"I do not seek retribution"

TAC Archbishop John Hepworth

Or so he says. Indeed, the news (here) recently broke in The Australian. But, anyone following the news of recent months can trace a story line in which Abp. Hepworth began to complain that the Roman Catholic Church was backtracking on the promises in Anglicanorum Coetibus, first in Canada and then beyond. And, what promises, exactly, was Rome backtracking on? Frankly, they refused to alter their new constitution and the Canon Law it was based on, and to which it referred consistently in its Article VI (the one most often misquoted and distorted). That means, of course, that they did not live by Hepworth's own spin on the meaning of Anglicanorum Coetibus, essentially his own promises to anyone in the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) who would listen, that if they would follow him to the Tiber they could have their cake and eat it too.

Hepworth's own fantasy island in the Tiber promised that every TAC priest could expect to be received in his orders, and that he himself would still be their Archbishop. He came right out with that line in Canada, essentially no different from his insistence to me, face to face in Timonium, Maryland three years ago, before the new constitution but well along in the TAC-Rome adventure. He objected to anyone writing that he would not be the one to lead his people into the Roman land of promise. He told me I had been wrong to say he could not minister as a man in holy orders if he went back to the Roman Catholic Church, even though at the time I thought I was praising his apparent humility and sincerity, even though not agreeing with his Roman bias. 

The problem is, Anglicanorum Coetibus carefully, consistently and unmistakably offered nothing more than what existing Canon Law and Pastoral Provisions already provided, except to make those provisions internationally available. Therefore, in no uncertain terms, it was clear on reasserting that no former Roman Catholic could expect to be ordained if he had left the Roman Catholic Church as an adult, no former Roman Catholic clergyman who left could resume ordained ministry after returning from an Anglican (or any Protestant) body, and that no man could practice ordained ministry if he had in his life impediments to the same. For Hepworth, twice married with a divorce and Anglican annulment, that meant he had no chance. He denied however, to me sitting across a small hotel lobby table, and later to larger audiences, that to return to Rome he would have to lay down his archiepiscopal office.

But, when the time for truth came, the Church of Rome stuck to its Canon Law. The TAC priests who were interested in becoming Roman Catholic priests under the terms of the new constitution, discovered that their education, unlike former Church of England clergy (where Oxford and Cambridge set the standard), did not qualify them for a fast track to "ordination" in the Roman Church. And, men with impediments were not going to get around the problem. That was when Hepworth fired back at the Church of Rome. He was not getting his way, meaning, they were not keeping his promises, but only their own.

But, he is a big man, not seeking retribution, ready to forgive, not grinding an ax. Or so he assures us.

Personal problems and sexual abuse

Now, we have Abp. Hepworth telling the world that he had been repeatedly abused sexually from the age of 15 by Australian Roman Catholic priests, into early manhood. This serial abuse even exceeded the shocking story he told me back in 2008. He has now used the word "rape," saying the abuse followed into his early adult years. These homosexual rapist priests must have been very large and powerful men, able to force themselves on the muscular Hepworth, who stands more than six feet tall and looks every bit a truck driver.

The article says:

"In an attitude of extraordinary forgiveness and atonement, his prime concern, set out in a letter to Archbishop Wilson in November 2008, was that his relationship with the Catholic Church be healed before he died.

"'I do not seek retribution,' he wrote but he felt 'deeply cheated of a priestly life that I have been exercising as it were by subterfuge, outside the communion of the Catholic Church'."

A long time reader of this blog, Millo Shaw, made this observation and asked a hypothetical question:

"So all his time as an Anglican priest and Archbishop of the TAC was merely a 'subterfuge, outside the communion of the Catholic Church.'  I wonder if he truly understands that he is in effect saying that his time as a cleric in the Anglican Church was nothing ever more than a lie and deception and that Anglicanism never was, is, or shall be, even in its TAC format, part of the Catholic Church?  I wonder how the people whom he has led feel about this?  What did he really think he was doing when he was carrying out the sacraments?"

The article in The Australian also says:

"In his March 2008 statement, he wrote: 'Perhaps I have been too driven in my search for redemption, for acceptance by a church that I did not know how to approach. I ran away from that church, but I have never lost my love for it.'

"Despite the fact that he has been married, divorced and remarried and has three children, he also wrote: 'Perhaps it is the only real love that I have ever known, and it is a love distorted and beyond my reach over all of my adult life.' "

It is obvious, at this point, that Abp. John Hepworth is a very troubled man who has  lived a sad and tragic life. We should pray for him, and hope for God's healing hand to be manifest. At the same time, others need to be liberated from the oppressive manner in which this troubled man has exercised leadership. 

Also, despite the lazy manner of "journalists" and "reporters" who have replaced journalism and reporting with copying and pasting, the TAC was, at its strongest point (before the Anglicanorum Coetibus circus) never more than about 50,000 strong - nowhere near the oft pasted 400,000 figure (or, 700,000 according to Orlando - what's 300,000 or so? Six of one, and all that). But, 50,000 is a lot of people; two or three count infinitely, as does one soul - more than a pearl of great price.

It is a travesty that so many people were subjected to one man's psychological problems. For years the entire TAC was being torn up one side and down the other, distracted from evangelism and prevented from recovering unity with the rest of the Continuing Anglican churches, focused almost entirely on Roman Catholicism and losing sight of anything remotely Anglican. They have suffered great loss, and a waste of years and resources. All this time the Roaming Romeward emphasis, in what people joined and contributed to as an Anglican church, was really about one man and his personal trauma. 

The old line about "unity" looked silly all along, since leaving one denomination for another is not unity. Now, we see it was always more of a subterfuge than we could say - openly.

Trinity 12 Sermon Notes

“Our sufficiency is from God”+

Do you ever feel afraid that life will overwhelm you, has overwhelmed you? That you are not “enough” for the situation in which you find yourself, that your personal resources are insufficient for the task at hand? Well, the bad news is that, so far as it depends on you, and so far as it relates to the biggest issues of life, you are dead right. You are not enough. Neither am I.

But the good news is that this uncomfortable fact need not be the end of the story. We can be “enough”. We can break through the fear of failure and defeat, and we can be confident that our efforts are not in vain. No matter how inadequate our capabilities and achievements might seem, there is a path to confidence in what we are and what we do. How? Through grace accepted by faith, through sticking fast to Christ, and living in Him and His will.

This is precisely how St Paul achieved or, more accurately, received his confidence. “Such trust have we toward God through Christ” he says at the beginning of today's Epistle. He believed that God would do the work of ministry through him as he walked by faith. And he believed that whatever God did, even using weak human vessels, was “sufficient”. Because, of course, while God uses us, he does much more than just rely on our actions.

Now St Paul's ministry was the service of the Gospel, communicating by word and deed God's New Covenant, Spirit, Life and Justification. Your ministry may not be identical to his, nevertheless, as a Christian, your role is inextricably tied up with that new life, that power of God to build up the kingdom of the Cross.

[Quote from Romans 12]

1 I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.
2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.
4 For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function,
5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.
6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them …

10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.
11 Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord.
12 Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.
13 Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality. …

21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

We can overcome. We can be sufficient.

“God will never lead you where he cannot keep you” is an old saying. It means , among other things, that, if we obey God's will, we will be able to cope with whatever life throws our way (cp. Matthew 6:25-34, 1 Corinthians 10:13, Philippians 2:13). And it also means that God will enable us to achieve what he has called us to. As St Augustine prayed to God, “Command what thou wilt, and give what thou commandest.” It's easy for us to be afraid our efforts will come to nothing, or even that our failures and surrounding difficulties will drown us. But, if we follow the logic of God's grace, we will see that it is only by abandoning that grace that we can truly fail. It is only disobedience that we need fear. God's providence knows no failure in the final analysis, so if we cooperate with him, we can be certain that he has bound up our puny offerings of service into the fabric of his mighty plan, and that “all things work together for good to those who love God” (Romans 8:28).

“Fear not”, Jesus said, on many occasions. “Only believe”, he once attached to that statement. Fear not, just trust. Find what God would have you do, and do it in Christ, in his name, by his Spirit. Do it by faith, consciously and continually relying and calling upon his grace. And let God take care of the rest. For our little seeds can grow into mighty trees as God grants the growth (Mark 4:27, 1 Corinthians 3:7). And even he who sows in tears will reap in joy (Psalm 126:5). Do not be afraid. +

For September 11th ten years later

An additional Old Testament lesson:

“And it came to pass the same night, that the LORD said unto him, Take thy father's young bullock, even the second bullock of seven years old, and throw down the altar of Baal that thy father hath, and cut down the grove that is by it: And build an altar unto the LORD thy God upon the top of this rock, in the ordered place, and take the second bullock, and offer a burnt sacrifice with the wood of the grove which thou shalt cut down. Then Gideon took ten men of his servants, and did as the LORD had said unto him: and so it was, because he feared his father's household, and the men of the city, that he could not do it by day, that he did it by night. And when the men of the city arose early in the morning, behold, the altar of Baal was cast down, and the grove was cut down that was by it, and the second bullock was offered upon the altar that was built. And they said one to another, Who hath done this thing? And when they inquired and asked, they said, Gideon the son of Joash hath done this thing. Then the men of the city said unto Joash, Bring out thy son, that he may die: because he hath cast down the altar of Baal, and because he hath cut down the grove that was by it. And Joash said unto all that stood against him, Will ye plead for Baal? will ye save him? he that will plead for him, let him be put to death whilst it is yet morning: if he be a god, let him plead for himself, because one hath cast down his altar. Therefore on that day he called him Jerubbaal, saying, Let Baal plead against him, because he hath thrown down his altar.” (Judges 6:25-32)

(My Sermon for today is in the post below this one)

This is September 11, 2011. It has been ten years since that second “Day that will live on infamy.” It has been ten years since thousands of civilians, non-combatants, were murdered by an enemy that lacks the courage to fight as men fight, cowards who dope their mules into acts of suicide and murder with promises that nobody will fulfill. The God who made all living things, and who gives life to all, will never reward with Paradise those who murder large numbers of people indiscriminately, since by any standard of law, Divine or human, such an act cannot be just. It sentences the innocent with the guilty, and destroys without distinction. Real men, if they have cause to fight a war, pit army against army with the intention of sparing non-combatants.         

So, quite rightly we have no respect for our enemies, because they deserve no respect by any standard. They are not warriors and not soldiers, but murderers. They are not martyrs, for martyrs, by correct definition, die to give witness to the truth of Jesus Christ and His Gospel. Martyrs do no harm, and commit no evil as they surrender their lives in the same fashion as St. Stephen, praying for their persecutors with love and forgiveness. Now, if our enemies are not warriors, not soldiers and not martyrs, what are they? They are terrorists, mass murderers and suicides. Therefore, we cannot have any respect for them as we would for brave men who die in battle, especially those who die in a just war.        

Who are our enemies? They are not poor and oppressed victims of American greed. In fact, they are wealthy, rich men who have vast sums of money behind them due to the oil trade. They do not attack because of grievances, rightly or wrongly, but because of a religious fanaticism in which Reason has no place. We may be sure, then, that their god is not God. They themselves, by their violence, confirm that they do not believe in God, but merely some god who needs their protection, whose honor must be defended by mere human beings. If he is a god, if he is God, let him plead for himself, as Gideon’s father said about Baal. If their god was God they would not need to protect him, fight for him or defend his honor. It would be blasphemy to try. By killing on his behalf, they show that they see their god as weak and helpless. If they believe otherwise, then they blaspheme by their actions. When they kill in the name of their god, they dishonor him, and prove to us that they themselves believe that what they worship is weak enough to need their violence.

God, however, cannot be served by injustice, such as the indiscriminate killing of large numbers of people. God needs no protection, no defense to His honor, and no pleading of His cause. It is unthinkable.

On this day we may remember that we have real heroes to honor. We remember Todd Morgan Beamer and courageous Americans on Flight 93. They were the first group of passengers who knew that the hijacking was all about using the plane as a weapon to strike an American target. They were also the last. Because they concluded that the plane was headed to Washington DC, to strike a vital target, after reciting the Lord’s Prayer, they fought back and made flight 93 crash somewhere other than its intended target. By doing so they showed that no airplane, with American passengers, will ever again be used as a weapon.

With some modifications to fit the occasion, we may make use of a prayer for the Faithful Departed:

Remember thy servants, O Lord, especially those who were murdered by the evil of terrorists this day ten years ago, according to the favour which thou bearest unto thy people, and grant that, increasing in knowledge and love of thee, they may go from strength to strength, in the life of perfect service, in thy heavenly kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, ever, one God, world without end. Amen.

Twelfth Sunday after Trinity

Mark 7:31-37

“He hath done all things well: He maketh both the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak.”

We come to Christ completely deaf and dumb, unable to hear and to speak. Before He healed this man, Jesus looked up to heaven and sighed. This detail which Mark records, His having looked up to heaven and having sighed, is mysterious, but it could have to do with His desire for us not only to have ears, but ears to hear. He was about to heal this man’s ears so that he could hear natural sounds; yet how often our Lord said, concerning the truth of the Word of God, “Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Isaiah the Prophet was called to speak to a generation which did not have eyes to see, ears to hear and a heart to understand; they could not turn and be healed. Jesus said that the generation to which Isaiah spoke was not of that prophet’s own time, but the generation who, in the presence of the Word made flesh, could not see, could not hear, could not understand.

Many times I have heard people say that Christ spoke in parables so that the people could understand His teaching. Did He now? Did He not rather say that He spoke to the crowd in parables because it was not given to them to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven? To His disciples was it given to know these mysteries, but to those who were outside of the Kingdom it was not given. He went on to say to His disciples, “But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears for they hear (Matt 13: 16).” The mysteries of God’s Kingdom cannot be known except by the work of the Holy Ghost; nor can they be uttered unless He gives us speech. If our ears hear the word of God it is the gift of the Holy Ghost; if our speech is seasoned with grace, it is the gift of the Holy Ghost.

By now I hope that you understand that I speak of two sacraments which are bound together: Baptism and Confirmation. By one we are given life by the Holy Spirit regenerating us, and by the other, through the laying on of apostolic hands, wisdom and power from the Holy Spirit residing within us. Christ does indeed touch our ears and our tongue, giving the gifts of hearing and of speech. We can hear the Word of God, and then, like the man who was also healed of the impediment in his speech- and as our King James Bible puts it, “spake plain”- so can we speak clearly, with words that impart life. But without His Holy Spirit we would remain deaf and dumb.

How important this is in a world which is at its best confused, at its worst simply evil. Many sounds are blaring around us, competing for our attention; and many of the words which appear to be the wisest and best are words which impart only death, selling ideas which lead only into sin and error. People seem to catch their beliefs and opinions, or as they often say today, their “feelings” about important matters of life and death, as they catch a virus. Few opinions are thought through; almost none are what can be called conclusions, for no thought is evident in them. But, even the best thinking cannot, by itself, reveal the truth Christ teaches, because it still lacks the element of grace, the supernatural gift of the Holy Spirit. “If the light that is in you is darkness; how great is that darkness (Matt. 6:23).”

Nonetheless, for us there is this sober warning: Simply having received the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation does not guarantee that we will hear as we ought, or that we will have speech seasoned with grace. For, simply having ears that can hear is not enough; what Jesus said was “Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.” That is, we must learn the discipline of hearing; and until we have heard we have nothing to say. To hear, the first thing to do is to dust off the Bible, and the second thing is to open it.

What did Jesus mean by His clear implication that some ears cannot hear the Word of God? What is hearing then? As a reader of the Hebrew language, let me begin to answer by pointing out that the Hebrew word for “hear” is the same word as the word “obey.” The word is sh’mai- as in “sh’mai Israel” or “Hear O’ Israel.” In ancient Jewish understanding, to hear is to obey- and to obey is to hear. “He that turneth away his ear from hearing the Law, even his prayer shall be an abomination,” says the Book of Proverbs (28:9); what is the warning to us? That drawing near to God without a heart to obey Him is like the unacceptable sacrifice of the murderer Cain. To hear, as Christ speaks of ears that hear, we must have an obedient heart.

So then, how do we hear, how do we learn, what do we obey?

As we have seen, we cannot hear the Word of God unless our attitude of heart is obedience to that Word. All around us today is the spectacle of clergymen speaking false doctrine intended for consumption by people who are described in the First Epistle of St. Peter as having “itching ears”- itching ears instead of ears to hear. “The voice of the demonic,” to borrow a phrase from David Mills, is no ordinary deception, but a very crafty sort of trickery which begins, continues and ends with the assumption that evil is good, and good is evil. It is subtle, and shameless. The whole point is to create a body of teaching, indeed, an excuse, for those who are not obedient to God, but who desire, nonetheless, the illusion of being religious and spiritual.

If we do wish to obey God, however, how do we know the voice of Christ from other voices, especially from the voice of the demonic?

Unfortunately, modern people have embraced a free for all method of private interpretation about the Bible and religion in general. The subjective opinions and even the feelings of would be teachers is prevalent, such as the kind that the Apostle Paul warned of, “who desire to be teachers.” It is, in fact, the basis for non-Christian Arian cults, such as those most unfortunate and deceived people who knock on your door on Saturday mornings to feed you their indoctrination. They are so misled by their false ideas about God that they would, if law still allowed, offer their children in sacrifice, denying something as good and useful as a blood transfusion- all because they have bought a weird interpretation of scripture, one which rejects and defies the Tradition of the Church, the mind of Christ. But, the Bible is the Book of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, not of the cults.

So, we need Scripture interpreted by the Traditional Right Reason God has given to His Church. Let me point out, however, what this is not. First of all, it is not a system of checks and balances, in which three equal things are weighed against each other. Second, a thing we choose to call “experience” does not equal what we value as the Apostolic Tradition.

Obviously, an interpretation that is based upon madness or fanaticism, the old “Enthusiasms” as they were called, is not what St. Paul calls “the mind of Christ.” For example, when Jesus speaks of plucking out our eye to avoid sin, it is a wrong and unreasonable interpretation to think that He meant it literally. We all have heard of snake handlers, and their interpretation of scripture defies the reason of every sane person. So does the reasoning of Mary Baker Eddy and the “Christian Scientists” who invite death or bad health to themselves and their children by refusing the use of all medical knowledge. The same problem exists among those who refuse medicine in the name of “Faith healing.” “Right Reason” saves us from lunacy. As G.K Chesterton said, “When Religion would have maddened men, theology kept them sane.”1

Experience is subjective, especially if it is filled with emotion; but the Tradition is objective, and it is, quite frankly, inflexible on all essential matters of Faith and morals - thank God. Without it, we can make the Bible mean whatever we please, and without it many people are actually being harmed by those who subject the Bible to their own warped interpretations, using it to do harm, both physical and spiritual harm. Surgical tools do good in the right hands; in the wrong hands they would kill and maim people, no matter how much a deluded person might think himself qualified to use them, and no matter how well he sells alleged surgical skills that, in fact, he does not really possess.

Acquiring “ears to hear” is impossible without humility, the humility it takes to learn. It requires faith in God and the revelation He has given of Himself through His Apostles and Prophets. It requires obedience to God and to the mind of Christ, His Reason and wisdom, that have always been present in His Church. If we have ears to hear, then we also have a tongue seasoned with grace, able to speak His truth.


1. Chesterton, G.K., Saint Thomas Aquinas: The Dumb Ox, 1933, London

Yes, I know

about the somewhat pornographic latest news concerning TAC Abp. Hepworth and the Roman Catholic Church. Attention to the matter on this blog is, I am sorry to say, unavoidable. I plan to offer a few comments, but not with Sunday coming. I know what needs to be said, as I have for the last few years should occasion demand - as it now does. Let us first observe the Lord's Day (not to mention the tenth anniversary of another day that lives on in infamy).

Fr Wells' Bulletin Inserts

TRINITY XII

Concerning the Epistle:

The Prayer Book has a pesky habit (a habit we encounter almost every week) of beginning and ending the Lessons from the Epistles and Gospels quite arbitrarily, in the middle of a paragraph, with scant regard for the flow of thought in the Scripture itself. It is almost as if the editors who selected the readings (the selections are much more ancient than the Prayer Book itself) wanted to drive us back to the Scriptures, making us open our Bibles and find out what the passage is really about.

Such is definitely the case with today's Epistle from 2 Corinthians 3. Paul is saying “Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God.” This is like walking into the middle of a conversation between Paul and the Corinthians. What confidence? A confidence which a mere sinful man would have in the face of God is surely a wonderful thing.

When we go back a couple of verses, to the beginning of the chapter, this is cleared up. Paul had just informed his readers that he needed no letter of recommendation from them, as certain other apostles evidently were requesting of them. Letters of recommendation were a common practice in the ancient world, particularly for travelers. Paul has said that he has no need for such documentation, as the simple fact of a Church in Corinth, something Paul had founded through his preaching, is sufficient evidence of his effectiveness as an apostle.

Paul's line of argument is surprising. The Corinthian Church was a mess, full of heresy, immorality, disorder. Paul's detractors might indeed have said, “Look at that corrupt church, which Paul started! By his fruits we shall know him!” This church was hardly a credit to its founder!

But Paul knew that for all its problems, the Body of Christ was truly alive in Corinth. This body was more than the sum of its members, as Paul wrote, “the Spirit giveth life.” Paul went on to speak of the “glory” of the Body: “how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be glorious.”

The Church as we experience it is frequently an inglorious and imperfect affair. But the Church as God sees it is truly glorious, as sinners are being turned into saints. This is the glory of a “new testament,” the new and final chapter in God's plan of salvation. The “old testament” made through Moses had a glory of its own, a glory which has now passed into history. But the glory of the Risen Christ is a far greater glory, which the life-giving Spirit implants in every believer. That was Paul's confidence, trust, and certitude, which he invites us to share.

Concerning the Gospel:

Almost never do we find a Sunday Gospel selection from Mark. And the remarkable thing in today's Gospel is that it is a passage unique to Mark, with no real parallel in Matthew or Luke.

This passage contains a text perplexing to many. "And he charged them that they should tell no man, but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it."

Here we have an occurrence of a special feature in Mark, the so-called "Messianic secret." Seven times (the number could be symbolic) Our Lord emphatically directed the witnesses of His miracles to "tell no man." Each time the command is quickly disobeyed, with one exception. The first instance of this "secret" comes in Mark 1:34, where "he would not permit the demons to speak, for they knew him." The followers of Jesus, to our surprise, are less obedient than the demons! Lacking the supernatural knowledge of the demons, they do not know who He is.

This theme is sustained from the opening chapter to the very last. On Easter morning, the women at the tomb are specifically commanded to go and tell His disciples. Here the instructions are reversed, but the disobedience continues. "They said nothing to any man, for they were afraid." The irony is almost overwhelming. The Gospel message has been brought to its perfection, and the friends of Jesus fall into silence, suddenly suffering an impediment in their speech.

This bring us around to the miracle before us in which Jesus healed a man who was deaf and afflicted with a speech impediment. Like every miracle in all of the Gospels, the afflicted person is a picture of our human predicament. We are deaf to the voice of God, deaf to the cries of our fellow human beings. We cannot articulate the message God has given us or even our deepest prayers to Him. But we can jabber incessantly when we ought to be silent.

Charles Wesley wrote a stanza which is a great comment on this passage:

Hear Him, ye deaf; His praise, ye dumb,
Your loosened tongues employ;
Ye blind, behold your Saviour come,
And leap, ye lame, for joy!

Let us add our voices to the chorus of praise which concludes our passage: "He hath done all things well, for he maketh both the deaf to hear, and the dumb to sing."

Meddlesome love

Consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed. Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. (Heb. 12:3-14)

Following the post below, it behooves me to follow the advice of St. John Chrysostom. Writing in his Six Little Books on the Priesthood, Chrysostom warned against teaching against one error in such a way as to appear to endorse an opposite error. It has been said, if only by me, that this makes him the first to present the via media. The truth often cannot be found in one or other opposing extreme which demand that a false choice be made. The truth generally requires independence of thought from pressure to conform to partisan declarations and judgments. I have met, in my time, very few Anglicans who truly understood the via media, that the way of truth is a separate road from erroneous extremes; yet, it remains essential to our specific church tradition. 

Writing against the notion of a punitive Purgatory, I may have given some the impression that no chastening is to be expected. Clearly, the Bible tells us to expect chastening from God the Father, if indeed we are legitimate from our regeneration. Of course, we must be; we have been risen to new life in Christ. Therefore, we are God's children; therefore He takes it upon Himself to chasten.

Is this, however, about the just requirements of the Law? The answer is that it it is not at all about satisfaction and justice, nor about anything akin to penal sentencing (for Christ is the propitiation for our sins-I John 2:2). Neither is this chastening reserved for an intermediate state after this life. That is not to say it cannot be part of such a state; it is to say we can expect the Lord's hand in chastening here and now in this present life.

We must be on guard against thinking like the friends of Job. They thought they could see the Lord's judgment simply because they saw suffering. The story tells, us however, that Job's faith was tried; it is also reveals that God corrected some of Job's thinking; clearly, near the end of that story, a sort of Fatherly chastening is thereby implied. 

The essential difference between a legal punishment and the chastening of a father should be obvious to everyone. One problem, therefore, with the Medieval doctrine (still in the Catechism of the Catholic Church published under the papal imprimatur of Pope John-Paul II) of the Treasury of saintly merits, is the tortured logic of it. If the "temporal punishments" were the chastening of the Father to produce holiness of character, why would any saint's merits be applied to lessen the punishment? Would not the deprivation of necessary chastening be a loss to the soul in need of it? The answer, of course, is that that whole doctrine is not about the Father and His love, but about a legalistic and impersonal approach to courtroom style justice. It is, as our Articles teach, "repugnant to the word of God." It was also quite profitable, monetarily speaking, once upon a time.

Sanctity

We need to understand that every Christian is both a saint and called to be a saint. And, the Bible clearly and obviously speaks of the Church both militant and triumphant when using the phrase "the saints." More often than not, it uses this phrase in a manner that gives it application to the Church militant, such as "distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality (Rom. 12:13)," or, "if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet... (I Tim. 5:10)." The simple fact is, everyone who has been baptized into Christ has been set apart unto God, sanctified both by grace given and by belonging now to God not only by creation, but also by redemption. Therefore, every Christian is a saint in that objective sense, set apart as holy unto God.

Then, we see that sainthood, which implies growth in holiness of character, is the vocation and calling we all share. "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:7)." "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours (I Cor. 1:2)." That word translated "called" is κλητός (klētos), used also by Paul to say that he was called to be a Apostle. 

Also, the words "sanctified" and "saints" in I Corinthians 1:2 bear out my point well, for both are forms of the same word: ἁγιάζω (hagiazō) for "sanctified." It is a verb form of ἅγιος (hagios), which is translated "saint." This is reflected in English, for the words "sanctified" and "saints" are also two forms of the same word that has a Latin root. Therefore, we see that they were already holy, that is, sanctified; but also that they were called to become holy. We are saints already as an accomplished fact in that we are set apart as holy to God in Christ. But we are also called to become holy, called to be saints, in character by the operation of the Holy Spirit.

The work of the Holy Spirit is accomplished with our obedient cooperation. He wills to impart grace to us that we may acquire the virtues He gives, the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22, 23), above all charity. This growth in holiness is to fulfill the calling of sainthood, and that is simply because it pleases our Father to conform us to the image of His Son (Rom. 8:29). The love of God is reflected in the image of God, in man. What father is pleased to have a son with an evil character, of whom he is ashamed? It is love that causes joy from a righteous son, and love that brings grief from an evil son. The love of God is the sort that meddles and interferes with our stubborn wills, and that is good for us. It is the love of our Father who is not pleased with an unbelieving and willful heart in His children. It is love that sets a high standard, that demands of us that we live up to that standard. This is a kind of love that the world increasingly rejects and castigates. 

But, that love is why the Father chastens every son whom He receives. Every child of God, everyone who is in Christ, is the object of that demanding, meddlesome love. We have every reason to hope that this love pursues His children beyond the grave. But, we may be sure that it operates in this world already. It is chastening meant to change and transform us, to make us like Jesus Christ in character. Do not despise it, nor faint when it happens.

Not a "Pious Belief"

The key words are "Romish" and "punitive." I am referring, of course, to the subject of Purgatory. If by that word someone means "Paradise" or "Abraham's Bosom" as the Lord used those designations in the Gospel According to St. Luke, then I have no objection to make. The Scriptures do give us reason to believe that the children of God will have an opportunity (to put it positively), if I may say it metaphorically, to take a bath and put on clean clothes before entering the King's throne room. Of course, it is reasonable to interpret those passages as having to do with the General Resurrection on the Last Day, in some ways a better fit than squeezing their meaning into an intermediate state. That purification is something that seems to be possible only once we have shed this mortal nature to put on immortality, either before putting it on or in the process of doing so.

The problem with the word "Purgatory" however, is the association it generally carries with a Medieval and strictly western (i.e. not Universal) theory that became, in time, a Roman doctrine. The idea that God, to be just, must assign us "temporal punishment" for sins, even though they are forgiven in some larger sense, makes a complete mockery of the cross. It is not a "Pious Belief."

A "Pious Belief" is something that cannot be taught as doctrine (even though some insist on doing so without any right to impose their views), but that sincere believers might hold to nonetheless. Generally these are identical to the Marian "dogmas" as they are so designated by the Church of Rome, meaning the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, and her Assumption into Heaven. No one has any authority whatsoever to teach these Pious Beliefs as the "teaching of the Church." Nonetheless, many of our own people hold these beliefs without seeking to impose them on others who either find them questionable or who, perhaps, reject them. They are not worth fighting over, especially inasmuch as no one can prove the issues one way or the other, and neither is anyone saved or lost by believing or not believing them. The veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary is really all about the Incarnation of the Word, and for this reason we may rightly speak of both, or either, of those beliefs about Mary as truly pious.

Anglicans, however, have no reason to call the western Medieval "development of doctrine" about a punitive Purgatory a "pious belief." How can we call it that? The Anglican position is stated flatly and bluntly, that it is "a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture; but rather repugnant to the word of God (Article XXII)." The Article says it correctly, historically and Scripturally. No Father of the Church ever heard of this lately "developed" "doctrine," inasmuch as the whole idea did not exist in the first millennium of the Church. No Ecumenical Council considered it. It is not a doctrine believed at all in the Eastern Orthodox Church (which condemns it as heresy). It cannot be proved by Scripture.

So "the Romish doctrine of [a punitive] Purgatory" has no support from Scripture, no support in Antiquity, and no Universal Consensus.

Again, the version of Purgatory for which Anglicanism provides no toleration is not the idea of purification (which some do call "Purgatory"), but specifically "the Romish doctrine," that is, the idea that justice requires a punitive process. The term "temporal punishment" means that Purgatory exists strictly to satisfy the requirements of the Law, not to perfect or even help the soul. The desire of the soul for purification, that bath and clean clothes, becomes irrelevant in this distorted, legalistic debtor's prison in which we supposedly pay to God the debt we owe. Indeed, if it were for the good of the soul, why the Treasury, and the indulgences, and so forth, that shorten the time? The answer is, they have thrown away the whole notion of purification for the good of the soul. They have turned God into a legalistic magistrate, someone who simply wants His pound of flesh rather than the Father who has given His only begotten Son to save us.

The dangers and problems of this error are manifold.

1. It trivializes sin.

That is right; it trivializes sin rather than blowing it out of proportion. 

Before getting deeply into this problem, we should first consider a problem of teaching. The Bible classifies "sin unto death" as "willful" (cp. I John 5:16,17 with Hebrews 10:26), by which we may divide sins into venial and mortal. That designation is not the problem, if we bear in mind that genuine mortal sin (i.e. "sin unto death") is willful sin, carried on intentionally with knowledge that it is sinful, and that genuine venial sin is not willful. 

But, the Roman system lists which acts are venial and which are mortal, creating a legalistic approach that has nothing to do with the human heart, the intention of the will and the whole problem of malice. Sins can be committed in complete ignorance (II Chron. 30:18-20), including the sins on Rome's "mortal" list. Sins can be committed with malice, deliberate intention of the will to sin, including sins on Rome's "venial" list. Of course they have theologians able to point out the dangers of treating the lists in too simplistic a fashion; if so, we may hope their message gets through.

.
The idea of a punitive Purgatory, however, makes sin a thing that can be paid for in part with temporal punishments by the sinners themselves. It removes from the whole equation that the first problem with sin is that all sin is committed ultimately against the Infinite and Eternal God. No temporal punishment by the guilty party can ever do justice to God's own holiness. The simple fact is, you are reconciled to God or not. There is nothing in between.

2. It has delayed repentance.

The pastoral problem I have been forced to deal with is a consequence of believing the Medieval doctrine. I have had to disabuse individuals of the notion that they can repent at leisure after death. Perhaps the bus ride in The Great Divorce is possible; but, we must all assume that it is highly dangerous to delay repentance with a hope for which no revelation can give support. The only way to live, for a Christian, is in a state of repentance and faith right now, today, with the knowledge that no one is guaranteed another breath. You could die before finishing this post. You need to be ready to go at any moment, because, frankly, you might just die in the next minute. If belief that it can all be worked out, sweated off, and paid for in a punitive Purgatory delays one from turning to God with hearty repentance and true faith, then the doctrine becomes poison. This I have seen.

Now, in fairness to the Roman Catholic Church, officially they teach that the soul must be prepared for death in every way, and that Purgatory is only for those who die in a state of grace. But, the misunderstanding I have dealt with is a genuine cause for concern, and is easily avoided by not teaching the "Romish doctrine" at all.

3. It denies the Gospel

Whereas purification is an idea we can all be glad for (especially if we see it also as grace), the idea that Christ paid for our sins only in part, and that justice requires a further "temporal punishment" denies the sufficiency of Christ as the Propitiation for our sins. And, if it denies the sufficiency of His sacrifice and death, it denies Him as God in the flesh. If saints, by their alleged merits (another serious problem) can make up for some insufficiency in Christ's sacrifice with further partial payment, than the concept brings Christ down to the level of His creatures who have needed and received His grace. It almost makes one expect to hear somebody listing the Lord among His saints as a mere equal. 

As I said in the post just below: 

"That [the publican] goes home justified is no small matter. The whole theological meaning of justification is of major importance in the New Testament, and the theme receives its greatest development by St. Paul. It is obvious that Paul builds his meaning on the same understanding of justification that is very clear in Christ's parable [of the publican and the Pharisee]...On the cross, as He died, Jesus uttered the word τελέω (teleō), which takes three English words to say: 'It is finished (John 19:30).' In those days, when Greek was the international tongue, the word τελέω was written on a final receipt of payment; so we may conclude that the usage of the word was meant to convey not only the completion or perfection of a thing, but full payment. Christ has paid in full for it all, for 'He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (I John 2:2).'"

No one else could pay for our sins (Psalm 49:7), because everyone else, even the saints, are all sinners themselves. The saints have received grace, including the grace to acquire virtues; Christ alone of all mankind has merits of His own. Furthermore, because of Who it is that died for us, no further payment is needed. And, if it is paid in full and we are justified, how could God be just in requiring yet more, as if we could imagine the Father finding fault with the sacrifice and death of His only begotten Son? He would be unjust; but as it is, God is "just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus (Romans 3:26)."

To be cleansed and able to walk into the throne room of such a loving Father is a joy to consider. So, I am glad for that bath and clean clothes to which we may look forward. It is nothing less than our gratitude and awe move us to desire.

More on the Parable

of the Publican and the Pharisee (Luke 18:9-14)

The sermon below does not afford the space to look at the full extent of what happened to the Publican. Jesus said, "I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other." "I tell you" is a phrase that is loaded with meaning, by which Jesus declares that the word He proclaims is His own, standing in the place of the ancient prophetic address, "thus saith the LORD." It is spoken as boldly as "verily, verily (amen, amen) I say into you." What He tells us is astonishing, giving assurance that everyone needs to have, that God forgives sins.  

"I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other." The word for "justified" is δικαιόω (dikaioō) from δίκαιος (dikaios), which means "just." Equally, it means "righteous." This is a very important concept in Judaism, to be a צָדַק (tsä·dak' ), a just or righteous person. The Sadducees, as our English Bible calls them, built their name on this word, calling themselves, in their group delusion, "the righteous ones."

What matters for us, in this parable, is that the man Jesus Christ so identifies (calling him a tsadok or righteous man) is identified first of all as a man whose sin is so terrible that his very entrance into the temple required stealth. A publican, that is a tax collector, would have been forbidden to enter even a synagogue, let alone the holy temple itself. Therefore, the very sincerity of his repentance, which Jesus makes abundantly clear in this story, implies that he has decided to repent of his notorious occupation; how else could he stand there? 

That the man goes home justified is no small matter. The whole theological meaning of justification is of major importance in the New Testament, and the theme receives its greatest development by St. Paul. It is obvious that Paul builds his meaning on the same understanding of justification that is very clear in Christ's parable. The publican has had, as of yet, no opportunity to make restoration (though we may take a clue from the story of Zacchaeus in the very next chapter, v.8, that Christ requires no less). And, he has had as of yet no time for a process of sanctification to have produced the virtues. All we can see in him is faith, and that faith is expressed in sincerity when he prays, "God be merciful to me a sinner."

This parable is about the place where it must begin for each person. The life of faith must have a beginning, even if that beginning is a return rather than an absolute genesis. After all, those of us who were baptized in infancy were, at that moment, "made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." But, the life of faith must begin in order to be lived; in fact it must have such a beginning every day: "It is of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not. They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness (Lam. 3:23,24)." The assurance we are given by the Biblical doctrine, so clearly set forth, is that we can begin with the full assurance of justification.

On the cross, as He died, Jesus uttered the word τελέω (teleō), which takes three English words to say: "It is finished (John 19:30)." In those days, when Greek was the international tongue, the word τελέω was written on a final receipt of payment; so we may conclude that the usage of the word was meant to convey not only the completion or perfection of a thing, but full payment. Christ has paid in full for it all, for "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (I John 2:2)." 

Many voices would "teach" you that this is not so. They would insist that no one can have faith in God's justification. As we have seen, their main error is a poor Christology, by which they treat Jesus Christ as less than fully Divine. They imply that we cannot have faith in God's justification of sinners based merely on this one man's death, even though the Bible clearly says we can (Isaiah 53, Romans 5). They teach that sins can be worked off in a long punitive Purgatory, and that we may have in addition the merits of saints applied to us, or we can perform works of the Law that justify (Rom. 3:28). They teach that justification requires the process of sanctification, making the justification of the publican in the parable completely meaningless, and always leaving room to question if we have been "justified" enough. 

This leads me to a painful thought. I fear that even in this present day we have people who would be stumped by the problem that was actually faced in the year 1517 in the German town of Wittenburg. Yes, Anglicans are not Lutherans; we have a few differences of course. But, on the great problem raised by the sale of indulgences by Johan Tetzel, who worked directly on behalf of Pope Leo X (formerly Giovanni di Lorenzo de' Medici), there should be no problem agreeing entirely with Luther and his Ninety-five Theses.

If, for some reason, you find the need to think it over, perhaps based on some notion of papal claims as they are generally diluted through the process of identifying Rome as "first in honor," I must stand in doubt of you. I must wonder how three vague references to Rome as "first in honor," made at Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon during the time when the Roman Empire was a political reality, have become so meaningful as to acquire equal weight to the word of God set forth in absolute authority with powerful clarity, from the mouth of Christ and by the pen of St. Paul. How did these obscure and unclear statements of mere imperial etiquette become loaded with dogmatic implications? The issue in 1517 was simple: Does anyone, pope included, possess the power to sell salvation for money? Are repentance and faith necessary unless and until an alleged, and self-proclaimed, "successor of Peter" invents a new gospel (Gal. 1:8,89)? An Anglican has no need to waste time deciding who was right and who was wrong in 1517. The truth is obvious (enough for me to say "here I stand").

Frankly, the voices that would rob you of the meaning of Christ's words in this parable, "this man went down to his house justified," are too numerous to mention. The theological confusion of the Church of Rome in 1517 is but one example. Other examples include those who make light of the publican's contrition, and who would "teach" him that he need not repent; that God "understands." They would replace justification with acceptance, a God Who accepts sin, rather than forgiving repentant sinners. For what God approves, He would not forgive; and what a convicted penitent publican needs is forgiveness, not "understanding." 

The truth that you must grasp is something you really know deep down inside. Though each of us remains a sinner, in that we are weak through the Fall and unable to get through an hour without sin by thought, word or deed, we can be sure nonetheless of God's mercy. We have the assurance by Christ's cross, even in this fallen condition, that we have been justified if we believe His Gospel. He has given this assurance by His word and sacraments. We may be sure that we are liable to fall again and again even if involuntarily, but also that absolution is absolute.