The Merovingians (src: Ryan Reeves)

Video

• Link to recording segments on Dropbox

Summary

TODO: Summary

Content

The Merovingians were descended from Germanic Franks, not Romans

Video clip from Ryan Reeves

Summary points

With the fall of the Western half of the Roman Empire, we find ourselves in the dawn of the Middle Ages.

In this lecture, we’re going to look at the Merovingian Frankish Empire because this dynasty is perhaps the most important factor in shaping the new medieval world of the West.

The Merovingians came out of a Frankish past that can be traced back centuries. There were many different groups that lived just north of the Roman boundary. To the Romans, these groups were all lumped together as simply “barbarians”, but they were actually very much not all the same.

For example, in the 4th century we see the rise of a group called the Salian Franks around the Rhine river delta. They had various interactions with the Romans. Some Salian Franks seem to have adopted parts of the Roman cultural ethos, while others maintained their own identity more by refusing to adopt Roman practices.

This group (and other northern barbarian tribes) came to form what we in the modern day would probably term “the Germanic culture of northern Europe”; the Franks were Germanic peoples. The Franks were therefore not proto-Frenchmen (as some might think), but were actually the forefathers of all kinds of later European cultures. Certainly some later Frenchmen (like Napolean) would, for various propaganda reasons, harken back to Frankish ties (e.g., to Merovech and others), but in fact Frankish influence was not limited to just French culture (or even mostly French culture), but also shaped later Germanic culture, Dutch culture, and so on.

After the fall of the Western Roman empire, it is out of this common Germanic culture—that is expressed and cultivated within the Frankish world—that the Merovingians come.

Follow-on topics

The bounds of the Roman Empire only went so far. Evangelism past these bounds was fundamentally different in nature

We have spoken before about how the fact that the Bible was written in Greek made it easier to spread throughout the Eastern Mediterranean, where Greek was the lingua franca due to Hellenization after Alexander the Great and his conquests.

We have also spoken about how Christianity was able to spread throughout the Roman Empire—all the way from Hispania in the West to Judea in the East—on account of the shared language and culture of the Romans. There were always regional variances, to be sure (so, e.g., Romans in Judea were different in many ways from those in Southern Italy, say), but the commonalities coming about as a result of Romanization were nonetheless not without effect.

The thing is, the northern Frankish tribes were not Roman. Some of them, like the Salian Franks we mention here, certainly had contact with the Romans (and perhaps had some percentage of their population that Romanized to a degree), but on the whole, their value systems and way of life and so on were not Roman. And that means that the spread of the gospel to these peoples had to happen in a different way than evangelization within the Roman Empire itself.

The Early Church certainly did send missionaries north, and not just to the close by Frankish peoples who lived near what had been the Roman border. As the decades and centuries passed, the Church sent missionaries all over. Saint Boniface comes to mind as a good example of someone who operated in the north as an evangelist. He had an interesting relationship with Charles Martel, one of the Frankish kings we will discuss later in this lecture.

The truth does not change based upon which culture is being evangelized; the Bible as God’s Word is always where we start and end. However, the approach to evangelism must necessarily be different for different peoples. It takes a gifted individual (that is, someone with the spiritual gift of Evangelism, granted by the Holy Spirit) and a prepared individual (that is, someone who has spent the time they need to spend in research and planning) to effectively share the gospel of Jesus Christ with new communities and cultures.

No matter how we may disagree with some of the theology and decisions made by the Church visible and its members, we should not minimize the work done by various people over the centuries to spread the gospel, sometimes even laying down their lives for their cause (like Saint Boniface did, according to the sources). It is because of evangelization efforts like these that God’s truth was able to spread not just throughout the Roman Empire with its shared values, but even across the entire world, to peoples of all different backgrounds.

Further discussion

Under Clovis I, the Franks became Catholic, not Arian

Video clip from Ryan Reeves

Summary points

The Merovingian kings have at times been known as “the long-haired kings”:

• Artistically, they are portrayed with hair at least down to their shoulders, if not sometimes even longer.
• They didn’t leave their hair long for the sake of ritual purity (contrast the biblical figure of Samson), but because they apparently believed that the length of their hair was somehow the key to their strength and military might on the battlefield.

A number of Germanic tribes of the north—in particular, the Visigoths—turned to an Arian (rather than Nicene/Catholic) flavor of Christianity, after the faith spread northwards.

• Some of the Arian outreach in the north was spearheaded by the Arian Bishop Ufilas, who created the Gothic alphabet and translated the Bible into old Gothic (or at least so say some; it may have been more of a team effort in reality).

But the Merovingians came from a people who had resisted this Arian expansion in earlier centuries. So Merovech, his son Childeric I, and other ancestors of the Merovingian dynasty were pagans through and through:

• They were polygamists. (I should note that even though they were Catholic on paper, many later Merovingian kings continued to have multiple wives just like their pagan forefathers).
• They practiced ritualistic worship of various gods, including some forms of ritual sacrifice.
• Etc.

This does not change until the reign of Merovech’s grandson Clovis I, the founding king of the Merovingian dynasty proper. Clovis I came to marry Clotilde, a Christian whose Catholic beliefs stood in opposition to the Arianism of the non-pagan Germanic tribes who had been converted to Christianity. Apparently Clovis I resisted Clotilde’s efforts to convert him, but comes around in the end, and was baptized on Christmas day in 496 (so say some; dating Clovis I’s baptism is not entirely without controversy).

By embracing the Catholic (rather than Arian) form of Christianity, Clovis I kicked off the Catholicization of the Franks, and opened the door for interactions between them and the Catholic church hierarchy.

Follow-on topics

In its spread, God’s truth did not only need to overcome paganism, but also false teaching

If you’ve never thought about it before, false teachers have evangelists too: they send people out to convert others to their cause.

In many ways, this is a harder thing to overcome than outright paganism, which was so different from biblical Christianity that basically nobody would ever confuse the two. I would argue that subtle perversions of the truth are dangerous precisely because they are “close”. Close is not good enough though; we must be perfect in our understanding and teaching of God’s Word.

Over the centuries, the Church faced a number of false teachings that “got to the pagans first”. Arianism, as mentioned here, was one such false teaching.

Put yourselves in the shoes of a believer in the Early Church who lives amongst the people of the north, and is trying to turn them to biblical Christianity. The part of your audience which previously converted to Arianism (especially those that did so recently) are less likely to be believing based merely on tradition or momentum, but because they consciously made a choice to adopt Arianism. That makes them cognitively biased against changing their minds. Your job as an evangelist is now suddenly much harder.

Also think about how this would affect what the pagans thought “Christianity” was. For example, was Jesus God, or merely a created creature? Jesus being God is pretty foundational to the true faith, but pagan conceptions of “Christianity” might not have included that belief. This means that evangelists not only had to positively put forward (Trinitarian) Christianity, but also had to fight against false versions of it that may have already colored the perceptions of those they went to evangelize.

Hagiography as a literary genre

Clotilde was evidently made a saint due to her pivotal role in converting her pagan husband, Clovis I, to Catholicism, which was an important step in the Christianization of the Frankish peoples.

I want to use her as an example of how hagiography as a literary genre complicates historical analysis, and why they are decidedly bad as accurate sources.

Biography is not a uniquely Christian genre, nor even a uniquely religious genre. Pagans too wrote “lives” (vitae). But it came to be a particularly important literary genre in the Early Church.

The problem with hagiographies is that they freely mix history with legend. In Clotilde’s case, for example, one might ask the question if she really had some sort of epic romance with Clovis I, if she as an individual was really as central to Catholicism’s victory over Arianism in the north as some sources claim, and so on.

It is not that any of these things on their own are impossible or even particularly improbable, but the aggregation of all of these things together paints a picture that is far, far too romanticized and idealized to be considered unbiased.

Consider that in all these hagiographies of saints, one does not typically hear of their sins and failures. Yet these people were humans, which means that they certainly had sins and failures. Relating only a one-sided view of them is therefore lying by omission. The Bible does not shy away from showing us the stumbles of Abraham, of Moses, of Elijah, of David, and so on. Yet we do not as often see this sort of thing in hagiographies, which tend to be rather effusive in their praise, and light on criticism.

And this is precisely why you ought to always hold hagiographies at arms length (or more) as sources. In my opinion, the overt bias problem here is so severe that it presents a pretty serious historiographical issue for the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox folks. As an Evangelical Protestant, I need not try to defend the plausibleness or accuracy of hagiographies, because my worldview doesn’t even try to incorporate them (since it instead rests upon the Bible alone). But these other groups that do canonize saints and are big on tradition and so on actually really do have to deal with these texts rather than just tossing them out. As I see things, they are given an unwinnable fight, and are forced to stand up for things so obviously indefensible that it is almost tragic.

I should also note that in my opinion, the greatest part of the skepticism we ought to nurse for these texts is not even related to matters of historical fact—like whether or not Clotilde’s conversion of Clovis I really proceeded in the epic fashion described by the hagiographies—but instead the miraculous events commonly reported in them.

Put bluntly, I very much doubt most of the miracles reported in hagiographies. God, of course, can act as He pleases; as the Creator and Master of all Material Creation, He is well within His rights to violate the natural laws He Himself made, as it suits His purposes. But just because God could have done something does not mean that He did in fact do something. When hagiographies report the things they do, they are essentially unverifiable third party reports. And we should treat them as such.

Only the Bible is worthy of our trust and acceptance.

Further discussion

Factors contributing to the weakness of the Merovingian dynasty

Video clip from Ryan Reeves

Summary points

After his conversion, Clovis I still goes about with his bands of warriors in much the same way as before. These warrior bands would conquer a region, and then Clovis I (or any Merovingian king, for that matter) would distribute and parcel out the land now conquered to his followers to reward their loyalty.

This practice led in some ways to a lack of stability: because those without land wanted to be rewarded with conquered lands just like those that came before, there was pressure for the Merovingian Empire to be constantly expanding, despite already having conquered vast numbers of territories.

Another major factor that would lead to the weakness of the Merovingian dynasty is that they had not yet adopted a policy of primogeniture whereby the inheritance of the king is passed only to the eldest son (which, while unfair in some ways, does not as commonly lead to fractured power and destructive succession disputes between sides of similar strength = without any one side being clearly dominant and able to squash the others without as much drawn out fighting). Instead, as each king died, if he had a number of sons, the kingdom would then be distributed amongst them roughly equally.

This is exactly what we see with Clovis I and his sons. Clovis I had four sons, and upon his death, each of the four received territory:

• Theuderic I (the eldest) inherited the area of Reims (pronounced in French like “ranss”).
• Chlothar I inherited the area of Soissons (pronounced in French like “swah-sohn”).
• Childebert I inherited the area of Paris.
• Chlodomer inherited the area of Orléans (pronounced in French like “ohr-lay-on”).

Now, rather than the land getting split again through the inheritance of the sons of these men, the land was actually re-unified under Chlothar I. Towards the end of his life (between 558 and 561), Chlothar I actually ruled as king of all the Franks, much as his father Clovis I had. I should note that this was far from Chlothar I benevolently taking over governance of his deceased brothers’ territories to ensure stability, but was more like fighting against his brothers and nephews to make sure rulership ended up with him, up to and including killing them.

But after Chlothar I’s death, the newly re-unified land was once again split between his sons, and the cycle of violence repeated.

One of Chlothar I’s sons named Sigebert I married the Visigothic princess Brunhilda, whose… personality changes, shall we say, serve as a poignant example of the human cost of the endless succession disputes arising from equally splitting inheritance between multiple sons (who thereafter almost always ended up fighting each other).

After converting to Catholicism upon marrying into Merovingian royalty (she was initially Arian, like many of the Visigoths), Brunhilda appears to have started out doing positive things like supporting missionaries, building churches, and so on. But over time, the ceaseless power struggles within the Merovingian court seem to have changed her. As Lord Acton famously said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” And so it is that Brunhilda eventually became rather bloodthirsty and vindictive in her bid to stay in power. For example, she had a bishop who spoke out against her assassinated.

Over the course of a number of decades, Brunhilda ruled behind-the-scenes by using one of her sons, grandsons, or great-grandsons as a puppet king. But after getting betrayed by the mayor of the palace (more on this role in moment) of the court of Austrasia ( Warnachar II) and the mayor of the palace of the court of Burgundy (Rado)—alongside [Pepin of Landen](Pepin of Landen) and Arnulf of Metz—Brunhilda met a decidedly unpleasant end. After being charged with murder and bloodthirstiness and so on, according to some accounts, she was apparently dragged through the streets, then tied to four strong stallions who pulled her limb from limb. To top it all off, after her execution, her bones were even burned. One must understand that Brunhilda was in her 70s at this point (which was practically ancient for the Middle Ages), so all of this was being done to an old woman.

The point of all this is that this sort of political infighting (arising primarily on account of succession disputes between brothers, due to the split-the-land-equally inheritance traditions) inherently weakened the overall strength of the Merovingian throne.

Follow-on topics

We ought not be overly troubled by un-Christlike actions of people self-identifying as “Christian”

All of the violence we describe here was not only done by people who all shared the same blood (a tragedy all on its own), but also by people who all claimed Christ with their lips.

So, should this bother us? In my opinion, no. History is full of people who claimed to be Christian yet seemed to do some pretty terrible things on the whole. In fact, what we have here—brothers going going to war each other, at times putting their own nephews to death to avoid threats to their power, and so on (all in a bid to come out on top in succession disputes)—is unfortunately rather tame as far as things go, compared to some other events in history.

I certainly don’t see Christ’s love manifest in these things, and I am comfortable saying that. I do not need to stand up in defense of these people and events; my worldview does not require that I do. Similar to what we discussed about hagiographies above, the only thing that matters for us Evangelical Protestants is the Bible. So if a bunch of people claiming to be Christian did XYZ bad thing, well, what of it? What does that have to do with what is true and what is not true?

We don’t have to take a position on whether these people were saved or not; that is between them and God. But one thing we should consider in all of this is that we better check our own actions to make sure that we are walking the walk, not just talking the talk. Because clearly, simply claiming to be a Christian does not mean that what we do will necessarily be godly. History is chock-full of counterexamples, as here.

Contrasting the Kingdom of God with kingdoms of this world

Consider all of the blood spilled here to hold onto a finite, temporary human kingdom. Is it worth it?

The Kingdom of God will be infinite and eternal. Its ruler will not throw away the lives of the kingdom’s subjects for petty conquests, but will instead ensure that peace and joy reign throughout the realm, for all time.

Why then do we humans prefer to chase after human kingdoms—fleeting houses of cards that are here today and gone tomorrow—rather than the Eternal Kingdom that will last forever? It is terribly illogical.

We should instead set our eyes upon the Kingdom that is to come (cf. Hebrews 11:13-16), prioritizing the heavenly kingdom above all the kingdoms of this world.

The growing power of the “mayor of the palace” court role

Video clip from Ryan Reeves

Summary points

Perhaps nothing demonstrates the weakening of the Merovingian throne better than the growing influence wielded by the court role that we call the “mayor of the palace”. This role started out somewhat akin to a White House Chief of Staff or a head lieutenant, the ruler’s right hand man. If the king didn’t feel like ruling, then this individual would run the kingdom on his behalf. He was the head of the Merovingian administrative ladder, and orchestrated the operation of the entire court. But over time, power started to shift to this role more than the kings themselves, stripping the Merovingian rulers of authority in practice. This is not unlike how many modern monarchies treat the royal family as nothing more than figureheads, with the real power being held by a Prime Minister or equivalent.

The earliest rulers of the Carolingian dynasty actually exercised power in this mayor of the palace role, rather than themselves officially holding the crown. Pepin II, for example. In the the Battle of Tertry in 687, Pepin II defeated the forces of Neustria and and Burgundy, effectively spreading his influence as mayor of the palace of Austrasia across all of Francia. Even after his victory, he did not immediately depose the Merovingians in a de jure sense, although he did adopt the title of dux et princeps Francorum, “Duke and prince of the Franks”. It was not until his grandson Pepin the Short that the Carolingians dropped all pretense and formally declared themselves to be the kings instead of the Merovingians (who were at that point nothing more than rois fainéants, or “do-nothing kings”).

Pepin II’s son Charles Martel pursued his own military glory and military power, emerging as a powerful warrior. He eventually came out on top in the succession dispute following Pepin II’s death (meaning he, like his father before him, came to hold the mayor of the palace role, as well as the title Duke and Prince of the Franks, serving as the de facto ruler of Francia).

The last Merovingian king, Childeric III, was deposed in 751 by Pepin the Short, with the support of Pope Zachary. This act ended the Merovingian dynasty and began the Carolingian dynasty, as Childeric III was formally dethroned, tonsured (his long hair cut), and confined to a monastery. Cutting Childeric III’s long hair—a sign of Merovingian royal power—was crucial to stripping him of his royal rights.

Follow-on topics

The Church and king-making: should Christian leaders in the Church formally recognize political rulers?

Consider how the Pope’s recognition of Pepin the Short as true ruler of the Frankish Empire is sort of seen as being what legitimized his usurpation of the throne from the Merovingians.

I want you to ask yourself what getting permission from another human being—no matter how high their identity—has to do with what is morally right and morally wrong. In short, it has nothing do with it whatsoever.

I hope you can see how far Church king-making is from biblical Christianity. Compare:

The purpose of the Church in how Ephesians 4 describes it is “to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:12-13, NIV11).

No part of that involves meddling in the political affairs of nations. Jesus didn’t. Paul didn’t. What makes us think then that we should?

The very question is barking up the wrong tree. We ought to be concerned with how we can most effectively grow and serve as servants of God’s truth, not with who is currently in power.

Further discussion

The battle of Tours, and Christian Europe’s stand against Muslim Spain

Video clip from Ryan Reeves

Summary points

One of the most important events of the time of Charles Martel was the battle of Tours (pronounce in French as “toor”, rhyming with poor or door).

The armies that were taking over Spain at this time were from the Umayyad dynasty, sometimes also called the Saracens by the people of the time. (How the word “Saracen” was used in medieval times is a bit complex—and varied by time and place—but the word eventually came to refer to all people and things from the Muslim world, regardless of whether they were Arab in origin). The Muslim-ruled area of the Iberian peninsula came to be known as Al-Andalus.

In the 720s, having conquered from Gibraltar all the way up towards the northern part of Spain, the the Umayyad forces crossed over the mountains into Aquitaine, which is in modern-day France. At this time, Aquitaine was its own independent state, with a leader named Odo. Odo managed to defeat the Umayyads in 721 in the Battle of Tolouse, but soon found himself outnumbered and outmatched.

Now, Charles Martel and the Franks had been skirmishing with Odo, presumably because Charles Martel wished to incorporate Aquitaine into the Frankish domain. But as the Umayyad armies advanced, Odo fled and warned Charles Martel, and a deal was struck: in exchange for Aquitaine joining the Frankish Empire, Charles Martel and the Franks would assist in fighting against the Umayyads. It seems that land squabbles could be put aside when all of Europe found itself facing a Muslim army pushing north into Christian territory.

Contrary to Hollywood, warfare in the Middle Ages was not typically some grand affair of armies charging at each other on a flat plain. Instead, it usually involved things more like raids of supply lines, psychological warfare, and trying to break enemy morale and get them to retreat… without having to resort to the blunt force approach of throwing lives at some massive battle. That is more of a last resort.

Moreover, armies often came from part-time feudal levies (i.e., forced conscription from the general populace, oftentimes farmers), meaning soldiers would have to go back and farm during certain parts of the year to make sure everyone didn’t starve to death.

Charles Martel’s forces bucked some of these trends in that he was able to build a professional standing army.

In the Battle of Tours in 732, Charles Martel arrays his heavy infantrymen into a sort of defensive phalanx formation, set up to resist Umayyad calvary charges. He also scopes out a piece of land in which there are a great number of trees and forests, and he takes the high ground, meaning that Umayyad calvary would have to charge up the hills towards him, which would be disadvantageous for them. The forests would also hide his full numbers, and themselves inhibit cavalry charges.

In historical analysis of this battle, getting an accurate count of the forces on either side is difficult, and modern historians seem to disagree in their estimates. Dr. Reeves gives some numbers here, but from what I’ve read, we don’t have great evidence to go on, aside from the common narrative of Charles Martel successfully using infantry to resist Umayyad heavy calvary charges. Some sources say he was heavily outnumbered (like Dr. Reeves puts forward here), but even that seems somewhat up for debate.

At any rate, after the forces came into contact, they sit and stare at each other for a while. The Umayyads didn’t particularly want to assault Charles Martel’s fortified position, and Charles Martel clearly didn’t want to sacrifice his advantage by going out and fighting the Umayyads without his environmental advantages. So for a while there, nothing happens.

But eventually the Umayyads decide to attack, and whatever exactly happened, it seems that it was a decisive Frankish victory; the Umayyads retreat back to Spain.

Aside from the Battle of Tours being noteworthy for the sizes of the armies involved (cf. again what we said above about head-on battles being less common than you’d think), it is also noteworthy for how it was subsequently viewed as being a religious conflict of sorts: united Christian forces defending against Muslim invaders. Note that this predates the Crusades by a few centuries. So, to put it bluntly, Christians and Muslims (or rather, the visible, politically active, centrally organized forms of these religious groups) fighting each other was not a “new development” by any stretch of the imagination, but had sort of been happening since the very beginning.

At any rate, this battle does wonders for Charles Martel’s PR (so to speak). Having a reputation as a very effective warrior does not get you universal acclaim when you put your skills to use primarily by stealing your neighbors’ lands. But when instead you put your skills to use by repelling the Muslim armies that were coming to conquer and ravage the Church in Europe… well then you naturally get viewed as a defender and champion of all Christendom.

This ascending Frankish power comes to manifest itself in the Carolingian Empire that was formally established by Charles Martel’s son Pepin the Short, when he officially seized the Frankish throne from the Merovingians, as discussed above. This power would fully spread its wings during the rule of Pepin the Short’s son, also named Charles (presumably after his grandfather). This man would come to realize the vision that Charles Martel and Pepin the Short set out for the Frankish dynasty, and even more. And for that, he would receive the epithet of “the great” (le magne in French). He thus comes to be known as Charles-le-magne, or simply Charlemagne.

In the next lecture, we are going to pick up and continue the story of the Frankish dynasty by looking at the rise of this man Charlemagne, and the renaissance that he achieved during his reign.

Follow-on topics

As believers, what ought we make of conflicts between Christians and Muslims?

The Battle of Tours has often been viewed in overtly religious terms: Christian Europe standing up to resist the spread of Islam northwards and eastwards. This is certainly not an incorrect way to look at the event. However, it does raise the question of Christian–Muslim relations generally.

Muslims need Jesus, just like all of us need Jesus. As I see things, an attitude of earnestly desiring the salvation of all is noticeably lacking in how many Christians viewed Muslims throughout large parts of the Middle Ages, and actually even up to the present. In countries that have split Christian and Muslim populations (some nations in Africa, for example), there is even now a seeming unwillingness to try to reach out to “the enemy”—as seeing Muslims as somehow being “other”, and implicitly irredeemable.

I should be clear that this does not mean Christians need to roll over and not defend themselves. So I am not saying that the troops of Odo and Charles Martel should not have resisted the Umayyad incursion into Aquitaine, and instead should have just sent missionaries or something. No, instead, I am saying that the way in which Europe completely demonized Muslims while excusing atrocities committed by “Christians” is a glaring double standard, and should not be what we stand for as believers.

Vengeance is the Lord’s (Romans 12:19). Even if we have been wronged by Muslims—even if our country or ethnic group has been wronged by Muslims for generations—hatred should not enter our hearts. I’m not saying this will be easy, given our broken and fallen natures. But giving up and treating an entire group of people as fundamentally evil just because we can’t be bothered to offer forgiveness in our hearts is downright shameful, and ought to be treated as such.

Incidentally, this pattern of hard-hearted refusal to want the spiritual best for others (like the Bible commands, I should point out) is hardly unique to just how Christians treat Muslims. Throughout history, some self-professed Christians have also nursed a hatred for:

• Jewish people
• Other Christians with different theological beliefs (cf. strained relations between Protestants and Catholics following the Reformation: the Thirty Years’ War, for example).
• People of different races
• Etc.

None of this is proper. Once we too had our hearts blinded by darkness; once we too were enmeshed in lies. But God reached out to us even in this state, before we had done anything deserving of grace and mercy. So we need to be willing to extend this same sort of hand to others, even if we have a hard time finding them worthy. Compare Matthew 18:21-35. We have been forgiven a great debt (an eternal weight of sin), so need to forgive the little debts others owe us = material wrongs against us here in this world. Including those perpetrated against us by Muslims.

In short, Muslims ought not be viewed merely as wicked enemies, but as our fellow men who are broken and sinful and in need of Jesus, just like us.

Further discussion

Review Questions

Coming soon!