Hooker on the Incarnation, Salvation and the Sacraments

(From the archives, 2009)

The chapters that follow speak of the deepest and most significant mysteries of God revealed in Christ, covering everything to do with the central doctrine of the Incarnation…Hooker has written about the Incarnation as the foundation, the building and completion of our salvation; and by receiving Christ himself, by partaking of the Risen Lord Jesus himself, do we have life.

“As oft as we mention a Sacrament properly understood, (for in the writings of the ancient Fathers all articles which are peculiar to Christian faith, all duties of religion containing that which sense or natural reason cannot of itself discern, are most commonly named Sacraments,) our restraint of the word to some few principal divine ceremonies importeth in every such ceremony two things, the substance of the ceremony itself which is visible, and besides that somewhat else more secret in reference whereunto we conceive that ceremony to be a Sacrament. For we all admire and honour the holy Sacraments, not respecting so much the service which we do unto God in receiving them, as the dignity of that sacred and secret gift which we thereby receive from God. Seeing that Sacraments therefore consist altogether in relation to some such gift or grace supernatural as only God can bestow, how should any but the Church administer those ceremonies as Sacraments which are not thought to be Sacraments by any but by the Church?”

The Beauty of Holiness is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

(Richard Hooker, The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Book V, 50, ii)

Well into his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (of the Church of England), Richard Hooker (1554 - 1600) opens a new chapter with this brief paragraph about the sacraments to launch us into some of the best samples of his writing. The chapters that follow speak of the deepest and most significant mysteries of God revealed in Christ, covering everything to do with the central doctrine of the Incarnation. Much of what follows about the Person of Christ in two natures would later be almost rewritten in modern English by E.L. Mascall 1 to help modern readers comprehend the Unity of Christ’s Person in two full and distinct natures. Mascall and Hooker before him, drew from the Council of Chalcedon to teach the Biblical truth of the Incarnation in language suited for their respective eras.

Frankly, none of the Reformers surpassed Hooker’s achievement in these chapters of Book V, and none of the Fathers wrote anything better in one passage. These chapters of Book V ought to be read and studied, in fact along with Scripture, read, marked, learned and inwardly digested. For example, he summarizes briefly but fully that, while it is true that Deity cannot suffer, and human nature cannot share in Divine glory, yet as Jesus of Nazareth the Person of the Son, who is fully Divine, did suffer, and the same Person receives all glory. In language that is reminiscent equally of St. Anselm and of the Greek Fathers (not to mention St. Paul), Hooker wrote so simply, making theology look easy:

To Christ we ascribe both working of wonders and suffering of pains, we use concerning him speeches as well of humility as of divine glory, but the one we apply unto that nature which he took of the Virgin Mary, the other to that which was in the beginning. (V, 53, i)

If therefore it be demanded what the person of the Son of God hath attained by assuming manhood, surely, the whole sum of all is this, to be as we are truly, really, and naturally man, by means whereof he is made capable of meaner offices than otherwise his person could have admitted, the only gain he thereby purchased for himself was to be capable of loss and detriment for the good of others. (V, 54, iv)

The honour which our flesh hath by being the flesh of the Son of God is in many respects great…Finally, sith God hath deified our nature, though not by turning it into himself, yet by making it his own inseparable habitation, we cannot now conceive how God should without man either exercise divine power, or receive the glory of divine praise. For man is in both an associate of Deity. (V, 54, vi)

Language about the Incarnation must stoop as low as the dust of the earth and soar as high as heaven. Otherwise, the whole point is lost. Christ suffered all detriment and agony that human sin deserved; Christ is glorified with the glory that He shared with the Father before the world was. 2 So too we, taken to the cross receive the forgiveness we need, and taking up the cross follow the Son of Man in reckoning ourselves dead indeed unto sin 3. Human nature that cannot share in the glory of God, nonetheless does share in Divine glory 4 in the Person who is One in two complete natures. Hooker writes of atonement and of theosis (or deification) with relative ease, moving naturally and easily between these two complementary doctrines of Scripture, because he is focused on the greatest revelation we have been given, namely the Incarnation of the Word.

He is able, therefore, to focus on the Incarnation and with it the doctrine of the Trinity, and every doctrine that we need to understand if we are to appreciate the salvation we have been given in Christ, and that to which we look forward. In the dust of the earth, we have been taken to the cross; in Christ’s glory as God, we look ahead to an inheritance we cannot even now perceive except with metaphors and the symbolism of earthly language, knowing that it is all surpassed in what awaits those who attain to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

Sacraments and the Incarnation

What Hooker did, however, was to sandwich this breathtaking writing about the Incarnation, and its glorious effects, between his words about the sacraments. This excellent passage about the Word made flesh was a part of his sacramental theology, showing that he saw no way to explain the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity regarding the sacraments without appreciation for the theology of the sacraments themselves, and the theology of the Incarnation that must be the foundation for a true understanding of what the sacraments are.

So, we must pause a moment to think about a few things. To be practical, some disputes have long been running between people who count the sacraments, and these disputes have been among those who fall into the trap of Nominalism. In Hooker’s own tradition, which in time came to be called Anglicanism, many had taken the Anglican Formularies to mean that only two sacraments exist. And yet the Book of Common Prayer contains a Catechism that provides an explanation (specifically to Article XXV of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England): namely, that two sacraments alone were both established by Christ himself (in the flesh, on earth) and are “generally necessary to salvation.” Whether or not one is an Anglican, it is helpful to understand the idea of sacraments, and how they are recognized, in light of Article XXV itself. Let us look at the opening paragraphs of that Article:

SACRAMENTS ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God’s good will towards us, by the which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in Him.

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.

The first paragraph rules out any suggestion that sacraments are, in Hooker’s terminology, “bare signs.” Reducing them to ineffectual ceremonies that are merely symbolic, or merely acts of obedience (”badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession”), is simply incapable with the clear and obvious meaning. If they had left us with only “certain sure witnesses” we may have room to see the sacraments as less than “generally necessary” and means of grace. But, they did not leave us only with that, but went on to say, “effectual signs of grace and God’s good will towards us, by the which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in Him.” Signs, yes, but effectual. This takes us back to what Hooker wrote in the first quotation above: “Seeing that Sacraments therefore consist altogether in relation to some such gift or grace supernatural as only God can bestow, how should any but the Church administer those ceremonies as Sacraments which are not thought to be Sacraments by any but by the Church?” (Emphasis mine)

Looking at the words of paragraph two in the Article, we must ask, what sets these two sacraments apart? The answer has been given already, and is stated ever so simply. Only these two sacraments have been established by Christ in the Gospel. Of the other five, those sacraments that are not “generally necessary to salvation,” and some of which are not meant for everybody (e.g., marriage and orders), the New Covenant has empowered them with deeper and richer meaning; but everyone of those five are in the Old Testament, beginning with marriage during the time of Man’s innocency. 6 Moses gave the Hebrews laws for the ordination of the Levitical priests, and did himself ordain Joshua prefiguring Apostolic Succession. 7 When Samuel anointed David, the shepherd boy and future king was filled with the Holy Spirit and began to be a prophet, prefiguring Confirmation. 8 Absolution belonged to the Levitical priests who heard confession and made atonement. 9 It was prefigured also by the Prophet Nathan. 10 Healing is a constant theme in the Old Testament, with Levitical priests who cleansed the lepers by washing, sacrifice and anointing (leaving after Baptism nothing for the Church to follow except the anointing and prayer), 11 as well as the miracles of Elijah and Elisha.

But, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper were established as new sacraments by Christ himself on earth. Although Baptism came from the Ritual baths by which an Israelite was cleansed from impurities of uncleanness, in the New Testament it is truly a new thing in that it is not only cleansing, but life giving. Although the Lord’s Supper is prefigured in the Covenant meal, 12 as well as the eating of sacrifices, it is truly new in that it is life giving, 13 and it is the Communion not with a dead sacrifice, but with the Body and Blood of the Risen Christ. Therefore, it fulfills the meaning of all sacrifices and also the Presence of God (or Shekinah) in the temple, these having been types.

So, the Article continues:

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

I have been criticized for my understanding of the simple phrase “commonly called.” To modern ears it can come across as a negation: “This is what people have said.” But the phrase was understood as an affirmation, and this we see from its usage throughout titles in editions of the Bible (e.g. The First book of Samuel, Commonly called The first Book of the Kings), the 1549 Book of Common Prayer (THE SUPPER OF THE LORDE AND THE HOLY COMMUNION, COMMONLY CALLED THE MASSE), or the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (The Nativity of our Lord, or the Birth-day of Christ, Commonly called Christmas-Day). That this phrase, “commonly called” should be seen as an affirmation in all these usages, but as a negation only in Article XXV, is simply absurd. Nonetheless, here we have Hooker as our witness, that such a phrase would have been understood only as affirming rather than negating: “...for in the writings of the ancient Fathers all articles which are peculiar to Christian faith, all duties of religion containing that which sense or natural reason cannot of itself discern, are most commonly named Sacraments.”(Emphasis mine)

That these five are sacraments, but not sacraments of the Gospel, is not difficult, therefore, to understand. Neither is it a problem that “they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.” The Church may administer them with ceremonies that are established lawfully from Right Reason. 14 But, in Baptism we have been given a ceremony that Christ himself established, if only by commanding the use of a Form: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” 15 Also, though the Church was given the Right Reason to establish valid Forms, the Supper of the Lord was established to be carried out with at least as much ceremony as Christ himself used, by blessing the bread and the Cup, by breaking the bread, and by giving it to his disciples as his Body and Blood. “...this do in remembrance of me...this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” 16 What is this that we do? The bread is blessed and broken, then it must be taken and eaten with appreciation of what it has become by the word of God. The cup is blessed, and then we must drink from it, mindful of what the word of God has made it. And, as Cranmer and Hooker both emphasized, unless and until the bread is eaten, and unless and until the cup is received, the ceremony is incomplete, Christ having established at least these minimum standards of words and action as a ceremony with Form, Matter and Intention.

Other phrases from the confusing (to modern readers) third paragraph of Article XXV are easily explained. For example, “a corrupt following of the Apostles” does not mean corruption in a moral sense, but in the sense of a corrupted manuscript, mistranslated or suffering deletions. What except for “a corrupt following of the Apostles” could have turned the Anointing for Healing into Extreme Unction (i.e. “Extreme” meaning not to be used until one is about to die)? Yes, the Bible, in the Epistle of James, provides a basis for anointing the dying, in that the sacrament carries with it the grace of Absolution, and in that the greatest healing will be the resurrection of the dead on the Last Day. “Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders (πρεσβύτερος) of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.” 17 Nonetheless, by what other than “a corrupt following of the Apostles” did this sacrament become reserved only for the dying, and with only death as the expected outcome? Added to this idea was ridiculous and burdensome Canon Law, requiring the one who was anointed, should he live and recover against expectation, to be a lifelong celibate- even if he were twenty-five years of age, and had become sick on his wedding night.

When the Preface to the Ordinal stated the Church’s Intention to continue Three Orders of Ministry, it corrected a “corrupt following of the Apostles” by which Holy Orders had corruptly grown beyond the three that were “from the Apostle’s times,” namely Bishops, Priests and Deacons. The Preface to the Ordinal restored Catholic Truth in this matter, and the Church of Rome has followed our example. Before this, the Holy Orders were seen as embracing subdeacons, exorcists, and in some places, even acolytes (these may rightly exist ceremonially for practical reasons, but ought not to be confused with the Holy Orders).

Of course “states of life allowed in the Scriptures” is quite obviously referring to the choice between the sacrament of Matrimony or a life of celibacy, whether temporary when someone hopes to marry, or permanent if one chooses, as Queen Elizabeth did, to remain a consecrated virgin, as well as consecrated celibate widows and widowers (the only states of life allowed in the scriptures).

Reception

But, having all of this now clarified, what matters most in Article XXV from the Cranmerian position of Hooker, is what follows:

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, have they a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

It is the use, that is the reception, of the sacraments, that matters most in Anglican theology, as it restored the true Faith of, in the words of Queen Elizabeth I, the “earliest bishops and Catholic fathers.” And this is why Hooker builds his sacramental theology only on the foundation of the Incarnation. The great emphasis in sacramental theology is drawn out of the Bible. From earliest times, the Church began to see these seven specific mysteries as having in them certain shared properties. All were revealed by God. All involved human action that made use of Matter with Form and Intention. All seven had predictable results because of God’s promises. All impart grace, even if only the gift of a state of sanctified married life as part of God’s creation of human nature. 18

The sanctification of these material and earthly things, not only good through creation, 19 but holy through Christ’s own taking of a physical body (inasmuch as He made human nature forever one with his eternal, uncreated Divine Person), provides the necessary condition for God to use earthly things as vehicles of heavenly things, as nothing less than means of Divine grace. Sanctification of our natural lives, our salvation from sin and death, and even the hope of sharing Divine glory with the Risen Christ, are all written now into the very creation itself by the Word made flesh. God both takes back His creation from disorder and evil and gives us eternal life as partakers of the Divine Nature. 20

Hooker has written about the Incarnation as the foundation, the building and completion of our salvation; and by receiving Christ himself, by partaking of the Risen Lord Jesus himself, do we have life. This is where receiving, “using,” the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are glorious indeed, as he gives himself to us as our Jesus- that is, our Salvation.

The Beauty of Holiness is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Hooker on the Incarnation, Salvation and the Sacraments

1. E.L. Mascall, Whatever Happened to the Human Mind? London: SPCK, (1980)
2. John 17:5
3. Romans 6:11. For purposes of this essay note the connection to the sacrament of Baptism.
4. II Peter 1:4
5. Briefly summarized, John 3: 1-17 and Romans 6:1ff, reveal Baptism as generally necessary to salvation, as John chapter 6 shows the sacrament of the Communion of Christ’s Body and Blood as generally necessary to salvation. Both are life giving. Titles for essays on this may be discerned easily among those found here. To understand what this does not mean, this essay at this link is helpful.
6. Gen. 2:21-25. See “Grace and Sacraments” part I.
7. Deut. 34:9, John 20:21-23, I Tim. 5:22, II Tim. 1:6; 2:2, Titus 1:5
8. I Sam. 16:13, Acts 8:14f
9. Lev. 1:4, and all of chapter 4.
10. II Sam. 12:13
11. Lev. 14:17-19 in context.
12. Exodus 24
13. John 6:43ff
14. To understand this phrase, Right Reason, see the essay at this link.
15. Matt. 28:19
16. I Cor. 11:23ff
17. James 5:14, 15
18. Explained in “Grace and Sacraments” part I.
19. Gen. 1 teaches the goodness of creation in no uncertain terms.

20. 2 Peter 1:4

Faking a Bundle

on Lucrative Careers & Pseudo-Biblical Scholarship

(First published in 

Touchstone, A Journal of Mere Christianity 

in December. 2008)

It was the late 1970s. Collars, lapels, and ties were wide; Jimmy Carter was President; double-knit was still ugly because it was still visible; and I was a young college student unable as yet to grow a decent beard. With a certain amount of naiveté, I sat in my first ever philosophy class.

The instructor (not a professor) lectured on the basics of philosophy before making the most flawed statement I have ever heard: “Then there is the whole idea of matter as something that is evil, which is what we see in Christian teaching.” Never before had I encountered professional and highly refined nonsense (which, I later came to see, is a hallmark of academia when it sinks into higher illiteracy). The punch line, by the way, is that this same instructor taught comparative religion.

This was my first real encounter with the problem of the uninformed informer, whether a journalist or an educator. In the academic world, the uninformed informer presents a special kind of problem, one that is compounded when commercial interests are added. This is especially true when an entire career has been built on a shocking, challenging, and revisionist thesis, authenticated by book sales or television specials rather than by scholarly rigor.

Pesher Ploy

Take, for example, the Australian writer Barbara Thiering, author of Jesus the Man, who earned a Ph.D. from Sydney University and lectured there on Semitic studies until her retirement. Her academic career was based on her reputed expertise on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Yet even Geza Vermes, no champion of traditional Christianity, wrote about her work:

Professor Barbara Thiering’s reinterpretation of the New Testament, in which the married, divorced, and remarried Jesus, father of four, becomes the “Wicked Priest” of the Dead Sea Scrolls, has made no impact on learned opinion. Scroll scholars and New Testament experts alike have found the basis of the new theory, Thiering’s use of the so-called “pesher technique”, without substance.

What is the “pesher technique?” Basically, it’s the theory that the New Testament can be understood correctly only when it is first translated from Greek into Hebrew, and then subjected to the code of interpretation used by the Essenes of Qumran. It is this method that supposedly unlocks the real meaning of the New Testament.

What might be the weaknesses of this thesis? For one thing, we would have to accept Thiering’s unique dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is about fifty years earlier than what is generally accepted. We would also have to assume that Thiering’s own translation of the Greek into Hebrew was exactly, word for word, what the apostles and other New Testament writers had intended.

There are other technical and scientific objections, but also problems evident to common sense. For example, we know that the books of the New Testament were written mostly for Gentile converts to Christianity. These Gentiles, living in such places as Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Berea, Thessalonica, the regions of the Galatians, and so on, not only were ignorant of Hebrew; they would never have heard of the Essenes. Nonetheless, we are supposed to believe that, in order to understand the Epistles and Gospels written specifically for their instruction, they would have needed a special—dare I say Gnostic?—knowledge of the Essene Hebrew code and how to unlock it.

Thiering would also have us believe that the apostles courted the death of martyrdom for reasons that had nothing to do with actual faith in anything supernatural, such as Christ’s Resurrection. For her pesher method "proves" that the apostles did not really believe in miracles at all, not even the Resurrection they proclaimed at the peril of their lives. And their converts, unless they knew Hebrew and the Gnostic method, could not begin to grasp the real meaning of all the things the apostles wrote and sent to them—sent, I might add, in times of official persecution to the death. It seems like a pointlessly dangerous effort when you think about it.

---

Nonetheless, Thiering’s work was given enough serious consideration for her to build a career upon: employment for many years by the University of Sydney, sales of her book, and even a documentary expounding her ideas. The latter, produced by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and called Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls, was later shown on the Discovery Channel and sold (at the time) as a VHS tape. The promotion for the documentary called her work a challenge to the faith that every Christian needs to take seriously.

Pagels Sells a Lie

Thiering is hardly the only misinformed informer on Christianity; this kind of thing has become all too common. The Da Vinci Code, while not produced in a quasi-academic manner, is a related phenomenon, but a more relevant example is that of Elaine Pagels, whose life work and commercial success have stemmed from her claim to have discovered suppressed Christian writings, as she describes in her book Beyond Belief:

When I entered the Harvard doctoral program, I was astonished to hear from the other students that Professors Helmut Koester and George MacRae, who taught the early history of Christianity, had file cabinets filled with “gospels” and “apocrypha” written during the first centuries. . . . When my fellow students and I investigated these sources we found that they revealed diversity within the Christian movement that later, “official” versions of Christian history had suppressed so effectively that only now, in the Harvard graduate school, did we hear about them.

The trouble is, the “suppression” she writes about never occurred, and no one needed to explore file cabinets in Harvard to find these Gnostic works. One need only to have read some of the fathers of the Church, or to have taken any standard course in church history, in which Gnostic movements have always been part of the subject matter. In fact, without all of that attention from Christians, those writings would have, no doubt, been completely lost to history.

But Pagels’s claim of suppression is necessary for her to sell her product. Therefore, the elaborate tale was created. It is a cornerstone of her career to present the Church as having tried to silence the very texts that it, alone, preserved (simply for the sake of teaching its own history). Pagels has simply invented a lie, or fiction if you prefer, which she repeats twice in Beyond Belief:

But in [A.D.] 367 Athanasius, the zealous bishop of Alexandria—an admirer of Irenaeus—issued an Easter letter in which he demanded that Egyptian monks destroy all writings, except for those he specifically listed as “acceptable,” even “canonical.” . . . But someone—perhaps monks at the monastery of St. Pachomius—gathered dozens of the books Athanasius wanted to burn, removed them from the monastery library, sealed them in a heavy, six-foot jar, and intending to hide them, buried them on a nearby hillside near Nag Hammadi.

The only problem with this story is that it never happened. Athanasius did write the Easter Letter of 367, to be sure, but it contained none of the things that Pagels claimed it did.

Book-&-TV Deals

Sensationalism and junk science about Jesus Christ have increased in recent years in the related marketplaces of books and television. For example, in 2006, The Judas Gospel was sensationalized as both a book and as a television special on the National Geographic channel. The English translation of the book has since been discredited, as it became apparent that Judas had been inaccurately described as a “spirit” or a “god” where a proper translation would have called him a “demon.” But if the book and TV special were to achieve commercial success, it was necessary to recast the traitor into a loyal disciple. It sold better.

Not to be outdone by National Geographic, the Discovery Channel produced a heavily publicized special called The Lost Tomb of Jesus for broadcast at Easter time in 2007. Directed by Simcha Jacobovici, who has gone on to work for the History Channel as The Naked Archaeologist (just a name for the show), and produced by Titanic director James Cameron, this “feature documentary” was advertised as making the case that “the 2,000-year-old ‘Tomb of the Ten Ossuaries’ belonged to the family of Jesus of Nazareth” and as revealing “new evidence that throws light on Jesus’ relationship with Mary Magdalene.”

In fact, the “discovery” of the tomb had taken place many years earlier, in 1980. The “evidence” amounted to nothing more than a collection of very ordinary names among Jews of the period, such as would be listed in most families. The methods of genuine science were not allowed to interfere, as Michael Medved pointed out in USA Today in March 2007:

Nearly all prominent Israeli archaeologists reject [Jacobovici’s] reasoning. Amos Kloner, who conducted the original excavation, has denounced the project as sloppy, exploitative and irresponsible. Joe Zias, who was the curator at Jerusalem’s Rockefeller Museum for 25 years and personally numbered the now controversial bone boxes, has said this of Jacobovici: “He’s pimping off the Bible. . . . Projects like these make a mockery of the archeological profession.”

(It may be worth pointing out that Medved and the two archaeologists he quoted are Jewish, not Christians with a personal ax to grind.)

There was also a book, The Jesus Family Tomb (co-authored by Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino), to go along with the TV special, and even an article in Newsweek on the subject. Medved noted that this was not coincidental: “Could this sudden flurry of interest possibly relate to the upcoming Easter holiday?”

Exorcism Time

The need today is to exorcise the TV producers and booksellers from some of the academic hideouts that have been providing a basis for their popular credibility and aiding their commercial success. It is not enough to criticize their methods after the fact, or to hold them in disdain behind the scenes.

I look back on that philosophy instructor who taught comparative religion, and feel sorry for her that she missed the bus. If only she had worked to commercialize her crazy idea, it might well have paid off and put her in fat city. Real scholars would have unloaded their scorn and derision in properly objective words, but she could have cried all the way to the bank.

And, even though I was very young, I think I gave a good answer in that classroom all those years ago. “That’s not Christian teaching.” The instructor replied, “Defend that statement.” I replied that Genesis teaches that all of God’s creation is “very good,” that the Church has always believed in the holiness of sacraments that involved such matter as water, oil, bread, and wine, and that, above all, “the Word was made flesh.”

She was visibly annoyed, and continued her lecture with, “As I was saying. . . .”

In the years since I wrote this for Touchstone, the samples of pseudo-academic nonsense have continued to be produced; but their nature is essentially the same, so from reading this, you get the basic idea.

UPDATE

In February of 2025 I retired as the Rector of Saint Benedict's Anglican Catholic Church in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. I had served that parish for sixteen years as the longest serving rector in its history. Throughout the years we had many Requiem Masses and Burials, filling the Memorial Garden from one end to the other. But we also were always welcoming new members, and for the average Sunday Masses the attendance was, over the years, about thirty-five. I say, average. I believe my successor, as a younger man with his own young children, is probably enjoying higher numbers on average, or so it appears whenever I take a peek. I certainly hope so. What was happening to me was that my arthritis and asthma kept becoming worse. I would be unrealistic about it and deny the fact that it was getting worse. The best place for me to reside, based on my experience in 2005 and 2006, is the desert, because what seems to have aggravated both conditions is a lot of humidity. 

Back we came, my wife and one grown son (who is disabled), and also our dog, to the Valley of the Sun, Phoenix Arizona. To employ a term we asthmatics are known to use, I would wake up "with an elephant on my chest" two or three times a week. The whole time I served in North Carolina, as my condition continued to decline, God spared me the agony of ever having "an elephant on my chest" on a Sunday morning. But I was beginning always to feel weak and worn out, including Sundays despite the emotional "bump." Whereas some people have special allergies to this desert here in Arizona, for me it is perfect. Here I almost never need an inhaler, and have now gone months without needing to use one (a need that was expensive when I lived with humidity. Insurance companies seem to suffer from the delusion that breathing is optional, in fact a luxury). My arthritic knees are still making me handicapped, so much so that I shop for groceries riding in one of those indoor electric "golf cart-like things," and walk with a cane. But it hurts less than when I am in a humid place. 

But the most important priority to Diane and me is that we are in God's will, which means being in the local church community where He directs us. To my mind there was no competition: There is no parish I would rather be part of than Christ Anglican Church in Carefree, Arizona, and no Rector with whom I would rather find myself than Canon Steven Dart. We go back over twenty-one years to when I lived here before in Fountain Hills, Arizona. I can fill in and serve as a priest as needed, but without the full responsibilities of being a rector and doing all the things that a rector has to do. With a lighter workload, and with lungs that practically never struggle to breathe under the weight of an "elephant on the chest," this is about as good as it gets. And, yes, it means that I am now serving as a priest in the Anglican Province of Christ the King (APCK) under Bishop Peter Hansen. Archbishop Mark Haverland of the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC) was completely approving and supportive of me returning to, as he put it, "A church with which we are in full communion." 

WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR ME

As a full-time priest, I was never able to set aside a large enough "nest egg" for retirement.  As many of you appear to appreciate, I am writing a lot, having time now to do so. It seems that what I can teach is edifying and helpful. I appreciate the readers I have, all of you. In addition to this blog (which was founded by Albion Land in 2005, and which quickly became seen by everybody as my blog), I have started a publication on Substack. After prayerful consideration I have chosen to name it The Beauty of Holiness, a phrase that seems to really cry out "Anglican Liturgy!" I would ask you to consider supporting this ministry of teaching, mostly of writing, by subscribing to The Beauty of Holiness for $5.10 a month (about the smallest subscription price Substack allows). I do not believe that we are supposed to "peddle the word of God," (2 Corinthians 2:17), so I put nothing behind a paywall. It is all free to read. With, however, enough subscriptions as contributions to a useful ministry of orthodox teaching, I can give my wife the life she deserves in our old age after serving alongside of me (especially in the ministry of my regularly celebrating Mass in a nursing home for eleven of those years; something I am now doing here in Phoenix also with her help). You will find a link to The Beauty of Holiness here.  If you do subscribe, thank you, and may God bless you either way.

The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with us all evermore.