the idea's sake, not for Doug Wilson's. I was taking it further. I don't think tnt is arguing to defend DW, I think he's arguing something else, and I was trying to bridge those ideas. This is just how my mind works, and it doesn't always make sense online. :lol:

[tntgoodwin]

You are simply uninformed or willfully ignorant if you believe that he doesn't share those views. Please research more before you make such arguments.

 

If he wasn't patriarchal, his answer would resemble something like, "Of course girls should go to college! God may call them into many paths in their lives and their education may serve them well." Instead he only spoke of a woman's education in terms of how it benefits her husband.

 

Wilson: ..We bump up against, sometimes, unfortunately, the assumption that some people have, that women ought not to go to college... How would you answer it?

 

Atwood: Basically point out, all the other expectations the Bible has of women - that they be a good help-mate to their husband, that they help nurture their children,. All of these things...assume that the wife, the mother, is equipped to do so. A man who has an ignorant wife does not have a help-mate. He has an anchor...

 

Wilson: As I've sometimes pointed out to, I call them masculinists - sort of a counterpart to feminists...the level of education your daughter recieves, will be the level of education your grandson receives...

 

Seems very clear that Wilson is setting himself apart from what he calls "masculinists."

[Mrs Mungo]

Seems very clear that Wilson is setting himself apart from what he calls "masculinists."

 

Can you even read what you just posted? You only need to educate your daughter so that she can educate your grandSON. You don't do it for her benefit, not for the glory of God, not for the betterment of mankind, but only to further the education of your descendants.

[proudmamma]

Okay, now I'm leary of using Omnibus...thanks! ;) Is anyone still using Omnibus (and liking it) in spite of Doug Wilson's input?