On the Saints

The Eighth Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, whose never-failing providence ordereth all things both in heaven and earth: We humbly beseech thee to put away from us all hurtful things, and to give us those things which be profitable for us; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

 It seems to be a near universal aspect of humanity that throughout the course of our lives we face challenges, obstacles, suffering and all other sorts of adverse situations and circumstances, and often times we seem to convince ourselves that these situations are utterly unique, that no one else has ever gone through these situations or circumstances before. This often leads to feelings of isolation as we express to others that they couldn’t possibly understand what we are enduring, and that their advice is therefore worthless.

The reality is that the challenges we face in our earthly lives are rarely unique. In most cases, there are acquaintances in our own lives who have endured pertinently similar circumstances and challenges. Throughout the course of recorded human history, it is unlikely that any great challenge in our own lives has never affected someone else.

And yet, the common refrain remains to say that no one else understands, no one else has suffered through these circumstances.

The same reaction can often hold true in our Christian lives. The challenges to our faith are many, and sometimes we feel as if we are the only ones to endure these trials and challenges. First and foremost, we never endure alone, as God always supports us in adversity when we turn to him. Our Christian friends can similarly be a great source of comfort, both in prayer and in relating their own experiences with similar challenges in their own faith journeys.

More than simply meeting with current friends, as Anglicans, we have a repository of the recorded lives of great Christians we can turn to: the saints, more specifically referred to as the Church Triumphant.

The veneration of saints is a practice which is variously viewed as beneficial, superstitious, pious or confusing. Protestants in particular seem the most likely to be baffled by the Saints, as it is not often the case that they are venerated, or their lives even observed.

In the catholic tradition, whether Eastern or Western, the saints play a prominent role in the life of the Church, and often in the lives of individual Christians.

The saints are Christians who have lived lives of faith, and who, to the best of the understanding of Christians today, have been reunited with Christ in heaven, hence the particular reference to them as the Church Triumphant, as opposed to the Church Militant, those Christians, also saints, who continue to struggle in their earthly life of faith.

It would not be correct to say that all of the saints lived flawless lives, or lives of the utmost piety. While some did, others are remembered due to acts of martyrdom, or otherwise for coming to Christ later in their lives after youths of indulgence. Saint Ambrose of Milan did not become a Christian until well into his adulthood, and his youth had been spent on non-Christian pursuits. Saint Augustine of Hippo similarly came to Christ as an adult after leading a vice-filled youth which he later commented on.

Historically, the saints were viewed as fellow intercessors. Christians would pray to the saints, asking for their prayers just as they might ask any other fellow Christian to pray for them. During the medieval period, particularly in the West, this changed somewhat. Saints were viewed as mediators between Christians and Christ our judge. The saints were viewed as having particular portfolios and you would pray for a particular saint to intercede on your behalf with Christ the judge on a particular issue.

This led in some cases to excesses in which the saints were not merely venerated, but worshipped. In the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, this practice was condemned by Article XXII, along with a number of other particular practices of the Roman Church which had developed during the medieval period, which were influenced in particular by superstition and syncretism with existing pagan religions in the West. It should be noted, however, that Article XXII did not in any way condemn the original practice of intercession through the saints.

In Anglicanism, therefore, the veneration of the saints and their intercession remains a matter of personal pious devotion. Permitted, but not required. Its practice tends to reflect personal theological preferences and often-times one’s churchmanship.

In evangelical Anglicans, the emphasis tends to be on the personal relationship between man and God, and thus the intercession of others and of the saints in particular is less important and emphasized. The lives of saints tend to similarly be less frequently emphasized because evangelical Anglican ecclesiology doesn’t tend to have as much emphasis on traditions of the Church, and instead focuses more on the Church as the visible body of believers under the authority of Scripture.

For those maintaining a more Anglo-Catholic outlook, their ecclesiology places a higher value on the Communion of Saints as a whole, including those saints in heaven that have been referred to in this post. Their value is emphasized significantly in their instructive value, and in their teaching of doctrine. Similarly, Anglo-Catholics would be far less likely to draw a distinction between asking a living Christian friend for their prayers versus asking a saint in heaven for their intercessory prayers.

The practice of studying the lives of the saints and asking for their intercessory prayers is ancient. It is something that unites all Christians, East and West, both in terms of the common practice, and also in that the saints we commemorate and celebrate come from outside our own tradition. In the Anglican Church of Canada’s calendar of Saints, there are saints from England, Western Roman Christendom and Eastern Christendom.

St Paul writes that, “[God] comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God,” (2 Cor 1. 4). If God is preparing us to comfort others, then so to has he prepared the saints, for generations before us, to similarly comfort us. In our suffering, then, let us always be reminded that our situation is rarely unique, and that many Christians that have gone before us have endured similar trials. We can look to their stories and be comforted, just as we are often comforted by a friend who can relate how they endured some shared challenge in their life with us.

On Power

The Seventh Sunday after Trinity

LORD of all power and might, who art the author and giver of all good things: Graft in our hearts the love of thy Name, increase in us true religion, nourish us with all goodness, and of thy great mercy keep us in the same; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

In the study of international relations, power is generally divided into two categories, that of hard power and soft power. The simplest definition of these two is that hard power is the ability to make others do what you want, while soft power is the ability to get others to want what you want.

An example of hard power would be the use of military or economic force. Forcing a neighbouring country to make territorial concessions by military invasion and conquest or just the threat of it. The imposition of economic sanctions on a state to compel them to do what you want is another exercise of hard power. Soft power is a somewhat more nebulous concept which was only articulated in the post Cold War era as a defined doctrine, though the use of soft power has been characteristic of international affairs in the 20th century in the aftermath of the Second World War and the formation of the United Nations, as well as the more rigid discipline enforced on the exercise of power in international affairs during the Cold War itself.

The concepts of hard and soft power are somewhat useful in examining the idea of power and authority within the Church. In this case, hard power—the ability to get people to do what you want—resides with ecclesiastical authorities. Bishops are those charged with enforcing the canons of the church, and have a wide latitude in how they do so. For instance, in the Diocese of Calgary, every priest before they are ordained is required by Canon law to subscribe to the Solemn Declaration 1893, the Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal, as well as the diocesan and provincial canons. The canons themselves, however, do not exercise hard power. Thomas Hobbes, the English philosopher, once wrote in his seminal work Leviathan, that, “covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all.” While Christ may have said that the Christian’s yes ought to be yes, and their no, no (St Mt 5. 37), the reality remains that in our fallen nature, we fall short of Christ’s command. As Hobbes points out, without swords—enforcement—agreements and oaths are just words. It is the bishop that enforces the oath and exercises the power to compel a priest to maintain it. They may sanction the priest with the removal of their license or even further sanctions if their actions so merit.

Similarly, priests hold some elements of hard power over their parishioners. While in general these powers are not used, they still exist. If a parishioner were to make it known to a priest that they had sinned and were unrepentant, priests have the power to deny the Eucharist to such a person until such time as they do repent.

What of soft power? The Rev. Dr Ellen Wondra likens soft power in the Church to its moral authority, and thus its ability to influence others both inside and outside the Church. This applies both in its ecumenical relations and its relations to secular and civil society. When the American Conference of Catholic Bishops issues a statement deploring gun violence and calling for the acceptance of new measures for American legislators to control gun violence, they are calling on their moral authority which relies on the Roman Catholic Church’s clearly articulated stance on the sanctity of human life to lend power to their statement in order to influence opinions.

In the Anglican Communion, which uses synodical governance, often times particular priests, bishops or laity rely on their soft power authority to sway opinion during debates at synods.

Or it would in theory. In practice, it seems soft power has all but disappeared from the Anglican Church of Canada, and perhaps Anglicanism more broadly, at least in the West. The Roman Catholic Church has a clear, cogent and consistent position on the sanctity of life. Their position is not tied to secular politics of the left or of the right, neither libertarian nor collectivist. It is rooted in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition: man is made in the image and likeness of God, and therefore has inherent value. Life is therefore sacred and must be preserved. The Roman Catholic Church therefore opposes abortion, a position associated with right-wing politics, and capital punishment, left-wing politics, and oppose physician assisted suicide and euthanasia (again positions which tend to be associated with right-wing politics).

The Anglican Church in Canada has in recent months made statements which suggest that the recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling which has opened the door to physician assisted suicide and euthanasia requires renewed consideration of a response. Why would the Supreme Court’s opinion change the Church’s view? If it is to be rooted in Scripture and Tradition, should it not remain constant regardless of the legality in civil law? There hasn’t yet been an official response, but the unofficial response has seen broad endorsement from many bishops, while others have expressed more scepticism, mainly at the ambiguity of the court’s ruling.

When the response, albeit unofficial, is that mixed, what broader authority will any official statement from the Church hold? Will the Church be able to hold a clear, consistent and cogent position vis a vis assisted suicide and other issues relating to life and the person? The Anglican Church of Canada’s current Primate Fred Hiltz has marched in favour of the worldwide abolition of the death penalty, and although many Anglicans do not agree, the stance of the Church remains somewhat pro-life, it has taken significant efforts to avoid mentioning that fact, and many priests and bishops and lay members in the public spotlight (such as current Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May) hold pro-choice positions that oppose any conception of abortion as in some way being the ending of a life as the Anglican Church of Canada once held.

With a fairly clearly intentional silence in recent years on the issue of abortion, it ought to be taken as tacit approval of the secular legal status quo of legalized abortion in Canada. This view cannot be reconciled with opposition to capital punishment from a Christian perspective. Does the Anglican Church of Canada’s opposition to the death penalty stem from the inherent value of the person, or does it stem from some of the practical secular arguments against capital punishment (ineffectiveness, error, etc).

With an ambiguous position, the credibility of the Anglican Church of Canada on this issue is limited. Its ambiguous position hinders its moral clarity and thus eliminates its ability to project soft power. With hard power working internally, is it any wonder that Anglicanism seems to be losing its relevance outside of Church walls? When the Bishop of Rome speaks, his pronouncements tend to carry in the news. It is not because the secular media give weight to Roman Catholicism that they do not give to other Christian groups because they believe Rome to be correct, but rather by virtue of its moral authority, pronouncements from Rome are backed by soft power.

On Heresy

The Sixth Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, who hast prepared for them that love thee such good things as pass man’s understanding: Pour into our hearts such love toward thee, that we, loving thee above all things, may obtain thy promises, which exceed all that we can desire; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Discussions of theology, and how Anglicans have traditionally explored theology in order to ensure right belief, naturally brings to mind the question of what happens when theology, regardless of how it is done, leads to incorrect belief. In the history of the Church, when someone promotes these incorrect beliefs, it tends to be called heresy. This flippant use of the term heresy has a diluted its meaning somewhat however. In the early church, a distinction was drawn between what is merely false teaching, whether intentional or unintentional, and heresy.

In Holy Scripture, Christ himself spoke of false prophets who would distort his words. St Paul similarly echoed Christ’s several times in different epistles. II Peter specifically warns against false teachers and their teachings leading people astray. Throughout Scripture, we are warned that Christians must be on guard against those whose teachings seek to take us away from the Truth that had been revealed in Christ. In modern times, this would be viewed perhaps in terms of any teaching which corrupts Biblical truth and teaching.

To go from false teaching to heresy, there is an element of obstinacy in the face of correction, but more it is the subject matter of the false teaching that can push a false teaching into true heresy. Bishop Daniel Martins, commenting on some of the policies coming out of The Episcopal Church of the United States of America’s recent General Convention, suggested that a distinction must be drawn between that which is merely false teaching and that which is heresy.

To Bishop Martins, the distinction comes when the false teaching is against an article of the creeds. This follows other traditional definitions which have tended to provide for heresy as a public and obstinate denial of one or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity. These two definitions are entirely consistent as the creeds are what define the essentials of Christianity, though as has been previously discussed, encompasses more than just the creeds, but also the canon of scripture, the sacramental life of the church lived primarily through Baptism and the Eucharist, the three-fold order of ministry and the creeds. Bishop Martins here draws a narrower definition that focuses exclusively on the creeds.

The creeds ultimately are the standard of our faith. The Canon of Scripture tells us which books are divinely inspired and therefore, “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work,” (2 Tim 3. 16, 17) as St Paul tells us.

In the case of the Nicene Creed, it represents a working out of particular Christian doctrines in response to strong heresies, such as Arianism, which denied such core Christian doctrines as the Trinity.

For Bishop Martins, the issue was greater than just an individual false teacher, though. What must the response be when it is the church itself, though its liturgies, canons and practices, which promotes the heresy rather than simply a specific and individual false teacher? For Bishops, who are the guardians of teaching and doctrine in the church, to be the ones teaching it speaks to a problem of heresy through the core of the church to which they belong. In any tradition which maintains an ecclesiology of a visible church, as the Anglican Communion, Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church do, there are even greater complications.

When a church with an orthodox history falls into heresy, what obligation do individual Christians have to remain in communion with it? In his Epistle to the Galatians, St Paul tells the Galatians of a time when he was forced to rebuke St Peter who had, by the definition described here, fallen into heresy in his hypocrisy. St Peter had, when confronted with Judaisers who argued that Jewish Christians were free to believe in Christ as the Messiah but still needed to maintain the law including both the dietary restrictions and circumcision. This was viewed by Paul as backsliding and heresy. Had not Christ died for the justification of all believers? In Christ was the fulfilment of the Law. The Creed says Christ was incarnate and crucified for us and for our salvation. When St Peter accepted the Judaiser practice of maintaining the Law, he was at best saying, “Christ died for us, but just in case, let’s still follow the Law.” At worst it was a complete rejection of Christ’s nature and incarnate mission.

St Paul rebuked St Peter who accepted the rebuke and was restored to orthodoxy. What would happen if he had not? What would happen if a modern bishop in the Anglican Church of Canada, for example, were to profess that the Law must still be followed? Would it be necessary for other bishops to remove themselves from communion with that diocese if the heresy persisted?

Bishop Martins argues that when the heresy becomes systemic to the Church itself, it must persist in those heresies for over forty years before a faithful Christian is obligated not to be in communion with it. This does not, however, mean that a faithful Christian should not in all circumstances break communion with it before then. It is laudable to seek to remain in the communion, to correct or rebuke and hopefully encouraging those who also remain to see the errors being taught.

In chapter 14 of his epistle to the Romans, St Paul warns first not to pass judgement on fellow Christians if their weak is faith or strong, for it is the Lord’s right to pass judgement. He continues by famously writing that we should never place a stumbling block in front of another. In this same way, it may be necessary to remove ourselves from communion with a particular church which promotes a particular heresy in order to prevent it from becoming such a stumbling block.

That said, removal from communion is something that should not be undertaken lightly, and should not be something that one does on the basis of flippant motivations. Bishops are the anointed of God, and that anointing should never be forgotten. In many ways, the story of David is instructive in this regard. David had been anointed by God, through the Prophet Samuel, after one too many times, Saul had been disobedient. Later, David became friends with Saul but his great deeds caused him to receive greater praise than Saul. In Saul’s jealousy, he thought David meant to usurp him and tried to kill David several times, before eventually David was forced to flee. In the well-known story, David is on the run from Saul with a few companions, taking refuge in a cave. They are in a dark corner, and go unnoticed by Saul himself when he enters in order to rest from the afternoon sun, and falls asleep. His companions gesture to him that he ought to kill Saul, but David simply goes and cuts a corner off Saul’s robe. Then, after Saul wakes from his rest and leaves the cave, David follows him out and says:

Why do you listen to the words of men who say, ‘Behold, David seeks your harm’? 10 Behold, this day your eyes have seen how the Lord gave you today into my hand in the cave. And some told me to kill you, but I spared you. I said, ‘I will not put out my hand against my lord, for he is the Lord’s anointed.’ (1 Sam 24. 9, 10)

Saul then replies:

“Is this your voice, my son David?” And Saul lifted up his voice and wept. He said to David, “You are more righteous than I, for you have repaid me good, whereas I have repaid you evil. And you have declared this day how you have dealt well with me, in that you did not kill me when the Lord put me into your hands. For if a man finds his enemy, will he let him go away safe? So may the Lord reward you with good for what you have done to me this day. (1 Sam 24. 16-19)

In this same way, we ought to approach a Bishop, with hope that the respect that is shown for their anointing might give them pause to consider why their teachings are forcing Christians in good conscience to break communion with them.

In all things, the term heresy should not be used lightly, and it should never be used to reflect the idea of “those who disagree with me,” nor should mere disagreement, even over a matter of false teaching, ever be reason to break communion with other Christians.

Wisdom of Saints: St Benedict of Nursia

Feast of Benedict, Abbot of Monte Cassino, Italy, c. 540

O ALMIGHTY God, who willest to be glorified in thy Saints, and didst raise up thy servant Benedict to shine as a light in the world: Shine, we pray thee, in our hearts, that we also in our generation may show forth thy praises, who hast called us out of darkness into thy marvellous light; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

St Benedict of Nursia is considered to be the founder of monasticism in the Christian West. St Benedict founded the Benedictine Order in the 6th century, setting the tone for Western monasticism, and creating an enduring tradition which remains popular throughout the West to this day. A good deal is known about his life from the Dialogues of Pope St Gregory the Great.

St Benedict was born in Nursia, Italy. The son of a Roman noble, St Benedict moved with his family to Rome where he received his education. Around the age of twenty, he became convinced of the need to abandon the lifestyle he was growing into in Rome, and which he saw among his companions. Instead, he turned to the Gospels and sought to dedicate his life exclusively to God. Ultimately this led him to leave Rome, not to take the hermit’s path, but rather to find somewhere away from the temptations and sin on display in the Roman capital. After a brief period living in a small town 30 miles from Rome with a servant he had brought with him. There his first recorded miracle took place, as he miraculously restored a piece of earthenware his servant had accidentally broken. As news of this miracle spread, he grained significant notoriety throughout the town. This attention on him eventually convinced him to take the hermit’s path, and he moved to a cave in some nearby mountains where he lived a more ascetic lifestyle for the next three years, supported only by the abbot Romanus who had a monastery near St Benedict’s cave.

Even in seclusion, he earned a reputation for his pious asceticism and devotion to God. This eventually led to him being asked to become the abbot for a nearby monastery at Vicovaro. He ultimately agreed and went with them for a time. He attempted to impose a more rigid discipline on the monastery emulating his own more ascetic lifestyle, but soon after the monastery’s monks came to regret their invitation to St Benedict to lead them. They found it difficult to follow his strict rules, and ultimately attempted to poison him. Although they failed, St Benedict realised that his tenure as leader was not working out and he returned to his cave.

He began to earn a reputation as a miracle worker, and the number of recorded miracles attributed to him in this period are many. This attracted followers in sufficient numbers to establish twelve new monasteries in the region. In 530 he began construction of his own personal monastery at Monte Cassino in a site where he had previously destroyed a pagan temple to Apollo. In these monasteries, he began working on the development of his Rule which would be used to organize the monastic communities he had established.

The Rule he developed was based on the use of common sense, moderate asceticism, prayer, study of the Scriptures and the saints, work and a life lived in community in obedience, stability (the Rule provided for a regular daily schedule of work, prayer and rest) and the use of the Divine Offices.

He remained the Abbot at Monte Cassino until his death, but has been immortalised by his Rule.

The Rule of St Benedict is the surviving record of the Rule of Life monks in his monasteries were required to live by, but far beyond sketching out the life of a secluded monk, they are an excellent guide to the mink of pious Christian living. In the Book of Common Prayer, after the Catechism is a supplementary instruction section, at the end of which is this exhortation:

Every Christian man or woman should from time to time frame for himself a RULE OF LIFE in accordance with the precepts of the Gospel and the faith and order of the Church; wherein he may consider the following:
The regularity of his attendance at public worship and especially at the holy Communion.
The practice of private prayer, Bible-reading, and self-discipline.
Bringing the teaching and example of Christ into his everyday life.
The boldness of his spoken witness to his faith in Christ.
His personal service to the Church and the community.
The offering of money according to his means for the support of the work of the Church at home and overseas. (BCP, 555)

This exhortation contains within it a framework for a Rule of Life wholly consistent with the Rule of St Benedict.

The first suggestion is regular attendance to public worship, especially to receive the Holy Eucharist. For St Benedict’s monks, this was not necessarily possible as most monks (including St Benedict himself) were nor ordained and could not themselves celebrate the Eucharist. They were still required to attend Sunday mass and receive communion, but all monks were required to communally pray the Daily Offices. St Benedict explains why:

We believe that the divine presence is everywhere and that “the eyes of the Lord are looking on the good and the evil in every place” (Prov. 15:3). But we should believe this especially without any doubt when we are assisting at the Work of God... Let us therefore consider how we ought to conduct ourselves in sight of the Godhead and of His Angels, and let us take part in the psalmody in such a way that our mind may be in harmony with our voice. (RoB, Ch. XIX)

The second area the BCP encourages the creation of a Rule is in prayer, reading of Scripture and self-discipline. The Rule of Benedict requires prayer multiple times a day. In the first chapter it describes the character of a good monk as a person of prayer, “And first of all, whatever good work you begin to do, beg of Him with most earnest prayer to perfect it, that He who has now deigned to count us among His children may not at any time be grieved by our evil deeds.” Similarly, Scripture was read constantly. Included in the Rule was the provision that no meal should go without Scripture reading, and therefore the monks were to establish a schedule for a regular rotation of readers. The only interruption allowed would be if the Superior of the monastery wanted to briefly interrupt the reading to explain part of it. Finally, self-discipline was at the core of the Rule, which provided for poverty of monks, limits on food and clothing to avoid becoming too ostentatious (historically, some monks maintained lavish lifestyles despite vows of poverty because their monasteries became rich and the fine clothes and food the monks enjoyed technically belonged to the monastery itself and did not violate their personal vows of poverty).

The remaining four suggestions in the BCP are all related. Living a Christ-like life, speaking the Word of God boldly (in the way Christ taught), offering service to the Church and community (again in the model of Christ), offering money according to your means, as Christ taught. In the Rule of Benedict, there are a number of requirements that relate to these particular aspects of the Christian life. Chapter 4 of the Rule provides for a list of 61 “instruments of Good Works.” These include various instructions of Christ, including the Beatitudes, a summary of the Decalogue, and other rules related to the asceticism prescribed by St Benedict.

St Benedict’s rule remains in common use throughout the Western world by Christian monastics, but it also provides a guide for a Rule of Life for any Christian.

On Theology

The Fifth Sunday after Trinity

GRANT O Lord, we beseech thee, that the course of this world may be so peaceably ordered by thy governance, that thy Church may joyfully serve thee in all godly quietness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The issue of Anglicanism and Same-Sex Marriage is once again front and centre. The US Supreme Court, in a civil ruling affecting the civil laws on marriage in the United States, and at the same time The Episcopal Church, the primary Anglican church in the United States had its triennial General Convention, which included a debate over the authorization of a revised rite for same-sex marriage. All of this has spilled over into Canada and elsewhere, including it must be noted non-Anglican traditions who have been compelled to respond to the development.

Metropolitan Tikhon of the Orthodox Church in America has perhaps had the best and most succinct response, in which he affirmed that the OCA has made, “issued a number of statements outlining, detailing and clarifying the teaching of our Holy Faith on this matter in light of challenges from our American society,” over the years, and:

The ruling does not change the teaching of the Church, but it does remind us of the need to be Christ-like in our dealings with everyone. The state has the responsibility to enact laws that protect the rights of each individual.  The Church, while it does not bless “same-sex marriages” or view them as sacramental, does see the image of Christ in every individual, and his or her worth in the eyes of the Lord Who died upon the Cross for our salvation.

This shows two important points. First, the statement reiterates the point that Church doctrine is not, and ought not to be, based on civil laws, such that this ruling (or the passage of the Marriage Act in 2004 in Canada) does not demand that the Church similarly make a change to its understanding of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. The second point is that while it does not mean doctrines or theologies of the Church must change, it may require that those same doctrines and theologies be applied in new ways that are adapted to the new realities of the society in which the Church exists.

This statement could well have been written by Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsay a few decades ago, but is contrasted heavily with more recent responses. Retired TEC bishop Gene Robinson suggested that, “all religions will be under more pressure now to get in lockstep with society.”

The idea that the Church must, at least in part, base its theology and doctrines on civil developments is completely alien to traditional Anglicanism and the Anglican way of “doing” theology.

The three-legged stool is one way Anglicans have traditionally viewed as the model by which we do theology. First, Holy Scripture, then reason, embodied in the writings of the Fathers and saints throughout the ages, and finally tradition, embodied in the Anglican formularies of the Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal and Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. For Canadian Anglicans, the Solemn Declaration of 1893, which clergy subscribe to prior to ordination, explicitly requires that they submit to the formularies and Holy Scripture, so it is a canonical requirement in addition to simply being part of the Anglican tradition used by Anglicans everywhere.

In the Articles themselves, we are reminded of the primacy of Scripture. Article VI states, “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” They are the inspired word of God, and there is no better or more reliable source of information for us to turn to when seeking to establish or modify our theology or doctrines. For Anglicans, unlike Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, nothing can be taught as a requirement of the faith that cannot be proved by Holy Scripture.

Not all Scripture can be plainly interpreted, however. That is where the faculty of reason comes into play. Throughout the centuries, countless Christians have written and handed down homilies on the Scriptures and great works on theology. These works help us to understand the meaning behind Scripture as it has been understood by the Church throughout the centuries, and similarly how different doctrines of the church have been understood.

When we test a doctrine against Scripture, it can sometimes be simple enough to pick a few verses and claim they support the doctrine we are proposing, by virtue of presenting a skewed interpretation of Scripture. When we test against Scripture and then the view of the Church Fathers, this type of skewed interpretation is no longer possible, because we do not simply test it against the plain words of Holy Scripture itself, but also the accepted orthodox interpretations of Holy Scripture held throughout the centuries.

Finally, there is the tradition of the Church. The reality of Christianity is that there are many practices and views which have been held only in particular times and in particular places. When Anglicans do theology, therefore, it is essential that doctrines also be tested against the Anglican formularies. One might be able to find an understanding of the Eucharist that does not contradict Holy Scripture, and may even find support with one or more of the Church Fathers, or at least does not conflict with their writing, but if it remains in conflict with the Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal or Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion then it remains outside the parameters of acceptable Anglican Doctrine.

An example of this might be the doctrine of transubstantiation as held by the Roman Catholic Church. One can argue in favour of it from Scripture, and a number of saints throughout history have held to doctrines consistent with transubstantiation, but Article XXVIII argues that, “The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith,” and that transubstantiation, “hath given occasion to many superstitions.”

As we face increasing pressure for the Church to modernise her doctrines, to try to get in lockstep with society, as Bishop Gene Robinson put it, it is an important reminder that Church doctrine is based on God’s will and God’s law, not on the rules of society.

On Post Traumatic Theology

The Fourth Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, the protector of all that trust in thee, without whom nothing is strong, nothing is holy: Increase and multiply upon us thy mercy; that, thou being our ruler and guide, we may so pass through things temporal, that we finally lose not the things eternal. Grant this, O heavenly Father, for Jesus Christ’s sake our Lord. Amen.

Your faith is too safe.

Safety in church is something a few people have been pondering in light of the horrific events in the United States which saw several Christians gunned down at bible study. It should, however, be noted that while they were Christians and the murders occurred while they were at Bible study in their parish home, the attacks seem to be motivated entirely by their race, rather than their faith.

In Canada, our faith is too safe, but not because these types of racially motivated mass murders are not common here (though, the École Polytechnique Massacre would be an example of something similar), nor because we face the type of persecution Christians in the Middle East or in China now face due to oppressive governments.

While it may miss the greater point over racial violence in the United States, it does raise an interesting subject for discussion. In the Early Church, Church was the people. Christians met in private and often in some amount of secrecy due to persecution, either from Jewish officials or state officials. Jewish officials were concerned with their view that Christian teaching would be subversive both to their religious orthodoxy and their temporal authority in their society. The Roman persecutions tended to be based more on concerns that Christians were subversive to state authority, due to their unwillingness to worship the Emperor, and also was reinforced by the secrecy surrounding certain Christian beliefs and practices.

In Canada, the state guarantees our freedom of religious belief as well as our physical safety. We are protected against government persecutions and private persecution on the basis of our faith. Yet one interesting further difference in this situation is that none of what Christians practice or preach is viewed as threatening or subversive to the state or society in the way that it was in the time of the Early Church.

Christians are called to live a life of truth and grace, in the image of Christ’s example, but despite the repeated warnings in Scripture that we are not meant to be a part of the world (eg. Jn 15. 19; Jn 16. 7-11; Rm 12. 2; 1 Cor 1. 20; etc) or take our teachings from the world, many Christians seem reticent today to rock the boat of secular popular opinion.

Our faith is too safe.

In the Anglican Church of Canada, we still talk about Christianity being counter-cultural, yet in the same breath in discussing the daily life of the church, the advice heard most often is some variation on, “get with the times.” We don’t want to offend anyone. On doctrinal issues, there is similarly a drive to try and show how secular views are entirely in line with the Gospel message and that the Church must therefore catch up to what society has already come to accept.

This is not to say that there is an inherent conflict between society (Canadian or other) and Christianity. In any society, there will be elements which line up with God’s will and elements which do not. Indeed, in Canada, the fact that Christian ethics and morality were the norm among the people and leaders of the country for over a hundred years. Not so today, and many people love to spend time debating when that change happened, but the fundamentals remain and in many cases, human conceptions of justice, right and good still mirror God’s laws.

In many ways Anglican, and all Christian, theology is post traumatic theology, in that it is generated to respond to some particular kind of trauma or controversy. In modern Canada, that trauma is fear of offending secular logic and sensibilities.

It is ironically a very Canadian approach to desire to be inoffensive. Yet it is not Canadian to be squeamish. Nor is it Christian. In the Acts of the Apostles, boldness is what characterizes the Apostles and disciples of Christ, in contrast to their shame and meekness following his arrest.

We have freedom to practice our faith, and yet instead, out of fear, we seek to conform our faith to what is acceptable to secular society. St Paul once wrote, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect,” (Rm 12. 2). When you limit your faith you grace and love, it is easy. No one is going to be offended by that, especially when you do not use God’s definition of love, but your own or society’s. How could they? The problem is that Christ did not come only with love, he came with grace and truth. It was love and grace that allowed Christ to approach the Samaritan woman at the well in the Gospel of St John.

Had Christ come only in love, it would have been an affirmation of her adultery. If he had not come in love, he would have been Pharisaical in his rebuke of her sins. When we are too safe, it is not simply that our theology becomes stunted, but it risk being outright wrong!

The shootings in Charleston have been supplanted in social media by the recent decision by the United States Supreme Court which has paved the way for same-sex marriage across the United States. This ruling comes during the middle of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church of the United States, where the issue of same-sex marriage has already been on the agenda and generating significant debate. If you listen to many Christians, the ruling is certainly a trauma, and General Convention is sure to have some kind of response.

The question now is whether or not General Convention will seek to play it safe and appeal to secular society, or whether they will act boldly with grace and truth in emulation of Christ. The pressure to conform ourselves to the world is strong. The pressure to have a safe faith is strong. If the inspiration of Christ and the Apostles is insufficient, we in the West ought to look to our brothers and sisters in Christ in the many places throughout the world where persecution does not mean the potential risk of ridicule or social ostracization, but rather death.

In as much as we seek to learn the circumstances of our brothers and sisters who face persecution, we must similarly seek to learn the example of how, regardless of personal safety, they choose to practice their faith boldly.

On Time

The Third Sunday after Trinity

O LORD, we beseech thee mercifully to hear us; and grant that we, to whom thou hast given an hearty desire to pray, may by thy mighty aid be defended and comforted in all dangers and adversities; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Last Sunday’s post began with some musings on how language influences thought patterns and perceptions. Last week’s article discussed how it affects our theology in respect of our relationship with God and our willingness to submit ourselves wholly and completely to his will. This week considers how language can affect things such as our perception of events, and in particular time.

In the Greek of the Bible, there are two words which are rendered into the English word ‘time’ namely chronos and kairos. Chronos is used in the sense of a measurement of linear time. The progression of events past to the future, or events that have yet to occur. Kairos, by contrast, is not quantitative and refers to a particular moment of time, rather than a measurement of it. It is qualitative to the quantitative chronos.

Chronos involves a way of measuring time. Kairos is a way of indicating a marked moment in the present. Now. In our Christian walk, God marks several moments. Indeed, in Christian theology, kairos is viewed specifically as the moment in which God’s purpose is ultimately fulfilled.

It is an interesting reflection on the fact that chronos, culturally, is more reflective of Western Christianity which seeks to quantify and explain, systematize and order all things, whereas in the East Christianity tends to be viewed more experientially, with less need to explore the Holy Mysteries of God, and more of a need to experience them.

A friend recently received the Sacrament of Confirmation, and it was these thoughts that were working through my mind as the Lord Bishop laid hands on her and prayed over her for a strengthening of the Holy Spirit in her life.

Some of the sacraments indelibly mark our lives. In Holy Baptism, when chrism is applied, we are sealed and marked as Christ’s own forever. It is a marked moment in our lives, in which we accomplish one of God’s ultimate purposes for us, reconciliation with him. In Confirmation to do we experience this marked moment of kairos, this fulfilment of God’s purpose in our lives.

Our Christian lives are journeys. In Scripture, the Christian path is described quite literally as a walk (eg. Gal 5. 25; Eph 4. 1; Eph 5. 8), but these passages speak to a deeper meaning, that of our sanctification and infused righteousness. In this understanding, our righteousness is not imputed by Christ, but rather is the transformative result of God’s sanctifying grace which gradually justifies the Christian. It is not instantaneous. Even for those, generally speaking Protestants and some Anglicans, who hold to a different view of justification, they still view the Christian life as a journey and process, for those same Scriptural reasons and that even once justified, the Christian must, as it says in St Matthew’s Gospel, “But the one who endures to the end will be saved,” (St Mt 24. 13).


It is therefore easy to think of the Christian life in terms of chronos. At some point in the past, I came to knowledge of Christ, and was baptised in the name of the Trinity, and since then have continued to struggle to fulfil the Gospel teachings and Christ’s commandments and be filled with God’s transforming grace.

Yet, we must never forget these marked moments of kairos in our lives. These moments which, in the Eastern Christian understanding, we participate in some way in God’s eternity. CS Lewis discusses this concept somewhat briefly in Mere Christianity when he considers God’s nature beyond time. While he discusses this in the context of doctrine and pious devotion and belief under the authority of Holy Scripture, he expresses his personal belief that for God, everything is now. God is beyond time and does not experience chronos, but rather experiences the totality of kairos at once.

Less philosophically, it is important to not simply become focused on perceptions of the process, while ignoring the moments we are experiencing now. Christianity is not meant to be a clinical process, but a joy to be experienced. There is nothing wrong with remembering past accomplishments, and indeed failures in order to avoid them again, or looking to the future, but if we do so to the detriment of the present, we will never experience the true essence of Christianity, relationship with God.