Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Archive for the ‘social gospel’ Category

On Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s Apostate Pastor Jeremiah Wright

Posted by Job on March 17, 2008

*By Pastor Bill Keller of Live Prayer. By the way, it was Keller that tipped me off to the fact that Oprah Winfrey had been a member of this “church” months ago, although the Los Angeles Times now claims that she stopped going. Interesting that people are just now coming around to this “story” AFTER Barack HUSSEIN Obama has all but wrapped up the Democratic nomination, as I dealt with this over a year ago: Lots Of Good Stuff On Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s September 11th – Justifying Church. Ah well. As Howard University graduate Jeremiah Wright is a liberation theology preacher, please read my entry The True Liberation Theology. As far as those of you that wish to claim that I have political motives for posting this devotional or attacking Barack HUSSEIN Obama in general, allow me to say that I personally see no substantive difference between Obama, Clinton, or McCain, and my position is that a Christian should not vote for any of them. I ran across the other day where Martin Luther stated that it was better to be governed by a wise Turk (Muslim) than a foolish Christian. That seems to fit the writings of Paul in Romans 13, especially when you consider the context: Rome was hardly a Christian or godly empire in any sense, yet Paul wrote to submit to proper authorities because all authority comes from God. But Obama, Clinton, and McCain do not meet the standards of “wise Turk” (or wise anything for that matter, let alone decent, moral, honest, truthful, etc.) in my humble estimation. Maybe the Constitution or Libertarian. I cannot consider the Green Party nominee Ralph Nader for regrettably he is pro – abortion.
(Acts 17:26,27, Rom. 10:11-13)
What kind of pastor condones the sin of homosexuality, killing babies, and preaches a gospel of racial division? The pastor for 20 years and spiritual mentor of Democratic Presidential candidate B. Hussein Obama! I found it amusing the past few days that all of the news media is focusing on the racially divisive and anti-American rhetoric of Dr. Jeremiah Wright, who for over 3 decades was the Senior Pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois.For those who have been reading the Daily Devotional and/or watching the Liveprayer television program, I have told you about Dr. Wright for many years now, since he pastors the church Oprah called home and Senator Obama has been part of for the past 2 decades.Dr. Wright not only married Senator Obama and his wife and christened their 2 children, but he has also been the spiritual mentor to the Senator and helped shape his theological beliefs. He has been prominent in the news the past few days because the public has been horrified after being exposed to his racist and anti-American views that he has espoused for over 30 years in his church.

In trying to do damage control Friday, Senator Obama ended any affiliation Dr. Wright had with his Presidential campaign and the Senator went on numerous news programs stating that he was not aware Dr. Wright held these views. B. Hussein Obama is a liar!

As many of you know, I started my ministry in the city of Chicago in 1992.
Two of the members of my Board of Directors who have been with me since day one, are both black pastors of churches on the south side of Chicago. I
have had the joy and privilege to preach in several dozen black churches in
the Chicagoland area in the early days of my ministry. Anyone who has had
ANY dealing with the churches in Chicago know who Dr. Jeremiah Wright is and that he preaches a gospel of black separatism with anti-American views.

In theological circles it is known as “black liberation theology,” a perverse theology originally taught by James Cone that seeks to contribute to the liberation of black people from the perceived racism in the country and in Christianity.

Please hear me very clear. Black liberation theology is a perverse view of the Scriptures and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a radical view held by a very small minority of black pastors. This is NOT representative of the black church or the overwhelming majority of black pastors who preach and teach the true Gospel of Jesus Christ without looking at it through the lens of color. Every black pastor I know condemns Dr. Wright and this perverse racist theology.

Sadly, to the non-churched masses and to white Americans who have little or no exposure to the black church, seeing and hearing Dr. Wright’s radical views of the world and the Scriptures, will cause them to assume this is the position held by all black churches. (My note: some black people in their zeal to defend Obama are stating precisely that.) Again, Dr. Wright is in a very small minority of pastors who hold to these perverted views and this is NOT representative of the black church or Christians who happen to be black.

Having said that, let me reiterate that B. Hussein Obama is a liar when he says he was not aware of these beliefs held by his pastor. That is impossible since everyone in Chicago knows about Dr. Wright and his radical and racially divisive theology. His teachings attracted many young, upwardly mobile, successful blacks who agree with his views on race and social issues. They joined his church not only for the spiritual experience,
but for the networking opportunities it provided. (My note: sadly, making them no different from most Christians regardless of race or theology.)

It was the perfect church home for Senator Obama, who had no Christian background or Biblical upbringing, and was a rising star in the Daley political machine in Chicago, It was the perfect church home and message for Senator Obama who was dealing with the social and economic challenges of blacks on the south side of Chicago early in his political career.

The United Church of Christ is a predominantly white and very liberal denomination that supports and condones sins like homosexuality and women killing their babies.
Like many liberal denominations, it focuses on the
“social gospel,” dealing with the economically poor rather than the spiritually poor. (My note: although the Bible tells us to deal with the economically poor as well, it is both not either or, do not turn aside from God’s commandments to the right or to the left!) These types of churches focus on the financially down and out and needy, using the parts of the Bible that speak to helping those who are less fortunate, while brushing over the passages that speak to living a life holy and acceptable to God in accordance with His Word. This is where Senator Obama comes up with the laughable notion that the Sermon on the Mount teaches homosexuality is an acceptable choice as he recently stated in the news. In his bid for the White House, B. Hussein Obama has received great support from those in the gay and lesbian community since he will champion their desire to make gay marriage legal in all 50 states and to break down all barriers to gay adoption, as well as other issues favorable to giving those who choose to commit the sin of homosexuality special rights.Senator Obama also supports the legalizes slaughter of babies. He has been 100% consistent in his political career both in the Illinois Senate and the United States Senate, to support the legalized practice of infanticide. I wonder how he can go home at night, look at his two precious little girls, yet vote to support the legalized murder of babies. Again, this is all in line with the liberal theology and social gospel teachings of his pastor and church for the past 20 years.

I say that any “pastor” and any “church” that supports slaughtering babies should never be referred to with those names. How can you call yourself a pastor, how can a church call itself a church, how can a person honestly call themselves a follower of Jesus Christ, and support a woman making the decision to kill her baby? That is inconsistent with the teachings of Christ and the Bible, and even most hard hearted heathens who deny the existence of God understands that it is murder!

I love you and care about you so much. My guess is that Senator Obama will soon leave Trinity UCC to appease his political detractors. The fact is, he is 20 years too late. He, like ALL who are part of that church and most who are not part of Trinity, knew of the perverse theology and racist, anti-American views of Dr. Jeremiah Wright. This is not revelation to anyone in Chicago. I have told you about Dr. Wright and that church for
many years now.

Senator Obama has to make the same decision we all have to make. It was Jesus who said you can’t serve two masters. Is our master Jesus or do we serve another master? If Jesus is his master, Senator Obama needs to denounce the sin of homosexuality and take a stand for life. If politics is his master, he will continue to support these sins.

At some point, each person has to decide if you love Jesus or if you love this world. We make that decision many times throughout the day when we choose to obey God or disobey Him. If we say we love the Lord, we will obey Him. If we say we love the Lord and disobey Him, we obviously don’t love Him enough since it was Jesus who said, “If you love Me, you will obey Me.” I pray today that Senator Obama will love Jesus enough to obey Him, and I pray that you and I will love Him enough to obey Him.

In His love and service,
Your friend and brother in Christ,
Bill Keller bkeller@liveprayer.com
***ARE YOU 100% CERTAIN WHERE YOU WILL SPEND ETERNITY? The fact is you will die one day. At that moment, you will either spend eternity with the Lord or
be cast into everlasting darkness forever separated from God your creator.
To know for certain you will be forever with Jesus, go to: http://www.liveprayer.com/bdy_salvatn.cfm***I am excited to let you know that the Liveprayer Daily Devotional is now
available via AUDIO each day. Simply go to http://www.liveprayer.com/Audio.cfm
Also, you can now listen to the Daily Devotional by phone by calling 1-727-342-5673
(C) Copyright 2008, Bill Keller Ministries. All rights reserved.
Advertisements

Posted in abomination, abortion, abortion rights, apostasy, Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, bigotry, blasphemy, christian left, christian liberalism, christian worldliness, Christianity, church hypocrisy, church scandal, church state, church worldliness, civil rights, Council on Foreign Relations, devotional, false doctrine, false preacher, false preachers, false prophet, false religion, false teachers, false teaching, gay marriage, gay rights, heresy, homosexuality, identity politics, liberal, liberal christian, liberalism, liberation theology, politics, poverty, pro choice, pro life, racism, social gospel | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 50 Comments »

Abrahamic-Faith: Jesus Christ Was Born During Feast Of Tabernacles

Posted by Job on January 18, 2008

Many state – and some emphatically – that the date of the birth of Jesus Christ is of no theological or doctrinal consequence, for if it were the Bible would have given it and told us to commemorate it. Well, Abrahamic-Faith.com does a good job of not only making the case for the time of Jesus Christ’s birth, but its meaning to Christians. The meaning to Christians is probably best expressed in Hebrews 11, with the key verses being 14-16, which reads “For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.”  Think, for a second how injurious that passage is to some of the doctrines of Christian Zionist dispensational pre – tribulationists like John Hagee, and consider how Jesus Christ being born during the feast of tabernacles shows how Christians should not be conformed to or otherwise try to hold onto this world but rather live our lives in preparation for and expectation of the next. The late Dr. Vernon McGee used to say of this world “You don’t polish brass on a sinking ship.” That statement puts the agendas of both the dominionist religious right (which dispensational Christian Zionism is a strange manifestation of) and the social gospel religious left into proper perspective, does it not?

healtheland.bravehost.com/Docs/JesusBirth/FeastOfTabernacles.html

Posted in Christian Zionism, Christianity, false doctrine, false teaching, Israel, Jesus Christ, John Hagee, Judaism, Messianic Judaism, Moshiach, religious left, religious right, social gospel, Y'shua Hamashiach, Y'shua Hamashiach Moshiach, Yeshua Hamashiach, Zionism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Is The New Evangelicalism Any Worse Than The Old?

Posted by Job on December 3, 2007

The New Evangelicalism By Jan Markell www.olivetreeviews.org

When I first filtered into an evangelical church at the age of 14, defining the term “evangelical” was simple, even for a kid my age. Without having to be told, I concluded evangelicals preached a solid gospel, emphasized evangelism and missions, majored in soul-winning and minored in social issues, abstained from some worldly values, were faithful in church attendance, Bible reading, and generally had a biblical worldview. I was never ashamed of the old definition of “evangelicalism.”

 

Those churches are still around, but something has happened in the last twenty years. New leaders are rising and some do NOT preach a solid gospel yet are called evangelicals. (Did your movement preach a solid gospel?) To me, this says today no one is really sure what “evangelicalism” means. (That is because when your folks were in control of the movement, you never defined it by your own example as it was never an attempt to practice the New Testament faith. Instead, the movement was desired to be a “third way” between the the liberal mainline denominationals and the “conservative” fundamentalists, some of whom you were more disdainful and ashamed of than not only the liberal mainline denominationals but even people who were not Christians at all.) When those leaning left such as Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis are called evangelicals, I can tell we have a new day. (So we were much better off with the evangelical movement being led by conservatives like Mike Huckabee, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Ted Haggard, Ralph Reed, Bill Bennett, and Pat Robertson.) When “Emergent Church” leaders such as Brian McClaren, Rob Bell, and Erwin McManus are called evangelicals, something is a-miss. This is just blatant false labeling. (No, it is appropriation of a label that was false to begin with.)

 

“The New York Times” states, “A tug of war is unfolding behind the scenes over theology –should evangelicalism be a big tent open to divergent views, or a smaller movement with more pure theology?” (I prefer the unstated option #3, which is first trying to make an honest attempt to discern what the Bible is saying to us, and then making an honest attempt at doing it. Is there any evidence that this was ever the primary purpose of the movement popularized by the universalist populist Billy Graham?)

Theology isn’t the only issue. Some of today’s so-called evangelicals are into global warming, immigration issues, anti-war movements, and other causes that were once found only in churches a part of the World and National Council of Churches. (So … churches are not supposed to oppose unjust wars and illegal immigration?) They are involved in ridding the world of AIDS, which is an impossibility but a noble cause, but is it the cause of evangelicals? (This is dishonest. Virtually no one is trying to rid the world of a disease for which there is no vaccine or cure. They are merely trying to prevent the spread of the disease and treat people that have it. The fact that she is hostile to the church doing something about AIDS makes me wonder if she has a cultural bias against the people that disproportionately have it. Well, the lepers faced cultural bias in the time of Jesus Christ too, and Christ healed them.) Or is it just the old social gospel from which evangelicals fled in the 1940s so a few denominations could focus almost exclusively on soul-winning and Bible teaching? (Fleeing the social gospel? Yes. But founding your church based on a selfish hard – hearted partial gospel that ignores people’s human needs and is harsh towards sinners? That is not what Jesus Christ and His apostles preached or practiced, but quite the opposite: they condemned it. Read the book of James: faith without works is dead.)

Now the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) has a new leader and he hails from my hometown, Minneapolis, MN. (That people did not leave the NAE when the truth was found out about some of its leaders like Ted Haggard and James Dobson, and so many of its leaders are members of the Council on Foreign Relations and take money from Sun Myung Moon … well that is your own fault.) He states that issues to be addressed by the NAE include human rights, creation care, justice and compassion for the poor, torture, and seeking peace in the world. Isn’t this the organization that should be reminding the world that it is racing towards judgment and there may not be a lot of time to repent? It sounds like making the world a better place to live is the new “great commission.”
(No, we should be doing what Jesus Christ and His apostles told us to do in the New Testament. If certain people are erroring by wanting to do more, your error is worse because you want to do less.)

 

I am very uneasy when “evangelicals” remind me of social gospel leftists and when sound theology is replaced by feelings and experience. (So what, you were feeling “easy” before? You were in your little comfort zone before? Well, when I read the New Testament, what I see is that the gospel is supposed to make you uneasy, to take you out of your comfort zone, to cause you to do things that you would not ordinarily do. The rich young ruler was made uneasy by the gospel too. Herod was made uneasy by the preaching of John. I really am not seeing much of a difference between erring on the right side or erring on the left.) Or when once-sound theologians applaud the new “Christian mysticism” and rally around “unity.” (And who are these once – sound theologians? Billy Graham? Robert Schuller? A lot of these guys have ALWAYS had problems. The only thing that is going on now is that they have crossed some little cultural line in our minds that have forced us to confront it. Like all the Christians who abandoned Ted Haggard for being homosexual when he had so many other problems.) When church-growth methods take center stage and a church has to have a “marketing approach.” I thought God was the “Marketer-in-Chief” of all churches and ministries. (Sorry, that is the Reformed/Calvinist/fundamentalist predestination/election Christianity that the free will evangelical movement has made a point of rejecting in order to curry a measure of favor with the world as being “moderate”, “reasonable”, and “more compassionate. Even when I was free will evangelical, I couldn’t stand how we were so quick to sell out our more theologically conservative brethren for the respect of the God – haters.) He causes or hinders growth and the spiritual maturity of the body matters far more than growth in numbers.

Old fashioned evangelicalism is on life-support and has been snatched in what the Bible calls an “end-time falling away” (II Thess. 2). I see a new “slippery slope” and enormous compromise, and I will not remain silent. Yet the Lord loves His church. He has not forsaken it. (Again, if this woman’s comments are representative of old – fashioned evangelicalism mindset, then its adherents may not be as bad as Rick Warren or the emergents in a doctrinal,.worship, or personal behavior sense, but it is still not the full gospel that was once given to the saints. And if your spirit does not burn for the teachings that was given in the New Testament, should you examine yourself to be in the faith? How many of you have visited a person in prison, for instance? Or encouraged and prayed for an AIDS or cancer patient? I admit … I have never done such a thing, and that I need to. But quite frankly, people who claim to be in love with that old time religion while exhibiting no desire to do these things or pretending that they are mere side issues scare me. What is the point of taking such pride in believing that the Bible is inspired, inerrant, and the final authority if you are not out there doing what the Bible says?)

Distributed by http://www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com

Posted in AIDS, Center for National Policy, christian conservative, Christian hypocrisy, christian left, christian liberalism, christian worldliness, Christianity, church hypocrisy, church state, church worldliness, Council on Foreign Relations, emergent church, evangelical christian, false doctrine, false preacher, false preachers, false religion, false teachers, false teaching, illegal immigration, immigration, James Dobson, Mike Huckabee, New Age, Pat Robertson, social gospel | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Someone Explain Amillennialism To Me

Posted by Job on October 27, 2007

It appears that preterism is a manifestation of amillennialism. If I am correct, amillennialism holds that the 1000 year rule of Jesus Christ refers to Christ currently ruling NOW from heaven, and that the 1000 years is merely a metaphor for “a very long time.” I do not have a problem with 1000 years not being taken literally. What I have a problem with is the fact that Revelation seems to say that Jesus Christ will physically return, defeat the anti – Christ and the false prophet, and set up a kingdom on earth for a time, and at the end of that time will be the final destruction of ALL God’s enemies, including Satan and death.

Saying that Revelation 19 – 20 refers to Christ’s FIRST advent and that His rule of the earth takes place NOW by virtue of the saints preaching the gospel … does that not defy what Paul wrote in Ephesians? If Christ is ruling from heaven and Satan is bound, then why do we need to contend against Satan’s kingdom with the full armor of God? And if you want to interpret the Bible allegorically, that is fine. But amillennialism holds that Revelation 19 and Revelation 20:8-15 describe a singular Day of the Lord, but Revelation 20:1-7 refer to conditions that have existed ever since the Day of Pentecost!

Now take away the fact that it is totally inconsistent with the literary narrative in a way that nothing else written by John (or anything else in the Bible) approaches, even in Revelation, then it is ALMOST ACCEPTABLE if one buys that Satan being “loosed a little season” in Revelation 20:3 refers to the great tribulation. This link does say that Satan being “bound” in this dispensation means that He cannot bring in the full anti – Christ system as of yet. But even altering the chronology of the narrative in such a destructive way does not account for the text explicitly saying that Christ Himself would physically return and rule the nations with a rod of iron! Suggesting that the Body of Christ would do so until the great tribulation completely denies everything that Christ said not only in the Gospel of John about the tough road of persecution, marginalization, and rejection that lay ahead for the church, but also those very same things in Revelation 2 and 3.

Now amillennialists are correct in arguing that pre – tribulational dispensationalism creates a dangerous theological and political mindset for the church. Watching John Hagee in action, that has become my own personal belief. But is not conservative dominionism and triumphialism, manifest destiny, due to the notion that Christians can rule the world for Christ Jesus? That with the combined power of the church and state, we can subdue the infidels – excuse me, unbelievers – and crush the opponents of Jesus Christ through worldly means? Now of course George W. Bush is NOT a Christian, but though his adventure in Iraq is often blamed on premillennial dispensationalism, the notion that he can go over there and spread “western values and democracy” (which let us face it the religious right uses as a proxy for Christianity) seems a lot more like amillennial triumphialism to me. And then of course there is the “social gospel” of the “Christian” left that we saw so quickly and easily morph into liberation theology, socialism, communism, and political deism.

My theory for the origin of amillennialism: traditional scholarship until recently held that the Book of Revelation was written very late (as late of 96 AD) and not widely circulated until still later. By that time, the early church had come up with endtimes doctrines without it, and those doctrines were what can be considered proto – amillenialism. It is well known that when the early church WAS confronted with Revelation, they did their best to dismiss it. Attempts were made to leave it out of the canon, and when that failed there was an attempt to claim that it was not written by the apostle John, but another John. The latter effort was an attempt to say that the book had a useful spiritual purpose, but IT IS NOT LIKE THE THINGS DESCRIBED IN IT ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO HAPPEN!

The sticking point was always Revelation 20:1-7. The given reasons was that it was “too materialistic” (meaning describing the coming Kingdom of God in natural terms, a physical Christ ruling over a natural earth rather than a spiritual or eschatological one) and “too Jewish” (for Jewish eschatology had long centered around a Davidic king Messiah ruling the natural earth – and the lion shall lay down with the lamb and you shall have many bountiful harvests as said in Isaiah and similar). But the real reason was that Revelation 20:1-7 contradicted what had been established church doctrine for decades. What amillennialism does is resuscitate the endtimes doctrines that existed PRIOR to Revelation.

What this does, in effect, to exclude Revelation from the canon by claiming that it contains no new information, and return the church to the state that existed before Revelation was written; before the Revelation to John was given. It functionally claims that the canon was ACTUALLY complete and finalized with the revelation from God to man finished with the prior 65 books. I am not making this up: one of the main arguments used in support of amillennialism by that very link is that the millennium is mentioned nowhere else in scripture!

While I understand that scripture must confirm scripture, there are plenty of very important things historical and theological in the Bible that are only mentioned or referenced in one place, and the Gospel of John is a huge repository of them. Instead, the things in the Revelation that DO correlate strongly to the other places in the Bible are used to establish the few things that DO NOT, i.e. Revelation 20:1-7, as being true. That is a consistent principle of Bible interpretation that for some strange reason is only abandoned in this one passage to suit this one doctrine.

Since Revelation is forbidden from revealing any actual new information of significance save the vision of Jesus Christ by amillennialism, the doctrine accomplishes what the early church dissenters failed: keeping the Bible down to 65 books. And not ENTIRELY incidentally, amillennialism completely removes the nation and people of Israel from having any significance whatsoever in current or future events, which would seem to contradict Paul’s statement that God has not cast aside His people but rather is instead still dealing with and has plans for them in Romans.

Posted in Christianity, endtimes, eschatology, liberation theology, social gospel | Tagged: , , , | 76 Comments »

The Multiculturalism Tolerance Diversity Movement Is Greco – Roman Paganism

Posted by Job on September 23, 2007

All right you folks that equate the beast (or anti – Christ) of Revelation to Roman Catholicism, here is red meat for you. From “An Introduction To The New Testament” by D. Carson and Douglas Moo (Zondervan) page 34: “In one sense, the Roman world of the first three centuries of the Christian era was highly pluralistic. To keep the peace, the Romans made it a capital offense to desecrate a temple – any temple. But the plurality of religions and worldviews was monolithic in at least one regard: these diverse religions agreed that there was no one way to God. On this there was strong agreement, for it was an axiom of Greek culture that the cosmos was total (including the gods), perfect, and changeless. Its harmony was endlessly repeated. Human error could be corrected by education. In consequence, most Greeks thought that Christianity was notoriously bigoted and narrow. Thus, the pagan Celsus insisted on the equal validity of diverse ancient customs and beliefs, over against Origen’s insistence on the unique superiority of Christianity.”

So there you have a line of study and thought here regarding to the endtimes. If the beast is the leader of the reborn Roman Empire, then the false prophet will be the high priest of pagan universalism and humanism that dominated in that time. And this shows how dangerous these modern trends are in the church: philosophy and psychology chief among them. Even the notion that man could “educate” the sin of racism out of his soul (see Jena Louisiana: The Black Christian Perspective) or that such a thing could happen as a result of continuing societal evolution or improvement comes from this, as do notions of how improving society with “the social gospel” will facilitate the return of Jesus Christ. Even such naturalistic pseudoscience fictions like evolution come from this mindset. (And if you have read the mythologies of the Semitic and other near east cultures, you will see the stamp of evolution all over it, especially how all of these beings just appeared out of the primordial waters!)

I could be off base. Or this could be merely part of a larger system. Or, like communism, it could be just an evil that will be replaced with a larger evil later on? Still, it really does bear comment and study. If nothing else, it is proof that we all need salvation through Christ and to adhere to a fundamental literal true Christian faith where everything is subject to and ruled by the authority of scripture. All of these ancient heresies: modalism, gnosticism, montanism, etc. If you have not followed The Three Step Salvation Plan, please do so now. If you have, it is time for you to stand up for what it means with no compromise.

Posted in anti - Christ, beast, Christianity, ecumenism, endtimes, eschatology, evolution, humanism, masonry, Mormon, mormonism, multiculturalism, prophecy, social gospel | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: