This judgement thing is very tricky. Judging right from wrong...on what criteria? The Supreme's error is that they are deciding that there is no such thing as an inalienable right, granted from God. Their ruling tacitly supports the notion that all rights are granted by men to themselves, with the help of wise men and women on the court. When Jesus was asked what was the greatest commandment, he went right here. I am God and you are not, serve me (to paraphrase). The reason we need to remove those damn Ten Commandments is that it is too obvious that we are violating them at the level of the state. The "controversial" commandments are the top four, not the adultery and stealing ones, though we culturally equivocate on them as well. This is screwey. The Supreme Court is reinterpreting the founding principles of our country. Shouldn't we have talked about it a little first? The need the justices had to rationalize this is seen by the fact that there were two official opinions (majority and minority) in the five four ruling, but that eight of the nine justices also wrote their own opinions on it, to clarify things. Baloney. The eight written essays are proof that there is no clarity on their interpretation. This is trouble, undoubtedly coming to a courthouse grounds or courtroom foyer near you. The ACLU, I'm sure is ecstatic. Barry Lynn is doing back flips. I'm bummed.

To Judge, or Not to Judge - Christianity Today Magazine

The ongoing discussion within the church as to when, or even if, one should judge our neighbors is furthered by this article from ChristianityToday.com. Not surprisingly, Jesus' dictum warning us not to judge is about hypocrisy, not about what is clearly described as right and wrong. Funny how that whole "judgement" thing gets fuzzy when it interferes with doing what we want to do, isn't it? It sure got fuzzy at the Supreme Court, which now considers it that congress is establishing religion for even local officials, county officials or state governments either to "speak" or "memorialize" anything religious. How this "establishes" religion is unclear, even to the Supremes. Ann Coulter's column today is entitled "Thou Shalt Not Commit Religion." In it she holds up all the "speech" that is protected in contrast with these speech areas which are now forbidden. http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

Heaven help us.

From N. T. Wright's Address in Nottingham on June 28.

"It is becoming increasingly clear in our society – you only have to look at France to see the point – that under the superficial smile of tolerance is the hard fist of secular power. And the task of the church in this day, as in Luke’s day, is to find the appropriate ways of declaring that Jesus is Lord, openly and unhindered, recognizing that this is a statement about the real, public world as well as the world of private religious experience, indeed that it is only truly the latter, about me and my religion, because it is truly the former, about God and his created world. And this is part of the point of Acts as a whole: that whatever troubles the church may get itself into, whatever divisions and persecutions and disputes there may be, we must end up, whether in Rome in the first century or in Edinburgh this next weekend, saying to the powers of the world that Jesus is Lord and that they are not. That is our primary calling; it is for this task, not in order to wallow in our own spiritual experiences, that the church must pray for the fresh wind of the Holy Spirit." --Wright

James and Jude, evidence for Jesus' manner and strength?

Angevoix posted this recently:

Dear Brother Morpheus...I'm rethinking your blog on Jesus clearing the temple. This morning I was thinking about the book of Jude. And then it just dawned on me...Jude and James were both brothers of Christ, correct? And in the epistles written by these two brothes, they don't pull any punches. Nothing is sugar coated...in fact, they could be described as down right rough sometimes.This being the case, what conclusions could we draw about the personality/character of Christ from reading the epistles written by His two brothers?

So, let's have a little interaction on the gentle girly-boy Jesus versus his rough and tumble brothers, please. I'm re-reading both James and Jude. Hope you do the same.

Eine Kleine Nacht Musik

Fr. Neo, JHolder, Constantine and I spent the night on my shadowy, airy deck in deep discussion, with shallow glasses of fermented beverage, and at the end, prayers of thanksgiving for the gift of our friendship and our fascination with Christ and His Kingdom. We spent a lot of time discussing the treacherous spiritual ground around the numinous. Constantine shared his doubt, disbelief and caution in considering God's actions in the supernatural. Constantine meets God in the everyday. JHolder related an experience of a strangely warmed, Wesleyan Holy Spiritish heart while hearing the "road to Emmaus" story from John in the context of a Kairos Prison Weekend. I talked about the icon confrontation and related it to my experiences in meditation during times with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Fr. Neo talked about his Pentecostal upbringing and his hopes for the church. We had a wonderful time. All of you, dear readers, were also discussed in passing. We all have great affection for each of you and the important roles you play in the blessed conversations we are enjoying here and on Fr. Neo's blog. We are all reading your blogs, too, of course. We share much more with each of you, even those with whom we seem to disagree, than any of you might guess. There is something special going on here. We all need to thank Our Lord for it, for the reassurance of his Holy Spirit, for the bonds of affection growing between us, for the wonder of his Love.

It's late, for me. God be with you.

Soft Patriarchy? 

Kick Their Butts in Love

John 2:14In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"

This month's Touchstone has an article by Russell D. Moore on "Soft-Serving Patriarchs" which got me thinking about men's ministry and the nature of our times. The church, even the orthodox congregations, are full of softness that is unseemly to men. In order to overcome the tinkly, pretty praise anthems, the pulpit should roar occasionally. It is Moore's thesis that the church is infected with psychotherapeutic language and concepts, one of which is the "servant leader" ideal, which defines out all the hard edges of masculine Christianity, tuning it more closely to the feminine by aiming men at "service, meekly delivered".

There is something to this charge. Among our Epiphany men and in the Building Brothers program we use in our meetings, there is a lot of emphasis on the value of "kumbaya" love. Jesus did wash his disciples feet to show the power of service and to demonstrate love and commitment. Jesus also turned the tables over in the temple, driving the money changers out with a whip. Dwell on that a little. Servant leader? Nope. Angry, uncompromising righteousness, shouted at the top of his lungs and accompanied by violent action.

Here are a couple of other vignettes to ponder. Remember Jesus "loving" comments to Peter. Once he called him Satan. Matthew 16: 21-23. What must Jesus' face have looked like at that moment? Did he say it with a wink? No. He snarled it. Or again at the famous "foot washing" in John, Peter needed to be brung up short. John 13: 5 - 9. OK, if you won't accept my foot-washing, Peter, then you have NO part with me. Did Jesus whine that comment to Peter. Nope. He challenged him, directly in his face. To Peter's credit, he was coachable. He got it. Just one more. How about the look that Peter and Jesus exchanged in the garden of the High Priest the moment Peter betrayed him the third time. Was the look sweet? No, it was convicting. Peter took it like a punch to the solar plexus. He fled weeping. Luke 22: 60-62. And how about that fig tree in Matthew 21?

The role of men is not just to be servant leaders, but also to exercise their full strength and authority to hold to principle when all around are asking for tolerance, with a whip if necessary. Jesus came bearing a sword. That is our model. Jesus the intolerant. Jesus the righteous. Jesus the patriarch in high dudgeon. His justice is unyielding. His righteousness has no soft edges. Jesus is not our servant, He is our King.

No more soft patriarchy. Stand firm is the command, over and over. We need to stand as firm as He did on the road to Jerusalem. That's why he busted Peter's chops so brutally. "Get behind me Satan." We need to restore some of this wildness to our hearts, bringing the love of Christ, but his uncompromising righteousness, too. Anger is useful in penetrating a man's posing to uncover his sinfulness and complicity in crucifying Christ anew.

I heard Bill Cote speak last week on his downtown ministry, Step 13. His ministry has given out 115,000 coupon books that invite street men to a free meal, a job, and getting control of their lives. The coupons are useful in responding to the pitiful pleas for food and work on the many cardboard signs waved at each of us every day. It takes these men at their word and calls their bluff. How many get to 2029 Larimer to pick up their free meal, get a job or training for it, and get control of their lives? So far, 27 coupons have been turned in. I know enough about myself and men to know that most of these men need the kind of treatment Jesus gave Peter, not the coddling and pity they receive. We need to cut out the alcoholic/drug addict/bums from the few truly needy homeless and the cast off youth. Then we need to challenge them to get off the corner and out of their "stories" of self-pity. Our Savior has given us a good model. Love for our lost brothers often needs to begin with a kick in the butt.

If we are doing this right, then we should be having the results Jesus predicted: "All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved." Matthew 10: 21-23.

This to Diane Carman, a Denver Post columnist after her column was printed here:
http://denverpost.com/carman/ci_2780132

Dear Diane,

Your column this morning points out a very clear distinction between Iliff's social gospel and the more "conservative" orthodoxy of Christianity. Iliff's brand, that of your subject Jim Luallen, lead him to assign primacy to what is called the "social gospel". The choice he made is not, however, choosing the path of peace over the path of war. One can be a "traditional" Christian and lament war, choosing instead to work for peace. But, Rev. Luallen's passion and commitment has led him straight out of the church into political activism, showing that political orthodoxy is his "true" religion. In following it, he has abandoned Jesus' teaching. Jesus taught that the greatest commandment, that of the "Shema" of Deuteronomy 6:4, needs to be of primary importance. In the political path he has learned at Iliff seminary, "liberal" political principles are held in higher esteem than mere "Christian" principles. It is more important to speak out against this hideous war than speak up for Christ. Iliff, which at last report had an Immam on its staff and has taken an interest in Witchcraft, did not give this young minister the foundation to stand firm in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Standing firmly in biblical Christianity, he could choose to be either liberal or conservative. But, to act from a Christian worldview he would have to put God first, not the activities of man.

So, your story is sad. The church needs both liberal and conservative Christians who are true disciples of Christ, not merely politicos spinning passionately in reaction to the issues of the day. The fact that Rev. Luellan saw his congregation as evil (i.e., conservative) is the tip off. Though presumably his congregation was composed of fellow believers in Christ, to his mind and heart, they were following the wrong gospel. Rev. Luellan has chosen to follow the Sith Lord, I'm afraid; not the Lord of the Universe. The "worldly" way he has chosen will lead to nihilism and despair. It always does.

Resting (Slain?) in the Spirit

Last night Epiphany Church hosted Fr. Michael Walsh and his prayer team from St. Vincent de Paul's roman Catholic Church for a "Healing Service". Fr. Stace had indicated that this man was actually healing people in his own congregation, seemed down to earth, and straight as an arrow theologically. Fr. Walsh is an Irishman, priest for 45 years, a naturalized American citizen, and has a wee gift. Fr. Stace led the congregation in the Epiphany Healing service and Eucharist. Then, with little fanfare, Fr. Walsh began his portion of the service, after a few "rules". He mentioned "resting in the Spirit" and asked for a volunteer from our congregation to "help". Chris Sinclair, a vestry member and an ardent, growing Christian stepped up and joined one of Fr. Walsh's team. The first person who stood received a prayer from Fr. Walsh and promptly, smoothly, gently fell back , was caught and placed softly on the carpet in the front of the sanctuary, where he lay for about three minutes, recovered, was helped to his or her feet and was anointed with the sacrament for the sick.

Christ the King and Epiphany Church members took turns approaching Fr. Walsh for healing. I would estimate that about two-thirds fell back to rest on the carpet with their brothers and sisters. There were definitely several dramatic healings announced by those so affected, and by those who were not so affected. Glenda Gay and I prayed and stayed. We, too, had the "resting" experience.

Now thirty years of TM had me expecting an experience of transcendence. I was not fearful. But, "resting" is different. Transcendence is often described as an expansion of awareness. This was more like a covering in rest and peace, breathing very shallow and reduced but comfortable, an awareness of things around me unreduced, a definite suspension of the will to move, and a quiet space for prayers of adoration and gratitude. I saw no lights, though my internal vision seemed lighter somehow. I felt no sensations, except perhaps a "feeling" of being covered. I heard no music or bells or harps or anything out of the ordinary sounds of additional activity going on around me. The "resting" came on easily. The "falling" was without fear or care. I do remember nothing much of what was being said by the priest. I was praying myself a form of "Come Holy Spirit, fill my heart with your presence." Afterwards I felt "new". Although I had not asked for prayer for a very sore, arthritic knee that has had two surgeries, it too felt better. The aftertaste of the experience was also peace and restful.

So, here is a something new in my walk with the Lord. Praise Him.