No comment department

Apparently, The Washington Post is hard up for material.

You can get a speaking role in the next “Left Behind” movie for $7,500. You can name a character for $5,000, or appear as an extra in the background as the heroes figure out End Times prophecy for $2,500.

You can get these movie perks if you join the crowdfunding campaign for the sequel to the 2014 “Left Behind” film starring Nicolas Cage. Producer Paul Lalonde began a campaign on Indiegogo with a goal of raising $500,000 to finance the film.

“I’m asking you to be more than a fan,” Lalonde says in the promotional video explaining the campaign. “I’m asking you to be a partner in this vision.”

More than 130 people contributed in the first three days, giving nearly $40,000.

The 2014 reboot of the franchise was funded in the traditional way with big investors who expect a return. But the movie did not do very well, critically or financially. It received 2 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, meaning critics generally did not give it a stamp of approval.

Made with a healthy budget of $16 million, it earned $14 million in the United States and another $5.6 million internationally, doing moderate business in Brazil, Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates. It is difficult to attract investors to a sequel with such small profits.

For dedicated fans, though, money is not the point. The point is spreading the message.

“As Christians we all know it can be difficult sharing your faith,” Lalonde said. “How are we supposed to reach these people who don’t even want to hear what we have to say? Well one of the best ways I’ve found is through movies.”

Lalonde himself became a Christian after hearing that Jesus was coming soon to save his followers before the Antichrist rose to global power, and human history ended at the battle of Armageddon. Lalonde was greatly influenced by the 1972 film, “A Thief in the Night,” which popularized that evangelical Christian vision of the End Times.

“A Thief in the Night” was never shown in theaters, however. It was a church-basement movie. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the 69-minute horror film about life under the Antichrist was screened more than 1,000 times per month to church camps and youth groups across the country. It was widely influential, but rarely shown to someone who wasn’t already involved with an evangelical church.

The “Left Behind” franchise, which started as a novel in 1995, was designed to reach beyond the church basement.

There's more, if you can stomach it.

Nine more years for Madam Oven Mitt?

Folks, you can't make this stuff up.

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori has not ruled out seeking a second nine year term as Presiding Bishop and Primate of the Episcopal Church of the USA.

Her comments came amidst a wide ranging interview broadcast on 25 Feb 2014 with Kansas City National Public Radio affiliate station KCUR.

Asked about the sharp decline in membership since the 1960s, Bishop Jefferts Schori said the decline did not worry her. While there were fewer Episcopalians today, they were nonetheless better Episcopalians. The “membership levels of 50 years ago are not reflective of the faith” of the people in the pews she noted.

Part of the decline was due to the sociological changes in society as “our grandparents joined institutions at far higher rates” in the past then the same age cohorts did today.

“We are not comparing apples to apples” when “looking at 50 year old statistics” she said. Numbers alone were of less consequence than “an active involvement in a community of faith,” said Bishop Jefferts Schori.

Asked by her interviewer whether she was forbidden from seeking a second term, the presiding bishop stated the canons were silent on the number of terms permitted. Presiding Bishops had to retire at the General Convention closest to their 70th birthday due to the church’s mandatory retirement age of 72. All of her predecessors were barred from seeking a second term due to age rules, while she would not be.

From 1789 to 1926 the office of presiding bishop was determined by date of consecration, with the senior active diocesan bishop serving as presiding bishop. The Bishop of Pennsylvania, William White was the longest serving presiding bishop, holding the office for over 40 years.

In 1926 the office of presiding bishop became an elected post, and in the 1940s the position was separated from diocesan responsibilities during the tenure of the 19th Presiding Bishop, Henry Tucker of Virginia.

Asked what her plans were, Bishop Jefferts Schori said she was “not clear yet. I am in discernment.”

She described the search process for the next presiding bishop, who will be elected by the 2015 General Convention in Salt Lake City. It was “too early for me to make a final decision,” she said.

Asked if she was ruling herself out of contention, Bishop Jefferts Schori said I am “not saying no.”

Denial, as the saying goes, is not just a river in Egypt. In Madam Oven Mitt's case, however, Egypt is a most appropriate metaphor for the sub-Christian outfit over which she currently reigns and, apparently, wishes to continue reigning despite the exodus of so many Israelites.

BREAKING NEWS: Bishop Iker resigns from Nashotah House

The farcical eleventh hour attempt to legitimize the legacy of Katharine Jefferts Schori continues. This time, it is the ostensibly orthodox Nashotah House extending her an invitation to speak in its chapel. It is an inexplicably short sighted move on the part of the seminary's administration, prompting an immediate response from Fort Worth Bishop Jack Iker.

BISHOP IKER HAS RESIGNED AS A TRUSTEE on the Nashotah House Board, where he has served for the past 21 years. This action was taken in protest of the Dean's invitation to the Presiding Bishop of TEC to be a guest preacher in the seminary's chapel. Citing the lawsuits initiated by her against this Diocese, Bishop Iker notified the Board that he "could not be associated with an institution that honors her." Similarly, Bishop Wantland has sent notification that he "will not take part in any functions at Nashotah" nor continue "to give financial support to the House as long as the present administration remains." He is an honorary member of the Board (without vote) and a life member of the Alumni Association.

More information as it becomes available, but kudos to Bishops Iker and Wantland for their principled stand.

This had better be a joke . . .

. . . because if it isn't, it's utterly blasphemous.



Via The Christian Post with H/T to Bishop Quigg Lawrence:

Have you ever missed church to watch a football game? Hail Mary prayers don't usually overlap Hail Mary passes for East Coast worshippers, but those in more westerly time zones, or attenders of evening services, often find communion conflicting with kickoff.

Tim Christensen, pastor of Gold Hill Lutheran Church (Butte, Mont.) and avid San Francisco 49er fan, must have felt this tension in his soul. So he blew through yesterday's 11am service in one minute to watch his team play the Carolina Panthers in an NFL playoff matchup.

Christensen even delivered the benediction with a touchdown celebration that at the same time paid homage to 49er QB Colin Kaepernick and mocked Carolina QB Cam Newton.

I'm wondering if this is just a funny skit to open the service, but I haven't seen any evidence that suggests so. Regardless of backlash that's sure to come, Christensen is happy about one thing right now: the 49ers won 23-10.

No comment department . . .

. . . because commentary would be superfluous.

Washington’s National Cathedral will begin charging admission to visitors at the start of the new year.

On 21 November 2013, Robert Sokol, director of strategic programs at the Cathedral, told staffers and volunteers the cathedral’s pressing financial needs had compelled it to seek “new revenue opportunities”.

In a memo accompanying the announcement, Mr. Sokol stated the cathedral believed a $10 admissions fee for adults ($6 for children) would generate $150,000 in additional income in 2014. The change would not be risk free however.

“This change in entry policy has the potential to generate bad press. We will need a communication strategy to mitigate any voiced opposition raised by local constituencies,” he wrote, adding “those already upset – mainly neighbors, clergy, and Congregation members – with the installation of a suggested donation request at the door in 2011 may be even more upset when it is changed to a fixed admission.”

However, charging admission would likely generate increased sales for the gift shop and attract new members to the National Cathedral Association. Mr. Sokol said.

The cathedral “ran a deficit last year and might do so again this year and next if we do not find cost-savings and/or generate new revenue,” he explained.

“After cost-cutting efforts over that last few years, there isn't much left to trim, so we are looking for new sources of revenue, or in the case of the west end, ways to enhance our revenue streams. All those coming to pray will be admitted free of charge, and all-day every Sunday will be completely free — with the exception of specialty tours.”

“This was not an easy decision to make,” Mr. Sokol wrote, but “with the suggested donation process currently in place, we have been able to avoid for two years moving to a fixed admission.”

Okay, one bit of commentary is pertinent here.

What will they do when a poor widow shows up with only two small copper coins?

Not a parody (unfortunately)

This is an actual news story. It was published today on BuzzFeed, not The Onion. It is not a parody. I only wish it was.

The Supreme Court’s rulings in favor of same-sex marriage Wednesday were greeted with excitement by polygamists across the country, who viewed the gay rights victory as a crucial step toward the country’s inevitable acceptance of plural marriage.

Anne Wilde, a vocal advocate for polygamist rights who practiced the lifestyle herself until her husband died in 2003, praised the court’s decision as a sign that society’s stringent attachment to traditional “family values” is evolving.

“I was very glad… The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or three kids, is not the majority anymore,” said Wilde. “Now it’s grandparents taking care of kids, single parents, gay parents. I think people are more and more understanding that as consenting adults, we should be able to raise a family however we choose.”

“We’re very happy with it,” said Joe Darger, a Utah-based polygamist who has three wives. “I think [the court] has taken a step in correcting some inequality, and that’s certainly something that’s going to trickle down and impact us.”

Noting that the court found the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional because the law denied marriage rights to a specific class of people, Darger said, “Our very existence has been classified as criminal… and I think the government needs to now recognize that we have a right to live free as much as anyone else.”

Gay rights advocates have long sought to distance themselves from polygamists in order to undermine social conservatives’ slippery-slope argument, as articulated on Twitter Wednesday by talk radio host Bryan Fischer: “The DOMA ruling has now made the normalization of polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestiality inevitable. Matter of time.”

But polygamists in the United States, where bigamy is a crime, have taken cues from the marriage equality movement, and the few public champions of the lifestyle have deliberately positioned themselves as libertarian-minded gay rights advocates as well. Following gay rights activists’ lead, polygamist families — like the Browns, with their TLC reality show Sister Wives, and the Dargers, who came out with a book last year — have come forward to convince the American public that their lifestyle can be wholesome and normal.

The key difference in their missions, Wilde said, is that “gays want legal marriage and polygamists don’t” — they just want their lifestyle to be decriminalized.

“If you legalize plural marriage, that means the government is going to control certain aspects of it,” Wilde reasoned. “They might say, you have to make so much money, you can’t have any more than four like it says in the Koran.”

Still, she said the court’s decision would only help polygamists’ cause.
“I’m not a fortune-teller, but it seems like if more people are accepting of gay marriage, it would follow that polygamist marriage wouldn’t be criticized quite so much.”

But some polygamists were trying to temper their enthusiasm Wednesday.

“I do see this as a positive step toward recognizing the civil rights of the plural culture to make their lifestyle choices without being branded as criminals,” said Marlyne Hammon, a practicing polygamist. “We are still in the trenches facing the reality of stubborn, unjust laws, so we are cautious about breaking out the champagne just yet.”

Stuff we already knew: "Ground Zero Mosque" imam is a Muslim Jim Bakker

Anyone who says they are surprised by this news is either a liar or an ignoramus.

NEW YORK, Feb 5 (Reuters) - The head of a proposed mosque that was to be built near the site of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in New York City was sued on Tuesday and accused of squandering millions of dollars in donations on lavish lifestyle perks for himself and his wife.

The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan Supreme Court by several donors, accuses Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf of diverting $167,000 from private donations and $3 million from the Malaysian government for his personal use.

The money was intended for the Cordoba Initiative and the American Society for Muslim Advancement, two non-profits founded by Rauf aimed at educating the public about Islam and combating anti-Islam sentiment, the lawsuit said.

Rauf used the money to pay for vacations, real estate, entertainment, a luxury sports car and other gifts and lavish lifestyle perks for himself and his wife, the lawsuit said. The lawsuit also accused Rauf of falsifying the two groups' tax returns for several years to conceal fund transfers and sources.

The donors are seeking $25 million in damages.

A representative for the Cordoba Initiative and Rauf both referred requests for comment to their lawyer, Paul Knight, who did not immediately return a call Tuesday afternoon.

In 2010, Rauf spearheaded a controversial plan to build a Muslim cultural center and mosque in Lower Manhattan near the site of the World Trade Center attacks. He was ousted as the project's chief religious leader in January 2011. (Reporting by Jessica Dye; Editing by Edith Honan, Bernard Orr)

Pat Robertson meets Michael Nesmith

Pat Robertson has stepped in it again. It is somewhat tiresome to continue chronicling the missteps of this aging relic of pop culture evangelicalism, but the amusement factor seems to be elevated every time he opens his mouth. The latest target of his pungent commentary on current events is -- What else? -- the David Petraeus affair.

The Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) has issued a statement defending its chairman Pat Robertson's recent comments on the military sex scandal involving CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus and author Paula Broadwell, saying that Robertson's comments have been skewed in an attempt to discredit the famed televangelist.
Chris Roslan, spokesman for CBN, issued a statement shortly after Robertson's comments, which he made on the Monday, Nov. 12 and Tuesday, Nov. 13 episodes of the "The 700 Club", CBN's flagship program.

"In his comments about General Petraeus, Dr. Robertson clearly stated that he does not condone sexual immorality, a fact that was left out by certain bloggers in an effort to discredit him," Roslan stated, according to Gawker.com.

Robertson first spoke on Gen. Petraeus' affair on Monday, when he told "The 700 Club" viewers that the affair between Petraeus and his biographer, Paula Broadwell, was a matter of "propinquity."

"[Petraeus] is a Lieutenant Colonel, [Broadwell] is an extremely good-looking woman," Robertson said on Monday's episode.

"She is a marathon runner, [...] she's running with him and she's writing a biography. I think the term is 'propinquity,' and there was a lot of propinquity going on," Robertson added.

"I mean, who knows? The man's off in a foreign land, and he's lonely, and here's a good-looking lady throwing herself at him. I mean, he's a man," Robertson concluded.

The ordained Southern Baptist minister spoke on the military scandal again on Tuesday's episode of "The 700 Club", saying of Gen. Petraeus: "He's got four stars, he's written a book on counterinsurgency, he's the acknowledged expert in the world, he's one of the greatest generals America has ever produced, yet he can't keep his pants zipped."

Joel Miller was quick to criticize Robertson and his unique choice of words.

Petraeus and Broadwell came together while she worked on her book about him. “I think the word is ‘propinquity,’” said Robertson, then joked, “There was a lot of propinquity going on.”

It’s worth looking at that word. Propinquity — personal proximity that results in attraction — is hardly an excuse for infidelity. If anything the Christian tradition outright warns people about it. After being propositioned on several occasions, Joseph runs away from his temptress. Solomon warns his son to stay clear of the seductress. Paul tells us to make no provision for our fleshly lusts. And Jesus says to look on someone lustfully is the same as committing adultery.

Ever wonder how TMZ breaks celebrity news? They go where celebrities are making news. It’s the same with infidelity. If you want something, go where it happens. If you don’t want it, stay away.

It is highly unlikely that Pat Robertson is a connoisseur of the music of erstwhile Monkee and country rock pioneer Michael Nesmith. Up until now, however, I had rarely heard "propinquity" used in any other context than this:

Silly season for evangelical feminism

A few months back, there was a controversy over LifeWay, the Southern Baptist-owned Christian bookstore chain, banning DVD sales of The Blind Side. Christian authors such as Eric Metaxas criticized the decision, pointing out that it reflected a misguided desire by some Christians to remain "within cultural and religious ghettos" rather than to engage the culture in a positive, transformative way.

Another critic was Rachel Held Evans, who complained that her book, A Year of Biblical Womanhood, had also been put on LifeWay's blacklist, allegedly for its frequent use of the word, "vagina." As it turns out, however, there may have been a myriad of other quite legitimate reasons for any number of Christian bookstores to shun the book. Douglas Wilson is, in Matt Kennedy's words, "brief, true, and devastating" in his critique of Evans' questionable exegetical methodology. Even more devastating is Kathy Keller's thorough review, in which she eviscerates Evans' premise, presuppositions, and conclusions.

You say your ultimate goal is not to determine what the biblical authors say, but to see in the Bible “what I am looking for.” You go on immediately to say, “Are we reading with the prejudice of love or . . . of judgment and power, self-interest and greed?” (296) So “love” is the reason you will reject some parts of the Bible and embrace others? But where do you get your definition of love if not from the Bible itself? And if you say, “Parts of the Bible express love, and other parts express power interests,” you’ve clearly gotten your standard and definition of love from outside the Bible—specifically, from contemporary sensibilities—and these are your ultimate authority and norm.

Rachel, I can and do agree with much of what you say in your book regarding the ways in which either poor biblical interpretation or patriarchal customs have sinfully oppressed women. I would join you in exposing churches, books, teachers, and leaders who have imposed a human agenda on the Bible. However, you have become what you claim to despise; you have imposed your own agenda on Scripture in order to advance your own goals. In doing so, you have further muddied the waters of biblical interpretation instead of bringing any clarity to the task.

As a woman also engaged in trying to understand the Bible as it relates to gender, I had hoped for better.

When I was in seminary a little over 20 years ago, "evangelical feminism" was something a nascent movement which most of us hoped would eventually fade away. It will, although ever so slowly. With Rachel Held Evans and A Year of Biblical Womanhood, you might say it has officially entered its silly season.

Christian science fiction, forty years later

In case you missed it (and hopefully you did), Amy Frykholm, writing for Religion and Politics, reminds us that this year marks the 40th anniversary of a film that is literally a "cult classic."

A Thief in the Night is a cult classic, where the word “cult” has more than one resonance. If you have seen it, the setting was likely a church basement, a church camp, or some other quasi-authoritative space where the film’s sermonizing might have been accompanied by an earnest youth pastor worried for your soul. The film was released in 1972 and marks its 40th anniversary this year. It has influenced a generation of Christians reared in the 1970s and 80s. To date, the movie has been seen by perhaps more than 50 million people worldwide; others estimate as high as 300 million. (Because viewing and distribution has largely been through alternative mechanisms, an accurate accounting is impossible.) “Today, many teen evangelicals have not seen A Thief in the Night, but virtually every evangelical over thirty I’ve talked to is familiar with it, and most have seen it,” writes Heather Hendershot in her book Shaking the World for Jesus. Political scientist Paula Booke of Hope College, who wrote her doctoral dissertation at the University of Chicago on the influence of premillennial eschatology on American politics, recalls seeing the film at her small church in Jamaica in the late 1980s as a part of the church’s youth outreach. The showings were big cultural events for her, always capped by an emotional altar call. 

The film had an enormous impact on evangelical culture and shaped its attempts to influence American popular culture more directly through music, film, and books. Religion scholar John Walliss, who has written extensively on the movie and its aftermath, says, “Just as Alfred North Whitehead said that all of philosophy is a footnote to Plato, so we might say that all of evangelical Christian film is a footnote to A Thief in the Night.” This film inspired people from across the political and social spectrum. Marilyn Manson, who like so many saw the film at church as a child, wrote in his autobiography The Long Road Out of Hell, “I was thoroughly terrified by the idea of the end of the world and the Antichrist. So I became obsessed with it, watching movies like … A Thief in the Night, which described very graphically people getting their heads cut off because they hadn’t received 666 tattoos on their forehead.” 

At the other end of the social spectrum, young Christian filmmakers Peter and Paul LaLonde likewise saw the film as children, and later founded Cloud Ten Pictures, which produced the Left Behind The Movie, adopted from Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins massively popular book. A Thief in the Night draws its power from anxieties playing just below the surface of American life. It was the first film of its kind: a Christian horror flick that applied the tropes of science fiction and horror to an end-times scenario. The central premise of the movie is the “rapture,” a concept drawn from a particular strain of Christianity, which believes Jesus will return to earth at any moment to secretly rapture or take up the truly faithful to heaven. Everyone else will be left behind to face a catastrophic period under the rule of the Antichrist before the actual end of the world. Scholars label this view of the Bible “dispensational premillennialism.” 

“Dispensational” refers to the belief that God has divided human history into particular ages, or dispensations; “premillennialism” refers to the understanding that such devastation will occur before Jesus’ ultimate victory, which leads to Christ’s 1000-year reign (or millennium) on earth. The rapture and the apocalypse have had a powerful effect on the nation’s imagination and identity since the country’s inception, as well as playing an important part of American missionary strategy to other countries. Since the Puritan era, Americans have wondered if they are either phenomenally blessed or on the brink of a God-ordained disaster. “Within the first decade of settlement” on the American continent, Sacvan Bercovitch writes in his classic The American Jeremiad, “the clergy were already thundering denunciations of a backsliding people.” Bercovitch argues that the tensions between American ambitions and fear of disaster drove the culture forward from the outset. 

Through the popularity of the Scofield Reference Bible, especially its extensive notes on the Book of Revelation, the concepts of the rapture and apocalypse were folded into early 20th-century Christian fundamentalism. In The Late, Great Planet Earth, first published in 1970, Hal Lindsay correlated the rise of the Soviet Union, the establishment of the state of Israel, and other geopolitical events with apocalyptic biblical passages. Though originally released by the Christian publisher Zondervan, Lindsay’s book was quickly picked up by “secular” booksellers, and through the 1970s and 1980s, tens of millions of copies were sold. In the 1990s, LaHaye and Jenkins turned Lindsay’s biblical hermeneutics of world affairs into a series of fictionalized end times accounts. With 16 books published, TV and movie spinoffs—even a children’s series and video games—the Left Behind series made the apocalypse big business and made LaHaye a major political leader on the religious right. 

A THIEF IN THE NIGHT WAS THE FIRST and most famous of four films made by a group called “Mark IV Pictures” during the 1970s and 80s that included director Don Thompson and producer Russell Doughten. Doughten, who learned the film industry from working on The Blob and other B-movies in Hollywood, moved to Des Moines, Iowa, to open his own Christian movie studio with the explicit intent to use low-budget film to evangelize. Though it only cost $68,000 to make, the gross for the filmmakers was in the millions.

The phenomenon of A Thief in the Night and similar movies in this genre is more easily explained in terms of exploiting the fears of the barely saved--those who, in Paul's words, "will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Corinthians 3:15)--than of motivating the strong in faith to be about the work of expanding God's kingdom.

You can't make this stuff up. . .

. . . and in this case, you wouldn't want to.

COVINGTON, Ga. (CBS Atlanta) — A former high-ranking CNN executive is accused of leaving dog feces in his neighbor’s mailbox.

Covington police say the victims of the incident, Benjamin Dameron and Ralph Miller, have video of Bob Furnad walking with his dog up to the mailbox and placing a bag filled with the feces in their mailbox.

“Mr. Furnad stated that he did place a bag containing dog feces in the victim’s mail box,” Covington Police Capt. Ken Malcom told WGCL-TV.

Furnad told the Covington News that he pulled the prank due to a long-standing feud with the two.

“This was an immature act in response to years of malicious rumor mongering that I consider defamation of character,” Furnad told the paper.

Dameron says he and Miller were getting ready for a wedding at Worthington Manor when they found the package.

“We were working, getting ready for a wedding and we were out on the driveway,” Dameron told WGCL. “We thought, well, we’re this close, we’ll check the mail box to see if the mail’s come.”

Furnad faces a $180 fine.

Furnad was previously an executive vice president and senior executive producer at CNN from 1984-1997 before becoming president of CNN Headline News where he held that position until 2001, according to his LinkedIn page. He also taught at the University of Georgia.

No comment department

You can't make this stuff up: "Judas" actor accidentally hangs himself

Via the BBC with H/T to Sarah Pulliam Bailey.

A Brazilian actor has died after accidentally hanging himself while playing Judas in an Easter Passion play.

Tiago Klimeck, 27, was enacting the suicide of Judas during the performance on Good Friday in the city of Itarare.

The actor was hanging for four minutes before fellow performers realised something was wrong.

Klimeck was taken to hospital suffering from cerebral hypoxia but died on Sunday.

The Passion play was being performed in Itarare, 345km (214 miles) west of Sao Paulo.

Klimeck was re-enacting the scene in which Judas commits suicide in repentance for his betrayal of Jesus Christ.

Police are investigating the apparatus that was meant to support Klimeck. It appears the knot may have been erroneously tied.

When the actors realised something was wrong, Klimeck was taken down and found to be unconscious.

The Santa Casa de Itapeva hospital has confirmed the death and an autopsy will take place on Monday.

This could very well be the stupidest person on the face of the earth, Volume 3

We have already noted the latest trend among the Stupid People, namely questioning whether or not Jesus was actually male. That being the case, Paul Oestreicher, the pitiable soul who penned this piece of pseudo-hermeneutical garbage in The Guardian, is a little behind the curve.

Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual: Jesus could have been any of these. There can be no certainty which. The homosexual option simply seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction. It would be so interpreted in any person today. Although there is no rabbinic tradition of celibacy, Jesus could well have chosen to refrain from sexual activity, whether he was gay or not. Many Christians will wish to assume it, but I see no theological need to. The physical expression of faithful love is godly. To suggest otherwise is to buy into a kind of puritanism that has long tainted the churches.

All that, I felt deeply, had to be addressed on Good Friday. I saw it as an act of penitence for the suffering and persecution of homosexual people that still persists in many parts of the church. Few readers of this column are likely to be outraged any more than the liberal congregation to whom I was preaching, yet I am only too aware how hurtful these reflections will be to most theologically conservative or simply traditional Christians. The essential question for me is: what does love demand? For my critics it is more often: what does scripture say? In this case, both point in the same direction.

Whether Jesus was gay or straight in no way affects who he was and what he means for the world today. Spiritually it is immaterial. What matters in this context is that there are many gay and lesbian followers of Jesus – ordained and lay – who, despite the church, remarkably and humbly remain its faithful members. Would the Christian churches in their many guises more openly accept, embrace and love them, there would be many more disciples.

Sorry, Paul. Your subject matter is so passé. We don't get all bent out of shape over questions about Jesus being gay anymore. We've moved on to questions about his (her?) gender!

Get with the program, man! (That is, if you are a man. Never can be sure these days.)

Womenpriests: The wave of the future (NOT!)

Despite her public proclamation never to cover a story on the subject of "womenpriests" again, Mollie Hemingway at GetReligion found this gem from the Indianapolis Star too good to pass up.

As she knelt at the altar of the Far-Southside church during her ordination ceremony, Maria Thornton McClain was unaware that three off-duty police officers stood watch just outside the sanctuary.

"We're just here in case there's a protest or problem," said one of the armed officers, dressed in full uniform. He didn't wish to be identified.

The anonymity was part of the mystery in a growing effort to welcome women into the priesthood.

The Roman Catholic Church does not recognize the ordination of women, but more and more women are answering the call as part of a reform movement.

On Sunday, McClain, 71, a former East Coast resident, aunt to several nieces and nephews, and wife of 31 years to Ed McClain, became Indiana's first woman to be ordained into the priesthood.

Baptized a Roman Catholic, McClain, a former nun, moved to Indianapolis in 1977 to become director of religious education at St. Pius X parish. She was ordained as a deacon last year and began preparing for the priesthood.

I'll leave it to Mollie to critique the article's journalistic merit (or lack thereof). What I would like to focus on is a consistent thread which runs through all of the stories of these so-called "womenpriests." In September 2010, TIME reported on the "ordination" of Alta Jacko.

Alta Jacko is the mother of eight children. She is also an ordained priest in the Roman Catholic Church. Jacko, 81, who earned her master’s degree in pastoral studies from Loyola University, a Jesuit Catholic school, says that being a priest is what she was called to do.

A month later, the same publication reported on the "ordination" of Judy Lee.

Lee, 67, considers herself a validly ordained Catholic priest. The Vatican disagrees. "The Catholic Church ... has no authority to confer priestly ordination on women" because Jesus had no female Apostles, Lee was told in a letter from the local bishop, the Rev. Frank Dewane — who also informed her that she had been excommunicated for ignoring that doctrine. Lee's reply: "Rome can impose all the rules it wants on women, divorced people, gay people. But it can't stop us."

Bring these two articles together with the Star article cited above and the pattern becomes glaringly obvious.

On Sunday, McClain, 71, a former East Coast resident, aunt to several nieces and nephews, and wife of 31 years to Ed McClain, became Indiana's first woman to be ordained into the priesthood.

Jacko, Lee, and McClain are 81, 67, and 71 years of age, respectively. One other article, from the San Diego Union Tribune in August 2010, reported on the "ordination" of Nancy Corran, a mere child of 37, but that was by an "independent" congregation with no apparent historical connection with Rome. Suffice it to say that what the media often reports as a "growing movement" within the Roman Catholic Church to ordain women as priests apparently has little appeal to younger generations of parishioners. I doubt Benedict, who just turned 85, spends much time worrying about it.

The AMiA's temporary welcome in the Congo

George Conger reports the (somewhat bizarre) details of the AMiA's new provincial home with the Anglican Church of the Congo. Here's the money quote from Archbishop Henri Isingoma:

“[We] have finally agreed to temporarily welcome AMiA in our Province as a result of a fruitful discussion as a first step of our ongoing dialogue.”

With all due respect to the archbishop, I am not quite sure how you can reach a final agreement as a first step for a temporary provision.

This could very well be the stupidest person on the face of the earth, Volume 2

Stand Firm and MCJ are all over this side-splitting contribution to the ever-expanding Stupid People File from the Easter edition of the CBS Sunday Morning program. Apparently, it was a slow news day (the death of the legendary newsman Mike Wallace, notwithstanding), so the present-day descendants of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite had to find something to keep their audience entertained.

De Wesselow - an agnostic, originally a skeptic about the Shroud - has just published a provocative new book about in which he concludes it's genuine.

He compared it to artwork depicting the Crucifixion created since the Middle Ages, referring to the Station of the Cross at the Church of St. Ignatius Loyola in New York City: "If you look at the hands on the cross, the nails go through the center of the palms," he showed Teichner. "That part of the hand is not strong enough to bear the weight of the body."

Meanwhile, the image on the Shroud shows the nail wounds going through the wrists. "That's how they would have done it in Roman times," said De Wesselow, supporting the idea that the Shroud is much older than the middle ages.

He said the Shroud illustrates signs of the events of Good Friday through Easter Sunday. "You start off with the flagellation, and that's very clearly presented on the Shroud, with these very, very distinct marks of the flagrum," he said. "You can then see the crown of thorns. He then is beaten and you can see on his face underneath his eyes there's a swelling. His nose looks as if it's been broken." There is also the mark of a puncture of a spear, with "dribbles of blood coming down."

Just coincidence?

But now here's the provocative part: De Wesselow's take on the resurrection - what he says happened on Easter Day when Mary Magdalene and two other women went to Jesus' tomb:

"They go to the body, they lift off the cloth, and they notice this strange shadowy form on the cloth itself," he said. "Immediately, they would have had this perception of it as a living presence in the tomb with Jesus."

"They didn't see Jesus come alive again?"

"No, I think what they saw was the Shroud," De Wesselow said. "Once they saw the Shroud they understood that he'd not been resurrected in the flesh, he'd been resurrected in the spirit."

According to de Wesselow, each supposed sighting of the risen Christ was actually a sighting of the Shroud. He's convinced it was what sparked the rapid spread of Christianity, as it was taken from Jerusalem to Galilee, then to Damascus, where he believes Paul saw it and became a Christian.

Um, yeah. The "spark" that ignited a worldwide movement which has now lasted for two millennia was the deluded imagination of a handful of disappointed dreamers venerating a piece of cloth. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Cue the tape. . .

From the "They think we still care" file

In one of the more memorable scenes from the movie Major League, aging catcher Jake Taylor (Tom Berenger) walks in on a dinner party hosted by his ex-girlfriend and her fiance. Urged to stay despite the awkwardness of the situation, Jake introduces himself and says he is a player for the Indians. "In Cleveland?" asks one of the dinner guests. "I didn't know they still had a team."

I recall that scene every time I come across some stray piece of news about some entity that long ago ceased to have any relevance and was not particularly significant even in its heyday. Such an entity is the Jesus Seminar, a consortium of "biblical scholars" so obscure that those of us who, upon reading this article by Jeff Walton, have been duly notified of its continued existence had, first, to be reminded that it had ever existed at all. 

Yes, I do recall that marvelous little book, The Five Gospels, in which this esteemed collection of biblical brainiacs presented their scholarly "findings" based on the cutting edge research and hermeneutical methodologies of the late nineteenth century. That was two, maybe three, decades ago (the late twentieth century) and it provided ample fodder for late night conversations among insomniac seminary students at the time. Most of us, however, have long since forgotten about these luminaries of the literati. The real world of parish life is a far more edifying pursuit.

Unfortunately, so it seems, the Jesus Seminar is forgotten, but not gone. Their message today is as fresh as yesterday's mildew on the water-stained pages of a first edition printing of Schleiermacher's Reden über die Religion.

Early Christianity was an oral culture launched by an illiterate Jesus Christ, according to two liberal New Testament scholars who spoke recently at a Jesus Seminar event in Washington, D.C.

The claim was one of several bold assertions made during a recent March workshop in which the prevalence of Evangelical Christianity was bemoaned and scripture was “reimagined” from a feminist perspective. The Salem, Oregon-based Jesus Seminar dismisses scripture’s historicity and draws from sources outside of the Biblical canon in order to produce what they claim to be a more authentic view of Jesus than the church teaches.

Bernard Brandon Scott of Phillips Theological Seminary in Tulsa, Oklahoma and Joanna Dewey, a professor emerita of Biblical Studies at Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, argued that a later move into manuscripts minimalized the role of women in the early church.

“Early Christianity was an oral culture based on oral authority,” Dewey claimed, adding that manuscripts were “inherently male” and eliminated women, while oral story kept them in.

Reimagining Mark

During one session of her presentation, Dewey donned a head covering and dramatically sought to “re-imagine” a female-centered telling of Mark’s gospel, performing as an imaginary late first century woman.

“I think something like this could have happened,” Dewey proposed, titling her performance “the Gospel of Ruth.”

The Episcopal seminary professor described such a “reimagining” of Mark’s gospel as an important step in countering alleged sexist distortion of Biblical history. Women, Dewey argued, would be at center, rather than periphery, of any actual gospel events.

Scott agreed, asserting that “These days, unless you are a right-wing conservative, a feminist reading of the Bible is typical.”

An Illiterate Christ

Dewey was firm in her assertion that Jesus was illiterate. Refuting the Luke chapter 4 account of Christ reading in the synagogue as an invention of the gospel writer, Dewey claimed it was “because he couldn’t imagine Jesus as illiterate.”

The seminary professor claimed that a scroll of Isaiah would have been too expensive for the Nazareth synagogue, and the story manufactured. Dewey did not address Jesus writing on the ground in John chapter 8, or other examples of his literacy.

“Jesus did not know how to read and write, there was no reason to,” Dewey flatly declared, adding that while modern people take literacy for granted, “this was not true in antiquity.” Dewey offered that the only group among whom literacy was the norm at the time was the elite, with letters orally dictated and then performed before community.

Scott mostly agreed, stating that no more than 10 percent of the urban population was literate during the time period, and that only 2-3 percent of the rural population was literate. The two speakers differed on whether or not Jesus spoke Greek, with Dewey arguing it was less likely, while Scott countered his observation that lower classes quickly learned the language of dominant culture, and Jesus’ peers would have been no different.

Imperial Images

While Scott and Dewey agreed on Jesus’ alleged illiteracy, Scott argued that widely understood images pervaded early Christian society. Citing early images of Christ portrayed as Roman Centurion, Praetorian Guard and lastly in the clothing of an Emperor, his hand lifted in imperial gesture, Scott stated that early Christianity was juxtaposed with imperial image.

Pointing to a recurring image in some Roman tombs of a woman praying, Scott identified those tombs as Christian, and the woman as a pre-Constantinian Christian image paired with Christ as a shepherd youth. While this female praying form was not mentioned in writing, Scott asserted it was “all over artwork” and the images would later be displaced with Christ portrayed as an emperor.

Sweeping claims by Scott and Dewey, including an assertion that monastics rejected episcopal authority, went mostly unchallenged during the workshop at St. Mark’s Episcopal Church on Capitol Hill. Scott at one point suggested to the audience of 40 mostly elderly participants to “make up your own canon” of scripture.

“I would trade the book of Revelation for Hamlet any day,” Scott announced, adding that he would swap the Pastoral Epistles for any two Emily Dickinson poems. “We’d be way better off.”

The United Church of Christ layperson also categorized Revelation as the book of “a left-wing bomb thrower” violently reacting against the violence of Rome.

No Love Lost on Evangelicals

Both Scott and Dewey shared their dismay at the continued worldwide spread of Evangelical Christianity and the failure of liberal religious thought to gain widespread traction. Both of the Jesus Seminar speakers complained that the prevalence of evangelicalism led to assumptions that it is the only viewpoint of Christianity, resulting in either adherence to evangelical belief or a rejection of Christianity altogether.

Mainline Protestants also earned Dewey’s scorn, as the retired Episcopal seminary professor expressed frustration at “pressure still there to preach [Bible] stories as true.”

“We’re not just talking about Evangelicals – but liberal, east coast Episcopalians,” Dewey fumed. Scott agreed, sharing that he no longer revealed to fellow airplane passengers that he was a New Testament scholar out of frustration with preconceived notions he encountered.

“We have lost the public battle for what it [scripture] means, and that’s unfortunate,” appraised Scott, with Dewey adding that the church was going through a “profoundly anti-intellectual” period.

The über stupidity of these "scholars" is eclipsed only by their slavish adherence to a feminized pseudo-hermeneutic which makes the "colored bead" voting system of the Seminar's early years seem almost respectable. David Fischer eviscerates the arguments of Scott and Dewey with a few simple facts of history.

1) Christianity grew directly out of Judaism. Judaism was, indisputably, a “manuscript culture,” one that took great pains to pass down the revelation of God and its rabbinic interpretation in written form. That doesn’t mean there weren’t oral elements, of course (that’s where most if not all of the Talmud comes from), but that by Jesus’s day Judaism was based on the written word. So how could Jesus have been taken seriously as a teacher and preacher if He wasn’t familiar with the written tradition of His faith?

2) Given the extraordinary care that was taken to insure that the written tradition was properly maintained, why should we think that there was some kind of opposition between the two in the early church?

3) Why was writing “inherently male,” other than because it happens to fit the presuppositions and ideology of the academic?

His whole critique is well worth your time.

NYC Food Police target homeless shelters

This is what happens when a government executive with an open disdain for all things religious shoves his benevolent fist down the citizens' charitable throats.

So much for serving the homeless. 

The Bloomberg administration is now taking the term “food police” to new depths, blocking food donations to all government-run facilities that serve the city’s homeless.

In conjunction with a mayoral task force and the Health Department, the Department of Homeless Services recently started enforcing new nutritional rules for food served at city shelters. Since DHS can’t assess the nutritional content of donated food, shelters have to turn away good Samaritans.

For over a decade, Glenn Richter and his wife, Lenore, have led a team of food-delivery volunteers from Ohab Zedek, the Upper West Side Orthodox congregation.

They’ve brought freshly cooked, nutrient-rich surplus foods from synagogue events to homeless facilities in the neighborhood. (Disclosure: I know the food is so tasty because I’ve eaten it — I’m an OZ member.) The practice of donating such surplus food to homeless shelters is common among houses of worship in the city.

DHS Commissioner Seth Diamond says the ban on food donations is consistent with Mayor Bloomberg’s emphasis on improving nutrition for all New Yorkers. A new interagency document controls what can be served at facilities — dictating serving sizes as well as salt, fat and calorie contents, plus fiber minimums and condiment recommendations.

The city also cites food-safety issues with donations, but it’s clear that the real driver behind the ban is the Bloomberg dietary diktats.

Diamond insists that the institutional vendors hired by the shelters serve food that meets the rules but also tastes good; it just isn’t too salty. So, says the commissioner, the homeless really don’t need any of the synagogue’s food.

Glenn Richter’s experience suggests otherwise. He says the beneficiaries — many of them senior citizens recovering from drug and alcohol abuse — have always been appreciative of the treats he and other OZ members bring.

It’s not just that the donations offer an enjoyable addition to the “official” low-salt fare; knowing that the food comes from volunteers and community members warms their hearts, not just their stomachs.

So you can imagine Richter’s consternation last month when employees at a local shelter turned away food he brought from a bar mitzvah.

He’s a former city Housing Authority employee, and his wife spent 35 years as a South Bronx public-school teacher, so they’re no strangers to bureaucracy and poverty. But an exasperated Richter says, “This level of micromanagement is stunning.”

Says Rabbi Allen Schwartz of Ohav Zedek, “Jews have been eating chulent and kugel for a long time, and somehow we’ve managed to live long and healthy lives. All we want to do is to continue sharing these bounties with our neighbors.”

This is very different from another recent high-profile food-police case. When a North Carolina prekindergarten aide took away a 4-year-old’s home-packed lunch last month, the school defused the incident by blaming a teacher’s bad judgment.

Here, there’s no teacher to scapegoat. The ban on food donations is the direct result of work by many city agencies, all led by a mayoral task force.

Fine, the city’s making enough nutritious food available to our homeless. (Court mandates require it.) But that’s no excuse for turning away charity that brings a tiny bit of joy into these lives.

The Bloomberg administration is so obsessed with meddling in how we all live that it’s now eating away at the very best that New York citizens have to deliver.

Phelps Family Chapel invited to "Reason Rally"

From the Evangel blog at First Things comes this curious tidbit from Tom Gilson:

The organizers of the upcoming secularist Reason Rally have placed themselves in a pickle. It will be interesting to see how this plays out for these who portray themselves as the defenders of reason and science.

Every scientist knows it’s unprofessional to draw conclusions from a non-representative sample, and that it will lead to false results every time. In a word, it is both unscientific and unreasonable.

Now we have news that a vice-president of the National Atheist Party has invited the inflammatory fringe “church,” Westboro Baptist, to the rally. Notably no such invitation has been sent to the True Reason group that’s planning to bring a non-disruptive, reasoning Christian presence there. (Full disclosure: I’m involved in leadership of that initiative.)

So what will the Reason Rally representatives do with the Westboro Church’s shouts, picket signs, and expressions of hatred? The scientifically responsible, reasoning thing for them to do would be to say, “Okay, folks, draw no conclusions about Christianity or religion from this group! They are a non-representative sample! There’s no reason for us to think Christianity is at all like that!”

I’m sure that’s why they invited them there–so they could do exactly that. Right?

It doesn't take a genius to understand what is going on here. An enterprising idiot from the "National Atheist Party" has invited Fred and his cadre of sign-carriers to the "Reason Rally" for the purpose of exhibiting them as somehow illustrative of the ignorance and bigotry of the whole Christian enterprise. As any "reasonable" person knows, however, there is nothing remotely "Christian" about the Phelps Family Chapel. In a strange and bizarre way, its members fit in perfectly with the "Reason" crowd. After all, the "God" they worship and for whom they claim to speak doesn't really exist, either.