Original Sin and Post-Atlantan Pelagianism

I've posted on the results of the Diocese of Atlanta seeking to rehabilitate Pelagius. It's only really fair that I try to understand and examine why, though my theology isn't as good as perhaps it ought to be. I think I'm able to give a few thoughts but I am sure that I shall require the comments of those better in the know.

First, let me re-post the text of Article IX:

Of Original or Birth Sin
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated, whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek phronema sarkos (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of the flesh), is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath itself the nature of sin.

De Peccato Originali
Peccatum originis non est (ut fabulantur Pelagiani) in imitatione Adami situm, sed est vitium et depravatio naturae eiuslibet hominis ex Adamo naturaliter propagati, qua fit ut ab originali iustitia quam longissime distet, ad malum sua natura propendeat, et caro semper adversus spiritum concupiscat; unde in unoquoque nascentium iram Dei atque damnationem meretur. Manet etiam in renatis haec naturae depravatio, qua fit ut affectus carnis, Graece phronema sarcos (quod alii sapientiam, alii sensum, alii affectum, alii studium carnis interpretantur), legi Dei non subiiciatur. Et quanquam renatis et credentibus, nulla propter Christum est condemnatio, peccati tamen in sese rationem habere concupiscentiam fatetur Apostolus.

From this article, we can see why people object to what Original Sin states. Imagine holding your new first-born child in your arms, the first time you gaze upon a new life, frail, tender, a little bundle of reflexes and then thinking that this new baby "deserveth God's wrath and damnation" by virtue of its original sin. Can we honestly hold it to be true that the natural destiny of humanity is the fiery furnace of Hell?


We do need to be careful on many fronts here. First of all, this is an emotive issue and we can allow our emotions to wander in areas where a clearer head is needed. We must also be clear that there is a place for our emotion and that our sense of outrage at such a statement has a justifiable cause and needs an appropriate outlet.


Let us first be very careful and establish precisely what, according to the article, "deserveth God's wrath and damnation". If we just check the Latin carefully (thought the Cranmerian English is just as ample) "unde in unoquoque nascentium iram Dei atque damnationem meretur" we ask ourselves, what is the object of the passive meretur? Whatever it is, it is in every human being born. It seems to me to be quite clear that it is the Original Sin itself which is deserving the condemnation of God and from this we can infer that it is the cause of this Original Sin who will bear the brunt of God's wrath.

Nonetheless, the Doctrine of Original Sin is scriptural - St Paul's letter to the Romans (v.19) for instance. "As in Adam, all die..." or 1 Cor xv.21. These make it clear to me that the natural end of humanity is not Hell, we are meant (predestined, if you will) for Heaven and for Eternal Life - that is what God wants for us. Hell is the unnatural destiny of Man.

So what happens when we look at our little infant snuggled, sleeping soundly in our arms? Can we call that baby a sinner, by virtue of that original sin? To do so, again, misses a point - can we call anyone a sinner by virtue of original sin? I've mentioned this before - the Church only has the keys to heaven. According to the Apocalypse, it is some great archangel who possesses the key to Hell and he works only at the direct command of God, not of the Church. While we are in this life, we do not possess the wherewithal to judge sinners (motes and beams and what have you). In fact it is a consequence of Original Sin that we do not possess the wherewithal to judge sinners. Our own personal choice within us to Heaven or to Hell lies between ourselves and God.

Well, then? Is it possible for a tiny infant to be a sinner, to be stained with Original Sin? Clearly, the baby is innocent of actual sin i.e. sins which are committed by conscious act. However, as a consequence of a Pro-Life stance, the Catholic Faith teaches that human life begins at conception. If that child is fully human from that point, then it is capable of free choice at that point (a defining aspect of humanity). If so, then it is free to choose between right and wrong and is thus capable of sin even from the word "go".

However, capable does not mean that sin has taken place. We need then to look at Original Sin and how it is transmitted. How can the sin of one man infect all of his descendents? Well, the Story of the Fall makes it clear, the presence of the Serpent from the outset infects humanity by temptation, by lies and by the leading away from God. Even if an infant does not actually sin, it is still subject to being drawn into the darkness. Even Hitler was a newborn baby once.

This, then, reveals the need for the Baptism for infants. The Baptism rite contains an exorcism which is there to free the child from the clutches of the Devil. Of course, the child may still sin after Baptism, but that Baptism puts the child back into the track of its natural destiny, i.e. to God and to Heaven. Faith may be shipwrecked and the child may still fall away from God, but, with that Baptism into the Death of Christ there will always be that chance to take advantage of the Grace given to us in that Baptism to pull us back into the Light.

For children who die before Baptism, I cannot possibly comment on their destiny. I do not believe in a blanket condemnation to Limbo, and neither does the RCC now. The decision lies between God and the individual soul.

I did say that this is an emotional issue, and it is. Sin is a serious, serious, problem and one that does indeed affect (and infect) every child that comes into the world, transmitted by those already present. The least we can do is to ensure that all children get led into the Light and have the opportunity to be drawn by God. This cannot be any more important than for the unborn and is another reason why we need to stop abortion for the good of these little souls.

Episcopalian Erosions

The Episcopalian Diocese of Atlanta has just passed this Resolution:

R11-7 Contributions of Pelagius

Whereas the historical record of Pelagius’s [sic] contribution to our theological tradition is shrouded in the political ambition of his theological antagonists who sought to discredit what they felt was a threat to the empire, and their ecclesiastical dominance, and whereas an understanding of his life and writings might bring more to bear on his good standing in our tradition, and whereas his restitution as a viable theological voice within our tradition might encourage a deeper understanding of sin, race, free will, and the goodness of God’s creation, and whereas in as much as the history of Pelagius represents to some the struggle for theological exploration that is our birthright as Anglicans, Be it resolved, that this 105th Annual Council of the Diocese of Atlanta appoint a committee of discernment overseen by our Bishop, to consider these matters as a means to honor the contributions of Pelagius and reclaim his voice in our tradition And be it further resolved that this committee will report their conclusions at the next Annual Council.

That's the resolution. Now let's be clear on the issues. We should not allow ourselves to be sidetracked into rehashing the arguments of Pelagianism as this is rather of secondary importance to what I perceive to be the main issues.

1) Is this an attempt to try and sift the orthodox writings of Pelagius from his heretical works?

2) On what authority is the diocese of Atlanta making this resolution?

On the first issue, we ought to look for the principle of charity. After all, even the greatest theologians have expressed thoughts which the Church has regarded to be heretical. For example, St Thomas Aquinas did not believe that Our Lady was immaculate yet the Roman Catholic Church which bases much of its theology on his teachings has decreed otherwise. In that sense, St Thomas would be speaking heretically. Of course we then have the question as to whether one can be a heretic posthumously or even post-canonisation! We do know that St Peter himself acted heretically when he refused to eat with Gentiles despite the Church teaching otherwise. Of course, St Peter recognised his error and capitulated.

Of Pelagius, little is really known . There is not much in the way of his teaching that survives and what does survive is difficult to be seen separately from his followers who pressed the Pelagian Heresy more forcefully. However, the Oecumenical Councils of Carthage (in 418AD) and Ephesus (431AD) made it clear that Pelagianism, whether or not it originated with Pelagius, is indeed heterodox and thus deviant from the Catholic Faith.

It is true that what the Pelagians leave behind is indeed some very interesting theology on the nature of Free Will and Predestination and Election, but why is the verdict of the Council being challenged on the grounds of an inclement political climate? Surely then, Arianism must also be reappraised since this was the more politically dangerous of the classical heresies. Even the Pope was Arian at one point. Why stop there? What about the Apollinarian heresies? Ebionism, Origenism? Nestorianism? Gnosticism? One might accuse me of a "thin end of the wedge" argument, but the idea remains: if there is the possibility of reclaiming one heretical doctrine into orthodoxy owing to the prevailing culture, why not all heretical doctrines? What makes Pelagianism more palatable?

The second issue is one that concerns me more. On what authority does a single diocese make the decision to re-appraise hitherto heretical teaching? Not all Anglicans subscribe to the XXXIX articles - I myself do not believe them to be the defining element of what it is to be an Anglican preferring a more Wittgensteinian approach of "family resemblance" (more on that later methinks). However, looking at the articles gives:

IX. Of Original or Birth Sin.

ORIGINAL sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated, whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek Phonema sarkos (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of the flesh), is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath itself the nature of sin.

Here is a perfectly Anglican viewpoint which sets the bar. Of course the Diocese of Atlanta can reject the authority of the Articles in general as defining Anglicanism and still remain Anglican. Can it just reject the subject matter at all? The article, unchanged from 1553, was drafted to reject the Pelagian heresy of the Anabaptists and to continue the Catholic line on the matter. Its content follows the conclusion of the Oecumenical Council of Ephesus, consent to which is necessary for membership of the Catholic Church. So to accept Pelagianism is a denial of Catholicism.

Further, that the Diocese has taken it upon itself to examine the issue apparently independently, this means that it cannot be acting Oecumenically. To reconsider the verdict of an Oecumenical Council requires an Oecumenical Council which cannot be called until there is full Catholic Oecumenical Reconciliation. This is another example of the "go it alone" mentality of member diocese in ECUSA. Its Catholicism went long ago, squashed between the mitre and Pantene Hairspray, and this merely points to the untenability of the same attitude. A kingdom divided cannot stand and the liberal churches are again taking too much authority on their own heads with the result that their own house dissipates into the prevailing culture.

If there are grounds to review Pelagius then that review has to happen oecumenically with all Christians. It is clear that Atlanta sees itself as a higher power in deciding doctrine.

For the sake of argument...

It seems that the Philosophy of Religion has become very fashionable lately with all kinds of people stepping into the ring to declare their belief in the existence or non-existence of God with arguments that they believe to be incontrovertible and completely watertight. It is inevitable that someone will find the chink in the argument and then exploit it to demolish the house of cards on which argument rests.

The question is: do we allow our faith to be built on philosophical arguments?

There are three classical arguments for the existence of God: the ontological, the cosmological and the teleological. All three have inherent philosophical problems in drawing the conclusion that a being exists in a wholly other way to the physical universe who is deserving of the worship of all living beings. Yet Organised Religion has not collapsed under the weight of these oft-used reasons for worshipping God.

Some might say that this is because religious believers are inherently stupid and if they only thought harder, they would see that there is no God. One must be careful here: to say that the argument for the existence of God fails is not an argument for the non-existence of God (and vice versa). Others might cite the argument that people want God to exist as an emotional crutch only to have the point made that every human need has a real object, et c.

The main assumption is that it is foolish to believe in God or to have religious beliefs. The valid corollary of the Ontological argument is that if God doesn't exist then there's no point in worshipping Him - that's eminently reasonable. If there is no proof for or against, how then can they define "foolish"?

My problem with the classical philosophical arguments is that they don't begin at the right spot. I do not believe we can reason God into existence like folk have misread St Anselm. I'm much more of a radical skeptic when it comes to proofs or disproofs for the existence of God. I maintain that we know reality so insufficiently that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved by human thought and reason. In the very technical sense of the word, that makes me agnostic - I do not know how to prove beyond all doubt that God exists and I don't believe there is such a way.

So why do I believe in God?

I speak personally and apologetically. I appeal to authority, namely to the person of Jesus Christ Whom I regard as Lord and Master. I believe that what He claims is true.

Of course, what I know of Him comes from Scripture and Tradition, i.e. from the Church. The first records of Him were written down within 30 years of His death (contrast that with centuries for Alexander the Great and other prominent historical figures) and taken from first hand sources. One may say that the Church was selective in the records that it chose for His life. I would have to agree very much that the Church was indeed very selective in what it deemed sufficiently authoritative. The texts it rejected were not contemporaneous with Christ and most extra-canonical Gospels were written long after the fact. All of the texts of the New Testament were written in the first century AD.

It seems to me that the Biblical texts satisfy the CRAVEN tests.

Corroboration: The Gospels (while like most pieces of evidence disagree on details) do indeed corroborate what Jesus taught, the miracles he did and that He rose from the dead.

Reputation: The writers of the Gospels are clearly Christian and very little seems to be known about them to assess their reputability. However, the Gospel of St John shows a knowledge of classical as well as colloquial Greek, St Luke demonstrates a scientific approach in his writing. St Paul himself as another corroborator of the Gospels certainly writes with erudition and tells the story of his own conversion.

Ability to See: if these writers are (as St Luke claims to be doing) writing down interviews with those who knew Jesus first hand within thirty years of the death of Jesus then they do have ability to make a critical judgment to what they saw.

Vested Interest: Considering that most of the people who proclaimed faith in Jesus were destined for painful and humiliating deaths, either they were deluded or felt that the truth was more important.

Expertise: the writers were adult, sufficiently proficient in Greek and privy to the early Christian communities.

Neutrality: What would this mean here? If one is setting out to record the truth, one must believe that truth which one is trying to document. So it is not viable to denounce the Gospel writers as not being neutral because of their Christianity. Again, if they did not believe it to be true, why go to execution for the sake of a lie? Is there a neutral position to take here?

This helps me to regard the evidence of Scripture as reliable.

I dare say that someone will come along and try to demolish my faith in the writers of Scripture and what the Church tells me. They may even succeed at knocking down my CRAVEN analysis, but then I've not been too intent in producing coherent arguments. All I have done is to show some justification in my belief and I do not offer it to convince anyone that I am right, though if it does so then that is a wonderful by-product of my intention. It does, however, put me very close to the basic criteria for knowledge - justified, true belief. I belief that Jesus is Who he says He is. I am justified in my belief given the evidence of Holy Scripture. Is that belief true? If the evidence is true, then yes.

However, it now needs to be demonstrated that the evidence is indeed true. That is now almost impossible to know as this happened in the past. There can be no scientific examination which will confirm the evidence either way. The historians themselves can only speak of likelihood and possibility, so there can be no definite statement from them. Probability and likelihood come with a background arena of reference which is largely but not exclusively subjective and opinionated.

So what have I actually done? I haven't produced an infallible argument for the existence of God save only to say that "God exists because Jesus tells me so". That sounds rather feeble, like passing the buck. It may even make me sound like some kind of simple-minded Evangelical (by which I mean an Evangelical who happens to be simple-minded, not that all Evangelicals are simple-minded) but it makes sense. My Christian Faith stands or falls with the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Surely this is where the Christian Faith has to start.

What it does do is free me from the vicissitudes of Philosophical argument. It also frees me from worrying about whether my belief in Evolution is in contradiction with belief in God. It frees me to criticise and accept Science and hopefully to engage sensibly and reasonably with people of all kinds of beliefs. While it does not make me immune from criticism nor from rigorous defence, it does lift much of the weight from my shoulders rather than paralyse me in enormous and complicated arguments of self-justification. "His yoke is easy and His burthen is light" just as He promised.

The Church in the small.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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




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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Story of Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who's in a name?

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

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

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

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

Latrine?

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

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

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

The reply?

It sounds nice.

[PAUSE]

How do you feel about your name?

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

It was foisted upon you by your parents.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is her son called Jock, one wonders?

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

[PAUSE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Names have an intrinsic meaning.

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

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

“William” means a determined protector.

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

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

Most interesting is the name Joshua.

Joshua is the Hebrew word
meaning “God saves”.

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

One might say that he is well named.

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

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

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

[PAUSE]

The answer is, of course, Jesus.

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

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

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

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

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

Doesn’t that cheapen who we are?

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

[PAUSE]

This brings us back to the power of names.

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

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

That was their fault,
a result of their choices.

Their acts changed the meanings of their names.

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


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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps she has the ability to do just that.

[PAUSE]

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

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

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

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

Tough job.

How are you going to do that?

The Hypocrite and the Extremist: Poles apart?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michaelmas: Angels and Demons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noticing the Community Trust

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Science, Sorites and Society.

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

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

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

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

But it is just a theory.

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

And that's the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Horror and Holiness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinion again? Perhaps.

Assumpta est Maria in Caelum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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