felix hominum

with a good translation, who needs Greek & Hebrew?

I have to confess that one of my goals in taking Introduction to NT Greek during my course of studies at seminary was rather low.  At the time I was also involved in a doctoral level seminar on Hellenistic Greek.  I had done a number of years of Greek through my previous programs in Classics.  However, the seminary also offered a convocation prize for the student with the highest mark in NT Greek.  Meh, so maybe the competition was fixed, but I won the prize...

Tyler over at Codex has posted a few brief thoughts on the state of language study, in a post entitled Raising the Language Bar for Seminary Studies (follow his links for some very good articles).

The sad reality is that even those seminarians who take biblical languages end up not using them — obviously with some exceptions — and if you don’t use it, you lose it. There are probably many different reasons for this state of affairs. Most seminaries appear to have lower academic standards than in the past and minimal language training. There is also a fear of language learning among seminarians. I don’t know how many times I have heard students worrying about taking Greek or Hebrew. Perhaps the biggest problem is that many consider it irrelevant — and if you look at what is considered acceptable preaching in many churches today then a psychology degree is probably more relevant than any language training!

When I take folks on pilgrimages throughout the Holy Land, my knowledge of Arabic has been an invaluable tool.  With a knowledge of the language I can have an experience of the people, the culture, the landscape, which I believe is deeper than that of those who do not speak the language.  I can translate for the group.  I believe it is the same with biblical languages:  with a knowledge of the languages we can have a richer and deeper understanding and experience of the people, the culture, the landscape of the Scriptures.

should Jews build the Third Temple?

Traditionally the Temple Mount Faithful attempt to set up a foundation stone for the Third Temple on Tisha Be'av, and the police routinely prevent them from doing so. The occasion for this street theater is the anniversary of the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE and that of the Second Temple in 70 CE, both said to have occurred on the same calendar date.

It is certainly right that the date be commemorated; but would rebuilding the Temple be an appropriate act for the State of Israel today?

Assuming there were no Dome of the Rock and no Muslim presence on the Temple Mount, no Wakf and no Aksa Mosque, the pressure to rebuild the Temple would be enormous - but would it, in historical terms, be sound?

An interesting story from the Jerusalem Post. 

CBC Facebook Wish List & the Anglican position on abortion

CBC recently ran a rather unscientific poll through Facebook.  It was billed as the Great Canadian Wish List, asking Canadians to vote for their number one wish for the nation.  The variety of wishes is quite interesting, have a look at the top vote-getters.

Surprisingly (to me at least), the wish list poll turned into a bit of a contest between opposing sides on the [insert favourite term here] abortion issue.  Perhaps that has to do with the extent of networking in which those "groups" engage - making them prime for a facebook setting. 

From what I can tell, it has been almost 20 years since the the Anglican Church of Canada issued statements on the question of abortion. 

Friday November 3, 1989

12:00 noon

ANGLICAN CHURCH AFFIRMS ITS POSITION ON ABORTION

In the light of the Government's announcement of a new Abortion Bill, the Anglican Church reaffirms its position that both the rights and needs of women, and the rights and needs of the unborn, require protection.

The Church welcomes a non-gestational approach. This accords with the Church's opposition to any arbitrary division which would make early abortion available on demand. The Church's fundamental position is that "abortion is always the taking of a human life and, in our view, should never be done except for serious therapeutic reasons." However, the Church's Abortion Report affirms that:

*an upper limit should be established at which "there is no reasonable prospect of viability";
*there should be a waiting period during which time counselling to women should be made available;
*other alternatives to abortion explored including "social and financial supports to meet the needs of the woman, in housing accommodation, child care, employment, retraining, welfare benefits, and income support, as well as consideration of adoption of the baby expected."

The Church further affirms that there should be a conscience clause, so that "the conscientious right of health care personnel to refrain from participating in abortion procedures be guaranteed."
The Church also is "opposed in principle" to "anticipate genetic defect in the foetus as automatic grounds for abortion," because as Christians we are "called to be the voice of the voiceless and powerless (and) must speak out when those different from or less able than the norm are to be denied the full rights accorded their fellow humans."

The Church's Abortion Report also recommends legislation to "ban commercial transactions in human genetic material;" or any possibility of deliberate abortion for purposes of "foetal cell farming" for human transplants, and welcomes the recent announcement of a Royal Commission on reproductive techniques "as a vehicle to examine these concerns and develop legislative measures."

The Anglican Church sees abortion as a public justice issue, challenging Canadians to build a society that affirms human life, which values children and welcomes a new generation, and which provides legal and social protection for women caught in the trauma of problem pregnancies. Such extensive social legislation, to reduce conditions which make the choice of abortion more likely, would include:

*programs and education to combat violence against women
  more affordable housing
*pay equity for women
*a guaranteed annual income, and other financial measures
*universally accessible, publicly funded day care
*an intensified national program to collect child support payments from delinquent fathers
*better educational programs about sexuality and contraception in schools

The Church does not see abortion as simply a "women's issue" but rather a community issue, which takes place on the battleground of women's bodies. Concerned that women are frequently forced to choose between marginalization and poverty or abortion, the Church believes that in many circumstances women are not "free" to choose to bear their children and so, because society fails to provide supportive structures, "abortion has become a means of 'restructuring the woman' by emptying the womb." Many Canadian women who choose not to bear their child make their decision out of alienation and hopelessness. "True choice must involve alternatives to despair" the Report concludes.

With the advent of more prevalent genetic screening, and ensuing abortions based on genetics, groups like the Canadian Down Syndrome Society have been wary of some of the directions our society is taking.

Somewhere in the back of my mind I have a question about whether or not our church is really interested in being "inclusive".  Some people don't get to be blessed.

Some people don't get to be born.

a letter from John Hodgins & the unity of Eucharist

A Letter to the Canadian House of Bishops

In response to A Statement from the House of Bishops to the Members of General Synod (2007) and the request: “We call upon every member of the Anglican Church of Canada to continue in their faithful discipleship and the work of theological and scriptural reflection and dialogue.”

Feast of Saint Peter and Saint Paul,

June 29, A.D. 2007

“For you are Christ’s and Christ is God’s.”

1 Corinthians 3: 18-24

(Proper 2: Saint Peter and Saint Paul the Apostles )

Dear Friends in Christ,

In the recent Statement from the House of Bishops to General Synod regarding the issue of blessing the relationships of those who share in the sacramental life of Baptism and Eucharist there is an expression of pastoral concern but, unfortunately, there is also a threat to the unique blessing which the Holy Eucharist is for the unity of the Body of Christ.

Anglicans agree that the Holy Eucharist is the sacramental source and summit of our participation, during this earthly journey, in the life of the one eternal Christ Jesus who is the Word of God and God’s singular blessing upon humanity.

All baptized Christians are called to and welcomed at the Table of the Lord. In this great privilege we come as those who repent of our sins and seek the grace of God in our lives. Christ is the Sacrament of God and so, in the Eucharistic celebration of the Sacrament we express our unity with the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church throughout the world (Solemn Declaration, 1893).

To suggest that in the celebration of relationships between individuals there is an additional blessing to be given or withheld apart from, or over and above the Sacrament of Unity is, I respectfully submit, to derogate from and potentially undermine what is the central act of Christian worship and blessing: the Holy Eucharist.

With respect to the solemnization of marriage, it is the development of Eucharistic doctrine which has given definition to the Celebration and Blessing of Marriage as we now have it. There has always and everywhere been, in the Church, a clear understanding that those who are in a state of grace (having received absolution from God through the confession of sin) are blessed in, by and through the Holy Communion which God shares with us in the one Person of Christ and which we share with one another as members of Christ’s one body.

All relationships, friendships and indeed Holy Marriage find their fullest meaning and blessing, for Christians, in this Holy Communion which is a celebration and renewal of the grace of Baptism. The dominical sacraments of the Gospel, Baptism and Eucharist (Article XXV), constitute the fullness of sacramental blessing which is shared by all those in communion with Christ. Holy Communion for the baptized presupposes that the states of life of those participating are sanctified, affirmed and blessed by God. Nothing liturgically could or should be added without detracting from the unity of these sacraments which convey the life of Christ who in his person is the unique Sacrament of God’s blessing for all humanity.

The instruction to celebrate relationships in the context of the Holy Eucharist, while at the same time withholding the blessing of the Church upon such relationships, is both paradoxical and contradictory. Such celebrations would lead to confusion and leave liturgical acts widely open to misinterpretation.

The celebration of the Eucharist by the baptized community is the greatest sacramental blessing of the Church united, as it is, with the other great Gospel sacrament, Baptism. This teaching is made clear in the Anglican tradition (Article XXV). Withholding a formal pronouncement of blessing while at the same time celebrating eucharistically a relationship within the Christian Church sends mixed messages and denigrates the Sacrament by suggesting that there is another blessing to be had which is somehow disconnected from the Sacrament of Unity, the Holy Eucharist.

In the early Church it is attested that men and women seeking to marry one another would first declare themselves to the social community and then come to share in the celebration of the Eucharist (Notes on Marriage in the Early Church, Robert Berringer). Their participation in Holy Communion was considered to be an expression of and sharing in the single blessing which is the life of Christ in the Church, his body, given for the life of the world. Any blessing pronounced by a bishop or priest is always understood to be an extension or articulation of the single blessing which is Christ, who is one with us in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

In time, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and over centuries, the official role of solemnization and recording of vows was assumed by the Church in many places. The Celebration of Marriage was instituted as “a public service of the Church” (BAS p. 526). For the first half of Christian history, however, many contend that the only blessing of Christian marriage and other relationships of professing Christians (holy orders, religious life, etc) was in the context of the Mass.

For good reason, only those committed to Christ in faith would celebrate their professions or states of life at the Eucharist with the clear understanding that only that which was inherently blessed by God and in conformity with sacred Scripture and tradition was to be celebrated in the Sacrament of Unity. Christ is the Sacrament of God. In the Holy Eucharist we share communion in Christ’s life and blessing. This is the single and unified source of liturgical blessing in the Christian community. No blessing may be added which is not inherently present within the dominical Sacrament of the Eucharist.

The suggestion that a further blessing may be added or withheld from those in a civil union or other relationship, apart from the blessing that is inherent in the Holy Eucharist, is to confuse the issue and to detract from Christ’s unique blessing. To presume that a bishop or priest might somehow add to the Sacrament or withhold pronouncing God’s blessing upon any person, state or relationship beyond what is celebrated in the Eucharist is to suggest a development of doctrine which is not within the jurisdiction of any single body of Christians.

As John W.B. Hill has pointed out in his essay, A Theology of Blessing and Liturgies of Blessing, “The mere pronouncement of a blessing can be seriously misunderstood if we forget that we are a eucharistic people. Blessing is not a power we wield but a gift we celebrate.” To be theologically consistent, then, the blessing of God celebrated in the context of the Holy Eucharist is complete. No other blessing may be added or withheld.

In summary: Provision for a celebration of relationships which presumes or indicates that the Holy Eucharist is lacking in some way and so may allow for or require a further blessing by a priest or bishop is fundamentally contrary to the received teaching of the Church. Such a provision inherently undermines the doctrine of the Church with regard to Sacrament. The concept of ‘blessing’ as set apart from or in addition to the expression of God’s love and friendship in the Holy Eucharist contradicts the nature of the Sacrament.

The notion of an additional blessing pronounced or withheld apart from the Eucharist celebrating a relationship is not in conformity with the formularies of the Church. For example, the BCP and BAS both allow for the celebration and blessing of a marriage outside of the Eucharist but the BAS rubric clearly states that “Where both bride and bridegroom are entitled to receive communion, it is desirable that the form of service in which the marriage rite is incorporated in the celebration of the eucharist be used.” (BAS p. 527). There is no provision, however, for the celebration of the Marriage Eucharist which precludes the blessing of the relationship because blessing is inherent within the Eucharist. To sever or undermine the unity of Eucharist and blessing contradicts the very nature of the Eucharist which is the fullest expression of God’s blessing.

In fact, Eucharistic celebrations of the sort proposed in the Statement would easily be misunderstood as attempting to do indirectly what has not been approved. At the same time, withholding a blessing, would indicate that such an extraordinary blessing (outside of the Eucharistic celebration) is in some way superior to, or in addition to the singular blessing of God in Christ which is celebrated most completely in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

For these reasons I respectfully request that the instructions for the celebration of the Eucharist for civil unions or other relationships in the Statement to General Synod (2007) be withdrawn.

John L. Hodgins

Chatham , Ontario

N.T. Wright: "Simply Lewis"

you can understand falsehood from the standpoint of truth but not the other way around, just as someone who knows light can understand darkness but not vice versa

From NT Wright's essay "Simply Lewis":  reflections on a master apologist after 60 years.

My Oxford tutors looked down their noses if you so much as mentioned him in a tutorial. This was, we may suppose, mere jealousy: He sold and they didn’t. It may also have been the frustration of the professional who, busy about his footnotes, sees the amateur effortlessly sailing past to the winning post.

A very interesting essay posted over at Touchstone.  NT Wright reflects on "Mere Christianity"

Lewis himself would have been the first to say that of course his book was neither perfect nor complete, and that what mattered was that, if it brought people into the company, and under the influence (or “infection”) of Jesus Christ, Jesus himself would happily take over—indeed, that Jesus had been operating through the process all along, albeit through the imperfect medium of the apologist.

And, as another imperfect apologist, I salute a great master, and can only hope that in sixty years’ time children yet unborn will say of me that, despite all my obvious and embarrassing failings, I too was used, in however small a way, to bring people under the influence and power, and to the love and kingdom, of the same Jesus Christ

There's a discussion of the article at Treaders.

Reflections on Conflict & Core Doctrine motion

What we have before us now is that we declare something to be not in conflict with core doctrine.

The important question to ask is whether it is in conflict with Secondary Doctrine, that is, doctrines which give shape to the particular form of discipleship known as Anglican Spirituality.  In my work on a large university in Campus ministry, I worked alongside and with several faith groups and at least 9 different Christian denominations on a regular basis; I also worked with students from a number of what are called “independent” and non denominational churches.  In our various Christian gatherings we could all agree on saying a creed together – that is one way we are united in Christ. 

Baptismal doctrine has been raised at this synod several times.  Yet I could not agree with the Baptists about the secondary doctrine of baptism.  I could not agree with my roman catholic friends about the nature of certain of their doctrines.

And in eucharistic fellowship, there is a limit within our Anglican variety which distinguishes the celebration at the Eucharistic table from, in some significant sense, the meal of saltines and grape juice which may or may not have words of institution accompanying it.

Within our Anglican tradition there are varieties, but within certain boundaries and parameters which distinguish us and our particular vocation as a church from our sisters and brothers who share with us core doctrine, but who are from other , or non – denominational churches.

It is precisely our vocation which calls us to be thoughtful in these secondary doctrines - this is the thrust of the St Michael Report.  And it is those secondary doctrines which are important as we discuss SSB's.  Otherwise, in the name of unity we might as well join up with the biggest show in town with which we can say the creed.  Or alternatively collapse into a thousand islands of interpretation.

This church has not done the work of testing the ecosystem of secondary doctrine – we have not as a church discovered where the pulling of the circle in this new direction would leave us with an ellipse.

"Orthodoxy is transformative" - Archbishop Sentamu to General Synod

UPDATE:  the full text is here.

A bit from this morning's address:

The word orthodoxy, from Greek, means teaching what is right and true; and in Christian tradition, this leads to glorification - 'being changed from glory to glory' - orthodoxy is transformative.

That is why I am persuaded that our sexual affections can no more define who we are than our tribe, ethnicity or nationality.  At the deepest ontological level, therefore, there is no such thing as 'a homosexual' or 'a heterosexual, or a 'bisexual;  there are human beings, male and female, called to redeemed humanity in Christ, endowed with a complex variety of emotional potentialities and threatened by a complex variety of forms of alienation.  In Christ - and in him alone - we know both God and human nature as they truly are;  and so in Christ alone we know ourselves as we truly are.  There can be no description of human reality, in general or in particular, outside the reality in Christ.

...Jesus was telling his disciples that if you want to meet God face to face, the nearest you are going to come to it on this planet is to look into the faces of your brothers and sisters - and especially your sisters and brothers who have been declared unrighteous, unclean, unacceptable.
It isn't that we find God there, it's that God finds us there.  [orig emphasis]

from the text of the address of Archbishop John Sentamu to the session of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada
June 20Dr. John

I have a hard copy of Sentamu's address in my hands.  If I run across a scanner or an online version, I'll let y'all know.

Robert Gagnon: A Reply (or 2) to Dr. John Thorp on Same Sex Blessings

A paper entitled "Making the Case: The blessing of same sex unions in the Anglican Church of Canada" was published by Dr. John Thorp recently and distributed to General Synod delegates.  You can download a pdf of the paper  here.

Robert Gagnon has published a reply to Dr. Thorp, "Case Not Made:  A Response to Prof. John Thorp's 'Making the Case' for Blessing Homosexual Unions in the Anglican Church of Canada".  The pdf is here.

In addition there are these thoughts:

About a month before General Synod all Synod delegates received in the mail a copy of John Thorp’s Paper, Making the Case, the Blessing of Same-Sex Unions in the Anglican Church of Canada. There was no covering letter, no indication of who was distributing this and why, no explanation of how the complete mailing list was obtained, etc.  Nevertheless it is a superb discussion paper. It would have done so much good to distribution this paper a full year before General Synod, to allow a thoughtful exploration of the issues it raises. At any rate, here are a few comments that immediately were made in a discussion group around the Thorp article. This discussion group included folk on both sides of the issue. The point is not to argue for or against – but to consider Thorp’s arguments – has he really ‘Made the Case’ in a convincing way? Perhaps GS delegates will find the following comments helpful? You will quickly see that these notes are scattered and not properly ordered (embarrassingly so such that we do not our names to be attached to these notes!) – some are incomplete thoughts and bare suggestions. But the bizarre and unfortunate manner of distribution of John Thorp’s paper to all GS delegates suggests that some response – inadequate and last minute as may be, is required...

•    The centre of Thorp's argument is that both sexual difference and sexual orientation are morally neutral. This might well be true, but it what needs to be shown, not assumed. He does not actually demonstrate this but merely provides a history with this view as the contemporary result.

•    Thorp’s paper is misleading because it avoids talk of same-sex marriage as the only legitimate Anglican form, at least in Canada, where the legal apparatus is in place to allow this. Thorp does mention in a footnote that the blessing of same sex unions in Canada makes sense to apply to those who are civilly married, but the paper itself exclusively speaks of ‘unions’. Thorp’s motive seems to be political: a) because it will be more problematic for some and b) it would require the "slow" process to actually institute it and Thorp is convinced of the need to recognize gay and lesbian relations now, even if inadequately. Everyone is impatient for this question to be settled. But it must be done with integrity...  [click for more:]

Theologians' letter to Canadian General Synod delegates

You can see a copy of the letter, dated Pentecost 2007, here.

Commentary will follow later;  as it stands, I don't want spending time on such issues as this to take away from my real ministry in the church.  You know, like photocopying bulletins or making sure there's toilet paper, or something like that...

Update:  it seems to me to be a well written and well reasoned document.

Here's the text for your perusal:

Pentecost 2007

Dear General Synod Delegates,

We are a group of academic theologians serving in parishes or theological institutions who are committed to the welfare of the Anglican Church of Canada, and we are writing to you out of grave concern for the integrity of our Christian community.

We are disturbed by the proposed motions coming out of the Council of General Synod’s March meeting. We believe that these motions do not reflect the implications of the St Michael Report, and that even to treat them as legitimate options is to neglect the kind of discussion the Report encourages and our Church deserves. In particular, we affirm the following:

1. Sexual ethics is a doctrinally serious matter. Bishop Ingham has recently said, ‘Christianity as a religion stands in need of a better theology of sexuality, a better understanding of the complex role sexuality plays in our human nature, and of the purposes of God in creating us as sexual beings, [. . .]’ (address delivered in Ottawa on 7 March 2007). The St Michael Report could have been cited in support of this statement, and the question of ‘the purposes of God in creating us as sexual beings’ is the subject of over half of the Report. Indeed, the Report identifies six central doctrines that must be engaged in any discussion of sexual ethics, and it classifies the matter of the blessing of same-sex unions as doctrinally ‘important’ (§ 3). We submit that a matter of this gravity should not be dealt with in the manner of a simple resolution.

2. That the way this matter is treated is ecclesiologically significant. Here we are thinking beyond the certain political and legal ramifications nationally and internationally if the Canadian Church is perceived to be ‘walking apart’ from the Anglican Communion. Our concern to maintain our communion with the historic see of Canterbury is not rooted in our fidelity to the Church’s constitution or in nostalgia, but in the awareness that the path of divergence is the path to North American Protestant sectarianism. Episcopacy is a sign of the Church’s catholicity. We believe that it is therefore incumbent upon bishops who bear a particular responsibility for guarding the unity of the Church to ensure that this issue and the way it is handled in our councils does not subvert koinonia or the peaceable intentions of the Windsor Report.

3. That there has been no sustained debate on this matter in the Church. Twelve years ago a group of British academics published ‘The St Andrew’s Day Statement’, a non-polemical document identifying some of the important theological matters raised by the Church’s response to those living in same-sex relationships. As recently as this past January, one of the document’s authors, The Rev. Professor Oliver O’Donovan, maintained that the Statement has been largely ignored. Bishop Ingham’s assertion that the Church ‘stands in need’ of a better theology of sexuality is itself an affirmation that the doctrinal character of this matter is something that has yet to be worked out. For him, this would involve ‘of necessity an entire reappraisal of Christian tradition, going right back to the Bible itself’. It is true that consultations have been held on the St Michael Report across the country. But, with the exception of the ‘Faith Seeking Understanding Conference’ held at Huron University College this past January, most of these consultations have been given over to hearing points of view and not to a critical exchange of ideas. Quite simply, what is lacking is a biblical and theological justification for changing the Church’s teaching.

4. ‘Core doctrine’ is problematic. The term ‘core doctrine’ is not drawn from the Principles and Canons of our Church, and is therefore confusing to those who appeal to the Church’s incorporating documents for direction in how to deal with this matter. In truth, the standard to which we are called in these documents is not ‘core doctrine’, but doctrine as understood by the Solemn Declaration: ‘we are determined by the help of God to hold and maintain the Doctrine, Sacraments and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded in His Holy Word, and as the Church of England hath received and set forth the same in “The Book of Common Prayer [. . .];” and in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion; [. . .].’ The jurisdiction of General Synod includes the ability to define doctrines of the Church ‘in harmony with the Solemn Declaration’, but these definitions must be resolved in a constitutional fashion, rather than through simple resolution. Moreover, we worry that not to treat this matter in a constitutional fashion could be to invite a petition to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

In making the above affirmations, we are conscious of some of the arguments that are made in support of treating this more as a matter of discipline than doctrine. We would like to consider these briefly.

1. That this is an urgent matter of justice. We agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve protection under the law in our civil society, and we support the Church’s ongoing advocacy wherever human dignity is ignored or threatened. All human beings are created in the divine image and are entitled to exercise their human rights responsibly. But in saying this we are recognising that justice is rooted in the being of the one God in whose image we are made, and not in social convention. Richard Niebuhr warned us long ago of the danger of worshipping the ‘Christ of culture’, and most Anglicans agree that the ‘just us’ attitude of much of Protestant individualism is not the same thing as the justice of God. Real justice is to be found where human beings order their common life according to the values and principles of the gospel as revealed in Scripture.

2. Serious theological matters have been determined in the past by simple resolution. The argument has been made that since such matters as the ordination of women, the admission of children to  communion before confirmation, the removal of the filioque (the phrase ‘and the Son’ in the Nicene Creed in the BAS) and the adoption of the BAS did not require motions treating them as doctrine, neither should the matter of the blessing of same-sex unions. Some of these matters are sufficiently contentious even now that it may be asked whether the Church was wise to dispatch them so readily. Nevertheless, we forget that in each of these actions a developed biblical and theological case was available. The ordination of women had been a matter of discussion in the Church ever since the first deaconess was ordained in the Church of England in 1862. And incidentally, it took the Canadian Church two General Synods to ratify its adoption. The BAS was not presented as an innovation, but is alleged to be a return to more catholic, pre-Reformation forms of liturgy. The impetus for this was Dom Gregory Dix’s Shape of the Liturgy, which was a standard textbook in theological colleges soon after its publication more than sixty years ago. The matter of the filioque has been debated since the Council of Toledo in AD 589, and it remains a creedal doctrine for more than 220 million Orthodox Christians. Similarly, the practice of paedocommunion goes back to the earliest period of Church history and is still observed by Orthodox Christians.

3. One of Anglicanism’s most noble traits is its inclusivity. Anglican comprehensiveness does seek to include as wide a cross-section of theological insight and secular opinion as possible. But even as it ‘draws the circle wide’ it does so articulating both the centre of agreement and the limits of diversity. We worry that inclusivity is comprehensiveness without articulation. Furthermore, we cannot escape the fact that a circle is still a circle, meaning that some will inevitably be excluded. We hope that the Church will listen carefully to the voices of many from our aboriginal and ethnic communities, as well as those from traditional parishes, before it makes a decision that will exclude them from the Anglican circle. The noblest liberalism is one that insures truly fair process so as to include precisely those toward whom we do not feel an affinity.

For these reasons we believe that the motions proposed by the Council of General Synod are entirely inappropriate for a Church contemplating such a fundamental change in Christian teaching. Not to give this matter the level of discussion it deserves is to fail the whole Church, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters who are owed a theological rationale for the way the Church understands their life as an appropriate or inappropriate expression of Christian discipleship.

Respectfully in Christ,

The Rev. Stephen Andrews, PhD (Thorneloe University)
Gary Badcock, DPhil (Huron University College)
The Rev. Chris Barrigar, PhD (Diocese of Montreal)
The Rev. Canon Timothy Connor, ThD (Diocese of Huron, Wycliffe College)
The Rev. Canon Robert Crouse, PhD
The Rev. Robert Derrenbacker, PhD (Regent College)
George Egerton, PhD (University of British Columbia)
The Rev. Walter Hannam, PhD cand. (College of Emmanuel & St Chad)
The Rev. John Harvey, PhD (Diocese of Algoma)
Ian Henderson, DPhil (McGill)
Bruce Hindmarsh, DPhil (Regent College)
The Rev. Ranall Ingalls, PhD (Diocese of Fredericton)
Norm Klassen, DPhil (St Jerome’s University)
Walter Klassen, DPhil (Diocese of Saskatoon)
The Rev. Ron Kydd, PhD (Tyndale Seminary)
Don Lewis, DPhil (Regent College)
Joseph Mangina, PhD (Wycliffe College)
Darren Marks, DPhil (Huron University College)
The Rev. Gregory McVeigh, PhD (Diocese of Montreal)
The Rev. Canon John Mellis, PhD (Queen’s College)
The Rev. Dean Mercer, ThD (Diocese of Toronto, Wycliffe College)
The Rev. John Oakes, PhD cand. (Diocese of New Westminster)
The Rev. James Packer, DPhil (Regent College)
The Rev. Ian Ritchie, PhD (Diocese of Ontario)
The Rev. Peter Robinson, PhD (Diocese of Toronto, Wycliffe College)
The Rev. Robert Sears, PhD (Diocese of Ottawa)
Robert D. Sider, DPhil (University of Saskatchewan)
The Rev. Catherine Sider-Hamilton, PhD cand. (Diocese of Toronto)
The Rev. David Smith, PhD (Diocese of Saskatchewan, Wycliffe College)
The Rev. Canon George Sumner, PhD (Wycliffe College)
The Rev. Canon Gary Thorne, PhD (King’s College and Dalhousie University)
The Rev. Lisa Wang, PhD (Diocese of Edmonton)
Bruce Ward, PhD (Thorneloe University)

A "Jesus Seminar" for young Anglicans

Over at the Generations website, there is going to be a new feature called "Meaning and Message – a mini Jesus Seminar for youth".

One little comment caught my eye:  "I think we’re supposed to follow Jesus, but not worship him."  The comment is from Judy (hi Judy), whom I assume is the same Judy who is Judy Steers, the National Anglican youth ministry go-to person.

I think this is one of the core questions which differentiates Christ and his way from so many other religions, systems and persons.  For myself (and I would say, for those who look to the ancient creeds to help them express what they believe) the matter of worshipping Jesus is central. 

Is he God?  I would submit that part of following Jesus is worshipping him.

Well, I must be going,  I have to read the St Michael Report again, especially that part about "creedal" doctrine being what unites us as Anglicans...

patristics blog carnival at hyperekperisou

Phil over at hyperekperisou has got a selection of blog posts related to Patristics up on his site.  H/T to Codex on this announcement. 

What I really meant to write was that following up on Crouse's analysis of 'pilgrimage' in the Trinity, we have the parallel idea of the Neoplatonic exitus-reditus (the going forth or emanation of the divine and then the return of all to the divine);  Augustine's theme of perigrinatio which has been looked at elsewhere by lots of folks, and then a whole bunch of stuff comparing the origins of Christian notions of divine Trinitarian 'pilgrimage' (God speaking his Word as Son who returns, the Spirit being sent and returning with re-newed  creation) with the Neoplatonists'  idea of exitus-reditus, and then looking at a bunch of stuff and shouting down the Gnostics and all that sort of thing.

It's all there.  Work it out for yourselves and send me the draft copy...

That sort of thing just gets me all a-shiver!

robert crouse on pilgrimage

We had a marvellous planning meeting for our pilgrimage to the Holy Land this coming spring.  As a beginning point, let me say that there is a difference between a pilgrimage and what other adventurers might call a "voyage of discovery".  A pilgrimage is, among other things, an intentional journey, which leaves one changed.

The fundamental and all-encompassing theme of spiritual life is  pilgrimage: its images are the images of wayfaring, of exile and  repatriation, of alienation and reconciliation, images of journeying  through wilderness to gain the promised land. The Bible abounds in  imagery of that kind, from the beginning to the end; from man's ancient  exile from the paradise of Eden, in the Book of Genesis, to the vision  of the New Jerusalem in the Book of Revelation. Indeed, the Scriptures  represent the whole of our existence, the whole of natural and  spiritual life, under images of pilgrimage: from the descent of all  things from God in creation, to their return to him in the final  summing up of hell and heaven. The theme is all-inclusive, and cosmic  in dimension. As St. Paul explains (Rom. 8:19-23), "the whole creation  groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now .... awaiting the  adoption", when "the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of  God".

Pilgrimage - pilgrimage to glory, pilgrimage to liberty - is the  life of all creation, and the meaning of all natural and human  history.

The work of God for man's redemption is represented, too, in just  such imagery: the descent of God the Son into the world to do the  Father's will, and his return, through a wilderness of suffering and  deprivation, to the homeland of the Father's glory; the descent of God  the Spirit upon the infant Church, giving unity and order to the chaos  of conflicting tongues, and the return of God the Spirit in the  Church's life of charity, of penitence and adoration, making  intercession "with groanings that cannot be uttered" (Rom. 8:26).

Finally, in a difficult and profoundly important sense, pilgrimage  is the very life of God himself, the Holy Trinity: the outgoing of God  the Father in his own self-knowing, which is the eternal begetting of  his Word; and the eternal procession of God the Holy Spirit, whereby  the knower and the known are bound in mutual love. Thus, the very name  of God, as love, bespeaks the timeless pilgrimage of God. What, then,  is man's imaging of God, but a timely imitation of that eternal  pilgrimage? What is man's vocation, but the call to take the pilgrim's  way, to be caught up in the drawing of that supernal triune love which  (as Dante puts it) "moves the sun and the other stars"?

Robert Crouse:  Images of Pilgrimage:  Paradise and Wilderness in Christian Spirituality

[could only find the Google cache of the original...] will search further...
a copy of this fine short book should be available through St Peter Publications.

Itinerary and registration info can be downloaded here.
I hope to have the detailed packing list & visa info etc, up there soon. 

related posts:  patristics blog carnival at hyperekperisou, 

nature is a broken creation

One of the students from CHRCT 351 stopped me after church yesterday (yes, there are still young people who go to church), and we had a bit of a follow up chat.

The topic under discussion was the ethic of "what is natural".  Before we get into that particular question, you need to back up a bit and get yourself a worldview, or realize that you already have one, and take a look at how it shapes your understanding of particular and specific questions.  If you think that nature as we experience it is, in some way, perfect and complete, then you will have an entirely positive view of doing "what is natural".  If however, you hold to the Christian worldview that nature as we experience it is not exactly the same as creation as God intended it, then you will have some work to do.  You will need to figure out how and where the intention of God is, and is not, reflected in what we call "nature" -  human and otherwise.  That is the result of what we have come to call "the fall" - creation is broken.  It is not beyond redemption, it still reflects somewhat of God, but what is natural is not always what is godly.

We'll be talking more later today.

Whatever happened to the Gospel of Judas?

You remember, that funny thing that the National Geographic hauled out of the archives last spring, just in time for Easter, and the promise that it would turn Christianity on its head, rehabilitate Judas' good name, and open up the secrets which the "Church" has kept hidden from the plebs for ages?

Well, 6 months later Tom Wright published a succinct little book.  "Judas and the Gospel of Jesus: Have We Missed the Truth about Christianity?"  I've read through the advance copy a few times.  It has probably been overlooked by most in the wake of his simply Christian thing, but this is N.T. Wright at some of his finest, I think.  He disembowels a lot of pretentions here.  We are going to go through it step by step...

Conference: call for papers

Faith Seeking Understanding:
The Windsor Report, The St Michael Report & the Challenge Ahead

January 12-13, 2007
Huron University College
London Ontario

some details here

My submission for an academic paper is here.

so do muslims and christians worship the same God?

<>

The full text and list of signatories is online (via Islamica Magazine out of Jordan) for this interesting open letter to Pope Benedict.  (bit of follow up from this recent post)

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful,
And may Peace and Blessings be upon the Prophet Muhammad
OPEN LETTER TO HIS
HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI
In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful,
Do not contend with people of the Book except in the fairest way….
(The Holy Qur’an, al-Ankabut,).
Your Holiness,

We thought it appropriate, in the spirit of open exchange, to address your use of a debate between the Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and a “learned Persian” as the starting point for a discourse on the
relationship between reason and faith. While we applaud your efforts to oppose the dominance of positivism and materialism in human life, we must point out some errors in the way you mentioned Islam as a counterpoint to the proper use of reason, as well as some mistakes in the assertions you put forward in support of your argument.

There is no Compulsion in Religion
You mention that “according to the experts” the verse which begins, There is no compulsion in religion (al-Baqarah) is from the early period when the Prophet “was still powerless and under threat,” but this is incorrect. In fact this verse is acknowledged to belong to the period of Quranic revelation corresponding to the political and military ascendance of the young Muslim community. There is no compulsion in religion was not a command to Muslims to remain steadfast in the face of the desire of their oppressors to force them to renounce their faith, but was a reminder to Muslims themselves, once they had attained power, that they could not force another’s heart to believe. There is no compulsion in religion addresses those in a position of strength, not weakness. The earliest commentaries on the Qur’an (such as that of Al-Tabari) make it clear that some Muslims of Medina wanted to force their children to convert from Judaism or Christianity to Islam, and this verse was precisely an answer to them not to try to force their children to convert to Islam. Moroever, Muslims are also guided by such verses as Say: The truth is from your Lord; so whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. (al-Kahf); and Say: O disbelievers! I worship not that which ye worship; Nor worship ye that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which ye worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion (al-Kafirun).

Which raises for an interesting question for general consumption:  many Christians say that Muslims and Christians "worship the same God".  While Muslims (including the signatories of this letter) acknowledge a common "Abrahamic tradition", do many Muslims believe that Christians worship the same God as they do?  In other words, is the notion that Christians worship the same God saying something very different from professing an "Abrahamic tradition"?  There's a bit to think about here...

The list of signatories is rather impressive:  I'm including it here in full, well, just because.  When I can fully articulate the reason, I'll let you know.   I think the whole letter is quite an interesting read.

SIGNED
H.E.AllamahAbdAllah binMahfuz binBayyah
Professor, King AbdAl-Aziz University, Saudi Arabia, Former Vice President; Minister of Justice; Minister of Education and Minister of ReligiousAffairs,Mauritania
_. ProfessorDr.AllamahMuhammad Sa‘idRamadanAl-Buti
Dean of Department of Religion, University of Damascus, Syria
_. Prof.Dr.MustafaÇagˇrıcı
Grand Mufti of Istanbul

Full list of signatories...

ps - it would be great to see if we could get a few of the groups on campus representing these different faiths together for some sort of event...  one of the things I have tended to notice is that many of us are woefully ignorant of what the Islamic faith says and teaches.

related posts:    Muslim clerics address letter to the Pope

but don't they believe in the same god?

“Well”, he replied to me, “that depends on how you look at two particular things.”

“And what might those two things be?”, I asked.

“Revelation and reason.  Let me put it this way”, he continued, “I’m going to need another round.”  I ordered up two more espressos.  He leaned forward and began:

“What the guy was actually doing was pointing out in a very clear manner that the only basis for mutual discussion had to be reason, because the revelations contradict each other.  You see, he didn’t talk about the idea of revelation as a ground for discussion because there isn’t much common ground there.  If there is going to be any common ground, it has to come from what everyone has in common – human reason, because he believes we are all made in the image of God.

“Reason is the only possible ground left, because no one wants to mention that if the discussion hinges on revelation, then there are a few problems.  I suppose it depends on answering how you or I or anybody can know anything at all about who God is, and who God isn’t.  If you say that the only way to know God, is by revelation alone, then there won’t be all that much common ground.

“Let me give you a simple example.  Suppose you and I say that we both know someone named Bill.  Do we assume we are referring to the same person just because we are using the same name?”

“Well”, I replied, “what if I start describing Bill to you?  Suppose I tell you that Bill is so tall, and has this color of hair, and this color of eyes, and things like that?  Then we could start to make some comparisons and have a discussion – maybe we are talking about the same Bill.”

“That’s a good place to start”, he said.  “But where do you get those ideas about Bill?  Did you figure them out on your own, by your reason, or were you told those things, by revelation, and came to believe them?  And those are just a few descriptors.  What if we went further, and we looked at more attributes.  Suppose I say to you:  yes, the man I know fits that description.  Furthermore, this man is a single gentleman, he has no wife and no children.  You might reply that I am mistaken;  the one you are referring to definitely has a son.  Oh no, I tell you;  he has no son, it is impossible, either you must be referring to a different Bill, or you have mistaken information about him.”

I fingered the edge of espresso cup.  “In that case, can’t we still be referring to the same person, only one of us does not have all the details, all the information?  I mean, one of knows this person better than the other, but we are still talking about the same person?”

“If it were just a matter of simple things", he said, "like hair color and physical appearance, then the answer could be yes.  It might just be that he has changed something about himself, some accidental quality which isn’t really a defining quality.  But this is only a very limited way of talking about him.  Even when we ask whether or not it is possible for him to have a son, that is still, from a human point of view, not what we would call a necessary quality.

“When it comes to God, is “having a son” a sort of add-on quality, like you or I might have a car or not have a car, live in a house or an apartment?  Those things can and do change, and they don’t make us different persons.  But with God, if “having a son” is not an add-on quality, but in some way is the very essence of who God is, then it is a very different matter.”

“And”, he said, “it is here that religion differs from what you call your ‘philosophy’.  Religion trusts in revelation.  And if my revelation differs from yours, then we have only two options.  Either we have mutually exclusive claims based on faith in our revelations, or we submit both of our revelations to human reason, which we trust is mutually inclusive.”

“I’m not sure I fully buy into that”, I replied.  “Couldn’t it just be part of the mystery of God that things seem to be contradictory?  After all, there are some religions, like Christianity I am told, in which God is said to be divine and human, surely if the God of Christians can claim to be human and divine at the same time, then having some apparently contradictory revelations would not be difficult for God to reconcile?”

“You can be the judge of that”, he answered.  “And in letting you be the judge of that, I have done exactly what he set out to do.  When I say ‘You can be the judge of that’, I really mean it:  I believe that the power of reason placed within you as a gift from the divine makes you equal with me.  It is an appeal to common humanity.”

“But”, I said, “who am I to judge the content of a revelation?  Isn’t that just, well, wrong?”

“For that question”, he laughed, “we shall have to wait.  But the answer does not prevent us from  enjoying an afternoon together in the cafe.  That, at least, should be clear.”

some elementary Hooker on the Sacraments

No, I mean RICHARD Hooker.

I have my own secret blog & life categories.  Every once in a while I have a Theological Thursday.  I'm of the opinion that priests owe it to their God, the people they serve, and themselves to take seriously those little parts of their vows in which they promise to do things like study stuff that pertains to the faith.  That doesn't mean I understand all that I study or read, but it is helpful to try to keep the rust off.  So, gentle reader, here is a little elementary introduction to what Richard Hooker says about the sacraments.  And if you complain that my interpretation is incorrect, I'll mumble something about "not enough time".  And ps, it's ok to read old books.

When Hooker begins to speak of sacraments in Laws V.L.2, he states that "in the writings of the ancient Fathers...all duties of religion containing that which sense or natural reason cannot of itself discern, are most commonly named Sacraments."  There is in the sense of Sacrament "some such gift or grace supernatural as only God can bestow" (V.L.2), and that "grace is indeed the very end for which these heavenly mysteries were instituted".  This "grace" is a necessary part of the Sacraments, which are "visible signs of invisible grace" (V.L.3).

For Hooker, the doctrine of sacramental grace is dependent upon other doctrines: "For as our natural life consisteth in the union of the body with the soul;  so our life supernatural in the union of the soul with God." (V.L.3)  And this is the parallel which sets up the basis for Hooker's understanding of sacramental grace:

And forasmuch as there is no union of God with man without that mean between both which is both, it seemeth requisite that we first consider how God is in Christ, then how Christ is in us, and how the Sacraments do serve to make us partakers of Christ.  (V.L.3)

In V.li Hooker straightway gives the reader an examination of the Trinity.  The unity of persons in substance and action seems to mean that the Trinity and its relations are the starting points for discussion of our union in Christ in the Sacraments.  Why is this so?  The model for participation in Christ, making us "partakers of Christ" is an understanding of how the Persons of the Trinity themselves show that there is a kind of mutual participation in godhead without the loss of individual identity.  An example from human experience is that "Peter can be the person which Peter is, yet Paul hath the selfsame nature which Peter hath." (V.li.1) 

This kind of partaking is also evident in the Incarnation:

..even the nature of God itself in the only person of the Son is incarnate, and hath taken to itself flesh.  Wherefore incarnation may neither be granted to any person but only one, nor yet denied to that nature which is common unto all three. (V.li.2)

Just as Hooker stated that the end of grace is the union of the human soul with God, so here we see that prefigured in the Incarnation itself - that which is human is united with God.  Christ is that "mean between both which is both";  he is the Mediator who in himself has united both of the terms which are to be joined.  We are to be "adopted sons of God through grace" by "the natural Son of God being Mediator between God and us" (V.li.3). 

   

As Hooker had said, the Fathers noted that in Sacraments the working of "sense or natural reason" cannot fully discern what is taking place.  This is paralleled by our understanding of the Incarnation, which is a doctrine prior to that of the Sacraments.  "It is not in man's ability either to express perfectly or conceive the manner of how this was brought to pass" (V.lii.1) and this "divine mystery is more true than plain" (V.lii.1).  The difficulty of understanding led to many heresies in the ancient Church, which Hooker addresses at some length.   Correct Christology is then a key to understanding the Sacraments, and the reason why he goes to such lengths to present the erroneous and then the correct formulation of this doctrine.

Yet equally important as the notion that both natures (divine and human) were joined in Christ is the notion that they were not so confused as to indistinct.  There is "no abolishment of natural properties appertaining to either substance, no transition or transmigration thereof out of one substance into another..."(V.liii.1) Concerning the two natures of Christ, there is "a cooperation often, an association always, but never any mutual participation, whereby the properties of the one are infused into the other." (V.liii.3)  What this means is that "both natures may very well concur unto one effect...to work both as God and as man one and the selfsame thing." (V.liii.3)

It is in this context that the general notion of grace as gift is found in Christ.  For “touching union of Deity with manhood, it is by grace, because there can be no greater grace shewed towards man, than that God should vouchsafe to unite to man's nature the person of his only begotten Son.” (V.liv.3)

Basing his argument on Scripture, Hooker proceeds to give several examples of how the Father has "given" to Christ many things:  he has "given all things into his hands", the Son has life "by the gift of the Father", he has a glorious name which "is given him".  The chief and highest grace that can be given to man by God is this union with the Divine:

The union therefore of the flesh with Deity is to that flesh a gift of principal grace and favour.  For by virtue of this grace, man is really made God, a creature is exalted above the dignity of all creatures, and hath all creatures else under it. (V.liv.3)

It would seem that the 'prototype' of all subsequent grace given to rest of humanity is the grace which the Father has bestowed on the human nature of Christ:  Christ is the example of what grace is.  What then is the relation between Christ's human nature and this multitude of gifts and grace?  For although the "the natural properties of Deity be not communicable to man's nature, the supernatural gifts, graces and effects thereof are" (V.liv.5).  As Hooker says, the "very cause of his taking upon him our nature was to change it, to better the quality, and to advance the condition thereof." (V.liv.5) 

One of the other important consequences of the Incarnation is that now God has made humanity "his own inseparable habitation" and that "we cannot now conceive how God should without man either exercise divine power, or receive the glory of divine praise". (V.liv.5) I think we may take Hooker to have a two-fold meaning in this.  In Christ of course "man" exercises divine power, and as well Christ who is man also receives glory.   Hooker does not "over-spiritualize" the Incarnation and its effects:  "as God hath in Christ unspeakably glorified the nobler, so likewise the meaner part of our nature, the very bodily substance of man". (V.liv.8)  There is both a spiritual and a bodily, physical aspect to the Incarnation, as there is to humanity.

Hooker turns in chapter LV to the question of "how Christ is present, to the end it may thereby better appear how we are made partakers of Christ both otherwise and in the Sacraments themselves." (V.lv.1)  Hooker seems to base much of his argument on the distinction between the creature and the Creator.  Christ's body (in the physical sense) is not everywhere, since it falls into the category of created, and so is necessarily limited (V.lv.4).  But, as Augustine pointed out, Christ has both natures: "In that he is personally the Word he created all things, in that he is naturally man he himself is created of God."(Aug ep 57, quoted at V.lv.5)  As a man his body remains in one locale, but as Word he is present everywhere.  The graces and gifts that human nature was given in Christ do not change human "substance" into something else.  "Supernatural endowments are an advancement, they are no extinguishment of that nature whereto they are given". (V.lv.6)  So Christ is not present in the substance of his human body or soul anywhere but "in heaven only". (V.lv.7)

How then is Christ present in anything?  At V.lv.8 Hooker indicates that there is some sort of "cooperation with Deity" of the "manhood of Christ" which allows Him to be present everywhere.  Hooker summarizes that Christ "exerciseth both as God and Man, as God by essential presence with al things, as Man by cooperation with that which essentially is present". (V.lv.8)  But that is not all.  For as well Christ's body is "infinite in possibility of application". (V.lv.9)This is to say that the effects of Christ's body (his incarnation, death and resurrection and all the attendant "gifts and grades") are infinite in the possibility of their effects in humanity, in individuals. 

That God can be present in us as a relation of cause and effect needs to be further clarified, and Hooker does this in chapter lvi.  Hooker begins with a definition of our “participation in Christ"

Participation is that mutual inward hold which Christ hath of us and we of him, in such sort that  each possesseth other by way of special interest, property, and inherent copulation...For plainer explication whereof we may ...assume to our purpose these two principles, That every original cause imparteth itself unto those things which come of it", and "whatsoever taketh being from any other, the same is after a sort in that which giveth it being." (V.lvi.1)

Immediately Hooker gives us a discussion of how the persons of the Trinity are 'in' each other (V.lvi.2) and then proceeds to distinguish from this how "all things have both received their first being and their continuance to be that which they are"(V.lvi.5) by God as effects of a Cause.  All things are participating in God generally, for without Him they would cease to exist. 

But this is not the only kind of participation, nor the one which we are especially looking for in grace.  Creation itself is of course a kind of grace or gift - nothing 'deserved' or merited its own creation, but creation is not full participation in Christ.  "Let hereunto saving efficacy be added, and it bringeth forth a special offspring amongst men" (V.lvi.6)  Just as God has loved "eternally his Son, he must needs eternally in him have loved" those who are "descended and sprung our of him" (V.lvi.6).  We are all inheritors of the nature of Adam, but we are children of God "only by grace and favour." (V.lvi.6) It is this eternal "intended admission to life" (V.lvi.7) which is the true ground of our participation, which takes place only within God himself.  To this eternal foreknowledge there must be added something more.  Hooker states:

Life as all other gifts and benefits groweth originally from the Father, and cometh not to us but by the Son, nor by the Son to any of us in particular but through the Spirit...Our being in Christ by eternal foreknowledge saveth us not without our actual and real adoption into the fellowship of his saints in the present world. (V.lvi.7)

Here we see Hooker showing how all three persons of the Trinity act together in saving grace.  The Father is a kind of general cause of our being, and in Christ he eternally loves us, but it is the Spirit which allows grace to be in us "in particular".  Hooker states that "it is too cold an interpretation" that our participation in Christ is nothing else than that he has taken human nature - "For what man in the world is there which hath not so far forth communion with Jesus Christ?" (V.lv1.7)  No, in the sequence of salvation, the Son has indeed taken on human nature generally, but it is the Spirit which allows us to receive grace individually.  Indeed Christ has surpassed the nature of Adam;  for from the latter we all inherit human nature as corrupt, but Christ has "Adam's nature as we have, but incorrupt." (V.lvi.7)  And it is this incorrupt nature which is the key:  "

Christ...deriveth not nature but incorruption and that immediately from his own person into all that belong unto him.  As therefore we are really partakers of the body of sin and death received from Adam, so except we be truly partakers of Christ, and as really possessed of his Spirit, all we speak of eternal life is but a dream.(V.lvi.7)

That which gives us life is the "Spirit of the second Adam",(V.lvi.8)  and "the first degree of communion with Christ must needs consist in the participation of his Spirit." (V.lvi.8)  The flesh of Christ is important because of the Incarnation, but also (even more so) because of his death and resurrection.  This allows for the immortality of the flesh.   Yet Christ himself in the flesh also received the Spirit at his baptism, "giving as God and taking as man the Holy Ghost". (V.lvi.10)  And so "Christ is therefore both as God and man that true vine whereof we both spiritually and corporally are branches." (V.lvi.9)  The body of Christ is the "foundation first laid" (V.lvi.10) without which no other "operations of the Spirit of Christ" can take place.

Thus "the participation of Christ wherein there are many degrees and differences, must needs consist in such effects as being derived from both natures of Christ really into us." (V.lvi.10)  These "further operations" indicate that participation in Christ is "by degrees", and come from "both natures", and so this takes two forms. 

Thus we participate in Christ partly by imputation, as when those things which he did and suffered for us are imputed unto us for righteousness; partly by habitual and real infusion, as when grace is inwardly bestowed while we are on earth, and afterwards more fully both our souls and bodies  made like unto his in glory. (V.lvi.11)

   

In the flesh he suffered and died, and this righteousness of his is imputed, because "it consisteth in such acts and deeds of his as could not have longer continuance...nor belong unto any other..." (V.lvi.12)  What is imputed therefore comes from his singular deeds, his own death and resurrection, and actions which he performed once in his body.   Different from this is the concept of "degrees" which applies to "the participation of Christ's infused grace". (V.lvi.12)  Here, in contrast to his imputed deeds, which like his body are specific to a particular locale (and time), infused grace comes from the Spirit of Christ, and is present in us.  Hooker sums up the difference by way of analogy:  some may be better sons than others, but all are equally sons.  The former may be seen as infused grace, and the latter as imputed. 

Thus, Hooker says, we see how

the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father...how his Church and every member thereof is in him by original derivation, and he personally in them by way of mystical association wrought through the gift of the Holy Ghost. (V.lvi.13)

Turning to the general notion of Sacraments themselves, Hookers disclaims those who think that they have "no end but to teach the mind, by other senses, that which the Word doth teach by hearing." (V.lvii.1)  For there is "undoubtedly some other more excellent and heavenly use". (V.lvii.1)  They are rather "marks whereby to know when God doth impart the vital or saving grace of Christ unto all that are capable thereof, and ..as means conditional which God requireth in them unto whom he imparteth grace." (V.lvii.3)  We are not able "to apprehend or express how" (V.lvii.3) Christ and his Holy Spirit impart all their "blessed effects", but the sacraments plainly show us when it is being done.  They are also "moral instruments of salvation" (V.lvii.4) and are the ordinary means of imparting grace.  The general necessity of sacraments Hooker summarizes as follows:

That saving grace which Christ originally is or hath for the general good of his whole Church, he severally deriveth into every member thereof.  Sacraments serve as the instruments of God to that end and purpose, moral instruments, the use whereof is in our hands, the effect in his...(V.lvii.5)

Of the specific sacraments, Hooker makes the distinction that "by baptism therefore we receive Christ Jesus, and from him that saving grace which is proper unto baptism", while we receive him in the "eucharist often as being by continual degrees the finisher of our life." (V.lvii.6)

The first of the articles in our Book of Common Prayer concerns the Trinity.  It is a belief, a doctrine, which is at the head of all others.  All other things follow from Who God Is.  This is also the logic of Hooker's writings on sacramental grace in the  Laws.  Before he began his discussion proper of the sacraments of baptism and the eucharist, he gave a detailed examination of what are for him "prior" doctrines.  That he ordered his discussion in this way is no accident.  The reader must conclude that the subsequent discussion of sacramental grace is dependent upon the ideas and categories put forth in Laws  V. l-lvii. 

If we are to understand grace, God's gift, we must first of all know something of God.  If we are to know how we participate in Christ, then we must know something of how participation par excellence  takes place within God as a Trinity.  And if we are to know what kind of thing grace is in redeemed humanity, then we must look to the Second Adam, and to the "saving grace which Christ originally is or hath". 

Is God made of Soap?

Summa Theologica, I.3.9

Is God made of soap?

We proceed thus to the Ninth Article:

Objection 1: It would seem that God is made of soap. For whatever is highest in a genus must be predicated of God. But the highest in the genus of cleanliness, which the Philosopher says is next to godliness, is soap.

Objection 2: Moreover, Scripture says, "Wash me, and I shall be clean indeed." But it belongs to soap to wash.

Objection 3: Furthermore, Dionysius says in On the Divine Names, "For the being of the Most High, being beyond Being, which is what is, can only be denied, as of foamy lather that surpasses even the most excellent conception." But the principle of foamy lather is soap, and where the effect is found, there must the principle be posited.

On the contrary is the opinion of Saint Augustine, who says, "I did wander long among vain fancies, thinking that thou wert as the soap that cleanseth all things, and that evil was a grimy blot on thy purity."

I answer that, 'Soap' can be said in two ways. In one way, soap is the material principle of cleanliness as such. But we have already shown that there is no material principle in God. Therefore, God is not made of soap. But in another way, 'soap' is said of whatever is highest in the order of efficient causes directed towards cleanliness secundum quid by an order that is less than formal with respect to the finality of an end, simply as such, without respect of quiddity in potentiality to the sensitive appetite. And in this sense all men say that God is made of soap, and that in the highest degree, as is plain from the definition.

Reply Obj. 1:  Soap is not the highest in the genus of cleanliness, as the Saponians heretically maintain, but only in the genus of material ablutions, which is related to cleanliness in the way that principles of natural reason are related to the eternal law, as the Psalmist says, "How shall a young man cleanse his way? By keeping to your law."

Reply Obj. 2: Scripture also says, "I will wipe away every tear from their eyes." But soap is an efficient cause of tears, and not of their remotion. Therefore, God is not made of soap.

Reply Obj. 3: In this place Dionysius understands 'foamy lather' in accordance with the way of remotion, so that it implies only the lack of such qualities as are inconsistent with foamy lather, as shortness of duration and irritation to the skin.

from the genius of Thomas Williams, via the sheepcat,

and the resourceful  Prof Tim O'Keefe.

the curious petitions of Dr. Margaret Somerville

The matter of granting honorary degrees is a piece of academic hoop-jumping which has eluded me for some time now.  It is with interest that I am following the current case of Dr. Margaret Somerville,  a professor at McGill and founding director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law. 

It seems that Ryerson has her slated for an honorary degree, but there is a bit of opposition to that proposal.  The opposition was organized into an online petition, asking Ryerson not to grant the honorary degree.   Four reasons are listed in support of the petition:

-Margaret Somerville is a McGill University ethicist who is renown (sic) for her controversial views on same-sex rights.
-her views on reproductive rights are anti-feminist.
-she holds anti-gay sentiments and is an outspoken critic of same-sex marriage and families.
-she seeks to restrict access to insemination and methods of "assisted fertility".

There is also a counter petition on the go as well.  (Side note:  it's great to have a free online petition service whenever you need one.)   There are a number of issues bubbling around this one.   It is also quite interesting to read the various comments which accompany the signatures on the two opposing petitions.

the Trinity made easy

Time, space and motion are the created analogs of the Father, Son and Spirit.   Once you understand the mutual relations of time, space and motion, you will have a clearer insight by analogy into the nature of God as Trinity.

It's that simple!

Augustine & Monica vs. Da Vinci & Judas

A] Sketchy outline:

One of the differences between Christianity and its gnostic cousins is highlighted by St Augustine in the ninth book of his Confessions.  Augustine spent a number of years as a follower of the Manichean sect, a group that had a gnostic bent.

A hallmark of gnosticism is that the path to God went mainly through the intellect.  Images of 'enlightenment' abound in gnosticism, as does a disparaging of attempting to reach a vision of God by other means, such as physical activity.  Remember second year philosophy and the Platonic ascent?  You get to God through your mind - leave this earthly stuff and its activities behind.

In the ninth book of the Confessions, Augustine (the intellectual) sits down with his mother Monica (the faithful Christian mother).  As they sit and talk together, they have a vision of God.   What happens in this vision?  Well, two things.  First, as might be expected by the philosophers, Augustine grasps something of God - this is not news for the ancient world, nor for the gnostics in general.  We get to know God by enlightenment, right?

Well, Monica has the same vision of God that Augustine does.  Now how do the gnostics/ the ancients/ the philosophers explain this?  One answer is to discount it.  "This can't possibly be true.  Only the enlightened, the ones with the knowledge, can see the true God".  BZZZ .  Wrong answer.

Monica has been a faithful Christian.  There is something about simply living the Christian life in all its practical, earthy demands and details, that brings you closer to the living God.  It's as if "doing the truth", as exemplified by Monica, is how she "gets to see God".   The gnostics would never understand this.   How can this fool of a woman who "merely" goes to church and prays and lives a rather ordinary life of charitable works with no intellectual training get to have a vision of God?  Impossible, they say.   Yet there it is.   For the Christian, 'knowing the truth' and 'doing the truth' go hand in  hand.  Augustine and Monica sit down together, and together they see God.

Part B] later:  "mystical vision" in the early church.

Satan; fact or fiction, pt II

I ran across an interesting piece over here which relates to the topic of the earlier post on this question.

Satan: fact or fiction?

There was a vibrant thread in a discussion group I'm part of on the topic of "Satan".   Is there a real personification of the principle of evil?  Does the name refer to an actual being?    Where does "evil" come from?

Frederica Mathewes Greene on Living Tradition

Was tidying up the office a bit and came across a copy of something I am sure was dropped off by the Orthodox Christian Fellowship.

I have spent a lot of time in Protestant circles, and one thing they’re touchiest about is what they call “dead tradition.” They will quote the line from St. Paul, “See that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men.” (Col 2:8).

From that perspective, most of what we do looks like “empty tradition.” The Divine Liturgy we had this morning would be horrifying to them. All that pomp and circumstance, and surely it’s meaningless, right? We’re just going through the motions, hoping to buy God’s favor by repeating the correct formulas.

Our friends would also presume that this kind of worship has nothing to do with the early church. Before I became Orthodox, I imagined that the first century Christians sat around on the floor, probably in blue jeans, playing guitar and talking about how Jesus had touched their hearts that week.

read the rest.

Phrases to Ban VII: God is a part of my life

"God is a part of my life".

My wife has been an English teacher for more years than she wants to admit.  Her career is coming to a close, at least for a few years, as she takes on the role of full time Mom.  I have on many occasions benefited from her astute knowledge of all things grammatical.  Take for example the relation of subject and object and possessive in a simple sentence.

A]  "God is a part of my life".    B]  "I am a part of God's life".

It seems to me that when we treat God as a 'part' of anything, we miss the point.  If anything, I am a part of God's life, not the other way around.  I need to get a pre-lenten hair cut, so I'm cutting this short until later.

this kind only comes out by beer

In light of the fact that I mentioned that theology has become scary,  I thought I would ease people into the topic in a rather convivial manner.

So Dr. Tom Oosterhuis & myself have been tossing around the idea that perhaps we would offer a bit of a get together on something of a more theological nature, and prove that it is not as scary as you might think.   We think we will offer a study group on Colin Gunton's book  "The One, the Three and the Many" - based on his Brampton Lectures.

We are also thinking as an added bonus that we would meet in the comfy surroundings of the Faculty Club, as an antidote to the usual surroundings of the weekday Bible studies in HUB or SUB, and a bit of a break from the Power Plant.

And in the great tradition of the Whitehorse Inn (where great theologians gathered to drink, under the guise of talking about God), we might even buy a pitcher of liquid thought.

For those who asked...

Augustine's Confessions Books XI-XIII, Quick & Dirty.   Bits of an address to the PBSC (will have a link to the whole thing sometime  soon)

In the last 3 books of the Confessions, Augustine turns his attention to the first few lines of Genesis.   Here many readers of Augustine’s Confessions leave their bookmarks, finding it difficult to follow what exactly he is getting at.  And if you are tempted to do the same, I can’t say I blame you.   But what he is getting at is that the “wonderful things” in Scripture is nothing other than the Trinity itself – this is what he thinks Scripture points us to.

In books XI, XII and XIII of the Confessions, Augustine talks about an "inner meaning" of scripture which had eluded him earlier.   I say "an" inner meaning rather than "the" inner meaning for reasons which Augustine will make clear  At present it will suffice to say that there is a movement from what he calls the exteriora  to the interiora to the superiora   It is like the structure of the work as a whole – from the outward life (biography in books 1-9) to the inward life (self examination in book X), through to the higher life – meditation on Scripture with one’s attention on God in the last 3 books.   

If contemplating a fallen nature or creation (Romans 1) can give us some sense of who God is, then contemplating an unfallen creation in Genesis through the lens of Scripture will give us a clearer picture of who God is.

With this in mind, I suggest that in the last three books of the Confessions Augustine sought the highest object of faith - the Trinity itself. In books XI-XIII, Augustine examines Scripture in order to uncover what he calls an "inner meaning".  Throughout the last part of the Confessions he turns to the contrasting images of external/internal - - he speaks of the “external word” and of the internal word;  of listening with the ears of our flesh and listening with the ears of our heart.   And somehow there is a third part of the process – outward leads to inward leads to upward – to what he calls the superiora.  Augustine asks God to let him find "some one true, certain and good  sense that thou shalt inspire me withal, even if many such senses shall offer themselves unto me."   That inner meaning I will show to be a Trinitarian understanding of being, knowing and willing.  That is the superiora  toward which Augustine is moving in these last books.  It is this which is verum, certum  et bonum  - true, certain and good.

Bottom line:  Things depend on who God is, and how God is.

Why theology has become scary

Over the holidays  the twelve days of Christmas I had occasion to re-read Jaroslav Pelikan's  The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), which is the first volume of his work:  The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine.   He makes the observation that for the first 500 years of Christianity, the theologians were bishops,  in the next 1000 years, the theologians were monks, and since the time of the Reformation, the theologians have been mainly academics.

It struck me that those are significant shifts.   There is (at least in some parts of our Christian world) an aversion to theology precisely because it is seen as "academic".   In a broad, unsupported and sweeping statement,  I hereby declare that if theology is removed from the task of the pastor, and left only in the hands of the academic, the life of the Church is poorer for it.   And because theology is seen as the domain of the academic, it is increasingly dismissed as irrelevant to the life of a disciple - -  sort of  "that's nice, but what impact does it make on my daily walk with Jesus?"

"But it was not so from the beginning",  (to miss-apply Jesus' words in Matthew 18).   It is marvellous to contemplate the link between Christian thinking and pastoral action that is exemplified by the early Church.  The modern fracture between "Head" and "Heart"  is not the final word;  it wasn't even the first word.   

heart, soul, mind and strength

"you have forgotten what you are"

“then can you say, what is a man?”
        Are you asking me if I know that I am a mortal, rational animal? 
        I do know that, and admit to being such.

“And you do not know that you are anything more?”
        I am nothing more.

“Now I know that other, more serious cause of your ills:  you have forgotten what you are.”

Lady Philosophy questions Boethius to discover the source of his discomfort.

Commentary later this weekend.