The labyrinth: Lenten it isn’t

As I said a few days ago, the Anglican Communion really needs to return to its Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion and the Bible which inspired this doctrine.

Instead, we find that the Episcopal Church (TEC, as it’s known in the US) advocates walking a labyrinth as a Lenten discipline. TEC — and many other denominations — believe it is a ‘divine imprint’, as Wallace Hartley of And the Band Played On tells us.

Underground pewster, of Not Another Episcopal Church Blog, helpfully passed along his church newsletter to Hartley. The newsletter lauded the benefits of labyrinth walking, mentioned nowhere in Holy Scripture:

The path winds around and doubles back on itself, becoming a mirror for where we are in our lives, a metaphor for our spiritual journey; it touches our sorrows and releases our joys. The pathway in and the pathway out are the same; only the pilgrim has changed in the process.

When Christ went away for 40 days, He did so to pray to His Father in Heaven. Jesus wasn’t walking labyrinths. Our Lord found the need to go away to pray and communicate with God. Today, we’re advised to walk around in circles, maze-like. What does that tell us about the Church and her clergy, one wonders.

Hartley cleverly reworded the late Chicago folksinger John Prine’s song, ‘Your Flag Decal Won’t Get You into Heaven Anymore’, to comment on the labyrinth ‘discipline’. Below is one verse and the chorus (more at the aforementioned link, don’t miss the last stanza):

Well, I went to the church this morning,
And the priestess said to me,
If you pay your Episcopal pledge,
We’ll let you run around the labyrinth for free.
Well I didn’t mess around one bit,
I took her up on what she said.
And I went into the parish hall
With a blessing on my forehead.

Chorus:
But your labyrinth won’t get you into Heaven anymore.
All that spiraling inward
Won’t open Heaven’s door.
Keep your eyes on Jesus,
And off those patterns on the floor.
No your labyrinth won’t get you into Heaven anymore.

A much better answer — rather than satisfying our carnal desires to get into a trance during Lent — is to actually reflect on God’s divine sovereignty, in particular His sending Christ to live among us and die for our sins.

Did Jesus live in a castle? No. Was He remote high on a mountain? No, only when He retreated to pray. Did He demand money from anyone? No. Was He carted about on a sedan chair borne by the Apostles? No. Did He screen anyone who approached Him? No. Did He promise deliverance from Roman rule? No. Was He ever responsible for murdering or maiming anyone — or stealing from them? No. Did He have an ego? No.

Was He humble and kind? Yes. Was He plain and unassuming? Yes. Did He associate with everyone, rich and poor? Yes. Did He heal the sick? Yes. Did He rid people of demons? Yes. Did He show divine mercy to sinners? Yes. Did He promise an everlasting Kingdom to come? Yes. Did He promise salvation to the faithful? Yes.

Yet, He was condemned to death. By whom? By people who preferred carnal and temporal desires.

Although the feeding of the 5,000 is often touted as ‘Christlike’ socialism, it is essential to read the whole story to find out how our Lord criticised those who expected another temporal food-centred miracle.

Read What John 6 really says for the full story behind the miracle and the astounding aftermath which isn’t what most people understand about that episode in Jesus’s ministry. I cite this yet again for all of us during Lent as an illustration of our expectations of Christ and the reality of His promises.

As John 18:36 says:

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

May we avoid engaging in Lenten practices which do Him no honour yet make us feel comfortable. The labyrinth comes to mind.

Gosh, the rules on Lenten ‘fasting’ really have changed …

Kudos again to underground pewster of Not Another Episcopal Church Blog for his research into 21st century Lenten fasting.

Hmm.

The Church of Christ, he notes, is engaging in a carbon fast, whereby every interested subscriber will receive a daily email advising how to cut CO2 emissions. An excerpt from their website reads, in part:

The activities range from the very simple: eliminate “vampire” electrical use; to the moderately challenging: take “military showers;” reduce your driving speed; to more long term: buy local produce and consider getting involved in a community garden.

Mmmkay. Doesn’t sound like the Lent I know, but … whatever.

While we’re at it, what is ‘”vampire” electrical use’?

He also found that the Episcopal Church (TEC nowadays) encourages readers to adopt similar eco-friendly Lenten disciplines. I’m not sure that this is what our earliest Doctors of the Church had in mind, but these include:

- World Council of Churches’ Ecumenical Water Network: a Lenten course titled “Seven Weeks for Water: The Blue Economy.” http://www.oikoumene.org/en/activities/ewn-home/resources-and-links/seven-weeks-for-water.html

- Eco-Palms:  harvesters gather only quality palm fronds in a way that allows the plant to keep growing. https://www.ecopalms.org/

Mr Pewster, rightly unimpressed, then went to see what the Roman Catholics recommended during this season of penitential abstinence and fasting. He found the following from Canon Law:

Can. 1252: The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year. The law of fasting binds those who have attained their majority, until the beginning of their sixtieth year. Pastors of souls and parents are to ensure that even those who by reason of their age are not bound by the law of fasting and abstinence, are taught the true meaning of penance.

Wow. When I was a Catholic child, we never ate meat on Friday until Canon Law was repealed in the late 1960s. Even then, my mother insisted on a modest dinner in remembrance of Good Friday. We often had sauteed bologna and onions. Pity my mother prepared such a humble repast so well. Decades later, I still hanker for it. I can’t say the same for her fried perch which put me off that delicious fish for many years until I had it in Switzerland in the 1980s.

One supposes the Catholics think they will be sued if they continue the old rules which said no member of their denomination could eat meat on Fridays during Lent. Now, anyone under 14 can.

The fasting rule began being relaxed for the elderly, as I recall, in the 1970s and 1980s. Oddly, it was at a time when the aged were beginning to put on weight; many went to a nearby restaurant to have a lunch ample enough for a family of three. Still, a number of prescription drug instructions indicated the need for a meal when taking a particular tablet. Most nurses and doctors will tell you that this means a few biscuits or a dry crust, not a full-blown meal. My grandmother didn’t feel able to stop fasting until she reached the age of 80. Gosh, now the limit is 60. Check out Pewster’s photo of a luscious birthday cake with a greeting ‘written’ in bacon! Yum!

One thinks back to mediaeval times when most Europeans were working the land eating meagre vegetarian meals a couple times a day. Amazingly, they, too, fasted during Lent.

As underground pewster says of today’s changes, which prescribe one full meal and two smaller ones not to equal the full one:

1.9 meal equivalents still sounds like plenty of carbon. And all this time I thought fasting was ”to abstain from food“.

Yep, me, too.

2014: Winter Paralympics now on in Sochi

Those who miss the Paralympics are in luck: Sochi’s 2014 Winter Paralympic Games are on this week.

Britain’s Channel 4 and sister channel More4 are broadcasting them throughout the day with a half-hour highlights recap in the evenings at 7:30 (GMT).

As in 2012, Paralympian Ade Adepitan is hosting the coverage. He is accompanied by Olympians and Paralympians alike to walk us through the strategies and finer points of the events.  I learn more about sport watching the Paralympics than I do the Olympics; that’s how good the coverage is.

I enjoyed watching today’s curling and downhill skiing events. Having fallen behind at one point, Team GB beat the Koreans 8 – 4 in the curling. The American Tatyana McFadden came second in the women’s skiing event which was broadcast after the curling finished. One of her American counterparts won.

I hadn’t realised that McFadden also competes in skiing. Up to now, I thought she was exclusively a wheelchair racer during the summer months. Her abilities in both seasons’ events are remarkable. This short YouTube video features her discussing health issues and a love of sport:

She and her younger sister Hannah — from Russia and Albania, respectively — were rescued and adopted by Deborah McFadden, on a trip there as part of her work as a commissioner of disabilities for the US Health Department under President Clinton. Mrs McFadden and her husband adopted Tatyana first. They adopted Hannah not long afterward, once she was located in another orphanage.

On McFadden’s Wikipedia talk page, we find this comment. Those of us who followed the 2012 Paralympics will know that:

Tatyana and Hannah McFadden were the only sisters to compete in the same Paralympic final (100m – T54 in London 2012). –Kasper2006 (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

For me, the Paralympians are the real heroes of the summer and winter Games. Some, like McFadden, were born disabled. Others, like Adepitan (who contracted polio as an infant in Nigeria), suffered accidents or childhood illnesses which left them handicapped. Yet others were injured in recent wars, e.g. Afghanistan.

They never gave up. They were determined to not sit at home feeling sorry for themselves, which, admittedly, I probably would have done — for a while, anyway.

It’s interesting to listen to interviews with parents of disabled children who became Paralympians. All said, ‘They got treated the same as their brothers and sisters — through good and bad.’  Yes, it was difficult for the parents. Yes, the parents still worry. However, they gave these competitors a good upbringing in challenging circumstances.

I wish all the teams, GB in particular, all the very best. No matter who wins, their medals are well deserved.

Forbidden Bible Verses — Luke 11:14-23

Continuing a study of the passages from Luke’s Gospel which have been omitted from the three-year Lectionary for public worship, today’s post is part of my ongoing series Forbidden Bible Verses, also essential to understanding Scripture.

Today’s reading is from the English Standard Version with commentary by Matthew Henry and John MacArthur (‘The Vilification of Jesus’, Parts 1 and 2).

Luke 11:14-23

Jesus and Beelzebul

 ¹⁴ Now he was casting out a demon that was mute. When the demon had gone out, the mute man spoke, and the people marveled. ¹⁵But some of them said, “He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons,” ¹⁶while others, to test him, kept seeking from him a sign from heaven. ¹⁷ But he, knowing their thoughts, said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and a divided household falls. ¹⁸And if Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. ¹⁹And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. ²⁰But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. ²¹When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe; ²² but when one stronger than he attacks him and overcomes him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his spoil. ²³ Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

———————————————————————————

In last week’s passage, Jesus rejoiced regarding His Father’s will (Luke 10:21). Emphases in bold mine below:

²¹ In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.

The mention of the Holy Spirit is important for reasons we shall soon see below.

Afterward, Jesus related the parable of the Good Samaritan to the young lawyer (Luke 10:25-37). Then He met Lazarus’s sisters Martha and Mary (Luke 10:38-42). He also responded to the disciples’ request to be taught how to pray. Jesus taught them the Lord’s Prayer (Luke 11:1-13).

Today’s episode in Jesus’s ministry followed that prayer and explanation of God’s willingness to bless His people.

Before going into today’s verses from Luke, it is worth noting that Matthew has a similar episode, which John MacArthur points out took place in Galilee. Luke’s takes place in Judea.

This is Matthew 12:22-32; I have highlighted differences in the accounts below. Note Jesus’s warning about blaspheming against the Holy Spirit:

Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit

 ²² Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. ²³ And all the people were amazed, and said, “Can this be the Son of David?” ²⁴But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.” ²⁵ Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. ²⁶And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? ²⁷And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. ²⁸But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. ²⁹Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house. ³⁰ Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. ³¹ Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. ³²And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

How is it, therefore, that these two episodes are so similar if they occurred in different locales? MacArthur explains that the Jewish Sanhedrin spread the opprobrium from Jerusalem to Galilee to Judea about Jesus being in league with the devil:

First they started sowing the idea that He’s demonic… And then they just raised it to the peak and said He is doing what He’s doing not just by any demon but by Beelzebul, the prince of demons. This was the…this was the party line. This was the…conventional wisdom that Jerusalem was sending down and disseminating through the crowd. And the witless people bought it all and parroted back. And here we are in Judea and it doesn’t say anything about scribes being there, it doesn’t say anything about Pharisees, it just says, verse 15, “Some of them said” … There they are sowing that same lie. They sowed it in Galilee and it was successful. And now they’re dogging His steps with it in Judea.

Now to Luke’s reading where Jesus cast out a demon which made a man mute (verse 14). When the demon departed, those witnessing this miracle ‘marvelled’ (verse 15). They didn’t deny it happened; they did not call it magic. This is true of all of Jesus’s miracles; no one who saw them disputed them. And their power was clearly sufficient to worry the Jewish hierarchy. These were no magic tricks, as some atheists and pagans have attested through the centuries.

Then the spiteful denunciation began (verse 15). The Gospels mention other times when Jesus faced the same accusation of working in league with the devil, among them Mark 3, John 8 (here and here) and John 10.

Some of those who did not ally Him with the devil asked Him for a sign from heaven (verse 16). That, too, was a form of spite and mockery. The Gospels also contain several references to unbelievers asking for signs, including Matthew 16, Mark 8, John 12 and Matthew 12:38-42:

The Sign of Jonah

 ³⁸Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” ³⁹But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. ⁴⁰For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. ⁴¹ The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. ⁴² The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.

In verses 17 and 18 of today’s verses, Jesus, ‘knowing their thoughts’, pointed out the illogical notion that He was allied with the devil. First, He says that a divided household will fall. Second, He questions the reasoning of their saying that Satan wants to see his own destruction. Therefore, it made no sense for them to accuse Him of working for Beelzebul.

As Matthew Henry explains and paraphrases Jesus’s words:

Note, Obstinate infidelity will never be at a loss for something to say in its own excuse, though ever so frivolous and absurd. Now Christ here returns a full and direct answer to this cavil of theirs …

‘ … Now, if Satan should thus be divided against himself, he would hasten his own overthrow, which you cannot suppose an enemy to do that acts so subtlely for his own establishment, and is so solicitous to have his kingdom stand.’

MacArthur explains the name Beelzebul:

They called Satan Beelzebul, it was a sort of a Jewish twist on an old Canaanitish god meaning the lord of the high place, a term referring to Baal...Baal, the lord of the high place. They corrupted it from lord of the high place to lord of the dung, or lord of the flies as a way to mock that Canaanitish deity. But over the years Beelzebul became … their word for Satan, and so they conclude that He does what He does by the power of the ruler of the demons.

MacArthur points out that in Jesus’s time, the Jewish hierarchy also had exorcists who were largely unsuccessful:

They had their people who purported to be able to cast out demons, who could, of course, not do that in the power of God. They knew the difference. They had never seen anything like it and yet as soon as the crowd begins to marvel, the propagandists blurt out, “He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons.” And I don’t know that Jesus even heard because it says in verse 17, “He knew their thoughts.” But He knows what people think and He knows what they say when His ears can’t hear it.

This is why Jesus asked them in whose name the Jewish detractors attempt — and fail — to cast out demons (verse 19).

It is also why He told them that if He works in God’s name, then they are seeing a manifestation of God’s kingdom (verse 20). And who better to manifest that kingdom than our Lord Himself?

Jesus stated that a strong, armed man — alluding to the devil — could defend his house only against weaker attackers. As soon as a stronger being appears — Jesus — his house and possessions are vulnerable (verses 21 and 22). Whenever He banished demons, they left forever.

This is why He says that no one who doubts Him can be on His side (verse 23). Furthermore, anyone who is not on His side ‘scatters’ as if to the four winds — lost forever.

As MacArthur explains:

Blasphemy like they did shows their absolute lack of spirituality. They were so lost and so sinful and so self-righteous and so hard-hearted and so hateful and so determined to reject Him, so blind and so dead that they considered themselves to be the enlightened and the religious and the righteous, they couldn’t even recognize the King of heaven when He stood there and talked to them. They couldn’t see the Kingdom of God when it was right in their midst. The god of this world has blinded their minds so the light of the glorious gospel can’t shine to them. They are the natural men who understand not the things of God.

And so stating the obvious as compared to the impotent Jewish exorcists who deliver nobody and heal no one, Jesus says if I’m doing this on the other hand by the Kingdom of God, or in the Kingdom of God, if I’m demonstrating the finger of God at work, then you are in a serious situation, very serious. They didn’t even entertain the possibility that this might be the King.

As for us, MacArthur warns:

… you are faced with the fact that you are in one or the other of those two groups and there is no third option. There are not spiritual orphans. You are Satan’s or you are Christ’s. It’s always so helpful to see how our Lord with such simple words grasps such profound realities and makes them unmistakably clear to us. And my admonition to you is to take a look at where you are and be sure that you understand the incomparable Christ who was moving with the finger of God and therefore is the King who brought His Kingdom. No one is to be compared to Him. And you only have two options. You either affirm that He is who He says He is, or you cannot say anything other than that He is the ultimate blasphemer because He claimed to be God and He is not. So you are either with Him or you’re left against Him. And He offers to you the same invitation. Wherever your thinking is, think it through again. Understand the irrationality of rejecting Christ. Understand the inconsistency of rejecting Christ against all the evidence, comparing Him to any other religious leader. Understand the lack of spirituality, the spiritual deadness and blindness of rejecting Christ.

Next week’s reading continues the theme of exorcism — the charlatan’s versus Jesus’s.

Next time: Luke 11:24-26

Time for Anglicans to return to the Bible

It is time for Anglican clergy to return to the Bible and the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion.

One of my readers, undergroundpewster, rightly applauds two retired bishops of South Carolina who recall what Christ came to accomplish.

The first is retired Bishop Duvall who said:

As I stand there with my head hung low facing the judgement seat of God, ready for my sentence, I feel an arm around my shoulders, the arm of Jesus, who says ‘This one’s with me’.

The second is the Right Revd C FitzSimons Allison who wrote against postmodern false teachers in 2011:

Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan are two remarkably popular theologians who teach a version of Christianity that reduces the Christian faith to contemporary secular assumptions. For Crossan, Jesus was an illiterate Jewish cynic. No Incarnation no Resurrection. The Easter story is “fictional mythology” (p. 161, Jesus a Revolutionary Biography). Borg claims that Jesus was only divine in the sense that Martin Luther King and Gandhi were divine.  Borg dismisses the creeds (p.10, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time) Jesus was a “spirit person,” “a mediator of the sacred,” “a shaman,” one of those persons like Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Mohammed, et al. (p. 32)

Recently Borg and Crossan have collaborated on a book, The Last Week: What the Gospels Really Teach About Jesus’ Final Days in Jerusalem.  Their Jesus is a semi-revolutionary leader of peasants and outcasts against the priestly elite and those who accommodate to the dominant system of Roman coercive authority. It was not our sinful condition that demanded his crucifixion but this elite.  Borg and Crossan’s Jesus does not come from God to take away sin but arose from among the innocent to teach us how not to be a part of the dominant systems. They fail to understand the depth of sin in all of us at all times, including peasants, as well as the elite. More importantly they lose the assurance of ultimate mercy and forgiveness.

On the other side of the world, the Revd David Ould wrote an article for Stand Firm which directed us to return to the Thirty-nine Articles, rooted in Scripture. By way of contrast, he cites an Australian rector, the Revd Rob Bower who recently wrote:

Progressive Christians believe that Jesus came to manifest the Kingdom. That is to reveal the Sacred in our every day life. For far too long we have been obsessed about Jesus’ death being a payment to a wrathful god for the insult of human sin.

The gospels have Jesus mention the Kingdom 106 times; there are very few allusions, and they are only allusions, to Jesus dying for our sins.

Admittedly St Paul and other New Testament writers understand Jesus’ death as replacing the temple sacrifice, and that is understandable given their context. However there is no necessity for us to understand the death of Jesus in this way.

Why did Jesus have to die? For him to do anything else would have required him to compromise with violence rather than absorb it.

Mr Ould reminds us of the historical ‘artifacts’ of the Anglican Communion, the Thirty-nine Articles, specifically (emphases in the original):

Article II

Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man

The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.

Article XXXI

Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross

The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone.

1Cor. 15:1-3    Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

He also calls to our attention Article VI which says that the Bible is our undisputed authority with nothing added to or subtracted from it.

Errant Anglican clergy — priests, ministers and bishops — would do well to take their postmodern, unifying blinders off and read the New Testament.

As to Christ’s once-sufficient sacrifice for our sins, we have several New Testament verses, also prophesied in the Old Testament — no matter what version we choose to read:

He was handed over to die because of our sins, and he was raised to life to make us right with God.  (Romans 4:25, New Living Translation)

Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].  (Hebrews 9:12, King James Version)

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, (1 Corinthians 15:3, New International Version)

Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.  (1 Timothy 2:6, King James Version)

For Christ died for sins once and for all, a good man on behalf of sinners, in order to lead you to God. He was put to death physically, but made alive spiritually, (1 Peter 3:18, Good News Bible)

And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. (1 John 3:5, King James Version)

The King James Version page with verses relating to Christ’s atonement for our sins has a complete list. May we read and not forget.

May Anglican clergy preaching another gospel do the same, prayerfully.

The peculiar world of online communications

As enjoyable as being online is, the cyber-universe has its peculiarities.

Christians asking for blogging money

The most important aberration is when Christian ministers and laymen ask for money to spread the word of God.

Two come to mind, neither of whom I shall mention by name. Neither is a reader of mine.

One is a gainfully employed clergyman who has a prominent moneybox on his blog. It is unclear why he seeks small change to keep his site going. If he finds it too difficult to operate gratis in terms of time, then perhaps he should close it.

The other, a layman, says his blog needs to update its format, but this will cost money. He has now asked his readers to donate whatever they can.

Yet, when Jesus sent His apostles and disciples to preach and heal, He told them to carry no moneybag. St Paul was a tentmaker by trade. His calls for charity were for those in his congregations, not him personally. Bearing this in mind, asking for money to spread the Christian message seems a bit off.

As most people who frequent the Internet know, WordPress and other companies offer free blog hosting. Those who find these companies’ premium sites too expensive would do well to reconsider their standard free-of-charge option.

Those who threaten to close blogs

Then there are others who threaten to close their blogs. This is what could be called the ‘Do you really love me?’ tactic.

Again, none of these involve my readers who also blog.

One can assume only that their stats have taken a temporary dip. The blogger then announces his decision to close the site. In response come dozens of ‘Oh, no, please don’t!’ replies.

Some current affairs bloggers go further by describing a sudden, serious illness from which they recover in a few months’ time. ‘I feel so much better now’. Why not announce a leave of absence for unstated reasons?

In both situations, the blog stays open because stats rise once again. Phew, what a relief. I was so worried for a while. Not.

Commenters who announce their departure

One popular British news site which I read regularly recently acquired a new commenter a few months ago.

It seems he was looking for personal affirmation which he never received. The site, incidentally, is not one to offer warm fuzzies. So one day he wrote, ‘This will be my last day here’ then continued commenting. Most of the other readers encouraged him to stay. However, others, each time they saw a new opinion of his, asked when he was finally departing.

Did he expect them to beg him to stay? His comments weren’t that interesting. Was he in emotional trouble and sounding a cry for help? He didn’t give any indication. However, one thing is sure: he did become a nuisance by the end. It would have been better had he just said he’d enjoyed the site but it was time for him to go — then do so forthwith.

The tragic case of the deleted blog

However, the worst scenario — all too frequent, as it happens — is when a great (albeit relatively unknown) blogger just deletes his blog.

I’ve seen this happen twice with people whose perspectives and posts were worth keeping online for others to read. Both blogs were beautifully written. One had quite a lot of Christian history on it which would have come as news to many. The other, also church-oriented, vanished suddenly — also a loss to many Christians who could have benefited from what it had to say.

Neither would have cost a penny to keep inactive yet available.

As in offline life, the online world has its own mysteries to contemplate with regard to human behaviour.

Lent in the early Church — not a pagan practice

The Lutheran pastor, the Revd Joseph Abrahamson, recently wrote a post for Steadfast Lutherans on the history of Lent, ‘Redeeming Holy Days from Pagan Lies — Ash Wednesday and Lent’.

Excerpts follow — please be sure to read Pastor Abrahamson’s well-researched post in full. Emphases mine below.

First, Abrahamson takes issue with those, past and present, who paint Lent as a pagan tradition. This started in the 19th century with the Free Church of Scotland minister Alexander Hislop‘s book The Two Babylons and, perhaps paradoxically, continues today with New Age followers:

There are two aspects of Ash Wednesday and Lent that need to be emphasized. First is the historical nature of the forty days of Lent; the second is the use of ash on Ash Wednesday.

To put it plainly: the claim that Ash Wednesday and Lent are based on pagan origins is a relatively new fiction that comes out of several different sources.

First is the irresponsible work of Alexander Hislop and those who followed him; both those who claim to be Christian and those who oppose Christianity.

Second is the neo-pagan movement today that falsely imagines that paganism is the most ancient of religions and rejects the Bible totally. But, in fact, Lent and Ash Wednesday have no origins in paganism.

You will find all kinds of websites on the Internet that claim that Ash Wednesday and Lent are not Biblical because Christ never commanded them.

In part this is true. And Satan likes to use truth to give credibility to his lies.

Abrahamson explains:

The false logic is this: If Christ didn’t specifically command us to do something, then it is a sin to do it. So, think about how little sense that logic makes. Take this example: Christ did not command that I have my children wash dishes. Is it therefore a sin to have them do so? No.

That said:

No human can require a Christian to use the fast of Lent as a saving work. A congregation can recommend the practice as a serious self-examination of one’s own sin and sinful appetites; of one’s own weaknesses. No human can require Christians to use ash on Ash Wednesday or any other day as a way of proving their faith.

And neither can any human forbid the use of the Lenten fast or the use of ashes either. Both are legalism, a replacing of the Gospel for a new law.

Abrahamson tells us that Lenten observance began with St Athanasius — of the Athanasian creed. The bishop — from Alexandria, Egypt — also led at the Council of Nicaea in a condemnation of the heresy of Arianism. Athanasius encouraged his congregations to observe Lent; documentation from 331 and 340 AD affirms this.

Abrahamson continues:

We learn from this that even at the time the Nicene Creed was written, at the time Constantine the Great ruled, the Western and Eastern Churches practiced a voluntary fast for 40 days before Easter.

As for Hislop,

The 40 day fast does not come from the so-called “weeping of Tammuz” as claimed by the radical anti-Roman Catholic writer Alexander Hislop in his book The Two Babylons. Hislop made up myths and connections out of thin air because of his hatred for Roman Catholicism. Hislop’s views were adopted whole cloth by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who continued to republish Hislop’s book until 1987. Hislop’s book was cited in 22 different issues of the Jehovah’s Witnesses periodical The Watchtower from 1950 to 1978, and several times in the 1980s. From 1989 the Jehovah’s Witnesses stopped referring to Hislop’s book, but they have kept Hislop’s teaching and use other sources.

Two basic facts: 1) The weeping for Tammuz was not a 40 day thing. That is Hislop’s fiction. 2) The month of Tammuz is 4 months after Easter. They aren’t even in the same time of year. ( From the The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature: Inana and Bilulu: an ulila to Inana: c.1.4.4 English Translation)

The pastor examines the many references in the Old Testament to wearing sackcloth and/or ashes as a form of penitence, among them 2 Samuel 13:19, Esther 4:1, Job 2:8. He cites and explains several more.

Abrahamson makes an important point:

The ash on the forehead is a confession that the person is worth only ashes, has no righteousness, is not better than another, and needs God’s grace if there is to be any hope for him or her.

Can the symbol be abused? Yes, of course it can. But that does not make it a bad symbol. Every gift of God can be abused by sinful people. We should expect that because of sin.

However, the goal of the penitent in observing Lent concerns his awareness as being one in desperate need of God’s grace and Christ’s redemption.

And, no, regardless of what past Wee Frees or New Age pagans have written, Lent is purely Christian.

Thoughts as we enter Lent 2014

As I write this, many in the world today will have celebrated some form of Mardi Gras — Fat Tuesday — often including a dinner which features a sumptuous or high-calorie foodstuff.

The end of Epiphany and beginning of Lent traditionally occurred in Europe at a time when fat and flour stored over the winter were in danger of going rancid or wormy. It had to be consumed in order to avoid household waste. The Tuesday before Ash Wednesday became the perfect opportunity to do this. In France and the UK, this means eating crêpes. In other European countries, a dish which is fried, sautéed or high-calorie features prominently.

My Christianity / Apologetics page has a selection of articles about this time in the Church calendar. Here are a few:

Ash Wednesday reflections

Ash Wednesday: ‘No, that wasn’t dirt on my forehead’

Lent, denominational differences and freedom in Christ

Controversy continues today as to whether Protestants in particular should mark the Lenten period with a willing — not enforced — period of Christian devotion or activity.

Last year, Anne Kennedy — wife of the Revd Matt Kennedy — gave a good précis of the Episcopal / Anglican reasons for using Lent as a special time:

My psalm reading this morning just happened to be Psalm 32 which begins,

“Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
Blessed is the man against whom the Lord counts no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit.”

This strikes me as a perfect entrance into a Lenten season of repentance and self examination. The gift of God’s forgiveness to the one who turns in sorrow for sin is the beginning point. It is the moment of greatest blessing. Many things come after it—love, grace, maturity, knowledge, enlightening of the heart and mind—but none of them can be had in their fullness without repentance, without turning around and walking towards God rather than away from him. And yet this beginning step is usually always the hardest, whether it is a first time repentance, or one of the many many times of contrition the Christian faces …

I pray you will take the time in this blessed season of Lent to open yourself to Jesus and let him look at your whole heart, your whole mind, and allow him to adjust things according to his own plan and purpose. Blessed is the one whose transgression, whose sin is forgiven!

This isn’t to say that you and I are obliged to ‘do something’. No Christian has to ‘do’ anything during Lent — a topic which I’ll explore once again in tomorrow’s post.

A number of us have grown up with Lenten traditions, however, and look forward to a dedicated time of year when we can focus more on Christ, who gave His life for our sins. If we willingly decide to devote this to prayer or self-examination — and it is hoped that we carry this on after Lent ends as a means of sanctification — who is to say we cannot use this time productively in our Christian walk?

America’s tide is turning

To any American clergy — and there are a few (but not regular readers of this site) — who say that Christians in the United States are not persecuted, I would kindly ask them to read the comments following the NBC News article, ‘Federal Judge Strikes Down Texas Gay Marriage Ban’.

The dozens of bile-filled comments are testament to what is happening today in the United States. A decade ago, such opprobrium would have been unthinkable.

Detractors often say, ‘Well, no one would ever say those things in person’. To which I would respond, ‘No, because such hostility indicates what really is going on in that mindset.’

I happened to see the article only because a commenter mentioned my post on Harry Truman’s discourse on the American Founding Fathers taking their inspiration for the nation from the Bible. My thanks go to L_Robinson for mentioning the piece and for having the mettle to defend his position.

L_Robinson was rounded on in a vulgar fashion as were others who oppose same sex marriage on biblical or natural law grounds.

One of them wrote:

Read through the posts. 90% of the name-calling comes from the fans of same-sex marriage. This same-sex marriage concept was recently created to motivate atheistic useful idiots… to get them to the polls, call people names and create animosity.
It has worked perfectly…divide and conquer the Alinsky way.
If you believe in a multi-gender definition of marriage, they’ll call you a ‘bigot’. The useful idiots have been trained to believe their own mother is a hateful bigot.
Joseph Goebbels would be proud.

So would Stalin.

Someone replied with this:

You know something very good must be happening when all the bigots, Christofascists and [Tea Party supporters] are [te]ed off.

So now we’re ‘Christofascists’? Hmm.

Clergymen who say that there is no persecution of Christians occurring in the United States are woefully misguided — even if their confessional theology is highly sound.

If I were they, I would try to be a bit more aware of what laymen are enduring when they defend the family and the Bible online. It won’t take long for this to escalate into physical violence.

Experiencing sorrow and fear is normal — just don’t let them rule you

One of my favourite Episcopal priests, the Revd Matt Kennedy of Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton, NY, had another excellent post on Stand Firm.

Kennedy’s ‘The Perfect Agony’ explores the dichotomy between experiencing happiness in the Lord and the fear as well as the sorrow which accompany significant events in our lives. He uses as his text Mark 14:32-42.

Christians read and hear much about the potential pitfalls of experiencing negative emotions. As Kennedy says (emphases mine):

… this is a hard text for many American evangelical Christians who have been taught that God became incarnate to give us happy lives and therefore any lack of joy, peace, and/or happiness is the result of some kind of faith deficiency. But Jesus, the sinless lamb, experienced emotional turmoil on a level unknown to any other human being. And he wasn’t doing anything wrong.

Citing a real life example — one which is typical in every congregation — Kennedy describes how the more a cancer sufferer he knew (in another church) heard happy verses parroted from the New Testament, the worse she felt.

He explains:

The problem is ours. We read scripture emotively. Paul says: “rejoice.” We think: feel happy. James says: “Count it all joy”. We think: feel joyful. John says “love casts out fear” we think: If feel love I won’t feel fear. Jesus says: don’t worry. We think: I mustn’t feel worry.

No. God doesn’t say to the mourner, the frightened, the anxious: Don’t feel emotion. He says: Don’t let sorrow, fear, worry, rule you as if they were your gods. You have One God, And I’m greater than your emotions. Let me bear them with you. Come to me. (Matthew 11:28)

Therefore, it is perfectly normal to fear and to grieve. It is normal to experience the panoply of negative feelings, such as loneliness and the blues. However, as with so many other things, it depends on how we treat these feelings. Will we be enslaved to them or will we use those experiences as an opportunity to pray to the living God for help and guidance?

What Kennedy says has implications regarding how we minister to our fellow Christians, including those facing death. Instead of sounding glib by prooftexting, we might well advise prayers for emotional strength during difficult, seemingly impossible times.

One wonders whether reading the New Testament emotionally is a 20th and 21st century trend. I do not recall my parents or grandparents understanding it as such. My grandparents’ generation born in the 1890s would have been used to infant mortality. For my parents’ age cohorts, living to 75 and beyond was an achievement. The deaths which, today, we would consider premature were an occasion for family and friends to pray fervently (a popular word at the time) whilst feeling sorrowful.

Strangely, few of them lost their faith. Churches were full.

These days, instead of looking for wisdom in the New Testament, many of us disregard it. Again, as Kennedy says, it’s all in the way we read it. If we mistakenly read it as an emotional self-help manual — ‘if I really loved, I wouldn’t feel afraid’ — we’re bound to be disappointed, even angry.

Perhaps it is time for us to focus more on God in times of need, when we need to overcome a devastating situation. May we ask Him for help, for grace, for comfort. He will provide.

²⁸But if God so clothes the grass, which is alive in the field today, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith! ²⁹And do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, nor be worried. ³⁰For all the nations of the world seek after these things, and your Father knows that you need them. ³¹Instead, seek his kingdom, and these things will be added to you.  (Luke 12:28-31)