My Struggle| Legitimacy

Lately I have noticed a very serious presence of arrogance. It started around my confirmation, and is getting stronger every day.

Most noticeably, it turns up when I’m (usually reluctantly) talking theology with people. I go to a Dutch Reformed school, dominated by Catholics, and am in a Wesleyan family. Usually in these discussions I am the one defending things like apostolic succession, episcopal governance, the sacred nature of the sacraments, or why I don’t recognize the Pope as the end-all-be-all of church authority (but still think of him as a swell guy). I try to be diplomatic, but in the back of my head and heart I am secretly thinking “give up your Presbyteries, come back to the true church”

More Dangerously though, my arrogance turns up when I’ve been meeting with people to discuss and discern possible paths for ordination. I’ll ask  my questions and listen to what they have to say, and then something along the lines of “There is no way I am going to be a pastor in the Reformed Eastern Anglo-Catholic Church – Lutheran Rite, they are not truly of God” Usually my reason for thinking this is rather stupid to.

That is very dangerous. In the first example, its a simple disagreement, we all have them; Coke vs. Pepsi, Obama vs. McCain, AFC vs. NFC. Life moves on. But in the latter, Im not just waging a debate, I am dismissing an entire demographic as not being of God, dismissing their faith as a sham, dismissing them as people.

This is my struggle. If I do enter the ministry, I should go into it thinking that my tradition is the most holy way to be in communion with God, meaning that I have to denounce other traditions as insufficient faiths. How can I take this position, and still see the fact that God is at work within these other traditions, that their faith is as legitimate as mine?

+Alex Resurgent

Reflection in John 8:53-58

Gospel of John 8:53-58 (NKJV – Highlighting my own)

Are You greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? And the prophets are dead. Whom do You make Yourself out to be?”

Jesus answered, “If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God. Yet you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I say, ‘I do not know Him,’ I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.“

Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”

Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.“

I came across this verse today, and the highlighted stuck out to me. I love the Gospel of John because of its “dark” nature. When I say dark, I don’t mean that Christ is evil in the gospel. He is more akin to Van Helsing, minus the killing, He is good, but not in the way that would expect a good guy to be. He always seems to be kinda off in left field saying profound things that, rightly so, make us feel very uncomfortable, mildly creeped out, and leaves us wishing that He would go to another block.

This is one of those passages that sent shivers down my spine.

The first shiver came at the response that Christ gave to the Challenge against His identity. Christ comes back with the claim the He knows the Father more than the teachers of the law, no biggie, we’re used to this. Then He turns to address the challenge of His greatness compared to Abraham, “who is dead…”

“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”

Christ refers to the eschaton, to the end times, IN THE PAST TENSE. It is very unnerving to me to think that Christ, during His existence on earth, was already privy to, and knowledgeable about the nature of eternity. He had been there, done that, if there is a t-shirt, Im presuming He has that as well. Jokes aside, I invite you to meditate on the fact that as Christ was teaching little kids, He was already witness to the full completion of time.

The second shiver comes when Christ reveals His “age” to them with “before Abraham was, I AM.” Yes there is some crazy tense action in this passage too, but it is not what got to me. By using the proper name of God, in conjunction with His preexistence of Abraham almost gives the impression that it was Christ Himself talking to Abraham, instead of God the Father. Although this is not a view that is held as truth, knowing the Christ was at least party to the revelations in the Old Testament, via His place in the Trinity, defiantly provides a different angle to reading the Old Testament.

These verses served to me as reminders that Christ is, was, and ever will be.  To often I limit Christ to my time line of being prophesied about-living-dieing-and sometimes returning, instead of realizing that Christ was with the Children of Israel, through His relationship with the Father, and was at the day of Pentecost through His relationship with the Spirit.

The wholeness of time and space is reflected in each and every word that the Trinity has spoken.

+Alex Resurgent

Feast of St. James

The Nature of the Keys

With the Church of England’s decision to elevate women to the episcopate, there has been a lot of discussion about the nature of Holy Orders, especially the role of bishops and the life of the church. This is not of immediate concern to me, or at least, why I am spending time reflecting on this.

I am currently discerning a call into the “ordained ministry” and what that would look life for myself. For the past few years, whenever I told pastors that I was interested in becoming ordained, they would usually make a comment about how I should take time to pray and make sure it was my calling. Solid advice, but I was/am pretty sure that it is my calling. And I feel like Im making progress with pastors because they are now asking me instead “why the ordained ministry?” “Why not teach as a layman, the church has lay pastors and lay theologians. Why not do that?”

Its a valid question, and it got me thinking. I have absolutely no idea no idea what it means to be ordained, and what makes it different from a lay ministry?

Martin Luther, in his Small Catechism, states that…

The Office of the Keys is that special authority which Christ has given to His church on earth to forgive the sins of repentant sinner, but to with-hold forgiveness from the unrepentant…

Thus the job of the pastor is to ensure that the forgiveness and absolution of God is administered and realized on the congregation. Fair enough.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, I choose you…

The ministerial priesthood differs in essence from the common priesthood of the faithful because it confers a sacred power for the service of the faithful. The ordained ministers exercise their service for the people of God by teaching…, divine worship…, and pastoral governance…

Yes, I did open that up with a reference to Pokemon. The CCC affirms this sacred-power approach, but expands it to other things besides absolution of sins: teaching, leading worship, and sacred bureaucracy.

Next we turn ordination serive for Priests found in the book of common prayer

In all that you do, you are to nourish Christ’s people from the riches of his grace, and strengthen them to glorify God in this life and in the life to come.

Priests are to carry out a sacred lifestyle for the benefit of others.

Finally, for the win, the bible…

So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God.

There were a few other verses pertaining to the mission of the church, but that one cut to the heart of the matter.

It seems that there is a mystical otherness attached to ordination. With the laying of hands, an ontological change occurs. So the change between lay ministry and ordained ministry is that lay ministry proclaims truth; ordained ministry administers truth.

Thus going back to the original question “Why not lay ministry? Why not Ordained ministry?”

I really do not have an answer that that. I really cant answer that. I can say that I want to take part in the secret things of God, but that doesn’t mean that I’m cut out for it. It almost sounds arrogant.

All I can say is that I “feel called” to it, which seems just as out there as the concept itself.

+Alex Resurgent

Unity in Essentials…

Time For a Christian Truce

I really do not want this to become one of those “religious political” blogs, where i sling mud at the right or left. Ill sling it wherever it needs to be slung. So I don’t want this post to be critical of Mr. (Rev.?) Grabiec’s person, or even his logic.

In his article “Time for a Christian Truce”, Mr. (Rev.?) Grabiec states that we can never truely know anything about our faith, and that it is time for Christians to settle their differences and preach the gospel. I could not agree more with him on this point. In specific he referenced the dispute between the Anglican Church in Canada and the Anglican Network in Canada. Indeed I would love it if Anglicans, or Christians for that matter, would stop warring over minute things and propagated the gospel. But I do have a problem with his thinking, and it is a very common train of thought, and it can have very real effects on the message that we preach.

In the article, Grabiec uses the example of the Arius controversy in the 300’s. Arius argued that Christ was a created being that God the Father gave some sort of divinity. This was condemned as heresy, and rejected. Grabiec seems to say that such beliefs are secondary to the bigger message of God.

I disagree. I think that if we are going to preach the Gospel, we should be fairly clear about what we believe, and make sure that it makes sense.

Arius’ argument didn’t check with the facts. There are two ways that Christ could have been a created being (please tell me if there are others). Way 1: He was a normal human whom God enabled to be sinless and amazingly wise, possessing healing powers. Way 2: He was below God, but above humanity, a sort of Angle or super angel. Each sounds plausible, but each makes it impossible for salvation to work.

We are told that the wages of sin is death, and the only way to atone for sin is through a Human sacrifice. If this is the case, than a Divine-Human Christ’s death would have atoned for the sins of one man. (I swore earlier tonight, sorry guys). A super-human being Christ would have saved no one but himself, because it is clear that what is to be saved, must be assumed. Thats why it must be a human sacrifice, nothing else would have legitimately worked.

This is why Arianism was rejected, it did not fit the understanding of the faith. This is just a small example amongst the myriad of disputes. My point is that we as a Christian community do need to have some unity in the faith that we profess. Its a shame that so many disagreements have divided us so much. But If we say that “anything is possible, really don’t know” to everything, we won’t have much of a faith to profess.

And That would be a larger shame unto itself

+Alex Resurgent
Eighth Sunday After Pentecost

That they may be one…

Due to recent events, both in my life and the life of the Anglican Church, topics of Church Structure and Spiritual Authority have been on my mind a lot, and this is probably the first in a series revolving around that. Bare with me…

An old friend of I had a good discussion about church unity, and what constitutes it. I shant bore you with the play by play details, but I think her point was that the Roman Church is the only “valid” church, and the rest of Christianity (including myself) should reconcile ourselves to Rome. There is validity to her argument. Christ Himself wished that we would be one, and that is something that we should all strive for.

But what would this “unity” look like? The Roman Catholic Church mastered this concept for millenia, with a strong bureaucracy (the Pontificate), and a universal language for worship (Latin). The Congregationalists likewise turned “unity” into an art by not having any institutional (or necessarily theologically) but still by maintaining an identity.

A few images of this unity come to mind:

Unity in Baptism and Belief in Christ
The church arguably has this already, save for a few exceptions. All Christians profess a belief in Christ, and most have been baptized. Baptism may seem like a small unifying factor, but it is also nearly-universally recognized as being valid, regardless of who did the baptism. Unfortunately the unity ends there as many Christians have fundamental disagreements about the basics of the faith, such as the nature of Christ, his work, and how it relates to the world today.

I try to keep this Unity at the front of my mind, especially when talking theology with people. I may believe that one thing is true, and that the other person is guilty of total heresy, but at the end of the day, they are still my brother or sister in Christ.

Unity in Creed or Confession
This is probably the second most prevalent form of unity; unity centered around a Confession or Catechism, and can be found prominently amongst the protestant churches (Small Catechism for Lutherans, Belgic Confession for Reformed churches, 39 Articles for Anglicans). Plus side for this is that Families of Confessions actually have a basic common faith and history, downside is that they don’t have to share a common vision on what the faith should look like. How many Lutheran/Presbyterian Denominations are there? In a way, these divisions may be even more personal that the inter-denominational divisions.

Unity in Governance
This is a HUGE one, and responsible for more divisions than any other, probably because it is the strongest form of unity, with less room for liberty. Churches united through behemoth style bureaucracies can be amazing for providing unity across states or nations. I think that it is amazing to know that, as an Anglican, I can walk into an Anglican church anywhere on earth and know about what Im going to get, and know that I have a direct institutional link with that church. I cant say that about non-denominational churches. This fact is true for Catholics and Orthodox churches, and to a lesser extent the mainline protestants. The HUGE downside is that it is very easy for the little guy to get over run.

On a side note, the Anglican, Catholic, and Orthodox Churches maintain belief in Apostolic Succession, the faith that they posses an unbroken linage of Bishops to the apostles. Plus side: provides connection the past and some legitmacy of the faith. Downside is that it can be easily hijacked by wayward Bishops who can preach apostasy under the guise of legitimacy (See Liberal Catholic Churches).

I dont know what “Unity” is supposed to look like today. I dont think that my freinds dream of a universal Roman church will come anytime soon. The Second and Third views, although provides coherency in faith, also breeds division, disdain, neither of which are Christian virtues; meanwhile the first candy coats serious differences that need discussion.

Any thoughts?

+A. Resurgent

Feast of St. Peter and St Paul

Anglican Theology per N.T. Wright on The Colbert Report…

Great Interview, I encourage watching it at the Colbert website, but it isnt quite what I want to address.

About Two Thirds of the way into the interview, Bishop Wright defines all of Anglican theology in a nutshell:

The great thing about Anglicans is that we have no theology of our own; if something is true, then Anglicans believe it… or that’s the theory anyway.

Bishop Wright did two great things in that sentence, one is that he defined Anglicanism in a brevity that I have tried to achieve when explaining it to my friends.

Secondly, in the disclaimer he addressed the strain occurring within the communion right now, and what is causing it. There a dozens of theories as to what is at the heart of the mini-schism between the Episcopal Church and the Wider Anglican Community. The media blames it on homosexuality, many Anglicans would argue that it hinges on ‘the authority of scripture’, others would attribute it to fear of change, selling out to society, or a myriad of other things. But, whether Bishop Wright agrees to it or not, it all comes down to truth. What does it look like, where do we find it, what do we do with it.

The Anglican method for finding truth is the “three-legged stool of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.” And, unfortunately, the Homosexual issue has pitted the legs against each other. The “traditional marriage” argument invokes scripture (after all Christ is the way, the truth and the life” and tradition (its never been done before), while the “pro SSM” side invokes reason (homosexuality is natural, how can it be sinful?) coupled with the scriptural principal of equality (for there are no more Jews and Gentiles in Christ).

What I hope we find with Gafcon and Lambeth is a further exploration into what us confessionless Anglicans define as truth. Perhaps if we cant agree on this, its time for us to split, and thats a suggestion I dont make lightly.

+Alex Resurgent

Reflection on Sunday’s Reading (6 Ordinary A)

The Fifth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans (NKJV)

1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3 And not only that, but we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; 4 and perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5 Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

6 For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. 10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. 11 And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

I read this passage sunday during service (theres something impressive to be said about a church that allows visitors to read the epistle on their first visit, but that is another post) and something about it struck a cord. Understandably, the Priest choose to pay his primary attention to the Gospel lesson, so I would like to spend a moment looking at this.

The first two verses address, what I would consider to be, the first tenant of our faith, that through Christ we have union with the Father. Through Christ we are able to rejoice in the Father, uninhibited by our unworthiness. Verse Five says that God pours out the Holy Spirit into us, which brings us into an even more perfect union with God, and from that stems hope. Hope which further prefects our faith.

The second section of the reading is the second tenant of our faith, that Christ died for us, reconciling us to God the Father. Fairly straight forward (I feel guilty saying that)

But what strikes me interesting is order the Paul uses. Traditionally the narrative is: we are sinners, but through the cross and resurrection we have the ability to have union with God. Whereas Paul’s narrative is that we currently have union with God, thanks to the crucification. Union is not something to be obtained, it is something that currently is.

Not to down play the crucification at all, it is something for which Christ ought be praised for for all eternity, but I suggest that we start looking at this post-crucifiction world view more often. I suggest that we spend more time abiding in Gods Spirit, rather than beating ourselves senseless with the fact that we didnt deserve the cross, and trying to justify it. We can never do that.

Instead let us carry out our mission of peace and love, knowing that we are in God, and that he is in us.

+A. Resurgent

Ruling the World

I once read a book from our Church library, being a pre-owned book, there were the cursory marks, underlining, side notes, and what have you. Most of these contributions went unnoticed, save for one. In a chapter about the nature of Marriage, the author affirmed his unwavering belief that marriage is an institution solely between a man and a woman. The previous owner dashed this line out and above it wrote NO! NO! NO! underlined multiple times. This caught my eye because in doing this, the author was trying to alter reality. He or She was trying to alter the fact that a renowned theologian disagreed with his/her point of view; and simply write this fact out of the book. As if a single dash mark and child like negation bring the universe into accordance their preferred perception and of reality.

All I could do was laugh because at the end of the day, the sentence was still there. The owner had changed nothing.

I too am guilty of doing this. Many people who know me well will testify that if I can not get something I want, I will find ways to work the system to make it work for me (outright rebellion was never my style). Usually I am successful, but every now and then (aka today) I come across a barrier that I cant manipulate.

And I want to yell NO! NO! NO! to make it better.

But it wont.

No matter how far I run, how many times I try to break these walls in front of me, how many dash marks I use, I am fearful that I can’t find a way around them

And it makes me angry.

I wonder if indeed this is the greatest sin, believing that we can change reality. After all, were not Adam and Eve looking for a paradigm shift?

+Alex Resurgent