Some were saying, ‘He is a good man’, others were saying, ‘No, he is deceiving the crowd.’

Today's reading from John 7 contained the title line for this post which seems appropriate today as I am being bombarded by conflicting political advertising, endless political convention coverage, and slings and arrows from politically inspired Facebook "friends," .

After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He did not wish to go about in Judea because the Jews were looking for an opportunity to kill him. Now the Jewish festival of Booths was near. So his brothers said to him, ‘Leave here and go to Judea so that your disciples also may see the works you are doing; for no one who wants to be widely known acts in secret. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.’ (For not even his brothers believed in him.) Jesus said to them, ‘My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify against it that its works are evil. Go to the festival yourselves. I am not going to this festival, for my time has not yet fully come.’ After saying this, he remained in Galilee.
But after his brothers had gone to the festival, then he also went, not publicly but as it were in secret. The Jews were looking for him at the festival and saying, ‘Where is he?’ And there was considerable complaining about him among the crowds. While some were saying, ‘He is a good man’, others were saying, ‘No, he is deceiving the crowd.’ Yet no one would speak openly about him for fear of the Jews. John 7:1-13 (NRSV)

The last few lines could be applied to either of our current Presidential candidates. One advertising P.A.C.  will make claims against the other party's candidates, and these claims will be promulgated by Facebook lackeys. Such is American politics, and no candidate can escape accusations of deceit from the opposition when an election is this tight, nor are we, the crowd, always immune from the effects of the praise of their devoted followers.

Judging from the astute observations of the Gospel of John, politics does not appear to have changed much over the last two thousand years.

Seeing the similarity between then and now helps me see that Jesus was a polarizing figure, and thank God for that.

These days I am told that polarization is a bad thing.

Of course, my guy lost in the primaries because he was too polarizing, and I don't dare mention his name for fear of seeing ugly glares coming at me from both sides.


                               

  

Please pray for our country. May God have mercy on us. May He help us to filter out the noise and discern His will, and may His will be done.

The Mystery of the Gospel, Declared Boldly

In today's readings we are presented with two bold declarations. The first comes from St. Paul as he asserts that we are in a battle against spiritual forces of evil (among other things), and the second is from our Lord and Savior who claims that he is the bread from heaven, and whoever eats him will live because of him.

"Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his power. Put on the whole armour of God, so that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armour of God, so that you may be able to withstand on that evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. Stand therefore, and fasten the belt of truth around your waist, and put on the breastplate of righteousness. As shoes for your feet put on whatever will make you ready to proclaim the gospel of peace. With all of these, take the shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Pray in the Spirit at all times in every prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert and always persevere in supplication for all the saints. Pray also for me, so that when I speak, a message may be given to me to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it boldly, as I must speak." Ephesians 6:10-20

How can today's listeners, many of whom dismiss the possibility of the presence of spiritual forces of evil, pray for Paul when, in their hearts, they wish he would just shut up about all that hocus pocus stuff?

Next we hear the shocking truth from Jesus,

"Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live for ever.’ He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.
When many of his disciples heard it, they said, ‘This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?’ But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, ‘Does this offend you? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But among you there are some who do not believe.’ For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him. And he said, ‘For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.’

Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. So Jesus asked the twelve, ‘Do you also wish to go away?’ Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.’" John 6:56-69

Ouch! More food that modern people can't stomach! Divine beings, bread from heaven, eternal life... I can't take it anymore!

I have heard attempts to explain away Paul's picture of a supernatural struggle as an ancient world view, one that is not applicable to the people of today. This worldview is also held against him in arguments over other writings of Paul (in particular those condemning same-sex relationships).

But can we be sure that Paul is wrong?

If we deny the possibility of evil forces, we have no need for "the whole armor of God." We also might find that we have little need for St. Paul or his letters.

Denying Paul's worldview of a supernatural struggle is typical of modern thought, but isn't it just as typical to deny the supernatural notion of God incarnate in the form of Jesus?

Jesus, when speaking to people with the very same world view as Paul, can only convince a handful to believe that His words are spirit and life, that He has come down to Earth, and that He will ascend to where He was before. Unbelievable then, unbelievable still?

What chance does Paul have in the public square of 2012? Who today can believe him?

What chance does Christ have? Who today will believe Him?

Let us pray that all will come to believe in Him.

Bishop Waldo, Meet Jim Naughton: Upper South Carolina, Meet the Future

The Episcopal Disocese of Upper South Carolina recently posted videos of a post General Convention 2012 conference held a few weeks ago. For the most part it is pretty boring stuff, and it was just as well that I was otherwise engaged spelunking and checking out new caves, I found this one with that came with an ocean view.

Enough for scenes from my vacation. The video of the post convention debriefing that I watched is called Part 10. Embedding has been blessedly disabled, but you can watch it for yourself by clicking on the link. I recommend a tall glass of your favorite adult beverage prior to watching, just don't be caught with a mouthful lest you spew your drink onto your computer. For those who can't bear to watch, I have transcribed most of Part 10, the Q +A session below:

At minute 4:40 Bishop Waldo catches heat from a same sex blessing supporter who asked/said,

"In essence you (Bishop Waldo) are saying that my work on understanding the theological basis for the rites is wrong. (ed. note: Bishop Waldo voted "No" on the same-sex blessing rite approved by GC 2012). There are those of us who believe that all or at least sufficient rigor is done. How can you say that we are wrong?"

Bishop Waldo, instead of simply saying, "Because I say so!" proceeds to relate details of his post convention plane trip during which he meets Jim Naughton, editor of the radical left blog, "The Episcopal Cafe" to which I will not link for your own protection.

(Minute 6:10 +Waldo speaking to Naughton) "So, if we've been doing this for forty years, working on this for nearly forty years, why is it that there has not been more direct engagement with the recieved tradition in the theological work done in support of it, and in particular my biggest issue on this is in the document that we received at General Convention which represents our Church's official statement..."

"...A question that I often ask, If you believe that homosexuality is a sin, and there is nothing in here that describes how it might not be, then you are not going to open the document. My concern about that is a question of unity within the Church. For me it is a question of respect for the dignity of every human being to address the question that is actually being asked."

(Minute 8:00) Jim Naughton: "Up to two or three years ago, everything we've been trying to say about this from the side of those supporting same gender blessing has been done in the context of all out war."

(Translation: All's fair in the context of love and war and/or the end justifies the means in the context of all out war.)

+Waldo: "There are so many on the right (word stressed) who have been so negative and oppressive (stressed) and hateful (stressed) in some of their responses, not everybody, but there has been so much of that, and we all know, any of us who have been married know that when you get into a tense conversation and the stakes are high that you are not going to do your best and most thoughtful and reflective work. That's when doors get slammed."

Jim Naughton: "You know you are right. We really haven't addressed those things and we need to..."

+Waldo: "This is frustrating for me... I say often, 'I support the full inclusion of gay and lesbian persons in the life and ministry of the Church,' and for me that means eventually finding a place for these blessings to happen... But I also am concerned about the theological piece here, and the reason I am concerned is because we have such a diversity of theological views, and that is so rare in the Church..."

(INTERUPPTED by a voice from the crowd at minute 10:01. Did they say something about the gross lack of diversity of theological views evident in +Waldo's clergy and his GC delegation? Whatever it was, it appears to have upset the Bishop a little).

+Waldo: "I truly beg to differ. If you were to ask me which way this diocese leans, I could not tell you. When I was in Minnesota it was really obvious that it tipped. If you go to L.A., Newark, etc... it is obvious..."

...(11:15) "There has been a time when people who have tried to have this conversation from the perspective of trying to find a space for gay and lesbian persons who have been treated as pagans (stressed) as being merely interested in sex. And I gotta tell you the conversations I have with couples who are in committed relationships... that's not the primary subject. The primary subject has a lot more to do with exactly the kinds of things that people in a heterosexual marriage hold up as the ideal for that relationship and those are questions that we have to listen to."

+Waldo: "So you elected a Bishop who is a radical centrist. So if you are on the right I am going to push you, and if you are on the left I am going to push you. But we are going to find a way forward, and we are not going to dilly-dally about it because frankly I think we are all tired of talking about it and fighting about this. I think we are all ready to get on with the core of God's mission in the Church which is to serve the homeless, the hungry. It is to bear witness to God's love not God's laws. Jesus did say, 'I have come to fulfill not to abolish' so those laws are still here; we can't just say they don't exist, but we can find that balance between law and grace that errs on the side of grace."

"...The authority of the Bishop as to how it will be lived out is maintained in this and I will do that. Yes I've had frustrated people on both sides coming at me over the past week, a lot more of them in Minnesota who are really angry and not talking with me anymore and that saddens me more than you can possibly imagine cause some of them have been my closest friends for nearly twenty years but the inclusion of everybody left and right is my vow."

Momma would have said that such a "friend" was never your friend in the first place.

Then we get a question from the congo which is inaudible but is probably a plea begging, "When, oh when can we do same sex blessings?"

+Waldo: "The resolution itself says Advent 2012 so we couldn't do it tomorrow anyway. This bishop isn't going to do that. I have promised I am not going to rush this, and so to those who are hurt by this I apologize, but you got to hear me; many people say when they hear me talking about this, suddenly they'll come back and start arguing with me about theological points about same gender relationships, and I want to say 'We are talking apples and oranges. I'm talking unity, you're talking about a particular thing, and they are not exactly the same. I'm talking about a dialog. I'm talking about creating space for everybody, and I intend to create the space for gay and lesbian persons too. Where it is not there...' I mean I don't know what else to say, but it is critically important to me that we find a space forward get on with our mission." (Polite applause)

Finally (scroll to the last minute of the tape) a question about the Presiding Bishop, and her term which expiries in 2015, and Bishop Waldo jumps to the defense of +KJS. I just hope his wife wasn't listening.

+Waldo: "I want to say something because I know the Wall Street Journal just raked her over the coals, and I just want to say that her leadership of the house of Bishops is uniformly admired by the Bishops. This business about her being a dictator is utter nonsense. When she leads us, she is absolutely open with us. She is graceful to everyone there, and she is business-like. When she's got the gavel, things move, and space is created. There were plenty of points of personal privilege that were offered..." (saved by Deus ex machina, the end of the tape).

Maybe Bishop Waldo wants to be the next Presiding Bishop of TEc. He was quick to jump up and sing her praises.

Yes, there will be same sex blessings officially performed in Upper South Carolina. This Bishop has his heart set upon it, and what your Bishop wants, your Bishop gets.

Before he does so, will he produce for us a "direct engagement with the recieved tradition" in the theological work in support of same sex blessing that will respect the dignity of every conservative human being? Or will it be a case of "all's fair in love and war" and we'll just have to live into the context of it?


The great flushing sound you hear is the sound of the tide as it ebbs from the Diocese of Upper South Carolina.

At least I'll have a cave with a view.

Unity In a Denomination Ruled by the Law of Entropy

Today's church service featured another lay person's sermon, and we heard a good sermon based on the Gospel reading for today, John 6:51-58. I had to reflect on the fact that while we are united in Christ through his sacrifice and our communion with Him in the Eucharist, we continually divide ourselves over how we worship, the meanings of the scriptures, and the issues of the day.

I have been listening to our Bishop in preparation for this Wednesday's blog post which will be a transcript of his recent post convention talk. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it looks like he wants us to believe that he is one who "creates space" in order to unify people. Increasing space is a bit like increasing entropy, things in that space tend to fly farther apart. When a Protestant talks about unity beyond the unity we have with Christ, I have to chuckle. Protestantism itself is a bit like the cosmological theory of baby universes begetting baby universes. Endless division into today's multiverse of denominations is hardly "unity." Likewise, when our Episcopal bishop starts talking about being a "radical centrist," or when he identifies himself as a "unifier, and all the while he is actually trying to create parallel structures within his own diocese in order that some churches can bless same sex couples and others can say "No," I have to scratch my head in disbelief and consider that he has lost the center that is Christ. He has redefined "unity" in order to satisfy his desires for the liturgical blessing of same sex couples.

I like to call the world that Bishop Waldo is creating, "Waldonia." He likes to think that he is creating space for people of diverse theological views, setting them up in little worlds all their own so that they might be "safe." This model has never worked in the past, and as far as I can tell, all the equations say that this is not going to give the desired result of (U + Me + God = 1).

All one has to do is look around at the decline of the Episcopal church to realize that this baby universe called T.E.c. is contracting. The rule for baby universes is that if the laws of physics don't work in that universe, then it will fail. The rule for denominations is that if the laws of God are not obeyed, and his Word is consistantly revised or disassembled, then that denomination will fail.

The problem of this, the Episcopal universe, is that it is operating in a space in which revisionism and disassembly are the bases from which all theories for its continued existence must derive.

I heard it again today, from a friend, that God must love everyone and their lifestyles no matter what the scriptures might say. This is an example of a theory that cannot be proven through study of scripture, and is just one of any number of bizzare theories that bubble up out of the quantum foam that makes up Episcopalian minds in this particular collapsing universe.

What happens to entropy in a collapsing universe?

Is there a way out of Waldonia?

I think I'll try to pull a David as we heard in today's highly editted version of Psalm 34 (in bold is what we were permitted to hear in church).

Psalm 34: Of David. When he pretended to be insane before Abimelek, who drove him away, and he left. 

1 I will extol the Lord at all times;
his praise will always be on my lips.
2 I will glory in the Lord;
let the afflicted hear and rejoice.
3 Glorify the Lord with me;
let us exalt his name together.
4 I sought the Lord, and he answered me;
he delivered me from all my fears.
5 Those who look to him are radiant;
their faces are never covered with shame.
6 This poor man called, and the Lord heard him;
he saved him out of all his troubles.
7 The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him,
and he delivers them.
8 Taste and see that the Lord is good;
blessed is the one who takes refuge in him.

9 Fear the Lord, you his holy people,
for those who fear him lack nothing.
10 The lions may grow weak and hungry,
but those who seek the Lord lack no good thing.
11 Come, my children, listen to me;
I will teach you the fear of the Lord.
12 Whoever of you loves life
and desires to see many good days,
13 keep your tongue from evil
and your lips from telling lies.
14 Turn from evil and do good;
seek peace and pursue it.

15 The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous,
and his ears are attentive to their cry;
16 but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil,
to blot out their name from the earth.

17 The righteous cry out, and the Lord hears them;
he delivers them from all their troubles.
18 The Lord is close to the brokenhearted
and saves those who are crushed in spirit.

19 The righteous person may have many troubles,
but the Lord delivers him from them all;
20 he protects all his bones,
not one of them will be broken.
21 Evil will slay the wicked;
the foes of the righteous will be condemned.
22 The Lord will rescue his servants;
no one who takes refuge in him will be condemned.

Footnotes:
a.Psalm 34:1 This psalm is an acrostic poem, the verses of which begin with the successive letters of the Hebrew alphabet.
b.Psalm 34:1 In Hebrew texts 34:1-22 is numbered 34:2-23.

The Appeal of the Episcopal Church (cir. 1917)

I came across this after another blogger referenced a quotation from George Parkin Atwater. I pulled out some more quotations from his extended imaginary dialog between an inquirer (the Doctor) and a priest (the Rector) from his The Episcopal Church: Its Message for Men of Today written back in1917. There are some other parts of the dialog in which the Rector talks about the liberties and freedom of thought to be found in the Church of his day, and I did not pull those out because I believe that George Parkin Atwater would be shocked at how those liberties and freedoms have been abused by those in charge of teaching and preaching in today's Episcopal church. He seemed to believe that the Church would hold fast to the fundamentals of Christian faith. After reading the ramblings of the retired Bishop of Georgia at the Stand Firm in  Faith site, in which he appeared to accuse the congregations that have left TEc as being divisive and overly focused on personal salvation over good works, I thought that the good Bishop might need a little refresher on the Episcopal Church of old and its take on the balance between faith and works. Here is an excerpt from Atwater.

“In what respect, Rector, has the Episcopal Church a special message to men today (1917)?” asked the Doctor.
 
     “In the first place, Doctor, the Episcopal Church is holding fast to the fundamentals of the Christian faith.  Men today respect convictions.  They are tired of the guesses and the surmises and the frothy imaginings and the cheap sensationalism of those who under the pretense of liberty to believe what one likes, are offering often trifling substitutes for the sound and tried conclusions of universal Christendom.  Men do not want religion to be belittled and reduced to mere amiability.  Life, death, sin, and sorrow, loom too large in human affairs for men to be indifferent to the fundamental truth of God about these things.  The Episcopal Church presents the Gospel of Christ as a whole, and the Christian faith as a whole, and not in such fragments as may please the hearer.  It is the Church of great affirmations.
   
...The real mission of the Church is never lost sight of, that is, to bring individuals into the Kingdom of God and to make them realize their personal relation to Jesus Christ as their Saviour.  The Episcopal Church is not apprehensive of the effect of its social emphasis because it has its foundation most firmly rooted and does not distrust its people.  It believes that social service is a natural outcome of its fundamental principles.  Its whole structure is comprehensive and not exclusive...

...The Christian Church today is essentially patriotic.  In times of peace it has built the foundations of justice, patriotism, righteousness and truth into the fabric of rising manhood.  It has exalted honor and sacrifice.  In time of war the Church gave of its vital strength to the cause of the nation, and its priests and clergy followed the young manhood of the land to the trenches.  The armies became the Church militant sent to far-off lands, but morally equipped, spiritually strengthened, encouraged, approved and blessed by the Church at home.  The army fighting for liberty is the Church in action, transforming the will of the Church into deeds: expressing the moral judgments of the Church in smashing blows.  And it is preparing to go on with the greater task of preparing the people of the land to be worthy of the liberty for which so many have made the supreme sacrifice.  And it is within the Church that they who have been bereft of loved ones, may find the assurance that the dead shall rise to life eternal, shall be known again as on earth.  Surely the people crave the comfort and assurance of immortality upon the certainty of which the Church pledges its very existence. 

The Episcopal Church sounds its appeal to men, women, and children, to become part of that great army which sustains the banner and the power of Christ.  For centuries the Church has poured forth its treasures, its lives, its sacrifices and efforts, for the good of the people.  Today the Church offers to you the heritage of countless centuries.  The Church would place all these things at your service.  It would make you share in its riches.  Would it not be worth while for you to realize the unselfishness and the value of the Church’s effort and to share with the Church in the mightiest crusade that ever inspired men, the triumph in the world, and in your life, of the principles and powers of the Kingdom of God?” 

The Episcopal Church: Its Message for Men of Today, Chapters 11, 12 by George Parkin Atwater; Morehouse Publishing Company, 1917.
(AnglicanBooksRevitalized)

 Poor Atwater, if only he were here to comment. Imagine if he had written this to the men of today. I thought I would do a little fisk with that in mind.

“In the first place, Doctor, the Episcopal Church is holding fast to the fundamentals of the Christian faith.

If you mean, "Do you say the creeds?" or "Do you celebrate the Eucharist," then yes, but if you throw in liturgies for same-sex unions, the ordination and celebration of divorced, non celibate homosexuals as bishops, then the answer is a resounding "No!"

 Men today respect convictions.  They are tired of the guesses and the surmises and the frothy imaginings and the cheap sensationalism of those who under the pretense of liberty to believe what one likes, are offering often trifling substitutes for the sound and tried conclusions of universal Christendom.  

I think men still respect convictions, but the church of today is famous for spouting off frothy imaginings and for holding itself up as the paradigm of the church where one has the liberty to believe what one likes.

Men do not want religion to be belittled and reduced to mere amiability.  Life, death, sin, and sorrow, loom too large in human affairs for men to be indifferent to the fundamental truth of God about these things.  

My impression is that much of today's Episcopal practice and preaching is aimed at amiability. As has been documented on these pages, significant sections of the Bible are censored, and the parts that get cut are those that are, let's say, less than amiable.

The Episcopal Church presents the Gospel of Christ as a whole, and the Christian faith as a whole, and not in such fragments as may please the hearer.

See the above comment. There was a resolution passed at the last General Convention (C083 The Bible Challenge) which encourages 2013 to be the year for Episcopalians to read the entire Bible. Let's just see how many take on the challenge.

 It is the Church of great affirmations.

Affirmation today has been redefined to mean, "I will affirm, approve of,  and bless your choice of lifestyle."

 
...The real mission of the Church is never lost sight of, that is, to bring individuals into the Kingdom of God and to make them realize their personal relation to Jesus Christ as their Saviour.  

Hello Bishop Shipps (ret.).

The Episcopal Church is not apprehensive of the effect of its social emphasis because it has its foundation most firmly rooted and does not distrust its people.  It believes that social service is a natural outcome of its fundamental principles.  

The church of today has to focus on its social emphasis because it does not trust its people because when they learn more about the foundations of their faith they are likely to see where the S.S. TEc is headed and jump ship.

Its whole structure is comprehensive and not exclusive...

The Episcopal church is becoming more and more homogeneous (if that were possible) by excluding those who do not share her views.

...The Christian Church today is essentially patriotic.  In times of peace it has built the foundations of justice, patriotism, righteousness and truth into the fabric of rising manhood.  It has exalted honor and sacrifice.  In time of war the Church gave of its vital strength to the cause of the nation, and its priests and clergy followed the young manhood of the land to the trenches.

Since the Vietnam era, you are more likely to find the radical Episcopal priest marching in a protest against the military than following our troops into the trenches.

 The armies became the Church militant sent to far-off lands, but morally equipped, spiritually strengthened, encouraged, approved and blessed by the Church at home.  The army fighting for liberty is the Church in action, transforming the will of the Church into deeds: expressing the moral judgments of the Church in smashing blows.

Can you imagine the reaction if those words were spoken to an Episcopal General Convention of today?

 And it is preparing to go on with the greater task of preparing the people of the land to be worthy of the liberty for which so many have made the supreme sacrifice.  And it is within the Church that they who have been bereft of loved ones, may find the assurance that the dead shall rise to life eternal, shall be known again as on earth.  Surely the people crave the comfort and assurance of immortality upon the certainty of which the Church pledges its very existence. 

A church which cannot assert the bodily resurrection and heavenly ascension of Jesus cannot be very reassuring in that situation.

The Episcopal Church sounds its appeal to men, women, and children, to become part of that great army which sustains the banner and the power of Christ.

No, the church of today wants you to raise and sustain the rainbow colored banner instead.

 For centuries the Church has poured forth its treasures, its lives, its sacrifices and efforts, for the good of the people.

Today the church uses its treasures to sue the people of God.

 Today the Church offers to you the heritage of countless centuries.

Well maybe just the failed heritage of the last half century.

 The Church would place all these things at your service.  It would make you share in its riches.

Oh no, haven't you heard, the church of today owns your parish hall, your sanctuary, your computers and your stationary.

 Would it not be worth while for you to realize the unselfishness and the value of the Church’s effort and to share with the Church in the mightiest crusade that ever inspired men, the triumph in the world, and in your life, of the principles and powers of the Kingdom of God?”

The mighty crusade of today is the crusade for "social justice," why should anyone join a church to do that?



After the banner of Christ has been dragged through the mud by our bishops and leaders, it is imperative that we wash that banner in order to once again hold it high and once again proclaim, "The real mission of the Church is never lost sight of, that is, to bring individuals into the Kingdom of God and to make them realize their personal relation to Jesus Christ as their Saviour."   

Go Ahead, Be Angry... for a While

Whenever St. Paul writes a letter to one of the early churches, as he does in today's reading from Ephesians 4:25-5:2, I am always struck by the way his message carries meaning for the Church of today as a whole as well as for individual congregations.

"So then, putting away falsehood, let all of us speak the truth to our neighbours, for we are members of one another. Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and do not make room for the devil. Thieves must give up stealing; rather let them labour and work honestly with their own hands, so as to have something to share with the needy. Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only what is useful for building up, as there is need, so that your words may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with which you were marked with a seal for the day of redemption. Put away from you all bitterness and wrath and anger and wrangling and slander, together with all malice, and be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you. Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children, and live in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God." (NRSV)

The problem is that we will argue over just what constitutes "evil talk" and just what is useful for "building up."

The evidence to date is that the words that come out of Episcopal church General Conventions do the opposite of building up the Church, and are a large part of the reason for the decline and fall of the denomination.

For that I  am angry, and I will be critical, but I won't, and don't you, lose sleep over it.

Criticism is a necessary corrective part of the process of building up. To those on the receiving end, it always feels like "destructive criticism" when their closely held beliefs, desires, and dreams are exposed as harmful and destructive to the Church, and I myself have been accused of holding such destructive desires (to which I say "Balderdash!"). "Constructive criticism" however, has never, never worked with the revisionist elites that are running the Episcopal church into the ground.

WWPD?

My Letter to Bishop Waldo

In his GC2012 report to the Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina, Bishop Andrew Waldo wrote the following,

"I ask you to read what follows here—to its end—with care and love, understanding that it is nuanced and partial, and that it comes from the depths of my heart and the ground of my faith.
I am utterly serious when I describe myself as a radical centrist. It means that my very first principle as bishop when it comes to life and change within the community of faith is Jesus’ command to the disciple community to love one another as we have been loved, and to be willing to give up even our very lives for one another (John 15:12-13). To be a disciple is to be disciplined: disciplined in discernment, disciplined in theology, disciplined in action, disciplined in love. In his second letter, Peter writes, 'For this very reason, you must make every effort to support your faith with goodness, and goodness with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with endurance, and endurance with godliness, and godliness with mutual affection, and mutual affection with love.'
My discipline is this: to listen deeply to the challenges and questions of all, from my position in that radical—and, I’m discovering, somewhat dangerous—center. My long-held and still-present desire to move forward on same-sex blessings has been given a new discipline upon listening to the questions of those who object to it and the questions of those who support it. Being the bishop of all requires of me an internal discipline that I am not free to ignore."

He goes on, and for that I ask you to click on the link above. He does ask for answers to specific questions, something that seems odd, as if he cannot answer them himself, but I have come to expect this as a standard approach of his: to try to get others to engage in conversation while he sits back and moderates (usually by asking more questions).

Anyway, since he is at least giving the appearance of floundering in a radically central Charybdis of sorts, I decided (at the urging of fellow Upper South Carolinians) to send the following response last week.


07/29/2012

To the Rt. Rev. W. Andrew Waldo, Bishop
The Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina

“To be a disciple is to be disciplined: disciplined in discernment, disciplined in theology, disciplined in action, disciplined in love.”


Dear Bishop Waldo,

In your report of July 16, 2012 you ask us to address certain questions. As one who also believes that the theological statement supporting the blessing of same sex relationships is inadequate to lead us to approve of such a rite, I commend you for voting “No” in spite of your “long-held and still-present desire to move forward on same-sex blessings...”.


Let me give you my take on your questions.

1. You ask: “To those who object to same-sex blessings, my questions are these, among others: How, exactly, is Christian marriage threatened by the blessing of a relationship between two persons of the same sex?
   

Christian marriage as recognized by millions in the Anglican Communion and other Protestant denominations as well as millions more in the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches is the union of one man and one woman that has been recognized for thousands of years as blessed by God. Such a Christian marriage is not threatened by any innovation that man can create. So, I think your question is a red herring. Christian marriage is threatened by clergy who can no longer clearly articulate and teach just what Christian marriage is. Our failings as a Church to uphold Christian marriage long pre-date the same sex blessing debate. To the extent that the current “provisional” same sex blessing is in form and substance very much like the 1979 BCP Rite for Holy Matrimony, future generations will be raised in a state of theological confusion, and that may further weaken the Church's teaching on Christian marriage.

2a) You ask: “If two persons of the same-sex hold a sacred understanding of their bodies, rooted in St. Paul’s own words about the body being a temple of the Holy Spirit, and they understand and live their lives centered on a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as their Lord, and hold traditional values around life-long, monogamous relationships, what, exactly, is the danger to Christian faith and marriage?”

This is just a reiteration of the original question with the addition of a strawman. Unfortunately, the problem lies in the self-justification of the two persons described above, a self justification that you admit is based on an unacceptable theology.

2b) You ask: “Is it not possible for the church to bless such relationships as it seeks a balance between law and grace that errs on the side of grace, and still upholds the core of our biblical and theological inheritance?”

Erring on the side of grace? Since when, Your Grace, is it graceful to lead people using an inadequate, unbiblical, theology that is also contrary to all inherited theology? No, that would be a balance that errs on the side of causing harm to the people of God, and would be a breach of the doctrine and discipline of the Church and of the Bishop's examination during which you were asked,

“My brother, the people have chosen you and have affirmed their trust in you by acclaiming your election. A bishop in God’s holy Church is called to be one with the apostles in proclaiming Christ’s resurrection and interpreting the Gospel, and to testify to Christ’s sovereignty as Lord of lords and King of kings.

You are called to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church; to celebrate and to provide for the administration of the sacraments of the New Covenant; to ordain priests and deacons and to join in ordaining bishops; and to be in all things a faithful pastor and wholesome example for the entire flock of Christ.

With your fellow bishops you will share in the leadership of the Church throughout the world. Your heritage is the faith of patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, and those of every generation who have looked to God in hope. Your joy will be to follow him who came, not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

“Are you persuaded that God has called you to the office of bishop?”

And your answer was,

“I am so persuaded.”

If such a “balance” is to be created in the Diocese of Upper South Carolina, then we will no longer be one with the apostles, the leadership of the Church throughout the world, or the heritage of the patriarchs, prophets, martyrs, or those of every generation who have looked to God in hope.

Lastly you ask,

3)- “Many have said that the sin of homosexuality is in the sexual act itself. How, exactly, is that so, when those same acts are common in heterosexual Christian marriages? A theology of complementarity—that is, the Bible’s description of male-female complementarity—by itself, does not answer this question.”

The fact that heterosexual couples engage in inappropriate sexual activities points again to the failings of the Church in its task of preaching and teaching a scripturally sound theology of marriage. Heterosexual failings cannot be used to justify a blessing of homosexual “intercourse.”

I hope this helps to answer your questions.


Now, you get to tackle mine.

1. Why does a seminary trained, Bishop of the Church, with years of experience, still need help with this issue?
   
2. Your plan to “appoint a task force by the end of August to articulate theologically and practically—in much the way Bishop Doyle of Texas has done—the boundaries within which we might live together, including congregations that will have opened their doors to same-sex blessings, and protecting congregations whose conscience demands standing firmly within the tradition” implies that such a “unity” (wherein some parishes in this diocese will have same sex blessings while others won't) is what we are likely to be faced with in the future. How can God's blessing be conferred in one parish but not another? Which parish is acting contrary to God's will?
   
3. How will the promulgation of a theologically unacceptable liturgy alongside traditionalist parishes that disagree help us to engage others in mission and to proclaim God’s salvation in Jesus Christ in a coherent manner?
   

Your Brother in Christ,

Undergroundpewster
Episcopal Church of Our Saviour
Rock Hill, SC

p.s. Please note the unique way I recycled the paper from my copy of the same sex blessing service. You can find it on the reverse side of this letter.

Clarity on SSBs from Bishop Waldo?

In this Sunday's reading from Ephesians 4:1-16, St. Paul uses the power of imagery to help us to better understand God's call to us, and to unity in the Church.

"I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all."

"But each of us was given grace according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore it is said,
‘When he ascended on high he made captivity itself a captive;
   he gave gifts to his people.’
(When it says, ‘He ascended’, what does it mean but that he had also descended  into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things.) The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ. We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knitted together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love." (NRSV)

I wonder what Paul would say about the problem that moderate Episcopal bishops find themselves in as they position themselves down-wind of the actions of GC 2012 and the "provisional" authorization of a rite for blessing same sex marriages and relationships, a rite that is creepily similar to the liturgy for Holy Matrimony?

St. Paul would probably reiterate the last six lines of today's reading, and then he would probably write a strongly worded letter kicking some butt.

Speaking of...

In a communication to the clergy of the diocese dated July 26 our Bishop, Andrew Waldo, wrote, “I’ve gotten a number of emails post-General Convention and post-debriefing session (July 21) articulating some confusion about what can and can’t be done while the task force on same-sex blessings does its work. Below, is a bulleted, short-hand version that is offered for the sake of clarity:

• The Task Force will be formed by the end of August.

• No permissions for blessing same-sex unions will be considered until after the work of the task force has been completed and the process for granting such permissions has been identified.

• It will likely take between 6 and 18 months for the work of the task force to be completed. (The task force itself will set the timeframe)

• Policies in this diocese that existed prior to General Convention remain in place
until that work is done.”

Now, why should there be any confusion?

It is clear to me that those parishes that are hoping to have a same-sex blessing service may have to wait a while longer, but it is inevitable that they will, at some point, be able to do so.

Also, it looks like Bishop Waldo is saying to the left, "Hold on, while we work out a 'process,'" and to the right, "Don't worry, we'll have a task force."

Who is he kidding?
It looks like the goal for this self-professed "Radical Centrist" Bishop is to ultimately allow for a "separate but equal" status among his parishes. This will create a diocese in which some parishes will allow same sex blessings and others will not. This might work in the short term for those communities that have several Episcopal churches from which people can choose, but for those of us in more geographically isolated territories, if our local church winds up allowing same-sex blessings, many will opt to move to another denomination altogether because of the considerable pressure of the ever present well meaning invitations that come from friends and neighbors. Believe me, this exit strategy has already been voiced to me by concerned parishioners.

Because Bishop Waldo anticipates dragging this out for one to two more years, I suspect he is hoping to soften the blow as he moves the Diocese of Upper South Carolina to a far more "radical center" than conservative  pewsitters will ever be comfortable with. Radical Centrism just sounds like another word for leftward drift, or in the case of the Episcopal church, downward drift.

Will newcomers feel comfortable coming into a church being allowed to drift in such a manner by its shepherd?

My letter is on his desk, but I just thought of a post script,

"Yes I'm stuck in the middle with you,

And I'm wondering what it is I should do,
It's so hard to keep this smile from my face,
Losing control, yeah, I'm all over the place,
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right,
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you."

Gerry Rafferty and Joe Egan; Stealers Wheel's 1972

August 1 “Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day.”

I think Mike Huckabee came up with the idea that today is “Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day” (at least he did according to The Blaze). 


Here I am, it is getting close to lunch time, and I have a decision to make.


Should I go for the Char Grilled Chicken Cool Wrap or the Spicy Chicken Cool Wrap?

A Layperson's Sermon

This past Sunday, as mentioned in my previous post, we heard another sermon from a layperson. This is something new for our church, and I don't know how many of our congregants will get tapped to do this. I would like to post the contents of these sermons, but given the sometimes testy comments posted here, I suspect many laypersons might be a bit leery of this blog. It still took much cajoling and a glass or two of his finest for my friend Deep Pew to weasle his way into this Sunday's preacher's confidence. Thanks to D.P., I was able to obtain a copy of Sunday's sermon (which was based on John 6:1-21) for further review given the questions raised by at least one comment. Here it is.

Wow, the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, and walking on water! Now those are tough acts to follow.

The last time I stood in a pulpit was when I was thirteen and the narrator in our Epiphany pageant, and that was a point in my faith journey when I was just beginning to struggle with doubts. I was starting to go from the simple and close relationship with God that I had as a child to the doubt, rebellion, and eventual denial of God that I experienced as a teenager. When was a rebellious 17 year old, I remember writing a paper on the new rock musical Jesus Christ Superstar for my religion class. In the process, I found that I identified with  “Herod’s Song” which contained the lines,

“So, you are the Christ, you're the great Jesus Christ.
Prove to me that you're no fool; walk across my swimming pool.”
And,
Feed my household with this bread. You can do it on your head.”

By the time I was a College Freshman, I was a vocal opponent of the Gospel, and stories like the ones we heard today were among my favorite targets.

But later that same year, I accepted the challenge put to me by my Christian friends at school, the challenge that I examine the evidence in scripture for myself, and it was after studying the Gospel of Luke and his orderly account, that I gave up the fight, submitted to God's will, and accepted Jesus as my Saviour.

Finding myself standing here today, reflecting on my faith journey, and now tasked with discussing the signs, and wonders found in the sixth chapter of John, after having vigorously denied them in my youth, is a miracle of sorts. You just never know where God will lead you.

The early followers of Jesus, as described in the sixth chapter of John, were following Him because they saw the signs that he was doing for the sick.

John's choice of the word for “sign” is intentional. A sign is unique and a bit different from “miracle” or “wonder” in that a sign definitely points to something else.

When I was growing up, our family would take long road trips. We kids would be fascinated by colorful road side signs like ones for “The World's Largest Snake Farm 15 miles ahead.” Those signs usually had a painting of a beautiful woman being threatened by a huge snake... the kind of thing that would make us kids beg for Dad to stop. And there was never just one sign, they were staggered, with another one at 10 miles, 5 miles and so on. And if we ever succeeded in getting Dad to stop the car at the snake farm, we were disappointed to find that the reality of the thing was far inferior to what we had created in our imaginations.

Man made signs are like that.

After witnessing the first sign we heard about today, the multiplication of the loaves, the crowds following Jesus thought that this sign pointed to “the prophet who was to come into the world,” They were probably thinking of Jesus as the second coming of Elijah, and Jesus will have to correct them later on in this chapter of John. His explanation will not sit well with many of his followers.

The other sign John tells us about today is Jesus walking on the water. It is a curious account because in John's account we are left guessing if Jesus ever gets into the boat, and we see the boat immediately getting to its destination. This account seems incomplete, but John, unlike Luke, never said that he was going to give an orderly account of things.

These two events, should be familiar to all of us. They are pretty much foundational for most of us. While the walking on water stories differ somewhat in detail amongst the Gospels and in fact, the story gets left out of the Gospel of Luke altogether, the story of the feeding of the five thousand is repeated with remarkable similarity in all four Gospels, and is said to be the only such miracle to be so documented apart from the Resurrection itself.

Foundational: They certainly were to the early Christian Church to be told so often.

But are these stories foundational for us today?

How can we be sure that these signs are pointing us in the right direction?

And how do we answer the rebellious teenager's assertions, “It was all a trick,” or “People made it all up.” That was me.

Now, arguments that the signs and miracles were parlor tricks are nothing new. The First Apology or defense, was an early work of Christian apologetics addressed by Justin to the Roman Emperor around AD 165. Part of his argument against the claim that Jesus was just a clever magician was that these acts had been prophesied in the Old Testament.

Justin's Apologetic didn't work with the Emperor and that's why we call him Justin Martyr.

And his call to look to the words of the O.T. prophets may not work for people today many of whom either discount much of the Old Testament as irrelevant, or deny that the older scriptures contain things that foreshadow the coming of Jesus at all.

You certainly can't deny the parallels between Jesus and the O.T. Prophets. We heard one today in the story of Elisha and the feeding of the 100, although Jesus beats Elisha’s deed 50 fold.

And before Elisha, we had Elijah (1 Kings 17) feeding the widow and her son, with the inexhaustible jar of flour and jug of oil, a story you did not hear today...

And there were water miracles associated with the older prophets as well.

So was Jesus just another prophet like Elijah or Elisha as his early followers thought? Or was he the clever magician that Justin's opponents claimed? Or was he the fraud that Andrew Loyd Webber's Herod mocked. If all I had to work with was today's little snippet of the Gospel of John, I might still struggle with these miracles, but there is more to the story.

Indeed, it is only with our post resurrection eyes that we can even imagine where these signs are pointing. Let me present the viewpoint of C.S. Lewis on “Miracles.”

“If we open such books as Grimm’s Fairy Tales ... we find ourselves in a world of miracles so diverse that they can hardly be classified. Beasts turn into men and men into beasts or trees, trees talk, ships become goddesses... Some people cannot stand this kind of story, others find it fun. But the least suspicion that it was true would turn the fun into nightmare. If such things really happened they would, I suppose, show that Nature was being invaded. But they would show that she was being invaded by an alien power. The fitness of the Christian miracles, and their difference from these mythological miracles, lies in the fact that they show invasion by a Power which is not alien. They are what might be expected to happen when she is invaded not simply by a god, but by the God of Nature: by a Power which is outside her jurisdiction not as a foreigner but as a sovereign. They proclaim that He who has come is not merely a king, but the King, her King and ours. It is this which, to my mind, puts the Christian miracles in a different class from most other miracles.

... when Christ walks on the water we have a miracle of the New Creation. ... This miracle is the foretaste of a Nature that is still in the future. The New creation is just breaking in. ...That momentary glimpse was a snowdrop of a miracle. The snowdrops show that we have turned the corner of the year. Summer is coming...None of the Miracles of the New Creation can be considered apart from the Resurrection and Ascension: and that will require another chapter.”

Today's readings from John's Gospel clearly show the new creation breaking in, and that should make us curious as to what the next chapters will bring.

This Chapter of John is a good example of his way of conveying that message. Of course, the signs point to the divine nature of Jesus. And, if you read further, you will see Jesus chastising his followers and explaining to them the meaning of the multiplication of the loaves. In the course of his explanation, Jesus repeatedly makes the point that the feeding of the five thousand is not about food for the stomach. It is about something else, something new that has entered the world.

Now this is where the people following Him start thinking that Jesus is not a magician or a fraud but must be crazy, because He starts claiming to be the bread from heaven, and not only that but He is the Word made flesh, and they are supposed to gnaw on that. (Yes the word is translated as gnaw)

That was not what they thought the signs pointed to, and this presents a real problem to His followers, and in fact proves to be way too much for many of them who choose, at this juncture, to leave Him.

“Feeding five thousand, walking on water... okay, Elijah and Elisha could do that, but being the Word made flesh, forget it.” Even many of those who had eaten of the barley loaves, could not stomach this claim., and they say to Jesus, in verse ^{60 “}…This is an hard saying; who can hear it?”

Who can hear it today?

Now, We who know the post resurrection Jesus, have an advantage here and are less likely to walk away because of these bold claims.

Fast forward to the end of John's Gospel to see how the resurrection helps us to accept the“hard saying” of Jesus by looking at the parallels between the early signs and the final ones. After Jesus' death, his disciples had returned to fishing, and they were having no luck at all until a man on the beach, who they later learn is the risen Lord, tells them where to cast their nets. When they listen to Him and follow His instructions, their catch is multiplied.. shall I say… a thousand fold? They are then invited to breakfast where Jesus gives thanks, breaks bread, (sound familiar) and opens their eyes once again.

Next Peter gets instructed repeatedly, to feed Jesus' sheep. Think back to the other Gospels and their pictures of the feeding of the five thousand, reclining on the green grass where Jesus had led them, and Jesus, before performing the miracle, tells his disciples, “You give them something to eat.” The disciples couldn't do it then, they did not understand, and they had yet to receive the Holy Spirit. But here, at the conclusion of John's Gospel, Jesus is telling Peter to feed His sheep not with bread and fishes but with the bread from heaven. This bread is the Word made flesh, and it is the good news transmitted to us through the Gospel of John, one example of which we saw back in chapter six, verse 40, “That you believe in Him and have everlasting life, and He will raise you up on the last day.”

Isn't that what people still hunger for?

It took me a long time, but after reading, studying the witness of the Gospels, and chewing on God’s word contained therein, alone and with friends, I confess my belief.

Yes, I no longer have a problem with Jesus walking on water or feeding the multitudes. After all, I believe that He rose from the dead, and I believe that He died so that we might live to tell the tale that the signs of Jesus point to something greater than we can imagine. Man made signs with their promises to satisfy the desires of the human heart will always disappoint. The problem for many of us is how do we tell if a sign is man made or not, particularly when the sign claims to be the fruit of the Holy Spirit. If we go chasing after every one of those, we will never arrive at our destination. No, the message of John's Gospel is quite simple, look no further, the signs are all there, Jesus staring you in the face, believe in Him, fill yourselves with Him, and live.