Hell

Checking Theology

Sermon preached at St Peter and St Paul’s Church Swanscombe 21st January 2004 based on Nehemiah viii.1-10, I Corinthians xii.12-31 and St Luke iv.14-21.

Pawn to King’s fourth.

This is how it starts.

George introduces himself
to his new opponent
and makes his first move.

He seals the envelope
and sends it off to the address
that the Correspondence Chess Agency
has given him.

Then he dons his
cassock, alb, maniple and chasuble
and becomes Fr. MacKinnon
of Our Lady of the Snows,
Purbridge.

A few days later,
after the Post Office has lost it,
found it,
lost it,
found it again,
sent it to the wrong road,
had it returned
and finally delivered it to the right place,
a letter drops through the door.

The Rev’d Derek Knox,
a Baptist minister from Falkirk,
opens it and finds himself
in receipt of George’s letter.

He does choke slightly
on his morning cup of coffee
when he realises that he’s been given
an opponent who is also
a Roman Catholic priest.

This, thinks Derek,
will give me the chance
to save this poor chap’s soul.

So he sends George a cheery note
and another Pawn to King’s fourth.

George is surprised at finding himself
in correspondence with a Protestant,
but happily replies to his opponent
asking him about his life,
what he does
and where he feels his ministry is going,
giving him in return
a knight to Queen’s bishop’s third.


Derek replies amiably enough,
but there’s a pointed remark
about his running his ministry
directly from God rather than
through middlemen.

George knows that
Derek is referring to
the government of the Pope and the Cardinals,
and makes a polite but firm reply
about Bishops in the New Testament.

Knight to king’s bishop’s third.


And so on.

Each clergyman makes a polite,
and well-reasoned defence
of his denominational position
as well as a challenge to the other.

The discussion is heated,
but never hurtful, nor impolite.

The game of chess goes on.

George matches Derek’s moves well,
and Derek meets every attack that George makes
with a subtle and cunning counterattack.


Does this theological wrangling matter?

Isn’t it all a simple game of chess
where it doesn’t really matter
who wins or loses an argument?

After all, we all get to heaven don’t we?

[PAUSE]

Well, no.

Jesus Himself spoils that idea
when He says that on the last day
there will be people who will say
“Lord, Lord, this is what
we’ve done in your name”
and to whom He will reply
“in truth, I never knew you.”

There are people who call themselves Christians
who will not be in the Heavenly host.

Is this something to do with
which church we belong to?

Is there a right denomination?

Are you in the right place
being members of the Church of England?

[PAUSE]

One thing is for certain,
a denomination is not
an opinion or a choice.

It is a deep-seated belief
held by many about
what is right and what is wrong
and who has the authority to say
what is right and what is wrong.

Opinion cannot do that,
because it is only personal,
and largely irrelevant in the scheme of things.

People don’t get burnt at the stake
and suffer martyrdom
for their opinions,
but for their beliefs.

Any Catholic will submit his life
to the rule of the Church.

A Catholic’s opinion
does not matter in questions of teaching,
because he relies on the Church
to teach him the truth.

The trouble is a Catholic
could deny his responsibility for thinking for himself
by saying “the Church tells me what to do.”


A Protestant relies on the Bible alone.

If the Bible says that it’s allowed,
a Protestant will do it with gusto.

If the Bible says that it’s not allowed,
not only will the Protestant not do it
but quote chapter and verse as to why it is wrong.

The trouble is that a Protestant
can make up his own interpretation of the Bible
to justify killing all the Jews or the Blacks.

This has been done and is still being done.


Why are there many more
Protestant denominations than Catholic ones?

They are all based on personal interpretations
of the Scriptures.

They can’t all be right!

So which is the right Church?

[PAUSE]

There is a car crash.

George’s mother dies very suddenly.

His letter to Derek is filled
with heartache and sorrow.

Derek replies,

Dear George,

Over the last months
I have enjoyed your letters
and this wonderful game of chess.

You certainly have a talent
for putting me in check.

You also have a talent
for putting me on the spot with doctrine.

I’ve learned a lot about myself,
and about Catholicism,
as I hope you have learned
about yourself
and about the Baptists.

You won’t change and I won’t change,
and only God can unify us.


I am so very sorry to hear about your Mum,
and I see how hard this must have hit you.


Yesterday I popped into
our local Catholic Church for Mass.

Don’t get excited.

You know how I disagree with you
fundamentally
about this Mass business,
but I know that you believe that
all Masses are linked by Christ
to any other Mass that’s been said.

Well,
I want you to know that I am here for you
in your hour of need,
and by attending this Mass
– although I couldn’t take Communion
and you know I wouldn’t do so
– I hope you will feel me
standing beside you.

Your friend in Christ,

Derek.
P.S. Queen to King’s rook 6.

Check.

What do you think of this letter?

Is Derek right to have done this?

If not what could he have done?

[PAUSE]

How do we know
which Church is The True Church?

Well the True Church is where
we find love expressed clearly and unreservedly
– a love that will risk all for us,
a love that will not be frightened to be angry
with us when we seek things
that will only harm ourselves
and each other,
a love that will weep with us when we are sad,
uphold us when we are fallen,
rejoice with us when we are happy,
challenge us when we are wrong.

It is utterly and completely devoted
to the Commandments of God.

It is not a place where everything works.

It is not neat and tidily put together.

There are many unanswered questions,
because the Church is comprised
of fallen Human Beings
who have been washed clean
in the Blood of the Lamb.

Where you find God,
there you will find love,
and where you find love,
you will find the Church.

Does this fit the description of your parish?

The Anglican Breviary

I love the Anglican Breviary. It is just so rich in its expression of Anglican Catholicism.

I got a little worried recently because it looked as if the webpage had lapsed, but thanks to the Young Fogey at A Conservative Blog for Peace (very well worth visiting, by the way) and chum Cindy Curran from the Anglo-Catholic Central forum, I've since found out that the domain name has changed to www.anglicanbreviary.net.

British Parliament Acts up

New rules outlawing businesses from discriminating against homosexuals have been upheld in the House of Lords.

I have posted these thoughts on the Anglo-Catholic message board, but I thought I'd reproduce them here with addenda since this is rather an convoluted and intensely uncomfortable subject.

In a situation like this where we have Society and Church at war, everyone needs to be clear what battle is being fought, and we must all do our best to ensure that the casualities are not ontological, i.e. that a person should not be persecuted just because he has a particular orientation, in the eyes of the Church a particular temptation.

The Church must make that clear, and be seen to make that clear.The Church has to promulgate a community whereby everyone is accepted and supported in their route to becoming the person whom God made them to be. It also has a duty to keep the command of Christ and live according to the commandments that arise from His being our King. We have a duty to prevent anyone teaching doctrine which does not come from God - e.g. whether homosexual practice is or is not sinful. The Church's teaching is clear - homosexual practice is sinful.

The fight then is for understanding:

• That homosexual people know that the Church rigidly and absolutely upholds the celibacy of homosexual persons, but that the embrace of a person given by the Church is independent of any personal characteristic that person has. They must realise that Christianity expects of every Christian an attitude of personal conformity and submission to the rule of Christ, but they must also be comforted by the fact that this is not a rule aimed specifically at them, but to anyone who has the audacity to call themselves Christian and that we are duty bound to support each other.
  
• That the Church must know that it is right to uphold the rules, and be committed to do so, but that the rule is a rule of love, so it must seek a way to interpret and promote the doctrine of homosexual celibacy in terms of that rule of love, and not by a doctrinal shouting down or (God forbid) ontological persecution of homosexuals. The ministry of the Church is to encounter folk where they are and minister to them bringing the love of Christ by example first before words.

Everyone has a right to lend, or not, their property for use by another.

Everyone has a right not to be discriminated against.

Perfectly valid Human rights in both cases. However, observing a right is not always the Christian thing to do.S o should the Church withhold the use of its property from those who are publicly exhibiting a position contrary to its teaching? Well, if the lending of the property sends the message that the Church is condoning heresy, then no. If the lending of the property sends the message that the Church is an institution founded on love, then yes.

The problem is now how do we send the correct message to a world that is easily misled? Clearly because there is no such thing as a same-sex marriage, a ceremony claiming to be so can never be held in a Church.However, considering the uses of an average British Church Hall being used for 18th birthday parties, receptions et c, which are not exactly promoting the Christian message either (particularly in Britain with its present me-first culture), it seems difficult for the C of E to refuse on grounds of morality. If you've set the precedent in your church hall, you have to abide by it. The only way we can prevent an "apartheid" (which I hope is a rather hyperbolic term) of homosexuality is by developing the understandings of both parties involved.

If we want an end to this deadlock, and a proper peace then we need to sit down and talk. It is not acceptable for either side to start casting epithets and adjectives such as "evil", "intolerant", "perverted" or "satanic" which have been used by people on both sides of the situation. Let us remember that it isn't just an issue of God's law being debated here, but the personal lifestyles and choices of individual human beings. Some choose to follow the teaching of the Orthodox Church, others will choose to follow the knowledge of who they believe themselves to be. No matter which camp you are in, sin will be present, and sin will affect that choice that you make.

However, the Church, when it is doing its job properly, points to the Salvation and Redemption from Sin in Christ. All we need do then is just what God tells us, to love Him more than anything else with every faculty that we possess, and love our neighbour, acts which certainly doesn't involve the words "faggot" or "bible-basher" being used perjoratively

How brightly shines the...what?

Homily preached at Eltham College Chapel on 8th and 9th January 2007

Pluto is no longer a planet.

It is still an irritating cartoon dog,
which I'm sure reassures you no end,
but it is no longer a planet.

How significant is this fact for you?

It means that the school will have to update
the astronomy posters along the Physics corridor.

But what of astrologers who daily contribute to papers
and influence the lives of many
who “sort of” believe in that method of fortune-telling.

After all, the declassification of Pluto as a planet
must surely affect astrology rather heavily, mustn't it?

If you accept Pluto as a planet,
then you have to accept Eris,
or the imaginatively named 2003 EL61
which are about the same size as Pluto.

But then with these all extra planets,
you’d see horoscopes such as:

Scorpio:
Eris enters your sign tonight bringing a minor upset
in your love life when you sit on your girlfriend's mobile.

or

Libra:
Beware, 2005 FY9,
the bringer of obstreperous poodles,
enters into conjunction with the Sun.

Stay away from any small curly-haired dogs for the rest of the week!

Astrology may seem a bit of a joke to many of us,
but there are people who live their lives,
plan for their futures,
make their big decisions,
even run countries
according to what Jonathan Cainer
writes in the newspaper.

Have you ever found a prediction
made in a horoscope that came true?

[PAUSE]

Horoscopes do occasionally predict something interesting.

We all know that Wise men from the East
came to visit the Baby Jesus in the manger
bringing various gifts.

Who are these wise men?

Well, we don't know for sure.

We don’t even know how many of them there were.

Nowhere in the Bible will you find reference to three wise men.

Well that’s ruined every nativity scene
and quite a few carols for you hasn’t it?

What we do know is that they were
astrologers from Media following a star to the stable.

In fact, the Star of Bethlehem
is not a bizarre astronomical occurrence,
not a comet,
nor some atmospheric disturbance
nor a Flying Saucer containing the daleks.

It is an astrological event
– a rare conjfiguration of planets and stars
which means something for these astrologers,
who promptly jump on their
Formula 1, 5 cylinder camels
and gallop West to the manger.

[PAUSE]

Christians remember the visit of the wise men
as the Feast of the Epiphany.

The word Epiphany means “making known”.

We already see how the Lord
is made known to the Astrologers,
but some years later He also makes Himself known
to Saint John the Baptist at Jesus’ Baptism,
an event that St John has been preparing all his life for.

St John has been preparing himself
by becoming who he believes God wants him to be.

When the Lord appears at the river Jordan,
St John is given concrete proof that Jesus is who He says He is.

The astrologers don’t get this proof.
They see a baby in a horse trough,
and then they return,
never to be seen or heard of again.


What the astrologers see only dimly
through their charts and calculations,
St John sees face to face because of his faith in God,
and not in obscure calculations.

What does this say about maths teachers?

Astrologers choose to live their lives
controlled by the way the planets move.

St John chooses to live his life by preparing himself carefully.

Astrologers choose to give up
control of their lives,
control of their destinies,
control of their countries
to the stars.

St John, relying on his faith in God, keeps control of his destiny.

Now, after 2000 years,
we remember the name of St John the Baptist.

Of the Astrologers we know little,
not even how many there were.

Many people think that having faith in God
means being controlled by a superstitious belief,
that our destinies are controlled by our faith.

That’s not what Christians believe.

While God has plans for each one of us,
they involve us being who we are,
in becoming the person we are meant to be,
and that we ourselves have a vital role to play in that process.

God does allow us to make our own decisions.

[PAUSE]

The majority of you will not know
what you want to do with your lives
when you leave Eltham College.

Indeed, most of the staff probably don’t know
what they want to do with their lives.

You will have to make big decisions
– which options to take,
which A levels to do,
which university to apply to,
what job you want to do.

So how will you make your decisions?

Will you put the responsibility
for making those decisions
onto someone else,
or something else,
like the Astrologers do,
and thus only see shadows of the person that you could become?

Will you take the responsibility
for these decisions upon yourself
by considering your choices carefully
and by finding out who you really are,
and so live your life to the full?

The choice is yours.
How will you live your life?

One year on...

Well, as of 29th December 2006, this little bloglet is a year old. Thanks to the folk who do click in regularly, I hope you've found this first year interesting and thank you for the comments.

I've learned a lot this year about myself and about the state of the Church.

This is how I began:

Where do I start? I am a Catholic, not a Roman one, mind you, though I'd dearly
love to be in Communion with His Holiness for whom I have a profound respect.
No, I'm an Anglo-Catholic in the Church of England, though if the decision goes
through to "ordain" women as bishops then I'm dropping the Anglo bit. I remain
in the Church of England since I was born into it, and I don't really wish to
leave it.I'm a schoolteacher, but I confess that I don't like it very much for
various reasons both political and personal. I am exploring a vocation into
Benedictine Orders. So becoming an OSB may fulfil my love of academic study and
my Catholic affectations. The trouble is that Anglican Religious orders seem to
be on the wane. This would be a disaster if this actually happens.I have a lot
of friends in the Continuum, i.e. those Anglo-Catholics standing outside the
Anglican communion. My dearest wish is that somehow all those various Catholic
denominations should strive for a unity which will fight the growing menaces of
Liberalism, Relativism and Individualism that are infecting the Church as well
as society. Such a wish can only come through prayer, but we need the prayer
centres too. Pass me my hassock, please.

Well, I don't call myself an Anglo-Catholic these days except only as a rough guide to where my churchmanship lies since few people have heard of the Anglo-Papalists. Indeed, if I'm asked, I always say that I am Catholic. If anyone is astute to notice my Church of England Readers' badge then I have some explaining to do. I've certainly learned more about my Papistical leanings and the fact that Anglicanism does need the Church of Rome for guidance in its doctrine. This position has been ratified for me by the rati-zinger himself , His Holiness Pope Benedict, who demonstrates the importance for the Church to be faithful to its Tradition.

Following the C of E's declaration that women in the Episcopate is consonant with Anglican Understanding, I am at present waiting to see what the "brief from Hell" is going to propose before I make my decision whether I need to swim or not. I am constantly reviewing this situation which is far from ideal. I certainly do not consider myself to be an Anglican if Anglicanism is consonant with women "bishops".

As for my Benedictinism, well, that's on hold for a little while as I get used to my new job. I continue to develop my relations with Elmore Abbey in the hope that some more formal affiliation may result. I have found St Benedict very useful for balancing my life out.

So one year on sees some growth and some change but still the same problems and irritations. We are stuck with the -isms, including the Neo-Arianism that Dan Brown seems to be selling as well as Gnosticism. These can only be fought by working on our beliefs as set down in Scripture and communicated through the Church. History does not fight the Church, it is modern historians who are trying to make it look as if the Catholic Church is responsible for cover-ups and conspiracies. I cannot see what it would gain from doing so.

This year I do need to do more study, my Latin is horrible, my Greek worse and my Hebrew appalling. As I settle in my new job then hopefully I shall find the time to work on some things that I've laid aside for a while such as the proper ministry of Women and the "Natural Sacraments" that I proposed last year. No - I hadn't forgotten. Perhaps you wish I had!

Well here's to another twelve months.

The Feast of the Nativity

Well, it's here, Christmas Day! While arranging the lettering for the Parish Alternative Christmas Card, I did find that the phrase "Happy Christmas" had a rude but rather pertinent anagram about the sham which the Modern "Christmas" appears to be. Of course it's only a sham if we haven't used Advent to prepare for the Baby to be born anew in our hearts.

But why is this just a Christmas thing? I wonder how many parishioners actually prepare themselves for Mass which itself points to a strange amalgamation of events of the Birth, Life, Death and Resurrection of the Lord as well as continues to bring him afresh into our bodies as well as our lives. We seem all too ready to say that Easter is more important than Christmas because of what happened on Good Friday, and then we seem ready to argue as to whether Good Friday is more important than Easter Sunday. It's an act of hammering the Eternal into the Temporal.

We divide up the year into seasons because we are Temporal, we don't have a choice, but we have to remember that each season cannot be separated from any other.

Christmas shows us the Divine Miracle, the Great Sacrament, and is inextricably linked with Easter Day. Even from His Birth the world around the Christ-Child points to His Sacrifice as the deaths of the poor little Holy Innocents show. Even now we must live with their deaths, and we must live with His Death too, but we live with His Resurrection, and by this the Holy Innocents themselves find life anew.

So rather than focus on one event of the life of Christ at a time, let us allow the Holy Ghost to lead us through the life of Christ wherever He wills, and show us each as individuals and collectively as a Church how that life of Christ is to be lived in us.

I hope you have a happy, loving and fulfilling Christmas, and I pray that you will find 2007 a joyful and prosperous year.

Change and decay in all around I see.

A conclusion that I drew from my last post was that the way that the Truth reveals Itself overrides all ways of thinking about the Truth. The Truth is not a slave to the fashion unlike the the ways of the Athenians whom the Acts of the Apostles tell us "spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing." (Acts xvii.21)

I believe that we are today very much like the Athenians, always looking out for where the zeitgeist blows us, and alter our theologies in order to take into account the "newness" of the the ideas. And then comes Qoheleth, who says: "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."

As was written before, we are new every day, yet this belies our transience. We are the ones that change and alter, who grow and decay. This is not a characteristic of the Truth which is eternal. His Revelation to us does not change or alter because, despite our newness, the human race does not change in its need for God. Our technology and understandings of how things work may appear to be new. Indeed, at no other time in the existence of the human race has transglobal communication been as instantaneous as the present age.

However, Humanity itself does not change, and largely, neither does Humanity's understanding of Humanity. Our understanding of society is as rudimentary as it was in Abrahamic times. Our psychologies contradict each other and seem to explain very little. Our Anthropologies turn up evidence for one method of social behaviour and then another study performed a few years contradicts the first. Our understanding of what is good for us changes with the opinions of the scientists who happen to be in charge of the research at the time.

Science (Scientia Omnisciens the goddess of human reason) itself seeks answers, but can only come to replace God with other unprovable statements such as the existence of parallel universes which can never be observed or measured because, by definition, they are parallel to ours and never meet. When they do, they interact in something like the Big Bang so any information about this universe is lost in a melee of chaotic ripples.

All this leads to a question: How does the Revelation of the Truth apply to the current age? Well since the Truth is Eternal, "current age" makes sense only to those of us in the present. It is possible that you may be reading this long after I am gone, so the age will cease to be current for me, but it will be current for you.

It is the Church Militant that carries the Revelation to the inhabitants of the current age, and it is thus her duty to adhere to the Revelation and to engage it in conversation with those of the present. Thus the Church Militant has the difficult job of communicating the Eternal with the Temporal. The language it must use must be that of the Eternal Truth yet in a way that is communicable to the Temporal. To try and communicate Eternity to the Temporal is impossible but the aim of the Church Militant is to set the Temporal on the route to the Eternal. The language used will be strange and unclear except with much prayer, thought and meditation.

For example, the use of Latin to the modern Catholic, or the language of King James to the young churchgoer are both incomprehensible at first, yet with the encouragement and loving supoort of the church around, the language is learned. The subtle nuances within the Scripture and within the Liturgy add to the earnest soul's discovery of God which must be undertaken with the Church because only the Church has the key to hold together the Temporal with the Eternal.

To aid this process, Scriptures are translated into the modern vernacular, Liturgies embrace new forms. However, unless they do not point directly and clearly to Eternity, if they try to explain everything in simple language, if they attempt to remove the Mystery which results from the discrepancy between Temporality and Eternity, then they are useless, and worse than useless because they point away from the Truth.

Likewise, the Teaching of the Church comes from Eternity and does not change: it is immutable.
New Doctrines do grow as Humanity's discovery of God grows. Abraham realises that God exists and is worth obeying. Moses realises that God is powerful and faithful. Elijah realises that God is not just some mountain deity. The Apostles realise that God is personable and loving. New Doctrine grows as Humanity seeks God in His Eternity and only then does Humanity grow. If God makes it clear that there is a practice that is not right, then He doesn't change His ruling be it in the 20th century BC or the 20th Century AD. Thus the Teaching of the Church does not change: she is still engaged in her Mission of guiding the Temporal to the Eternal.

So rejoice that however temporal you are, you have a place in the Church Militant. If you are faithful then know that you will then have a place in the Church Triumphant when the Temporality of the Church will cease to be all that we human beings participate in, but participate in the Eternal Worship of God.

Science and Religion IV: What is Truth?

As a mathematician, the central and underlying concept at the basis of mathematical thought is the concept of truth. We build mechanisms to discern whether a given statement possesses the quality called truth. It's interesting that in a subject like mathematics where the concepts and constructions do not actually possess a concrete reality, there is nonetheless acceptable statement and method of proof. Even though Goedel says that there will be statements in any axiomatic system of logic which cannot be given the labels "true" or "not true", one can, in mathematics, easily disprove the existence of a quantity, something which many folks find hard to understand.

Now, I have never studied philosophy - at least not properly. My grasp of the tenets of philosophical veracity are undeveloped to say the least. I have never read Plato, or Socrates and have managed only a smidgin of Aristotle - I have never had the time - so I will disappoint anyone who has any more of a grounding in the noble subject. However, my brain does function on what I believe to be reasonably sound rational principles: I'm citing the success in my mathematical studies as evidence to support this.

The issue I've been contemplating is this. We can be dreadfully solipsist and disbelieve the existence of everything other than our own being or we can agree with another person on what is true. There thus exists a whole series of "truths" in the World each where two or more people have concurred, yet these are nothing more than subjective truths. The Big Bang is a truth, the Hebdominal Creation is another, and yet they contradict. Or do they not?

Well this is the crunch: surely the only way that we can be certain of the truth is for us to know everything, and I do mean everything - knowing what Reality really is, knowing both beyond the Planck length and above the scale of the the Great Attractor or the Cosmic String if such objects exist. Then we can say truly "the Sun will come up tomorrow".

So if we are not omniscient, then all truth is relative and subjective, there is no objective truth... unless there is a God.

Note of course that this is not a proof for the existence of God. God cannot be proved like a theorem from the reason of men. His existence as pure being means that He is the Truth as He always claimed, because only His existence is independent of that which He has created.

This surely means that His Truth exists beyond the philosophies of human beings. If God exists (and I believe He does) then Truth is an absolute, transcending all the fashionable thinking of any age. He doesn't change, and neither does the revelation that He shows us. Truth must be revealed or its existence as Truth is meaningless, and while God has the right not to reveal Himself, He does not wish human beings to live meaningless lives. Thus we have an utterly intransigent and hence reliable Revelation of an unchanging and Eternal God given to the Church. Now, we can look at that Revelation through various viewpoints, but the Truth remains the same, because the Truth is independent of viewpoint, otherwise there is something inherently wrong with the method of discerning the Truth.

So we are stuck with the same Scriptures, the same Liturgies, the same Collects, year in year out because they are our discoveries of communicating with the Truth, and we can ask where is the newness, the freshness, the change. And Truth tells us, "well, that is you."

Shameless publicising!

...Well actually, not!

You see The Continuum is up for an Anglican Blog award, and quite frankly, it deserves to win.

Whereas the readership of my little blogling is not as vast as that of Albions, if you haven't already done so, please follow this link to the nominations and vote for the Continuum.
It would be a meaningful occurrence if the Continuing movement could be recognised for something it is good at, rather than for the impression of vitriolic spikiness that we are reputed to possess.

We wish you a measured Christmas

My second at school.

Homily preached at Eltham College on 3rd and 4th December 2006.

Presents given:
Catherine Tate DVD for Mum;
Duran Duran CD for Dad (not that he has a good taste in music);
Skateboard for Grandma,
Beyonce Knowles Calendar for Grandad,
Box of chocs for elder sister;
Doctor Who box set for younger brother.
Total expenditure £106.78.

Presents received:
New PS2 game from Mum;
Latest Gorillaz Album from Dad (told you he didn’t have any taste in music);
A day’s abseiling from Grandma;
Beyonce Knowles Calendar from Grandad;
£20 worth of mobile credits from elder sister;
DVD of Spiderman versus the Teletubbies from younger brother, (what planet is the boy on?)
Total income: £106.78

So what’s the point? How is this different from spending £106.78 on yourself at another time of the year? Wouldn’t it have been better just forgetting about Christmas and just finding something good for yourself for £106.78, after all, who wants Spiderman versus the Teletubbies DVD?

Why bother with all the hassle of traipsing round looking for appropriate presents to get the family?

It’s like birthdays. You can put a manky old £10 note in your brother’s birthday card to him, and, lo and behold, on your birthday there’s a manky old £10 note in your birthday card. Is it the same one? Well it might as well be.

So what is the point?

[PAUSE]

If we look at Christmas as a purely commercial holiday, then we lose something important. £106.78 in and £106.78 out, so on balance we break even. But how do we feel if we don’t break even? Guilty if we have spent less than them than they on us?
Upset because we have spent more on them than they on us?

Is it right to measure Christmas like this? Should we say that we’ve had a successful Christmas just because we’ve broken even with what we’ve bought and what we’ve been given?

[PAUSE]

Perhaps part of a successful Christmas comes in actually thinking about the people we’re buying presents for. We know that Grandad will be more than happy with his Beyonce Knowles calendar, but is there something else that might be more fitting?

The cliché says that it’s the thought that counts, but it’s more than just a thought. We can think about getting Dad a brand new Ferrari but if all we really get him is a Toffee Crisp, then it’s not saying much for how serious our thought was.

The bloke whose birthday we are supposed to be celebrating suggests that we should give to people who cannot give in return. This act tests our sincerity of spirit.

The thought has to be balanced with action: we have to prepare ourselves to do something to find the gifts for the family and friends that we have around us. The key to a successful Christmas is preparation.

[PAUSE]

The shops have been preparing for Christmas since December 26th last year. What’s new? The Christmas trees and reindeer are hauled out early so as to remind people that Christmas is nearly here because we are likely to forget, aren’t we?

The Infant Schools have been preparing for Christmas since October which is why all the Coco Pops boxes have disappear at the beginning of November and strange cardboard masks bearing only a vague resemblance to sheep and oxen start to grace Reception class windows, frightening all the passers-by. Teachers have been struggling to find a politically correct script.

Without proper and careful preparation, the School Nativity play turns into Nightmare on Elm Street part 8: The Mangling.

Christians call the preparation for Christmas Advent which as you know comes from the Latin word advenire meaning “to arrive”, and it is a time of preparing the heart to receive the Christ-child anew in our lives.

[PAUSE]

We think of Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary preparing herself to have her baby, and Joseph too, preparing to receive a child that is not his. In the East, Persian Astrologers have been preparing charts and calculations to find the place and time of the birth of the new Messiah. Elsewhere, Mary’s cousin Elizabeth in nursing an infant John the Baptist, who will grow up to cry “Prepare the way of the Lord”

Without these key people preparing carefully, there would have been no Christmas, at least not as we know it now.

Likewise if we do not prepare ourselves for Christmas, then we miss a time of year which is special to all of us. We miss the smiles on the faces of our family and friends when they open our gifts to them. We miss enjoying the partying and celebration, if we treat it as any old time of the year.

So just how are you going to prepare for Christmas?

How are you going to make it not just about the presents?

The Generation Game

Sermon preached at St Peter and St Paul’s Church Swanscombe on Advent Sunday 2006 based on St Luke xxi.25-36

[Long pause, waiting for something to happen. After a minute waiting, I begin.]

Frustrating isn’t it?

When you’re not sure
what you’re supposed to be waiting for,
nor when it will happen,
nor quite what the consequences
of it will be.

It stresses you out.


Elaine is annoyed.

Her favourite programme
is on after the football,
and she has just switched on
only to find that
Jose Beckham
or David Shilton,
or Diego Smith,
or whoever is supposed to be playing,
is lining up the 150th penalty shot
at the end of another nil-nil draw.

What is she to do?

Should she switch over or off,
or should she stick it out
becoming ever more concerned
that the BBC will actually
take off her favourite programme
because the football has over-run?


The trouble with waiting is
that it leaves you in a quandary:
should I wait a little longer
or do something else.

[PAUSE]

Elaine thinks that
surely the 150th penalty shot
must be a sign that
the game is coming to the end.



The players must be tired,
and they are likely to make mistakes,
so one of them is bound
to score a penalty very soon.
That goalie is looking a little bit floppy.

She watches expectantly,
hoping that her programme will be on shortly,
as Bobby Shearer lines up the shot,
walks back,
takes a run up,
shoots…


The trouble is,
we know that the end of the game is near
because we’re on the penalties,
but the 150th penalty doesn’t mean
that the next penalty will be the last,
it could go on indefinitely.

Even then
Elaine has got the interminable
post-match analysis
to sit through.

Do you ever find yourselves
in situations like that?

What is the limit of your patience?

[PAUSE]

Do you find yourself
becoming more impatient
with the world around you?

How do you feel when Jesus says
“There will be signs
in the sun,
in the moon,
and in the stars;
and on the earth
distress of nations with perplexity,
the sea and waves roaring”?

Do you find yourself thinking
“Is it now?

Is God coming back tomorrow”?

Why?

Are you ready for Him if he does?

[PAUSE]

We certainly see signs around us.
Distress seems an inadequate word
to describe the situation
in the Middle East.

We’ve been told
that all around us
the climate is changing.

The Sun may be getting hotter;
scientists say the expansion of Universe
is actually speeding up.

Aren’t these the signs
that the Lord tells us will happen
before He came back?


But the Lord also says,
“this generation will by no means pass away
till all these things take place.”

So, if Jesus is talking
first to the folk 2000 years ago,
hasn’t the generation that He speaks of
passed away?



Does this mean
that we have actually missed
the second coming of the Lord?

Well, clearly not.

So is Jesus wrong?

—after all He is on record for saying
that even He doesn’t know
when the Day of the Lord
is, was or will be.

Do you really think that He’s wrong?

But this has profound
implications for our belief.

If Jesus is wrong about this,
He could be wrong about
a whole host of things.

[PAUSE]

Think about it.

What do we believe?

Do we believe that Jesus is risen from the dead?

Yes – it’s the heart of our faith.

So this means that He is alive.

Is He with us now?

Well, yes, He promises to be with all His children.

Moreover,
this is Mass – His Presence is more obvious here,
because we come to Mass
for the purpose of meeting and receiving Him,
and He us.

So can He still talk to us?

Well, doesn’t He always?

Surely we can hear Him say to us
“this generation,
(our generation)
will not pass away
until all these things take place.”



He is not talking about His coming again,
He’s telling us that there will always be
these signs around us
that point to His coming.

There are Christians
who will look to the Apocalypse,
the Book of Revelation
to reveal what’s going to happen.

They speak of beasts and horrible plagues.

But Revelation doesn’t tell us
what’s going to happen in the future.

It speaks of events that have already happened
in Roman times
mixed together with events beyond Time,
so we can’t rely on it.

There isn’t going to be a Rapture.

The Lord will not come again
until every person has heard
the Good News
of the Lord’s love for us.


He gives everyone the opportunity
to make an informed choice
– to love Him, or not.

The reason he hasn’t already come
is because He wants you to believe in Him
and have the same chance of Eternal life
as our parents
our grandparents,
our great grandparents
in fact all the generations
who have gone before us
and the generations who will come after us.

So, if the Lord is not going to tell us
when He is coming,
why should we worry about the future?

There will always be wars
and rumours of wars,
and storms,
floods,
famines,
earthquakes,
volcanoes,
and the most terrible catastrophes
to befall mankind.

But Jesus says
that we must not worry
about them happening,
but to use them to look to Him
and remember His presence.

Then we go out and tend to those
who have been hurt by these disasters.

If we spend our time
worrying about the future we cannot control,
then we forget about the people
whose present is appalling,
and who need our love, help and support.

Our future is safe in the hands of God.

We trust Him to love us and save us, don’t we?

Truth and Me

laetare ergo iuvenis in adulescentia tua et in bono sit cor tuum in diebus iuventutis tuae et ambula in viis cordis tui et in intuitu oculorum tuorum et scito quod pro omnibus his adducet te Deus in iudicium

Rejoice, therefore, young man in your youth and may your heart be in good things in the days of your vigour; so walk in the ways of your heart and in the perception of your eyes and know that through all these things God will draw you to judgment.

Ecclesiastes xi.9 (translation from Vulgate by yours truly, forgive me)

Ecclesiastes is a snapshot of an earthly life without God and, quite frankly, makes for depressing reading unless we actually bother to let God read it with us. I've recently stumbled on this verse and I must confess not to feel so comfortable in considering its implications.

Here is a verse that speaks loudly of self-satisfaction. Looking at society around, we see that the media loves young folk who are bright, shiny and pretty. It undresses them, poses them and exploits them, and because the sensations are entirely pleasurable, not only do these youngsters permit it to happen, they try to defend this way of life. To qualify as a good musician you have to display three yards of midriff with a gaudy bauble mutilating your navel. And what happens when the youth fades and things start to sag southwards? Deparation and oblivion.

Interesting: you can't spell "youth" without "you"?

Throughout that verse we see the words tua, tuum, tuae, tui, tuorum, all singular possessive pronouns relating to one individual, all expressing a desire to cut off that which does not belong to the self until God Himself Who actually owns that very self - te - in its entirety decides that it has rendered itself unusable.

It's very easy when we're young to believe that we have the world all sussed out. Pierre Simon de Laplace famously declared that he did not need the "hypothesis" of God's existence because he believed that the Universe was clockwork, like a gargantuan cuckoo clock. When you have grown up and made a beginning of a life for yourself on your terms, away from the parents, it's easy to think you have it all right. Then you sit down and watch the news and form your own opinions of life, of how it is and how it ought to be.

It's unfair that people are starving in Africa.
It's unfair that gay people are being persecuted.
It's unfair that women are regarded as second class citizens.

Absolutely right on all counts. No one should starve, no one should be persecuted, no-one should be a second class citizen. However it is very easy to use one's own reasoning to conclude:

It's unfair that gay priests cannot enjoy a sexual relationship.
It's unfair that women cannot be priests and bishops.
It's unfair that those who oppose such things spend more time on these little issues than on dealing with the starving in Africa.

These are the conclusions drawn by Society around us, including those vehemently opposed to the message of the gospel, and as such they take no account of the Church as a whole. Not even His Holiness the Pope can enforce his beliefs on the Church, though he can guide and assist, and (if you believe in his Infallibility) only at the bidding of the whole Church, past and present, can he pronounce doctrine. Of course if you aren't a Roman Catholic (or Ultramontane Anglo-Papalist) then you argue that the Pope hasn't that authority over the whole church.

But the point is, the Truth is only apparent from the Church as a whole, not from individuals, but a collected effort to hear the word of God and hear the Word of God. Collectively the Church is infallible, not as individuals. Those who disagree with the church are welcome to disagree, they have that right, indeed God willingly and lovingly gives them that right, but at the end of the day, an individual cannot pronounce what is True unless he or she speaks the Doctrine of the Church. We must therefore submit to Church Doctrine, though it will cause us pain to do so. But God does promise that whoever does suffer pain because of obedience to Christ's Rule has truly circumcised his heart in Christ (which must necessarily be terribly painful) and is now party to the New Covenant of Christ. Gratia deo!

Thus those who reject the Church, may have wonderful lives, but as they walk away from God, God Himself will have to make a grave and bitter decision, not without tears I believe. Choose God and thus His Church, or choose Death. The choice is simple.

Guess the modern "worship" song

I'm rusty, so please point out the mistakes.


V. Gradatim super Orbem progredior.
R. Gradatim super Orbem progredior.

V. Tene me, ut ab veteribus ad novos tecum ambulem.
R. Tene me, ut ab veteribus ad novos tecum ambulem.

V. Per angulam Orbis circumvenio.
Orbem amplius ampliusque cognosco.
Dum nova video,
haec mecum adspices.

R. Tene me, ut ab veteribus ad novos tecum ambulem.

V. Dum per bona et mala eam,
me in via recta teneas.
Si non viam eundam videam
sciam te viam mihi ostendere.

R. Tene me, ut ab veteribus ad novos tecum ambulem.

V. Da mihi fortitudinem in asperitatem orbis.
Fac me amandum esse quamquam Orbs durus est;
saltem cantemque in omnia facta mea.
Tene me, ut tecum ambulem.

R. Tene me, ut ab veteribus ad novos tecum ambulem.

V. Plus vetus quam orbem es,
Plus juvenis quam vitam meam.
Vetus semper semperque novus
Tene me, ut tecum ambulem.

R. Tene me, ut ab veteribus ad novos tecum ambulem.

What is this King of kings?

Sermon preached at St Peter and St Paul’s Church, Swanscombe on Sunday 26th November 2006 based on Daniel vii. 9-14, Apocalypse i.4-8 and St John xviii.33-37.

In all the world,
there is none as bald
at this moment as Pontius.

He is tearing his hair out.

Before him stands
a rather grubby little Jewish man
who looks as if he has been
beaten up rather badly.

His clothes are covered in dirt,
his lip is bleeding,
and one of his eyes looks a little puffy.

“That’s going to be a proper shiner,”
thinks one of the guards.


So what’s giving Pontius grief?



Well, this grubby man
standing before him
has been accused of being
the king of the Jews,
and it is these Jews that are expecting
Pontius to do something about
this troublemaker.

The real trouble is that
he doesn’t seem to be able
to get a straight answer out of Him
in this most peculiar trial.

After all,
how can you be accused of being a king?

“Are you the king of the Jews?”

“Are you speaking for yourself,
or did others tell you this concerning me?”

What kind of answer’s that?

How can Pilate find out the truth
if he’s going to get an answer like that?

[PAUSE]


“Are you speaking for yourself,
or did others tell you this concerning me?”

Pilate can’t quite decide whether
this Jesus is being disrespectful
of his office as Governor of Judaea.

At Jesus’ reply,
he shifts on his throne uneasily,
brushing away an impertinent mosquito
that has decided to try and drill for oil
in his arm.

Certainly, the Jews have shown him
little respect when they delivered
this man to him at this time of night.

They don’t seem to have any respect
for their king either.

What authority
does this poor Jesus
have with the Jews?

What is a ruler without authority?

Perhaps it’s a Jewish custom to treat their rulers like this.

They’re a mad lot these Jews,
always getting their knickers in a twist
about something!


“Am I a Jew?”
says Pilate,
“I don’t understand your customs,
but it was your people
that brought you to me.

I don’t understand why?

What have you done?”

Has this Jesus made
the biggest mistake of his life
declaring himself to be a king
of a people who don’t want himto be king?

What is a ruler without
any understanding of his people?

[PAUSE]

Jesus looks at him,
wiping away a little blood from His lip,
“My kingdom is not of this world.”

“What?” thinks Pilate,
eyes widening, “he’s a lunatic!

But if he is a lunatic
why are the Jewish authorities
so afraid of him?

Is he their king or not?”


Jesus continues,
“If My kingdom were of this world,
My servants would fight so that
I should not be delivered to the Jews;
but now My kingdom is not from here.”

“That’s true,” thinks Pontius Pilate
relaxing slightly at the news
that Judaea isn’t going to be overrun
by angry hordes intent on chopping him
into pieces.

But what is a ruler without people to defend his rule?

[PAUSE]

But this Jesus has admitted He has a kingdom.

“Are you a king then?”
asks Pilate,
feeling a little bit surer that he is getting
near the truth about the identity
of this weird little Jew.

“You say rightly that I am a king.

For this cause I was born,
and for this cause I have come into the world,
that I should bear witness to the truth.

Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”

Pilate gives up.

“What is truth?”
he says dismissively.

Whoever this man is,
he is not a threat either to him,
or to the Jews.

Pilate decides that Jesus
should be free to live his life.

After all, what is a ruler without freedom?

The trouble is,
as we see in these, the last few hours
of the life of the Lord,
Pilate is not free to let Jesus go.

[PAUSE]

Is Jesus really a king then?

Is Pilate any more of a ruler than Jesus?

Pilate has authority over the Jews,
but he can’t seem to get them
to respect his decisions.

He doesn’t understand the Jews at all,
and if he had all the armies
in Rome at his disposal,
they wouldn’t get to Judaea
in time to prevent
a rather nasty massacre
if the Jews decided to revolt.

He may have the freedom
to try to impose his will on the Jews,
but he dare not exercise it
beyond what his army can do!
What do you think of Pilate’s status as a ruler?

Is it any better than any other world leader, even today?

What authority does any leader have?

What freedom do they have to do what they want?

Who fights for them?

Do they really know what their subjects need?

How do we answer these questions
about Jesus’ claim to be king?

[PAUSE]

Questions, questions, questions!

The fact that Jesus is the Son of God
means that he has complete freedom
over all of the Universe
– a freedom that He is prepared
to share with us.



Who fights for Him?
A heavenly army of angels
led by St Michael the Archangel
who defeats Satan,
and we too have angels to fight for us,
because He has given
His angels charge over us.


Does He know the needs of His subjects?

He knows us through and through.

He knows every thought that passes through our heads.

He may sit on His throne of fire in Heaven,
but His heart is with each one of us on earth,
and by living His way
of loving our neighbour as ourselves,
so will we know each others’ needs.

What authority does Jesus have?

He is our Lord and God.

All authority in Heaven and on Earth
have been given to Him,
and He shares this authority with the Church.

Is Jesus a king then?

Haven’t we just said so?

But if He shares all his kingship with us,
and if we keep a true faith with Him,
serving Him and loving Him
and worshipping Him,
doesn’t that make us kings as well?

What do you think?

Apologia pro vita mea (II): Watching out for falling lightning conductors!

Sorry, Cardinal Newman for borrowing your title again!

It seems that lately I am being asked the question "So why aren't you a Roman Catholic?" If I look at myself , I realise that I am practically a Roman Catholic, just from within the Church of England. So why don't I join up with the Holy See?

Well, the answer's obvious: I'm an Anglo-Papalist, i.e. I look to Rome for Doctrine and to His Holiness as Chief Bishop but I simply cannot convert to Rome on my own. I look for the reconciliation of the Anglos with the Romans wholesale, not in dribs and drabs. The Anglican way is rich robust and beautiful, but incomplete without the Roman Catholic Church, and I believe that the Roman Church would benefit enormously from what we Anglicans have learned during our sad time of separation. I would dearly love to see His Holiness engage in further talks with the truly Catholic Anglicans to heal this rift. I know I have Prayer-Book Catholic friends who would disagree with me heartily, but at least we walk in the same direction for the majority of our thoughts, and we can worship together - that can only be a good thing.

At present, I am in impaired communion with the C of E, i.e. I can only receive Communion from validly ordained priests (unlike many of the incumbents within the Communion), and I can only teach the Catholic Faith (unlike far too many priests and movements in the C of E). I am also in impaired Communion with my own Parish in that I have to insert the Nicene Creed and other parts of the Canon missing from the parish liturgy (which has been cobbled together from divers and dubious parts of Common Worship) while the rest of the congregation recite their substitutes (usually some dumbed-down affirmation).

So why do I stay? Because I have to - a situation not uncommon with Anglo-Papalists, particularly with my other more isolated fellows who like me are called to serve in a parish that doesn't want to know. That seems to me the whole point of Anglo-Papalism, that we are meant to be inferior Isaiahs, calling the people to the right way.

I have been umming and ahing about whether I ought to renew my Reader's licence. I have felt like taking off to an Anglican Catholic Church which Albion found for me, and have felt the temptation to swim the Tiber which another dear friend has been urging me. I love both of those churches very deeply because to me they are part of the same wholeness, even though they may not perceive it in the same way that I do. However, my time is not yet, and I must stay in the C of E in a vain attempt to call on the deaf ears of a failing church. There will come a time when I will have to go, and it may not be in the very distant future, and so I do hope to strike up a good relationship with the ACC even while I am still in rapidly darkening regions.

The first thing that perhaps I need to see is how the C of E will manage women "bishops". There really is only one way forward with this - the third province. It simply will not work otherwise.

The second thing is how long I can stick out the "all-singing, all-dancing" Mass at my church. Well, God will give me strength there, I pray, especially if I have to remain there.

As I say in my blurb on my blog (a blog blurb - sounds positively revolting!!) my calling appears to be "to seek the Truth and to help others in their search for it". Of course, my parish only want to hear what they want to hear and will not engage me in debate or dialogue, so I inhabit the edges wild and dishevelled like Patrick Troughton in the Omen. Guess I'll have to watch myself when it gets stormy! Your prayers would be appreciated. Let me know if I can help by praying for you too.

This is the Word of the Lord

This is my latest article for the Parish Magazine, the December/January issue.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

“This is the word of the Lord”. These are the words said every Sunday by at least two readers and our response to these Scripture readings is always “Thanks be to God” even when the phrase “this is the word of the Lord” appears in the middle of the text being read. It’s an automatic response to a phrase that is engrained within ourselves as part of our Christian belief.

Most of the time the phrase trips off our tongues without too much thought, and its easy to do when the passage that we’ve just heard tells us about the fidelity of God despite our sin. However, sometimes it seems to be rather a weird thing to say considering what has just been read to us. Do we want to say “this is the word of the Lord” in response to “Take all the prophets of Baal and let none of them escape” or in response to the story of the rape of Tamar and the sad death of her brother Absolom in the second book of Samuel. Can we really say “this is the word of the Lord” in response to the savagery of Psalms 58 or 109? Sometimes it just doesn’t seem like it is the word of the Lord. How do we reconcile the savage sounding God who commands the wholesale slaughter of the people of Jericho with the loving God of the New Testament?

A few weeks ago, on Bible Sunday, we read in St Paul’s second letter to Timothy that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” This is all very well, but this sentence of St Paul was written before many of his other letters and before any of the Gospels were written. Indeed, the Gospel of St John was written after St Paul had died. How can this sentence of St Paul that we use to justify our use of Scripture be used to apply to things written afterwards, and without St Paul’s knowledge.

What people don’t seem to realise is that the Bible is incomplete. It is not merely a manual for living life, nor just a textbook for understanding the will of God. It doesn’t seem to make sense in places; in yet other places it is fussy over seemingly ridiculous details which do not seem to matter. The Jews of the First Century were treating the Old Testament just like that. These Jews could easily say “this is the word of the Lord” while stoning an adulteress to death.

At Christmas time, we hear a different phrase: “this is the Word of the Lord”. How is this different from “this is the word of the Lord.” Do you see the capital “W”? This Word is a person, our Christ, the Messiah promised to the Jews with their Scripture, and the Gentiles with their science and philosophy. At Christmas time we celebrate the fulfilment of the word of God in the Person of the Word of God – the Lord Jesus Christ. Without the Word of God, the Bible is rubbish, meaningless twaddle, the gibberings of madmen, inaccurate historians, the wild imaginings of deluded fools.

Indeed, there are folk who take the Bible and treat it this way, interpreting it for themselves, making what it says bend to fit their understandings and attempt to make all around them conform.
All Scripture is indeed God-breathed through the Word of God. Jesus is called the Word because He communicates to God the Father for us, and to us from the Father. It is only through Him that we understand the will of God, and it is only through Him that all those difficult passages of the Old Testament make sense, even if we can’t see how it makes sense. There will be justice for the dead of Jericho, for Absolom, for Tamar, for the millions of slaughtered men women, children and animals, just as there will be justice for all who have been wronged. There will also be mercy in abundance too. Don’t ask how justice and mercy can both be achieved, only God knows that, but justice and mercy are all achieved by the Word of God, born in a stable, brought up as a carpenter, taught as a rabbi, died as a criminal and was raised in body mind and spirit as our Redeemer and Saviour.

Now if there is a danger that the Scripture could be misread, misinterpreted or misrepresented, then what safeguard have we for the Word of God? Well, the Word of God isn’t just found in the Bible, that’s why the Bible is incomplete. The Word of God is in the Church Herself, present in every Mass, in every prayer, in every house-group, within the heart of any human being who genuinely holds Christ as Lord. We should listen then to the teachings of the Church which have been built century on century from the lives of all who have served Christ before, and whose lives are only briefly sketched in the pages of the book we read every Sunday.

The Continuum

It is 1 year ago, that a certain Albion Land set up his blog The Continuum. It was as a direct result of this that this little blog came into being, since I pressed the wrong button while trying to post a comment, and found myself lumbered with a blog! Well, this blog has a little way to go before its first birthday in late December. But none the less I'd like to thank Albion, Fr Hart, Fr Kirby and dear old Ed for keeping a mine of information going.

If you want to be part of the Continuing Churches, then this blog is necessary reading, and more. The Continuum as a Church needs to work harder at getting its message across in a liberally dominated society. We need to broadcast our news and come together if we are going to be regarded as the proper Anglican Church (which we are, since we follow the Tradition and Scripture and Reason faithfully). So, dear Reader, if you have never visited the Continuum blog, do it now! You won't regret it.

"Tradition is not an argument."

I found this on Julio's blog. How I feel for him. We're in a world of iconoclasts insistent on breaking down structures or reasoning and communicating, just so that we can somehow be "free" to be ourselves.

The irony is that it is God who wants us to be free to be ourselves. Indeed He has freed us from the slavery to sin in which we are forced to be anything but ourselves. Now that is part of Christian Tradition - the ultimate freedom - to be what God made us to be. To cast away Tradition is to cast away our link with this Truth.

But why does society want to get rid of Tradition which it sees as restrictive? Why is Tradition so oppressive? Perhaps there is a bit of displacement going on here.

It's easy to displace onto others the faults that we ourselves have, or ascribe inadequacies to others when it is our worldview which is skewed.
We flip the bird to the driver who speeds past us honking their horn aggressively, without realising that we are the one who is driving unhelpfully slowly on the motorway.

If Tradition doesn't allow us to do what society thinks is reasonable, then it must be that Tradition is wrong, and it must be bowlderised so that it fits what is correct in the modern sense. Tradition is a threat to the modern way of living, and the modern way of living cares only about now, never about tomorrow, less still about yesterday.

Tradition has carried the Catholic Faith through all Catholic Christians, all of whom encountered in different ways as different people in different countries with different cultures the same God, the same Truth, the same Creed (modulo a filioque) and received the same Baptism. Tradition binds us together and bids us not to be selfish, isolationist or intolerant. Daily, the current of the World dashes our bodies against the Rock of Tradition, and in so doing we are made smooth like polished pebbles.

Society cannot see this because Society sees what it wants to see, and to it Tradition is more honoured in the breach than in the observance. However, let us not concern ourselves with the big picture. By living our lives according to the Faith that our fathers (all the way back to Our Lord Himself) held but living it as part of our lives as who we are, then we work on the smallest scale possible, sowing minute seeds of fidelity and love that will be missed. God will ensure that these are watered and will grow to proportions that people will not be able to ignore. Let us not depise the day of small things but rather do what little we can. Therein lies the hope of one who is Traditional in the world of Iconoclasm.

Petitioning the person in the pew

Albion posted the following comment on a post about the AIC:

Could we perhaps try to move this away from what is running perilously close to a sniping match, and try to be more constructive. I, too, find it curious that there seems to be an inordinate focus on the hierarchy and virtually nothing on the numbers on the faithful. But this is not unique.

What do we have in common here, and is there any ground for cooperation and intercommunion between the AIC and the other jurisdictions?

He makes very good points: one that is pertinent to the article in question, but also in the general scheme of things. When are the usual people in the pew sought out for advice for the church? When does the opinion, experience or understanding of an "ordinary" (no such thing) parishioner get considered?

In Britain, the government of a Parish is usually made by the PCC (I gather that in the U.S. they call this the Vestry Committee) so the day-to-day running of the Church is dealt with by an elected body.

But what role does the ordinary parishioner play in the Church? These are the folk at the coal-face of life. These are the folk whose charge it is to go into the community and live Christian lives in a world which, quite frankly, would rather they didn't. Theirs is the greater persecution, since they inhabit a world that is not cloistered away from corruption and spiritual attack. These folk come to Church regularly to find spiritual refreshment and rest, sanctuary and security, hope, health and happiness, as they devote their lives to God. Yet when are they ever heard by those whose job it is to serve them? Frequently within their own parishes, I hope, but on the global scale of things about the direction of the Church, in describing their needs and calling for consistency, very seldom.

At the Reformation, the majority of the faithful wanted to retain the Roman structures that provided them with the certain knowledge that they were in church. They were ignored by those who wanted to impress the new doctrines upon them. Okay, so the majority of the laity aren't academic theologians, but if the Church has done its job and served them by teaching them to listen to Scripture and Tradition, then they will know when something is amiss, as did those affected so drastically by the schism from the Roman Catholic Church.

And similarly now. The focus as to what happens to the Church seems always to lie at the feet of the bishops. They have authority to guide and govern the Church, but when things go awry, as the Anglican Communion has, and the bishops speak on their own doctrines after capitulating to the Zeitgeist, what does one do? It is to the priests to whom the faithful turn for guidance, and to the bishops that the priests turn for authority.

There are many parishioners within the Continuum who are after the same thing - the honest and true worship of God in the Catholic Faith uncorrupted by fate, fashion and feelings, and the majority of churches within the Continuum offer just that. Yet are they the ones being kept apart by the politics of the bishops?

I suspect that the majority of the traditional followers of the Church of England are actually Anglo-Papalist in their affections, but do not have the ear of any Anglo-Papalist movement, nor the education to voice their concerns in the way that the hierarchy would hear. Many are being misinformed by liberals who peddle a epistemological solipsism of doctrine, and individuality of worship, effectively an intellectual opium to dull their minds to the actual Truth.

If the people want to be heard then they must seek out the language that people will hear. It is not enough that there be a knowledgeable spokesperson, but that each Christian should have the education to know their need, the need of their society and how the Church is failing to provide that need.

Yes, bishops and priests have authority in matters of Doctrine, provided that it is the correct Doctrine. Thus those in Orders must be respected, but their decisions made on behalf of the whole Church must include the voices of the parishes if there is to be consistency. His Holiness is the servant of the servants of God, the focus of Catholicism, as long as he does actually serve those servants of God (which the present Pope is doing magnificently. He listens, as did his predecessor). He will only do this by listening to those who have to engage the world in a harder struggle than those who have the shelter of Holy Orders. Even the Pope is outranked by the Catholic Faith, yet it is that same Faith that we have to carry with us, within each of us, into the world. Let us trust the authority of priests and bishops, but temper that trust by educating ourselves carefully in the Doctrine that Our Saviour gave us. You don't need a Ph.D for that!