Stand Firm

Though Mr Hayano is unable to give any definitive answer as to why so many kill themselves at Aokigahara, he has gained great insight into the behaviour of those desperate enough to venture in with no intention of coming back.

In this haunting documentary he tells the film-makers how clues left among the trees can indicate what went through a person’s mind in the moments before they took their own life - or, as is sometimes the case, had a change of heart and chose to live.

His interest in death and despair may seem to stem from morbid fascination, but as the film rolls on it becomes clear that this softly-spoken, pensive man acts out of a desire to understand and prevent these tragedies.

Though the footage includes disturbing stills of bodies found dangling in the forest, perhaps equally chilling are the possessions they leave behind, often signs of distress and indecision.

Vice.Com produces some excellent documentaries - their piece on the labor camps of North Korea, and their foray into the savagery of Liberia are especially riveting - but they’re noted for their rough language as much as for their take-no-prisoners style of filmmaking, so you’ve been warned.

Thomas McKenna: “So a Catholic employer, really getting down to it, he does not, or she does not provide this because that way they would be, in a sense, cooperating with the sin…the sin of contraception or the sin of providing a contraceptive that would abort a child, is this correct?”

Cardinal Burke: “This is correct. It is not only a matter of what we call “material cooperation” in the sense that the employer by giving this insurance benefit is materially providing for the contraception but it is also “formal cooperation” because he is knowingly and deliberately doing this, making this available to people. There is no way to justify it. It is simply wrong.”

April 10, 2012

Kigali, Rwanda

To the Clergy of Rwanda serving the work of the Gospel in North America: Greetings in the Name of the Lord Jesus, the Risen Christ and the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

We write to clarify some important questions that remain after our March 29 Resolution and April 2 Communiqué.

As a result of our March 29 Resolution, a Missionary District of PEAR in North America has been established. We are currently working with members of the PEAR‐USA Steering Team to create a temporary Charter for Ministry which will define the mission and structure of the Missionary District. Once we have approved the recommended Charter we will make it available to you. This Charter will be ratified through a proper process at an Inaugural General Assembly (of laity, clergy, and bishops) for the Missionary District which we hope to host in early August.

Members of the PEAR House of Bishops are also working with leaders from ACNA that Archbishop Robert Duncan has appointed and members of the PEAR‐USA Steering Team in the hope of establishing protocols that will govern the Missionary District as a subjurisdiction of the ACNA.

It is our clear intention that the Missionary District will be the only option for clergy and churches in North America wishing stay canonically resident in PEAR. As the details of the Charter for Ministry and the sub‐jurisdictional protocols become clear, we hope that all North American clergy resident in PEAR, along with their churches, will eventually join the Missionary District. A process of formal affiliation with the Missionary District will be described in the Charter. Until the Charter is approved, any North American clergy resident in PEAR can affiliate with the Missionary District by a simple declaration of desire and intent. (This declaration should be communicated in writing to the PEARUSA office. They will pass on further instruction for affiliation and participation for both clergy and churches.)

However, we understand that some clergy currently resident and in good standing in PEAR have chosen, with their churches, to begin the process of transferring to dioceses within the ACNA or other Anglican jurisdictions. Bishop Terrell Glenn is coordinating these requests for letters dimissory on my behalf. This process should continue as needed, and we are fully supportive of those moving directly into the ACNA and other Anglican jurisdictions.

We also understand that some clergy and churches may choose to remain affiliated with the Anglican Mission in the Americas. They are free to do so. Again, we will supply those clergy with letters dimissory to another Anglican jurisdiction upon request. As per our April 2 communiqué, the bishops of the Anglican Mission who resigned in December have been asked to declare the ecclesiastical jurisdiction to which they wish to be translated within the next few weeks. However, we understand that clergy and churches require additional time to make this decision. Therefore, all PEAR clergy in North America must make a clear decision about either affiliating with the Missionary District or transferring directly to the ACNA or another Anglican jurisdiction by August 31, 2012.

In summary, as you come to understand God’s direction for you, please send all requests in writing:

• For those who desire letters dimissory to be sent to a diocese in the ACNA or any other Anglican jurisdiction, to Archbishop Onesphore Rwaje, c/o Bishop Terrell Glenn: fiveglenns@aol.com

• For affiliation with the PEAR Missionary District, to Archbishop Onesphore Rwaje, c/o the PEARUSA office: bacton@pearusa.org

It is important that you are aware of one additional deadline: We anticipate the Inaugural General Assembly for the Missionary District to take place in early August. The proposed deadline for submitting lay and clergy delegates, which will be explained in the Charter, will be no later than thirty days prior to the General Assembly. Clergy and churches that have not decided to affiliate with the Missionary District at least thirty days prior to the General Assembly will be welcome to attend, but they will not have voice and vote.

We trust that this answers important questions and clarifies the possible directions that lie ahead for you.

You are beloved in the Lord! You remain the focus of our prayers. May God grant you his Spirit in full measure as you continue to proclaim the Gospel of the Risen Lord!

Archbishop Onesphore Rwaje and the House of Bishops of PEAR

The original PDF is here.

Keep in mind from whence the 16 voting members of the Crown Nominations Commission will come:

6 members of the Diocese of Canterbury
6 members elected by General Synod [already elected]
2 members of the the House of Bishops - the Archbishop of York, and one other, or two others if the York declines
1 member of the Primates Meeting nominated not by the Primates, but by the ‘Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion
1 voting lay chairman [appointed by the Prime Minister]

Find out more about the process here.

So here are my two questions.

1) What do we know about the six members already elected by the Synod?

From the House of Laity:

Professor Glynn Harrison - Diocese of Bristol

Mrs Mary Johnston - Diocese of London

Mr Aiden Hargreaves-Smith - Diocese of London

From the House of Clergy:

The Very Revd Andrew Nunn - Diocese of Southwark

The Revd Canon Peter Spiers - Diocese of Liverpool

The Revd Canon Glyn Webster - Diocese of York

2) What do we know about the makeup of the “Vacancy in See Committee” of the Diocese of Canterbury, which elects the six representatives of the Diocese of Canterbury?

Many people still ask, “So what happened to the Episcopal Church? What happened to mainline Protestantism?” “Why do so few who claim to be leaders in the church rejected the most essential doctrines of the faith?” Dr. RC Sproul answers that question in a masterful overview of the last 200 years of western Christianity from Kant to Barth to the New Perspective on Paul, arguing that the Church must recover its “antithesis”, its antithetical stand against those who would deconstruct scripture and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

When Fred Borsch was Bishop of Los Angeles, he liked to wish folks “a lousy Lent.”  He said it with a wink, of course, but he made a good point.  The “holy Lent” spelled out in the Ash Wednesday liturgy invites us into potentially, even inevitably lousy moments: “self-examination and repentance; prayer, fasting, and self-denial…reading and meditating on God’s holy Word.”

One of the Lenten prefaces celebrates the lift that can come out of a lousy season:

You bid your faithful people cleanse their hearts, and prepare with joy for the Paschal feast; that, fervent in prayer in and works of mercy, and renewed by your Word and Sacraments, they may come to the fullness of grace which you have prepared for those who love you.

The prevailing opinion here at Good Shepherd, Sioux Falls is that we had a memorably joyful Easter, and that after several stagnant years the Holy Spirit is again lifting our parish into growth and impact for the heavenly kingdom.  I am noticing that the most expressively thankful and fired up people are the ones who labored in the lousy work of Lent:

+ The Senior Warden and his wife, both of whom work full time and then some, and their two energetic little kids, who all attended every session of our special Lenten kids’ program on being forgiven and forgiving - and then made it to all of the liturgies of Holy Week;

+ A young couple who are members of an Assemblies of God congregation and visit us regularly for liturgical worship, who attended all five adult Lenten classes on “Confession of Sin” and attended all of the Holy Week liturgies;

+ A group of middle-aged men who undertook a serious discussion of Biblical standards for husbands and fathers, and who found their group growing with young and new dads seeking guidance and encouragement;

+ My wife grappling with health concerns and caring for our autistic son, making it to all of the Holy Week liturgies for the first time in five years.

+ Our music leader, who had to travel out of state for his beloved grandfather’s burial on Maundy Thursday.  It was far from a planned Lenten observance - it was Lent with all the stops out.  Yet when I spotted him on his Easter morning return to Good Shepherd, he was smiling and sharing his hope in the resurrection with another parishioner.

Those are just some of the examples that leap to mind less than 48 hours after the first “Alleluia” ended our Lenten disciplines. They are all examples of walking through the lousy realities that Jesus Christ humbled himself to share, suffered to redeem and rose to make glorious.  They make me sad for a blog buddy who, when I announced our series on Confession back at the start of Lent, lamented, “In our liberal parish, that wouldn’t fly as a Lenten program. Of course, we don’t have Lenten programs anymore.”

So, testimonies, anyone?  Did lack of Lent let you down?  Or did a lousy Lent lift your Easter?

Outreach Media have put up a great website in the run-up the Global Atheist Convention soon to be held here in Australia (again).

Doubting Dawkins is a very full set of challenges to Richard Dawkins. Far more substantial than the trainwreck that was Cardinal George Pell on ABC’s Q&A last night (but more of that another time).

Readers may be interested to know that section 4e of Doubting Dawkins was penned by your favourite British immigrant on these antipodean shores. And no, I don’t mean Mel B.

More detritus from Holy Week. This one appears on the Sojourners blog, and consists of a Baptist pastor letting the world know that he hasn’t got a clue why he does what he does for a living:

I have no idea what Jesus meant by giving himself over like this. We read the scripture last night at the Maundy Thursday service at First Baptist. “Not my will but your’s.” Lord, have mercy. Someone asked the question as someone does every year, “Why would God want Jesus to die? If it’s God’s will…Why would God will this to happen?” I have some practiced answers. This year I offered them as I usually do.

“First, let me tell you what the tradition says…” I give a theological gloss and watch their eyes glaze over. Right. Of course. This isn’t an answer any more than a stump speech is an indication of what will actually happen if one of these people in the news are elected to public office. So, I move on.

“Well, what do you think…” Sometimes there’s an answer waiting. Sometimes people just want a chance to tell the Pastor what they think. I like hearing how God’s faithful have worked out this stuff. There is always wisdom here.

“Now let me tell you what I think…” is my last response. It goes something like this:

I don’t know. I don’t want to say “It’s a mystery” because that becomes the great theological copout. No. I say that I don’t understand. Why? Because I don’t. The whole story is insane. It’s madness. God has gone insane. Jesus has followed God right there to the looney bin. Peter is in denial. Judas goes off the deep end. The dysfunction of the community following Jesus is exposed in this dramatic turn of events. The Sanhedrin goes nuts. Pilate goes nuts. The women of Jerusalem are told, by Jesus no less, that it will get worse before it gets better. Insane? You think this is insane? You think this is worth your well-trained bereavement? Just wait. This is when we honor insanity. So…I don’t know what the hell it means. I don’t know God’s will. I’m not sure I ever have.

It’s insane. There’s nothing “Good” here.

The whole world has gone mad. Even God.

This is Revelation.

No, this is crap, not to put too fine a point on it. What’s the one word missing from this rant? “Scripture” or “Bible” (he mentions “the tradition,” but there’s no telling what that means, especially from a Baptist). Instead, it comes down to, “let me tell you what I think.”

The older I get, the less interesting I find my own speculations on religion, and the more interesting I find God’s revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ, conveyed to us through inspired witnesses to the events that God’s Word addresses. It’s kind of a neat book, when you get into it. I hope that Tripp Hudgins, the writer of this tripe and (of course) a Ph.D student at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, takes time from his liturgical studies to glance through it now and then.

Rarely do I feel a need to defend Rowan Williams, but he’s really getting savaged by the atheists in the comments over at this Guardian article:

“Recent years have seen so many high-profile assaults on the alleged evils of religion that we’ve almost become used to them; we sigh and pass on, wishing that we could have a bit more of a sensible debate and a bit less hysteria. But there are a few signs that the climate is shifting ever so slightly,” he said at Canterbury cathedral.

Some sense from the archbishop? Yessss!!! I am STOKED, because I was thinking how AW DANG:

Contrasting the “hysteria” of “aggressive polemic against religious faith” with an increasing recognition among “serious and liberal-minded commentators”, he said faith was no longer seen as “a brainless and oppressive enemy” but recognised as a potential ally against a greedy and individualistic way of life that feels “increasingly insane”.

Translation: Hey everybody, let’s #Occupy Christianity!

Yes indeed, we sigh and pass on.

For a Christian blogger, getting back to work after Easter typically involves cleaning up the detritus that accumulated during Holy Week. Let’s start off this year’s garbage collection with the CBS Morning News assault on Christians’ faith in the resurrection:

It’s possibly the greatest “What if ...” in the world. What if the Shroud of Turin really is the burial cloth Jesus was wrapped in . . . and the faint imprint on it, the image of a man who has been tortured and crucified, really is Christ himself?

The last time the Shroud was on view, for six weeks in 2010, more than two million people saw it, even though in 1988, after a carbon dating test, it was declared a medieval fake - dating from between 1260 and 1390.

The story was supposed to be over. But tell that to the throngs who waited hours for the chance to spend seconds before it in reverent silence.

And tell that to scholars who think the carbon dating results were just plain wrong, among them art historian Thomas de Wesselow.

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.

Normally, stories upholding the authenticity of the Shroud will, in some measure, also uphold Christian belief. In this case, what’s upheld stops at the tomb:

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.

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.”

Oh, for Pete’s sake. Where was the body, you twit? Every single piece of actual testimony recorded in the Gospels about the events of that day are clear that the body was gone. So they saw the Shroud? What difference would that make if they also saw the body of Jesus, still as dead as Jacob Marley’s proverbial doornail? And if the body was gone, why would they have concluded that He was raised “in the spirit,” rather than in the flesh? And why would so many of them say they actually spoke with Him, walked with Him, ate with Him? It gets worse:

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.

Right. So Paul was transformed from a murderous persecutor of Christians into a Christian himself, because Christians showed him Jesus’s burial cloth. He shouted “hosanna!”, and cried, “Jesus is alive in the spirit!”, and started a history’s greatest missionary movement based on that.

Of course, this is just the word of an art historian, and what do they know? So CBS brings in the big gun:

“It could well be the burial cloth of Jesus - I wouldn’t discount that possibility,” said Harold Attridge, dean of Yale Divinity School and an eminent New Testament scholar, said of de Wesselow’s book: “That’s part of the case that he makes; the other part is trying to see how the discovery of this cloth might have functioned in generating belief about the resurrection, and that’s much more, in my mind, conjectural.

“However this image was formed, it was formed in a way that’s compatible with the ancient practice of Crucifixion,” said Attridge.

Attridge said, “For many, many mainstream Protestants and Catholics, certainly evangelical Protestants, you have a notion that you need the resurrected body in the way that it’s described in Luke and John. That was not Paul’s belief. Paul did not have a belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus. And I tend to agree with Paul. But it remains something of a mystery.”

Can we say it all together? There is no contradiction between Luke, John, and Paul regarding the resurrection! Yes, Paul speaks of a “spiritual body,” but that is not—NOT—NOT!—the same thing as “disembodied spirit.” Of course Paul believed in physical resurrection. If there was no physical resurrection, how could Jesus’s physical body be “sown” as a “spiritual body”? NOte that in 1 Corinthians 15:44, Paul doesn’t contrast the spiritual body with the physical body; he contrasts it with the “natural body,” the body that has been overtaken by sin and is subject to death. What Attridge is essentially saying is that Paul was a Gnostic, at least with regard to his view of Christ’s resurrection, and given the utter rejection by the other New Testament authors of anything that smacked of Gnosticism, that is completely absurd.

So this is what CBS thinks of Christian faith: on the holiest day of the church year, the network trots out a pair of “experts” to tell millions of believers, “you got it wrong.”

(Hat tip: Benjamin Glazer on Facebook.)

From The Hour Online: 

As controversy swirls around Al-Madany Islamic Center of Norwalk’s plan to build a mosque at 127 Fillow St., members of the congregation continue to worship in the community room of Christ Episcopal Church on Emerson Street.

“We come early to set up. It takes about 15 minutes,” said Azzeim Mahmoud, imam at Al-Madany and Norwalk resident, as he rolled out prayer mats in preparation for Friday afternoon’s prayer service. “We start about 1 o’clock and finish about 20 minutes before 2 o’clock, because people have to go back to work.”

For about a year, Christ Episcopal Church has been home to Al-Madany Islamic Center of Norwalk, whose congregation numbers about 100 families. Friday’s prayer service drew about 100 men. On Saturday afternoons, Al-Madany uses the community room for an education class for children. Before that, members of the congregation prayed in the basement of a board member. In that regard, Al-Madany members now have more room but the space is hardly ideal.