There was no further discussion on the motion to declare an emergency, and it was defeated by a vote of 11-2. Therefore, since the Executive Board did not declare the two complaints to be an emergency, they were not considered, and the meeting was adjourned. The two complaints were declared as not being an emergency and not even deliberated.

On August 5, the Executive Board of the General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church met via Zoom to consider declaring an emergency to deliberate on two complaints (Complaints Filed Against An Action of the 2024 ARP General Synod) against the General Synod in response to its decision to dissolve Second Presbytery effective September 1, 2024 (How a 224-Year-Old ARP Presbytery was Dissolved in a Day). According to the Manual of Authorities and Duties for Officers and Agencies and Rules of Order of the General Synod (MAD, p. 12), four voting members (Marc Faulkenberry, John Paul Marr, GJ Gerard, Seth Philbrick) can call a meeting of the Executive Board for a specific purpose. Apparently Mr. Philbrick (Tennessee-Alabama Presbytery Representative) received some pushback from some unnamed individuals who questioned his participation in calling the Executive Board (his email was attached to the notice for the called meeting). There was opposition from some members of Synod even to deliberate on the two complaints.
The Book of Discipline (BoD), one of the constitutional documents of the ARP Church, states in 5.12: “A complaint is a written representation made against some act or decision of a court of the Church. Unlike an appeal which may only be made by one who has been tried by a court, any communing member in good standing of an ARP Church or Presbytery has the right to make a complaint against any court to which he is subject, except in judicial cases that are in the appeals process.” (all bold is added in the article). The interpretation and application of this section of the BoD played a critical role as to why the Executive Board did not consider the two complaints.
Furthermore, BoD states in 5.13: “Complaint Process A. Before filing a complaint with a higher court, a complaint shall first be made to the court whose act or decision is alleged to be in error. The complaint shall be made in writing, specifying the errors of the court along with supporting reasons and evidence, and filed with the clerk of the court within 60 days following the meeting of the court where the alleged error occurred. The court shall consider the complaint at its next stated meeting or at a called meeting prior to its next stated meeting.”
Because the next stated meeting of the General Synod is not scheduled until June of 2025, it was necessary that the Executive Board consider these complaints at a called meeting. The MAD (p.13) regarding the authority of the Executive Board states: “The Executive Board of the General Synod is the agency empowered to carry out the work of the General Synod in the interim period between meetings of Synod,…When the Executive Board acts in an emergency case on behalf of Synod, only those eligible to vote at the meeting of Synod shall be entitled to vote.” Furthermore, the MAD also states that the first duty of the Executive Board is: “To act on behalf of Synod in emergency situations.” In other words, the Executive Board has the authority to act on behalf of the General Synod when it deems a situation as an emergency.
After preliminary matters, the business opened with the Principal Clerk, Kyle Sims, not the Moderator, Alan Broyles, making the statement, “Our first order of business is to declare an emergency; we can’t really do anything until we declare an emergency” (audio Called Ex Bd Aug 5 8min 20sec; all time markers relate to this recording). Declaring these complaints as an “emergency” per the MAD was necessary even to consider discussing them.
The first person to speak was Rob Patrick (former Moderator of Synod 2023-2024, a voting member). He said (8m 30s), “Mr. Moderator, I’d like to ask the parliamentarian to explain that. In recent years, it seems like we’ve been told we can’t even discuss the merits of a case rising to the level of emergency without first declaring an emergency. I know that we cannot act on behalf of Synod unless a matter is deemed an emergency, but are we not allowed to discuss a matter? The action of the court is one thing, deliberation of the court is another. And it seems like the interpretation is that any deliberation is effectively acting on behalf of the court. So I just want to be clear about that. Because it just seems nonsensical to me that we can’t discuss the merits or the matter to determine is this an emergency or not without first declaring it an emergency. So, if, Mr. Moderator, the Parliamentarian could explain that.”
Andy Putnam, a minister in Catawba Presbytery and the former Parliamentarian of Synod, was appointed as the acting Parliamentarian by Mr. Broyles because Patrick Malphrus recused himself as the Parliamentarian so that he could participate in the debate and vote (as a former Moderator of Synod 2021-2022). Mr. Putnam said (9m 31s), “Yes, I will, Mr. Moderator. Under the Manual of Authorities and Duties, the Executive Board of Synod has as its first duty to act on behalf of Synod in emergency situations. Within that authority paragraph, it states, when the Executive Board acts on an emergency case on behalf of Synod, only those eligible to vote at the meeting of Synod shall be entitled to vote. The Executive Board has no authority to override or act on any presbytery matters. That’s all we were given. So to answer your question, debate about the motion, which has yet to be made, to act on behalf to declare this emergency is limited to whether or not it is an emergency. We do not open up the entirety of the discussion topic because there are various layers to that about whether or not the topic itself is even correct, appropriate, whatever, as any situation goes on. So, the debate is limited merely to whether or not it is an emergency.”
Mr. Patrick responded (10m 30s), “Okay, thank you. That clarifies it. In some recent situations it seemed like it was indicated we couldn’t even discuss those matters.”
Then Mr. Van Dyk, author of one of the complaints, a member of the Special Committee that investigated Second Presbytery, and the Northeast Presbytery Representative at the meeting, said (10m 44s), “Mr. Moderator, I move that we declare complaint number one and number two an emergency.” The motion was seconded, and the floor opened to discussion.
Mr. Patrick started by saying (11m 8s), “Again, this is a parliamentary question, I think. Rob Patrick. Mr. Moderator, I would assume that the Executive Board is not a court of appeal from any action taken at the General Synod. My assumption would be that we would perhaps have latitude to act if it were determined there were some new information not available to the Synod. And so really, I think my question is twofold. The first is parliamentary. Am I correct in that, that we’re not a board of appeal to any action taken? And secondly, would it be the case if there is some new information the Synod did not have that rises to the level of emergency, then that would validate approving this motion?” It turned out to be the case that Mr. Patrick’s statement about “some new information” was the hinge upon which this motion failed.
Mr. Putnam responded (12m 1s), “Yes. I’ll give you the short answer…We do not view the Executive Board as yet another court or another level. General Synod is the final court of the denomination. So there is no appeal from that. There is no complaint from that. There is nothing.” Mr. Putnam’s last three statements, especially, the two bolded, is questionable based on the definition of a complaint per the BoD, “A complaint is a written representation made against some act or decision of a court of the Church.” The two complaints are against the decision of the General Synod, the highest court of the ARP Church, namely, to dissolve Second Presbytery. For the parliamentarian to give his opinion that “there is no complaint from that,” does not conform to the clear definition of a complaint.
Mr. Van Dyk noticed this incongruity and responded (12m 28s), “Point of order. Mr. Moderator. This, the complaints that have been offered up, are not an appeals process. And so there is a right of all members of the assembly to offer up a complaint not as a matter of appeal because that is really into the judicial aspect of this chapter of the Book of Discipline. Appeal is a separate issue. And as a complaint it’s not a judicial matter. It’s an administrative matter. It is simply calling attention to the fact that someone realized, maybe post-meeting, that there was an error or perhaps even a violation of our form of government, our constitutional standards, and calling the attention to that of the Executive Board at this point.” Mr. Van Dyk’s clarification was critical to this portion of the debate, but it did not resonate with the majority of the Executive Board. They struggled to distinguish a complaint from an appeal.
Mr. Sims then entered the debate by saying (13m 19s), “Mr. Moderator. May I ask the parliamentarian a question. I believe Mr. Van Dyk misspoke. He said that anyone who is a member of the General Synod has the right to complain against the General Synod. I think the actual, the Form of Government is very clear. The Book of Discipline is very clear. Complaints can only be made by those who have standing or subject to the court they’re complaining against. No one has subject or standing in the General Synod. That’s why we could not have a judicial commission formed, even though we had five attempts to do it at General Synod. You have to be a member. And so really, these complaints will be out of order because no one has the ability to do that because no one is subject to the General Synod directly. They’re either subject to their local session or their Presbytery.”
While claiming that “Mr. Van Dyk misspoke,” Mr. Sims added further confusion to the purpose and intent of a complaint. First, a complaint can be made by “any communing member in good standing of an ARP Church or Presbytery” against “any court to which he is subject.” The eight men who filed the 2 complaints are either “communing member(s) in good standing of an ARP Church” as elders or a “Presbytery” as ministers. As members of an ARP Church or a Presbytery they are all subject to the court of the General Synod, the highest court of the ARP Church. Webster defines subject (adjective) as “owing obedience or allegiance to the power or dominion of another.” Both elders and ministers must affirm in their ordination vows to the following statements respectively: “Do you promise to submit in the spirit of love to the authority of the Session and to the higher courts of the Church?” and “Do you promise to submit in the spirit of love to the authority of the Presbytery in subordination to the General Synod, and to promote the unity, peace, purity, and prosperity of the Church?” According to the definition of subject and the ordination vows of elders and ministers, it seems logical that these eight men are clearly subject to the actions of Synod. For example, when Synod makes a change to the constitution (Westminster Confession of Faith or the Form of Government), elders and ministers are subject to that action. In fact, all communing members of local congregations are subject to the Synod according to the church membership vow, “(7) In loving obedience, do you submit yourself to the government and discipline of this church, promising to seek the peace, purity, and prosperity of this congregation as long as you are a member of it?” Here, the “church” refers to the ARP Church as a denomination while “congregation” refers to the local assembly. That is why local church members are subject to the Book of Discipline (BoD) which is formulated and ratified by the General Synod. The decision of General Synod to dissolve Second Presbytery will personally impact all the ministers and members of congregations in Second Presbytery.
Second, Mr. Sims confused the debate by conflating a complaint with an appeal (BoD 5.1.A.-B., 5.12). Appeals relate to judicial proceedings (allegations, investigation, charges, trial. etc.) while complaints concern court actions or decisions. This confusion is evident in Mr. Sim’s statement, “That’s why we could not have a judicial commission formed, even though we had five attempts to do it at General Synod. You have to be a member.” What Mr. Sim’s is possibly referring to is the matter of original jurisdiction, BoD 2.25 “Original jurisdiction describes the court that has primary jurisdiction over a member or officer of the Church. For members of churches and ruling elders, the court of original jurisdiction is the session of the Church where they hold their membership; for ministers, the court of original jurisdiction is the presbytery to which he belongs.” In matters of judicial process, only the court of original jurisdiction has authority over its members. Therefore, the General Synod cannot be the court of original jurisdiction for church members, elders, and ministers unless a transfer of jurisdiction has been made through the proper process (BoD 2.25 A.-D.) However, courts of original jurisdiction do not apply to complaints since they are not judicial matters. This critical distinction was rejected by the majority of the Executive Board.
This misunderstanding was reiterated by the acting Parliamentarian, Mr. Putnam, when he followed up by saying (14m 31s), “I will tell you that a complaint is, as was stated, different than an appeal, but it is not possible to complain to the General Synod about the General Synod. You complain to the court which you have authority. It’s very straight forward. Book of Discipline 5.13. So, no, it is out of order to complain to the General Synod about the General Synod. You can call a meeting of the General Synod that’s different.”
How is it “not possible to complain to the General Synod about the General Synod,” when a complaint is “made against some act or decision of a court of the Church”? Is the General Synod not a court of the Church? To give the opinion that “it is out of order to complain to the General Synod about the General Synod” seems to contradict the very definition of a complaint. Since it was the decision of General Synod to dissolve Second Presbytery, General Synod is the only court to which these complaints can be made. And since the Executive Board has the authority to act on behalf of General Synod in emergency situations, the Executive Board was called to handle these complaints against General Synod.
The debate continued with Mr. Patrick posing an important issue (15m 51s). “Mr. Moderator, I wonder if anyone who is, would speak in favor of this motion to make this as an emergency can…I’ve read the documentation. I just haven’t read anything that General Synod did not hear on the floor, which is why I’m a little bit confused and perhaps an appeal is not the proper term, but it seems like this is just rehearing everything we’ve already discussed. But if I’ve missed something in my reading of the documentation.”
At this point a critical oversight was made by the Executive Board. Mr. Patrick claimed that he did not find in the documentation, the complaints, anything that he had not heard on the floor of Synod. However, the complaint made by the seven members of Second Presbytery did contained new information and contradicted what was stated at Synod. In particular, during the floor debate of Synod, Mr. Putnam made these remarks (ARP Synod 2024 Day 2 Part 2 1h 8m 24s), “Mr. Moderator, Andrew Putnam, Catawba Presbytery, former moderator, former parliamentarian for Synod. A couple of things. I really didn’t want to have to speak at this meeting. I’m standing to speak in favor of the motion. I can recount some of the things everyone else has said on both sides that I think prove the necessity. But just some things I want to clarify that I think need to be clarified also. General Synod has the authority to organize, receive, divide, unite, transfer, dismiss, and dissolve presbyteries. That is the judicial process. We do not have a way of censuring them. We did in 1799. In that Form of Government, we dropped it by 1953. And what I just read to you is from the latest but was also in the 53 and 71 editions. It’s a standard thing that we have the authority to do.”
The Complaint from Second Presbytery cited Form of Government (FoG) 12.22 which states, “The General Synod shall advise Presbyteries in its processes, but not the outcome, of the actions of the Presbyteries, in order to: A. Organize, receive, divide, unite, transfer, dismiss, and dissolve Presbyteries in keeping with the advancement of the Church ….” The complaint went on to state, “It is clear that the General Synod does not have the authority to initiate and execute the dissolution of a Presbytery. Rather, the General Synod shall advise a Presbytery if a Presbytery pursues dissolution and requests the advice of General Synod (FoG 12.22.B.).” Mr. Putnam’s statement “what I just read to you is from the latest [edition of the FoG] but was also in the 53 and 71 editions. It’s a standard thing that we have the authority to do;” is clearly inaccurate. That authority was given to the General Synod in the 1953 and 1971 editions of the FoG, but the most recent 2014 edition of the FoG clearly limits the Synod to an advisory role not the executor of dissolution. Somehow, this glaring piece of new information was ignored by the Executive Board.
The debate moved back to the motion to declare an emergency. Mr. Sims spoke in opposition to it by saying (17m 12s), “The Executive Board does not have the right to overturn the actions of the General Synod and further these complaints before us do not constitute an emergency. The Manual of Authorities and Duties gives power to the Executive Board to act on behalf of the Synod in emergency situations. Webster defines an emergency as an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action. The Executive Board cannot declare an emergency without violating the Manual of Authorities and Duties, and the reason is simple, there is no emergency at hand. There are no circumstances that are being brought forward that were not anticipated by the Synod, and there is nothing that calls for immediate action. Just because the action of Synod will take effect on September 1 does not mean there is an emergency. What is being asked for us here is not for us to act for the General Synod but to undo what Synod has already acted with overwhelming support of over 82%. The highest court of the church has acted. There is no court to overturn it. The Executive Board is not empowered to overturn that action. I spoke with the former principal clerk, and between the two of us, we go back to 1971. We both concur that the Executive Board has never declared an emergency to overturn the act of the General Synod. Furthermore, it has not been our rights. The proper procedure to do this, what’s being asked, would be to have a called meeting of the General Synod and have someone who voted in the affirmative move for reconsideration. We would set a dangerous precedent by even declaring an emergency at this point. This emergency power is something that the Executive Board has been extremely careful to use only in bona fide emergencies. To allow this to be declared an emergency is to open Pandora’s box. Anybody who had a complaint or thought of something could come back to the Executive Board and say, wait, let’s do this over again. It’s not how we do things. Let me be clear. If we declare an emergency this morning on these issues, then going forward, any issue coming before us, we could declare an emergency. This would be a violation of our authority. We could be expected to be rebuked by the Synod. And steps taken by the Synod to limit or even do away with existing powers of the Board. And this would be a great tragedy because there are times when we need this. Our work here this morning is clear. Do not declare this an emergency because it’s clearly not one. Thank you, Mr. Moderator.”
There are several fallacies and/or factual errors in Mr. Sim’s speech:

He starts with, “The Executive Board does not have the right to overturn the actions of the General Synod,” but then he follows up with, “The Manual of Authorities and Duties gives power to the Executive Board to act on behalf of the Synod in emergency situations.” Therefore, in an emergency situation the Executive Board can act on behalf of the Synod, if necessary to overturn an action of the General Synod. The authority to act is given to the Executive Board, including the right to overturn an action of the General if it is necessary.
“There are no circumstances that are being brought forward that were not anticipated by the Synod, and there is nothing that calls for immediate action.” A circumstance that was not accurately presented to the General Synod during the debate of dissolving Second Presbytery was that constitutional prohibition of such an act. General Synod according to the FoG does not have the authority to dissolve a presbytery on its own initiative. This constitutional “circumstance” was “not anticipated” by the Synod when it decided to approve the dissolution of Second Presbytery.
“What is being asked for us here is not for us to act for the General Synod but to undo what Synod has already acted…” That is the point of a complaint, to bring to the attention of the proper court an action that is alleged to be in error and to be remedied.
“We both concur that the Executive Board has never declared an emergency to overturn the act of the General Synod.” Just because something has never been done before does not make it out of order or unconstitutional. An extreme action, the dissolution of a 224-year old presbytery, demands an extreme response, vacate the dissolution. A complaint is designed to address such extreme errors.
“The proper procedure to do this, what’s being asked, would be to have a called meeting of the General Synod and have someone who voted in the affirmative move for reconsideration.” A complaint is not a motion to reconsider. It is a separate procedure in the BoD.
“It’s not how we do things.” Is this a declaration that complaints are unconstitutional? If that’s the case, when are complaints ever valid? The BoD is the constitutional document that governs these matters.
“This would be a violation of our authority.” The Executive Board has the authority per the MAD to declare an emergency if the evidence is compelling. That act is not a violation of their authority but one that is prescribed to them.
“Do not declare this an emergency because it’s clearly not one.” What evidence did Mr. Sims present to demonstrate that these complaints are not an emergency? Is the Synod making an unconstitutional decision not an emergency?

The rest of the business consisted of Tony Locke, a minister in Second Presbytery and one of the signatories of the complaint related to FoG 12.22, requesting voice. He was denied by a 10-2 vote. The Executive Board overwhelmingly denied a filer of one of the complaints the opportunity to speak. There was no further discussion on the motion to declare an emergency, and it was defeated by a vote of 11-2. Therefore, since the Executive Board did not declare the two complaints to be an emergency, they were not considered, and the meeting was adjourned. The two complaints were declared as not being an emergency and not even deliberated. So, what is the point of having a complaint in the constitution? Are all the actions of the highest court irrevocable?
Seth Yi is a Minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and is the Pastor of Newberry ARP in Newberry, SC.
Related Posts:

Written by Carl R. Trueman |
Monday, September 12, 2022
Some of this was no doubt due to her quiet but serious Christian faith. A friend who once had the privilege of being a royal chaplain and spending a weekend at Balmoral Castle confirmed that the conversations he had with the queen revealed her to be a thoughtful, devout Christian. As a humble Christian she took her earthly vocation seriously, placing the needs of the office and of the people she ruled before her own.

The death of Queen Elizabeth II marks a watershed for Britain and for those of us who have never known any other head of our state—as is true for any lifelong British citizen under the age of seventy. Remarkably, she began her reign while Winston Churchill was prime minister and then lived to see a further fourteen individuals hold that high office. Without question she saw more change in British society than any of her predecessors, and throughout it all she remained a calm and steadfast figurehead for the nation.
Growing up, I never had much time for the monarchy. With the exception of the Silver Jubilee in 1977, marked as it was by street parties and celebration, the monarchy rarely touched my life in any real way. Furthermore, as a lower-middle-class schoolboy, I possessed all the usual insecurities: a fear of the working class and a resentment of the nobility. But over the years my respect for the queen grew. In a world that was increasingly embracing casual disrespect, exhibiting a perverse pleasure in repudiating any notion of duty, and accepting uncouth behavior among its ruling classes, she stood out as reflecting a better, more civilized philosophy of public life.
Indeed, she lived long enough to become an anachronism, though not in the sense that republicans typically mean when they argue that monarchy is merely the unnecessary and backward residue of an earlier feudal age. She became an anachronism because of the kind of person she was.
Read More
Related Posts:

Contextualization and winsomeness are about presenting the gospel and biblical message in the language and forms that are intelligible and compelling to people in our cultural moment. But successful and faithful presentations do not mean that arguments understood will be accepted. Sometimes they will be rejected, not out of intellectual ignorance or obstinance, but reasoned disagreement. It is a disservice to exvangelicals like McCammon to conclude that if we simply cleaned up our presentation and behavior that they would be persuaded of the gospel. In our cultural moment the simple truth is that many evangelical doctrines, no matter how they are shared, will be barriers to conversion to outsiders and sources of embarrassment for some of our kids.

I grew up in a subculture that was evangelical and fundamentalist. Many of my childhood friends have deconstructed, dechurched, and deconverted. So it was with great interest that I read Sarah McCammon’s The Exvangalicals: Loving, Living, and Leaving the White Evangelical Church. McCammon, now a correspondent for NPR, grew up evangelical, with all the right bona fides. Exvangelicals is one-part reporting on why some evangelicals dechurch, one-part memoir of McCammon’s own process of leaving evangelicalism.
I come from the same world as McCammon, although her background had a Charismatic inflection absent from my own, and I even knew some of the people she interviewed. Her experience of and insight into evangelicalism from the late 80s to the early 2000s rang true. I could quibble with some of her descriptions and emphases (she takes some extreme examples from her own experience and makes them normative for all evangelicalism; does she have a non-patronizing explanation for the tens of millions of kids who grew up like her and stayed evangelical?), but on the whole I found her work valuable in providing deeper insight into the experience of my friends. Every generation of evangelicals has a group that moves on; rather than dismiss the exvangelical narrative as the same tedious story, those of us who stayed behind should listen with a sympathetic ear. As an evangelical pastor, McCammon’s work gave me better tools to compassionately understand my exvangelical friends and how to think about the posture and expectations of gospel communication.
Salvation Under Duress
“Yeah, I grew up with God. He’s a douchebag, alright? Did he tell you that you were broken and that you need him? Yeah, that’s his move.”
This line from exvangelical, Millennial comedian Taylor Tomlinson’s (crude) stand-up routine encapsulates the flavor of McCammon’s experience with the evangelical church. While full of sincere, if misguided believers, the church expressed a manipulative understanding of God that left people traumatized. And it is explicitly trauma, not ideology or exegetical differences, that forms the matrix of McCammon’s ex-evangelical account.
She opens by recounting an Easter reenactment of the crucifixion she attended as a child. She observes that the evangelical story of the crucifixion “was meant to illustrate a deeper reality: that lurking beneath the veneer of our comfortable, suburban, midwestern American lives was a threat so severe that God had to send his only son to brutally suffer and die to save us from it. The blood might be fake, but the danger was not. That threat informed every aspect of my life.” Her portrayal of evangelicalism is a life policed by fear: fear of hell, fear of the world, fear of transgressing boundaries.  
Her experience, like so many other Millennial evangelicals, is one where the church blended the law and gospel, the indicative and imperative of the Christian life. Ethics did not flow out of gratitude to Christ in communion with him, but the motivation for obedience and good works was fear. Making our calling and election sure was done through conformist, good behavior, not faith in the gloriously unmerited grace of Jesus. Instead, fear of going to hell, of losing our purity, of being hoodwinked by a crafty world, of God’s anger, was normative.
The misery of this is not insignificant; religious trauma occupies a whole chapter of the book. Perfect love is supposed to drive out fear, but for many exvangelicals the “fear of falling out of favor with God” terrified them, lest a forgotten sin keep them from salvation. McCammon describes still waking up in the middle of night in a panic about God’s (damning?) purpose for her.
Karl Barth once attended a Billy Graham rally in Switzerland, and described Graham’s preaching as
the gospel at gun-point…He preached the law, not a message to make one happy. He wanted to terrify people. Threats–they always make an impression. People would much rather be terrified than be pleased. The more one heats up hell for them, the more they come running.”
Fair or not to Graham, this description of “gospel” preaching summarizes what was heard by McCammon and millions of other exvangelicals: a gospel at the end point of a hellish pitch fork held by Jesus, as salvation is received under duress.
This leads to an evangelical culture that might preach love, but really is more about boundary-policing, especially with purity culture. This posture of fear leads to an overemphasis on how the world outside the church’s doors is terrible. I often have conversations with high school students confused since their secular, non-Christian friends are genuinely nice and well-adjusted people. “We were told how ‘the world’ is an evil place, and you have to stay out of it…I found the opposite to be true. I found that ‘the world’ was a much more loving place, and much more comfortable to be part of than a strict religious bubble.” McCammon quotes her friend Daniel here, and this stands as a representative perspective of the exvangelicals. When the church is supposed to be the good guys and shouldn’t cross the line into the terrible world, but the “terrible” world is pleasant and much nicer than the church, it seems like the church was wrong about all kinds of things, including God and the gospel.
Read More
Related Posts: