For those of you who move in Anglo-Papalist circles online, you will surely have come across the Confused Anglo-Papalist which subsequently became the Seriously Confused Anglo-Papalist. Well, the prefix Anglo has disappeared (as well as the serious confusion), a sure sign that Fr. Marco Vervoorst has made the decision to swim the Tiber. Certainly I wish him well, and pray that he may be happy in his new Catholic family.
So how do I react to a rare breed becoming one fewer? Well, I have no condemnation for Fr. Vervoorst at all; he will always be one of ours just as Cardinal Newman was always one of ours. There is sadness yes, but there is no real problem with what he's done.
It does make me think about my own position. I am on my own in my physical community, and I find myself surrounded by larger animals telling me which is the correct doctrine. As an individual I have a choice, but with my choice comes the responsibilities of living up to the consequences of that choice. I no longer belong to a church whose teaching is consistent with the Catholic Faith.
So what will it take for me to finally shake the dust of the C of E from my feet?
First: a home to go to. I do not want to run away from the C of E, I want to run to an established home which will receive me in love and keep me in the Catholic Faith.
Second: that I am assured of a smooth period of transition so that I may in some sense get my affairs in order before I make the break. Considering that I have a family and a considerable number of friends whom I only really see in a church context as a member of a choir and a Bible Study group, this will be where the pain of the transition lies.
Third: if there were a definite split in the C of E along the Catholic fault lines then I would move with that split on the proviso that the resulting denomination is perfectly consonant with the Catholic Faith.
These are the big three that readily spring to mind. There may be others.
God bless Fr. Vervoorst!
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Suffer the little children...
Sermon preached at St Peter and St Paul’s Church, Swanscombe on the fourth Sunday in Lent (Mothering Sunday), 18th March 2007 based on I Samuel i.20-28 and St John xix.25-27.
In a little house sits a mother,
her little boy at her breast
content and happy.
To him,
her thoughts are irrelevant.
All he seeks is warmth
and love
and milk,
items his mother supplies
as abundantly as she possibly can.
As he sleeps,
he is comforted
by the steady beat of her heart.
Not for him is it to know that
despite all this tranquillity,
his mother is wracked
with pain and worry.
The child does not know
of the preparation that his mother is making,
for when he has stopped needing
the milk and the cuddles,
when he has teeth and is on solid food,
when he is just about to walk,
his mother,
the one who has prayed fervently
for his birth,
will give him to the priests
and walk away.
[PAUSE]
Before Samuel’s birth,
Hannah,
his mother was declared to be barren.
Peninnah,
her husband’s other wife,
has children.
At that time Hannah didn’t,
and she was mocked for it.
Hannah has prayed
to the God she has always prayed to
and Samuel is the result
- a happy and fine baby boy
with fat legs and thick black hair.
So why on earth did she want him born
if she is only going to give him up
while he is still small?
Has Hannah been selfish?
Has she only prayed for Samuel’s birth
just to save face
in the light of mockery from Peninnah
and social disgrace?
Is Samuel just a trophy baby
so that Hannah can say
“see, I can have children”?
Is Hannah like some women of today
whose only thought is to have children
so that she can claim benefits?
[PAUSE]
Samuel stretches a little
in Hannah’s arms and
as she wipes his little mouth,
her heart is heavy
because she loves him
and she must give him up.
Is there anything more difficult
than for a mother
to give away her child?
[PAUSE]
Having to let go of a child
is an inevitable part of motherhood.
There are many tragedies in life
which see a mother having to say goodbye
to her baby prematurely.
Isn’t “goodbye” something
that all mothers have to say at some point?
Is there a mother
who hasn’t shed a quiet tear because
Her baby has left her because
it’s their first day at school,
the first time they sleep
over at someone else’s house,
go on holiday on their own,
go to university,
get married and leave home.
A mother’s heart is filled with worry.
Will they be alright?
Will they get there safely?
Will they eat well?
Have they packed enough clean underwear?
Motherhood is tough, no two ways about it.
[PAUSE]
When Our Lady, Mary,
presents the infant Jesus, Our Lord
at the temple,
the priest Simeon tells her that
because she is the Mother of God,
a sword will pierce her own soul,
just as the Lord’s body
will be pierced
on Good Friday.
Isn’t this a sensation with which
mothers are all too familiar?
Suffer the little children…
and, boy, do we have to suffer them!
[PAUSE]
In presenting Jesus in the temple,
Lady Mary is fulfilling the requirements
of the Jewish law.
Every first-born male must
be presented to the Lord for His possession.
Thankfully for the parents,
God usually charges them
to look after the child for Him.
It’s also a bit of a relief for the priests too.
Just think – wouldn’t the Rectory
be a little inundated with nappies?
But in giving the child back to the parents,
God is telling them that the child
must be brought up in His ways.
[PAUSE]
Hannah is serious in what she wants to do.
She loves God,
and wants a chance to worship Him fully.
This is why she is determined
to offer up Samuel in worship of God.
She’s not saving face
by praying for a baby to be born
and then foisting him on the priests
just because he’s inconvenient.
She’s asking God for a way to worship God
through the hard sacrifice of being a mother
- a sacrifice made harder
by giving Samuel up when he’s still very little.
Samuel will turn out to be a very fine priest.
What does this say about Hannah’s sacrifice?
[PAUSE]
Being a mother is a priesthood unique to women.
It involves a sacrifice of love
to bring a child into the world,
to nourish it,
to love it,
to teach it,
to give it every opportunity
to become the person that it is going to be.
This can only happen
if the mother decreases
so that the child increases.
As a church we all,
men and women,
have a duty in mothering.
When a child is baptised,
the Church becomes a spiritual mother
and has a duty to make sacrifices
in order for that child to grow up in the faith.
We, the Church, have a duty in our mothering
to decrease so that our little ones can increase
knowing the love of God,
and how He provides for them.
In giving us His son,
God also gives us the example
of the Blessed Virgin Mary,
the Mother of God,
to show us how seriously
we must all take our
mothering duties.
Like any Jewish Mother,
Mary is the one who teaches the Jesus the Faith,
so must we teach our children
the same Faith built
on the same precepts.
Mary is the one who has
to accept the person that her son is,
so must we accept the people
who our children are,
and let them have every opportunity
to serve God.
Mary is the one
whose heart is broken
when she sees her son
bleeding on the cross.
So too must we have our hearts broken
in letting our children go
to do what they must do.
Mary— Mother of God.
The Church— mother of Christians.
Have you made your sacrifice of motherhood yet?
In a little house sits a mother,
her little boy at her breast
content and happy.
To him,
her thoughts are irrelevant.
All he seeks is warmth
and love
and milk,
items his mother supplies
as abundantly as she possibly can.
As he sleeps,
he is comforted
by the steady beat of her heart.
Not for him is it to know that
despite all this tranquillity,
his mother is wracked
with pain and worry.
The child does not know
of the preparation that his mother is making,
for when he has stopped needing
the milk and the cuddles,
when he has teeth and is on solid food,
when he is just about to walk,
his mother,
the one who has prayed fervently
for his birth,
will give him to the priests
and walk away.
[PAUSE]
Before Samuel’s birth,
Hannah,
his mother was declared to be barren.
Peninnah,
her husband’s other wife,
has children.
At that time Hannah didn’t,
and she was mocked for it.
Hannah has prayed
to the God she has always prayed to
and Samuel is the result
- a happy and fine baby boy
with fat legs and thick black hair.
So why on earth did she want him born
if she is only going to give him up
while he is still small?
Has Hannah been selfish?
Has she only prayed for Samuel’s birth
just to save face
in the light of mockery from Peninnah
and social disgrace?
Is Samuel just a trophy baby
so that Hannah can say
“see, I can have children”?
Is Hannah like some women of today
whose only thought is to have children
so that she can claim benefits?
[PAUSE]
Samuel stretches a little
in Hannah’s arms and
as she wipes his little mouth,
her heart is heavy
because she loves him
and she must give him up.
Is there anything more difficult
than for a mother
to give away her child?
[PAUSE]
Having to let go of a child
is an inevitable part of motherhood.
There are many tragedies in life
which see a mother having to say goodbye
to her baby prematurely.
Isn’t “goodbye” something
that all mothers have to say at some point?
Is there a mother
who hasn’t shed a quiet tear because
Her baby has left her because
it’s their first day at school,
the first time they sleep
over at someone else’s house,
go on holiday on their own,
go to university,
get married and leave home.
A mother’s heart is filled with worry.
Will they be alright?
Will they get there safely?
Will they eat well?
Have they packed enough clean underwear?
Motherhood is tough, no two ways about it.
[PAUSE]
When Our Lady, Mary,
presents the infant Jesus, Our Lord
at the temple,
the priest Simeon tells her that
because she is the Mother of God,
a sword will pierce her own soul,
just as the Lord’s body
will be pierced
on Good Friday.
Isn’t this a sensation with which
mothers are all too familiar?
Suffer the little children…
and, boy, do we have to suffer them!
[PAUSE]
In presenting Jesus in the temple,
Lady Mary is fulfilling the requirements
of the Jewish law.
Every first-born male must
be presented to the Lord for His possession.
Thankfully for the parents,
God usually charges them
to look after the child for Him.
It’s also a bit of a relief for the priests too.
Just think – wouldn’t the Rectory
be a little inundated with nappies?
But in giving the child back to the parents,
God is telling them that the child
must be brought up in His ways.
[PAUSE]
Hannah is serious in what she wants to do.
She loves God,
and wants a chance to worship Him fully.
This is why she is determined
to offer up Samuel in worship of God.
She’s not saving face
by praying for a baby to be born
and then foisting him on the priests
just because he’s inconvenient.
She’s asking God for a way to worship God
through the hard sacrifice of being a mother
- a sacrifice made harder
by giving Samuel up when he’s still very little.
Samuel will turn out to be a very fine priest.
What does this say about Hannah’s sacrifice?
[PAUSE]
Being a mother is a priesthood unique to women.
It involves a sacrifice of love
to bring a child into the world,
to nourish it,
to love it,
to teach it,
to give it every opportunity
to become the person that it is going to be.
This can only happen
if the mother decreases
so that the child increases.
As a church we all,
men and women,
have a duty in mothering.
When a child is baptised,
the Church becomes a spiritual mother
and has a duty to make sacrifices
in order for that child to grow up in the faith.
We, the Church, have a duty in our mothering
to decrease so that our little ones can increase
knowing the love of God,
and how He provides for them.
In giving us His son,
God also gives us the example
of the Blessed Virgin Mary,
the Mother of God,
to show us how seriously
we must all take our
mothering duties.
Like any Jewish Mother,
Mary is the one who teaches the Jesus the Faith,
so must we teach our children
the same Faith built
on the same precepts.
Mary is the one who has
to accept the person that her son is,
so must we accept the people
who our children are,
and let them have every opportunity
to serve God.
Mary is the one
whose heart is broken
when she sees her son
bleeding on the cross.
So too must we have our hearts broken
in letting our children go
to do what they must do.
Mary— Mother of God.
The Church— mother of Christians.
Have you made your sacrifice of motherhood yet?
Thursday, March 15, 2007
The most obscene VIth form assembly ever
I was asked to give my first talk to the assembled sixth form today. I chose to elaborate on a theme I've already covered in "An Obscene Posting" and from the comments made. A little near the knuckle I thought!
Address given at the VIth form assembly at Eltham College on 15th March 2007
Cricket commentators
Don Mosey and Brian Johnston
are in the commentating box
for the BBC World Service
in a test match between
West Indies and England at the Oval.
Batsman Peter Willey is at the stumps,
bowler Michael Holding is at the crease.
As the On Air sign comes on,
Johnston begins his commentary:
We welcome World Service listeners to the Oval,
where the bowler's Holding,
the batsman's Willey.
[PAUSE]
Yes, there's always some laughter about that,
and I suspect that some of you who didn't laugh
are feeling uncomfortable
that one of your teachers
has just mentioned the word "willy"
in assembly.
But have you ever wondered
why we find words like "bum" or "willy" funny?
Still further,
our lexicon of rude words and phrases
is populated solely with
so-called unmentionable parts of the human body,
functions of the human body,
things that one human body
does to another human body,
and suggestions about
what one human body can do to itself.
Why is that?
We all have to use the bathroom,
be we a sixth former, the Queen,
or even Michael Jackson!
Why is the lavatory funny?
Our parents have all engaged
in a certain activity
which has resulted in us being here,
so why does that produce nervous giggles,
and even more horrible thoughts?
[PAUSE]
Well, using the bathroom is a fact of life
- the end process of a complicated
and indeed remarkable
chemical decomposition of food
and the rejection of that
which is unnecessary or harmful.
It's funny because it's unpleasant,
especially after some school dinners,
but it’s something we all have in common.
Sex is an action
which should take place
between married couples
in order to bring forth human life.
That's what it's for!
Sex is traditionally funny
because the Church gets
rather hot under the dog-collar about it
- in more ways than one.
Among others,
we have to thank St Augustine of Hippo for that.
St Augustine is a notorious womaniser
who famously prayed
"Lord make me chaste,
but not yet."
When the Lord eventually made him chaste,
he turned on sex with such a vengeance
that there is still an attitude (a minority)
in the Church today
which hold Augustine’s view
that sex is sinful
and to be ashamed of.
However, the truth is that
the Church properly believes that sex is far
from disgusting.
Indeed sex is held in such a high regard
that Christians believe that it belongs
to the sanctity
- and privacy -
of the marriage bed.
It is not to be shared with anyone else
other than the person to whom you are married.
The pendulum has swung a long way
from St Augustine,
and many people these days,
old and young alike,
tend to be praying
"Lord make me chaste,
and quite easily caught".
The media have blown sex out of proportion.
No longer is it that something people do,
it's something that everyone has to do
everywhere
at anytime
and in any place
as long as you are under 30.
At least that's what our television programmes,
papers and the cult of celebrity tell us.
If sex is so out in the open,
then why do we use sexually explicit language
to swear or curse at someone?
Why tell someone to F-off if,
in telling him so,
you are wishing him a pleasurable experience
with his lover?
Why tell someone to P-off if,
in telling him so, you are wishing him
that unique sense of relief
that comes from getting rid
of three cans of cola?
Does this really make sense to you?
[PAUSE]
If we use sex as the barrel
from which we draw our insults,
then doesn't this say something about
our respect, or lack of it,
for the way in which our species
regenerates itself.
We're not amoebas who go off
and quietly divide
in order to replenish our population.
We are beings who forge
complex and meaningful relationships
which colour our lives.
Our friends and our families are important to us,
but even more so the person
with whom we fall in love
to the extent that we wish to marry
and populate our lives with children.
How can that be a curse
if we find our love?
How can we look at the newborn baby
in its mother's arms and say to it
"your conception was disgusting"?
How can sex be this obscene?
Surely there are greater obscenities in life
than the toilet or the bedroom?
Isn't beating someone up in a pub an obscenity?
Isn't kicking a dog to death
more disgusting to us than bringing a baby
into the world?
Why isn't the greatest obscenity
of them all "I hate you?"
At least our biological waste products
have the potential
for creating and sustaining
the beauty of creation.
[PAUSE]
The human condition is wonderful.
Our bodies are the product
of complex and delicate
mechanical,
hydraulic,
biological
and chemical engineering.
How will you stop yourself
from treating your own humanity
and the humanity of others with anything
less than the greatest respect?
Aren’t you worth it?
Address given at the VIth form assembly at Eltham College on 15th March 2007
Cricket commentators
Don Mosey and Brian Johnston
are in the commentating box
for the BBC World Service
in a test match between
West Indies and England at the Oval.
Batsman Peter Willey is at the stumps,
bowler Michael Holding is at the crease.
As the On Air sign comes on,
Johnston begins his commentary:
We welcome World Service listeners to the Oval,
where the bowler's Holding,
the batsman's Willey.
[PAUSE]
Yes, there's always some laughter about that,
and I suspect that some of you who didn't laugh
are feeling uncomfortable
that one of your teachers
has just mentioned the word "willy"
in assembly.
But have you ever wondered
why we find words like "bum" or "willy" funny?
Still further,
our lexicon of rude words and phrases
is populated solely with
so-called unmentionable parts of the human body,
functions of the human body,
things that one human body
does to another human body,
and suggestions about
what one human body can do to itself.
Why is that?
We all have to use the bathroom,
be we a sixth former, the Queen,
or even Michael Jackson!
Why is the lavatory funny?
Our parents have all engaged
in a certain activity
which has resulted in us being here,
so why does that produce nervous giggles,
and even more horrible thoughts?
[PAUSE]
Well, using the bathroom is a fact of life
- the end process of a complicated
and indeed remarkable
chemical decomposition of food
and the rejection of that
which is unnecessary or harmful.
It's funny because it's unpleasant,
especially after some school dinners,
but it’s something we all have in common.
Sex is an action
which should take place
between married couples
in order to bring forth human life.
That's what it's for!
Sex is traditionally funny
because the Church gets
rather hot under the dog-collar about it
- in more ways than one.
Among others,
we have to thank St Augustine of Hippo for that.
St Augustine is a notorious womaniser
who famously prayed
"Lord make me chaste,
but not yet."
When the Lord eventually made him chaste,
he turned on sex with such a vengeance
that there is still an attitude (a minority)
in the Church today
which hold Augustine’s view
that sex is sinful
and to be ashamed of.
However, the truth is that
the Church properly believes that sex is far
from disgusting.
Indeed sex is held in such a high regard
that Christians believe that it belongs
to the sanctity
- and privacy -
of the marriage bed.
It is not to be shared with anyone else
other than the person to whom you are married.
The pendulum has swung a long way
from St Augustine,
and many people these days,
old and young alike,
tend to be praying
"Lord make me chaste,
and quite easily caught".
The media have blown sex out of proportion.
No longer is it that something people do,
it's something that everyone has to do
everywhere
at anytime
and in any place
as long as you are under 30.
At least that's what our television programmes,
papers and the cult of celebrity tell us.
If sex is so out in the open,
then why do we use sexually explicit language
to swear or curse at someone?
Why tell someone to F-off if,
in telling him so,
you are wishing him a pleasurable experience
with his lover?
Why tell someone to P-off if,
in telling him so, you are wishing him
that unique sense of relief
that comes from getting rid
of three cans of cola?
Does this really make sense to you?
[PAUSE]
If we use sex as the barrel
from which we draw our insults,
then doesn't this say something about
our respect, or lack of it,
for the way in which our species
regenerates itself.
We're not amoebas who go off
and quietly divide
in order to replenish our population.
We are beings who forge
complex and meaningful relationships
which colour our lives.
Our friends and our families are important to us,
but even more so the person
with whom we fall in love
to the extent that we wish to marry
and populate our lives with children.
How can that be a curse
if we find our love?
How can we look at the newborn baby
in its mother's arms and say to it
"your conception was disgusting"?
How can sex be this obscene?
Surely there are greater obscenities in life
than the toilet or the bedroom?
Isn't beating someone up in a pub an obscenity?
Isn't kicking a dog to death
more disgusting to us than bringing a baby
into the world?
Why isn't the greatest obscenity
of them all "I hate you?"
At least our biological waste products
have the potential
for creating and sustaining
the beauty of creation.
[PAUSE]
The human condition is wonderful.
Our bodies are the product
of complex and delicate
mechanical,
hydraulic,
biological
and chemical engineering.
How will you stop yourself
from treating your own humanity
and the humanity of others with anything
less than the greatest respect?
Aren’t you worth it?
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Realigning wobblebottoms
Homily Preached at Eltham College Chapel on 26th and 27th of Febrary 2007
So what have you given up for Lent?
Sweets?
Chocolate?
Rollerblading?
Homework?
"Please Sir, I haven't done my homework
because I've given it up for Lent."
"Hmm, that's interesting Eric, because, for Lent,
I've given up not putting people into detention
for failing to do their homework."
Perhaps you're like many people and find Lent rather passes you by.
You don't give up anything for Lent,
yet you still enjoy the overdone and rather greasy pancakes
that slop onto your plate on Shrove Tuesday.
Others of you may like the discipline
of giving something up,
something which, perhaps, you've been too fond of doing,
such as eating too much,
or playing too much
on the Nintendo DS,
and Lent seems the perfect opportunity
to make a step towards becoming healthier in body and/or mind.
Sometimes giving up something for Lent seems more trouble than its worth.
It would not be advisable to insist that a confirmed carnivore give up meat for Lent.
That could result in less physical health, namely a spell in A&E for anyone who suggests it.
Like New Years' Resolutions,
we give up giving up for Lent after two weeks
when the withdrawal symptoms kick in
- the shakes,
the sweats,
depression,
sleeplessness,
and listlessness during the day.
It seems going without a chocolate hob-nob
is too much for some of us to bear.
So why give anything up in the first place?
Why not carry on life as usual
without all this abstinence?
After all,
we have all these wonderful things around us,
why not use them
and enjoy them all year round?
[PAUSE]
We have only to look at
the environment around us
to see the effects of this attitude.
Our constant demands
for what we want
are damaging this planet,
perhaps irreparably,
all for the sake of satisfying our wants
- not our needs,
our wants.
Our planet,
our society and our own selves
are put at risk
all because we refuse
to give up something that we enjoy
just to restore a balance.
It is a fact of life that,
in order to make a positive impact
on the world around us,
we need to make an effort.
Effort requires sacrifice
- you don't get something for nothing.
To win at rugby,
you cannot have a team of wobblebottoms
lumbering across the field
like a heard of soporific hippopotami.
You need trained athletes
who have given up sitting on their backsides
playing Grand Theft Auto
to bring themselves to a peak condition.
The school captain would not have been picked
for the rugby team if simply walking onto the pitch
made him wheeze like a hyena with laryngitis.
To be a successful academic,
you need a mind that has often gone
without a good night's sleep to solve a problem
or gather information.
To be a great moral leader
like Archbishop Tutu,
or Pope Benedict,
you have to give up
thoughts about yourself
and what you need
in order to see the needs
of those around you.
To be successful at anything,
you cannot be a stranger to sacrifice.
"Giving up" and "sacrifice"
both involve restoring a balance,
whether that be environmental,
social or personal.
They are also seen as dirty words in our culture.
By sacrificing aspects of our way of life now,
we can go some way to restoring
the delicate balances of the environment.
But the act of sacrifice has to be
meaningful for the people we are.
Our drama teachers have made sacrifices
of time and patience,
to ensure that the latest production
went with a bang
- literally.
And one wonders how many cast members sacrificed their
eyebrows,
fingers and toes as a result.
Knowing what to give up for Lent
requires knowledge of what we need to balance.
For the Christian,
Lent is about trying to restore
the balance in our relationship with God.
We examine our lives
and strip away the spiritual fat
that has grown as a result of our selfishness.
It does hurt to sacrifice
- it wouldn't be sacrifice if it didn't hurt -
but the benefits of doing so
are incredibly rewarding.
So what’s stopping you from looking
at the way you live your life,
and thinking about the impact
you are personally having
on the world around?
Is there some imbalance
that needs to be re-dressed?
Are you man enough
(or woman enough)
to make a sacrifice this Lent?
So what have you given up for Lent?
Sweets?
Chocolate?
Rollerblading?
Homework?
"Please Sir, I haven't done my homework
because I've given it up for Lent."
"Hmm, that's interesting Eric, because, for Lent,
I've given up not putting people into detention
for failing to do their homework."
Perhaps you're like many people and find Lent rather passes you by.
You don't give up anything for Lent,
yet you still enjoy the overdone and rather greasy pancakes
that slop onto your plate on Shrove Tuesday.
Others of you may like the discipline
of giving something up,
something which, perhaps, you've been too fond of doing,
such as eating too much,
or playing too much
on the Nintendo DS,
and Lent seems the perfect opportunity
to make a step towards becoming healthier in body and/or mind.
Sometimes giving up something for Lent seems more trouble than its worth.
It would not be advisable to insist that a confirmed carnivore give up meat for Lent.
That could result in less physical health, namely a spell in A&E for anyone who suggests it.
Like New Years' Resolutions,
we give up giving up for Lent after two weeks
when the withdrawal symptoms kick in
- the shakes,
the sweats,
depression,
sleeplessness,
and listlessness during the day.
It seems going without a chocolate hob-nob
is too much for some of us to bear.
So why give anything up in the first place?
Why not carry on life as usual
without all this abstinence?
After all,
we have all these wonderful things around us,
why not use them
and enjoy them all year round?
[PAUSE]
We have only to look at
the environment around us
to see the effects of this attitude.
Our constant demands
for what we want
are damaging this planet,
perhaps irreparably,
all for the sake of satisfying our wants
- not our needs,
our wants.
Our planet,
our society and our own selves
are put at risk
all because we refuse
to give up something that we enjoy
just to restore a balance.
It is a fact of life that,
in order to make a positive impact
on the world around us,
we need to make an effort.
Effort requires sacrifice
- you don't get something for nothing.
To win at rugby,
you cannot have a team of wobblebottoms
lumbering across the field
like a heard of soporific hippopotami.
You need trained athletes
who have given up sitting on their backsides
playing Grand Theft Auto
to bring themselves to a peak condition.
The school captain would not have been picked
for the rugby team if simply walking onto the pitch
made him wheeze like a hyena with laryngitis.
To be a successful academic,
you need a mind that has often gone
without a good night's sleep to solve a problem
or gather information.
To be a great moral leader
like Archbishop Tutu,
or Pope Benedict,
you have to give up
thoughts about yourself
and what you need
in order to see the needs
of those around you.
To be successful at anything,
you cannot be a stranger to sacrifice.
"Giving up" and "sacrifice"
both involve restoring a balance,
whether that be environmental,
social or personal.
They are also seen as dirty words in our culture.
By sacrificing aspects of our way of life now,
we can go some way to restoring
the delicate balances of the environment.
But the act of sacrifice has to be
meaningful for the people we are.
Our drama teachers have made sacrifices
of time and patience,
to ensure that the latest production
went with a bang
- literally.
And one wonders how many cast members sacrificed their
eyebrows,
fingers and toes as a result.
Knowing what to give up for Lent
requires knowledge of what we need to balance.
For the Christian,
Lent is about trying to restore
the balance in our relationship with God.
We examine our lives
and strip away the spiritual fat
that has grown as a result of our selfishness.
It does hurt to sacrifice
- it wouldn't be sacrifice if it didn't hurt -
but the benefits of doing so
are incredibly rewarding.
So what’s stopping you from looking
at the way you live your life,
and thinking about the impact
you are personally having
on the world around?
Is there some imbalance
that needs to be re-dressed?
Are you man enough
(or woman enough)
to make a sacrifice this Lent?
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Black Shuck rides again.
Depression seems very rife at the moment. Several of my close friends, and I also, have been feeling low. Whether this is a seasonal thing or a product of the circumstances in which we find ourselves, I'm not sure. I certainly find myself feeling for two friends who are at present suffering gross injustices, and having to live with the results and implications. Their problems put my self-pity in the shade, and yet when the black dog comes -even for no apparent reason - there seems to be little that can be done.
No platitude will bring us out, or free us from the pad, pad, pad of Black Shuck dogging our steps, and yet our darkness is not all self-pity. There are many troubles that are in the world at the moment - troubles that have always been there and will continue to be ,and other troubles that come out of the darkness periodically. Whatever the magnitude of these troubles, they burden us, and not even the thought of what Our Lord went through on our behalf seems to lift our spirits. Indeed, I've found that can make things worse.
I find myself turning to Psalm xxxix, and find that the psalmist too gets overburdened with the cares of this life.
When depressed, I think that we're often tempted to say, "Snap out of it! Stop moaning or being self-pitying. Don't wallow!" Sometimes we're told to do this by a loved-one who can't quite see the situation. We hold our tongues before God, trying not to express the depths of inexplicable misery that has suddenly come upon us in the midst of our lives and in the midst of the loveliness of God's Creation in the hope that it will pass. But the darkness descends and we sit there stewing like a plum pudding trying to keep it all in.
When at last we can find our voices, we cry out to God to let it end somehow. "How long have I got to put up with this lousy life? I can't do anything right. All that mankind can do is at least empty and at worst destructive. What on Earth is the point of it all, that men should rise up and fall down and disappear?"
Is there any point to life? If we exist to glorify God and enjoy life, then why is one day much like another? Why is there so much to worry about, so much that crushes our spirits?
Once we have vented our spleen, then comes the silence, that unfair silence of God. A silence that is even more crushing that the darkness that has already befallen us. All we want is that glimmer of light to just allow us to get up and walk into oblivion where even we forget who we are.
And why is God silent?
Well, what words would He use to comfort us? There aren't words in the English language - or in any language for that matter - that can rouse someone from depression. That is why there is silence. It is said that Mother Theresa of Calcutta ended her life in the silence of God, just a darkness. St John of the Cross spoke of the Dark Night, and countless saints suffered the same complaint. Is it then the case that they couldn't see the wood for the trees, that these folk had passed into the cloud that surrounds God? From far away we hear the voice of God, but close up to Him we find ourselves in the Cloud of Unknowing, the cloud through which God speaks to us in words that our ears cannot hear; indeed, all we hear is silence. But these are words of healing. Mother Theresa's healing was her passing from this life into the bosom of God.
Our duty to God is to offer Him the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. If it's a sacrifice then it is something that we can expect to hurt us at times. We're still expected to offer Him thanks and praise when life is miserable, pointless, difficult, and it does hurt us to do so. But if it hurts us then we can be sure that we are actually offering God something worthwhile, something that He won't ignore because it is offered out of love.
We are built to love, to care, and there is much to care about - the sick, the homeless, the poor, destitute, starving, naked, orphaned and oppressed... whether physically so, mentally so, or spiritually so. So if we are truly built to care and love, then depression is part of the course when our poor finite little selves get overwhelmed with a greater quantity of misery.
We must wait for God silently to break our silence. The Dayspring from on High will break upon us, but not until our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving is complete in His eyes.
No platitude will bring us out, or free us from the pad, pad, pad of Black Shuck dogging our steps, and yet our darkness is not all self-pity. There are many troubles that are in the world at the moment - troubles that have always been there and will continue to be ,and other troubles that come out of the darkness periodically. Whatever the magnitude of these troubles, they burden us, and not even the thought of what Our Lord went through on our behalf seems to lift our spirits. Indeed, I've found that can make things worse.
I find myself turning to Psalm xxxix, and find that the psalmist too gets overburdened with the cares of this life.
Psalm xxxix. Dixi, Custodiam
I SAID, I will take heed to my ways : that I offend not in my tongue.
2. I will keep my mouth as it were with a bridle : while the ungodly is in my sight.
3. I held my tongue, and spake nothing : I kept silence, yea, even from good words; but it was pain and grief to me.
4. My heart was hot within me, and while I was thus musing the fire kindled : and at the last I spake with my tongue;
5. Lord, let me know mine end, and the number of my days : that I may be certified how long I have to live.
6. Behold, thou hast made my days as it were a span long : and mine age is even as nothing in respect of thee; and verily every man living is altogether vanity.
7. For man walketh in a vain shadow, and disquieteth himself in vain : he heapeth up riches, and cannot tell who shall gather them.
8. And now, Lord, what is my hope : truly my hope is even in thee.
9. Deliver me from all mine offences : and make me not a rebuke unto the foolish.
10. I became dumb, and opened not my mouth : for it was thy doing.
11. Take thy plague away from me : I am even consumed by the means of thy heavy hand.
12. When thou with rebukes dost chasten man for sin, thou makest his beauty to consume away, like as it were a moth fretting a garment : every man therefore is but vanity.
13. Hear my prayer, O Lord, and with thine ears consider my calling : hold not thy peace at my tears.
14. For I am a stranger with thee : and a sojourner, as all my fathers were.
15. O spare me a little, that I may recover my strength : before I go hence, and be no more seen.
When depressed, I think that we're often tempted to say, "Snap out of it! Stop moaning or being self-pitying. Don't wallow!" Sometimes we're told to do this by a loved-one who can't quite see the situation. We hold our tongues before God, trying not to express the depths of inexplicable misery that has suddenly come upon us in the midst of our lives and in the midst of the loveliness of God's Creation in the hope that it will pass. But the darkness descends and we sit there stewing like a plum pudding trying to keep it all in.
When at last we can find our voices, we cry out to God to let it end somehow. "How long have I got to put up with this lousy life? I can't do anything right. All that mankind can do is at least empty and at worst destructive. What on Earth is the point of it all, that men should rise up and fall down and disappear?"
Is there any point to life? If we exist to glorify God and enjoy life, then why is one day much like another? Why is there so much to worry about, so much that crushes our spirits?
Once we have vented our spleen, then comes the silence, that unfair silence of God. A silence that is even more crushing that the darkness that has already befallen us. All we want is that glimmer of light to just allow us to get up and walk into oblivion where even we forget who we are.
And why is God silent?
Well, what words would He use to comfort us? There aren't words in the English language - or in any language for that matter - that can rouse someone from depression. That is why there is silence. It is said that Mother Theresa of Calcutta ended her life in the silence of God, just a darkness. St John of the Cross spoke of the Dark Night, and countless saints suffered the same complaint. Is it then the case that they couldn't see the wood for the trees, that these folk had passed into the cloud that surrounds God? From far away we hear the voice of God, but close up to Him we find ourselves in the Cloud of Unknowing, the cloud through which God speaks to us in words that our ears cannot hear; indeed, all we hear is silence. But these are words of healing. Mother Theresa's healing was her passing from this life into the bosom of God.
Our duty to God is to offer Him the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. If it's a sacrifice then it is something that we can expect to hurt us at times. We're still expected to offer Him thanks and praise when life is miserable, pointless, difficult, and it does hurt us to do so. But if it hurts us then we can be sure that we are actually offering God something worthwhile, something that He won't ignore because it is offered out of love.
We are built to love, to care, and there is much to care about - the sick, the homeless, the poor, destitute, starving, naked, orphaned and oppressed... whether physically so, mentally so, or spiritually so. So if we are truly built to care and love, then depression is part of the course when our poor finite little selves get overwhelmed with a greater quantity of misery.
We must wait for God silently to break our silence. The Dayspring from on High will break upon us, but not until our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving is complete in His eyes.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Somnambulism in the City
Sermon preached at St Peter and St Paul’s Church Swanscombe on 18th February 2006, based on Exodus xxxiv.29-end, II Corinthians iii.12-iv:2 and St Luke ix:28-43.
Al reaches for the snooze button again
as, for the second time,
the alarm stridently cuts through
a lovely dream about Keira Knightly.
He switches the light on,
wincing as the neon bulb dazzles him,
hurting his eyes.
Slowly he rouses himself,
trying to focus on the day ahead of him.
Eventually,
he summons up all his strength
to poke a warm toe out into the cold room.
Yawning and scratching his head,
he stumbles through to the bathroom,
walking straight past God’s holy angel standing
by the doorway.
Al gets dressed,
and wanders downstairs
for his bowl of Crunchy Nut Cornflakes.
He switches on the Radio,
and the sound of Chris Moyles
playing “Hotel California”
drowns out the Eternal song o
f the two seraphim in the kitchen
singing “Holy, Holy, Holy.”
After cleaning his teeth and brushing his hair,
Al grabs his briefcase from by the door
and gets into his car.
As he drives to work,
he passes three angels
playing lute, trumpet and shawm,
a crowd of martyrs praising God,
Moses and Elijah calling out to the world,
and Our Lady in a shop window
pointing towards
the Divine person of Christ
in the world.
[PAUSE]
Al’s working day is uneventful.
He photocopies papers
unaware of a couple of cherubim
sitting on the copy tray.
He grabs a cup from the water-cooler
on which St Simon Stylites
stands motionless.
He sends countless emails to his colleagues,
missing the email sent to him
by St Isidore of Seville,
patron saint of the Internet.
On his way home from work,
the Glory of God shines all around Al,
radiant and pure light from an Eternal source.
He dines,
watches a bit of telly
and goes to bed unaware of the multitude
of the heavenly host moving around him.
All of these things have happened in plain sight.
One woman saw the angel
hovering above Al’s car as he drove by.
But Al has not seen them.
As far as he is concerned,
all he sees is the greyness of the pavement,
the fumes coming
from the exhaust of the car in front,
the irritated look on the face of his boss
when Al tells him that
the figures will be late
this month.
None of these wonders
have been hidden from Al,
but he does not see them.
You see, when the alarm clock rang,
Al did not wake up.
[PAUSE]
Oh yes,
he got out of bed all right,
and he was conscious
when he drove to work.
He was certainly conscious
of the idiot who cut him up
at the Walthamstow roundabout.
He was conscious of
the choice words and phrases
that he used to describe that idiot.
He’s conscious of the staple
that he nearly put through his thumb at work.
But Al isn’t conscious
of the angel standing
next to the homeless woman
to whom he throws a £2 coin.
Al is a somnambulist, a sleep-walker.
He wanders through his day
oblivious to the truth of the world around him,
concentrating on his life and how it works.
For Al, every day is much the same,
the alarm goes off every morning;
he has Crunchy Nut Cornflakes for breakfast;
his daughter always manages
to beat him to the bathroom
when he’s desperate;
Wednesday night is always casserole night.
That’s his life.
When the alarm rings and the lamp comes on,
Al shuts his eyes again
because he is dazzled by the light.
[PAUSE]
It’s easy to shut our eyes when they are dazzled.
It’s a reflex.
Indeed it hurts if we try to look at something
which is too powerful.
When we sleep,
we become used to the darkness
which hides our world.
In the dark,
we see only the shadows of the way things are,
and we make up our own ideas
of what the truth is.
But if we try to open our eyes to the light,
it hurts
so we shut them again.
How can we get used to the light
if we keep shutting our eyes to it?
How can we see the Truth
if our eyes are closed?
[PAUSE]
Peter, James and John
get to see Jesus as God on the mountainside
because they’ve been having their eyes opened,
little by little,
through devoting themselves to the Lord.
Day by day,
they sit with Him,
eat breakfast with Him,
walk with Him,
go out onto the lake with Him,
study the Scriptures with Him.
Jesus is there with them
in the intimacy
and day-by-day routine of their lives
and they are part of the intimacy
and day-by-day routine of His life.
Yet all the while, the Lord has been preparing them
for a deeper intimacy,
the intimacy of His Godhead which bursts into their hum-drum reality
quietly
on a mountainside in a blaze of Titanic Glory.
Yet, the Transfiguration is an intimate event.
It’s an event as deeply personal
as going to sleep with your spouse next to you,
yet it comes only as a result of getting used to Christ in your life,
of opening our eyes
to the brilliance of God who wants
to show Himself to us as He really is.
It is only by opening the eyes slowly to Christ that we see the wonders of God around us in a world that is darkened by much sadness,
selfishness and sin.
The season of Lent gives us
the opportunity for us to see
how much of our lives we spend asleep
to God’s Presence.
We could spend Lent
just giving something up
sweets,
chocolate,
television,
coffee
like we always do,
but what’s the point if,
at the end of it,
we are just as unaware of God in our lives
as we were
when we started?
How do you propose to seek
the light of God this Lent?
Al reaches for the snooze button again
as, for the second time,
the alarm stridently cuts through
a lovely dream about Keira Knightly.
He switches the light on,
wincing as the neon bulb dazzles him,
hurting his eyes.
Slowly he rouses himself,
trying to focus on the day ahead of him.
Eventually,
he summons up all his strength
to poke a warm toe out into the cold room.
Yawning and scratching his head,
he stumbles through to the bathroom,
walking straight past God’s holy angel standing
by the doorway.
Al gets dressed,
and wanders downstairs
for his bowl of Crunchy Nut Cornflakes.
He switches on the Radio,
and the sound of Chris Moyles
playing “Hotel California”
drowns out the Eternal song o
f the two seraphim in the kitchen
singing “Holy, Holy, Holy.”
After cleaning his teeth and brushing his hair,
Al grabs his briefcase from by the door
and gets into his car.
As he drives to work,
he passes three angels
playing lute, trumpet and shawm,
a crowd of martyrs praising God,
Moses and Elijah calling out to the world,
and Our Lady in a shop window
pointing towards
the Divine person of Christ
in the world.
[PAUSE]
Al’s working day is uneventful.
He photocopies papers
unaware of a couple of cherubim
sitting on the copy tray.
He grabs a cup from the water-cooler
on which St Simon Stylites
stands motionless.
He sends countless emails to his colleagues,
missing the email sent to him
by St Isidore of Seville,
patron saint of the Internet.
On his way home from work,
the Glory of God shines all around Al,
radiant and pure light from an Eternal source.
He dines,
watches a bit of telly
and goes to bed unaware of the multitude
of the heavenly host moving around him.
All of these things have happened in plain sight.
One woman saw the angel
hovering above Al’s car as he drove by.
But Al has not seen them.
As far as he is concerned,
all he sees is the greyness of the pavement,
the fumes coming
from the exhaust of the car in front,
the irritated look on the face of his boss
when Al tells him that
the figures will be late
this month.
None of these wonders
have been hidden from Al,
but he does not see them.
You see, when the alarm clock rang,
Al did not wake up.
[PAUSE]
Oh yes,
he got out of bed all right,
and he was conscious
when he drove to work.
He was certainly conscious
of the idiot who cut him up
at the Walthamstow roundabout.
He was conscious of
the choice words and phrases
that he used to describe that idiot.
He’s conscious of the staple
that he nearly put through his thumb at work.
But Al isn’t conscious
of the angel standing
next to the homeless woman
to whom he throws a £2 coin.
Al is a somnambulist, a sleep-walker.
He wanders through his day
oblivious to the truth of the world around him,
concentrating on his life and how it works.
For Al, every day is much the same,
the alarm goes off every morning;
he has Crunchy Nut Cornflakes for breakfast;
his daughter always manages
to beat him to the bathroom
when he’s desperate;
Wednesday night is always casserole night.
That’s his life.
When the alarm rings and the lamp comes on,
Al shuts his eyes again
because he is dazzled by the light.
[PAUSE]
It’s easy to shut our eyes when they are dazzled.
It’s a reflex.
Indeed it hurts if we try to look at something
which is too powerful.
When we sleep,
we become used to the darkness
which hides our world.
In the dark,
we see only the shadows of the way things are,
and we make up our own ideas
of what the truth is.
But if we try to open our eyes to the light,
it hurts
so we shut them again.
How can we get used to the light
if we keep shutting our eyes to it?
How can we see the Truth
if our eyes are closed?
[PAUSE]
Peter, James and John
get to see Jesus as God on the mountainside
because they’ve been having their eyes opened,
little by little,
through devoting themselves to the Lord.
Day by day,
they sit with Him,
eat breakfast with Him,
walk with Him,
go out onto the lake with Him,
study the Scriptures with Him.
Jesus is there with them
in the intimacy
and day-by-day routine of their lives
and they are part of the intimacy
and day-by-day routine of His life.
Yet all the while, the Lord has been preparing them
for a deeper intimacy,
the intimacy of His Godhead which bursts into their hum-drum reality
quietly
on a mountainside in a blaze of Titanic Glory.
Yet, the Transfiguration is an intimate event.
It’s an event as deeply personal
as going to sleep with your spouse next to you,
yet it comes only as a result of getting used to Christ in your life,
of opening our eyes
to the brilliance of God who wants
to show Himself to us as He really is.
It is only by opening the eyes slowly to Christ that we see the wonders of God around us in a world that is darkened by much sadness,
selfishness and sin.
The season of Lent gives us
the opportunity for us to see
how much of our lives we spend asleep
to God’s Presence.
We could spend Lent
just giving something up
sweets,
chocolate,
television,
coffee
like we always do,
but what’s the point if,
at the end of it,
we are just as unaware of God in our lives
as we were
when we started?
How do you propose to seek
the light of God this Lent?
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Catechetical catastrophe!
You are a 100% traditional Catholic!
Congratulations! You are more knowlegeable than most modern theologians! You have achieved mastery over the most important doctrines of the Catholic Faith! You should share your incredible understanding with others!
Do You Know Your Baltimore Catechism?
Make Your Own Quiz
Well, I'm sorry, I'm just showing off now. It's a just a fun test and nothing serious, but it does raise a serious issue. If that jocular little blurb beneath the score bar is true, then I truly fear for the preservation of the Doctrine of the Church.
Why is it that I should do well in this and not even know of the existence of the Baltimore Catechism, (though I do know the Tridentine Catechism with a certain degree of familiarity) and yet would have not performed half as well in my knowledge of the Anglican Catechism?
The 1662 BCP Catechism is so seldom used now. Indeed, when I was Confirmed, my Confirmation classes were so vague, all I can remember is something distant issue about a chalice! I don't mind so much about this with my somewhat mottled relationship with the CofE, but there are so many Anglicans in the Church of England who leave Confirmation Classes without understanding any of the Faith and what it means. These days Confirmation classes seem to involve sitting down and watching an Alpha Course Video. This is all very well an introduction to the Faith, but surely this introduction isn't necessary if the Confirmands are already established members of the Church. They will surely have shown some commitment, and the natural teaching office of the Church would surely help them to know the basics, wouldn't it?
The Teaching Office of the Church ought to be drawing attention to concrete issues of Faith, not allow people to be obfuscated with theological dithering over weighty issues, or get away with believing what they want to believe. There is an objective Truth, and it needs to be sought.
For example: it may not be particularly Anglican practice to discuss these days, but aren't the spiritual and corporate works of mercy actually important to being a Christian?
[For those who aren't aware, the spiritual works of mercy are:
- To instruct the ignorant;
- To counsel the doubtful;
- To admonish sinners;
- To bear wrongs patiently;
- To forgive offences willingly;
- To comfort the afflicted;
- To pray for the living and the dead.
and the corporal works of mercy are
- To feed the hungry;
- To give drink to the thirsty;
- To clothe the naked;
- To harbour the harbourless;
- To visit the sick;
- To ransom the captive;
- To bury the dead. ]
Even people who believe in Salvation through Faith alone should at least be aware of the things that their neighbours need and look out for opportunities to practise them. There isn't an excuse for a Protestant not to know these because, quite frankly, they are a mark of the Christian Faith and part of the priesthood of the Laity of any denomination. I acknowledge that a Protestant would balk at praying for the dead (can't think why...) but to know that these works are part of our duty is surely of vast importance.
There are other issues:- how many members of the Anglican laity know what a sacrament is? How many care what a sacrament is? They don't care because they haven't been taught the fundamental relevance of Sacraments to the Church. Result: indifference to the Divine Grace of God. And I shudder.
If the Church doesn't teach the Truth, how will people know Him?
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Aren't labels sticky?
So what are you?
Dare I make the assumption that you are a human being reading this?
Dare I make the assumption that you understand English?
If I may, then I can reasonably conclude that you are an English-understanding human being. Already I've managed to label you, a noun qualified by an adjective.
We seem to get ourselves in a tizzy about just what we mean by the various labels we use to describe ourselves, or others, or organisations. The adjectives and nouns give us a set of conditions that we have satisfied in order to bear those very adjectives and nouns. In order to be described as red, you have to reflect a certain wavelength of light. In order to be described as soft, you have to have a yielding quality either physically or emotionally.
Clearly concrete labels such as "red" or "soft" can be verified via direct experience (except if you are colour-blind or eating school mashed potato). It's when we come to attribute abstract labels to things, organisations or people that the most disagreement occurs.
In the circles in which I find myself (and I make it clear that I am not a philosopher, nor a student of philosophy), the word "Anglican" appears to cause a lot of bitter dispute among those who would call themselves such. Smiliarly the words "Catholic" and "Orthodox".
It is the connotations that these epithets carry with them that cause the most distress. These days I feel increasingly reluctant to call myself Anglican, and this is due to the circumstances in which I live. To be called an Anglican by my friends who know me is fine: they understand that I have some affinity with the Historical Ecclesia Anglicana, that my genealogy is deeply English, though I am sure that I have some Viking or Norman blood from centuries past. However, ask anyone in the street what Anglican means and they will say "Church of England", and there begins my objection. I no longer consider myself a member of the Church of England as it is now, but as of one who rests in it with a deep affection. I believe myself to still be Anglican in the same way that Albion and Ed and Frs. Kirby and Hart do on the Continuum blog, but I do not adhere to the practices nor the doctrine of the Church of England where they diverge from the Catholic Faith. (If I get kicked out of the CofE as a result of saying this, then actually this will make my life easier!)
Now, we could all get bogged down in semantics and historical pedantries as to what Anglicanism actually is. Was Anglicanism invented at the Reformation, at the Synod of Witby, or when the first Christian set foot on the British Isles, or was it with the first Christianised Angle in Germany? There seems to be some consensus that it is something to do with Blighty and her rather convoluted history. However, as soon as we get into the idea of what it is to be British, then we find ourselves "us"ing and "them"ing. Are Americans Anglicans? Can there truly be an Anglican Centre in Rome? In trying to define ourselves we start to try and split ourselves off from other people, and that is something which is easy to do, but utterly against the Will of God. Labels applied too rigidly afford us only the selfishness of ever-approaching solitude
Well then, perhaps Anglicanism is something to do with the Office, or Anglican Use Liturgies? Wouldn't that depend on your opinion of what the Anglican Church is, and when it started? The BCP was a product of the Reformation; priot that it was all Roman Catholic, and yet even that had an English twist to it with the Sarum Liturgies, prior even to that the Celtic Use. So we're back to comparing genealogies and who is or isn't Anglican - practices that St Paul condemened to his disciples Timothy and Titus (I Timothy i.14 and Titus iii.9).
In short there are always senses in which the word "Anglicanism" does and doesn't apply. So Perhaps for Anglicanism its a case of Louis Armstrong's maxim: "if you gotta ask, you'll never know." Could we really get away with "If it doesn't feel English, then it isn't Anglican"?
I think if we quibble about what Anglicanism is, then we miss a very big point. Surely it is better to be a Christian rather than have our exact identity pinned down according to the way we conduct our Divine Liturgy and Divine Office. Even then we quibble about who is a Christian and who isn't . There are many who call themselves Christians who say and do things that are manifestly not Christian ideals - that in itself doesn't stop a person from being a Christian since we all sin and fall short of the glory of God. It's what we believe in our hearts and confess with our mouths that is important. Jesus is Lord. If we cannot say that and mean it then there is a doubt on our Christianity.
Perhaps the only True Christians are the saints.
What do I mean by that? Well perhaps True Christianity is something to which we aspire, we may call ourselves Christians, but if at the end we are not recognised by Christ, then how can we have truly been Christians?
There will be a schism in the Anglican Communion over the issue of homosexuality, and there will be a schism in the Church of England over trying to get women into the Episcopacy. Who will be allowed to keep the title Anglican? To be honest, I don't care. I am an Anglo-Papalist: by that I mean I am a Roman Catholic barred from Communion with the Holy See by an accident of History finding a dwelling place within the Anglican Church. Both the Holy See and the Church of England mean a great deal to me, even if one of them is going off the rails into darkness and the other is fighting an encroaching plague of relativism and modernism.
That is what I believe myself to be, but until God tells me who I am, then I shall just have to labour under this misapprehension. However, I earnestly pray that one day I may be honoured by God with the title "Christian".
Dare I make the assumption that you are a human being reading this?
Dare I make the assumption that you understand English?
If I may, then I can reasonably conclude that you are an English-understanding human being. Already I've managed to label you, a noun qualified by an adjective.
We seem to get ourselves in a tizzy about just what we mean by the various labels we use to describe ourselves, or others, or organisations. The adjectives and nouns give us a set of conditions that we have satisfied in order to bear those very adjectives and nouns. In order to be described as red, you have to reflect a certain wavelength of light. In order to be described as soft, you have to have a yielding quality either physically or emotionally.
Clearly concrete labels such as "red" or "soft" can be verified via direct experience (except if you are colour-blind or eating school mashed potato). It's when we come to attribute abstract labels to things, organisations or people that the most disagreement occurs.
In the circles in which I find myself (and I make it clear that I am not a philosopher, nor a student of philosophy), the word "Anglican" appears to cause a lot of bitter dispute among those who would call themselves such. Smiliarly the words "Catholic" and "Orthodox".
It is the connotations that these epithets carry with them that cause the most distress. These days I feel increasingly reluctant to call myself Anglican, and this is due to the circumstances in which I live. To be called an Anglican by my friends who know me is fine: they understand that I have some affinity with the Historical Ecclesia Anglicana, that my genealogy is deeply English, though I am sure that I have some Viking or Norman blood from centuries past. However, ask anyone in the street what Anglican means and they will say "Church of England", and there begins my objection. I no longer consider myself a member of the Church of England as it is now, but as of one who rests in it with a deep affection. I believe myself to still be Anglican in the same way that Albion and Ed and Frs. Kirby and Hart do on the Continuum blog, but I do not adhere to the practices nor the doctrine of the Church of England where they diverge from the Catholic Faith. (If I get kicked out of the CofE as a result of saying this, then actually this will make my life easier!)
Now, we could all get bogged down in semantics and historical pedantries as to what Anglicanism actually is. Was Anglicanism invented at the Reformation, at the Synod of Witby, or when the first Christian set foot on the British Isles, or was it with the first Christianised Angle in Germany? There seems to be some consensus that it is something to do with Blighty and her rather convoluted history. However, as soon as we get into the idea of what it is to be British, then we find ourselves "us"ing and "them"ing. Are Americans Anglicans? Can there truly be an Anglican Centre in Rome? In trying to define ourselves we start to try and split ourselves off from other people, and that is something which is easy to do, but utterly against the Will of God. Labels applied too rigidly afford us only the selfishness of ever-approaching solitude
Well then, perhaps Anglicanism is something to do with the Office, or Anglican Use Liturgies? Wouldn't that depend on your opinion of what the Anglican Church is, and when it started? The BCP was a product of the Reformation; priot that it was all Roman Catholic, and yet even that had an English twist to it with the Sarum Liturgies, prior even to that the Celtic Use. So we're back to comparing genealogies and who is or isn't Anglican - practices that St Paul condemened to his disciples Timothy and Titus (I Timothy i.14 and Titus iii.9).
In short there are always senses in which the word "Anglicanism" does and doesn't apply. So Perhaps for Anglicanism its a case of Louis Armstrong's maxim: "if you gotta ask, you'll never know." Could we really get away with "If it doesn't feel English, then it isn't Anglican"?
I think if we quibble about what Anglicanism is, then we miss a very big point. Surely it is better to be a Christian rather than have our exact identity pinned down according to the way we conduct our Divine Liturgy and Divine Office. Even then we quibble about who is a Christian and who isn't . There are many who call themselves Christians who say and do things that are manifestly not Christian ideals - that in itself doesn't stop a person from being a Christian since we all sin and fall short of the glory of God. It's what we believe in our hearts and confess with our mouths that is important. Jesus is Lord. If we cannot say that and mean it then there is a doubt on our Christianity.
Perhaps the only True Christians are the saints.
What do I mean by that? Well perhaps True Christianity is something to which we aspire, we may call ourselves Christians, but if at the end we are not recognised by Christ, then how can we have truly been Christians?
There will be a schism in the Anglican Communion over the issue of homosexuality, and there will be a schism in the Church of England over trying to get women into the Episcopacy. Who will be allowed to keep the title Anglican? To be honest, I don't care. I am an Anglo-Papalist: by that I mean I am a Roman Catholic barred from Communion with the Holy See by an accident of History finding a dwelling place within the Anglican Church. Both the Holy See and the Church of England mean a great deal to me, even if one of them is going off the rails into darkness and the other is fighting an encroaching plague of relativism and modernism.
That is what I believe myself to be, but until God tells me who I am, then I shall just have to labour under this misapprehension. However, I earnestly pray that one day I may be honoured by God with the title "Christian".
Friday, February 02, 2007
Head versus heart: No contest!
My latest parish magazine article which I publish here, unabridged.
“Have a heart,” is what we say to the traffic warden as he, with malicious grin and calculated manner, slaps a ticket on our windscreen despite the fact that we’ve only parked on a double yellow line for five seconds to pick up an elderly aunt. It’s an interesting expression by which we mean that the grinning embodiment of evil clad in yellow peaked cap ought to display some human emotion. But why the heart?
It was the Greeks who believed that the heart was the house of our emotions. After all, when we fall in love, get involved in a heated argument, face our fear, or cry our eyes out, that rather large muscle in our chest starts beating like a woodpecker after 100 cups of Nescafé. No wonder the Greeks thought that this is where our feelings are kept. The brain, however, the Greeks didn’t understand at all, and so put its presence down as something to do with temperature regulation. In this age of MRI-scans and other electro-magnetic imaging techniques, we can see emotions flash across the surface of the brain, so we can be sure that our hearts are doing a perfectly good job of pushing blood around the body and not pushing out waves of sadness just because the goldfish has passed away.
We might say that our tormenting traffic-warden was ruled by his head rather than by his heart, mechanically doing an unpopular but necessary job in an age when people’s selfishness have made it necessary for double yellow lines to be painted to indicate that stopping would inconvenience many others. Others are said to be ruled by their hearts and guided by where their thoughts and feelings take them, like environmental protesters marching to make a faceless organisation hear their cry of anger at the pollution they are causing. Yet some are ruled too far by their hearts and become effective terrorists, endangering the lives of scientists testing drugs on animals.
Action based on feelings without thinking can be very destructive. In this day and age where many of us are tempted to indulge ourselves with all kinds of luxury kitchens, holidays, sofas, toilet-paper to make ourselves feel more comfortable, we think not of the consequences of the effects on others around us. If scientists are right about global warming being cause by human beings (and there still is some doubt) then it is mainly through the lack of consideration on our part to consider the impact of our wants on the environment. Our prisons are over-crowded because the Government feels that it has to make laws in order to force people into being less anti-social, but who is telling us what it means to be social?
Actions based on thought without feeling produce similarly destructive results. Communism was, and in fact is, a perfectly respectable idea but which has effectively been proven not to work in practice. This did not stop Stalin from enforcing his understanding of Communism on Eastern Europe, and many still bear the scars of that today. Oliver Cromwell forced his own ideas of Christianity on the people of mid 17th Century for what he believed to be the common good. He went so far as to abolish Christmas and other festivities because they did not fit in with his system of beliefs. We may believe whole-heartedly in a theory but if we want to try and implement it, then we have to take into account people as they are: neither Stalinist-Communism nor Cromwellian Puritanism did so.
It is clear that love truly requires the use of head and heart, of thought and emotion. Think on I Corinthians xiii. The loveless know-it-all is nothing because he fails to see the import of human beings for what they truly are in the sight of God. Without love, there suddenly appears something which the loveless know-it-all does not know, and so he ceases to be what he believes himself to be. A loveless know-it-all submits himself to nothing rather than the cage of his own reason, and as a result destroys himself utterly.
So how should we use our heads and our hearts? Well, in his letter to the Roman Christians, St Paul tells us:
We are to transform ourselves by the renewing of our minds. Now this does not mean that we should be dropping everything for the latest fashion like women priests and bongo drums. St James reminds us that we are not to be blown about by the latest theological theory. But St Paul means that in order to be renewed, we need to go back to the Source – to God Himself, so that what He created He can also renew in His ways. We need renewing because we continue to stray, but the Lord Jesus spoke about the Living Water that will spring up from within us. This Living Water is again from the One True God who is humble and loving enough to make His dwelling within each of us. It is He who will help our hearts and minds work in harmony to worship Him, and love those around us.
“Have a heart,” is what we say to the traffic warden as he, with malicious grin and calculated manner, slaps a ticket on our windscreen despite the fact that we’ve only parked on a double yellow line for five seconds to pick up an elderly aunt. It’s an interesting expression by which we mean that the grinning embodiment of evil clad in yellow peaked cap ought to display some human emotion. But why the heart?
It was the Greeks who believed that the heart was the house of our emotions. After all, when we fall in love, get involved in a heated argument, face our fear, or cry our eyes out, that rather large muscle in our chest starts beating like a woodpecker after 100 cups of Nescafé. No wonder the Greeks thought that this is where our feelings are kept. The brain, however, the Greeks didn’t understand at all, and so put its presence down as something to do with temperature regulation. In this age of MRI-scans and other electro-magnetic imaging techniques, we can see emotions flash across the surface of the brain, so we can be sure that our hearts are doing a perfectly good job of pushing blood around the body and not pushing out waves of sadness just because the goldfish has passed away.
We might say that our tormenting traffic-warden was ruled by his head rather than by his heart, mechanically doing an unpopular but necessary job in an age when people’s selfishness have made it necessary for double yellow lines to be painted to indicate that stopping would inconvenience many others. Others are said to be ruled by their hearts and guided by where their thoughts and feelings take them, like environmental protesters marching to make a faceless organisation hear their cry of anger at the pollution they are causing. Yet some are ruled too far by their hearts and become effective terrorists, endangering the lives of scientists testing drugs on animals.
Action based on feelings without thinking can be very destructive. In this day and age where many of us are tempted to indulge ourselves with all kinds of luxury kitchens, holidays, sofas, toilet-paper to make ourselves feel more comfortable, we think not of the consequences of the effects on others around us. If scientists are right about global warming being cause by human beings (and there still is some doubt) then it is mainly through the lack of consideration on our part to consider the impact of our wants on the environment. Our prisons are over-crowded because the Government feels that it has to make laws in order to force people into being less anti-social, but who is telling us what it means to be social?
Actions based on thought without feeling produce similarly destructive results. Communism was, and in fact is, a perfectly respectable idea but which has effectively been proven not to work in practice. This did not stop Stalin from enforcing his understanding of Communism on Eastern Europe, and many still bear the scars of that today. Oliver Cromwell forced his own ideas of Christianity on the people of mid 17th Century for what he believed to be the common good. He went so far as to abolish Christmas and other festivities because they did not fit in with his system of beliefs. We may believe whole-heartedly in a theory but if we want to try and implement it, then we have to take into account people as they are: neither Stalinist-Communism nor Cromwellian Puritanism did so.
It is clear that love truly requires the use of head and heart, of thought and emotion. Think on I Corinthians xiii. The loveless know-it-all is nothing because he fails to see the import of human beings for what they truly are in the sight of God. Without love, there suddenly appears something which the loveless know-it-all does not know, and so he ceases to be what he believes himself to be. A loveless know-it-all submits himself to nothing rather than the cage of his own reason, and as a result destroys himself utterly.
So how should we use our heads and our hearts? Well, in his letter to the Roman Christians, St Paul tells us:
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. (Romans xii)By not being conformed to the world, we should refuse to separate the rule of our lives into thoughts and feelings which lead to pride and over-indulgence in this rather individualistic and liberal society in which we find ourselves, but sacrifice their use to God and let Him rule us rather than hearts and minds.
We are to transform ourselves by the renewing of our minds. Now this does not mean that we should be dropping everything for the latest fashion like women priests and bongo drums. St James reminds us that we are not to be blown about by the latest theological theory. But St Paul means that in order to be renewed, we need to go back to the Source – to God Himself, so that what He created He can also renew in His ways. We need renewing because we continue to stray, but the Lord Jesus spoke about the Living Water that will spring up from within us. This Living Water is again from the One True God who is humble and loving enough to make His dwelling within each of us. It is He who will help our hearts and minds work in harmony to worship Him, and love those around us.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Sunday, January 21, 2007
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?
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?
Saturday, January 13, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
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:
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
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?
Thursday, December 28, 2006
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:
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.
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.
Monday, December 25, 2006
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.
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.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
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.
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.
Monday, December 18, 2006
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."
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.
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.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
