Faithless Formation

In an earlier post, Faith Formation and the TEc Budget: Making Talismen, I dissed the "Faith Formation" gurus of TEc when I reported and commented on a subject dear to their hearts by posting the following:

The Episcopal church has proposed slashing the "Faith Formation" request in its draft budget that is being circulated prior to the 2012 General Convention. One seminary dean comments,
"Youth, young adult, and formation ministries are slashed about 90%, from about $3 million to $286,000. No more EYE or national Episcopal youth events. No more children and youth ministries, and on and on..."
In a way, this might not be a bad thing as we have seen little good theology come out of the national headquarters of this organization. The declining numbers of Sunday worshippers and the falling numbers of youth in the Episcopal church is a testimony to the failure of previous spending efforts.

It wasn't very long after the publication of that testimony that a dry withered hand passed along more information about the subject.

I get nervous when I find myself in the presence of Deep Pew, that nefarious denizen of the underbelly of the church.

I read his offering, and was left shaking my head at the stupidity of our leaders, and I wondered how to present this to the masses. It is too long and boring to present the full text. Maybe I should do a fisk, or maybe just present the lowlights.  

For those who desire a little more insight into the minds of those in charge of Episcopal church style "Faith Formation," and as an example of the absence of a scripturally guided theology, I challenge you to read the full text of the following:

“Building the Continuum”The Episcopal Church Summit on FaithFormation  Envisioning the Future of Faith Formation in the Episcopal Church (Version 1.0)

This dreadful piece of work contains not a single mention of "Jesus" or of the word "Gospel." There are absolutely no scriptural references to be found there either.

And all along I thought Jesus and God's Word might be key ingredients in "Faith Formation."

You have been warned. Here are some excerpts,

"From October 31-November 2, 2011, leaders from across a variety of ministry settings gathered to envision the future shape of faith formation in the Episcopal Church. Through a scenario planning process the leaders identified significant forces affecting faith formation, determined two critical uncertainties that will shape future directions, and created four scenarios or narratives to capture the possibilities for the future of faith formation. "

"Critical uncertainties" sounds like we are about to embark on a journey into Episcobabble, and  because nobody can be certain what "a scenario planning process" is, there followed a long explanation to,

"...describe scenarios as “narratives of alternative environments in which today’s decisions may be played out. They are not predictions. Nor are they strategies. Instead they are more like hypotheses of different futures specifically designed to highlight the risks and opportunities involved in specific strategic issues...They are designed to stretch our thinking about emerging changes...”

Yep, Episcobabble. I wonder when it will be available at Rosetta Stone?

" Perhaps most importantly, scenarios give us a new, shared language that deepens our conversations about the future and how we can help to shape it."

Ah yes, helping to shape the future. Let us read on to see if these are the people who should be doing the shaping.  
And what about those two "Critical Uncertainties"? 

"After careful study of the significant driving forces, two uncertainties were selected from the longer list of potential uncertainties (see above) that might shape the broader context of Episcopal faith formation over the next decade and longer. The two chosen uncertainties define a set of four scenarios for the future of faith formation in the Episcopal Church that are divergent, challenging, internally consistent, and plausible. Each of the two uncertainties is expressed as an axis that represents a continuum of possibilities ranging between two endpoints.
Uncertainty #1. The Relationship of Technology and Community
Will the continuing evolution of technology enhance human community and connection or will  technology diminish community and connections among people?
Uncertainty #2. Response of the Episcopal Church to Changing Global Realities
Will the Episcopal Church’s response toward emerging global realities, such as increasing cultural diversity, economic uncertainty, and resource availability for all people, lead the Church toward an outward-focused engagement with the world or toward an inner-focused, separation from the world."

The only thing I am certain of at this point is that this scenario process is going nowhere.

I searched and searched for what Faith Formation means to these people and the following two paragraphs sum it up,

 "Faith formation—in a variety of settings—leads the way in forming lifelong disciples and preparing people for engagement in mission in the world."

(Note to the casual reader, "engagement in mission" according to the Pewster's Dictionary of Episcobabble means to march in various "Pride" parades and to support any number of liberal political causes, and "disciple" means someone who agrees with their bishop and is willing to pay for their salary).

 "In a technological world Episcopal faith formation is helping people develop new relational abilities and immersing them in a variety of human communities. It is also helping people rediscover creation and the natural world."

Bingo! They fess up. The truth of the matter is that, in TEc, faith formation is not about the Gospel message of Jesus as our Lord and Saviour, but instead is about the many and varied spiritual blind alleys and wastelands that an uncertain people wander down.

And the emphasis on "helping people develop new relational abilities" is another way of saying, "The Church is all about human relationship."

Maybe that's why they left God out of the conversation.

Cue up the relationship cartoon again.

(A hypothetical conversation between Bishop Waldo and a simple pewsitter)

Preparing for General Convention Upper South Carolina Style

The following announcement popped up on our Diocesan web pages recently:

Preparing for General Convention

Update and Dialogue on the Rite for Same Gender Blessings
Please join our deputies to General Convention and Bishop Waldo for a brief review of the major issues before The Episcopal Church this July in Indianapolis, and a detailed review of the status of the rite for same gender blessings. These gatherings will also offer participants the opportunity for dialogue on the proposed rite and its impact on Upper South Carolina. The meetings are free and open to all diocesan communicants in good standing.

Meeting schedule - 8:15 am - 1 pm:
Saturday, April 21 at Trinity Cathedral, Columbia
Saturday, April 28 at The Church of the Advent, Spartanburg
(register online)

Is anybody planning to go to this?

If our delegates to GC2012 have not already made up their minds, then we have a sorry lot of delegates (here is a link as to who they are).
Of course, the format for these discussions has not been published. Let us hope that the five hours does not involve moderated table discussions and focused meditations followed by open microphone discussions of feelings, or some such nonsense as we have come to expect from Bishop Waldo.

Let's hear our bishop lay out the theology for same gender blessings that he found to be so lacking last year when we held a great "theological council" about this.

If he couldn't do it then as a Bishop of the Church, I don't think he will have much pew "cred" if he suggests that the theology has revealed itself to him during the past 12 months and he waited until now to let us in on it.

Maybe these dialogs will take up other questions for GC2012,

1) How will the delegates vote on the table resolution from the Diocese of Eastern Oregon in favor on Communion without baptism? This is something that we know Bishop Waldo allowed to be be promoted during his last parish level job. Why not just vote "No"?


2) Will the delegates vote in favor of a budget which will spend more on secular lawsuits against other Christians than on Youth, young adult, and formation ministries? Why not just vote "No"?

3) Will the delegates vote in favor of the Anglican Covenant? (or does anybody care?)

4) Will the delegates stand up and declare the Episcopal church's support for the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice to be pro-death and wrong? Stand up for life!



How about it delegates?

Do your prep work.

Isn't it time to plant the flag?

Cranmer vs the Equinox, What/Who is Your Church Honoring This Day?

From the electronic newsletter of the Diocese of Upper South Carolina comes news of yet another worship service based on the apparent motion of the Sun. As reported previously, the church in the forefront of this new age movement is St. Michael and All Angels in Columbia, SC (which shall from henceforth be known as "St. Stonehenge and All Druids").  

Here is the announcement:

"A Celebration of the Spring Equinox and Prayers for the Healing of the Earth
Wednesday, March 21 at 7:00 pm in the outdoor Chapel of Refuge and Grace.
We will observe the transition from Winter to Spring at the time when day and night, light and darkness are in balance with prayers for the intention of healing our earth and increasing our awareness of God’s creation as a gift deserving of our stewardship"

Never mind that March 21 is listed as the day we would otherwise honor Thomas Cranmer. 

I guess remembering Protestant martyrs, or remembering those who are largely responsible for the Anglican worship that we enjoy, would be far less interesting than observing the revolution of the Earth around the sun. 

As I noted, this is not the first such celebration to be held at St. Stonehenge and All Druids. Earlier posts are to be found here, here, and here.

 Shame on our Bishop for fiddling around and letting this slide toward paganism continue. 

Pray that he remember the Cranmerian examination (1549) of those who are being consecrated as bishop,

The Archebisshoppe. Are you perswaded that the holy Scriptures conteine sufficiently all doctryne, requyred of necessitie for eternall salvacyon, through the faith in Jesu Christe? And are you determyned with the same holy scriptures, to enstruct the people committed to your charge, and to teache or maintein nothyng, as required of necessitie to eternall salvacion, but that you shall bee perswaded may be concluded, and proved by the same?    
Aunswere. I am so perswaded and determined by gods grace.    

The Archebisshoppe. Wil you then faithfully exercise your selfe in the said holy scriptures, and call upon god by prayer for the true understanding of the same, so as ye may be able by them to teache and exhorte with wholesome doctrine, and to withstande and convince the gainsaiers?    
Aunswere. I wyll so doe, by the helpe of God.    

The Archebisshoppe. Be you ready with al faithful diligence, to banishe and drive away al erronious and straunge doctryne, contrary to god's worde, and both privately and openly to call upon, and encourage other to the same?    
Aunswere. I am ready, the lord beyng my helper.

Once our bishop banishes the equinox and solstice services going on in his diocese, then and only then can he let me know whether he has found an adequate theology to support that other innovation we are facing, same sex blessings.

For me, this week I am ignoring the  Equinox and thanking God for Cranmer.

Merciful God, who through the work of Thomas Cranmer didst renew the worship of thy Church by restoring the language of the people, and through whose death didst reveal thy power in human weakness: Grant that by thy grace we may always worship thee in spirit and in truth; through Jesus Christ, our only Mediator and Advocate, who livest and reignest with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen. (traditional prayer)

May Miracles Never Cease

Today we departed from the conventionally assigned Gospel reading for today, John 3:14-21

And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
‘For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.
‘Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgement, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.’

There was an obvious linkage between this and our Old Testament reading, Numbers 21:4-9 which contained the story of the snake on a stick.

I cannot explain the deviation from the norm, but I will keep my eyes open for further such occurences.

Instead we heard John 6:4-15, the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand.

This reading served as a basis for today's sermon.

I am glad our preacher put to rest the lie foisted upon us by previous preachers that explained away the miraculous by suggesting that the people may have had food hidden in their cloaks, and after hearing Jesus, they gave of what they had been hoarding in order to feed their neighbors (the old social justice gospel). Interestingly, only a few people raised their hands to indicate that they had heard that lie before (thank the Lord people weren't paying attention back then).   Overall it was a good sermon that put the miracle from God back in the story.

On hearing the story of the feeding of the five thousand again, I was struck by the words (not highlighted in the sermon),

"Jesus said, ‘Make the people sit down.’ Now there was a great deal of grass in the place; so they sat down, about five thousand in all."

It was the simple description of the place, a place with a great deal of grass, that made me think, "Of course! Where else would the shepherd place His flock but in a green pasture." I chuckled to myself thinking that Jesus does not adivise the hungry flock to eat grass, but instead feeds them the unexpected, in this case: bread and fish.

And today, we were treated to the unexpected.

May miracles never cease.

How Far is Too Far in Biblical Revisionism?

Jefferson Bibles

This past Sunday's post on revisionism led me to reflect on the different types of revisionism that we come up against in the Church today. There is moral revisionism, doctrinal revisionism, theological revisionism, and what I think is fundamental, Biblical revisionism. The first three are all doomed to eventual failure unless the last, Biblical revisionism, is carried out properly. So, for the time being our focus should be on Biblical revisionism.

An anonymous comment to my last post raised this important question:

1) "When does Bibilcal revisionism become a denial of the Word of God?"

A similar question would be this:

2) "How far can you go with Biblical revisioning before you cross the line into apostasy or heresy?"

A final question comes to mind and it is this:

3) "Are there any parts of the Bible which are "off limits" to revisionism or are there any parts which are "fair game?" 

I hope Anon 2:02am forgives me for revising their original question.

As we saw this past Sunday, a revision of the ten commandments can come out as, "You are free from murder, stealing, etc..." Let's use this as an example, with simple pro and con arguments, for each question.

1) Does this constitute a denial of God's Word?
    a) Yes, because it changes the divinely inspired words of God.
    b) No, it is a simple rephrasing of the words in order to present a liberating view that will tie in with the notion to be presented later that Jesus, by overturning the money changer's  tables, was liberating the people at the temple who were oppressed by the money changers (who should have been giving away animals for sacrifice instead of charging for them).

2) Does this cross the line?
    a) Yes, because it changes the divinely inspired words of God.
    b) No, because this is a rephrasing for edification and if any changes were made, they were harmless, and  they were done for a good reason.

3) Is this a part of the Bible which should be "off limits" or is it "fair game" for re-visioning?
    a) Off limits, because it is the divinely inspired Word of God.
    b) Fair game, because it is Old Testament stuff and all of that can be considered fair game as it is meant to be read symbolically and has been supplanted by the new covenant anyway.

You just can't argue with these people.

I confess that my responses present two extreme opposing views, and that there exist more nuanced ways of answering the questions posed by Biblical re-visioning, but in the long run it all boils down to what the end result of the revision has upon the people of God, those who gather to hear His Word, and the effect it has upon current seekers or future generations who might be new to the Word. The revisionist's opinion is that the process helps people to better understand God by removing or recasting what might be considered stumbling blocks that have been placed (by human writers) in scripture, and this new vision is what people really need. The reasserter's opinion on the other hand, is that new visions are not really necessary because the old vision was just fine. Call it divinely inspired writing, or call it the Word of God, but who are we to change it? The problem for the reasserter is to squarely face the challenge of Biblical exegesis, whereas the revisionist enjoys the freedom to either dispute the meaning of the words, change the meaning of the words, do an end run around them, or ignore them altogether. For this reason, the ease with which Biblical revisionist exegesis can be accomplished, there will probably always be more revisionists than reasserters in a "liberal" church.

In addition, the Biblical revisionist in the Episcopal church enjoys freedom from challenge, from discipline, from deposition, and from the dreaded "Church Trial." Examples include the case of Bishop Pike, the Bishop Righter trial, the non-case of Bishop Spong, etc.

In fact, it looks like skillful Biblical revisionism might be the key to advancement in TEc.

Four days ago, the Bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina, our reasserting neighbor, said something that reminded me of question #2 which I submitted as today's title. Bishop Lawrence said,

"The remarkable English scholar, missionary and bishop, Stephen Neill once commented that 'To be a bad Anglican is the easiest thing in the world; the amount of effort required in a minimum Anglican conformity is so infinitesimal that it is hardly to be measured.'  But he went on to say, 'To be a good Anglican is exceedingly taxing business.'  If we substitute Episcopalian for Anglican we have just as telling and true a statement for our challenge today.  To be a bad Episcopalian is easy.  Just drift with the flow of whatever cultural stream carries you and you can be an Episcopalian. I remember reading as a seminarian, Bishop Allison’s debate with O.C. Edwards on evangelism.  Fitz, as you might imagine was for it.  If memory serves me well, Fitz opened with the line 'You can be anything and be an Episcopalian.  You can be immoral, and you can be heretical; as long as you are not tacky...'" (Bishop Mark Lawrence Address to the 221st Diocesan Convention of DSC).

So, to answer the question, "How Far is Too Far in Biblical Revisionism?", or "What constitutes tacky?" As far as TEc goes, I think it all depends on who is listening. In TEc, fewer and fewer pewsitters are listening, and of those that are, most don't care, some love it, a few hate it, and the end result is not just that "the ball keeps moving down the field" (Kendall), but that "the boundaries get pushed further and further afield." (U.P.) We get an ever enlarging playing field which provides endless opportunities for the sheep to roam further and further from their shepherd. The opportunities to publish a novel idea, create a best selling book, go on the speaker's circuit, increase dramatically.

If universal expansion is true, then the end will be in abject darkness and cold: zero energy,  zero motion, even the vibration of the atoms will have ceased.

That's what happens when you push the boundaries.

Heaven help us.

 (click here for a more satirical take on Biblical revisionism from a Lutheran pastor's perspective)

Revisioning the Ten Commandments

One of the tell tale signs of a revisionist preacher is how they handle negativity. By negativity, I mean all those places where the Bible appears to go negative. The revisionist sees these as opportunities to put a positive spin on things.  In preparing a sermon, the revisionist must first take out their editing pencil and strike through whatever parts they have discerned to be foolishness. The terrible thing about this process as St. Paul warns us today in the Epistle reading from 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 is,

"For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength." -v.25

Today's Old Testament reading proved to be good material for Biblical revisionism. We initially hear,

Then God spoke all these words:
 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.
Honour your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour. Exodus 20:1-17

There are way too many Thou shalt nots" in there. The revisionist preacher may fear that all those negatives will put off the Sunday morning crowd if those words found their way into the sermon. The options for the revisionist preacher as to best deal with this text are,

1) Ignore it.
2) Explain it as historically appropriate in the context of the ancient Hebrews and minimize its relevance to modern Christians.
3) Ridicule people who try to put up marble plaques or statues of the commandments in front courthouses or in schools.
4) Just re-write the whole thing.

I got option 4.

The folloing is what it looks like with the blue pencil strike-throughs (just get the picture and then skip ahead to the finished product):

Then God spoke all these words:
I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me are free to worship only me,
You shall not make for yourself an idol, in perfect freedom. whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name are free to use my name in worship.
Remember You are free on the sabbath day, and to keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or and female slave, your livestock, and the alien resident in your towns are all free. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.
You are free to Honour your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
You shall not are free from murder.
You shall not commit are free from adultery.
You shall not are free from stealing.
You shall not are free from bearing false witness against your neighbour.
You shall not are free from coveting your neighbour’s house; you shall not are free from coveting your neighbour’s wife,  or male or female slave, or and ox, or and donkey, or and anything that belongs to your neighbour. Exodus 20:1-17

Okay, that wasn't so hard, now let's see how the finished product looks.

Then God spoke all these words:
I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you are free to worship only me, in perfect freedom.
You are free to use my name in worship.
You are free on the sabbath day, to keep it holy; you, your son or your daughter, your livestock, and the alien resident in your towns are all free.
You are free to Honour your father and your mother
You are free from murder.
You are free from adultery.
You are free from stealing.
You are free from bearing false witness against your neighbour.
You are free from coveting your neighbour’s house; you are free from coveting your neighbour’s wife, and ox,  and donkey, and anything that belongs to your neighbour. Revised Exodus 20:1-17

Oh yeah, that'll work...

I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't heard something close to it.

The fact is it sounds pleasing to the ear. It is the perfect thing to sneak into a sermon, and may it contain an element of truth in that as we are being saved (as St. Paul put it in today's readings) and we live a new life in Christ, we can be free from all those negative things. But, we become slaves to Christ and to His Word.

Unfortunately for the revisionist preacher, Jesus himself reiterates the old "shalt nots" a time or two Himself. So what are you going to do when you get to verses like these?

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Matthew 5:27-28

"And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Matthew 19:17-19.

Of course Jesus points out to the young man that keeping the commandments is not enough,

"Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." Matthew 19:21

Try re-writing that! Taking out the "shalt nots" takes away the punch. Or better yet try the following when you are brought into court:

Judge: You are accused of stealing your neighbor's wife. How do you plead?
Accused: Not guilty Your Honor.
Judge: The evidence is clearly against you. The law is very specific on this as well, do you remember the commandments, Thou shalt not steal, and thou shalt not  covet thy neighbor's wife?
Accused: Uh, that's not what I was taught.
Judge: What?
Accused: Yeah, I was taught that I was free from stealing and covetness, there was none of that shalt not stuff. The commandments I was taught never said I shouldn't do it
Judge: You must be an Episcopalian
Accused: How did you guess?
Judge: There would be no point in explaining it to you. I pronounce you guilty as charged.
Accused: And I thought I was free...
Judge: I ought to throw the book at you.
Accused: Who reads books anymore?
Judge to Bailiff: Take him away, and lock him in cell 815 with the rest of em. That'll be a fate worse than death.

You see, the argument just doesn't work.

I think we should love God's commandments, and love and respect the one who gave them to us, enough to not to try to "re-vision" them.

"Conforming more to Christ is essential so that we can be truly free. This way true certainty and the deep essence of the law can grow in us, which is the love of God and our fellow man.” Benedict XVI 2008

Please spare me the old jokes about the four commandments and six suggestions...

And be thankful I am sparing you from reading about how to revise the story of Jesus and the money changers (groan).

Faith Formation and the TEc Budget: Making Talismen

The Episcopal church has proposed slashing the "Faith Formation" request in its draft budget that is being circulated prior to the 2012 General Convention. One seminary dean comments,

"Youth, young adult, and formation ministries are slashed about 90%, from about $3 million to $286,000. No more EYE or national Episcopal youth events. No more children and youth ministries, and on and on..."

In a way, this might not be a bad thing as we have seen little good theology come out of the national headquarters of this organization. The declining numbers of Sunday worshippers and the falling numbers of youth in the Episcopal church is a testimony to the failure of previous spending efforts.

Do you think the church will consider the following low-budget suggestion? Bible study: no DVDs, no guest speakers, no "revisioning" of the Word of God, just the straight truth?

I doubt it.

Just what kind of "Faith Formation" is going on right now under the old budget in your neck of the woods?  Let me tell you a little bit about the goings on in the Diocese of Upper South Carolina...


Recently I read in our parish newsletter a note encouraging people to look to Camp Gravatt as a place for "Faith Formation." Our newsletter blurb sounds so lovely:

"Camp Gravatt is a faith-based, co-ed, residential camp located in Aiken County,
South Carolina. Platform tents and cabins that make up the campers' living area
are nestled among 260 acres of beautiful pine trees and hard woods, lakes and
ponds.
Camp Gravatt is an affirming, Christian community where campers of all backgrounds
and ages make friends, learn responsibility, become leaders, and grow in
their understanding of themselves, their community, and their God-given gifts. Specially selected and trained staff members work to nurture and develop campers' self-esteem, rather than competitive expertise in a particular sport or skill.
Activities include archery, arts and crafts, campfire, canoeing, challenge course, environmental education, faith formation, fishing, hiking, music, recreational sports, swimming, worship and more!"

I have not had a lot of faith in Camp Gravatt since I posted a story earlier about creating fairy gardens there, but as if that wasn't enough,  I recently got an alert from a number of concerned Upper South Carolinians about more "novel" activities that were coming to the conference center. The people at Camp Gravatt, the Episcopal Camp and Conference center in upper South Carolina are now making talismen,

Arts Academy in the Woods
Creating a Talisman with Mary How
Thursday, September 20   4 - 6:30 PM

"A talisman is an object held to act as a charm to avert evil and bring good fortune. Explore the act of creating meaningful art with intention. Learn to set a personal intention or goal, and create a talisman that can help you align with that intention. Bring 2 - 3 personal items that can be incorporated into your art. The $35 fee includes materials, instructor's fee, and a light supper".

Talismans are a new age rediscovery of an age old human tendency: attributing supernatural powers to inanimate objects.

Does that bother you at all?
Do you think they can pass along some of that good fortune to the "Faith Formation" budget?

How about the request to bring 2-3 personal items that can be incorporated into your talisman? That sounds more like witchcraft than "arts and crafts." Well, maybe they should file it under "dark arts and crafts."

I remember seeing a lot of those talisman thingies in Greece,

Yep, the old evil eye.

One can only look at the news to see how these things have helped Greece.

After checking my Bible,  I have to rank talismen right up there with sacred poles, and I can't say that I can find anything good to say about talismen. Other than to acknowledge that there is a sucker born every minute, and a tourist trap around every corner in Athens.

Could these lucky charms stop this Diocese from going the way of the ancient Hebrews who time and time again fell for such evils?

Nope.

First came the labyrinths, next came Solstice worshipping Druids, then came the fairy gardens, and now talismen. What next?

"Well, either you're closing your eyes
To a situation you do not wish to acknowledge
Or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated
By the presence of a pool table, labyrinth, fairy garden, talisman maker in your community."
(Thank you Meredith Willson)

My advice to all of you in River City is this: stop the labyrinths before you get druids and talismen because they all spell "Trouble, trouble, trouble..."


They really ought to put warning labels on these things like, "DANGER, DANGER, WILL ROBINSON," DON'T GO THERE!

(Plate available at Buy.com)

Shh... More Missing Verses

It has been a while since I have featured "missing verses", or those Bible verses that mysteriously get deleted from the Sunday readings. I want to note today's expurgated verses in order to once again raise the questions of "Why?" and "What are we missing?"

Our Old Testament lesson was Genesis 17:1-7,15-16. You did not get to hear verses 8-14 which I also will leave out so that you can get a better idea of the message conveyed to the church goers.

1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said to him, ‘I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless.
2 And I will make my covenant between me and you, and will make you exceedingly numerous.’
3 Then Abram fell on his face; and God said to him,
4 ‘As for me, this is my covenant with you: You shall be the ancestor of a multitude of nations.
5 No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you the ancestor of a multitude of nations.
6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you.
7 I will establish my covenant between me and you, and your offspring after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.

15 God said to Abraham, ‘As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name.
16 I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall give rise to nations; kings of peoples shall come from her.’

We got the message that a covenant was made by God with Abram, and that a "multitude of nations" will be the result. He and Sarai are also given new names and will become fruitful.

So what got left out today? Here are verses 8-14.

8 And I will give to you, and to your offspring after you, the land where you are now an alien, all the land of Canaan, for a perpetual holding; and I will be their God.’
9 God said to Abraham, ‘As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations.
10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.
11 You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.
12 Throughout your generations every male among you shall be circumcised when he is eight days old, including the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring.
13 Both the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money must be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.
14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.’

I have a suspicion that verse 8 is politically incorrect in this day and age. Doesn't it sound much nicer to present a pluralistic, multi-national, covenant than an exclusivist, "this land is yours" vision for Israel.  This certainly is in keeping with the Episcopal church's view. TEc has campaigned against a Israel by supporting the "two state solution." To quote Episcopal Pravda,

"The Episcopal Church has long advocated and legislated in support of a two-state solution in which a secure and universally recognized state of Israel lives alongside a secure, independent and viable Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states...
...Executive Council said at its June meeting that it voiced the church's 'unequivocal opposition to any action by either party that undermines progress toward negotiations' and urged all Episcopalians 'to pray for the peace of the Holy Land and advocate to their own governments for maximum international support for a negotiated two-state solution.'"

I cannot come up with a better explanation for the deletion of verse 8 other than a need for political correctness.

Note to God: Would you please follow our lead on these earthly matters. This covenant business needs to be more of a two way street.

And what about the circumcision stuff? Why did it get cut? Is it too hard to understand, or is it just too hard to explain?

If you leave out the part of the covenant that involves circumcision, then you will have a difficult time understanding what all the fuss was about in the early Christian church as the Gospel
spread to the Gentiles.

Time to cut this post short...