There is so much in the Bible that is NOT clear and NOT consistent. Our modern world poses some situations and problems that are not directly addressed by scripture. What then? Anyone who wants to eliminate true scholarship ought to suggest a real alternative. The same challenge goes to anyone who hides behind the skirts of another’s words.

“The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.”

In other word Caleb, as per you The Bible is not word of God, though you say in every Sunday service as word of God. I know, you are a scholar not only on corporate law but also on Christian theology with academic degree and have no difficulties understanding “The Parable of the Wedding Banquet” found in Matthew 22, 1-14 as well as Luke 14: 15-23 and its same morale “many are invited but few are chosen”. You also know as an experienced Episcopalian/Anglican the wedding dress means state of the mind set required for Holy God’s kingdom as it requires appropriate dress for a wedding banquette in our culture today. God’s kingdom is not an event of sport like “dress as you like”, that any mind sets are welcome to fill up room in heaven. I believe, you are cheating yourself denying roll of Holy Spirit helping in composing ministerial accounts of Christ and other biblical books through different authors. I could agree with you in disagree with interpretation of spiritual dress code but not with the roll of Holy Spirit as a Christian. With this denial you are ultimately denying Holy Trinity. Are you going to do that as an Episcopalian?

And, there are two versions of the story. You quote Matthew 22, but the story is also told in Luke 14, where it is significantly different; for example, in Luke, there is no incident of an improperly clad guest being thrown into the darkness. I suspect that the difference comes from the fact that the gospel of Matthew tends to go out of its way to promote a church, as opposed to the fluid movement that comes through in the earlier Gospel of Mark.

So, what I take from this is that the story was part of the so-called “Q” source, or the synoptic sayings source, and was modified from its original in either Matthew or Luke or both. Given the pattern of the modification of the “Q” Source in Matthew, I suspect this reading of the parable was inserted to strengthen the idea, which has caused so much trouble, that one has to tow the line and follow all rules set by a ruling authority. After all, this appears in the same chapter (in Matthew) as Jesus’ famous entreaty to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. This is hardly a progressive or revolutionary document, and I suspect, one written well after the church began to be both institutionalized and the state church of the Roman Empire.

You’re right, Julian, that this parable is the answer to my question, because it shows, in comparison with its brother parable in Luke, that the Bible is a political document written to further particular points of view, and this is one of those views. If you’re basing an idea that it’s okay for US to exclude people from the church based on this parable, I think you’re building your house on the sand, to quote another parable.

Has it ever occurred to you that Jesus might actually want us to include everyone in his church, and that your brand of divisiveness is keeping people from God? I mean, I know it’s easier to spout a bunch of canned drivel than it is to think, but try thinking just for a minute to see if you like it.

Caleb, Your statement is not always right. To some extend it is true, for example when Christ was on trial and later crucified no body was at His side except some women who cried from distance. But later Christ was glorified thru resurrection by God. Problem is Episcopal Church gradually drifting away from the original biblical teaching. Not only they disregarded commandments of holy and equal respect for man and women with distinct tasks, based on their natural physical and spiritual strength, they even had gone further by putting doubt on God’s profound love for humanity for which He gave His only begotten Son for our salvation and eternal life. “Grass eater” (sheep) walk out when they do not hear their master’s (Jesus) voice from the Church He built and find no spiritual food. During this lent, let us hear voice of our Master from the Bible. Where else can we go to hear the voice of our Master other than the Holy Bible?

>>>>>>Second, why do you support women’s ordination?
(Answer: to please the public.)<<<<<<

No again. I support the ordination of women for the same reason I support the ordination of gays and lesbians: Because it's right. Back in the '70s, when the ordination of women was a big deal, we had two bishops in succession in Lexington, Bishops Moody and Hosea, who steadfastly refused to ordain women. I participated in the first ordination of a woman priest in Lexington, and I assure you, that pleased no one in the public.

Let’s try that again:

>>>>First, why do you support the ill-conceived liturgical changes of the last fifty years
(Answer: to please the public.)

Nope. I don’t necessarily support these changes, but I do accept them. I liked the old prayer book better, but have grown used to the new one. Unlike, say those in the Old Prayer Book Society, or at St. Hubert’s church in Lexington, I don’t make a big deal of it. The powers that be, not me, determine the prayer book.

<<<<<>>>>>Second, why do you support women’s ordination?
(Answer: to please the public.)<<<<<>>>>Finally, why are you so hip to the jive of contemporary church music?
(Answer: to please the public.)<<<<<<<<<<

My answer to that one came through.

Let’s let ME answer the questions, and then we’ll see what you think:

>>>>First, why do you support the ill-conceived liturgical changes of the last fifty years
(Answer: to please the public.)<<<<<<>>>>>>Second, why do you support women’s ordination?
(Answer: to please the public.)<<<<<<>>>>>Finally, why are you so hip to the jive of contemporary church music?
(Answer: to please the public.)<<<<<<<<<<

Dr. Newark, are you truly stark raving mad? When did I ever ever ever in my life say I liked contemporary church music? If you look at every post on this entire blog that refers to contemporary music, you'll find that either I say that I've never heard of the artist/song/worship music involved, or I sniff and say that I don't require worship leaders, worship music, or people jumping up and down to worship. I can assure you that contemporary music of any form has never sullied the church services at my parish, though they may play some of it at youth meetings and the like.

One thing is certain, Dr. Newark, and that is that if I cared ONE WHIT about what the public thinks about religion, one denomination I would steer clear of would be the Episcopal Church, which isn't on anyone's short list of organizations beloved by the public. Those who don't think of us as inbred old money elitists wearing tweed at the spring meet at Keeneland and Madras plaid in the fall think of us as gay-loving family-hating fetus-killing heretics who are out to ruin the last bastion of orthodox protestantism left in the world. Either way, Dr. Newark, I don't know of much reason to think that being an Episcopalian at all pleases the public.

All I can say, Dr. Newark, is that, right or wrong, I go by what I think is right, based on my feeble understanding of church doctrine, history, and the Bible, and if I'm wrong, so be it, but one thing is certain: If I'm wrong, I'm wrong all by myself. I'm not saying this stuff to please anybody, and most of what I say doesn't please anybody.

What I don't do, Dr. Newark, is grind my private axes in public. The subject of this post had nothing to do with the Diocese of Newark, and yet you include your standard attack on it at the end of your post. I don't know what happened between you and the Diocese of Newark, and it's none of my business. But whatever it was, I had nothing to do with it, nor did anyone else on this blog. If you have a grievance against the Diocese of Newark, that's between you and it, and I have no knowledge sufficient to form an opinion concerning it. If you're just lashing out, you're lashing out at the wrong guy.

First, why do you support the ill-conceived liturgical changes of the last fifty years
(Answer: to please the public.)

Second, why do you support women’s ordination?
(Answer: to please the public.)

Finally, why are you so hip to the jive of contemporary church music?
(Answer: to please the public.)

Obviously, you would rather be president than right. And you are neither, in fact.

Down with the Diocese of Newark, and all of its diabolical works, and all of its empty promises.

You had to go there, didn’t you, perp? Confluting is not a nice Latin word, because it’s not a word at all. Perhaps you meant conflating, which is a nice word of Latin origin. Conflating is derived from the nice Latin word, conflare, which means “to blow (or melt) together.” Spell check, man, or dictionary.com. Both are working in tandem to make impeccable spelling and proper diction a relic of the past.

On another note, about these church statistics, [From German Statistik, political science, from New Latin statisticus, of state affairs, from Italian statista, person skilled in statecraft, from stato, state, from Old Italian, from Latin status, position, form of government; see stā- in Indo-European roots.], the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life has put out their numbers. My fellow atheists are holding strong at 1.6%! Way to go, team! I knew we could do it!

–Henry Clay

I’d rather be right, and be doing what God wants us to do, than please the public. If the grass eaters are running in the other direction, I figure we’re probably on the right track.