Clip, Clip Here, Clip, Clip There

My last post of 07/13/2008 included another comment on the Lectionary and how certain passages were being snipped out of the readings assigned for Sunday Eucharist. The resulting collage of the scriptures was what we the masses typically hear. This subject was picked up at the StandFirm website and a number of interesting comments were made. I have picked out a few for further review.

"I originally sent this heads up to Jackie (after seeing it at Underground Pewster’s “Not another Episcopal Church Blog"). I never wrote anything about a conspiracy theory, nor did that idea cross my mind. (Though I do think that studying the passages omitted from the Lectionary is very interesting and illuminating, it almost becomes something like “the hard sayings of Jesus”—the things our culture doesn’t want to hear.)

Every now and then (as perhaps in this case) the omission might be justifiable due to length or theme—in this case to more tightly elide the two portions of Mt. 13 that focus on the Parable of the Sower.
However, given the extremely small percentage of Episcopalians who ever crack open a Bible on their own (i.e. apart from Sunday church worship), over time, the omission of all these passages about sin, judgment and repentance adds up, BIG TIME.
My title in the e-mail to Jackie was something like 'Why we’re in such a mess… part one million something...'
Anyway, I think this is a crucial passage to help understand the process of repentance and how to find healing when our ears and hearts are dull and shut to God’s Word. And by cutting it out of the lectionary, I think the Episcopal church is much poorer for it. We avoid passages that speak clearly of the call to repent. And it is shrinking from repentance that has got us into this mess… or so I believe."
[29] Posted by Karen B. on 07-15-2008 at 01:13 PM

I had to chime in,

"This topic has been a pet peeve of mine ever since waking up to the realization that most of us pewsitters' only exposure to the scriptures comes during the Sunday readings, and when the hard bits are left out of the text, we are not going to create tough Christians, people prepared for the tough times in life. The result of many years of only hearing the soft sell is soft mushy Christianity. The daily readings are tougher, but fewer people follow the daily obligation of reading and studying the lectionary. The Eucharistic readings appear to be the most watered down, but that is what most people hear."
[30] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 07-15-2008 at 01:26 PM

There were some interesting defenses of the Lectionary for example read this exchange:

"Move along, people. Nothing to see here. No conspiracy, no plot, nothing nefarious. The RCL lectionary is that same as the BCP lectionary on this one. The reason is obvious: The focus is on the Parable of the Sower. Omitting the verses the lectionary omits allows for the interpretation to follow immediately on the parable itself. It’s done all the time and there’s nothing 'unorthodox' about it. But the rubrics allow any reading to be lengthened (though not shortened) at the discretion of the celebrant, so if anyone had wanted to read the omitted verses, they could have done so."
[16] Posted by Fr Dan Martins on 07-15-2008 at 10:52 AM

"I have to agree with Fr. Dan on this one (its nice to be able to do that for a change). Personally speaking, I would prefer a lectionary that took about 5 years and covered all of scripture. Short of that some edits have to be made. The cuts that are most offensive to God’s Word are those that seem designed to Marcionize the lectionary...edit for the purpose of removing some section that will make us uncomfortable by either confronting us with sin or undercutting an idolized image of God and/or His character.
One of the most egregious examples is glaring omission of the sections of Romans 1 that identify homosexual behavior as sinful in the daily lectionary. The lectionary text goes right to that point and then, for no obvious reason, skips the verses in question, and continues on the other side.
[17] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 07-15-2008 at 11:00 AM

(Note that Matt Kennedy has noted that maybe something is up in some of these clip jobs. UP)

"And it is with equal pleasure that I can agree with Fr Matt on his observations re cuts that 'marcionize' the lectionary. I try to keep an eagle eye out for such things, both in the Eucharist and more especially in the Daily Office, and exercise the prerogative of lengthening readings to include such excised material."
[18] Posted by Fr Dan Martins on 07-15-2008 at 11:04 AM

Not everyone agreed with them,

"Fr. Dan and Fr. Mat - with all due respect - I disagree."
[24] Posted by Jackie Bruchi on 07-15-2008 at 11:19 AM

(Cartoon by See Mike Draw)

Others raised the flag that once deleted, some passages are never read in the whole lectionary cycle,

"I’m reassured by Matt+ and Dan+, though I went through the RCL online and was sorry to see that over the course of the three years, the lectionary never returns to the omitted verse.
Complete coverage of scripture would be nice… "
[22] Posted by kmfrye on 07-15-2008 at 11:08 AM

Others experienced a similar feeling as myself that I am being manipulated in some way,

"For some reason those two points never came out in the message, probably because the mid section of the gospel lesson (always hearing, never understanding) had been redacted by modern lectionary scholarship. How very therapeutic of them to keep us from considering why we might not understand or digest what we read and hear in Scripture."
[5] Posted by Rom 1:16 on 07-15-2008 at 10:33 AM

and,

"Awakening from my pew slumber opened my eyes to what I have come to think of as sub-liminal programming. Having sold us on the convenience of the printed programs and such, our trust is used against us - once again. In reality, the part of us we cherish the most, being a Christian, is what makes us so susceptible to these innovations."
[10] Posted by Jackie on 07-15-2008 at 10:42 AM

"#10 Bull’s Eye!!!! “Awakening from my pew slumber opened my eyes to what I have come to think of as sub-liminal programming.” I think you hit the nail right on the head with this very statement. We’ve all been programmed with what they WANT us to hear. They’ve very carefully edited out what they DON’T WANT us to hear. They don’t expect us to study our Bibles at home for ourselves, and most don’t. It was when I started to study my own Bible that I had my eyes truly opened to the manipulations of the church leaders."
[12] Posted by Mugsie1 on 07-15-2008 at 10:47 AM

"Leaving out passages like the one Sunday makes complacency easy."
[14] Posted by oscewicee on 07-15-2008 at 10:49 AM

And who is ultimately responsible for what we hear at Church????

"The HOMILIST, at least, should certainly know what the context of his text is. You don’t prepare a sermon from a lesson sheet, after all (right?)
At my parish, the congregation heard the entire reading, and the importance of the omitted portions for a right understanding of the text.
It is the rector’s responsibility to keep these things straight - no one else’s.
As far as I know, none of the lectionaries encompass the whole of this pericope, but the homilist can and should.
But without a robust sense of the power of the doctrine of election (Article XVII), who would want to?"
[41] Posted by ericfromnewyork on 07-15-2008 at 04:29 PM

There have been occcasions at ECOOS where the Homilist has told us about things left out of the lectionary readings. An example from this year was from Fr. Dunbar's sermon on Genesis 9.

Which is better for the health of the Church, to leave out the forbidden scriptures or to take 'em on?



Clip, clip here, Clip, clip there, We give the roughest clause.
That certain air of savoir faire, In the Merry Old Land of Oz!

Conflict and Contradiction

I honestly wrote most of this on Wednesday before going to church today or looking at the lessons. I felt that I needed a day to recover from the article the Herald by Rachel Zoll published yesterday (not yet online) about our heroic Presiding Bishop. My intention was to give the rector a break today since he had just returned from vacation. I can't help the fact that after he spent most of his sermon discussing our "inclusive" Church and how we Episcopalians can embrace both sides of an issue, and how he applied this concept to the issue of divorce, I was replaying what I was pondering on Wednesday regarding the importance of resolving contradictions and conflicts rather than turning a blind eye to the issues. When he went on to suggest that our enlightened Episcopal attitude towards "Demon Rum" was because we should embrace such pleasures as God has given us, I blew a gasket. That statement should have raised the eyebrows of our visitors, those trying out our "The Church of God's Free Pass," or "The Church of If It Feels Good, God Blesses it, Do It."
Charlie started his sermon by reading parts of today's reading from Romans 8:1-11. I am glad Charlie admitted at this point that he was a "liberal" with regards to the scriptures. He then added that others such as the African churches and many local churches are "literal" with respect to issues such as "divorce." Straying into the minefield of divorce he proceeded to espouse the "liberal" rationale for divorce, that people were not meant to "stay married for 60 years."
Is this the kind of thing you say on a Sunday where a large part of the congregation present consisted of young parents and their children who were preparing to sing for us the song they learned in VBS, "I believe?" He did admit that there was no scriptural basis for his position, but then suggested that this was an example of why we should be liberal with the scripture. I was baffled but reminded of Romans 8, "For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on things of the flesh."
To top it all, later in his sermon, Charlie said that he did not like to preach about moral issues!
Of course, most of us are ill equipped to discuss moral issues. We are what the Church has reared us to be. We have been raised to be "in the Spirit." We are not supposed to try to understand issues, we should keep doing God's work (remember the MDG's?), and love all different opinions. Loving all those opinions is especially easy when you don't try to understand them. But, when you embrace contradictory or mutually exclusive opinions, you run the risk of serious mental, and dare I say spiritual disturbance.
Is it better to ignore the questions and immerse oneself in God's work, or should you tackle the issues, and see if one argument or the other is tenable? I see the latter as part of God's work.
When approaching inflammatory issues, are you happy living with contradictions, saying "I just won't think about that," or does your brain stay active, analyzing information until you can at least have an opinion, albeit perhaps not a full apologetic that could stand the test of debate?

Now, I am not the most "Orthodox" of people, but I am certainly not considered "liberal" either. This still does not make me one of those dreaded "moderates."
You know, the wishy washy, can't make a decision, won't take a stand types who sit in the pews on Sundays and thinks, "Well doesn't that sound nice," to any new idea that comes from the pulpit (such as Charlie's opinion about divorce).

You see, the Church is in conflict. Part of this has to do with the liberal approach to scripture as well as issues not directly addressed in the scriptures such as abortion.

Bill Gnade at Contratimes asked if you have ever met a pro-life vegan. I can't say that I have, but I know you are out there. Bill thinks they might exist but they are "rather rare and never medium rare." For me to be such an animal, I would have to hold onto two contradictory positions at the same time. Of course, the pro-abortion vegan does not consider the fetus a life form, and therefore has a rationalization that allows them to approve of abortion while not approving of consuming animal flesh.

This led me to consider all those contradictions that I live with. I will spend the next week or so looking for these and tossing them around in my head with the goal of eliminating as many as possible . In this exercise, I am going against the recommendations of our Church leaders such as Bishop Gene Robinson (AKA the Happy Bishop) who praised the Anglican Church as the place where people can hold two contradictory positions at once.
From CatholicInternational

“The Anglican tradition is uniquely capable of holding two seemingly contradictory ideas together. Its position on abortion, for example is that all human life is sacred. And, that no one has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Both are true,” Bishop Robinson

Does anyone have an issue with that? "No one has a right" to tell me that them's not fightin words!



The position of the Episcopal Church has been to support pro-abortion groups, while at the same time preaching a gospel of love. These positions appear mutually exclusive in my opinion. So if we follow Charlie's view of the big tent where all Christians can come together, shouldn't the Episcopal Church support pro life as well as pro-abortion groups? Answer: No!

Example: The Executive Council’s decision to join the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC)

Read what happened when NOEL (now called Anglicans for Life) took their pro-life message to the last General Convention.

"The Rev. Canon Elizabeth Kaeton from the Diocese of Newark (also a board member of RCRC and the Social and Urban Affairs Committee(emphasis added)) was the next speaker. She referred to a quote by Martin Niemoller, and then said, 'while abortion may not be favored by local churches, we are deputized to follow the Holy Spirit,

not the wishes of the folks back home.'"

These are your spiritual leaders folks. Some of you may recognize Elizabeth Keaton as the Swan of Newark for which we have a link on this very page.

Sheila (the NOEL speaker), speaking for the first time before a GC legislative committee
said

“RCRC does not encourage parental involvement in the issue of abortion. They encourage girls to seek truth from within. This is out of alignment with both society and the Episcopal Church as a recent Zogby poll showed that 69% of Americans support parental notification of abortion and Resolution A094 affirms the role of God, parents, and spiritual advisers to guide a woman before considering abortion...”
"When we heard about the task force being formed to research the declining population in the Church, we laughed and when we realized that the Episcopal Church chose to uphold the sanctity of abortion, we cried."

More on how the pressure to hold two conflicting positions affects people and some ideas on what might lie behind these thoughts comes from the story of Jennifer Fulwiler and her transformation from pro-choice atheist to pro-life Catholic,

"As long as I accepted the premise that engaging in sex with a contraceptive mentality was morally acceptable, I could not bring myself to consider that abortion might not be acceptable. It seemed inhumane to make women deal with life-altering consequences for an act that was not supposed to have life-altering consequences."

And what happens to the mind of your Episcopal Church when it faces mutually exclusive positions that it would rather not face?
From FreeRepublic,

"For many years, there have been pro-life and pro-choice organizations in the Episcopal church. They existed together, if not in harmony, then at least without the need to see one another’s existence as a need to leave, or necessarily to reform, the church as a whole. They were able to respect one another’s faith. They agreed to disagree. But this was apparently unsatisfactory to the Executive Committee, which determined that the church must take sides and declare that one side is wrong and the other is right. This is the action of an Executive Committee that is hell-bent on imposing its will on the church with no possibility whatever of compromise."

I am in conflict with my church because of the contradiction of giving to an organization that supports abortion while staking my position on the belief that abortion is wrong. I am in conflict when the preacher says that we were not meant to stay married for life but admits that the Bible says otherwise. The result of these conflicts may be harmful to my soul. This is the danger inherent in Bishop Robinson's or Charlie Foss' method of dealing with polarizing issues.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is another fine example of what happens to the mind when it tries to hold onto too many conflicting points of view simultaneously. The Anglican Curmudgeon's post of 07/06/2008 delves into the thought processes of the man, and after going there, I am glad to have come out alive.

Or perhaps to be "Orthodox" and Episcopalian at the same time is a contradiction that no one can live with and maintain their sanity.

One final note. Once again the wisdom of the Episcopal lectionary spliced and diced the Gospel reading with no indication for the pewsitter where the alterations had occurred. They were Matthew 13:10-17. Reading these deleted words, I cannot help but hear the Spirit of Truth calling,

“'You will indeed listen, but never understand,
and you will indeed look, but never perceive.
For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and their ears are hard of hearing,
and they have shut their eyes;
so that they might not look with their eyes,
and listen with their ears,
and understand with their heart and turn—
and I would heal them.'
But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear"

Let's see, we took on the Sermon, the Lessons, the Apostates, and gave a brief reference to the Music, maybe not a Grand Slam because the music was okay. Alright, the organist did have a few false starts. Nuff said.

Don't Tell the Rector

Today's service was an excellent example of worship. We had memorable lessons, from the story of Rebekah and Isaac's "marriage," and St. Paul's battle of the way of the flesh vs. the way of the spirit, to Jesus in Matthew 11:16-19, 25-30 "Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest." Fr. Dunbar filling in for our Rector who is on vacation, put together a very good sermon from the reading of Romans 7:15-25a, and Matthew. He reminded us to see things with the eyes of a child, to allow our imaginations to help us surrender our burdens to Jesus.

Now this is the part that we mustn't tell the rector. We finished the service with a "National" Hymn (1982 Hymnal #717-My country 'tis of thee... ). It is not often that we are allowed to sing any of these hymns that have been pushed to the last pages of the Episcopal Hymnal. How could it have slipped through and gotten included in the service music? When the cat's away the mice will play. Well, at least we didn't process with the American flag.

There was a little problem in that the Gospel reading for today was another expurgated version (who does this lectionary meddling anyway?).
We listened to the spliced together version as commanded. There is no indication in the printed bulletin of where the splice occurs. Did anyone else notice that Matthew 11:19-24 got left out. It adds to the context, but it may be troubling to hear Jesus speak in this threatening manner (if justice is a threat). Here is the missing text with verse 25 included so that you can understand the splice:

"20 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not

21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

22 But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.

23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes."

I can imagine a "wise and prudent" (v. 25) Episcopal Church scholar thinking "Well, that must have been a later addition to the text, and it would flow much better into those little minds of mush if we just leave that part out. Besides, we don't want our Rectors to have to explain what happened to Sodom; we don't teach that at seminary anymore."

I am but a child at all this religious stuff, and that's how I see it.

A Passage From the Presiding Bishop

"Much of the Anglican world must be lamenting the latest emission from GAFCON. Anglicanism has always been broader than some find comfortable. This statement does not represent the end of Anglicanism, merely another chapter in a centuries-old struggle for dominance by those who consider themselves the only true believers. Anglicans will continue to worship God in their churches, serve the hungry and needy in their communities, and build missional relationships with others across the globe, despite the desire of a few leaders to narrow the influence of the gospel. We look forward to the opportunities of the Lambeth Conference for constructive conversation, inspired prayer, and relational encounters."

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church

Does anyone see any parallels between this and her Easter Message?

"We are not respecting the dignity of our fellow creatures if our sewage or garbage fouls their living space. When atmospheric warming, due in part to the methane output of the millions of cows we raise each year to produce hamburger, begins to slowly drown the island homes of our neighbors in the South Pacific, are we truly sharing good news?"

Am I reading too much into this or does she have gas on her mind?

The Time is Coming

Many thanks to Wallace Hartley for filling in last week. I love the picture of the Lambeth Conference paper boat. With all the controversy, I thought it would sink. Hopefully, we have seen the last of those bulletin inserts.

It is good to return and to be part of a scripturally based service. The Rev. Mark House gave an excellent sermon today sticking to John 21:15-19 (which was appointed for tomorrow's feast of Peter and Paul). Jesus' instruction to Peter,

"Feed my lambs...Tend my sheep...Feed my sheep"

was the focus of the sermon.

Unfortunately, we ignored Paul by not remembering 2 Timothy 4:1-8, as this letter reminds us of how to tend and feed us sheep when it is written,

"...proclaim the message; be persistent whether the time is favourable or unfavourable; convince, rebuke, and encourage, with the utmost patience in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander away to myths."

As the zeitgeist infiltrates itself into our very being with it's promise of fulfilling our every desires, it is ever so easy to wander off into the wastelands of "modern" life and forget Paul or create new myths such as "Rabbi Paul (click at your own risk)," or the Spongian myths (reader beware) regarding his sexual tendencies. We will eagerly listen to such new teachings. We are easily led astray by false shepherds. We do not want to hear "sound doctrine." We are falling for the myth that we know more than our forefathers. These words of Paul have no doubt been proven to be prophetic time and time again and certainly ring true today. He is telling us how he fed and tended the Lord's sheep. He had "fought the good fight," but the time of his departure had come, and he needed to pass along these instructions. After listening to Mark House's sermon, I was ready to get out of my chair and go tend some sheep myself.

If you still do not know how to tend and feed sheep, go back and reread 2 Timothy (about the letter here).

Silence Men!

The Pewster is on vacation this week and asked for me to assume command. I am allowed on board by this special invitation, and will try to keep things ship shape.

I was asked to comment on the bulletin insert. I did a test, or more a trial by ordeal. As you can see,


it floats!

In the witch trials, since witches are made of wood, they would float and survive a trial by immersion. The righteous would sink and drown (but they end up in heaven and are therefore better off). Judging from the picture, one must presume that the bulletin insert is a witch. For this reason, I advise you to burn the bulletin insert and preserve your immortal soul.

I was asked to comment on the service at ECOOS today. The pewster's fearless spies have provided me with the scuttlebutt. The Rev. George Markis House was the guest preacher today. All hands report an excellent scripturally based sermon focusing on the theme of the journey through the wilderness, starting with the 40 years of the Hebrews and jumping forward to John the Baptist, and then to Jesus and the temptations of the 40 days and 40 nights. The Rev. House made parallels between the temptations of scripture and the temptations of modern life. He seemed to make the point that when we come out of the wilderness, we will find ourselves stronger for the experience, but all the more "leaning on God" than when we had entered the wild.


As we sail along into the wilderness of the future on this ship of fools,


that we call the Episcopal Church, let us follow the Rev. House's advice that we silence the noise in our lives so that we might hear the voice of the Lord.

Okay, your moment of silence is over. The pewster sent me this video as it fits my theme. How are you going to navigate through the troubled waters ahead in your Church? I suggest you look for calm seas, a tall ship, and a good captain to help you on this voyage through the wilderness. Don't fall in with the wrong crew like these fellows,


Looks like a ship we ought to steer clear of. Ah, men!

Fatherless Day

Today's sermon was delivered by Charlie and he did a good job in coming in on time. He focused on one phrase from the N.T. lesson from Matthew 9,

“The kingdom of heaven has come near.”

I am afraid that the Kingdom is going to be a fatherless one.

To make a short sermon shorter, if we believe the kingdom of heaven has come near, and if we see the approaching kingdom in our Church, then we can go out and spread this "good news." I was left wondering just what is it that is approaching? Will it be new revelations from Lambeth or will it be the resolutions being proposed for the Ubuntu Episcopal General Convention in 2009. Are these signs of "The Kingdom?" My bet is that these are fabrications of Man, and it will be a tough sell for the rest of Rock Hill.

An ominous vision of the Kingdom is presented in the bulletin insert for today. The lead photo is a dead give away, the "irregular" "ordination" of the "Philadelphia 11." I will summarize the Rev. Christopher Webber's message which is that culture has always moved faster than the Church. He uses examples of "family planning," "birth control," and "women's ordination" to show that as far as Episcopal bishops, Anglican Consultative Councils (dissed because they asked TEC to withdraw from the ACC after Gene Robinson was made a bishop), and Lambeth conferences are concerned "the world had moved on without them." The bishops then realized that they were powerless in the face of cultural change and that now their role was "primarily pastoral." This is why today on Father's Day, I feel like a fatherless child. My bulletin insert has corrected my picture of my ordained shepherds. No longer can they be called "Father" for they lack the backbone and commitment required of fatherhood. The Episcopal Church is truly without a father, but at least we have a mother. Alas,this is the picture of a hierarchical Church without a hierarchy. Do we want structure, do we want a "Papa?" What happens when TEC gets it's divorce from the mythical Anglican Communion and we are left to be reared by a single mom?

Oh yes the winds of change are coming, but does the breeze feel like the Kingdom? It seems to me that people tend to convince themselves all too easily that the Spirit is leading them when in actual fact they are following the cultural winds of change or some novel politic. These people are speaking from "personal revelation," where they truly believe that God's word has been revealed to themselves alone or to members of their "interest group." Are they thinking that they must go out and proclaim a new gospel, new "good news?" When these new revelations are contrary to traditional wisdom, and objections are raised, why do these people act as though they are persecuted and those who disagree are labelled Pharisaical? Those who have received the new revelation then condemn any disputers writing,

"P.S. The Word is not in them. They never knew Him."

(Lisa Fox from her blog)


Today's readings from Matthew had an option of extending the reading, if you attended our service you missed this part:

Matthew 10:9-23

Take no gold, or silver, or copper in your belts, no bag for your journey, or two tunics, or sandals, or a staff; for labourers deserve their food. 11Whatever town or village you enter, find out who in it is worthy, and stay there until you leave. As you enter the house, greet it. If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgement than for that town.
See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Beware of them, for they will hand you over to councils and flog you in their synagogues; and you will be dragged before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them and the Gentiles. When they hand you over, do not worry about how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you at that time; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; and you will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly I tell you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes

.

I guess this was left out because it would make the service too long, or perhaps the bit about children rising against parents and having them put to death was a bit to much for Father's Day.

Forgive me for my words Father(s), but today I feel Fatherless. Is this the way life's meant to be?