Fresh Hell: Drop the Creed and Feel the Freedom

Oh Geesh! Wouldn’t ya know it! Another California priest….I truly do live amoung Fruits, Nuts, and Flakes!
Good Lord Deliver Me!

Ah, Greg, did you Google this, ah, individual, by any chance.  All I can say is that this is a firm statement of his religion.

Stu,

Would you believe I couldn’t muster the energy?

I suppose another word for “speed bump” might be “stumbling block.”

I’m sure we can all think of a few other stumbling blocks that this fellow—and the many many PEcUSA clergy like him—would also like to remove from their new religion:

we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles (1 Cor 1:23)

At least this individual has the virtue of being honest and upfront about his rejection of Creedal Christianity. Would that all of PEcUSA’s clergy (and the CoE’s bishops too for that matter) were so direct and honest about what they do (and do not) believe… at least then more people might see how things really stand.

pax,
LP

Sandwiching the sermon between the gospel and the creed should remind us of how the sermon should be consistent with the gospel and the creed.

Perhaps the real speed-bump in the Butchered service is the Butcher sermon.

But ... don’t Liberals claim that the validity of their commitment to the Creed demonstrates the validity of their claims to orthodoxy?  How can they possibly dispense with it?  How often have you heard them say:

The Creeds as the sufficient statement of Christian faith

Unless liberals affirm the creeds (even if only as mere bones upon which to hang liberal flesh and blood), they have no foundation for their assertions of doctrinal unity.  Oh, I am so confused now.  The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral seems on the verge of repudiation.

carl

Greg, I can understand that and I almost wish I hadn’t.

At the spring 2007 diocesan convention of the diocese of Western Michigan there was a eucharistic service at St. Paul’s Muskegon for all members of the diocese.  After hearing a lengthy sermon on the merits of the MDG’s we ‘felt the freedom’ by launching straight into the prayers of the people. 

When I asked why the Creed had been omitted I was told, “Because of time constraints.”

Father forgive them.

God gave us the freedom to worship Him by giving us the Creeds.  Freedom comes from obeying God’s rules.  It does not come from doing our own ‘thing’ in the church.  You can do your own stupid thing in your secular life.  But when you start messing with a most precious item as the church that belongs to God, then be prepared to be punished by God.  One will go to hell for hurting His beloved church.

Here is a sampler of the Rev. John Beverley Butcher.

He has written three books: Telling the Untold Stories: Encounters With the Resurrected Jesus, The Tao of Jesus and An Uncommon Lectionary: A Companion to Common Lectionaries. He is a minister at “Pescadero Community Congregational Church” and is shown at the ClergyFinder of the Church Publiching Co. as being at “The Seers Institute”.

His biography at Pescadero CCC:

Rev. John Butcher

      “I see Pescadero Community Church as a multifaith community of people serving as a pilot project for affirming our shared humanity and committed to preserving Life on Earth. When will we human beings discover how to live peacefully together on this beautiful little Blue Planet?”—John

  John Beverley Butcher is an Episcopal Priest who became a minister of Pescadero Community Church in the Fall of 2005. A student of Jesus of Nazareth, Mary of Magdala, and Lao Tzu of China. He is seeking to integrate Holy Scripture, archetypal psychology, Taoist philosophy, and personal experience with the arts and lively Spirit filled liturgy. His primary purpose in life is to discover how to become more fully human.

  Intensely engaged in research and writing, his published work includes:

          + The Tao of Jesus, Harper, San Francisco 1994, revised 2006, Apocryphile Press
          + Telling the Untold Stories, Trinity Press International, 2000
          + An Uncommon Lectionary, Polebridge Press, 2002

  He is an Associate Fellow of the Jesus Seminar and a Fellow of the Canadian College of Chinese Studies. He serves on the Steering Committee of Multifaith Voices for Peace and Justice. Before coming to PCC, he served as Rector of St. Peter’s Episcopal Church in San Francisco, Pastor of Holy Trinity Church, Menlo Park, California, and Episcopal congregations in Winslow, Sedona, and Clarkdale, Arizona. He also served as Chaplain of the Arizona State Prison and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. He earned his B.A. in Philosophy and Psychology from Harvard and a Master of Divinity from Berkeley Divinity School at Yale. He hopes to become a Quantum Mechanic when he grows up.

The Episcopal Church: all of the ritual, none of the theology

I find the decision to publish the letter revealing.  Episcopal Life is an organ of the the church, is it not?  Instead of discreetly referring the letter to his bishop for discipline and correction, they publish the idea.

I’m afraid this do-it-yourself approach to liturgical corporate worship is common.  My friend is an interim at a parish where the previous rector took a pick and choose approach to the liturgy and to the lectionary readings, freely making substitutions.

A Bishop, Priest, or Deacon of this Church shall be liable to Presentment and Trial for the following offenses, viz…(d) Violation of the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer.

And this is recommended! The evidence is clear the canons are nothing in TEC.
CJS:

While some people believe the church should not go to court, she said, “there is often not a choice in the matter” and noted that the denomination has a “fiduciary and moral responsibility to see that the legacy of this church is used for the purpose for which it was given.”

There is no way ensuring that in TEC!

I agree with Irenaeus (#5) that Mr. Butcher is butchering the liturgy.

To me the most telling line in this revealing piece is John Butcher’s frank admission that he has omitted the Creed all the time on Sundays “since 1979.”  That is, for almost three decades he has quietly dropped the Creed from the eucharistic service and no one has called him to account for it.  His congregation “hasn’t missed it,” and neither his various bishops during that long 29 year period nor his fellow clergy have apparently put any pressure on him to conform to the rubrics of the BCP.  And now Episcopal Life has published this story without any criticism of Mr. Butcher for thus butchering the liturgy and the apostolic faith.

This kind of lack of any real accountability or discipline within TEC is why we are in the mess we’re in.  And this example of “fresh hell” pointedly illustrates that this sort of problem is chronic, and has been going on for a very long time.

David Handy+

I think Father Owen is absolutely right that the Nicene Creed is an essential part of the communion service. But the first part of his argument based on a rubric in the 1979 book doesn’t seem, to me, to be much of an argument at all. I was confirmed and served as an acolyte under the 1928 BCP. I was still a young teenager when “The Green Book” arrived. Even then, the proposed prayer book changes struck me as an attempt to fix something that wasn’t broken. It seemed to have a distictly “new-age, anything goes” flexibility. In retrospect, “Me and Jesus got our own thing going” might have been a good subtitle for it. 

I don’t think that it’s a coincidence that Rev. Butcher dates his omission of the creed to 1979 (And I used to think that my dad, God rest his soul, was a ‘28 Prayer Book idolater. Sorry Pop.)

Having the creed follow a revisionist sermon is like having a rebuttal in a debate.  After an orthodox sermon is an affirmation.

John’s+ remarks are consistent, as this successor at St. Paul’s, Winslow AZ, is well awarer. Perhaps his greatest legacy has already proved to be the “new” jail finally built   to replace the 19th century horror.

John+ was the interview of the month, a decade ago? in the Wittenberg Door and I knew then our coffin was sealed.

Bob+

. . .still ridin’ for the brand this weekend at Camp Allen.

Pescadero Community Congregational Church

I also saw that the other day on the HOBD listserve, where, fortunately, I do not have posting privileges (since it would be a full time job correcting the inaccuracies to be found there).
  So, I will ask the obvious, stupid question:
Is the Pescadero Community Congregational Church in communion with TEC?  Or has this poor confused priest abandoned the communion of “this church?”  Or do bishops out there commonly allow priests to perform services in non-Anglican churches?  I know that they do NOT allow priests to perform services in non-TEC Anglican churches on pain of immediate inhibition and deposition.
  While I bear this fellow no malice (reminds me of the “Islamopalian” situation last year), he is clearly not practicing or teaching the Faith “as this church has received it.”  No chance, I suppose, that he is canonically resident in Rhode Island, the only jurisdiction, apparently, where the bishop has the guts to stand up to this sort of thing.

When I asked why the Creed had been omitted I was told, “Because of time constraints.”

Ummmmmm…...right
Fr. Andrew,
Did they leave out the general confession as well (which seemed a fairly common practice in W. Michigan)?
Given what happened at that convention, I am very glad I was not there- my blood-pressure would have been through the roof.  How you and the other (few) faithful ever survived it without heart attacks and strokes I don’t know. The real pity is that there are many good Christian folk in that diocese who remain in denial to this day about what is going on.  They have had such a string of “whacky” bishops over the years, they think that part is normal.
  Had a “skipping” of the creed from one visiting priest when I lived down that way.  I think 1/2 the congregation was as far as “the maker of heaven and earth” before they realized the priest was saying something else.

He sounds like a great guy, a thinker, a searcher.  And very prolific.  Probably be a great guest for dinner.  BUT this is where TEC has jumped the shark.  The ligurgy isn’t a cafeteria, at least not in the Anglican tradition.

I was alerted last week to a letter in the print version of Episcopal Life by a priest who recommends ditching the Nicene Creed.

Here’s an idea: let’s ditch the priest instead.

TJ, the confession was still there (thankfully), as was every verse of every hymn, and a couple taize pieces thrown in for good measure….it was just the Creed that was “too time consuming” ; )

The Creeds have always presented a difficulty for non-Christians.

Mousestalker, the information you have supplied would seem to indicate that this religious officiant (I am feeling the freedom of not using the word “priest” for such an individual) is not only not Christian, but he has no desire to be Christian - but I’m sure he will Remain Episcopalian. So much for being a creedal church, eh?

It’s charming, Mr. Butcher’s desire to return to the pristine days prior to the 11th century (I’m sure his analysis is full of it, but work with me here).  I wonder how he feels about gay “marriage,” then?  Where did that fit in the life of the Church in those golden years?

Pageantmaster, You have a knack for pithy summation.

I was glad when the order changed from Gospel to Creed to Sermon and became Gospel, Sermon, Creed. I agree that it is important to include it, if for no other reason than that following the Sermon (which may or may not be well focused, comforting to those who hurt and discomforting to those who are comfortable) the Creed is potentially a corrective - not that any of my friends or I need correcting. (large smile).

I am also puzzled by the concern for the speed bump…if time is of the essence, shorten the sermon or leave out announcements.

I have my problems with some of the statements of the Creeds, but I am willing to wrestle with them every Eucharist and understand why each phrase is there. But then I don’t have to like the Creed, I just have to find a way to say it with honesty.

Leave it where it is.

What do readers think of the custom in many places of not using it during Easter Season?

Having the creed follow a revisionist sermon is like having a rebuttal in a debate.  After an orthodox sermon is an affirmation.

I’m with Brian in Dio Spfield. You can say what you will from the pulpit, but after you’re done, I’m going to refute it (if called for) by saying the Nicene Creed.

The Rabbit.

His books are indeed troublesome. “An Uncommon Lectionary” includes questionable dating (very late) for the Gospels and shows other “gospels” as earlier and, I think his reasoning is, as closer to the original. He presents “Q” as not a hypothetic source but as a factual one. (I hope that I am being fair to his writings - since I gathered this from what Amazon put on its site and thus I only saw a little of the books’ contents.) Spong is quoted as saying that in his “Untold Stories,” ‘John Beverley Butcher has loosed his fertile imagination… highly readable expansive treatment… elicits fresh insights…’ Whew.

Mark Harris, I don’t like the custom of not using during Easter - at that holiest time isn’t all the more important? It is to me. I want to say it. Our priest did this to us this Easter season. Does the vestry have any way of persuading a priest to do things differently?

The meaning of “authority” is not something GC really understands nowadays,

GC actually seems to be quite focused on the word authority, Greg.  They just fail to recognize any but their own.

Mark Harris (#28),

I’m not familiar with the custom of omitting the Creed during Eastertide.  The General Confession, yes, but the Creed, no.  After all, the rubrics of the 1979 BCP explicitly allow that, “ON OCCASION, the Confession may be omitted” (p. 359, the emphasis is mine), whereas this same freedom is NOT allowed with the Creed.  And I myself have often omitted the Confession at times during the 50 days of Easter in recognition that we are REDEEMED sinners, instead of the Lenten emphasis that we are redeemed SINNERS.

To other comments above by others on the value and practical benefits of having the creed in the eucharist, I’d add further thoughts.  First, it seems appropriate that after the priest (or other preacher) has the chance to bear witness to Christ and share his or her faith during the sermon that the rest of the congregation then should have their opportunity to bear witness as well by affirming the Christian faith too.  It’s only fitting and fair.

But second, and perhaps more importantly in the end, any one sermon is necessarily going to deal with only one (or a few) aspects of the Christian faith and life.  Reciting the Nicene Creed after the sermon helps put the sermon into its proper context by placing it within the full scope of the divine plan of salvation and the well rounded shape of the catholic and apostolic faith as a whole.  It thus helps keep the sermon in proper perspective.

Nice to have you visit SF again, Mark+, and for you to make an irenic comment.

David Handy+

It is another clear and predictable sign of ECUSA’s continued deviation from Christianity.
I used to say departure from traditional or orthodox Christianity, but now it is just plain and simply Christianity.

How many more such steps -especially if they do become common practice throughout ECUSA -will be needed before the more moderate and orthodox bishops-on-the-fence
decide enough is enough.

And, as Pageantmaster says, “The Creeds have always presented a difficulty for non-Christians.”

The creed was developed by the church for several purposes; one of which was to make explicit certain statements about the nature of Christ (light from light, true god from true god, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father, etc.) that were the center of a number of great early heresies that divided the church.  Throw out the creed and you have no refutation of Marcionism, Gnosticism, etc. The creed defines what the community believes and what it does not believe.  By removing the creed, one is, in effect, liturgically saying that one can receive communion while also embracing these heresies; that if one believe Christ is only human, or only divine, or his sufferings were an illusion, etc., then that is fine.  Step up and receive, whatever you believe. 

The other great use of the creed in the early church was as a catechetical tool; a catechumen would be taught what each of the propositions of the creed meant and would memorize it, prior to being able to receive communion, as a symbol that the catechumen understood and internalized the doctrine and the faith.  If a priest doesn’t use the creed in the liturgy, to me it seems highly unlikely that the priest is using it in catechesis.  So is our catechumens learning?  When an unchurched adult comes into the church, do they simply receive without having to learn and proclaim what the church believes?

The creed is still used as a framework for the catechism by Rome; http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c1.htm, and the Catechism and the creed are covered in RCIA if one becomes a Catholic as an adult.  I would think that the Anglican church (or any Christian church) would do much the same.  If not, then how is the faith taught and learned?

Fr. Butcher (no irony there) suggests that the creed did not become a regular part of the Eucharistic liturgy until the the 11th century, implying I suppose that this is a recent inovation, not used in the early church. In fact the use of the creed in the Eucharist was customary in the Eastern church by the mid-6th century. Its use was formalized in Spain and much of Gaul at the third council of Toledo in 589.
The use of the creed was common in Ireland and parts of England by the 8th century.
Rome was a late comer, and finally joined the rest of the church in the 11th century. To ignore the wide spread use of the creed prior to the 11th century, is to ignore (or be ignorant of) the history of the early church.

“His congregation ‘hasn’t missed it,’ and neither his various bishops during that long 29 year period”
—-David Handy [#15]

Think how instructive it would have been for a visiting bishop, having seen the “prayers of the people” (and perhaps even the communion go by with no creed), had taken a Creedal Time-Out. No reproach to Butcher, no expression of disapproval. The bishop would simply stand at the chancel steps and speak about the importance of the creed (e.g., how in affirming it, we join with all those who through the ages have died for it and in it). Then he would ask everyone to turn with him to pages 358-59 and say it with him from the heart.

Mousestalker, your “signature” on this thread is:

  The Episcopal Church: all of the ritual, none of the theology

Although I love most of your signatures, I think this one needs to be corrected:

The Episcopal Church: <strike>  all</strike>    some of the ritual, none of the theology

The Butchers of the world may confuse the argument by implying that before churches used the Nicene Creed at the eucharist, they used no creed at all.

Didn’t the West use the Apostles’ Creed at the eucharist for many centuries before it started using the Nicene Creed at the eucharist?

Mark Harris #28
Mark the only time I have ever left out the Creed and confession is with a Baptism. I picked that up from another priest but it seems when we recite the Vows of Baptism, ‘28 prayerbook version in my case, we are affirming what we believe.

I am courious to hear others comments on that.

And no I’ve never left out the Creed during any season of the church year or seen it done anywhere else.

Bob+

“Does the vestry have any way of persuading a priest to do things differently?”—-Oscewicee

Tell the priest that if he does not let the congregation say the creed together during the service, the congregation will say the creed together after the service. He will not want to risk that.

In refeence to #28:  if the order were, as it used to be: Gospel, Creed, Sermon, perhaps hearing the Gospel truth, followed immediately by affirming the gospel faith, and then hearing today’s take on it, it would have a postitive effect on preaching and hearing.  The preacher would have to preach within the doctrinal limits of the Creed or be shown to be unfaithful.  Likewise, the laity having heard the Gospel and affirmed their faith in it, would be quicker to detect departure from sound doctrine.
The Devil’s favorite method is a stuffy church, a long sermon, and a good nap on Sunday morning winter and summer.
Greg: I love the FreshhellMobile.  Where can I get one, how much does it cost, and does it come in any other colors besides red?
Dumb Sheep.

First, a point of correction- the Creed was included as a regular part of the Roman liturgy in the 11th century.  In Eastern (Orthodox) churches, its use in the liturgy dates back to the 5th, and perhaps the 4th, century- which is to say, since the ink was dry. It was adopted by some of the Western Churches (Spain and France)in the 8th and 9th centuries.  In any case, the Creed had been adopted almost universally prior to the Great Schism of the eastern and western churches in the 11th century. (See Dix, <u>The Shape of the Liturgy</u>;Dacre Press; 1945; pp.474ff, chart on p.475.  h/t to Dr. Tighe)
Fr. Mark Harris,
I think it bothers anyone who is indeed an orthodox Anglican (even if your definition of orthodox is different than mine) when the Creed is omitted.  The exceptions I would make would be baptismal masses, and those masses that include an affirmation of Baptismal vows.
I have argued here and elsewhere that the Nicene Creed is, indeed, a statement that defines catholic Christendom.  By no means do I have any right to judge others, so I do not want to imply that you cannot be a Christian without affirming the Creeds, but I do not see how one can logically claim membership in the Church catholic without it.  This is the basis for my own biggest complaint with TEC- that they in the modern day commonly ordain priests and consecrate bishops who cannot in good conscience put the Nicene Creed forward as their personal affirmation of faith.
Here in Northern Michigan this has become a bone of contention, as the would-be leadership of the diocese continue to promulgate statements of affirmation that openly deny the very substance of the Creeds.

This is indeed fresh hell.  But, what would you expect from a member of the Jesus Seminar?  I am so grateful to reside in an orthodox diocese with an orthodox rector.  If I didn’t have both, I would be out shopping for the best life jacket on the market——-I can’t swim.

[#28] Mark Harris wrote:

But then I don’t have to like the Creed, I just have to find a way to say it with honesty.

What a perfect summation of Liberal theology.  “The creed means precisely what I say, and so long as I am authentic in my definitions, then all is well.”  Being faithful to oneself supersedes being faithful to God.  Or perhaps it is better expressed as “Being faithful to oneself is being faithful to God.”  Little wonder that liberals have morphed Christianity into such an anthropocentric counterfeit. 

carl

David Handy #32…well, you may never have heard of omitting the creed in the Easter Season… It was too early in the morning.. I was thinking of the Confession, and the reason that came to mind had to do with taking part of the normal Eucharist and removing it, not from time to time, but for seasonal reasons.  So, thinking of that as a maybe parallel I blew it and used the wrong omission - Creed rather than Confession.

Sorry for the confusion.

LP, in Canada we didn’t call them speed bumps, they are referred to as “traffic calming devices”. Anyway, why would a Church that makes it up as they go along need a Creed at all? ‘Was that an iceberg that just scraped against the hull?’

Liberals of this ilk have already omitted the Eucharist.  Why not the Creed?

Mark Harris+ (#46),

Te absolvo.  I’m glad you cleared up the confusion.  I was wondering if Delaware had some strange liturgical customs I’d never heard about.

All of us who post comments on blogs frequently make mistakes, especially if we are foolish enough to submit a post before we’re really wide awake.  I did it myself this morning over at T19.  I submitted a comment about 7 am, and later regretted it.  It contained several embarrassing typos, which is rather more than I’d usually make.

This protracted Anglican civil war leaves us divided in many ways, but one of the things we still have in common is that we all sometimes make foolish mistakes, and we need to extend each other grace over those.

David Handy+

Irenaeus (41), I’ll try that. I am wondering after Mark Harris’ second post if he, perhaps, meant to leave out the confession, but got it confused. :-(

One solution for the laity (or even just one member of the congregation) would be to stand immediately after the sermon, before anyone had a chance to start the prayers of the people, and boldly say, “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty….” Reciting the creed in the liturgy is, after all, an essential part of the ministry of the laity.

As for the old 28 BCP order—Gospel, Creed and Sermon—my experience was that in many parishes and with many priests, it disconnected the sermon from the Gospel and seemingly allowed for a free flight of the imagination of the preacher. I think that placing the sermon between the Gospel and Creed was a valuable corrective, as well as a revival of the ancient shape of the liturgy.

How appropriate that Butcher”+” would use a Hatchett to chop the Creed out of the liturgy.  But he is simply doing what revisionists have done to Scripture for years.  All such should beware Revelation 22: 18-19.

Though I supporrt the ordination of women and same sex marriage, I am extremely offended at any suggestion that we eliminate the Creed from the Mass. Let’s not butcher the Mass!

Actually, I agree with nearly every comment which is “On Thread” here (good gosh, what’s going on?!? the second time I’ve posted agreement at SF today…), but I caution you against making assumptions about other progressive clergy.

I, for one, would have a hard time justifying omission of the Creed on Sundays—due to both Prayer Book rubric (agreed: it is directive) and a gut-level (heart-level) feeling that it is spiritually healthy for us to recite the Creed regularly. The Rev doesn’t need presentment (while he is an Episcopal priest, he is serving a non-Episcopal church which may have different pastoral needs—and therefore his decision may be reasonable in that context), but perhaps prayerful conversation.

“...while he is an Episcopal priest, he is serving a non-Episcopal church which may have different pastoral needs…”

I thought this was not allowed for TEC priests to be giving or doing anything in another church as that would put them out of communion with TEC?

Padre-
I don’t think most of us would be bothered if the Creed were left out of an “ecumenical” service- which I assume is what happens at the “community” church.  The concern is that this Episcopal priest has been doing this (according to his own statement) since 1979 in Episcopal Eucharists.  That he needs counsel from his bishop is obvious.  That none of his bishops since 1979 have seen this as required is utterly dumbfounding.
  My own comments on “abandonment of communion” are not really aimed at him, but at the inconsistency of TEC.  If he were ministering to an Anglican congregation outside of TEC jurisdiction, he would be inhibited and deposed under the abandonment canon without a second thought, even if he followed the BCP rubrics to the letter.  Here, he has clearly abandoned the communion of this church, and defied its canons, and receives neither counsel nor discipline.
  PS: It is good to see there are areas of agreement.  Even Mark Harris was able to find one or two here the other day.

The concern is that this Episcopal priest has been doing this (according to his own statement) since 1979 in Episcopal Eucharists.  That he needs counsel from his bishop is obvious.

Counsel? It is a presentable offense. Perhaps his bishop should have provided a “godly admonition” and, failing the presbyter’s compliance, proceeded to presentment and trial for violation of ordination vows and the “doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church.”

That none of his bishops since 1979 have seen this as required is utterly dumbfounding.

Not really, given the apostasy and trivialization of vows by the episcopate of “The Episcopal Church” (an “episcopal” church without episcope). But then, the inaction of his bishop(s) is in itself a violation of the episcopal vows to “guard the faith and unity of the Church.”
The canon on abandonment is perfectly clear. For a priest to celebrate Eucharists in a denomination not in communion with “this Church” (however one interprets the phrase) is “abandonment of communion” and requires the bishop to inhibit and, depending on the response, to depose the cleric. What we have here is exactly what the canon was intended to do; it wasn’t really intended to deal with clergy who came under the jurisdiction of other provinces of the Anglican Communion—of which constitutionally “The Episcopal Church” is a constitutent part. Again, the failure to inhibit is a violation of the bishop’s vows and should be addressed by the bishops (assuming that they are guarding the faith and unity of the Church).

St. Paul’s, Muskegon was the church where I was baptized.  It was where I first uttered the creeds.  Of course, that was the late fifties, early sixties.  My, how things have changed.

I don’t know if this has been said before since I didn’t read all the previous posts, but do any of you realize that among the Fathers of the First Council (that formulated the basic Creed of Nicea)  there were those who had their eyes plucked out, their fingers mangled, their hands cut off,their legs crippled, because they had been ‘Confessors’ of the Christian Faith.
Yes, they were survivors of the last persecution of the Church before Constantine made their faith legal.  At the very least, honor them with your recitation of the Creed they wrote. They suffered pain unto death for the Lord.  Whatever kind of Christians you are today, you owe it to them.

Rdr. James
Olympia, WA

[11] mousestalker,

The information you quoted states the following about Rev. Butcher

A student of Jesus of Nazareth, Mary of Magdala, and Lao Tzu of China. He is seeking to integrate Holy Scripture, archetypal psychology, Taoist philosophy, and personal experience with the arts and lively Spirit filled liturgy. His primary purpose in life is to discover how to become more fully human.

Whoever wrote that has obviously either omitted, or is ignorant of, the subject’s ingestion of organic aids to consciousness i.e., controlled substances. Unless, that is, it is meant to be implied in the phrase “personal experience.”

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

After just reading all the new Canons proposed for this upcoming GC and applying them to this situation, I have determined that the Rev J.B. Butcher is liable for a host of infractions, not the least of which would be declaration of impairment, suspension, detainment, removal from any appointed post (without cause), removal from any appointed post (with cause), and a definite report to his diocesan intake officer, who shall refer his case to the Standing Committee, Bishop, and Presiding Bishop as appropriate.

Following this report, the PB will take Fr. Butcher out back and shoot him right in the head.  If of course, we intend to apply the new Canons to all equitably.

KTF!...mrb

Mike Bertaut,

Dear, dear, dear. Where has your sense of inclusiveness gone. Tsk, tsk.

On top of which, if the PB’s marksmanship is up to the rigorous standards of her apparent mastery of statistics and physics, the number of rounds she would require, even at point blank range, would doubtless constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

This website requests that- Before you post, please remember Matthew 5:43-45.
It’s very disturbing that Mike Bertaut would actually write to advocate that the PB “TAKE FATHER BUTCHER OUT BACK AND SHOOT HIM IN THE HEAD.” and the only comment posted to that was one from “Martial Artist” about the PB’s POOR MARKSMANSHIP.  It was my understanding that this website was for mature discussion.  If these comments were meant to be funny, and if anyone thinks this is funny I will pray very hard for them.  No matter how one feels about the issues discussed, advocating violence against those you disagree with is not, has never been, and never will be a Christian value.  Both Mike Bertaut and “Martial Artist” seem to have forgotten this.  Perhaps the editors of this site can remind them.

Ms. Massey, hyperbole is a legitimate rhetorical technique.  An unrelieved literalism is not terribly expressive.

This is also a “no-freakout” zone.

[64] Ed the Roman,

Thank you for your quick defense of our hyperbolically ironic commentary. But you should also have noted for Ms. Massey, that this is not only a “no-freakout” zone, it is also a “no-whining” zone.

Blessings and my best regards,
Martial Artist

Butcher has been a full blown heretic for many years and has contributed to the departure from Christianity of at least one person I know.  Sounds like he has influenced Spong as well.  One person discerning a calling to the priesthood was unhappily surprised when her parish didn’t think her call to eliminate the Creed displayed a sense of what the church was about.  She got this from Butcher directly and gave me a copy of one of his books (rubbish) signed by him.  I recall her later writing to Spong suggesting that if he was honest to what he spoke of, he should follow her out of Christianity.  Apparently, Butcher’s notions of the usefulness of the Creed have been influencing people for some time.

You know, I would never advocate shooting anyone right in the head (at least not in writing) as a matter of seriousness and truth. 

But, much as Jonathan Swift once recommended eating Babies as a solution to famine in Ireland (A Modest Proposal, Wasn’t it?) my intention in hyperbole was simply to point out exactly how ridiculously open, yet closed; inclusive, yet exclusive; and therefore meaningless all the proposals for said Canons were. 

My implications were simply (for the simple ) that they were just poorly written enough to justify ALL the actions I listed above, whether they be contradictory or not!

Please take note of my intentions.  If I gave anyone the impression that our PB would shoot someone, well, if anyone is a staunch advocate of Gun Control, I would assume it would be our Post-Modern Rainbow Mitre Wearing Marine Biologist Conservationist MisDirection Speaking Liberal Whacko PB. 

Now, here’s the tricky part, Miss Judy:

I will leave it to you to judge:  Was my description of her here more offensive, or of her as the shooter more offensive?

KTF!....mrb