Love is...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 ου χαιρει επι τη αδικια συγχαιρει δε τη αληθεια

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

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

7 παντα στεγει παντα πιστευει παντα ελπιζει παντα υπομενει

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

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

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

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

8 η αγαπη ουδεποτε εκπιπτει

Love never fails. Quid plus?

So where does this leave us?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Getting what we've been promised.

And what did the Lord promise us? Here's the answer.

God - the Destiny of Man

One of the themes that we seem to forget in the Anglican Church is
"the Son of God was made man so that man might become the son of God." As St Iranaeus of Lyons once said against heretics. The idea of Theosis seems almost blasphemous in its idea, but the fact is that our destiny in our existence is to pertain to our Creator. St Maximus the Confessor says, "Having become God by deification, human beings would have been able to contemplate, with God Himself, the works of God. They would have received knowledge of them in God."

Our receipt of the Body and Blood of Christ at Mass builds our substance into Him. We are not gods because of ourselves - we become God because that's the gift He has given us. The trouble is that Masses in the Anglican Communion have tended to be so congregation-centred that our deification is seen as something blasphemous. This is only a result of the demystification and iconoclasm begun in the Enlightenment and continued apace in the 20th and now early 21st centuries. Time for reversus apsidem, methinks.

Fr. Hart has written an excellent article on this on the Anglican Continuum blog.

Shadows in the fireplace

When my laptop died, I lost many sermons that I would have published here. However, I've been fortunate to find the manuscripts of some of my sermons in amongst some papers, including this which I enjoyed preaching.

Sermon preached at St Peter and St Paul's Church, Swanscombe on Trinity Sunday, 22nd May 2005, based on 2 Corinthians 13:11-13

Jeremy Harding is quite brilliant.

He's already received a starred first at Cambridge,
and has decided to stay on
and complete a doctorate in theology
before he finally gets ordained.

He's spent that last few years
reading and learning all about
the Christian Faith in very great detail,
and his ideas have gone down very well
amongst the fellows
of the college.

They regard him as having
the potential to do something
very special in the Church.


They have place Jeremy for study
under the guiding light of
Professor Alexis Pangnosis.

Professor Pangnosis himself is
a fantastically gifted human being
with enough letters after his name
to write a new letter to the Corinthians.


His office is large
and filled with bookshelves,
containing mostly the books
that he himself has written.

We find Jeremy and the professor
sitting by a roaring fire on a cold,
dark October evening.


"So, Jeremy," says Professor Pangnosis,
"have you any thoughts on the direction
your research will take?"

"Yes, Professor," says Jeremy,
"I'd like to understand the Holy Trinity."

"Understand the Holy Trinity?"
says the Professor sitting back
into his aged armchair
stroking his long white beard.

He pauses,
lost in thought for a moment.

The fire crackles in the grate
and this brings the Professor round.

"Look to the far wall of my office,"
he says,
"what do you see?"

"Nothing but the shadows caused by the fire,"
says Jeremy.

"Exactly," says the Professor.

"Oh," says Jeremy
struck by sudden realisation.

He promptly gets up,
quits his Ph.D.
and goes home.

[PAUSE]

An interesting response,
don't you think?

But then human beings react
very oddly to shadows, don't they?

Think back to your childhood.
Do you remember sitting awake
in the middle of the night
with your bedclothes
pulled up to your face
because the shadows
on the wall opposite
frightened you?

How the branch of a tree turns
into the arms of a monster?

Or how a dressing-gown turns into
someone lurking behind the door?

Your imagination runs riot in the night,
doesn't it?

But in your heart of hearts
you know that everything's okay
and that you really shouldn't have stayed up
to see "Dracula AD1972".

You know that in the cold light of day,
the ghost lurking behind the door
turns back into a dressing-gown,

and the monster tapping on your window
turns back into a tree...

...until tonight!

[PAUSE]

Do you remember when you first found out
what a shadow is.
when it became clear to your
that a shadow is an absence of light,
that a shadow is caused by light being blocked
by an object in the way?

The people who built this church building
knew how to use shadows to their advantage.

Beneath one of the windows
is a simple sundial,
so it's the shadow that tells the time.

Think about it,
the absence of light
actually tells you something useful,
or at least it did to our ancestors.

For an artist,
the absence of light is sometimes
more important than the light itself.

By understanding how the shadows look,
you can build up a picture
of what the object is.

But there's a problem with this approach!

[PAUSE]

As you go on an evening walk in the fields
with the Sun behind you,
the sky glowing a warm evening orange,
look at your shadow in front of you.

How long is it?

Do you yourself look as long and thin
as your shadow does at this time?

Do some of you wish that you looked
as long and thin as your shadow?

That's the problem
shadows can get so very distorted;
you can't rely on them
to provide an accurate picture
of the object
that they are supposed to be shadows of.


At night time,
your brain can't make a great deal of sense
from the many shadows,
which is why it resorts to imagination.

You know that the hand tapping at your window
is just a branch moving in the night breeze,
that the shape behind the door
is just your dressing-gown,
but they look like something else in the dark.

Shadows are unreliable.

[PAUSE]

St Paul famously describes our knowledge as
"looking throught a glass darkly,"
that we wander about, seeing merely
the shadows of things as they are.

All that we know
or can know
is just a collection
of shadows of the truth.

So who casts the biggest shadow?

Think about it.

What do we actually know about God?

It doesn't matter who we are,
all we know of God
and all that we will ever know of God
is just a collection of confusing shadows
of Him:

the shadow of a Creator
who built and constructed the Universe;

the shadow of a God who is a proper human being
and yet not just a proper human being;

the shadow of a Paraclete
a comforter;

all different and distinct persons
yet One True God.

If we try to build up a picture
of this One True God from His shadows alone,
then all we get is a distortion.

If we think we have the answer,
then God says to us
"Who has measured the waters in the hollow
of His hand,
Measured heaven with a span
And calculated the dust
of the earth in a measure?"

Great things!

But

Incomprehensible things!

How can we hope to understand
this wonderful God in truth?

Can we really understand the Holy Trinity?

[PAUSE]

The answer depends on what
you want to understand about the Holy Trinity.

Let's look at the shadows.

There is just the shadow of a Creator Who is God.

There is just the shadow of one Man Who is God.

There is just the shadow of a Comforter Who is God.

Each shadow is different, distinct,
so the Creator, the Man and the Comforter
are all different people.

Each Person has His own character,
each single Person is fully God,
yet there is only one God, not three Gods.

We can say confidently
from the shadows that God shows us
that there is One God in Three Persons,
but we can't understand it
becuase all we can ever see
is shadows.

[PAUSE]

But there is a big difference.

Didn't we agree that shadows
are just the absence of light?

Can this really be true of God's shadow?

If God is the Light of the World,
how can He cast a shadow of Himself?

If God is the Light of the World,
then we can't look at Him.
He is far too bright for us to see until,
as St Paul tells us today,
we become complete.

So what does God do?

To help us to try to know Him,
He dims His light,
shows us shadows of Himself,
not expecting us to understand
Who He is and what He looks like,
but to show us that He is there
with us
to the very end of the age.

His brilliant light dazzles our poor little minds,
but that same light illuminates our souls,
and throws up shadows for us to see
in our lives.

It is written in the Song of Solomon:
"I sat down under His shadow
with great delight."

No scary trees or dressing-gowns,
just the Love of God
and a wonderful place to sit.

Can you see God's shadow
in your lives right now?

Wil you sit down under it
with great delight?

The Grinding of the Axe

Sermon preached at St Peter and St Paul’s Church, Swanscombe, on 16th July 2006 based on Amos vii.7-15 and St Mark 6.14-29.

There’s a scream.

Dan sits bolt upright in bed,
sweat pouring off of him,
his heart thundering in his chest,
his mind trying to work out just where he is.

He sits in the darkness of his bedroom
trying to gather himself.

The display on the bedside clock
says that it’s 3:05AM,
and he realises that he is at home,
in bed and safe.

Everything is okay,
he’s just had a nightmare.

[PAUSE]

The alarm goes off at 06:30 as usual,
and Dan gets up, showers,
dresses in his suit,
has his Crunchy Nut Cornflakes,
and heads off to the office in his new Mazda.

As usual, he’s ¼ of an hour late at the office
- things would be much different
if the gas company were not constantly
digging the road up.

Still, Emma,
Dan’s secretary is on hand with his coffee,
his biscuit and today’s paperwork.

Dan sits down at his desk,
takes a swig of coffee and grimaces.

"Emma!

Please remember
that I only have 1 sugar in my coffee,
not two.

It tastes like you’ve drowned Bertie Bassett in it!"

The biscuit is a garibaldi
and not a Jammie dodger
and the paperwork is not quite arranged
in the order he’s used to.

"Well," says Dan to himself,
"that’s the price I pay for hiring a temp.

Still she’ll be gone by next week."

[PAUSE]

The morning is spent
reviewing customer accounts.

While Dan is pleased to see
that he has received payment from 5 customers,
he is annoyed by the fact
that Mrs. Klein is still in arrears
and owing over £15,000.

He decides that he will deal with that after lunch.

[PAUSE]

A chicken dinner later,
Dan returns to the office,
assumes his seat and takes out
Mrs. Klein’s account.

Just as he reaches for the telephone,
Emma bursts in, giving him a start.

"Emma, for goodness’ sake,
what on earth are you doing?"
shouts Dan,
wiping the erstwhile contents
of his glass of iced water
from his trouser leg.

"I’ve just fired one secretary,
I don’t want to fire you after only three days."

"I’m sorry, Mr. Lovell," says Emma,
"But it’s Mrs. Klein.

She’s demanding to see you, now!"

"Ah, I want to see her," says Dan, "send her in."

[PAUSE]

Mrs Klein enters the office.

Dan is rather surprised
by the fact that she was eighty-two last birthday.

"Well, Mrs. Klein,
what can I do for you?"

Mrs. Klein shuffles nervously.

"I want you to cancel my debt," she says.

"I’m sorry, Mrs Klein, I really can’t do that."

"But, Mr Lovell,"
says Mrs Klein softly,
"how do you expect me to pay £15,000?

I only borrowed £7000 from you."

"Well," says Dan,
"I’m afraid that’s your problem.

I am sorry, but
the Erodian Personal Finance company
clearly states its interest rates
on the documentation I gave you.

I simply can’t afford
to let you off such a great debt.

It would be in breach of my contract."

"That’s not what Miss Penfold
told me in Church the other day.

She told me that your company
has been charging exorbitant interest
on everyone’s accounts
and could easily afford
a much lower interest rate.

She also told me that you sacked her
when she told you that
the company was being immoral
and you were being unfair.

You forced her to go
without any means of support
for her or for her two little twins.

You axed that poor woman’s
only way of making a living.

Do you really think that’s acceptable behaviour?"

"Mrs. Klein,
I'm sorry.

I must enforce
the Erodian Personal Finance Company’s
policy on staffing.

I had no choice whether or not to sack Miss Penfold
on the grounds of disloyalty,
even if she was a very good secretary.

...not that it is any business of yours.

It was your business
to check all the paperwork
before you signed it.

You borrowed £7,000;
according to the contract you signed,
I'm sorry to say you now owe
the Erodian Personal Finance Company
£15,000.

Now, I am a reasonable man.

Just before you came in,
I was going to phone
the bailiffs to pay you a visit.

I’m going to be generous
and give you ‘til the end of the week
before I decide to pick up
the phone and tell Mr Lugg…
What on earth’s that?"

Dan’s eyes are fixed
upon the surface of Mrs Klein’s hand
where he spots a large tattered hole,
which passes straight through
from one side of the hand to the other.

He looks at her other hand
and sees another hole,
like the first.

"There’s one on each foot as well,"
says Mrs. Klein her voice changed,
"and one more just here."

Disturbed,
he looks her in the face
to see a forehead covered in scratches,
indeed there are thorns in her hair.

Then he looks into Mrs. Klein’s eyes
and sees not a little old lady,
but the eyes of a man and not just any man,
but the Son of Man staring back at him
like a mirror
showing Dan his own soul.

Dan takes one look and screams!

A scream!

There’s a scream.

Dan sits bolt upright in bed,
sweat pouring off of him,
his heart thundering in his chest,
his mind trying to work out
just where he is.

He sits in the darkness of his bedroom
trying to gather himself.

The display on the bedside clock
says that it’s 3:05AM,
and he realises that he is at home,
in bed and safe.

Everything is okay,
he’s just had a nightmare.

[PAUSE]

When do you think Dan will realise
that you can kill a prophet,
but you will never kill their prophecy?

Do you think he will ever listen?

Have you heard the voice of the prophet?

Facere possum ergo facio

I believe this to be the problem with many Christians today: "I can do this, therefore I shall," or possibly "I can do this, therefore this is what God wants me to do." The fact that one possesses a faculty is a carte blanche to exercise that faculty.

The trouble is that this approach is terribly false. Certainly Biblically the great heroes are the exact antithesis of this statement: Moses, Gideon, David, Elijah and the apostles were not able to do what God wanted, but God gave them the faculties necessary to complete his command.

Likewise Amos, a shepherd and vine dresser was called not to be a shepherd and vine dresser but a prophet of God. If Amos had followed the ideas that proliferate certainly in Protestant Churches, he would never have left his sheep or his vines, but "exercised his faculties to the glory of God."

No wonder Anglican Masses are in a terrible state today. Some of them are just concerts for choirs or worship groups who perform the music to help people "feel like worshipping", others are as vehicles for the "latest liturgy innovation."
The whole women's ordination and homosexual sex issues are examples of facere possum ergo facio. What is missed here is the idea that God may not want certain faculties exercised in this life. There is many a celibate who willingly withholds certain faculties in order to operate as a Roman Catholic priest.

Just because I can sing both alto and tenor doesn't give me the right to sing alto in a choir which has 15 altos and no tenors. For the good of the choir, I must sing the part that is needed.

It is God to whom we must offer our souls and bodies as living sacrifices for him to use as He will, not as we will. He may use our weaknesses more than our strengths in order to effect some glorious miracle, or some fantastically effective ministry. If this is the case then, rather than offer God that which costs us nothing (i.e. exercising our strengths), we should limit ourselves to His desires. From this we will get a sure sense of fulfilment. He will rejoice in our strengths when He pleases, and we will enjoy them too.

How can you know?

I'm not a poet.

Occasionally though I get glimpses of poetry which need fashioning. This is where I need a friend like Ed Pacht who is a proper poet.

Here are my words followed by the polished version that Ed has rescued.


How can you know?

How can you know the pain you've caused,
leaving me behind to flounder in the dark
alone?


How can you know the homelessness I suffer
now that you have forced me out of the place
where I have loved you, enjoyed being with you
enjoyed sharing what we had together?


How can you know, in spite of your good intentions
of your desire to include, to validate, to make amends,
that your love, though precious, is oblique
and misses the Truth?


How can you know that your love,
although you believe it to be for the common good,
is common only to your ideals,
your goals,
what you want for the world,
and for me?


How can you know, that your love
does not obey the nature of Love,
but shuts it away with me behind a locked door
whose key, you claim, has rusted away?


How can you know, if you say you are a listener,
but don't even hear what I have said in love to you?

And now the polished article. (Copyright 2006, Ed Pacht)

How can you know the pain that you’ve caused,
in leaving me lost in the dark where you walk,
in leaving me flound’ring alone?

How can you know the exile I feel,
forced from the home that I’ve shared with my friends
from the home where I’ve loved you in truth,
and walked so content with you by my side,
with pleasure and sharing and joy?

How can you know, so blind and confused,
the damage of good intent,
the merciless havoc that comes from false love,
leaving correction, attempting to soothe,
and utterly failing to save?

How can you know that the love that you claim
is only veiled love of your self,
only intended to take from the world
that which opposes your will,
and wishing that I be wrest from the path,
long built by the hand of God?

How can you know that your love is not love,
and is but rebellion toward God,
shutting away the truth of His Word,
locked where it will not be seen,
in a cold, dark room that has no door,
where eyes do not see,
where ears do not hear,
and my words of love are ignored?

How can you know that my love will not cease,
nor my endless prayers?
But my constant knocking, joined with His
will ever sound at your door,
and you may come,
only hear,
only hear.

Thank you, Ed.

Not feeling too good.

Today has been one of the worst days of my spiritual life. I can't think why, I've seen it coming a mile off. I knew what would happen, why wasn't I prepared? The point is that the C of E has not seen this.

To mess with the Apostolic Succession is to mess with one's doctrinal basis. That has happened and I cannot see any way how the C of E can claim to be even part of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Many around me would tell me to get a grip. It's not an important issue. I'm being prejudiced against the ministry of women. People like me are just the reason why the Church is irrelevant today. Believe me, I know this because I've read the comments of what people think on the BBC website about this issue.
They tell me that I need to go out and do some proper Christian work like heal the sick, care for the orphan and the widow and work to freeing the oppressed.

If these accusations are true then I must pray for forgiveness, but I say this. What of those who are spiritually sick? Who are spiritually orphaned, widowed, oppressed and crushed? "Ah but that's the easy option," they say. No. It's by far the hardest. This world is spiritually sick and getting sicker with every passing second. God help me to play my part in the relief of this illness.

For me the Church is the body of people whom I ought to be able to trust. The Church is made from Militant, the Suffering and the Triumphant, and there are many saints and martyrs whose blood has been spilled in order to convey accurately the message of the Gospel, not just by their words, but by their deeds, by their actions, and simply by their being. St Lawrence roasted alive, St Sebastian shot with arrows, Thomas More and John Fisher, Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley all bringing something valuable to the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church. Blessed John Henry Newman had his character assassinated again and again for speaking and holding to the truth. And yet their work is now deemed irrelevant, old hat, not part of modern thinking. Their faith has been ridden over roughshod, and their martyrdom continues.

Then there are the noble Saints Ambrose, Augustine, Nicholas, Cyprian, and Athanasius who worked so hard at hearing the Truth and literally forcing it into the creeds.

In this vote, proper Anglicans have been betrayed, as has the faith of those plucky Anglicans who have lived for the Truth and burned for it. The Reformation should never, ever have happened, but the work of so many in the Anglican camp and in the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation to seek that Truth in integrity shows the brilliance of the Christian Faith's struggle and success to heal that divide.

As for me, well, I'm now sitting here, confused, dazed, and feeling terribly betrayed like a sheep that's just watched the others go in the wrong direction. I love my parish (it drives me mad, but I still love it) and I don't want to leave. I enjoy being a Reader. I love the Church music (hate the liturgy with a passion!) and the Anglican culture, but to be honest, these aren't the reasons I go to Church. I go to Church to worship God in the way that He wants to be worshipped, not in a "let's please ourselves and God'll enjoy it with us", but in turning towards Him in an awestruck silence and watch as He gives us Himself as Sacrifice to offer to Him as Priest according to the ways that so many people throughout History have done together.

So what do I do? Do I have a choice? Surely it's to leave the C of E, but whither? Is the Roman Catholic Church in England any less the slave to zeitgeist. I hope that my ears deceive me when I'm told that not even the priests believe in what they are doing. There are no Continuum Churches near me, and I am too out of the loop, too busy, too exhausted to start up my own. Or do I remain and slowly become even more embittered, unable to worship with my friends, having the words of hymns choke in my throat?

If you would offer a few prayers in my direction, I'd be grateful.

Ichabod

Chabod is Hebrew for Glory. When the glory disappears... well see here. Thanks Ed.

Well, that just about wraps it up for the C of E.

The Archbishop of York moved:10. ‘That this Synod welcome and affirm the view of the majority of the House of Bishops that admitting women to the episcopate in the Church of England is consonant with the faith of the Church as the Church of England has received it and would be a proper development in proclaiming afresh in this generation the grace and truth of Christ.’The motion was carried after a division by houses:

Bishops For 31; Against 9

Clergy For 134; Against 42

Laity For 123; Against 68.

If this is indeed "consonant with the faith of the Church as the Church of England has received it" then the Church of England is either correctly identified by the Roman Catholic Church as a cult, or it has been hijacked by people bent on changing it into a cult.

Obviously God doesn't get a vote at General Synod; He's automatically assumed to go along with the majority(!)

Second verse of "the Mush-Merging song"

And so the Church of Blighty now has given the green light
to allow a lady priest to claim a bishop's oversight.
The fact that God don't want it means that "oversight" is right,
and the rot goes marching on...

Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Jefferts Schori ain't a ruler.
And now ECUSA's rot
has become poor Blighty's lot
and we ain't in this cult no more!

Hearts and minds and hands: Antidotes to Koyaanisqatsi

Slowly but surely I have been becoming aware in my own life of the presence of feelings. Dreadfully inconvenient things, feelings. They mislead terribly; they can however do the exact opposite point to some very deep truths if we know how to use them properly.

St Benedict's wonderful Rule speaks of balance between hearts and minds and hands - prayer, study and work. Each one of us, through our fallen nature, need to exercise one of these three more than the others, and do exercise one of these more than necessary with the result: Koyaanisqatsi - life out of balance.

What is blatantly clear from some of my previous posts is that I often argue too analytically without the facts and the learning. This comes from my personal Koyaanisqatsi of working my brain until it runs on empty. It's the same with all of us.

I do look at the Anglo-Catholic Church (I am inlcuding Anglo-Papalists here), and what I see are a group of usually highly educated people minutely defending their practices from an increasingly apostate world and often against some heresy threatening.

What a lot of people don't see from the true Anglo-Catholics (i.e. those who actually are concerned with Catholic Doctrine and Praxis, as opposed to those docetical Churchpeople who like to appear Catholic) is the welter of hurt and pain that has been done to them by other Churches who regard their sticking to doctrine as "politically incorrect", "antediluvian", "inappropriate" or "restrictive". The trouble is that with a Koyaanisqatsi biased toward the intellectual, an Anglo-Catholic struggles to deal with feelings intellectually rather than emotionally. I am sure that this produces the "spikiness" of attitude that the Liberals experience when they come into contact with the more vociferous of our Anglo-Catholic members. while an Anglo-Catholic prays deeply using rosaries, novenas, ikons, breviaries et c. there is no way that they can express the depth of their emotion save through their reliance on a clear Orthodox doctrine.

The other trouble is that of doing. Generally being intellectuals, Anglo-Catholics don't quite know what to do with their hands other than sign themselves with the Cross. What they usually consider a physical pastime is to add to a myriad of technical, and erudite, but thoroughly dry information on a blog. (Oops) What they miss then is some activity, some concrete means of doing Anglo-Catholicism. Personally speaking, the best activity that an Anglo-Catholic needs to be concentrating on right now is the Union of Anglo-Catholic Churches in the Continuum. We need to go out, and meet, pray, think and do Anglo-Catholicism together in equally balanced measure after the Rule of St Benedict.

To sit around a table and theorise about divisions is okay, but if that's all we Anglo-Catholics do, then we turn into rather dry, puffed up individuals that everyone resents, and we will only focus on divisions which may or may not be important.

To go into an oratory and pray together is okay, but if that's all we do, then we will start to argue about the precise patterns of the liturgy and which lectionary we are following and whether Fr. Vervoorst should have four ridges on his biretta or not.

To share our emotions is okay, but they must be shared honestly and not analysed too seriously. To work together is where I believe we need to focus. Getting together, finding out ways in which we can find activities that will get some Christian Charity spread into the world. But then, our work must not stop us from thinking about ways of recognising our differences and work to resolving them.

But then again, what do I know?

What should I have said?

Yesterday, on my way to a Bible Study group, I was accosted by two teenage boys, who obviously understood me to be a man of faith.

Says the First: do you believe in God?
Says I: yes.
Says the Second: are you a Jehovah's Witness?
Says I: no.
Says the First: so why do you believe in God?

So now I enter into a dilemma. Since I have to be at a meeting I can't stand chattering, but then St Peter's words about always having a gentle answer to give an account of my faith are ringing in my ears. I wait for a divine word and out it comes. The trouble is that my friends from the Inquisition (sorry Council for the Doctrine of the Faith) are firing questions at me left, right and centre.

Says I: because I do. It's difficult to explain.
Says the First: So when was God born?
Says I: (not wishing to have to plough through the entirety of the Catechism)
He wasn't born. He's always existed.
Says the Second: So do you talk to God.
Says I: yes
Says the Second: So does he reply - no he doesn't.
Says I: yes, He does.
Says the First: How can he? He doesn't exist.
Says I: Well, try talking to Him then.

At this point their conversation degenerates into a blasphemous invective directed to some poor defenceless area of sky. God, I assume is big enough to deal with all the rather colourful language, so I leave them to it.

Now, I am supposed to be reassured that if I open my mouth, the words of the Holy Ghost will fill it. It certainly didn't feel that way, but then the Holy Paraclete works at the level beyond mere feeling.

This does beg the question. What can we tell these children?

From my conversation I got the following information:

1. They cannot grasp anything that they cannot experience directly.
2. They have no comprehension of the validity of religious belief.
3. I need to think about St Peter's words!!

It's always after the event that "clever" things come to you. for instance the conversation could have run:

Says the first: Why do you believe in God?
Says I: I'll try to explain. Do you have a girlfriend?
Says the first: Yeah.
Says I: How do I know she exists? How do you know she exists right at this moment in time?

Now whether or not this would work, I've no idea. Somehow I think ontological philosophy would pass them by.

Cleverness doesn't always have the desired effect. Perhaps, to keep it short and simple was best.

Do you see what I see?

Yes, yes, I'm on my credal bugbear again, but I believe it's important. It's tiny, like looking for an iota in a homoiousios, but see if you can spot it.

Latin

Credo in unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem; factorum coeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium.

Et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum, et ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula, Deum de Deo, Lumen de Lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero, genitum, non factum, consubstantialem Patri; per quem omnia facta sunt; qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem descendit de coelis, et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria virgine, et homo factus est; crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato, passus et sepultus est; et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas; et ascendit in coelum, sedet ad dexteram Patris; et iterum venturus est, cum gloria, judicare vivos et mortuos; cujus regni non erit finis.

Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit; qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur; qui locutus est per Prophetas.

Et unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam. Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum; et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum, et vitam venturi seculi. Amen.

Greek

Πιστεύομεν εις ένα Θεον Πατερα παντοκράτορα, ποιητην ουρανου και γης, ορατων τε πάντων και αορατων.

Και εις ένα κύριον Ιησουν Χριστον, τον υιον του θεοθ τον μονογενη, τον ει του πατρος γεννηθέν τα προ πάντων των αιώνων, φως εκ φωτος, θεον αληθινον εκ θεου αληθινου, γεννηθέντα, ου ποιηθέντα, ομοουσιον τωι πατρί· δι' ου τα παντα εγένετο· τον δι' ημας τους αιθρώποους και δια την ημετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθοντα εκ των ουρανων και σαρκωθέντα εκ πνεύματος αγίου και Μαρίας της παρθένου και ενανθρωπήσαντα, σταυρωθέντα τε υπερ ημων επι Ποντίου Πιλάτου, και παθοντα και ταφέντα, και ανασταντα τηι τρίτηι ημέπαι κατα τας γραφάς, και ανελθόντα εις τους ουρανούς, και καθεζόμενον εκ δεξιων του πατρός, και πάλιν ερχόμενον μετα δόξης κριναι ζωντας και νεκρούς· ου της βασιλείας ουκ έσται τέλος.

Και εις το Πνευμα το Άγιον, το κύριον, (και) το ζωοποιόν, το εκ του πατρος εκπορευόμενον, το συν πατρι και υιωι συν προσκυνούμενον και συνδοξαζόμενον, το λαλησαν δια των προφητων·

εις μίαν, αγίαν, καθολικην και αποστολικην εκκλησίαω· ομολογουμεν εν βάπτισμα εις άφεσιν αμαρτιων· προσδοκωμεν ανάστασιν νεκρων, και ζωην του μελλοντος αιώωος. Αμήν.

Book of Common Prayer (1662)

I BELIEVE in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten son of God, Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God, Begotten, not made, Being of one substance with the Father, By whom all things were made: Who for us men, and for our salvation came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, And was made man, And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, And ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and dead: Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, The Lord and giver of life, Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets.

And I believe one Catholick and Apostolick Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. And I look for the Resurrection of the dead, And the life of the world to come. Amen.

ICET

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, I'm a bit pedantic here but look carefully at the beginning of the last paragraph in each creed. Do you see that in the Latin and the BCP it says that we believe One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, whereas in the Greek and ICET versions we believe in One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? There's a big difference in meaning here. Are we saying that we believe in the existence of One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, or are we saying that we believe what is taught by One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?

I think that it's reasonably clear that we are saying that we believe in the existence of the Triune God, i.e. we are utterly convinced, though by unprovable agencies that the Triune God exists and is unique. So does that mean that from the original Greek we should be believing in the Church rather than believing the Church. After all the Liberals believe in the idea of Church rather than what the Church says.

The fact of the matter is that Catholic Tradition has always followed the Latin interpretation, and so has the post-Reformation Anglican Tradition. So the authority on this matter must rest with the Tradition, and the way that Tradition has thus interpreted this paragraph. To believe the Church is to believe in the Church. This is how we must interpret the Greek phrasiology and translate that phrase as "we believe One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church".

I know, I do get myself into a pickle, don't I?

Episcopal Solutions.

It's happened in the U.S., and the same looks as if it's going to happen over here in Blighty. The Anglican Church seems to think that women can be Bishops. God says they can't, so that makes a ghastly mess of what Anglicanism means.

Well, if we're really honest, then Anglicanism has never been all that neat and tidy which is the sign of a sincerity in dealings with the untidiness of our human nature, and the sign of the tattered edge that comes from tearing itself from the rest of the Church Catholic.

In July, General Synod will meet and, despite massive opposition, "declare" women eligible for the episcopate. So what exists for those who follow the Tradition properly? What provision can be made for objectors to this heresy to receive validly ordained Episcopal oversight, and remain in communion with those who subscribe to this heresy?

It isn't at all clear how Forward in Faith remain in Communion with the whole C of E and yet cannot accept the fact that there is no Communion presided over by a female "priest". I suppose the fact that women "priests" can be avoided means that some semblance of remaining in the same Church exists. I believe that the Jewish folk are able to hold contradiction in one hand, and this skill ought to be learned by Christians.

So what do we do when we have women "bishops"? A third province would be wonderful - the Apostolic Succession would remain, the orders of all priests, bishops and deacons would be guaranteed- but it is out of the question as far as the C of E goes. This would be another denomination in all but name.

As far as I see, the only solution would be for female "bishops" to "ordain" only
women "priests". This would absolutely guarantee the purity of the succession. I guess that would be seen as unfair, but what else is there?

My little ditty below looks as if it will apply to the C of E too soon.

Lyricism and Episcopalianism

I originally published this on the Anglo-Catholic Central message board as a response to ECUSA's slide into accepting any doctrine providing it is politically correct.

To the tune of 'The Battle Hymn of the Republic':

Mine eyes have seen the starter of a merger into mush
as the Church Episcopalian accepts doctrinal slush.
Her members who receive the truth are ready for the push
as the rot goes marching on.

Glory, Glory, Hallelujah!
Smithy hit us with his ruler.
The ruler broke in half
and we all began to laugh
so we ain't in EC no more.

Youngfogey thinks the last line should read
"so we ain't in ECUSA no more."

I'm inclined to agree actually, except the scanning is marginally worse than the original. I'll leave it to your tastes, though if you have a better last line, please let me know.

Giving Christians the Pip.

Sermon preached at St Peter and St Paul’s Church, Swanscombe on the first Sunday after Trinity 2006, based on St Mark iv.26-34.

Joe watches enthralled
as his teacher,
Mrs Holden,
shows him how to put the broad bean
into the jam jar
between the blotting paper
and the glass.

She adds a little water
and tells the class to do the same.
“Now,” she says, “we can watch them grow.

It will take a long time.”

So for the next week or so,
Joe watches his broad bean grow.

First the root, then the green shoot.

Each day he carefully examines it,
enthralled by how much bigger
it seems to get.

One day, Mummy says,
“it’s too big for the jam jar, Joe.

Can I plant it in the garden now?

We can grow some
lovely broad beans for our dinner.”

A few weeks later,
Mummy serves the first harvest
of broad beans
from a remarkably successful plant.

Joe looks thoughtfully
at the beans on his dinner-plate,
and, as is typical of seven year olds,
says “I don’t like them”
despite the fact
that he has been eating them
since he had teeth.

So, why doesn’t Joe like his broad beans?

[PAUSE]

You’d have thought
that they would taste better
having been grown
without pesticides or special treatment,
and unless Joe likes
the taste of farm chemicals,
you know that it
isn’t anything like that.

Let’s ask him.

Joe tells us quite simply
“I don’t want to eat them,
because they might grow in my tummy
and come out of my ears.”

Obviously, Mummy ought to keep
a careful eye on the cartoons
that Joe seems to be watching.

But it is not that much
of an irrational fear
at the age of seven
to fear something that grows inside of us.

Without the knowledge
that boiling beans stops them from growing,
the thought that
they could germinate inside us
seems normal and a quite reasonable fear.

But do we have fears and worries
like this now,
inside us?

[PAUSE]

Well, there are lots of emotions and feelings
that can grow inside us
from very small beginnings.
Fear itself is a prime example
of how something so tiny
can grow to change our lives.

A small money spider
can just drop on your hand when you are a baby,
and by the time you are 45,
the sight of anything
large and dark scuttling on the carpet
can send you clinging
to the light fittings
with both hands and feet.

It’s only when your spouse comes in
and picks up a little bit of fluff
that has blown across the floor
that you realise how affected you are
by a fear that has such
tiny beginnings.

Are there other things
that can grow from being so tiny,
yet affect our lives in a big way?

What examples of this can you see in your own life?

Is it a fear, or is it something else?

[PAUSE]

Jesus tells us the parable
of growing wheat or mustard seed.

Just where are you in this parable?

Are you the man
who does the planting of the seed,
are you the seed that’s sown, or what?

Well actually,
we are not represented by any of these.

Jesus is of course being very clever,
as is not uncommon for Him.

God made us from the dust of the earth,
thus in Jesus’ parables
we are often represented
by the earth itself.

It is the seed that is sown in us
that Jesus is talking about.

When we are born
we are like a fertile field
waiting to have seed sown in us.

The seed comes thick and fast:
think of walking through a grassy field
and see all the dandelion fairies,
and sycamore seeds
floating and twisting through the air.

Our lives are filled with the seed
which is sown in us.

Of course it can thus bare fruit,
but who wants a field of weeds
rather than a field of wheat?

[PAUSE]

Like a field,
we can only sustain so many plants.

The plant which grows quickest
usually takes up all the goodness from the soil
so that other plants can’t grow.

This is how weeds survive:
you sow seed one minute,
blink, and behold!
a garden of dandelions!

So we have to look carefully
at what’s growing in us.

[PAUSE]

Jesus says the Kingdom of God
is like a tiny mustard seed growing.

He doesn’t tell us how quickly it grows,
just how large it gets.

For us in England,
He might use the image
of the acorn and the oak.

The acorn will take hundreds of years
to reach the status of a mighty oak.

The Kingdom of God is like that.

If we want the Kingdom of God to grow within us,
then we have to be prepared
to wait for it to grow and make sure
that we stop anything else growing.

If we accept the first thing that grows
rather than that which takes time
to grow in our lives,
then we could be choosing
the weeds over the good crop.

[PAUSE]

However, we could be like Joe,
and be frightened by the Kingdom of God
growing within us,
taking us over,
so that we lose ourselves in it.

If you are like this,
then hear what Jesus has to say to you:
“he who loses his life for my sake
will find it.”

If we allow the Kingdom of God to take us over,
then we actually become whom God created us to be,
that’s God’s promise.

[PAUSE]

There is something growing
and bearing fruit in all of us:
fear,
joy,
hatred,
faith,
greed,
love.

We have to be responsible
for growing only that which God wants,
for whatever it is that does grow,
will grow to enormous proportions
in our lives,
like a mighty oak tree,
or the mustard.

We must make sure it is the Kingdom of God.

Just what crop are you growing right now?

What I (and every other Catholic) believe in.

So you've seen the article. I'm sorry if it offends anyone but I happen to believe every word and article that is contained in the three Catholic Creeds. That isn't to say that I understand them, but I don't really have to. God is incomprehensible in His Trinity and I am delighted to be able to say that I haven't the foggiest how hypostatic union works. Thus I have no regrets in declaring my faith in "the Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible" which is a reasonable and utterly sound doctrine.

It is also clear that outside of the Church there is no Salvation, i.e. "Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled: without doubt he shall perish everlastingly." The point here is that it is not my job to judge who has indeed kept the Catholic faith "whole and undefiled". It is my job as a Reader to teach the Catholic Faith as appears in the three Creeds according to the oath that I made as a Reader to adhere to the 39 articles especially article viii which speaks of how the Church of England accepts that authority of these creeds. The ultimate judgement as to who is keeping the Catholic Faith is God's.

Peter Watkins says "We are no longer so concerned about heresy." This sums up the Church of England's decline into heterodoxy because it is a true statement about the state of the church. It is because the Anglican Communion (primarily the liberals, relativists and revisionists who proliferate) is no longer so concerned about heresy that it now fails to coherently teach the Faith according to the Tradition that we have received from the Faithful who have gone before us. That the church encourages "people to think for themselves" is commendable, but, like children in a school, they need to be guided to the truth. Children cannot be allowed to think entirely for themselves, and we are the children of God. God has set us boundaries. He has given us teaching through Scripture and Tradition which can in no way be separated. These Creeds are an expression of the Tradition to which we adhere. To jettison them as being out of date is folly because we see in the church exactly the same heresies being preached. Gnosticism, Arianism (indeed Ebionism) are rife in the Church and not just in the C of E. If Peter Watkins believes that "we should start where the first Christians did" then we will only end up thrashing these creeds out again in 300-500 years time.

Denying the creeds is denying history and denying history is denying the truth. If we replace our creeds with Comic Washup's (sorry) Common Worship's Affirmations of Faith, then we are dumbing down our Faith which cannot be simply expressed. The Creeds contain all that we need to begin a lively faith, to begin to explore difficult and ultimately incomprehensible statements of faith. This is what gives meaning to our lives. To reduce our faith to a simple "Jesus is Lord" (which is perfectly true and wholly Orthodox, but nonetheless as a detached statement requires much clarification) is an insult to the depth of humanity which each Christian possesses. After all, what does "Lord" mean? Is this the same "Lord" as Dominus Deus Sabaoth? ... and straight into the Nicene Creed we go!

We believe in... or not

Ah, my disillusionment with the Anglican Communion grows ever deeper. It's articles like this that crop up in the Reader Magazine that make me realise that the Youngfogey is right: the Anglican Communion is made up of four churches that will shortly go their own sweet way. I reproduce the article here.

We believe in...

In the last issue of The Reader we referred briefly to the new book of sermons and addresses Jerusalem or Athens? published by Peter Watkins, our Reviews Editor. We now have the opportunity to print one of the excellent sermons in the book. In view of the theme of this issue of the journal we have chosen a piece entitled, in Peter's book, simply 'Creeds' - for the Creed is one significant point in our worship where we use the word 'we' - expressing our communion with one another.

Every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord..
Philippians 2. 11

Bishop Hugh Monteflore said in the last book published before his recent death that the Church of England 'was the most credalised in all Christendom.' At Morning and Evening Prayer we recite the Apostles Creed, at the Eucharist
we say the Nicene Creed, when we baptise children or adults we rehearse the faith in a question and answer creed. Common Worship provides no less than seven alternative Affirmations of faith. No other Christian church makes such extensive use of statements of faith in its regular worship.

All of which makes me uneasy. I have two problems with creeds. First, I find them difficult to understand and in places incomprehensible. The three creeds, which appear in the Prayer Book, were drawn up about 1600 years ago and
they are very difficult for anybody to understand in the twenty-first century.

But second the Christian faith is a way of life and not chiefly assent a set of intellectual propositions. Saying a creed is particularly unsuitable when there are many people in church who come only occasionally for example on Christmas Eve or for the Harvest Festival.

The Ecumenical Creeds of the church

Let me say something about each of the 'ecumenical' creeds, as they are called --creeds which are recognised by all Christian churches. There are three all
with misleading names. The Apostles' Creed was not composed by the apostles, the Nicene Creed was not authorised by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD and the
Athanasian Creed was not written by St Athanasius! The earliest reference we have to the Apostles' Creed is in the eighth century though a similar statement of belief was used in a question and answer form at baptisms as early as
the second century.

The Nicene Creed was intended to define the faith against heretics. In the early fourth century a priest from Alexandria named Arius denied that Jesus was really God so - the so-called Nicene Creed was drawn up containing phrases which no follower of Arius could say conscientiously. It describes Jesus as ...'the only begotten Son of God, Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father.' Well that didn't leave much to chance - and we are still reciting it 1600 years later.

The Athanasian Creed is even odder. It comes from Gaulin the fifth century. The Book of Common Prayer requires us to recite it on 13 specific occasions in the year but I have never heard it used in a church service. The reasons are not far to seek. It includes this remarkable verse: 'The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible: and the HolyGhost incomprehensible'. But even worse it expresses twice at the beginning and the end, this sentiment "Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled: without doubt he shall perish ever lastingly." From about the 1860s many church people experienced qualms about its continuing use and it ceased tobe recited in services.

What are creeds for?

How then did the creeds arise in the early church? They served three purposes. First, they provided a summary of belief for anybody being baptised into the Christian faith, and took the form of question and answer. Then second, creeds served, as we have seen, to define the faith against heretics. Third, they were a battle cry, a marching song, a shout of triumph, a signature tune. They were rather like the Red flag, Land of Hope and Glory or We shall overcome. they encouraged the faithful particularly in times of persecution. But all those uses are questionable in the church today. We are no longer so concerned about heresy. We encourage people to think for themselves and to work out their faith over the years rather than accept a package which is unchangeable. It is hymns and worship songs which are more likely to constitute our marching song, or signature tune. The historic creeds are no longer a summary of what we are required to sign up to, a non-negotiable package. But long before the church adopted formal creeds there were simple statements of what Christians believed. There are a number of these in the New Testament.


Creeds in the New Testament
The hymn At the name of Jesus, is based on what many people believe was the earliest creed, and it appears in the well-known passage in the letter to the Philippians, simply Jesus Christ is Lord'. (Philippians 2.11) The same words are found in the First Letter to the Corinthians: 'No one can say Jesus is Lord except under the influence of the Holy Spirit.' (12.2) and in the Letter to the Romans too: 'If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your hearts that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved'. (10.9)
Some commentators say that even the Gospels may have early creeds embedded in them. In answer to Jesus' question at Caesarea Philippi, 'Who do you say that I am?' Peter replies,'You are the Messiah' which those who heard it would have recognised as a familiar affirmation of faith.

In the Acts of the Apostles there is the story of the meeting between Philip and the Ethiopian court official on the Wilderness Road between Jerusalem and Gaza. Philip preaches the gospel to him and he asks if he can be baptised. Philip replies 'If you believe with all your heart, you may [be baptised]', and he replies 'I believe that Jesus is the Son of God'. (8.37)
Some creeds found in the New Testament are longer and more developed. This one for example from the First Letter to the Corinthians: 'There is one God and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things and through whom we exist'. (8.6) And another one in one of the last books of the New Testament to be written, the First Letter to Timothy -- 'He was revealed in flesh, vindicated in spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory'. (3.16)

What does it mean to say Jesus is lord?
If the earliest.Christian creed was 'Jesus is Lord' what would it mean for us to make a similar affirmation? Let me give you two illustrations. Towards the end of his very long life the veteran socialist Fenner Brockway reminisced in a BBC documentary about his experiences as a journalist in the early years of the twentieth century. He was once sent to interview Keir Hardie, one of the very first working class MPs, elected for West Ham South in 1892. Fenner Brockway was profoundly impressed by Keir Hardie. 'I cannot convey the depth of his ringing Scottish accents as he declared his faith. I went to hear him a young Liberal, I left him a young socialist'. Those baptismal converts in the
early church had a similar experience. They expressed their new found faith in the words 'Jesus is Lord'. They were captivated by him, his words, his personality, his risen presence. That perhaps catches something of the appeal
and fascination of what we may feel for Jesus.

Colin Morris is a Methodist minister who made his name in Zambia, was later President of the Methodist Conference and later still Head of Religious Broadcasting. He is an outstanding preacher, writer and broadcaster with
a remarkable knack of presenting religious truth powerfully and memorably. His faith has been expressed mostly through social and political action. He has probably never preached a devotional sermon in his life and the last word
you could apply to him is pious. He was once interviewed by a religious affairs correspondent who asked him, 'Has Christianity done anything for you as a person inside? Does it affect you as a man?' Colin Morris replied, 'I know that within me are forces which are strong enough to destroy me and I believe that Jesus Christ has prevented that self-destruction. I believe I would have destroyed myself had it not been for him'. He could have added, 'So he is my Lord and saviour'. That too perhaps expresses something of what Christian commitment can mean to us.
'Jesus is Lord'- a statement which many of us would be reticent about making or even embarrassed to speak out loud. But it is the heart of the creed. It is a description ofthe key place Jesus plays in the life of any Christian. It ishe who saves us from ourselves, who helps us to make senseof life, determines our values and influences our relationships.

The belief of the church
The first creeds were then very simple. They arose from experience and described the new life which converts wereliving ass a result of their encounter with Jesus. Only later were the historic creeds of the church introduced. I believethat we should start where the first Christians did. I'm glad that the Nicene Creed, unlike the Apostles' Creed, begins not 'l believe', but 'We believe'. Creeds summarise what the church believes or if you prefer, what there is to be believed, what's on offer, what I can explore in the course of a lifetime. We do not have to sign up to each item ofthe creeds. Some beliefs are more important than others; some are expressed in language which is out of date, some I have mental reservations about. A creed should not be a strait jacket constraining me to affirm what 1 do notbelieve. It is much more like a marching song, a shout of triumph, a signature tune.

Peter Watkins is now retired, but was formerly a headmaster and senior educational consultant. He is a Reader in Portsmouth Diocese. Jerusalem or Athens: Sermons and Addresses is available from Swanmore Books, 7 Crofton Way, Swanmore, S032 2RF, priced at £10.00 + £2.50 p&p.


My comments are here.

Paper-thin Ecclesiology

I have just had an image that I thought I ought to share. Ingredients: Two pieces of paper and some superglue. Recipe: Put one paper on top of the other so that there is a 1'' overlap. Glue. Wait for glue to set hard. Now pull the papers apart again. What's the result? In my fevered imagination: a vision of Ecclesia Anglicana and Ecclesia Romana. The gluing represents the Synod of Whitby (664 AD) whence the Holy See and the Anglican Church were joined. The tearing represents the Schism of the Reformation

Case 1: The papers separate undamaged (i.e. glue did not set). Thus the Reformation was not a Schism, but a separation of two distinct churches. An end to an entente cordiale.

Case 2: The papers separate but only one is damaged. In this case, one of the churches was damaged by the Schism, resulting in some loss of doctrinal, political or logistical integrity.

Case 3: Both papers incur damage. Each church needs the other to become whole again, because each possesses part of the other.

Where this model falls down is that pieces of paper do not grow, unlike the Church. However it does illustrate well the untidiness of the situation. In models 2 and 3, the rent that exists is potentially damaging, for here infection (thanks Mr. Goings and the Youngfogey for this elaboration) may be introduced, causing gangrene and sickness and further institutional instability. This is certainly evident in the Church of England, less so in the Roman Church.

Where do you fit on this issue?

Getting around the hose-pipe ban

This sermon was preached the Sunday before a confirmation in our church. I'm distressed by how many people support the church outside of Sunday Morning Mass, hence some blatent, though I believe justified, haranguing!

Sermon preached at St Peter and St Paul’s Church, Swanscombe on 21st May 2006 based on Isaiah lv.1-11

Sheila,
a proud gardener,
stares sadly up at the sky
and waits for the rain to come.

It doesn’t.

Her wonderful lush green lawn,
the pride and joy of the neighbourhood,
is looking brown and withered.

Yet because the sun just happened to appear
from behind a cloud in late February,
the water company have imposed
the dreaded hose-pipe ban.

So, if Sheila were to hose the lawn quietly by night,
you can bet that someone would squeal
and she’d have to pay a large fine
to the water company.

Sheila would love to know
how to get water for her thirsty lawn
without having to pay a fine for it.

She is seriously considering holding a barbecue
on Bank Holiday Monday,
just to be sure that it will rain.

For the moment,
she has to lug a heavy watering can
backwards and forwards
from the kitchen.

[PAUSE]

On her weekly trip to ASDA,
Sheila looks around her town,
at all her friends and neighbours,
and she notices something.

Like her lawn,
they are all thirsty,
each one of them.

This seems strange
for everyone is thirsty:
they have nothing to drink.

Yet water still comes out of the tap,
there’s plenty of beer down the pub,
and the coffee shop is still open.

Yet everyone Sheila meets
is terribly, terribly thirsty.

Why should this be?

[PAUSE]

How about you?
Are you thirsty?

Thirst is a deeply unpleasant feeling, isn’t it?

This should come as no surprise:
our bodies are mostly made of water.

If we’re thirsty
then it means that we’re low on water,
and if we’re low on water,
then there is less of us than there should be.

We are literally not quite ourselves.

Being thirsty means that
we’re not quite the person
that we were created to be.

We need to be restored,
re-nourished,
revived.

So how do we get this reviving water?

[PAUSE]

Isaiah shouts
"Ho! Everyone who thirsts,
Come to the waters;
And you who have no money,
Come, buy and eat.

Yes, come, buy wine and milk
without money and without price."

Wow, sounds brilliant, doesn’t it?

Come to the Water of Life,
come to Christ
and you will be
revived,
refreshed,
renewed!

But just how do you
buy water without money,
without price?

[PAUSE]

Sheila looks around her neighbourhood
at all the thirsty people.

She sees posh cars,
posh houses,
and satellite dishes.

She looks at shopping bags
filled with food and drink for the week,
good quality stuff.

She sees people contented,
living their lives without worry,
knowing that they are
well-fed and well-watered,
knowing that they have roofs
over their heads.

Yet for all that they have,
they are dying of thirst.

The tragedy is: they do not know it.

[PAUSE]

And God says,
"Why do you spend money for what is not bread,
And your wages for what does not satisfy?

Listen carefully to Me,
and eat what is good,
And let your soul delight itself in abundance."

What is God telling you
about how to get this refreshment?

Just how do you buy water without money?

[PAUSE]

Next week,
in this very Church,
five members of our congregation
will be getting around
the world’s hose-pipe ban.

They have been paying for the water of life
by careful studying, praying,
seeking God and listening to Him.

Their confirmation will give them
the strength that they need
to grow further in their relationship with God,
and they will need our support.

It isn’t only these five of our Church members
who need refreshment;
it’s each one of us,
and the Church too.

The Sacrament of Confirmation
is a major point in our lives
when we receive some
of the Living Water from God.

We also receive food from God.

When?

Well, why are you here this morning,
if not to eat and drink of
the Body and Blood of Christ?

As the world daily drains us of life,
so we daily need to find refreshment with God.

As the world tries to enforce a hose-pipe ban on us
by making us spend too much on things
that don’t really matter,
so we need all the more
to seek the Living water of Christ.

God gives plenteously
to those who look for his refreshing water.

With God, there is no hose-pipe ban.

Yet, it does cost us.

We do have to work for our refreshment.

We do have to work for our Salvation.

We do have to listen to God.

[PAUSE]

It’s fair to say that our Church
is wilting somewhat, isn’t it?


If we want our Church to be revived,
then we, as a congregation
need to listen to God together,
for only then by working together
in His service will we find
all the refreshment this church needs.

Only then will we get around the hose-pipe ban
that the world puts on us.

If there are only a small handful of people
at the Confirmation service next Sunday Evening,
what does this say about our willingness
to be revived?

What does it say about our willingness
to help Charlie,
Jessamy,
Jason,
Malcolm,
and Tracey
receive Refreshing Grace of God
in their lives?



What does it say of our commitment
to support them as our brothers and sisters in Christ
if we don’t help them to receive
the reviving waters of God,
by being present
and praying with them?

The Bishop will ask us
whether we will support our Confirmands
in their search for God and growth in Him.

How can we honestly answer "yes",
if we are not there for them
either in body, and in spirit?

How do we buy the water of life without money?

[PAUSE]

When you leave this Church today,
will you be just as thirsty
as when you entered it?

What will you do to make sure that you aren’t?