Year: 2006

Christian Witness, Current Events, Perspective

Reacting to extremism

Today’s Albany Times Union has an article on the security preparations taking place prior to the observance of the upcoming Jewish holy days.

In Faith, vigilance mark holy days: Seattle shooting incident makes security a concern for local Jewish congregations the writer notes the coincidental tie-in between Albany and the shootings that took place at a Jewish Center in Seattle. Based on that coincidence, and the propensity of attacks on Jews by hateful or deranged people, local Jewish leaders are stepping up precautions.

A few excerpts:

As in the past, that preparation involved the Federal Bureau of Investigation inviting regional Jewish leaders to a security briefing. About 60 of them attended the 90-minute session last month. The FBI’s Albany field office chief, John Francis Pikus, participated.

Agudat Achim’s second vice president, Jeffrey Handelman, attended the FBI meeting in Albany. After officials assured the Jewish leaders they knew of no local threat, he said, someone followed up with another question: Did you know of a specific threat in Seattle?

“And they said ‘no,’ ” Handelman said. “So you know, it’s the kind of thing — it’s just a random crazy person. There’s no way to really secure yourself against all of that.”

Tight security for the High Holidays is nothing new. Armed police at the door, armies of trained ushers, entry by ticket only — all of these are familiar precautions that synagogues have used in the past and will use again this year.

At Temple Israel, it was both the Seattle shooting and recent bloodshed in the Middle East that led the synagogue to plan on more police officers and ushers for the High Holidays this year. Roaming security volunteers will monitor the inside and outside of the building.

ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman said the shooting, “while the work of an individual who acted alone, was a reminder that the Jewish community must make security a priority each and every day, and especially during the High Holidays.”

In the Capital Region, plenty of temples are heeding that message.

“Many of them mentioned it at the security briefing,” said Shapiro, of the United Jewish Federation of Northeastern New York. “They’ll have more people outside. They’ll be more vigilant.”

All of this brings up some very interesting questions.

The FBI uses staff resources to hold a 90 minute meeting for Jewish groups to advise the attendees that nothing is going on? I think a simple letter would have handled that outlay of information. Here are a few lines they could have used: Regarding the upcoming holy days, the FBI is aware of no explicit threats to the local Jewish community. We advise you to keep vigilant and to take appropriate security precautions.

As a matter of fact, the FBI could send that letter to every religious group in the country. You know, Christians are targets for extremists too (ref. the latest calls to “break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion to Islam or [sic] killed by the sword.”).

It is all very well and good that the law enforcement community is reminding faith communities to be careful. However, shouldn’t we be asking a question closer to the core, what is the appropriate faith response?

Deacon Dan Wright has an excellent analysis of the issues surrounding the Pope’s speech and the backlash from both Muslim and Christian extremists. He writes on what the Christian response should be. In My Very First (Official) Rant he says in part:

Christian people, what is going on? Are you so easily manipulated by the real evil at work? Can you not see the spirit of divisiveness?

Exactly! We’ve bought into divisiveness, building barricades, manning our doors with police officers, and holding FBI meetings out of fear. We are buying into, or creating a spirit of fear. That fear is inconsistent with St. Paul’s challenge to us. It is inconsistent with the voice of the martyrs who stood on very firm ground in the face of fear. It is inconsistant with a life lived in Christ.

For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands. For God did not give us a spirit of cowardice but rather of power and love and self-control. So do not be ashamed of your testimony to our Lord, nor of me, a prisoner for his sake; but bear your share of hardship for the gospel with the strength that comes from God.

Hardships take many forms: outright persecution, subtle persecution, bigotry, and forgiveness. The onus is on us – how do we respond? St. Paul’s words are as good today as they were during the persecutions of Nero. Stand on the strength of your faith, live the gospel.

Homilies,

Twenty-fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time

See, the Lord GOD is my help;
who will prove me wrong?

When we consider the vast number of pages that have been written in regard to philosophy, science, theology, and the humanities, when we sum all that up, and look back across history, we may think that we have a right to be pretty proud.

We may think – ‘Look, mankind has created a lot. We’re pretty smart.’ The inherent danger in that declaration is equating accomplishment with truth. Do we rely on the array of what we have created as truth, neglecting God?

I think that captures the trend in humanity – one that has existed even before Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem.

Remember, the scribes and pharisees of Jesus’ day lived that kind of existence. They relied on the words and thinking of the teachers that came before them. They certainly had the word of God to rely on, but it obviously wasn’t enough, especially in light of all the interpretations that followed, the oral teachings of their fathers and the Midrash. The Scribes and Pharisees needed the commentary of the Talmud to expand and clarify God’s Law, to codify the code so to speak.

Codifying the code is not wrong in itself, nor would the Pharisees and scribes have been singled out for Jesus’ criticism based on that fact alone. They fell rather on their reliance on those interpretations and codifications to the exclusion of God’s truth. Their code was not in line with God’s code.

The words of the psalmist, his poetry and song, come to completion in Jesus. Jesus worked to refocus The Jewish people on the truth of His Father.

If God is your center and source, if God is your help, if the laws of God are written in your hearts and used as the point of reference for your life, no one can prove you wrong.

Jesus lived in perfect oneness, in perfect unity with His Father. His Father’s will was His own. His Father’s laws were His benchmark. He tried to impress this on His followers. He tries to impress it on us – today, right here and now.

—Who do people say that I am?—

Who indeed! Someone wrote to me recently saying: ‘The Muslims don’t criticize Jesus.’

I responded by implying – ‘I guess it depends on what you mean by criticism.’ If we have no faith, if we are not focused on God, then we would say, Sure, they even write about him (small h) in their book. As a matter of fact we would be pretty close to Islamic belief, Jesus was a nice guy and a great prophet… with a great mom.

If however we have true faith, a true understanding and centering on God, the truth of God revealed to the world, then we would say ‘They do indeed criticize Jesus. They criticize Him (capital H) because they deny who He is.’

My brothers and sisters,

What kind of faith did Peter and the apostles exhibit?

Peter said to him in reply,
—You are the Christ.—

Can we join with Peter and acknowledge Jesus as God and man, as the Messiah and the Savior? Can we stand up and tell the vast majority of the world’s population that they’ve got it wrong?

A pretty brave declaration from Jesus’ closest followers don’t you think? We would be considered pretty brave for saying that today – you know, we might offend someone.

Unfortunately, it was the kind of declaration that in all its truth and power soon fell victim to the parade of human accomplishment.

Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.

Peter was ticked. Jesus just said:

the Son of Man must suffer greatly
and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes,
and be killed, and rise after three days.

I just declared that You are God, lets go accomplish what I understand You are going to accomplish. What are you talking about? The documents I have in front of me say You are wrong. Here, let me straighten You out.

Peter found and quickly lost the center. He found the faith to proclaim the truth, then the awful weight of our humanity’s self-serving aggrandizement fell upon him.

At this he turned around and, looking at his disciples,
rebuked Peter and said, —Get behind me, Satan.
You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.—

That about captures it.

Is God God to us? Do we center and judge by Him? Do we work with and relate to each other as He would want us to? Can we make simple proclamations of faith.

Our Orthodox friends say a lot with very few words. The continually pray one little prayer:

“Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.”

A simple proclamation of faith – Jesus is God. A simple acknowledgment that we fall short of what God wants from us.

I encourage you to pray this prayer all day. Repeat it often, and contemplate its meaning. Above all focus yourself on Jesus – God incarnate.

St. James reminds us:

What good is it, my brothers and sisters,
if someone says he has faith but does not have works?
Can that faith save him?

Faith judged by purely human standards has little value. Faith lived is everything.

Proclaim Jesus as God in all we do; let us live out the fullness of the faith.

Current Events, Perspective

Good point

From Whoops, a pontiff by Stephen Bates:

On the other hand, if you cannot, as part of a lengthy and profound academic lecture, cite a 600 year-old text for fear of stirring the aggravation of noisy politicians half way around the world, what CAN you do? We might as well all retreat into obscurantism. And keep our mouths shut, for otherwise, who knows who we might offend. And if, as a result of the outrage, some Catholics get killed or their churches burned down by offended scholars and textual exegesists it might be thought that Manuel’s original point had rather been made.

Current Events, Perspective

Muslim reliance on reason

From the AP via the Buffalo News: Turkish Lawmaker Compares Pope to Hitler:

ANKARA, Turkey (AP) — Turkey’s ruling Islamic-rooted party joined a wave of criticism of Pope Benedict XVI on Friday, accusing him of trying to revive the spirit of the Crusades with remarks he made about the Muslim faith. A Turkish lawmaker said the pontiff would go down in history “in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini” for his words.

Don’t forget to add Atatí¼rk to that list.

Salih Kapusuz, a deputy leader of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s party, said Benedict’s remarks were either “the result of pitiful ignorance” about Islam and its prophet, or a deliberate distortion.

I prefer to think the Pope had complete understanding. Mohammed added nothing. He simply took a lot of Orthodox Christianity, some Judaism, and twisted it into a new ‘faith.’ He was the Joseph Smith of his day, and Islam was the Mormonism of its time.

“Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence,” [Pakistani] Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said.

I like that – we’re not intolerant – and we’ll riot and kill if you say we are. Oxymoron!

“What he has done is that he has quoted very offensive remarks by some emperor hundreds of years ago,” she added. “It is not helpful (because) we have been trying to bridge the gap, calling for dialogue and understanding between religions.”

Aslam said Muslims had a long history of tolerance, adding that when the Catholic kingdom of Spain expelled its Jewish population in 1492 they were welcomed by Muslim nations such as the Turkish Ottoman Empire.

Yes, yes, Islam is tolerant, like Saudi Arabia where practicing Christianity is outlawed (you will be sentenced to death for doing so, or for even owning a Bible), like Pakistan where churches are regularly bombed and Christians are shot dead in their churches, like Turkey and Turkish controlled Cyprus where the Ecumenical Patriarchy is held captive, priests are killed, Christian women are harassed by Muslim gangs, Christian schools are closed, and Churches are seized and converted into mosques?

Media, Perspective

Could I have exhibited insight?

Father Jake Stops the World has an interesting post on the future of the Episcopal Church (TEC). In Will a “Two Church Solution” be Traded for Invitations to Lambeth? he quotes an article by Ruth Gledhill in the Times: Clergy seek ‘two-church solution’.

Ms. Gledhill makes an observation concerning the end of TEC as a member of the Anglican Communion and a possible union between TEC and Utrecht, observations that coinside with my own. In her blog, Ruth Gledhill —“ Articles of Faith, she makes very similar observations to ones I made. Specifically in Love in the Ruins (updated) she says:

…it is not beyond the realm of possibility that TEC could itself decide it has had enough and seek communion with another body, such as the Old Catholic Church of Utrecht. This church is in communion with Canterbury, and is liberal on women and gays. I can imagine a scenario where, should the whole thing become a much looser federation, enabling the Methodists among others to come on board, the Old Catholics could end up part of the wider Communion in any case.

Maybe it would just then become The Communion, TC, with separate bodies such as the Episcopalians, the Anglicans, the Methodists, the Old Catholics, the Lutherans and numerous others all included.

In Possibilities for the Episcopal Church (June 20, 2006) I said:

In my estimation the stage is set for TEC to break from the Anglican Communion. They have created a sort of union of the left and liberal. They have also set the stage to become the money and the power behind a ‘new’ union (see we’re doing a new thing).

I find it very interesting that Bishop Joris Vercammen, the Old Catholic Archbishop of Utrecht, presided at the convention’s June 19 Eucharist, ostensibly in recognition of the 75th anniversary of the Bonn Agreement. Utrecht has already substantially adopted the ‘ordination’ of women and is well on the way to blessings of same sex unions.

In October 2005 when Utrecht met with the Abp. of Canterbury there was much discussion on the issue of overlapping jurisdictions. There are Anglican Bishops in locales under the jurisdiction of a Utrecht Bishop. Since Utrecht and the Anglican Church are in full communion there should only be one Bishop per jurisdiction.

Utrecht used a made up, far less serious excuse to eject the PNCC from the Union (not that the PNCC wanted to remain in union with Utrecht based on Utrecht’s liberal positions).

Could TEC become the new ‘Rome for the liberals’? Could Utrecht align with the TEC? Could Utrecht disavow their relationship with Anglicanism in general and join with TEC, the IFI (who have been in on and off discussions with Utrecht for years), the ELCA and the UMC in a sort of liberal, anything goes movement?

Wow, did I scoop the Times? Did I exhibit foresight? Hey, you never know…

Thanks again to the Young Fogey for the pointer to this.

Everything Else

The kingdom is, but not yet…

You scored as Amillenialist. Amillenialism believes that the 1000 year reign is not literal but figurative, and that Christ began to reign at his ascension. People take some prophetic scripture far too literally in your view.

Amillenialist

100%

Moltmannian Eschatology

65%

Postmillenialist

65%

Premillenialist

35%

Preterist

35%

Left Behind

5%

Dispensationalist

0%

What's your eschatology?
created with QuizFarm.com

Note the big zero in Dispensationalist.

Tip ‘o the biretta to Ben Johnson at Western Orthodoxy.