Leghorn Liturgy

Perhaps you remember the cartoon character Foghorn Leghorn. For those that don't, he was a rather puffed-up and arrogant rooster with precious little in the way of self-awareness. His adventures usually centred around being vindictive to the farm dog. Mel Blanc who voiced Foghorn Leghorn was a man who would often give his creations their character through a speech impediment. Sylvester and Daffy Duck had a lisp, Porky Pig a stutter, and Foghorn Leghorn used to repeat, I say, repeat himself constantly. The point is that this rooster had such a value of his own self importance that he believed that everything he said was worth repeating. It was a stroke of genius on Blanc's part and shows why these cartoon characters are still loved today.



Forghorn Leghorn might be described as a battologist - someone who repeats himself needlessly. This comes directly from a Greek word which has the idea of empty chatter, or babble. Interestingly, this is a word that appears in the Gospel according to St Matthew. In chapter six, Our Lord tells us:



 "when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." (vv 5-13)



Our Lord accuses the heathen of being battologists (in fact that very Greek word is used in the original text!). What was actually happening? We must remember that the "heathen" in this case were the Romans and Greeks who worshipped the Olympic gods. They would attend sacrifices, with long babbling prayers but lived their lives as if these gods had nothing to do with them. These gods didn't mean much to these heathen unless they wanted a favour: they were simply paying lips service to a social custom.  The point is that these battologist heathen live two completely different lives. They were not sincere to their religion. Of course the big difference between the Olympic gods and Our Father who is in Heaven is that Our Heavenly Father really does exist: the gods of Olympus do not. Any prayer to them would certainly be in vain,  but our prayers to Our God are not because He hears them and they mean much to Him.



That's the point that Our Lord is making when He warns us to guard against vain repetitions. We are not to babble to God with a list of things we want Him to do. Prayer isn't like that, and Our Lord wants us to pray properly. Thus He gives us the wonderful Lord's prayer.



Interestingly, the Lord's prayer is a prayer that we repeat often - at least three times a day. If we want to avoid vain repetitions, surely we only need to pray it once in our lives - just one sincere recitation of "Our Father..." would be enough once for all. Except, prayer isn't like that either. Our Lord is telling us to pray the Our Father when we pray. We don't just pray once, we pray lots of times. In the eighteenth chapter of St Luke's Gospel we read that:





Jesus "spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint; Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man: And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man; Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me. And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith . And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" (vv 1-8)



God is greater than any judge let alone an unjust judge. He hears prayers which are continually offered to Him. Prayer is clearly something that expresses our relationship with God. We are to do it always -pray without ceasing! - even when we don't feel like it. In fact one might say that we should pray especially when we don't feel like it and "take Heaven by storm". Having set words helps us to formulate our prayers and focus on how we are interacting with God. Of course, we can say our own prayers in our own way, but it is good to join in the same prayers with the whole Church and to pray alongside countless millions across Time and Space. Using the same words helps us do just that. Of course, Our Lord's words about vain repetitions hold true here. We are not to pray in vain, i.e. without thought, just paying lip-service to God.


Nor are we to babble without meaning: St Paul reminds us that if anyone prays in tongues, someone needs to be able to interpret what they are saying otherwise it is meaningless. We are not to use the words of liturgy without thought. Yes, the words will praise God, and the fact that we do intend to pray will always help us, but the words are to be prayed carefully. St Benedict suggests that monks who don't take care over the words of the liturgy should be punished!



During the Mass, we often repeat ourselves. For example, Kyrie eleison, Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, et c. Notice that this is not a vain repetition. We are addressing the Holy Trinity for mercy. We need God on our side. We need His love in action. We cry out with the whole Church for mercy on humanity. We are merely following Our Lord's example in St Luke's Gospel.



Another repetition occurs at the moment we are to receive the Holy Sacrament. Three times we say "Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof, but speak the word only and my soul shall be healed." Why three? Is that vain repetition? Not unless we make it vain by not taking care about what we're saying. Again, we follow St Luke's passage above, but notice what effect repeating this three times has. Each time we say it, we become more aware of what is happening. We are forcing ourselves to recall our need for God, our unworthiness to receive Him, our need for faith like the centurion whose words we are paraphrasing, and thus becoming more and more aware that we are to receive truly the Body and Blood of Christ into our fallible little bodies. The repetition is not vain. This is not battologism.



What about the Rosary with all those repetitions of "Hail Mary," "Our Father", and "Glory be"? Surely these are vain repetitions? Again, not unless we make them vain through being slack in our prayer lives and just paying lip-service. However, do we really subject ourselves to the Rosary just for something to do - a way to kill an hour? Surely not! Surely, we have some desire within us to say it as a prayer in the first place! It's very hard at first to say all the prayers devoutly with attention and devotion, but it does come with practice. The words do matter, but the wonderful thing about those repetitions is that it has a good effect on our brains. In occupying our body, we free our minds and souls to soar to God. Repeating those words reinforces our desire, and are not vain repetiotions. This is St Luke 18 again. In saying the Rosary, we allow Our Lady to help pull us up towards her Beloved Son.


Often, Protestants like to pull Catholics up on what they pray using Our Lord's dim view of vain repetitions. They have a good point to make. Our lives as Christians MUST be sincere. We cannot just pay lip-service to God. He knows the secrets of our hearts. It is important that we don't live double lives of saying one thing and doing another, but that our words and actions come from the same place. We will damage our souls if we just say the words without trying to encounter God. Agreed, sometimes we just go off on auto-pilot. That's easily forgivable when we're tired or distracted, but when we recognise that we are going off on auto-pilot, we should use the words we're saying to bring us back to our focus on Almighty God. That's what they're for.


Before we pray our liturgy we should pray:


Open Thou, O Lord, our lips to bless Thy Holy Name. Cleanse also our hearts from all vain, evil, and wandering thoughts. Enlighten our understanding, enkindle our affections that we may say this office with attention and devotion and so be meet to be heard in the presence of Thy Divine Majesty through Christ, Our Lord. Amen.


However we get distracted and our words become vain repetitions, we should take comfort in the fact that God's Word is never in vain.

The power of a dead king

Sermon for the fourth Sunday after Epiphany

Tomorrow, many Anglicans celebrate the Feast of Blessed Charles, King and Martyr, remembering that the reason that King Charles the First was executed in 1649 was because he upheld the Anglican Faith in the midst of Puritan fervour. It can be argued either way whether this was actually the case, but the execution of a king on the grounds of treason is certainly a strange matter. Did Parliament truly have the power and the authority to execute the king of England?

[PAUSE]

There is a difference between power and authority. Power is really about being able to do something. Authority is about having the right to be able to do something. Indeed Parliament had the power to execute Charles I because it did. Did it have the authority? What gives parliament the right to execute the king? What gives the king the right to do away with parliament?

[PAUSE]

St Paul offers us a bit of a quandary. He says to the Romans, "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers; for there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 

Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good."

Charles I argues that Parliament does not have the right to try him on the basis of St Paul's words. If St Paul is right, then corrupt governments can never be brought to account because God has put them in power and given them authority to act as governors. The Christian is bound to be subject to these authorities. How can a corrupt government be removed if everyone is obedient to God?

[PAUSE]

Ah! That's the point. If God appoints someone to be ruler, then they have a duty to God to rule according to His wishes. If they do not, then they are not acting with God's authority. A Christian cannot object to the fact that their country has a ruler who may or may not be Christian. We can't say, "because I'm Christian, I won't obey the laws passed by Parliament because Parliament has no authority over me."

We can say, however, "the law that is passed is in direct violation of my Christian belief. I will resist it." This is exactly what Peter and John do when they are commanded by the Pharisees and Priestly authorities not to preach in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ. "Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.  For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." Later, they say that we ought to obey God rather than men.

This is the principle: we obey God first, and then all who are in His authority and command just laws.

But what if they don't?

[PAUSE]

The Christian is obliged to discern the authority of God. If the authority of man contradicts God, then the Christian must fight against it in the most Christian way possible, receiving cheerfully the punishment for resistance to ungodly laws. That is how many of the martyrs live and die, not by acting violently against their oppressors, but calmly and lovingly proclaiming the truth. Others fight and die in battle, struggling to protect others from the tyranny of unjust and violent people. They fight with the intention to bring the love of God into the world, by protecting that which is precious. They do not fight in order to kill, but only to defend.

[PAUSE]

Is Charles I a blessed martyr? 

As in the case of many others, only God has the true knowledge of that. In fact, it's not really our business to know.

Are we a blessed martyr? 

Now, that's the question we need to answer!

Unity with two integrities?

With the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity is full swing, of course we pray for the reunification of the Church and the end of mutual excommunications.

There are lots of disunities within the Church. There are disagreements about polity, sacrament and the nature of salvation which do damage the Body of Christ, but not more so that the mutual demonization that occurs. I tend to agree that one who does not believe in the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist cannot really be in communion with one who believes that the Eucharist is purely symbolic. To the first, it must be that the other is denying the presence of one's Saviour and Lord, denying His power and will for humanity in providing such a miraculous banquet. For the other, any reverence and worship directed towards a wafer can only be seen as idolatry. At least one party is in error, and committing some form of sin. However, neither sin is unforgivable and, while either is a sin against God, the first judgment will be on the intentions of each person on the matter. If both parties are sincere in their desire to worship the same Holy Trinity, there can and will be some reconciliation when the hearts and minds of us all are made open.

I think that the same goes with most of these disagreements. If we can at least applaud the desire for integrity and sincerity for the promulgation of the Love of God from those who cannot accept what we believe the Church teaches.

For example, I am not an Augustinian, that is, I do not believe that St Augustine was 100% right on the nature of Original Sin, free-will and grace, the nature of the sacraments, and certainly not on the certain damnation of the unbaptised. As far as I can see, his was the only voice on some matters, and that St Vincent of Lerins wrote hisCommonitorium in part to put the brakes on Augustinian thinking. 

I cannot accept (pseudo)Calvinist arguments that there is no such thing as free-will, and I do believe that we do have a part to play in our salvation by reaching out to grasp the hand that has been offered to pull us out of our prison. Yet, I can appreciate that Augustinians defend the the absolute sovereignty of God to the hilt, that they have an ability to find peace knowing that they are already saved, and can follow Kierkegaard by making that leap of faith. I fully believe Augustinians to be sincere followers of Christ, and that includes Calvinists and hyperCalvinist, and trust that, before the throne of God, we will not only be put right, but rather love each other more because we held opposing views. 

Can we be in communion, though? That's difficult to say completely, but I do know many Calvinist whose reverence towards the Holy Sacrament, holding onto a spiritual Real Presence that is as firm as any Catholic view. Given that the term "Real Presence" can stand quite a bit of noesis as each person encounters reality absolutely personally, I would incline to be lenient here. If someone can say to me that Christ is as present in the Host as they are present in the building, I would be inclined to say that we were in communion.

The idea of a different "integrity" is best known between the different opinions on the Ordination of Women. Essentially, the way that an "integrity" works is to allow mutually exclusive opinions on the matter to remain in communion with each other. In the sense that I have have thought out above, a Calvinist with a high belief in the Eucharist could well be considered an integrity. This could give a better sense of unity between Anglicans of the Catholic and High Protestant persuasions.

Yet, with regard to the issue of the Ordination of Women, this "dual integrity" format is much more unconvincing. There are four Opinions, I suppose, that one can hold:

1) Both women and men can be priests;

2) Only men can be priests;

3) Only women can be priests;

4) No-one can be priests, i.e. there is no such thing as "ordination".

These are all mutually exclusive (I leave out the "trans" issue given that it is a marked minority - under 100,000 in the U.K - complicates matters, and has yet to be proven not to be a form of body dysmorphia). Can each of these be an "integrity" within Anglicanism? 

For these to be "integrities", they would need to have some semblance of communion, i.e. there must be a common belief for Communion to hold. 

One who subscribes to Opinion 1 must believe that the Eucharist celebrated by a man must be the same as that celebrated by a woman, otherwise they cannot believe that men and women are priests in the same priesthood.

One who subscribes to Opinions 2 and 3 must believe that the Eucharist celebrated by a woman must be different from that celebrated by a man. It is evident that, however sincerely they are in their beliefs, they cannot be in communion. 

One who subscribes to Opinion 4 either believes that the Eucharist is purely symbolic, or that anyone can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist. 

Thus we see that Opinions 2 and 3 are not in communion by definition.

 

Opinion 4 clearly cannot be in communion with a Catholic, and any Eucharist celebrated in Opinion 4 would be of the gravest doubt to Opinions 1,2 and 3 given that they believe that a priest needs to celebrate the Eucharist. Thus, on the grounds of the assurance of sacramental validity, Opinions 1,2, and 3 cannot be in communion with 4. 

Finally, since Opinion 1 says that the validity of the sacrament is the same regardless of sex, then Opinons 2 and 3 must regard them as equally invalid by defect of intention. Hence Opinion 1 cannot be in communion with Opinions 2 and 3.

Thus, by logic (which should hold here due to the mutually exclusive nature of the Opinions) no-one is in communion with the other, and therefore cannot form an integrity. Oh yes, they may attend each others' Eucharists, but they simply cannot regard them as valid without compromising the very integrity that they are trying to keep. Any communion that they may have with another opinion, is therefore merely lip-service and a form of dishonesty. 

This is, I argue, why it really is not right that those who oppose the episcopacy of women should remain in the CofE. It actually prevents mutual flourishing as both "integrities" are essentially competing for the same financial resources. I suspect that Conservatives in the CofE could argue similarly about the different "integrities" with regard to marrying couples of the same sex. 

It is better to nail one's colours to the mast than mislead people, and I would urge all Catholic-minded folk in the CofE to find a better home for their integrity.

Better than what?

Sermon for the Third Sunday after Epiphany

Do you think that Our Lord wants to make you better? Do you really believe it?

The leper comes up to the Lord and says, “Lord, if Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean.” What happens next? Jesus puts forth his hand, and touches him, saying, “I will; be thou clean” And immediately his leprosy is cleansed.

That’s all well and good, but does this sound right in practice?

Do we come to Jesus with our ailments and say, “Lord, if Thou wilt, Thou canst make me well”? What do we expect to happen?

[PAUSE]

Some of us may say, “Hmph. I expect nothing to happen.” Others say, “well, it may be that Jesus doesn’t want to make me better.” Still others would say, “Perhaps, I am being given this ailment to teach me a lesson.” Do you stand with any of these?

[PAUSE]

Let’s put in a little context here. Is the leper that Jesus healed still alive? What about the centurion? What if they had prayed to God not to die? Clearly, the lives of all the people that Jesus healed have passed from our experience of the world. One might say that they have died and their lives are hidden with God. It’s quite clear that Our Lord does not intend to heal every sickness in such an obvious way, nor does He heal every ailment or pain within the seventy short years of this life. The leper is healed because Our Lord will and CAN do it, and the leper believes that Jesus CAN do it. The Centurion doesn’t even need to see Jesus. He trusts Him sufficiently that He CAN heal the servant. If we always look at who is healed, then we miss Who is doing the healing.

The miracles that Jesus does are a response to the faith of those who desire them. Of course, He wills everyone to be healed permanently from every ill or harm. This is why He manages to pull off His greatest miracle of all – the salvation of the World by His Life, Death, and Resurrection.

It’s never about the miracle itself. The miracle always points back to Jesus as King and Lord. If we want a miracle in our lives then we must expect that it will happen because we believe that Jesus is the Master of Creation! Our Lord does want wonderful things to happen to us, but we do tend to expect things on our own terms, not on His.

[PAUSE]

The miracle that we should desire most, with all our heart, is our transformation into the person whom Jesus wants us willingly to be. If we sincerely believe that this Jesus, this itinerant first century preacher, is in fact the Son of God, then we must remember that it is He who tells us who we are. We don’t define ourselves at all, because we don’t even know who we really are.

 The leper asks for healing on Jesus’ terms. The Centurion asks for healing on Jesus’ terms. It’s always about Him. 

And He is for us.

[PAUSE]

When we become members of the Church, we engage on a quest to seek first the kingdom of God and His Righteousness in our everyday lives. We don’t seek to find our own one true place in the Church because we usually seek it on our own selfish and short-sighted terms. This is so scary as it means giving up control of how we want our own selves to be in order to serve God. Yet, we come into the Church with the belief that whatever God is upto, it is for our best, and that this best is more wonderful than we can imagine as befits a God who goes so far beyond what we can imagine. This is our Faith.

When we join the Church, we sign ourselves up to believing the whole of the Creed, not for some rite of passage or some kind of arbitrary rule or religion. The Creed we learn is about Who we believe God to be, and what He can, will and really does for us. To deny any part of the Creed is to deny something about Who God is. To accept every part is to open ourselves up to believing God is Who He says He is, and beginning to trust Him more and more, even when things are dark, painful, and utterly miserable.

[PAUSE]

God wants to make us better – better by full a transformation of our entire selves, not just bits of us. He wants us to agree with Him that we are His children by adoption and grace. He wants to transform us into beings like Himself! That’s still a lifetime’s work, but with Christ, it is a lifetime of challenge, growth and worth that go beyond a world of pain, sickness and death.

If you want to be transformed in Christ, then you shall be.

Do you want to be made better? Really?

The Catholic Church: Agents of Misogyny?

The whole sex/gender debate is certainly getting more and more convoluted as the “trans” issue is causing ructions between conservatives and feminists alike. The Catholic Church has repeatedly come under fire for what is perceived to be a misogynist attitude. They say that, in the Catholic Church, men can be anything from family man to bishop, cardinal, and Pope. Women, on the other hand, they say, can only be wives and mothers, or consecrated virgins.

It’s a fair problem. In History, the weight of political authority and power that the Church has provided has been from the hierarchy of ordained men, resting ultimately with the Papacy. It is true to say that female leadership within the Church has not been as visible, nor as valued. There are notable exceptions, in St Hilda of Whitby, St Hildegard of Bingen, St Theresa of Avila, St Catharine of Siena, but these are notable precisely because they were female spiritual leaders of some political importance.

In this sense the Catholic Church could be accused of misogyny because it has allowed itself to make the equation that holy orders mean political power and authority. That may be because it has taken into itself a patriarchal culture and enshrined that patriarchy within its traditions. These will be traditions of men, not of God.

The issue of equality is a tricky issue because people get the wrong idea of what equality means. Equality, properly speaking, is a political social quality whereby everyone is under the same law equally, receives the same rights equally, and can perform the same roles in society equally. Anyone who commits murder must expect to be punished with the same sentence proportionate with the crime regardless of any personal characteristics. Anyone is entitled to apply for any job and be judged for suitability based on their merit, not on whether they make up the “right quota”. Equality does not mean that one person is the same as another. It is not an ontological equality. In that sense, men and women are not equal in the same way that black and white are not equal, and that two is not equal to one.

Only a man can be a husband and a father: only a woman can be a wife and a mother. Note how these qualities are relational. A man can only be a husband if there is a woman who is his wife. A woman can only be a mother if she has a child. It is the existence of others by which husbands and wives, fathers and mothers spring into existence. The same is true for the male priesthood: a priest is male because a priest is an Ikon of Christ the High Priest. None of these identities is an agent identity: they do not arise because of doing something, or fulfilling a role.

It is true that the Church should uphold the wife and mother as the pinnacle of femininity, just as it should uphold the husband and father as the pinnacle of masculinity. However, while the priesthood is male, not every man is called to the priesthood. This means that the priesthood cannot be part of the pinnacle of masculinity. Not every woman is called to be a nun: this means that the consecrated life cannot be the pinnacle of femininity. While Bishops do have the fullness of orders and the spiritual authority that comes from such a grave responsibility it does not mean a political authority. To be a spouse, or a parent is open to everyone as a relationship, and only accidents of circumstance affect that, not the vocational mandate of the Divine!

The troublesome fifth chapter of St Paul’s letter to the Ephesians does speak of the nature of relationship between husband and wife which is difficult to communicate in this present age of ending the oppression of women. The wife is to submit herself to her husband as the Church submits itself to Christ. The husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the Church. How is this submission to take place?

This is not a master-slave submission: how can it be? Love is not like that. Such submission must be voluntary and based on devotion and faithfulness. Likewise, in the Church, only the Bishop and Priest have the spiritual authority to preach and lead worship in the Mass – the central expression of the priesthood of Christ. Clearly, in a community of nuns, there are no men to lead the offices, so clearly public prayer need not be restricted to the leadership of men.

Do Readers or Altar Servers have an ontological restriction to masculinity? These seem to be roles within the Church: functions which need to happen. If we regard role as being a defining characteristic, then are we in danger, by extension, of becoming Modalist? There is that dreadful heresy in liberal Protestantism whereby one is baptised in the “name” of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. That is the Modalist heresy as it reduces the hypostases of the Trinity to roles that God plays, rather than consubstantial persons. This is not a valid Baptism and anyone baptised under that formula MUST be baptised properly using the formula that Our Lord commanded.

Many cry out against feminism because of the destructive influence that it has had on the Christian Society. Really, the Christian should not worry about “ism”s at all, but seek to bring the goodness of God into Society respecting everyone as they are, yet not respecting their persons when it comes to the generosity of one’s spirit.

The trouble is that if we say that each sex has a specific role to play in society, then we end up with gender stereotyping and that is dangerous because this can and does infringe on the equality of rights of human beings.

Girls apparently are to wear pink, yet in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it was the boys who wore pink! Girls are supposed to like princesses and dolls; boys are supposed to like tractors, fire engines, and trains. Why can’t a little boy play with dolls? Is it because he is expected to be the breadwinner, and thus spend his time looking for good practical jobs rather than learn to look after children? Wouldn’t playing with dolls actually encourage little boys to grow up with the idea of being a good father to his own children, learning to recognise their immediate needs rather than just relegate them to the responsibility of their mother and only seeing them in the evenings and weekends? How many children would benefit from knowing both their parents for who they are rather than what they do?

I notice that shoes marked as being for girls are completely impractical when trying to help a little toddler to take her first steps outside. This tells me that there are expectations on little girls to look feminine from the start. Why should a girl look feminine? So they can attract a nice man who will take care of them while they are at home doing the dishes? Or should a girl look feminine so as to rejoice in God’s creation of her as a woman? If so, then cannot a woman rejoice by wearing something practical and comfortable rather than conform to a gender stereotype which is largely artificial in its conception?

The Bible is very clear about men dressing up as women and vice versa. Yet, the issue is deeper than that. Deuteronomy xxii.5 says “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.” It is important to God that the man and the woman He created are seen to be distinct. A man should not pretend to be a woman, and vice versa. My confrere Fr Anthony Chadwick has a fine head of long hair, but this doesn’t make him attempt to be feminine. If a man is trying to live as a woman, or vice versa, God is telling us clearly that something is wrong. Again this pertains to the actual being a man or a woman. A woman may be the only sex to give birth, but a man is the only sex to provide the seed that will generate the baby. Yet a virgin man remains a man nonetheless, a virgin woman a woman nonetheless. The act does not define them.

It is the duty of the Church to bring the blessing of God to all human beings without discrimination. It is the duty of the Church to call all human beings to repentance and reconciliation with the Divine Master without discrimination. The Church stands the same in every age, the whims of society change. Indeed, the majority of gender stereotypes are products of the age. The housewife was unheard of until the nineteenth century when it became a sign of one’s affluence that the “little woman” could stay at home while the “man of the house” spent his days working hard to earn a decent crust. These days are now gone, and refreshingly so! The Catholic Church should not be trying to drag people back to the culture of the 1950s but rather seek to bring people to the unchanging nature of the Catholic Faith. Sometimes, I wonder just what we’re trying to continue! If we are trying to continue a particular form of social acceptability, then the Lord will criticise us as He sits and eats with the Tax Collectors and Prostitutes. I notice that some Continuing Anglicans are very good at telling ECUSA that it should not be changing with the whims of modern society, when they themselves are holding to a version of society that isn’t much older!

History shows that the minor orders in the Church were restricted to men, but they were not ordained in the same manner. They received katastasis – an appointment or admission to the order – not cheirotonia– the laying on of hands. This works well in a seminary, or in a monastic order where there is no engagement with the secular life. At the Church on the Coal-face, the Parish level, it would certainly be good for Readers and Altar Servers to be men who are striving to work out their vocation in the ordained ministry. But Parishes are not filled with such men.

Is it right that a Priest saying Mass in front of a congregation of women should serve himself if there are no male servers available? Are women utterly forbidden from the sanctuary, save only to arrange the flowers outside Mass?

If Readers and Altar Servers are to be restricted to the male sex, then it needs to be shown clearly that these are not roles but ikons, just as the Bishop and Priest are Ikons of Christ the High Priest, and the Deacon an Ikon of Christ the servant of His disciples. If they cannot be shown to be such, then perhaps the argument for such a restriction is more due to a point of human law, rather than Divine Mandate. Personally, I have grave doubts that Readers and Altar Servers are ikons – their very titles point to specific roles, rather than an indelible character.

If the Catholic Church is to escape the constant charge of misogyny, then it must address the issues that prohibit both sexes from fulfilling roles, the issues that prevent both sexes from finding the peculiar joy with which God has created them, and the issues that come from looking back to a “Golden society” which no longer exists The CofE has female Readers, but it also has female ministers acting in the place where priests once stood. The Roman Church has female Altar Servers, but it also has female Eucharistic Ministers which does go against the spirit of Canon 18 of the Council of Nicaea, and also violates the spirit of the priesthood as the distributor of the Sacrament. 

Therefore, to admit female Readers and Altar Servers, may indeed be “the thin end of the wedge” but, if we are truly intelligent to the Catholic Faith, there may be ways of making this a possibility without the rest of the camel coming into the tent. It is certainly worth considering carefully, and we do owe it to the good of both sexes and the integrity of the Church’s mission to the whole human race to do so.

Transforming firkins

Sermon for the second Sunday after Epiphany.

How much is a firkin?

Imperial measurements are sadly dying out. It’s a shame because they are based on our human dimensions and thus fit our lives better than something that is rather more arbitrary. Both of the words inch and ounce come from the Latin word for thumb. We still think in feet. A furlong is literally a furrow-long. But what of a firkin?

Firkin comes from the Dutch word for a quarter of a barrel of beer, and is actually 72 pints (or 41 litres if you’ve gone metric).

This means that three firkins would be 216 pints. That’s a lot of water and would weigh approximately 250 pounds! That’s heavy!

And yet, six jars of this weight are brought before Jesus for Him to turn the water into wine. All 216 pints in each jar turned from water to wine - that’s clearly a miracle, isn’t it?

[PAUSE]

Yet, if we listen to Our Lord carefully, it isn’t what He does that matters to Him. He does it in response to what others do. He wants us to play a part in these miracles. There would be no wine if some servants hadn’t laboured hard to bring the water to Him. The paralysed man is let down through a roof through the faith for his friends and Jesus can respond to that faith by telling the man to take up his bed and walk, which he does. Likewise, blind Bartimaeus calls out in faith of Christ and is rewarded with his sight. What would have happened if Our Lady had said “no!” to God rather than “yes!”?

[PAUSE]

Here in Cana, it is Our Lord’s mother who has faith in her son and communicates that faith to servants who are willing to lug six jars of about 250 pounds to Jesus for Him to work a wonderful miracle. A bride and groom who aren’t even mentioned by name receive a gift of about 1,246 pints of the best wine. What a wonderful wedding gift, and what a lesson for us!

[PAUSE]

We have seen the Lord’s Epiphany – His revelation of Himself to us. Effectively, He has said to the world, “Here I am!” This is unequivocal. The presence of Our Lord in history is without parallel. We have a man who says that He is God. We have a choice of whether or not to believe Him. Many people these days will not. They demand evidence and then, when it is provided, they disregard it because it is not in keeping with their idea of the world. They do not want their worldview challenged, and yet they would demand miracles of Jesus which would break that worldview to pieces! To them, Our Lord gives only the sign of Jonah – His shameful death upon the Cross.

But what if we do dare to believe?

[PAUSE]

It is for those who are prepared to have their world challenged that Jesus performs His miracles, and in abundance. Those who are prepared to lug a thousand pints of water to Him just to see what He will do, they are the ones who receive something astounding, something good, something truly joyous! If we want a miracle in our lives then we must believe that Our Lord can do miracles and demonstrate that to ourselves by working hard in coming to Christ so that He can make that transformation in our lives. This is our Salvation, and it is a miracle that comes about not only through our Faith but our living out that Faith in response to God’s Epiphany in our lives.

This wonderful transformation is hard work. It requires a change of life, a commitment to suffering and sacrifice for the Kingdom of God, and a denial of our rights so that God’s righteousness can enter our lives. As we stand looking into the wedding at Cana, we see hard labour turned to joy overflowing. The work pays off; the miracle is there for all to see; water becomes wine, all 1,246 pints of it!

Revealed for a reason?

Sermon for the First Sunday after Epiphany

What does the Lord’s Epiphany mean to you?

Remember, there are two aspects of the Lord’s Epiphany: the Adoration of the Magi, and the Baptism of the Lord in the River Jordan. Which do you identify with most?

[PAUSE]

God has revealed Himself to us. That is what Epiphany means: the realisation that God is in our midst. Our brothers and sisters in the Eastern Church call it Theophany which hammers it home that God has truly revealed Himself to us. The question now is, if God has revealed Himself to us, how are we to respond?

The Magi see Our Lord for who He is as they see His star in the East and travel hundreds of miles to worship Him. 

St John the Baptist sees Him for who He is when He sees the Holy Ghost descend upon Him from above and hears the voice of God declaring that Our Lord is indeed His Son.

How do you see Him for who He is?

[PAUSE]

The Magi know of the Lord through their understanding and learning. They deduce that He is born in Bethlehem and then seek to prove that they are right by going out to find Him. Is this how we encounter Our Lord? Do we believe the historical record which shows that He does exist – a record that is clearer than that of Julius Caesar? If we do, then does the historical fact of the empty tomb convince us that He is who He says He is? This is how many people first come to Christ, by understanding Him as a real life person. However, can we only worship Christ on paper? Don’t we need to dare to travel out thousands of miles and meet Him?

[PAUSE]

St John the Baptist knows of the Christ through what His parents have told him of the proclamation of his birth by the angel, and the Virgin Mary’s visit to his mother. He knows his kinsman, Jesus, and he has been told that He is the Messiah. So St John engages in his service of God by proclaiming that coming Messiah. Yet he is working only by faith, feeling his way and trusting in the testimony of others. It is not until he sees the miracle of the Descent of the Holy Ghost upon Our Lord that what he has been told by his family and friends makes sense. This is how many people first come to Christ, by trusting in the testimony of others. However, how do we know we are not being misled by someone who may not really know the Lord? Are we willing to change our lives radically on the basis of believing what someone says, no matter how close they are to us?

[PAUSE]

This is the great challenge that we face in the Church. The testimony of the Holy Scriptures and of the Holy Tradition, and the testimony of Christian men and women are ways in which people find their way into the Church. Are these sufficient reasons for people to stay in the Church? The evidence of dwindling congregations would say otherwise. The only reason that people will stay in Church is if they find what they are looking for, Our Lord Himself. The Magi find Him; St John the Baptist finds Him: we need to be able to find Him. This is why it is crucial that we churchmen and women, who are engaged in the same search, live our lives in a way that will bear witness to the reality of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Many Protestants will speak of “having a personal relationship with Jesus”. This is something to be applauded: the better we know Our Lord, the better we can live out His will in our lives and thus bring Him closer to those who need to know Him. The way we cultivate this relationship is through our study of Holy Scripture, through our personal prayer life, through regularly meeting Christ with others in the Holy Sacraments, and through doing those things He tells us to do.

Gimmicks won’t keep people in Church. Entertainment won’t keep people in Church. Academic study won’t keep people in Church. Beautiful liturgy won’t keep people in Church. The only thing that will keep people in Church is if they find God there revealed in His Son through the Holy Ghost. Our job is to allow that to happen.

How are you going to reveal God to those who need to know Him?

Uncompromisingly compromising or vice versa?

I see lots of discussion in the Anglican world about the nature of sacraments, in particular the Eucharist.

Nothing causes more friction at a gathering of Anglicans than the mention of the word Transubstantiation. Say that, and the urbane soirée turns into the final battle in Return of the Jedi.

Is the Real Presence of Christ spiritual, physical, corporeal, or symbolic? Does it matter? Yes, of course it does, and the ink ( and blood! ) that has been spilt on this very issue shows that it cuts to the very heart of one's relationship with God. How on earth can Anglicans be reconciled if they differ so much on this issue?

Let's turn the problem around and look at on what Anglicans, and given the breadth   of what Anglicans believe, what most Christians agree on.

First, the Eucharist is important enough not to compromise one's belief on. It is commanded by Christ, and somehow bread and wine take on something of Christ in some way. For many Christians, the bread and wine take on the full identity of Christ as an objective locus of His Presence at the expense of their identity as bread and wine. There are disagreements as to how this identity is to be recognised and the nature of the locus. Is it spiritual? Is it a memorial, by which I mean something more than a simple remembring but a relication of one's experience in time? Is it physical? Is it metaphysical? It does matter what we believe, but we have to hold fast to what we believe unless the Holy Ghost compels us to believe.

This brings issues in that the one who believes in Transubstantiation could be accused of idolatry by one who believes in a spiritual presence. Yet, the one who believes in the spiritual presence could be accused of faithlessness and rejection of the words of Christ by the one who accepts Transubstantiation. Notice that I say could be accused. That doesn't mean that we have to accuse. Remember that the literal translation of Satan is "the accuser". What we must each do is to be true to our sincere belief, constantly thrashing our intellect against the Rock of Christ so that we do not become Kripkean in our dogmatism. If this means that we cannot be present at the same Altar in this Time, so be it. But we must trust in the same One Christ that we believe in with the same One Faith being members of the same One Church that we, and those with whom we disagree, are going to be together at the same altar in Heaven. Indeed, many of us believe that this happens at every valid Mass anyway!

Second, we must remember that there is no Anglican Church, no Roman Catholic Church, no Anglican Catholic Church, no Orthodox Church, there is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. That's it. Some of us may be Anglican as a noun by the doctrine of the prayer book and the formularies. Some of us may be Anglican as an adjective by history or by succession. Some of us may be Roman by location, by doctrine, or just by being in communion with the Holy Father. Again, that's just us. We can and should argue but not to convince, but rather to explain. Debates become tedious when they're very old. The Church Fathers say nothing conclusive about the nature of the Eucharist, save that Christ is really and objectively present following His promise to us. A promise that He keeps even when we do not keep ours. Christ's promise works for the salvation of the faithful be they Anglican, Roman, Orthodox, or Protestant. In Christ we are all brothers and sisters, yet we seem to accuse and abuse each other on the same level as the sons of King David!

Third, we should not compromise our liturgy. These words bind us in time with those who have gone before. If we say the prayer book rite whether it be the 1549 Canon,  or the 1928 Canon, or if we use the Missal, whether it be English, Anglican, Sarum, or even Roman, or if we use one of the ancient Orthodox liturgies then we should remember that at the very least they agree about the words of consecration. The same intention is there in every rite - to make present the body and blood of Christ. There are, indeed, some truly terrible modern liturgies out there, but they are only invalidated if they do not embrace the true Christ as proclaimed in the great Creeds of the Church. If one's intention is to dumb things down to make it "accessible" rather than allow the great words said by so many unlearned folk throughout the ages, then one is compromising one's integrity for the fashionable by introducing a disconnection. The old language is still good enough for Shakespeare: it is still good enough for the majesty of the Holy Sacraments.

Fourthly, this brings me to the fact that the old language is a source of Anglican unity for those who seek to hold that connection with the Reformers. We do have that in common, and it won't do to forget it. I remember being picked up on the words "miserable offender" by Deacon Christopher Little. I had forgotten that the word "miserable" had changed meaning. Perhaps each Christian needs to ensure that they do not compromise on the language that they speak, but commit to learning that language as thoroughly as possible. One we truly understand our own language, then we have a better basis by which we can translate for each other. It has often been said that the English and the American are separated by a common language: let Anglicans then be united by their common  language . Whether Cranmer is heretic or hero, he is certainly to be venerated for his translation and use of liturgical language.

We should not compromise on our sincere belief in Christ, but we must be prepared to suffer for that lack of compromise. If we recognise that suffering in others, then perhaps that is enough for us to come together in suffering, mutual support, mutual protection, and continue to point to that One Christ. All Catholics have the same Nicene Creed (preferably without the filioque), pray the same Our Father, and agree on 66 books of the Holy Scriptures. We all have received the same commandments from the same Christ. That should be the basis of our unity in Christ.

Empirical Epiphany

Here on the Feast of the Epiphany, we are presented with the facts. God reveals Himself to us in the historical record. He makes Himself known to the Magi, the Gentiles from the East, and to St John the Baptist, the last of the great Jewish Prophets. Here is a God who makes Himself known through a still, small voice, a burning bush, through the message of an angel, through a voice calling in the darkness, through dreams, through the words of the prophets. But why?

What really is an epiphany? It is a revelation: a passing on of knowledge hitherto inaccessible to us. There are many different academic arguments for the existence of God. All have strengths and weaknesses. However, there are two arguments for the non-existence of God: through the problem of Evil and through showing that the Divine Attributes are logically inconsistent. These have problems too. The arguments are not conclusive either way. 

However, academic knowledge is not the only type of knowledge. We know a person by interacting with them. To do so, there needs to be an introduction, a discussion, a learning of the other's language. We don't philosophise others into existence. There is no conclusive philosophical proof that your friend has a mind in the same way that you have a mind, yet it seems reasonable that they do based on your interaction with them.

However, God doesn't seem to be someone that you can meet face-to-face. 

God's existence is not self-evident otherwise we would all be theists. How can the Holy Uncreate ever truly manifest Himself to human beings? Even if He were to become incarnate, people would still be able to doubt that He is who He says He is. Why doesn't He reveal Himself to us as Christtoday, performing miracles and allowing us all to perceive Him as He is? Why has He stopped revealing Himself to us?

Or has humanity stopped looking?

Some Scientists have made up their minds. have declared that there is no way that they could be scientifically convinced of the existence of God, and have closed the door. It isn't exactly a scientific thing to do as even the laws of physics are subject to revision given evidence. The trouble is how one considers the admissibility of evidence. 

God doesn't reveal Himself scientifically, because we do not come to know people scientifically. His revelation to the Magi is initially a theoretical hypothesis, but they come to know God through seeing Him in the manger and thus recognising Him there. St John the Baptist knows Our Lord through having Him as a kinsman. What we call Science is not the complete way that we know things. There is also Recognition. We need to learn to recognise God, and His Epiphany shows us that this is possible. It comes from interaction, not through argument. It comes through living together, not by reductio ad absurdam. 

The Church has given her scientific case and defence for God's existence, knowing that this is not enough to know God Himself. We can only do so by coming to Him and seeing His Epiphany for us. 

Are we really looking out for His Epiphany? How do we communicate that?

Regular Apostolic Unity

As regular readers will be aware, one thing confounds me about the situation with the Catholic Church is the sheer scale of fragmentation. The "alphabet soup" that describes the Anglican Continuum is certainly an embarrassment. Further, the fragmentation is somewhat exacerbated by the episcopi vagantes that ordain and consecrate priests and bishops at a whim rather than in the prayerful and long discernment of the Church. Most of these episcopi vagantes produce valid but irregular bishops and priests, though some do not mainly because they rely on aged and infirm bishops to consecrate them. I look with some distaste at one bishop being consecrated by an aged, blind patriarch who seems to have no idea what is happening. That, to me, seems like defect of intention, and would render subsequent consecrations by this ordinand highly suspect to say the least.

It is the apostolic succession that ultimately must bind the Catholic Church together. St Paul warns both St Timothy and St Titus not to let controversies over genealogies damage the body of Christ. So many times do we witness this criticism over who has valid orders and who does not. This is particularly prevalent in Anglican Orders which have the clearly politically motivated Apostolicae Curae  issued against us, despite its blatantly obvious falsity. However, until the attempts to ordain women, it was clear that Anglicans sought to preserve this succession as tightly as possible. 

The defect of intention has now rendered all ordinations in the Church of England since 1992 suspect, though it does not render the acts of true charity and love that the CofE promulgates in any way suspicious. While it may lack sacramental assurance and cannot claim to be part of the Catholic Church, Christ's commands are still taken seriously, and CofE ministers are due as much respect as any other minister of God. Yet, the fact remains that the CofE is no longer Catholic as an institution.

In the Anglican Continuum, we have the famous Chambers Succession. In 1978, Bishop Albert Chambers and Bishop Francisco Pagtakhan were due to be joined by Bishops Mark Pae and Charles Boynton to consecrate Charles Doren the first Continuing Anglican Bishop. However, Bishops Pae and Boynton were both prevented from attending due to ill-health which meant that the consecration of Bishop Doren occurred with two consecrating Bishops. However, Bishops Pae and Boynton both sent letters of consent to Bishop Doren's consecration. Bishop Pae participated in subsequent Continuing Anglican ordinations while Bishop Boynton actually joined the ACC. 

Now criticisms of the ordination of Bishop Doren clearly start with the fact that there were only two bishops present at the consecration. This is true. However, the first Apostolic Canon states "Let a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops." Of course, the standard has become that three bishops should ordinarily participate in the consecration of a bishop. Nonetheless, it is highly likely that there are bishops who were consecrated by two rather than three others. This does not throw into doubt the validity, but rather their regularity.

Regularity in this context demonstrates the rule by which the bishops live. Many of theepiscopi vagantes are regular only to themselves and their interpretation of whatever rules, canons, and polity they choose. Bishop Doren was indeed validly consecrated, however he was not regularly consecrated within the regularity defined by ECUSA. Now think about this carefully. Given that the Continuing Anglicans were desiring to stay with the Catholic definitions of sacraments and traditional understanding of Anglicanism, they clearly had objections to the regularity of ECUSA. This was not the regularity that the Catholic Church possesses, but ECUSA had moved the goal posts. Thus, it does not matter to the Continuing Anglican movement that its orders are not regular with ECUSA, but rather regular to the new body of Continuing Anglicans as put forward a year earlier in 1977 in the Affirmation of St Louis. This set up the rules for Continuing Anglicanism. Although it was a nuisance to have only two consecrators present at Bishop Doren's consecration, it did not affect its validity, but the consent that it received showed the strength of the intention of Bishop Doren and subsequently consecrated Bishops. The fact that the Chambers Succession flourished into a jurisdiction with a clear constitution, a clear purpose, and a clear desire to preserve the Catholic Faith, means that it cannot be compared with little groups of episcopi vagantes who change the names of their jurisdictions every five minutes, and who change their names and titles as often as they change their trousers.

The same is true of the Old Roman Catholic Church. They have been accused of being a product of a purported episcopus vagans, namely Archbishop Arnold Harris Mathew, but the fact remains that they have a visible regularity, an organic unity, and a government under God which seeks to continue the Catholic Faith as they have received it. That growth is testament to their validity in Christ. To the Roman Church, they may be irregular, but their bishops are as valid as any Roman Catholic bishop.

Further, a little discovery that I recently made was that one of the bishops who participated in the consecration of Bishop Chambers was Bishop Francis Rowinski of the Polish National Catholic Church whose orders are recognised by Rome. Even among the others of Bishop Chambers' consecrators were those whose consecration had been participated in by the Old Catholic Church. This reinforces what has always been said of Anglican Orders, that they are as valid as Roman Catholic Orders. 

Should this bother us? Is this just Rome's problem with us? 

We should not care that others don't recognise us as being valid only for as long as we truly seek the will of God in the World and live our lives in sacrifice to Him. Ultimately, it can only be He that validates or invalidates our ministry. Yet, the schisms within the Catholic Church are always a scandal and need to be healed for the integrity of the Church's mission to all people.

Recently, distances have been  growing between UECNA and the ACC, despite the fact that they are both inheritors of the Chambers Succession - indeed, Bishop Doren became the first Presiding Bishop of UECNA after consecrating the first Archbishop of the ACC - Archbishop James Mote. UECNA is Anglican and holds to the doctrine of the Book of Common Prayer together with its formularies. The ACC is not Anglican, but Anglican Catholic preferring to subordinate any doctrine in the Book of Common Prayer to the doctrine of the Early Church. This does mean that the ACC sees the XXXIX articles as largely irrelevant, but not unwholesome. That is something that UECNA find difficult, however the jurisdictions of the Chambers succession share that common bond. We are hewn out of the same rock despite our differences. We are children born from the same battle for orthodoxy.

As the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity approaches towards the end of the month,  I wonder whether we should start looking at the lists of those who describe themselves as Continuing Anglicans and start looking for reasons why we cannot meet regularly with a view to seeing each other as "regular". I wonder whether we can seek out all those Christians who hold fast to the doctrine of the Primitive Church in the first Seven Oecumenical Councils. Instead of G8 summits, we can hold C7 summits for those who hold the doctrine of the first Seven Councils, and C4 with those who hold the doctrine of the first four. These clearly form some common ground. Once we have some kind of visible unity among the Independent Catholic Churches both nationally and world wide, perhaps then we can start to reach out to those who reject Catholic Doctrine and seek to be on good terms with them also. 

We cannot be members of the World Council of Churches while it remains non-Apostolic and secular in its purposes and practices. We note that the Roman Catholic Church is not a member of the WCC either for the same reasons. However, we need to stop saying why we cannot be members together and start thinking actively of how we can be members together. What we need is a council of Independent Catholics recognising each others' orders as valid and regular within their jurisdictions and also appreciating our differences which have arisen from history, so that

a) we can learn to view each other as regular in a wider context;

b) that, despite the smallness of member jurisdictions, we can present a larger front with which to dialogue with larger and better established jurisdictions; and

c) that we can better protect each other, arbitrate for each other, and assist each other in a growing bond of trust in Christ's Rule.

Perhaps then, we can begin to heal the schism within the Church and present a better ikon with which to draw those who schism from the Church back into the fold. This has always been my prayer, especially as I have such good friends from all over the Christian spectrum. There are good Christians out there who need to know that they are the Body of Christ. There is a ministry out there to bring the love and grace of God into a dark world through the means of the Sacraments. Can we do it together? I pray that with the help of our Omnipotent God we can.

Cutting out the sacrifices?

Sermon for the Circumcision of Christ

Derek has just been told off by his mummy for treading on John’s toe. John deserves to have had his toe trodden on because he poked Derek in the eye, first. Mummy tells Derek that he will not be allowed to watch his favourite programme until he says sorry to John. As you can imagine, Derek feels that this is a great injustice, and so he refuses to eat his sweets so that he’ll die from starvation and Mummy will be sorry. And what does Mummy tell Mrs Meeks from next-door?

“Oh! He’s just cutting off his nose to spite his face!”

[PAUSE]

That’s a weird little phrase. We use it to mean that Derek is literally going to damage himself for a cause that really isn’t worth the pain and suffering. Well, at least we think it’s a cause that isn’t worth the pain and suffering. For Derek, this is an important issue. He’s being made to say sorry and John isn’t. Perhaps Derek is campaigning for freedom from injustice, but then, if he truly values justice, would he go without his sweets on behalf of John if things were the other way around?

Is it really worth the sacrifice?

[PAUSE]

Today, men all around the world feel uncomfortable as we are presented with the Circumcision of Christ. It’s an unkind cut that our Jewish brothers and sisters have valued throughout the centuries. It signifies the Covenant and relationship that the Jewish people have with God. As symbols go, it literally involves cutting off a part of the body to seal one’s relationship with God in blood. That is clearly going to be painful, and will have a lasting effect on that one’s life. Again, we must ask the question: is it really worth the sacrifice?

[PAUSE]

That depends on what lies within the heart. What is our motive? Does it make us more socially acceptable? Do we become one of the in-crowd? Or do we do it because we value God and seek to be among those who cherish His Rule?

And then, Our Lord comes to circumcision. What does this say? That God wants to be socially acceptable? Well, clearly He isn’t: the Jewish authorities crucify Him. That God wants to be part of the in-crowd? Then why does He spend most of His ministry with the outcasts while scolding the “in-crowd” for their lack of sincerity and faith?

St Paul says that Abraham “received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised; that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.”

The Jewish people identify themselves with the God-fearing Abraham through Circumcision. Thus Christ our God seeks to identify Himself with the people of Abraham. We see throughout His Holy Incarnation God’s desire to be reconciled to all His children, Jew and Gentile whether they be uncircumcised or not. So what does the sacrifice of circumcision actually do?

[PAUSE]

There is no point in making sacrifices unless the sacrifice is worth making. Again, St Paul says, “ though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.”

[PAUSE]

Do we Christians need to be circumcised? No. Our Lord has made the sacrifice of His blood to seal the new covenant with us. He has made circumcision unnecessary. However, the Christian must learn to make sacrifices. The word “sacrifice” literally means a making-holy. That’s our job. We make the sacrifice of the Mass so that we no longer need to slaughter animals, an act that can’t take away all our sins in the first place. We make a sacrifice of our Sunday mornings so that we can meet God. We make a sacrifice of our lives by recognising Christ our King and thus reject our own will, our possessions, our statuses, our reputations, even our own flawed views of right and wrong, in order to separate ourselves out into being with God.

That’s enormous, daunting, and painful. Yet, Our Lord allows Himself to be circumcised so that He might be part of our in-crowd so that we can all be in His in-crowd. If we have the faith then we will be able to bear our sacrifices for Him and thus stand with Him in His Kingdom. If we don’t have the faith, why don’t we ask God for it?

Yes, why don’t we ask God for the faith to make sacrifices?