Vision on, vision off

Sermon preached at Our Lady of Walsingham and St Francis on Trinity iv 2012 based on St Luke vi.36

Rolf Harris is painting a picture. It’s one of those large scale works on an orangey-ochre canvass upon which he daubs thick black paint. He’s putting patches here, flicking paint there and generally moving faster than an octopus after fifteen cups of coffee. You can bet your boots that when the picture is still practically unrecognisable, he’ll turn to the camera and utter the immortal phrase, “can you tell what it is yet?”

How would you feel if he just stopped there, the painting unfinished, and you with no clue as to what it is? Is it a hamster in a cage, a picture of Pope Innocent X, or some landscape from the Australian outback? Don’t you find that just infuriating? What can you do with an unfinished painting?

[PAUSE]

The infuriation comes because we’re not in a position to see fully. We can’t get into Rolf’s mind to “tell what it is” because he hasn’t finished communicating with us. His picture tells us something and until it’s finished, we’ve not got a clue.

Well, that’s not true. We’ve got some ideas. First of all, there doesn’t appear to be a recognisable figure at the moment. This makes it unlikely to be a portrait of Pope Innocent X. We can’t rule that out though. That bit there looks like a bit of fence, so it’s more likely to be a landscape of the Outback. So there are some things that we can say about this picture with confidence. We might not be certain, but we have a good idea.
[PAUSE]
Science works in much the same way. We collect data and information from measuring carefully. We make and test predictions and there is a lot that we can say about our world. However, there are limits to what our instruments tell us, so we cannot know things for certain. We can however, be confident that our theories are reasonable, give a clear picture of what we observe and produce results that we can predict some future events.
That’s how we live much of our lives - taking in what’s around us and making judgments on what we see. But what if there’s something wrong with your eyesight?
[PAUSE]
Losing your glasses can be a frightening affair. Things become vague and distorted. You get some impressions of the world around, but they are not accurate. Nonetheless, if you see what you think is going to be a ditch then you still try to avoid it where possible. Likewise, if you see someone heading for what you believe to be a ditch, you can still warn them to look out. What you may not be able to do is judge the size of the ditch accurately. Someone could conceivably come closer to that ditch than you are comfortable viewing.
If you are completely blind to the ditch, then you can say nothing. As Our Lord Jesus says, “Can the blind lead the blind? Shall they not both fall into the ditch?”
Why then do we forget this principle in the way we live our lives?
[PAUSE]
If we see our worst enemy standing over the dead body of our best friend with a smoking pistol in his hand, what can we say? What would our witness statement to the police be? Well, obviously we can say nothing more than what we have seen, despite our feelings and emotions in the situation. We didn’t see the murder, but that’s assuming that it was a murder in the first place. We make too many assumptions based on what we’re feeling. Our view has been narrowed to what we believe to be one possible scenario. If we are honest, then we can only say what we see and no more. Our vision is not good enough to judge and we have to leave the judgment to one more competent than ourselves.
Our Lord Jesus tells us that we cannot make judgments until we appreciate the limits of what we can see. We need to be humble, looking at ourselves objectively and honestly so that we do not pass judgment on what is beyond our field of vision.
If we truly know that our vision is limited then we know that we have to trust someone to lead us in the right way. The idea of trusting another is not a popular idea – we prefer to rely on our own judgment.  Humility tells us that we can’t always rely on our judgment and that we must seek help from others who see things better. Going to Church becomes of great importance for help and encouragement along the way. We need to go to Church to feel our way through life in our blind spots, to help and to be helped.
[PAUSE]
Suffering, too, can narrow our vision too far for us to see God at work. In our times of extreme pain and suffering, all the more do we need to cry out for God for the ability to cope with our blindness.  Indeed, part of our pain is in not being able to see the end of the suffering or its purpose. It is easy to lose sight of God when we at our lowest ebb because his purposes are veiled from our sight and we lose heart. In looking to the cross of Christ and His suffering for us, we see another who lost the vision of God’s goodness and His promises. That doesn’t mean that suddenly they vanish, they have been eclipsed for a while.
[PAUSE]
As Christians, we have been given a vision of our life beyond, where all human suffering is suddenly given explanation, transformation and dignity in the Eternal presence of God. That vision is not perfect – we see only through a glass darkly - but we have a good idea of God’s Holy Word. How can we make sure that we clearly see what He is showing us?

St John the Baptist: Breathing the Orders of Prophecy

Today marks the Nativity of the Birth of St John the Baptist, the last great Old Testament Prophet who, ironically, features exclusively in the New!

It is also a time on which many Bishops ordain Deacons to the Sacred Priesthood. One such example is my good friend Fr Anthony Chadwick who celebrates the anniversary of his Priesting today. Here I  would like to publicly thank him not only for his ministry in France but also beyond to the wider world, and for his kind words and prayers for me.
The Church has often spoken of her Prophetic and Priestly ministries: she has Priests who offer the prayers of the people to God, and she has Prophets who speak the word of God to the people. Pope John Paul II spoke of the "two Lungs of the Church" being the Orthodox and Roman Churches. I'm not quite sure whether I agree with that statement entirely - I would need to think a little more on it - but I would certainly see the Prophetic and Priestly ministries as being the visible breathing of the Church. The Church breathes in the Holy Ghost in the Priestly ministry and breathes out the Holy Ghost in the Prophetic. I wonder then whether the two lungs of the Church are Holy Scripture and Tradition which operate with the diaphragm of Right Reason!

Now these Offices are part of the whole Catholic Church and thus every Christian participates in both the priestly and prophetic. In some sense, all Christians without exception have a priestly ministry of offering prayers to God every day and participating in the life of the Church through Sacrament and Fellowship - koinonia. There can be no exceptions for this because each Christian is to love both God and neighbour and to intercede for all Christians. In the Traditional St Augustine Prayerbook, there is a lovely litany for the Night in which a Christian may exercise a form of the priestly office by praying on behalf of those who have said no prayers and even to offer praise for those who have blasphemed or ignored God. We have the assurance that God hears the prayers of His Church and He will answer those prayers insofar as the free-will of man will allow.

But there is the Prophetic office too. How is a Christian to participate in this ministry? It is the duty of every Christian to discover the Will of God, to seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness and having made that discovery to share it somehow. This does mean speaking out. It means speaking out for justice, for mercy, for truth and for charity. It means speaking out for those who have no voice. Too often the Church is perceived as speaking out against something as if it sees every development as being negative or evil. This is not always the case and people very often mishear, though perhaps Christians have not been very good at proclaiming what they are for.

The trouble is that the zeal for our house does not consume us in the same way that it consumes Our Saviour when He throws the money changers out of the temple. It is often because that zeal is not Catholic, it is not for everyone but seeks to exclude. As I said in another blog post, the Church is for everyone, because God is for everyone. Yet, our zeal has the habit of promoting a god who is not necessarily the God in Whom we believe. Our bickering often reflects a lack of belief in an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent God and the times that this has been demonstrated in the past is horrifying.

There are times when I sympathise with the late Christopher Hitchens when I hear of Christians being thoroughly beastly to each other and to the outside world. The god in whom he doesn't believe is a god in whom I do not believe, either, to paraphrase Dr Alister McGrath! I saw on Facebook a post from the Vatican explaining the decision by Dr Williams to step down from being the Archbishop of Canterbury. The first comment on that post was the single word "Heretics!"  However, I must also confess readily and to my shame that I have not been the best representative for God - in fact I often wonder whether I've done more harm than good! I am truly thankful for Romans viii.28!

However, we should remember that the Hebrews find the Ten Commandments as truly positive Laws which promote true love, peace, equality and generosity. We must ensure that our Prophetic message is truly positive and seeks to build up individuals and societies, to preach peace rather than hatred, to offer the hand of friendship rather than to denounce, and to seek to embrace rather than to push away even when we are faced with something that is truly abhorrent. Christ throws the money-changers so that people can enter the Temple to worship God. His zeal brings light to those whose lives had been darkened by the detritus of sin which He casts out. We are often called to be Christ in the darkness of the world, whether or not we are ordained. Our zeal needs to be Holy, positive and fully grounded in the Love of God if it is to be seen as true Prophecy.

Of course, the Prophetic ministry is not always popular and many prophets (St John the Baptist included) have suffered for it. This still happens and is certainly happening within Continuing Anglicanism, though this seldom ends in summary execution. It seems that many in society want the lungs of the  Church to breathe the wrong way - to breathe in the spirit of the world and then breathe it out in the face of God, like cigarette smoke! Many faithful priests have been left high-and-dry on account of their prophecy and have been hurt because they have dared to stand against a flow which they see as being contrary to the will of God. How do they know? Because they have used their connection to the lungs of the Church, Scripture and Tradition. True Prophecy requires education of the conscience, participation in the Church, and zeal to accept the consequences of receiving the Prophecy.

It is at this point that I must now announce the fact that the Anglican Catholic Church has discerned within me a vocation to Holy Orders and that Bishop Damien Mead will (subject to the Divine will) ordain me Deacon on Michaelmas Day (29th September) this year. I am deeply honoured and humbled to be receiving this ministry and look forward to seeing where God is leading me in His Service in His Church which I love. From what I have written above, I hope that I have demonstrated why I feel very unworthy of such a calling. I expect to work hard for Christ and to be beaten regularly by Sin, the World and the Devil, but I know I have the support and love of Holy Church. I pray that God would give me the ability truly to extend that support and love to those to whom I am sent.

Neither Male nor Female: A study in foolishness

Let's start here.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

What do you make of this?

It's verse 28 from the third chapter of St Paul's letter to the Galatians. What does it say to you?

We have three mutual antitheses, Jew/Greek, slave/free, male/female, which "are all one in Christ Jesus". Now, what can this "one" be? Does this mean that these antitheses become completely identified in Our Lord Jesus? Is that the same thing as unification? Well, one thing we do know about Our Lord is that He is Himself the union of two antitheses - the Divine and Human natures. Now these natures are one in Christ, but completely different. They remain antitheses, but are completely united. Thus we can understand that being one in Christ does not mean complete identification. Antitheses remain antitheses - they are not made identical or interchangeable by unification.
Now, let us pull back a little bit, because this verse does exist in context.

Chapter three begins with "O foolish Galatians". The Galatians have been bewitched by the Judaizers into believing that obeying the old Jewish Law is the root to Heaven, not by being united in Christ, that in order to be saved it is necessary to be Jewish. The Galatians are being taught by the first heretics that belief in Christ does not include the idea that He is the fulfilment of the law, thus diminishing the significance of the Cross. Indeed, as St Paul tells us in this chapter, if one holds to the Law, then one cannot believe in Christ as the Son of God. Under the Law, Jesus is a cursed criminal, executed upon a cross. Salvation comes through Christ, not through membership of a privileged community based on the Law of the Old Testament. On the contrary, adherence to Jesus as Christ creates a community of those who are redeemed through His blood and who are working out their Salvation with fear and trembling. It is adherence to Christ as King that defines Christianity, not the Jewish Law.

However, being Jewish does not rule out Salvation, but neither does being a Greek, or more properly, Gentiles. Likewise, a slave being subordinate to a master does not lose the potential for Salvation on the grounds of being a slave, similarly, being a master does not rule one out for salvation. There is a caveat to this latter, since St Paul then goes onto say how masters are to treat their slaves that subservience to Christ rules out slavery in favour of mutual service. Finally, the separate rules for men and women do not stop either sex from being part of Christ's community.

Notice that there is no "confusion of the substances" here. Greeks in Christ remain Greeks, Slaves in Christ remain Slaves, Women in Christ remain Women. This is about Salvation - who can be members of Christ's body. There is nothing here, in this third chapter, that says anything about how the Body of Christ is to be arranged. This chapter cannot be used to justify interchangeability of clearly defined entities. God does and has discriminated, though not to set up one group as being any better than another - just different. Slavery in the large has passed away because of the teaching of Christ about the value of individuals, and where slavery still exists, it is regarded by the majority as an evil.

Galatians iii.28 is constantly being trotted out to defend the notions of homosexual marriage or women's "ordination". We can see that the verse has absolutely no significance with regard to these issues. Those who believe it has, are reading into these verses that which is not there and eisegesis is not a good way to understand what a Scripture actually says. One must take context into account and too often the verse is taken out of that context.

Why not read all of the letter to the Galatians so you can see the overarching context for yourselves? That way we can stop ourselves from falling into the same foolishness.

Broken bones and broken hearts

The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken , and that they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.
St John xix.31-37

Why is it so important to us that Our Lord's bones weren't broken? We have the prophecies of the Old Testament: Psalm xxxiv.20 tells us, "He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken" and  from Zechariah xii.10

"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced , and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."

Thia might seem like a good prophecy about Our Lord's heart being pierced, but wait! What about:

"Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice ." (Psalm li.8)

or

"Israel is a scattered sheep; the lions have driven him away : first the king of Assyria hath devoured him; and last this Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon hath broken his bones ." (Jeremiah l.4)

or

"My flesh and my skin hath he made old ; he hath broken my bones." Lamentations iii.4.

Why don't these work as prophecy for Christ's suffering? Is the Bible covering both bases. If they had broken Jesus' legs would these verses be trotted out as Biblical "proof"?

What is very interesting is that the broken bones all refer to the consequences of sin and the concomitant punishment. David was punished for his adultery and his repentance is summed up in Psalm li. In Jeremiah, Israel is punished by her apostasy and her bones are broken by the Babylonians.

What is more interesting is the passage from Lamentations. For the majority of the book, the "I" refers to Israel toiling and labouring in the exile and yet we read of more Biblical prophecies of Christ's sufferings, "Is it nothing to you...?", "the wormwood and gall". Again, the bones are broken as the result of Israel's transgressions. The breaking of bones is the punishment of the guilty.

Now if we look at the suffering of Our Lord, perhaps we begin to see the significance of what He has done for us. His bones are not broken because He has no sin, yet it is his desire to identify himself with transgressors. This points to a deep fact about the atonement: God does not punish Jesus instead of us; Jesus takes the inevitable punishment of our sins upon Himself willingly. As we watch the jeering of the crowd around the cross, we see folk so infected with sin that they don't know what's they are doing! No wonder our rebuke breaks His heart. In fact, it does so literally with the point of a spear.

Further, we may also see the bones as being a type of the Covenant which we have with God. Human beings continually break the Covenant and suffer as a result of it in the same way that we suffer when we break bones. The only human being who does battle with the Devil and survives without breaking bones is Christ. It is the soft flesh of His heart that is broken in His compassion for us.

It is through this wound that we enter into Christ Himself. What a price!

Catholicism: Not a church for anyone

I do honestly puzzle over the meaning of a certain thesis-antithesis pairing which seems to affect the Church these days. What does it really mean for a church to be inclusive? For that matter what does it mean for a church to be exclusive? Why is inclusivity good? Why is exclusivity bad?

Many of us have suffered from being involuntarily excluded from an event which we would dearly loved to have enjoyed. Some people find themselves excluded from society because of reasons of accident, and our Lord Jesus did indeed reach out to those whom Society excludes. How many times do we hear in Holy Scripture of the need to care for the Orphan, the Widow and the Stranger, the Deaf, the Blind and the Lame, the Leper, the Poor and the Unclean. Notice how these have all been excluded passively. Their exclusion is the result of something happening to them.

There are others who have been excluded too whose exclusion does involve a choice that they have made, for example the Prostitute and the Tax Collector. Notice how, as Christ includes them, they find reasons not to be what they once were.

Thus, inclusion into the Church necessarily is a life changing aspect. For many their circumstantial needs are met and their dis-eases attended. For others, there is a discovery of self-worth and a realisation that their lives can be made better by being included into the Church of Christ.

Yet this is quite a pivotal idea. Inclusion into the Body of Christ requires the desire to be transformed, and that transformation is not something we control. Inclusion into the Church of Christ means that we have to give up the full control of our lives. While this may mean the end of the pain of our previous existence, it also means an end to that within us which causes that pain to recur. Inclusion in the Church of Christ is solely on His terms, not on ours.

The Church is certainly inclusive but it is also exclusive. Simply speaking, it excludes all those who don't want to be included.

Can we be this simple though?

The problem lies in this word "Catholic". There is a tension in how people interpret it. Literally it means "according to the whole". People interpret it as "universal" and again there is an equivocation. Does Catholic mean "for everyone" or does it mean "for anyone"?

There's a big difference: "for everyone" implies the general, "for anyone" implies the particular.
"For everyone" demonstrates a general principle applicable to the whole as a whole. "For anyone" demonstrates a general applicable to the whole as a particular. The statement "ice creams for everyone" (i.e. "everyone can have an ice cream") is different in meaning from"ice creams for anyone" (i.e. "anyone can have an ice cream").  The first implies that each and every person actually gets an ice cream, the second still has the possibility that individuals have the ability to refuse.

The Catholic Church is not for anyone. It's for everyone!

A Church that is for anyone is a Church that caters for the desires of particular individuals. This initially sounds fine, after all God cares for the individual, and the Church must follow her Lord, but what if the individual does not want to follow the Lord, at least not in the way the He desires? If the Church is for anyone, then the dissenting individual is not only welcome but needs to be catered for. We then have a Church in which those who do not wish to be transformed are allowed not to be transformed. This is a clear contradiction to what the Lord Jesus wanted. As we demonstrated above, membership of the Church entails a desire to be transformed according to the will of the One who Created. If Sin is indeed the mortal sickness of humanity leading to Eternal Death and the Church the Hospital, how can the infection be controlled if the Hospital is not kept as clean as possible. The infection is common to us all and we all suffer from the effects of Sin. We cannot therefore include those who not only refuse to be healed but also desire to keep the infection alive.

An Inclusive Church is therefore for everyone and, by "everyone", we mean all the Faithful, the Living and the Dead - after all, Death is no barrier to those who believe he Church to be the vehicle to Eternal Life. This relationship seeks true unity with Christ and with others all together, not the acceptance of ways of life which do not seek the transforming power of Christ.

If that's what makes the Catholic Church exclusive, well then, it is exclusive, but that does not mean that it is not for everyone!

The Skeleton of Conservatism, Fleshly Liberality and Procrustean Polemics

Well, as the exam season has its hiatus, I have the opportunity to blog again. When I have moved on from being in charge of exam administration, I'll be able to concentrate more on writing for this blogling and elsewhere, I hope.

It's the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. For me, all things Monarchist have somewhat lost their appeal since my move from the CofE. While I regard Her Majesty very much as my Governor and one deserving of my loyalty, I am no longer part of the state religion and rather find myself on the fringes looking in at the pageantry of which I once had some ownership.

I will be honest and say that I miss singing in cathedral choirs. Having heard Walmisley in D Minor and Wood in the "Fridge" recently, my memories have gone back to when I had a decent voice and a choir in which I could sing. However, my conservative beliefs have thrust me from places of great spires and vast organs into small chapels and upper rooms. One might say this is my own fault. Indeed it is my choice, but one that I should have made much earlier, despite the pain of not being able to sing again that wonderful Amen in Balfour-Gardiner's Evening Hymn.

I am very much a conservative in the real sense of the word. Mathematicians and Physicists speak of conserved quantities such as energy and momentum and use them to simplify what can be particularly nasty equations. Holy Tradition runs through the Body of Christ as its skeleton which has joints where it can bend and bones where it cannot. The trouble is that bones are hard, and when one hits bone, it hurts!

When I was fighting my battles all too Quixotically in the CofE, people accused me of seeing things only in black and white and not the shades of grey. Perhaps they were right so to upbraid me for those times when I overstated my case, but not all areas are shades of grey: some areas are black and white! Of course, in the CofE there were no such areas of black and white. I still do not understand how it is possible for a Christian priest to deny the existence of God or of the Virgin Birth, or to subscribe to the Creeds without believing them. Conservatism provides a framework which, though not immovable, supports a rigid structure and gives shape to our faith and our relationship with God.

There is, however, a rather worrying trend among conservatives now to use that rigid structure as a club with which to beat dissenters. I seem to get a picture of the bone-wielding apes at the beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey when I see some of the polemics that seem to abound on the internet. I notice that several of my online friends and contemporaries have ceased blogging because of all the negativity that is being expressed about the varying states of Anglicanism. There are shrill voices smashing some folk with "Extra ecclesia nulla salus", others with the XXXIX articles, others with Montanistic mantras, and still others with what amounts to a "be one of us or go to Hell" mentality though not always specifically defined. Perhaps this is what the com-boxes attract.

I have said many a time that the Church has only ever been given the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, not the keys to Hell. One of the Angels has these in the Book of Revelation and the implication is clear that judgment is only carried out by the Divine when judging individuals. I have also been lucky in that this little blogling does not have the readership of others, nor does it possess the intellectual kudos or scholarly learning of my contemporaneous blogs. I have thus fallen under the RADAR of some of the most spirited polemicists whose desire, it seems, is to foist their brand of Catholicism on others.

Once can understand to some extent whence they come. Many are like me, refugees from a body which has given up orthodoxy in order to pursue and synchrete modern secular standards. I have been most fortunate to find myself a place where I can not only grow, but really do feel myself growing. Others do the same. However, the fragmentation of the Orthodox into separate and rather disharmonic bodies, means that, in order to convince themselves that they have made the right decision in their move, some folk take up the trumpet and produce shrill discordant notes which drive more folk away than encourage others to join. The need to justify the move means that some go from the apologetic to the polemic and to the effective demonisation of the place they left. It is, however, tempting to do that and perhaps I am guilty of such behaviour too.

I maintain my stance that the Ordinariate is a marvellous place to be if one is happy to cease being Anglican but retain something of the substance of what Anglicanism possesses. I do, however, not believe that the Roman Catholic Church is THE One True Church in its entirety. Only God can say what the One True Church is; only God can say who are truly priests; only God saves, though Salvation is indeed integral to the Church. There is no point, then for the Ordinariate bound, to attack Continuing Anglicans for not being true Catholics when they should realise that true Catholicism is the driving principle of the Continuum. Nor should they attack Continuing Anglicans for their "alphabet soup" existence, especially in the light of recent interdenominational ecumenism. The Ordinariate is younger than Continuing Anglicanism and its future not known, though I pray for its flourishing just as I pray for the flourishing of the Anglican Continuum, especially my own beloved diocese.

Yet likewise, Continuing Anglicanism should not be attacking the Ordinariate-bound who have managed to find some integrity with which they can live, considering that they too have had to sacrifice much in order to pursue Orthodoxy. There is much that those who dissent from the secularism of the CofE have in common, and it seems strange that such polemics exist. These polemics are still the vestiges of the battle lines between Anglo-Catholics, Prayerbook Catholics and Anglican Papalists. Yet, how on earth does one win souls by polemic? One doesn't. Polemics ultimately attempt to force the Body of Christ onto the bed of Procrustes, taking pleasure in lopping off the bits which don't fit.
There really needs to be a liberality between all folk who call themselves Anglican. So far we have sniping, trolling, litigation and expulsion as being the major participles resulting from the interactions between Anglicans.  I no longer have to fight my corner with the CofE. Having left them to ordain whomsoever they please and use whatever liturgies they choose with their concomitant theologies which are not always compatible, I find myself thinking more about housekeeping and evangelising.

Good housekeeping is essential if one is preparing to invite others to come in. Fortunately, the Benedictine rule does flesh out this practice with its wonderful tightrope walking between extremes. How Aristotle would have loved St Benedict! Only in St Benedict can we find living in tension made practicable; corporate prayer is built in with private prayer, heads have to be in the clouds and down-to-earth, everyone is to be regarded as superior and yet there is one Superior.

If one truly wants to be conservative, then one must guard against atrophy and look for the soft, yielding flesh which covers the bone. If one regards oneself as liberal, then one must guard oneself against becoming amorphous and seek rigidity which gives the Body of Christ its distinctive shape. The Christian has to learn to live in tension with the two. Surely, this is easy since we live our human existence being precisely the union of soft flesh and hard bone every day of our lives. Since Christ shares our human nature, we need to look to him to show us how His Body works for the good of all Humanity. If Christ rejoices in our Humanity, then so should we. That doesn't mean chopping ourselves to bits in the process.

One Human Being in a Multiplicity of Persons

Sermon preached at Our Lady of Walsingham and St Francis for Trinity Sunday 2012.
Text:  Apocalypse iv.

Why is the liturgical colour
               for Trinity Sunday not Rose,
                        or at least a sort of light reddish-pink?

We only see Rose vestments
           twice a year in Advent and Lent.

Why not Trinity Sunday as well?

After all,
       we remember God the Creator
                in the weeks before Lent,
                       that’s violet.

We remember God the Saviour
          at Easter and that’s white,
               and last week
                     we remembered God the Sanctifier
                               in the Red of Whitsun.

 Violet, White and Red together
            make an interesting Reddish,
                       Rosy Pink.
Seems quite reasonable, doesn’t it?
Let’s be clear: today is Trinity Sunday.

We may think about God,
             Creator,
             Saviour
             and Sanctifier,
                       but what we have not heard used
                             is the phrase:
                                 Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

That’s important.

It’s very important,
         and it’s something we human beings
                  can and do miss
                          if we are not careful.

So what’s the problem?

[PAUSE]

You’ve in the process
              of meeting a new friend
                   and you’ve just uttered the first question
                             “Hello! How are you?”

 Your new friend
              has just told you her name is Elizabeth
                      and that she’s very well.

What’s your next question?

Well, chances are, you’ll say,
              “and what do you do?”

 It’s very natural and quite reasonable.

No-one is going to take any offence
                 at that question, are they?

But why do we go straight
                to asking what someone does?

What answer would you expect?
         “I’m a lawyer,”
          “I’m a doctor,”
           “I test the taste of cakes for Mr Kipling.”

It’s a rather good question to ask,
          “what do you do?”
                 because it opens up a conversation very nicely
                         without probing into anything
                                unnecessarily deep too soon.

However, as the days,
             weeks and months move on,
                        you begin to know Elizabeth better than that.

She doesn’t just test cakes for Mr Kipling;
            she paints portraits in oils;
                      she jogs 3 miles a day to stop getting too podgy
                                 from tasting all those cakes;
                                     she loves watching Desperate Housewives
                                              but can’t ever watch Watership Down.

You learn more about her history,
          her philosophy of life and how she sees herself.

And so you’ve made a new friend for life.
In order to know Elizabeth better,
          we have to go beyond what she does.

As the rather over-used phrase says,
            Elizabeth is a Human Being,
                        not a Human Doing.

Do we treat God in exactly the same way?
Do we ever try to focus on Who He is?

[PAUSE]
God is our Creator, yes
         but that doesn’t pin him down
                   – He’s more than a Creator.

God is our Saviour,
     but that is only one (albeit vital) aspect
              of His interaction with us
                   and says too little of His character.

God is our Sanctifier,
           but that tells us nothing about Who He is,
                    save that His Presence makes things Holy.

He is God.

Indeed,
   to describe God just by what He does
              means we never get beyond finding out
                    Who He is.

Many Christians these days make a big mistake
             of not Baptising people correctly.

Our Lord Jesus commanded us
         to baptise in the Name
                  of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
                          not in the Name of
            the Creator, Saviour and Sanctifier
                    as some Christians do.

How does this give any depth
            to the new Christian’s initiation
                         into the family of God? 

If this is a family,
       then we’re beyond talk of what people do.

We don’t call Dad,
       Mr Machinery Operative at Balfour Beatty,
              or Mum,
                     Mrs Part-time Lecturer at the local Sixth-form College.

 We call them Mum and Dad,
                because that is what they are.

Our relationship with Mum and Dad
          is not about what they do,
                    though they do do an awful lot for us,
                         but it’s a relationship of being not of doing.

So it is with our Christian Family,
             we have a relationship of being with God,
                  and the Lord Jesus reminds us that
                        He knows us more intimately
                                than we can even ever know ourselves.

It is God who searches us out and knows us.

He knows our down-sitting
            and up-rising and discerns our thoughts long before.

Not only does God know us,
            but He wants to be known by us
                    and he promises us that one day,
                              we shall indeed see Him as He is.

Actually, He promises us more than that.

[PAUSE]

St John reminds us that seeing God as He really is
           has a profound consequence for us:

Beloved,
     now are we the sons of God,
          and it doth not yet appear what we shall be:
             but we know that, when he shall appear,
                   we shall be like him;
                         for we shall see him as he is.

We shall be like Him?

He is One God in Three Persons,
      Blessed Trinity.

How can we,
         little single persons,
                all individual, be like that?

[PAUSE]

If we look hard,
       we begin, perhaps,
              to see why Lord Jesus gave us
                     the second commandment,
                            to love our neighbours as ourselves.

  He tells us first of loving God
          with all that we are
             and all the faculties we possess
                  and then goes on to show that the same love
                        must be lavished upon those who are around us.

Both commandments are about relationships
      and forging those relationships.

In so doing we become like God,
     that is to say “one human being
          in a multiplicity of persons”.

How do you feel about that?

Does it make you a little uneasy?

Do you really want to be one
     with every human being who ever lived?

Aren’t there some human beings
       who do some horrible things out there?

God is always showing us
     how much He loves humanity
            no matter what.

He created us to be like Him
          despite our tendency to sin.

 While we are on this Earth,
      we are to walk with Him
           and with our brothers and sisters.

In this we find out more about who we really are.

In the Mass,
          we find that relationship with God
                    and others at its very deepest.

It is our destiny to be perfected,
          our sins destroyed,
          our brokenness healed,
          our weaknesses strengthened,
          our souls nourished.

We will never understand the depths of our own being,
    let alone God’s,
           but trying to understand
               and meditating on the Holy Trinity brings about
                    a deeper relationship with Him.

[PAUSE]

God is love and love makes us one.

In being one, we do not lose our individuality,
       but rather it is perfected
              by being in communion with God and others.

How much more do we need to love others
     in order to become more human?

Recognising the Angels.

Sermon preached at St Augustine's Church Canterbury on the occasion of their Patronal Festival 26th May 2012 based on I Thessalonians ii.8
Ebbsfleet station is not a place that one would normally associate with Saints. It sits in a rather remote area amid the urban sprawl of North West Kent, boasting a 17 minute trip to London and a 37 minute trip to Canterbury West. Buses shuttle the traveller into Gravesend or to Bluewater shopping centre. It all looks very modern, very stylish, very clean… and very soulless. It’s not the sort of place where you could imagine a rather nervous, saintly monk and equally twitchy entourage getting off the High Speed Rail Link from Paris onto the wind-swept, grey platform clutching a papal mandate to evangelise the Angels of the British Isles. Indeed, is there anything angelic about Ebbsfleet?

[PAUSE]

Of course, St Augustine’s Ebbsfleet is nearer Ramsgate than it is London, though history might be very different if he had been able to use the Eurostar. It would also have been very different if there had been the wrong kind of leaf on the line. The mission to the Angels of Angleland would be stranded at Paris Gare de Nord.

Yet, strictly speaking, it is St Augustine who becomes the Angel, after all, the Greek word Angellos means “Messenger” and what a message Augustine brings. This is a great irony about Augustine’s mission: he is an Angel to the Anglish Angels! There are more angles here than a icosidodecagon!
Of course, the area we now know as England was already Christian long before St Gregory saw the Angelic Angles in Rome. There were English Bishops at the Council of Arles nearly 200 years before Augustine and the famous heretic Pelagius was a priest here on these shores. It is the constant raiding and looting by the pagan Vikings and Arian Germans throughout the Roman Empire that have rather put paid to the integrity of Christianity in this country by the sixth century.  Christians have to live in isolated pockets in the West of the country or move to Wales or to Ireland.

Imagine that! Being part of a Church so ravaged by secular and pagan cultures that you’re reduced to worshipping in disparate parishes all around the country!

[PAUSE]

It does sound familiar doesn’t it?  Our Orthodox English Christianity that has existed from the beginning and which Augustine’s ministry re-invigorated, is now back to where it was, reduced to pockets here and there.

But let’s just hold on here! Is this really where we see ourselves fitting in? Do we really regard ourselves as the remnants of English Orthodoxy and thus sit back and wait for a new Augustine to arrive and reinvigorate us?

It’s tempting to think that way and to make parallels which don’t quite fit. Let’s just review things here. While we are growing, our size does make it difficult to thrive, this is true. However, this really does not mean to say we’re on our last legs unlike the ravaged Christianity of the 6th Century. What we do have is a robust structure already in place; we are just as established as the Church that Pope Gregory intended to found through St Augustine. The evidence for this exists in that we have an Archbishop who visits us and encourages us, that we have brethren all over the world in growing numbers and that we have members here who do commit themselves deeply to the Gospel.

It is clear that we shouldn’t see ourselves as needing the ministry of a new St Augustine: we are already called to emulate our Holy Founder in whose name this parish is dedicated for the greater glory of God and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. It is we who are called to minister to the spiritual needs of this country.  So what do we do? How do we express this calling? With St Paul, we have to be desirous of not only trying to impart our Gospel but our very selves to those to whom God has called us as ministers.

[PAUSE]
What was St Augustine called to do but to bring the good news to Pope Gregory’s Angels? In those Anglish slaves in the Roman market place, Pope Gregory recognises the Angels who need to hear the word of God. Likewise, there are Anglish angels in our midst who are slaves to the tyranny of this world and its secular values. There are folk around us who want to be free from servitude to a global and spiritual power which is determined to take away their humanity and replace it with some material worth through the lure of material things. We have to be honest, we are affected ourselves by this erosion of our faith by the secular. It is only because we meet together and are committed to Christ and to our Diocese that we are able to fend off the secular. We might be as fragile as St Augustine and his little band who stand on these shores with us albeit separated by the centuries, but all things are fragile compared with the might and the love of the God whom we preach.
The trouble is that very often we tend not to recognise people of Britain as being particularly angelic.  Can we honestly say  we know what Angels really look like? We might be forgiven for the confusion, after all, we only ever attribute the angelic look with some particular style of Gothic and Renaissance Art. Think of all those paintings of winged beings with classically beautiful features, long golden hair, large, liquid, languid eyes, wings that look beautiful but wouldn’t hold up an emaciated budgie and lustrous full lips which are usually employed in the playing of cornett, shawm or slide trumpet. Now think of the folk huddled on the windswept platform at Ebbsfleet, or the empty-eyed shoppers in the supermarket, or those aimless individuals pouring out of the pubs and clubs. Where are Pope Gregory’s angels for us to give the good news?

[PAUSE]

The fact is, Biblically speaking, angels are not readily recognised except through the eyes of faith. Even then, as in the case of St Raphael and his dealings with Tobias and Tobit, it is only when they reveal themselves or God reveals them to us. It is our job to maintain our prayers to God in our own personal life, not just in our corporate worship, for eyes to see Gregory’s Angels around us and for ears to hear the voice of their calling. It is our job to meet with Our Lord and to listen for His mandate which will bring us near those desperate to hear the Good News. They won’t necessarily hear it by what we say, but rather by what we do. The closer we are to God, the more he will reveal us to be the Angels for those who need the Love of God in their lives.

So who are the angels really? Is it those to whom we have been sent? Or is it we ourselves? Do you know?

Congratulations to a new Bishop

It is with much happiness that I've learned of an old friend's consecration as Bishop. The gentleman I first met on the old Anglo-Catholic Central message board as Fr Jerome Lloyd was consecrated Bishop in the Old Roman Catholic Church, Latin Rite in Canada yesterday. Bishop Lloyd has been a much welcome presence as a representative of Old Catholic views on the Anglican Diaspora and was very much a help during my sojourn in the wilderness of the CofE.

Please join me in praying for his work.

Gifts that will change your life.

My first sermon within the Anglican Catholic Church. It's been a long time since I have posted something under "Sermons" rather than "Homilies". I look forward to publishing more.

Text: St John xvi.5-15
Is there something special that you’d like for your next birthday? Is it something particular that you’ve been dropping hints to your family that you might like? A nice chocolate cake? A new mobile phone? A DVD of All Gas and Gaiters? No? Perhaps you’d looking for a new car, a 48” plasma television, a mansion in the Dales, or perhaps, perhaps you’d like a little peace and quiet… on a luxury cruise to the Algarve? Your family are more likely to be thinking along the lines of the first set of presents, aren’t they?

[PAUSE]
Suppose, however,  on your next birthday, there’s a knock at the door. It’s Geraldine the post lady and she’s got a package for you. After thanking her, you take your parcel into your house and read the label. “Happy Birthday,” it says, “This gift is going to change your life!”
This gift is going to change your life. How do you feel about that? You might think, “How on earth did they manage to pack my mansion in the Dales into that box?” Would you be a little afraid though? This gift is going to change your life. What might it be?
[PAUSE]
Surely, your main concern is going to be just how this gift is going to change your life. It’s okay if it changes it by making life a bit easier – a vacuum cleaner that sucks up the dirt rather than blow it all over the carpet – but what if it’s a gift that is going to play around with your very personality. What if it’s a gift that is going to change who you are? Does it worry you that you might not be the same person that you are now just by opening this present?

[PAUSE]
If you think way back to Septugesima Sunday, the third Sunday before Lent, we read the first chapters of Genesis and in them we read of the Creation of the world by God.  In all of these, we focus on what the Lord God does for us and the gifts that he gives us. In the beginning, we are given the gifts of existence, form, personality, reason and emotion and all the other aspects that make us who we really are. Everything comes from God the Father who forms the Source of all things. God looks at all He has created and it is very good. You cannot get a more life-changing gift than the gift of Life itself!

In little over three months, we have celebrated together two of the great festivals in the Church’s year. The celebration of the Lord’s Birth and the Holy Triduum of Easter. On both feasts we reflect on the gifts that God gives us. We are always encouraged to see this as God the Son giving us His gift.  And what is this gift? Nothing less than His very self. His life, death and resurrection have given us the gifts of health and salvation to return us to the fullness of the life that we lose because of our wrong  and sinful choices. Again, this is a profoundly life-changing gift. This gift of Christ’s new life is what we Christians call Grace.

Now, after His Resurrection, Our Lord Jesus is pointing us to a new gift from Heaven, another gift that will profoundly alter who we are. How will this gift change our lives?

[PAUSE]

“And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment”
Would you open a gift if it was going to reprove you of sin, righteousness and judgment?
Well, of course you would! You’re here in Church which means you are well aware of the worth of being shown sin and righteousness and judgement. We are in no different a situation from that of the disciples who, although they may not fully understand what’s going on, still want to open a gift that is going to make them aware of their sin, of the righteousness of Our Lord Jesus and their judgment at His hands.
The same is true for us. We are here to worship our God for the gifts He has given us. All things come from Him and of His own do we give Him. The Holy Ghost gives us the gift of sight, the ability to see God’s gifts for ourselves in our lives.
He convinces us of our sin. This is painful but, in recognising our sin, we become aware of our need for God. He convinces us of Our Lord’s righteousness, that His death and resurrection are absolutely adequate for removing that Sin. Finally the Holy Ghost convinces us of the return of Our Lord Jesus as our Judge, the One who will know how to stamp out injustice completely and rectify every evil committed.
[PAUSE]
However, the gift still needs to be received. In the midst of our busy lives and with all the cares of the world that are forced upon our attention, it is important that we continue to turn back to this gift anew. With Whitsun around the corner, we have to make the decision again this year. Do we really want our lives changed? Do we really want to be aware of how we stand with God? Do we really want to receive this gift that the Lord Jesus will send us after He ascends into Heaven? Well, do we?

The Apocryphal Destiny of Man

God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world: and they that do hold of his side do find it. But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and there shall no torment touch them. In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die: and their departure is taken for misery, And their going from us to be utter destruction: but they are in peace. For though they be punished in the sight of men, yet is their hope full of immortality. And having been a little chastised, they shall be greatly rewarded: for God proved them, and found them worthy for himself. As gold in the furnace hath he tried them, and received them as a burnt offering. And in the time of their visitation they shall shine, and run to and fro like sparks among the stubble. They shall judge the nations, and have dominion over the people, and their Lord shall reign for ever. They that put their trust in him shall understand the truth: and such as be faithful in love shall abide with him: for grace and mercy is to his saints, and he hath care for his elect.

Wisdom ii.23-iii.9

Among Anglicans, the Apocrypha receives mixed appreciation. Some will give it more weight than others. Officially, the Apocrypha adds no extra doctrine to the Church, but it does enhance the doctrine that can be found in the rest of Holy Writ. This passage from the Wisdom of Solomon is a wonderful example of that enhancement and just shows how the Old Testament gets bound to the New. St Paul himself probably reflects on these very words when he speaks of the destiny of mankind in his letters.

One of the dividing issues in Christianity is the idea of predestination. I cannot go with the Calvinistic interpretation of "once saved always saved" which doesn't really seem to mean anything until the death of the individual. Our Salvation is both corporate and individual; individual because our own humanity matters to God with its free-will; corporate because we are saved in unity with Christ in the Church. Human beings are destined to follow the same, almost paradoxical, quality of the Godhead. Oliver Clement describes the Church as one human being in the multiplicity of persons to mirror one God in a Trinity of Persons. An individual is saved because the Church is saved and the Church is saved because an individual is saved. Human being is a mystery in itself, even if we try to probe that mystery with neuroscience, anthropology and sociology.

It seems to be Man's quest to find himself and understand himself fully, and it is this very question that taxes his imagination. Can Man understand the reason why he wants to understand himself? Can he expect to find the answer to that within himself? Is the answer to that to be found within the individual, in a representative sample, or within mankind as a whole? The quest for self understanding is an ouroboros like the snake eating its own tail. It is self-consuming if all it does is perform an overinvasive introspection, and if something consumes itself, can we honestly describe that as a healthy state of affairs?

In this passage from Wisdom, we are also pointed towards a purgatory of a much more beautiful nature than as a place of punishment. To see Purgatory as a place of punishment is to view Salvation far too legally - in fact, that idea points more towards a stimulus-response relationship. The word Salvation has its roots more in the idea of health, rather than law. It is true to say with St Cyprian of Carthage that extra ecclesiam nullus salus since being part of the Church is a return to health. This is Purgatory, a return to full health in God.

The Church is very visible, but that is not to say that it is entirely visible for the same reason that the whole human nature is not visible. Those whom the Lord saves are part of the Church, thus St Cyprian's statement is more of a tautology if viewed legally. If viewed from the point of view of health, then one perhaps understand St Cyprian's aphorism as a call to find that very renewal within the broken society which the Church seems to comprise.

But we need to see the Church as an entirety. Those who have died are as much a part of the Church as those who are alive now precisely because the Church comprises of the people destined for perfection. The Church really does have a democracy of the dead because, although they seem to have died, her members are still extant and vital. The one who forgets this is the one who cuts himself off from the fulness of the Church and lives a half-life as a thin film between the past and the present whose existences he denies to be full.

To the one who has no concept of eternity, the sufferings of the Church and her members indeed look like punishments - arbitrary enforcements of a law as penal code. The route to the full health of a human being is the way of perfection and, considering that the Devil entices us to fight against that perfection, to take the easy route out and to regard our health as restrictive, unkind, intolerant and contrary to the happiness of the individual, we can see why the way of perfection is hard, painful and, at times, deeply depressing.

This passage in Wisdom is very clear because it encourages us to look out of ourselves. We can only find an ecstasy (i.e. a standing out from ourselves) if we are prepared to look out from ourselves, out from our existence, indeed out from our assumptions about our existence. If we cannot find happiness within ourselves, then it is because happiness is not just within, but without and not just without, but within.

Physicists postulate that 70% of the universe is "Dark Energy" which underlies the fabric of reality. It underlies all things, pervades all things, exists within a vacuum. Thus Science itself is pointing to something more to our existence which does not meet the eye, (or oscilliscope or Large Hadron Collider). All humanity possesses this tendency to perfection, this predestination if that's what you want to call it. It is our choice whether to accept that destiny in its fullest in the arms of God, or to the half-life of what we assume ourselves to be.

Archepiscopal Visitation

Just a reminder that the Most Rev Dr Mark Haverland, Metropolitan Archbishop and acting Primate of the Anglican Catholic Church is visiting the Diocese of the U.K.

It is a real joy to have him back on these shores and it would be wonderful if as many people would turn out as they can to welcome him as a show of traditional Anglican solidarity and confraternity. All information about his visit is here.

Future fractions and Ecclesiological Integrity

Looking at the state of Christianity in the U.K., one might be forgiven for not being very optimistic. Not only is there greater antipathy towards the religion more ingrained in our culture as evidenced in the Radio Times and the increasingly critical attitude of the BBC, but Institutional Christianity itself is changing quite rapidly.

Over the life of this blog, I've been commenting on the fragmentation that is occurring within the Established Church. The Ordinariate has certainly increased the speed at which parishes are leaving the CofE and, judging by the Ecclesiastical press, there are rumblings within Southwark Diocese because the top positions are filled by "liberal Catholics" (whatever that means) and the Evangelicals feel squeezed out.

The Partisan nature of the Established Church has been with it since the Elizabethan Settlement. It is interesting to note that the main political parties are struggling for domination of the centre-ground, while, ecclesiastically, the polarisation and estrangement is increasing and little is being done to at least encourage some sense of brotherhood between the parties.

The latest parish to join the Ordinariate described the CofE's attitude to them as telling them to "Sod off" [sic], the formal statement from the CofE is "we wish them well in their new home." I;ve been there myself and have personally experienced this "well wishing" which we know is just lip-service. There has been no attempt by any diocesan officials even to discuss the situation and offer some understanding, some little show of encouragement to stay or real regret that some parting might occur.

Forward in Faith are trying to hold together the CofE and Traditionalists in the Society of St Wilfred and St Hilda. The idea is to ensure the integrity of Anglican Orders by providing some enclave with Bishops, Priests and Deacons of the traditional mind-set for the Parishes that need them. The idea is certainly laudable in intention but overlooks the fact that the Bishops will be appointed by the CofE. Thus the Society's existence is entirely dependent on the goodwill of the CofE. Given the CofE's record, it seems that this goodwill will be supplanted by the strident voices of the liberals demanding total recognition of their changes. Can members of SSWASH be confident in the goodwill of the Established Church? Given that promises made to them in 1992 have been broken, this seems unlikely though not impossible and I will continually pray that they always have the provision they need. However, SSWASH would do well to ensure that it receives some concrete (and, regrettably, legally binding) assurance in writing!

What has to be appreciated is that there is more fall-out from the Established Church than just the Ordinariate and SSWASH. There are individuals who have fallen out as fragments from fractures, and they are very easily overlooked. These individuals are vitally important because they represent a silent majority of the unwillingly unchurched. These evolve into the willingly unchurched and, further still, into the increasingly anti-Church.

What can we do to reach these folk? There needs to be some kind of contact with these folk, particularly if they find themselves completely isolated. To develop a network of contacts is of vital importance. The more contacts made, the more communities can be built up. If individuals can be encouraged to follow a personal rule of life of prayer and reading, then there will be some binding influence for them to follow so that even the most isolated can find common ground with others.

However, this has been tried. A good priestly friend tried to do something just like this - an online community following the Rule of St Benedict - but it fell apart because confidences were breached. Without this trust, there was no binding agent.

So what do we need?

1) We need to reach out to isolated individuals.
2) We need to meet those isolated individuals personally to discuss their situations and needs.
3) We need to encourage them to meet together occasionally at some convenient venue in order to provide for them Sacraments and spiritual assistance.
4) We need to provide a quick and easy way to contact each other. An online forum would do well here.

However, one thing is clearly missing. How on earth do we find these isolated individuals? Well, this means that we need to be caring enough to look out for our isolated brethren and, if the isolated brethren are serious about their faith, they need to be searching too, though admittedly this is rather tricky.

Often what happens to us in the ACC is that someone pops into the parish, raves about what we do and then departs never to be seen again. Why? Is their raving false? No, for the most part it isn't. Often they find themselves a home in the Roman Church or they drop out altogether. If someone is isolated then we must establish what the real reason for that isolation is.

For many people, it is the loss of what they've been used to. The familiar words and expressions, the beloved prayers and rituals are being changed and adapted to respond to a modern and often more materialistic age. For the ACC where these rituals, words and prayers have not been changed but are used at their fullest, these will certainly gladden the heart of one from whom these precious morsals have been torn.

For others, it is the change in doctrine, though for many people this tends to be a bit superficial. They leave the church "because of gay clergy" or "because of women at the altar" or "because they've changed the words of the hymns" or "because they've got guitars" as if these single issues were entire of themselves. What they need to appreciate is that all these are symptoms of a deeper misconception which has infiltrated deeply into the system and that rejecting the symptom may affect how other issues that they had accepted.

For example, they may have become isolated because of gay clergy but be very comfortable with women "priests" unaware that the two are very much related. The same is true vice versa. What we have here, of course, is why the fractures from the CofE are so fine. Playing pick and choose with doctrine damages Ecclesiological Integrity. For the mainstream church, we see this in the fact that it is becoming an umbrella organisation for any philosophy imaginable in order to somehow incorporate those of all faiths and none. The result is a loss of any integrity because there is no way of reaching back to the same faith as our forefathers.

This is something that the Isolated need to consider. What do they want of a new establishment? If it really a single issue, then they will find another parish somewhere within the CofE. However, if they sit and really think, then they will realise that these issues stem from a matter of belief, not of superficiality. This needs encouragement on a 1-1 basis if they are to recover some integrity as well as find some confraternity.

The fact of the matter is that people do see through insincerity and single-issue Churches will not really give the depth for which people are searching, and people are searching for that depth and integrity. Why? Because integrity is born of endurance, character and love and these are all things that Humans are looking for.

However, if anyone is reading this and finding themselves isolated, or knowing someone who has been isolated by the movement of the CofE from orthdoxy, the Anglican Diaspora is a forum for people to speak to others. If anyone is interested in the ACC, then do check out the link on the right and do get in touch if we can help. You'd be very welcome.

The Day of Resurrection 2012: The Dignity of the Human Condition

Christ is risen!
He is risen indeed! Alleluia!

There is in the world today a terrible tendency to look at human beings in a terribly negative light. Many scientists are beginning to regard human beings as mere biological machines which have all the illusions of self-knowledge and some ability of self-delusion in believing itself to be something special before collapsing into a bundle of fatty acids and proteins when they came.

Any joie de vivre is spawned from some belief that this is all there is, and it is better to learn to be happy because the darkness is coming to put a stop to it. In the West, there is a hatred of old age, because old age is a reminder that the joy of living will be slowly extinguished before the end comes.

Others see human beings as corrupt despoilers of Earth, the ultimate parasite destroying whole ecosystems. They see proliferation of wars and violence, endless political wranglings, intercommunity hatreds and battles, and they conclude that humanity is intrinsically evil. They see little in human achievement which is merely the product of anthropological societal construct, convention and evolution.

Others look out into space at the massive structures of the universe, calculating sizes in millions of parsecs, billions of light years and working on scales of galactic clusters and they see human beings as a meaningless speck of insignificance in the void that exists for a glimmer before oblivion finally envelopes it.

Yet, the Resurrection says otherwise.

If we believe in a God that creates, then we believe in a God that wants to create.

If we believe in a God that wants to create, then we believe in a God that willingly decided to create human beings.

If we believe in a God that willingly decided to create human beings, then we must believe that He has some regard for our being.

We have been willed to exist by One who defies our understanding. We have been placed here on earth amidst the complex circling of the arches of the heavens, to evolve and grow according to the elegant rules of organic structures, and to live our lives with each other as independent units seeking understanding, to investigate and enjoy. We seek meaning because there is meaning to seek. And the Resurrection is proof.

We are fallen. Our choices are wrong. They affect others. They hurt others. Sometimes we care because we see that pain and feel it. Sometimes we don't because we are obsessed with our own pain. But God, in His absolute love for us seeks to free us from the pain of our choices by irradiating the entire universe with His love and by transforming it with His very being. We receive our existence from the existence of God. We share it with Him and Our Blessed Lord's Resurrection shows us that we are invited to share, not just Existence with God but Life with God.

We have been given the choice. Either we refuse to see any good in human beings, refuse to see in the Crucifixion the price of true love, ignore the mystery of the incarnation thus fulfilled through the cross and beyond into the Resurrection, or we realise the full potential of this event which rocks history to the core. When Christ commands us to love our neighbour as ourselves, He is not just telling us to do something, He is also inviting us to see others how He sees them and this is a participation in His existence. In commanding us to love God with all our being, He is inviting us to see in Him the source of all love and to be a part of that love in Creation. The Cross and Resurrection stand together as two fulfilments of physical and spiritual natures and as two ends of a tunnel through Death into a perfected life.

This is the promise and it is the promise of a God who regards human beings with such dignity that He respects their choices even if they hurt Him. Here we stand at the cross-roads. Do we turn back or move forward. Of course we move forward, but let us move forward in joy as well as penitance. Our penitence is temporary, but our joy is eternal.

May God richly bless you this Paschal time and forever.

The Passionate Antagonists: 6 Simon Peter

Peter an Antagonist? Really?

While I've been reflecting on these characters from the crucifixion, I have been thinking of just how vulernerable, how fallible and how human they are, none more so than St Peter whose love for Christ is remarkable. Yet he falls spectacularly.

"The pathway to Hell is paved with good intentions" is, apparently, a paraphrase of St Bernard of Clairvaux and surely it applies to Peter who intends to follow Jesus to the end, and yet, when his life is threatened falls away as he denies his discipleship of Jesus three times.

Had he done this in the Diocletian Persecution, would he have been labelled traditor and barred from further office by the Donatists? Well, St Peter does form the case against Donatism.

Peter shows us clearly that even Christians fall away and reject Christ when it comes to the crunch. The Church is comprised of sinners who yet still manage to maintain the teaching of Christ. It is by that teaching that even the greatest Christians can be convicted of sin. So the Church, far from being corrupt, has in place a failsafe device that ensures that sin cannot be simply hidden under the carpet by shamed Christians. Often it takes folk without the Church to demonstrate it!

Mere adherence to the rules does not save us. We may fall again and again usually with habitual and ingrained sins. How can keeping the rules bring us back to God when we have broken them? We must keep the rules by first keeping Christ in order for that grace to grow.

What grace? See tomorrow.

The Passionate Antagonists: 5 Gestas the not-so-penitent Thief

"If thou be Christ, save thyself and us."

These are the sole recorded words of a man whom tradition has named Gestas, one of the men crucified with Jesus. He is said to have been crucified for robbery and it is clear that he has little respect for people, either their belongings or their situations. Why should it be that in the last hours of his life, that all he can say are taunts to Jesus? Does he expect to be saved? Why does that phrase enter into his head?

Clearly this is a man who doesn't believe that he should be punished for transgressing the law. He seems to be one of those men who only believes that punishment is only for someone else and that he has a right to help himself everything that he wants. This thief is a law unto himself. Why else does he entertain the possibility that, should Jesus work a miracle, he can expect salvation automatically?

Salvation only comes with an intention to submit to the rule of Christ. This is entirely personal between God and the individual as evidenced in the conversation between Jesus and the other thief, traditionally named Dismas:

But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds : but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

We have no power to make the decision for another's Salvation. We may only pray to God for it and hope that He will include that other in the Church outside of which there can be no salvation. Do we accept the rule of Christ's kingdom or do we expect salvation on our own terms and thus reject Jesus as the one who calls the shots?

The Passionate Antagonists: 4 Barabbas and the Crowd

What makes a crowd call out in favour of someone who has proven guilt of being a revolutionary and a murderer? Was it simply the incitement of the Chief Priests whipping the crowds up into a frenzy, or was the notoriety of Barabbas so compelling? Would he be the person to succeed where Jesus failed in the eyes of those who sought freedom from the Roman Regime?

In this age we have the cult of celebrity. The nature of what it means to be a "celebrity" does not seem to be very well-defined. Some celebrities are singers, others are actors, some are heroes for climbing Everest or presenting fascinating television programmes. Others are celebrities for no other reason than they have just been in the right place at the right time. Yet others are famous for being infamous - the Kray twins, Katie Price, Monica Lewinsky. Sometimes we choose the wrong role models in life - people who have done nothing to make being human praiseworthy. Yet, there are plenty of people who make one very proud to be a human being because they fight against oppression. Some fighters, however, are fighting for causes which are less than honourable, or a fighting for good causes in less than honourable ways.

It is often the case that Jesus is rejected in favour of someone more glamorous, or because we have decided to follow the crowd rather than been discerning in our choice of exemplar. Whom do we prize most of all as our hero, today? Why?

The Passionate Antagonists: 3 Pontius Pilate

Like Judas, Pilate is another complex character. Much of what we know of him comes from the Gospels, though there are apocryphal mentions in the Acts of Pilate and the Gospel of Peter. There is some (disputed) archaeological evidence in the "Pilate" stone, a first century inscription bearing the name "...TIVS PILATVS". That he does exist can be seen from Philo, Josephus and Tacitus who do not regard him very favourably.

However, how does Pilate come across in the Gospel? Historically, he is the governor of a very troublesome province which has a history of uprisings and insurrections. Jesus is hauled in front of him very visibly beaten up by the Jewish authorities. Here in, Pilate's mind, is another potential flashpoint brewing. His main concern is to establish what's going on in order to avert another crisis. Couple that with the message from his wife that she has dreamed that this Jesus is nothing but trouble, and one can see in Pilate's mind only one impetus: find out what's going on in order to stop the trouble.

He has the Chief Priests on the one hand and possibly the followers of this King of the Jews about to cause another conflagration in the city which he must somehow contain. Careful questioning must take place.

However, when Jesus refuses to commit Himself to any political leadership and rather points to the kingdom of heaven, it becomes clear to the disinterested Pilate that this Jesus is utterly innocent of every charge and poses no "real" threat to the Roman Rule.

How then, when convinced of a man's innocence, can Pilate then just let him be crucified? The baying of the crowd for the man's life threaten the stability of Roman Rule and, seeking the easy way out, it becomes expedient for the man to be got rid of. Pilate has established that Jesus doesn't have hoards at the gates of Jerusalem ready to bring down the Imperial Government. It is better to let one man get crucified in order to keep the peace. Yet, knowing Jesus to be innocent, he simply washes his hands of the responsibility and gains for himself a larger stain on his soul.

Anything for a quiet life? Even at the cost of your soul? Are you sure?

The Passionate Antagonists: 2 Judas Iscariot

Of all the people in the Passion Narrative, none is more wretched than Judas Iscariot. There's so little of him really mentioned in the Gospels that it is difficult to get any idea of his motives or what was going on in his mind.

So what little do we have to go on?

He is consistently named as one of the twelve disciples.

He is described by St John as the one who kept the purse.

He is also described by St John as a thief. (St John xii)

He is the one who goes to the Chief Priests to betray Jesus and that he receives money (30 pieces of silver) in order to do so.

He leads a mob to Gethsemane and betrays Jesus by indentifying him with a kiss.

He either realises what he has done, returns the money to the Chief Priests and hangs himself (according to St Matthew), or bursts asunder (according to St Luke in Acts). This is easily reconcilable if we make the assumption that the hanging body of Judas remained on the tree for some time and then fell in a state of decomposition. It might not be correct, but it's a credible explanation.

The first question we must ask is: what does Jesus see in Judas that makes him call him as one of the twelve? Is it simply that He knows Judas will betray Him? Judas, being a human being always has the choice to betray or not betray. So perhaps the question should be, what did Judas see in Jesus that he would accept being in the party? Was Judas so thoroughly a rogue that he could see Jesus as someone from whom he could embezzle funds as St John suggests? If so then he could easily have been seen the bribe of the Hierarchs as irresistable. Why then the change of heart at the end? Why did it bring him to suicide?

If Judas were one of the twelve, then he must have been privy to some of the deepest teaching of Jesus and received much of his personal ministrations. There must have been a considerable affection between them if it were in some way normal for an affectionate kiss to be shared between them. It seems that whoever Judas was, he cannot have been unaffected by the person of Jesus.

Yet still, Judas rejects Jesus. Material things mean more to Judas than spiritual. Money seems to hold a deeper place in his heart than what Jesus means to him and yet he is haunted by his doings which does indicate some conscience. However, rather than confront what he has done, he takes an easier yet horrifying route to silence that inner voice.

Judas is complex, yet rejects Jesus for material reasons. Does this mean he deserves the reputation of being so thoroughly bad? Are we completely free from association with Judas?

The Passionate Antagonists: 1 Caiaphas and the Chief Priests

As we begin the Passion Narrative of St Matthew's Gospel, we meet the people who have had it in for Jesus ever since He started teaching about the Kingdom of God. These are the Scribes and the Pharisees, most heartily embodied in Caiaphas and the Chief Priests of the Temple in Jerusalem.

Let's be very clear, there was nothing wrong with being a scribe or a Pharisee per se. Both St Nathanael and St Paul were Pharisees, and very good Pharisees too, but these two very learned gentlemen did something that many of their colleagues refused to do. They risked their reputations as learned men by submitting their intellect to the teaching of Jesus Christ.

By way of contrast, Caiaphas and his ilk were so full of intellectual pride that they were driven to plot, conspire and, ultimately bear "legal" responsibility for the crucifixion of the Lord. They believed that they were right and they had the power to inflict that vision of their own self-righteousness on others. So great was their fear of losing their power that they refused to believe the evidence of their own eyes when a non-descript itinerant preacher came preaching about the love of God and claiming to be His Son and, further still, backing up that claim with miracles which went in contravention of their laws and understanding.

Jesus does not come to change the substance of the Pharisees' teaching. They have the right words but the wrong tune and they are putting the emphases in all the wrong places. However, rather than be corrected, Caiaphas and the Chief Priests play the legal card and trump up charges of blasphemy. They refuse to consider all the evidence, they limit themselves and the judgement to their terms and by clinging to their learning rather than find its fulfilment in Jesus, they seek His destruction.

Many people today reject Jesus because what he teaches runs contradictory to their understanding of the world. They may accept His, “love thy neighbour” and “do unto others…” but as soon as they hear Him claim to be the Son of God, they stop short. The modern mind hates miracles because they do not fit into the pattern of everyday experience forgetting that if they did fit into the pattern of everyday experience, they wouldn’t be miracles.

Perhaps if we become more willing to look beyond the world we understand, we might glimpse the beauty of the world we don’t. Caiaphas wasn’t so prepared, an, wallowing in his own understanding he ends up rejected by the One Whom He rejected.

The Passionate Antagonists: 0 Introduction

This year, I'd like to spend some time reflecting on the characters in the Passion, primarily those whom I collectively refer to as The Antagonists because in some way they add to the suffering of Our Lord, and yet they stand for the fallibility of flawed human beings. Each rejects Christ even as we reject Christ and we really have no moral high ground on which to stand here. In some way, we each embody one of these folk who aren't exactly villains but are certainly very far gone from righteousness.

Ironically, it is because of their actions that Christ is able to do precisely what He intends to do. It is the nature of fallible human beings that brings about the circumstances in which Jesus Christ can become Salvator Mundi. St Paul alludes to this in Romans viii.28 and St Augustine refers to this whole Divine Good from human Sin as O Felix Culpa. Before we can really appreciate what has been achieved on our behalf, we need to appreciate just how our wickedness plays its part. This way we can look towards the Resurrection and be assured that we can be made clean and live cleanly in the eyes of God.