Easter Day 2008

Now when these soldiers saw that, they woke up the centurion and the elders (for they also were there keeping watch). While they were yet telling them the things which they had seen, they saw three men come out of the tomb, two of them sustaining the other one, and a cross following after them. The heads of the two they saw had heads that reached up to heaven, but the head of him that was led by them went beyond heaven. And they heard a voice out of the heavens saying, "Have you preached unto them that sleep?" The answer that was heard from the cross was, "Yes!"

This is an extract from the Apochryphal Gospel of St Peter, and perhaps it goes some way to demonstrating why it is apochryphal. It does however paint a picture of the outlandishness and indeed scandelous nature of the resurrection. It is sheer lunacy to think that the laws of nature which seem so familiar to us are so malleable in the hands of the expert that fashioned them.

We've seen resurrections before at the hands of Elisha and Elijah, in the vision of Ezekiel, and in that Hammer Horror moment when, with rustling and shambling the enshrouded figure of Lazarus appears at the entrance of the tomb at the hands of the Lord.

In the Canon of Holy Scripture, we are not permitted to see the Resurrection of Christ itself. It is a moment as intimate as His birth, a moment between Father and Son, and one in which we are not permitted to pry. But this intimacy points to a hope that lies beyond our understanding. We too shall be raised, and, if Jesus truly does set the pattern, we too shall share a fantastically intimate moment with God in the secret of our being. Whether we believe in Him or not, we will all be raised from the dead, bodily. We will all receive this intimate moment, and for some this may be the last intimate moment that they share with their creator if their life has been spent systematically rejecting Him.

For those who have longed for this moment, how wonderful it will be, to be touched with new life, renewed and refreshed by the tender touch of the One Who Loves.

I laid me down and slept; I awaked; for the LORD sustained me.
Psalm iii.5

Good Friday 2008

What are you doing at the foot of the cross?

As you stand there, looking up at the beaten and bloodied figure stapled to the tree by nails beaten in without any human emotion, what is going through your mind?

Can you make sense of the emotions around this event? Perhaps you want to pull Him down from the cross, bandage His hands and His feet, anoint His wounds, stop the pain. Perhaps you want to bring to justice those who have systematically deconstructed the life of a man whose only desire was to bring life and love to a world that has preferred to walk in the artificial neon light of its darkness.

Or perhaps you realise that there is nothing that you can do, save watch Him writhing in agony trying to breathe, knowing in the great illumination of hindsight that in this agony there is hope and redemption and love. Yet how can we watch this ghastly spectacle unfold without wanting to do something to put an end to this?

In our modern society, we reach for all kinds of medicament to ease our pain and distress - paracetamol, aspirin, peptobismol. We have morphine to numb the worst pains, but primarily we seek to obliterate the awfulness of the degradation of our human condition. Thus we gaze uncomfortably at our dying Saviour, wishing an end to this because, frankly, we can't stand it.

However, the Lord shows us another way. We look at Him on the cross in accomplishment. We hear that cry of "τετέλεσται" almost untranslatable into English but nonetheless a cry of triumph, not defeat. All this pain and suffering and misery in this moment makes sense for the Lord, and here in His final moments does He realise what was going on. He accepted the pain with obedience, not wanting to suffer, but doing so anyway to serve God.

So we stand at the foot of the cross watching someone die the most painful, ignominious and miserable death, and we feel and reach out because of our negative view of such pain. But we walk with the benefit of hindsight and see that it makes sense and know that if it actually pleased Him to suffer then we must be pleased to accept His suffering, and be pleased to suffer with Him. We have to look beyond the pain, treating it as a means to an end, rather than trying to numb ourselves to it, or try to alleviate that pain at a greater cost.

Some pain is just worth suffering in its full intensity.

It proves that we have truly lived.

With respect to respect.

I'm missing preparing sermons. I'm on Sabbatical, and truth be told, it will be sometime before I'm preaching in church again. Preparing a sermon is important for me as I find another way of getting close to God. So, here's one yet unpreached.

Sermon based on St Mark xi.27-xii.12


Which is the most respectable profession?


Indeed, do we have respectable professions anymore?


A stomach complaint.


A trip to a large Victorian house,
spending half-an-hour sitting
in a bleak waiting room with ancient posters
extolling "Digging for victory"
or "Keep Mum, she's not so dumb."


A nod from the receptionist.


An invitation into a large wood-panelled room
smelling vaguely of carbolic soap.

In the chair behind the desk sits the doctor
- a formidable gentleman dressed in
three piece suit,
fob watch,
half-moon spectacles.

"What seems to be the problem?"

A lolly-stick down the throat and an "aahh" later,
you are sent out with a piece of paper
bearing indecipherable hieroglyphics which
would tax the most ardent of Egyptologists
to the chemist,
who obviously has a skill for translation
far surpassing
the most ardent of Egyptologists!

There is no quibble with the diagnosis.

There is no "can I have a second opinion?"

There is no threat of a lawsuit because the
medicine tastes like bluebottles in meths.

A doctor used to have respect.

Gone also are the unquestionable judgements
of the teacher clad in mortarboard and gown.

Gone is the pious parish parson
whose life has now been turned upside down
by the demands of petulant parishioners
for this that and the other.


Why has respect for these folk evaporated?


[PAUSE]

"More disrespect!

Won't they ever understand?"

Kesil helps Rachab back to his feet,
trying to wipe the blood from his nose
and see just how badly his friend is hurt.

"They just keep coming," says Rachab
dazed and distressed by the whole experience,
"there was nothing I could do to stop them.
They won't listen to me!"

"There's no reasoning with such people, Rachab,"
says Kesil sitting his badly beaten friend
on a convenient rock
while binding
a large cut on his arm with a strip of cloth
torn from his robe.

"They work to a different agenda.

They just do not see the truth of the matter.

If they would just let us do what we have to do,
the vineyard would be so much better
for everyone.

They have no respect for our authority."

"I don't know why.

It's not as if we're being unreasonable.

We’re just doing our job.

We’re good at our job, aren’t we?

Indeed, this is how the master wants it to be.

You saw the letter,
you read his words didn't you?"

Rachab nods,
"Most of it is as clear as day,
though some bits are a bit vague on the details,
but we managed to work it out.

It said that we had
the master’s full authority in the matter.

We’re in the right, so don’t doubt it, Kesil.

However, that's seven servants who have
been shown the door in unpleasant ways.

Don’t worry my friend,
they’ll get what’s coming to them
for their disrespect.”

“Indeed,” says Kesil, “only next time,
don’t try and throw them out
of the vineyard single-handedly.

Wait for the rest of us to get there
so that we can give them the hiding that they deserve.

When will they understand that
we know what’s best for the vineyard?

We run the show and
we do not need anyone else to
tell us how to raise our good crop
or interfere with it in anyway.

The master is abroad and he has left us in charge.
That’s what the letter says…
our way or the highway.”

“Oh, look. Here comes another one!

Isn't that the master's son?”

[PAUSE]

Does this help us understand
why professions which once had respect do so no longer?

Where was their authority
and where is it now?

There are those who demand respect,
and those who deserve respect.

And in this situation, the Lord Himself says
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's,
and unto God that which is God's."

Give respect to those who demand it,
but at the end of the game all the pieces
go back in the box
and what do they have left?

Give respect to God,
and that will be eternally
recognised.

Where is God's authority in our society?

Is it evident in your parish?

The Feast of the Nativity 2007

I often wonder how the Christ-child would have appeared in this day and age. Forgetting the details of our lives (something I'm good at) that would be different, can you imagine the Angel Gabriel declaring the message of the Annunciation to a teenage girl in an industrial estate in Birkenhead? A teenage pregnancy there would not be unusual, so the example would not exactly be of any great effect or produce great wonder. Imagine:

And there were security guards abiding in the malls, keeping watch over their flat-screen tellys by night, and the Angel of the Lord appeared to them and said, "@*£# off to the Sondheim Estate and there you'll find a kid in the dog's basket who has come to cheer you up, you miserable #*&$£5s!"

It's just so commonplace! So ordinary! The birth of a baby is important to families and friends but you don't cross town just to see the child born to a teenage mother who's probably given been put in that state following a binge in Bermondsey, however cute the baby, unless you're in social services.

What made those shepherds and those magi, travel to stop and stare at the simple sight of a young lady and a tiny baby in the oxen's trough in a stable?

Well, if you believe modern church thinkers (and it's often wise not to), it probably didn't happen. All this Nativity business is sheer literary window dressing on the part of the writers of Matthew's and Luke's Gospels, just to enhance the Lord's reputation.

Why the need to enhance the Lord's reputation? Surely the accounts of His years of ministry, his miracles, His death and resurrection, His teaching, His "wild claims" of being the Son of God, surely that spells it out quite adequately without needing a fabrication of the Nativity. Mark doesn't need the Nativity for his Gospel, and neither does John, the life of the Lord stands well enough without the stories of the baby in the manger. So why did Matthew and Luke feel the need to include these passages? Why did the Church feel that these parts of the Gospels were necessary? Why were they not edited out, as some modern folk think the Early Church was very good at?

I suppose the message of the Nativity means for me that people can react very differently to the very ordinary. Professor Dawkins would have seen the child in the manger, probably paid compliments to the mother and charitably handed over a five pound note to help the baby (he is, after all, a decent human being), but he would have seen nothing other than a rather pitiable state of humanity. He does not attribute any further significance because there is no scientific test for metaphysical significance. However, some see the significance in their science, others are told about the significance from strange agencies. The meaning is deeper than mere physicality: the ordinaryness of a mother and a new born baby forced to take shelter in a stable is just so human.

Yet we can easily see the Lord's humanity without the Nativity, so His ordinaryness is not dependent upon the circumstances of His birth. The Nativity tells us to look, and to keep looking for the Christ-child in our day and age, to see the significance of our humdrum and monotonous existence without the need for a man to point it out to us using miracles and teachings. We can find God in our lives if we look for Him, even if it gets difficult, confusing and a bit depressing. It's a bit like looking for one particular baby in a Middle Eastern town.

"Seek ye first the Kingdom of God..."

May you find the Christ-child this Christmas, and know His joy and peace.

St Jude - patron saint of Anglo-Papalism?

Today is the feast of SS Simon and Jude, apostles of Christ, transferred from yesterday.

I often feel sorry for St Jude since he has been tarred with possessing the same name as Judas (surnamed Iscariot). Of course I also have a sympathy for the Iscariot as well. If ever there was one who made the wrong decision, it was he. However in the citation of Judas Iscariot as an example of perfidy and treachery, St Jude Thaddeus, the rather subtle and more background apostle, only is asked to pray as a last resort, hence his patronage of lost causes.

Might St Jude be the saint who ought to be praying for Anglicanism in the West?

It's interesting that in his epistle, St Jude says:

3 ἀγαπητοί πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμενος γράφειν ὑμῖν περὶ τῆς κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας ἀνάγκην ἔσχον γράψαι ὑμῖν παρακαλῶν ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστει

4 παρεισέδυσαν γάρ τινες ἄνθρωποι οἱ πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα ἀσεβεῖς τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριτα μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν καὶ τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι

5 ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι εἰδότας ὑμᾶς πάντα ὅτι ὁ κύριος ἅπαξ λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν

6 ἀγγέλους τε τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχὴν ἀλλὰ ἀπολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον τετήρηκεν

7 ὡς Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις ἐκπορνεύσασαι καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας πρόκεινται δεῖγμα πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκην ὑπέχουσαι

8 ὁμοίως μέντοι καὶ οὗτοι ἐνυπνιαζόμενοι σάρκα μὲν μιαίνουσιν κυριότητα δὲ ἀθετοῦσιν δόξας δὲ βλασφημοῦσιν

3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. 5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. (Epistle of St Jude vv3-8)

Personally, I just don't see how the Liberals in the United States can come to any conclusion other than that their blessing of same sex marriages can be anything other than futile at the least and corrupting at the most. There are plenty of other of scriptural references which say the same thing. Yet I cannot possibly be right because I am not a U.S Bishop who are obviously so much more learned than I and who can show me that "going after strange flesh" doesn't really mean homosexual practice between a committed couple.

Conservative members would I'm sure be forgiven for thinking that ECUSA is a hopeless cause, and around the Catholic members, there must be several prayers aimed in the direction of St Jude. You see, like St Jude, faithful Episcopalians ar being tarred with the same brush as those who seek to reinterpret Holy Scripture to their own devices. While some strive to get out, for others it is not so easy, and yet they still remain faithful.

The same is true of the Church Of England as it languishes in its "re-invention" as a trendy and "relevant" church. There are Traditional parishes but far and few between. Similarly, this is true of parishes of the Roman Catholic Church in its swapping of dignified hymn singing for the twang of guitars and trendification of the Mass.

The future for Anglicanism looks bleak, as does Traditional Catholicism. I still maintain my Anglo-Papalist course remembering that the movement is very much temporary in its nature. So what does St Jude say to those who are trying to overcome vast obstacles?

20 ὑμεῖς δέ ἀγαπητοί ἐποικοδομοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς τῇ ἁγιωτάτῃ ὑμῶν πίστει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ προσευχόμενοι

21 ἑαυτοὺς ἐν ἀγάπῃ θεοῦ τηρήσατε προσδεχόμενοι τὸ ἔλεος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον

22 καὶ οὓς μὲν ἐλεᾶτε διακρινομένους

23 οὓς δὲ σῴζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ μισοῦντες καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐσπιλωμένον χιτῶνα

24 τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ φυλάξαι ὑμᾶς ἀπταίστους καὶ στῆσαι κατενώπιον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ ἀμώμους ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει

25 μόνῳ θεῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν δόξα μεγαλωσύνη κράτος καὶ ἐξουσία πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν

20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, 21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. 22 And of some have compassion, making a difference: 23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. 24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

So there's the message for Anglo-Catholics and Anglo-Papalists alike. Just keep at it. Just keep holding to the Catholic Faith. There are so many in both the Holy See and in the Anglican Church who are just trying too hard to include what cannot be included and who say that Anglo-Catholicism is just clinging to the past, and that the Anglo-Papalists are confusedly clinging to the past. There is much that both aspects of the via media have to be hopeful for. For the Anglo-Papalists, we have a Pope who seeks to reinstate the Traditional Mass and remove the insipidity of modern song-writing. For the Anglo-Catholics, there is a fresh and strengthening recourse in the Anglican Catholic and Traditional Anglican Churches.

Still much to pray for. Are the Prayers of St Jude still welcome?

Trust and the Trussed

Look at the following passages from these Baptismal rites

Minister.
DOST thou believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth? And in Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son our Lord? And that he was conceived by the Holy Ghost; born of the Virgin Mary; that he suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; that he went down into hell, and also did rise again the third day; that he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; and from thence shall come again at the end of the world, to judge the quick and the dead?
And dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Catholick Church; the Communion of Saints; the Remission of sins; the Resurrection of the flesh; and everlasting life after death?
Answer. All this I stedfastly believe.

(Book of Common Prayer 1662)

Priest. Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth?
Sponsors. I do.
Priest. Dost thou believe in Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son our Lord, who was born and hath suffered for us?
Sponsors. I do.
Priest. Dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic church, the Communion of Saints, the Forgiveness of sins, the Resurrection of the flesh, and life everlasting?
Sponsors. I do.

(From the English Ritual)

Do you believe and trust in God the Father, source of all being and life, the one for whom we exist?
All I believe and trust in him.

Do you believe and trust in God the Son, who took our human nature, died for us and rose again?
All I believe and trust in him.

Do you believe and trust in God the Holy Spirit, who gives life to the people of God and makes Christ known in the world?
All I believe and trust in him.

This is the faith of the Church.
All This is our faith. We believe and trust in one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

(Common Worship Alternative Profession of Faith to be used when there are "strong pastoral reasons")

In case you were wondering, the usual profession of Faith in Common Worship is the Apostles' Creed in full, very similar to the English Ritual. However, this alternative version was the only version presented in the Alternative Service Book which was replaced by Common Worship.

Notice that in the Alternative provision the nature of the Baptismal question is different from the standard texts. It introduces this notion of trust. Between the BCP and Common Worship, all catechumens were required to declare their trust in God as well as their belief.

The word trust is a translation of the Latin fiducia which has the sense of confidence, hope, security and assurance. We can find the word in several passages:

II Kings xviii.19
dixitque ad eos Rabsaces loquimini Ezechiae haec dicit rex magnus rex Assyriorum quae est ista fiducia qua niteris

And Rabshakeh said unto them, Speak ye now to Hezekiah, Thus saith the great king, the king of Assyria, What confidence is this wherein thou trustest?

Acts iv.29
et nunc Domine respice in minas eorum et da servis tuis cum omni fiducia loqui verbum tuum

And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word,

II Corinthians iii.12
habentes igitur talem spem multa fiducia utimur

Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: (AV)
Having therefore such hope, we use much confidence (Douay-Rheims)

I John v.14
et haec est fiducia quam habemus ad eum quia quodcumque petierimus secundum voluntatem eius audit nos

And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us

I hope this gives an adequate sense of the the word trust. How is it different from faith and belief? If fiducia is equivalently translated by trust and confidence then we notice that confidence means literally "with-faith"-ness - it quantifies an action. We act in faith, work in faith, operate in faith. We can believe in God, but it is possible not to trust Him. Perhaps we can see this in Deist belief in which the believer believes in God's existence but does not expect Him to act in support. There is belief - fides - but not trust - fiducia.

Fiducia means that we work in hope that God will support our actions that are begun in Faith. We humans rely on His provision.

Now here is where the idea of fiducia influences the nature of our belief, and in particular our ecclesiology.

Let's take a typically contraversial issue that illustrates our differences of fiducia - Papal Infallibility.

This doctrine states:

(From the First Vatican Council,)
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when:

1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
   
2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
   
3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,

he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

So here it is, the issue that separates the Roman Catholic Church from the Eastern Orthodox, the Old Catholic Church and the Anglican Continuum, and it is all a matter of fiducia.

Catholics believe happily in the infallibility of the Church and in the inerrancy of Scripture. This means that they feel that they can rely that the teaching that they receive from the Church, and her interpretation of Holy Scripture. It means that they have this wonderful umbrella that allows them to walk the tightrope of life so that they have a good chance of getting from one end to the other safely.

But can we say the same thing about the Pope as teacher? Suppose that the Pope issues an infallible statement. Then the whole Roman Catholic Church is bound to receive that statement - there is no choice. There is no choice because in putting one's trust in the Pope's Infallibility means that we rely that the Pope's statement must be true regardless of what it is. It means that a good Roman Catholic is prepared to take a risk in the authority of the Pope in the same way that any other Christian is prepared to take a risk in believing in the existence of God.

A Roman Catholic cannot know that an Infallible statement is true, just as she cannot know that God exists, but rather that her accepting that God exists means (for her) that the Pope's Infallible statement is indeed true.

However for the other Catholics (Eastern, Old and Anglo-) there is no such confidence in the Pope. There is a lack of trust that the Holy Father has any unique supremacy over any other validly consecrated Apostolic Catholic Archbishop beyond a primus inter pares. Such trust in the Holy Father is not a dogmatic necessity for these Christians.

However, the lack of trust means a freedom to choose - the Holy Father's teaching or not. If we are true to one's Christian Faith, then we will need to weigh up the Pope's statement against the precepts of the Church, and, for an Anglican, this means Scripture, Tradition and Reason. Yet, if the Pope has issued a Infallible statement that he has personally weighed against these precepts then it is likely to be true in non-papal eyes.

For example, the only two statements that Roman Catholic theologians agree are examples of Infallibility are the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception (1854) and Assumption of Our Lady (1950). Many Anglicans accept these, though only on the level of pious opinion - they are not necessary dogma that need to be taught.

If not accepting Papal Infallibility means the acquisition of a choice of either agreeing or disagreeing with the Holy Father, does this consitute a private judgment? Suppose then that one chooses to accept as dogma whatever the Pope says Infallibly. How is this different from accepting the Pope as possessing Infallibility under the prescribed conditions? Is that still private judgment?

Looking at the Anglican Communion and the Anglican Continuum, we see the demise of fiducia. Anglicans are ceasing to trust that their bishops will teach the faith properly. In place of trust, we see suspicion between ECUSA and AMiA, members of the ACC cannot put their trust in the communion of FiF.

Yet trust is what holds the Church together. Each member of the Church needs to take a risk in trusting every other member to be a Christian and needs to take a risk that the doctrine that they receive is true. Contrariwise, it is necessary for every Christian to ensure that they are trustworthy and that means working to stay in a good and healthy relationship with God.
Private Judgment is not an option for Christians, at least not a good option, since it assumes that one's own understanding is best for discerning the Will of God in our lives, effectively setting the individual up to be one's own Pope. In every Christian, there has to be some trust in the Infallibility of the Church which is akin to committing oneself to her, that one may sink or swim with the Church in the Faith that she holds. If we are going to be suspicious of each other's belief then how does this bind Christians together? Trust means risk. It's the same risk that is involved in love, and love is what builds the Church up.

How reliable are you? How reliable is your Church?

What is the shape of the Church?

One of the great fashions which the C of E is following is the idea of a Mission-Shaped church. This is a push to try and present the Christian Church to the unchurched via various initiatives such as "Fresh Expressions" - seeing the Christian Faith anew.

According to the Rev'd Mr. Paul Bayes in Mission-shaped Parish: Traditional Church in a changing world, a missionary church is

• focussed on the Trinity
  Worship lies at the heart of a missionary church, and to love and know God as Father, Son and Spirit is the chief inspiration and primary purpose;
  
• incarnational
  It seeks to shape itself in relation to the culture in which it is located or to whom it is called;
  
• transformational
  It exists for the transformation of the community that it serves through the power of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit;
  
• a maker of disciples
  It is active in calling people to faith in Jesus Christ.
  It encourages the gifting and vocation of all the people of God, and invests in the development of leaders. It is concerned for the transformation of individuals, as well as for the transformation of communities;
  
• relational
  It is characterised by welcome and hospitality. Its ethos and style are open to change when new members join.

(Bayes and Sledge Mission-shaped Parish: Traditional Church in a changing world p6)

How valid are the points made here?

Well, look at the idea of mission in the Scripture. Who in the Scripture can be described as being "sent"? Just looking for the conjugations of the verb mitto, mittere, missus in the Vulgate will surely help us consider the true meaning of "mission" and we will be able to weigh up these points using this idea.

Judging by the majority of the verses there seem to be two main senses in which people are "sent" in Holy Scripture. They are either sent by God to proclaim His Will, the Good News, or they are sent to prison by men (in the Acts of the Apostles) or by God (in the Apocalypse in the sense of the Abyss).

In the first sense, God sends out messengers, angels of His word,. We read that Christ sends out his apostles (the Greek word apostello is translated mitto in Latin) to make disciples of all nations. But notice, that St Paul says in I Cor xii.29 "Are all Apostles?" This shows that there is something very particular in how mission is to take place and, because of its connection with the Apostles here, mission should be something inherently episcopal. It is not a calling for everyone in the sense that everyone is to be a version of SS Peter and Paul.

But is the sense too narrow? As the Body of Christ must we not emulate the sense in which Christ Himself was sent? The Lord Himself tells us through Isaiah and from His own lips in St Luke iv. 18-21:

18 πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ' ἐμέ οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς ἀπέσταλκέν με κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει 19 κηρύξαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν
20 καὶ πτύξας τὸ βιβλίον ἀποδοὺς τῷ ὑπηρέτῃ ἐκάθισεν καὶ πάντων οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ ἦσαν ἀτενίζοντες αὐτῷ
21 ἤρξατο δὲ λέγειν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὅτι σήμερον πεπλήρωται ἡ γραφὴ αὕτη ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν ὑμῶν

18 Spiritus Domini super me propter quod unxit me evangelizare pauperibus misit me
19 praedicare captivis remissionem et caecis visum dimittere confractos in remissionem praedicare annum Domini acceptum et diem retributionis
20 et cum plicuisset librum reddidit ministro et sedit et omnium in synagoga oculi erant intendentes in eum
21 coepit autem dicere ad illos quia hodie impleta est haec scriptura in auribus vestris

18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

So this is why the Lord was sent, and expresses the nature of the mission of the Church.

So how does the apostolic mission differ from the ecclesiastical mission?

Well, the nature of apostolic mission is that it travels widely. Look at SS Peter and Paul, the apostles par excellence, who go out to tell the world about the Kingdom of God. The communities they establish are not as wide ranging with respect to the distance they travel, but their endurance at keeping the message alive in their surrounds despite persecutions and temptations is certainly the crux of their ministry. The letters of St Paul to the Churches point to matters of living in the community according to the rule of life that following the teaching of Christ establishes.

In the letter to the Colossians, St Paul talks at length about the nature of apostleship, and therein lies an interesting direction. Apostles come from Christian communities, just as the first 12 Apostles formed the original nucleus of a community around the Christ, they were sent out to form new communities which, like the seminal picture of an atomic chain reaction, demonstrate, increase in size and number sending out holy apostles to the world.

So here then is the pattern for the mission-shaped church. It must be an apostle-making machine - each parish edifying its members in the true Christian way so that every so often, some of them will be best prepared to hear the call of God and go out into the world with the message.

However, times have indeed changed, and now parishes are diverse in membership with each person going where they feel the worship best suits them. There is no discernable boundary between the Christian and no Christian community. Christians gather for Mass, and then, at the Ite, missa est they are back out into the world again outside the community.

This, perhaps, is where the truly mission-shape church resides - in the vocation of the laity. Christians go out into the secular world carrying within them the Christ. By living the Christian life visibly, they proclaim the message to the world and then they return to Mass bringing their life outside the church with them and present that world to God as part of the sacrifice of the Mass. It's interesting that the word parish comes from the Greek for that which is outside the church. This points again to the ministry of the laity.

Let's look at the marks of a mission shaped church again and see if we can make conclusions.

a missionary church is

• focussed on the Trinity
  Worship lies at the heart of a missionary church, and to love and know God as Father, Son and Spirit is the chief inspiration and primary purpose;

Well this makes sense, for the church to be building up the ministry of the laity, the laity need to to come to God bringing who they are to Him, but unified in their focus on Him so that they can present as one humanity the needs of humanity and receive from Him the Divine Assistance expressed primarily in the grace of the Sacraments and the blessings the engender.

• incarnational
  It seeks to shape itself in relation to the culture in which it is located or to whom it is called;

This is not a very clear statement. Certainly the local parish is made up of a certain demographic and there will be regional variations. However there must be some visible way in which the church in one parish is substantially the same as in another. Speaking in an aristotelian sense, we need to be sure what the accidents of the Church are. There needs to be a way in which a traveller can walk into any parish church and know that they are in the same place as the church back home.

This also goes for the traveller in time! Change for the sake of change (i.e. society is changing so the church must too) is not acceptable. If St Gregory of Nyssa were to walk into our church, it is clear that he wouldn't recognise the shape of the liturgy, but he should be able to understand the essence of it, where it has come from and that it is truly saying the same as when he was saying Mass in the 4th Century. If we are doing this then we can be sure that the children who come after us will be worshipping God in the same way and receive the same Sacraments fully as every other Christian in all of history.

Secondly, if the church finds itself in a particular culture which is not expressly Christian in its understanding - a gambling culture, a red-light district et c. then the church has to express the Christian values that do not change. This will mean coming up against the sin inherent in society, and visibly so. The Church must not be seen to capitulate to any behaviour or belief that contradicts the Eternal message, and will impede the journey of the sinful soul toward salvation. It will in this instant cease to be a proper church and embody the idea of ecclesial community with which the Holy See regards the Anglican Church.

• transformational
  It exists for the transformation of the community that it serves through the power of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit;
  
• a maker of disciples
  It is active in calling people to faith in Jesus Christ.
  It encourages the gifting and vocation of all the people of God, and invests in the development of leaders. It is concerned for the transformation of individuals, as well as for the transformation of communities;

These go together in the ministry of the laity. If church folk learn to worship and understand the orthodox doctrines of the church; if they know what sin is; if they know that they are the Temples of the Holy Ghost and understand this in themselves; if they trust in God's continued presence in their lives, his equipping with grace from the Sacraments; if they know their limitations and understand that they need to learn and to grow in prayer and worship and shape their lives around their prayer and worship, then, only then, will they transform their communities, and that transformation will be as unconscious as their own transformation, because they will be living a naturally Christian life.

• relational
  It is characterised by welcome and hospitality. Its ethos and style are open to change when new members join.

No. The church does not need to change ethos or style when new members join. It might need to change times of Masses or add new Offices during the week, but the whole point is that the new folk understand that they are to grow and become part of the Christian life and that means a deliberate act of submission to Him. This is why the presence of Christ is utterly necessary in every Christian community. The Benedictines do not change the Rule everytime a new novice signs up. To keep changing means being blown by the winds of fashion and that is why the C of E is in the trouble it's in. The process of welcome means insinuating people in, helping them to adapt to the Church and seeing its relevance in their lives. Like the Benedictine novice, new folk must see what they need to change in order to get closer to God, that way they can be assured of complete stability.

However the notion of welcome is vital. The Benedictines are always hospitable and kind and loving, it's part of the Rule! In fact it's necessarily part of every rule. We cannot be Christian if we are not prepared to be hospitable. We've just read the mission of the Church in St Luke iv.18-21, and it's precisely this mission of which the laity must play their part.

So what should the C of E be doing in order to promote the idea of mission?

Well, in my opinion, they should scrap the whole idea of doing things differently, of adding new and innovative services. They should stop pandering to what society wants from the church which too often is just a salve for the guilty conscience (such as Midnight Mass), or a nominal celebration (as most people see Holy Baptism).

Then they need to cement the Doctrine of the Anglican Church which at the moment is far too broad. (And you know where this little Anglo-Papalist would go for the cement!) The clergy need to be examined to ensure that they are compliant with the four marks of the Church and understand what they mean in the same way. Their interpretations need to be weighed against the Authority of the Church (Scripture, Tradition, Reason). Then, when the clergy are fully grounded in the faith. Then they should go back to making each Mass as excellent as it can be. That the people are catechised in an orthodox manner so that they emerge fully equipped to live Christin lives and fulful their vocation of the laity.

Impossible? Well, let's pray for it!

Roman Reflections III: The Biggie

So far I've made two reflections on the Romans. The previous reflection was somewhat illicit in that I seemed to have got hooked up on one word in amid the bustle of Holy Week. I hope that's forgivable.

Howver, I suppose the big issue that results from Romans is the whole idea of Justification and the ructions that it brings out in Protestants. However I don't seem to be able to find this issue at all in the Epistle to the Romans.

What I principally see is St Paul making a very important observation. As human beings we are bean counters: we count every bean that comes in, and every bean that comes out. Following Newton's third law, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If we do work, then we expect a reward, after all Holy Scripture does say that the worker deserves his wages.

So here then is St Paul's beef against the materialistic bean counters. We cannot go through life with the attitude that God owes us something. We cannot assume that we in any way deserve a reward for what we do for the simple reason that we are comparing the finite and coarse effects of our actions against the infinite and exacting specifics of our Divine Master.

Ours is not a worker-employer relationship with God, we cannot talk about earnings and wages. It is a slave-master relationship in which we realise that somehow we've ended up with a master who actually wishes us a great deal of love and respect. We cannot any longer talk of justification in terms of debt or reward or of rights, but only as a grace of God. If we live measuring everything in terms of credit-debit, loss-gain, earnings-owings, then that is precisely how we will be judged. The relationship with God, and with each other, has to be one of love, respect and acceptance.

This means that our justification does not come without our cooperation otherwise there is no such thing as free will and subsequently no love. We are slaves with the interesting position in that we choose our master. This position comes entirely from the desire of God for us to love Him as He is. Our chief sin is putting ourselves in the master position - self-worship. To whomsoever we give our allegience as master, we will be with that master for Eternity - where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

We do have to cooperate for our justification. Romans viii. 1 says "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." We need to be walking, exercising ourselves into the ways and means of Christ, finding Him out for ourselves, seeing Him in the others around us, fixing our heart on Him and allowing them to be opened. If we want to be saved, then we need to know the Saviour. This requires research and effort. In order to receive the Sacrament we need to find out where it is and walk to it, our hands outstretched, our mouths open in the full hope of the love of God. Are we going to be, as it says in Proverbs, so lazy that we do not put the food into our own mouths?

Roman Reflections II: the Ark of the New Covenant

As we approach the awful and yet wonderful Triduum, we recollect the first Eucharist and the Lord proclaiming the New Covenant in His blood. The next day He bleeds on the Cross, and dies, His lifeblood spent.

Catholic Piety places Our Lady cradling the dead Christ in her arms. No doubt His blood smears upon her as she struggles with His limp, lifeless frame. The Litany of Loreto gives one of Our Lady's epithets as "the Ark of the Covenant" and I think that Paul's epistle to the Romans gives us a glimpse of why.

In the twenty-fifth verse of the third chapter, the Lord is described as being the hilasterion. The word does indeed mean the "propitiation" of our sins, but it also refers to the lid, the mercy seat, of the Ark of the Covenant on which the blood of a sacrifice was dripped after being sacrificed on the altar.

Clearly this word hilasterion points us towards the sacrifice of the Mass, in which the Lord's New Covenant in His blood poured for us upon the Ark of His mother after the sacrifice upon Christ as altar. In this horrible scene of a devastated mother holding the body of her son, which only thirty years early she cradled as a baby, do we see this propitiation effected.

Whether or not you believe Our Lady to be Immaculately Conceived, her example is very clear to us. If we are truly going to be justified in the eyes of God then we must allow ourselves to have His lifeblood poured out upon us which effects our reconciliation. In so doing, our hearts will be broken in order to be a part of His life, just as Our Lady's heart was pierced by the lances of men in the body of Our Lord. She is part of His life, and now she has her position as Queen of Heaven.

Roman Reflections I: eritheia - the greatest sin of them all

I've been trying to understand the Letter to the Romans which hitherto I've always found difficult, so I've made a point to study the Greek a little over Holy Week. So far I've finished the first three chapters which are proving amazingly rich. I'm not surprised why this letter has been the inspiration for many.

So far I see very much the heart of our sinfulness is the word eritheia meaning "electioneering or intriguing for office". It conjures up images of those who constantly put themselves first, and in the process making light of God.

It is in making light of God in which we ruin our chances of repentance. By ignoring His kindnesses, we find ourselves unable to return to Him, but if we don't think much of God, what incentive do we have to amend our sinful lives? The whole basis of our Salvation is in the honesty in which we regard God as our ruler and Father. Refusal to see ourselves as His children seems to be one of the driving forces behind eritheia, that we look always to increase our standing, our independence, we look to define ourselves in the way that we want to be defined.

However, if we truly seek God, then we should first seek Him as our Father. Do we really expect to know who we are if we are still children? We only think we know who we are because we try to take control of this knowledge in our sin. It is when we submit to God, our Creator that we find definition. It is in hoping in God that we are purified.

Does this mean that we are justified by faith alone? No. I don't believe it, and perhaps my further readings of Romans will help me to clarify my statements. From what I'm getting at the moment, we are justified by the grace of God that is channeled by Faith, purifies us by Hope and brings us to Him in Love, the three things that will remain. It seems quite reasonable to me that if we are to gain eternal life, then we must become comprised of these three things which remain. We must devote ourselves to building our Faith and Hope and Love, and this does mean work. We are not justified by Faith alone, I think this much seems clear.

Love is...

I guess I’ve been contributing to a lot of anti-Liberal snipery lately. My remarks that ordaining a woman priest is akin to baptising a stone on a recent Liberal blog were true, but perhaps too terse. My main worry is that I stop speaking out of love. I am supposed to interact with all people in love observing only their humanity and not who they are. It is pertinent therefore for me to remind myself periodically of what love is and what its properties are.
According to I Corinthians xiii which I reproduce in Greek:

4 η αγαπη μακροθυμει χρηστευεται η αγαπη ου ζηλοι η αγαπη ου περπερευεται ου φυσιουται

μακροθυμει - Love is slow to anger, slow to burst into a flame of passion. This points to the lengths that God has gone to endure on behalf of humanity, and the direction we must go in coming together in God.

χρηστευεται - Love shows itself χρηστoc, literally "useful" but in a moral sense "good" or virtuous. The word χρηστoc also means "profitable" which the goodness of God always is. I believe that this points to that abundant growth in God that results from and in good works.

ου ζηλοι - In a good sense, this means zeal (Gee, where can that word come from?) or ardour such as when the young man pays court to his lady. When another captures her affections, the young man captures the negative side of zeal where the same ζηλοc-energy remains but is directed negatively at the object of his desire.

ου περπερευεται - The Lover does not make much of self, for vaunting oneself is a distortion of what is true.

ου φυσιουται - St Paul says knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. Love has a substance rather than knowledge which will largely vanish away when the perfect comes.

5 ουκ ασχημονει ου ζητει τα εαυτης ου παροξυνεται ου λογιζεται το κακον

ουκ ασχημονει - This has a sense of deformity which in the NT is taken for a shameful nakedness - the display of the self purely for gratification. Love is not a ecdysiast. Her beauty is gently revealed through mutual self-giving in a secure and committed relationship.

ου ζητει τα εαυτης - To seek after the things of the self, a warning against total independence. To seek after one's own comfort is to ignore the need that the self has of giving itself to another.

ου παροξυνεται - Coming from the idea of sharpening, one is led to think about the axes we have to grind. Love is one for burying hatchets and certainly not in the backs of our antagonists.

ου λογιζεται το κακον - To plan evil cannot be an act of Love. Guile is not an attribute of love. Shrewdness is, we are told, but the active planning of hurt and worthless action (worthless being the opposite of the profit meant in χρηστoc) is not an attribute of love.

6 ου χαιρει επι τη αδικια συγχαιρει δε τη αληθεια

ου χαιρει επι τη αδικια - Love does not rejoice in unrighteousness: there is no joy in that which is contrary to God for only God is the source of righteousness.

συγχαιρει τη αληθεια - Love and Truth enjoy each other as they sit in each other's presence eternally: they cannot be separated.

7 παντα στεγει παντα πιστευει παντα ελπιζει παντα υπομενει

στεγει - To bear: love carries faithfully all the burden that is thrown upon it.

πιστευει - This does not mean that Love believes all things in the sense that any doctrine would do. Can you see Love believing "there is no God?" Love isn't a fool. No, Love is always ready to have a confiding reliance in the veracity of a person. The Lover is always ready to accept the word of a partner as reliable.

ελπιζει - Love does not lose hope in its object. If God had no hope in our repentence then we would have been consigned to Hell from the outset.

υπομενει - Hope perseveres. He that shall endure to the end shall be saved because he has the quality of Love.

8 η αγαπη ουδεποτε εκπιπτει

Love never fails. Quid plus?

So where does this leave us?

The Truth is the Truth; it is unalterable since, like Love, it is eternal.

I could write on further about how the Liberal doctrine ζητει τα εαυτης but this isn't the purpose of what I'm writing here. I need to ensure that I always communicate with Love.

Do I understand where the Liberals are coming from? I believe that I have some inkling. Certainly the fact that women have been oppressed for a large amount of time is true and it may well be due to an unloving reading of the doctrine of St Paul which has been embroidered upon throughout the ages. Women are very capable of leadership, of speaking the Truth, of guiding people in God's way. Their relationship skills are generally much better than those of men, and indeed this has been invaluable in the moral growth of humanity. Their desire for the priesthood is understandable since the ridiculous notion that priests are somehow "superior" members of society has proliferated, and subsequently the days of women's liberation, there has been a need for women to assert themselves as competent in whatever field a man is competent.

There are women who feel called to serve Christ. Of course they are called to serve Christ in preaching in teaching and in spreading the Gospel and, most importantly of all in doing what Christ tells them. The Church is historically guilty of not affirming the ministry of women. That shouldn't mean that it drops all the rules that she has been given "just to be fair".

The fact that there is an underlying fallacy of facere possum ergo facio contradicts the following of the self. So how do I communicate that in Love?

Likewise I think of the oppression of homosexuals. It isn't fair that they have been targeted as being less than human and hated and victimised. I rejoice in the homosexuality of some of my friends, because that homosexuality is part of who they truly are.

However, the fact that these people have been hurt and oppressed does not change the truth. Women cannot be sacramental ministers - they have far more important work to do. Homosexuals are called to lives that are far better than expressing their love for a partner sexually. I suppose as far as my calling takes me, I must show them of their higher vocations which must involve their bearing and enduring sacrifices of will and desire. Their oppression must be ended, but in turn they must look beyond the Temporal to the Eternal. Only there will their True Love be revealed.