by the Rev. Matt Kennedy

I pick up today in the second part of his argument entitled, " Pro-Creation ". I've backed up a bit so that we begin with some material covered in part three of my response. I've done this to refresh your memories and to set his arguments in the proper context so that his words and my responses might be read fairly.

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 part 2 ) Fr. Haller erects atop Jesus' “omission” of procreation language in Matthew 19 . 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 uniative aspects of the divine establishment of the marriage covenant 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 implies a general one (in keeping with his various condemnations of “porneia”) as well as a clear and solid affirmation of sexual intercourse within the covenant of heterosexual marriage.

“However, Jesus' rejection of the divorce statute of the Mosaic 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, Jesus 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, hard hearts, will be and are being changed to hearts of flesh. Jesus makes, and I think Fr. Haller misses it, an obvious appeal to Ezekiel 36:26-27 in his answer to the Pharisees that points, prophetically, to a new ethic. Not an ethic of permissiveness, but a new ethic of holistic righteousness that will be made possible in the kingdom by divinely instituted transformation and empowerment. What was impossible for hardened hearts will be made possible through fleshy hearts given by God so that men and women may live in accordance with the Created order rather than the fallen one and in keeping with the coming Kingdom rather than the dominion of darkness.

“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 the 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 somewhat better interpreter than the Pharisees. That Jesus rejected the pharisaic 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” or “location” within which God accomplishes the forgiveness of 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 in his letter to the Galatians, 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.

This being the case, levirate marriage for the purpose of maintaining the divine land grant within the clan and/or tribe is no longer necessary. Our inheritance is Christ and Christ's inheritance is the cosmos.

Does this new Inheritance somehow remove or replace the procreative end from marriage in the interim? There is absolutely no warrant or reason to suggest that this is so. None at all.

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.

“For the same reason, biblical law also allowed for polygamy, and the historical accounts attest to its employment to that end.”

There are certainly polygamists recorded in the Old Testament. This, in itself, is unremarkable and immaterial. There are also adulterers, murderers, rapists, liars and thieves. The scriptures do not make idols of men. The deepest flaws of the greatest men and women are more often than not revealed. To suggest that the polygamy of the patriarchs in any way legitimizes polygamy is something of a non-sequitor. It is like suggesting that David's adultery legitimizes male promiscuity.

While the origin of monogamous marriage was prelapsarian, the introduction of polygamy—its first recorded instance in the bible—was post-lapsarian. And, significantly, it is not instituted by God but it comes rather through Lamech ( Genesis 4:19 ) the wicked descendant of Cain. Genesis 4-6 traces two lines of descent, one through Cain and the other through Seth. The line of Cain is associated with the disobedience and rebellion of Cain. The line of Seth is described in terms of faithfulness. The last in Seth's line before the deluge is Noah. Polygamy, again, is introduced through Cain not through the heirs of Seth.

And it is, moreover, only after the flood, through Abraham and his descendants, that polygamy is introduced and practiced among the people of God.

It should be remembered at this point that Abraham was not a believer prior to his call. His father was a pagan.

“And Joshua said to all the people, “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘Long ago, your fathers lived beyond the Euphrates , Terah, the father of Abraham and of Nahor; and they served other gods'.” ( Joshua 24:2 )

Abraham and his sons, though called by God to be his people, were not completely shorn of pagan habits and practices. They were set apart first and then, afterwards, God set to the task of revealing his character and his law and calling his people to live in accordance with them.

The Mosaic Law, yet to be revealed during the period of the most famous patriarchal polygamists, was a part of that pedagogical process.

It is in the Law that the scope of sexual practices introduced since the fall begins to be circumscribed in keeping with God's character and his intended purposes.

The Law does, as Fr. Haller notes, deal with the issue of polygamy, providing regulations for the just treatment of first wives after the addition of a second in Exodus 21:10-11 and ensuring the rights of “unloved” wives in Deuteronomy 21:15-17 .

“10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.”

It is difficult to read this text as “permissive” of polygamy. It is not primarily permissive but regulative. The text does not compel polygamy. Neither does it recognize polygamy as existing within the common life of Israel ; nor does it recommend the development of rites for its legitimization ( C051 ). Rather, it protects the women caught in its grip. Its purpose is not to “allow” for the practice but to ensure that the practice does not end in the mistreatment of first wives.

The same is true for the second text, Deuteronomy 21:15-17

“If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills the property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as firstborn by giving him a double share of all that he has. That son is the first sign of his father's strength. The right of the first-born belongs to him.”

Here, again, polygamy is not embraced or compelled. Rather, the injustice inherent within polygamy is regulated and curbed.

We are all familiar with these sorts of instructions.

Just yesterday I told Emma, my five year old daughter, the following: “If you will not share your Christmas toys with Aedan (her 3 year old brother), then you need to play with them by yourself in your room apart from the family.” I did not say this to in any way condone her selfishness, but to limit the ensuing damage and drama of her decision not to share and, hopefully, to make it more difficult for her to be self-centered.

The same sort of purpose lies at the heart of the laws regulating polygamy.

The proper analog, then, for the Mosaic polygamy statutes are the Mosaic regulations for divorce. Bishop Glenn Davies of Sydney draws the proper parallel and conclusion in an excellent article dealing with the topic of polygamy published in the Southern Cross. He writes:

“While it is true that legislation existed under Mosaic Law to regulate polygamy ( Exodus 21:10-11 ), such legislation did not thereby legitimise polygamy. Rather it is akin to the sufferance exercised by God, a divine permission, which best explains the accounts of polygamy in the Old Testament. The parallel with respect to divorce legislation has often been put forth as an explanatory model of such divine toleration. In the instance of divorce, the regulations in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 are interpreted by Jesus as permissive legislation because of Israel 's hardness of heart ( Matthew 19:8 ; Mark 10:5 ). Yet from the beginning this was not so. In other words, Jesus indicates that the existence of sin among the people of God requires regulations so as to prevent sin from wreaking further havoc among God's people.”

When reflecting on Jesus' words in Matthew 19:8 regarding “hardness of heart” it is crucial, again, to recall the prophecy found in Ezekiel 36:26-27

26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

Prior to the coming of the Holy Spirit, God provided regulations with regard to practices inconsistent with his created order and purposes in order to limit the sin resulting from the hardened hearts of his people. Jesus, in his answer to the Pharisees in Matthew 19 , suggests that such regulations will have no place in the New Kingdom precisely because in Christ hearts of stone will be transformed into hearts of flesh.

It is, therefore, somewhat absurd to appeal to polygamy or divorce regulations in the Old Testament as evidence that Jesus “overturned” the Old Testament laws. He did not overturn them. They are simply no longer necessary. He ushered in a new kingdom to be inhabited by new men and new women with new hearts.

The condition that necessitated the former treatment was to be healed (and has been). We are free, then, to marry once and remain married in accordance with God's created intent and design. We are no longer slaves with stony hearts bent on cruel acquisition and gain. We are a new creation in Christ Jesus.

Fr. Haller goes on:

“One of these incidents, however, also shows the importance of the unitive aspect of sexuality, apart from procreation: as Elkanah comforted his barren wife Hannah with the words, “Am I not more to you than ten sons?” ( 1 Sam 1:8 ) The fact that the story of Hannah was later typologically parsed by Saint Luke in reference to Mary and the birth of Christ casts even greater significance on this episode from early Jewish history.

However, more importantly, and perhaps related to the contrary teaching of Jesus, so important was the duty to procreate that the Rabbis enjoined divorce should a man find his wife to be infertile after ten years of marriage. (M Yebamoth 6.6) In a prescientific world, of course, failure to bear a child was most often seen as the woman's fault, as women were held to be “fertile soil” for the growth of the male “seed.” Even given that, the Mishnah allows a woman so divorced an additional 10 years with another husband just in case the fault lies with the man.

Jesus overturns this traditional understanding and emphasis upon procreation;”

No. Jesus “overturns” this traditional understanding and emphasis upon divorce. Jesus, as Fr. Haller has already helpfully observed, says nothing whatsoever about procreation.

“and this may relate to and reflect the larger Divine intent in his own Incarnation apart from sexual intercourse.”

This is the crux of Fr. Haller's argument from “omission”. The virginal conception and birth of Jesus, Fr. Haller suggests, was divinely intended to somehow wrest the procreative end from the institution of marriage. The argument is built upon Jesus' “omission” of the procreative end in his teaching on divorce in Matthew 19:1-12 and God's “omission” of Joseph from the conception of his Son as recorded in both Luke 1 and Matthew 1 .

It is, as an aside, both refreshing and encouraging to find in Fr. Haller a staunch advocate of the doctrine of the Virgin birth. Though he applies it incorrectly; that he holds to it is admirable. I wonder, moreover, whether this biblical truth once greeted with such skepticism on the left, might, now that it has been employed to argue in favor of homosexual relationships, enjoy something of a comeback?

In any case, Fr. Haller's argument from silence comes, as I demonstrated in part 3, at the expense of the texts themselves. The reason Jesus does not speak of procreation in Matthew 19:1-12 is that he was asked about divorce, as Fr. Haller himself acknowledges. Likewise, a far more clear, consistent, and simple explanation of God's purpose in the virginal conception and birth is provided through a comparison of Luke 1:35 to Romans 5:12-21 and Ephesians 2:1-4 . The Adamic nature is corrupt; the imago dei, twisted. The Image of God himself ( Colossians 1:15 ), therefore, became incarnate to bring forth a new creation, a new humanity, to remake us once more in his Image. To do that, God in his mercy miraculously interrupted the transmission of the sin nature, the Adamic seed, from one generation to the next by forming Jesus in Mary's womb just as he formed Adam from the dust of the ground (all of this, again, is argued in part 3).

There is also the somewhat disputed matter of the curse of Jechoniah. In Jeremiah 22 God curses the royal descendants of David through Jechoniah in this way:

“Thus says the LORD: “Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not succeed in his days, for none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David and ruling again in Judah.” ( Jeremiah 22:30 )

In Matthew's genealogy we read that Joseph was directly descended from David through Jechoniah.

“And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah, and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asaph, and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah, and Uzziah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josiah, and Josiah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon. And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, and Abiud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor, and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud, and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” ( Matthew 1:6-16 )

Had Jesus been the natural son of Joseph, he would have been disqualified from sitting on David's throne. But through the virginal conception, Joseph became the adoptive father of Jesus giving Jesus legal right, by direct descent, to the throne of David while at the same time, through Mary, preserving his natural descendent from David as well.

It is not, so long as the whole witness of New Testament and the Old Testament taken into account, difficult to understand the divine purpose in the Incarnation.

It is, at the same time, quite difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile what has been plainly revealed in the scriptures with what Fr. Haller imagines wholecloth from silence.

He goes on.

“Whatever the source of his teaching, beginning with God's act in the Incarnation, and contrary to the main stream of Rabbinic thought and Jewish culture, Jesus approves and commends celibacy ( Matt 19:12 ); as does Saint Paul ( 1 Cor 7:7-8 ).”

Yes

“Celibacy is, of course, a radical option, as both Jesus and Paul recognize — it is a charismatic gift of which not all are capable, but it is also an eschatological sign, a symbol for the new world in which there is no marriage.”

I can certainly agree with Fr. Haller on this point. Apart from heterosexual marriage, which is the norm, human beings must live celibate lives. Some are vocationally celibate. God calls them and sets them apart to dedicate their lives to the Church. Others are celibate by necessity because they are unmarried. Those in either “unmarried” category, those who desire celibacy and those who are celibate but wish to be married, have received a calling to devote their lives whole-heartedly to Christ and his Church ( 1 Corinthians 7:32-38 )

I agree that Christian celibacy may serve a reflective purpose as a “sign” of the Kingdom to come when the most profound union will be that which exists between Christ and his Church. This “sign” would not, however, replace marriage, but compliment it. Together, marriage and celibacy reflect different aspects of the age to come. Marriage reflects the future joining together of Christ and his Church. Celibacy reflects the unhindered joining of the Church to Christ. There is no need to propose an “either/or” with regard to the reflective qualities of marriage verses the reflective qualities of celibacy when the scriptures embrace “both/and.”

“This brings me, incidentally, to another argument often advanced against same-sexuality: that if everyone “practiced” it it would be the end of humanity. I raise this argument here because it is also true that if everyone practiced celibacy that would also be the end of humanity — though no one apart from an Orthodox Rabbi would thereby suggest celibacy was morally wrong.”

This is something of a category error. Jesus teaches that there are some who are specifically called celibacy and Paul teaches that all who are not married are also called to live celibate lives. Since God sovereignly determines who does and who does not receive this call, we can safely assume that its exercise, as a vocation or as a necessary sacrifice, will not lead to human extinction.

There is no parallel or comparison between vocational celibacy and homosexual behavior unless you assume, a priori, that homosexuality is a vocational gift or a necessary call. The orthodox position is that the scriptures clearly teach that the homosexual impulse is not a call or a blessing but a disordered ramification of the fall.

It is true that this point has often been argued through an appeal to Immanuel Kant' categorical imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

Such an argument serves to demonstrate the socially destructive nature of homosexual behavior. If everyone acted in this way, humanity would self-destruct.

The same argument cannot be applied to vocational celibacy. It is valid to apply something like the categorical imperative to moral acts. It is invalid to apply it to various offices or roles. Vocational celibacy is a state established and sanctioned both by a divine call and a divine command whereas homosexual behavior is a moral act that enjoys neither. Vocational celibacy is a role or a state divinely instituted. Homosexual behavior is a moral act.

A police officer or soldier for example cannot always apply the categorical imperative to his role or his calling, nor can a politician or minister. But those in the roles above can certainly apply it with regard to the moral acts they perform wihtin that role.

Celibacy is a role and a call. Homosexual behavior is neither.

Fr. Haller goes on:

“The same is not true of homosexuality The distinctly “unorthodox” Saint Paul, in his only extended discussion of marriage cited above, actually did suggest that he wished everyone were celibate as he was — though this may be regarded as a rhetorical flourish rather than as an actual intention, since he goes on to tolerate marriage in the meanwhile, even as he advises against it. ( 1 Cor 7:28 -31 )”

Indeed, it must be regarded as a rhetorical flourish. I've heard modern-day vocationally celibate believers say much the same thing. As for St. Paul, he not only “tolerated” marriage, he embraced it as a holy and sacred institution given by God, identifying it directly with the mystery of Christ and his Church ( Ephesians 5:22-33 ).

This is a good place to stop. So far, as you may have noticed, we've not yet made it through the second part of Fr. Haller's seven part argument. It is slow going, but I've found it quite rewarding thus far and I hope that you have as well.

end

 

UPDATE CONTENTS

BREAK IN

ANNUAL MEETING REPORT

ACOLYTE PRACTIC

LENT IS COMING

ASH WEDNESDAY

MORMONISM

SERMON & PODCASTING INFORMATION
WEEKLY OPEN-DOOR HOURS
BIBLE STUDY
YOUTH INFORMATION FROM MICAH

HERESIES AND CULTS (ADULT SUNDAY SCHOOL SERIES)

NEWS :

BREAK IN

We need, I think to do three things. First, pray for the person or people who did this; that they will be brought to faith in Jesus Christ. Second, thank God that no one was here at the time and that nothing of value was taken. Third, be more careful (myself definitely included) about locking doors and windows and generally paying attention to things of that sort.

ANNUAL MEETING REPORT: Thank you to everyone who took part in the annual meeting last Sunday, especially to Good Shepherd's newer members who may still be somewhat confused regarding how Anglican parishes function. The Annual meeting is a legislative meeting and there were three votes were taken:

1. The proposed bylaw passed overwhelmingly with just one "no" vote against it. The bylaw must still be approved at next year's annual meeting before it takes effect. If it does the parish will be set on firm doctrinal and theological footing for the future so that our kids won't have to go through what we've experienced over the last five years. I am so very thankful to God for the passage of this bylaw.

2. Good Shepherd has a new Junior Warden: John Chaney and three vestrymembers were reelected: Tom Woolsey (who stepped down from the Jr Warden spot), Camille Lane, and Fred Moat. Congratulations to all.

3. We accepted the 2008 budget. On that note, Chris Jones, our current treasurer announced he was stepping down from the treasurer's position. He has served Good Shepherd with great skill and sacrifice.

Chris will remain on vestry and will help train Good Shepherd's new treasurer Isaac Njuko. Thank you to both Chris and Isaac.

 

ACOLYTE PRACTICE: Another acolyte practice is scheduled for Sunday, February 3rd.

 

LENT IS COMING UP: There are 40 days in lent. The last six days are called “Holy Week” culminating on Easter Day. Lent is a time of repentance. As individuals and as a body we confess and, with God's help, root out those places in our hearts and lives most out of step with God's nature and his Word.

It is a time of self-examination, prayer, study, and recommitment. If you've let yourself stray over the last year, this season is the time to return.

But even though it is a time of repentance it is also a time of joy. Believers are forgiven sinners. We do not need to hide from God or cover up our rebellion. We can offer them up to him and seek his mercy and grace, which is abundant and overflowing to all those who ask.

ASH WEDNESDAY: Ash Wednesday is the first day of lent. This year it falls on Wednesday February 6th. There will be two services on Ash Wednesday, one in the morning at 7:00am and the other in the evening at 6:30pm. If you go to these services you will be invited to come forward to have your forehead marked with ashes. The ashes on our heads are a sign of three things:

1. That we are rebels. God created Adam out of the dust of the earth and Eve from Adam (see Genesis 2). But when they rebelled against God and sin entered into human history, God said, “for dust you are and to dust you will return” (Genesis 3:19). We have all inherited Adam's rebellious nature and we have all participated in the rebellion. The ashes remind us of this. Because of sin which separates humanity from God, our bodies are presently subject to death.

2. It is a sign of sorrow. Throughout the scriptures “dust and ashes” are used to symbolize deep regret and anguish. We anoint our forehead with ashes as a sign of our deep remorse and anguish over sin.

3. Finally, the ashes are a sign of hope . The ashes are imparted in the shape of a cross on our foreheads. This symbolizes the fact  that though we are rebels and though we mourn because of our sin, the Lord loves us and has sent his son to die to take away our sins . Anyone who repents and trusts in Jesus Christ, is forgiven and declared righteous in the sight of God.

The result of Jesus' atoning death was his rising to life three days later. In the same way, though we will die, one day Jesus will return and call us all out of our graves to live with him forever in the New Heaven and New Earth he will establish.

So though you return to the dust, one day Christ will call your name and you will rise again to live for eternity.

 

MORMONISM: As I noted last week, the Bible Answer man hosted a week of call in broadcasts dedicated to the topic of Mormonism last week. They were fantastic shows for anyone wondering about Mormonism or how to share the faith with a mormon friend or neigbor. If you'd like to listen the shows may be found here:

http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Bible_Answer_Man/

SERMON & PODCASTING INFORMATION: Last week's sermon on the Lamb of God is up at Good Shepherd's podcast site .

 

OPEN DOOR: I've enjoyed visiting with many of you during my open door hours Tuesday - Thursday 1:00am - 1:00pm. During those times you are more than welcome to come by without an appointment if you have questions or 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 :

ADULT EDUCATION SERIES: HERESIES AND CULTS : This Sunday  we will conclude our discussion of Unitarian Universalism and then bridge into a discussion of Bahai. Here is some information about the Bahai Church.

http://www.bahai.org/

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

2:1  But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. 2  Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. 3  Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4  and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5  to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. 6  Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. 7  Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, 8  and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us. (Titus 2:1-8)

 
Don't forget to....BRING A FRIEND TO CHURCH

Daily Schedule for the week of Sunday January 27th, 2008

Monday:
pastor's day off

Tuesday
8:30 a.m. Morning Prayer
9:00 a.m. Tuesday Morning Bible Study

10:00a.m.-1:00 p.m. Pastor's Open Door Hours
6:00 p.m. First Light Bible Study

Wednesday
8:30 a.m. Morning Prayer

10:00a.m.-1:00 p.m. Pastor's Open Door Hours

Thursday
8:30 a.m. Morning Prayer

10:00a.m.-1:00 p.m. Pastor's Open Door Hours
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

Sunday February 3rd 2008 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