#I am an Episcopalian at present

[saintmachina]

I don't talk about Constanta's (A DOWRY OF BLOOD) faith much but it's a cornerstone of the text and I will never regret making an unapologetic vampire an unrepentant Catholic. She lives balanced on the knife's edge between good and evil, day and night, darkness and light, and she never once considers herself a contradiction.

Because no matter what state my belief is in, no matter if there are times when I cannot hold space for my own faith much less the faith of others, she can keep that candle burning. She believes even on days when I find it hard to.

[shoujo-wizard]

I am writing old man yaoi fic, they r in a seaside town, this started as a plan for a one shot but now it's going to be in 3 parts & I have figured out character details but I'm working thru stitching a plot together bc now I have a lot of ideas & this might not b a simple little sweet romance story in a seaside town anymore

there is no catholicism present bc idk much of anything abt the Bible or the philosophy of catholicism, there might some episcopalian tendencies tht will get a shout out tho & since I'm setting this on the Scottish coast I think tht works

[that-love-is-all-there-is]

can any of my followers help me out with finding resources comparing Anglican and Catholic theology?

I am the happiest I've been in my faith in a long time!!! but alas I am facing a temptation/urge/whatever-word-has-no-baggage-that-means-yearning that I hadn't expected: a curiosity and draw toward the Episcopal church.

I am visiting nuns next month, for pete's sake! I don't need this!

but the more I pray and reflect, the more I try to lean into the Holy Spirit's tugs on my heart? the more I wonder, what are the differences anyway?

my firm belief in transubstantiation and my love of the saints of the Catholic church have kept me in the RCC, that and some sad brushes I've had at an Episcopal church near me where a few people seemed very um sanctimonious and bitter that I don't resent my time spent Catholic. but what do I do with these feelings and wonderings? ignoring them isn't helping!

and if you'd like to talk about grace in the Episcopal church, or if you're an ex-Catholic Episcopalian why you believe their sacraments are "just as good" (sorry! I don't know how else to say it!) please dm me!

or if you're Catholic and would like to present me a reminder why that church is amazing and I should stay, come at me :)

[lyledebeast]

Unsurprisingly I am STILL obsessing over Boy Erased today. I think what really makes it stand out from other conversion therapy narratives I've seen is that it so accurately represents what fundamentalist Christians believe. This belief is based on an erroneous understanding of what homosexuality is. One thing Victor Sykes, the camp director, dwells on is the actions homosexuals commit. When Jared insists that he has only had thoughts about men and held hands with one boy his age, Sykes refuses to believe him. Homosexuality is defined as sinful actions and compared with drinking alcohol, doing drugs, or joining a gang, rather than seen as an immutable part of a person's psychological and genetic makeup that will be present whether the person ever acts on their desires or not. This is why the only conversion the "therapies" shown in this film accomplish is of living young gay people into dead bodies, or at least far more mentally damaged people than they were before.

Joel Edgerton's film shows this fundamentalist understanding to be flawed without demonizing the people who hold it. Having an incorrect understanding of their children's sexuality identity does not necessarily mean they hate their children. A false idea can be exposed as false. A person can reject a deeply held belief and choose to believe something else instead based on new information. As Jared says to his father, Marshall (and I'm paraphrasing) "I'm gay and I'm your son. Neither of those things is going to change. If you want to maintain a relationship with me, you have to change." Since the film ends with pictures of Garrard Conely, on whose memoir the story is based, with both of his parents, we're left to believe his father did.

Of course, some parents of queer children do hate them and twist scriptures to shift the focus from that hatred to the children's supposed sin. The film also shows this dynamic through the relationship between Cameron and his father. Perhaps the most harrowing scene in the film (and it is hard to pick just one) happens when Cameron's family members take turns literally beating him with a Bible, and his father volunteers to go first. I bet it was a King James Bible, too. Cameron commits suicide later in the film, and while the story does not confirm this, I'm confident the family is blaming his sexuality for his death and not their horrific treatment of him because of it. Some people never learn.

My father's favorite preacher when I was growing up once said he'd never been around a homosexual who was happy. I think that is the truest thing he ever said, because every homosexual he's ever been around also had to be around him! My priest when I was confirmed Episcopalian (who I still think of as "my" priest even though I've moved and changed churches twice since then) says, "If it's not love, it's not from God." Clearly, Christianity contains multitudes, and I'm always glad to see a mainstream film that reflects that.

[chirhos]

I am Episcopalian and I used to go to a very 'high-church' style church where the priest was gay and had his wedding in the church. Several other gay parishioners were either married in that church or fully welcomed into the congregation with their same-sex spouses. The congregation considered themselves Anglo-catholic and it was virtually indistinguishable from a Catholic church unless you knew that the priest was married. (I mean this in terms of how the service was presented and the liturgy, obviously we as Episcopalians hold certain different beliefs than the Roman Catholic church.)

Here is a picture I found of the wedding between two Episcopal priests, Rev Mally Lloyd and Rev Katherine Ragsdale of the Diocese of Massachusetts! The man in between them is Bishop M. Thomas Shaw, also of Massachusetts.

The "high" ness of an Episcopal church can vary greatly: in the city where I used to live, my church was the "high"est of the Episcopal churches and the rest of them varied a lot.

do you think its possible to have a gay marriage inside of a catholic church? my femme and i happen to fantasize about having a big church wedding someday but we are lesbians skskls

hello!

it sounds lovely! i wish you and your femme all the love and joy. i must say it’s not possible, though, sadly. Catholic churches only allow Catholic sacramental marriage to happen within the building, and that’s reserved for cishet marriages of two (or one) Catholic people/person.

however, there is hope! depending on your area, try looking for some high-church affirming churches. i’m sure you could find one! there are *some* Independent Catholic churches around the world, as well as *some* Episcopalian, Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist and Lutheran churches that allow lgbt+ couples to marry within their churches. all of these are considered high-church, so if what you are seeking are the aesthetics and ritual aspects, these are great options for a big church wedding. it all depends on the area and who has the local authority.

if anyone has more information on christian high-church lgbt+ weddings, do share!

[gisellelx]

Hello! Love your blog and i wanna say

Your analysis and your posts in general are always so well researched historically. How do you do that and how can I do it too?

So I wanted to answer this with care and time and thoughtfully. I hope this answer will be good not just for you but will be worth reblogging for anyone who wants to think about how you develop good researching skills more generally. Because ultimately getting good at making sense of the world isn’t just about writing or just about fic or just about academia; it’s about being a good citizen of the world.  The short answer to this question, up front: I’ve gotten good at research because it’s my actual job! I’m a professor and not even a new one really anymore; I have a book of research coming out later this year which still feels really weird to say. I happen to know how old you are because we’ve chatted so don’t forget to put into perspective that before you started formal schooling I had already written my first 50+ page research work. I’ve been at this seriously for almost two decades now. However, there are some fundamental ways that professional researchers go about thinking about everything, whether it’s something as inconsequential as fic or as monumental as the stuff going on in the U.S. right now that I think are a little different, and they’re replicable in useful ways. So here’s three things that matter.  Get curious. This actually is pretty easy for fanfic writers because we already have something we’re curious about--whatever fandom(s) we’re in. But curiosity isn’t just about the spark; it’s also about getting interested in making connections between different kinds of things. When you encounter any given piece of information, the first thing you should start thinking about is “how does this piece of information fit in with everything else I already know” which will lead you to “how does it contradict what I already know” and “what else do I need to know to understand how this fits?” This leads you down really interesting rabbit holes.  An example from fic/tumblr answers: A witch hunting Anglican really doesn’t map on to what I know of Anglicans/Episcopalians in present-day. So then I start to ask, “Okay. What was actually going on in the church in the 1640s?” I’m going to mesh it with some of my own knowledge: I know the protestant reformation happened a hundred years earlier, but I don’t know a ton about what happened after, except that the Puritans arrived in New England eh, about that time. So I go down the rabbit hole of finding out about the church in the 1640s. At some point there I’m going to run across some of the secular history: that the 1640s was the English Civil War. Okay, what was the Civil War about? Who won? How long were they in control? Questions beget questions and true, at some point, you have to decide when to stop if it’s for writing. But honestly, if you’re curious, you probably won’t stop thinking about it even if you’ve found out enough to answer the thing you want to answer. Because you’ll 

Develop a lens. The thing you’re interested in becomes the way you start to see the world. Start relating everything to the thing you are trying to find out more about. Notice when you’re getting more information about that thing or when something would matter to that thing. I have an assignment I give my students where they have to write four short assignments relating stuff they see about language use to the things they’re learning in class. It’s partially to teach them about the concepts they’re learning, and partially to teach them about writing, but it’s mostly to accustom them to viewing the world through the lens I’m teaching them. It’s to help them get curious about why one barista’s tone sounds friendly and the other’s doesn’t even though the say the exact same thing. It’s mutually reinforcing: the lens begets curiosity and curiosity begets the development of the lens. If I encounter a fact, a piece of history, a moment in time, an old song, there’s a little piece of my brain after 11 years of writing Twific that is always asking “Where were the Cullens?” I have headcanons for days about how each of them, especially Carlisle, would’ve dealt with any individual moment in history. When I sing an old hymn in church I sometimes look down at the date in the hymnal to find out if it’s one Carlisle would’ve sung as a human. I’m always working through this lens, and that means I’m always adding to the knowledge. 

Finally, source well. Especially for something as fanciful as fic, there’s not a lot of reason to dive deep into academic tomes (although I have; I am a fucking nerd. See above re: my work.) But dive deeper than the first page of google. Read the first Wikipedia page you come to, but then read a couple of the pages it links to! If the English Civil War has to do with Cromwell and it established the Protectorate, and those things are linked? Well, read those, too! And then you might need to cross-reference--okay, now I know what the Protectorate was, and I’ve decided from that original go-round that Carlisle’s dad was probably a Puritan, not really an Anglican, so...what was the relationship of Puritans to the Protectorate? I’m going to next throw that into google. And I’m looking for high-quality sources: magazines, university websites, things that end with .edu or .gov. I’m clicking on the “about” to find out who wrote the thing and how much of an expert they are. If they say something that no one else has said and I can’t find anything that tells me they’re an expert in this? I’m going to disregard that info and move on. This is applicable to way more than just fic--this is about figuring out that as much as I go YEAH YEAH YEAH at some hyper-partisan trash website that fits my political view, I need to step back and consider where it’s coming from, who the author is, and how much they know.  The more you’ve sourced, the easier this gets. My knowledge on Carlisle’s history goes deep, I fell in love with him and only him when I read the series. I have read about popular culture when he was growing up, I have read histories of the English Church, I have spent time thinking about and being fascinated by the history of the development of medical knowledge and medical schools. I didn’t go to the Eye or Big Ben when I happened to be in London; I went to the City Museum and wandered around the part of the city where I imagine he lived, looking for things which have survived since the 17th century and taking note of things which are new to think about what Carlisle would think about them (he is very un-fond of the Gherkin.) I literally spent a day and a half looking at London through Carlisle’s eyes. Because I’m curious; because I have a lens; and because I’m going to grab good sources whenever I have them.  That is a SUPER long post. But I hope it’s helpful. When it comes to writing, the richer your knowledge, the more likely you are to drop the right detail which places your reader and makes them buy into everything else in the world. I remember reading a fic which took place in my hometown and the author had one of the Cullens flying in their private jet. In my hometown, a mid-sized city in the midwest, there is a commercial international airport, but there is also a smaller airfield which handles much of the private air traffic. That author had that Cullen plane take off from the smaller airfield. I don’t know if she is also from my hometown, but she got that detail right, and it signaled that I could trust the rest of her storytelling.  So. It’s worth it: to be a good writer, to be a good researcher, and just to be good at understanding the world. I hope that helps and sorry for the word vomit. Professors write a lot, too. 

[sweetfirebird]

I am watching The Fog (the 1980 version, the only version), and this movie scared the shit out of me as a kid but it's really not scary. I've seen it since I was a kid, but not really paying attention. I am paying attention now and several things:

I forgot Adrienne Barbeau was the voice of 90s animated Catwoman but she plays a DJ in this and my god that voice

This story is set in a Northern California isolated little town and keeps referencing a terrible event that happened ~a hundred years ago tonight~ which means 1880, but there are gold doubloons and swords.

Someone explain the 1880s in California to John Carpenter, bless him.

The 1880s was the era of timber barons, kooky mansions, big mustaches, and extremely racist violence in Northern California. Not so much doubloons and sabers.

This movie is set up like Jaws and is basically Jaws but with vengeful ghosts and not a shark.

Janet Leigh and her daughter Jamie Lee Curtis are both in this, which prompted me to remember that they also both in Columbo episodes.

Is Father Malone supposed to be Catholic or Episcopalian? Asking since his grandfather seems to have been a priest too, and also no one in this town seems anything but WASPy.

It's weird to see the guilt narrative of "curse" movies in this context. (Let's make a horror film about people being punished for the greed of their forefathers instead of just directly addressing the shit our forefathers did in the name of greed.) Northern California residents did some awful, awful shit, but it was racial, so I guess the filmmakers were like, let's make them do horrible things, but to white people BUT--let's make it white people with leprosy. To get THAT in there which won't make it weird at all. Treating people with leprosy as the Other here (and sympathetic but still monstrous) was... a choice. But the guilt narrative of "we built our town on this horrible thing and celebrating our legacy without talking about it is bad and wrong" is very much present.

Eddie Izzard once talked about California fog (compared to English fog) and how fast it moves, comparing it to this movie. Our fog doesn't glow, but it does move fast as fuck.

~a hundred years ago~ they keep saying it like it was FOREVER AGO. lol

That voice though.

(Fun (?) fact somewhat connected to Little Wolf: Adrienne Barbeau as Catwoman sees Batman silhouetted in the light and calls him, "Magnificent" and that is basically what I made Tim say when he sees Nathaniel shirtless.)

[more-quiverfull-sims]

Gorman Family Updates!!!

Author’s note: my husband told me today that Stetson and Ingrid look like siblings, which made me laugh since a lot of fundie couples get the same comment. Ingrid is not very familiar with diversity, and is clearly disturbed by her brother’s decision to marry Ruthie Park! Ruthie’s family is Episcopalian, and both her parents work. Ruthie is also a pretty accomplished skier, not to mention an aspiring physicist. Oh, and we can’t forget that Ruthie’s older sister, Midori, married Stetson’s only brother, Finley--and that she was pregnant at the wedding! Ingrid is still not over that, and Carolina is two now.

Anyway, I hope you guys enjoy this blog! I finished up with finals this week, so I have some time on my hands. This has been so fun so far!

Well! Goodness knows that it has been HECTIC for our family lately. I delivered our second blessing, Josiah...and then just a few months later found out that I was pregnant with a GIRL, sweet Hope Geraldine Gorman! She is our first girl and was born just thirteen months after Josiah. She is just so PRECIOUS and loves all things pink!

Unfortunately, I had to go to the hospital during my birth with Hope. I was grieved at first, but soon realized that the Lord was using this as a chance to humble me. I mean, I had JUST turned twenty-three and already had three sweet blessings! I was filled to the brim with pride and the Lord needed to humble me! I am so grateful for the emergency c-section I endured because it brought us closer together as a family.

Despite everything, Hope was just the most PRECIOUS thing ever!!! I was able to breastfeed her right away, too! Recovering from surgery is no excuse, ladies!

Stetson and I have fallen into a great routine with our babies. We go to church with Mama and Daddy every Sunday! Oh, and Mama had her tenth baby, sweet Noah, by the way! She’s 43 now and there hasn’t been another blessing yet!

But, as for us...I’M EXPECTING!!! I CANNOT wait to welcome our FOURTH little one and our THIRD son to the family!!! Our babies are so excited, too. They just LOVE being part of a big family.

Oh, and TWO of my brothers got married recently. Thaddeus married Chelsie. Chelsie’s grandaddy is a pastor who works on the ground winning souls in San Myshuno! They shared their FIRST kiss for the altar and now they are expecting!! We are SO overjoyed that our babies will have a sweet cousin to play with. What a blessing!

Also, Nathaniel got married to Ruthie. Ruthie is only eighteen and Nathaniel is nineteen. I have to say I was astonished. Ruthie was even younger than me when she got married! But Ruthie says she wanted to get married before she heads off to college for a “distinguished” degree in physics. (Physics! I told her she would be the only girl in the department and that it was just not modest! Ruthie said there were plenty of other women and the department, and that she isn’t worried about modesty...Imagine my shock at THAT!) And Nathaniel informed us that he is going to Foxbury, too...to study a distinguished degree in biology! He says he wants to be a doctor...Lord save him. I can’t image going through so many years of education in a SECULAR place like that!!

Here is an engagement photo that my mother sent me. It looks a bit intimate for me, but I’m glad they’re happy!

You’ll notice that my SWEET sister Brenna, the musician, was a flower girl at the wedding. I was so shocked since she was so SHY when Stetson and I got married. She insisted she didn’t want to be a flower girl at all! I am SO glad she is growing out of her shyness, as it is just NOT becoming of a young lady.

At the end of the ceremony, Brenna even joked that she wanted Nathaniel and Ruthie to adopt her! She is so silly!

Well, I didn’t know what to say about all of that, so I stopped by their place and tried to give Ruthie a talk about her wifely duties, and discussed birth control with her. I reminded her that it has terrible effects on Mama and baby!!! Ruthie just laughed and told me that they are adopting a dog. Oh, my heart was so grieved for Ruthie!! And Nathaniel...he’s been in love with Ruthie since they were children. I was always confused why my father accepted the friendship, but I know his wisdom is greater than mine!

I did stop by again to talk to Ruthie more about the joys of motherhood. The poor girl showed up to the door in this tiny little skirt! She said she had too much going on with school to worry about a baby yet...and Nathaniel agreed! He told me it might be hard for me to understand Ruthie because I don’t have a lot of “life experience.” Well!! I had no idea what to say to THAT! I reminded him that I will have my fourth baby just before my twenty-fifth birthday, but he just chuckled! Well, dear reader, I will be sure to pray for him!

I will be praying for Ruthie as well, as she is apparently still attached to the skiing habit she picked up in childhood. This is what happens when young ladies aren’t drilled in modesty, my friends! And don’t worry about me saying this on the blog...Ruthie knows how I feel! She said we can be friends just the same! I just pray I can lead her to righteousness!

And yes, for those asking, Ruthie’s father is Aaron Park, the famous author. I have never read one of his books, as I heard they can be a bit...salacious for my taste. Aaron and Ivy, Ruthie’s parents, gave them a nice house in Brindleton Bay as a wedding present. Personally, I could never accept such a gift! I am happy for them, but as a woman I would want my husband to EARN a home for us! Stetson is already doing a GREAT job as a science teacher at a nearby Christian school. I am so grateful!!

Here are the latest pictures of our sweet family. We are SO beyond blessed. There are such rewards in being faithful to the Lord!

Pray for a safe home delivery for our fourth little blessing, Isaiah Stetson Gorman!!

[thistle-and-thorn]

6, 7?

are you religious/spiritual?

Yes! I am a practicing Episcopalian (hence the C.S. Lewis obsession lol).

do you care about your ethnicity?

Yes? and No? i'm irish/scottish and there's weird little cultural things that have stayed within my family from the Old Country. But, with the exception of the entire month of March and the time I cried on an Irish tour bus, it's not something that really impacts my presentation to the world??

[scotianostra]

October 3rd 1721 saw the birth at Birse, of The Rev. John Skinner, author of "Tullochgorum", described by Robert Burns as "the best Scotch song ever Scotland saw".

The story behind the song goes that the Reverend was visiting in the house of a lady named Montgomery, in the town of Ellon, Aberdeenshire, the lady is said to have asked for a song after dinner, in order to put a stop to a political dispute round the table, at the same timeshe is said to have expressed surprise that the fine old strathspey, called The Reel of Tullochgorum, had no appropriate words to it. On this hint, Mr. Skinner produced the present song, and it was first printed in the Scots Weekly Magazine for April, 1776.

Rev. Skinner, though brought up in a Presbyterian household, joined the Episcopal Church in the late 1730s. This was no small decision, as it cost him his schoolmaster’s job. He had to move to Shetland securing the post of private tutor to the Sinclair family. Happily, it was also where John met his wife, Grissel Hunter. By the time their first son was born in 1742, the Skinners had returned to the mainland and John had been ordained at Longside. 

These were dangerous times, however, as government troops attacked all Episcopal churches and manses, believing the whole denomination to be on the side of Bonnie Prince Charlie. Skinner himself was no enemy of the Protestant Hanoverian monarchy, yet this meant nothing to rapacious soldiers intent on destruction. In July 1746, following Culloden, a local informer brought the Redcoats to Longside; it was said she was seen exulting as Skinner’s church was razed to the ground.

With no church, the minister preached from the manse to small groups of his congregation sitting in different rooms or standing in the garden, all to evade the legal restrictions against Episcopal services. In 1753, again due to this particular female informer, Rev. Skinner found himself imprisoned for six months at Old Aberdeen. It is little surprise considering he wrote scurrilous verses against his persecutor, describing her as a ‘shrine-destroying Jezebel’, after the Pagan queen of Israel. In 1760 things began to improve; George III was far more tolerant of the Scottish Episcopalians, leaving Skinner to continue his ministry in peace. 

Tullochgorum, which contains the lines ‘Let Whig and Tory all agree’, represents John Skinner’s amazing capacity for tolerance, but also his wit against the proud and foolish. Skinner makes clear his distaste for those who would be ‘oppression’s tool’ and declares ‘May envy gnaw his rotten soul/ And discontent devour him.’ He lived to see his church freed from persecution, yet experienced the sorrow of outliving his beloved Grissel, who died aged 80. 86-year-old John died peacefully on June 16, 1807 in Aberdeen.

As the post is largely about his most famous song it is only natural I am going to post Tullochgorum, this lively version by the McCalmans is fantastic, if you want to here the song in it's more original instrumental strathspey style, there are a few versions on YouTube, but few better than a solo by the brilliant Natalie MacMaster.

[ramrodd]

David Pawson - The Gospel of Mark - Unlocking the bible

COMMENTARY:

@Calvin Bonner  Could you please relay the information you compiled to arrive at these assertions. Your hypotheses were well constructed and your reasoning is sound.

Tom Wilson  In 1990, I was teaching Sunday School to High Shcool students and the superintendent said something at Easter that I later found out originated with the Eastern Orthodox Church to the effect that Jesus had to die in order be Resurrection and it stopped me cold,

I decided that I needed to gain a deeper command of the Bible as a matter of due diligence and started with William Barclay's commentaries on them, starting with Matthew. When I got to Mark, the next in the series, I had an ephiphany reading the forward that Cornelius was the author. It just came into my mind, unbidden, and I knew I had to provide a lot more evidence to support the premise before I could take it public,

I was an English major in college and had several courses in the literature of the Bible, so I never came close to the apologetics of solo scriptura, which, in its present form, is, like Luther's commentaries, forensic in nature and a product of the Marxist dialectic historic deconstruction that became popular during the 6l0s. But it was apparent to me immediately that the Gospel According to Mark begins when Jesus appears above the Roman military horizon as a potential insurgent and the rest I've pieced together, bit by bit, over the years, the most important obstacle, as it turns out, being the structures of the Roman military.

My eye sight is such that I cannot read comfortably any long and, starting in 2012, began depending upon YouTube videos, such as Pawson, to provide context separate from the doctrine that it may be embedded in. Bruce Gore's extensive commentaries have been particularly useful because he is Presbyterian and my early church life was Presbyterian. I have his Historical and Chronological Context of the Bible (which he also presents as a video series) that is invaluable.

The thing is, I am an Army brat and a combat veteran and the narrative of Mark, in particular, falls stylistically into the genre of military journalism and history. And it would have been due diligence on the Roman's part to pay attention to this remarkable event. They had absolutely no expectation of resurrection and I can guarantee, from experience, that something like that would have gone through the legions like grass through a goose. It's just the way soldiers spend their time,

Now, for example, from Bruce Gore's series on the historical context of Revelation, I learned that Tertullian had a citation from the Roman archives that Tiberius had proposed elevating Jesus as a legal diety from intelligence he had received from Palestine (Apology V) and that, in his presentation to the Senate, he introduced the nomenclature "Christian" to Rome by 36 but it doesn't show up in Acts until 43 in Antioch, which had a very cosmopolitan population and routine trade with Rome. "Christian" is the sort of label soldiers give to indigenous populations in the way we called Vietnamese terrorists "Charlie". This indicates to me that a Roman portfolio around this whole Resurrection business had been developing Before Cornelius debriefed Peter in 40 and, of course, that portfolio is Quelle.

So, that's the way my defense of the premise that Cornelius is the author of Mark has come together: bits and pieces here and there, over the years. Another example is an on-line course I took from N.T. Wright on Acts when I first encountered Acts 24:22 "Then Felix, who was well informed about the Way...". Well, of course he was, because the Romans had at least as formidable an intelligence service as MI6 and, to a lesser extent, the CIA. Both PIlate and Cornelius were creatures of the Praetorian Guards, Pilate on the same career path as Julius Caesar and Cornelius a centurion at the apex of his career in Rome but seconded to Palestine as Pilate's administrative Chief of Staff with an eye to retiring in the Galillee.

But Felix was not part of the Roman Christian Cabal inside the Praetorian Guard that both Pilate and Cornelius reported to, represented by Theophilus.

For simplicity's sake, I assume Luke began writing Acts as an amicus brief to support Paul's defense in Rome and that he relied, initially, on journals he would have routinely maintained beginning around 50, but that everything that he relates before that date is based on interviews and research he does while Paul is imprisoned in Caesarea, when the Jerusalem church, in particular Peter, introduces him to Cornelius and Cornelius makes Q available to him, along with the Gospels of Mark and Matthew (I also assume that the Gospel of Peter reflects the contents of the intelligence report that was forwarded to Tiberius that Tertullian cites and Cornelius provides Peter this version of events from essentially Roman sources)(it's important to recognize that the Christian narrative begins to reflect Roman Standard Time after Acts 10, which occurs in 39 or 40. The Gospel of Mark is rigidly  compliant to a Roman chronology, but very compressed. It is my thesis that the Gospel of John was written by John Mark as a memoir from his experience with Jesus between his 12th birthday sometime around the festival of Tabernacles in 26 and the Passover in 30, when he was 15. The narratives of Mark and John coincide in Chapter 6 before the Passover in 29 and converge on Palm Sunday in Chapter 11 of both books: Lazarus is raised from the dead the evening after the Triumphal Entry)

Now, I've also reviewed skeptics and anti-theists such as Ken Humphries and Richard Carrier, who skoff at the notion of Jesus, and Bart Ehrman, who I hold in contempt because he became Born again to be popular in high school and has become apostate to be popular as a college professor (and in solidarity with Dale Martin, a gay episcopalian who teaches a Yale Couse on line I have found very useful). Again, little bits and pieces fall out of their research that fills in blanks I can't find elsewhere.

I also review the videos of Henry Abramsom and Lawrence Troster who proved an essential Jewish perspective on the period and people, particularly in regards to Joesephus and Paul.

The thing is, Christianity ceased to be a Jewish celebration when He died and became the future of Rome with Resurrection. There is on doubt in my mind that both sides of the battle of Milvian Bridge was predominately Christian (a proposition Tertullian reflects) and Constantine's adoption of ΧΡ became a determining Force Mulitiplier for his soldiers and destroyed the morale of the opposing soldiers. And, just for the record, the collapse of the Roman Empire began when Constantine disbanded the Praetorian Guard, which had represented the executive functions of the republic for 1000 years, horizontally, and the decadent verticle structures of what became the Vatican and theocracy replaced it.

Anyway, this illustrates the nature of my sources and the evolution of my defense of the premise that Cornelius was the author of the Gospel According to Mark. In 2012, David Pawson became one of my first resources and once you strip away his Scots predestination, he is a valuable source of both hard fact and important historical trivia.

The biggest obstacle I have is to overcome the conventional wisdom that Mark was written after Paul's epistles had been circulating: it's a political issue of Evangelicals because they want Paul to represent primacy of doctrine and, in essence, that Paul sold Rome on Christianity.

The fact is, the Romans bought into Christianity whole hog with Resurrection, but they didn't have any idea what it was they had encountered except that it was big medicine. The important thing that Paul brought Rome was the Christian ethic contained in Romans 13:1 - 7, which endorses the secular rule of law of Rome.  The first 18 books of the canon, the 4 Gospels, Acts and Paul's 13 letters, represent field research in the manner of military evaluation and Hebrews is the finding that becomes the manifesto of the Roman Catholic Church leading to Nicea. I believe that Theophilus is the author of Hebrews and he played a similar role as John LeCarre's George Smiley as the case officer.

I'll leave it there except that it is obvious that the codex is a Roman innovation. The Roman intelligence services kept their spy reports on loose leaf papryus and transmitted lengthy reports comprised of raw intelligence from the field by individual sheets bound on one edge for expediency. And the rough coine Greek of Mark reflects the verbatum reports acquired from the spy networks. And my guess is, Mark was originally written in Latin.

Thanks for your interest.

[wesleyhill]

Jesus Feeds Us

A homily on Matthew 14:13-21 preached at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral, Pittsburgh, on the Ninth Sunday after Pentecost 2020

I would speak to you in the name of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Amen.

In just a few moments, Aidan our priest is going to stand behind the altar there and pick up a piece of bread and a cup of wine. He will pray over them, asking the Holy Spirit to set them apart so that they might be for us the body and blood of Christ. And then those of us who are here will eat that gift of Christ’s body and drink his blood. And any of you who want to partake can receive them this week (just call or send us an email, and we’ll bring Communion to you in a safe, socially distant way).

What we are about to partake of goes by different names: Holy Communion, the Eucharist, the Mass. The Second Vatican Council, in a wonderful phrase, said that the Eucharist is “the source and summit of the Christian life.” Somehow, when we receive the Eucharist, we are returning to the nourishing heart of our faith. We are given divine grace in Holy Communion as we receive it with faith and gratitude.

I have been thinking a lot about Communion over these past few months of lockdown. I have been able to receive it, as you’ve seen here via the livestream, but I know many, many Christians, and even many of you, who have not. And they have longed for it, sometimes without really knowing why. In light of this extraordinary situation, starting this fall, I’m going to be offering to you some teaching videos on the cathedral Facebook page specifically on the Eucharist and why it remains so important, why it is indeed “the source and summit of the Christian life.”

But for now, this morning, I want to look at our Gospel reading through the lens of the Eucharist. The reason I want to do that is I think that’s what the Gospel is inviting us to do. Listen again to the climax of the story: “Taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven, and blessed and broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds.” Does that choreography sound familiar? We’re about to watch Fr. Aidan take the bread and wine, look up to heaven, bless and break the bread and pour out the wine, and give them to me, the deacon, and I’ll carry them to those here present — and to any of you who request a visit. What Jesus is doing is, we might say, eucharistic. It’s not the Eucharist itself, but it should remind us of the Eucharist, and the Eucharist should remind us of the story. If we pay attention to what is happening in this story, we’ll better understand what is happening to and with us when we receive Holy Communion.

First of all, let me give you the simplest way I know to think about what the Eucharist is. This is what I tell my 3-year-old goddaughter: The Eucharist is Jesus feeding us. We come to him hungry, needy, broken, and sinful, and he feeds us. How?

One thing we should immediately think about is that Jesus feeds us in a surprising way. In the story, the disciples, of course, are the ones who make the rational plans. They come to Jesus with a proposal for how to take care of the restless crowds. They remind him of the desolate setting — there are no markets around, no houses whose doors you could knock on to ask for bread — and then say, “[S]end the crowds away so that they may go into the villages and buy food for themselves.” But Jesus, bizarrely, says, “They need not go away; you give something to eat.” This is our first clue that the meal the crowds are about to eat isn’t “business as usual.” There is something new, something strange, something from another realm or dimension, about to take place. That’s of course the way it always is with Jesus: he’s always surprising us, always bursting out of our limited categories of understanding, toppling tables, breaking the rules, taking people off-guard with his unprecedented authority and power. He is always, as we heard in our daily lectionary reading last week, “going ahead of us.” Here Jesus shows his glorious freedom to act otherwise than what we could ever imagine. He breaks out of the narrow boundaries of the disciples’ thinking and performs one of his famous “deeds of power,” bringing provision and nourishment in a way no ordinary human process ever could.

And that, friends, is how we ought to understand what is happening when we receive Holy Communion in humble trust and expectation. Jesus is feeding us in a way that is miraculous, arresting, unpredictable, surprising. We are not dealing here with simply a human occurrence, a religious or cultural ritual. We are being fed by the Lord himself. This is a supernatural meal, a visible sign of the workings of God’s effectual grace.

But not only does Jesus feeds us in a surprising, lordly way. He also feeds us freely. In the Gospel story, there is the notable absence of any exchange of money or goods. Jesus doesn’t offer to feed the crowds on the condition that they come up with payment. He doesn’t set any conditions at all. He simply gives the bread and fish away, with no ifs, ands, or buts.

It’s probably not an accident that the creators of our lectionary, our schedule of Scripture readings, appointed that wonderful passage from the Hebrew prophet Isaiah to be read alongside our Gospel story for today.

Thus says the Lord: “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and you that have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which does not satisfy? Listen carefully to me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in rich food…”

What the Old Testament prophet saw about the free gift of God’s favor is exactly what took place in the life and ministry of Jesus. Over and over again, Jesus called out to those who had no money, no social standing, no distinguishing virtues or character qualities, no moral uprightness, and he said to them, “Come, have bread and fish without money and without price. Come, receive my body and blood without cost and without payment.”

One of my favorite hymns is Hymn # 685, “Rock of Ages, Cleft for Me.” In that hymn, you and I are invited to say to the Lord, “in my hand no price I bring, simply to thy cross I cling.” That’s about as succinct and memorable a summary of God’s good news as I can imagine, and we are about to show it with our bodies this morning as we open our hands to receive the gift of Christ’s body and blood. Our hands will be empty; we won’t be carrying a check book or a debit card to try to bargain for God’s grace. We will hold out our bare palms, and Christ will feed us freely.

Finally, we can see from our Gospel reading that Jesus not only feeds us surprisingly and freely; he also feeds us abundantly. Listen again to how the story concludes: “And all ate and were filled; and they took up what was left over of the broken pieces, twelve baskets full. And those who ate were about five thousand men, besides women and children.” All ate, and not just nibbled: they were filled, satisfied, satiated. And, even so, there were leftovers, with as many baskets full at the end as there were tribes in Israel. Not only that, but the “all” who ate to their hearts’ content numbered over 5,000, perhaps even twice that number. This is a story of extravagance, of abundance. What Jesus gives is lavish, over the top, more than we could ever dream of asking for. He gives and gives and gives, without measure and without end, and there is always more.

Ultimately, what Jesus gives is… himself. Jesus gives us his very life, the love that he is, the abundance that is his person. That is what he was offering to those hungry crowds that day in Palestine, and that is what he offers to us in Holy Communion. Jesus feeds us… himself.

There is only one of Jesus’s miracles that is recorded in all four Gospels, and that is the miracle of his feeding the 5,000. We read St. Matthew’s version this morning, but if we had read the version in chapter 6 of the Fourth Gospel, we would find this point about Jesus feeding us with his own life to be unmistakable. Right after all the leftovers are collected and Jesus has gone on to another place, he says to the crowds, “[T]he bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” With the memory of the loaves and fishes still fresh in their minds, they say, “Sir, give us this bread always.” And that is the moment when Jesus says, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.” And then, in language that is filled with eucharistic overtones, Jesus says, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh…. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.”

Friends, Jesus feeds us surprisingly, freely, and abundantly — because what he feeds us with is his own life, his broken body and shed blood, so that his life might become our life; that by communing with him, we might be healed.

I remember talking with a wise older priest when I first became an Episcopalian. He asked me what drew me to our church. I fumbled around for an answer, trying to sound well-informed and engaged. But then I decided just to be honest: “I’m here mainly because of the Eucharist. I meet Jesus in Holy Communion.”

And the priest, his eyes misty, said, “He’s here, isn’t he? He’s really here.”

Amen.

[jmcdra]

I had an interview for a perspective of a queer Christian. The interviewer made a typo and mis-speak in saying that I was a Southern Baptist. I am a former United Methodist and I say this in the interview

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/robyn-bisexual-transgender-she-her-episcopalian-present/id1524849397?i=1000485863445

[monk-core]

Hello! I've been raised Protestant and still really connect with my Presbyterian faith. I noticed a post that said you really enjoy Mass! Are you Catholic? If so, what do you think are the different beauties in each "version" of Christianity? It's so cool! A lot of my friends are Catholic and share their own beauties in religion, as I have my own! I'm interested in how other people view Christianity. Love your blog

Hi hhearttcore, it’s good to hear from you again! I hope you don’t mind that I took a while to answer this; I wanted to put some thought into it because it’s such a wonderful and in-depth question! (Long post ahead, TLDR at the end.)

I was raised in the aggressively-Protestant Southern Baptist denomination, so I have an indelible Protestant streak in me. Currently, I am a member of an Episcopal congregation that is Anglo-Catholic, meaning that we intentionally seek to follow the traditions of our Catholic and Anglican roots while maintaining Protestant beliefs. You’ll hear us joke most Sundays that every Episcopalian wants to be a Catholic, and it’s not far off. 

As for why, the answer is in the differences you mention. First and foremost for me is my Mother Mary! I don’t know how I used to do it without getting to talk to my Momma! Also, I have found that the very physical nature of many Catholic (and Catholic-adjacent in my case) traditions, especially an emphasis on the physical presence of Christ’s body in the Mass, connects to us physical beings in a way that purely intellectual denominations just aren’t able to. I’ve found a deep connection there that I was missing before. That’s why my blog puts such an emphasis on the physical and visual; I see the Divine in the smallest moments. To me, the Divine is in a loaf of bread and a sip of wine... the flame of a candle, the scent of incense, the rough grain of wood, the cool of stone tile, the click of beads, the rustle of a habit, the chime of bells and the echo of chant. Part of it is also valuing tradition for the sake of tradition. Mainline Protestant churches often downplay the importance of customs in religion in favor of personal study and interpretation, whereas more heavily Catholic spiritualities joyfully harken back to those who have gone before us, honoring them and learning from them. Where I used to be cautioned against doing so, Catholic traditions are unafraid to connect to our own physical spirituality, to the Saints, and to Mary.

I want those connections. I want all of them. 

I think the beauty of my current flavor of Christianity is this: I have learned that the Divine is so much more broad than I was taught. In a fundamentalist household, I imagined that the Divine was something entirely unattainable, that we study and think very hard about, and are allowed to glimpse, but only after we die, and only if we are very lucky, and very, very good. Now, I think the Divine is literally present with me. I receive that every Sunday morning (and that still overwhelms me in the best possible way). But I also see it in the most unexpected places. And I believe every one of us has access to that. 

There was a saying that I heard many times in the Baptist church that said, “when you get to heaven, you will be surprised by the people that aren’t there.” Basically meaning, there would be many people who imagined themselves saved that really weren’t. But the core of my faith is that instead of believing that many people were going to miss God, I now believe that God is not going to miss anyone. I made the decision, once and for all, to believe that Grace is enough.

TLDR, I’m a Protestant at heart, but I also have a deep love for traditions and beliefs that most Protestants miss out on. I want all of that connection that I’ve lacked for so long, because God is so much bigger, and so much broader, and so much better than I ever thought possible. 

What are your favorite parts of your faith? I would love to hear! 

[drdougdouglass]

Religious Bigotry in Presidential Politics: 8 Things Every Voter Should Know about the Intolerance of a Leading Democrat Candidate for President [Video and Poll]

Craig Huey May 1, 2019 Government, Congress, and Politics, Politics Leave a Comment

Religious intolerance and bigotry are increasing in America…

Faith-bashing and shaming is becoming popular among leading candidates for president.

The latest is Democrat Pete Buttigieg (pronounced Budda-judge) – who has already raised $7 million and is polling in 3rd place behind former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Here are 8 things you should know about what he has already said – what his lies and distortions are … and what the truth really is:

Pete Buttigieg viciously attacked Christians as hypocrites.

In a “Meet the Press” interview, Buttigieg criticized evangelicals who support President Trump by saying, “Here you have somebody who not only acts in a way that is not consistent with anything that I hear in Scripture or in church, where it’s about lifting up the least among us and taking care of strangers, which is another word for immigrants, and making sure that you’re focusing your efforts on the poor.”

“We see the diametric opposite of that in this presidency … Even on the version of Christianity that you hear on the religious right, which is about sexual ethics – I can’t believe that somebody who was writing hush money checks to adult film actresses is somebody they should be lifting up as the kind of person you want to be leading this nation.”

He viciously attacked Vice President Mike Pence for his Christian faith.

At an LGBT fundraising event, Buttigieg attacked Vice President Mike Pence – an evangelical Christian – for signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2015 while he was Governor of Indiana. The law protects the freedom of religious expression and conscience of businesses and employees.

Buttigieg believes Pence’s support of President Trump can only be explained in one of two ways: “Either he abandoned his religious principles in order to be part of this campaign and administration,” he said, “Or he has some very strange sense of destiny, that God somehow wants this in order to get somewhere better, which I think does very little credit to God…”

In a further frontal attack against the Vice President, Buttigieg proclaimed this about his same-sex marriage: “My marriage to Chasten has made me a better man – and yes, Mr. Vice President, it has moved me closer to God. And that’s the thing I wish the Mike Pences of the world would understand, that if you’ve got a problem with who I am, your problem is not with me. Your quarrel, sir is with my creator.”

Pete Buttigieg twists the truth about religious freedom … freedom of conscience … and the rights guaranteed in the First Amendment.

He said, “I hope that teachings about inclusion and love win out over what I personally consider to be a handful of scriptures that reflect the moral expectations of the era in which they were recorded…”

“Our right to practice our faith freely is respected up to the point where doing so involves harming others,” he continued, “One of the problems with RFRA [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] was it authorized harming others so long as you remembered to use your religion as an excuse.”

Of course, he doesn’t specify how he believes the Religious Freedom Restoration Act harms members of the LBGT community. Certainly he’s not talking about physical harm – which is the type of harm prohibited by scripture against those practicing an immoral lifestyle.

Buttigieg preaches a lie about God, homosexuality and Scripture.

He twists truth and scripture to suit his own opinions – as do socialist and progressive Christians…

He criticizes Trump’s past. He decries his talk and tweets. But he ignores the clear teaching of scriptures he doesn’t like. For example:

The scripture that says marriage is between a man and a woman (Matthew 19:3-8)

The scripture that teaches homosexual behavior – like other sexual sins – is wrong (Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

He believes in killing the unborn – even children born alive, if they were meant to be killed before birth.

He believes in denying freedom of conscience and freedom of religious expression to Christians who oppose celebrating sexual immorality of any type.

Pete Buttigieg proclaims he is a Christian – and a better one than most.

During a recent Q&A at an event in Austin, Texas, Buttigieg said, “…I try to live a life that is consistent with Christian teachings. I know that it is my responsibility not to ever do anything that would in public life, not be equally beneficial or make as much sense to people of another faith or people of no faith. But in my life I believe in that Christian ethic, the idea that was drilled into me in Catholic school even though I’m no Catholic, I’m Episcopalian.”

At the same event he questioned whether Vice President Mike Pence truly believes in Scripture.

Pete Buttigieg knows Scripture and theology.

He studied Catholic liberation theology doctrine in high school and college. Developed mainly by Latin American Roman Catholics, liberation theology emphasizes liberation from social, political and economic oppression as the essence of Christian salvation rather than worship of God, confession of sin, and trust in the redemptive death of Jesus Christ on the cross coupled with His bodily resurrection.

At Harvard, he wrote a thesis on the Puritans. He was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford.

His father attended seminary in the 1960s, intending to become a Jesuit Priest … but instead became a secular intellectual.

His mother was “attached to the Episcopal faith,” but didn’t attend very many services.

At Harvard, Buttigieg was influenced by a prominent scholar who traced American exceptionalism to the Puritans of New England. “You can’t understand America without understanding the Puritans,” Buttigieg says. “In many ways, we’re still living out their legacy in ways that are good and bad.”

He says he looks for inspiration from people who have put their faith into action, such as the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. “As we talk of the need for a religious left, we should remember that the black church has been [putting faith into action] for quite some time,” Buttigieg reminds.

When he speaks to a Christian audience, he selectively quotes Bible verses about caring for the poor and the sick.

Buttigieg isn’t looking for tolerance of his homosexuality or homosexual marriage. He is looking for total acceptance.

He wants to use the power of government edict to force acceptance of his lifestyle – whether people like it or not.

If elected, he would be the first homosexual president … and his same-sex marriage partner would be the first same-sex spouse in the White House.

Pete Buttigieg is trying to lead the Democrat Party to include Christians – and be the Party that’s anti-Christian, anti-family and anti-First Amendment rights.

“I think it’s unfortunate [the Democratic Party] has lost touch with a religious tradition that I think can help explain and relate our values,” Buttigieg says. “At least in my interpretation, it helps to root [in religion] a lot of what it is we do believe in when it comes to protecting the sick and the stranger and the poor, as well as skepticism of the wealthy and the powerful and the established.”

Watch this analysis of Pete Buttigieg’s far-left beliefs and policies by news commentator Laura Ingraham (about 7 ½ minutes).

Finally, let’s be clear about Evangelicals and support for Trump/Pence….

As I said in “Are Christians Hypocrites? 10 Surprising Realities About Christians and President Trump“, Evangelical support for Trump is based on policy only.

It’s not based on his rhetoric. It’s not based on his past – or even present – behavior. It’s not based on anything about Trump as a flawed person – or on whether or not he’s a real Christian.

It’s based on his policies that reflect Biblical truth … and non-negotiable Christian values:

He is the most pro-Israel president ever.

He is revolutionizing the Judicial branch with strict constructionist judges … not judicial activists – including 2 new Supreme Court Justices … and over 100 lower court appellate judges.

He is the most pro-life president ever.

He has done more to protect religious liberty than any other president ever.

He has done more to protect the persecuted church around the world than any other president ever.

In addition, he has restored our economy, increased employment – especially among minority groups – increased wages … and promoted entrepreneurship and innovation with massive deregulation and business tax cuts.

When he needs to be called out, we will call him out.

But when he enacts good policies, we rejoice and should say thanks without apology.

We choose policy over personality.

We choose key non-negotiable issues over articulate platitudes and talking points.

We choose action over empty promises.

This is not hypocrisy. This is respecting promises made, promises kept.

As president of an ad agency, I like taglines…

I suggest the following tagline for President Trump:

“He’s a doer, not a dreamer.”

What do you think? Email me at craig@craighuey.com

  Mayor Pete is NOT at the Top of my list of favorite candidates.

Both his vaulting ambition and shocking low standards concern me greatly.

But if he gets the nomination, he's got my vote.

The thing I like about him the MOST is how he seems to be terrifying all the Right People.

[orthodoxydaily]

Saints&Reading: Sat., Nov., 30, 2019

Apostle and Martyr St. Andrew

The Holy Apostle Andrew the First-Called was the first of the Apostles to follow Christ, and he later brought his own brother, the holy Apostle Peter, to Christ (John 1:35-42). The future apostle was from Bethsaida, and from his youth he turned with all his soul to God. He did not enter into marriage, and he worked with his brother as a fisherman. When the holy Prophet, Forerunner and Baptist John began to preach, Saint Andrew became his closest disciple. Declaring Christ to be the Lamb of God, Saint John the Baptist himself sent to Christ his own two disciples, the future Apostles Andrew and John the Theologian.

After the Descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, Saint Andrew went to the Eastern lands preaching the Word of God. He went through Asia Minor, Thrace, Macedonia, he reached the River Danube, went along the coast of the Black Sea, through Crimea, the Black Sea region and along the River Dniepr he climbed to the place where the city of Kiev now stands.

He stopped overnight on the hills of Kiev. Rising in the morning, he said to those disciples that were with him: “See these hills? Upon these hills shall shine forth the beneficence of God, and there will be a great city here, and God shall raise up many churches.” The apostle went up around the hills, blessed them and set up a cross. Having prayed, he went up even further along the Dniepr and reached a settlement of the Slavs, where Novgorod was built. From here the apostle went through the land of the Varangians towards Rome for preaching, and again he returned to Thrace, where in the small village of Byzantium, the future Constantinople, he founded the Church of Christ. The name of the holy Apostle Andrew links the mother, the Church of Constantinople, with her daughter, the Russian Church...continue reading

Archimandrite Saint Sebastian Dabovich of San Francisco

by Hieromonk Damascene

Born to Serbian immigrants in San Francisco in 1863, Archimandrite Sebastian Dabovich has the distinction of being the first person born in the United States of America to be ordained as an Orthodox priest, [1] and also the first native-born American to be tonsured as an Orthodox monk. His greatest distinction, however, lies in the tremendous apostolic, pastoral, and literary work that he accomplished during the forty-eight years of his priestly ministry. Known as the “Father of Serbian Orthodoxy in America,” [2] he was responsible for the founding of several of the first Serbian churches in the New World. This, however, was only one part of his life’s work, for he tirelessly and zealously sought to spread the Orthodox Faith to all peoples, wherever he was called. He organized parish communities of Orthodox Christians of varied ethnic backgrounds; took part in the work of St. Alexis Toth of Wilkes-Barre to bring former Uniates more fully into the Orthodox ethos and way of life; and labored to bring Episcopalians into the saving enclosure of the Orthodox Church. He was an Orthodox apostle of universal significance.

Describing the vast scope of Fr. Sebastian’s missionary activity, Bishop Irinej (Dobrijevich) of the Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Australia and New Zealand has written: “Without any outside funding or organizational support, he carried the gospel of peace from country to country.... Concentrating much of his work in the United States, he ceaselessly traveled back and forth across the American continent, using every available mode of transportation—from stagecoach to railroad to foot. His wider ministry stretched from the Aleutian Peninsula of Alaska, to Russia and Japan, to small Balkan towns on the coasts of the Black and Adriatic Seas.

“By every report Sebastian Dabovich was not one to ask about jurisdictional or national affiliation before setting out on long journeys to minister to Orthodox Christians in mining communities, lumber camps, or far-distant towns or villages. He offered his pastoral services with a free hand to anyone who was in need. Just as he gave no thought to his own comforts as a youth, caring more for the needs of others than for his own concerns, Fr. Sebastian denied himself all worldly comforts of home, family, or earthly possessions, so that he could provide for the spiritual needs of the Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Greek, Syrian, or Arab Orthodox Christians who required his aid.” [3]

It is said that Fr. Sebastian baptized more people than any other Serbian priest of the Western Hemisphere. [4] St. Nikolai (Velimirovich) of Zhicha, Serbia, who buried Fr. Sebastian at the Zhicha Monastery when the latter reposed there in 1940, called him “a viceless man” and fittingly designated him “the greatest Serbian missionary of modern times.” [5]

Ten years after Fr. Sebastian’s repose, St. Nikolai wrote of him: “Here is a man who indebted all the Serbian race, especially all the Serbs and all the Serbian organizations in America. Should that man remain without a monument or any sign of honor on American soil? He does not need it. He did not wish it. All he wished to his last breath was the Kingdom of Heaven, which I believe he has obtained by the grace of his Lord. But his people need it; his posterity needs it. The Serbian people always cultivated the noble virtue of gratitude. Let them express their traditional gratitude to this remarkable Serbian—Father Sebastian Dabovich.” [6]

Today, nearly seven decades after his repose, Fr. Sebastian is being shown fitting honor and gratitude by the Serbian Orthodox Church both in the homeland and in the diaspora. With the blessing of Bishop Hrizostom of Zhicha and of Bishop Maxim of Western America, Fr. Sebastian’s remains have been unearthed from his grave in Zhicha Monastery in Serbia and are to be transferred to the St. Sava Church in Jackson, California: the first church founded by Fr. Sebastian, and the first Serbian Orthodox Church in the Western Hemisphere. On September 1 (n.s.), 2007, the Divine Liturgy will be celebrated in Jackson to mark this occasion, with numerous hierarchs and clergymen participating. The Liturgy will be followed by a memorial service for Fr. Sebastian, the interment of his remains in the St. Sava Church, and a talk on Fr. Sebastian’s life by the above-mentioned Bishop Irinej. In the eyes of many, these events are a step toward the Orthodox Church’s recognition of Fr. Sebastian as a saint. “Even now,” Bishop Irinej has written, “[Fr. Sebastian] is considered worthy of canonization among the Serbian people. May that day indeed come quickly! The epitaph on his tombstone at Zhicha Monastery reads most appropriately, ‘The First American Serbian Orthodox Apostle.’ Holy Apostle Sebastian, pray for us!” [7]

To commemorate the transfer of Fr. Sebastian’s remains to America, we are dedicating our 2008 Calendar to his memory. This Calendar presents photographs and descriptions of important people in Fr. Sebastian’s life and of churches which he either founded or served during the half-century of his pastoral ministry. A Life of Fr. Sebastian—the first full biography to appear in any language—is being published concurrently in our magazine, The Orthodox Word.

+ + +

As part of his missionary labors, Fr. Sebastian compiled one of the first English translations of the Divine Liturgy, and wrote and published, from his own meager means, some of the first English-language books of Orthodox catechism. Besides bearing witness to his missionary and pastoral zeal, Fr. Sebastian’s books also testify to his ardent love for Jesus Christ and His Church, to the depth of his knowledge of the Orthodox Faith, to his careful adherence to the teachings of the Church, to his literary and poetic gifts, and to his profound sense of spiritual beauty. A large portion of the books consists of sermons that he gave in the Russian Orthodox cathedral in San Francisco and in mission parishes on various feast days. These sermons reveal him as an inspired preacher whose words could soar to the heights and at the same time strike deeply the hearts of his listeners. Below we present one such sermon, which he published in his book Preaching in the Russian Church (San Francisco, 1899).

Endnotes

Alaskan-born priests were ordained before Fr. Sebastian, but this was when Alaska was still part of Russia. John R. Palandech, Commemorative Book of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Chicago, 1905-1955.

Mirko Dobrijevich (later Irinej, Bishop of Australia and New Zealand), “The First American Serbian Apostle—Archimandrite Sebastian Dabovich,” Again, vol. 16, no. 4 (December 1993), pp. 13, 15.

John R. Palandech, Commemorative Book. Quoted in Mirko Dobrijevich (Bishop Irinej), p. 15.

Bishop Nikolai (Velimirovich), “Father Sebastian Dabovich,” in Serb National Federation Commemorative Book, 1951.

Ibid.

Mirko Dobrijevich (Bishop Irinej), p. 15.

What follows is a condensed version of a much lengthier Life of Archimandrite Sebastian that appeared in The Orthodox Word, Vol. 43, Nos. 102 (252-253). St. Herman Press was very gracious to make available the entire Life in PDF format (16 MB) if you would like to read the longer version (recommended). —OCIC Ed.

2 Cor 11:1-6 NKJV

Concern for Their Faithfulness

11 Oh, that you would bear with me in a little folly—and indeed you do bear with me. 2 For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. 3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the [a]simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it!

Paul and False Apostles

5 For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles. 6 Even though I am untrained in speech, yet I am not in knowledge. But we have [b]been thoroughly manifested among you in all things.

Footnotes:

2 Corinthians 11:3 NU adds and purity

2 Corinthians 11:6 NU omits been

Luke 12:12-40 NKJV

40 Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.”

New King James Version (NKJV) Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. All rights reserved. At Bibleglateway