During the Sunday class another issue that was brought forth during the topic of Eldership qualifications and selection, was a misguided view of their actual involvement in disciplining members of the church.
The discussion started with an elder talking about a woman, unnamed, coming to him to discipline another member of the church who had offended her. She believed that the elder was responsible for 'telling the other member he/she was wrong' by offending their sister in Christ. First, the elder was directed to take sides in this issue by the woman and then to settle their dispute for them. Now, I have heard of many disputes within the church, as is common among all humans. We will eventually say or do something that is offensive to someone, but it is not the Elder's responsibility to deal with these issues. So let's look at how Jesus tells us to deal with offenses, and then look at the bible for examples of dispute resolution.
In Matthew 18:15-17, we read, "15 If another believer sins against you, go privately and point out the fault. If the other person listens and confesses it, you have won that person back. 16 But if you are unsuccessful, take one or two others with you and go back again, so that everything you say may be confirmed by two or three witnesses. 17 If that person still refuses to listen, take your case to the church. If the church decides you are right, but the other person won't accept it, treat that person as a pagan or a corrupt tax collector. (NLT)" So immediately we see that even Jesus expected and understood we would have unintended offenses to deal with in the Body. Therefore, he wanted to set forth a plan to deal with it on an individual basis. We The People of Christ are to go to our brother or sister and tell them of the hurt and point out the issue. In that way, it is dealt with between the original parties to the incident. Only if they cannot agree to a resolution is there a need to continue by taking other members to the offending party. Yet, even those individuals are not identified as Elders. It states that you will take one or two others to go back and speak with the individual again. Once again it is in an attempt to resolve the issue privately. So what happens next? If the individual does not repent from the sin or accept that they were wrong, then the issue will be brought to the Elders correct? NO. Look at verse 17 and recognize that it is now a church issue. In the past, I was always taught that meant a Men's Meeting of the Church. In this version and King James Version, it states Church as a whole. It does not say that only the men of the church will decide on this. It does not state that the Elders are to decide. It states that the Church will decide the issue. If they decide against the offending member, then that individual will be treated as a pagan, or non-believer. This is what we call Dis-fellowship within the church.
Secondly, we need to see how we are to approach each other when we feel offended. I for one get angry and have to walk away or sit quietly until I can control my own thoughts. Obviously, approaching the person who offended me in this state of mind would be counter productive. So let's see what Paul says about talking with each other...Galatians 6:1, "Dear brothers and sisters, if another believer is overcome by some sin, you who are godly should gently and humbly help that person back onto the right path. And be careful not to fall into the same temptation yourself." (NLT) Obviously, if I am angry and hurting when I approach the other person, I will not be able to follow this direction. I would only add more harm. Also, of note is the need to keep your eyes upon the Lord so that this temptation or sin that the other is involved in does not overcome you. Only by allowing the Holy Spirit to guide you during this endeavor will we be able to remain focused upon saving our brother or sister from their sin.
Now I know that each of us are given the Spirit who is our counselor and guide to help us in our walk. And truly we are all attempting to walk the narrow path in the same direction. Yet we sometimes get confused about what our own leadership is doing in the church or what they are responsible for. So lets look at an example of what happened once in the early church when an issue was brought before the church as a whole about the treatment of widows. In Acts 6: 1-5, the Apostles are overseeing the ministry of the word and prayer. They were confronted with a problem that was brought before the church as a whole and then presented a solution that would allow them to continue their designated service. Now, I have always been taught that this was the first initiation of the office of Deaconship. What I would like to propose and for you to contemplate is that the Apostles in this instance were acting as Elders. So if that is the case, what is the real responsibility of the Elders? If we use this as a guide, then their ministry is to prayer, and the overseeing of the Ministry of the Word. In this way, they stay connected to the Spirit through constant prayer. Then they oversee the Ministry of God's Word to ensure that what is being done in the body, through teaching, and preaching, and every other ministry is according to the written Word. This is a full time task which does not need to be added to by issues being brought to them. They as the spiritual Shepherds are to present to the church their ideas for how to accomplish the Gospel Ministry and then allow the Church body to do the work. Not the other way around. We sometimes lose sight of what the true responsibility of the Elders are. We expect them to be our policemen, and firefighters, and warriors. Sorry but that is not it. We want to be able to place upon them the WHOLE responsibility of our religious lives including the running of the Church and its ultimate survival. Once again, I do not see their focus on this. They are to lead us by example and prayer but we as a church are ultimately responsible for our own walk. These individuals are human and have a responsibility to their own families as well as the Ministry of the Church. They are the ones who are to ensure that the wolfs are spotted and dealt with. They are the ones to test the words being taught to you and what is put forth from the pulpit. They are to ensure that what is preached to us, is what is written in God's word. Now, how can they do this if they are always being pulled to decide about who was hurt by another or should we buy a new church bus? Are these truly to be decided by the Elders or the church? I believe that we have placed an undue hardship upon our Shepherds by telling them you are our Rulers. Yet, no where in the scriptures do I read that they rule over us. They are to lead us but not as rulers. Otherwise, I should just acknowledge that there is a church hierarchy and that there is a Pope. Yet, we know that our Messiah is our King and he alone sits at our head.
So the quandary that comes to me is this, I have always been taught that the Elders were to rule the Church. Not by scripture but by tradition. And my search has led me to believe that the Shepherd's duties are:
1) To serve as decision makers if the church body is at an impasse. This comes from Acts 15:1-2, where Paul and Barnabas were sent to assist the church in Antioch about an impasse the church was having over wrongful teaching. They get the ruling of the Apostles and Elders to help resolve the conflict. The elders help to settle disputes in the church over doctrine is a better way to phrase this I think.
2) They pray for the sick. This is a reference from James 5:14, "Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord."
3) They are to watch out for the spiritual life of the church in humility. 1 Peter 5: 1-4, "I exhort the elders who are among you, I being also an elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed. Feed the flock of God among you, taking the oversight, not by compulsion, but willingly; nor for base gain, but readily; nor as lording it over those allotted to you by God, but becoming examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd shall appear, you shall receive a never-fading crown of glory.” Peter is saying that like the Shepherd in the field you are to ensure that the sheep (Christians) are well fed in the scriptures and that they are protected from the wolves who will come to divide and deceive the members. This can also be seen in Hebrews 13: 17.
On the other hand, Hebrews 13: 17 speaks to us as the body in our own responsibility toward our leaders..."Yield to those leading you, and be submissive, for they watch for your souls, as those who must give account, that they may do it with joy and not with grief; for that is unprofitable for you." Yet how many of us make the Shepherds position hard? How many of us bring our petty problems to them for resolution? Let me site an example of this...we continually argue among ourselves over the playing of musical instruments within the auditorium during service. We continually bring it up because some want to allow it and others do not. This might as well have been the same issue as the one from Acts 15 where the Jewish Christians were telling the Gentile Christians they had to be circumcised to be saved. Truly, it was not a salvation issue until it was made so. We like them before us find issues that we want to turn into salvation issues and once a stalemate occurs within the Church on a decision we turn to the Eldership demanding a decision, so long as it is the one we are supporting. Yes, I said that we as Christians only support the Eldership's decision if it supports our 'biblically' based decision. Yet, that is not what I read in Hebrews 13: 17. If the Eldership is called upon to decide a specific point of contention within the church we as a body are to support them. We are called to allow them to help us maintain our spiritual walk and even if I do not agree with a decision, I am still called upon to support them and abide by their decision for the good of the whole. That does not mean that every time I have an opportunity, I re-initiate that same contentious issue before the Church. All I am doing at that time is sowing the seeds of dissension and divisiveness within the body, which leads to members leaving us. You want to know why our numbers continue to go down? How firmly do our members stand behind our leadership? How much contention do we have within the body and why? If we all followed the written directions of the Word, perhaps we would not be seeing as large a movement away from the church. I also want to point out that the position of Elder used to be a lifelong position. Now we have to beg individuals to stay...why is that? Why would someone who is qualified to lead in the Church turn it down? We need to look at how we are treating our leaders and making their life more of a task or chore than a great and holy position to be aspired to. We need to SUBMIT! Even when I do not feel like it. For that is what Jesus did! He submitted to a Cross. Can we do any less? Therefore, we are called to submit to our Church leadership and support their walk.
I have once again convicted myself during this writing and know that I need to examine my own walk in how I support the Elders. I can only submit a humble apology for my stiff necked attitude and hope that any of those serving will accept my request for forgiveness. May Father richly reward all our Elders and Shepherds with love and the blessings they so richly deserve.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Monday, April 22, 2013
Elder Selection and Qualification thoughts...
On Sunday morning we began a look into the selection of Elders within the Church and what qualifications are needed to be selected. Our particular doctrine has always been a Godly man who is the husband of one wife and having believing children along with a multitude of other requirements. Truly, many churches today and in the recent past have split over this one undertaking. The question is, why? What makes this so difficult that our very existance as a unified body is in jeopardy over the selection of men to lead us? My question is, what does God think of our arguing and bickering over who gets to lead and who doesn't?
The discussion started with the class members talking about qualities of an Elder/Shepard. What does a shepard look like or what is our thoughts on a shepard? Was it intentional that Paul used the shepard as a method of discribing the Church Eldership? Well of course it was! Jesus used this analogy many times to talk about His own style of leadership. Even the authors of the bible were inspired to name Him 'the Good Shepard'. So if we think of Elders as shepards, what comes to mind? For me it is a flock of sheep with a man and perhaps a dog out in the open meadow watching over them. This man may be sitting playing a musical instrument or standing singing or talking quietly to them, but he is always vigilant. His vigilence is required to ensure that none of his flock wanders away into danger or is taken by a wild predator. He knows how many and where his sheep are. He has to lead them to water and ensure their safety while they drink. If one slips in the water, it may drown if he does not go to its aid, even in the shallows. Also, cowards need not aply as one thinks on the dangerous beasts that David overcame while tending his fathers sheep. He talks about killing lions and bears in the course of his duties caring for those sheep. The shepard sings and talks not only to sooth the sheep but so that they will know his voice. Then when he calls and starts walking to a new pasture or water, the sheep will follow him just by this sound.
All these things came out in the discussion in class, or at least a goodly portion of them. Yet, during class another thought came out that truly struck me harshly...and that was this; if Jesus and the Apostles were here today in our own congregation we would not allow them to shepard us. They do not have the qualifications. Say WHAT! Hold on a moment, my Lord and Master could not hold the 'office' of elder in my church? Then we truly NEED to rethink our paradigm of what is required to hold that position! How can the very one who initiated this whole change and save my soul not be eligible to sit in authority over the church? How can we be so sure that our own understanding of God's Word is correct and yet truly believe that the author of our salvation is not qualified to lead His earthly flock if he were present? And what of Peter, or Paul or John? Each noted in some extraordinary way for their Apostleship and leadership in the church, but today would be counted as not qualified to lead? I say that we have moved off course in our very theology if we hold this as indesputable by the Word. I believe that we have once again set boundaries where our own tradition has determined it should be. We have again in our need for order and rules to govern ourselves, defined a box so small that even our Messiah would laugh at us. I believe that Jesus is saddened and hurt by our own ineptitude in this area of HIS Church.
So let's get into the Word and find our stumbling block(s) and perhaps look for a better understanding of where we have gotten off course. The main biblical text that all look to for understanding on Elder's qualification is, 1 Timothy 3: "1 The saying is sure: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. 2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way— 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God's church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil."(NRSV) Of course this version uses the term Bishop and that in itself can generate a lengthy debate over the definition, but for this writing I am suggesting that we replace that term with Shepard or Elder. Starting in verse 2 we see that an Elder is to be married only once. Taken in the literal sense of this verse it would automatically exclude Jesus and most of the Apostles right away. Jesus was never married. Yet, is that what is truly meant by this verse? In the New Living Translation, this same verse is written,"must be faithful to his wife." Same thing right? NO! Read them again...Paul, who was also called an elder of the early church and never married, I believe is saying that 'IF' a man is married that he follows God's original plan of only having one wife. Remember, that Jesus told the Jewish leaders in God's original plan a man would leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and the 2 would become one. We The People being stiff necked and rebellious have trouble following God's plan. We have determined that if I don't like the wife of my youth that I will divource her and marry another. Some places throughout history have just accepted polygamy as normal. Yet, any marriage that is not as God stated in the original plan is wrong, hense the words, "what God has joined together, let no man put assunder." Only through death or marrital unfaithfulness can a marriage be sundered in God's sight. In those instances, the man would be free to marry again. So, here is my thoughts on this...Paul, who was never married, was an example to us of the fact that an elder did not HAVE to be married. Perhaps, we misinterpreted what the author was saying and that threw us off course. I submit that the church today has excluded many very Godly men, who could and perhaps should have been accepted as elders, because we used the literal terms to define the qualification. When this very narrow understanding of the Word has limited our pool of eligible candidates. So today perhaps we should translate this verse to say,"...must be above reproach; if married, he must be married according to God's plan in the beginning; " I think that this would alleviate some of the misunderstanding surrounding this.
Next the verse speaks to 'temperate' and we have sometimes used this to mean not a drunkard. But I do not believe that is the correct version. In this instance I believe that we could more closely associate the term to vigilant or watchful. As we look back at the thoughts on what it means to be a Shepard we know that the man must be always looking out for the flock of sheep. He must be vigilant or wolves will enter the flock and kill his sheep, or perhaps one will stray. Then comes 'Sensible' and I like this translation, perhaps the only other way to look at it would be uses 'common sense', or 'wisdom' for the meaning. Respectable means just that...however, we sometimes forget as leaders that to receive respect we must give respect. If you truly need another word for this, then perhaps 'honorable' would be a good word to substitute. Now we come to the next word that causes much debate and consternation...hospitable. Does that mean that he must give parties and open his home to all? What does this word truly mean? Well, let's look at the author of hospitality...our heavenly Father. He is our host and benefactor. He LOVES us and shows that love through his actions with regards to saving us. He has even prepared a home for us when we have finished with this world. Jesus showed us hospitality when he washed his disciples feet. Hospitality, then is a verb. It requires action on our part and the part of the man aspiring to Shepard the flock. He must exhibit love for others through his deeds.
The next misconception is that all elders need to be able to preach. Preaching and teaching are not one and the same. Jesus was known as the 'Great Teacher' not the Great Preacher. A preacher is an orator and motivational speaker. However, a teacher may not ever even give a lecture. Some of the best teachers I have known were doers and taught by their example. Jesus taught His chosen how to act by washing their feet. One of the best leasons on humility and service that has ever been taught.
Verse 3 is pretty self explanitory, yet some use the very first part to say that an elder cannot drink alcoholic beverages. That is not what is stated here. This translation puts this in a more appropriate light as not a drunkard. Then verse 4 leads to the second part that would tend to exclude our Savior and his apostles. In most versions this reads, "must have believing children." If this truly meant that every elder HAD to have believing biological children then truthfully Jesus would not be able to lead a church today as an elder. Yet, look at this verse again...It is talking about the whole of the house. How this man manages everything in his care. His money, his posessions, his time, his servants, etc., etc. Paul did not have biological children, so how then was he an elder? No this is more about the man's ability to love and care for everything God has blessed him with than just does he have children. I would also submit that Paul, though not related to Timothy or Titus, calls them his children. How is that so? Was he not instrumental in their conversion? So here is food for thought...we each say that upon our baptism we die and are reborn. If this is so, then are we not creating children through baptism? Are we not birthing new babies in Christ through our own testemonies and discipling? Paul claims this very thing as he speaks to both Timothy and Titus. So perhaps another and better rendering of this verse would be for us to examine how many new birth christians each man has and which has maturing christians still attending? Wait...yes, I said which ones new birth children are still attending. You see we are in such a hurry to get people wet and into the church that we totally forget that they are babies. But what happens when a baby is born and then left on it's own to survive? It will soon enough perish. Too often we do the same to our own newly born christian children. We get them wet and then hurry on to get the next convert. This is not discipleship nor teaching.
Now, I know that I may have stepped over a few boundaries here and if you disagree with this, I will not be angry nor hurt. I write this to open new thoughts on old traditions in the hope that we can bring to light a clearer understanding of what was written so long ago. I pray that each of us looks into the Word and with prayer and fasting allow the Spirit to guide our minds to an understanding of what God was trying to bring into our limited wisdom as His purpose and perfect way to select our leadership here on earth.
The discussion started with the class members talking about qualities of an Elder/Shepard. What does a shepard look like or what is our thoughts on a shepard? Was it intentional that Paul used the shepard as a method of discribing the Church Eldership? Well of course it was! Jesus used this analogy many times to talk about His own style of leadership. Even the authors of the bible were inspired to name Him 'the Good Shepard'. So if we think of Elders as shepards, what comes to mind? For me it is a flock of sheep with a man and perhaps a dog out in the open meadow watching over them. This man may be sitting playing a musical instrument or standing singing or talking quietly to them, but he is always vigilant. His vigilence is required to ensure that none of his flock wanders away into danger or is taken by a wild predator. He knows how many and where his sheep are. He has to lead them to water and ensure their safety while they drink. If one slips in the water, it may drown if he does not go to its aid, even in the shallows. Also, cowards need not aply as one thinks on the dangerous beasts that David overcame while tending his fathers sheep. He talks about killing lions and bears in the course of his duties caring for those sheep. The shepard sings and talks not only to sooth the sheep but so that they will know his voice. Then when he calls and starts walking to a new pasture or water, the sheep will follow him just by this sound.
All these things came out in the discussion in class, or at least a goodly portion of them. Yet, during class another thought came out that truly struck me harshly...and that was this; if Jesus and the Apostles were here today in our own congregation we would not allow them to shepard us. They do not have the qualifications. Say WHAT! Hold on a moment, my Lord and Master could not hold the 'office' of elder in my church? Then we truly NEED to rethink our paradigm of what is required to hold that position! How can the very one who initiated this whole change and save my soul not be eligible to sit in authority over the church? How can we be so sure that our own understanding of God's Word is correct and yet truly believe that the author of our salvation is not qualified to lead His earthly flock if he were present? And what of Peter, or Paul or John? Each noted in some extraordinary way for their Apostleship and leadership in the church, but today would be counted as not qualified to lead? I say that we have moved off course in our very theology if we hold this as indesputable by the Word. I believe that we have once again set boundaries where our own tradition has determined it should be. We have again in our need for order and rules to govern ourselves, defined a box so small that even our Messiah would laugh at us. I believe that Jesus is saddened and hurt by our own ineptitude in this area of HIS Church.
So let's get into the Word and find our stumbling block(s) and perhaps look for a better understanding of where we have gotten off course. The main biblical text that all look to for understanding on Elder's qualification is, 1 Timothy 3: "1 The saying is sure: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. 2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way— 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God's church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and the snare of the devil."(NRSV) Of course this version uses the term Bishop and that in itself can generate a lengthy debate over the definition, but for this writing I am suggesting that we replace that term with Shepard or Elder. Starting in verse 2 we see that an Elder is to be married only once. Taken in the literal sense of this verse it would automatically exclude Jesus and most of the Apostles right away. Jesus was never married. Yet, is that what is truly meant by this verse? In the New Living Translation, this same verse is written,"must be faithful to his wife." Same thing right? NO! Read them again...Paul, who was also called an elder of the early church and never married, I believe is saying that 'IF' a man is married that he follows God's original plan of only having one wife. Remember, that Jesus told the Jewish leaders in God's original plan a man would leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and the 2 would become one. We The People being stiff necked and rebellious have trouble following God's plan. We have determined that if I don't like the wife of my youth that I will divource her and marry another. Some places throughout history have just accepted polygamy as normal. Yet, any marriage that is not as God stated in the original plan is wrong, hense the words, "what God has joined together, let no man put assunder." Only through death or marrital unfaithfulness can a marriage be sundered in God's sight. In those instances, the man would be free to marry again. So, here is my thoughts on this...Paul, who was never married, was an example to us of the fact that an elder did not HAVE to be married. Perhaps, we misinterpreted what the author was saying and that threw us off course. I submit that the church today has excluded many very Godly men, who could and perhaps should have been accepted as elders, because we used the literal terms to define the qualification. When this very narrow understanding of the Word has limited our pool of eligible candidates. So today perhaps we should translate this verse to say,"...must be above reproach; if married, he must be married according to God's plan in the beginning; " I think that this would alleviate some of the misunderstanding surrounding this.
Next the verse speaks to 'temperate' and we have sometimes used this to mean not a drunkard. But I do not believe that is the correct version. In this instance I believe that we could more closely associate the term to vigilant or watchful. As we look back at the thoughts on what it means to be a Shepard we know that the man must be always looking out for the flock of sheep. He must be vigilant or wolves will enter the flock and kill his sheep, or perhaps one will stray. Then comes 'Sensible' and I like this translation, perhaps the only other way to look at it would be uses 'common sense', or 'wisdom' for the meaning. Respectable means just that...however, we sometimes forget as leaders that to receive respect we must give respect. If you truly need another word for this, then perhaps 'honorable' would be a good word to substitute. Now we come to the next word that causes much debate and consternation...hospitable. Does that mean that he must give parties and open his home to all? What does this word truly mean? Well, let's look at the author of hospitality...our heavenly Father. He is our host and benefactor. He LOVES us and shows that love through his actions with regards to saving us. He has even prepared a home for us when we have finished with this world. Jesus showed us hospitality when he washed his disciples feet. Hospitality, then is a verb. It requires action on our part and the part of the man aspiring to Shepard the flock. He must exhibit love for others through his deeds.
The next misconception is that all elders need to be able to preach. Preaching and teaching are not one and the same. Jesus was known as the 'Great Teacher' not the Great Preacher. A preacher is an orator and motivational speaker. However, a teacher may not ever even give a lecture. Some of the best teachers I have known were doers and taught by their example. Jesus taught His chosen how to act by washing their feet. One of the best leasons on humility and service that has ever been taught.
Verse 3 is pretty self explanitory, yet some use the very first part to say that an elder cannot drink alcoholic beverages. That is not what is stated here. This translation puts this in a more appropriate light as not a drunkard. Then verse 4 leads to the second part that would tend to exclude our Savior and his apostles. In most versions this reads, "must have believing children." If this truly meant that every elder HAD to have believing biological children then truthfully Jesus would not be able to lead a church today as an elder. Yet, look at this verse again...It is talking about the whole of the house. How this man manages everything in his care. His money, his posessions, his time, his servants, etc., etc. Paul did not have biological children, so how then was he an elder? No this is more about the man's ability to love and care for everything God has blessed him with than just does he have children. I would also submit that Paul, though not related to Timothy or Titus, calls them his children. How is that so? Was he not instrumental in their conversion? So here is food for thought...we each say that upon our baptism we die and are reborn. If this is so, then are we not creating children through baptism? Are we not birthing new babies in Christ through our own testemonies and discipling? Paul claims this very thing as he speaks to both Timothy and Titus. So perhaps another and better rendering of this verse would be for us to examine how many new birth christians each man has and which has maturing christians still attending? Wait...yes, I said which ones new birth children are still attending. You see we are in such a hurry to get people wet and into the church that we totally forget that they are babies. But what happens when a baby is born and then left on it's own to survive? It will soon enough perish. Too often we do the same to our own newly born christian children. We get them wet and then hurry on to get the next convert. This is not discipleship nor teaching.
Now, I know that I may have stepped over a few boundaries here and if you disagree with this, I will not be angry nor hurt. I write this to open new thoughts on old traditions in the hope that we can bring to light a clearer understanding of what was written so long ago. I pray that each of us looks into the Word and with prayer and fasting allow the Spirit to guide our minds to an understanding of what God was trying to bring into our limited wisdom as His purpose and perfect way to select our leadership here on earth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)