A study of religious deconversion

"In a study of religious deconversion, we analyzed 50 on-line testimonies posted by former Christians, and in these testimonies we found four general explanations for deconversion. The first explanation, which I wrote about last week, regarded intellectual and theological concerns about the Christian faith. The second, which I elaborate here, regards a failed relationship with God. Almost half (22 of 50) of the writers expressed sentiments that in some way God had failed them by His not doing what they thought He should." 

It's worth a look. Here's the rest.

Father as priest

Priesthood is essentially fatherhood. That’s why we call our pastors our spiritual fathers--they father a community. It is a special relationship, modeled on the fatherhood of God. St Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “Though you have countless teachers in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Cor 4:15).

Adam was the first priest because he was the father of his family. He spoke to God on their behalf and spoke to them on God’s behalf. He was the one who offered their sacrifice and taught them the faith. And this same pattern followed for generations. Eventually, God ordained men to serve in this capacity for a community in the Old and New Testament priesthoods.

What most people don’t understand is that the father’s role as priest of his own family, for whom he is responsible before God, remains. He is the one who is to lead them in prayer and make their offerings. He is the one who is to teach them the Faith of the Church. And he is the one who has the authority to bless his children.

Just like the priest in church, a father should put his right hand on his child’s head and say “I bless you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” And a father should offer longer benedictions (Latin--“good word”). Say things like, “May you be wise and just and caring and merciful. May you be prosperous and generous and faithful. May you find a loving husband/wife and many children." And so on.

A helpful reminder on this Father's Day.

The 'Anglican Summa' on the Trinity

The ten volume series Dogmatic Theology, by Dr. Francis Hall has been called the Anglican version of Aquinas' Summa Theologica, and rightly so. While it does not follow the same format, it is exhaustive in scope and is scholarly in content, yet fully accessible to the layman.

It was written by a priest and professor of the General Theological Seminary of the Episcopal Church. The project was conceived by Francis Hall in the late 1800s, and the ten volumes were published between 1907 and 1922. The content is thoroughly orthodox and Anglican. It was hailed as a monumental achievement in the life of the American church.

In the fourth volume on the Trinity, Father Hall notes the profound importance of the subject matter by explaining that "the doctrine of the Trinity is the interpretive principle of all Christian doctrine, the ultimate basis for of Christian ideals and hopes, and the most vital and inspiring of all the truths which human minds can contemplate" (vol. IV, pg 2).

He goes on to say, "The doctrine of the Trinity must occupy the central place in any sound or adequate conception of spiritual realities. It constitutes the postulate of the doctrines of the Incarnation, of the Atonement, of the Church, of justification and salvation, and of the coming kingdom of God. If it were shown to be false, these doctrines would have to be modified beyond recognition, and Christianity would become something quite other than it actually is" (vol. IV, pg 2-3).

Everlasting life or everlasting death?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines death as the separation of soul and body. This is a good theological definition, and as far as I am aware, harmonizes with all other Christian definitions of death (or what Revelation would call "the first death").

The definition comes in section 997, which has more to say in response to the question What is rising? It says, "In death, the separation of the soul from the body, the human body decays and the soul goes to meet God, while awaiting its reunion with its glorified body. God, in his almighty power, will definitively grant incorruptible life to our bodies by reuniting them with our souls, through the power of Jesus' Resurrection."

The completion of our salvation is not just our (re)union with God, but also the reunion of our immortal soul with our resurrected body on a resurrected (or renewed) earth. I bring this up to highlight a discrepancy between orthodox Christian doctrine and modern American folk religion, which tends to talk about salvation in terms of going to be with God in heaven forever. Such a view tends to see the body as a shell for the soul, which is "the real me," an idea captured best in the infamous funeral parlor poem "I'm Free."

Don't grieve for me, for now I'm free 

I'm following the path God has chosen for me. 

I took His hand when I heard him call; 

I turned my back and left it all. 

I could not stay another day, 

To laugh, to love, to work or play. 

Tasks left undone must stay that way; 

I've now found peace at the end of day. 

If my parting has left a void, 

Then fill it with remembered joys. 

A friendship shared, a laugh, a kiss; 

Oh yes, these things, I too will miss. 

Be not burdened with times of sorrow;

Look for the sunshine of tomorrow. 

My life's been full, I savored much; 

Good friends, good times, a loved ones touch. 

Perhaps my time seems all to brief; 

Don't lengthen your pain with undue grief. 

Lift up your heart and peace to thee, 

God wanted me now-He set me free!

This popular theology (which is actually the manifestation of a Christian heresy) is labeled "Christo-Platonism" by Randy Alcorn's in his book Heaven. He points out that for Plato, matter is a hindrance to spirit, which means our bodies are a prison for our souls. Alcorn notes that, "But according to Scripture, our bodies aren't just shells for our spirits to inhabit; they're a good and essential aspect of our being" (pg 475). Jesus came to redeem our souls as well as our bodies. That's the significance of the incarnation and the resurrection--the redemption of matter.

Which got me to thinking . . . If your view of salvation is being eternally free from your body so that you can live with God in heaven, then do really believe in everlasting life? Or do you believe in everlasting death?

The Hail Mary and Memorial Day

The "Hail Mary" consists of two scripture quotes (Luke 1:28 and 42) followed by the petition, "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death." It is the most common petition made by living Christians to a departed Christian, asking the Mother of Jesus for her prayers.

The word "pray" means "ask", but it is often used in the wider sense of any communication, particularly communication directed to God or through God to the angels or the saints and other faithful departed. Protestants often object to the idea of prayer to the angels or the saints, despite the fact that such prayer is explicitly in the Bible: “Praise him, all you angels of his; praise him, all his hosts” (Psalm 148:2).

If you accept the authority of the apocyphal/deuterocanonical sections of the Book of Daniel, there is also the song of the three young men in the fiery furnace (a Morning Prayer canticle in the Book of Common Prayer): “O ye Angels of the Lord, bless ye the Lord: praise him, and magnify him for ever. . . . O ye Spirits and Souls of the Righteous, bless ye the Lord: praise him, and magnify him for ever.”

Even if you don't consider that canticle to be scripture, and are unsure about the interpretation of Psalm 148:2 (or consider it an exception to the rule), you have prayed to the saints and angels if you have ever sung the hymn "Ye watchers and ye holy ones." Consider the words of that hymn (included in most Protestant hymnals):

1. Ye watchers and ye holy ones,

Bright seraphs, cherubim and thrones,

Raise the glad strain, Alleluia!

Cry out, dominions, princedoms, powers,

Virtues, archangels, angels’ choirs:

 Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!

 2. O higher than the cherubim,

More glorious than the seraphim,

Lead their praises, Alleluia!

Thou bearer of th’eternal Word,

Most gracious, magnify the Lord.

Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!

3. Respond, ye souls in endless rest,

Ye patriarchs and prophets blest, Alleluia! Alleluia!

Ye holy twelve, ye martyrs strong,

All saints triumphant, raise the song.

Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!

The first stanza addresses the nine choirs of angels, the second addresses the Blessed Virgin Mary, the third addresses the holy souls as well as the patriarchs, prophets, the holy apostles, the martyrs, and all the saints to join in the praise of God. Note that the first three stanzas are exclusively prayer to the angels and saints. The fourth stanza finally addresses the present congregation and all the living to join together in praise.

It occurred to me today that there is at least one other occasion when Christians pray to the dead who might otherwise object to it theologically. That is on Memorial Day, when we not only pause to show respect for our honored dead (and some pray for the repose of their souls) but when we also address them directly with the prayer, "Thank you." Some might object by saying we are simply thanking God for them and their sacrifice, and certainly that is done. But it is sheer ignorance to say that no thanks are directed toward those fallen in battle themselves (as we see in the cartoon above).

Having realized what they're doing, some might object on the ground of "necromancy"--that the bible forbids contact with the dead. But this is a misunderstanding of terms. Necromancy is an attempt to harness diabolical powers to (among other things) conjure up "familiar spirits." The Bible condemns this occult practice, which includes attempting to communicate with spirits through trances, seances, and incantations (see Leviticus 19:26, 31; 20:6, 27; Deuteronomy 18:10-12; 1 Samuel 28:4-18; Isaiah 8:19; 47:12-14). Asking the saints for their prayers is not necromancy; nor is offering them our thanks or asking for their intercession.

It seems to me that the fundamental problem is that those who object to prayer to anyone but God have equated prayer with worship (which is odd in light of the frequency that the phrase "prayer and worship" is invoked in evangelical circles). Prayer (communication) and worship (giving divine honors to God) are two different things. Just as you can worship without prayer (e.g., making an offering, or silently adoring God's presence), so you can also pray without worship (e.g., "Thank you for laying down your life to defend our freedoms.").

Why the Holy Ghost is not "she" (in English)

I noticed recently in Bonnie Anderson's note of retirement from the presidency of the House of Deputies of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, she mentioned that "the Holy Spirit blows where she will." This is not an unusual occurrence. It is quite common for Christian feminists (both Protestant and Catholic) to employ the feminine pronoun for God, especially when speaking about the Holy Ghost.

Feminist theologian Rosemary Rutherford Ruether has been particularly influential in spreading the use of "she" for the Holy Spirit. In her Women-Church book, Ruether makes frequent reference to Wisdom as "God the Mother"--one important step in the task of "re-imagining" God.

The ancient heresy of Gnosticism also venerated divine Wisdom (the Greek word Sophia) as the female principle of androgynous Deity (or God's daughter) which was trapped in creation by disobedience. She was the fallen creator of earth, air, fire, and water and mother of the evil demiurge who was the God of Israel. Gnosticism often reversed stories in the bible so that, for example, Jesus or Wisdom was the serpent in the garden of Eden, sent to tempt us away from obedience to the evil God of Israel.

In the bible, "wisdom" is used as a personification of God, especially in the "wisdom literature" such as Proverbs. Since wisdom is a word with a feminine gender, feminist theologians tend to run with this and proclaim that God has a feminine aspect (in a sexual rather than simply a grammatical sense). This feminine aspect is usually associated with God the Holy Spirit because the Hebrew word ruach also has a feminine gender.

We should note here that people do not have gender, they have a sex (male or female). Gender has to do with grammar; words have gender (masculine, feminine, or neuter). English does not make as much grammatical use of gender as other languages do, which is why this sounds rather silly to our ears. There are some familiar exceptions such as the use of "she" for a boat or other such vessel.

Wisdom has been associated with the Holy Spirit a few times in Christian literature. I know of at least two Church Fathers (Theopilus and Ireneaus) who do so. I'm not aware of any Scriptures that equate personified Wisdom (Sophia) with the Holy Spirit. The closest I can find is the role of wisdom in inspiration or prophecy. Or a reference to the "spirit of wisdom" in Is 11:2--though this seems to me to be the spiritual gift rather than the Spirit himself. On the contrary, the identification of both Logos and Sophia with the second Person of the Trinity (Jesus) dominates in comparison. Likewise, many Church Fathers make that connection between Sophia and Christ explicitly.

God the Holy Spirit as a divine Person has no sex (male or female) because he has no body. The same is true for God the Father; he has no body and thus no sex. Only God the Son has a sex, and that is because he had a male body. Grammatically, sex will dictate gender. That is why, for example, we have male and female versions of the same name, like Julian/Julia and Alexander/Alexandra. However, the opposite is not the case; gender will not dictate sex. For example, the Greek word for rock (petra) is feminine, but that doesn't mean that rocks are girls.

God the Son is "he" for two reasons: it is dictated by his sex and by his relationship (Son). With God the Father, it is only by relationship--his "fathering" of creation and his "fathering of the Son"--that he is known as "he." And what about the Holy Spirit. Since we do not have a gender indicated by sex or by relationship, let's look at the grammar.

The two Hebrew words used for spirit have a feminine gender. Ruach is "she"; Nephesh is also "she." In Greek, the word "spirit" (pneuma) is neuter. Our synonymous English terms "Holy Spirit" and "Holy Ghost" come from the Latin and German sides, respectively. The Latin spiritus is masculine. The German geist is also masculine. Thus, speaking correctly, the Holy Spirit would be "she" when speaking in Hebrew, "it" (though, a personal "it") when speaking in Greek, and "he" when speaking in English.

That's why the Holy Spirit is not "she"--it would be bad grammar.

Palm Sunday tutorial

The video below will show you how to braid palm leaves like this for Palm Sunday. They can be used on their own or incorporated into a stalk for the clergy. The stalk can be of any number of designs. There is no right way to do it. You'll probably start with a base of a dozen or so palms tied together like a stick. Then you can attach various braided items and palm bows, together with one or more bows of ribbon.

Here is the short instructional video.

Here is another video about weaving your palms into a fish.

The Devil in the details: Lent 5

This Lent, our theme is finding the Devil in the details of the Sunday gospels. On the first two Sundays, Satan was mentioned explicitly in the gospel. The next two Sundays, we had to look for him in the shadows. In today’s gospel, the devil is again mentioned explicitly (though you might have missed it).

Jesus refers to the climactic battle against Satan at the cross in the final verses: “Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the ruler of this world be cast out; and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” According to the voice of the Father, this hour of judgment will be the hour of the Son’s glory — the hour of his victory on the triumph tree.

Back in the beginning of creation, God made the angels to serve him in heaven and he created the earth as a home for mankind, who were made in his image. When some of the angels rebelled, they were cast out of heaven by St. Michael the Archangel and a host of angels. Jesus once said, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (Lk 10:18).

The devil and his demons were cast out of heaven, and cast onto the earth (see Isaiah 14:12 and Ezekiel 28:17). St. John records in his Revelation: “The great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world -- he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him” (Rev 12:9).

The devil immediately went to work tempting humanity to rebel against God — to defile that image of the Creator within us and destroy our likeness to God. The devil reigns over disobedient hearts, and in that sense the world became his dominion (1 John 5:19).

Jesus refers to the devil as “the ruler of this world” three times in John’s gospel. The perfect obedience of Jesus to the very end and to the fullness of his being, (as shown in his crucifixion) brings the dominion of disobedience to an end. Victory over the ruler (or “prince”) of this world was won once for all at the hour when Christ gloriously poured out his life on the Cross.

Jesus said, “Now is the time for the judgment against this world (i.e., the verdict against the sin within it); now is the time for the unlawful ruler of this world
(i.e., this usurper to the throne) to be cast out.”

Now the kingdom of God would be definitively established on earth. Now his royal subjects could be reunited with God through the perfect obedience of Christ in his death and resurrection. Now the King would be lifted up on his throne of love and draw the whole world to himself.

He draws us today to his sacred Altar, where we “proclaim the Lord’s death” as St Paul says, “until he comes again.” There, Jesus offers us tokens of the transformation that can be a reality for all his people. He bids us to partake of the sacred Host, and to drink from the cup of everlasting salvation.

Most people think the word “host” used for the bread consecrated to the flesh of our Lord Christ has something to do with “hospitality,” but it does not. “Host” comes from the Latin word hostia, which is a sacrificial victim.

In the Eucharist, as on the cross, Jesus is both the Priest and the Victim — the one who offers sacrifice to God, and the offering itself. His sacred Body is laid on the corporal on the altar before the Father. His precious Blood, shed for you and for many so that sins may be forgiven, is presented before the Father in a chalice and covered with a pall.

To share with us his life, he has poured himself out unto death. St. Paul said that Christ “has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Col 1:13-14).

We should note how our forebears, especially in the early centuries of the Church, saw the cross as a sign of triumph and victory. Take the example of Venantius Fortunatus, a poet and bishop in the sixth century, who composed a hymn Pangue Lingua, sung on Good Friday around the world.

Sing, my tongue, the glorious battle,
Sing the winning of the fray;
Now above the cross, the trophy,
Sound the high triumphal lay:
Tell how Christ, the world’s Redeemer,
As a Victim won the day.

May God grant us grace to both behold and share in the victory of the cross. We will glory in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, for he is our salvation, our life and resurrection, by whom we are saved and made free.

The Devil in the details: Lent 4

This Lent, our theme is finding the Devil in the details of the Sunday gospels. On the first two Sundays, it was easy since Satan was mentioned explicitly. Last week, we had to look harder to find the devil in the shadows, working to corrupt and obstruct the worship of God. We’ll also have to look carefully for him again.

Today’s gospel is the story of the miraculous feeding with loaves and fish. But note how it ends: “Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.”

The congregation became a mob who wanted Jesus to be the kind of Messiah they wanted, not the kind God the Father gave us. They wanted a revolutionary, a worldly king. God the Father wanted a willing servant, a sacrificial Lamb.

The devil has many tools in his arsenal to try to thwart God’s will. The other side of leading and luring one into temptation is pushing one toward sin with flattery and peer pressure.

Notice how Jesus responds. He does not stand around to hear the flattery and praise of adoring fans. He does not stay among them to be pushed into doing the wrong thing. Jesus retreats to the mountain —- to that place where he had so often found strength and comfort in solitude and prayer. Let us not listen to those who would stroke our ego and set us up for sin or who would force us into doing wrong.

Perhaps it was some of the same people in the crowd, calling him to be king, who would later call for his execution at the Praetorium. And how ironic that Jesus would end up taking the place of Barabbas (who actually had attempted a revolt) and was ultimately crucified between two of Barabbas’ disciples rather than Jesus' own disciples (whom the Lord had previously urged to take up their crosses and follow).

It happened the way it happened because Jesus ran from peer pressure and embraced the will of God the Father for us and for our salvation. Let us also flee from the diabolical pressure to reject God’s will.

The Devil in the details: Lent 3

This Lent, our theme is finding the Devil in the details of the Sunday gospels. In the first week, the devil appeared as Jesus’ tempter in the wilderness, who is hell-bent on destroying as much goodness as possible. Last week, we heard Jesus describe the apostle Peter as “Satan” because he was literally doing the devil’s work in trying to obstruct Jesus’ way to the cross (and thus to our salvation). We too can do the devil’s work when we interfere in God’s plans.

So where is Satan in our reading today—John’s account of Jesus cleansing the Temple. True, he’s not mentioned explicitly in this passage, but if we look closely, we’ll find the devil lurking in the shadows.

When I was growing up, my grandmother used to tell me that of all places, the devil is most active in church, because that’s where he’s threatened the most and where he stands the most to lose. You can be sure that whatever Jesus is up to, it is in direct contrast to Satan. Here, Jesus is driving the animals out of Solomon’s portico and overturning the tables of the money changers in the Temple. When his disciples looked back on this, they remembered the psalm: “Zeal for thy house will consume me.”

Why was Jesus so upset in the first place? An entire business had grown up around the Jewish sacrificial system. You were to bring an unblemished animal to the Temple for sacrifice. When your animal was inspected, they usually found a blemish.

“But don’t worry, you can trade yours in for this other unblemished one for a price.” So you trade in your animal and you pull out your money to pay the fee. “Oh, I’m sorry, you can’t use Roman coins here. They have an image of Caesar on them, who claims to be a god. That means your coins are idols, and of course no idols are allowed here. But don’t worry, you can trade in your Roman coins for some Temple coins, for a price.”

And thus, the Israelites coming to worship at the Temple, according to the Torah, were being defrauded for doing so (and not once, but twice over). The devil loves corruption, so this was very pleasing to him, of course. But if there’s one thing he really hates, it’s the worship of God.

Jesus, on the other hand, loves worship. His whole life was an act of worship. Jesus was zealous for the Temple, and for the worship of God. He could not stand by and let this corruption go on.

How do you feel about worship? You may not hate it the way the devil does, but if zeal for God’s house doesn’t fill your heart, the devil is having his way. Satan hates worship and tries to foster anything that would corrupt worship, or distract us from worship, or make us fight over worship, and thereby reduce the glory and adoration that we give to God.

In a book on the liturgy he wrote before becoming Pope Benedict, Josef Ratzinger noted, “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church we are experiencing is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy.” Our liturgy has been disintegrated and watered down over the past decades.

One principle of liturgics is Lex orandi, lex credendi “Law of prayer, Law of belief.” Which is to say, what we pray shapes what we believe, and what we believe shapes the way we pray. Change your prayers, and your beliefs will adapt accordingly.

We’ve seen all kinds of liturgical abuses and corruptions—like avoidance of the masculine pronoun for God and Jesus, avoidance of words like Lord, kingdom, and any mention of sin. So now we have a whole generation to whom the idea of the incarnation and the lordship of Christ (who is also our Savior from sin) is totally foreign.

The devil loves wars over worship because it distracts us from glorifying God. Congregations are split and divided about music —- traditional chants, old fashioned hymns, modern choruses, contemporary Christian hits, etc. The devil loves anything that will divide us and distract us from our task of giving worship to God.

In C. S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters, the demon Screwtape advises his underling Wormwood, “I warned you before that if your patient can’t be kept out of the Church, he ought at least to be violently attached to some party within it.”

Corrupt, obscure, distract, divide and conquer, anything you can do to stop the worship of God —- that’s the devil’s plan. God’s plan is different -— “Worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness; let the whole earth stand in awe of him” (Psalm 96:9).

When Jesus cleanses the Temple, they remember Psalm 69:9, which was taken as a mark of the Messiah -— “Zeal for thy house has consumed me.” Should this not also be a characteristic of the Christ-like disciple?

Zeal is fervent love, total commitment to the worship of God. In Hebrew, "zealous" is actually the same word also translated as "jealous." We heard the Ten Commandments today in our first reading. When God commanded us not to worship other gods (idols), it was explained that our God is a jealous God.

His zeal, his fervent love is for our worship. We should be zealous for God as he is zealous for us. May God ignite in us the zeal of love that burned in the heart of Jesus as he bore his passion.

The Devil in the details: Lent 2

This Lent, I will be preaching on the theme of finding the Devil in the details of the Sunday gospel readings.

Last week, we heard about how the devil fell from heaven and is a defeated foe, but like a wounded animal, still dangerous. He knows he’s doomed, so all he can do is make as big a mess as possible for us and for God on his way to hell.

The devil’s chief weapon against us is temptation; he even tested Jesus in the wilderness during his forty days of fasting and prayer. St Padre Pio once said, “Remember, the Devil has only one door with which to enter into our soul: our will. There are no secret or hidden doors. No sin is a true sin if we have not willfully consented.”

St Peter reminded us that the devil is always prowling about, looking for opportunity. We must therefore, be sober and be vigilant to resist him.

There once was a couple trying to make it on a very tight budget. The wife came home to her husband after a day of shopping. She had spent way too much on a fancy evening dress. As she showed it too him, she said, “I know I spent too much on this dress, but I tried it on and it just looked so tempting in the mirror.”

The husband said, “Well why didn’t you just say, ‘Get behind me, Satan’?”

She said, “I did! . . . But then the Devil told me how great it looked from the back.”

In today’s gospel, we pick up just after Peter has confessed that Jesus is the Christ. Another evangelist, St Matthew, informs us that it was on this occasion that Jesus blessed him for that statement of faith with a new name (Peter/Rock) and with the gift of authority—the keys of binding and loosing.

Now Jesus starts talking about what lay ahead—suffering and death on a cross, and Peter would have none of it. He rebukes Jesus and Jesus rebukes him. So we have gone from Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ to Jesus’ confession of Peter as Satan in just four verses.

Peter pulls Jesus aside and argues with him . . . “Suffering? Death? I just told you that you’re the Messiah, and you agreed! But that’s not what the Messiah is like.”

It was on old temptation of the devil resurfacing on the lips of Jesus' own apostle--the one he had just called the rock of his Church. The devil hates the cross, because it sealed his fate and God’s victory. A triumphant worldly king of a Messiah is no real threat to the Devil.

But Jesus saw right through it. He knew his path led to the cross at Jerusalem. “Get out of my way, Satan! You are not on the side of God, but of men.” The Amplified Bible reads: “For you do not have a mind intent on promoting what God wills, but what pleases men.”

After this, Jesus called all the disciples together and explained to them that being a disciple means following his lead, not blocking his path. “If anyone would come after me,” Jesus said, “let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.”

How often have you and I gotten in the way of God? How often have we opposed his work, just by speaking our minds? By sharing words of doubt or criticism or even despair?

We can be Satan in a particular circumstance—we can sin, we can being doing the Devil’s work (just like Peter did in that instant), merely by what we say to someone else at a critical moment in their life. It can tempt them or it can bless them.

In formulating her moral theology over the centuries, the Church has found nine ways of being a participant in the sins of another: by counsel, by command, by consent, by provocation, by praise or flattery, by concealment, by partaking, by silence, and by defense of the sin.

To illustrate, (and since it’s that time of year) let’s take the example of cheating on your income taxes.

1. By counsel. “Don’t you know how to avoid an audit? Stop by and I’ll show you.”

2. By command. “You have to do this because we are all in it together.”

3. By consent. “The government does immoral things. We should pay full price.

4. By provocation. “I double dog dare you to do it. Come on, you chicken”

5. By praise or flattery. “Good for you for sticking it to them. Serves ‘em right!”

6. By concealment. “It didn’t see anything. I wouldn’t know anything about it.”

7. By partaking. “Listen, our Treasurer can give us all receipts for huge deductions.”

8. By silence. “It will be our little secret. I won’t tell if you won’t tell.”

9. By defense of the sin committed. “Well everybody’s doing it. They just write it off.”

The Devil loves to get in the way when it comes to doing the right thing, and these are nine ways we become Satan, nine ways we participate in the sin of the Devil. Don’t follow him; don’t let yourself do the Devil’s work. We are called to follow Jesus, to walk the way of a disciple. It’s our duty to avoid sin and foster goodness—both in ourselves and in others.

Stay focused on Jesus; keep him as number one in your life. The more you are focused on yourself, the more you are prone to sin and to unhappiness. The more you are focused on the Lord, the more your path will stay clear of sin and the more happy and humble you will become.

Being a disciple means following his lead, not blocking his path. “If anyone would come after me,” Jesus said, “let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.”

The Devil in the details: Lent 1

This Lent, I will be preaching on the theme of finding the Devil in the details of the Sunday gospel readings. Jesus called him the “Father of lies” (John 8:44) and St John the Divine called him the “Deceiver of the whole world” (Revelation 12:9). Our goal will be to become familiar the with ways of “Old Scratch” so that we might be less likely to fall into his traps in the future.

Interestingly, just a few days after I decided to preach on the devil, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was taking heat for talking about the devil a few years ago in a speech to Catholic students at Ave Maria University.

He said, “The Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country—the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age?”

Santorum was right about that. The devil has his sights on any force for good—our nation, the Church, the family, children, your soul—all are under attack. This Lent, let us arm ourselves for the spiritual battle.

The late Pope John Paul II said that “Spiritual combat . . . is a secret and interior art, an invisible struggle in which [we] engage every day against temptations.” (Of course, there’s no struggle if you offer no resistance.)

There is an ongoing battle, a clash of good and evil, and you are the ultimate prize—precious human lives, human souls, creatures God made in his own image.

Just who and what is the devil? The Bible tells us that he is a fallen angel—a being created to serve God, but who chose instead to rebel. He began as Lucifer (“the shining one”), but through pride he became known as Satan (“the Adversary” or “Enemy”).

He enticed about a third of the angels to join him. At the judgment of God, St Michael the Archangel led the host of angels to expel Lucifer and his demons from heaven. Jesus once said, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (Luke 10:17).

The Prophet Isaiah wrote, “How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the dawn! . . . Didn’t you say to yourself: ‘I will be as high as heaven; I will be more exalted than the stars of God; I will be the supreme leader in the privileged places; I will be higher than the skies; I will be the same as the Most High God’? But you shall be brought down to hell, to the bottomless pit. And all who see you will despise you” (Isaiah 14:12-16).

The devil is a defeated foe, but (like a wounded animal) he is still dangerous. Like the Nazis retreating into the heart of Germany, or the Iraqis retreating from Kuwait, the Prince of Darkness has enacted a “scorched earth policy.” Those armies devastated the land and cities they had once occupied their retreat. They could not win, so did their best to ruin the spoils of the victors.

The Devil seeks to destroy everything that is good, everything which glorifies God. He knows his ultimate destiny; he knows hell was created for him. He just wants to destroy as many lives and take as many with him as he can.

St. Peter tells us in his first letter, “Be sober, be vigilant. Your adversary the Devil prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experience of suffering is required of your brethren throughout the world” (1 Peter 5:8-9). This Lent, we will talk about how to resist him, firm in our faith.

Even our Lord himself suffered the assaults of the devil in his ministry. Today’s gospel tells us about the high point of his baptism, and the low point of his desert ordeal—all in the span of two verses.

The other evangelists tell us that the desert was for Jesus a time of spiritual struggle. We know that he was tempted in the wilderness. At his baptism, a voice had proclaimed, “Thou art my beloved Son.”

“Are you really the Son of God?” the Devil whispered. “Is the cross really necessary?” Jesus confronted evil whenever this truth was revealed.

I’ve always found it odd that there are some Christians who do not believe that there is actually a devil. Such a view is unbiblical, of course, but there is a greater problem that arises. If there is no devil, how is Jesus tempted? God tempts no one, as were are told by St James. Jesus is alone; is he tempting himself? Then he would not really be God, nor would he be “my beloved Son,” which is precicely the doubt that Satan was trying to instill.

St Theodore of Mopsuestia points out that Jesus defeated the devil’s temptations, not as God (i.e., by just saying it and it being so), but through his humanity. This was to teach us by example “that it is not through miracles, but by long-suffering and patient endurance that we must prevail over the Devil . . .”

The Devil hates the crucifixion, because that sealed his fate and God’s victory. You see, there is a power that overcomes death, hell, and the grave. That power comes from Jesus Christ—living in you by the Holy Spirit. There is something in your life stronger than temptation and sin. It is the grace of God, poured out in the shed blood of Jesus.

The Devil’s great fear is that after filling the world with sin (and filling your life with sin), God would find a way to take it all away, to undo all the Devil’s work. The Devil was right to be afraid!

We’ll learn more about the Devil’s ways this Lent. Meanwhile, “Be sober, be vigilant!”

Vicar's Voice on "religion"

Religion has gotten a bad rap—both in the world and in the church as well. I remember being part of the tradition that affirms, “Christianity is not a religion; it’s a relationship!” I must have heard that at least once a week, and I bought into it “hook, line, and sinker.”

The main sentiment that stance wants to emphasize is correct: that salvation is not based upon obeying certain arbitrary rules, but upon the grace of God, offered to us in a Savior who is Jesus Christ our Lord. But it’s a long stretch from that truth to saying that Christianity is not a religion. It is a simplistic view that “religion” can only mean “false religion,” therefore, Christianity (which is true) cannot be a religion.

I remember back one day to my internship as a VA hospital chaplain during seminary, the driver of the shuttle van from one hospital campus to another asked me, “Chaplain, isn’t it true that the Bible never uses the word religion?”

I responded, “Well, that’s not quite correct.” The driver said, “Oh false religion, sure. But, I mean, the Bible denounces religion.” I responded, “Actually, St James wrote, ‘Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world’ (1:27).”

This gave my driver pause for thought. “Well, my pastor says that Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship,” he said. I responded, “Your pastor is right about the relationship part. But don’t forget that Jesus said in John’s gospel, ‘If you love me, you will keep my commandments’ (14:15), which makes it sound like that relationship is a religion.”

As C. S. Lewis said, “The Christian does not think God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because he loves us.” Of course, nothing about Christianity reeks of religion quite so much as Lent, which begins on February 22nd this year. During this time, the Church calls us to grow closer to Christ by practicing our religion through the spiritual tools of prayer, good works, and self-denial. Each of us should form a personal Lenten rule of fasting, abstinence, almsgiving, prayer, worship, and spiritual reading.

Of course, the Bible does thoroughly denounce false religion (paganism) as well as hypocrisy. We should do so as well, and look upon this as a time for self-examination and confession. We should look for false religion or false idols within ourselves. We should also look for those ways we entertain the hypocrisy which Jesus himself denounced in the way we practice our religion.

I will be available for spiritual counsel and/or sacramental confession by appointment or after Mass on Ash Wednesday. Addition scheduled times will be posted for Holy Week. This Lent, I invite you to strengthen your relationship with Christ by practicing your religion.

Let our Lenten prayer be the words of the priest, who, after putting ashes on our heads on Ash Wednesday, says: “Grant, we beseech thee, O Lord, that we, who now with prayer and fasting do put upon us the armor of our Christian warfare, being defended by the power of abstinence, may fight manfully against all spiritual wickedness; through Christ our Lord. Amen.”

Your pastor and friend,
Timothy+

A little vestment work

This year, I committed myself to using my Roman-purple-on-violet damask vestment set for St. Mary's in Hamilton. The reason is to force myself to complete the set. I made everything but the stole about five years ago (and bought the fabric about 12 years ago). On Fat Tuesday, I finally finished the stole.

Now I'm posting this so I'll have thrown my hat over the ring and commit to making the Roman-purple-on-rose plain damask vestment set for Laetare Sunday. I've already got the orphreys cut and ironed.

Also of interest, I came across a new eBay supplier of vestment fabrics and galloons: Liturgical Vestments. They specialize in Eastern Orthodox brocades, but may are very usuable in western vestments (especially for trim). Check them out.

For the cure?

Yesterday, Susan G. Komen for the Cure reversed it's decision to stop grants for Planned Parenthood. Many people were fiercely opposed to supporting Komen because of their grants to Planned Parenthood. Komen noted a 100% increase in the three days after they announced the halt to future grants. It used to be that the Planned Parenthood grants were a "dirty little secret" about Komen, but now that their renewed support for Planned Parenthood has been advertised far and wide, I would expect that to hurt their fundraising.

Komen said that neither the halting of grants nor the renewal of grants was politically motivated, but that could only be spin. Of course it is. Abortion is a political football and Komen just kicked it for both teams, as it were.

But not only were the twin announcements political, surely the original support must be political too. Let's think about this for a moment. Komen says the grants are for cancer screenings, and Planned Parenthood has acknowledged that no mammograms are performed at any of their clinics. The grants are for screenings and education, which as far as I can figure is having brochures and questionnaires available, along with a "if you feel a lump, you'd better get that checked out."

Would not the money be better spent for such screenings at health clinics for the indigent or subsidies for actual mammograms? This fact, however, is the most critical: the grants go toward an organization (Planned Parenthood) whose two main services (oral contraception and abortion) strongly increase the risk for breast cancer. And that's not political?


However, Tom Peters (The American Papist) has a more nuanced view, and he's certainly more educated about the subject than I am. It seems from his take that the "reversal" more of an apology for hurt feelings, and the policy remains the same. They clarified that that the Congressional investigation of Planned Parenthood does not rise to the the level of disqualification (only a criminal investigation would). Starting next year, grant recipients will need to demonstrate that the money is used for mammograms. Unless things change before then, Planned Parenthood would not qualify.

The antiquity of the Western rite

"Essentially the Missal of Pius V is the Gregorian Sacramentary; that again is formed from the Gelasian book, which depends on the Leonine collection. We find the prayers of our Canon in the treatise de Sacramentis and allusions to it in the 4th century. So our Mass goes back, without essential change, to the age when it first developed out of the oldest liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world and thought he could stamp out the faith of Christ, when our fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as to a God. The final result of our inquiry is that, in spite of unsolved problems, in spite of later changes, there is not in Christendom another rite so venerable as ours." In a footnote he added: "The prejudice that imagines that everything Eastern must be old is a mistake. Eastern rites have been modified later too; some of them quite late. No Eastern Rite now used is as archaic as the Roman Mass."

--Adrian Fortscue, The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy, s.l., 1912, p. 213

A light to enlighten the nations

I have always loved Candlemas, aka the Presentation of Our Lord in the Temple, aka the Purification of Our Lady, aka Groundhog Day.

I like how it overlaps Old Testament and New Testament themes. I reminds me of Hannukah, yet it is about Jesus (the new temple) coming into his own house (the old temple) to be dedicated to the Lord. Jesus and Mary are declared ritually clean again after his birth (thus Candlemas officially wraps up the Christmas season).

There are a number of contrasts. Childbirth normally defiles under the Law because of the bleeding involved, yet Mary was sanctified by the presence of the Lord within her. The temple is also sanctified by the arrival of Christ. A birth is a cause of great joy, yet Simeon tells Mary "a sword will pierce your own heart also." The old temple gives way to the new temple, which shines as a beacon of hope to a world wandering in darkness.

It was my privilege to officiate at the "Churching of Women" (aka The Thanksgiving for the Birth of a Child) for the first time two Sundays ago. Congratulations again to Sarah and Zach Robinson on the birth of their son Wiley. This service is perhaps the truest remnant of Old Testament Jewish worship and ritual that we have today.

Bishop Pope's sermon at Fort Worth Synod

Today, the second Bishop of Fort Worth, Clarence Cullam Pope, Jun., was remembered in his old diocese at a Requiem Mass at St. Vincent's Cathedral. I wish I had more writings and speeches of his. The little that I have seen is great stuff.

One of my favorite quotes from Pope is from when he opened the diocesan convention at All Saints’ Episcopal School in Fort Worth on Friday, 7 October 1994 and made a short farewell statement, which he concluded by noting: “Finally, and I cannot say this more strongly, we are not held together by property and coercive canons. If we fall back on those things, rather than our common faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, we are to be pitied and the Church ends up looking like a jail keeper rather than the dispenser of the saving grace of God.”

Going back a little further, here is Pope's sermon at the closing Mass of the Fort Worth Synod in 1989 on the text, ". . . that they all may be one, even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee . . ." (John 17:21):

Our Concern for Unity
The Gospel we have just heard read contains our Lord's great high priestly prayer, a prayer that must not be lost on us. The circumstances under which we have gathered these few days might overshadow and tend to lessen our vision of the great Church as we take necessary action to hold and extend our mission

And yet it is precisely because of our concern for unity with the Church that we have met in such an extraordinary way. Our concern extends not only to those who have remained faithful to what we believe to be essential, that is, to the given revelation of God in Holy Scripture and historic tradition, but also to those who disagree with us in fundamental ways.

Our Vocation
Ours is not a vocation to smugness and insularity, but to a holy witness that reaches out to the world, holding Christ high that all might be drawn to him. In particular, if we are faithful to our Lord's great prayer, we must not forget consideration for members of our own Anglican family who do not share our belief and convictions about faith and order. Charity, courtesy, and forebearance must be the rule and not the exception.

We must also remember those other Anglicans who, for the present, are not in communion with the See of Canterbury, but who hold the faith in common with us. We must pray and work diligently that reunion with them might be realized as soon as possible.

And yet our concern cannot stop there, because ours is a mission that reflects that of the Church universal in her quest for the redemption of all mankind. Ours is a loyalty we must claim to be of a higher order than to any institution, and that is to the Church Catholic--"universal, holding earnestly the Faith for all time, in all countries, and for all people" (Offices of Instruction, 1928 Prayer Book). Or, to put it another way--"the whole faith to all people" (Catechism, 1979 Prayer Book).

We can do none of this if we lose sight of who we are--if we become anemic and lose sight of all we claim for ourselves and for our mission. Stressful times are the devil's workshop and we must be on our guard to remember always, even as our forbears of old sat and wept when they remembered.

Remembering
But let me hasten to say that I am not so concerned about weeping as I am about remembering: "By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion. On the willows, there we hung up our lyres. For there our captors required of us songs, and our tormentors mirth, saying, 'Sing us one of the songs of Zion.' How shall we sing the Lord's song in a foreign land?" (Psalm 137:1-4).

Memory is a wonderful faculty, and in the portion of the psalter I just read, there is evidence of a remembered remembrance. The past tense of the verbs in the first three verses indicate the psalmist was writing of the past event in which the remembrance of grander times was very painful to his fellow religionists.

These Jews were in captivity and far removed from Zion--Jerusalem--and all that meant to them. Their memory served to remind them of who they were in spite of their sadness, and would ultimately be the instrument of their salvation. It would not be very difficult for those of us gathered here to think of ourselves in those poetically sad words of Psalm 137. We have all sat down and wept when we remembered our own Zion before the capture--before a tireless and demanding secularism began its stifling effect upon the Church in this country.

One has to wonder what happened to those who no longer weep with us--or those who now seem happy in their captivity. What has happened to their memory? St. Augustine, in his work On the Trinity, wrote, "We know many things which in some sense live by memory, and so in some sense die by being forgotten."

Being and Doing Church
But we are not here to weep and wring our hands anymore--we are here to remember and because of that memory to get on with the job of being and doing Church in the sense of the givens of Holy Scripture and the received tradition.

I think St. Paul must have had us in mind when in his second letter to Timothy he wrote, "I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. As for you, always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry" (2 Timothy 4:1-5).

"Always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry." We do this best when we have a holy remembrance--a remembrance stirred by the Holy Spirit to make lively within us the gospel of Jesus Christ. As we receive Holy Communion in a few minutes, let us be mindful of the remembrance that brings us the sacramental presence of our Savior. This is the essence of our hope and the source of our strength to accomplish the monumental work ahead of us to which we believe God has called us.

Ordinary prognostications

Before the New Year begins, I usually do some prognostications. In the realm of Anglican interest would be the appointment of an ordinary for the establishment of an Anglican Ordinariate in the United States on January 1. Since I supposed the announcement will be made just before the new year, I wanted to get this post out before then.

Anglicanorum Coetibus indicates that former Anglican bishops would be the most likely candidates for ordinary, but not necessarily so. There are six TAC bishops who are joining the ordinariate. Of those, perhaps Archbishop Louis Faulk could serve as a transitional figure to get things off the ground until a more permanent ordinary could be appointed. He might be a good choice given that his ministry was occupied in building up the continuing Anglican movement and leading it toward reconciliation with the Holy See (on the other hand, some might think that he would be a bad choice for precisely the same reason). What I'm not sure about is his age and health (he will turn 77). Faulk is retired now, and may not be up to the task.

Four bishops of the Episcopal Church became Roman Catholics in recent years. Two of those converts became reverts--Bishops Clarence Pope and Daniel Herzog. The other two have now been ordained as Catholic priests, Fathers Jeffrey Steenson and John Lipscomb. Of those two, Steenson is the more accomplished with an Oxford doctorate in theology. Interestingly, Pope and Steenson visited with Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II in the early 1990s to propose the establishment of a structure for Anglicans in the Catholic Church that was very similar to what eventually was established with Anglicanorum Coetibus. The Bovina Bloviator seems confident it will be Steenson.

In choosing an ordinary, preference is given for Anglican bishops, but he does not necessarily have to be one. And there are many former Anglican/Episcopal priests now serving as priest in Roman Catholic dioceses throughout the country. Of these, Fr. George Rutler is (like Steenson) the most theologically accomplished and has many years of pastoral experience on both sides of the Tiber. He is also unique in being unmarried and if chosen to be the ordinary, would be ordained to the episcopate. It might in itself be worth having at least one of the Anglican ordinaries be a bishop.

There are also priests who have been serving in the seven Anglican Use parishes and who would be able to bring those years of experience to the table. The most experienced would be Fr. Christopher Philips of Our Lady of the Atonement parish and school in San Antonio. He was instrumental in forming the Anglican Use in the first place and has been a great resource to those interested in the ordinariate throughout the country.

Another possibility is Fr. Scott Hurd, who has been the liaison for Cardinal Wuerl for the implementation of the ordinariate in this country, and there are many other unsung heroes who have been faithfully ministering as priests.

One question is whether the new ordinary will need to be a priest already. I suspect so. In England, the ordinary was received and ordained and made the ordinary right away. In that case, he was one of several Anglican bishops who converted for the establishment of an ordinariate. The situation is not the same in the US, where there have been Anglican Use parishes for years, and there is not the same need for an "all at once" approach.

So who will the ordinary be? My prognostication (which is a total guess based on no inside information whatsoever) is that it will not be anyone named above. I guess we'll find out in a matter of days.

Update: As usual, my prognostications are worth less than the paper they're written on. As everyone else anticipated, the new Ordinary for the US is Father Jeffrey Steenson. I'm sure he will prove to be a wise choice. If it's any consolation, I also predict that President Obama will be re-elected this November.

Also, just for fun, here is a magazine article from 1911 about what life will be like 100 years from now. Some of the guesses were not too far off the mark.

Such a healthy perspective!

It is refreshing to have such a healthy perspective on the whole issue of living with sexual brokenness as a faithful Catholic. According to Steve Gershom, it's just an ordinary life, and he's right. Have a look at his blog post "Gay, Catholic, and Doing Fine."

Here's an excerpt:
"Is it hard to be gay and Catholic? Yes, because like everybody, I sometimes want things that are not good for me. The Church doesn't let me have those things, not because she's mean, but because she's a good mother. . . . So, yes, it's hard to be gay and Catholic -- it's hard to be anything and Catholic -- because I don't always get to do what I want. Show me a religion where you always get to do what you want and I'll show you a pretty shabby, lazy religion. Something not worth living or dying for, or even getting up in the morning for. That might be the kind of world John Lennon wanted, but John Lennon was kind of an idiot."