We had a pastor whose charge was always "We have feasted at the Table of our Lord, but we cannot stay here. We must go and sit among strangers and share with them, in word and deed, the love of Christ."

I always liked that.

Our mass ends with "Let us go in peace to love and serve the Lord." "Thanks be to God!"

I interpret "love and serve the Lord" as including loving and serving all those in need, so there you go.

I feel you and I think that's cool as hell that you feel this way. But you can't help everybody, even some homeless folks. Would you help somebody who didn't want to help themselves? Because that's how it is with some folks. I don't think Jesus helped folks who didn't want to help themselves.

As part of our outreach, last year our rector instituted Ashes to Go, and stood at the busiest intersection in town for the early morning, lunch and afternoon rushes. This year we are doing it again, but expanding onto campus as well.
I seriously considered it, but I don't think my priest would be happy with it. :D

Somehow that just seems so . . . oxymoronic -- a call to a a holy Lent, with all that entails, given in such curt fashion. But hey, I guess if it reaches even one person, the angels rejoice.

Last year I made the observation that someone should sell stencils for Ash Wednesday. My cross always ends up looking like a smudge. Put the stencil in the middle of the forehead, dab with ashes - ta da! Smudge free cross.

You know I thought similar, but I accompanied her last year when she did it and I was impressed. At least one person was driven to tears by the experience, and we had several people said that they were happy we were there because work obligations prevented them from going to the ash Wednesday services at their churches. And a lot of those who refused actually talked to us to find out more about what we were doing.

On another note I got my Prayerbook and the Guide today and I am excited for both.

Could you do an ash stick/pencil type thing (if it were made out of the right ashes, of course)? That would make it much easier :)

Hope it goes as well this year. And enjoy the new books.

Lots of people, starting with Aesop, have said "God helps those who help themselves," but Jesus wasn't one of them, nor is it anywhere else in Scripture.

It seems to me that the heart of the Gospel, and what Jesus's ministry was all about, is that none of us are able to help ourselves and none of us deserve God's grace, and yet he freely offers it to all.

If we deserved it, even if only because we wanted to help ourselves, it wouldn't be grace.

I feel you on this 100%. What's confusing to me, and has always been, because no one has ever been able to answer the question. But some folks believe Jesus is God. God is the "Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit", which is what I've always been raised to believe growing up. What trips me out about that is the church I attend now, when our pastor baptizes someone, he says "I baptize you in the name of Jesus." When I was growing up, our pastor at my childhood church would say "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost". Which is why I grew up believing that if he is all three, which some folks believe, then if God only helps those who help themselves, then wouldn't Jesus? Then it says in Scripture that the only way to the Father is through Chirst. Kind of what you were saying to a degree. Not to get all long winded here, but folks like to interpret the Bible in their own way. I say that because with my current pastor, I told him what my childhood pastor used to say when he would baptize folks. He said that's not correct. You baptize in the name of Jesus. So here I am thinking wtf, -two pastors practicing from the same Bible with two different thought processes. You feel my confusion? It's just tripped out, to me.

As a suggestion, you might want to read carefully the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed. Give it a bit of thought and then lets kick this around a bit.

A Oneness Pentecostal church?

What does your current pastor say about Matthew 28:19?

Like I said, though, "God helps those who help themselves" may be a popular saying, but isn't anywhere in the Bible (even though many, many people think it is). It is not at all what the Bible teaches and I think many if not most theologians and Bible scholars would say that it is actually contrary to what the Bible teaches, and certainly to the message of the Gospel.

For many of us, the Nicene and Apostles creeds are normative and something of a bedrock, but there're lots of Christians for whom they are not and for whom any creed is suspect. Saying "study the creeds and then we'll talk" is essentially saying "adopt my perspective and then we'll talk."

Studying the creeds would be a good place to start to understand long-standing interpretations of the Trinity, whether or not the reader actually ascribes to them.

And honestly, I don't see anything in scripture that is explicitly Trinitian, though I also don't see anything that is strictly Unitarian either.

Several things
 

I have been reading from past posts and write here my contributions to three of them. This is only what I think and what I was taught, conceding the fact that I might be wrong.

Baptism:
Both formulas are from the Bible

"Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19) vs.
“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38)

[Sorry for the quotes from different translations of the Bible, I google them quickly.]

The first one has been the official formula from the beginning of the Church. The second one means "by the authority of Jesus," assuming the first formula is to be used. Yet, the latter has been taken out of context by different groups at different times for different reasons. Also, although it is not a valid argument, the first one are Jesus' words; the second one are Peter's. Who do we believe? ;)

"God helps those who help themselves"
MisticCat explained it pretty well, so I won't repeat what has been said. I'll add that this is very dangerous phrase.

First, God is not limited by anything, including men's unwillingnes to help himself.

Second, I've actually heard people, in the same line of thought, quoting Paul when he says that those who don't work, don't eat. This is said in a very specific context and need not be taken out of it.

Finally, let's look at what it is being said behind the words: "Since God help those who help themselves, if you are in a hole, it means you are not helping yourself." There goes any help to Africa, any help to those in need anywhere in the world. "If they had helped themselves, God would help them."

Since the phrase is used as an excuse against helping others that may look lazy, I add my opinion, without being accused of being naive and always taking the much needed precautions so that it doesn't happen, a Christian should always prefer to be disappointed by trusting (even though some undeserving individuals might take advantage) than be surprised by doubting (and so doubting others worthy of such trust). The same can be apply to the help we provide. Some might abuse, most won't. Paraphrasing an Ignatian thought: I did not start helping others so that they may abuse of me, neither will I stop helping others because of it.

Creeds
The Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed was written to answer the heresies as they arose (Arianism > Jesus is not God) (Monophysitism > Jesus has only one nature and that is the Divine), etc. It was first stated at the Nicaea Council, and later confirmed at the Constantinopolitan Council, in order to clarify the misunderstandings which gave place to the heresies. The Apostle's Creed, probably older although its oldest written account is dated much later than the Niceno, states what Christians believed, probably taken phrases from the Bible, but allowing for the misunderstandings from which the heresies were born.

Now, I've always wondered why the Apostle's creed mentions "the communion of Saints" while the Niceno-Constantinopolitan doesn't. I know that the latter include it implicitly, but still.