A House Divided

Confessional Lutheran pastors cause strife and conflict everywhere they go. They cause trouble in their parishes by calling sinners to repentance and excluding impenitent sinners from the Lord’s Altar. They cause trouble in their circuits and districts by desiring that all pastors teach and practice what they have voluntarily agreed to teach and practice by joining the synod and in their ordination vows. They won’t even commune at synodical gatherings. For goodness sake’s they criticize cute “ministry” dogs and say it’s a sin to despise God’s blessing of children.

Why can’t Confessional Lutherans just get along with the rest of Lutheranism? Why do they have to create division everywhere they go?

This is begging the question, of course. Confessional Lutherans are not creating division. Division already exists in our synods because pastors and congregations have departed from the standard of teaching to which they were committed (Rom. 6:17). Division already exists because we are not united in doctrine and we don’t have concord in rites and ceremonies. Division already exists because we do not agree concerning the teaching of the Gospel or the administration of the sacraments (AC VII).

Not communing together is not divisive. Pointing out false doctrine and errant practice in our midst is not divisive. Pointing out that division exists is not divisive. The division already exists. Pretending that it does not exist doesn’t make it go away. It doesn’t help the situation. It doesn’t create unity. Saying that someone who rejects God’s created order of male and female should not be teaching our children does not create division. The division is already there because we have someone in our supposed circle of fellowship who rejects God’s design of male and female.

Pastors are called by God to reprove, rebuke, and exhort so that we would be united in the truth. Those who persist in sin are to be rebuked publicly so that others would stand in holy fear of sin and its consequences (I Tim. 5:20).

Do not be deceived. Pretending that there are no divisions does not make the divisions go away. Practicing fellowship with errorists is unscriptural and is sin (Rom. 16:17; Ti. 3:10). We need to stop pretending that tolerating bad doctrine and practice is a virtue or a gift of the Spirit.

Those who have wandered from the standard of teaching to which they were committed and are introducing novelties and following society instead of Scripture are the ones who are causing division. Those who are following the fads of the day instead of the unchanging Word of Scripture are the ones causing division.

This division can only be healed by returning to the truth. A return to the truth is possible only through repentance. Repentance is only possible by the errors being brought to light through Scripture.

Yes, exposing error creates strife and conflict. Calling sinners to repentance causes trouble in parishes and circuits, in districts and synods. That conflict is necessary and unavoidable if we actually love our brothers who are in error and desire their repentance, as God desires their repentance. Strife and contention will always be part of speaking God’s Word on every issue in which our flesh has followed the devil and the world instead of Holy Scripture.

Finally, we should remember that unity can only be in the truth. Apart from truth, we have only division, no matter how much we pretend to be united or in fellowship. We should all humble ourselves under God’s Word and accept rebuke and correction where we have erred. May God grant us repentance where we have sinned and strengthen our faith through the forgiveness of sins.


Comments

A House Divided — 35 Comments

  1. The problem is that those who are dividing the church don’t see it that way. Proponents of progressive and liberalized theology don’t think they’re doing anything wrong. They think they are closer to God in their doctrine and practice than anyone. They don’t see what they’re doing as tearing down anything or anyone and wonder what all the fuss is about. They quote the same scriptures as confessional Lutherans and think of themselves as enhancing the Gospel message, not detracting from it. They want to know what the big deal is with expanding the role of the laity in the Divine Service when doing so will make it more interesting and help involve more people in worship, lest they lose interest in the liturgy and become disengaged. They honestly think they’re doing the Lord’s work by offering contemporary forms of worship and allowing the ladies to read the lessons and distribute the bread and wine at the altar during open communion. They are egalitarian at heart and have taken the next step of introducing their heart-felt political sentiments of progressivism and feminism into the Church. They back their ideologies with selected Scripture verses that justify their position as relevant and view Orthodoxy as antiquated and of limited value in the culture. They are shocked when confronted by a confessional Christian who calls them into account. They get defensive and push back, insisting that the days of Ye Olde institutional church are numbered. It’s not as though they are doing something they know is wrong because, in many cases, they have not been exposed to the confessions but only to American evangelicalism that teaches synergism or antinomianism or syncretism and unionism and all those “isms” that confessionals know to be dangerous to our faith and by extension our salvation. Giving catechesis short shrift in the church has consequences. The only antidote to false teachers and false teaching is education at all ages. Our house is divided. We have enough members to almost fill the nave but we continue to offer two services each Sunday so those who want contemporary worship can be accommodated and those who want liturgical Divine Service can be accommodated as well. Effectively, we have two congregations under the same roof and they tolerate each other so as to not disturb the peace of the erstwhile single and unified congregation. What is frustrating is that it seems to many a natural thing to separate the old fogies from the younger performance art crowd. You go to this service and the kids will go to that service. Schism, division, disunity, toleration, disregard, indifference, resentment – and all to attract the unchurched, or at least that was the original pretense. Ask your fellow parishioners, “For who is the Divine Service intended?” Many will say, “For the unchurched.” The problem is that too many people in the LC-MS don’t have any interest in being Lutheran Christians who hold to the confessions even though their church constitution lists them and states unequivocal subscription to them. For most, it’s okay to be Lutheran-lite but don’t make them carry the Book of Concord around on their backs or wear the Formula of Concord on their sleeves. That would be excessive and we wouldn’t want to give the impression that we’re religious zealots who follow the teachings of a 16th Century monk. We’re much more enlightened than that, they say. Therefore, on the occasion of the 500th Anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, suggest that your pastor (or other trusted teacher) begin a tradition of teaching the Lutheran Confessions. Take a year to study the entire body of work found in the Book of Concord. I recommend Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions-A Readers Edition of the Book of Concord – 2nd edition by McCain, Paul T, General Editor.

  2. What exactly do you mean by “someone who rejects God’s created order of male and female”? Do you mean a so-called transgender person? Or do you mean someone who disagrees with you on the role of women?

  3. @James Gibbs #2

    It includes those who promote wicked feminism, who deny male headship in the home, who deny the complementary nature of the sexes, who suppport women’s “ordination”, placing women in the military, etc. All of this is rebellion against God.

  4. It’s gratifying to read James Gibbs’ succinct and scriptural response. Praise God for mature and faithful Christian leaders in families and especially in Christ’s church.

  5. @Glenn Dowling #5

    Thanks for the compliment, but I’m still waiting to hear from Pastor Nieminen. Plus, I didn’t quote or reference any Scripture, so I am a bit puzzled to hear you describe my response as “scriptural.”

  6. Sigh.

    Pastor Nieminen was quite clear as to his comment, and context:

    “Saying that someone who rejects God’s created order of male and female should not be teaching our children does not create division. The division is already there because we have someone in our supposed circle of fellowship who rejects God’s design of male and female.”

  7. @jb #7

    Don’t talk down to me, “jb.” All you did was assert that the original statement was clear, and then quoted it. Saying something is “quite clear” doesn’t make it so!

    I genuinely want a clarification of what exactly Pastor Nieminen meant by “rejecting God’s created order [or design] of male and female.” This could mean several different things.

    It could mean transgenderism. It could mean same-sex marriage. It could mean women’s ordination. It could mean women reading Scripture aloud during worship. It could mean any number of things.

    A century ago, leaders of the LCMS thought that the 19th Amendment was against God’s will for women. In the same era, they used to teach that only men could be Lutheran day-school teachers. When my own parents joined the LCMS in the early 1950’s, women and girls “had” to wear a hat in church, with many citing 1 Cor. 11 as divine backing for this notion. Many “back in the day” thought women wearing pants was a violation of some alleged divine guideline! I would hope that no sane person in our Synod would want to deprive American women of the vote, dismiss all female teachers from our Synodical roster, or enforce a “hats and skirts” dress code in church in 2017!

    My point is this: some of the changes over the years in how Lutheran ladies dress and act and serve in our churches were completely justified and long-overdue!

    You cannot just make a broad-brush statement about “God’s order” or “God’s design” and expect me to nod in agreement without clarifying what exact application of these words is meant!

  8. “It’s not as though they are doing something they know is wrong because, in many cases, they have not been exposed to the confessions but only to American evangelicalism that teaches synergism or antinomianism or syncretism and unionism and all those “isms” that confessionals know to be dangerous to our faith and by extension our salvation. Giving catechesis short shrift in the church has consequences. The only antidote to false teachers and false teaching is education at all ages.”
    Exactly. Education, education, education at all ages. Faithfully preach the Word in all its truth and purity.

  9. @James Gibbs #8

    Brother Gibbs –

    Be assured it was not my intent to “talk down to you.” If you took offense, please, forgive me.

    And the history lesson, while being very old news, was a reminder of things not well-done in the past. Perhaps you could petition Norm to accept one of your own articles on the matter.

    However – the author of this piece, by the very context of the piece, was not endeavoring to answer questions you yourself can answer, and Nicholas (#10) provided assistance to that end.

    In terms of “talking down” – I again apologize, but would also ask you to re-read your own words to others – just as a precaution.

    Pax tecum

    jb

  10. @James Gibbs #8

    “You cannot just make a broad-brush statement about “God’s order” or “God’s design” and expect me to nod in agreement without clarifying what exact application of these words is meant!”

    Then you need to repent. No believing Christian should be disturbed by talk about God’s design for male and female. You are, because you have been influenced by feminism.
    Christians observed 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 for most of the past 2,000 years without controversy. Why would you object to it today? It’s because your standard is culture, not Scripture.

    You also seem to think that democratic government is the “right” form of government. The Bible nowhere says this.

  11. I’d like to hear what the “confessional” pastors believe regarding the issues that JB #8 brought up with regards to women wearing pants to church and not covering their heads during the Divine Service. I’ve worked with a very “confessional” Lutheran pastor; and yet, he wasn’t really concerned with women going back to wearing dresses and headcoverings at the Divine Service or Bible study. In my opinion, it seems that there will always be “picking and choosing” so why say any Pastor is “liberal” or “confessional”, when no pastor is truly “perfect” in either category? These titles seem to bring just as much division as the other reasons stated in the original post.

  12. @jb #12

    Sorry, “jb,” but I don’t think you are really apologizing. You said, “If you took offense,” rather than “If I offended you.” You also urged me to “re-read your own words.” In other words, it’s my fault you talked down to me, and I’m the guilty one. Sorry, but I don’t buy that and I don’t accept it.

    Back to my original point: this is now the fifth time I have asked, speaking respectfully, for Pastor Nieminen to clarify exactly what he meant by “reject[ing] God’s created order of male and female.” I do not want to agree or disagree with him without clarifying what he meant! Why is this so difficult to understand?

    If the pastor meant transgenderism, I agree with him–it’s a mental disorder. If he meant same-sex marriage, I agree with him–it’s no marriage at all, but a shame and a disgrace. If he means women’s ordination, I will listen to him with respect (although I have honest questions about that particular issue). If he means women should not vote in congregational meetings, I will disagree–as does the vast majority of the LCMS.

    My examples are “very old news,” eh? I deliberately tried to pick examples of things that no living Lutheran would object to (woman suffrage in civic elections, women parochial schoolteachers, “hats-but-no-pants” dress codes in worship) precisely because I wanted to make the point that our Synod has a history of saying “Women can’t do X–thus sayeth the Lord!” and then changing our minds. So it is a little hard for people to accept some of the rules and regulations for women (allegedly mandated by God himself) touted by some on this website without wondering “Did God really say that?”

    (And, please do not play “the Satan card” by quoting Gen. 3:1 to me. Anyone who ever questions any interpretation of Scripture, anytime, for any reason, could have that quoted at them. Plus, think of how offensive it is to basically tell someone, “Your ideas are spawned by Satan!” Can’t we all just be a little humble here, and admit that our pet ideas might be wrong by just a fraction?)

    I know this website was “high-fiving” when Matthew Becker left the LCMS. I agree that he taught many questionable things. But the way he was targeted publicly by President Harrison after the dispute process had exonerated him, and how we was hounded to leave by many as well, left a bad taste in my (and many people’s) mouths. I wonder if anyone in the LCMS who has an honest question about anything can feel confident in asking it without unleashing another “heresy hunt.” I really do.

    You tell me that Pastor Nieminen “was not endeavoring to answer questions you yourself can answer.” Again, see my second and third paragraphs above.

    You tell me Nicholas (#10) clarified things. I have no idea who Nicholas is, or if he speaks for Pastor Nieminen. I can’t and won’t assume they are on the same page.

  13. @Nicholas #13

    Nicholas, my original request for clarification was directed to Pastor Nieminen, the author of the original post. I don’t know precisely what the pastor meant–that’s why I asked for clarification. He and I might agree perfectly–I don’t know. I can’t honestly agree (or disagree) with someone if I’m not sure what they mean!

    I don’t know whether you and the pastor agree or disagree, or even if you know each other. That’s why I ignored your original reply (#2).

    Yes, God created humanity “male and female,” and I believe he ordained certain roles in certain areas of life for each sex (most obviously, begetting and bearing children). But there are many other areas where there is disagreement within Christendom about where to draw the lines of “God’s design.”

    The Jewish leaders of Jesus’ time thought it a waste of time to give women religious instruction–that was not “their God-given place,” they thought. Jesus obviously disagreed. Lutherans of many years ago thought men and women should not sit together in church, probably thinking this was “God’s design.” We know better now.

    So, when I hear someone talk about “God’s design for male and female,” the first question that occurs to me is, “What exactly do they mean by that?” Is this God’s design, or is this man-made tradition? Obviously, there’s a big difference between the two!

    So, why are you telling me, “You need to repent”? Repent of what? Wanting clarification from a pastor and desiring honest dialogue?

    “No believing Christian should be disturbed…”–the only thing that disturbs me is how you jumped so quickly to attacking me and questioning my faith! “Your standard is culture, not Scripture”–what is this based on? You don’t know me, so don’t judge me!

    “You have been influenced by feminism”–wow. Are you going to call me a “liberal” next? If by “feminism,” you mean the belief that women should receive fair treatment, equal pay, and the same dignity as men, then I will gladly call myself a feminist! Can’t you admit that the Christian Church has, historically, often failed to grant our sisters in Christ the respect they deserve? Treating women with respect was Jesus’ way–if we do likewise, we are being faithful to, not rejecting, God’s design for men and women.

    Treating women with rightful respect does not automatically equal accepting women’s ordination, same-sex marriage, transgenderism, or any other item in the conservative list of horrors you care to name. It doesn’t have to be a slippery slope!

    As far as thinking democracy is the right form of government–first of all, why did you put “right” in quotation marks? Second, when did I ever bring up democracy as an issue? Third, so what if “The Bible nowhere says this.” Democracy didn’t exist in the world in Old Testament times, so it wouldn’t have made sense back then if the OT prophets had talked about it. Fourth, just for the record, I think democracy is right for many reasons, including (a) “all men are created equal,” so I believe with Lincoln that “No man is good enough to govern any other man without that other’s consent”; and (b) God made humanity in his image, so democratic government best comports with the God-given dignity of the human race.

  14. @James Gibbs #17

    By all means, James, we should disregard the unfair prohibitions placed on women in the church because we all know that St. Paul was a product of his sexist generation and what he said can nowise be imposed as God-inspired on the church of today. After all, he admits in his letter to the church at Corinth when he is opining and when he is speaking for the Lord, right? 1 Corinthians 7:10-12. So based on St. Paul’s own words we should be able to spot the fallible human stuff from the inspired and infallible, right? Furthermore, we should also disregard the separation between the kingdoms of the left and right and meld them together so we even things up in both spheres. Incidentally, is teaching the doctrines of original sin and the order of creation really all that important anyway? We certainly can afford to discard them if they get in the way of the “Great Commission” or become too inconvenient, kind of like how we discontinued the practice of forcing the ladies to cover their heads with hats in church or forcing them to wear dresses and do the wash on Mondays. We can see right through most of that phony patriarchal stuff. Moreover, we now have a plastic text that is constantly in a state of flux and which can nowise be relied upon to really know for certain the mind and will of God, so what’s the sense in trying to enforce St. Paul’s plastic platitudes? If we put our heads together we can come up with a plan for determining what God really tried to say and what He wants us to do in our churches with regard to the question of the role of women, don’t you think?

  15. @Mark #18

    So, your convictions justify cutting sarcasm to someone you’ve never even met? How is this the way of Christ?

    (Please don’t quote Luther and cite his “robust” language. He was a great man, who taught great Gospel, but he sinned when he verbally abused his opponents–period.)

    When did I ever criticize Paul (much less call him a sexist)? When did I ever say we should merge the two kingdoms, deny original sin, or discard God’s order of creation (not the man-made version of that order some are pushing)? When did I ever say Scripture was a “plastic text”?

    All I ever said was this: God made men and women, and has certain expectations for them. There is disagreement about where to draw the line between what God commands and what he forbids regarding the role of women. Pastor Nieminen said God has a certain order for men and women. I asked him (not you) what he meant by that; i.e., where would he draw the line.

    For asking that question, and for wanting clarification, I am being subjected to condescension, sarcasm, and accusations of all kinds of false teaching.

    I have tried to be fair, and to explain what I am saying. You, “jb,” and Nicholas are just ready to pull the trigger on what you imagine are my heresies. To you, those who honestly disagree (or even ask questions, which is really all I was doing), are enemies to be destroyed.

    The only statement I have made that even comes close to disagreeing with official LCMS doctrine is to say I have questions about women’s ordination. I do. I used to be certain that women should not be pastors; now, I have questions. How horrible.

    I hope this website (it should be renamed “Brothers of John the Sarcastic”) soon goes dark. I have read so much negativity, so much hatred, so much “more-Lutheran-than-thou” on this website that I shudder to think how people like you treat Christians of other denominations, much less non-Christians.

    Blog editor, where are you? What happened to the Eighth Commandment? What happened to simple human decency?

    I’m done here.

  16. @Michelle Yowler #15

    “So strong is the propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities that where no substantial occasion presents itself the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.” – James Madison, Federalist Paper Nr 10

  17. Women should not be voting on civic elections. Seems pretty obvious to me. She should vote how her husband instructs her, at least that’s how it works in my house.

  18. @Mark #18

    The answer to your question ‘putting our heads together…come up with a plan about roles of women in the church’ is easy–get more men back to church so the women don’t have to fill those positions vacant by the absence of men–the solution of getting the men back is tough. Could it be that over the years of accepting “Easter and Christmas” only membership has caused the lack of workers for the Kingdom? It’s hard to change that mentality to get those workers back on a regular basis. When they do come back, they find the church “divided” not what it was when they grew up in it–very sad indeed. On the other hand, maybe they came back and think the church they grew up in has become stoic and isn’t producing growth of God’s Kingdom which is even sadder in my opinion.

  19. @Michelle Yowler #23

    I like your response because it addresses the real solution, which is teaching men to step up into their role as spiritual heads of their households and within the church. I’m not sure I agree about “Easter and Christmas” only membership because I think the church doors always need to be open. You never know how and when the word of God will cut to the heart of someone. So the best solution I have is that the doors are open for sinners anytime, all the time. That being said, I think one of the big issues is the decline of marriage and the family over the last sixty or seventy years. We have a couple generations of folks who, because of the rise of divorce, now see it as normal to raise a family in a single parent household, and the burden of nurturing and raising those children has overwhelmingly fallen on mothers. We are raising a generation of men away from their fathers, so it is not surprising to see that men are less willing to be the leader in the house and in the church. We need to teach our kids the value of marriage and the important role that men play in their homes, in the church, and in their communities.

  20. @James Gibbs #19

    While I do believe you’re wrong regarding Matt Becker (I say this as someone who had the misfortune to sit under his pastoral teaching on more than one occasion)…

    …I don’t believe you’re wrong regarding the echo-chamber nastiness that manifests itself here, even against fellow confessionals. Frankly, it’s why I don’t post here very often, as I’ve tended to see like-minded honest inquiry from others equally lambasted.

    It’ll probably get me banned or, worse yet, the dreaded finger-wag…but being sincerely convinced and/or convicted of something is NO excuse for being a d*ck.

    Perhaps male headship ought also to include active forum moderation to avoid such dog-piling (a deliberately chosen metaphor that works on multiple levels-write your own scatological joke)? Please cease and desist with the nastiness; honey isn’t the only thing that catches flies, folks.

  21. @Sean #24

    I so agree with your post. I know many women whom are active in church; however, due to the lack of single men within the church to marry and, since Biblical polygamy is illegal, they chose to marry unchurched men as to not “burn with lust.” Then when they have children, the children see dad not going to church and follow that lead and it just keeps continuing generation after generation. In most cases even when the churched women get their children to go to church with them and leave dad at home, once the children turn 18 years old they usually stop going. To clarify the “Easter/Christmas membership statement” I made is that this was acceptable in the Lutheran church I grew up in. I think because at that time there were so many members it wasn’t as noticeable if several families didn’t show up on a regular basis. I wish the church would have taken a stronger stance of finding out why the “EC” families only showed up twice a year to church. The sad part is the “EC” families aren’t even “EC” anymore. They might show up for Easter or Christmas but not both, and sometimes they even skip a year or two not showing up at all.

  22. @Sean #24
    Yes, men do need to “step up” in leading their families to the Word. But ladies need to quit joining themselves to unbelievers, mothers need to teach their daughters, and old men need to mentor the young. My husband is a wonderful father and godly leader, but a couple of my daughters chose to err in regard to the choice of their spouse as a strong Christian leader. Do we blame the man of the house for every sin of the females? I think not. If we all followed Titus two a little more, and repented of our laziness and sin in ignoring our roles as male, female, young, old, etc. perhaps these other issues that Satan throws at us to confuse and cause conflict in our gender roles would be easier to discern. Why protest? Because I don’t think running men down, as feminism would have us do, is an absolute or even necessarily godly response to this issue. We all need to repent – not just men.

  23. @Ben #22

    Women should not be voting on civic elections. Seems pretty obvious to me. She should vote how her husband instructs her, at least that’s how it works in my house.

    They let you in the voting booth when she votes? Or do you use mail ballots and censor hers? [Argument against “early voting”]

  24. @LadyL #27

    I hear what you say. I think there are a lot of guys, and women as well, who talk a good game when they are dating, but turn out to be very different in their actual practices during marriage. I think we need to teach our kids to look for the hallmarks of someone whose professed faith matches their own practice. My daughters are coming up to pre-teen age and it is something that is on my heart for how I need to instruct them as they get older. My sons are still pretty young, but they too will need to learn these same lessons.

  25. Boys should be taught that being the head of a household is a matter of service, not an excuse to boss and belittle your wife. context: “Serve one another out of reverence for Christ.” By love serve one another.”
    I know of too many husbands who use the Bible to dominate and to be obnoxious toward their wives and make their lives miserable. Many of these wives get no help if they counsel with their pastors. Some of the pastors are even guilty.

  26. Helen, if a wife won’t ask for instruction or a husband won’t give it in such a simple thing as voting then how is it ever suppose to work on important issues? Most wives naturally adopt their husbands politics.

    Maybe this is why people talk about marriage being hard. It would be almost impossible without the basic construction.

    But if you get it right marriage seems to be very easy with little to no confusion.

    As to who people marry, it would seem that putting it in experienced hands is the only way to avoid these problems. People are married hopefully long before they have the mental faculties to make an impartial decision.

  27. @Ben #31

    Helen, if a wife won’t ask for instruction or a husband won’t give it in such a simple thing as voting then how is it ever suppose to work on important issues? Most wives naturally adopt their husbands politics.

    Many families discuss politics more or less. I remember some spirited discussions between my aunt and uncle (sister and brother, in opposite parties), with others contributing.

    It’s hard to know what’s meant sometimes in an e-mail, but you come off as someone who thinks his wife isn’t bright enough to read/think. I hope that’s not the case.

    I remember discussing politics. I don’t ever remember being told before (or asked after) how I voted. I assume it could usually be inferred from what we’d said beforehand.

  28. @James Gibbs #2

    James, I apologize for the late reply; I was away on vacation.

    To answer your question, “What exactly do you mean by ‘someone who rejects God’s created order of male and female’?” Generally, I mean every way that God’s Word is rejected when it comes to the created order of male and female, including feminism, homosexuality, transgenderism, women teaching or exercising authority in the church, etc. Specifically, I mean to reference the recent decision by Higher Things to have an individual supportive of transgenderism teach the youth.

  29. @helen #32

    Why would intelligence have anything to do with it?

    A man could be as dumb as anyone you’ve met and the wife wildly intelligent, he is still the husband and she is the wife.

    The bible spends only a few moments on men and women but what it says it says with amazing clarity. Why does confessing it imply to people that you hate women or you think your wife is an idiot?

  30. Ben,
    Do not use God’s holy Word to excuse your abuse of your wife. God becomes angry when you do that. She did not become your slave when you married her. Too many men who wrongly call themselves Christian do that. Some are even pastors.

    God says that you are here to serve her as Christ loved and served the Church and gave Himself for her .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.