Discretion

Falstaff: "The better part of valour is discretion; in the which better part I have saved my life."

(Shakespeare, Henry IV)

The Rev. Mary Cat Young was our preacher today, and she had the task of performing a double baptism after reading the tale of the beheading of John the Baptist and his head being served up on a platter to Herodias. I want everyone to consider how they might handle this problem. Mary Cat honestly said that it was too gruesome a thing to preach about before a baptism and used her discretion by talking instead about her own baptism. Maybe she was right to do so, for if you can't do it, admit it and go on rather than gross out the congregation and visitors with too many graphic details.

One thing can said for liberal preaching, it is intended to make you feel good. So why do I often come out with that uncomfortable feeling that something is missing or wrong? Maybe because there is an unsaid suggestion that we in the pews should not hear talk of headless baptizers, bloody battles, sin, the fear of God, or the wrath of God. Or that such talk keeps people from hearing the Gospel message of hope and love. I believe this is a reason why many Sunday services in the Episcopal church will leave out some of the "ugly bits" in either the Psalter, or the O.T. reading, the reading from the Epistles, and, of course, from the sermon. For years, I was content to listen to this expurgated version of Christianity, and was falling into the classic trap of believing that God's goodness should fall within my human understanding of goodness. To hear the story of John is painful to us. Where is God's goodness in that? Many believe that pain cannot be good, so let's not talk about those painful bits.
How can people get over the indoctrination of "feel good" worship and be able to explain Christianity to their disbelieving friends and acquaintances? Shouldn't we study those painful passages in more detail and try to reconcile them with the loving passages?

Today's lessons showed us, quite graphically, the cruelty of sin, and the power that authorities hold over our lives. Of course, Jesus proved that He, not earthly kings like Herod, has the power over life and death. But still, the question of pain occurring to good people, such as John's imprisonment and beheading, comes up. Was it his fault due to a lack of discretion? Did he have to die? How can we explain it? Do we run from the problem?

No!

"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more"

(Shakespeare, Henry V)

I for one can't run from that awful image of John's disheveled face and bloody neck on a platter. It seems to me to be a problem of getting past the picture. I tried to get past it by looking into the root causes of evil and cruelty, the Christian response to evil, and how to get from point A to point B. I looked at today's Gospel reading and saw a story that shows us how the world treats prophetic witness, and the story made me examine why God's world works in this way. Then I looked at how John's baptismal ministry is remembered, and how, through Jesus, we are given the sacrament of Baptism. And maybe in the course of my exploration, I saw one of God's miracles. The miracle that we witnessed today: two people, one a child, the other an adult, are now, through the sacrament of Baptism, part of the body of Christ. I witnessed them renounce Satan and turn away from the forces of sin and evil. Those forces that threaten all that is good. Only through a miracle can such forces be overcome.

No pain, no gain. No cross, no crown.

Inside/Outside +VGR

Bishop Gene Robinson was practicing his "narrative" the other day at the 2009 General Convention of the Episcopal Church. After he said, “...the god that I worship is a god that wanted the outside of me to agree with the inside of me…” I couldn't help but think of this song from The Who's Quadrophenia album.

5:15

"Why should I care, why should I care?

Girls of fifteen
Sexually knowing
The ushers are sniffing
Eau-de-cologning
The seats are seductive
Celibate sitting

Pretty girls digging
Prettier women.
Magically bored
On a quiet street corner
Free frustration
In our minds and our toes
Quiet stormwater
My generation
Uppers and downers
Either way blood flows.

Inside outside. Leave me alone.
Inside outside. Nowhere is home.
Inside outside, Where have I been?
Out of my brain on the five fifteen.

On a raft in the quarry
Slowly sinking.
On the back of a lorry
Holy hitching.
Dreadfully sorry
Apple scrumping.
Born in the war
Birthday punching.

He man drag
In the glittering ballroom
Greyely outrageous
In my high heel shoes
Tightly undone
They know what they're showing
Sadly ecstatic
That their heroes are news.

Why should I care?"

I have to pull out the old LP to double check those lyrics, but for the most part they seem accurate.

(Update, I had to change "gravely" to "greyly," I knew something was wrong.)

Of all the comments at StandFirm on this subject, I liked the following best:

"Good lord I hope my inside never agrees with my outside (or vice versa). I am such a mess, I need to put the whole thing in control of God and ask Jesus to help get me there through the power of the Holy Spirit. There was a time in my life when 'I was in control'. Never, ever want to go there again!"
[22] Posted by Capt. Deacon Warren on 07-10-2009 at 12:32 PM

Update:

This comment by #28 Eddie Swain was good too:

"God wants us to have Jesus on the inside and then to work towards making
the outside agree with that. But, when the inside and outside don't agree,
it is because of our own lack of integrity (and, more precisely the
existence of sin in our lives.

VGR's viewpoint is that because he percieved himself as gay inside, that
must be how God made him. Therefore, he needs to be open and honest about
his homosexuality, else he would be accusing God of not having integrity.

The fact is that, for someone like VGR who grew up in the Church, he had
this nagging thing called the Holy Spirit on the inside that was conflicting
with his external desires for sinful pleasure (just like all of us sinners).
The difference is that VGR decided to achieve personal integrity by giving
in to the outside desires and then projected the whole 'integrity' stuff
on to God to justify his behavior.

Now, he thinks he is living a life of integrity because his "inside"
agrees with his 'outside.' The ironic thing is that by claiming that God
is okay with this (blessing his sinful behavior), he is actually portraying
a god that has no integrity. The God of the Bible is clearly opposed to sin
(including homosexual behavior)."

We won't be fooled again!

DEFCON 1: Seven Modern Sacraments

I apologize for placing so many links in this posting.

As the Episcopal Church's General Convention 2009 kicks off today, I was thinking about how modern secular issues interact with religion. This interaction is unavoidable, and dealing with issues is, in my opinion, part of the "mission" of the Church.

As thoroughly modern Episcopalians, we have been instructed to examine the Scriptures, Tradition, and Reason when asked where we "stand" on the issues. Often times, people lean too heavily on one of the legs of this "three legged stool," and as a result they can tip over. In 2009, we are increasingly being asked to look at "Justice" as well, thus creating a wobbley four legged chair.

As one who tends to rely on the first 2 legs, I frequently fall because I short change Reason. I believe this is mostly due to my poor skills at chess and other such mental gymnastics. At other times I fall because of lack of knowledge of traditional teachings, and at other times it is because of the sin of not knowing the Scriptures. As far as "Justice" goes, I defer to Fr. Dan Martin's recent post found here.

As the Episcopal Church marches on with its Reason/Justice based agenda despite the warnings of Tradition and Scripture, I continue to ponder what "Rights" will become "Rites," and what "Rights" will become "Sacraments" in the future.

First a little background on the sacraments. Thumbing through the BCP, as I often do in my spare time, I recall that we answer the questions in the Catechism (pages 858-861) about sacraments by stating that there are two "great sacraments given by Christ" (Holy Baptism and Holy Eucharist) and there are five others that are sacramental rites that "evolved" under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Confirmation, Ordination, Holy Matrimony, Reconciliation of a Penitent, and Unction of the Sick). Also please see Article XXV on page 872 for the "historical" description of the sacraments with the last five using the Catholic terminology and described as in part "states of life allowed in the Scriptures." These are essentially the same ones we inherit from the Council of Trent. I defer to the Catholic Encyclopedia,

The Council of Trent solemnly defined that there are seven sacraments of the New Law, truly and properly so called, viz., Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matrimony. The same enumeration had been made in the Decree for the Armenians by the Council of Florence (1439), in the Profession of Faith of Michael Palaelogus, offered to Gregory X in the Council of Lyons (1274) and in the council held at London, in 1237, under Otto, legate of the Holy See. According to some writers Otto of Bamberg (1139), the Apostle of Pomerania, was the first who clearly adopted the number seven (see Tanquerey, "De sacr."). Most probably this honour belongs to Peter Lombard (d. 1164) who in his fourth Book of Sentences (d. i, n.2) defines a sacrament as a sacred sign which not only signifies but also causes grace, and then (d.ii, n.1) enumerates the seven sacraments. It is worthy of note that, although the great Scholastics rejected many of his theological opinions (list given in app. to Migne edition, Paris, 1841), this definition and enumeration were at once universally accepted, proof positive that he did not introduce a new doctrine, but merely expressed in a convenient and precise formula what had always been held in the Church. Just as many doctrines were believed, but not always accurately expressed, until the condemnation of heresies or the development of religious knowledge called forth a neat and precise formula, so also the sacraments were accepted and used by the Church for centuries before Aristotelian philosophy, applied to the systematic explanation of Christian doctrine, furnished the accurate definition and enumeration of Peter Lombard. The earlier Christians were more concerned with the use of sacred rites than with scientific formulae, being like the pious author of the "Imitation of Christ", who wrote: "I had rather feel compunction than know its definition" (I, i).

Since the General Convention of the Episcopal Church 2009 will discuss resolutions aboout creating new rites and blessings, I wondered where it could possibly end. Being certain that someone had thought of this before, I went searching for a list of modern sacraments of secular culture.
Here is one list I found. It was written by Catholic Bishop Thomas Doran of Rockford in 2006 (I added a few choice links for those unfamiliar with the terms),

1. Abortion
2. Buggery
3. Contraception
4. Divorce
5. Euthanasia
6. Feminism of the radical type
7. Genetic experimentation and mutilation

His list summarizes some of the issues that the secular world has blessed. Can anyone come up with a way of integrating the secular sacraments with religion? Oh yes, I have a list in mind. I will place the "historical" sacraments alongside the "Brave New" ones.

1. Baptism : This will probably stay but let's change the name to a sacrament of Self-Improvement.
2. Confirmation : Dropped because this is 1. not needed in an age of open communion (see sacrament #3 below), and 2. non-inclusive and discriminatory against Muslims/etc.
3. Holy Eucharist : This one will probably stay but will be renamed "Open Communion" or "Happy Meal."
4. Penance : Since there is nothing for which to be penitant, this will be changed to the sacrament of the MDGs to reflect the collective guilt of the Church.
5. Extreme Unction : This will need an additional sacrament of Euthanasia .
6. Orders : New sacrament of C.H.A.O.S.
7. Matrimony : The "Holy" will be dropped and new sacrament called "Love the One You're With" will be put in its place.



When things get worse, in place of 1, and 2 I suggest
1. Bishop Doran's Rite for Abortion (Believe it or not, this Liturgy has already been written (paid for in part by the Episcopal Church). You can see it here (H/T Standfirm),
2. Divorce (This liturgy appeared on the Episcopal Church's site under the Office of Women's Ministries a while ago but was removed.)

I am still thinking that more will be added. I am open to suggestions. So is GC 2009, they appear open for anything.

In the spirit of the "Ubuntu" theme for the convention, I pray they don't fuss or fight. And please no Ubuntu Kung Fu.

I Declare!

Southern Saying: I declare.
Translation:
I did not know,
or that is surprising,
or it can merely be used when there is really nothing else to say.
Usage: I declare!

(source: Momma, and quotemountain)

Today at ECOOS, the Rev. Mary Cat Young gave the sermon. It offered her another chance to relate her mission trip activities, this time a trip to the hurricane recovery areas of Bay St. Louis Miss. and NOLA. I give her points for trying to forge a link with the Gospel of Mark. Although there could have been more said, I am tempted to say, "I declare" because there really is nothing else to say. But, being a stinkin pewster, I started to sniff around the edges of her homily to find anything that the sermon made me think about.

First thought: Sailing into the storm on Bay St. Louis.



Second thought: Read the Gospel again! (Mark 6:1-13)

(Verses 3-13 here)

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?’...

(I wonder if Mary Cat could have tied in the carpenter description with some of the handiwork her High Schoolers performed on their trip?)

And they took offence at him. Then Jesus said to them, ‘Prophets are not without honour, except in their home town, and among their own kin, and in their own house.’ And he could do no deed of power there,...

(A possible justification to leave town to do missionary work).

...except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. And he was amazed at their unbelief.

(You don't have to travel very far to find unbelievers, but you might have to walk a few miles to find some who will believe).

Then he went about among the villages teaching. He called the twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. He ordered them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts; but to wear sandals and not to put on two tunics.

(She did touch on this one. Unlike the twelve, Mary Cat's group did take sleeping bags along on their journey).

He said to them, ‘Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave the place. If any place will not welcome you and they refuse to hear you, as you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them.’ So they went out and proclaimed that all should repent. They cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many who were sick and cured them.

That last part has the difficult bits, and although they do not relate to the Sr. High student's trip to the Gulf coast, and were not a subject of the sermon, they made me pause. First, the "testimony against them" part is so politically incorrect. Who in this day and age, when all religions and beliefs are considered equally acceptable to God, would dare to testify against an unbeliever? Aren't we supposed to support each other? Doesn't that extend to granting at least silent approval of their unbelief? Second, that casting out of demons stuff is so passe. Everybody knows there are no such things as demons. Even if there were, where would you cast them anyway? There probably isn't any such thing as the supernatural either, so we would be making those demons homeless. Third, imagine anointing the sick with oil. We are so beyond that kind of hocus pocus, and besides, the use of oil expands our carbon footprint and makes us dependant on foreign countries (Oh, sorry, they didn't use that kind of oil).

When I re-read today's lessons and recall Mary Cat's sermon, I am left wondering how we are to interact with an increasingly unbelieving world. Have I been prepared by my church to answer the challenges presented to us by the naysayers and the skeptical?

Has my church sufficiently grounded me in Christ to defend His name?

Or should I just keep being a "good person" and be a silent example for Him?

To the last question I say, "No!" A vision of the rocks themselves refusing to be silent came to mind: Luke 19:37-40

"And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen;

Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.

And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.

And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out."

I declare! Praise to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost!

Shout it out! Keep those stones from singing!

Daughters of the King to Become Pawns of the Queen?

Baby Blue has been tracking this issue for the past year and a half. This post from 02/04/2008 gives you some of the background.

"A handful of 'progressive' Episcopal women want to ban Anglicans, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics from the Order and make it an Episcopal Church-only organization. They have targeted the elected president of the Order, Joan Dalrymple, but frankly, I have to wonder if the real target is the national Chaplain, none other than the Rt. Rev. John W. Howe, Bishop of Central Florida. He's been making peace of late with those parishes and clergy who seek to separate from the Episcopal Church. And now we have Washington-style politics going on, with whispers of financial mismanagement (absurd, you can read their financial statements yourself here - including the audit) as well as an entire shadow website put up online as a "shadow" Order (sound familiar friends?).

At the Daughters of the King Triennial, held in 2006, the delegates voted to interpret the bylaws strictly so that each chapter had one vote. The bylaws do not recognize 'Episcopal' and the Order is not an official part of the Episcopal Church. It's like the Alpha Course - it's associated with Episcopal Churches, but is a separate entity. The Triennial voted by an overwhelming majority of 219 to 30 to seat Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Anglican Chapters."

BB gave us an update this past week by posting the following on June 27, 2009.

"Since the Triennial, a small group formed calling themselves the 'Episcopal' Community of the Daughters of the King and they seek to expel from the Order all the Anglican, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic members. They have recruited bishops from the Episcopal Church to pressure the president of the DOK, continuing the whisper campaign to cast a cloud over her leadership.

Proposed bylaws being submitted by a faction called the 'Episcopal Community' is seeking to expel the non-TEC members from the Order of the Daughters of the King.

The draft bylaws now being circulated in anticipation to next month's Triennial include entire sections of the current by-laws rewritten so that those non-TEC members who are in the Order now will be expelled from membership.

The draft reads, 'All members must be women communicants of The Episcopal Church (hereinafter referred to as TEC, formerly known as the Episcopal Church of the United States of America) . At no time shall any non-TEC person have seat or voice or vote or hold office or serve as chaplain in TEC Daughters of the King.'"

Baby Blue's suspicions about the chaplain concerns seem to be borne out.

In addition, the wearing of the Daughters of the King cross will only be granted to so-called 'parallel structures' (separate but equal?) by explicit permission of the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church following a rigorous consent process of the Episcopal-only membership. 'Non-TEC parallel Orders may ... apply to the full National Council of TEC Daughters of the King'"

I am not familiar with their articles of incorporation (if any) but are they changing the name to "TEC Daughters of the King?"

"for a license to use the name, cross, and such other items as may belong to this Order,' reads the Episcopal Community draft Article IV:I. 'The decision of the National Council to grant such license must be ratified by the membership and consented to by the Presiding Bishop of TEC.'"

Is this in keeping with an "Inclusive Church?"

Does this create a new job description for the P.B.?

Is there any chance this will pass?

To me this looks like another power play by the Presiding Bishop. Let us pray that she is not party to this proposed bylaws change, but would the "Episcopal Community" dare to presuppose that the Presiding Bishop would take time from her busy schedule to deign her permission to certain non-Episcopalians to wear the cross? This makes me think that they had discussed this matter with 815 and have the blessing of the P.B. It should be interesting to watch how this story unfolds. Keep us posted, Baby Blue!

I Want You to Hurt Like I Do (Randy Newman)

It was a tough assignment, but I finally tracked down a musical memory that kinda puts the whole Gov. Sanford televised agony thing together with the death of M.J. in one setting.



I know, I have a warped mind, but the highly televised events about our Governor made me feel that he was transferring the pain of the tragedy from himself to either us or his family or both with every revelation.

It is just a coincidence that this song had a part for Michael Jackson. I had forgotten that altogether. I had no idea that M.J. was having problems with drugs. I actually think he was such a private person that he did not want the public to see his pain, so for that reason, I disagree with Randy Newman's verse. But in a weird sort of way, the MSM is making us experience the "King of Pop's" hurt with their ongoing coverage.

Lastly, it is sometimes painful to listen to Randy Newman's singing, and I wanted you to feel my hurt too.

DEFCON 2: GENCON 09

Next week could be a week that will go down in infamy, and I am raising the alert status to DEFCON 2. I am talking about the upcoming triennial convention of the Episcopal Church in Anaheim. Resolutions "debated" and passed by past conventions have frequently been fodder for the national press, and have quite likely been the cause for many to leave our church. I have reviewed many of the resolutions and followed some of the discussion going on over the web. The 2009 convention promises to put the Episcopal Church back in the spotlight once again.

This past Sunday, there was another appearance of a bulletin insert from Episcopal Life Online (A.K.A. Episcopal Pravda). This one surprised a few members of our church when they read for the first time about some of the resolutions up for "debate" which include:

"• Holy Women, Holy Men an overhaul of Lesser Feasts and Fasts, which would add a number of names to the Calendar of the Church Year.

Including the name of self avowed revolutionary socialist Vida Dutton Scudder. Could it be that this soon to be holy woman will also break the sexual orientation barrier in the Episcopal Calendar of "saints?"

• New prayers for: artists and writers; the Virgin Mary; care of God’s creation; on the occasion or anniversary of a disaster; prophetic witness in the church and society; reconciliation and forgiveness; and scientists and environmentalists.

"Prophetic witness" in society leaves the door wide open for any number of controversial issues to show up in your service and cause more conflict in the congo.

• Consideration of requests for authorization to develop rites of blessing for same-gender unions, especially in states that have legalized such unions or marriages.
• Use of gender-neutral language for prayer book marriage services;

That could be the show stopper for many in our church.

• Requests to overturn, nullify or supersede GC06 Resolution B033, which called for restraint in electing or approving the election as bishops of candidates “whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.”

Read: Divorced homosexual men, or anyone else otherwise considered by our forefathers as inappropriate leaders of the Church.

Some have asked me, can anything be done to stop this majical mystery bus tour that we are on? I am afraid that all we in Upper South Carolina can do is pray that our Bishop takes a strong stand against these resolutions.

Elsewhere, a few are speaking up. Fr. Dan wrote this on the HoB/D list serve regarding General Convention 2009's many resolutions. I quote with permission.

"What an unconscionable waste of time
for convention to have to consider these resolutions. Talk about poor
stewardship! Convention's action will have absolutely ZERO impact on any of
these issues, all of which are dealt with more effectively by formal and
informal coalitions of interested parties at the local level. And this is to
say nothing of the fact that the vast majority of deputes and bishops lack
the requisite expertise to even be qualified to have an informed opinion on
most of these questions. In the meantime, the world sees us as the mouse
(more like the gnat) that roared, and we alienate even more of our own
members who are embarrassed by their own church's public positions. I am
reminded why I wore out the No button on my voting device in Columbus and
Minneapolis."

You tell em, Fr. Dan!

In the past, conservatives have put up gallant, if unsuccessful, fights to try to stem the tide of new age thinking. This year may be different. The lower part of SC's Bishop Mark Lawrence wrote to his clergy that he did not intend to engage in a political struggle at GENCON 09. (Read it all at T19)

"Certainly, Kendall as our Canon Theologian will monitor the developments at General Convention 2009, but I believe it is in keeping with our declared vision as a diocese to focus on what we believe God is calling us to do, not on the strategies and battles he called us to engage in yesterday."

In other words, there is no point in arguing with lunatics, even when they are driving the bus backwards over a cliff.


What then should we do? Bishop Lawrence goes on to suggest that we look to the real future of Anglicanism,

"...our 'Inside Strategy' is not to tilt at windmills in Quixotic fashion thinking we can turn back the clock to some prior age; it is to help shape the future that is emerging in global Anglicanism from within the Communion."

He appears to be saying that everyone should step back and let the idiots drive off the cliff if they want to.

I have to ask +Lawrence, does that entail getting off this bus and onto another?

I ask +Henderson that if he cannot bear to cut the ties that bind us to that bus, please stretch that rope as far as you can or at least cut us some slack!