Posted on 01/02/2007 6:42:23 PM PST by sionnsar
For those of you watching or listening, I hope you caught the symbolically terribly significant occurrence right before the sermon in the National Cathedral started, when Robert Certain read the gospel. According to the Prayer Book, the appointed gospel chosen was John 14:1-6 (page 480).
Here is the RSV version of this passage (NOT the translation read at the service):
1: “Let not your hearts be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me.
2: In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?
3: And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.
4: And you know the way where I am going.”
5: Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?”
6: Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.”
What, you ask, was the symbolically terribly significant occurrence? Mr. Certain left out the second half of verse 6, which is against both the way the text of Scripture is written and against the gospel text as laid out in the Book of Common Prayer. Verse 6 does not end half way through, and this seems to be another gesture of a church that cannot deal with Holy Scripture on its own terms.
"No one comes to the Father, but by Me."
Why would anyone who's not Christian care? They don't believe in God the Father. Some Jewish people could use "Father" for God, I suppose ... but if they were going to take offense, wouldn't they already be put off by Jesus' claiming to be "the Way, the Truth, and the Life"?
Excellent thought...
Let's be an exclusive little liturgy club....
Especially when a grieving family is seeking solace and comfort in Christ, for their loss...
...And most of the nation is paying attention with a compassionate heart --
(i.e. Many hearts open to the message of God's mercy and love).
All the while we try to preach THE Gospel that is intended to be inclusive to all peoples, nations, tongues, and kings...
If they won't do it our preferred little perfect way....
Let's lock them out...
... Let them burn -- good riddance...
Brilliant strategy...
Sorry I didn't think of it sooner...
Quote: "In presiding over funeral services... Pastors are regularly committed to carefully following the instructions left by the deceased (will) or specifically requested by the widow/family in the conduct of the services."
Having done hundreds of funerals, I can tell you that a Christian pastor is obligated to follow the Scriptures--not the whims of the family. If a person has shared in advance with me his/her funeral plans I will point out any theological problems with those plans. If we can't reach agreement, they have the option of having someone else do the funeral (at someone else's church).
The funeral is a worship service, not a tribute to the deceased, or a forum for political or social views. In the funeral service we are to praise Christ for his sacrificial death and his glorious resurrection which ensures the salvation and resurrection of the deceased who has died in the faith.
Quote: "On the other hand, there is no versification in the original languages. Verse 6 happened to end wherever Robert Estienne in his 1551 edition of the Greek New testament put it."
Yes, there are some problems with his work, but in this case his versification makes sense (both in Greek and in English). Verse 6b naturally follows 6a.
I noticed the same thing. I rejoiced, as Paul does in Philippians, that the gospel was read, but Mr. Certain's homily left MUCH to be desired.
Thanks for your response --
I am sure your very high standards are worthy of praise and the Lord's favor...
And I am sure that if serious theological issues were raised -- or political correctness began to overtake the impetus of the funeral service -- most pastors would follow the wisdom of your lead...
However a couple of questions are begged by your thoughts...
Help me understand...
(1) Would you have refused the Ford family -- if the former President's explicit instructions for reading of the Scriptures ended at verse 6a?
(2) At what point does the form of the ceremony and/or liturgical accuracy of the recitation override the value of fostering the relationships established in the open-hearted trust of the living family members --such moments that regularly prove to be very ripe opportunities to lead them to the cross... or bless their ongoing journey in the faith Christ?
A little compassionate flexibility within the bounds of conscience and the leadership of the Holy Spirit... seems but a small accomodation to personally and directly influence several/many lives in favor of the Gospel.
Thanks for your time...
Blessings...
when a grieving family is seeking solace and comfort in Christ,
No, if they wanted comfort in Christ, they should use Christian scriptures.
Don't know any code words....
Liberals don't usually like me very much...
Neither do Pharisees....
No, if they wanted comfort in Christ, they should use Christian scriptures.
Soooo... Does the comfort of Christ's love come from the precision of the words on the page... or is it resourced in the pro-active ministry of the Holy Spirit flowing in concert with the Biblical declaration of God's mercy -- Through those who serve him in favor of the bereaved...??
So which is it...
The original intent of the Gospel...
-- From Abraham's covenant...
Through the fulfillment of the New Covenant...
To the completion of the Great Commission??
Exclusive.... or Inclusive??
Don't you think John 14:6a is a wonderful "I AM" proclamation of the Deity of Jesus Christ?
>> I read the new creed of the Catholic church in Holland. <<
Citation? This is a very serious allegation, since the individual nations' bishops do not have authority to in any way tamper with the creed.
Using a dead, white, liberal architect of the Big Government wing of the Republican Party... The left has been trying to deify government since Hegel.
In any case, Rev. Certain read the entire verse today with no omissions, in the service that just ended in Grand Rapids. Perhaps the Cathedral made him nervous?
>> I heard this also and at the time I thought that possibly they did not want to appear to be proselytizing at a funeral the way we Baptists do. Many think that it is crass to proselytize at a funeral and it would seem even more so since the service was televised. <<
No slack! Funerals are a time to remind people of the gospel. If the gospel is too inconvenient for Big Government's self-deification, than maybe such people don't belong in a church. A funeral is a time to witness the deceased's faith, not a time to distort it through half-truths!
Perhaps officiating at a funeral that was being broadcast live around the world for millions of people made him nervous?
>> Especially when a grieving family is seeking solace and comfort in Christ, for their loss... <<
There is no comfort in a lie. The comfort of a funeral is the surety of salvation offered in a sacrament. Nullify the sacrament, nullify the point.
>> Let's be an exclusive little liturgy club.. <<
When no distinction is made between being an a club and being out of it, no-one will be in the club. It's not an issue of exclusivity; anyone is invited to believe, but membership means believing.
They did. Leaving off the end of a verse--which, based on the same minister's presentation at Grand Rapids today, may have been unintentional--is not the same as not using Christian scriptures.
>> Does the comfort of Christ's love come from the precision of the words on the page. <<
No, it comes from the truth. And when the pastor omits the key of the gospel, and then presents a homily antithetical to the gospel, that is not love, that is an assault on the truth. Love seeks the salvation of souls, not the imposition of one's own self-glorification.
I;m guessing the "bluishness" of DC, and the opportunity to shine his own light made him nervous.
In other words, given the opportunity to assume that he simply made a mistake (the charitable assumption) or that he did it on purpose (the uncharitable assumption), you opt for the uncharitable response--in perfect Christian humility and charity, of course.
I've never seen a priest simply "forget" to finish a sentence.
However...
We have found ourselves in the midst of the Sanhedrin, methinks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.