Pentecost XIII

Proper 14 - Year A [RCL]
Genesis 37:1-4, 12-28, Psalm 105, 1-6, 16-22, 45b; Romans 10:5-15; Matthew 14:22-33

By the Rev. Sister Judith Schenck

“And Joseph went looking for his brothers.”

Seeking, searching, Joseph went looking for his brothers. In today’s reading from Genesis, the meaning in Hebrew of Jacob’s command to Joseph is, “See how your brothers are,” with the meaning of “Seek the peacefulness and integrity of your brothers.” Joseph’s search for his brothers, God’s search for us, our search of one another, is more than just to seek and search for another, but to seek and search for the other’s peace, wholeness, and well being.

As God goes searching, looking for us, so we must look and search for God and for one another, for our brothers and sisters. As Joseph went looking for his brothers, so must we.

There is a stranger in the story – Hebrew interpretation often takes this to be an angel of God – who asks Jacob, “What are you looking for?” Joseph did not seek on his own but with divine guidance. If this stranger’s brief encounter had not happened, would Joseph ever have found his brothers so that God’s providence could unfold in salvation history? Are we ever a chance encounter for another to find their way to God’s will? Do we listen if God as the stranger places guidance in our own paths?

The Joseph saga is a story of hatred, prejudice, blinding jealousy. It does not begin as a pretty picture. Joseph’s brothers want to kill the favored, beloved brother and destroy the heart of their father as well as the son. It is a violent story: first to murder, then to hide the deed, to throw the beloved down a well, and finally in a cruel compromise, to sell him into slavery.

Yet this story is far more than a tale of family dysfunction, hatred, division. It is a story of God’s working in the lives of humans, even humans that falter, fail, and sin despicably and abhorrently. It is a story of divine intervention, salvation history, and God’s provision.

The brothers, of course, had no idea that their actions would lead to their own provision and survival. Their deeds were simply evil. Yet God, even through the evil of the world, works good and wonder. God is the Restorer, the one who takes death and transforms it into resurrection.

Joseph became and instrument in God’s plan of love and provision. It was because Joseph had become successful in Egypt, ensconced in position and power, that he was able to help his entire family when famine came. It was the kind of help that transcends knowing or understanding but is contained in love and forgiveness and mercy.

God’s help came through human hands, human love, human forgiveness. Jacob was able to overcome the human tendency to judge or reject those who had harmed him.

Fear is the predominate obstacle to God’s using us in this world. Fear is the predominate obstacle to our own ability to have faith and trust in God’s providential love in the midst of hardships. Our world is inundated by fear right now. It controls our hearts and minds. Fear is seen in the crisis with oil and the price of gas, with the cost and loss of housing, with every row of goods in the grocery store as we see the prices rise before our eyes, with global terror, nuclear threats, illness of those we love or ourselves, the very word “cancer” and a myriad of broken relationships.

The psalmist cries out in Psalm 69:

“Save me O God, for the waters have come up to my neck.

“I sink in deep mire where there is no foothold;

“I have come into deep waters and the flood sweeps over me.”

In today’s gospel, we hear the tale of Peter trying to walk on water. The disciples were alone in the boat, a terrible storm had arisen, Jesus was walking toward them across the water like an apparition or ghost, and they were filled with fear. The storm was very, very real, and in that small boat they had good reason to be afraid. To see their beloved Jesus walking across the lake in the dark, in the violence of the storm, doing what was humanly impossible, must have been frightening. To try to do what is humanly impossible by ourselves, without God, is always frightening.

Peter listens to Jesus say simply, “Come,” and he gets out of the boat in a response that defies all logic. Our boats are symbols of false security, often reflected in our bank accounts, our materialism, our huge and unnecessary houses. What is the boat in your life that you are afraid to get out of? What is the boat in your life that prevents you from following God’s call to come? What is the fear that imprisons you?

Peter could not walk on that water for one reason: fear. He looked around at the worldly reality of the storm, the physics of the water, the incomprehensibility of the situation, the absurdity of it all, and fear overwhelmed Peter. He began to sink. And then Peter did what we must all do. Peter cried out, “Lord, save me!”

Lord save us. Lord save us all.

The epistle in Romans today gives us the directions for what we must do to receive that salvation of Jesus. We must ask. We must cry out, “Jesus save me!” We must believe in our hearts – really believe – that it is Jesus who gives us life, forever eternal life. And we cry out. We proclaim with our lips. We believe, proclaim out loud, “Jesus is Lord.”

And then we too can walk on water, the water that tries to drown us, the water of fear that we can rise above. Jesus save me.

-- The Rev. Sister Judith Schenck is a retired priest and a Franciscan Poor Clare solitary in the Episcopal Diocese of Montana. Email: sisterjudith@bresnan.net.

What is Donatism?

Donatism is a word that has been tossed about quite a bit in the past few years. About a month ago I was asked to write an article on the subject. This morning, I received an email from a TTLS reader who asked about Donatism. I decided to post my article as a reply to that email. So, Maryann, here is your answer. I used footnotes in an attempt to keep the material readable without explanations that break up the thoughts. This article is copyrighted, so ask before you copy it (as if it's good enough to copy!) My thanks to Fr. Scott and Fr. T for reading and commenting on the article prior to publication.

In the early fourth century AD, the church was experiencing another siege of persecution. In moments of weakness or under actual torture, many presbyters handed over copies of scripture, renounced the faith, and in many instances even denounced other Christians. These former presbyters were called traditori. [1]

The majority of the church felt that if a traditor wished to return to the church, he could after a period of penance lasting a few weeks to several decades, and rebaptism. [2] Donatus, bishop of Caesa Nigraee, disagreed with the majority opinion. He preached his opinion and gained a sizeable following.

Things came to a head in 311 A.D. when Caecilian of Cathrage was consecrated bishop. One of the three officiating bishops, [3] Felix of Aptunga, had been a traditor. Donatus and seventy bishops withdrew their fellowship from the whole church, formed their own synod and declared the consecration null and void.

Emboldened by their own hubris, in 315 A.D. the donatists declared

• “The whole catholic church was lost” (apostate) because sinners were allowed to officiate at the altars
• That they themselves were the “only true church”
• That, as the “only true Church,” they could not pray in the same building with apostates
• They could not recognize any sacrament performed by “apostates” (this included marriage, baptism, Eucharist, holy orders) nor
• receive any sacraments from the hands of apostates
• be in the same building when apostate rites were being performed
• That some sins were worse than other sins
• That “committing” these super-sins forever barred persons from ordained ministry. (Naturally, Donatists leaders got to pick the 'super-sins')

Although repudiated by every council of the Church, it was not until the seventh century that the movement officially died. But Donatism is the heresy that just will not die. Like a weed in a formal garden, periodically donatism would raise deceptive bloom. During the reformation, Donatism made an appearance in the form of the Puritans who attempted to “take over” the Church of England.

Now that you know much more than you ever wanted to know, (but trust me this doesn’t scratch the surface!) the question you are asking is, “what does all this mean to me?” The answer is threefold:

• Donatistism sets up a small group to be absolute judge of all others
• Donatists proclaim that as the “only true church” they have the exclusive interpretation of “orthodox” teaching, scriptural interpretation, sacramental validity, sin, and an individual’s worthiness (it doesn’t matter if “you” believe that you are a Christian—they will tell you if you are or not)
• Donatism is at work in the church once again

Logically, Donatism is an impossible theological position to defend because no one is morally pure. [4]. Therefore, by donatisim’s own rules, there are no valid sacraments or ministers – not even in their inner circle. Also, St. Augustine argued that Donatism actually eliminates God’s grace from having anything to do with the sacraments (and for 1,500 years, the church has agreed with him).

Anglicanism has always condemned Donatism. According to our catechism, Sacraments are:

[A]n outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us; ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same [5], and a pledge to assure us thereof. BCB 1928. p. 581 [6]

[O]utward and visible signs of inward and spiritual grace, given by Christ as sure and certain means by which we receive that grace.”

BCP 1979, p. 857

Notice the important part of the catechism’s explanation – we receive Christ’s grace, not the presbyter’s grace. Think of that Grace as pitcher of water. One may pour that water into an old cracked glass or a golden cup. The water is still water regardless of which vessel from which one drinks.

What makes Donatism morally dangerous is that it puts an impediment between God’s grace and us. It says that God is constrained by humans. It says that God can be God only when the human medium is good enough. It says “I know better than God does. It says that God cannot overcome sin.

Thanks be to God, all of that was repudiated on a cross outside of Jerusalem circa 33 A.D. To believe otherwise is to usurp the role of God and therein is the heresy of donatism.

How to spot a modern Anglican donatist (neo-donatist):

• “The Episcopal and Anglican Church of Canada is apostate!”
• “Thank goodness there are still real Anglicans left”
• “He/she is [insert term] so I can’t take communion from him/her
• “If the bible says it, that settles it.” (Always said as a conversation stopper.)
• “You don’t respect the authority of the bible.”
• “If you were a real Christian, you would see that you are wrong.”
• “The faith once delivered to the saints” is a favourite quote of Donatists
• An unhealthy obsession about certain issues and silence on other issues the bible condemns.
• A propensity to use the Old Testament purity laws to govern the Christian church.(but very selective about which purity laws are still enforceable)
  

---

[1] Latin for “one who delivers” – as in hands over books and informs on people. Please note that the word is not “traitor”). Singular: traditor.

[2] It was addressing Donatism that made the church decree that a person may only be baptized once, for all times

[3] Canon law has stated from apostolic times that there must be three bishops to perform the rite of consecration.

[4] See Romans 3.10-20; 3.23; 17.18-25; James 3.2; 1 John 8-19

[5] Meaning Christ, himself

[6] The 1928 catechism is word for word from the 1662 Prayer Book catechism

Russia Invades Georgia

Pray for the world, and particularly the country of Georgia.

O God of love, O King of Peace,
Make wars throughout the world to cease;
The wrath of sinful men restrain,
Give peace, O God, give peace again!

Robinson vs. Davis - A reader's question

Well, so much for my "one thread per day" rule. I've had three different threads today. All were important, though, at least in my eyes.

David posed an excellent question in one of the threads. It was such a good question that I have decided to give it its own thread.

James, you can answer this offline if you wish. In trying to find out where the GLBT Christian side rests, I wonder if you can answer a question for me. One the one hand we have Bishop Robinson in a loving one on one relationship with another person. On the other side, we have Mac Davis who surfs the Internet for sugar daddies and had sex with two seminary boys. Is there a difference that Christians should see in this?

David Crawford

I think an online discussion would be beneficial, as it will allow others to take part in the discussion. If you would like to contact me off line, that would be perfectly acceptable. Those who wish to join in this discussion should be polite and respectful. This is my blog and I won't abide rudeness or crudeness.

Amongst my GLBT friends, +Robinson is the norm. Almost all of my friends are in either committed relationships or looking for committed relationships. If you have read some of my posts, you will would know that two of my friends celebrated their twentieth anniversary by being legally married here in California. In fact, you should read those posts. You will find them here, and here. Monogamy is really the norm for most gay people as the number of same-gender marriages in California will show. In the local chapter of Integrity, commitment and monogamy is the majority status of its members.

The exception to this will be found primarily among those gay and bisexual males in their 20s. This exception will be found in heterosexual males of that age group as well. I have recently completed a degree from the local university. In one of my classes, a male student received a failing grade on a quiz. The professor (a woman) told him if he wanted some extra time, to talk with her. He replied he did not care that he had failed the quiz. This startled the professor and this was the exchange:

“Well if you don’t care, why are you in college?”

“Do you want the truth?”

“Yes, I do.”

“I’m here to have as much sex as I can possibly have before I’m too old for anyone hot to want me.”

That was from a heterosexual male. One heterosexual male. I cannot project his morals (or lack thereof) on all heterosexual males.

Mr. Davis’ alleged actions are those of one homosexual male. I cannot project his morals (or lack thereof) on all gay males. They are not typical of the GLBT community as a whole.

It is that aberrant activity that the press covers though. It sells papers. No one wants to read about two men who have lived together for 47 years, have a house, two dogs and leaky water pipes. Newspapers want sensationalism and that comes from covering the atypical gay pride events or other events where extreme behaviour and the actions of fringe members of the community can be filmed and published. That is like saying Americans' Fourth of July activities reflect a typical daily life of all Americans. I would submit that 75 - 80 percent of all gay people have never been to a pride event.

Having said that, yes, there are gay/bisexual men who use the Internet to find anonymous encounters and an infinitesimal percentage of males looking for “sugar daddies.” In any community, there will be predators and those who wish to use others for personal gain. When I was much younger, we called such people “Gold Diggers.” They were young heterosexual women.

The overwhelming opinion of the GLBT community is that commitment and monogamy are “where it’s at.” They dislike Davis’ alleged actions for many reasons one of which is that it gives the entire GLBT community a black eye.

The difference that “Christians should see in this” is that committed relationships are holy and the norm. Promiscuous and predatory behaviour is not holy and not the norm. This is true whether homosexual, heterosexual, lesbian, or bisexual.

I must take you to task for one thing, though. The use of "seminary boys" was inappropriate and inflammatory. Seminarians are not "boys," they adults. The use of the phrase would lead many to question the sincerity of your post.

So, this is the jumping off point for the discussion.