Restoring the Scandal of Christmas - The Advent Conspiracy

Advent is here! Wow - it's come very fast this year. But it is perhaps one of the most misunderstood seasons of the Church Year. This is from the Advent Conspiracy's website:

The story of Christ's birth is a story of promise, hope, and a revolutionary love.

So, what happened? What was once a time to celebrate the birth of a savior has somehow turned into a season of stress, traffic jams, and shopping lists.

And when it's all over, many of us are left with presents to return, looming debt that will take months to pay off, and this empty feeling of missed purpose. Is this what we really want out of Christmas?

What if Christmas became a world-changing event again?

Welcome to Advent Conspiracy.

Worship Fully

Spend Less

Give More

Love All

And now for a nice video

Eat this Borg, Crossan and Ehrman!

I just read The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel. This was an excellent, well reasoned and sound critique of the debasement of the divinity of Jesus and the power of his earthly life by such figures as Borg, Crossan, the Jesus Seminar and Bart Ehrman. Check out this video.




Even better, search it out on Amazon and get your copy. Wonderful!

Share the Gospel in Three Minutes?

If someone asked you to share the fundamental tenets of Christianity, how would you do it? Well, James Choung's Big Story is perhaps the best way to do it. It's succinct, easy to remember, and really powerful. No, not proof verses from the Bible, just a reasonable explanation. Check it out:

Article XXV and the Holy Communion

Many of my Anglo-Catholic friends are worried about my recent turn to the Articles of Religion as a formulary for Anglican doctrine and belief. One cause often brought up is the infamous Article XXV which reads in part:

" The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about, but we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation as Saint Paul saith."

I'm guessing the part that the Anglo-Catholics bristle at is the part that says that the Sacraments were not ordained to be gazed upon or to be carried about. Well, in fact, they weren't were they? Indeed we, as Catholic Christians, do indeed worship Christ as present in the elements, and in the Eucharistic Adoration we adore Christ, not the Sacrament itself. I would say that Eucharistic Adoration is but hollow unless there is a true devotion to the Christ present. Also, I would say that processing about with the Blessed Sacrament is but an acknowledgment of the power of that singular Sacrament on all who partake of it worthily.

He who worthily partakes of the Sacrament with a humble and contrite heart will receive blessing from God, and will manifest the fruit of his salvation in his own living. When such a person participates in the Eucharistic Adoration he is not worshiping the cookie, he is worshiping Christ. The Blessed Sacrament provides a visual image and point of focus for our worship.

More on the Articles later.

Article IX, Holocaust and a difficult foreboding

Ugh ... this is going to be a very difficult weekend. Tomorrow is a rally for equal rights for same-sex couples, a monastery (my favorite monastery) has been destroyed, people are very sick, and I just watched a movie that made me cry a lot (no ... not that femmy emotional romance movie cry). I saw Boy in the Striped Pajamas today. It's a very difficult film ... a German boy meets a Jewish concentration camp prisoner who is the same age through the barb-wire fence. I won't spoil the plot, but it makes me wonder how humanity could be so vile, and could so dehumanize another group of people. Well, I had my 1662 Prayer Book along so I peeked at it at dinner. Article IX of the Articles of Religion provided some clarity:

"ORIGINAL sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit;"

I won't go any further, because I'm still processing the film at the moment. But suffice it to say, many difficulties have come to the fore this weekend. I'm just hoping that God will be so graceful as to help me through.

On the election

As you are all probably aware by now Proposition 102 has passed. This means that Arizona's constitution is now amended to ban same-sex marriage in our state. It is a rather unfortunate and sad day in the history of our state and our country, and our church to have allowed such amendments to pass. The Episcopal Church has strong legislation supporting civil unions and same sex marriage, and yet the Diocese of Arizona, nor TEC stepped up to do anything. Sure, Bishop Kirk sent out a note asking us to vote no, but that wasn't enough.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ("Mormons") spent millions of dollars in California and Arizona to get these propositions passed. They ordered members to give time, talent and treasure to this cause. What did we do? Send out a note. But it's not just us, its everybody. Prop 102's YES campaign began months before the elction. The opposition No campaign began 2 ½ weeks before the election, and was hardly substantive. The only argument they could offer was "vote no again". We (the GLBTQ community, the supportive Churches, etc.) just didn't get our stuff together this year, to our detriment.

However, I would like to turn this negative into a positive. This amendment does not block us from seeking civil unions for GLBTQ couples that will provide rights quite similar to marriage. Hopefully we can now work towards protecting visitation rights, probate rights and more. Although we were dealt with a defeat, it's not as bad as the defeat suffered by the GLBTQ community in Florida. In that state, a measure similar to Arizona's Prop 107 in 2006 (banning not only same-sex marriage, but also civil unions and any recognition of same-sex partnerships) passed. They will be having a much harder time than we will.

In the final analysis, let us pray for each other. Those who voted yes, and those who voted no. I know we're angry, we're sad. But we can all take consolation in the fact that God loves us so very much, and that one day, we will have equal rights, and one day we will be able to marry, but it just takes time. Now, let's take it one day at a time, and one step at a time and redouble our efforts to invite people into dialogue, to educate them about who we are, and to share the love of God with them every day.

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of us evermore.

Ian

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

Today I just learned (albeit later than most), that the Archdiocese of Sydney in Australia has authorized lay presidency for the Eucharist. That's right folks, now deacons of the Diocese of Sydney are permitted to celebrate and consecrate the Eucharist. Who'd have thought that this day would come in Anglicanism. It's like a liberal Episcopalian's dream - everyone's included - no more special priestly class - everyone can remember Jesus' special meal! Ironically, the archdiocese that has authorized this is perhaps one of the world's most conservative. It is one of GAFCONs biggest members ...
So, now, I think that this action falls under the Gene Robinson faux-pas doesn't it? Did Sydney consult with the wider Australian Church let alone the rest of the world's bishops before they did this? I mean this is contrary to the grain of everything catholic and Anglican. Even the most evangelical low-church Anglican would maintain that a Priest needs to officiate at the Eucharist (even in clam-diggers and shorts). I join other centrist bloggers out there in asking GAFCON to react with the same anger towards Sydney as they did towards TEC when it consecrated Gene Robinson. Also, those Anglican Covenant folk ought well be able to address Sydney's damaging mistake of judgment if they're going to address the legitimate election and consecration of Gene Robinson.

Peace Out!

Ian

Enriching our Worship: Creating Easy Worthless Faith?

I was in Palm Springs this weekend, attending the Church I usually do when I'm there. They used the Enriching Our Worship eucharistic prayer (Normally they're Rite II, Prayer A - Right up my alley). During the eucharistic prayer there were some very disturbing replacements of words. As I also heard in the readings of the New Testament, there was lots of what I call "interpretive" changes. I've probably hashed over this before, but I wonder if folks are aware of the true consequence of what they're doing. A lot of folks are now trying to teach a Christianity that is dried up, worthless, and extremely easy. Reaks of the infomercial phrases - free trial, nothing to lose, no risk to you, no contracts, no commitments.
But then again, that is the general flavor of society today. I think that a lot of people aren't really into intentional community building anymore. N.T. Wright in his book The Last Word remarked that there is a growing new gnosticism in our churches that tells people that self-discovery and self-actualization is the actual important achievement. Simply put it's unscriptural, un-Christian, and un- a lot of things. But there's also something more disturbing afoot here. The modifications in the Enriching Our Worship are disturbing to say the least.
In Enriching our Worship, Jesus broke bread and gave it to his friends ... whereas in the Books of Common Prayer and in virtually (99.9%) of all Christian liturgies, the word disciples is used. Using English semantics, we see a vast chasm of difference between these two words and their meanings. Greek similarly also shows a big difference. Disciple and friend (in Greek: mathetai and adelphoi) are not synonymous, even moderately so. Understandably, this is some effort to be inclusive, or to be welcoming, but wait a minute, what is our theology of the Holy Eucharist? Regardless if you're a memorialist, or a die-hard transsubstantiationalist, or anywhere in between this is a big deal. Homosexuality is not a creedal or dogmatic debate, ordination of women is not a dogmatic or creedal debate, but this, I would argue is. Holy Eucharist, I think, represents a lot more than just a symbolic meal. For if it was, I don't think that the tradition would die out and be replaced by wafers and wine. As an example, the Sikhs have a communal meal called Langar which they established when the religion was established over 500 years ago. It has not been reduced to a token sharing of food, it is still sharing food (a full meal). This is why the whole friends versus disciples debate is one that I take very seriously and one where I think we ought to opt for the latter.
At the risk of sounding exclusive, I do believe that this is where we must draw the line between Christians and non-Christians. Even a super-inclusive, gay-friendly Church like the one I go to in Palm Springs prints prominently on its bulletin that: all baptized Christians are welcome to come forward to receive communion - if you are not baptized, still come forward for a blessing. My non-Christian friends never take communion if they come to Church with me. I asked them specifically if they felt excluded. They said that they were excluded, but they said that it's something that only Christians would understand and something that Christians take very seriously. They didn't want to disresepect what for us is a very sacred moment.
It's a very sinister thing to make a small change from disciples (students, who may be friends of Jesus, but nonetheless committed to Him), to friends (people you know, but not necessarily those who you have promised your life to). If all we needed to be Christian was to be friends with Jesus, we would lose the uniqueness and power of our faith. It becomes worthless. Jesus becomes nothing more than an ethical teacher. He then will have been stripped of his authority. Christianity is not humanistic, neither is it all-affirming. It is all-inclusive: everyone has sinned and is in need of God's redemption. It's that simple. Everyone is welcome to God's redemption. Being a Christian comes with consequences and will force you to make decisions that you may not want to make. Everything is not alright for Christians. The Confession of Sin at the Eucharist is not your license to sin freely. Lest we all forget, Jesus not only forgave the harlot of her sin, but he also admonished her to go and sin no more. That's when Christianity gets hard - the go and sin no more part. The part where we have to continually refine ourselves to conform to the will of God.