On Commitment

The Second Sunday after Trinity

O LORD, who never failest to help and govern them whom thou dost bring up in thy stedfast fear and love: Keep us, we beseech thee, under the protection of thy good providence, and make us to have a perpetual fear and love of thy holy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Language is important. Studies show that language affects how we think. Externally, the words we use reflect what we are thinking. In the context of Christianity, the words we use reflect not simply our thoughts, but also it reflects our theology and the doctrine of our church.

One big change that occurred in the 20th century was a transition from the language of submission to the language of commitment. Christians are now ones who make a commitment to Christ, accepting him in the hearts, while we now commonly view Islam as the religion of submission and indeed sometimes contrast Christianity with Islam in terms of viewing Islam as a religion that requires submission to God, while Christianity is more a religion of friendship and partnership with God.

While there is some truth in the view of Christianity as being more personal compared to Islam, to suggest that it is a partnership implies some form of equality with God, which is utterly false.

By making a commitment to Christ, we are approaching Christianity on our own terms, seeking to negotiate with God. “God, I commit myself to you, so long as it's comfortable.” It’s an attempt to retain control, to avoid submitting oneself completely to God’s authority.

This is not a uniquely modern innovation, as the Bible itself is full of examples of those to whom God had revealed his will, and who remained reluctant to submit themselves to it.

In the Old Testament, the Pentateuch contains a number of examples, including Numbers 16 when the people rose up to challenge Moses and Aaron, and even more directly in Exodus 16 when they grumbled that they had lived better in slavery in Egypt and murmured against God freeing them. Jonah’s story is another extremely well-known and clear example of someone who professes to follow God, but becomes reluctant and unwilling to follow God when God’s will conveyed to him becomes more difficult and goes against his own desires.

This phenomena is found in the New Testament as well. St Paul reminds the Christians in Galatia that he had been forced to rebuke St Peter and others when he found that they were backsliding into Jewish traditions under pressure from Judaisers. His criticism was essentially focused against those who were attempting to hedge their bets on their salvation. It was one thing to listen to one of the apostles coming by saying salvation was found in Christ and not the law, but here they were seeking to accept salvation in Christ while still following the law just in case.

Here, the early Christians were still professing their belief, but it was their actions that revealed that their words did not reflect their inner convictions. They were not willing to release control and submit themselves to God’s promise, instead resting on their own abilities to fulfil the law to secure their own salvation. It is no different when we say we are making a commitment to Christ, and no longer submitting to Christ’s lordship.

We can, in modern times, see this as well with the language of taking communion rather than receiving it. By taking communion, we view communion as something we control, with God as a passive partner. When we receive, it is God acting on us. This even further illustrates the troubling reality of making a commitment to God rather than submitting ourselves to God. When we make a commitment, we are saying, “I will follow you on these terms.” When we submit, we are saying, “I will follow your will always and in all things.” We are in effect replacing God in our lives by ourselves, making ourselves our own god. This is similar to anyone else who rejects God, but perhaps more insidiously, we don’t see it that way.

In a similar way, mission has become a new buzzword among Christians. Being a missional church, a missional community. In the Anglican Church of Canada, we no longer respect the Solemn Declaration and many Anglicans seem to see the Catholic Creeds as antiquated, but the Five Marks of Mission are a sacred charge. If you read statements from the Primate and other national organizations within the Anglican Church of Canada, you would see the Marks of Mission as the engine driving the Church.

The problem remains that mission is often defined on our own. Only two of the five marks, to proclaim the good news of the kingdom and to teach, baptise and nurture new believers, are distinctly Christian. Responding to human need in loving service, to transform unjust structures of society, to challenge violence of every kind and pursue peace and reconciliation and to strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth are three goals which could easily be taken from the mission statements of any secular charity organizations.

There is nothing wrong with these statements, and they are clearly inspired by Christ’s example. The problem comes when they are so easily pursued under our own commitment rather than in submission to Christ. When we are a missional community, we are a community that subscribes to missions, based on these parameters, and that’s it. The actual missions undertaken may or may not be rooted in God’s will, even when they are clearly rooted in God’s examples to us in some way or another.

We are seeking to maintain our own agency. The goal of a missional church is to perform these missions. Its engine, what powers it, is not a desire to submit to Christ or to live a disciple’s life, but rather to accomplish missions.

In his Epistle to the Philippians, St Paul describes Christ’s ultimate submission:

who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Phil 2. 6-8)

Verse six might be taken by a supporter of the Missional Movement to justify their position. Christ took the form of a servant. In St Matthew 20. 28, Christ himself says, “Son of Man came not to be served but to serve,” but in both these cases, that is attempting to justify doctrine and theology with Scriptural verses rather than with Scripture. In Philippians, St Paul tells us that Christ’s ultimate purpose was obedience to God, even unto death. In St Matthew’s Gospel, Christ finishes his sentence saying, “and to give his life as a ransom for many.” In St Luke’s Gospel, just prior to his arrest, Christ prays, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done,” (St Lk 22. 42). Christ’s death was in submission to God’s will and serves as example to us.

Discipleship must be the engine of our faith and our lives. Mission will build from it, but when we do not submit and instead pick and choose how we will follow, we are not truly following God at all, but ourselves.

On God the Mother

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.

It is both topical and old news that people within the Anglican Communion are working towards adoption of a view of God as Mother. The most recent news comes from a report that fresh on the heels of approving the ordination of female bishops, female clergy are pushing for a formal review of the church’s liturgies to refer to God as mother and using feminine pronouns. In the Anglican Church of Canada, the various national working groups reviewing liturgical resources and our hymn book have long used the term “inclusiveness” to mean using gender neutral and feminine terms to refer to God. There are many reasons presented for this, including that presenting God as Father and using masculine pronouns perpetuates a patriarchal view of society and oppresses women, and that women are more capable of understanding God when he is presented as Mother rather than Father. Other arguments are also presented, but ultimately there is a general two point argument presented in support of whatever the goal for presenting God as mother, or using feminine pronouns, happens to be.

First, God is beyond gender. No right-thinking Christian would disagree with this point. God the Father may be referred to in his identity using the masculine pronouns, and with the term Father, but he is not a man or male.

This is quite true. God is beyond gender, but that isn’t always the point. It would be incorrect to refer to God as ‘it’ though it is something that seems to frequently happen in relation to God the Holy Spirit. God is neither a man, nor male, but neither is he a woman or female.

Second, God is presented often using feminine imagery in the Bible, and therefore it is entirely Scriptural to refer to God as Mother. The most compelling verses come from Isaiah 66, where God himself describes himself as a mother. God says, “As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you.” Most other verses compare God to a mother in some way, either human or animal. While these verses tend to be used in support of this position, one of the two counter-arguments for the Scriptural supports is found in them.

In Psalm 131. 2, the Psalmist writes to God saying, “But I have calmed and quietened my soul, like a weaned child with its mother; like a weaned child is my soul within me.” There are two points to be made here. It is not entirely clear that the mother in this picture is meant to be God. As the Psalmist says, “I have quietened my soul,” not, “You have quietened my soul.” Even, however, if we accept that in this image it is meant to be God that is the mother, and not the Psalmist, it is mere imagery in a poem that is being used to give weight to the words. It is describing something by simile. God is not a mother, but acting like a mother acts. Similarly in Hosea 13, God says to Israel, “I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs; I will tear open their breast.” In this passage the image of a mother cub is invoked to show how God will guard Israel. Again it is imagery that conveys the meaning and weight of God’s willingness to protect his chosen people. It does not imply God is in fact a mother bear, and more than the passage in Isaiah or the Psalm should be taken to suggest God is a human woman.

Beyond the fact that these passages are merely using imagery, the most important point is that they are describing attributes of God, but not God’s identity. Again, further proof of this is found in the Gospels, where Christ himself, incarnate as a man, uses the same feminine imagery to describe himself in the Gospels. In St Matthew’s Gospel, Christ says, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!” Here Christ uses the image of a mother hen protecting her chicks to describe how he would protect Israel, but it in no way impacts his identity. A practical example could also serve. How often has a father been described as protecting his children in the same way as a mother bear? Does this impact his identity as a father, or impact the use of the male pronouns for him? Certainly not, so why would a similar image in Hosea cause us to act any differently towards God the Father?

St Justin Martyr once wrote that, “no one can give a name to God, who is too great for words; if anyone dares to say it is possible to do so, he must be suffering from an incurable madness.” Here he makes two points. First, yes God is beyond gender: too great for words. Second, no one can give name to God. It is fine to use imagery or other words to describe God’s nature, but it is different to seek to change his identity by naming him.

One last argument that is sometimes raised, usually in connection with the first idea of God being beyond gender is that the use of masculine pronouns and Jesus’s identification of God as, “our Father,” is simply an entrenchment of patriarchal values of Jesus’s day. He spoke in terms that were acceptable to the male-dominated culture of his day, or the Bible writers merely recorded his words that way because of their own biases.

The first argument is easily disproved by the Gospel of St John. In chapter 6, Christ performs many signs and miracles, and then finishes the chapter preaching at the Synagogue in Capernaum where he tells the assembled Jews that he is the true bread of life and that all must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. This was abhorrent to the Jews, given the Jewish dietary restrictions against the consumption of blood and human flesh. They ask for clarification of what he means by this, thinking there must be some other meaning, but he again says clearly and without any desire to avoid offending their sensibilities maintains that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to receive eternal life. A few verses later, the Gospel records:

When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offence at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” (St Jn 6. 60-63)

It was a hard saying and they were offended. Christ came not to weave himself into Jewish society, but to reveal God’s truth and love. There is no compromising that truth or love.

According to St Justin Martyr, anyone who seeks to redefine God’s identity must be insane. There is another possibility, however, and it is that they simply are not yet ready to submit to God. Rather than transforming ourselves to conform to God, we seek to transform God to conform to our expectations of him, or in this case her, and in doing so, we replace God with ourselves.

Christ came into the world to save sinners, to reconcile us to God, not to allow us to transform God to be more like ourselves.

Upon hearing Christ’s difficult and troubling words, his disciples asked, “who can listen to it?” The answer must be all those who wish truly to follow Christ, for as he answers, “the words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

The Wisdom of Saints: St Justin Martyr

Feast of Justin Martyr, Doctor, 165

ALMIGHTY God, by whose grace and power thy Martyr Justin was enabled to witness to the truth and to be faithful unto death: Grant that we, who now remember him before thee, may likewise so bear witness unto thee in this world, that we may receive with him the crown of glory that fadeth not away; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who with thee and the Holy Spirit liveth and reigneth, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

 St Justin Martyr stands out among the saints of the second century in that many of the details of his life are recorded. He was born in the first years of the second century to pagan parents in the city of Flavia Neapolis in Judea. The city had been established by the Romans in AD 72 shortly after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. In some of his writings, St Justin records that his father and grandfather were also of Flavia Neapolis, which further suggests a pagan origin.

He was given an excellent education in all the classics of philosophy, poetry, rhetoric and history. His education was completed at Alexandria and Ephesus where he engaged with the various philosophies of the day seeking both to complete his education and to find God. At Ephesus, while studying under a Platonist, he had his first broad exposure to Christianity where he was impressed by the Christian martyrs being killed there.

His conversion to Christianity occurred around AD 130, and in his own words he converted due to his desire for both beauty and truth, both of which he found in Christianity. Using his background in philosophy and rhetoric, he began to engage in debates with non-Christians and eventually opened a school for Christian philosophy, first in Ephesus and then eventually in Rome after he moved there later in life.

While in Rome he continued in his debates and defence of Christianity to non-Christians, while continuing to run his school and teach his students. He debated and beat a philosopher named Cresens who later denounced him to the authorities for practising an unauthorized religion. He was tried before the Roman authorities, where he refused to renounce his faith. The Roman prefect Rusticus pronounced a sentence of death on St Justin and he and six of his students were beheaded.

St Justin Martyr, beyond his martyrdom, is remembered for his apologetics which survive to this day. In the earliest days of the church, there was some level of secrecy around Christians and Christian rites. Justin Martyr’s apology, beyond simply helping to defend the merits of Christian doctrine, helped to dispel some of the terrible rumours which had been spread, and largely believed, about what went on between Christians.

St Justin’s first apology was addressed to the Emperor and his sons in the Senate. The introduction explains that the apology is a petion to the Emperor, “on behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them.” Namely, he was writing on behalf of Christians who were being accused of gross acts without merit, and faced persecution for it.

St Justin sets the tone of his apology, which speaks to the virtues of truth and beauty that had drawn him to Christianity in the first place, when he writes:
Reason directs those who are truly pious and philosophical to honour and love only what is true, declining to follow traditional opinions, if these be worthless. For not only does sound reason direct us to refuse the guidance of those who did or taught anything wrong, but it is incumbent on the lover of truth, by all means, and if death be threatened, even before his own life, to choose to do and say what is right.
He then goes on to conclude his introduction with words that speak to his own eventual end at the hands of Rusticus:

For we have come, not to flatter you by this writing, nor please you by our address, but to beg that you pass judgment, after an accurate and searching investigation, not flattered by prejudice or by a desire of pleasing superstitious men, nor induced by irrational impulse or evil rumours which have long been prevalent, to give a decision which will prove to be against yourselves. For as for us, we reckon that no evil can be done us, unless we be convicted as evil-doers or be proved to be wicked men; and you, you can kill, but not hurt us.

From the very beginning of his apology, it is clear that St Justin truly believed in everything he wrote. He was not so blunt as St Jerome, but it was clear his heart was for God’s truth and he saw no need to compromise that truth in an effort to please the Roman leaders he was addressing.

Much of the rest of the apology focuses on addressing accusations and rumours being levelled against Christians. He begins by suggesting that Christians are being persecuted on the basis of their name, and not any facts:

But as we do not think it just to beg to be acquitted on account of the name, if we be convicted as evil-doers, so, on the other hand, if we be found to have committed no offence, either in the matter of thus naming ourselves, or of our conduct as citizens, it is your part very earnestly to guard against incurring just punishment, by unjustly punishing those who are not convicted. For from a name neither praise nor punishment could reasonably spring, unless something excellent or base in action be proved.

Here St Justin not only begins to make an argument about the need to follow standard jurisprudence and actually prove guilt before Roman citizens are punished for something, a theme he develops more fully later in his apology, he introduces something of a clever wordplay on the basis of the similarity between the Greek word for Christ and the Greek word for excellent and good.

The thrust of his argument is that accusations are being levelled without proof and that no punishment should be incurred without proof (and he indeed suggests that if anything like what Christians were accused of was actually being done by any Christians, the other Christians would justly support the punishment of those individuals), and he then proceeds to spend a significant amount of time discussing some of these rumours.

While today the Eucharist is administered only to those who have received the sacrament of Baptism, in the days of the early church, non-Baptised persons were not permitted to even participate in the liturgy surrounding the Eucharist. This seeming secrecy surrounding the sacraments helped contribute to some of the rumours being spread about Christians. Accusations of cannibalism were not uncommon due to rumours surrounding the Eucharist. St Justin addresses these issues head on by describing the liturgy that takes place when Christians gathered:

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptised person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

This description of the liturgy itself should be extremely familiar to all Anglicans, but in that day would have been a revelation to pagans who would never have had an opportunity to read about it or witness it. He then goes on to conclude this section by discussing the Eucharist specifically with a passage that highlights a number of features of modern apologetics, including the use of Scripture to help explain Christian belief:

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone.

St Justin Martyr lived as someone who sought the truth, and when he found it in Christianity, he sought to share that truth with others, and to help explain it to them in a rational way that a reasoned mind could not reject. The great modern apologists—Chesterton and Lewis—owe much to St Justin, who proved his adherence to the truth he wrote when he professed Christ unto martyrdom.

On the Liturgical Calendar

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.

The Christian liturgical year has been developed over the years to highlight a number of feasts and seasons throughout the year that help us to, as Dr Charles Nienkirchen, once said, hitch our micro-story to Christ’s meta-story. Put another way, the Christian calendar helps us to keep our minds focused on the many things God has said or done for us over the course of the year. The seasons of the year, and days, all have colours associated with them and help individuals to understand and associate some of the values and ideas being honoured in a given season or day, and again to ensure the focus is on God and how we are to respond to what he has said and done for us.

Christian calendar begins with the season of advent, which is the first four Sundays prior to Christmas, which both recalls the anticipation held by Jews for the coming of the Messiah and also reviews the many prophecies that foretold the birth of Christ. The liturgical colour for advent is purple, which is a royal colour, and speaks to Christ’s status as King of Kings.

Advent leads in to Christmas Day and Christmastide, the twelve days after Christmas. It celebrates the birth of Christ and retells the story of that birth. It is a white season, the colour of celebration. It is a joyful season filled with celebratory hymns proclaiming the birth of the messiah and saviour. Christmas ends on Epiphany, January 6th, which celebrates the arrival of the three wise men. Epiphany and Epiphanytide is a green season, reflecting the epiphany of the wise men that Christ was the Messiah, and as the colour green is a colour of growth it further reflects the growth of their faith as they reflected on the implication of the epiphany they had had in Christ.

Epiphany ends on Ash Wednesday, which begins the season of Lent. Lent returns to the colour purple, and is a season both of anticipation and of penitence, as Christians meditate on and anticipate the commemoration of Christ’s passion and death on the cross on Good Friday. Indeed here the colour purple anticipates the purple robe Christ was forced to wear by the soldiers as they mocked him shouting, “hail King of the Jews.” Lent is known as a season of fasting, when, as a discipline, Christians will seek to give up some comfort and take on spiritual disciplines to help them prepare for the coming Holy Week and Easter season.

Lent ends on Palm Sunday, the Sunday before Easter. Palm Sunday begins Holy Week and the commemoration of Christ’s final week. Holy Week is red for Christ’s blood which is about to be shed. Holy Week is perhaps the holiest time of the Christian calendar, marking Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, Judas’s betrayal on Holy Wednesday or Spy Wednesday as it is sometimes called, the Last Supper, the washing of the disciple’s feet and the institution of the Eucharist is remembered on Maundy Thursday.

Good Friday begins the Easter Triduum of Good Friday, Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday. The Eucharist is not administered on Good Friday, Christ’s Passion, or Holy Saturday, when Christ lay dead in his tomb. There is no liturgical colour associated with these days as the Altar and Sanctuary are usually stripped after Maundy Thursday. In the earliest days of the Church there were only two feasts celebrated, that of the Easter resurrection and that of Pentecost.

Easter Sunday is a white, or white and gold, season. It is the most joyful and celebratory of all Christian feasts, and indeed was one of the first of the Christian feasts. The Eastertide season remains white and celebratory and often seeks to emphasize the many changes that were evident in the early Church, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, as a result of the resurrection.

Easter ends at Pentecost with the descent of the Holy Spirit, commemorated in Red for the description of the Holy Spirit as descending like tongues of fire. After Pentecost we return to the liturgical green of ordinary time. Like the Green during Epiphany, it symbolizes growth and is a time when we consider growth in our Christian life. During this time, however, there are a number of important feasts. The Sunday after Pentecost is Trinity Sunday, and is the celebratory white of Easter. It unsurprisingly celebrates the doctrine of the trinity. The Feast of Corpus Christi is the next Thursday, and is often commemorated on the Sunday after Trinity Sunday. It celebrates the institution of the Eucharist recognized on Maundy Thursday, but which cannot be properly celebrated so near to Good Friday, and during the sombre season of Lent. It in particular emphasises the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Finally, the last Sunday before Advent is  the Feast of Christ the King or the Reign of Christ. This final celebration recognizes Christ as King of Lord and all, and is a fitting end to a calendar which will begin again on the next Sunday with Advent and the anticipation of the coming of Christ the King.

These seasons have more importance than merely helping us to see the narrative of Christ. They are observed with a lectionary that provides for thematically appropriate readings for the day, which also takes you through a multi-year cycle of Scripture readings that cover the vast majority of Scripture. The Anglican Church of Canada uses the Revised Common Lectionary, which is used by many other Christians including the Roman Catholic Church, Lutherans and others.

The importance of this becomes all too clear when you consider that in almost every Anglican service there is an opportunity for a homily to be preached, for the purpose of helping to explain the word of God. In many Protestant denominations neither the Christian calendar nor the lectionary are observed. Preachers may discuss any themes or any Scripture readings they like at any point in the season.

Explaining the word of God is often described as exegesis, a Greek word which generally means to draw out the meaning of something. The opposite of this is eisegesis, which means to read into a passage a meaning which is not there. When dealing with the word of God, clearly the desire is to explain God’s meaning and intent, and not to simply use the Holy Scriptures as a tool to proclaim our own views.

When you are forced by the lectionary to move through the Christian calendar with its themes, and the lectionary with its associated readings, you are confronted with God’s meaning already. If you have nothing to tell you which Scripture to look at, what the theme of the week is and what part of God’s meta-story we are exploring, it is much easier to accidentally or intentionally move towards eisegesis by picking and choosing verses that support whatever argument you happen to want to make. Doctrine and teaching must be rooted in Scripture and not merely scriptural verses, because those verses alone can be presented out of context and not have their proper meaning.

The further you depart from the original context in which a given piece of writing was created, the easier it is to misunderstand it’s context, even if the plain text is understandable to you. The famous story of Philip and the Ethiopian in the Acts of the Apostles illustrates this point. The Ethiopian is reading from the Book of Isaiah when Philip comes upon him. Philip heard him reading, and he asks if the Ethiopian understands. Clearly the man understands the words, because he is reading them, but his response is, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” Here he is not looking for someone to translate the words because they are in another language or read them to him because he is illiterate. The passage makes clear that he has read them. He wants Philip to draw out the meaning of the passage to him, to explain it to him as a priest would in a homily. Philip does this, explaining how Christ fulfilled Isaiah’s prophecies, and ultimately the man comes to Christ.

Today, we are all Ethiopians, and luckily for us, the Christian calendar and the lectionary are there to help provide some guidance, just as the Holy Spirit guided Philip to the Ethiopian.

On Judicial Review

The Day of Pentecost

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

Whitsunday

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

Collect for the Unity of the Christian Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Catechesis

The Sunday after Ascension Day

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

Reorienting the skopos of the Church towards a culture of invitation and discipleship is one key in bucking the cultural trends that have contributed to the demographic decline. Last week focused largely on the issue of invitation, while this week delves into the second challenge that primarily involves discipleship by addressing the theology gap and catechesis.

One of the aspects of modernism described was a reinterpretation of Scripture in light of modern understanding. St Anselm of Canterbury once famously stated, “I believe in order that I may understand.” What he meant was that faith must precede intellectual understanding, or more precisely spiritual experience must first occur before it can be comprehended by the intellect. In attempts to create a culture of attraction it is entirely possible to create a reverse of that in which understanding precedes and informs faith.

Just look at Canada today. On all the issues of major theological controversy affecting the Anglican Church of Canada in the last 50 years, the move to change doctrine has ultimately been based on a desire to “catch up” to the beliefs of secular society. Whether it be calls for the ordination of women rooted in secular arguments of gender equality, or similar calls for the ongoing move to permit same-sex marriage in the Church. In these arguments, implicit in them is the idea that if the Church does not conform its doctrines to the beliefs of secular society, the Church will be rejected. Given how the Church has thus far, and seems to be in the case of same-sex marriage, moving with the tide of secular culture, it seems to suggest that Canada is the holiest state on the planet, beating the Church to God's punch.

When this trap of simply accepting secular wisdom is followed in an effort to attract the unchurched, it leads to hollow theology. Hollow theology is a theology which has no real substance to it. It relies on proclamations of what God is like or what God wants with limited support from Scripture. To use a contemporary example, when someone argues in favour of same-sex marriage in the Church solely from the perspective that Christ instructs us to love one another in the gospel, there is no substance to it, because it relies on one or two verses about love being interpreted as superseding and contradicting other parts of Scripture.

More accurately this type of theology causes a problem I call a theology gap. When our theology is generated in some way that is not explained consistently through the words of Holy Scripture, the Church Fathers and the Anglican formularies or when we simply lack the ability to explain our theology using that basis, there is a theology gap.

This reflects poor theological education and training both among clergy and laity alike. When someone asks a question and the answer is some variation on, “because I said so,” there is a theology gap. This affects modernists and theological liberals as provided in the example, but can also affect traditionalists in the second way. If a priest is unable to answer a theological question and resorts to saying something like, “that's the way it's always been,” or, “that's just how it is,” they have fallen into a theology gap as well. Whatever the cause of it, a theology gap will encourage or confirm scepticism towards Christianity and the church.

When there is a theology gap, we should not be surprised that it turns away seekers. When your theology lacks substance, it lacks God, and God is ultimately what keeps the faithful in Church. Similarly, if your theology only speaks to the wisdom of the world, what is the point of being in the church? Divorced from God, the church is merely an extremely inefficient charity organization, and inauthentic if it pays lip service to God whom it ignores when God's word conflicts with society. If society has already got it right, what is the point of church? God's grace transforms and sanctifies us, but if we enter into a church only to be told we've got it all right to begin with, what is the point of God's grace?

Such a church is not authentic and will not build disciples. In order to avoid this, theology must be authentic and done well. Theology done well in the Anglican tradition looks first to Holy Scripture, the interpretation and practice of the Church fathers and the writings of the Anglican formularies, which is to say the Book of Common Prayer, 39 Articles of Religion and the Ordinal. Using this process, any question on Anglican theology can be explored and explained. Bearing that in mind can address the first problem of doing theology poorly.

In order to address the second aspect of the theology gap, the solution is proper catechesis. The Book of Acts contains a famous passage in which Philip meets an Ethiopian who is reading the Book of Isaiah. Philip asks him if he understands what he has been reading, to which he answers, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” (Acts 8. 31). The practice of catechesis—instruction through word of mouth—is one referenced several times in the Scriptures. The authors recognized that the further removed from the context in which the Scriptures were written, the more difficult they would become to understand.

It is essential that all Christians have understanding of fundamental concepts. The Alpha course does a great job of introducing some of the fundamentals in a format which seeks to stoke the curiosity of the participants and allow them to further refine their questions in order to be able to come to the answers. This is great for some basic issues such as who Christ is, the nature of the Holy Spirit, and some similar basic issues. It does not address more complex issues, such as the nature of the sacraments, the doctrines of the church, the theology of suffering or other more complex issues. For that, a proper course of catechism is needed.

There is a short catechism in the Book of Common Prayer which addresses some of these issues, but the catechism is more meant as a final profession of faith at confirmation, rather than purely as an instructional tool. That said, the Prayer Book Society of Canada is developing something called 622. Named after the page on which the Book of Common Prayer's service for young people commences, it is designed as a 42 week exploration of issues in Christianity, aimed at teenagers. The Anglican Church of North America has also released their own catechism which provides, in question and answer format, 345 theological questions and answers along with Scriptural references, and is a good starting point for encouraging the exploration of faith in the Anglican tradition.

More than ever, seekers need Christian education resources that can orient them towards the God who deeply desires that they come to know him.

It may seem simple to say, but connecting people with God is the only way to address decline in the Church.

On a Culture of Invitation

The Fifth Sunday after Easter

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

Having identified some of the issues linked to decline in the Church, before addressing possible solutions, there is one major question which must be answered. In the early Church, one of the early methods of exegesis used by the Church Fathers was that of skopos, a Greek word which means goal or purpose. The fathers would seek to identify the goal or purpose of the Biblical writer for writing a given passage. Whenever anyone presents a response for what the Church must do to address decline, they must explain their skopos: what the goal is. Is it just to fill pews and reverse a demographic trend?

Christian rock concerts and similar events may fill pews, associated altar calls may even bring many to profess Christ as their Lord, but does it truly bring about a conversion of faith that leads to discipleship? Discipleship should always be the skopos of any efforts to reverse any kind of decline in the Church. And it's simple enough to see how discipleship no longer plays front and centre in the language and skopos of the Church.

As discussed previously a significant part of decline in the church is cultural. Sixty years ago, Christianity was a cultural norm. The Church did not need to reach out to the world, it simply existed inside of it and people came as a matter of course. It was what their parents and grandparents had done and there was no reason for that to change. Until it did. During the massive cultural changes seen in the 1960s and the Post-War baby boomer generation, religion took on a more minimal role as society itself was restructured. Women had entered the workforce, jobs were plentiful, new conveniences were being introduced to the home that shifted society, a new wave of urbanisation hit as jobs again migrated to the cities, cars were more plentiful meaning people were no longer geographically centred and could commute longer distances to work and church. Throughout this process of social and economic change, the Church was complacent. What was needed was an invitation to Church.

Today, we still do not proper foster a culture of invitation, but rather seek to foster a culture of attraction. Rather than seeking to invite non-believers to, as Jesus said, “follow me,” our skopos is merely to get them through the Church doors. To that end, we are marketing Church to youth. What's more, we're doing it poorly.

Do away with vestments. Do away with stuffy hymns and complex liturgy. Update the words. Be inclusive. Fudge sin. Be energetic. Stir up the room. Be trendy. Relate to non-believers. Say what they want to hear. Church isn't hard; it's fun! No need to change or to be changed by it!

Each of these is something that can be seen today in different ways in how we market to the unchurched. Each of these propositions ultimately comes down to an attempt to modernise the church. It's about trying to conform the church to the world so that it can be consumed. Traditional vestments and hymns don't sell well, so do away with them, dress in stylish and hip clothes and play modern music. Kids wont cross the door if they think it's just to hear from a stuffy old cleric and sing boring tunes.

Traditions have meaning. Vestments have meaning. Traditional hymnody speaks clearly to the theology of the church. What priests wear, what they say and how they act speaks to the traditions and doctrines of the church throughout the centuries. In attempting to market the church, that is being lost. While it might get people through the doors, it doesn't do anything to make them stay. When the Church is simply asking, “how can we get them through the doors?” it isn't asking the far more important question of, “how can we encourage them to follow Christ?”

Seekers from every age have always, in their hearts, wanted one thing: the living water that Christ himself promised. They seek the authentic heart of God. You can get a sort of worship high out of modern music with its loud, repetitive chords and the excitement of a charismatic speaker. But if it does not carry with it the living water of Christ, those who consume it will still thirst.

When what they are offered is based on what is believed to appeal to people, the offering is shallow. Worse than that, it is rightly viewed as inauthentic. Modern generations are constantly bombarded by media. Buy this, consume that. This will make your life better. When Church is conformed to the world, even in the best case scenario the authentic word of God is lost in that tumultuous noise.

Church needs to stand out. Church needs to be different. Church needs to be authentic. Church needs to invite, not market. Fostering a culture of invitation doesn't mean that the church has to change its appearance or its doctrines, it means that those who remain it it must become more Christ-like.

Christ was the one who asked others to follow him. When Christ gave the great commission, it was a charge to all believers, and remains one that applies to all Christians today. It is the responsibility of every believer to themselves be a proper disciple of Christ, attempting to live his life of grace and truth, and to foster a culture of invitation where anyone can be invited and welcomed into Christ's presence, and where they can hear his gospel.

Invitation may be difficult, but it isn't complicated. During the push for the Alpha Course in 2013, Michael Harvey discussed the difficulty in inviting people to Alpha. He offered this simple model of invitation, “Would you like to come to Alpha with me?” It is no more complicated to invite someone to Church saying, “Would you like to come to Church with me?”

Michael Harvey offers this other piece of advice. Getting an answer of Yes is the destination, but No is the way you get there. In other words, don't be afraid of rejection, and invite!

Being inviting means also that once someone has entered the Church, the culture of welcoming must exist. All of these relate to two things. Being authentic disciples of Christ, and having a skopos that doesn't end just with getting someone in the door. This is the first step in addressing decline in the church.