The Fraud of Kwanzaa

Christmas and Hannukah both have a wealth of wonderful history behind them.  Kwanzaa?  Not so much.  With the warning that the history behind Kwanzaa is unpleasant, read for yourself.

When I first heard of Kwanzaa, I almost immediately suspected it was a racist, Leftist attempt to distract from Christmas.  I’ve since seen nothing to show me that my first suspicion was not right on target.

New Bishop of London: “Safeguarding is at the heart of the Gospel.”

No, it’s not. 

In fact, the most cursory knowledge of history and of current events informs that believing and preaching the Gospel of Christ is a good way to get killed or at least blackballed.  Anyone who preaches the Gospel and insists on the orthodox preaching of the Gospel by church clergy has a snowballs chance of becoming a bishop in today’s Church of England, token flying bishops excepted.

Now it probably won’t get you killed in England.  But try preaching the Gospel openly in the streets in Muslim countries and see what happens.  I don’t advise it actually.  I wouldn't try it in Muslim neighborhoods in England now that I think about it.

To be fair, Sarah Mullally was referring to churches safeguarding the young and vulnerable from abuse.  Certainly, churches have important roles to play in that regard.  But is safeguarding “at the heart of the Gospel”?

No.

The Rapid and Open Development of Christology – Ignatius

A myth pushed by popular and once prestigious media is that orthodox church teaching on Christ is practically an invention of Constantine and some shadowy Magisterium.  Such revision of history transforms the Council of Nicaea into an incense-filled room more intent on suppressing the truth or inventing truth than in guarding it and propagating it.

Yet the truth of the matter is that church teaching on Christology developed rapidly long before Nicaea and the rest of the ecumenical councils.  Really this development began with the risen Christ teaching the Apostles about himself from the scriptures before the Ascension.  And the Christological teaching of the Apostles and their successors wasn’t done in the shadows but in the churches and even at times in the streets.  That is clear not only from the New Testament but also from writings of the Apostolic and later Fathers.  In letters and sermons read and preached to congregations, we can see that catholic Christology developed rapidly and openly.

Thus began the Patristics paper I completed this autumn.  With Christmas nearing, we will be sure to see more rubbish that God becoming man – that baby in the manger being God Incarnate – was not a marvelous loving act of God but an invention of the later church.  So now is a good time to note that the church got it right very early: that baby was both God and man, the Christ.

Perhaps the best source on that in the generation after the apostles and the writing of what became the New Testament is St. Ignatius.  As he was being led on his long trip to the lions and martyrdom early in the 2^nd Century, he wrote a number of letters to churches, of which we have six.  Impending death can aid candor, and that seemed to be the case with Ignatius.  Among the subjects about which he was very frank was the deity and manhood of Christ.  Note that the six letters addressed whole congregations, not just church leaders.

From my paper:

John’s Gospel was the most clear and developed of the four in proclaiming the deity of Christ.  His pupil Ignatius is even more straightforward.  To the Ephesians, he repeatedly calls Jesus “our God” and even writes that it is “God’s blood” that saves them and stirs them to sanctification.  He also calls Jesus “our God” when writing the church at Rome, and in begging the Romans not to intervene to prevent his martyrdom he asks, “Let me imitate the Passion of my God.”  To the Smyrnaeans, he praises “Jesus Christ, the God who has granted you such wisdom” and later calls him “the Christ God.”

         At the same time, he assertively teaches the other side of the Incarnation – the humanity of Christ.  He did not give room to those who diminish either the deity or humanity of Christ and was especially eloquent in teaching both sides of the Incarnation to the Ephesian church:

There is only one physician – of flesh yet spiritual, born yet unbegotten, God incarnate, genuine life in the midst of death, sprung from Mary as well as God, first subject to suffering then beyond it – Jesus Christ our Lord. [7]

The heresy of Docetism, that taught that Jesus only seemed to be a man, goaded Ignatius to be every bit as adamant about the manhood of Christ as he was about the deity of Christ. To the Trallians, he wrote that Jesus “was really born, ate, and drank; was really persecuted under Pontius Pilate; was really crucified and died, . . . was really raised from the dead . . . apart from whom we have no genuine life.”

Thus just a decade or two after the death of the last Apostle, St. John, Ignatius got it that Jesus Christ was completely God from eternity and completely man from his conception and birth.

And that is the theme of Christmas, is it not?  That babe in the manger was Very God of Very God and “the Word made flesh” for us and for our salvation.  If one was blessed enough to attend a Christ-mass celebrated by a church father, one likely to hear this, the Incarnation, preached.

----

It just so happens that Augustine’s preaching of the Incarnation on Christmas Day will be the subject of a talk I will give on St. John’s Day, December 27^th in Texas.  Get ahold of me if you want more details.

History Someone Wants You to Forget: Franken Stole His 2008 Election

I’ve noticed lately that the Left and the news media (But I repeat myself.) do not want us to remember the most basic history about certain matters.  I may wax vehement on that someday.  Instead, I will simply note that in media coverage of Al Franken’s expected resignation today from the Senate, I cannot recall seeing one reference to his controversial first election to that august body back in 2008.

And “controversial” is putting it nicely.  Franken and friends stole that election as my mutant twin covered back then and notes again today.

That Franken stole his first Senate election is surely an important part of his background, is it not?  But I guess the Democrats behind that theft want us to forget that theft. No stolen DemocRAT election to see here!  And you’re a kook if you think otherwise! Instead blame the voters of Minnesota . . . . when the legitimate non-felon voters of Minnesota narrowly elected Franken’s opponent, incumbent Senator Coleman.

Elections have consequences.  Stolen elections have worse consequences. We should not forget that even if some would rather we would forget.

DemocRAT Fake News Media are Scum, too.

No sooner do I point out that there is a correlation, though imperfect, between politics and morality, that the DemocRAT [s]news[/s] fake news propaganda media buttresses my point.  NBC Today anchor Matt Lauer has suddenly been fired for “inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace.”  And it is coming out that Charlie Rose is only the start of scandal at CBS.

Oh, and Cokie Roberts let it slip that the DemocRAT “news” media have been covering up DemocRAT sexual misconduct in Congress for years. Of course.

Again, are there Democrats who are decent people out there? Yes.  I have at least one or two as friends.  Are most Democrats in politics and the fake news media (But I repeat myself.) untrustworthy, dishonest, corrupt, and often even predatory?  Well, the truth is coming out, is it not?

A Correlation Between Politics and Morality?

I remember, decades ago, a Christian Right group put out an election guide with the stands of various candidates. It was labeled a “Morality Scorecard” or the like.  I apologize that I cannot remember more details nor find them via internet search.  (Those search engines can be close to useless when it comes to obscure details of history.)  If anyone remembers or finds more, feel free to comment.  I also apologize and warn that I will be speaking in generalities here.

With those caveats, what I do remember is that the group in question was excoriated for implying that one’s votes and political stands are a good measure of morality.  How dare they say politicians who vote wrong somehow are immoral! How dare they say that there is a correlation between one’s politics and one’s morality!

Well, although the group may have been a bit crude in the way they stated there is such a correlation, recent events seem to be proving them right in more ways than one.  It is hard to miss that the recent sexual harassment scandals blowing up here in the U. S. overwhelmingly involve Democrats - Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, John Conyers, Al Green, etc.

I can hear the reflex rebuttals now.  “What about Republicans like Roy Moore?”  If there were as many Republicans who mistreated women so blatantly, the Democrat News Media would surely be trotting them out and fast.  As for Roy Moore, the allegations against him smell increasingly like a pre-election dirty trick that is getting more debunked by the day.  But trust me, I think a lot of Republicans are scum, too.

And, to anticipate another question, the correlation I see is general not specific.  In other words, there are Leftist Democrats who are otherwise good people, and there are conservative Republican who are stinkers.  Heck, I once engaged in political combat against a few of them.

But to think there is no correlation between morality in public life and morality in private life is fantasy.  Someone who attacks freedom of speech, the right to life, basic property rights, the Constitutional rule of law, the right to defend oneself, traditional Christian values etc., etc. is probably going to be a sticker in private as well.

And now that stink is suddenly getting out and becoming public as well.

The Current State of American Catholic Universities

No, this won’t be a long essay.  Anne Hendershott has already written one for us, and it is excellent, the best overview of Catholic higher education today in the United States I’ve come across.  It includes some interesting if distressing history as well.

(History often is distressing, is it not?  I wonder what that says about us who have a compulsion to study it.)

Yes, I do use the word “Catholic” loosely.  I can be creative in choosing words to describe, say, Georgetown, but “Catholic” is rarely one of them.  “Jesuit” maybe.

As Hendershott writes, there are rays of hope; there are exceptional genuinely Catholic universities out there.  But the larger ones have invariably taken the “Catholic” and the “education” for that matter out of Catholic higher education.

----

Personal Note:

Speaking of higher education, I have completed my Patristics course.  So I may torment you more often for a couple months or so.

You might be a babykiller if . . .

Back in the 70’s I remember pro-lifers often called pro-abortionists “babykillers.”  Because of fears that was rubbing potential allies the wrong way, that term became more rare in the early 80’s.

But I am less concerned with rubbing people the wrong way and more concerned with reality checks, which brings me to House passage of a bill to virtually outlaw abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

Now, for those who are math or biology impaired, 20 weeks is five months (or just under five 30 day months) and more than halfway through a typical pregnancy.  The child is very well formed by then; you have a very recognizable baby that simply needs to grow a bit before saying, “Hello, world.”

And most of the world’s abortion laws recognize that and outlaw abortions after 20 weeks.  So this is a common sense reform all reasonable people can support….

But then there are Democrats.  Most Senate Democrats are expected to filibuster this bill.  To which I say you might be a babykiller if . . . you oppose efforts to protect unborn children after 20 weeks of gestation.

Really, if Democrats block this bill, the mask is off, is it not?

Back to Studies

I have been sorely tempted to post on a number of items the past few days.  But I’m in the midst of stepping up my studies in hope of completing a Patristics course by Thanksgiving.  That is a big ask but I’m going to do my best to finish by then anyway.  And I can hardly have a decent history blog without studying history!

Therefore I will become even more selective in my blog posting well into November at least.

Apple Feeds Hate

Combating hate is a laudable goal.  Although I will say combating the nutcases of the KKK and neo-Nazis while giving the far more dangerous Antifa and BLM a pass is like going after piss ants in your yard while ignoring skunks living under your house. (I’ve experienced that.  It was not pleasant.)

But the way to combat hate is not to feed hate.  Yet that is exactly what Apple and its CEO Tim Cook have done in contributing to the Southern Poverty Law Center.  For SPLC is itself a hate group, using that old trick of lumping traditional conservatives, such as the Alliance Defending Freedom and even David Barton, for goodness’ sake, in with Nazis, the KKK and the like.

Apple’s contribution perpetuates a double standard that has become even more rampant in recent days – hate from the “Right” is horrible; hate from the Left is not an issue or even praiseworthy, and if you condemn hate from both sides, you’re practically a Nazi.  And that double standard, too, feeds hate.

Post-Charlottesville, The Double Standard Continues

After the awful events in Charlottesville, there has been an odd, but familiar phenomenon.  There are the rightful denunciations of the Nazis, KKK, etc.  But if someone even asks the denouncers if they have ever also denounced Antifa and Black Lives Matters, two groups who also have demonstrated racism and political violence, then even that question gets denounced.  Those who denounce both the Nazi types and Antifa and BLM, and who denounce double standards also get very similar treatment.  I’ve seen this sorry exercise even on the Facebook group page of the Anglican Church of North America, which is shameful.

This is an in-your-face example of a big double standard that has poisoned politics and the study of history since World War 2.  While the atrocities of the “Right”* are emphasized, the atrocities of the Left are downplayed or ignored, even if those atrocities are of a much greater scale.  The History Channel once was dubbed the Hitler Channel because of the frequency of its emphasis on Nazism and its atrocities. And certainly we should “never forget.”  But how often does one see documentaries of the atrocities under Lenin and Stalin, who killed millions more than Hitler?

Of course, there is much more to the study of history than the History Channel – thank God – but the phenomenon can be found across academia as well.  And when someone tries to provide some balance and focus on Communist evil, they often get grief for it.  The controversy that surrounded the publication of the Black Book of Communism is one example.

I detest this double standard, which only enables the Leftist New Totalitarians, who are a much greater danger than the KKK, neo-Nazis, and other loons.  If someone has been silent for over a year as Antifa has violently attacked peaceful demonstrators, Trump supporters, free speech, even those who simply wanted to hear a speaker, then his/her display of indignation over white supremacist violence is worth very little to me.

And, yes I will say it, President Trump was right to denounce violence from both sides.  And he was courageous to do so in the face of those who hate truth-telling about the Left.

By the way, these kind of double standards just feed hate.  Denouncing rightist hate while being silent about or even praising Leftist hate throws gasoline on hate.  The double standards must stop.  The political violence from both sides must be denounced and stopped.

---

* I use “right” very loosely here.  Placing, say, Nazis on the right is highly questionable as they are a form of totalitarianism not very different from Communism.

Book Review: The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise

As a student of Western medieval history for over ten years now, the Muslim rule of Spain has been a subject that interested me, but that I had not quite gotten around to in any detail.  So when I heard good things about Dario Fernandez-Morera’s The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise, I decided to read it for myself.

The book is even better than I expected.  D. F. M. well debunks the hoary academic myth that Muslim Spain was a tolerant multi-cultural paradise. But it is the manner in which he does so that most impresses.  He begins his chapters with quotes from those holding the prominent view of the “Andalusian paradise.”  He frequently acknowledges their views, including points on which they are correct.  Also, he thoroughly documents that Christians and Jews in Spain, not only Muslims, were harsh in a number of their laws, restricted contact with each other, and were largely segregated, contributing to the lack of tolerance in Spain.  The Muslims were not the only bad guys, if you will.  So this book is no one-sided polemic.

Instead, this work is thoroughly scholarly.  D. F. M. quotes primary sources so much, it is almost overkill at times.  But he is debunking the dominant academic view of Muslim Spain; his near overkill is necessary.  Further, his notes and long bibliography take over a hundred pages!  The main text only goes to 240 pages – this is not a hard read.  But combined with the notes and bibliography, this is both a good introduction to the subject and an excellent resource for further study.

Sadly, the current state of academia is so averse to truth-telling about Islam and its history, one may have difficulty finding other books on Muslim Spain that are this good.  That makes this already (The publication date was 2016.) that much more a must have on the subject.

A personal note - I was struck while reading that the atrocities of ISIS and other Islamonazi groups are nothing new.  For example, how several medieval Muslim rulers turned executions into outlandish spectacles much like ISIS stood out to me.  These included mass executions that Muslims bragged of.  Trust that bragging is not too strong a word.  Actual history, as opposed to fashionable academic revising of it, and the view of Islam as a benign peaceful religion are not compatible.

But even if one disagrees with me on that observation, any open-minded student of Muslim Spain needs to get The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise.

So Bernie Sanders Thinks Being an Orthodox Christian Is Not Okay

There has been a *cough* remarkable exchange between Senator Bernie Sanders, Socialist from Vermont, and Deputy White House Budget Director nominee Russell Vought.

Sanders: Let me get to this issue that has bothered me and bothered many other people. And that is in the piece that I referred to that you wrote for the publication called Resurgent. You wrote, “Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned.” Do you believe that that statement is Islamophobic?

Vought: Absolutely not, Senator. I’m a Christian, and I believe in a Christian set of principles based on my faith. That post, as I stated in the questionnaire to this committee, was to defend my alma mater, Wheaton College, a Christian school that has a statement of faith that includes the centrality of Jesus Christ for salvation, and . . .

Sanders: I apologize. Forgive me, we just don’t have a lot of time. Do you believe people in the Muslim religion stand condemned? Is that your view?

Vought: Again, Senator, I’m a Christian, and I wrote that piece in accordance with the statement of faith at Wheaton College:

Sanders: I understand that. I don’t know how many Muslims there are in America. Maybe a couple million. Are you suggesting that all those people stand condemned? What about Jews? Do they stand condemned too? Vought: Senator, I’m a Christian . . .

Sanders: I understand you are a Christian! But this country are made of people who are not just — I understand that Christianity is the majority religion, but there are other people of different religions in this country and around the world. In your judgment, do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?

Vought: Thank you for probing on that question. As a Christian, I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect regardless of their religious beliefs. I believe that as a Christian that’s how I should treat all individuals . . .

Sanders: You think your statement that you put into that publication, they do not know God because they rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned, do you think that’s respectful of other religions?

Vought: Senator, I wrote a post based on being a Christian and attending a Christian school that has a statement of faith that speaks clearly in regard to the centrality of Jesus Christ in salvation.

Sanders: I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.

So if one believes Jesus when he said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me,” that is just not acceptable to Bernie.

The push of the Left to marginalize traditional Christians continues.

Tenured Stupidity

I’ve mentioned I’ve pretty much decided not to go for a Masters or a PhD.  Among my reasons are life is short – and at my age, life is that much shorter.  But an additional reason is that degrees from even prestigious universities are becoming more and more worthless.  Take one Dr. Joyce E. Chaplin of Harvard – please.  She recently tweeted this:

The USA, created by int'l community in Treaty of Paris in 1783, betrays int'l community by withdrawing from ‪#parisclimateagreement today

This from someone who is not only tenured at Harvard, but who, as mentioned on her twitter profile, chairs American Studies at Harvard and is the James Duncan Phillips Professor of History.  How impressive!

Now I thought we declared our independence in 1776, then we fought for it.  I thought that was how the U.S.A. was created.  But I am just a bumpkin with a Bachelors from Duke.  I don’t teach History at Haaavard.

Her tweet is just one instance that indicates that the quality of higher education in the West is on a downward spiral.  The value of degrees awarded by Harvard etc. are spiraling downward as well.  So why become an academic drudge and sacrifice a few years of my remaining life to chase more degrees?  I know some have no choice if they are to pursue their chosen careers.  I do have a choice and have made it.

The brilliant and bawdy Ace of Spades blog has more on Dr. Chaplin’s tweet.  Enjoy.

NOTE:

Apologies for the formatting and that I could not embed the tweet.  I’ve mentioned this blog is an experiment.  Maybe I should take this experiment off Blogspot.

God’s Ways are Not Our Ways

Those who have a Christian view of history or who are interested in how Christians view history may find this brief sermon I preached this morning interesting.  Christianity is very much a faith based on history – on how God worked in history in my view.

Whatever your view, enjoy.

-----

“God’s Ways Are Not Our Ways”

This Sunday, we are in the short season of Ascension.  It began Thursday and will end with Pentecost next Sunday.  And – I don’t know about you – but I find it a slightly awkward season.  During this season, we celebrate that Jesus is no longer physically with us.  That’s a rather odd thing to celebrate! No wonder that churches tend not to emphasize Ascension season that much.

Now, of course, the Ascension of our Lord is something to celebrate.  For Jesus, having departed after winning the victory over Satan, sin and death for us, is now at the right hand of the Father in glory.  And there he ever intercedes for us.  Further, Jesus’ departure prepared the way for the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Now I could attempt to go into these glorious aspects of the Ascension.  But Father Ben is better at that than I am, so I will leave it to him to do that next year as he has in years past.

What I do want us briefly to focus on this morning is the reason behind why we may find Ascension season slightly awkward as I do.  And that reason is that God’s ways are not our ways.

Isaiah 55, beginning with verse 6 reads:

           Seek the LORD while he may be found;

                  call upon him while he is near;

7          let the wicked forsake his way,

                  and the unrighteous man his thoughts;

         let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him,

                  and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

8          For my thoughts are not your thoughts,

                  neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.

9          For as the heavens are higher than the earth,

                  so are my ways higher than your ways

                  and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Note the context in which God, through Isaiah, says His ways are not our ways.  The context is the proclamation of God’s salvation and forgiveness. 

Isaiah exhorts us to turn “to our God for he will abundantly pardon.”  Why will he abundantly pardon? Because God is so impressed with our agendas?  No, just the opposite.  The reason God pardons and the manner in which he pardons follows in the very next verse: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.”  God pardons because His love and grace and power far exceeds that of man and is far different from man’s.  And it follows that God’s agendas and methods are far different as well.  That is certainly the case in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ – and, yes, in His ascension as well.

Jesus’ agenda was certainly very different than man’s.  When Jesus fed the 5000, the people just fed were about to try to make him king by force.  But Jesus would have none of that. His kingdom was to be far different than what the excited people had in mind.  He withdrew to a mountain by himself.

On the other hand, pious Jews were not expecting their Messiah to be God Himself.  They were looking for a Messiah King, not Christ the Lord. So when Jesus said He was God, when he said, “I and the Father are One” and “Before Abraham was, I AM” they sought to kill him.

And, certainly, zealous Jews were hoping in a victorious Messiah that would free them from the yoke of the Roman Empire.  And these were surely among the throng that cheered Jesus as he entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday.

So when, later that week, many of that same throng saw Jesus whipped, bloodied, and by all appearances completely defeated by the Romans, the crowd turned on Him.  That was not the Messiah they were looking for.  A humiliated Jesus did not fit their agenda at all.  “Crucify Him!”

Now we may look with disdain at those in the crowd who called for the crucifixion of Jesus.  But have we ever been upset with God, even angry with God when His agenda turns out to be different than ours?  I don’t know about you, but I have.

God’s ways are not our ways.  And that can be perplexing at times.

Jesus’ followers wrestled with the ways of the Lord, even right up until His Ascension.  Just before the Ascension, as recorded in the Acts 1, some of them asked, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”  Understandably, they wanted Jesus not to ascend but to stick around and establish His kingdom right then and there in Israel.  Even after the Resurrection and being taught by the risen Christ, they still didn’t get it that His kingdom was to be far far bigger and better than a sovereign Israel free from Rome.  And that kingdom was to be ignited by the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Jesus therefore answered, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.  But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the end of the earth.”  And then he ascended.

The disciples once again found out God’s ways are not our ways.  And, in a way, that was disappointing.  They wished Israel would be a free and sovereign kingdom again.  They surely wished Jesus would stay and become king.  But they soon discovered the kingdom God had in mind was so much better.

And isn’t that way with us.  We hope God will provide us with . . . fill in the blank.  And God at times says, No.  And we may be disappointed.  But then God goes on to say, “I have something even better for you.”  In the Bible again and again and again, God tells us He has something better for us far beyond what we can even imagine.

The Ascension is very much a part of that.  For one thing, Jesus is right now interceding for us before the Father.  We ask friends to intercede for us, to pray for us, and that’s good.  How much better it is that Jesus intercedes for us!

Further, Jesus told the Twelve of His good purposes for us behind the Ascension when he said:

“In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.  And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.” (John 14:2,3)

In the Ascension, Jesus bodily departed for a time so that the reunion when he returns will be that much better, including better for us.  Jesus’ prayer in John 17 when he prayed - “Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me.” – that prayer will be perfectly fulfilled.

I could say more of the glory God and His gracious ways have in store for us, but I did promise a brief sermon, didn’t I.

God’s ways are not our ways.  Did any man - except perhaps the prophets, and even they saw only in part – did any man conceive of the Messiah suffering, dying a criminal’s death, but then defeating sin and death, rising from the dead, ascending to the Father and then one day coming again to reign and to be with His people forever?

Did any man even conceive of that?  No.  God’s ways are not our ways.  And thank God for that!

Let us pray.

O God, the King of glory, who hast exalted thine only Son Jesus Christ with great triumph unto thy kingdom in heaven; We beseech thee, leave us not comfortless; but send to us thy Holy Ghost to comfort us, and exalt us unto the same place whither our Saviour Christ is gone before, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the same Holy Ghost, one God, world without end.  Amen.