Community and Family - Benedict style

 

Why monasticism may have reached its nadir and may be ready for a new expression.

Marking Eastertide

Propers for St Mark's Day

Sermon for St Mark's Day

How do the Four Evangelists know each other? This is an important question. If the Gospels have been written by four people who are in cahoots, we might have grounds for thinking that the whole story of Our Lord's life is made up. Let's look at these four evangelists.

St Matthew and St John are apostles as well as evangelists. St Luke was a disciple of St Paul and probably was not exposed to the fullness of the company of the Apostles. He writes his Gospel scientifically, interviewing people such as Our Lady and St Peter and collating the evidence. St Luke's Gospel uses the same evidence as St Matthew's, and St Matthew's has the same framework as St Mark's Gospel. This is why there are similarities. They are similar but they are not identical.

But what of St Mark and his Gospel?

[PAUSE]

St Mark's Gospel is written first and probably based on St Peter's words. St Matthew and St Luke use his Gospel as a basis. And yet, only in St Mark's Gospel may be found the statement that one of the disciples flees naked away from the arrest of Jesus. Why only in St Mark's Gospel?

We can't know for sure but, just as St John writes himself into his Gospel as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" so might St Mark have written himself into his Gospel as the disciple who flees naked into the night. If this is so, then St Mark is an eyewitness to some parts of the life of Jesus and would know St Matthew and St John. Since he is not recorded as one of the first Apostles, it's fair to say that St Mark is a little removed from them. 

But he still ministers. He accompanies St Paul and St Barnabas on their missions before he is at the centre of a dispute and they go their separate ways.

 This makes St Mark a credible witness to the Resurrection, more even than St Paul and St Barnabas. He stands a little far off and can see what is going on, even to his own embarrassment. His only vested interest is in telling the truth of what he sees even if this drives him to his own death. His words are corroborated by the other Gospels and by the Apostles.

[PAUSE]

St Mark is historically reliable as a witness to an extraordinary one-off event which he sees, not as one closest to Jesus, but as one who is able to see from a little distance. It means that his statement can be believed. It means that we can truly believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, Who lives among us as one of us, Who dies a painful, miserable death upon the Cross, and Who rises bodily from the dead for our salvation.

The Resurrection of the Lord is an historical fact - no myth, no legend. It really happened. St Mark shows us that Christianity is true and is worth believing. We should mark Mark's words.

The Faith of a Doctor

 

A reflection on the work of St Anselm.

Investing in the shepherd

Propers for the second Sunday after Easter

Sermon for the second Sunday after Easter

How do you make money these days?

One way is to invest in a growing business. You put money into a small business and, as it grows, you receive money back - a return on your investment.

It's how the multi-millionaires have made their fortune.

But would you invest in sheep?

[PAUSE]

This might not be a bad idea if the flock that you have produce the best milk, meat or wool. Looking after your flock will ensure that the quality of produce is raised and secured. It takes time, effort and care to maintain your flock well: you have to invest yourself well in order to receive a good profit. 

By contrast, anyone the shepherd hires to help look after the sheep only does so for payment. The hireling isn't invested in the sheep, rather in the money he receives for his work.

If a shepherd has to invest himself in his sheep in order to make his livelihood, why does Our Lord describe Himself as a Good Shepherd?

[PAUSE]

If Jesus is our shepherd, why does He invest Himself so much in us? Do we produce something that He needs from us like a sheep produces milk, meat or wool?

It's clear that God does invest so much in us. He creates us, feeds us, and seeks us out when we go astray. He is there with us. So great is His love for us that He invests His very self by becoming one of us in order to keep us safe from the ravening wolves and to feed us with His very self.

God literally pours His blood, sweat and tears into us. And for what?

Here's the thing.

God doesn't need us. He doesn't need our worship. There's nothing that we can give Him to increase what He already has for He has everything.

What return on His investment can there be?

[PAUSE]

The only thing that God gains from creating us is us. The only thing that comes from God looking after us is that we live. This means that we matter more than we can understand. It means that being human is in itself a return on whatever God has invested in us. It means that the freedom to choose that He allows us is worth more to Him than His Divinity because He chooses to become like so that we can become like Him.

Even if we choose to reject Him, He can still take pleasure in us because we exist and because He continues to care for us. 

[PAUSE]

Human investment can only work because we always ask, "what's in it for me?" All of our investment in any project is based on our gain and so we cannot understand fully what God gets from us save that we are worth caring for. That's all we know: we are worthy of God's love because He indeed loves us.

[PAUSE]

And what do we get if we invest everything we have in God? 

Nothing less than God Himself.

Parsons versus Fletcher

Stephen Parsons of Surviving Church writes:

"One of the weaknesses of conservative Christianity is the claim that there is only a single version of truth and teaching. There is a single way of reading the Bible and the leaders and their group possess it and proclaim it. This ‘truth’ is completely above any need to debate or even discuss. Such a claim is extraordinary when we think about it. It totally ignores the wide variety of cultural and historical manifestations of Christianity that exist. The expression the Bible ‘clearly teaches’ is also palpable nonsense for those who actually take the trouble to read the text for themselves. Consistency and clarity are not there to be found in the Bible, but only in the imagination of one who keeps the book firmly closed. Only in the context of a carefully supervised reading of selected passages during a sermon on Sunday mornings, can this illusion of coherence and consistency be maintained. For the rest of us who study it for ourselves with the help of commentaries, the Bible turns out to be a highly complex work, full of insight, nuance, paradox and mystery but not clarity. It does not suddenly become easy to understand, just because a preacher declares it to be the infallible word of God and makes numerous selected quotes to back up a line of teaching."

Of course, Mr Parsons is reacting to the deeply troubling abuse to be found committed by Jonathan Fletcher, a Conservative Evangelical who has been a leading figure in the CofE, and whose behaviour towards those in his care has been appalling.

Mr Parsons' view of Conservative Christianity is coloured by his rejection of abuse. He sees Evangelical interpretation of scripture as being more absolute than Is justified by history and culture.

I must confess to sharing the dis-ease with certain groups of Evangelicals who act as if the first 1500 years of the Church never happened. My main worry is that Mr Parsons is doing something similar.

Mr Parsons is saying that history and culture need to be involved in interpreting Holy Scripture and yet he does not say which version of history and culture he is using. There are different histories and different cultures. There is a version of history that says that women were ordained Catholic priests from the word go but their ministry was suppressed by a misogynistic regime. There is another version of history that says that the only women to be ordained in the Early Church were ordained in the Montanist sect. Likewise, we can read scripture in our own culture but this is vastly different from the culture of Africa where persecution is very, very real. To say that Conservative Evangelicals ignore 1500 years of Christianity on the grounds that they do not take into account other histories and cultures is to ignore the context of the Bible and the Church in which it grew up and influenced.

If one must take into account other cultures, then one must allow slavery, otherwise one is imposing one's culture of anti-slavery. Why is one right and the other wrong? Why is slavery obviously wrong in all cultures if one believes that another's culture should be respected.

Mr Parsons is setting up his own interpretation of Holy Scripture up against Mr Fletcher's under the assumption that his is right and Fletcher's is wrong. To what authority is Mr Parsons appealing? I suspect that he chooses the commentaries and studies that "challenge the system" which is all well and good but on what authority do they challenge the system. This seems more inconsistent and incoherent to me than Biblical Literalism because the only authority that is appealed to is one's own which is a bit problematic when one is supposed to be appealing to God's authority.

This is why I find Catholicism much more appealing. St Vincent of Lérins explains that Christian Doctrine develops organically and thus transcends History and Culture. The Bible has a context within the Church. While there are a lot of interpretations of the text they differ, not in doctrine, but in sense. I do not believe that the Bible is always literally true but rather that it is theologically inerrant which must take into account other senses than just the literal. The Catholic Church as a whole has been given the charisma of interpreting doctrine.

It is true that there is plenty of wiggle room, especially in the doctrines of eschatology, atonement and anthropology which are without clear position. However, the moral theology has more consensus than Mr Parsons will allow and, if Mr Fletcher is guilty of abuse (which is true) then Mr Parsons is guilty of promoting a morality based on emotional need and the authority of the present moral culture rather than that found in Christ's Church. To say that the idea of clear teaching in Holy Scripture is "palpable nonsense" is to cut off the branch on which one sits.

Mr Parsons is typical of those who follow the Liberal Christianity which I doubt to be properly Christian. He is as guilty of pushing his moral superiority as Mr Fletcher and his ilk. Both will rely on their own authority than submit to the Catholic Faith. Then again, perhaps they will say the same of me. 

An Anglican Catholic Eastertide

What truth does the Anglican Catholic church have to tell during Eastertide?
 

Child's Play Christianity

Propers for Low Sunday

Sermon for Low Sunday

Have you ever tried to explain the Resurrection to a three year old?

"Jesus was dead but now He is alive again!"

It rather jars, doesn't it? It sounds utterly ridiculous. We dress it up in fancy language and deep philosophical concepts but, when you strip away the complexity, you are faced with the simple truth.

"Jesus was dead but now He is alive again!"

It's almost obscene in its simplicity. Obscene because every day we are surrounded by terrible, horrible deaths. Last week, a two week old baby died when a car hit her pram. To that family in their grief, can we honestly say, "Jesus was dead and now He is alive again!"?

[PAUSE]

Obviously, there are ways of bearing witness to the truth of the Resurrection that are sensitive to the situation. With so much pain and grief in the world, we cannot allow that grief to be ignored in the slightest. The pains of death and grief are real. They matter so much and they cannot be dismissed by a simple child's statement of the truth.

Surely this is because children shouldn't know what grief is. 

"Jesus was dead but now He is alive again!"

And the grieving parent says, "why not my baby?"

[PAUSE]

The Lord's Resurrection stands against the backdrop of grief. The Crucifixion stands for all our pain and suffering. Our Lady sees her baby on the cross, although he is a grown man. And we Christians bear witness to this testimony that Jesus underwent a sham trial based on trumped-up charges was nailed to the cross and died there. He died just like we die whether we be two weeks old or two thousand weeks old. 

But His death is unlike any other: He sanctifies death. He makes it a door of hope. He doesn't take away the pain and grief. We have to bear those because they are proof of love. Our pain and grief prove to us that we are not robots or devoid of feeling. Our pain and grief prove that things should be different. They prove that our lives have meaning. They can only have meaning if God loves us in the first place.

But we have to bear our grief which is utterly inexpressible because it is so personal. The nearest we can get to the truth is "Jesus was dead but now He is alive again." Its simplicity is scandalous, not  because it takes away the grief and pain of death and the utterly unique circumstances of Resurrection. It is scandalous because it lies underneath our pain and sorrow and doubt and fear. It is a simple expression of hope which, if we accept it, will cause us pain and sorrow and doubt and fear because we dare to believe in something beyond our experience of earthly life which is subject to the grim spectre of Death.

What stops it from being blind and empty hope is that it is pure fact.

Jesus WAS dead but now He IS alive again.

These are historical facts. Our hope, our painful, sorrowful, doubtful, fearful hope, is based on facts so simple a child could understand it. 

It does not take putting our hands into the wounds of Christ to convince us of this. It is we who are wounded and broken by our love for others. It is Christ Who puts His hands into our wounds, Who reaches into our broken hearts and tells us the truth.

[PAUSE]

Our children are just as vulnerable to death as we are but the promise of Resurrection applies just as much to them as to us. They are victims of our sins even if they have never committed a sin, themselves. The Christian hope is based on two facts: that in the cross we find our deaths; that in the Resurrection we will find our life again unsullied by sin and Eternally bathed in God's love for each and every one of us, big or small, young or old.

[PAUSE]

How do you explain Christianity to a three year-old? The same way you explain it to yourself: Jesus was dead but now He is alive again.

The Resurrection and Elizabeth Barton

 A reflection on the life of Elizabeth Barton and why she is important for Anglican Catholics in the United Kingdom.

A normal resurrection?

Propers for the Day of Resurrection

Sermon for the Day of Resurrection

What do they think is going to happen?

They sit alone and afraid, wondering whether they are safe or whether they will be taken and die miserably. They daren't set foot outside for long but, when they do meet, it's with people they know to be safe and share their fear. 

Will life ever get back to normal?

[PAUSE]

The trouble with normality is that it sets its own boundaries, and beyond those boundaries are fear and darkness. There is yet no light in the darkness as they sit behind their locked doors begging for normality to return. Is this fear the New Normal?

Some of their number date to leave the confines of their dwelling. They can't stand knowing that they have a duty to do and yet risk death by leaving their isolation. What they have to do has more importance than just being safe, clinging to the shreds of normality and despair. Out into the darkness they go. The rest shiver and go back to the silent desperation of their New Normal.

[PAUSE]

The night's darkness softens. There is a shout. A cry of joy. Death is gone! No more is there normality in darkness and fear. The day is here! The light is here! Life is here! And here is a newer normal.

This New Normal is not like the time before the darkness when life seemed indifferent and hope cheap. This New Normal will not be taken for granted, nor will it just tick by comfortably and numb. 

The New Normal will be a time of readjustment of expectation and lifestyle. It will be a reassessment of the truth in the new light. There will be changes and struggles and pain and suffering but there will be life, joy, faith, hope and love. 

To live in the Old Normal is to embrace death and dwell with it forever. To live in the Old Normal is a rejection of life and truth, a rejection of authenticity and meaning in accepting the second best.

Not everything about the New Normal will be different. In fact, it will look much the same but without fear and with the light of the truth. The difference is that Death has been conquered, the tomb is opened and Life walks the Earth once more.

[PAUSE]

And so, even before they undo the bolts, put the keys in the locks and fling open the doors, Life enters and says, "Peace be with you!"

And He breathes on them His Spirit of Life.

And the doors are opened, and they go forth to the New Normal to tell us all that Death is dead and we are safe.

This is the Day that the Lord has made. We will rejoice and be glad in it! Alleluia!

Remembering Good Friday

 

Why remembering the Cross is more than not forgetting.

A Communion of Cannibals?

Propers for Maundy Thursday

Sermon for Maundy Thursday

Are you a cannibal?

There are many people who misunderstand what the Lord does on Maundy Thursday. They see us eating the Lord's Body and drinking His Blood and will say that, if we really believe this then we must be cannibals.

It's a misunderstanding that might cause us offence but it is a misunderstanding that is almost as old as the Last Supper itself. Indeed, the Romans report that Christians engage in cannibalism in their worship and use this as a reason to persecute them.

And still today, in tracts and scurrilous rumours, Catholics are seen as crypto-cannibals. But we most certainly are not.

[PAUSE]

First, we must understand that we do eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ. Jesus tells us this very clearly in St John's gospel. 

People will say that Jesus is not talking about the Eucharist but about His death on the Cross. Jesus tells us, "unless you eat of the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink of His Blood, you shall not have life within you." On hearing this, many disciples are scandalised. They think he is talking about cannibalism. They leave, grossly offended by what Jesus is saying. But Peter stays, and the others, because Jesus has the words of eternal life.

And today, at the Last Supper, Jesus says, "this is My Body" and "this is My blood" and the disciples remember what Jesus has said, and that His flesh is meat Indeed and that His blood is drink indeed. In eating His Body and drinking His Blood, the disciples consume Life itself.

[PAUSE]

And here is the point. Jesus is not feeding them with His Human flesh and blood, though He is there body, blood, soul and Divinity. He is feeding them with His Divinity through His physical but non- scientific Body. Jesus is Divine and Human. There are not two Christ's, one Human and one Divine, but one Christ with two natures. His Divinity is made Man at the Incarnation: Mary is indeed the Mother of God.

It is not human flesh that we eat at Mass, nor is it human blood that we drink. If it were then they would look, smell and taste like human flesh and blood. But Jesus is still there in His humanity, though under the appearance of bread and wine so as not to scandalise those that partake of the Sacrament.

But we do truly eat of the Body and Blood of Jesus. In the consecrated Host, in the Chalice, truly are the physical Body and Blood of Christ, just as Mary is the Mother of God. We can believe that and take into our frail human bodies the true Life of God Incarnate. 

[PAUSE]

Tomorrow we will see the body of the Lord nailed to the Cross. We will see His blood pour from His wounds. We will see Him die. God dies in His Human nature.

And God lives in those who take Him into their human bodies. This is not eating death like cannibals do.

His body is broken on the altar of the Cross for our redemption, and It is broken at the Eucharist for our sanctification. This is the means of our resurrection and our door into Eternity.

[PAUSE]

Today, we see a small, human being betrayed by his friend, denied by another and forsaken by all, and we weep for our sin of rejecting God. But through this sin, breaking the power of Sin and Devil, God gives us Himself so that we may live. Let us take, eat, drink in humble and fitting reverence before Him in complete gratitude for the Holy Mystery we receive. And let us life the Life we have consumed.