New and Improved?

Someone sent a link to a CNN story, in which seven year-old girls in something called "the World of Dance competition" performed a completely inappropriate dance, frankly, for any girls or women at any age. The children were clad in scanty outfits and had been taught moves, performed in the dance, that would be seductive if they were several years older. This was to a vastly inferior "song" called "Single Ladies." To her credit, one reporter at CNN voiced her disgust. Do these girls have parents? What does Dad think of such a sight? Obviously, he is missing in their lives, even if he hangs around the house after work.

In the 1960s just about every manufacturer of daily supplies, like toothpaste or soap, insisted that their product was "new and improved" compared to last year. Perhaps they took their lead from automobile makers. The concept of "new and improved" has a right application in technology, and in scientific breakthroughs, especially in the field of medicine. However, medical ethics, to the degree that they are new, are by no means an improvement, but rather several large steps backward to a time that was, by Christian standards, uncivilized (my brother's book, Atheist Delusions, places that in historical context). The same is true of most things where "new and improved" is applied to anything that touches morality; for new ideas in morality and ethics are truly barbaric, even to the point where innocent human life is not protected. The same may be said, of course, for "new and improved" religion, in which the very essence of the Christian faith is drained away, and God's laws forgotten.

Of course, if innocent children cannot be protected in the womb, how can their innocence be protected after birth? What rights do the survivors of the Abortion Holocaust have anyway? Certainly not, it would seem, a right to childhood. The time to be fully exploited begins early (not unlike the Chinese girls in nineteenth century San Francisco who had no protection from the Law). These girls, along with their brothers, should be learning to read and write, and they should be learning the Ten Commandments, the Apostle's Creed, the Lord's Prayer and the Gospel. The innocence of children needs to be protected, for once childhood is over there is no getting it back. Moral lessons need to be taught at home and in church, and public schools cannot be trusted when they try to usurp that office. In all of these matters we need to understand very clearly that "new and improved" morality and religion do not exist. The only thing truly new and improved is the newness of life for those who are in the New Covenant.

Let us get a few things straight, and let those of us who are of the clergy remind our people of these things from the pulpit:

1. It is the duty of parents, especially fathers, to make sure that the children are raised knowing God's commandments, and that they are given enough mental and spiritual fortitude to resist the world's false morality.

2. It is the duty of parents, especially fathers, to teach their children that, no matter what our society considers normal, Christians wait until marriage. Not until they are 21, or 18; but, until they are married, even if that is not until they older.

3. It is the duty of clergy to include these things in sermons from time to time, reminding people that our God has not changed His commandments; He is not swayed by fashions.

This past Sunday our Old Testament reading for Morning Prayer included these words: "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us." (Isaiah 33:22) This is true for all of us, and it matches well what St. Paul tells us about our baptism: "Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." (Col. 1:12-14) We no longer belong to Satan's domain, for we were translated into Christ's kingdom. Our Judge, Lawgiver, King and Savior is Jesus the Lord, whom the world does not know; but we know Him.

I hope that none of those girls had parents in the ACC, or the UECNA or the APCK. I hope we abide by standards that protect the innocence of all of our children. Parents need to stop feeling bullied by the culture around us, and so do clergy. Fathers need to regain their protective role as head of the family, fashionable or not, and both fathers and mothers need to have the word "no" in their vocabulary. Priests need to set and abide by standards. I wrote this in an article for Touchstone:

"I once made it clear, during a sermon, that I am unwilling to marry any couple who refuse to abstain from sexual relations before their wedding night. Neither would the church building itself be available to them. One woman confronted me in the parking lot. 'I think I am in the wrong church!' she pronounced. 'Maybe young people won’t want to join us if we make such rules for them.'

"I could only agree with her first statement. She was in the wrong church. And why did she think that we were making any rules at all? God gave his commandments quite a while back, and a woman who had spent six decades in the Church should not have needed to be informed of that fact."

Below I will reproduce another article I wrote for Touchstone, for it occurs to me, I have said these things before.

“Possible to Live Without” first appeared in the May, 2008 issue of Touchstone.

Robert Hart on Putting the Premarital House in Order

Fifty years ago it would have been terribly rude to ask this question,” I said, “but these days I have to ask it.” Opposite me was a young woman with the face of innocence itself, about the age of my daughter at the time, and a young man. “Have the two of you already begun to have a sexual relationship?”

People coming into a church they have not been attending, because they want to be married, bring with them the errors of the time. Authority figures have held them to a very low standard for almost three decades, giving them no relief from the influence of peers and the personalities of popular entertainment. It seems almost a sin not to be “sexually active” outside of marriage.

“Yes, we are having sex,” she said. It had seemed a silly question to ask a couple already living under the same roof. Nonetheless, it is necessary to clarify such things.

Another basic question to be clarified, even more important than the status of their sexual relationship, is: What do they believe marriage to be? Too many people find in churches an affirmation of their mistaken assumptions instead of higher and better expectations, the sort of expectations that require asking these questions.

Clouded Understandings

The conventional wisdom of our time cautions me to stop before I go even this far. People today can’t be expected to live as if we were still in the first half of the twentieth century, or so I have been told by well-meaning people who offered unsolicited advice.

Exactly so, and that is the problem. I had only just met these two people, a young couple coming to me because they liked the sight of the church and because the young woman had an Anglican background of sorts. With their clouded understanding, just how much would they put up with from me?

“I am not nearly as interested in the wedding as I am in the marriage that follows. So I owe it to you to require something from you.” They were still with me this far. “I want you to promise me that you will abstain from any more sexual relations until the wedding night.” (What I would say next, if they hesitated, would be, “Otherwise, I will not marry you, or allow you to use this building”).

Without batting an eyelash the young woman said, “Okay, we can do that.” I looked to the young man, and saw a small drama unfold in less than a second. He was suddenly challenged to demonstrate his love for her by agreeing to what she wanted and needed. “Yes, that’s fine.”

It is religious deception to prepare a church wedding, but not a Christian marriage. What the couple needs at this point is a radical new understanding.

And so, “That’s not all,” I said. Still they were with me, four open eyes staring back into mine. “I want you to commit to meeting with me in the coming weeks for regular sessions about marriage, and about Christianity.”

No Experiment

It is not always this easy. There was the woman, older than this one, who told me that, after all their years of living together, she and her man knew it was time to get married because they had proved they could get along. That is, living together as if married (in every sense) was the necessary, prudent, and reasonable course before making a real decision; it was like a test drive. Obviously, God would approve. Who wants to marry somebody and commit to a relationship that might not work out?

“Actually, that worries me.” The woman looked stunned as I went on: “You have been living in an experiment, and there is no reason why the formality of marriage would change your habit of treating the relationship as an experiment. Christian marriage is a commitment, not an experiment.”

Those who have heard my standard wedding sermon have heard that every experiment in human relations is doomed to fail at some point, because everybody is impossible to live with. If you do not believe that you are impossible to live with, you need to read what St. Paul says about you in the third chapter of Romans. Experiments in love are no exception. I have preached this and watched scales fall from more than a few eyes.

We live in a time of such deadly assumptions as the one I encountered one day on an elevator in Baltimore. Two men got on the elevator, and it continued its descent to the street level. “I’m telling you,” said one of them, clearly a lawyer, “these days you just have to have a pre-nup.” The more humbly dressed fellow, a client, shook his head. “I don’t think so.”

The suited man turned to me—I was not wearing my collar—and made the mistake every attorney is taught to avoid. He asked a question without knowing the answer. “Don’t you agree sir, that these days a couple should have a pre-nuptial agreement before getting married?”

“No. I am a priest, and if a couple wants me to marry them, and they have a pre-nuptial agreement to provide for a potential divorce one day, I will refuse.” The client brightened up. “That’s right,” he said. I had granted him permission to live by what he knows, deep down inside, to be true. Of course, I don’t know what his attorney charges for “pre-nups.”

Sensible Lives

Never have I seen a young couple storm off in anger when I laid down conditions that every respectable clergyman would once have set. Imagine being surrounded for years by the noise of the latest rap numbers and then one day hearing music for the first time. Suddenly there is a genuine reason to marry, and life makes sense again.

In an era when young people grow up believing that no one can control his basic urges, it is often a necessary kindness for some authority figure, such as a clergyman, to grant them permission to abstain. In fact, it usually seems that they see that permission has finally been granted, by somebody, for them to put their lives in order.

Monday recreation

For those who want it, here is a link to my music videos, to which some new items will be added here and there when Mondays afford a little time "off."

Sunday after Ascension Sermon Notes

“When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me”.+

Here we find a glorious revelation of the activity of the Holy Trinity. The Son who in the same Gospel calls himself “the Truth” (14:6), sends the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father. The Holy Spirit is thus the Spirit of the Son (as well as being sent by the Son and testifying of the Son) just as much as He is “from” the Father. Thus the Father who is obviously the Source of the Son is also the Source of the Holy Spirit in a distinct way, one which intrinsically involves the Son.

At the same time as we touch upon this mystery, reverentially and cautiously if we are wise, we are encouraged by its operation in our lives. The Jesus who has ascended in his Humanity, resurrected body and soul, to the Father, whose ascension we are presently celebrating, has sent the Holy Spirit to us. Not just to the first disciples. To us. The Spirit brings with him the life He shares with the Father and the Son, of whom He is, and grants us this life.

He testifies of the Son, our Lord and Saviour, in many ways. Through the Scriptures, which He inspired, as received and understood within the Church, which He continues to guide, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is known. Through the lives of those faithful to God and through continuing signs and wonders, He shines forth the Gospel light in deed as well as in word. In the hearts and minds of men and women and, yes, even children, He challenges, educates and enlightens, reforms and strengthens.

These benefits are a direct result of the Ascension of the Lord. He leaves this world, this “kosmos” to use the Greek word, and goes to prepare a place for us (14:2): a new Heaven and Earth in one (Revelation 21), an almost unimaginable reality both physical and spiritual. It is from this place of exaltation (which one could say already exists in seed-form where Jesus is, in the presence of the Father), that He sends the Comforter. His Ascension after the Resurrection, becoming invisible to us in his humanity, which may seem at first like a loss and a disappointment, is in fact a necessary and joyous event. It is both a sign of his true identity and “home”, and a promise of what is to come after a period of transition. Jesus prayed to the Father “I want those you have given me to be with me where I am” (John 17:24). For the time being His presence with us is real but incomplete. He is with us always, “even to the end of the world” (Matthew 28:20), in and through the Spirit, word and sacrament, and the Church: but we await his visible presence, his “Appearing” as the Bible calls his Second Coming (1 Timothy 6:14).

The paradox and tension of our Lord being with us yet away from us thus parallels the paradox that when He returns to us it will be just as much our elevation to Him (1 Thessalonians 4:17, Philippians 3:20). And I use the word tension very delberately. The Ascension tells us that we are living in the time of transition, the waiting time, and that the connection between us and Christ is like a spring under tension, ready to snap back and re-unite us fully, at a time we know not. The great Reconciliation and Reckoning was in one sense completed at the Cross and Empty Tomb, at Calvary, where Judgement and Mercy met in one great divine and human act, and where humanity's union with God was achieved on its behalf. But the completion and full manifestation of this Truth, which underlies and empowers already the Christian walk, is still to come.

And we need to feel this tension, to take it seriously. The Christ who has ascended expects us to be with Him already, by faith and in the Spirit, looking at this existence from the Heavenly perspective (Colosians 3:1-4). That means to see its temporariness, its provisional nature, its fragility. It means to see both earthly happiness and suffering as a relatively brief preparation for eternal joy, and as a means to growth in holiness as we acknowledge God's Providence in gratitude and submission. It means to see the shadow of imminent judgement and the grace of forgiveness offered to all. It means that we have hope.

The other side of this tension is to remember that we are still here in the mean time, and have a work to do for the Most High King, which he will enable us to perform as we trust in Him (Ephesians 2:10). By the power of the gift of the Holy Spirit, given “from above” by our Lord, we journey onwards towards the high goal (Philippians 3:10-14), Christ before us. We “see” him now as the Man of the Cross (Galatians 3:1) and take up our cross as part of the journey (Matthew 16:24), yet with the joy of knowing that even this yoke is light and shared (Matthew 11:28-30).

And if we do not know this tension, this pull towards the Ascended One, whether we are yet to connect to Him or whether we have virtually severed the link that once was, let us “look up” and reach out to the Saviour. He still fulfills his Kingly promises and still reaches down to us in love and might. +

More of the same plague that infects the ECUSAns

The following story was sent to us by a concerned member of the Roman Catholic Church in a comment to a post below. I take no pleasure in such stories, and I am aware we have, as Continuing Anglicans, a real solidarity with members of the Roman Catholic Church who are distressed by the battles that show an ever growing need for vigilance and prayer among all who share the catholic faith of the Creeds. The report is about a bishop who openly contradicts the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

"Christ did not die for the sins of the people": Head of German Catholic Bishops' Conference on TV

By Hilary White

FREIBURG, Germany April 21, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - According to the chairman of the Catholic bishops' conference of Germany, the death of Jesus Christ was not a redemptive act of God to liberate human beings from the bondage of sin and open the gates of heaven. The Archbishop of Freiburg, Robert Zollitsch, known for his liberal views, publicly denied the fundamental Christian dogma of the sacrificial nature of Christ's death in a recent interview with a German television station.

Zollitsch said that Christ "did not die for the sins of the people as if God had provided a sacrificial offering, like a scapegoat."

Instead, Jesus had offered only "solidarity" with the poor and suffering. Zollitsch said "that is this great perspective, this tremendous solidarity."

The interviewer asked, "You would now no longer describe it in such a way that God gave his own son, because we humans were so sinful? You would no longer describe it like this?"

Monsignor Zollitsch responded, "No."

Archbishop Robert Zollitsch was appointed to the See of Freiburg im Breisgau in 2003 under Pope John Paul II. He is he sitting Chairman of the German Episcopal Conference, to which he was elected in 2008 and is regarded as a "liberal" in the German episcopate...

...However, Article 613 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the definitive work issued by the Church explaining the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic religion, describes the death of Christ as "both the Paschal sacrifice that accomplishes the definitive redemption of men, through 'the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world', the sacrifice of the New Covenant, which restores man to communion with God by reconciling him to God through the 'blood of the covenant, which was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins'."

The Catechism continues, "This sacrifice of Christ is unique; it completes and surpasses all other sacrifices. First, it is a gift from God the Father himself, for the Father handed his Son over to sinners in order to reconcile us with himself. At the same time it is the offering of the Son of God made man, who in freedom and love offered his life to his Father through the Holy Spirit in reparation for our disobedience."

You may read the whole story here.

The above quoted portions provide a portion of the Catechism of the Catholic Church with which we agree fully (as we do with about 95 percent of it), for it agrees with Scripture. St. Paul summed up the famous Suffering Servant passage (Isaiah 52:13-53:12) and the whole typological message of the Old Testament sacrifices, with a simple and direct summary of the Gospel itself, writing in the fifteenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Church of the Corinthians:

[1] Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
[2] By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
[3] For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;*
[4] And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:*
[5] And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
[6] After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
[7] After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
[8] And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

To teach contrary to the straight forward message of the Gospel is to create a horrible vacuum in which no one can have forgiveness of sins, and in which no one can be cleansed from an evil conscience. What this says about matters related to the Anglicanorum Coetibus people is obvious, and we need not rub it in. We should all agree easily with those members of the Roman Catholic Church who are distressed, and who want to see action taken.

*Remember that the phrase "according to the scriptures" as used here and as used in the Nicene/Constantinopolitan Creed, means that the scriptures were fulfilled.

Fr. Wells' bulletin inserts

ASCENSION SUNDAY

Although Ascensiontide (which began on Thursday past and runs until next Saturday) has never managed to command the attention we pay to Advent and Lent, it has been honored with a wealth of splendid hymns. Our local tradition is to start singing these soon after Easter Day.

My favorite is the great hymn by Bishop Christopher Wordsworth, No. 103 in our hymnal, "See the conqueror mounts in triumph." Our hymnal is parsimonious in giving only three stanzas of this hymn. The original was much longer and contained some interesting lines worth quoting:

He who walked with God and pleased Him,
Preaching truth and doom to come,
He, our Enoch, is translated
To His everlasting home.
Now our heavenly Aaron enters,
With his blood, within the veil;
Joshua now is come to Canaan,
And the kings before Him quail.
Now He plants the tribes of Israel
In their promised resting place;
Now our great Elijah offers
Double portion of His grace.

Those lines require more familiarity with the Old Testament narrative than most modern church-goers possess. They also assume the ability to understand that narrative as closely foreshadowing the life, death and resurrection of our Saviour. This accounts for their omission. It would take more space than we have here to explain how Enoch, Aaron, Joshua, et al., are all previews of Jesus.

The greatest line in the hymn, however, is one we really ought to find jarring: In Stanza 3, we are forced to sing, "Man with God is on the throne."

God sharing His throne with Man? Really? Out of context, that might sound like the most blasphemous humanism, the error which tells us falsely that "Man is the measure of all things." But Bishop Wordsworth was simply stating the Catholic truth that in Jesus Christ, the Divine nature and our Human nature were made One person. When Jesus was taken up, He did not leave His human nature behind. He continues forever to be God and Man in One person. Even now, in His heavenly glory, He retains His human-ness. That is how He can be a sympathetic high priest and our "advocate with the Father." Because the human nature of Jesus, which is our human nature, has been carried into the skies right into the dwelling place of God, in His Ascension we see already our own eternal destiny. LKW

***
One of the most beloved moments in our Prayer Book liturgy is that phrase “Lift up your hearts.” This phrase, with its ensuing dialogue between priest and people, is one of the most ancient features of our worship. This marks the point where we go “into high gear” as the Church, having confessed its sins and heard the message of forgiveness, now pleads our Saviour's promise of His presence in bread and wine. This begins the great Prayer of Consecration, and therefore it is altogether appropriate that we burst into song as this dialogue is solemnly chanted.

“Lift up your hearts,” but how high do we lift them? This simple admonition, let us remember, has everything to do with the great mystery we celebrate at the end of Eastertide, the truth of our Lord's Ascension into heaven, where He now sits at the right hand of His Father, reigning, interceding, preparing for His final Coming at the end of history. The answer makes this clear: “We lift them up unto the Lord.” That is, we lift them up to our exalted Saviour Jesus Christ, our Advocate with the Father.

On Easter Day itself, in the most joyful liturgy of the year, we proclaimed this truth: “If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.” On Easter Day we hardly do justice to those words, as we focus then on His appearances to the disciples and their joy in seeing Him alive and active in their midst. But now we need to hear the message—the Good News—of His Ascension into heaven.

Without the Ascension, the Resurrection itself would soon become meaningless. The Gospel history would shrivel up into a series of “Jesus sightings,” as He appeared here and there but never for long. We have every right to ask: Where is Jesus now?

His Ascension into heaven, returning to the glory which He had with His Father “before all worlds,” surely does not represent a separation from us or a loss to us. He was taken up into heaven not to leave us, but “to prepare a place for us, that where he is, thither we might also ascend, and reign with him in glory.” Putting it bluntly, the Ascension of Christ is not His ascension alone, but is the final destiny of every Christian believer. When we lift up our hearts at His eucharistic table, we are sending our innermost selves on ahead, to the place where we will spend eternity with Him, both in our bodies and our souls. LKW

Vespers

The Vesper light is soft and golden. It is the image of this time that I have sought to write into music. The theme chants in measured tones, not hurried or even interpreted. Through the glowing colors of stained glass windows the light of the setting sun stretches eastward across the sanctuary and lands above the altar over the tabernacle. In that tabernacle is the Reserve Sacrament: Here is the Shekinah. In that presence, the fragile light of the dying sun invites our prayers, sung as chants, at once restful and intense, outwardly calm, inwardly moving. So we rest in the work of prayer, refreshment that comes only by ascending a while out of the cares of the world into the presence of God.

The Ascension Day

- the Thursday after Rogation Sunday

Click on the icon for a sermon about the Ascension of our Lord to the Father's right hand.

More original compositions played on a Monday afternoon

The first piece is a baroque form but modal and modern. The second I improvised in my church organist days, because I needed a postlude and had not been given time to prepare. Both of these I adapted to piano. If the pope can relax at a piano, so can I-when possible.

"Music is to the glory of God and for the renewing of the mind."
-Johann Sebastian Bach

ECUSAn plague spreads to Rome

Here is part of an article from LifeSiteNews (LifeSiteNews.com)-just when some Anglicans(?) thought it safe to choose the Roman option:

ROME, May 10, 2010 – The Church should "give more consideration" to "the quality" of homosexual relationships, the cardinal archbishop of Vienna said this weekend. Christoph Schönborn told the far-left British Catholic magazine the Tablet that the Church should also consider allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion since “many people don’t even marry at all any longer.”

“We should give more consideration to the quality of homosexual relationships. A stable relationship is certainly better than if someone chooses to be promiscuous,” Schönborn said.

He also declined to comment when asked if the discipline of clerical celibacy is one of the causes of clerical sexual abuse, saying only that psychotherapists are divided on the issue.

Cardinal Schönborn was for a time a favorite among American conservative Catholics for his involvement in the publication of the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church and his writing defending the Church on Darwinian evolution, but in recent years his statements and actions have taken some of the bloom off the rose. These have included allowing active and unrepentant homosexuals to be “blessed” in his cathedral on St. Valentine’s day.

In addition, in the spring of 2008, Catholics around the world were outraged when the art gallery attached to St. Stephen’s Cathedral held an exhibit of paintings and sculptures featuring the Last Supper of Christ as a homosexual orgy. The artist, Alfred Hrdlicka, a self-described Stalinist-Marxist atheist who died last year, was buried with Catholic rites in St. Stephen’s Cathedral where some of his sculpture continues to be displayed in a side chapel.

The article goes on to say, "[Cardinal Schönborn] presented Pope Benedict with a petition that he called an 'initiative of the lay faithful,' demanding the abolition of compulsory celibacy for priests, the return to ministry of priests who have married, ordination to the diaconate for women, and of married men to the priesthood." It is fascinating that in Roman Catholic culture (or ethos) the issues of homosexuality and of women's "ordination" are on the same level as married men in the priesthood; and sometimes abortion is included on the same list. Their state of mind is so influenced by the failed experiment of mandated clerical celibacy that most of their people cannot separate these issues with clarity.

This indicates yet another problem for the would be Tiber swimmers who think that Anglicanorum Coetibus is a gift from God, the answer to prayer, and the promise that they can have their cake and eat it too. It explains why many of the conservative and traditional forces in the Roman Catholic Church will be just as threatened as the most liberal wing, should large numbers of traditional and somewhat orthodox people join their ranks bringing with them more married men to enter the Pastoral Provisions as expanded in the new constitution.

Also, the fact that Cardinal Schönborn can hold his views and state them publicly, with enough support to be the spokesman for a cause, should make those same would be Tiber Swimmers ask themselves why they are so eager to plunge into an organization that is already infected with modern "Episcopalian" disease. The ECUSAn plague has been spreading among Roman Catholics for just as long as it has been spreading among the ECUSAns themselves, only more covertly. Michael Rose, of course, blew the lid off that story with his book Goodbye Good Men several years ago.

I believe that Continuing Anglicans are in a stronger position to have a good effect on the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), in terms of any potential to help them correct the error of women's "ordination" that is practiced among them, by speaking from the outside rather than entering into a state of communion. And, so we may have a better effect, in the long run, for even the infected portions of the Roman Catholic Church by speaking to them from the outside, maintaining a witness that cannot be swallowed up by their bureaucracy.

Shifting sands and fancy footwork

(Originally posted in December 2008, more relevant with the passage of almost a year and a half).

A book review by my brother, David Bentley Hart, which appeared in First Things almost two years ago, entitled Daniel Dennet Hunts the Snark, has a few things that apply not only to the hapless target of his criticism in that review, but that apply equally to the many confident critics of our position. His target was one Daniel Dennet, who he describes as a "Darwinian Fundamentalist."

Too often he shows a preference for the cumulative argument over the cogent and for repetition over demonstration. The Bellman’s 1 maxim, “What I tell you three times is true,” is not alien to Dennett’s method. He seems to work on the supposition that an assertion made with sufficient force and frequency is soon transformed, by some subtle alchemy, into a settled principle. And there are rather too many instances when Dennett seems either clumsily to miss or willfully to ignore pertinent objections to his views and so races past them with a perfunctory wave in what he takes to be their general direction—though usually in another direction altogether....

There can be no science of any hard empirical variety when the very act of identifying one’s object of study is already an act of interpretation, contingent on a collection of purely arbitrary reductions, dubious categorizations, and biased observations. There can be no meaningful application of experimental method. There can be no correlation established between biological and cultural data. It will always be impossible to verify either one’s evidence or one’s conclusions—indeed, impossible even to determine what the conditions of verification should be.

His target was a book by a man trying to combine science and philosophy to attack some undefined thing called "religion," as well as the book's author. My targets are critics of something more specific, but which they define as poorly as Dennet defines "religion."

The best defense is a good offense, and in light of what critics of Continuing Anglicanism are saying, all over the internet, I am ready always to resist their offensive actions by being more offensive still. Not only is it the best defense, but a lot more fun (and, as soon as I get back from Confession I will continue this essay). Inasmuch as I have acquired a reputation for being about as nice a guy as Sheridan Whiteside (undeserved really), why should I hide or disguise the offensive nature of my tactics any longer? To strike a blow for the benefit of Anglicans who need relief from constant sniping at their patrimony, someone must be the bad cop-a dirty job, but somebody has to so it.

So, let us now see how my baby brother's remarks apply to those fearless marksmen who claim to take aim at Anglicanism as such, shooting, really, only at straw men.

1. "A preference for the cumulative argument over the cogent and for repetition over demonstration."

Indeed, the cumulative argument is also a regularly employed tactic by the people who write blog tomes about Anglicans like us. Frankly, they seem to believe that we can be worn out by essays long enough to qualify as books, because such long and tedious arguments must be, if they are so wordy, self-evident. They seem not to know that "brevity is the soul of wit," nor to have read that famous letter that says, "I am sorry to have written so long a letter, but I had not the time to write a short one." If the argument is at least 6,000 words in length, they may find that no one can reply to it, especially because it is hard to reply when snoring.

Obnoxious as the long argument is, the deeper problem is that length does not compensate for lack of content, and that lack of content does not hinder such wordy writers from drawing a grand, if not grandiose, conclusion from all the empty and meaningless things that they have pontificated. Generally, that conclusion is not simply that we are wrong, but that we are so obviously wrong that we just, in the words of Michael Liccione, "don't get it." And, what is it that we just "don't get?" Usually nothing more than this: We just don't get how a long string of quotations out of context, run through a mill of pseudo-academic sophistry about non-binding little councils here and there, without regard to alternative patristic points of view, somehow proves that Anglican teaching is incoherent, or that our orders cannot be valid, or something equally absurd. After all of their convolutions about history (that is carefully selected bits from history instead of real history), and whole schools of thought or the works of great men rendered idiotically and embarrassingly simplistic, distilled into parochial summaries, they make me homesick for the genuine simplicity of a preacher in Baptist vestments (suit and tie), with a leather bound volume in his hand, who can say "The Bahble says..!" Did I say homesick? Odd, because that was never my home. But, at least the backwoods preacher draws from some kind of real authority, even if he does so with an obvious impairment (not knowing the Church and its Tradition). Instead of invoking local councils that were never universally received, or waving about deceptively simplified formulas like "the Thomist view," "Anselmian theory of atonement," or something else about which the writer demonstrates the damage done by reading the briefs of academics instead of Primary Sources (like Thomas himself, or Anselm himself), the backwoods preacher in his shirt and tie quotes God. "For God so loved the world..." This he has in common, of course, with both the late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen and Billy Graham. Meanwhile the blogosphere Tome-ist provides plenty of clouds without rain.

And, as for repetition, it shares the premise of Bulverism, 2 namely that "refutation is no necessary part of argument." Whereas Ezekiel Bulver created a form of argument that seeks to analyze the motivation of one's opponent, and thereby diagnose why he takes his stand, the method of repetition is just as handy and just as evasive. So it has been our experience that once we give an answer to those who present some case against the Anglican patrimony, they ignore our refutation, give no counter argument, and simply repeat themselves. Now, this works for them, especially since it helps to fortify bias. But, if some Anglican has only just stumbled onto this blog after being savagely trampled by people who want to push him into the Tiber, or into an Anabaptist swimming pool, or something, he will find here many theological resources from our archives that are designed to restore his faith, and allow his conscience to have the well deserved peace that valid sacraments and pure doctrine have been provided for him and to him, and he need take no plunge.

2. "...either clumsily to miss or willfully to ignore pertinent objections to his views and so races past them with a perfunctory wave in what he takes to be their general direction—though usually in another direction altogether."

Let me clue some of our critics in to something. It is not an answer to one of our theological statements to bring up what a bad dude Henry VIII was. Neither is it sufficient to wave around words like "Catholic" and "Protestant" until you have learned that Anglicanism has a distinct usage that gives a unique definition to both of these words, transforming their meaning as if into a different language altogether. Oh yes, we know what you mean, but you do not understand our language. Neither will you convince us that the English Reformers were Calvinists, or that they were confused. The fact is, you keep trying to understand Anglicans by studying the Lutherans, the Zwinglians, the Calvinists and by the definitions produced among Roman Catholics between Trent and Vatican I. Yes, we know what those other people meant by their use of words and theological terms. But, a careful study of our formularies will reveal that the Church of England never went all the way over into any of the other camps, but instead managed to avoid erring into the extremes of bad doctrine. No, this was not confusion, and it was not weakness, and it was not a compromise by men who failed to stand for anything, no matter how many modern academics exhibit great amounts of severely limited knowledge by essays and books to the contrary. No. Classic Anglicanism was the alternative road of very clear thinkers who walked a tightrope and managed not to fall in any of these directions, despite the strong pull of their gravity.

Our archives are full of apologetics, and you need only look at the relevant headings, like "Theology" or "Anglicanism," or "Roman Catholicism" or "Sacraments," etc. It was not my purpose to recreate them here. We have provided them already, and you need only begin clicking and reading, and learning what all those blogosphere Tome-ists cannot teach you.

1. A Character in The Hunting of the Snark by Lewis Carroll
2. "Bulverism" is an essay from God in the Dock, by C.S. Lewis. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI

While 'tis yet Easter

Back from the Diocesan Synod: you will see more for readers this week, once I have recovered with one day's rest.

Rogation Sunday Sermon Notes

Apologies for the terseness and grammatical liberties taken. These are even more like summary notes than usual.

“Be ye doers of the word” [from the Epistle, James 1:22-end]

+

St James' mirror analogy is a vivid portrayal of foolish forgetfulness. Seems absurd, but humans are capable of ignoring what they supposedly believe and what they have known from experience. Think of the goldfish swimming 'round its bowl, according to the urban myth about its 2 second memory: “Ooo, a rock! ... ... Ooo, a rock! ... ... Ooo, a rock! ... ...”

But it is only like forgetting, what the Epistle is addressing. The ideas are still in the mind, but are not in the heart and hands for the one whose “faith” is inactive.

Humans can also ignore and pretend not to know truths right in front of their faces, averting their gaze upon first sight. Or we can refuse to see them in the first place, closing our eyes. There are different species of spiritual blindness, but all cater to human failings, including pride, rebellion, hate, lust, greed, and laziness.

Imagine a man hearing and "appreciating" Golden Rule sermon, then driving home and abusing slow, elderly woman driver. “If you can’t drive, DON’T!” Unfortunately, this kind of thing happens. So, what should happen instead?

“Law of liberty” = free to do good. “Love and do what you please” says Augustine. This is sufficient if we allow the word of God to affect our minds AND WILLS. Don’t just agree to the truth, choose it. But we have been freed to be able to do this by faith in Christ. For the sincere disciple, there is freedom from guilt and fear, as sins are forgiven, and freedom from slavery to corruption, as God renews heart and mind. The law of liberty means good works are not a treadmill urging us on in futility, to earn God's favour, but an offering of hope from a position of favour/grace. True, penitent faith leads to action. It is itself obedience, according to St Paul, leading to more obedience: if it's real.

But what is “The real thing”? Self-control (speaking is the easiest action, but too easy, tongue-control = self-control in James 3); kindness, esp. to poor and needy; and not conforming to the ugliness and muck the world recommends. Speak less, help more, stay pure of heart. St James concentrates on our man-ward actions not because he disdains the necessity of worship, mystical experience of God or belief, for example [Cp. James 2:21 + 4:8a + 5:13], but because the latter are easier for us to perceive as deeper than they really are, as we attend to mere feelings and thoughts.

As we do the word, we allow God to change us more and more — and to make us happy (“blessed” in our “deed”).

And so we see that God corrects through his word common misconceptions (the default definitions of the World) of what being wise, free, religious and happy means. In opposition to the World, God says: Wisdom is worthless if not put into action. Freedom is empty if only an excuse for selfishness but full if it is freedom out of sin and in to the will of God. Religion is powerless and false if it is limited to elevated ideas and feelings but real and effective if it leads us to reflect God's love. Happiness that fulfills is derived partly from what we do for God and Mankind, and is not merely based on what happens to us or around us, that is, on pleasant circumstances.

So, as the Nike motto says, “Just do it”.

+

Fr. Wells' Bulletin Inserts

EASTER V

The name “Rogation Sunday” refers to the Medieval custom of special prayer at this time for the newly planted crops. Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of this week are designated in the Prayer Book (p. 261) as “Rogation Days.” The old custom was to pray the Litany in outdoor processions around the fields on those days.

The word “rogation” comes from the Latin rogare, which means to ask or pray. This is a pleasant memory of another time , when Christians lived close to the soil, ever conscious of their dependence on God for their economic well-being. Hardly any of us has a glimmering of what it means to put in a crop. But in times of economic uncertainty, this day reminds us that we still are at the mercy of God our Creator, who has promised to provide for all our needs. (Here the distinction between needs and wants arises.)

Today's Propers (that's the Collect, Epistle, and Gospel) touch on this theme only tangentially. The major theme of the Gospel is Our Lord's victory, “I have overcome the world.” Those words, proclaiming His victory once for all over sin, death, and hell, conclude His Farewell Discourse.

But today's Gospel does have something critical to say on the topic of prayer. Three times in this passage Jesus spoke of asking “in my name.” That phrase is echoed in virtually every collect and prayer we know, “through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Bluntly, we have no right to ask anything at all of God. We are His creatures, but we are mutinous rebels; He owes us nothing. So the promise of Jesus, “Whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you,” should come as a surprise. Grace is always more than we expect or have a right to ask.

The Prayer Book captures this truth in many places. One of my favorites is in the Collect on page 50, in the words: “those things which for our unworthiness we dare not, and for our blindness we cannot ask, vouchsafe to give us, for the worthiness of thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord.” Whereas we are unworthy, He is worthy, both in His perfect obedience and in His perfect sacrifice.

“Mine is the sin, but thine the righteousness,

Mine is the guilt, but thine the cleansing Blood.”

Our risen and ascended Lord ever lives to make intercession for us. Therefore we are wonderfully permitted to ask all things in His name, even those things we have no right to ask at all. Rogationtide comes as the immediate prelude to Ascension Day, which comes on Thursday of this week. He was gone to heaven to lead us in our prayers, to plead His perfect sacrifice forever, to ask the Father to provide for our needs both spiritual and material. Peasants toiling in the fields and yuppies laboring over the laptops look together to the same heavenly high priest. LKW

***

"But be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." John 16:33b.

Whether we think of these words as something said by a Man about to sweat blood in the Garden of Gethsemane or the pronouncement of One just raised from the dead, they amount to a truly audacious claim.

In John's Gospel, the term "world" is interesting in itself. We are surely familiar with the statement which should never cease to startle us, "So God loved the world." Superficially we might suppose that since God created the world, it was only natural that He should love it. At the outset of his Gospel John tells us "the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not." It was not just the Jewish people who rejected him; the very creation repelled Him. The cosmos itself was in rebellion against its Creator. That is why a Virgin Birth was necessary. Like a man who is obliged to break into his own home, the Creator must behave as an intruder.

Now the Man (I keep using the uppercase M for a reason) who as Son of Man had no place to lay His head announces a victory. The creation which He made at the beginning out of nothing, the creation which rebelled against its Creator, the creation which rebuffed and murdered its Redeemer, has been subdued, overwhelmed and pacified. Jesus claims a victory over sin, death and hell, over the world, the flesh and the devil.

There is a strange distortion of the Gospel which talks of a great battle at the end of earthly history at a place called Armageddon, a final show-down between the forces of good and the powers of evil. That seems to mean that for the present time, the world is still an evil unredeemed place. It might even mean a terrible uncertainty about the final outcome. Who will win the last battle, Jesus or Satan?

A better reading of the Bible seems to tell us that we live "between the times." We live between the decisive battle in which the outcome was determined and the final battle will be waged. Military historians can supply many analogies. Think of that period between the Yorktown surrender of Lord Cornwallis in 1781 and the Peace of Paris in 1783.

In that verb "I have overcome" we hear a wonderful finality, a new and irreversible state of affairs. This sheds a brilliant light on its context a context which is our world, "In the world ye shall have tribulation, but be of good cheer." This bold announcement of victory concludes a long discourse which began, "Let not your heart be troubled."

As we come to the end of Eastertide, the Gospel tells us that the victory of our Saviour was no temporary or transient episode. His victory was final. That is the kind of victory we are invited to enter and to share. LKW

More on rogare

Here are some after thoughts in accord with what I wrote in my sermon (below), that, "The word 'Rogation' comes from the Latin verb rogare, meaning 'to ask,' and was applied to this time of the liturgical year because the Gospel reading includes the passage "Ask and ye shall receive" (John 16:24). And it goes on to say: 'At that day ye shall ask in my name.'"

Some people believe that the name of Jesus Christ will work like a magic charm if only we have faith. I suggest it has more to do with the words of St. John in his First Epistle: "And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us." (I John 5:14) On one hand, some may say, we have these words from Jesus: "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son." (John 14: 13) and, "that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." (John 15:16) Some may interpret the words from the Gospel of John to indicate that all we need to do is ask in his Name, and others may interpret the words from the Epistle to mean that we may ask nothing with real confidence, because how could we know the will of God? Yet, John writes this about why we may have confidence. It is understandable, therefore why some would be confused.

Some will make the problem worse by telling you that if you really have faith, you will always be healed, miracles will happen everyday, and you will enjoy wealth and prosperity as a sign of God's favor. They twist a simple greeting from Scripture and make a doctrinal statement out of it, namely these words, "Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth." (III John 2). But, that was not a revelation from God containing a promise for all who have faith; it was, for anyone who knows how to read with comprehension, a greeting from John himself, no more significant than saying, "Godspeed." John was being polite and friendly, and that is all there is to it (the Epistle is Scripture and therefore inspired by the Holy Spirit; but, it was also a letter from a man to someone specific, and has a human element, namely a simple greeting).

But, it is equally wrong to assume that we cannot pray with faith that God will intervene for good in the lives of those we love, and to meet our needs. God's will is not some clouded unknowable mystery, so that all we can say is "thy will be done," with no real substantial petitions for those in need. Rather, the issue of God's will is partly an attitude of heart that we must have, that is, the resolution that by the grace of God at work through the Holy Spirit, we will walk henceforth in newness of life in obedience to the will of God as he revealed it by his commandments. It is no good trying to know the will of God unless we accept the commandments that contain the revelation of what his will most certainly is.

In this light, to pray in the name of Jesus is not merely to be a name dropper, to impress the Father by claiming to know Someone in the ultimate Who's Who directory. How can we presume to think we have asked anything in the Name of Jesus Christ merely because we have spoken his Name? Anyone can say his Name, and say say it as if it were merely the magic words. Invoking the Name of Jesus Christ carries with it the implication of asking according to God's will, and of living according to his revealed will, as revealed in Scripture through those things he has commanded us.

I would like to pray that the Baltimore Orioles win the world series (still a Marylander where that is concerned), but I cannot ask such a thing in Christ's Name. You cannot ask, in Christ's Name, that you win out over the competition in business; but you can ask, in the name of Jesus Christ with full confidence and assurance of faith, that He provide your every need. Certainly, we cannot ask God to do evil to others, or to assist us in an immoral cause; and it would be blasphemy to do so, double blasphemy to do so in the Name of Jesus Christ.

Asking in the Name of Jesus Christ has everything to do with the doctrinal revelation I have drawn out from Scripture for your edification in my sermon (below). It also provides a check within our hearts about what we may ask with faith.

The Fifth Sunday after Easter

Jas. 1:22-27, John 16: 23-33

This fifth Sunday after Easter is commonly called Rogation Sunday: The word "Rogation" comes from the Latin verb rogare, meaning "to ask," and was applied to this time of the liturgical year because the Gospel reading includes the passage "Ask and ye shall receive" (John 16:24). And it goes on to say: "At that day ye shall ask in my name." At one time people observed the Rogation days by fasting in preparation to celebrate the Ascension, and farmers often had their crops blessed by a priest.

Well, we know about the blessing of the crops, and what it has come to mean in terms of the annual celebration of Rogation Sunday. We must be thankful to God because of every good thing He gives us, including the crops of the field and every provision. To have the work of our hands blessed by God, so that our labors are fruitful, and meaningful, is a necessary part of health and the whole of life. Furthermore, let us consider these earthly blessings in light of the Epistle, especially the definition given by Saint James of “true religion.” To be a “doer of the Word” is about those things that we are commanded to do- not just those things we are commanded not to do. Every “thou shalt not” commandment is simply part of the two great “thou shalt” commandments: namely, to love God with our whole being, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Whatever we have of earthly blessings is not meant to be hoarded, but shared with those who are in need; and we must also think on a higher level than these earthly things, or else instead of being mindful of the needs of the poor, as Saint James speaks of “the fatherless and widows in their affliction,” we will be spotted by the world. We can be people of true charity, or we can become carnal. It seems there can be no middle ground.

Throughout the Easter Season we (that is, those of us who pray the Offices of Morning and Evening Prayer) have been reminded every day of the words of Saint Paul: “If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God (Col. 3:1).” We are told to place our desires upon heavenly things as children of the Resurrection, because our hope is not in this temporary life, but in the eternal life given by Christ. We are told to mind heavenly things where Christ is at the right hand of God. At this time of the year we are reminded to meditate upon Christ’s ascension to the throne of God, His return to his Father’s right hand. It is a great mystery that the Lord is present with us, and that His saints are all around us, and that the throne of God is a place to which we may resort. And, yet, as long as we live in this world, in its condition of sin and death, these things are hidden from our eyes. What we call the Ascension is not about space or distance. It is the entrance into the pure presence of God, to which our eyes are shielded at this time: For if we saw the brightness and glory of the throne of God, and the glorious state of His saints who stand before Him to worship unhindered by sin and imperfection, it would be more than we could stand. Heaven is all around us; but we are protected from the sight of it; for as long as our sinfulness and imperfections remain, it would be more than we could endure. Yet, we are told to place our hopes there, and our affections as well.

Now, if anything tends to bother me about modern observances of Rogation Sunday, it is that in some churches the emphasis has moved from gratitude to God for giving to us the things we need, to a secular kind of emphasis on the environment. Now, it is perfectly fine to be responsible, and to be good stewards of the earth. In fact, it is a moral imperative. But two problems present themselves. First, we have the old problem of disguising self-righteousness under a cloak of false penitence. When whole congregations repent of “polluting the environment” I find it to be disingenuous. Often, when a group of wealthy white liberals repents of “polluting the environment,” or of something like racism, or whatever, they are not really repenting at all. They are saying, like the Pharisee, “I thank thee God I am not like other men.” They seem to feel virtuous about being environmentalists, and about being above those other things like racism, or polluting the earth for greed. So, group repentance of that sort does not impress me. Far better it is to repent of your own sins; indeed far better than listing the sins of other people in a self-righteous mockery of repentance. Now of course, if you are a wasteful polluter, or a racist, or whatever, then it is necessary to repent of those specific things; but to make a show of repentance about the sins that you really blame others for, while not repenting of your own sins, is just a new, painless and fashionable way of being like the Pharisee, the whole time fooling yourself into thinking that you are like the penitent Publican.

The second problem is that that whole focus takes us away from what today’s Gospel is about. On this day our attention ought to be focused on the right hand of God, to which the Lord Jesus was going to ascend. And, we are supposed to be thinking about that in terms of prayer, asking- rogation. And, we ought to be focusing on what it means to ask in this new way that our Lord Jesus teaches here. Why are we told to ask the Father our requests in His Name? In Genesis we see that there came a time when men first called upon the Name of the Lord. That is during the life of one named Enos, in the fourth chapter of Genesis, verse 26: “And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.” When I read this in Hebrew I saw that it really should be translated: “then began men to call in the Name of the Lord.” It was quite unmistakable; B’Shem Adonai. So, in using the words, “ask in My Name,” the Lord Jesus is again letting us know that he and the Father are One.

And, beyond that, we are told to pray to the Father in the human Name of the Person who is the Eternal Word, the nature He took into His uncreated eternal Person when “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” We do not pray to the Father without coming in the Name of the Son of God, specifically, the human Name of Jesus Christ. We could speak of Him as God the only begotten Son, or as the Word (or Logos). These are Names that speak of Him as God; and yet, in His human nature He is still One with the Father, while He shares our nature; fully God and fully man. Can we not simply come to the Father without this Man acting as our Mediator? Are we not good enough? The answer is no. We are not good enough to come to the Father, because we are sinners. If you are looking for a religion that flatters you, affirms you, and tells you how wonderful you are, you have come to the wrong place. Here we are all self-confessed “miserable offenders.” We spend a great deal of our time when we pray together, asking the Lord to have mercy upon us. So, no, we are not good enough to come to the Father without a Mediator.

Saint Paul wrote, in the first Epistle to Saint Timothy, the second chapter:

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

This passage speaks of prayer and God’s will that people will repent and be saved. And, in speaking of both of these things, salvation and prayer, Paul is moved to remind us that we have as our only Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus who gave Himself a ransom for all. He overcame the separation between the uncreated God and human creatures by taking created nature into His uncreated Person, becoming fully man while remaining fully God. He overcame the separation between God and man due to sin by dying for our sins on the cross. He overcame the separation between the Living God and our death by overcoming death. As one Person complete in two natures, Himself both fully God and fully Man, Jesus Christ is our Mediator. No man comes to the Father but by Him. That is true of our salvation, it is true of our worship, it is true also of our prayers.

This is why you must read the Epistle to the Hebrews. In that Epistle we are told all of these things very clearly. In addition, we are told that the Lord Jesus, seated even now at the right hand of God, ever lives to make intercession for us. Using the Old Testament picture of the High Priest who once a year took the blood of the sacrifice into the Holy of Holies, the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of Christ’s once for all sacrifice, that is that he died once for all sinners, and of His ascension to the Father’s throne as the true offering of the true High Priest into the true Holy of Holies, of which the temple was merely a picture, a shadow or type. The blood of the sacrifices in the Old Testament were sprinkled on the Mercy Seat before the Ark of the covenant, inside the veil, in the Holy of Holies- the Kadesh h’kadeshim. This type was given to teach of the true offering in which the Son of God would offer Himself, and His blood would be the true Atonement, the true Kippur. And, that he would rise from the dead and present His own death and sacrifice, the shedding of His blood, the pouring out of His soul unto death, upon prolonging His days by rising to life again. And, that he would ascend back to the Father to be our Mediator, pleading for us with the scars from those wounds from which His blood was shed.

To pray in the Name of Jesus reminds us of these things. It reminds us that we need a Mediator, because we are sinners. It reminds us that He died for our sins, rose again and ascended into heaven. It reminds us that He is the one Mediator between God and Man because He is fully God and fully man, unique as the one whose Name alone is given under heaven among men by which we must be saved. (Acts 4;12) “Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my Name,” He said. “Ask and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.” As the Epistle to the Hebrews puts it:

Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works. Heb. 10:19-24

(And, what are we to ask for? Above all, in this text, we are to ask for the Holy Spirit, the other Comforter.)

On this Rogation Sunday, as we prepare for the day of Ascension, and then for the Day of Pentecost, hoping for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in power, let us have these words as frontlets between our eyes: “Ask and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.”

Aid to missions in poor countries

Clergy shirts can be expensive. This is especially true for priests in poorer countries, where the cost of one shirt can equal a month's income - or more.

Now, thanks to an initiative that began in the Diocese of the South and spanned the globe, affordable shirts are available from Good Shepherd Anglican Catholic Church, Korogocho, Nairobi, Kenya. Already more then 20 (editorial note: Since initial publication, in The Trinitarian, the number has increased to 90) shirts have been made, which will help clothe clergy in the Diocese of Aweil in Sudan.

See the story here. Then see our new link, Kenya clergy shirts to the right on this page.

This week

This week I will be in Florida for the Synod of the Diocese of the South ACC-OP. But, here are a few thoughts to chew on.

Recently, in response to our report that the ACNA (Anglican Church in North America) is still "ordaining" women, I received an email from someone, and we received comments from someone else, critical of the position taken last year by Archbishop Haverland, in response to the invitation to attend the opening event of the ACNA. It seems as if each time the ACC position is restated, the restatement is a surprise, and that some individuals react quite negatively. I think it has yet to become clear that the issue of women's "ordination" is based on an unchanging doctrine that is clear from Divine revelation. The Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church simply have no place either for the practice, or for communion with those who practice it. Stands that are taken about this issue are matters of principle, and they do not change. If you accept the fact that our position will be the same tomorrow as it was yesterday, and will remain the same until the Lord comes again, you will not get upset so easily. I am sure that Bp. Robinson, of the UECNA (United Episcopal Church North America), is as firm about this as the ACC bishops, and his fellow bloggers on The Continuum.

It was relevant, also, that the Plano, Texas parish where the newest ACNA priestess will be "ordained" is the same one that produced the paper that Rev. Canon John Hollister so aptly criticized in his apologetics last year. We did not run that critique in order to attack that one parish, but in order to teach our regular readers, as well as to make apologetics on the question available far and wide. For the first time in more than thirty years, the defenders of Women's "Ordination" (W "O") had come up with a slightly different spin, something just different enough to require a response. The argument was not really new, but the spin was just new enough to fool people, as, apparently, it fooled the writers themselves. The Plano parish in question was part of the AMiA (Anglican Mission in America) when the paper was produced last year. Now, they are part of the ACNA. This indicates that supporters of W"O" will make decisions on the basis of this one issue, and more specifically to the non-Order of priestess, even though they regard us as "separatists" for seeing W "O" as a communion breaker (folks at Stand Firm, please note that the word is priestess, spelled p-r-i-e-s-t-e-s-s. Yes it is not nice and has pagan implications-which happens to be the point we mean to make).

Also, for you Anglicanorum Coetibus watchers, Rome has been saying less and less, appearing to back away from the spotlight when it comes to this new constitution of theirs. Certain possible reasons include:

1. Rome doesn't dig the crazy spin Hepworth & co. have been giving their constitution (remember, their work was a list of rules and procedures for converting, while TAC spin was a fairytale about the fulfillment of all Anglo-Papalist dreams).

2. Rome found out that the magic number of 400,000 was arrived at by multiplication- not multiplication of members by evangelism, nor even of children by energetic TAC couples, just multiplication, as in math.

3. Rome has no special deals or offers, and resents the implication that their deal is not good enough (you know, that perfect heaven on earth deal that is everything anyone can hope for, but that needs to be amended drastically before it is good enough).

For your edification below, see Fr. Nalls' latest contribution.

Born Again

It is that season when, deo volente, baptisms are a frequent event in parishes. Any priest will tell you that it is a joy when the extent of clergy worries are whether this babe in arms is a "crier", a "yeller", or well...there are more colorful variants we needn't share.

Just two weeks ago, I held baby Gabriel in my arms for the Holy Baptism. He was a "sleeper", having dozed blissfully through the whole event, awakening only at the end to smile sagely at his new family members in the Church, the body of Christ. An early vocation, perhaps?

So it was that I was meditating upon the gift of Baptism and remembered a snippet from Christian and Catholic by one of my favorite authors, churchmen and surely a "blessed"-the Rt. Rev. Charles C. Grafton. It is wisdom to be remembered and recovered. It is wisdom for today.

As related to the present time; by baptism we are born again, or "born from above." This implies two things, our being begotten anew by heavenly power, and our being born out of a natural region of darkness into one of light. We are begotten anew by the Holy Spirit, which, blowing where it listeth, works the soul's conversion; and also in baptism (the Holy Spirit accomplishing that whereunto it is sent), we receive a new nature by our incorporation into Christ. "For as many of you as were baptized unto Christ did put on Christ."

We discern here a distinction between our relation to God by nature and that formed by baptism. By the act of creation we are God's creatures; by baptism we are the sons of God as members of Christ. Thus baptism is not like the coronation of a king to which it is sometimes compared, for the king is one by right of his descent before he is crowned. Baptism, however, is not an acknowledgment of what we previously were, but an instrument by which we are made members of Christ and so children of God.

Next as to the future. Having been, by baptism, born into the kingdom of light, a prospect is opened before us of attaining to the further light of the beatific vision of God. We are made children of the light. We are incorporated into this new kingdom as living stones of a living temple. And so we are not merely born into and immersed in it, but it is also in us. The incipient virtues of faith, hope, and charity are imparted by baptism. These gifts received may be neglected and lie dormant, but as we respond, more and more clear becomes the heavenly vision, and we receive strength to attain it.

The effect of the loss of baptism is painfully seen in America, in the increased power of evil spirits, and the ease with which Satan deludes persons with false religions, and by teachers who come in their own name.

The baptismal faith is decisively expressed in our baptismal offices. None can be found more full of Scriptural and Catholic tradition. We utter it in the words of our Church's hymnal in praise and devotion:

"Arise and be baptized,
And wash thy sins away;
Thy league with God be solemnized,
Thy faith avouched to-day.
No more thine own, but Christ's;
With all the saints of old,
Apostles, seers, evangelists,
And martyr throngs enrolled."

Fourth Sunday after Easter

Morning Prayer: Psalm 116 * Job 19:21-27a * John 12:44-50
Holy Communion: James 1:17-21 * John 16:5-14

From today's Scripture readings we may learn that God is the author of our salvation, that it was all his plan, and that it is his gracious will that sustains us throughout this life, and guarantees the joy of eternal life in Christ. None of these good things were our idea, nor were they a grudging benefit in answer to our pleading. Our entire inheritance given to us in Christ's Testament, the New Covenant, has been the will of God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit from all eternity. In that long discourse after supper, recorded by John, Jesus spoke words beyond the understanding of the disciples, words that demonstrated how fully, how detailed, is the counsel of God's will (Eph.1:11). Jesus said to them just enough, in that discourse, for them to remember later, at the time when the Holy Spirit would be with them as the other Comforter, the other paraklētos, and as the Spirit of Truth.


When that time would arrive, the Day of Pentecost, when they would be baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5), they would begin to be the voice of God in the earth, the messengers by whom the Holy Spirit would convict the world of sin, and of righteousness and of judgment. They would know the truth and be able to teach it to all generations that have followed. This plan from eternity, the eternal counsel of God's will, has meaning for the us as the Church, and for each one of you as a member of the Body of Christ.


To begin with, based on the promise made here by the Lord Jesus Christ, you may believe the teaching that has been handed down throughout the centuries. "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth," is not spoken to any of you as an individual. You cannot decide the truth, in this sense, for yourself.


The truth has been revealed; and so, from earliest times, the Church has heard the voice of the Lord above all in the books set apart as Holy Scripture, the New Testament books recognized very much as we have them in our Canon alongside the books of the Law, and of the Prophets and Sages of Israel who had spoken before of the coming of Christ, all quoted as having special authority by the earliest Christian writers. In spite of popular fiction to the contrary, the New Testament was recognized by the Church, it was a vox populi recognition, with a few questions raised about II Peter and Revelation, and a few people who believed in a book called The Shepherd of Hermes. But, the overwhelming consensus throughout the Church was that the voice of God was recognized clearly in the Twenty-Seven books of the New Testament, as it had been recognized in the Old Testament all along. No one imposed any of it, certainly not an emperor.


And, even with its human imperfections and sins, the Church has been what St. Paul called her, when writing to St. Timothy, "the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (I Tim. 3:15) What it means for you, as an individual, whether or not you are scholar, is that when people come literally knocking at your door with another gospel about another Christ, you may be certain that the Holy Spirit, in his role as the Spirit of Truth, guided the Apostles into all truth, and that the Church has received by revelation what it has passed on to you and your children with authority, especially as it is summarized in that great Creed we have said together this day.


The old phrase from what we call the Vincentian Canon is not true literally; but is true with poetic license. The phrase translates into English as "That which has been believed everywhere, always and by all." In fact, nothing has been "believed everywhere, always and by all," perhaps not even that two plus two equals four. But, using poetic license, it tells us that from earliest times the Church was guided by pastors and teachers who received the teaching of the Apostles and understood the Scriptures with a like mind. The poetic license by which we say "That which has been believed everywhere, always and by all," is, in fact, that they heard their Master's voice in words of the Apostles and preserved that same doctrine in the Scriptures, which they understood. What makes us catholic people is that we receive not only the books they believed in, but we receive those books as they understood them, not with some novel interpretation. As Anglicans, everyone of you is encouraged to read the Scriptures yourselves. We, among the clergy, do not teach the whims of human beings, the doctrines merely of men, hoping that we may rely on your ignorance, so as not to be discovered. We teach the plain meaning of Scripture relying on you, that reading it daily yourselves, you may glean the truth from what we say, however imperfectly we may express it.


Be like the noble Bereans, and search the Scriptures daily to see if what we say is so. (Acts 17:11) And, be guided by the wisdom of the Church from its earliest generations. Let me make this simple; if someone's teaching and preaching does not agree with that Creed we said, you may be confident that it does not agree with Scripture; and that means that it contradicts what the Spirit of Truth revealed to the Church. By the way, the Holy Spirit does not grow in His understanding, He does not learn new things, and He does not change His mind. His wisdom is perfect and eternal.


This brings us to the Epistle we heard, the words of St. James, that with God there is "no variableness, neither shadow of turning." In fact, we have two phrases from that Epistle that can cause problems to modern ears. This phrase, "no variableness, neither shadow of turning," sounds so grand and musical that we may fail to think about it. The other is, "superfluity of naughtiness," because it makes sin sound trivial. Today we think of "naughtiness" merely as childish misbehavior, and it suggests innocence. The Third Millennium Bible is almost word for word the King James, but with a few differences. It says "superfluity of wickedness." We need to understand both of these phrases, and to understand them in context.


First of all, however, notice that James affirms what I told you, that our salvation is God's gracious will in eternity. It was all his initiative. "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth," says James. That means that everything that happened in Christ's coming, when the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14), was the plan of God in eternity, the one will of the Trinity. It was God's will to beget us again, that we could be born again unto eternal life, delivered from sin and death. Christ delivered us from sin and the consequences of sin by his cross.


This was not Jesus pacifying His angry Father, as some have accused us of teaching. This was God satisfying the just requirements of His own holiness, acting in His own love, and also healing the conscience of each person who repents. God saved us in that terrible way, by the cross, because our condition of sin was truly terrible, as St. Paul wrote: "To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." (Rom. 3:26) God's love turned on His own holiness and perfect righteousness, and His own holiness and perfect righteousness turned on His love, so that God himself, in the Person of the Son, Jesus who is the Word incarnate, took the full weight of human sin on Himself and bore it unto death. This was the will of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, the eternal counsel of God's will. Therefore, God justifies sinners, and is also just in doing so; for on the cross He took away the sin of the world. This is the greatest love story of all.


He conquered death also, which is what this season of Easter is all about. His resurrection will be our resurrection when He comes again in glory; and as He cannot die again, (Rom. 6:9) we too will become immortal through Him, and live forever. Now, that is the Gospel, and never let anyone tell you another gospel; for there is no other Gospel in truth.


So, that phrase, that sounds so grand we may fail to hear its meaning, ought to comfort us greatly: "The Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." The word for this in academic theology is "Impassibility." It means, simply, God does not change. He does not change His mind, He does not change His nature, He does not change His will, He does not change at all. In all eternity God is perfect in three Persons. He has no need of learning, He does not need to gain wisdom (certainly not from puny creatures), He does not need to mature, and nothing has ever created a change in God. He is perfect in all eternity. The cross and resurrection did not change God; they changed us.


The impassible God, the God who does not change, will not forget you.


"But Zion said, The LORD hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath forgotten me. Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee. Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me." (Isaiah 49:14-16)


In some religious circles it is popular to promise that everyone who has faith, that is real deep faith, will be healed of all earthly sickness, will be in perfect health, will be rich, and live in victory over all things all the time. By twisting the Scriptures (in a manner that should fool neither Berean nor Anglican Catholic) and wrenching Bible verses violently from their context, they present this burdensome, impossible, and dangerous doctrine, and often extract great sums of money from people looking to escape from desperate poverty by what actually constitutes a practice of attempted magic. But, these "faith and prosperity" preachers will get old themselves, and they will die the death of all men.


Real faith carries with it trust. If God seems to hear your prayers and grant you what you ask of him, it is because of His love and wisdom. But, if He seems never to hear a word you utter, and does not grant your prayers, and often seems as if He is far away, that too is because of His love and wisdom. He need not prove His love. He proved His love for you already on the cross, and calls you his friend from the cross. It is the same love and the same Fatherly wisdom from God who does not change. You may have faith enough, for a grain of mustard seed is enough, and yet have a share of suffering that seems impossible to bear. Another may hate God and seem to have all his heart's desire. What matters for you is that God knows what is best for each of His children, and so you may trust His love and wisdom, the love of the one who has the scars in His hands and feet, with the wound of the spear in His side. You may trust Him whether you have prosperity and healing, or whether you have a share of suffering for a time.


Only one thing can stand between you and the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord, and it is not a created thing, that is, it is not a thing that God made (Rom. 8: 38,39): That one thing is unrepentant willful sin, or, as James calls it, "superfluity of wickedness." Remove all such barriers, if they are in your life, and you may trust that whatever comes is, ultimately, in the hands of the one you may trust absolutely.


Then we have only one thing left to do, and that is to give thanks. In the words of today's Psalm from Morning Prayer:


What reward shall I give unto the LORD * for all the benefits that he hath done unto me?


I will receive the cup of salvation, * and call upon the Name of the LORD.