2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man
What is so bad about that?
Do we have to be protected from these verses because we might join the NRA, shoot squirrels, and become carnivorous avengers? The reference to capital punishment must be expurgated! I have to think that we are being sheltered from selected Bible verses for an underground purpose. Look again at these verses and think of what future generations will lose. Of course, one might argue that the Bible remains intact and available for the public to read freely, but honestly, how many pewsitters actually read even the daily lectionary (links available on this page)?
Fr. Dunbar then expressed his opposition to the death penalty and his concern for the animals, and wisely left it at that. He then got around to the N.T. lessons and effectively compared the Old and the New Covenants. The other great thing he did with this "sermon" was when after discussing the nature of these covenants as agreements between two parties, he then made the point by reminding us of the Eucharist as God's side of the New Covenant by turning and pointing to the altar. He then ended his sermon abruptly, and in my mind I heard an unspoken message that might have sounded like this, "God has done His part, He has given us His Body and His Blood. Have you kept up your side of the bargain?" The silence that fell following his sermon seemed deafening.
In addition to today's sermon, we were treated to an insert in the bulletin from EpiscopalLife weekly written by the Rev. Christopher L. Webber (if you missed it read it here as a pdf)
Reading between the lines of this "Brief History of the Lambeth Conference Part 1" I suspect those responsible for rewriting the lectionary are also at work in rewriting the history of "Anglicanism."
“'It should be distinctly understood,' said Archbishop Charles Longley, 'that at this meeting no declaration of faith shall be made, and no decision come to which shall affect generally the interests of the Church, but that we shall meet together for brotherly counsel and encouragement'"
(Read, "Don't take Lambeth seriously.")
"In an uncanny preview of current events, the archbishop declared Colenso to be heretical and sent a new bishop to serve the same area. Colenso stuck to his guns and his diocese and is now revered by the Church in South Africa "
(Read, "Don't worry little ones, even if Bishop Gene Robinson or the entire Episcopal Church USA is declared heretical, and if some strange Bishop creature gets sent in to replace him, he and the entire Episcopal Church USA will be revered by future generations." Uncanny preview indeed!)
Getting back to "Brief History of the Lambeth Conference Part 1" in 1878 at Lambeth,
“the duly certified action of every national or particular Church...should be respected by all the other Churches” and that “no bishop or other clergyman of any other Church should exercise his functions within (some other) diocese without the consent of the bishop thereof.”
and, in 1897
"They were very clear that however diverse the members of the Church might be in language and ethnicity they were members of one Church. They stressed again that it would be very wrong for two bishops of the Church to attempt to carry on a ministry in the same area."
(Read, "We in the USA can do whatever we want, and don't even think of bringing in another bishop if you disagree with TEC.")
And then the Rev. Webber leaks one of the underground catch phrases "freedom and unity" which we will be hearing more about in the future as the American Church separates itself from the Anglican Communion. In this interesting ending to his "history" he makes the whole notion of an Anglican Communion an undefined postmodern meaningless enterprise,
"The issue of freedom and unity was addressed again in the statement that: 'it is important that, so far as possible, the Church should be adapted to local circumstances...and nothing is required of them but what is of the essence of the faith, and belongs to the due order of the catholic Church.' The first of these statements of course, left undefined what was meant by being 'in full communion
with the Church of England' and the second left open 'what is of the essence of the faith, and belongs to the due order of the catholic Church.'"
(Read, "Don't worry your little heads, there never was a communion to walk away from.")
I had to dig a little deeper into the "revered" Bishop Colenso and came up with some of the charges against him. There is something ominously familiar in the problems of Colenso as found in this correspondence from 1868,
"Dr. Colenso has taught that the Holy Scriptures, of both the Old and New Testaments, are not to be relied upon, as conveying to us an unerring Revelation of God's Truth and Will. He has affirmed that every living man is to judge for himself,--by 'the voice which he hears within,' which is the 'voice of his Lord,' the 'Light of the Divine Word,'--whether any, or what portions of the Scriptures are the Word of God; that 'by that light the words recorded to have been uttered by our Lord himself must all be tried;' that our Lord was ignorant, and in error; [31/32] that 'it is not to be supposed,' 'it cannot be maintained,' that 'He possessed a knowledge surpassing that of the most pious and learned adults of His nation,' that 'He knew more than any educated Jew of His age;' that He ought not to be adored or worshipped; that it is unscriptural and un-apostolic to do so; that we must 'modify our views of Christianity itself.'"
This sounds an awful lot like the path our current "leaders" are following.
Is there in this bulletin insert from our National Church the signature of an underground operation that may be trying to prepare us for something like "Operation Brain Drain?" Am I seeing things, or am I just looking for something to be unhappy about?
Oh, Vestry, protect me from the Rev. Webber. Do not feed our money to this propaganda machine.
Oh, Uriel, help me.