Spreading American Values

After the horrible murder of the U.S. Ambassador to Lybia, everyone was quick to blame his death on a low budget, lousy bit of anti-Islamic propaganda produced in the U.S. The initial reports we heard on the MSM led most of us to believe that the attack on the U.S. embassy in Lybia was the result of a spontaneous mob outraged over internet clips of the movie.

This led the maker of the movie to be "brought in for questioning."

Now we are hearing reports that this was a premeditated attack which would explain the fact that the attack occurred on the anniversary of 9/11.

But why Lybia, and why this particular Ambassador?

The HillBuzz's Kevin DuJan is a "Gay conservative political analyst, essayist, author and radio and TV commentator on politics, pop culture, LGBTQ issues, and current events," and his shocking report (warning graphic content) alleges that the U.S. Ambassador to Lybia was homosexual, and that his body was ritually sodomized by his attackers.

If true, then this becomes more than just a story of a mob incited by our freedom of speech. It becomes a story about the perception that America is trying to spread, not only its liberty to insult others, but its sexual immorality to an unwilling world.

Stopping the spread of American liberal sexuality is quite possibly one goal of radical Islam.

Throw in a dash of mockery of Muhammed, and a pre-planned attack would quickly get the green light to go.

If the story is true, then Our State Department should be considered in part to blame for the terrible sequence of events in Lybia. What kind of outfit would permit someone with a bull's eye on his chest to walk into a shooting gallery? Maybe somebody there needs to be brought in for questioning.

If the story is true, then why has it been buried?

Because nobody here wants to talk about this "American value" and its insulting effect on the Islamic world at this particular time.

No we would rather talk about a lousy movie.

They Should Be Flocking To the Episcopal church.. right?

In the course of today's sermon, our preacher noted that one of the reasons that the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church are doing well is that they have a consistant liturgy of worship, and the features that she identified as things that attract worshippers were things that the Episcopal church also does well. I think she used the term "Deep Church" at some point to describe what people need.

She left a big gaping hole to explore, but she didn't illuminate the depths very well.

If the Episcopal church is doing worship right, it should be doing well in terms of attracting worshippers... right?

Nope. The Episcopal church lost approximately 50,000 members each year from 2006-2010 and lost approxmately 25,000 Sunday worshippers yearly over the same time period.

Most regular Sunday worshippers in your typical Epsicopal congregation are clueless as to the facts of the decline and its underlying causes. What they see on Sundays is a thin veneer of priestly vestments and a liturgy that appears reasonably mainstream (although I would argue with some of the theology behind the 1979 BCP). What they hear on Sundays from the mouths of their pastors is another matter altogether. Let's face it, revisionist preaching is a sure fire way to kill faith in Jesus through the promotion of doubt or through the subtle presentation of heterodoxy or even heresy.

What congregants hear if they attempt to engage their revisionist clergy in small group or in private conversation can be worse than the Sunday preaching.

If people are looking for form without depth of substance, the Episcopal church is ideally situated to stroke their skins.

Judging from the numbers, people do want to have a deeper relationship with God, and that kind of thing can only be facilitated by a Church that stands firm in its conviction of the truth of the Gospel.

Does your church stand firm?  

Getting the Cross Out

I spent yesterday thinking about the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks, and how the world really hasn't changed much in that there are still, and always will be, bad guys (and gals) out there causing death and mayhem, striving for dominance and tyranny, and generally looking for ways to make other people miserable. I had every intention of simply posting Psalm 53 today as a reflection.

The fool hath said in his heart,
There is no God. 

Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity:
there is none that doeth good. 

God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. 

Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy;
there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 

Have the workers of iniquity no knowledge?
who eat up my people as they eat bread: they have not called upon God. 

There were they in great fear, where no fear was:
for God hath scattered the bones of him that encampeth against thee:
thou hast put them to shame, because God hath despised them. 

Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion!
When God bringeth back the captivity of his people,
Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad. Psalm 53 (KJV)

I wasn't wanting to single anyone out for special treatment on this the day after 9/11/2012, but then along came the story of the American Atheists (h/t StandFirm in Faith) and the American Atheists' attempts to keep the "9/11 Cross" out of the National September 11 Memorial and Museum. After reading that story, the words of the psalmist cried out for publishing to bring the Psalm into the current context in light of the actions of these particular fools.

These American Atheist folks won't stop until every cross or cross like image everywhere is removed. When that happens, somebody will have to remove a lot of old style doors from all those government owned buildings. You know, the type that has this pattern outlined in decorative trim on their upper halves,

                  (I simply looked up from my desk and took that picture of the door that stares at me everyday)

and replaces them with this,

The dreaded luan door!

If I have a choice as to which door to knock on, or which doorway to enter, it certainly won't be the unadorned luan door.

You do have a choice. You can choose the way of the Cross of Jesus, or the American Atheist doorway to no-where.

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Matthew 7:13 (KJV)

Addendum: In light of this morning's news of the murder of the US ambassador to Lybia by fools enraged by an awful film about Mohammed, I am left shaking my head that there are other false doorways binding men's hearts for the Cross to conquer.
I am waiting to see if the American Atheists are willing to take on the Muhammedeans.

Was Jesus a Prejudiced Bigot? A Lesson to be Un-learned

I can't believe we are visiting this issue again. Today's reading from Mark 7:24-37 included the story of the Syrophoenecian woman.

From there he set out and went away to the region of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know he was there. Yet he could not escape notice, but a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately heard about him, and she came and bowed down at his feet. Now the woman was a Gentile, of Syrophoenician origin. She begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. He said to her, ‘Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.’ But she answered him, ‘Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.’ Then he said to her, ‘For saying that, you may go—the demon has left your daughter.’ So she went home, found the child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.

The last time we heard a sermon based on this text, we were erroneously told by our priest that the woman opened Jesus' eyes. The full content of my blog post and the comments are well worth reading again since today we were told by our new priest that there were several ways of looking at this story, and the one she chose to expound on was, by her admission, the most dangerous interpretation. Never once did she explain what the danger was, but from the amount of time given to it, I got the impression that the dangerous = radical, and that was what she thought would be most beneficial for us pewsitters to learn.

So what might this dangerous interpretation be? Yep, it is the same old argument that Jesus' human half (don't go there!) needed to be taught a lesson by the Syrophoenecian woman (with the addition of negative terminology that He was pejudiced and bigoted).

Oh yeah, shock language about Jesus will get their attention.

At any rate, I call the un-named danger Arianism, and it pops up every time you make Jesus into a prejudiced, bigoted rabbi.

They must teach this stuff in Episcopal seminaries.

It is wrong teaching, and it should not be pushed into the collective consciousness on Sunday mornings.

Jesus and Tolerance

This weekend we debated (I lost) watching "Intolerance" the silent film from 1916. I will watch it by myself later this week, but as I recall from my days studying the history of movies, my issue with the film is that I was left wondering that the problem of intolerance cannot be solved by mankind becoming uncritically tolerant. This morning I was chatting it up with someone who felt that Christians are considered amongst the most intolerant of people. I disagreed to the point of intolerance, and pointed out the Lord's intolerance of Sin, and maybe our problem is that we do not communicate the message as well as He would like us to.

Posted over at To All theWorld this radio sermon was from 1959 and given by Billy Graham in which he takes on the following points:

1) The Way Is Narrow.
2) Jesus was narrow about the way of salvation.
3) Our Lord's Intolerance.
4) Playing Both Sides.
5) Jesus was intolerant toward hypocrisy.
6) Jesus was intolerant toward selfishness.
7) Jesus was intolerant toward sin.

This is from the first point,

"If you should ask a man the direction to New York City and he said, 'Oh, just take any road you wish, they all lead there,' you would question either his sanity or his truthfulness. Somehow, we have gotten it into our minds that "all roads lead to heaven. You hear people say, 'Do your best,' 'Be honest,' and 'Be sincere—and you will make it to heaven all right.'
But Jesus Christ, who journeyed from heaven to earth and back to heaven again—who knew the way better than any man who ever lived—said, 'Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it'" (Matt. 7:13,14).

And this is from the last point,

"He was tolerant toward the sinner but intolerant toward the evil which enslaved him. To the adulteress he said, 'Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more' (John 8:11). He forgave her because he loved her; but he condemned sin because he loathed it with a holy hatred.
God has always been intolerant of sin! His Word says: 'Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil' (Isa. 1:16).
'Awake to righteousness, and sin not' (1 Cor. 15:34). 'Let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts …' (Isa. 55:7).
Christ was so intolerant of sin that he died on the cross to free men from its power."

What Billy Graham was seeing as the new "tolerance" might have been something that contributed to the changes of the 1960's, 70's, and 80's.  

Never mind me, I'm just another intolerant $@&.

Read it all at Robert S.Munday's blog, To All theWorld.

Another Mark Against the Shellfish Argument Gets Left Out of the Sunday Lectionary Reading

Some readers may not have heard the shellfish argument as currently used to support same-sex blessings/marriage, but it basically goes like this, “If you oppose same sex marriage because the Bible says it’s a sin, how come I see you eating that shrimp po-boy?”  One of the primary sources for counter arguments against this reasoning was seen in this past week's daily readings from the Book of Acts. This week, Acts 10 rolled by, and we heard about Peter's vision of the unclean foods coming down on a sheet and God commanding Peter three times to "kill and eat" (Peter might have not gotten it the first two times).

Another primary source for counter arguments is found in Mark 7:19 which fell victim to the lectionary editor's scalpel (one of my pet peeves) in this Sunday's readings. Today's readings actually contained two deleted sections from Mark 7 and both will be highlighted in bold type below along with a link to the shortened version that was read to Sunday congregations across the country.

Now when the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him, 2 they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with defiled hands, that is, without washing them. 3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders; 4 and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it; and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing of cups, pots, and bronze kettles.) 5 So the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, ‘Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?’ 6 He said to them, ‘Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written,
“This people honours me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
7 in vain do they worship me,
teaching human precepts as doctrines.”
8 You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.’

9 Then he said to them, ‘You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition! 10 For Moses said, “Honour your father and your mother”; and, “Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.” 11 But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, “Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban” (that is, an offering to God)— 12 then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this.’

14 Then he called the crowd again and said to them, ‘Listen to me, all of you, and understand: 15 there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile.’

16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear (curiously v. 16 is left out of the on-line NRSV). 17 When he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 He said to them, ‘Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, 19 since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?’ (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 

20 And he said, ‘It is what comes out of a person that defiles. 21 For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, 22 adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.’(link to shortened version, Mark 7:1-8,14-15,21-23)

Jesus in Mark 7 seems to be referring to pre-ingestion hygiene regulations here rather than shrimp po-boys or oyster loaves, but Mark did pen "Thus he declared all foods clean," and that is what is interpreted by many to be a foretaste of Peter's vision in Acts 10. Even so, Peter in Acts 10:28 may have been thinking of his recent vision of unclean foods when he says, "but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean" as he sortied out to convert the Gentiles.

Does this mean that the moral code that forbade same-sex intercourse has been superseded?

No, because Jesus makes the point in verses 21-23 that persons are still defiled by violations of those ancient commandments.

Let's face it, the life changing ministry of Jesus and his Gospel is meant for everyone. The sick cannot be healed unless you are willing to get your hands dirty.

It is interesting that Mark 7:19 will not be heard by the Sunday crowd. Nor will they be treated to Jesus' more graphic description of exactly what he means by "things that come out."

So those that buy into the shellfish argument can sleep snug in their pews today and walk away from church unchallenged by the difficult language the Word sometimes throws at us. 

The Thirty Third of August Finally Touched Down

I've been waiting for this day to fall on a Sunday for a long time now. This song has been in my head for decades ever since, like the singer, I put those angry feelings under lock and chain...

"Well, today there's no salvation,
The band's packed up and gone.
Left me standin' with my penny in my hand.
There's a big crowd at the station,
Where a blind man sings his songs.
He can see what I can't understand.

It's the thirty-third of August,
And I am finally touchin' down.
Eight days from Sunday, Lord.
Saturday bound.
Eight days from Sunday, Lord.
And I'm Saturday bound.

Once I stumbled through the darkness,
Tumbled to my knees,
A thousand voices screamin' through my brain.
Woke up in a squad car, busted down for vagrancy.
And outside my cell it sure as hell,
It looks like rain.

It's the thirty-third of August,
And I am finally touchin' down.
Eight days of Sunday,
Saturday bound.

Now I've put my angry feelings,
Under lock and chain.
Hide my violent nature with a smile.
Though the demons dance and sing their songs,
Within my fevered brain,
Not all my God-like thoughts, Lord, are defiled.

And it's the thirty-third of August,
I am finally touching down.
Eight days from Sunday,
Saturday bound.

Eight days from Sunday, Lord.
And I'm Saturday bound." Mickey Newberry 1969 Looks Like Rain (Amazon)