The Body of Christ

Click here for a sermon preached on the Tenth Sunday after Trinity, July 31, 2016

Tenth Sunday after Trinity

Click here

Third Trimester Abortion Video

Click here to educate yourself, and pass it on.

The Prodigal Son Ninth Sunday after Trinity

I Cor. 10:1-13 * Luke 15:11-32

The Parable of the Prodigal Son could as well be called The Waiting Father, and it could also be called The Elder Brother. Each of the main characters is necessary to the story. This was the third parable in this chapter, and each tells the same story. One is the shepherd who leaves the ninety-nine sheep and searches for the lost sheep until he finds it, and the other is the woman who searches until she finds the lost silver coin. Then this longer and more compelling story of the father who loses his son, and then receives him back. Make no mistake, these are all really one story. The loss of one person to sin and death is revealed to be God’s own loss; hence there is joy in the presence of the angels of God when the sinner repents, that is, the joy of God beheld by the angels (spoken in our terms to reveal the great mystery of God’s love for fallen mankind, and of that particular love for each one who is lost).

Does anyone anywhere fail to understand the prodigal son himself? Can any of us look at the warnings that St. Paul draws from the Old Testament (in today's Epistle) without a conviction of sin? Does anyone really fail to understand the people of Israel in the wilderness? I know that complaining or murmuring, idolatry and lusts can all be frightening subject matter, and that in one sense the promise that we will never be tempted to sin without a divinely appointed escape, can be just as troubling as it comforting. It is comforting to us to realize we can face the temptations of the future because God provides the escape; but, it also means that our past failure to take that escape makes each of us all the more culpable- doesn’t it? I did not need to study sin as a theological subject in order to understand it. I have to study holiness in order to understand it, and faith and everything to do with the virtues that only grow in us when we walk in the Holy Ghost. But, sin I understood only too well, and the only thing study could offer for that subject was to clarify the facts, all of which came easily. Have any of us lived without the realization that we have wasted the goodness of God on very unworthy and temporal things.

Anyone who does not identify with the prodigal son as the sinner who comes to his senses and begins to return to his father’s house, either has yet to come to his senses and begin to return to God (whether or not a member of the Church in good standing), or is living in self deception. Listen to the words of St. John the Apostle:

“But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” (I John 1:7-10)

Yes, all of us, especially the most devout and believing, should identify readily with the prodigal son who came to himself, and returned home.

Then we come to another character, the elder brother. I have no doubt that Jesus had the Pharisees in mind, those who believed they were righteous and despised others, and who were critical of the Lord’s willingness to go into the home of a sinner as the physician goes to the sick- that is, to restore them to health. The elder brother has his own priorities, none of which are in harmony with the love his father has for the lost brother, that is, his lost son. Furthermore, the elder brother does not realize that by this very attitude he is every bit as far away from his father’s heart as his brother is from his father’s house. He too is estranged from his father, but deceives himself by thinking that it is enough that he is at home. And, simply by living at home he believes he does enough, though never standing with his father who watches and waits for the lost son, and never sharing in his father’s pain and tears, and finally, not rejoicing when his father rejoices.

What is enough for us? Is it enough to be involved with the business and activities of the Church? Is it enough to be active in its plans? How important is it for us to seek out lost souls and help them return home to the father’s house? When people come in faith and are welcomed back by the Father, are we full of joy? Do any of us dare to judge whether these people who come are the “right sort” of people, that is, “people like us?” Is it more important that the Church make us happy, even if that means that it does not grow? 

I have seen plenty of elder brothers, individuals who don’t want to mix with the wrong sort of people in Church, and who would not want to be in Heaven with such people. Remember the man in The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis, who would not enter Heaven because he saw there a notorious sinner, in fact a murderer. His objection was that he didn’t need the “bleeding mercy.” But, the repentant man, who had been a murderer and was now redeemed and among the saints in light, pleaded with him that the bleeding mercy was exactly what he needed. But, the man returned to the gray city, that is Hell, rather than associate with the kind of rabble who had been welcomed into the Father’s House.

First John the Baptist, and then the Lord Himself, called upon the most notorious sinners to repent. Jesus spoke often of such notorious people as tax collectors and prostitutes who had repented at the preaching of John, and at His own preaching, and were now following Him. Boldly, He goes to the home of Matthew the tax collector, and later to the home of Zacchaeus, always bringing sinners to repentance. He allows the sinful woman to wash His feet with her tears and dry them with her hair, over the unspoken but real objection of his Pharisee host. The people with whom He had conflict, however, were the Pharisees, the religious hypocrites who disapproved of the Lord’s mercy on repentant sinners. For some people it is more important to feel superior to others than to become acquainted with the Father’s heart.

Finally, here is the father in the story. When we think of the Trinity it helps to remember how St. Paul speaks of the main attribute we know in our relationship with each Divine Person; each an attribute that is Divine, but each revealed more clearly in identification with what we are taught about each of the Persons. “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.” (II Cor. 13:14) We cannot understand the Father as He is revealed unless we identify Him primarily with love, that is agape or charity. It is this love that is revealed in and by His Son, most powerfully and manifestly on the cross. Throughout eternity it is the scars of His Passion, still visible in the resurrected Christ, that will always remind us of the love of God, whereby He gave His only begotten Son for us. It is that love manifested by the Son of God as he took away sin and conquered death.

The prodigal son does not ask for his due as a son, and would settle for being only a mere hired servant. Such is true repentance. The Father restores the lost son, slays the fatted calf to celebrate, and has his own joy, the joy of receiving back a son who was lost and is found, was dead and is alive again. The grace of God meets us on better terms than we can ask, extends forgiveness that is, itself, prodigal but never exhausted. This parable teaches us that by the grace of God in Jesus Christ and the love of God shed abroad within us by the Holy Ghost, we must remain in the Father’s house, and also come close to the Father’s heart for the lost.

Why Sex is Making us Morally Stupid

A reader of my Touchstone articles has written a excellent blog post. I recommend it.

"In this, I think Jesus has also spoken an irony—it is not only that the pure will see God, but those who set their gaze upon God who will be rendered pure. The solution is to get our eyes off of ourselves and onto the ultimate source of goodness, truth, and beauty."

Read it here

FALSE PROPHETS AND THE CROSS OF CHRIST

EIGHTH SUNDAY AFTER TRINITY 2016 * Romans 8:12-17 * Matthew 7:15-21
Click Here

Eighth Sunday after Trinity

Click on the picture for the link

Seventh Sunday after Trinity

Click here.

Apostolic Church

The Nicene/ Constantinopolitan Creed says, "I believe One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." Because of a printer's error the word "Holy" has not appeared in the Book of Common Prayer, but "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church" is said at least twice a day in the Daily Morning and Evening Prayer; so we profess all four of these facts about the Church. In this essay I want to focus on what it means to believe the Apostolic Church.

Before I undertake to write this, my recent interest in writing an apologetic for the polity that has always been Continued by us as the only polity known to orthodox Anglicanism, and the only kind consistent with all Canon Law of Anglican churches throughout history, and with the Church of England since its inception, is due to confusion regarding the origin of the episcopacy and the needless question of presbyteral ordinations. I say needless because only episcopal ordinations have been recognized in Anglicanism as conferring the authority to act as a member of the three orders of ministry mentioned in the Preface to the Ordinal. This leaves us only with ecumenical considerations about how far we may go in relations with Protestant churches such as the Presbyterians. That Anglicans have any other reason for asking such a question is contrary to all evidence from Canon Law, The idea of it as a pressing issue within our churches is a false issue. 

It may be that some of the readers of this will want to provide quotations from famous Anglicans who were willing to admit to the possibility of such ordinations among other churches. To that I say three things. Even if there has been varied opinion among Anglicans it does not change the rules, practice and even doctrine of Anglicanism. The Ordinal gives no room to any but episcopal ordinations. Second, any such quotations ought to be examined only in context and considered in limitation to the immediate reason for what was stated. Third, Anglicans have always understood that a line is to be drawn between validity and efficacy in this regard: We must act according to what is certainly valid, but for ecumanical relationships have no interest in declaring, as Rome does, other ministries to be "absolutely null and utterly void." God is free to work His grace without everything that we are bound to do, as He may will. But, at no time has any Anglican Canon allowed for violating the rule of recognizing, for us, only ministers with episcopal ordination in our churches. To presume that this is unrelated to theology makes no logical sense. 

The Greek word Apostolos (ἀπόστολος) is a very strong word, meaning that one is sent by a person in authority to act, where he is sent, with the authority of the sender himself. This is very important, and has everything to do with the authority Jesus gave to His Apostles. The Apostolic Jurisdiction is the whole world (Matthew 28:18-20). Among those who denounce our polity are voices that say, "there is no direct command from the Lord that gives the episcopal office its historic role and authority." In fact, this is an argument from silence. But, as we shall find from historical fact, we cannot say that the Lord is not the Author of the episcopal office with its specific authority and charisms. Bearing in mind the amount of authority in men called apostles of any ruler, especially Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, to act with the Lord's own authority in a worldwide jurisdiction, remember the following words.

"He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." (Matthew 10:40)

"Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent (apostellō, ἀποστέλλω) me, even so send I you." (John 20:21)

(The second of those verses will be of great significance when we get to the writing of St. Ignatius of Antioch.) For those who question when and where the Lord Himself has spoken, and for noble Bereans who require biblical evidence, I proceed by building on those words of Christ from the Gospels.  

The questions of essence, bene esse, juro divino, etc. should all be answered by the historical evidence concerning what the Apostles did. The Church, instead of asking all sorts of academic questions about what is possible within the limitless sphere of God's direct working, ought to consider that whatever the Apostles taught, however they ordered, and whatever they ruled in their judgment, has been given to the Church as coming from Jesus Christ. We may be sure they were directed by the Holy Spirit. Passing judgment on others or trying to determine if they may have some validity in a wide sphere of unknowable possibilities, and without Roman arrogance and presumption of labeling ministries "absolutely null and utterly void" of God's grace, especially simply because "he followeth not with us," is not our burden to bear. But neither is it legitimate for us to disregard the clear teaching and practice that we trace to the ancient catholic doctors and bishops. Here I will use a phrase that no Anglican has business disputing, but that some have presumed to dispute, Apostolic Succession.

Ironically, the term is quite likely used for the first time in a famous letter by St. Jerome, writing of all bishops the following:

"It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles." (Jerome's Letter to Evangelus)

Ironically, some have taken this letter to be an apologetic for Presbyterianism, and a careless reading with a few lines taken out of the context of the whole, can indeed give that false impression. The preceding sentence is what they quote.

"For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number chosen by themselves and set in a more exalted position, just as an army elects a general, or as deacons appoint one of themselves whom they know to be diligent and call him archdeacon. For what function, excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter?"

Because this paragraph deals with the origin of the episcopate, they argue that it was a creation of presbyters themselves, and they presume contrary to all the historical evidence about ecclesiastical praxis, that this election process was sufficient without any consecration from any bishop. But the quotation never even implies that an election held by the presbytery takes the place of consecration, and the hypothetical question, "For what function, etc.?" proves that Jerome meant to imply no such thing, as is quite obvious. Knowing the practice of the ancient Church, as recorded too many times to dismiss, we must conclude that the presbytery did not presume the power to themselves consecrate their fellow to the office of bishop simply by having elected him. We know from other sources that episcopal elections were quite normal throughout antiquity, but that a bishop elect could not act as a bishop prior to the laying on of hands by at least one other bishop, in time the norm being by three bishops. All the sentence speaks of is the election process itself, and why the office of bishop (ἐπίσκοπος, epískopos) was separated at that time in history from the office of Presbyter  (πρεσβύτερος, presbyteros). 

More importantly, when was this decided? To begin with, the sentence, so often abused and dragged out of context, is not even speaking of the Church beyond Alexandria. Furthermore, it is quite apparent that St. Mark, who, as we see in the Book of Acts, had been a companion of Paul and Barnabas, later with Barnabas and praised by Paul writing to Timothy, the author of the Gospel that bears his name, was alive and well, and present in Alexandria. And in the sentence that follows, Jerome says that all bishops are "successors of the Apostles." For anyone to drag this letter out, and dust it off, as some argument against the historic fact of Apostolic Succession, is indeed ironic and self-defeating.

The logical conclusion is that the Church catholic has gotten it right all along. Though in the earliest days, as is quite evident in the New Testament, the office of presbyter was one and the same as the office called, at the time, bishop (Acts 20:28, Titus 1:5,7),  which is something no one has ever denied, it was after a while the Apostles themselves who separated the office of presbyter from that of the episcopate. It became the rule in their time, and could not have been decided by any others. Indeed, it was the presbyterian office that developed rather than the episcopal office. To the episcopal office alone belongs the power to ordain, and the bishop has authority to command obedience from the presbyters and deacons. 

We come now to a very important figure in history, the martyr St. Ignatius of Antioch. He was the bishop of the Church where disciples were first called Christians, that is Antioch in Syria. On his way to Rome to be martyred in an arena, he wrote several epistles that are included in a collection called The Apostolic Fathers. Ignatius, like Polycarp, learned directly from the Apostles themselves, having learned firsthand from no less of an authoritative source than those whom Christ sent as He Himself had been sent by the Father, the men to whom Jesus had said that they would be guided by the Spirit of Truth into all truth (John 16:13), those in whose doctrine we must remain steadfast. It is of no small significance, therefore, the several things Ignatius wrote in those epistles concerning the office of bishop.

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for you are worthy. You have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. You have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while you endure all things, you shall attain unto Him." (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, chapters 8 and 9)

The words "so that everything that is done may be secure and valid" give Anglicanism its logical basis for insisting on episcopacy, and having always done so as the only Anglican polity ever or anywhere. Recently someone retorted to the very mention of the name of Ignatius, with some quotation by an obscure "scholar," to the effect that Ignatius never said anywhere that the episcopate was established by the Lord. In light of the above quotation (and others like it), and in light of the fact that Jesus sent His Apostles as the Father had sent Him, and in light of the very definition of Apostolos, I cannot take such a "scholarly" objection at all seriously, and neither should you. It is utterly meaningless at best.

I could call further witnesses, such as Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, and later Irenaeus. Frankly, I could call as witness the whole Church catholic in antiquity and the most ancient catholic doctors and bishops. Recognition of presbyteral ordinations for our churches is neither secure nor valid, as it is done without the bishop. So taught the disciple of the Apostles. The Apostolic Succession of bishops, is unquestionable and indisputable.

Finally, it is not sufficient to speak of these things strictly in terms of laws and authority as men understand it. In recent years I see that apostate "churches," especially in America the Episcopal Church, have come to prefer the term "Historic Episcopate" to Apostolic Succession. I believe that this is clearly because the latter carries with it a weight of doctrine that they transgress shamelessly (Acts 2:42, II Timothy 2:2), and also the charismatic power that they have forfeited. They hold a form of godliness, denying the power thereof. From such turn away (II Timothy 3:5). For true believers, understand that we must believe the Apostolic Church, and in saying that realize that God uses the Bishop, when strange doctrines are banished and the truth is taught, and by his charism as bishop, in making the whole Church Apostolic.

Saint Jerome on the Tri-fold ministry

I do not know the identity of this writer who merely uses the initials M.G. (out of humility?), and wouldn't mind knowing it. The article is well worth reading.

Jerome on the Tri-fold Ministry
By MG

In this post I will attempt to address texts in St. Jerome which are alleged to challenge the view of the tri-fold ministry’s origin, structure, and necessity held by Roman, Orthodox, and Anglican Cathlics.  I will argue that Jerome agrees with their view of the ministry.

Charles Gore’s The Church in the Ministry is an excellent piece of apologetic for the tri-fold ministry. Though his biblical arguments are helpful, they are not as great as those of Cirlot’s Apostolic Succession: is it True?. Where Gore really shines is his treatment of the patristic texts that are used against the view of the tri-fold ministry held by Orthodox, Roman, and some Anglican Catholics. On our view, the tri-fold ministry of bishop, presbyter, and deacon is three distinct offices. These offices are Apostolic institutions, and intended to be permanently distinct. Only bishops can actually confer the gift of ministry through the laying-on of hands in ordination.  Call this the first view of the tri-fold ministry.

You may read the rest at this link

Saint Peter June 29

Click on the picture for the link.

The Mushy Thinking of Neo-Anglicans

The Body is broken because of willfulness of its members to innovate, accommodate to culture, and set aside the Received Tradition in favor of a subjective modernist approach to truth. In another, earlier context, Archbishop Haverland spoke of the Neo-Anglicans as being in "the slow lane to modernist mush."

By Alice C. Linsley
Special to VIRTUEONLINE
http://www.virtueonline.org/mushy-thinking-neo-anglicans
June 26, 2016

On June 23, 2016 the College of Bishops of the Anglican Church in North America consented to the election of the Rev Jim Hobby as the next bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh. Fr. Hobby will be yet another bishop married to a woman priest. How many does that make now in the ACNA?

Such bishops are severely compromised on the question of women's ordination. The hope of many Anglicans for a catholic resolution of this issue in the ACNA is further diminished. Perhaps Anglicans who hold to catholicity have hoped for the impossible. Consider what Archbishop Foley Beach said on this issue in August 2014:

"...in our constitution and canons, we have left the issue of women's ordination for each diocese to decide. A lot of people came into the ACNA in good faith that their perspective -- including those who ordain women -- would be protected and guarded. And, people who believe in ordaining women hold their position by conscience and can Biblically argue it, although I disagree with them. This issue is a very important thing to them, and so I think it would create a lot of tension. A lot of the women priests in ACNA have stood side-by-side with a number of our bishops and clergy who are against women's ordination when they were in The Episcopal Church. These women argued for the right of these bishops to have the freedom to not ordain women. Women's ordination is a very complicated issue, because we've got people who have given their heart and soul on each side. And, these people are sincere; they're godly."

No doubt the Hobbys are fine, godly people, but they have set aside catholicity, an essential mark of the Church. That in itself should disqualify them from holding offices in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Sometimes historical perspective is needed to see how we have strayed from the path set before the Church.

No woman ever served in the office of priest until 1944, at which time Florence Li Tim-Oi was ordained by Ronald Hall, Bishop of Victoria, Hong Kong, in response to the crisis among Anglicans in Communist China. She later stepped down from serving as a priest.

In 1976 the Episcopal Church broke the age-old tradition of the all-male priesthood by vote of General Convention. At that time the "irregular" ordinations of the "Philadelphia Eleven" and the "Washington Four" were made regular. The first woman ordained to the priesthood in the United States was Ellen Marie Barrett (January 1977). She was ordained by the Rt. Rev. Paul Moore, Jr., Bishop of New York. Ellen Barrett, a lesbian, had served as Integrity's first co-president. Other lesbians had been among the Philadelphia Eleven.

In the United States, the ordination of women and gay and lesbian "rights" were intertwined from the beginning, so that today it is difficult to treat these as separate issues. Both have been framed as equal rights issues, revealing a profound misrepresentation of the nature of the priesthood, a distortion of Christology, and an abandonment of the Received Tradition.

This misrepresentation of the priest as a "right" contributes to the Anglican identity crisis. Yet it is not the main factor. The main factor is the ease with which the ACNA has set aside catholicity. Consider this truth, spoken by Archbishop Mark Haverland: "We are not Anglicans first and Catholics second. We are members of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church first, and Anglicans second."

In an address delivered to the ACNA in July 2015, Archbishop Haverland made this statement: "The central problem of which I just spoke is a lack of theological clarity and consistency and, to be blunt, catholicity."

The Body is broken because of willfulness of its members to innovate, accommodate to culture, and set aside the Received Tradition in favor of a subjective modernist approach to truth. In another, earlier context, Archbishop Haverland spoke of the Neo-Anglicans as being in "the slow lane to modernist mush."

What is this modernist mush? Fr Jay Scott Newman once described it as follows:

"The primary category mistake of most Anglicans seems to be a refusal to accept the Principle of Non-Contradiction. For example, either sodomy is a grave sin or the foundation of a sacrament, but it can't be both. Or, either it is possible that women have the capacity to receive presbyteral and episcopal ordination or they do not, but it can't be both. Let's forget for a moment the authority of Apostolic Tradition which every Catholic must believe is an intrinsic part of the Gospel (no sola Scriptura for us), when a foundational principle of right reason like Non-Contradiction is routinely denied in practice if not in theory, then the only thing left is raw will to power. Hence the General Convention of the Episcopal Church. Kyrie Eleison."

The continued embrace of women's ordination and the election of bishops who are married to women priests, represents the mushy thinking that allows for "dual integrities" -- an absurdity.

It appears that the space for catholic Anglicans in the ACNA is shrinking daily. Apparently, the welcome extended to people who came into the ACNA in "good faith" that their perspective on women's ordination would be protected and guarded has taken precedent over serious objections and deep theological and biblical considerations. The catholic minded are experiencing dejà vu and getting a picture of TEC redux.

Alice Linsley is a Biblical and Archeology scholar. She resides in Kentucky.

Fifth Sunday after Trinity

Click on the picture for the link to the sermon

Fourth Sunday after Trinity

Romans 8:18-23 * Luke 6:36-41

In his weekly Bulletin Inserts, Fr. Wells once told us about the two possible ways to translate part of today's Epistle:

"The opening verse contains an interesting translation problem. Is it the 'glory which shall be revealed in us' (as our AV and Prayer Book have it) or 'to us' (as many modern translations render it). It is attractive to think of the 'glory' mentioned here to be the wonderful moment when the returning Lord suddenly becomes visible in the skies as He returns to earth. The NT surely promises such an event of glory. But the larger context here, the futility of creation under the curse of thorns and thistles, the wrap-up of history with the redemption of our bodies in the General Resurrection, the believer's special status as 'first-fruits of the Spirit,' compels us to think the old translation is correct. We ourselves will be part of that glorious event when Christ comes again and shares His glory with us."

I agree with Fr. Wells. And, in order to make sense of both today's Epistle reading and of the selection from the Gospel according to St. Luke, we need to see that the glory to be revealed in us when Christ returns to raise us from the dead, will be the perfection of the life already implanted in us by grace. The grace of God has been at work in each of us from the moment of new birth, from the time of baptism.

Everything that the world, the flesh and the devil can throw at you, to overcome you and destroy you, has been thrown, is being thrown or will be thrown. Just as a person arrested by the police is warned, "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law," you may be sure that anything the devil is allowed to throw at you can and will be thrown in the battlefield of your life. It is God who restrains evil so that you may withstand temptation, as St. Paul wrote:

"There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." (I Cor. 10:13)

So, what may be thrown at us is limited to what God Himself allows. This does not mean, as some have paraphrased, "God won't give you more than you can handle." It means, instead, that God watches over each one of us, so that temptation to sin, as thrown at us, cannot be completely overwhelming. The picture that should come to mind is from the first two chapters of Job, where the devil has to ask God's permission as to what he may do to God's servant.

The fact is, God does indeed give us more than we can handle; for the Law of God is weak through the flesh; that is, the Law of God cannot make us good; the commandments themselves cannot transform us. The Scriptures reveal quite emphatically that we, in our weakened condition as sinners, cannot fully and perfectly obey God's commandments. No one ever has, except for one Man, Jesus Christ. You and I cannot make ourselves righteous, good or acceptable in His sight. Neither can we keep ourselves alive.

The kind of sufferings that St. Paul speaks of in today's Epistle surely include the kind that only sincere believers may experience. One chapter earlier he spoke of a special kind of suffering, that of the sincere believer who wants to be righteous:

"For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members." (Rom. 7:15-23)

This kind of suffering is of a nature that some individuals may never understand. It is, if we understand it, the grace of God at work. That may shock you to hear. Is not the grace of God always evident in happy feelings? Does not the grace of God make us "overcomers" and all that? Doesn't the man with real faith look like a perpetual smiley button?

To that I say, show me the person who never feels the pain of his sin, who never feels sorrow from knowledge of his own failure to please God, and I will show you someone in whom the grace of God is not evident at all. Such a person, who can go through life without the pain of conviction, the sense of need for God's forgiveness, a hunger and thirst for righteousness that eludes his own grasp, is in very grave danger. His heart is hardened, his conscience seered by a hot iron, his mind closed to the voice of the Holy Spirit urging repentance.

Such a person also is closed and indifferent to the needs of other people, and therefore is in danger of being one of the goats on the king's left hand, to Whom the Lord will say, in the Last day,

"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not...Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me." (Matt. 25:31ff)

If you can hear the Summary of the Law, or the Ten Commandments, week after week, and not be moved to pray, "Lord have mercy upon us"-indeed, "upon me," then you may go through life without "the sufferings of this present time" as Paul experienced them within himself. But, if that seed is not planted within you, the grace of God that moves you to genuine repentance and to genuine love of neighbor as manifested in good works when opportunity arises, how can you hope to know the glory that will be revealed in the children of God? You may find yourself excluded from eternal joy.

Some people think it is a sin to feel any suffering. On the contrary, it is the worst condition of sin when the heart has become so hardened that it cannot suffer. That is, not suffer the reality of conviction and be moved to true repentance. St. Paul's own knowledge of his helpless condition was answered by faith in God's goodness as revealed and manifested already in Jesus Christ, giving him the absolute assurance of faith about eternity. And so he went on to say,

"O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Rom. 7:24-8:4)

To walk after the Spirit is described in our Book of Common Prayer as "hearty repentance and true faith." In modern English we would say "sincere repentance (or, from the heart) and true faith."

We look for the grace of God in this life, that fruit of the Spirit that shows His working in each of us. Our true hope, however, is not in this life, for this life will end for each one of us. If all we wanted or needed was simply "to be better people," as some perceive of a thing they call "religion," or to be "all that we can be" as the old U.S. Army advertisement put it, our lot would be one of utter futility. We would never be free from sin and death, even if we did become all that we can be.

Our hope is not in anything so fantastic or so shallow. This life will end in death. Even at its very lowest, the mortality rate is one hundred percent. Making sense of suffering, or pretending that there is no futility, or vanity as today's Epistle reading puts it, is not the Christian hope. It is not the Gospel. Our hope is in Jesus Christ our Lord. He has reconciled us to God, so that the pain of conscience is relieved only by knowing that on his cross He bore away forever the guilt and stain of our sin, and that in rising again on the third day He conquered death for each of us.

The joy of the Christian, in this vain and temporary life, is not that we have no suffering. In fact we have, in addition to the sufferings common to mankind such as, from time to time, loss, sickness, economic troubles and pain, added to the certainty of death, the added suffering of a conscience that feels even the briefest separation, that we make by our own sin, from God's fellowship. The joy of the Christian is that "in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us." (Rom. 8:37) The joy of the Christian is that our hope and faith depend not on ourselves, weak as we are through sin and death, but upon the Lord Jesus Christ who has come and who will come again in glory.

It is, as expressed in today's Epistle: "The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." For, as the same chapter concludes:

"For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Third Sunday after Trinity

Click here.

Second Sunday after Trinity

Click here.

Starvation in Sudan

This information was sent via email. Please do whatever you can.

Dear all,

More from South Sudan: here in Canada, having received the news from Bishop Garang that the famine situation was worse: some 200 or so members of the diocese severely affected by starvation, we were able to send CDN$400 to be collected at Western Union in Nairobi by his wife, Tabitha, who would make the transfer to Aweil, and the Bishop. When she arrived at Western Union, with her passport as ID, the clerk advised that the money had already been collected. So, now we have a claim with Western Union: they say it may take up to 10/12 weeks to resolve: but in the meanwhile, the people starve, and we do not have the funds to send more money right now: can you help? Paypal available at the website http://parishofstbride.webs.com/

In Christ,

David+

First Sunday after Trinity

I John 4:7-21 * Luke 16:19-31

The subject of faith and good works has been very important throughout the history of the Church, and it was especially important during the sixteenth century in the various forms taken by the Reformation. It was no less a burning issue in England than anywhere else. Nonetheless, most people tend to think of Martin Luther when the subject comes up, and his alleged dislike of the Epistle of James.

          In fact, Luther did not call the Epistle of James an “epistle of straw” exactly. Rather he wrote:

"St. John's Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul's Epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and St. Peter's Epistle-these are the books which show to thee Christ, and teach everything that is necessary and blessed for thee to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book of doctrine. Therefore, St. James' Epistle is a perfect straw-epistle compared with them, for it has in it nothing of an evangelic kind." (Preface to the New Testament)

That is, he thought it was of lesser importance.

          Now, I do not think we need dwell on that, for he was not suggesting that anyone should fail to read all of Scripture. Nonetheless, to this day people contend that between St. Paul and St. James a great gulf is set in place, a barrier of disagreement too wide to traverse. So, we need to read carefully the passages in question, always remembering that the invisible hand that authored Scripture was Almighty God, the Holy Spirit opening the eyes and minds of the several writers with the revelation of God’s holy word. Therefore, no genuine contradiction can exist in the doctrine of those writers.

Works of the Law and works of faith         

The most significant passages are the third chapter of Paul’s Epistle to the Church in Rome, and the second chapter of James’ general Epistle. Let us begin with St. Paul.

“Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” (Rom. 3:19-28)

In this passage St. Paul is talking about works of the Law. Writing about our Article X, I said this, which begins by quoting a part of the Article:

“’The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon God.’ 

          “Is this telling us not to prepare ourselves, or not to do good works? Read that way it can provide an excuse for laziness and disobedience to the commandments of God. On the contrary, we would sin by not doing these things. But, even our performance of them, were it the best we possibly could do, could not make us righteous…

            “It would all look completely hopeless if we did not have the second sentence of this brief Article. ’Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will.’

“There we see that word, ‘grace.’ That is the whole difference. However good our good works may be, God’s standard of ‘good’ is too high for even our best efforts. Righteousness by His true and perfect standard exceeds our reach. We cannot achieve it. That is not because His standard is unjust. In fact, it is because His standard is just, in fact perfectly just. This is why no one can understand the doctrine of grace unless and until he understands the reality of human sin.”

It is, as Paul said, “by the law is the knowledge of sin.” That is, in the work of the great Physician of souls, the Law is diagnostic. As St. Paul said to the Galatian Church, “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” (Gal. 3:24)

          It all boils down to the fact that justification is a gift given, not a reward earned. St. John tells us in today’s Epistle, “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” It would be hopeless if not for the grace of God: “But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” (I Cor. 1:30)

          So, when works of the Law are good and commendable it is only by the grace of God in Christ. On their own, works of the Law come up short, failing to meet God’s perfect standard. Works of the Law do not justify. Such good works are not weighed against sins to see which are heavier on the Day of Judgment. They are commanded and must be done; but are not counted or weighed against sins in some eternal ledger. Only the blood of Christ cancels out sin. The Law does not justify, for that is not its purpose.

          But, it appears at first glance that James contradicts Paul.

“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.” (James 2:14-18)     

      

After citing examples from the Old Testament (Abraham & Rahab), James comes right out with the most direct line of all, seeming to contradict Paul: “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” (v.24)

          So, which is right? Is it Paul, who says, “a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law”? or James who says, “by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” Both men are right, both agree, for both were inspired to write their doctrine by the Holy Spirit who guided them in what to say.

          Paul spoke of works of the Law, and James spoke of works of faith. Paul explained that the Law cannot make anyone righteous, but that only faith can justify; and James explained that faith is evident by works. If we find a passage that sums up what both men were saying, in full agreement, it from Paul’s Epistle to the Church in Ephesus:

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” (Eph. 2:8-10)

Paul, again to the Galatians: “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.” (Gal. 5:6) And, to the Corinthians, “And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.” (I Cor. 13:13) “Faith without works is dead, being alone… For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also,” James tells us. This works well with Paul’s doctrine, that faith is accompanied by love. James says that we show faith by our works, and Paul tells us that faith "works by love.”

A true believer, one who has faith in Christ, cannot live in that faith and not be changed by it. The fact that “we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them,” as Paul wrote, simply has to find expression in our lives. Where faith is, a person having been justified already, can be transformed by the Holy Spirit in day to day life.

Love of neighbor

The second great commandment, “thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” comes with that piercing diagnosis. It is the Law. It reveals to each heart its own shortcomings and failure. But, God gives us more grace even still, to live as John teaches us in today’s Epistle reading. We know that God loves us. How do we know that God loves us? Because He gave His Son to be the Propitiation for our sins. And, now we have been given a power to love God because He first loved us. And, because we can love God, we have that power to love our brother also.

The love that springs from a life of true faith, due of course to the Holy Spirit (“The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.” Rom. 5:5), makes good works inevitable and spontaneous. A true believer simply cannot ignore the needs he encounters among people. Works of the Law count for nothing in terms of justification; works of faith, however, are a pleasing fruit of that faith, because that faith works by the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost.

The rich man who ignored the suffering of Lazarus, is lost, finally, because he did not hear the word of God. “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” Had he heard the word of God and believed, could he have left Lazarus out there at his gate? Would not faith have worked by love? If the goats at the King’s left hand (in Matt. 25: 31-46) had the faith of those sheep at His right hand, could they have failed to do for “one of the least of these” His brethren?

The First Sunday after Trinity is very important for reasons I have said before.

“The Summary of the Law with the Two Great Commandments summarizes the Ten Commandments; we have two commandments and two tables. For, in the Ten Commandments we have the first Table, with four commandments about loving God. Then we have the second table, with six commandments about loving your neighbor.

“In the middle of the Church Year we turn to the second table on this day. Up until now we have concentrated on the commandments to love the Lord thy God; now we look at the commandments that tell you, and me, how to ‘love thy neighbor as thyself.’

“Where, in all of that emphasis from Advent through Pentecost, do we concentrate on the commandments that tell us how to love God? It seems that the opposite is true. What we have seen is the proof that God loves us. Exactly so.  This is what St. John tells us in the Epistle reading we have heard today: ‘We love him, because he first loved us.’”

“And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.”