Just in time for Christmas, an "historical Jesus" article as fresh as Albert Schweitzer's dirty socks

You knew the liberal media would not be able to resist poking a finger in the eye of the Christian community just prior to the celebration of the birth of Christ. However, if this Washington Post article by some character named Raphael Lataster is the best they can do this year, it's a pretty good indication that these Christ hating reprobates are running out of steam . . . and rapidly!

Did a man called Jesus of Nazareth walk the earth? Discussions over whether the figure known as the “Historical Jesus” actually existed primarily reflect disagreements among atheists. Believers, who uphold the implausible and more easily-dismissed “Christ of Faith” (the divine Jesus who walked on water), ought not to get involved.

Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called “Historical Jesus” – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, “an academic embarrassment.” From Crossan’s view of Jesus as the wise sage, to Robert Eisenman’s Jesus the revolutionary, and Bart Ehrman’s apocalyptic prophet, about the only thing New Testament scholars seem to agree on is Jesus’ historical existence. But can even that be questioned?

The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.

Okay. You get the drift. That phony "Jesus of history/Christ of faith" dichotomy predates Albert Schweitzer, and that's going back a long way. Lataster is eager to knock down such low hanging fruit as Crossan, Eisenman, and Ehrman (somewhere John Shelby Spong is quietly lamenting not making the list), but seems blissfully unaware of the voluminous works of N.T. Wright, Ben Witherington, John Meier, and numerous other contemporary "New Testament scholars" who could easily swat away his skepticism and recommend a few competent counselors to help him deal with his obvious anger issues.

This pathetic essay, apparently an excerpt from a larger (and doubtless even more laughable) work, is useful only in that it illustrates the depths of depravity to which a Christ-denying malcontent can sink.

Ebola and Israel? A new low, even for John Hagee

It's hardly surprising that fear-monger John Hagee would weave the Ebola crisis into his apocalyptic narrative, but the manner in which he has done so is shameless even by his low standards.

Ebola may be part of God's judgment for President Barack Obama's alleged attempts to "divide Jerusalem," said John Hagee, a San Antonio-based pastor and founder of Christians United For Israel.

Citing the Book of Joel, the televangelist took to Tuesday's broadcast of the "Hagee Hotline" to tell listeners that "our president is dead set on dividing Jerusalem. God is watching and he will bring America into judgment," according to the left-leaning Right Wing Watch.

"There are grounds to say that judgment has already begun, because he, the president, has been fighting to divide Jerusalem for years now," Hagee said in a YouTube video posted by Right Wing Watch.

"We are now experiencing the crisis of Ebola," he said.

Hagee, who heads Cornerstone Church, added that threats from Islamic radicals and ongoing unrest in Ferguson, Missouri are all part of God's judgment on the United States in response to Obama's policies.

David Fischler at Stand Firm observes:

To say that people like Hagee bring disrepute upon the Christian faith when they make pronouncements like this is being generous. People who claim to know exactly what God’s specific actions are in response to specific human events are at least borderline blasphemous, and definitely Gnostic, by claiming that they know the mind of God in a way that the rest of us can’t. For them, the Scripture is just window-dressing for their politics, and God is simply their political consultant as they pursue their agendas. It’s as bad when done by conservatives as it is when its done by liberals, if not worse, since conservatives should know better.

Of course, calling Hagee a "conservative" is also being generous.

File under: They think we still care

The Noth American Clown Quartet speaks. They actually think somebody is listening.

We are united as Christian leaders in our concern for the well-being of our neighbors and of God’s good creation that provides life and livelihood for all God’s creatures. Daily we see and hear the evidence of a rapidly changing climate. Glaciers are disappearing, the polar ice cap is melting, and sea levels are rising. Incidents of pollution- created dead zones in seas and the ocean and toxic algae growth in water supplies are occurring with greater frequency. Most disturbingly, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising at an unprecedented rate. At the same time we also witness in too many instances how the earth’s natural beauty, a sign of God’s wonderful creativity, has been defiled by pollutants and waste.

Many have reacted to these changes with grief and anger. In their outrage some have understandably focused on the neglect and carelessness, both in private industry and in government regulation, that have contributed to these changes. However, an honest accounting requires a recognition that we all participate both as consumers and investors in economies that make intensive and insistent demands for energy. In addition, as citizens we have chosen to support or acquiesce in policies that shift the burdens of climate change to communities that are most vulnerable to its effects. People who are already challenged by poverty and by dislocation resulting from civil war or famine have limited resources for adapting to climate change’s effects.

While an accounting of climate change that has credibility and integrity must include our own repentance, we find our hope in the promise of God’s own faithfulness to the creation and humankind and in the liberation that comes from God’s promise.

God, who made the creation and made it good, has not abandoned it. Daily the Spirit continues to renew the face of the earth. All who care for the earth and work for the restoration of its vitality can be confident that they are not pursuing a lost cause. We serve in concert with God’s own creative and renewing power.

Moreover, we need not surrender to political ideologies and other modern mythologies that would divide us into partisan factions — deserving and undeserving, powerless victims and godless oppressors. In Christ we have the promise of a life where God has reconciled the human community. In Christ God sets us free from the captivity of blaming and shaming. God liberates us for shared endeavors where we find each other at our best.

While the challenge may seem daunting, the Spirit’s abundant gifts for service empower us to find common cause with people who exercise countless insights and skills, embodied in hundreds of occupations and trades. We have good reason to hope in all the ways God’s grace is at work among us. We can commend ourselves to the work before us with confidence in God’s mercy.

Opportunities to act imaginatively and courageously abound in all our individual callings. The Holy Spirit’s work in us leads us as faithful consumers and investors in a global economy to make responsible choices to reduce energy use, carbon emissions, and the wasteful consumption of water and other natural resources. As citizens, we have voices to use in educating children about the climate and in shaping public and corporate policies that affect the environment. The Spirit has also given us our voices to contribute our witness to public discussion of just and responsible use of natural resources.

We also have the resources and responsibility to act together for the common good, especially for those most vulnerable to the effect of climate change in the spirit of the seventh Millennium Development Goal, “to ensure environmental stability”. World leaders will meet this month in New York for a Climate Summit, and in December in Lima, Peru, to discuss global cooperation on climate change. Working under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), participants in the UNFCCC’s negotiations hope for an agreement in 2015 that will move toward reduction of carbon emissions, development of low carbon technologies, and assistance to populations most vulnerable to the effects of a changing climate.

We encourage you to take the initiative to engage decision-makers in this godly work in all arenas of public life — in government and business, in schools and civic organizations, in social media and also in our church life.
We are not powerless to act and we are not alone. “We have the power of the Holy Spirit and the indwelling Spirit of Christ to give us hope and courage.”

The present moment is a critical one, filled with both challenge and opportunity to act as faithful individuals and churches in solidarity with God’s good creation.

Bishop Elizabeth Eaton
Presiding Bishop
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

The Most Rev. Fred Hiltz
Primate
Anglican Church of Canada

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church

Bishop Susan Johnson
National Bishop
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada

No comment department . . .

. . . because commentary would be superfluous, except to say, the creation account in Genesis also includes these important little tidbits about male and female, Imago Dei, marriage, and procreation which John Kerry and his boss in the White House conveniently overlook.

Wednesday at a ceremony to appoint Texas lawyer Shaarik Zafar to be special representative to Muslim communities, Secretary of State John Kerry said it was the United States' Biblical "responsibility" to "confront climate change," including to protect "vulnerable Muslim majority counties." 

Kerry said Scripture, in particular the Book of Genesis, make clear it is our "duty" to protect the planet and we should look at Muslim countries "with a sense of stewardship of earth," adding, "That responsibility comes from God."

No comment department

More shenanigans from TEC in Fort Worth

File this one under the "Oh, for crying out loud!" department. The increasingly desperate barristers representing the national Episcopal Church have filed yet another frivolous petition in the Fort Worth case, this time taking their baseless argument to the nation's highest court.

The diocesan legal team was notified yesterday that TEC parties have filed an appeal with United States Supreme Court (USSC) asking it to review the Texas Supreme Court's judgment in our case. This form of appeal is known as a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (review of the case).

Historically, the USSC agrees to review only 1 in 100 of the certiorari petitions filed annually. Our attorneys believe there is little chance the Court will review our case because (1) there is no final judgment yet; (2) the USSC has no power to review issues of Texas law unless there is a violation of the U.S. Constitution; and (3) TEC’s petition asks the Court to abandon the Neutral Principles approach to church property disputes, which every state has adopted for the last 30 years.

To speed up this process, the Diocese plans to waive a response to TEC’s petition. The Court’s practice is not to grant certiorari without requesting a response first, so our “waiver” merely means that we will not file a response unless and until the Court asks for one. That way the petition goes to the justices’ chambers for a potential denial in the near future; if we file a response it delays distribution to the justices’ chambers by several months.

This filing does not affect the calendar that has been set in the 141st District Court.

(Via Email).

No comment department . . .

. . . because commentary would be superfluous.

DETROIT — Ministers in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) can preside at same-sex marriages in states where they are legal following a vote this afternoon at the denomination‘‍s top legislative body.

And in the coming year, the denomination’‍s regional presbyteries will vote on whether to change its marriage definition church-wide to include two people regardless of gender.

Strong applause broke out after the overwhelming votes, which came after debate of more than two hours at the denomination‘‍s General Assembly here at the Detroit Cobo Center. But the decisions also came with plenty of anxious words about the looming possibility that more conservatives will join an exodus of estimated 350 congregations that have left for more conservative denominations in recent years as the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shifts to increasingly liberal stances on sexuality. In 2011, the denomination voted to authorize the ordination of gays and lesbians in non-celibate relationships.

The General Assembly today voted 371-238 in favor of an official “authoritative interpretation” of its constitution, honoring the freedom of conscience of any pastor who chooses to preside at a legal same-sex wedding and of any church that chooses to host one.

The measure only applies in jurisdictions such as Pennsylvania, 18 other states and the District of Columbia, where gay marriage has been legalized by legislation or court order.

The measure takes effect Saturday upon conclusion of the assembly. Unlike an amendment to the church constitution, it does not require approval from regional presbyteries.

The authoritative interpretation says that a minister’‍s “discernment of the leading of the Holy Spirit is indispensable” and ministers have the freedom of conscience to decide whether to solemnize any legal marriage.

Separately, the assembly also voted 429-175 to change its constitutional definition of marriage from a covenant between “a man and a woman” to that of a “unique commitment between two people.”

The measure goes to the church‘‍s regional presbyteries for ratification in the coming year.

The church has 1.76 million members and is particularly concentrated in Western Pennsylvania. The denomination has lost about 10 percent of its members in the past two years, driven in large part to the exiting congregations.

The assembly overwhelmingly approved a motion directing the top leadership of the Louisville, Ky.-based denomination to “establish a way to bring reconciliation to the church that would involve visiting each presbytery.” The denomination’‍s stated clerk, the Rev. Gradye Parsons, said that while he couldn‘‍t immediately estimate the travel cost of such an effort, “the cost of not doing this is higher.”

Interpreting prophecy is very tedious work: Kids, don't try this at home

Yes, I have it on good authority that this guy actually believes this stuff. In other words, this is not a parody.

BREAKING NEWS: Wives and mothers can be disciples, too!

This year's edition of "Let's question all things orthodox during Holy Week" is, as Al Mohler so adeptly observes, a painful illustration of the pathetic state of modern biblical "scholarship." The tiny piece of papyrus which purportedly has Jesus referring to "My wife" is, depending on which "expert" you believe, a crude forgery or an authentic document from sometime around the 8th century. Either way, however, it is hardly worthy of the attention it has drawn from a media wolfpack desperate to discredit Christian orthodoxy and help an academic charlatan like Karen King build her fantasy world around a past that exists only in her vivid imagination.

Mohler calls attention to a specific claim made by King in which she seems to be trying to lower the expectations surrounding her little scrap of paper.

But the most important line in the entire issue is offered by Professor King herself: “In my reading, however, the main point of [the fragment] is simply to affirm that women who are wives and mothers can be Jesus’s disciples.”

Really, Karen? Women who are wives and mothers can be Jesus's disciples? What a concept!

I wonder how Joanna ever missed out on that.

World Vision admits "mistake," reinstates biblically based employment conduct policy

 

World Vision has repented after making a very ill-advised decision to begin hiring "Christians" involved in same sex "marriages." Sarah Pulliam Bailey reports for RNS:

Christian relief organization World Vision has reversed its decision after announcing this week that it will no longer define marriage as between a man and a woman in its employee conduct manual.

The earlier decision was a groundbreaking change for the Christian institution that came with heavy criticism from evangelicals. After its initial announcement, the Assemblies of God had urged its members to consider dropping support.

The following is the letter the organization sent:

Dear Friends,

Today, the World Vision U.S. board publicly reversed its recent decision to change our national employment conduct policy. The board acknowledged they made a mistake and chose to revert to our longstanding conduct policy requiring sexual abstinence for all single employees and faithfulness within the Biblical covenant of marriage between a man and a woman.

We are writing to you our trusted partners and Christian leaders who have come to us in the spirit of Matthew 18 to express your concern in love and conviction. You share our desire to come together in the Body of Christ around our mission to serve the poorest of the poor. We have listened to you and want to say thank you and to humbly ask for your forgiveness.

In our board’s effort to unite around the church’s shared mission to serve the poor in the name of Christ, we failed to be consistent with World Vision U.S.’s commitment to the traditional understanding of Biblical marriage and our own Statement of Faith, which says, “We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.” And we also failed to seek enough counsel from our own Christian partners. As a result, we made a change to our conduct policy that was not consistent with our Statement of Faith and our commitment to the sanctity of marriage.

We are brokenhearted over the pain and confusion we have caused many of our friends, who saw this decision as a reversal of our strong commitment to Biblical authority. We ask that you understand that this was never the board’s intent. We are asking for your continued support. We commit to you that we will continue to listen to the wise counsel of Christian brothers and sisters, and we will reach out to key partners in the weeks ahead.

While World Vision U.S. stands firmly on the biblical view of marriage, we strongly affirm that all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, are created by God and are to be loved and treated with dignity and respect.

Please know that World Vision continues to serve all people in our ministry around the world. We pray that you will continue to join with us in our mission to be “an international partnership of Christians whose mission is to follow our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in working with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation, seek justice, and bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God.”

Sincerely in Christ,
Richard Stearns, President
Jim Beré, Chairman of the World Vision U.S. Board

This is welcome news, of course. Forgiveness requested, forgiveness granted; but the hurt caused by the initial decision may take a little time to heal.

Mohler on World Vision: Pointing to disaster

Evangelical leaders continue to offer responses to World Vision's insane capitulation to the culture. Albert Mohler is not persuaded by World Vision president Richard Stearns' rationale for the decision, and sees nothing but disaster ahead for the once venerable relief agency.

Richard Stearns has every right to try to make his case, but these arguments are pathetically inadequate. Far more than that, his arguments reveal basic issues that every Christian ministry, organization, church, and denomination will have to face — and soon.

The distinction between an “operational arm” of the church and a “theological arm” is a fatal misreading of reality. World Vision claims a Christian identity, claims to serve the kingdom of Christ, and claims a theological rationale for its much-needed ministries to the poor and distressed. It cannot surrender theological responsibility when convenient and then claim a Christian identity and a theological mandate for ministry.

Add to this the fact that World Vision claims not to have compromised the authority of Scripture, even as its U.S. president basically throws the Bible into a pit of confusion by suggesting that the Bible is not sufficiently clear on the question of the morality of same-sex sexuality. Stearns insists that he is not compromising biblical authority even as he undermines confidence that the church can understand and trust what the Bible reveals about same-sex sexuality.

The policy shift points back to a basic problem with World Vision’s understanding of the church. No organization can serve on behalf of churches across the vast theological and moral spectrum that would include clearly evangelical denominations, on the one hand, and liberal denominations such as the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Episcopal Church, and the United Church of Christ, on the other. That might work if World Vision were selling church furniture, but not when the mission of the organization claims a biblical mandate.

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to argue that World Vision is not taking sides on the issue. The objective fact is that World Vision will now employ openly-gay employees involved in openly homosexual relationships. There is no rational sense in claiming that this represents neutrality.

In his final comment included in Christianity Today‘s coverage of the issue, Richard Stearns stated: “I’m hoping this may inspire unity among others as well. To say how we come together across some differences and still join together as brothers and sisters in Christ in our common mission of building the kingdom.”

Note carefully that his language is deeply theological — not just “operational.” He speaks of being “brothers and sisters in Christ” and of “building the kingdom.” What kingdom? Whose kingdom?

Writing to the Corinthian Christians, the Apostle Paul stated: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” [1 Corinthians 6:9-10]

The leader of World Vision U.S. now claims that the Bible is not sufficiently clear on the sinfulness of same-sex sexuality and relationships, but he also claims a “mission of building the kingdom.” The Apostle Paul makes homosexuality a kingdom issue, and he does so in the clearest of terms.

Of course, Paul’s point is not that homosexuals are uniquely sinful, but that all of us are sinners in need of the grace and mercy of God that come to us in the gift of salvation. Thanks be to God, Paul follows those words with these: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” [1 Corinthians 6:11]

The worst aspect of the World Vision U.S. policy shift is the fact that it will mislead the world about the reality of sin and the urgent need of salvation. Willingly recognizing same-sex marriage and validating openly homosexual employees in their homosexuality is a grave and tragic act that confirms sinners in their sin — and that is an act that violates the gospel of Christ.

World Vision has made a decisive difference in millions of lives around the world. Its humanitarian work is urgently important in a world of unspeakable need. Last year the organization had a total financial reach of almost $3 billion. Its scale and expertise are unprecedented in the Christian world. That is what makes this policy shift so ominous and threatening.

"Unity" at the expense of truth is a false unity built upon a false premise. World Vision, rather than holding fast to the truth of the Gospel, has allowed itself to become infected by the leaven of a handful of wayward mainline denominations which have abandoned that truth. It is a tragedy which will have devastating consequences for suffering children throughout the world.

Needless suffering will follow World Vision's needless capitulation

When an ostensibly Christian organization has to preface a policy change by saying it is not capitulating to the prevailing culture, then you can be quite certain that organization has, in fact, capitulated, surrendered, and sold out to the nefarious forces of godlessness. That is what World Vision has done with its announcement today that it will begin hiring "gay Christians" (oxymoron) who are in legally recognized "same sex marriages." It is a stupefyingly short-sighted decision which is sure to have serious repercussions across the evangelical world. Russell Moore gets to the heart of the matter with his excellent essay in response to the news.

World Vision, an evangelical relief organization, announced today that they would now hire persons who are in same-sex marriages. The organization said, further, that this was no capitulation, just a recognition that some groups supporting World Vision have differing views on sex and marriage.

This is no surprise, on one level. The constellation of parachurch evangelical ministries founded after World War II have been running headlong, with some notable exceptions, toward the very mainline liberalism to which they were founded as alternatives. Some think if we can just barter away Christian orthodoxy fast enough we can catch the wave of that Presbyterian Church (USA) church growth boom.

But here’s what’s at stake. This isn’t, as the World Vision statement (incredibly!) puts it, the equivalent of a big tent on baptism, church polity, and so forth.

At stake is the gospel of Jesus Christ. If sexual activity outside of a biblical definition of marriage is morally neutral, then, yes, we should avoid making an issue of it. If, though, what the Bible clearly teaches and what the church has held for 2000 years is true, then refusing to call for repentance is unspeakably cruel and, in fact, devilish.

The devil works in two ways: by deception, “You shall not surely die” (Gen. 3:4); and by accusation, “the accuser of the brethren” (Rev 12:10). For some people, the devil wishes to assure that there’s no need for repentance, for others that there’s no hope for mercy. Some people are deceived into thinking they are too good for the gospel while others are accused into thinking they’re too bad for the gospel.

The gospel of Jesus Christ tears down both strategies. The gospel clearly calls us to repentance, even when that repentance is hated by the outside world. And the gospel clearly calls us to mercy by faith in the blood of Christ, even when we can’t believe that we’d ever be received.

We empower darkness when we refuse to warn of judgment. We empower the darkness when we refuse to offer forgiveness through the blood of the cross.

We’re entering an era where we will see who the evangelicals really are, and by that I mean those who believe in the gospel itself, in all of its truth and all of its grace. And many will shrink back. There are no riots if the gospel you’re preaching doesn’t threaten the silversmiths of the Temple of Artemis. And there are no clucking tongues if the gospel you’re preaching isn’t offered to tax collectors and temple prostitutes.

There’s an entire corps of people out there who make their living off of evangelicals but who are wanting to “evolve” on the sexuality issue without alienating their base. I don’t mind people switching sides and standing up for things that they believe in. But just be honest about what you want to do. Don’t say “Hath God said?” and then tell us you’re doing it to advance the gospel and the unity of the church.

Donor bases come and go. But the gospel of Jesus Christ stands forever.

World Vision is a good thing to have, unless the world is all you can see.

Trevin Wax sees devastating consequences for the weakest among us, not merely because of World Vision's decision (which is only a symptom) but, much moreso, because of the increasingly heathen social ethic that is behind it.

No matter what you think about this decision, I hope you feel a sense of grief… for the children. This is a story of deep and lasting significance, because there are children’s lives at stake in how we respond.

Children will suffer as evangelicals lose trust in and withdraw support from World Vision in the future. It will take time for evangelicals to start new organizations that maintain historic Christian concepts of sin, faith, and repentance.

In the meantime, children will suffer. Needlessly.

That’s why critics of the evangelical outcry toward World Vision will say, Get over it! Kids matter more than what men and women choose to do romantically!

Strangely enough, we agree. In fact, this is one of the main reasons we’re against redefining marriage. We believe kids matter more than gays and lesbians having romantic relationships enshrined as “marriage.”

Children are the ones who suffer when society says there’s no difference between a mom or a dad.

Children are the ones who suffer when a couple’s romantic interests outstrip a child’s healthy development, whether in no-fault easy divorce laws, or in the redefining of society’s central institution.

Children are the ones who suffer when Mom and Dad choose to live together, as if their relationship is one lengthy trial or audition, a decision that can’t provide their children with the security that comes from marriage.

Children are the ones who suffer when careers matter more than marriage, when romance matters more than reproduction, when sex is a commodity, when a marriage culture is undermined.

Children are the ones who suffer when organizations like World Vision, under the guise of neutrality, adopt policies that enshrine a false definition of marriage in the very statement that says no position will be taken.

Children are the ones who suffer when President Obama (rightly) mourns the rampant fatherlessness in the African-American community, while simultaneously campaigning for marriage laws that would make fathers totally unnecessary.

Children are the ones who suffer and die when “sexual freedom” means the right of a mother to take the life of her unborn child.

Sex is our god. Children are our sacrifice.

So, yes, we grieve for the children across the world who will be adversely affected by World Vision’s decision and the evangelical response.

But we also grieve for children here at home who are growing up in a culture in which sexual idolatry distorts the meaning of marriage and the beauty of God’s original design.

Today is a day to grieve for the children.

Needless suffering will follow needless capitulation.

Lord, have mercy. Christ, have mercy. Lord, have mercy.

South Carolina rogue "diocese" from alternate universe holds mock convention

For some reason, I was under the distinct impression that the 223rd Convention of the Diocese of South Carolina was being held this weekend in Mt. Pleasant. However, according to some "independent" outfit operating under the title "South Carolina Episcopalians," the big shindig already took place in Hilton Head last month. Based on this account of events, however, it is well within the realm of possibilities that the actual location for this gathering was an alternate universe somewhere southwest of the Twilight Zone.

HILTON HEAD ISLAND – In less than a minute this morning, delegates to the 223rd Convention of the Episcopal Church in South Carolina officially reversed five years of rebellion and anger as they unanimously rejected all changes to the Constitution of the Diocese during the disastrous episcopate of former Bishop Mark Lawrence. Lawrence “abandoned” his ministry in the Episcopal Church nearly 17 months ago, and has sued the Episcopal Church for possession of its property and Diocesan assets valued in the millions of dollars.

However, constitutional changes were only a small part of the convention that celebrated the rebirth of the Diocese with the arrival of five new missions, new postulants for the priesthood, and a bare bones Diocesan budget completely funded by its own parishes and missions. While Lawrence's legal team has learned from the mistakes of their comrades in other breakaway dioceses, leaders of the continuing Diocese have learned how to rebuild.

An electrifying address by North Carolina Bishop Michael Curry Friday evening, along with a number of official visitors from other dioceses, reminded conventioneers of the extraordinary support they've received from fellow Episcopalians after Lawrence’s “abandonment” of his ministry.

Enthusiasm for rejoining the mainstream of the Church was evident throughout the convention. Easily the most crowded field of candidates was among those seeking seats on the Diocese’s delegation to the 2015 General Convention, a role that was consistently denied traditional Episcopalians by right-wingers even before the arrival of Lawrence. It was the first convention in years that elected delegates who did not complain about how much of a burden it would be to them to have to attend.

After 14 months as Lawrence's successor, Charles vonRosenberg was clearly in control of a diocese that bears the imprimatur of his leadership.

In his convention address, vonRosenberg told the crowd of nearly 300 that “the Spirit of God moves through history in the direction of unity. To be sailing within the stream of the Spirit necessarily involves us in efforts toward church unity. In faithfulness to our Lord, therefore, we work and pray and live in anticipation that one day we all may be one, in Christ’s name.”

VonRosenberg made frequent references to a report on the potential for closer ties with the Methodist Church along the lines of those currently shared by Episcopalians and Lutherans. However, there was never any doubt that for him the study was a metaphor for his hopes for eventual reconciliation with those who left the Episcopal Church with Lawrence.

Standing Committee Chairman Wilmot Merchant of North Myrtle Beach reminded the delegates that, when pro-Lawrence clergy left the Church, vonRosenberg chose not to depose them, but rather released them from their ministry in the Episcopal Church – an option that leaves open the possibility for reconciliation.

Longtime participants in Diocesan convention noted that delegates left the convention with enthusiasm and good spirits, in contrast to the anger and bitterness they took away from the conventions under Lawrence. Next year's convention will be held at the Church of the Holy Communion in Charleston. Many of those at today's convention said they plan to attend the Episcopal Forum's upcoming event on May 3rd with the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori and House of Deputies President Gay Jennings Clark in Pawleys Island.

If you can stomach it, there is plenty more of this kind of delusional hilarity on the "South Carolina Episcopalians" website. However, I wouldn't recommend reading too much of it if you have a history of high blood pressure.

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.

A quick primer on the antichrist, Robert Jeffres edition

Barack Obama is possessed with an overestimated opinion of himself and of the powers of his office, but he is not "the antichrist," no matter how many Scripture passages you pull and twist to make such a claim. The latest effort to associate Obama with that ignominious title comes from Robert Jeffress, the flamboyant pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas. In a unique twist on this old dispensationalist game, Jeffres argues in a forthcoming book that Obama is not himself the antichrist, but is "clearing the way" for his coming.

Already no stranger to controversy, the Rev. Robert Jeffress, a Dallas megachurch pastor, is coming out with a book that claims President Barack Obama is clearing the way for the Antichrist.

Jeffress, head of the 11,000-member First Baptist Church of Dallas, writes in his book “Perfect Ending” that he does not believe Obama is the Antichrist, yet he links Obama’s support of gay marriage to the coming of the Antichrist. Many Christians believe Jesus’ Second Coming will feature a confrontation with an enemy called the Antichrist, based on interpretation of passages 1 John and 2 John.

“For the first time in history a president of our country has openly proposed altering one of society’s (not to mention God’s) most fundamental laws: that marriage should be between a man and a woman,” Jeffress writes, according to an advance copy provided to RNS.

“While I am not suggesting that President Obama is the Antichrist, the fact that he was able to propose such a sweeping change in God’s law and still win reelection by a comfortable margin illustrates how a future world leader will be able to oppose God’s laws without any repercussions.”

I have long suspected that Jeffres is not a particularly bright fellow. This ridiculous exercise in dimestore theology pretty much confirms my suspicion. It is nothing more than his contribution to the endlessly recycled "end times" hysteria that has enjoyed a long and embarrassing history in the "Christian" book publishing business. Popular eschatology and biblical eschatology, however, are not necessarily one and the same. A quick primer on what the Bible actually teaches about "the antichrist" might be in order here.

The term "antichrist" appears only in the first and second letters of John. It does not appear in Daniel, Revelation, or any other apocalyptic or prophetic books. Paul does not use the term, and it does not appear in any of the Gospels. It is staple of dispensationalist hermeneutics to conflate "the antichrist" with other terms, such as Paul's "man of lawlessness" and "son of perdition" (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12) and "the beast" with his infamous "mark" and "number" (cf. Revelation 13:11-18). Such conflations, however, are tendentious and lacking in serious exegetical rigor.

When John uses the term "antichrist" in his epistles, he is referring specifically to schismatic elements who "went out from us [the gathered faithful, that is, the church], but they were not of us" (1 John 2:19). They are possessed of a spirit that does not confess Jesus as having come in the flesh, that is, they deny the Incarnation, the Word made flesh (cf. 1 John 4:3). The term "antichrist" is, for John, primarily of theological, not political, import.

It is also important to note that John refers not only to "the antichrist" but to "many antichrists" (cf. 1 John 2:18) who had already come at the time he was writing. Unlike the truth, which is singular, falsehood comes in many forms. Thus, while the fullness of the truth is embodied in the one Lord Jesus Christ, falsehood cannot be embodied in a singular entity. Attempting to identify one person as the "antichrist," or his forerunner, is a futile endeavor. For just as "many antichrists" had come in John's day, so many more have come in our day. Their names, however, are of little significance. In the end, they will all be brought to nothing by him whose Name is above every name, the King of kings and Lord of lords, Jesus Christ.

This . . . is . . . just . . . plain . . . stupid

There . . . is . . . simply . . . no . . . other . . . word . . . to . . .  describe . . . it.

Never mind the cassocks – vicars could soon be conducting services in shell-suits, shorts or even football shirts under radical plans to overturn centuries of Church tradition.

Rules requiring the clergy to don traditional vestments are set to be swept aside as part of a ‘makeover’ designed to make services more relevant to modern congregations.

If the Church of England Synod approves the reforms, vicars could wear whatever they deem appropriate for all their services – including weddings, baptisms and funerals.

Although most are likely to favour smart jackets, some have indicated they would adopt a ‘dress-down Sunday’ approach.

The proposals, drawn up by a London vicar, the Rev Christopher Hobbs, have already garnered the support of about a quarter of the Synod, who will debate the issue in February.

But conservatives warn that changes would dilute the identity and authority of the Church.

The Rev Andrew Atherstone, a senior theologian, welcomed the move, saying that garments such as cassocks and surplices were a relic from a ‘bygone age’ and a form of ‘power dressing’ that was a barrier to getting the Church’s message across.

And the Rev Peter Owen-Jones, a TV clergyman and self-confessed ‘old, long-haired hippy’, said he would be prepared to wear his normal garb of jeans, shirt, waistcoat, beads and battered hat for baptisms and weddings if that’s what his parishioners in East Sussex wanted.

He added: ‘The time has come to end the blanket requirement for everyone to wear robes, but I would be very sad to see that tradition go entirely.

'We must be sensitive to the fact that the majority of people still enjoy the fact that priests dress up in this Roman clothing, which is what it is.’

He said clergy had ‘very poor dress sense’ and the idea of them turning up in ‘smart casual’ clothes sent a shiver down his spine.

Bishop Graham Cray, who is in charge of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s efforts to lure people back to the pews, said he would be prepared to don jeans and T-shirts at certain services ‘when it was appropriate’.

He added: ‘There are people for whom vestments are profoundly helpful and those for whom they are a real obstacle. If we are putting on a service for those who find such things an obstacle, robing is crazy.’

But traditionalists are enraged by the proposals, with one senior Synod member saying it could lead to clergy conducting services in tracksuits.

He said: ‘Some clergy already won’t wear a clerical collar. Soon they will be wearing shell-suits in the sacristy. We need to keep a sense of identity as Anglicans, and the robes are a way of providing that.’

Even leading liberal and Thought For The Day contributor the Rev Giles Fraser, whose normal attire is jeans and a T-shirt, said: ‘It’s outrageous. Is nothing sacred?

What will they do next? Maybe we will have Jaffa Cakes and Coca-Cola instead of bread and wine at Holy Communion.

‘What I really hate is the trendy vicar. They are like trendy teachers. No one really believes in them.

‘Vestments are a very ancient part of the Church’s tradition and they bring dignity to worship.

‘What we have here is an attempt to make worship all terribly chummy and I would choose dignity over chumminess every time.’

Image consultant Veronique Henderson, of Colour Me Beautiful, said the Church should keep a uniform but it ought to be modernised, suggesting scarves decorated with crosses..

‘They need to show their authority, but the full robes can be very intimidating,’ she said.

Ecclesiastical robes, which have their origins in the Roman Empire, have been enshrined in laws since 1604. The current rules date from the 1960s and say clergy conducting communion must wear a surplice – a white outer garment – or a longer version called an alb, with a scarf or stole around the neck.

Other garments such as copes (long cloaks) may also be worn. Formal robes are required for occasional services such as marriages and funerals.

The new motion says that clergy will be able to dispense with all vestments if they have the agreement of their parochial church councils and bishop.

There is already no Church law that requires clergy to wear a dog collar, but they tend to do so because they are urged to dress appropriately as a mark of their office.

Memo to the Archbishop of Canterbury and all others trying "to lure people back to the pews": You might try dusting off those old Bibles and Prayer Books which you obviously aren't making much use of these days. If all you have to offer the people is the same kind of worldly pleasures they can find in the tavern down the street, they're going to stay in the tavern.

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?

You can't make this stuff up . . .

. . . and continuing to try only makes you look all the more foolish.

A panel of bishops is set to spark a fresh row over homosexuality by paving the way for the Church of England to relax its stance on gay clergy.

Sources said the group will recommend that clerics wanting to enter civil partnerships should no longer have to promise their bishops that they will abstain from sex.

Four bishops have been examining the Church’s teaching on sexuality as part of an official commission and will hand over their conclusions in a report to the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby next month.

They will argue that gay clergy should not be treated any differently than other clerics who do not face intrusive questioning about their sex lives - and that they should be able to follow Church teachings without having to make a solemn vow.

Yes, you read that right. This august "panel of bishops" is apparently going to recommend that clergy engaging in sodomy "should be able to follow Church teachings without having to make a solemn vow."

Cue the tape . . .

"Reproductive freedom" may be the stupidest movement in the history of the world

As evidence to support that contention, I offer this as Exhibit A (H/T to Stand Firm via MCJ):

Abortion is so often framed as a women’s issue by both those who advocate for abortion rights and those who seek to dismiss abortion as frivolous. And for abortion rights, a movement that took root in the late 1960s and early 1970s, this makes sense. Prior to a deeper understanding and problematizing of gender and the way that it works, in our social construction, only women had abortions because only women could get pregnant. But in 2013, we should know better, and we need to do better.

At this crucial moment for reproductive freedom and abortion access, the abortion rights movement stands at yet another crossroads: How do we adequately address and include those who have abortions but are not women?

We must acknowledge and come to terms with the implicit cissexism in assuming that only women have abortions. Trans men have abortions. People who do not identify as women have abortions. They deserve to be represented in our advocacy and activist framework. Honestly, I am guilty of perpetuating that harmful myth, both in my rhetoric and framing. I often frame abortion restrictions as misogynistic attacks meant to control women’s reproductive lives, and that is true. But abortion restrictions also affect the lives of people who aren’t women, and they hinder trans men and gender-non-conforming people and others who were Designated Female at Birth (DFAB) from accessing abortion care, as well.

“Stand with Ohio Women” and the “War on Women” may be great rallying cries, but they also very clearly reiterate the notion that abortion is both solely a women’s issue and that only women have abortions. This can make those in the trans community feel excluded, and it can deter them from both seeking the abortion care they may need or becoming actively involved in abortion rights advocacy.

There can be only one appropriate response to this kind of idiocy.

This is so wrong in so many ways

So, if this lawyer somehow manages to win the case, does that mean the pardon for our sins which we get from Jesus' death will also be revoked?

A Kenyan lawyer is suing Israel and Italy for human rights violations committed against Jesus more than 2,000 years ago.

According to Kenya's Citizen News, Dola Indidis has petitioned the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to "declare that the trial of Jesus and the subsequent nailing on the cross went against the principles of fair trial and should therefore be declared a mistrial."

"Evidence today is on record in the Bible," Indidis told Citizen News, "and you cannot discredit the Bible."

According to a support letter posted on his Facebook page, Indidis is "convinced that Pontius Pilate erred in law by convicting and sentencing Jesus Christ while acknowledging his own lack of jurisdiction and the accused's innovence. I petitioned the International Court of Justice in The Hague to have the conviction and sentence quashed."

Religion News Service (RNS) broke the story stateside on Tuesday, reporting that this isn't the first time Indidis has gone to court in Jesus' defense. The Kenyan High Court in Nairobi previously declined to hear the case in 2007 because it lacked jurisdiction.

Indidis then applied to have it heard at the ICJ, which Kenyan news website SDE reports has formed a pre-trial panel to consider the case. However, an ICJ spokesperson told Legal Cheek that it was not preparing to hear the case.

"'The ICJ has no jurisdiction for such a case," the spokesperson said. "'The ICJ settles disputes between states. It is not even theoretically possible for us to consider this case.'"

That could be good news for church leaders, whom RNS reports are "surprised" by Indidis's petition. Maloba Wesonga, a spokesman for the Catholic Archdiocese of Nairobi, told RNS it was a theologically futile endeavor.

"As we know it, the trial had to happen," Wesonga told RNS. "We must understand that Jesus was not vulnerable and nobody can do justice to God."

As Jesus said from the cross, "Father, forgive them. For they know not what they do."