Testimony

Lectio Divina

A helpful introduction to Lectio Divina by Father Matthew:



HT: Episcopal Cafe

The culture war of our time

DOK writes back

Here is a letter that Grace Sears, Secretary of the Order of the Daughters of the King, sent to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. It was posted on the HoB/D list by National Chaplain Bishop John Howe of Central Florida. I shared this on the Cafe with his permission.

June 18, 2009

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Episcopal Church Center
815 Second Avenue
New York, NY 10017

Dear Bishop Jefferts Schori:

Thank you for your thoughtful response to a letter from Ruth Annette Mills, of the Diocese of Nevada—a distinguished lady who has been a Daughter fifty years. She deserves respect and attention from all her sisters.

Although I have not seen Ruth’s letter, your response indicates that she believes the Order of the Daughters of the King is proposing amendments that will cut its ties with the Episcopal Church. I am grieved that she has been misled by this idea. It is simply false, fueled by rumors and fears. Let me explain.

The Daughters have twice rejected a proposal to become ecumenical by allowing chapters in any denomination that practices Christian baptism. The first time, in 1997, the proposal was put forward by a committee that included two future presidents, Sue Schlanbusch and the late Joan Millard. After extensive debate, the proposal was decisively rejected. It was again put forward six years later, and tabled, with a request for a survey on the subject. The survey results were collected by the present chair of the bylaws committee, Lena Nealley. We know from reading the results that Daughters rejected the ecumenical option, and the committee has avoided that path. Instead the amendments seek to clarify the status of women who are already members under our present bylaws, and would still be members if none of the proposed amendments were adopted.

My shorthand description of the Order is that we are “Episcopal Plus”—that is, “distinctively Episcopal,” as the early handbooks phrase it, while continually planting chapters in sister Churches. The membership statistics reported at our last Council meeting listed the overwhelming number of members as Episcopalians: 25,145 of an estimated total 28,462. The next largest number is for overseas members, approximately 2500 Daughters in 15 countries. Their membership is not novel—the Order began founding chapters in Anglican churches overseas in the 19th century. When such chapters multiply in any particular country, they develop their own governing structure and leadership, and US Daughters continue to encourage them as much as we are able.

The recent fears and controversy revolve around the relatively small numbers of Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran chapters in the US: the October report listed 720, 97, and 18 members respectively, totaling less than 3% of the entire membership. As you may know, our present bylaws give chapters in Churches in the historic episcopate (other than those in the Episcopal church) the option of forming a national governing structure parallel to the Episcopal structure, just as overseas chapters organize when they have reached critical mass within their country. Although our bylaws have allowed Roman Catholic members since the mid-eighties, the expected growth in their numbers has not occurred, and they clearly are not able to organize as a national entity. A couple years ago the elected DOK leadership asked Anglican Daughters in the US to explore forming a national governing structure of their own, since it looked as if they might soon reach a number that would make that possible. They did explore that possibility and have rejected it in favor of forming a completely new Order with a different name for Anglican Daughters. A majority of our Anglican members will probably leave the Order in the coming year to join a new Order for Anglican women, unaffiliated with the Daughters of the King.

In short, far from receiving a flood of new members who might change the character of the Order, as some appear to think, we expect to say a sad goodbye to long-time members whose congregations have left the Episcopal Church. At the same time most of us want to assure the Roman Catholic Daughters and any Anglican or Lutheran Daughters that remain that although they are a minority we recognize them as valued members of the Order.

The Daughters of the King are praying for the upcoming General Convention, for you personally, and for all the delegates and bishops who will participate. Daughters in the Diocese of Iowa have prepared a seven-day cycle of prayers for us to use during the three weeks of Triennial and Convention. In the latest Royal Cross both our president, Joan Dalrymple, and the Triennial Chair, Phyllis Easley, urge members to participate in the Prayer Vigil. These are not the actions of a sinister cabal intent on cutting the Order’s ties with the Episcopal Church. We may be perplexed at times, but the Daughters still seek first of all to serve our King and Saviour, Jesus Christ, and work out our vows to pray and serve within our local congregations. For most of us in the United States, that means a local Episcopal congregation and diocese. Please believe that severing our multiple connections with the Episcopal Church is not an option the Daughters will consider in Anaheim.

Again, thank you for your attention and your prayers.

For His Sake,

Grace Sears, Secretary
The Order of the Daughters of the King

I still have questions, but I want to dig into the proposed by-laws a little bit more because some of the proposed changes such as changing the process for appointment of the National Chaplain and the removal of the name of the Episcopal Church at various points seem curious to me in light of the letter above.

This letter says that when the Anglican Church in North America formally becomes a new denomination next week, that the chapters in those churches will form their own new group rather than stay in the Order.

Ms. Sears letter helps, but I think that the issues behind it are still very much alive.

Inquisition or highjacking?

I wrote this piece yesterday for the Episcopal Cafe. Please read it first before you go on.

A former Episcopalian blogger and a Conservative blog have jumped on this, and are claiming that I (and KJS and the Episcopal Church) want to throw the DOK chapters that belong to parishes that left the Episcopal Church out of the Order. They claim we want to light up the fires (you know what these are called) and hold an inquisition.

Isn't it interesting how when the accountability table is turned their way, it is suddenly an inquisition? Well that depends on where you sit.

It appears that over the past few years, some schismatic Episcoplains and faux-Anglicans have been using an organization of dedicated and prayerful Christian women to drive a wedge into the Episcopal Church at the local level through the Daughters of the King. Some very smart DOK members caught on to this, and have been working on their own to keep the order within the Episcopal Church. They also want to protect the Daughters of the King from becoming nothing more than a religious civic club. Most of all, they want to keep all the strife and division of the Episcopal Wars out of the Daughters of the King. So they have been lobbying their leadership to stop using a by-law originially meant to create "fairness" for Roman Catholic and Lutheran DOK chapters into a tool to take the Order out of the Episcopal Church.

When I asked my own DOK leadership, they said "Oh, them! They are just troublemakers and I hope they just fade away." I presented them with their material, and then I was told that they knew nothing about this. You see, the DOK national council has stonewalled the Episcopal group and threatened their members with lawyers and will not allow public debate over an open parliamentary change.

Locally, I hear pride at the inclusion of Catholic and Lutheran chapters in the Daughters of the King. Episcopalians love to be inclusive and we love to be fair-minded. I appreciate the pastoral sensitivity towards those women who belong to chapters in other traditions and especially to those women whose chapters are now connected to churches that have left the Episcopal Church.

My suspicions are raised, however, when an organization want to make a major change within a parliamentary process and will not allow for public debate.

Certainly, the fullness of the debate has not been shared with the parish priests who support the chapters in their own congregations. My bet is that they hope that if the local group is not scaring the horses, who cares what happens in their national assemblies? This is just wrong.

Once again, the very attributes that make Episcopalians a profound Gospel witness are being used against Episcopalians, this time to divide and conquer the Daughters of the King so that those who have left the Episcopal Church in anger can carry it away as their own prize.

The Episcopal group offered an alternative as a way to offer full membership in the Order in the context of the denominational affiliations of the several non-Episcopal chapters. Apparently, this proposal failed. Read about that here. I am sure that there other creative solutions that can be found.

My concerns are not about institutional purity. It is not about being "throwing people out" or having an "inquisition", it about the integrity of an organization that reaches into many local parishes in most dioceses in every province of the Episcopal Church.

As a parish priest, I do not want the growing and thriving chapter of the Daughters of the King in my own parish to become an occasion for sin and division. There has to be a better way forward.

I urge the National leadership to uncircle the wagons, open up the debate and allow for creative solutions to the serious challenges of a great organization spread among several denominations. They can do this without changing the essential, Episcopal character of the Daughters of the King.

Besides, with open debate, maybe we can be convinced that this is in fact a true discernment to change the nature and character of the order. Maybe we can pray together out in the open and not depend on people in central offices planning legislative outcomes. You know, there would not have been a need for an "Episcopal Community of the Daughters of the King," if the process were open and fair to begin with.

This ought to be a process of discernment includes every local chapter, their sponsoring parishes, their rectors and their Bishops. This is ought to be a full, open and prayerful process. This ought to be about listening and not maneuvering.

This is not an inquisition. It ought to be discernment. It feels like a hijacking.

DioBeth Standing Committee: Why we chose not to consent

I currently serve as a member of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Bethlehem and we voted last week to withhold consent for the election of the Rev. Kevin Thew-Forester as bishop of Nothern Michigan. According the Bible Belt Blogger our vote was the one that put the number of no-voting-Standing Committees beyond the reach of confirmation unless some previous no-voting committees change their votes. At the time of our vote, we did not know the actual count and this did not enter into our conversation. The last time our Standing Committee withheld consent was in December, 2006. I was not on the committee then, but as with that vote, the Committee wanted to explain the decision to the whole diocese. Here is the text of that statement.

At the June 4th meeting of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Bethlehem, the Committee unanimously voted not to consent to the election of the Rev. Kevin Thew-Forrester as Bishop of the Diocese of Northern Michigan. As with our decision in December 2006 not to consent to the election of a bishop, we believe it is important to explain our decision to the diocese.

The Diocese of Northern Michigan elected the Rev. Kevin-Thew Forrester, Rector/Ministry Developer of St. Paul's Church in Marquette and St. John's Church in Negaunee, on February 21, 2009. He was the sole candidate on the ballot at the electing convention. He was to succeed the late Bishop Jim Kelsey, who was killed in a car wreck in June, 2007.

Our decision not to consent was not made lightly. We first met to discuss the question in April. We decided to table the issue until our June meeting so all the members could thoroughly read, think and pray over the issue before making a final vote.

Our final vote was a solemn and sad moment, but one that we believe is correct for our Church. Initially the main concern expressed by members was about the process of Thew-Forrester’s election. But in the end, the decision came down to the bishop-elect espousing a theology that does not uphold the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church.

The well-publicized question of Thew-Forrester’s personal meditation practice was not an issue for us, although we are cognizant that the initial flap over this was the catalyst to further analyze the candidate’s beliefs and teachings. The issues that caused the most concern for our members fell into two categories: the selection process and the ability of the candidate to uphold and articulate the Christian faith.

For some members of the Standing Committee, the process of selection was an issue because the diocese was asked to accept only one candidate. Furthermore, some found troubling the underlying assumptions of how the diocese plans to structure itself after their next bishop is chosen. The Diocese of Northern Michigan has chosen to recast the role of the Bishop into a Bishop/Mission Developer who would work alongside a committee called the Episcopal Support Team. The Episcopal Support Team would carry out many of the functions usually reserved by custom and canon to the Bishop, while the Bishop would carry out those duties specifically reserved to the Bishop (such as liturgical functions and the attendance at meetings) and was to work with the Episcopal Support Team in developing, articulating and carrying out the vision of the diocese. This is an attempt to apply on a diocesan level a model of ministry which the diocese has used in their parishes for twenty years.

The team tasked with the search for the bishop recommended to the diocesan convention this model with the stipulation that one and only one candidate would be presented to the diocese. The Episcopal Ministry Discernment Team said to the diocese:

“Our intention is to present one name based on prayerful consideration that is the very best fit for the ministry in this unique diocese. It is our hope that because of the careful, prayerful discernment of the team, one person will become the obvious choice. This one person will be presented to the diocese as the team’s best recommendation.”

In addition, while names were solicited from the diocese and the whole church, the group decided not to look outside the borders of the diocese for their next bishop. The insider-nature of the process was highlighted for us by the presence of the candidate as a consultant-facilitator in some of the early meetings of the nominating committee.

Traditional conventions and Episcopal elections are not perfect, but we note that the conventions in San Joaquin, Quincy, Pittsburgh and Fort Worth that voted for the illegal removal of their dioceses from the Episcopal Church were also led by closed groups who in closed groups discerned what was best and convinced their conventions to ratify their decisions. We hope that in going back to find a new candidate, the search process in Northern Michigan will be more open to the wisdom of the whole church.

The issue that posed the largest concern for the most of us was the ability of the candidate to articulate the Christian faith and to uphold the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church. It is clear to us Thew-Forrester is a deeply spiritual man who is passionate and articulate about his approach to faith. However, it is apparent from his writing, preaching and the liturgies he has written that he has difficulty with the most basic teachings of the Christian faith about the person and work of Jesus Christ, the nature of the Trinity, the nature of sin and the atonement.

His teaching is illustrated in his own adaptation of the Baptismal liturgy found in the document called “Baptism: Season after Pentecost” used at his parish, St. Paul’s in Marquette, MI, part of which reads:

Presider: Do you seek to awaken to the eternal presence of God, who is your very heart and soul?
Parents and Godparents: I do.
Presider: God forever invites you to let go of self deceit to dwell in the house of honesty, where eternal Hope reigns. Will you accept this invitation?
Parents and Godparents: I will, with God’s help.
Presider: God forever invites you to let go of all fear to dwell in the house of courage, where eternal Faith reigns. Will you accept this invitation?
Parents and Godparents: I will, with God’s help.
Presider: God forever invites you to let go of all anger to dwell in the house of serenity, where Love reigns. Will you accept this invitation?
Parents and Godparents: I will, with God’s help.
Presider: Do you turn to Jesus Christ and accept him as the way of Life and Hope?
Parents and Godparents: I do.
Presider: Do you put your whole trust in Christ’s grace and love?
Parents and Godparents: I do.
Presider: Do you promise to follow Christ as the way of life?
Parents and Godparents: I do.

This revision is problematic from the start as it is not up to an individual to radically change the core sacramental rites as laid out in the Book of Common Prayer. We have a process for liturgical revision in our church. Furthermore this revision removes both a basic understanding of sin at the heart of the human condition, and the need for the baptized to renounce anything. He assumes that the person being baptized already has within her or himself the capacity to live faithfully if only they will follow an enlightened, and general, “way of life and hope.”

Thew-Forester frequently uses the phrase “at-one-ment” to describe what he understands as the significance of the incarnation: that in Jesus, we find that we are already at one with God and we only need to follow his way to know God. By reducing the life of Christ to a matter of simple awareness, he minimizes the reality of evil while at the same time suggesting that enlightenment does not require choice, change or challenge.

His teaching about the Trinity is troubling as he does not speak of the person of God the Father, the person of Jesus Christ, and the person of the Holy Spirit, but instead uses a kind of Trinitarian language that implies all religions are essentially the same (here and here):

"That’s what I’m driving at this morning. We make the Trinity much too complex. The Trinitarian structure of life is this: is that everything that is comes from the source. And you can name the source what you want to name the source. And our response to that is with hearts of gratitude and thanksgiving, to return everything back to that source, and there’s a spirit who enables that return. Everything comes from God. We give it back to God. And the spirit gives us the heart of gratitude. That is the Trinitarian nature of life. And you can be a Buddhist, you can be a Muslim, you can be a Jew, and that makes sense."

On April 26, 2009, the Diocese of Northern Michigan released a paper written by Thew-Forrester which was an attempt to answer the concerns that were already voiced about his teaching, preaching and liturgical theologizing. In many ways, this paper was useful but perhaps not in the way that the writer intended because it showed many of us that some of our concerns were in fact well founded. In particular, he elevates the incarnation, transfiguration and resurrection while ignoring the witness of the Gospel and epistles and reduces the cross to nothing more than excessive medieval piety. To make his case he uses orthodox and early church writings in ways that would probably be unrecognizable to the writers.6

We are a diocese that respects and encourages diversity. Within our diocese we find views that span the whole range of conservative to liberal on a host of issues. We understand that our life together is bound up in Christ and also that our faith has content that both teaches and challenges us.

While there is plenty of room within our membership for ambiguity and a variety of opinions and practices, a Bishop of our church is after all a bishop of the Episcopal Church. Like every other deacon and priest, Thew-Forester’s ordination vows bind him to "solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church."

If he finds that his faith life has led him to an understanding of Christianity that compels him to move beyond the teaching of the Episcopal Church, our Baptismal Covenant, and our understanding of the Trinity that is certainly discernment that he must consider. But if he cannot uphold our core beliefs, he cannot in good faith fulfill the ordination vows of a Bishop in our Church, and we cannot in good faith consent to his election.

See the Diocese of Bethlehem blog "newSpin" June 10, 2009 post here.

See also Bishop Paul Marshall's April 5, 2009 post here.

Martyrs

This is a week for martyrs. Just look at the Episcopal Church calendar for this first week of June: June 1, Justin, martyr at Rome, c. 167; June 2, The martyrs of Lyons, 177; June 3, The martyrs of Uganda, 1886; June 5, Boniface, Archbishop of Mainz, Missionary to Germany and...martyr, 754.

So it appears that the red of Pentecost, in our hangings and lovely flowers has a new meaning. No longer the red of the fire of the Holy Spirit, but now the red of the blood of the martyrs.

Have you ever wondered what it is about martyrs and the Church? What is the attraction?

Martyrdom has a bad name these days.

Sometimes we reduce martyrdom to emotional blackmail, where I might let you how deep your behavior causes me to suffer. And (sigh) I will gladly bear this cross because (double sigh) I love you.

But much more often we hear the word "martyr" associated it with fanatics and terrorists who do horrible and despicable things in the name of their cause, often in the name of God. We hear that the 19 young men who perpetrated the attacks on September 11, 2001 were driven at least in part by the promise of a special place in heaven for holy martyrs. We think of people who for whatever reason, who get on a bus or go to a crowded street and cry out the name of Allah before setting off the bomb they have strapped to themselves.

But this kind of distorted thinking about martyrdom can be found in this country, too. We pray for Dr. Tiller, who was gunned down in his church this past Sunday in Kansas. Maybe he's a martyr? But adding to the tragedy is that it appears that he was gunned down in cold blood by a fellow Christian who would stop at nothing, except his own death, to follow his beliefs.

In the early Church, right after Constantine, some Christians were actually disappointed that the persecution of the Church ended. They would go out and seek martyrdom, often provoking people to kill them thinking that they would inherit that same special place in heaven. They weren't martyrs. They were brigands.

The difference between a fanatic and a terrorist and real Christian martyr is that the fanatic and the terrorist is more than willing for you to die for his faith, while a martyr follows Jesus wherever Jesus leads, even if that means death.

There are signs of a religious terrorists and they are easy to spot: someone who breaks the law for his or her cause and then runs away or hides or fights like mad at being arrested, proclaiming their innocence; or, someone who preaches for others to go their deaths on the preachers behalf. Or someone who uses inflammatory language to stir up passions (and raise money) and then claims innocence when someone acts on their words with deadly consequences. Saying "I condemn their action, but I understand what motivates them" is not condemnation.

This is what gives martyrdom a bad name, and takes away the lesson that true Christian martyrs teach us everyday followers of Jesus Christ.

The martyrs of Uganda did not seek death. What was remarkable about them is that when ordered by their king to stop being Christians, they kept on being Christians. And when he decided to wipe out all the Christians from the royal court (and thus from Uganda), they went to their deaths together, praying, singing and expectant. Were they afraid? I am certain of it. Did they let their fear overwhelm their faith? No.

And it was the witness of the common people who witnessed their deaths (and who were supposed to be frightened into staying away from Christianity) that caused the Church in Uganda to explode and flourish. Needless to say, the Kings plan backfired. Today Uganda is the most Christian of all the nations in Africa and boasts the largest memberships of three traditions: Anglican, Catholic and Lutheran.

In our own history, I am reminded of the Freedom Riders of a century ago and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Council who worked in the segregated south against government-sanctioned terrorism to assure equal rights for African-Americans. The teaching of SNCC was to disobey the law and then allow oneself to be arrested...because, as Ghandi taught, being arrested for an unjust law highlights the injustice. Choosing to meet injustice with resistence but not giving into violence will, eventually, overwhelm and disempower the violence.

A generation ago, people went south to work for justice at the lunch counter and in the voting booth. They did not seek death. Most came home, changed. But some were killed. Among them Medgar Evans and also Jonathan Daniels, an Episcopal seminarian.

When impatient people, tired of all the killings and the apparent slowness of the pace of progress took over SNCC and took out the "non-violent" from their name, the group lost all their power.

The martyrs of Memphis stayed behind in a city striken with Yellow Fever when every sensible healthy person left to care for the sick and the dying. And the Episcopal and Roman Catholic nuns, lay people and clergy who died during those terrible weeks did not wish for death, but they followed Jesus to care for their neighbor when no one else would.

Following Jesus in this age, and every age for that matter, is demanding and it is costly. Being a friend and apprentice of Jesus Christ changes us, causes us to make choices, even sacrifices, and may even take us to places we are not prepared to go...sometimes even to death. The goal and the glory is not in the death, but in whatever we do and wherever it leads following Christ.

This is why remembering martyrs on the calendar is important for us in our walk with Christ. It is one way that we are reminded and encouraged to keep on keeping on, to daily start a new and to decide to follow Jesus one more day, wherever he may lead.

Desmond Tutu said during the height of the Aparthied regime in his native South Africa, "Death is not the worst thing that can happen to a Christian." He did not say, go out and die or make someone else die on your behalf. What he meant is that in Christ death is already conquered and the worst thing that can happen to a Christian is to lose one's relationship with God in Christ.

So this week, when we hear again the stories of the martyrs, we are reminded and encouraged to keep on keeping on. To know that what we do is costly. And that whatever happens, we follow Jesus joyfully.

I am the good cat herder

John 10:11-18 (Updated)

I saw a commercial once a few years ago and I just love it. It shows these tough cowboys on the range. You know: horses, lassos, hats, boots and spurs, the whole thing. They are on a drive, through the open prairie. It opens with a young cowboy holding up a picture and saying “This is my grandfather. He started herding cats when he was 15.”

Instead of cattle, in this commercial, these tough cowboys are herding cats.



“Anyone can herd cattle,” one of these cowboys says. “But keeping ten thousand half-wild short hairs together… is about the hardest work a man can do.”

This ad works because it takes a time honored image that we all know and turns it on its head. That’s how I feel when I hear Jesus describe himself as a “good shepherd.”

We tend to think of pretty pastoral scenes with the friendly, smiling shepherd and gentle, fluffy sheep. The Bible evokes shepherds all the time: God appeared to Moses while he was tending sheep; David was a shepherd, and even in the era of Jesus, the image of the shepherd could evoke a sense of nostalgia for a simpler, more idyllic time.

The American cowboy is that kind of archetype for us is because he embodies the free individual. Alone, against the odds, he by himself endures and brings the herd home. If there is camaraderie, it is a companionship of rugged individuals. The archetype appeals to us precisely because we can’t imagine ourselves being part of a herd.

We human beings may like groups but we are nothing like cattle or sheep. We are not herd animals. We listen to our own beat, to many beats, all our own. When we function as a group, it very often a tentative, temporary thing; it feels great when it works, but sometimes it doesn’t. When I hear the saying “it’s like herding cats” I think we all know what that means. None of us wants to be mere cattle.

We like to go our own way, do what we think best, maybe we’ll tell people what we’re up to or maybe not. Maybe we don’t live on the range, but we think of ourselves as rugged individualists. We are a tough flock to lead.

Which is why I think the early church remembered this passage. Jesus stood up to Israel’s religious leaders about their lack of leadership. I think the Gospel of John is challenging some of the leaders of the early church, ( remember "pastor" is another word for shepherd) to remind them not to fail their infant communities by putting themselves on pedestals or preaching a gospel they did not attend to themselves.

We like to think of the church as being one family, one unit with a single mind and purpose and yet we know from our experience that being in the same building at prayer does not necessarily mean that we are one flock with one shepherd. At times we are like a herd of cats. But somewhere in between the docility we attribute to sheep and cattle and the independence of cats, there is the truth of who we are and what we need. We all need direction, purpose, and community. We all still need and seek to heed and follow a good shepherd.

Jesus is the good shepherd by showing us the way. Jesus is the good shepherd because of his unity of relationship to God. Jesus is the good shepherd because through his life, death and resurrection each and every one of us has new life and a new way of being. Jesus is the good shepherd because this new way of being does not come easily to us. We need to be reconciled, we need to be taught, we need to be challenged. Jesus the good shepherd does all these things and more.

In our baptism and our profession of faith we gave ourselves to the good shepherd and began to follow him. He guides us and protects us and teaches us.

In our prayer and worship and study, we learn to hear Jesus’ voice over the din and distraction of the culture we are in.

In our community, we learn to recognize Jesus at work in and through us. We discover how Jesus protects us from the assaults and ambiguities of daily life through our sacrament and common life, and in the ways we listen and support one another.

In our witness, we see people without hope or purpose or who doubt that anyone will welcome them into any fellowship, and we give them shelter, and nourishment and care.

In this way, we become a different kind of community. Somewhere in between the docility of sheep and the independence of cats is the true nature of the church: that the more we follow Christ, the more we, together and individually, become like him.

We are a community who daily decides to model ourselves on the good shepherd, so that we can together share in the good shepherd care and longing for the world. When we follow Jesus, the good shepherd, we are also the ones who with Jesus give ourselves to the world he loves. As
disciples, we follow Jesus so that we may become more and like him both by ourselves and in our common life.

As a parish family we have decided together to undertake a great task: this capital campaign has become so much more than fixing a wall. It has become an expression of our ministry together.

When we first started this project…back when the cracks first appeared and when we decided to undertake this campaign…it felt at times like we were herding cats. So many details. So many questions. So many ideas. It was hard to contain. But we have done it and we are doing it and we will do it. Together. So many people have stepped up, so many people who are working together—both long-timers and newcomers—that we have become something completely unlike a herd of cats, or a flock of sheep, for that matter. We are growing together as the body of Christ.

No matter what image you use--herding cats, rounding up cattle or shepherding sheep--the lesson is that Jesus is the one who draws us together, unites, guides and teaches us. The Gospel teaches us that Christians work best and thrive most in community. We are followers of Jesus Christ and he is our shepherd. Jesus has made into something more than a herd or a flock. We are known and understood and loved. We have been adopted into Christ's body, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit we are together learning, discovering and sharing God's love in this parish, in this community, in this mission.

This is your brain on biblical inerrancy

I want to be like Father Matthew when I grow up. He decided that this internet thing, and especially YouTube, might catch on someday and has turned his videos "Father Matthew Presents" into a terrific ministry. His latest video is on Biblical Inerrancy.



His video is timely because there is another new book about Jesus, the early church, and the variety of scriptural voices that is out there but a Biblical scholar named Bart Ehrman. Here is goes for a second round on the Colbert Report.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Bart Ehrman
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

Previously, Ehrman wrote a fine little book a few years back that describes how Biblical texts went from their original writers to today. Called "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Begind Who Changed the Bible and Why" he provides a very accessible discussion of textual criticism and textual transmission.

But the most poingnant part of the book is not found in his discussion but in his story. He writes how he was raised in an Episcopal Church and that he had a "born again" experience as a high school sopomore. This tracks pretty closely with my own story: I was "born again" as a high school freshman.

He came to hold the view, as I did, that the Bible was completely without error in the original texts. He even attended Moody Bible Institute, later Wheaton, and then went to Princeton Theological Seminary. (I wanted to go to either Wheaton or Gordon-Conwell, but my parents would not pay for me to go to those schools, so I went to Drew instead.) Eventually, the challenges of the text itself showed the glaring weaknesses of an inerrant approach and, as in Father Matthew's video, Ehrman's faith came tumbling down.

The problem as I read Ehrman's work, is that with the loss of inerrancy went the loss of his Christian faith (or at least a significant chunk of it). He came to his most dynamic religious expression as a teenager and young adult in what he calls the "robust" world of born-again evangelical Christianity. And that robustness of faith depended on a doctrine that can't stand up to the storm. He disagrees with his mentor Bruce Metzger, in that the textual variants he finds challenge the basic understandings of basic Christian doctrines. For him, Luke's perspective on the crucifixion and John's are different, therefore they disagree and therefore any theological musing that works on the tension between the two (and may find a synthesis) are invalid because they are "later" additions.

The more he looks at the scriptural texts, the more he finds the human side of the equation and with it error, and if there is error then the whole house of cards falls. What I find poignant is that he can't shake his inner fundamentalist: if the doctrine or theology cannot be supported by a uniform witness of scripture then the whole things falls away, and since there is no uniform witness of scripture because the manuscripts (both in their original form and in their transmission) is shot through with error, there is nothing to believe.

What Ehrman, and many others (both fundamentalists and even some Biblical scholars) forget is that what is inspired is the community of believers who witness to God at work and that it is the community (not the Bible) that makes the claim about who Jesus is and what God is up to through and in him. The Bible's authority and witness emanates from the Church not the other way round.

As I said, I identify with portions of Dr. Ehrman's story. I used to think that what made for a robust faith was a robust view of the Bible. Nope. As Father Matthew says, that makes the Bible into an idol and idols always fail us. What makes for a robust faith is Christ manifested in a dynamic gathering of Christ's people doing and learning the work of Jesus.

Two hat tips to Episcopal Cafe: Episcopal Cafe video and The Lead.

New life, episode one

I am suspicious of sequels. Some (most!) movies should never have sequels. It seems, though, that Hollywood can’t resist the temptation. If they have a good story, and if the film is a hit, then producers want to see if they can catch lightening in a bottle twice, maybe three or more times. And even if the first sequel works sooner or later the whole thing just collapses.

About ten or fifteen years ago, the estate of Margaret Mitchell authorized someone to write a sequel to “Gone with the Wind” with an attendant television mini-series (turns out no one would risk a theatrical film). The fans of the original novel and famous 1938 film had tons of questions about whatever became of Scarlett O’Hara, Rhett Butler and Tara. Frankly, my dear, they shouldn’t have bothered.

Hell, to me, would be an eternal movie house with locked doors, endless popcorn with not enough butter, a bottomless cup of flat soda ice-water, where the people next to me talk and twitter through the whole film and where the only shows playing would be the middle movie of a three movie “franchise.” Imagine endless back-to-back showings of “Back to the Future II!” Ugh!

There are lots of films with open-endings. What happened to Benjamin and Elaine after they rode off on the bus? What did Shane go when he walked off into the prairie by himself? Did Rick and Captain Renault really begin a beautiful friendship? Do Phil and Rita stay in Punxsutawney?

And then there is the biggest cliffhanger of them all; the biggest lose end of all time: Will Mary, Mary and Salome overcome their fear and tell anyone about the angel and the Risen Jesus?

Mark’s Gospel ends on an open question. The women go to the tomb of their friend, master and teacher, Jesus to finish caring for his body. Jesus was executed on the cross and his dead body was placed in the first available grave. They approach his grave wondering how they are going to get in, because the tomb had a big stone rolled in front of it. When they arrive, they find the stone rolled away, an empty tomb where a dead body ought to be. Instead of their dead friend, they find an angel. The angel says that Jesus has risen from the dead, just as he said. And the angel tells the women to tell the other disciples and then go to Galilee where they will see Jesus.

But they don’t. The women are so frightened and so confused that they run away and don’t tell anyone. No one at all. That is the end of the Gospel of Mark. We are left wondering, well….what happened next? What now?

Besides the fact that Mark loves playing with this theme—earlier in the Gospel, when Jesus wanted people to be quiet, they could not contain themselves and now when they are supposed to tell, they are too scared to say a word—Mark, who is after all writing to Christian believers—is throwing the story back in our lap. There is no sequel. We are the Gospel now.
Mark’s gospel can be described as a Passion Narrative with a long introduction. Everything hinges on the cross. Jesus dies on the cross. He is not injured. He is not knocked out cold. He is not in a coma. He died. And in that death, God is at once glorified and the rift between humanity and God is healed.

A century or two or three after Mark, some of the early Christian scribes could not stand the ambiguity. They had to borrow from the other Gospels some neat, tidy ending that made everything okay. They wanted a sequel that wrapped everything up and left no questions unanswered.

Except that the resurrection is not a sequel. It is not a convenient day-saving plot device, like the cavalry riding over the hill or the hero suddenly reappearing from certain doom. Neither is the resurrection a metaphor for going to heaven or the spiritual musings of some fanatical followers.

Jesus who was dead is now alive. The other Gospels describe Jesus as physically present. He meets his disciples. He speaks with them and interacts. He touches, he looks, he eats. But he is paving the way for the rest of us. He is still human. He is showing us the life and humanity that God wants and has in store for us.

This is good news because our lives are often a series of unanswered questions. We wonder how things will turn out. We wonder if there is a purpose or reason for us. Making meaning out of real life—our relationships, our choices, our families, work and play—is something we all strive to do. Without meaning there is no hope, no direction, no future and not much of a past. And as we seek meaning, we will write scripts for ourselves and for those around us.

The resurrection shows us that while God may not have written the script—we are free people, after all—we all have a direction and a guide and a hope. God desires for us to live in a vital, healthy relationship with God and each other and all creation. God wants us to be aware of the people around us and the world we live in. God has made capable of love and has given us the ability to choose to move towards that love and to act on it.

In Jesus’ incarnation, God shows us that God cares for creation and for us, and that we are to care for the people around us. God’s creativity is reflected in our creativity. Our desire for right reflects God’s longing for justice.

And in Jesus’ death, we see that God will not only join with our humanity, but God will enter into our suffering, take on all our pain, sorrow, fear and all the wrongs we have done, and even take on death itself.

Think of what gets in the way of a full life for us. Think of the things deep in us that cause us to feel alienated, lonely or without purpose or hope. All these things are left behind in that empty tomb. With the resurrection, real life begins.

Do you really want to know if the two Mary’s actually told anyone about the Risen Jesus? Do you really want to know how the story turned out? Look around you. They had to have told someone. You are here. Two millennia later, you and me and all of us are here telling the story once again: Christ is risen. The Lord is risen indeed. Alleluia!

The story did not end. We are the Gospel story now. We are the ones who show off the incarnate, risen Jesus to everyday people. We are the ones who demonstrate through our words and actions that Jesus is alive and God’s Spirit is active and that God is renewing and rebuilding creation.

We begin to take part in that real life right now. Through faith and in our baptisms, we join with Jesus in continuing the story. Through Holy Eucharist and the rest of our sacramental life; through our life among other Christians, and in our caring for others we discover this new risen life unfolding in us right here, right now.

The cross is not the end and the resurrection is not a sequel. It is the beginning of renewed, redeemed life. We are not a sequel, either. We are the Gospel story unfolding.