At very short notice I have been given an opportunity to go on a conference for Missioners next week. Essentially, I will be subbing for Bishop Graham Cray (although I doubt if I have the qualifications to do that substitution any justice) on behalf of Fresh Expressions. It looks like it is going to be an interesting couple of days with some stimulating study and reflection and will hopefully give me a lot of fresh insight into enhancing both my missional practice and the shape of mission in a parish context. I believe that my work (in His mission) will also be able to be a useful feed into the discussions.
Oh, and it’s in France.
I have had to do some last minute unplugging to fit this in: a couple of cancelled or deferred meetings, the cancellation of next Friday’s Mass and the passing of a funeral over to a colleague, but nothing too serious. I am grateful to colleagues who have helped cover me. I hope that it will be a great opportunity to develop my missionary vision.
I am mindful of its location, as I have been a critic of our own deanery’s chapter meeting in France, which looks like a jolly to the outside world, even though I know it is not. Poor parishes like Elson can’t really afford to send their clergy to French monasteries. I also have a problem with our engagement with the monastic worship in French: my French is not good enough to really worship and so I spend the time there frustrated and confused. Thankfully this is an English conference in English with English worship: it’s no further away from Gosport than Manchester (although the Abbey of Mondaye is no further than Oxford from Gosport, I accept). The other key difference is that the place is already fully paid for, and it will cost our parish nothing; so I get ministerial development from a centrally funded position, and all is well. Praying that it will be a good conference.
The clip is from Episode 1.1 of Rev, which will be broadcast on Monday 28th June 2010
Lifted from the British Comedy Guide:
Rev is a contemporary sitcom about the enormous daily frustrations and moral conflicts of Reverend Adam Smallbone – a Church of England Vicar, newly promoted from a sleepy rural parish to the busy, inner-city world of St Saviour’s, in East London. It’s a world he has little experience of, and it shows – it really shows.
It is an impossibly difficult job being a good, modern, city vicar. And, equally, it’s a very hard job being married to one. Alex – Adam’s long-suffering wife – does her best to support him, but she’s got her own career as a solicitor to worry about. And she is no-one’s idea of a conventional vicar’s wife.
Anybody can, and does, come into St Saviour’s – and into Adam’s life – from scheming MPs trying to educate their children on the cheap to Colin, a heavy drinking, unemployable lost soul who is Adam’s most devoted parishioner.
Then there’s Mick, the local crackhead in need of £20 to visit his “dying mother” in Southend – she’s died three times in the last 12 months.
Every day throws up a moral conflict for the vicar. Adam’s door must always be open to urban sophisticates with ulterior motives, the chronically lonely, the lost, the homeless, the poor and the insane. All are welcome at St Saviour’s and Adam can’t turn any of them away – even if they’re clearly lying, mad or just very annoying.
In addition to caring for his flock, Adam has to worry about the financial burden of running a huge, decaying building – with a smashed stained glass window – and a dwindling congregation. He has to contend with hopeless volunteers, ambitious church rivals, the sinister attentions of the Archdeacon and the romantic attentions of Adoha, a renowned “cassock-chaser” and church regular. Even his supposedly supportive Lay Reader Nigel is a pedantic careerist who thinks he should be running the place himself.
Heavily researched and supported by anecdotes from a number of working city vicars and Church insiders, Rev lifts the lid on how the modern Church actually functions and what life is really like in a dog collar.
cobbled together from a number of different sources
In Romans 1:16-17, Paul sets out the key theme of his entire letter:
16I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
Keywords to consider:
Faith, according to St. Paul, is composed of several elements; it is the submission of the intellect to the word of God, the trusting abandonment of the believer to the Saviour Who promises him assistance; it is also an act of obedience by which man accepts the Divine will. Such an act has a moral value, for it “gives glory to God” (Romans 4:20) in the measure in which it recognizes its own helplessness. That is why “Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice” (Romans 4:3; Galatians 3:6). The spiritual children of Abraham are likewise “justified by faith, without the works of the law” (Romans 3:28; cf. Galatians 2:16). Hence it follows:
Protestants formerly asserted that the justice of Christ is imputed to us, but now they are generally agreed that this argument is unscriptural and lacks the guaranty of Paul; but some, loth to base justification on a good work (ergon), deny a moral value to faith and claim that justification is but a forensic judgment of God which alters absolutely nothing in the justified sinner. But this theory is untenable, for:
The text exhibits a certain degree of tension between Jewish and Gentile Christians, which given the context of the letter (55-56 AD) and the arguments between Jewish and Gentile converts, this section of the text has elements of this argument within it.
Sin is a reality which affects the whole world, both Jew and Gentile alike, we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), and it plays out in these ways. Paul then gives a boilerplate list of sins.
Scholars have argued whether Paul is using rhetorical devices (such as an interloceur to rehearse his arguments), or whether he is directly addressing a questioner(s)and the original letter is missing. This is in a style which might be technically referred to as diatribe (which has a different technical meaning to the rant which it often means in modern English), where he covers all his arguments.
Maybe we have to read Romans imagining a critical voice answering it: a Gentile Philosopher
Despite what many conservative churches might hold to be fundamental, what really exercises S. Paul was the sin of Idolatory
All of the other sins listed (in a somewhat rote or even ‘boilerplate’ fashion) are an outpouring of the fundamental turning away from God and the worshipping of idols. This is especially true of the apostate (those who turn against their faith, perhaps returning to Paganism) as seen in Romans 1:31
It is typical that these people are singled out for special criticism.
We have a high view of the bible – the Word of God nourishes all we think and do. Bible reading and study is one of the things that all Christians are called by God to take seriously.
We do not accept that biblical references to homosexual behaviour in scripture can be fairly applied to the kind of faithful, lifelong relationships we wish to defend. The Sodom story in Genesis concerns gang rape, not a loving, permanent partnership, and its primitive morality (for example, when Lot offers his daughters to be raped instead of the men) means we can hardly take the text as an ethical guide. Similarly, while Leviticus includes homosexuality in its list of ‘abominations’ we must also note that it condemns a number of activities (lending money for interest; shaving the beard; weaving two kinds of cloth together) which scarcely worry us today.
When Paul mentions homosexual behaviour in Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1, it is highly unlikely that he had in mind the concept of an equal same-sex partnership, but rather homosexual prostitution and pederasty, which were the most visible kind of homosexual practice in his own society. Also, it is clear from Romans 1.26 and 27 which mention men and women ‘exchanging’ homosexual sex, that Paul, like other Jewish and early Christian writers, believed homosexuality was a free and perverse choice, whereas we now understand that for most gay people there is no choice in the matter at all.
We find it ironic that most of our detractors quote these few, highly ambiguous passages at us, while finding reasons to ignore other much clearer and more numerous scriptural texts – against divorce and remarriage, for example, or against women holding positions of authority. Their highly selective brand of literalism shows clearly that their position is based on prejudice, not on any genuine concern for biblical authority.
From Is it just me or is everything shit? By Steve Lowe and Alan McArthur
Casting around for the one true path in life, Christians often ask” themselves: ‘WWJD?’ – ‘What would Jesus do?’ Apparently, he wouldn’t ‘make some stuff out of wood’ or ‘cure the sick’, but would he walk up and down the high street with a big placard reading ‘GOD HATES FAGS’.
The ‘Jesus as uptight, bigoted sociopath’ reading of the Bible is proving incredibly popular with the world’s rising band of evangelicals. Even the born-again movement’s pre-eminent marketing arm The Alpha Course (which has seen over 1.5 mil lion Brits pass through its doors) has raised heckles after Blairish founder Nicky Gumbel claimed the Bible ‘makes it clear’ that gays and lesbians need to be ‘healed’. ‘Although I strongly advise you not to say the word “healed” to them,’ he once warned. ‘They hate that word!’ Sound advice.
Normal people flicking through The Good Book will find anti-gay sentiments quite tricky to unearth. The New Testament’s supposed ‘No To Homos’ message basically boils down to Paul the Apostle’s comments in Romans 1: 26-27 on the sins of the Gentiles – ‘God gave them up unto shameful affections‘ – and depends on the translation of the mysterious Ancient Greek word ‘arsenokoites‘ (and I promise that’s actu ally true) which might mean ‘special gay friend’ or possibly ‘male temple prostitute’ or even ‘gigolo for rich women’. Now there’s a solid bedrock for bigotry if ever we saw one.
For others, though, the Bible is just one big old book about hating queers; they’re constantly finding startling new chap ters like when Jesus, after healing the sick and helping the poor, draws together his disciples and tells them how God’s vision embraces everyone – prostitutes, paupers, lepers, even tree-climbing tax inspectors … ‘.
On hearing this, his disciples pauseth for a moment and said unto him, What about the gays, Lord? Jesus flincheth and spat, Oh no, not the gays. I don’t like them, he ranteth. I don’t like their white vests or their love of gaudy music. And I have it on the highest author ity of a man down the tavern that there’s a gay mafia running the Roman Empire. A man with another man? No way! Anyway, the lepers …’
In fact, the Big Bad Son Of God never mentions bum sex or any other gay-related issue even once, not even mutual masturbation. It’s possible he planned on making his Big Speech Against The Gays right after Easter. We’ll never know.
The key passage from this section of Paul’s writing reads (in the King James Version):
Romans 1:26-27: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
As stated in 2 Peter 3:15-17, we have to be very careful when interpreting the writings of Paul. “As also in all his [Paul’s epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” (KJV)
As stated by Dr. R.S. Truluck,
“Paul’s writings have been taken out of context and twisted to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, pro choice people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, religious reformers, the mentally ill, and the list could go on and on. Paul is often difficult and confusing to understand. A lot of Paul’s writing is very difficult to translate. Since most of his letters were written in response to news from other people, reading Paul can be like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. We know, or think we know, what Paul is saying, but we have to guess what the other side has said.” 2
It is important to understand the precise meaning of certain key words in Verses 26 & 27, as expressed in the original Greek:
|About the words “vile affections:” The Greek phrase translated as “vile affections” in the King James Version of the Bible is also translated as:
In the original Greek, the phrase probably does not mean “passions” or “lust” as people experienced in normal, day-to-day living — the type of emotion that one encounters in a marriage or sexually active relationship. It seems to refer to the “frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music.” 2 It seems to describe the results of ritual sexual orgies as performed in many Pagan settings at the time. Paul seems to be referring here to Pagan “fertility cult worship prevalent in Rome” at the time. 4 Vestiges of this type of sex magic are still seen today in some Neopagan religious traditions. The Wiccan “Great Rite” is one example. However, in modern times, such rituals are restricted to committed couples in private.
|About the words “exchanged,” “leaving,” “change,” and “abandoned:” These words are important, because they precisely describe the people about whom Paul is talking. From the text, he is obviously writing about women with a heterosexual orientation, who had previously engaged in only heterosexual sex, who had “exchanged” their normal/inborn behaviours for same-sex activities. That is, they deviated from their heterosexual orientation and engaged in sexual behaviour with other women. Similarly, he describes men with a heterosexual orientation who had “abandoned” their normal/inborn behaviours and engaged in same-sex activities. In both cases, he is describing individuals with a heterosexual orientation, who were engaging in same-sex behaviour — in violation of their natural desires. In normal life, these are very unusual activities, because heterosexuals typically have a strong aversion to engaging in same-sex behaviour. However, with the peer pressure, expectations, drugs, alcohol and other stimulants present in Pagan sex rituals at the time, they appear to have abandoned their normal feelings of abhorrence and tried same-sex behaviour.|
|About the word “natural:” “The operative term in Paul’s original Greek is “phooskos”, meaning “inborn”, “produced by nature” , “agreeable to nature“. 1 This term, and the corresponding phrase “para physin” described below, are open to interpretation:
|About the word “against nature,” “unnatural,” etc: The Greek phrase “para physin” is commonly translated into the English as:
This does not seem to be an accurate translation. It may demonstrate prejudice on the part of the translators. “Unnatural” implies that the act is something that is to be morally condemned.
M. Nissinen defines “para physin” as “Deviating from the ordinary order either in a good or a bad sense, as something that goes beyond the ordinary realm of experience.” 3 The word “unconventional” would have been a more precise word for translators to use. The phrase “Para physin” appears elsewhere in the Bible:
|About the phrase “just reward:” Romans 1:27 refers to the idolaters receiving a recompense or penalty for “their error which was due.” (NKJ, ASV, etc). This appears to be a reference to the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) which was epidemic among such Pagan fertility cults at the time.|
It is important to analyze the preamble to the verses quoted above:
|Romans 1:7 says that Paul is writing his epistle “To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints...”: That is, his letter is written to all of the Christians in Rome. His recipients would be submerged in the Roman culture, where homosexual behaviour was both widespread and acceptable by society.|
|Romans 1 is concerned with “Paul’s vigorous denunciation of idolatrous religious worship and rituals.” 2 This is not often mentioned today. Rather, verses 26 and 27 are broken out of the longer passage and cited by themselves to condemn same-sex behaviour.|
Verses 21 to 28 include the following topics:
|Verses 21-23: The people had once been Christians. But they had fallen away from the faith, and returned to Paganism. They made images of Pagan gods in the form of men, birds, animals and reptiles for their religious rituals. The latter were probably held in Pagan temples.|
|Verse 24: Next, they engaged in heterosexual orgies with each other as part of these pagan fertility rituals.|
|Verse 25: Next, they worshipped the images that they had made, instead of God, the creator. Paul is specifically condemning idol worship here.|
|Verse 26: Because of these forbidden practices, God intervened in these fertility sex-rituals and changed the people’s behaviour so that women started to engage in sexual activities with other women.|
|Verse 27: describes how God had the men also engage in same-sex ritual activities. They (presumably both the men and women) were then punished in some way for their error.|
|Verse 28: Again, because they did not acknowledge God, then He “gave them up” to many different unethical activities and attitudes: evil, covetousness, malice, envy, murder, etc.|
As in virtually all other “hot” religious topics, religious conservatives and liberals take opposite views on this and the other “clobber” passages (1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10) in the Bible that are often regarded as referring to homosexuality:
|Conservative view: The assertion of Bennett Sims, the former Episcopal bishop of Atlanta, is a good example of a viewpoint that is held by many conservative Christians. He believes that these verses have done more to form Christians’ negative opinion of homosexuality than any other single passage in the Bible. He writes: “For most of us who seriously honor Scripture these verses still stand as the capital New Testament text that unequivocally prohibits homosexual behaviour. More prohibitively, this text has been taken to mean that even a same-sex inclination is reprehensible, so that a type of humanity known as ‘homosexual’ has steadily become the object of contempt and discrimination.” 1|
|Views by others: Many religious liberals, secularists, homosexuals, and others view this passage as an attack on heterosexual persons who were formerly Christians, who reverted to Paganism, and who engaged in ritual sexual behaviour as a part of their newly adopted Pagan services. During these rituals, the Pagans were whipped into such a state of sexual frenzy that they went against their heterosexual nature and started engaging in sexual behaviour with members of the same sex. Paul condemns such behaviour. He concludes that Pagan worship will inevitably leads to other negative behaviour: “…unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, [and unmerciful.”
The beliefs that persons of other religions are all morally corrupt and that followers of one’s own religion behave on a much higher moral plane was common in Paul’s time. The same assertions have been made throughout history. Yet, modern-day studies indicate that followers of no one religion have a monopoly on good behaviour. No group of religions exhibits consistently immoral behaviour among their followers.
The passage deals with immoral behaviour among heterosexuals who have converted from Christianity to Paganism and engaged in behaviour which is against their nature. There is no real connection between:
Having lived in a pre-scientific era, Paul would not have had access to the research in human sexuality which started in the late 19th century and which only became widespread in the latter half of the 20th century. He would have been unaware of the concept of sexual orientation.
Professor Attridge of Yale University said “asking what Paul thought about sexuality is like asking what he thought of evolution – it just wasn;t on his agenda”
|J. Nelson: “Paul didn’t write it as a condemnation of homosexuality, but as a criticism of Greek behaviour in temple worship. Greeks often incorporated sexual behaviour in temple worship.” 1|
|D. Bartlett: “This is the tough one. I think one doesn’t get around this. It’s the only place in the New Testament where there’s any extensive discussion of homosexual relations. In Romans, there’s no question that Paul thinks certain kinds of homosexual behaviour are a result of the idolatry of the pagan world.” 1|
Human sexuality researchers and others who have studied the nature of sexual orientation might reject Paul’s belief that homosexuality is beyond the normal. Many religious liberals reject Paul’s condemnation of homosexual behaviour, particularly when Paul’s support for the oppression of women, and his acceptance of slavery as a normal social practice in (Philemon 1:15 to 16) are considered. They might feel that this passage in 1 Romans should be rejected as immoral and outside the will of God, much as other biblical passages are immoral by today’s ethical standards and should be ignored — including those passages that regulated human slavery, required some hookers to be burned alive, advocated genocide, required victims of rape to marry their rapist, recognized the torture of prisoners, and required the execution of non-virgin brides
Rowan Williams, the spiritual leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion talked to theology students at the University of Toronto in Canada in April 2007. He discussed the use that conservative Christians have made of biblical passages to condemn homosexuality. He concentrated on Romans 1. He said that this passage was intended to warn Christians to not be self-righteous when they see others fall into sin. He said:
“Many current ways of reading miss the actual direction of the passage. Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding. [These lines are for the majority of modern readers the most important single text in Scripture on the subject of homosexuality.”
However, right after that passage, Paul warns readers not to condemn others:
Romans 2:1: “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.” (King James Version)
Or as Williams rendered the passage:
“At whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself.”
Williams said that Romans 1 favours neither side in the debate over equal treatment of gays and lesbians in the Anglican Communion:
|It would not help liberals because it states that homosexual behaviour was “as obviously immoral as idol worship or disobedience to parents.“|
|It would not help conservatives, who have been “up to this point happily identifying with Paul’s castigation of someone else,” and challenge them to ask whether they were right to judge others.|
He concluded: “This does nothing to settle the exegetical questions fiercely debated at the moment”in the Anglican Communion. 9
The complete passage describes how a group of Christians left the church, converted to Paganism, and engaged in orgiastic, presumably heterosexual sexual activities. This type of behaviour was common among Pagan fertility religions in Rome during Paul’s time. Paul writes that, later, God “gave them over” to something new: homosexual behaviour. This implies that they had a heterosexual orientation and had engaged only in heterosexual sex throughout their lifetime. God influenced them in some way to engage in homosexual orgies. This was, for them, an unnatural, and thus sinful, activity.
Paul criticized them because they were engaged in sexual activity which was unnatural for them. For a person with a heterosexual orientation, homosexual behaviour is “shameful,” “unnatural,” “indecent,” and a “perversion.” The passage in Romans is not a condemnation of homosexual behaviour. Rather, it disapproves of sexual behaviour that is against a person’s basic nature (i.e. homosexual behaviours by people whose orientation is heterosexual). 2
For the vast majority of adults, those who are heterosexual, it is indecent for them to engage in homosexual activities. One can interpret Paul’s writing as stating that, for the small minority of humans who are homosexual, it would be indecent for them to engage in heterosexual activities.
As C. Ann Shepherd writes: “When the scripture is understood correctly, it seems to imply that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals.” 3
Bruce Hahne writes, in point form:
|“Verses 26-27 exploit Jewish cultural prejudices.|
|Good rhetorical strategy: begin with assumptions of audience, build on them to make your point.|
|So Romans 1:26-27 speaks only of heterosexual people who act ‘contrary to their nature.’|
|The text provides neither ethical nor behavioural guidance to lesbian, bay or bisexual people.” 4|
Some question whether the word “perversion” in Verse 27, and “such things” in Verse 30 are related to only certain types of gay and lesbian behaviour. e.g.:
|Homosexual orgies, or|
|Group same-gender sexual practices in a religious setting. This was a common practice among Pagans at the time; e.g. in the temples dedicated to the Goddess Aphrodite.|
|Casual homosexual activities outside of a committed, monogamous two person relationship, or|
|Homosexual molestation between a man and a child. In Paul’s day, the child victim was often a slave.|
These probably were the only forms of same-sex activity that Paul was familiar with. Paul may well have not been thinking of gays and lesbians in committed relationships when he wrote this passage. He never referred to such couples in his writings, and probably never encountered any during his lifetime. He might simply have been condemning homosexual orgies and other sexual activities outside of a monogamous same-sex relationship.
What is your reaction to sin?
Do you think of yourself as inherently good
Or inherently sinful
Indeed, does an awareness of sin have any impact on your life or your faith?
Has society lost sight of sin?
How might this position be changed and/or challenged?
Is sin personal or collective?
What do you think about Reconciliation? (as an act or as a Sacrament)
Is there hope?
In the name of the +Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen
“Who do you say I am?”
Is one of the crucial questions… Not just of that age, but of today.
“Who do you say I am?”
Messiah? Son of God? Teacher? Good man? Charlatan? Blasphemer? Threat?
“Who do you say I am?”
…this is not a question for theologians, for priests, for the great and the good. This is a question aimed at you.
And you. And you. To each and everyone of us, personally, we are called to address this crucial question.
“Who do you say I am?”
Jesus will not accept agnosticism. He confronts you with the reality of his presence in your midst. He challenges you with a radical reworking of all that you have previously accepted as the norm, for the Gospel is challenging, transformative, unconventional.
“Who do you say I am?”
You are called to respond, and there is no time for cleverness or theological reflection; for the call to follow him, to be like him, to embrace him and through him to embrace the divine is all wrapped up in this simple, direct and ultimately challenging statement.
“Who do you say I am?”
It’s never going to be an easy ride: there will be suffering, there will be hardship, there will be normal slices of everyday life, with all its ups and downs. Jesus didn’t promise that if you embraced him, all of your problems would be over. But he did promise that he would share them, share the burden of them with you.
You still have a cross to bear, just as He had a cross to bear on his journey towards Calvary. There is no such thing as a quick fix in life: no one single prayer will work like a magic wand: your salvation journey is one that will take a lifetime.
“Who do you say I am?”
If Jesus was not who Peter said he was, would that burden have been worth it? Would Good Friday not have been a waste? The power of the Resurrection is that it is the vindication of all that has been suspected about Jesus: that he truly is He who had been long hoped for. The power of the Resurrection not only transforms the lives of the Disciples, but continues to transform us: to challenge us, to enervate us in our daily burdensome, weary journeys of life.
“Who do you say I am?”
Peter could only answer for himself. Just as you can only answer for yourself. Nothing I can say or do here can really influence you as you consider your relationship with Him. It is up to you.
“Who do you say I am?”
Your response is based upon your relationship with Christ.
“Who do you say I am?”
It is a relationship that he wants to have with you. It is not based upon tradition, habit, fear or bullying. Your call. Your choice.
“Who do you say I am?”
You are the Christ of God….
…Nothing more need be said.
You are the Christ of God.
Guest Preacher: My Training Incumbent – Canon Michael Lewis SSC, Vicar of Holy Spirit, Southsea and Area Dean of Portsmouth. It’ll be lovely, come on.
I have also been playing with some image swapping code on the website, it still needs a bit of polish to look better, and the resizing isn’t perfect, but it brings to sight some of the lovely recent photographs we have had.
Brilliant weather, complete engagement across the Community – a lot of fun and a serious amount of crabs!
Originally designed for solo use with MP3 Players, this is now a ritual and stations type of meditation, abandoning the original tents of Meeting (sort of Tracy Emin meets the Tabernacle) for separate stations. This has meant that some of the audio meditations now have video for them.
Here they are:
Track 2: Love &Self Control
Track 4: Joy and Peace
Track 8: Kindness & Goodness
The whole audio can be obtained here on www.agnusdei.org.uk
Please come along and see us in North East London if you can…
In the name of the +Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen
At Theological College we were always taught that the best sermons consisted of three key points; and so on one Feast of Corpus Christi, a young, dashing ordinand stood up to preach what was arguably the most comprehensive and theologically profound three point sermon ever given.
…and this is what I said:
And then sat down, earning the eternal gratitude of the entire congregation. You don’t need 45 minutes of preaching and endless bible allusions, modern-day anecdotes or recordings of Jazz classics to make the point.
On this feast day, of all days, when we come to encounter Jesus Christ in the most Holy Sacrament of the altar, we see revealed in the hands of the priest these simple, yet profound truths which speak not only to our own personal faith journeys and our own struggles to become more Christ-like, but which speak of the very purpose of the whole world: to respond to the living God in whom we have our being.
Our alternative community, Blesséd speaks of the whole world as sacrament, as having been marked by the fingerprints of God, and yet there are times and places, rituals and objects where the barrier between the sacred and the created appears very thin indeed: where the presence of God in our midst, in almost indescribable ways is palpably real: on a deserted beach in the South West, knelt in the Holy House at Walsingham, at the end of a decade of the Rosary and, perhaps most commonly, when bread and wine are transformed into the Blessed Body and Precious Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Reformation, that period of political and theological upheaval, that schism in Western Christendom in the 16th Century did away with many of the excesses of a Church which had lost sight of the Gospel that drove it and had retreated into the pursuit of power rather than the proclamation of love. But in doing that, it casually discarded much that enriched the faith and which we have spent the last 500 years in England slowly regaining: the sensuous, the metaphysical, the recognition of a corporate faith over an individualistic one and most of all in the Anglican Tradition, the rightful place of the Sacramental Life at the heart of the Reformed, yet Catholic Tradition that characterises true Anglicanism, and which if we actually allow ourselves to recognise it, has never actually gone away.
We return, as we celebrate this feast, to the simple recognition of Jesus Christ revealed in broken bread and wine outpoured; but not simply to remember what he did a couple of thousand years ago, but to do what he commanded us to do at the Last Supper and to bring him into our present.
Once again, English proves itself to be an inadequate language for the utterances of God: when Jesus says “Do this in remembrance of me”, he uses the word anamnesis – which is much more complex a word than simply remember – it is connected to the Hellenistic concept of bringing the past into the present, and so when he says “This is my body” “This is my blood”, we should take him on face value.
After all, we never have a problem with any of his other sayings do we? We don’t decry his use of the title “Son of Man” or deny his messiahship, his divinity? And yet, those who claim to hold most to biblical inerrancy will gladly disavow the very words of Christ:
“Take this all of you and drink from it. This is my blood of the new covenant which will be shed for you and the forgiveness of sins. Do this in anamnesis of me”.
Although you might not be able to clearly see it, at the back of this very church, painted on tin panels are those words of institution, those words of Christ and which now they are exposed are a daily reminder of the sacramental, the Anglo-Catholic tradition which is the heritage of this Church here in Elson.
On this holy altar, the most amazing transformation takes place: the ordinary things of bread and wine become transformed into the most divine; ordinary people like you and I are transformed by our encounter with that transformation, and we ordinary people become extraordinary.
St. Francis of Assisi, Deacon of the Church meditated on the sacrament in these words:
Let everyone be struck with fear, the whole world tremble,
and the heavens exult when Christ, the Son of the living God,
is present on the altar in the hands of a priest!
O wonderful loftiness and stupendous dignity!
O sublime humility! O humble sublimity!
The Lord of the universe, God and the Son of God,
so humbles Himself that He hides Himself for our salvation
under an ordinary piece of bread!
See the humility of God, dear friends, and pour out your hearts before Him!
Humble yourselves that you may be exalted by Him!
Hold back nothing of yourselves for yourselves, that He Who gives Himself totally to you may receive you totally!
“He hides Himself for our salvation under an ordinary piece of bread!” – what power is hidden between the molecules of this bread and this wine! Outwardly, there is no change, and yet we sense as we draw near with faith, that the power of this sacrament has the power to transform. For just like the wind blowing on the trees, we witness the power of the wind without seeing the wind itself; so we also see the work of the Spirit on the people who receive the sacrament without being able to see explicitly the God whose fingerprints are behind it.
The celebration of the Mass is the most profound outpouring of our theology: a declaration of the divinity of Christ, and his emergence in the world, born of the blessed Virgin; as we see the Emmaus Christ revealed in our midst, we are transformed, just as countless generations of the faithful have been transformed.
Dom Gregory Dix, an Anglican Monk and eminent liturgist of the last century wrote so vividly:
“Was ever a command so obeyed? For century after century, spreading slowly to every continent and country and among every race on earth, this action has been done, in every conceivable circumstance, for every conceivable human need from infancy and before it to extreme old age and after it, from the pinnacles of human greatness to the refuge of fugitives in the caves and dens of the earth.
Men have found no better thing than this to do for kings at their crowning and for criminals going to the scaffold; for armies in triumph or for a bride and bridegroom in a little country church; for the proclamation of a dogma or for a good crop of wheat; for the wisdom of the Parliament of a mighty nation or for a sick old woman afraid to die; for a schoolboy sitting an examination or for Columbus setting out to discover America; for the famine of whole provinces or for the soul of a dead lover; in thankfulness because my father did not die of pneumonia; for a village headman much tempted to return to fetish because the yams had failed; because the Turk was at the gates of Vienna; for the repentance of Margaret; for the settlement of a strike; for a son for a barren woman; for Captain so-and-so, wounded and prisoner-of-war; while the lions roared in the nearby amphitheatre; on the beach at Dunkirk; while the hiss of scythes in the thick June grass came faintly through the windows of the church; tremulously, by an old monk on the fiftieth anniversary of his vows; furtively, by an exiled bishop who had hewn timber all day in a prison camp near Murmansk; gorgeously, for the canonisation of S. Joan of Arc
One could fill many pages with the reasons why men have done this, and not tell a hundredth part of them. And best of all, week by week and month by month, on a hundred thousand successive Sundays, faithfully, unfailingly, across all the parishes of christendom, the priests have done this just to make the plebs sancta Dei — the holy common people of God.”
Was ever a command so obeyed? Never! And so it is with faith and joy that we come and gather around this holy altar: priests and people, God and lovers-of-God, the poor, the marginalised, the great and the weak, the wealthy and the ill, the addicted and the unsure. We come to obey his command, and be fed by the life-giving sacraments.
Jesus is God.
Mary is his Mother, and he is therefore man.
Go. To. Mass.