On God's Side

The Third Sunday after Easter

ALMIGHTY God, who showest to them that it be in error the light of thy truth, to the intent that they may return into the way of righteousness: Grant unto all them that are admitted into the fellowship of Christ’s religion, that they may forsake those things that are contrary to their profession, and follow all such things as are agreeable to the same; through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

There is a tendency in Christian song and in writing to refer to the concept of God being on our side. There is some Scriptural reference to this. The hit contemporary Christian song Whom Shall I Fear? by Chris Tomlin creates stunning visuals to reference the Psalmist who writes, “The LORD is on my side; I will not fear. What can man do to me?” (Ps 118. 6).

Overall, this seems to imply God is for us. It is simple to say, “God is on my side.” But is that the proper way of looking at it? When someone makes an argument and then invokes God’s favour saying, “God is on my side,” or, “God supports my position,” is that a fair argument to make?

To make a more concrete example, many of the revisionist innovations implemented in the Anglican Church of Canada over the last forty years have been preceded by arguments that it is the movement of the Holy Spirit and that, to take the perspective of the proponents of these innovations, “God is on my side,” or, “the movement of the Spirit is calling us to do this.”

The idea that God is on our side and supports us, more ludicrous still is when we suggest God supports every particular cause we believe in. In Canada well into the 20th century, the Roman Catholic Church in Quebec would remind parishioners before an election that, “le ciel est bleu, et l’enfer est rouge.” Literally, heaven is blue and hell is red, priests were instructing parishioners to vote for particular parties.

This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding and perspective that is wholly twisted. God is not, in that sense, ever on my side. In the Lord of the Rings epic, Tolkien writes sage words from the mouth of the ancient Ent Treebeard, a living tree who is being asked to join the war in Middle Earth on the side of protagonists. “I'm not altogether on anybody's side because no one is altogether on my side.” Rather than God being on our side, we are called to be on his. As St Paul writes, all fall short of God’s glory. We are not, altogether, on his side. Yet, by faith and Christ’s death and resurrection, we are able to be reconciled to him in order to more fully live in his will.

Claiming the support of God is a historical reality. When the people of Israel God’s exclusive chosen ones, they were able to boast of God being on their side. In the Psalms, the Jews proclaimed it in song, “The LORD is on my side; I will not fear,” (Ps 118. 6). The context of this verse shows the Psalmist is indeed referring to how God was on the side of Israel and his chosen people. When the people of Israel were acting in God’s will, he supported them in their endeavours, be it battle or freedom from slavery. When St Paul echoes these words in Romans 8. 31, though, what is the context in which these words are repeated? Does he mean God is on the side of all Christians, the new chosen? Not entirely. The context of Romans as a whole makes clear that while St Paul is speaking there specifically of Christians, he has been making the case throughout Romans for God being on the side of all humanity, wishing for their salvation and for all people to be reconciled to him. St Paul has just explained how we cannot justify ourselves under the law and are reliant on God’s grace.

When St Paul asks who can be against us, he his point is more that when we place our trust in God, no one can overcome his desire for us to be reconciled to him. In the season of Eastertide, as we celebrate the resurrection, we are also celebrating victory over sin and death through Christ’s atoning sacrifice. The classic CS Lewis novel The Screwtape Letters creates a fictional account of how the enemy might seek to attack our faith, and also shows how ultimately God is stronger.

More clearly, St John explores the same topic from another perspective in his first epistle:

By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth. (1 Jn 3. 16-18)

Here, St John reminds us of God’s abiding presence as the governor of our lives. As St Paul asked if God was with us, who could be against us, St John reminds us that for God to be with us, we must be with God. God is not on our side, but rather, we must be on God’s side.

Going back to the Old Testament, it should equally be noted that when the people of Israel rebelled against God’s will, he did not act for them in the same manner as was referred to in the Psalms. God helped free the Jews from persecution and slavery after they abandoned him, allowing themselves to fall into those predicaments in the first place.

Perhaps an easier way of viewing this is to say who is leading and who is following. When you say, “God is on my side,” what you are really saying is God is following me and is endorsing what I do. The problem is that God doesn’t do that. God never follows us, we only ever follow him. God’s support for the people of Israel was for when they acted in his will, because in acting in his will they served ultimately to reconcile themselves to him. While it is possible that we can say, “God supports me,” and be correct in the sense that God does support what you are doing, it betrays a false narrative which more correctly stated would be, “I follow God’s will.”

The parable of the two sons recorded in the Gospel of St Luke helps to show the difference of these two mentalities. In the parable, a man has two sons. His younger son demands his inheritance and leaves the family home. He squanders his wealth and beggars himself, ultimately deciding to humble himself and return to his father to beg forgiveness. The elder brother, on the other hand, remained at home, was dutiful and fulfilled all his obligations. When his younger brother returned home and his father forgave him, unconditionally and joyfully accepting his return, the elder brother became angry and jealous, demanding to know why his brother should be celebrated for his return when he had never been celebrated for being dutiful all the while.

In this parable, the younger brother shows the life of a Christian who ultimately seeks to live in the will of God. He has been given a great inheritance, which he may at times squander, but his loving father will always accept him and forgive him if he returns. The elder brother on the other hand seems at first glance to be the one truly living in his father’s will, yet by the end of the parable it becomes more clear that he would be the type to say, “God is on my side,” out of what CS Lewis described as spiritual cancer: pride.

When we take the prideful view that God is on our side, and not the view that we strive to follow his will, we go from being followers of God to agents of his will. The problem with this is when we fall short. If we are followers of God and fall short, then, like the younger brother, we can ask forgiveness and be forgiven. When we are enactors of his will and fall short, however, we are essentially claiming authority from God while acting outside of his will.

It is easy to see how this mentality is adopted, though. There are plenty of Scriptural references to God being for us and God supporting us, and it can be simple to slip into a mentality that convinces ourselves that we are clearly supported by God. Christianity is not having an omnipotent and all-powerful deity who can be called upon to support our politics and our sports teams, but is the teaching of how can, through faith, reconcile ourselves to God in order that we might live this life in submission to his will, and ultimately to be reconciled to him for all eternity.

On Cultural Incarnation

The Second Sunday after Easter

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

As we continue in the season of Eastertide, many of the readings focus on the life of the early church as depicted in the Acts of the Apostles. In these readings from Acts, we hear how the disciples lived a life of faith together, shared all things in common and supported one another. This unity is supported by Scripture, where St Paul exhorts Euodia and Syntyche from the church in Philippi to, “agree in the Lord,” (Phil 4. 2). David’s Psalm 133 describes with vivid imagery the blessings and joy of unity.

It is not too long, though, before we hear of the reaction against the perseverance of the Christian faithful, and the growth of Christianity in the early Jewish communities. The circumcision controversy begins. Jewish leaders say that belief in Christ is acceptable, but only so long as you continued to follow the Law. When Christianity spreads to the gentiles, the majority of Christians were previously Jewish and elements of their culture create disunity as the early Christians struggle over the question of whether or not gentiles must be circumcised, a matter settled by a Council at Jerusalem which set the model for later ecumenical councils to define and resolve doctrinal disputes within the Church.

The picture painted in Acts, is broadly speaking one of an incarnational faith. Christianity incarnated into the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. And so too does it incarnate in the cultures in which its faithful operate. Modern psychology shows that the language we speak, and the culture we come from, shapes how we think and perceive the world.

Speaking historically, some doctrinal differences in the Christian East and Christian West were the result of differences in how theological concepts were rendered into Greek in the East and Latin in the West. In some cases, ultimately the same meaning was generally meant, but due to the language differences, the rendering and way the theology was perceived by the other culture was sufficiently different to cause disunity. While there are other issues at play, in many ways the filioque is the same understanding of God’s nature presented from two diametrically opposed cultural understandings. The nature of Christ as judge in the West and divine physician in the East, similarly highlights how both can hold orthodox understandings, but which have been shaped to different perspectives by the culture in which they are practiced.

It should come as no surprise, then, when division arises in the church. The extreme unity found in the earliest chapters of Acts is rooted in both cultural unity and in the physical witness of Christ Jesus. This was the age of the Apostles and disciples who had witnessed Christ’s miracles in person. And yet, division still came among them. If unity is to be found in Christ, then surely it is understandable that today, some manner of disunity would ultimately arise, at the very least because of the fact that Christianity has now spread to all cultures.

This should come as no shock. In the East, the Eastern Orthodox Church is divided by culture: Greek, Russian, Serbian, etc. In the West, there is obviously the divide between Canterbury and Rome, but also within the Roman Catholic Church some practices diverge rooted in culture, as much as some Roman Catholics might claim otherwise.

There is good reason for this. God calls us into relationship with him: oneness with him. Not sameness with him. Sameness is the preserve of equality, while oneness is the preserve of unity. We are not meant to be equal with God, nor are we equal with each other. St Paul illustrates this well in his first epistle to the Corinthians:

To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. (1 Cor 7-11)

There are two key points to this passage. First, “each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” This is unity. This is oneness. All receive gifts of the Spirit, for a unified purpose. Second, he lists how some receive the gift of wisdom, others knowledge, others healing, etc. There is not equality, each is given the gifts they need to fulfil God’s purpose.

In much the same way, the incarnational nature of the church in distinct cultures is not necessarily equal. One tradition of Christians may emphasize the healing power of the Holy Spirit, while others may focus on the atoning power of Christ’s passion and resurrection. There is not equality, necessarily, in these incarnations of the church, or even necessarily fullness, but there is some degree of unity.

True unity is to be found when the four marks of unity are followed: the canon of Holy Scripture; the authoritative transmission of God’s word for humanity; the faith of the early church as articulated in the creeds and councils of the church, the order of ministry, passed down in apostolic succession and finally the sacramental life of the church, found chiefly in the sacraments of Holy Baptism and the Eucharist.

Just like Euodia and Syntyche, where something, in this case, culture, divides the church, we must continue to follow St Paul’s advice to, “agree in the Lord,” for it is in God that our unity is found, not in compromise. Compromise is the road to equality, limiting and hemming in our faith in order to reduce the avenues for confrontation and conflict.

It is a great irony that if the sacraments are discarded (mere ordinances), as is the order of ministry (priesthood of all believers), the creeds and councils (generally in more anti-Catholic fuelled settings where anything of the historic church is viewed with suspicion) while retaining only the canon of Scripture (often with its own brand of sola scriptura and distinctive interpretation) there is some form of equality to be found (compare some of the constitutions and confessions of various protestant denominations) but in that, unity, oneness in Christ, has been lost.

Christianity incarnates differently in different cultures. Different rites or Churchmanships, different language to describe the same truths, and in some case a different emphasis on part of God’s nature. This does not detract from true unity, unity described in the Acts of the Apostles. What causes disunity is when the goal of sameness between humans is confused with oneness with God.

Wisdom of Saints: St Ambrose of Milan

The Feast of Ambrose, Doctor and Bishop of Milan, 397

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

Feria in Eastertide

ALMIGHTY Father, who hast given thine only a Son to die for our sins, and to rise again for our justification: Grant us so to put away the leaven of malice and wickedness, that we may alway serve thee in pureness of living and truth; through the merits of the same thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

St Ambrose of Milan is one of my favourite saints, not necessarily for his teachings, but rather for the story of his life, how he became a Christian, and how he chose to be a defender of Christian orthodoxy.

St Ambrose, born Aurelius Ambrosius, was born in around 340 AD, either at Trier, Arles or Lyons. He was raised in Trier where his family, an ancient and noble Roman family, had converted to Christianity. His father, sharing his name of Aurelius Ambrosius, was the praetorian prefect of Gaul, placing him in charge of modern Britain, France, Spain and parts of North Africa. His mother was a pious Christian. He was the youngest of three siblings, with an elder sister named Marcellina who ultimately became a nun, and an elder brother named Satyrus who followed Ambrose’s path into Government, before ultimately retiring to come and live with his brother after he was raised to the episcopacy.

When Ambrose was still young, his father died. His mother moved their family to Rome, where she assisted in the religious training of her three children. Marcellina, who was about ten years older than Ambrose, took a vow of virginity, living a consecrated life in her mother’s house. Her vows greatly influenced St Ambrose, who is remembered in part for his own love of virginity.

In Rome, he studied literature, law and rhetoric. His education included learning Greek, the language of the Septuagint, and his Greek learning helps distinguish him from some of his great contemporaries, such as St Augustine of Hippo, who did not have the benefit of an education in Greek language and literature.

When he completed his education, he applied himself to the practice of law. So eloquent were his arguments that he obtained a patron, Praetor Anicus Probus, who took Ambrose into his Council. In 372, Anicus petitioned Emperor Valentinian on Ambrose’s behalf and obtained for him the office of consular governor of Liguria and Æmilia, with a residence in the second most important city in Rome, Milan.

Over the next two years, Ambrose would earn the love and esteem of the people of Milan for his judicious leadership over them. He was eloquent, fair and just, able to build concensus and compromise between factions to bridge political divides. There were many in this time, as Milan was a city in relative chaos when Ambrose arrived.

In 355 the Nicene bishop of Milan, Dionysius, had been dragged into exile and replaced by an Arian bishop, Auxentius, from Cappadocia. This outsider bishop created a significant strain on Milanese Christians, particularly those orthodox Christians who subscribed to the Nicene Creed and opposed the Arian Heresy. After becoming Governor, Ambrose was sometimes forced to weigh into these controversies and debates in order to prevent further disruption. Known to be orthodox in his personal beliefs, he was none the less respected by Arians for his artful compromises.

In 374, Auxentius died. At the time, bishops in Milan were chosen by election of the people. So concerned over the possibility of violence or other tumult stemming from such a popular vote, the provincial bishops petitioned the Emperor to simply appoint a successor, however Valentinian refused. As the governor, it fell to Ambrose to maintain order. Using his well-known oratory, he began to speak to the assembled people and clergy, attempting to calm them, speaking of peace and moderation. As he was speaking, however, a voice interrupted him, shouting out, “Ambrose, bishop!” The chant was joined by others, and to Ambrose’s complete shock he was unanimously elected bishop.

Ambrose had initially no wish to serve. He hadn’t even been baptised and was still only a catechumen, though this lay largely due to a misguided and common practice of the day to delay baptism until near death due to reverence for the sacrament. The people wrote to the Emperor asking him to confirm their elected choice, and he did, ordering Ambrose to be imprisoned until he accepted.

Ambrose accepted, was baptised and in December 374 was consecrated as Bishop of Milan. His first act as bishop was to give his worldly possessions to the poor and his land to the church, after making provision for the care of his sister. Given his lack of theological training, he then devoted himself to the study of the Church Fathers and the Holy Scriptures. Soon he began placing his significant oratorical skill and keen mind to work in the pulpit, where he would soon enough famously convert St Augustine to Christianity by the power of his homilies.

He surprised the Arians by strongly refusing to acquiesce to them in the way he had as governor. He refused to give them a building to meet in and wrote against them. Ultimately he would help to define the meaning of Christian orthodoxy in that age, and bringing an end to Arianism.

While Ambrose was a fierce opponent of heresy and paganism, his zeal for Christian orthodoxy and religious persecution of heretics did not extend to how they were treated civily. Arians and pagans were still citizens, and still had rights. As human beings, they were still God’s creates whom he loved and wanted saved. Ambrose showed respect to them, even as he opposed them theologically. His position was quite innovative at its time, and earned him a significant amount of respect from all people.

Aside from his conversion of St Augustine to Christianity, St Ambrose is mostly known for his impact on Church-State relations, particularly due to his friendship with Emperor Theodosius. In 390, a popular charioteer in Thessalonica was imprisoned for attempting to rape a male cup bearer. The people demanded his release because he was a popular and successful charioteer, and when the government officials refused, a general revolt occurred in which the military commander and a number of other Roman officials were killed. When Emperor Theodosius heard of this, he was outraged and dispatched the army to capture the city, as if it were hostile. They massacred thousands of civilians. Shortly after he dispatched the army units, he changed his mind and sent a messenger to cancel the orders, but the messenger never caught up with the army units who proceeded to slaughter the inhabitants of Thessalonica, some 7,000 killed according to some accounts.

St Ambrose was stunned when he heard of what happened and immediately wrote a letter to the Emperor demanding that he repent of his act in ordering the massacre. Theodosius refused. Ambrose was simply a clergyman in far off Milan, while he was the Emperor of the entire Roman Empire, sitting on his throne in Constantinople. However, shortly after receiving the letter from Ambrose, imperial business took him to Milan. As a Christian, Theodosius went to church when he was in Milan, but Ambrose refused to offer Theodosius communion unless the Emperor publicly repented of his acts.

Ultimately, the Emperor relented. Divesting himself of his imperial vestments, clothed in a sackcloth and with ash streaked on his face in a sign of penance, Theodosius repented for the massacre.

In standing up to the Emperor, St Ambrose placed his own life on the line for his calling and for God’s truth. He showed great courage for his office in upholding both Christian orthodoxy in the theology being preached in his diocese and also in rebuking those who failed to measure up to Christian virtues with egregious public sins while still acting as if they had committed no wrong.

While later bishops would use St Ambrose’s example as a means to manipulate civil leaders by withholding the sacraments, St Ambrose’s purpose was never to force the submission of the state to the Church, but rather to show that no person, regardless of civil or religious status, was exempt from God’s laws.

NB. The Feast of Ambrose is commemorated on 4 April, but as that fell on Holy Saturday, the feast is transferred to a ferial day.

On the Communion of Saints

The Octave Day of Easter

ALMIGHTY Father, who hast given thine only a Son to die for our sins, and to rise again for our justification: Grant us so to put away the leaven of malice and wickedness, that we may always serve thee in pureness of living and truth; through the merits of the same thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Easter

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

In the season Eastertide, we further consider the implications of the resurrection. Given how for many Christians, Easter is a time for baptism through which we gain entrance into the family of God. For many, though, this raises a question of what this membership in the body of Christ entails.

The Apostle's Creed is the creed used as a baptismal symbol, in which the newly baptised profess belief in, among other things, the Communion of Saints, to which they have become a part.

The Communion of Saints is a term rooted in Holy Scripture, where  in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, St Paul says, “to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,” (1 Cor 1. 2) and “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ,” (1 Cor 12. 12).

The term Communion of Saints, in the context of the fuller doctrine to mean the faithful both on earth and in heaven, is first known to have been used in the early 5th century by St Nicetas of Remesiana in his Explanatio Symboli. Even in the time of the early church, the Communion of Saints was not something limited solely to an expression in the Apostle’s creed, but was a doctrine of a life of faith, and a doctrine of community.

There are different ways to define the doctrine of the Communion of Saints. In the Book of Common Prayer, the Catechism touches on the issue, discussing it in terms of the people of God who comprise Christ's holy Catholic Church. In the Roman Catholic Catechism, it is similarly defined when it states simply that, “The communion of saints is the Church.”

Both definitions discuss it as a body of people. As they have been developed and understood, they express a deep doctrine, one that at first glance is not obvious.

There are two components to the Communion of Saints: communion and saints. What do they refer to. To use the BCP definition, communion means a group of people, and saints is specified by people of God. Phrased another way, it is a group of people who are in some way related to God, and which is specified as that relationship being incurred through the sacrament of Holy Baptism. So now we are looking at the group of people who are baptised. Communion, however, is a word with a very powerful and sacramental meaning.

Communion implies more than just a simple group, it implies, ultimately, intimate community. A group of people who have been bound together; who have been set apart. It relates to the Eucharist in the Sacramental sense, which according to St Paul is a participation in Christ’s sacrifice, (1 Cor 10. 16). Surely, this implies not merely then a team but something greater, a family. In our Baptism, we are adopted as children of God, and marked as his own forever. The Communion of Saints, therefore, are not just a group, but a family.

Saints, as the BCP mentions, are those people of God. What does that then mean? Saints are those undergoing the process of sanctification. By his grace, baptised Christians are transformed and made holy.

This transformation, therefore, extends merely being able to describe the Communion of Saints as a community of believers to a community of disciples.

A believer is someone who accepts Jesus as Lord, but there can be more to faith than that. But there is more to following Christ than simply belief, for as Scripture says, “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works... So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead,” (St James 2. 14, 17).

St James does not argue here that salvation can be purchased through good works. Rather, good works are the fruit of true faith. Given that the Holy Spirit descended on the faithful like fire, it is often used as a metaphor for faith. True faith sometimes burns bright and large, and at other times can fall down to coals. The faith is still there, but it does not dictate the actions in our lives.

Someone whose faith has burned low can still be a believer, and still accept Christ as Lord. When faith burns bright, however, Christianity is more than just belief, it becomes discipleship. It is no longer about simply believing, but about living life in the model of Christ's life. It is about more than believing in community, but rather participation in community.

The Book of Common Prayer provides for a prayer for the Communion of Saints that sums up this mentality, both of community and of discipleship:

O ETERNAL Lord God, who holdest all souls in life: We beseech thee to shed forth upon thy whole Church in Paradise and on earth the bright beams of thy light and heavenly comfort; and grant that we, following the good example of those who have loved thee and served thee here and are now at rest, may at the last enter with them into the fulness of thine unending joy; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Ask God to fan the flames of faith in our lives that we cannot merely believe, but seek to be disciples of Christ who live out that faith, in a community of disciples. Be a full member of the Communion of Saints. In our baptismal vows we become part of a living history of those committed, by the grace of God, to following the Jesus lifestyle.

On the Resurrection

Easter Day

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

Easter

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

Alleluia, Christ is risen!

Last Easter, the Church of England engaged in a social media campaign in which they engaged the public to trend the twitter tag #EverythingChanges and explain how Christ’s resurrection on Easter Sunday changes everything for us. Social media isn’t always the best tool of evangelism, but regardless, it was a great opportunity to see the views of many Christians on the revolution Christ offers us.

While the focus of Holy Week is on our Lord Jesus Christ, it is also a time to reflect on the Apostles and disciples, and how they responded to our Lord’s death and resurrection. In this, we can more easily relate and see how indeed everything does change.

On Palm Sunday, we see them boldly following in Christ’s triumphal procession as he enters Jerusalem. It evokes, albeit briefly, a literal reminder of 2 Cor 2. 14 and Christ leading us always in triumphal procession. Yet that is not the whole story. On Maundy Thursday, the striking words of Christ as he washes the feet of the Apostles, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterwards you will understand.” At the last supper, when one of God’s greatest gifts to humanity, the Holy Eucharist, was instituted, those closest to Christ on Earth still did not understand.

At the end of Maundy Thursday mass, St Matthew’s Gospel is read, recounting Jesus foretelling Peter’s denial of him. Peter is shocked and responds, “Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you!” (Mt 26. 36). These again are bold words, but already in Christ’s forewarning that they would scatter, we see that 2 Cor 2. 14 is not yet fulfilled. Judas had already betrayed Christ, and later after Christ’s arrest, Peter himself denies Christ three times as Christ had foretold.

While they professed strong devotion—even to follow Christ to their deaths—it took little to prove their faith and devotion in him hollow. The full quotation of 2 Cor 2. 14 is actually, “thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere.” It is only in Christ, and in his sacrifice, that we are now able to follow God in this triumphal procession.

Compare the actions of the Apostles in Holy Week to the Apostles and Disciples as they are described in the Acts of the Apostles after the resurrection.

All the disciples are set alive in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. They were living in the light of his resurrection, and in the fire of the Spirit. They lived in a Christian fellowship inspired by an irresistible calling of God:

And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved. (Acts 2. 42-47)

What a change, a change further testified to throughout the Acts of the Apostles. Whereas the Apostles had once all affirmed the oath of Peter to follow Christ to their deaths, then abandoned him as he had predicated, yet after the resurrection, all but one of the Apostles were martyred, and St John, who died at an old age, lived the martyr’s life, exiled, persecuted and tortured for Christ, but surviving all the same.

In Christ’s passion, death and resurrection, everything changes for his Apostles and disciples. As it does for the rest of us.

Christ’s resurrection is freedom from all that would separate us from God, and the reaction of the disciples in the early church should be an aspiration to what the modern church should seek in revival. It is the image of Christians not simply living in fellowship, but truly living in discipleship to Christ.

The life of faith is not about making promises to serve him to the end. It’s not about doing particular things and try hard. He suffered death on the cross for our redemption, a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. He then returned in his resurrection to empower us to live the life we were called to live. A life in which we continue to receive God’s love and blessing. It is one of the reasons why Holy Baptism is so fitting for Easter. As Christ died and was resurrected for us, so to do we accept the gift he has offered to allow our old selves to die and be resurrected in a new life, filled with the Holy Spirit, from the waters of baptism.

Easter is the reminder that the Gospels don’t end with Christ’s death but with the fulfilment of his call to new life as he returns to fulfil God’s promises. They are a call to the Christian life, and a call to accept God's offered gifts. In Easter, everything changes.

Alleluia, Christ is risen!

On Holy Week

The Sunday Next Before Easter commonly called Palm Sunday

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who, of thy tender love towards mankind, hast sent thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, to take upon him our flesh, and to suffer death upon the cross, that all mankind should follow the example of his great humility: Mercifully grant, that we may both follow the example of his patience, and also be made partakers of his resurrection; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Palm Sunday, also known as the Second Sunday in Passiontide or the Sixth Sunday in Lent, is the final Sunday before Easter Sunday and the first day of Holy Week, commemorating Christ's Passion. It is a period that takes Christians through Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday to the Last Supper and the washing of the disciple's feet on Maundy Thursday and his betrayal and crucifixion on Good Friday. It collects the totality of the anticipation and penitence of Lent and prepares us for the glorious triumph of Christ in the Easter Sunday resurrection. It is a complex pattern that contains several parts, each of which is described below.

The Great Fast of Lent lasts 40 days (excluding Sundays) in commemoration of Christ’s 40 days in the wilderness prior to his assumption of public ministry. It is a period today in which Christians prepare their whole lives as a holy offering unto God, and do so through prayer, repentance, fasting and almsgiving.

Lent developed out of the needs of the Church. When Emperor Constantine ended the persecution of Christians and himself converted to Christianity, thousands of people converted to Christianity, be it those who had never heard the Gospel before because of the difficulty in preaching due to persecution as well as those who sought to profess Christian faith in order to gain advantage, either by marrying into a Christian family, with Christian relatives or with political officials who now supported Christianity.

With so many adults seeking to become Christian, an intensive process of catechesis developed. Catechumens were traditionally baptised at Easter, and so in preparation for that baptism, Lent was developed as a final period of intensive training in Christian faith. At the start of Lent, the catechumens would make vows affirming their desire to be baptised. Sometimes family members would be involved in this as well. For the period of Lent through to Easter they would be instructed in the faith, and then be baptised. They would receive some additional limited training in the sacraments after Baptism.

Over time, this practice would change. Family members would play a more active role, and sometimes begin in ways to participate in the training. Eventually, the whole community would participate, and Lent became a time of preparation for the renewal of baptismal vows and a time of prayer and repentance for the failure to in all ways keep those vows.

As Christianity became more established, there began to be fewer adults in need of baptism, as more and more children were being raised in Christian families, Baptism was being performed on the infant children, who were in no position to be catechised. Yet, for parents and other older Christians, Lent remained a time for them to remember their own baptismal vows and prepare for Easter. The emphasis changed from preparation for Baptism to the commemoration of Christ’s suffering, death and resurrection.

In Anglicanism, Lent begins on Ash Wednesday with a service of imposition of ashes, recalling the Old Testament practice of sprinkling ashes on one’s head as a sign of repentance and humility. Its liturgical colour is purple, like Advent, as it is a season both of repentance and penance as well as anticipation of Easter.

Passiontide is the period covering Passion Sunday, the fifth Sunday in Lent, and ending on Holy Saturday. In this period, particular emphasis begins to be placed on Christ’s Passion (suffering, from the Greek). Palm Sunday is the second Sunday in Passiontide, and begins the recounting of the Passion of Christ, commemorating his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, where the people laid palm leaves before him. It is the high point and most joyous of the Passiontide commemorations.

On Holy Wednesday, sometimes also called Spy Wednesday, we commemorate the decision of Judas Iscariot to betray Christ to the Sanhedrin. While this was clearly essential to Christ’s passion, it is also less frequently commemorated than other days during Holy Week.

After Holy Wednesday is Maundy Thursday. Maundy refers to the ceremonial washing of feet, and is in reference to how Christ washed the feet of his disciples after the last supper. Also known as Holy Thursday, the feast recalls not simply the washing of feet after supper, but also of Christ’s institution of the Eucharist. It initiates the Easter Triduum, the final commemoration of Christ’s suffering, death and resurrection. It is a solemn service, often celebrated in the style of a Tenebrae service, Latin for darkness, in which the candles and other sources of illumination are extinguished.

On Good Friday, commemorate Christ’s crucifixion with solemn and silent services of meditation. In many places, the cross is veiled, though if there is a crucifix it may be unveiled for at least part of the service. When the service has been completed, the congregation departs in silence, and a number of other activities happen, depending upon local particulars. Oftentimes the Stations of the Cross may be prayed. In other places, the end of the Good Friday service will start a prayer vigil lasting for the remainder of the Easter Triduum.

In this way, prayer takes precedence in the final hours of Christ’s death until Easter Sunday.

Taken as a whole, Lent is a great period of renewal and self-examination, and one in which we are invited, each year, to follow through the narrative of Christ’s passion. What better time to prepare yourself for renewal than prior to Easter? What better way to understand the scope of Christ’s human suffering than to walk through his passion with him?

There is power in the liturgy to help focus our thoughts on God, and perhaps nowhere is it more clear than Lent.

On the Anglican Communion

The Fifth Sunday in Lent commonly called Passion Sunday

WE beseech thee, Almighty God, mercifully to look upon thy people; that by thy great goodness they may be governed and preserved evermore, both in body and soul; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Lent

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

For someone who was neither raised Anglican, nor raised in a Commonwealth country, the Anglican Communion may take a word of explanation. This is particularly true for someone who is not familiar with Anglicanism at all, but has some basic knowledge of the Roman Catholic Church. Due to the many outward similarities—vestments, liturgies, etc—someone might think of the Anglican Communion as being a very similar structure to the Roman Catholic Church, with its leadership vested simply in the Archbishop of Canterbury rather than the Bishop of Rome.

This, however, is not the case. The Anglican Communion is in fact an association of 38 autonomous national Anglican churches, called provinces, which are in full communion with the Church of England. While the Archbishop of Canterbury is first among equals, his position is more akin to the Patriarch of Constantinople in the early Christian East or the Bishop of Rome in the early Western Church. The Archbishop has precedence of honour, but does not directly exercise authority outside of the Church of England as the Bishop of Rome does today.

While in certain ways, this organization more closely resembles both the organization of the Early Church as well as in certain ways the continued organization of the Eastern Orthodox Church, much like Anglicanism itself, the Anglican Communion is a product of its history.

With England spreading its political power throughout the world in the form of the British Empire, religion was sure to follow. The Church of England held services in Canada in 1578 and the first permanent Anglican parish established in North America was in Jamestown, Virginia in 1607.

Following the American war for independence, the Episcopal Church was founded, borrowing its naming convention from the Scottish Episcopal Church. With the ordination of William White and Samuel Provoost in 1787, there was a direct tie to the Church of England by an autonomous national Anglican church, foreshadowing the nature of the Anglican Communion.

Shortly afterwards, Charles Inglish was consecrated as the Bishop of Nova Scotia, and given episcopal oversight over all of British territories in North America. Over the next hundred years, many more colonial bishops would be consecrated as a result of various English missionary societies. Missionaries had established Anglican churches throughout the British Empire, and it was in 1840 that Bishop Blomfeld of London published a letter asking the Archbishop of Canterbury extend the episcopate, as by this time there were millions of practicing Anglicans in the colonies, thus far only ten colonial bishops had been consecrated. As a result of his advocacy, the Colonial Bishoprics Council was created, and many new colonial sees and bishops were created.

While these first bishops were originally quite tied to England—they were de facto extra-territorial suffragan bishops in practice—they would ultimately gain greater autonomy over time, both personally and legislatively. After a series of legal decision relating to the stipends of colonial bishops in the 1850s and 1860s, colonial churches were given the ability to appoint and consecrate their own bishops.

This autonomy in the appointment of bishops led in 1867 led to the first Lambeth Conference, which was attended by 76 bishops from around the world. While in many ways modelled on the ecumenical councils of the Early Church, the Lambeth Conference was not designed to be authoritative, due in large part to the desires of colonial bishops to maintain their autonomy with respect to local circumstances, and instead the Lambeth Conferences were designed to be consultative in nature, helping bishops to from different parts of the world to connect with one another and in particular in the early days of the conferences, to help English bishops in the Church of England to understand the challenges and struggles of the colonial bishops.

In Canada in particular, the first Canadian synods were established in the 1850s, the first Canadian synods were established at the local level, and in 1861 the Church of England in Canada (a name that would be retained until the 1970s when it became the Anglican Church of Canada) became somewhat self-governing, though again largely this meant greater local autonomy rather than a colony wide organization for Anglicans in British North America. It took until 1893 for the first General Synod to be called in Canada, and one of its first acts was to promulgate the Solemn Declaration of 1893. This document laid out the relationship between the Church of England in Canada and the Church of England, as well as the limits on the autonomy of the Canadian General Synod.

Of particular importance, the Solemn Declaration declared that the Church in Canada would be in full communion with the Church of England, that it received the catholicity of the Church of England, described as:

one Faith revealed in Holy Writ, and defined in the Creeds as maintained by the undivided primitive Church in the undisputed Ecumenical Councils; receive the same Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as containing all things necessary to salvation; teach the same Word of God; partake of the same Divinely ordained Sacraments, through the ministry of the same Apostolic Orders…

This description incorporates the four tenets of the early Church: one canon of Holy Scripture, one faith defined by the three creeds and seven Ecumenical Councils of the early Church, the one sacramental life and the threefold order of apostolic ministry.

The solemn declaration goes on to incorporate the three Anglican formularies of the Book of Common Prayer, Ordinal and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion.

This model would become fairly standard for the way in which the relationship between the Church of England and her daughter churches around the world would be viewed. It should be noted that while there is an emphasis on full communion with the Church of England, doctrine comes from the formularies and the early Church, not the Church of England itself.

In modern times, the Anglican Communion has added two more “Instruments of Communion” to the decennial Lambeth Conferences, namely the standing Anglican Consultative Council and the Primate’s Meetings. All three of these instruments work together to help provide a venue for dialogue and discussion, but unlike, for instance, the Roman Catholic Church, it is not the Archbishop of Canterbury that provides doctrinal leadership for all worldwide Anglicans, but in theory the inheritance of the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal and Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, along with Anglican catholicity, the Scriptures, the creeds and councils, the sacraments and the order of ministry.