In complementarianism, evangelical leaders demand that women reject leadership roles in their churches—alongside any hopes of achieving equality with men. And many women do obey these demands. It’s not uncommon at all to encounter evangelical women who gleefully stomp on other women’s talents and futures in the name of Jesus. That’s what we find in a recent story over at the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) site Baptist Press. But this particular woman-stomping woman has chosen quite an interesting way to go about it.
Today, we’ll see how this gal’s complementarian beliefs prevent her from meaningfully engaging with the fact of other women’s sense of divine callings.
(This post first went live on Patreon on 7/13/2023. Its audio ‘cast lives there too, and I think I’ve made it play nicely with RSS feeds!)
Christianese 101: Complementarianism
About 35 years ago, complementarianism blew into evangelicals’ hearts and made itself at home there. It is, quite simply, a form of separate-but-equal sexism. Evangelical men demand that women defer to them and obey them in all things, especially if those women are part of their families. Moreover, women may not ever hold any kind of authority over men, ever, nor ever have the power to force any man to do anything he doesn’t want to do.
In an evangelical church, evangelicals consider the most humble, worst-educated, poorest, most unintelligent, and cruelest man in the congregation to be the superior of the most exalted, intelligent, kindest, and wisest women there. You can likely see right there why complementarianism caught on with these folks, right?
But first, evangelical men had to get women on board with destroying their own potential and futures. If women hear about this doctrine and laugh at it and leave, then the remaining men will have nobody to command. And these men sure won’t volunteer to do the volunteer scutwork that millions of women perform in churches every week without complaint.
Thankfully, most evangelical women buy into biblical literalism. Thus, it’s easy to convince them that Jesus totally demands complementarianism of them. For decades now, biblical literalism has been the gift that keeps on giving. Biblical literalism teaches that everything in the Bible is literally 100% true and totally happened. It also teaches that Christians must obey the Bible in every particular.
But wait, Cas, I hear you saying: Can’t you justify literally any position and belief in that book, since it’s so incredibly poorly-written? Why yes, yes, you absolutely can! After all, that’s how slavery proponents got away with the practice for so long in America’s early history.
And now, it’s how evangelicals rationalize their subjugation and objectification of women.
Christianese 101: Divine callings
In Christianity as a whole, most Christians believe in divine callings. These are direct, personalized commands that Jesus gives to his followers. Often, callings involve their future vocations. For instance, a guy might claim that Jesus has called him to missionary service abroad. But callings need not be overtly religious in nature. Someone might claim to be called to open a Jiffy Lube in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Or a woman might claim to be called to motherhood with this particular (hot) guy who just joined her church.
Callings usually share a few common elements:
- They will feel enormously powerfully significant to those receiving them.
- They’ll either fall perfectly in line with the target’s skills and aptitudes, or wildly out of sync with them.
- The callings’ targets can always relate their own calling to some massive benefit or win for Team Jesus.
- Likewise, targets can always find at least a few Bible verses that back up their calling somehow.
- Their targets always consider their callings miraculous in some way. These are totes for realsies divine communications, y’all!
- However, nobody else will be able to detect any objective supporting evidence of the calling’s existence, much less its validity. Callings are 100% subjective.
The purely subjective nature of callings is, therefore, a big problem for Christians. Literalism and complementarianism are easy for evangelicals to justify. But callings are a lot harder to gainsay.
Figuring out if callings are legit or not can be a struggle
Most of the time, evangelicals don’t seem to question whatever they think their callings are. (I’m leaving out the many evangelicals who don’t have any idea what their callings are. I was one of those myself. As you’d guess, it is frustrating! But let’s skip ahead to the ones who think they know already what Jesus wants them to do.) That said, they might question the source of their callings.
After all, if Jesus didn’t call them to do something, then only two other options remain. The false calling could have come from the flesh, meaning their own heads, or from demons who want to mess up Jesus’ ineffable plan for the world.
If they ever do question the legitimacy of their callings, of course, tons of resources exist online to help them decide if Jesus himself has really commanded them. You’ll likely notice a major problem with all of their advice.
In the Wild: Discerning the source of callings
In confirming any calling, it is important to first examine your heart and motivation (Jeremiah 17:9). Do you truly feel this call is from God, or is it a personal desire? Or is it an attempt to live up to someone else’s expectation of you? If the motivation is pride or people-pleasing, you should give pause. Are you feeling “called” because you think that in order to be “most Christian” you must work in a distinctly “Christian” ministry? Christians are the fragrance of Christ (2 Corinthians 2:15) no matter where they serve. You can be light and salt and “do ministry” outside the church or in a secular job just as well as you can within the church or in a distinctly Christian vocation.
Guilt can sometimes be mistaken as a call to ministry. Many Christians hear that serving God requires sacrifice, which it does. But this does not mean all Christians are called to a foreign mission field or that the type of ministry you would enjoy least is what God is calling you to do. [. . .]
Also, you’ll want to seek counsel (see Proverbs 11:14 and 15:22). Others can often see strengths and weaknesses in us that we cannot. It is helpful to receive input from trusted, godly friends.
Meanwhile, the hardline Calvinist site The Gospel Coalition suggests evangelicals examine potential callings with a three-point checklist:
- Skills, aptitudes, and talents
- Life experiences and education that may be relevant
- Passions, goals, aspirations, etc
Another evangelical site, Church Leaders, offers a two-part, six-point checklist (part 1; part 2). Its writer claims he used this checklist to figure out if his own calling was totes legit. He bases it on Acts 26:16.
- Revelation: You’re totes sure that Jesus totes appeared to you.
- Role: You’re totes sure Jesus totes appointed you to this role.
- Servanthood: You’re totes sure you want to serve him no matter what.
- Witness: You’re totes sure you want to tell everyone on Earth that they’re doomed to Hell unless they comply with your—er, with Jesus’ demands.
- Observation: You’re totes sure you’ve seen Jesus.
- BUT WAIT, “There’s More”: You update both your testimony and your sales pitches whenever they start feeling stale.
And R.J. Scherba, a female Christian life coach of some kind, offers her own 7-point checklist to confirm the validity of callings. To her, callings:
- Reflect the called person’s passions.
- Are clarified by experience.
- Bear fruit (in other words, the endeavor results in at least some good results)
- Are refined by hardship…
- … And strengthened by failures.
- Are always launched by “God and others…”
- … And celebrated by Jesus.
A site that seems to be geared toward evangelical Millennial women, Renovated Faith, offers a 7-point checklist of their own:
- Listen to whatever you think Jesus told you to do, and listen the first time you think he’s telling you to do it.
- Remember that it’s Jesus’ calling to you. Stay humble.
- Use your gifts and talents; don’t let them stagnate.
- Figure out what your fears are with regard to the potential calling, and let Jesus magic them away through Jesus Power.
- Callings seem very closely tied to what the called people themselves enjoy doing. (WEIRD!)
- “Be tenacious!”
- Keep Jesusing and reading the Bible.
After all these checklists, it’s almost a relief to see just three items on the one offered by Enjoying the Journey. Here, we see that callings:
- Stay consistent over time, unlike ickie worldly desires that change from day to day.
- Jesus himself prepares the called person to be able to perform the calling he gives them.
- The called person’s church confirms the calling as a group.
Are you detecting any trends here?
Evangelicals themselves make the problem with callings plainly and painfully obvious
Not one bit of that in-the-wild advice actually tethers to reality in any way, except in a few instances. Two sources ask the called person to double-check with other people to see what they think of the matter. Other advice centers on how successful the endeavor is, since obviously Jesus himself will want a calling to be successful.
And here, I sadly remember my second pastor, Gene, who felt called to start a Pentecostal church in Friendswood, Texas in the early 1990s. It failed, and it failed so completely that even the internet does not know it ever existed. He knew what other evangelicals would think of that failure, too. However, he was absolutely sure it was really his divine calling.
Likewise, my Evil Ex Biff was absolutely positive that going to Japan was Jesus’ divine calling upon his life. That doors seemed to open for us to save money to get there, and then to get there fairly quickly and easily, and then for at least one of us to find some kind of job while there, only seemed to confirm the calling’s legitimacy. Alas, his big plans failed miserably in the end.
Other than these subjective measures, there’s no way to double-check a calling’s legitimacy. It all depends completely on subjective feelings and impressions. All too often, that legitimacy gets called into question only after plans fail and fall through.
Judging other people’s callings is a beloved evangelical pastime
I’m telling you all this so we can talk about this hilarious Baptist Press post I found. Kira Nelson, an active church volunteer, seminary student, and homeschooling mom, wrote it. Her bio at Baptist Press does not mention what her husband does, so I’m assuming he is far less active in church than she is.
Over the past year, the SBC has been stomping hard on women’s progress in the denomination. In particular, they are trying very hard to make it impossible for women to be the pastors of any SBC churches. This was the entire reason why they had their big Conservative Resurgence schism back in the 1980s-1990s, and I’m sure they never thought they’d have to relitigate that squabble. Well, I guess they do!
However, they’re more aware of the optics of furious old-fart dudes pushing complementarianism down women’s throats. That’s very obviously why they got a pretty young woman to do it. She’s the perfect useful idiot for them: too inexperienced to understand just why separate-but-equal doesn’t work, and too idealistic to understand all the ways that women hurt themselves through participation in complementarianism.
Today, Nelson is going to tell us why women should never, ever be pastors of any SBC churches, even if Jesus calls them to do so.
Reason #1: Those callings are obviously invalid
The further along I read in Nelson’s post, the funnier it got. Here’s her assessment of why women pastors want to be pastors:
I think the primary reason women choose to pursue pastoral ministry is because, well, they want to do ministry. [. . .]
[I]f our churches are not places where women feel encouraged to serve, they are likely to feel discouraged and stifled.
A passionate, gifted, frustrated woman is likely to be tempted toward one of two things: to water down her theology to make room for a female pastorate or to give up, burn out, and run away.
See? It’s not that Jesus really calls any women to pastor positions. They’re just so frustrated by their lack of opportunities that they, um, I guess, decide to become pastors! Or worse, leave their churches entirely! Thankfully, Nelson’s pastors were far too amazing to let either of those dire outcomes happen:
In my early 20s my husband and I joined Hope Fellowship Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts. At that time, Pastor Curtis Cook asked a small group of women, including me, to meet with him over several weeks to equip us to lead small group bible studies for other women. After finishing the training, I promptly started a small group. This investment encouraged me in the things I most deeply wanted to do and trained me to do them well.
In many of our churches, the opportunities for women to teach are slim.
I think it’s absolutely hilarious that to her, women who think Jesus told them to be pastors are just frustrated and handling it poorly. In her universe, there’s no valid reason for a woman to be seeking a pastor job. Such an awful thing only happens when male pastors fall down on their duty to identify eager volunteers and get them started with a gender-appropriate ministry.
Reason #2: Women pastors’ callings aren’t even real!
Nelson’s other problem with women pastors is that she thinks they’re confused. They don’t really want to be pastors. They just think pastoring is the only way to do that. Here’s how she puts it:
Rev. Tish Warren (no relation to Rick) of the Anglican Church of North American (ACNA) has written, “I Got Ordained So I Can Talk About Jesus. Not the Female Pastor Debate.” [archive]
I too love Jesus and from my earliest memories have wanted to talk about him to just about everybody. After all, some of the most faithful Southern Baptist evangelists have been women.
While I believe the SBC rightly reaffirmed the historic Christian doctrine that God intends for men alone to hold the authoritative office of elder/pastor, member churches must be careful not to glibly brush off women who want to talk about Jesus.
SEE? This Tish Warren gal just wants to “talk about Jesus.” But she doesn’t need to be a pastor to do that! She can talk about Jesus all she wants in a proper women’s ministry, or Sunday School, or music ministry, or while she cleans the church as a volunteer.
But let’s go to the essay Tish Warren wrote. Here is why Tish Warren got ordained as a priest, in her own words:
I didn’t get ordained because I wanted to prove that women should be pastors or to make some statement about justice. I didn’t get ordained because I think women (or men) have an inalienable right to ordination. I got ordained because I was already serving as a lay minister and had a high enough view of the church and a high enough view of the sacraments that I could no longer understand my ministry as separate from the life and authority of the church.
I was already doing the work. I was already teaching people and forming disciples. I wanted to do it under the gaze and in the name of the body of Christ.
Tish Warren goes on to write:
Yesterday, a younger woman in ministry sat on my couch and said, “I’m doing this to see people set free.” Because what draws us into ministry is Jesus and his mission. We aren’t motivated by second wave feminism or by “the impulses unleashed by liberation theology,” as Al Mohler put in his recent response to the Saddleback news [archive]. We want to serve the church with the gifts God has given.
As a female priest, I often feel like an unwilling pundit in a culture war that I frankly find boring. What’s interesting to me about ministry isn’t convincing anyone that I’m worthy of a particular office. What’s interesting about ministry is participating in Jesus’ work in the church.
None of that sounds like all this priest’s entire goal was “talk about Jesus.” And it’s quite telling that Kira Nelson feels the need to diminish what Tish Warren very obviously considers a strong calling to do the work of a priest.
I wonder how Nelson feel if someone were to say that all she’s doing with her women’s ministry is hanging out with women at church and clucking like hens, or that she’s just doing busy work the pastor dreams up simply to make her feel like she’s making any kind of difference. Not that I’d say that, of course. I’m sure she finds great meaning and joy in her volunteer work. So does Tish Warren. The difference between them is that Tish Warren would applaud Nelson, not insult and pooh-pooh away her life’s calling.
Reason #3: Because she’s never had a calling like that, it can’t possibly exist
Kira Nelson ends her smearing of Tish Warren on quite an interesting note:
Like Tish Warren, I want to talk about Jesus. But I disagree with her conclusion that to do so I need to be a pastor. My plate and my cup are overflowing with ministry opportunities. But those opportunities don’t just happen – others invested in me so that I could do the work of ministry.
First of all, as we already established, Tish Warren’s perceived calling goes far, far past “talk[ing] about Jesus.”
Second, Tish Warren did not say anywhere in that entire essay of hers that she thinks Kira Nelson can’t “talk about Jesus” without being a pastor. In fact, she said nothing about other women’s perceived callings. It’s obvious that Nelson has suffered a reading-comprehension glitch here. The conclusion of Tish Warren’s post clearly applies only to women pastors like herself, not to all women. Here’s that conclusion:
In the end, the work of Christ himself is the only thing that makes women’s ordination remotely compelling. The harvest is plentiful. The workers are few. Yes, we need to seek to be faithful to Scripture. Yes, we need to have these arguments about women’s ordination. But we don’t need to spend most of our time or energy arguing about how women labor in the field. Our eyes need to be set on the gospel. We will continue to do the hard work of ministry because we are seeking to follow the Lord of the harvest himself.
That’s why Tish Warren specifically mentions “women’s ordination” in the first sentence of that paragraph. That’s who she means here. If other women wish to “labor in the field” in different ways, I can tell right away that Tish Warren doesn’t have a problem with that at all.
Fixing the problem: But their callings are not the same
As an aside, Nelson mentions a number of “investments” that her male pastors have made in her so she can be the bestest li’l women’s ministry leader ever. And they really are negligible:
My pastors at Del Ray Baptist Church in Alexandria, Virginia, have poured hours into giving me honest, hard feedback on my writing and teaching. My church has paid for me to attend intensive expositional training and has loaned me dozens of theological texts. They provide childcare for our midweek bible study, demonstrating that they care about moms being able to study the Word together. And they pray for us by name. Doing these things demonstrates that women and their ministry opportunities aren’t a backburner issue.
None of that sounds particularly intensive to me. That “childcare” she mentions is almost certainly provided by other women volunteers. The “hours” of “hard feedback” could mean only brief meetings accumulated over years. Lending someone books doesn’t cost anything. And the “intensive expositional training” is likely conferences and seminary events. I’m sure she values all of it, and I’m sure she thinks it’s vastly improved her ability to conduct her women’s ministry activities. But don’t mistake it for anything close to what pastors do to prepare for their roles.
It’s kind of insulting to Tish Warren that Nelson thinks their preparation and paths to their roles look anything similar. No male leaders would grant Nelson even a fraction of the support and mentoring that pastors need. They’re just cooperating with her LARP, that’s all. If funds and time had to be slashed from church ministries, her women’s ministry would be on the chopping block right next to Vacation Bible Study.
But Nelson’s making the case here that if pastors would do this piddling little bit for ministry-minded women, then those women would never ever get frustrated and run off to become pastors themselves. She’s saying, in effect, that if some male pastor had just done all this for Tish Warren, then pastoring never would have occurred to her.
It boils down to judging other Christians’ callings
We’ve already seen that callings are 100% subjective. No Christian can say for sure that another Christian’s claimed calling is false, any more than they can say for sure that one is the real deal. But oh, they do love to judge other claimed callings.
The main reason I think complementarians judge callings like that of Tish Warren is that they think the Bible forbids women pastors. So if a woman thinks she’s been called to ministry like that, then she must be wrong. Jesus would never order someone to break one of his own rules.
But Tish Warren mentions a couple of Christian scholars who are breaking some good ground in destroying that complementarian rationalization. Specifically, she names Beth Allison Barr, the writer of The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth, and William Witt, who wrote what appears to be a textbook called Icons of Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Theology for Women’s Ordination.
Besides scholarship, entire organizations exist to combat complementarianism as a whole, like Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE). (Beth Stoneburner, once a Roll to Disbelieve community member and someone we still care about, was part of this group at one point and may still be.) They perform activism at complementarian and other sexist events, as well as providing resources and scholarship regarding the topics.
No no, obviously women pastors have just heard Jesus’ calling all wrong. It wasn’t Jesus at all!
What it means for women pastors to be correct about their callings
I bet every woman pastor could easily mark off every item on the vague, nebulous checklists we’ve seen today. Every reason Kira Nelson could give for believing women’s ministry is her calling, they could echo in defense of their own perceived callings.
But if those women are right and Jesus is totes calling them to ministry, then that means Nelson’s own beliefs are wrong somehow. It also means that her understanding of the Bible—and the idolized literalism that allowed complementarianism to infest her end of Christianity—is incorrect as well.
No evangelical likes to think about being incorrect! Being wrong means being sinful, and being sinful means potentially being tortured eternally while their loving god stands by and does nothing about it. And that’s not even counting what being wrong means in terms of time wasted or hurts dealt others unnecessarily.
That’s why Nelson had that reading-comprehension glitch about Tish Warren’s last paragraph, incidentally. That error indicated her antiprocess filter kicking in. When someone vastly mischaracterizes you or something you’ve said or done like that, especially if they’re making a painfully obvious mistake in doing it, chances are good they’ve just popped their antiprocess shields. They’ve shut down and can no longer engage meaningfully with the topic. That’s what happened here: Nelson’s mind latched onto that mischaracterization instead of focusing on information that might seriously challenge her beliefs.
Sidebar: Women destroying women: the complementarian ideal
I guess Kira Nelson doesn’t care about any of that. She hasn’t yet wondered why it is that male pastors don’t all act like hers and “invest” in women who want to get involved in their churches.
She doesn’t know yet that complementarianism means male leaders don’t ever HAVE to “invest” in women. This doctrine exists solely to make women complacent in their own subjugation. That is why women only achieve its promised benefits if all of the men around a given woman follow all of their own behavioral rules.
Some men will actually do that. But they are rarities. The moment one man refuses to play along, the other men won’t help her. They’ll protect the rulebreaker instead, because the holders of power in broken systems like the SBC always close ranks around each other. They won’t allow any wronged women to jeopardize their power by revealing just how few men actually follow the rules in complementarianism.
So Nelson has completely misunderstood just what complementarianism is. It’s not about the equal but different spheres twaddle evangelical men say to sell it to idealistic young women like her. They know damned well that women are inferior to men in their cosmology, which is why complementarianism hurts and destroys women so reliably.
The men of evangelicalism generally fear women with power. That’s why it is so important that they destroy any notion of Jesus calling any women to become pastors. And they think any women friendly to that idea will listen to another woman trying to trample on women pastors’ callings.
Callings highlight the problem of the Doctrinal Yardstick too
Maybe Nelson is right and Jesus has never called her to pastoral ministry. That’s fine. But she has no way of knowing that Jesus hasn’t called any other woman to that role. The moment she tries to assert that her style of Jesusing is the only correct way to Jesus, she slams against the Doctrinal Yardstick.
As we have already seen today, various groups and scholars already think complementarianism is bullshit. Most Christians, even many evangelicals, reject the ideas behind this disgusting, blatantly power-grabbing doctrine. In 2019, the hardline Calvinist site 9Marks declared complementarianism to be “on the decline everywhere” and “a declining conviction in the global evangelical church.”
Likewise, CBE quotes a seminary professor who wrote in 2016 that complementarianism was “in crisis.” In the same post, they note that complementarians have been drastically losing debates left and right with their critics. Their writer concludes:
It is now obvious that the so-called “biblical argument” for male headship has no textual support, and that the complementarian appeal to the Bible can only persuade ill-informed anxious young men and already convinced complementarians.
(This is correct, but not completely so. It also appeals to inexperienced young women who desperately want the benefits and protections promised by this doctrine, and who are willing to trample other women to get them.)
So it’s not like there’s any kind of consensus here. If one Oregon professor and Ryan P. Burge are right and complementarianism is declining in popularity as an evangelical trend, then there might be far more critics of the doctrine than embracers of it. As a result, for every Christian who insists that a woman pastor’s calling is false, there are plenty who perceive nothing wrong with it.
And ultimately, what the fight over callings tells the rest of us
They can’t all be right…
… But they could all be wrong.
In a lot of ways, when evangelicals try to rip away the legitimacy of women pastors’ callings, they only call attention to how piss-poor the evidence is that any of them are experiencing any callings at all.
Even when I was in college, I felt a lot of anxiety over knowing that there really wasn’t any good way to know for sure what Jesus said to any of us. As I said, I had no idea what my calling was, but I really wanted to know it. I prayed often to find out what Jesus wanted me to do. And yet somehow, I never got any replies from my ceiling.
Sometimes, one of my fellow Pentecostals would console me about it by offering the tribe’s standard-issue answer for women:
Don’t worry, Cas, they’d tell me. You already know your calling to be a wife and mother! And then, with a dramatic sigh and a significant glance heavenward they’d add: I sure do wish I had that kind of certainty about my own calling!
Except I knew for 100% sure that my calling did not involve motherhood. I’d prayed about that too, you see. And I was absolutely certain Jesus had confirmed that fact. I felt completely comfortable with that assertion; I had no doubts at all about it. It was like my own personal un-calling. I knew for absolute sure what my calling wasn’t.
And yes, all kinds of evangelical men tried to talk me out of that certainty. It happened often because evangelical men don’t recognize women’s boundaries. (<— In fact, not having to respect women’s boundaries is one of the secret bonuses of complementarianism for men!) They tried to argue with me about the un-calling I knew I’d gotten from Jesus. Of course, it never worked. I knew what I thought I’d heard—just as women pastors do. All those people who tried to tell me otherwise were obviously hearing wrong, that’s all.
Unfortunately, I had the same exact reaction to any evangelical trying to tell me I was wrong about being called to marry my Evil Ex. Looking back, I know I was right not to have children. But oooh, I wrecked my life for years by marrying that guy. Like Gene, I only learned in retrospect that I’d apparently been mistaken about that calling.
Callings operate in a very particular and telling way
I wish I’d been experienced enough in life to understand what all that disagreement meant about our religious claims. But as with our doctrinal arguments, the meaning of these constant arguments about callings didn’t quite ping my radar yet.
So I didn’t understand yet that there were no gods handing out any wisdom to us mortals, any more than any gods were handing out life assignments to their followers in the form of callings.
Instead, we were all just doing the best we could with a bunch of false claims. That’s what those checklists and introspection demands are all about. That’s the best Christians are ever going to get with callings.
And even if women pastors pass every item on those lists, even if they assert with complete honesty that they’ve done all that introspection, their fellow Christians may still declare with straight faces that they’re flat wrong about being called at all, all because those callings challenge their own beliefs about callings!
It is only through understanding that no gods are calling any of us to do anything that we can escape that entire tilted, twisted merry-go-round.
How you can support Roll to Disbelieve
Thanks for reading, and thanks for being part of our community!
And now, here are some ways you can support my work:
- Patreon, of course, for as little as $2 a month! I now write Patreon posts twice a week, on Tuesdays and Thursdays, with patrons getting early access 3 days ahead of time.
- Paypal, for direct one-time gifts. To do this, go to paypal.com, then go to the personal tab and say you want to send money, then enter firstname.lastname@example.org (that’s an underscore between the words) as the recipient. It won’t show me your personal information, only whatever email you input.
- My Amazon affiliate link, for folks who shop at Amazon. Just follow the link, then do your shopping as normal within that same browser window. This link adds nothing to your Amazon bill, but it does send me a little commission for whatever you spend there.
- And as always, sharing the links to my work and talking about it!
Thank you so much for being a part of Roll to Disbelieve!