Preparing to Cross the Jordan – Some Thoughts on the Life of a Church

 In the Sunday School class I’m teaching at church, we are studying the Book of Joshua.  The title for this study is “Joshua: Leading Into the Promised Land”.  In the past two weeks, we’ve read chapters 3 and 4 about how the Israelites crossed the River Jordan.  As we read these passages, the thing that struck me was the way Joshua approached this event – with reverence and intentionality.  To really grasp the significance of what is happening, I think it’s helpful to understand that when you read the first four chapters of Joshua, you are witnessing an event from several different viewpoints.

 In Chapter 1, verse 11, God tells Joshua that within 3 days, they will cross the Jordan – “so prepare provisions for yourselves”.  In Joshua 3:2-5, we pick up the story again at the start of this third day of preparations.  Joshua explains how the priests will carry the Ark of the Covenant, and every one will follow about 2,000 cubits behind.  This works out to be a distance of six tenths of a mile – the distance a Jew is allowed to travel on the Sabbath.  Furthermore, the people are to spend the day before the crossing in prayer.  As one reads Joshua 3:5, the people are instructed:

 Consecrate yourselves, for tomorrow the Lord will do wonders among you.

 Much of Chapter 4 explains the actual crossing of the Jordan, a boundary marking a transition or “baptism” into the new life the Children of Israel would enter into upon setting foot in the Promised Land.  What caught my eye as we studied this chapter was Joshua 4:19:

 Now the people came up from the Jordan on the tenth of the first month and camped at Gilgal on the eastern edge of Jericho. 

 This is a significant day!  From Exodus 12:3 we read that this is the first day of the Passover week – the day when each family would have selected a lamb for sacrifice on Passover.  In the Christian calendar, we memorialize this day as Palm Sunday.

 As I reflect on this story, I can’t help but think about the efforts my church is taking to be dismissed from our denomination – and the importance of approaching this process with reverence and intentionality.  As I write this, our Session is preparing to formally petition the governing body of our denomination to hold a vote of the congregation to seek dismissal.  We know that they will want a significant portion of our congregation to participate – at least 50% of a 1,300 member body.

 Realistically, the only time to hold such a vote is on a Sunday, as people are coming to or leaving worship.  We will be asking our governing body that we be allowed to conduct the vote on the weekend of November 14 and 15 – and because of the decision process we must go through, we won’t have an answer until about two weeks before the requested date.   This places a great deal of pressure on us to adequately inform and prepare our congregation for that vote – assuming we receive permission to proceed.

 One last thought that God has impressed upon me as I read of the crossing of the Jordan in Joshua Chapter 4 is that this vote is not just about the membership of our church.  There are many people who are not members of our church who depend on the community ministries God has called us to provide.  These range from child and adult day care, to K – 7^th grade school, to language training for Burmese refugees, to sports ministry outreach, to global missions.  As a result, this vote is not simply a vote for us as church members, but for the world we reach for Christ.

 And that is the connection I find at the end of Joshua Chapter 4, a connection that says that as we go through this process, what we do has an impact on the wider community of people who are watching what we do, who, though they cannot vote, are praying for us.  In Chapter 4, verses 23-24, we read:

 For the Lord your God dried up the waters of the Jordan before you until you had crossed, just as the Lord your God had done to the Red Sea, which He dried up before us until we had crossed; that all the peoples of the earth may know that the hand of the Lord is mighty, so that you may fear the Lord your God forever. 

A Few Questions on Obama’s Cap & Trade from One Angry Hoosier

Today, Congress is voting on the Obama Administration’s plan for what is called “Cap and Trade”

For starters, learn about the debate over the science.  Here’s an interesting article: http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php It’s a petition signed by a number of scientists involved in the area of climate.

At http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_2454.html we can see this statement in the proposed ACT.

Requires: (1) the Administrator to implement the Energy Refund Program to give low-income households a monthly cash energy refund equal to the estimated loss in purchasing power resulting from this Act;

Now, think about the underlying premise of this act.  Think carefully about how you would answer the following questions:

1. Why create a refund program to poor people unless you EXPECT that they will be hurt financially by the act?

2.  If you’re not poor, who will pay for your extra costs?

3.  If you’re not poor and you create jobs, and no one will pay for your extra costs, will you be willing to create new jobs?

4.  If you’re not poor and no one will provide you a refund, will you RAISE your prices (if you sell stuff), and if you do, won’t poor people getting a refund be made poorer EVEN AFTER the refund, since government can’t move fast enough to increase refunds as fast as inflation will increase?

5.  If you’re not poor and you don’t get a refund from anyone, and you don’t sell stuff so you have no prices to increase, will you not be made poor?

6.  If you are made poor, won’t you qualify for a refund?  Therefore, won’t there be more poor people after the Act is passed, resulting in the need for more refunds than were originally planned?

7.  If people who aren’t poor are made to be poor, thus increasing the number of people who will get a refund, who will we be left to raise taxes on to pay the refunds to the “old poor” and the “new poor” who will be created, as required under the Act?

8.  How can we put an end to all these questions that are hurting my head just thinking about the (UNINTENDED ?) CONSEQUENCES of passing a law we know is going to be VERY expensive?

Answer:  CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN and ASK HIM/HER!

Need more information?  Watch what Obama said about his own Cap and Trade proposal from this Fox News Report

I love Smart Power Point Converter

I want to give a big “shout out” to the people at Smart PowerPoint Converter,  http://www.ppt-to-video-converter.com/

Not long ago, I thought about creating a narrated power point show that I could convert to video so I could load it on YouTube.  I’m a self published author, so I could do this for the books I write, as well as other projects.

I actually created one project, and then paid a graphic artist $500 to make the conversion for me (plus a couple of other things).  He did a great job, but at $500 a pop, I knew I couldn’t afford to do that too many times!

So, I began to look for some software that would do what I needed.  In my search, I came across Smart Power Point Converter.  I downloaded it to test it out on the free 30 day trial they provide.  I converted the narrated power point show I had made, but while the video worked great, the audio didn’t come through.

I contacted the good folks at Smart Power Point Converter to tell them my problem. They had me send them a zip file of all the audio files, and then from that, created an updated version of their software that would do what I needed. 

Wow!  A company that would do an upgrade to their software just so I could run my power point presentation!  I downloaded it, and it worked GREAT!  Needless to say, I bought their software and am starting to use if for several projects of mine.

Here’s the video I created and loaded onto youtube.  I highly recommend their software – check it out and their other fine products at http://www.ppt-to-video-converter.com/

What is Nancy Pelosi’s Real Agenda on Dealing with Terrorists?

Recently, Nancy Pelosi was caught on video calling detention of illegal aliens “Un-American.”  You can watch the video of a Fox News report of this statement here

But, for those who have been watching the Speaker on this, this is nothing new.

On June 29, 2006, Nancy Pelosi said the following in response to the Supreme Court Hamden vs. Rumsfeld Decision, which held that trying Guantanamo detainees before military commissions violates U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions:

“Today’s Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system.  This is a triumph for the rule of law.  The rights of due process are among our most cherished liberties, and today’s decision is a rebuke of the Bush Administration’s detainee policies…”  

Then, on September 27, in debate over H.R. 6054 (Changed to H.R. 6166 on passage) – Military Commissions Act, which is the legislation President Bush proposed to address the Hamden decision, Pelosi said the following: 

“Democrats, as well as Republicans, bring to this debate an unshakeable commitment to the proposition that terrorists who attack Americans must be caught, convicted, and punished in a judicial process that will withstand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court. We want them in jail, we want them punished, whatever that punishment is. We don’t want it overturned, and that is what this debate is about today.”  (Click Here for the link)

So, in June of 2006 she praised the Supreme Court for its decision in the Hamden decision, and by September of that year she changed her mind to say that she didn’t want standards for trying terrorists overturned by the Supreme Court.  She was against H.R. 6054 because, as she says, “By seeking to strip federal courts of habeas corpus review, this bill is practically begging to be overturned by the courts.”  Pelosi also added this note:   

“Permitting indefinite detention under conditions that cannot be challenged in court is so contrary to our history and our values that it should raise all sorts of red flags.”

To sum up, Congresswoman Pelosi was for the Hamden decision because the U.S. government wasn’t providing due process rights to terrorists.  Furthermore, she wanted to be sure that terrorists trying to kill Americans are extended the constitutional protection of Habeas Corpus and that it’s just not fair to detain terrorists indefinitely so that we can learn more about their plans and so they can’t kill us.

Maybe there’s something more going on here.  Maybe Nancy Pelosi doesn’t want anything passed that would threaten illegal aliens.  Her recent rant, caught on video and played on Fox News, seems to support this.  But we need to keep in mind: THIS IS NOTHING NEW FOR SPEAKER PELOSI.

Back in October, 2003, a national police sweep of Wal-Mart stores was conducted looking for illegal aliens employed by cleaning crews working at the stores.  Visiting Mexican President Fox during a visit to that country, Congresswoman Pelosi said this:

“It instills a great deal of fear in people who are only trying to earn a living and put food on the table for their family.  We think there might be a better way to go about this because the fact is that it is against the law for the employer to hire these people so there should be more focus on the employer and less in these terrorizing raids.”  (Click Here for the Link)

She went on to say that she favors granting legalized status to illegal aliens who are working in the American economy.  Clearly, if one concedes the fact that some illegal aliens are terrorists who have come here to kill us, if we grant illegal aliens citizenship, then by definition we will grant some terrorists citizenship – and the right to be protected by American laws.

 

 

Point Counterpoint Book Thumbnail

Order Point/Counter Point: Illegal Aliens & The American Way of Life. 

This is an e-book laid out in a “comic book” format, informing & entertaining the reader on the subject of illegal immigration.  Cartoon sketches of such political figures as Hillary Clinton and Rush Limbaugh “present” quotations by twenty politicians and expert research to analyze the loss of “The American Way of Life” due to illegal immigration.  Inaugural speeches of early American Presidents are also included.  Also included is the sermon that led to the inclusion of the words “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance

 

Click Here to Learn How to Order

A Scripture Verse from God

 I had something happen that has never happened to me before.  Sometime during the night, I awoke with a bible verse in my mind:  Isaiah 36:10.  Now, I know my bible fairly well, but this was not a verse with which I was familiar.

 

In the morning, I got up, pulled out my bible, and read it.  Here’s what the verse says:

 

Have I now come up without the Lord’s approval against this land to destroy it?  The Lord said to me, ‘Go up against this land and destroy it’.”

 

In this statement, we see a clear difference of opinion as to who is on God’s side.  The person who is being spoken to thinks they are on God’s side.  The person speaking believes they are on God’s side.

 

Now, why would God lead me to this verse?   I’d like to unravel this question and the answer I’ve arrived at.  To explain it, I need to first describe the background to this verse.

 

The Background of Isaiah 36:10

 

If we look closely at the context, we find that the story takes place during the reign of Hezekiah, King of Judah.  The Assyrians have come and threaten to destroy Jerusalem.  The one who is speaking is the General of the Assyrian Army, Rabshakeh (we’ll call him Rab).  He is speaking to the Hebrews inside the walls of Jerusalem.  Not wanting Rab to frighten the people of Jerusalem, the Judeans call out to him, saying: “Speak now to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand it; and do not speak with us in Judean in the hearing of the people who are on the wall.” (Is. 36:11).

 

What did Rab do?  At the top of his lungs, he called out in Judean so that all would understand him, telling the Judeans that Hezekiah would not save them, that their God would not save them, and that they were all “doomed to eat their own dung and drink their own urine” (vs. 12).

 

Humanly speaking, this was devastating news.  In their time, the Assyrians were the most violent and cruel of conquerors.  No wonder the leaders of Judah didn’t want the common people to know what Rab was saying.  On the other hand, by Rab speaking plainly so that all the people could understand him, the Judeans knew the situation they faced.  And they turned to God to protect them. 

 

In Isaiah 37:35, God said:  “I will defend this city to save it for My own sake and for My servant David’s sake.”   In the end, 185,000 of the Assyrians died, and the Assyrians returned home in defeat and disgrace.

 

The Application

 

Here’s a general principle that I take away from this story:  When faced with adversity, face it squarely and honestly.  Rather than try to interpret what the “Assyrians” say, putting some sort of spin on their words so as not to frighten those who will be affected, find a way so that all of your people will know exactly what the Assyrians are saying in their own words.  Consider the following example from the Presbyterian Denomination.

 

College Corner Presbyterian Church in College Corner, Ohio, is a member of the Presbyterian Church USA.  They are seeking to leave their denomination.  Now, as with other denominations, such as the Methodists and the Episcopalians, there is an ongoing debate as to who owns the property of the local church.  The denominations say the property is held in trust for the denomination, while the local members say they’re the ones who own the church property they worship in. 

 

When College Corner indicated that it would hold a meeting of its congregation to vote on leaving the denomination, the Presbytery voted to issue a written warning indicating that the pastor and elders of that congregation ran the risk of being removed for seeking to leave the denomination.

 

What, exactly, did the denominational authorities say regarding College Corner, and also another church in Indianapolis called Wallace Street Presbyterian?  The answer can be found in the Whitewater Presbytery June 4, 2008 First Reading papers.  One can access the entire document at  http://www.whitewatervalley.org/business/presby_meetings/docs/June_08_First.pdf .  The Presbytery created something called the Committee on Ministry to review the cases of these two churches.  On page 14 of that document, one can read the following: 

 

“The Presbytery by this action shall delegate to the commission the following powers, to take effect when it should become evident to the commission that minister(s) or congregation members are moving toward expressing a desire for separation and the reconciliation is not likely:

 

a. Access to all church records, including but not limited to: membership rolls, minutes of session and all boards and committees, financial records, membership directories, newsletters, and materials distributed for congregational information.

b. Authority to call a congregational meeting (G-7.0303a(2) and to obtain current and accurate membership lists from the church for this purpose.

c. Authority to engage appropriate legal counsel.

d. Authority to take all necessary steps to discern the “true church” (G-8.0601), that is, those wishing to remain loyal to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

e. In the event that a session calls a congregational meeting for the purpose of considering actions leading to separation from the PCUSA, the commission shall have authority to dissolve the session and assume the full powers and jurisdiction of the session. In the event that this has occurred prior to this action of presbytery, the power shall be effective immediately. With the full authority of the session, the commission shall be empowered to:

i. Provide for worship and for the continuing pastoral care of all of the congregation

ii. Receive and act on request from members to be transferred or deleted from the membership rolls.

iii. Determine and negotiate distribution of all property and assets of the congregation, with any final resolution to be recommended to the Presbytery Council for approval; Council will subsequently present its recommendations to the presbytery.

f. Authority to dissolve the pastoral relationship upon evidence that the pastor has advocated separation from the denomination or upon renunciation of jurisdiction, fully observing the due process requirements of the Constitution [G-9.0505b(2), G-6.0701, G-6.0702].

 

The COM welcomes any opportunity to have conversations with other ministers, elders, or church members who have concerns about the denomination or presbytery. The COM also appreciates the contact from congregation members who are concerned that their church leadership is contemplating separation, so that reconciliation and open communication may be achieved.”

 

As God allowed Rab the Assyrian Speak to the Judeans, So Let the Denomination Speak to Its Congregations

 

My journey began with a bible verse the Lord put in my mind.  It ended with reading the Presbyterian Denomination’s own words on an issue of interest to me.  Having read the above statements, one is lead to ask a series of questions:

 

1.     If the Presbyterian Denominational Authorities can threaten to take action to remove the pastors and the session of College Corner and Wallace Street Presbyterian Churches, replacing them with “their” people and then “Determine and negotiate distribution of all property and assets of the congregation,” what is to prevent them from threatening any church that seeks to ask its own membership what they think about staying in the denomination, or leaving it?

2.     By stating that they would “negotiate distribution of all property and assets of the congregation,” hasn’t the denomination admitted that the church property in question is NOT held in trust for the denomination? 

3.     How is encouraging “contact from congregation members who are concerned that their church leadership is contemplating separation” different from the thought police of totalitarian regimes who attempt to entice and coerce their citizens to inform on one another?

4.     Finally, one might ask how any church could even seek to communicate with its members that the denominational powers would make such threats?

 

The answer to these questions, it seems, is to allow the denominational authorities to speak their own words in plain English to those who are so threatened, just as Rabshakeh the Assyrian spoke in plain Judean to the citizens of Jerusalem during the reign of Hezekiah.  Then, those who hear, read, and understand these words will have the opportunity to pray, think, and ask the denominational leaders to explain why the free exercise clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution has been set aside by the Presbyterian Church, United States of America.

 

As in the days of Hezekiah, we must walk by faith.  Because he was willing to face adversity squarely and honestly, turning the results over to God, there was a revival in Israel during his reign.  Had he chosen to not turn to God, I am sure that the Assyrians would have destroyed Jerusalem.

 

I think that is the message for Christians in our day.   Regardless of how God will act, we must, like Hezekiah, follow Him, and simply trust God to decide who is on His side.