Kingdom Alert Update #256

********************
IN THIS ISSUE
********************
-FROM THE EDITOR

-UPDATE ON ARLINGTON, TEXAS CONFERENCE ON THE JUDGMENT SEAT OF CHRIST

-A LETTER FROM MISSIONARY JASON PERRY

-ELDERS: SINGULAR OR PLURAL?

================================================================

**************************
FROM THE EDITOR
**************************
In upcoming issues I will be providing the sermon from our latest Prophecy
Watch at Kingdom Baptist Church. We must be at the very door of the
Tribulation Period. Speaking of perilous times, please keep a prayerful
watch on the situation that is brewing in Philadelphia where street
preachers have been wrongly (insanely!) charged with felonies for simply
quoting the Bible! You may hide your head in the sand and conclude that
since you do not preach on the streets that this issue does not concern
you. But please know that when it becomes a felony to quote the Bible on
the street, it will soon be a felony to quote certain parts of it to your
children. The Philly Four today; your church or home tomorrow! All that
will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But let it not
come as chastisement because so many Christians are unwilling to be salt,
hinder sin, and cry out against evil. To keep up with this situation,
visit: http://www.repentamerica.com (a video of the event in Philadelphia
is provided here)

********************************************************************
UPDATE ON DFW CONFERENCE ON THE JUDGMENT SEAT OF CHRIST
********************************************************************
There is no price for this conference (opportunities for freewill
offerings will be provided). However, if you can, please let us know if
you are planning to attend (email pastor@kingdombaptist.org). Tell some
people!

Conference will be held at:

CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL SUITES:
700 AVENUE H. EAST
ARLINGTON, TX 76011
1-817-394-5000

Dates: March 17-19th (beginning at 6:00PM Thursday, and ending at 4:00 PM
Saturday)

Crowne Plaza Suites is located at the corner of I-30 and Highway 360 (by
Six Flags). Exit 360 North, and take the first right. The hotel is a few
blocks down.

For those flying in, the Crowne Plaza has free shuttle to and from DFW
(plus free shuttle to restaurants within a 3 mile radius). There are
scores of restaurants within a few miles. Conference price for hotel suite
is $89 (sleeps five). There are many other hotels in the vicinity.

Speakers include Bill Jackson (Christians Evangelizing Catholics), Arlen
Chitwood (author), Pastor Tracy Daniels (Chattanooga), Jason Perry
(Chattanooga), James Knox (Montana), Pastor Greg Dzula (Indiana), Pastor
Joey Faust (Texas), and Pastor Jim Brooks (Chattanooga). Music by Jose
Cruz (Chattanooga) and members of Kingdom Baptist Church (Texas)!

Keep watching for more details!

********************************
MISSIONARY JASON PERRY
********************************
“Dear Brethren, I served God in Chattanooga, Tennessee for many years. The
more I studied His Word, the more I became convinced by the Holy Spirit
that I had not been preaching full Biblical accountability. As I studied
the Parables and the Epistles I surrendered to preach the entire truth of
God’s Word. I now preach Kingdom accountability. The Kingdom teachings
have long left our pulpits. Most pastors would rather water down Biblical
truths than be bold and preach God’s Word fundamentally. I thank God for
men like my dear friend Joey Faust for allowing God to use him to proclaim
the Kingdom. I resigned the pulpit of a local church in Chattanooga to
further study and confirm these truths in my heart in preparation for what
I feel God has led me to do. By the leadership of the Holy Spirit, I will
be taking my family to Mexico to proclaim the message of the Kingdom. I
will preach the need for spirit salvation then lead the people to
understanding of accountability at the Judgment Seat of Christ. To my
knowledge there is no true Kingdom theology being taught in Mexico. My
family and I have currently been on fulltime deputation about two years.
We desire to be in Mexico this year, but in order to do so we are seeking
believers of the Kingdom truths to partake in this ministry with us. We
need between 15 and 20 more monthly financial supporters. I am sure that I
could raise much more funds if I would deny our firm belief that
unfaithful Christians will suffer loss at the Judgment Seat of Christ. I
refuse to be ashamed of the truth found in God’s Word. For this, we have
come under persecution. Many of the pastors and missionaries find pleasure
in accusing us of misrepresenting the Word. That’s okay! We shall continue
to praise God for His goodness! While on deputation, I have had the
opportunity to share these truths with many pastors, missionaries, and
laymen who now are currently studying, believing, and proclaiming Kingdom
accountability. I could easily deny these truths and raise the rest of our
needed support but I refuse to be ashamed! I am confident that God will
direct us to the right brethren at the right time. To be on the field this
year, I am seeking 15 to 20 more monthly financial supporters. Is it
important to carry the Kingdom message to Mexico and the uttermost parts
of the world? I believe it is. Please prayerfully consider allowing me to
share more with you concerning the ministry that I believe God has called
us to in Mexico. Feel free to contact me at any time. I would love to hear
from more believers. Pray for us as we embark on this journey to start
local churches in Mexico and proclaim this Gospel of the Kingdom!

Striving for what is Right,
Jason R. Perry
Missionary on the Road to Mexico
423-595-1860
jrobperry@comcast.net

***************************************
ELDERS: SINGULAR OR PLURAL?
***************************************

Alexander Strauch in “Biblical Eldership” argues:

“…when Paul and Peter directly exhort the elders to do their duty, they
both employ shepherding imagery. It should be observed that these two
giant apostles assign the task of shepherding the local church to no other
group or single person but the elders. Paul reminds the Asian elders that
God the Holy Spirit placed them in the flock as overseers for the purpose
of shepherding the church of God (Acts 20:28).”(1)

This type of argumentation uses language to create a straw man. The
argument is often phrased this way: “Do you not admit that churches had
plural elders in the New Testament? Where do you find evidence for
‘single-elder congregationalism’ in the Bible?” The Christian is then
directed to such passages as Acts 20 where multiple elders are seen in the
church. The argument is then considered to be over. The question has been
decided! But wait just a moment. It is easy to win a debate if you start
out by asking the wrong questions.

This method of debate was used against Paige Patterson (Southern Baptist)
in a book titled, “Who Runs The Church?”.(2) The book is a debate between
four men. Each contributor defends either Episcopalianism,
Presbyterianism, Plural-Elder Congregationalism, or Single-Elder
Congregationalism (i.e. Patterson). Patterson (perhaps not foreseeing the
trap) was chosen to defend “SINGLE-elder congregationalism.” After his
opponent (a plural elder advocate named Samuel E. Waldron) took advantage
of the language to create a straw man, Patterson wrote:

“Even when multiple elders were necessary, one of the elders remained the
decisive spiritual leader of the flock….There are few cases of
prospering congregations not led ultimately by a primary pastor
figure….Waldron mistakenly says, ‘As noted previously, it is gratifying
to see that Patterson has given up any attempt to defend single-elder
congregationalism. He has chosen rather to defend primary-elder
congregationalism. In so far as this reflects movement toward plural-elder
congregationalism, this is, from my perspective, encouraging.’ Waldron
here falsely assumes that there has been some alteration in my position.
This is understandable in that the editor may not have made it clear to
him what I took to be my assignment in the book. I have no problem with
multiple elders in a congregation when necessary. Clearly churches in the
New Testament era often had more than one elder. It was my agreement with
the editor that I could support single-elder congregationalism only if it
was understood to denominate what Waldron calls primary-elder
congregationalism. Therefore, Waldron’s hope that I have changed is
destined to disappointment, and he will be sad to learn that I remain
quite unconvinced by his arguments….it is important to me because some
want to make plurality of elders mandatory when there is no such command.
Waldron is exhibiting the trait that makes this position an issue for
me.”(3)

Most of the churches with primary pastors define any other pastors as
assistants (i.e. associate pastor, etc.). Therefore, it would seem that
many plural-elder advocates are taking advantage of the language that is
used in our culture. Among modern Christians (especially in America), the
Biblical words “overseer,” “bishop,” “elder,” have taken a backseat to the
word “pastor.” This is why it can be confusing to some Christians when
someone approaches them with Bible verses that mention plural “elders.” A
plural-elder advocate might ask, “Does your church have elders?” An
informed Christian might answer, “We are thankful that we DO have many,
wise, aged-men in our church.” The plural-elder advocate would then
respond by saying, “No, I mean do you have men who are functioning in the
office of an elder?” Again, the informed Christian would answer, “Yes, our
church has a pastor, bishop, elder, or whatever Biblical word you would
like to call him. And we have recently ordained two other assistant
pastors in our growing church.” However, a young Christian (unaware that
“elders,” “bishops,” “pastors” all refer to the same thing) might easily
be confused by a plural-elder advocate. He might see his thriving church
with a senior pastor, assistant pastors, and music minister, and ask,
“Where ARE the elders?” He would be unaware that the ordained pastors in
his church are functioning as elders (or bishops) under a different name.

Plural elder advocates have not been able to establish that having only
one elder (pastor) in a church (especially a smaller one) is wrong. Unable
to find any direct commandments on the issue, they simply utilize what
they deem to be the New Testament pattern (i.e. churches in the New
Testament have multiple elders, therefore, every church in every age needs
multiple elders). One problem with this argument is that they can only
establish that EVERY church in the New Testament had plural elders by
beginning with great assumptions. They must assume that the grammar in
certain Bible verses demands plurality in every church. However, some
passages do not demand this reading. For example, notice the following
verse:

Acts 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had
prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they
believed.

First of all, notice that in this verse, the churches were considered
churches before they had elders. They were simply in an undeveloped stage.
If we are to assume that the above verse must mean that each church had
plural elders, we must then ask whether or not there is not also a stage
of development after the appointing of these plural elders. In other
words, we must ask whether or not the next or final stage of development
would be to appoint a primary elder among the other elders. Many
commentators believe that this progress in church government is indeed
seen in the Bible, reaching its final stage of development in the primary
elders (i.e. angels) of Revelation chapters 2 and 3, and other passages
(Govett, Panton, etc.). It cannot be denied that there are many
transitional elements in the Book of Acts and in other Epistles. On one
hand, we can make too much of these transitional elements; but on the
other hand, we might also fail to notice them. For example, some might
erroneously conclude that since Apostles are seen throughout the Book of
Acts, we must possess them today, etc. Others might conclude that certain
words must be said at baptism (other than the phrase in Matthew 28:19)
because of Acts 8:16. Others might argue that all offices in the church
should be decided on the basis of drawing lots (as in Acts 1:26). And
still others might argue that private ownership is sinful on the basis of
Acts 2:44-45. There are obviously numerous examples that could be
mentioned. While I certainly do not deny that some early patterns revealed
in the Book of Acts teach enduring truth for this age (e.g. the disciples
meeting on the first day of the week in Acts 20:7, etc.), there are other
patterns that are amended or changed in later Epistles.

Yet, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Acts 14:23 represents
churches in a completed stage of government. There are still two major
assumptions that are made by plural elder advocates. First, they assume
that simply because there are plural elders, this must mean that there is
no distinction among them (i.e. that one is not a primary elder). We will
deal more with this issue below. Next, they assume that the grammar in
Acts 14:23 demands plural elders. However, the phrase “ordained them
elders in every church” does not demand this view. One elder in every
church would still meet the grammatical demands of the plural. For
example, notice the following verses:

1 Timothy 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their
children and their own houses well.

This does not mean that there should be plural deacons for every singular
wife.

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the
church, and gave himself for it;

This does not mean that each husband should have multiple wives.

1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that
are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with ALL that in
EVERY PLACE call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and
ours:

“All” are not in “every place” in the sense that if there were a million
Christians, EACH PLACE would have one million. No, the “all in every
place” means that the million are divided among these various places.

Acts 26:11 And I punished THEM oft in EVERY SYNAGOGUE…(see also 22:19)

The plural “them” does not mean that every individual synagogue
necessarily had multiple Christians. Some synagogues may have had only one
Christian. In the same manner, the language in Acts 14:23 (and other
verses), does not necessarily demand that there is more than one elder in
each church. We might argue that the “elders” are in “every church”
because each church has at least one. Patterson writes:

“…uncertainty about who is being addressed in Hebrews and James opens
just as much the possibility that the plural ‘elders’ accords to the
plurality of churches addressed and not to the number of elders in any
given congregation. This is surely the case in Acts 14:23 where Iconium,
Lystra, and Derbe are all in view, and in Titus 1:5 where new churches on
the island of Crete needed an elder for each of these congregations.” (4)

It appears that the plural elder advocates (defined here as meaning that
every church MUST have plural elders with no primary elder leading them)
have simply pounced upon the plurality in passages such as Acts 20, and
have used this to read plurality in every other verse, regardless of how
much they have to overcome to do so (i.e. trying to make the “angel” of
Revelation 2 and 3 represent a plurality of leadership).

Primary elder advocates do not believe that assistant elders (pastors) are
an absolute necessity for every church. But the issue here is that if
plural elder advocates will seize upon the plurality is some verses to
argue their case, we might just as easily do the same with the verses that
reveal (or appear to reveal) singularity. The example of the angels in
Revelation 2 and 3 will be dealt with in greater detail in another
article. The “angel” of each church certainly argues for a single (or
primary) elder. But there are other cases of singularity. Notice that in
Timothy and Titus, the bishop is always singular, while the deacons are
always plural:

1 Timothy 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of A
BISHOP, he desireth a good work.
2 A BISHOP then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant,
sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
4 One that ruleth well HIS OWN HOUSE, having his children in subjection
with all gravity;
5 (For if A MAN know not how to rule his own house, how shall HE take care
of the church of God?)
8 Likewise must THE DEACONS be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much
wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
10 And let THESE also first be proved; then let them use the office of a
deacon, being found blameless.
13 For THEY that have used the office of a deacon well…

Titus 1:7 For A BISHOP must be blameless, as the steward of God; not
selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to
filthy lucre;

It is certainly just as legitimate to argue that the Bible in these verses
is demanding that plural deacons be managed by a singular bishop than it
is to use plurality in other verses to argue that each church must be led
by a plurality of elders, who are equal in authority. I fail to see the
logic that would demand that plurality be used as an enduring pattern, but
that singularity must be explained away as simply a grammatical quirk.

Notice another case of singularity:

1 Peter 5:5 Likewise, YE younger, submit yourselves unto THE elder. Yea,
all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for
God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

Here the younger is designated by the plural “ye,” but the elder is
singular. We know that Peter (like Paul in Hebrews 13) is not just writing
to one church:

1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered
throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

There is also the example of the multiple singulars in Revelation 2 and 3:

Revelation 3:1 And unto THE ANGEL of the church in Sardis write; These
things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I
know THY works, that THOU hast a name that THOU livest, and art dead.

Plural elder advocates do their best to argue that the Book of Revelation
is symbolic and mysterious, and therefore it should not be used to
establish doctrine, etc. Waldron appears to make this argument. But this
is exactly what amillennialists tell us about the “thousand years” in
Revelation 20. They say that the book is so symbolic and mysterious that
this evidence for a millennial reign of Christ should not be used to
correct the rest of the Bible concerning the eternal kingdom. However, we
do not maintain that Revelation 20 corrects the Bible. But it does provide
us with added details. The angels in Revelation 2 and 3 do the same thing
in regard to the debate concerning primary elders that Revelation 20 does
concerning millennialism. It is a great error to argue that “angels” is
Revelation 2 and 3 are symbolic. They are not symbolic. They are the
literal interpretation of the symbol (stars). The only question is whether
or not the word “angel” can ever be used for earthly rulers, ministers,
etc. The context establishes that these are earthly rulers, who bear
responsibility for their congregations. And there is abundant evidence
that the word “angel” can be used in this manner (which will be examined
in a future article).

The real question is whether or not it is right to have a primary leader
among any other leaders. Plural elder advocates will argue that we have no
right to take a passage that reveals plural elders in one church and
conclude that some are assistants and that one is the primary leader. As
already noted, they assume that the government of such churches is in its
final stage of organization (even though Timothy is found in Ephesus after
Paul meets with its elders in Acts 20). They also assume that words such
as “elders” or “bishops” necessarily demand equality without distinctions.
However, Paul writes that children should obey their PARENTS (Colossians
3:20). Both father and mother hold the same office of “parent.” However,
this does not mean that one is not the head. In the same manner, the high
priest and the priests together are sometimes referred to as simply
“priests.” And as we have already shown elsewhere, one may address a
letter to “the pastors” of a certain church without concluding that such
language demands that all pastors are equal in authority or leadership in
that church.

Gene A. Getz (senior pastor of Fellowship Bible Church North in Plano,
Texas) authored a book titled, “Elders and Leaders: God’s Plan For Leading
the Church” (2003). While there are a couple of things that I, as a
fundamentalist Christian, would disagree with in this book, the testimony
of Getz is very enlightening concerning this issue of plural elders. Getz
began as a radical anti-head pastor advocate. He later learned that he had
overreacted:

“The year was 1968….as I faced the ‘winds of change’ that were whirling
and swirling across our nation in the late 1960s and early 1970s, my
students challenged me to take a fresh look at what God intended the
church to be. One of the great principles that grabbed my attention during
this process was ‘plurality in leadership.’….Let me be perfectly honest.
I was initially so committed to the principle of plurality in leadership
that I, at times, downplayed and, in some respects, denied how important
it is to have a strong primary leader….James, the half brother of Jesus,
was the primary leader of the elders in Jerusalem. This will become
increasingly clear as we continue to unfold this Biblical story….The New
Testament definitely teaches and illustrates that when there is a
plurality of leadership, someone needs to function as the primary leader
of the team….It’s God’s design – from the time He chose men like Moses,
Joshua, Samuel, and Nehemiah in the Old Testament, and Peter, Paul, and
Timothy, and Titus in the New Testament – to always have a key leader in
place to lead His people. Why would we think differently when it involves
elders/overseers in a local church?….For years, I served with a very
dedicated and qualified pastor on our staff who previously had served in
another church as ‘senior pastor.’ Unfortunately, many of his elders were
not godly leaders. Several men particularly thwarted my friend’s sincere
desires to lead the church to become a community of love and witness in
the world. Sadly, this man used to come home after board meetings
literally sick to his stomach….Unfortunately, as Paul warned the
Ephesian elders, some ‘wolves’ had become a part of the leadership in the
church, and the ‘primary shepherd’ was their target….A team that
supports each other will strengthen the ministry of a primary leader.
Clearly an unsupportive team can undermine his ministry….It’s clear from
the total biblical story in the New Testament that God did not intend for
a group of men to function without a primary leader. Neither did He plan
for a church to have coleaders….Though utilizing coleaders may appear to
work initially, it normally leads to serious inefficiency and potential
conflict….Frankly, in my early years…I attempted to practice a
co-leadership approach….In terms of our own roles, the other leader and
I found ourselves tentative in leading for fear we were being
inconsiderate of each other….Recently, I received the following
letter…: ‘…Even in a co-leadership situation that works well, like the
one I’m in, where the two of us share a similar philosophy on ministry, we
still have different ideas and slightly different views on where the
church needs to go strategically. This means that both pastors are held
back from really leading the church forward. There is no primary visionary
leader, and I believe our church has suffered because of that….the
pendulum has swung too far the other way, to where the idea of teamwork
and co-leading is so overemphasized that no one can give primary
leadership to the church…’.”(5)

Getz goes on to give an analogy of a full-time pastor being invited to
rule on a board at a banking corporation where the CEO must report to him.
He shows how unrealistic and cumbersome this would be to the CEO. Yet, he
notices that this is how many pastors, out of some sense of necessity or
humility, have entangled themselves:

“I’ve never met a pastor who operates under these circumstances who isn’t
terribly discouraged….Unfortunately, some primary pastors have
orchestrated themselves into this position. They believe so firmly in
being servant-leaders that they unknowingly have given up their
authority.”(6)

I have made the same point a few years ago in my book, “The Biblical
Husband.” Fathers and husbands who use the humble-servant commands to
passively ignore the responsibility to lead in their homes have gone off
the deep-end on the other side of the boat! It is the same way in regard
to head pastors (1 Timothy 3:5).

There appears to be some variations among the views of the advocates of
plural-eldership. Some hold that the whole congregation has authority to
dismiss or accept members, and appoint people to offices in the church.
Others hold that the elders have total authority in such matters. Yet, all
would decry congregational rule to some degree. It is here where I will
call the reader’s attention to one last argument. There is much heat
generated by plural elder advocates against the (supposedly) horrible,
shameful, popish idea that one elder lead and pastor the others (i.e. a
head-pastor leading his assistant pastors). But they do not think it is at
all horrible or popish that three men (plural elders) rule a church and
decide every issue! A promise of “liberty” does not always lead to greater
liberty (2 Peter 2:19).

The claim that some pastors with the primary elder model might abuse their
authority is no argument against the model. The same claim is being made
today in regard to husbands and fathers. Yet, such abuses do not disprove
the ordained right for husbands and parents to rule in their homes.
Excesses and abuses should never be made the grounds for accepting
opposite errors. Plural elder advocates often ask what rights or means
congregations have to deliver themselves from abusive head-pastors. But
before answering, we might ask what rights or means do elder-rule churches
have to deliver themselves from three men who have decided to “swap wives”
or otherwise abuse their authority? As already noted, often, congregations
have more authority in primary pastor-led churches than they do in elder
churches. Therefore, the question is no real objection at all.

The most important question is whether or not the Bible teaches that a
church should have a primary pastor/leader. I believe that there is more
evidence for primary pastors than there is to the contrary. The example of
James in Acts, the singular angels of the seven churches in Revelation 2
and 3, the singulars in other passages, and the over-all teaching
throughout the whole Bible (i.e. God raising up single leaders to
accomplish His will), all argue for the truth of primary pastors. And this
is before looking at the history of Christian churches barely a decade
removed from the time John wrote the Book of Revelation.

The response of plural elder advocates to the fact that Ignatius writes to
so many churches with primary pastors (not long after these churches are
addressed by the Lord Jesus Himself) only reveals what a great obstacle
this history is for them to overcome. Like the “angels” of Revelation 2
and 3, the history (at so early a date) stands as a great obstacle to
their view. In response to the epistles of Ignatius, Waldron (a plural
elder advocate) writes:

“It may be that the churches in Asia had ‘primus inter pares’ (first among
equals) systems and that Ignatius assumed that they were ‘primus’
systems…Such a mistake would be easy for the passionate Ignatius to
make.”(7)

I find it easier to conclude that the passionate plural-elder advocates
are the ones making the assumptions.

Romans 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for
peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

NOTES:
1. Alexander Strauch, “Biblical Eldership: Restoring the Eldership to Its
Rightful Place in the Church”
2. Paul E. Engle and Steven B. Cowan, “Who Runs The Church? Four Views On
Church Government” (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004).
3. Ibid., p. 134, 283-285.
4. Ibid., p. 284.
5. Gene A. Getz, “Elders and Leaders: God’s Plan For Leading the Church”
(Chicago: Moody, 2003), p. 17-18, 60, 217, 223, 242-243, 252-254, 256.
6. Ibid., p. 258-259.
7.Paul E. Engle and Steven B. Cowan, “Who Runs The Church? Four Views On
Church Government” (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), p. 197.

*******************************************************
LISTEN TO THE KINGDOM ALERT RADIO PROGRAM
*******************************************************
Each weekday at 12:00 noon (Texas time), Monday through Friday:

http://www.kkgmam.com

*****************************************************************
TO ORDER: “THE ROD: WILL GOD SPARE IT?,” By J.D. FAUST
*****************************************************************
For online credit or debit card orders: http://www.fundamentalbooks.com
For credit card by phone: 1-877-70-BOOKS Or for more information, call:
817 453-5542 pastor@kingdombaptist.org

Or send: $15 to:
Fundamental Books
700 Cordes Dr.
Venus, TX 76084

===============================================================
The Kingdom Alert Update is a ministry of Kingdom Baptist Church. Please
tell your friends about this newsletter, and please pray that the Lord
would use it for His glory.

http://www.KingdomBaptist.org

Pastor Joey Faust.
Kingdom Baptist Church
700 Cordes Dr., Mansfield, Texas, 76084 pastor@kingdombaptist.org
Cell: 817 453-5542