On Endurance

The Twelfth Sunday after Trinity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Tomatoes

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.

The process for planting a tomato is much like how the seed of our faith is planted and grows. The seed must be planted in good soil, then it must receive light from the sun and be nourished by water and nutrients of the soil. For the Christian, it is through the waters of Holy Baptism that our soil is made good for the planting of the seed of faith, and through the body and blood of Christ received in the Holy Eucharist that we are nourished. Do this and your tomato plant will grow, just as the Christian’s faith will grow. But there comes a point with a tomato plant where you will want to stake it, that is to say plant a large wooden stake in the ground which will be attached to the plant to provide support in order for it to bear the best fruit. So to in our Christian journey, if we want to bear the best fruit, such a support can be useful.

The equivalent of a tomato plant’s support stake for the Christian is a Rule of Life. CS Lewis describes a Rule of Life as, “intentional pattern of spiritual disciplines that provides structure and direction for growth in holiness.” The use of a Rule became popularized by St Benedict of Nursia and Benedictine Monasticism, and the practice continues throughout Western Christianity. Christian author Ken Shigematsu more recently wrote on the adoption of a Rule of Life using the image of a trellis, similar to the concept of the tomtato stake, but which provides not simply support but also guidance as the Christian seeks to develop a Rule which addresses all the different facets of life which affect us. The Book of Common Prayer itself exhorts all Christians to adopt a rule, saying, “Every Christian man or woman should from time to time frame for himself a RULE OF LIFE in accordance with the precepts of the Gospel and the faith and order of the Church.” (555)

The Book of Common Prayer goes on to provide a framework for the development of a Rule of Life which covers the basic areas in which each Christian needs support: the attendance at publish worship, the practice of private prayer, Bible reading and self-discipline, living by the example of Christ in every day life, witness of the faith, personal service to Church and community and offering money according to your means for the support of the Church at home and overseas. These categories are at times broad, but provide a great foundation for the formation of a Rule which ensures a rhythm of worship and support in living a Christian life and developing one’s faith.

The first exhortation reads, “the regularity of his attendance at public worship and esepcially at the holy Communion.” This first Rule is for some a rather obvious non-issue, while for others it can be a necessary reminder. There are generally three types of Christians. The first are those for whom attending a Sunday service is optional at best and really quite unnecessary. They have been baptised and confirmed, and there is really little left to do but live their lives as best they know how. The second group are those for whom it is viewed as a good thing to do, but for whom many excuses arise. Some common excuses might be experiencing God’s glory in his creation, or visiting with neighbours because surely it is evangelism to do so, or perhaps the need to spend time with family. Others might place their preference on reading Christian books or listening to Christian music because it is more to their liking than the homilies of their local rector or the music sung on a Sunday morning. There are finally those who view it as essential, particularly in order to be nourished by receiving Holy Communion. The Psalms similarly remind us (Ps 22, 107, 122) that communal worship in God’s house is important. The teaching we receive is similarly structured differently—due to the lectionary—than were we to pick and choose our own readings. It is all an element of turning ourselves over to God as we profess in our baptismal vows.

The second exhortation reads, “the practice of private prayer, Bible reading and self-discipline.” Throughout Scripture, many references are made to when we ought to pray. In public, in private, in sorrow, in gladness, in all circumstances. When we gather together in worship, we pray, but it is essential to, in our Rule, that we incorporate some manner of regular prayer, and in varied forms. This ought not to be simply prayers of thanksgiving and supplications, but might include forms of prayer like the daily examen, lectio divina, or even praying the Daily Offices. The Daily Offices go well with the next matter, that of frequent Scripture reading. This could range from using a daily or weekly Bible-reading schedule to reading the lectionary offerings from the Offices. Reading God’s word is always edifying and helps truly helps to solidify the metaphor of a Rule of Life as a support for our faith. Finally, self-discipline largely refers to the need to understand the sins we commonly fall into and taking steps to help ourselves avoid it. It might involve regular prayer for strength to avoid that particular sin, or, for example, if someone suffers from intemperance related to alcohol, part of their Rule might be to avoid going to bars where they might be tempted to drink.

The third exhortation is, “bringing the teaching and example of Christ into his everyday life.” This exhortation reinforces the importance of the previous points, namely that before a Christian may live what Nicky Gumbel calls the Jesus Lifestyle, they must know what it is, through attending worship where the weekly readings are explained in the homily and where the hymnody edifies us on Christ, and further in our own reading of Holy Scripture. Christianity is not an academic exercise, however, it is something we are each called to live out and in considering this exhortation, we consider how best in our individual circumstances we can do that.

The fourth exhortation is, “the boldness of his spoken witness to his faith in Christ.” At a time when Christians in the West are confronted with new martyrs and confessors throughout the Middle East and Africa who are suffering persecution and death for the sake of their faith and the name of Christ, it is difficult perhaps to feel bold in witnessing our own faith, yet it remains a reminder never to be ashamed of our faith. The old axiom that politics and religion are not suitable for the dinner table is sometimes used by Christians to shy away from admitting their faith as if it is something to be ashamed of, and sometimes a little boldness is needed. Nicky Gumbel, in the Alpha series, gives a great talk on how and why we tell others [of our faith], in which he discusses the need to understand both our audience and context, but that there is never any occasion in which it is wrong to profess faith in the name of Christ.

The fifth exhortation is, “his personal service to the Church and the community.” This ties in quite strongly with bringing the teaching of Christ to your everyday life. Christ came to serve and we are to do likewise. Service in the Church itself is particularly important however, as a vibrant community life in a local parish is a critical aspect of building up the Body of the Church, and deepening the relationships between brothers and sisters in Christ in that community. It takes many volunteer hours to allow a Church community to function well, and for a larger parish with a programme focus, there are many ways in which committing to a particular form of service can be of benefit to both the Church and the community, particularly when involved in forms of ministry that occur in the community rather than internally in the parish.

Finally, the last exhortation reads, “the offering of money according to his means for the support of the work of the Church at home and overseas.” The final point relates to our financial responsibilities, both to support our local Church and priest, which St Paul speaks to (I Cor 9. 7-14). The emphasis here is on identifying our individual capacities and preparing a Rule that responds to that.

The idea behind a Rule of Life is that it is to be a support and guide, to nurture our faith in certain ways to help it to bear good fruit. It is not meant to be a burdensome yoke. It should begin small and simply. A Rule might begin simply by attending one church service every Sunday barring illness or emergency. It might grow, as our faith does, to incorporate more and more Rules. As a tomato plant bears good fruit when properly supported, so will our faith.

On Patristic Interpretation

The Tenth Sunday after Trinity

LET thy merciful ears, O Lord, be open to the prayers of thy humble servants; and that they may obtain their petitions make them to ask such things as shall please thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Perhaps the most enduring legacy of the Fathers of the Church is their grounding of the fundamental tools of Christian exegesis. Exegesis comes from Greek and means to draw out the meaning of a passage, therefore the means by which the deeper meanings of a particular passage are explained.

In ancient times, the interpretation of Scripture was heavily influenced by the philosophy of the day, which saw the literal or historical sense of a passage as the lowest possible sense of meaning. There was a two-fold reason behind this. First, physical things (and thus literal descriptions of history) were viewed as being far more base or corrupt than spiritual things. The second and related reason for this was the Greek influence. Greek mythology is replete with stories that even the Greeks found somewhat embarrassing. They had developed extremely sophisticated philosophies and overall learning, yet had these narratives of gods acting capriciously, ridiculously and governed by base passions.

In order to explain that, the Greeks interpreted their mythology to explain a deeper spiritual meaning through analogy. This practice was used and expanded upon by the Fathers, who sought to discern the deeper meanings of scripture. For example, in his homilies on Genesis, St John Chrysostom explains the story of Noah’s drunkenness from Gen 9. 18-26 by pointing out that while the moral sense was not to shame our fellow Christians for their sins and faults, but rather to privately exhort them to repent and return to righteousness, in the way that Shem and Japheth cloaked Noah without looking at him, in contrast with Ham.

Over time, there came to be an understanding that every passage had at least three or four possible levels of interpretation. The literal interpretation described the historical sense of the passage and the events it was depicting. The allegorical sense gave the deeper spiritual meaning, that informed us of the nature of God. The Tropological or moral sense described the way in which the passage provides us with instruction on how we, as Christians, are to live our lives. Finally, the Anagogical sense speaks in particular to what our life in the Kingdom of Heaven will look like when we are reunited with Christ. Ss. John Cassian, Augustine of Hippo and Pope Gregory the Great were all Fathers who supported this four-fold interpretation.

To discover these different levels of meanings, the Fathers employed a number of different exegetical techniques. There are no uniformly accepted names for different techniques and different Fathers and Biblical scholars have called the same techniques by different names or used the same word to refer to different techniques. The terms used here may therefore not always line up with the way they are used by other authors.

There were a number of general techniques used that could be applied to most any level of Scripture. These techniques might be used to better understand the literal meaning, the allegorical interpretation, the moral interpretation or anagogical interpretation, and sometimes more than one sense of scripture might be discussed using the same exegetical technique.

The technique of redaction criticism was used to explore the context in which a passage occurs, be it the historical context in which the passage was written or the literary context in which the passage appears within a particular chapter or verse. Analysis of the skopos of a passage was used by many of the fathers in their exegetical homilies. Skopos is Greek for the goal or aim, and the analysis could either be widely or narrowly drawn, focused on the goal of a passage within a verse or chapter, or the skopos of the entire book might be examined to provide that context for the particular passage being examined. These forms of contextual interpretation were among the most widely used and important for setting the tone of interpretation whether it be the literal and historical meaning of the passage or the moral or spiritual sense.

Another of the types of analysis that was applied at multiple levels was a literary analysis. Diction would be examined. Grammar, the use of hyperbole or metaphors would be reviewed. Rhetoric and other elements of style would be used to explore an allegorical interpretation or reinforce the understanding of the context for the literal meaning. Similar to this was the technique of akoloutheia which explored the sequence of arguments in a passage, along with the structure of those arguments, to uncover its meaning.

Another technique used was to use more clearly understandable passages to interpret more obscure or dense passages. Dependent upon the idea that the Holy Scriptures are an inspired, unified and consistent whole, this technique would be used to show how passages can and must be interpreted in the context of all of Scripture together. Similar to this technique was the use of word association in which the Father would look for the use of a particular word in other parts of Scripture and build a link between the passages. In this sense, the Father is not doing a word study where the use of a word is explored in multiple contexts, but rather the specific word is used to build a linked meaning between the two passages in which it is used.

As mentioned, the use of allegory (allegoria) was one of the most popular forms of Scriptural exegesis because it provided a deeper and spiritual meaning. The problem with allegory, however, is that there was no need to justify or link the allegorical interpretation with the original passage. This left allegory wide open to eisegesis, the process of reading in an interpretation to a passage which was not intended. Origen was a champion of this method, and as he would become the head of the School of Alexandria, it would become associated with the allegorical method. In contrast to this, the School of Antioch would promote the use of theoria, a method of allegorical interpretation in which the allegory was more closely linked to the literal meaning of the passage being interpreted.

A number of different subsets of allegorical interpretation existed, that provided for allegorical interpretations hinging on particular points. A prominent form of this was typology (typos) which  would create an analogy showing how a particular Old Testament person or event had prefigured Christ in some way. In number symbolism, numbers mentioned in the Bible are used to provide a mystical or allegorical meaning. Similarly, the Fathers might use philogoy or the etymology of a word as the starting point and basis for an allegorical interpretation of a passage. This was especially used for the names of people and places, perhaps most notably in Origen’s analysis of the place names in the Book of Numbers.

An example of this can be found in St John Chrysostom’s homilies on Genesis 22. In the story of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac, Chrysostom explores the history behind what actually happened, and then to provide one level of spiritual interpretation he uses typology, describing how in this passage Abraham is a type of God the Father, while his only son Isaac is a type, prefiguring, Christ. Abraham is willing to sacrifice his only son, and Isaac realises that he is to be sacrificed, and goes willingly.

These types of interpretive techniques helped to open the Scriptures to people around the world, as well as forming the basis of continued exegetical interpretation to this day.

On the Fathers

The Ninth Sunday after Trinity

GRANT to us, Lord, we beseech thee, the spirit to think and do always such things as be rightful; that we, who cannot do any thing that is good without thee, may by thee be enabled to live according to thy will; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Last week discussed the Saints. Among the Saints are a particular group of Christians known as the Fathers of the Church. Father has many uses among Christianity. Most prominently, Christ identified God as the father. In Holy Scripture, however, it was also associated with teachers. St Paul says of himself, “though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel,” (I Cor 4. 15).

There are other examples in Holy Scripture of the use of the term father, including a seemingly contradictory message often cited by those who oppose the title of Father for priests, St Matthew 23. 9, where Christ says, “call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.” Given that from the earliest periods of Christianity, the term father remained associated with teachers, the question becomes what did Christ mean there? It does not seem his intention was to have Christians cease from referring to their biological fathers as father, but rather Christ made the statement in the context of chastising the hypocritical Pharisees of his day who afforded themselves grandiose titles. This contrasts with St Paul’s writings where he identifies his authority. He became a Father and teacher through Christ’s gospel. He is not claiming authority, but was given it by God.

The question of authority is essential in understanding the role of Church Fathers. Throughout the early years of Christianity, many challenges to doctrine arose. The Canon of Scripture had not yet been fixed. While the books of what would become the Old Testament were generally understood and fixed because they were simply the Jewish Scriptures, the books of what would become the New Testament were not fully set. Each book was prepared separately and there was not yet a collection of all of the books bound together. Different books which do not form a part of the canon were promoted. Some of these books were entirely orthodox in their Christianity, while others were not. In some cases, challenges to doctrine came even during the apostolic age and were later recorded in the Scriptures when the books of the Bible were actually writen. The Judaisers are an example of this. While accepting, or seeming to accept, some of the truths of Christian teaching, they sought to maintain adherence to the Jewish Law in contradiction of core principles of Christian teaching that Christ had fulfilled the Law and brought freedom from the Law.

After the Apostolic Age, new heresies and challenges crept up. Gnosticism, Marcionism, Arianism and others plagued the early church as much, if not more, than the physical persecution which was occasionally brought about by the Romans. In the mid-2nd century. Marcion of Sinope taught that the Hebrew Scriptures were to be rejected, as he could not reconcile Christ’s teachings on the Kingdom of Heaven and God the Father with the depictions of God in the Jewish Scriptures. His views on Christ himself were also heretical in that he did not view Christ as both fully god and fully man. His teachings were denounced by the Church Father Tertullian. In the same way, in the late 3rd and early 4th century, the bishop Arius proclaimed the inferiority of the Son to the Father, sparking a great controversy within the Christian world. Many different prominent Christians wrote against his views. St Athanasius the Great, St John Chrysostom, St Augustine of Hippo, St Ambrose of Milan; all writing in the 4th and 5th centuries against Arianism and its heresy.

These great saints and teachers did not claim the title Church Father for themselves, but rather the Fathers of the Church we later so-named because their combined teachings formed, and today still form, the foundation of Christian understanding and interpretation of the faith.

Much like how St Paul often uses his epistles to address particular controversies that had arisen in the churches he was writing to, the Fathers would write letters to colleagues or other churches, as many of the Fathers served as bishops. As bishops, one of their primary duties was teaching through Sunday preaching, and many of their writings, rather than being purely theological treatises or even letters, are recordings of homilies they delivered. These homilies may expound on the Scriptures, address issues of the day and explain what our Christian response ought to be. In many ways, the writings of these homilies are no different than the transcripts of homilies you can today find online from current weekly homilies.

The real difference stems from the fact that the Fathers were pioneers. Often the first to reveal particular understandings of Scripture, or make the connection between various Christian doctrines and their practical applications to the daily lives of their congregations. In essence, they went from nothing to forming the theological framework and basis by which we continue today to understand the orthodox interpretation and application of Holy Scripture and Christian doctrine.

When orthodox Christians wanted to understand some matter of Christian theology, they would turn to the writings of the Fathers. When a Christian theologian expounded some new interpretation of Christianity, it would be tested against the writings of the Fathers to determine whether or not it was acceptable.

While many of the Fathers were quite prominent during their day, particularly St John Chrysostom in the East and St Ambrose of Milan in the West, they were not viewed as Fathers in their own day. Just as their canonization as saints took place after their deaths, their status as Fathers of the Church was similarly solidified later. Just as Saints are not sinless in their lives, though the Fathers are viewed as extremely learned, wise and discerning theologians, they do not always agree. Tertullian and Origen are viewed as Church Fathers, but neither were canonized due to certain heresies they promoted. Despite that, Origen in particular was extremely influential and widely read due to the number of books he published in his day. St Augustine of Hippo changed his own views several times over the course of his life, later writing certain treaties to explain where his views had changed from earlier works and why.

In Anglicanism, the Fathers play a traditionally important role in the understanding of theology. In as much as the English Reformation sought to remove superstitious medieval additions to the faith, the Fathers were the standard of authority by which the Reformation sought to return to a traditional and orthodox understanding of Christianity. They provided a standard by which the faith could be measured during that turbulent time, as they do today.

When Anglicans do theology, we test against Scripture, reason embodied in the writings of the Fathers, and tradition, embodied in the Anglican formularies. If you want to test a theological statement, you first test it against Scripture and see if it contradicts the plain meaning of Scripture. Then, you test it against human reason embodied in the writings of the Fathers. Then you test it against the injunctions of the 39 Articles and Book of Common Prayer.

The Fathers were not infallible, nor were they apostolically inspired as the writers of the Bible were, but they certainly were inspired by God in their writings. Their thoughts and understanding continue to prove and inspiration to theologians today, and make their writing an invaluable tool and resource for all Christians.

On the Saints

The Eighth Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, whose never-failing providence ordereth all things both in heaven and earth: We humbly beseech thee to put away from us all hurtful things, and to give us those things which be profitable for us; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

 It seems to be a near universal aspect of humanity that throughout the course of our lives we face challenges, obstacles, suffering and all other sorts of adverse situations and circumstances, and often times we seem to convince ourselves that these situations are utterly unique, that no one else has ever gone through these situations or circumstances before. This often leads to feelings of isolation as we express to others that they couldn’t possibly understand what we are enduring, and that their advice is therefore worthless.

The reality is that the challenges we face in our earthly lives are rarely unique. In most cases, there are acquaintances in our own lives who have endured pertinently similar circumstances and challenges. Throughout the course of recorded human history, it is unlikely that any great challenge in our own lives has never affected someone else.

And yet, the common refrain remains to say that no one else understands, no one else has suffered through these circumstances.

The same reaction can often hold true in our Christian lives. The challenges to our faith are many, and sometimes we feel as if we are the only ones to endure these trials and challenges. First and foremost, we never endure alone, as God always supports us in adversity when we turn to him. Our Christian friends can similarly be a great source of comfort, both in prayer and in relating their own experiences with similar challenges in their own faith journeys.

More than simply meeting with current friends, as Anglicans, we have a repository of the recorded lives of great Christians we can turn to: the saints, more specifically referred to as the Church Triumphant.

The veneration of saints is a practice which is variously viewed as beneficial, superstitious, pious or confusing. Protestants in particular seem the most likely to be baffled by the Saints, as it is not often the case that they are venerated, or their lives even observed.

In the catholic tradition, whether Eastern or Western, the saints play a prominent role in the life of the Church, and often in the lives of individual Christians.

The saints are Christians who have lived lives of faith, and who, to the best of the understanding of Christians today, have been reunited with Christ in heaven, hence the particular reference to them as the Church Triumphant, as opposed to the Church Militant, those Christians, also saints, who continue to struggle in their earthly life of faith.

It would not be correct to say that all of the saints lived flawless lives, or lives of the utmost piety. While some did, others are remembered due to acts of martyrdom, or otherwise for coming to Christ later in their lives after youths of indulgence. Saint Ambrose of Milan did not become a Christian until well into his adulthood, and his youth had been spent on non-Christian pursuits. Saint Augustine of Hippo similarly came to Christ as an adult after leading a vice-filled youth which he later commented on.

Historically, the saints were viewed as fellow intercessors. Christians would pray to the saints, asking for their prayers just as they might ask any other fellow Christian to pray for them. During the medieval period, particularly in the West, this changed somewhat. Saints were viewed as mediators between Christians and Christ our judge. The saints were viewed as having particular portfolios and you would pray for a particular saint to intercede on your behalf with Christ the judge on a particular issue.

This led in some cases to excesses in which the saints were not merely venerated, but worshipped. In the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, this practice was condemned by Article XXII, along with a number of other particular practices of the Roman Church which had developed during the medieval period, which were influenced in particular by superstition and syncretism with existing pagan religions in the West. It should be noted, however, that Article XXII did not in any way condemn the original practice of intercession through the saints.

In Anglicanism, therefore, the veneration of the saints and their intercession remains a matter of personal pious devotion. Permitted, but not required. Its practice tends to reflect personal theological preferences and often-times one’s churchmanship.

In evangelical Anglicans, the emphasis tends to be on the personal relationship between man and God, and thus the intercession of others and of the saints in particular is less important and emphasized. The lives of saints tend to similarly be less frequently emphasized because evangelical Anglican ecclesiology doesn’t tend to have as much emphasis on traditions of the Church, and instead focuses more on the Church as the visible body of believers under the authority of Scripture.

For those maintaining a more Anglo-Catholic outlook, their ecclesiology places a higher value on the Communion of Saints as a whole, including those saints in heaven that have been referred to in this post. Their value is emphasized significantly in their instructive value, and in their teaching of doctrine. Similarly, Anglo-Catholics would be far less likely to draw a distinction between asking a living Christian friend for their prayers versus asking a saint in heaven for their intercessory prayers.

The practice of studying the lives of the saints and asking for their intercessory prayers is ancient. It is something that unites all Christians, East and West, both in terms of the common practice, and also in that the saints we commemorate and celebrate come from outside our own tradition. In the Anglican Church of Canada’s calendar of Saints, there are saints from England, Western Roman Christendom and Eastern Christendom.

St Paul writes that, “[God] comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God,” (2 Cor 1. 4). If God is preparing us to comfort others, then so to has he prepared the saints, for generations before us, to similarly comfort us. In our suffering, then, let us always be reminded that our situation is rarely unique, and that many Christians that have gone before us have endured similar trials. We can look to their stories and be comforted, just as we are often comforted by a friend who can relate how they endured some shared challenge in their life with us.

On Power

The Seventh Sunday after Trinity

LORD of all power and might, who art the author and giver of all good things: Graft in our hearts the love of thy Name, increase in us true religion, nourish us with all goodness, and of thy great mercy keep us in the same; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

In the study of international relations, power is generally divided into two categories, that of hard power and soft power. The simplest definition of these two is that hard power is the ability to make others do what you want, while soft power is the ability to get others to want what you want.

An example of hard power would be the use of military or economic force. Forcing a neighbouring country to make territorial concessions by military invasion and conquest or just the threat of it. The imposition of economic sanctions on a state to compel them to do what you want is another exercise of hard power. Soft power is a somewhat more nebulous concept which was only articulated in the post Cold War era as a defined doctrine, though the use of soft power has been characteristic of international affairs in the 20th century in the aftermath of the Second World War and the formation of the United Nations, as well as the more rigid discipline enforced on the exercise of power in international affairs during the Cold War itself.

The concepts of hard and soft power are somewhat useful in examining the idea of power and authority within the Church. In this case, hard power—the ability to get people to do what you want—resides with ecclesiastical authorities. Bishops are those charged with enforcing the canons of the church, and have a wide latitude in how they do so. For instance, in the Diocese of Calgary, every priest before they are ordained is required by Canon law to subscribe to the Solemn Declaration 1893, the Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal, as well as the diocesan and provincial canons. The canons themselves, however, do not exercise hard power. Thomas Hobbes, the English philosopher, once wrote in his seminal work Leviathan, that, “covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all.” While Christ may have said that the Christian’s yes ought to be yes, and their no, no (St Mt 5. 37), the reality remains that in our fallen nature, we fall short of Christ’s command. As Hobbes points out, without swords—enforcement—agreements and oaths are just words. It is the bishop that enforces the oath and exercises the power to compel a priest to maintain it. They may sanction the priest with the removal of their license or even further sanctions if their actions so merit.

Similarly, priests hold some elements of hard power over their parishioners. While in general these powers are not used, they still exist. If a parishioner were to make it known to a priest that they had sinned and were unrepentant, priests have the power to deny the Eucharist to such a person until such time as they do repent.

What of soft power? The Rev. Dr Ellen Wondra likens soft power in the Church to its moral authority, and thus its ability to influence others both inside and outside the Church. This applies both in its ecumenical relations and its relations to secular and civil society. When the American Conference of Catholic Bishops issues a statement deploring gun violence and calling for the acceptance of new measures for American legislators to control gun violence, they are calling on their moral authority which relies on the Roman Catholic Church’s clearly articulated stance on the sanctity of human life to lend power to their statement in order to influence opinions.

In the Anglican Communion, which uses synodical governance, often times particular priests, bishops or laity rely on their soft power authority to sway opinion during debates at synods.

Or it would in theory. In practice, it seems soft power has all but disappeared from the Anglican Church of Canada, and perhaps Anglicanism more broadly, at least in the West. The Roman Catholic Church has a clear, cogent and consistent position on the sanctity of life. Their position is not tied to secular politics of the left or of the right, neither libertarian nor collectivist. It is rooted in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition: man is made in the image and likeness of God, and therefore has inherent value. Life is therefore sacred and must be preserved. The Roman Catholic Church therefore opposes abortion, a position associated with right-wing politics, and capital punishment, left-wing politics, and oppose physician assisted suicide and euthanasia (again positions which tend to be associated with right-wing politics).

The Anglican Church in Canada has in recent months made statements which suggest that the recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling which has opened the door to physician assisted suicide and euthanasia requires renewed consideration of a response. Why would the Supreme Court’s opinion change the Church’s view? If it is to be rooted in Scripture and Tradition, should it not remain constant regardless of the legality in civil law? There hasn’t yet been an official response, but the unofficial response has seen broad endorsement from many bishops, while others have expressed more scepticism, mainly at the ambiguity of the court’s ruling.

When the response, albeit unofficial, is that mixed, what broader authority will any official statement from the Church hold? Will the Church be able to hold a clear, consistent and cogent position vis a vis assisted suicide and other issues relating to life and the person? The Anglican Church of Canada’s current Primate Fred Hiltz has marched in favour of the worldwide abolition of the death penalty, and although many Anglicans do not agree, the stance of the Church remains somewhat pro-life, it has taken significant efforts to avoid mentioning that fact, and many priests and bishops and lay members in the public spotlight (such as current Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May) hold pro-choice positions that oppose any conception of abortion as in some way being the ending of a life as the Anglican Church of Canada once held.

With a fairly clearly intentional silence in recent years on the issue of abortion, it ought to be taken as tacit approval of the secular legal status quo of legalized abortion in Canada. This view cannot be reconciled with opposition to capital punishment from a Christian perspective. Does the Anglican Church of Canada’s opposition to the death penalty stem from the inherent value of the person, or does it stem from some of the practical secular arguments against capital punishment (ineffectiveness, error, etc).

With an ambiguous position, the credibility of the Anglican Church of Canada on this issue is limited. Its ambiguous position hinders its moral clarity and thus eliminates its ability to project soft power. With hard power working internally, is it any wonder that Anglicanism seems to be losing its relevance outside of Church walls? When the Bishop of Rome speaks, his pronouncements tend to carry in the news. It is not because the secular media give weight to Roman Catholicism that they do not give to other Christian groups because they believe Rome to be correct, but rather by virtue of its moral authority, pronouncements from Rome are backed by soft power.

On Heresy

The Sixth Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, who hast prepared for them that love thee such good things as pass man’s understanding: Pour into our hearts such love toward thee, that we, loving thee above all things, may obtain thy promises, which exceed all that we can desire; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Discussions of theology, and how Anglicans have traditionally explored theology in order to ensure right belief, naturally brings to mind the question of what happens when theology, regardless of how it is done, leads to incorrect belief. In the history of the Church, when someone promotes these incorrect beliefs, it tends to be called heresy. This flippant use of the term heresy has a diluted its meaning somewhat however. In the early church, a distinction was drawn between what is merely false teaching, whether intentional or unintentional, and heresy.

In Holy Scripture, Christ himself spoke of false prophets who would distort his words. St Paul similarly echoed Christ’s several times in different epistles. II Peter specifically warns against false teachers and their teachings leading people astray. Throughout Scripture, we are warned that Christians must be on guard against those whose teachings seek to take us away from the Truth that had been revealed in Christ. In modern times, this would be viewed perhaps in terms of any teaching which corrupts Biblical truth and teaching.

To go from false teaching to heresy, there is an element of obstinacy in the face of correction, but more it is the subject matter of the false teaching that can push a false teaching into true heresy. Bishop Daniel Martins, commenting on some of the policies coming out of The Episcopal Church of the United States of America’s recent General Convention, suggested that a distinction must be drawn between that which is merely false teaching and that which is heresy.

To Bishop Martins, the distinction comes when the false teaching is against an article of the creeds. This follows other traditional definitions which have tended to provide for heresy as a public and obstinate denial of one or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity. These two definitions are entirely consistent as the creeds are what define the essentials of Christianity, though as has been previously discussed, encompasses more than just the creeds, but also the canon of scripture, the sacramental life of the church lived primarily through Baptism and the Eucharist, the three-fold order of ministry and the creeds. Bishop Martins here draws a narrower definition that focuses exclusively on the creeds.

The creeds ultimately are the standard of our faith. The Canon of Scripture tells us which books are divinely inspired and therefore, “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work,” (2 Tim 3. 16, 17) as St Paul tells us.

In the case of the Nicene Creed, it represents a working out of particular Christian doctrines in response to strong heresies, such as Arianism, which denied such core Christian doctrines as the Trinity.

For Bishop Martins, the issue was greater than just an individual false teacher, though. What must the response be when it is the church itself, though its liturgies, canons and practices, which promotes the heresy rather than simply a specific and individual false teacher? For Bishops, who are the guardians of teaching and doctrine in the church, to be the ones teaching it speaks to a problem of heresy through the core of the church to which they belong. In any tradition which maintains an ecclesiology of a visible church, as the Anglican Communion, Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church do, there are even greater complications.

When a church with an orthodox history falls into heresy, what obligation do individual Christians have to remain in communion with it? In his Epistle to the Galatians, St Paul tells the Galatians of a time when he was forced to rebuke St Peter who had, by the definition described here, fallen into heresy in his hypocrisy. St Peter had, when confronted with Judaisers who argued that Jewish Christians were free to believe in Christ as the Messiah but still needed to maintain the law including both the dietary restrictions and circumcision. This was viewed by Paul as backsliding and heresy. Had not Christ died for the justification of all believers? In Christ was the fulfilment of the Law. The Creed says Christ was incarnate and crucified for us and for our salvation. When St Peter accepted the Judaiser practice of maintaining the Law, he was at best saying, “Christ died for us, but just in case, let’s still follow the Law.” At worst it was a complete rejection of Christ’s nature and incarnate mission.

St Paul rebuked St Peter who accepted the rebuke and was restored to orthodoxy. What would happen if he had not? What would happen if a modern bishop in the Anglican Church of Canada, for example, were to profess that the Law must still be followed? Would it be necessary for other bishops to remove themselves from communion with that diocese if the heresy persisted?

Bishop Martins argues that when the heresy becomes systemic to the Church itself, it must persist in those heresies for over forty years before a faithful Christian is obligated not to be in communion with it. This does not, however, mean that a faithful Christian should not in all circumstances break communion with it before then. It is laudable to seek to remain in the communion, to correct or rebuke and hopefully encouraging those who also remain to see the errors being taught.

In chapter 14 of his epistle to the Romans, St Paul warns first not to pass judgement on fellow Christians if their weak is faith or strong, for it is the Lord’s right to pass judgement. He continues by famously writing that we should never place a stumbling block in front of another. In this same way, it may be necessary to remove ourselves from communion with a particular church which promotes a particular heresy in order to prevent it from becoming such a stumbling block.

That said, removal from communion is something that should not be undertaken lightly, and should not be something that one does on the basis of flippant motivations. Bishops are the anointed of God, and that anointing should never be forgotten. In many ways, the story of David is instructive in this regard. David had been anointed by God, through the Prophet Samuel, after one too many times, Saul had been disobedient. Later, David became friends with Saul but his great deeds caused him to receive greater praise than Saul. In Saul’s jealousy, he thought David meant to usurp him and tried to kill David several times, before eventually David was forced to flee. In the well-known story, David is on the run from Saul with a few companions, taking refuge in a cave. They are in a dark corner, and go unnoticed by Saul himself when he enters in order to rest from the afternoon sun, and falls asleep. His companions gesture to him that he ought to kill Saul, but David simply goes and cuts a corner off Saul’s robe. Then, after Saul wakes from his rest and leaves the cave, David follows him out and says:

Why do you listen to the words of men who say, ‘Behold, David seeks your harm’? 10 Behold, this day your eyes have seen how the Lord gave you today into my hand in the cave. And some told me to kill you, but I spared you. I said, ‘I will not put out my hand against my lord, for he is the Lord’s anointed.’ (1 Sam 24. 9, 10)

Saul then replies:

“Is this your voice, my son David?” And Saul lifted up his voice and wept. He said to David, “You are more righteous than I, for you have repaid me good, whereas I have repaid you evil. And you have declared this day how you have dealt well with me, in that you did not kill me when the Lord put me into your hands. For if a man finds his enemy, will he let him go away safe? So may the Lord reward you with good for what you have done to me this day. (1 Sam 24. 16-19)

In this same way, we ought to approach a Bishop, with hope that the respect that is shown for their anointing might give them pause to consider why their teachings are forcing Christians in good conscience to break communion with them.

In all things, the term heresy should not be used lightly, and it should never be used to reflect the idea of “those who disagree with me,” nor should mere disagreement, even over a matter of false teaching, ever be reason to break communion with other Christians.