St Matthew xxi.1
It's the beginning of a new year! Can we honestly say, in our heart of hearts, that we really feel that today is New Year's Day? Most of us would say not, preferring to wait for 1st January before we break out the champagne and blowing those buzzy things that make look like chameleons with a nasty case of glossitis. Advent Sunday seems a rather arbitrary time to start a new year anyway.
If we follow that line of reasoning then, the first day of the New Year would be the Circumcision of Our Lord which, while no less a Holy Feast and cause for pious observation, doesn't have the obvious sense of beginning and seems no less arbitrary. January 1st is just arbitrary a day to begin a year as Advent Sunday.
If we must rid ourselves of arbitrary beginnings, we must look to the Cosmic influences of our Kalendar. One of the glories of the Liturgical year is how the interplay between Sun and Moon colours how we worship the God Who made them. God put them in the sky "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years". It's fascinating how these celestial resonances make fixed liturgies dance and play with nuances different from a simple prescribed programme of following a single calendar. A fixed day of Easter would destroy much that makes the Work of God beautiful. There would be no interaction of the Saints' and other Holy Days which are largely fixed by the Solar Year, and the Grand Moveable Feasts which follow the Lunar Year.
These great markers of the Sun and Moon which pan out our year provide non-arbitrary beginnings of years. The Ancients regarded the beginning of the year at the Vernal Equinox when the Sun crossed the plane of the Equator and new life began to spring forth. Harvest happened halfway through the year at the Autumnal Equinox. The Solstices where the Sun reaches its Zenith in the Summer and Nadir in the Winter also important days in which some cultures began and ended their years. In the Solar year, these days are not arbitrary.
The Winter Solstice is not far from the date on which we celebrate the feast of the Nativity of the Lord, though it is not dead-on. Of course, we all know that Christmass is moved to the 25th December so that we can celebrate Our Lord's birth while all around us, the pagans are celebrating Saturnalia. Our Lord's birthday is fixed by the Solar Year. Likewise, the interplay of Equinox and Full Moon determine the date of the Feast of the Resurrection but Pasch does not always fall on the Full Moon, or the Equinox. God is not bound by the motion of Sun and Moon.
If we accept Christmass as being 25th December, why don't we begin our Liturgical Year then? Well, the reason for this can be seen when we consider the Gospel for today, the apparently anachronism of the Triumphal entry.
Jesus, who in obedience to the feast prescribed by Jewish lore and law rides "in lowly pomp" into Jerusalem ready to take his place in the Temple. What He discovers there is a complete lack of preparation for the sacred - a confused mess of animals, money changers, and people being distracted from doing what they came to do by things which, in the Cosmic Scheme, have only a fleeting relevance.
Is it any wonder that He is angry? The sacrifices of bullocks, kids, and birds is about to be abolished with the One Perfect Sacrifice that will take place within seven days outside the city in complete and abject disgrace, and then followed by another Cosmic event which transcends the rhythm of the planets and thrusts humanity to its destiny of Eternity. What stands between human beings and God is a clutter of irrelevances.
What happens next is an act of some force - Jesus throws (ἐξέβαλεν) this irrelevance out of the Temple. It is an act of physical activity and cannot have been achieved simply vocally. Does this shock us about Jesus? What do we make of a man of peace succumbing to anger and to such passion?
This will only shock us if we regard Jesus as being "meek and mild" a passive figure who tolerates all our naughty behaviour because He loves us. This is not the love that God shows us. The love of God is hot and active and intolerant of all evil. This is not a God who stands on the side wringing his hands impotently at our misdemeanours. This is a God who does not tolerate anything coming between us and Him. He demands his Temple to be cleared out, the seasons to be purged, He demands space.
Space for what? Breathing space.
We get caught up in our own rhythm, our own season, our own timings. We want things our own way. We see Christmas around the corner and that means going out and getting presents and getting trees and getting decorations and getting drunk. That is how our year goes. The Baby of Christmass was crowded out of the Inn and had to make do with the manger. Likewise, the baby in the Nativity display is being crowded out by the latest Xbox 360, inflatable caricatures of a long dead saint and rather odiously twee snowmen. The sound of God is being drowned out by jingle bells and the simpering affections of people trying to be "nice" once a year yet ignoring that directive on the other 364 days.
Our Lord Jesus Christ demands nothing less than intolerance for anything that stands between Him and us, and all that crowds Him out of our hearts. How then are we to respond? Well, the Church does help us, because it builds that preparation into her year in the season called Advent. In beginning the year with Advent, we than have a choice to make the appropriate preparations. This is the time to sit and examine our consciences, to make space for Christ -breathing space.
Yet, it is not for us to breathe first. The first person to breathe is God, and his breath is the Holy Ghost. In clearing space to breathe, we can breathe in Air that is truly good for us, not polluted by "the smoke of Satan" as Pope Paul VI put it. Christ wants us to breathe in His Spirit so that we can live. Thus Advent affords us the opportunity to see the Baby born in a Manger, not through a haze of materialistic detritus, but through clear air.
Before we begin the song of our year, we must take a breath and note the timing. This is why the year begins with Advent so that we can join our voices in a Cosmic hymn of praise to our Creator, accompanying the rolling spheres, and free from that which would encumber us.
How are you beginning your song this year?
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Wittgenstein, Anglicanism and Patrimony
A few years ago, I started to wonder about what it means to be an Anglican somewhat prior to the events of what happened a year later. As I've grown older and read more and tried to be a better thinker, it struck me that there are more ways of defining something than giving an axiomatic definition. Wittgenstein's approach of family resemblances gives quite a fresh take on the situation.
The idea is that in a large family, it is clear that now two members of that family are identical. In a mathematical/axiomatic framework, a definition would require that two things would have the same defining category if and only if they satisfied all the requirements. This doesn't work for Art, Poetry, or Religion. Not all Religions have gods, not all Art is beautiful, not all Poetry rhymes.
Wittgenstein notices that one recognises people from the same family by resemblances that, while not common to all members of the family are common to some. Think of the old lady at the bus stop who makes the Wittgensteinian definition of the new baby with the words, "aww, he's got his father's eyes!"
Art, for example might be defined by something which possesses features such as manufactured, designed to stir the emotions, to depict what's truly real, a painting, or a sculpture, or a manipulation of a medium, et c. The more of these features an object has in common with what we would recognise as being a Work of Art, the more easily it can indeed be identified as a work of art. Of course, we have to agree with what the resemblances of "Works of Art" are in the first place. I think it might be quite difficult to find anyone who would say that the Mona Lisa is not Art, so perhaps there is a general Wittgensteinian definition that would fit, at least in a sizable majority.
The same may well be true for this thing called Anglicanism.
In 2009, at the above link, I suggested that:
Listening to the people around me, I hear that one is Anglican
1) by continuing in the Apostolic Succession with Anglican Bishops;
2) by the continued use of Scripture, Tradition and Right Reason in
continuity with the great Anglican Divines – Hooker, Andrewes et al;
3) by agreeing with the principles ["of church polity" I should have added - a bit late now!] laid down at the Reformation;
4) by worshipping in the same places, in the same buildings as
antiquity;
5) by being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury;
6) by being a Christian subject of Queen Elizabeth II and her
successors
7) by adhering to traditional Anglican liturgies;
I might also be tempted to add:
8) by seeking some via media between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism;
9) by taking the XXXIX articles as the basis of one's dogmatic system;
10) by rejecting Apostolicae Curae;
11) by holding to the three Creeds and first seven Ecumenical Councils;
12) by recognising the Anglican Church is part of the One True Church and is only part.
I am sure that there are other criteria that one could meet. I would say of course that there is a necessary condition
0) by being a practising Christian.
Criterion (0) is certainly a sine qua non though there are some who would reject even this.
The more resemblances one shares with that which is Anglican, the more one can be recognised as Anglican and vice versa. Of course this rules out absolute certainty as to who is or isn't Anglican and then perhaps we can see how, unlike a mathematical definition, there is room in a Wittgensteinian definition for the principle of Charity and the need for listening to others. Does this lend us to a 13th criterion?
13) by attributing the only certainties that exist are fathomable by a Transcendent and Immanent God.
Did I leave anything out?
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Armistice and Armour
Epistle for Trinity XXI: Ephesians vi.10
In the view of many people, we are in dark times, another depression caused by so many factors, economic, ecological and spiritual. It is true that it is only by the grace of God Himself that there is any happiness in the world. All that human beings seem to do is struggle. As biologists have noted, all life is struggle: we struggle to be born and we have to fight to stay alive. There is no escaping it. But what about for us humans? What reason have we to fight to stay alive? Why do we have to struggle, labour and toil, agonise and shout. We clearly do, but for what reason? Isn't it time that we stopped fighting and just went with the flow? Isn't it easier than just working ourselves to death for no better reason than pass on our genes and die? Eat, drink and be merry...
St Paul reminds us that humanity is constantly at war, but often forgets who the real enemy is.In most cases we wrongly identify the enemy, eliminate him and then think that our job is done. Surely the world will be a better place now that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden and Colonel Gaddafi have gone? Well, do we know who the monster of tomorrow will be? We can be sure that there will be another!
What we fail to see is that, in identifying evil with an organisation or a person, we're missing the fact that evil is a lot less material than we might like. Evil is non-material. It exists in principalities, powers, rulers of darkness and spiritually infests the high places of humanity.
While we can be sure that someone will make a choice to live life in such a way as to recruit followers who then spread evil in the cause of some "liberation" and thus become a figure of hate, we can fail to see this evil at work in our own society and crucially within our very selves. Can it be that the Western milieu is being unfairly forced on people who are no less human but have rather different views on how society works? Is it possible? Surely we need to look at ourselves closely to see what rule we impose upon others.
If evil exists, then it is the Christian's duty to oppose it in all its forms. We therefore will see battle both physical and spiritual. We will see things that will disgust us and haunt us all the days of our lives. We will be attacked and injured, sometimes physically. Indeed, some of us will fight and will lose our lives: our martyrologies are filled with such as these.
For what do our soldiers fight these days? What makes their cause any more just than their opponents? If we look at the First World War then the answer is not so clear. It seems more like a campaign of Imperial Honour spun wildly out of control. Yet, for the Second World War, there is much more of an objective. Surely, there is no moral society on Earth which could believe that the Concentration Camps were anything other than the foulest recesses of human evil? Can we honestly say that humanity is unanimous in this judgment? Why not?
The Evil we fight is not material. It does not possess an identifiable face, but yet it influences men who are prepared to go along with its flow rather than take a stand against it, actively searching for what is right and making their protests heard against what is wrong. It is the duty of the Christian to fight this non-material Evil and to rescue his brother from its clutches. However, if we are exposed to evil and its lure from the moment of our conception and find that we ourselves aren't just capable of doing evil, but do in fact do evil, what hope have we as soldiers?
St Paul reminds us that we have been given protection by God with which to arm ourselves. First he give us the Truth with which we examine ourselves, identify those vulnerable and weak areas which we then can protect with that same Truth. Our hearts are to be covered in God's Righteousness. How? By taking into ourselves the practice of righteousness through the works of mercy and charity. In that way we fill our hearts unequivocally with righteous living and make them more like the Sacred Heart.
Our feet are given protection by the Gospel which directs their way and carries us forward in our lives to God Himself. These same feet are made beautiful by transmitting that same Gospel and thus there is great strength being passed on to others who need it. We are responsible for helping others be clothed with the armour of Christ.
The enemy can fire at us from any quarter and thus we need a shield that is strong and tough enough, unyielding enough to prevent these wicked darts from hurting us. This shield is the Christian Faith which is indeed rigid so that we might be better protected. However, although the Faith be rigid and unyielding, we must use it with flexibility and wisdom. We need to be trained to use our shield effectively so that whole we may protect ourselves from evil darts, they may not be allowed to ricochet and hit others who are more vulnerable. Faith must be wielded with Charity. We cannot forget that in Christ there is much joy and thus by participating in the Faith of Christ, we make that joy available to others.
Finally, we are given an instrument to repel evil, the same double-edged sword that proceeds from the mouth of the son of Man as St John witnessed in his Apocalypse. This sword is the word of God and with lifelong training we can repel evil, not as single mercenaries fighting guerrilla tactics, but as an army coordinated by God Himself, not against any man, but against evil.
This is why we must give thanks for our armed forces and remember those who have given their lives so that we might continue in our own struggle against evil free from oppression and cruelty in the manner in which God intended. Their sacrifice has meant the relief of countless innocent people, many yet unborn, and this cannot be forgotten. However, is laying a wreath of poppies at the Cenotaph enough? For their sacrifice to be remembered appropriately, shouldn't we be seeking to cultivate in our society more of what they fought for? What did they fight for in the first place?
In the view of many people, we are in dark times, another depression caused by so many factors, economic, ecological and spiritual. It is true that it is only by the grace of God Himself that there is any happiness in the world. All that human beings seem to do is struggle. As biologists have noted, all life is struggle: we struggle to be born and we have to fight to stay alive. There is no escaping it. But what about for us humans? What reason have we to fight to stay alive? Why do we have to struggle, labour and toil, agonise and shout. We clearly do, but for what reason? Isn't it time that we stopped fighting and just went with the flow? Isn't it easier than just working ourselves to death for no better reason than pass on our genes and die? Eat, drink and be merry...
St Paul reminds us that humanity is constantly at war, but often forgets who the real enemy is.In most cases we wrongly identify the enemy, eliminate him and then think that our job is done. Surely the world will be a better place now that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden and Colonel Gaddafi have gone? Well, do we know who the monster of tomorrow will be? We can be sure that there will be another!
What we fail to see is that, in identifying evil with an organisation or a person, we're missing the fact that evil is a lot less material than we might like. Evil is non-material. It exists in principalities, powers, rulers of darkness and spiritually infests the high places of humanity.
While we can be sure that someone will make a choice to live life in such a way as to recruit followers who then spread evil in the cause of some "liberation" and thus become a figure of hate, we can fail to see this evil at work in our own society and crucially within our very selves. Can it be that the Western milieu is being unfairly forced on people who are no less human but have rather different views on how society works? Is it possible? Surely we need to look at ourselves closely to see what rule we impose upon others.
If evil exists, then it is the Christian's duty to oppose it in all its forms. We therefore will see battle both physical and spiritual. We will see things that will disgust us and haunt us all the days of our lives. We will be attacked and injured, sometimes physically. Indeed, some of us will fight and will lose our lives: our martyrologies are filled with such as these.
For what do our soldiers fight these days? What makes their cause any more just than their opponents? If we look at the First World War then the answer is not so clear. It seems more like a campaign of Imperial Honour spun wildly out of control. Yet, for the Second World War, there is much more of an objective. Surely, there is no moral society on Earth which could believe that the Concentration Camps were anything other than the foulest recesses of human evil? Can we honestly say that humanity is unanimous in this judgment? Why not?
The Evil we fight is not material. It does not possess an identifiable face, but yet it influences men who are prepared to go along with its flow rather than take a stand against it, actively searching for what is right and making their protests heard against what is wrong. It is the duty of the Christian to fight this non-material Evil and to rescue his brother from its clutches. However, if we are exposed to evil and its lure from the moment of our conception and find that we ourselves aren't just capable of doing evil, but do in fact do evil, what hope have we as soldiers?
St Paul reminds us that we have been given protection by God with which to arm ourselves. First he give us the Truth with which we examine ourselves, identify those vulnerable and weak areas which we then can protect with that same Truth. Our hearts are to be covered in God's Righteousness. How? By taking into ourselves the practice of righteousness through the works of mercy and charity. In that way we fill our hearts unequivocally with righteous living and make them more like the Sacred Heart.
Our feet are given protection by the Gospel which directs their way and carries us forward in our lives to God Himself. These same feet are made beautiful by transmitting that same Gospel and thus there is great strength being passed on to others who need it. We are responsible for helping others be clothed with the armour of Christ.
The enemy can fire at us from any quarter and thus we need a shield that is strong and tough enough, unyielding enough to prevent these wicked darts from hurting us. This shield is the Christian Faith which is indeed rigid so that we might be better protected. However, although the Faith be rigid and unyielding, we must use it with flexibility and wisdom. We need to be trained to use our shield effectively so that whole we may protect ourselves from evil darts, they may not be allowed to ricochet and hit others who are more vulnerable. Faith must be wielded with Charity. We cannot forget that in Christ there is much joy and thus by participating in the Faith of Christ, we make that joy available to others.
Finally, we are given an instrument to repel evil, the same double-edged sword that proceeds from the mouth of the son of Man as St John witnessed in his Apocalypse. This sword is the word of God and with lifelong training we can repel evil, not as single mercenaries fighting guerrilla tactics, but as an army coordinated by God Himself, not against any man, but against evil.
This is why we must give thanks for our armed forces and remember those who have given their lives so that we might continue in our own struggle against evil free from oppression and cruelty in the manner in which God intended. Their sacrifice has meant the relief of countless innocent people, many yet unborn, and this cannot be forgotten. However, is laying a wreath of poppies at the Cenotaph enough? For their sacrifice to be remembered appropriately, shouldn't we be seeking to cultivate in our society more of what they fought for? What did they fight for in the first place?
Sunday, November 06, 2011
Communio in sacris and the Contrapositive
Consider the following problem.
You are trying to be a good Christian, obeying your conscience, the Catholic Faith and your bishop as the centre of the local Church. Suppose further that your bishop holds to a doctrine which, though in the majority viewpoint in the diocese and certainly in your parish, is nonetheless contrary to the Catholic Faith. Yet further, suppose that your bishop now tells you that because you belong to a parish which accepts the controversial teaching, you have no grounds to object to it. What do you do?
Well, look at the statement logically.
so our original statement becomes in contrapositive:
Thus for the bishop's statement to be true you must either accept that which is not taught by the Church or you cannot be a member of the parish. What options do you have?
In accepting that which is contrary to the Faith, a bishop has endangered the spiritual health of his entire diocese irrespective of whether they agree with him or not. This includes the priests in his diocese who, while still remaining orthodox, nonetheless despite the validity of their sacraments are still in some danger because of the nature of their relations with the bishop.
For a recovery of one's health, there is only one course of action open to you - you have to find an orthodox bishop in order to guarantee one's membership of the Church.We have now seen that a bishop who equates membership of the church with a particular doctrine practically excommunicates all those who refuse that doctrine.
This is why the office of a bishop is very onerous and it behoves us to be loyal and support him in order that he may continue to guide us into a lively faith. A bishop is not a diocesan CEO: his investment into the diocese is vastly greater than just monetary. The fate of his soul depends on how he leads his flock.
So where am I going with this?
Well, I read more and more about the latest Diocesan results about the Women Bishops measure. The vast majority of Dioceses seem to have voted in favour, but they have also voted against any measure to protect those who in conscience cannot accept the ministry of a female bishop. They believe that a Code of Practice will do.
It should be now quite clear to dissenting bishops, priests and laity that there will soon be a pronouncement:
It is there in the Canons:
What can be done if there can only be a schism if one genuinely dissents as we have demonstrated above? There can be only a Canonical paradox if one looks logically. If there must not be a schism then everyone must unanimously accept women in the Episcopate - a two-thirds majority cannot cut it!
This can only mean that (if they are not suffering already) Anglo-Catholics will simply not be able to exist in the CofE without severe spiritual damage which will come from a gradual erosion. It would be much better for an amicable departure to be arranged so that both sides can follow their own chosen paths to whatever ends there may be without interference and restraint from dissension.
This is a tall order for the poor priests whose living depends upon the CofE's Established nature. For them to make any move away from the Established Church will take much courage and a leap into physical uncertainty. However there is spiritual assurance outside the CofE that remains Anglican. They will find a very warm welcome in the Continuum, they can be very certain of that. They certainly have our prayers and humble petitions for their health and well-being and for their spiritual fulfilment.
You are trying to be a good Christian, obeying your conscience, the Catholic Faith and your bishop as the centre of the local Church. Suppose further that your bishop holds to a doctrine which, though in the majority viewpoint in the diocese and certainly in your parish, is nonetheless contrary to the Catholic Faith. Yet further, suppose that your bishop now tells you that because you belong to a parish which accepts the controversial teaching, you have no grounds to object to it. What do you do?
Well, look at the statement logically.
If you belong to a parish and that parish accepts the heterodox then you have no grounds to object to that doctrine.This has form:
If A & B then C.
This is logically equivalent to the contrapositive:
If not C then either not A or not B.
so our original statement becomes in contrapositive:
If you have grounds to object then either your parish does not accept the heterodox or you do not belong to the parish.Well, your parish does accept the non-Catholic doctrine, so for the bishop's statement to be true, you cannot be a member of the parish and have grounds to object. But since the doctrine is clearly contrary to the Catholic Faith, grounds to object exist regardless of your or the bishop's views.
Thus for the bishop's statement to be true you must either accept that which is not taught by the Church or you cannot be a member of the parish. What options do you have?
- You are obedient to your bishop according to the teaching of St Ignatius, so you accept that the statement must be true. You are obedient to the Catholic Faith so therefore you cannot be a member of the parish.
- You are disobedient to the bishop, then you can reject his statement as false. Disagreement with one's bishop is often not a problem provided that one is aware and respectful of the authority invested in him by virtue of the Catholic Church and acts with due humility, but wilful disobedience to your bishop on matters of faith disunites you from the Church through the contradiction of St Ignatius' criterion for Church membership, therefore you cannot be a faithful member of the parish.
- You accept the non-Catholic doctrine, but this is an effective denial of what you believe and to do so changes the faith which you have received which puts you outside what the Church has always believed. This endangers one's relationship with God - membership of a parish is irrelevant if one is not in harmony with the Divine!
In accepting that which is contrary to the Faith, a bishop has endangered the spiritual health of his entire diocese irrespective of whether they agree with him or not. This includes the priests in his diocese who, while still remaining orthodox, nonetheless despite the validity of their sacraments are still in some danger because of the nature of their relations with the bishop.
For a recovery of one's health, there is only one course of action open to you - you have to find an orthodox bishop in order to guarantee one's membership of the Church.We have now seen that a bishop who equates membership of the church with a particular doctrine practically excommunicates all those who refuse that doctrine.
This is why the office of a bishop is very onerous and it behoves us to be loyal and support him in order that he may continue to guide us into a lively faith. A bishop is not a diocesan CEO: his investment into the diocese is vastly greater than just monetary. The fate of his soul depends on how he leads his flock.
So where am I going with this?
Well, I read more and more about the latest Diocesan results about the Women Bishops measure. The vast majority of Dioceses seem to have voted in favour, but they have also voted against any measure to protect those who in conscience cannot accept the ministry of a female bishop. They believe that a Code of Practice will do.
It should be now quite clear to dissenting bishops, priests and laity that there will soon be a pronouncement:
If you are in the Church of England then you have no grounds to object to women in the episcopate.
It is there in the Canons:
Thus, at the level of Canon, in being a member of the Church of England, one has no canonical nor legal grounds to object to a female Priest and soon it will be the same for bishops when the resolutions for dissenters will be removed. This will lead to great problems.A 4 Of the Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining,
and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons
The Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, annexed to The Book of Common Prayer and commonly known as the Ordinal, is not repugnant to the Word of God; and those who are so made, ordained, or consecrated bishops, priests, or deacons, according to the said Ordinal, are lawfully made, ordained, or consecrated, and ought to be accounted, both by themselves and others, to be truly bishops, priests, or deacons.(emphases mine)
A 8 Of schisms
Forasmuch as the Church of Christ has for a long time past been distressed by separations and schisms among Christian men, so that the unity for which our Lord prayed is impaired and the witness to his gospel is grievously hindered, it is the duty of clergy and people to do their utmost not only to avoid occasions of strife but also to seek in penitence and brotherly charity to heal such divisions.
What can be done if there can only be a schism if one genuinely dissents as we have demonstrated above? There can be only a Canonical paradox if one looks logically. If there must not be a schism then everyone must unanimously accept women in the Episcopate - a two-thirds majority cannot cut it!
This can only mean that (if they are not suffering already) Anglo-Catholics will simply not be able to exist in the CofE without severe spiritual damage which will come from a gradual erosion. It would be much better for an amicable departure to be arranged so that both sides can follow their own chosen paths to whatever ends there may be without interference and restraint from dissension.
This is a tall order for the poor priests whose living depends upon the CofE's Established nature. For them to make any move away from the Established Church will take much courage and a leap into physical uncertainty. However there is spiritual assurance outside the CofE that remains Anglican. They will find a very warm welcome in the Continuum, they can be very certain of that. They certainly have our prayers and humble petitions for their health and well-being and for their spiritual fulfilment.
Monday, October 31, 2011
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:
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.
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.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Episcopalian Erosions
The Episcopalian Diocese of Atlanta has just passed this Resolution:
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:
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.
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.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.
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.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
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 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.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
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.
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.
- 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.
- 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. - 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.
- 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.
Saturday, October 08, 2011
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.
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
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?
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?
Saturday, October 01, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
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!
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!
Sunday, September 18, 2011
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:
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.
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:
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?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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
