Recently, I've had to leave a couple of Facebook groups for the simple reason that I am tired of the squabbling that seems to surround questions of Anglican identity. I note with interest Father Chadwick has set up some "blow out" pages so that people can get into heated but polite discussion about how Anglicanism relates to Roman Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodoxy. I prefer to stay out of such polemics because they soon fall into insults or beating others over the head with the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the XXXIX Articles.
From the point of view of the Affirmation of St Louis, the principles of doctrine neither include the Catechism of the Catholic Church nor the XXXIX Articles, neither are they included in the Canons of the Anglican Catholic Church. Of course, it is perfectly reasonable for a member of the ACC to hold to these documents provided that they do not clash with the doctrine of the Undivided Church. However, given that neither the CCC or the XXXIX Articles are held unanimously, they really cannot be used as authoritative statements in debates with other Anglicans. The CCC properly belongs to the Roman Catholic Church, the XXXIX Articles with Protestant Anglicanism. Both contain much that is valuable; both contain much that causes contention and division among Christians.
It is true that in my more rabidly Roman days, I used to hold greater store by the CCC and had very little time for the Articles; now I do not because if there is any ground for Unity, it must come from the Undivided Church, not from just a large majority of it. The CCC does not represent the orthodox teaching of the whole Catholic Church. Neither do the XXXIX Articles which are largely an attempt trying to unite the Catholic and Calvinist wings of the Established Church of England. The CCC does not define Catholicism, the Articles do not define Anglicanism.
Many would look at the Continuing Anglican Churches and say that, because they are Anglican, they are Protestant, and these folk will cite history to show the intent of the Reformers was to excise all that is Catholic. The first Reformation in England, of course, was that of Henry VIII and the infamous divorce business. It was political as it separated the politics of England from the politics of Rome. The intention was categorically not to change doctrine. This came later as evidenced in the prayer-book of 1552 and its successors. Nonetheless, the Church of England maintained its orders and Apostolic Succession (until 1993) regardless of largely irrelevant Papal Bulls. It is true that there is a Protestant admixture within the Church of England, but that Protestant heritage does not speak for the whole of Anglicanism. It certainly does not define Anglicanism and it certainly does not define the ACC.
The ACC is Anglican, not because there is any one definition of what it is to be Anglican, but rather in that it holds to English Catholic Liturgy. It has the 1549 BCP which is lifted practically wholesale from the Sarum Use and augmented with the Gregorian Canon in the English and Anglican Missals. It is using liturgies used in England since before the Reformation and continued afterwards. That is the Anglicanism we preserve. Of course, our members can hold to the XXXIX Articles if they wish, but they are not definitive in the ACC Canons and they do not define what it means to be Anglican. I suspect the same is true in other Continuing Anglican Churches.
To call the ACC Protestant is actually meaningless given that Protestantism did not exist in the Undivided Church. Indeed, according to the Orthodox Church, Roman Catholicism is Protestantism defined. Personally, I find the term "Protestant" difficult to bear on the grounds that it lumps me in with those Christians who, for reasons of their own, reject good Catholic doctrine. I'm not too fond of the phrase "Reformed Catholic" either, but then perhaps I'm just being precious. I cannot speak for other Continuing Anglicans who may be happy with being Protestant or simply plain indifferent.
Perhaps I've made my distaste for the Articles clear to the point of being offensive. That is certainly not my intention. I have seen clever priests from within my own Church write some very fascinating, edifying and truly Catholic articles on the Articles. What I would hope is that, rather than take them as being authoritative, we should rather take them as opportunities to reflect on what it means to be Catholic. They contain much wisdom, but not all wisdom.
Friday, July 26, 2013
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
The Power of the Laity?
Recent times have seen great changes and indeed turmoil within the Church of God as a result of several changes in society and how those changes have been addressed by the Church. Before he became Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger famously said:
What we have been left with in the West is a strange notion of equality as people have tried to free themselves from the shackles of oppressive regimes. Empire, Reich, Republic and Communism have pushed each other out of the way in offering alternatives to human beings who seek to end their oppression and find genuine freedom to be themselves.
What has emerged in the West is Equality.
Equality has affected the Church as the tensions about the proposed ordination of women and the sacramental marriage of practising homosexuals have been introduced or thrown out or debated or caused splits. It seems that for every ideology seeking equality, there is a church. What is behind this equality? I wonder whether the answer is a struggle for the individual to define himself as an individual in amidst other individuals. Society is becoming more atomic as people seek to assert their distinctiveness as individuals.
For example, if we look carefully at the purported Ordination of Women issue, we do have to ask why women want to be ordained in the first place. The objection to the exclusive priesthood of men is the belief that God can call women as equally as He can call men. There are times when the clergy can seem like a self-important clique hiding behind robes and prayers and wielding power over the souls of the laity. If this is true then it is wrong – fundamentally wrong – and it is perfectly reasonable that women should object to being lorded over. Given that God calls men to be priests and not women, there is certainly an apparent imbalance in the way that women perceive their relationships with God and the Church.
It has been said that God calls men to be priests and women to be mothers. Often this is rejected on
the grounds that women want to be seen as beings beyond their biological functions. It is also rejected on the grounds that men already have a biological function in becoming fathers of the children that are born from their wives. One also notes that comparatively few men are called to be priests in comparison with a large majority of women become mothers. There is something very particular in being called to be a priest and something very common to being a mother.
And yet this attitude does denigrate an undoubted miracle which causes human beings of all stripes to stand back in awe and amazement as a new life is brought into the world. One cannot and should not belittle birth, nor should one belittle being a mother. Motherhood is a commonplace miracle.
St Thomas Aquinas reminds us of the duality between life and Sacrament.
There is, however, more to humanity than progenesis and men and women experience in life. Equality of fatherhood and motherhood is meaningless even though there are very obvious rights and responsibilities that are shared with being a parent of a child.
The key to the modern notion of equality lies in the whole system of rights and responsibilities. We cry for equal rights for all, desiring that everyone be treated equally and that everyone plays an equal part in society. The idea is perfectly reasonable: if we wish to function properly in our society we should make an investment in that society that is in keeping with what we can provide for that society so that we can draw from it fruits that we desire from it. If we want more, we must invest more.
The whole issue of equality arises from the many instances in which some draw out from society more than they put in, while others’ investment is eroded. True equality lies in the balance between investment and fruition.
The ordination of women is a case in point. Female Christians have a true, honest and fervent desire to love and serve God in exactly the same measure as any man. Yet they see no potential fruit in the Church which will meet with the investment that they innately desire to make, except within the vehicle of the Sacred Priesthood. Yet, many men have exactly the problem. These folk come to God with their willing and honest sacrifice only, like Cain, do they have it rebuffed.
The objection for the women is that it is a rejection on the grounds of sex, whereas for men turned down for the priesthood it is something else. It is here that the comparison with women priests and male mothers seems more reasonable. The passion and desire to make the investment is not enough to realise the outcome; the necessary machinery for realisation is not there and cannot be there for ontological reasons. To obtain the desired fruit would mean a complete change in whom one really is. Far from ratifying the individual, it would destroy it. Exactly the same issue underlies many problems within the Church and within Society.
However, the outcome is still the same regardless of any underlying issue: one has been rejected and one’s desire to play a role has been spurned, not at the level of a genus, nor at the level of a species, but rather at the very nature of the individual itself. In the face to this lies the question ”what is one’s true vocation?” Where does this love of God, this desire to serve, this longing to be in participation with His Creation have its fulfilment?
The answer can only be found in a search in one’s life. Given one’s passion, what machinery is there that can indeed reify that desire and cause it bear the proper fruit of one’s investment. Rejection from the priesthood means a vocation within the laity.
It is the distinction between clergy and laity that seems to cause the majority of problems. The perception is that the clergy gain fruit more out of their investment than the laity. In the old days, the clergy were more intellectually qualified than the laity. The priests and monks were the wise men with “all the answers” the laity were those who worked and supported the church with their tithing and craftsmanship. Of course, this paints a particularly rosy picture of how life was and perhaps this is a little romantic, but it does have the seeds of the truth which we have lost.
It is very easy to be a passive Christian these days, especially in a Traditional Church where the priest says Mass and Office and everyone else sits apparently passive. Ideally, the laity should be praying the Mass with the priest, and prayer is not a passive activity but involves the focus of the mind and the heart. If, however, the Mass and the Offices are the only opportunities in which the Laity are engaged in the Church, then there seems to be very little to do. What has been forgotten is the idea of the priest as a servant of the servants of God – a title which these days seems only to apply to the Patriarch of the West.
What has been lost is an integrated society in which the parish church represents the worshipping part. The burning desire to serve God that many men and women feel is being subverted by the pressures of time and secular work. We might desire fervently to work for the glory of God, but find that all our efforts go in to reinforcing a secular machine which has no care for our church and our religious beliefs. The secular and sacred divide is essentially dividing our desires for a happy, God-fearing life in our society between God and Society. Our secular jobs take us away from devotion with the result that we either settle into our jobs and take a passive pew, or we resent our secular jobs and desire to devote our energy into serving the Church. For many, the Church is not as physically nourishing as it was when it was richer.
Here is the dilemma for the laity and also for non-stipendiary clergy. The laymen and women must be allowed ownership of the Christian Community of which they are members. This means that they must be responsible for the growth and the upkeep of their parish and work to realise its existence. Too often, it is the clergy that have to take all the responsibility and, becoming accustomed to doing so, view any attempt to wrest that responsibility (particularly in leadership) with suspicion on the grounds that the laity have the right intentions but the wrong ideas.
We therefore have boiling away here a mutual distrust between clergy and laity. One way to get around this is for dialogue between priest and people. The priest must remember his duty of service and spiritual guidance for the laity. He is a facilitator, educating the laity into the ways of the church that they may serve faithfully and trustworthily in the Traditions of the Church and thus fulfil their innate desires to serve God as an individual in a community.
The priest is the father of the community, hence his title as “father”. Yet fatherhood is quintessentially a status of relationship than a status of absolute authority. God the Father is precisely so because of the existence of God the Son. The Son obeys His Father and the Father supports His Son. In the Son we see the Father and the Son is given the right to reign over his Father’s Kingdom. The leadership is shared because the Father trusts the Son and the Son obeys the Father. This should be the model for our parishes. There is plenty of evidence of female leadership in the Church, indeed in Ss Catherine of Siena, Hildegard of Bingen, Hilda of Whitby and Theresa of Avila. In them is obedience and the result is trust in their leadership.
The Church does not need new Puseys, Newmans, Hookers, Kebles, Lauds, Gardiners or Cranmers or any other inspirational figure to start a new movement within the Church to bring it together. It does not need Fresh Expressions, Messy Churches, or innovation after innovation after innovation. All lt needs a laity educated in and faithful to Scripture, Tradition and Right Reason who will rejoice in their lay-status and support the man that God has chosen to act as alter Christus at the altar. We need a laity who are willing to invest in the parish in union with their secular lives in order to reap the fruits that God will give them. We also need a priesthood that is comfortable in its service to the laity to allow that laity to grow the Church and guide it according to the Law of Almighty God.
Individualism leads to atomism and anarchy. Honouring the individual in the context of the Church under the love of God leads to harmony with the Divine and the building up of the Kingdom of God.
“How many winds of doctrine have we known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking. The small boat of the thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves - flung from one extreme to another: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism and so forth. Every day new sects spring up, and what St Paul says about human deception and the trickery that strives to entice people into error (cf. Eph 4.14) comes true.”The 20th Century has been a crucible of ideologies, testing them to breaking point. Aristotle’s theory of virtue as the middle way between extremes has been tested to the uttermost as Man has struggled to work out who he is, and in doing so has endured some of the most abominable suffering that he has caused himself as he has effectively torn himself apart in his investigation.
What we have been left with in the West is a strange notion of equality as people have tried to free themselves from the shackles of oppressive regimes. Empire, Reich, Republic and Communism have pushed each other out of the way in offering alternatives to human beings who seek to end their oppression and find genuine freedom to be themselves.
What has emerged in the West is Equality.
Equality has affected the Church as the tensions about the proposed ordination of women and the sacramental marriage of practising homosexuals have been introduced or thrown out or debated or caused splits. It seems that for every ideology seeking equality, there is a church. What is behind this equality? I wonder whether the answer is a struggle for the individual to define himself as an individual in amidst other individuals. Society is becoming more atomic as people seek to assert their distinctiveness as individuals.
For example, if we look carefully at the purported Ordination of Women issue, we do have to ask why women want to be ordained in the first place. The objection to the exclusive priesthood of men is the belief that God can call women as equally as He can call men. There are times when the clergy can seem like a self-important clique hiding behind robes and prayers and wielding power over the souls of the laity. If this is true then it is wrong – fundamentally wrong – and it is perfectly reasonable that women should object to being lorded over. Given that God calls men to be priests and not women, there is certainly an apparent imbalance in the way that women perceive their relationships with God and the Church.
It has been said that God calls men to be priests and women to be mothers. Often this is rejected on
the grounds that women want to be seen as beings beyond their biological functions. It is also rejected on the grounds that men already have a biological function in becoming fathers of the children that are born from their wives. One also notes that comparatively few men are called to be priests in comparison with a large majority of women become mothers. There is something very particular in being called to be a priest and something very common to being a mother.
And yet this attitude does denigrate an undoubted miracle which causes human beings of all stripes to stand back in awe and amazement as a new life is brought into the world. One cannot and should not belittle birth, nor should one belittle being a mother. Motherhood is a commonplace miracle.
St Thomas Aquinas reminds us of the duality between life and Sacrament.
“Now, in a bodily and natural life three things are necessary of themselves, and a fourth incidentally. For first, by generation or birth a thing must receive life; second, by growth it must arrive at its due size and strength; third, both for the preservation of life acquired by generation and for growth nourishment is necessary. And these are of themselves necessities for natural life, because without these bodily life cannot be perfected; wherefore, one assigns to the vegetative soul which is the principle of life the three natural powers: that of generation, that of growth, and that of nourishment. But, since there can be an impediment to natural life from which the living thing grows weak, a fourth thing is incidentally necessary; this is the healing of the sick living thing.As a man can be an ikon of Christ, so a woman can be an ikon of the church. Christ is the groom and the Church the bride as we read throughout the testimony of the Lord’s teaching. A mother brings to birth a baby; she nurtures it, she feeds it, she mothers it. Of course, fathers play a big role in the development of offspring even though they lack the physical make up to be as effective. It cannot be denied that men can feed a baby, but artificially so; men can nurture a child, but the bond that comes from bearing a baby in the womb is uniquely female and is carried through birth. This does not in any way deny that a single father can bring up perfectly adjusted children, but there is a lack. Children have been conceived by two parents and they benefit most with each parent making an investment in their welfare. That investment, however, is going to be peculiar to each parent.
Thus, then, in the spiritual life, also, the first thing is spiritual generation: by baptism; the second is spiritual growth leading to perfect strength: by the sacrament of confirmation; the third is spiritual nourishment: by the sacrament of the Eucharist. A fourth remains, which is the spiritual healing; it takes place either in the soul alone through the sacrament of penance; or from the soul flows to the body when this is timely, through extreme unction. These, therefore, bear on those who are propagated and preserved in the spiritual life.” (Summa contra gentiles IV.lviii.3-4)
There is, however, more to humanity than progenesis and men and women experience in life. Equality of fatherhood and motherhood is meaningless even though there are very obvious rights and responsibilities that are shared with being a parent of a child.
The key to the modern notion of equality lies in the whole system of rights and responsibilities. We cry for equal rights for all, desiring that everyone be treated equally and that everyone plays an equal part in society. The idea is perfectly reasonable: if we wish to function properly in our society we should make an investment in that society that is in keeping with what we can provide for that society so that we can draw from it fruits that we desire from it. If we want more, we must invest more.
The whole issue of equality arises from the many instances in which some draw out from society more than they put in, while others’ investment is eroded. True equality lies in the balance between investment and fruition.
The ordination of women is a case in point. Female Christians have a true, honest and fervent desire to love and serve God in exactly the same measure as any man. Yet they see no potential fruit in the Church which will meet with the investment that they innately desire to make, except within the vehicle of the Sacred Priesthood. Yet, many men have exactly the problem. These folk come to God with their willing and honest sacrifice only, like Cain, do they have it rebuffed.
The objection for the women is that it is a rejection on the grounds of sex, whereas for men turned down for the priesthood it is something else. It is here that the comparison with women priests and male mothers seems more reasonable. The passion and desire to make the investment is not enough to realise the outcome; the necessary machinery for realisation is not there and cannot be there for ontological reasons. To obtain the desired fruit would mean a complete change in whom one really is. Far from ratifying the individual, it would destroy it. Exactly the same issue underlies many problems within the Church and within Society.
However, the outcome is still the same regardless of any underlying issue: one has been rejected and one’s desire to play a role has been spurned, not at the level of a genus, nor at the level of a species, but rather at the very nature of the individual itself. In the face to this lies the question ”what is one’s true vocation?” Where does this love of God, this desire to serve, this longing to be in participation with His Creation have its fulfilment?
The answer can only be found in a search in one’s life. Given one’s passion, what machinery is there that can indeed reify that desire and cause it bear the proper fruit of one’s investment. Rejection from the priesthood means a vocation within the laity.
It is the distinction between clergy and laity that seems to cause the majority of problems. The perception is that the clergy gain fruit more out of their investment than the laity. In the old days, the clergy were more intellectually qualified than the laity. The priests and monks were the wise men with “all the answers” the laity were those who worked and supported the church with their tithing and craftsmanship. Of course, this paints a particularly rosy picture of how life was and perhaps this is a little romantic, but it does have the seeds of the truth which we have lost.
It is very easy to be a passive Christian these days, especially in a Traditional Church where the priest says Mass and Office and everyone else sits apparently passive. Ideally, the laity should be praying the Mass with the priest, and prayer is not a passive activity but involves the focus of the mind and the heart. If, however, the Mass and the Offices are the only opportunities in which the Laity are engaged in the Church, then there seems to be very little to do. What has been forgotten is the idea of the priest as a servant of the servants of God – a title which these days seems only to apply to the Patriarch of the West.
What has been lost is an integrated society in which the parish church represents the worshipping part. The burning desire to serve God that many men and women feel is being subverted by the pressures of time and secular work. We might desire fervently to work for the glory of God, but find that all our efforts go in to reinforcing a secular machine which has no care for our church and our religious beliefs. The secular and sacred divide is essentially dividing our desires for a happy, God-fearing life in our society between God and Society. Our secular jobs take us away from devotion with the result that we either settle into our jobs and take a passive pew, or we resent our secular jobs and desire to devote our energy into serving the Church. For many, the Church is not as physically nourishing as it was when it was richer.
Here is the dilemma for the laity and also for non-stipendiary clergy. The laymen and women must be allowed ownership of the Christian Community of which they are members. This means that they must be responsible for the growth and the upkeep of their parish and work to realise its existence. Too often, it is the clergy that have to take all the responsibility and, becoming accustomed to doing so, view any attempt to wrest that responsibility (particularly in leadership) with suspicion on the grounds that the laity have the right intentions but the wrong ideas.
We therefore have boiling away here a mutual distrust between clergy and laity. One way to get around this is for dialogue between priest and people. The priest must remember his duty of service and spiritual guidance for the laity. He is a facilitator, educating the laity into the ways of the church that they may serve faithfully and trustworthily in the Traditions of the Church and thus fulfil their innate desires to serve God as an individual in a community.
The priest is the father of the community, hence his title as “father”. Yet fatherhood is quintessentially a status of relationship than a status of absolute authority. God the Father is precisely so because of the existence of God the Son. The Son obeys His Father and the Father supports His Son. In the Son we see the Father and the Son is given the right to reign over his Father’s Kingdom. The leadership is shared because the Father trusts the Son and the Son obeys the Father. This should be the model for our parishes. There is plenty of evidence of female leadership in the Church, indeed in Ss Catherine of Siena, Hildegard of Bingen, Hilda of Whitby and Theresa of Avila. In them is obedience and the result is trust in their leadership.
The Church does not need new Puseys, Newmans, Hookers, Kebles, Lauds, Gardiners or Cranmers or any other inspirational figure to start a new movement within the Church to bring it together. It does not need Fresh Expressions, Messy Churches, or innovation after innovation after innovation. All lt needs a laity educated in and faithful to Scripture, Tradition and Right Reason who will rejoice in their lay-status and support the man that God has chosen to act as alter Christus at the altar. We need a laity who are willing to invest in the parish in union with their secular lives in order to reap the fruits that God will give them. We also need a priesthood that is comfortable in its service to the laity to allow that laity to grow the Church and guide it according to the Law of Almighty God.
Individualism leads to atomism and anarchy. Honouring the individual in the context of the Church under the love of God leads to harmony with the Divine and the building up of the Kingdom of God.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Your church?
Your church is near
you.
Your church is for
you.
Your church invites
you.
Your church needs
you.
I saw this on a local CofE Church noticeboard. What do you
make of it? I wonder what the locals make of it. Its major failing is that it
does require people to think and I wonder how many in our locale want to expend
the intellectual energy in fathoming it out.
The main question one asks of this sign is, “for what
purpose?” This can be added to each of those statements and I wonder if the
church itself can answer that. This, of course, goes for all churches,
parishes, missions and congregations of whatever stripe or colour or expression
of Christianity.
Your church is near
you for what purpose?
What good is it for a church to be near when people vote with their feet and with their car tyres? People these days shop for churches and find one that they like best. It may be the Holy Spirit guiding them, but it might also be the spirit of one’s preference. Of course, the perfect parish doesn’t exist and if it does, we shouldn’t join it! Yet, if there is such a great disparity between parishes that one can exercise choice, does this choice extend to what one believes? If there is a difference between what two parishes believe, can one be sure that this difference does not compromise one’s salvation? If not, then at least one of the parishes is heretical. What really counts is whether a church is near Christ rather than whether it is near an individual.
What good is it for a church to be near when people vote with their feet and with their car tyres? People these days shop for churches and find one that they like best. It may be the Holy Spirit guiding them, but it might also be the spirit of one’s preference. Of course, the perfect parish doesn’t exist and if it does, we shouldn’t join it! Yet, if there is such a great disparity between parishes that one can exercise choice, does this choice extend to what one believes? If there is a difference between what two parishes believe, can one be sure that this difference does not compromise one’s salvation? If not, then at least one of the parishes is heretical. What really counts is whether a church is near Christ rather than whether it is near an individual.
Your church is for
you for what purpose?
In what sense can a church be for you? This ought to have an easy answer. The Church of God lifts up the chalice praying, “We here present to thee, O Lord, the Cup of Salvation : and of thy mercy grant that in the sight of thy divine majesty it may ascend as a sweet-smelling savour for our salvation, and that of all the whole world. Amen.” The Body of Christ was broken for us. The Church of God is for all of Creation, not just for individuals. How does the church exhibit that desire to save the whole world? How does it suffer with suffer with God at the rejection of His love? How does it seek to call people back to Him?
In what sense can a church be for you? This ought to have an easy answer. The Church of God lifts up the chalice praying, “We here present to thee, O Lord, the Cup of Salvation : and of thy mercy grant that in the sight of thy divine majesty it may ascend as a sweet-smelling savour for our salvation, and that of all the whole world. Amen.” The Body of Christ was broken for us. The Church of God is for all of Creation, not just for individuals. How does the church exhibit that desire to save the whole world? How does it suffer with suffer with God at the rejection of His love? How does it seek to call people back to Him?
Yet, the words “for you” have several interpretations. “For
you” could mean “on your behalf”, “for you to use”, “stands with you”. Of
those, only the former really makes sense for the Church. The Church does not
stand with anyone who preaches hatred and evil, but, like her creator, must sit
and wait indefinitely and in pain for that person to repent and return. The
Church is not something to be used for one’s pleasure since this puts the
individual’s use above God’s purpose.
Your church invites
you for what purpose?
One is often wary of invitations. Each advertisement is essentially an invitation to the consumer to try a product, and yet it would be a foolish consumer to try that product out without knowing what it is at the very least! “We invite you to stick your face in this fan” is not likely to meet with many takers (one would hope none!). So there must be some clear purpose in inviting people in and, for a church, this would have to be the Christian Faith. A church that invites people in to experience the Christian Faith must produce just that if it intends to keep people there. A church that is not clear about what it is inviting people in for may as well be advertising sticking one’s face in the fan.
One is often wary of invitations. Each advertisement is essentially an invitation to the consumer to try a product, and yet it would be a foolish consumer to try that product out without knowing what it is at the very least! “We invite you to stick your face in this fan” is not likely to meet with many takers (one would hope none!). So there must be some clear purpose in inviting people in and, for a church, this would have to be the Christian Faith. A church that invites people in to experience the Christian Faith must produce just that if it intends to keep people there. A church that is not clear about what it is inviting people in for may as well be advertising sticking one’s face in the fan.
However, will a church alter the product to suit the person
coming in? Or will it alter the product to get people to come in? If so, then
this runs the risk of gaining the world but losing the soul. If we invite
people to the Last Supper, will they meet Christ? How can we be sure?
Your church needs you
for what purpose?
Again, many people can be very suspicious of this statement. If the above three questions have not been sufficiently answered then the materialistic mantra of “what’s in it for me?” raises its head. For a materialist, what the Church offers is nothing at all. There is no worldly gain that comes from going to church other than meeting people and getting a warm glow at family functions. One does not need the Church to supply social opportunities or happy thoughts and many people seem to be able to find exactly these things elsewhere.
Again, many people can be very suspicious of this statement. If the above three questions have not been sufficiently answered then the materialistic mantra of “what’s in it for me?” raises its head. For a materialist, what the Church offers is nothing at all. There is no worldly gain that comes from going to church other than meeting people and getting a warm glow at family functions. One does not need the Church to supply social opportunities or happy thoughts and many people seem to be able to find exactly these things elsewhere.
Of course, the local church needs a congregation to survive
and, without the support of those dedicated to its growth, it will shrivel and
die. This is more of a material need of the church. Yet the church needs only
God to provide and if He does not want to provide then one must accept that.
One then does have to question what provision God is giving and to what
purpose. He will not give anything of true value to those who are simply not
following His commandment. Even in times of dearth and famine, one can find
that spring of living water welling up within from Christ Jesus himself. If
that is not there, then there is a problem. We hear from Our Lord that, “Except
a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die,
it bringeth forth much fruit.”
A church must expect death in order for it to grow but only
in the right circumstances. The seed planted in the ground is the Body of Christ
Himself which, when raised, procured the Resurrection and Salvation for the
Church. Death can only be followed by life if one participates in the life,
death and resurrection of the Lord. This belief has to be central to the being
of a church and indeed a reality for that church, not just a theory, a nice
idea, or a clever story. Jesus really existed, really died and really rose
again. If a church is not convinced of that, it cannot convince others.
The trouble with the English language is that it has lost
any distinction between “tu” and “vos” i.e. singular and plural. When it
says “your church” does it mean “ecclesia
tua” or “ecclesia vestra”?
If the former, then I have already written about this before in conjunction with what it can mean to be "for you".
I like signs that make me think!
Sunday, July 14, 2013
What a shame! Or What, a shame?
Sermon preached at Our Lady of Walsingham and St Francis, Rochester on the Sixth Sunday After Trinity and at St Augustine’s, Canterbury on the Seventh Sunday after Trinity.
Would you like to be on the telly?
Really?
For many of us,
the prospect of seeing ourselves on the box
is not actually a happy thought;
for others
it would be the best thing imaginable.
Suppose, however,
that you actually did see yourself
on the telly.
How would you feel?
Would you cringe?
Why?
For many of us,
seeing ourselves in photos
or on video
is an unpleasant experience.
After all,
we see ourselves in a different light
from our usual experience of life.
Our internal life
is confronted with the external reality.
We stand outside looking at ourselves
rather than watching the world from within.
Suddenly
we are given the opportunity to see ourselves
as others see us.
It is then that we are confronted
with what we don’t want to see in ourselves,
and that makes us cringe.
The trouble is,
opportunities to see ourselves from the outside
are very, very few to come by.
If they’re a rare occurrence,
then perhaps we have nothing to worry about.
Now do you really believe that?
[PAUSE]
If the thought of being on television
appals us for fear of seeing ourselves as we really are,
then it’s clear that we have some sensation
of shame about ourselves.
Shame is a bit of a taboo word in society today.
We’re not supposed to be ashamed;
we’re supposed to be ourselves and be proud of it.
Most of the time, that’s all very healthy.
We should indeed look to love ourselves.
When Our Lord tells us to love our neighbours as ourselves,
He is assuming that we love ourselves in the process.
However, many of us don’t love ourselves,
at least, not properly, and this will need to be addressed.
However, what then is this thing called shame and why do we feel it?
[PAUSE]
Our shame comes from the sense
that there’s something wrong.
We don’t want to appear on television
because we will appear
to be wrong.
We’ll say something stupid,
trip and fall over
or end up making a fool of ourselves
in front of Simon Cowell.
Shame has to do with personal standards.
If we’re fussy with our grammar
then we feel a blush of shame
at a misplaced apostrophe
or writing “could of” instead of “could have”.
To have shame means we have personal standards.
Of course, it could be that our personal standards are wrong.
In His ministry,
our Lord Jesus seeks to shame
the Pharisees and Scribes for their own good.
He exposes their personal standards and values for what they are.
The Pharisees pride themselves
on knowing and keeping every single little bit
of the Jewish Law.
Knowing this,
Our Lord says, “Woe to you,
scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin,
and have neglected the weightier matters of the law:
justice and mercy and faith.
These you ought to have done,
without leaving the others undone.”
He measures them by their own standards.
If they are going to keep the law,
then they must obey the whole law,
in spirit as well as in front of everyone.
“Love thy neighbour as thyself”
is as much part of the Jewish Law as tithing.
It’s not a new commandment,
and yet,
the Pharisees push that conveniently out of the way
so that they can make a big show
of giving their contribution
of garden herbs.
It is this embarrassment
that will fuel the Pharisees into engineering
the death of Jesus.
They do not like being under scrutiny
– they see themselves as above that sort of thing.
No-one is above scrutiny.
Just like everyone on the television,
we are all under scrutiny.
Every action and word and thought
are known and understood by God.
He discerns our thoughts from afar.
He knows the very hairs on our heads.
He knows everything that
we have done
even down to the very intention of our heart.
Who doesn’t find that disturbing?
Why is it disturbing?
Because we are ashamed of our wrong-doing.
Because we have failed to be the person,
who deep down, we really want to be.
We know that there are standards
and we know that we have fallen short of them.
Our shame is an honest reaction
to our sinfulness
- not just the failure to live up to our own standards,
but to live up to God’s standards.
As Jesus shows us,
intending to hurt someone
is as bad as committing the deed.
To call our brother, Raca
–worthless –
shows us up for not valuing others
and loving them as God intends us.
It is our shame at our wrongdoing that alerts us to the need for forgiveness.
It is the shame that
we aren’t the person that we want to be
that alerts us to the need to love ourselves
and others
in the way that God intends us.
It is the pricking of our conscience.
So what do we do when we feel some sort of shame?
[PAUSE]
Our Lord tells us the answer.
“Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar,
and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
Leave there thy gift before the altar,
and go thy way;
first be reconciled to thy brother,
and then come and offer thy gift.”
Notice what’s being said here.
It isn’t saying “if someone’s done you wrong, go and make peace.”
It’s “if you think you’ve done something wrong to someone, go and sort it out straightaway.”
God’s priority is on loving one’s neighbour before our liturgical duties.
The Pharisees put their law first, not love,
their perceptions of self-worth before God’s true values.
[PAUSE]
Of course,
some of us still feel guilty about things
that we’ve been forgiven long ago, even in confession.
Some of us have learned to hate ourselves.
If that’s true, then that’s usually the Devil reminding us about our sinful past.
It’s the Devil spreading the lies into our hearts mixed in with great portions of the truth, trying to convince us that we are worthless.
The truth is that God is love
and desires not the death of a sinner,
but rather that the sinner repent and live.
If we’ve truly and honestly confessed and repented
and made good amends,
then we have nothing to fear.
God DOES forgive sins.
We can be sure of that.
If the Devil reminds us of our past,
then remind him of his future!
We can be made clean by God if we are willing.
Do you still burn with shame rather than with love?
Would you like to be on the telly?
Really?
For many of us,
the prospect of seeing ourselves on the box
is not actually a happy thought;
for others
it would be the best thing imaginable.
Suppose, however,
that you actually did see yourself
on the telly.
How would you feel?
Would you cringe?
Why?
For many of us,
seeing ourselves in photos
or on video
is an unpleasant experience.
After all,
we see ourselves in a different light
from our usual experience of life.
Our internal life
is confronted with the external reality.
We stand outside looking at ourselves
rather than watching the world from within.
Suddenly
we are given the opportunity to see ourselves
as others see us.
It is then that we are confronted
with what we don’t want to see in ourselves,
and that makes us cringe.
The trouble is,
opportunities to see ourselves from the outside
are very, very few to come by.
If they’re a rare occurrence,
then perhaps we have nothing to worry about.
Now do you really believe that?
[PAUSE]
If the thought of being on television
appals us for fear of seeing ourselves as we really are,
then it’s clear that we have some sensation
of shame about ourselves.
Shame is a bit of a taboo word in society today.
We’re not supposed to be ashamed;
we’re supposed to be ourselves and be proud of it.
Most of the time, that’s all very healthy.
We should indeed look to love ourselves.
When Our Lord tells us to love our neighbours as ourselves,
He is assuming that we love ourselves in the process.
However, many of us don’t love ourselves,
at least, not properly, and this will need to be addressed.
However, what then is this thing called shame and why do we feel it?
[PAUSE]
Our shame comes from the sense
that there’s something wrong.
We don’t want to appear on television
because we will appear
to be wrong.
We’ll say something stupid,
trip and fall over
or end up making a fool of ourselves
in front of Simon Cowell.
Shame has to do with personal standards.
If we’re fussy with our grammar
then we feel a blush of shame
at a misplaced apostrophe
or writing “could of” instead of “could have”.
To have shame means we have personal standards.
Of course, it could be that our personal standards are wrong.
In His ministry,
our Lord Jesus seeks to shame
the Pharisees and Scribes for their own good.
He exposes their personal standards and values for what they are.
The Pharisees pride themselves
on knowing and keeping every single little bit
of the Jewish Law.
Knowing this,
Our Lord says, “Woe to you,
scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin,
and have neglected the weightier matters of the law:
justice and mercy and faith.
These you ought to have done,
without leaving the others undone.”
He measures them by their own standards.
If they are going to keep the law,
then they must obey the whole law,
in spirit as well as in front of everyone.
“Love thy neighbour as thyself”
is as much part of the Jewish Law as tithing.
It’s not a new commandment,
and yet,
the Pharisees push that conveniently out of the way
so that they can make a big show
of giving their contribution
of garden herbs.
It is this embarrassment
that will fuel the Pharisees into engineering
the death of Jesus.
They do not like being under scrutiny
– they see themselves as above that sort of thing.
No-one is above scrutiny.
Just like everyone on the television,
we are all under scrutiny.
Every action and word and thought
are known and understood by God.
He discerns our thoughts from afar.
He knows the very hairs on our heads.
He knows everything that
we have done
even down to the very intention of our heart.
Who doesn’t find that disturbing?
Why is it disturbing?
Because we are ashamed of our wrong-doing.
Because we have failed to be the person,
who deep down, we really want to be.
We know that there are standards
and we know that we have fallen short of them.
Our shame is an honest reaction
to our sinfulness
- not just the failure to live up to our own standards,
but to live up to God’s standards.
As Jesus shows us,
intending to hurt someone
is as bad as committing the deed.
To call our brother, Raca
–worthless –
shows us up for not valuing others
and loving them as God intends us.
It is our shame at our wrongdoing that alerts us to the need for forgiveness.
It is the shame that
we aren’t the person that we want to be
that alerts us to the need to love ourselves
and others
in the way that God intends us.
It is the pricking of our conscience.
So what do we do when we feel some sort of shame?
[PAUSE]
Our Lord tells us the answer.
“Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar,
and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
Leave there thy gift before the altar,
and go thy way;
first be reconciled to thy brother,
and then come and offer thy gift.”
Notice what’s being said here.
It isn’t saying “if someone’s done you wrong, go and make peace.”
It’s “if you think you’ve done something wrong to someone, go and sort it out straightaway.”
God’s priority is on loving one’s neighbour before our liturgical duties.
The Pharisees put their law first, not love,
their perceptions of self-worth before God’s true values.
[PAUSE]
Of course,
some of us still feel guilty about things
that we’ve been forgiven long ago, even in confession.
Some of us have learned to hate ourselves.
If that’s true, then that’s usually the Devil reminding us about our sinful past.
It’s the Devil spreading the lies into our hearts mixed in with great portions of the truth, trying to convince us that we are worthless.
The truth is that God is love
and desires not the death of a sinner,
but rather that the sinner repent and live.
If we’ve truly and honestly confessed and repented
and made good amends,
then we have nothing to fear.
God DOES forgive sins.
We can be sure of that.
If the Devil reminds us of our past,
then remind him of his future!
We can be made clean by God if we are willing.
Do you still burn with shame rather than with love?
Sunday, July 07, 2013
An Alternative to the CofE?
I just posted this on the Anglican Catholic Blog. I believe that my Church is a credible alternative to the Church of England for all those who hold Catholic tradition and Anglican identity as being important to the Christian Faith and believe that these have been eroded by recent developments within the C of E.
In the comments, as Fr Anthony says, the ACC has the prospect of building upon the foundations, not by the polemical argumentation which is somewhat passé, but by seeking new ground to be as innovative as the CofE but holding tightly to what we believe. This comes through prayer and humility, learning from our mistakes, reflecting on how unfit we are for purpose and putting our entire trust in the Love of God which we desire to promulgate. The first resort is prayer, the second is honest toil. May the glorious majesty of the Lord our God be upon us: prosper thou the work of our hands upon us, O prosper thou our handywork!
In the comments, as Fr Anthony says, the ACC has the prospect of building upon the foundations, not by the polemical argumentation which is somewhat passé, but by seeking new ground to be as innovative as the CofE but holding tightly to what we believe. This comes through prayer and humility, learning from our mistakes, reflecting on how unfit we are for purpose and putting our entire trust in the Love of God which we desire to promulgate. The first resort is prayer, the second is honest toil. May the glorious majesty of the Lord our God be upon us: prosper thou the work of our hands upon us, O prosper thou our handywork!
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Paul and PoE
Sermon preached at Our Lady of Walsingham and St Francis on 23rd June 2013 and at St Augustine’s Canterbury on 30th June 2013
In your experience,
why do you think people choose not
to believe in God?
Is it because they can’t see Him?
Because they don’t want to be told what to do?
Because Science somehow explains everything?
It’s arguably true
that the reason that most people
do not believe in God is
because “bad things happen to good people”.
Most people lose their faith in God
because they experience some excruciating agony
or witness the agony of others
and believe that they do not receive
the slightest respite from God.
They receive rather
a seemingly continuous barrage of misfortune
coupled with a divine silence.
God says nothing at all,
or at least,
that’s how it appears.
It’s true to say that we’ve all felt that silence.
It does seem reasonable
to want to hold God to account
when an accident hurts us or someone we love
and we don’t know why.
The Psalmist says,
“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Why art thou so far from helping me,
and from the words of my roaring?“
Indeed the psalms
are filled with complaints about injustice
and God’s apparent lack of interest.
“Why standest thou afar off, O LORD?
Why hidest thou thyself in times of trouble?”
Can there be a satisfactory answer to these complaints?
[PAUSE]
Well, many people have tried to give answers
to God’s silence at our suffering,
but they often tend to be glib
and unsatisfactory
especially in the light of the appalling
and relentless suffering
that people go through every day.
Every time we try and see
where God might be,
we come back to the nature of our pain.
That’s the trouble with pain.
It’s very difficult to ignore
if not impossible.
Pain of any sort has a nasty tendency
not just of being deeply unpleasant
but demanding our immediate
and undivided attention.
When you stub your toe,
the next few minutes are usually spent
hopping around and saying a few choice words
until the pain subsides.
That’s okay when the pain goes away quickly.
But what if it stays?
[PAUSE]
Pain is a natural response.
If we feel pain
whether it be physical, emotional, or even spiritual,
then it is a sign that something is wrong
and needs to be put right for it to cease.
When we can put things right,
then we feel better and life can continue.
When we can’t,
then we’re stuck with feelings
that we desperately seek an end to
but have no power to end them.
This just adds pain to pain.
Insult to injury.
If we are mindful of our dependence on God,
then we rely on Him to control the uncontrollable.
If He does not take away our pain,
then we are tempted to reject Him
under the belief that He has rejected us.
We are tempted to cease to care about Him
because He has apparently demonstrated
that He does not really care about us.
Our suffering,
or the sight of someone else suffering
can tempt us to see things amiss.
Our vision narrows to the point
where nothing else matters.
Not only can we not see the bigger picture,
we could even deny the bigger picture even exists.
Like Job we are tempted to curse God and die.
The suffering of every single innocent person,
of men, women and children,
so many little children,
causes us heartache to the point
of losing our faith in God.
[PAUSE]
During his persecution,
St Paul tells us,
“I reckon that the sufferings of this present time
are not worthy to be compared
with the glory which shall be revealed in us.”
St Paul reminds us to hang on to the hope of Heaven.
This is a man who has been whipped, beaten, stoned, shipwrecked
and he sees it all as unworthy of Heaven.
If there is no Heaven,
then all the pain and misery of millions
is purposeless, meaningless and cruel.
St Paul tells us to look upwards to Christ Himself.
[PAUSE]
One day we will stand before God.
We will stand before Him
covered in a mass of scars and wounds and marks
caused by all the sufferings of our lives,
some of our own making
and some made by Life's injustice.
And He will look upon
our hurts and anguishes,
the times we have cried at the injustice of the world,
the times we have screamed out in pain
or sobbed into our pillows,
the times we have crawled with hunger
upon the floor of the desert
or watched another die,
all these scars etched onto our being,
and He will not remove
any single little one of them.
[PAUSE]
What He will do make
each single little wound on our being
shine like the greatest jewel,
the most sumptuous diamond,
the most precious gold.
The suffering is not worthy to be compared
with the glory that is to be revealed in us,
in our wounds which cover our souls.
The suffering itself will cease;
it will pass away like chaff in the wind.
The scars that remain
God will cherish,
especially if these are wounds of love.
And God Himself will show us His scars
burning brighter than the Sun:
one in each hand,
each foot
and on His side.
The scars that His Resurrection body still bears.
He shared His humanity with us
with all its pain, heartache and crushing misery,
so that we might share His Divinity with Him.
[PAUSE]
This does not explain why we suffer as we do.
This does not explain
why bad things happen to good people.
All we are presented with is the Cross,
and the hope of the Resurrection behind it.
If there is an answer to the problem of Evil,
where will we find it?
Do you think knowing the answer
would really make the pain go away?
In your experience,
why do you think people choose not
to believe in God?
Is it because they can’t see Him?
Because they don’t want to be told what to do?
Because Science somehow explains everything?
It’s arguably true
that the reason that most people
do not believe in God is
because “bad things happen to good people”.
Most people lose their faith in God
because they experience some excruciating agony
or witness the agony of others
and believe that they do not receive
the slightest respite from God.
They receive rather
a seemingly continuous barrage of misfortune
coupled with a divine silence.
God says nothing at all,
or at least,
that’s how it appears.
It’s true to say that we’ve all felt that silence.
It does seem reasonable
to want to hold God to account
when an accident hurts us or someone we love
and we don’t know why.
The Psalmist says,
“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Why art thou so far from helping me,
and from the words of my roaring?“
Indeed the psalms
are filled with complaints about injustice
and God’s apparent lack of interest.
“Why standest thou afar off, O LORD?
Why hidest thou thyself in times of trouble?”
Can there be a satisfactory answer to these complaints?
[PAUSE]
Well, many people have tried to give answers
to God’s silence at our suffering,
but they often tend to be glib
and unsatisfactory
especially in the light of the appalling
and relentless suffering
that people go through every day.
Every time we try and see
where God might be,
we come back to the nature of our pain.
That’s the trouble with pain.
It’s very difficult to ignore
if not impossible.
Pain of any sort has a nasty tendency
not just of being deeply unpleasant
but demanding our immediate
and undivided attention.
When you stub your toe,
the next few minutes are usually spent
hopping around and saying a few choice words
until the pain subsides.
That’s okay when the pain goes away quickly.
But what if it stays?
[PAUSE]
Pain is a natural response.
If we feel pain
whether it be physical, emotional, or even spiritual,
then it is a sign that something is wrong
and needs to be put right for it to cease.
When we can put things right,
then we feel better and life can continue.
When we can’t,
then we’re stuck with feelings
that we desperately seek an end to
but have no power to end them.
This just adds pain to pain.
Insult to injury.
If we are mindful of our dependence on God,
then we rely on Him to control the uncontrollable.
If He does not take away our pain,
then we are tempted to reject Him
under the belief that He has rejected us.
We are tempted to cease to care about Him
because He has apparently demonstrated
that He does not really care about us.
Our suffering,
or the sight of someone else suffering
can tempt us to see things amiss.
Our vision narrows to the point
where nothing else matters.
Not only can we not see the bigger picture,
we could even deny the bigger picture even exists.
Like Job we are tempted to curse God and die.
The suffering of every single innocent person,
of men, women and children,
so many little children,
causes us heartache to the point
of losing our faith in God.
[PAUSE]
During his persecution,
St Paul tells us,
“I reckon that the sufferings of this present time
are not worthy to be compared
with the glory which shall be revealed in us.”
St Paul reminds us to hang on to the hope of Heaven.
This is a man who has been whipped, beaten, stoned, shipwrecked
and he sees it all as unworthy of Heaven.
If there is no Heaven,
then all the pain and misery of millions
is purposeless, meaningless and cruel.
St Paul tells us to look upwards to Christ Himself.
[PAUSE]
One day we will stand before God.
We will stand before Him
covered in a mass of scars and wounds and marks
caused by all the sufferings of our lives,
some of our own making
and some made by Life's injustice.
And He will look upon
our hurts and anguishes,
the times we have cried at the injustice of the world,
the times we have screamed out in pain
or sobbed into our pillows,
the times we have crawled with hunger
upon the floor of the desert
or watched another die,
all these scars etched onto our being,
and He will not remove
any single little one of them.
[PAUSE]
What He will do make
each single little wound on our being
shine like the greatest jewel,
the most sumptuous diamond,
the most precious gold.
The suffering is not worthy to be compared
with the glory that is to be revealed in us,
in our wounds which cover our souls.
The suffering itself will cease;
it will pass away like chaff in the wind.
The scars that remain
God will cherish,
especially if these are wounds of love.
And God Himself will show us His scars
burning brighter than the Sun:
one in each hand,
each foot
and on His side.
The scars that His Resurrection body still bears.
He shared His humanity with us
with all its pain, heartache and crushing misery,
so that we might share His Divinity with Him.
[PAUSE]
This does not explain why we suffer as we do.
This does not explain
why bad things happen to good people.
All we are presented with is the Cross,
and the hope of the Resurrection behind it.
If there is an answer to the problem of Evil,
where will we find it?
Do you think knowing the answer
would really make the pain go away?
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Petertide and Petering out?
We sort of see his story repeated on TV shows like Britain's Got Talent when some hitherto unknown person comes on stage for the first time, performs magnificently, wowing the ever sceptical Simon Cowell, and rises to win the competition, the accolades and the praises of the nation. St Peter has won Gallilee's Got Faith and this little fisherman has become one of the inner circle that is centred on our Lord Jesus Christ.
We know that fame is fleeting and that it takes a very certain type of person whose name will outlive them by 50 years, so what about a couple of millennia? How does a fisherman become a household name in the West?
If the claim that Our Lord Jesus never in fact existed is true, then it's difficult to see how St Peter and St Paul, whose existence scholars do not doubt, gain the status above similar religious leaders of the time such as Honi the Circle Drawer. Indeed, we may have people like Joseph Smith and Joseph Rutherford who found religions with a basis on Christianity in the same way that it might be perceived that the Christians piggybacked on Judaism.
However, what is crucial is that, unlike Joseph Smith, or even the prophet Mohammed, St Peter is not the only witness to the Revelation nor is he the sole author of the texts that Christians hold to be definitive, truth bearing, and thus holy. His is a testimony among others, very much a primus inter pares, and that testimony is not a witness to his own doings but to the work of the Holy Ghost. He recognises in himself that he is not the author of the miracles at his hands, just as any priest is not the author of the miracle of the Eucharist. He is the leader of a group who have seen with their eyes, which they have looked upon, and their hands have handled, namely the Word of Life.
The Faith of St Peter is certainly the rock on which the Church has indeed been built. What has been perceived as a small apocalyptic cult has grown through the efforts of this man and his companions, and unlike similar cults of the time, it has grown remarkably! The other cults have now become obscure because they simply do not have the authority imbued upon them from God. These cults had no Peter, because they have no Christ. Thus have they petered out.
St Peter nonetheless remains a little fisherman. There is nothing about him that is substantially different from any of us, save that he has had first-hand witness to the Life of Christ, and yet more blessed are we if we believe if we have not seen! It is because of his humanity that we can count on St Peter to point out Our Lord Christ to us when we are faced with locked doors.
Holy Peter, prince of Apostles, pray for us and for the Church which you love.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Missing the Mission
As the countdown tentatively begins towards my priesting, I am struck by the size of the task ahead of me. First, there is the fact that my poor Bishop has again suffered a major blow to his health which does put a small question-mark over whether the ordination will go ahead as planned. He is adamant that it will, and so I remain confident that all will take place as the Diocese expects.
However, underlying this injury, there is something that is really bugging me. I am reminded of the text: "And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered." (St Mark xiv.27) Our Lord, in His inimitable fashion, is drawing us to the prophecy of Zechariah.
As Christians in the U.K., we do face an increasingly uphill battle to broadcast our Faith to a society that describes itself as post-Christian. The main trouble is that most people have a very straw-man view of what Christianity is about or take their superficial experience of it as being true of the whole. As I walk through the streets, youngsters shout, "praise the Lord!" intending to be ironic, but failing to realise that their flesh has just done that which they will not to willingly. Their assumption is that I am an evangelical Gospel preacher! I really don't think that I look like such a character. I've also been asked to bless a chap so that he can get back some money owed to him, as if God is a genie who specialises in bailiff duties.
The trouble is that so many people think they have Christianity summed up. While I appreciate that the Church has been indeed hypocritical and, at times, wholly unrepresentative of the God in which we believe, this doesn't render our Religion null and void. Indeed, our failings are predicted again and again in the very text that we hold dear. Christianity is all about the failure of humanity to be truly human and how it took God to show us how, not only by example, but also by giving us the opportunity to be perfected in Him. Even then, this is only a fragment of the situation.
There are just so many false assumptions that people make about Christianity. The Problem of Evil is indeed a problem that we all face, but it is also a problem for atheists as well as theists. Indeed, Alvin Plantinga has demonstrated that the Eurythphro dilemma has a plausible solution, reconciling the existence of evil with the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God. Of course, if an Atheist wants to prove the non-existence of God, the sure-fire way is to assume that God exists and show that this leads to a complete contradiction. I don't see many atheists taking that challenge up seriously.
If Christians are to present a good case to society, then the Mission must lie in challenging the assumptions that are being made. This means listening to the stereotypes, misconceptions and even the hatred that people have for what they perceive the Church to be. Yes, there are concerns with some of the ways things have been done and the Church will have to account for its errors, but those errors are not doctrinal, but rather political and pastoral.
What does the Lord command? To make disciples of all nations. To baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. And also...
What is interesting here is that there is no question of trying to convert people by browbeating. The disciples are called to be doctors, healing all those who are ill or in pain. The Mission is about being uplifting, bringing the Kingdom of God near enough to people for them to see it and have the option of taking it into themselves. It is a Mission of showing God to people and for them to recognise His image in themselves. Atheists like to tell us that we don't think they can be good. We know that this is not true but we must show them, not force them to accept precepts they don't care about.
This calls for an enormous amount of faith on our part, and it is something that we should pray carefully about, because God wants labourers for His harvest. We can possess all kinds of things which we believe will help us to do the task, but God sends us out without them asking us to trust totally in Him. Only then do we receive from God the gifts that He wants to give us which we cannot carry if we are already carrying the baggage we've brought with us hitherto.
So we see, we simply have to put our trust in God and watch Him at work in us, but somehow we need to go out and do something. Boy, that is such a frightening thought! But then, God is not expecting us to do it all at once. There will be a place for us where we have to stay. We have to be faithful to that place because in that place we will have all that we need to get by. Masses and sacraments are fundamental to our experience of the real and living God, but people need to know that they are available. Indeed, they have to be brought into the community as a sure outward sign of the grace that God gives us. We remember that the Church is a sacrament in itself.
It is clear that we are supposed to take our time, but we cannot bide our time always. Our prayer lives should be active and our listening profound. We must set aside things of which we have no immediate need and we need to trust God. We also need to remember that while the task is big for us, it is not so big for Emmanuel - God with us.
However, underlying this injury, there is something that is really bugging me. I am reminded of the text: "And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered." (St Mark xiv.27) Our Lord, in His inimitable fashion, is drawing us to the prophecy of Zechariah.
And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends. Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd , and the sheep shall be scattered : and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones. And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God. (Zechariah xiii.6-9)It's rather disconcerting to think that our shepherd has been smitten again, and this naturally calls us to question whether there is something going on spiritually. Is the ACC being smitten in order to be purified? Or is our witness becoming dangerous to those who would that the Word of God be suppressed? If you have seen The Omen (1976), there is a remarkably staged scene with a pane of glass which halts one protagonist from removing the devil-child from the Earth.
As Christians in the U.K., we do face an increasingly uphill battle to broadcast our Faith to a society that describes itself as post-Christian. The main trouble is that most people have a very straw-man view of what Christianity is about or take their superficial experience of it as being true of the whole. As I walk through the streets, youngsters shout, "praise the Lord!" intending to be ironic, but failing to realise that their flesh has just done that which they will not to willingly. Their assumption is that I am an evangelical Gospel preacher! I really don't think that I look like such a character. I've also been asked to bless a chap so that he can get back some money owed to him, as if God is a genie who specialises in bailiff duties.
The trouble is that so many people think they have Christianity summed up. While I appreciate that the Church has been indeed hypocritical and, at times, wholly unrepresentative of the God in which we believe, this doesn't render our Religion null and void. Indeed, our failings are predicted again and again in the very text that we hold dear. Christianity is all about the failure of humanity to be truly human and how it took God to show us how, not only by example, but also by giving us the opportunity to be perfected in Him. Even then, this is only a fragment of the situation.
There are just so many false assumptions that people make about Christianity. The Problem of Evil is indeed a problem that we all face, but it is also a problem for atheists as well as theists. Indeed, Alvin Plantinga has demonstrated that the Eurythphro dilemma has a plausible solution, reconciling the existence of evil with the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God. Of course, if an Atheist wants to prove the non-existence of God, the sure-fire way is to assume that God exists and show that this leads to a complete contradiction. I don't see many atheists taking that challenge up seriously.
If Christians are to present a good case to society, then the Mission must lie in challenging the assumptions that are being made. This means listening to the stereotypes, misconceptions and even the hatred that people have for what they perceive the Church to be. Yes, there are concerns with some of the ways things have been done and the Church will have to account for its errors, but those errors are not doctrinal, but rather political and pastoral.
What does the Lord command? To make disciples of all nations. To baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. And also...
After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come. Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest. Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves. Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way. And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house. And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again. And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house. And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you: And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. (St Luke x.1-11)
What is interesting here is that there is no question of trying to convert people by browbeating. The disciples are called to be doctors, healing all those who are ill or in pain. The Mission is about being uplifting, bringing the Kingdom of God near enough to people for them to see it and have the option of taking it into themselves. It is a Mission of showing God to people and for them to recognise His image in themselves. Atheists like to tell us that we don't think they can be good. We know that this is not true but we must show them, not force them to accept precepts they don't care about.
This calls for an enormous amount of faith on our part, and it is something that we should pray carefully about, because God wants labourers for His harvest. We can possess all kinds of things which we believe will help us to do the task, but God sends us out without them asking us to trust totally in Him. Only then do we receive from God the gifts that He wants to give us which we cannot carry if we are already carrying the baggage we've brought with us hitherto.
Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven. (St Luke x.19-20)
So we see, we simply have to put our trust in God and watch Him at work in us, but somehow we need to go out and do something. Boy, that is such a frightening thought! But then, God is not expecting us to do it all at once. There will be a place for us where we have to stay. We have to be faithful to that place because in that place we will have all that we need to get by. Masses and sacraments are fundamental to our experience of the real and living God, but people need to know that they are available. Indeed, they have to be brought into the community as a sure outward sign of the grace that God gives us. We remember that the Church is a sacrament in itself.
It is clear that we are supposed to take our time, but we cannot bide our time always. Our prayer lives should be active and our listening profound. We must set aside things of which we have no immediate need and we need to trust God. We also need to remember that while the task is big for us, it is not so big for Emmanuel - God with us.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Christianity: Meet the family!
Sermon preached at Our Lady of Walsingham and St
Francis, Rochester on Fathers’ Day 16th June 2013
In your opinion,
what is
the most important thing
a father has to have?
Does he have to be loving?
Kind?
Fun?
Able to change a dirty nappy
without the need for a clothes peg
on his nose?
Generous?
Firm?
Even-tempered?
Patient? Able to be able
to withstand being hit on the nose
by a well-aimed doll?
Actually,
the most
important thing a father has to have
is a child
in the first place.
You cannot be a father,
or a mother for
that matter,
without a child.
What makes a father a
father,
and a mother a
mother
is having someone to call son or daughter.
Of course,
it is the
quality of that relationship
that determines whether
you are a good father or mother.
Most of us would agree
that to be a
good parent,
you need to be loving,
kind and self-sacrificing,
and very, very patient.
Is it possible to be
loving,
kind, self-sacrificing and patient
and not be a
parent?
[PAUSE]
It is while Jesus is
teaching
Pharisees, Scribes and the general people
that someone
comes up to him and says,
"Behold, thy mother and thy brethren
stand without,
desiring to
speak with thee."
And Jesus makes the strange
reply,
"Who is my
mother?
and who are my brethren?"
He stretches out his
hand to His disciples and says,
"Behold my
mother and my brethren!
For whosoever shall do
the will of my
Father which is in heaven,
the same is my brother, and sister, and
mother."
So it seems that whoever is
loving
is indeed a
brother or sister
or even mother of Jesus.
The Lord is clearly talking about
a family
relationship that
He has with each of His disciples.
We might be able to
understand
what it is to
have the Lord as a brother,
but can we really see ourselves as His mother?
The Blessed Virgin cannot
be described
as anyone other
than Jesus' mother,
but she is
mother in a deeper sense
that just a
human family relationship.
She is Mother of God
and that fact
cannot be denied.
She is not the mother of
the just human bit of Jesus,
because the Lord's human bit and divine bit
simply cannot be separated like that.
In calling his disciples
his mother,
Our Lord is
not cheapening
Our Lady's relationship with Him
but rather extending her relationship with Him
to us.
If we are the Lord's brethren,
then Mary
becomes our mother too.
Nonetheless,
if we love one
another
-
which is the will
of God, after all,
we are His brothers,
sisters and mother.
But not father.
Why not?
[PAUSE]
To His local community
of Nazareth,
Jesus will
always be the son of St Joseph,
and yet have you noticed how little we hear
about St
Joseph after the Nativity stories?
It seems reasonable to
accept the tradition
that St Joseph
died before Our Lord started His ministry
and so ceases to be counted among the disciples.
It's also true to say that
whenever the
Lord mentions His Father,
He is referring to The Father
– God the Father Almighty,
Maker of
Heaven and Earth.
It seems, then,
that we can
never be regarded as Jesus’ Father
even when we are the best disciples
and this would be right.
The relationship between
God the Father
and God the Son
is utterly
unique in all of reality.
Even so, we know that
God the Father
cannot be a father without God the Son,
and God the Son cannot be a son
without the Father.
If the disciples can never
be regarded as Jesus’ Father,
why do priests
get called “Father”?
[PAUSE]
We know that Jesus teaches
to “call no man father”.
He thus denounces anyone
who seeks to be called “father”
simply for the respect and status that it appears
to give.
As we have seen, we can’t
even call God,
“Father” without realizing that He has a Son.
So to a good priest,
being called “father” can only call up
thoughts
of having
people for whom he has a duty of care.
When a good priest hears
“father”,
he hears
“father of whom?”
and remembers that he is under the direst penalties
if he fails
to look after anyone
whom the Heavenly Father
has entrusted to Him.
Those direst penalties will
come
from within the
priest himself.
A good priest truly loves
his congregation
as his own
flesh and blood.
It goes the other way too.
If we want good priests to
thrive in our Church,
then we have to support them fully in their
ministry
in the same way that a child would want
their good
father to be able to continue
to support
them.
The respect that comes with
being a father
is
fundamentally conditional on the love
that the father invests into his children.
Often, this is not always done and the results
are deeply painful.
Fathers and priests are not
perfect
and neither are
children and congregations.
That’s a fact and not an
indictment.
There are character flaws
and mistakes
and even the most grievous unkindnesses
that come
from the fallenness of our nature.
If we want our community
– our family –
to grow then both fathers and children
need to be aware of their duties to each other.
Tolerance of each other’s failings goes both
ways;
patience goes
both ways;
respect goes both ways,
and, of course,
love goes both ways.
The more love we invest in
our family,
and this does
mean our family in God,
then the more that family makes
the love of
God real in our society.
[PAUSE]
It may be a tiny Church in
which we worship,
but is its very existence not proof
of the love of the Heavenly Father
and the love of human beings
committed to the family?
How can we help that love to grow?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
