Faithful Resolutions?

Bishop Damien reminds us that we are called to be Faithful, something that we in the Anglican Catholic Church have resolved to do from the outset. He states something that every Anglican Catholic finds out very quickly: the Anglican Communion (the Lambeth Communion or Canterbury Communion or whatever you prefer) is out to dismiss the Faith that we Anglican Catholics seek to continue. This is a bit bonkers since the Faith that we are trying to continue is precisely the Faith to which the Anglican Communion itself held very dear.

I blogged below on the nature of Schism and how the Anglican Continuum has a proven record of preferring heresy to schism. If that's the way they choose to operate, then that is very much their affair. It is not the way that the Continuing Anglican Church works, though. Whilst that may demonstrate the intensity with which we desire the Truth, people may think that it is the cause of our fragmentation.

Yet, the ACC does have good relations with other Churches who do not feel the least bit threatened by our presence. I, personally have good friends in America who are in the ACA and the APA, the TAC, UECNA and the REC (I apologise for the acronyms - no wonder the Continuum is called Alphabet Soup) and who certainly do not feel threatened by our existence. I enjoy a happy relationship with the Old Roman Catholic Church - we may not be the same in out origins but, God willing, we will be the same in our endings, and that goes for all faithful Christians. God has no beginning, nor does He have an ending, but we have both. Following the call to be Faithful means doing our best to walk in the path that a timeless God has woven into the fabric of our existence. Our call to be Faithful is a call to eke out and present to this turbulent world the character of Eternity.

Bishop Damien recalls Resolution IV.11 from the 1998 Lambeth Conference:

Resolution IV.11 'Continuing' Churches  

 This Conference:  

a.  believes that important questions are posed by the emergence of groups who call themselves 'continuing Anglican Churches' which have separated from the Anglican Communion in recent years; and  

b. asks the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates' Meeting to consider how best to initiate and maintain dialogue with such groups with a view to the reconciliation of all who own the Anglican tradition.

As the Bishop laments, the Anglican Communion seems to have forgotten that in its dismissal and rather sneering attitude towards us as if we aren't really real. there are even those who would seek to destroy Anglo-Catholicism from the root - Prof. Diarmaid Macculloch for one who seeks to aim his final kicks at the "twitching corpse" of High Anglicanism. 

In may ways I can't blame them too much. I know that I have been very critical of what the Anglican Communion does - if they wish to be critical of us, then they have every right. I suppose I try to make sense of what they are doing and yet run up against the same inconsistencies. Yet, I do feel that I have some right to be critical for the Church of England is The Established Church and part of my taxes go to support that church. I do have a right therefore to worry about what this body is putting forward to be the Christian Faith. Admittedly, I do criticise the Roman Church, but mainly in reaction to those former Anglicans who have been vociferous in their hatred for the church they have left and seek to justify their departure by trying to bring down the whole aedifice.

I repeat that I do not wish either the Anglican Communion or the Roman Church any ill at all. Indeed, I wish that we could be better related and better disposed towards each other. I wish that we could see ways f working together against the common Foe and for the common Lord. As I said below, if we have the same intention then we cannot fail to be united. However, the resolutions above need to be dealt with.

So what would a rapprochement between the Anglican Communion and the Continuing Anglicans achieve?

Admittedly, unless there is a change, the impediments to communion will remain. Dialogue is one thing, but to what end? The ACC has its statement of unity and the other Continuing Anglicans will have theirs. We cannot walk with the Anglican Communion while the sacraments are in such disrepair and the influence of the Secular world so great in matters sacred. The ends of good dialogue are for us to understand each other and to envisage how we can work together for a common good. This look hard, and there will be hard admissions to make, but we must both be willing to do this.

If it's any consolation to the Anglican Communion, they will find the Anglican Catholic Diocese of the United Kingdom to possess a sense of humour. Perhaps then, we can learn to laugh together. We do recognise that that we have the perception of being an "angry church". Yes, there are still wounds caused by the way some members of the ACC were forced to leave the CofE, but we must all seek healing and wholeness.

 Hopefully, the CofE will see that, actually, we are a passionate church which does not set itself up as The One True Church, but rather sees itself as part of a bigger picture.Firmly we believe and truly, and they must know that they will not shake that desire for the original faith from us. We may come across as Kripkean, but they must realise that a Faith that has been tested and tried in the previous twenty centuries is not something that can simply be interpreted as differently as modernity demands. We hear the arguments, we weight them and we do consider them, but they are flawed because they seek to change what is an Eternal truth.

That doesn't mean, however, that we cannot at least consider the mission of Christianity together. Humanity has many questions for its Maker and we, the Church, are that interface, that royal priesthood that presents the world to God and God to the world. We Anglican Catholics have our own way of thinking. It may not be to everyone else's cup of tea, but it is valid, based on a sure method and desirous for truth.

The fact of the matter is that we exist and are alive, much to Prof. Maccullough's disgust, I'm sure. We also seek Christ, and that first and foremost too. I think we are ready, willing an capable of good, robust and good-humoured dialogue. Is the CofE?

Intending to ape

Intention is a vital part of the Catholic Sacramental theology. Without intention, our words are literally meaningless; we can also say one thing and intend another which, if you think about it, is exactly how lying works. We also know that God examines carefully the intentions of our hearts, our motives for our actions more than the actions themselves. Those intentions are very valuable indeed. They align us with each other. All through Space and Time, Christians are united in their intention to worship the Triune Godhead, no matter where they are or in whatever circumstance they find themselves.

For example, Bishop Damien Mead has made an appeal to our Diocese to make a special intention in the Leonine prayers for the relief of the suffering of the persecuted Church. What does this really mean? Will we just be able to pray away the suffering just by having good intentions?

We must remember that prayer is not an exercise in asking for wishes from a genie: God is not like that and it is an offence against the First Commandment to think in this way. Prayer is our first duty to God and to our neighbour for the alleviation of his suffering and the growth of his happiness. We know full well that there will always be suffering and persecution in this world. Our Lord promised both quite categorically. He showed that, in the ascent of the soul to God, we will suffer much because we will encounter much that is not Him. Since we can only ever be happy in Him, we will be in pain without Him. As long as there is both Love and Death, there will be Suffering.

 In praying for others, we make a conscious effort, not only to wish their pain away, but to go further and choose to suffer with them. Until their pain is ended, we suffer too because we know that their pain is not ended. This is one of the marks of true love. The suffering we feel here is the sheer futility of not being able to end someone else's pain. That's such a valuable thing, and it is that intention that God holds so dear. Of course, how He answers that prayer is up to Him, but it is worth knowing that the suffering we have now, no matter how awful it is, may well be the vehicle not only of our own ascent to God by participating in the suffering of Christ, but also that of others. We may be judged by God as individuals, but we are saved by Him as the Body of Christ.

Intention, then, is more than just an add-on to our Christian way of life, it is vital. Our prayers need to be said with right and examined intention. Often just choosing to say a particular prayer realises that intention, but we do have to be careful with the words. Words express our intentions and, yet it is probably impossible for us to express those intentions accurately. Our prayer books do help us in ensuring that we allow our intentions to be aligned with others. We do have to be careful and know what we are saying before we start praying.

An alteration or difference in words can interfere with the intention, but then it can not. Take, for example, the Anglican Ordinal of 1550. What is the intention behind the ordinal? Well, in the preface, we read:

"It is evident unto all men, diligently readinge holye scripture, and auncient aucthours, that from the Apostles tyme, there hathe bene these orders of Ministers in Christes church, Bisshoppes, Priestes, and Deacons, which Offices were evermore had in suche reverent estimacion, that no man by his own private aucthoritie, might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and knowen, to have such equalities, as were requisite for the same. And also by publique prayer, with imposicion of handes, approved, and admitted thereunto. And therfore to the entent these orders shoulde bee continued, and reverentlye used, and estemed in this Church of England, it is requysite, that no man (not beynge at thys presente Bisshop, Priest, nor Deacon) shall execute anye of them, excepte he be called, tryed, examined, and admitted, accordynge to the forme hereafter folowinge."

 We see clearly that the intention is very much to ordain Bishops, Priests and Deacons, as were generally understood by those terms from the ancient Church, and that the orders should be continued. Indeed, this preface is used in all the books of Common Prayer and within the ordination services themselves. It sets out clearly, from the start, that the intention is to continue that which has gone before. But suppose you didn't accept this to be true...

Well, of course, if it isn't true, then any "Sacrament" distributed by such an ecclesial body holding this doctrine would merely be aping the truth, wouldn't it? It would all be a sham, There you'd be in your valid mitre, and valid cope and valid stole, et c., and they'd be playing dress-up, copying you but just pretending.
However, we then run slap-bang into the problem of intention. What happens if the ape is praying your prayers, indeed choosing to pray your prayers with the same meaning understood, nay believing the same words in your prayers. There must be some common bond here forged by that common intention, some similar approach to the Divine Master, some commonality upon which a bond can be built between you and the ape. The ape ceases to be an ape but rather your sibling in Christ whether heretical or not. His intention and your intention are identical in the eyes of God: you are of one mind.

Intention is of course completely interior to the individual and only visible to the eyes of God. In the funeral service, we pray

"Thou knowest, Lord, the secrets of our hearts; shut not thy merciful ears to our prayer; but spare us, Lord most holy, O God most mighty, O holy and merciful Saviour, thou most worthy judge eternal, suffer us not, at our last hour, for any pains of death, to fall from thee."

Our End is to stand before God either to accept Him and be perfected fully and bound for Heaven, or to be shown that we have always rejected Him and still reject Him and thus find our wish to live apart from Him granted - eternally so! Our choice and our intention matter. The will is part of the human soul, and the exercise of the will is in choice. Our freedom to choose is very much part of who we are, of what it means to be an individual human being. As I say, intention is more than just an add-on to our Christian way of life, it is vital: it is indeed part of who we are. And yet, our choices do divide us: they can divide us as far apart as Heaven and Hell.

 If we seek to divide, then we simply cannot intend that commonality of suffering with others and thus not intend love. Yet there are those who would look down on others because they fail to follow Ritual Notes as precisely as another, or to disassociate from another because of a clause in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There are plenty of folk who seek to engage in polemics for the sake of appearing superior or orthodox ad condemning others as Not-We. If we take pride in being different, then we cannot intend to mourn with those who mourn, nor rejoice with those who rejoice - we cannot love and that is fundamental. The Ritual Notes-perfect Mass may be wonderful to experience, but if the intention is to set itself up above all other Masses, then it ceases to be a Mass and is nothing more than dress-up and play

In practice, I do doubt this happens as, surely, any priest will have solemnly prayed

"I intend to offer this Mass and the consecration of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, according to the use, order, and discipline of the Holy Catholic Church; to the honour of Almighty God and of all the Church triumphant; to the benefit of myself and of all the Church militant and expectant; and for all those who have commended themselves to my prayers both in general and in particular; and for the good of the whole state of Christ's Church, Holy and Catholic. Amen"

Yet, in the grand scheme of things Ritual Notes will pass away, as will Fortescue, as will Dix, as will all the exteriors of our faith. Only our interior intentions will make a difference: the secrets of our hearts, how we have loved, and how we have suffered with those who do suffer. The suffering of one child is of more Eternal significance than a thousand catechisms, creeds, councils and confessions. The suffering of one child is dearer in the eyes of God, and for all our human knowledge we often cannot see it so. With the end of Faith comes knowledge of God and with knowledge of God, catechisms, creeds, councils and confessions vanish away. The Truth within them shall not.

It is through intention that we really cannot dismiss Christians who do things differently from us. We can disagree fundamentally with another Christian group, but we cannot call them un-Christian until they demonstrate themselves to be un-Christian through an act of hatred. If two people deliberately and consciously choose to say the same prayer with the same words, then they have the same intention, regardless whether one is Catholic and the other Heretic. If both actively pray the Lord's prayer, then they will both find themselves faced with the worship of God the Father, the submission to His authority, the sincere desire to do His will, not only the recognition that He provides for us but we must also ask Him for what we need, the recognition that we need forgiveness and that we MUST forgive others in our intention, and finally that we actively hate Evil and beg to be removed from it. If Catholic and Heretic pray this prayer properly with the same meanings and intentions, then they are literally singing from the same hymn sheet. It builds a bond that transcends even the Catholic-Heretic divide.

Of course, it may be necessary for Christians to walk apart for the sake of integrity to doctrine for such integrity allows a focus for good, honest intention. We must all answer to Our Creator for the choices that we make. What we believe may be right or wrong, but it is with the honesty of our intention that we must make our answer. An honest mistake is better than a life of loyal lip-service. We have a duty then to God and ourselves to inform our consciences fully, allow our faith to be tested, and never, ever to forget the potential of another human being to be a child of God. There is no shame in believing another to be wrong, mistaken or ill-advised in matters of Faith. There is plenty of shame, however, of being so proud of not being wrong, mistaken or ill-advised and forgetting that the very act of making a choice is a fundamental part of being human. There is plenty of shame in the sneer of snobbery that points out with glee the deficiency of another's work.

Those who ape with honest intention are sometimes more human than the ones whom they are aping.

Continuing Anger

I wish my brain were a little bit more linear. I did start my last post on anger with a different agenda, but it developed into something else. However, I always seem to get side-tracked easily these days.

One of the reasons that people often enter the Anglican Continuum and subsequently leave is because they find that it seems so angry. There was a time not so very long ago in which I would have described the ACC as an "angry church". I don't think that I was unjustified in my views, mainly because I was just as angry. 

I said below that we should examine our anger before we act. It's a bit late now! However, we do need to ensure that if we have worked in anger that we should ensure that we repent of any sin that we have perpetrated and look to see where this leads us.

Of course, much of the anger among Continuing Anglicans stems from the the passion that we feel towards our heritage and the identity that we glean from the historical Anglican Church. The Anglican Communion has chosen to re-interpret traditional doctrines. We who are now in the Continuum simply do not accept that this re-interpretation is justified. Of course, such passion for God's Church ignites in anger. Some of us feel that we have been betrayed by the Anglican Communion. 

Is that irrational?

Surely any church leadership is free to re-interpret Christian doctrine? Isn't that what the Reformation was about?

Indeed, but look at the effect of the anger of all parties in the Reformation on the lives of sincere and well-intentioned Christians. Of course, this was the sixteenth century, and we can't attribute 20th century sensibilities to a different age and culture. 

The Reformation caused splits and schisms as Christians could not walk together. Lutheranism is different from Reformed Theology which is different from Presbyterianism, which is different from Anglicanism. No single body of Christianity is immune from Schism. The Roman Catholic Church may try to boast that she must be the true Church because she hasn't fractured into different parts believing different things. However, she owes her identity to the person of the Pope and whatever part of the Church the Pope belongs to, that will be the Roman Catholic Church. Thus the "one true nature" of the Roman Catholic Church does not reside in her inability to split, but rather in holding to the doctrine of the Modern Papacy. However, it has not been sufficiently proven that the Modern Papacy is a mark of the "one true Church". Given that many Roman Catholics in the West disagree with many traditional Roman Catholic doctrines (including Bishops!), there does seem to be another potential schism in the offing. There will be anger there because there is anger already. The SSPX was born in anger with Vatican II. 

There is always anger in any reformation. We are torn with trying to be what we are and yet lose something that we have already taken to be part of ourselves. In the Anglican Reformation in which the existence of the Continuum was revealed, we lost buildings, choirs,  congregations, friendships, aesthetics, and respect. There was bound to be anger and loss. It is also true that many Continuing Anglicans were actively forced out of the Anglican Communion by politicians and ecclesiarchs in that church because of their traditional beliefs. There is much anger there!

In this Anglican Reformation, the Continuum was revealed. I won't say that it came into being because it was already there. It is called the Continuum because it seeks to continue, in some way, the Anglicanism that was diverted off-track by the Anglican Communion. Logically, this means that the Anglicanism that is continued in the Continuum is going to be different from the Anglicanism of the Communion otherwise what is the point of the Reformation. Many branches of the Continuum have come into being simply because they have been continuing the aspects of the Anglican heritage which differ from others branches.

In the ACC, we are continuing the Catholic Faith as read through the lens of the original genius of Anglicanism which (very loosely) we see prevalent in the years 1543 to 1549 and especially in the Prayer-book of 1549. Of course, in the American ACC, that continuation is interpreted through the continued use of the 1928 prayer book which was a fundamental part of Anglicanism in America until it was legislated against in the dreaded 1979 prayer book. In England, our 1928 prayer-book was turned down by parliament. Our Anglican identity is markedly different from the Anglican identity of those in the U.S. Yet, we have something in common that we can continue together, namely the Catholic Faith of the Undivided Church. The ACC has, in its canons, the flexibility to ensure that each culture of Anglicanism that can be affirmed by the Catholic Faith can be allowed to continue. This rules out the prayer books of 1552, 1559 and 1662 because they reject the Real Presence and have a tendency towards Calvinism. 

This is all very well, but are we still angry? I think we are very passionate about what we believe, but we do have a sense of humour (especially in the DUK!!) The fact of the matter is that we do not want to allow the past to colour our relationships with other Churches negatively. We will get upset and hurt when we are denied the use of a building or barred for being a "break away" sect. That's usually because they do not understand us. Perhaps we need to be mutual in our attempts to understand.

It is also true to say that some branches of the Continuum exist simply because of angry men who have kept their jurisdictions apart from others for political reasons. These reasons are probably born in mistrust stemming from the anger. It takes one bishop who does not trust the jurisdiction in which he finds himself to take his diocese away and form another part of the Continuum. That also has happened.

The ACC is a sister church to the UECNA. The ACC is "high" Church and see its Anglicanism as being a largely cultural affair. The UECNA is a "low" Church who sees its Anglicanism in the full doctrine of the Prayer-book and its articles. There are differences of doctrine, yes, but there is much common ground. I hope that there will be a continued effort at rapprochement to help set an example to the rest of the Continuum.

We members of the Continuing Anglican Church do need to look very carefully at our anger and examine it carefully. Ultimately, we must all be striving for the happiness of each child of God in the world, and an unexamined anger will not bring that happiness about. I am sure that each branch of the Continuing Church is continuing some worthwhile aspect of Anglicanism even if we do not agree on what Anglicanism is. However, Anglicanism does presuppose Christianity which presupposes both the fallenness of humanity, the grace of God and the love that we must show to our brother and sisters. My hope is that, one day, we can bring all those aspects of Anglicanism back together and, as the pieces of the mirror untie, we might even see the face of God!

Flooded with Anger

Is anger a sin?

This is not as easy a question as it looks, especially as we know that anger is very much a human emotion that just is what it is. Of course, it's what we do with it that matters. 

Many folk outside the Church look to God as being a very angry God, especially in the Old Testament. They will also say that he has clearly calmed down in the New Testament, that is if they believe that the God in the Old Testament is the same as the God in the New. 

Attributing any emotion to God can only ever be a human attribution. The Divine Nature is not Human Nature even though they were both combined in the Second Person of the Trinity. We cannot really say that God has emotions, at  least not as we would understand them. We attribute emotions to Him as we try to understand His actions in Creation. 

If we look at the passages in which it is said that God is angry, we find at the very source of that anger an expression of divine Love, a Love that seeks to give what the beloved wants. We could look at the story of Noah:

"And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said , I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God." (Genesis vi.5-9)

This always looks as if God has thrown a wobbler because humanity is not being obedient. Certainly, this is a difficult passage to reconcile with the God of Love who willeth not the death of a sinner but rather that he should repent and live. It is easier for thos who believe that Genesis is not a book of History but a book of etiology - a parable that says why things are the way they are from a spiritual and philosophical point of view. If Genesis were to be an historic account of the way things were, then we do have things to explain, especially God's capricious nature. How can a capricious God be eternal? Can He truly regret making Humanity, especially one that is free to chose to walk away from Him and whom He allows to resist His Grace?

The text is there and, whether historical fact or allegorical statement, it has been inspired by the Holy Ghost for our learning and edification. So what is it doing?

I think that this text is an invitation to see things outside our human lives. How would we react if our creation was running amok? Let's just consider the situation more carefully.

1) God has created all things.
2) God says that all He has created is very good.
3) God loves His Creation.
4) Because He loves mankind, He desires Man to love Him freely.
5) Man fails to love God.
6) Man worships himself or created things because he does not love God.
7) In loving created things instead of God, Man corrupts created things.

This seems to be the scenario that we come to at the begining of the Noah narrative. We can certainly see the ravages of pollution around us, see the cruelty that we inflict on animals and watch as the forests and greenery are being cut down, species wiped out, other human beings exploited.

If we put ourselves in God's shoes a moment, looking with our eyes and emotions, then we certainly can see the point of view as written in the account from Genesis. With creation a mess, we may seek to wipe the slate clean and start again. Would we have the right to do so?

Let us consider ourselves as creators in the miniature. If we draw a picture and it all goes well and we make a mess, do we have the right to screw up the paper, throw it away and start again? Or if we're making a sculpture of a dove out of clay and it ends up looking like a vulture with acromegaly, do we have the right to smoosh the clay down back to make it afresh? Surely we do have that right!

Perhaps that's something that unnerves us about God. If He created us, then actually He has every right to do with us what He will. He can give us life, and He can take it away again, and He can give it back to us.

"These wait all upon thee : that thou mayest give them meat in due season. When thou givest it them they gather it : and when thou openest thy hand they are filled with good. When thou hidest thy face they are troubled : when thou takest away their breath they die, and are turned again to their dust. When thou lettest thy breath go forth they shall be made : and thou shalt renew the face of the earth. " (Psalm civ.27-30)

It is that fear with which we try to hold God to the same moral standards that He has imposed on us. We are not allowed to murder, so God is not allowed murder. Thus we find ourselves repulsed by the way that God's attitude is represented in Holy Scripture. We look at the murder of the Holy Innocents after the Magi deceived king Herod, and ask God why He didn't prevent this! We find ourselves angry with God because He seems inconsistent.

Let's just look carefully here. Murder is unlawful killing. So which law is binding on God that makes killing unlawful?

Killing is actually rather irrelevant from God's perspective. If we think about it, then whatever life God takes away, He can give back if He desires. We know that God cares for the dead because He allows people to exist after death.

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient , when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing , wherein few, that is , eight souls were saved by water. " (1 Peter iii.18-20)

If God is free to do whatsoever He likes without any repercussions, then this makes Him a truly terrifying individual. This may make us choose to disbelieve in Him, or even believe in Him and hate Him! Well, what effect does that have on Him? None at all!

Ouch.

Here is then, another need for Faith. We not only believe in God, but we also trust in Him!

Remember that this is just us trying to be in God's shoes. We're still looking at things from a human perspective and attributing human capriciousness to God's view.  God is the Eternal being and thus changeless. We may have the mystery as to how an eternal God can become incarnate - perhaps that was the way He managed to build Himself into His own Creation. The text of Genesis is merely an invitation to consider God's position, though we must know that whatever view we may have, it is only Human. Holy Scripture is inspired by God and thus contains all things necessary for our salvation, but it cannot answer all questions, because it can only ever speak in Human terms. One day we will not have a need for Holy Scripture because we will see the Word in His resurrection flesh and through Him will w see the Father.

The characteristics of God that have been revealed to us are that He created us, that He loves us, and that He wants us to be free to choose to.love Him or not. He gives us grace to be saved which we can refuse if we desire. Saved from what? From the desolate corruption that we see all around us as we misuse the creation around us. If we choose, we can remain in this completely corrupt and revolting product of our own sin for Eternity. We call this Hell.

When we read this passage, we see our own perspective from God's viewpoint. It is therefore incomplete, but we must trust that God has morally sufficient reasons to allow suffering and death even if we don't know what they are.

We started off by looking at anger, but we seem to have got side-tracked. Thanks for bearing with me, because there is an important point here. Many of us get angry with God because of the apparently unjustifiable suffering in the world. We hate the fact that He is completely inscrutable and cannot be held to account for His actions. Where did this anger come from?

It came from our sense of justice which is itself a product of our care for others. It comes from our sense of love, indeed from the very image of God that He bestowed on us at our creation. We can be sure that if we see injustice and feel so strongly about it, then we are experiencing something of God's rejection of all that is Evil.

If we are angry with God, then we can be sure that He understands this, but we have to allow Him to deal with it from His perspective. Be angry but do not sin. It is the unexamined and unchecked anger that leads us into sin. It is the reckless disregard for the complexity of existence an the dignity of humanity that leads one consumed with selfish anger to hurt and crush. We cannot undo our actions. We cannot give back any life we take. Anger all too easily descends into a primitive and primeval urge to explode, and explosions cause damage. Anger that is examined carefully can put things right. Examined anger is that which carefully weeds the flower bed: unexamined anger napalms the whole garden. Perhaps that's why we weren't allowed to stay in Eden.

Existentialism in a box

One of the perils of wearing clericals is that you immediately become a target for ridicule. One of my recent encounters was with a particularly brutish individual who asked me whether I believed in Jesus. Of course, I said I did, but the individual concerned was not the type that you could consider really having a rational debate with. Indeed, he was probably of the opinion that Logic is a brand of Adidas Trainers. When it was clear that I just wasn't prepared to engage him in conversation (I was on my way home with a load of shopping at the time), he loudly proclaimed that I would one day be put in a box in the ground and that would be it. Then he just launched into some colourful blasphemies against our Saviour which didn't offend me in the slightest since there was no way I was going to dignify his tirade with any value, and that Our Lord has met with Satan face to face and conquered him soundly.

However, underlying this is a common attitude which is at the heart of our society: the Finality of Death.Why would this individual want to confront me with the statistical certainty of my own demise? After all, I know that I am going to die. I'm sort of prepared for it. I do look forward to it in the sense that I love my life now and I believe that Death is merely the gateway to continuing that life further in a state of perfection - Life is great and in God is true Life. Of course, the Lord tells me that I should not love my life above Him (St Luke xiv.26) but I should love the Life that He is. I do fear dying, but not Death itself.

But then, I am very happy at the moment; I have not always been so. However, many of my fellow Christians are in agony at the moment as ISIS seems to want to torture and kill anyone whose thinking is incompatible with their minuscule and contemptible grasp of Reality. Many of my non-Christian brethren are in agony too. This does diminish my happiness as I think of their suffering. Of course, I pray for their relief from suffering and torment. I do believe, however, that God is working something here that will justify such suffering. St Paul reminds us that "the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." This doesn't mean that God will just dismiss our sufferings, but rather reveal to us their purpose and show us that even the most agonising torture is working out some good that is at present beyond our understanding. After all, Our Lord's resurrection body proudly bore the scars of His execution because they meant something indescribably glorious. Likewise God will not ignore the sufferings of His children, but transform their scars into something beautiful.

What if my brutish friend is right, then? What if all that there is to my life and yours is going to be shut in a box, put into the ground and left to rot? What are the consequences of this?

Well, both Iraqi Christian and ISIS member will end the same way - both put into a box to disappear. They may both approach Death with an air of joy which will turn out to be empty. The Christian will approach her end in the hope that her sufferings will be ended and that she will meet with a god who will turn out to not really be there, and that her sufferings meant something, that she will find joy in a heaven that isn't there. The ISIS member will approach Death in triumph knowing that he has defended his belief by ending the lives of infidel as commanded by his nonexistent deity, clinging onto the equally vain hope that he will spend eternity in the arms of many virgins. Since they will both just case to be, they won't know the disappointment of the supposed truth.

If the box is the end, then the murderer who is never caught will never face justice for his crime, while the victim's existence is cut short. If there is no life after Death, then why bother living a "good life"? What is a good life anyway? Why bother caring for other people, or falling in love? After all, you're just setting yourself up for unhappiness in the long term when the object of your affection dies and is put in a box. Why not just be in it for maximising your own happiness without getting attached to other people? Why cause yourself unnecessary pain?

Except, human beings just don't work like that. We do seek to love and be loved. Our happiness involves family, friends and spouses. We seek deeper and deeper relationships and, in our marriage rites, we are reminded that Death marks the end of the marriage. That is the risk of loving.

Love, happiness, and the Box seem to be an incompatible trio. We naturally seek happiness; we naturally love; we naturally die. If death is the end, then human beings are faced with the inevitability of unhappiness when a lover dies, or unhappiness in trying to live a life without love. If Death really is the end, and one cannot be happy, why not end it all?

The great existentialists like Sartre and Camus are fond of telling us about the fact that the existence of the Box makes Life absurd. For them, the only meaning of life is the meaning that the individual puts on to life, a meaning that will just rot in the Box.

What, then, of Good and Evil, right and wrong? Indeed, what of morality? How can we answer the question "what ought I to do?" if the Box is all there is?

Ultimately, whatever one does will just end in the Box. If one seeks happiness (as all do), then the means to that happiness will be accidental? If one takes pleasure in destroying the lives of others and escapes any negative repercussions from doing so, he is happy nonetheless despite the fact that he would not escape the Box. If King Joffrey had died in bed at the age of 90 after a lifetime of continuing his cowardly and psychotic pleasure, then that would be the same end as Rob Stark who stood for justice and right and yet was betrayed and executed as a traitor by Joffrey. Yet, this is highly offensive to us. Something in us cries out for justice - we want Joffrey to die a pitiful death for his crimes. What if he doesn't? Doesn't that mean that our sense of justice is just an accident as well?

The Psalmist writes:

"TRULY God is loving unto Israel : even unto such as are of a clean heart.
2. Nevertheless, my feet were almost gone : my treadings had well-nigh slipt.3. And why? I was grieved at the wicked : I do also see the ungodly in such prosperity.4. For they are in no peril of death : but are lusty and strong.5. They come in no misfortune like other folk : neither are they plagued like other men.6. And this is the cause that they are so holden with pride : and overwhelmed with cruelty.7. Their eyes swell with fatness : and they do even what they lust.8. They corrupt other, and speak of wicked blasphemy : their talking is against the most High.9. For they stretch forth their mouth unto the heaven : and their tongue goeth through the world.10. Therefore fall the people unto them : and thereout suck they no small advantage.11. Tush, say they, how should God perceive it : is there knowledge in the most High?12. Lo, these are the ungodly, these prosper in the world, and these have riches in possession : and I said, Then have I cleansed my heart in vain, and washed mine hands in innocency.13. All the day long have I been punished : and chastened every morning.14. Yea, and I had almost said even as they : but lo, then I should have condemned the generation of thy children."
(Psalm lxxiii)

If  there is no justice in the world, then surely we do condemn everyone irrespectve of what they've done. All are indeed damned to the Box. Justice doesn't matter. If justice doesn't matter, then good and evil are merely illusions. Unhappiness is inevitable; happiness exists only in an island surrounded by darkness and oblivion. If there is no justice, then ISIS can hardly be condemned for their treatment of the infidel. They will take pleasure in their extermination of innocents and will rejoice in the face of death because they believe that they have done justly. The Box holds no terror for them either.

Why not, then, just live in a meaningless existence, punctuated only by the noise of the nails being driven into the Box? It's not going to do any harm to do so. If one becomes unhappy, why not end it all? If there is future happiness then it's also going to be accompanied by future unhappiness, and missing out on future happiness isn't really going to make much difference, is it? Despite Camus' protestation, suicide is a perfectly effective way to prevent all pain and suffering. Indeed, murder is a perfectly kind thing to do as it also prevents another from pain and suffering.

But I do believe in Right and Wrong, Good and Evil. I do believe in the existence of Justice as having a meaning which underpins the structure of law and order in society. I believe in rights for human beings and in freedom too. Perhaps I am just a sentimental idealist. However, if there is such thing as Good and Evil, then this must point to some intrinsic meaning in being. If Good and Evil stand outside of human existence, and indeed human construct, then they must stand outside of the Box too. There must be some justice that goes beyond the grave so that the one who escaped justice in this life will not escape it outside of this life. This points to some experiential existence of the individual beyond the Box, and thus beyond the confines of human sense. That, to me, points to God the source of Good, and the existence of the privation called Evil.

I believe that the Box belittles humanity. I believe that it makes a mockery of the sufferings of innocents. I believe that the Box is an affront to the fundamental dignity that each person has regardless of race, religion, sex, gender, orientation, predilections, fallibilities, strengths, loves and laughs. That's partly why I believe in the One Who burst the Box.

Now how do I tell that to my churlish detractor?

Personally speaking

Sermon preached at Our Lady of Walsingham and St Francis on the Eighth Sunday after Trinity 

Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus?

That’s a question that seems to be bandied about a lot these days, mainly by Christians of an Evangelical nature. It seems a perfectly good question to ask, but what are we really being asked?

Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus?

There are a lot of different relationships we could have. We have our family – mums, dads, brothers, sisters; our extended family – grandpas, grandmas, uncles, aunts, cousins; we have our best friends, our worst enemies, our lovers, our social group, the people we work with, the bloke we nod to as we pass on the street. There are lots of ways in which we can relate to each other. Which ones are personal? Surely they all are! So what does it mean to have a personal relationship with Our Lord?

It seems such a strange thing to say. Do we want Jesus to become a friend? A family member? He already knows us better than we know ourselves. On the other hand, we don’t even know what He looks like. It’s clear that He loves us and that we should love Him in return: perhaps that is what is meant. If that is true, how can we understand it when Our Lord says, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” Indeed, He clarifies this,

“Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Doing someone’s will doesn’t sound like “having a personal relationship” does it? It sounds very much like an attempt to treat Our Lord as an equal. That’s probably not what’s meant at all, but we do tend to have personal relationships with people who are at least near our level. If we do that then we can miss the Divine Authority of Our Lord. If we seek that personal relationship where we regard the Lord as a personal friend then doing His will becomes very similar to “doing God a favour” by prophesying in His name, casting out devils and doing other wonderful works.

So how are we to have a relationship with God?

God does know us personally, we only know Him by what He reveals to us, so clearly there is a big imbalance in that relationship. Secondly, St Paul reminds us: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.”

It is the Holy Ghost that brings us into God’s presence, but not alone. We are not saved as individuals but as the Body of Christ, the Church. We have received the Holy Ghost and the Holy Ghost helps us to cry out to God, “Abba” which means “Father”. We are the children of God through His grace and not through our own efforts. It seems that we already have that personal relationship with God whether we want it or not. Is this really right? Do we have no choice as to whether we are saved or not?

[PAUSE]

Of course we have a choice. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” We have to do the will of God. The will of God is that we love Him and our neighbour, because God is love. If God wants us to love Him then we must be free to choose whether to love Him or not. We know that God is sovereign and king but the Incarnation shows that He limits His own sovereignty to give us the freedom to choose. He has given us the Spirit of adoption, but we can choose to reject it or ignore it and go about things our way.

The trouble is, doing things our way cannot bring us to God. We have to accept His sovereignty over our lives and listen to Him. We need to recognise that our personal viewpoints are flawed and require the grace of God in order to recognise Him before we can love Him.

[PAUSE]

Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus? Yes you do. It is the relationship of the Saviour with His Church of which you are a part. He loves us and we are beginning to love Him. You are being saved, working out your salvation like St Paul with fear and trembling. The process is only complete when you stand before God at the last.

What will you say to Him, then?

Katholicism, Kripkean Dogmatism and ExKommunication

There is a prevailing wind blowing among members of society that there is no such thing as certainty, and that people who are certain about what they believe are somehow mad, bad, or dangerous to know. Philosophically, there does not seem to be much that we can be certain about. I think I'm pretty certain that doubt exists. In fact, if I'm not 100% sure that doubt exists, then I'm contradicting myself!

Religious belief is under a lot of scrutiny lately. It is, after all, the major cause of the exodus of Christians from Iraq as ISIS seeks to drive them out in the name of their religion. What is their way of thinking?

It must be along the lines of::

1) My Religion is the only true religion.
2) Other religions offer an alternative morality.
3) Alternative moralities are not true.
4) An untrue morality is immoral.
5) Alternative moralities are immoral,
6) Immorality must be extinguished from Society.
7) My Religion must extinguish other religions.

Of course, there are several hidden assumptions here. One is that the alternative moralities are incompatible with the One True Morality, another is that an untrue morality is immoral (or of dubious morality) in every moral situation. However, the one that stands out the most is the assumption that "Society must adhere to My Religion". Such an assumption can only be true if members of Society cannot or must not have the freedom to choose their religion. i.e. free-will is impossible or immoral.

Of course, one can try and reason with such fundamentalists, but their fundamentalism cuts off any reasoning because they refuse any evidence against their position. This is known in the trade as Kripkean Dogmatism. It is defined as the state in which a dogma is held to be true to the extent that evidence to the contrary is automatically rejected and all evidence to the affirmative is assimilated. Thus the dogma can only become strengthened and the viewpoint progressively more entrenched. Kripkean Dogma promotes irreconcilable polarities which can do nothing like two equally matched boxers constantly circling each other ready to strike a blow.

Kripkean Dogmatism is inherently irrational. Any dogma is founded on a particular body of evidence. If that particular body of evidence is complete, then one may rightly and justifiably hold to that dogma since there is no new evidence that can alter the decision.

If however, the body of evidence is incomplete, then the Kripkean Dogmatist is assuming the dogma to be certainly true based on the incomplete evidence that he has. So we have an absolute conclusion based upon non-absolute warrant and/or non-absolute data which leads to the acceptance only of evidence for the dogma and that produces an unsound argument. Hence, Kripkean Dogmatism is not a rational position.

Perhaps it is for this reason that the intellectual tide has been so against Religious belief. We have often heard the idea that "Religious belief is irrational" and it is based on this sense of certainty that Religious believers seem to have.

Of course,  Christianity has been guilty of using statements 1-7 to justify awful things. It is my hope that we have grown out of that, that we don't need to spurn, shun or even hate the unbeliever or the heretic. Hopefully, we have recognised the assumptions which really do weaken the argument against thought-control and policing.

However, Holy Scripture does demand excommunication for those unbelievers who would seek to corrupt the Church (see I Cor v.1-13), but since the Church is not the same as Society, we cannot equate excommunication with expulsion from Society in general which is what ISIS seek to achieve. If the mandate of the Catholic Church is to love everyone then this must include heretic and unbeliever alike with much affection and a genuine heartfelt desire for their good. This good must include their freedom of choice since that freedom is part of being human. So is the Catholic Church being Kripkean in its expulsion of those who disagree with it?

Let us try and be reasonably clear, here. Marxism has a set of tenets which must be held for a person to claim to be a Marxist. It is the potential Marxist who maybe Kripkean not the set of Marxist beliefs. The potential Marxist must weigh all the evidence for and against Marxist belief to see if it is sufficiently convincing as to adopt Marxist belief. If he becomes an actual Marxist, then he will only become Kripkean if he refuses to consider all the evidence. If he reconsiders and rejects Marxism, then he ceases to be a Marxist. Likewise, if one rejects the doctrine of the Catholic Church, then one ceases to be a doctrinal Catholic. Such a one cannot speak on behalf of the Catholic Church because they do not accept the dogma of the Catholic Church. Their testimony is rejected by the Church.

That sounds like the Catholic Church must be Kripkean then. After all, to be Catholic, one must accept the testimony of the Holy Scriptures, the testimony of the Church Fathers, and the testimony of the Oecumencial Councils. However, does one do so by rejecting evidence to the contrary?

The Oeumenical Councils arrived at their decision precisely through argument, debate, evaluation and considering evidence. Admittedly, some of them were conducted in a less than orderly fashion, but arguments pro- and con- were offered and the position of the Church clarified. Thus, in accepting the Councils, the Catholic has already accepted dogma which have been proved through reasoning and argument. Ultimately, all the dogmatic reasoning has its authority from Holy Scripture which itself owes its compilation to the Church. The dogma of the Church has been formed by argument, reasoning and debating all the available evidence of the time. The Church can be truly accused of being Kripkean, and therefore irrational, if it rejects all evidence to contrary positions without rational reasons.

I think it fair to say that the Catholic Church reasons as follows:

 1) Christianity is the only true religion.
2) Other religions offer an alternative morality.
3) Alternative moralities are not completely true.
4) Where an alternative morality is not true, it is immoral.
5) Alternative moralities have some inherent immorality.
6) Immorality must not be taught by the Church.
7) People who teach the immoral aspects of other religions cannot be allowed to remain in the Church without recantation.

(7) sounds harsh, but does come with Scriptural warrant, e.g. Titus iii.10. It is not possible to be a Hindu and a Christian because one cannot believe in many gods and one God simultaneously. It must be remembered that each of us sins and falls into immorality somewhere along the line. While that certainly isn't ideal, we do have the teaching that forgiveness is guaranteed to those who truly repent with a contrite heart and trust in the Death and Resurrection of Our Lord. The Church has structures to help sinners and works toward the salvation of every human being. It's when, not only do we accept immorality, but actively teach it that there is trouble.

The truth is that there are a lot of moralities out there: Catholic Christianity is only one, despite the fact that I believe it to be the true, literally God-given morality. However, part of that morality is a fundamental belief in the dignity and worth of the individual regardless of whether they are Christian or not. That makes it very open to discussing the human good and arriving at some form of compromise in most situations.

Admittedly, there are some moral dilemmas such as Gay-Marriage where the dogma of the Church are in sharp conflict with secular morality. They are conflicts of moralities. Is the Church Kripkean on these? It is if it won't discuss these rationally.or dismiss the opposing view out of hand. There is no room on either side of the issue for the waving of banners or placards with pithy slogans if there is no desire in each and every one of the banner wavers to sit down and at least seek some common ground or at least forge some appreciation of the opposing argument with a view to finding some community. As I have already argued, Gay Marriage is perfectly valid in legal terms when "legal" means secular law, but it can never be a sacrament for the validity of sacraments can only be discussed within the Church. Other issues have similar reasoning.

Excommunication is indeed a distancing from the Church, it need not, indeed should not be permanent. Certainly, the burning of heretics is just as vile as the heresy they have promulgated if not more so. However, arguments have an arena in which debates can be played out. If that arena is within Church teaching, then that means submitting to the Church Law. If that arena is secular, then the Church cannot afford to hold to Kripkean dogmata. It must hold to the Faith, yes, but that Faith is in a God Who is big enough to allow the freedom of the will so that all can function together in Society. The problem comes when the arenas get confused. An established church might have such problems.

Whoever controls the secular arena controls morality and thus how to deal with those who are immoral. Now, whose problem is that?

Revising Revisionism

My memory is getting worse. It's a real bind. My wife says to me, "do you remember...?" and, in all honesty, I've forgotten. I do need to work at improving my memory; it is something that needs to be exercised.

It is my memory that tells me that something has actually happened. I remember the 11th September 2001 with great clarity. I remember the fall of the Berlin wall. I remember the year of the three popes. I know these events to have taken place. I know that they have happened. My students are not old enough for any of these events. To them, they are history and the reality of these happenings can only be conveyed by my eyewitness testimony. To their children, their children's children and so on, the memory will fade as my generation dies out. There will be the written record, but will that be enough to ensure that the 11th September 2001 is remembered accurately.

It's 2514 and 300 years after Al-Qaeda finally conquered the Western World. History books record the first act of the glorious liberation of the World from decadent apostate tyranny in the acts of the freedom-fighting martyrs who struck a blow against the Oppressive West and began the final war to expel the unfaithful from its global power.

I expect that this is how those events would be recorded. It's all about the interpretation and the ramifications of 11th September will colour how that event is viewed in posterity. Of course, in 3714, when the successors to the Western Milieu have conquered the Al-Qaedan empire, the history will be re-written again. Intepretation of events will change again. History seems rather subjective.

It shouldn't be, though, should it?

We know objective facts about 11th September. We have recordings of those awful, awful scenes, have text-messages from the victims, photographs, news reports, lots of primary sources. With the loss of the primary sources, we lose not just the subjective interpretation, but also the objective facts.

The trouble is, History is not a science in the way that Science is understood today. Science today relies on testability. In order to establish the truth of something, it has to be able to be experimented on, and this experiment has to be repeatable. We can't repeat History.

In the year of the three popes, it was taught that King Harold II died from an arrow to the eye, the evidence stemming from the Bayeux Tapestry. In the year of the fall of the Berlin Wall, it was taught that King Harold was not the figure with the arrow in his eye. Now it is taught that Harold got an arrow in his eye but did not die from his wound but was killed later. All were interpretations from this above scene. Is Harold the figure with on the left with the arrow in his eye? Is he the falling figure on the right? Is he both?

The objective fact is not clear. Sources differ. The Bishop of Amiens at the time talks about Harold being savaged by four knights. Amatus of Montecassino talks of him getting the wound to his eye. So maybe it's both. We can't be sure, however.

History always seems to be revised. Vikings don't have horns on their helmets now. Tyrannosaurus Rex no longer attacks and kills stegosaurus while the brontosaurus never existed except as an apatosaurus. Did Pteranodon's wings flap, or did she glide?

History is extremely malleable as memories fade. This has repercussions.

Revisionism is essentially the idea that the Christian Faith can change in respect to the findings of modern thought. Biblically, the most obvious examples of revisionist are Rudolf Bultmann and Bart Ehrmann.

Bultmann begins with the reasonable idea of finding objectivity in the Gospels, but rejects what he regards as being mythological aspects of the life of Our Lord. Unique events can not be repeated, so cannot be verified scientifically and eyewitnesses, however reliable, can be mistaken. Thus the miracles of Christ, in Bultmann's eyes, must be rejected. The current biblical scholar Bart Ehrmann is arguing for revising the whole person of Our Lord in the light of his understanding of the Gospels. The "quest for the historical Jesus" is very much a modern historian's decision, in the light of modern materialist philosophy, to revise traditional views of the person of Jesus Christ.

The trouble is that the Church, however one feels about this organisation, has its own historical reasons for holding onto the truth that it always had. The Bible was compiled by the Church who used the idea of putting together all the texts about the faith that were written within a few years of the events of the Gospel. St Justin Martyr writing in the early second century mentions that the four gospels we have now are a fundamental part of the Christian corpus of testimony.  Many texts were jettisoned because they were late, even some good edifying materials such as the letters of St Ignatius. The Gospels, nonetheless provide eyewitness statements deliberately:

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. (St Luke i.1-4)

Too often, I find that folk of today are trying to change history to fit a modern viewpoint and are reading that into history. This is certainly true of liberal Christianity which performs eisegesis as a matter of course. As I preached on Sunday, it doesn't matter whether we say "I believe One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" or "I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" the effect is much the same. If we believe the Church, then we believe that she teaches not just the truth, but an Eternal Truth. The Church keeps alive the memory of the first Century, bearing the same testimony, providing the same route back in time to the events that allowed humanity to realise the truth of his Salvation and his place with a loving God.

The doctrines of the Church are not for change. They may be discovered, certainly, and inferred as the Oecumenical Councils demonstrate. However, they cannot be inferred from silence, nor may they be inferred by one part of the Church claiming to speak for all the Church. Until the Church is united again and can form a truly Oecumenical Council, there can be no change in doctrine.

Revisionism is therefore a waste of time and resources and denies the Creed. You cannot say that you believe the Church and then set out to show that she is wrong.  A Catholic is properly bound to the Catholic Creed and thus to the commitment that the Undivided Church bears witness to the Truth.

However, genuine historical inquiry is not a waste of time - especially if it sets out to establish facts independent of modern readings. It is good that questions come up, challenge our thinking and put things in perspective. However, these questions should merely colour our understanding. They will not change God, nor will they "debunk" the Resurrection.

The challenge to the Church is, how does it make itself believable?

Keeping in with the Creed

Sermon Preached at Our Lady of Walsingham and St Francis on the Sixth Sunday after Trinity 2014 

Shortly, you hope, we will be saying the Nicene Creed. It’s something that we do every week after the sermon. The reason that we have it near the sermon is so that the congregation knows when a preacher goes off the rails. A preacher can’t say, “there is no Holy Ghost” without being made to look foolish when the congregation stands up and says, “And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life.” The Creed is more than just a safeguard against naughty priests and their wicked ways. It’s there to provide a framework for what we believe.

The word “believe” is Anglo-Saxon in origin and means “to hold something beloved”. To believe something means to regard it as precious. When we say, “I believe in God” we aren’t just saying “God exists” but that God's existence is fundamentally part of our lives. We should not be lukewarm about the pesence of God in our lives – it should make our hearts beat just that little bit quicker.

As you look through the Creed, you will see the phrase “I believe” three times, though it ought to be four. We say “I believe in One God, the Father Almighty” then we say, “and in one Lord Jesus Christ,” though we are really saying “and I believe in One Lord Jesus Christ.” We say “And I believe in the Holy Ghost…” and finally “And I believe One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” Did you notice something different there?

[PAUSE]

We missed the word “in.” We believe in One God the Father and in One Lord Jesus Christ and in One Holy Ghost, but we believe One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Is there a difference? Does one little word really matter, or should we be worried? If we’re talking about belief, then every word does matter because we hold our Faith beloved! The “in” is missed because it is missing in the Latin version of the Creed and our prayer-book used the translation from the Latin and not Greek. It’s there in the original Greek, but the Latin misses it out – the meaning remains the same though. We do believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We believe that there is only One Church, the ACC is one part of it; it is Holy because God has set it apart for His service; it is Catholic because it holds to the same Faith in Christ held by all Christians throughout all times and all places; it is Apostolic because it has been built upon the Apostles and Prophets from whom we derive our lineage of bishops and authority. We believe in this Church as much as we believe in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. But is this the same thing as saying we believe that Church?

[PAUSE]

The Church bears witness to the facts of our religion. Our three creeds are statements of that religion and we must bear witness to that. However, the statements contained in those three creeds are huge. They are mind-blowing, difficult and life-changing statements with which we are familiar but not always very comfortable ourselves. They are statements that take a life-time to unravel and unpick, and then we will never fully understand them. Why? Because God is beyond all earthly thought. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.” He is not at our beck and call. He doesn’t have to pass His plans in front of us, for He is our Creator. “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!”

The reality of God is beyond our understanding, and this is why we need to trust Him as there are no human words that He can use to tell us the truth. Human words are so limited in what they can convey. We must trust Him, we must believe Him, we must believe in Him.

[PAUSE]

This means that we have to believe the Church and believe in the Church. That’s hard to do sometimes because there are times when the Church doesn’t seem to get things right. Often, we Christians get called to account for the bad decisions that have been made by Church government. People fall away from God based on what the Church does and sometimes it’s not hard to see why. That’s the trouble when human beings are so fallible, make so many mistakes and sin. We have to learn to believe in the Church even when we don’t believe the Church, and somehow that’s what we have to tell other people. How on earth do we do that?

[PAUSE]

St Paul reminds us: “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.”

We have already been baptised into Our Lord. We are identified with Him in His death and we are identified with Him in His resurrection. We have to trust that. We have to live our lives with these facts, holding on to them tightly even when things get tough. We must believe, even when not believing seems easier. Our creeds are there for us to pray as well as remind ourselves what we believe. In saying our creed, we pray for God to fill us with faith, faith enough to help us to serve Him and find our lives in His life.

What do you believe in?

[There follows the Nicene Creed]

Nun

I simply cannot let this go unsaid. My brother and sister Christians are suffering in Iraq (hence the "Nun" symbol above), by those whose religion bids extermination of infidels.

Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction."  (Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is "utter destruction.")

Now, let me be clear. I am sure that the majority of Muslims do not take these verses nor the other verses of violence literally, in the same way that the Christian will not take the warspeak in the Old Testament literally, but apply the allegory of battle to the spiritual battle against Evil that we face daily. It's quite easy to apply these verses to destroying all vice with in us, fighting against our own unbelief and killing all sinful thoughts before they can take root in the soul.

I am sure that the majority of Muslims wish to play their part in society, live responsible and peaceful lives and make a positive contribution. Muslim scholars have contributed vastly to science, mathematics, astronomy, philosophy and medicine - it was the diligence of the Arabs that saved Aristotle from being completely obliterated. Contrary to the knee-jerk reactions to what is happening, there are reports of Muslims who will give up their lives to stand up against the violence. 

As I say repeatedly, I have respect for Islam and believe that people should be allowed to follow it of their own free will. That, in my eyes, is a fundamental human right and a big part of who people are. However, I will say that they are wrong. I will say that their religion is incomplete.

I will also say that the Islamic religion is different from the religion of those who would seek to exterminate Iraqi Christians. I do not believe that these Muslim extremists are actually Islamic - they are not committed to peace save only the peace which comes when there is no-one left to disagree with their warped and perverted disregard for human life. These aren't the Muslims of noble heritage committed to enlightenment, truth and honour. They are Muslims in name only, just as much as the "God hates fags" Christians are Christians in name only. I would say that the religion that seeks to exterminate groups of people is very little different from those extremist groups of the last Century responsible for the slaughter of millions of men, women and children whom they believed to be scum for being different.

What I am most concerned about is that nothing is being done by our leaders. I hear statements of protest against ISIS from individual Muslims, but no condemnation of terrorist acts coming from the main Islamic bodies in any country. Perhaps these protests are not being publicised, but they need to be. I hear nothing from the UK Government who are silent. The US Government seems, for all its self-importance and liberal bombast to be saying nothing. This worries me deeply. 

There is little I can do. Seeing that only a handful of people read this little blogling, there's very little to be gained out of this post. However, something needs to be done. Why not lobby an MP? Fast for the oppressed Christians? Organise a collection for the relief of the persecuted Christians? Speak out? Change your online avatars and profile pictures to the Nun symbol above for a week? Whatever you do decide to do, please just pray, pray hard and pray long about this. 

Names, nets and healings

Sermon preached at Our Lady of Walsingham and St Francis, Rochester on the Fifth Sunday after Trinity 2014 

 Of all the things in life that we don’t want to do, going to the dentist must surely be near the top of the list. Some of us are of an age where the very sound of the equipment used by the dentist causes the hackles to rise and the pulse to quicken. Even if the technology has moved on to make the whole business better, more friendly and more reliable, going to the dentist can still hold much fear for some of us.

Rationally, it seems strange, especially when you know full well that the dentist is there to help prevent toothache and to treat toothache when it happens. Dentists are not out to inflict pain but to heal. That is not much comfort when you’re facing a large needle being inserted into your gums even if it doesn’t hurt that much.

When you’re faced with the possibility of great pain, even the most competent healer seems to be a figure to dread. Does this explain Simon Peter’s reaction to Our Lord when he says, “Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord”? Would you really want to tell Our Lord Jesus to go away?

[PAUSE]

It is clear that Simon Peter is frightened at the sheer power of Jesus as he hauls in a catch of fish larger than he has ever caught before. Clearly he recognises in this preacher the power and authority that comes from God, and it rocks him to his core. Everything that Simon Peter holds dear is suddenly revealed in the very presence of Our Lord Jesus to be corrupt, wrong, sinful in some way. Simon Peter clearly cannot stand this and his first reaction is to push Jesus away.

This is a very typical human reaction. We fear the dentist or the doctor because they might find something wrong in us and in putting that something right, they may have to inflict pain.

We therefore face a choice. We could learn to cope with the pain. Many do just that, even if that pain is treatable and live lives almost oblivious to the fact that something is very wrong. There are some shocking cases of people ignoring treatment because they fear that treatment more than the pain itself, often with just cause. Sometimes the pain of the treatment is worse than the ailment itself.

If you’ve managed to live comfortably with pain, how then do you deal with someone who reminds you that you are in pain?

[PAUSE]

Before he meets Jesus, Simon is quite content living with the pain of his sin. As a Jew of the first century, he is used to the system of sacrifices for sin offered up by the priests of the temple and trusts that those will suffice. They soothe his conscience but it turns out that they numb him to his sins. They do not get to the heart of the matter; they do not do anything about the sin itself. The psalmist says of God, “For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.”

In order for true healing to take place, the heart must be broken – we have to be truly sorry, and that is something we all fear. Simon Peter recognises this in Our Lord simply by His power to help him catch so many fish. Simon Peter is afraid of this power, of its effects and what it will do to his life. “Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord”

[PAUSE]

What is Our Lord’s response? “Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men.” Would this convince you? Would you stop being afraid? Would the promise that you will catch men just as you could catch fish make your fear of pain go away? Perhaps it’s not in what He says to Simon Peter, but the way Our Lord says it. When we have the printed word in front of us, it is so difficult to see just how Our Lord really appears. Clearly there is something about Him that convinces tired fishermen to cast nets into the sea again. Clearly He is trustworthy and clearly His treatment works, and is guaranteed to work!

Look at the effect on Simon Peter. While he is in the boat, he is Simon – the sinner. In recognising Jesus’ power and the presence of his own sins, he becomes Simon Peter. Now we know him as St Peter. He is still the same person, but his true humanity and true identity has been revealed, healed and transformed by God.

The path to our recovery from sin is long, but Our Lord has demonstrated, however many times we fall, however ill we get, however painful life is, that there His death and resurrection guarantee that the faithful soul will be made better and that the pain of the treatment is worth it.

[PAUSE] The mission of the Church is to be a hospital for souls, bringing them to Our Lord for that final, wonderful healing that will make us perfect. Yet, so many people run from the name of Jesus because they deny that they are ill, or they do not believe that Our Lord is willing or able to heal them permanently.

Jesus says, “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.”

Simon. Simon Peter. St Peter.

What’s your new name?

Knowledge, truth and puffiness

"Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth . And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know . But if any man love God, the same is known of him." (I Cor viii.1-3)

This verse would very much seem to be a damning indictment of theologians. It certainly makes me feel very uncomfortable especially when I know that I've been more of a clever-clogs than a Christian. That's a very good thing! It reminds me of why I am called to seek the Truth.

The truth is that we are constantly being lied to and that those lies are the cleverest form of lie all wrapped up with the truth like the bubbles in a loaf of bread caused by the yeast. The Devil does exist and he is the father of lies - what better way to ensure that his work continue than by convincing people that he does not exist. Until we are perfected, everything that we are or know is pervaded by these bubbles of falsehood, of lack of being, which puff us up into a semblance of true existence.

Our first parents, Adam and Eve introduced the leaven of sin into our world when they fell for the lies of the Serpent. Those lies have indeed caused each one of us to become infected with a lack of awareness as to what the truth is. Thankfully, God has given us grace to know what Truth is and what it looks like. However, we still have to seek it and seek it carefully, examining everything carefully with the torch of inspiration the the Holy Spirit affords us and checking it against what God tells us.

One of the reasons that I get so het up about things theologically is because lies can interfere with the channels of God's grace. It's like knowing that there is water available when we are thirsty and, when seeking it, we are told to walk in the opposite direction; when trying to turn the tap on, we are told the wrong way; and when about to drink that the water is poisoned. I hate profoundly the fact that God is out there and people are being told things which will disable them from ever finding Him. The fact is that listening and trusting God through prayer, study and the sacraments will allow anyone -anyone at all - to succeed in that endeavour.

It comes like a real blow to my face when someone says that God has predestined people to Hell, or that the sacraments are merely symbols, or that I am dressing as a priest but merely play-acting. Those are all lies, and they are refuted in Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and in that inner conviction that I have in my very heart.

Also within my inner conviction as well as in the Faith I preach:
If anyone is being told they are worthless, then they are being lied to.
If anyone is being told that they are beneath anyone else, then they are being lied to.
If anyone is being told that they are above anyone else, then they are being lied to.
If anyone is being told that they are unloveable, then they are being lied to.
If anyone is being told that they are completely lost, damned or Hellbound, then they are being lied to.

There you have it. I admit that at times I am intellectually proud and arrogant. That is because I am imperfect, but the reason that I get very passionate and heated about my faith is because I am trying very hard to show forth the love of God in my life and let people know that there is living water within their grasp which, if they would just reach out, they would find their thirst quenched, their souls revived and their hearts gladdened.

I am not going to pretend that this is easy. The search is long and hard at times, but I know that it's worth it, and I, in my intellectual arrogance, know that I am right.

Housing dissent and difference.

Seeing that what the CofE gets upto these days shouldn't be any of my business, I believe that its established nature does give me the right to comment.

I will admit to being a bit of a secularist. This may appall you; however, please permit me to explain myself with an example.

In Berlin, plans are afoot to build the "House of One", a single building which houses a church, a synagogue and a mosque. There is a central meeting place which everyone has to pass through in order to get to their respective place of worship. This does seem to me to be the model for how Society should be.

The fact of the matter is that, no matter how hard the Church tries, not everybody is going to be Christian: some are going to be Moslem, Jewish, Buddhist, Sikh, et c. In declaring myself to be Christian, I am necessarily saying that, while I believe that there is much in the way of goodness and truth in each of those religions and philosophies, I must also believe that they are deficient or just plain wrong in some way. That's not a disrespect, that's just logic. Nonetheless, if these folk are part of the society in which I find myself, then they are my neighbours, and I am bound by my own adherence to the Christian Faith to love them as myself. Loving them means giving them a place to thrive, even at the cost of their turning away from God. If God does that, then I am duty bound by Divine example to do the same, imperfect though I am.

I am happier with the House of One than I am with the worship room at Bluewater which can change its religious affiliation literally at the touch of a button. For that to happen, that single room becomes everything and nothing - it treats all religions equally and the affiliation is quite generic. That worship room has no actual care about which religion it is; it's a case of one room fits all. The House of One, if it is ever built, has permanent space for each of the religions involved. There isn't one bland room whose furnishings pop out of the woodwork to suit the whims of the worshipper. These rooms are to be permanent, hallowed, and identifiable for each of the religions involved.

This is very much how I would like the British Society to be. Like the House of One, there should be central community in which people must play an active part in caring and building together, each taking ownership of that society and ensuring that everyone is valued. Then there are designated separate places in which to practice one's religion (and yes, I do count atheism, apatheism and agnosticism as religions), each respected by the other. That is how I see a secular society since it acknowledges the realism that not everyone is Christian, and yet lives in hope that by ministering to everyone at the commandment of God, there is the opportunity for everyone to become Christian - not by brow-beating and polemics, but by mutual respect.

The trouble is, that many people think of the Bluewater model when they hear the word "secular". They see society as one single room in  which no one has any religious identity. Consequently, many folk lack the desire to take an ownership in that society, try and cut themselves off and wall themselves in using religious privilege as an excuse. This is why the newspapers enjoy bringing to light stories of Christians being sued by gay rights activists, et c. There is dissonance as two groups with very different beliefs try to coexist.

If both groups therefore had some ownership of the common ground and a separate "room" in society to which they can repair for reaffirming their faith, then there is a chance that some rapprochement and consideration can be made. Both groups must recognise that the opposite viewpoint exists and is real and is unlikely to change no matter how "sinful" the other regards it. For the Christian, walking among sinners is a necessary task and inescapable given the fact that we are probably all sinners, though I simply cannot speak with any authority on the state of other people's souls.

Now this may sound like a ringing endorsement of the CofE's latest attempt to become a broad Church again by recognising the different and indeed opposing integrities. I do have to say that the speeches that I heard before the motion was passed were impassioned and, if genuine in their respect of other theologies, generous to their opponents. There was a sense of wanting to be family together.

This is all very well and I am pleased to see more charity and appreciation for each other being voiced by the Established Church. Certainly this is a very Christian attitude and shows that Christ is present in the hearts of many people in that Church.

Yet, even the CofE realises that it's set itself a very hard task - one that is almost quantum in its nature, given that women are going to be both bishops and not-bishops at the same time according to the totality of its membership. To aid itself, the CofE has developed five principles that it is using to ensure fairness and tolerance. These are:

1. Now that legislation has been passed to enable women to become bishops the Church of England is fully and unequivocally committed to all orders of ministry being open equally to all, without reference to gender, and holds that those whom it has duly ordained and appointed to office are the true and lawful holders of the office which they occupy and thus deserve due respect and canonical obedience;
    
2. Anyone who ministers within the Church of England must be prepared to acknowledge that the Church of England has reached a clear decision on the matter;
    
3. Since it continues to share the historic episcopate with other Churches, including the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and those provinces of the Anglican Communion which continue to ordain only men as priests or bishops, the Church of England acknowledges that its own clear decision on ministry and gender is set within a broader process of discernment within the Anglican Communion and the whole Church of God;
    
4. Since those within the Church of England who, on grounds of theological conviction, are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests continue to be within the spectrum of teaching and tradition of the Anglican Communion, the Church of England remains committed to enabling them to flourish within its life and structures;
    
5. Pastoral and sacramental provision for the minority within the Church of England will be made without specifying a limit of time and in a way that maintains the highest possible degree of communion and contributes to mutual flourishing across the whole Church of England.

Let us just look at these. 

Principle 1. The first to notice is that the CofE has fallen into the same trap of confusing sex and gender. Gender is the social construct; sex is determined by biology independently of any human being and therefore determined solely by God. A human being may be able to change gender by surgical procedure and by law; sex is something written into the very DNA and thus part of that human's being in itself. Likewise, it also shows that the CofE has legislated a change to a sacrament, something which can only really be done by an Oecuenical Council and then only with sufficient grounds. The guiding genius behind the first principle is that the CofE believes it has the right to legislate doctrine. The Roman Church believes the same thing, but on slightly safer principles. For the CofE, Society determines the answer to the question before it is investigated. I explored this some time ago. The fact of the matter is that it is the established nature of the CofE which means it must have women "bishops" because it is funded by the State for the benefit of the State and is the State religion. The U.K is not  a secular society, and this is not to its credit. Disestablishment would benefit the CofE so much.

Principle 2. All members of the CofE must accept that the CofE has made a clear decision. That's fine. For many people, this will be the wrong decision. How they live with the consequence that they believe that their Church is wrong is down to that individual, but it does puncture the authority of that Church. If someone believes that their Church is wrong about this, what else can it be wrong about? The clarity of the CofE's decision creates a lack of clarity for those who believe that the decision is wrong.

Principle 3. Neither the Roman Church nor the Eastern Church have women "bishops" and they will not have them. How then can the CofE claim that it continues the historic episcopate unless what the CofE means by "historic episcopate" is different from the Orthodox "historic episcopate"? If they are different, then there is a clear deficiency in the intention of the CofE to ordain bishops. Thus, while the matter of the sacrament may be invalid for the case of trying to ordain a woman as a bishop, the intention of the CofE to ordain bishops whether male or female is also now invalid, though it seems difficult to take this invalidity in the sense of "absolutely null and void" unless one is Roman. It does give better reason for the Orthodox Churches to ordain a convert rather than re-ordain sub conditione.

Principle 4. When I left the CofE, there were processes in place trying to "encourage" parishes who held the Resolutions to drop them when they fell into interregnum so that they could get a "good priest". They were told that "many priests were unlikely to take up a position in a parish which refused the ministry of women". Can it be that this principle means that a priest who is pro-W"O" will take up a parish which is orthodox in its outlook and respect that? Will he ensure that he will teach the orthodox faith, or will he be true to his principles and try and turn his parish? To flourish means to grow. Does that mean that the pro-W"O" party will ensure that there are sufficient numbers of orthodox priests for that growth to occur? What if that number dwindles? What about isolated orthodox individuals who have no local orthodox parishes but have to travel far and wide? Will there be a commitment to an orthodox church in each deanery, or within a benefice? And what of the incumbent himself? Is he really a priest? In the far future, if there is a far future, what will guarantee a priest really being a priest without him carrying around his genealogy?

Principle 5. It would be wonderful to see the CofE at peace in itself so as to commit to the mutual flourishing of its members.This is something that all Churches need to do and to think about seriously. I do, however, still fail to see how communion can be gradated. One is either in communion  or excommunicate, and this can only be in reference to Our Lord Jesus. If two Christians are in communion with Him, then they must necessarily be in communion with each other despite appearances to the contrary. We are in communion with Him if we keep His covenant. While individuals fail, the Church as a whole does not, i.e. membership of the Catholic Church ensures communion with Our Blessed Lord Jesus. There can be no middle ground. Of course, I am always accused of being a black-and-white thinker unable to see the shades of grey or the different colours of God's creation. Yet, God Himself has created a universe in which a statement and its logical negative cannot be true simultaneously ceteris paribus. The only possible recourse is that "communion" here in this principle means different things to different bodies. This is fine, yet given that it is the goal of each Christian to bein in communion with Christ, must he be in communion with Him in every sense of the word the CofE means or will some meanings do and others not? Is there a necessary criteria for being in communion? If this is the Eucharist, then what can be done with those who cannot receive any "sacrament" confected by a female "priest"? Are they in communion, or not?

The CofE has set a rod for its own back and yet is committed to receive the blows from this rod. Fair enough - it will have my prayers that it may find that way of honouring all its members and, despite the clouds of theological occlusion, at least put folk on the road to Christ. For me, the whole thing raises questions that do not seem to have any sensible or coherent answers, nor does it demonstrate a commitment to what we received in our history. The Vincentian Canon has long since been ignored. The CofE and I walk apart irreconcilably with the status quo but, I hope, peaceably. We have separate rooms in the House of One, but I look forward to our time in the common room.