On the Articles: Article XVIII

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.

XVIII. Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ
They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature. For holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.

It is a significant denouement to follow-up Article XVII’s controversial discussion of doctrines of predestination and election, both in terms of Article XVII’s complexity and the controversial nature of its theology and how it’s been interpreted over the years.

This Article essentially affirms two essential points. First, that salvation is not found in another law or sect of belief, even if it is framed in light of God’s law. Second, it claims that Holy Scriptures say that salvation is found only in the name of Christ. The second point is easiest to explore, and builds up the second.

The Gospels provide ample passages that prove salvation is found only through Christ. St Jn 3. 36 reads, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” Again in St John’s Gospel goes on to record Christ’s own words saying, “I am in the way, and the trust, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me,” (St Jn 14. 6). In the comfortable words read during every Eucharist in the Book of Common Prayer we read St Paul’s words, “This is a true saying, and worthy of all to be received, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” The completion of that passage includes the words, “and not only for our own sins, but for the sins of the whole world.” There are many other passages that continue to make clear that salvation is found in Christ.

The first proposition on salvation outside of the Church is proved by the Scriptural witness as well. St Peter, at Pentecost, was filled with the Holy Spirit and preached to the masses. They were cut to the heart, by his preaching and asked what they must do to be saved. St Peter responded simply, “Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,” (Acts 2. 38). This suggests that failing to repent and be baptised in the name of Christ will preclude one from salvation.

In the Early Church, this was completely understood. There was a clear consensus in the mind of the Fathers that salvation was found in the name of Christ and his Church. From Origen, “Let no one deceive himself; out of this house [the Church], no one is saved.” St Cyprian of Carthage similarly wrote, “Whoever is separated from the Church is separated from the promise of the Church; that if a man have not the Church for his mother, he hath not God for his father; and that as to be saved from the deluge it was needful to be in the ark, so to escape now we must be in the Church.” Pelagian heresy first raised concern over the question of salvation without Baptism, but again it can be seen that among the Fathers there was a consensus that salvation was found in Baptism, which is to say in Christ, given that Baptism represented adoption into sonship through the merits of Christ. St Cyril of Jerusalem argued that, “No one can be saved without baptism except the martyrs.” This theology was mirrored by many other fathers including most notably St Augustine of Hippo who was the great opponent of the Pelagian heretics. In Thomas Cranmer’s Catechism of 1548, his commentary on this article notes that, “if we have heathen parents and die without baptism, we should be damned everlastingly.”

This clear view also lines up with Article XIII on the role of works, which again affirms that salvation cannot be purchased through good deeds. It is not our adherence to the law in which salvation is found, because just as we are justified by faith in Christ (Article XI), our salvation is found in Christ and not in our own works, which properly are viewed as acts processing from our saving faith in Christ, the necessary results of true and lively belief that Christ is our saviour and thus that we are to follow the commandments he has given us and the teachings of his Father commended to us in the Holy Scriptures.

Given this overall clarity of believe in Scripture, the traditional teachings and understanding of the Church and also consistency with the other Articles of Religion, the question then becomes why was this article in particular written? Taking in its historic context, it is a firm statement of belief that opposes compromise that was being put forth.

The Roman Catholic Church in particular was extremely vehement in upholding these teachings, more so than the continental protestants. Rome eventually pushed in the direction of saying not only was there no salvation to be found outside of Christ, but also no salvation to be found outside of Christ’s visible Church, which Rome claimed to be exclusively. This led to consternation and arguments with reformers who attacked Rome’s claim as being an attack on Christ himself. In England, then, there were those who argued at that time that in order to avoid the conflicts that raged on the continent and which had also been visible during various turmoils in England, much of the English Church’s doctrines should be relativized. It is less important to embody the fullness of doctrines than to just be heading generally in the right direction of love and fellowship, they would argue. This Article helps to counter that by stating quite firmly that these doctrines are absolute and rooted in Scripture from which the authority of these Articles is derived.

It is interesting that today, these tendencies towards relativism have become more prominent. As Christians are increasingly exposed to more multi-cultural contexts, particularly in the developed Western world, there is a desire to say, “well my Muslim neighbour is a good person. Surely he will find salvation.” While God may do whatever he likes, his revealed and authoritative truth as we know it says that we cannot affirm there is salvation to be had apart from Christ and the Church. In the same way, this Article reminds us that Anglicanism does deal in absolute doctrines. The Church has authority to declare absolute truths when they are rooted in Scripture. Relativists today are keen to suggest that Anglicanism does not hold to absolute doctrines. It is not just Article VI on the sufficiency of Holy Scripture or Article XX on the Authority of the Church that respond to such suggestions, but the whole of the Thirty-Nine Articles which uphold the authority of Scripture and the absoluteness of Christian doctrine and belief.

On the Articles: Article XVI

The First Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, the strength of all them that put their trust in thee: Mercifully accept our prayers; and because through the weakness of our mortal nature we can do no good thing without thee, grant us the help of thy grace, that in keeping of thy commandments we may please thee both in will and deed; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Feast of Corpus Christi

O GOD, who in a wonderful sacrament hast left unto us a memorial of thy passion: Grant us so to reverence the holy mysteries of thy Body and Blood, that we may ever know within ourselves the fruit of thy redemption; who livest and reignest with the Father in the unity of the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end. Amen.

XVI. Of Sin after Baptism
Not every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after Baptism. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may arise again, and amend our lives. And therefore they are to be condemned, which say, they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.

During times in the history of the Church, the sacrament of Baptism was delayed well to the end of the life of devoted Christians, as they felt strongly that sins after Baptism would not be forgiven, therefore it was essential to delay Baptism as long as possible to ensure that no such great sins would be committed.

This view stemmed in large part from the heresy of Donatism which arose in the early 4th century during one of the final persecutions against Christians prior to the Edict of Milan granting toleration to Christianity. Donatus, a leading Christian in North Africa, argued that Baptismal regeneration was a one-off grace, and that those who turned away from faith could never come back because there was no means of receiving repentance for that sin of turning from Christ. This doctrine was rooted in St Mark’s Gospel, where Christ says, “all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin,” (St Mk 3.28, 29). In this context, deadly sins were considered to be a form of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and thus those sins were unforgiven, though that ignored the Scriptural context of Christ’s teaching there.

Ultimately Donatus was condemned as a heretic, but his heresy continued to receive widespread unofficial following leading to delay in receiving Baptism.


This practice was alive and well in the time of St Ambrose of Milan. He himself, for that reason, was ultimately not baptised until he was elected Bishop of Milan and needed to receive Baptism before he could be ordained. It was during the late 4th century and early 5th century that the practice began to be challenged in a systematic way and Christian initiation was restored to its fullness.

While once again Baptism became normatively received upon either birth or conversion to Christianity, some of the sentiments behind it lingered in the minds of both laity and clergy into the medieval period. There remained a continued belief in the minds of many that some sins were so severe that the grace offered by God through Christ’s atonement would not cover all sins. This in some ways may have contributed to the rise of the Roman doctrine of the Treasury of Merit and the sale of Indulgences, which was so thoroughly condemned by the English Church.

This Article was written to assure the faithful that Christ’s atonement is sufficient for the forgiveness of sins. In its own words “by the Grace of God we may arise again,” after having fallen into sin. This includes, for instance, after having fallen away from faith completely. This is a particular concern when dealing with infant Baptism in which the person may receive Baptism as an infant but never truly grow into their faith for quite some time, and even before that happens explicitly may reject Christ for a time. This article provides assurance that there is forgiveness to be found, and that, nothing, apart from our own wilfulness, “will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord,” (Rm 8. 39b).

It should also be noted that this Article helps to dispel myths that were arising on the Continent among the more extreme protestant reformers who argued that the Elect could not sin, and that sin was a sign that you were not saved and never would be because God had not predestined or chosen you. While a fuller (and quite complicated) statement on Predestination follows in Article XVII, Article XVI sets the stage by making it clear that not only does Article XV state that Christians will continue to sin, but that even when you sin grieviously after Baptism, God’s grace is offered, Christ’s atonement covers all sins, blotting them out, “as far as the east is from the west,” (Ps 103. 12).

It is interesting that seventeen Articles into the Articles of Religion, there are still very few statements which would be challenged by Christians of any denomination today, with the notable exception of the Canon of Scripture. While the context of the writing of several of these Articles was to seek to differentiate the Church of England from the doctrine of Rome which was being rejected, or rather to help clarify to the priests, many of them who had become confused by the constant back-and-forth at the national level and honestly no longer were sure what they were to teach, and the people what the Church professed. Today, even Articles that ostensibly sought to reject particular Roman Catholic doctrines would today largely be accepted either officially—though the Church might say something along the lines of they never officially taught what was being condemned and rather it was an aberrant practice of the age going against Church teaching—and speaks well to the possibility today of continued ecumenical dialogue between Anglicans, Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, when those dialogues remain rooted, from the Anglican side, in these traditional Anglican understandings of the Christian faith.

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 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 the Articles: Article IX

The Second Sunday after Easter

ALMIGHTY God, who hast given thine only Son to be unto us both a sacrifice for sin, and also an example of godly life: Give us grace that we may always most thankfully receive that his inestimable benefit, and also daily endeavour ourselves to follow the blessed steps of his most holy life; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

IX. Of Original or Birth-sin
Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in the Greek, φρονημα σαρκος, which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh, is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.

To modern ears, this Article can seem both a bit difficult to understand and also challenging in its subject matter. It seems that for most modern Christians there is some level of aversion to directly and deeply discussing and examining issues relating to sin and humanity’s departure from God’s will. The mid-sixteenth century also saw a return to prominence of the heresy of Pelagianism, which resulted in the continental reformers, Rome at the Council of Trent and the English reformers all wanting to clarify their anti-Pelagian stances.

Pelagius was a fifth century Celtic monk who rose to prominence teaching in Rome. His heresy involved the teaching that humanity could, of its own efforts, attain salvation apart from Divine grace. His teachings were universally condemned, however they had significant appeal in that many interpreted his teachings as suggesting that one could attain to salvation simply by being a good person, with the definition of good person now effectively being left up to the individual rather than to God. Even in the case of still regarding sin as sin by God’s definition, Pelagianism seems to have taught that not all fall short, and that by virtue of free will and choice mankind could, again apart from divine grace, avoid sin. While this doesn’t necessarily present a full and accurate picture of Pelagius’s actual teachings, it was a popular understanding that helped contribute to the revival of Pelagianism in the sixteenth century, and explains the specific reference to condemnation of Pelagius in this Article.

The Pelagian view is contrasted with a more Augustinian view that speaks to the corruption of our human nature by sin, and that by this corrupted nature, all people are inclined towards sin. This—ironically—is a far more comforting view of our nature than that of Pelagius, whose view suggests that when we sin it is of our own desires and free will, and utterly unrelated towards any inclination to sin. To Pelagians, we have equal draws towards sinfulness and God and complete free-will to choose, which suggests we all choose completely of our own free will to sin.

Augustine’s formulation of Original Sin has been widely adopted in the Christian West, though in his time it was innovative. Before then, and to this day in the Christian East, the concept of Ancestral Sin was the dominant explanation. Under that formulation, Adam and Eve alone bore the guilt of their sin, but all humanity bore the consequences of their sin.

While the more Augustinian concept of original sin is referred to and would have been far more familiar to the English reformers, the Eastern view of Ancestral Sin is largely consistent with Article IX, with the exception of one of the middle clauses, which states that we are born into condemnation by virtue of this state of sin.

Continuing on, the Article uses a Greek phrase to continue its explanation. The Greek here is transliterated as “phronema sarkos” and could be rendered into English along the lines of “the mind of the flesh” however this would be imprecise and is one of the reasons the original Greek was used in the Article. The concept refers to the idea of the desires of our corrupted human nature. Specifically, by virtue of Adam’s sin, our minds have been corrupted by the power of Satan. Where the Greek sarkos is used is therefore referring to the broader concept of all that is hostile to God, a common reference with respect to flesh and world throughout the New Testament.

The final sentence doesn’t refer to specifically sexual sins, but rather speaks to this same topic, the idea that even in Baptismal regeneration, these consequences of a corrupted nature remain. We remain inclined to sin, even as the sins we ourselves have committed are washed away in the waters of baptism and again when we repent of them and return to God.

This strong admission of a corrupted human nature and proclivity towards sin is an essential declaration in the face of those who would suggest some form of universalism or otherwise attempt to make the claim that not all fall short of God’s glory, to use St Paul’s words. There can be no clear doctrine of salvation without first making clear the need for salvation.

On the Articles: Article III

The Third Sunday in Lent

WE beseech thee, Almighty God, look upon the hearty desires of thy humble servants, and stretch forth the right hand of thy Majesty, to be our defence against all our enemies; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Lent

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who hatest nothing that thou hast made, and dost forgive the sins of all them that are penitent: Create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that we worthily lamenting our sins, and acknowledging our wretchedness, may obtain of thee, the God of all mercy, perfect remission and forgiveness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

III. Of the going down of Christ into Hell
As Christ died for us, and was buried, so also is it to be believed, that he went down into Hell.

 The third Article of Religion recalls the credal proclamation of Christ’s descent to hell following his crucifixion. In the Book of Alternative Services, this line is rendered “descended to the dead” but in the original BCP language, was rendered “he descended into hell.” There has been much theological ink spilled trying to determine which rendering is more accurate. Many proponents of excising the language of hell from the creeds today do so not because of the arguments in favour of the sheol or Hades but simply because they wish to minimize references to hell given its negative connotations and associations.

What this ignores is that when we say Christ descended into hell, it makes a statement on Christ’s suffering. His suffering did not end at his physical death on the cross. He bore humanity’s sins even to hell. Had he not done so he would not have shared in the full human punishment for sin.

There is also a second important reason for this, and that has to do with what is called the harrowing of Hell. This is the term used to describe the meaning of this passage in reference to I St Pt 3. 18-20:

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.

It is the, admittedly limited, explanation of how Christ reached out to those who had died before his coming. St Peter writes that he preached to the dead, though it does not make clear what the response to that offering of gospel truth was. It speaks to the fact that Christ’s truth is to be preached to all and for all, those who came before and those who are yet to come. It is an eternal truth, applicable for the salvation of all humanity.

All of this dances around the broader issue of affirming not simply that Christ descended to hell, and implying the reason for it, but also that there is indeed a hell. Most of what the New Testament tells us about hell comes from Christ himself who warned against eternal separation from God several times.

Neither Christ in the Gospels nor any of the other Biblical authors are particularly clear on exactly what hell is. Much like asking the exact way in which God created the universe, that is the wrong question to be asking. Christ makes it clear that separation from God inherent in hell is  undesirable, so the real questions becomes how do we avoid that separation?

Article III affirms, however distasteful to modern sensibilities, that Hell exists, but also that Christ went down into hell. In doing so, he overturned death, as is constantly affirmed in the New Testament. Christ’s sacrifice has paved the way for us all to live a life not of eternal suffering through separation from God, but in oneness with God, just as the Father and the Son are one. The resurrection is true. Christ did not simply recover. He truly died and truly rose.

Many modern Christians affirm a form of gnosticism that seems to suggest that we have it all together. That, “it’s all good,” and nothing needs to change. In the Articles of Religion we affirm the Catholic view—held by all Christians—that it is in fact not all good and that it is only through Christ that we are set aright. It may be easier to believe the former, but it is the truth to believe the latter. No matter how difficult or how unpleasant a reality, this is the universe God has created and the rules he wills it to operate under. Just as Christ preached to the dead, so we have been told the reality in which we live and are left with the freedom of how we are going to respond.

On Anticipation

The Third Sunday in Advent

O LORD Jesu Christ, who at thy first coming didst send thy messenger to prepare thy way before thee: Grant that the ministers and stewards of thy mysteries may likewise so prepare and make ready thy way, by turning the hearts of the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, that at thy second coming to judge the world we may be found an acceptable people in thy sight; who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Spirit, ever one God, world without end. Amen.

Advent

ALMIGHTY God, give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness, and put upon us the armour of light, now in the time of this mortal life, in which thy Son Jesus Christ came to visit us in great humility; that in the last day, when he shall come again in his glorious Majesty, to judge both the quick and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal; through him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, now and ever. Amen.

 For many people, even Christians, this is not the season of Advent, but rather Christmas. This is a cultural rather than Christian influence. It is a season of peace and joy. That peace and joy are often found not in reflecting upon Holy Scripture, but rather in the gathering of family, sharing veritable feats with friends and family and the exchange of gifts. This is understandable, because even those who try to oppose the secularization and commercialization of the Christmas do so from the perspective that, “the reason for the season,” is exclusively found in the birth of Christ.

If you ask most Christians why that is important, they would probably focus on the atonement. The logic effectively becomes we celebrate Christ’s birth so that he can die for our sins and bring us repentance. This is entirely understandable.  In the Nicene Creed, it describes the incarnation thus, “For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven...” There is nothing untrue in the logic that the reason for the incarnation is salvation, though it perhaps misses the point. “The reason for the season,” argument doesn’t fully express the issue because it points to the wrong season. We aren’t yet in the season of Christmas, but in Advent.

Advent is derived from Latin and means coming. It is the season prior to Christmas in which we anticipate Christ’s coming. That can be a confusing statement and leads to another issue. It is simple for many people to say they are anticipating Christmas, but that is not really what we are meant to anticipate, even though the fact that we think of the Nativity in terms of a past historical event, which is therefore hard to anticipate. This leads to the anticipation of Christmas as a holiday rather than Christmas as a holy day.

When we say Christ’s coming, though, there is a three-fold meaning to it. It means first and foremost his coming in history, celebrated at Christ’s mass, the feast of the Nativity. It also refers to our anticipation of how he continues to come in the sacrament of the Eucharist. Finally, it reminds us to anticipate his coming again on the last day.

When looking at Advent in this traditional three-fold lens, it is much easier to see how we are called to anticipate Christ’s coming. It still is not the complete picture, however!

We anticipate his coming in history in and of itself, and not simply for its final victory in Christ’s crucifixion. His incarnation in and of itself is worthy to be recognized for the change it brought to our understanding of God.

St Athanasius the Great wrote, “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.”   This statement requires a little bit of unpacking. Perhaps a bit lengthier way of expressing this sentiment, that more clearly articulates its meaning, would be to say, “The Son of God, fully God, became Man, fully man apart from sin, in order to make clear the nature of God to Man, that Man might become more God-like.” In other words, St Athanasius is not referring to some kind of apotheosis but rather is suggesting that it is through the incarnation that we become more like we were meant to be, having been created originally in the image and likeness  of God.

Anyone who is familiar with the Old Testament would recognize the biographical elements of it. Through different authors, we are given a picture of God’s nature. His mercy, his judgement, his love for mankind and particularly for his chosen people. We see times in which God was close to particular people. Great saints of the Old Testament like Abraham and Moses were counted as friends of God. In Exodus, Moses spends so much time conversing with God that his face glows (Ex 34. 29) and yet through this friendship, Moses continues to refer to God using the same style as any other Jew would. God also tells Moses that no man may see God’s face for they would die (Ex 33. 20). Moses was a friend to God but there were limits to how well Moses could know God.

Yet today, almost every Christian recites the Lord’s Prayer in which God is given the far more intimate address of Father. It is through Christ’s incarnation that we have come to know God. Colossians tells us that Christ, “is the image of the invisible God,” (Col 1. 15) and through him we can now see not just the Lord, but our Father. Whereas the Old Testament might be an objective historical account of God’s nature, the New Testament presents us with an intimate and personal portrait of who God is and his love for us. Indeed, to paraphrase CS Lewis, it is through the incarnation that we go from being creatures of God, looking upon him from afar, to being children of God, adopted into his family.

This concept that we have become adopted into God’s family is at the heart of the connection between Christ’s historic coming and how he continues to come. It is in that adoption that we now do not simply look into God from afar, but intimately participate in life with God. In his first epistle, St John tells us that he testifies to Christ’s life, in which the Father was made manifest, so that we might share in this intimate fellowship and participation with our fellow believers and with the Father (I St Jn 1. 1-3)! St Paul then uses the same language of intimate fellowship, communion and participation when he asks of the Eucharist, “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (I Cor 10. 16).

We continue to anticipate his coming because just as the incarnation was a sign promised by the Father (Isa 7. 14) for Christ’s incarnation, the sign of his grace reminds us that he continues to love and support us and he seeks to prepare us for his coming again on the last day. It is by grace that we will be judged righteous on that last day, and so again that same sign which he gives to us in the Eucharist is a reminder of is coming for us in the future. Joy in advent is reflection that by his continued coming, by the grace he imparts, we are able to anticipate his coming again with joy and not with dread.

That is the true reason for the season.

On Human Nature

The First Sunday in Advent

ALMIGHTY God, give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness, and put upon us the armour of light, now in the time of this mortal life, in which thy Son Jesus Christ came to visit us in great humility; that in the last day, when he shall come again in his glorious Majesty, to judge both the quick and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal; through him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, now and ever. Amen.

 For most children, at some point in their school career they will be asked that basic philosophical question about the nature of humanity. Are humans, by nature, evil or good? It is a complex question that many philosophers throughout the ages have struggled with. For children, it is perhaps a simpler question of examining the world around them and reporting on it.

They see evil, murder, theft, sexual violence, war and conclude that it is part of human nature to do evil. Others might, in the midst of that evil, particularly if they are not touched by it directly or are perhaps by virtue of their parents shielded from it in some way, conclude that humanity is by nature good.

Children who are shielded from the news and other sources of violence might conclude that humans are generally good because that is what they experience around themselves. Those who see evil—murder, theft, sexual violence and immorality and war—might conclude that humans are by nature evil. Sure enough, when something bad happens or someone sins, how common is it for someone to suggest that it is human nature?

Even within Christian communities, when someone speaks of their own trouble with temptation and sin, how common is it for someone to suggest that it is simply human nature that we sin or otherwise succumb to temptation? Is that correct?

It is not. God did not create humanity to sin. Indeed, we are made in his image and likeness.

In the ancient Church, worship was for the saints while it was adoration that was reserved for God. Today, we worship God and adore babies. As Fr Michael McKinnon once joked, however, there is only one adorable baby in human history, and that is Christ himself.

Yet when we consider the nativity and incarnation, it’s not simply to think about the adorable baby he was born as (in both senses, certainly), but rather what the implications of the incarnation are. In this season of Advent, as we anticipate the incarnation, it seems appropriate to consider what Christ’s taking on a human nature implies about our own humanity.

Isaiah contains a number of prophesies related to the coming and incarnation of Christ the Messiah. St John of Damascus, in considering Isaiah 7 which contains the famous prophesy that, “the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel,” (Isa 7. 14), suggested that Christ’s incarnation reflects on human nature itself, that, “by the transgression [of Adam and Eve] we were driven from the natural to the unnatural, but the Lord led us back from the unnatural to the natural. For this is what is the meaning of in our image, after our likeness.”

To St John, then, humans are by nature good, and this is reflected in Scripture both in the creation story of Genesis, but further in the discussion of Christ’s nature and explication on why the incarnation occurred as it did. This view of the natural state of humanity being good, impaired by sin to the unnatural state of sin, was shared by other early fathers of the Church.

St Gregory of Palamas, a 14th century theologian venerated primarily in the East, wrote extensively on the incarnation, again affirming the beliefs of the fathers. He describes how Adam was created undefiled, until he turned aside from God, tempted by the pleasures of the flesh and underwent the defilement of sin. In so saying, he argues again that by nature, man is good and it is the tyranny of sin which, contrary to our created nature, pushes humanity towards evil.

In his own words, “originally God created the first Adam undefiled and he was new until he voluntarily obeyed the devil. He turned aside after the pleasures of the flesh, underwent the defilement of sin, grew old and fell into what is contrary to nature.”

St Gregory spoke to the incarnation of Christ, noting that the purpose of the incarnation was that in coming among as us as man, Christ could take our sins upon himself, a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice for all and for all time. In order to do this, though, a number of things were needed.

Christ was not conceived by ordinary means, but by the Holy Spirit, such that:

he was the only one neither shapen in iniquity nor conceived in sin, that is to say in the fleshy pleasure, passion and unclean thoughts that belong to our nature defiled by transgression. The point of this was that the nature he assumed should be entirely pure and unsullied, so that he himself would not need to be purified but would, in his wisdom, accept everything for our sake.

Note again how St Gregory stresses, as St John of Damascus did, that human nature had been defiled by the transgression of Adam, yet in Christ’s incarnation and pure life he was able to die, not because of his own sins, but in order that he be a sacrifice for ours. He writes further, “Born of a woman that he might restore the human nature created by him.”

Sin and evil are not humanity’s nature, they are a corruption of our natural state. In as much as Christ had a dual nature, both fully God and fully man, humans too can be viewed, in some respects, as being of a dual nature: our natural state, as we were created before the fall, and our current state, corrupted in sin. In his sacrifice St Gregory writes, Christ has made, “his flesh an inexhaustible source of sanctification with abundant power to wash away the defilement of our first parents, and sufficient to sanctify everyone who came after them.”

When we see evil in the world, injustice, violence, hatred or any other kind, it should not be viewed as part of our nature. It is alien to us. What we are seeing is the nature of sin, and often enough lives lived in slavery to it.

St Paul wrote often using the imagery of our slavery and bondage to sin. He also wrote, however, that in Christ there is freedom. Our shackles will be removed. Our sins will be wiped clean. In Christ, we come closer and closer to true human nature, the image and likeness of God in which we were first created.

In this season of advent, it is this reality that we are called to reflect upon. The true meaning of the Nativity of our Lord.

On Pudding

Feast of St Luke the Evangelist

ALMIGHTY God, who calledst Luke the Physician, whose praise is in the Gospel, to be an Evangelist, and Physician of the soul: May it please thee that, by the wholesome medicines of the doctrine delivered by him, all the diseases of our souls may be healed; through the merits of thy Son 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.

Last month, the lectionary took us through the Epistle of James. James contains a number of verses many Christians are familiar with. One that really strikes me is Jas 2. 17: “So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” This verse, and the broader discussion of faith, works and salvation from Jas 2. 14-26, was mentioned in a homily by my priest who suggested the way to view this is that St James is saying, so far as faith is concerned, the proof is in the pudding.

This verse in itself leads to a number of interesting discussion topics on the nature of justification, saving faith or true faith versus the profession of faith and whether works proceed from true faith or play some role in salvation, justification and sanctification.

A perhaps more interesting question is can this verse be applied more generally to the Church or just to the individual? If the proof is in the pudding for the individual, how might that apply to the Church?

To begin, what specifically does St James suggest? “If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled”, without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?” (Jas 2. 15, 16). Here St James suggests that our faith and deeds must connect, but to break that down a bit more, what is he saying? The faith is to be rooted in Christ’s teachings.

The fact that you would be concerned for a brother or sister who is lacking in basic necessities is related to the faith imparted by Christ. So it is not enough to have some kind of faith, it must be true faith, rooted in Christ’s teachings. Next, it is insufficient to simply teach or preach Christ’s teachings, they are to be lived out if they are to be truly taught.

The real key is not simply that something should happen based on our faith, but that part of that faith is doing something. If you truly believe in Christ Jesus then you will want to do these things. This is perhaps made clear further on in the chapter, where he writes, “You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works,” (Jas 2. 22). Here he introduces the discussion of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac to show the connection between Abraham’s faith in God and his willingness to act on that faith by sacrificing his son Isaac.

So to conclude, there are really three things being discussed here. Christ’s teachings, belief in them, and willingness to act upon them based on that faith.

How might this be seen to apply to the Church?

Christ’s teachings are simple enough. It is clear the Church cannot teach what is contrary to Christ. Article XX of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion says, “it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.” That is simple enough, until you realise that God’s Word written is not always clear.

Just as the term true faith was used previously to describe the type of faith which reflects the teachings of Christ and moves the individual to good works to live out that faith, so to must there be good doctrine.

Luckily, there is a way of deciding whether or not an interpretation of Scripture is good or not and that is to test it against the understanding of the Church Fathers. If you look back and since the patristic age it has been taught that a given verse means A and you suggest it means B, it is likely that your interpretation is somehow in error. While it is true that not all of the fathers were always correct—some fell into error quite often, St Augustine of Hippo even revised many of his early views as he matured in faith—the greater body of their work is an accepted standard by which Christians today can judge the interpretation of Scripture. The Creeds are another great example of something by which we can test interpretation of Scripture. For centuries, the Nicene Creed has been the sufficient Christian statement of faith accepted East and West. If a doctrine similarly runs counter to the Nicene Creed it is incorrect.

It is important to remember this grounding in Scripture. In modern times, arguments for innovation are often presented in the form of “I sense it is the movement of the Spirit that we do X.” This view seeks to ground doctrine not in God’s word, but in personal revelation. For those who have a background in some charismatic protestant denominations, this can actually be a common occurrence leading to discord within a local church community. When you claim authority directly from the Spirit, you are claiming it cannot be tested simply against Scripture because it is a new revelation.  However, Scripture itself points in some cases to this being untrue.

In St John’s Gospel, Christ offers a prayer for the Church: “And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. 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. 11). This is Christ’s singular prayer, that the Church be one, be united. Also here, he reaffirms the previous teaching that he and the Father speak as one. It suggests that when the Holy Spirit comes, the helper Christ spoke of when he had just said:

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (St Jn 16. 13-15)

Here, Christ again says that there will be unity between what he has said and what the Spirit has said. Just as he says in Chapter 17 that he and the Father are one, here he had said that he and the Spirit are one. What the Spirit reveals will not contradict what Christ has taught. Similarly, Christ’s prayer was that the Church would be one, and if that is the case, God would not send the Holy Spirit to grant new revelation only to small subsets of Christians, but to all Christians.

So if doctrine is to be rooted in the teachings of Christ that is held in accord with orthodox faith and understanding of those teachings, what then is works? The work of the Church is found in the liturgy, which encourages and nurtures the body to do good works.

Doctrine of the Church ought to be reflected in the words said each week, and ought to inspire the people to fulfil those doctrines throughout the week. As St Teresa of Avila once said, “Christ has no body on earth but yours, no hands but yours, no feet but yours. Yours are the eyes through which Christ’s compassion is to look out; yours are the feet with which He is to go about doing good; and yours are the hands with which He is to bless us now.” The liturgy is when we gather each week to be nourished in God’s grace and then go forth to do what he teaches. To evangelize, to comfort the sick and afflicted and to care for the poor.

Doctrines of the Church, and our understanding of them, ought to be rooted in the same understanding of our personal faith that sees the need for true faith to give birth to good works. Perhaps the most important consideration here then becomes, if faith without works is dead, what might that imply for the Church if it strays from the model which St James provides with respect to true faith?

On Endurance

The Twelfth Sunday after Trinity

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who art always more ready to hear than we to pray, and art wont to give more than either we desire or deserve: Pour down upon us the abundance of thy mercy; forgiving us those things whereof our conscience is afraid, and giving us those good things which we are not worthy to ask, but through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, thy Son, our Lord. Amen.

For the Feast of St Bernard of Clairvaux this past Thursday, one of the assigned daily readings in the lectionary was from St Paul’s letter to the Romans, Chapter 5. It is a well-known passage where St Paul tells us:

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. (Rm 5. 1-5)

Suffering, whether for our faith like the martyrs of the Church or simply in our daily lives, is a part of the human experience. As Christ was incarnate into the world by God, suffering was brought forth by man through sin. The question of why God allows suffering is one that has been one that generates countless theological tomes, debates, arguments and is intractably linked to deep felt pain and hurts, which many Christians often seek to blame on God.

From Anglican scholars like Bishop NT Wright to Pope St John Paul II, Christ is at the centre of a theology of suffering. As NT Wright notes, Christ’s suffering on the cross subverts expectations of the Jews (in terms of the Messiah coming to instantly liberate Israel from its oppressors) just as we today would want God to act instantly to remedy humanity’s suffering (whether it be illness, hatred, natural disaster, religious persecution, etc). This was the central aspect of God’s salvation history for humanity. The long-term narrative by which God returns humanity to himself.

In his apostolic letter Salvifici Doloris, Pope St John Paul II goes further suggesting that the human experience of suffering is modelled in Christ’s suffering, and like Wright he notes that Christ’s life shows that our expectations and demands on God show a lack of complete understanding and knowledge of God, preventing us from ever having a more complete understanding of suffering than what we see in Christ’s life.

St Paul’s instructions can be seen in the Pope’s letter when he highlights the transformative nature of suffering. St John Paul II suggests in his letter that, “in suffering there is concealed
a particular power that draws a person interiorly close to Christ, a special grace.” To those who have endured, as St Paul says, they are transformed in character and brought to new hope in God.

It is this transformation that similarly highlights the reality of the link between a theology of suffering and a theology of healing. The theology of healing is linked strongly with soteriology, the theology of salvation. Salvation is, as NT Wright noted, the way in which God returns humanity to himself, the way in which the barrier of sin is eliminated. But if suffering relates to sin, then the elimination of suffering through healing is also strongly tied to salvation, and again to Christ.

Without a theology of suffering, therefore, we cannot have a full theology of healing; nor can our theology of salvation be fully realized. The two are linked in St Paul’s words, suffering leads to hope in God, the assurance of his love. In the lectionary, the lesson from Romans is tied to a reading from St John’s gospel:

As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. (St Jn 15. 9-11)

The link here is drawn again to the Father’s love, and joy. A theology of healing is ultimately countered to a theology of suffering in that it is God’s love that heals all suffering. Throughout the Bible, suffering is described as groaning. In captivity and oppression, God’s people groaned in their sufferings. God heard them. How much more does God groan for us to return to him? The ultimate expression of his love given. His son, made man, suffered with us, bore our sins and opened in his obedient sacrifice the love of God to be experienced by all.

There are profound theological points to be made from this initial reading. Long debates on the nature of God, creation and so much more. Yet what comfort is all of this objective analysis to someone in the midst of suffering? The wife whose husband is diagnosed with cancer. The father whose sun is severely injured in a motor vehicle collision.

It all comes back to Christ. Whatever the reasons why suffering is permitted to continue in this world, Christ shared in them. Christ suffered as all humans suffer, and for those living today suffered more physical pain and torment than most will likely see. He was obedient unto death so that he could become the Divine Physician. The healer who reconciles us all to God.

In our suffering we are called to turn to Christ; to seek God’s support and strength to endure. It is important to stress that in this endurance, it will not always mean an immediate end to suffering. In the case of illness, for instance, it does not mean divine healing. Christ is the Divine Physician not because his hands brought miraculous healing, but because it is through him that our souls are healed and we are restored to God. The strength to endure suffering, is what we pray for, and not simply an end to the suffering itself.

Through our endurance, through our prayers, we come to know God better, improving in us our character, the goodness and reflection of God seen in all humans who are made in his image.

Through that character we gain hope. Not hope in its modern sense of wishful thinking for something, but rather a wholehearted assurance and expectation of what is to come. If character is St Paul’s description of how we come to know God better and thus to be better qualified to act in a more God-like way, the hope we gain is the assurance of his love borne of the knowledge of him.

Even knowing this, in the midst of suffering it may not be enough. Our desire would be for God to immediately end that suffering. Sometimes we may even feel that because God did not prevent such suffering, his will is that it occurs to us. Why, God? What did I do to deserve this? Sometimes, it wont be enough. God’s perfection is beyond human understanding, and sometimes that means we cannot comprehend what is happening in our lives and why God has not intervened. Why God intercedes in certain cases for miraculous healing on an individual level, while genocides and the mass loss of life through natural disasters are allowed to occur. Even simply why God might intercede in one case and yet not another for two individuals afflicted with the same disease.

There is no real word of comfort, no simple and comforting explanation. These are questions that will only be answered through endurance, but what comfort there is can be known through the assurance that endurance leads to joy. God has promised, “I will turn their mourning into joy; I will comfort them, and give them gladness for sorrow,” (Jer 31. 13b). This promise originally made to God’s people in captivity reminds us that through endurance of suffering, our tears will ultimately be turned to joy when, at the very least, we come into the fullness of God’s plan for reunion with us.

The Wisdom of Saints: St John Chrysostom

The Feast of John Chrysostom, Doctor, Bishop of Constantinople, 407

O GOD, who by thy Holy Spirit hast given unto one man a word of wisdom, and to another a word of knowledge, and to another the gift of tongues: We praise thy Name for the gifts of grace manifested in thy servant John, and we pray that thy Church may never be destitute of the same; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

St John Chrysostom is one of the most well-known of the early Church fathers and is considered one of the eight Great Fathers of the Church. Chrysostom is actually not his family name, but rather an epithet derived from Greek meaning Golden-mouthed or Golden-tongued. Chrysostom was well-known for his public speaking, but is also important in modern times because unlike some of the Church Fathers, he wrote prolifically and his writings survive to this day. Dozens of his homilies on the books of the Bible survive and continue to be analysed and referenced in modern times, along with his other treatises on Christianity and letters to other Christians.

St John Chrysostom was born to Christian parents in the city of Antioch in 344, then under the control of the Roman Empire, and one of the chief centres of the early Christian Church. His father, an officer in the Syrian army, died when Chrysostom was still young and Chrysostom and his elder sister were ultimately raised by his mother who was still only twenty years old at the time of her husband’s death. Chrysostom was tutored by Libanius, one of the most famous orators of his age, and a staunch Roman pagan. He was given a classical Greek education, though his mother instilled in him Christian piety.

In 367, when Chrysostom was in his early twenties, he met Bishop Meletius of Antioch, whose personal charm and charisma focused Chrysostom towards a life of piety. He became a lector for the Church in Antioch where he spent time in prayer and studying the Scriptures and in manual labour. His earliest surviving writing that survive are from this period. In 374, he was drawn to the ascetic life of the monastics living in the mountains outside of Antioch. There he lived a life of solitude, fasting over-zealously to the point that his health was ruined and he was forced to return to Antioch where he resumed his life as a lector.

In 381, just a few years before his death, Bishop Meletius ordained Chrysostom as a deacon. He fulfilled his priestly duties and a few years later was ordained a priest by Meletius’s successor, Bishop Flavian. It was during this period that he wrote one of his most famous works, On the Priesthood. In 398, he was made Bishop of Constantinople, in an era when there was considerable political turmoil in the Empire, much of it related to Christianity.

Chrysostom had numerous supporters and was by this point becoming relatively well-known, particularly as Bishop of Constantinople. His chief political opponent, however, was the Empress Eudoxia, consort of Emperor Arcadius. Her hatred of Chrysostom and her husband’s weak rule allowed her to force Chrysostom into exile at multiple points in his later history. He ultimately died in exile in 407.

As a Doctor of the Church, St John Chrysostom is well-respected as a theologian in both Eastern and Western Christianity. Perhaps even more influential is his liturgy. A revision of the liturgies of the church used in those days which is today known as the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom and is the standard liturgy used by the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches of the Byzantine Rite.

In his Treatise on the Priesthood, St John Chrysostom laid out over six books both the history of his early life leading up to his own ordination, and then in the later books his own thoughts on the priesthood itself.

St John Chrysostom’s treatise speaks at lengths to the responsibilities of the priesthood, both for shepherding the flock and the teaching of right doctrine—issues of paramount importance in Chrysostom’s day giving the continuing conflicts over the Arian controversy—and the administration of the sacraments.

In Book 3 of his treatise, he makes a number of observations that highlight both the beauty of his prose, and his deep and significant understanding of Christian faith:

Picture Elijah and the vast multitude standing around him, and the sacrifice laid upon the altar of stones, and all the rest of the people hushed into a deep silence while the prophet alone offers up prayer: then the sudden rush of fire from Heaven upon the sacrifice: -- these are marvellous things, charged with terror. Now then pass from this scene to the rites which are celebrated in the present day; they are not only marvellous to behold, but transcendent in terror. There stands the priest, not bringing down fire from Heaven, but the Holy Spirit: and he makes prolonged supplication, not that some flame sent down from on high may consume the offerings, but that grace descending on the sacrifice may thereby enlighten the souls of all, and render them more refulgent than silver purified by fire.

In this eloquent passage, Chrysostom draws parallels and distinctions between familiar stories and images of the Old Testament—which Jewish raised Christians would have been familiar with and which all Christians would have some passing familiarity with as well—and the modern role of the Christian priest.

After referencing the Gospels of St Matthew and St John, he speaks to the inherent dignity of the priesthood, owed on account of the authority bestowed on priests by God, saying:

if a king should bestow this honor upon any of his subjects, authorizing him to cast into prison whom he pleased and to release them again, he becomes an object of envy and respect to all men; but he who has received from God an authority as much greater as heaven is more precious than earth, and souls more precious than bodies, seems to some to have received so small an honor that they are actually able to imagine that one of those who have been entrusted with these things will despise the gift. Away with such madness! For transparent madness it is to despise so great a dignity, without which it is not possible to obtain either our own salvation, or the good things which have been promised to us. For if no one can enter into the kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerate through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious?

In this section, Chrysostom synthesizes the Gospel writings on the priesthood and their authority and speaks to a Catholic understanding of the sacraments, and in particular that of Holy Baptism and the Supper of our Lord as they relate to salvation.

The awesome dignity Chrysostom ascribes to the priesthood is commensurate in his mind with their sacramental importance. They have been charged with an authority, and thus responsibility, of immense weight in relation to the salvation of mankind, and that authority, charged by God through the Holy Spirit, should be recognized and respected. The priesthood to Chrysostom is no small thing.

Even in his early books, he could not help but justify his thoughts by Scripture. It is perhaps his eloquence which brought him to fame, and the sheer breadth of his writings that maintained it, particularly among Eastern Christians, but as Anglicans who view Christianity not through the lens of the ancient Eastern Patriarchs or the See of Rome, but through the Holy Scriptures, could how could Chrysostom not become a revered saint and teacher? With so many of his writings surviving to this day and translated into English, we all have much to learn from the golden-tongued saint!

On the Sacrament of Holy Baptism

The Feast of the Conversion of St Paul

O GOD, who, through the preaching of the blessed Apostle Saint Paul, hast caused the light of the Gospel to shine throughout the world: Grant, we beseech thee, that we, having his wonderful conversion in remembrance, may show forth our thankfulness unto thee for the same, by following the holy doctrine which he taught; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Third Sunday in Epiphanytide

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, mercifully look upon our infirmities, and in all our dangers and necessities stretch forth thy right hand to help and defend us; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Epiphany of our Lord

O GOD, who by the leading of a star didst manifest thy only-begotten Son to the Gentiles: Mercifully grant, that we, who know thee now by faith, may be led onward through this earthly life, until we see the vision of thy heavenly glory; through the same thy Son Jesus Christ, who with thee and the Holy Ghost liveth and reigneth, one God, world without end. Amen.

Of all the sacraments, Holy Baptism is the most important as it is the one which is the gatekeeper to the others. It is the means by which a person becomes a Christian and enters into the communion of saints.

In the Anglican tradition, Baptism is considered a Sacrament of the Gospel because it was explicitly ordained in the Holy Scriptures by Christ. In the Gospel of St Mark, Christ gives the Great Commission saying, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned,” (Mk 16. 15-16). He did not say simply to believe, but that you must believe and be baptized. This was noted in Article XXV of the Articles of Religion which both recognized its place in the Gospel and provided a reminder of the efficacy of baptism.

Going further, Article XXVII speaks directly to the sacrament of Holy Baptism. It begins with a reminder that Baptism is, “a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened,” which makes an important distinction. Holy Baptism might on its face be compared to the baptism of John which was given to the Jews. The Acts of the Apostles records St Paul’s journey to Ephesus where he meets with some disciples and the following exchange occurs:

And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said,“Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19. 2-5)

Here, while the disciples he met did not understand the difference initially, St Paul clearly draws home the point that Christian Baptism is not simply a matter of baptism with water. John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance, whereas Christian Baptism is a sign of membership in the community of believers, more akin to circumcision for the Jews than John’s baptism. This point is made clearer still by Christ’s words again:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (Jn 3. 3-8)

Christ makes it very clear that Baptism is part of the required method of entry into Heaven. This is similarly made clear in the Articles of Religion as Article XXVII continues saying that Holy Baptism is not merely a distinction made to discern Christians from non-Christians, but:

it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.

Again, it is a reminder that through the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, God’s grace is conferred.

This view of Baptism is accepted among Catholic Christians, however various protestant denominations take issue with the efficacy of sacraments in general and the role of various sacraments in particular. With Baptism, there are some denominations that do not view Baptism as more than a visible symbol of coming to Christ, but they do not see the Holy Spirit as being conferred through the sacrament. They reject the sacramental life of the Early Church that is one of the key components of Catholicism.

The purely symbolic understanding of Baptism is on its face a failure to express the fullness of the Bible’s teachings on the nature of Baptism. Indeed while there is some contention within Anglicanism on the status of the sacraments which will be discussed elsewhere, there is no such contention when it comes to Holy Baptism. Baptism is a Sacrament of the Gospel, defined clearly and fully in Scripture both in the Gospels from Christ’s mouth as well as recorded among early Christians in the Acts of the Apostles.

It is the way in which Christians sacramentally enter into the Christian faith, and it is, as Christ says, a requisite part of our salvation. This brings to mind a concern, reasonably held until explored, that such a view of Baptism confers on it the status of a work, and place this understanding of Baptism in contradiction of Article XI which states we are justified by the merit of Christ and by faith, not by our own works.

There is a simple response to this concern, however, to answer the question of who is truly acting in Baptism, or rather who is doing the work? The answer comes back to the Book of Common Prayer’s definition of a sacrament, an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. The action in Baptism is therefore God conferring grace, Baptism is merely the means by which it is received and not a work.

Holy Baptism is the way in which we begin a new Christian life, and its relationship to the Supper of our Lord as the way in which we are subsequently nourished in our new life in Christ.