Beware the Episconinjas: A Covert Agency of Christ-like Ninja

Thanks to this video, I finally figured out how the spiritual circumcision that St. Paul writes about in  Sunday's Epistle reading really takes place.

"For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have come to fullness in him, who is the head of every ruler and authority. In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision..." Colossians 2:9-11 

Confused? Read on.

This video is from 2009, and Celtic Anglican brought it to my attention only recently. I decided to type up the text for those who don't care to watch the whole thing.

The Episcopal Church

Who are we?

First and foremost we are a covert agency of Christ-like ninja.

We dwell in the shadows while you sleep and work amongst you in the day.

We are all around, secretly packing meals on Thanksgiving while the rest of the nation gorges themselves on turkey and football we sneak around our neighborhoods placing meals for the ones who cannot prepare their own.

We adhere to a code called the Nicene Creed, this creed has magical properties and allows us to do ninja like things.

Like dodge one sided arguments aimed to annoy and anger.

We take our cues from our supreme leader Jesus Christ.

Who is in fact God disguised as a ninja to train us in the arts of Compassion, Forgiveness, and Love.

Compassion, Forgiveness, and Love are aspects that we Episcopalians strive to achieve.

We are also Christ's 911 force in readiness we can be anywhere in the world at a moments notice...

...and will answer the call of one in distress in the matter of minutes.

We have invaded the work force, we are Doctors, Lawyers, Politicians, Photographers, Nurses, Carpenters, Soldiers and yes we use our ninja training to effect the work force community.

We are mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters bonded by a common mission...

...to love and serve Christ through our actions of public out reach and community support.

We strive to love the unloved, to bring in the outcast and pray for the ones who think they are forgotten.

You won't see us because we do not need to be seen, this is not the way of Episconinjas

...instead you will see us standing in song, and kneeling in prayer in our places of worship.

We are open to all in the world, if you want a description of an Episcopalian:

We are black, white, brown, yellow, red, sometimes green,

American, African, Haitian, European, Asian,

...men, women, addicts, wictims, pushers, rich, poor, sick, healthy.

These all make up the face of one Episcopalian Super Christ ninja.

We attack evil and indifference with justice and love, not swords or guns.

We use critical thinking and reasoning to solve problems...

...and as Episcopalians we help support other denominations and see them as brothers and sisters in our faith.

We are the Episcopal Church.

We welcome you to join us for worship.

Credits: Edited by a team of Episconinjas no dogmas were injured in the creation of this video (though one vicar was wearied)

www.kingofpeace.org

Embarrassing to say the least. 

The Nicene Creed has magical properties? (This is what you get when making talismen is part of your Faith Formation budget.)

Jesus Christ is in fact God disguised as a ninja? (That sounds like a modern version of an ancient heresy.)

We are black, white, brown, yellow, red, sometimes green? (Have you looked around at your typical Episcopal congregation lately? Green? Kermit the Frog is an Episcopalian? )

We use critical thinking and reasoning to solve problems? (We certainly don't use the Bible as a guide.)

I don't know if this was created by the youth group, but it certainly has that look to it. That would also be consistent with the depth of Christian education that takes place in most Episcopal churches. I only wish they would have used a bit more critical thinking, reasoning, grammar checking, and maybe some Bible study before publishing the video.

So how does that spiritual circumcision take place?

Jesus the Ninja is the rabbi in charge of the process (I apologize for the graphic images this thought might generate in your mind)!

Sin is in the Eye of the Beholder Part 2: Where are the Episcopalians for Weiner?

Today's Gospel reading raises the question, "Should we always give somebody what they ask for?"

"If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" Luke 11:11-13 

I guess it all depends on what they ask for.

How about when they ask for your vote? Would you give them a hard time?

The recent disclosure of habitual "sexting" by one candidate for mayor of New York City has a lot of people talking about whether or not this behavior should disqualify him for the job. There are a number of other issues involved, but there has been little discussion of most of them. I will list a few here:

1) Is the behavior right or wrong?

2) By what standard do you judge the behavior?

3) Does this behavior disqualify the candidate for a position of responsibility?

4) What signal does support for him send to children?

Refer for a moment back to my post of last week, "Sin is in The Eye of the Beholder" before you condemn the man.

I have taken the "screed" (written by what I might consider a prototypical liberal Episcopalian) found in that post, and I substituted the word "exhibitionist" for "homosexual".

"Yes, I will explain it to you. Sin is in the eye of the beholder. What you view as sin, others view as beauty. I am not an exhibitionist, but I believe that the same God that made me and others non-exhibitionist made other people exhibitionist. I think it is counter-intuitive to think that ideas of 3,500 years ago should still be followed today. The fact that a tribe of Hebrews wrote a book 3,500 years ago encapsulating their history and philosophy does not compel us to follow all their ideas as though they were cast in concrete for all time. Hopefully we have learned something in the passage of time. We have learned that slavery is ignoble. We have learned that women need not be subservient to men. We have learned that black people are equal to and indeed no different from white people. At least many of us have learned this. Now we have learned that certain people, about 5%, are born with exhibitionist orientation. It is not a life style they choose, any more than a person chooses to be born black or hispanic or asian. If Jesus stands for anything, he stands for the proposition that we should love one another, and 'by this all men shall know that you are my disciples, by the love you have for one another.' So I suggest that you quit casting stones unless you are that rara avis, the person without sin. Exhibitionists are not committing sin. They are doing what is natural for them to do by reason of the way God made them. Okay?"

Going back to my questions and applying Episco-reason (the one strong leg of Hooker's stool that people try to stand on):

1) Is the behavior right or wrong? It must be considered "right" because "What you view as sin, others view as beauty", and "They are doing what is natural for them to do by reason of the way God made them". Another way of looking at this is that it is a type of sexual orientation and therefore the behavior is appropriate for that orientation..

2) By what standard do you judge the behavior? We musn't apply some ancient standard or our inner sense about the behavior because "Sin is in the eye of the beholder", therefore there is no standard by which we can claim to judge him or his behavior. So we should back off and leave him alone.

3) Does this behavior disqualify him for a position of responsibility? To claim that would be akin to "casting stones unless you are that rara avis the person without sin" so we can't go there either.

4) What signal does support for him send to children? It sends the signal that we "stand for the proposition that we should love one another" and part of that love is to approve of another person's sexual orientation.

Given the above and with the assumption that a significant number of clergy and laity would agree with our liberal Episcopalian's statement on the issue of homosexuality, I would anticipate a sermon or two in support of candidate Weiner, or a letter of support from the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal church co-signed by other liberal denominations.

Or maybe they will join a street protest or rally?

It might even be a "Moral Monday" issue that is worth getting arrested for. I am referring to the Presiding Bishop's screed about the "Moral Monday" demonstrations going on in our neighboring state of North Carolina about which she said,

"Our neighbors in North Carolina are wrestling with that reality right now. The legislature is passing bill after bill trying to turn back the clock on the fruit of several decades of justice-making that had helped to create a more enlightened society – education for as many as possible, just working conditions, care for those who can’t care for themselves. At the moment the folks in the state house are undoing piece after piece of that just community. The fruit is being squashed and thrown in the rubbish bin, in a fit of pique. The most surprising element is that most of the legislature is unwilling to engage in dialogue.
Some of our fellow Episcopalians, together with other people of faith, are doing something about that famine of hearing the word of the Lord. They’re going up to the state house on Mondays to preach about God’s basket of summer fruit and the justice of the Lord."

I may be making a mountain out of a molehill here, but where are the Episcopalians for Weiner?

How Many Warning Signs Can One Bishop Include in Four Paragraphs?

In my post of last week, I came up with a list of ten warning signs to look for if you suspect that your church might be cheating on you. Applying that list to a recent pastoral message from my Bishop Waldo of the Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina has me looking for a divorce attorney.

Below, I have highlighted the words and phrases which match up pretty closely with a few of the ten warning signs. I will add the reference number(s) of the warning sign(s) in parentheses. 

From the Bishop's Status Update on the Diocese July 2013

The Bishop’s Task Force on Unity
(Strategic Vision: “The Church as a Community of Prayer, Worship and Dialogue”)

"Being in fruitful relationships (4) even when we disagree (5) is among our Lord’s deepest challenges to the church in response to his command that we love one another (4) as he has loved us. I called the Bishop’s Task Force on Unity together following General Convention 2012 to address those challenges with regard to disagreements in the church around the matter of same-sex blessings. The task force has met seven times since October 2012 and hopes to finish its work by late fall this year or early winter next year (1)."

"A structure for what we present to the Diocese upon the completion of our work is beginning to emerge and will include a pastoral letter from me and a curriculum created by the Task Force for congregations (5,9). We hope this structure will challenge people of all perspectives to examine assumptions, engage the issue more rigorously—biblically, theologically and morally—and to stay in community and in conversation (4,5) throughout."

"My pastoral letter at that time will detail how we will address same-sex blessings in this Diocese. Our way forward will, as I have written and said on several occasions over the last year or more, include a path for congregations who seek to allow same-sex blessings (3,10) as well as my support for those congregations who cannot in good conscience allow them."

"It is my most profound hope that we will succeed in shifting our diocesan conversation (5) away from secular vs. sacred polemic to a deeper engagement with the sources of our faith and a more profound trust in God’s reconciling presence with us as we struggle with hard things. It is my most profound prayer that our work may draw the diocesan community into a deeper unity in important areas of our common life (6), even if, as expected, we remain in disagreement on this particular issue (5)."

To save you the trouble of clicking back and forth or to and from last week's post, let me post the warning signs I find in Bishop Waldo's Dear John pastoral letter here updated notes in parentheses:

1) Theological/doctrinal waffling and indecisiveness.

Why, for-instance, should it take decades (in this case over a year) for the Church to resolve where it stands on marriage, human sexuality, etc? If your Church is having problems saying in clear and understandable language where it stands and how it got there, then it might be cheating on you.

3) Adopting unusual practices in worship.

Clown Eucharists, Labyrinths, Talismen, Solstice liturgies, need I say more? (Add same-sex blessing rituals) If you are invited to Mass by someone in a clown costume wearing an evil eye, then your church might be cheating on you.

4) When you hear, "It is all about relationship."

This is a big red flag. It usually means that there are serious theological and doctrinal differences brewing. The cheater will argue that you should live with this infidelity and focus on continuing and preserving the relationship, which of course just allows the Church to continue on its wayward path. If you hear, "It's all about relationship" then your Church might be cheating on you.

5) When you hear, "We can be together although we deeply disagree."

This is a variation of #4, but in reality means, "We need to talk, You must listen." If your Church suggests you engage in a listening process, then it might be cheating on you.

6) When you hear, "We should be focusing on mission."

(The famous ill-defined mission is one of "the important areas in our common life" that Bishop Waldo is talking about) This also indicates an avoidance of the underlying theological or doctrinal issues dividing the Church. If you hear your Church say, "We are missional," or "We should focus on mission" and that mission is not clearly stated to be to spread the good news of Christ crucified and resurrected, then your Church might be cheating on you.

9) Embracing heresy. 

(Would a faithful pastor allow Bishop Waldo's curriculum into the halls of their church?) Worse yet is to have false teachers invited to preach or to have their books studied in Sunday School. If your Church embraces a study of any book by the likes of Marcus Borg or John Shelby Spong, or asks them to speak at a church gathering, then your Church might be cheating on you.

10) Blessing Sin.

Don't expect your Church to say that this is what they are suggesting, but if you see warning signs 1-9, you can look forward to this one, and in that case you can be certain that your Church has embraced another and is definitely cheating on you.

I guess I can fire the private eye since this particular cheater e-mails his own evidence of being caught "In flagrante delicto" directly to my inbox.

Sin is in the Eye of the Beholder

In her sermon today, our priest in charge briefly reviewed the Nicene Creed and the elements of Collosians 1:15-29 which might have contributed to the Creed. The take home message is that we actually believe all that stuff that is in the Creed.

Its a good thing the Nicene Creed didn't talk about all those other things we argue about (most of which fall under the catagory of how we behave), although there wouldn't be a need for the creed to mention that Christ came for our salvation if we were not in trouble from our sins.

Sin is one of the things we do go round and round about, and that really bugs some people. It would be a whole lot easier if we could treat Sin as though it didn't exist, or if we could trivialize it in some way.

The following "screed" showed up in a comment box at the Episcopal News site recently. Someone asked why the Church is openly promoting, supporting and celebrating sin? I believe the response is illustrative of a common belief about Sin found in the Episcopal church today.

"Yes, I will explain it to you. Sin is in the eye of the beholder. What you view as sin, others view as beauty. I am not a homosexual, but I believe that the same God that made me and others heterosexual made other people homosexual. I think it is counter-intuitive to think that ideas of 3,500 years ago should still be followed today. The fact that a tribe of Hebrews wrote a book 3,500 years ago encapsulating their history and philosophy does not compel us to follow all their ideas as though they were cast in concrete for all time. Hopefully we have learned something in the passage of time. We have learned that slavery is ignoble. We have learned that women need not be subservient to men. We have learned that black people are equal to and indeed no different from white people. At leat many of us have learned this. Now we have learned that certain people, about 5%, are born with same-sex orientation. It is not a life style they choose, any more than a person chooses to be born black or hispanic or asian. If Jesus stands for anything, he stands for the proposition that we should love one another, and 'by this all men shall know that you are my disciples, by the love you have for one another.' So I suggest that you quit casting stones unless you are that rara avis the person without sin. Homosexuals are not committing sin. They are doing what is natural for them to do by reason of the way God made them. Okay?"

In short, "Sin is in the eye of the beholder" uses the approach of moral relativism which quickly leads to the chaos of ideas summarized in the comment.

For example,

The "... a tribe of Hebrews wrote a book 3,500 years ago", and "...Hopefully we have learned something in the passage of time..." argument basically tosses the Bible into the "Historical Documents" section of your denomination's Prayer Book, like paintings on a cave wall, nothing more than the art work of primitive man.

The slavery argument, the subservient women argument, the racist argument, the born that way argument, the love one another argument, the God made them this way argument, all topped off with the don't cast stones aspersion, make this comment an excellent summary of where you wind up once you remove the variable of Sin from the collective's memory.



http://www.reverendfun.com/index.php?date=19990524

In the end, the only eye of the beholder that counts is the eye that belongs to God. As Christians, we have the witness of the Gospel from which the ancient creeds are derived as our reference, and in the Gospel, Jesus more often than not points out that none of us are without sin in His eyes. When we look at ourselves in the mirror and see our sins as blessings, then we are fooling ourselves just like when we look into a carnival mirror and see a distorted image of ourselves. If the distorted image we see at the carnival makes us laugh at the ridiculousness of it, why don't some Episcopalians see how ridiculous we appear when we stare at what God has condemned, and we turn it around and call it a blessing?

Why, because we allow people to say that "it is all relative," or that it isn't in the Creeds, and such things are therfore non-essential. But perhaps the Nicene Creed takes it for granted that we are in need of salvation.

C.S. Lewis put it this way,  

 "Christ takes it for granted that men are bad. Until we really feel this assumption of His to be true, though we are part of the world He came to save, we are not part of the audience to whom His words are addressed. We lack the first condition for understanding what He is talking about. And when men attempt to be Christians without this preliminary consciousness of sin, the result is almost bound to be a certain resentment against God as to one who is always making impossible demands and always inexplicably angry."  C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), pp. 50-52.

Kanuga Gives Me the Kreeps Part 2

In an earlier post, I highlighted a few of the non-Christian conference offerings at this supposedly Christian camp.

During a recent trip to Kanuga, a friend checked out the bookstore, and guess what they found?

Animal-Speak: The Spiritual & Magical Powers of Creatures Great & Small by Ted Andrews.

The Amazon.com book description reads:

"Open your heart and mind to the wisdom of the animal world.

Animal Speak provides techniques for recognizing and interpreting the signs and omens of nature. Meet and work with animals as totems and spirit guides by learning the language of their behaviors within the physical world.

Animal Speak shows you how to: identify, meet, and attune to your spirit animals; discover the power and spiritual significance of more than 100 different animals, birds, insects, and reptiles; call upon the protective powers of your animal totem; and create and use five magical animal rites, including shapeshifting and sacred dance.

This beloved, bestselling guide has become a classic reference for anyone wishing to forge a spiritual connection with the majesty and mystery of the animal world."

And Amazon has the author's bio:

"Ted Andrews is a full-time author, student, and teacher in the metaphysical and spiritual fields. He conducts seminars, symposiums, workshops, and lectures throughout the country on many facets of ancient mysticism, focusing on translating esoteric material to make it comprehensible and practical for everyone. This includes resynthesizing ancient scriptures, literature, and teachings for use by the modern spiritual student.
Ted is certified in basic hypnosis and acupressure, and is involved in the study and use of herbs as an alternative path in health care. He is active in the holistic healing field, focusing strongly on esoteric forms of healing with sound, music, and voice. Trained in piano, Ted also employs the use of the Celtic harp, bamboo flute, shaman rattles, Tibetan bells, Tibetan Singing Bowl, and quartz crystal bowls to create individual healing therapies and induce higher states of consciousness. Ted is a clairvoyant and also works with past-life analysis, aura interpretation, dreams, numerology, and Tarot.
Andrews is the author of The Healer's Manual; Animal-Speak, How to See & Read the Aura; Dream Alchemy; Crystal Balls & Crystal Bowls; How to Develop & Use Psychic Touch; How to Heal with Color; Sacred Sounds; Magickal Dance; and many other titles."

Kreepy eh kids?

Ten Signs That Your Church Might Be Cheating on You

People choose and attend church for a variety of reasons,

1. 90% – Pastor/Preaching
2. 88% – Doctrines
3. 49% – Friendliness of Members
4. 42% – Other Issues
5. 41% – Someone Church Witnessed to Me
6. 38% – Family Member
7. 37% – Sensed God’s Presence/Atmosphere of Church
8. 25% – Relationship Other than Family Member
9. 25% – Sunday School Class
10. 25% – Children’s/Youth Ministry
11. 12% – Other Groups/Ministries
12. 11% – Worship Style/Music
13. 7% – Location
(research conducted by Ranier)

and people leave church for a variety of reasons,

1. The church was not helping me to develop spiritually. (28%)
2. I did not feel engaged or involved in meaningful church work (20%)
3. Church members were judgmental of others (18%)
4. pastor was not a good preacher (16%)
5. Too many changes (16%)
6. Members seemed hypocritical (15%)
7. Church didn’t seem to be a place where God was at work (14%)
8. Church was run by a clique that discouraged involvement (14%)
9. Pastor was judgmental of others (14%)
10. Pastor seemed hypocritical (13%)
(LifeWay Research)

But isn't it also true that churches leave their people? That certainly has been the an accusation leveled at the Episcopal church. Since there are two sides to that argument, another way of looking at it is to use the excuse given by some married couples that "We just grew apart."

When a post-mortem is performed on a failed relationship, some of the things folks look for are the warning signs that something might be going wrong, and one of things people focus on are signs of a cheating spouse/partner. For the purpose of this blog, I will look at the warning signs of a "cheating church".

Speaking from a lifetime spent in the Episcopal church, here are several warning signs that I observed.

1) Theological/doctrinal waffling and indecisiveness.

Why, for-instance, should it take decades for the Church to resolve where it stands on marriage, human sexuality, etc? If your Church is having problems saying in clear and understandable language where it stands and how it got there, then it might be cheating on you.

2) Biblical revisionism or omitting parts of the Bible altogether.

As documented on numerous occasions here (Classical Revisionism, and Something is Wrong With Our Bloody Lectionary) and elsewhere, revisionism takes its toll by reducing scripture to a matter of individual interpretation and opening scripture up to agenda driven eisegesis which makes the Bible say whatever you want it to say, while Biblical omissions lead to an incomplete loaf of our daily bread. If your Church is feeding you "holey" bread, then it might be cheating on you.

3) Adopting unusual practices in worship.

Clown Eucharists, Labyrinths, Talismen, Solstice liturgies, need I say more? If you are invited to Mass by someone in a clown costume wearing an evil eye, then your church might be cheating on you.

4) When you hear, "It is all about relationship."

This is a big red flag. It usually means that there are serious theological and doctrinal differences brewing. The cheater will argue that you should live with this infidelity and focus on continuing and preserving the relationship (which of course just allows the Church to continue on its wayward path).  If you hear, "It's all about relationship" then your Church might be cheating on you.

5) When you hear, "We can be together although we deeply disagree."

This is a variation of #4, but in reality means, "We need to talk, You must listen." If your Church suggests you engage in a listening process, then it might be cheating on you.

6) When you hear, "We should be focusing on mission."

This also indicates an avoidance of the underlying theological or doctrinal issues dividing the Church. If you hear your Church say, "We are missional," or "We should focus on mission" and that mission is not clearly stated to be to spread the good news of Christ crucified and resurrected, then your Church might be cheating on you.

7) When your list of martyrs and saints includes baby killers.

Or when you look through your financial records and find that some of your money is going to pay for someone's abortion, then your Church might be cheating on you.

8) Failure to call out and discipline false teaching.

An absence of discipline for preachers that go off the reservation is a very bad sign. This indicates a lack of confidence on the part of leadership as to what constitutes the doctrine and theology of the Church. If your Church tolerates false teachers, then your Church might be cheating on you.

9) Embracing heresy.

Worse yet is to have false teachers invited to preach or to have their books studied in Sunday School. If your Church embraces a study of any book by the likes of Marcus Borg or John Shelby Spong, or asks them to speak at a church gathering, then your Church might be cheating on you. 

10) Blessing Sin.

Don't expect your Church to say that this is what they are suggesting, but if you see warning signs 1-9, you can look forward to this one, and in that case you can be certain that your Church has embraced another and is definitely cheating on you.

If you have concluded that your Church is cheating on you, please feel free to eliminate the capital "C" and understand that you are not the first to come to this realization.

"Plead with your mother, plead:
for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband:
let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight,
and her adulteries from between her breasts;
lest I strip her naked,
and set her as in the day that she was born,
and make her as a wilderness,
and set her like a dry land,
and slay her with thirst.
And I will not have mercy upon her children;
for they be the children of whoredoms.
For their mother hath played the harlot:
she that conceived them hath done shamefully:
for she said, I will go after my lovers,
that give me my bread and my water,
my wool and my flax, mine oil and my drink.
Therefore, behold, I will hedge up thy way with thorns,
and make a wall, that she shall not find her paths.
And she shall follow after her lovers,
but she shall not overtake them;
and she shall seek them, but shall not find them"
Hosea 2:2-7 (KJV).

Are We Growing Afraid to Affirm the Uniqueness of Christ For Salvation?

I recently received an article from the CS Lewis Institute that was originally in the Spring 2009 issue of "Knowing & Doing": Is Jesus Really the Only Way to God? (Complete text here)
The author, Dennis Hollinger, cites the large percentages of American Christians who support unorthodox views regarding salvation:

"Among all Americans who are affiliated with a religion, 52 percent believe that Islam leads to eternal life with God, 53 percent believe that Hinduism leads to God, and 42 percent even believe that atheism leads to God."

In his conclusions he offers the following,

"The growing number of Christians who are troubled by Jesus’ claims to be the single course of salvation indicates how much the world has come to live in us as we attempt to live in the world. We easily allow the push and pull of our culture to define our beliefs, commitments, and way of life, even while giving lip service to the name of Jesus. Perhaps the Pew Forum poll will be a wake-up call as to how much Christians have allowed the world to shape their sentiments."

I think that is an excellent observation. As much as people would like to tell you that they have come to this belief on their own, in all likelihood the current world view is what shapes their reason.

"Affirming the uniqueness of Christ for salvation and eternal life does not, of course, answer all our questions. There is much that God has not told us about the mysteries of life, death, and eternity. We naturally wonder what happens to those who never have an opportunity to embrace Christ. To such quandaries we must simply trust in a Savior who is both loving and just, and whose understandings are far beyond ours. We must acknowledge that from Scripture we know relatively little about heaven and hell. What we do know is that Jesus, the apostles, and the historic Church in all its variations have affirmed that Jesus is the only true way to God. And it only makes sense that if a person didn’t want Jesus as Savior and Lord on this earth, they would hardly want to spend eternity with Him."

There is a question Christians commonly face from non-believers (and increasingly from believers), "What about the poor guy in China who never heard the Gospel?" The old answer, "He is going to Hell" does not fly in today's pluralistic society. I myself pray that Jesus will reach out to those who did not get to hear His voice in this lifetime, but while we might answer that we don't know exactly what will happen to them, we can say with confidence what will happen to those who do accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour, and that is why it is so important to spread the good news of the Gospel to those who might not have heard it in this lifetime. How to do this without turning people away from Christ is the challenge for individuals and the Church.

"To affirm the uniqueness of Christ for salvation is not cause for arrogance and boasting. In fact scripturally it is exactly the opposite. Our salvation has nothing to do with our attainments, efforts, and native beliefs. In salvation we do not find God through our own ingenuity. Rather, God finds us as we respond to his loving mercy in Christ as evidenced on the cross. The embrace of Christ as savior and Lord can never be touted as cause for human triumph, smugness, or self-assertion. It is not a sign of our superiority, or cause for triumphalistic efforts in society.
The uniqueness of Christ is a sign that the triune God of the universe cares so deeply for his wayward creatures that he mercifully provided a path to forgiveness, a way to the Father’s embrace. It is in the Father’s embrace through Christ, empowered by the Holy Spirit, that we come to realize that we can never pull the Triune God apart. For indeed to know Christ is to know the Father, and to know the Father is to know the Spirit, who enables us to stay true to the One Savior in the midst of a pluralistic world." Dennis Hollinger was appointed in 2008 as President and Professor of Christian Ethics at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, headquartered in South Hamilton, Massachusetts. He is a member of the C.S. Lewis Institute Board of Directors. Dennis and his wife, Mary Ann, have two adult daughters.

So what are we afraid of when faced with the possibility of having to express an opinion as to the uniqueness of Christ for salvation? Is it our general lack of confidence in our ability to communicate it as well as Dennis Hollinger, or is it our lack of confidence in the Gospel itself, or is it fear of retribution from an increasingly hostile world?

No Mo' Woe: More Lectionary Omissions

While this Sunday's worship included the following nice anthem,



Today's Gospel reading gave another illustration of how, in an attempt to make the Bible a bit more gentle, the lectionary used in our church usually deletes references that might imply God's wrath or judgement.

The reading for July 7, Seventh Sunday after Pentecost (Proper 9): Luke 10:1-11,16-20

1 After this the Lord appointed seventy others and sent them on ahead of him in pairs to every town and place where he himself intended to go.
2 He said to them, ‘The harvest is plentiful, but the labourers are few; therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out labourers into his harvest.
3 Go on your way. See, I am sending you out like lambs into the midst of wolves.
4 Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals; and greet no one on the road.
5 Whatever house you enter, first say, “Peace to this house!”
6 And if anyone is there who shares in peace, your peace will rest on that person; but if not, it will return to you.
7 Remain in the same house, eating and drinking whatever they provide, for the labourer deserves to be paid. Do not move about from house to house.
8 Whenever you enter a town and its people welcome you, eat what is set before you;
9 cure the sick who are there, and say to them, “The kingdom of God has come near to you.”
10 But whenever you enter a town and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say,
11 “Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you. Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near.”
(Note verses 12-15 are omitted)
16 ‘Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.’
17 The seventy returned with joy, saying, ‘Lord, in your name even the demons submit to us!’
18 He said to them, ‘I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning.
19 See, I have given you authority to tread on snakes and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing will hurt you.
20 Nevertheless, do not rejoice at this, that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.’

Okay, wiping the dust off your feet and saying that the Kingdom of God has come near is a mild sounding judgement, but hear what the omitted verses had to say,

12 I tell you, on that day it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for that town.
13 ‘Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.
14 But at the judgement it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon than for you.
15 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to Hades.

Fortunately for us we heard verse 12 today, but I suspect that many churches weren't so lucky.

I assume that the Lectionary committee thinks that the Sunday morning crowd shouldn't be exposed to talk of wrath, judgement, condemnation, and (heaven forbid) Hades! I guess they decided that such things are the things that turn people off about Christianity.

Now, there is no rule that you can't bring your own Bible into your Episcopal church and fill in the blanks for yourself every Sunday, and some Episcopal churches actually have Bibles in the pews (can you believe it?). In fact I think we should do a poll of Episcopal congregations and see how many keep Bibles in the pew racks. I believe St. John's Shandon in Columbia is one in our diocese that has them. Are there others?

An alternative, as has been suggested in comments made here after previous postings on the subject, would be to just go ahead and read the missing verses as they were meant to be heard.

Wouldn't that be a novel idea?

"If our religion is something objective, then we must never avert our eyes from those elements in it which seem puzzling or repellent; for it will be precisely the puzzling or the repellent which conceals what we do not yet know and need to know." C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory. 

Hanging on to Dear Life?

My first impression of the following conclusion of a research paper was, "That doesn't make sense."

"Terminal cancer patients with strong religious support were more likely to receive invasive treatments when near death than those without such connections,"

This was recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Here are some of the details,

Objective: To determine whether spiritual support from religious communities influences terminally ill patients' medical care and quality of life (QoL) near death.

Design, Setting, and Participants: A US-based, multisite cohort study of 343 patients with advanced cancer enrolled from September 2002 through August 2008 and followed up (median duration, 116 days) until death. Baseline interviews assessed support of patients' spiritual needs by religious communities. End-of-life medical care in the final week included the following: hospice, aggressive EoL measures (care in an intensive care unit [ICU], resuscitation, or ventilation), and ICU death.

Results:  Patients reporting high spiritual support from religious communities (43%) were less likely to receive hospice, more likely to receive aggressive EoL measures, and more likely to die in an ICU. Risks of receiving aggressive EoL interventions and ICU deaths were greater among high religious coping; and racial/ethnic minority patients. Among patients well-supported by religious communities, receiving spiritual support from the medical team was associated with higher rates of hospice use, fewer aggressive interventions and fewer ICU deaths; and EoL discussions were associated with fewer aggressive interventions.

 Conclusions and Relevance:  Terminally ill patients who are well supported by religious communities access hospice care less and aggressive medical interventions more near death. Spiritual care and EoL discussions by the medical team may reduce aggressive treatment, highlighting spiritual care as a key component of EoL medical care guidelines.

(Reference JAMA Article here)

I guess I had assumed that the researchers would find the exact opposite. In our small church, I have seen less use of aggressive interventions and few ICU deaths in our terminally ill. I wonder what that says about our level of religious support.

I also wonder how most people reconcile Christian belief in an afterlife with this human tendency to try to hold onto mortal life at all costs, even when terminally ill. After all didn't the Apostle Paul admit,

"We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." (2 Corinthians 5:8).

"For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." Philippians 1:21

“That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.” (Philippians 3:10–11) 

I have to speculate as to why the findings are what they are...

1) There is great diversity in religious practice, teachings, and beliefs in the United States.
2) American religious practice does not prepare people for death as well as it should.
3) Culture (look young, feel young, act young) trumps religion once again.

In their conclusion, the researchers suggest that doctors need to improve their spiritual support of the terminally ill, but what about the religious communities responsibility?