Eschatology Kooks

Watch out for the “End times Bible prophecy” people. They connect dots that should not be connected. Their interpretation of scripture is ridiculous. This current war (and it is a war) has nothing to do with “fulfilling Bible prophecy.“ And their focus on some need to rebuild the temple is nonsense. What we learn from the Epistle to the Hebrews is that it doesn’t matter whether the temple is ever rebuilt or not. The Epistle was obviously written to the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem to warn them to leave the city, because the Roman army was coming as Jesus had foretold. So he explains how the temple had fulfilled its purpose with prophetic types and shadows of which Christ is the reality. It was a very realistic concern, because those Christians were also Jews who would have felt the pressure to remain in the city and fight to the death. But God had another mission for the Church, which did not include taking up arms.

Hebrews 13: 12Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. 13Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. 14For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.

——

🔥BREAKING: Pope Leo Condemns Trump’s Oval Office Evangelical Pro-War Gathering! – "War is not sacred; only peace is sacred!"

Pope Leo XIV, the first American pope, delivered a strong condemnation from the Vatican today, directly confronting the Christian Zionist leaders who convened in the Oval Office to pray over Donald Trump and "sanctify" his unauthorized military actions against Iran.

In a passionate address, the pope, originally from Chicago, declared: "War is not sacred; only peace is sacred because it is willed by God." He emphasized this point repeatedly, denouncing the conflict as an "immoral" aggression that has already cost American and Iranian lives (including innocent schoolgirls) and risks spiraling into a broader global catastrophe.

"If the world turns a deaf ear to this plea, we are certain that God will hear our prayer and the cries of the suffering," the pope said. He urged religious leaders around the globe to join the call for peace, standing up for the voiceless poor, displaced persons, and the earth itself ravaged by violence.

"We must have the courage to choose peace," he declared. "Enough of these wars, with their tragic toll of death, destruction, and displacement." The pope framed the conflict as a moral dilemma, calling on governments to heed the cries of the suffering, rather than the zealots who justify violence with scripture.

This statement comes as Christian Zionist leaders – many affiliated with evangelical networks supporting Trump’s "end-times" rhetoric – have been praying over the president in the Oval Office, presenting the military action as God's will and a fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

The pope’s remarks sharply rejected that narrative, asserting that no war can be deemed holy, regardless of how it is justified with scripture. His Chicago roots and consistent opposition to Trump’s policies lend additional moral weight to his rebuke, shedding light on the growing global concern over the lack of congressional approval, the human cost, and the reckless escalation without a clear end in sight.

While Trump brushes off the increasing death toll as "just the way it is," and his energy secretary acknowledges the war's connection to securing long-term oil interests, the pope calls for de-escalation, challenging the world to prioritize peace over violence. With even the pope denouncing the war as immoral and the justifications for it as misguided, the moral bankruptcy of MAGA warmongering is exposed.

Originally published in Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity.

The Sacred Feminine

Robert Hart on the Incarnation & the Ordained Ministry

In 1995, at an art museum in Chicago, I saw an archaeological find: several identical little statuettes of a woman’s body, from the neck down to the mons pubis. A modern Westerner might assume that the ancient, mostly forgotten people who carved these figures were obsessed with sex and had produced pornography, but this would say more about the modern Westerner than about those ancient people.

The fact is, the statuettes were found in graves. Since they showed the part of a woman’s body most clearly identified with bearing, birthing, and nourishing children, the most logical conclusion is that they were buried with the dead to help assure the safe delivery of the departed spirit into another world. There, the dead would be reborn and nourished.

If this interpretation is correct, it shows that these ancient pagans had a clearer understanding of the sacredness of the feminine than do modern theologians who want to convert the Church into a religion with a Divine Feminine or use inclusive language for God. For these ancient statuettes suggest, however dimly and remotely, the ministry of the Church in its role of administering, as well as proclaiming, salvation.

Christians do not worship a goddess. But it is not an accident or mere coincidence that two things we see in our day—women trying to fulfill the role of the ordained ministry, and women (and men) promoting the new “Feminist Theology” of goddess worship, which is meant to overtake and replace the worship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (“ He, the Spirit of Truth”; John 16:13)—have come together in time, and among the same church bodies and movements.

Necessary Distinctions

Christianity has no room for a Divine Feminine, that is, a goddess, because of the mystery of the Incarnation, the central doctrine of the Christian faith. In chapter 5 of his book Whatever Happened to the Human Mind, Eric L. Mascall writes:

It was male human nature that the Son of God united to his divine person; it was a female human person who was chosen to be his mother. In no woman has human nature been raised to the dignity which it possesses in Jesus of Nazareth, but to no male person has there been given a dignity comparable to that which Mary enjoys as Theotokos, a dignity which, in the words of the Eastern liturgy, makes her “more honourable than the cherubim and beyond comparison more glorious than the seraphim.” . . . The centrality of womanhood in redemption is shown by the fact that the Incarnation itself waited for the courageous and obedient Fiat of Mary (Luke 1:38).

Redemption cannot be separated from the feminine presence of Mary, the only human person to share in the miracle of the Incarnation with Jesus Christ. In fact, we speak here not simply of a feminine presence, but of a female presence. This distinction is necessary in order to clarify its significance to an age that confuses the meanings of the words “sex” and “gender.”

People come in two sexes, male and female, rather than in genders. The Mother of God is a woman. However, the Church is not a woman, but it is the Bride of Christ and, as such, is of the feminine gender, though not of the female sex. Jesus is a Man, a member of the male sex in his human nature. But as God, he is of the masculine gender, together with the Father and the Holy Ghost. God, speaking strictly of the Divine Nature shared by the three Persons of the Trinity, is (as stated in Article I of the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles) “without body, parts or passions.”

It is necessary to distinguish between the two natures of Christ: the divine nature that is proper to his Divine Person as one with the Father, and the human nature that has been taken into the Divine Person of the Logos. The latter is an alien nature, that is, a created nature taken into the uncreated Person of the Logos, a physical nature taken into a nature of Spirit (though separate and distinct in nature from every created spirit), and a nature fixed in time taken into eternity.

---

The Female & Feminine in Redemption

Our redemption necessitates this deifying grace: “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory. . . .” Clearly revealed from the beginning, and more clearly revealed by the naming of God as “Father” by Jesus Christ, God is masculine in gender. This makes the creation, and the human race in particular, feminine in relation to him. Our redemption was not accomplished without the Son of God appearing in the material world by assuming our nature, and this required both the female sex and the feminine gender.

The Blessed Virgin Mary was the woman, the new Eve, the mother of a new humanity in the Last Adam, Jesus Christ, in whom all are made alive. The female sex was necessary for our salvation, since the redemption that has been revealed by God is not merely a spiritual idea supported by speculation, but a real-life drama that involved everything that was part of the life lived among us by Christ, including the Cross and the Resurrection. This required the Incarnation; it required a womb.

Furthermore, the Church provides our need for the feminine gender. It is the Bride of Christ and the mother of all believers. Because it is called in Scripture the Body of Christ, the Church is an extension of Christ’s Incarnation; in fact, it is his own appointed agent. This, too, requires the Church to be feminine.

The image of this mystery is marriage (Eph. 5:32), where two are made one flesh. In the Church, Christ acts to give new life and salvation to all who truly believe. The Church not only proclaims salvation by the ministry of the Word; it also administers salvation as the sacramental community, called in Scripture the Body of Christ.

Reconciliation to God involves walking in the light with others in the Church (1 John 1:7), and so we see the necessity of a Sacred, though not a Divine, Feminine. Mary is the woman who bore the Son of God for our salvation, and the Church is the Bride of Christ, within which we are born again and nourished unto life eternal.

Ministry of Christ

Even though many churches do not use the term “Apostolic Succession” in the same way that Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and classic Anglicans do (with a historic episcopate and lines of succession), most churches, including those formed during the Protestant Reformation, believe that ordained ministry is essentially apostolic in both its origin and its work.

The apostolic ministry is not simply a function or a job to be done. It is not the possession of any man, even of those who are part of it as Christ’s ambassadors to the people of the Church (the clear meaning of 2 Cor. 5:20). Rather, it is the extension of Christ’s own ministry in the world, established with unique power and authority, and it cannot be assumed or granted merely by human power:

Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. (John 20:21–23)

Among the many reasons Catholics, Orthodox, and Traditional Anglicans give for the all-male priesthood is that the priestly ministry is not that of the men themselves, but of Jesus Christ working in his Church. When a priest forgives sins, it is, as believed in traditional liturgical church bodies, the extension of the ministry of Jesus Christ, who gives this power unto men (Matt. 9:8). And when a priest stands at the altar and offers the Eucharist, it is Christ who says, “This is my Body. . . . This is my Blood.”

Thus, the ordained ministry, in almost all church traditions, belongs to the Bridegroom, and represents him in an exclusive sense not fully shared by any layperson, no matter how gifted and holy. It is for the benefit of the Bride of Christ. This understanding is shared by churches in the Protestant Reformation tradition as well as by those that emphasize the liturgical and sacramental ministry.

Embassy of Christ

In writings from the ancient Church, the larger emphasis is on the presbyter’s (i.e., elder’s) pastoral care for the people of the Church, often described in Scripture and in other early Christian writings as his “rule” (proïst’mi) over his flock (see 1 Tim. 5:17, Heb. 13:17, 1 Thess. 5:12–13). The application of this rule belongs exclusively to the pastoral ministry, and includes the functions of preaching, teaching, and leading worship. These are essential functions, whether we think in terms of the Catholic (i.e., Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican) priesthood or of the Protestant pastorate.

This pastoral ministry has been given to the Church by Christ to be medicinal and healing for those who are redeemed from sin and death, and to aid in their salvation and sanctification by the Holy Spirit. The objective of such rule by the presbyteroi, or elders, is the care or cure of souls. Thus, it is not to be exercised in a dictatorial or authoritarian manner, like a lord over God’s people, but in a loving and paternal way, like a father in God’s family. “For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?” asks St. Paul, rhetorically (1 Tim. 3:5).

Indeed, laypeople may function as teachers and prophets, and also carry on a kind of priestly ministry as those who are called to be saints. The ordained ministry, however, is believed by most church bodies to belong to the heavenly Bridegroom in a special way that makes it the embassy of Christ among his own people, of the Bridegroom to the Bride, of the Lord to the Church. The Church is one with him as his Body, which he nourishes and protects.

For this reason, among others cited in this journal over many years, the pastoral ministry is rightly reserved to men who are called and ordained, and only to them. This, properly understood, protects rather than denies the sacred feminine ministry in our salvation history and in the life of the Church as the Bride of Christ, holy and beloved.

THE LITTLE JESUS WHO WOULD

This article that I wrote, published in Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity in April 2016, seems appropriate for Lenten reading. I feel a little bad about how it may seem like I was picking on President Jimmy Carter, because I believe he had some very real virtues and often demonstrated good works. But I also believe that his words, quoted in the article, serve as a cautionary tale. We should guard our minds.

Robert Hart on Cutting Christ Down to One Size Fits Whatever We Want

On July 7, 2015, former President Jimmy Carter said the following in an interview with the Huffington Post: "I believe Jesus would. I don't have any verse in Scripture. . . . I believe Jesus would approve gay marriage, but that's just my own personal belief. I think Jesus would encourage any love affair if it was honest and sincere and was not damaging to anyone else, and I don't see that gay marriage damages anyone else."

Often described as "a religious man," Carter was known as an Evangelical when he ran for the White House in 1976. That year, when, in what has always been seen as an error in judgment, he agreed to be interviewed by Playboy, he displayed at least a personal moral scruple and a working knowledge of what Jesus actually said as recorded in the Gospel according to St. Matthew: "But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (5:28).

Since those days in 1976, a new phrase has caught the public's attention: "WWJD"—"What would Jesus do?" Like Jimmy Carter when speaking last July to the Huffington Post, an individual facing a moral decision is advised to consider what Jesus would do, or what he would say. As a result, what purports to be moral guidance might be nothing more than subjective thought, opinion, or sheer imagination, taken as divine wisdom. This seems to me to be a waste of mental energy and time, inasmuch as what Jesus did, and what he said, can be accurately known easily enough by reading
the Bible.

When the younger candidate Carter gave his famous answer to Playboy, he at least thought along the lines of what Jesus said. As an elderly former President, he gave his answer to the Huffington Post based on speculation, admitting, "I don't have any verse in Scripture." That is very interesting, because I can think of several verses of Scripture that actually answer the question addressed to Mr. Carter, and that answer it in exact opposition to his affirmative. We know what Jesus said, and have known it since the first generation of Christians were taught and given the New Testament.

Another Jesus, Another Spirit

Lest I appear to be picking on Jimmy Carter exclusively, I hasten to point out that a fictitious Jesus ("another Jesus," to use the words of St. Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:4), subject to human imagination, is very popular nowadays. We see this malleable Jesus everywhere.

For instance, we can note what was said and done at the General Convention of the Episcopal Church last June in Salt Lake City, Utah. The convention took place around the time that the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges (June 26, 2015), declaring a never-before-known Constitutional right to so-called same-sex marriage. Among the events at the convention was something meant to be a Eucharist of sorts, celebrating the victory of homosexual church members who had long sought to have same-sex "marriage" formally approved for their whole national church. It was now approved by the General Convention and its new Presiding Bishop, Michael Curry.

Another Episcopal bishop and openly practicing lesbian, Mary Glasspool, declared in a sermon at that service, "We got to this place of redefining marriage by redefining two other words: home and family." Glasspool interpreted the Gospel of Mark, in which Jesus, as a grown man, discerns that he must begin his mission and ministry to all the people of Israel, to mean that Jesus was moving away from his natural family: "The concept of family is transformed. The reign of God transcends the closest of family trees," she said.

An Episcopal priest named Kimberly Jackson, of the Diocese of Atlanta, read a prayer to begin their version of communion: "Spirit of Life, we thank you for disordering our boundaries and releasing our desires as we prepare this feast of delight: draw us out of hidden places and centers of conformity to feel your laughter and live in your pleasure."

That contrasts quite sharply with the Book of Common Prayer tradition, in which everything is intended to conform wholly to Scripture, and the standard for prayer is the one that Jesus taught, which includes the Church's petition to the Father, "Thy will be done." The new liturgical phrase, "disordering our boundaries and releasing our desires," sounds much more like the slogan of an early twentieth-century pagan cult, The Law of Thelema, created by a magician named Aleister Crowley. To each member of the cult it is taught, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

---

In stark contrast to Christianity, The Law of Thelema makes of highest priority the will of each individual, rather than the will of God. And just as Jimmy Carter's little Jesus "who would" replaced the big Jesus who did and said what is recorded in the Gospels, the Holy Spirit has been replaced by a malleable spirit guide (again, in St. Paul's words, "another spirit"), invoked as the "Spirit of Life" in the Episcopal LGBT service. This spirit is a "she," and guides her followers, apparently, only where they want to go anyway. She was thanked in their prayer for just that.

But Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matt. 5:17–18). That is what we can read for ourselves. It takes only a minute or two to find his actual words, a minute worth more than many hours of speculation on what Jesus would have said.

Getting the Words Right

In recent years it has become popular to say, "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality." Again, it is not the Jesus whose words and acts have been recorded for our learning, but the Jesus who would, of whom they speak.

If they are to be given any excuse, it may be that English translations of Scripture can be unclear in places. For instance, the word "fornication" is used frequently in many English-language Bibles. Every time this word is used, it is with the strongest condemnation of sexual sin. This includes cases where Jesus utters the word himself (e.g., in Mark 7:20–23).

In modern English, we think of "fornication" as meaning only heterosexual intercourse before or outside of marriage. But the Greek word used throughout the New Testament that is translated as "fornication" is porneia. (This is the root not only of the English word "fornication" but also "pornography.") It means any and every kind of sexual sin and also perversion, and thus refers not only to sexual relations outside of marriage, but also to adultery, homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, and so forth.

We know that "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" (1 Tim. 1:15), not to affirm their sins. He ate and drank with sinners, to be sure, but not to join in their riotous living, but to call them to repentance (Luke 5:30–32). He came to save his people from—not in but from—their sins (Matt. 1:21).

The word most often associated with the malleable Jesus, and the unholy spirit, is "love." Right after the Obergefell v. Hodges decision was announced, President Obama tweeted, "Love wins." This is a new gospel (again, in the words of St. Paul, "another gospel") of inclusion and affirmation. In this new gospel, of a malleable Jesus who would, the good news is that nothing is sin: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." Except for Christians, of course: anyone who believes in or preaches traditional Christian morality is guilty of the sin of hate.

But we know that "charity . . . rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth" (1 Cor. 13:4,6). Indeed, the word "charity," as used here in the King James translation, may be the best English translation of the Greek word agape in this context. In some places, agape is translated as "love" in the King James Version, while at other times, as here, it is translated as "charity." Making the distinction helps clarify things. For one may love a big juicy steak, but one cannot have charity for a big juicy steak. In any case, agape, the word used for divine love or charity, is very distinct from eros, the word used to indicate carnal love.

Love & the Cross

In Christian theology, the love of God is associated most closely with the cross of Christ (Rom. 5:8). The sight of Christ crucified was very terrible—indeed, it was so ugly that, in the words of the prophet, "We hid as it were our faces from him" (Is. 53:3). It was a violent, bloody sight, where the Man of sorrows was poured out like water, and all his bones were out of joint (Ps. 22:14). At once it was God's judgment on sin and the manifestation of his love, where he paid our debt in full ("Teleo," John 19:30).

Jesus came to save the world, to seek and to save the lost, to pour out his soul unto death as the "propitiation for our sins" (1 John 2:2). He came for that, not to usher in an era in which lust and carnality, and "the releasing of our desires," take the place of repentance and of taking up one's cross to follow the Son of Man. Give me the real Lord Jesus, who paid my debt, who commanded me to repent, and who forgave my sin.

Give me the Jesus who did and who said, not the other Jesus, the one who would. 

PREDESTINATION AS PAUL DESCRIBED IT

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren (Romans 8:29  KJV)."

This means that sanctification is all about bringing each of us into the love shared among the Persons of the Trinity. Transforming each of us into a holy person, that is, into a saint, is essential to the love we have from the Father. That also is why no particular specific sin has ever been the will of God.

*           *           *

Lost in translation, lost as early as the translation of Greek into Latin, is the fullness of "And the Word was with God (John 1:1)." The Greek pros ton theon is translated by my brother, David Bentley Hart, as "Present to God," indicating that the Word, the Logos, was toward God, or facing God. We see the first relation of love within the godhead, God the Father and God the Son face to face beholding, and with this love as the first Divine attribute the Holy Spirit effects the work of all creation. God is love, and this is not self-love as we would experience, but the honest love of the Persons who share the same unknowable substance of Divine nature, rejoicing in the truth that the object of love is worthy of infinite love because truth delights in perfection and goodness. The whole of creation is the Father's gift of love to His eternally begotten Son, or as Saint Paul also tells us, "All things were created through him and for him, and he is before all things, and all things hold together in him (Colossians 1:17,18  David Bentley Hart - DBH - translation)."

Keep all of that in mind as we consider what it means that God has marked out a destiny, the real meaning of "predestinated (proorizo)," for each one whom He foreknew. It is no more in definition than choosing a destination before setting out on a journey. From at least the time of Augustine, the very word "predestination" has taken on a meaning that is simply not what the actual Greek New Testament teaches. Taken to the extreme it has come to mean, for many people, that God has deprived his intelligent creatures of freewill, and that every decision of the human heart is really as if programmed in advance; for them the script is written. In milder, yet also mistaken, versions of predestination it may mean only that God's plan for salvation and for the end of history on the Last Day requires that He has willed certain people to commit specific sins. They imagine a God of limited power, able to exercise Providence only by giving himself a "handicap" in the game, namely, by predestinating certain individuals to commit evil deeds. As I have written before,

'But God foresaw, and made use of, the outworking of history. God’s will was to save Israel and preserve them in the time of famine. So, when the brothers of Joseph did what was inevitable, foreseen by the God who knows all things, Providence produced what was good. In no way could their evil acts prevent the will of God; indeed, because He “enacts all things in accord with the counsel of his will (Eph. 1:11),” even the most sinful acts have to result in bringing about the good purpose of Almighty God. It was never the will of God for Judas to betray Christ, nor for the Sanhedrin to falsely convict Him, nor for the Romans to go about their violent and murderous acts with such schadenfreude. But, as a master of Chess makes use of every move by his opponent, God works providentially. In the worst of these theological systems Providence is a misunderstood concept. In these systems his wisdom and power must be limited, for why else would their notion of predestination rule out even the very existence of free will? I do not mean the doctrine that man cannot choose God without his grace, for that is sound in itself (especially when one considers that existence itself is a gift, that is, grace). In the extreme forms of Augustinianism, Thomism, and Calvinism everything has been predetermined by God.

'Now, it was the will of God for the Son to offer Himself willingly for the sins of the whole world. It was the will of God for Jesus to surrender himself as the obedient suffering servant. The inevitable evil of a world hostile to God and to all goodness was very much within the foresight of the Almighty. Carrying out his will, to do good, was not prevented by human evil; indeed, whatever evil men do, God has the almighty power, nonetheless, to turn it to good.'

In the words Acts 4:27, 28 "Both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done (KJV)."

What exactly had God's hand and counsel determined? 

"Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father (John 10:17,18)."

Indeed, inasmuch as "the carnal mind is enmity with God (Romans 8:7)" we can be sure that the crucifixion was the inevitable result of the Incarnation. To offer himself as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, Jesus did not need Judas Iscariot to betray him, nor for Caiaphas and Herod to hand him over to Pontius Pilate, nor for any specific sin that required the Father to deprive those men of freewill, to "predestine" them to become evil on that day as one who writes a program for a computer. In Calvinist circles, much is made of God "hardening Pharoah's heart." If one reads carelessly, it comes across as if God worked directly on the mind of Pharoah in such a way that the man was unable to think rationally, or to choose good over evil. But in the actual account of Exodus what we see is God working mighty signs and wonders, and each time Egypt receives a plague, Pharoah reacts by fortifying the stubbornness that was an obvious flaw in his character. But when the first Passover proved to be too much for him, he relented. Even after all that, he relented again, and went after the people of Israel, and sent his ill-fated army into the Red Sea. Pharoah was such a flawed human being that every word and every sign only brought out the worst in him. What hardened his heart was each plague that first taught him, and then each plague that reminded him, that the God of Moses was the One with unlimited power, not himself as an emperor god, the Pharoah.

No matter what time or place in which the Logos would be incarnate, the inevitable result of God coming directly into the sinful and fallen world as a man had to be enmity. The carnal mind must kill God if only to destroy the light that pierces through the comfort of darkness. It must snuff out the truth that shatters the shelter of lies. 

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8:7,8)." No specific evil on the part of any individual is necessary for the plan of God to be accomplished. As I said before, when it comes to the subjects of Predestination and of Eschatology, many Christians are in danger of adopting a manner of thinking in which the will of God can be separated from the commandments of God. All God needed to do to fulfill what His hand and counsel had determined was to work the miracle of the Incarnation. The deaths of many persecuted prophets was brought to full measure when the owner of the vineyard sent his own son. As soon as the Blessed Virgin Mary said, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word (Luke 1:38)," the crucifixion was set in motion (and, of course, with it the resurrection). God had determined to save the world, and I do mean that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit had so determined, for God is One. All it took was the incarnation; that was enough to set it all in motion. Indeed, even as a small child his family had to flee for his life to be spared, no doubt to the Jewish community in Alexandria Egypt. For the enmity against God that is the lot of carnal men is dominated by something more evil and more powerful.

Much has been made over the centuries by those who hate the Jewish people, none of it right or good. Persecution of the Jews has been a black mark against many who have called themselves Christians, some even now. The excuse has been to call them "Christ killers." Of course, that Jesus himself, his mother, and his disciples, all make that label a complete lie, for they were all Jews; and without them we would have no Church and no Faith. But we can even take a close look at the Book of the Acts of the Apostles and discover what transpired in the personal lives of many people who, on that first Good Friday, were shouting "Away with this man. Give us Barabbas!" and "Crucify him! Crucify him!" In the third chapter of that book, we see that Peter and John worked the miracle of healing a crippled man at the gate of the temple. A crowd formed, and for the second time in only a few days, Peter preached a sermon and hauled in a mighty catch. Pay close attention to his words, and you will discover that Peter knew that he was speaking to much the same exact crowd, the very individuals who had, only weeks earlier, demanded the crucifixion and death of Jesus. Was it God's will to punish them, or do we see something altogether different from the Apostle's own words to them?

'"You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with our fathers, telling Abraham, 'And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.' And God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways."...But many of those who had heard the discourse had faith, and the number of men grew to be five thousand. (Acts 3:25,26 and 4:4 DBH).'

So, even those who said "His blood be on us and on our children (Matthew 27:25)" were blessed by God, not cursed. His blood was on them, but as the cleansing flood that washes away sin and guilt. God can always bring good out of any evil men can do; that does not mean the He needs the evil. Why did Jesus call Judas "friend" right at the time in which the betrayal was most obvious: "Friend, wherefore art thou come (Matthew 26:50)?" Was Judas there to be his friend? No. Judas was, nonetheless, the object of Christ's love, which "rejoiceth not in iniquity (I Corinthians 13:6)." To will that any particular individual commit a specific sin is contrary to Divine love; but to bring good from evil is consistent with it.

Actual Predestination

Are you a believer in Christ? God has indeed predestined you, but not by programming you. And salvation is not simply "going to heaven." It is not even limited to being raised from the dead on the Last Day. What you are predestinated to become, that is the intended destination of the journey God has laid out for you, is to become a saint, that is, a holy person (I Corinthians 1:2). In a very real way, Paul is giving us a deeper understanding of salvation, that is, that we are predestined by the Father to be "conformed to the image of his son." To this end He richly gives you every grace in His Son. The crowning virtue above all others is charity, and in order to obtain that virtue of saintliness you must know God for Who He is. And we know that "God is love (I John 4:8,16)." How do know this? 

Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? (John 14:8,9 KJV). 

Far from the caricature of those who preach that "Jesus saves us from God," it is Jesus in the Father, and the Father in Jesus, who loves us and saves us from sin and death as we follow on to know the Lord. You can see the love of the Father by seeing Jesus who "Went about doing good, healing all who were oppressed of the devil (Acts 10:38)." And to appreciate that love you should consider that Saint Paul is saying that the destination chosen for you by God is to be "conformed to the image of his son." God cannot will that you learn to see His commandments as separate from His will, or as alien to it. His love is why He wills for you to become holy, to be made perfect in charity, and even now, in this life, to be more and more the image, that is the very living icon, of Jesus. Even in this life you can, thereby, through His grace, have a foretaste of knowing God in eternity, and ultimately to enter into that same love in which the Divine Persons behold perfection and goodness. "The Logos was present to God." 

 

RITUAL NOTES FOR SHROVE TUESDAY

I searched for this and found it. The following was posted on a blog called Anglo-Catholic Ruminations in 2006, but it is older than that. I remember almost falling off my chair laughing the first time I read this. - Fr. Hart

In certain neighborhoods, the solemn pancake
procession will of necessity pass by a restaurant
whose specialty is pancakes, flapjacks, or crepes.
Extraordinary means are not to be taken to avoid this
situation, unless a detour would add dignity and not
unreasonable length to the route. Traditional
ceremonies are to be observed while passing before
such an establishment.

Following the Shrove Tuesday Solemn High Choral Sung
Mass, the solemn procession forms at the head of the
aisle, and the sacred ministers are supplied with
their birettas. The celebrant also receives a large
platter of steaming-hot buttermilk pancakes; the
deacon and subdeacon take up large pitchers of maple
syrup. Acolytes with large forks and spatulas attend
the sacred ministers. Following the deacon's versicle
and the people's response, the thurifer leads the
procession through the nave and narthex and out to the
street.

The choir accompany the procession with appropriate
antiphons, responsories, and plainsong hymns, such as
the Corpus Christi introit, Cibavit eos: "He fed them
also with the finest wheat flour, and with honey from
the rock."

The thurifer with his censer will lead the solemn
outdoor procession. Two bacon strips are draped over
the thurible. When the restaurant is sighted by the
verger, he shall signal to the acolyte, who shall ring
the bell thrice. The procession shall continue, but
the serving of pancakes shall cease until the
restaurant has been passed by. On hearing the bell,
the clergy and lay ministers in procession shall turn
their heads so as to face the establishment directly
whilst they continue forward. Upon a single stroke of
the bell, all shall stop and turn to face the
restaurant. The sacred ministers shall remove their
birettas, taking care not to drop the syrup pitcher as
they do so. The sacred ministers shall then
double-genuflect, first bringing the right knee to the
ground and then the left knee to join the right one on
the ground. The celebrant shall then incense the
restaurant with three double swings. All others shall
bow low. The celebrant shall chant the collect for
Shrove Tuesday. This completed, all shall rise, and
the celebrant shall cover with the biretta and resume
the pitcher. A single stroke of the bell shall signal
the resumption of the procession, all resuming
birettas.

After the station at the restaurant, the procession
turns left, encircling the Unitarian-Universalist
Church next door, as a gesture of hospitality and
ecumenism. Traditionally, the UU minister joins the
procession dressed in a simple cassock-alb and bearing
a large bowl of flower petals gathered by UU
parishioners; these are added to the pancake plates as
a lovely garnish and a reminder of the oneness of
creation with Creator. (A secondary but salutary
effect of the procession in the early years was the
reconciliation of the neighboring Episcopal and UU
churches following the previous year's Trinity Sunday
outdoor solemn procession, which had encircled the UU
church three times to the increasing outrage of the UU
minister and congregation.)

The procession moves south from the UU church down
past the rectory, where a station is made and the
antiphon Sacerdotes Domini chanted.

Finally, having given up the pancake-serving utensils,
the sacred ministers, vergers, acolytes, and servers
proceed to the church and all enter for the Solemn Te
Deum and Benediction. After Solemn Benediction of the
Blessed Sacrament, pancakes are served in the church hall.

THE CORINTHIAN PROBLEM

In light of the Epistle reading appointed for Quinquagesima (I Corinthians chapter 13), I am posting an article of mine that was originally published in December, 2009 in Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity. Let us look at that famous "Love chapter" in context.

The Long Reach of an Infamous First-Century Church

by Robert Hart

The disarray, foolishness, and sin that St. Paul addressed when writing his first extant epistle to the Church in Corinth have worked to our benefit, for they gave rise to teaching in the Scriptures that has been needed throughout the subsequent history of the Church, and that we need today. As the selling of Joseph into Egypt was used by God to save Israel from famine, so can anything be used by God for good. This is one aspect of Providence. Thus, we see how the sins and foolishness of the Church in Corinth were used by God through Paul to give us salutary words of Holy Scripture.

It takes effort to understand this epistle. The difficulty we have in seeing what St. Paul was addressing comes from the familiarity we have, on the one hand, with some of the external issues affected by the Corinthian foolishness, and, on the other, with their supernatural and mystical gifts, the manifestation of which was equally affected by their faults. This is puzzling: How can what is good and holy be so sinfully practiced?

“Paul,” begins the apostle,

called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ; That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge; Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

This apparently upbeat and positive opening does not seem to fit everything that follows.

The essential problem in Corinth is, for many, difficult to discern, even by intense reading of the epistle, for one major reason. We have a bias that blinds us to the reality that the same people who “come behind in no gift” (which means equally that they possess every grace) of the Holy Spirit can be, at the same time, “carnal, babes in Christ.” The same people who have gifts to work miracles and to prophesy, can, at the same time, be guilty of creating and perpetuating sinful divisions within the Body of Christ. The same people who truly discern spirits, and are able to test and know which spirits are not of God, can at the same time be proud to have a notorious fornicator among them, allowing him to receive the Communion of Christ’s Body and Blood along with all the rest.

The alarming fact we must glean from this epistle is that neither mystical and supernatural gifts nor orthodox doctrine were enough to keep the Corinthian Christians from being carnal, childish, divisive, and utterly selfish. And, indeed, selfishness is the most apparent symptom of their carnality, addressed over and over again in several places. But, by Providence, it was that very selfishness that gave the occasion for St. Paul to write his most famous passage, the chapter on charity (chapter 13).

Gifts & Ministers of Gifts

We must define the term charisma. The word can be translated as “gifts” or “graces.” It encompasses more than simply the “spectacular” gifts (as some term them), but includes all of the gifts of the Holy Spirit mentioned in Scripture, including the sacraments themselves. The word charismata (the plural form) includes the “institutional gifts” later explained in the pastoral epistles of Paul to Titus and Timothy, as truth unfolded and as doctrine was developed within the apostolic age.

---

Those pastoral epistles, written years later, would reveal a pattern consistent with apostolic succession, as Paul wrote of laying his hands on Timothy, and as he directed both Timothy and Titus concerning standards for the men they would, in turn, ordain. At the time of the writing of his First Epistle to the Corinthians, that order is not yet apparent, but the basic doctrine of gifts and callings is already evident as a foundation.

It is necessary also to consider that within that larger grouping of gifts are all of the things called gifts by St. Paul in his epistles, along with scenes described by St. Luke in the Book of Acts. The words of Christ himself teach us that no gift, no matter how impressive it may appear to be, is an indication that the minister of that gift is holy.

Not every one 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. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matt. 7:21–23)

The words of the old Anglican Article XXVI apply:

Of the unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments. Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometime the evil have chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments; yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by His commission and authority, we may use their ministry both in hearing the word of God and in the receiving of the sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the sacraments ministered unto them, which be effectual because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.

This was always understood within the Church, and rejection of this teaching was an element essential to the heresy of the Donatists. (More than twenty years ago, when I was serving as a church organist, a curate who was very popular in that congregation was arrested, and eventually convicted, of notorious crimes involving young boys. Several people there were concerned about the baptism of their children, wanting to know if it had been valid; others, if they had really received Communion from his hand over the years. To an informed mind, aware of the teaching of the Church, those questions would not have arisen.)

No Clue to Character

That fact is relevant to solving the apparent mystery: The apparently less spectacular gifts of the charismata, such as the regular administration of Holy Communion, do not indicate that the minister is truly a holy and godly man. But the same is true of the spectacular and overtly supernatural gifts. Gifts of the Holy Spirit, whether “spectacular” or “institutional,” whether astounding or seemingly normal, say nothing about the minister’s character.

Eventually, the false prophet might teach error, or perhaps he may never teach error. He may be able to say all of those things our Lord has predicted, and more. He may be among those who say, quite truly, “Have we not prophesied in thy name?” But in the end, this will not save him. The sheep’s clothing will have come off, exposing the wolf beneath.

Although the Corinthians were not accused of being wolves, that is, false prophets, they were corrected sternly for being carnal, selfish, and chaotic. Nonetheless, St. Paul told them that they came behind in no gift, and that each of them was called to sainthood. This is not self-contradictory at all. It demonstrates two things: (1) God’s work does not depend on man’s worthiness, and (2) it is right, as well as the practice of hope, to place before the eyes of carnal people their calling to become holy.

Those who actually have allowed various charismatic expressions into the context of liturgy have long treated chapter 14 as a kind of Robert’s Rules of Order regarding how and when to exercise these gifts, while others are sure that Paul was contemptuous of the very gifts he himself had identified as coming from the Holy Spirit (an impossibility). But the overall text of the epistle shows that his words about the gifts of the Holy Spirit were not centered on the gifts themselves, but rather on the same problem he was addressing from the very first chapter.

Partisan Divisions

I will glean from places in this epistle that seem to repeat a very noticeable refrain.

Although Paul places before the church in Corinth, at the start of his letter, his high estimation of their gifts, their knowledge and understanding, and their faith, stating his confidence that God will hold them by his grace and sanctify them according to the common vocation of all Christians (“called saints”), he quickly changes his tone. He admonishes them, chastises and rebukes them, for being divided. Somehow, they had developed into parties, and had claimed to be followers of various apostles.

Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

Interestingly, those who said, “I am of Christ” are rebuked with the others. Their pretense to moral and spiritual superiority did not fool the apostle: They, too, were just as partisan, just as carnal, and perhaps a little worse, as they might have thanked God that they were not as other men are.

Learned & Carnal

Despite this outward display of chaos and division, these same people, the Christians in Corinth, came behind in no gift. The “foolish Corinthians” were enriched by God in all utterance and all knowledge. They were both orthodox and learned. Indeed, the problem in Corinth was not scriptural illiteracy, theological ignorance, or false doctrine. They were very knowledgeable.

Indeed, look at chapter 8:

Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but charity edifies.

Yes, they knew the right doctrine about idols. Their knowledge and their orthodoxy were not questioned by the apostle. However, their lack of charity was rebuked in the clearest of terms. Why, for such learned people, should it have been necessary to write these words in the same chapter?

But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak. . . . And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

How, in their knowledge so enriched, with their utterances so gifted, did they miss this obvious point? How could they have been so blind to the simple rule of putting the needs of their brothers and sisters ahead of their own desires? They were orthodox. They were learned. They were gifted. They were also carnal.

Selfish & Self-Indulgent

Look, too, at how they approached the Supper of the Lord, from the eleventh chapter:

When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before others his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

The evidence from this text is that the Agape feast was connected somehow to the Eucharist in this very early period, perhaps even coming before in imitation of the Last Supper. How correctly or not we may be able to sort out the facts of history, it is clear that even as they approached the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, they were selfish. Their actions indicated that even in this they were carnal.

It is this same theme, that of selfishness, that truly dominates the most “Charismatic” portions of chapters 12–14. The Corinthians’ treatment of the Lord’s Supper, each one looking after himself and no one else, came from the same selfishness we see here, as they treat various gifts of the Holy Spirit in a completely self-indulgent manner, with no regard for each other’s needs. In Chapter 12, Paul has mentioned various gifts known to operate among them, all of which he affirms.

Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

In this Trinitarian passage he identifies the working of the Spirit, of the Lord and of God. He never even hints that any of these manifestations might have come from any lower source.

But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

Rather, he goes on to explain to them that these gifts have been given so that each member of the Body of Christ may help others in the same Body. The text is not about tongues, or prophecy or miracles. It is about the Body of Christ, and the care each member should have for all the rest, and that the rest should have for even one member who suffers. He mentions the gifts as another way of saying to them the same thing he has been saying all along. He speaks to them about the unity that ought to overcome partisanship, and the care for others that, as in the eighth chapter, should be placed ahead of their own desires, even their own perceived needs.

Edification & Charity

This is why he writes about tongues and prophecy in the fourteenth chapter.

Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Already, back in chapter 12, he has identified both tongues and prophecy as coming from “the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.” Here, however, he appears to exalt one of these above the other. But it is not that the gift of prophecy is exalted above that of tongues; it is that serving the needs of others is placed above serving one’s own needs. He is teaching them not to be selfish anymore, and simply using this example as yet another way to say it.

The beautiful chapter 13, about charity, comes between these chapters as part of the same long text extending back deeper into this letter. That beautiful chapter was a rebuke, meant not to inspire but to correct. It was written not to move with poetic sublimity, but to admonish with prophetic indignation. It was a fire lit to melt their frozen, unloving, selfish hearts. Those hearts had taken good and holy things, the very gifts of God, and used them for selfish ends.

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up; Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth.

These words were not addressed to holy men and women crowned with the virtues, but to carnal, selfish, partisan, squabbling babes. They teach what should have been clear and obvious, especially to those who come behind in no gift, those who are in everything enriched by the Lord, in all utterance, and in all knowledge.

The Corinthian problem was simple: They possessed all things richly, but had not charity. When I consider this, I must confess that Christ came to save Corinthians, of whom I am chief.