How to be a wise-guy

Sermon for the eighth Sunday after Trinity

Many Christians find it very uncomfortable sharing their faith with others. Perhaps you are one of them. One of the most common reasons why people find it so difficult is that they feel that they don’t know enough so as to answer the questions people put to them. Perhaps you understand where they are coming from. Perhaps you envy Solomon who seems to be able to answer every question that the Queen of Sheba puts to him.

Why do we envy Solomon so?

[PAUSE]

We do get a bit of a rush when we know the right answer and give it in a way that people understand. There’s something rather satisfying about putting people right with facts and answering hard questions. The trouble, as you can already tell, this leads us into a particular sin known as intellectual pride.

What if we really could answer every question put to us?

Well, then we would have to be God. Even Solomon can’t have all the answers. If he did then how do we account for his many hundreds of wives and concubines? If he had all the answers to all questions then how could he fall so far from God?

The invulnerability that knowing the answer gives us is a false certainty. St Paul declares it very well when he tells us that knowledge puffs up but love builds up. Just knowing leads us astray. We can see this in how the great intellectual institutions have fallen away into heresy. One very prestigious British university have given an honorary doctorate to a woman who has, more than most, tried to rid the Church of people who hold to the traditional faith once given to the saints. Many universities now are secular institutions in which religion is studied as a thing that happens or as a peculiarity of backward thinking rather than engaging on a quest for truth within Christian Doctrine that used to be the case.

It seems that Solomon’s example has not been learned by many of today’s academics.

[PAUSE]

Love builds up, and this means love of God. All things start with God and if they don’t then there is something amiss. Once we start treating God as a thing to put into a test-tube, then we have gone wrong. Academic study is fine and noble, but it is not the basis on which we build our faith. This is the difference between wisdom and knowledge.

The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord. As Solomon himself says

For the very true beginning of her is the desire of discipline; and the care of discipline is love; And love is the keeping of her laws; and the giving heed unto her laws is the assurance of incorruption; And incorruption maketh us near unto God: Therefore the desire of wisdom bringeth to a kingdom.

Just because Solomon goes astray doesn’t mean that he stops telling the truth. And this is the key difference between wisdom and knowledge.

Knowledge waves its hand in the air like an overeager schoolboy shouting, “I know! I know!” very loudly. Yet often Knowledge will not admit that he doesn’t know and blusters only half-truths to hide that he doesn’t know.

Wisdom sits quietly, listening and taking notes. Wisdom struggles with what she doesn’t know but is committed to the truth. When she doesn’t know the answer she will say so firmly and seek the answer sitting at the feet of her Creator in love of Him.

[PAUSE]

There is nothing wrong with not knowing the answer to a complicated question. The only questions every Christian needs to be able to answer honestly are “Do you love the Lord Your God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength?” and “Do you love your neighbour as yourself?” The wise Christian will say “no!” to both of these.

And then the wise Christian will say, “but it is my firm intention to learn to do so better with the help of God Who I long for.” And then the wise Christian will go about building his house on the rock that is Our Lord Jesus Christ. That's how we share our faith most effectively. It is hard being wise, but better for your immortal soul than being a know-all.

The algorithm of Life?

If anyone were to produce an "app" for the Monastic Breviary as conformed to the Book of Common Prayer, I would be very, very interested. I have been toying with learning to code in order to produce something like this for a long time as the only versions I see are firmly Roman Catholic and lack the gravity of the English of the Prayer Book.

Breviaries (such as the BCP)  give a script with which we can make our prayer truly common. The fact that the Offices and Missals follow a basic structure and formulae with which to arrange the propers means that any two people 500 miles distant using the same breviary are sharing the same prayers. Thus a formulaic liturgy enables two or three to be gathered together in the Name of Christ despite being distant spatiotemporally. An ancient liturgy has the power to make prayer common for believers throughout the centuries.

Some people object to such scripted prayer and, yet, they don't realise just how scripted our society is becoming - to its detriment!

Call a utilities company or a bank, go in for a health check up, even order fast food, and you will be presented with a script. Go off script and you cause confusion. Give your title as "Fr." rather than "Mr." and the person at the desk will announce confusedly, "computer says, 'no!'" Tell you utilities company that you don't want the upgrade and you will be bombarded with the same message all trying (unsuccessfully) to convince you that you really want the upgrade. And woe betide you if you don't give a clear response to, "do you want fries with that?"

Of course, scripts in these situations can be very useful. It means that the employee covers all bases and can deliver what the customer wants with greater confidence. It means that the healthcare professional can ensure that the correct treatment is given. It means that you do get your fries with barbecue sauce. 

Scripts are also useful for the autistic. The autist often has no means of getting an intuitive answer to social questions or know how to engage in conversation with confidence. Having a script helps, which is why the autist often sounds like a stuck record at social gatherings, and the script can be adjusted as more and varied social encounters are made. This makes sense and helps autistic individuals function, albeit rather stiltedly on occasion.

And yet it seems that we are becoming more and more scripted as a society. Our social commentary is performed on Twitter or Facebook. Our phones not only predict the word we are trying to spell, but which word we are going to use before we even start typing. The Digital age is making scripting easier. The Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, criticised the former Prime Minister, Theresa May, of communicating solely by use of a script. She said:

“I don't want to be too derogatory or pejorative about Theresa May. She's obviously no longer prime minister, but having conversations with Theresa May was pretty soul destroying. She would never depart from a script, no matter where you tried to take the conversation. I remember in one meeting, going in and trying to think about how can we get this meeting off on a sort of gentler start before we immediately got into the areas where we disagreed."

Perhaps we get some inkling into how Brexit negotiations have gone badly. Relying always on a script does stifle imagination, and the more that politicians do it in their word bank of stock phrases which speak volumes without really saying anything, the more we lose the ability to think carefully about what we really want to say. 

The same is true in teaching. In my final years as a schoolmaster, I was being encouraged to use stock phrases in my school reports to parents. Everything had to conform to the "school style" and anything that didn't conform was re-worded by a senior teacher on "my behalf". The result was that occasionally I was contacted by parents to clarify things that I hadn't actually said. 

Again, we can see perhaps that there is beginning to be a desire for us to control what we say. I notice that CofE Bishops are now chosen to fit a managerial mould and to carefully control what is said. This is certainly true in the recent Matthew Ineson debacle in which despite the evidence being very clear, those who control CofE newspeak still have not issued a formal apology to a man whose life has been blighted by abuse and the consequent cover-up by the effective hierarchy.

Departing from the script risks offence. Certainly, the autist can find himself in a bit of a pickle when he can't follow his social script, but the resulting offence allows learning to take place and, while it may be the hardest word, a genuine "sorry" is always helpful. As human beings we should be allowed to depart from the script in order to grow. 

Scripting life means that we become more algorithmic in our lives. All of the big internet companies such as Google, YouTube and Facebook use our scripts to generate algorithms by which they learn more about us and seek to influence us by nudging our choices to conform to their predictions. This has already be used to great effect through the abuse of online data. We need to be wary of this or we will lose the actual freedom of our choice.

The overall effect of being governed by algorithm is that we gain a very mechanical view of what it means to be human. We already have that in a view of neuroscience which states that the brain is the cause of the mind and thus that all that we think is actually controlled by physical states in the brain. If people believe that this is all they are then they will become slaves to non-human entities. If we are already being influenced by machine-code, then there is nothing to stop that influence from becoming outright control. To escape from a potential Blade Runner dystopia, we just need to be human. 

This brings me back to the Liturgy. Liturgy is very much about corporate prayer. We pray together to the same God in solidarity with each other. In so doing we commit ourselves to the two commandments of loving God and neighbour. The more we use liturgy properly, the more we can frame our own personal colloquy with God. There is nothing to stop us from saying the Magnificat first thing in the morning when we wake up if that's how we feel drawn to pray. Of course, we should ask ourselves why and, if we do, then we will be enriched when the revelation comes.

We are allowed to pray without prayer books. This cultivates a deeper, personal relationship with God. We use our liturgy as a way of approaching Him before allowing ourselves to be lost in the sea of His Infinity and trusting Him to bring us back to ourselves strengthened by His love. We need to seek ourselves authentically. This means that we stand with our feet on the ground and our hearts in Heaven.

It means the humility to allow others some way to "define" us in order to get to know us and yet not allowing their definition to obscure who we are as a Creation of God. It means the humility to recognise that we are more than we appear even to ourselves and accepting the titanic dissonance that this causes. It means the humility to accept that God's authority is right and that he does not create us to follow an algorithm.

The liturgy that we possess is not for controlling us. It is a way in which we can approach God. It is the framework of our lives, not the algorithm that tells us how to live. We keep to the liturgies of our Church in order to keep ourselves part of that Church and living lives of response and responsibility to that community. 

St Benedict maintains that we need to take our Liturgy very, very seriously and correct our errors, but his Rule does show that there must be life and prayer outside the times of worship. It is this freedom that allows monks to become scholars, artisans and archbishops in their own right rather than just slaves to an algorithmic breviary. Yet the breviary entices us through love and devotion to seek out our common prayer with others.

I am grateful that the Anglican Catholic Church has this latitude built in. We can be Prayer Book Catholic, using the 1549 or US1928. We can be monastic or Anglo-Catholic using the Monastic or Anglican breviaries which conform to the BCP. The point is that our liturgy is a powerful means to the greatest ends, that is, participation in the hypostatic union of humanity and divinity. By seeing ourselves as being more than biological machines and collections of physical laws and chemical algorithms, we will approach what God wants us to be. The liturgy assists that approach.

And, if anyone does make an "app" for the Monastic Breviary as edited by Canon Wilfrid Douglas of Fond du Lac, please do let me know! I'm happy to receive that algorithm.

New Scientist = Old Contradiction

I railed about Tabloid Thinking in the Church and how it is irresponsible for the spiritual development of Christians. I find also the same irresponsibility within Science Journalism and it is truly damaging the way that human beings think. It makes me wonder that there is empirical evidence for humanity becoming markedly less intelligent.

Consider this headline from the New Scientist.

REALITY: THE GREATEST ILLUSION OF THEM ALL

How shamefully meaningless. A headline designed to sensationalise rather than arouse clear thinking.

A simple dictionary definition will suffice.

Illusion: an instance of a wrong or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience; a false idea or belief.

If everything that we perceive is an illusion, then so is the empirical basis on which we make the claim that everything we perceive is an illusion. Our experiments, apparatus, measurements, all designed to give us an understanding of Reality only ever give us illusions. It means that we must even doubt the hypothesis that everything we perceive is an illusion. 

We find ourselves firmly in the position of Cartesian Skepticism and the Brain in a Vat argument.

If all reality is an illusion then Science cannot possibly hold onto the claim that it is a vehicle for the discernment of Truth. If Materialist Scientists accept the "scientific" finding that all Reality is an illusion, then they have no business of telling any religious adherents that their religious belief is delusory.

To my mind, the results of the experiments that have driven Scientists to this conclusion demonstrate that they have reached a reductio ad absurdum.

Assumption: The Scientific Method is the only method by which we obtain objective truth.

1) The Scientific Method shows that what we perceive is different from objective reality.

2) The  Scientific Method is based on perceptions of objective reality.

3) Therefore, the Scientific Method shows that empirical methods find only what is different from objective reality.

4) The Scientific Method shows that the Scientific Method is false.

This is the liar paradox: the Cretan has said that all Cretans are liars. The only logical conclusion is that the assumption must be false. Thus, either there is no objective reality (so you are clearly not reading this!) or the Scientific Method needs to be reconsidered carefully. The study of Feyerabend's Against Method is probably a good place to start.

Of course, there is another assumption that I have made which would invalidate my argument. I have based everything here on a reading of a New Scientist article. If the New Scientist article is inaccurate then it calls into question its capabilities of reporting the truth. If it is accurate then it is reporting that Science is incapable of discovering the truth and thus renders itself in opposition to Science which goes against its own remit.  Nonetheless, if anything comes of this, the New Scientist seems to have proved itself unreliable and unworthy as a means of education for those who would read it.

I recommend doing some proper science instead.

Transfiguring Evangelism

I know that I have been somewhat harsh in my criticism of the CofE Cathedrals that are effectively becoming theme parks of entertainment rather than retaining their place as centres of worship. I think my criticism is just, especially when (I repeat) the CofE claims to speak for Christians in this country. Its actions prove clearly that it does not: it speaks for the State and the State preaches Cultural Marxism under the guise of "Social Justice".

I do, however, recognise its struggle for, believe it or not, there are Christians in the CofE. They may not be as much in evidence in the hierarchy but they are there in parishes that hold firm to Christian principles. And where there are Christians, there is a Gospel that is struggling to be proclaimed. Evangelism is a vitally important aspect of Christian duty and it is polarised into either going too far to make the Message heard and thus forgetting what the Message says, rather like the town crier who has left his parchment at home on the kitchen work-surface and is winging it, or concentrating on what the Message says but forgetting to proclaim it.

Evangelism is hard for many Christians because the majority of Christians are introvert in their personalities. This doesn't necessarily mean they are withdrawn, sullen and silent, but rather they relax and recharge from within rather than from without. Meditative prayer and quiet study are generally easier for the introvert. Yet, the extravert needs to develop their own skills for prayer and study whereby they allow physical silence in order to focus on God. We can get too hung up on indulging our Jungian stereotypes rather than focusing on Christ Who will inspire us to do His Will by the strength of our love for Him over the love of ourselves. Yet, the introvert also needs to do that which is better suited to the extravert and spend time proclaiming the Message to real people.

What should the CofE Cathedrals be doing to draw people in? There is only one answer that I can give: Repent!

We must remember that repentance is not a turning away from sin - that's its effect. Repentance is a positive activity. Repentance is turning towards Christ.

One thing I have been hearing lately from many quarters of the internet is the message that Evangelism is about being authentically Christian. I hear this from our own Bishop Stephen Scarlett, from Abbot Tikhon, et c. I think they are absolutely right.

Evangelism needs to come from us as part of God's light. The parables are very clear. We are the light of the world, yet we shine not with our own light but the same light that bursts forth from the Transfigured Christ. If there is no oil in our lamp, if we cover our faith with Things and Gimmicks (Yes, Mrs Dean of Norwich Cathedral, a helter-skelter is a gimmick no matter how much you say it isn't!), if we fail to tend the light, then we cannot shine.

We need to ensure that we are indeed shining with God's light and not the sordid neon light of the world. This requires personal attention and self-discipline, not finding the right Tweet or Facebook post. God will always give us opportunities to evangelize but by living our lives in Him.

As many have already said, we need to forget about the latest "Fresh Expression" or other branding. There is no "Hovis" emblazoned across the Bread of Life. Our Gospel is the same recipe the World and Time over but baked in the oven of our own living. The reason that the CofE are looking for gimmicks is that they have allowed their worship to become stale in its authenticity and, rather than seeking to revive the spirit of the Liturgy with the fire of the Holy Spirit, they have looked to the world for inspiration. Thus they have changed the recipe, and shine with a neon light which is unnatural and not kindled from Mount Tabor.

The Evanglising Parish should seek to do well in the gifts differing that God has given. As long as it keeps the Catholic Faith unaltered and worships God authentically, allowing the struggles, pains, hardships, poverty, and misery of life and existence to be consecrated by repentance, then the Light of lights will shine forth giving meaning to the lives of those who seek first the kingdom of God whereupon they will find true joy in living and true light for shining.

Mens Sana Incorporises

I read with no little concern about the latest initiative by the CofE. Normally, I take the shrill bleating of the Daily Mail with a cellar of salt.

This latest plan to bring people to faith, to my mind, is another instance of the CofE confirming to worldly thinking.

The matter of Muscular Christianity is one that I think is easily misinterpreted to be essentially masculine or "manly". Here I have to beg the indulgence of Fr Christopher Little who works in defence of something he calls "Muscular Christianity" which seems part of his American upbringing rather than the half-hearted attempt to go back a century or two as CofE Archbishop Welby seems to want. This is the man who wants Cathedrals to be fun.

I loathe sport. It brings out the worst in people because it sets human being against human being in utterly arbitrary and pointless point scoring which frequently infects life outside sport. The strongest, fastest and most skilful are rewarded at the expense of those who are not. In this enterprise of physical prowess, we find ourselves comparing Man to the beasts that perish as we perpetuate the Darwinian "survival of the fittest" leaving the weak by the wayside and forgetting those who miss the mark.

Ah! Might not the CofE teach good sportsmanship?

Perhaps. Games are good when they are for honest fun. Yet, the very spirit of competition is dangerously Pelagian when injected into the Christian milieu in which we can always win the prize by running fast enough or flonking the dwile far enough, and at the expense of others. Competition is necessarily divisive and tribal. The only competition that truly matters is the spiritual battle that wages within us. The victory there is Christ's and our success in this is Humanity's participation in that victory. If it doesn't matter whether we win or lose, but how we play the game, then what do winning and losing mean? Do we win if we play the game better than our opponent?

And we see this in the Imperialist notion that Victorian Muscular Christianity possessed. Once one tries to celebrate fastest, strongest, lithest, one tries to instill these as virtues into the people and thus put us on the road to eugenics, and that's a nasty place to go.

All this is a deflection from Christ and a distraction of the soul from contemplating life. The Church is not a "mens sana in corpore sano" keep fit club. It is a hospital for the spiritually wounded and a hostel for the spiritually poor. If the CofE wants to cater for the physical body and forget about the health of the soul, that's its affair. Again, I severely doubt that this initiative will do anything to help the numbers on pews, nor will it help the spiritual health of a nation that is sinking into the Slough of Despond.

The focus of the Church is the worship of Christ. He is not a trophy but the cure of our sickness. If the CofE wants a trophy, then it will end up with atrophy.

The Sickness of Absalom

Sermon for the seventh Sunday after Trinity

You see the rebellious Absalom dangling helpless from the tree. Are you going to be the one who puts him to death?

King David says, “deal gently with him!” but General Joab says, “kill him!” Whom do you obey? King or General?

[PAUSE]

There are times when justice and mercy almost seem to be opposites.

Absalom has rebelled against his own father, who has sought to divide the kingdom against him and turned the people of Israel against their king. The fact is that Absalom is a handsome, persuasive man who manages to lead the people astray. If he lives then he becomes a figurehead for further rebellion and dissent against the lawful King David. Justice dictates that Absalom be punished and removed from being a threat against Israel.

And yet, Absalom has seen his own sister Tamar raped by their half-brother Amnon. He has seen his father, the lawful King David, gloss over this treatment of Tamar. Certainly no punishment of Amnon by David is recorded. Absalom is filled with wrath and indignation at David’s weakness and love of Amnon. Mercy dictates that the reason for Absalom’s wrath be taken into account and allow him the chance to reconcile with David.

Justice and Mercy seem to be opposites.

[PAUSE]

Those of us who are partial to soap operas will be used to the convoluted histories of their characters and there is something of the pantomime in it all when we long to see the villain punished and the hero kiss the heroine and live happily ever after.

The fact is, there is no happily ever after, neither in soap operas nor in this life. Whether you see Joab’s destruction of Absalom as necessary for the good of Israel or a sin against David, there is not going to be a satisfactory conclusion to this whole affair. We can see the sins of the fathers influence the sins of the children at every stage.

Of course, Joab is being pragmatic and has noble views of the good of all in Israel. He kills Absalom realising that he is a constant threat, and he also convinces David to leave his mourning for his son to rule Israel properly. We might perceive that there is a lot of good sense in Joab.

Yet King David realises that he is the cause of Absalom’s rebellion and seeks to preserve the young man’s life in order to reconcile him with his family and rejoin him at court. We might perceive that there are a lot of good intentions in King David.

So which is the right course of action.

[PAUSE]

What we can’t get away from is the fact that every act, even lawful acts, have the potential for sin somewhere along the line. Joab seeks to protect Israel, but disobeys his king. The King seeks to protect his son, but risks ruining his country.

What is also notable in this story is the lack of mention of God except in thanksgiving for the end of the battle on the lips of Ahimaaz. There is no prayer to God for Absalom on the lips of the king. There is no prayer for the correct course of action on the lips of Joab. God does not appear to be consulted, so we don’t know what God might say.

Only in God are Justice and Mercy the same thing because they have their meaning only in Him. Given that we face tough decisions every day in our nation, in our community and in our own personal lives, we really must seek first the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness.

We can see that for Absalom, David and Joab, the law is not enough for both Justice and Mercy to have their place. Maybe we, too, see justice too much as an expression of the law and mercy too much as the holding back of the law. Maybe we see sin too much in legal terms of crime and punishment rather than of sickness inherent in Man’s very nature – a sickness that can only be cured by living in the fulness of God.

Many divisions within Christianity are due to interpretations of Scripture in legal terms in which chapter and verse are pitted against chapter and verse. Many influential theologians have been trained lawyers.

We must realise that law and the lawyers are of vital importance to the stability of any community, especially one that is under the influence of sin. The law gives us the backbone and the lawyers help us interpret by putting flesh on the backbone, but they cannot give life to the body: they can only provide structure and framework. The more we try to apply the law indiscriminately and dispassionately relying on blanket application and sweeping statement, the more we will fail to understand either Justice or Mercy.

[PAUSE]

If we see sin as sickness, then we see Joab trying to quarantine a sickness from his people. We see David seek the health of his son and yet lose him to that sickness. And we see Christ not only as the doctor but also the cure of that sickness in His very self. We know that it is right for Joab to quarantine his people. We know that it is right for David to care for a son in the grip of a mortal disease. And we, with our benefit of a glorious hindsight, know that even for Absalom things are not lost in Christ.

When faced with indecision, we too must remember that our sickness and sins are being healed in Christ. We must make the best decision we can through prayer and listening, and then trust Him fully even when things seem dark.

[PAUSE]

Would God have spared Absalom?

He may have done so already.

Bowing and scraping the bottom of the barrel?

I remember my confirmation very well. It was the first time I remember coming into contact with a bishop in full chasuble and mitre. The bishop in question was a truly lovely man – gentle, affable and, to my young mind, holy. In fact, there is nothing about him to suggest otherwise even now in this time of personal iconoclasm. He doesn’t stand out among the bishops I have known other than the bishop that confirmed me. The dear man has long gone to his rest and I joyfully pray for his soul because he fulfilled his mission with due ceremony and quietness. I gather he was not a man for committees, but rather a wise pastor.

I remember being in awe of him. He seemed huge to a little boy, though I doubt he was as tall as other bishops, and certainly nowhere near the height of my current bishop. I was told to address him as “My Lord” and so I did when he spoke to me briefly. It was for me as important an occasion as meeting the Queen.

My Confirmation was also the moment that I remember wanting to be a Christian. Before then, I was just a boy who went to church and did churchy things. It was just a cultural thing. From this moment, I had been strengthened in the service of Christ even though I was very young to be confirmed. As I look back, I see that the Sacrament was truly effective and that, at the hands of this bishop, I had been given God’s grace.

I read in many places now how the age of deference must end. I hear of people saying that we should stop calling bishops, “My Lord” and “Your Grace” and that we should stop the bowing and scraping because it harks back to the feudal society. Some feel that deference to bishops and priests stultifies the laity and invalidates their opinions. The CofE Archbishop of Canterbury says that he finds it strange when people show him deference. To my mind, that says it all.

I want to show deference to my superiors, especially my bishop. He and I are good friends which is why I refer to him as “M’Lud” in a Gilbert and Sullivan sort of way rather than “My Lord” which I reserve for more formal correspondence. Nonetheless in showing him deference, I am making very real to myself that he is my spiritual father, my ordinary, and the representative of Christ in my Diocese.

There is a psychological saying that if you smile, you will start feeling happy. The same is true in the Church, the more you act as if Christ is present in another person, the more you will see Him. The Benedictine Rule is full of deference. We have to be humble and not press our opinions for the good of the community. There must be a limit on our influence so that Christ becomes much more visibly present to us. The more I call my bishop, “M’Lud”, kiss the episcopal ring and remove my biretta, the more do I remember Christ through him. He does not accept my opinions wholesale and does not implement all my suggestions and nor should he, thank God! As leader of the Diocese upon whom the buck stops, he is wise to take advice but is the only one who makes the decisions on behalf of the Diocese. If I demand that my opinion be honoured then I am wounding my Church as much as the dissenter in the Monastery. If he and I are "equals" then there can be no cohesion in the Church and we stand in fear of becoming a loosely connected group of individuals rather than a community of believers with the sole aim of loving God and neighbour.

Why do people reject the idea of deference to the clergy? The answer is simple. The clergy have not lived lives worthy enough to allow Christ to be seen in them. Both the RCC and CofE have been riddled with abuse scandals. The latest scandal in the CofE leaves even both Archbishops tainted with shirking the responsibility of care for the abused and there seems to be some allegation going around that they have been complicit in the cover-up of abuse. The trouble is that neither of them have been able to refute those allegations sufficiently.

This is the problem, the clergy have not lived so as to be able to allow people the opportunity to give them the deference and veneration as ikons of Christ. This is why Cultural Marxism has been allowed to try and level the playing-field by refusing deference to anyone and preaching the social equality of all.

Ironically, what Cultural Marxism actually achieves is an atomisation of community, by promoting the individual above the community by claims of victimhood and lack of privilege. Thus itself engenders another form of deference in which we defer to the "oppressed minorities' and those who culturally lack privilege. One only has to look at the diversity policy of the BBC to find people promoted by virtue of being in a "minority" rather than by their merit. 

To my mind it is better to give deference to those who accept their place as ikons of Christ and strive to live up to that rather than to those who assume it. I have too little respect for Archbishop Welby and have lost the respect that I once had for Archbishop Sentamu. I cannot see Christ in them any longer because neither promote Christ.

 I do see Christ in my bishop and brother clergy because nI know that they hold the Christian Faith to the extent of sacrificing much on its behalf. I see Christ in my monastic community in Salisbury for similar reasons. I see Christ in many lay-folk too, but I don't see Christ sufficiently well in others which I need to do, but many CofE clergymen seem bound to live lives contrary to the Gospel and encourage others to do the same. 

If we expect deference, then we will be disappointed and with good reason. If we live lives for Christ and clothe our lives in Him, then we will be His ikon as we should be. If people call for an end to deference, they will end up demanding deference to themselves and their opinions as being automatically worthy of consideration.

I will continue to call bishops "My Lord" and Archbishops "Your Grace" even if they are of the CofE because I *want* to see Christ in them and by doing so, perhaps I will. But then I will try and be the good Benedictine and show deference to everyone in order that Christ's presence may be more obvious to me and, God willing, through me to the world who badly needs to see His face once more.

Crazy Golf, Crazy Mentality

Let us suppose that you are a senior clergyman in charge of evangelism and outreach. You see the numbers of people entering your church building dwindling. You see that there are youngsters who have never entered a church building before and that your church has practically lost the young.

Your church has a long history stretching back centuries. It has a faith which goes back to Christ Himself and further to when Man looked first into the face of God and fell on his knees and worshipped. Your church has a dignity of marking important milestones in the lives of individuals, communities and nations. It has been open for the Godly and Godless alike to come in and experience the Divine touch through stillness, silence and prayer. History is written into every stone laid. The graves of bishops, dukes, princes and martyrs stand as a testament to the reality of Death and the hope of Resurrection. Your church is a place where Eternity and Temporary meet.

What do you do?

Of course you turn your church into.a Crazy Golf course.

Your reasoning:

Children like fun. Crazy Golf is fun. If you turn the church into a Crazy Golf course, children will come in to the church and experience the real Christianity.

There is, of course, a hidden assumption.

Are Children going to even notice the church if they're having so much fun?

Will they notice the church when you take away the golf course and replace it with pews for your services, or will they be disappointed and not come back til you do?

Ah! But if one person comes to faith through Crazy Golf, that would make it all worth it. True, there would be much rejoicing in Heaven but what about the one who falls away from the faith because of a lack of confrontation with the glory of God normally inherent in your church?

Again the CofE shows itself to be utterly concerned with appearances, accidents and superficialities rather than integrity, substance and conviction. For Rochester Cathedral - the place where I was formally and formerly admitted and licenced for lay ministry - had indeed betrayed the faith of St Justus by becoming a house of fun.

Yes, numbers of Christians are dropping, but the Church will not win souls by changing into the very thing that it wants to win souls from. The prodigal son realises for himself the predicament he's in for himself, not because his father kept phoning him, dropping round and visiting him and giving him more of what he wanted.

Crazy Golf proves to be a distraction away from one's poverty of spirit because it scratches an itch. But scratching an itch causes more damage: one needs to address the cause, not the symptom.

What prayer will take place in a building meant for prayer when there are screams of laughter pinging around the vaults? Many churches indeed used to be little more than a cattle market on a Sunday morning which necessitated the need for the elevation of the host and chalice to the sound of bells. Yet, the church was still the centre of the community because it was the house of God.

Or perhaps, with the decline in numbers, Rochester Cathedral is merely trying out a few options before it finally closes as a place of worship and is sold to the secular community. 

Perhaps that has already happened.

Ichabod

Standing with, and not on, the Amalekite

Sermon for the sixth Sunday after Trinity

Don’t you feel a bit sorry for the Amalekite?

After all, he sees King Saul trying to commit suicide by leaning on his spear, failing and mortally wounding himself. He seeks the king in pain and terminally ill. He sees him utterly crushed by the Philistines and his whole cause destroyed. He hears the king call to him, “Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: for anguish is come upon me, because my life is yet whole in me.” This is what the king says, and this Amalekite does what he’s told and takes away Saul’s pain by giving him the coup de grace – the blow of grace, the stroke of mercy.

Then, in mourning, he tears his clothes, puts earth upon his head and goes to tell King David what has happened and what he has done. At least, that’s his story.

You see, we also have the report that Saul asked his armour-bearer to hold his sword while he falls on it. According to that report, the armour-bearer does so, and then commits suicide himself.

Is the Amalekite lying by telling that he has nobly killed Saul, a man whose dislike of David has been very much in evidence? Or is he, indeed, directly or indirectly responsible for Saul’s death.

Either way, this Amalekite is told that he has killed the King’s anointed and his execution is pronounced and swiftly carried out.

Harsh?

[PAUSE]

The king himself orders you to help him kill himself? What do you do?

Do you say, “it’s the king, so we must obey him”?

Do you say, “he’s dying slowly and painfully, so we obey him”?

Do you say, “he has nothing left to live for, so we obey him”?

Or do you say, “No, Your Majesty”?

Why?

[PAUSE]

We are very good about raising questions about life and death, but we are not so good about finding answers. The experience of this Amalekite shows us just how many questions suddenly rise out of the one single act. We Christians are always confronted by people who throw a barrage of questions beginning “what if…” and expect us to have a ready answer. Too often we don’t have an answer that we ourselves would find satisfactory. As all the questions buzz around our heads, we cry out “argh” and then try and find something a little more easy to deal with like Quantum Gravity or solving the Gettier problems.

How do we deal with questions of life and death?

[PAUSE]

We start with God.

We have to, because all things start with God. God is the source of life. He gives it and He takes it away. It is His right to do so because He is the Creator. He seeks not the death of the sinner, but rather the sinner turn to Him and live. He has the power to take away life and to give it back again.

We also have to start with the fact that God is love and relating to Him is what it means to love. It is in Him alone that we live and move and have our being at His good pleasure and ours. We see Him provide for us by feeding the multitude we see Him heal the sick and forgive the penitent and generally act how God act and living how God lives.

At each part, He seeks out Life! He promises Life. He restores Life!

And we have to act according to the pattern He sets so that we can be truly united with Him and share in His divinity as He shares our humanity.

[PAUSE]

The Amalekite is probably not telling the truth, which is probably why he gets punished so harshly. This is not David shooting the messenger; this is David punishing one who has killed the rightful king – the one anointed by God for God’s purposes.

Were we there present with Saul at his lowest ebb, then it would be our duty as Christians to preach light in the midst of darkness, joy in the midst of despair and life in the midst of death. We cannot do this glibly or like Pollyanna with her tedious Glad Game which is often a gross insult to the pain and suffering of others.

Nor are Christians called to be lawyers pronouncing this a sin or that a sin according to a set of rules and instructions and thus killing by standing upon them just as the Amalekite claims to have stood on Saul to end his life.

 Life and Death are not a matter of our understanding of the Law but on God’s unique ability to destroy Evil with His very self.

We Christians have to feel their pain and, being the Royal Priesthood, offer that pain to God through our own sufferings.

We stand with Saul in his agony, not upon him.

We stand with David in his misery, not upon him.

We stand with the Amalekite in receiving the punishment for his foolishness, not upon him.

We stand with all humanity in all suffering, not upon any single one.

Only then can we preach the Way, Truth, Light and Life of God.

[PAUSE]

Of course that’s not easy to do.

Of course that’s practically impossible.

Of course that’s almost obscene in the terror it gives us.

But it is what God does.

It is what God calls us to do.

And it is what God will help us to do by sharing fully, honestly and authentically with our humanity. This is what it means to put on Christ. This is what it means to forsake ourselves, take up our crosses and follow Him.

We start with God in all things. We stand with Him in all things. We live with Him in all things and into Eternity.

Essential clarification: Looking at the other side of the card

In this current socio-intellectual climate, I notice that there is a large section of society who are trying to win the argument against traditional Christian values by simply stopping the argument in its tracks. It's easy to win the argument by not having the argument in the first place. However, if there is no argument, then how can we ascertain the truth beyond reasonable doubt.

In the Law Court, there are counsels for both complainant and plaintiff, for prosecution and defence. To make a truly objective and scientific judgement on any issue it is imperative to examine the case on either side.

There is a famous example called the Wason Verification Selection.

You see four cards on the table. Each card has a number on one side and a letter on the other.

On the table you see the cards

5, 4, A, T

The hypothesis you are given is that if a card has an odd number on one side, then it must have a vowel on the other.

Which two (and only two) cards must be turned to show whether the hypothesis is correct?

If you've not seen this before, do pause and have a go before reading further.

You will have probably thought about turning over the card marked 5. This indeed will test the hypothesis because if the other side is not a vowel, the hypothesis must be false.

Many people will then turn the card marked A to see if the other side is an odd number. This is not correct.The hypothesis to test is that odd number means vowel. This is not the same as vowel means odd number:  that is a false inference. It's the same fallacy as saying cats have four legs, dogs have four legs therefore cats are dogs because they both have four legs.

The hypothesis can only be tested by turning the card with the T. If the other side is an odd number, then the hypothesis is shown to be false.

What we have just used here is the verification by the contrapositive. The hypothesis of "odd number implies vowel" is logically the same as the hypothesis "consonant implies even number" or, more properly stated, "not-vowel implies not-odd". To verify "odd implies vowel" by turning the 5 card is not enough, we have to verify "not-vowel implies not-odd" as well by turning the T card in order to accept or reject the hypothesis.

That's logical reasoning and scientific method. In order to make a judgement both sides must be considered.

The Church has already done this to discern truths about God. The Seven Great Oecumenical Councils are testament to the process by which we have learned to understand God. Each side was put forward in each case and the truth found out by (often heated) argument.

Not to allow for debate leads to Kripkean Dogmatism which is irrational and unlikely to discover real truth.

I write this post wishing to assure all people that I do have respect for people and the battles they have. I do recognise that homosexuals have fought hard for the right not to be arrested, imprisoned or even murdered for their orientation. I am fully aware of the devastating consequences of oppressive attitudes which afflicted Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing. This oppression must stop.

I also agree that, if one enters business then one simply cannot turn away a man because he is gay. I cannot side with B&B owners who dictate what goes on inside their rooms unless it really does break criminal or civil law. If these owners will not allow a gay couple to share a room, then they cannot allow an unmarried heterosexual couple, divorcés, the sexually promiscuous or any single folk who might engage in onanism on the grounds that it is the same sin - fornication, sexual immorality.

Likewise, I am fully convinced of the pain of those who believe that they don't match up to the sex which they were born. It must be agonising constantly feeling that your body is wrong at such a deep level. I understand why so many such folk commit suicide. This is why I have no problem with how anyone wants to dress if it eases the dissonance and makes them feel comfortable.

I really want to make this point clearly. I hate no-one. I want to hate no-one. I will fight to make sure that I hate no-one. I want everyone to find everlasting and true happiness. I want everyone to thrive, happily and healthily. I believe that the Westboro Baptist Church to be utterly and vilely wrong in their disgusting picketing of public occasions proclaiming God's hatred. I will fight for people to be free to choose and for them to have the same opportunity to live their lives as they please. I believe God does the same.

But I have conclusions that come from my belief in God and what He has revealed to His Church in Christian doctrine.

Christian doctrine says, has always said and will always say that all sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage is sinful. This is quite clear from when the Lord God says, "thou shalt not commit adultery" and thereby means for us to keep it in letter and in spirit.

Christian doctrine says, has always said and will always say that marriage occurs only between a man and a woman. This is quite clear from when the Lord speaks of a man leaving his parents to be united with his wife, from His blessing of the wedding at Cana, and in His being the Bridegroom of the Church which is His bride.

Christian doctrine says that it is God alone who determines a person's sex and no-one else. This is clear when God made humanity, "male and female made He them".

These are my beliefs and you are free to accept or reject them as you choose. If God has given me free-will and thus permitted me the possibility of falling into sin, then He has done so for you. I cannot convict you of any sin that I might perceive that you have committed. I have neither the power nor the authority, nor even the desire. Yet, as a priest of God, I do have the God-given authority (literally) to absolve you of any sin you might confess to God through me. I am overjoyed to be able to help a penitent receive the free gift of God's forgiveness and I thank God that I am not called to pronounce sentence over anyone. To do so would be to pronounce sentence on myself.

I have a good idea of where goodness and truth are, and know that they are of God and preached by his Church, but I do not have any monopoly on where they are to be found.

Christian doctrine says that human nature was created to love God and neighbour. This love is not a love primarily concerned with making people feel loved, but rather looking to reconcile them with God despite their feelings so that these feelings may be purified and transformed by God's redeeming love.

This is why I have no concerns about someone else's practices, pronouns or proclivities. It's why I am undisturbed by the fact my wife disagrees with me on many issues. Indeed, it is because we argue well that I feel confident in my position and understanding even if she still does not accept what I understand to be the truth. She doesn't necessarily tolerate my views, she tolerates me. She doesn't love me for my doctrine, she loves me for me regardless of my doctrine.

What I do worry about are those who disagree with me trying to silence me and legislate that I may not hold my Christian views. As Professor Jordan Peterson says, it is not the fact that one born a man wants me to address that one as her that I have a problem with. It is the one who coerces me by law to do so.

It is not the one who refuses to answer my questions that worries me, but the one who will seek to prevent me from asking the question in the first place.

It is not the one who disagrees with my research that worries me, but the one who seeks to make sure that I am forbidden to carry out the research in the first place.

I do have questions:

1) Do children with same-sex parents fare as well as those with opposite-sex parents?

2) Should children who believe that they are the wrong sex be given puberty blockers so that they can decide what sex they want to be?

3) If people need counselling in order to help them "come out of the closet", and people may be gender-reassigned, why may people not be allowed to change their sexual orientation? Why is conversion therapy unacceptable in its theory?

4) If a woman can have testes and a man a uterus, then what do the words "man" and "woman" really mean?

If I am to understand the answers to these questions then I need to evaluate evidence for and evidence against. If Amazon is banning books by authors who advocate Conversion Therapy, then I have no means to receive an unbiased answer to question (3) and to refute or defend their arguments.

The answers to these questions will do nothing to change my mind that I believe in God and that God has wanted to create every individual. Too often the research is discredited by ad hominem attacks rather than by demonstrating the intrinsic error.

I will defend the right of every person to speak their mind but to do so with reason and respect for the listener. Arguments are not won and lost; they are either convincing to some and not to others. Ultimately, arguments help us grow closer to the truth when they are conducted by human beings recognising human beings.

Anyone who accuses me of homophobia, Islamophobia or transphobia is not listening to me. I have tried hard to listen, but ultimately it will be Almighty God Who will draw me to the truth in Whom we all live and move and have our being.

CofE Catholic Concerns

You may remember that I have praised Forward in Faith for striving to exist within an ecclesial body that doesn't want them to exist.

I don't regret my words in the slightest but I do worry very much about these people. My impression is that they have fallen into the Slough of Despond.

Recently, in the Diocese of Wakefield, some worshippers at the cathedral who cannot receive the ministry of female priests found that women were presiding at the altar without any notice: they had to walk out of the Mass. Thy complained to the cathedral and asked to be given some notice as to who was presiding. The cathedral refused and so the worshippers brought the matter to the Independent reviewer who ruled in their favour and told Wakefield Cathedral to address the issue as an expression of “mutual flourishing”. The Cathedral said that they would invite those worshippers individually to see the list on the provisor that they would not divulge the information to anyone else.

And FiF said that this is a step in the right direction.

I cannot disagree more and, indeed, I find their attitude very depressing. Why? Because I have been there before.

Many years ago (yet still within the lifetime of this blogling) I had stopped acting as the “Liturgical Deacon” at our Parish Eucharist on the grounds that it had become a vehicle for the Rector to act like a ringmaster at a circus of all liturgies and none, and as compere at a concert of the usual theological vacuity that passes for hymnody in the modern church. The way he ran it was not a Mass. He replaced me, without notice, with a woman deacon whom I was told “had no interest in becoming a priest.” I turned up to find her acting as a deacon at the Maundy Thursday Mass that year. I had to walk out. As Parish Reader, some people expressed their concerns to me about this. I, too, asked for myself and on their behalf when this woman would be acting liturgically. I was completely ignored and told “if you let us know who the ‘others’ are, we can talk to them.”

What happened? Very simple. I was sidelined to Morning Prayer and ignored. When Fr Look-At-Me left, Mrs Rural Dean came along and ousted me with a flurry of falsehoods all designed to oust me or subdue me. I was only allowed to object to women in the three-fold ministry if I was a member of a parish that did. Mrs Rural Dean had done her best to make sure that there were no such parishes nearby. That was her commitment to “mutual flourishing”. Interestingly, Mrs "I don't want to be a priest" Deacon was ordained  a CofE priest within year after my departure.

The same will happen here but to all of FiF. If it will continue to accept the crumbs that fall from the table of “mutual flourishing” then it will either have to roll over and accept defeat or leave.

I know that many FiF priests will be carrying on quietly seeking to energise the faithful. That is what I did, quietly saying Morning Prayer with a congregation of usually one other. It was appreciated by that one, though when I left she cared not tuppence.

I therefore repeat, and indeed beg, FiF to leave the CofE for its own spiritual health and for the health of its members. Found your own church. I know that it is painful – I know from bitter experience. I know that the material and psychological cost is huge – I know from bitter experience. Yet, leaving the material trappings for a greater spiritual health is a glorious sensation. The moment that my resignation from the CofE escaped my lips to Mrs Rural Dean and her tacit hatred of “mutual flourishing”, I felt better – so much better! If we are true to the Catholic Faith, then we do have to leave all things behind and follow our Lord Jesus Christ. Already I find so much more than I lost in Him.

My Diocese may be small, laughably so to some, but we all face East both liturgically, doctrinally and in our personal spirituality. We all face the same direction to behold Our Lord Jesus Christ, albeit in places such as small chapels to front rooms. We do so because we intend to be Catholic in truth first before appearance, and so demonstrate our Catholicism more authentically.

Please, Forward in Faith, Church Union, The Society, whatever you like to call yourselves. Wake up, don’t accept the crumbs from the Grand Bully Welby. Leave the CofE. Found your own group if you have to, but we are here to stand with you if you really do want to be Catholic,

Tabloid Thinking and Clickbait Christianity

I have made it a rule never to read news articles in which one word is unnecessarily written in block capitals. Invariably, I find that, if I do break my rule, the headline is, at best, a bending of the truth or a slight misinterpretation of the facts. At worst, it is a downright lie designed to get people to read the article - it is apparently called clickbait.

I was told that an Anglican priest posted an article with a headline that appeared to accuse Continuing Anglicanism of seeking the approval of the American religious right and was thus doomed to failure.
Obviously, this is certainly not true in our little archipelago as the church most aligned to the ambient politics is the established church which is broadly heretical in her teaching.

When pressed on this accusation, the priest who posted said that he had done so to get people to read and discuss the article. He thought that it was better to post something controversial and then "clarify" in further dialogue. He had resorted to clickbait.

Of course, explaining the truth takes some time. This is why the bodies of work of great theologians are large and often unfinished. For once, I actually have to.agree with the CofE's Archbishop of York when he says that Christianity cannot be reduced to soundbites. The proclamation of the Truth of Christianity must be done in one's living it out.

Perhaps I should sympathise with this clickbait priest in trying to get his post noted. I would, but my problem is that in order to do so, he has made an accusation which he then says he hasn't made; he has stated a fact that isn't true without sufficient grounds: that's not a commitment to the truth.

This is tabloid thinking. On one level, it's like the most annoying adverts breaking in on a video you're watching or the unwanted flyers that turn up on your doormat rather than the important letter you're waiting for.  On another, more serious level, it brings us to the problem of fake news.

Things that are designed to mislead in order to grab your attention contribute to the swathes misinformation that is floating around. It makes the internet a more confusing and spiritually more dangerous. There are so many people who use the internet not only to publish the classic heresies in a modern form, but go overboard in their efforts to get you to read them.

Continuing Anglicanism is a commitment to the truth - a position enshrined in the Affirmation of St Louis. It is why Continuing Anglican churches stopped walking with the Episcopal Church of the USA in the 1970s and 1990s in the UK. Our sole commitment is (or at least should be) the truth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, crucified, risen and reigning.

If we seek to mislead in order to get people to hear our message then we present no reason for people to believe us. Telling the truth is not easy; it takes time; people's attention falter. Yes, there is always a process of clarification as the truth is examined, but we must follow the rule of backing up claims with evidence rather than allowing misinformation deliberately to spread through careless soundbite.

It is better for the message to be heard in people's own good time than for them to be bombarded with rubbish and be expected to root the truth from it. Given that there will always be those who are irresponsible, it is also better for those who seek the truth honestly to sharpen the mind against falsehood.

Broadsheets may be difficult to read, but they have greater integrity than the cheap tabloids.

The squish of complacency

Sermon for the fifth Sunday after Trinity

How does that story go? In the red corner standing at nine feet tall, dressed in his best armour, is Goliath, In the blue corner standing at a more normal height for someone of his youth and carrying only a rod and a sling, is David. At the start of the fight, David rushes in and Goliath steps on him - squish! The End.

Why doesn’t the story go like that?

[PAUSE]

That sounds rather frivolous. We know how the story should go: little David slings a stone at Goliath and kills him. We see lots of reasons why that has to be: the triumph of humility over pride; the fidelity of David to God over the idolater Goliath; the salvation of Israel from the Philistines by God. These are all true. Yet, notice that we are now in a position in which we expect the little guy to win over the giant. How many films are about the little one overcoming the great?

Surely this gives us leave to take heart that in our smallness, we will overcome. We hear the psalmist say, “though thousands languish and fall beside thee and tens of thousands around thee perish, it shall not come nigh thee.”

Yet, the outcome of most little ones who fight against the great is that they get squished. That’s not the story we expect, is it? As Terry Pratchett points out, in our rather romantic eyes, million in one chances occur nine times out of ten.

[PAUSE]

Often, we don’t take into account that what we think is a million in one chance really is not a million in one chance. You only need 23 people in a room for the odds of two of them sharing a birthday to be more than half. If we take a longer look at David, we find that there is a greater probability that he might actually win.

David is a shepherd, this is true, but this job is not just sitting around with a tea-towel on your head watching the sheep while musing about life and waiting for the angel Gabriel to pop by occasionally. No. This is a hard job. It involves knowing the practices of sheep, how to tend them, how to chart out the lie of the land, how to rescue them and deal with their injuries. And they need to know how to defend them.

David has already killed a bear and a lion. This is not boasting or the rhetoric of war. This is what David has done and what he knows he can do. He is a good shepherd. And He is faithful to God.

He refuses armour because he is not used to armour, not because he is filled with bravado or puffed up with pride. He puts his trust in God and in the time-tested skills which God has given him and which he has put into practice. His active life as a shepherd shows his track-record.

If we look at Goliath, then we see someone who is also tried and tested in the ways of war, who has relied upon his strength and height before, who knows how to wield his spear and sword, and is no stranger to killing men. But he is also complacent and relies upon his intimidating appearance to cause fear in his opponents. All we really can see of Goliath is a big man in lots of armour. Just what is his track-record, really?

This is the difference between David and Goliath. David knows the odds and he has faith in God Who has delivered him out of the paw of the lion, and out of the paw of the bear, and Who will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine. God has a track-record, too!

[PAUSE]

The key reason why the odds against David are much reduced are because he is not complacent and relies on God and what God has given him.

For Goliath, the greater a man is proud, the greater is his complacency. Goliath believes that his size and strength will always win and what he doesn’t think upon is who his opponent actually is. If David were to rush him with sword and spear, then there would be a squish and David would be no more because this is how Goliath fights his battles. If Goliath were to recognise a shepherd boy dressed as a shepherd, then perhaps he would realise how he would fight and wear a different helmet.

And, about a millennium later than this battle between big and small, Our Lord Jesus reminds us that we have to sit down and reckon the cost of our battles.

[PAUSE]

Complacency is one of the powers against which the Church struggles along with Apathy and Apostasy. All too often, a church falls because it believes that its size will save it, or its relationship with the state will save it, or its own gospel will save it. Goliath shows why this is not true.

If Christianity is to do battle with Evil, then it must recognise the Evil Power of Complacency. We can decrease our complacency through constant work at our prayer, at our study and at our hard work for Christ. It’s not enough to say, “I trust God!” or “I have faith!” we have to do something with what we have been given in order to engage and relate with our great God.

We are not saved by saying the Creed, or by following the liturgy, or by fasting. We are saved only by Christ Whom we can meet when we say the Creed, follow the liturgy or by fasting – He is the reason why Creed, liturgy and self-discipline exist, and it is for being united with Him that we are to resist Evil in our lives.

[PAUSE]

We say, “I believe in One God…” but how does our daily life show that we really do so, just like David’s life shows that he is a shepherd?

Will we say “I believe in One God” and then end up being squished?

A Nuptial Mass of Contradictions?

I have been quiet in my thinking lately, mainly because I have been trying to do some work on a new book which, at the moment is rather shapeless and needs a lot of work. I beg your prayers for my new venture, especially given imminent upheaval in my life.

As usual it is the CofE that draws me out of my silence because, as usual, it gives a theological voice to the contradictions inherent in society.

Consider the following propositions:

1) Two people of the same sex can get married.
2) Only a man and a woman can get married.

3) Transgenderism is possible: e.g. a man can change gender to become a woman.

4) Transgenderism is impossible: e.g. a man cannot change gender to become a woman.

(1) and (2) are mutually exclusive, are they not? As are (3) and (4).

I must also add in the extra mutually exclusive statements:

5) Sex is a term interchangeable with Gender.

6) Sex is different from gender.

Now, let us consider the question put to the General Synod of the CofE by Miss Prudence Dailey:

"Given that the Church of England’s teaching about marriage is that it is a lifelong and exclusive union between one man and one woman, if one person in a couple undergoes gender transition, has consideration been given as to whether they are still married according to the teaching of the Church of England?"

The answer was given by Mrs Christine Hardman on behalf of the Chair of the House of Bishops:

"The Pastoral Advisory Group considered this question in the context of one specific case and I cannot comment here on the personal circumstances involved or draw a general theological principle from a single instance. However, we noted two important points. When a couple marry in church they promise before God to be faithful to each other for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health – come what may, although we preach compassion if they find this too much to bear. Secondly, never in the history of the church has divorce been actively recommended as the way to resolve a problem. We have always prioritised fidelity, reconciliation and forgiveness, with divorce as a concession when staying together proves humanly unbearable. In the light of those two points, if a couple wish to remain married after one partner has transitioned, who are we to put them asunder?"

Thus, it seems to me that the answer is, if a man becomes a woman, his wife is now in a same-sex marriage and this is to be recognised by the CofE.

Okay, let's just scrutinise this answer against the 6 statements I listed above.

Unlike the counterparts in Wales and Scotland, the CofE does not recognise same-sex marriage. That is the official position. It must therefore hold position (2).

Holding (2) means that the CofE cannot hold both positions (3) and (5).

Yet, the CofE either does recognise transgenderism to be possible seeing that it seeks to include transgender identities or it is paying lip-service to these folk. It has transgender clergy and has been considered liturgy to recognise a change of gender. Thus, either it is sincere in its belief and holds (3) or it does not and is therefore not as inclusive as it claims.

The principle of charity means that we have to accept that the CofE is sincere in holding (3). We must conclude that the CofE does not equate sex and gender.

This means that, officially, the CofE holds to statements (2), (3) and (6). The trouble is that many Trans people would say that they really are what they are because they find the notion of sex irrelevant to who they actually are. Thus the CofE in saying that they can accept a same-sex marriage because it wasn't originally a same-sex marriage goes against Trans understanding that the man was actually a woman from birth.

Further, if we turn the clock back to the "clear decision" of 1992 in which the argument for the ordination of women was made on the basis of Galatians iii.28 in which the equivalence of men and women is demonstrated in Christ. This does suggest that male and female are interchangeable in the eyes of the CofE. Thus their holding to (2) goes against the reasons for making the "clear decision" in the first place.

Here lies inconsistency because the CofE is trying to hold incompatible positions in its quest to be "inclusive".

This is because the LGBT philosophy is in itself inconsistent. If a man can become a woman without any surgical augmentation as the Trans philosophy suggest must be possible, then that man becomes a lesbian. If the new woman keeps her genitals, then we have the problem that she will not find a partner among fellow lesbians because lesbians do not have intercourse with genitalia which were formerly male.

This means that full acceptance of the Trans philosophy might be construed as defining lesbianism out of existence.

If the CofE wants to be fully inclusive, then it has no choice but to conduct same-sex weddings.

The alternative is, of course, that she return to orthodoxy where the problem of inconsistency goes away: (2), (4) and (6) are not incompatible and are fully consonant with the Christian faith! 

However, what is most consonant with the Christian Faith is the proclamation of God's love for us and His desire for us to conform to Him for our salvation. There is always salvation for those who turn to God wholeheartedly.

Forgetting how to remember

Sermon for the fourth Sunday after Trinity

If you access some online videos, you might find some wonderful footage of the Anglo-Catholic Congress of 1933 and see processions of priests and bishops all correctly attired and all observing the correct protocol. You might find footage of some of the coronations and funerals of old Popes. You might see crackly old footage of an aged and frail Pope Leo XIII giving benediction in his garden in the Nineteenth Century.

And perhaps you say to yourself, “how wonderful! Things were so much better then.”

[PAUSE]

It’s a common feeling. Even St Benedict harks back to the old days when the Church Fathers used to say the whole psalter in a day when his monks could only manage the whole psalter in a week. What does he make of those using the Book of Common Prayer and only manage the whole psalter in a month.

We do tend to look back for the glory days.

But we do know that “glory days” don’t really exist, don’t we?

[PAUSE]

We know the dangers of wearing rose-tinted spectacles and seeing all things old as automatically being better than today. If this were true, then we should regard the process of bleeding a sick person with leeches as being more beneficial than the appropriate medical treatment today. And not only that, we have to ask ourselves whose “glory days” do we want? The British Empire? Fine, but we do have to remember that it was the desire to preserve the rule of the British Empire that eventually gave rise to the first concentration camps in South Africa. Our “glory days” can also be the days of our greatest depravity.

What do we really gain by looking back to those things that give us a whiff of nostalgia?

[PAUSE]

We have a notion of things being done properly, and we see that in the solemn faces of priests holding open the copes of equally solemn bishops with mighty mitres. We know they are taking things seriously. We know that they seek to make every liturgical action count. However, we must also remember that birettas and copes, altar frontals, solemn bows and double genuflections have not always existed. Much of our Mass has evolved beyond the sacramental essence. Liturgical actions do change. The Book of Common Prayer has changed too from its origins in 1549 through to 1928 and before its, frankly, unacceptable revisions of 1979 in the US and the Alternative Service Book of 1980 in the United Kingdom.

Why did these revisions suddenly become “unacceptable”? If everything that we do in church has evolved, then why should we object to further evolution?

[PAUSE]

Let us listen once more to Job. He sits in his poverty and remembers what has gone before. He remembers his riches, his finery and what he enjoyed before it all collapsed. Yet, he also remembers what he once did.

“When I went out to the gate through the city, when I prepared my seat in the street! The young men saw me, and hid themselves: and the aged arose, and stood up. The princes refrained talking, and laid their hand on their mouth. The nobles held their peace, and their tongue cleaved to the roof of their mouth. When the ear heard me, then it blessed me; and when the eye saw me, it gave witness to me: Because I delivered the poor that cried, and the fatherless, and him that had none to help him. The blessing of him that was ready to perish came upon me: and I caused the widow's heart to sing for joy. I put on righteousness, and it clothed me: my judgment was as a robe and a diadem. I was eyes to the blind, and feet was I to the lame. I was a father to the poor: and the cause which I knew not I searched out. And I brake the jaws of the wicked, and plucked the spoil out of his teeth.”

For Job, all his glory days are rooted in the practice of his religion. He remembers God, and we see that things haven’t changed. God requires us still to look after the needy. Herein lies the key to whether we accept a revision or not.

[PAUSE]

We Christians do not wear rose tinted spectacles. We carry our old days with us, they become part of who we are and we keep remembering that. We remember God’s Eternity and that He is the say yesterday, today and forever. The Mass is also a memorial: we do this in remembrance of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

But our remembering is more than just a warm glow of nostalgia. Our remembering brings what once was into our today and, if we keep it up, into tomorrow as well. Our remembrance of Christ is part of our covenant with God for in the act of doing the Mass in remembrance of Christ our memory becomes real: we taste and see the real Christ and receive Him into our bodies.

This is how we are to live with our history as an active part of us.

[PAUSE]

The modern revisions of the prayer books throw out important parts of the past and destroy the uniformity of our doctrine. This attitude revision occurs under the belief that modern thinking is always better than the thinking of the past. It does not account for the fact that the Early Christians knew Jesus better than we do. The Apostles had Jesus in living memory as did many of the Early Fathers such as St Polycarp, St Clement and St Ignatius. The moment we look on their thinking as old hat and of less worth than our thinking under two-thousand years, then we lose the past: it ceases to be part of us.

While times change, the doctrine of God does not and our liturgies evolve to reflect this in times that do change. When we see the footage of the Anglo-Catholic Congress of 1933, we need to ask ourselves what we admire in the faith of these long-passed clergy. And then we need to live it out, not only in their spirit but also their Faith because their Faith is our Faith! If it isn’t then something has gone wrong.

[PAUSE]

Traditional Christianity is in a state not unlike that of Job. We have lost so much at the ravaging of Time, Fashion and the Devil himself. In our smallness, and in our trying to understand what to do in the face of much opposition. Job looks back and see what he was doing before the calamity struck him and he see what he will do again when his life is restored.

We, too, in our smallness, must accept that smallness and seek the purity of Faith in our own selves, living out that which we receive of God in our past.

Ours is not just a faith of our father, but of our sons and daughters too. We need them to admire in our faith what we admire in those who peer out from archive footage, yet have long passed to the glory of God. Let us pray that we do the same!

Tilling the grounds of the argument

 Sermon for the third Sunday after Trinity

We seem to be falling out a lot, lately.

Whether about politics, or religion, or our life-choices, there are a lot of arguments raging and, quite frankly, they are tearing our communities apart.

More and more, we talk past each other, trotting out well-rehearsed arguments and phrases but without ever looking for the real issue.

And Job is the same.

[PAUSE]

We see Job sitting in his misery. His three friends, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, have now argued with him ten times and he has argued back. His friends say that Job has sinned in order to suffer so: Job says that he has not sinned. Job is beginning to wonder why his friends are not on his side.

The reason is that both Job and his friends have very fixed ideas. The friends think that because God is just, He runs the world with perfect justice and therefore Job has sinned. Job also believes that he has not sinned so there must be a problem with the way that God is running the world. He nearly even goes so far as to say that God is unjust.

And can we blame him?

[PAUSE]

As Christians, we have a very clear doctrine and you can hear that doctrine every Sunday in the words of the Creed and in the commandments that Our Lord Jesus gives us. We can strengthen our understanding by keeping the fellowship of the Church. And yet, somehow, we Christians disagree fundamentally. Job and his friends argue over one question: has Job sinned?

This is the same question that we Christians face today, “by performing that action, is that person sinning?” And we disagree so much and so violently that Christianity has fractured. In many cases, this is reasonable. Many Christians today are saying that they have not sinned by trying to change the meaning of Holy Scripture in order to magic away the whole idea.

So what do we do? How do we live with people who either think that we are sinners or whom we believe to be sinners?

[PAUSE]

As we stand watching Job, Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar arguing heatedly, as we stand watching Job scratch his sores with a potsherd and cry bitter tears, and complain and howl at God, we have to ask ourselves, just where is God here? How are these men bringing God into the situation?

If we look closely, then we see that the friends don’t actually bring God into the situation but rather bring their understanding of His justice. If we look closely, then we see that Job doesn’t actually invite God into the situation but rather accuses him of destroying him. It’s all very human centred – all human reason and human emotion. Where’s the invitation for God to get involved?

[PAUSE]

We have a lot of hurts to bear in our lives, and our society is damaged because people cannot rise above their differences. We have a lot of hurt to bear from the way that people, even people that we love, even the Church have acted. Christians may have to walk apart in order to be true to the revelation that they believe they have received. However, the crucial thing is that our divisions must not allow us to sit proudly over our relationships with others. If we do truly hold the Christian Faith, then we know full well that our own sins separate us from God just as much as anyone else’s and that means that we cannot look down on those who sin. We cannot throw the first stone any more than they can.

No. We should not tolerate any sin whatsoever but we need to be right with God in order to see it. Accusations of sin are not a theoretical exercise of applying the Law – God’s justice is NOT like human justice. Before we consider our response to an argument, we need to listen for God’s word in what has been said. If we want God’s word to grow, then we have to till the ground and the ground in which we want God’s word to grow here is the situation between Job and his friends.

If we listen to Job’s friends and listen out for God, then what do we hear? We hear facts about God Himself, that He is just and that He does run the universe in that perfect justice. We know this because we pray it every day.

If we listen to Job, then we hear the cry of one in misery, struggling to understand what’s going on, struggling to know why a good God has it in for him. And then we hear another familiar cry.

“Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani”

“My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?”

[PAUSE]

God Himself will make a response to Job and to his friends in His time. Until then, the division and the estrangement must remain.

We Christians, with all our divisions and disagreements, must also wait for God to make His response to us. Until that happens, we must till the ground within us, ridding ourselves of all pride and indignation along with all our other sins, so that we may be in a better position to hear the word of God speak in the mouths of those with whom we profoundly disagree.