Leonard Bernstein's "Mass"

I suppose I'm a student of popular culture, but I'm sure not a professor. I had never heard of Bernstein's "Mass" before last year, and had the opportunity to listen to the entire double-CD while "cruising" with my wife and kids around Cocoa Beach. A parishioner had asked me to listen and give my thoughts (so I'm reproducing the gist here--actually, I'm just touching up a draft I did last Fall).

The environment inside the van, interestingly (I'm talking about our girls' demeanor and disinterest in hearing any voice other than their own), uncannily synchronized with Bernstein's avant-garde chaos.

Regardless of the challenges, all in all it was a positive experience. Bernstein obviously put together a musical narrative with great professionalism.

Whatever Bernstein's "Mass" is, though, it is not a Mass.

A Mass is worship. The "audience" is God alone. There is focus, coherence, and yes, drama, but it is glorious in both its parts and whole. Again, "Mass" was no Mass.

I've returned the CD to its owner awhile ago, and so must speak from imperfect memory in my critique. Although "Mass" failed to embody its name, there is plenty of room to consider it biblically-informed and spiritual. It seemed to me it could be considered a "psalm" (instead of a Mass) in that there was a dramatic searching for answers that can be found throughout the Psalter: "Why O Lord...?! I'm confused.... I've been abandoned... This doesn't make sense... Why?!" (e.g. Psalm 77).

And it is spiritual in the beauty of the voices, in the excellence of the composition, and emphatically in the reconcilation and restored hope of the finale--even as the despair of Psalm 77 turns to hope in the end.

Of course Bernstein was affected by the 60's and its questioning. He gives voice to the questions. Indeed, they are central; but he is not a postmodern artist of indifference. He is not a youth of the 60's, he is mature. He thus ends with hope, not despair, not ambiguity (at least not too much!).

I also wonder how much Bernstein's faith (Jewish) affected the work. Specifically, although there were points of spirituality attributable to the Psalter (and Job, by the way), perhaps he was simply "out of his element" in trying to embody the New Testament Mass. If you listen to it, you'll know what I mean (Amazon and Itunes, etc. have sound clips). It's not as cacophanous as the pre-concert tuning of an orchestra, but parts of it are a bit wild. What rubbed me the wrong way when I first listened, is that NOTHING FITS. Bernstein repeatedly applies the holy God-centered words of the liturgy with music that is existentially self-focused on the human condition and not at all on God's person. I don't have the music vocabulary to describe much of the work, but it is a man-centered aching for redemption, reunion, wholeness. And consistent with my preceding thoughts, Bernstein's "Mass" is not enjoyable as a "Mass", but if instead, it's received as a "Prelude to Mass", that makes all the difference! When listened to in this light, my theological objections disappear, and moreover, most selections (that is, the music and voices apart from the selection titles and lyrics) can actually be savoured when this work is taken as man's search for the person of Christ Jesus, to be conveyed to the faithful in the true Mass of God.

Then, if you're looking for a faithful climax to Bernstein's work, get thee to a good traditional church and worship God in spirit and in truth. With the Blessed Sacrament and historic liturgy of Holy Communion you will receive Christ himself.

Back in the saddle? I don't think so.

After my experiment in blogging ended with the realization I didn't have enough time, I'm back to realizing I still don't have time!

Though posting may, and no doubt will, be rare, I'll continue to occasionally do so.

My last entry was in the Summer past, when I attended a wonderful and stirring Synod in Orlando. It was an immense privilege to hear the Most Rev'd Gregory Venables preach. "Back to the Gospel basics" and "missions for everyone" (my paraphrase) were his topics. All Souls, London (rector--John Stott+) sent Rico Tice to lead a presentation on "Christianity Explored"--I think very practical. Rico's zeal is admirable, and the materials are appreciated--although they unnecessarily neglect Baptism and the Eucharist, which shouldn't be hard to balance in.

Why Evil (6) Job Application

This is a place marker. I've been working on summarizing and concluding this series, and wanted to keep the posts all together. This allows me to do that (although I'm sure there's a better way)--I'll edit over this in a day or two.

(Preview: the gist of the summary is that God is personal, and present. It's not so much a matter of academic or theological debate, but concerns God who closely experiences all our suffering and injustice, and who will not cease to be loving toward us. Our also response needs to be like Job, who humbled himself and gave up his "rights" and demanding attitude toward God.)

Why Evil (5)? Three Stories

Perhaps turning from theological foundations to some stories may help us get a bit (a very small bit) of a handle on this great mystery--of how our perfectly good God can allow evil things to happen. I'll be drawing from the stock of typical examples.

First, there is the alarming story of the young screaming, thrashing little boy, terrorized as a burly man pins him down, pressing his head to the floor with great force. They are in an abandoned building in an isolated area, far from any police. Now that he is pinned, he can barely move and is at the tough man's mercy. The fear and pain are unimaginable, for at that very moment, there is another man, an accomplice, who sticks a piece of metal into the child's eye until his screams seemingly echo for miles.

Who is most evil? and most unjust?--the second man who directly caused such physical pain, or the first man who pinned the boy down? Most will say "both," and perhaps a little bit more one than the other. But what we need here is context, for most would be wrong. We need perspective. Neither man is evil.

The boy, we now learn, is about to die, and the first man is the boy's father, holding him down because there are no pain-killers or anesthesia. And the second man is a doctor who must immediately operate to remove a deadly-poisoned object from his eye.

Perspective makes a difference, doesn't it? The boy really is being tortured, just ask him! The pain could not be more real or more intense. But the men are good, not evil. In the same way, we lack perspective concerning our own lives and world. We are not omniscient, and do not know the mind of God. The Lord allows many things to happen to us for our good, that we may perceive as bad, unfair, and perhaps even as torture. Our limited perspective does not make God evil or unjust. No, God is good, all the time.

The second story addresses another angle of the problem of evil. A known terrorist with an explosive vest is walking toward a full school bus, shouting his intentions to kill. A captain is about to give orders to his one sniper to shoot to kill. In a flash, the captain remembers a lengthy conversation with the sniper from earlier that day. The captain had learned that the sniper is wickedly prejudiced and takes perverse joy in ending the life of another. To give the order would certainly feed the sniper's prejudice and lust to kill. Would this intertwine the captain with the sniper's evil, and make the captain share in the guilt? No. The order is given.

God sees the big picture and is working for the best possible outcome of history. Sometimes his will includes directing ("giving orders" to) evil men to do deeds that are immoral from the point of motivation and small-scale context, but are not wrong from the divine perspective. If our focus is only on evil men, we limit and judge God. One biblical example is the pagan King Cyrus, whom Scripture calls a "messiah" because he was used of God to direct Israel toward greater faithfulness. Cyrus was not a good guy, and did real evil, and yet God was not bad to direct him for the greater advancement of His will. Judas fulfilled God's plan, for "the Son of Man will go has it has been determined; but woe to the man who betrays him." That is, concerning the same circumstances: Judas was evil for his selfish plan; God was good for his sacrificial plan.

The third and final story (I'll be general) is a whole category: the underdog and great reversal story. It is David and Goliath in its every manifestation. God's pattern throughout Scripture is to reverse the curse. Adam came and blew it. The second Adam (Christ) came and made it much better than it could have been at first; "O blessed fault!" we hear in the Easter Vigil. "The first shall be last and the last shall be first." Paul's chains served not to thwart the gospel, but to free and advance it. The curse of sin remains until glory, but God is free to use all evil for even greater good.

I was in Manhattan on 9/11 and this was my message: God is the God of reversals. There is good and evil in this world but they are not equal in power; for the Lord takes, reshapes, and transforms that which is evil into even greater good. "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good"--the evil of Joseph's betrayal and widespread famine were reversed to the end of saving God's people. "God works all things for good, to those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose"--the lame walk, the blind see, the deaf hear, and the sick are healed--physically and spiritually.

This timeless principle naturally resonates outside of Scripture as well. There are many Cinderella stories throughout history, whose exaltations would have been unremarkable had the "Cinderellas" always been favored and never suffered. There are countless analogies from sports: the Miracle on Ice--1980 USA Olympic Hockey over the Soviets and world; the Miracle Mets (whole season)/Miracle Jets (SuperBowl) both of 1969; the Miracle Comeback-Jan. 1993 Bills over Oilers after being down 35-3; and so on.

Much more poignant are the modern miracles of children beating cancer after being diagnosed as terminal; and all other miraculous healings. All these stories reflect the overarching story of God's redemption, "Behold, I make all things new!"

Great reversals touch something central concerning the will of God (again think of the cross and resurrection!), and they resonate with us because we are God's creation. Remember, God's reversals aren't just comebacks to level the playing field, they are wonderful victories to savor--where circumstances are even better than before. Concerning evil, reversals aren't possible unless there is something to reverse; and the greater the reversal, the greater the victory, and the greater the joy. Savored Reversal is the main course at the Wedding Banquet of the Lamb.

Heaven will be a blast, and I'm deeply grateful for every foretaste, great and small, we are allowed to know and experience until that Day.

Why Evil (4)? Hatchet Job

Job chapter 2 repeats the heavenly scene from the first chapter, but Satan ups the ante. He receives permission from God to hurt Job physically this time, but not to kill him. The result: Satan inflicts Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the top of his head. Sores cover the soles of his feet. Sores completely cover all his body, to the very top of his head. I don't know about you, but I say Satan tortured Job. It is torture, what else can you call it? And...and...and God permits this?? And God permits the death of Job's children?? We can't pretend this makes sense to us. Job's wife couldn't.

She gives up, she's had enough, "Are you still holding on to your integrity? Curse God and die!" (2:9). In other words, "Won't you admit the pain and suffering are too great to ever fit with the idea of a good God--How can you stay on His side and maintain that He's good??; Go ahead, curse Him as evil. (He would strike you dead for that, and it would end your suffering.)"

At this point, I'm not offering answers (the next post--"Why Evil (5)?"--will offer some possibilities). The point I want to make here is that GOD KNOWS. Do you relate to the story of Job? Well, who gave it to you? God did. He included it in Scripture and brought it to your very attention. He knows that people suffer like Job. He knows that people despair like Job's wife. He knows all that goes on in this world, from the great tsunamis to your own personal tragedies and injustices. He knows that you can relate to this story and that's why He gave it to you. And this is the clincher that God knows: He became man--took on human flesh--not partially, but fully. God-the Son himself suffered and died--the Church was bought with God's own blood (cf. Acts 20:28). God knows, and not only from afar, but intimately. He's been on the receiving end of outrageous suffering and injustice. He was tortured to death. God knows as both as the Victim--God the Son; and as the aggrieved parent--God the Father.

What? Isn't this more than a "mystery"? Isn't there something flat wrong with this picture? God permits this?? God-the Father permits the death of His only-begotten Son??

I'm not saying this makes it easier to understand; it may make it harder. What I'm communicating is that first, God knows. Second, there's a pattern here. The problem of suffering and pain in the world is clearly linked to the problem of the suffering and death of the Son of God.

Although in the short run you may try, in the end, you can't accept one problem and not the other. For believers, you will either end up accepting that both these problems do not ultimately contradict the idea that God is good, for He is good--even when such things are permitted; or, you will despair and reject both the suffering of the world and the passion of the Son of God.

Pause. Back to the story.

This is how Job responded to his wife, "You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?" And the inspired narrator confirms, "In all this, Job did not sin in what he said."

Satan is again proven wrong. The angels must have delighted in showing him the door.

The "hatchet" that Job feels, however, does not end with his physical sores; he next gets some "comfortors" who smite with the tongue.

Three friends come to sympathize and help, and I'll be very brief in summary. They start out well, and are silent for a week, but then they can't help themselves. Bit by bit they try to bring order to the chaos of the situation, not for Job's sake, but for their own. They have a limited, boxed-in, concept of God that leads them to increasingly blame Job for his own misfortune. They call on him to repent from some unknown sin, because they cannot accept the idea of a good God allowing Job to be so afflicted--unless in some way he specifically deserved it. This compounds the injustice done to Job--callously blaming the victim. A fourth friend comes and has a better perspective, but Job still isn't helped. The Lord finally makes an appearance and addresses Job directly. Being in God's presence, and receiving His soul-shaking thunder, Job repents. Finally, in his contrition, Job is doubly rewarded in this life and forever.

Wait...Job repents? Repents of what?--isn't he blameless and wasn't Satan proven wrong about Job?

Obviously there is more to this story, and it's awfully important to understand, because if righteous Job needed to repent of anything, so do you and I. Therefore in the final section (#6, Job Application) we will indeed explore how this applies to you and me. (Go ahead and wince at my puns, you'll feel better.)

Why Evil (3)? Back to Eden

God knows right and wrong better than we do. This is how we ended our reflection on the first chapter of Job. We believe this, right? God knows right and wrong better than we do. Simple.

Well, the problem is that our hearts, minds, words and actions, reveal that we rebel against this truth every chance we get. We want to call the shots. We want to determine what "the good" is: what is right and what is wrong for me! Not only do we want it, we demand it. Now, with the grace of God, we can break free of this to some extent, but left to ourselves, fuggédaboudit! It ain't gonna happen. Sigh. Thank you, Adam and Eve, thanks alot.

Yes, yes, I know, we would have done no better than them, but they were the first, and I'm just giving proper "credit."

Let's pull it all together. God is God, He created everything from nothing, He rules over all. He determined right and wrong and is the standard Himself. He is only good, all the time. Man is a creature, he rules over what God delegates to him; he does not determine right and wrong better than God. Enter Satan.

Satan says, "You can be essential Gods, Adam and Eve; You know better about what is right and wrong, concerning this scrumptious-looking apple, than God does. Think about it, He may be good, but he's not perfectly good in this circumstance. Go ahead, don't deny your feelings, don't deny your urges, don't deny your ability to judge and determine what is good! It will taste good and bring you great reward. It will bring you knowledge and experience and elevate you highly.

From that day, man was no longer essentially good, but essentially rebellious against God.
From that day, man could no longer do any good apart from the intervention of God.
From that day, all sin contains pride at its core.
From that day, all sin doubts God's goodness at its core.
These go together, for all sin is the prideful judgment that I know what's right and wrong (in this or that circumstance, thought, word and action) better than God--I'm deciding God's goodness is not good enough.
To repeat: All sin is the prideful judgment that I know what's right and wrong better than God.
All sin is defiance of God, disbelief in His goodness, an infinite insult and shame.
All sin reflects that fateful decision of Adam and Eve. It always has and always will.

Let's catch our breath. It's not pleasant to discuss sin, but sometimes is needful.

God has to deal with this rebellion, and he deals with it righteously; he kicks the couple out of His presence in Eden and forbids their return--and yet, in the midst of the curse, he leaves a promise, and foreshadows a sacrifice. The promise is that the Seed of the woman will one day crush the serpant's head; and the first blood-giving sacrifice points to the Ultimate, and presently results in their clothing--now that they must face the raw elements, and raw consciences.

Why is there evil? Because in large part the first Adam, standing for all mankind, when tempted said, "God isn't good enough" and "I can judge this better than He."

Why Evil (2)? The Book of Job

Reflections on Job (you are strongly encouraged to read through the Book): While the Bible first deals with evil at the beginning of Genesis--specifically in the temptation and fall of Adam and Eve--the Book of Job seems entirely dedicated to the problem of suffering and how we struggle to make sense of it all. We'll get back to that first couple, but let's turn our attention to Job for now.

Job 1: Here, in verses one through 10, we are introduced to Job, a good man with a wife, ten children, many servants and great material wealth. He loves his family and intercedes for them. Then comes a cosmic discussion between God and Satan, which deals with the question of whether there is anyone at all who willingly follows God. God draws attention to the devotion of Job, but Satan scoffs. Then Satan is given permission to make Job suffer for divine reasons (that even Satan would not fully know). On the surface it looks as if Job is merely a pawn in a game between Satan and God--I believe God allows the devil to think that, but eventually there's much more to God's plan that not only Job, but no one other than God understands. Skipping to the end of his story, Job never does learn of such heavenly councils or divine purposes: he remains completely "out of the loop" in this regard. God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts, his ways are higher than our ways (cf. Isaiah 55:9).

In verse eleven, Satan both challenges (tempts?) God to personally harm all that Job has, and claims that Job will curse God to His face as a result. In response, the Lord, instead of directly harming Job and his family, delegates freedom to Satan to do what he will, "Behold, all that he has is in your power, only upon himself do not put forth your hand." Satan proceeds to kill Job's livestock, servents, then children, repeatedly using various means: vicious attacks by the Sabeans and Chaldeans, fire (lightning?) from heaven, and hurricane-force wind. Satan directly manipulates all this. The Lord (at least) gives his general permission, with specific limits.

From the human perspective these tragedies may have only had their source in the free will and evil plots of tyrants and terrorists, and from the random forces of nature, such as tidal waves and hurricanes. Well, I don't see how we can escape thinking, at least allowing for the possibility, that the terror of 9/11, the repeated hurricanes over Florida, and the devastation of the tsunami (and whatever else has hit your life hard) could all be directly manipulated by Satan, and all generally permitted by God, with His specific limitations. There is nothing new under the sun; and God has documented this in His Holy Scriptures.

Job's response? Verse 20: "Job arose, and tore his robe, and shaved his head, and fell upon the ground, and worshiped." And he said (vs. 21), "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return; the Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord." Satan was wrong, for, "in all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong." Job had great faith that the Lord was both good, and in control, regardless of the most painful circumstances. Job knew he himself was only the steward, not the owner of his life and belongings; the proper response, the central thing, was to worship God no matter what; he was humble, not demanding, and not presumptuous to judge God. God knows right and wrong better than we do.

Here endeth Job 1.

Why Evil?: Answers & Diversions

[updated] The age-old questions of "why does God allows bad things to happen" and "how can such evil exist if God is good?" have recieved many answers (often termed "theodicies") from many different perspectives. And this problem has certainly received a flurry of attention in the wake of our Floridian hurricanes and the recent Tsunami death-tolls. Though the flurry is abating (people can only contemplate tragedy for so long), there is always a steady stream of personal tragedies that affect many lives in every parish year after year.

Pastorally, I usually give short answers to this question, pointing people to God's goodness, power, and other-ness, and the empathy of the God-man, Jesus Christ; yet I want to do something more thorough for those who are especially wrestling with this. Of course, pastorally, no matter how intense people's struggle, I know that detailed intellectual arguments are not usually what we need most, but they have their place. Sometimes it is helpful to know that other believers with spiritual and mental integrity have delved deeper into specific issues than we can go (or care to go), and that God still makes sense to them and their faith is strong. This means me: I cannot understand this issue as well as Aquinas or Augustine or like geniuses; I'm not a professional philosopher and don't care to understand every one of the hundred nuances of the dozen-plus different "camps" of theodicies. Nevertheless, I can serve as a guide to some of where the Church has gone and encourage others--that while their questions can be serious and good, there are good and reasonable (but not necessarily "perfect") answers as well. Therefore I will start a series on this topic (how many posts, I don't know--hopefully just a few).

My initial reflection: We should first remember that people are wired differently. For some this question never deeply troubles them--perhaps this is merely an intriguing puzzle. For others, though, it drives them crazy, "How can this or that happen and God be God?!?" For some this might well be an intellectual crisis only; and is definitely fodder for every student of philosophy at one time or another. And yet often, especially for believers, when pain and sin don't go away, this question of theodicy also becomes an insidious diversion--a consuming distraction from the core issues of one's life. That is, the complexities and difficulties surrounding God and the presence of suffering and injustice, can conveniently, and deceptively, hide that which is even more fundamental.

To be repetitive for emphasis: Even if there were deeply satisfying answers, one's underlying problems would not likely go away--the focus would just shift to some other non-critical issue or question(s). To be sure, the felt pain and questioning of God is usually very real, and the problems are complex, even bewildering. But unbenownst to many, people's real felt pain and confusion stem just as much, if not more, from something other than the question of God and the presence of evil. Thus all the wisdom of the ages, let alone the small slices I'll be trying to articulate, may not help with one's troubled heart as much as we want or in the way we want. Fortunately, despite that negative caveat, I'm positive that further reflection can be helpful in its own way, especially as we explore the Word of God.

Free to Poke the Eyes of Tyrants

I'm confused by those who say they support our troops, but disrespect all their service and their many deaths as purposeless, wasted (I wish I were exaggerating, but no).

I'm not saying the whole Iraq deal is clear-cut, and only good, but as a small tribute to those who paid the ultimate sacrifice this past year, I'll quote at length from Omar, an Iraqi who voted today:
"We had all kinds of feelings in our minds while we were on our way to the ballot box except one feeling that never came to us, that was fear. We could smell pride in the atmosphere this morning; everyone we saw was holding up his blue tipped finger with broad smiles on the faces while walking out of the center...I couldn't think of a scene more beautiful than that. From the early hours of the morning, People filled the street to the voting center in my neighborhood; youths, elders, women and men...Anyone watching that scene cannot but have tears of happiness, hope, pride and triumph.

The sounds of explosions and gunfire were clearly heard...but no one seemed to care about them as if the people weren't hearing these sounds at all...
My friends, you have supported the day of Iraq's freedom...

The media is reporting only explosions and suicide attacks that killed and injured many Iraqis s far but this hasn't stopped the Iraqis from marching towards their voting stations with more determination.

I walked forward to my station, cast my vote and then headed to the box, where I wanted to stand as long as I could, then I moved to mark my finger with ink, I dipped it deep as if I was poking the eyes of all the world's tyrants. I put the paper in the box and with it, there were tears that I couldn't hold; I was trembling with joy and I felt like I wanted to hug the box but the supervisor smiled at me and said "brother, would you please move ahead, the people are waiting for their turn."

Yes brothers, proceed and fill the box!

... Today, there's no voice louder than that of freedom. No more confusion about what the people want, they have said their word and they said it loud and the world has got to respect and support the people's will. God bless your brave steps sons of Iraq and God bless the defenders of freedom."

Update: link to a fitting cartoon.

Iraq Elections

Some 30 or more people died, yet I'm honestly very thankful there wasn't more violence. The terrorists were trying their best to create "a river of blood" as they said, and fell short of that goal.

Now, my prayers are that Iraq will not devolve into a state of interminable civil war. I don't anticipate the violence dropping more than a little bit--anything less would be welcome.

Best case scenario from what I've read: 30% US troop reduction by the end of the year, and another set of elections after the new Iraqi constitution is drafted. If that set of elections goes as well as this one, that would be good, and our withdrawal would seem more certain.

Finally, an interesting headline I saw was the tongue-in-cheek:
"Voter Turnout Disrupts Media Focus on Iraqi Bombings."

The Shroud of Turin

Shroud of Turin: Old as Jesus?
By THE NEW YORK TIMES January 27, 2005
"The Shroud of Turin is much older than the medieval date that modern science has affixed to it and could be old enough to have been the burial wrapping of Jesus, a new analysis concludes. ... In an article this month in the journal Thermochimica Acta, Dr. Raymond N. Rogers, a chemist retired from Los Alamos National Laboratory, ... he estimated that the shroud was between 1,300 and 3,000 years old."

I don't know about this. I believe in miracles ancient and modern too, but I've always been more skeptical than believing concerning the shroud. Could the Lord have left this gift? Certainly. I'm aware there's no good explanation that accounts for all its peculiarities, and I'd certainly love for direct physical evidence to undo liberal presuppositions and unbelieving philosophies, but I can't help but urge myself and others caution. We've been given much more than relics, we've been given the Holy Spirit and the living Church, with God's Sacraments and Holy Scriptures. A proven shroud is not necessary, and sadly for some, is a misplaced hope, whether it's real or not. [update] And concerning liberal theology and philosophy, they undo themselves with their own words and actions, and need no physical evidence to contradict.

Reflections: Luke 8

The parable of the Sower and Seeds (Luke 8) makes me think of many elementary school science projects; simple experiments, straightforward, unsurprising results--stuff that everyone should know about how the world works. Of course, Jesus is giving no new hypothesis or theory concerning sowing and seeds, but rather, revelation concerning what the Kingdom of God is like. The Kingdom is like something simple, like a sower and seeds, and what we all know happens to scattered seeds on different soils. The revelation is apparently that not everyone's destiny is the same and (in this parable) the prime difference is the soil, four types: from terrible to bad to mixed to good. Specifically, seed on the road is trampled and eaten; seed on rocks withers and dies; seed amongst thorns get choked, and seed in good soil bears much fruit.

If people are like seeds (and I think that's the natural way to process the parable), some will die, some will be choked, and some will thrive. Is this fair? Well, if otherwise good seeds don't have legs and can't move themselves to good soil, it is very unfair. At this point, instead of worrying about the justice of God (and/or debating whether seeds are really good), we'd be better off listening to Christ's explanation of the parable itself. The seed is not people in the Kingdom, "the seed is the word of God.(!)" The "natural way" leads us astray, and to puts us at the center of the Kingdom and in the center of Kingdom Parables. That's not what the Kingdom of God is like. Rather, God is central: He is the sower, and His word is the seed. We humans, finally, are the different types of soil. Centrally, it is God--the Holy Spirit who gives life and who grows. Will God grow in our hearts? Or will we be the type of soil that kills the life and revelation of God, that chokes it and negates it?

Do we have that power? Well, yes. If people, collectively, were allowed to put Christ to death at Calvary, we tragically can also kill His seed in our hearts. Therefore, with the seed analogy, the four soils Jesus describes are: spiritual abortion, spiritual miscarriage (through neglect), spiritual degenerative disease (through addictions), and fourthly, spiritual health that bears His lasting fruit. What about you and me? What result will our hearts foster for the word of God? We are faced with this decision daily, and also, notably, at weekly worship. Whenever we take the revelation of Christ into us, whether by reading, hearing, seeing, touching or tasting, we either foster divine life or foster divine death. That is why Paul writes in I Cor. 10 that whoever eats of the Sacrament unworthily, brings judgment on oneself. To be rather more blunt in this journal than I would be from the pulpit, how dare anyone "receive Christ"--either by Word or Sacrament--for the end of spiritual abortion? Lord, have mercy.

Ultimately, in addition to the warning, there is nevertheless hope and promise, for having hearts of good soil is a gift from God--God who delights in being generous. He will have mercy as we humbly trust in Him. It may take crushing rocks of pride and tilling the hardness into fertile, bountiful soil, but He can and will. He will magnify the fruit of the Spirit in our lives and significantly bring His love to others through us. He has already begun that good work in us and will carry it on to completion (cf. Phil. 1:6). Phil. 1:9-11: "And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ--to the glory and praise of God."

Pancakes

A snippet into the life of All Saints: The men are cooking breakfast for the women's fellowship today at church. On the menu are pancakes, sausages, chocolate croissants (made from scratch...by whoever supplies BJ's), scrambled eggs and bagels. This is something we do every other month or so and is always a learning experience for the guys in the kitchen.

My highest enthusiasm for this morning, however, is centered on another outreach endeavor that the women are supporting, and that is of being a "welcome wagon" to new residents of our community. It's going to involve a lot of planning (on the agenda this AM), and time and effort to do well, but I'm confident we all can make this happen. Several ideas have already been floated for what specifically should get into the hands of new residents, including personal GPS systems to navigate the myriad of curving streets in these parts!

After breakfast, I'll continue to bring together my thoughts on the parable of the sower and seeds (falling onto different types of soil--Luke 8). Christ gives us sermonizers extra help by explaining this parable, but it's rarely easy for me to decide which angle to take, and importantly, how to bring it home to today's disciples (me first).

1 Cor. 9 & Matt. 20 "Never too late"

At All Saints Church we have Mass and Pot-luck dinner every Wednesday night, and last night I was reflecting on both 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 and Matthew 20:1-16 for the homily. I'm pretty sure it was Peter Toon who pointed out the parallel truths to our seminary class that "It's never too late to be castaway and never too late to be rescued."

Remarkably, St. Paul writes, (vs. 27) "So fight I, not as one that beateth the air: but I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection, lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." The first half of this sentence is a bit awkward to modern ears, but the athletic analogy is clear enough. Paul had just mentioned that he runs the "race" of living faith not as if he'd be content with some consolation prize, but he runs to win the Gold--that is, Christ himself and His eternal reward. Paul wants to be effective, not just "beat the air," and be consistent with the Gospel. In other words, Paul knows that "talking the talk" isn't enough, even an Apostle such as he needs to "walk the walk." So much is this so, that Paul writes about being "castaway" if he fails to do so. Well, this draws forth out of me one word: Yikes! Yes, this is the consummate warning to priests and preachers everywhere, and applies to all Christians as well.

Now from the Divine perspective, I'm persuaded that "none are ever plucked out" of God's hand and He "will never lose one of His own." But as alluded to in my "Wheat and Tares" reflection below, we can never fully know the divine perspective, especially about the eternal destiny of specific souls. The balance lies in having, without presumption, a healthy confidence in Christ and His promises--as did St. John, who instructed, "I write these things to you who believe in the name of God that you may know that you have eternal life." We who believe are to "know" this in a manner of healthy confidence (not debilitating guilt or anxiety)--that we are his, as we, having been saved, walk in the light.

Nevertheless, from the human perspective, what we are given to know is that if we don't walk in the light, and contradict the Gospel with our actions, being castaway is a real possibility--and soberly, it's never too late. Presumption (that one is a believer and saved no matter the ongoing deeds) is a vice, not a virtue.

Concerning the parable of the Vineyard and the Laborers (Matt. 20:1-16), of all that could be said, the key point is that God is sovereign, and gracious, and fair--even when it boggles our minds. Specifically, it's never too late to recieve the grace of God. We must count no one out of the Kingdom, no matter what they have or haven't done, and must not say there is no hope for him or her. Naturally, we can give no confidence to anyone walking in the dark. We don't stop loving them, but can't give false hope (which is most unloving). On the contrary, there is always real hope of eternal life in glory for those who turn away from disbelief (with its disbelieving actions) to a living faith in Christ who saves us. From the parable, it's not so much the work that matters (no one can earn heaven but Christ alone), but your willingness to repent and trust in the gracious Lord Jesus. Eternal heaven indeed awaits those who sincerely trust in Him. At the end of the day, it's never too late.

Women's Ordination

[I was asked to comment on women's ordination by CM in the comment section below, and thought it deserved its own entry, and some minor edits]

Yes, we [in the Anglican Province of America and the REC] do not ordain women to the priesthood. As for further comment, I'm not sure how much information you want, or where your starting point is in thinking about this issue. I hope this helps: Affirming the equal and exceptional worth of people does not require that everyone have access to every role. Men can be equal to women and never be mothers. And I don't mean to be trite, but men can be equal to women and never be a convent's "Mother Superior." More to the point, it's OK with me if God has ordained some rules concerning who may or may not be ordained, and I believe this is true. If it's of God, all other concerns of "fairness" and "justice" fade away--we can know this stance is good, even if we don't fully understanding everything.

There are two general lines of argument for saying "it's of God," that is, for not ordaining women: from Biblical theology and from systematic theology. Traditional evangelicals tend to be persuaded more by the Biblical theology, Anglo-Catholics more by the systematic theology; whereas I find both to be solid--so much so, that I believe it to be prideful and rebellious for the informed to hold otherwise (yes, there are many uninformed and misinformed).

The Biblical theology is based on the fact that in Scripture, Paul both prohibits, and gives explicit reasons for his prohibition of women being pastors and exercising Church authority; and decisively, that those reasons Paul cited are from Scripture itself, in God's creation, and are not based on culture or feelings or anything that might change.

The systematic theology argument includes the example of Christ's life, with both His sacramental essence and His actions. A sacrament is a sign of/with effectual divine grace. Jesus' incarnation is much more than sacramental, it is the Reality (undivided Divinity, Humanity, Body and Blood) and yet the incarnation in a way is sacramental with such an earthly manifestation on our level. And Christ came as a male, not female, and not androgynous; He was the Son of God, not Daughter, not simply a child of God; He taught us to say, "Our Father," not "Our Mother," and not "our Parental Being." God is neither male nor female, but His incarnate maleness and revealed Fatherhood is purposeful, and thus priests who reflect and image His office partake of a broader sacramental mandate: not only "do this" but as "the Lord Jesus...took bread, gave thanks, and broke it..." There is a certain way in which a priest images Jesus that is especially consistent with His incarnate maleness. Just because we modern "enlightened" folk often don't like how God has ordered things, doesn't mean He hasn't ordered things in particular ways.

We also look to the actions of Christ and see that He had twelve chances to pick a woman to be an Apostle and did not, although women were present among the disciples and were His most faithful supporters, and although there were many priestesses in that Greco-Roman world. Christ was not a wimp, He often contradicted the traditions of men, and was fully capable of setting aside a women for apostolic leadership, but did not. Nor did the Church do so when selecting Judas' replacement. Mary, prominently, was the most qualified in character and her witness to Christ's life, death and resurrection; and a few other women were likely "the next best qualified", but the Spirit-filled Apostles only considered men, and chose Matthais as the twelfth Apostle.

Importantly, this has been the living Tradition of the Church, which has prayed, devoured Scripture, thought, and prayed again. The Spirit-filled successors of the Apostles have not wavered on this through the ages: we can't arrogantly say they were wrong, nor that the first Twelve were, nor Christ Himself. Only very recently has there been disagreement, especially among the modern, less traditional (and often "politically-correct") Protestants; the majority of today's (worldwide) Christianity still agrees that women's ordination is not of God.

For the details, scriptural citations, history of this argument, and specific rebuttal of the modernist arguments against, there are many resources on the web. For starters, one reasonably thorough examination was undertaken by the AMiA, which report mostly sets out arguments/details pro and con, but purposefully withholds conclusions; the data and analysis, however, are clear. Here's the link--it's a 2 or 3 minute adobe "pdf" download (141 pages, no graphics).

Reflections: Septuagesima

Septuagesima Sunday has passed, the first of the three pre-Lenten weeks (meaning c. "70 days out"(till Resurrection Sunday)) and so we've begun orienting ourselves toward Easter in the Church Year. It's come comparatively quickly this year and part of me has been saying, "Too fast! Couldn't we have had more green? (Epiphanytide)."

It's now Wednesday, and while my discomfort had only been moderate, I've been praying, and am more at peace. There need not be more time between Christmas and Easter. In fact, even less time, less distance, would not perturb me now. Christmas and Easter are close in every significant way. Geographically, Bethlehem is a suburb of Jerusalem: they are close neighbors. What real distance is there between the two? Cosmically, the stable and cross are intertwined:
Incarnation, Passion.
Joy, Suffering.
Salvation, Salvation.
Love.

Nigeria Article

Here is the link to the article I cited in the previous post; it begins:

"ABEOKUTO, Nigeria (1/19/2005)--Two bishops of the Reformed Episcopal Church and the archbishop of the Anglican Province of America an independent Anglican communion, were invited recently by the Primate of Nigeria the Most Rev. Peter Akinola to engage in talks to deepen relationships between the Anglican entities..."

One correction to this article, which ends, "Both Anglican groups are opposed to women's ordination. The REC uses the Book of Common Prayer 1662 which also includes Rite II of the 1928 Prayer Book, while the APA uses the 1928 Prayer Book." The REC does not have any "Rite II" of any prayer book (which I'm taking the effort to clarify since the only Rite II that I know of is the non-traditional Rite II of the 1979 ECUSA Book). What was probably intended, was that the REC allows a second rite, the 1928 Prayer Book, while the APA uses (only) the 1928 Prayer Book.

Anglican Communion

Very Positive News: As reported elsewhere on the web, our Bishop, ++Grundorf (FYI, the ++ signifies the equivalent of Archbishop), along with two REC bishops (+Sutton and +West) met with the Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola. ++Akinola leads the largest Province of the Anglican Communion (England may have more on the books, but only half the attendance of Nigeria--which has about 20 Million of the world's 80M Anglicans). Specifics of the meeting will likely be forthcoming ere too long, but just the fact that our Bishops were invited and made the trip is most significant. Bishop Grundorf has been one of the key figures promoting the union of traditional Anglicanism in North America, and now worldwide.

Significantly, for those who aren't aware, ++Akinola is not in fellowship and won't meet with the mainline Episcopal Church in the US due to its rejection of traditional Christianity. The best updates I know come from these three sites: CANN, Fr. Kendall Harmon, and Chris Johnson. Also, David Virtue sometimes hits my sensibilities as too harsh and unloving, but he puts a lot of effort into his Anglican news site.

Conservative Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh leads a "Network" of Traditional Anglicans in America and we (the APA) are linked with this group as well. An awful lot is going on concerning the reorganization of worldwide Anglicanism and things seem to be moving faster than normal for us "via media" folk--which is good. The Anglican Communion Primates will be meeting next month, and I strongly suspect that will give further direction to our intercommunion ties.

Finally, I should say I am particularly thankful that the Anglican Province formally separated some 25 years ago from the non-Biblical and non-Traditional ECUSA, for unlike other parishes, we are not in "limbo" at the moment, and can follow these events with prayerful interest--but we're not dependent on their outcome for our marching orders. Pray for the union of Traditional Anglicanism. Pray for the wisdom and moral courage of Anglicans and Anglican parishes everywhere to be aligned with truth and love, and not the spirit of the age.

What to address here?

I've not time to do so now, but I would love to put together (or link to the best) FAQ's on varied topics such as Anglicanism, Liturgy, Islam, prophecy, ubiquitious Parish issues. I'd like Anglo-Catholics and Prayer-Book Catholics to have balanced (neither elitist nor libertine) information on Scripture, the world, and the Church. And I'd like to bring balanced information to Prayer Book Evangelicals--and other Christians who might have negative visceral reactions (or often, just simple confusion) to Tradition and/or "all-things-Catholic." My reflections on Scripture & God will naturally be some part of these entries, but as to what percentage, I don't know. Further, I don't mind sharing what's going on at All Saints and discussing plans, vision, actions, etc., that may or may not be interesting to those outside our parish. This is "Fr. Greg's Blog" and I trust no one will be annoyed if my reflections wander well beyond "Anglicanism."

Blog decisions

I have quite a few decisions to make and petty details to work out; these will include deciding whether to host this blog on all-saints.us or linking to blogspot or blogger or the like. I am well along in the process of redesigning all-saints.us (much of the ground-work was done last year)--and while it is not much effort to create a simple page for blogging/journaling, I wouldn't undertake the coding to make it a "full-featured" blog with auto-archiving, spam filtering comments, and whatever else is out there. As I type, I think I will go ahead and sign up with one of the cheap/free blog sites and one day redirect anglicanblog back to all-saints if/when I find some blog code and get the jones to set forth a more personalized look.

Reflections: Wheat & Tares

Main points from parable of wheat and tares (Mt 8:24-): Let us trust (and fear) our highest Authority with ruling people in or out of the Kingdom; and secondarily let us trust God-given authorities, as being, well, God-given. I think Christ was addressing a "puritanical" attitude amongst the disciples. When we embark on such judgment; either ruling people out *OR IN* [very prevalent today] we are presuming way too much for ourselves. Drop the pride. Increase the trust. It's OK to not manage/control others--in ultimate things, and lesser. My girls are often too eager to insert themselves into each other's discipline. Sometimes they want to make sure the other does not escape discpline or to even heighten its intensity. Other times they want to shorten the other's time-out or let their sibling escape all consequences. Whatever way they seek to alter Mom & Dad's judgment, it is usually inappropriate. They need to trust God, and God-given authority, and so do we.

Further, godly respect, holy fear, is commended in all this. Not only should we trust that God and His judgments are good and certain (even, especially, if not in accordance with our personal time-table or other expectations), but we should properly fear calling good evil, by going against such divine authority. And ultimately, we must have holy awe for the One who judges ultimately.

Why blog?

Why blog?
It seems like a wise way to maximize time/impact/reach. I have not read much of other Pastor blogs, but am impressed with what I've seen. I've only once been to Mark Roberts' site, a few times to Donald Sensing and a few more to Pontifications (author?). Also, I visit almost weekly Christopher (last name?) "Midwest Conservative Journal" and Kendall Harmon's T-1-9, and monthly, "First Things," but they aren't what pops into my mind when I think of "blog" (journaling)--although any regular commentary and posting on anything should qualify for this new title.

My first link to this new world has been through instapundit and recently sites such as the Belmont club and James Lileks (can he ever write!). Concerning all these folks I've mentioned, I don't have anywhere near their journalistic talents/gifts, but still feel I can contribute; so I'll try. Of course I hope to especially communicate with the parishioners and potential parishions of All Saints Church in Port St. John, Florida. My sentiments: Why not let as many as possible in on my thoughts?--I know my musings can sometimes be silly, distracted, or otherwise useless, but certainly not always, for God gave me a measure of the Holy Spirit and also made me to be a thinker. And thankfully He helps people through me; I am floored, but don't doubt, that the Lord has called me to be a Pastor and Priest. I love Him dearly, and simply want to love Him more, and meaningfully bring His love to others.

First Post

Welcome to the new blog site of Fr. Greg! This will be a learning experience for me, and I hope the learning curve is not too steep.