HOME | CONTRIBUTE A STORY! | ABOUT MMI | CATEGORIES OF INTEREST | CONTACT ME

image

Today’s Buzz:  Repent, Pastor Frank!; Kiwi on Vulgarity; Small, Rural Churches and More!

Orginally published on Monday, June 04, 2007 at 7:16 AM
by Todd Rhoades

It's Monday... you may have a critic from yesterday to contend with. But what if they call you to repentance... publicly... on a blog? How would you respond? We'll discuss this; as long as the plight of many small, rural churches, a couple of follow-ups on Chuck Swindoll and vulgarity; and an idea for you to do this weekend if you get bored. It's all in today's buzz...

Repent, Pastor Frank!
I agree with Perry Noble when he says that he doesn’t pay attention to his blog critics; but what if the blog in question is one that is specifically set up to bring down your church and your ministry?  How should you respond.  Case in point. What would you do if you were Pastor Frank?  Ignore?  Confront?  This type of thing is starting to do major damage in many churches.  Don’t underestimate the power of the rogue blogger.  (By the way, I don’t know any of the situation of this church, or this blogger… I just use this as an instance to make you think about what you’d do if this type of thing happened in your church.

QUESTION:  If you were Pastor Frank, how would you respond?  Or would you at all?

A Couple More Great Posts on Vulgarity
If you took last week off, you might want to read through some of our posts last week about Chuck Swindoll and Vulgar speech.  There were a couple of new, excellent posts over the weekend that you might want to check out on the subject.  One is here from Parchment and Pen from a pastor who actually worked side by side with Chuck; and Andrew Jones (the tall skinny kiwi) has a post on language here.  They’re worth your time to read. 

QUESTION:  Were there words you were not allowed to say growing up that are now common place enough that you AND your children freely use them?  If so… why is that?

Washington Times Piece on Small Churches
“About 52 percent of American churches are in rural areas. Yet more than half of weekly churchgoers attend services in places that are among the most populous 10 percent of congregations, according to the Hartford Institute on Religion Research. That leaves some of the estimated 177,000 rural churches scattered across the country with as few as two regular worshippers.” Interesting read.

QUESTION:  Will there be little white churches still alive in rural America in ten years?  Why or why not?

Nothing to do This Weekend?  Here’s an Idea...
Balloons apparently were boring. A young man returning home from a church mission in Mexico found his family’s home completely wrapped in newspaper.
“As soon as the headlights hit the house it was like, ‘What has happened?’” said Kelly Wigington, the father of Mormon missionary Brian Wigington. “I’ve never seen anything like this before.” The family returned from the Salt Lake City airport about 1:30 a.m. Thursday to find the unusual welcome home decorations. The pranksters were Brian Wigington’s friends, who volunteered to remove the newsprint. It took three hours to wrap the house. “Some of these guys have too much free time on their hands,” Kelly Wigington said.  SOURCE

QUESTION:  What’s the craziest prank you’ve ever pulled?

OK… that’s it for today!  Have a great one!

PS—If you have something you think I should include in Today’s Buzz,


This post has been viewed 4417 times so far.


  There are 98 Comments:

  • Posted by
    Wednesday, June 06, 2007 at 10:05 AM

    Scrupe,

    That is hardly a biblical defense of these blogs. More like, “if it makes me feel better to act this way, it must be right...”

    You write “ few if any want to get involved with healing and recovery of those who have been abused”. MANY do want to get involved. Our most thriving ministries here are like that. If your church is one that won’t get involved with healing of people who’ve been hurt, then by all means, get the heck out and find one that will.

    But your issue is with the insititutional church as a whole, as you point out in your second to last paragraph. That wasn’t the point of this blog in question anyway. Let’s not change the subject.

  • Posted by
    Wednesday, June 06, 2007 at 3:45 PM

    Do those who leave have any responsibility to warn those who might associate themselves with a church where they are at risk of abuse?

    This is something I have struggled with myself, very mightily.  It was another church and attached seminary, but John Paul’s story struck a chord with me.  We joined the church, and truly enjoyed the teaching and fellowship there.  Later, through a series of (perhaps providential) circumstances, my husband was invited to teach some courses at the school, and shortly afterward I ended up in a position to observe the “inner circle” of the church behind the scenes in the course of doing administrative work at the school.  There were some issues as well that could legitimately be considered legal concerns relating to finances, and other matters.  I was quite literally shocked.  My husband and I started thinking critically about the turnover in elders and teaching staff over our tenure at the church, and wondering.  But we didn’t establish communications with the departed members. As time went on, and anyone who rocked the boat was slandered and chased away, so we chose to disassociate ourselves.  We had already witnessed what happened to individuals more powerful, and more mature in the Lord than we were and didn’t really feel up to the task of speaking prophetically against the leadership there.  Since we weren’t specifically the victims of the most gross abuse, and these chose to keep silent, it isn’t really our story to tell.  But we still worry about those who come behind us.

    Here’s my point:  do I share some responsibility for those who came after me and who are hurt and abused because I failed to be the Watchman who sounded the trumpet?

    Even today, a google search of that church and school turns up only positive things about that pastor and the school.  The truth is fairly well known in certain evangelical circles, but the wagons are circled for mutual protection.

    For this reason, I think that instead of being like the religious establishment who repeated beat up on prophet Jeremiah because he spoke God’s word against them, perhaps the church needs to corporately repent.  Those who cover for and excuse unGodly actions of the church leadership, and watch silently while others are abused, must take some share of responsibility.

    I don’t think I’ll choose a side in this blog-war issue, but I have to say that I have a great deal of sympathy and even empathy with the bloggers.  Sometimes, going public is the only way to be heard.  It would be edifying for all to hear a reasonable public response from the church.

  • Posted by Leonard
    Wednesday, June 06, 2007 at 5:07 PM

    Melody,
    One issue is that most of the list posted as a call to repent was merely opinion based upon second hand sources and conjecture.  This makes the list gossip.  Most of the blogs like this are actually not over biblical issues nearly as much as a difference in understanding of how church should be run.  For example, if someone thinks that it is unbiblical for a church to meet in a school...(there are people who have told me this) and they leave our church and start a blog over this issue, what can I do. 

    People divide over so many things.  I have heard over the years so many accusations of being unbiblical in my theology, (I am not a dispensational 5 point Calvinist) to being unbiblical in my leadership, I cannot effectively pastor more than a certain number of people so I did not call immediately when there was trouble… My childhood church nearly split over having small groups instead of a Wednesday night prayer meeting because small groups were as one elder put it, unbiblical.  Over on the other post about women in ministry we have a difference of opinion and some would see that as one side being unbiblical. 

    In my previous church I was told I made an unbiblical amount of money.  Even though I raised much of it on my own so as not to crush the church.  It turned out to be less than $8.00 an hour. They felt so strongly they talked to others and started rumors of mishandling of funds.  Another family said I used too much scripture and for the very same message another said I did not use enough.  Someone said we should not use PowerPoint and media shout, lets go back to the good old days of overheads.  It feels more biblical.  I was asked to not have a cell phone because Jesus didn’t but to always be accessible.  I had one family mad at me because I refused to talk with them about buying a car; I was having dinner with my wife and kids.  This is a real list and silly too.  What all these have in common is that these incidents have been used to call me unbiblical in my pastoral duties and beliefs.  What they also have in common is that they have nothing to do with the bible, rather more to do with a man’s opinion.  When these people were not given full weight (I did not comply to their demands of contrition and change) they left saying I ran them out and only surrounded myself with yes people. 

    I found that in my first pastorate I devoted too much time to fixing these issues which were never fixed.  It hurt the church, it hurt my family, it hurt the cause of Christ. 

    One final issue here.  Many people feel entitled to criticize because they have earned though service or giving a voice.  I have planted 2 churches and in both I have seen this entitlement mentality.  These people forgot that it was a privileged to serve Jesus, I gave nothing, I was given something, an opportunity to serve.  1Therefore, since through God’s mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. 2 Corinthians 4:1

    This blossip is to subjective.  It is too destructive and it is not biblical.

  • Posted by
    Wednesday, June 06, 2007 at 6:11 PM

    I hear and understand your point, Leonard.  So, in these discussions, we all bring in our personal experiences which have formed our point of view and will frame our reaction to a particular story.  You are dead on right that people often separate over what is truly disputable.  A former pastor (with whom I frequently privately disagreed doctrinally, but always loved and respected) used to say that most church splits start in the choir or the nursery.  That’s not entirely true, and he was joking, but he got to the substance.  We humans don’t naturally play well with others.  (I’m only a 3.5’er myself so hear what you’re saying relative to doctrinal disagreements.  But I’m not in a leadership or teaching position, so haven’t been a target in the same way that you might.  My husband and I often joke, relative to doctrinal differences, about the fact that we hold opposite opinions on the peccability question, and manage to stay happily married.)

    I also agree relative to prayer/gossip chains.  I’ve seen more than a little of this as well.  It’s unGodly.

    But my observation has been that there are many cases (a well known, over-the-top example would be Terry Hornbuckle) where it is very clear that abuse was present , where the elders knew what had occurred and participated to cover it up at the expense of the victims “for the sake of the church”.  The victims were chased off, “prophesies” given at the church warning about gossip and “coming against the Lord’s anointed.” The women, once gone and with nobody to speak for them, were slandered as liars and harlots.  They eventually had to go to the civil authorities to receive justice.  It shouldn’t be so!

    Certainly, what I observed doesn’t fall into the same category as a pastor raping female church members; there was no sexual sin in the group we left (that I was aware of), and the doctrinal issues weren’t significant enough to divide over.  He is a gifted speaker, and generally sound doctrinally.  But the issues were serious enough that, in my opinion, had they become public knowledge via the press, for example, the good in that ministry would be discredited.  It’s much more difficult to discern in my case, but frankly anything for which one might end up in civil courts or for which the ministry might lose its 501(c)3 desigation is definitely worthy of elder board action.

    So perhaps this is the problem:  discerning between what is “gossip” and what is a legitimate matter which should be public, and for which the pastor and elders need public rebuke?  Didn’t Paul openly rebuke Peter, and many others by name?

    And, you know, in many of these cases where the issue is one of personal preference or disputable doctrines, a separation is a good thing ... but with some expression of acknowledge and love, there isn’t bitterness in the parting.  The servant leader, being presumably the more mature, should be the one making the overture.

  • Posted by
    Wednesday, June 06, 2007 at 6:21 PM

    P.S.  Relative to spending all your time settling disputes, after I hit “submit” the advice that Jethro gave to Moses in Ex. 18:14-26 may be relevant.

  • Posted by Leonard
    Wednesday, June 06, 2007 at 7:09 PM

    When a crime has been committed we are permitted to go to the authorities.  Pastors who commit crimes should be deal with by the law.  This is not gossip, it is what God provided for us to deal with criminal abuse and activities.  In most non profit corporations there are bylaws as to how disputes should be handled as well.  How to have and call a business meeting.  These are provision for each church and if I am not mistaken, at least in CA bylaws are supposed to be made public upon request. 

    A business meeting should not be called to blindside a leader but in the case of a renegade leader this is also a provision.  A quick look at non-profit law in your state will give answers as well.  But to speculate and start a blog based upon opinions, which is the case of the blog we are discussing, only fosters gossip.

  • Posted by
    Wednesday, June 06, 2007 at 10:18 PM

    Hey Leonard,

    What’s your blog all about? What were your intentions in starting it?

    For example, in your blog entry at the top of the page, you refer to the Bible as the “word of God” even though John 1:1-15 says very specifically that the word of God was with God, and was God in the beginning, and became flesh: Jesus Christ. Do you really mean to rob Jesus of His identity as the “word of God” and assign it to a book?

    You say “I feed my soul through the word of God” even though Jesus said “I am the bread of life” and “come to me all you who thirst.”

    Further you make several puzzling statements that I hope you will cite the scriptural references for, in that you seem to be substitution of the word “scripture” for passages that speak of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Specifically:

    I am supposed to memorize scripture
    I am supposed to meditate on scripture
    I am supposed to obey scripture
    I am supposed to share scripture
    I am supposed to study scripture
    I am supposed to read scripture

    Would it not be better to say:

    I am supposed to let the word of God (the living word, Jesus Christ) dwell in me richly. (Col. 3:16)
    I am supposed to meditate on all things God (Psalm 77:12 Psalm 119:15, etc.)
    I am supposed to obey Jesus / the Holy Spirit (John 14:15)
    I am supposed to share the reason for my hope when I am asked (1 Peter 3:15)
    I am supposed to study the word of truth (which is Jesus, ref. John 14:6, 2 Timothy 2:15)

    But I am supposed to read scripture? The Bible, complete by 100AD, but available only to religious professionals, was not commonly available in English until the late 1500s. How would it be a command of scripture to read scripture when it was not available to the public until recently in modern history?

    And what of 2 Corinthians 3:3, which says people are the epistles of Christ, written on the tables of the heart. Do we have any obligation to ‘read’ each other? Since the ‘Bible’ includes the epistles of Paul, why not the epistles of Christ - the sons of God by faith in which the living Christ and His living word dwells?

    Just curious - your blog reads a bit churchy and religious to me; I’d have hoped for something more spiritual and exhortation for relationship with God in Jesus Christ - the Living Word.

    Thanks!

    ‘Scrupe

  • Posted by Leonard
    Wednesday, June 06, 2007 at 11:51 PM

    Not quite sure what your looking for there partner.  My intention was simply to share some of the thoughts on my heart.  What is your intention?

  • Posted by
    Thursday, June 07, 2007 at 6:28 AM

    I think it’s possible that ‘Scrupe waas trying to change the subject. This discussion is NOT about whether or not a blog is theologically accurate, or culturally releveant, or even correct or good-intentioned (read that last part again). It’s whether a particular blog is gossipy (and therefore sinful) or appropriate and therefore biblically (and spiritually) sanctioned or forbidden.

  • Posted by An Unscrupulous Man
    Thursday, June 07, 2007 at 8:45 AM

    Cross examination. You know, that whole unpleasant bit about the log in the eye. Thought I’d chop some wood.

    Elevating the Bible to the place of God sounds sinful to me. So does self-righteousness and self-exaltation. Where’s Jesus? Reducing the simple life of following Jesus with a long list of shoulds and shouldn’ts (a churchy version of OT law), just goes to prove the lifelessness of your religion. Where’s the desire to know Christ and Him crucified? Where’s the Holy Spirit?

    But I guess it makes sense that religionists are Bible focused. After all, if you can convince people that God is in the Bible, or better yet replace God with the Bible, then you’ve reduced God to something people can handle, carry, take out and put away on demand. Once God is replaced by a book, the one who knows most about the book is king, right? Hence religious education / seminary.

    Leonard, you would do well to put the stones down, and spend some time with Jesus; ask Him to baptize you with the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11), ask Him for spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12:8-10, 1 Cor. 12:31). Spend some time in your prayer closet praying in tongues. He’ll work that religion out of you and fill you with the Holy Spirit. Then you will see JP for the brother that he is. Not perfect, but a lover of God in Christ and with a passionate heart for the brethren.

  • Posted by Leonard
    Thursday, June 07, 2007 at 9:29 AM

    Oh, well thanks, I am better now.  It is still gossip.  If the best you can find is that I told people to read the bible, it is not much of an argument.  I will go and repent right now that I encouraged people to develop a well fed soul by getting to know God better through the word.  Twist someone else’s word for a while.  By the way, go read Psalm 119 and see how King David felt about the word of God. 

    The issue is whether or not the blog promotes gossip, you are making a poor attempt at changing the subject.

  • Posted by An Unscrupulous Man
    Thursday, June 07, 2007 at 10:36 AM

    No, thank you, Leonard. I’m just examining you and your blog the way you have examined JP and the CBC blog. You have promoted bibliolatry. At least JP and the CBC blog point the way to Jesus, consistently. For all the horseplay at the CBC blog, there are many spirit-filled and mature brothers and sisters who consistently demonstrate a passion for God and the brethren and who reveal the considerable depth and life of their faith through what they write. At least they’re not promoting lukewarm milquetoast religion.

    Concerning what you call “gossip”, pray tell how someone finds 1-2 additional witnesses unless he talks to others about the sin of the brother against him? (Matthew 18:15-17)? This comes in advance of bringing the issue before the church at large.

    And when even after finding DOZENS of witnesses, the brother who sinned will neither turn from his sin nor grant them an audience?

    The church has responded in the ways of the world, with threats and lawsuits. Is it any wonder when they do NOT respond in the way of the Lord, that their sin is dragged out before the world? How many times did God use the nations of the world to chastise Israel/Judah when they sinned against the Father?

  • Posted by
    Thursday, June 07, 2007 at 10:55 AM

    ‘Scrupe,
    This thread has gotten beyond tiresome, and your arguments are beyond ridiculous.  Leonard raised valid points about why the blog is promoting gossip, and, you, who don’t even know Leonard, have resorted to ridiculous accusations of “bibliolatry” simply because Leonard encourages his blog readers to read the Bible.  Give me a break! 

    Then you have the nerve to say, “At least JP and the CBC blog point the way to Jesus, consistently”.  If the CBC blog really wanted to promote “healing” as has been claimed, then the blog would focus on encouraging forgiveness of the CBC by all those allegedly abused by it.  That would truly be the pathway to healing, not the constant hashing and rehashing of every imagined offense.  If people have been really hurt by CBC, then this blog only prolongs the agony, and that is not the way of Jesus or the cross, my friend.

    Finally, you respond with the most ridiculous, and yet, most telling argument, of all:  “How many times did God use the nations of the world to chastise Israel/Judah when they sinned against the Father?” This perhaps is the truest metaphor for what the CBC blog is, a wicked nation, mired in idol worship.  If Assyria and Babylon is what you want to be compared to, then I guess, at least you’re honest.

  • Posted by Leonard
    Thursday, June 07, 2007 at 10:56 AM

    Scrupe,
    I won’t bite on your antagonism.  It is still gossip, it is not searching for wittinesses, it is broadcasting complaints.  Of the list that generated this post, Maybe one or two on the list can be backed by scripture and then at best with ones interpretation of scripture.  It is a list posted that accuses and attacks and 117 responses chimed into the fray.

  • Posted by Johnpaul
    Thursday, June 07, 2007 at 1:20 PM
    If the CBC blog really wanted to promote “healing” as has been claimed, then the blog would focus on encouraging forgiveness of the CBC by all those allegedly abused by it. 

    I do believe that I have encouraged forgiveness of CBC, but that doesn’t end their abuse...What about all that follow...why are we to allow them to experiance the same hurt that we felt…

    I’m going to post a comment from Anna who wrote on our blog saying:

    To paint everyone with the same broad brush “Oh, you just need to forgive” is incomplete at best. I can only forgive to the extent that I have been personally offended or injured. If I hold in my heart anger, revenge, a desire for judgment and sentencing — then I need to forgive. Anger, revenge and judgment are not mine to hold or to mete out. These belong to God alone, and personal forgiveness relinquishes my right to them. I am willing to do that, and with God’s grace I do/will do.

    HOWEVER, if a Christian is in sin or error — and that sin or error leads to deception or destruction in the lives of others, my observation of that requires a response. If anger, revenge and judgment are my response, then I need to repent as above. But my forgiveness of the person does nothing to absolve them of their sin or error, does nothing to warn them of the response of the Lord, and does nothing to protect or warn those who are being deceived / destroyed.

    That is why the prophets, John the Baptist and Jesus were perfectly correct to proclaim, “Woe to you ______________ (fill in the blank: shepherds, priests, Pharisees, etc.) This was not a matter of personal injury or broken relationship. They were warning of the response of God with the hope that repentance would stay His hand.

    FURTHERMORE, if a Christian sins or is in error in a public way, i.e., from the pulpit, then it removes the situation of personal injury or private correction. That is why the apostles felt free to publicly name names and warn their readers to reject those people and their doctrines.
    It does not matter if the doctrinal error is wide-spread. If Pastor X is preaching Nicolaitan heresy, then it is perfectly right for Pastor X to be singled out for his error, even if half of Christendom preaches the same thing. And for you to tell an individual that they just need to forgive Pastor X is outrageously ridiculous. What good will that do? How will that help Pastor X or the people he is preaching to?

    So, forgiveness is just and right and good. But it is not the complete response to the situation.

  • Posted by Leonard
    Thursday, June 07, 2007 at 1:36 PM

    JP,
    Is it gossip?  Does it foster gossip?

    You say you agree but are not convinced.  Okay, it is not my job to convince you.  But the reason you are not convinced has nothing to with the argument but a subjective feeling.  I don’t feel like I should… Reading your post makes me sad, because you have provided a hospital that offers not solution.  I am done on this one as it is not a profitable discussion. 

    Scrupe,
    Your twisting of my words, theology and character is really kind of funny.  If you follow your reasoning, I will see the blog you start about me soon.  If you follow your pattern, I wont see it until it is up and running. 

    I am out.

  • Posted by Johnpaul
    Thursday, June 07, 2007 at 3:12 PM

    Leo, I think I’ve done a good job explaining why I am not willing to shut down the blog just because there is gossip there. You don’t want to recieve that because you and many of the other people here have decided that our blog is wrong and you are closed minded to anything else.

    One thing I’ve noticed with a number of pastors is that they like to stick together and regardless of what someone is accusing them of they can always find the spec in the accusers eye...keep harping on that spec and ignore the sin in the church...it worked so well for the Catholics, after all.

    I will say this, I have appreciated everyones comments on this site. You have convinced me to dive back into the Bible to research what I am doing and to increase my prayertime regarding the blog, you have not , however, convinced me to quit. At this point, I have not heard from God telling me to stop, but I will continue my quest for the truth and should God tell me to end it, I will.

    The end.

  • Posted by
    Thursday, June 07, 2007 at 4:40 PM

    I’m out, too, although I will be responding to your email JP, as soon as I can.

    ‘Scrupe,

    With all due respect, your argument is getting beyond ridiculous. And from what I know of Leonard, I personally can’t abide any besmirching of his theology or reputation. It’s just uncalled for.

  • Posted by An Unscrupulous Man
    Thursday, June 07, 2007 at 9:09 PM

    Like Jesus (Matthew 23:38, Acts 7:48 and Acts 17:24), ‘Scrupe has left the building.

    See ya at the big show, boys.

    ‘Scrupe

  • Posted by
    Thursday, June 07, 2007 at 11:50 PM

    </b>

    <quote>"You asked if its not OK for you to talk about CBC?  Well..NO...it’s not.  It doesn’t matter what they have done...it really doesn’t.  If you have dealt with things bibically and have not gotten the results you desire, I will say it again, “move on and let God deal with things.” It’s never right to do wrong, just because someone is doing wrong."</quote><br><br>
    To be honest I not so sure its that black and white. This position should not be taken to the extreme.<br><br>
    I think it may be helpful to separate the church (the body of Christ) from the church (institution). They are not the same not don’t have the same ‘rights’. And remember that a preacher is giving a public address and so is open to public examination. This doesn’t mean Im condoning the CBC blog. Nor am I condemning it.
    <br><br>
    Making the issue black and white like this gives too much power to the wrong people. Imagine a genuine victim. How would your advice apply to them? Would it be fair?
    <br><br>
    As for letting God deal with things… last I heard he worked through people.

  • Posted by
    Tuesday, June 12, 2007 at 1:12 PM

    I must admit I find this discussion quite interesting.  It seems to me the MMI people are trying to say that if you are not the member of a church, you should not speak ill of that church.  You should go straight to the leadership with your problems and if they do not respond you should leave it in god’s hands and leave that church.  I think it is specifically this attitude that the founding fathers recognized was incredibly destructive to a society that aims to provide justice to its citizens.  It is exactly this type of attitude that made the American catholic church one the the largest child molestation organizations in the country.  The victims of such horrible abuse often did go to their church elders and the only thing that happened to the priest was a transfer to other church’s.  From where I sit, church’s should be “fronted out” via blogs and any other method for trying to abuse their followers.  I could not imagine the shame of having a chance to stop a child molester, or a con man from continuing their abuse, and not taking the chance just because church doctrine forbids it.  Call me crazy, but that’s how I feel.  It’s exactly this idea that has led to so many church’s being run by complete criminals.

  • Posted by
    Tuesday, June 12, 2007 at 2:13 PM

    Jake, there is a HUGE difference between differing with church leadership over theological beliefs or how the church should be led and reporting criminal activity.  No one here is saying that if there is actual criminal activity going on that you should merely turn away and ignore it.  To the contrary, as Christians and as US citizens, we are compelled to report it and do all within our power to stop it.  But blogging about how much a particular pastor preaches on tithing, and blogging about child molestation are two entirely different things.

  • Posted by
    Monday, October 06, 2008 at 3:06 AM

    Dear Pastor.
    I greet you in the name of Jesus. I think you have an experience of life and I’m pleasing to ask you this question: why sometimes God allow pains for a long time to His people even if they don’t sin and they hope in him?

    Be blessed.
    Joshua Diigula.

    • Page 4 of 4 pages

    « First  <  2 3 4
Post Your Comments:

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Live Comment Preview:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: