Proper 24C - Pray always and do not lose heart!

When I was born my parents made the decision that they would not have me baptized, much to the surprise of my grandparents. My father had stopped going to church years before I was born, but my mother was still attending on the big Holidays. My parents decided they didn’t want to force a religion they were not sure about on me.
My grandmother, being the concerned Christian that she is, was worried about me. She went and spoke to her priest, and she was instructed to baptize me herself when my parents were not looking. Now my mother had an idea that my grandmother might be up to something, but because she was unsure about this whole Christianity thing, she didn’t do anything to stop her. So when my grandmother had the opportunity to babysit me, she took me over to the kitchen sink and baptized me!
Now baptizing someone is good first step, but as we know from our Baptismal liturgies, a child needs to be instructed in the Christian life. My grandmother knew that my parents were not going to teach me about Christianity any further than letting me know that my father didn’t believe in it. So my grandmother did the best thing she could – she enlisted people to pray for me constantly. My grandmother’s sister had been a Roman Catholic Carmelite nun, so my grandmother has ties to a convent. These where serious nuns: full habit, separated from the world so they could constantly pray for the world. My grandmother asked them to pray for God’s Grace to pour upon me and for me to become a Christian despite the lack of help for my parents. So week after week, year after year, they prayed for me. Well eventually something happened. As a teenager I became intensely interested in Christianity, but not in the way that my Grandmother had hoped. I became intensely interested in it because I thought I wanted to tear it down.
I can only imagine my grandmother talking to the nuns after hearing me tear into the Church and tell them: “Sisters – you are doing it wrong! The prayer got messed up somehow. Oh, he knows about God now, but he seems to hate Him!”
Yet despite all this, my grandmother never gave up hope. She kept on praying for my conversion, and the sisters kept on praying. After twenty one years of prayer what they asked for finally happed and here I am.
The Gospel passage today deals directly with all of this – what are we to do in prayer? Few Gospel passages are as direct as this one is. Most of them make you read the surrounding text and look for context in order to really get what Jesus was trying to get us to focus on. In today’s Gospel, St Luke tells us “Jesus told the disciples a parable about their need to pray always and not to lose heart.”
Now even with this direct description about the parable, a little context will help. There is a whole section in St Luke’s Gospel in between last week’s Gospel and this week’s that the lectionary skipped. In this section Jesus tells the disciples about the end times. He assures them it will happen and that the disciples will be vindicated in their faith, but those times are not going to happen right away. So I can imagine the disciples asking Jesus: “Well, what do we do in the meantime? How do we live through this in-between period when we are uncertain as to what will happen and how we will make it through these times?”
To this question, Jesus answers them with a parable about prayer. On a first reading it seems that Jesus might be saying you can annoy God into doing things.
We hear about a widow who keeps asking for justice from an unrighteous judge who does not fear God. She keeps coming back, asking for justice and he eventually gives in.
It seems it’s just like when a child asks for a cookie 30 minutes before dinner. He keeps asking for a cookie and you keep telling him no. Then after he has asked you a thousand times you give in and give it to him, just so he will leave you alone. Is this what Jesus meant? You can wear God down into doing what you want Him to do for you?
The Church has been pretty universal that this is not what the parable meant. St. Augustine says of this parable “By no means does that unjust judge furnish an allegorical representation of God.” (Ancient Christian Commentaries III:277)
The contemporary scholar Luke Timothy Johnson thinks that if we all had a better understanding of ancient Greek it would be abundantly clear that the judge is not an allegory for God. Our version translates the unrighteous Judge’s thoughts this way: “because this widow keeps bothering me, I will grant her justice, so that she may not wear me out by continually coming.” (Luke 8:5 NRSV) Sounds a lot like that parent giving in, doesn’t it? Johnson, in his own translation of the Greek puts the unrighteous judge’s thoughts this way: “…this widow gives me so much trouble that I will give her justice! Otherwise, she will keep coming and end up giving me a black eye!” It turns out that St. Luke was using the language of a Greek boxing match and applying to the widow in this story. Johnson writes in his commentary “The parable makes its point so forcefully and humorously that little comment is required. Contemporary readers can imagine an enraged bag lady hitting the negligent magistrate over the head and literally “giving him a black eye.” We are meant, I think, to laugh.” (Luke, 273)
Obviously the translators of our lectionary text thought we, the frozen chosen, couldn’t take a joke and translated the humor right out of this parable, and I think it was a disservice to us to do so. When we hear that joke, it becomes abundantly clear that the unrighteous judge is not meant to be a stand in for God.
Now Luke Timothy Johnson tells us that once the translation issues have been cleared up, this message of the parable is abundantly clear. Well other than the clear comic relief, I am not so sure that the message is clear from a first reading.
When we look at who this parable really focuses on, it becomes clearer what Jesus was telling us. While we tend to focus on the unrighteous judge because either we think he might be a stand in for God or we think he is funny when we read the right translation, this parable is really about the widow. In Jesus’ time and community, a widow was a powerless person. A woman’s voice in the community was tied to her husband. As widow, with her husband dead, no longer has anybody to speak for her. She would have been seen as a voiceless burden to the community. Yet this woman does not accept this – she dares to speak to the judge. She seems even braver when we remember the context of the judicial system of the time. The judge would have heard grievances publicly in front of a large group of people who had all come for their turn in front of him. Into this situation comes the widow. She dares to speak when she has no right in this society to speak. And she doesn’t plead her case in some sort of meek, soft voice. She berates the judge and demands over and over “Give me justice!”
This has many implications towards our prayer life. In my own life there have been times I have been afraid to say to God some of things I wanted to say, afraid I didn’t have permission to say them before God. It wasn’t until someone told me that I had biblically sanctioned permission to bring my questions and frustrations to God that I was able to do so, and doing so allowed me to have some very deep and clear conversation with God.
This parable is one of those sanctions for saying to God things you think you may not have permission to say. Through this parable, Jesus is telling us, that those of us who have either been restricted in our prayer because of what the world has told us, or restricted in our prayer by what we have told ourselves, we can be like the widow. We can bring before God the things that are pressing on our souls, and not only can God take it, he will listen, and it will sustain us.
I don’t think that we are meant to come away from this parable thinking that if we ask God enough times in prayer we will get what we want, even though the widow did indeed get what she wanted. Instead, we can learn that what sustained the widow was her ability to continually come before the judge, always living in hope.
My grandmother was in that situation once. She and the sisters prayed over and over again that I might become a Christian, but for so long it didn’t happen. Yet, my grandmother and the sisters held out hope. Even when I cursed at God, they persevered n their prayers, and it sustained my grandmother. Even when it looked like her prayer would never be answered she never gave up and stopped praying.
What my grandmother taught me is her lived experience of this Gospel passage. Yes, I became a Christian, so eventually she did get what she wanted. However, that is not the lesson in this. The lesson for me was that she was able to still love me when I was an angry atheist and never gave up on me because she knew she could keep putting the matter before God in prayer. Her knowledge that she could keep asking God for a miracle even when it seemed impossible is what sustained her. It sustains her still as she prays for the conversion of the rest of my family.
The widow knew that it was unlikely that she would ever get justice from unrighteous judge, and was probably shocked when she did get it. But she only made it through her dark days by perseverance.
So when the disciples ask “How do we make it through these uncertain times?” Jesus gives his answer. “Keep praying, it will carry you through those times. Pray always and do not lose heart!”

Proper 23C – 2 Timothy 8-15

“Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, a descendant of David-- that is my gospel”
I had a whole sermon worked out dealing with the Gospel reading for today. I had mulled the Gospel passage over and over in my head, and found that it was probably going to be easy to preach on. Before I decided to start writing down this sermon, I went over all the readings again. This time, I only got as far the Epistle reading, and knew I had to get rid of the other sermon.
I had recently read an article by someone who was critiquing the preaching he heard regularly in the Episcopal Church. He said, that to him, he was disappointed when it felt like the preacher was talking about an issue they wanted to talk about an ignored what the Scriptures wanted to say.

Now in defense of preachers who sometimes preach on something not explicitly in the readings, well, I think it is ok on occasion. The job of the preacher is to preach about Jesus Christ and life in His church. Sometimes a bigger issue in the Church comes up, and the preacher needs to address how that bigger issue fits into the demands of the Gospel and life in the Church. An honest preacher knows that sometimes they simply have to let the Scriptures speak on their own, while they preach on another holy matter.

With this indictment of preachers who ignore the text ringing in my head, I went through the readings again. The Epistle jumped out at me. “Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, a descendant of David-- that is my gospel!”

This is only half a sentence, yet I was stopped dead in my tracks. We read these phrases all the time – Christ, descendent of David, resurrection – so much that I usually say “Yeah, yeah” and move on. The thing is, these are words of gigantic importance. These are loaded terms that split the religion of Israel in half.

St. Paul says in this part of his letter to St. Timothy “remember Jesus Christ.” We say Christ all the time, but what does Christ mean? Sometimes we say it as if it was Jesus’ proper last name, a man born of Mr. And Mrs. Christ.

We know that is not the case, his name was Jesus of Nazareth, perhaps called Jeshua Bar Joseph, (Jesus, son of Joseph) in his youth. Yet during his ministry and after his death and resurrection he is called the Christ, or Christ Jesus as St. Paul often phrases it.

So what and who is the Christ? Christ is the English version of the Greek word Christos, which was a translation of the Hebrew word Messiah. To the ancient Jews this meant a leader, a high priest who was anointed by God. The Messiah was the ruler of Israel, appointed by God to lead His people in His ways. We see this in the old testament where King David is called a messiah, a Christos, the ruler of Israel anointed and appointed by God. (2 Sam 23:1) To the ancient Jews a messiah was simply a divinely appointed ruler or priest.

By the time we get to the Judaism of Jesus’ age the expectations had changed. There was an expectation not of A christ, but of THE Christ. The Jews has been fighting with their overlords for centuries, sometimes winning, more often loosing. Their leaders had been called christs by their followers, but it wasn’t enough to free the Jews.

There became divisions amongst the Jews as to what to expect. They expected salvation from their Pagan rulers. But there was disagreement on how this salvation would come. Some expected that God would continue to send anointed leaders, small “c” christs who would lead the Children of Israel eventually to their freedom, somehow separating them from the pagans, by force, politics or both. Some of the more radical Jews thought a capital “C” Christ, in the singular, was promised to come. This Christ would come with a sword to deal out God’s Judgment against the Pagans with fire and bloodshed.

Amongst all this Jesus is born of the Blessed Virgin Mary into this world to deliver us all. Jesus’ followers and St. Paul later say to the world: this man, this God-Man, is the capital “c” Christ, the one to come and save all of us. To the Jewish world this is shocking. To those who expected many anointed leaders to eventually save the Children of Israel, St. Paul is saying “Stop looking!” The Christ came and already freed us – you just refuse to see it!” To the more radical Jews he tells them “You misunderstood! The Christ was not coming to deal with this world with ineffective human means. You expected a Christ with a sword, but God in His Wisdom sent the Christ to fight with the real enemy: the Devil and his friend Death.”

In case this was not enough, St. Paul adds to this. Not only is Jesus the Christ, but he is the descendant of David.

Those of you who have read through the Bible in its entirety know that you will often encounter genealogies. These long lists that seemingly come out nowhere seem an unimportant distraction to us Christians and we often skip over them. We know that these genealogies were very important to the Jews but we are not sure if they really matter to us. So when we open up the Gospel of Matthew and read the opening verse “An account of the genealogy of Jesus” we often skip right over it. Yet right in this first verse, St. Matthew makes the same point the St. Paul made earlier. That first verse of the Gospel says “Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” (Matt 1:1)

So once again we ask: why is this important? So what if Jesus was a descendent of David?
What it means is that God keeps his promises. God told Abraham “I will make you exceedingly fruitful; I will make nations of you, and Kings shall come from you.” (Gen 17:6) And indeed God did, for the great King David was born of Abraham.

We know that David was a great king who established the ancient kingdom of Israel, but his descendant did a horrible job. The worshiped the false gods of their neighbors and broke almost every promise they had made to God. As a result of all this heresy the kingdom fell and was scattered, only to be rebuilt and then conquered again! Yet the Jews knew this was not the end of the story. Psalm 89 tells us that God said “I have made a covenant with my chosen one, I have sworn an oath to David my servant: I will establish your line forever, and preserve your throne for all generations.” (Ps 89:3-4)

To the those who said “God has forsaken us, God promised that David’s throne and line would last forever, yet here we are in ruin!” St Paul says “No He hasn’t! David’s line came to its fulfillment in Jesus, who has become the great High Priest, greater than David ever was, and has freed us from the grip of this fallen world!”

Now these two statements, that Jesus is the Christ and the descendant of David are pretty radical but what is the boldest of all, is when St. Paul says that Jesus was raised from the dead. Now here is a statement that is still shocking to us today, just as much as it was when St. Paul made it: Jesus was raised from the dead! St. Paul was very clear about what had happened. This was no symbol, no metaphor, but a reality. Jesus was killed by us, by all mankind, on the cross and he suffered the death that all mankind was subject too. But then, on the third day, the tomb was found empty. The flesh and bones put in the tomb, gone. And as St. Mary Magdalene and the Apostles saw, this flesh and bone that had been really, truly, dead, was now alive again! And not in the reanimated way that Dr. Frankenstein’s monster had, but capital “R” Resurrection flesh and blood that had beat death, hallowed Hades, and come again amongst the living , then fully assumed to sit at the right hand of the Father.

It is no wonder that St. Paul called this all a “stumbling block to the Jews and a foolishness to the Gentiles.” (1 Cor 1:23) That was true yesterday just as much as it s today. We hear today from people who say “I just can’t believe in a religion that thinks some guy actually rose from the dead.” And sadly, ever from within parts of the Church we hear, “Well, the resurrection was a metaphor, or it has been misunderstood – the Resurrection was only Jesus’ spirit!” To these objections then and now, St. Paul says “No! Jesus literally died, and literally rose from the dead, all of Him!”

So this then is our faith: Jesus the Christ. Jesus came to save us all. Not to save us from the grip of the Greeks or Romans – but to save us from the death that awaited us all after Adam’s transgression and the damaged relationship with God that followed. Jesus, the Christ, came and undid the results of the fall and gave us a new and perfected relationship with God.

This also is our faith: Jesus, the descendant of David. God has invited us into several covenants, where we promise to serve God and He in turn promised to deliver us. We broke our promises to God, but God never broke His, He still continues the line of David just as He said He would in the Jesus the High Priest of the Kingdom of God.

Finally, this too is our faith: Jesus was raised from the dead. We all were destined for a death that separated us from each other and from God, but Jesus undid this. Jesus trampled down the Devil and Death, removing Death’s sting, allowing us to be united into His own death and resurrection so that we too might be delivered from the land of the Dead to join Him at the Heavenly Altar.

My Brothers and Sisters: Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, a descendant of David-- that is THE Gospel.

Proper 20C - Catholic Biblical Interpretation

Proper 20C - Luke 16:1-13
Many people can tell you without a moment’s hesitation what their favorite parable is. Most often it is the Good Shepherd or the Good Samaritan. For all the times I have heard people tell me what their favorite parable is, not one person has ever mention this one: the Parable of Steward.
Mother Ede and I have a schedule of preaching that allows us to usually preach every other week. This gives me the luxury of sitting with my text for two weeks before I preach on it. A little over two weeks ago, while setting up for a wedding, I peeked ahead in the Gospel book, and saw that this parable was in the lectionary for today. I saw Mother Ede later in the day and remarked to her that my least favorite section of all the Gospels was on deck for today. That is the honest truth: of any portion of the Gospels to proclaim to you all , this would be my last choice. And I have been working through this parable for the past two weeks.
I remember hearing a sermon at seminary on this lesson where one of my professors got in the pulpit and essentially said “I hate this parable!” And he went on stated his problem with it – from a surface reading, this parable seems to say that out of nowhere Jesus is praising immoral business practices. I confess that I don’t remember much more of his sermon. I was too busy being shocked by the fact that he was honest enough to admit to the congregation that he was really struggling with the Gospel that day. I decided that I too, would do my best to always be honest when I found a text difficult in my sermons.
There are times when preachers look at a text and say “I just don’t know that I have anything to say about this today.” Other times, they look at the text and say plainly “I don’t want to preach on this text.” I am in the second group today. I find this parable challenging to the point that I feel that if I am going to tackle it, I need to first teach for about a year on topics including Biblical interpretation, first century Judaism, Imperial Roman economics and the particulars of St. Luke’s community.
However, I don’t have that option. I also don’t have the option of choosing something else. I am obedient to a long standing Church tradition in which the Church chooses the texts. Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, and some Presbyterians, Lutherans, Unitarians and northern Baptist churches have this same text this morning. All of us preacher must some present this text to our congregations today. How each preacher deals with the text will depend in part on whether they come from a Liberal Humanist tradition, a Protestant tradition or a Catholic tradition of Scriptural interpretation.
For those coming from the Liberal Humanist tradition, Scripture is often seen as a human attempt to deal with the divine. It sees Scripture as an entirely dependent on premodern ethics and world views, and must always be understood to be of human origin. Preachers from this perspective do their best to relate the scripture to a modern context if they can, and leave behind what doesn’t fit in our modern perspective.
Many coming from Protestant backgrounds that began during the 17th through 19th centuries have almost the exact opposite approach as their Liberal Humanist brethren. They see Scripture as the explicit and clear word of God, divinely given to a human writer without error. Because of this, scripture is plain and clear to all who read it, and mankind was meant to read scripture, and see the clear meaning in it, with no need for any other person to tell him what it means.
We Episcopalians come from the Catholic tradition. Like most things Anglican and Catholic, we are somewhere in between the two extremes I mentioned. We too believe that Scripture was written by men in previous times who were beholden to their culture. They wrote with the words of their communities, and conformed their writing to the literary genres of the time. We also believe that God is the true author of Scripture because He divinely inspired it’s writers in order to communicate His saving Truth through it. When you put this all together this means that every word in the Holy Scriptures is in there for a reason, and it contains the Truth. However, it also means that to be properly understood, it must be read in community, in light of the human author’s particular way of conveying the Truth. After all, Scripture was written with the intention that it would be read before groups of people. This community that we read it in is vast. We read it in the community that is Holy Tradition. We see how our brothers and sisters in the past have explained and interpreted the Scriptures to their smaller communities. We look at how it has informed our theology, how it has been enacted in liturgy. We stand back and look for the ways the Holy Spirit has guided the Church in its understanding of Scripture. When we come to views on Scripture that have been accepted by the Church both East and West, we see a sign that the Spirit is at work.
So with this all in mind we come back to today’s challenging Gospel passage. On the surface, we hear the story of a financial manger for a rich person who is about to be dismissed by his master. Knowing he is about to lose his job, the manager goes to everyone who owes him money and tells them they own him less now. When the rich man finds out what his financial manager has done, he commends him for his shrewd financial actions. Jesus then tells his disciples that the unfaithful people of His day are more shrewd than the people of faith. Jesus then seems to commend this example to us but then ends with a saying we know well: “You cannot serve God and wealth.”
Read directly on its own, and in isolation, it is easy to see how you could read this story in think that in certain cases, Jesus actually appears to condone sneaky and dishonest business practices in certain circumstances. Yet, when we read Jesus’ direct statement that one cannot serve God and wealth, this interpretation seems ruled out.
So, going back to our Catholic tradition of interpretation, we know we must look for issues that were important to Jesus’ followers in the early first century. Jesus lived in a Judea that was occupied by the Romans. The Romans had a vast empire that supported a systematized economy on a scale that was unseen before. In Jesus’ time a middle class had arisen, the merchant class. This class raised itself up by making a profit, not just scraping by. Just as today, Jesus and St. Luke’s community saw a difference in how people were treated according to the amount of their wealth. In His parables and stories Jesus also spoke a lot about those who were in charge of the Temple worship, because they abused their power, often to gain money. The pursuit of ill-begotten gains and the abuses of the religious authorities became metaphors for each-other in Jesus’ preaching.
Knowing that Jesus used speech about money as a metaphor, combined with His stinging statement on the incompatibility of serving God and wealth, eliminates the possibility that Jesus is actually praising bad business practices. So we now know that we are hearing a metaphor.
Many scholars, preachers and teachers have written articles and chapters trying to figure exactly what the best interpretation of this metaphorical parable is. When we have so many options in interpretation our Catholic tradition bids us to look back at what the Church and the Church Fathers have said about this parable. Many of the Church Fathers have agreed that what Jesus is actually speaking of is the undeserved gift we all have – the Love of God and the salvation He purchased us – even though we are the ones who betrayed God.
God is the Steward who rewrites our bills, out debt owed to God for our transgressions. We are the debtors, and we incurred that debt in Adam’s fall. Jesus is the steward who comes to us unexpectedly and says to us “You owe the Father everything, but I will I grant you a favor! I will reduce your debt to this: all you must do is believe in Me and live a life bearing the fruits of that belief. I cancel the debt that you owe the Father when you disobeyed Him and chose yourself over Him.” Our responsibility then is to live up to this great act. The Church Father Origen tells us “If God rewrites our documents of sin, do no rewrite what God has blotted out.” (Ancient Commentary, III:254)
There are many other thoughts from the Church Fathers on this parable. Some have seen this parable as admonition to distribute alms to all. Some have seen it as an explanation that the gifts you have from God are temporary and must be used for good while you have the chance.
I have shown my preference for interpreting this parable, but I won’t tell you that one of these interpretations of the Church Fathers is more correct than the other. The fact that there are several good ways to explain this parable in our Tradition is the beauty of Catholic Tradition. We have a way of looking at scripture that shows that it is a living, breathing thing. We read it and we are compelled to think about it, to speak about it, to ask about it. We are forced to ask our brethren who lived centuries ago what they made of it.
That is why, in the end, I am glad the Church in her wisdom gave me this Parable this morning. Now, it is still not my favorite Parable, and it is not the text I am going to point an atheist to first. Yet this parable was handed down to me today and made me think hard about what it means to proclaim Scripture as the true word of God. It reminded me of the depth our tradition and just how privileged I am that the Church has asked me to delve into Scripture daily, and share my love of it with you.

John Henry Newman's Tract 90

The Patriarch of Rome, Benedict XVI, is visiting England this week and will be officially declaring John Henry Newman to be "Blessed." Before he was Cardinal Newman, he was The Rev. Newman, leading Anglican theologian of the Oxford (Catholic) Movement, in the The Church of England in the mid 1800's. He was essentially booted from the Church for his infamous Tract 90, a tract defending the 39 Articles as compatible with the Council of Trent. Newman's opinions on the Eucharist got him in some of the biggest trouble. Here is my humble defense of Newman's thoughts on Article XXVIII:

John Henry Newmans’ Tract XC

In 1841, John Henry Newman issued Tract XC, a commentary on certain parts of the XXXIX Articles of Religion that caused such a great controversy it effectively ended his career in the Church of England. In this tract, Newman discussed 12 of the articles and explained how they could be interpreted in a way that does not contradict catholic theology. Newman’s Tract XC was deemed radical and over the top, and dangerously close in theology to a Roman Catholic document.

The following focuses on Newman’s commentary on Article XXVIII (Of The Lord’s Supper), which also included references to Article XXIX (Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper). I beleive that Newman’s interpretation of Article XXVIII was not nearly as radical or as incompatible with traditional Anglican doctrine as it was said to be by Neman’s contemporaries. By comparing Newman’s Tract XC with Bishop Edward Browne’s An Exposition of The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion , published in two volumes between 1850 and 1853[1] and Charles Hardwick’s A History of the Articles of Religion, which was published in 1851. I will endeavor to show that Newman’s assertions do not conflict with non-Tractarian commentaries of the same time period on the same article.

John Henry Newman was a member of a group of scholars at Oxford University in England who began issuing tracts, entitled Tracts For The Times. The tracts, and the general theology of the group of scholars, sought to emphasize the pre-reformation catholic roots of the Church of England, and the powers and duties of the church that were due to the church owing to its maintained Apostolic Succession and Episcopal structure. They pursued this theology to defend the church from what they saw as an overly secular and liberal leaning church and society in general in England. Due to the tracts they published, they earned the name of “Tractarians”[2]

The last of the tracts to be issued was Tract XC. Newman and his fellow Oxford scholars had come under the increasing scrutiny by the leaders of The Church of England since the first tract had been published in 1833.[3] By the time Tract XC was released, the criticism against Newman and the other authors of the Tracts had reached a fever pitch. Although Tract XC was published anonymously, it was no secret that Newman was the author. C. Brad Faught, in his book “The Oxford Movement,” states that “The theological opinion that Newman took in the tract was hardly radical, however…But the timing of Newman’s tract was all wrong.”[4] In the aftermath of the storm that arose around Tract XC, Newman eventually withdrew from public and eventually left the Church of England for the Roman Catholic Church.

If we look past the hysterics that surrounded the tract, we can see that indeed it was not all that radical, and the opinions and not all that dissimilar from other commentaries on the articles published in the same time period.

In the beginning of Tract XC’s chapter 8, Newman begins his commentary by defining what he believes is being rejected by the term “transubstantiation.” Newman writes “What is here opposed as “Transubstantiation” is the shocking doctrine that “the body of CHRIST,” as the Article goes on to express it is not “given, taken, and eaten after an heavenly and spiritual manner, but is carnally pressed with the teeth;” that it is a body or substance of a certain figure and disposition of parts, whereas we hold the only substance such, is the bread which we see.”[5]

Newman goes on to say that Article XXIX proves that this is the doctrine being refuted. Newman states that as both St. Augustine and the article speak of “the wicked a “carnally and visibly pressing with their teeth the sacrament of the body and blood of CHRIST,” not the real substance.”[6]

In Bishop Browne’s An Exposition of The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion and Charles Hardwick’s A History of the Articles of Religion, he also begins his commentary on the article by defining Eucharistic theology. Browne defines transubstantiation as “the doctrine of the Church of Rome…that in the Eucharist, after the words of consecration, the whole substance of the bread is converted into the substance of the Body of Christ, and that the substance of the wine into the substance of His Blood….the change is a real and miraculous conversion of the bread and the wine into the very Body of Christ, which was born of the blessed Virgin and crucified on Calvary.”[7]

Charles Hardwick’s A History of the Articles of Religion states that the purpose of the article is to refute the Zwinglians and the “opposite dogma of some physical transubstantiation in the Eucharistic elements….”[8]

Newman and Browne are in agreement that “Transubstantiation” that is rejected by the article is the idea that consecrated elements are Christ’s actual substantive Body and Blood.

Newman goes on to suggest that while this substantive change of the actual bread and wine was the official rejected notion, the framers of the article were actually seeking to counter medieval superstitions that had developed around the Eucharist. Newman gives several examples of the superstition by quoting the works of Bishop Taylor. One of these quotes listed several disturbing images: “Sometimes CHRIST hath appeared in His own shape, and blood and flesh hath been pulled out of the mouths of communicants: and Plegilus, the priest, saw an angel, showing CHRIST to him in the form of a child upon the altar, whom he first took in his arms and kissed, but did eat him up presently in his other shape, in the shape of a wafer.”[9] Newman goes on to quote others to show just how many superstitions arose in the church around what was actually happening at the Eucharist.

Neither Browne nor Hardwick spend much time explaining how out of control superstitious beliefs had become at the time of the writing of the Articles of Religion. If one were looking to find a text to prove what misguided beliefs a doctrine of Transubstantiation could lead do, the Tractarian commentary has more to say on the subject than the “Protestant” commentaries of Browne and Hardwick.

What Newman has provided us with in the first parts of chapter 8 are an unequivocal rejection of the notion of Transubstantiation that was in wide held belief at the time of the Article first appearance in 1553.[10] The fact that Newman’s condemnatation was so strong yet garnered so much outrage shows that Newman’s writing were probably being read with a suspicion that wasn’t attached to work of on non-Tractarians. A key difference in the handling of Transubstantiation between Newman and Browne, is that Browne assign this belief specifically to the Roman Catholic Church as an official position, while Newman simply shows it to be a wide spread idea that had been held by Christians of the time. Newman never assigns the doctrine as an official position to the Roman Catholic Church, because in his mind the Roman Catholic Church had yet to adopt the classic doctrine of Transubstantiation.

Newman argues that because the articles were first published in 1553, had had taken years to formulate, they could not be written against the official doctrine of Transubstantiation because that doctrine was officially formulated by The Council of Trent, which did not end until 1563, ten years after the first publication of this Article XVIII.[11]

This logic must have seemed suspicious to the Tractarianism opposition, especially when they already considered Newman’s theology Roman Catholic. However, when Newman’s denunciation of Transubstantiation is read against Browne’s, it seems that Newman has not actually said anything that conflicts with the Protestant interpretation of Article XVIII of the time period. One is left wondering if Newman’s opposition simply saw the word “Transubstantiation” and went after Newman without thoroughly reading and considering it.

In Tract XC, after Newman has described what the article is arguing against, he begins to describe what it is not arguing against, namely, a “Real Presence” in the Eucharist. In a church were communion services had gone from a daily activity to a service that was relegated to a few times a year, any lengthy discussion of what was going on during the services was bound to raise ire. Yet once again, when we put Newman’s arguments for a “Real Presence” up against the commentary of Browne and this historical description of the article’s composition contained in Hardwick’s, we are hard pressed to find an assertion in Newman’s work that isn’t balanced by similar ideas in the other two works.

Newman makes that transition between his arguments with: “We see then, that, by transubstantiation, our Article does not confine itself to any abstract theory, nor aim at any definition of the word substance, nor in rejecting it, rejects a word, nor in denying a “mutation panis et vini,” is denying every kind of change….”[12]

Newman then goes on to explain in Tract XC what the sacrament that is referred to in Articles XXVIII and XXIX is, if is not the actual Body and Blood of Christ. By the end of the Tract, Newman argues for “a real super-local presence in the Holy Sacrament,”[13] but refutes imagined arguments against a theory of a real presence before he concludes that it is the natural conclusion of the Articles and 1662 The Book of Common Prayer, to which the Articles must not contradict.

Newman was not alone in suggesting that Article XXVIII suggests a real presence in the Sacrament. In A History of the Articles of Religion, Hardwick explains that the original version of what we now know as Article XXVIII originally contained an additional section condemning the notion of any presence in the Sacrament. The fact that the paragraph was proves that there is a history in the Church of England of not asserting there is no presence in the Sacrament.

Newman begins by analyzing the explanation appended to the Communion service in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. The explanation instructs the communicants to kneeling while receiving, rejects the notion of a corporal presence in the elements and concludes that “For the sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances….and the natural body and blood of our SAVIOUR CHRIST are in heaven, and not here, it being against the truth of CHRIST’S natural body to be at one time in more places than one.”[14] Newman argues that Homilies, which are enjoined to the Church by the Articles, speak of a presence in the Sacrament. In order for the Articles, Homilies, and The Book of Common Prayer to not contradict themselves, Newman is left to now answer the question: “How can there be a presence, yet not a local one?”[15]

Hardwick also came up with the same question. While disusing the dropped clause of Article XXVIII that had rejected any presence, Hardwick states: “The ejected clause had also opened an ulterior question…whether the humanity of our Lord, as now glorified, is so absolutely and inseparably associated with His Divinity, that we are justified in speaking of His Body as present in many places at one and the same time.”[16]

Newman goes on to explain what meaning of presence is. He believes that this they key to understanding how “He is really here, yet not locally”[17] in the Sacrament. Newman explains that the Article isn’t speaking of material presence, but Spiritual presence. Newman argues that spiritual presence is different from a local or physical presence, and is not bound by the same rules of distance. Newman explains that Divine Grace and spiritual presence are akin, and we never speak of distance when speaking of the reach of Divine Grace.

If we are not speaking of a corporal presence in the Sacrament, but a spiritual sprence, it make no matter that Christ’s natural body is at the right hand of the Father, for His spiritual presence isn’t hedged by the same restriction so distance. Newman argues that once the problems of our ability to phrase what we mean is overcome, we can now see that “CHRIST’S Body and Blood are locally present at God’s right hand, yet really present here,- present here, but not here in place,- because they are spirit.”[18] With this understanding, there is no longer any conflict between the explanation appended to the Communion service and a doctrine of a real presence.

Newman concludes by insisting that while he has come to the conclusion that a real presence is suggested, it is not the only one possible. Newman states: “Let it be carefully observed, that I am not proving or determining any thing; I am only showing how it is that certain propositions which at first sight seem contradictions in terms, are not so – I am but pointing out one way of reconciling them…It seems at first sight a mere idle use of words to say that CHRIST is really and literally, yet not locally, present in the Sacrament; that He is there given to us, not in figure but in truth, yet is still only on the right hand of God. I have wished to remove this seeming impossibility.”[19]

Newman seemed so cautious to assert the possibility that there could a notion of the real presence could be sustained by Article XXVIII the named and argued the objections to his conclusion before he had even really stated it. Yet as radical as the claim may seem by the way Newman presents it, other scholars where ready to unequivocally state that the Church of England supports the doctrine of a real presence.

In Browne’s commentary on Article XXVIII he states that “The doctrine of a real, spiritual presence is the doctrine of the English Church, and was the doctrine of Calvin and of many reformers.”[20] With this sentence, Browne links the conclusion that Newman has stated in Tract XC with the doctrine of Calvin. This is starling connection when one considers that that accusation against Newman and the other Tractarians was that they were theologically as far from Calvin’s Geneva as they could get, yet here Newman and Calvin are shown to hold a common doctrine on the Eucharist!

Browne goes on to describe this real, spiritual presence in a similar fashion to Newman’s explanation. Browne explains that the doctrine “teaches that Christ is really received by faithful communicants in the Lord’s Supper; but that there is no gross or carnal, but only spiritual and heavenly presence there, not the less real, however, for being spiritual….The result of which doctrine is this: its is bread, and it is Christ’s Body.”[21]

Browne later goes on to make a statement that that seems much more controversial than Newman’s, and opposes his Newman’s assertion that received notion of Transubstantiation in the 16^th century was a superstitious degradation of a real presence doctrine. Browne states: “Here is the question; and it must be carefully noted. If there were no alternative, but that the fathers must have been either Papists or Zuinglians, - must have held either a carnal presence, or none at all, than we must acknowledge that they believed in a carnal presence, and were transubstantialists.”[22] Browne goes on to explain that a version of the doctrine of the real presence might also have been possible of the early father, but he does not seem as convinced of that. Much of the English Reformation’s zeal was to return to the faith of the fathers, and here is Browne has attributed a belief to them that Newman did not dare to in his Tract.

Once compared against his contemporaries, Newman’s assertions in Tract XC do not to appear to be nearly as radical as they were thought to be at the time. It seems that some of Newman’s more Protestant contemporaries were actually making similar if not more emphatic statements that in the end, both Article XXVIII and XXIX logically lead to a doctrine of a real presence.

Wild assumptions where made about Newman and Tract XC when it was first published. Future Archbishop of Canterbury A. C, Tait feared that young men would read the tract and be persuaded to leave the Church of England for the Roman Catholic Church. Tait even accused Newman of raising “curious questions” that were not relevant.[23] If young men of the church were being persuaded to leave the Church of England, it certainly was not over Newman’s Eucharistic theology, as Neman’s theology has been shown to be consistent with Calvin’s according to Browne’s work.

In the end Newman’s work was banned by the board of Oxford University. Newman was also brought up on Episcopal Charges over the purported erroneous theology contained in Tract XC. After being harassed by Bishops and the leaders of the Church of England, Newman slipped out of the public eye into seclusion. A few years later, after ruminating on the evolution of his beliefs, and still dealing with the public mockery he had incurred, Newman left the Church of England to join the church he felt truly called to; the Roman Catholic Church.

It would seem that Newman was never judged fairly for his work. While other parts of Tract XC were more radical than the section on Article XXIX was, in its entirety, it wasn’t nearly the subversive nor the Roman Catholic document it was decried as being.

A comparison of Newman’s work with his contemporaries, at least on Article XXIX just do not support the accusations leveled against Newman. Tract XC was a victim of it it’s timing. Had it been published earlier in Newman’s career, it might not have gone down in history as the controversial document as it was. Chadwick writes that the fate of Tract XC was for it to spark a “declaration of war on the part of the Oxford authorities against the Tractarian party. The suspicion, alarms, antipathies, jealousies, which had long been smoldering among those in power had at last take shape in a definite act.”[24] When all this is removed, and nothing is left but the document itself, the declaration of war seems much less warranted.

[1] Dr. Robert Prichard

[2] Michael Chandler, An Introduction to the Oxford Movement (New York: Church Publishing Inc., 2003), 1-16.

[3] C. Brad Faught, The Oxford Movement (University Park, IL: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003), 15.

[4] Faught, The Oxford Movement, 93.

[5] John Henry Newman, Tract Number Ninety (1841; repr., New York: H.B. Durand, 1865), 77.

[6]Newman, 77.

[7]Edward Harold Browne, An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles (1865; repr., N.p.: Classical Anglican Press, 1998), 683-684.

[8] Charles Hardwick, A History of the Articles of Religion (1851; repr.; London: George Bell & Sons, 1876), 103.

[9] Newman, Tract Ninety, 78.

[10] Hardwick, A History of the Articles of Religion, XV.

[11] Chandler, An Introduction to the Oxford, 56.

[12] Newman, Tract Ninety, 83.

[13] Newman, Tract Ninety, 95.

[14] Newman, Tract Ninety, 86.

[15] Newman, Tract Ninety, 86.

[16] Hardwick, 136-137.

[17] Newman, Tract Ninety, 88

[18] Newman, Tract Ninety, 91.

[19] Newman, Tract Ninety, 94.

[20] Browne, 684.

[21] Browne, 684.

[22] Browne, 685.

[23] Chandler, 57.

[24] Chadwick, 56.

I have moved all my sermons from Facebook over to here. FB has a limited audience and does not format all that well. From now on I will post sermons here and post links to FB. In addition, you can read my pontification on obscure and arcane Anglican topics...lucky you!

Proper 18C - The Eucharistic Sacrifice

Jesus tells us “Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.” This statement has been interpreted in many ways. Most often people talk about how Jesus is calling us to a life of self denial in order to follow God. To me, what this clearly alludes to is that Jesus will carry a cross down a road in Jerusalem to a place of execution and in the words of St. John, through his death he will be the “sacrifice that takes our sins away.” (1 John 2:2 TJB) By telling us to pickup our own cross, Jesus is telling us that we must also live a life of sacrifice. In our life as Christians, we are called to a life of both self denial and a life of sacrifice. Yet there is another piece to this invitation to a life of sacrifice, and that is lived out here every Sunday, when we participate in the Eucharist, and we encounter, behold and benefit from the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

The notion that the Eucharist is a sacrifice has been a sticky issue since the time of the Reformation. During that period, some Christians held a view that grossly perverted the nature of the Sacrament. They thought that the priests were actually re-sacrificing Christ at each Eucharist, as if they could repeat that act over and over again for the benefit of those in attendance. The reformers rightly protested this view, but unfortunately, they often went too far. In order to counter this erroneous view of the Eucharist, they began to avoid all talk of a sacrifice and began to think of it simply a memorial of the Last Supper, under the assumption that the notion of a Eucharistic sacrifice was a medieval corruption.

Yet what they failed to realize was that Christians have understood the Eucharist to be a sacrifice from the beginning, and the early Fathers of the Church attest to it. So what then, is this sacrifice? In the early and mid 20th century some of the brightest minds in Western Christianity began to rethink this subject. Liturgist Dr. Frank Gavin told us what it is not. It is not the bloody sacrifice of the Pagans. Dr. Gavin suggests that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus changed the whole meaning of Sacrifice. He tells us “Sacrifice has therefore a new meaning and an intensely practical aim. God stands in no need of what we can give, but man has grievous need of what God gives…so the oblations of the faithful were no mere alms, benevolences or charity: they where the very stuff of religious worship.”(Liturgy and Worship, 110) By oblations, Dr. Gavin means our offerings, both of the physical nature and of a spiritual nature.

There is no getting around it, some of things we do bear a resemblance to what the Pagan Romans did. They offered food to the gods because it fed them, and they offered money to the gods because they desired it. We too, offer food and money at out service.

We offer food in the form of bread and wine each Sunday and that is why it carried forward from the congregation to the altar. However, unlike the Pagans, we know that God does not need our bread and wine to somehow be satisfied. We offer bread and wine because by giving it to God through His priests we in turn feed ourselves and our brothers and sisters. It doesn’t seem like much of a sacrifice to us to give these little wafers and bottled wine, but we must remember how this was done for so long. In times past, someone in the congregation actually baked bread before the service in order to offer it up for the Eucharist. Likewise, someone in the congregation picked grapes, crushed them and fermented them, all to give it to God in the Eucharist. This is sacrifice. Surrendering time, effort, grain and grapes in order that, through the Eucharist, the congregation might be fed. The fact that our bread and wine are pre-made makes them no less a sacrifice, these wafers and wine on the credence table back there were not free, they cost you all. When that bread and wine comes up to this altar soon, each one of you in here will have sacrificed.

After these gifts have been presented, you will offer yet more sacrifice. As our Eucharistic prayer in the Rite I service says, “here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, our selves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy and living sacrifice unto thee.” (BCP, 336) Each time you participate in the Eucharist, you do something dangerous to your own human will, you lay it aside.

The Prayer Book recognizes the gravity of this. In the beginning of the section of the Prayer Book that contains the liturgies of the Holy Eucharist, there is a section called the Exhortation. This is an old part of the service that used to be read before communion in the old Prayer Books. In reference to receiving Communion, it states “For, as the benefit is great, if with penitent hearts and living faith we receive the holy Sacrament, so is the danger great, if we receive it improperly, not recognizing the Lord’s Body. Judge yourselves, therefore, lest you be judged by the Lord.”

This exhortation recognizes what St. Paul addressed in his first letter to the Corinthians – receiving the Body and Blood of Christ while refusing to give up and repent of our favorite sins that we hold on to, anger, greed, lust, this is dangerous to us.

When you truly sacrifice your will in order to receive communion, you lay yourself open and invite the Holy Spirit to fill you, to feed you, to change you. You sacrifice your own fallen human desires and intentions and let yourself become made new in Christ.

Finally, we get to what may the most important aspect of the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of Christ himself. While today we often think of the Eucharist as memorial of the Last Supper, that interpretation is not what the majority of our Christian forebears thought. In analyzing the primitive Western Liturgy that serves as the basis for our Eucharistic Prayers, the Liturgist Dom Gregory Dix made a succinct statement. He said the whole liturgy “”recalls” or “re-presents” before God not the Last Supper, but the Sacrifice of Christ in His death and resurrection, and makes this “present” and operative by its effects in the communicants.” (Shape of the Liturgy, 162).

Now some may point to the objections that some of the reformers raised 500 years ago. They said, “wait a minute – how can Christ’s Sacrifice be present here and now? We know Jesus died in 33 A.D. and as we sat in the Creed, he now sits at the right hand of the Father!” None of what they said was incorrect. Jesus did indeed offer himself once as a perfect, full and sufficient Sacrifice for all, the rose on the third day and ascended to the right hand of the Father.

The problem that the reformers had is that they couldn’t escape linear time. What happened in the past stayed in the past! The thing is, God is not bound by time and space. He is the one who created time. He is the one who created space. He had always existed and therefore God is not bound by these constructs, because it seems from the account in Genesis, that God was doing just fine before he created time in the fashion of day and night and made space by creating matter.

St. Paul tells us that Christ’s sacrifice reordered the entire universe, for it had all been disturbed by our fall. An action by God, that affected everything in existence, surely then cannot then be bound by time and space. That is why it is possible at the Eucharist for Christ’s Sacrifice at Calvary to really and truly be before us.

That act of redemption and love by God is so big, that it breaks through the world we know and comes before us again at the altar. That is why the Sacrifice at Calvary must be present at the Eucharist. God, the One who is Love, brings us to the moment when all humanity is reconciled to Him through the laying down of Christ’s life voluntarily, out of Love, and yearning for us each time we follow his command to take and eat. That Love demands each and every one of us be present at that act of Love and redemption. So when you pray and participate in the Eucharist you stand next to St John and the Blessed Virgin Mary at the foot of the cross weeping. You stand next to St. Mary Magdalene and the other women gazing at the empty tomb. You marvel with the Apostles as they first encounter the Risen Christ.

That is what we do each time at the Eucharist, and that remains the invitation. Come to Church and offer to God the Sacrifice of your labor, your possessions and your money. Confess your sins with a true and penitent heart and receive God’s forgiveness through the Church. Lay yourself open before God and sacrifice your own will, and accept His. Draw near and witness Christ’s death and marvel at his Resurrection. Come forward and be fed, healed, renewed, forgiven and reconciled. Then go back into the world on fire with the Love of God.

Proper 15 C - The Heresy of Americanism

I would like all of you to close your eyes for a few seconds and picture most of the images of Jesus you have seen all your life. How many of them show a calm, peaceful Jesus? Perhaps smiling, or looking peacefully out at you. Maybe it's the popular image of Jesus the Good Shepherd, calmly carrying that lost sheep over his shoulders.

Now here Jesus speak: "I came to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!...Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division!"

Shocking isn't it? The fact is that American Christianity has tended to do it's best to tame and calm our image of Jesus for the past 100 years. With Christianity in ascendance so much that we could add the word "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance without a fight, there was no need to look at the less friendly words of Jesus. We thought we had no one left to convince so we simply showed Jesus as our buddy, our friend. He is our co-pilot, the footsteps beside you, the Man holding you while you were at bat for the first time in Little League.

The problem is, when you put forth this image of Jesus, you end up forgetting a basic fact of His life – He came into the world and it rejected him consistently until it put Him to death.

Yes, Jesus was a loving Man who showed endless mercy and love to those around Him, but he never minced words. He knew he was preaching to a world that would reject Him during his life on Earth because he was preaching what God wanted, not what man wanted. As a reading through our history in Holy Scripture will show, we consistently chose ourselves over God. When God sends His prophets to preach repentance and a return to the Ways of the Lord... well, we usually kill them.

Into this world Jesus was born, to call the world back to the Lord and redeem fallen mankind. This was certainly not a peaceful mission. Jesus came on a mission that resulted in an entire reordering of the cosmos, forever altering the connection between mankind and God.

This was a big change, and we Episcopalians know, people tend be slightly resistant of change.

In today's shocking Gospel passage Jesus is addressing his followers. It seems that some of those following Jesus thought this might actually be an easy mission, where things would just fall into place. People would encounter Jesus and simply follow him. But Jesus could see into the heart of mankind and knew that his offer of a new, redeemed world that followed God and not the will of man, would not be accepted by many.

Jesus' predictions of households being split in two came to bear during his earthly ministry and even more intensely in the immediate years after his Resurrection and Ascension. The religion of Israel was torn in two by those who accepted Jesus as the Messiah and those who did not.

Now through the next two millennia Christianity grew to become the predominant faith of the world, yet it never forgot its radical nature. Jesus word's of division made sense to His followers, because to follow Jesus was always seen as radical act, a choice to accept God's grace and follow Him over and against our own sinful wills and desire. As St. Augustine put it, there have always been two cities: the City of God and the City of Man. Even with Christianity growing each and every century of these millennia, that choice was always there. Christians were always confronted with brothers and sisters and who chose the City of Man, and their own will and desires over that of God.

Yet something strange happened here a 100 years ago. We got a bit conceited and thought the battle was over. We thought there was simply no one left in the Western World who hadn't chosen the City of God over the City of Man. So we got lazy. Having declared victory, we forgot that our own sinful will would always be a temptation. But because we didn't think we needed to hear it, we stopped remembering the challenging words of Christ, we only remembered Him smiling and encouraging us, because we couldn't possibly be doing anything that would make Him challenge us!

So here we are today, and it's abundantly clear that we have residency in the City of God, but we live in the City of Man.

The teachings Jesus, His Holy Apostles and his Holy Church have given to us still challenge us in the Church and in the World today. I could go through and list each and every issue that Bible and the Church have laid out where the difference between our desire and God's desire is, but I don't think that would be all that helpful, because it really boils down to that one question: Do you choose yourself or do you choose God?

During my years as an atheist I was firmly in the camp of those who chose themselves. As someone who refused to believe in anything bigger than mankind, I used my own thoughts, my own intellect as the final guide and arbiter on all things. I refused to believe in any universal standard of good or bad, right or wrong. This lead me to a very narcissistic life when I made myself a god capable of judgment. It led to unfair judgments on others and a morality based around what was easy for me and my friends.

C.S. Lewis tells us in his book Mere Christianity that he was the saddest man in all of England the first night he got down on his knees and prayed, and that sounds strange to many. For me, however, it makes perfect sense. That day I had my light bulb moment, when I knew that that letter I was reading by St. Paul contained the capital T Truth, I knew everything had changed, and I was not happy. For in that moment, what wasn't running through my mind was God Loves Me!, but instead: this means I was wrong! Being the fallen man that I am, my pride was bruised. This revelation meant there was a right and wrong, there was good and bad, and it was not me who made the determination, it was He who made me and all of creation who was judge of all this.

It took me a year to get over myself and realize that this was a gift from God not a curse. Quite frankly it made my life quite easier. I can tell you from my brief attempt at trying to be an omnipotent god who knew right and wrong, it's not an easy job! But once I got past this, it made my life so much happier, it made all the pieces of my life fall into place.

After this revelation I spent another year simply buzzing with the knowledge that even though I had been wrong all these years, God forgave me, and He loved me. I spent a year simply basking in that glow of His love. After that year I was ready to open eyes and see what it meant to not just look internally at my relationship with Him, but to look outward and to see what it meant to be a Christian in the world.

When I began to look at the world around me as a Christian, I was not all that surprised to see the gigantic differences between those who chose genuinely followed God in His City and those who chose themselves and the City of Man in the secular world. I wasn't surprised about this because Jesus told us there would be a clear difference. What I was shocked by was the great inroads the City of Man had made into those who claimed residency in the City of God.

While no one would ever be silly enough to claim that they chose their own will over God because God told them to, it actually happens enough. It's a symptom , and perhaps the cause, of that laziness in American Christianity for the past 100 years. Because we were convinced that we, the people of God, had won, we got comfortable and stopped asking a fundamental question that Christians should always ask themselves: are we doing this for ourselves or for God? A new way of asking about what is right and what is wrong emerged. It follows this pattern: I have a need to do something, and because I am a Christian, and I have a need, it must be of God, because God made me and made my needs. And because everything within me is of God, all Scripture, all Tradition and all other people's reason must be interpreted though my needs. While one can appeal to the Book of Genesis and the children of God language in the New Testament to try and ground it in theology, to me, it sounds an awful lot like my thought process as an atheist ...it's all about me!

The reality is, to be a Christian has always meant that we must examine our internal needs, desires and urges and look at them knowing we are fallen. God gave us Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, as the means, which through Godly reason, we can evaluate our desires. We ask ourselves, what does Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition say about my feelings, and how do I use these feelings and desires in light of Scripture and Tradition for the greater glory of God?

This is the challenge that Jesus puts before us in the Gospel today, and He tells us it is not easy. Will we choose God? Will we choose ourselves?

Will we chose ourselves and call it God? When you choose God, it is not always going to be the popular choice. It will offend those of the secular world and sometimes even those in our greater Christian family.

The good news is that you will never be alone in this. God know this question, of discerning Thy Will Be Done, is our biggest challenge as Christians and has given us tools to work though this. He has given us Scripture, Tradition and Godly Reason to work through that, and perhaps his sweetest gift of all, a loving church family right here, that lives to choose God, and helps us do the same.