Mr. Joseph has been a life-long member of Trinity Presbyterian Church, and has served first as a deacon from 1955 to 1962, then as an Elder from 1962 to 2014. In 1979 he was elected Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the Church’s highest court, and served during the year 1979/80. He also served many years on the PCA’s Administration Committee, including several terms as Chairman.

William (Bill) Francis Joseph, Jr. was born in Montgomery, Alabama. June 15, 1929. Jesus came to take him home on Friday, May 20, 2022. His life was one of a faithful servant of Jesus.
John 12:26 If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.
William (Bill) F. Joseph Jr. was born in Montgomery, Alabama in 1929. He was the faithful son of William Francis Joseph and Alice Evans Pelzer Joseph. He attended Bellinger Hill Elementary, Baldwin Junior High and graduated from Lanier High School in 1947, and then attended Auburn University, earning a Bachelor’s Degree in Architecture in 1952.
On August 29, 1951 he married Florence (Peggy) Charles Hall at First Presbyterian Church in downtown Montgomery. They faithfully loved and served one another for 70 years till his death.
Their family included three sons; William “Billy” Francis Joseph III (Marian), Thomas Taylor Joseph (Peggy) and Charles Kinlock Joseph (Laura); grandchildren; Camille Joseph Carroll (Grant) and William Francis Joseph IV (Kayb), Thomas Taylor Joseph, Jr. (Jennifer), Edmund William Joseph, Blake Charles Joseph, Brannon Dyar Joseph, Tyler Hall Joseph, Austin Randolph Joseph (Brook), and 11 great grandchildren.
Mr. Joseph served two years in the Army during the Korean War. He returned to Montgomery in 1954 and joined the firm of Morton & McElhaney Consulting Engineers & Architects. Mr. Joseph became a partner in the firm in 1960. He retired in 2001 from Joseph & Spain Architectural Engineering. He served many a friend in Montgomery crawling under their homes to inspect their foundations for them. He has truly seen Montgomery from a different angle.
In 1964 he was elected to the Montgomery County Commission as a Republican, serving ten consecutive terms. He has served as Chairman of the County Commission for over 30 of his 40 years. Bill retired from the County Commission in November 2004. He was challenged to serve this way by his pastor, Dr. Robert Strong.
Mr. Joseph has been a life-long member of Trinity Presbyterian Church, and has served first as a deacon from 1955 to 1962, then as an Elder from 1962 to 2014. In 1979 he was elected Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the Church’s highest court, and served during the year 1979/80. He also served many years on the PCA’s Administration Committee, including several terms as Chairman.
Bill also served for many years on the Board of Directors of God World Publication (World Magazine) formerly The Presbyterian Journal.
Bill served for many years on the Alabama and Montgomery Republican Executive Committee. He is a charter member and past President of the Capital City Kiwanis Club, a past member of the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce, and a member of the Montgomery Museum of Fine Arts. He is past President of the Montgomery Symphony Board of Directors. Bill has served several terms as Chairman of the Central Alabama Aging Consortium and the Central Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission.
Bill was always a problem solver. He tried to see both or all sides of an issue or difficulty while trying to find the right or best solution. Whether a building difficulty, a political problem, church decisions or dealing with his family he was a gentle, firm and loving servant of Jesus Christ. He followed Jesus, all the way to heaven itself. But as a sinner himself, he knew that Jesus was the one alone, who was able to present him faultless before the throne of His father.
Those who preceded his homegoing include his parents William Francis Joseph and Alice Evans Pelzer Joseph, his sisters Elizabeth Pelzer Joseph Boykin (Raymond) and Alice Joseph Davis (Withers), and niece Elizabeth Crum Boykin.
Those who remain here include his wife of 70 years Florence (Peggy) Hall Joseph, sons; William “Billy” Francis Joseph III (Marian), Thomas Taylor Joseph (Peggy) and Charles Kinlock Joseph (Laura); grandchildren; Camille Joseph Carroll (Grant) and William Francis Joseph IV (Kayb), Thomas Taylor Joseph, Jr. (Jennifer), Edmund William Joseph, Blake Charles Joseph, Brannon Dyar Joseph, Tyler Hall Joseph, Austin Randolph Joseph (Brook), 11 great grandchildren, 3 nieces, 4 nephews and many cousins.
The family would also like to thank his caregivers Carol Lovejoy, Lavekia Cook and Kiwi Pettway.
The family will gather at the graveside on Wednesday May 25, 2022 at 11 AM at Greenwood Cemetery.
On Thursday, May 26, 2022 Visitation will be at Trinity Presbyterian Church 1728 South Hull Street, Montgomery, Alabama from 10:00 to 11:45 a.m. followed by a Memorial Service at 12:00 p.m., officiated by Rev. Claude McRoberts and Rev. Michael Howell.
In lieu of flowers, he would be honored to be remembered with any donations made to Montgomery Christian School (334) 386-1749, 3265 McGehee Road, Montgomery, AL 36111 or Trinity Presbyterian Church, 1728 South Hull Street Montgomery, AL 36104
Fond memories and expressions of sympathy may be shared at Leak Memory Chapel for the JOSEPH family.
Source
Related Posts:

How is a confidential relationship created? Does one person have the authority to establish confidentiality by fiat? What about the request of the leader/moderator of a group—does that, by itself, establish confidentiality? Does remaining in a group whose originator desires confidentiality equate to tacit approval of that imposed confidentiality?

It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.—variously attributed to Mark Twain, Will Rodgers, etc.
Much ink has been spilt—or, perhaps, many keys have been struck—over the recent release of emails from the National Partnership going back almost a decade. In usual internet fashion, there has been as much clutching at pearls as there has been gentle (or not so gentle) nudges to move along because there is nothing here to see. I suppose with these emails having been leaked, anyone curious is able to decide for themselves.
My concern in this particular article is not so much if the emails contain nefarious plots, but rather the oft repeated rejoinder that these emails are confidential, and that the real nefarious deed was their illicit release to the public. This is not a small accusation—keeping confidence is a serious matter.
It is not very far into the emails that a header is added indicating the desire of the moderator of the email group that all those who receive the email keep it confidential. Not long after that, the moderator emails the group in response to a leak of emails to a presbyter outside the group. In that email, he declares his understanding of the confidential nature of the group. In particular, he asserts that confidentiality exists because of the private (i.e., non-public) nature of the conversation the emails contain.
This assertion (both specifically in that particular response and more generally as the claim is being bandied about) raises a number of questions. How is a confidential relationship created? Does one person have the authority to establish confidentiality by fiat? What about the request of the leader/moderator of a group—does that, by itself, establish confidentiality? If the leader of a group indicates that it was his intention for the group to have a layer of confidentiality, does that declared intention, by itself, establish confidentiality? Would that confidentiality be retroactive according to the originator’s desire, or would it only establish confidentiality on an ongoing basis? What if members of that thing remain after the leader has indicated his intention? Does remaining in a group whose originator desires confidentiality equate to tacit approval of that imposed confidentiality?
Much in line with caveat emptor, I would say “let the one who seeks to establish confidentiality beware.” Confidentiality requires the consent of both—indeed, all—parties. Without that consent, statements of confidentiality are both hollow and unsupported—regardless of what statements are made in the actual emails.
It does not appear that the apparent initiator and the primary communicator did have consent from all parties that this was, in fact, a confidential group. Take the repeated reminders of the authors desire for confidentiality. If membership in the email group was conditioned upon confidentiality—that is, if a prospective member had to explicitly agree to confidentiality to be part of the group—then the emails would not indicate the authors desire for the group to be confidential. Rather, the emails would remind the members of what they had agreed to in joining the group.
Read More

The Puritans believed that regeneration enables the believer toward obedience in all areas of life, and motivated them to obedience and good works. It is only from this understanding that the Puritan perspective of habits can truly be discerned.

In the history of the church, and particularly counseling within the church, there has been a house, of sorts, that is being constructed. Faithful, competent men and women are slowly building the house of biblical counseling on a solid foundation.[1] One of these men—Jay Adams—spoke to some of the load-bearing walls within this house, and one in particular:
Few, if any, recent theologians have discussed the relationship of habit to behavior. Their efforts have been expended on important questions having to do with Adam’s sin, the effects of sin upon the nature of his descendants, and the process by which sin has been transmitted to his posterity. These are all vital questions…But so is the matter of habit—especially for counseling.[2]
Jay Adams did not create biblical counseling, but he is perhaps the father of biblical counseling as it is modernly known. Yet he asserted that no “recent theologians” have dealt with the important issue of habits as a load-bearing wall within the house of biblical counseling.[3]
This raises a question: What historical theologians did discuss the relationship of habits to behavior? And what did they say? In this series, I’d like to answer this question from the perspective of English Puritanism.[4] The Puritans are to be noted for a distinctly theological approach in most of their writings and sermons, which informed the way they addressed issues from national sins to the place of penance.[5] Regarding habits, the Puritans had much to say, which this study summarizes as follows:
The Puritans believed that habits were a means of cultivating spiritual maturity in the believer by giving a believer a greater capacity for future obedience, by uniting a believer’s will to God’s, and by conforming a believer to the image of Christ. 
To demonstrate this, we will survey the way the Puritans spoke of habits, synthesizing their voices to a singular definition, and developing an understanding of their view of habits in relationship to spiritual maturity. At the end of this synthesis, the reader will have a better understanding of habits and their relationship to supporting the house of biblical counseling within a historical perspective. Most importantly, the reader will be emboldened to speak more of habits in counseling and, perhaps, see that an emphasis on regular action is a necessary part of spiritual maturity.[6]
Scope and Delineation
The scope of this paper is to keep within the confines of Puritan thinking in regard to habits and the role those habits play in spiritual maturity.[7] There are many who have written before and after the Puritans about habits, but the emphasis is given to these men due to their special attention and theological treatment of such issues. Thus, a quick definition of terms is warranted for sake of clarity.
Definition of Terms
The term habit is used by the Puritans in many ways, all suggesting the same thing. In this paper, habit simply means a learned, automatic, or frequent action. There are varying facets of this definition, but by and large, it simply encapsulates the scope of varying opinions on habits.[8] It should be noted that a habit does not need to occur on every possible occasion; however, the researcher is using this term in its common usage, which implies a consistent, regular action.[9]
The term Puritan, although originally a pejorative term, was coined to describe the group of Englishmen who wanted to purify the Church of England from the practices of Catholicism.[10]  These men lived, preached, and wrote between the 17th and 18th centuries, with the passing of the North American Jonathan Edwards in 1758 seen by many as the end of the Puritan era.
The term cultivate is used in the sense that spiritual maturity is existent within a person and that spiritual maturity is being developed or advanced.[11] Cultivate is commonly seen as an agricultural term that insinuates a plant is already existent, but that it is fed, nourished, and grown by further means of nutrition. This common understanding is the way in which the researcher seeks to employ this meaning, and the idea of spiritual maturity as being existent is a primary component of the researcher’s delineation.[12]
Oswald Sanders states the matter succinctly: “Viewed from another angle, spiritual maturity is simply Christlikeness. We are as mature as we are like Christ, and no more. He was the only fully mature man. His character was complete, well-balanced, and perfectly integrated. All His qualities and capacities were perfectly attuned to the will of His Father, and this is the model, the standard God has set for us.”[13] This common understanding of spiritual maturity will be developed in regards to the capacity of a believer to obey, the conformity of a believer’s will to God’s will, and overall greater Christlikeness in the believer (cf. Eph. 4:12-16).
Read More
Related Posts: