Before I get to my real points, let me get something off my chest.
In the Book of Common Prayer June 11th is the Feast of St. Barnabas the Apostle. Because the Book of Common Prayer should take precedence, I have no patience with the exclusion of this Prayer Book Saints Day from one "Anglican" Missal. I put "Anglican" in quotation marks because this one omission brings into question whether the name applies. The Book of Common Prayer should be the standard, even when we use some freedom, as allowed by one of the Book's own stated principles. I also think the Ordo Calendar should say "St. Barnabas" rather than "St. Bartholomew"- which is August 24th. Is this some new kind of elitism, being different from the BCP just to be different? It's enough to make me feel like a Low Churchman!
____________________________
"Barnabas" is interpreted by St. Luke to mean, "son of consolation." In fact, it is Bar-Nabiy', which means Son of Prophet. Does this mean that what St. Luke saw in the Old Testament Prophets was consolation? The prophet's burden was often strong denunciation of sin, warnings of judgment spoken by Jeremiah or Ezekiel don't seem very consoling. But, what Luke saw in the prophets was that their central message was the message of salvation in Messiah. Indeed, as strong as their denunciation of sin was, the hope and joy of that salvation is the major theme of their books, when taken as a collection.
Another thought that comes to me on this day has to with an occasion that is not part of today's appointed readings. Rather, it from a later passage in the Book of Acts. We know that Paul and Barnabas worked together for years, and that it was Barnabas who sought out Paul to bring him to Antioch, and that they were called and sent out together. And, this makes the story we shall look at now even more disturbing.
Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also. And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches. (Acts 15: 35-41)
One of the marks of Divine Inspiration is that the Scriptures never whitewash anybody, even the heroes of our Faith. Here are two saints who had, as the same Book tells us, "hazarded their lives" for the Gospel, now falling into contention with each other.
Even so, these apostles, separated by contention, were apostles nonetheless. The ministry continued, and the power of the Holy Spirit was never diminished. From this we, especially as Anglicans in this whole diaspora and continuum, can take heart. The division between our jurisdictions and bishops reminds us that the Church is a divine institution among flawed human beings, and that it always has been. Words from today's Gospel (which is John 15:12-16) provide the important key to open our understanding of how Christ works through his Church, filled as it is with mere human beings, sinners all. "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." It is very correct to say that the sacrament of Orders is indelible. What that means is the work is Christ's work, and he continues his ministry despite human weaknesses and failings.
The other comfort is that God restored trust between the two apostles, as is evident from Colossians 4:10: "...Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him...)." It is even more evident from the very moving final chapter of Paul's Second Epistle to St. Timothy. "Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry." (v.11) St. Paul had come to new perspective on the subject of that contention years earlier, namely John Mark (writer of the Gospel of Mark). He now valued the ministry of the man whom Barnabas had championed.
It is impossible to put together all the pieces of this story, since St. Barnabas almost fades away after he takes Mark on a separate mission from that of St. Paul back in Acts chapter 15. The few pieces we are given provide consolation.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Monday, June 09, 2008
Shared Solitude
The following was first published in the December 2006 Touchstone, a Journal of Mere Christianity under the title
The Bonds of Silence.
An hour or so from moist and chilly Berkeley, our cars, filled to capacity with fugitives from secular turmoil, with luggage and sacramental appointments, traveled into the Napa Valley, amid mountains standing guard over the vineyards. Pine forests grow up the sides all the way to the top and clouds envelope the tallest of these, as if lending modesty to the peaks.
Our small caravan of priests, deacons and seminarians had already begun to create that informal fellowship best expressed with the good humor of jokes, the wittier the better. (Humor and meaningful conversation, rather than “male bonding,” makes friends of men).
Our cars drove uphill along the thin road that serves as an entrance to the Carmelite monastery. We were greeted inside the large main house by an elderly Irish monk. After being “signed in” we were taken to our rooms and left to prepare. In the early evening, in our cassocks, we made our way to a beautiful chapel where we sang Evening Prayer, and heard the first of several talks, meditations on the Desert Fathers.
We sat across from each other in two “choirs,” with the sound of the prayers, mostly the chanting of the old Prayer Book Psalter, echoing off the stone. Above us were great windows very high, near the ceiling, admitting the dying light of the ending day. Over the marble altar was a very stark crucifix, the Son of Man in His agonies looking down at us.
God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)
TOGETHER ALONE
This was the beginning of the silence, silence broken only by the offices of prayer, the daily Mass, and the reading out loud, in turn one by one, of The Screwtape Letters during each meal. Otherwise, only a private confession would serve as a reason to speak. As the leader of our retreat pointed out, the purpose in coming together was to be alone. The shared solitude is itself a very old tradition, giving us time for prayer and meditation unlike the kind we attempt regularly during our busy lives in the world.
And the apostles gathered themselves together unto Jesus, and told him all things, both what they had done, and what they had taught. And he said unto them, Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest a while (Mark 6:30, 31).
The silence itself teaches and refreshes. Without words, without the need to speak — without the social pressure to direct our gaze constantly on what others place before us — we find freedom. In the silence we discover that we are resting not only from the cares, the business and turmoil, of the world. We rest as well from the amusements and entertainments, learning only in this way that these things too are a burden.
They, creating their own demands upon our time, shut out prayer as much as do the cares and anxieties of life. It is only in this silence, silence that is directed towards God, solitude that is protected by a community in which to be alone, that we finally see what a burden those entertaining forms of relaxation can be, what labor in themselves. But, for now, we lay that labor down and discover peace, blessed relief, in so doing.
We cannot find this kind of solitude nearly so well if we are alone. The presence of other men contemplating God, as they pray, meditate, or read, reinforces our attention and directs gaze heavenward. The presence of our brothers, and the respect we owe to their solitude, protects us from turning our own solitude into isolation, a time in which thoughts wander all too easily back to the duties and amusements that await us.
And, should we take the opportunity to examine ourselves and prepare for confession, we direct our gaze as well into our own hearts, our thoughts, words, and deeds. This we do before God, knowing that his light must shine into whatever place we had tried to hide away even from ourselves.
Men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil (John 3: 19).
A PLACE OF PRAYER
The community silence increases charity. Here you see each man, like yourself, directing his attention to God, living in prayer and in the most serious and essential of reflections. Here, with him, you stick to contemplative prayer and the rhythm of corporate daily offices, silence in which you keep to the rule and do not speak, in charitable consideration because he needs this time as much as do you. To violate it is unthinkable.
When it must end, and you will speak at last, the next communication will be all the more profound. How many words we speak are no more than wasted, having no thought in them, an invasion of another’s time, a theft of his few brief hours in this world. For now we respect his silence, and will be glad to speak later, for we shall value words in a different way, no longer as obligatory.
Our charity builds also because for a few days we have, in solitude before God, been a community of men at prayer. We have begun each day together in the chapel, at Noon have held the Mass in the chapel, and at night have ended each day once again in the chapel with the familiar words of Compline, in the lit chapel with the darkness outside. In each of the offices of prayer we have chanted the familiar Psalms and other prayers in Cranmerian English to Gregorian notation:
“Our Father, who art in Heaven . . . My soul doth magnify the Lord . . . I believe in God, the Father Almighty . . .”
Surrounded as it is by the beauty of the monastery grounds, the sweet air from the vineyards, and the pines and mountains, the chapel itself becomes the place each man wants most to be. After an office is completed several minutes pass before we depart. We simply grow to like sitting there in the place of prayer, a room designed for worship and for celebration of the Blessed Sacrament, a place where that Presence is reserved.
Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves (Luke 10: 3).
It will not be like this when we return to our homes, and the silence is driven away by business, even, as in my case, the business of pastoring a church. We know we go from rest to battle. But, we may carry back into the battle the benefits of the retreat.
I am grateful to those who live in the religious orders and keep to the Rule of Saint Benedict. We can enter into their way of life only to a small degree, and only temporarily. But they do not hide it away and keep it a secret; they do not begrudge those who want to share a bit of it.
When we leave, they let us take some of that treasure where it can be adapted to the life we must live in the world. As much as it is a treasure, it is also an armament.
In Nomine Patris ...
... et Filii, et Spiritu Sancti. Amen.
Δόξα Πατρί και Υιώ και Αγίω Πνεύματι, και νυν, και αεί, και εις τους αιώνας των αιώνων. Αμήν.
I have long been meaning to research this question and have finally got round to doing it. And just as I suspected, there is no agreement even on where to disagree.
If you didn't pick up on it straightaway, I am talking about crossing ourselves, and how we do it; about that famous divide between Western and Eastern Christians, of left to right versus right to left. Of two fingers, of three, of five, of kissing, of not kissing.
Spoiled for choice, we are. My initial research would seem to indicate that there is no genuinely orthodox way to do it, though naturally our Orthodox brethren would disagree and tell us there is only one way to do it, and to do it otherwise will lead us down the slippery path to Hell. (Sorry, φιλοι, I just couldn't miss the chance to get in a good-natured dig).
So, as a discussion starter, I share with you this tidbit from Wikipedia.
The motion
The sign of the Cross is made by touching the hand sequentially to the forehead, sternum, and both shoulders, accompanied by the Trinitarian formula: at the forehead: In the name of the Father (or In nomine Patris in Latin); at the stomach or heart: and of the Son (et Filii); across the shoulders from left to right: and of the Holy Spirit/Ghost (et Spiritus Sancti); and finally: Amen.
There are several interpretations, according to Church Fathers: the forehead symbolizes Heaven; the stomach, the earth; the shoulders, the place and sign of power. Also, the hand to the forehead may be seen as a prayer to the Father for wisdom; the hand to the stomach as a prayer to the Son who became incarnate; and the hand to the shoulders as a prayer to the Holy Spirit.
There are some variations: for example a person may first place the right hand in holy water. After moving the hand from one shoulder to the other, it may be returned to the stomach. It may also be accompanied by the recitation of a prayer e.g the Jesus Prayer, or simply "Lord have mercy". In some cultures it is customary to kiss one's hand or fingers at the conclusion of the gesture.
Sequence
Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) gave the following instruction:
The sign of the cross is made with three fingers, because the signing is done together with the invocation of the Trinity. ... This is how it is done: from above to below, and from the right to the left, because Christ descended from the heavens to the earth, and from the Jews (right) He passed to the Gentiles (left).
"Others, however, make the sign of the cross from the left to the right, because from misery (left) we must cross over to glory (right), just as Christ crossed over from death to life, and from Hades to Paradise. [Some priests] do it this way so that they and the people will be signing themselves in the same way. You can easily verify this — picture the priest facing the people for the blessing — when we make the sign of the cross over the people, it is from left to right..."
Writers such as Herbert Thurston, author of the article Sign of the Cross in the Catholic Encyclopedia interpret this as indicating that at that time both Eastern and Western Christians moved the hand from the right shoulder to the left. However, Thurston confesses that the point is not entirely clear. He quotes another liturgist who inclined to the opinion that in this passage of Innocent III, and in those of Belethus, Sicardus and Durandus, which are usually appealed to in proof of this, these authors had in mind the small cross made upon the forehead or external objects, in which the hand moves naturally from right to left, and not the big cross made from shoulder to shoulder.
Today, Western Christians and the Oriental Orthodox touch the left shoulder before the right. Orthodox Christians use the right-to-left movement. A Greek catechetical textbook attempted to explain the difference between the Latin and the Greek customs by saying that the right side is associated with holiness, and the heart (on the left) with the spirit, so that those who, in mentioning the Holy Spirit, used the Latin phrase "Spiritus Sancti" (noun before adjective) touched left before right, while those who said, in Greek, "τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος" (adjective before noun) did the opposite.
Δόξα Πατρί και Υιώ και Αγίω Πνεύματι, και νυν, και αεί, και εις τους αιώνας των αιώνων. Αμήν.
I have long been meaning to research this question and have finally got round to doing it. And just as I suspected, there is no agreement even on where to disagree.
If you didn't pick up on it straightaway, I am talking about crossing ourselves, and how we do it; about that famous divide between Western and Eastern Christians, of left to right versus right to left. Of two fingers, of three, of five, of kissing, of not kissing.
Spoiled for choice, we are. My initial research would seem to indicate that there is no genuinely orthodox way to do it, though naturally our Orthodox brethren would disagree and tell us there is only one way to do it, and to do it otherwise will lead us down the slippery path to Hell. (Sorry, φιλοι, I just couldn't miss the chance to get in a good-natured dig).
So, as a discussion starter, I share with you this tidbit from Wikipedia.
The motion
The sign of the Cross is made by touching the hand sequentially to the forehead, sternum, and both shoulders, accompanied by the Trinitarian formula: at the forehead: In the name of the Father (or In nomine Patris in Latin); at the stomach or heart: and of the Son (et Filii); across the shoulders from left to right: and of the Holy Spirit/Ghost (et Spiritus Sancti); and finally: Amen.
There are several interpretations, according to Church Fathers: the forehead symbolizes Heaven; the stomach, the earth; the shoulders, the place and sign of power. Also, the hand to the forehead may be seen as a prayer to the Father for wisdom; the hand to the stomach as a prayer to the Son who became incarnate; and the hand to the shoulders as a prayer to the Holy Spirit.
There are some variations: for example a person may first place the right hand in holy water. After moving the hand from one shoulder to the other, it may be returned to the stomach. It may also be accompanied by the recitation of a prayer e.g the Jesus Prayer, or simply "Lord have mercy". In some cultures it is customary to kiss one's hand or fingers at the conclusion of the gesture.
Sequence
Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) gave the following instruction:
The sign of the cross is made with three fingers, because the signing is done together with the invocation of the Trinity. ... This is how it is done: from above to below, and from the right to the left, because Christ descended from the heavens to the earth, and from the Jews (right) He passed to the Gentiles (left).
"Others, however, make the sign of the cross from the left to the right, because from misery (left) we must cross over to glory (right), just as Christ crossed over from death to life, and from Hades to Paradise. [Some priests] do it this way so that they and the people will be signing themselves in the same way. You can easily verify this — picture the priest facing the people for the blessing — when we make the sign of the cross over the people, it is from left to right..."
Writers such as Herbert Thurston, author of the article Sign of the Cross in the Catholic Encyclopedia interpret this as indicating that at that time both Eastern and Western Christians moved the hand from the right shoulder to the left. However, Thurston confesses that the point is not entirely clear. He quotes another liturgist who inclined to the opinion that in this passage of Innocent III, and in those of Belethus, Sicardus and Durandus, which are usually appealed to in proof of this, these authors had in mind the small cross made upon the forehead or external objects, in which the hand moves naturally from right to left, and not the big cross made from shoulder to shoulder.
Today, Western Christians and the Oriental Orthodox touch the left shoulder before the right. Orthodox Christians use the right-to-left movement. A Greek catechetical textbook attempted to explain the difference between the Latin and the Greek customs by saying that the right side is associated with holiness, and the heart (on the left) with the spirit, so that those who, in mentioning the Holy Spirit, used the Latin phrase "Spiritus Sancti" (noun before adjective) touched left before right, while those who said, in Greek, "τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος" (adjective before noun) did the opposite.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Third Sunday after Trinity
The bishop will be preaching at St. Andrew's this Sunday, and I am busy enough not to write anything new. More to the point, in light of recent posts on evangelism, I can do no better this year than last year when I wrote my sermon for the same Sunday. Therefore, I am providing this link to take you to last year's sermon for the third Sunday after Trinity.
Batter My Heart
Batter my heart, three-person'd God ; for you
As yet but knock ; breathe, shine, and seek to mend ;
That I may rise, and stand, o'erthrow me, and bend
Your force, to break, blow, burn, and make me new.
I, like an usurp'd town, to another due,
Labour to admit you, but O, to no end.
Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captived, and proves weak or untrue.
Yet dearly I love you, and would be loved fain,
But am betroth'd unto your enemy ;
Divorce me, untie, or break that knot again,
Take me to you, imprison me, for I,
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.
John Donne, Holy Sonnets, No XIV
As yet but knock ; breathe, shine, and seek to mend ;
That I may rise, and stand, o'erthrow me, and bend
Your force, to break, blow, burn, and make me new.
I, like an usurp'd town, to another due,
Labour to admit you, but O, to no end.
Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captived, and proves weak or untrue.
Yet dearly I love you, and would be loved fain,
But am betroth'd unto your enemy ;
Divorce me, untie, or break that knot again,
Take me to you, imprison me, for I,
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.
John Donne, Holy Sonnets, No XIV
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Baby Miraculously Survives Abortion, Expected to Live 'Normal' Life
A mother who decided to abort her son because he may have inherited a life-threatening kidney condition is overjoyed that he survived the procedure.
Jodie Percival of Nottinghamshire, England, said she and her fiancee made the decision to abort baby Finley when she was eight weeks pregnant..."I still struggle to believe just what he has fought through. Now he's here I wouldn't change it for the world."
You may read the whole story at the Fox News website.
Jodie Percival of Nottinghamshire, England, said she and her fiancee made the decision to abort baby Finley when she was eight weeks pregnant..."I still struggle to believe just what he has fought through. Now he's here I wouldn't change it for the world."
You may read the whole story at the Fox News website.
More Preaching on Evangelism
Here is another excellent sermon on evangelism and on unity, this one from Fr Warren Shaw. I have trimmed it a bit, but not in substance.
"I tell you there shall be more joy in heaven over one sinner that repents than over 99 just persons who need no repentance."
The Anglican Catholic Church began as a haven for persons in the Episcopal Church who were in no need of repentance. They were the faithful remnant who had not bowed the knee to Baal, which is to say that they had not accepted the innovations introduced into the Episcopal Church to make it conform to the prevailing culture.
We were not really a missionary church from the outset. Evangelism is not in our DNA. And today we are paying the price for that.
We have been going along for years depending on Episcopalians coming to us for refuge from the innovations and false teachings of the church in which they were raised. That source of new members has about dried up. Those who cannot accept the innovation of a female priesthood have already left. Those who cannot accept the revised prayer book have already left. Those who remain have "received" those innovations and accepted them as normal.
There are some who are leaving now because they cannot accept same sex marriage, but they are not coming to us. They are going to the newer Anglican bodies that have a Protestant orientation and are able to accept the previous innovations. So we can’t really look to disgruntled Episcopalians for new members. We have to look elsewhere.
One place to look is among Bible believing Christians who feel a need for the ancient liturgy and structure of the catholic church but are not ready to submit to the jurisdiction of Rome and the innovations that come with it – innovations such as papal infallibility and more recent dogmas concerning the Virgin Mary. This group of people constitutes an especially good place to look for younger clergy to replace the retired Episcopalians who constitute the bulk of our aging pool of priests.
But the biggest pool, and the one we really need to fish in, is the vast number of people who have no church relationship to speak of and who really are in need of repentance, forgiveness, and conversion. These are the lost sheep, who wander through life with no compass and no anchor to counter the changing winds of popular culture that carry them along to nowhere. These are people who have no faith to turn to and no reliable community to fall back on when disaster strikes. These are people who are living off of the inherited moral capital of past generations and are rapidly exhausting it. And when one of these lost sheep is rescued, there is great joy among the angels in heaven.
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that those of us who are here do not have sins to repent of and ways of living that we have to change. What I am suggesting is that one of the sins we have to repent of, and one of the ways of operating that we have to change, is the smug attitude that we are the true church and anyone who wants to join us can do so by becoming like us. What really has to happen is that we have to become more like Christ, lay aside our comfortable status, and go out looking for people who are lost and hungry and scared.
I wish I could give you a plan for doing that, but I can’t. There are people who can, however, and if we seek them out, we can learn from them together. It may not be in our DNA to do that. But DNA is not destiny unless we allow it to be.
To recognize a problem and talk about it is the first step in solving it. This passivity is a problem we cannot afford to ignore.
And it’s not the only one. There is also the problem of separation from those who should be our allies in the struggle for a true and growing Anglican presence in America. I don’t know how many Anglican bodies there are outside of The Episcopal Church in this country, but I know there are way too many. This alphabet soup is confusing, to say the least, to people who might otherwise be attracted to the Anglican way, and it is certainly sinful.
I have spoken to Bishop Campese of the Anglican Church in America about this, and I have also mentioned it to our own Bishop McClean. Both bishops tell me that they are disturbed by the situation, but none of the bishops seem to be disturbed enough to do something about it. Maybe that’s because you and I are not sufficiently disturbed.
If all of us who call ourselves Anglicans could share our resources, including our buildings and our clergy, we could develop the critical mass needed to have an impact on the kind of people we need to reach -- people who are attracted to Anglican scholarship, Anglican liturgy, Anglican fidelity to the apostolic faith-- but such people are rightly repulsed by the pettiness and infighting that they see among us.
There were differences among the apostles and the churches that they founded, but when outsiders observed how Christians lived they said, "Behold how they love one another." That’s not what outsiders say now when they look at the complex array of American Anglican churches. Now what they say is, "Call me when you get your act together."
There’s an old nursery rhyme that comes to mind when I think about the state of our church:
"Little Bo Peep has lost her sheep and doesn’t know where to find them.
"Leave them alone and they’ll come home, wagging their tails behind them."
That nursery rhyme gives very bad advice. The lost sheep will not find their way home on their own. They will not find their way here, even if we make it much easier than we do now. We have to go out and look for them. That’s what the gospel says, and if we ignore it, we will all die in our little bunkers, and no one will notice.
"I tell you there shall be more joy in heaven over one sinner that repents than over 99 just persons who need no repentance."
The Anglican Catholic Church began as a haven for persons in the Episcopal Church who were in no need of repentance. They were the faithful remnant who had not bowed the knee to Baal, which is to say that they had not accepted the innovations introduced into the Episcopal Church to make it conform to the prevailing culture.
We were not really a missionary church from the outset. Evangelism is not in our DNA. And today we are paying the price for that.
We have been going along for years depending on Episcopalians coming to us for refuge from the innovations and false teachings of the church in which they were raised. That source of new members has about dried up. Those who cannot accept the innovation of a female priesthood have already left. Those who cannot accept the revised prayer book have already left. Those who remain have "received" those innovations and accepted them as normal.
There are some who are leaving now because they cannot accept same sex marriage, but they are not coming to us. They are going to the newer Anglican bodies that have a Protestant orientation and are able to accept the previous innovations. So we can’t really look to disgruntled Episcopalians for new members. We have to look elsewhere.
One place to look is among Bible believing Christians who feel a need for the ancient liturgy and structure of the catholic church but are not ready to submit to the jurisdiction of Rome and the innovations that come with it – innovations such as papal infallibility and more recent dogmas concerning the Virgin Mary. This group of people constitutes an especially good place to look for younger clergy to replace the retired Episcopalians who constitute the bulk of our aging pool of priests.
But the biggest pool, and the one we really need to fish in, is the vast number of people who have no church relationship to speak of and who really are in need of repentance, forgiveness, and conversion. These are the lost sheep, who wander through life with no compass and no anchor to counter the changing winds of popular culture that carry them along to nowhere. These are people who have no faith to turn to and no reliable community to fall back on when disaster strikes. These are people who are living off of the inherited moral capital of past generations and are rapidly exhausting it. And when one of these lost sheep is rescued, there is great joy among the angels in heaven.
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting that those of us who are here do not have sins to repent of and ways of living that we have to change. What I am suggesting is that one of the sins we have to repent of, and one of the ways of operating that we have to change, is the smug attitude that we are the true church and anyone who wants to join us can do so by becoming like us. What really has to happen is that we have to become more like Christ, lay aside our comfortable status, and go out looking for people who are lost and hungry and scared.
I wish I could give you a plan for doing that, but I can’t. There are people who can, however, and if we seek them out, we can learn from them together. It may not be in our DNA to do that. But DNA is not destiny unless we allow it to be.
To recognize a problem and talk about it is the first step in solving it. This passivity is a problem we cannot afford to ignore.
And it’s not the only one. There is also the problem of separation from those who should be our allies in the struggle for a true and growing Anglican presence in America. I don’t know how many Anglican bodies there are outside of The Episcopal Church in this country, but I know there are way too many. This alphabet soup is confusing, to say the least, to people who might otherwise be attracted to the Anglican way, and it is certainly sinful.
I have spoken to Bishop Campese of the Anglican Church in America about this, and I have also mentioned it to our own Bishop McClean. Both bishops tell me that they are disturbed by the situation, but none of the bishops seem to be disturbed enough to do something about it. Maybe that’s because you and I are not sufficiently disturbed.
If all of us who call ourselves Anglicans could share our resources, including our buildings and our clergy, we could develop the critical mass needed to have an impact on the kind of people we need to reach -- people who are attracted to Anglican scholarship, Anglican liturgy, Anglican fidelity to the apostolic faith-- but such people are rightly repulsed by the pettiness and infighting that they see among us.
There were differences among the apostles and the churches that they founded, but when outsiders observed how Christians lived they said, "Behold how they love one another." That’s not what outsiders say now when they look at the complex array of American Anglican churches. Now what they say is, "Call me when you get your act together."
There’s an old nursery rhyme that comes to mind when I think about the state of our church:
"Little Bo Peep has lost her sheep and doesn’t know where to find them.
"Leave them alone and they’ll come home, wagging their tails behind them."
That nursery rhyme gives very bad advice. The lost sheep will not find their way home on their own. They will not find their way here, even if we make it much easier than we do now. We have to go out and look for them. That’s what the gospel says, and if we ignore it, we will all die in our little bunkers, and no one will notice.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
St. John and Antichrist (take two)
(I was asked to revise the former version in light of possible dangers that could be faced by others. I should have thought of that myself.)
A couple of weeks ago I came across a comment addressed to me from a Muslim, in which he declared simply and in summation that religion's view about Jesus and the Bible we read. This blog does not exist for the purpose of spreading Islam's doctrines, so I rejected the comment (and prayed for the man who wrote it). It dawned on me later that his comment was in response to a place in my sermon for Trinity Sunday where I quoted from chapter VIII of the book Orthodoxy, by G.K. Chesterton:
"To us Trinitarians (if I may say it with reverence) -- to us God Himself is a society. It is indeed a fathomless mystery of theology, and even if I were theologian enough to deal with it directly, it would not be relevant to do so here. Suffice it to say here that this triple enigma is as comforting as wine and open as an English fireside; that this thing that bewilders the intellect utterly quiets the heart: but out of the desert, from the dry places and, the dreadful suns, come the cruel children of the lonely God; the real Unitarians who with scimitar in hand have laid waste the world. For it is not well for God to be alone."
Anyone who pays attention to the news about Jihad and who knows the history of Islam, going back even to the raids led by Mohamed himself, cannot escape the fact that this religion has been violent since its inception, and that Chesterton's description is entirely justified. It has been the religion of scimitar, and wherever it has gone it has spread the desert. Not the beauty of the lush green desert, such as I lived in during my time in the Phoenix valley. But, the desert of emptiness and waste where no life grows, the spiritual barrenness of scorching heat and the dust of sand. So it is, I had also written in that sermon: "But, about a god who is one and only one, through and through, with no plurality of Persons in him, we cannot speak of love; rather of an emptiness, a void in which eternity knows no compassion." Indeed, Kismet is antithetical to compassion. (The website Jihad Watch carries news that is updated daily.)
It is time for me to set forth a reasonable theory of Biblical interpretation, drawn from the First Epistle of St. John with the aid of history. This flies in the face, I know, of popular eschatology such as we find in the Left Behind series of books, but which had existed for decades prior to their conception. For, to begin with, it requires an accurate definition of the word "antichrist." In fact, the word "antichrist" does not appear anywhere in the Book of Revelation, but only in the Johanine Epistles. The word is never used in connection with a political leader, but rather is used to speak about false teachers who spread heresy.
"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also." ---I John 2:18-23
The word "Christ" comes from the Greek word that means the same as "Messiah," or the "Anointed." For us it has a specific definition when applied to Jesus Christ, that it does not have when applied to anyone else (since the priests, and then later the kings, of Israel were all called "messiahs" throughout the Old Testament). When we use "Messiah" or "Christ" to speak of the Lord, it is always connected to the fact that he alone is the Son of God.
"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." ---Matt.16:13-17
Muslims are taught that Jesus is simply a prophet. The revelation given to the Church by the Holy Spirit is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. In his First Epistle St. John, as we have seen, describes antichrist as any teacher who denies this revelation. We know that one of Islam's declarations, made every day, is "God has no son." This is the teaching that St. John attributed to the evil one, the spirit of antichrist.
And, as we look carefully at the words from his epistle, quoted above, we must see that John makes a distinction between the many antichrists who were teaching their strange doctrines in his day, and a single individual for whom each of the antichrists were forerunners. He is called Antichrist in a singular way. The prediction of the Beloved Disciple is clear. The little anitchrists were, in their way contrary to Christ, preparing the way for the one major Antichrist who was yet to arrive.
A convert from Islam, who is now a priest, once explained that his conversion began as he read the works of ancient gnostic heretics, and saw that the Koran had lifted many of the same passages, word for word, claiming that God revealed these things directly to Mohamed. It was obvious to him that this was akin to plagiarism, a recitation of memorized passages by heretics from various Gnostic sects who had taught in ancient times. He came to the conclusion that the claim to have heard from heaven was false. Eventually, he concluded that when Mohamed came on the scene in the 7th century AD, he combined many of the Gnostic heresies with Arianism, and with Arab folklore.
Could this be what the holy apostle foresaw? "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." Instead of looking ahead to a world ruler (known by other names, such as the "son of perdition") might we instead look backward in history and redefine the word "Antichrist," taking it away from its popular but misplaced position in eschatology? Has there been any figure in history more Antichrist than Mohamed, whose most fanatical followers threaten the peace and safety of the whole world? Has any individual other than Christ himself created a following that encompasses whole countries? Islam, has a little more than a billion adherents, the most zealous and fanatical of which have the goal of making their highly oppressive S'haria law, by force, the law of every land and people.
I think that St. John foresaw Mohamed when he wrote those words.
Whereas the persecution of ancient Rome, and the persecution of modern Communism was never able to "wear out the saints of the Most High," the persecution that exists in Muslim countries has always sought to reduce our brethren to dhimmitude. For any Muslim to convert to Christianity (or any religion) is punishable by death, and in some countries this religious law is the law of the land. Readers of Touchstone can find accounts about these things in each issue by reading the "Suffering Church" section. Fanatical Islam also promotes hatred for and murder of Christ's own relatives "after the flesh," namely the Jewish people.
Even if my theory is not fully accepted, the nature of this spiritual warfare is indisputable, and our chief weapon is prayer.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Evangelism: Love in Action
The following is a sermon written by Fr Rob Whitaker of the Anglican Catholic Church's mission of St John the Evangelist in Virginia Beach, which he preached just last Sunday on the very topic we have broached:
Today I want to talk with you about evangelism. Now, I know that for many people, and particularly for those of us from Anglican, Episcopalian, or Roman Catholic backgrounds, evangelism can be a very off-putting word and a most uncomfortable topic. We may think evangelism is something that Baptists do, but certainly not something that proper Anglicans, Episcopalians, and Catholics do. After all, it just wouldn’t be good manners to evangelize!
But in our Epistle reading for today, we heard St. John say, “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.”
And so my question to you is this: must not this love that we are commanded to have for others also include concern for their souls and for their eternal destiny?
Earlier this month Kittie and I traveled to southern California for a retreat-meeting of various folks who are interested in planting new churches and building up current churches within the Anglican Catholic Church as well as other traditional Anglican jurisdictions. Our purpose in having this meeting was to share experiences and lessons learned, and to talk about what works in building up churches in our Anglican Catholic tradition.
It was interesting to hear some of the different stories that were shared. One of the priests there has helped lead his parish over the past 20+ years from a congregation about the size of St. John’s to a thriving congregation of several hundred members. They have progressed from renting space in a women’s club to now owning several acres of prime real estate in a very expensive suburb with a beautiful church building, fellowship hall, library, bookstore, two-story classroom building, and so on.
Another priest who was there has started two different Anglican churches over the past two decades, both of which began with only himself, his wife, and his children. Both are now flourishing parishes with their own buildings, and one of them is starting a classical Christian school for kindergarten through grade 3, and which they hope will eventually become grade K through grade 12.
A third priest who was there went to a parish about 15 years ago that was dying. Over the past decade he has helped shepherd that parish to growth and renewal. They have grown dramatically in numbers, paid off their building, and built two additional structures for Sunday School rooms and offices. And all of these structures are now completely debt free.
One of the things that was clear to all of us at this meeting was that the churches that are growing are churches that are clearly focused outward. Rather than being simply shrines or country clubs of the one true Church or the 1928 Prayer Book or the Anglican Missal, these churches are focused on evangelism and outreach, on sharing the Good News of God’s love for lost mankind through Jesus Christ, and making disciples of new people in their communities. They all do this in different ways, ranging from Alpha groups to Bible studies, from parties to Friday night dinners. And each of them is strongly involved in outreach—in doing things to genuinely help folks in their communities as well as throughout the world. They sponsor orphanages, crisis pregnancy centers, other churches, and mission trips for their youth. They provide outreach to military personnel, to unwed mothers and their babies, and to the homeless.
And what clearly characterizes each of these growing churches is a genuine love for other people.
St. John says in our Epistle reading that “the one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” Love, as we Christians understand it, is not a human thing, but a divine thing. Love is a gift from God. When the Bible says that “God is love,” it means much more than “God is loving.” God loves not because he finds things that are worthy of his love, but because it is his nature to love. He loves us not because of who we are, but because of who he is.
Sometimes church people think of evangelism as a necessary evil: something that must be done to bring in more people because the church needs them to pay the bills. But this is not really evangelism, but a kind of bait and switch. The motivation for this is not love but selfishness. And most people will see right through that.
Real Christian evangelism is about love. In fact, I would suggest that true Christian evangelism is nothing less than love in action. Because if we truly love our brother or sister, then we will want the best for him or her. And that will mean a relationship with God through Jesus Christ, a relationship that must be forged and sustained within the Church, the body of Christ.
The apostle Paul writes: “‘For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ [But] how then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?” (Romans 10:13-14).
Today we are living in a post-Christian world. The vast majority of people in our nation do not go to church on a regular basis, do not have a genuine relationship with Jesus or with other Christians, and certainly do not believe in Biblical Christianity. I recently heard that only 4% of the young people in our nation are believing Christians. And so we are in real danger of losing an entire generation for Christ.
There’s a saying that “if it’s to be, it’s up to me.” If the unsaved and the unbelieving, the unchurched and the fallen-away are to come to faith in Christ, it will have to be because of the efforts of Christian believers.
And so here’s my request to all of us here this morning. I ask that each of us here today begin to pray that God will open our eyes and our heart to the opportunities God gives us to share with someone in our life who does not know Jesus, does not believe in the tenets of the Christian faith, or who does not have a church. It might be a relative or a friend or an acquaintance. It might be a co-worker or a neighbor. Maybe it’s a merchant or a clerk in a retail store where we do business. Pray that God will open our eyes and our hearts to share the love of God through Christ with them. This will almost certainly take time, because we will first need to form a relationship with people before their own hearts will be open to hearing about Jesus from us. It will take patience and waiting on the Lord for the right opportunity. It will take courage. And above all, it will take love. As Jesus said, “as the Father sent me, so I am sending you.”
Let us pray. Heavenly Father, we thank you for your love of us, a love so great that you came to live among us and to share in all the temptations, trials, and sufferings of this mortal life. Open our eyes, our minds, and our hearts, Lord, to the needs of others in our communities, and give us the courage and the wisdom to share the Good News of Jesus Christ with those whom you are in the process of saving. Help us to love them just as you love us. We ask this in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Today I want to talk with you about evangelism. Now, I know that for many people, and particularly for those of us from Anglican, Episcopalian, or Roman Catholic backgrounds, evangelism can be a very off-putting word and a most uncomfortable topic. We may think evangelism is something that Baptists do, but certainly not something that proper Anglicans, Episcopalians, and Catholics do. After all, it just wouldn’t be good manners to evangelize!
But in our Epistle reading for today, we heard St. John say, “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.”
And so my question to you is this: must not this love that we are commanded to have for others also include concern for their souls and for their eternal destiny?
Earlier this month Kittie and I traveled to southern California for a retreat-meeting of various folks who are interested in planting new churches and building up current churches within the Anglican Catholic Church as well as other traditional Anglican jurisdictions. Our purpose in having this meeting was to share experiences and lessons learned, and to talk about what works in building up churches in our Anglican Catholic tradition.
It was interesting to hear some of the different stories that were shared. One of the priests there has helped lead his parish over the past 20+ years from a congregation about the size of St. John’s to a thriving congregation of several hundred members. They have progressed from renting space in a women’s club to now owning several acres of prime real estate in a very expensive suburb with a beautiful church building, fellowship hall, library, bookstore, two-story classroom building, and so on.
Another priest who was there has started two different Anglican churches over the past two decades, both of which began with only himself, his wife, and his children. Both are now flourishing parishes with their own buildings, and one of them is starting a classical Christian school for kindergarten through grade 3, and which they hope will eventually become grade K through grade 12.
A third priest who was there went to a parish about 15 years ago that was dying. Over the past decade he has helped shepherd that parish to growth and renewal. They have grown dramatically in numbers, paid off their building, and built two additional structures for Sunday School rooms and offices. And all of these structures are now completely debt free.
One of the things that was clear to all of us at this meeting was that the churches that are growing are churches that are clearly focused outward. Rather than being simply shrines or country clubs of the one true Church or the 1928 Prayer Book or the Anglican Missal, these churches are focused on evangelism and outreach, on sharing the Good News of God’s love for lost mankind through Jesus Christ, and making disciples of new people in their communities. They all do this in different ways, ranging from Alpha groups to Bible studies, from parties to Friday night dinners. And each of them is strongly involved in outreach—in doing things to genuinely help folks in their communities as well as throughout the world. They sponsor orphanages, crisis pregnancy centers, other churches, and mission trips for their youth. They provide outreach to military personnel, to unwed mothers and their babies, and to the homeless.
And what clearly characterizes each of these growing churches is a genuine love for other people.
St. John says in our Epistle reading that “the one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” Love, as we Christians understand it, is not a human thing, but a divine thing. Love is a gift from God. When the Bible says that “God is love,” it means much more than “God is loving.” God loves not because he finds things that are worthy of his love, but because it is his nature to love. He loves us not because of who we are, but because of who he is.
Sometimes church people think of evangelism as a necessary evil: something that must be done to bring in more people because the church needs them to pay the bills. But this is not really evangelism, but a kind of bait and switch. The motivation for this is not love but selfishness. And most people will see right through that.
Real Christian evangelism is about love. In fact, I would suggest that true Christian evangelism is nothing less than love in action. Because if we truly love our brother or sister, then we will want the best for him or her. And that will mean a relationship with God through Jesus Christ, a relationship that must be forged and sustained within the Church, the body of Christ.
The apostle Paul writes: “‘For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ [But] how then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?” (Romans 10:13-14).
Today we are living in a post-Christian world. The vast majority of people in our nation do not go to church on a regular basis, do not have a genuine relationship with Jesus or with other Christians, and certainly do not believe in Biblical Christianity. I recently heard that only 4% of the young people in our nation are believing Christians. And so we are in real danger of losing an entire generation for Christ.
There’s a saying that “if it’s to be, it’s up to me.” If the unsaved and the unbelieving, the unchurched and the fallen-away are to come to faith in Christ, it will have to be because of the efforts of Christian believers.
And so here’s my request to all of us here this morning. I ask that each of us here today begin to pray that God will open our eyes and our heart to the opportunities God gives us to share with someone in our life who does not know Jesus, does not believe in the tenets of the Christian faith, or who does not have a church. It might be a relative or a friend or an acquaintance. It might be a co-worker or a neighbor. Maybe it’s a merchant or a clerk in a retail store where we do business. Pray that God will open our eyes and our hearts to share the love of God through Christ with them. This will almost certainly take time, because we will first need to form a relationship with people before their own hearts will be open to hearing about Jesus from us. It will take patience and waiting on the Lord for the right opportunity. It will take courage. And above all, it will take love. As Jesus said, “as the Father sent me, so I am sending you.”
Let us pray. Heavenly Father, we thank you for your love of us, a love so great that you came to live among us and to share in all the temptations, trials, and sufferings of this mortal life. Open our eyes, our minds, and our hearts, Lord, to the needs of others in our communities, and give us the courage and the wisdom to share the Good News of Jesus Christ with those whom you are in the process of saving. Help us to love them just as you love us. We ask this in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Evangelism and the Continuum
Millo Shaw offered this as a comment, but I consider it far too important not to be given a thread of its own. Let's have some answers, folks. I'll be making a few observations of my own presently.
I would personally love to see a discussion on evangelism, specifically, on how we, who are so devoted to traditional Anglicanism, can articulate our faith to the great unwashed, as well as unchurched Christians, who know little or nothing about the Anglican Way, to open their eyes and their hearts to the Lord and to bring them closer to the Lord.
We all believe that traditional Anglicanism is the best way to achieve these ends, but how exactly, how best, do we go about it?
My own gut instinct is that a distinctive Anglican evangelism must flow from our distinctive and primary sources of Anglican spirituality, namely our liturgies, especially Holy Communion and the offices (including Compline), as presented in the BCP, but I don't know how to translate the instinct into a working, effective, evangelistic program.
How do we sing the Lord's traditional Anglican song in this strange (and increasingly strange) land? If we are to flourish, or rather if we are effectively to serve our Lord, this is an issue we must come to grips with, and it's an issue that transcends all, or at least most, of our divisions and quarrels within the continuing Anglican movement.
I would personally love to see a discussion on evangelism, specifically, on how we, who are so devoted to traditional Anglicanism, can articulate our faith to the great unwashed, as well as unchurched Christians, who know little or nothing about the Anglican Way, to open their eyes and their hearts to the Lord and to bring them closer to the Lord.
We all believe that traditional Anglicanism is the best way to achieve these ends, but how exactly, how best, do we go about it?
My own gut instinct is that a distinctive Anglican evangelism must flow from our distinctive and primary sources of Anglican spirituality, namely our liturgies, especially Holy Communion and the offices (including Compline), as presented in the BCP, but I don't know how to translate the instinct into a working, effective, evangelistic program.
How do we sing the Lord's traditional Anglican song in this strange (and increasingly strange) land? If we are to flourish, or rather if we are effectively to serve our Lord, this is an issue we must come to grips with, and it's an issue that transcends all, or at least most, of our divisions and quarrels within the continuing Anglican movement.
Words Worth Reading
I draw you attention to a new feature on The Continuum, which you will find in the sidebar to the right -- Words Worth Reading.
In my reading, I often come across a few words that are inspirational, or edifying, or simply humourous, but which have little hope of being built up into a new thread on the blog. None the less, those words are worth reading and reflecting on.
I shall endeavour to ensure that a few good words find their way into this box every few days, but welcome my co-hosts and our readers sending me their suggestions -- with due acknowledgement and thanks offered in return.
One point of clarification: do not suggest words of scripture, as I would assume we are all reading scripture regularly and extensively through our daily offices, and following a fairly common lectionary. And after all, scripture is always worth reading. An exception to that is where someone incorporates a few words of scripture into a statement of their own.
Those of you who have suggestions, please send them to my email address.
In my reading, I often come across a few words that are inspirational, or edifying, or simply humourous, but which have little hope of being built up into a new thread on the blog. None the less, those words are worth reading and reflecting on.
I shall endeavour to ensure that a few good words find their way into this box every few days, but welcome my co-hosts and our readers sending me their suggestions -- with due acknowledgement and thanks offered in return.
One point of clarification: do not suggest words of scripture, as I would assume we are all reading scripture regularly and extensively through our daily offices, and following a fairly common lectionary. And after all, scripture is always worth reading. An exception to that is where someone incorporates a few words of scripture into a statement of their own.
Those of you who have suggestions, please send them to my email address.
+Haverland on HCC (AR), UECNA
The following was sent to me by Archbishop Mark Haverland of the Anglican Catholic Church with permission to publish:
Dear Albion,
In response to a comment by Caedmon on a Continuum thread concerning the HCC-AR and S. James', Kansas City, you wrote:
'I'm not sure the ACC, or any of the other continuing jurisdictions actually have spokesmen. Lacking such creatures, I would assume that the primate of each jurisdiction, called what he may be called, would more than suffice as the spokesman.
'Again, as for the ACC, that would be Archbishop Mark Haverland. It is for him to choose whether he speaks or not.'
Your first paragraph is correct. As for the second, I would say that the ACC does not now have, and in recent years has not had, a single, united mind about the HCC-AR. In fact, my own views on the subject have probably been in the minority. The ACC has collegial leadership. I do not attempt to force issues when there is no consensus among us.
In brief, I may say that beginning a few years ago there were contacts between HCC-AR clergy, including Bishop Kleppinger, and me. In fact I made a trip to Pennsylvania just to see Bishop Kleppinger. I concluded that there was a desire on the part of the HCC-AR to reconcile with the ACC. I approached my episcopal colleagues about the matter, and quickly concluded that we in the ACC had no consensus on the subject. If I had pushed for reconciliation on the institutional level, I would have undermined our own (ACC) unity. You dance with the girl you take to the dance and should not divide your own Church for the sake of unity with another (cf. Deerfield Beach and aftermath). So nothing much happened. However, I felt better about Bishop Kleppinger, and I hope he felt better about me, and that was all to the good.
When in 2006-2007 the ACC and UEC renewed our warm contacts, Bishop Reber (and if my fallible memory serves, also Bishop Michael) offered to conclude their HCC-AR contacts in respect for our sensitivities. I encouraged them not to do that, on the theory that uniting divided bits in the long-run would be good for everybody. I think, and in the light of subsequent events am inclined to hope, that my encouragement had little real influence on UEC policy.
Canon Hollister is an ACC official and a friend of mine. On the matter of S. James', he writes, as he himself has said, as a coffee, not a policy, maker. I am sure most of us support local congregational control of property and so regret the actions of Bishop Michael and the HCC-AR. I can say that in years past I have heard HCC-AR bishops - whatever their canons - bitterly lament such local control as a source of instability.
About the ACC and the UEC, there was and at present is no concrete proposal or timetable for organic and institutional union. Both bodies would have to make decisions and take actions in the future to effect such an outcome. I certainly hope for such decisions and actions, but will await both the pleasure of the UEC and the formation of a consensus within the ACC. My impression is that before Bishop Michael's consecration and then again after his departure from the UEC, the UEC's union with the ACC was more likely. My impression also is that Bishop Michael, while a bishop in the UEC, liked the idea of a continuing UEC as an institutional base for himself. But the ACC really did leave decisions concerning union to Bishops Reber and Michael, whatever our preferences Now the decisions rest with Bishop Reber and his synod.
The ACC is sincerely open to the UEC. I was personally and sincerely open to the HCC-AR, but to no avail. The ACC's public approach to - and questions for - the TAC remain on the table where they have been effectively ignored. Unity among 'Continuers' cannot be forced, but I think the ACC is trying. We have made good progress with the UEC and the APCK and have cordial relations with others, such as Bishop Paul Hewett. I am open to friendly suggestions for further steps.
+Mark Haverland
(The Most Reverend) Mark Haverland, Ph.D.
Dear Albion,
In response to a comment by Caedmon on a Continuum thread concerning the HCC-AR and S. James', Kansas City, you wrote:
'I'm not sure the ACC, or any of the other continuing jurisdictions actually have spokesmen. Lacking such creatures, I would assume that the primate of each jurisdiction, called what he may be called, would more than suffice as the spokesman.
'Again, as for the ACC, that would be Archbishop Mark Haverland. It is for him to choose whether he speaks or not.'
Your first paragraph is correct. As for the second, I would say that the ACC does not now have, and in recent years has not had, a single, united mind about the HCC-AR. In fact, my own views on the subject have probably been in the minority. The ACC has collegial leadership. I do not attempt to force issues when there is no consensus among us.
In brief, I may say that beginning a few years ago there were contacts between HCC-AR clergy, including Bishop Kleppinger, and me. In fact I made a trip to Pennsylvania just to see Bishop Kleppinger. I concluded that there was a desire on the part of the HCC-AR to reconcile with the ACC. I approached my episcopal colleagues about the matter, and quickly concluded that we in the ACC had no consensus on the subject. If I had pushed for reconciliation on the institutional level, I would have undermined our own (ACC) unity. You dance with the girl you take to the dance and should not divide your own Church for the sake of unity with another (cf. Deerfield Beach and aftermath). So nothing much happened. However, I felt better about Bishop Kleppinger, and I hope he felt better about me, and that was all to the good.
When in 2006-2007 the ACC and UEC renewed our warm contacts, Bishop Reber (and if my fallible memory serves, also Bishop Michael) offered to conclude their HCC-AR contacts in respect for our sensitivities. I encouraged them not to do that, on the theory that uniting divided bits in the long-run would be good for everybody. I think, and in the light of subsequent events am inclined to hope, that my encouragement had little real influence on UEC policy.
Canon Hollister is an ACC official and a friend of mine. On the matter of S. James', he writes, as he himself has said, as a coffee, not a policy, maker. I am sure most of us support local congregational control of property and so regret the actions of Bishop Michael and the HCC-AR. I can say that in years past I have heard HCC-AR bishops - whatever their canons - bitterly lament such local control as a source of instability.
About the ACC and the UEC, there was and at present is no concrete proposal or timetable for organic and institutional union. Both bodies would have to make decisions and take actions in the future to effect such an outcome. I certainly hope for such decisions and actions, but will await both the pleasure of the UEC and the formation of a consensus within the ACC. My impression is that before Bishop Michael's consecration and then again after his departure from the UEC, the UEC's union with the ACC was more likely. My impression also is that Bishop Michael, while a bishop in the UEC, liked the idea of a continuing UEC as an institutional base for himself. But the ACC really did leave decisions concerning union to Bishops Reber and Michael, whatever our preferences Now the decisions rest with Bishop Reber and his synod.
The ACC is sincerely open to the UEC. I was personally and sincerely open to the HCC-AR, but to no avail. The ACC's public approach to - and questions for - the TAC remain on the table where they have been effectively ignored. Unity among 'Continuers' cannot be forced, but I think the ACC is trying. We have made good progress with the UEC and the APCK and have cordial relations with others, such as Bishop Paul Hewett. I am open to friendly suggestions for further steps.
+Mark Haverland
(The Most Reverend) Mark Haverland, Ph.D.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
The nature of apostasy
It has been argued that Anglicanism must have an evil root, since some of its fruit in modern times is heresy. And, this may seem to agree with the words of our Lord Jesus Christ himself: "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit." (Matt. 12:33) That is, the argument may appear to harmonize with his words until we look at the context of this verse, and until we see that this and other such statements find their correct interpretation by what unfolds in the words that follow:
"O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." (Vs. 34-37)
The context makes it clear that when the Lord spoke of the evil tree and evil fruit, and the good tree and good fruit (such as Matt. 7:15f), he warns us to pay careful attention to the words men speak when they put themselves forward as religious teachers. It may seem odd that he does not draw our attention as much to their way of life, as to their words. This is because they may hide the one for quite a long time, but cannot avoid giving evidence of the second. For, whereas they do not invite the church to witness what they do in their bedrooms, or what they practice in secret, they do reveal themselves by what comes out of their mouths. The fruit of evil teaching reveals an evil tree. But that root and tree is in the individual, and what is in his heart; it is not in keeping with these passages from the Gospels to extend their meaning to anything beyond the heart of an individual. It is necessary to stay within the boundaries of the actual text of scripture in order to interpret it correctly.
The historical argument
For, as I wrote at the beginning of this essay, the modern heresies embraced by many Anglicans are put forth as evidence that the root of Anglicanism is to blame. This appears, at first glance, to be logical. After all, where else could reasoning come from that allows for women's "ordination," liberal opinions about abortion, divorce and remarriage, and the promotion of homosexuality as a good, acceptable and even sacramental way of life? The Anglican Communion is not unique in embracing these errors, since numerous Protestant denominations have embraced them as well. But, only the Anglican Communion and, in recent times, the Old Catholic Churches of Utrecht (with which, to its credit and benefit, the Polish National Catholic Church has broken all ties), among churches professing themselves to be Traditional Catholic sacramental churches,1 have accepted these things.
First, does this really prove anything about the Anglican root? Some Roman Catholics think that it verifies their specific claims against Anglicanism. If we are to accept the logic of their argument, however, we find ourselves in a dilemma, since it follows that these things would also indict their roots. Protestantism, in its endless variety of forms, began with at least four major strands in the 16th century: Lutheranism, Calvinism, Zwinglianism, and then that rather odd case of the English Reformation. But, the root of Protestantism is Roman Catholicism; it is the fruit of that tree. In fact, every major idea of the Reformers, except for Zwingli's innovation about Communion, was acceptable within debates that took place in previous centuries among Catholic scholars, without fear of excommunication or a charge of heresy. So, if Protestantism is an evil fruit, what does this say about the Papal Church of the West? Does it verify the Orthodox claims?
Well, if we proceed with the same logic, the Papal or Western Church was the fruit of the first millennium Church with its seven Ecumenical Councils. So, is that tree, then, corrupt? If so, our dilemma is huge indeed. To go further with this line of reasoning, its logic should be applied to every heresy that the Councils addressed. For all of them, whether we think of the Arian heresy, or Pelagianism, or Pneumatomachianism, Iconoclasm, or Monothelitism, etc., arose within the community of the church. This logic would show just how wrong St. Paul was: "For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." (I Cor. 11:19) Heresies inevitable? Should they not rather be seen as evidence that the Jews were right all along about the tree of Christianity itself?
The actual nature of apostasy
The root argument from history should yield to the simple fact that our Lord did not use his tree and fruit analogy to speak of wide ramifications in history, but to speak instead about the heart of individuals. It is a warning to each person as an individual to walk rightly with God, and it is a warning about false prophets with a measure for discerning them.
"The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying, What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die." (Ezekiel 18:1-4)
These words open the eighteenth chapter of the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, in which we learn some terrifying facts. We learn that a man may be righteous before God, and his son may not, and that the reverse also may be true. We learn that a man may himself turn away from God after years of living a righteous life, and walk in sin. But, we learn also that a sinner may repent, walk righteously before God, and his past life will be forgotten.
Each generation, indeed, each individual, makes his choice for good or evil. And, that choice may not be a reflection on previous generations at all. This is a kind of freedom that no government has power to restrain, the freewill given to each individual either to repent and try to walk with God, or to turn from him, perhaps so completely as to prophesy lies and turn to other gods, if only in the secret place of the heart. The nature of apostasy is a personal thing deep down within, in the hidden chambers of motivation. The expression of apostasy is manifestation of hatred for God, a rebellion that discloses malice toward our Father in heaven.
The expression of apostasy as it continues out from its source may be more innocent, in that many people may be deceived in all sincerity, believing the lies that are taught to them. But, even here, there can be a measure of culpability, a hardness of heart against hearing the word of the Lord. Nonetheless, before it can be taught and spread, apostasy must rebel against the very church in which the apostate resides. Apostasy becomes heresy when the apostate manages to stay within his church community and spread his ideas as a new doctrine.
The method
How this applies to Anglicanism should be obvious to Continuing Anglicans. In order for a new version of Christianity to thrive, there must be first a rebellion against the Tradition. Anglicanism itself did not change; its nature did not undergo any kind of transformation. Instead, what really happened brings to mind what G.K. Chesterton remarked about Christianity: "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried." A variation of this became true in some of the churches of the Anglican Communion. Anglicanism has not been tried and found wanting, it has been rejected. And, with it has been rejected the whole Christian faith.
This apostasy became heresy because it did not reject the outward form of religion, but instead conquered it, acquired its worldly assets, lost most of the old crowd, and replaced them with "converts." As a business, this new religion has been a success in the United States, even though its numbers do not begin to compare with past generations of the Episcopal Church, in either membership or attendance, just as they do not begin to compare with such churches as the Anglican Church in Nigeria where all the clergy are men, and the doctrine of the Church has never changed.
But, the new religion has money, and it has enough of the old form to provide comforts and false assurance. This proves true, also, another quotation 2 of G.K. Chesterton: "All conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change." Some are content with the new religion, because they were so conservative that they left the faith and practice of the Church alone. It is enough for them to live within the fantasy of its structures.
But (and this is more to the point) the new religion is not Anglican at all. It rejected Anglicanism, even rejecting the most authentic expression of Anglicanism, the Book of Common Prayer. Without the Book of Common Prayer, there is no Anglicanism. That is what expresses it and gives it a life with common expression, the doctrine of the Bible true to the earliest generations of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
It is obvious from any reading of the Affirmation of St. Louis that Anglicanism is not a tree with bad fruit, but rather a part of that same Church that remained faithful when the Emperor favored the Arians, and drove St. Athanasius into exile. True Anglicanism, in countries where the Continuing Churches are needed, is the Christian Faith in exile.
1. Some may think to add the national Churches of Sweden and Norway to such a list.
"O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." (Vs. 34-37)
The context makes it clear that when the Lord spoke of the evil tree and evil fruit, and the good tree and good fruit (such as Matt. 7:15f), he warns us to pay careful attention to the words men speak when they put themselves forward as religious teachers. It may seem odd that he does not draw our attention as much to their way of life, as to their words. This is because they may hide the one for quite a long time, but cannot avoid giving evidence of the second. For, whereas they do not invite the church to witness what they do in their bedrooms, or what they practice in secret, they do reveal themselves by what comes out of their mouths. The fruit of evil teaching reveals an evil tree. But that root and tree is in the individual, and what is in his heart; it is not in keeping with these passages from the Gospels to extend their meaning to anything beyond the heart of an individual. It is necessary to stay within the boundaries of the actual text of scripture in order to interpret it correctly.
The historical argument
For, as I wrote at the beginning of this essay, the modern heresies embraced by many Anglicans are put forth as evidence that the root of Anglicanism is to blame. This appears, at first glance, to be logical. After all, where else could reasoning come from that allows for women's "ordination," liberal opinions about abortion, divorce and remarriage, and the promotion of homosexuality as a good, acceptable and even sacramental way of life? The Anglican Communion is not unique in embracing these errors, since numerous Protestant denominations have embraced them as well. But, only the Anglican Communion and, in recent times, the Old Catholic Churches of Utrecht (with which, to its credit and benefit, the Polish National Catholic Church has broken all ties), among churches professing themselves to be Traditional Catholic sacramental churches,1 have accepted these things.
First, does this really prove anything about the Anglican root? Some Roman Catholics think that it verifies their specific claims against Anglicanism. If we are to accept the logic of their argument, however, we find ourselves in a dilemma, since it follows that these things would also indict their roots. Protestantism, in its endless variety of forms, began with at least four major strands in the 16th century: Lutheranism, Calvinism, Zwinglianism, and then that rather odd case of the English Reformation. But, the root of Protestantism is Roman Catholicism; it is the fruit of that tree. In fact, every major idea of the Reformers, except for Zwingli's innovation about Communion, was acceptable within debates that took place in previous centuries among Catholic scholars, without fear of excommunication or a charge of heresy. So, if Protestantism is an evil fruit, what does this say about the Papal Church of the West? Does it verify the Orthodox claims?
Well, if we proceed with the same logic, the Papal or Western Church was the fruit of the first millennium Church with its seven Ecumenical Councils. So, is that tree, then, corrupt? If so, our dilemma is huge indeed. To go further with this line of reasoning, its logic should be applied to every heresy that the Councils addressed. For all of them, whether we think of the Arian heresy, or Pelagianism, or Pneumatomachianism, Iconoclasm, or Monothelitism, etc., arose within the community of the church. This logic would show just how wrong St. Paul was: "For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." (I Cor. 11:19) Heresies inevitable? Should they not rather be seen as evidence that the Jews were right all along about the tree of Christianity itself?
The actual nature of apostasy
The root argument from history should yield to the simple fact that our Lord did not use his tree and fruit analogy to speak of wide ramifications in history, but to speak instead about the heart of individuals. It is a warning to each person as an individual to walk rightly with God, and it is a warning about false prophets with a measure for discerning them.
"The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying, What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die." (Ezekiel 18:1-4)
These words open the eighteenth chapter of the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, in which we learn some terrifying facts. We learn that a man may be righteous before God, and his son may not, and that the reverse also may be true. We learn that a man may himself turn away from God after years of living a righteous life, and walk in sin. But, we learn also that a sinner may repent, walk righteously before God, and his past life will be forgotten.
Each generation, indeed, each individual, makes his choice for good or evil. And, that choice may not be a reflection on previous generations at all. This is a kind of freedom that no government has power to restrain, the freewill given to each individual either to repent and try to walk with God, or to turn from him, perhaps so completely as to prophesy lies and turn to other gods, if only in the secret place of the heart. The nature of apostasy is a personal thing deep down within, in the hidden chambers of motivation. The expression of apostasy is manifestation of hatred for God, a rebellion that discloses malice toward our Father in heaven.
The expression of apostasy as it continues out from its source may be more innocent, in that many people may be deceived in all sincerity, believing the lies that are taught to them. But, even here, there can be a measure of culpability, a hardness of heart against hearing the word of the Lord. Nonetheless, before it can be taught and spread, apostasy must rebel against the very church in which the apostate resides. Apostasy becomes heresy when the apostate manages to stay within his church community and spread his ideas as a new doctrine.
The method
How this applies to Anglicanism should be obvious to Continuing Anglicans. In order for a new version of Christianity to thrive, there must be first a rebellion against the Tradition. Anglicanism itself did not change; its nature did not undergo any kind of transformation. Instead, what really happened brings to mind what G.K. Chesterton remarked about Christianity: "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried." A variation of this became true in some of the churches of the Anglican Communion. Anglicanism has not been tried and found wanting, it has been rejected. And, with it has been rejected the whole Christian faith.
This apostasy became heresy because it did not reject the outward form of religion, but instead conquered it, acquired its worldly assets, lost most of the old crowd, and replaced them with "converts." As a business, this new religion has been a success in the United States, even though its numbers do not begin to compare with past generations of the Episcopal Church, in either membership or attendance, just as they do not begin to compare with such churches as the Anglican Church in Nigeria where all the clergy are men, and the doctrine of the Church has never changed.
But, the new religion has money, and it has enough of the old form to provide comforts and false assurance. This proves true, also, another quotation 2 of G.K. Chesterton: "All conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change." Some are content with the new religion, because they were so conservative that they left the faith and practice of the Church alone. It is enough for them to live within the fantasy of its structures.
But (and this is more to the point) the new religion is not Anglican at all. It rejected Anglicanism, even rejecting the most authentic expression of Anglicanism, the Book of Common Prayer. Without the Book of Common Prayer, there is no Anglicanism. That is what expresses it and gives it a life with common expression, the doctrine of the Bible true to the earliest generations of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
It is obvious from any reading of the Affirmation of St. Louis that Anglicanism is not a tree with bad fruit, but rather a part of that same Church that remained faithful when the Emperor favored the Arians, and drove St. Athanasius into exile. True Anglicanism, in countries where the Continuing Churches are needed, is the Christian Faith in exile.
1. Some may think to add the national Churches of Sweden and Norway to such a list.
2. I make no apologies for quoting a great Roman Catholic thinker in my defense of Anglicanism.
3. The danger that II Tim. 3:5 may apply, is no small problem: "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."
3. The danger that II Tim. 3:5 may apply, is no small problem: "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."
Pascal's Fire
Someone urged me to post this here, and, since Albion has just complained aboput too few posts, well, here goes.
January 2, 2008. I've read an article about Blaise Pascal that quotes the words that came to him on the fateful day of his conversion at Port Royal, words that he carried with him the rest of his life. A poem had to come, begun yesterday at the dawn of a new year, and finished tonight...
Pascal's Fire
Fire.
God of Abraham.
God of Isaac,
God of Jacob,
not of the philosophers and scholars.
Certainty,
certainty,
heartfelt joy,
peace.
God of Jesus Christ.
Joy,
joy,
joy,
oceans of joy!
---Blaise Pascal, at his conversion, Port Royal, 1654
Fire burning.
Fire blazing.
Fire shining bright,
shining, glowing, giving light,
blazing white with all might
from the height beyond our sight,
light.
Brightness burning, all else fading,
in the passion of those beams,
in the heat of blazing flaming,
of the fury of a Presence,
of such power naught can stand;
unseen against the glare,
unseeing in the glare,
as we peer, by glory blinded,
at a God we cannot see.
We cannot see,
nor by our mind can comprehend,
and logic of philosophers must fail,
and science cannot ever reach
beyond the things that it can see,
can see and touch and measure,
but the God we cannot see we know,
for we have seen His light.
Fire burning.
Fire blazing.
Fire shining bright,
shining, glowing, giving light,
blazing white with all might
from the height beyond our sight,
light.
Cannot see.
Cannot hear.
Cannot touch.
Cannot reason out,
but in the light,
blinding light,
beyond the power of sense,
to know.
To Know.
TO KNOW.
In waves of rending joy to know
a peace that seems beyond all sense,
that seems to tear the inmost heart
with pounding, burning, floods of joy
as blinding as the brilliant light
that comes from His eternal fire.
Fire burning.
Fire blazing.
Fire shining bright,
shining, glowing, giving light,
blazing white with all might
from the height beyond our sight,
light.
And in the peace beyond all peace,
and in the joy we cannot bear,
amidst the brightness of the holy light,
we drown
in Him
and life is ours.
--ed pacht
January 2, 2008. I've read an article about Blaise Pascal that quotes the words that came to him on the fateful day of his conversion at Port Royal, words that he carried with him the rest of his life. A poem had to come, begun yesterday at the dawn of a new year, and finished tonight...
Pascal's Fire
Fire.
God of Abraham.
God of Isaac,
God of Jacob,
not of the philosophers and scholars.
Certainty,
certainty,
heartfelt joy,
peace.
God of Jesus Christ.
Joy,
joy,
joy,
oceans of joy!
---Blaise Pascal, at his conversion, Port Royal, 1654
Fire burning.
Fire blazing.
Fire shining bright,
shining, glowing, giving light,
blazing white with all might
from the height beyond our sight,
light.
Brightness burning, all else fading,
in the passion of those beams,
in the heat of blazing flaming,
of the fury of a Presence,
of such power naught can stand;
unseen against the glare,
unseeing in the glare,
as we peer, by glory blinded,
at a God we cannot see.
We cannot see,
nor by our mind can comprehend,
and logic of philosophers must fail,
and science cannot ever reach
beyond the things that it can see,
can see and touch and measure,
but the God we cannot see we know,
for we have seen His light.
Fire burning.
Fire blazing.
Fire shining bright,
shining, glowing, giving light,
blazing white with all might
from the height beyond our sight,
light.
Cannot see.
Cannot hear.
Cannot touch.
Cannot reason out,
but in the light,
blinding light,
beyond the power of sense,
to know.
To Know.
TO KNOW.
In waves of rending joy to know
a peace that seems beyond all sense,
that seems to tear the inmost heart
with pounding, burning, floods of joy
as blinding as the brilliant light
that comes from His eternal fire.
Fire burning.
Fire blazing.
Fire shining bright,
shining, glowing, giving light,
blazing white with all might
from the height beyond our sight,
light.
And in the peace beyond all peace,
and in the joy we cannot bear,
amidst the brightness of the holy light,
we drown
in Him
and life is ours.
--ed pacht
Testing. Testing, One, Two
I'm not sure I can recall an occasion where we have gone nearly five days without someone posting something. As far as I know, we are all still alive.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Trinity I
First Sunday after Trinity
Linus, stunned, retorts "I do love mankind…It’s people I can’t stand!" The ideologues have always loved mankind; and they have made many people suffer for it...the judgment to come on the Last Day will concern what we did, not for mankind, but for "one of the least of these My brethren."
I John 4:7-21
Luke 16:19-31
Today’s Gospel brings up a subject that most preachers seem unwilling to mention these days. It speaks of a departed soul in torment, and gives us a scene of Hell. In fact, this story is not one that our Lord Jesus thought up, but rather one that He took the liberty of changing. Unlike the other parables, He made use of a story already told, and one that was popularly known by the Jews of that day. They had already developed a strong moral understanding because of the Torah and the prophets, and they knew the fate of those who did not love their neighbors. But our Lord adds His own ending, in which we learn that miracles, specifically the rising of the dead, are not enough to win the heart of anyone who cannot be moved simply by the truth revealed in scripture. A person who cannot repent simply by hearing the word of the Lord, will not believe his own eyes if he sees a miracle. This may seem incredible, but it is true.
The power of sin, when that sin is cherished and pampered, can harden the heart just as it did that of Pharaoh in the time of Moses. When we understand this, it begins to make sense why Christ said one day, after working miracles in the presence of a large crowd, that no sign would be given to their generation. How strange indeed, when we read of the many powerful and visible signs that these very people had just seen. A heart given to sin so hardens itself that no sign is sign enough. You may recall from the Gospel of Matthew that the priests who knew that Christ had risen from the dead paid the Roman guards to make up an alternative story. If that seems strange, I can only say that, contrary to popular belief, seeing is not believing. We know the words of Christ to Thomas, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." It is also true that there are those who do see and yet believe not. For, ultimately, faith has more to do with repentance than with being convinced of a fact.
The story about Lazarus and the Rich Man is not about the end that awaits unbelievers, but about the difference between living faith and dead faith. It highlights the kind of faith which cannot bring forth any fruit, because it has, to borrow words from the Book of Revelation, left its first love. The terrifying end of torment in Hell is the condition in which the Rich Man (Dives if you prefer) finds himself, even with his own kind of faith. Since the days of Martin Luther a controversy has centered over the question of justification, and if man is saved by faith alone (or sola fide). And, in all fairness, an emphasis on faith is an important balance to many from our own ranks who speak of baptism as if it were the end all and be all of life in Christ. It is right to speak of the importance of faith. In his early days Luther preached a sermon about faith, in which he taught that faith cannot exist by itself; that true faith creates love which produces good works. Very Pauline, very sound, and it throws light on a difference between his concept of faith at that time and the concept of some modern preachers. But, unfortunately, he came to reject the Epistle of James as, to use his words, "an epistle of straw." For, James is the only one in scripture to refer directly to faith alone-not a saving sola fide, but faith alone as in lonely faith. For what St. James wrote was "Even so faith, if hath not works, is dead, being alone (James 2:17)." And he tells us that this kind of faith, that is dead faith, cannot save us. It is dead, like the member of a body cut off and alone. That is the one place in scripture where faith is spoken of with the word "alone" anywhere in close proximity. Yes, we are saved by grace through faith, Saint Paul tells us. He goes on to say that this faith leads to "good works which God hath prepared for us to walk in (Eph. 2: 8-10)." Funny- isn’t it?- that Paul and James completely agree.
The Rich Man sees Abraham, and calls him father Abraham. Abraham calls the Rich Man "my son." Those who have faith, Saint Paul teaches us in his Epistle to the Romans, are the children of Abraham. So, why did not the faith of Dives- the Rich Man- save him from the place of torment? This is very important; we must heed the answer. It was because his faith was dead. In his grave, and in the fires of his torment, he simply caught up with the deadness of a faith which does not heed the words of Moses and the Prophets. He would not be persuaded- persuaded, that is, to repent- had he seen the Risen Christ and placed his fingers in the wounds in His hands.
Impossible you say? Ah, but did not Christ’s enemies witness some of the same public miracles that His friends had seen? Did not Judas the traitor, when sent out with the others, work miracles himself? If we read the Gospels closely we see that he must have. The twelve came back to the Lord and reported that they had preached and healed the sick and driven out demons, as later the seventy would also do. Even if we picture Judas standing by while another apostle did the actual praying that brought about healing, did he not see many miracles in his years with the Lord? He saw Christ’s miracles in abundance. Faith is not simply seeing and believing a fact. It is a living virtue of those who know God. It cannot abide alone, but only, as Saint Paul tells us, along with hope and charity. And so, both the Gospel and the Epistle appointed for the First Sunday after Trinity, tell us of the love of God, of charity, which is the mark of each person who has living faith.
The Epistle by Saint John does not speak of some heroic effort to love our neighbor, with clenched teeth and flexed muscle. Rather, it shows us how naturally the love of Christ flows from the life of anyone who knows God. In line with the Collect, it tells us that the strength of those who put their trust in God overcomes the weakness of our mortal nature so that through us, He loves those who have need of our kindness. If we come to the end of our natural strength in the face of human need; if we are overwhelmed by the poverty and suffering that is beyond our ability to mend, it is not merely the strength of human idealism that sustains us. Having worked for years among the poor and disabled, and having spent many hours taking them to Social Service offices, I know that the world’s best idea of kindness quickly goes down a drain of cynicism, indifference and even cruelty. The caseworkers can be among the meanest and most abrasive people on earth (not all of them of course. Some are absolute saints).
The Rich Man probably thought that his faith was producing good works. After all, Lazarus got to lie outside of his gate and eat the scraps from his table. The Rich Man "gave at the office." He sent out his check, his scraps, to a thing called "charity." But, as a fellow Israelite, Lazarus was his brother. The Israelites were commanded in the Torah to be kind even to the stranger in their midst. How much more naturally it should have come to him to invite Lazarus in from the street, to put him at his own table as David had done for Mephibosheth, the lame grandson of Saul. The best the world offers, in its feeble idealism, is to send out gifts to those we wish not to see. But, a living faith sees no one as a stranger. In the words of our Lord, it does good for one of the least of His brethren.
"The righteous man considers the life of his beast. But, the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel" says the Book of Proverbs. Utopian ideologues since the French Revolution, such as Marx and his followers, spoke lofty words about what was best for mankind. It reminds me of one of Charles Schultz’s Peanuts cartoons. Linus tells his sister Lucy that he wants to be a doctor, a great doctor. She tells him "you cannot be a great doctor. You know why? Because a doctor must love mankind. You don’t love mankind." Linus, stunned, retorts "I do love mankind…It’s people I can’t stand!" The ideologues have always loved mankind; and they have made many people suffer for it. They have offered millions of innocent victims to some idea of "good for the highest number," and all of that Satanic balderdash about what is best for humanity. Crowds enjoying the spectacle of heads being cut off in Paris, Communists dictating who should live, who should die, and who must go to the camps, and, indeed, the Nazis destroying millions in order to advance human evolution to the state of perfection, believed they were lovers of mankind, saviors of that abstract and impersonal thing called "humanity."
But, the judgment to come on the Last Day will concern what we did, not for mankind, but for "one of the least of these My brethren," as our lord taught in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (in the 25th chapter of Matthew). One. Our Lord spoke of "one" quite deliberately. If we cannot love our brother whom we see, how can we love God Whom we have not seen? - our brother, not some lofty and impersonal "mankind." Christ came into the world to save each of us who believe. He bore the sins of each person. Of the whole world, yes. But, with Saint Paul, we can speak of the Son of God "Who loved me, and gave Himself for me." The personal element, love for the one lost sheep, which we all have been, is the very heart of charity. The love He puts into our hearts by a living faith, the charity without which faith cannot abide, sees the need of the one, of our brother. That brother cannot be sacrificed, that sister cannot have her feeding tube pulled out, that unborn baby cannot be aborted and thrown away, that hungry child cannot be neglected, that discouraged individual cannot be ignored, by those whose faith is alive. Because this kind of faith works by love and labors in hope.
And it cannot do so on merely human strength.
This living faith is persuaded by the scriptures. It hears Moses and the prophets, and is ready to welcome the Risen Christ in whom it hoped all along. It cannot help but have charity, the love of God, for living faith knows no other way. It is the faith of the Holy Spirit Himself, Who abides in us to shed forth the love of God in our hearts.
Friday, May 23, 2008
"I Will Meditate Upon Thy Statutes"
My weekend is coming up, so I thought I'd put a cat among the pigeons. In doing so, I dearly hope that it will not result in my hopes of eventual ordination being dashed forever. :>)
We continuing Anglicans, along with our brothers and sisters in Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, make much of our our adherence to the Ecumenical Councils. That the Romans are more generous in their definition of what constitutes such a council is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion, as it pertains to the Seventh Council, one which is ecumenically acknowledged as being ecumenical.
The Affirmation of St Louis, to which all continuing churches adhere, says in part:
"We repudiate all deviation of departure from the Faith, in whole or in part, and bear witness to these essential principles of evangelical Truth and apostolic Order," which include:
"The received Tradition of the Church and its teachings as set forth by 'the ancient catholic bishops and doctors,' and especially as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church, to the exclusion of all errors, ancient and modern.
I now draw your attention to Canon II, which I stumbled across late one night many months ago and have been meaning to ask about ever since: Are all our bishops in compliance with it? I dearly wish I could say that I am, but am doubtful I ever will be.
Canon II
That he who is to be ordained a Bishop must be steadfastly resolved to observe the canons, otherwise he shall not be ordained.
When we recite the psalter, we promise God: “I will meditate upon thy statutes, and will not forget thy words.” It is a salutary thing for all Christians to observe this, but it is especially incumbent upon those who have received the sacerdotal dignity. Therefore we decree, that every one who is raised to the rank of the episcopate shall know the psalter by heart (my emphasis), so that from it he may admonish and instruct all the clergy who are subject to him. And diligent examination shall be made by the metropolitan whether he be zealously inclined to read diligently, and not merely now and then, the sacred canons, the holy Gospel, and the book of the divine Apostle, and all other divine Scripture; and whether he lives according to God’s commandments, and also teaches the same to his people. For the special treasure of our high priesthood is the oracles which have been divinely delivered to us, that is the true science of the Divine Scriptures, as says Dionysius the Great. And if his mind be not set, and even glad, so to do and teach, let him not be ordained. For says God by the prophet, “Thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me.”
Here follows some commentary:
Ancient Epitome of Canon II
Whoever is to be a bishop must know the Psalter by heart: he must thoroughly understand what he reads, and not merely superficially, but with diligent care, that is to say the Sacred Canons, the Holy Gospel, the book of the Apostle, and the whole of the Divine Scripture. And should he not have such knowledge, he is not to be ordained.
Aristenus
Whoso is to be elevated to the grade of the episcopate should know … the book of the Apostle Paul, and the whole divine scripture and search out its meaning and understand the things that are written. For the very foundation and essence of the high priesthood is the true knowledge of holy Scripture, according to Dionysius the Great. And if he has this knowledge let him be ordained, but if not, not. For God hath said by the prophet: “Thou hast put away from thee knowledge, therefore I have also put thee away from me, that thou mayest not be my priest.”
Fleury
The persecution of the Iconoclasts had driven all the best Christians into hiding, or into far distant exile; this had made them rustic, and had taken from them their taste for study. The council therefore is forced to be content with a knowledge of only what is absolutely necessary, provided it was united with a willingness to learn. The examination with which the ceremony of the ordination of bishops begins seems to be a remains of this discipline.
Van Espen
The Synod teaches in this canon that “all Christians” will find it most profitable to meditate upon God’s justifyings and to keep his words in remembrance, and especially is this the case with bishops. And it should be noted that formerly not only the clergy, but also the lay people, learned the Psalms, that is the whole Psalter, by heart, and made a most sweet sound by chanting them while about their work.
But as time went on, little by little this pious custom of reciting the Psalter and of imposing its recitation and a meditation thereon at certain intervals, slipped away to the clergy only and to monks and nuns, as to those specially consecrated to the service of God and to meditation upon the divine words, as Lupus points out. And from this discipline and practice the appointment of the Ecclesiastical or Canonical Office had its rise, which imposes the necessity of reciting the Psalms at certain intervals of time.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars I., Dist. xxxviij., C. vj., in Anastasius’s translation.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene_and_Post-Nicene_Fathers:_Series_II/Volume_XIV/The_Seventh_Ecumenical_Council/Canons/Canon_II"
We continuing Anglicans, along with our brothers and sisters in Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, make much of our our adherence to the Ecumenical Councils. That the Romans are more generous in their definition of what constitutes such a council is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion, as it pertains to the Seventh Council, one which is ecumenically acknowledged as being ecumenical.
The Affirmation of St Louis, to which all continuing churches adhere, says in part:
"We repudiate all deviation of departure from the Faith, in whole or in part, and bear witness to these essential principles of evangelical Truth and apostolic Order," which include:
"The received Tradition of the Church and its teachings as set forth by 'the ancient catholic bishops and doctors,' and especially as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church, to the exclusion of all errors, ancient and modern.
I now draw your attention to Canon II, which I stumbled across late one night many months ago and have been meaning to ask about ever since: Are all our bishops in compliance with it? I dearly wish I could say that I am, but am doubtful I ever will be.
Canon II
That he who is to be ordained a Bishop must be steadfastly resolved to observe the canons, otherwise he shall not be ordained.
When we recite the psalter, we promise God: “I will meditate upon thy statutes, and will not forget thy words.” It is a salutary thing for all Christians to observe this, but it is especially incumbent upon those who have received the sacerdotal dignity. Therefore we decree, that every one who is raised to the rank of the episcopate shall know the psalter by heart (my emphasis), so that from it he may admonish and instruct all the clergy who are subject to him. And diligent examination shall be made by the metropolitan whether he be zealously inclined to read diligently, and not merely now and then, the sacred canons, the holy Gospel, and the book of the divine Apostle, and all other divine Scripture; and whether he lives according to God’s commandments, and also teaches the same to his people. For the special treasure of our high priesthood is the oracles which have been divinely delivered to us, that is the true science of the Divine Scriptures, as says Dionysius the Great. And if his mind be not set, and even glad, so to do and teach, let him not be ordained. For says God by the prophet, “Thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me.”
Here follows some commentary:
Ancient Epitome of Canon II
Whoever is to be a bishop must know the Psalter by heart: he must thoroughly understand what he reads, and not merely superficially, but with diligent care, that is to say the Sacred Canons, the Holy Gospel, the book of the Apostle, and the whole of the Divine Scripture. And should he not have such knowledge, he is not to be ordained.
Aristenus
Whoso is to be elevated to the grade of the episcopate should know … the book of the Apostle Paul, and the whole divine scripture and search out its meaning and understand the things that are written. For the very foundation and essence of the high priesthood is the true knowledge of holy Scripture, according to Dionysius the Great. And if he has this knowledge let him be ordained, but if not, not. For God hath said by the prophet: “Thou hast put away from thee knowledge, therefore I have also put thee away from me, that thou mayest not be my priest.”
Fleury
The persecution of the Iconoclasts had driven all the best Christians into hiding, or into far distant exile; this had made them rustic, and had taken from them their taste for study. The council therefore is forced to be content with a knowledge of only what is absolutely necessary, provided it was united with a willingness to learn. The examination with which the ceremony of the ordination of bishops begins seems to be a remains of this discipline.
Van Espen
The Synod teaches in this canon that “all Christians” will find it most profitable to meditate upon God’s justifyings and to keep his words in remembrance, and especially is this the case with bishops. And it should be noted that formerly not only the clergy, but also the lay people, learned the Psalms, that is the whole Psalter, by heart, and made a most sweet sound by chanting them while about their work.
But as time went on, little by little this pious custom of reciting the Psalter and of imposing its recitation and a meditation thereon at certain intervals, slipped away to the clergy only and to monks and nuns, as to those specially consecrated to the service of God and to meditation upon the divine words, as Lupus points out. And from this discipline and practice the appointment of the Ecclesiastical or Canonical Office had its rise, which imposes the necessity of reciting the Psalms at certain intervals of time.
This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian’s Decretum, Pars I., Dist. xxxviij., C. vj., in Anastasius’s translation.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene_and_Post-Nicene_Fathers:_Series_II/Volume_XIV/The_Seventh_Ecumenical_Council/Canons/Canon_II"
The Assize Sermon 175 Years On
Forward in Faith is delighted to commend to all its members, supporters and friends the Day of Celebration and Prayer which will take place on 14th July, to mark the 175th Anniversary of the Assize Sermon.
The organisers write: On 14th July 1833 John Keble, scholar, priest and hymn writer, preached a sermon which was to start the Oxford Movement in the Church of England. It was to have an effect beyond his imagining. John Newman, Richard Hurrell Froude, and William Palmer, joined with Keble to publish a series of Tracts for the Times and were later joined by Edward Pusey.
On Monday 14th July 2008 you are warmly invited to join in an hour of silent prayer which is being held to mark the 175th anniversary of the Oxford Movement and of the Catholic Revival in the Church of England.
As we pray to God on 14th July, it is our aim not merely to commemorate the events of the past, but also to listen to God and to pray for His help to discern and carry out His will in our own generation . . . (continued here.)
We hope that Forward in Faith Parishes all over the world will commit themselves to this hour of silent prayer and add their names to the ever-growing list of Churches taking part by sending an email to admin@oxfordmovement.org.uk , giving the name of the parish, the diocese in which it is located, and the (local) time at which the hour of prayer will commence.
The organisers write: On 14th July 1833 John Keble, scholar, priest and hymn writer, preached a sermon which was to start the Oxford Movement in the Church of England. It was to have an effect beyond his imagining. John Newman, Richard Hurrell Froude, and William Palmer, joined with Keble to publish a series of Tracts for the Times and were later joined by Edward Pusey.
On Monday 14th July 2008 you are warmly invited to join in an hour of silent prayer which is being held to mark the 175th anniversary of the Oxford Movement and of the Catholic Revival in the Church of England.
As we pray to God on 14th July, it is our aim not merely to commemorate the events of the past, but also to listen to God and to pray for His help to discern and carry out His will in our own generation . . . (continued here.)
We hope that Forward in Faith Parishes all over the world will commit themselves to this hour of silent prayer and add their names to the ever-growing list of Churches taking part by sending an email to admin@oxfordmovement.org.uk , giving the name of the parish, the diocese in which it is located, and the (local) time at which the hour of prayer will commence.
Theology Exam
Jesus asked:
"And whom do you say that I am?"
Peter replied:
"You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood revealed."
And Jesus replied:
"Huh?"
Hat tip to my friend Dejan
"And whom do you say that I am?"
Peter replied:
"You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood revealed."
And Jesus replied:
"Huh?"
Hat tip to my friend Dejan
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Fellowship of Concerned Churchmen Meet
The Fellowship of Concerned Churchmen holds its biennial gathering at Our Lady of Snows in Belleville, Illinois on June 9, 10 and 11.
As in recent years, the fellowship's meeting will feature professional papers and
speakers within traditional Anglicanism.
Dinner speakers are the Rt Rev'd John Broadhurst, chairman of Forward-in-Faith International (Monday) and the Rt Rev'd George Langberg, president of the ACA's College of Bishops (Tuesday).
The theme of the gathering is "Solutions to the Problem of Traditionalist Anglican Disunity in North America".
Seminar speakers include the Rt Rev'd Paul C Hewett (DHC, on inter-jurisdictional regional cooperation), the Rt Rev'd Winfield Mott (APA on inter-communion agreements), the Rev'd Elijah White (CANA, on the role of overseas bishops), and a special look at the link between female "ordination" and same-sex "marriage".
The cost is $200-$275 and includes lodging. For reservations one can contact DJ Fulton, Treasurer, PO Box 427, Morrow, GA 30260 or "google" Fellowship of Concerned Churchmen.
Sent by Rev'd William Bauer (fr odhran mary)
Board member - Fellowship of Concerned Churchmen
Fellowship site:: http://www.netministries.org/see/charmin/cm06091
As in recent years, the fellowship's meeting will feature professional papers and
speakers within traditional Anglicanism.
Dinner speakers are the Rt Rev'd John Broadhurst, chairman of Forward-in-Faith International (Monday) and the Rt Rev'd George Langberg, president of the ACA's College of Bishops (Tuesday).
The theme of the gathering is "Solutions to the Problem of Traditionalist Anglican Disunity in North America".
Seminar speakers include the Rt Rev'd Paul C Hewett (DHC, on inter-jurisdictional regional cooperation), the Rt Rev'd Winfield Mott (APA on inter-communion agreements), the Rev'd Elijah White (CANA, on the role of overseas bishops), and a special look at the link between female "ordination" and same-sex "marriage".
The cost is $200-$275 and includes lodging. For reservations one can contact DJ Fulton, Treasurer, PO Box 427, Morrow, GA 30260 or "google" Fellowship of Concerned Churchmen.
Sent by Rev'd William Bauer (fr odhran mary)
Board member - Fellowship of Concerned Churchmen
Fellowship site:: http://www.netministries.org/see/charmin/cm06091
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)