March 25, 2017

October 26, 2011


TEC - ssssshhhhhh, don’t mention THAT name….. UPDATED

Another classic from TEC. Check this out. This is the current homepage on their website at the time of writing…

image

Except of course, something’s missing from the original in the BCP. Can you guess?

20. For Congress or a State Legislature

O God, the fountain of wisdom, whose will is good and gracious, and whose law is truth: We beseech thee so to guide and bless our Senators and Representatives in Congress assembled (or in the Legislature of this State, or Common-wealth), that they may enact such laws as shall please thee, to the glory of thy Name and the welfare of this people; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

It almost as though Jesus has, for TEC, become “you know who” or “he who must not be named”. It gets to a sorry state when a supposedly Christian church is now excising the name of Jesus whenever and wherever they can out of, one presumes, embarrassment.

UPDATE
Well, lo and behold! I’ve just been to the TEc website and what do I find…

image

What’s worse? Being embarrassed about Jesus, or being embarrassed about being embarrassed about Jesus? It’s obvious that 815 read this site (hello Katherine!) - perhaps they could tell us who made the decision to cut the name of Jesus and why it was necessary to reinstate it now?

FURTHER UPDATE
Well, it seems we’ve struck a nerve on this one. I just got a tweet from the official TEc twitter account…

@davidould Even in a digital world, typos and goofs happen. Our home page content has been updated. No excuse for that kind of error.

I’m not overly persuaded…


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

39 comments

And they wonder why no one wants to go to a leftist Tudor appreciation society that likes to play dress-up on Sundays anymore.

[1] Posted by Bill2 on 10-26-2011 at 10:37 PM · [top]

I sit here utterly slackjawed.

[2] Posted by Free Range Anglican on 10-26-2011 at 10:58 PM · [top]

You find this worthy of note? Unexpected? I stopped allowing the UTO to collect money from my congregation years ago, when they got rid of the word “Father” in the prayer (in English) printed on the side of the box, but kept it in the Spanish translation of the same prayer on the box (for the hordes of Latinos thronging to TEC).

[3] Posted by A Senior Priest on 10-26-2011 at 11:19 PM · [top]

Can’t say it shocks me, which in itself is an indication of how bad things have gotten in TEC.

[4] Posted by Nellie on 10-27-2011 at 12:05 AM · [top]

I’d call it Satancreep.

[5] Posted by midwestnorwegian on 10-27-2011 at 05:47 AM · [top]

So instead of simply copying and pasting the prayer from the online version of the prayerbook and posting it up (the easiest thing to do), the Episcopal Church web-person copied it, noticed the name “Jesus”, purposefully deleted it, and then posted it.

[6] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 10-27-2011 at 06:32 AM · [top]

#6, Matt, that’s what got me: someone had to choose to excise Jesus from the prayer.  It was an intentional act which was, presumably, in the mind of the person in charge of the site, the best decision.

[7] Posted by Michael+ on 10-27-2011 at 06:50 AM · [top]

That’s right, Michael, it was a choice to excise Jesus from the prayer in the same way it was a choice to excise the ‘no one comes to the Father except by me’ out of the Gospel reading in John 14 at Gerald R. Ford’s memorial. TEC has lost it’s theological moorings.  For the better part of a year I was novice in the The Order of the Holy Cross in the early 80’s.  One morning in June the prior announced,during Chapter, that our West Park monastery would be celebrating ‘Gay Pride Week’.  Presently, there are two ‘partnered’ associates in residence at Holy Cross, West Park. Any doubters need only to click on the link and scroll down to towards the bottom of the page: http://www.holycrossmonastery.com/people

[9] Posted by priestwalter on 10-27-2011 at 07:26 AM · [top]

It’s funny to see this at the moment that I’m working on my sermon for Sunday and hearing Jesus’ words about the Pharisees and the scribes ringing in my ears. “Do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them…”

[10] Posted by Fr. Jonathan on 10-27-2011 at 07:59 AM · [top]

Nice catch, David. 

I’ll just add that besides the telling omission reflecting TEC’s embarrassment over “the J word,” it typifies how TEC’s leaders have substituted politics for religion, or collapsed the Christian gospel into liberal politics, without any remainder left over.

David Handy+

[11] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 10-27-2011 at 08:22 AM · [top]

One must admire truth in advertising.

wink

[12] Posted by tired on 10-27-2011 at 09:50 AM · [top]

This omission does not surprise me in the least.  From my experience, small gatherings of typical parishioners may not contain a member brave enough to pray in Jesus’ name, but I have sat through large gatherings too, even those with the Bishop and a large chunk of clergy of the diocese in attendance, where Jesus’ name was not said until one mere pew person, had a chance to speak.

[13] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 10-27-2011 at 10:06 AM · [top]

So, is this sorta like how the Hebrews write “YHWH” except without vowels OR consonants?  wink

[14] Posted by B. Hunter on 10-27-2011 at 10:10 AM · [top]

Very interesting.  The “he who must not be named” phrase reminded me of the “Rumpole of the Bailey” TV series where Horace Rumpole usually refers to his domineering wife as “she who must be obeyed.”  Anyone else besides me think this should be the new nickname for a certain presiding bishop?

[15] Posted by Daniel on 10-27-2011 at 11:09 AM · [top]

Maybe they are afraid the ACLU will sue them… separation of church and state or something. They act more like the state than the church.

[16] Posted by Hosanna on 10-27-2011 at 04:01 PM · [top]

“If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.” Mark 8:38.

[17] Posted by moheba on 10-27-2011 at 06:48 PM · [top]

They’ve been avoiding the S words (sin, salvation) for years, so this isn’t terribly surprising.

basically TEC has turned into Unitarians in nice vestments.

[18] Posted by elanor on 10-27-2011 at 07:33 PM · [top]

I totaly agree with Bill 2 and Daniel comments.I just shake my head. My cat Bathsheba and Samson give a loud meow* Blessings to you all

[19] Posted by sheba on 10-27-2011 at 07:39 PM · [top]

BTW - the prayer has been corrected.

[20] Posted by Nikolaus on 10-27-2011 at 09:44 PM · [top]

friends, do check out the update to this story in the OP

[21] Posted by David Ould on 10-27-2011 at 09:55 PM · [top]

Following the lead of the ABC, this is clearly of a piece with Muslim outreach. One is supposed to read “such laws as will please you” (wink, wink) and think “sharia.” Or at the very least, in good multicultural fashion, it allows some of our friends on the cutting edge of religious dialogue with Anglicans in Nigeria, to read it that way.

[22] Posted by Stephen Noll on 10-27-2011 at 10:02 PM · [top]

#18 Elanor on
What say you about nice vestments?  See examples at Bad Vestments
http://badvestments.blogspot.com/ shock

[23] Posted by Carpe DCN on 10-27-2011 at 10:14 PM · [top]

“Anyone else besides me think this should be the new nickname for a certain presiding bishop?”

Schori for SWMBO?  Got my vote.

[24] Posted by The Little Myrmidon on 10-27-2011 at 11:00 PM · [top]

Looks like someone got caught with their unitarian pants down.

[25] Posted by Bill2 on 10-28-2011 at 02:56 PM · [top]

Carpe DCN, I would say that my parish apparently doesn’t have the budget to replace their rather traditional vestments with the modern gaudy stuff.

I any case, as is clear from another post, my diocese (CT) doesn’t need to descend to bad vestments to demonstrate their revisionism.

[26] Posted by elanor on 10-29-2011 at 07:54 AM · [top]

I don’t buy the “error” tweet at all—note that the original TEC website post ends in a period, yet the BCP at that point uses a semi-colon before ending with “through Jesus Christ…”—you would have had to erase the semi-colon and add a period, and that doesn’t just “happen.”

[27] Posted by Jason Miller on 10-29-2011 at 10:28 PM · [top]

It seems they have done what the non-believers want.  Eliminate God from their lives….wait they are or were a church.  How strange that a religious body would want to deny the very person they claim to worship.  These new Episcopalians are a very odd bunch.

[28] Posted by catwrangler on 11-1-2011 at 04:36 PM · [top]

Well, if those still in the Episcopal Church don’t care enough to say something to the site caretaker, what does that tell you?

[29] Posted by Goughdonna on 11-2-2011 at 12:19 PM · [top]

Fits with a recent experience of mine .... the “interim rector” here at Trinity expressed the conviction that she no longer wore a cross, so as to not offend her Muslim friends.  Knowing that the progressives have taken over this church and most others in the Episcopalian faith did not prevent me from being startled by this.  I could not believe what she was saying, and let her know.  Her answer:  “It’s a personal choice”.  Ms. Lewis merely reconfirmed what I had known for several years now (along with most of the congregation)—we did not belong in that church anymore.

[30] Posted by Lauriegrat on 11-20-2011 at 07:48 PM · [top]

Y’know, I often wear a cross in public, and I really couldn’t care less if it offends anyone.  I happen to have Jewish friends who wear the Star of David, and they’re not offended by my wearing the cross (it happens to be the Cross of St Columba), so if I run across someone who happens to be a Muslim, am I going to worry about his or her being offended because I wear that cross?  NO!  I don’t care what they think.

[31] Posted by cennydd13 on 11-20-2011 at 08:16 PM · [top]

Agreed, Cennydd. I wear my cross daily as part of my vows in DOK.  I do wear it but not showing if I think it might be offensive.  That does not happen often.

[32] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 11-20-2011 at 08:30 PM · [top]

Lot’s of things offend me these days.  Berka’s offend my sense of equality for women, holy books that refer to the Jewish people as subhuman, The marriage of young girls to grown men offends me.  Jihad offends me.  The disintegration of the family to support a lifestyle for a few offends me.  The idea that all white people are born racist offends me (a concept embraced by the TEC). 

The most offensive to me is the idea that a woman who calls herself ‘Christian’ will not wear a cross, which of course means she is afraid of professing her own faith, or simply does not believe in Christ as our savior.  Whatever her reason, she does not belong in the position of ‘rector’ priest of any other position of leadership in a Christian church.

[33] Posted by Lauriegrat on 11-20-2011 at 08:33 PM · [top]

Lauriegrat, you make an excellent point. Anyone who is in the position of rector or priest should not be worried about a cross being offensive. It should be seen as a sign of her faith which as a Christian she should be proclaiming not hiding.

[34] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 11-20-2011 at 08:42 PM · [top]

I started wearing a cross or crucifix every day… and showing… when I made my Cursillo weekend 30 years ago this month.  The purpose was 1) to show WHOSE I am.  If that offends a person of any other religion, I’m sorry, but that is not going to change!  2) It’s my price tag!  That’s what it took to save my soul!  And I didn’t pay it!  And I’m not ashamed to wear it.  And as a side issue, wearing a cross or crucifix has opened many many conversational doors that became witnessing opportunities!

[35] Posted by Goughdonna on 11-20-2011 at 09:16 PM · [top]

AMEN, Goughdonna!  Well said!  I also wear my St Columba’s cross (a Celtic cross) as a sign of my Welsh heritage, as well as an expression of my faith.

[36] Posted by cennydd13 on 11-20-2011 at 10:19 PM · [top]

As I was entering a store the other day, a Salvation Army bell-ringer wished me “Happy Holiday.” Although I’ve hated this greeting for years now, that day it just hit a nerve. I responded with “Merry Christmas,” as I’ve done int he past - but went to say, “Even you, the Salvation Army, won’t say Merry Christmas? I wouldn’t give you a dime!” The two women looked a bit stunned, but it really is outrageous that they’re collecting because it’s Christmas but won’t even say the word. This morning, we received “It’s Okay to Say Merry Christmas” buttons at church, which my husband and I were wearing when we went to breakfast at Denny’s. Our waitress said she loved the buttons, and my husband gave her an extra we had. We noticed later that she ahd pinned it on above her name tag.

[37] Posted by Nellie on 11-21-2011 at 01:21 AM · [top]

Nellie, I feel exactly the same way. It is Christmas and I refuse to participate in things unless it indicates that it is Christmas.  I have even written to websites and stores that talk about “Holiday shopping” indicating that if they refuse to mention the word Christmas, I won’t be buying from them.  I really have noticed this year, however, that we are seeing more of “Christmas” terminology than last year.  I guess if you vote with your pocketbook, they will respond.

[38] Posted by Lauriegrat on 11-21-2011 at 07:43 AM · [top]

This ommission on the TEC website reminds me another very significant omission by another bishop of the church in a very public ceremony. Bp Victoria Matthews participated in a memorial service for victims of the earthquake in Christchurch NZ on 18th March 2011, with representatives of a number of other faiths, including Judaism, Islam, Bahais, Hindhus and Buddhists, none of whom were ashamed of mentioning the name of their god in their prayers and greetings to the assembled crowd. When Bp Matthews finished her prayers she quoted from Paul’s letter to the Romans 8:38-39a - “for I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come nor powers nor height nor depth nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God”. When I heard this on the television I immediately thought, hang on she’s stopped short and omitted “in Christ Jesus our Lord.” It was a telling omission, and not one that Paul would have endorsed. I wondered why she could not bring herself to quote the whole verse and include the name of Jesus in testimony of God’s certain and secure love for us focused exclusively in and through Jesus Christ before such a large multi-faith gathering and an even bigger television audience. Isn’t this what bishops are supposed to do at every opportunity? I prayed for her soul.

[39] Posted by fyffee on 12-18-2011 at 10:04 AM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.