Listen to the Campus.

From the Bishop’s Desk. I’m Bishop W. F. Houston Junior.

AI Is Not the Enemy—Undisciplined Humanity Is. A Christian View of Artificial Intelligence and the Church.

Beloved, the Scripture before us is First Corinthians, chapter ten, verse twenty-three, in the English Standard Version. “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up.

The Hebrew word before us is hokmah. Wisdom expressed as disciplined skill—the ability to bring knowledge into faithful practice without violating the purpose of God.

A machine may accelerate the work, but it must never inherit the conscience of the worker.

The Question Is Not Whether We Use Tools

Artificial intelligence has entered the sanctuary of public conversation wearing two costumes. To some, it appears as a mechanical messiah—promising speed, scale, convenience, and solutions without sacrifice. To others, it arrives as a digital demon—suspected of corrupting every image, contaminating every sentence, and invalidating every creative work it touches. Both responses are intellectually lazy. One worships the tool. The other fears it. Neither governs it.

The Church can’t afford either form of surrender. We aren’t called to become technological idolaters, nor are we permitted to become technological illiterates. We’re called to exercise wisdom. The biblical question isn’t simply, “Can this be done?” The deeper question is, “What does this serve, what does it cost, whom could it harm, and who remains accountable when it is finished?”

Paul writes, “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up (First Corinthians, chapter ten, verse twenty-three, English Standard Version). Permission isn’t the same as wisdom. Capability isn’t the same as calling. Speed isn’t the same as faithfulness. A technology may be available and still be misused; it may be powerful and still require restraint; it may be unfamiliar and still become a faithful servant of legitimate ministry.

The Machine Has Power, but It Has No Conscience

Artificial intelligence can process language, generate imagery, synthesize audio, identify patterns, reorganize information, and accelerate production. But it can’t repent. It can’t love its neighbor. It can’t stand before God and answer for what it has done. It has no covenant, no soul, no moral courage, and no spiritual authority. It doesn’t bear the image of God. Human beings do.

That distinction destroys the most convenient excuse in the digital age: “The technology did it.” No. A person selected the tool, framed the request, accepted or rejected the output, edited the result, and chose whether to publish it. Even when a system behaves unpredictably, human beings and institutions remain responsible for the conditions under which it was deployed. Technology can distribute agency across many hands, but it can’t erase accountability.

This is why the greatest danger is not that machines will suddenly develop a conscience. The greater and more immediate danger is that people will stop exercising theirs. When efficiency becomes our highest virtue, discernment begins to look inconvenient. When production becomes our god, verification feels slow. When reach becomes our righteousness, manipulation becomes tempting. The crisis isn’t merely artificial intelligence. It is undisciplined humanity holding amplified power.

Scripture Gives Us a Theology of Skilled Tools

The Bible does not name generative AI, but it speaks clearly about wisdom, craftsmanship, stewardship, truth, and responsibility. Exodus, chapter thirty-one, verse three describes Bezalel as filled with the Spirit of God, “with ability and intelligence, with knowledge and all craftsmanship” in the English Standard Version. The Hebrew word hokmah is often translated “wisdom,” but its biblical range includes skill—the disciplined ability to bring knowledge into faithful practice. Biblical wisdom isn’t merely possessing information. It is knowing how to use what one possesses without violating the purpose of God.

Romans, chapter twelve, verse two commands believers to be transformed by the renewal of the mind so that, “by testing,” they may discern the will of God in the English Standard Version. The Greek word dokimazo carries the sense of examining, testing, and approving what proves genuine. That’s precisely the discipline the Church needs in the age of AI: not reflexive rejection, not breathless acceptance, but rigorous examination. Test the claim. Test the source. Test the motive. Test the effect. Then approve only what survives responsible scrutiny.

In Latin, instrumentum refers to an implement, equipment, or means by which work is performed. AI belongs in that category: instrument, not oracle; assistant, not authority; mechanism, not master. The moment we allow a tool to determine doctrine, replace discernment, manufacture testimony, or simulate spiritual authority, we’ve crossed from use into idolatry.

An AI Label Is Provenance, Not a Verdict

Our public conversation has become morally careless. We see an “AI” label and assume deception. But a label can tell us something about process without telling us whether the result is true, ethical, original, or valuable. The Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity—the organization behind Content Credentials—states plainly that provenance information is not a value judgment about whether content is good or bad. It records parts of an asset’s origin and modification history. It can’t, by itself, tell us whether the content is factual.

That distinction matters. A responsibly created theological illustration may be AI-assisted and truthful. A camera photograph may be authentic in origin and still be framed to mislead. A human-written paragraph may be plagiarized. An AI-assisted paragraph may be thoroughly researched, rewritten, verified, and governed by a human author. The moral category can’t be determined by the tool alone. We must examine the claim, the intention, the authorship, the disclosure, and the consequences.

Social platforms use different combinations of metadata, Content Credentials, creator disclosure, detection systems, and watermarking. Those systems are evolving, and their results won’t always be consistent. Therefore, the presence of a label isn’t proof of wrongdoing, and the absence of a label isn’t a certificate of purity. A label is information. Truth still requires examination.

Transparency Must Be Intelligent, Not Performative

Responsible transparency doesn’t mean attaching a confession to every ordinary use of automation. Spell-checking, noise removal, color correction, caption generation, research organization, and visual composition do not all carry the same risk. Disclosure becomes morally urgent when synthetic content could cause a reasonable person to believe that a real individual said or did something that never occurred, that a fabricated event actually happened, or that a simulated testimony is an authentic witness.

The standard should be material truthfulness: Would the undisclosed use meaningfully change how a reasonable person interprets the content? If the answer is yes, disclose it clearly. If a person’s likeness or voice is used, obtain permission. If a factual claim is made, verify it. If copyrighted material is incorporated, respect the rights of its creator. If private information is involved, protect it. Transparency without judgment becomes theater; judgment without transparency becomes manipulation. We need both.

Human Authorship Has Not Become Obsolete

The U.S. Copyright Office has affirmed an important distinction: using AI as an assistant doesn’t automatically eliminate copyright protection. The decisive issue is whether sufficient human-authored expression, creative arrangement, or meaningful modification is present. Merely supplying prompts is generally not enough. Human creativity remains central.

That legal distinction also carries a moral lesson. Authorship is more than initiating a process. It is exercising judgment. It is selecting, rejecting, shaping, correcting, arranging, and accepting responsibility for the final work. If a person can’t explain the argument, defend the theology, verify the facts, or stand behind the finished product, that person has not responsibly authored the work—no matter whose fingers touched the keyboard.

At C H O F Ministry, technology may assist the architecture, but it doesn’t own the revelation, govern the theology, or replace the voice. The message remains subject to Scripture, disciplined study, pastoral judgment, and human accountability. We don’t hand a machine the pulpit. We use tools to strengthen the delivery of what has already been examined.

Responsible AI Is Governed AI

Serious institutions already recognize that trustworthy AI requires more than accuracy. The National Institute of Standards and Technology identifies validity, reliability, safety, security, accountability, transparency, explainability, privacy, and the management of harmful bias as essential characteristics. UNESCO likewise centers human dignity, fairness, accountability, transparency, and human oversight. The Church should not require less discipline than secular governance frameworks. We should require more because we claim to serve the God of truth.

For Christian ministry, responsible AI requires seven nonnegotiable disciplines:

1. Scriptural authority. No generated output outranks the biblical text, sound exegesis, or responsible theological study.

2. Human accountability. A named person must review, approve, and answer for every published work.

3. Factual verification. Statistics, quotations, historical claims, legal statements, and current events must be checked against reliable sources.

4. Material transparency. Disclose synthetic alterations when they could reasonably mislead people about a real person, event, testimony, or source.

5. Respect for persons. Protect likeness, voice, privacy, dignity, consent, and reputation.

6. Originality and rights. Reject plagiarism, deceptive imitation, and careless use of protected work.

7. Pastoral boundaries. Never substitute artificial companionship for human care, spiritual discernment, prayer, community, or accountable counsel.

The Church Must Educate, Not Exploit Fear

Pew Research Center reported in March 2026 that half of American adults felt more concerned than excited about the increased use of AI in daily life; only 10 percent felt more excited than concerned. That concern should not be mocked. People are wrestling with job displacement, misinformation, privacy, creativity, relationships, and the erosion of trust. These are serious matters.

But fear is a poor teacher. A ministry that uses public anxiety merely to generate clicks has surrendered truth to engagement. We must educate people to recognize both promise and danger. AI can increase accessibility, assist small organizations, accelerate transcription and captioning, support multilingual communication, help visualize complex ideas, and expand the reach of carefully governed work. It can also scale falsehood, imitation, bias, surveillance, spam, and intellectual laziness. Wisdom refuses to hide either side.

The proper response is neither “Use everything” nor “Use nothing.” The proper response is: govern every use. The Church’s credibility won’t be preserved by pretending new technology doesn’t exist. It will be preserved by demonstrating that innovation can remain subordinate to truth.

We’ll use artificial intelligence boldly, ethically, and under human theological authority. We will neither worship the machine nor fear it. We’ll verify what it produces, reject what is false, disclose what could materially deceive, protect human dignity, respect authorship, and preserve the irreplaceable responsibility of the human conscience.

Our Sugar-Free Gospel Resolution

Artificial intelligence is not the enemy. Deception is the enemy. Laziness is the enemy. Greed without restraint is the enemy. Power without accountability is the enemy. The abandonment of thought is the enemy. A machine may amplify all of them, but it didn’t invent them. They were already resident in the human heart.

Therefore, we won’t permit a cultural panic to shame responsible creativity, and we won’t permit technological enthusiasm to silence necessary examination. We’ll remain Bold enough to use what serves the mission, Brass enough to confront what corrupts it, and Sure enough to ground every conclusion in Scripture, evidence, and disciplined reasoning.

The machine is not the master. It is not the messenger. It is not the mind of Christ. It is a tool—and every tool must remain in the hands of accountable people whose wisdom is greater than their appetite for speed.

From the Bishop’s Desk. Sugar-Free Gospel. Pure Truth. No Filler. Igniting Faith, Elevating Wisdom, Transforming Lives. To God be the glory!

C H O F Ministry. Unified Manna. Thursday Formation. Devotion 146.

You Cannot Shepherd What You Insist on Owning

By Bishop W. F. Houston Junior.

God entrusts people to our care; He does not surrender them to our control.

FOUNDATIONAL SCRIPTURE. ESV

“not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.”

1 Peter 5:3 (ESV)

WISDOM WHISPERS

“When your care requires their captivity, your leadership has crossed into ownership.”

— Bishop W. F. Houston Jr.

THE DEVOTION

Beloved, a person can leave your organization without leaving Jesus Christ. If that possibility threatens your identity, the first examination belongs inside you.

Monday’s devotion confronted the politics we call ministry. Today, the examination moves beneath our methods to our understanding of people. Have we received them as persons entrusted to our care—or recruited them as possessions necessary to our importance?

Peter addresses elders in congregations experiencing suffering. He identifies himself as a fellow elder and a witness to Christ’s sufferings. His instruction joins genuine oversight to willingness, eagerness, and exemplary conduct. He prohibits exploitation and domination. These responsibilities stand together: the presence of authority never excuses its misuse.

The flock belongs to God. Elders receive an assignment within it. Entrustment gives us responsibility; it does not transfer ownership.

That distinction reaches into the ordinary language of ministry. “My members” may express affection and responsibility. It becomes dangerous when it means, “Their conscience, relationships, opportunities, and future must revolve around my approval.” Language alone does not establish the offense. Conduct reveals what the language means.

Can someone question your interpretation without becoming your enemy? Can another teacher help them grow without becoming your rival? Can a concern about your conduct receive a fair hearing when you are the person being questioned?

The word that exposes the method

Greek: — katakyrieuō, “to lord it over” or “domineer.” In verse 3, Peter uses the form katakyrieuontes. His contrast with leading by example identifies a prohibited way of exercising influence. He is addressing how leaders treat those under their care; he is not abolishing the responsibility to lead.

Here is the contemporary application: a spiritual title does not make coercion holy. Threatening someone’s standing with God to secure personal loyalty is a grave misuse of spiritual influence.

Yet faithful correction can be uncomfortable. A teacher may need to challenge error, establish appropriate boundaries, or remove someone from a responsibility they have misused. Discomfort alone does not prove domination. The questions are whether the correction is grounded in truth, proportionate, open to examination, and directed toward protection and restoration rather than personal retaliation.

A leader who demands accountability must also be accountable.

The teacher cannot become the one person in the room whom the teaching is forbidden to examine. A congregation needs a credible way to raise concerns, assess evidence, and address misconduct. An appeal process controlled entirely by the person accused offers little protection against that person’s misuse of power.

The Shepherd above the shepherd

Peter places every elder beneath Christ, the chief Shepherd, and points toward His appearing. That future reorders present ambition. Approval from a loyal circle cannot replace faithfulness before the Lord.

The gospel also prevents this devotion from becoming a program of leadership self-improvement. Christ suffered for sins to bring us to God (1 Peter 3:18). We cannot purchase that reconciliation with impressive service. We receive His grace, repent of our sin, and learn to serve as people who themselves need a Savior.

That leaves room for genuine repentance. A controlling leader can confess wrong, surrender inappropriate power, accept outside examination, and repair what can be repaired. Forgiveness does not automatically restore someone to office or erase consequences. Repentance must become visible in changed conduct over time.

Peter’s immediate audience here is elders. We should preserve that specificity. By application, however, every believer who teaches, mentors, or offers spiritual direction must examine the influence they exercise. Helping someone understand Scripture does not make you the owner of their obedience.

Put the teaching into practice

Today, examine one relationship in which you carry influence. Name one place where your preference has been presented as God’s command. Correct that claim plainly. If you have wronged someone, acknowledge the specific wrong without requiring them to comfort you or quickly restore trust.

Then ask: Does my teaching help this person examine Scripture faithfully, or train them to repeat me without examination?

If you receive leadership, remain teachable while testing teaching and conduct. Neither unquestioning loyalty nor automatic suspicion is spiritual maturity. Seek truth, trustworthy counsel, and appropriate protection where harm has occurred.

The measure of faithful influence is not how difficult you make it for people to leave. It is how faithfully you help them follow Christ.

Continue from Monday: The Politics We Call “Ministry”.

Read the passage: 1 Peter 5, ESV. Language reference: 1 Peter 5:3 Greek lexicon.

Let Us Go Into The Throne Room Of Grace And Mercy.

Prayer

Father, expose the pride that confuses responsibility with possession. Forgive us where we have used Your name to defend our preferences. Through Jesus Christ, teach us to lead under Your authority, receive correction, and protect those entrusted to our care. Give wounded people wise support and safety. Make our repentance specific, our accountability honest, and our service faithful. We ask these things in the name of Jesus Christ.

TO GOD BE THE GLORY!

BENEDICTION

Beloved, may Christ govern the influence you carry, strengthen your courage to receive correction, and make your care a place where truth can be heard without fear of retaliation.

Sugar-Free Gospel. Pure Truth. No Filler. Return to the Unified Manna table on Monday and Thursday.

C H O F Ministry. Wisdom Whispers. When Obedience Has Conditions. By Bishop W. F. Houston Junior.

“Some people are not waiting on God. They are waiting on God to agree with them.”

SCRIPTURE ANCHOR. Jeremiah 42:20 (ESV, excerpt)

“Whatever the LORD our God says, declare to us and we will do it.”

HEBREW WORD STUDY

shāmaʿ

To hear or listen; in contexts such as Jeremiah 42:6 and 43:4, to heed or obey. Brown–Driver–Briggs includes both hearing and obedience within the verb’s range. Context determines the sense: hearing sounds and submitting to instruction are not interchangeable in every occurrence.

Beloved, if God’s answer challenges your preference, will your “yes” still stand? There is a form of religious consultation that permits God to speak only on the condition that He confirms what we have already decided. The question sounds open. The decision remains closed. Our prayers deserve examination at precisely that point.

READ THE SCENE — Jeremiah 42:1–6 records a remnant asking for guidance and promising obedience. After ten days, Jeremiah delivers the answer: remain in Judah; do not seek security in Egypt (42:7–19). The passage names their fear of Babylon and their desire to escape war and hunger. God’s direction confronts a real crisis, not a trivial preference.

THE PROMISE MEETS THE ANSWER — In 42:20, Jeremiah recalls their pledge; the next verse exposes their failure to obey. In 43:1–4, the leaders accuse him of lying and claim Baruch has influenced him. They subsequently take the remnant into Egypt, along with Jeremiah and Baruch (43:5–7). The narrative gives us a promise, a contrary response, and a disobedient action. The quotation on this page is our contemporary application of that sequence, not a sentence spoken by Jeremiah.

WHEN CONSULTATION BECOMES A VETO — We can seek counsel while quietly retaining the right to discard every answer that unsettles us. We can call this patience, discernment, or waiting for peace. Those practices have legitimate places in Christian life. But they become evasions when no evidence is allowed to correct the conclusion. A useful test is simple: what would I accept as sufficient reason to change my mind? If the honest answer is “nothing,” I should stop pretending that my position is still under examination.

FEAR CAN DESCRIBE A DANGER WITHOUT DECIDING OUR DUTY — A frightened person needs compassion, sound judgment, and practical care. Fear does not automatically prove unbelief. Yet fear must not become the final interpreter of every command. Our desire for relief can make one option appear unquestionable before we have examined whether it is faithful. The application is to bring our fears into honest scrutiny rather than dress every preferred escape in spiritual language.

TEST THE CLAIM TO AUTHORITY — Jeremiah’s authority in this account rests on the biblical narrator’s identification of his message as God’s word. A modern preacher, counselor, or ministry leader cannot simply assign himself Jeremiah’s position. Disagreement with a leader is not automatically rebellion against God. Examine teaching in its scriptural context, ask responsible questions, and remain open to correction. This passage does not command someone to remain in danger, tolerate abuse, or treat a private impression as an unquestionable divine order.

THE TEACHER MUST STAND UNDER THE TEXT — Those of us who teach must apply this examination to ourselves. Are we willing to revise a cherished interpretation when the passage does not support it? Can we distinguish a biblical command from a ministry custom, a personal conviction, or an administrative preference? Teaching with conviction carries the responsibility to show our reasoning. Authority becomes more trustworthy when it welcomes examination and admits the limits of its claims.

PRACTICE AN ANSWERABLE YES — Name one decision you are currently weighing. Write down the outcome you prefer and why. Then identify what Scripture actually establishes, what remains uncertain, and where trustworthy counsel could correct your reasoning. Do not manufacture a command where Scripture leaves a matter to wisdom. Where the obligation is clear, identify one concrete act of obedience. The goal is neither impulsiveness nor endless postponement; it is a willingness to act on truth we have responsibly understood.

Beloved, surrender does not require pretending that every answer is easy. It requires refusing to make our comfort the condition of God’s authority. We may bring our questions, grief, and fears before Him. We must also bring a willingness to be corrected. Let our “yes” become a commitment we practice when obedience costs us the approval of our own preferences.

To God Be the Glory.

Question for reflection.

“Beloved, if God’s answer challenges your preference, will your “yes” still stand?”

Scripture and study references are provided with the written reflection. Sugar-Free Gospel. Pure Truth. No Filler.

C H O F Ministry. The Gatekeeping Series. Part Four. Wounded at the Door. By Bishop W. F. Houston Junior.

Foundational Scripture. Ezekiel chapter thirty-four, verses one through sixteen. Read the full passage in context before beginning the teaching.

Some people approach a ministry carrying an injury they learned to conceal in another one. They can still explain the doctrine. They still remember the songs. What has become difficult is trusting the people who speak in God's name. Before we demand an explanation for their distance, we should examine what happened when they came close.

Ezekiel 34 gives teachers a necessary discipline: examine the shepherding before condemning the scattering. This is not a method for declaring every disappointed person innocent of every wrong. It is a demand that leaders answer for their own conduct without making someone else's conduct an excuse.

The chapter addresses Israel's shepherds within Ezekiel's exilic setting. It follows the report of Jerusalem's fall in chapter 33. Its horizon includes Israel's failed leadership, dispersed people, and promised restoration. Christian application must preserve that history. We cannot reduce the passage to a description of one unpleasant encounter at church.

In verses 2–6, leaders benefit from the flock while neglecting its needs. Vulnerability meets harshness. Scattering follows failed care. Verses 7–10 announce God's opposition to these shepherds and the termination of their exploitation. Verses 11–16 promise God's own searching, gathering, nourishment, and just care. The movement is from leadership's betrayal to God's intervention. Ezekiel 34. ESV

The Hebrew verb —rāʿâ means to tend, pasture, or shepherd. Its ordinary association with feeding helps illuminate the accusation: the people holding responsibility for provision have made themselves the beneficiaries of neglect. The word does not establish a modern leadership model by itself; the surrounding passage supplies the moral indictment. Hebrew word reference: rāʿâ

A title can identify a responsibility. It cannot prove that the responsibility is being fulfilled. When a ministry measures success only by what people contribute, it may overlook what happens to them while they contribute. The calendar stays full. The reputation grows. Meanwhile, those carrying the heaviest burdens learn that requesting help will be interpreted as insufficient commitment.

This is why spiritual harm demands more than polished reassurance. A statement that a ministry loves people must be tested against its treatment of people who cannot enhance its reputation. Consider the member who raises a concern, the volunteer who needs to stop, or the learner who admits confusion. What does our response reveal about the kind of care we actually provide?

Ezekiel's indictment also challenges the assumption that preserving a leader's position always preserves the flock. God can oppose the shepherds precisely because the sheep matter. Applied carefully, that principle means a ministry must be capable of removing responsibility from a person who has misused it. Continuity of office cannot outrank the well-being of those entrusted to that office.

Here we must resist a destructive shortcut: asking the injured person to make the situation comfortable before the truth has been faced. Reconciliation cannot be manufactured through a photograph, an embrace, or a public announcement. Forgiveness must never become a demand that someone restore access, abandon protective boundaries, or treat an unexamined apology as evidence of change.

Nor should a harmed person have to perform their pain publicly to make leadership take it seriously. Listening requires patience, careful attention to what is being reported, and a willingness to investigate without predetermined conclusions. Fair examination protects against careless accusations and institutional concealment. Neither the influence of the accused nor the status of the person reporting harm should settle the matter.

The promise of divine shepherding supplies a different picture of authority. God attends to people who have become scattered and vulnerable. This offers pastoral hope without promising that every wound will disappear quickly. A responsible teacher does not attach a spiritual deadline to another person's recovery or make immediate participation the proof that faith has returned.

For someone who has been wounded, a modest next step may be enough: reading a passage, asking an honest question, or speaking with a trustworthy person who respects boundaries. Participation can grow through freely chosen steps. A ministry worthy of trust allows people to observe its conduct rather than insisting that trust precede all evidence.

Faithful correction remains necessary. Its character matters. Correction identifies a real issue, explains the relevant truth, and seeks the person's good. Coercion recruits shame and fear to protect the authority figure. The difference becomes especially visible when the person asks for clarification. Can the leader explain the concern without claiming that examination itself dishonors God?

Teachers should ask concrete questions of their own practice. Who can challenge our account of an event? What happens when the concern involves someone important? Do our procedures protect a vulnerable person from retaliation? Have we acknowledged harm specifically, or hidden it beneath vague language about imperfect people? These questions require observable answers.

The final note of justice in verse 16 prevents us from turning care into mere pleasantness. In the following verses, God also confronts aggression within the flock. Restoration includes opposition to conduct that makes others unsafe. A welcoming ministry therefore needs both patience toward the wounded and firm resistance to exploitation. Mercy has enough substance to protect.

We teach teachers. That assignment requires us to prepare people to recognize faithful care, including the care we ourselves owe. Every lesson about leadership should eventually reach the person who has little influence and much to lose. What would our teaching permit us to do to that person? What would it require us to do for them?

If you were wounded at a ministry's door, the failure of those who received you does not establish that God has discarded you. And if you hold that door for others, do not ask your reputation to answer questions that only your conduct can answer. Let care become visible, accountability become credible, and truth become safe to speak.

Let Us Go Into The Throne Room Of Grace And Mercy.

Father, attend to those who have been wounded where they expected care. Give them room to speak truth without pressure to conceal their pain. Surround them with trustworthy people who respect their dignity and boundaries.

Examine us who teach and lead. Expose neglect, coercion, and the desire to protect ourselves at another person's expense. Give us courage to investigate honestly, acknowledge wrong specifically, and change our conduct. Teach us to exercise authority with justice, patience, and faithful care.

TO GOD BE THE GLORY!

Benediction.

Beloved, may you encounter care that honors truth, boundaries that protect dignity, and teaching that strengthens discernment. May those entrusted to your influence find patience, integrity, and a faithful witness to the Shepherd's concern.

Scripture and study references are provided with the written teaching. Sugar-Free Gospel. Pure Truth. No Filler.