Longhenry/Jackson Debate on Benevolence

 
 
 Proposition: 
 The Scriptures teach that the church, from its treasury, may help any needy person.
 
 Affirm:  George A. Jackson
 Deny: Ethan R. Longhenry
 
 Peace be with you in our Lord Jesus Christ.
 
 I want to first thank George and Religious Debates for the opportunity to have this debate.  I hope 
 that it has served well to illuminate this issue and the truths contained in the Scripture.
 
 Let us examine George's final defense of this proposition:
 "The Scriptures teach that the church, from its treasury, may help any needy person."
 
 George:
 In spite of the fact that I have given the verse: "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good 
 unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith" (Gal. 6:10), and, in spite of 
 the fact that I have shown clearly that it was directed to the church, (Gal. 1:2), Ethan still "insists" 
 that I give him such a scripture.
 
 ELDV: 
 You have not shown clearly that Paul is discussing the church in Galatians 6.  You have 
 shown that Paul wrote the letter to the Galatian churches; this I do not deny.  Likewise, Paul wrote 
 a letter to Timothy and discussed the church.  Galatians 6 continues to be a non-sensical passage if 
 it discusses the duties of the collective body.
 
 George:
 We were afraid that maybe he would not be willing to accept the proof of our proposition even 
 when it was presented and he has proved this time and time again. I thought, that surely Ethan 
 would understand my use of the passage in Matthew but it seems that I must go into a long, 
 drawn-out explanation to show him all about it. Naturally, if there were no other scriptures in the 
 New Testament which prove that the church should help needy non-saints then Matt. 5:43-48 
 would not prove anything on this matter. But since there are other such scriptures, the principle set 
 forth in Matt. 5:43-48 may be used without doing violence to the Word of God. Next we have a 
 dissertation about pronouns that are singular and pronouns that are plural!  The fact is that 
 pronouns (both singular and plural) are used in the New Testament in reference to the church and 
 Ethan has still not told us how we may know in any given passage whether the church or the 
 individual is meant!
 
 ELDV: 
 It becomes rather clear to see whether a collective body is meant or individuals are met by the 
 duties discussed by just thinking and using the common sense that God has bestowed upon us.  Is 
 it possible, George, for a collective body to examine itself for sin, as said in Galatians 6:2? Or is it 
 the responsibility of each individual member of that body to examine him or herself for sin?  
 Again, is the whole collective tempted, or are the individuals comprising that body tempted?  I 
 could continue, showing clearly that the discussion of Galatians 6 is concerning the 
 responsibilities of each individual member.
 
 George:
 And we are beginning to think that he does not know! We refer the reader to Phil. 4:15. He thinks 
 I am straining I Thess. 1:3 to show that the church is to "love." But he was very emphatic in his 
 first affirmative to state the Bible teaches us by example, approved example. Now does it, or 
 doesn't it, Is this an approved example of the Thessalonian church showing "love," or not, and 
 while you are dealing with this, will you also explain Rev. 2:19 which mentions the "charity" of 
 the church. It seems that Ethan knows that if the Bible teaches the church as such to manifest 
 "love" he has lost the debate; that he has failed to successfully deny the proposition. This is the 
 only reason in the world why he would take such an untenable position as this. This, no doubt, is 
 also why he dropped like a "hot potato" the matter of the church being commanded to be honest 
 when the individuals in it are commanded to be honest, when we were discussing the 13th chapter 
 of Romans! If the church is commanded to be honest when the individuals in it are told to be 
 honest, then, is not the church commanded to "love" when the individuals in it are told to "love thy 
 neighbor as thyself"? Actually, if one follows Ethan's reasoning very closely, it would not be 
 necessary to produce any scripture which states the church is to care for the needy non-saints. All 
 it would be necessary to do to uphold my proposition (according to his own logic) would be to 
 produce the scriptures where individuals are told to do it.
 
 ELDV: 
 You have already attempted to destroy the Scriptural delineation between the responsibilities of 
 the church and the responsibilities of the individual, and I have shown where the Scriptures make 
 that difference.  It surely can be stated that the "church" loves, but it is because each individual 
 loves.  If there is no individual love, the "church" has no love. 
 
 We must remember that the Scriptures do speak of two kinds of action: the action that the duty of 
 each individual Christian, and the action that the collective body does as a church.  When 
 exhorting a group, as Paul does on so many occasions, he speaks of both actions, but always in 
 their proper context.  Will George posit that in 1 Corinthians 6, Paul is saying that the church in 
 Corinth should not take another church to court, or will he see that Paul is exhorting the group of 
 Christians that are in Corinth to not take any brother or sister to court?  We must examine the 
 nature of what Paul is saying, whether it is a deed suitable for individuals or a deed suitable for the 
 collective of local Christians.
 
 George:
 We have both pointed out, the church does all that it does through the individuals in it. The ears of 
 the church are the ears of the individuals in it, and, the heart(s) of the church is the heart(s) of the 
 individuals in it, and Ethan is forced either to the conclusion that the church as such may in 
 harmony with the scriptures care for the needy of the world, or else, he is forced to the conclusion 
 that the church as such can do nothing at all!
 
 ELDV: 
 Again, George is defying the laws of logic in his attempt to save his doctrine.  He is positing, 
 without any real proof, that if a statement is true, its converse is also true.  We all know that this is 
 not necessarily true!  It is certainly true that the church is nothing but the individuals that comprise 
 it, however, it is NOT true that the individual is nothing but the church.  More specifically, since 
 every individual is part of the Body, every action the individual does will have an impact on the 
 Body; however, not every action is suitable for both a part and the whole Body to perform. We 
 must look to the Scriptures to see what the responsibilities of the individual are along with the 
 responsibilities of the church.  Both are clearly there, clearly delineated, if only one wishes to see 
 them!
 
 George:
 Ethan says with emphasis. That the church is obligated to help needy saints only.  May I ask, just 
 for the record, where is the scripture for the above statement?
 
 ELDV: 
 This has been discussed in the former proposition.  The only New Testament example we are 
 given concerning the church as a collective supporting anyone as a benevolent work are 
 Christians, the ones in Judea as seen in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, and evangelists such as Paul in 
 Philippians 4:15-16.
 
 George:
 Now he doesn't like too well what I said about the "legal loop-hole" but nevertheless that is just 
 what it is. He said that if a woman were a member of the church and her disabled husband were 
 not, the church could help her and give her a lot more than was necessary for her own support so 
 that she could share it with her husband and children.
 
 ELDV: 
 Where have I ever established the latter portion of this statement?  I said that the church could 
 support the woman-- I never included that her portion should be larger than anyone else's.  The 
 level of support is to be determined by each local congregation.
 
 George:
 Thus, he has the church helping the needy non-member in this indirect way. Therefore, indirectly, 
 he has admitted that he has signed a false proposition. May we ask, Ethan if there are other such 
 "loop-holes" which will permit the church to help the needy non-saints? This is interesting and we 
 would like to know more about it. If the man in the example were only a brother in the flesh to the 
 woman who was a Christian, could the church still give her more than enough so that she could 
 share with her unbelieving brother? And, if this brother who believed not happened to be married 
 and lived next door with his wife and children, could the church give this sister enough and some 
 over so that she could share with her disabled brother and his family who live next door? Tell us 
 all about this in your next rebuttal.
 
 ELDV: 
 It is only in your distortion of what I wrote that you see this "loophole."  In the affirmations of the 
 previous affirmation, you completely skirted the question that lies at the heart of your loophole: if 
 a man is given support by a church, and he uses that money for sin, is the church guilty of sin?  If 
 the man goes out and buys cigarettes with the church's money, is the church supporting Big 
 Tobacco?   Surely no one in his right mind would accept this!  The church is only responsible for 
 the money when they give it out.  Once the money has left the hands of the church, it is no longer 
 their responsibility.  The church has the commandment to assist any of its own who are in need.  If 
 one is in need, and petitions the church, the church ought to give to that one.  The money is 
 certainly given in good faith that it will be used to assist, that the Christian may help fulfill his 
 Scriptural obligations.  However, if the money is not used in that manner, judgment will come 
 upon that individual, not the church.  The "trickle down" theory has no place in the discussion of 
 the responsibility of the church to its own.
 
 George:
 And what about orphan of non-saints! Will you take the position that the church has no obligation 
 in the care of these orphans? What "loophole" permits the care of these little non-saints from the 
 treasury?
 
 ELDV: 
 Either you are entrenched in dogma, or you have not been actually reading my rebuttals, for I have 
 stated every time how "non-saint orphans" are to be taken care of: by individual Christians!  You 
 have not yet answered the question: why would a church comprised of individuals who would not 
 take care of the orphan wish to take care of him collectively?
 
 George:
 Ethan continues to evade the direct question, "how may we know in any given passage whether 
 the church as such it meant or the individual is meant?" And in the letter to the Galatians, when 
 did Paul stop addressing the church and addressed the individual.  We call to the reader's attention 
 that if Ethan knew the answer, he would not permit us to continually press him on this point.! 
 Please, Ethan, will you tell us plainly just how we may know?
 
 ELDV:
  And as I have stated from the beginning, we know by what is written and the context.  We must 
 read each statement and see whether it makes sense for it to be a commandment for the individual 
 or a commandment for the collective.
 
 I must say that during this entire proposition, George has continually evaded the implications of 
 Galatians 6 referring to the church.  He continually presses that in Galatians 1, the letter is 
 addressed to the churches of Galatia, but he has not yet given an answer to the "revision" I posted 
 in my first rebuttal of how Galatians 6:1-10 would sound if the church were discussed, and how 
 ludicrous the whole passage would be.  I want this to be made known here at the end.
 
 George:
 I have contended from the very beginning that everything the church does, it does through 
 individuals, but this still does not militate against the fact that the Bible represents the church as 
 such as doing some things. (Acts 11:22, Acts 12:5, Phil. 4:15 and I Thess. 1:13.) So the church can 
 do anything the individual can do to promote New Testament Christianity.
 
 ELDV: 
 Herein we have the great fallacy within George's position which is Scripturally untenable.  
 George, where is the Scripture that says that whatever the individual can do, the church can do?
 
 1 Timothy 5:16 shows something that the church ought not do!  The church ought not support a 
 widow if that widow already has a believer who can take care of her.  Also, the church ought not 
 support younger widows, for they become restless-- they need husbands.  Would you deny that 
 individuals could support them?  Especially in verse 16-- the command is for the individual, not 
 the church, to assist the widows!  Therefore, it is clear that the church cannot do everything that 
 the individual can do, and there are some things that the individual needs to do as a part of a 
 collective.
 
 I see below your answer to my question concerning the Lord's Supper and the individual, and you 
 have very conveniently evaded it.  You say that shut-ins partake "alone," and ask if it is wrong.  Is 
 it?  Read 1 Corinthians 11-- you yourself pointed out that it is an individual action performed 
 collectively-- will it allow for one to partake of the Lord's Supper alone?  I see no Scriptural 
 authority for it.  I only see the Lord's Supper being partaken while being with other Christians.  
 The Scriptures DO teach that there are some things an individual cannot do on his own.  This 
 demonstrates clearly that George's position that the actions of the individual and the church are the 
 same is untenable Scripturally.
 
 George:
 I believe that there are many principles in the sermon on the mount which are applicable to the 
 church and which are binding upon the church and I think few people would agree with Ethan's 
 position that it applies only to the individual and not to the church. ( Matt. 5:43-48) He says it was 
 not directed to the church -- well, we all knew that it was not directed to the church-but we are 
 contending that it sets forth principles, which are binding upon the church and we backed this up 
 with several other passages of scripture.
 
 ELDV: 
 Really?  I do want to see a collective body pluck its eye out.  I also want to see how a collective 
 body can refrain from lusting; actually, I want to see how a collective can lust!  I see many kinds 
 of individuals in the beatitudes; I see attributes in the beatitudes that Christians ought to have, but 
 I have yet to see that a collective can have these attributes. Individuals can.  If these principles are 
 so binding on the church as a collective, surely George could have provided these references.
 
 George:
 So far as Ethan is concerned the church can do nothing at all! Even in letters written to the 
 churches. It seems according to him there are no commands in the Bible directed to the church!
 
 ELDV: 
 By no means.  The church is shown to have given to the saints in Judea, the church is shown to 
 have given money to assist evangelism, and the church is shown to have facilitated the partaking 
 of the Lord's Supper.
 
 George:
 He says it is directed to individuals Therefore, according to Ethan the church must pay her debts 
 So, what does this mean when the individuals in the church are told to care for "all men"?
 
 ELDV: 
 The church's duty is to facilitate its members.  For instance, Christians are commanded to 
 assemble, and assembly often requires a place to assemble.  The church then has the right to 
 facilitate this commandment, and does by owning a building.  To continually edify the church, the 
 building will need repair, along with temperature control and such things.  This represents the bulk 
 of the debts of the church.  There is no command for the church to assist "all men."
 
 George:
 Disregarding the fact that Paul said he was writing unto the churches of Galatia, Ethan still 
 contends that everything in the book of Galatians is directed to the individual Christian. He can 
 sees things in Galatians or Thessalonians being written to an individual. But he cannot see a thing 
 that is written to the church that could be a collective obligation of the church!
 
 ELDV: 
 I can certainly see things that are collective obligations when the Scriptures SAY that there are 
 collective obligations.  Assisting its own and evangelism is surely a collective obligation.  
 Assembly for partaking of the Lord's Supper is a collective obligation.  Even rebuke and 
 disfellowship is sometimes a collective obligation (1 Cor. 5).  George has yet to demonstrate that 
 merely because a letter is addressed to a group/individual that the material in the letter must be 
 addressed for the collective group or that individual.  George has been completely silent on Paul 
 writing to Timothy concerning the church, and rightfully so: he knows that this demonstrates the 
 error of his assertion!
 
 George:
 Paul was speaking to the church in Galatians 3:26-27. We certainly see all in the church had 
 become children of God by faith and obedience but they had done this individually. And all in the 
 churches of Galatia had been baptized into Christ and put him on, but they had done this 
 individually. Yes, he was speaking to them collectively and telling them what they had done in the 
 past to become members of the church. And he was speaking to them collectively in Gal. 6:10. 
 And Ethan will still be trying in vain when this discussion is over to show that Gal. 6:10 refers to 
 individual rather than collective obligation.
 
 ELDV: 
 George has not yet shown that the text of Galatians 6 is not redundant, illogical, even 
 contradictory when we substitute all the language used for the "church."  That text is given in the 
 first rebuttal if anyone is interested.  He has not shown how a collective body can monitor itself 
 for sin, how a collective can remove itself from a collective, or any such thing.
 
 Really, George is making the church something more than just the collective of individuals in this 
 affirmation-- he is making it an entity beyond the individuals!  If the collective church of Galatia 
 had been "baptized" because its individuals were baptized (a fallacy indeed), does this mean then 
 that since there was doctrinal error in the churches of Galatia, those churches had collectively 
 "fallen from grace?"  George, if one member of one of the churches of Galatia decried the 
 incessant demands of the others to circumcise and hold to the Law of Moses, would he still be 
 condemned because he is part of the collective body that has "fallen from grace?"  I do not know if 
 George believes that Christians are judged on the basis of their deeds-- he seems to be positing 
 that the collective body actually is judged!
 
 George:
 On the matter of James 2:1-26, Ethan says the families of the man and woman who are in need of 
 help are first responsible for their well-being, I Tim. 5:3-16. And I will agree with this all the way. 
 But now comes the "legal loophole" in the whole business! Read carefully what he says the church 
 may have to help the woman who is a Christian, and she is in turn obligated to help her family, (I 
 Tim. 5:8.) If this is not a "legal loophole" I have never heard of one! We can just quit the debate 
 right now, brethren, and from now on for the sake of peace, instead of helping a non-saint from the 
 treasury direct, all we'll have to do to please Ethan would be to help them through a friend or 
 relative who is a saint! It is alright, says Ethan as long as we don't give it to them directly. We can 
 give it to someone else and let them give it to the needy non-saints! And look what verse he uses 
 to prove it! I Tim.5:8! And he is the one who has accused me of misapplication of scripture!
 
 ELDV: 
 This issue has been discussed at length in the last proposition, and according to the rules of debate, 
 that is where it belongs.  George has completely remained silent on the implications of his 
 comments that whenever the church gives money, the church is responsible on how that money is 
 spent.  We see in the Scriptures that the church is obligated to assist its own in need; we are not 
 told that the church has the right to demand how that money is used.  The individual ought to use 
 it to fulfill his commandments that God has given him, one of which is to care for his family. If he 
 used it to support his non-saint wife or his pornography habit, will the members of the collective 
 body acting as a collective be judged?  By no means!  This collective is only responsible in the 
 realms for which there will be judgment.
 
 George:
 On some issues, some brethren cry: "Glorify God through the church, through the church!" But 
 now, on this issue, Ethan wants us to "Glorify God through the individual"! Well Ethan, if the 
 woman in my question is to take part of what the church gives her and give it to her husband and 
 children, the church would have to give her more than enough - is this scriptural?
 
 ELDV: 
 You have brought up this addition to my comments, an idea I never expressed in any way, shape, 
 or form.  Therefore, answer your own strawman as you wish.
 
 George:
 I would like to ask Ethan how we may know in any given passage whether the individual Christian 
 or the church is meant, in the letters written to the churches? Can we tell by whether or not a part 
 of a human being is mentioned, such as "eyes," "ears" and "hearts," is this how we can tell? Of 
 course, I'm sure that you would not say that we could tell by whom the letter is addressed to, 
 would you?
 
 ELDV: 
 Not necessarily.  In 1 Timothy 5, shall we say that Paul is referring to individuals since he is 
 writing to an individual?  You would be in a contradiction indeed!  Therefore, neither is it required 
 for Paul to be talking about the collective churches of Galatia merely because it is to them that he 
 is addressing his letter.
 
 George:
 Every scripture I mentioned in my first affirmative stands untouched! I used Matt. 5:43-48 along 
 with Rom. 13:7-10, Gal. 1:2 and Gal. 5:14, and also Gal. 6:10 don't forget this one. I used I Thess. 
 3:12-13 and I Thess. 5:14-15. I emphasized that Paul wrote unto the "church" and told them to 
 "ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves and to all men." And what did Ethan do 
 with these things? You can see that he did next to nothing at all. I also used James 2:1-26. In all I 
 used more than seven scriptures to uphold my proposition and they all stand for Ethan has not 
 taken away one of them.
 
 ELDV: 
 I have done much to show your misapplication of these Scriptures-- you are binding them on the 
 collective when they are meant for the individual. This is made clear in context, of which your 
 affirmations have been silent.
 
 George:
 I have shown by these scriptures that the obligation rests upon the church to do good unto all men 
 especially to those who are of the household of faith. And in doing so, I have thereby shown that 
 the church is to use its treasury for this purpose, since the treasury is one of the facilities available 
 to the church for such good work.
 
 ELDV: 
 No such thing has been done; you have just shown that you have built your argument on a 
 Scriptually untenable foundation that whatever the individual can do the church can also and then 
 justify it with Scriptures clearly addressed to individuals.
 
 George:
 And to prove my proposition beyond any doubt, we will let the apostle Paul speak for us in his 
 letter he wrote to the church at Corinth: " For the administration of this service 'not only supplieth 
 the want of the saints,' but is abundant also by many thanksgivings unto God; Whiles by the 
 experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of 
 Christ, and for your liberal distribution 'unto them', 'and unto all men;"'
 
 ELDV: 
 Hey, we agree-- the church is being discussed in 2 Corinthians 9. However, in verse 13, we read 
 that "they" are "praying" for the Corinthians! George, do you know of many praying non-saints?  
 (It should also be noted that George is misquoting the text.  Here it is:
 
 For the ministry of this service is not only fully supplying the needs of the saints, but is also 
 overflowing through many thanksgivings to God. Because of the proof given by this ministry, they 
 will glorify God for your obedience to your confession of the gospel of Christ and for the liberality 
 of your contribution to them and to all, while they also, by prayer on your behalf, yearn for you 
 because of the surpassing grace of God in you.
 
 Notice, please, that the text says "to all," not "to all men," as George has quoted it.
 
 George:
 How many scriptures has Ethan given showing that the church is to help "saints only"? The same 
 amount as he could give us where it shows one is saved by "faith only"
 
 ELDV:
 George is continuing to discuss this issue even though he provided quite a subterfuge in his third 
 rebuttal to the former proposition, not seeing that when Paul said to sing, that meant to sing only.  
 Oh, well. There are better examples.
 
 George, I have a question for you: would you ever accuse Jesus the Christ of adding to the 
 Scriptures?  Would you ever dare say that the Son of the Living God mishandled the words spoken 
 to Moses?
 
 Jesus, when tempted by Satan, said the following in Matthew 4:10:
 
 Then Jesus said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written, "YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD 
 YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY."'
 
 This is a quotation of Deuteronomy 6:13, and 10:20:
 
 "You shall fear the LORD your God; and you shall worship Him and swear by His name."
 
 "You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve Him and cling to Him, and you shall swear 
 by His name."
 
 George, the word "only" is not in any of these texts!  Will you now accuse the Son of God of 
 adding to His Father's Word, or will you see that when God makes a commandment, or shows an 
 example, and makes no other commandment and shows no other example, we are commanded to 
 do only that which is commanded or to do what is demonstrated?
 
 George answered my question the following way:
 
 Can not one pray by himself, can not one sing by himself, can not one "lay by" himself, Are there 
 not many on Sunday night that take the Lord's Supper by themselves, if they missed the Sunday 
 morning services? Do not some carry the Lord's Supper to "shut-ins" and to hospitals.? Is it 
 unscriptural?
 
 ELDV: 
 When did I discuss prayer or song?  We have commands to do both things in an individual and in 
 a collective manner.  George wishes to evade the question, and he knows well why he must: the 
 Scriptural answer is that there is no authority for anyone to partake of the Lord's Supper without 
 any other Christians present.  It is a limitation on an individual's ability to do "everything that the 
 church can do also," proving once and for all that there IS a distinction between the duties of the 
 Christian as an individual and the Christian as a part of a collective.
 
 It is clear, then, that George's proposition is based on a most faulty premise.  The Scriptures 
 clearly show that there is a distinction between what individuals do as individuals and what 
 individuals do as a collective. It is surely granted that there are things which the individual can do 
 as an individual and as a collective, but there is no Scripture for this to be an absolute 
 commandment.
 
 I do not know if George recognizes the path which he has now entered.  He wishes to make the 
 church something more than a body of individuals; he wishes to make it an institution that has the 
 responsibility to assist others.  The practice of institutionalism is well-named, and not because 
 they support institutions: they turn the collective of individuals which is the church into an 
 institution.  Anyone who is a proponent of this belief should look hard at the past fifty years and 
 see the fruit of this blurring of distinction between the church as a collective of individuals into an 
 institution in its own right: even more "liberalism," the building of gymasiums, kitchens, 
 fellowship halls, schools, and many other things, all supported by "churches," following after the 
 pattern set with the assistance of non-saints.  The end result of this progression is seen in the 
 Roman Catholic church, where the notion of church is so separated from its individual members 
 that they declare that the church is their "mother."
 
 The Scriptures teach that the purpose of the collective is the assistance of the individuals within it.  
 The church, as such, is never judged; the individual members are judged.  The church is the entity 
 going to Heaven not because of its nature, but because its individual members have been found 
 worthy of salvation.  This is why there is the insistence that the church do no thing that it has not 
 been commanded to do; it is not a coincidence that the church is only commanded to be of 
 assistance to saints!  The church IS the collective of saints, it works to edify and exhort these 
 saints, and no others, for it is a pure and undefiled entity.  To reach out and assist those who are 
 not a part of the fold weakens this pure and undefiled nature, for now the church is endorsing 
 those who are not Christians!  We have no such example in the Scriptures!
 
 I do believe that the proposition that George has attempted to defend has come to shambles 
 because it defies the purpose and nature of the church as described in the Scriptures.  Its 
 foundation is now a ruin, for it is clear that the individual as such and the individual as a part of 
 the collective DO diverge in responsibility, thus laying the groundwork for an exploration of what 
 ought to be done in each situation.  The only way that George has defended his proposition 
 Scripturally is to misapply and take out of context Scriptures like Galatians 6:10 and especially 
 James 1:27, of which he has been completely silent in his last affirmation.  I do hope that he has 
 seen that James is referring to the responsibility of the individual, and that his definition of 
 heauton was lacking.
 
 The only Scripturally defensible benevolence that the collective may perform is the assistance of 
 its own and any saint in the universal collective.
 
 I again am thankful for the opportunity to discuss these things, and hope the truths in Scripture are 
 now plainly evident.
 
 May the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirits.
 
 ELDV 
 Ethan R. Longhenry