Souls, bodies and forgetfulness

Sermon Preached at Our Lady of Walsingham and St Francis on 14th Sunday after Trinity.

 

Have you found yourself recently?

 

In the 1990s and early 2000s

 there was a spate of

high-powered businessmen and women

having some form of breakdown,

 taking time off of work

 and going to hotels, resorts and retreats

to try and “find” themselves.

 

How on earth do you find yourself? 

 

Had you any inkling that you were lost in the first place,

 like car keys down the grating in a car park

 or like a biscuit under the fridge?

 

 Where is this real you that you need to find, anyway?

 

To answer that, it is said, we have to do some forgetting.

 

Forget about what you do for a living,

or in your spare time:

 in fact, forget about what you do do.

 

It doesn’t make you “you”, does it?

 

 

 Forget what you own.

 

Your belongings don’t make you “you”, do they?

 

Forget your relationships, your family and friends.

 

Other people don’t make you “you”, do they?

 

Forget about your own body; it ages and changes

and yet if you lost an arm or a leg,

you’d still be you, wouldn’t you?

 

 Would you still be you if you looked completely different?

 

Where is this “real” you?

 

[PAUSE]

 

It’s a very hard question to answer, isn’t it?

 

If you do not know the answer, then join the club!

 

We simply cannot put into words who we really are,

though some of us try to do so.

 

How would you describe yourself?

 

 Intelligent, caring, forthright, devout, gentle?

 

Can you sum yourself up in words?

So where do we start finding out who we are?

 

All things start with God.

 

God made you you,

and if anyone can understand who you are,

 it’s Him!

 

“God is a Spirit: and they that worship him

must worship him in spirit and in truth.”

 

 However, human beings are not just spiritual,

they are physical too.

 

  We are this wonderful fusion of matter and spirit;

 it’s just very often we forget this.

 

For most of us in the West,

we tend to forget that we have a spirit

because we are so inundated by a material world.

 

Things that we can catch hold of

seem to have more relevance in our lives

than the things we cannot catch hold of.

 

 God Himself is not graspable:

 His light shineth in the darkness

 and the darkness comprehended it not.

 

This means that God tends to be forgotten far too easily.

Look at the ten lepers: they are healed by Our Lord and immediately nine of them are suddenly so obsessed with their health.

 

They realise that they are clean and made whole,

 focus entirely on the state of their bodies,

and go on their way to the temple to show the priests

 that they are now able to be part of society.

 

They forget the Source of that healing.

 

God Himself is often forgotten

because people fail to remember

that which is truly spiritual.

 

Our Lord tells us,

“where your treasure is, there will your heart be also”.

 

If we look for material treasure,

 then material treasure will be all that we find.

 

Matter has a dreadful tendency to break, decay or get lost.

 

St Thomas Aquinas says

“The things that we love tell us who we are.”

 

 Our desires do shape us.

 

If we desire only material things,

then that’s all we’ll ever be,

subject to breakage, decay and loss.

If we desire spiritual things,

 then we will find ourselves more truly.

 

 We will do more justice to our existence

as both physical and spiritual beings.

 

Can we go too far the other way?

Can we be too spiritual?

 

[PAUSE]

 

St Paul tells us to walk in the Spirit

and we will not fulfil the lust of the Flesh.

 

So it seems to St Paul that we cannot be too spiritual.

 

However, we can become snobbish, too pious, too Holier than Thou,

 or even loathing of our own bodies

and thus of our humanity.

 

 Our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit

and therefore worthy of respect.

 

You don’t knock a building down

to preserve what it contains

but neither do you let it go to rack and ruin.

 

St Paul tells us that the body is important.

 

“Glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.”

To get married and have children is a wonderful thing

and St Paul tells us that should not despise that process

by which babies are made.

 

But then we should not regard that very process

 as the be-all and end-all of a relationship with someone.

 

The key thing is balance.

 

As we exercise the body,

so should we exercise the spirit with

 prayer, Bible study,

and building the Church,

learning to love God above all things

and other people as ourselves.

 

We need to become more aware of ourselves,

 of our spiritual needs as well as our physical needs.

 

As long as we see ourselves as a whole,

we can live our lives in God properly.

 

We need to be conscious

that we see and love ourselves as being

both spiritual and physical,

and balancing our lives so that we can do justice

 to the person that God has created us to be.

 

Which has had more exercise in your life, your body or your spirit?

Oil, lemons and bread

It's not often that one comes out of church with their hands smelling lemony fresh unless one has been using a Lemony-Fresh washing up liquid following post-Mass tea and fellowship. However, today, my hands certainly were not smelling of the usual vague traces of Rosa Mystica and burnt finger from fumbling with the thurible.

As the bishop anointed my hands today with the Holy Oil, he cleansed them with lemon juice and mopped them with bread before purging them with water. Of course, there are practical reasons for doing so, especially when one is about to distribute the Holy Sacrament. However, it put me very much in mind of the fact that I have to be of service to my parish, even down to the washing up with Lemon-Fresh washing up liquid, and making sandwiches for hungry mouths.

Admittedly, for someone who is rather inept when it comes to practical things, the commission to serve is very daunting. There is so much need in the world, and in the most unexpected places. St Augustine would tell us that Evil is a privation - Evil only exists as a lack of Good. So there is a true need where evil exists and evil takes so many forms. Our Lord Jesus came to supply whatever we human beings lacked in order to become the people we were meant to be. He came to perfect people. Even Our Lord was not truly perfect until He had fulfilled what He had come to do. He was, of course, absolutely sinless, but no human being is perfect until they have become the person that God intended them to be.

To perfect people, Our Lord got His hands dirty with mud and spittle. He touched running sores, atrophied tongues, stopped ears and bloody wounds. He  washed dirty feet and held the dead. His was a life of trying to make people perfect and then those hands were cut open and stained with his own blood when he died to open the gates of Heaven so that those corrupted by sin might find perfection in Him. If His earthly ministry to us were with us here and now, we would find his hands in the sink, washing up for an elderly lady, or making sandwiches for a picnic for children from the estate, or mopping the brow of a patient in her agony in the hospital, and he would be consecrating every action.

However, this is the ministry that He has passed on to all His followers, including without any exception His priests. Indeed, the priest who doesn't serve is endangering his own soul by not seeking his own perfection in Christ. This of course is a very frightening thought, but we can all be assured that with His grace we can truly serve if we serve with humility and love.

A priest's hands should always be lemony-fresh from doing life's washing up in the Hospital for Sinners that the Church is meant to be.

Eating your words

Sermon preached at the Parish of Our Lady of Walsingham and St Francis on the Twelfth Sunday after Trinity.

What is an hypostasis? What is perichoresis, or a chorepiscopos? Or do you suffer from floccinaucinihilipilification in the whole matter?

Some people think it clever or intelligent to use long words willy nilly. The more syllables the word has, the better they think they look in front of those who don’t know them. Can you judge a person’s intelligence by the length of the words that they use? Is that possible?

[PAUSE]

The trouble is, words are supposed to be about communication. Words allow us to share information, understand who another person is or how they are feeling. Words allow us to create or destroy friendships. Words build cities or destroy worlds. The whole point of words is that we understand their meaning and communicate our ideas clearly to other people.

If you were to call someone phlegmatic, would they appreciate that you’ve just called them calm and relaxed, or would you get a smack in the mouth because they think you’ve called them slimy? If we wish to communicate with people, then we have to speak the same language. This is why it is not clever to use long words to demonstrate one’s intelligence – it really isn’t good communication. Either we want to communicate with other people or we don’t.

Of course there are times when long words are necessary. It’s easier to say “Disestablishment” rather than keep repeating “cutting the link between the CofE and Parliament”. The word “velocity” means something slightly different from “speed”: knowing that difference can change our understanding of what’s being said. A teacher needs to use technical language so that her students can grasp the basic lessons and become able to understand things on their own. That teacher herself needed to be taught that language too.

[PAUSE]

It’s part of a priest’s duty to teach his congregation about God. Think about what that means. A human being has to teach other human beings about Who God is! We run into a particular problem here. Who is God? What is God? Where is He? He is the maker of Heaven and Earth, of all things visible and invisible. But this means that God is not made of anything! It also means that we can’t say where God is! We often talk about God being angry, but can an infinite being who is not affected by time really ever be angry?

God is utterly unfathomable. Often we can say very little about Who he is, rather Who He is not. Now that’s not especially helpful. It’s a bit like trying to make an ice sculpture of God, by chipping bits of ice away and there is an awful lot of ice!

If it’s difficult for us to speak about God, how can God communicate with us? How can we communicate with God?

[PAUSE]

The first duty of every Christian is prayer. Every Christian should pray daily. The earliest rule of prayer is to say the Lord’s Prayer three times a day, at morning, noon and bedtime. This at least gives us some meaningful words to pray when we can’t think of words. Having a good rule of daily prayer gets us closer to God and helps us to understand His Will for us. However, it is true to say that God’s communication with us does not seem to happen very obviously. We don’t get great sentences from above that tell us what to do. What we get comes from the still, small voice inside us that we can hear through prayer and study. Even so, it is difficult to hear! What assurance do we get that God does hear prayer? What assurance do we have that God really does want to communicate with us?

[PAUSE]

At the end of our Mass we hear the Last Gospel, and this Last Gospel usually (not always) begins, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” What is this Word? Well we know that St John is telling us that Our Lord Jesus is the Word, but what does this really mean?

[PAUSE]

The whole point of the Incarnation is that God communicates directly with human beings, and Our Lord is the way this communication happens. Jesus does not have to speak in order to communicate with us: He performs miracles; He weeps; He touches and handles us, makes us hear and see and speak and walk and find joy; and He dies for us. In that whole ministry our Lord Jesus, the Word, says as much by Who He is as He does in speech and deed. His death and resurrection tells us more about God’s love for us than we could ever know by what He tells us.

This is why the Mass is as it is. Every word and action has a meaning, and it is the duty of every priest to reflect on that meaning so as to allow the people to experience the living Christ. If you reflect carefully on the words being said and the actions being performed, you will see the life of Our Lord Jesus Christ unfold. That life of Christ unfolds for us, and as we receive communion, we take in Our Lord into our very selves to live and to work for His praise and glory.

[PAUSE]

We take Christ into our very selves. We, ourselves, carry the Word of God around in us, living and vibrant, connecting our Humanity with the Divinity of God the Almighty Father.

How do we speak such a wonderful Word?

Assumption of Our Lady 2013: Dixit Dominus

Vespers of Our Lady begins with the first Psalm of Sunday, the Dixit Dominus. Again, we see the unbreakable link between the Blessed Virgin and Our Lord. The two cannot be separated, even liturgically. Sunday is the day of Resurrection and the Assumption of Our Lady is reflected in that Resurrection. Our Lady is carried up to Heaven by the power of angels, following her son who ascends through the power of God.

We see here, our destiny in Our Lady. Just as Our Lord divested himself of His Divine power and is re-clothed as the King of Heaven, so Our Lady is given a new dress to wear as she is clothed with her incorruptible body and crowned as Queen Mother of Heaven.

The Dixit Dominus is the psalm that Our Lord demonstrates that the Son of Man surpasses King David:

And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.  (St Mark xii.35-37)

If Jesus surpasses David, and truly honours His mother in obedience to God's Commandments, then He must recognise her as the queen of Heaven because He recognises Himself as King. This is why it is so very reasonable and right to honour Mary with hyperdulia, that unique veneration due to her unique standing in all of Creation. If the Lord honours her, so must we. Likewise if we honour her, then we cannot but honour her son for that is her dearest wish. Ikons of Our Lady always point away from her to her beloved Son and our beloved Saviour. She does not wish to be worshipped but she must accept herself as Queen of Heaven, for her son is the king.

The Psalm itself has rather violent content. Enemies are made footstools, heads are broken, the place is strewn with dead bodies. How can this suit the meekness and humility of Our Lord or Our Lady? The Psalm of course comes from the tales of the great conquests of Israel before its fall to successive powers and empires. Yet, our Lord references it directly. His great conquests are over Evil, Death and Hell and it is clear that His very presence destroys evil. Where Perfect Good is, there can be no evil whatsoever. Any being that takes its life and existence from evil must perish at the presence of God, without exception. Our Lady too, by virtue of the peculiar grace bestowed upon her by Her Son, is a formidable opponent of all that is Evil, just by being herself.

The Psalm speaks of Christ's eternal priesthood following the pattern of the enigmatic Melchisedec whose name literally means "King of Peace". Even though Our Lady has no priesthood, she is the Mother of Priests, for as just as a priest is transfigured by Our Lord in the Mass by participating in this High Priesthood, so the Blessed Virgin becomes the mother of that priest. Every priest, therefore, has a unique relationship with Our Lady and her prayers support him in his ministry to make real the Divine Christ to a dark world. This is not to say that Our Lady prefers only priests, for her love, like her son's reaches out to all people. It is to say that, since we all present ourselves as individuals to God, we receive grace that is peculiar to ourselves. The charism of a priest receives grace peculiar to that charism.

Our Lady is not the source of her Assumption; she receives it at the hands of her son. In receiving this she points the way for us too. While we may not be assumed into Heaven, Our Lady does show us that we have a God who is willing to honour His commitments and promises to us. She points to a faithful God who wills that we should find life with Him. She points to the Love of God for each of us. Catholics do not worship Mary: they rest assured that in seeing the Blessed Virgin, they know that Christ is near and His Salvation will follow.

Methodical and non-circular Catholicism

Having seen another good theological debate destroyed by ad hominem attacks, I do muse on the method that people use to settle questions of Moral Theology in this day and age. Scientific method has been, in some sense, born out of the traditional Church's method of enquiry.

As I see it the method goes as follows:

1) Form the Question.
2) Perform experiment.
3) Make Observations
4) Interpret Observations.
5) Form Conclusion.

So for example:

1) Does this stone float?
2) Drop it in water tank.
3) The stone is now at the bottom of the water tank.
4) The stone has sunk.
5) The stone doesn't float.

In Moral Theology, the question is usually "Is it right to X?" The same method gives us:

1) Is it right to X?
2) Read the Holy Scriptures for information about X.
3) Collate texts about X from Holy Scriptures.
4) Check interpretation of those texts in Church Tradition.
5) Form a conclusion.

E.g.

1) Should I sleep with that man's wife?
2) Read Exodus
3) Exodus xx.14: "Thou shalt not commit adultery"
4) "There is this further, that in that very debt which married persons pay one to another, even if they demand it with somewhat too great intemperance and incontinence, yet they owe faith alike one to another. Unto which faith the Apostle allows so great right, as to call it ‘power,’ saying, ‘The woman has not power of her own body, but the man; again in like manner also the man has not power of his own body, but the woman.’  But the violation of this faith is called adultery, when either by instigation of one's own lust, or by consent of lust of another, there is sexual intercourse on either side with another against the marriage compact: and thus faith is broken, which, even in things that are of the body, and mean, is a great good of the soul: and therefore it is certain that it ought to be preferred even to the health of the body, wherein even this life of ours is contained." (St Augustine, De Bono Coniugali iv)
 5) I shouldn't sleep with that man's wife.

Of course, that's a very simplistic answer to a well-established question and there are bits we need to consider such as circumstance, intention, or even whether the husband is actually still alive.

However, there is another method being used in the current clime:

1) Should I sleep with that man's wife?
2) I have the gut feeling that it's right to sleep with that man's wife and lots of people seem to be doing it.
3) I John iv.7 "Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God."
4) In Exodus xx.14, recent scholarship shows that adultery doesn't mean what we now think it means.
5) I should sleep with that man's wife.

Yes, I know that is a bit of a straw man argument. To be honest, I can't think of an argument that supports adultery - perhaps I'm just not that imaginative - but this is the shape that arguments for recent decisions in Moral Theology seem to be following. Perhaps wiser people would put me right.

This new method seems to be.

1) Form the question.
2) Answer the question based on subjective observations and social conventions.
3) Read Holy Scripture/Tradition to find the bits that fit.
4) Discredit the bits of Holy Scripture/Tradition that don't fit using "modern scholarship".
5) Justify the Conclusion formed in (2).

A rational human being would discredit the New Method on the grounds that it assumes the thing it's trying to prove. It is a circular argument problem, just like

A) God exists.
B) God caused the Bible to be written.
C) Therefore the Bible is infallible.
D) The Bible says God exists.
E) Therefore, God exists.

I still see arguments like that from supposedly learned scholars trying to prove the infallibility of the Bible. It doesn't work and doesn't convince anyone.

If we have a moral question, then we usually have a vested interest in the conclusion - we'd like X to be morally right because we enjoy it. However, as Christians we must concern ourselves with the Truth. Christians have to believe in an objective Truth simply because Our Lord specifically says, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life". If there is an objective Truth, then we have to suspend our desire for X to be morally right in order to put it through objective tests to discern whether it is. The Old Method is objective and there is no room for subjectivity. We can then rule our bodies by making them conform to the objective moral truth that Christianity provides.

If we're really set upon discovering moral truth in this day and age, then we need to take the circles out of our arguments.

St Benedict's Priory Salisbury 2013: Incarnation

It might not have become apparent from the last couple of posts, but I have been away on my usual retreat. This year it was very sorely needed, as my life seems to be changing dramatically and having the wit, wisdom, direction and Christian love of good, honest churchmen around me has enabled me to grab a purchase on who I am while the maelstrom of life tugs me this way and that.

As I said above, to God even the smallest things matter; even the really sub-microscopic entities have a relevance and a value within His grand scheme of Creation. Every particle born of the Big Bang, every little fish that bravely flopped and floundered on dry land, every ape-like being that dared to set foot upon the ground and walk upright, every little child that opens its eyes for the first time, blinking in the light of the outside world, all of these matter to God without exception.

As I approach my ordination to the priesthood, the influence of my sacerdotal friends and soon-to-be colleagues in orders has been very strong and, in reading through the prayers and scrutinising the actions at the direction of the wise, I have found myself drawn ever more deeply into the mystery of the Incarnation. Every ritual and ceremony of the Mass has a reason - a purpose that draws us into God and God into us. I suspect I shall make all kinds of mistakes at my first Mass, but it won't be for lack of desire. The Mass is a great gift to us, a true and powerful way of giving thanks and touching God Himself.

There is nothing wrong with big thoughts! The night sky with it trillions of stars and galaxies, all of immense size and yet at unimaginable distance, certainly enthuses the mind. The majesty of Salisbury Cathedral from which one can see a hundred miles and eight centuries, is the product of big ideas. But big ideas can only grow from little tiny things. The parable of the mustard seed is one of Our Lord's simplest and yet most powerful images.

The Mass is so small.

It is tiny, a little group of people standing as their priest offers on their behalf the sacrifice of the Mass, a little wafer, a little water, a little wine. Each communicant takes into their body something so small it can be swallowed, and yet this something is absorbed into the body, fusing into it and becoming part of it. This little something is Christ Himself! Christ the Priest offers Christ the victim upon the altar of the Cross and distributes Himself entire into the bodies of the people.

In Christ, God Himself is made small, tangible, graspable, embraceable. God knows that little things like us cannot comprehend an Uncreated Being who from nothing creates all of everything, but they can comprehend one of their number. Mixed in the chalice of His body are His humanity and His Divinity in which we are permitted to share through His offering of Himself.

It does not worry me that my Church is small. I would like it to be big because I would dearly love folk to share what I have found for themselves on their own terms. While we are small, we just keep the Faith and do what we are commanded and offer the Mass for a greater and truer personal relationship with Our Lord than could ever come via other means.

The sad thing is that I am not in communion with my monks. The church to which they belong and to which they serve faithfully has different ideas now, but they have not rejected me nor I them. We still have our confraternity. Their smallness is still very visible to God and yet they still possess space for countless friends and well-wishers. The value of their community is priceless.

To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

(William Blake 1757-1827, from Auguries of Innocence)

The smallness of the Incarnation is truly bigger than the World can hold, and yet a manger can contain it.

How small was the last Mass you attended?

Are all priests corrupt? - Secularisation, sentiment and small things

I have had several reactions to my last post, some of which seem to be concerned that I am becoming a secularist, and others reacting to the language used. Certainly the author of the major substance of the post was neither out to offend but to give an opinion. I stand by posting it because it does raise some issues that lie at the interface between the Church of Christ and the "common society ".

Secularism itself suffers from the same disease as "Protestant" and "Catholic". One has to be very careful about definitions of words. We already see the words "Catholic" and "Protestant" as labelling two tribes in the Northern Ireland of the 1970s who were causing much anger, aggression, and even death. A peaceful society could not function in such circumstances. There needed to be a common forum in which both sides could talk, and this wasn't even achieved until the 90s.

I really do wonder how many of these tribal "Protestants" and tribal "Catholics" actually went to church regularly and were active members of their church community. I wonder how many of them actually lived lives actively living out the two commandments of Christ to love God and neighbour. Surely only God can answer this!

An Anglican Catholic knows too well the problem of definition with people taking their own understanding of the words and making judgements based upon them without any actual enquiry. To many, our status as "Continuing Anglican" reads as "people who broke away from the CofE and are still angry about it". That's not who we are, but that is the way people look at us, rightly or wrongly. We also suffer strange attitudes because of our name. Those who hold to that form of strict Protestantism which regards Rome as the Whore of Babylon think we're quislings and deserving of punishment. Other Protestants believe us to be a tiny little rump church talking itself into insignificance. Some Roman Catholics lump us in with all Anglicans without realising that our understanding of what it means to be Anglican is very slightly different. The point is that we get dismissed easily, especially when people won't listen.

Now that's a big point in the text of my previous post. What is the forum for true dialogue and listening? Where can each member of society meet and raise concerns that really bother them? Can that ever happen in a church in which the priest preaches a sermon and an individual finds an unexpected issue? I am aware that my own sermons and homilies are far from perfect and I dare say that there are people who have found my words actually quite offensive. How they are offensive is a different matter!

There are issues that do cause offense. My stance which is firmly against abortion will be necessarily offensive in the ears of a pro-choice campaigner. My subscription to the Catholic Faith will offend many women on the grounds that I believe that they are not, never have been and cannot be ordained unless there is a clear Divine Mandate which causes the whole Church to accept that change in teaching. If I don't want to be offensive, then I cannot possibly succeed in offending no-one, and perhaps I should stop blogging altogether. Perhaps I should stop preaching altogether.

The main thing here is that I don't want to offend anyone. It is never my intention to cause offence, but rather to put my words into the crucible that forms the reader's mind and let them find the Word of God within it. It might be unpalatable, but it is honestly meant with love.

Intentions are a key issue in today's society. I am sure that bankers, lawyers, politicians, priests, celebrities have, for the most part, good intentions for all of their work. Indeed, why single these folk out? The majority of members of society are good, honest people. But things go wrong. "The pathway to Hell is paved with good intentions" so they say.

Our Western society is based fundamentally on Christian morality - an historical fact. Other societies are often based on the morality of the indigenous religion. So our morals are indeed shaped by the society in which we work. Our society passes laws that allow that society to function. These laws will be based on the indigenous population and will adapt and evolve as that population develops and changes.

So it is that we find ourselves in a society that simply is post-Christian. The majority of people who say they are CofE do not go to church save at hatches, matches and dispatches. That is a well-known fact. It is also a fact that midweek church attendance is growing, though the effects of this are still not known. Furthermore Atheism is growing, as is agnosticism and spiritual indifference. We have other religions now which have a good claim at being called "indigenous". It's interesting to note that the majority of religions do have a submission to lawful authority. For the Christian, this is found in Hebrews xiii. "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves : for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief : for that is unprofitable for you."

The Christian view is definitely a desire to participate in society. The Christian Religion is one in which intention is absolutely central to the relationship between the individual and the divine. In the Christian ideal, there is no need for law because the desire is to do the will of God for the purpose of enjoying life with Him. That's the ideal, but we know about the fallenness of human nature. Legislation is necessary because of sin. In order to protect ourselves from the effects of sin and to make it clear that sin has consequences on the perpetrator, there has to be a code of law. St Paul really does better justice to this notion in his letter to the Romans.

For the Christian, "Christianity may not have a monopoly on morality and goodness but it does believe it has a mandate" (Bishop Damien Mead) . Human beings do not have to be Christian in order to be good, law-abiding or moral. People who hold to other religions still bring themselves to society and have value because they bear the image of God even if the do not necessarily believe that they do so. If people wish to contribute to the well being of society then that should not only be encouraged but the basis of society's fundamental tenet. If we wish to reap the benefits of belonging to society, then we must make the appropriate investment, and this is regardless of what we believe. This is the real essence of a secular society.

Secularism in its proper sense is not synonymous with atheism. Most priests in the country are secular priests as opposed to monastic priests or hieromonks as the orthodox would have them. Secular in this context means working in the common society. Secularism properly done means that those folk who wish to make an investment in society and reap its benefits are allowed to do so and those who wish to take without giving be reprimanded for doing so. The ideal is that all people of all faiths come to the council chamber to run society on an equal footing in proportion to the most common set of beliefs. Our country, having had predominant Judaeo-Christian beliefs, has laws that reflect those sets of beliefs. It has been good that laws which force people to go to church have been abolished - God, after all, wants people to seek him willingly.

At the present moment, Traditional Christianity is a minority and the law of the land have been altered to reflect that. Now this does present big problems, especially on issues that really do matter. For example, the issue of Abortion causes friction because of the beliefs of what constitutes human life. Very clearly, this is an issue in which offence can be taken readily. For the Traditional Christian, Abortion is nothing less than an unlawful killing. We have to be careful though: is it murder? is it manslaughter? How far should we consider the mother's role? What if the child is conceived because of rape? If abortion is legal, then this problem goes away, but it is still the taking of life! If we hold to the immorality of abortion, then it must make sure that the victim of rape is supported every step of the way. The problems of abortion are immense! One can make a blanket statement that Abortion is unlawful killing but the application of that can only ever be on a case-by-case basis. The issue is much easier to deal with in the small, rather than in the large.

This level of care is inherent in the ideals of Traditional Christianity, but not in its actuality. Again, this is the fallenness of humanity. The convolutions of legal and economic systems produce similarly difficult issues. The Welfare State is a case in point. The majority of failures in the welfare system are due to "red tape" or "lack of public funds". One might believe that these are a fobbing off. In fact they are more than likely to be true than due to the corruption of officials. It is the system that is flawed and needs careful re-invention. The trouble is that the system is so complicated that the slightest tweaking can cause another travesty of justice. Yes indeed, there are corrupt bankers, politicians, priests, lawyers and celebrities, yet in many cases of travesties of justice, it is the system itself, man's fallenness in the very operations that he has put together. It is right that the Church get angry at injustice and at any and every single injustice that is hurting the vulnerable. That anger needs to be put to good use.

Since all our systems are flawed, and in the reparation of those flaws become inflexible and unwieldy, we can only hope to deal with what we can seriously and definitely influence. This means starting small. The Christian system is simple in its statement, and yet has produced every political system in the West. Each has had its flaws, and its successes. It has been the size of the system that has produced the complexity which generates the injustices in society. That cannot be helped. All that can be done is for things to be done in the small, and this is where the parish church can have its strength if the laity are clued in and contributing with their peculiar abilities. A well-informed and active laity, cherished for their own wisdom, can make all the difference in the small and particular cases which the System misses.

This is not to say that the laity don't have dominant roles in the System itself. Christians should indeed seek to play a part in the System to influence it on the inside. If the Church can harness the power of the small, then the world itself can indeed be transformed by the tiniest grain of mustard seed.

Most of us can do nothing about the System itself, but our anger and frustration can indeed be motivated to making a difference, not through the blame game, but rather through active service and small acts of the best intentions governed by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in properly and well-informed consciences. The Incarnation of Christ allows us to be confident that our efforts will not be in vain. We must not despise the day of small things but use our smallness to grow a new system that will not allow vulnerable individuals to slip through the net and prevent others from taking more than is their due. This is what the great priests like Fr Dolling did. It made a difference. The same is possible for all priests in their little churches as they serve their laity in their becoming lights to the world in reflection of Our Lord.

Let us remember our first duty of prayer, and keep that up.

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved , and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (I Tim ii.1-4)

Then, when we have prayed, only then we shall repair the system and perhaps secularism will be Christian again through the choice of individuals, rather than coercion.

All priests are corrupt - The damaging implications of sweeping statements

I read with interest Fr Chadwick's post Are the Atheists Our Enemies? On similar lines, I thought it might be eye-opening to hear the views of an insider who happens to be a secularist. I present an opinion of an intelligent member of the Laity and the views that the Church must address if it is to stand any chance of being productive in the present age.

As a member of the laity I have listened to many sermons and informal comments regarding modern society that I do not agree with. At times I have had to consciously stop myself from shouting out “Are you kidding?!” and to retain decorum. Whilst one often hears statements that they disagree with, the church context is rather unusual in that the laity don’t really get a chance to respond. There is no question and answer session after a sermon and, since most members of the laity are not professional theologians, there are limited opportunities to publish disagreements or to engage the clergy in debate. I am no great intellectual and it could be that I do not deserve an opinion on sweeping statements presented by the clergy, but I can no longer resist the urge to respond to the continual attacks on capitalism and secularism. Maybe there is a rational argument behind the aggression towards capitalism and secularism but I never seem to hear it. I may just be a lay person, but I would still like to hear the reasoning behind the argument rather than just the sweeping statements. You never know, I might even understand it and change my own opinion.

I am very grateful for the opportunity of using this blog to express my concerns with some of the attitudes of the church and would like to emphasise that this is only my opinion, which I am happy to reconsider if given evidence to the contrary.

Corruption and Money

The amount of revulsion in the church directed towards the City is rather astounding. I have heard several attacks on the thieving politicians, greedy lawyers and corrupt bankers, all apparently out to swindle the innocent poor people of their hard-earned pennies.

It is interesting that the vast numbers of individuals making up these professions are all lumped together as one. Whenever people talk about the recent abuse scandals involving some priests it is always emphasised that some priests have been guilty, not all. The same eagerness to separate the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ individuals does not apply when it comes to discussing the City. Evil and corrupt systems designed by evil people to make the poor poorer. I’m no psychologist or economist but I don’t quite understand how this works, do banks have some kind of ‘evil test’ that prospective employees have to pass before being allowed to work there? Financial services is one of the UK’s key industries and for graduates heading into the world today the City is brimming with employment opportunities that are just not available in other sectors.

Maybe the clergy do not rely on these services as heavily as I recently have, but I would personally find life very difficult without bankers and lawyers. Also, whilst being very sceptical about the merits of career politicians, I really doubt that anyone chooses a career in politics for the money; a quick look at the salaries of UK politicians should tell you that anyone capable of being an MP probably has a far higher earning potential in the commercial or corporate worlds. Controversially I actually believe that politicians’ salaries should be increased so that people who work for a living can afford to be MPs without a salary sacrifice, rather than the positions being filled by those from monied backgrounds... but that’s a digression for another time.

My other half and I are currently buying a house and we could not have done it without the banking system or a solicitor. The banking system has allowed us to obtain a mortgage so that we can have a home together and the solicitor has been doing all of the paperwork that probably would have given me a nervous breakdown. I’m not pretending to understand exactly how the credit crunch was caused, but I will not be writing off the whole banking system without some reasonable evidence. Are all bankers corrupt? Is it just the commercial or investment arms of banks? Do they take sole responsibility or do other commercial organisations share the blame for the recession? I don’t know the answers but would certainly wish to be informed with a bit of substance before being asked to accept sweeping statements.  

Additionally, the income generated by those sectors is huge. As someone who is rather impecunious and therefore reliant on government-funded services (largely bankrolled by the private sector) I am hugely grateful for the corporations that generate sufficient profits to contribute significant amounts of tax towards national healthcare, defence, infrastructure and the justice system. If my perception here is completely misguided then I would welcome being informed (and would be happy to read relevant texts on the contributions of the private sector to the UK economy) but what I refuse to do is to completely dismiss these industries and the people that work in them on the basis of a sweeping statement with no reasoning behind it. Most priests would be disgusted to be implicated in child abuse because they have been ordained but some seem to write off large groups of people because of the actions of some within those groups. It doesn’t seem terribly Christian, or perceptive.

Secularism

Having now sat through several sermons attacking secularism and read many similar comments from those in the church, I feel like I’m admitting a terrible secret by stating that I am a secularist. I’m a practising church member and a secularist. Is this inconsistent? Some people in the church seem to think it is.

I must admit that I had never considered secularism as the cause of society’s misery and squalor but rather the separation of the State from religious institutions to allow government and politics to function without religious bias. Secularism allows all citizens to be treated equally, irrespective of personal religious beliefs.

This does not mean that religion cannot play a part in society, but often those who oppose secularism seem to misunderstand the secularist ideal for people to practise their religions ‘privately’. Private here does not mean secretly or guilty, I have no problem with people being very open about their religious beliefs and incorporating their faith into their everyday lives. What I do object to is the State determining public policy on the basis of religious beliefs. This may have worked back when there were no options regarding which faith or denomination to follow and where worship at the Established Church was compulsory at a legal level, but this doesn’t really work in modern society.

How many Christians would be happy if a law was passed to ensure that all meat sold in the UK should be Halal? Or if all baby boys should be routinely circumcised in accordance with Jewish tradition? I’m guessing that there would be uproar, and rightly so, for we shouldn’t have to live in a society where the laws that apply to everyone are determined by the religious beliefs of a minority.

This doesn’t mean that religion will not have an influence on public policy. If, for example, 40% of MPs (who, in theory at least, are supposed to be representative of the wider population) are Roman Catholic then it is likely that their moral viewpoints will be influenced by their faith and therefore reflected in their voting. One must accept that the atheist/agnostic/humanist views would also be represented, along with those of organised religions, but considering how many agnostics/atheists/humanists there are in the UK, I personally feel that they’re probably currently underrepresented in public politics and deserve greater representation in line with democratic principles.

Despite the Church of England no longer having the stranglehold on UK faith, it is still in a very privileged position regarding its status as an Established church. I personally do not believe that this is right or democratic. My personal opinion is that religious beliefs are overrepresented in UK politics and that the resulting inequality between the established church, other churches and those of no religion causes far more contention between the groups than is desirable in a multicultural society. If religion is not entwined with the State then all can be equal under the law, which will make it far easier to respect each other’s beliefs.

What is the intention behind imposing God’s laws on society? Does God want us to blindly follow laws of a Christian nature just because they are entrenched in legislation or should Christians opt in to following the guidelines that have been set out for their benefit. I would argue that imposing Christian laws on society does not actually make it any more Christian but rather removes the freedom of choice to submit to faith. I don’t actually believe that Western societies have been historically significantly more Christian, but have rather had strong incentives to lead Christian lives. It used to be an offence to not attend church on a Sunday; society may be becoming more agnostic but one cannot also ignore the implications of incentives on the worship habits of individuals.

Some of my fellow secularists are very religious, belonging to both the Church of England and other non-established religious organisations, some couldn’t care less about religion, some are atheists and some secularists have become so after facing personal difficulties in not being able to get their child into their nearest school because they don’t go to the right church or faced similar problems. I’ve got to admit that I have particular respect for CofE secularists. I do not for one moment imagine that they are less devoted than other CofE worshippers but rather that they value democracy above their own political privilege. Should this moral objectivity be condemned by other religious people or respected? I hope that religious secularists come to be more accepted by their peers.

Most secularists are not obsessed ranting people trying to force their views onto everyone else, but people who have considered the state of society today and come to their own conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that secularism is a rational way forward to make society more cohesive. They aren’t setting out to destroy society by persecuting religious people, honestly. Sweeping statements about the evils of secularism are generally uninformed and, to be honest, not conducive to any rational debate.

The Angry Church

I am a young, female, capitalist, secularist member of the laity. Maybe I’m not the church’s target audience since I am neither a theologian nor willing to accept sweeping statements without question. However, if the church does want to attract (and keep) inquisitive members of the laity then it needs to engage with them and not just simply intellectually dismiss those who are not ordained. Whilst I understand the need to be inclusive to all, it would be nice to feel like the church was the organisational equivalent of The Sunday Times and not The Sun.

Society is made from a tapestry of individuals and it is rather sad to see so many of them written off as being morally dubious on the basis of their occupation without any clear reasoning behind the judgment. I have not lost any respect for the clergy I know personally on the basis of the actions of other priests and I hope that I would still be welcome in the church if I ever found myself working for a bank. Is it up to the clergy to decide which professions should have access to Christianity and which should not? If I were a priest who believed that bankers, lawyers and politicians were corrupt then I would focus on trying to convert them to change their wicked ways rather than condemning them outright. Fortunately I am not a member of the clergy so will not be doing any condemning.

Do I want to spend my Sunday mornings listening to unsubstantiated statements or intelligent social comment? I find the idea of an intelligent and welcoming church far more appealing than one that tells me what is good and bad without telling me why. An angry church is not a happy church. Which would you rather join?

Articulating Identity.

Recently, I've had to leave a couple of Facebook groups for the simple reason that I am tired of the squabbling that seems to surround questions of Anglican identity. I note with interest Father Chadwick has set up some "blow out" pages so that people can get into heated but polite discussion about how Anglicanism relates to Roman Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodoxy. I prefer to stay out of such polemics because they soon fall into insults or beating others over the head with the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the XXXIX Articles.

From the point of view of the Affirmation of St Louis, the principles of doctrine neither include the Catechism of the Catholic Church nor the XXXIX Articles, neither are they included in the Canons of the Anglican Catholic Church. Of course, it is perfectly reasonable for a member of the ACC to hold to these documents provided that they do not clash with the doctrine of the Undivided Church. However, given that neither the CCC or the XXXIX Articles are held unanimously, they really cannot be used as authoritative statements in debates with other Anglicans. The CCC properly belongs to the Roman Catholic Church, the XXXIX Articles with Protestant Anglicanism. Both contain much that is valuable; both contain much that causes contention and division among Christians.

It is true that in my more rabidly Roman days, I used to hold greater store by the CCC and had very little time for the Articles; now I do not because if there is any ground for Unity, it must come from the Undivided Church, not from just a large majority of it. The CCC does not represent the orthodox teaching of the whole Catholic Church. Neither do the XXXIX Articles which are largely an attempt trying to unite the Catholic and Calvinist wings of the Established Church of England. The CCC does not define Catholicism, the Articles do not define Anglicanism.

Many would look at the Continuing Anglican Churches and say that, because they are Anglican, they are Protestant, and these folk will cite history to show the intent of the Reformers was to excise all that is Catholic. The first Reformation in England, of course, was that of Henry VIII and the infamous divorce business. It was political as it separated the politics of England from the politics of Rome. The intention was categorically not to change doctrine. This came later as evidenced in the prayer-book of 1552 and its successors. Nonetheless, the Church of England maintained its orders and Apostolic Succession (until 1993) regardless of largely irrelevant Papal Bulls. It is true that there is a Protestant admixture within the Church of England, but that Protestant heritage does not speak for the whole of Anglicanism. It certainly does not define Anglicanism and it certainly does not define the ACC.

The ACC is Anglican, not because there is any one definition of what it is to be Anglican, but rather in that it holds to English Catholic Liturgy. It has the 1549 BCP which is lifted practically wholesale from the Sarum Use and augmented with the Gregorian Canon in the English and Anglican Missals. It is using liturgies used in England since before the Reformation and continued afterwards. That is the Anglicanism we preserve. Of course, our members can hold to the XXXIX Articles if they wish, but they are not definitive in the ACC Canons and they do not define what it means to be Anglican. I suspect the same is true in other Continuing Anglican Churches.

To call the ACC Protestant is actually meaningless given that Protestantism did not exist in the Undivided Church. Indeed, according to the Orthodox Church, Roman Catholicism is Protestantism defined. Personally, I find the term "Protestant" difficult to bear on the grounds that it lumps me in with those Christians who, for reasons of their own, reject good Catholic doctrine. I'm not too fond of the phrase "Reformed Catholic" either, but then perhaps I'm just being precious. I cannot speak for other Continuing Anglicans who may be happy with being Protestant or simply plain indifferent.

Perhaps I've made my distaste for the Articles clear to the point of being offensive. That is certainly not my intention. I have seen clever priests from within my own Church write some very fascinating, edifying and truly Catholic articles on the Articles. What I would hope is that, rather than take them as being authoritative, we should rather take them as opportunities to reflect on what it means to be Catholic. They contain much wisdom, but not all wisdom.

The Power of the Laity?

Recent times have seen great changes and indeed turmoil within the Church of God as a result of several changes in society and how those changes have been addressed by the Church. Before he became Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger famously said:

“How many winds of doctrine have we known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking. The small boat of the thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves - flung from one extreme to another: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism and so forth. Every day new sects spring up, and what St Paul says about human deception and the trickery that strives to entice people into error (cf. Eph 4.14) comes true.”

The 20th Century has been a crucible of ideologies, testing them to breaking point. Aristotle’s theory of virtue as the middle way between extremes has been tested to the uttermost as Man has struggled to work out who he is, and in doing so has endured some of the most abominable suffering that he has caused himself as he has effectively torn himself apart in his investigation.

What we have been left with in the West is a strange notion of equality as people have tried to free themselves from the shackles of oppressive regimes. Empire, Reich, Republic and Communism have pushed each other out of the way in offering alternatives to human beings who seek to end their oppression and find genuine freedom to be themselves.

What has emerged in the West is Equality.

Equality has affected the Church as the tensions about the proposed ordination of women and the sacramental marriage of practising homosexuals have been introduced or thrown out or debated or caused splits. It seems that for every ideology seeking equality, there is a church. What is behind this equality? I wonder whether the answer is a struggle for the individual to define himself as an individual in amidst other individuals. Society is becoming more atomic as people seek to assert their distinctiveness as individuals.

For example, if we look carefully at the purported Ordination of Women issue, we do have to ask why women want to be ordained in the first place. The objection to the exclusive priesthood of men is the belief that God can call women as equally as He can call men. There are times when the clergy can seem like a self-important clique hiding behind robes and prayers and wielding power over the souls of the laity. If this is true then it is wrong – fundamentally wrong – and it is perfectly reasonable that women should object to being lorded over. Given that God calls men to be priests and not women, there is certainly an apparent imbalance in the way that women perceive their relationships with God and the Church.

It has been said that God calls men to be priests and women to be mothers. Often this is rejected on
the grounds that women want to be seen as beings beyond their biological functions. It is also rejected on the grounds that men already have a biological function in becoming fathers of the children that are born from their wives. One also notes that comparatively few men are called to be priests in comparison with a large majority of women become mothers. There is something very particular in being called to be a priest and something very common to being a mother.
And yet this attitude does denigrate an undoubted miracle which causes human beings of all stripes to stand back in awe and amazement as a new life is brought into the world. One cannot and should not belittle birth, nor should one belittle being a mother. Motherhood is a commonplace miracle.
St Thomas Aquinas reminds us of the duality between life and Sacrament.

“Now, in a bodily and natural life three things are necessary of themselves, and a fourth incidentally. For first, by generation or birth a thing must receive life; second, by growth it must arrive at its due size and strength; third, both for the preservation of life acquired by generation and for growth nourishment is necessary. And these are of themselves necessities for natural life, because without these bodily life cannot be perfected; wherefore, one assigns to the vegetative soul which is the principle of life the three natural powers: that of generation, that of growth, and that of nourishment. But, since there can be an impediment to natural life from which the living thing grows weak, a fourth thing is incidentally necessary; this is the healing of the sick living thing.

Thus, then, in the spiritual life, also, the first thing is spiritual generation: by baptism; the second is spiritual growth leading to perfect strength: by the sacrament of confirmation; the third is spiritual nourishment: by the sacrament of the Eucharist. A fourth remains, which is the spiritual healing; it takes place either in the soul alone through the sacrament of penance; or from the soul flows to the body when this is timely, through extreme unction. These, therefore, bear on those who are propagated and preserved in the spiritual life.” (Summa contra gentiles IV.lviii.3-4)

As a man can be an ikon of Christ, so a woman can be an ikon of the church. Christ is the groom and the Church the bride as we read throughout the testimony of the Lord’s teaching. A mother brings to birth a baby; she nurtures it, she feeds it, she mothers it. Of course, fathers play a big role in the development of offspring even though they lack the physical make up to be as effective. It cannot be denied that men can feed a baby, but artificially so; men can nurture a child, but the bond that comes from bearing a baby in the womb is uniquely female and is carried through birth. This does not in any way deny that a single father can bring up perfectly adjusted children, but there is a lack. Children have been conceived by two parents and they benefit most with each parent making an investment in their welfare. That investment, however, is going to be peculiar to each parent.

There is, however, more to humanity than progenesis and men and women experience in life. Equality of fatherhood and motherhood is meaningless even though there are very obvious rights and responsibilities that are shared with being a parent of a child.

The key to the modern notion of equality lies in the whole system of rights and responsibilities. We cry for equal rights for all, desiring that everyone be treated equally and that everyone plays an equal part in society. The idea is perfectly reasonable: if we wish to function properly in our society we should make an investment in that society that is in keeping with what we can provide for that society so that we can draw from it fruits that we desire from it. If we want more, we must invest more.
 The whole issue of equality arises from the many instances in which some draw out from society more than they put in, while others’ investment is eroded. True equality lies in the balance between investment and fruition.

The ordination of women is a case in point. Female Christians have a true, honest and fervent desire to love and serve God in exactly the same measure as any man. Yet they see no potential fruit in the Church which will meet with the investment that they innately desire to make, except within the vehicle of the Sacred Priesthood. Yet, many men have exactly the problem. These folk come to God with their willing and honest sacrifice only, like Cain, do they have it rebuffed.
The objection for the women is that it is a rejection on the grounds of sex, whereas for men turned down for the priesthood it is something else. It is here that the comparison with women priests and male mothers seems more reasonable. The passion and desire to make the investment is not enough to realise the outcome; the necessary machinery for realisation is not there and cannot be there for ontological reasons. To obtain the desired fruit would mean a complete change in whom one really is. Far from ratifying the individual, it would destroy it. Exactly the same issue underlies many problems within the Church and within Society.

However, the outcome is still the same regardless of any underlying issue: one has been rejected and one’s desire to play a role has been spurned, not at the level of a genus, nor at the level of a species, but rather at the very nature of the individual itself. In the face to this lies the question ”what is one’s true vocation?” Where does this love of God, this desire to serve, this longing to be in participation with His Creation have its fulfilment?

The answer can only be found in a search in one’s life. Given one’s passion, what machinery is there that can indeed reify that desire and cause it bear the proper fruit of one’s investment. Rejection from the priesthood means a vocation within the laity.

It is the distinction between clergy and laity that seems to cause the majority of problems. The perception is that the clergy gain fruit more out of their investment than the laity. In the old days, the clergy were more intellectually qualified than the laity. The priests and monks were the wise men with “all the answers” the laity were those who worked and supported the church with their tithing and craftsmanship. Of course, this paints a particularly rosy picture of how life was and perhaps this is a little romantic, but it does have the seeds of the truth which we have lost.

It is very easy to be a passive Christian these days, especially in a Traditional Church where the priest says Mass and Office and everyone else sits apparently passive. Ideally, the laity should be praying the Mass with the priest, and prayer is not a passive activity but involves the focus of the mind and the heart. If, however, the Mass and the Offices are the only opportunities in which the Laity are engaged in the Church, then there seems to be very little to do. What has been forgotten is the idea of the priest as a servant of the servants of God – a title which these days seems only to apply to the Patriarch of the West.

What has been lost is an integrated society in which the parish church represents the worshipping part. The burning desire to serve God that many men and women feel is being subverted by the pressures of time and secular work. We might desire fervently to work for the glory of God, but find that all our efforts go in to reinforcing a secular machine which has no care for our church and our religious beliefs. The secular and sacred divide is essentially dividing our desires for a happy, God-fearing life in our society between God and Society. Our secular jobs take us away from devotion with the result that we either settle into our jobs and take a passive pew, or we resent our secular jobs and desire to devote our energy into serving the Church. For many, the Church is not as physically nourishing as it was when it was richer.

Here is the dilemma for the laity and also for non-stipendiary clergy. The laymen and women must be allowed ownership of the Christian Community of which they are members. This means that they must be responsible for the growth and the upkeep of their parish and work to realise its existence. Too often, it is the clergy that have to take all the responsibility and, becoming accustomed to doing so, view any attempt to wrest that responsibility (particularly in leadership) with suspicion on the grounds that the laity have the right intentions but the wrong ideas.

We therefore have boiling away here a mutual distrust between clergy and laity. One way to get around this is for dialogue between priest and people. The priest must remember his duty of service and spiritual guidance for the laity. He is a facilitator, educating the laity into the ways of the church that they may serve faithfully and trustworthily in the Traditions of the Church and thus fulfil their innate desires to serve God as an individual in a community.

The priest is the father of the community, hence his title as “father”. Yet fatherhood is quintessentially a status of relationship than a status of absolute authority. God the Father is precisely so because of the existence of God the Son. The Son obeys His Father and the Father supports His Son. In the Son we see the Father and the Son is given the right to reign over his Father’s Kingdom. The leadership is shared because the Father trusts the Son and the Son obeys the Father. This should be the model for our parishes. There is plenty of evidence of female leadership in the Church, indeed in Ss Catherine of Siena, Hildegard of Bingen, Hilda of Whitby and Theresa of Avila. In them is obedience and the result is trust in their leadership.

The Church does not need new Puseys, Newmans, Hookers, Kebles, Lauds, Gardiners or Cranmers or any other inspirational figure to start a new movement within the Church to bring it together. It does not need Fresh Expressions, Messy Churches, or innovation after innovation after innovation. All lt needs a laity educated in and faithful to Scripture, Tradition and Right Reason who will rejoice in their lay-status and support the man that God has chosen to act as alter Christus at the altar. We need a laity who are willing to invest in the parish in union with their secular lives in order to reap the fruits that God will give them. We also need a priesthood that is comfortable in its service to the laity to allow that laity to grow the Church and guide it according to the Law of Almighty God.

Individualism leads to atomism and anarchy. Honouring the individual in the context of the Church under the love of God leads to harmony with the Divine and the building up of the Kingdom of God.

Your church?

Your church is near you.

Your church is for you.

Your church invites you.

Your church needs you.

I saw this on a local CofE Church noticeboard. What do you make of it? I wonder what the locals make of it. Its major failing is that it does require people to think and I wonder how many in our locale want to expend the intellectual energy in fathoming it out.

The main question one asks of this sign is, “for what purpose?” This can be added to each of those statements and I wonder if the church itself can answer that. This, of course, goes for all churches, parishes, missions and congregations of whatever stripe or colour or expression of Christianity.

Your church is near you for what purpose?
What good is it for a church to be near when people vote with their feet and with their car tyres? People these days shop for churches and find one that they like best. It may be the Holy Spirit guiding them, but it might also be the spirit of one’s preference. Of course, the perfect parish doesn’t exist and if it does, we shouldn’t join it! Yet, if there is such a great disparity between parishes that one can exercise choice, does this choice extend to what one believes? If there is a difference between what two parishes believe, can one be sure that this difference does not compromise one’s salvation? If not, then at least one of the parishes is heretical. What really counts is whether a church is near Christ rather than whether it is near an individual.

Your church is for you for what purpose?
In what sense can a church be for you? This ought to have an easy answer. The Church of God lifts up the chalice praying, “We here present to thee, O Lord, the Cup of Salvation : and of thy mercy grant that in the sight of thy divine majesty it may ascend as a sweet-smelling savour for our salvation, and that of all the whole world. Amen.” The Body of Christ was broken for us. The Church of God is for all of Creation, not just for individuals. How does the church exhibit that desire to save the whole world? How does it suffer with suffer with God at the rejection of His love? How does it seek to call people back to Him?

Yet, the words “for you” have several interpretations. “For you” could mean “on your behalf”, “for you to use”, “stands with you”. Of those, only the former really makes sense for the Church. The Church does not stand with anyone who preaches hatred and evil, but, like her creator, must sit and wait indefinitely and in pain for that person to repent and return. The Church is not something to be used for one’s pleasure since this puts the individual’s use above God’s purpose.

Your church invites you for what purpose?
One is often wary of invitations. Each advertisement is essentially an invitation to the consumer to try a product, and yet it would be a foolish consumer to try that product out without knowing what it is at the very least! “We invite you to stick your face in this fan” is not likely to meet with many takers (one would hope none!). So there must be some clear purpose in inviting people in and, for a church, this would have to be the Christian Faith. A church that invites people in to experience the Christian Faith must produce just that if it intends to keep people there. A church that is not clear about what it is inviting people in for may as well be advertising sticking one’s face in the fan.

However, will a church alter the product to suit the person coming in? Or will it alter the product to get people to come in? If so, then this runs the risk of gaining the world but losing the soul. If we invite people to the Last Supper, will they meet Christ? How can we be sure?

Your church needs you for what purpose?
Again, many people can be very suspicious of this statement. If the above three questions have not been sufficiently answered then the materialistic mantra of “what’s in it for me?” raises its head. For a materialist, what the Church offers is nothing at all. There is no worldly gain that comes from going to church other than meeting people and getting a warm glow at family functions. One does not need the Church to supply social opportunities or happy thoughts and many people seem to be able to find exactly these things elsewhere.

Of course, the local church needs a congregation to survive and, without the support of those dedicated to its growth, it will shrivel and die. This is more of a material need of the church. Yet the church needs only God to provide and if He does not want to provide then one must accept that. One then does have to question what provision God is giving and to what purpose. He will not give anything of true value to those who are simply not following His commandment. Even in times of dearth and famine, one can find that spring of living water welling up within from Christ Jesus himself. If that is not there, then there is a problem. We hear from Our Lord that, “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.”

A church must expect death in order for it to grow but only in the right circumstances. The seed planted in the ground is the Body of Christ Himself which, when raised, procured the Resurrection and Salvation for the Church. Death can only be followed by life if one participates in the life, death and resurrection of the Lord. This belief has to be central to the being of a church and indeed a reality for that church, not just a theory, a nice idea, or a clever story. Jesus really existed, really died and really rose again. If a church is not convinced of that, it cannot convince others.

The trouble with the English language is that it has lost any distinction between “tu” and “vos” i.e. singular and plural. When it says “your church” does it mean “ecclesia tua” or “ecclesia vestra”?

If the former, then I have already written about this before in conjunction with what it can mean to be "for you".

I like signs that make me think!

What a shame! Or What, a shame?

Sermon preached at Our Lady of Walsingham and St Francis, Rochester on the Sixth Sunday After Trinity and at St Augustine’s, Canterbury on the Seventh Sunday after Trinity.

Would you like to be on the telly?

 Really?

For many of us,
 the prospect of seeing ourselves on the box
 is not actually a happy thought;
 for others
 it would be the best thing imaginable.

Suppose, however,
that you actually did see yourself
on the telly.

 How would you feel? 

Would you cringe?

 Why?

For many of us,
 seeing ourselves in photos
or on video
 is an unpleasant experience.

 After all,
we see ourselves in a different light
 from our usual experience of life.

Our internal life
is confronted with the external reality.

We stand outside looking at ourselves
 rather than watching the world from within.

Suddenly
we are given the opportunity to see ourselves
as others see us.

It is then that we are confronted
with what we don’t want to see in ourselves,
and that makes us cringe.

The trouble is,
 opportunities to see ourselves from the outside
 are very, very few to come by.

If they’re a rare occurrence,
then perhaps we have nothing to worry about.

Now do you really believe that?

[PAUSE]

If the thought of being on television
appals us for fear of seeing ourselves as we really are,
then it’s clear that we have some sensation
of shame about ourselves.

Shame is a bit of a taboo word in society today.

We’re not supposed to be ashamed;
 we’re supposed to be ourselves and be proud of it.

Most of the time, that’s all very healthy.

We should indeed look to love ourselves.

When Our Lord tells us to love our neighbours as ourselves,
 He is assuming that we love ourselves in the process.

However, many of us don’t love ourselves,
 at least, not properly, and this will need to be addressed.

However, what then is this thing called shame and why do we feel it?

[PAUSE]
Our shame comes from the sense
 that there’s something wrong.

We don’t want to appear on television
because we will appear
to be wrong. 

We’ll say something stupid,
trip and fall over
or end up making a fool of ourselves
 in front of Simon Cowell.

Shame has to do with personal standards.

If we’re fussy with our grammar
then we feel a blush of shame
at a misplaced apostrophe
or writing “could of” instead of “could have”.

To have shame means we have personal standards. 

Of course, it could be that our personal standards are wrong.
In His ministry,
our Lord Jesus seeks to shame
the Pharisees and Scribes for their own good.

He exposes their personal standards and  values for what they are.

The Pharisees pride themselves
on knowing and keeping every single little bit
of the Jewish Law.

Knowing this,
Our Lord says, “Woe to you,
scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin,
and have neglected the weightier matters of the law:
justice and mercy and faith.

These you ought to have done,
without leaving the others undone.”

He measures them by their own standards.
If they are going to keep the law,
then they must obey the whole law,
 in spirit as well as in front of everyone.

“Love thy neighbour as thyself”
is as much part of the Jewish Law as tithing.

 It’s not a new commandment,
and yet,
the Pharisees push that conveniently out of the way
so that they can make a big show
of giving their contribution
of garden herbs.

 It is this embarrassment
that will fuel the Pharisees into engineering
the death of Jesus.

They do not like being under scrutiny
 – they see themselves as above that sort of thing.

No-one is above scrutiny.

Just like everyone on the television,
we are all under scrutiny.

Every action and word and thought
are known and understood by God.

He discerns our thoughts from afar.

He knows the very hairs on our heads.

He knows everything that
we have done
 even down to the very intention of our heart.

Who doesn’t find that disturbing?

Why is it disturbing?

Because we are ashamed of our wrong-doing.

Because we have failed to be the person,
who deep down, we really want to be.

We know that there are standards
and we know that we have fallen short of them.

Our shame is an honest reaction
to our sinfulness
- not just the failure to live up to our own standards,
 but to live up to God’s standards.

As Jesus shows us,
 intending to hurt someone
is as bad as committing the deed.

 To call our brother, Raca
 –worthless –
shows us up for not valuing others
and loving them as God intends us.

 It is our shame at our wrongdoing that alerts us to the need for forgiveness.

It is the shame that
we aren’t the person that we want to be
 that alerts us to the need to love ourselves
and others
in the way that God intends us.

It is the pricking of our conscience.

So what do we do when we feel some sort of shame?

[PAUSE]

Our Lord tells us the answer.

 “Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar,
and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

 Leave there thy gift before the altar,
and go thy way;
first be reconciled to thy brother,
and then come and offer thy gift.”

Notice what’s being said here.
It isn’t saying “if someone’s done you wrong, go and make peace.”

 It’s “if you think you’ve done something wrong to someone, go and sort it out straightaway.”

God’s priority is on loving one’s neighbour before our liturgical duties.

The Pharisees put their law first, not love,
their perceptions of self-worth before God’s true values.

[PAUSE]

Of course,
some of us still feel guilty about things
 that we’ve been forgiven long ago, even in confession.

Some of us have learned to hate ourselves.

 If that’s true, then that’s usually the Devil reminding us about our sinful past.

 It’s the Devil spreading the lies into our hearts mixed in with great portions of the truth, trying to convince us that we are worthless.

The truth is that God is love
and desires not the death of a sinner,
but rather that the sinner repent and live.

 If we’ve truly and honestly confessed and repented
 and made good amends,
then we have nothing to fear.
 God DOES forgive sins.

We can be sure of that.

 If the Devil reminds us of our past,
then remind him of his future!

We can be made clean by God if we are willing.

Do you still burn with shame rather than with love?

An Alternative to the CofE?

I just posted this on the Anglican Catholic Blog. I believe that my Church is a credible alternative to the Church of England for all those who hold Catholic tradition and Anglican identity as being important to the Christian Faith and believe that these have been eroded by recent developments within the C of E.

In the comments, as Fr Anthony says, the ACC has the prospect of building upon the foundations, not by the polemical argumentation which is somewhat passé, but by seeking new ground to be as innovative as the CofE but holding tightly to what we believe. This comes through prayer and humility, learning from our mistakes, reflecting on how unfit we are for purpose and putting our entire trust in the Love of God which we desire to promulgate. The first resort is prayer, the second is honest toil. May the glorious majesty of the Lord our God be upon us: prosper thou the work of our hands upon us, O prosper thou our handywork!