Brother Paphnutius - an ongoing parable (Part VII)

"And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body." (Mk. 14:22)

 

<><   <><   <><

Uncertainty

366 A.D. - the Egyptian desert (early winter)

Br. Paphnutius loves the Book of Common Prayer and quantum physics (the whimsical irony of neither one of these having been conceived in his lifetime being completely beside the point!). In its American edition of 1928 there is a prayer that includes (on pg. 37 for those following along at home): "Give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions." If in his own day, the Gnostics and the Arians were the loudest of the divisive, just imagine what he would think if he could see the state of Christianity in the 21st century!

At the least(!), these divisions are at their heart a disagreement over what particular texts mean as we read them in the Bible. And that got Paphnutius thinking, 'what happens when someone reads something from the Bible? Do they bring their own biases and individual ways of thinking?' (Yes.) 'Will any one person ever have enough information to be able to read it in isolation?' (Not likely.) 'Are the decrees of the Council of Nicaea an accurate representation of what appears in the pages of the Scriptures?' [Paphnutius is banking on it, with good reason (cf. the rhetorical point immediately preceeding this one).]

So, when reading the Bible, is it simple or complex? Neither? Both?

How's about this? Let's say, for argument's sake, that it is "ontologically simple" yet "theologically and literarily complex".

Let's see how Paphnutius breaks this down using the text quoted at the head of this article. It is indeed ontologically simple. Jesus, acting prior to the surety of His Crucifixion and Resurrection (which is, by the way, the WHOLE POINT of the entirety of Scripture) begins His fulfillment to the Passover act by means of the chabûrah meal [in order that it might be subsequently repeated regularly (see Gregory Dix) - that whole bit about fulfilling, not abolishing, the Law being entirely germane here].

Thus the "take, eat" of the Last Supper is ontologically simple.

But there is all sorts of other stuff going on here. This account was written down (and has been translated through) multiple languages and textual recensions of (generically slight) different readings so that words such as "take", "eat", "do this", "remembrance" "my body" cannot simply be taken at face value but must be looked into through cultural anthropology, literary analysis (including etymological development), their relation to the rest of the narrative in context, the teaching of the Fathers of the first centuries A.D. (remember that bit about not being able to work in isolation?!), and other means.

Consider this as well. The "communions of antiquity" (Rome, Orthodoxy, Miaphysite), the Reformed bodies (Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Anglicanism, etc.), and the modern movements (non-denominational, revivalist, prosperity, etc.) cannot agree on what this verse means.

Thus the "take, eat" of the Last Supper is, at the same time, theologically/literarily complex.

The point (yes, there is one) is that this is a pretty important specific subject (as it is mentioned not only by all 4 Gospels, but also in Acts and the Pauline Epistle to the Corinthians) so we (at bare minimum) need to keep our thinking clear (even if, as seems likely, there will never be entire agreement).

In our thinking, perhaps Heisenberg can help clear away some of the mental jetsam that is such an obstruction:

"As an example, he considered the measurement of the position of an electron by a  microscope. The accuracy of such a measurement is limited by the wave length of the light  illuminating the electron. Thus, it is possible, in principle, to make such a position  measurement as accurate as one wishes, by using light of a very short wave length. But...the  Compton effect cannot be ignored: the interaction of the electron and the illuminating light  should then be considered as a collision of at least one photon with the electron. In such a  collision, the electron suffers a recoil which disturbs its momentum. Moreover, the shorter  the wave length, the larger is this change in momentum. Thus, at the moment when the  position of the particle is accurately known, Heisenberg argued, its momentum cannot be  accurately known." (see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/)

Phew! What?!?

Simply this. Delving too deeply into the complexity, we can (and have) gotten quite lost and shifted the point (which is indeed to "take, eat" not "look, dispute"). Exclusively relying on the simplicity (particularly when such is conceived in modern terms such as plain, unadorned, easy to understand and not in a philosophico-theological construction of non-compartmentalisation and evident teleology) moves us to where some are at today [i.e. drowning in a sea of Nominalism (of their own making!)].

[Now, if you will excuse him, Br. Paphnutius is off to attend Sunday Liturgy so that he might "take" and "eat".

To be continued...

Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester

Today is the date of death [Well, sort of. England at the time was still on the Julian Calendar] of the venerable Lancelot Andrewes, sometime bishop of Winchester and translator of a portion of the Authorised ("King James") Bible.

Some of his works can be found at this link.

Here is the collect we used at our parish's morning prayer yesterday:

O God, who hast put in Thine own power
the times and the seasons; as Thou didst endue
Thy bishop Lancelot Andrewes with the grace
of the Apostolic ministry and the virtue of godly learning,
so give us the like grace that in all fitting and acceptable times
we may pray unto thee and come at last into the fulness
of Thy great glory. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

This is my own composition. The italicized portions are taken and adapted from the "Horology" appearing in a translation of Andrewes' "Preces Privatae".

"Western troparia" to the Holy Ghost

O God the Holy Spirit, light and life,
living fountain of all spiritual reality,
the essence of wisdom and the Spirit of knowledge,
refining fire proceeding from refining fire;
as we recall the great mystery of your descent at Pentecost
come again among your own who desire to be blessed and hallowed
by your life giving power that we may be a blessing
and a hallowing to all mankind.

O Great Promise of the Word made flesh,
as we look forward to His coming again with power and great glory,
assist us to redeem the time as the days are evil.

Therefore we offer and present unto You O Lord, O Holy Spirit,
ourselves and our souls and bodies in the company and fellowship
of those who have shed their blood and won the palm of martyrdom
in our day. May we all be a reasonable, holy, and sweet-smelling sacrifice
unto You, likewise to the Eternal Father and to the Risen Son,
living and reigning ever one God, throughout all ages
world without end. Amen.

<><   <><   <><

 

This is an original composition by me with influences from the Scots '29, S. African '54 and American '28 Eucharistic canons as well as prayers at the Lamplighting Psalms from the Byzantine Catholic rite. - D.E.S. 

Br. Paphnutius - an ongong parable (Part VII)

"In the beginning..." (Genesis 1:1)

 

<><   <><   <><  

 

Atonement

 

366 A.D. - the Egyptian desert (sometime in the Autumn)

What a lovely Fall afternoon! The papyrus harvest, more plentiful than usual, is drying in the sheds. There will be plenty of work to do over the Winter in making paper and copying manuscripts for use of the brethren. The monastic choir has been sounding more harmonious lately when they gather in the church to sing Vespers before the daily meal. There have been no wars, or rumours of wars, for over a year now. In short, life is good for the Egyptian monks.

As philosophy is the luxury of the fed and housed, Br. Paphnutius has been entertaining some guests today who asked him about the particulars of the Fall of Mankind recounted in Genesis and the Atonement wrought on the Cross and in the Resurrection. Basically, their questions [loaded with preconceptions such as a literal 6 day creation and the making of Adam and Eve as the first two people exactly as described in the Hebrew text] boiled down to this one: "Father, what does it all mean?"

"Well", said Paphnutius. "Let's start at the beginning. 'In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.' As far as I have always been concerned, the rest of the story up until the serpent's appearance is just a commentary on that first sentence. Did any of it actually happen as described? It may or may not have. Remember when we discussed the four senses [Editorial note: For those of you reading along at home, those are the literal, the allegorical, the moral, and the anagogical.] in which our Scriptures can be read and how it is not only possible, but likely that these senses blend together in the various parts in greater or lesser degree depending on context and circumstance? Well, I think that very thing is at play right here at the beginning of the story. If you can find a good balance of the senses and get past needing 'Adam' and 'Eve' to be historical prototypes and see them rather as archetypes in the midst of the unfolding of creation, then I think you can stand on pretty solid ground intellectually and spiritually. Nowhere in this text do the creation stories demand to be taken literally. But that doesn't mean that what they are telling us isn't true, it just isn't true in the easiest possible way to read it. Somewhat related to this, when we look out into the night sky and observe the heavens, I imagine that we will someday be able to see further out and discover more about the operation of the sky. If it isn't exactly as described here, well that's not really a problem. If you think 'the heaven and the earth' is the most important piece of the sentence I quoted from Genesis, you have entirely missed the point."

"Okay, you have our attention." said one of Paphnutius' interlocutors. "What is the point?"

"The point", my dear fellow, "is 'God created'. That is the essence of the opening line of Genesis. Everything else follows on from that. If you just keep your wits and 'senses' about you, you can read the text without getting bogged down by things that have no primary bearing on what is being communicated. Consider this. Today, when I woke up, after keeping Vigil, I walked out of my cave and turned right to collect some water. That is an historical event that was witnessed by some of the brethren and so they and I can be assured that I actually did this thing. It is 'true'. Conversely, it is 'false' to say that I turned left when walking out of my cave. I could have, but I chose not to. In this instance, I could have made at least four different decisions: turning to the right, turning to the left, going straight ahead, or remaining in the cave. It is only because we live in a linear time cycle that there are such things as the past and the future, events that happened and events that didn't happen. It is like floating down a river which has such a strong current that we can neither swim against it nor get close enough to the shore to see what lies beyond. [Editorial note: If our perspective is that of the one in the river, then God's perspective is, at the very least, of the one standing on the shore who is free to travel to all points up and down the watercourse...and beyond.] Perhaps we can extend this metaphor further."

By now, the heads of his guests were beginning to spin. "What do you mean, Father? This is a bit much to digest before dinner."

"Bear with me, please" replied Paphnutius. "I have given some consideration to these matters and it does me good to speak them out loud in order that they might breathe the free air of discussion, consideration and challenge."

"We'll do our best" said the guests in unison.

"Now, where was I? Oh, yes. What if, from the time I made my first decision, my life, like a river, branched off into each of the possibilities. Therefore, my choice caused me to 'float' down one of the branches rather than the others. Since I am floating at water level in this metaphorical river, I cannot see beyond its banks. And this brings us back around to the text in Genesis. Could there not also be other 'channels' or 'tributaries' wherein other persons are also experiencing the consequences of their decisions independently, yet we are all moving in the same direction? If 'Adam' and 'Eve' are indeed the archetypes I claim them to be, then the subsequent revelation of the Prophets, the Wisdom literature, the Gospels and Epistles all proclaim a common telos as the Greeks would put it. In other words, though we can't/don't see them in the Genesis narrative, all other tributaries are flowing into the main channel eventually and, thus, all moving in the same direction."

"Yikes" said the guests, again in unison, much like a Greek chorus. "But there's only one universe, and God created it. What is this business about rivers, and multiple choices. It's too complicated."

[Editorial note: Please don't get bogged down by the side issue of whether or not all possibilities are necessitated into being. This is not, after all, a script from Dr. Who. The prime purpose of this mental exercise, as Paphnutius will get to straight away, is to bring some perspective to our perspective (i.e. We see what we are able to and/or need to; that doesn't exclude the presence of other 'peripherals').]

"Yes, it is complicated" replied Paphnutius. "But what I'm getting at is that perhaps only the course of one of the 'river-tributaries' is being described in Genesis. Remember that what is written there must logically have been committed to paper long after what is being described and retold by oral tradition. It is hard, nay impossible, for those floating in the river to describe what is beyond its banks, let alone what is at the head of the watercourse which, for them lies many leagues behind and around multiple twists and turns."

"I think we are in agreement about that. It does strain the imagination, but makes sense. Where are you going with this, Father?"

"It gets us back to the nature of truth. I started out by telling you that it was a 'truth' that I walked out of my cave this morning and turned to the right. We instinctively assume, then, that my turning left was a falsehood as I didn't do that. But...as it was a possibility that I do so, perhaps the 'left branch' of that part of the river still exists as a route untaken. Therefore, the possibility exists that that is also 'true', we just won't ever see it since we cannot 'swim backwards'. That is our perspective. And if that is the case about small things of no lasting consequence such as the direction I travel in order to obtain water, might it not also be the case that we are only seeing a singular perspective 'from the river' being recounted in Genesis? Thus it is possible that other people are involved in the story of the Fall over a longer period of what we experience as time that we just don't [need] to hear about. Thus we arrive back at my proposition that 'Adam' and 'Eve' are presented to us as literary and theological archetypes of the disobedience that we live under as human beings. Was there a talking snake and a couple of bites out of a piece of fruit? Maybe, maybe not. The devil, in this case, is in the generality, not the particulars."

"Does the bishop know you teach like this?" they said, somewhat incredulously.

"I have no secrets from him, but he hasn't asked. Let me ask you a question, and thus give you another example to chew on of what I am talking about. What is the most important part of this verse? 'And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.' (Genesis 1:31)

The youngest of the guests, somewhat timidly, offered: "God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good"?

"Yes" said Paphnutius, almost exultantly (at least as exultantly as one who has dedicated his life to silence and contemplation can get). "That is exactly the point. Now, tell me this. Is God all powerful?"

"Of course" she replied.

"Can we destroy what He has made?"

She had to think for a while and consult with the others, knowing now that simple, "face-value" answers were not the order of the day with this monk. "I would say, in part, but we cannot undo the universe, if that is what you are asking."

"That is a good insight" replied Paphnutius. "Consider this, then we can break for dinner. You asked me originally about the nature of the Fall in Genesis. We have considered what it means for something to be 'true' in the light of decisions to be taken, realising that what is copied on a page may not be the whole of the story, just the part that we need to see to understand the point of its being recounted, and that, like good literary, visual or musical arts, something need not be literal in order to be true. I will admit that I like to read Homer and Plato for leisure. Does it matter whether Helen of Troy or Socrates were real people, modeled on various personages or completely fictional? No. They 'exist' on the page and in minds and souls of the readers and the author. And they have something to teach us about the quest for beauty and goodness. So, yes, I can confidently say they are 'true' even if they are not literal. But enough about that for now. Whoever, and for whatever duration of time, precipitated the commission of Original Sin, we seem to have teased out that it is not possible for us to completely undo the good work of our heavenly Father. Thus I take severe umbrage at some Christians whose views do much damage to our faith and those who are sincerely trying to follow Christ by insisting on there being strictly a literal, historical, singular meaning to the text [Editorial note: The position given here could thusly be summarised as 'That's all there is and we are seeing it'. Paphnutius' proposition here is that there may indeed be more and we are only seeing a (needful) portion of it.] and who assign terribly tragic consequences to it. I am told they refer to it as 'total depravity' wherein our hearts are described as completely dead and that we  became unable even to will the will to do good in the small, everyday circumstances of our life. Thus do they read this portion of Genesis concluding with 'Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.' (Genesis 3:23) Your instinct, young lady, seems a good one to me. While we can bend and irreparably [for us] maim the pieces, we cannot undo the universe and its occupants whose existence, we are told, is 'very good'.
"Dear Father, that's all well and good, but we're hungry. After the meal, may we know your thoughts on the sacrificial lamb?"

"Of course"

Just then the bell was rung for the common meal that was shared with any guests and, in particular, the poor who presented themselves at table.

"If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof. Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?" (Psalm 50: 12,13)

After a fine and satisfying, if not overly opulant meal, Br. Paphnutius and his guests returned to their Socratic dialogue [which, by this time had morphed into more of a monologue, but...]. "We have now arrived at a good place" continued Paphnutius, "to consider how God is."

"But we know that already", said one visitor who had remained silent up until now. "We have the Scriptures and the statement of faith of the Fathers of Nicea."

"We do indeed, and they serve their purpose well. Let's dive on in."

With a raised eyebrow, his latest inquirer asked, "What? Not another river story I hope."

"Not 'what', but 'how' " said Paphnutius with the indication of a smile. "We have been told to call God 'Abba/Father' and that should remind you of the man who raised you. When you disobeyed, did  he ever cut you off completely from the family and its interests?"

"No, of course not."

"In light of that, then, consider this." Paphnutius arose, took a scroll from its place in the clay jar, unrolled it, and read: "If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone?...If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him." (Lk. 11: 11a,13)

"But the instance in Genesis seems more severe," they retorted.

"Does it indeed? Then consider this." And he unrolled a bit further and continued to read: "A certain man had two sons: And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living." (Lk. 15: 11-12) Paphnutius laid down the scroll and looked about the room. "In his asking for this, does this son not thereby effectively wish his father dead in claiming prematurely what is reserved for him at that time?"

"That seems to be the case."

"Is this a 'severe' enough instance to consider, then?"

They all agreed that it was.

"Then, in light of what he did, consider what becomes of this son." And Paphnutius continued to read: "And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want. And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine." (ibid., vs. 14-15)

"Now", said Paphnutius. "Place yourselves in such a position that you are the father who has been dishonoured in such a way. And then imagine that you can see the straightened circumstances into which your child has gotten himself. Is now the time to demand substitutionary sacrifices in order to placate a sense of wrath? Will you then beat your other son senseless in order to 'make up for' what the first has done?"

"Of course not", they all vehemently agreed.

"Think upon, if you will, the 'scapegoat' in Leviticus and the animal sacrifices in the Temple that were an intrinsic part of Judaic worship. What is the purpose in their sacrifice? Do they take our place? Are they being punished? Or does the rite confer a 'sweet-smelling savor' that is consumed in the liturgical offering? If the latter is the case, then that, I contend, is also what the Lamb of God on the Cross is – a liturgical offering, not a penal substitution. The Lord Jesus is consumed in the fires of suffering on the altar of the Cross in the same manner as the first fruits, flesh meat and incense were consumed by the literal fires of the altars in the Temple. The covenant and rites of the Old Testament are now completed for all time, and through His death our archetypal preference for death is now converted back into the 'sweet-smelling savor' of our innocent creation. We are now made new and prepared for life again."

All sat in silence for some time; some pondered, others prayed. Finally, breaking the quiet of the room: "Consider this my friends." And Paphnutius continued to read from the scroll: "And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him." (ibid., vs. 20)

And he said: "That, my dear fellows, is us. God Himself is so good that He has willed and inspired our turning, our 'arisal' from all eternity. There are many needless things that have been theorised about what it means that we have been atoned for. It is nothing more complicated than this. We have wished for death instead of life. That wish was granted, though that was not what we are made for. The Lord Jesus has Himself arisen from the dead so that we might be able to follow him and do likewise."

The moral of (this part) of the story: Br. Paphnutius hasn't talked this much since we first encountered him. This visit with his guests was more like a Socratic monologue! But hey, they asked! They did, however, pray together both before and after and no one left angry or upset that what they assumed to be right was not necessarily the way that everyone else saw things and that the notion of God's wrath, source of so much anxiety for those on either side of the fence (and everyone in between) perhaps is not the overriding issue that it has come to be in some circles, along with its connexion to an attractiveness of its fulfilling the notion of a "comeuppance" against those who we feel have wronged us or those close to us or those who disagree with our deeply personalised religious notions (whether they bear a semblance to what is good, true and beautiful or not). The beauty of the practice of religion is that it should be taken so personally. The trouble with the practice of religion is that it can be taken so personally. Wisdom lies in seeing the difference.

To be continued...

Easter IV

Job 19: 21-27a     James 1: 17-21     John 16: 5-15

 

<><   <><   <><  

 

"Have pity upon me, have pity upon me, O ye my friends, for the hand of God hath touched me! Why do ye persecute me as God, and are not satisfied with my flesh?" (Job 19:21-22) These words of Job clearly show us a man who is less than impressed with the advice of his three friends who have gathered around him in the season of his calamities. Thus while he is no doubt comforted by their presence, their words can only serve as a cautionary counterexample to Job's lived antecedence of the passion of Jesus Christ. And just as Jesus "humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross" so that "God also hath highly exalted him", (Phil. 2: 8,9) so Job knows "that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth...whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another." (Job 19: 25,27)

 

And we, like Job, know these things to be true, even if we cannot, like Job's friends, yet perceive their end and final consummation with our senses. And that, faith in its essence, requires patience. Of this virtue, St. Cyprian (the third century bishop of Carthage and martyr) says: "It is patience which both commends, and preserves us to God. It is this that restrains anger, bridles the tongue, governs the mind, guards peace...binds down the violence of pride, quenches the flame of hatred...makes men humble in prosperity, brave in adversity, mild toward injuries and contempts....It is this that firmly fortifies the foundations of our faith. (from "On the Benefit of Patience")

 

Beautiful! But even that is not generous enough for our loving Father. He is also glad to send us the Holy Spirit. As we hear in the Gospel today: "It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment." (John 16: 7,8)

The Greek word rendered here as reprove really has a dual meaning, both to convict and to convince. Just as at trial it is the prosecutor’s role to convict the defendant by convincing the jury, so is it the Spirit’s role to convict us of our need for repentance before God by convincing us of the truth of revelation shown forth in the person and ministry of Christ.

Of these two ideas, I'd like to spend some time thinking about convincing. Separating it into its component Latin roots, we arrive at “con” and “vincere”. Literally these mean "to conquer with". Indeed, Webster’s gives as one definition of convince: “to overpower or to overcome.”

Aside from providing gifts and graces from the life of the Trinity to us, the Holy Spirit also has a decidedly forensic role to play. I was a big fan of the show "Crime Scene Investigation", known as "C.S.I." Every Thursday at 9:00 pm, the team would come across varying circumstances that pointed to a violent crime having been committed. Just a quick glance around the scene is enough to tell you that somebody died in rather unfortunate circumstances.  In the same way, a bit of honest self reflexion and examination is enough to tell us that we ourselves are far from perfect; and, in fact, are victims in our own right of the violence done to our souls and our relationships on account of our sins, our selfish tendencies and our egos. It doesn’t take any special theological knowledge or a gigantic mental leap to see this. Whether or not we acknowledge it, we are aware of our own faults.

The tricky part comes in trying to uncover and prove the events surrounding the scene. The C.S.I. team examines evidence, interviews witnesses and relies on past experience to reconstruct a timeline of events, track down potential suspects and determine the extent of innocence or guilt. The Spirit does much the same for us. He is our moral forensic team. He inspires us to learn and know the teaching of Christ (the evidence), the moral law and the deposit of holy tradition entrusted to the Church and the lives of the saints (the witnesses) and the extent of the injury we cause ourselves and others when we sin (an objective standard of guilt). All of these things fall under the category of ‘convincing.’

 

But I think as well that when we are told that the world will receive the reproof of the Spirit with regard to our sins, it is not to be understood as a catalogue of faults that He uncovers with the aim of inflicting some sort of judicial punishment or retribution. In fact, I think that is a terribly false construction that is highly detrimental both theologically and spiritually. Rather is it a means of exposing our wounds and brokenness so that they might be accessible to treatment. Indeed, the Spirit of God is the very means by which our healing, our regeneration and the process of our redemption is brought about.

 

We are convinced, we are overpowered, we are overcome by God’s Spirit not by any great show of force but by the gentle prodding of our conscience and our intellect. He is that inner fire that refines and purifies yet does not consume. Though they seem to be ever in high demand, now is not the time for great signs and wonders for we have already received the greatest sign of all in the death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ which we continue to celebrate especially during these fifty days.

One of the most universally acclaimed verses of Scripture illustrating this is John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” How true that is. What can be forgotten is that it is a conditional statement, not an absolute guarantee regardless of the circumstances. To believe involves active and living faith, not passive receptivity via osmosis. Further on in the Epistle of St. James than we hear today, we read: "But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves." (James 1:22) The Spirit Who enlightens our faith is Himself active and not passive.

In summary then, to believe is to die and rise in Christ. It is a whole new mode of life. To do this is impossible without receiving the convincing of the Spirit of God. Once more, in the words of St. James: “Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures….Therefore put away all filthiness and rank growth of wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.” (James 1: 18, 21) Who is it that has done this planting? It is the Spirit of God Himself. By this means He inspires, He convinces, and in the midst of the temporalities of suffering, death and false assurances He gives us the hopeful vision of Job. And finally, in the words of Garrison Keillor, He gives us “the strength to get up and do what needs to be done.” 

Easter/Pascha 2017

What a joy when Christians both West and East can share a common date for the celebration of Easter as happened this year. At my own parish, the sermon was a "re-run" from 2015. You can find it here.

published

Some of my recent poetry has been published here. Check it out.*

*Yes, it does contain an "article of profanity" chosen judiciously for artistic purposes, so it is "nsfw" as modern parlance would have it. I know, and stand by, what I have written and preached about with regard to gratuitous swearing and "cursing" but this instance is truly for artistic purposes and is intended neither as a curse nor merely for the sake of gratuitousness.

Lent III

Ephesians 5:1-14     Luke 11:14-28

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one God: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might...And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart...And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes." (Deut. 6: 4-6, 8) One of the unique features of the Anglican Liturgy is that we are privileged to hear a portion of these words (known as the Shema Yisrael) every time Holy Communion is celebrated in the "Summary of the Law", thus we stand in perfect continuity with the Old Testament. We as Christians affirm our monotheistic faith, and our confidence that in Jesus Christ the Law of Moses, the writings of the Prophets and the rites of the Temple are appropriately and perfectly fulfilled.
    

The Jewish Encyclopedia has the following to say: "According to the Talmud, the reading of the 'Shema' morning and evening fulfills the commandment 'Thou shalt meditate therein day and night' (Josh. i. 8; Men. 99b). As soon as a child begins to speak his father is directed to teach him the verse 'Moses commanded us a law, even the inheritance of the  congregation of Jacob' (Deut. xxxiii.4), and teach him to read the 'Shema' (Suk. 42a). The reciting of the first verse of the 'Shema' is called the acceptance of the yoke of the kingship of God." And that is what we intend to do as well, accept the yoke of the kingship of God. And we know that it is not a burdensome thing, for our Lord Jesus Christ tells us that His yoke is easy and His burden light.
    

Our faith is one that involves not just the head or the heart, but our whole being. Thus, for observant Jews, the wearing of phylacteries (small leather boxes containing texts of the Law) on the forehead and left arm during morning prayers is a way to observe the commands of the Law and reinforce the all-encompassing nature of belief in the One, true God; somewhat akin to the practice of Christians wearing crosses, carrying prayer ropes and participating in the Sacramental life of the Church. Tangible things (bread, wine, oil, water, salt, ash) remind us that it is our whole person that is committed to living a life in Christ. The Word made flesh is not just an intellectual proposition to which we give assent. The material world is a good and not hopelessly corrupted and to be shunned and degraded, and thus the idea that it doesn't make any difference what we do "in the flesh" (for good or ill) as long as we believe correctly must needs be forsworn. If it's still languishing in there, now is an opportune time to bring your religion out of your head.
    

But, just as God can (and does) use the material world to display His greatness and generosity, so too the depths of hell have been allowed to wage war against this generosity. Consider the case of possession in today's Gospel. “And [Jesus] was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered. But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils. And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven. But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.” (Lk. 11: 14-17) There are three significant things happening in this part of the Gospel lesson that we hear today: the power of the devil is driven away and a mute person speaks, the incredulous and slow to believe are reduced to name calling and personal attack, and our Lord Jesus Christ uses forceful logic to turn the complaint of the crowds on its head.
    

As to the first point, the actual physical healing and deliverance, the Venerable Bede has the following to say: “Matthew saith that the devil, by which this poor creature was possessed, was not only dumb, but also blind; and that, when the possessed was healed by the Lord, he both saw and spake. Three miracles, therefore, were performed on this one man; the blind saw, the dumb spake, and the possessed was freed from the devil. This mighty work was then done in the flesh, but is now fulfilled spiritually every time men are converted and become believers. For from them the devil is cast out, and their eyes are given to see the light of the Faith, and their lips, which before were dumb, are opened that their mouth may shew forth the praise of God.” (Bk. 4, ch. 48, on Luke 11)
    

Three miracles were performed on this man. Perhaps it is no coincidence, then, that on the first Sunday of Lent we are presented with Jesus' 40 day fast in the desert where Satan attempts to offer him three seductions (physical, spiritual and temporal gratification), and that now on this third Sunday of Lent we are presented with three remedies to these temptations accomplished by our Lord in the life of one of His people. While the powers of darkness are limited by their creaturely status, they do know enough to goad us on to exploit our moral and spiritual weaknesses. We learn as much in the Book of Job when Satan complains that Job is only a righteous man because he is under the faithful providence of God. Take away his material prosperity, the devil contends, and he will be cast into the realms of despair and unbelief. So God allows Job to be tempted and Satan is given reign to act on his human frailties. “Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand.” (Job 1:12)
    

To be a slave of sensual desire is in a real sense to be blind to all else, save one's own desires and baser cravings. To presume on the intentions of another without speaking to them to learn the truth of the matter is also a grave injustice. To think that we can do everything on our own, that God, while benevolent, isn't really involved in the everyday business of living one's life but rather relegated to an outside 'second storey' is the ultimate desire for power. So when this man is delivered from the influence of the devil, in a real sense he is an illustration of the spiritual program that Jesus sets up for us beginning with His own 40 days in the desert.
    

But, as evidenced in the Gospel, not everyone is pleased by this miracle worked by our Lord. How strange and unfortunate it is that our fallen nature allows us to be upset at the legitimate good fortune of others. It reminds me of the story of Jonah who is quite distressed at the conversion and repentance of Nineveh. Both of these scenarios present us with an immutable truth, as explained by William Barclay in his commentary on St. Luke's Gospel: “It is by no means uncommon for people to resort to slander when honest opposition is helpless....There is nothing so cruel as slander, for it is apt to stick because the human mind always tends to think the worst and very often the human ear prefers to hear the derogatory rather than the complimentary tale. We need not think that we are free of that particular sin. How often do we tend to think the worst of other people? How often do we deliberately impute low motives to someone whom we dislike?....To think of this will not cause complacency but call for self-examination.” (Barclay, Gospel of Luke, 148)
    

And I think this opposition of the unbelievers to the person who has been delivered and to Jesus Himself is a particularly apt example for us. It is awfully easy to assume that while Jesus, being true God and true man, naturally had an easy time confounding Satan and his temptations, we of creaturely status should not be expected to fair quite so well and so give up before we have even started. But our Lord is saying that not only will we need to contend with the wiles of the devil in our own lives just as He Himself did, but that He will not leave us alone, if only we willingly avail ourselves of His assistance. I have been know for offering the following bit of spiritual direction: God will not be outdone in generosity, and facing down temptation is no exception to this rule. Our Lord even tells us as much right before today's narrative. “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?” (Lk. 11:13)
    

The third thing going on in this narrative is Jesus' logical retort about the house divided against itself. And it makes a good complement to the story of the man born blind in St. John, chapter 9. In both cases, the aftermath of Jesus' healing is explored more fully than in most of the physical healings performed in the Gospels. We get a chance to hear the reactions of those who just cannot bring themselves to believe in our Lord. From St. John's Gospel: “Then said [the Pharisees] to him again, What did he to thee? How opened he thine eyes? He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? Will ye also be his disciples? Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples. We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.” (vs. 26-29) Here again what started out as true religion has been stuffed into a box, divorced from any sort of actual, lived context and become a self-referential denizen of the intellect alone. Both Jesus' healing of the deaf mute and the proclamation of the woman in the crowd, who by the inspired words she allowed herself to say must not have been far from the kingdom of God manifest at that moment, demonstrate the necessity of the journey from the brain to the lips. In the same way, it is one thing to think that one is sorry and in need of forgiveness, quite another to say so and ask for it out loud. Per Romans 10: 9, "[I]f thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Now is an opportune time to bring your religion out of your head.
    

Again, as the Venerable Bede says: “But, saith the Lord, if Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? Because ye say that I cast out devils by Beelzebub. In saying this, he sought to draw from their own mouth a confession that they had chosen for themselves to be part of that devil's kingdom which, if it be divided against itself, cannot stand.” 
    

From these three things: deliverance of the afflicted, the contempt of the stand-offish, and the irrefutable logic of the mercy of God, I think we can take away two things: a good lesson about the tragic consequences of following our own selfish schemes to the exclusion, if not the outright contempt, of our fellow men, and, on a more positive note, that healing and forgiveness is not only possible, it is there for the asking. It is so easy to put absolute faith in our own designs, to consider the outward circumstances of the moment with no thought of the underlying consequences, to judge by appearance alone and then to think we are justified in doing so solely because of our good intentions. That is what the Pharisees did, that is what earned St. Peter such a stern rebuke from our Lord when he proclaimed his willingness to stand in the way of the events of Good Friday. Instead, as we hear in Ephesians today: “Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour. But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.” (Eph. 5:1-4)

Brother Paphnutius - an ongoing parable (Part VI)

Except the Lord build the house, their labour is but lost that build it. (Psalm 127: 1)

<>< <>< <><

Disorder

June, 367 A.D. - the Egyptian desert

In the early afternoons it was the custom of Br. Paphnutius and the other brethren with whom he lived in close proximity to take a brief siesta in order to strengthen themselves for their afternoon work (and to avoid the hottest part of the day during the long desert summers!). One day, as he was just lying down on the floor (surely you weren't expecting a cot, bed, or other comfort), his head hitting the reed mat, he heard a loud "CRASH" followed by some language he hadn't heard or uttered in many a long year (well before his conversion in fact).

He got up to investigate and peered out the entrance to his cave only to find what he suspected, Br. Barsenuphius of Carthage (whom they had nicknamed "the loud one" as he was somewhat hard of hearing and thus spoke in a more voluminous manner than was generally necessary, not to mention being somewhat cantankerous and unsettled personality-wise).

Br. Barsenuphius was building himself a house (out of wood nonetheless - no damp, dingy cave for him) and thus intended to stay for a while, invited or not by the local community. He was for many years a tapestry merchant and thus developed a taste for comforts that had proven unshakeable upon taking up the monastic life. No one was quite sure which "Rule" he followed to maintain his monastic discipline, and no one dared ask him.

As far as anyone local knew (and had heard!), this was the third location he had tried to build his house upon and yet was meeting no success for his efforts. The ground in this area was notorously unstable for construction purposes. Even if you could complete a decent foundation it never remained stable and any walls you tried to build were invariably too crooked to set a roof on. He had been warned by other brethren in the area, but to no effect. Br. Barsenuphius was nothing if not stubbornly determined.

Watching this spectacle take place before him, Paphnutius couldn't help but admire the man's fortitude and constancy. It was unfortunate how ill-directed these were in him. It seemed so obvious to anyone looking at him from the outside what sort of mental disorder and chaos "the loud one" lived amidst. Could he himself see it?

This past Sunday during the midnight office, the Gospel lesson was the Prodigal Son from St. Luke 15. Who could soon forget the pathetic imagery of the younger son who not only had the audacity to ask his father for his portion of the inheritance (effectively wishing him a premature death), but also then to waste it on pleasures for himself? His older brother wouldn't have dreamed of doing something similar. He stayed on, toiling away for the estate. While the one grew penitent in the midst of his vice, the other grew immobile in his virtue, blinded by his sense of righteousness to the point where he couldn't even countenance the love and longing of his father for whom he had shown ostensible loyalty.

"Hmmm..." thought Paphnutius. "That house may yet be the death of Barsenuphius, or it may prove to be his salvation should it remain stubbornly resistant to completion."

The moral of (this part) of the story: It is not always easy to see things as they are, for a variety of reasons. We are really too "close" to ourselves to be able to render impartial judgement of our own motivations (for good or ill) and as we have ourselves as our primary frame of reference, those things which annoy and bother us most in other people are, as likely as not, simply a reflexion of that which we despise most about ourselves, whether we see it or not.

Also, consider those with mental illnesses whose perspective on things is, by its very nature, skewed from what is common or "normal". And then...be patient with yourself, be patient with other people, love God, allow yourself to be loved by Him, and then everything will become much clearer and easier to deal with.

To be continued...

Epiphany II

 Zechariah 8: 1-8, 20-23     Mark 1: 1-11 (John 2: 1-11)

"Again the word of the Lord of hosts came to me, saying, Thus saith the Lord of hosts; I was jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and I was jealous for her with great fury." (Zech. 8:1)

In order to understand what the First Lesson given at Morning Prayer today has to do with the Epiphany season and its Octave, which just concluded on Friday, some context seems necessary. In his commentary on Zechariah, Didymus the Blind, a fourth-century disciple of Origen of Alexandria, has the following to say: "The contemplative soul is spoken of as Jerusalem, Jerusalem meaning “vision of peace”; she stumbled and hence was banished from the divine conjugal chamber and alienated from the one who formerly lived with her. As a result, lustful abuse was heaped upon her by hostile powers, anagogically referred to as Assyrians and Babylonians, so that the partner who showed her consideration no longer cared for her. The vagaries of her free will do not remain set in that direction...the one who had abandoned the divine conjugal chamber is acquainted with it again, so that her former carer drives off her adulterous abusers and is jealous for her. He does so with a great anger, extremely incensed with her mockers, to the point of now saying openly, I am jealous for Sion and Jerusalem....Reformed in this way, she could be called true Jerusalem because she no longer hankers after the shadows and images of the Law, but only the good things prefigured by them." (The Fathers of the Church, Didymus the Blind, trans. Robert C. Hill, p. 157)
   
This theme of both the literal and allegorical rightness of marital fidelity is carried over by the English and, prior to 1928, American Books of Common Prayer, which give as the Gospel Lesson on this day the Wedding Feast of Cana. At least three signficant things occur at this wedding: Jesus is present as an invited guest, he works a public miracle, and thus "manifested forth his glory, and his disciples believed on him." Here in the very midst of blessing a marriage not only by His presence but also by providing not only that which was adequate in order to continue the celebration but indeed the very best, there is an epiphany. And thus the pattern established by and lived out in the Old Covenant, and not abolished but fulfilled and overcome in the New, is once again confirmed to be God's means of manifestation that we might have life, and that we might have it more abundantly. (cf. John 10:10)
   
And thus, Jesus' statement at the very end of Matthew's Gospel, "lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." is also a retroactive proposition. What I mean by that is that Jesus' attendance at the Cana Wedding, aside from all the other significant things that have been discerned out of it over the millenia, also provides us with an hermeneutical key to understanding the wedding/bridal imagery present in the Old Testament Prophets. For these prophecies, rather than being mainly or mostly about predicting the future as the modern understanding of the word prophecy is given to be about (thus opening the door to rendering the Bible as a tool for divination, which it most certainly is not), do in fact reveal the presence of the Second Person of the Trinity right in the very midst of the Old Covenant dispensation as it is being lived out and progressed through in time by mankind. The Old Testament is neither useless nor optional for Christian people.

The English word "Gospel" is derived from the Greek meaning "good news". We have here in the American Prayer Book Gospel Lesson from St. Mark a brief summary of the fulfillment of the Old Testament in Jesus Christ with many things written and implied "between the lines" and thus meant to be understood by those who are already well-versed in the literary and theological ground of the Hebrew Scriptures. The great disobedience perpetrated in the Garden of Eden and the subsequent expulsion of mankind from paradise is now to be undone in the ultimate act of obedience and generosity that is the Incarnation.
   
Referencing both past and present, a call has gone out to all those who will listen and who have their eyes and ears and hearts attuned to what the Lord God is saying. "Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." The time of preparation is about to be fulfilled.
   
Two allusions from the Old Testament present here are Isaiah 40:3 ("The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.") and the idea of God appearing "before thy face". At the very least when reading these verses, we ought to bear in mind Moses leading the people through the wilderness. Unlike us, however, he was only allowed to look upon the Promised Land before he died. The Good News for us is that we are indeed allowed to cross over into all that the Christian life has to offer.
   
But there is a further consideration from 1 Kings. Having incurred the wrath of Jezebel, Elijah flees into the wilderness and begs the Lord to take his life. Acknowledging that things have been and indeed will be difficult, the angel of the Lord brings him nourishment. Right here is a shadow of the sacramental system to be inaugurated in the New Testament for the use of the Church. As Elijah was twice nourished by the gift of God, so are we. At the very beginning of our Christian lives we are cleansed and refreshed by Baptism and at regular intervals are provided with Holy Communion for "the strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the Body and Blood of Christ"(1928 American BCP Catechism, p. 582).
   
As we will see in Mark chapter 6, the fate of the voice in the wilderness is as likely as not to be martyrdom. For in the desert, which is a place hostile to all but the hardiest life, nothing superfluous can survive.  That is why the early monastics fled to the deserts, in order to burn away their selfishness and pretence, to be purified in an arid place where only what is essential will remain. Thus it is a highly symbolic place that can effect what it signifies.
   
So, already in these opening verses we are told that there is Good News here, that what was long foretold will come to pass. In Moses, Elijah and John the Baptist the Christian life is referenced in its prophetic, sacramental and sacrificial aspects. We know where we are going, but cannot get there without passing through death to eternal life. It will be a difficult go, but we are given very real helps to sustain us. It will cost us something dear in terms of our own identity, our relationships with other people or institutions and it may even cost us our lives. This is the Good News we have now been introduced to.

And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (Mk. 1: 9-11)

   
It can appear problematic that Jesus here presents himself for a baptism of repentance. We who profess the orthodox faith say of Him in the Nicene Creed: "God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God". Consider that in the grand scheme of Christianity (particularly with regard to the Cross and Resurrection, without which everything else becomes entirely meaningless), a fallible god in need of conversion and repentance is entirely laughable and useless. Thus we are not in any meaningful way similar to the present day devotees of a self-inflicted Mt. Olympus and the errant, fickle deities that have been enthroned there by pathological fiat.
   
On the subject of that paradigm, consider this as well. At what point did either the historical Zeus or the modern day "Zeuses" that we create and place over ourselves (money, political power, widespread notoriety, unexamined "group think", etc.) ever tell us that they love us? Is submission to this sort of domination worth the cost that it inflicts on our humanity?
   
Back to the matter immediately at hand, by means of submitting to John's baptism does Jesus give us yet another sign that He is here with us, able to live exactly as we do, completely human in all things but sin. It is an act of generosity (very remotely) akin to being a guest in someone's house and partaking of the meal that they offer you. Only in this case the meal has objective, not just subjective, worth. Perhaps that is also one of the reasons why both the Passover and the Eucharist (the latter being inaugurated within the context of the former) are meals as well. They both lend themselves quite naturally to an intimacy of participation and an ease of understanding their symbolism in this context.
   
John's baptism, particularly of Jesus, has a significance both historical and analogical, and not simply because these are things that we have assigned to it. We are to see that Jesus' coming is going to completely transform and fulfill all that has come before by His participation in the lived Covenant given to Moses and developed by Israelite tradition. The Old Testament is neither useless nor optional for Christian people. 
   
As the Holy Ghost descends upon Him, we hear the voice of the Father declare: “Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” This is the first of three times that we hear this saying in Mark. The second comes in chapter 9:7 at the Transfiguration. "And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him." The third comes in chapter 15:39, following upon the Crucifixion. "And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God." These three occurrences all come at the most significant points in Jesus’ ministry on earth and they point to the three traditional roles ascribed to him of prophet, king and priest. He is a prophet because He comes to tell us of the things of God through His preaching and healing ministry begun at the river Jordan. He is king because He is the second Person of the Blessed Trinity reigning forever in Heaven (manifested so dramatically on Mt. Tabor). He is a priest because He offers the one oblation (to which all the blood offerings of the Old Testament pointed) of Himself on the Cross.  And in this, once again, we see in Christ the fulfillment of all that came before in Moses, Elijah and John the Baptist. Herein is revealed finally and perfectly the light of the New Covenant proceeding out of what was made known and lived in the shadows of the Old, the sacramental, prophetic and sacrificial nature of the Christian dispensation.
   
In conclusion, the Rev. Dr. Peter Toon, in his commentary on today's Collect says:
In addressing, God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible, the Church recalls that not only is this Lord God the Creator of all that is, but he is also the sovereign ruler of all that is. He governs all things in his providence and does so in such a way as to allow for the exercise of the wills of human beings, even when they rebel against his law.

How wonderful, then, that in this very context Christ makes Himself known. Dr. Toon continues:

The Manifestation of the identity of Jesus at the first miracle in Cana of Galilee is linked in Christian celebration with his Manifestation when visited by the Magi and when he was baptized by John in the Jordan. On all three occasions his true identity was made known and manifested in Epiphany.