I Don’t Understand the Evangelical Response to Ferguson

December 1, 2014

Dr. Randy White | Pastor
First Baptist Church, Katy, TX

**This article was previously posted by Dr. Randy White on his website www.randywhiteministries.org and is used by permission.

Ferguson, MO has erupted in barbaric violence that should cause all law-abiding citizens to demand the restoration of the rule-of-law, but the Evangelical world is preaching kum-ba-ya sermons about race-relations.


I’ve gotta say, I just don’t get it.

Am I a racist because I’m a white Christian male? Am I a racist because I believe that the people who burn down buildings after they’ve looted the businesses within them should be arrested on the spot and placed before a jury trial to receive a fair and just penalty for their crime? Am I a racist because I think a Grand Jury indictment is necessary before judging a man guilty (whether that man is white, black, or purple)?  I don’t think I’m a racist at all. I think I’m a responsible citizen with a Biblical worldview. But when I see what the ever-more-left-leaning Evangelicals (like my fellow Southern Baptists) are preaching about the Ferguson fiasco, I am made to feel  like I’m a racist.

I’ll just use one example, though the example I use is just one voice of a fast-growing choir of politically correct pastors, ethicists, and theologians. I’ll use this one example because it is low fruit (I’m not interested in writing a book), and because it is from my own faith family of Southern Baptists. My example is Matthew Hall’s November 25 post, “What’s the Big Deal with Race?” Hall is a professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a research fellow for the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. His article is posted on “Cannon and Culture,” a project of the ERLC. The ERLC seems to be full-court press, all using the same talking points. You can read Russell Moore’s “Ferguson and the Path to Peace,”  and Eric Mason’s “The Gospel, Race, and our Experiences” for more of the same. Each article basically says, “we don’t understand how blacks feel, so we should be slow in our judgment” and “the Kingdom brings us all together in one big, happy family, so let’s act like Kingdom people in a big, happy family.” Ed Stetzer, also a Southern Baptist, also joined the chorus, singing in harmony with the talking points.

Hall begins answering his question about what the big deal with race is all about by telling us that, “all Christians should be mindful of the gospel’s demands for racial reconciliation and justice.” This kind of talk has become common in post-modern church-world. If we make it one of the “gospel’s demands” then we can’t really question it. But I will. Is racial reconciliation a demand of the gospel? Seems to me that racial reconciliation is a good thing and is a social issue, not a doctrinal or theological issue, and certainly not a “gospel demand.” If there is something Biblical that expresses racial reconciliation as a gospel demand, I’ve missed it.

Throughout his blog, Hall refers to “racial injustice.” He never defines it. I’m sure he could, but I suspect he won’t. To be so clear would invite too much criticism. I wonder what the Hall / ERLC version of racial justice would look like in Ferguson?

Hall says that, “As sons and daughters of Adam, we are spring-loaded to see ourselves as distinct and superior from other individuals, but also from groupings or communities of persons.” As one who likes to question the assumptions, I wonder if this is even true. Does the Bible doctrine of man portray us as spring-loaded toward personal superiority? For every Biblical example you give, I’m pretty certain I could find a Biblical example of one who was spring-loaded toward inferiority. Outside of Scripture, I don’t think my personal experiences (49 years worth) find any support for this spring-loaded superiority claim.

Hall worked hard to explain that this undefined racial injustice is a sin problem. Of all the “abundant Biblical evidence,” Hall chose an obscure reference in Numbers 12:1 to Moses’ Cushite wife. Hall, joining John Piper, makes the punishment on Miriam and Aaron a result of their racial prejudice against Moses’ dark-skinned wife. This is eisegesis of the ultimate degree. God punished Miriam and Aaron for speaking against God’s appointed leader. It really doesn’t matter what caused them to speak against him. Whether it was racial prejudice or a long-held animosity for Moses’ privilege as a youth, or maybe even simply their own petty jealousy, God’s punishment was related to their crime, not their motivation. Even more to the point, I am most doubtful that the reference to the Cushite wife was racially motivated. Piper is quoted as commenting that God said, “Oh, you think your skin color makes you superior? You think white is better? I’ll make you so white your skin will literally rot.”  I’m not sure why Piper thinks Aaron and Miriam were models of aryan beauty in the first place.  In my own year-long study of the book of Numbers, racial tension never hit the radar in the study of Numbers 12, nor did I ever dream of Aaron and Miriam thinking white skin color is better.

Continuing to develop the “racial injustice is sin” theme, Hall tells us that we (White Christian men?) cannot see this injustice because the “fundamentally unjust system” has been “perpetuated for generation after generation.” Those who are “not victimized by it” can’t see it as Biblically sinful. Hall says that,

“We see it around us in an industrialized penal system that is overwhelmingly populated by young black men. And we see it in the recurring headlines of unarmed black teenage boys shot by police officers. Sure, we can trumpet the virtue of personal responsibility and try to sleep better at night, our uneasy consciences salved by the distance of ‘out of sight and out of mind.’ But look more closely and you’ll see that sin is never confined merely to the orbit of individual choice or personal responsibility.”

This statement is fraught with difficulty. If sin is “never confined to the orbit of individual choice or personal responsibility,” is society to blame? Do the thugs looting businesses and burning police cars have a personal choice and responsibility for their actions? Are we wrong to say that the individuals of Ferguson riots have made a “personal choice” and have a “responsibility for their actions?” To blame society for a crime committed by an individual is soundly insane. Further, is the penal system that is “overwhelmingly populated by young black men,” unjust by virtue of the lack of racial balance in the prisons? What if there are more young black men in prison because more black men commit crimes? Do we need an affirmative action mechanism in our justice system in order to bring racial balance?  It seems we live in a society (and have a religious denomination) in which one cannot speak this truth without receiving the “racist” label.

Hall’s second reason of “Why Race Matters” is that the (undefined) racial injustice, “denies the truth of our universal kinship.” I’m not sure how one could deny this truth and still hold a Biblical worldview, personally. A racist may be creationist in their understanding of the world, and still have a disdain for fellow humanity. Speaking of our common DNA, Hall states that, “any system that elevates one branch of the family tree while denigrating or demeaning another on the basis of race or ethnicity contradicts this ancient reality.” I would have to wonder if God Himself gets a pass, since even a cursory reading of Scripture would prove that He began elevating one branch of the family tree in Genesis 12 (arguably in Genesis 9), and only strengthened the elevation of that branch through the pages of Scripture. Was the Old Testament God somehow racist?

The third reason is that this (undefined) racial injustice, “is contrary to the heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” In this section, Hall refers to “Civil Rights Hero John Perkins.” Anytime someone gets “hero” status, I check things out. Perhaps with more investigation I would find something of hero status, but I must confess I didn’t find it readily available in my short search. Perkins is a civil rights leader and community organizer, and appears to carry much of the same liberal church-as-kingdom theology as the rest of the community organizers. His three Rs of Christian Community Development are (1) Relocation: become one of them, (2) Reconciliation: model reconciliation in the church, and (3) Redistribution…surprise surprise. Perkins says, “Justice is achieved by working with God to share His resources with the disenfranchised of the earth.”  This is the same threadbare theology of black liberation that we’ve seen for decades, as far as I can tell. If I was looking for a Civil Rights Hero I would be more likely to investigate one like Dr. Ben Carson.  Hall notes that hero Perkins taught that “vertical reconciliation” required his Son’s sacrificial death and resurrection, thus, “we should also expect that our horizontal reconciliation with one another will require a similar measure of intentionality.” I question the expectation. Perhaps we should recognize that God’s gift brought vertical reconciliation, it can also bring horizontal reconciliation. Hall (or Perkins) makes it sound like God did the vertical but He’s unavailable for the horizontal. What the black men of the Ferguson riots need is a vertical reconciliation. Only then will they move away from the victimization of black liberation theology.

Hall’s fourth point is to feel guilty because some Southern Baptist founders were racist, even slave-owners. I wonder if he is as haunted over the racial bigotry of Calvin and Luther as over Southern Baptist slave-owners?

Hall concludes by calling us to take “a host of good and necessary steps needed for racial justice and reconciliation.”  He implies that there are “matters of policy and law” that need to be changed in order to, “uphold justice and equity.” I have to wonder what policy and law he thinks are either wrongly worded or wrongly applied in Ferguson. To my knowledge, the only laws that promote racial partiality today are related to affirmative action.

In summary, Matthew Hall clearly thinks there is a problem, though he never really tells us what it is, other than, “racial injustice.” He did not give an example. I get the feeling the article was designed to elicit feelings of guilt on the part of Whites for the sins of Blacks.

And that’s a feeling I typically get when evangelicals talk about race.

Leave a Comment:

All fields with “*” are required

 characters available

Rick Patrick

Dr. White,

Thank you for being a voice of clarity and for cutting through some of these underlying assumptions. Regarding the so-called *gospel* demands described by Hall in your article, while the Bible certainly speaks of justice and respect for all, and indicates that we will worship in heaven from every tribe, nation, tongue and people, I agree with you that the specific claim of the gospel—namely, the death, burial and resurrection of Christ for the sins of the world—does not present any sort of *gospel* demand specifically related to ethnicity at all.

Now this is not to deny that the issue of race relations is a *biblical* issue we find in the outworking of our faith as we apply the teaching of Christ to our lives. Paul tells us that as far as it depends upon us, we are to live in peace with all men. (Rom. 12:18) Of course, this includes people of every skin color. We are to treat people with love and respect. In the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., we are to judge them on the “content of their character and not the color of their skin.”

If anything, we are called to share the message of the gospel and the hope of redemption through Christ without partiality or prejudice to all persons everywhere with no regard for the color of their skin. If we fail to call any person of any ethnicity to repentance of sin, we fail to preach the true demands of the gospel. Everyone should be liberated from sins such as stealing, illegal drug use, violence, vandalism and arson. If we withhold the true gospel demands of repentance and faith from any person—even and especially on the basis of their skin color, then we are exercising a form of bigotry.

We must do a better job in teaching people of all ethnicities to respect police officers and those who are in authority over us. “For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.” (Rom. 13:3) First, we must teach people to obey the law. Second, we must also teach them that if they do happen to break a law, they must not resist arrest, for doing so will put any person’s life at risk.

Page Brooks

Thanks for your article. Let me share a little of my background as I offer some comments. I am a professor at NOBTS (theology), pastor a multi-racial church plant in downtown New Orleans (SEND Nola church plant), and have adopted multi-racially. I was also born in Montgomery, AL and raised in Selma, AL, where my dad was a Baptist pastor. I share this just to let you know the perspectives that I share come from an issue that is deeply imbedded in my life.

I think you, and Rick, are correct that the “Gospel” does not explicitly talk about race, per se. However, my rebuttal would be that, as believers and as humans, we naturally set up barriers to the Gospel. This is, in my opinion, actually a core teaching of the New Testament. Allow me to provide some brief examples. The first deacons appointed in Acts 6 actually arose out of a racial/ethnic issue. In America we often define race as simply the skin color, but I think that it can be more broadly defined in terms of ethnicity. Deacons were appointed to ensure the Greek widows were being cared for. Why? Because the Jews were still being centered upon themselves with the new Gospel being proclaimed by the apostles. On that note, we also find in Acts 10 where Peter received a vision about clean/unclean animals. It was a vision from God to inform him that the Gentiles were now worthy to receive the Gospel, again an ethnic issue. I would even submit that part of the books of Galatians and Ephesians are also about the Gospel being proclaimed to other races and ethnicities (when seen through the Jew/Gentile divide). The earliest Christians set up just as many racial/ethnic barriers as we have done in America, even from the founding of our country. Many denominations that are still alive today were first started because whites did not want to worship with blacks (think about the African Methodist Episcopal Church and its earliest foundations).

So, I would submit that the Bible has much to say about the Gospel and race, due to the sinfulness of mankind and the natural racial barriers we erect. Because we are one in the Church, through Jesus, there is a HUGE implication of the Gospel against racial prejudice. The fact that we need to overcome the worship divide on Sunday morning has HUGE Gospel implications because we should be worshipping together, despite differences of worship styles (which I would say now have developed into ethnic divisions due to development of culture). I think we all could agree that we certainly should be worshipping together and stop creating more divisions simply based upon race/ethnicity. However, the primary reason I am making this point is that I think we sometimes reduce the Gospel to merely being saved (emphasizing the spiritual). It is not only about merely being saved, but we must also be concerned about the serious implications of the Gospel, if we are to truly witness the transformation that the Gospel brings. By living out the transformation, we truly do preach the Gospel.

I would like to address two other issues. First, Randy, you imply that the theology of John Perkins is related to black liberation theology due to what he states about income redistribution. I have been very active in the Christian Community Development Association, which Perkins founded. I can assure you that the way you define wealth redistribution is NOT the way Perkins or CCDA would define it. I fact, if I can be honest Randy, I feel as though you read into his definition based merely upon similarities you find with it in black liberation theology. Some proponents of black liberation theology, such as James Cone, propose a wealth redistribution based merely upon the accusation of righting past wrongs. In other words, for example, white people should simply give money to black people to make up for centuries of wrong.

What Perkins and others in the CCDA model advocate from wealth redistribution is meaning that opportunities should be given to those in traditionally underserved areas by reallocating resources that they would normally not have access to. This does not mean simply pouring in money. Rather, what is meant is that those with wealth (generous donors, churches, etc.) make available funds that people can work for or train with in order to improve their position in life and thereby bring about a redevelopment for their community. This is vastly different that a wealth distribution advocated by black liberation theologians such as James Cone.

The second, and last issue, I would like to address is the act of active listening to our brothers and sisters of other ethnicities. Let me say upfront, I condemn the actions of Brown for stealing, which led to the events in Ferguson; I condemn the riots and recklessness that has happened in Ferguson, such as businesses being burned; I regret the officer could not find another way of defending himself, especially since Brown was unarmed. But at the same time, we need to listen to the feelings that such events illicit in our African-American brothers and sisters. You know why? Because I am the father of an African-American son! Hearing the plight of some of my African-American brothers and sisters in Christ has made me wake up to the realization that systematic racism does still exist in some levels in America.

I hear about how my Bible-believing African-American brothers are stopped by police when they were not doing anything, just because they looked suspicious. I hear about how young black men in our community are routinely denied job because of race. We had a white church member that went with one of our African-American men to the same businesses here he applied for jobs. When the white church member went with him, the young African-American man said that the treatment he received was much different, even to the point of finally getting a job.

I am concerned because I don’t want my son, a young healthy two year old that has a bright future ahead of him, racially profiled just because he is walking around in a few years in a white neighborhood. However, it was only after I LISTENED to my African-American brothers and sisters that I started to understand why they sometimes feel the way they do after such incidents.

I regret that some people take such opportunities as Ferguson to make race a bigger deal than it should be. However, it is very easy for whites to simply sweep race under the rug and not deal with it. When we listen to and acknowledge our African-American brothers and sisters, we can start to understand their perspectives.

Again, I share this out of concern to have a healthy dialogue concerning race relations. I feel that the SBC has a long way to go before understanding all the implications of race relations and how it influences our Gospel witness in America. If I can, I would like to recommend a book (When Heaven and Earth Collide) by my friend Alan Cross, pastor at Gateway Baptist Church in Montgomery, AL. He does a fine job of explaining the history of racism in southern religious culture and how the Gospel can provide healing.

I welcome your further discussions on this issue.


While you have written a lot I can agree with, as has Rick, I do believe this paragraph is problematic:

“Hall begins answering his question about what the big deal with race is all about by telling us that, “all Christians should be mindful of the gospel’s demands for racial reconciliation and justice.” This kind of talk has become common in post-modern church-world. If we make it one of the “gospel’s demands” then we can’t really question it. But I will. Is racial reconciliation a demand of the gospel? Seems to me that racial reconciliation is a good thing and is a social issue, not a doctrinal or theological issue, and certainly not a “gospel demand.” If there is something Biblical that expresses racial reconciliation as a gospel demand, I’ve missed it.”

1. The Gospel is, as you say, about vertical reconciliation, between God and man, through Christ. However, the bible is full of instructions about how that is supposed to affect our horizontal relationships: love you wife as Christ loved the church, forgive others because you have been forgiven, love your enemies because God loved his enemies, Be peacemakers (active command, not just “don’t cause trouble.”), We have been given the ministry of reconciliation. These things certainly point out that one of the natural responses to God being reconciled with us, is to be reconciled to others, and even seek to be 3rd party peace-makers between 2 parties in conflict. This should apply to all relationship, whether the differences that cause conflict are personal, economic, or racial. I don’t see how racial conflict is somehow excluded from these commands.

2. The early church’s response to the issues between Jews and non-jews can certainly be a guide for us as well. Peter was called out for not eating with gentiles…the problem was that his “conduct was not in step with the Gospel.” He didn’t have a wrong gospel, but he was not living in step with it. Therefore, to cut off one part of your life (ie, relationship with groups of people different than you) is, according to Paul, an issue related to the gospel…not for earning salvation, but living in step with what we believe.

3. Finally, it is very surprising to hear a pastor say that ANYTHING is “not a doctrinal or theological issue.” Is not every part of our lives connected to what we believe about God, his word, and his gospel. Again, I simply don’t see how we can point to any one issue and say it is not theological. Even mundane things like which color socks I wear are related, because I can easily put on those socks hoping that people notice my fashion sense, or fearful of men if I don’t dress in a way they approve of, or putting on those socks in joyful gratitude that I actually have some socks on a cold day when so many people do not. There is no part of my life that can be separated from Theology.

I hope I have not written too forcefully, I really would like to hear your response to these things….


Randy White

I’m likely much more in agreement with Rick, Page, and Andy (above) than it may appear. If I was writing the article from scratch, I would not have addressed some of the things I did. However, my article was a critique of Hall, whom I believe misses the point. Christianity and racist bigotry are incompatible. I think that racial bigotry is incompatible with the human existence. We are, after all, only one race, some with more skin pigmentation than others. For this reason, I maintain that racial equality is not a Gospel issue, nor even a Christian issue, it is a human issue, and only theological in the broad-based understanding of anthropology. I would argue the same for abortion and many other moral issues. Prejudice and bigotry are certainly addressed in the Bible, but they are not exclusive to Christianity as a moral indignity.

Dennis Lee Dabney

Ferguson is a window into my community, a segment of our culture, our families and our local churches. We all agree racism is still alive and unfortunately well in this great nation of ours. However Ferguson reveals what I’ve been saying for a number of years. The family unit, consisting of husband and wife, and the local church male leadership structure go hand and hand in the “cry” of Ferguson. Now in order to hear the “outcry” one must be willing to look at the facts while examining the evidence within my community. Seldom is the scourge of abortion mentioned but it exist along with out of wed-lock babies born, in which my birth contributed to that number and I have contributed to the total as well, in shame I must add! Ethnic sins have consequences like individual sins have repercussions. I haven’t run into many of the ‘ittes” of the Old Testament. Why, because their ethnic sins counted and God took notice.

Listen, we have a lack of biblical structure in the Black family which has spilled over into our churches as to who our new leaders are from the pulpit to the yard! Our young women and our grandparents with emphasis on “grandma” are raising our babies. Now that doesn’t line up with The Holy Book. Our churches mirror the same leadership in the “new” home, the “NEW” church and yes our communities “live” out the negative results. There is a lack of biblical authority in my community from the house to the church house. Whenever that’s the case there will be no lack of disrespect for real authority, even that of God.

Beloved, I’ll show you racism up close and personal. It is when emotions will not wait for truth. Once the truth is revealed it is ignored!

Now, I wasn’t in Ferguson on that dreaded day, so I decided to wait for the truth. However, I am here in American, where Black males die at the hands of other Black males “DAILY” without a national outcry like that of Ferguson.

Let’s get the beam out of our own eye and then help with the mote!

Listen for the “cry” Ferguson, Friends


Dennis Lee Dabney

We must do a better job in teaching people of all ethnicities to respect police officers and those who are in authority over us. “For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.” (Rom. 13:3) First, we must teach people to obey the law. Second, we must also teach them that if they do happen to break a law, they must not resist arrest, for doing so will put any person’s life at risk.

The above must begin in the home first. If children do not have a wholesome reverence for “both” parents they will not respect authority outside the home. Even if the father is not in the home it is the mother’s or guardiant responsibility to teach the child to honor the father. If it doesn’t begin in the home the child will not respect the Sunday school teacher, bus driver, teacher, principal or law enforcement agents. The local church can augment this process but the salvation of the soul exceed the old creation order where ethnicity was pre-arranged by God. The new position in Christ by the power of the Spirit enables the child of God to demonstrate scriptural love even to his enemy as commanded by our Lord.

It seems Ferguson is viewed largely by those who are speaking for the rest of us outside of the salvation experience. Pastors, leaders begin their compassionate plea for race relations in the “flesh” and end with closing remarks from “old” man. Listen, only Christ could make the “eternal”difference between Jew and Gentile in the bible. If there will be eternal race reconcililation He must provide salvation of the soul and a new heart to love all nations with the gospel and it’s properties.


Alan Cross

“Hall begins answering his question about what the big deal with race is all about by telling us that, “all Christians should be mindful of the gospel’s demands for racial reconciliation and justice.” This kind of talk has become common in post-modern church-world. If we make it one of the “gospel’s demands” then we can’t really question it. But I will. Is racial reconciliation a demand of the gospel? Seems to me that racial reconciliation is a good thing and is a social issue, not a doctrinal or theological issue, and certainly not a “gospel demand.” If there is something Biblical that expresses racial reconciliation as a gospel demand, I’ve missed it.”

This is really troubling. Revelation 7:9-11 tells us that around the Throne will be people from every tribe, nation, people, and tongue. So, obviously God sees ethnicity as a real thing that is good and not a barrier and the RESULT of the Gospel is that it will transcend human divisions and create ONE people in Christ. This is what Galatians 3:26-29 and Colossians 3:11 affirm as well. We are all ONE in Christ no matter what our ethnic background. But, the strongest argument is found in Ephesians 2. After laying out the gospel in Ephesians 2:1-10, Paul then applies the implications of the Gospel to the BARRIERS that were hindering the advance of the gospel. Jews and Greeks were not together relationally. So, he says that Christ Himself is our peace and that He has torn down the dividing wall that kept them apart. The result and implication of the gospel rightly applied is that people from every nation, tribe, people, and tongue will come TOGETHER in one body and worship Christ – forged into one people by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If people from all different backgrounds, nations, and cultures coming together into one body to worship Christ as His people together by grace and faith is not a gospel issue, then what is? It is so core to the Gospel that when Peter sided with the Judaizers in Antioch Paul confronted him to his face and said that he was not acting “in step with the gospel” (Gal. 2:14). When Paul writes in Galatians 3:26-29 and Colossians 3:11 about “Jew, Greek, slave, free, male, female, Barbarian, Scythian” he is addressing Aristotle’s categories of Natural Slavery and social hierarchy found in Politics Book 1 that went all over the Greek Empire and that was the basic way that people saw the world. Paul is saying that in Christ, all of those worldy/fleshly divisions are put away and we are one in Christ. Paul is addressing social/ethnic divisions and is saying that the gospel obliterates them. He tears down the wall of separation.

Racial Division is America is a manifestation of sin and a product of sinful history. It is not a natural state of affairs according to God’s design. And, it is definitly not the way that things are to be in God’s Kingdom. So, the Gospel goes forward to set things right – to make men right with God and to make men right with one another. We are to love God and love our neighbor as ourselves – these are the marks of the Kingdom. If you do not love your neighbor, then the love of God is not in you. How can you say you love God, whom you have not seen, if you do not love your neighbor, who you do see? The Gospel is primarily sets us right with God through justification. Yes. But, then the outworking of the Gospel is that we live in right relationships with others, and that addresses racism and racial divisions and injustice and brokenness and hopelessness that grips communities who do not believe that they have a place here equivalent to those who are White. It is all a lie, but it is a lie that we are to combat with the truth of the Gospel – Jesus reconciling the world to Himself through the Cross. We recognize that ALL are made in God’s image and that He desires to save all. When our churches are divided racially and we live in racially divided communities and we promote our own racial and economic position over and above others, then we are not acting in line with the gospel and its implications.

The ground is level at the foot of the Cross, the Church is made up of all people, we are not separated by Race even though ethnic distinctions exist, and in Heaven we will all worship together. All of these things are “Gospel” issues regarding the outworking of it and the implications of what Jesus came to do, which is to make one new man out of those who were once divided – first Jew and Gentile and then across other ethnic divisions among Gentiles (Greek, Barbarian, Scythian…).

Dr. Moore is right and his perspective is not Postmodern or Leftist in any sense. It is actually Biblical, Gospel-Centered, and Conservative in the sense that it takes the appropriate view of humanity and sin and what sin has done to us and how the Gospel is the only answer for the problems that destroy us.

Leave a Comment:

All fields with “*” are required

 characters available