Sunday’s business meeting was a source of great encouragement to me. There was unanimity or near unanimity on every item on the ballot. In fact, the constitution and bylaws—under which we become a church on May 1 unless the Lord returns first—received no dissenting votes.
That is encouraging to me because it seems to reflect a spirit of unity and trust in our church as we move ahead. The unity of Christ’s church is a precious thing that we should endeavor to preserve. As Paul writes in Ephesians 2:
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.
The unity of the church, then, has been created by Christ and is a reality for all who have responded to the message of peace and placed their faith in Him.
Unity can wrongly be defined as “agreeing with the leadership.” Well-meaning Christians are frightened sometimes of voicing contrary opinions within a church because they don’t want to be seen as “rabble rousers.” I trust our unity is never borne of fear but instead comes from the Spirit leading us in a similar direction.
May God continue to preserve our church for His glory and not our own! As we begin this next phase, I am heartened by the oneness of purpose that exists in our midst.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Message from Christian Alliance for Orphans
I received the following from CAO...great conference if you're able to attend!
Summit VI
You and individuals from your church community are invited to attend the Christian Alliance for Orphans’ national Summit VI! This national conference is designed to help Christians start and grow orphan ministry in the local church, including adoption, foster care and international orphan initiatives.
Summit VI on April 29-30 in Minneapolis, MN will bring together grassroots advocates, pastors, orphan experts from across America and beyond—as well as many new to the issue seeking to learn how to engage.
Featured speakers include national champions of orphan care and adoption, including John Piper, Doug Sauder, Mary Beth Chapman, Jedd Medefind, Tom Davis and Al Mohler. Compelling voices from the global church will address attendees as well, from Africa and Eastern Europe to Central America. Music will be led by Steven Curtis Chapman and other artists. Meanwhile, more than fifty workshops will deliver practical know-how for orphan ministry—from supporting families with post adoption challenges, to effective models for church foster care programs, to partnerships with indigenous churches for overseas orphan care. In addition, families in the adoption process will have the opportunity for five “Hague Hours” from national experts such as Dr. Karyn Purvis at no additional cost.
If God has stirred hearts in your church for the plight of orphans, Summit offers the biggest and best opportunity of the year to learn how to act upon your convictions. Many churches will send multiple individuals in order to fully access the full range of resources, workshops and other opportunities available. To learn more and register now, visit the Christian Alliance for Orphans website at www.christianalliancefororphans.org.
Summit VI
You and individuals from your church community are invited to attend the Christian Alliance for Orphans’ national Summit VI! This national conference is designed to help Christians start and grow orphan ministry in the local church, including adoption, foster care and international orphan initiatives.
Summit VI on April 29-30 in Minneapolis, MN will bring together grassroots advocates, pastors, orphan experts from across America and beyond—as well as many new to the issue seeking to learn how to engage.
Featured speakers include national champions of orphan care and adoption, including John Piper, Doug Sauder, Mary Beth Chapman, Jedd Medefind, Tom Davis and Al Mohler. Compelling voices from the global church will address attendees as well, from Africa and Eastern Europe to Central America. Music will be led by Steven Curtis Chapman and other artists. Meanwhile, more than fifty workshops will deliver practical know-how for orphan ministry—from supporting families with post adoption challenges, to effective models for church foster care programs, to partnerships with indigenous churches for overseas orphan care. In addition, families in the adoption process will have the opportunity for five “Hague Hours” from national experts such as Dr. Karyn Purvis at no additional cost.
If God has stirred hearts in your church for the plight of orphans, Summit offers the biggest and best opportunity of the year to learn how to act upon your convictions. Many churches will send multiple individuals in order to fully access the full range of resources, workshops and other opportunities available. To learn more and register now, visit the Christian Alliance for Orphans website at www.christianalliancefororphans.org.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Bethany Community Update Email
Dear Bethany Community Church,
Some women’s advocacy groups are protesting CBS’ decision to air a commercial during the Super Bowl that they say is offensive and demeaning to women.
The groups are not protesting the demeaning of women on the sidelines or during the half-time show. The commercial is not one in which women are objectified to sell beer or cars or announce new web companies.
Instead, the groups’ fury is targeted at a 30-second ad from Focus on the Family in which a mother will relate the story of how she was advised to abort her unborn son when she became ill in the Philippines. She refused to do so and her son, Tim Tebow, became one of the most successful quarterbacks to ever play at the University of Florida, or anywhere else for that matter.
I try not to be a pessimist. I have every confidence that through the gospel, hearts can be changed and our culture can change in radical ways. But I have to admit that the furor over this ad has me quite saddened and perplexed.
The venue in question—the Super Bowl—has hosted some of the most offensive advertising content ever. There was the scandalous “wardrobe malfunction” incident several years ago that resulted in heated discussions regarding indecency, but for the most part these discussions missed the fact that decency and modesty in television were long ago replaced with an insidious lasciviousness.
The divide in our country on this issue is truly great. Terry O’Neil, the president of the National Organization for Women, referred to the ad as “extraordinarily offensive and demeaning.” How tragic that in our Mad Hatter sort of world, using women as billboards is wholesome entertainment and the promotion of message of life is demeaning to women while promoting the choice of life is demeaning.
By His Grace,
Pastor Daniel
Some women’s advocacy groups are protesting CBS’ decision to air a commercial during the Super Bowl that they say is offensive and demeaning to women.
The groups are not protesting the demeaning of women on the sidelines or during the half-time show. The commercial is not one in which women are objectified to sell beer or cars or announce new web companies.
Instead, the groups’ fury is targeted at a 30-second ad from Focus on the Family in which a mother will relate the story of how she was advised to abort her unborn son when she became ill in the Philippines. She refused to do so and her son, Tim Tebow, became one of the most successful quarterbacks to ever play at the University of Florida, or anywhere else for that matter.
I try not to be a pessimist. I have every confidence that through the gospel, hearts can be changed and our culture can change in radical ways. But I have to admit that the furor over this ad has me quite saddened and perplexed.
The venue in question—the Super Bowl—has hosted some of the most offensive advertising content ever. There was the scandalous “wardrobe malfunction” incident several years ago that resulted in heated discussions regarding indecency, but for the most part these discussions missed the fact that decency and modesty in television were long ago replaced with an insidious lasciviousness.
The divide in our country on this issue is truly great. Terry O’Neil, the president of the National Organization for Women, referred to the ad as “extraordinarily offensive and demeaning.” How tragic that in our Mad Hatter sort of world, using women as billboards is wholesome entertainment and the promotion of message of life is demeaning to women while promoting the choice of life is demeaning.
By His Grace,
Pastor Daniel
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Read a Little, not a Lot
Dear Bethany Community Church,
Let me add one more suggestion to your ever-growing list of New Year’s Resolutions: resolve to read little bit instead of trying to read a lot.
Books can sometimes be rather formidable opponents, weighing in at several hundred pages usually. Great tomes can seem even more overwhelming. We feel as though we are doing well to read the Bible, much less additional reading!
Therefore, my suggestion is to try not to read “a lot” but instead try to read “a little bit.”
Pastor John Stott tells of his struggle to find adequate study time and the realization he came to in his book Between Two Worlds:
I found from the beginning that [spending an entire morning in study] was an impossible ideal to attain. I made valiant efforts, but I failed. Mornings? Why, on Sunday morning I was at public worship in church; on Monday morning there was a staff meeting; Tuesday was my day off; by Wednesday there were urgent letters to write; on Thursday morning I taught in our Church Day School; on Friday morning there was sure to be a funeral; and Saturday morning I had to reserve for actual sermon preparation. Thus the week went by without a single morning being free for those books which I was supposed to be reading. So I found myself obliged to lower my expectations and set myself more realistic goals. I have come to believe in the cumulative value of shorter periods of study (202).
John Piper confirms Stott’s conclusion and offers this observation in Brothers, We Are Not Professionals:
We think we don’t have time to read. We despair of reading anything spiritually rich and substantial because life seems to be lived in snatches. One of the most helpful discoveries I have made is how much can be read in disciplined blocks of twenty minutes a day.
Suppose that you read slowly, say about 250 words a minutes (as I do). This means that in twenty minutes you can read about five thousand words. An average book has about four hundred words a page. So you could read about twelve-and-a-half pages in twenty minutes. Suppose you discipline yourself to read a certain author or topic twenty minutes a day, six days a week, for a year. That would be 312 times 12.5 pages for a total of 3,900 pages. Assume that an average book is 250 pages long. This means you could read fifteen books like that in one year (66-67).
You probably do not have several hours every day to read a book. But perhaps you have twenty minutes a day before you fall asleep, or half an hour while you eat lunch.
By God’s grace and for His glory, venture into new worlds this year in your reading!
By His Grace,
Pastor Daniel
Thursday, December 17, 2009
This Made Me Laugh...
Check this out:
http://www.sundog.net/carolofthechins/flash/card.swf
Merry Christmas! (After trying a couple of your own, type in "Jingle Bell Rocks")
http://www.sundog.net/carolofthechins/flash/card.swf
Merry Christmas! (After trying a couple of your own, type in "Jingle Bell Rocks")
Till death do us part...part 2
I was extremely surprised and honored that John Marcotte responded to my previous blog and had some great comments. On a more serious note, let me address some of what he said in his comment.
We're not talking about religious marriage here -- only civil marriage.
I'm guessing John is saying that his satirical proposition is not trying to attack religious marriage but rather focus on how civil marriages should be viewed.
The fact that my measure is seen by some as ridiculous validates the idea that Prop 8 voters are only willing to sacrifice other people's rights to protect marriage -- not their own.
The statement contains several fallacies. First, John has probably picked up on the fact that many people don't view the fundamental idea behind his proposition as ridiculous. So, to say that "Prop 8 voters are only willing to sacrifice other people's rights..." seems unfair and imprecise. There are lots of people who would want to buy his t-shirt if he wasn't being satirical! I hope he appreciates the irony. Many would LOVE to make divorce more difficult and more rare. Many believe our society is worse off because of our high divorce rates.
Second, John is using the term "right" to refer to a recognition by the government of a union that has never been recognized before. Comparing that “right” to the process of divorce, which legal codes for thousands of years have provided for, seems extremely far-fetched. This is the subject for a different post, but I think Bork and others have done a good job arguing how the historical understanding of “rights” should inform our thinking when employing that term.
In short, allowing divorce does not fundamentally alter how our culture has defined marriage. At the very least, I wish opponents of Prop 8 would acknowledge that.
Does the government make a marriage sacred?
No. (Although I don’t perform a “religious” marriage apart from the assurance that the couple has gone through the necessary requirements that state sets for their union.)
And should the government enforce one religious view of marriage over others?
Several fundamental problems to the question.
First, what would be the “one” religious view? Is John referring to Christianity? There are many religions (and non-religious beliefs) that define marriage as a union between a man and woman.
Second, what does John mean by "religious view"? We all have something that guides us in making value judgments. Perhaps your overriding value is liberty or individual freedom. But there must be some philosophical reason behind advocating that value.
John is making the assumption that those who supported Prop 8 did so for religious means. Again, this is painting those voters with a very broad brush! John is second assuming that our underlying views of what is morally right and wrong should not shape our view of what is best for our country if they stem from religious beliefs. If I called his beliefs “religious” because of his devotion to them, does that invalidate them?
I would suggest that this conception of how laws are made is a radical departure from historic policy theory.
Let's put John’s question another way: should one group's anti-religious bias influence policy decisions? Why not? I have every expectation that a person who views the expression of Judeo-Christian values as harmful in shaping policy will vote against them. I don’t go around saying their beliefs shouldn’t affect how they vote. It’s ludicrous.
It's an interesting debate. I enjoy reading others opinions.
I want to publically thank John for his gracious tone and comments. I had no idea he would be reading the letter I sent out to the church. I view this blog as my living room and am always excited when guests pop in from far-away parts!
This goes back to what I was saying in a previous post regarding the Manhattan Declaration. This isn’t about gay marriage. It’s about the gospel.
Having marriage be defined as a union between one man and one woman doesn’t proclaim the gospel. It’s the right thing to do for numerous reasons, but it’s not a religious statement.
But what gay right advocates rightly recognize is that the underlying force influencing my life is my desire to glorify God. My life has been transformed by placing my faith in Jesus Christ alone for my salvation and I understand why others might find that odd. My goal is not to win an argument on the merits or dangers of gay marriage. My goal is to share the message of Jesus Christ, encouraging everyone—including the church!—to turn from hypocrisy and sin and place their trust in Jesus Christ.
John's Comment 1:
We're not talking about religious marriage here -- only civil marriage.
Daniel's Response 1:
I'm guessing John is saying that his satirical proposition is not trying to attack religious marriage but rather focus on how civil marriages should be viewed.
John's Comment 2:
The fact that my measure is seen by some as ridiculous validates the idea that Prop 8 voters are only willing to sacrifice other people's rights to protect marriage -- not their own.
Daniel's Response 2:
The statement contains several fallacies. First, John has probably picked up on the fact that many people don't view the fundamental idea behind his proposition as ridiculous. So, to say that "Prop 8 voters are only willing to sacrifice other people's rights..." seems unfair and imprecise. There are lots of people who would want to buy his t-shirt if he wasn't being satirical! I hope he appreciates the irony. Many would LOVE to make divorce more difficult and more rare. Many believe our society is worse off because of our high divorce rates.
Second, John is using the term "right" to refer to a recognition by the government of a union that has never been recognized before. Comparing that “right” to the process of divorce, which legal codes for thousands of years have provided for, seems extremely far-fetched. This is the subject for a different post, but I think Bork and others have done a good job arguing how the historical understanding of “rights” should inform our thinking when employing that term.
In short, allowing divorce does not fundamentally alter how our culture has defined marriage. At the very least, I wish opponents of Prop 8 would acknowledge that.
John's Question 1:
Does the government make a marriage sacred?
Daniel's Answer 1:
No. (Although I don’t perform a “religious” marriage apart from the assurance that the couple has gone through the necessary requirements that state sets for their union.)
John's Question 2:
And should the government enforce one religious view of marriage over others?
Daniel's Answer 2:
Several fundamental problems to the question.
First, what would be the “one” religious view? Is John referring to Christianity? There are many religions (and non-religious beliefs) that define marriage as a union between a man and woman.
Second, what does John mean by "religious view"? We all have something that guides us in making value judgments. Perhaps your overriding value is liberty or individual freedom. But there must be some philosophical reason behind advocating that value.
John is making the assumption that those who supported Prop 8 did so for religious means. Again, this is painting those voters with a very broad brush! John is second assuming that our underlying views of what is morally right and wrong should not shape our view of what is best for our country if they stem from religious beliefs. If I called his beliefs “religious” because of his devotion to them, does that invalidate them?
I would suggest that this conception of how laws are made is a radical departure from historic policy theory.
Let's put John’s question another way: should one group's anti-religious bias influence policy decisions? Why not? I have every expectation that a person who views the expression of Judeo-Christian values as harmful in shaping policy will vote against them. I don’t go around saying their beliefs shouldn’t affect how they vote. It’s ludicrous.
John's Comment 3:
It's an interesting debate. I enjoy reading others opinions.
Daniel's Final Response:
I want to publically thank John for his gracious tone and comments. I had no idea he would be reading the letter I sent out to the church. I view this blog as my living room and am always excited when guests pop in from far-away parts!
This goes back to what I was saying in a previous post regarding the Manhattan Declaration. This isn’t about gay marriage. It’s about the gospel.
Having marriage be defined as a union between one man and one woman doesn’t proclaim the gospel. It’s the right thing to do for numerous reasons, but it’s not a religious statement.
But what gay right advocates rightly recognize is that the underlying force influencing my life is my desire to glorify God. My life has been transformed by placing my faith in Jesus Christ alone for my salvation and I understand why others might find that odd. My goal is not to win an argument on the merits or dangers of gay marriage. My goal is to share the message of Jesus Christ, encouraging everyone—including the church!—to turn from hypocrisy and sin and place their trust in Jesus Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)