Posted on

The Bible Challenge

TheBibleChallengeHeader_380

 

 

 

The Bible Challenge is currently recording teachings to correspond with the Bible Challenge Readings. Check back often to recieve the latest installment.

Old Testament Study

This weekly teaching overview contains a downloadable study guide and an audio lecture on each week’s readings in the Old and New Testaments. The lessons run about 30-40 minutes in length. The teacher is The Rev. Charlie Holt of St. Peter’s Episcopal Church in Lake Mary, FL.

The Study of the New Testament

The weekly teaching focuses on going deeper in the New Testament readings of the Bible Challenge. There is a downloadable study guide and audio lecture (just over 1hr in length). This study is taught by The Rev. Charlie Holt of St. Peter’s Episcopal Church in Lake Mary, FL.

Posted on

Being Skeptical of the Skeptics: a Critique of the Jesus Seminar

The following was published in the May, 2011 Central Florida Episcopalian

The recent Jesus Seminar course advertised in the Central Florida Episcopalian underscores the need for the clergy and laity within the Diocese of Central Florida to be wise and discerning in the matters of our common Christian faith and life. From the ad in the April 2011 CFE, headlined, The Quest for the Historical Jesus: “The Gospels portray Jesus as the Messiah and divine savior. Within the Gospels, however, we can glimpse another Jesus, a Jewish teacher and healer with a radical vision of the kingdom of God. The search for the historical Jesus examines the Gospels in order to discover who Jesus was before he became the object of Christian belief.”

The basic premise of the Jesus Seminar scholars is that the “Jesus” that the Church worships and follows in life practice is a different Jesus than the actual flesh and blood person who walked the Earth 2000 years ago. The basic charge from the Seminar is that the later followers of Jesus mythologized the figure of Jesus in order to create a religious theological system called Christianity and an institution called the Church.

On face value, the basic premise of the Jesus Seminar’s teachings sounds quite plausible especially to our modern minds which have been thoroughly schooled in materialistic secularism. The modern mind has no categories for the miraculous, the mysterious or the supernatural.

The Seminar’s teachings often find a sympathetic audience for another reason. There is a general skepticism in the culture with institutions in general but especially the institutions of the Christian Church. This is not entirely without good reason. Turn on the news and we are shown a pastor in Gainesville burning Qurans; priests and bishops being sued for a pedophile scandal; and prominent Christian leaders caught in extra-marital affairs. A recent research study titled UnChristian concludes that “An overwhelming percentage of non-Christians sampled said they perceived Christians as judgmental, hypocritical, too political, and antihomosexual, among other things.”

The media rarely reports on Christians feeding the homeless, teaching the next generation in Christian schools and ministering to the sick and dying. If it bleeds it leads. The institutional Church has many self-inflicted wounds which make the headlines. So the claims of the Jesus Seminar that the institutional Church has gotten it wrong for two millennia about the “real” Jesus resonates in a secular society already skeptical of the Church.

To be honest, institutional churches have at times been wrong in teachings and doctrines. The Protestant Reformation is a good example of a period in Church history where scholars and theologians challenged the institutional Church to reform its teachings to bring them back into conformity with the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer and others were willing to be branded as heretics, even to put their lives on the line in order to challenge what they perceived to be corruptions in teaching and practice by the institutional Church.

Episcopalians are the heirs of that rich protestant heritage of questioning our catholic institution. As Protestants, we are always seeking to reform and renew our beliefs. In our prayers for the Church, the Book of Common Prayer provides the petition: Gracious Father, we pray for thy Holy Catholic Church. Fill it with all truth, in all truth with all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in anything it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strengthen it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of Jesus Christ thy Son our Savior. Amen.

Following the teachings of the Jesus Seminar, bishops and clergy like the Rt. Rev. Jack Spong have fashioned themselves as the Church’s newest protestant reformers. They are calling into question the long standing creedal and doctrinal teachings of the Church on the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the divine nature of Jesus, the efficacy of prayer, the reality of heaven and hell, the promise of a second coming of Jesus, the necessity of faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, the Cross of Jesus as an atonement offering for the sins of the world, and so on.

One of the workshops offered at the seminar event last month was titled What Jesus Wasn’t and the Kingdom Isn’t. The website promoting the workshop asserted: “The followers of Jesus exchanged the vision for the visionary. They elevated Jesus to godhood, interpreted his death as a blood sacrifice, and organized Churches. Christianity eventually constructed an all-encompassing official theology with the divine Jesus at its center. This workshop tells how this happened, assesses its costs, and explores modern options for thinking about God that take the historical Jesus seriously.”

So, has the Church been wrong about Jesus all these years? Was the “historic” Jesus merely a man who not only lived and died as one of us, but never really walked on water, calmed the storm, fed the five thousand, died on a cross for our salvation, or bodily rose from the dead? Was all of that made up by the Church, a form of religious mythology? Is Jesus merely an inspiring historic figure, but nothing more? If the Jesus Seminar’s critique is correct, one is left wondering what is the point of continued participation in the Church? Indeed, many people have come to accept the skeptical teachings of the Seminar through the years and as a result have wandered away from life in the Church.

The Jesus Seminar is perhaps most famous for its gatherings of scholars to vote on the sayings attributed to Jesus in Gospel texts using various colored beads placed in a basket to register their individual degree of certainty or skepticism that the words authentically represent the historic Jesus. The voting system has been roundly criticized by many scholars, such as N.T Wright, author of Jesus and the Victory of God, for its use of a weighted average that favors ruling a saying of Jesus to be inauthentic. Wright muses, “I cannot understand how, if a majority … thought a saying authentic or probably authentic, the ‘weighted average’ turned out to be ‘probably inauthentic’.”

The Seminar itself which is self-selected vastly under-represents the multitude of New Testament scholars around the country that affirm the basic historic accuracy of the Gospel records. Thus the results of their voting are biased toward a skeptical reading of the Gospel texts in favor of non-Canonical texts such as the “Gnostic Gospels”. Many have questioned whether the Jesus Seminar seems at times more motivated by a desire to say something controversial which might land them a media appearance on the latest made for TV Easter or Christmas documentary.

One of the most important things to know about the methodology of the Jesus Seminar is their prior assumptions. The Seminar has created many different criteria that govern whether they will determine that a saying of Jesus is authentic or inauthentic. Raymond E. Brown in An Introduction to the New Testament is critical of the methodology: “It [the Jesus Seminar] has operated to a remarkable degree on a priori principles, some of them reflecting an anti-supernatural bias. For instance the bodily resurrection had no real chance of being accepted as having taken place. The session dealing with the authenticity of Jesus’ predictions of his passion and death was dominated by the initial refusal of most of the participants to allow the possibility that Jesus could have spoken of his impending death by virtue of “super-ordinary” powers; accordingly they voted black (he did not say it) on eleven Synoptic passion predictions.”

A text such as John 14:1-14: “I am the way, and I am the truth, and I am life”, cannot be an authentic saying because it has Jesus referring to himself. Robert W. Funk, founder of the Jesus Seminar writes: “It is unthinkable…that Jesus said many of the things he is reported to have said. He certainly did not make claims for himself. To have done so would have contradicted his fundamental disdain for arrogance and hypocrisy and run counter to his rhetorical strategies. Sayings like those we find in the fourth Gospel could not have originated with Jesus.” But why could not Jesus have referred to himself? The circular logic is that Jesus would not have said such things so he certainly did not say such things—says Funk.

It is not surprising then that the “historic” Jesus whom the Jesus Seminar reconstructs closely reflects their prior assumptions. Luke Timothy Johnston, author of The Real Jesus, remarks that their conclusions were “already determined ahead of time,” which Johnston says is “not responsible, or even critical scholarship. It is a self-indulgent charade.” And Brown concludes, “The question has been raised whether once again, as with the discovery of the liberal Jesus in the last century, the quest [for the historic Jesus] is not producing the Jesus the quester wished to find.”

And just who is the Jesus Seminar’s Jesus? He is a wise peasant, a Jewish cynic, a faith healer who is committed to a social reform ministry on behalf of the poor and marginalized. But, he is a Jesus who does not see himself as God in the flesh, who does not have the aim of creating a continuing community called the Church after his death, who does not provide any theological significance to his death, or anticipate his eschatological return. This Jesus most certainly did not bodily rise from the dead.

The other founder of the Jesus Seminar, John Dominic Crossan, goes so far as to say that after Jesus body was taken down off the cross (if it even was) it was most likely thrown into the town garbage heap to be eaten by carrion and wild dogs or buried in a mass grave. For Crossan, the resurrection of Jesus is a faith experience on the part of the early Church, not a historic reality.

Brown summarizes the many “bluntly critical” writings about the Seminar: “One finds therein such devastating judgments as: methodologically misguided; no significant advance in the study of the historic Jesus; only a small ripple in NT scholarship; results representing the Jesus the researchers wanted to find; the pursuit of a specific confessional agenda; and dangerous in giving false impressions.” Such critiques come from a wide range of New Testament scholars from faculties such as Baylor, Duke, Emory, Yale, Catholic University, and Wake Forest.

The leaders of the early Church also were very critical of false prophets and teachers. The writers of the New Testament anticipated that there would come a day in which false teachers would slip into the common life of the Church and question the eye-witness testimony of the Apostles and the Commandment of the Lord Jesus. “But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories.” (2 Peter 2:1-2)

The people of God must always be prepared to discern between true and false teaching—even within our own diocese. There are plentiful reasons why someone might want to deny the historicity and accuracy of the Gospels. Some motivations are seemingly selfless (for example, a desire to be non-judgmental, and all-inclusive). However, the main reason often proves itself to be one of hardness of heart and stubborn willfulness. The challenge of Jesus is his sovereign Gospel summons to the Kingdom of God which calls all people to repentance and obedience of faith in the Messiah, the Christ. In pride, human beings do not want to submit to a higher authority, especially one that challenges them to renounce self. Jesus Christ is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. Jesus’ bodily resurrection from the dead in time and space vindicates him in his lordship. The resurrection provides to those who trust in Jesus name a historic guarantee of salvation from sin and death and a tangible foretaste of new life in the coming Kingdom of God.

Those who deny the faith given to us by Jesus Christ and his Apostles harm not only themselves, but of greatest concern is the harm they do to those who follow them. Be skeptical of the skeptics. Those who question the Lord need to be questioned themselves. Jesus calls us to trust and obey.

Posted on

Sanford: The Untold Story

The black, hispanic and white pastors of Sanford continue to meet and build relationships and work on the racial issues. This video captures the spirit of some of the meetings that marked the beginning of that relationship in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting. The emphasis is on prayer, reconciliation and peacemaking. This good work is continuing to go on even though the cameras have stopped rolling.

Posted on

Should Confirmation be Required?

Excerpt from a recent ENS article where St. Peter’s was interviewed….

Another education committee member, the Rev. Charles Holt, rector of St. Peter’s Church in Lake Mary, in central Florida, said he was relieved and grateful that “none of the resolutions passed General Convention.
Had they passed, theoretically, “all one had to do to be an elected leader at the highest levels was to have taken communion three times over the course of last year” or be a communicant in good standing, he said. “Conceivably, they could not believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and personal savior and be a leader in the Episcopal Church.”
The conversation about confirmation is essential and a healthy one because “it makes us recommit ourselves and come to clarity about our core beliefs and wrestle with our faith,” said Holt.
Holt also believes confirmation “is actually the one thing a bishop can do to help grow the Episcopal Church. In the Episcopal Church, it’s the bishop’s job to make sure that every single person who’s a member of our church has made a mature profession of faith in Jesus Christ” – a moment he believes every Christian should experience.
“If we do away with confirmation then we don’t have that moment for people,” he said.
Making confirmation a powerful and personal moment is of utmost importance for Bishop Dorsey Henderson, who retired from the Diocese of Upper South Carolina in 2009. He now assists on behalf of Bishop Gregory Brewer of Central Florida at confirmations.
Henderson confirmed about 18 people at St. Peter’s Church on May 17, including eighth grader Grant Williams, 13, who believes “confirmation is very necessary.
“It felt like I was coming closer to God, like I was getting to know him better and confirming my faith in him by showing that I truly believed in him and wanted to follow him,” he said.
Henderson said he adds the names of each confirmand to a personal notebook he has kept over 15 years of the episcopacy. “I assure them that I will pray for them regularly by name and I ask them for their prayers.”
While confirmation “is not essential to receive the sacrament of Holy Communion … it provides a kind of spiritual boost” especially to those baptized as infants and those converting from other traditions, he said during a recent telephone interview.

Read the entire article

Posted on

Justin Martyr’s 1st Apology (Early Christian Liturgy 155 AD)

Other than what we read in the book of Acts (See Acts 2:42), one of the first descriptions of early church worship practices is found in Justin Martyr’s 1st Apology written around 155 A.D. It is an encouragement to know that Anglican/Episcopal congregations are still doing the exact same liturgical practices in the same order and manner he describes.

One of the issues that was debated at the recent General Convention was whether to give communion to the un-baptized, a novel practice called “open communion”. We see in this writing just how seriously the early church fathers took the administration of the sacraments. Also, of interest is the explanation of why we worship on Sunday.

Justin Martyr’s Apology: Chapters 65-67 (On Early Christian Liturgy and Sacramental Practices 150 AD)

excerpted from http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

Chapter 65. Administration of the sacraments But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

Chapter 66. Of the Eucharist And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

Chapter 67. Weekly worship of the Christians And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

Read the the entire 1st Apology here

Posted on

Sarah Bailey Pulliam: Momentous vote in Indy on gay marriage

“Foundational institutions in the U.S. are under assault from the culture, further fragmenting the United States,” said Charles Holt, a rector at St. Peter’s Episcopal Church and School in Lake Mary, Fla., who spoke in opposition of the move, seeing the liturgy in contradiction to the Book of Common Prayer, which defines marriage as between a man and woman. “To change liturgies would not find acceptance in the wider church and would be an affront to unity.”

Read it all

Posted on

Reinventing Paul: A Review of the book by John Gager

At the encouragement of a post to the House of Bishops and Deputies Listserv of the Episcopal Church, I just finished reading the Kindle Edition of Reinventing Paul, Oxford University Press by John G. Gager, PhD, recently retired chair of the Religion Department at Princeton.

Ted Mollegen, Deputy from Connecticut wrote to the other deputies:

“We need to prepare for some oncoming sizeable theological shocks.  St. Paul was the author of approximately half of the New Testament. Biblical scholarship of the last two-plus decades is leading to the conclusion that St. Paul’s epistles — especially Romans and Galatians — have been very badly mistranslated and is interpreted — from the third century onward….

“When all this is sorted out, some very well respected biblical scholars of the last two decades have concluded that Paul believed in (a) the Abrahamic covenant and the Torah as God’s means of salvation for the Jews and in (b) Jesus’s faithfully dying to accomplish salvation of gentiles.  Thus justification by faith really meant salvation (justification) because of the faithfulness OF Jesus, not justification because of individuals’ faith IN Jesus.  This new understanding means that such church giants as Augustine, Aquinas, and Martin Luther have seriously misunderstood the theology of Paul.  If the new understanding of Paul’s theology continues to be borne out under increasing scrutiny, the situation will be profoundly embarrassing to many present-day church leaders, some of whom will probably meet it with frantic denial and attempted rebuttal.”

Dr. Gager is certainly taking some of the “New Perspective” work on Paul of eminent scholars such EP Sanders to a radical extreme.  Gager’s argument in a nutshell is that Paul really taught that the Gospel and Jesus’ redemption is ONLY for the Gentiles, and NOT for the Jews. That Paul taught that Jesus is only the Lord and Savior of non-Jews. The implications being that Jewish people continue to be under the Law (Torah) and will find salvation only through being faithful to the Torah and not through faith in Jesus.

Here are a couple of pull quotes:

“For Paul, Jesus is neither a new Moses nor the Messiah, he is not the climax of… God’s dealings with Israel, but he is the fulfillment of God’s promises concerning the Gentiles.” (John G. Gager. Reinventing Paul (Kindle Locations 1529-1531). Kindle Edition.)

“The law remains in effect for all who are circumcised.” (John G. Gager. Reinventing Paul (Kindle Location 1548). Kindle Edition.)

YIKES! The primary flaw in Gager’s argument (other than making the text of Romans say exactly the opposite of what it says) is that he doesn’t contemplate the Davidic Covenant. Paul begins affirming Jesus as David’s heir according to the flesh and the one who was declared with power to be the “Son of God”. (Romans 1:4, cf. Psalm 2 and 2 Sam. 7:14ff.) Nor does Gager integrate the implications of the saving confession “Jesus Christ is Lord”. (Romans 10:9) Paul says of this confession that leads to salvation:

“For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call upon him.” (Romans 10:12)

For Paul, Jesus is Lord (YHWH) and Savior for both Jew and Gentile alike. He totally misreads Paul argument in Romans 1-3 that all are in need of the Good News of the Gospel. Paul writes:

“What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin…. Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.” (Romans 3:9, 19b-20)

The Decline and Fall of Christian Scholarship in America

I want to lament the state of scholarship in the United States, especially the fall of Princeton University (note: Princeton Theological Seminary is a seperate institution) as a once great Christian institution. There was a day when Princeton University was a bastion of Christian belief and thought.

While Gager is likely not intending to make a statement about the institution which then employed him this quote says volumes not only about his own presuppositions and worldview but about the spiritual decline of the institution with which he was at that time affiliated:

“As for myself, I have no particular religious or theological view to defend.” I am Christian only in the broad cultural sense of that word; I am affiliated with no religious institution of any kind.” –John G. Gager. Reinventing Paul (Kindle Locations 208-209). Kindle Edition.

Indeed, he is right in saying that he is not affiliated with a “religious institution of any kind.” The founders of Princeton in the mid 1700’s would never have contemplated hiring a person such as John Gager who considers himself an “nonbeliever” and cultural Christian only (his words). The founders of Princeton would have considered their school “a religious institution”.

The founders of Princeton (while suspect to the Anglicans at that time) were seeking to kindle the fire of the Great Awakening along the principles taught by such preachers and theologians as Jonathan Edwards, Samuel Davies, and George Whitefield.  It is sad how far away we have moved from the strong faith of the founders of this country. Perhaps, we Anglicans really should be suspect of them now!

Gager reveals only at the end of the book that his statement that he has “no theological view to defend” is really quite feigned when he says this:

“It may seem rash for me, as a non-believing “Christian,” to venture onto theological territory. I do so because of my conviction that there is more at stake here than mere Christianity. My proposal is that we strip away the apocalyptic framework of Paul’s thought in a different way. If we remove this apocalyptic mystery altogether, that is, the notion that in the final days of this era God causes Israel’s momentary stumble in order to redeem the Gentiles, we are left with two basic affirmations: one, God’s unshakable commitment to Israel and to the holiness of the law (= Judaism); and, two, the redemption of the Gentiles through Jesus Christ ( = Christianity).” (John G. Gager. Reinventing Paul (Kindle Locations 1620-1622). Kindle Edition.)

It would seem that John Gager is ashamed of the very Gospel which Paul so clearly says is “First for the Jew and then for the Gentile.” (Romans 1:16) Gager does no favors for the Jewish people in “reinventing” Paul. In seeking to do so he would deny them their birthright and the promise of God to them in their Messiah, Jesus. The promise of the Gospel, Paul unashamedly argues, is properly theirs to inherit FIRST!

I leave you to ponder a quote from NT Wright’s excellent commentary on Romans in the “New Interpreter’s” series which I believe more aptly incorporates the “New Perspective” on Paul without throwing the theological baby out with the bathwater:

“When Paul thinks of Jesus as Lord, he thinks of himself as a slave and of the world as being called to obedience to Jesus’ lordship. His apostolic commission is not to offer people a new religious option, but to summon them to allegiance to Jesus, which will mean abandoning their loyalties. The gospel issues a command, an imperial summons; the appropriate response is obedience.

“The ‘obedience’ Paul seeks to evoke when he announces the gospel is thus not a list of moral good works but faith. Faith, as Paul explains later (10:9) consists in confessing Jesus as Lord (thereby renouncing other lords) and in believing that God raised him from the dead (thereby abandoning other worldviews in which such things did or could not happen…) This faith is actually the human faithfulness that answers God’s faithfulness.”  (N.T. Wright, Romans Commentary, NIB, vol. X p. 420.)

As well meaning as John Gager may be in seeking to provide a new paradigm to “help along” Jewish-Christian relationships by reinventing Paul and the Gospel. Paul himself would tell us that the Gospel of Jesus remains the only and singular hope of peace between Jews and Gentiles. Jesus is the one who will “tear down the dividing wall of hostility” between Jew and Gentile.  Paul writes, “Jesus Christ is our peace, in his flesh he has made both groups into one.” (Ephesians 2:14)

Posted on

The local church and the Trayvon Martin situation

Dear all:

I would like to give you all a bit of an update on the Trayvon Martin situation here in the Diocese. I will not fill you in on the things that you get from the news but some of the things you may not know.

The first thing that I would say is that it is not helpful to engage in inflammatory rhetoric such as pre-judging the verdict of Mr. Zimmerman’s trial. The justice system in the US is human and imperfect. Yet it is the best the world has to offer. In this instance, it is working.

Much of the lesson of this case is about making pre-judgments before facts are known or processes have played out. As a church, we must do better than the world. Also, recognize that many of the leaders involved down here are our fellow Episcopal parishioners and part of our mission field. They do not need the larger church making their jobs more difficult by rash statements. This is a plea for us all to speak wisely.

The shooting took place at an apartment complex less than two miles from St. Peter’s (my congregation) and across the street from my daughter’s school. Several days ago a police car was parked on the school grounds as a deterrent. The next day it had been riddled with bullet holes.

Half the kids did not show up for school that day.

Fr. Rory Harris and I are the rectors of the two closest parishes and we are very much publically involved in the community especially in this issue. The first was in organizing an ecumenical Good Friday Prayer service for local ministers at Holy Cross Episcopal Sanford (read my sermon here). Over 60 clergy from a wide variety of denominations and ethnic/race groups were represented in the leading and participation. We took the entire situation to the foot of the cross.

The various clergy of Sanford and Seminole County are coming together in Holy Spirit appointed ways through this human tragedy. I will share with you a report that I wrote to the Bishop and clergy of Central Florida

yesterday:

Three significant clergy meetings were held in our area today (4/12/12) related to the Trayvon Martin case.

The first was at noon at Allen Chapel AME, Valerie Houston, Pastor. She was one of the preachers at the Good Friday clergy prayer gathering.

Many are referring to that church as “ground zero church” because that is where the initial public outcry began.

At this meeting the state special prosecutor, Angela Corey, and the newly assigned prosecuting attorney, and the Federal Justice Department community relations person, Mr. Battles, all presented and opened up for discussion with about 30 local pastors mostly from the local black churches. Dr. Raleigh Washington, president of Promise Keepers, was also present.

Corey revealed that she is a member at St. John Episcopal Cathedral in Jacksonville. They were all very open about their faith and called on the pastors to lead in the community and become the voice of the community rather than allow unauthorized spokespersons who may not represent the community well.

They spoke about the importance of patience, their passion for the victims of crimes and the need for justice for Mr. Martin and due process for Mr. Zimmerman. They asked for our prayers for ALL involved.

The second meeting was with Raleigh Washington and the black ministers of Sanford. I did not attend that meeting.

The third meeting at Charisma Media (formerly Strang Communications) in Lake Mary was very well attended, probably about 100 pastors and church leaders, 20 or so from Sanford. Some, but by no means all, of the black clergy that were at the other two meetings came to this as well.

Dr. Washington spoke from 2 Corinthians 5 about the need for the church to seize this opportunity to bring the ministry of radical reconciliation as ambassadors of Christ. He was great actually! Lots of other folks spoke and shared thoughts. One of the significant words came from Joel Hunter, Northland, that a leader from Sanford needed to be raised up.

Toward the end of the meeting a young black minister, Rev. Derek Gay, felt the call. He has been connected with some of the key meetings with leaders in the city and the Martin’s particularly the one about whether to release the 911 tapes. In a very moving moment Sam Hinn, pastor of the Gathering Place and yes Benny’s brother, knelt and committed to being Rev. Gay’s, Aaron. Then all of the other ministers from Sanford in the room stood with young Rev. Gay and pledged support and action.

Raleigh Washington sealed the moment in prayer as a divine commission and work. We all committed to stepping up and being the leaders for such a time as this.

Many spoke of the possibility that national renewal and revival might begin with Sanford Florida if the church will repent, pray and lead toward relationship. Relationship being the key word in Raleigh Washington’s challenge. It was also recognized by several that any renewal must have at its heart (and even must begin with) the youth.

Tomorrow there will be a press conference on the steps of Holy Cross Episcopal Church at 10 am. The entire event at Charisma Media was filmed. Reported Here and full press conference.

Personally, I believe the Lord is going to use this tragic moment to bring our community together in some very good and profound ways. He will be glorified in this, we have seen it. Certainly there is lots to pray about. Please pray for Sanford and the Lord’s leading and protection of the people of our community.

Charlie Holt

Posted on

What shall I say about the Trayvon Martin shooting?

My daughter’s school bus passed by the apartments where Trayvon Martin was killed. She observed a crowd gathered with signs, she saw the flowers, pictures and crosses left at the gate. Later that day she asked me, “Is that for that boy, Trayvon, who was shot?”  As a local pastor, I asked myself whether I should get involved in the situation.  There is a side of me that wants to stay out of it.  But with my daughter’s question, it hit home. God has placed me in this community to be a witness to the Gospel.

When contemplating his looming death on the cross, Jesus faced the choice of whether to get involved in the mess of human sin and struggle when he asks, “What shall I say, Father save me from this hour? No, it was for this very reason that I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!” (John 12:27-28) Jesus could have remained uninvolved, but that is not what he came to do. Like him, we have a choice. What shall we say “Father save us from this mess, or is it for this very moment that we are called to be a light for Jesus in the very midst of community’s pain and struggle?

This morning, I participated in a Good Friday prayer service with over 60 Christian clergy from various denominational, racial and ethnic backgrounds to pray for the whole situation and our Sanford community.  Earlier in the week, I had sent an encouragement to other church leaders to attend the gathering and I received this criticism: “I am appalled that you would hijack this precious day [Good Friday] on behalf of a political, pandering and sad episode in our community.”

The “sad episode” certainly has been hijacked by political opportunists. When I see how the case is being handled and miss-handled in the media and by some national personalities and groups, I too get cynical. When I hear the commentary breaking along the same old political divisions, liberal and conservative, Republicans and Democrats, black and white, I cannot help to agree that there are those who are using a tragedy in our community as an opportunity to pander to a political agenda.  I think to myself, “What a mess! Satan is having a field day with all of this and with us.”

But does not this day, Good Friday, of ALL days speak into this sad, angry and tragic mess?

All of the worst aspects of human existence were present on the day Jesus was crucified: the mob “justice”, vigilantes, corruption in the governing authorities, political and financial opportunism, leaders “washing their hands” of responsibility, twisted media coverage, denials of truth, false witnesses, racial prejudice, criminals going free, wrongful prosecutions, the crucifixion of the King of kings. Yet it was God’s design to take the mess, the tragedy and the ugliness of our human sin and use it to bring redemption and salvation to the whole world.

“Jesus said, ’Now the prince of this world will be driven out. But when I am lifted up on the earth I will draw all men to myself.’ He said this to indicate the kind of death he was to die.” (John 12:31-33) In being lifted up on the cross, Jesus puts an end to Satan’s dividing and destroying of the people of God.

The occasion of Trayvon Martin’s tragic death can merely be an opportunity for the evil one to destroy our relationships and our community. But, the Lord would have us see it as an opportunity for the Gospel of Jesus Christ to shine. As Jesus is lifted on the Cross, people are redeemed, restored and drawn together. We, the people of the cross, are called to be the salt and light of our neighborhoods. We cannot accomplish that role if we hide the light of the Gospel in the moment when it is needed most. The cross is God’s answer to all human struggle and tragedy. He made the sad episode, a precious Good Friday. He will do the same in our day, if we will follow him in his way. Jesus is the redeemer of sinners and the lover of our souls.

Posted on

A call for prayer and thoughtfulness in the Trayvon Martin situation

I would like to ask your prayers for our Sanford/ Lake Mary community. Many of us have been watching and reading the media coverage of the shooting of Trayvon Martin. It is a needless tragedy and a bad situation from the start which appears to have been poorly handled. Our prayers need to go out to the Martin family in their grief over the loss of their young son. We also need to pray for George Zimmerman.  Again, please pray for our neighbors and fellow parishioners, the people of Sanford.

The presence of national personalities within our community assures a national media circus. Unfortunately, both the media and the various national personalities often feed on incidents like this to promote themselves. Bad press sells.  We are likely to bear their presence for some time.

Although such media attention can cause a certain jadedness just coming off the Casey Anthony saga, we must remain mindful that real people are involved and that these are our neighbors. We need to see this occasion as an opportunity to show a more excellent way, the way of truth and love—may our better angels reveal themselves. Guard your hearts and your tongues, be thoughtful, charitable and mindful of God’s presence in your actions and speech. Prayerfully examine your prejudices and your judgments by putting yourself in the other’s shoes.  Pray that justice and peace will prevail as the governing authorities discern the correct response.

As we approach Palm Sunday and Holy Week, we must be mindful of the larger context of human sin and failings and God’s mighty acts to redeem us. It was by a perversion of justice that our Lord was crucified for our transgressions. All of the worst aspects of human existence were present that Holy Week: the mob “justice”, the vigilantes, corrupt policing, political opportunism, twisted media coverage, denial of truth, false witnesses and injustice, criminals going free, wrongful prosecutions, the crucifixion of the rightful King. Yet it was God’s design to take the mess and ugliness of our human condition and use it to bring redemption and salvation to the world. He made the day of the Cross, a Good Friday. He is the redeemer of sinners and the lover of souls.

Below my signature is a thoughtful and informative letter from Fr. Rory Harris, the rector of Holy Cross Sanford which was shared with the diocesan leadership today.

I am faithfully yours in Christ Jesus our Lord,

Charlie Holt+, Rector, St. Peter’s Lake Mary

 

From: Rory Harris

Date: Thursday, March 22, 2012 1:26 PM

Subject: Trayvon Martin Rallies

“Justice should be blind, but is never deaf or unable to speak” Fr. Rory HB Harris +

Several of our diocesan clergy have expressed concern and interest in the emerging Trayvon Martin death and shooting that has engendered a call for justice across our nation.

Please pray for the City and community of Sanford as we attempt to seek justice while maintaining a peace that honors this young man’s life, and moves our community to wholeness and healing.

There are two rallies planned for those who want to express their concerns over how the matter of Trayvon Martin has been handled after his shooting death by George Zimmerman on February 26th.

Tonight, March 22nd, Thursday at 7 p.m. the Rev. Al Sharpton, whose mother died this morning (R.I.P.) will conduct a rally at the Fort Mellon Park on East 1st Street (Rte. 46) with some 2,000 to 20,000 expected to attend. There is some concern that this rally may get out of hand (a word of caution). The rally was originally scheduled to be at the Shiloh Baptist Church on Elm Street but has just recently been moved to Fort Mellon Park.

The main rally will be on Monday, March 26th at 4 p.m. at the Sanford Civic Center off Commerce Street and Sanford Avenue – 1 block north of 1st Street – Rte. 46. The Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson are expected to lead the rally prior to the City of Sanford’s City Commissioner meeting at 5 p.m. I plan to attend this rally as a member of the Sanford Ministers Fellowship, and as Vice Chair of Seminole Action Coalition Serving Our Needy (S.A.C.S.O.N.), a faith based community working on issues surrounding homelessness and the needy.

I will have part of our parish parking lot allotted for parking for Monday’s rally. Our lot is at 4th Street and South Park Avenue (400).

This issue has become a national issue over the conduct of Sanford’s police department in not arresting George Zimmerman who was the Home Owners’ Association head, who apparently stalked Trayvon Martin after being told by a 911 operator not to follow him, that the police were being dispatched and would handle this.

Zimmerman continued to follow Martin who was entering the gated apartment complex where he was staying with his father and his father’s fiance. He had just come back from a 7-11 with a box of Skittles and a soda, when Zimmerman started following him in his truck and eventually got out of his truck and ostensibly forced a confrontation that led to Zimmerman feeling threatened for his life and shooting and killing the 17 year old Trayvon Martin (this is Zimmerman’s side of the story).

Since the incident on Feb. 26th, the Police Department released the 911 call from Zimmerman which shows he was asked not to follow Trayvon Martin, and his family obtained records which clearly show that Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend back in Miami (where his mother lives) and that he was afraid that someone was following him, and was advised by his girlfriend to run away.

The issues surrounding this tragic event relate to the actions of the Sanford Police who arrived on the scene after the shooting. The officers did not arrest or take Zimmerman into custody, nor did they confiscate his weapon (a Kel Tec 9 mm semi-automatic handgun), nor test Zimmerman for alcohol or blood test for drugs, nor run a back ground check on his criminal record. They took his story that he was attacked from behind and defended himself, carrying a gun under the Florida “Stand Your Ground” law. The police did check Trayvon Martin’s blood and alcohol content, but did not go door-to-door to ask if a teenager resident was missing!

The initial police report does not show that Zimmerman had a bloodied nose, or wet T-Shirt from a wrestling struggle with Martin, those were disclosed in a second police report a day later.

The City of Sanford City Commissioners voted a “no confidence” vote against Police Chief Bill Lee last night by a 3 to 2 vote. Mayor Jeff Triplett voted “no confidence” as did Commissioners Velma Williams (our African American Commissioner) and Mike McCarty who initiated the motion, and has been asking the Police Chief to resign because he didn’t feel the Chief was arresting enough panhandlers and homeless persons. (Politics makes strange bedfellows, as Mayor Triplett and Velma WIlliams have been working positively on the studied panhandling ordinance and homeless issues after Sanford was featured on two episodes of 60 Minutes concerning having two-thirds of the homeless population in Seminole County).

The continuance, suspension or firing of the Chief of Police, Bill Lee is entirely in the hands of City Manager, Norman Bonaparte, Jr. who has called for a Inquiry of the Sanford Police Department before making his decision.

Personally, I feel that Police Chief Bill Lee has been a good chief for Sanford.

He is a compassionate man who I serve with on the City’s Task Force on Homelessness. I do feel, however, that his thoroughness in investigating this matter and lack of timely release of information (“communication” issue cited by Mayor Triplett), the non-arrest of Zimmerman, and a history within Sanford’s Police Department of giving latitude to those connected to the police department have led us to a “no confidence” situation with Chief Lee.

I ask your prayers for the City of Sanford, which was feeling very positive and proactive about itself and its steps to address the homelessness issue through a Transformation Center before this incident erupted. I ask your prayers for the Martin family, the Zimmermans, the Lee family and our community — all caught up in a very human tragedy.

In Christ’s love and service,

Fr. Rory Harris +

Rector of Holy Cross Episcopal Church

The Mother Church of the Diocese of Central Florida