$48.00 soul salvation scrutinized


Bailey Smith’s claim that he can get one soul saved for every $48.00 he receives has set me to thinking. He touts his “Save-a-soul-a-month ministry” as something that everyone–at least everyone who is concerned for souls–should support. He claims to make a convert for every $48.00 you send him. But how does Bailey Smith’s evangelism work? Others have already commented on his (in)famous “Wheat or Tares” sermon that gets church members “saved” and resaved all over the nation. So I will refrain from addressing the harmful results fostered by that message.

Instead, I want to focus on the fruit of his evangelism. After all, if he is encouraging folks to get in on the work of salvation at what he suggests is the bargain-basement price of only $48.00 a soul, people should know what kind of salvation is actually being promoted. Is it a salvation that lasts? Is it a salvation that builds churches? Is it a salvation that results in disciples? It would be helpful if Bailey Smith Ministries would make the statistics of his evangelistic efforts public. Such statistics obviously exist because he is able to calculate how much income is required to save one soul. But if those statistics are available to the public, I do not know how to access them. They could be compared to the number of lasting church members that resulted from his crusades and then we could at least have some indication of the quality of the converts that he claims to produce.

While those statistics are not available, what is available are the statistics from his years as pastor of what his website touts as the “second largest church in the [Southern Baptist] denomination,” which he began to serve when he was 34 years old. His website further notes that “Bailey Smith is the only man in Convention history to baptize 2,000 people in a local church in one year” and “He is the only man of any denomination to leave a 20,000 member church to enter evangelism.”

The church in reference is First Southern Baptist of Del City (FSBC) in Oklahoma. He served there from 1973 to 1985. Following are some statistics (compiled from the Annual Church Profile) from the last part of his ministry in that church. They put the above quotes from his website in a little different light, and provide a basis for gauging the value of his $48.00 converts.

In 1980, FSBC baptized 2028 people. The church added another 583 new members and reported a total membership that year of 15,539. This included 10,821 resident members and 4,718 nonresident members. As an aside, he was elected President of the SBC that year and his church gave 1.1% ($41,344) of its $3,488,130 reported tithes and offerings to the Cooperative Program.

In 1981, FSBC baptized 1164 people and had 501 other additions. Their total membership rose to 16,204, a gain of 665. The resident membership, however, decreased to 10,687 (a loss of 134) while the nonresident members increased to 5517 (an increase of 799). A charitable assessment might suggest that few, if any, of those 1164 converts stayed around long enough to become “resident.” Other assessments, of course, would suggest something far more serious. Another aside, Smith was elected to a second term as SBC president in 1981 and the church increased its Cooperative Program giving to 3.1%

In 1982, 1060 people were baptized and 512 others were added as members. Total membership rose to 17,240, a 1036 gain. The number of resident members rose to 11,642 (an increase of 955) and nonresident members increased to 5598 (an increase of 81).

In 1983, 1025 were baptized. An additional 463 were added in other ways. Total membership went to 17,803 (a 563 increase) and nonresident membership rose to 6073 (a 475 increase). Resident membership went to 11,730 (an increase of 88).

In 1984, 1006 were baptized and 426 others were added. Total membership went to 18,417 (an increase of 614) but the number of resident members dropped to 9868 (a decrease of 1862) and nonresident increase rose to 8549 (a 2476 increase). A total of 1432 new members were added, including over 1000 who were presumably the results of Bailey Smith-style evangelism, and yet the resident membership decreased by 1862.

In 1985, another 1014 were baptized with 426 other additions reported. Total membership rose to 19,487 (a 1070 increase). Resident membership rose to 11,291 (an increase of 1423) and nonresident membership dropped to 8196 (a decrease of 353). This is the year that Bailey Smith resigned and Tom Elliff became the pastor. This year’s total membership is what the quote above refers to, when Smith claims to be the only man anywhere who has ever left a church of 20,000 members to go into full time evangelism.

The statistics from 1986 are rather revealing, however, and cast a different light on the evangelistic legacy of Bailey Smith at FSBC. In that year, 732 were baptized. Another 406 members were added in other ways. Total membership dropped to 12,498–a decrease of 6989. Resident membership went to 11,010, a decrease of 281. The nonresident membership drastically dropped to 1488, a decrease of 6708. Tom Elliff evidently cleaned the bloated membership rolls that he had inherited.

Now, let me again make very clear that statistics do not tell the whole, or in some cases perhaps even the most important part, of a church’s story. I am employing them because they are so often cited by people like Bailey Smith to tout their own success and the failure of those who do not measure up to their numbers. After all, Smith claims to be able to get a soul saved for every $48.00 he is sent. The implication is that his evangelism is not only effective, it is efficient. But how does it bear up under statistical scrutiny?

From 1980 to 1985 Bailey Smith baptized 7297 people. We can suppose that most of these are the fruit of the kind of evangelism that promises to save a soul a month for every $48.00 given to his ministry. At the very least we can assume that he would call all of these 7297 people converted or else he would never have baptized them. Yet, during this same period the church he pastored increased in resident membership by a total of 470 people (from 10,821 to 11,291).

It took 7297 of Bailey Smith’s converts to produce a church growth of 470 over a 5 year period. In other words, it takes 15 and a half converts over a 5 year period to gain one new church member. Actually, it is much worse than that because this does not even take into account the other 2956 people who were added to the membership without baptism during the same period. Presumably, at least some of them stuck around.

So just what does your $48.00 buy, when you send it to Bailey Smith Ministries? If the last half of his pastoral ministry is any indication, it buys more false converts than we could possibly calculate. It finances the kind of shallow evangelism that has filled our churches with unregenerate members and sent countless numbers to hell with a decision card in their pocket. Those who truly love souls and love the only gospel that genuinely saves souls will have nothing to do with this kind of evangelism.

How long will this kind of shameless spiritual abuse be allowed to go on? How long will those who know better be willing to stand by silently while the honor of our Lord Jesus Christ is dragged through the mud by the proclamation of a false gospel which is no gospel at all? Spurgeon’s challenge is as pertinent in our day as it was in his: “Here is the day for the man. Where is the man for the day!”

Share this post:

36 Responses to “$48.00 soul salvation scrutinized”

  1. Aye…Tom, this makes me very sad. I’m not sure if I can write much other than that right now, except to ask a question that has been burning in my mind for a while:

    What are your views of the FAITH evangelism strategy? Do you think that it is misused by and large, or that it does just the opposite of this Bailey Smith stuff? Or, is it impossible to put a label on it exactly as either, given that it depends on who is sharing it? I would love your insights on it and a review.

    I would be the first in line to read it for sure, as this has been a source of grief for dear Christian brother of mine.

    A Slave of Christ,
    Dave Hewitt

  2. Tom,

    Your blog reveals the shallowness and ultimate futility of decisionistic evangelism. I fear that far too many “converts” become even more hardened to the gospel. After all, they “tried it,” but it didn’t “work.” Bailey Smith’s “Real Evangelism” is to real evangelism what reality TV is to reality.

    May God have mercy upon our Convention and return its people to a biblical understanding of conversion.


  3. “See yourself saved by the cross and with $48.00 a month you are bringing someone drowning in sin to safety.”

    This quote from Smith’s website is indicative of modern evangelicalism’s lack of biblical understanding. The Bible doesn’t say that we were dying in our trespasses and sins. It says we were dead.

  4. I have greatly enjoyed the criticisms of Smith on your blog the last few days. Get ’em in, get ’em wet, count ’em up and add a few! The prevailing method of SBC evangelism at its worst. I am interested–what has Smith ever said about Founders and/or other Calvinist SB’s?

  5. Thanks Tom for this post and the previous Bailey expose’. Unfortunately, this type of tare producing evangelism is precisely what is being promoted by Bobby Welch’s baptism emphasis in the Convention. Thank you for turning on the light switch in the darkened room of much SBC evangelism.

  6. Tom, I have served at some of the largest SBC churches on staff. The Bailey Smith stuff is hardly scratching the surface. Alot of Pastors at mega churches in the SBC hardly ever talk to their staff about: What is the gospel? What is a Christian.What elements must be said to say that we have preached the gospel? Instead alot of mega church Pastors require their staff to be reading business books that my own brother and father read in the business world. Many bloggers talk about wanting to see repentance and change. Then call these guys like Bailey and others and confront them. Should I share what I have seen with our guests to motivate to do so? I have had to repent in years past of preaching a false gospel!

  7. That is fascinating, if not surprising research. I wonder if any of the people who really need ot hear it are listening. Thanks Tom

  8. Yesterday, the Calvinist Gadfly posted this: http://www.calvinistgadfly.com/?p=60

    This posting was the result of a conversation he and I had earlier in the day, therefore I too, wrote Dr. Smith a letter, in which I cited similar statistics to him and asked him if this was the kind of church growth that he really believed was effective. I sincerely hope you all consider doing the same thing.

    Jonathan Moorhead said…
    Finneyism, pure and simple.

    Amen! Jonathan! I thought the same thing. Thus, I borrowed from Rick Nelson’s article in the Founders Journal (1998) on Nettleton and Finney and pointed out that Finney’s own contemporaries wrote that most of his converts fell away. I told Dr. Smith:

    I would love us to baptize a million, but not if it means that I should give $48 a month to your ministry because you, in your own words, guarantee results. You say, “I was at Peace Baptist Church in Wilson, N.C. and made the statement that for every $48.00 given to Bailey Smith Ministries someone will get saved.” Really, Dr. Smith, do you have a private hotline to God’s eternal foreknowledge by which you know that God will do such a thing?

    Charles Finney, the Pelagian, is the one that said that “revival is the result of rightly constituted means.” He also guaranteed results. Tetzel sold Catholic indulgences. He guaranteed results too.

    I also got to thinking about Dr. Smith’s history, and, given discussions we’ve had recently about Article 4 of the BFM 2000, I further commented:

    Fortunately, I see the old gospel being preached more frequently. This gospel talks about man’s inability to repent apart from the drawing and regeneration of the Spirit. Incidentally, this gospel, unlike the other is perfectly congruent with the BFM 2000 Article 4 which reads: “Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. (emphasis mine) Article IV, A.”

    I wonder, given the fact that our national convention requires its seminary professors, home and international missionaries, and denominational employees to literally sign that they affirm the BFM 2000, why should I send money to a ministry, that, I do believe, teaches that regeneration is the result of faith and repentance? Are you encouraging Southern Baptists to support a ministry that does not itself adhere to our common confession? I would think that this soteriological framework should be taught by our most prominent evangelists before any Southern Baptist gives to it since, in the words of the BFM Committee in the Preamble to the BFM 2000:

    “We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice.”

    Dr Adrian Rogers himself, ironically who teaches contrarily to Article 4 himself, said of the content of the BFM: “…we will state boldly that these are convictions we affirm as revealed in God’s Word-those cherished doctrines that define the Southern Baptist Convention and its churches.”

    I have heard you preach. If I recall correctly, you do not accept the Reformed doctrine that regeneration precedes faith, contrary to Article 4 of the new BFM. I hope I am wrong, but if you do not adhere to these “essential” and “definitional” doctrines with regard to soteriology as an evangelist and former SBC President, then how is it that I, as a Southern Baptist who has supported every phase of the conservative resurgence since its very inception, am supposed to consider giving you a free pass by joining the $48 a month club, while the missionaries, seminary faculty, and denominational executives, whom my Cooperative Program dollar supports do not get that same consideration?

    These are questions worth asking, and it is time that, if we can, we start challenging this. If nobody challenges these men directly and seeks to correct them, then we will have failed to discharge our own duty before the Lord. Let’s be sure to pray for Dr. Smith.

    As I concluded my letter…

    I urge you to repent of Tetzel’s error now. Don’t let yourself and your ministry go down in Southern Baptist history as the man and the ministry that sold Protestant Indulgences. Until then, the Johann Tetzel Award will be upon you. This is a dubious honor, please cancel this program so that it no longer sits on your mantle.

  9. You are right Gene. We must confront these guys. The time to sit and be quiet needs to end now! Alot of these men are poisoning their hearers. It’s great to participate in a blog but if it leads to no confronting then we are just rambling. I also sent an email to Bailey yesterday confronting him. I just let the scriptures speak for themselves.I greatly appreciate the ministry of Founders and professors like Dr. Tom Nettles and all the conferences that Founders puts on and the books and journals however if it’s not leading us to speak up directly to these men than lets shut up talking and dreaming. As I mentioned before in an earlier blog that I have served with several of these men in mega churches and you will not get to them by talking among fellow calvinists. Also, we need to hold so called ” Baptist Calvinists” that head up major denominational areas in our convention and ask ” How is it that you run with these type of guys”.

  10. How sad!! I heard Dr. Smith’s “Wheat and Tares” sermon as a Senior in high school. I saw many people in my church fearful for the wrong reason. Anyone listening to this message is lost – by his definition. I guess what really needs to happen is for Dr. Smith to buy a spot on TBN – “taking Believers nowhere” – and do his show. Oh, wait, that means the cost of “souls” would go up because of paying air time. My bad. Oh may God find us faithful to His Word.

  11. Tom,

    Thanks for this post… This subject of true conversion must be addressed by the Southern Baptist Convention or else before long there will be no wheat among the tares.

    When will Southern Baptist realize that the preaching of “a False Gospel” leads to “False Professions” which can only produces “False Christians” who then gather as a “False Church”?

    God is not honored in any of this, but he is instead dishonored. Romans 2:24 is rightly applied to this practice of selling salvation for $48… “For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you,”


    I am with you brother!

    It is long past time that we start holding the leaderships of the Southern Baptist Convention ACCOUNTABLE to our common statement of faith (The BFM2000). If not then the BFM2000 is a Lie unto each other, the world, and God!

    Great Stuff Everyone!

  12. Hey, I just had an idea. Let’s keep giving our money to our local churches and train ourselves to be faithful witnesses to the Gospel in our daily lives! I think I just cut down the price of souls saved by at least fifty percent!

  13. Young man, beloved brother in Christ, fellow Berean,
    Calvinistic comrade ~

    You are right on target regarding the rampant Finneyism that BS and a majority of the SBC pastors, and other current denominational leaders seem to think is biblically correct.

    How wrong they are!

    Your beard is cute!

  14. Tom, have you ever looked into the financial mess Eliff inherited when Bailey became the only man to leave the size of church he did to enter full-time evangelism? Corollaries anyone?

  15. Tom,

    Without a doubt I must echo all of the other posts in thanking you for taking up these issues. I just got back this evening from an associational meeting where several awards were given out to churches within our association that had “X” amount of baptisms. As we were looking at the numbers on the handout a fellow staff member sitting next to me commented on the fact that one certain number was rather impressive to which I replied what I would be interested in knowing was how many of those had become regular attendees. The expression on their face was like “What does that matter?” Sad.

    As we are confronting and praying for those in our denomination who have succumbed to these unscriptural philosophies let us also remember in our prayers those who are working for reform within these local churches. I know that there are many like myself whom God is raising up in the midst of these aberrant practices who need the faithful prayers of God’s people for wisdom.

  16. How many became regular attenders is one question. Here are some more:

    1. How many are under the age of 8? (Don’t laugh. SBC churches have Baptized as young as 4.)
    2. How many were rebaptized after being baptized at this or another SBC church? (This will be a bunch.)
    3. How many were rebaptized because their immersion in a non-SBC church was rejected? (I know there would be some disagreement on this one, but many other churches do practice believer’s baptism.) IOWs, they aren’t new believers. Just new Baptists.

  17. Well, let me add another sad development to this whole Tetzel like approach to salvation and the Christian life. I was in my local Christian bookstore this week and ran across a book written by a Dallas pastor by the name of Reggie G. Rush. The title of the book is, “May I Have Your Order, Please” (subtitled How To Get What You Want From God).He outlines six steps to get what you want from God in much the same way you order from a drive up at McDonald’s. He supposedly pastors a 14,000 member church called The Incredible Body of Christ (or IBOC for short). God have mercy on us!

  18. Thank you, Tom!

    Amen SCOTT: Now….

    I am ONE of those ‘men for the day’ Tom, and (as several here have said) when are we going to start heeding the bible’s warnings of false teachers, and start calling them as they are. GALATIANS 1…this stuff is VANITY, serving mammon, and needs to be rebuked. Where are the “MEN” called of God ? I am thankful for you and your work, Tom…and all you pastors who are willing to stand for the Truth…I am…

    …grateful for grace.

  19. Tom,

    You mentioned that others had addressed his sermon “Wheat and Tares” and his theology and methodology. Where can I find these criticisms? I went to http://www.baptisfire.com and found Smith’s sermon for download and listened to it. I didn’t really hear the gospel presented but scare tactics. I didn’t hear anything about repentance, saving faith, the cross of Christ, His atoning sacrifice, or the sovereignty of God in salvation. Instead I found him making everyone think they were a tare and a call to pray the sinner’s prayer and really “mean it in your heart”. I heard alot of stories about deacons and pastor’s wives getting saved, but I never heard Christ preached. It’s easy to see now how he can guarantee a soul saved for $48 dollars when he puts these type of scare tactics and peer pressure on his audience to make sure they’re not a “tare”. I have no problem with calling people to examine their lives to see if they are in the faith and to encourage them to make sure their calling and election is sure, but the Holy Spirit gives assurance of salvation. I wish Smith would have preached the gospel to these people and sat back and watched the sovereign Spirit of God regenerate dead sinners to life in Christ, instead of using these man-centered, weepy stories, and scare tactics. There is that show on Sci-Fi (I think) called “Scare Tactics”–that should be the new name for Bailey Smith Ministries.

  20. Here, we have an interesting phenomenon and how truly anemic this kind of evangelism actually has become and how alien the underlying soteriology is to the rest of Christian theology.

    We Calvinists do believe that our Arminian brethren preach the gospel, and vice versa. Our conceptual framework for our soteriology is very different, but, there are certain things we preach alike.

    A true Arminian has doctrine of prevenient grace. Bailey Smith, Jack Graham, Adrian Rogers, etc., if you listen very carefully, have no such doctrine. They spend a great deal of time tearing down the doctrine of total inability. However, evangelical Arminians, like the Wesleyans (who have errors of their own) do actually have a doctrine of prevenient grace and hold to total inability.

    Men are totally unable to come to Christ apart from this grace. God does give it to all men and this moves them to equipoise in their theology, but this grace is necessary. In fact, in the Opinions, I believe that the Remonstrants said that this prevenient grace was not given until men actually heard the gospel.

    Contrast this with Smith, Rogers, Graham, Welch, etc., who insist, exactly like Finney, that men are NOT totally unable, NOT DUE TO PREVENIENT GRACE, but to their own ability to believe and repent. This is extremely close to Rome’s doctrine. Rome, in theory, doesn’t go that far, but, since grace is conferred via sacraments validly administered under sarcedotal regulations, she certainly does practice it, since men are the ones that administer the sacraments ex opere operato to children incapable of believing on their own.

    The Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace renders our argument with them over total inability a matter of the difference between what they claim and the actual result of the doctrine, and it grounds our differences over irresistible grace a question of the effectual nature of the grace itself. Contrast this with these men, who have no doctrine of total inability, and, without a doctrine of prevenient grace, have a doctrine of “drawing” that has no grounding in anything except the general call itself. The Arminian says that prevenient grace comes to all men as a result of the atonement and the general call draws men to God as means, not that God uses the general call alone to do this.

    These men borrow their doctrine of election from the Arminians completely. They do not hold the same doctrine on the atonement as most Arminians. They want to hold to penal subtitution, but, on careful examination, penal substitution holds, at most, a secondary position in the hierarchy of effects of the cross in Arminian theology. Most have the sense to reduce the cross to a provision for sin and mercy, not penal substitution. Their best theologians, like Miley and Wiley, acknowledge that making penal substitution the primary meaning of the atonement makes no sense if the atonement is general.

    “Not so!” say Smith, etc. They fail to understand that, in doing this, they are responsible for the widespread conception that God loves all men redemptively and that men do not have to believe since Jesus died for them anyway, which is, frankly, a logical assumption under a general theory of penal substitution. We have these men to thank for unbelievers who say that it is unjust for God to condemn men for not believing if Jesus really paid for all the sins of all men. I agree. Thank you, Dr. Smith.

    I have heard Arminians teach that prevenient grace comes to men as a result of the cross. We Calvinists believe effectual grace was one of the spiritual blessings for the elect that resulted from the cross. I have never, ever, heard one of these men talk about any such grace, prevenient or effectual, coming from the cross.

    Finally, their doctrine of eternal security is antinominan to the core, and it is single-handedly responsible for more false assurance than any of the others. Men believe that they can pray a prayer and “really mean it” and be saved, but then they are taught that they can apostatize and still be considered true believers. Wesleyans rightly call this antinomian, and, thanks to this doctrine, I personally find talking to Wesleyans very difficult at first, because this is the first thing they attack, and I have to explain that this is NOT the perseverance of the saints in which I believe. While I disagree with genuine Arminians that they can have real assurance knowing they can apostatize, I also agree with them that assurance comes with growth and perseverance is a necessary fruit of true conversion. Not so, Smith, Graham, Rogers, etc.

    All this is to say that this “gospel” is completely divorced from Scripture and history itself. It includes, in my opinion, a form of sacramentalism of some fashion by relying on the sacramental prayer (I know good men and women who have had problems convincing their churches they are truly converted when they honestly say, “I don’t remember when I prayed such a prayer, all I know is that I believe with all my heart.”), decision cards, and an abused invitation system. It is inconsistently antinomian, trying to tell people to live holy lives, yet telling them at the same time, if they apostatize completely, they are eternally secure!

    No true Arminian believes these things except in form only. It’s true, that on the first four soteriological “points” these men and Arminians seem to agree. However, it is equally true that they seem to agree with us on the last point. The truth is that an evangelical Arminian sees as much of the first four points of his soteriology in these men’s theology as we see a resemblance between their doctrine of eternal security and our doctrine of perseverance of the saints. They are the same in form outwardly alone, but can be said to “deny their power.”

    We live in evil times.

  21. I am glad to see so many taking notice of Dr. Smith’s error. About two months ago I wrote BSM with some concerns I had after hearing about the $48 a month club and seeing his web site.

    I brought to BSM’s attention in the most humble way I could, what I thought was some shamless SELF promotion by Dr Smith. The e-mails I received back were extremly polite, but were oblivious to what we are talking about here. They are completely blind to what they are doing.

    Anyway, I feel better knowing that so many people I admire feel the way I do about this subject.

    P.S. Dr. Ascol, this is the Fred who went on the AOM cruise to AK with you. I hope all is well.

  22. Genembridges:

    You kept referring to Smith, Graham, Rogers, etc…

    Smells like….oops…I mean, sounds like Billy Graham to me.

    WHY IS IT, that Billy Graham can deny that one needs Christ, or that one can only have known Buddhism, or Islam, or other pagan religions, if that is all they were exposed to, and they were serious, Billy says (in his interview w/Robert Schuller) They shall be saved.

    Why doesn’t SOMEBODY (who has notoriety/a platform) call this what it is…HERESY!

    Frustrated in my humanity, but at peace because of His sovereignty…I am…

    grateful for grace.

    P.S. Thanks, Genembridges for the insightful commentary!

  23. Dogpreacher,

    Great point. I have often wondered why many hold BGraham in such high esteem. It seems that everybody wants to jump on the BSmiths of the world, but who will dare to call out the great Billy Graham? Especially in many SBC circles, Graham has achieved a level of ‘sainthood’ to the point that many get real upset when you hint that his ecumenical/easy believism methods are anything but scriptural.

    Let us show partiality to no man when we “test all things, hold fast to that which is good”.


  24. Anyone know why that page on Bailey’s site no longer works? Has he shut it down? Has it just been prey to a technical glitch? Have too many visited the site?

  25. Marie,

    It appears that BSM has taken the page off their website. If this is an indication that the “save-a-soul-a-month” ministry has been dropped, we should all be very grateful to the Lord and commend Mr. Smith for doing so. At this point, I have not heard anything definitive.

  26. Amen, Tom! For whatever reason it was, I pray that it was because of honest repentence!

    If they went on with this, I was going to propose us all showing up at Bailey Smith’s next speaking engagement and start singing Steve Camp’s “The Ministry” :)

  27. I have personally emailed Dr. Smith, and I have thanked him for removing the page. I also advised him to put up a short statement clarifying whether or not he has actually cancelled the program. I am reasonably certain he would not have removed the page if that was not the case. I have also emailed everybody in my address book that I know had heard about this and asked them to do the same.

    Let us restore the brother who errred by collectively emailing him and thanking him. Let’s show we can be as gracious as our Father in forgiving those who err.

    By the way, Tom, I had the opportunity to visit with Robert Scott in High Point, NC this past Sunday, whom I believe worked with you for a couple of years. He’s teaching through the NH Confession on Sunday nights right now. You taught him well. :)

  28. BTW,

    My apologies for calling him Bailey. I didn’t have permission to call him that. I was trying to be a bit sarcastic in that first post and it didn’t really work out.


Leave a Reply