Betrayed

After a period of thirty-three years, going back to The Affirmation of St. Louis in 1977, the Continuing Church has had its ups and downs. It has suffered infighting, civil wars and secessions, and various other divisions. Most of the divisions have been about personalities because of men suffering from "purple fever" who wanted power.1 The only division from those days that I see as based on principle was that of Bishop Doren early on, because he believed that the Continuing Church had been hijacked by one party of Anglicans, the Anglo-Catholics, and he could not agree.2

Nonetheless, after several years and much cleansing, it is clear that the Concordat between Bishop Doren's descendants, namely the United Episcopal Church North America (UECNA) with the Anglican Province of Christ the King (APCK) and the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC), is a concordat between Anglicans of like Faith who are determined to work out whatever details are necessary. A new respect for Classic Anglicanism, one that makes room for all who adhere to The Affirmation of St. Louis, including all who like their worship either High, Low or Mid (or Mid-High, or Mid-Low) has been developing in part, we like to think, because of The Continuum. We are finding a kind of unity that even the old Anglican Communion could not produce in its best days. The other big house on the block, however, the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) has no interest in unity with Continuing Anglicans.

We have traced TAC Romeward roaming for quite some time, especially since their various official organs gave a terribly misinformed spin to Anglicanorum Coetibus even before it was released, and for the first several months after its publication. Now, however, the bishops of the American branch of the TAC, the Anglican Church in America (ACA) are faced with a very divided response among the people they had thought, until recently, they could simply herd into Roman Catholicism. Meanwhile, in England the TAC faces its biggest obstruction as coming from the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) itself.

No wonder the present track of that blog we call The Former Anglican (known by the misnomer, The Anglo-Catholic) is concentrating on the choice to be made between the Church of England and Rome. News about the recent General Synod, and the inevitable consecration of women "bishops" to lady it over the people, have produced only those two options. The posted articles treat the solution for C of E Anglicans, of catholic conviction, as Roman Catholicism through the --as of yet unformed-- ordinariates. The idea of suggesting that the Continuing Church, based on The Affirmation of St. Louis, offers a solution worthy at least of consideration, has not been brought up at all. If the TAC considers itself to be, in any way whatsoever, a Continuing Anglican Church body, and if the Orlando blog pretends that it holds to the "Anglo" in its misnomer, then this absolute Rome or bust! line is a betrayal, spurning the "spirit of St. Louis" and the spirit of '77.

What it tells us is simply this: To those Anglicanorum Coetibus enthusiasts The Affirmation of St. Louis, with all of the doctrinal standards of the Book of Common Prayer, is dead and ready to be buried. In place of Anglicanism they hold to what they have called Anglican Patrimony, which, by their definition, is a far cry from the real thing. Boiled down to its actual ingredients, what they term Anglican Patrimony is nothing more than Elizabethan English and classier music than most RCC parishes have at present. The substance is missing.

This false choice, as laid out for the English Anglicans, is tantamount to saying that catholic minded Anglicans in the United States have only two real choices: The modern Episcopal "Church," or the RCC. Indeed, if one strips away the veneer, that is what the ACA bishops were saying only a few months ago, though more delicately phrased, slightly. But, they found that their people will not suffer such betrayal of their principles so easily (and we hope, finally, not at all).

Of course, what else could we have expected from a church body led by clergy whose education, for the most part, has been little more than brainwashing? They reject everything truly Anglican, but speak of "Anglican Patrimony"-- you know, all the thees and thous and a few beseeches (garsh! if that ain't real Anglican with all them pretty soundin' words)--and pretend that Rome, by accepting that, and maybe even preserving it, is saving our heritage (so, what would we need Shakespeare for?). What they do not get is that any actual substance from real Anglican Patrimony is unwelcome in Rome.

And, what about the clergy whose "education" has been a program of brainwashing? These are the kind who have taken a razor blade to the Book of Common Prayer and have removed the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, mainly because they cannot understand the foreign language, English, in which they were written; and, indeed, really, they cannot understand it. Now, the Stand-firmers and other Reasserters have sort of done the same thing, only from the opposite perspective. For, what they have done is to remove the Articles so as to transform them into a stand alone feature, removed from the genuinely Catholic context of the Book of Common Prayer, so that their meaning may be perverted and twisted to the furthest degree of misinformed imagination. The Reasserters, have never removed them physically by cutting them out; but, they have removed them mentally, to stand alone, where they may be converted into nothing more than a Reformed document in the Zwinglian sense.

But, the brainwashed clergy, of whom I speak, are a purely modern (or post modern, if you must) new breed of so-called Anglo-Catholics, who know the Articles no better than the Reasserters do, and actually see them the same way (that is, as Zwinglian). They have been taught the following equation, drummed into their heads until they spew it back as their own conviction:

Anglican + Protestant = bad.

The brainwashing is designed to convince them of the following Universal "Truths" that are somehow quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est, even though they were unknown to anybody until the mid to late Twentieth Century. Supposedly, they form the basis for the Oxford Movement, even though the great Anglo-Catholic writers, from the Oxford Movement on, may be quoted in abundance to refute them-- oh the joys of Doctrinal Development.

1. All things "Catholic" are defined strictly by Ultramontane Papists.

With the help of this thinking, one need not study the Bible nor the Church Fathers. Carefully selected and provided sample quotations will suffice. One may pretend that the great Anglican thinkers (including Cranmer) never proved to be the fine Patristic Scholars that, in fact, their writings prove them to have been.

2. The highest duty of a priest is to celebrate according to all the most minute details of Ritual Notes.

Forget worship in spirit and in truth, compared to this much much higher priority. Forget pastoral duties too. It's all about correctly stepping in time in the keenest duds, a performance like Broadway never saw. Boy, won't they be the envy of RC parishes every which where!

3. Our Anglican Fathers were heretics who somehow gave us a splendid liturgy, fully valid, and their patrimony is still, somehow, a great treasure for the whole Church Catholic, despite their obvious and embarrassing heresies.

Never mind that a tree must bear its own fruit. Never mind taking the time to read the great early Anglican writers. Rome says they were heretics, and bothering to read all that olde English is too much work anyway.

4. It's a priest's duty to deliver whimpy, effeminate seven-minute homilies instead of preaching with power and conviction.

Contrary to this idea, I quote a great man whom I remember as a fine example for all Christian clergy: “How much more our words would burn as we preach . . . if, before preaching, we prayed for five minutes to the Holy Spirit for Pentecostal fire; if we kept the scriptures ever near us, that we might gird ourselves with their truth when mounting the pulpit.” Those words were written by Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen 3-for all you youngsters who don't know, a dog of a papist but an ok guy anyway.

I could go on with more examples; but, methinks you have the idea. Is it any wonder that the principles of The Affirmation of St. Louis have been betrayed? With clergy like that, who needs detractors?
___________________________

1. However, most of the divisions that followed the 1978 Denver Consecrations were among those who already had divided from what emerged as the major jurisdictions, and so their never ending strife should not surprise us, nor its rippling effects as they part from each other, treating division as the cure all for what ails. To be blunt, they just don't count, anymore than breakaway sects ever have counted to the Church. Freedom of Religion guarantees that we will continue to see all sorts of prelates and heirarchs with their own "Continuing Church," perhaps holding services in their own cathedral/garage (cathedral on Sundays), with their whole jurisdiction in attendance: Their bishop, Molly and he and baby makes three, along with Spot the family dog, and one or two very elderly folks who drive from out of town every once in a while, constitute the whole church. It is not fair to lump these in with the Continuing Church, as Anglicans Online does. Before Anglicanorum Coetibus came out, when I still entertained hope for unity that included the TAC, I wrote an essay that you may find by clicking here. It balances out the facts.

2. I am not taking a stand on this one way or the other. I say it was, I am told, his perspective.

3. Fulton J. Sheen, The Priest Is Not His Own, San Fransisco Ignatius Press, republished in 2005 (originally 1961).

Sixth Sunday after Trinity

The Epistle. Rom. vi. 3-11
The Gospel. St. Matt. v. 20-26

In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis said that anyone who likes the Sermon on the Mount would like being hit in the face with ball peen hammer. If you thought the whole sermon was simply those opening Beatitudes, then Lewis' remark can't make sense to you. If you have read all three chapters that record this sermon, however, that is Matthew chapters 5,6 & 7, you know exactly what C.S. Lewis meant. Frankly, the Sermon on the Mount is not there for you to like, in the emotional sense of liking a thing. If it moves you to fear of God, to an honest evaluation of your own soul, and repentance from all known sin, then you understand it.

The Beatitudes, beginning with "Blessed are the poor in spirit" and going on from there, were somewhat repeated by the Lord on another occasion we call the Sermon on the Plain, recorded in the sixth chapter of Luke. In that sermon, Jesus patterned His words after the Blessings and Curses of the Law. To understand that, we need to go back to the days of Moses. We find, in the Law of Moses that is, the Torah, these words:

And it shall come to pass, when the LORD thy God hath brought thee in unto the land whither thou goest to possess it, that thou shalt put the blessing upon mount Gerizim, and the curse upon mount Ebal. Are they not on the other side Jordan, by the way where the sun goeth down, in the land of the Canaanites, which dwell in the champaign over against Gilgal, beside the plains of Moreh? For ye shall pass over Jordan to go in to possess the land which the LORD your God giveth you, and ye shall possess it, and dwell therein. (Deut. 11:29-31)

These shall stand upon mount Gerizim to bless the people, when ye are come over Jordan; Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Joseph, and Benjamin: And these shall stand upon mount Ebal to curse; Reuben, Gad, and Asher, and Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali. (Deut. 27:12,13)

The blessings were pronounced on those who would obey God, and the curses on those who would rebel against God. Centuries later, Jesus Christ in his role as the Prophet like unto Moses, (Deut. 18:15f) spoke first the Blessings, or Beatitudes. In place of the curses, he spoke words of severe warning, the Woes. All of that makes sense to me, as one who has studied the Bible seriously for decades. The New Covenant Lawgiver following the pattern, as clearly he does in Luke, is easy to understand. But, as I observe the Sermon on the Mount, recorded by St. Matthew, at first it seems to be missing the Woes. The pattern of the Blessings on Mount Gerizim and the Curses on Mount Ebal, more perfectly revealed as the Beatitudes and the Woes, does not appear in Matthew, for the Woes are missing-or, are they?

I think it is wise to see the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew as beginning with the Blessings, the Beatitudes, and then the bulk of what remains throughout chapters 5,6 & 7 constitute a large text full of the Woes. The Sermon on the Mount stands as a sharp rebuke to sin. It is the most terrifying passage in all of the Bible, the long text in which Jesus Christ tells us of the consequences of unrepentant sin, the penalty that everyone of us deserves, mentioning at times the danger of Hell. In the Sermon on the Mount, furthermore, He makes it clear just how high God's standard of holiness really is, and how utterly helpless we are to meet it. After all, who has never lusted? Who has never been unreasonably angry? Who has never spoken an unkind word? Based on the Sermon on the Mount, I know for a fact that I have earned only one penalty: Eternal damnation, that is, Hell.

Hell, in the original Greek New Testament, is the word Gehenna, a simplified form of the Hebrew for the Valley of ben Hinnom. The Valley of ben Hinnom was the place where backslidden Israelites had offered their own children to Moloch (or Baal-the same false god). By the time of Jesus it had been the national dump for hundreds of years. The fires that never go out, the worm that never dies, or never seems to die because worms are always there eating the garbage, reinforced the image brought on by the name of the place, Gehenna, that it was the dump. The warning against the fires of Hell is a warning that unrepentant sinners face being thrown away, burned as trash is burned. It is a warning against the danger of being cast out forever.

And, the opening of today's Gospel reading, taken from this very Sermon on the Mount, makes our hopes sound all the more elusive: "Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." And, just in case anyone may begin to measure his own righteousness against that of those very religious, upstanding Orthodox Jewish people called the Pharisees, Jesus crushes our self-confidence: "I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." I don't know about you; but, that alone does it for me. I look back on my life, if not the last week or day, and see no way to hold up my head as more righteous than anybody.

Why would our Lord begin his preaching by utterly devastating us? He has, in this sermon, judged and found us guilty, for His very word has judged each one of us. We are all convicted as sinners. If ever we despised our own Prayer of Humble Access, we can do so no longer. For, I know of one man who reacted to the words, "we are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy table" with an angry protest: "Indeed, we are worthy!" he said. But, when I read the Sermon on the Mount, I know that, as St. Paul said, "in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing," and that I most certainly am not worthy to gather those crumbs that fall from the Master's table.

The Sermon on the Mount gives us, however, one ray of hope. Significantly, and crucially, that one ray of hope lies outside of each of us. In fact, that hope is found only in God.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Matt.5:44-48)

How can a commandment to be perfect offer hope? Hasn't Jesus made it even worse for us? But, look closely at this perfection of our Heavenly Father: "Love your enemies" He says. Why? The answer is, "That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye?...Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." This perfection he speaks of is the perfection of love, specifically the love we call charity (caritas, agape-I Cor. 13). Jesus shows us, even while diagnosing to us our mortal illness of Original Sin, and our own helplessness, that God loves even His enemies. Frankly, being the sinners that we are, Jesus means that the Father loves you and me, and does good to us.

Of course, the whole point of Christ's coming, as we know from the larger picture of his ministry and teaching, and most of all from his death on the cross and his resurrection, is the love of God to save those of us who, born in sin, were His enemies from the start. As St. Paul would put it, "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom. 5:8) Today's Epistle lets us know that God has done for us what we never could do for ourselves. We could never attain a level of righteousness that pleases Him; but Christ could and did. We have been baptized into Christ, we have died to sin, and entered a new life by being, simply put, "in Christ."

So, we learn two things: 1) Christ has paid in full (John 19:30 τελέω ) the price of all human sin, the price of your sin and mine, and 2) God sees us in Christ. The old prayers of the Psalmist come to life for us: "Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed;" (Psalm 84:9) and, "turn not away the face of thine anointed." (Psalm 132:10) The face of His anointed, that is His Messiah or Christ, is our shield. Because we are in Christ, and because the Father will not turn away the face of His Christ (anointed), He accepts us, "To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." (Eph. 1:6) We ought to be the objects of wrath, but in Christ, as God has willed in eternity, we are the objects of mercy and love.

At the Bible Study Wednesday evening, we talked a bit about the baptism of John the Baptist. When John's baptism to repentance was taking place, sinners repented and were forgiven. But, one Man stepped into the water not to lay down his sins, for he had none. He stepped into the River Jordan to pick up the sins of all repentant sinners everywhere: And so, about Him and Him alone, the Father said "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased." The Father is not well-pleased with any other human being, for no man was found worthy, in heaven or in earth, to break the seals and open the book, except the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Lion who appeared as a Lamb that had been slain (Rev. 5). God's only begotten Son, incarnate as a man, alone pleased the Father, and that Son, alone of all mankind, paid the penalty and full price for the rest of us.

But, to see this takes humility. Our Book of Common Prayer does not flatter us, and does not lie to us. Some people have decided that religion is a self-help program. Be warned; if your idea of the Christian life is some sort of self-improvement program, you are in grave danger of missing the whole point. Unless and until you see yourself as hopeless without God's perfection of love and mercy; unless and until you see yourself as unworthy to eat the crumbs that fall from His table, thus rejecting any illusion about some righteousness of your own; unless and until you see that only Christ has pleased the Father, and that you have not, this whole liturgy we call Holy Communion, and the whole message we call the Gospel, is entirely closed to your understanding.

The words of this service were written to affirm the truth of the Bible, that each one of us needs that love and mercy of God revealed in Christ, that is extended to us because we are in Christ, because we could not save ourselves. This service was written to give each of us a way to confess and pray that truth, saying it to God with gratitude. Let us then offer Eucharist, that is, good thanksgiving, the offering that is sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
__________

If you had any doubt that baptism is new birth, today's Epistle reading clears it up. Spiritually, your life began when you were raised from the death of sin by new birth in Christ. St. Paul's words are not metaphorical; he does not speak of baptism making us dead to sin and alive to God in some allegorical way, using poetic license to mean something else. He means this as a spiritual reality, a fact, beyond our comprehension but in our experience. Only through faith can we become aware of the newness of life in Christ. Some people, after baptism, may resist knowing this new life in Christ, becoming aware of it only after a specific point in time. Others may refuse ever to know it, living as nominal Christians, or walking away completely, but, either way, shutting out the light of Christ. But, the fact of your new birth in baptism is an objective one; some believe that a later conversion was new birth, because the experience was so real. In fact, what awakened in them was faith, adding a subjective cognizance to the objective fact of having been baptized into Christ.

"GAY" ROMAN CATHOLIC SEMINARIES

On his blog, Anglican Catholic Priest, Fr. John Roddy has written:

"In the interest of full disclosure to Anglicans considering accepting the terms of conversion to Roman Catholicism outlined in Anglicorum Coeitibus I am posting excerpts and links to two articles one from News Week and another from Ignatius Press. The one in News Week is approving of the capture of the Roman Seminaries by organized leftists homosexuals. The one from Ignatius Press is an account from a young man who endured the "gay" atmosphere that was imposed on the seminary."

You may read the information posted as "GAY" ROMAN CATHOLIC SEMINARIES by clicking on the title.

Fr. Wells' bulletin inserts

TRINITY VI

In Romans 6:3--11, our first reading today, Paul was grappling with a hard question which might not be obvious if the passage is read out of context. At Romans 6:1, he brought up an argument his opponents had hurled at him,

"Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?"

In the first five chapters of this monumental epistle (Paul's longest and deepest by far), he had set forth the Gospel of Justification by Faith, God's free pardon of hell-deserving sinners, a pardon totally irrespective of our legal status, rather a pardon grounded exclusively in His mercy and love. Such a Gospel quickly makes nonsense of all conventional religion, now as well as then. No wonder that the rich young ruler went away sorrowful. Not only was he told to sell all that he had, but moreover, all his legal righteousness was worthless in God's sight.

Such a radical Gospel (in sinful ears, downright insulting!) in what Paul termed a "reprobate mind" (a mind corrupted by wickedness) seemed to constitute a temptation in itself. If God is willing to forgive sin freely, then why not continue to sin freely? This is almost like the Prodigal Son who expects his Father to send him a regular allowance, as he continues to reside in the "far country" of depraved living.

As warped as such a viewpoint is, it has an evil sort of logic about it. In ancient times this was known as the Antinomian heresy. In last 20th century this re-emerged under the name of "situation ethics."

Paul refuted this with a two-stage argument. In the first place, we Christians are baptized. This sacrament for Paul makes a real difference in the life of a Christian, a mile-stone which divides our lives into "before" and "after," as surely as the Incarnation divided all time into "before Christ" and "in the year of our Lord." It is illogical for a person to live after Baptism as he lived before it. Baptism in the New Testament was so radical a change that it was the sign of regeneration---new birth into a new life and new life-style.

Secondly, Baptism is the sign, the beginning, and the down-payment of our resurrection. Did you notice that part of today's Epistle is quoted in the Easter Canticle? "Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more..." Paul clinches his argument, however, in these words: "As Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." The Resurrection itself is therefore the ultimate argument for moral living! Christians cannot continue to live comfortably with sin. We have a risen Saviour who shares His resurrection life with us. Death has no dominion over Him and sin has no more dominion over us. LKW

***

If one asks the average church-goer, "What is your favorite Scripture passage," the answer will be either the 23rd Psalm or the Sermon on the Mount. The second answer will be somewhat fuzzy. Many people imagine that the Sermon on the Mount consists only of a few verses at the beginning of Matthew 5 commonly called the Beatitudes, beginning "Blessed are the poor in spirit." The Sermon on the Mount actually is a much longer passage in St. Matthew's Gospel, consisting of chapters 5, 6 and 7 in their entirety.

Today's Gospel lesson (Matt. 5:20--26) is a small portion of the whole discourse. (It hardly seems small when we begin to chew on it!) As the the Prayer Book gives it to us, this reading combines the final verse of one section with the opening verses of the next. This was no mistake, but an artful way of showing the link between two thought units.

Our reading begins with a striking text which makes us uncomfortable: "Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." This is truly scarey: Our blessed Lord Himself is clearly talking about the real possibility of being excluded, shut out, eternally lost. His demand here seems overwhelming. The scribes and Pharisees, whatever their faults may have been, were truly righteous people, at least as the word is used here.

They fasted twice in the week. Are we asked to fast three times or more? They gave tithes of all that they had. Does Jesus require 15 or 20%? This is one of those texts known as a "hard saying," since it is hard to understand and once understood even harder to live with.

The following verses clear things up somewhat. It is not the quantity of our righteousness but its quality. As impressive as the old righteousness was (and God forbid that we ever belittle a kind of righteousness which Jesus praised), it was all based on "how much is really required of me? how little can I get by with?" The new Gospel righteousness which Jesus demands is a righteousness proportional to God's love and mercy exhibited in the Cross. Jesus Himself went on to say, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt 5:48). As the old Gospel hymn states it, "I gave my life for thee; what hast thou given for me?"

Not that this new righteousness is a price we must pay; not that we buy our way into the kingdom with any righteousness of our own! As the Beatitudes should have taught us, the kingdom is purely God's gift. As one commentator as written, "Entrance into the kingdom is God's gift; but to belong to the kingdom means to follow Jesus' teaching." LKW

Francis Hall Dogmatic Theology

For those interested in reading a work by one of the foremost Anglo-Catholic theologians of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, all ten volumes of Francis Hall's Dogmatic Theology are available online here.

Symptomatic

Writing for the mis-named blog, The Anglo-Catholic (known here as The Former Anglican blog), a Pastoral Provision priest who pastors an "Anglican Use" Roman Catholic parish, Fr. Christopher G. Phillips, the pastor of Our Lady of the Atonement Catholic Church in San Antonio, Texas, has offered an apologetic for his point of view. Oddly enough, the piece is titled, Then. Now. Not Much Difference. I wish I had said that-in fact, I did (but, when I said it, it was, apparently, not very nice).

Fr. Phillips' little piece is symptomatic of the kind of thinking that prevails among those who are "shocked, shocked" that any Anglicans, including those who have been for years committed to The Affirmation of St. Louis, would fail to jump at the opportunity to become Roman Catholics. As such, it is instructive to us of the kind of reasoning that exists among those who are enthusiastic about Anglicanorum Coetibus, and the lack of realism in their logic. About his conversion in 1983, when he led a congregation of Episcopalians and tried to take them into the Roman Catholic Church, Fr. Phillips wrote:

"What was a fairly healthy number of potential converts dwindled down to eighteen people in those last few months before our reception and my ordination. I had no idea there were those in our little group who had been harboring some rather anti-Roman feelings, and when the time drew closer to 'sign on the dotted line,' they bolted, and tried to affect a scorched-earth policy in their wake. It was downright depressing at the time, and when I heard those who stayed behind chortling and saying, 'We told you it would never work,' I had never felt so discouraged."

The line "We told you it would never work," of course, is not relevant. By the low standard of numbers, it may well have worked; what is on the the table now could become large, for all we know, at some future date. Or, not, as the case may be- we shall see. Whether or not anyone "told you so" is hardly worth pointing out. The issues of truth and of principles are what matters, not whether or not something has "worked" by anyone's standards.

Having no firsthand knowledge of his 1983 congregation, I cannot say what constitutes "anti-Roman feelings" from the author's point of view. But, I can say that it does not take anti-Roman feelings, and certainly not feelings of hostility, to prevent individuals from wanting to join the Roman Catholic Church. It can be something as honest as a difference of belief, and therefore a sincere response to the demands of conscience.

The position taken by Fr. Phillips appears to be that the claims of the Roman See have an obvious rightness that only a cold heart could withstand. In fact, the claims of Rome constitute the prosecution, that is, the charge that everyone else is wrong, beginning with the entire body of churches under all the other Patriarchates in 1054, which became known as the Orthodox Church. The prosecution has the burden of proof under our law; and Rome has failed to persuade us of its case. We have reasonable doubts about their claim against everyone else.

It will not suffice, therefore, to categorize dissent from Rome's position as "anti-Roman." We are not persuaded by the case they have made against the rest of us. Why are they anti-Anglican? Why are they anti-Orthodox? Why are they anti-Protestant? It is they who claim to be the One True Church, an obvious statement against the rest of us. In fairness, we point out that Orthodoxy has brought a counter-prosecution against everybody else. This is a great burden that both of the two One True Churches have carried as a basic dogma for centuries. But, we stand with St. Paul: "And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you." (I Cor. 12:21) They have no need of us, they think.

Fr. Phillips wrote this as well, thus revealing some unreality that clouds the minds the Anglicanorum Coetibus enthusiasts:

"To those who recoil at 'becoming Roman Catholics' – for heaven’s sake, why? To be in the same visible Church as are the great saints throughout the ages, as well as such men as Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI is a marvelous blessing!"

How telling it is that he can write "for heaven’s sake, why?" not as a genuine question, but as a hypothetical question. He means, "What? Can there be a serious answer? Why, shouldn't every Anglican jump at the chance to be a Roman Catholic?" Clearly, it has not dawned on Fr. Phillips and company, that his title, "Then. Now. Not much difference" answers what ought to have been, for him, a genuine question. If every Anglican was eager to become a Roman Catholic we would have done so already. Nothing has stood in the way.

After all, anyone who believes the claims of Rome has no choice, and never has. Once a person believes all that stuff, it is no longer about what he likes or dislikes; it is not about Elizabethan English (which they seem to confuse with the substance of our Liturgy), or married clergy. If a person believes Rome is right, but has not joined their big denomination already, such a person obviously has no real interest in obtaining eternal life.

Why? indeed

If only "for heaven’s sake, why?" had been a real question, we could answer it.

We could point out that we cannot accept the papal claims, inasmuch as they are not and never were the clear and obvious meaning of Scripture. If the claims of Rome were so evidently true, Rome would not have been alone, among all the Patriarchates, to have believed its own advertising in 1054. In the Orthodox view, Rome left the Church at that time just as certainly as Monophysite churches (or those so accused) left the Church after the Council of Chalcedon.

Nonetheless, Fr. Phillips confuses the Roman Catholic Church with "the same visible Church [of] the great saints throughout the ages." What a terrible charge to lay on everybody else. The rest of the Church is every bit as visible as they are. And, this Roman claim includes an exclusive claim on all saints who came before 1054, as if they know with certainty that the Apostles and Martyrs of the ancient Church thought of themselves, quite obviously, as loyal papists. This exclusive claim also carries a rejection of a fact we know beyond doubt: There are plenty of saints who did not and do not believe the claims of Rome, very many of whom have died as martyrs.

The answer to Fr. Phillips' "gee, golly, why not?" position has been given in countless theological statements over the last several centuries. We could speak of many writings outside of Anglicanism, such as the Augsburg Confession (which is worth reading for its theological clarity and historical importance). But, let us stick to Anglican statements, for purposes of countering the specific target of his essay.

Fr. Phillips writes as if there were no Thirty-Nine Articles that summarize with clarity the mind of the English Reformers about the Gospel, Articles that free the minds of readers from Medieval corruptions and abuses so that the light of Christ may break through. He writes as if the Caroline Divines had never written a word. He writes as if the Oxford Movement and the Anglo-Catholic contemporaries of J.H. Newman had agreed with his rejection of their portion of the Church, as if they all had joined him. But, they, Pusey and all, remained Anglican.

He writes as if Hall, Dix and Mascall, as friendly to Rome as possible, and very much in agreement on more issues than most other Anglicans ever have been, had followed Newman in his conversion. But, they lived and died Anglicans. Indeed, the so-called Anglican Use Society tries to confuse modern readers about this essential fact: None of them became a Roman Catholic. And, they have tried to add C.S. Lewis to the list of those who somehow meant to, but never got around to, accepting Roman Catholicism. The fact is, they did not join it; they remained Anglican one and all. The Anglican (?) Use Roman Catholics suggest that all of these great Anglican thinkers really wanted to be Roman Catholics, as if anything could have prevented them from "converting" if they ever had meant to do so. In fact, in their writings, each gave his reasons for not becoming Roman Catholic, never stating that any one reason stood out as a single issue.

The reasons we are not interested in joining the Roman Catholic Church have been stated over and over again as matters of doctrinal conviction.

We do not accept their papal claims. We see no reason to regard the Bishop of Rome as possessing Primatial status that gives him Universal authority over all Christians. We find their doctrine of Papal Infallibility to be incoherent at best, and to the degree it possess any coherence, a modern innovation as groundless as the "ordination" of women.

We find their peculiar doctrines of Purgatory and the Treasury of Merits to stand in sharp contrast to the Gospel itself, in which we see that Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man, the one Mediator between God and men, has paid in full (John 19:30 τελέω ) the price of all human sins. Their doctrine contradicts the meaning of those words, which summarize well the revelation of God in Scripture on the issue of Atonement, that describe the work of Jesus Christ as "(...his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world."

We find their position on revelation to contradict the consensus of Antiquity, that the canon of Scripture is both complete and closed, and that it contains all things necessary for salvation. Though they have yet to announce it, Rome recognizes clearly that the only logical defense of their position is Newman's Theory of Doctrinal Development, which contradicts the "Vincentian Canon." In St. Vincent's actual writing this boils down to belief in those things the Church has recognized as having been recorded already in the Bible, about which all true believers agree.

We reject Rome's belief that the Pope has the authority to define new dogmas. In fact, we find the whole idea of new dogma to be absurd and dangerous. It is absurd, because the fallacy of retroactive Apostolic Faith is historical non-sense. It is dangerous because it differs in no real way from "Progressive Revelation," that God may yet reveal essential doctrines never before known to the Church as dogma. It has the potential to turn the Papacy into the ultimate Oracle, as if we had not heard from God through the Apostles and Prophets, as if the Bishop of Rome may rise above the common episcopal role of Defender of the Faith to that of a Buddha.

Loss of moral credibility

Furthermore, it is astonishing that enthusiasts for the Roman position can be insensitive to Rome's tragic loss of credibility. By that I mean its loss of moral credibility. It is obvious that Rome, in protecting its failed experiment of required clerical celibacy, a policy that began in the twelfth century, accepts its unacceptable condition of forcing its faithful members to live with a severe clergy shortage, a shortage all the more tragic for being entirely man-made and unnecessary. It survives by hubris and error.

This tragic clergy shortage has led to the scandal of Roman Catholic bishops hiding clerical predatory sexual abusers of children from law enforcement officials in several countries, hiding them also from the public, and knowingly reassigning them to inflict their destructive abominations on new victims. Because they cannot be replaced with good priests, due to the difficulty imposed by Roman foolishness that results in most of the best men being excluded from ordained ministry, the predators have been protected and allowed to unleash their horrors afresh on innocent victims. This preserves the status quo at the expense of souls for whom Christ gave his life. We see in these men wolves devouring the sheep, not shepherds feeding Christ's lambs. It may be considered bad form to remind anyone of this current state of affairs (now Ireland is learning of the severity of this evil); but, it must be done.

Yes, it may be argued that both the Pastoral Provisions, and their extension by Anglicanorum Coetibus, present something of a solution for the Roman Catholic mess. But, Anglican priests who know their current pastoral responsibilities are not likely to sacrifice the souls under their care simply to patch up a huge wound with a little band aid. Having one life to live for the Lord, the cost of helping Rome heal its self-inflicted gaping wound, is too high. Sadly, the Pastoral Provisions, even as now extended, apply only to convert clergy; as such they are powerless beyond one generation (no matter what the Most Rev. Mr. Hepworth may tell you).

At the very least one could expect, not unreasonably, that those who advertise so loudly for Roman Catholicism would do so with acquired humility. The loss of moral credibility is not the fault of Anglicans, Orthodox and Protestants. Therefore, the person who prosecutes for Rome appears, to the rest of us, to be doubly arbitrary and presumptuous. Who are these dubious fellows who presume to lecture us? How dare they throw stones from within their glass house?

Frankly, the clerical child abuse scandal says quite a lot about Rome's competence to exercise its alleged Universal Primacy. If such a doctrine be true and revealed by God, then we would have to question His wisdom and justice in a manner that would be both honest and morally justified. Really, would He require us to subject ourselves to a system so incapable (if not unwilling) of protecting even our very children from its own ravening wolves? How can we believe that the Lord our God, the Shepherd of our souls, the One who said "suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me" would require all of us everywhere to hand them over to such a convoluted system?

Theoretical and legalistic muddying of the water, such as "Papal Infallibility is only about doctrine, not discipline," is no answer. St. Peter's discernment when facing Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) sets a true standard of Apostolic authority that makes a lie of all such delicate and intricate, if not tortured, logic. If the Bishop of Rome is sitting in Peter's chair, where is Peter's prophetic insight concerning individuals with whom he associates? Where is Peter's simple moral clarity?

Are these hard questions? Will I be accused of harboring anti-Roman feelings? Will I have to put up with more Bulverism about "hate" or "anger" instead of sincere and honest discussion? I am sorry to have to inform some of you Roman Enthusiasts, that this is not the time for silly essays that posit absurd hypothetical questions such as that put forth by Fr. Phillips. "For heavens sake, why?" he posits. He may be "shocked, shocked," to hear the answer.

The Vincentian Canon and Holy Tradition

Recent discussions on our weblog have led me to realise that some clarifications regarding what the Church's understanding of the authority of Tradition does and does not entail, and regarding church history, might be helpful.

Appeal to the Vincentian Canon, to what has been believed “everywhere, always and by all” within the Church, is a more subtle idea than commonly understood. The appeal to the whole Church's consensus across time does not mean an appeal to any theological opinion enjoying what we might call a simple majority, for example. Nor does it require acceptance of beliefs outside the area of Faith and Morals, no matter how common they have been. It does not even involve acceptance of very common opinions which intersect doctrinal concerns but which are or were held as normal assumptions rather than posited as truths necessary to be held. The apparent consensus of only a brief period is likewise excluded.

So what is included in Holy Tradition (HT henceforth) and considered to satisfy the Vincentian Canon (VC henceforth)? Doctrines defined as dogma by recognised Ecumenical Councils or their equivalent (e.g., local conciliar decisions which are ratified by an Ecumenical Council or otherwise universally treated as correct and authoritative) are the obvious component. However, also included are doctrines held and taught as part of the Faith by an overwhelming majority or virtually universal consensus of Catholic bishops (and accepted by the laity faithful to them) over a long period of time, even if not defined as dogma at a universal level.

It does not matter too much whether certain doctrines are more implicit than verbally explicit for a time, as long as the substance is there throughout. Nor does it matter if a regionalised or temporarily widespread defection from HT can be found. A regional schism based on rejection of an otherwise virtually universal teaching simply characterises that schism as heretical. Too, if something satisfies the VC at one point, it cannot fail to do so later just because a significant number of Christians start to reject it. A very small sample of patristic teaching inconsistent with the consensus does not overthrow it.

It is important to note at this point that this is not an idiosyncratic classification of my own. It is the standard approach. It may be found in Anglican works such as Hall's Dogmatic Theology (e.g., Vol. II, Ch. viii) or Palmer's On the Church (Pt IV, Ch. vi), as well as in Roman Catholic sources (where scholastic terminology differentiates between what is de fide and what is sententia communis theologorum, for example). Eastern Orthodox thinking is very similar.

Now, the standard Catholic position, whether Anglican, Roman or Orthodox, is that Holy Tradition (note the capitals: merely human, ecclesiastical customs are excluded) is infallible. That is, the Church's genuine doctrinal consensus cannot be erroneous or lead Christ's flock astray. However, even here it is accepted that verbalisations may need improvement to give a more complete or balanced view over time.

Three challenges to this thesis have been put by respected contributors to this weblog recently, although none involves outright rejection of the VC or the infallibility of dogma, it should be said. First, there is the claim that counterfactuals exist to this infallibility, that is, truly consensual doctrines of the past now known to be false. Second, there is the claim that the consensus of Holy Tradition (HT henceforth) is infallible only insofar as it can be shown to rest on Scriptural evidence, with the corollary inference by many that HT must be used in a filtered form, with what is considered by the person making the act of faith to be unscriptural being rejected. Third, there is the claim that the VC can often become a useless or simply tautological criterion (especially once the aforementioned filter is taken into account) and that therefore the HT it supposedly identifies is an overly vague concept without definite content that just forces us back to Scripture.

Taking the first challenge, the purported counterfactuals, we find that the following have been proposed: Ptolemaic Cosmology as theologically significant, 24 hr/6 day literalism in the interpretation of Genesis, and support for the moral probity of torturing heretics, Jews and witches for the sake of the defence of the Faith, so to speak. The last two are most easily dealt with, because the supposed universal ancient consensus does not exist.

Most of the earliest Church Fathers condemned the use of force by Christians outright, and even most of the later Fathers who accepted some use of force by Christians rejected the idea that it should be used to compel or kill unbelievers or heretics (e.g., St Ambrose), and we can even find outright papal condemnation of the use of torture (in 866 by St Nicholas I). Early Canon Law forbade clergy even to strike unbelievers or heretics, and threatened them with deposition for this. When the teaching changed, it did so in the West in mediaeval times, due partly to some unfortunate statements of St Augustine extrapolated beyond their original context and partly to the desire of Popes for Ceasar-like powers. While it is true that Church officials often fell short of their ancient teaching as they were compromised by alliances with the civil powers, there was never a universal, East-West consensus as to the legitimacy of the kind of violence seen in the various Western Inquisitions. While the alliance between the Empire and Church produced legislation that subjected certain heretics to severe financial and legal disadvantages, these did not include violent suppression, and the freedom of assembly for heretics and Jews was backed up by the threat of capital punishment for those who disturbed such voluntary assemblies. The Western Church's Law regarding how those opposed in some way to the Catholic Faith were to be treated had to be changed to allow the abuses of the Inquisitions. (On the Eastern side we have instead the mediaeval example of a godly king, St Vladimir, who after his conversion abolished both the use of torture and execution even by the state! And we have just had his feast: July 5th.)

It is also interesting to note that early teaching on witches warned against superstitious acceptance of the supposed powers of witches and showed no paranoid desire to persecute them by burning or execution. In fact, Canon Law threatened excommunication for believing in the reality of the powers of witchcraft! The Council of Frankfurt in 794 prescribed the death penalty for those burning supposed witches. This early tradition was more mocking than fearful. That changed in the later middle ages, and the fatal detour accelerated with the mediaeval publication of the text Malleus maleficarum, which gave credence to the powers of witchcraft and identified witches as a mortal danger needing a violent response.

As for the literal, “24/6” interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis, dissent from this is found in men like Origen, St Augustine and St Aquinas. In other words, the three most influential minds in the history of the Church! Here again, we have a non-existent consensus.

Speaking of Augustine, it was he who advised biblical exegetes not to over-dogmatise on the interpretation of Scripture when this intersected with questions of the physical nature of the universe. He recommended they use some humility and pay attention to the scientific consensus, though that exact term was not yet invented. Now, it was the scientific consensus of the era of the Fathers that Ptolemaic (geocentric) theories were correct and the theories of Aristarchus (which were heliocentric) implausible. This was not the result of mere ignorance. For example, if Aristarchus was right, pre-Copernican astronomers understood that there should be a parallax “movement” of the nearer stars compared to the background stars as the Earth moved around the Sun. No such parallax was observed. The reason for this, we now know, was that the parallax was real but too small to be observed with the naked eye, requiring a telescope. Yes, exegesis of certain biblical passages also had an influence for many, but this was a post facto “demonstration” of the harmony of the Bible with accepted science, not imposing the Bible on the natural philosophers. More importantly, the Ptolemaic cosmology was not generally or normally part of catechesis or doctrinal teaching properly speaking, it was simply assumed and, at certain points, appropriated. In these circumstances, if one can not find a widespread ancient tradition in the Fathers of condemning the views of Aristarchus as objectively heretical, it is false to claim that the Church had a consensus of dogmatic geocentricism.

The second challenge to the definitive authority of HT is to accept it but with a significant qualification: whatever the VC and HT direct Christians to believe must be accepted as long as it is also founded on the Divine Revelation of Scripture. The difficulty with this challenge is that it is true but potentially misleading as it stands. This qualification is not what it appears, since it is the teaching of Scripture as interpreted by the Fathers that the Church Universal will never impose anything as “of Faith” on its members that is contrary to or not founded in the Divine Revelation. Therefore, the qualification is true, but “trivially” so, as mathematicians would put it. Consider, as an analogy, the following theological statement. "The Church only remains the Body of Christ so long as Jesus retains his human nature, since it is in his incarnate state that he is the Bridegroom who unites with himself the Church as his Body." It is strictly true, but not worth saying, since we know that Jesus' humanity is unending. Similarly, this qualification is not practically helpful, as the set of teachings which would satisfy the VC and HT, but is not Scriptural, is a null set necessarily. This means that the qualification, though trivially true, must never be used by any Catholic Christian to reject any part of HT on the grounds that he or she does not see that that part is Scriptural. To deny this statement is to deny the essence of Catholic epistemology and to open up the door to every heresy, since many heresies have made exactly such a claim sincerely, that is, claimed that a particular doctrine is un- or anti-Scriptural, no matter the consistency of consensus. We cannot coherently make the Church Universal the final judge of what is the correct interpretation of Scripture, but reserve to individuals or isolated particular churches the right to judge whether or not the Church was being Scriptural in this determination.

Now for the third challenge. Does the VC, understood correctly, succeed in identifying the HT in practice? That is, does it reveal the HT in such a way as, not merely to repeat Scripture, but to elucidate it in ways not accessible to superficial reading or private judgement and to provide a clear set of Catholic teachings which either must be affirmed or, in some cases, at least may not be denied? The following doctrines may all be found as satisfying the VC properly understood. The doctrines of the Trinity, Incarnation and Atonement contained in the Creeds and defined by Ecumenical Councils; the divine inspiration of Scripture and the necessity to follow HT in interpreting it; the necessity to the Catholic Church of the threefold ministry of Bishop, Priest and Deacon; the benefit of prayers for the dead in Christ; the benefit and reality of prayers by the dead in Christ for those living and the legitimacy of asking for those prayers; the validity of Christian art and cautious reverence for icons; the immaculacy and heavenly repose of Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary; the teaching that the Bread and Wine become (and do not merely signify or contain) respectively the true Body and Blood of Our Lord in an ineffable, spiritual but real manner; the teaching that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice for quick and dead, drawing upon the One Propitiation of the Cross; and the nature of all of the commonly identified “seven sacraments” as divinely appointed means of grace. Given that one can find solid support for them in official Roman Catholic sources, anti-Pelagian Conciliar decrees and in the Eastern Fathers, I would add the soteriological truths 1 to 12 I identified here as well. This is very much a non-trivial list, and is not exhaustive. It is this HT which the Affirmation of St Louis and the Constitution and Canons of the ACC commit members of that Church to unreservedly. Were we to fall back at all as a corporate body from this affirmation, we would thus cease to be a Catholic jurisdiction. I trust that will never happen.

While we must always be cautious to avoid overdogmatising and must carefully distinguish between traditions and the Tradition, let us never lose our trust in God's promises to his One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church or pit ourselves against her manifest mind and heart. Let us never neglect to listen to the Church (Matthew 18:17). She is, without doubt, the “pillar and ground of the truth”, against whom “the gates of Hell shall not prevail”, “the fulness of Him who fills all in all” and the Body to whom Christ has corporately given the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who guides us into all truth (1 Timothy 3:15, Matthew 16:18, Ephesians 1:23, 1 John 2:27, John 16:13). Thanks be to God.

Notes for two recent sermons

Trinity 5 2010

“Launch out into the deep”+

Let’s face it, being in the shallows is safe and secure when going for a swim or “messing about with boats”, to quote Wind in the Willows. But you don’t feel you’ve really gone for a swim or had an adventure on the water, until you’ve moved away from the predictability and ease of the shore. Think of the beach. If you want to catch and ride a wave properly you have to get out to where its breaking. Now, in the meantime, you are fighting the flow, diving under walls of water and occasionally getting dumped and thrown about: half the fun. There’s a lot to be said for the deep. It can be frightening and overwhelming, but it is, after all, where the challenge, the action and the interest is!

Jesus calls on us to launch out into the deep. Quit playing in the shallows and splashing around aimlessly or fearfully. Push boldly forward and with purpose into the depths of God and Church and community.

St Paul talks about the depths of the love of Christ in Ephesians 3. And the phrase “love of Christ” could mean the love Christ has for each of us or his love in us reaching back to God and out to mankind.

And so the first deep into which we must launch is God and his love for us. We must “Seek the Lord and his strength: seek his face evermore” as it says in Psalm 105. This requires much prayer and meditation on the Scriptures and other Christian literature. Christianity is not a once-a-week time commitment. To grow in the knowledge and love of God requires effort. But the joys you will experience in this search are more than worth it. And you will be strengthened, as the Psalm I quoted indicated. This spiritual empowering then allows us to move into the next two depths, which I will discuss in a moment.

God is not a hobby. He is not an interesting ingredient we need to spice up our lives or make them “balanced”. He is God. He is the Infinite, whose wisdom, power and love are an unfathomable abyss, and whose mighty acts on our behalf have included loving us to death. He is the One who challenges us in the Gospel to seek the one thing necessary (Luke 10:42), communion with Him. He is our Lord, and He has called on us to to follow Him not as fearful slaves or fairweather tourists, but as beloved friends. And so our relationship with him must be strong. Hence the need for speaking to Him (in worship and prayer), listening to Him (in Scripture and in the Church's teaching and in the inner sanctum of our hearts) and drinking in His presence (especially but by no means exclusively in Communion).

The second deep into which we must launch is the Church. Many Evangelical and Charismatic Protestants are fond of saying that every Christian is a “minister” because every Christian has a ministry, a role in the Church. And they’re right. This is a biblical truth in perfect accordance with the Catholic faith. Let’s act like it is! The two main things every Christian must do for the Church are first, seek to know their specific spiritual gifts and use them, and second, give financial support and time to the Church’s activities. Get deeply involved.

The third depth is the community. Again, we have two prongs. The first is the willingness to take risks and verbally share our faith. Witnessing to our faith may sometimes require understanding of the Faith and the arguments for it, necessitating some study. But it will almost always require forethought about why you personally have come to faith and kept it. Or as St Peter says, “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the  hope that is in you¹”. The second prong is generosity and service to the community, particularly to its poor and needy, but to all worthy causes. (Indeed, its amazing how many community organisations do rely heavily on Church people as volunteers.)

So, let us launch out into the deep, pressing into God’s presence and risking commitment to our brethren and neighbours for Jesus’ sake.

For we can be sure that a life in the shallows is a disappointing life, both to us and to God. But to launch out into the deep at the Lord's command brings joy and peace and bears eternal fruit in both our own souls and the souls of others. +

1The New King James Version. 1996, c1982 . Thomas Nelson: Nashville

Trinity 4 2010

“Can the blind lead the blind?” +

We have here a number of striking and even amusing images here used by Jesus.

[Let us imagine a blind man volunteering to lead another blind man across a busy road, without the second knowing the first is blind to begin with ...]

The point is that he wouldn’t even consider doing something so silly. Jesus is saying that we sometimes do. How? Let us first look at the second image of hypocrisy.

Jesus uses a deliberately absurd image, allowing Jewish hyperbole full play. A man with a splinter in his eye has another with a log in his own offer to help. A log.

Jesus analogy would be like a chainsmoking doctor telling a patient who has the occasional cigar that he must stop this foolishness at once! “Cough, cough, ... [wheezily] What do you mean you have the odd cigar?! Are you crazy? Those things 'll kill you!”

We easily recognise the absurdity of all of this, but our Lord is saying that we can fail to do so when it comes to correcting, or even condemning, others for their moral faults. We can either forget our own faults or, worse still, never even perceive them. Note that in the second image “beam-in-the-eye man” sincerely wants to help. He says, to paraphrase, “Brother, let me remove that splinter for you.” But Jesus says he doesn’t even notice his own problem. Sincerity does not always help, if it’s combined with careless ignorance and self-indulgence.

We know people don’t respond well to hypocrisy. And they will use it as an excuse to ignore even perfectly legitimate criticisms or calls to repentance. However clearly the Church puts the case for traditional sexual morality, for example, unbelievers will often automatically dismiss it all by pointing the finger at high divorce rates among Christians or paedophile priests. So, we have to do everything we can not to undermine the Gospel.

Jesus is not saying we should never correct one another. He says in another place, “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone” (Mt 18.15). What he is saying is this:

1. Examine yourself stringently first, including for the same malady, and keep in mind your weakness to keep you humble when you correct another.

2. Don’t pretend to have all the answers or to be the one who can deliver the other from his fault. Remember, “The disciple is not above his master.” Jesus is the Saviour, not us.

3. Don’t come across as morally superior when you are in fact a forgiven sinner merely trying to bring another sinner to repentance.

4. Finally, make sure that the other person really has sinned or is in moral danger. Our own blindness can make us misunderstand others, over-estimate the gravity of a fault or project our faults onto them. Sometimes it’s better just to forgive or overlook things and keep our mouths shut.

And there is yet another important point to remember. Jesus was telling people how to correct their “brothers”, that is, fellow believers, Christians. Any such fraternal correction or careful criticism has its primary target within the Church.

How, then, are we to make a difference for those outside the Church? In the same sentence I quoted before, where Jesus urges us to humility by reminding us we are not above our master, he says, “every [disciple (or follower)] that is perfect shall be as his master”. In other words, we are to imitate Christ's and the Father's approach to unbelievers, as well as their general character. “Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful”, as today's Gospel said at the beginning. So, what can we do to make a difference to those yet outside the New Covenant? Show compassion, without making excuses for sin, and give an example of holy lives, without which no-one will see the Lord, as the NT tells us (Hebrews 12:14). This will help more than the mere pointing out of unholiness. As I said before, we cannot expect the Gospel message, which does identify and rebuke sin, but also reveals the mercy of God, to be properly heard if we undermine it either by not practising what we preach or by a harsh judgementalism.

It is not our job to accuse or to judge. If we look at the preaching of John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter and Paul, while we see a universal call to repentance based on a universal liability to divine judgement, we do not see much in the way of identifying the specific sins of individuals. Occasionally, a group has its particular crimes identified, as Jesus did with the Scribes and Pharisees at various times and as Peter did with the crowd in Jerusalem not long after they had been complicit in the Messiah's death (Acts 2:23). But these were divinely inspired messages of preachers with special authority. (Even when St John the Baptist gave details of what repentance would mean for particular groups, it was in answer to their request for this advice: Luke 3:10-14.) Mention of individual sin would normally be limited to conversation with the relevant individuals, as I noted before, and, as I also noted, limited to fellow Christians.

All people, on the other hand, are entitled to hear the full Gospel message, which is not Good News unless the bad news is understood first. Salvation is salvation from sin, rescue from slavery to the illusion of self-sufficiency, and from spiritual emptiness, corruption and death. So, we cannot exclude or downplay repentance, or pretend people are not sinners. But it is the Holy Spirit which convicts each person in the world of sin (John 16:9). And our explicit verbal witness to those outside the Church of our faith should be primarily a positive response to their enquiry. Whether we are preachers or not, we should be able to give a defence to anyone who asks us a reason for the hope that is within us, gently and respectfully, as St Peter tells us (1 Peter 3:15). Each Christian should prepare themselves prayerfully for this, and then ask God for opportunities to reveal that hope, that reason. And why would they enquire in the first place? God's leading, or else to ask Him for the opportunities would be useless, but God asks of us a life that attracts questions, that stands out and shines a light in a dark place (Matthew 5:16).

May God grant us the grace to remove the logs from our spiritual eyes, become more like Him as we actively imitate his unconditional love, and the humility to treat other people’s splinters with gentleness. And may he also help us to thus attract the questions and frame the answers that lead people to Him +

Fr. Wells' bulletin inserts

TRINITY V

This Fifth Sunday after Trinity usually comes quite close to St Peter's Day which is an “immovable feast” set on June 29. By a happy coincidence (probably not intended) today's Epistle and Gospel feature St Peter in a special way.

The Gospel relates an incident which occurred early in the acquaintance of Jesus and Peter. Jesus had first met Peter in Capernaum, a fishing town on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. Jesus had been a guest in Peter's home and had healed Peter's wife's mother. Then Jesus left for a preaching mission in Judaea (an episode of which we know only a little).

What happens in the passage from Luke 5 which we read today is that Peter's relationship to Jesus, already a positive and strong friendship, is deepened and established. Surely Peter considered it a great honor to have Jesus in his home or to lend his fishing boat to Jesus as a place to preach. The picture of Jesus preaching from the boat to a multitude on the shore deserves to be one of our most beloved images of the Saviour. But Peter needed to learn more about Jesus.

When Jesus was a guest in Peter's house or in Peter's boat, Peter was surely tempted to feel that he himself was in charge of Jesus, saying, “Sit here,” or “Sit there.” Peter probably felt annoyed or possibly even outraged by the command of Jesus, “Put out into the deep.” It was the wrong time of day for fishing, and the men were surely weary from laboring all night. This was their appointed “quitting time,” the moment when workers cannot be detained without grumbling.

Peter addresses Jesus twice in this passage, the first time to argue and the second time to confess his sins. In the first address Peter uses the term “Master,” a polite but unremarkable term for a teacher or rabbi. But in his second speech, Peter addressed Jesus as “Lord.” Peter has suddenly perceived that Jesus is no ordinary teacher or healer, but is none other than the Lord Himself. In that one word “Lord” is the germ of the Great Confession which is read as the Gospel on St Peter's Day.

But let us be quick to say, merely addressing Jesus by the correct title is not enough. As He Himself said, “Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” Jesus still commands His disciples to take great risks, to do things which defy common sense, to continue our laboring even when we are tired. “Launch out into the deep!” LKW

Sermon

For a sermon on the Fifth Sunday after Trinity click here.

[American] Independence Day, July 4

Deut. 10:17-21
Matt. 5:43-48

This year Independence Day falls on a Sunday, and in the U.S. we have propers for it in the Book of Common Prayer. The idea is to have a service of Holy Communion on this national birthday no matter what day of the week it falls on. I believe that is appropriate, for among other things we can say about the Eucharist, by its emphasis on Christ's sacrificial death, this service is a very real and supernatural way to offer intercession. Prayers of intercession are prayers beseeching the mercy of God on behalf of others; and it is by Christ's once for all offering up of his own life as the full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world, that we have the basis both for asking mercy to be shown to each of us, and for mercy to be granted to those who do not yet know Him.

My family is in the habit of watching the musical 1776 on Independence Day. When it was first released in 1970 (or 1971) some people were shocked and offended because the Founding Fathers were depicted as real human beings with real faults, facing real dangers, and striving at times with each other. They were demythologized, with their own words as recorded in minutes, letters and dispatches, used to create dialogue and song lyrics. The result is that they were not portrayed as gods, but as mere men. The effect of that creates more genuine feeling and a sense of patriotism than the mythologized version that had grown up in popular imagination, and that was in fashion for a long time.

Indeed, they did stand on principal, they did believe they were signing their lives away possibly in a lost cause to take a stand for human liberty. The men who signed the Declaration of Independence expected to be hanged as traitors by the British army. They did pledge their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Some of them lost their fortunes, but none of them lost his honor. Providentially, they survived, and several years later a good number of them, along with a few others, created the greatest legal document in history, the Constitution of the United States.

As a student of history I object to the popular term, the American Revolution; for it was not, properly speaking, a revolution inasmuch as the king and the Parliament were not overthrown. They continued to hold power, but not in America. The war was fought for Independence, to return the former colonies, now states, to the Rule of Law. When we call it a revolution we suggest that it has something in common with the evils of the French Revolution, or the Communist Revolutions; modern bloodbaths and tyrannies. Those revolutions were about destruction, and about forcing untried and unproven methods on unwilling people, and they all resulted in tyranny and went down in flames as failed experiments aimed at the impossible goal of perfecting humanity.

But, the War for American Independence was not about perfecting humanity; it was about simple justice, a thing that cannot exist apart from liberty. After the war, and after years of trying to get by with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution of the United States was written. However, in a sense that was indeed revolutionary, more so than the War for Independence. For what was overthrown by our Constitution was the entire system of dominance and rule by power that had always enslaved mankind everywhere, and that continues to enslave mankind in much of the world.

Europeans think we are a young country. In fact, if we think more clearly, America is the oldest of nations. For, when Europe was still dominated by the childishness of class structures and nobility, belief in a condition of lower classes from which no one could escape, a notion that some people are born better than others, western civilization finally grew up over here. When our civilization finally matured, the result was the Constitution of the United States. So, we may be a young country, but we are also the oldest, the most mature of countries. America is the grown man that learned the lessons of a foolish and largely wasted youth.

Yes, I could go on with sincere praise for our Country, founded on genuine ideals and a genuine morality. I could point out also that we have been given a heritage that is wiser than the driving forces that unleashed terrible consequences on France, Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea and other nations. Those revolutions were not based, as our Constitution is, on an ideal of human liberty, but on ideology that mankind can be perfected in this life. Their ideologies are absurd by nature, and impossible. Our Constitution is down to earth, practical rather than high minded. It was based on a Christian doctrine, namely Original Sin; as such the Constitution restrains the power that individuals in government could so easily inflict on us, violating justice by the exercise of raw power as governments are want to do.

Contrary to that, ideology (not idealism, but ideology) is utterly unrealistic, and cannot, by its nature, achieve good results. Ideology cannot produce justice, but always only injustice. Mankind cannot be perfected by force. No government can create a perfectly just and good society full of enlightened people. But, liberty and justice can exist, however imperfectly, by God's grace and by Rule of Law.

Ideology is obsession with method. Even when the method fails, the ideologue is satisfied because the method is all he can understand. When the experiment fails, the ideologue cannot see it, does not know it, and will not admit it. When any good thing happens without his method, the ideologue cannot see that either, and seeks to destroy the good because he does not have enthusiasm for anything but the method he is committed to, results notwithstanding.

American Law has never been based on ideology, and should not become based on it. Instead, we have a realistic Constitution that works in the real world-that is, when it is followed.

As I said, I could go on with sincere praise for our Country. I can fly a flag and sing patriotic songs with the best of them. But, I have also a duty when standing in the pulpit, to speak prophetically. I think our country has been good and just in many ways, and that Americans want to be just. However, from the start we have had our own national sins.

When I lived in Arizona, in the town of Fountain Hills, a nearby Reservation of the Yavapai-Apache Nation would shoot off fireworks every year in January. I learned why. Shortly after he took office in 1981, President Reagan wrote an Executive Order that overturned a plan to flood the reservation land; this plan had been devised and approved by Congress, so that Phoenix valley businessmen could profit from a local water supply. The plan had been in the works all during the 1970s. But, the new President, that Washington outsider Ronald Reagan, would have none of it; he decided it was time, finally, to honor U.S. treaties with the Indian nations. Not until 1981 did our government actually honor those treaties as a matter of policy. That was quite a long wait.

This country allowed slavery, mistreated the aboriginal peoples we call the Indians, and today allows abortion on demand, which is simply a form of murder. Last year we learned that forty percent of American children are born out of wedlock. We have people trying to overthrow the institution of marriage, destroying the very meaning of the word. Always, there has been sin and injustice, a simple fact that cannot be undone by either ideology or by valid and true ideals.

A true love of our country does not allow us to look the other way. True love of country compels Christians, as it did Bishop Henry Benjamin Whipple in the nineteenth century, first Episcopal Bishop of Minnesota, to pray and work for the highest ideals of Christian morality and for the implementation of that justice and liberty our Constitution is supposed to protect. It compels such endeavors, not merely on behalf of our own interests, not merely on behalf of the interests of our own kind, but on behalf of those who are in need, such as the Dakota, Chippewa and others to whom Bishop Whipple took the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and for whom he was an advocate by speaking to the highest officers in the United States Government, including such men as President Lincoln.

I would say that the people most unprotected, most helpless, without voice and without recognition of their God-given Constitutional rights, are children in the womb scheduled to be murdered by abortion.

In that light, I say that our country has no hope except in God. Each of you should be praying every day for those in government, for those who minister in the Church, and for all sorts and conditions of men (see I Tim. 2, cp. the Daily Morning and Evening Prayer offices). Whether or not you like the President, you must pray for him. He is a mere man, and his job is a heavy burden I would not want to bear; for every word of criticism, you had better have two words of prayer. You must pray for all in both houses of Congress, and in the government of this state. You must pray for the bishops and other clergy of the Church who are God's spokesmen to you and to the Church, and you must pray for all those who are in need, especially those in need of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who need the light to break through to their lives, who are not here with us, but should be and can be.

Hear the words of St. Paul:

"I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (I Tim. 2:1-5)

Our liberties that were won in the War for Independence are a great heritage. The Constitution that was later drafted and ratified is also a great gift that has been extended to you. Our potential is great, but so are the spiritual and moral dangers we face. If you love this nation, if you have the kind of patriotism that is deeper than flag waving and emotional songs can stimulate, the kind of patriotism that a Christian ought to have, I urge you now and every day to pray. Be an intercessor, and lift up your voice to God for His mercy on this nation and for a great outpouring of the Holy Spirit that we cannot produce, that the hearts of this people be turned to God by repentance and faith. Pray with faith, that God wills it.

News from the UECNA

The United Episcopal Church of North America is not as well known as it should be, but is one of the three "St Louis Churches" that represent the mainstream of the Anglican Continuum in the USA. It was founded in 1981 by the Right Rev. C. D. Dale Doren, who was the first of the four bishops consecrated at Denver in January 1978. At that time apparently irreconcilable differences had grown up over how the Affirmation of St Louis was to be interpreted. The United Episcopal Church of North America came into being to represent the "minimalist" interpretation of the Affirmation. In short, the new Continuing Church was the old Protestant Episcopal Church without the heresy and goofiness. To this end, the UECNA adopted, with very little adaption, the 1958 PECUSA Constitution and Canons as its administrative standard, and required a specific undertaking to abide by the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion from its clergy.

From three parishes at its founding, the UECNA grew to some forty parishes by 1991/2 under the leadership of first Archbishop Doren and then Archbishop Albion Knight. Sadly, UECNA then declined during the long illness of the Most Rev. John Gramley (III Archbishop, UECNA) to the point where only seven parishes were represented at the 1996 General Convention. The present Archbishop, the Most Rev. Stephen Reber had to practically rebuild the UECNA from scratch during his first eight years as Archbishop growing the jurisdiction to twenty-seven parishes.

Now it has to be admitted that the sixteen months between January 2008 and April 2009 were stormy for the UECNA. Firstly, the then suffragan bishop decided to leave to take control of a diocese in another continuing church. Subsequently, we lost a number of parishes when we were "raided" by a bishop and several clergy who decided that their future lay elsewhere. However, as you may have deduced from the potted history above, the UECNA is a survivor, so it was time to once again pick ourselves up, dust off, and start again.

In November last year, Archbishop Reber, the present writer, and the National Council reorganised the jurisdiction. The old structure with an Archbishop and one or more regional suffragan(s) has been replaced. The church is now organised as three Missionary Dioceses - East, South & Ozarks, and West - each with its own Ordinary. This basic aim has been to make the UECNA's structure more responsive to the needs of local congregations. Bishops have now been consecrated for the South & Ozarks, and to succeed Archbishop Reber as Ordinary in the East.

On April 24th, at the consecration of the Rt. Rev. Glen Hartley as Bishop of the Missionary District of the South & Ozarks, Archbishop Reber announced that the Right Rev. Peter D. Robinson would be succeeding him Archbishop upon his retirement in September. On 26th June 2010, when the Ven. Joseph Dobson was consecrated as Bishop-coadjutor of the Missionary District of the East. For the first time in the history of the UECNA, all three of the consecrating bishops were from the UECNA.

In the past year, two congregations have joined the UECNA from other jurisdictions and two new congregations have been founded. The UECNA is planning more missions in areas not yet served by Continuing Anglicanism. We remain committed to mission and evangelism and the continuation of the old Episcopal Church tradition. UECNA is also working on closer relations not just with the ACC, but also with the APCK with whom we already "share" clergy.

The United Episcopal Church is optimistic about its future and about the future of Classical Anglicanism. Unlike those doomsters who say, because of the rampant revisionism of western theology, that the Elizabeth Settlement has failed, the UECNA firmly believes that the Reformed Catholicism of the English Reformation is of continuing importance. We retain our commitment to the sort of "Central Churchmanship" Anglicanism that balances of the Reformed and Catholic traditions on the basis of the 1559 and 1662 Settlements, whilst being open to churchmen from both the Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic schools of thought. To walk away from that broad inheritance in favour of either Rome or Geneva would permanently impoverish not just Continuing Anglicanism, but Christendom as a whole.