The Church in the small.

I've been studying this essay on Church Growth by Canon Stephen Scarlett. Before I go any further, I think it best that I reiterate my disclaimer above. What follows are my own personal thoughts. I do not speak authoritatively in any way but merely base my thoughts on what I, personally, have observed. I do not speak for the ACC, of which I am a proud and happy member, nor any other organisation that I name here.

Last week, I acted as crucifer for the 950th Anniversary celebrations of Our Lady of Walsingham in the ACC. For various (and mainly) political reasons the ACC is not allowed to say Mass at the shrine. While this is unfortunate, we carried on regardless and made our celebrations with much joy and ceremony. The little church was packed and we were merely just a subdeacon short of a full High Mass (which is, incidentally, how some people describe me).

We processed outside, not far, just once around the surrounds, and back in the church, for, while the church was packed, it is a small building and there weren't all that many of us.

In this country, it seems very difficult for churches to grow. In the CofE there were many initiatives to try and get people into church, the Alpha Course and Back to Church Sunday. The latter followed the ideas which the good Canon Scarlett outlines - inviting people into church. I often criticised the CofE for Back to Church Sunday on the grounds that it was better to get its house tidy before inviting in guests.

Should I be saying the same to the Continuing Church? It does, after all, have a sad history of division and bitterness between Anglicans and these are hardly attractive qualities for guests. However, the issue is not about the whole Anglican situation, but rather about the parish in which we invite people. Now that's a different situation to what is happening on a global scale.

I would chide the CofE because it was quite feasible for one parish to be believing one thing and the next one down the road to be believing another. From my experiences in the ACC so far (I may be wrong, though I doubt it) there is no such division of belief. I am in regular contact with two priests one who is of a High Anglican nature and the other who describes himself as lower. However, when I go to their Masses, while the flavour might be different (one kataphatic tinged with incense and a modicum of Latin, the other apophatic simple and Benedictine) there is a great unity of spirit and it is the same Church. The words "THIS IS MY BODY" are said with the same intensity of belief in both parishes; the words of the Liturgy are taken with the utmost seriousness; the sermons, though very different in construct fully representing the character of the priest, proclaiming identical messages. This was never the case in the Established Church.

It is here, in the smallness of the parish, that we should be inviting people. Of course, we can't ignore the underlying political currents but these must be left to those in authority. If we trust our bishops, and in the ACC we do as I have seen in evidence long before I joined the ACC, then we know that they will be working towards healing the rifts. It is the job of the laity to ensure that we tend the Church in its greenhouse by supporting our priests and, more importantly, living the Christian life with an increasing degree of devotion but in the smallness of our lives.

One of the biggest lessons a Christian has to learn is humility. It's a big idea in the Benedictine Rule and a major theme of Our Lord's teaching. Readers of this blogling will be very clear that humility is not something that I have a great deal of. "Who does he think he is?" was often whispered around my last parish behind my back.

It is in humility that we can find ways of implementing Canon Scarlett's ideas. There are several realisations we have to make.

1. In the U.K., proselyting does not work. In my experience, the mention of Religion makes people move away from you or make bitter comments. British folk do not like having their reserve challenged and it does seem that just mentioning the Holy Name pushes people further away. It is clear that we need to find a way of engaging with people which is respectful of people's nervousness and aware of their discomfort.
   




2. One idea seems to prevail across worldviews:
   
   In the worldview X, there are people who do not follow the worldview properly, therefore the authority of worldview X is suspect.
   
   I know, because I have succumbed to this myself in discussing the relationship of Science and Religion, and perhaps you can see this in some of my earlier writings. It is logically invalid but is very persuasive because it has an emotional content. Canon Scarlett is very correct: in the main, people are not going to be persuaded by arguments but rather by a personal engagement. It is clear that we have to be thoughtful about our Faith and able to communicate intellectual integrity at the emotional level.
   




3. The Continuum is tiny and confused in the U.K. The ACC is actually very stable at present largely because we're not trying to "make history" - but is that a good thing? On the other hand the TAC has tried to do something worthwhile and positive for church unity but is paying the price for it because it was not engaged wholeheartedly. The TAC in the UK looks as if it will have its home in the Ordinariate largely because of the Papal flavour English Anglicanism (not quite the tautology you might think) possesses. However, there is an inconsistency of doctrine: are Anglican priests really priests? In the ACC the answer is a big yes, in the TAC it's rather equivocal. The confusion of the TAC is the ACCs problem by virtue of their common origins and common doctrine (modulo the issue of validity of orders). It is clear we need to recognise that there is confusion within our institution and to make sure that, while there may be this confusion, our Gospel message is clear.
   




4. The Continuum is tiny in the U.K. There are the ecclesiastical giants of the CofE and the RCC, there is also the non-ecclesiastical giant of the nice, warm bed on a Sunday morning. The ACC is very clear on what it is and what it offers: Catholic Faith, Orthodox Worship, Apostolic Order. However, what does this mean for the people that we're trying to reach? Are we trying to reach members of the CofE? This is largely impossible for most members are not aware of nor care that their orders are slowly becoming unApostolic and that their faith is not Catholic. The RCC, is of course, rather more strong in its structure, though there is erosion of its own Catholic Faith. If we're reaching out to people who have been displaced by both of these great institutions, where do we find them? Where do we find them with the few resources that we have? Where do we find them with the few resources that we have, given that we are getting older?

We have to be humble about this. The task is very definitely beyond us members of the Anglican Diaspora scattered over the country and the world. All we can do is continue. Hang on! That's what we are doing if we're Continuing Anglicans. We need to be whole-hearted and devout in our faith, each little member of us. Church-wide, each individual needs to be following a life which contains prayer, penitence, study, devotion, meditation and evangelism.

Each of us needs to be praying daily for the growth of the Church and for the power to do what is impossible for men. If we're meeting in upper rooms for Mass, doesn't this put us very close to what was happening in the very beginning of Christianity?

Each of us needs to be examining our conscience daily. It's a good Benedictine practice, but one that ought to be adopted by all Christians. It is our sin that has got us into a mess, but we have been given a way out in Christ. Our sins block what God can do in us and what He can do in us in the world. It's horrid but it needs to be done.

Each of us needs to study not just our Bibles and Catechisms, but the world around us. We need to hear what the world is saying so that we can hear its needs and recognise the Diabolical deceits with which the Devil is trying to meet those needs with falsehoods and analgesics. We need to be able to think clearly - this is a particularly Anglican trait with our application of Reason to our Scripture and Tradition.

We need to devote our lives, genuinely to Christ. The first commandment is that we should have no other gods, but how seriously is this ingrained in us? Participation in the Mass is mandatory for our own good and most, if not all of us, do that and do it well precisely because we are in the Continuum because of the sanctity of the Mass. But what more? What about in our daily lives?

We need to meditate - to find silence with God. This is terribly hard in a noisy world, but it is possible. It is clear that the ACC has so much to offer the world. It is a conduit for Holiness and Grace, so the more we listen out for God's voice and pray that this voice may be heard in the Church, the better we can be at doing the impossible with His power.

We need to evangelise. We still have the problems I mention above, but we can remember that it is our lives that can convince people of the truth. Miracles can and do happen though, largely, we have lost the gift of seeing them and the faith for doing them. St Francis of Assisi says that we should preach the Gospel continuously, using words as a last resort. It may sound dreadfully Pentecostal, but I think it is very true, if people see the Grace of God in us, then they will want it. If people see in us the pearl of great price, then they will begin to sell what they don't need in order to get it. The appeal of Christianity will be in the good lives and examples of Christians. We may not convert people, but we can put a stone in their shoe to help them stop and think.

Above all, we need to be cultivating within ourselves a sense of humility so that God can work in us because we can so easily block out that message. As Bishop Mead put it at the celebration of Our Lady of Walsingham, we cannot afford to keep washing our hands of the Gospel like Pontius Pilate whose life was full of the excuses of the proud not to hear God, and rather to emulate Our Lady and Richeldis who, in humility, threw aside what prevented them from saying "yes" to God yet still being aware of their smallness and limitation.

In the Continuum, we may be small and limited. I believe, however, that somehow God can do something quite brilliant if we are humble enough, in our smallness, to let Him.

The Story of Science

I've been hammering Science quite a lot lately. It's very easy to get into a defensive frame of mind, especially when the popular view presents a false dichotomy of Faith and Science. However, it does seem clear to me that the materialist's claim to be the sole possessor of true Science is tenuous and as much a matter of faith as any other religious/philosophical belief. It is the latter thesis that I have tried to put forward. I suspect that I may have overstated my case on a few occasions.

It is vitally important that we learn Science, for it is here that we do indeed learn about the physical world, after all it seems very reasonable that the world does indeed possess a material nature. We observe, and though we can doubt the veracity of what we observe, we can still make observations and describe those observations in a methodical and formal way so as to communicate, predict and utilise the matter and energy around us.

The recent discovery of faster-than-light neutrinos has certainly sparked some speculations in the Scientific community. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, an important foundation of modern science, nothing can travel faster than light, and so to observe something do just that makes a physicist sit up and take notice, because if what he has seen is true, he will have to revise his entire understanding of the universe. However, it may be a mistake or fault, or even ratification of a theory of parallel universes or wormholes in the fabric of spacetime. There is bound to be some explanation for this occurrence.

Thus buzzing around the Scientific journals now are all kinds of theories and explanations - all forms of mathematical narrative to try and give some rational explanation as to how Einstein's story of the universe is the right one, or to tell a new story with a fresh new narrative.

It is possible that some scientists will object to my use of scientific explanation of the structure of the universe as a story. I'm not entirely sure why, if I'm honest,because much of our communication with other human beings is some form of narrative designed to tell an important truth about some aspect of our lives, from communicating the frustration that the gas-man wouldn't come out to mend the boiler to the ecstatic vision of a new nebula discovered by the Hubble Space telescope.

For many Scientists, the idea of "story"has a fictional element to it. Dawkins rejects the Old Testament as a bundle of stories about what he perceives to be an unpleasant deity. Yet, he will nonetheless use narrative to tell the story of Evolution. Narrative is natural to human beings and so the story becomes a perfectly decent way of communicating even scientific truth. There used to be a set of continental cartoons about personified blood-cells and germs which definitely did the job of informing, in a rough and ready way, how the body worked.

Science still relies on some stories to fuel the scientific imagination. It doesn't mean that the stories are fiction; it doesn't mean that they are fact either. It does mean that there is something in the telling of the story that engages human curiosity about the world around us. It does communicate that the universe has indeed a meaning which is worth discovering, a mystery that it is worth engaging with and finding a deeper narrative with which to create some great joy in the mind of Man.

However, Science cannot dismiss Biblical texts as fairy-stories with the implication that they are wholly fictitious. First, the stories being told are very different but still have points of engagement, such as Noah's Flood. Second, the Biblical stories do have great historical credibility particularly in the New Testament many parts of which were written within a remarkably short space of time after the Life, Death and Resurrection of Jesus. Compare that with the biographies of important historical figures (such as Alexander the Great) which were written a few centuries after their subject died. There are several discrepancies between the narratives of Scripture and the archaeological evidence. This may be due to a difference in what the narrative is trying to communicate or it may be due to a difference in how historical evidence may be interpreted.

Of course, Science is practically redundant in historical investigation. One cannot re-stage the Battle of Waterloo under scientific conditions. Nor can Science prove that the explanations that might be had for the Plagues of Egypt, the Feeding of the Five Thousand or the stigmata of St Francis of Assisi are exactly true and factual. It can only speculate and possibly discuss likelihoods under present conditions. Nor can Science even talk about the probability or otherwise of the existence of God, for to talk about probabilities involves some background in which to calculate the probabilities. One cannot find the proportion of universes in which God exists from the total number of universes.

Yet, the stories that Science tells are indeed compelling and are worthy of much reflection. Religious folk can gain much knowledge of God by reflecting on what He has created, especially if they do it honestly by considering the implications of different theories such as the Big Bang or the Creationist theory of a young universe and any other theory that should present itself. Science is not capable of destroying religious faith and so the Religious community has nothing to fear from studying all these wonderful stories and narratives that Science gives us in order to understand the physical make up of what God has created. However, it is worth remembering, that if a Creator God does exist, then we are characters in his story as well as History.

Who's in a name?

Homily preached at Eltham College on 3rd and 4th October based on the second chapter of St Paul’s letter to the Church in Philippi verses 5 to 11.

During your summer holiday,
you meet,
staying in the room next to you,
a woman and her three new triplets.

Of course,
you go all gooey over small babies
so you wander over and say hello.

After the appropriate amount of baby-talk,
the mother introduces her brood by name:
the largest LaFayette,
the middle LaToyah
and the youngest LaTrine.

Latrine?

You can’t quite believe your ears,
have you heard that name correctly?

Latrine?
Isn’t that another word for outside toilet?

Being the polite person that you are,
you ask why that particular name.

The reply?

It sounds nice.

[PAUSE]

How do you feel about your name?

After all, you didn’t choose it for yourself.

It was foisted upon you by your parents.

You may loathe it but,
looking down the school roll,
there isn’t any name that appears
particularly ridiculous.

There are no
Moon Unit Zappas
or Peaches Geldofs,
no Fifi-Trixabelles
or Harper Sevens on the School Roll.

You can always count on the fact
that some parent in the world
is going to inflict
their warped sense of humour
onto the tiny infant
that has just been born to them.

How many boys have received
eleven Christian names
all after the players
for Doncaster Rovers in 1978?

Worse still,
Mr Dover is always going to be tempted
to name his daughter Eileen
– thank about it, Eileen Dover –
or, what about his son Ben?

There’s always the temptation
for Michael Foot to name his daughter Sonya,
and in America,
there is a girl called Deebra Strapp.

Is her son called Jock, one wonders?

If parents can be so rubbish at choosing names should they not hold off until you can choose your own?

[PAUSE]

Well, this would result in you being called “Thingy” or “Doo-dah” or “Wosname” for the first eleven years of your life.

If you are younger than eleven
and you choose your own name,
the result could be just as silly:
Ben 10 Smith,
Pikachu Palmer-Patten
or Kinder Surprise Jones,
for example.

However, if you don’t have a name
until you’re eleven,
you would lack some significant
personal sense of identity.

You may not realise that a name
is a terribly powerful thing.

In Egyptian mythology,
the Goddess Isis gains power
over the Sun-God, Ra,
by discovering his secret name.

In Greek, the word for “name” is onoma,
which itself is derived from
the word nomos meaning “law”,
“principle”, even “authority”.

Your name represents
not just a handy way of referring to you
other than “Oi! Fishface”
but marks you out as a being
in your own right
with a will,
a purpose
and an ability to express
that will and purpose.

Names have an intrinsic meaning.

Jonathan comes from the Hebrew
“Jeho Nathan”
meaning “God has given.”

In Latin that’s Deusdedit
– an early Archbishop of Canterbury,
or in Greek, Theodore.

“William” means a determined protector.

“Robert” means “famed” or “bright”,
the female equivalent is “Clare”.

“Raj” means “King”
as does “Roy” or “Rex”.

Most interesting is the name Joshua.

Joshua is the Hebrew word
meaning “God saves”.

It seems clear that the chap
in the Old Testament
who has a whole book named after him,
is instrumental in saving Israel.

One might say that he is well named.

However,
Joshua was
and still is
a very common name.

If we now translate that name
into Greek we get some inkling
of how powerful a name can be.

So, if Joshua means “God saves”,
what’s the Greek version of Joshua?

[PAUSE]

The answer is, of course, Jesus.

Now think of the impact
of that name on humanity,
whether or not you happen to believe
in who Jesus claims to be.

For many people,
it’s a name so Holy that it needs
to be treated with the profoundest respect
for what they believe Jesus has done
and is doing for them.

For others it’s an expletive
- a word to use when your Xbox bursts into flames.

But, then why should any person’s name
become a swear word?

Would we like our name
to be used as a way of expressing
deep negative emotion?

Doesn’t that cheapen who we are?

Wouldn’t using that name in such a way
count as profound disrespect for that person?

[PAUSE]

This brings us back to the power of names.

We can ruin our good name,
just as Adolph Hitler
and Osama Bin Laden have done.

These names will always be associated with evil,
even if the owners of those names
were nonetheless highly flawed
and vulnerable human beings.

That was their fault,
a result of their choices.

Their acts changed the meanings of their names.

And Christians believe
that Jesus fulfilled the meaning of His name.


What then does this say
about the parent who calls their child
Daisy Boo, or Buddy Bear?

Have these children
been given a name
with which they can be respected?

Have these children been given a name
which they can make great
with works of kindness and hard work?

Surely this demonstrates
that some parents see their children
as fashion accessories
rather than people
with the potential to become great?

It’s going to be hard for
Daisy Boo Oliver to be taken seriously
with a name like that.

Perhaps she has the ability to do just that.

[PAUSE]

Whether or not you love or hate your name,
you still have the potential to make that name good.

You have the ability
to live your lives in such a way
that the mention of your name brings joy or relief
to whoever hears it.

You have the ability
to make the school proud
to have your name on its roll.

You have the ability
to pass on what your name means
not just to your children,
but to all who look up to you for inspiration.

Tough job.

How are you going to do that?

The Hypocrite and the Extremist: Poles apart?

I'm sure that I have made my friends, colleagues and readers cringe with some of the things that I say and write. I'm certainly not the most socially intelligent and perhaps it can be rightly said that there is a little of the Sheldon Cooper in me.

In England, Religion is not really something that should be discussed in polite company. There is an understanding that in England it is better not to rock the boat, so perhaps my somewhat forthright views have an American origin via my conversations with my friends. Certainly, my new Church (the Anglican Catholic Church) has inherited an American flavour. According to the Affirmation of St Louis, the normative BCP is the American BCP of 1928. I'm not going to quibble with that, save to remark that there are some odd changes in phraseology (particularly in the Venite) which I'm going to have to get used to.

I do have to admit to a certain "evangelical" bent and I'm not entirely sure where that came from unless it is something that wormed its way into me during my declining years in the CofE. By this, I mean that I think that a few friends wish they'd never mentioned to me any topic on the lines of, the Rapture, W"O", the "corruption" of the Church, et c.

One comment seems to run constant, "things are always black and white to you." To be honest, I've never understood why save possibly the force with which I say no to certain alterations to Christian Doctrine made by liberals. For holding a definite position, I get labelled as an extremist.

This rather does bring up the rather thorny issue of Extremism. If you think about it, every dichotomy (or trichotomy, or n-chotomy for a given value of n) has an extreme position, whether it be political, social, religious or even which end of the egg one cracks. The question is, is Extremism wrong?

We have to be very careful here, because the idea of Extremism has very negative connotations. The deaths of 11th September were attributed to "Islamic Extremists" whatever that means. It was a religious/political extremist (whose sanity is in doubt) who caused the deaths of about 80 people in Norway recently. Maybe you can think of many other examples of this sort of Extremism.

I've heard it said that the present Pope is a Catholic Extremist, but I wonder what this means. I suspect that those who call him thus have an objection to something that he has spoken out against:- Abortion, Islam, Relativism, Contraception.

While the Regensburg lecture and its controversial indictment of Islam was largely the result of too complicated a train of thought, nonetheless, in holding to Christian precepts the Pope is making a very definite statement that Islam is not the right path to God. Likewise, any Islamic leader, just by being Islamic, is making a very definite statement that Christianity is wrong. Just by accepting the doctrines of one's Faith immediately presents certain definite views which are potentially (and often necessarily) incompatible with another's. There is an extent to which there can be no middle ground - one cannot be both a Christian and a Moslem. Likewise it is very unlikely (and some might say logically impossible) that both Islam and Christianity cannot be true.

In being a Christian, I am putting myself into an extreme position that Islam is not the path to the Truth. The same is true for my Islamic friend in his proclamation that I am wrong. We're both extremist in the relativistic sense that there is no way we can worship God together, but does that mean I have to renounce him as a person?

The same is true of the Abortion and Contraception issues. The Commandment of God is that murder is wrong - murder of course being an unjust killing. If there is doubt that a few cells in the human body are growing in order to form another human body, then there is sufficient doubt, not only to question whether that bundle of cells is already a human being in the same way as we are, but also whether the deliberate impedance of a human being being born is morally objectionable. If Abortion and Contraception cause such a moral uproar, suddenly things become much simpler when bedroom activity is left to happily married couples who can control themselves!

Again, these ideas are quite logical consequences from believing in God. If God commands that X shouldn't be done, then the greatest care should be taken that X isn't done and this means that situations require great examination to ensure that X isn't done even when it isn't completely obvious. If one doesn't hold to the idea that God exists, then some of the believer's injunctions against X will appear arbitrary and oppressive. However, again, it is the initial belief that produces the polarisation, and polarisation in the eyes of some relativists is the same thing as extremism. How can one side convince the other of the truth if there can be no common ground between them?

One could try to be a Relativist and try to make common ground where there is none, but that only brings up another set of extremes and destroys common ground with the Absolutist such as the Pope.

Of course, the believer, particularly the Extremist, in both Absolutist and Relaticistic senses, is entirely open to hypocrisy, i.e. failing to practice the same principles that he preaches, and this will be utterly obvious. Too often Christians will focus on keeping one particular commandment (such as not murdering) and fail to keep another commandment (such as "Love thy neighbour") or even fail to keep the commandment in its principle (such as torching an abortion clinic). Does this negate the truth of the commandment that he holds so dear?

It's quite interesting that of all the things English society loathes, it's the hypocrite. Perhaps this is a vestige of the time when England was a Christian country and the KJV roared out the Lord Christ's woes against the hypocrites. It's true that the behaviour of the hypocrite (particularly the Extremist hypocrite) renders his doctrine questionable, but the fact is that it doesn't make his doctrine false.

The Lord Jesus, when speaking against the Pharisaic hypocrisy tells His disciples, "what they say, do, but what they do, do not." The teaching of God is not rendered invalid by the behaviour of the hypocrite and the extremist. It still requires acting upon. Of course, if one is serious about keeping the Christian Faith, then it is important to recognise that every sin that we commit is an act of hypocrisy too on top of the act of sinning per se. Perhaps, then, one argument on the side of miracles is for the continued existence of Christianity in the hands of hypocrites and sinners!

It is however very interesting that of all the commandments to be extremist about, it is never the doctrines of forgiveness or of unconditional love. Perhaps this failure to be extreme about these marks out the nature of the Extremist from the necessary extreme positions that our belief naturally gives us. The saints are all Extremists: they held nothing dearer than the will of God even to death - always theirs. St Therese of Lisieux is certainly an Extremist of the more wonderful kind in that she aimed at nothing but perfection in all of her little daily chores, yet one cannot put her into the same bracket as the nominal Christians who will blow up other nominal Christians as does happen in various parts of the world. However, no saint scrimped on the doctrines of forgiveness and love because they saw themselves in need of both as well as other people.

There is much good in reflecting on the consequences of one's belief system and examining whether we are entirely committed to what we hold to be true. If we have an extreme faith which is cognisant of the fact that there is no middle ground, how can we nonetheless give true respect to those on the other side of the gulf? Perhaps it's time to stop speaking and to start doing.

Michaelmas: Angels and Demons

Written for the Magazine of St Peter and St Paul's Church, Swanscombe at the request of a friend.

Do you get the feeling that Dan Brown has it in for the Church? First there was the Da Vinci Code with a lot of untruths about Jesus having a family and the Holy Grail being his descendants. Then came the story Angels and Demons with a group of Scientists trying to blow up the Vatican!

It does seem that there are many people in the world who have it in for the Church as a whole. There are a whole host of reasons. Professor Richard Dawkins believes that the God of the Bible is cruel, jealous and arbitrary. Christopher Hitchens believes that God doesn’t exist because Christians are so bad. Karl Marx sees religious belief as something that drugs people from seeing the truth about their own poverty. What do you think about this? What arguments have you heard that God doesn’t exist? Is the Church living a lie?

It’s very easy not to care with our comfortable lives or our economic worries and it isn’t surprising that people fall away from the Faith because it fails to address their concerns. But then didn’t Jesus say something about the word of God falling among nettles and thorns? Our modern society believes that the only things that exists are the things we can lay our hands on or measure in some way. Our society doesn’t believe in God for the simple reason that He cannot be observed in action, put into a test-tube or seen through a telescope. If God doesn’t exist, then neither does life after death, so eat drink and be merry et c. How can anyone answer back at this?

It’s understandable that we feel daunted at going against this Materialism in our society, especially when it means that we come up against our friends and even family, or even ourselves! How tempting it is to put down our daily Bible reading in favour of watching Emmerdalenders or Coronation Farm! In the light of so much against us, it’s easy for us to feel weak and helpless.

And what would the Lord say? Easy: “Be not afraid!” Listen to the two Patron Saints of the Church in Swanscombe. St Peter says, “be sober, be vigilant, for your adversary the devil as a roaring lion walketh about seeking whom he may devour, whom resist strong in the faith.” [1 Peter 5.8]. St Paul bids us be strong and disciplined and “put on the whole armour of God. that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.” [Ephesians 6.11] What are these Patron Saints saying?

First, as sure as God exists, so does the Devil. It’s very tempting to write off both Angels and Demons as fairy stories and not really existing – that’s actually something that the Devil wants so he can hide from us. If, however, we believe in God and in His Son Jesus Christ, then we don’t really have a choice about believing in Angels or Demons, because the Lord Jesus himself casts out devils and talks about Satan and Beelzebub and the like. The Lord Himself tells us that we will one day judge the Angels, and remember the angels present at His birth! If Jesus says that Angels and Demons exist, and we believe Him, then Angels and Demons exist.

Second, St Peter and St Paul tell us what demons are. If you think about it, you already know the answer. Who is it who tempts you into losing your temper, or avoiding the train fare, or filling in the wrong numbers on a tax return? Who is it that puts the ideas in people’s heads to riot? Remember that poor girl who had just graduated and was trying to become a lawyer, and yet still looted a television during the riots despite the fact she knew it was wrong. We are all susceptible to temptation, but just as we are led to God by angels, so are we led away by demons. They may not have pitchforks, horns and pointy tales, but they’re there! They are those powers which tempt perfectly sane and moral people to act insanely and immorally. That includes me, and that includes you.

Third, St Peter and St Paul tell us what to do - be Faithful. We may not be able to answer back to those who shout that God does not exist, but we can refuse to allow their words to rattle us. The first way of showing faith is prayer. To pray to God shows already that you believe He exists. Pray for strength. Second, receive the Holy Sacrament every Sunday, because you are receiving Our Lord. Third, keep up the Bible reading, because then you can hear God speak. Fourth, don’t be afraid. It is written He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. (Psalm 91)

On September 29th we remember St Michael, the warrior angel who defeats Satan. We also remember all angels who are sent by God to help us. If we play our part and open ourselves to God then we find some assistance in the angels. We also must remember that the Devil is only an angel, he is not equal to God. If we are faithful, then we can resist him. It takes a lot of work and prayer, but there are more on our side than we think there are!

Noticing the Community Trust

While on your morning constitutional, you notice in a shop window a home-made sign which suggests that if you ring the number (apparently that of a mobile phone), you will be given assistance with all your computing troubles. You know that your laptop has been a bit slow lately, and defragging doesn't seem to do the trick. The question is: do you ring the number and get the assistance?

Chances are you would not; you would feel uncomfortable about contacting someone whom you had never met, whose credentials you had never seen, to fiddle around with your laptop when you don't quite know what you are doing? How do you know he won't put on some malware that will give him access to your sensitive information? Would you have had a different opinion if the sign had possessed a professional letterhead, or had was representative of a recognised computer repairs chain?

How would you react if the sign had been handwritten and said, "Carefull, door brocken!"

Faith and trust do not seem to be in great supply these days. There seem to be many people who do not trust the Governments scheme of cutting spending. Certain conspiracies such as the unusual circumstances of the death of Dr David Kelly have some very serious adherents. There seems to be no faith in the Roman Catholic Church leadership in Ireland following the Abuse scandal. Trusting what scientists say is also not gaining any ground. There are people who doubt that science can tell them how to live.

Actually, there are very good reasons for these cases of mistrust, people have good grounds for believing all of these institutions to be untrustworthy. With regard to the cuts in public spending, does anyone trust a minister who says, "We're all in this together and you must sacrifice a third of your pension to contribute to our plan of putting this right"? One might be more sympathetic to this view if the loss of a third of a pension were truly unilateral and that the minister himself was going sustain a comparable cut in pension.

With regard to Dr Kelly, given that the then Government was using much underhand propaganda and spin to convince Parliament and the country of the necessity of the invasion of Iraq and that Dr Kelly stood against this, one might be forgiven for doubting that his death was indeed the suicide as proclaimed in the media.

When bishops and archbishops do indeed try to hide the details of abuse by clergy and move the offending clergy on to places where they abuse again, then it is not surprising that this damages not only the trust in the parish priest, but also in the bishops that support them. It all looks like an inside job.

Who can trust Science to tell you how to live when one week eggs are bad for you and the next they're not only good for you but essential. The recent "discovery" that drinking lots of water can in fact be bad for you does seem to indicate that Science doesn't know what it's talking about sometimes. What is not often apparent is that Science is deeply divided about the nature of the origins of the Universe. While that might make for some exciting research, it doesn't exactly fill one with faith when discoveries made one week are shown to be false or out-of-date the next.

All in all, the levels of trust in society are falling. I've hear several people say, "I don't trust anybody now. Just myself." One can see that people are no longer in respect of their superiors to make good judgments on the basis that they believe previous judgments to be flawed. Marriage is no longer the uncompromising commitment that it used to be. Pre-nuptial agreements are now common fare in case of divorce.

For me, this represents the breakdown of community. People are becoming increasingly wary of commitment in case it all falls through and causes much in the way of pain. In order to be convinced that a commitment is worthwhile, credentials have to be presented and, in some cases, the credentials of those who give the credentials are being checked too. When does one become satisfied in trusting another?

It seems to me that the lack of trust in people is because of a growing materialism and relativism. For the Moral Relativist, there can be no real trust, no faith in people, because their moral standards are necessarily different. We cannot trust David Beckham to score a goal if the goalie picks up the goal post and moves it out of the way. Yet this would be perfectly consistent with the relativist's rules. Materialism demands evidence of reliability - credentials, certificates, references, bibliographies. This evidence is, however, necessarily inductive, i.e. based on a posteriori likelihood rather than a priori proof. We all do that, but are we coming to a point where this is not even enough?

I find materialism completely untrustworthy because it begs its own question. Where is the evidence that materialism is true? What is the scientific evidence to suggest that scientific evidence is enough to describe reality accurately? Herein lies the death of verificationalism.

In an episode of last year's Doctor Who, there was a rather fascinating conversation between the Doctor and Amy Pond:

The Doctor: Amy. You need to start trusting me. It's never been more important.
Amy: But you don't always tell me the truth.
The Doctor: If I always told you the truth I wouldn't need you to trust me.

I find this rather telling. Despite the fact that the Doctor doesn't always tell Amy the truth, he still asks her to trust him and it turns she does. Of course, this trust is due mainly because she has become increasingly familiar of the Doctor. Of course, this may well be part of the Time Lord charm which we humans lack, But it does raise the question, what does it take for a person to become trustworthy in our eyes? Do we have a personal criterion for deeming a person trustworthy? If we do, can we speak it?

If we're going to learn to trust again, then we are going to have to recognise our communities again. This needs to start locally. Of course, there are people that we know we cannot trust, but there needs to come a point where we set forward some way of trusting them again. I believe that this comes through cultivating our faith in God.

I trust God when He says that He exists and from that I trust Him when He says that He is truly good, almighty and all-knowing, though I cannot pretend to fathom what He means. One might call me a fool. Perhaps I am, but I have here the foundation on which I can live and learn to trust people and to give them a way of earning my greater trust. I recognise that human beings fail and fail badly, me included, but I have faith that God will not let me down. This comes from my belief that God is good. That sounds as if I believe that God exists in order that I can live. I assure you that my reasons for believing in God are more substantial that that, but you'll have to trust me on that!

Faith in God means that we have a binding influence, an inherent commonality with our neighbour whoever they are. This means that because I am commanded to love my neighbour, then I have to have an initial respect for them, a basis on which my trust can build. If someone else professes belief in the same God, then that trust can feedback into the system. Thus the Church, when done properly, can present a community of trusting, yet fallible, individuals. By trusting God, we are presented with the necessity of trusting our superiors to guide the way. Yes, of course, breaches of trust - even gross breaches of trust - will probably still happen, but if we are following the Commandments of God and not changing their sense through relativistic capitulations to a materialistic society, then we can begin to help that materialistic society to grow and heal, and maybe even see the God in Whom we have faith. That might be a better advert than a tatty home-made one in the shop window.

Science, Sorites and Society.

Just so that you know, I'm a mathematician (not a proper one, though) and not a scientist. I'm not really a philosopher either but I certainly know I'm doing myself a disservice by trying to label myself as this thing called "mathematician". That's a very typical practice of society - everything has to be packaged in nice little boxes in order for things to make sense.

I do actually love Science very much: I wish I were better at physics not least because it inspires some truly fascinating mathematics which in turn inspires some rather fascinating experiments. The Hadron Collider experiments and the attempts to find the elusive Higgs Boson are true nail-biters. The energy window for finding the Boson is shrinking fast. Can we find it, or is our understanding of physics flawed?

If we do find it, then this bodes very well for the theory which we have, if not it means some exciting new challenges upon which will stretch our understanding of the facts that we have.

Likewise, I find the idea of Evolution not only fascinating but indeed compelling. I've studied many an evolution equation, both discrete and continuous. Langton's ant is also a fascinating example of how a simple rule can bring about both unpredictable and predictable behaviour. Conway's game of life certainly does point to some deeper ideas as to how Evolution can bring up the creatures we see around us today. I've always thought that if God had wanted to create something then I couldn't think of a better way for Him to do it than have us evolve as we have done. It is absolutely fascinating.

But it is just a theory.

Now, we reach a rather important problem with the way that Science is being done these days, and the status which it is given (or perhaps rather that the Scientists believe that it has). If one, for example, doubts that Evolution is true, then one is pilloried by the established scientists. Some scientists can become very much like their own caricature of the Church in opposing freedom of thought. This is despite the fact that, if a deterministic theory of the universe is correct, then given the same laws and the knowledge of the states of every particle in the universe, there is no way of knowing whether the Universe actually began with the beginning of this blog entry. It's actually a very simple extension of the theory of ordinary differential equations. Is it true? I don't know. I can't know. I can try to find out, but how?

And that's the point.

Science, these days, has fallen into a fashion of reductionism, the idea of reducing things to component parts so that we can study the component parts and make inferences as to how they fit together to make up the whole. This reminds me somewhat of Sorites Paradox: if we remove the grains of sand one by one from a sand heap, at which point does it cease to be a heap? However, it's not quite fair to accuse Science of blindly reiterating this paradox. Scientists will try to deduce properties of the heap from the grains of sand. One then has to answer for oneself how one can deduce the "heapiness" of the heap from the grains of sand.

What about a beach? Can one deduce global properties of a beach from all the grains of sand?

Further, if the law of Gravity as we understand in this little locale of the Universe is indeed a universal law (and how do we know this?) then every individual particle must influence the motion of every other individual particle. Given that there are (from what I remember of the most recent physical theories) 10^79 (i.e. 1 followed by 79 zeroes) protons (I may be wrong) in the universe, that surely makes it a bit tricky to get a theory of everything.

In mathematical mechanics, we make assumptions and simplifications - A uniform ladder of mass m kg is resting on rough ground against a smooth wall...etc - these words "uniform" "smooth" "rough" are all simplifications which one makes in order to make some, often beautifully, accurate predictions. We certainly got to the Moon and back using effectively Newtonian Mechanics. However, these assumptions break down. One could use statistical mechanics, but then one gets into likelihoods and probabilities. Scientific Certainty comes with a given margin of error. If it doesn't, something's wrong.

But such is life. We seem often to look for the truth by breaking things to bits. Further to what I said in Horror and Holiness, we have not only stripped the clothes off of the nubile virgin, but also her skin and her flesh to see what makes her tick, and in so doing we destroy not only her dignity, then her beauty, but her humanity as well. This is not to say that we shouldn't be curious about our beautiful universe, but rather that we should not expect Science, or even Philosophy to have definite answers. There's a definite and horrible tragedy there that doesn't seem in any way romantic.

Being religious, I get accused of obfuscating the truth with mystery and meaningless ritual. I find that unfair. One can attempt to probe mystery and then uncover the answer that one was searching for. A materialist will carefully dissect a consecrated wafer to find God, but will only find bits of consecrated wafer or atoms of consecrated wafer or (if he is really lucky) a Higgs Boson within the consecrated wafer, in which case the papers will have a field-day ("God particle found in Wafer"). But a materialist will only find material because material will be all that they will look for. A scientist who happens to be a Christian may also tackle the same experiment, though I doubt that she would be very happy to do so, but she will find exactly the same as a materialist.

However, the ordinary Christian at Mass will receive a wafer and in so doing will find God, and that Christian will need no specialist knowledge in order to do so except their faith. Of course, the argument goes up. "We can't argue with you religious types. Everything comes back down to Faith with you." That's true of materialists too and their faith that everything that is is material.

This reductionism and Sorites principle is also endemic in Religion. I see it very much evidenced in Anglicanism where things seem to split and split and split ever more finely. It's anti-catholic in its scope and its a scandal, particularly in the Continuum, that there should exist shibboleths to categorise one Anglican from another. Those who have become "former Anglicans" have now rent the Traditional Anglican Communion. This may or may not have been necessary, but it has rocked the identity of the TAC in this deconstruction.

I find myself becoming very doubtful these days with what I'm being presented as certainties. The certainties of my Faith are contingent on the fact that I have Faith, and even then I believe in a God who will surprise me, maybe even scandalise me. That's not to say that I believe that He will contradict Himself - I believe Him to be faithful to me even if I am far from faithful to Him.

I recently learned that a priest before Mass lays out his maniple, stole and cincture in an IHS and I saw in this how a priest takes great care in ensuring that he suffuses himself in Christ. All this is contingent on his faith and the faith that he wants to communicate to his parishioners. I find sacred action and holy ritual to be affirming, though I cannot always find an adequate reason why I should find these things affirming. I suspect it is because it helps me to become suffused in a God whose existence is utterly inexpressible. The theory is beautiful but inadequate, the search meaningful but incomplete, the logic infallible but infinitely far from exhaustive in its search for Truth, the ideas worthy to be expressed but too restrictive.

Catholicism is only truly evidenced in Christ who can be the only uniting principle in opposition to the reductionism that Christianity has contracted from an apparently materialist society. Catholic, Protestant and Anglican are united in their belief in Him and, as they search for Him, honestly and in the greatest childlike humility. This is surely the only way to guard against some truly demonic attacks against the integrity of the Church.

For the Christian, life must be suffused with Christ so that our lives do not fall to bits, into component parts where the meaning of life is lost. I saw something of that while I was studying for my doctorate in four-dimensional geometry. As a result, I had no option to preface my thesis with this (especially with the reference to four dimensions).

That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. (Ephesians iii.20)

Horror and Holiness

Perhaps it's wrong of me: I do enjoy a good horror film. I'm not quite sure what it is about the Horror genre that sets me off. I guess it's the allusion to the fact that there is more in Heaven and Earth (and indeed under the Earth) than is dreamt of in my Philosophy. Perhaps the Anglo-Catholic mind is especially susceptible to the sense of the Gothic, the cold stone and gargoyle of old church buildings coupled with the Medieval monstrosities of Hell so graphically depicted in old Dooms and inhabiting the eldrich recesses of the mind of Hieronymous Bosch.

For me, it is the stories of Montague Rhodes James that have delighted me most. These are tales of ancient evil, of revenants and guardians of forbidden knowledge and secret treasure. Very few of them have really made it into the realm of the movie. There have been some pretty good adaptations made for television. There have been two versions of Oh Whistle and I'll come to you, My Lad the better version being played with Sir Michael Horden, detailing the tribulations of a pernickety Cantabrigensian Professor with no fear of the "supernatural" whose life comes a-cropper when he happens upon a whistle near a barrow on the Suffolk coast. A later version with John Hurt worked very well until they spoiled the story.

The only film that I know of M. R. James' work is Night of the Demon based on the short story Casting the Runes again with a skeptical protagonist being faced with something beyond his understanding. It may be black and white but it is a very good film.

I like a good horror film. It's a shame that very few are being made at the moment! There has been a big shift in the way that horror is being done now. As Roddy MacDowell's character (Peter Vincent) says in the original version of Fright Night, "All they want to see slashers running around in ski masks, hacking up young virgins." He's right. (Interestingly, I believe that this film is being remade with Doctor Who Actor David Tennant as Peter Vincent).

It seems that most horror films today are obsessed with showing off most of the outside of nubile young ladies and then finding some awful way of showing off their insides thanks to digital special effects. We have reached the era of Torture Porn which seems to be more concerned at killing someone off in the most elaborate and gory fashion and observing their suffering (from behind the sofa) until their life is finally snuffed out by the coup de grace. And that's it. There seems to be very little to point to the beyond, these days. Final Destination may be about Death and Fate, but that's as far as it points: the centre piece is the manner of death and avoidance of it, and the Saw films point to nothing other than man's depraved ingenuity of finding out ways of taking someone to bits. To my mind, this is not horror, this is disgusting, a cheap way of getting a reaction from an audience not from the head or the heart but through the stomach - sometimes literally. Gone are any references to Good and Evil. Only Nasty Things happen and have no moral identity.

That says much for a materialist culture where Death is the enemy to be overcome, despite the fact that it is inevitable for us all. Yet one contrast this with the sublime Pan's Labyrinth which juxtaposes the trials of the fairytale with the brutal realities of the Spanish Civil War. The sight of the zombies wandering through the shopping mall was a definite comment on the culture of today. Bluewater Park is filled with the mindless searching for a life!

Harsh? Maybe a tad. Much of what I've said above is opinion, but there is something which I feel is an important statement about our society.

On Wednesday 24th, the Church celebrates the life of St Bartholomew. Tradition has it that St Bartholomew was skinned alive and then beheaded. Of course, the horror movie makers would deeply relish this idea, and I'm sure that they would want to work this into the next installment of Saw. But how they would miss the point!

If one reads the daily instalments of the Martyrology, one again is faced with some hideous deaths. Admittedly, I think some of them have been dressed up to heighten the drama. Tradition has St Laurence roasted alive, scholarship has him simply beheaded. I know which one Wes Craven would depict in a film! However, one reads the Martyrology not to act as some rubberneck at a car crash searching for the most nasty way of dispatching a saint, but to connect with real, genuine human beings whose faith points beyond the material world. The more tortured the saint, the more we marvel at the tenacity that this person had for the love of Christ, and the more we question the depth of love that we have for the Lord. Saying "yes" to God could see us roasted on a grid iron. it's true.

Should we feel inadequate that we could not undergo torment for Christ? No. That way lies some unhealthy attitudes to suffering. We are bound to suffer for our faith - The Faith - and there is no getting away from that, but we remember God's faithful words to us in that He will not allow us to be tempted beyond our means, and any suffering we undergo has a purpose, a question for us to answer posed by God Himself. One can read that in Job. The fact that some martyrs suffered horribly is a testament to their belief, and it is reasonable for us to venerate them and praise them for their steadfastness.

A good horror film says something about the life beyond the material. It may be just a story but that's what stories are for, making statements about Life above television sets, toasters and turntables. Contrast this with the real lives of the saints, martyrs and all those who have in any way suffered dreadfully at the hands of men. The modern stalk-and-slash, torture porn films really do trivialise the latter at the expense of entertainment.

Opinion again? Perhaps.

Assumpta est Maria in Caelum

1 alleluia laudate pueri Dominum laudate nomen Domini
2 sit nomen Domini benedictum ex hoc nunc et usque in saeculum
3 a solis ortu usque ad occasum laudabile nomen Domini
4 excelsus super omnes gentes Dominus super caelos gloria eius
5 quis sicut Dominus Deus noster qui in altis habitat
6 et humilia respicit in caelo et in terra
7 suscitans a terra inopem et de stercore erigens pauperem
8 ut collocet eum cum principibus cum principibus populi sui
9 qui habitare facit sterilem in domo matrem filiorum laetantem

PRAISE the Lord, ye servants : O praise the Name of the Lord.
2. Blessed be the Name of the Lord : from this time forth for evermore.
3. The Lord's Name is praised : from the rising up of the sun unto the going down of the same.
4. The Lord is high above all heathen and his glory above the heavens.
5. Who is like unto the Lord our God, that hath his dwelling so high : and yet humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven and earth?
6. He taketh up the simple out of the dust : and lifteth the poor out of the mire;
7. That he may set him with the princes : even with the princes of his people.
8. He maketh the barren woman to keep house : and to be a joyful mother of children.

Actually, I listened to Monteverdi's glorious setting of Vespers last night before I recited First Vespers. It was this psalm, psalm cxii(i) that spoke to me most. In the above video, the psalm follows the Antiphon Nigra sum alluding to the Song of Solomon in which the maiden, though dark skinned from being of common stock is still regarded as beautiful in the eyes of the king.

The psalm proper starts at about 03:50 and it's this psalm which, to my mind, sums up what the Assumption of Our Lady is about. Monteverdi does a splendid job of emphasising this musically. Listen to how he sets verse 7 in the Latin. It's dynamic, hurried, alive as Monteverdi sees a God active in His intention to lift the poor man from the dung heap (stercore). And why? Suddenly, the music slows into a stately pace and is filled with sumptuous suspensions which is repeated! The words are ut collocet eum cum principibus - that He may set him (the poor man) among princes - and lays bare the intention of God to bring His Church - rich man and poor man, the mighty and the humble - together to Him.

Our Lady is a synecdoche, a representative of the Church as a whole, and her fate is to be the fate of the faithful. Of course, there are disagreements between Christians about the Role of Our Lady in the Cosmic Drama of Creation, Redemption and Salvation, but at the very least we should be able to make some identification with her as the human being who possesses the most intimate relationship with the Saviour.

If Christians are ever to be united then it is through the deepening of the relationship that we have with Christ - Christ has to be the uniting influence if we stand a chance of being regarded as One Body. For Catholics, this means the development of our interaction with Christ sacramentally and ensuring that they are ever more aware of Christ's reality in that sacrament. For Protestants, this means an ever deepening of that "personal relationship with Jesus" so that the words of Scripture aren't just read, aren't just acted upon, but realised in the life and heart of the believer. If the Catholic and the Protestant are both honest and earnest in their attempts, then they will be united in the same Jesus Christ - there's only one of Him after all.

Wherever Our Lord is, Our Lady is not far behind. How can a mother ever be far from her beloved child? Catholics know that she is not an object of worship but an object of reverence and veneration. To look to her is to be directed to Christ and one can see Him through her. To ask for her prayers is to find a companion kneeling beside us, showing us how she prays and making our prayers her own. Her assumption is the assumption of the Church; her end is our end. This is God's promise to us and He fulfils that in Our Lady to show that He fulfils His promise.

If we Christians are to have any effect in demonstrating that God is faithful and loving, thus shedding the light of Christ within us upon a dark and rapidly declining Earth, then we are going to have to start saying "yes" to God a great deal more and start wanting to become saints rather than being passive in our sacraments and scripture. If one woman from common stock can change the world just by saying "yes" to God, then what can we do in addition? We have to want to become saints; we have to want to get ourselves into the state where we too may be assumed.

While we may be only saints in training now, why don't we start trying to be saints properly now? That may mean a lifetime of repentance (though a Benedictine would call that conversatio mores) but it doesn't matter who we are, rich man or poor. By being saints, we open ourselves to the possibility of being gathered cum principibus populi sui and into the courts of Heaven.

St Benedict's Priory Salisbury 2011

You can't keep a good Monastery down! The little Benedictine community formerly at Elmore has relocated to a converted vicarage near Salisbury Cathedral.

It's not the most monastic looking building, and it's not exactly in the usual remote setting that Benedictines usually favour for the necessity of contemplation and peace. The Oratory is half of a converted sitting room and there is nowhere where the monks can really separate themselves from visitors.

This might be rather negative sounding, but it has to be realised that the monks are much happier now that they've been allowed to settle. Any skepticism from the neighbours appears to have been resolved: these monks are not going to wake you at 05:30 with their chanting the Venite!

What has been rather ingenious is how the Monks have managed to integrate their Officium Divinum into their new environment. They now incorporate Lauds and Vespers with worship at the Cathedral and celebrate Sext (or rather "Midday Prayer" in the modernist vernacular) with Sarum College. Whatever views one can take on this, and I suppose one can be very "What would St Benedict say?" if one wanted to be, the fact of the matter is that the monks are engaging with their Christian community at large. Consequently, they are, after just 11 months, very popular within the cathedral precincts.

The whole set-up reminds me, and perhaps it should remind Anglicans in particular, that there are different facets of the Church and that sometimes these facets need to coexist.

The Catholic Church is essentially divisible into Parochial, Religious, Theological and Hierarchical quarters comprising of the parishes, monasteries, seminaries/universities and the cathedrals. Each adds a distinctive colour, a vital nuance to the life of the Church. Most people will only ever really meet Parish ministry and that's all they think the Church is. However, the body of Christ has organs - not all absolutely defined and definitive - but quite clear in their function.

The Parishes form the coal-face ministry with the secular world; the Religious, like lungs, seek the spiritual health of the Church; the seminaries and universities engage with the intellectual and theological aspects, training people for coal-face ministry, while the Cathedrals espouse the leadership and the figurehead of the Church.

If the Church is to survive, then it must make sure that all four of these organs are functioning at full capacity and fully integrated. The focus of attention should not just be on the whims of the Parishes, or the directives from the Cathedrals.

Let us pray for our Religious folk and our intellectuals that they may flourish in good, orthodox, catholic faith.

Subdeacons and Readers: Lay or Nay?

Vocation is a strange beast. Why? For the simple reasons that first, ALL Christians have a vocation by God, and second, ALL human beings are different. There are, therefore, as many vocations as there are human beings, though of course, not all people respond to that call.

Of course, mention the word "vocation" in Christian circles, and the first thought is the white collar around the neck. It seems that the only people who are perceived to have vocations are Bishops, Priests and Deacons.

It has to be remembered that there were roles for the laity: Porters, Lectors, Exorcists and Acolytes - the so called minor orders. On the cusp, sort of sandwiched between the two groups, is the Subdeacon. The Subdiaconate essentially developed from the role of the Acolyte but because of his important role at Mass, the Subdeacon's orders were more and more regarded and reserved for the ordained ministry.

In the CofE, the last ordination of a subdeacon took place, I believe, in the 1940s. As the Anglican and Roman Catholics have both moved away from the traditional High Mass ritual requiring three sacred ministers, the role of Subdeacon has become redundant. This is certainly a sign of a change in the attitude towards the Mass: it was the duty of the Subdeacon to carry the chalice, assist in the preparation of the Altar and to read the Epistle. The fact that it is apparently no longer necessary for someone to require theological and spiritual training in order to fulfil this role shows how regard for the Mass has changed. As the office of the Subdeacon decreased, so did the office of Reader increased.

Now, this may well be to the good. The Subdeacon does not seem to have anything in the way of Biblical support. Acolytes, Lectors, Porters and Exorcists have the roots of their ministry in the Jewish temple. Our Lord Himself acted as Lector when he read that famous passage "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me" from Isiaiah and then scandalised the temple when he then declared that it was He Who fulfilled that scripture. We see St Andrew and St Philip acting as Porters when they opens the door for the Greeks to visit Jesus in St John's Gospel (cap. xii), we also see the disciples as exorcists, driving out demons in the Name of Christ. The Acolytes served in the temple. We have the complicated references in the Pauline Epistles to the ministry of Deacons, Presbyters and Overseers (with some interchangeability between the latter two) which develop in character to the ministry of Deacons, Priests and Bishops. The Subdeacon, however, is nowhere to be found and it may be a mark of the Reformation to excise the Subdiaconate in deference to Holy Scripture.

But then, neither is the Reader a scriptural beast.

By "Reader", I mean the office within the Anglican Church. The first Elizabethan Reader was ordained in 7 January 1559 in Bow Church. The CofE describes Readers as:

lay men and women, from a wide diversity of occupations and backgrounds, who recognize a call to serve God and his world through the Church of England. They work in a variety of roles and situations across the Church, being authorised by the Church of England to preach and teach, to conduct or assist in conducting worship, and to assist in the pastoral, evangelistic and liturgical work of the Church in the parish or area where they are licensed.

As well as their formal roles Readers have many informal ways of
ministering by their presence, witness and listening at their places of work, at home, among the neighbours and in their local communities. They are informed lay people living out their faith in their different walks of life.

Readers may:

• Preach



• Lead worship, except those services and parts of services specifically excluded by Canon



• Read the Old or New Testament readings, Epistle or Gospel at any service



• Lead intercessions



• Receive and present the offerings of the people



• Distribute the consecrated bread and wine to the people



• Take Communion to the sick and housebound



• Publish banns of marriage in the absence of a priest



• Undertake pastoral and educational work



• Assist any minister as the bishop may direct

With permission from the incumbent of the parish, Readers may:

• Accept occasional invitations to take part in services in a church of another denomination

With permission from the Bishop, Readers may:

• Officiate at Communion by Extension services



• Officiate at Funeral services (with the good will of the persons responsible)



• Accept regular invitations to take part in services in a church of another denomination, with the approval also of the PCC of the parish where the service is to take place.

Readers may NOT:

• Officiate at the sacrament of baptism, except in an emergency situation when it is lawful for
  any lay person to baptise



• Officiate at a marriage service



• Pronounce the Absolution or give a Blessing but should use an authorised alternative form of
  words.

Now, perhaps we begin to see here some confusion of roles. Much of what is written here is applicable for the Deacon. Unlike the Subdeacon, the Deacon has a Role that exists outside the Chancel. Again, that perhaps represents a shift in the way we think about the centrality of the Mass to a community. What I mean is that it is the duty of Bishop, Priest and Deacon to extend what happens in the Chancel beyond that Chancel and to bring into the Chancel the concerns of the world without. It is this ability and duty - indeed, this spirit and character (et cum spiritu tuo) - that separates ordained ministry from lay ministry.

All ordained ministers are reminded before ordination that they are laymen before they are clergymen, that they have a lay ministry - a ministry at the coalface between sacred and secular - before an ordained ministry in presenting the people to God and God to the people.

Is then a Reader merely a Deacon with the sacrament lopped off? If so, then why is a Reader permitted to preach which is a sacramental duty within the Mass of the Catechumens? Why also, in some quarters, are Readers referred to as Lay Readers when the very fact that they are Readers mean that that they are members of the Laity and not ordained? After all, one doesn't refer to Lay Deaconesses or Lay Pastoral Assistants or Lay Organists or Lay Acolytes.

In answer to the question of preaching, we must look at Churchmanship. This exercise of the Reader is largely Evangelical in its origins. In CofE Parishes where the Word supersedes the sacrament and Mattins replaces the Mass, the Reader has a unique character of leadership of its own. For the Catholic Parish where the Mass retains its centrality and importance, the preaching is done by one with the charism of Ordination since the Word is inextricably bound with the Holy Sacrament. In the Catholic Tradition, we are taught truly to eat our Words!

The use of the adjective "Lay" has more of a Catholic nuance to it. In the Catholic tradition, Lay Readers do not preach for the reasons outlined above, though they can read the Epistle. Archbishop Parker's Elizabethan injunction required Readers to declare "I shall not preache or interprete, but only read that which is appointed by public authoritie." This meant the Offices of Mattins and Evensong, though the Catholic Parish would have problems with Evensong owing to the blessing of the incense.

These days, most people can read the Offices themselves and so for public recitation in the absence of an Ordained Minister, the Reader acts as a "first" layman which begs the question why there is intensive theological training for someone to learn to read Offices, especially Offices which are on the decline within the CofE. In the Catholic tradition, Readers work outside the Chancel unless they are operating as acolytes.

So here we are. We have two orders of ministry. The Subdeacon, theologically trained, preparing for ordained ministry whose role only exists within the Chancel, and the Lay Reader, theologically trained, able to preach and teach but not necessarily bound for the Altar and whose ministry exists outside the Chancel. In these days, might there be some rediscovery in the Catholic Parish of a Subdiaconate which has its traditional form within the chancel and as Lay Reader outside? This would also resurrect the office of Deaconess too with regard to Reader Training for women which can then be nuanced to tailor to the unique ministry that the Deaconess offers and which is being lost in a relativistic society.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Comments and corrections are always appreciated.

Circuits in the Swimming Pool

I received this a comment to a previous post. I didn't publish it there on the grounds that it didn't fit the post to which it was appended. The poster remained anonymous, which is a shame.

The big national Pilgrimage to Walsingham organised by the Ordinariate of our Lady of Walsingham took place today in the wooden barn-like structure that serves the Latin Rite Catholics as a church. As a rather disillusioned ex-Anglo-Catholic [now a traditionalist Catholic] I was looking forward to it and particuarly to see what elements of Anglican Patrimony and customs might be
incorporated into the Mass and procession. I was greatly isappointed. It was concelebrated in modern Roman style in nylon matching chasubles, the rite of Mass was the current New Rite of Paul VI with the proper sung to Missa de Angelis, full throatedly (so not very R.C.). There was one Anglican hymn Immortal Invisible and at the Offertory a rather slushly worship-song: Gifts of Bread and Wine. In all, a typical reasonably High Church Modern Roman Catholic service. The brochure was covered and filled with pictures of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, a number of references to Don Gobbi's Visions, and a Day of Divine Mercy. In the afternoon there was a weather-damaged procession to the Anglican shrine and a Sprinkling with Holy Well water took place. Alas, during this we were treated to a young lady singing a modern Roman Catholic worship song with a guitar. I left greatly disappointed wondering what elements of Anglican heritage, the "Patrimony" were going to be brought by these ex-Anglicans to Holy Church. They all seemed to be good, decent, dutiful modern Roman Catholic priests. What is the point of the Ordinariate ? Can someone explain ?

So why have I published this post? Largely because it is a cry from the heart. Perhaps, then, I am getting sentimental in my old age? Well, simply put, I know what it's like to be ignored and this is a cry from one who has become accustomed to being ignored by those rolling merrily on a bandwagon. That's not to say that I agree with the findings of my anonymous commentator. I was not on this Walsingham Pilgrimage and therefore cannot comment on the details mentioned here. If anyone can, then please use the ComBox provided.

One of the reasons I chose the Continuum over the Roman Catholic Church is because the Roman Catholic Parishes in my area were very much like the Parish that I spent 4 years trying to leave. Why swim the Tiber if the experience is no different from doing circuits of the Anglican Communion Municipal Swimming Pool?

This is one of the major factors in why I chose the Continuum over going to Rome either in the Ordinariate or through personal conversion. I saw no point in exchanging one Parish for another which was identical except for claims to following the Pope. What the Continuum offered me was different.

Well, I say different; I mean that the Continuum offered me nothing new whatsoever. In fact what it did offer me was the opportunity to rediscover what I had lost in the CofE - reverence and dignity, the Pax which was truly pacific rather than the Peace in which peace was destroyed in the ensuing melée. The Continuum offered me doctrinal stability and a greater degree of transparency than I found in either the CofE or the Roman Catholic Church. The latter two were adept at saying what the party line was and yet crossing their fingers when it came to toeing the party line. Those in the Roman Catholic Church were just as ready to cross their fingers when they declare their belief in Papal Infallibility and Transubstantiation as the CofE were in declaring their assent to the XXXIX articles and the Catholic creeds (especially the four marks of the Church!).

Of course, one might say that the Continuum is being as dishonest when it comes to its existence as a viable expression of the Church and will cite the many splits and separations as well as the veritable Alphabet Soup of Continuing Anglican Jurisdictions. Actually, I find that all the Continuing Anglicans that I’ve spoken with admit the situation quite readily and know that it is far from ideal. One can see that steps are being taken to remedy the situation: the APA (Anglican Province in America) has announced its acceptance of intercommunion with the ACA (Anglican Church in America). This was relayed via the Rt Rev Brian Marsh, president of the House of Bishops of the ACA. There are other such initiatives with UECNA and other bodies. This is not what I call dishonesty.

However, the fact of the matter is that, politically speaking, the Continuum is very new, not really more than 40 years old. That sort of puts the political situation in some degree of similitude to the 1560s and 1570s after the Anglo-Roman Schism. Our history books tell us how volatile the situation was in that period and it took some time to settle down, indeed perhaps it has never done really so.

Whilst the Anglican Continuum is doctrinally old and politically new, the CofE is politically old and doctrinally new and this is perhaps why it can do little from the fragmentation and haemorrhage of members that have produced the gloomy figures mentioned in General Synod. The Roman Catholic Church is itself finding problems in that there is a discrepancy between what the Western grass roots believe and want to believe and what the Magisterium pronounces as right belief.

This is where I do offer what little advice that I have to my anonymous commentator. Have patience!

If the Continuum is new at forty years old and is still in the process of formation, then the same is more than true of the Ordinariate. It is going to take some good time perhaps several decades for the expression of Anglican Patrimony to become apparent. However, the Anonymous Commentator has a point, and it’s a point I’ve touched upon earlier. What the Anonymous Commentator has just described is my objection to the phrase “former Anglican”. If the Ordinariate is populated by “former Anglicans” then what makes it different from being Roman Catholic? Another commentator, Jakian Thomist, whose comments are most assiduous and welcome, made the point that if by “Anglican” we mean some religious institution that accepts lay presidency, women clergy, practising homosexual clergy, atheist clergy, stout and pizza for the offertory, Ibiza-style rave Masses and communion for dogs, then the phrase “former Anglican” is reasonable though technically inaccurate. For that would mean that I, and many others, never were Anglican in the first place!

It is going to take time for what Anglican Patrimony there is in the Ordinariate to become apparent, and that’s the big challenge that faces the new Monsignors and the Anglicanorum Cœtibus hierarchy. They will have to convince Anglo-Catholics who will potentially form the second and future waves into the Ordinariate of just how they are preserving that Patrimony. While some may be happy to become Roman Catholics, others will be looking for that distinction. Others will not want to find themselves doing circuits in an episcopal piscine! The Anonymous Commentator is certainly justified in his/her comments that surely there should be something of the Anglican Patrimony apparent. One would hope that sixties folk-singer types have not found their way into a valid expression of the famous Anglican Choral Tradition!

The Ordinariate will have to show what it is that gives it a different parochial flavour from Roman Catholicism and what benefits there are from accepting the fullness of the Roman Doctrine as supplying what Anglicanism lacks.

Likewise, the Continuum has a lot of work to do if it wants to convince Anglo-Catholics in the CofE that it has what is necessary to preserve Anglican Doctrine and to sustain a stable environment in which parishes and communities can thrive. At present, the Continuum is small, but it is growing.

However, neither of these options may be sufficiently convincing at present, though it is difficult to see how remaining in the CofE is going to be tenable for folk who follow the doctrine that the Anglican Church has always until recently followed, namely the Catholic Faith. The grass is still the same green colour on all sides, though in some quarters the grass is brown and withering. It is going to take some time for the differences to become manifest. I therefore urge my Anonymous Commentator not to lose heart but to ensure that their views are heard, provided that they are couched in such a way as will build up the Ordinariate and offer support to its realisation of Anglicanism within the Holy See.

As for those of us in the Continuum, we must not lose heart either but bring plenty of ropes with which we can tie together catamarans, coracles, barges and barques and be careful with our steering so that, in these times of turbulence we can draw upon each other on a real river, rather than a swimming pool.

...as it were a span long...

This is the wonderful setting by Orlando Gibbons of words from Psalm xxxviii (xxxix):

Behold, thou hast made my days as it were a span long : and mine age is even as nothing in respect of thee; and verily every man living is altogether vanity.
For man walketh in a vain shadow, and disquieteth himself in vain : he heapeth up riches, and cannot tell who shall gather them.
And now, Lord, what is my hope : truly my hope is even in thee.

This version is sung about a fourth lower than I'm used to and in Tudor dialect, so has a certain quaintness about it, but nonetheless has that same word-power that much of Gibbons' works possess.

In the past, my low spirits have been lifted by the kind considerations of Fr Chadwick. This goodly priest is very much a Desert Father as he leads what amounts to an eremitical existence in a country that is proud of the secular nature of its government, its education and its everyday life - at least this is how I perceive the religious state of France to be. Having observed some very sad events within the Church in France (to wit, Thiberville) I find myself unable to shake off my interpretations above.

Lately, I've noticed the same sadness within the writings ( here and here ) of my Father in Christ and friend with which I myself have often wrestled. The questions he asks are very much the questions of the Psalmist in this Psalm.

Lord, let me know mine end, and the number of my days : that I may be certified how long I have to live.

Perhaps I should have linked to Greene's version or to Tomkins which begin with this verse rather than Gibbons who starts a verse later. My reasons will become apparent.

The whole psalm is pregnant with emotion, and it is a very complex emotion indeed. There are at least a couple of ways in which one can read it. Is it to be read in the fearfulness of one realising his mortality, or is it the cry of the world-weary. Again, in my interpretation it's "both-and" and not "either-or". One can imagine the psalmist beaten up by life, worrying about what's going to happen next, missing the past, sick of the present and fearing the future, wondering just how long his suffering is going to take.

At General Synod, the CofE has had some sober realisations thrust upon it making for gloomy reading: at the present rate of decline it will be defunct in 20 years and nothing seems to be abating this decline.

Truly, I am not smug about this for this represents a statement about society as a whole and what is faced by the established church is also faced by the Roman Catholics. It is also something for the Continuing Churches - the little coracles as I've called them in the past - to worry about. They may be small enough to Continue in name and function, they may also be small enough to be swamped by the tide of anti-religion and indifference.

Those of us who have found ourselves cut adrift by the movement of the mainstream have lost a great deal: the comfort of aesthetics of building and music. the comfort of a short walk to the nearest Parish Church, the comfort of being able to trust the words of visible "authorities" and "spokespersons" who claim to speak on behalf of all Christians, but who do not. There is much discomfort out there and, let's be honest, very little hope in what can be done. It is likely to get worse before it gets better.

Already I have seen a congregation more than decimated by the crippling illness suffered by one of my brothers. Ours is a small church, and, let's be frank, it teeters. Do I still have hope?

Fr Chadwick is perfectly right to be sober here. We cannot allow ourselves to be falsely optimistic - we can waste our time sitting with a false hope in our hearts.
However, my friend raises a very important point. Let's just look at the things that will remain forever: Faith, Hope and Love.

St James reminds us that Faith cannot exist unless it is in some way practiced. Without some manifestation of our Faith in what we do, what proof is there that it actually exists? Likewise, it is in the very words and actions of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, that Love itself has to be worked on and, if we claim to have love for another, we had better demonstrate this actively if we are to convince others, and especially the Creator, that we have Love for Him and for our Neighbour.

It stands to reason (namely by induction albeit on the example of two quantities) that Hope itself is not a vague emotion which has no substance but is born out of the crucible of one's wrestle with God and with one's very self. Blind optimism is simply not hope. I seem to remember a French aphorism:

L'Espérance est une petite fille de rien du tout.
Hope is a little girl of no importance.

I'd love to know where this comes from, as I've forgotten! As I see in my beloved nieces, little girls tend to grow up very quickly if they are allowed to grow up well. As for importance? In whose eyes?

If the Church is going to recover in this new age of "no importance", then it must work at its Hope.

And now, Lord, what is my hope : truly my hope is even in thee

First, in order to combat the danger of institutional acedia, the Church must continue as best it can. This may mean just going through the motions when the depression is black, but the fact that the act is taking place regardless forms a basis for the continuing presence of Holiness in dark lands.

Second, quietly and surreptitiously, it must continue to provoke, and cajole and put stones in the shoes who would just walk by regarding the Church as nothing, like they did Her (and their) Saviour. It doesn't have to be much, a bow of the head when someone utters the Holy Name even, nay especially, when it's uttered as an expletive, a crossing of oneself before eating in the refectory at work, a badge on the lapel declaring membership of one's jurisdiction.

We can and must do anything at all to prevent ourselves from just passing into oblivion. Little actions of ritual will remind us of Whom we worship and raise the odd eyebrow.

Third, it is best not to fix ourselves on what we perceive to be God's method of lightening our darkness. Humanity has a very consistent record when it comes to predict the way God will act in the future - namely poor! As a Benedictine, my Holy Founder reminds us never to despair of the mercy of God.

And now, Lord, what is my hope : truly my hope is even in thee

The only source of our hope can be in Christ who is no tame God! As Horatius Bonar writes:

I heard the voice of Jesus say,
"I am this dark world's light;
look unto me, thy morn shall rise,
and all thy day be bright."
I looked to Jesus, and I found
in him my Star, my Sun;
and in that light of life I'll walk
till traveling days are done.

Notice how that Hope is contingent on doing something, some activity to raise a head heavy and bowed with the cares of living. To look to Jesus is not easy, and if anyone says that it is then they are probably at that wonderful first flush of Faith and not yet experienced in the Long, Dark Night of the Soul! We also know that walking in the light of life without wandering off is horrendously difficult.

If I am honest, I am filled with hope for my new diocese. I don't want to seem glib here, as there are some enormous obstacles for us to face. However, there is much potential for our growth. It is true that our priests are on the elderly side and, sad to relate, one of them has but a short time left with us. It is also true that the diocese is small, but I see younger folk, I see men offering themselves for the priesthood and I see congregations committed to doing what they can to present "business as usual". The potential is there, and the hope is there and one should never despair of the Mercy of God.

So, why the version of Gibbons? Well, listen again at the last verse.

And now, Lord, what is my hope : truly my hope is even in thee