Unsocial Media

This little blog is being a little quiet at the moment as I am concentrating on a largish project at the service of my diocese as well as my usual day job. I still intend to publish sermons as best I can - first and foremost I must be subject to the Holy Ghost.

I expect my readership to shrink somewhat as I have just jettisoned Facebook for the time being. As it happens, I feel much better for doing so!

My reason for leaving was a meme featuring Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka with the caption to the effect of "So tell me why you bemoan being unable to read when you're spending so much time on Facebook. "

I have recently become embroiled in too much self-defence of my traditional stance on human sexuality and in defence of the welfare of women under threat from legislation mindless of the bleeding obvious, of my defence of why I'm not Roman, and my defence of why I'm not in communion with ACNA. I find this constant self-defence deeply limiting from the work that I want to do in promoting and preaching the Catholic Faith.

Facebook is a sea of noise and I might liken it to a nineteenth century opium den with the opiate in this case being the dopamine addiction which craves "likes" and approval from people for the sake of that approval. Given also the imperious, arrogant, and illogical attack I received from a former student when I railed against the CofE's recent approval to sanction transgender rights above the safety and welfare of women whose rights are being eroded by this legislation, I feel justified in my decision to deactivate my account for a while.

While I am appreciative of positive comments, I don't want to write for the sole aim of becoming popular, but rather in answer to the deep longing I have for the truth which can only be found in the Holy Mystery of the Triune Godhead.

I therefore crave the indulgence of my readership if I am not as forthcoming with my posts as I have been. May God prosper the work of my hands and my mind. St Anselm and St Odile, pray for me!

Working out Love

Sermon for the Fifth Sunday after Trinity

Why is it so hard to love other people?

Have you ever tried to count the number of negative thoughts that we have against other people? It’s an interesting exercise, and one that is good discipline especially when examining ourselves ready for confession. Somehow we need to step back from what we’re thinking and actually look at the thoughts themselves, their content, their direction, their origin.

Often it’s not very pleasant. Yet, how often do we forget that God knows every thought of our hearts? Further, how much more do we forget Our Lord’s words, “whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.”

That’s a bit of a worry, isn’t it?

[PAUSE]

We have to face facts: we are fallen beings. Our thoughts are fallen. Even the very best of us have thoughts that are not palatable and which would make the most horrible Horror Film look like the Care Bears’ Picnic. How can we really love other people? How can we want our worst enemy honestly to be our brother?

The mistake that we make is that love is not a feeling that we should possess. It actually comes from what we consciously want to happen. The love that we need to have for other people is rooted in the desire and longing to do good for other people. You’ll hear people say, “the pathway to Hell is paved with good intentions.” They’re wrong, the pathway to Hell is paved with selfish desires masquerading as good intentions. That which is truly Good has its source in God and returns to God bearing fruit in abundance.
We have to want other people’s good in order to do love. St Peter says, “Be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous; not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.”

As Christians, we must be all of one mind, that is to support each other in that intent to do good. We gather together to pray and receive Christ and that must be where we receive that common mind to bring the love of God into our communities and for those who live around us. In receiving Our Lord in the sacrament, we are united with Him and must seek to be of one mind with Him. We need to look to agree, not insist on disagreeing, but always to submit our thinking to what Our Lord teaches us in His Church.
We must love as brethren. We will not see people as our brothers and sisters initially, and certainly not without the grace of God, but we can purpose to live our lives as if they were our brothers and sisters and allow any grace that God gives us to grow.

To do this, St Peter tells us to be pitiful by which he means that we should look upon our brethren as people who have fallen and are in the same dire need for Christ’s salvation as we are. We should not berate them for their shortcomings, but live with them as they must live with our shortcomings. St Peter is telling us to be sympathetic – in fact this is the word he uses in the Greek!

We need to be courteous, considerate of where others are. This does not just mean opening the door for a little old lady, but rather to be aware of what help or assistance someone else might actually need. It means to take active thought for other people in their situations. It means that we need to be friendly, approachable.

We have to repel evil by not letting it take control of us. If someone does something evil to us, why on earth should we allow the amount of evil to increase by doing the same? We can only ever hope to fight Evil with Good, and we can only know what is truly Good by being of one mind with God.

[PAUSE]

Yes, our secret sins may well be aired in public, but surely, if we’ve tried to be compassionate, sought to do good, looked out for others, surely they will look at us with the same compassion. But then, it’s God who will look at us with pity, compassion and, above all, mercy, forgiveness and love. We may and should cry for our sins, but our tears will be wiped away because we have shed them for the love of God.

Judging the judgement of judging

Sermon for the Fourth Sunday after Trinity

As Christians, we do have a duty to point out right from wrong. In ecclesiastical language it’s called “admonishing the sinner” and it is one of the spiritual works of mercy. Yet, how afraid we are of doing so these days! In likelihood, here in the U.K., we will not be sliced to bits with a large sword, though too many of our brothers and sisters in the Middle East are suffering this. No, in the U.K. to pull someone up on sin is a different form of death called “social death”.

If you say to someone, “that’s sinful!” Before banning you forever in their social whirl, they will look you right in the eye and say, “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged.”

That’s what Our Lord says in St Luke’s hearing.

Yet St Luke tells us that Jesus also says, “Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.”

This puts us in a bit of a bother. If we are not allowed to judge that someone has sinned, then how can we accuse them of sin, and thus forgive them? Surely, if we see someone about to fall into a hole, we must say to them, “look out, you’re about to fall into a hole!”

[PAUSE]

In telling us not to judge, non-Christians are effectively telling us that we have no right to call them up on sin. They base this on the fact that we commit the same sins as they do, and receive the same benefits from them. As far as they are concerned, we are walking on the same path as they are and, if there is a hole, we’ll fall into it too. So, logically, if they think that we are on the same path as they, there can’t really be a hole or else we all fall in.

Yet sin is still sin. Murder, adultery, wilful deception, even lusting after another person’s property are sin. That’s not going to change. If these things separated man from God thousands of years ago, then they will still separate us from God now. It’s not because we’ve changed, but because God does not change. We are sinners, therefore how on earth can we tell people that they’ve sinned? Hadn’t we better keep silence?

[PAUSE]

Jesus says, “Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?”
This is the thing. Are we blind? No. We know what sin is and, if we’re good Christians, we will be examining our lives daily for the very thing that separates us from God. It is only those who fail to recognise their own hypocrisy who will fall into ruin with those who will not turn from sin. If we see sin in others but not ourselves, then we can only fall into the same hole as the others.

When Jesus says, “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged,” He is warning us not to be hypocrites, but to be humble. We are not to judge based upon what we think is right and believe ourselves to be perfect, but to judge based upon not just upon what God says, but based upon Who God is, for God is what it means to be good. The letter of the Law killeth, but the Spirit giveth life. The word that we hear God speak in Holy Scripture needs to be the Living Word in our understanding of it.

Our judgement is to be based upon mercy. God’s mercy is precisely His steadfast love for all sinners, and this is what we should have too if we are seeking the Good that is Christ. If we must accuse someone of sin, then it needs to come from a deep-seated, passionate, loving concern for their well-being. It can’t be lukewarm, academic, and certainly not from a place of self-righteousness. Nor can we ever force them to repent because that takes away the freedom to choose. There are too many people who try to blackmail people out of their sin emotionally – that’s not on because love does not insist upon its own will.

[PAUSE]

Repentance is the way back to God. We are to change our minds, acknowledge that we are on the wrong path and head towards His light. By living in that light, people may indeed see the way out of their own sin. Of course, we need to be able to see that light first. There might be a beam blocking the way!

Sleeping through humility

Sermon for the third Sunday after Trinity

All good parables start with a king, don’t they? A powerful king sits on his throne surveying his wealth and power. He has conquered five new cities to the south and repelled the rebels. He has acquired an oil field in Texas. Gold has been discovered in his territories. The neighbouring kings bring him tributes of the finest treasures that they possess. His has three sons and seven grandsons who sit with him watching him govern the might of his kingdom. This is the world he has made for himself.

All good parables have a begger, too. There is a beggar who sits at the church door. He manages to get enough money for food. He listens to the church music during the day. He has made friends with the regulars that walk past the church daily. At night, he can usually find somewhere protected and quite comfortable to sleep. This is the world he has made for himself.

Who’s happiest?

[PAUSE]

At night, the king dreams restlessly. The rebels take back control of the cities. The oil field runs dry and the gold mine has only fool’s gold. The kings are plotting against him. His family plot his overthrow. This is the five hundredth night in a row. Will he ever get a good night’s sleep?
But the beggar, in all his poverty, is sleeping well, isn’t he?

No. At night the beggar dreams restlessly. His past is still with him. His demanding of his birth right from his father; his running away from all who love him; his squandering the money on a life of wine, women and gambling. He dwells on these from day-to-day. He has them in front of him all day, and at night, his failures whisper in his ear. He can’t go back. He just can’t.

As the king suffers sleepless nights worrying about his wealth, the beggar suffers sleepless nights taunted by his personal failures.

[PAUSE]

Both the beggar and the rich man have to live in worlds that they have created, and they let these worlds define who they are. They are both enslaved and devoured by the weight of what they have added on to their very selves, materially, mentally and spiritually. Their world eats them up leaving only a façade, a shell drunken on worry and concerns from the world. Both men need to find the joy of humility.

Humility isn’t about being the lowest of the low. It’s about realising that, despite those things we’ve done with our lives, they need not define us. We do have a hand with God in our creation, and we’re not finished yet. Every day, our decisions and interactions with God and the world around us shape us more, but so many people leave God out of the equation – and that includes Christians.

Humility is about accepting the truth – the truth of how our desires to build our world enslave us and stop us from being truly alive; the truth of our failures which haunt us and stop us from growing. We cannot allow either of these states to make us drunk with worry and concern to the extent that we forget God and forget who we are. Humility says that, although we have a hand in who we are, God is the Creator, first and foremost.

St Peter says, “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about seeking whom he may devour: whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world. But the God of all grace, who hath called us into his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.”

[PAUSE]

We need to look at ourselves critically, but honestly in the love of God. We must take responsibility for the way we shape our lives but trust in the knowledge that, with God with us and as we participate faithfully in His life and love, all that happens will work out to our good. “All things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose.”

Both the king and the beggar need to learn humility. The king needs to see who he is without the riches. The beggar needs to see who he is without his self-inflicted poverty. Such realisations can only come about by letting go of the vision and realising the truth in God. Kings and beggars are equal in the offer of salvation that God extends to them with pierced hand.

[PAUSE]
Our growth in this life is turbulent and unsettling, but that is the price of transformation. To find true joy in Our Lord, we must learn to accept that we need to change and alter the course of our lives towards Him: that transformation causes distress and turbulence in our lives. There will be sleepless nights of realisations, but bringing them to God in an honest prayer, we can trust Him to bring us to perfection, no matter who we may be.

How are you sleeping lately?

What does a member of the ACC say after you say hello?

I'm very, very introverted. I actually find speaking to people a bit of an ordeal at times, and making small talk is a bit of a tricky thing. Thankfully, I'm not alone: more and more people are coming out of the woodwork to declare their introversion proudly before scuttling back under the skirting board amidst a plethora of profuse apologies. Yet, in my new situation, I do have to make new friends and this includes explaining who I am as a member of the ACC.

That's a really tricky thing. I've mentioned the need before about how we need to explain ourselves however, it's not that easy, particularly with members of the CofE, or nominal members thereof.

When I am asked, I do try and say, "I'm not Church of England, nor am I Roman Catholic." I have to make that point straightaway. In the past, there have been members of the ACC who have deliberately confused people into thinking that they are Roman Catholic. Thankfully, that element has left the ACC and now pretends to be Roman Catholic in a whole group of ecclesiarchs pretending to be Roman Catholic. The ACC doesn't need to pretend to be either Church of England or Roman Catholic: it has its own identity, even if people don't understand that.

Of course, the major problem is that, in small talk, people just don't want to hear a potted history of the ACC, nor do I feel comfortable giving it. I do want to steer people away from the notion that we might be a protest group, breaking away from the Anglican Communion because of *insert heresy here*. If we define ourselves negatively like some independent groups of Anglican order, then people are going to get the idea that we are obsessed with sex and gender. Yes, we have to speak the truth in love. However, I've seen so many Continuing Anglicans speak the truth in sarcasm to the extent that people are going to see a group of people defined negatively. Speaking the truth in love means focussing on the object of that love, seeing where they stand and speaking directly to them, rather than at them.

So what do I say?

Here goes nothing...

Them: "Hello!"
Me: "Hello!"
Them: "Are you at St X's?"
Me: "No. I'm not Church of England. I'm not Roman Catholic, either."
Them: "Oh"

At this point, people usually walk off, probably of the opinion that I'm a barking mad, independent protestant minister seeking to convert the town into some crazy cultish antics. Not much I can do about that. I don't want to appear pushy otherwise I risk actually being a religious nut, pushing people away from the Lord, rather than inviting them to meet Him. However, what happens if the conversation actually continues?

Them: "So what are you then? Baptist? Methodist?"
Me: "I'm an Anglican Catholic."
Them: "Anglo-Catholic? I thought you weren't part of the Church of England."
Me: "I'm not. Anglican Catholic means that we have the best of both Churches, yet we're independent of both of them."

At this point, they will have walked off. Of course, I could say:

"I'm not. Being Anglican Catholic means that we're free to seek the original Christianity in Britain."

or

"I'm not. Anglican Catholics are English Catholics as opposed to Roman Catholics."

or

"I'm not. Anglican Catholicism is as old as Christianity here in the U.K, and that predates both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England. We're only new in terms of organisation."

Again, nothing there to stop people from walking away, but these are a few ice-breakers which, I hope, at least show that we have some substance. We can't ever really get away from the question of why we're not CofE or Roman Catholic, but we should shift the focus onto who we are is better than constantly saying what we're not. The key thing, of course, is to be a human being and allow conversations to flow naturally rather than enter into a predetermined course of preconditioned sentences.

However, it is also worth knowing that members of the CofE are very antipathetic to extra-mural Anglicans now. Following the Jesmond Incursion and statements by GAFCON that they intend to remain in communion with Canterbury whilst consecrating bishops in Scotland mean that Anglican Catholics are going to struggle to have their voices heard above arguments between larger bodies. That's not entirely fair, but then the ACC and the CofE haven't exactly been best buddies. Indeed, I know that you will read some hard statements from me about the state of the Anglican Communion and why I am proud to be Anglican Catholic.

If we truly do speak the truth in love, then we will be listening to each other. The ACC needs to understand how petulant it sounds and how people perceive our stance to be isolationist. That's because they haven't lived what we've been through, that we have been burned on many occasion and suffered from the machinations of those with a lack of sincerity complemented with a surfeit of personal agenda. Likewise, the CofE needs to understand that its actions have wounded the Church and that tarring anyone who isn't liberal with a whole host of pejoratives merely makes us dig our feet in more.

We in the ACC may be stubborn and backward looking. We actually take that as a compliment! Accuse us of schism, misogyny and homophobia, and then we will be having a very awkward conversation indeed, and it won't be small talk!

Nonetheless, what an ACC member says after you say, "hello!" should always be, "hello! How are you?" and then let the conversation commence in whatever direction it needs to take.

Is your excuse good enough?

Excellent! You have an invitation to the party.

How are you going to turn it down?

It does seem like a bizarre thing to do. The person giving the party must be very rich given that he is inviting so many people to come along. Why on earth would people decline such a sumptuous feast?

Ah, we know the excuses: bought a bit of land, need to test-drive the new oxen,  just got married.

Just got married? That's a reasonable excuse! You can always put off looking at your new bit of land, or going for a spin with your new bullocks, but surely getting married is a decent excuse! The Missus would be quite put out if you didn't turn up at the church on time. The trouble is, whatever your excuse, you are still missing out on this sumptuous feast. It doesn't matter to the person giving the feast: it's clear he'll find people to enjoy the party. The only person missing out on the party is you.

Is your excuse worth it?

[PAUSE]

It seems strange that people would want to excuse themselves from a party, especially such a lavish one as this. Perhaps they don't realise that it is so lavish. Perhaps they don't know what they are expecting. If they want caviar and they expect that they will be served KFC, then perhaps they are right to make an excuse. Also, what of the people that might be there? What if that lady from down the road is there with her disdainful attitude towards "your sort"? Well, she'd make the evening a real misery, wouldn't she? If you don't know what you're expecting, perhaps making an excuse is the right thing?

But if it really is the best party going, you might really be missing out based upon your own prejudices.

The problem boils down essentially to whether you really know whose party this is. Do you know this "certain man"?

[PAUSE]

It doesn't take much reading to know precisely what Our Lord is saying. The feast was offered to the Israelites, but they have made their excuses by preferring property and lust to a rather vague party invitation. They've clearly not looked into this at all. In truth, they will not be admitted to the feast, and it is their fault. Not God's for throwing this wedding feast. Not God's for issuing the invitations. It is the fault of all those who value something more than God Himself. That, as you very well know, is idolatry.

Further, the same invitation is issued to everyone, not a few. This means that there could be some difficult people at the party. Yet, if we know the Host, might we not learn to know those difficult people better?

Yes, you are indeed invited to a great banquet. Are you excusing yourself from it?

Beware of the SJWs!

Looking at my gamut of Facebook friends, I have noticed a growing antipathy to SJWs. It took me a while to realise that SJW did not stand for "Serious Jehovah's Witness" but rather for "Social Justice Warrior".

Now what is this beast and how does it attract such vilification?

First of all, it must be realised that the term is a pejorative, and therefore not a term that one should use in a debate with those who get described as SJWs. Essentially, it is a derogatory term for all those who subscribe to "progressive" social views which include feminism, civil rights, multiculturalism, identity politics, LGBTI values, et c. These are difficult issues in our society, and the tension that we have lies in trying to live together despite some radically different ideas on how Society is to be run. The Church is in the World and therefore in Society, but it is not of the World, and therefore not of Society. It therefore lives in tension between this "in" and "of", a tension which seems to be causing a schism as groups from either extreme pull away from each other.

I have tried to argue that the Church needs to recover its creative capacities that it derives from Her Head. We do seem to be reacting to social changes that are happening, but this is because fewer and fewer people see the Church as an authority on social issues. There is a disjunct between the Church's Orthodoxy and her role in the world as a champion for Our Lord's radical ideas on how Society should be run. The Church needs to be preaching the realities of Eternal Life and the Kingdom of God that is here and now and always has been here and now. Does this Eternity exclude Feminism, Civil Rights, Multiculturalism, Identity Politics, and LGBTI values? Well that depends what you mean. Each of these terms has slightly changed its meaning and its impetus over the decades, and this change is largely a result of secularisation and, dare I say, Marxism.

Marxism has decried Religion as the opiate of the people. This is probably the greatest category error in all of political thought. There is no such thing as Religion save as a catch-all term for the different systems of belief - a term that Marxism defines carefully so that it doesn't fall into the same trap. Religions are not the same, and only superficially comparable. Of course, Marx had Christianity in his sights when he made his statement. He saw Christianity as the reason why the oppressed workers did not rise up and take control. This Marxism has brought about the notion of revolution as an acceptable way for the oppressed to turn the tables and govern. It is pernicious and infects all political systems, even those that predate Marx. I wonder, then, whether Marxism should be given an older name, for it preaches the first sin in Creation: that of Lucifer in rebelling against God.

Each of the "progressive elements" described under the banner of SJW is born from God's desire that mankind should love each other with the same type of love with which they love Him. What is the social justice that God demands? Isaiah says:

Is not this the fast that I have chosen ? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh? Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily: and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the LORD shall be thy rereward. (Isaiah lviii,6-8)

Is this Marxist? With its talk of freeing those oppressed, and breaking every yoke, making sure that everyone is fed, clothed, visited, it may appear so. Yet notice that there is no notion of "equality" here. There is no discussion of rights, but still there is the urge to protect the vulnerable.

Feminism is godly when it seeks to ensure the protection of women from rape and abuse, when it seeks to ensure that all people are recognised to be human beings, and that if someone does a job then they should be paid as much as another person doing the same job. Feminism is godly when it recognises that men and women are different but share the common humanity and the dignity wherewith God has bestowed it. It ceases to be godly when it attempts to destroy masculinity, when it seeks revenge for the abuses of the past in the name of justice, when it attempts to claim superiority in the same way as men have done so. The Church is naturally a patriarchy in the spiritual sense because God is always described as a Father, by His Son no less. That God chooses clergy to be male should not be an affront against the dignity of the female. Indeed, though Society may find it hard to accept, the virtue of obedience to God's will is one that may mean swallowing the unpalatable for now, but trusting in God's Justice which will come when His Kingdom is made manifest once more.

This is the key thing. Christians submit to the will of God, no matter how arbitrary it may appear. To succumb to the will of society which does change in Time is disobedience against the Eternal Changelessness of God. Whatever is Sin at one point in Time is Sin in all points of Time, because God is Eternal and Sin is separation from God.

The key to the Church's reaction to social issues must be one with its Gospel and its conclusion which is Heaven. Its duty is to transcend earthly issues by drawing humanity towards Heavenly thinking, but we need to be, as Our Lord warned us, innocent as doves and shrewd as vipers. This reflects our straddling of our earthly predicament and our heavenly destiny. Marxism simplifies things by bidding us forget about our heavenly destiny. In that sense, it is not "Religion" that is the opiate of the people; it is Marxism. It is Marxism that forms the procrustean bed whereby people are made to fit by Law.

If the Church truly wants to be a warrior for social justice, then it must promote the system whereby "justice" makes sense. The procrustean justice of Marxism is not, cannot, be a sensible justice.

If I ask, "how many legs does the average human being have?" a Marxist will say "1.985" or something similar because it takes the mean number of legs: i.e. it counts the total number of human legs and divides that by the total number of humans to get the mean number of legs per human. Those above the mean are "privileged" and thus must succumb to those who are "disadvantaged" who lie below the mean.

Yet that makes no sense. We know that the majority of human beings have two legs - this is the average known as the mode. We're not expected to saw off bits of leg to make it fair for other people. We are expected to ensure that people who require wheelchair access receive that access. We are expected to help create better prosthetics for those whose lives would be better for them. God bids us address the actual need, not penalise those who are not in need. The one who looks down on the white middle-class man just because he is a white middle-class man is just as discriminatory as the one who looks down on the black working-class lesbian because of who she is.

What do we do? The Church can lead the way by ensuring that they uphold God's justice rather than the world's expectations. God decrees that marriage is between a male and a female - that's why He created male and female in the first place. To say that there is no such thing as male and female now flies in the face of thousands of years of male and female. Yet, the justice of God (which is an expensive justice) means that homosexual people don't get to have sex with a partner of the same sex. This flies in the face of social justice for the reason that sex is not a right, nor a privilege. For a Christian to want sex with someone of the same sex flies in the face of God's will. It sounds harsh, but there is a perfect opportunity for that Christian to refrain from what he might perceive as good for what he believes to be truly better - namely a relationship with God. Sexual intercourse is a distraction, an idol which takes the place of loving the One True God.

The Church's Gospel is to demonstrate that the relationship with God is better than anything that anyone could wish for. While each one of us is separated from God, we are all in need: we are all poor, naked, blind, in prison, oppressed, and there is no cure save Eternal union with God. This is something we have to learn. While the Church must meet the corporal needs of every human being, it must not subscribe to their earthly wants, nor to a Marxist agenda that, far from celebrating diversity, smudges it into a bland, language-free pottage of meaninglessness. The more that the Church looks upwards rather than downwards, the more it will encourage others to do so.

Should the Christian be an SJW? Only if the J truly comes from Jesus.