On the Articles: Article XIV

The Day of Pentecost commonly called Whitsunday

GOD, who as at this time didst teach the hearts of thy faithful people, by the sending to them the light of thy Holy Spirit: Grant us by the same Spirit to have a right judgement in all things, and evermore to rejoice in his holy comfort; through the merits of Christ Jesus our Saviour, who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the same Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.

XIV. Of Works of Supererogation
Voluntary Works besides, over and above, God’s Commandments, which they call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety: for by them men do declare, that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake, than of bounden duty is required: whereas Christ saith plainly, When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable servants.

Rounding out the discussion of works in the Articles of Religion is Article XIV discussing works of superogation. This seems at first, particularly to modern eyes, a somewhat complicated and confusing article, however ultimately its message is quite simple. Thinking back to ideas of merit in the medieval Church, and particularly to the abuses related to that concept, acts of superogation were works that were above and beyond what was required, for instance beyond acts of contrition done to demonstrate true repentance, that would then in fact earn some form of credit with God.

Ultimately there are many problems with this concept. It suggests then that God would owe us something. In some cases, that the grace we receive from God has somehow been earned, and indeed one of the worst abuses of this concept involved transferring this credit with God to others, often through the system of indulgences.

The article itself becomes clearer in these circumstances. It says plainly that voluntary works, the definition of works of superogation, which are done beyond what is commanded, cannot be taught [as earning merit or grace] without impiety or arrogance. It is arrogant, the article continues, because such a teaching requires the individual to say that they can do more for God than he asks for. This takes it upon the individual to, in a way, do more than is called for, and further seems to go against Christ’s own teaching from St Luke’s gospel, 17. 7-10, which is partly quoted. In this, the parable of the unworthy servants, Christ instructs that when you have done your duty, acknowledge it. To do more would be to assume to know the will of your master. In that same way, the article suggests, that these works of superogation take on the individual the assumption to know what God desires of them beyond what has been proclaimed.

To further link Christ’s teachings, he says in St Matthew’s gospel that, “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect,” (St Mt 5. 48). How can there be anything beyond our duty to God when we are called to be perfect in all things? Similarly, as St Paul teaches, “whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him,” (Col 3. 17). Again, this makes clear the pattern that our duty to God is in all things. It is arrogant to believe that there is a possibility of doing more than what God commands us to do, because he tells us to do all things for him!

To get a clearer picture of Christian duty, we can look to the Catechism in the Book of Common Prayer, which says:

My duty towards God is,
To believe in him, to fear him, and to love him, with all my heart, with all my mind, with all my soul, and with all my strength:
To worship him, to give him thanks, to put my whole trust in him, to pray to him:
To honour his holy Name and his Word:
And to serve him truly all the days of my life. (BCP, 548)

Again by this definition, even were we not to fall short, it would be impossible to do more than God requires of us, as he asks for all that we are and all that we have.

There is a clear link to Article XV as well, which discusses the fact that Christ alone is without sin. If it is Christ alone that is without sin, then all fall short. If all fall short, then it suggests we do not even fully complete our duty to God, then again how can we possibly be expected to do more than is asked of us?

God has an absolute claim on us, and as Christ says in the parable recorded in St Luke’s gospel and quoted in Article XIV, when we have done all that is commanded of us, all that is left to do is recognize that we can do no more!

Thinking back to Article XI, which proclaimed that it is not by merit of personal works but by the merit of Christ himself that we are justified before God, so there is also a clear link between this article claiming that it is impiety and arrogant to teach that works of superogation somehow gain one merit. It is this link that also ties this section of the Articles of Religion together, with Articles XI – XIV broadly defining salvation, through faith and apart from works, but with works being counted as evidence which proceeds from a saving faith.

At the time when the Articles were initially published there was a great need to demystify conceptions of merit, something ultimately done also by the Roman Catholic Church over time as it has moved to recognize many of the medieval superstitions and abuses that led to the continental Reformation and which were addressed by England as well when the Book of Common Prayer and Articles of Religion were compiled.

Today, while individual articles such as this one may hold less importance than they did when doctrines on Works of Superogation remained popular and common, it still helps to create a clear picture of what the Church teaches regarding the role of works and the role of faith in God’s plan of salvation, with particular emphasis on ensuring Biblical grounding for these teachings.

On the Articles: Article XIII

The Sunday after Ascension Day

O GOD the King of Glory, who hast exalted thine only Son Jesus Christ with great triumph unto thy kingdom in heaven: We beseech thee, leave us not comfortless; but send to us thine Holy Ghost to comfort us, and exalt us unto the same place whither our Saviour Christ is gone before; who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end. Amen.

XIII. Of Works before Justification
Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School-authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

 The words of this article, particularly its opening line, can sometimes be confusing. Words done before the grace of Christ, and Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God. The most obvious interpretation of this involves looking at it through the lens of works and God’s favour; it is a restatement of the fact that we cannot earn God’s favour through our good deeds, called works. Yet that is not where the article ends. Indeed, it is not even where the sentence ends.

Much like Christ in the antitheses the Article calls us to go further, and reinforces the point that God doesn’t just care about what we do, but what we think and why we do things. You have heard it said you cannot earn God’s grace by good works, it says good works done before justification remain outside God’s will and are sinful in their nature.

This may require a bit of unpacking. It is easy to accept the first part that we cannot earn points with God through good works, whether before or after justification, but to say that good deeds done before justification are sinful in nature seems difficult to accept. At the core of this article is the question, what is the difference between a good work done by a Christian versus a non-Christian. The answer, according to the article, is fundamentally linked to the nature of good works.

Good works are not just about some form of secular, philosophical evaluation of outcomes. Two people who donate their time, treasure or talents to the less fortunate in equal measure, in secular terms would have been said to have done the same good. If both donate $100 of groceries to a food bank, or spend an evening volunteering at a soup kitchen, the secular world would generally agree that both had done an equal good. Yet this article says that the actions of the Christian are pleasing to God while the actions of the non-Christian have a sinful nature. Why would that be? It only makes sense, however, when considering the fact that we are discussing Christian works, and their importance is evaluated not on the basis of secular philosophies of outcomes, but on their role in our Christian journeys.

If good works are the proceeds of faith, or as the article puts it, the “Inspiration of his Spirit,” then it is clear that in general non-Christians would not be able to do good works, unless in particular circumstances the Holy Spirit were working through them, and there are examples in Holy Scripture of the Holy Spirit working through non-believers both in the Old Testament and in the New.

This contrasted with some of the medieval doctrines of the Western Church, and the ideas of the School-authors, a reference to Christian Scholastics of the medieval period, who developed the idea of grace of congruity, which said that because their actions mirrored so closely the good works of Christians, similar works of non-Christians conferred some form of grace, though not salvation. Ultimately this rejection of that principle seems far more consistent with Scriptural doctrines, both in terms of the antitheses and also the story of the rich young man who followed the law yet refused to give up his wealth. He outwardly followed the law out of obligation but when prompted to act out of an inward love of God he was unable to.

This helps us to differentiate what a good work is for Christians versus a non-Christian good deed. A good deed is rooted in secular morality, and might consist of characteristics of altruism and the promotion of the common good. Works, in the Christian sense, are rooted in submission and obedience to God’s will. They will often line up with secular ideas of good deeds simply because of God’s love for his creation, yet at the same times because we are dealing with the spiritual, there are certain good works which might not be evaluated as good deeds because their benefit is in the realm of the soul which cannot be quantified or evaluated in secular terms.

A corollary to this point is that something might be a good deed, because it can be morally justified, but yet not be a good work because it is not rooted in obedience to God. It may well be sinful. Indeed, as this article states, it is rooted in a sinful nature by virtue of the fact that it uses some system of secular morality to judge whether or not it is good, and not the simple question of God’s will.

Does this suggest that all deeds done apart from Christ are sinful then? What is the meaning of saying that such actions have the nature of sin? The answer to the former is that no. Going back to the previous example of a Christian and non-Christian, both of whom donate $100 of groceries to a food bank. It is not a sin for either of them to do this, but for the Christian it is a good work, and an act proceeding from a saving faith in loving obedience to God. For the non-Christian, however, it is not proceeding from obedience to or love of God, but rather something else. Sin is ultimately turning from God, and so while we often think of sin as in some way being harmful to others, even good deeds can have a sinful nature (having turned from God).

With the rise in those who describe themselves as spiritual but not religious, this remains an important affirmation that you cannot buy your salvation, and a reminder that as good as you are, apart from God, you cannot please him. As Lewis puts it in Mere Christianity:

The Christian way is different: harder, and easier. Christ says “Give me All. I don't want so much of your time and so much of your money and so much of your work: I want You. I have not come to torment your natural self, but to kill it. No half-measures are any good. I don't want to cut off a branch here and a branch there, I want to have the whole tree down. I don't want to drill the tooth, or crown it, or stop it, but to have it out. Hand over the whole natural self, all the desires which you think innocent as well as the ones you think wicked-the whole outfit. I will give you a new self instead. In fact, I will give you Myself: my own will shall become yours.”

On the Articles: Article XII

Saint Philip and Saint James the Apostles

ALMIGHTY God, whom truly to know is everlasting life: Grant us perfectly to know thy Son Jesus Christ to be the way, the truth, and the life; that, following the steps of thy holy Apostles, Saint Philip and Saint James, we may stedfastly walk in the way that leadeth to eternal life; through the same thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Saint James the Brother of the Lord, Martyr

O HEAVENLY Father, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning: We bless thy holy Name for the witness of James and Jude, the kinsmen of the Lord, and pray that we may be made true members of thy heavenly family; through him who willed to be the firstborn among many brethren, even the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Fifth Sunday after Easter commonly called Rogation Sunday

O LORD, from whom all good things do come: Grant to us thy humble servants, that by thy holy inspiration we may think those things that be good, and by thy merciful guiding may perform the same; through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

XII. Of Good Works
Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s ludzement; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith; insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

If there is one topic sure to set a protestant on edge it is a discussion of works. The Epistle of St James famously discusses the importance of works, for which the greater reformer Martin Luther termed it the Epistle of Straw, and even went so far as to seek to remove it from the Canon of the New Testament. Article XII on good works relates to Article XI dealing with Justification, two key concepts during the time of the continental reformation and which required clarification in England when the Articles began to be compiled and promulgated.

In pre-reformation Medieval western theology, a good work was something used to earn merit, the favour of God. While this included morally good acts, significantly, others were merely acts of piety laid upon sinners by priests in order to confirm penitence. Saying the rosary, fasting and other such acts of contrition were considered good works. This practice was rejected by the continental reformers, and leading to that overall perception of anything relating to works as needing rejection. It seems as though in some places, particularly with uneducated laity and poorly educated clergy, misconceptions of the role of these acts of penitence could have been normative, and so the Anglican response in the Articles needed to clarify this matter, despite rejecting much of the broader premise of Martin Luther and other protestants.

The opening line of the Article makes clear that good works cannot earn one merit or put away sins. This is a line of argument acceptable to the protestants, however it is notable also in that it fits in line perfectly with the Roman Catholic doctrines, just not practice. The Article goes on, however, to say that good works are a necessary procession of a “true and lively Faith” which might otherwise be termed a saving faith. This distinction draws reference to the Epistle of James, which itself is often contrasted with Paul’s Epistles where he seems to suggest the opposite. It also distinguishes it far more from the Protestant position of the reformers.

Much like some of the disconnect between the Roman Catholics at Trent in the counter-reformation and Martin Luther and the reformers before them, terms were being used in a different sense, and each party did not entirely recognize that as they objected to eachother’s statements on the matter. To quote Fr Kenneth Ross:

It was a similar variation in the use of key words which made St. James and St. Paul appear to contradict one another in the New Testament. Each appealed to the story of Abraham, St. James to show that faith without works did not justify, and St. Paul to show that it did. It is clear, however, that St. James was using faith in the sense of intellectual assent: in his use of the word the devils had faith (S. Jas 2. 19), but they were certainly not justified. St. Paul, however, by faith means personal commitment to the Saviour. And by works St. Paul was thinking more particularly of works undertaken in order to win God’s favouir and rewards, whereas St. James meant the works which are the necessary consequence of a life surrendered to Christ.

It was this negative view of works among the continental reformers that lead many protestants to reject the sacraments, beginning to view them as works of man. This view is wholly rejected by the Articles, by which the Sacraments are wholly accepted as works of God, who transmits grace through them. This was a rejection of a position held by the Father’s of the Church and universally recognized. St Ambrose of Milan writes in his On the Myteries that, “Believe, then, that the presence of the Godhead is [in the waters of Baptism]. Do you believe the working, and not believe the presence? Whence should the working proceed unless the presence went before?” This position was integral to his entire explanation of all the Sacraments, and was not a novel or innovative position. It was purely an overreaction to the concerns over

In this way the Article agrees with both Biblical authors as it states both that we cannot by our own works earn our salvation forgiveness of sins, but at the same time they are the necessary fruits of saving faith. The final clause of the article states that as a tree can be known by its fruit, so can faith be known by its works. This emphasizes the Scriptural foundation of Anglican understanding of the faith, and also reinforces the English reformer’s rejection of many of the more extreme views of the continental reformers.

In dealing with Salvation, Articles XI and XII introduce justification and works, while Articles XII and XIII continue to expound on the role and limits of works for Christians, laying out clear boundaries on the purpose, limits and Christian understanding of works.

On the Articles: Article XI

The Fourth Sunday after Easter

O ALMIGHTY God, who alone canst order the unruly wills and affections of sinful men: Grant unto thy people, that they may love the thing which thou commandest, and desire that which thou dost promise; that so, among the sundry and manifold changes of the world, our hearts may surely there be fixed, where true joys are to be found; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XI. Of the Justification of Man
We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings: Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of justification.

Article XI continues Article X’s framework of discussion salvation by discussing some aspects of justification. The first sentence makes clear justification is not by merits—again addressing the Pelagian idea of being able to earn our salvation—and instead that we are justified by faith in Christ, in accepting his offer of unmerited grace and salvation.

The Article goes on to say that the details of this doctrine cannot be fully expressed solely in a short doctrinal statement such as in the Articles, and thus a fuller explanation can be found in the Book of Homilies.

This Article clearly reflects the thinking of its time on the issues both of justification and sanctification, which were largely viewed as one in the same. You were justified to the degree you were sanctified. Today, we more clearly distinguish between the two allowing that one can be in a state of justification by God’s grace while still being in an early stage of sanctification. This view remains entirely consistent with the view set forth in the Article, which itself largely mirrors that of the continental reformers in contrast to Rome, which at the Council of Trent articulated a view that we are justified not just by faith, and not just by works, but by works and faith. This view is further complicated by Trent’s declaration that this need to include works is directly in relation to James 2. 26b, “faith without works is also dead.” This particular portion remains consistent with the Anglican position, though the terminology here is being used in different ways. For Rome, faith in and of itself was viewed purely as belief. It was when faith was combined with the other Christian virtues of hope and charity that it became a saving faith and a way to receiving justification from Christ. For them, therefore, to suggest faith alone was sufficient was incorrect. Hope and charity, works, were needed also. For the Anglican, however, faith is not merely belief, but refers to that totality of saving faith, which is demonstrated by works. This is made clear in the Book of Homilies, referenced in this Article, which says that three things are required for justification:

Upon God’s part, his great mercy and grace; upon Christ’s part, justice, that is, the satisfaction of God’s justice, or the price of our redemption by the offering of his body and shedding of his blood with fulfilling of the law perfectly and throughly; and upon our part, true and lively faith in the merits of Jesu Christ; which yet is not ours but by God’s working in us.

The homily makes clear that it is by Christ’s merits we are justified, never our own merits based on our works, but at the same time it is clear that the definition of faith is more than pure belief, for it specifies a “true and lively” faith, which ties in with James 2. 26 which describes faith from which works do not proceed to be dead.

The Council of Trent (which occurred prior to the publication of the Articles) went further, condemning the concept of justification by faith alone, but again their definition of faith is limited. This definition was a direct response to Martin Luther’s claims of faith as the justification for salvation, and that salvation could not be lost so long as faith was retained. In a particular way, faith here, is not simply a matter of belief in Christ Jesus as the son of God and in his atonement) but rather more specifically belief that no matter the circumstances, faith itself in Christ is sufficient for salvation.

Faith, however, has a broader definition. When we say faith, it means both that aspect of believing in God’s truth but also belief in God’s faithfulness. When we read something in God’s Word, we believe and have confidence in it; when God has promised something, faith similarly means we believe and have confidence in him to fulfil his promise. There is another part, though, what St Paul himself calls the, “obedience of faith,” (Rm 1. 5), or rather that when God tells us to do something, we ought to obey. This concept is clarified by Christ in St Luke’s gospel when he described those who failed to obey as those who build their houses without a foundation (St Lk 9. 46-49).

Expounding on this Article, EH Browne, Bishop of Winchester, in the 19th century, noted that it seemed:

As St Paul in his Epistle’s condemned the former error of his fellow-countrymen [the error of being justified by the law], so St James directed his Epistle against the latter: the one showing, that neither ceremonial observances nor legal obedience could satisfy the demands of God’s justice, but that an atonement and true faith were necessary; the other, that a mere creed was not calculated to please God when life was not consistent with it.

In essence, Romans tells us that we are not justified by the law, but by faith in Christ who shed his blood for our sins, and James tells us that it is insufficient to speak the right words, and that when they call on us to act we must. We cannot, in order words, simply pay lip service to God and call it saving faith.

Little commentary on justification survives from the early fathers, as it seems there was little controversy in the matter and therefore no need to write systematically on it. One of the earliest fathers, St Clement of Rome, does have writing speaking to the matter where he writes:

They were therefore greatly glorified, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness that they themselves wrought; but through His will. And we also, being called by the same will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, neither by our own wisdom, or knowledge, or piety, or any works which we did in holiness of heart, but by that faith by which God Almighty has justified all men from the beginning: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

It seems there remains great confusion amidst the various positions because of a lack of uniformity in the use of language. No one defines words by the same meaning or uses them in the same contexts. The explanation of this Article suggests, however, a Biblically rooted view of Justification that reconciles St Paul’s comments with those of St James. It is a viewpoint that is important to understand, particularly as today there are controversies, particularly as many people, lay and ordained, struggle to understand precisely what their tradition teaches and may inadvertently be misrepresenting their tradition’s doctrines.

On Time

The Third Sunday after Trinity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

On Judicial Review

The Day of Pentecost

GOD, who as at this time didst teach the hearts of thy faithful people, by the sending to them the light of thy Holy Spirit: Grant us by the same Spirit to have a right judgement in all things, and evermore to rejoice in his holy comfort; through the merits of Christ Jesus our Saviour, who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the same Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.

Whitsunday

O GOD, who makest us glad with the yearly remembrance of the coming of the Holy Spirit upon thy disciples in Jerusalem: Grant that we who celebrate before thee the Feast of Pentecost may continue thine for ever, and daily increase in thy Holy Spirit, until we come to thine eternal kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Collect for the Unity of the Christian Church

O LORD Jesus Christ who didst say unto thine Apostles, Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: Regard not our sins, but the faith of thy Church, and grant unto it that peace and unity which is agreeable to thy will; who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.

In law, the term judicial review refers to the process by which laws passed by legislatures are scrutinized by the courts against existing higher orders of law. In Canada, this generally means the Constitution Acts 1867 and 1982, with in the US this would be the US Constitution and its amendments, including the Bill of Rights.

This process creates an interaction between the governments which pass laws and the courts which interpret them, and in the late 1990s and early 2000s, two prominent Canadian constitutional scholars began to debate the nature of this relationship.

First, Prof. Peter Hogg advanced Dialogue Theory. In Hogg's theory, legislatures and courts interact in a dialogue, because when the courts making a judicial review ruling, legislatures have the ability to respond to that statement in a number of ways. For instance, the legislature could appeal a ruling to a higher court, enact a change to avoid the ruling in some way, retain the legislation in question by amending it or abandon it entirely. In Canada, where a court ruling invalidates legislation on the basis of the Charter of Rights, the legislature has an over-ride clause in the Charter that allows the law to operate notwithstanding the Court's ruling.

Two years later, Prof. F.L. Morten responded with a criticism and advanced what he called Monologue Theory that said that interactions were not a dialogue as Hogg had said, but a one-sided monologue from the courts. First, there is a lack of equality when the two bodies speak, because the courts speak with greater authority than legislatures. While the legislatures can act to get around the rulings, there is a status quo created when the courts rule that cannot be avoided.

At this point, the real question is what does this have to do with a blog on Christianity? It is, however, an interesting model to use to examine how humans relate to God, and is particularly pertinent to discuss on the Day of Pentecost.

In the Old Testament, prayer and offerings were the normal part of the life of a believing Jew. The way they interacted with God was far different, however. While all prayed and might bring offerings, it was the priests who were set apart who made the sacrifices to God, and only particular priests were permitted into the temple--into the presence of God. Only the High Priest was permitted to use the name of God, and then only in the holiest place in the temple and only on Yom Kippur.

Throughout the history of the Old Testament, God spoke to many different people, but it was always particular people for particular purposes. Raising up great kings and leaders or prophets and priests.

Morten's arguments about the disparity in power between parties seems very much to apply here. And why would it not? Who could argue with the majesty and greatness of God being incomprehensibly greater than that of humanity? God interacted with humanity almost exclusively in a monologue.

In the new covenant, however, there is a significant change. God no longer speaks only to particular individuals, he speaks to all. He doesn't speak to us for particular purposes and at particular times. He does not do it to raise up prophets or kings for the chosen people. He speaks to every person and for every purpose.

The point at which this changes comes with the fulfilment of Christ's promise recorded in the Gospel of St John: “I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you,” (St Jn 14. 16, 17).

In this passage, Christ promises the sending of the Holy Spirit, something which is recorded in Holy Scripture as happening on the Day of Pentecost. The Holy Spirit descended on the apostles and all believers like tongues of flame, and they were empowered by the Spirit.

In the Holy Spirit, the gift of dialogue was offered. God now speaks to all people, and not just for particular purposes, but for the greater purpose of of our sanctification. Christ was sent to bring about our reconciliation and through the Spirit, sent at Pentecost, we now are given the means by which we can now not simply pray to God, but hear him and converse with him.

It is astonishing that in reflection on prayer, most Christians first and foremost think of the promises made that when prayers are offered in Christ's name, they will be answered. Instead, should we not consider with great joy first and foremost that through the these gifts, God has made all believers equal in status with the great prophets of the Old Testament? Moses and Abraham, who spoke with God and received his instructions for them? Now it is a matter for all Christians to discern God's discussions with them and his will for them.

At Pentecost, it is customary to consider gifts of the Spirit. It is only natural given that they are one of the more visible results of the Holy Spirit alive in the life of a Christian. Yet, it is the gift of relationship, of conversation, with God which is truly the distinguishing characteristic for Christians, and which is not nearly celebrated enough. Everyone recognizes that one of the central tenets of Christianity is that personal relationship with God, which is enabled by Christ's passion on the cross, but it must also be recognized that once we are reconciled to God in Christ, it is by the Holy Spirit that our relationship with God is built. The opportunity for dialogue exists, and any Christian that ignores that, sticking to the monologues of the Old Testament, will be missing out on the full joy of a true, personal relationship with God the Father.