On Desire

The Twenty-Fifth Sunday after Trinity

O LORD, we beseech thee to keep thy Church and household continually in thy true religion; that they who do lean only upon the hope of thy heavenly grace may evermore be defended by thy mighty power; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

As the Articles of Religion affirm and as Scripture teaches us, God has gifted humanity with free will. A consequence of this free will is that we have desires. These are the forces within us that motivate us to act. Our desires can be either good or bad, either drawing us nearer to God or taking us away from him.

St Augustine of Hippo famously defined desire that draws us towards God, virtue, in terms of rightly ordered love. In On Christian Doctrine he famously expands on this meaning stating that:

love things, that is to say, in the right order, so that you do not love what is not to be loved, or fail to love what is to be loved, or have a greater love for what should be loved less, or an equal love for things that should be loved less or more, or a lesser or greater love for things that should be loved equally.

To use the language of desire, we must use our free will to order our desires in order that we desire to be in the amount suitable to the object of that desire. Disordered desire is the root of sin. For instance, when we desire material wealth for ourselves over our desire for the well-being of our neighbours, it is easy to see how we might be willing to cheat them or otherwise allow our actions to negatively affect them in the pursuit of our own gain.

A clearer example comes from the consideration of the desire for social belonging. It is a fundamental motivator of all human behaviour to have belonging. In a modern Western context, that desire manifests in certain culturally conditioned patterns of behaviour which are normative for anyone who wants to fit in and be a part of society. It is perfectly natural and anyone would be hard pressed to suggest that in and of itself a desire to be a part of a group is sinful. Yet Christianity often challenges these cultural norms that form the basis of belonging. How often on a Sunday does a homily exegete a passage of Holy Scripture by expounding on how Christ is calling us to counter-cultural action? Suddenly our desire for God—to follow him, to honour him and to have intimate relationship with him, is placed in conflict with the desire to conform to the norms of society in order to fit in. If we place our desire to conform to the norms of society above our desire to follow God’s counter-cultural call, we have a disordered desire.

There are many hymns and modern praise songs that speak of turning ourselves wholeheartedly over to Christ. How many Christians, however, can upon reflection sing these lyrics in all sincerity? 

In the famous lyrics, “O Love that wilt not let me go, / I rest my weary soul in thee; / I give thee back the life I owe, / That in thine ocean depths its flow / May richer, fuller be,” we are promising to give back our lives to God who gave us life, yet that does not in practice seem to be what we do. We withhold our lives from God like Ananias and Sapphira withheld some of the profit from the sale of their property.  Our lips proclaim a desire to turn ourselves over to God, but our actions often show those words to ring hollow in our lives.

There is a disconnect between what we say we desire, what we say we love, and what we actually love. We have failed in most of our modern Christian lives, to cultivate a theology of desire, this place of rightly ordered desires that will maintain our orientation towards God.

It is helpful to think of this in terms of desire rather than love because often we view loves as something which we have no control over, and also because we associate love with the emotion of love far more than we ought to when considering the full spectrum of what love entails. With desire, it seems easier to draw that mental connection with our ability to control our desires.

This is where spiritual disciplines come in. It is through the use of spiritual disciplines that we can begin to cultivate Godly desires and suppress those or reshape those desires that are disordered. Spiritual disciplines are opportunities to practice intentional orientation of our desires in a way that we often wouldn’t consider to be the case in terms of love. When love is viewed as an emotion it means it cannot be controlled or shaped, simply experienced and actualized or denied. With desire, we can shape it because it is something more persistent.

Ultimately, when our desires are oriented towards God, they will move us towards him. When they remain disordered, however, they will move us away from him. Desires apart from God are never fully satisfied, however, as they are ultimately self-satisfied. CS Lewis makes this point when he argues that pride is the great sin from which all other sin derives because it explicitly involves placing ourselves in the place of God. As we are created with a desire and that desire can only be fulfilled by God, it becomes a clear implication that when we follow these disordered desires we will always be left wanting more.

Spiritual disciplines that are useful for the reorientation of our desires include the cultivation of gratitude and thankfulness. This might be as simple as beginning your morning in a prayer of thanksgiving for how you are thankful for a day of opportunity that God has brought you to (the collect for grace from Morning Prayer is a suitable starting point for this) to creating gratitude lists: identifying throughout your day all the things you are grateful to God for. 

The confession from Morning Prayer reminds us that, “we have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts,” and is a lesson that St Paul reminds us of. In Romans 1. 21 Paul describes how the lack of gratitude towards God for who he is and what he has done is the root of humanity’s descent into guilt and the disordering of humanity’s desires. To return to Godly desires, we need to consider why we got there in the first place and then continue to practice this culture of gratitude in order to strengthen the correctly ordered desires.

It is through this development of a clear theology of desire that we find ourselves drawing closer and closer to God.

On the Articles: Article XXXVI

The Twenty-First Sunday after Trinity

GRANT, we beseech thee, merciful Lord, to thy faithful people pardon and peace; that they may be cleansed from all their sins, and serve thee with a quiet mind; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXXVI. Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers
The Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering: neither hath it any thing, that of itself is superstitious and ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that Book, since the second year of the forenamed King Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same Rites; we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.

The final Articles of religion deal with a number of more practical matters primarily, while making less significant theological statements. While the Canadian Book of Common Prayer last revised in 1962 contains within it the rites of ordination for deacons, priests and bishops, the Ordinal, as it was commonly known, was originally published separate to the Book of Common Prayer. Similarly, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion themselves are not published within the BCP but separately. When Anglicans refer to the three formularies, though, they mean the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal referred to in this Article, and the whole of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.

At the time of the English Reformation, the question of the right ordination of priests was one that became somewhat contentious. Especially as Mary assumed the throne and sought to restore Roman supremacy to England. This Article affirms the English rites that would be used to ordain priests to Christ’s priestly ministry.

The statement implicitly affirms the right of the English Church to exist as part of the Catholic Church apart from Roman jurisdictional authority, much as the Eastern Orthodox churches have since their inception (meaning since the time of the Apostles, not simply since the Schism in 1054).

This Article relates directly to Article XXIII which defined the need for a properly ordained priest to preside over the sacraments and to preach or teach. It is in this Article that it is clearly defined how we are to know who has properly called by God and consecrated by the Church for that task.

Just as there was an importance in defending the validity of English ordinations, it was also an article that was important in determining the invalidity of Protestant ministers to preside over English Catholics. At times, Protestants sought to take charge and preach and teach within English churches and due to the confusion of the day, this practice was allowed in some locales for a time. It was Article XXIII’s insistence on properly appointed ministers that clarified that it was not a congregational decision who would preach and teach, something that reflected the congregational polity of Presbyterians coming from Scotland, while it was this Article that clarified in perpetuity the importance of the Ordinal as establishing the means, qualifications and rites of ordination for deacons, priests and bishops.

It should be noted that this Article does not address lay ministers which have always existed as minor orders historically and today are viewed as laity with particular permission to act in a certain way. This includes licensed lay ministers who preach and officiate at services in parishes without permanent clergy as well as catechists and other particular forms of lay ministers who have permission to perform a specific function. These people are not considered to be a form of ordination to holy orders and therefore do not contravene this Article, and similarly find their practice in the authority of the Church to allow for local practices and customs as necessary.

On the Articles: Article XXXV

Harvest Thanksgiving

O ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who crownest the year with thy goodness, and hast given unto us the fruits of the earth in their season: Give us grateful hearts, that we may unfeignedly thank thee for all thy loving-kindness, and worthily magnify thy holy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Twentieth Sunday after Trinity

O ALMIGHTY and most merciful God, of thy bountiful goodness keep us, we beseech thee, from all things that may hurt us; that we, being ready both in body and soul, may cheerfully accomplish those things that thou wouldest have done; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. 

XXXV. Of the Homilies
The second Book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth; and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people.
Of the Names of the Homilies
1 Of the right Use of the Church                        11 Of Alms-doing
2 Against Peril of Idolatry                                  12 Of the Nativity of Christ
3 Of repairing and keeping clean of Churches   13 Of the Passion of Christ
4 Of good Works: first of Fasting                       14 Of the Resurrection of Christ
5 Against Gluttony and Drunkenness                 15 Of the worthy receiving the
6 Against Excess of Apparel                                    Sacrament of the Body of Christ
7 Of Prayer                                                          16 Of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost
8 Of the Place and Time of Prayer                      17 For the Rogation-days
9 That Common Prayers and Sacraments ought 18 Of the State of Matrimony
    to be ministered in a known tongue                19 Of Repentance
10 Of the reverend Estimation of God’s Word   20 Against Idleness
                                                                            21 Against Rebellion

It would seem appropriate on this Harvest Thanksgiving for reflecting on the treasure both of the Articles of Religion in general and of the Homilies in particular for explaining the mind of the Reformers and the ideals of Anglicanism to which we are aspire. One of the difficulties of Christianity in general is that while many would accept, in some form or another, the authority of Holy Scripture over the faith, the Holy Scriptures are not always explicitly clear in all circumstances. Much like the Scriptures, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal, the three Anglican Formularies, are not always clear, but the Homilies expand on a number of doctrines providing clarity in a way which was intended to be presented to the people throughout the year so not only the priests and bishops of the Church would know and understand, but that the people would as well. They are consistent with the principle of Article XXIV and explicitly stated in the Article when it says that the purpose of the Book of Homilies is that they be reach in Church so that the people can understand.

This speaks to a broader principle that Christians should know their faith. They should do so by being able to follow the mass, by being able to know the Scriptures and by being able to understand the doctrines of the Church that they worship in. These concepts seem common sense and indeed it would be quite unusual in a modern context for them to be ignored, though interestingly there is a bit of a reality where the Anglican Church of Canada falls short.

For example, what is the Anglican Church of Canada’s position on abortion? This question comes under scrutiny owing to the United States where a number of clergy of The Episcopal Church have made headlines for blessing abortion clinics and their work. While the abortion issue in the United States is roundly political, it is less so in Canada where the matter only rarely makes public headlines, with proponents of legalized abortion having effectively won the battle in the eighties. The Anglican Church of Canada has remained silent on this issue. It ultimately recognized the secular ‘right to abortion’ which had been proclaimed by the Supreme Court of Canada, but affirmed rights for the unborn. The refusal of the Church to speak to the theological rationale for such a position leads to ambiguity on other areas, such as the current political debate over assisted suicide.

A second benefit of the homilies is that they help to provide significantly more context and explanation for the Articles and principles of Anglicanism which have come under attack by those who say that the historic Anglican formularies have no meaning today because we cannot possibly know what was intended by them when they were written, and thus have no way of applying their doctrines today. Such arguments have been made in Canada with respect to the 1893 Solemn Declaration, and similarly argued by those in respect of clerical subscription to the Articles of Religion.

While the Homilies are no longer read in Church, there is no reason they could not be read, or presented as part of a teaching course after the mass. There is similarly no reason, particularly in this age of technology where the Homilies are a google search away for free, any lay person could not read them for their own personal edification.

In an age where religion is under attack, is it sufficient to have faith, or should we be able to explain our faith? Should we be exploring the ways in which our faith intersects with all aspects of our lives or is it sufficient to say “I believe in Christ’s redemption of my sins, and that is enough.” When we hold a limited view of faith, it contributes to many of the problems the Church is facing now over revised doctrine. The debate over same-sex marriage is one in many good-hearted Christians who are theologically illiterate fall prey to secular arguments simply because no one has made the effort to follow the principle of this Article and educate them on the meaning of the ‘wholesome’ doctrines of Anglicanism.

This similarly contributes to those who fall away from the faith because they view the Church’s counter-cultural actions as being indefensible or simply rooted in some kind of historic backwardness that will never change. They call the Church to “get with the times” and when it doesn’t, they leave. The solution is not to change. The solution is not to look to some new method of congregational development that will integrate and retain parishioners. The solution is to return to the principles of the English Reformation that brought us these articles and remember that the bishops, the clergy and people all need to understand their faith if they are going to be able to give a defence of the hope that is within them.

On the Articles: Article XXVI

The Eleventh Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, who declarest thy almighty power most chiefly in showing mercy and pity: Mercifully grant unto us such a measure of thy grace, that we, running the way of thy commandments, may obtain thy gracious promises, and be made partakers of thy heavenly treasure; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXVI. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the SacramentsAlthough in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes 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 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.
Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally being found guilty, by just judgement be deposed.

After having previously addressed the issue of who may minister to the congregation, in Article XXIII, it makes sense that the converse issue might be addressed: what happens when your priest is leading a sinful life? As the Article notes, “evil be ever mingled with the good,” meaning that this is not a new issue. Even in Biblical times there is the example of Eli’s two sons who led sinful lives despite following in his footsteps as priests, leading to their deaths, and Samuel’s ascension as God’s chosen priest and prophet.

The question here becomes more focused, though. If only priests may minister to the people through Word and Sacrament, what happens when that priest is sinful? The Article begins by noting that they do not minister in their own names or in the names of the people, but rather in Christ’s name, by his commission and authority. This is an interesting point to make as it runs counter to many theological arguments underpinning ministry in the Book of Alternative Services and in the modern Anglican Church of Canada, which argues that the priest ministers in the name of the assembled people, not in Christ’s name. There is a diminished view of the priesthood, no longer viewing it through the lens of anointing, calling and equipping, as the Article does. And yet, this is the standard of Anglicanism. In resolving this broader issue of whether or not one can receive the Eucharist from a sinful priest, the answer is absolutely going to change if one argues that the priest is operating in persona Christi, and in Christ’s authority versus someone who views the priest as ministering in nominae ecclesia.

The Article points out that when the priest ministers in Christ’s name, God’s grace is working through them whether or not they are wicked. This is an important thing to remember, as the reality is that all priests are sinners, just as all other humans are sinners. St Paul is explicit: all fall short (Rm 3. 23).

This is furthermore and interesting statement on the sacraments themselves. It is again reminding us that the sacraments are an objective reality: their grace does not depend upon the state of the person administering them neither upon the state of the person receiving (though future articles will address how the recipients state can affect the impact of the reception of the sacrament upon them). The Eucharist is effective, “because of Christ’s institution and promise,” not the status of the minister.

This again reinforces Article XXIII when you consider the question of why there would need to be priests if their presence doesn’t seem to matter. There it speaks of the importance of order in the Church. St Paul emphasized the in I Corinthians especially the importance of order, and so do the Articles of Religion.

To conclude Article XXVI, it says that even though God can work through the sinfulness of the minister, that is still not to be desired, and for the good ordering of the Church, where a minister is believed to be engaged in unrepentant sinful conduct, the matter should be investigated, as a matter of “the discipline of the Church.” Where their conduct is proven, it argues that the priest ought to be deposed.

This is an interesting statement in that today, it takes an extremely severe act to cause a priest to be defrocked. Most priests today that are defrocked, a relatively rare occurrence to begin with, suffer their fate not as a result of being found to have led a sinful life, but rather after criminal sanctions have been applied in the civil sphere. Where a priest admits to sinful living, famously the consecration of Gene Robinson who was in allowed to be consecrated bishop in the Episcopal Church of the United States despite being engaged in a relationship which, at least at the time, was regarded as sinful by the Church.

There are likely many less publicized examples of priests unrepentant of the sins and who, at most, receive a written rebuke.

The Articles of Religion make clear that this is not a matter of debate. When a priest, like any Christian, falls short, they are to repent of their sins. When they instead harden their hearts and say, “this is not sin and I have no need to repent,” they are placing themselves in the place of God and turning fully from him to live in their sin. There must be consequences in order to maintain the good order of the Church.

Anglicanism today, particularly in the Anglican Church of Canada, likes to congratulate itself on allowing for greater and greater diversity of opinions, but at no point should this tolerance for diversity of opinions include allowing private judgements on what is sin: that is a matter for God. Nowhere is leadership on this issue more important than in the priesthood: how can any lay people be expected to submit to God’s judgement when clergy themselves ignore it?

On the Articles: Article XXIII

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.

XXIII. Of Ministering in the Congregation
It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.

The question of the leadership of the Church has been one contested for many years. In the time of the Reformation, it was continental reformers that decried the rights of the bishops and of Rome indirectly to appoint and control the clerics who ministered to the local parish. Local control was sought developed into numerous different models of church governance seen today among various protestant denominations. All had one thing in common: they rejected the Biblical pattern of Apostolic succession.

From the replacement of Judas’s office in Acts of the Apostles (1. 20-26) by St Matthias to the appointment of Titus and Timothy, and the calling of the first deacons, there has been a clear establishment in Scripture of the Apostolic succession, the laying on of hands

Although the three-fold order of ministry existed, at different times and at different places, the method of selecting a leader differed. Even into the fourth century, bishops were sometimes chosen by the laity by popular vote, while in other places the secular authority of the king of prince would be able to select who would become bishop. These ambiguities were used by the protestant reformers to argue in favour of their congregational models in which a congregation could call any person to minister for them.

By the time of the English Reformation, however, the Apostolic Succession had been firmly established. While there was room to differ in some of the manner of selecting of bishops, priests were ordained exclusively by bishops in apostolic succession for particular purposes, and to be priested you would first be ordained and serve as a deacon, which had a different role than the priest. The reformers explicitly preserve this practice in this article.

Whereas in a protestant church, if a minister was needed, any member could be called and effectively begin preaching and ministering the next day, in Anglicanism, there was a much longer period of discernment which ultimately required the authority of the bishop to ordain the person for their duty. It was never an accepted practice in Anglicanism, as Article XXIII makes clear, to allow any member of the laity to begin preaching or administering the sacraments.

Interestingly it has only been in recent years, since the Roman Catholic Vatican II Council, that there has been a general loosening of this provision. Roman Catholics, facing shortages, authorized the use of extraordinary lay administrants of the sacrament, lay people who could, in the absence of the necessary number of priests, help to administer, though not consecrate, the blessed sacrament. Following this, many other churches, including Anglican jurisdictions around the world, took this as a signal that they too could loosen the rules, such that deacons and lay people began to be permitted to preach with the authorization of the bishop, and lay people similarly began to be permitted to serve at the altar in new ways as well.

Interestingly, it seems to have been an accident of history in Canada, at least, that saw the diaconate fall into disuse. Due to that, many of the roles of deacons have been taken up by the laity, who only now are beginning to discover the number of lay people who may well have been called to serve as deacons.

In either case, the requirements of Article XXIII are still being fulfilled. The first sentence of the Article states that no one may preach or administer the sacraments unless duly authorized. At the time of its writing this meant that the process of ordination needed to be followed based on the ordinal, one of the other three Anglican Formularies, while today it remains consistent for a bishop to duly authorize lay people to administer those functions as lay people.

While modern practices show that this article is consistent with allowing some level of lay participation, without commenting on the degree to which lay participation in certain roles is desirable, it suggests a strong concern for the apostolic succession.

Apostolic succession is important not simply in terms of the practice of laying on of hands, and the ability to point to the bishop that consecrated your bishop who ordained you, but points to the transmission of the faith delivered once to the Apostles. Going back to Article XIX, the limitation of the preaching and administration of sacraments is not simply to clericalize the Church, but because it ensures that the pure word of God will be preached when those who are permitted to preach have been properly educated, tried and tested before they are so authorized.

This Article speaks to the issue of authority in the Church, and how the people can have confidence in the person that is preaching, and that what they are preaching is true and that the sacraments they are administering are indeed sacraments. This was of particular concern at the time of the English Reformation when there was concern over what was being preached, and particularly in light of the fact that among protestants almost anyone seemed to able to do anything, so whether or not that person truly was ordained.

In modern times, there are again concerns over legitimacy. As Christianity continues to fragment over issues of doctrine, it is always a helpful reminder that the goal of priests is to preserve the apostolic teaching. When someone is preaching, they have been authorized by a bishop in apostolic succession to do so, and their teaching is expected to be in accord with that tradition. At a time when that is not always the case, this Article serves as a reminder of what Anglicans ought to be doing.

On the Articles

The Sunday called Sexagesima

O LORD God, who seest that we put not our trust in any thing that we do: Mercifully grant that by thy power we may be defended against all adversity; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion have been referenced several times on this blog, because ultimately they are a key component of Anglicanism. They are not a confessional statement. Unlike continental Protestant reformers who drafted catechetical statements of belief, with supporting scriptural citations. These statements, while in ways being an anti-Roman Catholic statement in suggesting that the Roman Catholics were not following Biblical doctrine, were ultimately about positive statements of belief to help define the adherents of that particular denomination in contrast to other Christian groups, Roman Catholics and other Protestants, that surrounded them. In England, however, there tended to be less plurality, with the Church of England being the established and only Church in England until the instability of the English Civil War, and the establishment of the principles of religious toleration. With the back and forth, particularly during the earlier years of the English Reformation with the reign of Queen Mary I, there was also a practical need to establish, in positive and negative statements, how the Church of England differed from traditional Roman Catholic doctrine. With so much back and forth, some clergy were confused as to what they were to be promoting from the pulpit.

Many Anglicans today discount the Articles as mere historical documents, from a time and place so far removed from our own as to be inapplicable to modern life. Many of those same arguments are made about the authority of Holy Scripture by non-Christians. Anglican priests once were required to subscribe to the Articles upon their ordination, but are no longer required to do so directly, however in the Ecclesiastical Province of Canada, of which the Diocese of Calgary is a part, deacons and priests are required to swear an Oath of Assent prior to ordination reading as follows:

I, A.B. do solemnly make the following declaration: I assent to the Solemn Declaration adopted by the first General Synod in 1893 (as printed in the Book of Common Prayer), and to the Book of Common Prayer, and of the ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; I believe the doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada as therein set forth to be agreeable to the Word of God; and in Public Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, I will use the form in the said book prescribed and none other, except so far as shall be ordered by lawful authority.

In a similar way, the Canons of the Anglican Church of Canada include the Articles through the same form of the Solemn Declaration in limiting the authority of General Synod to legislate only within the parameters of the Declaration.

While most Anglicans may no longer be familiar with the Thirty-nine Articles (they are not printed in the Book of Alternative Services, for instance), the reality is that they remain relevant, and ostensibly priests and deacons still subscribe to them in certain ways and they still have a limiting influence on the parameters of what the General Synod itself may legislate.

While it is true that modern Canada is quite different from the era in which the Articles were formulated (Canada itself did not exist then!), that does not in and of itself make the Articles irrelevant. The same faithful interpretation and application of Holy Scripture is needed to seek to continue to apply the Thirty-nine Articles to our faith today as we seek to live out our Anglican heritage in a world far removed from 17th century England. To quote JI Packer, “I believe that facing and dialoguing with the Thirty-nine Articles will help Anglicans to re-learn and re-apply some basic Biblical truths to which Anglican identity is bound up.”

Gerald Bray argues that the three traditional Anglican Formularies each sought to articulate the foundations of Anglicanism. The Articles of Religion articulate its doctrine. The Prayer Book articulates its devotional life. The Ordinal articulates its discipline, discussing the role and responsibilities of ordained clergy. Today, however, some of these foundations have shifted. In Canada, for instance, the Ordinal and Prayer Book are rarely consulted, cited or viewed as normative or even necessarily authoritative, having been supplanted by the modern Book of Alternative Services, with increasing pressure today for further revisions. It makes it much easier for those who seek to reshape the foundations of Canadian Anglicanism to suggest that The Book of Common Prayer 1662 and Ordinal are no longer authoritative because they can point to successors. It is much harder to do that in the case of the Articles—the doctrines of the Church—because there has been no modern alternative to the Articles of Religion presented or authorized in any of the other prayer book revisions that have occurred or which are slated to occur.

Broadly speaking the Articles are organized in three ways. The first section deals with fundamental Christian dogmas: the Trinity, the divinity and humanity of Christ, etc. These are Catholic beliefs, and beliefs on which Anglican Catholicity hinges. The largest section deals with areas in which the Church of England differed from Rome. In some cases, such as the rejection of Transubstantiation, this remains an issue of Catholicity, in other ways this also speaks to certain secondary matters which may or may not be particular to Anglicanism, and more often show the influence of the Continental Reformers. The final, smaller, section deals with issues particular to the Church of England especially and its relationship to the state and English society more generally. These Articles, however, still remain broadly applicable outside of England and help to understand the way in which the Church of England and Anglican Christians were viewed to relate to state and society more broadly.

The heart of the Articles, in describing the doctrines and values of the Church, is that it allows Anglican Christians to hold conviction in their beliefs. In an age when there is a muddling of what Christians believe, the Articles hold the answer. In an age when Christians are being challenged from secular beliefs and changing societal mores, the Articles are a firm foundation which Anglicans can study, learn and inwardly digest, affirming what their beliefs are.

They remain a way of grounding faith in the Truth they proclaim, in an age when many Christians are tempted to simply float between whatever sounds comfortable. The desire to make our faith comfortable is made possible when there is no firm foundation of faith. A person can enter into an Anglican parish, worship there, be baptised there, receive the Eucharist there and die there without ever having Anglican beliefs explained to them. There is nothing in the main service book used in Canada, the BAS, to explain what all of those beliefs are. Recapturing the strength of the doctrinal foundations from the Articles is one clear way of grounding the faith of Anglicans throughout the world.

The next few weeks will begin a series exploring the meaning of each of the Articles, in an effort to provide a modern and practical understanding of what we as Anglicans have historically, and ought to continue, to profess.

On Identity

The Sunday called Sexagesima

O LORD God, who seest that we put not our trust in any thing that we do: Mercifully grant that by thy power we may be defended against all adversity; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

This post marks the 100th post since Canterbury Calgarian began back in August 2014. The first post explored the history of the English Church, and began a brief series that traced the history of Anglicanism through the centuries. One hundred posts later, it seems fitting to spend a bit of time exploring Anglican identity today in light of the myriad of other subjects that have been explored since that original historical overview.

What makes an Anglican today an Anglican? What distinguishes us from other Christian traditions and denominations?

Anglicanism is Evangelical. From the outset of the English Reformation, this was one of the goals—to suggest that the ultimate authority in the Christian faith was God’s word written. That although other things could be held to be required to be believed, none could be required to be believed as necessary for salvation. Article VI of the Articles of Religion states as much in plain words, and indeed throughout the prayer book are references to the sufficiency of Holy Scripture.

It becomes clear that Anglicanism as an identity is evangelical: it finds salvation in Christ through his gospels. This establishes Scriptures as the ultimate canon of orthodox belief, and also leads to the desire to evangelize and spread the word, both because it is the only way others may be saved and because it is Christ that commands us to do so in Scripture.

ALMIGHTY God, who by thy blessed Apostle it hast taught us that there is none other name given among men whereby we must be saved, but only the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ: Grant, we beseech thee, that we may ever glory in this Name, and strive to make thy salvation known unto all mankind; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen. (Collect for the Name of Jesus, 320)

So Anglicanism is at its heart evangelical. It is also charismatic.

Anglicanism is trinitarian and in so being remains open to the activity and presence of the Holy Spirit. Many collects refer to the activity of the Holy Spirit, and the sacrament of Confirmation is maintained to promote the reception, as is Biblically taught, of the Holy Spirit in order that he may indwell a Christian’s life and support and strengthen them. It is not a requirement or character of the Anglican identity to see manifested charisms of the Holy Spirit as somehow being necessary demonstrations of faith, but rather it speaks to a willingness to be open in all situations to the activity of the Holy Spirit, even when there is no direct perception of the intercession of the Spirit.

The Holy Spirit’s place is deeply tied to the Anglican Church of Canada in particular, in that the Solemn Declaration of 1893 which declares that we continue to receive the guidance of the Holy Spirit who was given by Christ to those who believe, and that it is through the Spirit that we are empowered in right worship of God the Father.

The Solemn Declaration itself also defines our Catholicity when it notes that we hold to the Catholic faith received and interpreted by way of the Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal and 39 Articles of Religion, and that we are, “to transmit the same unimpaired to our posterity.” In order words, to maintain that Catholicity.

Even in the Book of Alternative Services, that Catholicity is maintained and referred to quite explicitly in the preface to the ordination rites where it says, “It is also recognized and affirmed that the threefold ministry is not the exclusive property of this portion of Christ’s catholic Church, but is a gift from God for the nurture of his people and the proclamation of his gospel everywhere.” Put simply, there is no such thing as an Anglican priest, but rather a Catholic priest living out their orders in Anglican tradition.

That Catholicity is similarly affirmed in the Creeds and the sacraments which are maintained. While the Thirty-Nine Articles draw a distinction between the two great dominical sacraments instituted by Christ, the remaining five remain clearly Biblical and received by the whole Catholic Church, east and west.

Even there is a clear distinction, however, that our Catholicity is Anglican, which is to say, it is subject to Anglican distinctives. We receive what was accepted by the Catholic Church, the canon of Scripture and the Sacraments, the threefold order of ministry, but yet we maintain our Anglican Formularies to help interpret and apply what has been received, just as we accept the role of the Fathers in informing our interpretation of Scripture.

The Anglican Formularies particularly speak to some differences between Anglican Catholicism and Roman Catholicism, which is an understandable historical development given that Roman Catholicism was the only competing form of Christianity for the English Church in the time of the English Reformation. While the English Church had largely always maintained distinctives from Rome itself, these had begun to diminish in the 13th century through to the 16th century when the authority of the Pope was removed from England.

It makes sense, then, that the 39 Articles are the nearest thing Anglicanism has to a confessional statement. Rather than needing to assert the authority of Scripture behind a confessional statement, as continental Protestants were doing, the 39 Articles of Religion served to articulate how Anglican Catholicism differed from Roman Catholicism. We believed in the real presence, but not Transubstantiation. We believe in tradition, but it is subservient to Holy Scripture (Article XX) and there are limits on the authority of the Church to teach tradition, which contrasts with Rome in which Tradition and Holy Scripture are held to be equal in authority.

As a whole, these clear a clear identity, centred in God, in fellowship with other Christians, but practising the Christian faith in both an ancient and modern way. Rooted in the Holy Scriptures and the practices and teachings of the Early Church and the Fathers, articulated in the ancient Creeds and Councils and finally in the Anglican formularies, but also locally adapted to the needs of our modern society (for instance, the Canadian Book of Common Prayer includes prayers for our Canadian forms of Government and additional prayers relating to agriculture). Anglicans are evangelical, charismatic and Catholic.

While this description and identity helps us to understand our relationship to other Christians, it is also important to understand that first and foremost, we are not evangelical, or charismatic or Catholic or even Anglican. Our foremost identity must always be as children of God, adopted into his family through Christ, and in fellowship with all other brothers and sisters in Christ who make up the body.

On the Marks of Mission

The Twenty-Fourth Sunday after Trinity

O LORD, we beseech thee, absolve thy people from their offences; that through thy bountiful goodness we may all be delivered from the bands of those sins, which by our frailty we have committed. Grant this, O heavenly Father, for Jesus Christ’s sake, our blessed Lord and Saviour. Amen.

While the four Marks of the Church, that it is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, might be the four traditional marks used to identify the Church, and which are referenced in the Apostle’s Creed and listed in the Nicene Creed, the Marks of Mission are much more commonly referenced in Church documents in the modern Anglican Church of Canada. The Marks of Mission were articulated by the Anglican Communion in the mid-1980s as a means of describing the central mission of the Anglican Communion as a church. There are five marks, of which only the first two are distinctly Christian, namely to proclaim the Good News of Christ and to teach, baptise and nurture new believers. The remaining three Marks are characterized more as social activism, namely to respond to human need in loving service, to transform unjust power structures in society and to promote peace and reconciliation and finally to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew life on the earth.

To be clear, while there are no Christian distinctives in the majority of the Marks (unless one considers describing the earth in terms of creation as distinctly Christian), that does not mean the Marks of Mission are un-Christian. Far from it. Yet at the same time, when the final three marks are pursued far more vigorously than the first two, it does leave one to pause and question the purposes of the marks and the broader vision of the church in terms of mission.

One could argue that the goal of the Marks is to sanctify society. It envisions a society in which violence is never considered as a tool, there is some form of justice for all, creation is respected, the Gospel is proclaimed and all people are brought to Christ. And yet, centuries before the Marks of Mission were proclaimed, St Francis of Assisi noted that, “if you sanctify yourself, you will sanctify society.”

His point was that the Anglican Church of Canada seems to be doing things backwards: focusing on, as an institutional priority, sanctifying society in some way, or rather advocating for it, while assuming that the sanctification of individuals will come later. It should not be ignored that the first Mark is to proclaim the Gospel, and yet a quick search of ‘mark of mission’ on the Anglican.ca website or on anglicanjournal.ca turns up references almost exclusively to the fourth mark of mission, that of transforming unjust structures of society and opposing violence. One news article describes a church seeking to live out the marks of mission, and its description of that points exclusively to human service, social activism but with no connection to the first two marks, and indeed an emphasis on how they avoid evangelism at their events.

The view that the social justice marks must be persued as a priority places an emphasis on social activism rather than personal sanctification, and thus implies that sanctification is a result of those good works. Yet St Paul suggests in Romans 14 that works that do not proceed from faith proceed from sin (Rm 14. 23b) and this interpretation is supported by the work of the scholastics and Article XIII. This viewpoint seems stringent, but reinforces the fact that without God’s grace, we are slaves to sin. It is in Christ that we are set free from sin, and it is through the strengthening and empowering of the Holy Spirit that we do good works in faith. Just as we are saved by faith and not works, society will be sanctified by our faith, with in turn sanctifies us, and not by our attempts simply to sanctify society through works alone.

It is important to remember this distinction between the individual, the Church and society. To go back to the Marks of the Church, rather than the Marks of Mission, which Mark is it that suggests the Church is meant to be an institution of social change? What part of Holy Scripture describes the goal for a sanctified society for which the Church is working towards?

The only real argument that could be made would be for the society of the law called for in the Old Testament for the Jews, and yet Christ fulfilled the law and the New Testament proclaims freedom from the particular laws of the Jews. The Good News of the Gospel, which the first mark calls to be proclaimed, along with Christ himself, is that there is a route to personal salvation and sanctification through faith in Christ and the reception of the Holy Spirit! It is not something that occurs through the actions of the Church, rather the Church itself is established in order to transmit this Good News and the teachings of Christ to all people in all times. The Great Commission is to do so. The Church was created to fulfil that commission, yet so far as the Anglican Church of Canada is concerned that is a lower priority.

When the Church moves beyond salvation and Scripture, as the church is doing in Canada, it risks its own authority. Looking at the third Mark of Mission, for instance, in some cases it might be clear how we are to respond to human need. Feed the hungry and clothe the poor is a simple enough prospect, but what about more complex issues? By what metric do we determine what is unjust? To some, closed communion is unjust, and yet to others it is for their benefit on the basis of Holy Scripture (I Cor 11. 27-29). Secular views of justice would suggest turning anyone away is unjust, yet Scripture itself suggests that if someone receives communion without proper preparation they receive it to their condemnation and it is therefore just that the church prevent them from receiving without proper preparation.

Exploring deeper issues of poverty, discrimination, criminal justice all go well beyond Biblical teaching and open the door to questions of how the church will base its decisions on what is unjust. It also shows the dangerous precedent of using secular reasoning to inform the Marks of Mission. Scripture makes it clear that we are to care for the poor, but when the Marks demand addressing systematic issues of injustice, it requires proscriptive efforts that go beyond what Scripture teaches. Are priests now to be political scientists and sociologists, working to determine what policies a government ought to apply in order to address issues of injustice in the world? Does it in any way fulfil a Christian calling to simply seek to use institutional powers of the church to draw awareness of outsiders to these issues?

Coming back to St Francis of Assisi it is through the individual that change must occur. It is the invisible church—the gathering of all the faithful—that must make the difference. Good works are the proceeds of faith as the Epistle of James tells us (Jas 2. 26), and it is the individuals who are called to make the difference.

When the Church speaks to outsiders, it is moralizing. When it is the faithful, inspired by their faith and empowered by the Spirit, who act, it is a witness to others. As we are sanctified, we will sanctify society. The Marks of Mission may not be the best guide for the Church, but they remind us of what we as individual Christians are called to do, and in particular the order in which we are to fulfil them, first by coming to faith, being nurtured in it and when it is mature to act upon it and by our good works transform society and be a witness to others that they might come to faith in Christ themselves.

On Burdens

The Feast of All Saints

O ALMIGHTY God, who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship, in the mystical body of thy Son Christ our Lord: Grant us grace so to follow thy blessed Saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those unspeakable joys, which thou hast prepared for them that unfeignedly love thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Twenty-Second Sunday after Trinity

LORD, we beseech thee to keep thy houseahold the Church in continual godliness; that through thy protection it may be free from all adversities, and devoutly given to serve thee in good works, to the glory of thy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

For several weeks now, I have often been attending Great Vespers at a local Eastern Orthodox Church. This past Saturday in particular, I drove past a Roman Catholic parish on my way to grab a friend who was joining me for Great Vespers, and saw their parking lot packed to the brim with cars for a Saturday evening mass. Arriving for Great Vespers, I was again struck by the number of people I saw there week after week, most of whom also attend Divine Liturgy the next morning.

The final blow came in that the Eastern Orthodox parish I attend recently moved and began meeting in an Anglican Parish as their old building had become too small and was becoming run down. The Anglican Church could easily accommodate them because their congregating had been declining for some time and they did not offer any Evening Prayer services, and were able to fit Divine Liturgy between their two Sunday morning services of Holy Communion.

My own experience in Anglicanism suggests there is much more of a culture of viewing Church as a burden on one’s time. Fitting Church in between the more important events. It’s too much to ask someone to come for Holy Communion on Sunday morning, let alone something on an evening as well. It’s too much of an imposition to suggest we attend an evening service. Especially if it’s on a Saturday or Sunday. And forget asking people to spend a minute more than two hours on Church on a Sunday. In and out.

To some, this almost becomes a burden on their time and their lives. These days we are all busy as the pace of the modern world continues to increase and more and more pressures are placed on our time, particularly on families who have children who all are interested in being participants in various after school teams and activities.

Where does the Church fit into all of this? How much time should be made for faith? The answer to that question is ultimately personal. St Paul recognized that different Christians at different times in their lives required different things in order to nurture their faith (I Cor 3. 2). For someone who is new to Christianity and faith, it could be overly burdensome to ask them to give up significant portions of their time when they’re still trying to figure out what everything means. For those who are more mature in their faith, however, more might be expected.

So if the expectation is not too much for all Christians, why is it that week after week Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians will attend multiple services a week, whereas in Anglican parishes it seems the congregation will get antsy if the homily is a minute longer than normal.

Records exist of similar complaints throughout the history of the Church. In the fourth century, St John Chrysostom wrote in response to those who were failing to come for the Eucharist on Sundays, saying:

I hear of their saying things of this kind, “the present stifling heat is excessive, the scorching sun is intolerable, we cannot bear being trampled and crushed in the crowd, and to be steaming all over with perspiration and oppressed by the heat and confined space...” What then am I to say to those who advance these pretexts? I would remind them of the three children in the furnace and the flame, who when they saw the fire encircling them on all sides, enveloping their mouth and their eyes and even their breath, did not cease singing that sacred and mystical hymn to God, in company with the universe, but standing in the midst to the pyre sent up their song of praise to the common Lord of all with greater cheerfulness than they who abide in some flowery field: and together with these three children I should think it proper to remind them also of the lions which were in Babylon, and of Daniel and the den: and not of this one only but also of another den, and the prophet Jeremiah, and the mire in which he was smothered up to the neck. And emerging from these dens, I would conduct these per sons who put forward heat as an excuse into the prison and exhibit Paul to them there, and Silas bound fast in the stocks, covered with bruises and wounds lacerated all over their body with a mass of stripes, yet singing praises to God at midnight and celebrating their holy vigil. For is it not a monstrous thing that those holy men, both in the furnace and the fire, and the den, and amongst wild beasts, and mire, and in a prison and the stocks, and amidst stripes and gaolers, and intolerable sufferings, never complained of any of these things, but were continually uttering prayers and sacred songs with much energy and fervent zeal, whilst we who have not undergone any of their innumerable sufferings small or great, neglect our own salvation on account of a scorching sun?

These words are particularly appropriate to refer to given that it is All Saints’ Day, when we recall the lives, joys and sufferings of countless saints throughout the years who have lived and died in the love of Christ. As St John Chrysostom puts it, who are we to complain of the heat of the sun when Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were thrown into the fiery furnace but did no more than continue to praise God.

Could it be, to a degree, that the answer is cultural? Anglicanism is ultimately the cultural incarnation of Catholic Christianity within the Anglosphere, whereas Roman Catholicism is more culturally representative of continental Western Europe and Eastern Orthodoxy of Greek in particular and Eastern European in general Christianity. As their cultural backgrounds are foreign to North America and the United Kingdom, it is easier for them to turn to their church community as a cultural enclave, and further to see themselves are remaining in some ways outside of mainstream culture of those countries in which they live. To that degree, it becomes easier to avoid the Church being influenced by secular society in the way in which Anglicanism seems to be.

This ought to be cause for concern. Anyone who accepts the truth of Christianity, ought to recognize its importance. When we gather, it is to be nourished in our faith, either directly by God’s grace through the Eucharist or encouraged through teaching or simply to show our love of God in worship together. To be unwilling to accept the importance of gathering in community for these purposes, particularly when other traditions show it remains an entirely viable possibility within our society, shows another sign of our unwillingness to submit completely to God, the desire only to commit on our own terms and to withhold, knowingly or unknowingly, parts of our lives from him.

All Saints’ Day is a day in which we commemorate all those saints that came before us, and it is a time in which we ought to consider and reflect upon their lives and the examples of faith they gave to us. If St Paul could endure torture and persecution and rejoice in his suffering, perhaps it’s not such a burden to ask modern Anglicans to endure an extra minute or two of teaching without complaint. If the New Martyrs of Libya can be executed while confessing their faith in Christ Jesus as Lord, perhaps it is not too much of a burden in our society to ask of us to give up a few hours of our Saturday evening to turn our hearts to God in praise and thanksgiving?

On Tables

The Twenty-First Sunday after Trinity

GRANT, we beseech thee, merciful Lord, to thy faithful people pardon and peace; that they may be cleansed from all their sins, and serve thee with a quiet mind; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. Amen. 

Imagine a party held by a community association meant to bring the people together. All are welcome and signs outside invite everyone in, even non-members. At the door, unfamiliar faces are warmly greeted and told where to go. Yet halfway into the evening, the master of ceremony announces that food is to be served, but only members of the community association will be allowed to sit at the table and eat.

Would anyone feel welcomed in such a situation? That is the argument presented against the practice of closed communion, or versions of it, which deny the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper to any guests, in contrast to open communion in which it is offered to all, even non-Christians, who desire to receive.

Even within the Anglican Church of Canada, there are those who argue that the sacraments ought not to be denied to anyone. This argument has been advanced in relation to the recent discussion over the amendment of the marriage canon to allow same-sex persons to receive the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, saying that the Anglican Church of Canada will never be truly welcoming and accepting until sacraments are open to all.

The perspective of the community association makes complete sense in the secular sense. It is downright rude and nonsensical to invite others in and, without warning them until the food is presented, tell them that they must be a member before they will be invited to eat. And yet, with the Eucharist, it is not at all the same. The Church is not offering physical or carnal nourishment, but the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which nourishes us spiritually by God’s grace.

To understand the difference, first look to Scripture and this famous exhortation from St Paul:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgement on himself. (I Cor 11. 27-29)

Here, St Paul calls on those who are about the receive to do two things. First, to repent and approach in purity as opposed to approaching in an unworthy manner. Second, to discern the body. This passage has been taken by many to refer to the need to understand the sacramental nature of the body and blood before receiving. To understand the Real Presence which is presented in the sacrament. The Fathers speak to this as well.

St Ambrose of Milan, in his On the Mysteries, speaks to the sacramental nature of the Eucharist when he says:

The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: “This is My Body.” Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks… Christ, then, feeds His Church with these sacraments, by means of which the substance of the soul is strengthened, and seeing the continual progress of her grace… He signifies that the mystery ought to remain sealed up with you, that it be not violated by the deeds of an evil life, and pollution of chastity, that it be not made known to thou, for whom it is not fitting, nor by garrulous talkativeness it be spread abroad amongst unbelievers.

St Ambrose’s views of the efficacy of the sacraments are mirrored in the works of many others of the Fathers. Perhaps the most notable work of which are the catechetical lectures of St Cyril of Jerusalem. St Cyril’s teaching itself begins by referring specifically to St Paul’s teachings previously cited (as opposed to St Ambrose’s emphasis on Christ’s institution in the gospels and the broader Biblical narrative of God’s grace), and then to begin a discussion of the Real Presence asks if a Christian accepts the transformation of water into wine at Cana, why not wine into Blood in the Eucharist? He goes on to explore Christ’s words in St John’s gospel where he says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you,” (St Jn 6. 53).

These interpretations leave little to the imagination. The Fathers believed in the Real Presence, and so to in Anglicanism are we reminded in Article XXV of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion that the:

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

And again in Article XXVIII, where it says, “insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.” The emphasis here again shows that there is true grace transmitted through the Body and Blood and that it must be rightly, worthily and with faith received.

The Anglican Communion as a whole actually practices a form of open communion, in that you are not required to be a member of the Anglican tradition, but rather just that you be baptised. Most protestant denominations practice some form of open communion, generally without requirement of baptism because communion is viewed as being merely symbolic.

We must never forget that in being welcoming we must be mindful of showing both love and truth, and the truth is that it is not loving to invite someone to their condemnation if they ignore St Paul’s warnings about receiving the Eucharist.

While the limitation of reception only by baptised Christians is good, it sometimes seems insufficient. St Paul’s first warning was against receiving while impure. This is why the confession is said prior to reception of the Eucharist. However for someone who does not believe, they do not approach the confession in faith. They cannot truly confess their sins for they do not believe that they are sins, nor do they believe that by the blood of Christ their sins may be forgiven.

The second point, however, that they must discern the body, is more problematic. Many Christians do not discern the body, contrary to the teachings of the Fathers. Indeed, many Anglicans do not either. By the practice of closed communion, the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church ensure that those who receive do not receive to their condemnation. While it is possible that someone outside their tradition could receive, it is for the protection of all that they not receive.

A happy compromise might be to make clear as a policy of the Church that when others are invited to receive, those Baptised Christians who have examined their conscience and who believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist be invited to come forward and receive, and for others to be limited to a blessing.

On the Sufficiency of Catholicism

The Eighteenth Sunday after Trinity

LORD, we beseech thee, grant thy people grace to withstand the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil, and with pure hearts and minds to follow thee the only God; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Catholicism has previously been defined as those fellowships of Christians which maintain the one canon of Scripture, one Apostolic ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, one faith articulated in the creeds and councils of the early church and one sacramental life lived primarily through the sacraments of Holy Baptism and the Holy Eucharist.

Anglicanism at its core rests in that Catholicity, as Archbishop of Canterbury Jeffrey Fisher once wrote, “the Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.” Put another way, there is no such thing as an Anglican Priest, but rather a Catholic Priest who has been called to serve out his Orders in the Anglican tradition. This is why when priests within the Apostolic ministry, for instance those ordained in the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox traditions convert to Anglicanism they are not “re-ordained” but are simply received and their Orders recognized.

This distinction is extremely important to draw when discussing issues about changing core doctrines of the Church, particularly when it involves one of these key points. No particular Anglican province, nor even the Anglican Communion as a whole, has the authority on its own to make unilateral changes to this Catholic inheritance. We have no more authority to altar the Apostolic ministry than we do to altar the canon of Holy Scripture!

A clear example of this can be made through the question of the ordination of women. When in the 1970s the Anglican Church of Canada and Episcopal Church of the United States decided to authorize the ordination of women in their respective jurisdictions. Setting aside for the moment the question of the legitimacy of their reasons for doing so, does General Synod, to use Canada as an example, have the authority to unilaterally change the Apostolic ministry?

The answer, plainly, is no. Even looking into the history of General Synod, its Declaration of Principles (adopted in 1934) consolidated the founding documents of the General Synod from 1893 and contains the provision that General Synod’s authority is limited to, “the definition of the doctrines of the Church in harmony with the Solemn Declaration.” Speaking to the issue of ministry and the ordination of women, what does the Solemn Declaration say?

We declare this Church to be, and desire that it shall continue, in full communion with the
Church of England throughout the world, as an integral portion of the one Body of Christ
composed of Churches which, united under the One Divine Head and in the fellowship of
the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, hold… the ministry of the same Apostolic Orders…

In order words, General Synod has no jurisdiction to define any doctrine that innovates beyond what is accepted by the Catholic Church! That being the case, then, the question becomes how does the Catholic Church change its doctrine? The answer is, very slowly, if at all.

One could argue that it would require changes to be made by the leadership of the various fellowships of the Catholic Church, but that ignores that it is by reception of Christians that doctrines are affirmed.

In the 15th century the Eastern Bishops, fearing Muslim invasion, turned to Rome and asked for assistance. The Pope invited them to a Council where he effectively made it a precondition for Western military aid that they accept his jurisdiction and a number of other Roman innovations that the East had previously rejected. The majority of the Eastern representatives acceded and in the West to this day, Rome continues to use the results of the Council of Florence to support claims of universal papal jurisdiction. When the Eastern bishops and representatives returned to the East, however, the Christians there rejected the Council. It was never received, and was therefore never Catholic.

Again, ignoring the legitimacy of arguments for or against the ordination of women, assuming all the Catholic Church were to attend an ecumenical council and agreed that women should be included in the Catholic Apostolic ministry, if this decision were not received, it still could not be considered Catholic.

This brings to mind the question then of what happens in such a situation? What happens if even in the case of changes which ought to be made, they cannot be (given that it seems unlikely for the possibility of an ecumenical council which would be universally attended to ever exist even if its results would be received by the people)?

Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion is titled, “Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation” and to mirror that, the doctrines of the Catholic Church, as they exist today, are sufficient for our salvation. If nothing changes, what do we have?

We have the one canon of Holy Scripture which, as mentioned, “containeth all things necessary to salvation.”

We have the one Apostolic faith, articulated in the ecumenical creeds and councils, which aid us in the interpretation and application of Holy Scripture.

We have the one Sacramental life, lived out chiefly through initiation in Holy Baptism and are nourished spiritually through Holy Eucharist.

Finally, we have the Apostolic ministry of bishops, priests and deacons by which the Church is ordered.

If nothing changes, we have everything we need already.  Christ himself prayed, “Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one,” (St Jn 17. 11b). His prayer will never be answered while his one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church seeks to innovate separately rather than maintaining this ancient principles of unity. Christianity is rarely something which we ought to be satisfied with sufficiency. Christians should never seek only to receive sufficient gifts and graces from God; we should never be afraid to constantly be asking God for more. In the case of what has been received, however, it seems that until unity is achieved, we ought to satisfy ourselves in the sufficiency of what we have already.

On the News

The Fourteenth Sunday after Trinity

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, give unto us the increase of faith, hope, and charity; and, that we may obtain that which thou dost promise, make us to love that which thou dost command; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

This past week, news agents around the world, print and television, flooded us with images of the tragic death of Alan Kurdi, a Syrian boy fleeing violence in Syria whose body washed up on the shores of Turkey. I will admit my initial reaction was jaded: “another tragic death that will be ignored.” I was wrong. Perhaps in Canada it has taken on an even greater political dimension after initial (incorrect) reports by NDP MP Fin Donnelly that he had personally delivered the refugee application package to Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander, and that it had been rejected. It was later clarified that it was another member of the Kurdi family who had had their package returned due to it being incomplete and that no application had been made on behalf of the Kurdi family members who tragically died.

Despite this clarification, and perhaps due to the ongoing Federal election, the issue has become the focus of media scrutiny and public attention throughout the country. Indeed it has caused a tonal shift in Europe which is far closer to the source of the problem. Recent weeks have seen headlines pontificating on the “Migrant” issue. Since the death of Alan Kurdi, the tone has shifted to recognition that these are not migrants seeking jobs, but rather refugees fleeing persecution. The tone is reminiscent of Madeline Albright’s fine line distinction between genocide and acts of genocide in an effort to deny legal responsibilities to intervene to stop the Rwandan Genocide in the mid-90s.

It seems now everyone is concerned about the issue of refugees. Why aren’t we doing enough? Indeed, the morning the death was reported, the Anglican Journal made the following comment on Facebook, which was later edited to include a link to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s statement:

The tragic image of three-year-old Alan Kurdi whose lifeless body washed ashore in Turkey has put a human face on the global refugee crisis. Alan is only one of an estimated 2,500 to have died crossing the Mediterranean this year. In 2014, it was estimated that 3,500 perished at sea. Is Canada doing enough for refugees? Is the church doing enough?

These questions subtly identify the problem among Canadian Anglicans and Western Christians more broadly. We are reacting to secular media when finally brought to a point where, despite reporting on the thousands of deaths caused by the Syrian Civil War or ISIL throughout the Middle East, many Christians seem only now to be waking up to the scope of the issue, and even then the focus rests largely on the matter of refugee resettlement with scant attention paid to why these refugees are fleeing the situation. Furthermore, in asking first whether or not the Government is doing enough and second whether or not the church is doing enough, it subtly attempts to shift responsibility away from the individual and onto organizations.

We have recognized that there is an issue. The problem is not that we have previously disregarded thousands upon thousands of murdered innocents, war crimes, persecution and other barbaric acts, the problem is that the Government of Canada hasn’t done enough. The problem isn’t that we are ignoring Christ’s instructions to be charitable towards others, it’s that the Anglican Church of Canada hasn’t been vocal enough in advocating action.

The Church’s activities have been laudable. Most diocese in Canada have their own diocesan refugee committee which seeks to sponsor resettlement applicants to Canada. The Primate’s World Relief and Development Fund sponsored 50 refugees last year to mark its 50th anniversary. For those who haven’t heard about it so far, Anglicans throughout Canada were no doubt greeted with announcements in their bulletins this morning announcing how to get in touch with and support the local diocesan committee.

The real question ought to be, why did it take the particular death of this boy and the tragic photographic record of it to spur us to do anything? If the Anglican Church of Canada was negligent in its duties, it wasn’t that the PWRDF only sponsored 50 refugees, it was that the state of our Christianity is such that as individual Christians we are not being taught to care about these issues. We are perfectly comfortable offloading them on secular institutions, or in some case religious charities, and washing our hands of the whole situation.

In the Bible, does it say God created the heavens and the earth and political boundaries and the rest of these rules only apply inside your particular political borders?

Instead of taking up the challenge of secular political issues, Christians more generally need to be instructed in why we ought to care. Not to take away from the evil being perpetrated in Syria and elsewhere, or the sorrow that is rightly felt for the death of Alan Kurdi, but it should not take media attention of that sort to make Christians care. What’s more, Christians care about Syria, but there has been little attention paid to refugees fleeing persecution and violence elsewhere.

The focus remains on dealing with what politicians can do at home, with no attention paid to what is happening abroad, why refugees are fleeing their native homes and why they cannot return. The United Nations uses the term ‘durable solution’ to refer to the various resettlement options available to refugees who have left their homelands. It is not referred to as a permanent solution because the resettlement of refugees fails to address what caused them to become refugees in the first place, be it persecution, violence or some other source.

As Christians, these are all issues we are called to speak out and oppose. Admittedly this is not an issue which can be resolved individually. There is little that Christians in Canada can personally do to put an end to the Syrian Civil War. Bashar al-Assad is not going to end his murderous persecution of the Syrian people just because he receives some mail. Yet, if not for this singular picture nothing would change. Governments respond to public interest.

We need to be engaged not simply with political issues—following the political news cycle of the day—but to be true disciples of Christ we must be engaged and bring these matters to public attention ourselves. In order to do that, the Church must play a role in reminding individual Christians of what their duties are. Not to follow the political news cycle of the day and respond to hot button issues, but to seek Christ in all situations.

For as long as current interest in this story lasts, Canadians will be generous. They will donate money and sponsor refugees from Syria. But the problem extends far beyond resettlement of Syrians. Who will be the advocates who will speak for the voiceless if not Christians? Archbishop Justin Welby described a moral duty to act. I would argue there is a need to emphasize a moral duty to act beyond the span of public interest. Christ’s command to love one another wasn’t contingent on secular scrutiny; so neither should Christian charity.

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.