Image Hosted by

Off the top

A blog dedicated to the Source of everything good.

Saturday, November 27, 2004


I'm going to let Rudyard Kipling write my blog for me tonight.

I came across this poem of his today.


If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream -- and not make dreams your master;
If you can think -- and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings -- nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run --
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And -- which is more -- you'll be a Man, my son!


Thursday, November 25, 2004


For the past several months, I’ve been involved in a sort of review process at my church. It is not easy work. There is conflict.

It’s not hard to recognize spiritual battle going on when there are blatant sins to be seen, but it is harder if the sins are not as obvious. I’m certain, though, that any and every type of interpersonal conflict reflects spiritual battle, even if the conflict is not violent.

Our enemy, the Deceiver, is good at the subtle stuff, is he not?

I’ve been thinking about something another person involved in the process at my church said: there is confusion as to distinctions between fact, perception, and judgment.

I’ve noticed that the more conflict exists between people, the more perception is considered to be fact and the more judgment occurs, as opposed to recognition or acknowledgment of fact. Yet how often, during interpersonal conflict, do we think beyond perception and judgment (not to be confused with discernment) and even “material” fact to the real, factual spiritual dynamics which are occurring?


Another thing I’ve been noticing lately is…trees. Leafless trees, that is. I’ve been observing them and photographing them. I find them fascinating. I find comparison of the structures of different species to be really interesting. (OK, so I’m a little weird :-) ) To me, leafless trees are beautiful, expressive, elegant, intricate, patterned, stark, dazzling, and more. But here’s the funny thing: there was a time when naked trees did not appear beautiful to me at all. In fact, I thought they were ugly. I would look around and see nothing but dark, veiny, exposed-looking, witchy things.

What a difference in my perception from then to now! But why? What caused this change? I can only attribute it to the fact that I am a much different person now than I was before, spiritually-speaking. I view and experience life in a very different way. A lot of what things represent to me now is much different. Not that I don’t still have my goblins, but even the goblins are different too.

The ugly has been transformed.

Which brings me back to interpersonal conflict, and the spiritual dimension behind it. When there is an unloving attitude in the heart, one perceives what people say in a much different way than when there is an open, caring, forgiving, and secure attitude in the heart. When one has an open attitude, what people mean to say by their words and actions becomes much more readily evident, and what is not evident can be inquired into. When one holds an adversarial attitude, however, there is little or no receptiveness or trust within one’s heart. There is instead contempt, or fear of hurt. What people say is not seen so much as an expression of their heart as it is seen in caricature, or as some sort of assault on the hearer. The heart full of fear, pain, or anger can then quickly turn evil, turning what was said around to represent fault of the speaker. People doing this misinterpret one another and often do not care to be corrected.

Even reception of truly evil speech or action is different depending on the heart of the one who receives it. The receiver is incited to anger, rage, grief, or compassion. Or maybe some of each. It all comes down to the attitude of the heart, though, and to habits, preconceived notions, affinities, etc. This is why we need to allow the truth of God’s love -- the real, true love -- to transform us, so that we no longer walk in a worldly way but in a way that is spiritually redemptive.

Sunday, November 21, 2004

"I have no regrets"

I couldn’t help but tear up as I read this article in the Buffalo Sunday News this afternoon. The article, titled “I have no regrets,” recounts the story of a wounded American soldier who not only does not curse his wounds, nor the Iraqi war, nor President Bush, nor anyone else, but says, “I wish I could be out there with my boys.”

Cpl. Mark P. O’Brien lost most of both limbs on the right side of his body in an ambush that occurred while he and his comrades were working to clear a supply line in Ramadi. Of the Iraqi war, he says, "People think we're there (in Iraq) for the oil or something, but we're not. We're fighting for freedom. What we're doing is driving out terrorists. I don't think people really understand that."

Is Cpl. O’Brien deluded? Is he merely the naive, unfortunate puppet of the evil masterminds of the Iraqi war? I think not.

I highly recommend this article. O’Brien’s heroic actions and words speak for themselves.

Friday, November 19, 2004

Contraception, Part VI: Natural Family Planning

I’ve recently been engaged in a discussion that has spun off from the comment sections of this series (Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, and Part V), Part V’s especially. The discussion has centered around natural family planning and a debate as to whether or not other forms of contraception are licit. It did not occur to me to mention NFP specifically in Parts I-V of the series since I consider it to be a method of contraception. In Parts I-V, I examined many factors that affect a decision to either use contraception, including NFP, or use no form of it whatsoever, and therefore I did not examine distinctions between any of the methods themselves except as they applied to the discussion at hand.

I’ve since learned that there are many who do not consider NFP to be a method of contraception, since no artificial means of interfering with natural processes during the sex act are used. I thank Elena for informing me of this. I appreciate the information she has shared, and have considered it with great interest. I can commend many things about this method, and have been thinking about it more closely since the discussion with Elena. Unlike Elena, though, I still do not consider it to be the only licit means of preventing conception, and I do not consider it to be a “perfect” method. This disagreement has occupied the bulk of our discussion, which continued on Elena’s blog and got quite extensive. After the comment section to Part V, the discussion picked up here, and continued here, here, and here.

(note: the comments on Elena’s blog read bottom-to-top, i.e., the most recent comments are at the top)

I don’t believe there actually is a “perfect” method, which is one of the problems with contraception in general.

In the series up to this point, I examined some of the practical considerations involved in decisions to “family plan” or not. There was a lot of theological consideration behind the practical considerations even though very few references were spelled out. This was done on purpose. I believe it is of utmost importance that a person live out theology in actual practice, and this is what I enjoy writing about. I feel there’s a need for more of this type of writing.

The main strength of NFP is, of course, that it involves no interference whatsoever with the physical aspects of the marital act itself. There is a lot to be said for this, besides the Catholic arguments, which is pretty much self-evident.

There are various ways to practice NFP, some of which are not gadget-free (in comparison to no attempt to “manage” reproduction at all), in that practitioners use a thermometer regularly, and many use other fertility indicators as well (two links there). Many of these practitioners use a thermometer in conjunction with cervical mucous monitoring (sympto-thermal method), as Proverbial Wife mentions in her candid post, “Our Reproductive Life.” Others rely on cervical mucous-checking only (the Billings method).

Marla’s post offers her personal, evangelical perspective on contraception and NFP, which is an interesting read. I thank her for sharing it.

The main concern I have with NFP falls within something I have roughly termed the “marital sexual cycle.” I will attempt to explain what I mean, since I haven’t yet done so except to mention I Cor 7:5 and the phenomenon of a woman’s sense of enhanced sexuality around her time of ovulation.

First of all, while there are certain obvious things that all marital coitus has in common, the actual practice of it has many personal variations, just as people have different personalities, traits, and other variations. As married couples live day to day and both their personal lives and their interaction varies, so does their sexual relationship. As people grow individually and as their marriage grows and moves through various “stages,” the way they relate to each other adapts and varies as well, as does their sexual relationship. So when I speak of a cycle of marital sexual relations, I am speaking of something that is not static, nor necessarily predictable, nor even “regular.” But I am assuming that in general it will correspond to other aspects of the lives of married partners, both individually and corporately.

Although fertility is obviously an integral part of a sexual relationship, there are many other factors just as integral, I believe, that are part of the mystery of two-becoming-one. Therefore it’s prudent that one consider carefully and prayerfully any attempt to interfere with any of these factors, not just fertility, and not just natural physical processes which are part of the marital act. I consider NFP to be a form of contraception because it not only involves action taken (by omission, if you will) to prevent a conception, but also interrupts the other aspects of sexual communion between married partners.

Catholic users of NFP hold that they are working with their natural fertility rather than disregarding it or squelching it, but I see this as euphemistic. Just because a woman knows her fertility cycle well does not mean that, by avoiding intercourse during her fertile periods, she is “working with” her natural fertility. My understanding of the latter statement is that it entails an enjoyment of the marital sexual relationship without avoiding fertile times, and accepting the consequences. In other words, I think it could just as well be said that avoiding intercourse during a fertile period is working against natural fertility. Or, one could say that if practitioners of NFP are working with their natural fertility, then so are users of artificial contraception. In that case, I would argue that judicious use of contraception for the purpose of “family planning” is working with natural fertility, but in a different way. Or, if you prefer, both methods work against natural fertility, but in different ways.

In I Corinthians 7, Paul encourages married individuals not to withhold themselves from each other sexually except for purposes of prayer. No mention here of “family planning.” What stands out to me in this passage is that Paul says, “Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does." (vv. 3-4)

Paul is saying here that marital expression of one’s sexuality is a ministry to one’s spouse. Yes, of course, it’s fun and gratifying (hopefully) to minister in this way, but I emphasize this point because, to me, abstinence is something that should be done if one feels sexually inclined toward anyone who is not their spouse, or done only for purposes of prayer (or necessity) once one is married. Other than that, it seems that Paul is saying that sex is to be freely given and freely enjoyed except for mutually agreed-upon periods of abstinence for the sake of prayer. (vv. 5-6)

These verses are problematic in light of use of NFP, and are the basis of my understanding of a “natural cycle of a marital sexual relationship.” I think this verse is actually a better argument against use of any form of contraception whatsoever than even against NFP as a method.

On the matter of increased whatever-you-want-to-call-it during a woman’s fertile period: when contemplating this, one must ask, “why does it exist?” The obvious answer is “to encourage folks to reproduce.” I would also offer that, if indeed the human marital sexual relationship (the only licit form of sexual relationship) is multi-faceted, i.e., encompassing more than fertility, then this increased “whatever” also serves to fully cement the marital relationship in emotional and mental ways as well. This is why I question a method of contraception that avoids this aspect of a woman’s life every month that the couple does not wish to conceive, and, in light of I Cor. 7:5, for her spouse’s sake as much if not more than for her sake, and for the sake of their bond.

Not that I think avoiding this aspect of marital sex is any worse than avoiding creating a baby, mind you, but I question whether or not it’s any better. It’s another factor that needs to be considered in the whole contraception debate. I see no Scriptural mandate for abstinence in marriage besides prayer, and therfore believe it is up to each and every couple to decide before God what they will do about contraception, and what method they will use. I don’t see any clear prohibition either way in Scripture. If a couple feels called to abstain for the purpose of avoiding conception, or feels called to judiciously use another form of contraception, or feels called to abandon all forms of conception-avoidance altogether, then that is their business, and no business of mine to judge or decide for them.

I realize that this may sound similar to arguments that favor “reproductive choice,” but there is a clear distinction: with use of contraception, no life is terminated (except possibly with use of the “pill,” which I touched on in Part V); with abortion, clearly a life is terminated. I also realize that there are spiritual arguments to the contrary, which hold that potential life in the form of sperm and ova should be treated with the same sanctity as life. I don’t share this view, although the question is an interesting one, and perhaps I will examine it at a later date.

I am also not of the opinion that, if the practice of NFP develops self-control in married partners (via abstinence), then users of other forms of contraception are lacking in self-control because they desire to participate in the marital sexual act while holding back part of the physical aspect. My reasons are stated above; if there are in fact other facets to the marital sexual ministry besides reproduction, then it is not “self-indulgent” to indulge in these things; it is in fact consecrated. The Catholic view, however, holds that it cannot be consecrated if any physical element is being withheld. This is a valid argument. I am not yet convinced, though, that the physical elements, i.e., those which involves gametes, are more important than the other elements, though I am open to considering any evidence to the contrary.

There are certainly other times of abstinence that will occur in the marital sexual relationship besides ones of an obviously prayerful nature: out-of-town trips, problem pregnancy, post-partum, illness, menstruation, etc. There may be other natural “dead” times as well that aren’t necessarily bad. In other words, I'm surmising that life puts plenty of abstinence into most normal marital sexual relationships (part of the natural cycle) without requiring the addition of more.


The Catholic view, as Elena has informed me, considers all forms of artificial contraception to be sin. Perhaps even mortal sin. The basis for this is the story of Onan. We have discussed this quite at length.

I’m sure poor Onan never realized how famous he’d become :-) A particular interpretation of the Onan story is the primary basis of the Catholic endorsement of natural family planning because it views as condemnatory any method of suppressing or preventing the meeting of gametes during the sex act. This interpretation holds that Onan’s sin was “spilling his seed,” in and of itself. He contracepted, i.e., wasted his seed, so that he would not impregnate his wife. Therefore, God killed him.

For detail on the Catholic view of this passage, I refer you to Elena’s posts and comments. (Also the sidebar on her blog) I detailed my views in her comment threads as well, but will summarize here: the Catholic interpretation of this passage ignores the whole of all the elements. If Onan had wanted to avoid the levirate obligation, he could’ve submitted to being “desandaled and spat upon” (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). However, he chose not to go this route. He agreed to take his sister-in-law as wife. Following that, he refused to fulfil his obligation to his brother, which was to give him offspring via his sister-in-law (which he had agreed to do by marrying her), by refusing to impregnate her. He didn’t merely refuse to impregnate her by abstaining; he copulated with her up to the point of, well, you know.

So, he used her. Onan used his wife, and blew off his brother (and God). He used his wife and failed to carry out his obligation to continue his brother’s line. He contracepted in order to prevent having any children that would “not be his.” His act was also deceptive.

The Catholic view, as well as the historical Protestant view to a point, and some of the historical Jewish views, sees the fact that God killed Onan to be condemnatory of any act of “wasting seed.” This view makes no distinction between a levirate marriage and a non-levirate one (in which there is no obligation to carry on a brother’s line). I don’t see the basis for this, since Onan’s particular instance of wasting seed was under levirate contract, and the verse in Genesis 38:9 specifically says, “And Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so it came about that when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground, in order not to give offspring to his brother”.

Even if one takes this passage to say that any failure to consummate any marital union by spilling seed constitutes sin, I don’t see how this could apply to anyone other than someone who refused to produce any children at all via spilling or withholding of seed.

We have no other Biblical examples of spilling seed in either a levirate or common law marriage, therefore the Catholic view appears to me to be an unwarranted extrapolation. There is no reference to “wasting seed” or misuse of the seed itself in discussion of any other sexual sin. If sex is holy only within marriage, and children are only to be had by two people married for life, then I would think that, if gametes are as holy as the Catholic view holds, any emission of them outside of marriage would be a misuse of seed, if not a wasting of it, and would be mentioned as such in Biblical text dealing with these other sexual sins.

This is why I think that Onan’s contraceptive act is to be distinguished from fornication, adultery, and homosexual sex. The reason he spilled his seed was to keep it from making babies. It’s obvious, though, that God does not intend for seed to be given to someone other than one’s spouse, nor used to create babies with someone other than one’s spouse, so if it’s the misuse of the seed itself that is so important, why isn’t this specifically mentioned in conjunction with fornication, adultery, and homosexuality?

In Leviticus 20, sexual immorality is condemned as something which uncovers nakedness, i.e., someone becomes privy to something that does not rightly belong to them. This is to be distinguished from a spouse's nakedness, which does belong to the other spouse, in all of its aspects.

The Catholic view of the Onan story supports itself with references to other examples of wasting seed, i.e. homosexual acts, drawing the conclusion that any act of wasting seed is evil since Onan’s sin was punishable by death, and homosexual acts were also punishable by death. Although wasting seed, punishment by death, and possibly self-gratification to the exclusion of partner-gratification are common denominators here, there is more wrong with the homosexual act than the fact that seed is wasted. In other words, I don’t think that the reason a homosexual act is wrong is because seed is wasted, or, in the case of women, ova are not used. See Romans 2.

That Onan’s sin was punishable by death does not limit his sin to being the mere act of wasting seed, nor even to being a sexual sin, although clearly it was a sexual sin. But the distinction and determination as to just what the nature of his sexual sin was is important, unless the sole purpose of sex is to always allow for procreation within marriage, i.e., no contraception, no abstinence.

The Catholic view also sees Romans 2 as condemning contraception for being an “unnatural act” because it involves interfering with egg and sperm. Again, I don’t think one can necessarily make this follow from a passage concerned with those who burn in their desire for members of the same sex. This unnatural desire for someone of the same sex is what Romans 2 is saying is unnatural, not the fact that seed or ova are wasted.

I wonder, if Onan had merely abstained in order to keep from giving his brother children, would God still have smote him? I'm sure the Catholic view would be "no." But do we know this for certain?

I think it is going too far, as in treading into an area of the heart that only God and the individual can know, for someone to claim that sex with use of artificial contraception is merely self-gratifying, i.e., that partners are using each other. I imagine that it’s possible that an NFP couple could also “use” one another. It is certainly less likely that a couple would do this while purposely or knowingly allowing for the possibility of conception during intercourse, but this does not automatically exclude it as a possibility. Even users of artificial contraception, if they are honest and aware, know that the only 100% fail-proof method of contraception is abstinence, and they enter into sexual relations with this in mind.

On Biblical commands to exercise fertility, it’s true that in Genesis 1:28, God tells mankind to “be fruitful and multiply.” Yet this is not an automatic condemnation of conception-avoidance. It could, however, be argued that there is a condemnation of not having any children at all, or perhaps less than a certain number. How many children must one have to fulfill this command, then? How is a “contracepting” couple not fulfilling this command if they do have children? If a couple has, say, five children, and decides to try to avoid having any more, have they fulfilled their “quota” for multiplication (if there is in fact one), and are they afterward merely using each other for pleasure by using contraception? Or by enjoying the sex act only during times they are fairly certain that conception is not possible?


I guess that summarizes my thoughts regarding NFP, for what they’re worth. I welcome gracious discussion.

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

Did you vote values?

I did. And I'll bet you did too. Actually, I'll bet everyone else who voted did as well.

Before the election, I received a mailing from Focus on the Family on “voting values”. There may have been a pin or window sticker included that read, “I vote values.” I admit I didn’t look at the materials very closely.

I also received a mailing from the Presidential Prayer Team encouraging me to “Pray the Vote” I didn’t look this over either, partially because I was already determining my vote prayerfully, but also because I could imagine what a “Pray the Vote” button might look like to someone who wasn’t a conservative Christian.

I do appreciate the campaign that Christian organizations undertook to encourage Christians to vote and to base their vote on values learned from God. Voting is our privilege and duty as citizens of this country. But I'm wondering whether both the “values voter” and “pray the vote” teams would have been better advised to choose slogans that didn't imply “God is on my side” to those of opposing views.

To those of a different political stripe, the implication of the “I vote values” campaign is that those who vote differently than conservative Christians do not base their vote on values, or do not actually have values, or else have values of no value. :-) But this of course is not true. Even if a value held by a liberal individual is at odds with a conservative Christian’s values, it is a value nonetheless. A conservative Christian may actually share some of the same core values as a staunch liberal while disagreeing strongly with that liberal's opinions on living out or “voting” those values. A conservative Christian may also disagree strongly with some of the liberal's core values. But a value is different from an opinion.

“Pray the vote” implies that if certain people pray hard enough, their candidate will win. I suppose that’s Biblically supportable, but it comes across in an adversarial way to those who don’t pray, or who pray to someone or something other than God, or who pray but have a different political view.

I’m also leery of stickers, buttons, etc., because I'm not convinced that there's value in advertising one’s opinion on certain things in a general public setting. To do so is to go into “popularity contest” mode, something that is unnecessary and perhaps even destructive. I realize that many wear a button merely to show support. I'm concerned, though, that in doing so, one may set those of the opposing view’s guard up. I can't imagine that seeing a button would actually change someone's mind. Except maybe in the very occasional or highly unusual circumstance.

Ellen Goodman made a similar point about values in her Sunday newspaper column, though not quite in the same way.

She calls upon Democrats to define themselves. Though I don’t agree with Goodman on much (that I’ve read of her, anyway), I do agree that this would be a good thing. I’m not convinced that the Democrats were as “verbally unarmed” in the recent political campaigns as she claims, but think it could be quite interesting if, in the next few years, more of the real substance of the liberal/conservative disagreement would be addressed by all involved. Maybe we’d hear the truth of individual hearts and minds rather than political-speak.

Goodman suggests that "progressives...need to understand the worldviews of right and left, the connecting threads of family and morality, and to reframe the debate on shared terms." I'm all for this, on all fronts. This way we would all see where our true similarities and differences lie.

Goodman would like to see Democrats define their terms for the purpose of winning over the "not-so-red" voters who are tired of "fundamentalist religious wars," though. She blames the country’s troubles on these “wars," which implies, of course, that they’re all the fault of the "religious fundamentalists." She forgets that it takes two to tango. But she's right that a shared language would be helpful. And she and other Democrats are justified, I believe, when they bristle at the implications of some of the words and slogans used by religious conservatives.

This is to be distinguished from the scornful attitude assumed by some toward anything religious conservatives say, causing misinterpretation or deliberate misrepresentation.

Christians who speak out about things political, or who speak out at all, must be careful to speak the truth in love, or else we are not blameless in the sight of outsiders (Titus 2:7-8) Yes, I’m preaching to myself :-) We must be careful in our choice of words and slogans so as to insure that they represent the truth to those who agree and to those who disagree.

Christians must insure that there is no incrimination in their tone or words, or those who oppose their views will be very quick to pick up on it and react. We must give no cause for this. An impossible task? Perhaps. :-) Sometimes others' interpretations can't be helped. But if those who disagree do so on the basis of views, that’s one thing (puts the onus on both them and God); if Christians divert attention from God the Author of truth to themselves because their views are not presented in love (I Corinthians 13), then we are guilty of pride and do not advance the cause of Christ.

Anyone have suggestions for improving the “pray the vote” or “I vote values” slogans? (“vote prayerfully," perhaps?)

Monday, November 08, 2004

Oak tree

Though I haven’t blogged much recently, I’ve still been busy writing. Mostly elsewhere in the blogosphere. I may post some of it here eventually :-)

Here’s a photo of the same oak tree I photographed ten days ago:

Image Hosted by

Pretty barren...

but the sky was nice this evening.

Image Hosted by

Thursday, November 04, 2004

Bush won in my county

This surprised me; I wouldn’t have predicted it.

Overall in New York state, Kerry won by 18%. In my county (Chautauqua), Bush won by 8%.

The vote count here was up almost 6% from the 2000 Presidential election. And actually, Bush won then too, over Gore, but only by 3%. (I hadn’t learned this before...never checked...!) I also wasn’t aware that Hillary didn’t win the 2000 Senatorial election in our county. By what you read, hear, and see locally, you wouldn’t guess either of those things. Guess it just goes to show that the loudest and most "visible" voices don’t necessarily carry the day.

I’m curious as to why Bush has gained support here; I don’t think there’s been much change or flux in the population since 2000. Don’t know whether more Republicans/Conservatives voted this time, or whether some voters switched parties or voted outside of their party.

But it’s encouraging :-)

Tuesday, November 02, 2004

Scripture songs

Over the past few years, my family has been involved in recording Scripture memory songs for children. The project is the brainchild of Steve Harrow and his wife Anne, who is my husband’s sister.

Participation in this project has been very meaningful for a number of reasons. First of all, Steve is someone of profound gifting who, since his conversion more than 20 years ago, has allowed the purpose of his talents to be truly redeemed. His creativity is not bound by self- or convention-consciousness, and he has given it fully, for God’s glory.

Second, it’s been very helpful to have songs to help my children learn the memory verses that are part of the homeschool curriculum we use (Sonlight). The bonus is that they are by family!

Third, it’s been a blessing to have our oldest son involved in learning and recording these songs with his cousins with whom he is very close. The opportunity to offer his musical talent to God in the context of familial rapport is a powerful thing. It’s also been wonderful for us (my son, his siblings, and myself) to sing many of the songs in worship at our church.

Fourth, it’s been fun to play a few notes on some of the tracks myself, along with my husband. We are both professional trumpeters.

I invite you to visit the official Sing the Word website.