Tuesday, October 21, 2008

The Shack, by William Young

I forewarned you the other day that I had lots to say about The Shack so be prepared for this review to take a wee bit of time. I know that in this day and age people like things short and sweet but the other side of that is that in this day and age people are apt to say quite a lot while thinking quite a little. Sometimes it's important to sit and really hash a book (or the thought represented therein) out thoroughly. The Shack demands nothing less because of the rather huge implications it has for the Christian culture.

I would put this book in the same category as Blue Like Jazz (see my review here) in that it's become highly popular and influential within the church and therefore demands that we take note of it. It's true that I resent the demand that I read this book because I don't think it's worth reading. I would really rather be spending my time reading something else. Instead, I felt like I must take the time to read this book so that I could take the time to make a proper response to what I thought (and discovered) it was. So, since "you" (the generic reading public) deem this book worthy of a good read, study and even a screen play (!), I retaliate with a long review. So there.

Before hitting "publish" to this review, I should also state that I followed up my reading of The Shack by re-reading various scripture passages (some of which I have noted below) and have begun to read The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment, by Tim Challies. I made ten pages of notes, had many personal conversations about the book and have generally been irritated. I hope to write that irritation out of my system (to some degree) with this review. I'm probably posting this review too quickly, actually. However, I have to let this book go and I'm hoping if I finish this review I can do just that.

The primary reason for my annoyance is this:

Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.* Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith. Grace be with you. 1 Timothy 6:20-21

*the gospel

I believe this book is full of senseless arguments that distract from the truth of scripture and Who God Is, rather than drawing people towards it/Him. It is as if a two year old were insisting that a steady diet of chocolate chip cookies (for breakfast, lunch and dinner no less!) was entirely healthy and appropriate. While I can certainly agree that they might wish it to be so, I can reasonably argue that that is not actually the case and if they eat nothing but chocolate chip cookies they will suffer in life and die a premature death. Still, the two year old still insists and we're forced to go on arguing that you need to at least pop a vitamin in every now and again to maintain a decent balance. This book, The Shack, is insisting that chocolate chip cookies are adequate. Much of scripture is outright ignored if not manipulated for Young's personal purposes of which I know not what they are. Once again Christians have been handed a book which demands a firm answer.

While I do understand that life is not always black and white and there are many Christians who do view some gray, that does not mean that all the "gray matter" is worthy of consideration. Some books are tolerable in their existence and it is easy to take them or leave them. I am going to argue that The Shack is not one of those books. Rather it is a book that demands a firm answer from it's reader. Either you agree or you do not agree. It is important to know why you feel the way that you do about this book. This book demands that you be discerning, to weed out the fact from the fiction as you look closely at what Young has to say.

Is it a bad thing to examine something to determine whether or not it is right or wrong? Many would think that awfully judgmental. However, Solomon himself asked God for the ability to be discerning. He prayed, "Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil..." (1 Kings 3:9a) Sure, he was asking for help in governing a whole people. Our job is no less daunting in that we need to learn to govern ourselves and those whom God has placed in our care (i.e., spouses, children and dependents). God didn't make Solomon to be a unique man in being the only one who would be required to be wise. We all have the responsibility. (Heb. 5:14) William Young is just presenting us with an opportunity to practice. For that, I suppose, he is deserving of some thanks.

The most notable person to have taken a stand against The Shack (that I have discovered) is Tim Challies. He took issue with a few fallacies in Young's book, most notably Young's "use" (and accused misrepresentation of) the Trinity. I don't want to re-argue his points (because he did a fine job) and if you are curious, you can read what Tim Challies had to say here. I would encourage you to do so, particularly if you have already read The Shack. I KNOW that people who do not agree with me will tell me that I'm too close minded and/or that I didn't understand The Shack and/or that they felt very moved and healed in the reading of it. Well, I knew that none of that would be true for me and I read it anyway to "try to understand." If you would like to return the favor of attempted understanding, go read Challies' article and don't comment on it until you've read it. It's the least you can do. Note: I have not said anything at all about The Shack until I read it. You can check my archives. I kept my opinions to myself. However, I no longer feel the need.

There are a great many quotes from The Shack that I would love to share and dissect. As I said, I wrote out ten pages worth of quotes and notes on the topic. If I shared everything, you might think I was writing my own book. (You might think that anyway.) Instead of belaboring the point, I'll focus on the two topics I found the most important (after the point about the misuse of the Trinity; refer to Challies, please).

Point of contention #1:

Young is subtle in his misuse of scripture. So subtle in fact that I think unless you intend to read into this book deeply, you will likely miss some of his choice of words and skim over them as being "unimportant."

One example (I have several) is the following:

Young sets up a scene were the god character (I'm just going to keep god lowercase here because I want to.) has made a delicious dinner to be shared and enjoyed by the Trinity and Mack (the main character). The character of Jesus is carrying the meal dish to the table and drops it, breaking the dish and ruining the dinner. The god character laughingly forgives Jesus, calling him "greasy fingers." (pages 104-105) The following paragraph appears, relating what Mack thought of these events:

"He knew it didn't matter whose fault it was -- the mess from some bowl had been broken, that a dish that had been planned would not be shared. Obviously, what was truly important here was the love they had for one another and the fullness it brought them." (pages 104-105)

On the surface it just looks like Young made Jesus clumsy in order to show God's forgiveness of sins and to encourage us to overlook one another's faults for the sake of perfect fellowship with one another.

However, in Hebrews 7 we read that Jesus, our High Priest, is ". . .one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens." My disturbance is caused by Young's use of the word "fault" in the above quoted paragraph. It implies that there was fault to be laid at the feet of someone but that ultimately it didn't matter. But there was fault to begin with that belonged to someone. I'll say it again - Young implies fault was to be had, but was selected to be ignored for the sake of love. But Jesus is above fault. He is pure. He is blameless. Scripture says so.

There are a few more examples in the book (use of the word "impossible" when it comes to talking our ability to following the 10 Commandments on page 202) but this is just one instance that I will highlight to say that I'm bothered that Young weaved in little remarks all throughout this book that are subversive and attack the very essence of Who God Is. It is frequently so slight as to become unnoticeable unless you are reading to understand Young. Since most people, I would assume, are reading this for entertainment purposes, they are going to be caught in this little trap which is something I find repulsive and therefore I find this book rather dangerous.

In Challies' book, The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment, he talks about the White Witch in Narnia and how "she could make things look like they aren't." Challies quotes Thomas Howard, (as quoted in Devin Brown, Inside Narnia, page 65) saying:

"It is a counterfeit, exactly like the real thing but a cheat . . . Evil can only parody goodness, it cannot invent new forms of real beauty and joy. That is why in fairy tales you have to be aware of attractive disguises -- nice old crones selling apples in the forest, say, or angels of light."

(Or jolly African American women posing as God Himself and baking lots of yummy food in a cozy shack kitchen? I'm just asking.)

Again, we are supposed to be in a constant practice of distinguishing between good and evil. (Hebrews 5:14) And what is evil? Things which stand directly opposed to scripture should be attacked. We have a calling to protect the gospel which is entrusted to us (1 Tim 6:20, 2 Timothy 1:14). It's a non-optional job.

That brings me to my Point of Contention #2:

The Holy Spirit character is explaining to Mack that he is no longer under the law. Mack asks, "Are you saying I don't have to follow the rules?" to which the Holy Spirit character comments: "Yes. In Jesus you are not under any law. All things are lawful." (page 203)

"You can't be serious! You're messing with me again," moaned Mack. "Child," interrupted "God the Father", "you ain't heard nothin' yet."
"Mackenzie," "the Holy Spirit" continued, "those who are afraid of freedom are those who cannot trust us to live in them. Trying to keep the law is actually a declaration of independence, a way of keeping control."
"Is that why we like the law so much -- to give us some control?" asks Mack.
"It is much worse than that," resumed "the Holy Spirit", "It grants you the power to judge others and feel superior to them. You believe you are living to a higher standard than those you judge. Enforcing rules, especially in its more subtle expressions like responsibility and expectation, is a vain attempt to create certainty out of uncertainty. And contrary to what you might think, I have a great fondness for uncertainty. Rules cannot bring freedom; they only have the power to accuse." (page 203)

This almost fries my brain (and not in a good way).

Matthew 5:17 translated in various ways (just to make this as clear as possible):

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I didn't come to destroy them, but to fulfill them. . ." ISV

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." NAS

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." KJV

"Don't ever think that I came to set aside Moses' Teachings or the Prophets. I didn't come to set them aside but to make them come true." God's Word translation

Deuteronomy 5, specifically looking at verse 22:

These are the commandments the LORD proclaimed in a loud voice to your whole assembly there on the mountain from out of the fire, the cloud and the deep darkness; and he added nothing more. Then he wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me.

God gave the laws to Moses for us to follow. Furthermore, He came down on earth and fulfilled them all perfectly. He did not remove the law, He fulfilled it and lived the law perfectly. He gives us His Holy Spirit to help us to follow the law.

Now, it is true that Young said that law was given so that we could see our own sinfulness and need for a Savior. I agree with that 150%. But I cannot believe or agree with him in saying that it now only exists because of me for my own comfort in judging other people. Nowhere in Scripture have I been given reason to believe that the only reason there are still rules to follow is so that I can think mean thoughts about my neighbor. (I was given another rule by Jesus Himself as to how I am to treat my neighbor, btw.)

But let's just be practical. Young comes across as anti-establishment and makes the declaration that God is forced to operate in human government and with human establishments because we are forcing him to out of our own sinful natures. (This ignores the fact that if you read 2 Samuel and ONLY 2 Samuel you will discover that God actually appointed/anointed David as king over Israel and established a human government Himself.) If we lived in a perfect world, like, say, Heaven, we would NOT have need of rules. However, here on earth we do. It's just the way it works. And it's not a bad thing that it works that way. We are specifically instructed to obey and honor our parents, submit to church authorities and again to governing authorities (read Romans) in so much as it is Biblically acceptable to do so. But Young implies that we should buck all systems of authority and if we did we would be more enlightened humans, non-judgmental and always loving and kind.

Young implies (if not outright says) that the law only exists to point out sin in others but that God is above the law and never references it personally. Young appears to believe the law is outdated and all need for law follows suit. It's like saying that red lights and stop signs only exists so that police officers will have a reason to give out tickets. There is a need for stop lights and stop signs (for the public safety these days) just as there is a need for God's law. It helps keep us in line. It refines us and shapes and molds us. When it comes to God's law, keeping it makes us more holy, just as He is holy. (1 Peter 1:15-16) Following traffic laws not only helps to keep you alive, but others also. (For that matter, the same could be said of God's laws.)

I'll stop.

It is IMPORTANT to read into things. It is especially important to read into books like The Shack. It is NOT just entertainment. It is subversive and distracting and therefore not worth the time of day. It is a passing fad and it will fall by the wayside. It cannot survive because it is not truth and, in the end, it is the truth that will remain standing. But that doesn't remove our duty to read, know, understand and obey to fulfill our responsibility of protecting the gospel.

I'm truly sorry that this book exists.

A note on commenting on this post. Obviously I have a strong opinion about this book and no doubt you do also, be it pro or con. My opinion is my opinion and I believe it to be well thought out. Perhaps you do not agree. That's ok. You can leave a negative comment. I'm prepared for them. I likely will not respond to any or all of them, so don't camp on the comment line hoping I'll do so. I've spoken my piece which is all I wanted to do. Feel free to do the same. I just might not (probably won't) comment back.


~teachmom~ said...

Hi, Carrie! Well, I've read your review and I took your advice and read Challies' as well. I am pondering it all in and trying to think of what to say. I have some thinking to do first, but will say that 1.) I am not sorry I read The Shack, but/and 2.) I am REALLY glad I read both these reviews.

:) (Perhaps?) More to come... :)

Thanks for the time it took to write it up and share! :)

Anonymous said...

Well, I think I'll take your word for it on this one and not even waste my time. I'm inclined to think I'll agree with you on your opinions about it (although I did like Blue Like Jazz! :). Thanks for the links for Challies. I don't really consider myself Reformed any more, but I appreciate much of the solid theological reasoning that comes out of Reformed camps.

Sky said...

Thanks Carrie, great review!

Lisa Spence said...

Very discerning review. Well done.

Sheila said...

Thanks for the review. I had heard a little about the book and I had a feeling it wasn't for me. Now I have good reasons to avoid it!

Anonymous said...

I keep hearing so much about this book and keep wondering if I should read it just to see what the fuss is all about, but the more I hear about it the more loathe I am to do so.

It really concerns me that this is so wildly popular with Christians. You have to wonder about the state of the church with so little discernment out there. Thanks for exercising your discernment here.

Unknown said...

Thank-you very much for this review. I have been hoodwinked into reading this by an older lady in my church who mailed it to me. I have been terribly frustrated about this. I am glad to have your review.

Anonymous said...


I recommend Doug Wilson's review here:

I had to read this one also - I live in the area the book takes place (we have had pilgrimages, if you can believe that).

Thanks for your review.

Jody Thompson said...

I appreciate your review of The Shack. While I agree with your review in the book's digression from the Word in its theological basis, I have to say this book has pushed me into a spiritual growth that is phenomenal. Without getting into too much detail, I suffered a childhood with a dad who wasn't very nice. I have been what I thought was a strong Christian for 11 years now. But as I was reading the book, it was almost as if Papa (God) were sitting next to me, saying, "Your view of me is based on this man who wasn't so great. Can we change that?" This book has allowed me to grow closer to God in my spiritual walk. I desire more and more time in the Word and prayer. I think this book speaks to those who have been hurt - the unconditional love that is stressed and the forgiveness Mack has for his dad. While the spiritual foundation in the book is severly lacking, this book can still be used by God to bring non-believers or those who have been hurt closer to Him.


DebD said...

Thanks Carrie for sharing a link to your review (from my review). A wonderful and thorough assessment.

Anonymous said...

May I........

First of all your vision of what is so "wrong" with this book is what is wrong with religion.

God is love. The end. William Young was able to personify this in a wonderfully crafted story.

STOP STOP STOP STOP sitting around sifting through what is supposedly against God. Why not instead, act on your own love.

I am of God. My life seeps. I do not impose me views on others. I belive in Jesus and I think Eckhardt Tole has wisom as does C.S. Lewis and William Young. And GASP I find interest in astrology. I guess that means by your standards of judgement I'm going to hell. Or this ordained place you choose to scare others with.
My favorite book ever is Eat. Pray. Love I suppose that goes against your views of good spiritual literature as well.

I don't get it you ruin everything. You all ruin everything.

Just love. And when someone asks why your happy let them know its God. When they ask why the sun makes you cry then tell them God.

We aren't ever independent of God but I'm so sick of the judgement Christians place on everyone. I will continue to love grow and understand aside from all the rules and standards you place upon me. By your standards I live my life as a Christian but I dont do so because the bible is filled with rules that tell me to. I do so because God has made it well within me.

She says I am. And she goes wherever she wants to go.

Please stop ruining it. Please

Kipi said...

Carrie, I just posted my review of this one.

Eikinkloster said...

"STOP STOP STOP STOP sitting around sifting through what is supposedly against God. Why not instead, act on your own love."

Stop telling people to stop. Why not instead, act on your own love?

DarkShingingStar said...

Why are you depending on a person to give you a review of this book? Why not read it yourself and see what GOD tells you???? Or are we still not thinking for ourselves and following the same rules, traditions and PEOPLE that we put in higher places while all along God is waiting to speak to us in person???? I think it's sad that most of you will never experience this book.... I'm extremely thankful that I did....I choose to ask, seek and knock for myself.

Jenny Ross said...

My goodness.... so much time and energy spent on a book that was fictional. I wonder if you would spend the same amount of time on C.S. Lewis' The Chronicles of Narnia. We can tear any book apart and hold it up against scripture and it will not measure up. Only scripture is insprired of God and is infallible. I do think sometimes we miss the main ideas because we get so caught up in "being right". The basic message I took away from this book is that God is love and he loves me personally 100% just as he loves you. I also know that forgiveness isn't always about the other person. Forgiveness is a verb... an action word that each of us have to choice to give or not give. In dealing with my own "great sadness" I have found forgiveness to be truly freeing. Carrying anger and bitterness in your heart will never bring peace. Does that mean they get off scott free? Not at all. It just means it is nolonger an issue I have to deal with. The perpetrater has his/her own work to do. I can gladly step back and allow my Father to take care of all of that. Ultimately God is in control. I am so grateful for all the blessings and trials that He has carried me through. I was happy that I read The Shack... even the second go round! It gave me lots of thoughts to chew on. My advise to any reader of any book is to take the positive things you gain and leave the rest in God's hands. God can use this book inspite of it's supposed errors. Remember it is fictional and it is just one man's story. Let's spend our energy on sharing and living God's love.

Carrie said...

Just a note here- it's been almost a year since I wrote this post (my opinion of it is unchanged) and the last commentor just left a comment today - 10/9/09).

The only reason I'm responding to this comment (still stand by my original statement a year ago) is because Jenny has wondered whether or not I would "go after" Narnia in the same way.

The answer is: "Yes. I would."

As thoroughly as I could. However, C.S. Lewis, being a solid thinker and firm believer left less to pick on.

Jenny is right - there is no perfect book and scripture alone is without fault. That is EXACTLY why we MUST be discerning about what we read and why! It is precisely that very reason that I would read the Shack, make so many personal notes about it, talk to so many people and really think it through. I do that because it is NOT scripture and books that fly off bookshelves and have everyone talking are very much deserving of having some attention taken and some real comparitive thought applied to it.

The scriptures I quoted in this review still hold - we are to be discerning. We ARE supposed to think. We ARE supposed to hold things up in light of scripture.

And no, I still don't think The Shack makes the cut and I still wish it did not exist.

In short, I still roll my eyes at it.

S.D. Denny said...

I just finished reading The Shack and it was one of the most inspiring books I've ever read! There is purpose in this book whether everyone agrees or not. I read all the negative reviews on amazon and I've come to the conclusion that not everyone can understand and/or agree that everything is not for everyone. However, while this book may not have been for YOU, that doesn't mean it's not written on the level that someone else may understand and be brought to God as a result of. Overall, I loved The Shack and I'm glad someone recommended I read this life changing book.

DarkShingingStar said...

"In short, I still roll my eyes at it."

I feel the same way about you. Your entire review has made me feel even more blessed to have the kind of relationship I have with my Creator.... to be able to believe that He really is more than I could ever beging to think or imagine and I'm SO glad I'm not a closed minded know it all jerk who causes others to stumble. Have a blessed life and may your "self-inflicted authority" not overflow onto others.

Janis said...

I also didn't like the book. Someone gave it to me. Didn't finish it. It just wasn't good writing. Bleh.

Anonymous said...

its just a book, authors write books like this for controversy, they know people like you will sit around bashing it which will bring publicity and interest. I dont even understand why people get so worked up about books like this, fyi W.Young said its purely fictional its not like he is saying it should be the new bible. Also when you read a book like this you should just read it to learn of other perspectives, its not to judge just to enjoy if you dont like it you can always not read it. Honestly i think the book is interesting, it makes you think, which it is intended to do.

Ronnica said...

Okay, hadn't realized you had reviewed The Shack but found this review when looking through your archives for a book to buy my 5yo "niece" for Christmas.

I read this around the same time you did and it had my blood boiling in what I can only describe as anger (hopefully righteous!). Several points while reading it, I thought I would be physically sick. What makes me more sad than that this book is popular is that is popular with people who should be "people of the book." If we can be hoodwinked into thinking these ideas are okay, we aren't grounded in the Scripture. Period.

BerlinerinPoet said...

Oh my goodness great job! You ADDED to my list of 500ZILLION things that are wrong with The Shack.

My favorite part about people who have a problem with your post or Tim's or...well, anyone who dares speak out against Bill when they say, but..but it's just a story! Oh yeah, cause those have NEVER been used by Satan before. Nope. Never. I mean, 1 Thessalonians 5:21 is just too clear "but test EVERYTHING; hold fast what is good." Last time I looked everything includes fiction.

It's funny that you called it the "god" character...lower case g. I wouldn't even call it that while I was telling my mom about it. I just cut to the chase and called it Oprah. I mean, let's face it. Who wouldn't want Oprah for a know, providing we make up our own gods.

All jesting aside (because it's WAY too easy to mock this book), what really stands out to me when you (or anyone) talks about books like this one or Love Wins or anything else written by an Evanjellybean (oh yes I did!), is that YOU are suddenly the bad guy. When in reality you are saying. Hey wait! All those things you love about Oprah, God is SO much more amazing then that. And all those things you love about human relationships and human love, God's love is so much stronger than that. So much purer. And they think I'm close-minded? What gives!

The Shack takes God and squishes Him down into...well, Oprah. And the Jesus Christ and turns him into...some guy. And this wonderful often mysterious yet awesome being called the Holy Spirit, and turns Him into...uhm, a glittery fairy? If that was all I hoped in, I'm doomed.

Another stupid argument is: Well, this helped me. This made me feel great. This made me love God more. This made my aunt a believer...etc. I mean, yeah, maybe? The thing about the REAL God is that He is so awesome He can take the WORST thing ever and use it for His purposes. I told a friend recently that someone could come to Christ through a Ouija board. It's possible. Would I recommend it? Absolutely not! And furthermore if this is the means, how are we sure they are worshiping God anyway and not Oprah or one they made up?

I mean, obviously there is SO much more to say, but then I'd have to write my own review and I feel like that ship has sailed. Like you said, this will pass. Heresies come and go (funny how they are often the same ones just recycled) and the truth will remain. Thank God (the real one...the God of the "gilt edged bible...or was that GUILT edged" *eyeroll*) for that!

DarkShingingStar said...

Wow, this is an old thread... thank God I'm not a fundamentalist Christian anymore! This has been a fun trip back to the Sunday pew. Happy holidays to all! ;)

Theresa said...

Thank you.

Thank you for being willing to 'test everything...hold to what is good.'

Thank you for being brave... for being honest and upfront with your opinions and your reviews.

Thank you for being gracious in your responses (even when you are accused of being condemning).

Thank you for *not* being 'taken in', for not conforming to what may be a more 'popular' (or "acceptable", in the world's eyes), view of books like this

(yes. I have read several reviews/warnings about this book, some of them a lot stronger than yours was...) and, I know it's supposed to be 'only fiction'...

(as a side note...I could get very very passionate about this, having seen the results of books like these making inroads into the church and particularly the youth... books that justify throwing out the 'old ways' (including solid doctrinal truths)... and the effects on the church as a whole... and the warnings given in 1 Peter about being wary in the last times...)

There have been many many things written throughout our history that were 'just a book'...that sadly, changed not only the way society thinks but also the way it acts.

So, I will just say once again, thanks.

Anonymous said...

Ummm... okay. Wow. Apparently people have WAY stronger feelings about this book than I was aware of!

Carrie, I know you said you won't respond to the comments, so I'm not expecting you to, but I said I would read your review and I wanted to comment so you knew I followed through.

Though you said that people should have strong feelings one way or the other about The Shack (either love it or hate it) I somehow landed squarely in the middle. I did not have any extreme feelings about this book - it was mediocre and so was my response.

I did notice some of those little errors throughout the book but I assumed it was unintentional. I figured that when someone takes on something as big as trying to write a book in which God is a main character, there are going to be errors, and people are going to get offended. I mean, its kind of difficult to describe God perfectly, without making any (potentially HUGE) blunders.

But then again, I was not reading in the same light as you were. I got it from the library almost by accident, not when it first came out and was all the hype. I was unaware of the controversy and was not looking for underlying agendas or trying to figure out the author's motives. I thought it was a harmless, this-is-how-you-should-live-your-life book.

I can't believe how many comments this post got, how long the conversation has gone on, and how upset people got about it! I am so sorry for the rude comments, Carrie. You did not deserve that!

Carrie said...

@Kayla Marie (who posted this comment on 3/30/16)- :D Well, thank you for saying I don't deserve it but I did expect it and my nose isn't bent out of shape about ANY of these comments. It's as Winston Churchill said, "Do you have enemies? Good. That means you stood up for something at some point in your life." A strong belief in anything will make others uncomfortable-to-downright-angry and I don't feel that life is much worth living without making people angry so long as its for a legitimate and worthy reason.

I still maintain my entire opinion of the book for all of the aforementioned reasons, including the one about needing to have an answer to give to this book. I do believe that this book has had an adverse influence on the church at large and I am still opposed to it. 3/30/16

Top  blogs