Anglican Catholic Development of Doctrine Part II

 

Having spoken positively about Newman's development of doctrine last time, is it true that his theory is without criticism?

I O U one sermon

Sermon for the ninth Sunday after Trinity

There are those who claim that Our Lord is a revolutionary.  There are those who claim that Our Lord seeks only to reform society, not tear it to shreds. There are those who claim that Our Lord has no interest in politics and what governs how societies operate but rather direct souls to the Kingdom of God.

What do you think? Where does Our Lord fit in, politically? Is He authoritarian, liberal, conservative, revolutionary or completely apolitical?

[PAUSE]

Imagine then, a manager of a national bank who has been told he is on two weeks’ notice. Looking at his customers’ mortgages, he halves them all, reducing the debt of several thousand people. Will the district manager commend him for his actions, like the master of Our Lord’s steward?

Why not?

In fact, is the master in Our Lord’s parable even like real masters of stewards.

Our Lord is presenting a scenario that makes no fiscal sense, nor does it make sense to anyone who is owed lots of money by several people. It’s a parable that makes very little sense to us because this is not how banks, building societies and mortgage lenders work. Indeed, how would we react if we were in the master’s shoes and saw those in debt to us relieved by someone who works for us?

What the Lord is describing would be described as fraud these days and this shows us that money has become completely entwined with law. By reducing the debt of others, the steward is causing financial chaos. Indeed, think of the mess that our errant bank manager would cause by slashing people’s mortgages willy-nilly. The law would come down on him like a tonne of bricks!

And what does the steward get? What does the bank manager get?

[PAUSE]

Grateful people. People who are willing to return the favour. People who now see something of greater importance than the value of money because someone saw their friendship as more important than their debts.

And that’s important for today. Our banks rely on selling debts to one another. It was this behaviour that caused the great economic crash of 2008. As far as banks are concerned, our debts are their bread and butter.

But our society doesn’t just operate on our monetary debts, it also operates on our moral debts too. We say that a man going to prison is paying his debt to society. When someone does something kind to us, we are morally obliged to them – we owe a debt of gratitude.

The weird thing is, we speak of debt as if it were something, some commodity to buy and sell, something to pay back. But what is a debt really? We know what fifty pence looks like but what does a debt of fifty pence look like? Our minds can’t turn it into a thing. The best we can do is to think about it as a place where fifty pence should be and isn’t.  A debt can only become real as a relationship between people. If Dan lends fifty pence to Tom, then there is an expectation that, at some point that fifty pence is given back. If Dan says, “forget about the fifty pence” then suddenly the debt vanishes.

Debt exists only as an expectation between two people. As soon as the expectation is altered the debt is altered.

That’s all that the steward is doing – he’s changing the situation by changing the relationships and creating new relationships based on something more valuable than debt – the kindness of others.

[PAUSE]

We often think of Sin as a debt but, again, Sin is defined by a relationship. We hear it said that Jesus pays the price for our sins, but who is He paying the price to? Do our sins steal anything from God? No, because the Earth is the Lord’s and all that therein is. Do our sins steal anything from the Devil? No, because the Devil is not another God, but a creature like the rest of us.

Sins are like debts because they change the relationship with God, but they can’t be passed around like monetary debts. Our sin remains our sin, because it is our relationship with God that is damaged and requires repair. Our Lord offers Himself on the Cross as that atoning sacrifice for sin – a demonstration that God still loves us and that His relationship with us is unchanged. On the cross, that relationship is restored and Sin is shown up as being a complete nonentity that only exists when we allow ourselves to become enslaved to it. The moment we let it go, the moment we claim Christ’s death as our own, that is the moment when sin has no effect on us. Sin disappears with God’s forgiveness, just as a hole in the wall disappears when the stone is put in its place.

Does this not put us in God’s debt?

[PAUSE]

A debt of gratitude certainly, and a debt that cannot be repaid.

But then, God doesn’t want it to be repaid.

He just wants that relationship with us, just like the steward pays the debt of others to build a relationship with them.

We owe it to Him to love Him, and this debt will make us Eternally joyful.

 

Anglican Catholic Development of Doctrine: Part I

 

Is Newman right or is that an exaltation of human reason?

Mindful of God

Sermon for the eighth Sunday after Trinity

Our Lord says

that He is the Good Shepherd

and that He lays His life down

for His flock.

If He is our shepherd,

isn't it His job

to watch out 

for ravening wolves

in sheep's clothing?

Are we sheep,

or aren't we?

[PAUSE]

Analogies only go so far,

and Our Lord is deliberately

stretching His own analogy

to show us what He wants for us.

Yes,

we are like sheep.

We need someone 

to guide us on the way home

- home being heaven

where our destiny lies.

We need someone

to lead us into green pastures

and feed us with good food

that nourishes both body and soul.

We need someone

to protect us from our predators

who seek to rip us from Christ's love.

We need a Shepherd.

But this Shepherd is not 

going to do it all for us.

We need to follow Him.

He is not going to drag us

behind Him

on a trolley.

He is a Shepherd,

not a carthorse.

We have to follow Him.

We actively have to get up

and walk in His direction,

follow His commands 

and this means watching out

for wolves in sheep's clothing.

We can't walk faithfully 

and blindly.

We have to think,

judge,

consider,

evaluate.

We have to make 

our own decisions

which can act in alignment

with our faith in Jesus,

but also against our faith in Jesus.

We are given faith by grace,

but we must co-operate with that grace

for our faith to grow.

And if our faith grows

it begins to recognise

the voice of the Shepherd.

As it grows in us,

our faith influences our ability

to reason and decide,

to recognise and to judge

and understand 

which actions are good

and which actions are not,

whose teaching is good

and whose teaching is not,

which law is good

and which law is not.

[PAUSE]

God has given us minds

to use, reason deduce and understand,

and He expects us to use them.

Even Our Lord learns

His Jewish Faith at His Mother's knee.

He grows in stature and knowledge.

Just like we have to.

Not every voice you hear

is leading you to God

and you have to learn His voice.

While Our Lord is our Good Shepherd

and expects us to learn

to distinguish between His voice

and the howls of hungry wolves

He is never far from us.

A Shepherd is always at hand.

Even if we do go astray,

He is there for us to turn to,

and to learn from.

But He is not going to do

our learning for us.

He loves us too much

to diminish our humanity

by turning us into puppets.

We play a part in our own salvation ,

otherwise our humanity 

is not full.

[PAUSE]

We are not to listen blindly

to others,

but to learn from Christ

what is good for us.

After all, how do you know

that this sermon 

doesn't come from

a wolf in sheep's clothing?

Splitting Liturgy

 

Is it worth splitting a church over liturgy?

A meal of fish, lamb and bread.

Sermon for the seventh Sunday after Trinity

Seven loaves.

Oh, and a few small.fish.

Well they were a bit of an afterthought, weren't they? Is their presence significant?

Practically, we would expect fish to be on the menu. These folk are travelling with Our Lord from the Sea of Galilee. And of course, St Peter, St Andrew, St James and St John are all fishermen. It stands to reason that there are dried fish about for a snack.

But there aren't that many. In comparison with four thousand people, the number of fish is tiny. The miracle still holds. 

So why aren't there fish at the Last Supper? If fish are a common food, why doesn't Our Lord give us Himself under the appearance of fish? Why does He give Himself under the appearance of bread?

[PAUSE]

The first thing to note is that while Our Lord is feeding four thousand, He is not giving them communion. The miracle is purely practical: four thousand hungry souls require something to eat. At the Last Supper, Our Lord is in a completely different setting - a last meal with His friends to establish His Church through the covenant in His blood. The presence of the fish in the feeding of the four thousand shows us that Our Lord can take what He is given and use it to supply people's needs.

But the question still stands. Why give us His body and blood under the appearance of bread and wine?

[PAUSE]

As we see, fish are only really available in fishing communities. Bread, on the other hand, is universal, whether it be leavened or unleavened. This makes it easy for the Church to be universal and for the sacrament to be readily available.

But wouldn't it be more obvious if Our Lord used lamb in Eucharist rather than bread? Isn't He supposed to be the Paschal Lamb that takes away the sin of the world.

Again, we run into the fact that bread is widely more available than any meat. It also has another property that fish or lamb don't: it can be broken and divided and still remain largely the same.

Those who don't believe in Our Lord's presence in the Eucharist often jeer at us when we receive communion.

"Well, which bit of Jesus are you eating there?

His arm? His big toe?"

They don't understand what they are saying, but they have just explained why Our Lord is umder the apoearance of bread - one wafer looks much like another. We aren't receiving a bit of Our Lord: each one of us receives His whole body, soul, mind and divinity - His full self!

Bread mediates that for us.

How He does it is as mysterious as the miracle of feeding four thousand people with five loaves and a few fish. We don't know how He does it. We know that He does it.

This may confound physics and metaphysics, but Our Lord shows us that as His body is broken for us, it doesn't make Him less. Rather it makes Him more present because He reaches more people.

Does that mean the Body of Christ can be divided?

[PAUSE]

Well, yes, insofar as it can reach more people who hunger for the love that He has for us, but no in that what each one of us receives is truly Him indivisible.

This is the paradox. This is the miracle.

Perhaps also we see how it is possible that there is One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and yet there be so many churches. The Body of Christ is divided to reach as many as will receive Him but is united in the One True Lord Jesus Christ to Whom be all honour, praise and glory forever!

The Continuity of Continuing Anglicanism

 

Why continuity is vitally important for what it means to be human.