(Lisa Robinson)

This past weekend a conference was going on here in Dallas for men entitled Kingdom Man.  For obvious reasons, I have no interest in learning about being a kingdom man and cannot speak fully to what was being taught. But what I fear is that the Kingdom Man agenda has been skewed towards the domination of men, that women get lost in the dust. I get the sense from some Facebook posts I saw streaming quotes that the concept of a kingdom promotes that only men are kingdom warriors. Now when I say kingdom warriors, I mean that whatever God is doing in line with “on earth as it is in heaven” is channeled through his people and in this case – men.  So I use it as a metaphor. What this does is promote the idea that women are to support their warriors and do not play a proactive role in a kingdom agenda.

But this only highlights a broader observation that I’ve made with respect to how the woman’s role is generally defined as the man’s helper.  This concept of the woman’s helper role is a product of a poorly translated identity as a helpless help-meet with nothing to offer but support for the man.. And I hate to say, but smacks of an over-zealous masculinity.

The term helper is translated from ezer in Genesis 2:20 – “no suitable helper was found”.  When translated as a helper it gets a bad rap as the woman being dependent upon the man as the head. Now that does not presume upon male headship but speaks to the women’s value in relation to her companion. A closer look reveals that ezer has the connotation of being a rescuer. When God saw that it was not good for man to be alone and that he needed a suitable helper, he sent a rescuer.  The NET Bible notes:

Traditionally “helper.” The English word “helper,” because it can connote so many different ideas, does not accurately convey the connotation of the Hebrew word עֵזֶר (’ezer). Usage of the Hebrew term does not suggest a subordinate role, a connotation which English “helper” can have. In the Bible God is frequently described as the “helper,” the one who does for us what we cannot do for ourselves, the one who meets our needs. In this context the word seems to express the idea of an “indispensable companion.” The woman would supply what the man was lacking in the design of creation and logically it would follow that the man would supply what she was lacking, although that is not stated here.

I say rescuer intentionally because ironically elsewhere ezer is used in reference to God as rescuer. So when the Lord said “it is not good for man to be alone” (Gen 2:18), it meant that he could not accomplish what he needed to do without his rescuer.  This is why suitable (kenegdo) refers to the companion as being uniquely complementary, without which the alone person – the man – cannot function as he should.  This is the portrait of a complementary relationship. Unfortunately, under the rubric of Complementarianism, misapplied concepts and yes, even misogyny in some cases, has relegated the woman to an inferior worth as a kingdom assistant instead of a kindgom warrior.  And I say that as a Complementarian! I affirm male headship but the idea that only men have a kingdom agenda takes headship where it has no business going.

In her book, Half the Church, Carolyn Custis James offers a helpful understanding of how men and women are to rule together.  Here are some snippets from her chapter entitled The Ezer Unbound

Isn’t it obvious that the ezer is a warrior? And don’t we already know this in our bones? God created his daughters to be ezer-warriors with our brothers. He deploys the ezer to break the man’s aloneness by soldiering with him wholeheartedly and at full strength for God’s gracious kingdom. The man needs everything she brings to their global mission (p 113)

Complementarianism often gets a bad rap for what we’ve done with the woman.  Her role as submitted to the head often translates into one who is weak and dependent upon the man, unable to make choices for the family and in need of spiritual leadership as if she has no spiritual juice to offer.  But that is not what I see in Genesis 2 nor throughout scripture. Whatever her role in society, for her husband the ezer is smart, resourceful, contributing, influential and supportive.

Descriptions of a woman as dependent, needy, vulnerable, deferential, helpless, leaderless, or weak are – to put it simply – wrong. Such definitions betray cultural biases and I fear a deep-seated misogyny. The ezer is a warrior. Like the man, she is also God’s creative masterpiece – a work of genius and a marvel to behold – for she is fearfully and wonderful made. The ezer never sheds her image-bearing identity. Not here. Not ever. God defines who she is and how she is to live in his world. That never changes. The image bearer responsibilities to reflect God to the world and to rule and subdue on his behalf still rest on her shoulders, too. (pg 114)

If the woman brings nothing to the table but dependence so he can be the warrior, how does this aid the two that have joined together as one?

If Adam must think, decide, protect, and provide for the woman, she actually becomes a burden on him – not much help when you think about it. The kind of help the man needs demands full deployment of her strength, her gifts, and the best she has to offer. His life will change for the better because of what she contributes to his life. Together they will daily prove in countless and surprising ways that two are better than one. (pg 114-115).

If we are going to use the metaphor of warriors in reference to a kingdom agenda, women, like men, are called to be kingdom warriors, too.  Neither submission nor male headship changes this and should definitely not squash it.

Follow me on Twitter @theochick

C Michael Patton
C Michael Patton

C. Michael Patton is the primary contributor to the Parchment and Pen/Credo Blog. He has been in ministry for nearly twenty years as a pastor, author, speaker, and blogger. Find him on Patreon Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary (2001), president of Credo House Ministries and Credo Courses, author of Now that I'm a Christian (Crossway, 2014) Increase My Faith (Credo House, 2011), and The Theology Program (Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, 2001-2006), host of Theology Unplugged, and primary blogger here at Parchment and Pen. But, most importantly, husband to a beautiful wife and father to four awesome children. Michael is available for speaking engagements. Join his Patreon and support his ministry

    35 replies to "Kingdom Warriors, Too"

    • bethyada

      My one critique of this whole men=head, women must submit debate is: to all men? or just to her husband?

      Only husband. A woman in a household may have servants. They submit to her, including the males. If your boss is a woman you are to do what she says. Men and women in the church both submit to the elders.

      This seems to be the most consistent complimentarian position.

    • Hman

      Hehe, tough battle ahead. Right forum? Same arena as the post “Manliest theologian” just a few weeks ago. Wonder if this thread can match in terms of comments.

      Isn’t it great though, two different types of man? Man and woman. One has certain strengths whereas the other has others. No, they have to be equal, and not only equal but the same…………..

      Now, the funniest thing is when people say: I hate to say this, but. If you hate to say something, why can’t you just not say it? Coz you’re a woman. Innit? Every time the urge was too much for my mother to keep herself from gossiping she would open with: I know it’s wrong to gossip, I don’t want to gossip, but I just have to tell you about…. LOL

      Admit it. Men are generally stronger in some areas. Women in others. For example, there is not a woman that can tease another woman the way a man can.

      Ey, Bethyada, a man never has to obey a female boss unless he wants to. He can resign and get another job, with a male boss. Don’t be silly. Pls.

      All this about female warriors, thin support for that from the bible. Must admit though, Xena, the Warrior Princess is both cool and kind of hot.

    • Ed Kratz

      Hman, I admit the post is a little out of character for me. But the quotes I was seeing from the conference was just wrong. The only reason I used warriors is as a metaphor to address a mindset that makes the helper’s contributions weak in unsubstantial. The idea is that men and women soldier together. So yes, it is an over the top metaphor but for a reason. And weren’t Deborah and Jael warriors? I think they were.

      Yeah, a woman bringing up these issues always raises eyebrows and typically assertions of some self-interest motive. That is unfortunate but what is the alternative? To be a good girl, keep quiet and say nothing. That is what is usually expected anyway because of the problem that needs to be addressed.

      • Ed Kratz

        Just saw this post. Very fitting for what I am trying to convey.

    • terri

      Thanks for this, Lisa. I’ve been waiting/looking for a complementarian response to this line of thinking.

    • xulon

      In a country which worships war like America, everybody wants to evoke man as Warrior. Now to make it equal, women are Warriors too? I remember a cartoon of your stereotypical male-pig saying “My wife’s okay. She doesn’t want to be my equal”.

      God, as you know, is a two-fisted man’s man Warrior. Blech I don’t care how much appeal that has to people who worship war. Dominion is far more than enforcing your will at the barrel of a gun (or the distance of the drones).

    • EMSoliDeoGloria

      Excellent post, Lisa. The idea that men are ordained by God to be warriors and women are designed as their personal assistants is a myth, not a biblical truth.

      For example, in his critique today of Debi Pearl’s book, Challies lists as a point of complementarian AGREEMENT the idea (also stated by people like Doug Wilson and Carolyn Mahaney) that God calls men to a task (kingdom mission) and then gives them a woman to help them accomplish their task.

      But this idea is part of the problem. This fallacy negates the biblical truth that God has called each of his redeemed image bearers to be Ambassadors of Christ, kingdom workers, truth proclaimers and light bearers.

      As believing men and women, we are to have each others backs – protect each other in areas of weakness and fight together, work together, pray together, glorify God together. Not, as the masculinists imply, the men fighting together while the women are back at camp cooking soup and reading bedtime stories to the toddlers. But God places no one on the sidelines, because this is not a war against flesh and blood. The battles of the Christian faith are fought on knees, and with boldness to proclaim the gospel.

      Our complementary characteristics can enable us as brothers and sisters to help each other, to fight better together than apart and to encourage and build each other up, confront each other and care for one another.

      Faithful Christian women neither need nor want men to do the hard work of proclaiming and defending the gospel, studying the WORD and praying for the harvest FOR them. And godly men who understand their own calling would never suggest that God calls men to a kingdom task and then gives them a woman to help them with it, as if God does not also call women directly to kingdom tasks.

    • Ed Kratz

      EM, love that response and I obviously agree. Can somebody say Priscilla and Acquilla?

    • Michael Davis

      Thanks for sharing Lisa. I think I like what you’re trying to say but not sure I like the Scriptures used to support. I don’t see the context of Genesis supporting the idea of a “rescuer” and culturally, the original readers would not have read it that way either. Deborah was a judge but never partook in any battles and I don’t know if Jael’s hammering a peg through a guys head when he was sleeping would qualify as “warrior” either. I’m not trying to downplay what they did but I just don’t think it’s accurate to describe them as warriors unless your speaking in a strictly spiritual sense

      A verse I might have used to support your argument might have been Galatians 3:26-28: “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

    • xulon

      The Hebrew word, Ezer, always means “help” as in “rescue”. It is used 19 times and, except for Genesis 2, always in the context of praying to a god for rescue, whether correctly praying to YHWH or seeking help from a false god or idol. Since the woman in Genesis 2 is not YHWH yet she is positive “help” I suggest that this “help” or “rescue” is part of the Imago Dei.

    • Truth Unites... and Divides

      Women serving as Kingdom Warriors are much appreciated.

      Example. Sarah Flashing rebutting Rachel Held Evans on a number of issues.

      Sarah is a Kingdom Warrior standing firm against the aberrant teaching of Rachel Held Evans.

    • Michael Davis

      Maybe I”m just arguing semantics here. Most definitions of “rescue” imply saving something/someone by force. For Lisa to call Eve a rescuer implies she road in on a horse, slayed the dragon, and pulled Adam from a burning fire. I just don’t see anything like that described in Genesis. If she means “rescue” like how I rescue the mail for the mailbox, then I could see it. The focus in Genesis is how God fixes Adam’s problem, not Eve. It’s not my intention to devalue Eve, I can agree with “indispensable companion” but not “rescuer”.

    • xulon

      The common translation of “helper” is inadequate for the word and has led to serious devaluing of women.

      Adam did not have a problem in Genesis 2, he was alone which was not good. Imago Dei is male and female (Genesis 1:27).

    • Michael Davis

      Xulon, agreed

    • Hman

      My problem with self justification of women as a separate breed is just that. Hey, we’re all human. Perhaps I have a different view altogether. It is like people with a different skin color than I. There is a difference, skin color. That is all it is. I have never thought different. I cannot understand, I loathe people who look down on others for no reason. Same with men looking down on women, for not being men. Can’t stand that.

      However, when someone with a different skin color than I starts to rant about that he/she is as good as someone else with regard to skin color I frown. Arguing that is accepting there is an issue. Why bring it up? It’s like pointing out, hey, here’s a problem. Although I realize that history, and some parts of a retard world has not yet come to terms with reality. Still, what’s the point acknowledging their (racists and women oppressors) uneducated, inherited, inbred short sightedness.

      Secondly, feminism is just taking it too far. What’s the purpose of discussing gender? To bring unity, isn’t it? Feminism as we see it today is divisive in nature. Defeats its purpose. Totally. I can’t understand why Christianity must have feminism as well? Another meaningless Christian subculture. Poorly performed it is distracting us from what is important.

      Isn’t it enough that woman was created by God, with a purpose, and that we should love our neighbor as ourself, regardless of gender?

      I say we should celebrate God’s creation for its diversity, man and woman. We should seek unity and not the opposite. Man and woman, in different roles, serving our Lord, according to our capacity.

    • Ed Kratz

      Xulon, thanks for that. This is one of the posts that in hindsight I wish I had approached differently. I’m afraid I did it a bit of disservice with the warrior motif. I wasn’t trying to portray the woman as warrior only that she equally contributes to the kingdom agenda. I do think the approach of fighting for the kingdom is a bit misguided. What are we fighting for? The battle is the Lord’s and Christ has already attained victory. Humble service not warring is more like it.

      When you said “The common translation of ‘helper’ is inadequate for the word and has led to serious devaluing of women.”, that is precisely what prompted me to write this post. Because that definition has been perpetuated and headship made to be something that I don’t think is warranted by scripture. When men are told under this promotion of the kingdom man that women essentially do not matter, that is devaluing, to her, the gospel and the church’s mission.

    • Ed Kratz

      Hman, on one hand I do see your point about bringing it up though I think identifying it as a rant is a bit over the top. Interestingly, I read what I wrote 3 years ago (the link entitled Women, Scholarship and Authentic Agendas) and remembered why I don’t get into the gender debate. If nothing else it is the perception of picking a fight.

      I am a fairly active participant in my classes at school, especially the theology classes. When I took Sanctification and Ecclesiology I was pretty engaged until we got to the section on gender roles, then turned unusually quiet. After class, my prof asked me why I did not participate. I indicated to him that it was intentional and I just did not want to even be perceived as fight for “women’s rights”. His response? Sometimes you have to say it especially if it speaks up for what is right and challenges detrimental thinking.

      So while I typically stay away from these types of discussions, in this case I thought it was worth speaking up especially given the rampant mishandling of headship and submission, which I believe stems from the faulty translation of help-meet and especially with the ideas being promoted by the kingdom man agenda. They are devaluing to women. To draw the contrast of feminism is also a bit dishonest and extreme, don’t you think?

    • Hman

      Lisa, thanks for your reply!

      Ah, I was ranting. You were not on a rant. I wanted to make a point, so exaggarated.

      I am undecided with my view of headship and leadership in Church. Mostly because I am have limited knowledge of what scripture says, and I want to base my theology on scripture alone. At the same time, I am pragmatic, and if I had to present a view it would be influenced by experience. I would rather have a devoted, and truly Christian female Church leader than some of the many male idiots I have come across, IRL. Any day.

      I also have nothing against women. However, that is not the question. What is God’s instruction to us? Is there one? Or is it Paul’s own thoughts, interpretations of scripture that are misleading us and putting women down? Are we Paulians, and not Christians? Did we get this wrong? That’s the debate I think is interesting. Not a debate stemming from trying to prove one view against another. Gender debate I find meaningless, medieval. Sorry I made it sound as if I like it, and if I was trying to make a point about the topic. I just attacked the approach.

      I don’t like any form of devaluing women. And here’s really the point I would want to make. What if (and the jury is out on this one) God’s will for women is to be subordinate men. Does that devalue women? If I give my wife a dozen roses, does the fact that I did not buy her a diamond neckless devalue my gift? Well, that depends on the way she views it doesn’t it?

      Speaking of which. I will buy her a bunch of roses this afternoon, because she is great full stop.

      Finally, it’s cool to discuss, or stay away from gender discussions. Anybody’s choice really. However, if we want to understand God’s will for us feminist thinking doesn’t help. It’s divisive. Not saying you were promoting feminism, BUT saying that is what it sounded like to me. The tone that is. Perhaps cos I am a man, who’s over gender discussions. Ah, not quite, but…. 🙂

    • […] expanded my last post and published it on Parchment and Pen. Interestingly, it got little notice. But the post also pointed to an article I […]

    • Marv

      Hi, Lisa, hope your summer is going well, my friend.

      Sorry, don’t mean to sound contrarian… but you know me… alas.

      Reflective listening: “I don’t know anything about this, but I’m going to blog it down anyway…” LOL. Am I close? Why not just say, “Ladies and gentlemen, behold the chip on my shoulder”?

      Googling the thing, I’m not altogether sure about this “Kingdom Man” conference. I do find a Tony Evans led “No More Excuses” conference. And boy, does THAT sound threatening!!

      And Evans does have a book out called Kingdom Man, and a video curriculum to go with it.

      I see he does threaten the Body of Christ with the following menacing thougths:

      “…a man’s personal life under God, leading a family, being held accountable as part of a church and leaving a legacy for future generations.”

      “Many men have forsaken their God-given responsibilities, he says, and as a result our society has suffered.”

      “Evans says men often have a number of different excuses as to why they aren’t behaving or leading their families in a godly way. Some men, for example, didn’t have a father around when they were growing up to teach them how to be a man. Others blame the way they are on the pressure society places on them, or on racism. And others think that men should be totally independent of everyone and everything, including God, an idea Evans says stems from a “false definition of manhood.”

      We need to stop this before it’s too late!!!!!!!!!!


    • Ed Kratz

      Marv, note the second paragraph and the segue into “general observations”. Tis my style to spring board off a specific incident into a broader view far beyond that incident. And chip has such a negative connotation, don’t you think? Although I do think its amusing how the member of the party that is being negatively impacted by ideas gets accused of chips and rants so quickly at even the suggestion of questioning. Why is that?

      Nonetheless, like I said I was not so much interested in what he was telling men about themselves but what he was telling them about women and their relationship to man. He is well respected and well regarded, as you know. This more or less was targeting an attitude that might possibly exist among his minions and that exists generally as I have observed.

    • Ed Kratz

      Hman, I was going to leave this alone but your repeated use of “feminism” troubles me. Are you suggesting that my examining how common translation of ezer have been unhelpful in the male/female scenario are considered feminist ideas? There is a huge, I mean HUGE difference between questioning how a biblical translation has resulted in a misguided understanding of submission and headship and a stand that wants to completely obliterate submission and headship. Feminists do the latter and I am in no, way, shape or form advocating for the removal of headship or submission. I would even distinguish the Egalitarian position from the feminist position in that Egals at least uphold submission but believe in mutual submission. Feminists on the other hand, fight for what is right for them. There is no submission in that.

    • Marv

      More: contrary to some earlier comments, “rescue” is far too strong for ezer, and certainly a distortion of what Gen 2:18 has in mind. If the context is one of distress, then “help” is reasonably understood as rescue. But in the day to day endeavors, ezer is more partnering than rescuing.

      Despite, xulon’s reference to 19 uses, that’s the noun. You have to figure in the verb and other related words. We needn’t distort the point of Gen 2:18 to counteract a different distortion. It’s true there is nothing in that text that remotely indicates helplessness or weakness. But I’m not quite sure it is genuinely true to say the English word “help” sounds that way either. Let’s just teach what it does mean.

      And like it or not, one coming alongside to help, whether stronger, weaker or equal, is rendering assistance to one who has already taken the initiative to begin an endeavor.

      Sometimes, when I tell my son to clean his room, he asks me to help him. This is when he is sitting at the computer or lying on the bed. I tell him, I might well help him, but I CAN’T help him if he isn’t DOING IT.

    • Marv

      Lisa, I was talking about Doritos of course.

    • xulon

      Despite your non-correction, I admit that “rescue” is probably swinging too far the other way. But “rescue” does not mean helplessness on Adam’s part. God did say it was not good for him to be alone, so I would say incomplete is what the rescuer is rescuing Adam from. Since this is God’s creating in process we are reading of, there is no issue of helplessness or any problem. As I said elsewhere, Eve rescues Adam from his unilateral (incomplete) dominion.

      That said, the first time I heard someone mention that Ezer meant “rescue”, it was in the context of a “traditional roles” sermon and it came across like a patronizing bone thrown to women to make them feel better about submissively taking care of the house for the guy who is solely responsible for so much authority.

    • Dave Z

      Going WAY back to comment 2, some Christians will not obey a woman boss. My sister and brother-in-law in Pennsylvania were building a house and hired some Amish men to construct the stone chimney. They’d listen to my brother-in-law, but when he was off at work, they’d ignore my sister almost like she wasn’t there. No doubt there are some cultural elements there, but I’m sure the Amish would say those elements were scripturally based.

      I had to deal with this when I accepted a music position at a PC(USA) church (a fairly conservative one, now looking for a way to exit that denomination). I was coming from an American Baptist church (a very conservative one which has long since exited that denomination). The Presby church had a female associate pastor. Coming from the strict complementarianism of the Baptist church, that was very difficult. Do I place myself under the spiritual authority of a woman? Yet I was sure God was placing me there. To cut to the coda, my views on women in ministry shifted quite a bit; my theology definitely expanded during that time.

      When I sought counsel from my Baptist pastor over the situation, he said he disagreed with the idea of a woman pastor, though he would not break fellowship over it.

      Someone mentioned feminism – my pastor also said I should pay attention to whether the female pastor was there with a feminist agenda or a pastor’s heart. In time it became clear that she was abundantly gifted with a pastor’s heart, and that reality had a lot to do with my theological shift.

      I don’t know about the warrior thing or the rescuer thing, but I saw this godly woman do battle with the schemes of the enemy many times and in many ways.

      Now, with all that said, I’m still not sure I’d be comfortable with the concept of a female SENIOR pastor. Haven’t really had to deal with that yet, so….yeah.

    • Susan

      If God intended for women to take a retiring role He wouldn’t have given them spiritual gifts…which are often different from those their husbands possess.

    • Complementarian. Pacifist. Gary.

      Good post, Lisa. I’m still conflicted on the issue of proper balance, as well. Men NEED to be reminded that they have responsibility. On the other hand, women aren’t no-count pushovers. Man, life is complicated!

      ___Exegetical ramble
      One of the beautiful, intriguing, and frustrating things about Genesis (especially 1-11 (especially 1-3)) is how purposefully ambiguous it is. God said “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” in ch 9, then in chapter 10 happens. But did God intend for it to happen by separation and division? In chapter 3 we see the introduction of pain in childbirth, and then in the beginning of chapter 4 is the first sex-act. And then there’s the birth of two sons — are they twins?

      And scrolling back to chapter three: what’s an ezer in this chapter? Did God consider the animals as qualified ezers, contingent only upon the man accepting one as such? Is that why God brought all the animals to the man, or was it merely about naming?

      Does naming include defining the role of that which is named? If so, what does it mean for the man to name the woman? Does this imply that the man had the power to define the woman’s role, and that his declaration “this is now bone of my bones…” is what made it so? And why is the woman passive throughout this chapter, if her role is so vital? And what IS that role exactly?

      The text just doesn’t say. There are hints this way, and that way, but it’s not definitive. I think “helper” sounds too condescending, but “rescuer” is overstating the case. Perhaps “companion”?

    • Steve Martin

      We are all one in Christ. “Neither Greek nor Jew, male nor female, slave nor free.”

      Somehow I don’t think God has a problem with the length of anyone’s nose…their skin color…or what genitalia they happen to have.

      Especially in this day and age.

    • mbaker


      I hear you. It can be confusing. On the issue of proper balance, we must remember that Adam, in and of himself, no matter how powerful he was before Eve, was not able to reproduce his own species, or have someone who really understood him, whereas the animals did.

      This speaks to me of an incompletion, not a help mate type of thing. I think Adam realized that without woman he was not the same as the other animals, but was really alone, without a suitable mate.

      However, the point should be not the OT definition of helpmeet or not, but how it was defined in the NT by Christ, who was very open to what women had to add to His life without the OT discrimination.

    • Ed Kratz

      Mbaker, I think that’s exactly what it conveys – incompleteness. So the idea of a rescuer is not so far fetched, I don’t think though not in a subduing way. She rescues the scenario of man’s charge to rule over the earth from incompleteness.

    • Hman

      This afternooon I got really hungry. Lucky for me a hamburger from McDonalds rescued me. 🙂

      Man + Woman = complete, in total agreement with that. Women should be praised for that. Amen.

    • […] really like this post from Lisa Robinson over at the Parchment and Pen blog. Today’s push among some Christians for […]

    • Lora

      I was married for 21 years…tried more love, more submission, and following fundamentalist church teachings that authority supersedes morality.
      We were unequally yoked, marriage didn’t work….my husband wanted me to love him with all of my mind so that there would be no mind left for me to love God.

      Moral foundation for human right to liberty is Acts 5:29 For we ought to obey God rather than man.

      IF more women obeyed God rather than man, then women would be worshipping God rather than man.
      I repented of my idolatry and filed for a divorce.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.