Sweet Talking Our Way Eastward?

In today's sermon we were given a soft spoken appeal to move towards a more Eastern Church view of sin. Most pewsitters were probably convinced by the rector's appeal that the sweet innocent babies we baptize are not necessarily sinners by birth, but when he used John Calvin's name as the cause for the Western Church's current view of sin, I had to question the thesis of the sermon. I knew that Calvin did not invent the concept of original sin, nor did he have anything to do with the separation of the Eastern and Western Churches. In summary, the impression I got was that Calvinism is bad and judgemental, and the Eastern Church is good and loving. I am no expert on the Eastern Church, but I don't think one escapes the concept of our sinful nature by looking eastward. Unfortunately, the sermon did not go into much detail, and by gently bashing Calvinism, many pewsitters would quietly nod and move on.

By avoiding a scholarly discussion of the histories involved, we missed out on so much. We missed the story of Augustine versus Pelagius. We also missed the Council of Carthage to Investigate Pelagianism in 418 and its famous first 8 canons:

Canon 1 “If any man says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he sinned or not he would have died, not as the wages of sin, but through the necessity of nature, let him be anathema.”

Canon 2 “If any man says that new-born children need not be baptized, or that they should indeed be baptized for the remission of sins, but that they have in them no original sin inherited from Adam which must be washed away in the bath of regeneration, so that in their ease the formula of baptism ‘for the remission of sins’ must not be taken literally, but figuratively, let him be anathema; because, according to Romans 5:12, the sin of Adam (in quo omnes peccaverunt) has passed upon all.”

Canon 3.1 “If any man says that in the kingdom of heaven or elsewhere there is a certain middle place, where children who die unbaptized live in bliss (beate vivant), whereas without baptism they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, that is, into eternal life, let him be anathema.” [The authenticity of this canon has been brought into question, though there is some reason to believe that it was part of the original canon listing. In some manuscripts Canon 3.2, listed below, is listed here.]

Canon 3.2 “If any man says that the grace of God, by which man is justified through Jesus Christ, is only effectual for the forgiveness of sins already committed, but is of no avail for avoiding sin in the future, let him be anathema.”

Canon 4 “If any man says that this grace only helps not to sin, in so far that by it we obtain a better insight into the Divine commands, and learn what we should desire and avoid, but does not also give the power gladly to do and to fulfill what we have seen to be good, let him be anathema.”

Canon 5 “If any man says that the grace of justification was given us in order that we might the more easily fulfill that which we are bound to do by the power of free will, so that we could, even without grace, only not so easily, fulfill the Divine commands, let him be anathema.”

Canon 6 “If any man understands the words of the Apostle: ‘If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us,’ to mean that we must acknowledge ourselves to be sinners only out of humility, not because we are really such, let him be anathema.”

Canon 7 “If any man says that the saints pronounce the words of the Lord’s Prayer, ‘forgive us our trespasses,’ not for themselves, because for them this petition is unnecessary, but for others, and that therefore it is, ‘forgive us,’ not ‘me,’ let him be anathema.”

Canon 8 “If any man says that the saints only pronounce these words, ‘forgive us our trespasses,’ out of humility, not in their literal meaning, let him be anathema.”

All that anathema stuff is so Western and judgemental.

In the end, Pelagius somehow sweet talked himself out of trouble and moved on.

Augustine is quoted as saying: “it was not heresy, that was there acquitted, but the man who denied the heresy.”

Some of Pelagius' ideas linger still as they contain a basic appeal. After all, my sweet precious baby can't possibly be a sinful creature, can it?

The Secular-Utopian Kingdom of God

Can we humans create Utopia? Can we bring about the kingdom of God on Earth? If not, what should we be doing with our lives in the meantime? These are the type of questions that keep us simple pewsitters awake at night.

Matthew 24:14

"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."

Time and time again, history tells us that mankind cannot do so, but we keep trying to create heaven on Earth. Why do we persist in pursuing Utopian dreams, and who do we think we are? The other day I was reading excerpts from “Jesus of Nazareth” by Pope Benedict XVI, and I heard echoes of something that I think is buzzing around our pluralistic culture.

“...it is claimed, we must now move toward ‘regnocentrism,’ that is, toward the centrality of the Kingdom. This, ...is also the right formula for finally harnessing mankind’s positive energies and directing them toward the world’s future. ‘Kingdom,’ in this interpretation, is simply the name for a world governed by peace, justice, and the conservation of creation. It means no more than this. This ‘Kingdom’ is said to be the goal of history that has to be attained. This is supposedly the real task of religions: to work together for the coming of the ‘Kingdom.’ They are of course perfectly free to preserve their traditions and live according to their respective identities as well, but they must bring their different identities to bear on the common task of building the ‘Kingdom,’ a world, in other words, where peace, justice and respect for freedom are the dominant values."

Does this sound familiar? I have heard it most often when soft spoken pluralists are trying to keep us pewsitters focused on "good works" as the mission of the church. The implication being that all of our differences will disappear as we work to build God's Kingdom through service. The Pope adds a new spin. I never really thought about secularists using religion to further a political agenda. In order to do so, secularism would have to accept and support religious pluralism (at least for a while). Are Christians to accept and support religious pluralism also in order to hasten the Secular-Utopian Kingdom of God? I don't think it is what the Gospels tell us, and I was curious to see what Pope Benedict XVI had to say in his further comments:

“This sounds good; it seems like a way of finally enabling the whole world to appropriate Jesus’ message, but without missionary evangelization of other religions. … On closer examination, though, it seems suspicious. Who is to say what justice is? What serves justice in particular situations? How do we create peace? On closer inspection, this whole project proves to be utopian dreaming without any real content, except insofar as its exponents tacitly presuppose some partisan doctrine as the content that all are required to accept.

But the main thing that leaps out is that God has disappeared; man is the only actor left on the stage. The respect for religious ‘traditions’ claimed by this way of thinking is only apparent. The truth is that they are regarded as so many sets of customs, which people should be allowed to keep, even though they ultimately count for nothing. Faith and religions are now directed toward political goals. Only the organization of the world counts. Religion matters only insofar as it can serve that objective. This post-Christian vision of faith and religion is disturbingly close to Jesus’ third temptation."

The third temptation is found in Matthew 4:8-10:

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."
Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"

Now I am distracted by a different thought, "Serve Him only," and I am reminded that "Service to mankind" is part of what Christians do, for in so doing we care for Him:
Matthew 25:31-36

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' "

Can't Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, do all those things? Aren't they sheep at the King's right side as well? The pluralistic answer is "Yes." The secular-utopian answer is "Yes." Working together can't the people of the world bring in the Kingdom of God? If so, who needs Jesus, the cross, and who needs the resurrection?

” … Our main criticism of the secular-Utopian idea of the Kingdom has been that it pushes God off the stage. He is no longer needed, or else he is a downright nuisance. But Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of God, not just any kind of Kingdom.” Pope Benedict XVI (pp. 53-55)

Not only does the secular-Utopian idea of the Kingdom push God off the stage, it introduces a new concept, "The Kingdom of Man." Religions will be used to help bring about this Kingdom of Man, but don't ignore the fact that they can be discarded once Utopia is achieved.

Most of us understand that the Kingdom of Man is a failed proposition. Still, humans fall for the temptation of Utopia every time it is presented. The most recent version of the temptation is the Secular-Utopian one. The radically secular state and the false notion of it being the "all caring state" when combined with the gullibility of an all dependant people leads to this new Secular-Utopianism. We don't need God to save us when the State will. This vision sounds lovely and has a wonderful, loving, peaceful religious pluralism, but it is a vision that ultimately abandons God. Looked at this way, I am going to side with the Pope and conclude that a Christian response to secular-utopianism needs to be voiced.

I am going to keep it simple by returning to my first question, "Can man bring in the Kingdom of God?"

I have to respond, "No, but we have been some down to earth tasks in the meantime, and a stern warning."

"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matthew 25:45-46)

Another Curious Lectionary Edit

At ECOOS this Sunday, we celebrated the Epiphany a few days early, and as a result we used the lectionary readings for January 6. Psalm 72 verses 1-7, 9-14 was assigned and for the life of me I cannot understand why verses 8-9 were left out. Maybe someone out there in the blogiverse can help.

Psalm 72 verses 1-7,9-14

1 Give the king your justice, O God,
and your righteousness to a king’s son.
2 May he judge your people with righteousness,
and your poor with justice.
3 May the mountains yield prosperity for the people,
and the hills, in righteousness.
4 May he defend the cause of the poor of the people,
give deliverance to the needy,
and crush the oppressor.


5 May he live while the sun endures,
and as long as the moon, throughout all generations.
6 May he be like rain that falls on the mown grass,
like showers that water the earth.
7 In his days may righteousness flourish
and peace abound, until the moon is no more.


10 May the kings of Tarshish and of the isles
render him tribute,
may the kings of Sheba and Seba
bring gifts.
11 May all kings fall down before him,
all nations give him service.


12 For he delivers the needy when they call,
the poor and those who have no helper.
13 He has pity on the weak and the needy,
and saves the lives of the needy.
14 From oppression and violence he redeems their life;
and precious is their blood in his sight.

Fair enough. A lot of stuff in there about a just king who loves the little guy and saves them from oppression. Nothing offensive there except maybe that part about "crushing" the oppressor. So what got left out?

Psalm 72 verses 8,9

8 May he have dominion from sea to sea,
and from the River to the ends of the earth.
9 May his foes bow down before him,
and his enemies lick the dust.

Is it that sea to sea dominion thing? It must be too imperialistic sounding for Sunday morning. Maybe the lectionary editors recalled the bad rap given to the notion of "manifest destiny?"

Maybe it was the "lick the dust" prayer that had to be editted. I believe that is a reference to the king killing his enemies in battle. Other synonyms within context found at Webster's Online include:

split upon a rock,
break one's back,
have the ground cut from under one,
come to grief,
go to the dogs,
go to pot,
bite the dust,
be defeated,
have the worst of it,
lose the day,
come off second best,
lose,
succumb,
not have a leg to stand on,

and my personal favorite:

fall between two stools.

How does this sound?

May his foes bow down before him,
and his enemies fall between two stools.

Sounds like something that happened to a friend of mine at Pat O's one night.



Anybody out there have any better ideas? I got the worst of this one, and I don't have a leg to stand on after I fell between these two verses.

Top Stories of 2009

I should have been keeping track of these and storing them in a folder for a year end recap. I guess that my New Year's resolution for 2010 will be to be more organized. This year, I will have to work from memory.

1. Episcopal General Convention 2009 resolves to continue on the path of GLBT ordinations and to develop litugies for same sex blessings. Archbishop of Canterbury a little bit peeved.

2. The Anglican Covenant is sent to the churches.

3. June 2009, the Anglican Church in North America is formed an elects the first archbishop of what may become the newest province in the Anglican Communion.

4. ELCA follows TEC lead and chooses the path of full inclusivity.

5. Zen Buddhist lay "priest" election as Episcopal bishop nixed.

6. $3,000,000+ set aside in TEC's budget for litigation another indicator of failed leadership.

7. South Carolina Supreme Court rules in favor of congregation leaving TEC.

8. Staggering Losses of Membership Reported for TEC since 2003.

9. Diocese of South Carolina creates space.

10. Non celibate lesbian priest elected bishop suffragan in L.A., Archbishop of Canterbury given a wedgie.

After a Defeat, What's Next?

I used this painting earlier in a post back on Dec 12, 2009 titled "It is Lost."


The Court Jester Stanczyk Receives News of the Loss of Smolensk (1514)

As I watch the slow decline and fall of the Episcopal church (in particular the Diocese of Western NY as evidenced at SF in this post by Sarah Hey), I have to pause and take a historical perspective and remember that failures, like victories, are transitory. I think of the fall of Rome and the ups and downs of that city over the centuries following the Goths, and the Visigoths etc. Did the jester Stanczyk seen in the painting above ever recover from the loss of Smolensk, and how about the people of Smolensk? Since 800 AD Smolensk has seen paganism, Christianity, Soviet style Atheism, and now a return to Christendom. After a defeat, we only see the desolation. Our tears blind us. Being short lived, self absorbed, and blind to the future, we cannot fully appreciate God's plan for us. The following poem came through my reading stack the other day, and images of the jester Stanczyk flashed through my mind.

"Not all who seem to fail, have failed indeed;
Not all who fail have therefore worked in vain:
For all our acts to many issues lead;
And out of earnest purpose, pure and plain,
Enforced by honest toil of hand or brain,
The Lord will fashion, in His own good time,
(Be this labourer's proudly-humble creed,)
Such ends as, to His wisdom, fitliest chime
With His vast love's eternal harmonies.
There is no failure for the good and wise:
What though thy seed should fall by the wayside
And the birds snatch it;-yet the birds are fed;
Or they may bear it far across the tide,
To give rich harvests after thou art dead."

The above poem is from "Politics For the People," 1848 which was a short lived publication that failed after a few years. The poem was quoted in "Character", by Samuel Smiles (1905).

Whatever became of the writer of the poem, and how did the failed "Politics For the People" drift its way into my blog 161 years later? I thought that there might be a trail of failures to follow, so off on the web I went.

In "The Making of Mr. Gray's Anatomy," Ruth Richardson says that the first two lines of the poem were attributed on the Internet in 2008 to Archbishop Trench. (p. 280 footnote #25).

From my searches, it is clear that the Archbishop did write a fair amount of poetry back in the mid 1800's, and judging from his style, I agree that he might have written the poem for "Politics For the People" whose contributors happened to include several future "Christian Socialists."

Smelling a defeated principle, I wasted some time on the Internet reading about Christian Socialism, and found some good material at Britannica.com, I have come to the conclusion that since many of the social and economic conditions that stimulated its conceptualizations when the term was coined back in 1849 no longer exist, those Christian Socialists of that time would be very puzzled by the current issues of 2009. In fact, I am not sure anyone today really knows what Christian Socialism means now or how it is supposed to work. What is clear is that 160 years later, the idea seems to have been a failure, but there are still some die-hards left (as further sniffing around on the web can easily demonstrate).

Looking for a Christian Socialist blogger, I found the inevitable Episcopalian connection (there always is one, if an issue is controversial enough). The Rev. Dennis Wienk, Rector of St. Thomas' Church, Bath NY, has a modern outline of Christian Socialism where he writes:

"I. Christian Socialism

Its fixed principle:

The community shall ultimately own the means of production (that is, the land and capital) collectively and use them co-operatively for the good of all."

I thought that had been tried and had failed (anyone remember late U.S.S.R.?). Oh well, some guys just won't admit defeat.

Looking around the web we find the Rev. Dennis Wienk's connections include "Integrity" a radical pro gay group of Episcopalians. As a contributor to volume 11, #2 the summer/fall edition of "Voice of Integrity" (see page 8) his place on "the issue" seems clear. Maybe he has finally latched himself onto a winner.

Currently, Integrity believes it has triumphed in the sexuality battles in the Episcopal church. History has yet to weigh in with a judgment. I suspect that the Rev. Wienk has made another poor choice of bedfellows.

I was hoping to be able to ignore Christian Socialism because history has judged that it has not accomplished its goals after 160 years of talk. Unfortunately the United States Congress and the Executive branch is picking up where Christian Socialism failed by pushing through a secular socialist agenda, and doing it in substantially less time than 160 years.

Perhaps the current "Health Insurance Reform" legislation only seems to be an "all is lost" moment for some while appearing to be a great accomplishment to others. Perhaps it will be only a minor footnote for future historians when writing of the rise and fall of capitalism. How long before socialism American style sees its defeat at Smolensk?

I dread the boasting when the President signs the health-care package.

But when I see the pictures, I will imagine the caption reading, "Sic transit Gloria mundi."

Blind to the future, we stumble forward, groping, trying to determine what's next.

We should not fear the defeats of the present. Peering through the tears, we should rest assured that there will be a resurrection, and a new Kingdom awaits. What this Kingdom will look like we may not live to see, but if we believe it when we pray, "Thy Kingdom come," then it will be something far greater than we can even imagine.

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?

12 Yats of Christmas

Irreverent: Warning the following video will be incomprehensible to most, and should not be taken as an insult to your intelligence or lack of humor.



I am still laughing about that Dix pack of Sixtie.