This teaching is taken from my book “Beaten, Battered, Bruised & Blessed” (Christians Recognizing and Responding to Domestic Violence) more information can be found at www.c21c.org My prayer is it will help you in Pastoral ministry.
Confronting Domestic Violence Biblically
The issue of domestic violence when considered in a biblical context creates, for those seeking to minister to victims and perpetrators, a number of dilemmas, in particular, reconciliation.
In this section, I, with the help of Pastor Harry Letson, will set the issues involved in domestic violence in their biblical context to broaden church leader’s/worker’s understanding and hopefully prepare them to deal with instances of domestic violence.
Godly Submission.
The “Christian perpetrator” will often abuse the biblical teaching of headship and submission not because he wants to obey God but simply because he wants his wife to obey him. The woman who passively allows her husband/partner to abuse her physically and verbally may be simply and sincerely attempting to follow the teachings of 1 Peter 3:1-6. Her silent response may be because she believes to speak out would only result in even more abuse or because people, and often Christians, will not believe her. Whatever the reason, it needs to be communicated from the pulpit and understood in the pews that Peter was teaching about a Godly submission that calls husbands to be the servant leader God made him to be. Peter’s aim in this passage was never to condone a perpetrator’s ungodly lust for power and control that Jesus condemned (Mk. 10:42-43; 1 Pet. 3:7).
It is a dangerous misconception that women must simply comply with their husband’s wishes and that this is suffering as Jesus did. Jesus’ suffering was for the spiritual good and well-being of others. Jesus wasn’t indulging the evil actions of His enemies and submitting to their selfish whims, Jesus was submitting to his Father for his glory and honour.
RECONCILIATION IS POSSIBLE
There can be no doubt reconciliation is possible, Jesus’ ministry on this earth was all about our reconciliation to God. Generally, when there has been long term abuse in a relationship, reconciliation is not instant. The process of restoration is slow and arduous. There are of course no simple methods to follow that guarantees success. Our goal when ministering in a domestic violence situation, should always be reconciliation. However, we must accept that we will not always score and when we fail to win reconciliation we must seek to minister the grace and mercy of God.
Reconciliation is not encouraging a woman to return to an abusive cycle. If there is continuing abuse then there cannot be a reunion. Reconciliation to God requires the end of hostility on our part, For the offender, it requires a turning away from the old way of life and embracing the new life with its godly principles and values. (Eph. 2:11-18). In a reunion after domestic violence, reconciliation means an end of the former hostility on the part of the abuser. Reconciliation means that he must do everything required to ensure that there is never a return to the former destructive and abusive lifestyle of the past.
In the pastoral care of a victim and perpetrator who seek to be reconciled, I believe the following guidelines will help;
Reconciliation is a Slow Process that requires the following;
Repentance of their sin against God and their victim.
Resolve with fruit, when pressure is on they are self controlled.
Relearning of behaviour that excludes violent reactions.
Re-assessment of the reunion, don’t think everything is OK after a prayer.
Reconciliation is a Two Way Process (not just all the abuser)
Take action against the abuser. It may simply be to tell someone or even leave. Those who do take action are less likely to be abused again.
Fear should no longer be in control. Victims need to be encouraged to take some control over their lives.
Forgive and sacrifice vengeance. If the victim is always looking to get their own back then reconciliation will never take place.
Rebuilding a relationship damaged by domestic violence will and must cross over the river of unforgiveness to forgiveness. Forgiveness may seem like they are letting the perpetrator off the hook for what they’ve done. The pattern of forgiveness spoken of in Luke 17:3-4, however, makes it clear that forgiveness is also lovingly holding the abuser accountable for his actions and thus reminding him that this is the path he has walked away from.
To Divorce or not to Divorce
If an abusive husband is not willing to go through the process of reconciliation. Then a wife must continue to follow a path of spiritual counsel and where she feels and believes it is necessary takes legal action.
Consider the dilemma biblically in the following way;
1. It would seem that Old Testament divorce laws were a merciful provision (Dt. 24:1-4). Even though God hated divorce (Mal. 2:16), it seems that He would rather have divorce than the abuse of women and children. God Himself divorced the northern tribes of Israel (Jer. 3:8). Therefore, a woman who is married to a perpetrator may not be sinning if she seeks divorce action--even if her husband is not guilty of sexual immorality (Mt. 19:1-12).
2. Just as Jews understood that "no work" Sabbath laws could be set aside if an animal fell into a pit (Mt. 12:9-13), so biblical allowances and exceptions need to be made when women and children find themselves in danger. Jesus taught that sometimes the spirit of the law allows specific legal requirements to be overridden (Mt. 12:1-13). By His own example, Jesus allowed His hungry disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath, just as He also took the opportunity to heal a man with a crippled hand on a day when no work was to be done. The Apostle Paul seems to have had this same spirit of the law in mind when he wrote, "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife" (1 Cor. 7:10-11). In a situation that did not involve sexual unfaithfulness, Paul said that there was no freedom to remarry. This keeps open the preferred option of reconciliation.
The following article has been supplied by Pastor Harry Letson.
Domestic Violence – A Biblical Perspective
Since the rise of ‘the women’s anti-violence movement’ [ ] in America in the 1960’s the true horror of domestic violence has begun to be looked at in earnest. Before that time, it was considered a ‘private affair’. No one wanted to get involved in a ‘domestic’ so to speak. Even police forces in Britain, before that time, had a policy of none interference, even though it has been deemed a crime since 1891. Indeed, up until 1861 it was still “...legal to beat your wife before dusk, after which it might disturb the neighbours.” [ ] This ridiculous situation was abolished in 1891 and made a crime under Offences against the Person Act. Christians and ministers though, need to view domestic violence as more than a crime and label it as it is - SIN! So what does the Bible have to say on the subject of domestic violence and violence in general?
Violence and the Bible
The Bible has a lot to say about violence in general though some may say it appears to condone it at times by its lack of censure of it. Take, for example, God’s direct command to Moses : “Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them....” Num. 25:17. Then there is the incident of Saul and the Amalekites - 1 Sam. 15. Saul was commanded by Samuel the prophet to, “...totally destroy everything that belongs to them.” - that is the Amalekites - and goes on to command him : “Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants....” v3 and Saul is later condemned for not doing this. So does the bible take an arbitrary approach to violence? That, however, remains the substance of another study.
What about domestic violence? Does the Bible have anything to say about that? For someone like Alisa Deltufo the problem of domestic violence is rooted in our Judeo Christian faith and the Bible. Deltufo claims: “The foundations of the Judeo/Christian traditions are bathed in a deep mistrust of women.”[ ] She goes on to quote scripture, though it seems more like a misquotation to me, in that she has it saying: “Man shall have dominion over the woman” without making reference to this in the Bible. Presumably she is referring to Genesis 3:16. From this, she conflates the perception that Christianity, like all religions, was created as a tool to oppress women because, according to Deltufo, all religions make women out to be ‘inferior’. Mary Stewart van Leeuwen, a Christian feminist, helpfully points out the dual reference in this verse, not just the man’s part [ ]. The woman would desire her husband and he would rule over her. In other words, according to van Leeuwen, the woman will experience “unreciprocated longing for intimacy with the man”, but all she gets in return is domination. To me, the whole verse seems to imply that, as a result of the fall, a tension exists between both sexes, which may lead to a power struggle or battle of the sexes. That is not to excuse male domination but simply to explain it as a result of sin and the Fall and show how wrong and sinful it is. Deltufo’s vilification of Christianity in particular seems a deliberate misrepresentation of the biblical facts. On one page she asks the question: “How the World Got so messed Up? The answer is simple she says: Women. Adam, poor helpless dummy, ate the apple because Eve told him to.” She seems to deliberately distort the biblical facts to fit her own prejudices.
Still, let us see if Deltufo is right about the Judeo-Christian tradition and its attitude to violence and mistrust against women from the Bible. Deltufo makes much of a story in her book concerning the unnamed concubine of Judges 19:1-30 who suffered the terror of ‘gang rape’ and was dismembered by her master and dispatched to all the tribes of Israel. [ ] How do we answer such stories of violence and bloodshed? How, also, do we explain the story of the concubine? On reading the story, it is hard to understand why this man could give his chattel to be used in such a gruesome way and it is equally difficult to tell whether or not the woman was dead before he dismembered her.
Reading the text shows us more of the facts. The Levite and his concubine were given hospitality by an old man from Ephraim living in Gibeah. It transpired that the men of Gibeah wanted the Levite to be given them for homosexual purposes. The host in turn offers his virgin daughter and the Levite’s concubine. When they insisted, the Levite brought out his concubine who was raped all night and in the morning returned to the house of her host. A harrowing story no doubt and baffling that Israel should have sunk so low to such homosexual practices and violent abuse. That both these men could have offered their female dependants to these perverts is totally unthinkable and inexcusable as well. To our Twenty First Century minds this seems horrendous, as it no doubt is, but we have to bear in mind it was a different time and culture and to people then this would have been an acceptable alternative to the situation. Principles of hospitality and sexual practices dominated their thinking.
Questions may be asked as to why God allows such things to happen. Admittedly, it is hard to give a satisfactory answer to such things but one answer may be seen in that God used the incident to bring Israel together to bring judgement on Gibeah and punish the rapists. Now, I know such stories seem incongruous with our 21st Century sensitivities and our preaching of a God of love and compassion. Yes, it was a different time with different social mores and values but surely God is always the same. How can we condemn such things in the Twenty First Century without condemning them in ancient times? So then, are we giving a mixed message on violence in general and domestic violence in particular through these biblical stories?
The answer to that has to be no, the Bible does not give a mixed message on violence of any kind and that includes domestic violence as well. God constantly condemned people for perpetrating violence on others, especially the weak and vulnerable in society. God constantly associates violence with wickedness as when David says: “...bring to an end the violence of the wicked.” Again he mentions the wicked and how they bring “...violence and strife in the city.” Ps 55:9, and he prays for God to confuse them and confound their speech. David goes on to say the wicked “...clothe themselves with violence.” Ps 73:6, and he prays for protection against such people of violence - Ps 140. This may seem strange coming from David who was no stranger to violence himself. Yet he did not regard himself as wicked. By and large he could see his violence as bringing about the purposes of God, Uriah the Hittite apart.
Proverbs also associates violence with wickedness saying the wicked “...drink the wine of violence.” Pro. 4:14-17, and their violence even overflows through their mouths - Pro.10:6 & 11. Furthermore the violence of the wicked, “..will drag them away....” Pro.21:7, and presumably to punishment and retribution.
All the prophets condemn violence, too numerous to mention but reference to a good concordance will attest to this. One of them even condemns Israel for violence as in Is. 59 particularly verse 6. Jeremiah exposes Jerusalem’s violence: ”...violence and destruction resound in her....” Jer. 6:7 and later on, says it was what he was prophesying against Jerusalem - Jer. 20:8. Hosea, addressing the northern tribes, condemned them for multiplying lies and violence Hos. 12:1.
Let us be careful then not to read into first millennia BCE., Christian social mores of the Twenty First Century CE. David was a man of his times and his culture but God used him to bring about his purposes. The same can be said of the unnamed concubine. God’s silence on the matter does not imply approval. Indeed, her death became the rallying cry for the rest of Israel to come and bring God’s judgement on the men who perpetrated the crime. Still, it is easy to see the perplexity of it all. As Christians too, we clearly see that God uses one nation to chastise another as in the case of Cyrus the Great punishing Babylon and the nations - Is. 44:28-45:1 and 13 - yet to the man and woman in the world it seems a gratuitous attitude to violence.
So, as we can see, the Bible has a lot to say against violence in general and clearly God hates violence, only permitting it as a last resort to remove the wicked and stop them continuing with their violence. We see this is in God raising up nations and leaders to put down oppressors. Such is the case with Cyrus mentioned above. Indeed, Ezekiel says: “Violence has grown into a rod to punish wickedness....” Ez. 7:11 and in another place God calls Assyria “...the rod of my anger....” Is. 10:5. God will always punish violence sooner or later as was the case of Dinah [Gen 34] and Tamar [2 Sam. 13:1-22]; kinsmen avenged both.
D. W. Gill outlines “five main lines of response to violence in the Bible.” [ ] Violence is both prohibited and contained by Law [an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth]. Violence can also be met with counter force he says. It may also be replaced by creative, non-violent alternatives - Gideon’s lamps Judges 7:20 and Jehoshaphat’s trumpets - 2 Chron. 20:20-23. Finally, patient suffering in forgiveness and endurance as well as Jesus’ teaching on turning the other cheek, can absorb it. So it is clear that, in spite of appearances to the contrary, the Bible has a lot to say concerning violence in the world.
Violence and the Home
In the light of all that, does the Bible have anything to say about specific violence, violence in the home and particularly violence against women as well as the weak and vulnerable? I am convinced it does. It is true that women, in the Biblical context, seem to be treated in unequal proportions to men. They have no property rights except in the absence of male inheritors with restrictions and proscriptions being greater for women than men.
The best known portion of course, is found in Malachi 2:13-16. This is a difficult portion and fraught with exegetical problems but it is a helpful text all the same. The overriding theme of this text is God’s challenge to Israel not to “break faith”. This refers to covenant breaking. It is a twofold message to Israel. One, a spiritual lesson to Israel to remain faithful to God and the covenant they had entered into, to worship and serve only him. The second aspect is a practical one. Jewish men were to remain faithful to the marriage covenant entered into with the wife of their youth. They had broken it by apparently divorcing their Jewish wives and marrying women who served foreign gods. The implication here of both physical as well as moral violence is implicit within the text. The text says that God hates “...a man covering himself with violence as well as with his garment.” An alternative footnote given in the NIV renders it: “covering himself with violence” as “covering his wife with violence”. [emphasis mine] T.V. Moore, in his commentary, says that the Hebrew use of the word ‘garment’ was used to “...designate the conjugal relation....” That is the marriage relationship. He explains: “...to cover the garment with violence was to act in a violent and unjust manner towards the conjugal relation....” [ ] That is moral, emotional, physical and perhaps even spiritual violence can be exacted upon the marriage and the female partner in particular. This is clearly condemned by God as unacceptable to him and brings the perpetrator under his judgement.
Within the marital relationship, the Bible does seem to teach that women are the vulnerable partners, much to the annoyance of feminist writers. Peter says so in his epistle when he says concerning wives: “...treat them with respect as the weaker partner....” [1 Pet. 3:7] The inference here is that of the physical frame. By and large women are physically weaker than men. There are exceptions to this of course but an old adage says ‘the exceptions prove the rule’. However, as women are keen to point out to men - women have the children so who is stronger than who? In the biblical context of the family, though, women are still seen as the weaker sex physically, together with any children of their union. This requires the consideration of men as Peter rightly points out: “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives....” [Ibid]. Undoubtedly this should extend to moral, emotional and psychological consideration.
This perception of women as ‘the weaker partner’ no doubt comes from the fact that most of the biblical writers were Jewish or influenced by Jewish customs and culture. The fact that women could not own property, take part in war nor stray into the preserve of men, should not be seen merely as a biblical or Jewish proscription. Other Gentile nations had a similar attitude to women. Oswyn Murray says that Greek society “...kept its women in strict seclusion....” going on to say: “The polis was essentially a male association....” - the polis being a reference to the Greek city and its governmental set up.
When we come to the New Testament, we can see a definite change. Jesus brings us back to the biblical pattern God laid down in Genesis: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh.” Mt 19:4 cf. Gen. 2:24. The Apostles who constantly stress monogamy continue this. Paul says that leaders or ‘overseers’ should be “the husband of but one wife” 1 Tim. 3:2. Peter said husbands are to be “considerate” as they live with their wives and “treat them with respect” 1 Pet 3:7. Women are put on an equal footing with men in regard to salvation - Gal 3:28. We are all one in Christ Paul says here - male and female.
This equality may be due to the more liberal attitude of Rome to women. According to John Matthews, Roman women were usually seen in “the socio-economic categories assigned to men.” In other words, their status was determined by the status of their men - husbands, fathers, guardians and so on. Yet in spite of that, he goes on to say, “Their rights at law were...more extensive than one might expect....” [ibid] So then, even though Roman women had more rights and privileges than their ancient counterparts, according to their status, they were still not seen as equal to men in their own right. Perhaps this more enlightened perspective is what influenced the first Christian writers. As they came into more and more contact with the Gentile world, they revised their perception of women, undoubtedly under God’s guidance.
What are we saying with all this? Simply that we see women as vulnerable physically and in need of protection from the overbearing, physical dominance of men. We need to see how the coming of Christ and the New Testament show us the way forward in all of this - that men are to love their wives as their own bodies. So says Paul in Ephesians: “In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies.” Eph. 5:28. Consideration, respect and love should be what governs relationships in the home not violence and domination. This is not merely expected of Christian couples but all couples. God never intended anyone to live in a hostile environment, in fear for their lives. God has called us to peace within marital relationships - 1 Cor. 7:15, and to be ‘peacemakers’. So violence in the home, be it overt or covert, is totally unacceptable to God for all people, Christian and sinner alike.
Violence and the Church
What should the Church’s attitude be to violence, particularly within the context of domestic violence? The Church in general has had much to say on violent actions in the past, for example, on the question of war. Although the Church, historically, has always advocated the so called ‘Just War’ and the necessity of them from time to time in eradicating violent and wicked people from off the earth. In general, the Church has been against corporate or institutional violence. The German Confessing Church of Bonhoeffer and Niemoller are prime example of this in their protests in Nazi Germany during the Second World War.
Equally, it has had a lot to say in condemning individual violence and personal vengeance but when it comes to violence in the home and against women it has managed to explain it as a ‘private’ matter between man and wife. For too long the Church, generally, has evaded its responsibility on this issue. James and Phyllis Alsdurf relate numerous cases of domestic violence within the Church in their little book: “Battered into Submission” . Although somewhat dated by now, it was first published in 1989, the incidents of spouse beating in the book is as relevant today as it ever was. A more recent book by Rosie Nixson, published in the Grove Series 1994, also mentions various stories of such abuse. Indeed, as a Minister myself I have come across a few incidents of it during my ministry not least my own daughter who was in an abusive marital relationship.
We cannot ignore the existence of domestic violence in Christian relationships. This extends to husband beating, child abuse and even abuse of the elderly. It is no longer acceptable to consign all this to the bin of ‘private affairs’. The Church has a responsibility to protect the weak and vulnerable be they women and men of all ages and children especially. So what should we do about it all? How are we to take our responsibilities seriously?
Recognise the Inequalities. Wittingly or unwittingly the Church has perpetuated the myth of male supremacy over the years. Rosie Nixson refers to this saying: “Early church writers often saw women as inferior to men.” [ ] She also mentions a quotation from a fifteenth century “Rule for Marriage” which tells husbands to beat their wives out of love for their souls. [ibid] The Reformation too may have accentuated it by placing greater emphasis on marriage, male headship and the place of women in the home.
Repent of the Inequities. As Christians, we need to face up to the inequities which have existed in the Church for so many centuries and the sheer unfairness in our dealings with women. We need to genuinely and seriously repent.
Christian men in particular should take it on themselves to ask forgiveness for generations of men, who down through the years have oppressed, dominated and beaten women or consigned them to lives of misery and isolation.
Return to the Injunctions. In other words, get back to what the Bible really says about biblical equality. Feminist writers such as Alisa Deltufo, are not behind the door in levelling violence against women at the door of religious institutions and Christianity in particularly. In reply, we have to say it is a scurrilous distortion of the biblical facts and shows a serious lack of biblical and theological knowledge. Rosie Nixson, for example, explains the problem does not lie with scripture but our ‘interpretation’ of it and quotes Genesis 2:18 concerning ‘a helper’ for Adam [ezer in Hebrew]. Men, she says, have interpreted this word over the years to show Eve’s secondary position to Adam in that she is to be a subordinate. Adam would take the decisions and make the choices; Eve’s place was to submit. Yet it has to be asked: “Are we missing the point?” Is a helper always an inferior? If my children or grandchildren help me in anything are they superior to me? Mary Stewart van Leeuwen says this argument on a ‘helper’ to bolster male dominance is a misnomer. She says: “...this is an argument that biblical scholarship has (ironically!) turned on its head.” [ ] She goes on to say that this word ‘Helper’ is constantly used of God, as our Helper - Ps. 70:5 and Ps. 121:2. Does that make God secondary or inferior to us? Of course not! The problem is not in the word but in our understanding of it. The Authorised Version has it: “ an help meet for him” or as the N.I.V puts it: “I will make a helper suitable for him.” Van Leeuwen, quoting Phyliss Trible’s translation, has “a helper corresponding to the man.” [Emphasis van Leeuwen’s] Even Matthew Henry, the Eighteenth Century biblical commentator quotes an alternative reading for this: “a helper like him” [Emphasis Henry’s] [ ] The emphasis of these variant translations brings out the inherent creational equality of the sexes which God intended. Indeed, on the question of dominion, Genesis 1:26 says: “...let them rule....” [Author’s emphasis] - an obvious reference to joint dominion.
To understand the true perspective on equality, we need to see it in the light of the fall of Adam and Eve. God’s intended equality for men and women was lost through the entrance of sin in the human condition, distorted to the present day. Since, then men and women turned on each other and have been doing so ever since.
Rosie Nixson says: “To find out what a restored humanity might look like one only needs to look at Jesus.” [ ] She continues: “...Jesus had a revolutionary attitude to women....” [ibid] Jesus challenged the prevailing stereotypical concepts of women and challenged the prevailing culture of his time. Look at the following list:
[i] Jesus stressed monogamy and restricted divorce - Mt. 5:31,32 along with Mt. 19:1-12, he even went further than the strictest teachers of His day.
[ii] The family of God is superior to blood ties - Mt. 12:48.
[iii] He often rebuked women for their social conformity. Remember what he said to his mother, Mary, when a family needed wine - Jn. 2:4. He chided Martha about doing the dishes - Lk. 10:38-42 and the women about childbearing Lk. 11:27,28. He was also direct with those who lamented for Him on the way to His crucifixion - Lk. 23:28,29.
[iv] Jesus also included women in His entourage - Lk 8:3 &14:49.
[v] It was women too who witnessed the resurrection.
In a culture where women were hardly recognised Jesus seems to have broken the mould. Indeed there are 633 references to women in the New Testament alone according to Van Leeuwen.
Jesus then came to redress the imbalance and restore the relationship between the sexes. The turning point was undoubtedly The Day of Pentecost which Van Leeuwen intimates is “Emancipation Day”. [ibid] On that day God poured out His Spirit on all flesh. Christianity did not introduce a new place for the woman but restored it to God’s original plan. It is the Church’s responsibility, as I see it, to restore a right perspective on these things and to remove every vestige of male dominance and patriarchy. In doing so, perhaps we shall move Christianity, and hopefully society, to a new day when domestic violence of every kind will become a thing of the past. God grant it!
Respond to the Injury. Instead of fobbing off the realities of domestic violence under the general heading of a private matter, the Church should take an active role in dealing with it all realistically. After all if it was to do with adultery, we would not simply regard this as a private matter between husband and wife. Why then have we had such a nonchalant attitude towards domestic violence?
Thankfully the Church is waking up to the seriousness of the issue in many parts of the world. Rosie Nixson mentions the response to this in various parts of the world – New Zealand and Canada in particular. Even in Britain, says Nixson, things have begun to change. Since 1992 and the Institute for Study of Christianity and Sexuality Conference on “Sexual Violence, Harassment and Abuse of Women in the Christian Community” , the Church has begun to take its responsibilities seriously. Nixson gives twelve pointers for guidance on this issue which I will not enumerate here as some of them are already covered in my previous points, as well as other parts of the book. Instead I shall give a few guidelines for procedure for Ministers and Churches.
1. Become better acquainted with the issues surrounding domestic violence and take it all seriously.
2. Look out for tell tale signs of domestic violence. This is adequately covered in earlier parts of this book.
3. Investigate any suspicious signs or stories from others but delicately and with total sensitivity.
4. Confront the issues with the offending partner and make them fully aware of the gravity of the situation.
5. With the agreement of both partners, publicly discipline the offending partner as a corrective measure not a punitive one and as an opportunity to express the Church’s attitude to such behaviour.
Conclusion
It is time for the Church to face the issues of domestic violence in the Church and not brush it all under the carpet. If we continue to do this, we may find ourselves constantly tripping over the lump that is left. The issue is hardly likely to go away but we can at least expose it as totally unacceptable behaviour in Christians and perhaps in time begin to make a difference in the lives of so many people, particularly women, by alleviating their suffering and perhaps deflect the violence from others in the future. With God’s help we can do!
