On Desire

The Twenty-Fifth Sunday after Trinity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Articles: Article XXVI

The Eleventh Sunday after Trinity

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

XXVI. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the SacramentsAlthough in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving of the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’ s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.
Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally being found guilty, by just judgement be deposed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Articles: Article 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 XV

The Octave Day of Pentecost commonly called Trinity Sunday

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who hast it given unto us thy servants grace, by the confession of a true faith, to acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinity, and in the power of the Divine Majesty to worship the Unity: We beseech thee, that this holy faith may evermore be our defence against all adversities; who livest and reignest, one God, world without end. Amen.

XV. Of Christ alone without Sin
Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which he was clearly void, both in his flesh, and in his spirit. He came to be the Lamb without spot, who, by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world, and sin, as Saint John saith, was not in him. But all we the rest, although baptized, and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things; and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Despite being longer than some of the other articles, at first glance, Article XV seems straight forward: Christ did not sin, and the rest of us do. There is more to it than that, though, and it also raises some theological questions which at time have been quite controversial.

First, and this point brings continuity with Article XVI, this article makes clear the rejection of the extreme Protestant position that it is impossible to sin after baptism. This view that the regenerate were incapable of sin was one of the viewpoints, related in some ways to doctrines of predestination, led to the view that if you were sinning that it was an indication you were not regenerate, thereby denying the efficacy of Holy Baptism.

More to the point, this article highlights controversy over Christ’s nature. The opening sentence of Article XV states plainly that Christ was fully human, apart from sin. This conflicted with viewpoints that saw sin as an inherent part of human nature and that the only way that Christ himself could be sinless were if he were born of a sinless mother. One belief was that the Blessed Theotokos was set free from sin at the time of Christ’s conception while a much more recent development in the mid-19th century had the Roman Catholic Church promulgate the dogma of her immaculate conception, that she was kept free from sin from the time of her own conception.

The interesting commentary from this Article is that it does not suggest Christ was set free or kept free from sin either externally or by some influence of his divine nature. It properly maintains the distinction between his two natures, articulated by the Council of Chalcedon in 451, but the doctrines of which had in common practice become muddled at the time of the English Reformation. Article XV reinforces the statement made in Article IX that human nature itself is not sinful but rather that we have taken on for ourselves a fallen nature. Christ, however, was perfectly obedient to God in his incarnate form and thus remained free of sin and sinful nature throughout his life on earth.

The confusion of this point largely comes from those who suggest that somehow Christ’s divine nature made it such that he did not struggle to follow the Father’s will. This completely contradicts Scripture’s description of Christ’s passion, however, and particularly his prayer in the Garden where he says, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done,” (St Lk 22. 42). Similarly, we are told, “For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted,” (Heb 2. 18). If Christ could not have sinned, could not even have been tempted, then surely his sacrifice would mean nothing?

This sinless nature is integral to the Lamb referenced in Article XV, a reference to the ancient laws of the Jews, for which only a spotless lamb was suitable to become sin in the sacrifice. Christ could not have become the Lamb, the perfect sacrifice once offered for the sins of the whole world, had he not been spotless. He submitted himself wholly to God that he would be the spotless lamb, and offered himself up as a sacrifice, not for himself but for us.

The Article concludes by again reinforcing that while Christ himself gave himself up to conquer sin, that does not mean that we who are baptised do not sin. The Article quotes from 1 St Jn 1. 8, to remind us we are deceiving ourselves if we say we do not sin. Christ’s sacrifice freed us from the consequence of death and opened to us the way of everlasting life, but that does not mean that we will never sin again. This dichotomy is raised throughout Scripture, and in particular, St Paul discusses it extensively in his epistle to the Romans.

One image often used is the transition from a slave to sin to the adopted child who still sins. Before Christ’s sacrifice, sin represented a barrier to God which we could not, on our own, overcome, therefore we were slaves to it. Through Christ’s atonement, we continue to sin, but by his grace and love it no longer represents an insurmountable barrier to relationship with God. We may repent and return to him.

This line of reasoning leads well into Article XVI which discusses further what it means to sin after Baptism, a point referred to here, and again an issue of no small contention in the medieval times and in the time of the Reformation.

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 IV on the Resurrection of our Lord

Easter Day

ALMIGHTY God, who through thine only-begotten Son Jesus Christ hast overcome death, and opened unto us the gate of everlasting life: We humbly beseech thee, that as by thy special grace thou dost put into our minds good desires, so by thy continual help we may bring the same to good effect; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, ever one God, world without end. Amen.

Easter

O GOD, who makest us glad with the yearly remembrance of the resurrection from the dead of thy only Son Jesus Christ: Grant that we who celebrate this Paschal feast may die daily unto sin, and live with him evermore in the glory of his endless life; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

IV. Of the Resurrection of Christ
Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man’s nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day.

Alleluia, Chris is risen!

Having begun this series to mark the occasion of the 100th post on Canterbury Calgarian, it didn’t quite work out to have Article IV arrive when was most thematically appropriate to be discussed, which was Easter Sunday. So instead Article IV was simply omitted until now in order to avoid discussing the resurrection during Lent.

Article IV is firmly rooted in the ecumenical creeds, though it goes somewhat further into detail of Christ’s resurrection body, emphasizing, as the Biblical accounts do, that upon his resurrection he was not some form of Spiritual manifestation only, but was flesh and blood, just as we are told from Scripture where it is emphasized that he ate food with the Apostles.

The Article goes beyond what the Creeds say, however, focusing on other aspects of the Resurrection, and speaking to why it is important. For many Christians, there is a tendency, to respond to the question of why the Resurrection matters by pointing to the forgiveness of sins. The reality is that this conflates the atonement of Christ’s passion and crucifixion with the hope of his Resurrection. Had Christ simply died upon the cross for the forgiveness of sins, we would still have his ministry of reconciliation and the assurance of the forgiveness of our sins and its promise of newfound intimacy with God. The Resurrection itself becomes meaningless if it is simply lumped in to that view. It must go further.

Article IV states that in his Resurrection, Christ took on the, “perfection of Man’s nature,” which goes quite beyond what the Creeds say and speaks to the hope we hold in Christ’s Resurrection.

Christ himself was without sin. When it says he took on perfection, it therefore cannot simply mean he became sinless. It speaks to the idea that his Resurrection body’s humanity was made perfect in a way in which all humanity will be made perfect in the general resurrection to which we profess in the creeds.

When we speak of the hope of Christ’s Resurrection, we speak of the hope that Christ has made possible not simply our reconciliation with God, but also the possibility of our own resurrections and the perfection of our human nature. Not just the washing away of sins, but the utter and complete washing away of our sinful natures.

In Christ’s Gospels, he invites all people to join him in a new life, the life God had intended for us all. He promises the Holy Spirit, which arrived in power on Pentecost, to enable that living out of a life in Christ, a life which absent God’s grace would be impossible for any person, in their fallen and sinful nature to live in. As St Paul reminds us, all fall short of God’s glory.

It is a keen reminder of what God wishes for us. It is popular today to speak of Christ’s mission through the lens of liberation, either directly with Liberation Theology or simply in the language of Liberation Theology. Liberation theology arose from Roman Catholic bishops in Latin America in the 1950s and seeks to interpret the Gospels in light of a message of liberation, particular for the poor and oppressed. In more recent years, this has been taken beyond what the original intent seemed to be to suggest that Christ’s ultimate goal was the physical liberation from bondage of all people, with bondage having meanings which are not always consistent with Biblical standards.

This form of using the language of Liberation theology is quite common today in many traditions, including in the Anglican Church of Canada, and while it does speak to a particular reality of Christ’s ministry, it also obscures his ultimate mission which is referred to here in Article IV.

Passion Sunday, we recount the story of Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem. The oppressed Jews welcomed him as Messiah, viewing him not as the liberator of their souls from slavery to sin, but rather as the liberator of their persons from the Roman oppressors. It was through his death, which brought forgiveness for sins, and his resurrection, which was the promise of new life, that Christ’s true liberation came. The promise to share in his perfection and the restoration of our human nature.

It is through the forgiveness of sins and strengthening of the Holy Spirit that, in love of God, we strive to live the life of perfection, all the while knowing it is impossible on our own merits and a part from God, but confident in the Resurrection promise that on the day of God’s choosing the promise will be fulfilled. It is in this striving that Christians do promote the same type of care and attention Christ showed to the poor and the oppressed, though we must always be careful that we are following in Christ’s example and not in our own desires. Christ’s message of freedom was at its core spiritual in nature; temporal freedom is promoted but not always provided for in our current times, and God’s laws sometimes still restrict us.

God has, for instance, maintained lows of sexual morality, saying humanity’s sexuality is to be lived out monogamously in the context of Holy Matrimony. We cannot, therefore, say that if someone deems themselves oppressed or in bondage in some way through God’s moral laws, that Christ came to relieve that oppression. The reality is that God does not oppress, and what is being described here is a sense of oppression that comes either from ignorance or unwillingness to trust in God’s commandments, that his will for us is good even where we do not fully understand why God tells us to act in particular ways that might go against our own desires.

This ignorance or unwillingness to follow God is something we all constantly strive against, but it is something that will be with us through this age. Yet, in the Resurrection, we have hope. Hope for a time when we will not struggle in this way, a hope for perfection!

Alleluia, Christ is risen!

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 Modesty

The Eighteenth Sunday after Trinity

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

When you invite a guest to come to Church with you, either because you’re hoping to encourage them to come to Christ or because you've invited them to a special occasion such as a Baptism or other event, the response might often look something like, “Sure, I’ll come. What should I wear?”

Outside of controversies surrounding doctrine, there have probably been more words written on the subject of what men and women should wear to church than on any other issue that could be characterised, under last week’s post, as a non-essential. Indeed, it is so important that it was covered in the Book of Homilies in a homily entitled Against Excess of Apparel.

In modern society, what we wear seems to be held as important. It makes a statement about us, to the point where studies have shown that it can have a significant impact on our lives, with workers of equal competency who dress less fashionably being less likely to receive a promotion than their more fashionable, but no more qualified, colleagues.

This reality proclaims the fact that what we wear is a statement, whether or not we intend to make one, and it’s a statement both at work and at church. With respect to what we wear at church, there seems to be a two-fold modern narrative. The first narrative is that we ought to be comfortable, and second is that we, and particularly women, ought to be modest.

Church is not a stuffy, formal place, but rather a place where we meet Christ in person! He’s our pal, so dress comfortably and sit back and relax in the presence of “bro Jesus.” A casual t-shirt or perhaps an untucked button-down shirt paired with jeans or shorts, depending on the weather, are the order of the day. Expectations are much the same for women with the addition of skirts and dresses as well. This seems to be something borne out of the sixties and seventies when Church began to try and address declining attendance by attempting to adapt to popular culture. No need to wear a shirt and tie, come and listen to our top 40 Christian Folk music! No need for your Sunday best, come just as you are and don’t be put out.

The idea of dressing comfortably, then, is one which reflects a desire to not inconvenience someone from attending by the implication that meeting Jesus may move them away from their personal comfort zone or in some way involves transformation in their lives. It doesn't really speak at all to the question of what we say when this becomes the rule of dress for church.

The second aspect of the modern narrative is one of modesty, particularly when applied to women and girls, as opposed to men. Looking back, this would have been made explicit through definition of collars not lower than two inches below the neckline, and skirts that extend below the knee, to take the example from the Roman Catholic Church’s guidelines in the 1950s. In modern times, there is an interesting tension between the idea that people should be comfortable and yet should still display modesty, even though the term is no longer defined in such stringent and observable terms.

There is, it must be said, some merit to the push for modesty, but generally speaking its merit is not in any way related to the reasons modesty has become a part of our modern narrative on dress in church. Usually modesty is promoted because of claims that immodest dress on the part of girls and women is a form of sexual temptation for men and boys who, it is assumed, cannot control themselves.

There are two problems with this. First off, it suggests that, even with the grace and support of God, a Christian man cannot conquer temptation. This is, to use a technical Greek term, hogwash. St Paul tells us in Rom 6. 14 that , “sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.” By blaming the dress of others, we are in fact ignoring our own unrighteousness and trying to call out the possible sins of others to distract ourselves from our own falling short. This leads to the second problem. Earlier in his letter to the Romans, St Paul had just warned them against such hypocrisy, to the point where he asked in Rom 2. 3, “Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgement of God?” This is a dangerous form of hypocrisy because it seeks to ignore our own sin by highlighting the perceived sins of others through judgement of them. We have no right to judge, nor does our judging them in any way affect our own sins.

All of this ties up with the false narrative of dress codes in church. The question that should be asked is not whether or not we need to be comfortable to come or whether or not our wardrobe will tempt others to sin. If our clothes say something, then surely what it says should be a message directed to the one we gather to worship when we go to church?

As Anglicans, we affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. If Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, then our manner of dress speaks directly to him, and we must ask ourselves what we say through that.

How would you dress to come before the Prime Minister of Canada or the Queen? A few years ago there was an uproar when Mr Justin Bieber was photographed with the Prime Minister while wearing overalls and a t-shirt. His manner of dress was identified as failing to show due respect for the person he was meeting. How much more should we recognize the need to send a clear message of reverence and respect when we come before Christ?

Does this mean going back to Sunday Best? Does it mean chastising those who don’t meet these standards? Absolutely not. The problem with encouraging people to wear comfortable clothes wasn't so much the informality of the dress, but the fact that the message we’re sending is that you don’t need to have your heart focused on Christ when you choose what you’re going to wear. 1 Sm 16. 7 says, “man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”

While the general rule ought to look to some level of formality in dress, because that is how as a society we show respect, what matters is not the judgement of peers or the message we send to them, but the message on our heart we send to God. Someone who is simply used to wearing a suit or who does so out of an improper sense of understanding without doing so with the express intention of honouring God would not be as pleasing to God as the person who dresses quite casually, but for whom those clothes are the best they own and selected in a desire to honour God. For the same reason, modesty does have a place in how we dress for Church simply because of the message it sends to God. The concern, however, should not be about inciting sin in others.

In St Matthew’s Gospel, Christ is recorded as saying, “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on,” (6. 25). This seems to contradict the importance of dress, and indeed may well have been used to support the dress code revolution of the sixties and seventies that told us it didn't matter what we wore. At the same time, it should be remembered that just a few verses before in Chapter 5, Christ discussed how it was not the letter of the law that mattered, but the spirit. It is not enough to simply refrain from murder, but that we must avoid anger as well as both are subject to judgement (Mt 5. 22). This mirrors the interpretation of 1 Sm 16. 7 and what is truly being said is, what matters is not what you are wearing, but why you are wearing it.