Ephesians, here we come?
When we gather together with other brothers and sisters in Christ on Sunday mornings, we study through a book of Scripture, or occasionally through a topic. Right now, we studying through 1 Samuel together. Usually, one person agrees to facilitate our discussion, while we all take part in working through the passage (usually a chapter or more at a time).
I love this kind of study with people who love God and love each other and seek to understand Scripture together. I’ve learned so much by studying Scripture with my brothers and sisters in Christ – both on Sundays and at other times, as the discussions on Sundays often carry over to other times when we get together at our homes, in coffee shops, even running trails around the lake.
So, like I said, we’re currently working through 1 Samuel, and David just spared Saul for the second time, which means that we’re near the end of Saul and the end of the book. We started talking about what book to study next. Almost everyone agreed that they would like to return to the New Testament for a while.
And, then I heard it – like music to my ears. Someone said, “What about Ephesians?” And, guess what, I didn’t even have to bribe her! Because, Ephesians is one of my favorite New Testament books! (It’s definitely in the top 27, anyway.)
But, seriously, I love Paul’s letter to the church in Ephesus, and, yes, I know all the theories about it being a circular letter and not specifically addressed to the Ephesians in a couple of older manuscripts. Still, I love the letter.
I love the structure and the flow and the focus and just about everything about it.
In fact, as I think about it, I haven’t studied Ephesians in a few years. Not too long ago, I was studying Ephesians with different groups of Christians on and off for a couple of years. It became a joke with some of my friends. “Alan, when are you going to start a study of Ephesians again?” wink wink nudge nudge
So, as I begin to think about Ephesians again, I thought I would throw this out to you. What do you like about Ephesians? Do you have a favorite passage? A favorite topic in the book? What do you wish you understood better? What do you struggle with the most in the book?
Replay: The Interconnected Church
Five and a half years ago (in January 2007), I published a post called “The Interconnected Church.” In the post, I used blog connections as a metaphor for the relational connectivity of the church in the New Testament. Today, unfortunately, the connections are more organizational, which reduces the unity and fellowship among brothers and sisters in Christ. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this form of relational connectivity among the church.
——————————-
The Interconnected Church
There is a list of blogs that I frequent on the right side of this web page. If I go to most of those blogs, they will also include a list of blogs that the author visits regularly. If you navigate through those links, you will find other lists of blogs. And the cycle continues indefinitely… well, not indefinitely, but for many, many links.
There are a few people who frequent my blog. They interact with me through comments. I occasionally visit other blogs and interact with them through comments.
Could it be that this is a metaphor for the church in the New Testament?
Consider a believer in the New Testament. Let’s call him Joe. Joe knows several other believers. He interacts with them through normal relationships: family relationships, neighborhood relationships, work relationships, civic relationships, etc. Since these people are believers, they also gather regularly. Now, they may not all gather together at the same time. Perhaps some gather regularly at Joe’s house. Others gather regularly at Sally’s house. Joe occasionally meets with those at Sally’s house because he knows most of the people there. Also gathering at Sally’s house is the Smith family. They do not gather with the people at Joe’s house regularly, because the Smith family does not know them well. However, since they love Joe, and want to interact with him more, they will meet at his house on occasion. Meanwhile, once in a while, Joe will meet with another group with the Smith family. In this way, the interconnectivity is strengthened and grows.
In this scenario, there is interconnectivity among the church based on relationships. There is the church in Joe’s house, and the church in Sally’s house, and a few other churches; but they all recognize that they are the church in their city – because of the interconnectivity of relationships. They also recognize that they are somehow connected to groups outside their city, also through the interconnectivity of relationships.
If this is a valid view of the church in the New Testament, then could we be missing something today? Usually, when we talk about churches being connected to one another, we speak in terms of leadership networks, associations, etc. In other words, those in leadership from one church are connected to those in leadership from another church. This connection is not based on natural relationships, but on associations intentionally created to make connections. Meanwhile, many people in each church (specifically, those not in leadership) may find that they have very little connections with those outside their group, even with other churches with whom their leaders “associate”. Why? Because instead of being interconnected, the churches consider themselves mutually exclusive.
Are there any scriptural indications that an interconnected view of the church is valid, or that this view is not valid? What are some problems that might be caused by taking this view of the church?
When church means being together
Josh at “In Search of the City” has written a great post called “Sometimes just being together is enough.” His post goes along well with my posts this week focusing on fellowship as “sharing life together as we share Christ together.”
He begins his post by explaining how he “stumbled upon the daily experience of the Body of Christ-that inexplicable reality of brothers and sisters living together, working together, enjoying Christ together.” Once this kind of fellowship becomes part of a person’s life, it’s easy to understand how those early followers of Jesus shared their food together “day by day.”
Mostly, Josh shares and responds to a message that he received from a brother in Christ after they spent time together. Here is part of that message:
I was truly refreshed by being with the saints of God and those who feel very much like family to me. I was left with much reflection that night and the following day. Though we didn’t necessarily speak much in the way of doctine or revelation, I find that I was strengthened and refreshed through our casual talk and fellowship. Essentially, I am the better spiritually because we were able to get together. What a wonderful thing it would be if we could experience such communion regularly, be it with one another, or other brothers and sisters.
Later, Josh concludes with this:
[S]ometimes (probably more often than not), just being together with other saints is enough to bring our hearts into touch with spiritual reality.
May God haste the day when this is the kind of thing that comes to a person’s mind when they hear the word “church” and not all that other stuff we so commonly associate with it.
Yes! Exactly! “I am the better spiritually because we were able to get together.” This is what is means to share our lives with one another as we also share our lives with Christ.
It’s about life in Christ, not ideologies about Christ
I often write about different concepts and ideas related to being in Christ and part of the body of Christ, that is, the church. However, being in Christ is not about concepts and ideas. Being in Christ is about living.
When I first started this blog, I wrote about things that I was investigating in my PhD studies. However, I soon realized that I could not discuss ideas on a purely conceptual basis. So, almost everything that I write hear began with a real-life conversation or a real-life struggle or problem.
I was reminded of this last week when I had coffee with a good friend. We talked about the series that I wrote last week on the topic of unity. (See the introductory post called “Unity: The Series.”)
We quickly moved from discussing the concepts related to unity to talking about real life situations related to unity among the body of Christ. Then, our discussion moved from focusing on unity to focusing on our life in Christ in general. We talked about some of our recent struggles and some recent areas of growth and encouragement.
My friend made an observation: it is easier to live in unity if we actually share our lives with one another. Disunity pops up when we argue and disagree about concepts and ideologies, but we don’t share our lives with one another. My friend and I have seen this in our own lives, because we are able to live in unity with one another in Christ in spite of our differences.
His observation also reminded me of something my family experienced a couple of weeks ago when we spent a week in Virginia serving some people in the Norfolk area with other believers. We spent the week working together, not talking about issues of disagreement. And, there were disagreements – the kind of disagreements that have often caused followers of Jesus Christ to separate from one another. But, there was also real unity, in spite of those disagreements.
Our life in Christ is just that: life. It’s not simply concepts or ideologies about Christ. Instead, as John said in his first letter, it’s about sharing our lives with one another (fellowship) which is also sharing our lives with God the Father and with his son Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:3)
Perhaps, our struggles with unity would not be as difficult if we truly shared our lives with one another instead of spending as much time discussing issues, topics of theology, concepts, or other ideologies.
What do you think?
Replay: Community and Mission
Five years ago, I wrote a post called “Community and Mission” after talking with a friend who was a military chaplain. I loved how this friend described the importance of community to the mission of the military. How much more important is community (real community based on the presence of Jesus Christ among us) to God’s mission in and through his children? Jesus himself said that our unity with one another – which results in community – also affects our mission of proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ. (See John 17:20-21)
——————–
Community and Mission
A few days ago, I spoke with a friend who I had not spoken with in many years. God used him as a mentor for me over ten years ago. Since then, we have both moved several times. When I talked to this friend, I found out that he was working as a chaplain in a branch of the armed forces of the United States. (I prefer to keep this general, so I am going to leave out many of the specifics.) I told him about my interest in the church as a community of people instead of as an organization. I am going to paraphrase his response. I hope this encourages you as much as it did me:
As a chaplain, one of the most important things that I teach people is that this branch of the military is a community. But, we cannot be a community that only knows about one another’s life. We must be a community that is involved in one another’s life. If a fellow service member is struggling or having problems, we cannot let that continue without addressing the problems. The mission of this branch of the military is at stake. We must be willing to get involved in each other’s lives, to help one another through difficult situations, to support each other when needed. If we only know about one another, and know about other people’s problems, and talk about those problems behind their back, then we are setting up our branch of the military for failure. Our mission is of utmost importance, because the safety and freedom of the American people depend upon us carrying out our mission. And, the success of our missions depends on our ability to live as a community with one another.
How much more important is the mission of the church? How much more important is it that the church lives as a community with one another?
I love what he said about the military, community, and mission. And, he is exactly right! The mission of the church – which is God’s mission – is much more important than the mission of the military. The military (or at least this chaplain) understands the importance of community in carrying out its mission. Shouldn’t the church understand that importance even more?
I’m going to repeat what he said to the church: Our mission depends upon us living as community with one another – the kind of community that knows one another and is willing to get involved in one another’s lives so that we can all help one another as we carry out this mission together.
Replay: When community hinders God’s community
Four years ago, I wrote a post called “When ‘community’ hinders community.” God is building a community of his children, bringing together those who are saved by Jesus Christ and indwelled by the Holy Spirit. However, we can build a true community that actually hampers the work that God is doing in building his community. This happens when we build community on our own or when we find our “common unity” in anything or anyone other than Jesus Christ.
Community is hard work. But, are we doing the hard work of living in God’s community, or are we doing the hard work of building a different kind of community?
——————————————
When “community” hinders community
This is my second post in the “Community” synchroblog that is taking place this week. My first post was called “Community is unnatural today“. Glenn at “re-dreaming the dream” organized this synchroblog. Posts will be added to this synchroblog throughout this week by various individuals. If you’d like to take part in this synchroblog, write your post and leave a comment with a link on Glenn’s latest synchroblog info post called “Community Synchroblog“.
Community is simply a group of people connected by some common bond. It is possible to relate to other people as community based on many different things: location, vocation, hobby, age, children, school, etc. Within the church, it is popular to build community based on meeting location, rules, doctrines, and human leadership. However, these types of commonality are not the foundation for the community that God is building.
Instead, God builds his community (perhaps a better translation of “ekklesia”) on the person of Jesus Christ and the common fellowship that his children have with him through the Holy Spirit. The community that God builds begins with a relationship with God himself through Jesus Christ and the Spirit. But, community doesn’t end there. God continues to build that community through relationships with one another. In fact, you could say that these interrelationships are the outward signs that God is building community. But, it must begin with God himself – both his work and our relationship with him. Finally, God’s community does not end with interrelationship among his children. Instead, God’s community reaches outside itself and welcomes those who are not yet part of the community.
The outward-looking and outward-loving aspect is perhaps one of the most peculiar aspects of the community that God builds. In almost every other case, community because a boundary, both for keeping people in and for keeping people out. When community is not based on loving God, loving each other, and loving others, then the community quickly becomes isolated and independent – the opposite of God’s community.
But, what happens when God’s children decide to build their own community based on meeting location, rules, doctrines, or human leadership? Again, the community turns inward and becomes more about who is outside of the community than welcoming people into the community. Differences and disagreements and struggles, even among those who are brothers and sisters in Christ, become justification for not welcoming or accepting someone into the community. The “community” ends up hurting and isolating themselves from the very people that should help them form the community.
Thus, it is possible to build a “community” – a true community in every aspect of the word – that hinders the community that God desires to build – a community that is centered on Jesus Christ and a common love for God, each other, and others. In fact, I believe that many who write of loving Jesus but not the church, or who write of being hurt by the church, or who write of being disillusioned by the church, are living the after effects of a community that is based in something other than Jesus Christ – the type of “community” that expels easier than it welcomes.
Replay: Autonomous Churches?
Five years ago, I wrote a post called “Autonomous churches.” It was a follow-up to a post called “Autonomous individuals.” In Christ, we are not autonomous, either as individuals or as groups of believers. Instead, we are intimately and intricately connected to one another by the Holy Spirit that indwells us. Unfortunately, today, it seems that many specialize in separate and distinguish between followers of Jesus instead of maintaining the unity of the Holy Spirit.
———————————
Autonomous churches
In my last post, “Autonomous individuals…“, I began discussing a book by Abraham J. Malherbe called Social Aspects of Early Christianity (Baton Rouge: Lousiana State University Press, 1977), specifically his chapter called “House Churches and Their Problems”. In my last post I discussed how the early Christians saw themselves as part of an extended household – a family. But, how did these early Christian “households” relate to other Christian “households”?
Malherbe continues:
As the church grew in a particular locality, more than one house church would be formed. The scarcity of information on the house churches in the first century precludes our having a clear understanding of their interrelationship. Paul seems to have known of at least three such churches in Rome (Rom. 16:5, 14, 15), and there may have been more than one group in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 5:17) and also in Laodicea (Col. 4:15). Although they may have formed separate communities, such groups were not viewed as being separate churches. Luke’s description of the church in Jerusalem is not clear on this point, but it does convey the impression that he thought of it as one church despite the smaller groups that composed it. This is supported by his (and the Pastoral Epistles) relating presbyters, or bishops, to cities rather than to individual groups (Acts 14:23; 20:17; Titus 1:5). By that time, however, more than one house church would presumably have existed in most localities with which the literature is concerned. More significant is that Paul and his followers, although they knew of separate groups in an area, wrote one letter to the church in that immediate area, apparently on the assumption that it would suffice for all the groups (e.g., Romans). On this understanding, the individual house churches would together have represented the church in any one area. [70]
Malherbe recognizes, as Scripture indicates, that there were different groups of Christians in a particular area (city). But, these groups did not consider themselves separate or distinct from other groups in the area. Instead, they considered themselves to be part of the same church. Also, Paul and others outside a particular city recognized all of the believers – and all of the groups of believers – in that city to be part of the same church.
As God formed the believers into households, He did not form them into exclusive households. Just as individuals now recognized that they were part of something bigger than themselves, the individual groups of believers also recognized that they were part of something bigger than that group. Thus, it seems from Scripture, that the distinct groups in a location – while recognized by themselves and others as a church – did not see themselves as truly distinct from other groups of believers in that same location. In fact, they also recognized a connection – though perhaps a looser connection – with other groups of believers in more distant locations. For this reason, Paul could label each group of believers meeting in a home as a church, but he could at the same time label all of the believers in a city as a church.
An autonomous church did not exist in the early days of Christianity. In fact, Paul reminds the believers in Corinth of this several times in his first letter to them. In 1 Cor. 1:2, he reminds his readers that they are not alone, but “together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”. (ESV) Similarly, Paul reminds them that all the churches share common beliefs, activities, and teachings (4:17; 7:17; 11:16; 14:34; 16:1). The church in Corinth – even the church at the city level – was not an autonomous church, but was to recognize itself as being in relationship with the wider church throughout the world.
Similarly, in Romans 16, Paul expects and encourages the various “home churches” in that area to greet one another, recognizing some level of association between the different groups since the “greeting” was certainly more than a wave or a handshake. Thus, as the believers from different groups encountered one another – either in an intentional or unintentional meeting – they recognized themselves as part of the same church, not as members of distinct churches with little to no relationship between the two groups.
Invariably, when this idea of multiple groups (churches) recognizing themselves as one church is suggested, the question of leadership and control arises. If the different groups are a single church, then who is the leader? Who is in control? Who is responsible for the “meeting”? To me, these questions indicate a lack of understanding of biblical leadership. Biblical leadership is not about control, but about service. The leader is the one who serves. Thus, the true leaders are not concerned with being in control, but with serving others.
Similarly, this idea does not mandate a city-wide hierarchy of leadership. Instead, it mandates humility, gentleness, patience, love – in fact, the whole fruit of the Spirit – in accepting others and treating others as members of the same body – which we are, whether we accept it or not.
The people that meet in the building down the street – those people that we like to make fun of – they are our brothers and sisters. The people that meet across town – those people with the strange practices – they are part of the body of Christ with us. The people that rent the school auditorium – those people who are a little louder/quieter than we like – they are part of our church. We do not do service to the body of Christ by separating ourselves from other brothers and sisters who may be different from us. Instead, we demonstrate our love for one another by reaching out to one another, serving one another, accepting one another, learning from one another, especially when those “one anothers” look or act differently than us.
The autonomous church is not found in Scripture. Instead, the church in the New Testament recognized its mutual relationship with other believers in their area and their mutual need of one another (interdependence), despite their differences. And, where the believers did not think they needed each other, the biblical authors wrote against those practices and teachings.
Replay: The Church as Relational Organism
More and more, as I read books about the church, authors are recognizing that in Scripture the church is not an organization or an institution, but people. Four years ago, I wrote a post called “The Church as Relational Organism.” In that post, I referred to a few quotes from a book that I was reading at the time. The author was emphasizing the relational aspect of the church.
This is more than rhetoric. If we truly view the church as relational instead of organizational, it will change the way that we interact with one another.
——————————-
The Church as Relational Organism
A few days ago, in a post called “What is a ‘traditional’ church?“, I mentioned a new book that I was reading: Missional House Churches: Reaching Our Communities with the Gospel (Colorado Springs: Paternoster, 2007) by J.D. Payne. Primarily, I picked up this book because of the title and because it was written by a Southern Baptist. I haven’t read much concerning “missional” or “house” church from the perspective of other Southern Baptists, so I was intrigued by this combination.
Overall, I liked this book. As with almost all books, the author and I hold differing opinions on a few things. For example, when he is defining the Church/church (he uses “Church” for “universal church” and “church” for “local church”), I think he makes more of a distinction between “universal” and “local” than Scripture makes.
However, I appreciated his organic and relational definition of the church (I will use one term for both, like Scripture does):
What is clear from the Gospels is that Jesus came to establish a new community… The citizens of this new community were part of a divine kingdom and lived according to the kingdom of ethic that involved 1) love for the King, 2) love for others in the kingdom, and 3) love for those outside the kingdom. (26-27)
For the most part, the church today is defined and understood in institutional and compartmentalized concepts… On the other hand, the Scriptures advocate that the church… is primarily understood in relation to the kingdom of God through organic metaphors emphasizing 1) the relationship of believers to God, 2) the relationship of believers to one another, and 3) the relationship of believers to unbelievers. The church is primarily to be understood in simple relational terms. (35-37)
Similarly, when Payne discusses the various metaphors that the authors of Scripture use to describe the church, he begins with my favorite metaphor – the family:
The obvious meaning behind this metaphor is that the bonds holding together the citizens of the kingdom are as strong, if not stronger, than the bond of blood. Just as an earthly family loves, honors, protects, encourages, and cares for one another, the church must do likewise. (29-30)
My thinking about the church changed drastically when I began seeing the church as a family instead of seeing the church as an organization. I began interacting with people through the relationships that God created through his Spirit instead of interacting with people through positions and functions. We are brothers and sisters with the same father. That relationship is stronger than blood.
Replay: Learning to live dependent on God and interdependent on one another
Four years ago, I wrote a post called “Interdependence.” The post was written after a weekend in which I witnessed a man who refused to admit that he needed help and refused to accept help when it was offered (although it was clear that he did need help). That same weekend, I witnessed a friend admit that she needed help and other friends offer help. It reminded me that we are both dependent on God, and interdependent upon one another – as God often works through his children to help one another.
I hope this post is as encouraging to you as the actual experiences were to me.
———————————–
Interdependence
As followers of Jesus Christ, we are both dependent upon God, and interdependent upon one another. Unfortunately, society teaches us to be independent – neither dependent nor interdependent. We’re taught to learn for ourselves, fend for ourselves, care for ourselves, earn for ourselves, and do for ourselves. We’re taught not to admit that we need help from anyone nor to accept help from anyone. This is the nature of American society, but it is not the nature of the follower of Jesus Christ – he or she has a new nature.
This point was driven home for me last Friday. Our family arrived at the event location for the North Raleigh / Wake Forest Relay for Life around 5:15 p.m. We were supposed to drop off our canopy, chairs, tables, etc. – which we did. The committee was supposed to pick up our stuff and take it to our site – which they did. I was supposed to park my vehicle – which I did – while my family walked to our site – which they did. Everything was going according to plan.
Except… as soon as I parked our van, it started to rain. It wasn’t a slow sprinkle, it was a gully-washer – at least, that’s what we called it in Alabama. The entire time that I was walking – running – to our event site, I could picture my family standing in the middle of a muddy field getting drenched by the rain. Imagine my surprise when I reached our site to find that two teenagers from a nearby site had come to their rescue! The two young men were helping my wife set up the canopy, and they had pulled all of our equipment under the canopy. Those two teenagers were my heroes that night! After I arrived, I helped them finish setting up the canopy, and we stayed as dry as we could while the rain continued.
Not long after our canopy was set up, another team arrived at the site next to ours. The team – at this time – consisted of a mother, her teenage daughter, and two or three more teenage girls. My family helped them spread their canopy over their stuff. We offered to help them raise their canopy, but they said they didn’t want to raise it yet. Instead, they stood under some umbrellas and waited for the husband to arrive.
When the husband arrived, I again went over and offered assistance. I told him that some boys from a neighboring site had helped us, and that we would love to help them set up their canopies – they actually had two. He said no. He didn’t need the help, but thank you anyway.
We watched and listened as he struggled to raise the canopy in the wind and rain. He was obviously getting frustrated because his family was not doing things the way he thought they should be done. They often spoke loudly – shouted – at one another as they tried to raise the two canopies and keep their stuff dry at the same time.
When the shouting had subsided for a moment, and when tempers seems to settle a little, I again walked over and asked if I could help. He said… and I quote… “No, we like to fight while we do this.” I told him that I would be glad to help, if he decided he needed anything. Then, I walked back to my canopy.
As I think back over this encounter, I recognize the church acting in this stubborn, independent manner many times. It seems that even believers have the attitude that they can do everything by themselves and they don’t need any one’s help. It often appears that many feel that asking for help or accepting help from others is a sign of weakness or spiritual immaturity.
This is such a travesty and a misunderstanding of what it means to be brothers and sisters in Christ. God provides us with relationships with one another so that we can love one another, accept one another, help one another, give to one another, and serve one another. We cannot make it through this life alone – at least, we cannot live the way God wants us to live alone. We need God, and we also need one another. Independence may be an American virtue, but it is a Christian vice.
The next day, Saturday, my family was helping one our young, single, female friends move. (I mentioned this briefly in my post called “Weekend of Service“.) A few weeks before, this young lady began telling people that she needed help finding a place to live. Another family asked if she would like to live with them. They shuffled their boys’ bedrooms so that our friend could have a room to herself, and Saturday afternoon, a bunch of us got together, packed up her belongings, and moved her into their house.
After unloading all of the boxes, another friend brought dinner for everyone. While I was sitting there enjoying a homemade meatball sub, I remembered the encounter with the man who refused to acknowledge that he needed help, and refused to accept help when it was offered. What a stark contrast to my friends, one of whom acknowledged that she needed help and accepted the help that was offered, and a family who was willing to put their own comforts aside and offer help.
This is a beautiful picture of God’s family. Brothers and sisters recognizing their complete dependence upon God and willing to live interdependent upon one another. That evening, I couldn’t help but thank them and praise God for the example of community that he had shown me that day.
My friends Paul and Laurel are in the Congo
A few weeks ago, I published a post called “Is God opening a door of opportunity for us in the Congo?” In that post, I explained that some friends of ours (Paul and Laurel) were moving to the Democratic Republic of Congo.
After several long flights and a few days in Entebbe, Uganda, Paul and Laurel and their four month old son Noah arrived in their new home in Isiro, DRC a couple of weeks ago.
Paul and Laurel will be working with locals to create written versions of several local, tribal languages. It sounds strange to many of us in the west, but many of the languages in that region (and in other regions around the world) are only spoken language. There is no written version. When my friends visited the area a couple of years ago, they were present when a man wrote down a story for the first time even in his native language.
Last weekend, I had a chance to Skype with Paul and Laurel – and even Noah. So far, they are getting adjusted to their new home and beginning to learn Lingala. (They have already spent alot of time learning French, which is one of the national languages of DRC.) Soon, they will begin their translation work.
I enjoyed catching up with my friends, and it’s amazing how technology (like Skype) can help us continue interacting with one another even though we are thousands of miles away.
Of course, as I explained in the post liked to above, we are also praying about how God could use us in the DRC and how God could use our brothers and sisters in the DRC to help us. That’s right… mutual edification across continents.
So, what’s going to happen? We don’t know. Paul and Laurel have already seen some opportunities, but we’re waiting both for more information, for them to meet more people in their city, and for direction from God. We trust that if he wants us to work together with our brothers and sisters in the DRC, then he will make that clear.
Still… it’s an exciting time. Already, I’m learning about more things that God is doing half way around the world.