Beren Academy boys hoops coach Chris Cole still hopeful TAPPS reschedules state semifinal to accommodate Sabbath | Dallas Morning News
EXCERPT:
HOUSTON (AP) — A Texas agency has turned down a request by an Orthodox Jewish school in Houston to reschedule a championship game potentially involving its boys’ basketball team because the game time falls during the Sabbath.
The Beren Academy advanced to the semifinals in the Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools’ 2A tournament with a 23-5 record and was scheduled to play Dallas Covenant at 9 p.m. on Friday.
Beren players observe the Sabbath between Friday night and Saturday night and won’t play basketball during those hours.
Dangerous Redefinition: Candidates Recast Role of Religion in American Life
By Jason Hines -
I would like to say that Franklin Graham’s appearance on “Morning Joe” was unique in this political season. On Tuesday, Graham was asked whether he thought President Obama was a Christian. Graham said he has to take President Obama at his word, but that he did not know whether Obama was a Christian. When asked why he felt unsure about Obama’s spirituality, Graham recounted a story of when he asked the President how he came to me a Christian. Pastor Graham asserted that Obama started attending a Christian church only to make inroads into the communities he was working at the time. Furthermore, President Obama’s Christianity is further obscured because Muslims consider the President to be a son of Islam, and because the President’s actions do not show him to be a Christian. However, when he was asked whether Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich were Christians, Graham readily said yes. This would have been very surprising if not for Rick Santorum’s statements over the weekend that President Obama was attempting to establish a “phony theology,” a theology that is not based on Christianity.
Religion often becomes a political football during the election season, and this year is no exception. In addition to these statements questioning President Obama’s religion we have also seen contraception become a major religious freedom issue with many church charities and organizations upset about the new health insurance regulations. While there are many different ways to look at these subjects, I see a strong commonality in all of these events – they each deal with the power of definitions in interesting ways.
Santorum and Graham each seek to define what it means to be a Christian. For Franklin Graham it seems that your Christianity is in doubt if you fail to support his political agenda. For Santorum if you support an agenda that seeks to protect the environment, than you support a phony, unchristian theology. It was so odd to see Franklin Graham express doubt about President Obama’s theology and then turn around and wholeheartedly support the Christianity claims of Santorum and Gingrich. It would have been better if he stayed with his original line of thought – that he should believe what people say regarding their religion. The first problem with Graham’s statements is that so many of them are wrong. While the President may not have been as forthcoming with Pastor Graham in private conversation, he certainly has made very explicit statements about his faith, as recently as the National Prayer Breakfast on February 2nd of this year. Also, I am not an expert on Sharia law (and neither would I suspect is Pastor Graham), but it seems that he may be wrong about President Obama as a son of Islam. The freedom of conscience that people like Pastor Graham and Senator Santorum advocate for is the same freedom of conscience that should allow them to respect President Obama’s version of Christianity, even though it differs from theirs.
The attacks on President Obama’s religion and the Religious Right’s fight against the new healthcare regulations are evidence of another attempt of redefinition that is taking place in America. In fact, at the root, these attacks are an attempt to redefine the constitutional role of religion in American life. Both Senator Santorum and Pastor Graham have established a de facto religious test for the office of President. Why does it matter to Pastor Graham whether President Obama is a Christian? Why does it matter to Senator Santorum that Obama has a phony, unchristian theology? These things matter because to them a person should not be president unless they are Christian. And that Christianity cannot just be any Christianity, but a form of Christianity that is aligned with what they think is correct. The problem is that the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids religious tests for public office. The “religious freedom” being claimed by Christian groups as they debate the new healthcare regulations is an attempt to redefine the principle of the separation of church and state. Never in U.S. history have the courts granted such expansive exemptions as the ones these denominations propose. The question of religious exemptions has been settled law since 1990, when Justice Scalia writing a Supreme Court opinion that established the principle in Employment Division v. Smith that religions cannot get exemptions from neutral laws of general applicability. These religious groups are seeking to establish a one-way principle for the separation of church and state where the government cannot interfere with them, but they are allowed to dictate to government as they please.
Santorum’s Martyr Complex (SLATE)
EXCERPT: Is Rick Santorum suffering for his faith? One of his advisers suggested to the Washington Examiner‘s Byron York that he is, and that Mitt Romney is getting absolution. ”Why is Mormonism off limits?” York quotes the adviser as asking. “We’re having to spend days answering questions about Rick’s faith, which he has been open about. Romney will turn on a dime when you talk about religion. We’re getting asked about specific tenets of Rick’s faith, and when Romney says, ‘I want to focus on the economy,’ [the press says,] ‘OK, we’ll focus on the economy.’ ”
In this Lenten season we are called upon to be generous of spirit, so let’s start there. The Santorum campaign is under siege. Mitt Romney and his backers are dropping millions of dollars in ads on his head. He’s being called to account for everything he’s said for his entire career in an atmosphere that doesn’t allow for reasoned discussion. The press accounts of some of his recent comments, like his remark about Obama’s phony theology, have cast him in the worst possible light before letting him clarify.
No Compromise: The Story of Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani
Note: Since this was written, we have received news that the Iranian Judiciary has issued orders that Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani be executed by hanging. Today, February 23, 2012, the White House issued the following Statement:
“The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms reports that Iranian authorities’ reaffirmed a death sentence for Iranian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani for the sole reason of his refusal to recant his Christian faith. This action is yet another shocking breach of Iran’s international obligations, its own constitution, and stated religious values. The United States stands in solidarity with Pastor Nadarkhani, his family, and all those who seek to practice their religion without fear of persecution—a fundamental and universal human right. The trial and sentencing process for Pastor Nadarkhani demonstrates the Iranian government’s total disregard for religious freedom, and further demonstrates Iran’s continuing violation of the universal rights of its citizens. The United States calls upon the Iranian authorities to immediately lift the sentence, release Pastor Nadarkhani, and demonstrate a commitment to basic, universal human rights, including freedom of religion. The United States renews its calls for people of conscience and governments around the world to reach out to Iranian authorities and demand Pastor Nadarkhani’s immediate release.”
——————-
It is difficult to argue for separation of church and state when you are living in a “theocracy.” Iranian pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, 34, learned this fact when he was arrested in October 2009 soon after refusing to allow his children to participate in government-mandated readings of the Quran. Nadarkhani had argued that Iranian law allowed children to be raised in the faith of their parents.
Nadarkhani remained incarcerated and in September 2010, a Gilan Province court ordered him to hang for “convert(ing) to Christianity” and “encourag(ing) other Muslims to convert to Christianity.”
The court did provide an opportunity for Nadarkhani to easily escape the gallows – all he had to do was verbally renounce Christianity. Since then, as of this writing, Nadarkhani has had the choice whether to live or die – just say the words and his freedom will be restored. Yet he refuses and remains behind walls at the Lakan prison.
The court asked him, “Do you believe in the elements of Islam which are the unity of God, resurrection of the dead and the prophethood of great Mohammad?”
Nadarkhani replied, “I believe in the unity of God and the resurrection of the dead but not the prophethood of great Mohammad.”
On June 10, 2010, Nadarkhani’s wife, Fatemah Pasindedih was arrested under charges of apostasy and imprisoned at Lakan. The authorities threatened to take away their children and give them to a Muslim family. Nadarkhani continued to refuse to convert and his wife was tried without an attorney and sentenced to life imprisonment. An attorney was then retained and that decision was appealed and the sentence was overturned and she was released.
Nadarkhani’s death sentence was appealed to the Iranian Supreme Court in December 2010 and on June 28, 2011 the verdict was handed down. He was to be “executed by being hung somehow until his soul is taken from him.” The Court ruled that there was some question as to whether Nadarkhani had previously been a practicing Muslim “from the beginning of puberty” onward and therefore whether he had actually committed apostasy. The lower court was ordered to determine whether he had been a practicing Muslim between the ages of 15 and 19. If he had been a Muslim during that time, then the court could execute him after giving him an additional opportunity to recant.
The lower court held its re-trial between September 25 and 28, 2011. Before the trial even began, he was asked to renounce his faith. Under Islamic Sharia law[i], an apostate is given three days to recant. The court then asked Nadarkhani to renounce his Christianity and “return to the faith of your ancestors.”
As the case progressed, the story caught fire on the Internet and soon news agencies around the world were spreading the story of a young pastor facing death for refusing to renounce his faith. In an attempt to sway attention away from the story, the Iranian state-supported media outlet, Fars News Agency, dismissed claims that the court had passed down the death sentence because of apostasy, and that Nadarkhani had actually been charged with “rape, corruption, and security-related crimes including extortion.”[ii]
The Fars story added that Nadarkhani was a “Zionist” who ran a “corruption” house like a brothel or “opium house.” The alleged charges were not clear as to what Nadarkani had allegedly done.
In response, Nadarkhani’s attorney, Mohammed Ali Dadkhah told told the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, “If he is under trial in another court on other charges, I am not aware. But we only defended him against the death sentence in the case of his charge of apostasy. The charge the court staff announced that I defended during several different court sessions was apostasy and no other charge.”[iii]
Dadkhah, a Iranian Muslim represents Nadarkhani at great personal risk – he himself appealing a sentence of nine years in prison for “actions and propaganda against the Islamic regime,” which is what the government calls his legal human rights work.
Iran’s secret service officials have reportedly given Nadarkhani a book on Islamic literature, and told him that they will return to discuss it with him. The book, entitled “Beshaarat-eh Ahdein,” claims that Christianity is false. If Nadarkhani later discusses the book with authorities and claims that he disagrees with it, this may be a basis for a later charge of blasphemy. As a result, Nadarkhani’s attorneys have advised him to remain silent on the book as any statements he makes could be used against him.
Hillary Clinton, the U.S. Secretary of State released a statement on September 30, 2011 expressing concern about the case and persecution against Zoroastrians, Sufis, and Baha’is. Clinton wrote, “The United States stands with the international community and all Iranians against the Iranian government’s hypocritical statements and actions, and we continue to call for a government that respects the human rights and freedom of all those living in Iran.”
U.S. House Speaker John Boehner said that the prospects for the execution of Nadarkhani, “unless he disavows his Christian faith are distressing for people of every country and creed.”
Today, there are about 300,000 Christians living in Iran – one-half of one percent of the population. Of those, the majority are ethnic Armenians. There are 73 registered individual Christian churches, and almost all Christian activity is illegal. Those who conduct evangelistic activities including publishing pamphlets in Persian languages are harshly punished.
During the early 1990s, religious persecution increased in Iran. In 1993, Pastor Mehdi Dibaj, an Islamic convert was sentenced to die after ten years of imprisonment. Later that year, church leaders were asked to sign a declaration stating that they would not allow Muslims or Muslim converts into their churches. Only two church leaders refused to sign, including Haik Hovsepian who was the Superintendent of the Assemblies of God churches in Iran.
Instead, Hovsepian called the world’s attention to the plight of Iranian Christians. With an increase in international pressure, Dibadj was released from prison on January 19, 1994, only days before he was scheduled to die.[iv]
That same day, Hovsepian vanished from the streets of Tehran, and his body was later found with 26 stab wounds in the chest. Dibadj and three other pastors disappeared and their bodies were later discovered.
Throughout history, it seems that people of most faiths have had some period of persecution and martyrdom for no crime other than telling others what they have chosen to believe. Those who dared to think differently were dangerous to the status quo and they either had to publicly change their mind or face torture or death.
When it comes to church and state issues, Americans have become used to “epic” battles over Nativity scenes, prayers in public schools, or the occasional crucifix in a government office. But in other nations of the world, making the basic choice to believe a certain way can quickly become a matter of life and death.
There is still hope that the sentence will not be carried out.
To Take Action, visit http://dynamic.csw.org.uk/article.asp?t=news&id=1142
[i] Abdurrahmani’l-Djaziri’s Kitabul’l-fiqh ‘ala’l-madhahibi’l-’arba’a i.e. Apostasy in Islam according to the Four Schools of Islamic Law (Vol. 5, pp. 422-440) First English Edition (Villach): 1997
[ii] “Supreme Court Dismisses Reports on Nadarkhani’s Case,” Fars News Agency. October 7, 2011 Retrieved from http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007130274
[iii] “After Trial on Apostasy Charge, Christian Pastor Nadarkhani Accused of Rape and Extortion”.International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran. 2011-10-01. Retrieved 2011-10-28.
[iv] Hovsepian Ministries maintains a website at http://www.hovsepian.com
Film Review: The Harm of “The Help”
By Jason Hines -
I find “The Help” to be the supposedly heartwarming story of a White woman (Skeeter) who comes of age off of the pain and suffering of Black people. She struggles for these unheard Black women in a town where a lot of people surprisingly love Black women, but do not have the courage to speak up for them. Skeeter then becomes the only one who has the bravery to attempt to do something for these poor Black women who are too scared and beaten down by life to do for themselves. They in return empower Skeeter to be the woman that she is supposed to be, and to go live the life in New York that she wanted, but was not good enough to achieve at the beginning of the movie.I did not find anything particularly redeeming about this movie. The premise itself bothers me. Actually viewing the movie did not change any of that for me. The most difficult part for me, was to separate my feelings about the era itself with the elements of the movie that are flagrantly not based in the reality of the era. Even if this film had been amazingly done, it would still have been an upsetting movie simply because of the story it attempts to tell. However, it is even more revolting because of its massive failure to correctly tell the story.
There are elements of the story that seem so ahistorical that I was unable to suspend my disbelief, and almost all of them were upsetting.While there is some basis of the racism of Hilly (the antagonist) her mean girl actions throughout the movie obscure the racism and segregation that underlie her actions (if it is even really racism that motivates her). I must admit that I was unsure by the end of the movie about whether Hilly was a racist or if she hated her own life, or if she was mad because she did not marry the man she really wanted. The most obviously problematic storyline was Minnie (Hilly’s first maid) and the feces pie. I do not understand how the writers of this movie expected me to believe that a Black maid could feed a White woman feces and the only repercussion would be that she would be beaten by her Black husband. I guess that makes for a good story, but there is very little possibility that Minnie would be able to do that type of thing and not die as a result.
But there is a macro-level problem with this story as a whole which I alluded to earlier. The movie explicitly establishes Skeeter as the protagonist, the person who we are supposed to be rooting for. However, she does things that I find to be unconscionable. First she gets a maid (Abilene) to write her column for her. First, she just asks for assistance, but we see later in the film that while Skeeter is working on the book, Abilene is writing her column. Am I supposed to be ok with that? Secondly, Skeeter is the only person who gets anything good out of her relationship with these maids. Skeeter gets what she wanted at the beginning of the film – a job with a New York publishing firm. Abilene ends up fired with no prospects on how she would support herself. But she feels good about herself so I guess it’s alright. This is dovetailed with the very odd resolution of Minnie’s story, where she finds the strength to leave her abusive husband because her white employer cooked a meal for her. I’m sorry but that doesn’t make sense to me.
In the end, I find this movie to be a whitewash of a very compelling story in a difficult time in American history. Racism and segregation are not portrayed as the evil, insidious institutions that they are, but are depicted instead as the result of catty White women attempting to maintain their place within their own social hierarchy. Furthermore, Toure, in his belated review of “The Help,” discussed the idea of the magical Negro, so I won’t get into too much of it here. But I will say that I highly doubt that a White toddler needed her Black maid to remind her, “You is kind, you is smart, you is important.” It would’ve made better sense if the child said it to the maid.
And it is the whitewashing of history that bothers me the most and has the potential to have lasting impact. In the HBO comedy documentary “Assume the Position,” Robert Wuhl makes the point that history is pop culture. Pop culture is the reason why so many children were taught that Columbus sailed west to prove the world was round. Pop culture is the reason why Paul Revere, who rode 19 miles, is more famous than Israel Bissel, who rode 345 miles to warn the colonists of the British attack. Pop culture is the reason why the play and movie “Inherit the Wind” have had a greater effect on how we view creation and evolution than the actual Scopes Monkey Trial that took place in 1925. “The Help” bothers me because it has the potential to shape the way that a generation, unconnected from Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement, views this dark time in American history. Instead of seeing the pain, heartache, and hardship that these women experienced, they will instead see segregation as a mild irritant, propagated mostly by White women, that bothered the Whites in the South as much as it bothered the oppressed (if not more so). They will think that these situations could be solved only through the well-meaning actions of White people who were not only sympathetic, but catalysts for the cause. Lost will be the true history of the suffering and oppression that Black people experienced.
If you doubt me, come to the South, where they have gone back to calling the indigenous people of this land American Indians so that White people can be known as “Native Americans.” Or where they are fighting to change history textbooks to deemphasize the brutality of slave-owners and the Jim Crow South. This whitewashing of history is already happening, and “The Help” is not helping.
A Harvard Law graduate, Jason Hines practiced commercial litigation in Philadelphia for five years and conducted seminars on religious liberty in his spare time. This gave him the opportunity to discuss issues of religious freedom with Adventists in churches all over the United States. In 2008, Jason decided to devote his life to work in religious liberty. To that end, he enrolled at the Seminary at Andrews University, where he is pursuing a Master’s Degree in Religion. He is also a PhD candidate in the Religion, Politics, and Society at the J.M. Dawson Institute for Church-State Studies at Baylor University. Jason blogs about religious liberty and other religious issues at thehinesight.blogspot.com and is also an associate editor of ReligiousLiberty.TV, an independent religious liberty website.Iran Court Convicts Christian Pastor Convert To Death | Fox News
The final verdict has been handed down. The blood of the martyrs continues to water the seed of the church. Prayers needed for courage and a miracle.
Pastor Nadarkhani is a true hero of the faith and a witness against religious intolerance of all stripes.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02/22/iran-court-convicts-christian-pastor-convert-to-death/
Op-Ed: What is a Christian Nation?
In order to address the idea of what a Christian nation is, we have to define both what a nation is and what it means to be Christian.
By Jason Hines – Last week on the ReligiousLiberty.TV Facebook Page, Michael Peabody asked us to put historical, feasibility, and preferential objections aside and describe what a truly “Christian nation” would look like. How would it conduct foreign and domestic policy for example? This is an incredibly difficult question for me. Of course, part of my life’s work is about pressing against the idea of a “Christian nation,” but I thought this would be an interesting question to take up to see if I could fashion what a true Christian nation would be like.
I think we have to start at the most basic point – what do we mean when we say “Christian nation?” Part of what makes the notion of a Christian nation unworkable is that I don’t think Christians in America (or anywhere else for that matter) could ever agree on what a Christian nation should be. If Christians can’t agree on what it is, how could the ever actualize it? In some of the comments on left on the Facebook page, some have noted that a Christian nation is impossible because of Christ’s statement that his kingdom is not of this world. (John 18:35-37) While this argument has merit, I mention it only to make the point that it would be hard to actualize a Christian nation if you had a contingent of Christians saying that having a nation is against the very premise of Christianity. In order to address the idea of what a Christian nation is, we have to define both what a nation is and what it means to be Christian.
Some would say that a nation is simply its people and therefore a Christian nation is a nation that has a majority of Christians. If that is the case, than America is already a Christian nation. According to Gallup, 78% of Americansidentified themselves as Christian in 2011. However, I think that definition is too simplistic. A nation, in my opinion, is more than just its people. Our nation isn’t just a bunch a people running around. We have levels of government and other institutions that make up what our nation is. So I think a Christian nation would have laws and institutions that reflect the Christian ethos. But how will we define the Christian ethos? Obviously we would attempt to have our laws reflect the teachings of Christ, but is there anything else we need to fulfill the Christian ethos? I want to argue that we should restrict it to just the teachings of Christ, but that would not be accurate in terms of describing what Christianity is today. We would have to include the entirety of the New Testament (including what people like John the Baptist, Paul, and Peter taught) as well as what we can glean from the Old Testament. Referencing the Old Testament makes the project particularly thorny because while the Old Testament gives us a very explicit guide about what a Godly nation would be through the Children of Israel, one could also argue that the Old Testament is very different from the new. Moreover, we would now have to go through a project of deciding which laws given then would be relevant today. While this forum is not the place to give a complete delineation of what a Christian nation would be and do (I think this is actually a really good book topic) I will attempt to address some of the more interesting elements of policy that I think a Christian nation would enact.
One of the more interesting things that would exist in a Christian nation would be the debt and welfare system. In Deuteronomy 15: 1-11, Moses lays out a fairly liberal and debt and welfare system. Not only were Israelites expected to loan people what they needed, all debts were to be cancelled every 7 years. Moses explicitly mentions that Israelites should not refuse to loan someone what they need because the 7th year is approaching. Moses also fails to mention any kind of repayment plan or interest. I think this is an interesting thing to have done on a national scale. I am not sure if you would enact a law that required citizens to assist each other, or if you would just create a wide open welfare system where no one was rejected and anyone could have access to resources from the government to be able to survive. I assume you would also have regulations to ensure that credit card companies and other lending organizations would cancel debts every 7 years. This would essentially erase poverty and a phenomenon that may be worse – debt slavery. For example, it has been more than 7 years since I left law school. Imagine if my law school debt had been cancelled at some point since 2003? Imagine if credit card debt were cancelled every 7 years?
How could there no be universal healthcare in a Christian nation? Besides all the miracles of Christ (most of which deal with improving the physical and mental health of others), you would essentially have universal healthcare because you would be required under the welfare system to loan people the money they needed to cover hospital costs, if the situation should arise.
I think it is important at this juncture to point out that these things do have a parallel in the New Testament. In the parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus delineates what his followers will do. In Matt 25: 35-36 He says, “For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.” A Christian nation should certainly live up to this high standard.
When we look at the Sermon on the Mount, we see several things that would have to change in our society. Imagine if we could arrest you for anger (Matt 5:21-22) or if you could potentially be liable for adultery for looking with lust at someone who was not your spouse (Matt 5: 27-28). Foreign policy could be summed up by Matt 5:43-45 – “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.”
I have so far avoided the elephant in the room, which is the relevance of Levitical laws. I have avoided it because I am unsure exactly what to do with it. Levitical laws (found mostly in Leviticus 19 and 20) seem outdated and many of them require death for things that we would not even dream of considering capital crimes today. However there is a strong argument for the idea that if we’re going to rely on the Old Testament for anything in the Christian ethos, then we have to include the “bad” with the good and include all of these laws in our Christian nation. However, I would rather argue that those particular laws are contextual and not meant to apply to today, or to nations outside of the children of Israel.
There seems to be one requirement for a Christian nation that would stand above all. In Exodus 24, after God has given Moses a series of laws (not just the Ten Commandments), Moses presents them to the people. Exodus 24: 3 records the people’s response. “[T]hey responded with one voice, ‘Everything the LORD has said we will do.’” This requirement is what makes a truly Christian nation impossible. In order to truly be a God-led nation, God must make a covenant with that nation, and the people of that nation must then confirm that covenant with God. While each of us is able to make that covenant for ourselves, there has been no record of any nation having such a covenant on a nationwide scale with God. Wake me when that day comes and maybe we can have this discussion again for real.
A Harvard Law graduate, Jason Hines practiced commercial litigation in Philadelphia for five years and conducted seminars on religious liberty in his spare time. This gave him the opportunity to discuss issues of religious freedom with Adventists in churches all over the United States. In 2008, Jason decided to devote his life to work in religious liberty. To that end, he enrolled at the Seminary at Andrews University, where he is pursuing a Master’s Degree in Religion. He is also a PhD candidate in the Religion, Politics, and Society at the J.M. Dawson Institute for Church-State Studies at Baylor University. Jason blogs about religious liberty and other religious issues at thehinesight.blogspot.com and is also an associate editor of ReligiousLiberty.TV, an independent religious liberty website.President Obama’s Health Care Mandate vs. Religious Liberty? Join the Discussion
In the last couple of weeks, the issue over whether religious employers should be required to fund contraceptives has become a hot issue. What do you think? Join the discussion at https://www.facebook.com/groups/religiouslibertytv/
The High Cost of China’s One-Child Policy
In 1979, China introduced a one-child policy which was brutally enforced. This excellent documentary by Shorewood High School students tells the story.
RLTV Podcast: The Rock v. The Gates and the Role of the Remnant
A presentation by Michael Peabody at the Corona Seventh-day Adventist Church – February 4, 2012.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Add to Google