"We shall never get re-union with them."

Today's Gospel reading reminded me of the following comment by C.S. Lewis,

"The world of dogmatic Christianity is a place in which thousands of people of quite different types keep on saying the same thing, and the world of 'broad-mindedness' and watered-down 'religion' is a world where a small number of people (all of the same type) say totally different things and change their minds every few minutes. We shall never get re-union with them." C.S. Lewis in "God in the Dock", 1970 Erdmans Publishing p. 60.

"What was the Gospel reading," you ask?

‘Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it. ‘Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. ‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord”, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Matthew 7:13-21

The "broad minded and watered down" Christian path is a wide road that is so tempting to follow. It is a superhighway full of attractive pipers playing new tunes and their happy followers who seldom miss a chance to belittle those on the path of dogmatic Christianity. The pipers are the proverbial wolves in sheep's clothing, but their disguise is so good, and the path so easy, that those who do not pay attention to dogma are quick to follow them and to accept their false teachings. While they are always welcome to step off the superhighway of death and destruction, forget trying to re-unite with them. Superhighways and footpaths don't work well together. The intersections are deadly.

 You can't change a wide and constantly changing gate into a narrow, steadfast one either.

(From ReverendFun)

Truly, A Trivial Pursuit

This past Christmas, while pursuing some entertainment, I chanced upon "The Bishop's Wife" starring Cary Grant, David Niven, and Loretta Young. While it was for the most part a pleasant diversion, watching the angel Dudley (Cary Grant) get uncomfortably cozy to the Bishop's wife (Loretta Young) got a bit creepy to me (and to the Bishop as well). At the current pace, the title "The Bishop's Wife" will undoubtedly take on a whole new meaning in the not too distant future (as far as the Epsicopal church is concerned)...

At the end of the movie version, David Niven, who plays the preoccupied and suspicious Bishop, is reading the sermon that Dudley had substituted for the Bishop's original script. The careful viewer might notice that to the Bishop's left as he stands in the pulpit is a hymn board with three hymns posted for that Christmas. Knowing that the good film director placed that hymn board there for a reason, and selected those hymns for a reason, left me wondering...

What were they?




Answers below.










12

382

268

Next question: Name the Hymn or cite the first verse...

(Insert theme from "Final Jeopardy")






Did I forget to mention that you needed to pull out your 1940 Hymnal?

If you can't find yours, here is a link to an on-line version.

If you don't want to go there, here are the answers:

12 O come, all ye faithful

382 O where are kings and empires now

268 I bind unto myself today


#382 is one we don't sing anymore because it got left out of the 1982 Hymnal.

I can't imagine why...

O where are kings and empires now
of old, that went and came?
but Lord, thy Church is praying yet,
a thousand years the same.

We mark her goodly battlements
and her foundations strong;
we hear, within, the solemn voice
of her unending song.

For not like kingdoms of the world
thy holy Church, O God,
though earthquake shocks are threatening her,
and tempests are abroad.

Unshaken as eternal hills,
immovable she stands,
a mountain that shall fill the earth,
a house not made by hands.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Words: Arthur Cleveland Coxe, 1839

Since the Bishop in the film was preoccupied with fundraising for the construction of a cathedral, the last line of the hymn might be the reason why the director chose that particular hymn.

I wonder why "O where are kings and empires now" got left on the cutting room floor during the 1982 revision of the hymnal?

I can only guess that the references to "earthquake shocks" that "are threatening her," and "tempests are abroad" struck too close to home. Or maybe "the solemn voice of her unending song" was not thought to be clappy happy enough to reach the current generation. Or perhaps the idea of "goodly battlements" was an image the post-Vietnam era wished to reject because it sounded too militaristic.

Maybe they thought new hymns would be a better box office draw. (Oops!)

Or maybe they thought that hands could build a proper house. (In which case they didn't watch the movie).

I have a hard time understanding the workings of the inner circles that decide these things, but every few decades we get a new Hymnal, a new Prayer Book, but why?

In pursuit of truth, the wise follow the money.

Maybe the earthly desire of the Clergy Pension Fund, which profits from the sales of new hymnals and prayer books, is the impetus behind the need for revisions.

The film instructs us that the pursuit of money to the neglect of our loved ones is not always wise.

In pursuit of "The Bishop's Wife" the wise tune to TCM on Jan 6, 2011 at 3:00 pm.

Marcus Borg's Palliative Care Plan for the "Common Christians," or Why I Want Marcus Borg to Come to My Funeral

Because I want at least one person to be happy, or maybe because then, and only then, will I allow myself to be assimilated into the collective.

From the Washington Post:

"Q.1 What should pastors do if they no longer hold the defining beliefs of their denomination?"

This may not apply to the Episcopal church as it is hard to define the beliefs of the denomination.

"Q.2 Do clergy have a moral obligation not to challenge the sincere faith of their parishioners?"

I am trying to understand this question. I guess the problem the question is trying to address is where the clergy's notion of sincere faith is at variance with the parishioner's notions of sincere faith. For example, (which shall become clear later) if an enlightened theologian, bishop, priest, or deacon, say someone like retired Episcopal Bishop Spong, develops a sincere faith that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, and that Jesus was not resurrected in a physical sense, does someone like Bishop Spong have a moral obligation to withhold these heretical ideas from simple believing pewsitters? All I can say is that if simple parishioners have a sincere faith, their clergy should remember Matthew 18:6,

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

That sounds like a moral warning which a pastor should have an obligation to obey.

The converse situation can be imagined as an orthodox preacher facing parishioners who are getting caught up in the latest unorthodox wave. Is there some sort of moral obligation to remain silent on the issues? I think not.

"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." (2 Timothy 4:2-4 (King James Version))

Next question, please.

Q.3 "If this requires them to dissemble from the pulpit, doesn't this create systematic hypocrisy at the center of religion?"

We don't need any more systemic hypocrisy, but I think the questioner is leading the respondent to imagine a preacher who believes he has a superior grasp on things that those ignorant pew people could never understand and might cause alarm or flight if he preached the new thing from the pulpit. If the preacher hides his new knowledge, wouldn't he be giving his sermon with his fingers crossed behind his back? What about crossing his fingers while saying the creed? Should he cross them in the open or hidden so none of his congregants can see? The poor unorthodox pastor cannot maintain that charade and remain in good health. What is he to do?

My hypothetical orthodox preacher, on the other hand, when faced with doubts might turn to scripture and his spiritual advisor, but would not use the pulpit as either a vehicle to espouse radical new ideas or as a means to work the problem out.

Q.4 "What would you want your pastor to do with his or her personal doubts or loss of faith?"

Easy, don't preach about it until he has recovered, undergo counseling with an orthodox clergyman, recant those false doctrines, pray for understanding and forgiveness from the Lord, immerse themselves in Bible study and prayer, and continue to be mentored by an orthodox clergyman. Failing that, consider another line of work.

Now, I want you to come up with your own answers, and then read Marcus Borg's responses:

Borg: "If a pastor/priest loses his/her faith in the sense of agreeing with 'the new atheism' as expressed in the recent bestselling books by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, then I think it would be hypocritical for them to continue in their professional role. Or they might give themselves a brief period of time to see if this is their settled opinion."

I think it would be beyond hypocritical, and might be better categorized as sinful for a new atheist to continue as a pastor/priest.

Borg: "But I don't think this is the issue that many clergy face. Rather, the issue is what they learned in divinity school versus what they think that many in their congregations think. Contemporary seminary education -mainline Protestant and Catholic - leads to a different understanding of what it means to be Christian than what much of 'common Christianity' affirms."

I get the distinct impression that what they are teaching in seminaries is superior to what "common Christianity" affirms. I am also afraid that Borg is creating a straw man named "Joe Common Christian" which he will proceed to define in the next few sentences.

Borg: "By 'common Christianity,' I mean what most Christians took-for-granted until a generation or two ago - and perhaps about half (or more) of American Christians still assume to be the heart of Christianity. This 'common understanding' sees the afterlife as the central issue that Christianity addresses. Our problem is that we are sinners and deserve to punished, indeed condemned. This is where Jesus comes in: his death was the payment for our sins, and those who believe this will be forgiven and thus go to heaven."

It probably would not make a difference to Marcus Borg because it is not out of the mouth of his historical Jesus, but 2 Corinthians 4:13-18 came up in the lectionary cycle as I was typing this post.

"But just as we have the same spirit of faith that is in accordance with scripture—‘I believed, and so I spoke’—we also believe, and so we speak, because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus, and will bring us with you into his presence. Yes, everything is for your sake, so that grace, as it extends to more and more people, may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.

So we do not lose heart. Even though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed day by day. For this slight momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all measure, because we look not at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen; for what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal."

Common Christians just don't get it, but seminarians have been re-educated and enlightened.

Borg: "In most mainline Protestant and Catholic seminaries, with varying degrees of intensity and clarity, this understanding is undermined by what candidates for ordination learn about the Bible and the Christian tradition. Christianity is not primarily about the afterlife, despite the emphasis placed upon life after death by much of common Christianity. It is about transformation this side of death - the transformation of ourselves and of the world."

Transformation on this side of death is a visible sign of the power of, among other things, the resurrection and the promise of life beyond death. No cross, no crown. Transformation of the world comes about through the actions of these transformed, redeemed, and what common Christians would call "saved" souls. Transformation of our sinful world cannot be completed by creatures such as us by ourselves because, even though baptized, we are always falling into sin. We just can't get it right. We still have to pray, "Thy kingdom come," and not, "Thanks Lord for the baptism and all that, but we can take care of things from here."

Borg: "When clergy sense a difference between this understanding and what their congregation thinks, I encourage them to be discerning."

Please don't give any advice on how to be discerning...uh oh here it comes anyway,

Borg: "If their congregation is mostly elderly and unlikely to survive beyond the death of its members, and if their elderly flock is not using 'common Christianity' to judge and beat up on other people, then there may be no need to try to change them. Clergy in situations like this might see themselves as chaplains in an old folks home."

Great advice, "Humor the poor demented creatures." Or, "That generation will die and then we can be free of "common Christianity." That is what made me think that Borg might be happy at my passing. Why not just go ahead and euthanize the common Christians. Or maybe they are slowly poisoning us. I have a term for that, and I call it "Episcopathanasia."

Borg: "But if clergy are in intergenerational churches with a potential future, then I encourage a different approach. Seek to bring your understanding of Christianity into your congregation. This can be done in sermons, but especially in adult theological re-education."

Hey, we have heard some of those sermons right here in little ole Rock Hill! I call it "beating people up with uncommon Christianity." Spread the new thang! Open the re-education camps!

Borg: "It is a crucial need in our time, and there are resources: reading groups; video series groups, especially videos produced by 'Living the Questions.' Clergy can lead these, though they need not. Laity can also do so."

Oh yeah, "Living the Questions2" a $295 "resource" for the progressive church featuring guess who as a contributor? Marcus Borg of course. Way to work in a free plug Marcus. I am sure there are plenty of gullible lay people who will fall for Borg's uncommon Christianity and shell out the bucks for his books and DVDs, but common Christians should be able to find plenty of Bibles and resources provided for them free of charge by other common Christians.

Borg: "My impression: the timidity - apprehension, fearfulness - of some mainline Protestant and Catholic clergy to convey their richer understandings of the Bible and Christianity has contributed to the decline of Christianity in our time."

These so called "richer" understandings are the cause of the decline and fall of the Episcopal church. How much of those richer understandings came from Borg himself? Just look at the books he has published. Does anyone else see the intellectual snobbery showing? He goes on to isolate himself and his new Christianity further,

Borg: "There are millions of people who cannot accept the beliefs of 'common Christianity.' Let conservative Christianity have a monopoly on 'common Christianity.' But those of us who care about Christianity and its future should not imitate that." By Marcus Borg | March 16, 2010; 3:16 PM ET

I came away from reading Borg's words with the notion that, in his eyes, the church would be better off ridding itself of "common Christians" so that the enlightened Christians could get on with changing the world. I felt the presence of an intellectual snobbishness that was quite disturbing coming from someone whom the church has elevated to such an important position as Canon Theolgian. I for one am glad to be counted as someone who Borg would look down his nose upon. I am looking forward to being placed in the palliative care wing of his church. I sincerely want him to be happy at my passing. In fact, I would predict from his statements that when I go, he would have the biggest smile of anyone attending my funeral. I always wanted people to be happy at my send off, so I really need to invite Marcus Borg so he can help cheer people up.

I will pray for Marcus Borg, that he might come to love the common Christian and their understanding of the faith delivered to us by the witness of the Apostles. Since he is unlikely to listen to a lowly pewster, I will include the following quotation with his invitation to my funeral,

"There is nothing we cannot be made to believe or disbelieve. If we wish to be rational, not now and then, but constantly, we must pray for the gift of Faith, for the power to go on believing not in the teeth of reason but in the teeth of lust and terror and jealousy and boredom and indifference that which reason, authority, or experience, or all three, have once delivered to us for truth."

C.S. Lewis, Christian Reflections (Grand Rapids, MI, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), p. 43.

Post Script:

I ran this post past a common Christian last week, and I asked him what he thought. He responded simply and frankly, "I think he (Borg) must have fallen on his head."

For those of you who are unfamiliar with him, Marcus J. Borg is Canon Theologian at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in Portland, OR. Here is a commentary on Marcus Borg from EarlyChristianWritings.com

"Borg makes two negative claims about the historical Jesus: he was nonmessianic, which means that he didn't claim to be the Messiah or have a message focused on his own identity, and he was noneschatological, which means that he did not expect "the supernatural coming of the Kingdom of God as a world-ending event in his own generation" (Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, p. 29). Borg summarizes his view of the historical Jesus in these words: "he was a spirit person, subversive sage, social prophet, and movement founder who invited his followers and hearers into a transforming relationship with the same Spirit that he himself knew, and into a community whose social vision was shaped by the core value of compassion" (op. cit., p. 119). By "spirit person," Borg means that Jesus was a "mediator of the sacred" for whom the Spirit or God was a reality that was experienced. Based on his experience of the sacred, for the historical Jesus compassion "was the central quality of God and the central moral quality of a life centered in God" (op. cit., p. 46). Jesus spoke against the purity system in sayings like "blessed are the pure in heart" and in parables like that of the Good Samaritan. The historical Jesus challenged the purity boundaries in touching lepers as well as hemorrhaging women, in driving the money changers out of the temple, and in table fellowship even with outcasts. Jesus replaced an emphasis on purity with an emphasis on compassion. The historical Jesus spoke an alternative wisdom in aphorisms and parables that controverted the conventional wisdom based upon rewards and punishments. The earliest Christology of the Christian movement viewed Jesus as the voice of the Sophia. The images of Jesus as the Son of God and the Wisdom of God are metaphorical, just as much as the images of Jesus as the Lamb of God and the Word of God.

Way, Way East of Eden

From Edith Tucker at the Berlin (NH) Reporter:

h/t Greg Griffith at StandFirm in Faith

"BERLIN — An historic first took place on Saturday, Jan. 2, in the 'City that Trees Built.'

Elizabeth 'Betsy' Hess and the Rev. Eleanor 'Ellie' McLaughlin, both of Randolph, were wed in a civil ceremony near the entrance to St. Barnabas Episcopal Church on High Street.

The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, the ninth Bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire, blessed their rings and their Christian marriage at the altar. The blessing ceremony followed the civil marriage ceremony, which was jointly performed by Randolph Town Clerk Anne Kenison and Justice of the Peace Anne Jackson of Lancaster."

Don't worry, this was just a "generous pastoral response (GC2009 CO56)" by a simple country bishop.

"Ms. Hess, who holds a Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the University of Montana at Missoula, maintains a private practice in Berlin, and the Rev. McLaughlin, who earned a Ph.D. in medieval history at Harvard University, is the retired rector of St. Barnabas and a parishioner at St. Paul's, Lancaster.

They described his role as an 'unspeakable honor — a thrill.'"

And that is after they listened to his dimwitted sermon.

"Bishop Robinson said he understands that having both a gay bishop and a gay priest means that some in Berlin call St. Barnabas the gay church.

'Yes, we're gay,' he said. 'We welcome people of color, people in wheelchairs, the mentally disabled — all of God's children.' Elaborating on its inclusivity, he also noted that the Rev. Fran Gardner, the rector who succeeded the Rev. McLaughlin, is also gay.

He reminded everyone of Christ's eighth beatitude: 'Blessed are they who are persecuted.'"

Drop the persecution thing already, you've won! Go ahead and say what you really think about marriage, and give us some solid Biblical exegesis while you are at it.

"In his homily, Bishop Robinson explained that when God created 'the human thing' in the Garden of Eden, which He called 'A-dam' — (which the bishop pronounced with a long 'A' and 'dame') — He wanted to make him happy, so He provided him with a helper, a partner, a soul mate.'

'It was not right that A-dam should be alone,' Bishop Robinson said, noting that this is nothing new."

Oh, I get it. Bishop Robinson is saying that God created a dame for a dame in Eden. Stop the presses! Did it really say that in Genesis? Doesn't the passage read,

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man."
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh

Genesis 2:18-24

I think Bishop Robinson is putting a little 'Broad'way (excuse me) into his Bible with that "A-Dame" wisecrack.



I had never heard of anyone making the leap from Adam to "A Dame." To do so in order to alter God's natural order as established in Genesis goes beyond revisionism and into creating a new religion.

One could argue that Bishop Robinson is merely hijacking a pre-existing sinking denomination to advance a personal obsession, but statements such as this show that he is not satisfied with the Bible and is working on a new one. "Unspeakable" indeed. Oh, there was more including this,

"'Marriage is also crazy,' he said. 'It's hard to live up to when the institution of marriage is in such trouble,' Bishop Robinson said."

Particularly when one's own choices create more trouble. Someone ought to tell the Bishop to stop knocking an institution when it is down.

Is it any wonder that Sunday attendance in the Diocese of New Hampshire has dropped by almost 20% in the past decade?

As bad as the Bishop's homily was, the town clerk reminds us that the focus is on the new secular worldview:

"Randolph Town Clerk Kenison read an historical account, written by the Rev. McLaughlin that is informed by the work of the 'boundary-breaking interdisciplinary work' of Professor Nancy Cott of Harvard University, on the changes that have taken place from the days when the State and the Established Church were one. 'In colonial society, the State established and defined both moral and economic boundaries of the marriage contract, by which the husband was provider and unitary authority and the woman, mother and wife, was the dependent and obedient subject in law to her husband.' These gendered and hierarchical arrangements of the human family have ceased to be normative. Civil Marriage has been 'disestablished'…. The Marriage here solemnized is grounded upon current values and interests determined and enforced by the State, supported and respected by Civil society."

Excuse me Ms. Kenison, but did you just say that the State created bad standards of marriage in the past, but the current the State's values are okay? Do you trust the current State as our moral agent when earlier States got it wrong?

Arrghh...

Not Enough Money for the Inn?

At the midnight Christmas Eve service at ECOOS, all appearances indicated a traditional service. Following the service, I asked three people, two lay visitors and one retired clergyman, if they heard anything out of the ordinary in the sermon. Surprisingly I got three different answers, but nobody picked up on the novelty that I heard. At one point in the sermon, our rector said that Jesus was born in a stable because Joseph and Mary were "too poor" to afford a room in "the motel."

We had just heard Luke 2:4-7 as the Gospel reading that night,

So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

The Gospel of Luke is the only one with the story of the Inn, and in it the "No Vacancy" sign was lit when Joseph and Mary showed up. This makes sense if there were a lot of people going to their home towns for the census decreed by Caesar Augustus.

I can't say that I had ever heard our rector's version of Luke 2. So where does the "too poor" to afford a room idea come from? This appears to me to be a natural progression from the "homeless couple" theology we have heard promulgated in recent years. It just needed a little tweaking to be more topical for our current state of high unemployment. All of us are aware of the "focus on homelessness" over the past few years, and other preachers have tried to draw a parallel between Jesus' birth and the modern American homeless. One reference at the AmericanVision.org indicated that

"Jesse Jackson was the first to turn Joseph and Mary into a “homeless couple” when he claimed that Christmas 'is not about Santa Claus and ‘Jingle Bells’ and fruit cake and eggnog,' of which all Christians would agree, but about 'a homeless couple.'[1] He repeated his 'homeless couple' theme at the 1992 Democratic Convention" ([1] As reported in The Atlanta Journal/Constitution (December 28, 1991), A9.) "...in 2006, Jesse Jackson got it right: 'The story of Christmas is about a couple—Mary and Joseph—forced by an oppressive imperial government to leave their home to travel far to be counted in the census.'" [6]

Unfortunately, the Rev. Jackson came back to the homeless couple theme again in an article in January 2008 in Houston Style magazine

"...economic distress doesn’t put Christmas under wraps. It only highlights the real story. Christmas isn’t about cards or toys or running up credit-card bills to buy presents. The real story is about a homeless couple, immigrants ordered by the government to return home to be counted."

The sharp eyed can see that the Rev. Jackson introduces another current issue, that of immigration, into the discussion. That led me to look for some illegal immigrant Christmas postings on the web. I found one at Missionlocal.org Dec. 11,2009 where Rosa Ramirez reports:

"La Posarela, a bilingual musical play, re-enacts the biblical journey of a young couple who traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem in search of a place to sleep with their first-born child Jesus.

But as told in the 45-minute play, free at 7 p.m. on Dec. 11 and Dec. 12 at the Community Music Center, the themes of homelessness, undocumented immigration and health care come to the fore.

'Ay, José. Maybe, after all, this city will continue to be a sanctuary city for illegal pilgrims like us,' Ana Ortiz, who plays Mary, tells Joseph.

Rooted in the Mexican tradition of the bible narrative, La Posarela tells the story of Mary and Joseph going from inn to inn looking for shelter. Each time, they are turned away.

The search symbolizes today’s social perils — in the Mission District and across the country — of trying to find shelter and undocumented immigrants trying to belong, said Chus Alonso, the play’s music director."

Now, one can argue that later during their flight to Egypt, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were in a way homeless, although the modern description might be "political refugees," but that is another story.

The story in Luke 2:4-7 about the birth of Jesus is not about a poor homeless couple. It is about God becoming incarnate for us. Yes, the nativity was in very humble circumstances, but even then, it was recognized as something very, very special. The message that God came for us in this way should not be hijacked and revised into a political statement for whatever cause du jour that some high minded modern is wanting to promote. Unfortunately, revisionism such as this has become so acceptable that most people don't even notice anymore. Or as a couple of elderly anchors of the congregation told me this morning as to why they are hanging on, "We just overlook a lot of things."

I wonder if revisionists just wear attitudes and beliefs down to the point where you finally realize that there is no hope in debate or discussion, and you turn a blind ear to whatever the revisionist says. That is why newcomers are often shocked at hearing a revisionist's sermon, and are amazed that old timers shrug and ignore even the most ridiculous novelties coming from the pulpit.

At today's service at ECOOS, there was no sermon, just carol singing. The only hints of revisionism was the rewritten "Good Christian Men Rejoice" which has become, "Good Christian Friends Rejoice."

Shrug and overlook it?

What Do Revisionists Fear?

In conversations with liberal laity and clergy about the candidates for the next bishop of Upper South Carolina, I encountered a number of prejudices and fears. Most of these were off the cuff, unofficial, and even non-verbal or unspoken. I have been bothered by this, but I have been hesitant to put it in words because I don't see the world in their way, and I would rather attempt to heal their prejudice than simply criticise them. In general, the persons I am referring to are revisionists although some are moderates. To be fair, there are things that frighten the orthodox, the reasserters, the conservatives, and should frighten the moderates, but that might be subject for another post.

Dad used to say that the root of all of the world's problems could be found in the front pocket of a man's pants. There, the hand could find money (change), car keys, and, well in this analogy let's simply say, sexual issues.

Change:

This one might sound crazy, but revisionists, once firmly ensconced in a parish, in a vestry, or in any position of power, are afraid of change. I know, these people in general are considered to be open to change, but they are not open to any change in a conservative direction.

Why do they fear change? I think it is because of the inherent weakness of their theology. Remember that the "shellfish argument" and "the Church was wrong about slavery" argument as the best arguments most can raise regarding "The Issue." Logical argument is an obstacle to them because the final conclusion would require them to change what to them was conclusively apparent through the use of the illogical and the non-scriptural, their "feelings" as their foundation.

The other thing that change refers to is "spare change" or money. To revisionist clergy in a revisionist national church, there is always present the possibility of advancement to bishop, or even to presiding bishop. There is probably little hope of advancement of the liberal clergyman in a conservative diocese, and the election of a conservative bishop would reduce these clergy's chances for "advancement."

Keys:

This relates to power or the loss thereof. Intoxicated by power, revisionists will not listen to the very thing they believe led to their current position, and that is "Reason." Reason should tell them that their ideas do not spread the Gospel, do not build up the body of Christ, and lead to a falling membership and degradation of the "brand" name "Episcopal." Why on Earth revisionists fail to acknowledge the failures of their time in positions in power is beyond reason and can only be attributed to intoxication. These revisionists, drunk with power, refuse to give up their keys and thereby commit their church to its own death by DUI.

Sexual Issues:

This should be obvious, but a little exposition might be helpful.

One, the revisionist clergy honestly believes that 2000 years of understanding of the apostolic teachings of the church are flat out wrong. If an orthodox bishop were to put the kibosh on the revisionist agenda of re-writing the Gospel message, the revisionists would be put in a position of being opposed to their bishop. This would make these foundationless preachers very uncomfortable, and they might have to consider moving to another diocese. That would interact with monetary issues already commented upon.

Two, some clergy might be involved in same sex relationships, might have youth ministers whose "lifestyle" present a danger to the youth, or they themselves might have sexual relationships outside of marriage, and would have to face the music under a more conservative headmaster.

There are other fears to be sure. I will briefly mention a prejudice or two that I have encountered.

One is the prejudice of "Evangelicalism." This came up when someone commented that one of the nominees for bishop was "Too Baptist." I was shocked by the comment. Having attended various services of Baptists in the past, I don't understand the fear. For one thing, the candidate so named is clearly Anglican in calling. For another, I think the insinuation is that anyone who even mentions the word "Bible" can be cast out of consideration for bishop as "too Baptist."

The other prejudice is the label of "orthodox" or "conservative." How this has become a negative stereotype is beyond my pay grade, but suffice it to say, the stereotype is cast, and the revisionist cannot see beyond the stereotype. Again, an "idée fixe" is unbecoming of a true liberal.

So what do revisionists fear?

They fear the loss of their jobs, a loss of power, a failure of their sexual liberation, and the humbling of their prejudiced natures.

I admit that this exposition is a bit above my pay grade, and I do not know how to heal the broken revisionist. I pray that they might abandon their agendas, and turn back to their first love: the love they experienced when they first accepted Christ as their personal Saviour and the Bible as containing within it everything they needed for salvation.

If there is anything any of us need to fear in the upcoming election of a new bishop, it is the fear of the ramifications upon the souls of others. A terrible responsibility indeed.

The Great Deception (A.K.A., BCP 1979)

I was reading in the September/October issue of "Mandate" (see page 9), a publication of the Prayer Book Society, a piece that discussed "How Episcopalians Were Deceived" by Francis W. Read who quotes extensively from Dean Urban T. Holmes of the School of Theology of the University of the South who Francis Read says boasts of how through "silence, crafty evasions, and ambiguous rhetoric" the goals of advancing liberal theology through the prayer book revisions of the 1970's were achieved.

Choice quotes:

“The 1960s was a time when theologians became aware of the bankruptcy of so-called "classical theology." As Hans Urs von Balthasar stated, we discovered that "man has attained a new stage of his religious consciousness."

At least he didn't say a higher stage, but that quotation sets the stage for Holmes' actions.

Failure of the SLC to obtain sanction of the bishops to a radical theological change occurred in 1970, when Prayer Book Studies XVIII was issued. Holmes says:

“Its recommendations were more than the bishops of the Episcopal Church could fathom. They had been out of the seminary too long and were too threatened; so it never came to be. Here was an educational failure."

I guess those old bishops had not attained Holmes' stage.

But how the revisers got around the objections of the bishops is subsequently told:

“The subcommittee on Christian initiation and the SLC knew that the old understanding of Confirmation was theologically, historically, and psychologically untenable."

Now that is a bold statement. I love that "pyschologically untenable" bit.

"With a passion that we could only interpret as the result of a deeply invested role image, a number of bishops defended the old understanding of Confirmation. It became clear that we did not have the means to educate the bishops on this matter; so the alternative was to make the Confirmation rite as ambiguous as possible in the hope that eventually greater theological clarity would emerge and the rite would be an appropriate expression of that new clarity and a source - not a resource - for understanding the meaning of the sacrament."

A startling admission! Note to self, go back and recheck that Confirmation rite.

What the revision really does, Holmes tells in these words:

“For those of us that believe that the theological emphases of the 1979 book are appropriate for people in the late 20th and early 21st centuries this is a splendid opportunity. It is why we do not see the choice between 1928 and 1979 as a matter of taste. It is more a question of truth for our time. Two standard Books of Common Prayer would be theologically naive, to put it kindly. The task that lies before us is to show how in fact lex orandi is lex credendi and to rewrite our theology books in the light of our liturgy."

WOW, what a stroke of diabolical genius, and to think this comes straight from the School of Theology of the University of the South!

But the fact that a theological revolution was taking place under the smoke screen of liturgical revision was carefully concealed from the Church at large. During the time most of the events described by Holmes were taking place, the present writer, as an Associate Editor of the American Church News (predecessor of the New Oxford Review), repeatedly called for a resolution similar to the one that authorized the 1928 revision, declaring that no proposal involving a change in doctrine be presented or considered. These insistent demands were simply ignored by the SLC when plain honesty demanded that the avowed intentions of theological change be known. This duplicity is admitted by Holmes to have misled the Church, for he justified the failure to respond to the challenge of the Society for the Preservation of the Book of Common Prayer (SPBCP) in these words:

“They were correct when they said, as they did repeatedly and sometimes abrasively, that the theologies of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and STU (Services for Trial Use. i.e., what was to become the 1979 book) were different. The SLC probably was strategically wise in not affirming this too loudly, but its members knew that the SPBCP was correct. There is a clear theological change." (emphasis added.)

That doesn't mean the theology is right!

He further admits the duplicity of the SLC:

“It is evident that Episcopalians as a whole are not clear about what has happened. The renewal movement in the 1970s, apart from the liturgical renewal, often reflects a nostalgia for a classical theology which many theologians know has not been viable for almost 200 years. The 1979 Book of Common Prayer is a product of a corporate, differentiated theological mind, which is not totally congruent with many of the inherited formularies of the last few centuries. This reality must soon ‘come home to roost’ in one way or another."

Cluck, cluck, it sure has.

The result is what he calls a "fundamental rift in the Episcopal Church."

He demonstrates beyond any possible rebuttal how the Episcopal Church was "sold a bill of goods" in getting General Convention to approve the new book as a mere updating of its liturgy, only to find that it now had a new theology. Is it any wonder that there are so many disaffected, disenchanted, and disaffiliated Episcopalians?

As the powers that be at 815 study the steady decline of the Episcopal church since the promulgation of BCP 1979 (a drop of about 2 million souls), will we hear any voices calling for a return of the old theology? I think not. Instead, look forward to more "modernization" by the next generation of conniving revisionists who, no doubt, will take up the cry that the church needs a new prayer book to keep pace with theology (a theology which they haven't fully worked out), while they silently plan to create a new theology through a new liturgy.