Jesus Feeding the 5000 and Walking on Water: What Do You Believe?

Six years ago, I had the privilege as a lay person to  preach on John 6:1-21. As this passage came around again this Sunday, I will take the opportunity to publish that sermon. Here goes nothing,

"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 can 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.

The Disconnect Between the Houses of the Episcopal General Comvention

The 2018 General Convention (GC) of Episcopalians saw something of a shift in the trajectory of the progressive march to the promised land, a promised land whose landscape has always been subject to change. The current goals that drew the most attention at GC 2018 were gender neutral liturgies and Prayer Book revision, both of which are necessary to get to the nirvana of having a same-sex marriage rite enshrined in the Prayer Book.

As some had predicted, full Prayer Book revision was overwhelmingly approved by the House of Deputies, and rejected by the House of Bishops, It appears that it would cost 8 million dollars and take 10- 20 years to complete such a revision and that there is insufficient theological brain power left in the Episcopal sect to even attempt such a project.

Over the past two decades, the House of Bishops has caved to most innovations, but this time they went against the will of the House of Deputies. Some might think that this represents a turning of the tide as though the progressive wave hit a sea wall, but I don't think the House of Bishops wall is built of stone. Instead, the House of Bishops wall is bound to crumble as it gets pounded every three years at GC and as its members age out and are replaced by, you guessed it, veterans of the House of Deputies.

You see, Episcopal bishops are elected by the clergy and pewsitters of their dioceses. And who is most politically active in the majority of Episcopal dioceses? Revisionists and progressives of course. So, while it may take 10 years for enough turn over to take place to shift the vote in the House of Bishops, it will happen eventually.

In the meantime, the denomination has authorized the continued trial use of same sex marriage liturgies and gender neutral liturgies, and Episcopalians have given its progressive priests the right to use these liturgies without their bishop's permission.

So there is a disconnect between those old fashioned knuckle dragging bishops and the politically active  junior clergy and pewsitters in the House of Deputies, but the progressives will eventually pull things back together and see their desires fulfilled. Just give them some more time because heresies never die, they just get reincarnated every three years.

Which Prophet Did You Hear About This Sunday, Nathan or Jeremiah?

This Sunday's Old Testament readings present rectors with two options. They can either let their sheep hear 2 Samuel 7:1-14a or Jeremiah 23:1-6. I suspect that revisionists will shy away from Jeremiah and opt for the reading from 2 Samuel in which Nathan tells David, "Thus says the Lord". Let's look at both readings and consider what might be going on in worship leaders' minds as they decide which reading to choose.

First, read 2 Samuel 7:1-14

Now when the king was settled in his house, and the Lord had given him rest from all his enemies around him, the king said to the prophet Nathan, ‘See now, I am living in a house of cedar, but the ark of God stays in a tent.’ Nathan said to the king, ‘Go, do all that you have in mind; for the Lord is with you.’

But that same night the word of the Lord came to Nathan: Go and tell my servant David: Thus says the Lord: Are you the one to build me a house to live in? I have not lived in a house since the day I brought up the people of Israel from Egypt to this day, but I have been moving about in a tent and a tabernacle. Wherever I have moved about among all the people of Israel, did I ever speak a word with any of the tribal leaders* of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, saying, ‘Why have you not built me a house of cedar?’ Now therefore thus you shall say to my servant David: Thus says the Lord of hosts: I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep to be prince over my people Israel; and I have been with you wherever you went, and have cut off all your enemies from before you; and I will make for you a great name, like the name of the great ones of the earth. And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may live in their own place, and be disturbed no more; and evildoers shall afflict them no more, as formerly, from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. When he commits iniquity, I will punish him with a rod such as mortals use, with blows inflicted by human beings.

Nathan tells David that the Lord says that David's son will be the one to build a permanent house for the Lord, squashing David's plans. Not much here for a revisionist to worry about. I suppose one could stretch a point and try to say that kings always want to leave their legacy in great building projects, but prophets will stand up to those kings and tell them they are wrong. Today, the prophets are telling President Trump that it is wrong and inhumane to build a border wall, and those prophetic voices are, you guessed it, progressive Episcopal priests and bishops.

If that doesn't sound like good sermon material, the other option is Jeremiah 23:1-6,

Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! says the Lord. Therefore, thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who shepherd my people: It is you who have scattered my flock, and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. So I will attend to you for your evil doings, says the Lord. Then I myself will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the lands where I have driven them, and I will bring them back to their fold, and they shall be fruitful and multiply. I will raise up shepherds over them who will shepherd them, and they shall not fear any longer, or be dismayed, nor shall any be missing, says the Lord. 

The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The Lord is our righteousness.’

Okay, as I wrote two years ago,

 "The really bad shepherd of today will scrupulously avoid discussing Jeremiah, knowing that the words of the prophet of Israel are aimed right at the pulpit in which they are standing.
The average bad shepherd of today, believing that their progressive gospel is the right one, will be totally unaware of the fact that it is that very same false gospel that has driven God's flock away, and that is why they are staring at so many empty chairs today.
The slightly bad shepherd will shy away from Jeremiah perhaps by saying that the prophets words were aimed at the priests of ancient Israel and leave it there."

On second thought, I think a progressive Episcopal priest would believe that Jeremiah is warning people from following other Anglican leaders out of the Episcopal sect, and a true progressive would have no trouble with this Old Testament option.

I pray that the false teachers among us will come to the realization that there are some criminal acts, such as driving away God's flock, which put them in jeopardy of God's punishment, and that they repent before they wind up like the less fortunate criminal who derided our Lord as he hung beside Jesus.

Bishops and Marriage: The No Longer Episcopal Church

A revisionist can always change his mind, and because of this you can't trust anything a revisionist says.

"I have no authority nor intent to change the church’s doctrine of Christian marriage—“a solemn and public covenant between a man and a woman in the presence of God”—as contained in the Canons of Episcopal Church and in The Book of Common Prayer..." Bishop Andrew Waldo in 2014

Bishop Waldo came out in support of blessing same-sex marriages and started permitting the use of the text approved by the last General Convention in the Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina not long after making the above statement.

Last week, the Episcopal General Convention moved forward and authorized the continued trial use of another rite, this one a gender neutral one to be used for same-sex marriage called "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage 2". This worked its way into Resolution B012, a resolution that essentially strips bishops of their episcopal authority over priests conducting such marriages against the Bishop's will, and allocates $100,000 to keep the drive alive.

As Bishop Dan Martins puts it,

"The Episcopal Church has arrogated to itself authority that it does not inherently have, and redefined a sacramental relationship that was instituted by God in creation. That is monumental hubris. And, to add insult to injury, it has deprived bishops of the authority of teaching and liturgical leadership that does properly inhere in the episcopal office. This is scandalous, and a source of shame."

And elsewhere he says,

"The action of this convention flouts the notion that the Episcopal Church is true to its very name—'episcopal' means “pertaining to the Bishop”—let alone that it stands in the broad stream of Catholic Christianity. We have grievously erred, and are in need of repentance and amendment of common life."

To which I commented,

"After stripping Bishops of their authority, I guess the next logical resolution to submit will be one that calls for removing the word 'Episcopal' from the Prayer Book, the logo, all letterheads, titles, and 815."

And I suggest the organization be renamed "The People's Church".

Here is the final resolution,

B012 Marriage Rites for the Whole Church 

Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 79th General Convention authorize for continued trial use, in accordance with Article X of the Constitution and Canon II.3.6, “The Witnessing and Blessing of a Marriage” and “The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage 2” (as appended to the report of the Task Force for the Study of Marriage to the 79th General Convention); and be it further

Resolved, That the 79th General Convention authorize for trial use, in accordance with Article X of the Constitution and Canon II.3.6, “The Blessing of a Civil Marriage 2” and “An Order for Marriage 2” (as appended to the report of the Task Force for the Study of Marriage to the 79th General Convention), beginning the first Sunday of Advent, 2018; and be it further 

Resolved, That the period of trial use for these liturgies shall extend until the completion of the next comprehensive revision of the Book of Common Prayer; and be it further 

Resolved, That the SCLM monitor the use of these rites as part of their work of revising the Book of Common Prayer; and be it further 

Resolved, That the material prepared by the TFSM with regard to paragraph one of “Concerning the Service” of Marriage, the proper prefaces for Marriage and the Catechism be referred to the SCLM for serious consideration as they engage in the process of revision of the Book of Common Prayer; and be it further 

Resolved, That all of this material be authorized for publication as part of Liturgical Resources 2 (as appended to the report of the TFSM) and be made available electronically in English, Spanish, French, and Haitian Creole at no cost by the first Sunday of Advent, 2018; and be it further 

Resolved, That under the canonical direction of the Rector or Member of the Clergy in charge and where permitted to do so by civil law, provision will be made for all couples desiring to use these marriage liturgies in their local congregation or worshipping community, provided that nothing in this Resolve narrows the authority of the Rector or Priest-in-Charge (Canon III.9.6(a)); and be it further 

Resolved, That in dioceses where the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority (or, where applicable, ecclesiastical supervision) holds a theological position that does not embrace marriage for same-sex couples, and there is a desire to use such rites by same-sex couples in a congregation or worshipping community, the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority (or ecclesiastical supervision) shall invite, as necessary, another bishop of this Church to provide pastoral support to the couple, the Member of the Clergy involved and the congregation or worshipping community in order to fulfill the intention of this resolution that all couples have convenient and reasonable local congregational access to these rites; and be it further 

Resolved, That the provision of Canon I.18.7 applies by extension to these liturgies, namely, “It shall be within the discretion of any Member of the Clergy of this Church to decline to solemnize or bless any marriage”; and be it further 

Resolved, That the provisions of Canon I.19.3 regarding marriage after divorce apply equally to these liturgies; and be it further 

Resolved, That bishops exercising ecclesiastical authority, or where appropriate ecclesiastical supervision, who hold a theological position that does not embrace marriage for same sex couples, shall in the case of remarriage after divorce, invite another bishop of this Church to oversee the consent process and to receive any report of such Marriages, as provided in Canon I.19.3(c); and be it further 

Resolved, That bishops continue the work of leading the Church in comprehensive engagement with these materials and continue to provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church; and be it further 

Resolved, That this Church continue to honor theological diversity in regard to matters of human sexuality; and be it further 

Resolved, That the 79th General Convention request the Joint Standing Committee on Program, Budget, and Finance to consider a budget allocation of $100,000 for the implementation of this resolution; and be it further 

Resolved, That the 79th General Convention direct the Secretary of General Convention and the Custodian of the Standard Book of Common Prayer, in consultation with the outgoing Chair of the Task Force on the Study of Marriage and the Chairs of the Legislative Committees to whom this legislation is referred, to finalize and arrange with Church Publishing for the publication (in English, Spanish, French, and Haitian Creole) of the material contained in “Liturgical Resources 2” as approved by the 79th General Convention; the General Convention Office to make these materials available electronically at no cost no later than the first Sunday of Advent 2018.

Now that adding a full marriage rite for same sex Episcopalian couples appears inevitable in every Episcopal diocese, where is Waldo of Upper South Carolina? If he is a man of his word, he would abdicate and leave the Episcopal sect, because to be a participant in such a change would be to accept a change in the doctrine of marriage which should run counter to his intent.

Of course, revisionists have no core values, so I am sure that Bishop Waldo will have no problem with making an adjustment to his intentions in order to meet the facts on the ground that same sex marriages are already happening.

Absolute Power Beheads

This Sunday's Gospel reading from Mark 6:14-29 retells the horrible murder of John the Baptist.

King Herod heard of it, for Jesus’ name had become known. Some were saying, ‘John the baptizer has been raised from the dead; and for this reason these powers are at work in him.’ But others said, ‘It is Elijah.’ And others said, ‘It is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.’ But when Herod heard of it, he said, ‘John, whom I beheaded, has been raised.’

For Herod himself had sent men who arrested John, bound him, and put him in prison on account of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, because Herod had married her. For John had been telling Herod, ‘It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.’ And Herodias had a grudge against him, and wanted to kill him. But she could not, for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he protected him. When he heard him, he was greatly perplexed; and yet he liked to listen to him. But an opportunity came when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his courtiers and officers and for the leaders of Galilee. When his daughter Herodias came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his guests; and the king said to the girl, ‘Ask me for whatever you wish, and I will give it.’ And he solemnly swore to her, ‘Whatever you ask me, I will give you, even half of my kingdom.’ She went out and said to her mother, ‘What should I ask for?’ She replied, ‘The head of John the baptizer.’ Immediately she rushed back to the king and requested, ‘I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter.’ The king was deeply grieved; yet out of regard for his oaths and for the guests, he did not want to refuse her. Immediately the king sent a soldier of the guard with orders to bring John’s head. He went and beheaded him in the prison, brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the girl. Then the girl gave it to her mother. When his disciples heard about it, they came and took his body, and laid it in a tomb. 

 History has shown time and time again that when power is concentrated in the hands of a few, bad things happen, and the Bible is a rich source of that history. That is why I am so grateful for our founding fathers who, in their wisdom, formulated our system to separate power into three branches of government and gave us the freedom to publicly criticize the sexual wrongs of our leaders. The quest for power will always be with us, a constant danger not only in government but in any number of organizations. 

What the Gender Neutral Prayer Book Push is All About

This week, the General Convention (GC) of the Episcopal sect will be wrapping up. There were a number of resolutions which if passed would lead to a revision of the Prayer Book with the proviso that gender neutral language be used as much as possible. At the time of this posting, full Prayer Book revision is looking unlikely until the next General Convention rolls around in three years. These progressive ideas never die, they just come back with a new strategy for each GC until they succeed.

The focus of most discussion about these resolutions has focused on the effects of altering references to God as "Father" or Jesus as "Son". Those with a long enough memory will recall that the word "Brothers" or "Brethren" was changed to "Brothers and Sisters" in the readings from Scripture in an effort to appear more inclusive years ago. The current focus on the Godhead is an slip down the slope of revisionism because if the language of the Prayer Book is changed, the readings from scripture will have to be changed to use a "translation" that is equally inclusive.

But changing the Bible is not really what is behind the push for gender neutral language in the Prayer Book.

What is behind all of this is the desire to create an all inclusive marriage rite that will cover any possible gender combination one can make out of the LGBTQRS soup the zeitgeist has been cooking up over the past 50 years.

You see, to progressive Episcopalians, the march towards same-sex marriage rites has been painfully slow. Yes, they got "Blessings" of same-sex couples passed, but that is not enough in their eyes. They want their relationships to be deemed marriages, and their ceremonies must be totally equivalent and never leave the impression of a "separate but equal" type of marriage. The only way to do this is to re-write the marriage rite so that it includes every possible permutation and then, by virtue of being in the Prayer Book, same sex marriage becomes part of the "core doctrine" of the Episcopal Sect.

If it comes down to a floor fight at this or future General Conventions, the LGBTQRS will abandon their feminist allies in a heartbeat and let God continue to be called "Father", Jesus "Son", and the Holy Spirit can be called whatever they want in order to get the marriage rite changed so that there will full, in your face inclusion of their couplings for visitors coming to weddings held in Episcopal buildings to see and witness as they see the pronoun optional rubrics written in the Prayer Book, or on the screens, or in the service bulletins for the next fifty years... which is about as long as the Episcopal sect is expected to be around.

How Many Heavens Are There?

This Sunday's reading from 2 Corinthians 12:2-10 has been assumed to have Paul talking about himself in the third person in verses 2-5 as someone who was caught up to the third heaven.

"I know a person in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows. And I know that such a person—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows— was caught up into Paradise and heard things that are not to be told, that no mortal is permitted to repeat. On behalf of such a one I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses. But if I wish to boast, I will not be a fool, for I will be speaking the truth. But I refrain from it, so that no one may think better of me than what is seen in me or heard from me, even considering the exceptional character of the revelations."

Next, Paul writes about his weaknesses and what keeps him going.

"Therefore, to keep me from being too elated, a thorn was given to me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I appealed to the Lord about this, that it would leave me, but he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for power* is made perfect in weakness.’ So, I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities for the sake of Christ; for whenever I am weak, then I am strong."

That ever reliable resource, Wikipedia has this to say about the number of heavens in Paul's universe.

According to the Talmud, the universe is made of seven heavens (Shamayim) 

1. Vilon (וילון), Also see (Isa 40:22) 
2. Raki'a (רקיע), Also see (Gen 1:17) 
3. Shehaqim (שחקים), See (Ps 78:23, 
4. Midr. Teh. to Ps. xix. 7) 
5. Zebul (זבול), See (Isa 63:15, KJV) 
6. Ma'on (מעון), See (Deut 26:15, Ps 42:9) 
7. Machon (מכון), See (1 Kings 7:30, Deut 28:12) 
8. Araboth (ערבות), The seventh Heaven where ofanim, the seraphim, and the hayyoth and the throne of the Lord are located.

Whatever Paul meant by the third heaven, it must have been awesome, but boasting about it would not have proven to be very helpful in his work as an evangelist. It would be like me saying, "I am a great Christian because this happened to me. Follow me." That's not very effective at all.

As The MacArthur New Testament Commentary on 2 Corinthians 12 puts it,

"The true measure of a man of God does not lie in his claims of visions and experiences with God, or the force of his personality, the size of his ministry, his educational degrees, or any other human criteria. A true man of God is marked by how much he has suffered in the war against the kingdom of darkness, how concerned he is for people, how humble he is, and how accurately he handles the supernatural revelation found in God’s Word (2 Tim. 2:15). Like Paul, such men patiently endure the suffering and humiliation of this life, knowing that such “momentary, light affliction is producing … an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison” (2 Cor. 4:17)."

As to the thorn in the flesh that caused Paul so much pain, I bet it was a kidney stone that he developed from all of his journeys around the Mediterranean in the sun and the heat. Nothing is worse than passing a ureteral stone. Just as there are no atheists in a foxhole, there are no atheists in the waiting room if they are suffering from that particular thorn in the flesh.

What kind of organization holds their convention on the 4th of July? + Same Sex Marriage and The Episcopal Sect: Communion Partner Bishops Put Up a Hail Mary

The Episcopalian's General Convention is going on this week. Totally ignoring the Fourth of July National Holiday, the agenda goes forward with 4th of July Legislative Committee meetings, an address by Presiding Bishop to the Convention, capped off by a House of Bishop's listening session from 5:15 - 7:00 p.m. I asked Pewsterspouse what kind of organization would hold their convention on the fourth of July and the response I got was,

"One from another country, one out of its mind, or one that is one that is un-American."

For some reason Pewsterspouse was not surprised when I replied,

"Episcopalians!"

Will there be any fireworks on the 4th of July?

A group of "conservative" Bishops called The Communion Partners (CP) which has been around for a number of earlier conventions, decreasing in numbers and relevance every three years, has issued a statement that they think might throw a monkey wrench into plans to force same-sex marriage (another General Convention resolution) into the Communion Partner's dioceses.

Here is their letter (h/t Anglican Ink)

The Vocation of Anglican Communion
30 Jun 2018
As Communion Partner bishops in the Episcopal Church, we seek to “maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” with our brothers and sisters here at home and throughout the Anglican Communion (Eph. 4:3).  We believe that we all are joined together indissolubly by the waters of baptism, and that we all are called to share one bread and one cup in the Eucharist as the principal sign of our common faith and full communion in the Lord.  We rejoice in the fellowship that we share in Christ and pray for the movement of his disciples throughout the world, that we may learn to walk together ever more faithfully and persevere to the end.  Amen!
We write to offer a word of guidance and encouragement on various matters before General Convention, particularly the proposals about prayer book revision and the extension of trial use rites for same-sex marriage to all dioceses where civil law permits.  We wish to begin by offering a brief explanation of our self-understanding as Communion Partners.
Walking together as closely as possible with all of our Anglican brothers and sisters has at times been difficult, but since our inception ten years ago we have sought to do so by maintaining “a visible link to the whole Anglican Communion on the way to resolving important questions of faith and order.”[1]  In step with the preamble to the Constitution of the Episcopal Church, we understand ourselves as members of a “Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.”  When we were ordained, we vowed to “guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church of God” (BCP, p. 518).  As we understand the Episcopal Church to be part of this larger catholic whole, through our fellowship with Canterbury and the wider Anglican Communion, we have sought to walk as “communion partner” Episcopalians.[2]  As such, since the 2004 Windsor Report issued its request for three moratoria across the Communion, and as these were reaffirmed by the several Instruments of Communion, we have upheld and maintained them as normative in our dioceses.[3]
In 2015, the 78th General Convention of the Episcopal Church made a decision to extend the sacrament of marriage to same-sex couples, by amending its marriage canon and authorizing new trial use marriage liturgies.  While recognizing the clear decision that General Convention made, we respectfully dissented in our “Salt Lake City Statement.”[4]  There, we affirmed our commitment to marriage as a covenant between a man and woman, under the authority of Holy Scripture as guided by catholic tradition and the Anglican Communion.  We renew that affirmation today.
As we see it, the decision of the 78th General Convention should be set within a broader process of discernment within the Anglican Communion and the whole Church of God.  That means that dioceses and congregations within the Episcopal Church that conscientiously teach and practice marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman — as we understand it, the “historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer,” and the teaching of the Anglican Communion — should be given a place to flourish within the structures of the Episcopal Church, without limit of time.
Because of this, we rejoiced in 2015 at the “Communion across Difference” statement of the House of Bishops, which recognized the “indispensable” place that Communion Partners have in our church’s common life, as a witness our church needs.[5]  We were grateful that the authorization of the 2015 trial use marriage rites provided, in this generous spirit, that we may as Communion Partner bishops keep the Windsor moratoria in our dioceses.  We have done so.
Now in 2018, we recognize that some in our dioceses have expressed deep dissatisfaction with this situation.  The Memorial submitted by the convention of the Diocese of Tennessee requested that the 79th General Convention take into account the “exclusion, competing convictions, and loss of community” experienced under the current terms of authorization for the trial use marriage rites.  We know and love many brothers and sisters in Christ in our several dioceses who share this perspective.
For this reason, we are grateful to have entered into collegial conversation with a group of Episcopal leaders who hold a progressive view on marriage and wish to find a way forward in charity and peace for all Episcopalians in one church.  We welcome and support their proposal for a “Communion across Difference” task force, so that over the next triennium and in consultation with our Anglican Communion partners, we might together seek a way forward for the mutual flourishing of all within the bounds of our historic episcopal polity.
Their proposal also provides that beginning in Advent of this year, the trial use rites for marriage authorized in 2015 will be available in all dioceses, where civil law permits.[6]   Congregations in our dioceses that have conscientiously discerned, alongside those priests who bear authority and responsibility for worship in their communities (Canon III.9.6), to extend the practice of marriage to same-sex couples (civil law permitting) would be given the right to do so by requesting delegated episcopal pastoral oversight (DEPO).
There is much to commend in this proposal.  Since it does not propose revision of the marriage rite in the Book of Common Prayer, we and those similarly-minded ones who come after us (clergy and lay alike) would be able to pattern our communities after the historic Faith and Order of the Book of Common Prayer as authorized in the Episcopal Church.  Clergy and bishops would be able to vow obedience to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of this church as set forth in its historic prayer book.  While for the foreseeable future there would continue to be other authorized marriage liturgies welcomed by the majority of congregations and dioceses, we view the 1979 BCP as an important aspect of what we need to have a lasting place to flourish within the structures of the Episcopal Church.
We also appreciate the proposal’s attempt to make room for us to flourish as bishops of dioceses in communion with Canterbury and the one Church of God.  As Archbishop Williams noted in 2007, historic catholic ecclesiology teaches that the diocese and not the congregation form the basic unit of the Church, as the whole people of God in one place is gathered around the bishop as representative of the Church through space and time.[7]  As bishops, we have vowed to “guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church of God” in our dioceses, ensuring that the congregations under our spiritual authority teach and practice the catholic faith as we have received it in this place.
We cannot, then, permit congregations under our spiritual care to teach and practice a form of marriage that is not authorized by Holy Scripture, by Anglican teaching, and by the great tradition of the whole Church of God.  Recognizing this fact, the proposal from our friends across the aisle recognizes that mandating access to same-sex marriage for congregations in our dioceses must mean that those congregations are in a real way no longer under our spiritual care.
This is why we recognize and appreciate the merits of the proposal.  By requiring delegated episcopal pastoral oversight of such congregations, the proposal allows Communion Partner bishops to preserve the historic teaching and practice of marriage for all those gathered in one place under his or her spiritual care.  At the same time, the proposal does not compel congregations in our dioceses to follow our solemn pastoral guidance in this matter if they understand themselves called by God otherwise, alongside the majority of the Episcopal Church.
Our guidance remains that God has created us male and female to be fruitful and multiply, so that what God has joined together no man should put asunder, and that this nuptial image seen throughout Scripture is a sacramental image of Christ the bridegroom and the Church his bride (see Gen. 1:28, 5:2; Mark 10:6-9; Eph. 5:31-32).  We hope even now that the beauty of this image, and the power of God’s own Word, would draw people to the fullness of the gospel’s teaching.  Yet, should the proposal before us pass, we would entrust in charity congregations that do not read Holy Scripture in this way to the care of other bishops in the Episcopal Church with whom we remain united in baptism.
While we cannot endorse every aspect of this proposal, we will be grateful should it help us all to continue contending with one another for the truth in love within one body.  It preserves the Book of Common Prayer as established by our church, and it preserves our dioceses for the exercising of the “historic episcopate, locally adapted” (Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral).  If our church chooses not to preserve these two institutions — the historic Prayer Book, and the historic episcopate with jurisdiction in dioceses — we would no longer have a place in this church.  With the protection of the prayer book and episcopate, we can carry on as loyal Episcopalians and Anglicans, in charity with our sisters and brothers in Christ.
The inclusion of a Task Force on Communion across Difference is of utmost importance.  Parity requires that if congregations in our dioceses must be granted delegated episcopal pastoral oversight at their request, this should be reciprocated throughout the church for Communion Partner congregations.  For them, it is not simply a matter of whether or not a conflictual relationship exists with their bishop, but instead whether the bishop whose spiritual care guides their common life is one that they understand as in full communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.  These and other matters need to be worked out carefully and coherently for a lasting truce of God, one that will allow all of us to re-focus our energies on mission and proclaiming the Gospel to all people, as our Presiding Bishop calls us to do.
We wholeheartedly support a conversation with all stakeholders in the Episcopal Church, with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and with the wider Anglican Communion in order to find such a truce of God, while preserving the current right of bishops to uphold and maintain the Windsor moratoria in their dioceses.  If the proposal before us passes at General Convention, we pledge to work within its bounds in a spirit of collegiality and friendship with all members of our church.
We hope and pray that the 79th General Convention will do all it can to promote our common growth into Christ, from whom the whole body is built up in love: Christ, who “loved us and gave himself for us” (Eph. 5:2; see 4:15-16).  We ask for the prayers of all our Anglican brothers and sisters in Christ, that we may do so as well, by the grace of God.
The Rt. Rev. Lloyd E. Allen
Bishop of Honduras The Rt. Rev. John C. Bauerschmidt
Bishop of Tennessee
The Rt. Rev. Gregory O. Brewer
Bishop of Central Florida The Rt. Rev. Daniel H. Martins
Bishop of Springfield
The Rt. Rev. Michael G. Smith
Bishop of North Dakota The Rt. Rev. George R. Sumner
Bishop of Dallas
The Rt. Rev. Moisés Quezada Mota
Bishop of the Dominican Republic

I think this is a very weakly worded statement. It presents the typical Episcopal bishop's solution to a conflict: create a commission to study the problem. Whenever that has been done in the past, the only result has been to delay the inevitable, to soften the blow to the people in the pews in hopes of stemming the exodus, and in hopes of keeping the money flowing into the bishops' coffers. In spite of every new study group or commission, the progressive agenda has marched on. Since when did any General Convention follow any of the CP bishops' advice? They are either delusional or just putting up a show for their congregations and clergy since this is no true defense of the Gospel. As far as "then what?" is concerned, the General Convention crowd expects them to do what every other creature that fails to defend itself against a stronger opponent does.. to go extinct.

If this was a Hail Mary pass, an attempt at trying send the game into overtime, it will fail. One only has to ask the other side what they think.

I surfed over to a couple of progressive Episcopalian web pages (which shall remain nameless) and perused some of the comments on what are probably the views of the majority of those who will be voting at general Convention 2018. Here are three,

"I doubt the HOD will end up on this strategy as the way forward. People want BCP revision. They do not like Episcopal (Bishop) compromise schemes."

"It will be an intersting week. I suspect BCP revision and less HOB compromise for fellow Bishops will be the end result."

"...this resolution is an attempt by the conservatives to delay the inevitable.All the sacraments for all the baptised. It’s that simple.On this issue–equality for all in the Church–bishops should either lead, follow, or get out of the way. Anything less is discrimination."

The only thing standing in the way of a full revisionist victory at this General Convention is not the Communion Partners or their plan. The only obstacle is the 8 million dollar price tag and the time it would tag for complete Prayer Book revision.

In the eyes of revisionist, progressive Episcopalians, 8 million dollar is a small price to pay for what they consider to be an issue of justice, equality, and integrity.

After all, they have spent tens of millions persecuting Christians in civil courts already.

Healing the Sick and Raising the Dead: The Revisionist's Dilemma

This Sunday's Gospel reading presents Jesus healing the sick through the touch of his cloak and raising a girl from the dead. The facts of these events are denied by non-believers and certain revisionist clergy.

Mark 5:21-43 

When Jesus had crossed again in the boat to the other side, a great crowd gathered round him; and he was by the lake. Then one of the leaders of the synagogue named Jairus came and, when he saw him, fell at his feet and begged him repeatedly, ‘My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well, and live.’ So he went with him. 

And a large crowd followed him and pressed in on him. Now there was a woman who had been suffering from haemorrhages for twelve years. She had endured much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had; and she was no better, but rather grew worse. She had heard about Jesus, and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, for she said, ‘If I but touch his clothes, I will be made well.’ Immediately her haemorrhage stopped; and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. Immediately aware that power had gone forth from him, Jesus turned about in the crowd and said, ‘Who touched my clothes?’ And his disciples said to him, ‘You see the crowd pressing in on you; how can you say, “Who touched me?” ’ He looked all round to see who had done it. But the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came in fear and trembling, fell down before him, and told him the whole truth. He said to her, ‘Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.’ 

While he was still speaking, some people came from the leader’s house to say, ‘Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the teacher any further?’ But overhearing what they said, Jesus said to the leader of the synagogue, ‘Do not fear, only believe.’ He allowed no one to follow him except Peter, James, and John, the brother of James. When they came to the house of the leader of the synagogue, he saw a commotion, people weeping and wailing loudly. When he had entered, he said to them, ‘Why do you make a commotion and weep? The child is not dead but sleeping.’ And they laughed at him. Then he put them all outside, and took the child’s father and mother and those who were with him, and went in where the child was. He took her by the hand and said to her, ‘Talitha cum’, which means, ‘Little girl, get up!’ And immediately the girl got up and began to walk about (she was twelve years of age). At this they were overcome with amazement. He strictly ordered them that no one should know this, and told them to give her something to eat.

Progressive preachers typically focus on the woman with the hemorrhage, how she was considered "unclean", and how offensive it would be for Jesus to even have his cloak touched by her. One such preacher went on and on about how this illustrated Jesus' acceptance of all things unclean including, you guessed it, homosexual activity.

Time and time again, I have sat there listening to a sermon waiting for some exposition on the mighty power of our Savior to heal only to go home disappointed by yet another fifteen minute digression into a story about events in the week of a parish priest/priestess.

Why are revisionists so shy about proclaiming the power of God to heal and to raise the dead?

Maybe because if they did proclaim that part of the Good News, they might have to accept and proclaim all of it, even the parts they don't like.

And that is something they will never do.

I for one accept these accounts of Jesus' miracles. His followers certainly did. Believe me, if Jesus was playing tricks, or if these events did not happen, Jesus' opponents would have pounced on every opportunity to prove that He was not who he said He was. Imagine if the woman with the hemorrhage had only temporarily stopped bleeding, and imagine that the next month she had started bleeding again. The word would have spread quickly that she had not been healed at all.

As for the little girl, just ask Jairus if we should believe or not.