The Beginning of the End?

It's been several days since the vote at General Synod, and I suppose I ought to say something.

Well, the news is not good is it? Though I expect WATCH is thoroughly pleased with itself. The worst thing about it is that the British Government threatened to enforce "anti-discrimination" measures against the church if it didn't vote the way that it wanted. In my eyes it is the Erastianism inherent within the Church of England that is responsible for this breach of Catholic order. That the British Government with its legalising of human-animal hybrids, acceptance of the blasphemy of abortion and the attempt to put homosexual relationships on a par with normal matrimony is trying to impose its morals on the church would be laughable if it weren't an abandonment of right moral judgment.

Now it is very necessary to take stock of things, especially from the Anglican Papalist point of view. It appears that the Bishop of Ebbsfleet is planning on leading the exodus to Rome, and it is this action that needs to be looked at carefully. There are two real possibilities:

1) That the Pope will allow the Ebbsfleet Exiles as a single body to form an Anglican Community within the Roman Catholic Church;

2) That the Ebbsfleet Exiles will be required to make individual submissions to Rome.

The second option is not Anglican Papalist which states clearly that Anglican-Roman reunion must be corporate, not individual. Anglicanism has an identity and valid orders which must be recognised by Rome. The pronouncement on the nullity of Anglican Orders by Pope Leo XIII was neither infallible nor well-informed, but Anglicanism needs Rome to stop the continued fragmentation into smaller and smaller divisions amid accusations of "purple fever".

As Fr David Straw remarked:

What you are looking for doesn't exist. Doesn't mean you should stop looking for it. After all...There's God's time and our time. The two are very different...As I have found from experience.

He is quite right. What Anglican Papalists want does not exist - yet! We certainly do not want Rome to fall into the ways of Liberal Protestantism which seems to infect the Church of England.

But, Anglicanism extends futher than the crumbling edifice of the C of E. The Anglican Continuum has the potential to take over the mantle as the centre of proper orthodox Anglicanism. It has the theologians, the orders and the potential to exercise the Anglican character for toleration of different expressions of that theology. Rather than decamp to Rome, I believe that Anglicans forced out by the heresy of sexual homogeneity should first look to unify the Anglican Continuum and start the ARCIC process from there.

I, Dawkins (or not)

I found this rather clever invention on the Philosophy of Dawkins at Wry Mouth's blog.

Since I work(ed) with hypercomplex numbers (quaternions) I suspect Dawkins would have the same argument about my other "holy" trinity.

Which Halo do you want?

Homily preached at Eltham College on 18th June based on St Matthew vi.19

It’s your best game of Halo ever.

You’ve destroyed
an entire battalion of Grunts
and their commanding Elites
through careful use of fragmentation grenades
and a Scorpion tank.

A few plasma grenades
have wiped out an attack
by The Flood.

You’ve retrieved the Index,
and set Pillar of Autumn
onto self-destruct
finally escaping
within the 15 minute countdown
before it destroys the Halo.

And then you’re done.

That’s it.

You’ve won.

You’ve beaten the computer.

You’re the champion,
the best,
the bees knees…

But what now?

Well, yes 343 Guilty Spark
does survive the attack,
but that just sets you up for Halo 2.

How are you going to keep hold
of this feeling of victory?

[PAUSE]

Computer games
have come a long way from Pong or Pac-Man,
where if you reached level 8
the thing would flip round
back to level 1 again.

If all you do is guide
a little yellow eating machine
around a maze for hours on end,
then what’s the point?

What’s the end result?


Whatever your victory may be,
there’s the fact that
at the end of the game,
you’ve got to switch the console off.

Your victory
as Master Chief Petty Officer John-117
over the Covenant
is obliterated in the flick of the switch
as if it never happened.

In the course of a second,
you’ve gone from the king of the world
to just you.

You have desire
to try and preserve that stupendous victory
on the screen for ever,
immortalised as a testament
for future generations
that you beat the Covenant.

Your family would object if you graffittied it
to the television screen.

But no.

It’s dinner time
and the Xbox must be switched off.

So what’s the point of reaching
for victories that disappear
at the flick of a switch?

[PAUSE]

What is it that truly lasts in this world?

Fame?

Fortune?

Well, how many of you have heard
of Larry, Curly and Moe?

Of Wilson, Kepple and Betty?

Of W.C. Fields and Mae West?

Of Lon Chaney Sr or Bela Lugosi?

Of Les Dawson or Dick Emery?

Of Peter Beardsley or Gareth Southgate?

What about Chantelle?

All famous in their time,
but now, even within a few decades
(or 5 minutes for Chantelle),
their memory is fading.


Rockerfeller and Howard Hughes
are no longer exactly household names.

Their fame has been replaced
by the likes of Roman Abramovich
and Bill Gates.

But who says that their fame
will last the test of time?

[PAUSE]

The human race is very good
at depressing itself with its own mortality.

Channel 4 rejoices
in its quest to make us miserable
by showing us in gory detail

images of Big Ben standing
corroded and stopped;

the Eiffel Tower,
rusted and overgrown with climbing plants,
collapsing into a pile of mangled metal

statues of famous people
broken and fallen


all human books,
records and computer discs
corrupted and rotting in a pile of mildew.


All human construction and achievement
seems to fade away.

Of course when the Sun dies,
it will be as if humanity never had existed.

Depressing, eh?

[PAUSE]

That’s how we can choose to look at our lives
– see it as a struggle to hold on to bits of life
that crumble and fall through our fingers
like the packet of biscuits
that someone has dropped several times,
run over with their trolley
and put back on
the supermarket shelf.

We can hoard up wealth,
or possessions,
or certificates,
but they aren’t going to last forever.


Wealth is always stolen,
certificates always get destroyed.

Achievements always get forgotten.

What will remain of you in a million years time?

[PAUSE]

Now that you are thoroughly miserable,
take a look at yourself.

Isn’t there something more to your self
beyond your ability to out-run,
or out-think every one?

Isn’t there something beyond
your ability to remember useless facts?

Isn’t there
something within you
that says, “yes, I am!”?
something that screams out against Time,
against change,
against decay?
something that objects to being forgotten?

It’s difficult to think of
our own existence
beyond our own lifetimes.

Some people believe
that we no longer exist after we are gone.



Others believe that we always exist,
that within you there is the flavour of eternity,
that you matter eternally.

Certainly, Christians fall into the latter category.

Jesus says:
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth,
where moth and rust destroy,
and where thieves break in and steal.

Store up for yourselves treasures in heaven,
where moth and rust do not destroy,
and where thieves do not break in and steal.

Where your treasure is,
there your heart will be also.”

What He is saying to us is that
each human being has an existence and a worth
beyond the world where our achievements
can be switched off as easily as an Xbox.


We have to become aware
of those things that really matter
and that cannot be taken away from us
no matter
how poor, ill or miserable we are.

[PAUSE]

So what is the stuff that lasts for ever,
that doesn’t decay?

Love?

Generosity of spirit?

Kindness?

Won’t the actions
to which they are attached
still be forgotten?

The fact that you helped an old lady
across the road in 2007
is not going to be remembered in 2057,
but the effects of that kindness
may well linger on
- not through fame or honour.


Kindness,
like hatred,
grows and grows forever.

An act of charity may be
unnoticed in the ages to come,
but its worth to the future
is incalculable
and its place in the fabric of the universe
indestructible.

What are you storing up
for yourself?

Mapping the Truth

Let’s start with Pilate.

What is Truth?

As far as I can ascertain, Truth is the correspondence between what really is and what is held in thought. It’s not the only definition of Truth but it seems the best definition that fits my thought and experience of mapping reality as accurately as possible. We look at the world around us and try to replicate what we experience in our heads. Why? Why do we need to make the correspondence? To be honest, I don’t know but it seems utterly programmed into our brains to ask that question – “Why?” We have what appears to be a natural and universal need to make this correspondence between object and its idea in order to make sense of our lives.

In mathematical parlance, Truth has the aspect of a manifold – a mathematical space of manifold dimensions (perhaps even infinitely many) which can be described by a collection of maps, charts and maximal atlases. (Be grateful, my other mathematical encounters with God have involved modelling the Truth as an operad or a quiver. I might explain those later.)

Each human being seems to have a way of mapping out the Truth – there is only one Truth as there is only on Reality – and that mapping will be faithful but only up to a point, and some mappings are more faithful than others. Some mappings will lack the true dimensionality of what is. One cannot make a map of the earth by charting every line of longitude. We just get an uncountable collection of lines with no idea as to how they fit together. Clearly the Earth’s surface is bigger, and that is why our charts have to be 2-dimensional to include longitude and latitude. If we need to take into account of the three dimensional aspect of the earth, then we need to build three dimensional models (quite why we would try and construct an accurate replica of the Earth is another matter). We reserve charts to mean maps of the right dimensionality. Charts of the Earth’s surface.

We get an accurate picture of the Earth by a collection of charts – an atlas. Each chart has the fullness of the aspect of the Earth, however it still has limits, and in order to get a better picture of the Earth we have to turn the page and note that the charts overlap at the edges so as we know how the previous chart relates to the new.

The question is, do there exist charts for the Truth? Well yes, for me, the Atlas is Christianity, the charts the fragments into which the Religion has fallen. Some aspects of Christianity are not full enough and fail to be proper charts. Others have certain fullness, but are too small in their scope – all charts get distorted towards the edges. Notice that it is mathematically impossible to get the whole of the Earth’s surface onto one chart. The chart always breaks down into a singularity or cannot extend beyond a certain point. Likewise, the charts of the Truth fail to encompass the whole Truth – singularities arise, boundaries are thrown up. But the Truth exists as an object.

Even as a mathematician, I believe that Truth is God and I believe in His Son, Jesus Christ when He said “I am the Truth” and that the Holy Ghost completes the Triune Godhead.

Why?

Because.

It’s complicated. I have no rational reason to be a Christian – indeed as a rational man (allegedly) I have every reason not to be a Christian. But belief in God is not irrational, I accept that there are things that exist and are unempirical – love, hatred, beauty, truth. The existence of God is an assumption that I have made in order to make sense of my life. One rather weak argument is that because the Universe is more complicated than human thought, either Truth does not exist or there exists a mind big enough to hold the idea of the Universe as it really is. It’s a weak argument because it assumes that Truth cannot be partial. However, if the Truth is partial, then scientists have no hope ever of finding a theory of everything!

The only way that I can prove that God does not exist is to assume that He does exist in show that this leads to a logical contradiction. However, I have subjective reasons to believe that He does, and that is enough to convince me that He exists and that He wants me to exist as well. For me this is enough to convince me that I am loved by God.

In wanting me to exist, God wants me also to know that He exists and in order to do that, He must reveal Himself to me, but also to all people, since He has decided that He wants other people to exist too. What is the nature of His revelation? How does He tell us about Himself?

Well, He tells us about Himself by talking to us. However, there’s a problem in that we have been given some freedom. If God loves us by wanting us to be in the first place, then He could just be in absolute control over us. We human beings are witness to activity within our species that some human beings do not want other human beings to be. Has God wanted some people to be only for them to have their existence taken away again? Well, yes, that is possible, but it does not seem consistent to me, and if I am to believe in God, then I must also believe that He is consistent. If God wants all humans that are to be, and some humans do not want other humans to be, then it must be that human beings are free to choose whether to follow God, or not to follow God.

So we then have a choice, to hear God or not to hear God. However, we now have the ability and propensity to be deceived by others. Even in our own selves do we have conflicting voices in our heads, to the extent that, ab initio, we cannot tell the voice of God from the other voices in our world.

So human beings need a reliable revelation that comes from God – a revelation that does not err or change in Time because God does not change in Time. Where is this revelation? We have the Holy Scriptures, but these Scriptures have been written at a particular point in the past. Nowhere in the Bible will we find explicit reference to the internet, to women priests, to the Holy Trinity (amendments to I John v notwithstanding). Thus there is a need for the Scriptures to be interpreted reliably. Also the revelation of God in Christ existed before the Scriptures were written down, so it is not enough to assume that all the revelation of God is contained in Holy Writ.

So here we are. We’ve arrived at the notion of Infallibility – the need for the revelation of God, His Truth and His teaching about Himself to humanity to be taught reliably, without error and without the possibility of error. If God wants all human beings to be, and we have this strange mysterious phenomenon call Time whereby human beings appear and disappear from sight in the space of a century or less, then there has to be a reliable transmission of that teaching from the beginning to the end, there has to be Infallibility.

Is it possible for human beings to be infallible? Well, Holy Scripture was written by human beings. We know that St Paul was a sinner, yet he wrote the letters which have been incorporated into Holy Scripture. What St Paul wrote must have been Infallible. Likewise St Peter, who was wrong in what he practised when he refused to sit down and eat with Gentiles, nonetheless wrote letters and preached sermons which have been preserved into Holy Writ. Despite the fact that he acted in error, and spoke in error, the teaching that he broadcast in Scripture is infallible, and this infallibility existed before the Scriptures were written down.

It is clear then that the teaching of the Church is infallible; it has to be, otherwise there is no revelation of God from the beginning. It is also clear that our own understanding of the Truth has developed in Time. The Holy Trinity has always existed, but our interaction with that Holy Trinity has not because we have not always existed. How is it that the strange mountain god of the Israelites develops into the more convoluted and transcendent Being of the Three-in-One? Well, He doesn’t develop, we do! This development cannot stop because the Truth is infinite in extent. The Church possesses the fullness of Truth. What does this mean?

It means that, although we never have the entirety of the Truth accessible to us at any one moment in Time, the Church will continue to teach the Truth as it is revealed to us in Time until that Truth is completed as predicted in I Corinthians xiii. This teaching is necessarily infallible even though individual human teachers do err. However, as we have seen, there are conditions in which human beings accurately and infallibly communicate the Truth. The Church has decided which books of the Bible are infallible and which are not, which contain true teaching and which do not. That decision itself must have been made infallibly otherwise humanity has no hope of knowing what the Truth is about God and His love for us.

If human understanding about God develops, how can we be sure that our development is correct? We do have the Vincentian Canon – quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus – i.e. that we are to believe whatever has been believed everywhere, always and by everyone. The trouble with the Vincentian Canon is that we cannot say what is the Truth about the humanity and divinity of Christ, because some folk in the past have held the teaching Creed of Nicaea a priori, and other have wandered into what we now understand as the heresies of Arianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism and Patripassionism to name but a few. Isn’t it a bit convenient to say that those who are heretics do not contribute to the Vincentian Canon?

However, the Truth has always been held infallibly by the Church. Thus, in Time we can be assured that the Truth will be apparent in times of doctrinal disorder. That Arianism, et c. have failed to prosper is an application of the testimony of Gamaliel to the Church. Thus in following the teaching of the Church from the Creeds, we can be absolutely certain that we follow the Christian Verity.

In this time of plurality of Christian Doctrine, and without the benefit of hindsight how can we be sure that the teaching to we hold now is not heretical? Considering that there were large numbers of powerful bishops and priests and even Popes who were Arian in their belief, the weight of numbers, nor the office of individuals is not sufficient to determine orthodoxy.

Looking at the Creeds, it is clear that, although not all the credal statements appear specifically in Scripture, they have their seeds in Scripture, and they have a clear development in Tradition from those seeds. This is precisely why I believe that women cannot be priests – there is no scriptural seed, and no traditional development. The doctrine of female orders has no basis in history. It is not a singularity of the chart, it is a discontinuity from the chart of Truth, and a chart fails to be a chart if it is discontinuous.

But still the question remains, to whom do I listen over a point of more complicated debate? The Roman Catholics would say that it is from the infallible statements of the Holy Father. But does the Holy Father possess infallibility ex officio?

The seed, we are told is, Matthew xvi:18b-19: Thou art Peter and upon this rock will I build my Church. The implication is that the Lord’s metaphorical rock implies that the teaching of St Peter cannot err. However, are we told that is a property that will be transferred to all of St Peter’s successors in the See of Rome? Nonetheless, this is just a tiny seed, and lo and behold it has indeed developed into the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility that we see defined formally at the first Vatican Council in 1870. The seed exist, and the organic growth exists with all the glitches, snags and underhand machinations that dogged the development of the Nicene Creed. One might recall the parable of the mustard seed and apply it to this tiny little piece of scriptural evidence. However the problem is that not all the Church affirms the doctrine.

The Roman Catholic Church has the fullness of truth meaning that as humanity grows and extends its relationship with God, the chart of Truth grows in its extent with the correct dimensionality – it does not lose its scope. However, it is limited by Time. Within its chart is Papal Infallibility which may be true, but appears not to be true in Orthodoxy nor Prayer-book Anglicanism because these do not have that in the overlap between the charts. You can’t turn the page of Truth’s atlas from the Roman Catholic Chart to the Prayer-book Anglican Chart and find Papal Infallibility on both pages. You would find more overlap with the Anglican Papalist pages, but again the charts distort at their edges. That doesn’t mean that they cease to be true but rather they give a false impression – like the North Pole in a stereographic projection.

I wish I could believe Papal Infallibility to be true, though it's difficult to see how the conditions for infallibility could ever be met - how can you show that the Pope is the teacher of all Christians without saying that you're only Christian if you believe in Papal Infallibility? I believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, the Head of the Church on Earth, but "supreme" is meaningless if that supremacy is recognised by everyone. However, this does not rule out the possibility that the Pope is infallible, nor that he is Supreme Head of the Church - they are not proven and only accessible in a certain chart.

I hold Anglicanism to be a valid and fully coherent expression of Christianity, though I do not subscribe to the full XXXIX articles because I do not see that they follow the Vincentian Canon and some are downright false (if they aren’t, then why are there Roman Catholic in England thus violating XXXVII?), nor do I believe that they define Anglicanism as it existed before they were written. However, others do and with good reason which does fit in with the Vincentian Canon. The same is true for the Orthodox, the Old Catholics (who have remained true to Catholicism).

The key issue is Time, and sometimes we act as if we should have all the answers to our disagreements here and now. If we keep pushing at the boundaries of the extent of our charts, may be they’ll move, and maybe they won’t but the act of trying means that we encounter a better view of the Truth as an objective reality. This growth can only come with God’s grace and our humility. We have to accept the limitations of the Temporal Church’s understanding of the Truth but hold to Our Faith and Hope that the Church does have the full Truth. We just have to submit to her teaching in the Chart in which we have found ourselves born and brought up.

Bishops take note!

I am grateful to Dr Jim Ryland who provides a very clear illustration for the need for Anglicanism to stop fragmenting. There are too many bishops out there with their own agenda, and unifying the church is not it, quite frankly, to their shame.

We have all, in our own ways, acknowledged some personal alarm at the rampant fragmentation of our Catholic Anglican Church. Someone aptly referred to it as "purple fever" as bishops tread on other's jurisdictions or occasionally split off for some rather petty and questionable reasons.I grew up on a ranch in the, then, rural area of Southern California. The great Edwin G. Hart ranch had, by the 1930s, been parceled into several smaller but still quite sizable ranches. Over half of the original holding was still in a single parcel of many thousands of acres. Edwin, and later, his widow, Adelaide, leased the land to the remainder of some early Basque shepherding families. I grew up among the Arroueses, Bastenchurys, Yorbas, and Essevary families. They seemed one vast Catholic family but the Basque temperament sometimes led to territorial disputes over grazing rights or a stray in the wrong fold.

The pastoral life has largely disappeared from the American scene but during those early years of my life I learned a lesson that forever colored my view of pastoral responsibility, both in the field and in the church.

I doubt that any of you have witnessed what happens when two shepherds go to war. It is a truly horrible thing. While the men fight and grapple the flocks panic and run amok. I remember, as a boy, helping Jean Pierre Arroues disentangle lacerated lambs from barbed-wire fences and watching in silence as he used his rifle to dispatch ewes trampled beyond the possibility of salvation.

In parables, Our Lord always spoke of the flock with great and gentle love, but most of His words for the shepherds were those of admonition.

Dr Jim Ryland

A command or stating the obvious?

Yes, it's that dire little ditty that I once translated into Latin. I thought that since I had spent some time below on the error of I'm Accepted I ought to consider the error of an infamous song.

Lord, the light of Your love is shining,

In the midst of the darkness shining.

Jesus, Light of the World, shine upon us;

Set us free by the truth You now bring us.

Shine on me, Shine on me!

Shine, Jesus, shine;

Fill this land with the Father's glory;

Blaze, Spirit blaze,Set our hearts on fire.

Flow, river flow,

Flood the nations with grace and mercy;

Send forth Your Word, Lord,

And let there be light.

Lord, I come to Your awesome presence,

From the shadows into Your radiance;

By the blood I may enter Your brightness,

Search me, try me, consume all my darkness,

Shine on me, shine on me.

Shine, Jesus ...........

As we gaze on Your Kingly brightness,

So our faces display Your likeness;

Ever changing from glory to glory,

Mirror'd here may our lives tell Your story,

Shine on me, shine on me.

Shine Jesus ............

The question is: what is this song actually saying?

The first two lines "Lord, the light of Your love is shining, In the midst of the darkness shining." This is just a statement of fact, that the Light shines in the darkness and the darkness comprehends it not. A sound biblical idea, so why then "Jesus, Light of the World, shine upon us; Set us free by the truth You now bring us. Shine on me, Shine on me!"

From a purely logical point of view, either the light is shining on "me" or it isn't, since we have established in the first line that it is, there is no need for the second line. So much for logic.

The more important issue is this "Shine on me" business. When I translated this into Latin of course I had to use the imperative which is used to express commands and urgent requests. If this were an urgent request, I would expect to see some act of supplication, reverence and recognition of a need. I don't perceive that here, and even if it was here, the sheer gusto and hand-waving and general abandonment to the pleasure of singing for its own sake make it quite clear that this has none of the flavour of a request, but rather a demand. If that is the case then the song is guilty of Blasphemy in denying the Kingship and Authority of the Divine Christ.

Don't misunderstand me here, please. I am fully aware of the outpouring of love that the Saviour has for all Mankind, that it is boundless, that it is pure and overflowing with a liberality that one cannot truly fathom. But it isn't cheap and has come at a terrible price. Thus Our Christ's gift of love must not be held in as scant disregard as this song implies. Yes it talks about the Lord's "Kingly Brightness" but where is the humility?

Unlike "I'm accepted" there seems to be (albeit scant) reference to our need for cleansing: "Search me, try me, consume all my darkness". However consider that this is one line, sung quickly and triumphally, it renders it more of a boast, than an act of humility. What of the self-examination and confession for the individual to do?

Notice that the whole song is Christ do this, Lord do that. I hear in my head Our Lord saying "Yes, I'm doing this already, but what are you going to do?" I seem to remember in one of my previous sermons a mention of the Prattler of Pious Platitudes, the phenomenon of heaping praise and praise upon God until the words become meaningless and God Himself cannot get a word in edgewise. What of sitting and listening to God? How does this song allow God to speak to us? At its best it is just a meaningless sing-a-long. It's only when you try and put meaning to it that it truly gets worse!

Denial

by George Herbert

(1593-1633)

When my devotions could not pierce
Thy silent ears;
Then was my heart broken, as was my verse:
My breast was full of fears
And disorder:

My bent thoughts, like a brittle bow,
Did fly asunder:
Each took his way; some would to pleasures go,
Some to the wars and thun-der
Of alarms.

As good go any where, they say,
As to benumb
Both knees and heart, in crying night and day,
Come, come, my God, O come,
But no hearing.

O that thou shouldst give dust a tongue
To cry to thee,
And then not hear it crying! all day long
My heart was in my knee,
But no hearing.

Therefore my soul lay out of sight,
Untuned, unstrung:
My feeble spirit, unable to look right,
Like a nipped blossom, hung
Discontented.

O cheer and tune my heartless breast,
Defer no time;
That so thy favours granting my request,
They and my mind may chime,
And mend my rime.

Holy Herpetology and Loving the Lizard

It must be quite a shock to realise that each one of us has a lizard to look after. It's a large, scaly and quite ugly brute, but there is something inherently lovable about it. The main problem with it is that it is a danger to itself and others since it scuttles about uncontrollably, smashing into things, getting stuck in things, wedged in gaps and generally damaged by the harsh environment. For something so large, for its own good it needs to be confined carefully, and looked after well.

It needs somewhere with a good strong walls that it can't climb over or dig under; it needs regular meals and water. Every now and then it needs to be taken out of its cage and looked over carefully, noting its needs so that it can live and grow as God's creature should. Of course, when it's out of the cage, it does need to be kept under control.

You might think that it would be better for you to get rid of the lizard. After all, it's too much to handle, too cumbersome, too uncontrollable, too ugly. Why not find a good herpetologist to pass it onto? They'll look after it and keep it well. Alternatively, you might just let it run loose in the world. But then it damages everything and everyone around it. It's irresponsible to let the thing run wild, like those dreadful dog owners who let teir animals run loose and refuse to clear up after them and so pollute the common for everyone.

No. You have to look after your own lizard, and look after it well. It is, after all, a big part of you, a part that you cannot yet get rid of. If you mistreat, it then you are mistreating yourself. If you hate it, beat it, abuse the poor thing, or even try to kill it, then it is your very self that you hate, beat, abuse and seek to destroy.

St Paul tells us that we have to acknowledge the existence of the lizard but that we should not let the thing run riot. We are, after all, in the world, not of it. If we let our lizard loose, then we become of the world - creatures of stimulus-response, sensation-reaction, itch-scratch. However, we are created to be much more than that, that it is sometimes better for a delay between the stimulus and the response in order to ensure that another's life is taken into account and for love to grow. The lizard isn't capable of love, that's why it needs us. Yet its existence is a gift from God to us, because it is through the lizard that we encounter the physical reality of the world as a biological organism.

If we look very carefully at the lizard, then we really do become aware that we cannot be sure where it stops and we start: it is that much a part of us.

Why don't you take a look at your lizard now. It may not be pretty; you may regret that you have it; it may make living very difficult, but the poor brute does have your face, and it has been created to be loved.

Documenta Latina

Gloria Deo! Cuniculus laetus sum!

Ecce! Hoc est locus in quo Papa noster linguam Latinam alere quaesivit.

Lingua mea fortasse emendabitur!

A choral analogy

As I struggle through trying to understand my Anglican Papalism (which my friends on the Diaspora help me to do one way or another) I am struck by some of the wonderful polychoral pieces by folk such as Striggio, Josquin, Gabrieli and Palestrina, and the master Tallis (and before anyone points out that Striggio's newly rediscovered mass in 60 parts trounces Tallis, I point out that the trounce is purely numerical and not qualitative) - how they all manage literally to sing from the same hymn sheet yet make such a wonderful noise - dissonances, resolutions, suspensions, arching melodies calling and answering.

And so I reflect on that with regard to our relationship with Rome and with the East (don't think that because I'm a Papalist I want to forget about the East - indeed it's through the East that I believe a better Anglican-Roman reunion may come) it seems to me that this is what we should be, three large choirs singing from the same hymn sheet, each with different mixtures of different types of voices.

The question is, what's the hymn sheet we should be using? Can we agree?

Coping with cleverness

Homily preached at Eltham College on 9th May 2008 based on Ecclesiasticus xxxvii.21-30

What could possibly be worse
than getting
nought out of a hundred in a test?

There you are,
in your favourite lesson as your teacher
with all the venom of a king cobra
suffering from a liver problem
dishes out the test results.

Around you, your classmates groan,
“42 percent.”
“36 percent, my mum’ll kill me”
“27 percent, that’s not fair,
I worked really hard for that!”

Finally the fatal moment
as your test result is revealed.

Trembling slightly,
you brace yourself for the revelation.

It only takes a single fatal moment
before the grim reality hits you.

Sweating profusely, you groan audibly.

“100% Well done!”

[PAUSE]
Why should a 100% test result
produce such a reaction?

Well the answer’s obvious, isn’t it?

You got 100%
when everyone else struggled to get 50.

Worse than getting 0% in a test
is getting 100% a clear head and shoulders
above everyone else.

Now you have to hang your head in shame
as the word “boffin” is whispered
around the class.

You know that out on the field
your break-time is going to be turned
into a living hell
as you try to persuade your classmates
that you are one of them really,
and not the teacher’s pet.

It seems that you have a clear choice in life
—be clever or be popular.
Why does everyone hate clever people?

[PAUSE]

It’s true.

Look at how the clever people
are portrayed in films.

They’re either the mad professor
concocting a way to rule the world
using an army of killer underpants.

Or they are the reluctant ugly side-kick
with bad dress-sense,
thick glasses and bad teeth
helping out the hero and heroine
to solve a difficult problem that
they are just too popular to solve.

It’s the boffin who delivers
the solution to Spiderman
and immediately gets blown up just
after serving his purpose,
whilst Spiderman is hailed as a hero
and gets to snog Kirsten Dunst.

The boffin
never makes the end of the film,
never gets hailed as a hero
by the group of grateful villagers,
never gets the girl.

There’s The Big Bang Theory on Channel 4,
all about a group of men with more degrees
than the lads in Hollyoaks have girlfriends,
and fewer girlfriends
than the lads in Hollyoaks have degrees.
Most of you should know that this is called inverse proportion!

The number of girlfriends
is inversely proportional to the number
of brain-cells that you use!

This doesn’t answer the question:
why are brainy folk unpopular?

[PAUSE]

It’s fine to put up your hand
to answer a question in class.

You know the answer to a question,
and it gives you confidence that
you’re learning well.

However,
there is something vaguely disgusting
about the boy who,
upon hearing the question asked,
throws his arm up in the air
as if it has suddenly become
magnetically drawn
to the light bulb
and squeaks repeatedly
“me, me, me, ask me, sir”
like a newly emasculated parrot.

It’s often good to let this sort
hang like this for a while,
just on the off-chance that their arm comes off,
or they explode.


There’s also the suspicion about clever people.

After all, they use long words like “synecdoche”
and complicated rambling metaphors
that just pass over your head.

They make you feel small
for not knowing enough
about information that
you’re not interested in.

There’s that dreadful air of superiority as
if knowledge were the only thing that matters.

There’s something about a swot
that can make you feel small and uncomfortable.

They’re creepy.


Who in their right mind
would take pleasure in knowing that
the Earth is 150,000,000 kilometres
from the Sun?

Who cares that the word polygon
literally means many angles,
not many sides?
Who would want to know the difference
between a troll and an ogre?

It’s this obsession with pointless details
that make clever people irritating, isn’t it?

It’s best to avoid them as far as possible.

Let them alone with their equations,
and their sums and their 100%s in tests.


Wait!

Didn’t you just get 100% in a test
in your favourite subject?

You’re one of them aren’t you?

A swot!

[PAUSE]

It’s very clear that if you are at this school,
then you happen to have a great deal of potential.

You are clever,
whether you like it or not.

The issue is how you deal with that cleverness,
how you make the most of it.

You can indulge it by isolating yourself
with books and the internet
so that you become the insufferable class swot.

You can suppress it
so that you’ll have an easier time
with friends and “a life” but
you fail to do justice to your own ability
you fail to take pride in who you really are.


Or you can balance your life between learning.

The danger for the class swot
is that he becomes a show off,
who broadcasts his answers to the class
and unintentionally deprives people
of opportunities to show
how good they are at
solving a problem.

It’s the intellectual equivalence of becoming obese.

The danger for those
who want to be popular is that
they view learning as something
to run away from
and lose the opportunity
to become more skilful.

This is the intellectual equivalent of anorexia,
and it’s just as harmful.


The wise person realises
that cleverness is not something to be used
to bash people over the head
or force down their throats
but to contribute to society.
A wise person knows
when to shut up
so to let someone else have a go
at answering the difficult questions.

A wise person knows that
when someone gets 100% in a test
then it’s a sign that
they have the potential within them
to work hard, grow
and perhaps even
change the world for the better.

It isn’t the knowledge that’s important.

It’s what you do with it.

So how are you going to do justice
to your own intellectual brilliance
and allow others to do the same?

Is that a problem
you are clever enough to solve?

Questions for the fish and the fowl.

Of course, I'm neither(!) The members of the Holy See do not regard me as Catholic, and several members of the Anglican Church do not see me as Anglican.

However much I love and respect both aspects of my Christianity, I do have questions that need to be addressed.

To the Roman Catholic: You are of course committed to the unity of the Church in obedience to the Lord's desire for One Church, and I know that you wouldn't wish to place obstacles into that unity. What are you doing to address what are legitimate concerns that Anglicans have what they perceive as Roman Catholic innovations, namely Papal Supremacy and Infallibility, and the enforced subscription to dogma such as Transubstantiation? If you really want Anglicans to be convinced to return to full communion with you, then you will need to listen carefully about their concerns, and answer them fully and kindly with a view to that unity. What are you doing to counter wilful Anglicanophobia from within your Church in order to show the Love of God to your offspring?

To the Anglican: You are also, of course committed to the unity of the Church in obedience to the Lord's desire for One Church. What are you doing to address the legitimate concern that the constant fragmentation of Anglicanism into smaller and smaller units is nothing to do with the Protestant tendency to choose self-rule over submission to authority? How are you working to convince the Pope of the wonderful integrity that your heritage possesses so that he will use his keys to bind the churches together? Further, what are you doing to remove any Anti-Roman sentiments which place an obstacle in the way of a loving reconciliation with one of your parents?

I am looking for more questions to ask. I haven't as yet found either the words or the brainspace for them.

Cardinal Newman on Transubstantiation

The Catholic doctrine is as follows. Our Lord is in loco in heaven, not in the same sense in the Sacrament. He is present in the Sacrament only in substance... and substance does not require or imply the occupation of place. But if place is excluded from the idea of the Sacramental Presence, therefore division or distance from heaven is excluded also, for distance implies a measurable interval, and such there cannot be except between places. Moreover, if the idea of distance is excluded, therefore is the idea of motion. Our Lord, then, neither descends from heaven upon our altars, nor moves when carried in procession. The visible species change their position, but He does not move. He is in the Holy Eucharist after the manner of a spirit. We do not know how; we have no parallel to the how in our experience. We can only say that He is present not according to the natural manner of bodies, but sacramentally. His presence is substantial, spirit-wise, sacramental, an absolute mystery, not against reason, however, but against imagination, and must be received by faith. (Via Media, 1877, II. 220).

Notice that both Newman and Manning, two former Anglicans (or did they ever cease to be Anglicans) speak of a general (i.e. not necessarily Aristotelian) Transubstantiation. Certainly in the sacramental dimension, the bread ceases to be bread and the wine wine regardless of whether we regard their physical properties, their natural criteria to be.

I find these two passages worth a deal of thought.

Cardinal Manning on Transubstantiation

The following is a quote from a letter of Cardinal Manning to Archdeacon Wilberforce on the matter of transubstantiation.

1. The Council of Trent says that our Lord's humanity, secundum naturalem existendi modum, i.e., in its proper dimensions, etc., is at the right hand of God only.
   



2. The Church therefore distinguishes natural presence from supernatural or sacramental presence. Of the modes of this sacramental presence it defines nothing. It is supernatural.
   



3. The presence, being supernatural, is not a subject of natural criteria or natural operations.
   



4. Within the sphere of natural phenomena and effects there is no change in the consecrated elements. But a change does take place in a sphere into which no natural criteria, such as sense, can penetrate. Of this we are assured by the words of Revelation, "Hoc est, etc." The Church is concerned only to affirm this supernatural fact, as Vasquez says, "ut sint vera Christi verba" Beyond this affirmation the Church affirms nothing.
   



5. It has no jurisdiction in science or philosophy. The office of the Church is Divine and unerring within the sphere of the original revelation. But ontology and metaphysics are no part of it. There are many philosophies about matter and substance etc., but none are authoritative. They are many because no one has been defined. . . .

How does this compare with your understanding of the Real Presence of Christ?

How shall I sing that Majesty?

My sabbatical ends this Sunday, and I will no doubt be asked to provide magazine articles once more. Here's one that I've prepared for some of my critics. Thanks to Ed Pacht for his thoughts on the matter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Those of you who see me in Church will notice that I do not sing when the hymns are from the Mission Praise song book. It's quite reasonable that I should be questioned as to why I don't join in with these congregational songs and I do owe an explanation why.


I do take my hymn singing very seriously, after all singing praise to Our God is fully Biblical. Indeed the Bible is riddled with poems and songs and references to singing hymns en masse. So clearly congregational singing is part of our heritage and everyone in the congregation ought to sing as best as they can in order to offer praise to God as one body of Christ.


If I'm saying that everyone must sing congregational hymns, then why am I behaving like the hypocrite by not doing so? If our taste in music is not important and we should sing regardless of whether we "like" the music or not, then surely I am in the wrong by closing my mouth whilst everyone else's is open.


You see, I don't refuse to sing on the grounds of taste, but on the grounds of theology. As I say, I take my hymn singing very seriously, and the first consideration that needs to be made is answering the question "what is this hymn saying to God, to the people around and to me?"


Take this little song

I'm accepted, I’m forgiven,
I am fathered by the true and living God.
I’m accepted, no condemnation,
I am loved by the true and living God.

There’s no guilt or fear as I draw near
To the Saviour and Creator of the world.
There is joy and peace
As I release my worship to You, O Lord.

321 in Mission Praise.

It seems quite simple and harmless, but it's just wrong in its understanding of God. It contains bad theology that is contrary to our Anglican beliefs.


Let's take it apart.


I'm accepted, I'm forgiven: This first line suffers from a significant lack of detail about how we are accepted and forgiven by God. I am only accepted in the eyes of God if I have fully confessed my sins, fully repented and I am fully prepared to follow Christ in my life and in proper regard with the Sacraments. Taken as it is written, that first line could be guilty of the sin of presumption. It says nothing about the sorrow for our sins that we need to have and perhaps it also encourages us not to worry about our guilt.


I am fathered by the true and living God: This line could be sung by so many folk who claim to be Christians but are not, such as the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses.


I'm accepted, no condemnation: Repetition does not make any statement more true.


I am loved by the true and living God: Everyone is loved by God, including those who are not Christian, including those who do not believe in God, and also including those who are on the pathway to Hell because of their lack of repentance.


There’s no guilt or fear as I draw near To the Saviour and Creator of the world:

Who is worthy of approaching God? As C.S. Lewis remarks in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe:

"Is he safe?" "Safe?" said Mr. Beaver... "Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you."

If we have no fear of God, then clearly we have not understood, nor wanted to understand, Who He is. The fact that we are permitted to approach is testament to Christ's humanity. To say that we can approach Christ with any less fear is Arian, meaning that we do not appreciate His power as God.


There is joy and peace As I release my worship to You, O Lord: An interesting phrase, but does it actually mean anything? How is my worship of God constrained, and how my I release it? Am I keeping it a prisoner? If I do not praise God willingly then my body praises him regardless. Compare this with St Luke 19:37-40.

Finally, what is the most common word used in this song? The answer is "I" - I'm accepted, I'm forgiven, I'm fathered, I am loved." Rather egotistical this song, isn't it? Can this be a song to praise the same God who said, "if any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily , and follow me"? At Mass, we come together to praise God as a body forgetting ourselves ("though we are many, we are one body because we all share in one bread"). The only thing that we must do as individuals is confess our own sins - "I confess that I have sinned" - and confess our faith - "I believe in one God." Isn't it God Whom we are to praise? How does a song which focuses on "me" praise God?

This song is more concerned with soothing our consciences than praising and learning about God.

We really do need to think about what we're singing and saying in Church otherwise we can really make some terrible mistakes.


But this isn't the only thing that Mission Praise does. It changes the words of hymns to make them more "understandable" to people singing. In doing so, it changes their meaning, and changes our ability to find the truth of God within their words. This is true to some extent with all hymn books, but Mission Praise likes to chop and change for convenience such as the last verse of Crown Him with many Crowns (MP 109, AMNS 147) in which two verses have been cut and wedged together. Also the last verse of Christ is made the sure foundation (MP 73, AMNS 332 part 2) has been altered to make it easier to understand but in doing so omits crucial Anglican understanding of the Holy Trinity (consubstantial is not the same as "one in power" co-eternal is not the same as "one in glory").

In short, I do not trust Mission Praise to preserve traditional Anglican teaching, and because it is necessary for every Christian to follow the traditional teaching of the Church and because I don't have time to check the theology of every hymn and song at Mass, I cannot bring myself to sing from this book. It isn't because it's not to my taste, it's because it's not what any thinking Christian believes. I hope this answers the questions of my practices.

Is there a justification of Anglo-Papalism? (II)

The more I look at the position of Anglican Papalism as a movement, the less confused I feel that I am. Again, I know of critics on the Roman side who say that I am in sin, and there are critics on the Anglo-Catholic side who object to the claims of the Holy See.

Having published Fr. Spencer Jones' 28 observations below, I find myself very able to affirm my position of being "neither fish nor foul" in the eyes of almost everyone else.

Anglican Papalists have a mission, and a worthy mission at that. We are not out to "sell out" the fullness of Anglicanism to a foreign power, nor are we demanding capitulation of Roman Doctrine to accommodate Anglican demands. In the eyes of the Holy See, we are already part of the church albeit as a group of individuals rather than an episcopal body. As Anglicans, we already affirm ourselves to be part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Our mission is for the reunion of these two great edifices, both of whom are suffering the excessive demands of the age.

We accept the claims of Rome to be true, but acknowledge (and encourage deeply) that these claims need to be debated, discussed and examined carefully. This takes much time, patience and understanding but, according to Fr. Jones' articles, the solution is out there in the hearts of Christians and in the structures which exist right at this very moment in time. If we are afraid of Infallibility we must ascertain whether this fear is justifiable or whether it is a lack of faith in the promises God made to the Church. If we are afraid of universal jurisdiction then is this a disinclination to be ruled, or is this a genuine concern of the amount of power and authority one man can receive? We have to examine ourselves first before we examine the Church.

Despite the Innocentian decrees, we feel that individual secession is not the way forward - it does not help us solve the problem, and that is the raison d'etre of the Anglican Papalist. There is a problem that needs to be solved - Catholic Disunity. We have the means to solve it, though we need the patience, understanding, time and gumption to see it through, so individual secession is precisely that - an individual decision based on conscience.

We also accept that the claims of Rome and the existence of the Anglican Church are divergent. The position of the Pope as having universal jurisdiction and infallibility will always be a sticking point unless there is debate as to how there may be unity from this. If the Orthodox Churches can be reunited, then so can the Anglican Church, though we need Papal assistance to do so.

We also acknowledge that the Protestant parts of the Anglican Communion have made our position very difficult in their acceptance of divergent doctrine which has resulted in ARCIC being a nominal body at best. The fact that there is a continual polarisation of the Communion is a good thing, if I'm honest. We need clear lines along which to move. There are parts of Anglicanism which are better suited to reunion than others. The trouble is that they are diverse and scattered in the diaspora so as to give the Holy See little idea of the level of conformity. The Continuum needs to shake off the thoroughly undeserved, yet palpable, image of being a bunch of divisive malcontents who only want their own way and promote their clear, Catholic and Apostolic identity. Reunion can only come when the Holy See has a significant body with which to debate.

Certainly in the Church of England and especially in ECUSA, there is the greater problem of being identified with heterodox and heretical teaching being promulgated as "acceptable" - actually not just acceptable, the phrase used is "consonant with Anglican understanding". It makes no difference if an Archbishop, or synod or indeed an entire communion agrees it - heresy is not consonant with Anglican understanding, and the fact that there is much discontent within the Anglican Communion over the recent alterations to the faith demonstrates clearly that there is no consonance - this contrary to the Vincentian Canon.

This has resulted in many good and faithful Anglicans within the C of E and ECUSA as getting tarred with the same brush as the revisionists and relativists by the Continuum and by the Holy See. How can a faithful Anglican remain part of the Communion?

Again for me, two issues dominate. The first is the personal issue - there is nowhere else for me. The second is that, again, leaving the situation does not solve the problem. It might appear to be a hopeless cause, but surely the fact that it looks hopeless is no reason for us not to try to sort out these problems.
It would make a great deal of sense for there to be a clear split between Protestants and Catholics in the Anglican Church. Yes, I'm advocating a form of schism - the anathema of the Papalist ideal - but I think it is necessary for Protestants with their female "priests" and their "new takes" on the Gospel to walk apart for a while, while the Catholics seek to rebuild a damaged Church. In fact I think it would be better to have a form of Benedictine excommunication, remaining part of the community only clearly separated. Only when this has been achieved can we begin a good dialogue with the Protestants and find some common ground.

I maintain that Anglican Papalism is justified in its existence. The ideal is there, however hopeless the cause may be. We may face more knocks than most, but that's the price we get for trying to bridge a gap. However, the veracity and sincerity of our intentions will be judged by God alone. I certainly pray for His blessing on the endeavours of all who strive for the unity and love between Christians.

The 28 Articles of Anglican Papalism

In his book England and the Holy See, Fr. Spencer Jones outlines 28 observations that constitute the basic tenets of Anglican Papalism. I believe that these should set the tone for Anglican relationships with Rome.

1. That Christendom is divided against itself.
2. That a house divided against itself cannot stand,
3. That our Lord meant us to be one.
4. That it is our duty, therefore, to compose our
   quarrels.
5. That he has endued us with the power to do so.
6. That this power discovers itself in the work of the Holy Spirit on the part of God, and in prayer and labour on the part of man.
7. That it was to the Church regarded as one that our Lord vouchsafed the promise of His presence.
8. That the enterprise of Re-union is, therefore, genuine since its purpose is divine.
9. That a "divine ideal must be capable of fulfilment."
10. That as a matter of history no other form or principle of Government has been able to come near to the Holy See in its power to keep together in the bond of a living fellowship so many thousands of Christians.
11. That the Communion of Rome is conspicuous in the records of Scripture ("I thank God that your faith is spoken of throughout all the world") ; and appears at once unique and conspicuous in the subsequent records of the Church.
12. That the See of Rome is the Apostolic See and is destined to become the visible centre of Christendom.
13. That Rome is in fact the mother of English Christianity.
14. That Reunion, for the English Church, signifies Reunion with the Church of Rome.
15. That England cannot formally remain as she is except in so far as she is infallible.
16. That Rome cannot formally cease to be what she is since she claims to be infallible.
17. That two cannot continue to agree except they walk together.
18. That fellowship and communion are therefore necessary if faith is to continue one.
19. That two cannot walk together except they be agreed.
20. That it is therefore necessary to study the belief of other Communions before we oppose them or unite with them.
21. That a more extended recovery of contact is calculated to destroy prejudice and thereby to prepare the way for Communion.
22. That since "large changes and adaptations of belief are possible within the limits of the same unchanging formulae," explanation will be found in fact to remove misunderstandings and to reduce the distance between us;
23. That time, which is an "element in all growth," has already effected much.
24. That circumstances which alter cases do thereby, and so far determine duties.
25. That movements, therefore, which may be inexpedient at one point of time may come to be wise and proper at another.
26. That fair and free discussion as distinguished from the recommendation of practical steps will serve to prepare us for conjunctures.
27. That Reunion has come at length to be frankly recognised both as an idea and a necessity among all Communities of Christians ; and that the same freedom of discussion must be allowed in relation to Rome as is universally permitted in all other directions.
28. And that at all times and under all circumstances " love is the fulfilling of the law."

Articles 15 and 16 issue a rather interesting challenge to modernists and revisionists, don't you think?

New Message Board

Well, I've taken the bull by the horns and set up a new message board.

http://anglodiaspora.proboards85.com/

"Why?" you ask and well you might.

My reason is essentially to help bring together a community of like-minded folk who are scattered across the world and have little recourse to Anglo-Catholic or Anglican Papalist worship. These are the folk who have to make do with what they have got and is usually the best of a bad lot.

My intention is that this board be friendly, with an intellectual flavour, as is the Tractarian wont, but not taking itself too seriously. I hope that there will be a good heated debate on points of Anglican order, but with good humour, and a healthy respect for everyone. I certainly do not want to exclude people from ECUSA or the C of E, after all, there are many of us who, for a catalogue of reasons have nowhere else to, nor wish to.

I'm still experiencing teething troubles as I get used to the software, but please bear with me. I hope you'll consider joining up and striking up a conversation.

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.

More Pick'n'mix?

Things have got a little heated again at Anglo-Catholic Central over obedience to Bishops, especially heretical ones. If your bishop preaches against the existence of the Holy Ghost, then clearly he has rejected the Christian belief. To be a Christian, you have to hold to the existence of the Holy Ghost. And yet there will be some folk out there who call themselves Christian who don't.


I preached on Tuesday about identity, and was followed the next day by a homily on individuality within a corporate identity.



It's easy to know whether you belong to a Company; your name is on the payroll, and on a contract of employment, and if you break the terms of that contract, you cease to be a member of that company. We are free to walk where we choose and to belong to any social grouping we choose, but our choice to belong to our social group restricts where we are allowed to walk. As soon as we step outside the bounds then we are giving ourselves an identity beyond that of our social grouping.


I've already written on Pick'n'mix religion before, in which people claim to pick the best bits out of all religions, wandering around a succession of disjoint practices in search of some enlightenment which is largely superficial, and makes no sense in any rational thought.


The Lord tells us that, to follow him, we must deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him. It is a clear statement that our freedom to walk where we choose is to be restricted if we are to be saved. To accept Christ is to be nailed in Him to the Cross. In doing so, we restrict our choices of what we can believe, what we can do and say before it becomes sin.


The modern debate seems to be focused on the flexibilities of the boundary between true Christianity and non-Christianity. The boundary is vague because only God is able to resolve this weird shade of grey into components of black and white. The ultimate decision as to who is really a Christian lies with God Himself. The Church has power to loose and to bind eternally, she has the keys to the front door and outside of her there is no salvation. But the Church consists of those who belong to God. He gets to say who's in her and who isn't.


Lest people feel comfortable with their position, we are reminded that there are those who cry "Lord, Lord" whom the Lord does not recognise. To be a member of the Church requires active obedience to God, and those to whom God gives authority. To claim an identity within that Church requires the awareness that whatever process we use to make judgments on the lives of others, that same process will be turned, like a mirror, onto ourselves.


Does this mean then that Benedictines will be measured against the Rule? Will Fundamentalists be measured up against each tittle and daghesh forte of the Bible? What about the Pick'n'mix Christian? What about the Catholic?

μὴ κρίνετε ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίματι κρίνετε κριθήσεσθε καὶ ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge , ye shall be judged : and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
(St Matthew vii.1-2)

The word for "judge" is krino which also means to govern, separate or decide. It gives us the words critic and criteria, and the Lord challenges us with regard to our criteria.

If we we make choices and judgments inconsistently with the Christian Faith, then how can we expect God to judge us with any less inconsistency. If, in our lives, we make judgments by our own authority, by our own criteria, then God's awful mirror will be turned back on ourselves, and we will find our own methods of decision and reasons for separation turned against us.

We all have to make our own choices and use our private judgment in religion at some point. That is inescapable, and rightly so, because God wants us to choose Him freely. Once we have chosen Him, it is then that we are nailed to Christ, and bound by the Christian code. This means a rejection of our own authority in making judgments in favour of the doctrine given to the Church. It doesn't say that the Church makes all our judgments for us, but rather where the Church is specific then are we bound to follow.

So what about the selection of bishops and parish? Well this is where we start getting into difficult waters. Ideally, a bishop should be the arbiter and mouthpiece of the authority of the Church. He should be bound by the teaching of the Church and utterly devoted to the suppression of his own private judgment in favour of fidelity to the Church.

Historically, there have been so many instances when this has not been the case. All of the major heresies have had episcopal adherents; that is why they have been so high-profile! There have been heretical popes opposed by orthodox priests and bishops. The modern controversies are nothing new. They still involve bishops making the wrong decisions and imposing those wrong decisions on Christ's Church.

If the layman believes that a bishop has gone wrong, then what can he do? First he must go to his priest and ask whether this is right. The priest is the bishop's vicar in the parish, so if he agrees with the bishop, then the layman must be very sure that his reasons for doubting the bishop are grounded. If the priest disagrees with the bishop, then clearly there is the beginning of a schism here, since the priest no longer represents the bishop in view of his teaching capacity.

What can he do? He must look at the situation as impartially as possible and make sure that he understands that he must select the criteria according to the teaching of the Church. This is so dangerous because it is so easy to fall into the trap of private judgment. It behoves the layman to find some episcopal authority that match his belief. However, in selecting a bishop, he makes a decision, and by that decision he will be judged.

This is an intolerable position for the layman. With his bishop at odds with the doctrine of the Church, with his priest put in an invidious position, he is forced to make decisions himself which do not have the assurance of Christ's authority. He can only act on what he believes Christ to have ordained. The trouble is, is this not now the beginning of congregationalism within a Catholic Church, which undoes its catholicism?

What can be done?

Make a decision and stick to it until it becomes untenable?

Any other ideas?

Putting the pieces together

Tim has his favourite jigsaw on the floor in front of him. He begins putting the pieces together, and shortly the pattern starts to form. But Tim has put this jigsaw together so many times, and he begins to wonder if he can put the pieces together in a different order, to make a new and different and exciting pattern.

He does managed to force some of the pieces together in the pattern he has already started, and it seems quite decent. He picks up a new piece. Tim would like it to go into that space there, but the piece has a protruberance where the space hasn't. Of course the piece objects to Tim's treatment. "I can't go in there, Tim. I'm not meant to fit in there and surely you can see that." "Ah," says Tim, "but I want you in there. I'm going to give you a choice, either you let me cut off that protruberance, or I shall throw you away."

What does the jigsaw piece do? What would you agree to?

Identify yourself!

Homily preached at Eltham College on 26th February 2008.

What’s the difference
between a geek and a nerd?

It would be really interesting
to see the job-descriptions
that separate these two subcultures.

Is a nerd
a geek that specialises in computers,
or is a geek
a nerd which has a greater sphere
of expertise over and above
information technology?

And where does the boffin fit into all this?


It’s an important problem
– we teachers have to get
the terminology right.

After all we don’t want to call you
a dweeb, dork or galoot
if the cap really doesn’t fit.


What about Emos and Goths?

What’s the difference between them?

You can understand
the elderly teacher’s concern.

He thinks that an Emo
is an overexcited glove puppet
that molests people.

What separates a Goth from being an Emo?

[PAUSE]

The Goth image is reasonably distinctive.

There’s the dyed black hair,
white make-up and eyeliner,
the black clothes
together with a penchant
for Marilyn Manson,
Black Ice or the Cure!

It’s interesting that you can see
a horde of Goths wandering down the street,
all looking identical,
like a bunch of clinically depressed penguins
all speaking in the same monotone
– “I am an individual.”


How can you fit so closely
in a crowd and expect
to be called an individual?


Surely an individual
is one who stands out from a crowd,
like a Goth with
flowing blond curls,
rosy cheeks
and a toothpaste smile
like a reject from
“Any dream will do.”


“But,” you cry,
“Goths don’t have blond hair and smiles.

You might just as well
have a triangle with four vertices.

It’s impossible!”


So just how does a Goth
express his individuality?

[PAUSE]

To those of us who are not Goths,
it may come as a complete surprise
to know that every Goth matters.

They are individuals,
just as you are individuals.

They still have unique thoughts,
ideas, plans, joys and sorrows.

We cannot accuse Goths of being the same
any more than
we can describe Westlife songs
from being the same
despite the fact that they are all
instantly forgettable
so that they register
the impression that
they are all identical.


What makes Goths appear the same
is that they strive for a common identity.

Do you do the same?

[PAUSE]

It’s fair to say that it’s something we all do.

We seek out people
of like minds and similar dispositions.

Why? – because we are social animals.

We are designed to forge relationships,
to share common experiences
and ultimately to find company
in which we can feel at home.

Even if we’re not especially social,
we nonetheless have a need
for a close-knit group of friends
around us whom we can trust.

“No man is an island, entire of itself.”


It is said that our social groups define us,
but to what extent is it true?

Are you defined by your social group?

[PAUSE]

What does that really mean?

Well, you might be black.

But does that word “black” sum you up?

Of course it doesn’t!

Indeed, the word “black”
only becomes racist
if it’s used to somehow sum people up
-to deny them an identity.

That’s how insults work.

“Jamaican” might narrow the field a little further,
but “Jamaican” still doesn’t
sum you up
any more than English
Ghanean,
Burkinabe,
Zambian,
Or Ethiopian.

You’re more than that.

Can you,
with all your human complexity
be summed up
by a collection of adjectives?

Can even your name pick you out of a crowd?
Doubtful, especially if your name is John Smith.


The Queen certainly stands out from a crowd.

Why?

How can a little old lady stand out so far?

It’s because of the identity that we give her.

As monarch
she stands for Great Britain,
she gives a focus
to our national identity.

She’s not German as some people think.

She,
like her father
and grandfather
and great-grandfather,
was born in this country.


The whole British constitution
is inveigled with her standing
for the whole British Nation.
Her identity as monarch only exists
because we, as her subjects,
choose to recognise that identity.

In recognising her identity as Queen
do we recognise our identity of being British.

For Catholics,
there is the person of the Pope,
who is called the Vicar of Christ.

The word “vicar” literally means “stand-in.”

Catholics hold the Pope
to embody the identity
of Our Lord Himself
through a long line of successors
to the first Pope, St Peter.

Again, the idea that a man
has this identity hinges
on whether others accept this identity.


What about us?

We are not Royal Blood.


Nor are we clad, at the moment,
in the robes of cardinals
so we do not have these identities.

How, then, is who we are
truly defined?

[PAUSE]

Our identities as human beings
are largely defined by our interactions
with other people.

We learn more about our own identity
by being social animals.

If we want to be
decent,
kind,
generous and likeable people
then we have to work at being
decent,
kind,
generous and likeable people
through clear and visible acts
of decency,
kindness and generosity.


It is only through
loving our neighbours
that we can truly learn to love ourselves,
and you don’t have to be a Christian
to see that this is true.

[PAUSE]

To sum up a human being with
a mere collection of adjectives
is a true insult
and dehumanising.

There is always an extent
to which each human being has an identity
which is unknowable to everyone.


Christians would say
that is the identity with which God created us,
and the same identity
which Our Lord took paints
to identify Himself with us.

Who are you?

How will you come to know your
true identity better?

Another new blog

Here is a new blog by one of my newer friends from Anglo-Catholic Central,
Father Deacon David Straw.

He makes some insightful thoughts and reflections which I do recommend.

Commenting Cuniculi

It occurs to me that I'm discriminating against non-bloggers by disallowing anonymous postings.

I have now enabled "anonymous" postings but I feel rather uncomfortable that someone can just leave a message and not claim ownership of that message. I will therefore only publish a comment if

a) the comment is reasonable, respectable and polite;
b) you leave a name or ID to which subsequent comments can refer.

I will not publish comments otherwise.

Mean, ain't I?

Does Christianity disprove the MBTI?

I've been thinking about this MBTI and its tendencies to pigeonhole people. It might work heuristically, but from a Christian point of view it is an issue of concern, particularly with the ways that people (especially corporations) use it. Consider the following question:

What is the Lord's personality type?

After all, He is fully human. If He is fully human then He must have a personality type. If He has a personality type then there must be one personailty type that is better than others, that has a pre-eminence amongst personality types, that is the one that must be adhered to if we are to follow Him. Can we believe that (roughly) one sixteenth of the world's population has a head start in being closer to God because they all share the same personality attributes?

Okay, this may seem a little petty. Christ was male; one half of the world's population is male; does that make men preferable to women? Well, I might believe, being a member of the Catholic Church, that women cannot be ordained but that doesn't mean that I hold the idea that women are in anyway inferior in their humanity to men.

Christ was Jewish, but that doesn't mean that the Jewish people are in any way superior (or inferior for that matter) to others. Christ probably had a beard (unless the earliest Icons of a beardless Christ are accurate), so does that mean that the hirsute are preferred?

We are not saved by anything other than the love of God which is utterly disinterested in who we are. However, the question is interesting because we are to respond to God's love in order to open ourselves to become more like God. If Christ has a personality type according to Jung, then this shows monothelitism cannot be correct, since this would mean that God Himself has a specific personality type which is describable in Human terms.

So the MBTI, if correct, has its uses in refuting 7th century heresies. However, it still rankles with me that there should be a personality type more capable of perfection than another. Describing a personality is more defining of an individual than a specifying race/sex/hairiness. This begs the question, are we human beings defined as individuals by our personalities?

If we are then MBTI shows that there is a better personality to have because it is empirically capable of producing a perfect human personality. If there is no best MBTI, then we would need sixteen perfect humans to demonstrate to a recalcitrant humanity how each of us is to live.

MBTI exists by comparing one human being with another and measuring just a few aspects of how their personality interacts with the world around. However, Christ tells us to deny self, to deny the pursuit of self-discovery as a means to realise one's being in a transient and faddish world, but rather to seek our true being and self-knowledge in the service of God.