Not long after God came, I was walking through a Christian bookstore with my beautiful wife when we spotted a newly published book by Alexander Strauch about Biblical eldership. I was interested in the topic of eldership because the Baptist church we had joined had elders; a feature that was not the norm in Southern Baptist circles. Our pastor had told us that he had been convicted in reading the scriptures that churches should have elders, so he had established that office within the year before we had joined. I had never heard of Alexander Strauch, and I still know very little about him. I don't even remember the name of the book, but I bought it, and read it, and re-read it.
I'll never forget what happened when I tried to share Strauch's premise with my younger brother – who, at that time, though younger, had more knowledge of the scriptures than I did. Strauch's premise was that all churches are to have a plurality of elders – a team of equal 'pastors' if you will – and that no churches were to have a single, clerical, 'Pastor' as we all understand that word. My brother rebutted that I and II Timothy and Titus were written to Pastors, and that the angels of the churches in Revelation 1:16 - 2:22 were the Pastors of the churches. I, not having a full enough grasp on the NT scriptures to answer him on those points, said, "Well, I don't know how to answer that, but he (Strauch) has an answer for it in the book."
"Yeah, well," my brother dismissed, "they always do."
I have a lot more knowledge of the scriptures now than I did then.
I have spent a lot of time looking on my own and with my family at this issue and what the scriptures actually do and do not say about it. We have searched and debated and countered and rehashed it from every angle we can find in the Bible. Certainly Alexander Strauch introduced to me the idea of elder-led churches, but what I say here I now say on my own, from the scriptures, as unequivocal and irrefutable truth of the Bible: All ekklesias are to have a plurality of elders – a team of equal 'pastors' if you will – and no ekklesias are to have a single, clerical, 'Pastor' as we all understand that word.
That is the clearly established will of God for the Body of Christ in all places and in all times.
Pastors
In your English translation of the Bible, you will (or should) find the word 'pastors' used precisely one time only, in Ephesians 4:11 "And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers..."
Well there you have it right? Pastors right there in the Bible?
Actually, the word there translated 'pastors' should be 'shepherd'. It is, literally, 'shepherd' (or 'herdsman') and in every single other usage of this word in the NT it is translated 'shepherd', including all usages pertaining to the oversight of God's people in the ekklesia. Jesus Himself is called the 'Chief Shepherd' in I Peter 5, where he also uses the word 'shepherd' to describe the office of the elder. There Peter uses all three of the terms used in the scriptures to describe the Biblical elders: 'elder', 'overseer', and 'shepherd'. Peter writes, "The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder ... Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly, nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away."
Elder: overseer: shepherd. One office. These are the terms used in the scriptures for this office.
If Peter alone does not seem sufficient to you, look at what Paul also says in Acts 20: "From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the [ekklesia] ... 'Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the [ekklesia] of God which He purchased with His own blood.' "
Elder: overseer: shepherd. One office. These are the terms used in the scriptures for this office.
What about the term 'bishop'? Same deal as 'pastor'. The word there is literally 'overseer', and we have wrongly plugged in a post-scriptural word, 'bishop', which did not exist at that time and simply clouds up the water. There is no good linguistic ground for throwing that term into the mix, and both 'bishop' and 'pastor' should be avoided as unscriptural.
Plurality of Elders
The term 'plurality of elders' merely indicates that there is supposed to be at least two or more elders per ekklesia, as opposed to one 'Pastor', and having an 'Assistant Pastor' is not the same thing. Assistant Pastors are more like the Vice-President – there just in case something happens to the President. In the Bible, if you were using the analogy of a President, then each ekklesia would have several equal co-presidents, and no vice-presidents. 'Pastor' is a poor term to use for reasons described above, but the ekklesia of God is intended by God to have several equal 'co-pastors': not one central clerical Pastor.
Where does one see the pattern for plurality of elders?
Going back to Acts 20, Paul is in Miletus. He wants to address to leadership of the Ephesian ekklesia. He send for the 'elders' of the ekklesia. One ekklesia, multiple elders. We don't know how many, but without any doubt there are a plurality. If we back up to Acts 14:21, after Paul and Barnabus have preached the Gospel elsewhere and are returning to Antioch, they went back through the cities of Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch-in-Pisidia. Verse 23 says, "So when they had appointed elders in every [ekklesia], and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed."
They appointed elders, plural; in each ekklesia, singular.
Going forward again to Acts 15: 2(b), "...they determined that Paul and Barnabus and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem (one ekklesia) to the apostles and elders (plural), about this question."
Paul's letter to Philippi is addressed, "To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the [overseers] and deacons:" Again, overseers, plural, in one ekklesia.
In Titus 1:5 Paul writes, "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders (plural) in every city (singular) as I commanded you..."
James 5: 14 says, "Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders (plural) of the [ekklesia] (singular), and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord."
Very clearly, in the Bible, there is no mention anywhere in sight of a 'Pastor', and every ekklesia is to have a plurality of elders, which are also sometimes referred to as overseers or shepherds. If the churches were as obstinate on the Doctrine of the Trinity as on this clear testimony of scripture, we would have to declare the church universally heretical.
Here is a list of every scripture on the subject (at least that I have found) so you can look at it for yourself. Please, please do look into it for yourself. I hope you will read them all over and over, mark them in your Bible, and search diligently for any scriptural basis to counter what I have said here.
• Matt 23: 6-12
• Acts 11: 30
• Acts 14: 23
• Acts 15: 2
• Acts 15: 4
• Acts 15: 22
• Acts 15: 23
• Acts 16: 4
• Acts 20: 17-38 (elder: overseer: shepherd)
• Acts 21: 18
• Eph 3: 11
• Phi 1: 1
• I Tim 3: 1-7
• I Tim 4: 14
• I Tim 5: 17-19
• Titus 1: 5-16 (also note the use of 'elder' and 'overseer' as equivalent here)
• James 5: 14,15
• I Pet 5: 1-5 ('elder': shepherd: overseer)
Addendum: In Eph 3:11, striking the improper term 'pastor' in favor of 'shepherd', note the following:
"And He Himself gave some [to be] apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some shepherds and teachers." The structure here indicates that shepherd and teachers are the same, speaking of the same office, i.e. "...some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some shepherds-and-teachers."
That would leave Four scripturally authentic terms for this office: elders, overseers, shepherds, teachers. But NOT the invalid 'pastors' or 'bishop'.
With this in mind see also:
• Gal 6:6
• I Tim 2: 12
• I Tim 3: 2
• I Tim 5:17 ('doctrine' = 'teaching')
• Titus 1:11
• James 3: 1
• Also the entire letter of I Timothy, considering that it is written to establish proper government in the ekklesia, and thus proper 'doctrine' or teaching, and to refute wrong teaching: go through and mark every single usage of the words teach or teaching or doctrine (or any such) in this letter.
Of Angels and Epistles
So now, going back to the beginning, what about my brother's point that I and II Timothy and Titus were written to Pastors, and that the angels of the ekklesias are the Pastors of the ekklesias? Actually, these are much easier to deal with than many of you may be thinking. Both are, with apologies to all concerned, ignorant assumptions born of our unbiblical Pastor-minded frame of reference.
I and II Timothy and Titus have, it is true, been generally referred to as the 'Pastoral Epistles', but not by Paul or elsewhere in the NT. He wrote nothing in them of any sort. To some extent this description does fit well enough as Paul was giving instruction on governance in the ekklesia. This, however, by no means indicates that Timothy or Titus were 'Pastors' as we consider that term. This is a fairly common assumption, but a groundless one, especially in view of the fact that you simply cannot find 'Pastors' in the NT scriptures at all. In point of fact Timothy and Titus were not pastors, they were apostles. No, not The Apostles, but they were apostles, sent ones, or 'ambassadors'. In his previously referred to book, Alexander Strauch called them 'Apostolic Delegates'; a term which fits well enough though it does sound a bit officious. I have heard some refer to Timothy and Titus as, "members of Paul's ministry team", which also is a very reasonable description. Luke calls them simply 'Paul's travel companions'. Regardless of how you exactly parse the name for them, they were both members of a group of men who travelled with Paul at his command, a group which also included John Mark, Luke, Trophimus, Tychicus, Sopater of Berea, Aristarchus and Secundus of the Thessalonians, Gaius of Derbe, Epaphroditus, Demas, Crescens, Artemas and others. These men were used by Paul wherever he had need of them, and a careful look at the Acts and the Pauline letters – including I and II Timothy and Titus – will show that they were constantly being sent out by Paul and called back to him, or left behind for a time to finish things up, or sent ahead to prepare for Paul to rejoin them later, etc., etc. Wherever they went they carried the weight of Paul's authority, acting on his behalf, and the most obvious biblical term that I can find in the scriptures to describe them is 'apostles'. But they certainly were not 'Pastors'.
Likewise, I have heard others besides my brother interpret the, "angels of the seven ekklesias" in Revelation chapters one and two as, "the Pastors of the seven ekklesias". This too seems a compelling interpretation from our unbiblical Pastor-minded frame of reference, but it has a couple of notable problems. First, Jesus Himself gives the interpretation of the 'seven lampstands' as being the 'Seven Ekklesias', and the 'Seven Stars' as being the 'Seven Angels of the ekklesias'. If Jesus tells us that the interpretation of the seven stars is seven angels, what is our basis for deciding that Jesus' interpretation is in need of further interpretation? Put another way, as the notes for this section in the Nelson Study Bible state, "it would be unlikely to interpret one symbol with another symbol." If so, why does Jesus leave us still to guess the actual meaning of the second symbol (angels) that the first symbol (stars) represents? If we are free to assume that Jesus' interpretation of the stars is actually a symbol needing further interpretation, what then do we say about the parallel symbolism of the Lampstands? Does this also mean that Jesus' interpretation here is open to further interpretation? If we can demonstrate a Biblically sound reason to interpret the interpretation as being still another symbol rather than the actual interpretation, what basis do we have for deciding that the proper interpretation of the interpretation is 'The Pastors' of the seven ekklesias?
And, after all that, even if we do interpret 'angels' here as really meaning some human being in the seven ekklesias, how do we determine who he is, especially in view of the fact that there are clearly and without any doubt no genuine references to any 'Pastors' in the early ekklesia?
Of course, one may well ask, as I at first did, why on earth Jesus would have John write messages to literal, spiritual angels, which does seem a bit odd. Why exactly I cannot say, and I am not stating authoritatively that this is the case, but it would not be without scriptural precedent. In the Prophets, God had both Isaiah and Ezekiel write messages to Satan himself (Isaiah 14: 3-21 and Ezekiel 28: 11-19). Further, especially in the NT, including the revelation, stars are symbolic of literal, spiritual angels; so it would be quite consistent biblically to symbolize the 'seven angels' with 'seven stars' and to interpret them thus.
Regardless, even if we do interpret the 'angels' as being some man in each of the ekklesias, Jesus does not say who that is. It could be some particular elder within the elders. It could as easily be some prophet in the ekklesia. It could even be someone else who holds no particular office, or a combination of all three depending on the particular ekklesia. But to say that it is 'The Pastor' is simply scriptural ignorance as it says no such thing here, and there is no such person anywhere else in the NT.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Parents, Just Say No.
My beautiful wife dabbles in that peculiar phenomenon of the internet known as Facebook.
Recently, she saw there a posting by a Sister-in-Christ whom we haven't heard from in a long, long time. Seems that her daughter is into Hannah Montana, and that she just saw the new Miley Cyrus video, and is questioning whether she ought to allow her daughter to see it. She posted a YouTube link to the video to ask what her Facebook friends think of that and how she should handle it.
I have never seen Hannah Montana, except for the ubiquitous t-shirts and posters in the Towns. We haven't seen the new Miley Cyrus video (or, for that matter, the old video), but my dutiful wife took a peek at it to see what exactly was being discussed.
Yikes!
Where on earth to begin?
Let me tell you a little story.
I know of a man – whether in his mind I do not know, or whether out of his mind I do not know, God knows – I know of such a man who as a middle-school child was caught up to the third degree in a devotion to the band KISS, and heard things there which are not lawful for a child to express. You know; the notorious 70's rock band KISS with make-up, platform boots, fire-breathing and all that. I know of such a man who, at very young age, in the third grade, had previously been called by God. He hadn't known much about God, he hadn't known that God could or would 'call' anyone, but there he found himself called and in the innocence of his heart he answered the call and gave his life to God.
As this young man grew up in the public schools (you may have noticed that even by the third grade his mindset was oriented around School) he naturally grew away from the God he had dedicated his life to. He went to 'church' twice every Sunday and once on Wednesday, but despite the fact that his parents were Christians, and his father would go on to be appointed to an important position in the 'church', the majority of hours in between 'church' were filled with School and TV – both of which very naturally impart an ungodly mindset. By the time that he was in middle school his hours were filled with School, TV, and Music – specifically KISS music.
The young man still went to 'church' and still considered himself a Christian, but was caught in that rather unfortunate place that a great preponderance of western Christians find themselves: divided in heart and mind between the Christ that they profess to worship, and the anti-Christ world that they are immersed in. Worse, being immersed in it, most of them are quite unaware that there is anything at all inherently problematic about this situation, and neither did this child. Apparently, neither did his parents and neither did the 'churchpeople' that they associated with three times a week.
In fact, the pastor of this 'church' and many of the 'churchpeople' often encouraged this type of schizophrenic Christianity by lampooning Christians who "...don't cuss, drink, smoke or chew, or go with girls who do." By celebrating Halloween and solemnly sympathizing for the poor children of lesser Christians who were so misguided as to think that there was something wrong with Christians celebrating Halloween. By denigrating imaginary straw-man Christians who didn't understand that in Christ we have the freedom to watch all kinds of godless movies and television and listen to all kinds of godless music and to do even more than that.
Amazingly, only one person at this 'church' ever bothered to say anything at all to this young man about the propriety of listening to KISS: the young and sincere 'Youth Minister' of the church. Imagine what a position that 21 year old Youth Minister must have been in, desiring to lead this young man out of this sort of music, knowing that the 'Pastor' of the 'church' and the young man's 'Head Deacon' father were not in agreement with him at all.
And once, the young man did overhear another 'church' member asking his parents if they truly had no objection to their son listening to KISS. The young man's parents assured the misguided 'churchperson' that it was "just a 'phase' he was going through."
The phase became a defining issue in his life and thinking – which, of course, isn't a very compatible with a life in Christ. The phase lasted for about 17 years, give or take a year, which is a good long while for a childhood phase. In fact, the phase was still in good health right up to its demise: its eyes were not dimmed, nor was its strength diminished. It would probably have gone on for a considerable number of years at that rate, except that the Prince of Life felt compassion for the young man who had been led completely astray by the worldliness of the world, and sent His Spirit to make war against the phase. The phase had been going to and fro in his life and walking back and forth on it for all of his adolescent and adult years, and had wrought havoc in every direction. No aspect of the man's life was left unharmed by the phase, and yet, in his blindness, he esteemed it very highly.
Mercifully,the Lord Jesus struck it a mortal blow with the sword of His mouth, and it died soon afterward, unmourned and uncelebrated.
Funny thing though about Jesus: for all the resentment of the unbelievers of the world, He is actually quite unwilling to violate your personal rights no matter how much that might be in your interest. He stands at the door and knocks, and to everyone who opens He will come in and dine. If you won't open, He stays outside. He won't come in where He isn't wanted, even though He has every right to do so; unlike His enemy, the wicked one, who comes in wherever he can sneak in, when he has no right to do any such thing, and it's never in your interest for him to do so.
So Jesus knocked, and the young man opened, and Jesus came in to sit down and eat with the young man.
And what do you suppose was there waiting for the young man, after all those years, that very night, when the young man got home after committing his life to Jesus? The young man's beautiful and dedicated wife had fallen asleep while waiting on the young man, and there on the unattended television, broadcasting live, was a massive KISS convention in NYC, complete with an upcoming performance by KISS in a few moments...
Coincidence? Well...maybe.
The young man looked at the TV for a moment... slowly realizing the irony of the situation... and could it really hurt to wait until the morning to dig up his Bible and get started obeying God? Very still he stood, quietly feeling the pull of the weight of gravity from his old friend and nemesis... then, to himself, in silence said... "Well, either I'm in or I'm not..." and quietly reached out and turned off the television...
What then is the moral of our story?
1. First of all, above and beyond everything else: if you send your child to the Schools (public, private, or religious) you have already given the most important ground to the enemy, the accuser of the brethren, the opposer of all godliness: Satan and his kingdom. You have ceded to the enemy the most strategically critical ground and the greatest opportunity to influence your child's mind and direction. Of course, that doesn't mean the battle is over, but it does mean that the odds are stacked against you. Worse, if you send you child to the Schools, the odds are you aren't too concerned about influencing your child's mind and direction to begin with.
2. Parents have a responsibility not only to keep up with what their kids are watching and listening to, but to step in and say, "No." In fact, that's actually the whole point of parents to begin with. At times when I have felt like the children aren't turning the lights off like they should (which costs the entire family needed money) I re-emphasize to them, "The whole point of having lights switches at all is to turn the lights off, not on. Otherwise you wouldn't need a switch at all, you could just wire the lights to be on all the time." Well, if children didn't need to be told no, they wouldn't need parents at all. If everything were permissible they could just be on their own.
3. And Miley Cyrus of any sort or condition is a good example of what to say "No" about. In point of fact, way, way, WAY more than three-quarters of what is available to your child should be a "No", especially in these days. Turn that tomfool television off, and throw away those wicked CDs and video games. Here is where the Schools greatly and unduly complicate things: if your child was at home with you where they are supposed to be, then there would be much less likelihood of them getting entangled in such nonsense to begin with – unless you yourself introduced the nonsense to them. And if that's the case, then, well, don't do that!
Parent your children people. It's a stewardship from God.
Recently, she saw there a posting by a Sister-in-Christ whom we haven't heard from in a long, long time. Seems that her daughter is into Hannah Montana, and that she just saw the new Miley Cyrus video, and is questioning whether she ought to allow her daughter to see it. She posted a YouTube link to the video to ask what her Facebook friends think of that and how she should handle it.
I have never seen Hannah Montana, except for the ubiquitous t-shirts and posters in the Towns. We haven't seen the new Miley Cyrus video (or, for that matter, the old video), but my dutiful wife took a peek at it to see what exactly was being discussed.
Yikes!
Where on earth to begin?
Let me tell you a little story.
I know of a man – whether in his mind I do not know, or whether out of his mind I do not know, God knows – I know of such a man who as a middle-school child was caught up to the third degree in a devotion to the band KISS, and heard things there which are not lawful for a child to express. You know; the notorious 70's rock band KISS with make-up, platform boots, fire-breathing and all that. I know of such a man who, at very young age, in the third grade, had previously been called by God. He hadn't known much about God, he hadn't known that God could or would 'call' anyone, but there he found himself called and in the innocence of his heart he answered the call and gave his life to God.
As this young man grew up in the public schools (you may have noticed that even by the third grade his mindset was oriented around School) he naturally grew away from the God he had dedicated his life to. He went to 'church' twice every Sunday and once on Wednesday, but despite the fact that his parents were Christians, and his father would go on to be appointed to an important position in the 'church', the majority of hours in between 'church' were filled with School and TV – both of which very naturally impart an ungodly mindset. By the time that he was in middle school his hours were filled with School, TV, and Music – specifically KISS music.
The young man still went to 'church' and still considered himself a Christian, but was caught in that rather unfortunate place that a great preponderance of western Christians find themselves: divided in heart and mind between the Christ that they profess to worship, and the anti-Christ world that they are immersed in. Worse, being immersed in it, most of them are quite unaware that there is anything at all inherently problematic about this situation, and neither did this child. Apparently, neither did his parents and neither did the 'churchpeople' that they associated with three times a week.
In fact, the pastor of this 'church' and many of the 'churchpeople' often encouraged this type of schizophrenic Christianity by lampooning Christians who "...don't cuss, drink, smoke or chew, or go with girls who do." By celebrating Halloween and solemnly sympathizing for the poor children of lesser Christians who were so misguided as to think that there was something wrong with Christians celebrating Halloween. By denigrating imaginary straw-man Christians who didn't understand that in Christ we have the freedom to watch all kinds of godless movies and television and listen to all kinds of godless music and to do even more than that.
Amazingly, only one person at this 'church' ever bothered to say anything at all to this young man about the propriety of listening to KISS: the young and sincere 'Youth Minister' of the church. Imagine what a position that 21 year old Youth Minister must have been in, desiring to lead this young man out of this sort of music, knowing that the 'Pastor' of the 'church' and the young man's 'Head Deacon' father were not in agreement with him at all.
And once, the young man did overhear another 'church' member asking his parents if they truly had no objection to their son listening to KISS. The young man's parents assured the misguided 'churchperson' that it was "just a 'phase' he was going through."
The phase became a defining issue in his life and thinking – which, of course, isn't a very compatible with a life in Christ. The phase lasted for about 17 years, give or take a year, which is a good long while for a childhood phase. In fact, the phase was still in good health right up to its demise: its eyes were not dimmed, nor was its strength diminished. It would probably have gone on for a considerable number of years at that rate, except that the Prince of Life felt compassion for the young man who had been led completely astray by the worldliness of the world, and sent His Spirit to make war against the phase. The phase had been going to and fro in his life and walking back and forth on it for all of his adolescent and adult years, and had wrought havoc in every direction. No aspect of the man's life was left unharmed by the phase, and yet, in his blindness, he esteemed it very highly.
Mercifully,the Lord Jesus struck it a mortal blow with the sword of His mouth, and it died soon afterward, unmourned and uncelebrated.
Funny thing though about Jesus: for all the resentment of the unbelievers of the world, He is actually quite unwilling to violate your personal rights no matter how much that might be in your interest. He stands at the door and knocks, and to everyone who opens He will come in and dine. If you won't open, He stays outside. He won't come in where He isn't wanted, even though He has every right to do so; unlike His enemy, the wicked one, who comes in wherever he can sneak in, when he has no right to do any such thing, and it's never in your interest for him to do so.
So Jesus knocked, and the young man opened, and Jesus came in to sit down and eat with the young man.
And what do you suppose was there waiting for the young man, after all those years, that very night, when the young man got home after committing his life to Jesus? The young man's beautiful and dedicated wife had fallen asleep while waiting on the young man, and there on the unattended television, broadcasting live, was a massive KISS convention in NYC, complete with an upcoming performance by KISS in a few moments...
Coincidence? Well...maybe.
The young man looked at the TV for a moment... slowly realizing the irony of the situation... and could it really hurt to wait until the morning to dig up his Bible and get started obeying God? Very still he stood, quietly feeling the pull of the weight of gravity from his old friend and nemesis... then, to himself, in silence said... "Well, either I'm in or I'm not..." and quietly reached out and turned off the television...
What then is the moral of our story?
1. First of all, above and beyond everything else: if you send your child to the Schools (public, private, or religious) you have already given the most important ground to the enemy, the accuser of the brethren, the opposer of all godliness: Satan and his kingdom. You have ceded to the enemy the most strategically critical ground and the greatest opportunity to influence your child's mind and direction. Of course, that doesn't mean the battle is over, but it does mean that the odds are stacked against you. Worse, if you send you child to the Schools, the odds are you aren't too concerned about influencing your child's mind and direction to begin with.
2. Parents have a responsibility not only to keep up with what their kids are watching and listening to, but to step in and say, "No." In fact, that's actually the whole point of parents to begin with. At times when I have felt like the children aren't turning the lights off like they should (which costs the entire family needed money) I re-emphasize to them, "The whole point of having lights switches at all is to turn the lights off, not on. Otherwise you wouldn't need a switch at all, you could just wire the lights to be on all the time." Well, if children didn't need to be told no, they wouldn't need parents at all. If everything were permissible they could just be on their own.
3. And Miley Cyrus of any sort or condition is a good example of what to say "No" about. In point of fact, way, way, WAY more than three-quarters of what is available to your child should be a "No", especially in these days. Turn that tomfool television off, and throw away those wicked CDs and video games. Here is where the Schools greatly and unduly complicate things: if your child was at home with you where they are supposed to be, then there would be much less likelihood of them getting entangled in such nonsense to begin with – unless you yourself introduced the nonsense to them. And if that's the case, then, well, don't do that!
Parent your children people. It's a stewardship from God.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Seventeen
May you be blessed of God and very fruitful in your life, may you build in the Kingdom of God to such an extent that the little that I have done appears as nothing, may you walk with the comfort and the simplicity of the Holy Spirit all the days of your life, and may you be a better man than I!
Happy Birthday Son, and many returns of the day...
Happy Birthday!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)