Does this sound like a three-legged stool to you?

"This we believe, this we hold, this the Prophets and Evangelists have declared, this the Apostles have delivered, this Martyrs have sealed with their blood, and confessed in the midst of torments, to this we cleave as to the anchor of our souls, against this though an Angel from heaven should preach unto us, we would not believe....

Be it in matter of the one kind or of the other, what Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after this the Church succeedeth. that which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason overrule all other inferior judgments whatsoever."

Richard Hooker, The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Book V, Chapter 8.3

Doesn't to me. Scripture is the prime rule, then follows reasoning from it, and next the Church's wisdom is brought to bear. This is Scripture in its plain sense, not wild and unruly interpretations. This is most certainly not a three-legged stool.

Enraged Mob in Falluja Kills 4 American Contractors (Registration required)

After seeing this article today, I am more and more convinced that trying to bring peace to Iraq, or any other Islamic nation, by the use of military force is a contradiction of immense and deadly proportions. If we think that we can make the people of a religion founded in violence and war who hate us peaceful, we are clearly jaded.

For any Christian to suppose that military intervention in what they see as a military and national struggle will do any good, is to simply miss the point. First, as Christians we believe that peace can only come from trust in the provision of God and in obedience to Him. Secondly, we pray both for the peace of the world and the spread of the Gospel, not for Democratic governments and the "Americanization" of the world.

The pictures accompanying this article make it clear that Islam is a religion of violence and utter mistaste for peace. They hate and kill Christians around the world, as many as 300,000 in some recent years. This said, we must pray, not for their demolition or democratization, but for their conversion to Jesus Christ.

A Saintly Salmagundi: Ancient Mystic Fathers Death Match

I still say Anthony of the Desert would demolish the showboating Simeon.

"Ye shall know them by their Fruits."

It seems that The Passion of Christ is beginning to bear fruit. Not only have lives been turned around and repentance brought in untold numbers, but there has been substantive change, bringing confession.

At the name of Jesus...

I have a question regarding sermon length. Lately, it has struck me that 20 minute sermons should make a comeback. Yet the norm today is 12. What do you think?

Is Lent over?

I think I saw more pastels today, both at the parish and around town. So, it must be that Easter has been transferred in Wisconsin. Must have missed it.

I'm sure you'll want to read The Presiding Bishop Writes the Lambeth Commission and see what he has to say. It seems that it's the same old heretic, just with a little less doubletalk. Cat's out of the bag.

Saw another movie last night - the Ladykillers, the new Coen brother film. I was impressed. Great story, incredible humor.

I finally saw The Passion of Christ on Tuesday night. Since this is the Feast of the Anunciation, the following remark is offered:

We tend to make much of Mary's acceptance of the call to give birth to the Son of God, and very little of her agreeing to be His mother. This meant that she would be with Him even in His death. She would follow her whole life. The great imagery of Mary wiping the blood of her Son from the pavement in the movie was amazing. As the first of Christians, she sets the ultimate model for us, and what a model to follow. She joins and has fellowship with the suffering of her Son. May we join with her this day, saying "be it unto me according to thy Word."

"Of course it's about power: it's about who has the power to decide what is "truth." It's about the end of the patriarchy. (And yes, the respose to that versicle is "Thanks be to God!")"

This is a quote from Susan Russell, the priestess in control of the Every Voice (But Ours) Network. I try to stay away from the controversies at hand on this blog. But, it seems that someone needs to point out the genuine connection between the Ordination of Women and an "End to the patriarchy" to our current struggles over homosexuality. I sat through the debate in both the HOB and the HOD during General Convention, and the over-arching argument was this:

"We changed the teaching of the Church on the Ordination of Women, and we can change it again."

To me the issue is far deeper - a systematic one. I don't take the revisionists to be so smart as to make that argument for me. The systematic issue is that if sexual gender is now of no consequence in the matter of Holy Orders, especially a sacrament the Church considers to be "vocational," then what is to keep gender to be at issue when it comes to marriage? We have to face the fact that the Ordination of Women is a mark of pagan pantheism, not orthodox Christianity, and put a moratorium on the ordination of women to the priesthood in the Network. Otherwise, we are at a logical paradox.

I have posted my sermon for the Fourth Sunday in Lent. Point of discussion - should a good sermon be applauded or booed?

The House of Bishops, meeting not far from the campus of Texas A&M, in Navasota, TX at Camp Allen has released their statement. It is truly disappointing, as it yet again puts parishes that cannot accept the ministries of their bishops in the back seat. Filled with language of "reconciliation" and "mutuality," it amounts to much more than verbage, which is surprising. Parishes must now request that their bishop ask another bishop to give oversight. They must do so by 2/3ds majority, and the bishop may refuse. Then, the the procedure defers to the president of the province - none of whom could be called orthodox. One bit of promise in this statement - it makes the need for a clean break and continued response from orthodox bishops a necessity in the face of the arrogance and apostasy of the House of Bishops and ECUSA in general.

I went and saw Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind on Saturday. It was a very good movie, the sort of thing I have come to expect from Charlie Kaufman. High power philosophy and tons of effects. Very cool!

One of the more influential priests in my life recently gave an excellent sermon on the priesthood. It sums up quite well a vision for the sort of priest I pray to become.

Are the 39 Articles Anglican Doctrine?

This is a wonderful question. E.J. Bicknell, in his introduction of 500+ pages to the 39 Articles says this:

"Our present 39 Articles are only one out of a large crop of formularies produced in Europe by the general unrest of the Reformation. Even as regards the Church of England, they are only the last of a series of doctrinal statements put forth as occasion demanded."

We might proceed from the supposition that occasions of controversy demand doctrinal formulation. It could be argued that Anglicanism needs more of this sort of formulation today, as well as a call to return to previous doctrinal definitions. But, Anglican formularies are not propositional in nature, mainly because they are subject to the rule of the Scriptures and the first 4 (at least) Councils.

For instance, it is the idolatry of late-medieval Eucharistic Devotion that Article 28 opposes. Is this a problem today? Hardly. Should Article 28 be removed? Probably. Reassertion of most of the Articles could be terribly effective, and I think it should be undertaken by a Lambeth conference.

There are some (like Alister McGrath) who say that the Articles are an Anglican Confessional statement. Remember, that they are binding to clergy of the C of E, regardless of how much discipline is used in enforcement. But, this is largely because the thrust of the Articles fit their Churchmanship - McGrath is an evangelical.

The Articles have strong points - namely that they contain the means of Anglican theology or "how we do it." Staying from this understanding has caused us immense difficulty.

But, the Articles are dated (back to 1571) and we must remember that appeal to them as a whole is anachronistic. This is not to say that they are stuck in time, as the nature of Christian Dogma is anything but. It is to say that we must exercise the primary concerns of the Articles - namely an appeal to the Scriptures, the Creeds, and the Councils, as well as the Fathers. This is most certainly Anglican, and most certainly a systematic doctrinal approach utilized by Hooker, Andrewes, and Pusey alike.

Can they be faulty? Yes. They are not infallible points. But, they are doctrine, and certainly need to be reworked in our present day. They do not take into account the Oxford Movement, nor do they take into account the diaspora of Puritanism. The greater point is that there are some articles that are not reflective of classical Anglican theology which has solidified since 1571, while for the most part, they do set the tone for Anglican doctrine.

Perhaps you've heard about this. But, a few orthodox Episcopal bishops, some of whom I know, went to Ohio and administered confirmation.

One of most incredible outcomes of this is a statement by the Presiding Bishop calling on the Council of Nicaea of 325. Did he miss a day in seminary? I could have sworn that the Council seemed to be a bit more clear about things such as Priests living with women with whom they are not married, Priests emasculating themselves, and Bishops not crossing the diocesan boundaries of brother and orthodox Bishops. Seems that the ole PB will only call on the Church of Antiquity selectively, and even then, not well.

Due to a request from a reader, I have included a caption for the image to the right. These Last Judgment scenes were popular in the late medieval period, and I quite like them.

Happy St. Paddy's Day!!!

Ok... photo links are updated and more links are added.

Got a great deal on the Complete Works of Lancelot Andrewes, reprinted from the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology in 11 volumes. Too good to pass up.

Would like to discuss William Sancroft - Non Juror Archbishop of Canterbury. Much has been said recently that Anglicanism is defined by union with the Archbishop of Canterbury. I would argue that the Non-Jurors were entirely Anglican, and actually had their own Archbishop of Canterbury. This would hold for a more organic understanding of the nature of Anglican Communion, one which is far more necessary if we are to understand our discipline in the light of an increasingly pathetic English Church and an increasingly glorious Anglicanism in the developing world.

"I will not speak of thy mysteries to thy enemies"

This is the quote which St. John Chrysostom holds before us. Thoughts?

I've been smattering the blog with the heavenly host of the Church Triumphant, and if it's ok with you all, I think I shall continue.

To your left is St. John Chrysostom. I've been reading his works on the Priesthood, and have something I would like to throw out for discussion, mainly due to some of the discussion on Taylor's blog.

We are dealing with a major crisis in the Church, which I do not believe to be a lack of vocations, but rather a mistaken understanding of how priests (and deacons) of the Church should be chosen. The model for the last many hundereds of years has been one of the aspirant presenting himself for orders. Much of the time, it comes down to some sort of esoteric "I feel a call to the priesthood."

My argument proceeds something like this: Chrysostom had to hide out not to be ordained to the priesthood, which he (btw) refers to as being "taken." The beauty of this is that it is the Church's wisdom as to who is called and who is not that matters. We, on the other hand, once the call is affirmed, leave much of the labor to the postulant. Ideally, all Christians should be sufficiently catechised for orders. (Note that there is no need for seminaries until after the Reformation) The priesthood should be taken in fear and trembling, not in feelings of self-worth and being "affirmed." It comes in the thunderstorm and in crisis - a realization that faithfulness to the Church and to Jesus, fearing the consequences of disobedience, is what rightly calls a priest.

A recent sermon on the priesthood noted that priests typically look like little kids wearing their parent's clothes when they vest. The reason, he stated, was that the priest dares to fill the shoes of Jesus. This is the sort of radical discipleship to which the priest is called. If ordination is merely an added credential to one's fitness to travel on a "spiritual journey," how can our priests lead their people in the same radical discipleship to which our Lord calls all Christians?

Question of the day: at what point does a bishop expand diocesan boundaries or pass over them when surrounding bishops have gone into a state of apostasy? I'm interested in hearing what you have to say, because the current situation in Anglicanism has not "outed" this question.

I've picked up a great book yesterday afternoon at a local bookstore -
The Meaning of Everything: The Story of the Oxford English Dictionary. Not typically my genre, but this has been a truly rewarding read after 100 pages. It covers the creation of the Oxford Dictionary, which has a truly fascinating history. Problem is, I paid $25 and Amazon has it for $10, go figure.

For the Feast of Gregory of Nyssa, my favorite of the Cappadocians, a quote on the Baptism of Our Lord, courtesy of the new volumes.

"Again, He becomes 'the first-born among many brethren,' Who is born before us by the new birth of regeneration in water, for the travail whereof the hovering of the Dove was the midwife, whereby He makes those who share with Him in the like birth to be His own brethren, and becomes the first-born of those who after Him are born of water and the Spirit: and to speak briefly, as there are in us three births, whereby human nature is quickened, one of the body, another in the sacrament of regeneration, another by that resurrection of the dead for which we look, He is the first born in all three: of the twofold regeneration which is wrought by two (by baptism and by the resurrection), by being Himself the leader in each of them; while in the flesh He is first-born, as having first and alone devised in His own case that birth unknown to nature, which no one in the many generations of men had originated."

From Against Eunomius Book IV, writing about the year 382.

Talk about Incarnational Theology!

On another blog, actually, Taylor Marshall's blog, there was a discussion of Churchmanship, and the claim was made that Anglo-Catholics should simply swim the Tiber. This is an opinion which with I disagree. Last semester, I wrote a paper on the subject of Charles Grafton, an American Bishop who worked for unity with the Russian Orthodox and the Polish National Catholics. It think it outlines well, many times in Grafton's own language, the momentum behind the Catholic Movement in Anglicanism. It helps to have context, and I think this may help.

The paper is posted here.

Looks like I've been won over to narrative theology. It took a while, my hesitations being with the inherent relativism, but now I'm totally on board. Stanley Hauerwas, you're the man! The relativism, by the way, is merely a label because narrative theology allows for the existence of multiple narratives. But, that does not mean that one narrative cannot be more true than the others.

I have posted a sermon which will be given tomorrow based on the texts for the Second Sunday in Lent, Lectionary Year C.

The Youth Group here at the house, led by Therese, Ian, and I had a great time raising enough money to sponsor and feed 11 children in the third world this year. Over the weekend, we fasted for 30 hours and taught the kids all about hunger. The big news was that a recent funds-matching grant from the US Government will match 3-1 our contributions, meaning 44 children worldwide will eat from our work.

Pictures are here.