Associated Baptist Press - Opinion: The God we share
My response to this article:
Carra Hughes Greer articulates important thoughts regarding the mission of God and Christian dialogue with Jews. I think both are important. Though I believe that Rev. Greer was reacting to Baptist ideology that says that preparing the soul for eternity is most important, at the expense of the needs of others, I believe that we need to be careful making absolute statements in favor of social justice at the expense of evangelism.
I agree with Xenophon, who argued that these ends should be one in the same and not mutually exclusive.
As I understand the mission of God in scripture, His New Creation is breaking into the midst of the fallen world. How people respond to Jesus (not misguided preaching about Jesus) is of the utmost importance. However, His followers are called to embrace a lifestyle change and a life mission to embody Christ in the world. The resulting communities of faith are to put their resources to work to use real needs as opportunities to demonstrate God's love, love that should come forth from the depths of their Spirit-filled character. We are communities of citizens of the New Creation (2 Cor. 5:17 and Phil. 3:20) who are called to live a new lifestyle in light of these realities in the midst of a fallen world.
They should never rely on government as the only means to secure their agenda. Question for the religious right: How do you end abortion without securing the support of your government? Question for the religious left: How do you secure justice for the poor without securing the aid of the government?
These are questions that the church should ask. Christian communities should be far ahead of the government in these aspects, before going to the picket lines demanding the government to do what they have been unwilling (not unable) to do all along.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
A Thought
"Having a foot in both the religious left and the religious right, it seems that they have much in common. Both believe that the United States Government is the means by which they promote and secure their agenda."
Friday, March 12, 2010
Presuppositions and Reading Scripture
"Oh, how I love your law! I meditate on it all day long!" Psalm 119:97, NIV
When reading the Bible, selecting a translation, choosing a study Bible, or listening to a "favorite" preacher/teacher, it is important to consider presuppositions that affect interpretations of scripture.
Factors that influence interpretation:
1. Gender
2. Socio-economic status
3. Nationality or Ethnicity
4. Life experiences or circumstances
5. Whether or not the interpreter is Christian
6. The historical location of the commentator, preacher or translator.
7. Denominational affiliation
8. Seminary Training
9. Pet "issues"
Regarding translations of the Bible, never assume that the translators are unbiased in their translation decisions. Though the process of translation (I believe) is guided by the Holy Spirit, translators are fallible individuals. They may make unintentional mistakes or intentional translation decisions based upon their presuppositions. Some translations (like the Jehovah's Witness translation - I cannot recall the name) are translated to reflect their own theological issues. Thus, never assume all translations are equal. It is important to use several translations, and understand the presuppositions that underly a particular translation. Thanks to the world of publishing and marketing, most translations include a preface that reveal each factor.
Regarding study bibles and commentaries, it is important to realize that the study notes and commentaries are not simply giving the meaning of the text. Again, commentaries and study Bibles reflect a particular reading of the text based upon presuppositions above. It is important to "know where the commentators/editors are coming from" when selecting a particular study edition.
Finally, the same is true for any pastor/teacher. We are fallible human beings who each bring our own presuppositions to the table. Though authority is nice when preaching and teaching, humility may be most important.
For me, I firmly believe that the Bible is God's Written Word and should be regarded as such for matters of faith, worldview and subsequent applications of these. Therefore I am committed to continually ask how the presuppositions I bring to the text affect my reading of scripture. Moreover, as more tools to aid interpretation become available, I am committed to rethink the specifics of doctrines that may at one time have influenced even translation decisions. I feel that, with integrity, to teach the Bible as God's Word to any congregation, my first and foremost duty, out of love for my congregation and people in my life, is to continue to ask the question of how to interpret the text, regardless of how it affects beliefs that I hold.
When reading the Bible, selecting a translation, choosing a study Bible, or listening to a "favorite" preacher/teacher, it is important to consider presuppositions that affect interpretations of scripture.
Factors that influence interpretation:
1. Gender
2. Socio-economic status
3. Nationality or Ethnicity
4. Life experiences or circumstances
5. Whether or not the interpreter is Christian
6. The historical location of the commentator, preacher or translator.
7. Denominational affiliation
8. Seminary Training
9. Pet "issues"
Regarding translations of the Bible, never assume that the translators are unbiased in their translation decisions. Though the process of translation (I believe) is guided by the Holy Spirit, translators are fallible individuals. They may make unintentional mistakes or intentional translation decisions based upon their presuppositions. Some translations (like the Jehovah's Witness translation - I cannot recall the name) are translated to reflect their own theological issues. Thus, never assume all translations are equal. It is important to use several translations, and understand the presuppositions that underly a particular translation. Thanks to the world of publishing and marketing, most translations include a preface that reveal each factor.
Regarding study bibles and commentaries, it is important to realize that the study notes and commentaries are not simply giving the meaning of the text. Again, commentaries and study Bibles reflect a particular reading of the text based upon presuppositions above. It is important to "know where the commentators/editors are coming from" when selecting a particular study edition.
Finally, the same is true for any pastor/teacher. We are fallible human beings who each bring our own presuppositions to the table. Though authority is nice when preaching and teaching, humility may be most important.
For me, I firmly believe that the Bible is God's Written Word and should be regarded as such for matters of faith, worldview and subsequent applications of these. Therefore I am committed to continually ask how the presuppositions I bring to the text affect my reading of scripture. Moreover, as more tools to aid interpretation become available, I am committed to rethink the specifics of doctrines that may at one time have influenced even translation decisions. I feel that, with integrity, to teach the Bible as God's Word to any congregation, my first and foremost duty, out of love for my congregation and people in my life, is to continue to ask the question of how to interpret the text, regardless of how it affects beliefs that I hold.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Non-violence, Peacemaking and Enemy-love
38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. 43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:38-48, NIV)
Pacifism is interesting, to say the least. Though all Christians do not agree on the logistics - including the definition of violence, the people who are called to be non-violent and the ends of non-violent activity - those who have committed their lives to Christ must re-think traditional modes of violence and warfare, as well as self-defense based on the above verses. All Christians may not come to the same conclusion. Nevertheless, these verses compounded with the example given in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and the early church's attitudes toward violence ought to shape our thought and conversations about violence. I have reflected at length on these issues. Below are a few conclusions that I have made.
First of all, the Bible never promotes non-violence as a moral rule. Murder is never to be tolerated. Yet, the LORD commanded Israel to take arms against nations as they conquered the Promised Land. King Saul was rebuked by the LORD through Samuel for failure to slaughter the enemy completely. Though violence is absent from the New Testament and God's people, the call to non-violence is never a command. In fact, this would be counter-intuitive to the Spirit given to the community to bear spiritual fruit (Gal. 5:22ff). Arbitrary rules are whittled down so that through the Spirit's work in the life of the Believer, the believer will begin to naturally exhibit the character and virtues God intended for his people. Therefore non-violence can not be taken at the level of a moral rule, such as the love commandment or the Ten Commandments.
Second, non-violence and peace-making are two different things. Communities committed to non-violence as a rule usually withdraw from society, either voluntarily or under coercion. Non-violent communities emphasize the imminent return of Christ and God's vengence on perpetrators of violence. However, those who are committed to peace-making may never withdraw from the world but are actively engaged in the politics of the world, working for reconciliation between nations, religions and world-views. They are actively involved in securing justice. To accomplish their goals, many believe that violence can and will be used. Though there are many examples of non-violent resistence and though peace-makers may be committed to pacificism and pacifists to peace-making, it does not mean that the two are one in the same. Non-violence means no war and no self defense regardless of the result. Peace-making assumes that there is violence and conflict in the world but that the goal of accomplishing peace may require using some of the means of a fallen world. Non-violent Christians believe that God will judge this world and set things right. Peace-makers believe that they are the instruments through which God will set this world to rights.
Third, I believe that a pacifist position can only make sense in light of the Christian narrative. For me, knowing what little I know about other faiths and worldviews, it does not make sense for other faiths or worldviews to be pacifist. Many Jews admit that the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) are ambivalent at best on the subject of meaningful life beyond death. (Many Christians who go to show proof texts in the OT regarding life after death fail to realize that those texts can only be taken as such in light of the revelation they have received in the New Testament). Islam offers a view of God that states whatever Allah commands is right. I have read (well, skimmed) much of the Koran only to find many contradictions at the level of moral rule and a "heaven" that is all too "worldly." Other faiths indicated that ceasing to exist is the goal of all living things and that the cycle of reincarnation is a punishment for lack of good Karma. Atheistic, agnostic and secular humanist worldviews promote a view of life that requires no accountability in another life. Therefore, securing justice, acquiring power, enjoying pleasure, and gaining wisdom are reserved for this life alone. Therefore one must fight for these causes now. Islam could be taken as an exception. But, reading from the Koran, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that Allah would forbid violence.
Christianity is different. It promotes resurrection in this world. It promotes resurrection when God's world is free from corruption and decay. It promotes a resurrection into an age when death and suffering are eliminated. Looking to Jesus' example on the cross, God raised Jesus because Jesus was righteous and suffered. This is God's righteousness. God is greater than the world and will always redeem the righteous martyr, as well as those who, by His Spirit, participate in Jesus' death and resurrection as a sacrifice of atonement. Therefore, Jesus' words in Matthew 5:38-48 make sense only to those committed to a world-view in which God vindicates those who participate in Christ's death and resurrection. It makes no sense for Christians to call non-Christians to non-violence when they do not accept the world-view that would make non-violence possible. Though pacificism makes sense only in light of a Christian world-view that both takes literally the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the belief that this will happen for His followers at the end of time, does this mean that Christians are called to be non-violent as a moral rule? This brings me to my fourth conclusion regarding non-violence.
Non-violence without love is impossible. Thus, Jesus never prescribed non-violence as a moral rule. Jesus called his followers to love one's enemies because that is what God does. The righteousness of God surpasses the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees because God indiscriminately provides for all people, whether they are His or not. We are to exhibit God's righteousness, not merely claim that God is doing what we cannot do (as some popular teachings of God's righteousness imputed to sinners indicate). We are to be a people that reflect his character, embody his virtue and live them out before the world.
Fifth, we are called to visible. We are called to be in the world and never to withdraw from the world. Therefore pacificism as a rule to withdraw from the world is never the command of Christ, who was in the world living God's light of a new age in the midst of this present, fallen age. Though I have learned much from the Anabaptist tradition(s), I cannot condone a withdrawal from the world and a lifestyle that refuses to engage the world.
So how does this play out? In a world filled with violence it is hard to imagine refusing to renounce violence when the threat of violence is all around. However, the key is love. Jesus taught us that God was a God who loved all indiscriminately and we are to do the same. Love wills the best for the beloved regardless of the beloved's response and at the risk of getting hurt. Love always involves a risk (some would argue that God could not love all in this manner because it will involve 'risk.' At the 'risk' of being heretical, which I am never worried about anyway, what could love be without the beloved's freedom to say no? Love is not love unless the beloved is free to respond). Love always grants the freedom for the beloved to respond.
We are called to love in this manner as a command. Moreover, we are called to love as a virtue that gives evidence of the Spirit's presence and power at work in our lives. We are called to love not like the world, which puts qualifications on the beloved, but like God, who would even allow human beings the freedom to ultimately say 'no.' Even then, God's love is never broken.
So, can we use violence or not? That's what we are asking isn't it. Well, what is the loving response to a victim when we stand between that victim and the perpeptrator? What is the loving response to the burglar, the thief, the one who inflicts suffering on the innocent. We are never to called to withdraw. Yet, in that intervention, what is our intention? Are we hungry to kill and looking for an opportunity to use self-defense as an excuse. Do we sleep with our gun next to our pillow, anxiously awaiting the burglar? Or, are we poised to love, to act as God's agent to preach his saving word? And, like Bonhoeffer, is violence only a reluctant means to act with love to the victims of a perpetrator who can never be reformed? Love is the key to this all.
Are our hearts filled with hatred toward the enemy or love? Only one is the Christian response.
Pacifism is interesting, to say the least. Though all Christians do not agree on the logistics - including the definition of violence, the people who are called to be non-violent and the ends of non-violent activity - those who have committed their lives to Christ must re-think traditional modes of violence and warfare, as well as self-defense based on the above verses. All Christians may not come to the same conclusion. Nevertheless, these verses compounded with the example given in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and the early church's attitudes toward violence ought to shape our thought and conversations about violence. I have reflected at length on these issues. Below are a few conclusions that I have made.
First of all, the Bible never promotes non-violence as a moral rule. Murder is never to be tolerated. Yet, the LORD commanded Israel to take arms against nations as they conquered the Promised Land. King Saul was rebuked by the LORD through Samuel for failure to slaughter the enemy completely. Though violence is absent from the New Testament and God's people, the call to non-violence is never a command. In fact, this would be counter-intuitive to the Spirit given to the community to bear spiritual fruit (Gal. 5:22ff). Arbitrary rules are whittled down so that through the Spirit's work in the life of the Believer, the believer will begin to naturally exhibit the character and virtues God intended for his people. Therefore non-violence can not be taken at the level of a moral rule, such as the love commandment or the Ten Commandments.
Second, non-violence and peace-making are two different things. Communities committed to non-violence as a rule usually withdraw from society, either voluntarily or under coercion. Non-violent communities emphasize the imminent return of Christ and God's vengence on perpetrators of violence. However, those who are committed to peace-making may never withdraw from the world but are actively engaged in the politics of the world, working for reconciliation between nations, religions and world-views. They are actively involved in securing justice. To accomplish their goals, many believe that violence can and will be used. Though there are many examples of non-violent resistence and though peace-makers may be committed to pacificism and pacifists to peace-making, it does not mean that the two are one in the same. Non-violence means no war and no self defense regardless of the result. Peace-making assumes that there is violence and conflict in the world but that the goal of accomplishing peace may require using some of the means of a fallen world. Non-violent Christians believe that God will judge this world and set things right. Peace-makers believe that they are the instruments through which God will set this world to rights.
Third, I believe that a pacifist position can only make sense in light of the Christian narrative. For me, knowing what little I know about other faiths and worldviews, it does not make sense for other faiths or worldviews to be pacifist. Many Jews admit that the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) are ambivalent at best on the subject of meaningful life beyond death. (Many Christians who go to show proof texts in the OT regarding life after death fail to realize that those texts can only be taken as such in light of the revelation they have received in the New Testament). Islam offers a view of God that states whatever Allah commands is right. I have read (well, skimmed) much of the Koran only to find many contradictions at the level of moral rule and a "heaven" that is all too "worldly." Other faiths indicated that ceasing to exist is the goal of all living things and that the cycle of reincarnation is a punishment for lack of good Karma. Atheistic, agnostic and secular humanist worldviews promote a view of life that requires no accountability in another life. Therefore, securing justice, acquiring power, enjoying pleasure, and gaining wisdom are reserved for this life alone. Therefore one must fight for these causes now. Islam could be taken as an exception. But, reading from the Koran, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that Allah would forbid violence.
Christianity is different. It promotes resurrection in this world. It promotes resurrection when God's world is free from corruption and decay. It promotes a resurrection into an age when death and suffering are eliminated. Looking to Jesus' example on the cross, God raised Jesus because Jesus was righteous and suffered. This is God's righteousness. God is greater than the world and will always redeem the righteous martyr, as well as those who, by His Spirit, participate in Jesus' death and resurrection as a sacrifice of atonement. Therefore, Jesus' words in Matthew 5:38-48 make sense only to those committed to a world-view in which God vindicates those who participate in Christ's death and resurrection. It makes no sense for Christians to call non-Christians to non-violence when they do not accept the world-view that would make non-violence possible. Though pacificism makes sense only in light of a Christian world-view that both takes literally the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the belief that this will happen for His followers at the end of time, does this mean that Christians are called to be non-violent as a moral rule? This brings me to my fourth conclusion regarding non-violence.
Non-violence without love is impossible. Thus, Jesus never prescribed non-violence as a moral rule. Jesus called his followers to love one's enemies because that is what God does. The righteousness of God surpasses the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees because God indiscriminately provides for all people, whether they are His or not. We are to exhibit God's righteousness, not merely claim that God is doing what we cannot do (as some popular teachings of God's righteousness imputed to sinners indicate). We are to be a people that reflect his character, embody his virtue and live them out before the world.
Fifth, we are called to visible. We are called to be in the world and never to withdraw from the world. Therefore pacificism as a rule to withdraw from the world is never the command of Christ, who was in the world living God's light of a new age in the midst of this present, fallen age. Though I have learned much from the Anabaptist tradition(s), I cannot condone a withdrawal from the world and a lifestyle that refuses to engage the world.
So how does this play out? In a world filled with violence it is hard to imagine refusing to renounce violence when the threat of violence is all around. However, the key is love. Jesus taught us that God was a God who loved all indiscriminately and we are to do the same. Love wills the best for the beloved regardless of the beloved's response and at the risk of getting hurt. Love always involves a risk (some would argue that God could not love all in this manner because it will involve 'risk.' At the 'risk' of being heretical, which I am never worried about anyway, what could love be without the beloved's freedom to say no? Love is not love unless the beloved is free to respond). Love always grants the freedom for the beloved to respond.
We are called to love in this manner as a command. Moreover, we are called to love as a virtue that gives evidence of the Spirit's presence and power at work in our lives. We are called to love not like the world, which puts qualifications on the beloved, but like God, who would even allow human beings the freedom to ultimately say 'no.' Even then, God's love is never broken.
So, can we use violence or not? That's what we are asking isn't it. Well, what is the loving response to a victim when we stand between that victim and the perpeptrator? What is the loving response to the burglar, the thief, the one who inflicts suffering on the innocent. We are never to called to withdraw. Yet, in that intervention, what is our intention? Are we hungry to kill and looking for an opportunity to use self-defense as an excuse. Do we sleep with our gun next to our pillow, anxiously awaiting the burglar? Or, are we poised to love, to act as God's agent to preach his saving word? And, like Bonhoeffer, is violence only a reluctant means to act with love to the victims of a perpetrator who can never be reformed? Love is the key to this all.
Are our hearts filled with hatred toward the enemy or love? Only one is the Christian response.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Lessons to be learned from American Idol
When American Idol first launched in 2002, Rebecca and I caught the tail end of the first season's show. We enjoyed watching Kelly Clarkson and Justin Guarini battle to the end for the show's first $1 Million record contract, singing the show's anthem "A Moment Like This." We were taken aback by Simon's sharp and sometimes crude criticism of the show's contestants. We marveled at how the contestants reacted to Simon. And, we were re-introduced to Paula Abdul, the pop-singer who caught the hearts of many in the 80's, returned from the celebrity has-been's and totally re-invented herself for a generation who probably never knew she was a singer, much less one of her songs. And who cannot like Randy Jackson? We loved the show and loved the story-line about this down-to-earth waitress from Texas coming out of nowhere to immediate stardom from the show.
With eager anticipation we tuned in from the get-go in 2003. And, on one of the rehearsals I noticed a large African-American young man named Ruben Studdard, or "Big Stud," as his teamates used to call him. He sang and made it through. I played against Ruben in high school, as Ruben started at tackle for Huffman High School. Being a member of Huffman Baptist Church, I had met him and knew many of his friends. So, Rebecca and I watched with eager anticipation as Ruben, wearing his famous '205' jerseys, united the state of Alabama like nothing since the 1925 Alabama football team won the Rose Bowl. We found out we were expecting our first-born during the course of Idol Season 2, and tuned regularly. We loved Ruben, voted many times, especially after his duel with Clay Aiken. And when they announced the winner, Ruben was not the only one flying without wings!
Of course, Idol's popularity could not last forever. Until season eight, it seemed as if the show would go on forever. But with the addition of Kara Dioguardi last year, and now, Paula Abdul's absence, along with the knowledge that Simon Cowell is leaving after this season, the show has taken a hit. Furthermore, Simon surprises no one. We know how to take him. Paula is no longer there to soften the blows Simon deals. Randy is still Randy, and I like that. And Ellen, well, I have really not watched the show enough this year to form an opinion. In the course of two years, what was once America's top show has taken a nose-dive. And, I don't think that any one will miss it once it's gone. However, what happened?
Drama. Yep, that's right. Some people wanted more money. Others wanted more of the spotlight. And, it got old and predictable.
Is there a lesson to be learned?
From reading the Bible and studying in college and graduate school, kingdoms come and kingdoms go. The vast Roman Empire that thrived for hundreds of years looked as if it would last forever to those of Jesus' day. Ten generations after Jesus, St. Augustine lamented the sacking of Rome.
Before that it was the Greeks, the Persians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Philistines and the Egyptians. All dominated their known worlds, enjoyed prosperity and seemed to be destined to rule forever. Yet, things change. Values are questioned. People want a piece of the pie. Some believe that they are owed a living and are entitled to have it all without sacrifice. And, whether overnight or over the course of centuries, empires crumble, kingdoms fall, and democracies splinter.
Is there a lesson for the church? Is there a lesson for the United States? Is there a lesson in the demise of American Idol?
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Biblical Recorder - Haiti volunteers have saved ‘hundreds of lives’
Biblical Recorder - Haiti volunteers have saved ‘hundreds of lives’
Good work!
Here is a wonderful quotation from the article by Richard Brunson, the director of North Carolina Baptist Men, originally attributed to Mother Teresa:
"You don't do great things; you do little things with great love."
Good work!
Here is a wonderful quotation from the article by Richard Brunson, the director of North Carolina Baptist Men, originally attributed to Mother Teresa:
"You don't do great things; you do little things with great love."
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Two Years
(This is a copy of my weekly article in the church news letter for today)
I thank my God every time I remember you. In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. (Philippians 1:3-6, NIV)
But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well. "Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. (Luke 12:31-32, NIV)
Dear Church Family,
Rebecca and I were just recalling yesterday that it had been two years since we moved to Taylorsville, though, as time seems to fly for a full-fledged adult, it feels as if it should only be six months. Though you made us feel at home with your warm welcome, care and concern for our transition, it has been only recently that it has felt like “home.” Rebecca said yesterday how much she loved it here, and that we are thankful for the wonderful people at First Baptist and in the greater Alexander County community. However, it takes time for a home to be a home. We’ve gotten to know many people, seen our little girl, who was just a newborn infant when we met you, blossom into a beautiful and unique little girl. John Alan began kindergarten at Sugar Loaf Elementary School, and he loves his home in Taylorsville. We’ve shared many joys with you in baptisms, weddings, homecomings and Christmas celebrations. Too, we’ve shared in heartbreaking times of saying goodbye to loved ones. It seems as if we have had more than our share. However, through all this, God has been faithful.
We are thankful for our church family. While we are “different” members of the congregation in that we serve the church as pastor, we have been made to feel like part of the family, rather than an outsider on an extended stay. And, we are thankful to share in your journey, at this stage in the church’s history and ministry to the Alexander County community and beyond.
Where will this all lead? The end result of all our labor is in the hands of God. We are part of a bigger plan, a plan greater than anything God can and will do in the life of one congregation. We are part of God’s plan through His Son Jesus Christ to defeat sin and evil wherever it might be found through the unconditional love only possible through His Spirit. Just as a drop of water could take many routes to the ocean, we are part of a winding journey that could go many paths, but still will one day arrive at the ocean.
We are privileged to be a part of the Kingdom Story and to serve with you as we contribute to God’s purpose for the world. Thank you for two wonderful years. We are looking forward to many more with you.
Grace and peace,
Tim, Rebecca, John Alan and Natalie Marsh
I thank my God every time I remember you. In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. (Philippians 1:3-6, NIV)
But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well. "Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. (Luke 12:31-32, NIV)
Dear Church Family,
Rebecca and I were just recalling yesterday that it had been two years since we moved to Taylorsville, though, as time seems to fly for a full-fledged adult, it feels as if it should only be six months. Though you made us feel at home with your warm welcome, care and concern for our transition, it has been only recently that it has felt like “home.” Rebecca said yesterday how much she loved it here, and that we are thankful for the wonderful people at First Baptist and in the greater Alexander County community. However, it takes time for a home to be a home. We’ve gotten to know many people, seen our little girl, who was just a newborn infant when we met you, blossom into a beautiful and unique little girl. John Alan began kindergarten at Sugar Loaf Elementary School, and he loves his home in Taylorsville. We’ve shared many joys with you in baptisms, weddings, homecomings and Christmas celebrations. Too, we’ve shared in heartbreaking times of saying goodbye to loved ones. It seems as if we have had more than our share. However, through all this, God has been faithful.
We are thankful for our church family. While we are “different” members of the congregation in that we serve the church as pastor, we have been made to feel like part of the family, rather than an outsider on an extended stay. And, we are thankful to share in your journey, at this stage in the church’s history and ministry to the Alexander County community and beyond.
Where will this all lead? The end result of all our labor is in the hands of God. We are part of a bigger plan, a plan greater than anything God can and will do in the life of one congregation. We are part of God’s plan through His Son Jesus Christ to defeat sin and evil wherever it might be found through the unconditional love only possible through His Spirit. Just as a drop of water could take many routes to the ocean, we are part of a winding journey that could go many paths, but still will one day arrive at the ocean.
We are privileged to be a part of the Kingdom Story and to serve with you as we contribute to God’s purpose for the world. Thank you for two wonderful years. We are looking forward to many more with you.
Grace and peace,
Tim, Rebecca, John Alan and Natalie Marsh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)