Seven
Mission Goals for 2007
1.
An active youth ministry in place by the end of the year
2.
Hosting a quarterly Friends and Family Sunday (where we
invite non-believing family and friends to church)
3.
100% parish participation in the Franklin Graham festival
(i.e. everyone gets trained and brings a non-believing friend
to the festival itself)
4.
The vestry is seeking100% participation in Bible Study.
5
At least 30 new believers by this time next year.
6.
An active discipling program by the end of the year with
at least 4 leaders in discipling relationships.
7.
gathering at least 100 people for worship every Sunday.
Dear
Good Shepherd,
Good
Morning. There is a lot of news this morning so please read
the whole thing.
In
Christ,
Matt
WEEKLY
ARTICLE:
Scripture
and the Created Order part 3: A Response to Fr. Tobias Haller's
"True Union"
by
the Rev. Matt Kennedy
This
week's article is the fourth installment of my response
to Fr. Tobias Haller's series entitled "True Union".
I'm still working my way through his second article. Partly
this is due to my increasingly busy schedule but mostly
it is due to my desire to take Fr. Haller's argument seriously
and to respond as fully as possible.
I find the scriptural component of Fr. Haller's argument
both fascinating and confused. It is a study in eisogesis
and yet it is eisogesis brilliantly done. The conclusions
he draws are wholly unsupported by the texts to which he
appeals but I can understand how he comes to them. Without
intending any offense to Fr. Haller, I must confess that
I find his use of scripture uncomfortably familiar. It is
precisely the sort of thing I do when harboring and defending
a beloved habit of thought, word, or deed against divine
conviction. I seek refuge in suppression and rationalization.
This is not an entirely conscious thing. At my worst moments
I do it naturally. I do not at all doubt Fr. Haller's sincerity
or integrity, but his conclusions are so strained, I tend
to wonder whether they are born out of the same sort of
avoidance into which we all sometimes fall. God calls us
and we hide because we are naked before him.
I continue my response in the latter half of Fr. Haller's
second Article: Pro-Creation
Fr.
Haller's words are italicized, scripture is in bold and
my words are in regular font.
“Beginnings
and ends
“… Genesis
1 is a creation account, an account intended to explain
the origin of certain things. As such, it is quite natural
that — as with many other creation stories the world over
— it should recount the creation of the sexes. Procreation
— a function of the sexes both in animals and in humans
(as Genesis
1 states explicitly) — is intended to fill the world
with living things. But this is, after all, the first word
on sexuality, not the last.”
Indeed, and just so that we keep in mind the full witness
of scripture and not let this one account of human sexuality
stand alone we should note that among those not partaking
of the marriage feast in the City are those who unrepentantly
practice sexual immorality ( Revelation
22:15 ) which, as both Testaments reveal ( Leviticus
18:22 , Romans
1:18-32, 1 st Corinthians
6:9 ) includes those who engage, unrepentantly, in homosexual
sexual intercourse.
I have already addressed Fr. Haller's strange and unwarranted
conjoining of human and bestial procreation in my
latest response . He seems bent on joining together
what the text of Genesis
1 clearly separates. Certainly both beasts and human
beings are commanded to be fruitful and fill the earth but
something beautiful happens between verses 22 and 28 that
Fr. Haller seems to set aside and ignore. God creates man
and woman in his own image. The command to be fruitful and
multiply to the beasts comes on the fifth day in verse 22.
Humans are commanded to do the same on the sixth day subsequent
to and in the context of our being created in God's image.
It's difficult to understand how Fr. Haller avoids the distinction
between the two commands and glosses over the inestimable
significance of the presence of the imago dei in human procreation.
Don't miss, moreover, the subtle relativization of the text
of Genesis
1 in Fr. Haller's first line. He sets Genesis
1 alongside other creation accounts. When this sort
of thing is done it generally signals the first move in
an attempt to deemphasize at best or reject at worst the
divine origin of the biblical text, disarming and dismissing
it as the product of ancient cosmological superstition and
ignorance. That seems, unfortunately, to be Fr. Haller's
aim here: Genesis
1 is merely the Hebrew account of cosmic origin no
more significant than any other ancient culturally bound
account and, therefore, it's focus on procreation ought
not to be taken as seriously as it has in the past.
“This
is,” after all, “the
genesis of the world, not its intended end. The scriptural
testimony may begin in a Garden, but it ends in a City,
where the only marriage is that of the Lamb and his Bride,
the Holy City itself. The goal and eternal plan of God is
not mere restoration or recapitulation, but redemption and
transfiguration.”
It is absolutely correct that God intends more than “mere
restoration” but that does not mean that he intends anything
less. There will not, as Jesus reveals, be marriage the
New Heaven and New Earth but that is because the purposes
for which God gave the procreative act will have been fulfilled.
The Church and all of her members will have been brought
fully into being, the Bride will be given to her Husband,
and the dividing wall of sin will be no more. The uniative,
procreative, and reflective purposes for which the institution
of marriage was given will be consummated at the wedding
banquet in the City of God .
The fact that there will be no marriage when the Kingdom
finally comes does not, therefore, dissolve the marriage
ethic in the meantime because heterosexual marriage is the
very institution established by God in the beginning for
the purpose of making manifest and proclaiming now, in the
present, the character and nature of His Kingdom then.
That there will be no marriage “then” does not, as Jesus
makes clear in Matthew
5:31-32 and 19:1-9 and Paul makes clear in 1st
Corinthians 7:10-16 , mean that we sue for divorce “now.”
Nor does it mean that sexual intercourse, which will also
disappear “then,” may be legitimately be exercised “now”
apart from heterosexual marriage as Jesus makes plain in
Matthew
5:27-30 and in John
8:11 b and Paul in 1st
Corinthians 7:36-38 because, as I pointed out in my
latest response, sexual intercourse is the symbolic culmination
of all the ends of heterosexual marriage, revealing the
all-encompassing physical/spiritual depth of the love between
Christ and his Bride that will be fully and finally realized
at the eschaton.
“This
leads to an issue sometimes raised by reasserters, who envision
salvation in terms of a return to or restoration of the
prelapsarian world.”
Fr. Haller overstates the orthodox position. I do not know
of a single orthodox theologian nor do I know of any orthodox
tradition that envisions salvation as “merely” a return
to and restoration of the prelapsarian world. There are,
indeed, at least three aspects of the prelapsarian world
that will be restored: 1. communion between humanity and
God uninterrupted by human sin 2. peace among and between
human beings and 3. Man's harmonious rather than destructive
dominion and stewardship over the created order. But certainly
the parousia is a fulfillment and culmination of God's ends
and purposes as well as a restoration of the original order
and communion in the cosmos. Marriage, in the present, certainly
finds its divinely established ground, meaning, and scope
the creation accounts, but its ultimate purpose lies within
the context of eschatological fulfillment rather than restoration.
Marriage reveals, in the present, God's determined end.
“However,
although Genesis
1 includes a commandment to procreation, Scripture
does not indicate this being acted upon until after the
fall, in Genesis
4 . Procreation, in the second creation account, is
postlapsarian.”
The conceptions of Cain and Abel did, indeed, take place
after the fall ( Genesis
4:1 ). But since, as Fr. Haller admits, the command
to procreate was already given, the point is somewhat irrelevant.
Unless, that is, Fr. Haller means to build upon his attempted
relativization of Genesis
1 (see above) to artificially dismember the Genesis
narrative, sealing off Genesis
1 from Genesis
2 in order to misrepresent the two accounts as two
irreconcilable and inharmonious records of the Creation
event that cannot be used to support one another. Deconstruction
does seem, increasingly, to be Fr. Haller's hermeneutic
of choice.
The problem for Fr. Haller is that though they do indeed
differ, the two accounts are quite consistent with one another.
The prelapsarian command to procreate can only be isolated
to Genesis
1 and marginalized as inconsistent with the account
that begins in Genesis
3 if you ignore key sections of Genesis
3 that assume its existence.
That the “pain” of childbearing, for example, is included
in Genesis
3:16 among the various divine curses resulting from
the fall suggests rather plainly that “childbearing” would
otherwise have been painless. God says to Eve, “I will surely
multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring
forth children.” What an odd thing to say if there were
no “otherwise”…if there were no command to procreate prior
to the fall? God would, in that case, “multiply” the pain
of a non-existent process. How do you multiply the pain
of something unless there is an actual “thing” there to
begin with?
The best way to make sense of Genesis
3:16 is to accept the classic position that the command
to procreate ( Genesis
1:28 ) preceded the event that lent it pain ( Genesis
3:6 ) in the same way that God's placing Adam in the
Garden “to work it and keep it” ( Genesis
2:15 ) preceded the curse that brought impotence, pain,
and thorns to his work ( Genesis
3:17-19 ). Forcing the two accounts into an artificially
constructed dichotomy does damage to both texts while recognizing
their inherent consistency permits a simple and elegant
harmonization.
This is, additionally, another example of Fr. Haller's distortion
of the classic understanding of the procreative end. As
I pointed out in my most recent response, Fr. Haller, rather
uncharacteristically for a revisionist , disallows “process”
and narrowly defines that end in terms of “success”, ignoring
the classic position (articulated by Rome in Canon 1084)
that the procreative end of marriage may be fulfilled within
a marriage despite the absence of conception and childbearing.
All of this, I believe, also undermines Fr. Haller's subsequent
exegetical declaration:
“There
is no indication of procreation in Genesis
1-3 ”
While there is no actual conception prior to Genesis
4 , there are, as I've shown above, several explicit
“indications” of procreation throughout Genesis
1-3 .
“The
Christian vision thus portrays the life of the resurrection
as prelapsarian only in this sense, as pre-sexual, a world
in which there is no more “male and female” — by which Paul
( Gal
3:28 ) is speaking less of an eschatological disappearance
of gender, than of an end to the marriage relationship based
on sexual distinction.”
No.
Fr. Haller's reading of Galatians
3:28 , though popular among revisionists for obvious
reasons, is an incredibly strained one. In context Paul
is not speaking to marriage relationships at all. Here is
a broader selection from the surrounding text:
“23
Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law,
imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24
So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in
order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that
faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for
in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have
put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there
is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female,
for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's,
then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.”
( Galatians
3:23-29 )
Far from suggesting “an end to marriage relationships based
on gender” Paul is, rather, explaining that all human beings,
male and female, Jew and Gentile, slave and free, despite
the social, ethnic, and class distinctions that exist have
equal access to the inheritance promised through Abraham
in and through Jesus Christ. Paul is, essentially, making
the same point in Galatians
3:23-29 that he makes in Romans
3:20-24 : In Christ there is no “difference” or “distinction”
because all have access to the same promise that is by faith
and not through circumcision.
Indeed there will be an eschatological “end” or fulfillment
to heterosexual marriage in keeping with Jesus' teaching
in Matthew
19:1-9 , but there is not even the slightest indication
that Paul has that in mind in Galatians
3:28 nor is there any sense that he anywhere suggests
an end to marriage “based on sexual distinctions” in the
present as if marriage “not” based on sexual distinctions
would even be a category or possibility in his mind.
Heterosexual marriage, as Paul makes clear in 1st
Corinthians 7 and Ephesians
5:22-33 , is both morally binding in the present age
and theologically profound in its inherent “in-between time”
proclamation of the age to come.
The words for male and female in Galatians
3:28 , moreover, are not what you would expect were
Paul intending to speak with regard to the end of the marriage
covenant or to communicate “an end to the marriage relationship
based on sexual distinction”. He does not write, ‘there
is no “husband” (aner) and “wife” (gune) as would be expected
in keeping with the language he employs in Ephesians
5:22 -33 , a text explicitly dealing with marriage.
Rather he writes that there is no “arsen” (male) and “theyloos”
(female). Had Paul intended to even hint at what Fr. Haller
imagines, why would he have chosen to use words that unnecessarily
obfuscate the point when far plainer and clearer language
was readily available?
Dr. Haller's is, again, an extremely forced interpretation.
The text simply cannot bear it.
“As
with the other distinctions (ethnic and social), Paul points
to the restoration of equality and mutuality rather than
of domination and exclusion.”
He points, more accurately, to the gospel truth that salvation
is open to all men and women despite social, ethnic, class,
or sex distinctions through faith in Jesus Christ. Baptism
rather than circumcision is the initiation rite; faith,
not law, is the path the inheritance promised to Abraham.
Being set apart or marked as Christ's own forever, is therefore
a status open to male and female, Jew and Gentile, slave
and free, there is no distinction.
The suggestion, moreover, that Paul envisioned an “inclusive”
eschaton in the sense that the Episcopal Church understands
“inclusivity” is, given the corpus of his writings, frankly
absurd.
“This
harmonizes well with Jesus' description of the resurrection
life as prelapsarian only in this narrow sense: a world
in which “they do not marry nor are given in marriage, for
they cannot die any more” ( Luke
20:35-36 ); that is, there is no more need for “male
and female” to “be fruitful and multiply” and “fill the
earth and subdue it.” For the old earth will have passed
away, and all will be new. Procreation will be no more —
but love will endure for ever.”
Rather, the purposes for which God instituted marriage and
gave the gift of procreation as a necessary end or purpose
within the marriage covenant will have been fulfilled.
A
change in the law
“It is notable that Jesus' midrash of Genesis
1 and 2 in response to challenges on divorce ( Matt
19:4-5 ; Mk
10:6-9 ) omits the reference to procreation — he passes
directly from “God made them male and female” to “For this
reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined
to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” Omitting
any reference to procreation, his emphasis is on the unitive
aspect, and its permanence through the grace of fidelity.”
This is, finally, the long awaited castle (see my part
2 ) Fr. Haller erects atop Jesus' “omission.” There
is, of course, a very good and very simple explanation for
why Jesus did not mention the procreative purpose of marriage.
He was asked about divorce. So, in his “midrash” of Genesis
1 and 2, he refers specifically to those sections of
the Genesis narrative that point directly to the divine
establishment of the marriage bond between husband and wife.
There is simply no reason to mention procreation in this
context.
The truly odd thing is that Fr. Haller recognizes this very
point:
“(Those
who attempt to pitch Jesus' teaching here as a condemnation
of same-sex relationships, rather than as Jesus intended
it in response to the question on divorce, are doing justice
neither to their position nor to Scripture.)”
Glass houses spring to mind. Those who attempt to pitch
Jesus' teaching here as rejection of the procreative end
of marriage, rather than as Jesus intended it in response
to the question on divorce, are doing justice neither to
their position nor to scripture.
If anything can be drawn from Jesus' various teachings on
divorce, it is that he believes heterosexual marriage to
be divinely instituted and, further, that sexual intercourse
in any other context breaks a divinely created covenantal
relationship.
So while I agree that this does not constitute a “specific
condemnation of same-sex relations”, it certainly constitutes
an affirmation of sexual intercourse within the covenant
of heterosexual marriage.
“However,
Jesus' rejection of the divorce statute of the Law (given
by Moses but attributed to God in the Torah) brings me to
another significant change in attitude towards procreation
in the teaching of Christ.”
“Rejection” is far too strong a word. Rather, he offered
an explanation as to why Moses permitted divorce (because
hearts were hard) and, implicitly, why divorce no longer
has a place in the Kingdom of God : hearts of stone are
being changed to hearts of flesh.
“The
Rabbis regarded the commandment to be fruitful and multiply
as applying to all people; as the first commandment given
to humanity. Thus celibacy was held in low esteem or even
contempt in mainstream Rabbinic Judaism, even to the extent
of being considered a serious moral failing. No man may
abstain from keeping the law Be fruitful and multiply, unless
he already has children: according to the School of Shammai,
two sons; according to the School of Hillel, a son and a
daughter, for it is written, Male and female created he
them. (Mishnah Yebamoth 6.6)”
This is enlightening but irrelevant. Yes, Jesus disputed
the traditions of the Pharisees. This is widely known. It
should be noted, however, that he did not “overturn the
law”. He overturned a traditional interpretation of the
law. That the majority of Rabbi's believed it incumbent
upon all men everywhere to marry does not mean that such
a belief was true to the scriptural witness. Christ, as
the Author of scripture, is a far better interpreter than
the Pharisees. That Jesus rejected the tradition that it
was incumbent upon all men to marry and embraced by word
and example the unmarried state does not mean 1. that procreation
is not an essential end of marriage or 2. that sexual intercourse
is permissible beyond the estate of marriage. If Fr. Haller
means to draw either of these conclusions, then he would,
yet again, do so without biblical warrant or foundation.
“So
important was the commandment to be fruitful and multiply
that the biblical law mandated a special form of marriage
which would otherwise have constituted incest by affinity
( Deut
25:5-6 ) in order to provide for continuation of a family
line ended by death before fulfillment of the divine command.”
I think Fr. Haller makes something of a stretch here too.
Yes, levirate marriage was certainly consistent with the
command to procreate, but more crucial at this point in
time was the necessity of a clan and/or tribe maintaining
its divinely apportioned Land inheritance. The Land was
not simply land, it was the Land of the Promise and each
clan and tribe had been given an inheritance that was to
be maintained as a matter of covenant faithfulness. It was,
primarily, obedience to Mosaic Law that necessitated levirate
marriage.
This explains why levirate marriage is no longer a requirement
or necessity under the New Covenant. It is not because the
procreative end is no longer central to marriage but because
God has given us an inheritance in Jesus Christ to which
the former inheritance points but does not fulfill.
Just as Christ replaces the Temple or the Tabernacle as
the place where God forgives sins, cleanses impurity and
shares fellowship with his people (the Place becomes a Person)
so he also replaces the Land as the locus of the Inheritance
promised to the Seed of Abraham. Jesus Christ, as Paul makes
clear, is the singular “Seed of Abraham” ( Galatians
3:15-18 ) and all those who are in him will inherit
not only Palestine but the entire cosmos ( Romans
4:13-14 ) because to be in him is to enjoy the inheritance
of the very Son of God.
Fr. Haller goes on to point to the presence of polygamy
in the Old Testament and the presence of Mosaic laws for
the regulation of polygamy as further evidence that Jesus
overturned or rejected the procreative end of sexual intercourse
within marriage. Since this is a somewhat more involved
argument, I'll address it separately in my next installment
and stop here for now.
end
UPDATE
CONTENTS
EPIPHANY
GIFT
EXCHANGE AND POT-LUCK
UNDECKING
THE HALLS
THANK
YOU
ANNUAL
MEETING
VESTRY
ELECTIONS
SERMON & PODCASTING INFORMATION
WALKABOUT
EVANGELISM
WEEKLY OPEN-DOOR HOURS
BIBLE STUDY
YOUTH INFORMATION FROM MICAH
HERESIES AND CULTS (ADULT SUNDAY SCHOOL SERIES)
NEWS :
EPIPHANY
This Sunday
is Epiphany. The word Epiphany means, essentially, “revelation.”
The Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, was revealed to the
“Magi” who worshipped him and brought him gifts. The word
“Magi” means something like “wise-ones.” It refers to a
special class of men who lived east of Palestine , who were
highly educated, and who were known for their great knowledge,
wisdom and insight. The visit of the Magi took place some
time, perhaps months or even a year, after the birth of
Jesus. We know this because Matthew tells us that as soon
as Herod realized that the Magi were not going to return
to Jerusalem to tell him where to find Jesus, he ordered
that all male children in Bethlehem under two years of age
be slaughtered. Herod chose to kill all children under the
age of two based on the information he received about the
time of Jesus' birth when the Magi first arrived in Jerusalem
, prior to their return to the east via a different route.
The
significance of the Magi's visit is that though they were
not Jewish, they recognized Jesus as King, not only as the
King of the Jews, but as the Son of God and sovereign over
all the world. And what is more, they worshiped him.
When
they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great
joy. 11 And going into the house they saw the child
with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him.
(Matthew 2:10-11)
The
Magi are representative both of the gentile peoples that
have come to faith in the God of Abraham through Jesus Christ
and of the nations of the world that will one day bow before
Christ when he returns.
What
is especially important for us to remember is that Christ
is not only King of all the earth, but he is your King and
mine as well. The more fully we surrender our hearts, minds,
bodies and souls to him, the more satisfied, peaceful and
joyful our lives will be.
GIFT
EXCHANGE AND POT-LUCK
(otherwise known as Kris Kindle) This Sunday
after the 10:30am
service there will be a party to celebrate Jesus birthday
(I know Christmas is over, but Epiphany when the wise men
brought baby Jesus gifts, is just beginning). There will
be cakes and a gift exchange.
For
those of you who drew names this Sunday is the day you reveal
who you have been praying for and give them your gift. I
am not sure why they call it Kris Kindle even though it
has been explained to me many times, but that is what it's
called.
Along
with birthday cake and gifts, there will also be a POTLUCK.
So PLEASE bring a dish of something to pass around.
UNDECKING
THE HALLS: After
lunch we are going to take down the Christmas decorations.
This is not nearly as fun as putting them up, but we need
as much if not more help to do it. My mom keeps Christmas
decorations up almost until Summer, so this will be kind
of unnatural for me, but I suppose it must be done. See
you there.
THANK
YOU To everyone who took part in any way in the
Christmas Pageant and Christmas Eve Service. You offered
whole selves to God in worship and service and God certainly
blessed your efforts. There were 120 people present at Good
Shepherd on Christmas Eve. That is the best Christmas Eve
turnout in decades.
ANNUAL
MEETING: Sunday,
January 20th, will be the Annual
Meeting. This is the time the whole church comes
together to hear the various reports for the year, elect
officers to various offices, and get a sense of the mission
and goals for the coming year. Every member of the church
is eligible to vote. But please come even if you are not
a member. It is very important to see how the church makes
decisions and to be involved in discussing the important
issues that have come to the fore this year.
We'll
keep our regular service schedule and hold the meeting between
the 8:00am and 10:30am services (during the Christian Ed.
hour).. Canons require the polls to remain open at least
one hour, so we'll open them at 9:15am and close them at
10:15am before the 10:30am service. This
means that we will not have Sunday School that Sunday as
all the teachers are invited to take part in the meeting
itself.
Breakfast/brunch,
will be served during the meeting...
VESTRY
ELECTIONS and the calling of an elder: There are
three vestry seats up for election this year and one warden
(Jr) seat up for election. I believe most of those currently
serving in those positions are running for re-election.
But if you are hoping to run or want to nominate someone
please let Anne know this week so that she can prepare ballots
if necessary.
Serving
as an elder on vestry requires both faithfulness and commitment;
faithfulness to the Word of God and commitment to the mission
of the church.
Both
qualities are essential.
Without
faithfulness to the Word, plans are made and decisions taken
solely on the basis of worldly and/or practical considerations.
When
that happens a church runs the risk of acting faithlessly
or disobediently in times of trouble or crisis. It is more
important to have a committed believing Christian on vestry
than to have an able banker, attorney or CEO, however skilled.
Good Shepherd must always put God first and to do that we
need leaders who know and love his Word.
Likewise,
it is important to have someone committed to the mission
of the church; willing to put in the necessary time and
equipped with the necessary wisdom to see that mission to
fulfillment.
Before
you run or vote take some time to read the requirements
for leaders in the church found in 1st Timothy 3:1-10 (reprinted
once again in the “Good News for the Week“ section below)
and ask God to show you whether you or the person for whom
you are voting is called to this ministry.
After
expressing faithfulness to Christ and submission his Word,
Here are some of the primary requirements
for vestrymembers and wardens:
•
Weekly Attendance at worship
•
Monthly attendance at Vestry meetings
•
regular pledge
•
Baptism (for vestry) Baptism and Confirmation (for wardens)
We
expect but do not yet require all vestrymembers
and wardens to
•
Participate in at least one bible study and/or Christian
education once a week
•
Pray and read the scriptures daily
•
Tithe
SERMON & PODCASTING INFORMATION:
Last week we took a break from our series on Colossians
1 to discuss the grace and mercy of God in coming to save
this world through his Son Jesus Christ while we were still
sinners. If you missed it or want to hear it again,
you can listen to that sermon at the podcast
site .
This
Sunday we'll conclude the sermon series on Colossians 1.
What does it mean to be “reconciled” to God? How was this
reconciliation accomplished? Can you be both reconciled
and unreconciled at the same time? How is it, in other words,
that we can have peace with God and yet still sin against
him? We'll address these questions and more this Sunday.
WALKABOUT EVANGELISM: I had hoped to do
this in January but it is looking more and more like we'll
need to push this back to February for a number of reasons.
I'll be sending out more information as soon as plans become
more definite.
WEEKLY
OPEN-DOOR HOURS: As we said on Sunday,
thanks to the Lord and to your generosity, Anne
has been able to quit her job. That means that I will be
able to resume regular office hours and Anne will be able
to do secretarial work.
On
that note, I've decided to start offering office
visit hours, Tuesday-Thursday: 10:30am-1:00pm
. These are times I'll set aside for
you to come by the office if you'd like without
an appointment. Of course, I'll be there at other times
as well, but during these times you can always
catch me either in person or by phone and, unless someone
is there before you, I won't be running off to
a meeting or need to study or write. I've made sure
to include the lunch hour in these visiting hours,
so if you want to come by and talk on your break and bring
your lunch, please do.
I
encourage you to come by if you'd like to or need to talk
about anything at all.
BIBLE STUDY: All
the Bible Studies are up and running this week
YOUTH INFORMATION FROM MICAH
: THE
JUNIOR HIGH MEETING TIME IS CHANGING! from Saturday, 6-8,
to Sunday, 2-4. Several parents have asked for this change.
Hopefully it fit better into everybody's schedules. Senior
High will continue meeting from 6-8 on Sundays.
Also, the schedule for January AND February will be available
this Sunday. PLEASE MARK THE SPECIAL DATES IMMEDIATELY SO
YOU DON'T FORGET! Two dates in particular: Saturday, Jan
26 for the Sr. High Ski Trip and Friday, Feb 22 for the
Jr. High All Nighter. PARENTS, IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY
THAT WE GET AS FULL PARTICIPATION ON THIS AS POSSIBLE. PLEASE
CLEAR YOUR SCHEDULES ACCORDINGLY.
As always, the contact info!
Micah Towery
3155 Broadway, Apt. 15
New York City , NY 10027
ADULT EDUCATION SERIES: HERESIES
AND CULTS :
Last Sunday we spoke of Immanuel Kant, Hegel, Schleiermacher
and the foundations of Universalism, Unitarianism, and Liberal
Protestantism. We'll dig into Unitarian and universalism
this Sunday.
HAVE YOU…. shared your faith with a friend? The vestry has
challenged all of us to share our faith in Jesus Christ
with at least one non-believer each month.
Good News for the Week
10 For all who rely on works of the law are under
a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does
not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law,
and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified
before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by
faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather
“The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ
redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse
for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged
on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing
of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might
receive the promised Spirit through faith. (Galatians
3:10-14)
Don't forget to....BRING A FRIEND TO CHURCH
Daily Schedule for the week of Sunday January 6th, 2007
Monday:
pastor's day off
Tuesday
8:30 a.m. Morning Prayer
9:00 a.m. Tuesday Morning Bible Study
6:00 p.m. First Light Bible Study
Wednesday
8:30 a.m. Morning Prayer
Thursday
8:30 a.m. Morning Prayer
5:30 p.m. Shepherd's Bowl
6:30
Thursday Night Bible Study
Friday
6:30 a.m. Men's Breakfast/Bible Study
8:30 a.m. Morning Prayer
Pastor's sermon prep day
Saturday :
10:00 a.m. Women's Bible Study
4:30 p.m. Hebrew Class
6:00pm-8:00pm
Sunday
January 13th 2007 SUNDAY MORNING WORSHIP (SEASON OF EPIPHANY)
8:00am Worship, Holy Communion and Sermon
9:15-10:15 a.m. Christian
Education for All Ages
10:30am Worship, Holy Communion, Music, Sermon
2:00pm to 4:00pm
Jr. High Meeting
6:00pm
- 8:00pm Sr. High Meeting
Matt+
a
