The Saint Barnabas’ Blog

This week I have attacked the theology of Revd. Tony Windross, priest of S. Leonard’s Hythe, pictured above. We first examined his attack on the Nicene Creed and then considered his clear hatred of Ss. Paul and Augustine alongside his fanciful notion that sin is not so important. I could have run my series for many days yet, but in fairness that would be overkill. So let me offer a final summary of Mr. Windross errant theology. Here are the worst bits of his remaining ten tracts:

Concerning the holy sacrifice of the Mass, Mr Windross writes, ‘ the very idea of (communion as) sacrifice means many people find it primitive and disgusting.’ He then pours scorn on the historical accuracy of the Last Supper. ‘eating the flesh of God sounds ludicrous and blasphemous, as well as cannibalistic…even if it is a matter of symbolism only, does saying we have symbolised cannibalism make it acceptable?’ ‘the further idea that unless ordained people preside over the service, the whole thing is inefficacious, is the final straw’

On miracles: ‘Belief in miracles is still strong, especially amongst the ignorant and superstitious’ ‘it is quite possible to try to live by Christ’s teachings, whilst having nothing to do with any miracle stories’. (eh??) On God: ‘there are all sorts of ways of ‘existing’ as ‘ground of our being’ or ‘ultimate symbol’ or through imagination, poetry music and art’ On the Church: ‘Churches need to be places where people gather, not to reinforce their certainties about a ‘being called God’ but to share in the experience of exploring ways to satisfy mutual spiritual hunger’. Finally it should come as no surprise that Mr Windross shudders at teaching that bans abortion, refuses gay marriage and challenges divorce.

So we are done with these tracts. I hope the reader might open their eyes and see how very far some people have wandered from the path that Christ opened for us. Whatever religion Mr. Windross follows it is not the one that I do. As +Michael Nazir Ali recently suggested it is maybe time for those who think this way to leave the Church and form their own religion, that we might have a more gracious and honest dialogue with them?

I want to end by explaining why I feel justified in attacking a brother priest’s theology, as I know that one or two posters are wondering how this is either helpful or polite. It should be said the majority have sent messages of support and agreement, overall readers of this blog seem outraged and offended.

If we decide unity always trumps truth then the church is in peril. To simply ‘live and let live’, allowing those like Mr. Windross to preach what they like, is to implicitly suggest that what is spoken from the pulpit does not matter. It is to say that being a priest need be no guarantee of Christian faith. How then could we trust clergy to deliver the faith of the ages? How would we know that we are following the teaching of Jesus and not some local nut? This would be the endorsement of the anarchy that has wrecked the Anglican Communion in recent time. The Church has always celebrated the lives of Saints who fought heresy in their day and were aggressive in rooting out ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’ who damage faith and confuse the message of Christ. I wish to add my name to their fight and stand up for Jesus in my day!

The discomfort we feel when truth is spoken boldly says much about the over feminised and wet Church we have become, incapable of functioning. Alas, we have created a National Church unable to cope with conflict. In all truth there should be a mob of the faithful hammering at the door of the Bishop of Dover, demanding Mr. Windross convert or begone. I am, as stated from the outset, committed to a broad church in which traditions co-exist, but let us be clear where tradition ends and heresy begins.

Yes, heresy is a big, nasty word and should not be bandied around willy-nilly, but in this instance it is the ONLY word that will suffice. For heresy is no less than teaching which is not only wrong but actually attacks the faith of the ages. Mr Windross put his pamphlets in the public domain, he must now be man enough to stand by them. Having read them I find them utterly shameful and offensive to the Lord Jesus. That is why I make no apology for bringing them to the attention of Christians everywhere. Let those who have eyes to see, see.

Anyone who reads this blog will understand that S. Barnabas (pictured above) is an orthodox Anglo-Catholic parish rooted in scripture and the real presence of Jesus in the sacrament. But not every Anglican thinks as we do, which is not necessarily a bad thing. At S. John’s, for example, we find Evangelical friends adhering to scripture but not sharing our sacramental theology. At Charles the Martyr Christians of a more liberal understanding but who stand by the words of the creed. I welcome both as part of my Anglican family and, even though we might disagree, could commend others to worship at such churches if they seemed appropriate.

But were the Revd. Tony Windross (pictured here) a vicar in this town I would have a problem. Who is he and what has he done to upset me? Well he is currently vicar of S. Leonard’s, Hythe and he has written the most deplorable set of Church tracts, picked up by a visiting parishioner of mine. Allow me share what he preaches from his pulpit. Over the next few days I will supply direct quotes from his tracts and will then add what I would write in accordance with the clear teaching of the church throughout the ages. Today we look at the Creed:

‘Why bother to think about the creed?’ is the first tract I read. Proud of his liberal theology, Tony informs us that ‘as an introduction to Christianity, or as a help to faith, the creed is pretty useless…firstly it puts in all sorts of claims that most people couldn’t even begin to accept as true in any historical or factual sense……secondly it leaves out everything that’s really important.’ The man who should never have been ordained continues….’Creeds were invented by people, for people and can be scrapped (or ignored) by other people if they want. Their use is a matter of choice, our choice.’ ‘Any creed is as much a product of its time as a piece of old pottery and, as we say it, we don’t have to pretend we see things in the same way.’

And there is more, a lot more…‘The ideas of the creeds have done sterling work over the centuries…but they now have become prisons in which contemporary expressions of spirituality are locked away.’ (At least he realises that the creeds stop him believing whatever he wills). Finally, and leaving a lot more aside, we read ‘Anyone who demands that 21st Century Christians take literally the words of the creeds is consigning Christianity to the dustbin of history….’

Gosh! Where to begin exorcising this blasphemy masquerading as acceptable Christian thought?! Well, consigning Christianity to the dustbin of history or not (and it IS a ‘not’), I firmly teach and believe that the Nicene Creed is the most widely accepted and used statement of the Christian Faith. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, and drawn from sacred scripture, it contains everything the Christian need believe in order to gain salvation.

Being such an important statement of basic Christian belief it is said every Sunday as part of the Liturgy throughout the whole Church Universal, being used by Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, and many other Christian groups. Whilst many of the things spoken in the creed seem wonderfully incredible, such as the Virgin Birth, and cannot be proved according to scientific means, Christians nonetheless have faith that they are both factually or historically true. Simply put this is a statement of FAITH, in which one can say ‘this is my faith, this is the faith of the Church and we are proud to profess it in Christ Jesus Our Lord’. Yes- it is into this very set of beliefs that we are baptised.

Thus ends today’s compare and contrast. More tomorrow but let the reader note two things. Firstly, that whilst Tony and myself have both been ordained into the same church, we clearly follow a very different religion. Secondly what each of us believes is diametrically opposed. There is no logical way for both of us to be right.

So decide: follow Tony and dismiss the creed as man made stuff of little significance, or follow me and claim, with Christians accross the world and down throughout the ages, that this is a statement of basic faith which every christian must endorse. Or put simply, and following the theme of last Sundays Gospel concerning those who claimed to love Christ but couldnt endorse his faith fully- worship God or worship man?

I honestly do not believe that Tony, pleasant chap though he may be, should be allowed to minister as a priest in God’s Church. I am in a good mind to write to his Bishop and demand an explanation of why he is not being disciplined? He is clearly a heretic, one who is twisting the faith and leading people away from Jesus Christ who is the same today, yesterday and forever.

In the interests of fairness I have sent this email to Mr. Windorss that he may share in our thinking:

Dear Tony, I felt it only fair to let you know that I have attacked your theology publically on my blog today. As a conservative Anglo-Catholic I was horrified by the heretical conclusions you reach in your pamphlet series and deeply insulted by your insinuation that anyone who has a doctrinally orthodox faith has an inability to think.

P.S. – reading Tony’s website made me realise that I have come across this chap’s heresy before. He was the vicar at Sheringham when my parents first moved there and his errant teaching is what led them to move elsewhere. At least we can thank him for moving them onto a good Anglo-Catholic parish!!

I am grateful to Fr. De Kyser for sending me this article which ponders the damage that can occur when we start to view tolerance as a virute in and of itself. Coming from the Evangelical wing of the church it is a much longer article than is usually placed here but well worthy of the read. :

‘The Myth of the Tolerant God’ by Dean Waldt

If there is an absolute value in the relativistic world of post-modern Western culture, it is tolerance. Political correctness, medical ethics, and public policy are gauged by the polestar of tolerance. People say tolerance is an absolute virtue, which, in the realm of theology, must make it an attribute of God. Yes, God must be eternally and infinitely tolerant, because tolerance is an expression of love, and we all know the Bible tells us that God is love.

Since everyone accepts that God is love, the thinking goes that God must be the most tolerant of all. Just look at the tolerance of Jesus! The Pharisees did not tolerate the tax collectors and sinners, but Jesus regularly ate dinner with them. Jesus was hospitable. Thus, people surmise, for us to be otherwise would be to reject the example of Jesus and follow in the footsteps of the Pharisees.

To be enlightened, in today’s common thinking, we must tolerate nearly everyone and respect their individual choices, provided those choices do not harm others. Even when other persons are harmed, personal choices are entitled to great deference and respect. In some cases, were told we must recognise that even the definition of who is a person is a matter of personal choice. Tolerance and the worship of personal autonomy personal choice are inextricably intertwined.

To tolerate someone is to allow the other person to exist unmolested, to abide them, to peacefully co-exist with them. It is the moral equivalent of detente. You don’t have to agree with or even like the other person. You simply must respect personal choices, on the one hand, and refrain from imposing your personal choices, on the other. If you fail to do the former, you are considered intolerant, perhaps the only true sin which remains in our culture. If you fail to do the latter, you are thought a bigot. If you seek to convince a group of people that their collective personal choice is morally wrong and that your personal choice is morally right, you are at best insensitive and unloving, and quite often you are cast as an oppressor.

It gets worse: If you claim divine endorsement of your personal choice, you get pegged as a fundamentalist. This is very bad. Fundamentalists are seen as dangerous, because they truly believe their personal choice is absolutely true and that God agrees with them. This necessarily means that all others are absolutely wrong and that God disagrees with them. In fact, God may even disapprove of and dare we speak it? condemn and judge the personal choices of others. To tell someone their personal choice is the subject of God’s condemnation is definitely considered an act of intellectual or spiritual violence. Some have declared this tantamount to assault or, if the victim is a woman, even rape.

Fundamentalists are dangerous people, we’re told, the only intolerable people in our culture of tolerance. They are the only ones with whom the god of tolerance is displeased. Right? Wrong! A pernicious lie…

All of this should sound familiar. How often it is preached from our pulpits, taught in our seminary classrooms, and read in publications funded with our denominational dollars! In its own way, it sounds right, because it resonates with our culture. We learn at an early age to prize our individual freedom and to protect it against unwelcome incursions.

However, as Christians we see in all of this a pernicious lie. It is based on a premise that originates not from divine inspiration, but from precisely the opposite. The popular virtue of tolerance the absolute value of a relativistic culture is founded upon the absorption of truth into the individual. Truth is no longer conceived as an outward objective reality. After all, people say, who can really know what is truth? What authority can we call upon to verify the truth? Only the naive and uninitiated believe that Jesus loves them because the Bible tells them so. We have moved beyond that children’s song to understand that one must engage the Bible to listen for God’s truth for us.

When truth is absorbed into the individual, it becomes ultimately subjective. Truth becomes a matter of opinion, merely a personal choice. Therefore, when I reject a person’s truth, I am seen as rejecting the person. When I try to convert a person from their truth to my truth, I have become an oppressor, and the other person has become a victim. In a world of only personal truth, truth cannot bind us together as a church. Personal truth has no adhesive properties to bind together individual Christians into the temple of God. But without truth, what can bind us together? Our culture provides the answer:
tolerance, the ultimate attribute of their loving god. It is tolerance that unites us and inclusiveness that exhibits our tolerance, they reckon. God would be pleased if, of course, such a god of tolerance were to exist.

Is God tolerant?

Is the true God tolerant, as our culture defines that term?

Not according to the Word of God. The tolerant god is a myth. It is an idol crafted by human hands in the image of individual autonomy and personal choice, the same virtues the serpent suggested to Eve as a preferable alternative to servitude to God. Indeed, in some theological circles, Eve’s choice has made her a heroine for rejecting the patriarchal oppression of a God who would impose his truth on her right to choose. As our culture defines the term, the God of the Bible is not tolerant. That is why God must be re-imagined.

But it is the essence of the sin of the Garden to re-imagine God into the mythical tolerant god rather than challenge and alter our own definition of tolerance to conform to the revealed truth of God. Tolerance as a concept is skewed in a church captured by its culture, because it is defined without the Cross. The Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are called, it is the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:24).

We live in a world supposedly without sin, because people can no longer define it. One person’s sin is another’s personal choice the liberating choice if you believe the serpent’s promise from the Father of Lies. God requires nothing and gives everything. God only blesses and never curses. This god is a myth.

The real God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the God who flooded the earth (Gen 6:3), rained fire on Sodom (Gen 19:3), and sent Assyria and Babylon to chastise his own people (Isa 3). He is the God who told Eve the truth:If you sin, you die (Gen 3:3 nasb). This is the true God who became incarnate and gave his life as a ransom for many (Mt 20:28). It was this Holy Father who sent his Son into his own creation to die on a cross. God made him who knew no sin to become sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him (2 Cor 5:21). The real God canceled out his own decree of judgment against us by nailing it to the cross of his only begotten Son, the Lamb of God, who paid the price we could not pay for a debt he did not owe (Col 2:14).

That is real love. The tolerant God who demands nothing and gives everything and calls it love is a worthless lie in the light of the Cross. Love is the Cross. For those who worship the tolerant god, the Cross is offensive. It is a stumbling block.

Tolerance as God sees it

Is God tolerant in any sense at all? Yes! Did we draw breath this morning? So did faithful Christians, honest pagans, and despicable terrorists, murderers, and rapists all around the world. The rain falls on the just and the unjust as the gift of life is renewed each day (Mt 5:45). Where is the judgment of this holy God? It is delayed for one purpose: to provide an opportunity for repentance and faith. Justice delayed is not justice denied. It is the merciful tolerance of the one true God.

Paul warns the Romans not to think lightly of the riches of God’s kindness and tolerance and patience (Rom 2:4). The kindness of God should lead us to repentance. That God allows rebellious sinners any opportunity to repent and be saved from the just wages of sin is an act of supreme tolerance.

However, much of the so-called church today takes God’s kindness lightly, using it as license rather than as an opportunity to repent. They sin that grace may abound (Rom 6:1). But, we hear from God, do not be deceived. God is not mocked. Each person will reap what he or she sows (Gal 6:7). The true God is mercifully tolerant for a season, pending a final judgment to come.

God’s inclusiveness

Just as tolerance is skewed without the Cross, so inclusion gets redefined as the universal acceptance by God of all our personal choices, as long as they are grounded in love. But Jesus Christ did not come to tell us we are just fine the way we are. The essence of the Gospel is Repent and believe! Is God inclusive at all? Yes, indeed! God actually so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him will not perish, but have eternal life (Jn 3:16). The offer is extended to all and accepted by few. Broad is the path that leads to destruction and narrow is the gate to life (Mt 7:14).

How seldom we hear the rest of Jesus’ words to Nicodemus in John 3:
he who does not believe is judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil (Jn 3:18a 19 nasb). Jesus told us that some invited guests will never sit down to dinner (Lk 14:24), that some will be cast into outer darkness (Mt 8:12), that wheat will be harvested and tares will be burned in the fire (Mt 13:41). God issues an all-inclusive call to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, but true faith in Christ involves death to sin and a life of obedience to God (Rom 6:11). Thus, if we say we have fellowship with him and yet walk in darkness we lie, and the truth is not in us (1 Jn 1:6).

This is the inclusiveness of God. God is under no obligation to save anyone. Yet our gracious and merciful God offers salvation to all who repent and believe in Jesus Christ.

Unity that is God’s unity

Unity founded on diversity is the final lie spun off the myth of the tolerant god who is not there. If all our personal choices are endorsed by a wholly acceptant god, each of us then, as self-contained units of divinity, can join together into a coalition of personal choices called the church.

Certainly this, too, is a lie, for the Church of Jesus Christ is composed of repentant sinners who have cast themselves on the mercy and grace of God through faith in the One who bore the penalty for their sins on the Cross and rose again to give them new life, a life enslaved to righteousness by the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit (Rom 6:22).

The true unity of the Bride of Christ is founded not on diversity, but on the common bond of the Truth that makes us free (Jn 8:32). Christ is the cornerstone of the Church, and the teachings of the prophets and apostles the Word of God is its foundation (Eph 2:20). Unity means unity in truth, standing firm in one Spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel (Phil 1:27).

As with tolerance and inclusiveness, the true meaning of unity is only grasped at the foot of the Cross. We are unified in this and by this alone: That we are those who have been washed by the blood of the Lamb, wretched sinners saved by grace alone through faith alone, falling on our faces in worship and thankful praise to our only Savior and our acknowledged Lord, Jesus Christ.

If we would be unified as the church, we must bow together at the foot of the Cross. There alone is the Truth that makes us free. Not free to make our personal choices and create our personal truth; free to live in obedience to God, slaves of righteousness who are free at last.

“For there will come a time when they will not endure sound teaching and will turn aside to myths. But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.”(2 Tim 4:35 NASB)

Dean Waldt is a practicing attorney and also a parish associate at Faith United Presbyterian Church in Medford, New Jersey.

Having spent three years at Westcott House Theological college in Cambridge I was NOT surprised to discover that it continues to embrace wacky expressions of faith…especially those which sit well outside of creedally accepted norms. The latest guff being endorsed, and sadly even celebrated, is a re-writing of the Gospels to make them sit more comfortably with militant feminist philosophy. Under the college’s offical website and under the heading ’students excel’ (er I don’t think so) we discover:

Ed (not me I stress!) wrote an opera Missiah… An imaginative response to the wider subject of feminist theology the opera asks: what if Jesus Christ had been a woman? Both Nick and Ed have found these explorations of academic topics to be useful methods for presenting such issues in the parish context.

If you are wondering why this is dreadful then you might want to check out the synopsis here. Clearly there is far too much heresy here to even begin going through it item by item but for an example let us consider this passage:

This is the woman who has been suffering from haemorrhaging for many years. This makes her the ultimate outcast as blood, particularly to do with menstruation is seen as unclean. Similarly her story is heard and her name re-found, but in this retelling the female Christ can show true empathy for her situation.

So let us get this straight. The real Jesus (whom normal Christians, male and female, accept as the incarnate Son of God) is UNABLE to empathise with a woman simply due to his gender??? What sort of claptrap is this? The opera diminishes the power, reverence, glory, praise and adoration which Jesus is clearly due. I love my Lord, who can empathise with all, and I find the sentiments contained in this opera both outrageous and blasphemous.

This dark work, far from honouring Christ, suggests that HE is somehow limited or deficient on account of his gender! Are we really wanting to encourage a ‘battle of the sexes’ in the church, rather than a desire for equality, unity and respect between man and woman? Quite simply this is blasphemous and dangerous.

Now had this been written for stage by a non Church goer- I would not even bother posting. I believe in freedom of expression- even where such expression might offend me. But this is being written BY A PRIEST IN TRAINING!!!! Furthermore the college tells us it is to be of use in the parish situation! YOU WHAT???! I would expect a theological college to expel or convert those unwilling to embrace the faith. What a tragedy that instead it revels in heresy and encourages it. Anybody wondering why Anglo-Catholics keep warning of dire spiritual malaise in the Church of England need look no further than this. If this is what future priests are being trained in- what future living faith and orthodoxy within the National church?

Finally a note to those thinking this is a one off. It is not. Whilst at Westcott I sat through (and noisely walked out of!) more heretical nonsense than I ever imagined possible. It was a college in which people were clearly embarrassed to mention the name of Jesus. Evangelicals were scorned and scoffed at and traditional Catholics (as represented by ‘Forward in Faith’) were loathed with such intensity it was genuinely alarming. In the end I kept my head down and stuck to playing rugby and drinking beer!

I was very happy to be at Westcott on a personal level, I made lots of friends and met my wife within the wider university- nevertheless being a passionate Christian was a very lonely experience there. How odd that it was at theological college I felt most reviled for being a Christian?! Indeed without my bolt hole at ‘Little S. Mary’s’ I doubt I would have seen the course through. You tell me why I only had to sit one course on S. Paul and yet two on feminist theology and three on media studies? You tell me why every student was expected to sit through a whol day’s course- the sole purpose of which was to promote active gay rights within the ministry?

It was my experiences at Westcott which opened my eyes to how dangerous wrongful belief can be. It also showed me how far from the true faith many within the church have wandered. Heresy acts as a cuckoo in God’s house, evicting the faith which comes from the apostles and replacing it with a version stemming from, and glorifying, man. Just consider the opera itself. Ultimately it is written by man to ‘correct’ the divine revelation given in Christ Jesus. Is there any greater arrogance than that? Heresy (wrongful teaching) is the gravest danger facing the church in our day. I pledge to fight it with every fibre of my being, by putting on the armour of Christ, until my dying day. That means uncompromised devotion to Jesus, unashamedly standing up for the Gospel and preaching the faith with love. Who is going to join me?

A good way to understand ‘fasting’ is to view it as the voluntary ‘giving up’ of something that is, in-itself, good. The most typical example is the restricting of the food we eat. We can fast between meals, by not eating snacks, or else engage in a complete fast by abstaining from all food for a specified period (most usually a day).

While fasting takes an outward form of ‘refraining from eating’, it is the inner spiritual discipline that really matters. The fast must not only engage body, but mind and spirit too. (Otherwise it is not really a fast at all, just an extreme diet!!) A fast is a deliberate but temporary surrendering of pleasure, designed to tame the body. A fast helps us ensure we control our pleasures and that they do not cotrol us. This frees us to focus on the ‘higher things’ of life.

But reader take note! The temporary nature of a fast is vitally important. God does not want us to grow into dry, dusty, mean old misers -forever depriving ourselves of pleasure. Such figures may exist but they are neither attractive nor desirable. No, we are called to enjoy this life, including its many and various pleasures, so long as they are wholesome and not damaging. We are to be warm, generous and happy people. That is what God desires from us. The fast then is to be a break from the norm- it is not to be the rhythm for life. That is what gives it both strength and meaning.

By stepping aside from normality and controlling our passions, we free our souls for ’special’ moments of prayer. By sacrificing meals, we free up food and money that can then be offered to others, less fortunate than ourselves. This saving might seem insignificant at first, but if every Christian sent the money saved from a day of fasting- imagine the enormous impact it would have. This year at S. Barnabas we are collecting for the ‘Additional Curate’s Society’- why not add your ‘fast’ savings to the box?

A final point is that fasting can be used as an act of contrition. We can offer a day or meal without food as a way of saying ’sorry’ for sins we have committed. This is often why I try to spend Good Friday without food- a way of sharing, if in only a tiny way, in the suffering of Christ. My way of accepting that my sins were part of those that placed him there.

In former times the Church set very stringent rules for Lenten fasting (abstaining from all meat until Easter and eating only one small meal per day). Today we are only asked to fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. Anyone over 18, but under 60, should eat only one meal on those days, preferably after Sundown.

So will you fast this Lent? Here are three simple ways to ensure you do not neglect this discipline in your spiritual life:

1) Give up meat on Fridays (not just in Lent but always). Not only is it healthy but it ensures our faith and food combine.

2) Fast for a minimum of one hour before the Mass. This ensures we spiritually prepare for mass. The hunger of our body can help us consider the hunger in our souls before we greet Christ in word and sacrament.

3) Eat nothing during daylight hours on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday each year. Offer the money you save to charity, pray during the times you would eat and offer the sacrifice of this food as an act of sincere penitence…but more of that tomorrow!

Frustratingly the car is taking longer than hoped for. This led to my home visits being re-scheduled which, though regretable, was not entirely bad news. I say that because it has been a most profitable day at the computer. Admin caught up on, magazine prepared, sermon finished, article written for Church Observor and new booklet designed and printed! Phew!

The booklet in production is for use on those exceptional occasions when I am not able to make Mass, and is intended to ensure that devotions may continue. It is certainly not healthy if worship remains entirely dependent on one man! In most parishes the absence of a Vicar is not so problematic- curates and retired clergy are able to step into the breach- but this is not the case in downtown Tunbridge Wells; fervently evangelical territory in which few can afford to retire and even fewer know how to offer worship in the Catholic tradition! Here we rely on a different form of help.

Thus Michael Smith, (pictured above holding the Missal) server and parish treasurer, has recently accepted the voluntary role of Pastoral Assistant, which he is in the process of being trained for. It is a role of support and will enable him to take the sacrament to the sick, lead non-sacramental worship and visit people amongst other things. I have no doubt he will grow into this role and thrive in it- and I am delighted to support him in his new ministry. In time I hope that others may join him, creating a team. But we must understand what this role is and what it is not. Thus we return to the booklet, which contains a rite for a service of the Word, with an opportunity for reception of communion from the Reserved Sacrament.

Catholic Christians believe that the Sacraments of the church can only be authenticated by one who has been ordained into the holy priesthood. Without a priest to bless the bread and the wine, offered to God as signs of all that we are, we cannot authenticate the miracle that transforms these simple gifts. Transforming them into the body and blood of Christ, the gift of himself to us. That is why every worshipping community requires a priest.

But there are occasions when access to a priest can prove problematic. Many remote churches, especially in the third world, only see a priest every few months. Some monastic communities struggle to find a priest every day of the week. And in an age where vocations and church resources are limited- many priests struggle to find cover when absent.

On extra-ordinary occasions such as these it is acceptable to offer a service of the word, with communion from the ‘Reserved Sacrament’. This service does not require a priest, because no blessing of the gifts is required, the transformation of bread and wine into body and blood has already happened, hence Michael is eligible to conduct it. The gathered community do not receive formal absolution, but otherwise observe the ministry of the word as usual. The Eucharistic prayer is ommitted and a short explanation – that the bread and wine were transformed into body and blood at a previous service-is offered. The people then receive, in one kind only, a host from the Reserved Sacrament. That is the body of Jesus, already blessed at Mass, placed for safe keeping in the tabernacle. At the end of the service no blessing is given for Michael cannot authenticate God’s blessing. Instead the people share the grace together.

Thus a perfectly acceptable act of worship is offered, the rhythm of prayer continues, but without the priest. People must be quite clear that this service is in no way ‘sacramental’. Rather it is an extension of the ancient act of ‘taking’ the sacrament to the sick and the housebound. This type of service is becoming increasingly common throughout the Church of the West. It is the exception and not the rule, but without it prayer might cease.

Once again Radio 4’s ‘Today’ programme had me spluttering over my cornflakes! This time the article raising blood pressure concerned the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. The thrust of the item orignated from a ‘think tank’ whose collective genius have deduced that the majority of the public wish to observe Christmass as a religious festival (go figure, as our Amercian chums would say!) We were then encouraged to ask why this should be- given that only a tiny proportion actually believe in the Virgin Birth? To suggest how outdated and ludicrous this doctrine might be- attention was drawn to the fact that a significant number of C of E bishops share the view that Mary’s miraculous conception is the stuff of myth and legend.

Credit must be given to the interviewed New Testament scholar- who tried his utmost to dismiss the scepticism and ground the doctrine as a real event in history. From his language and answers I would bet my bottom dollar he is a good evangelical! But oh how I wished I were the one being interviewed! I fairly itched to reply that the number of Bishops discrediting basic Christian belief said nothing whatsoever about the reliability of doctrine and everything about the reliability of the people currently occupying high office in our National Church. Such news simply exposes them as dishonest hypocrities, demanding their immediate resignation!

Let it be said clearly on this blog- any professing Christian who does not adhere to the teaching of the creed- should seek repentance or be excommunicated. Furthermore anyone daring to represent Christ in holy orders, whilst privately scorning Christian doctrine, should be bought to account and publically shamed. They are the wolves in sheep’s clothing that scripture warns us about. And any church that harbours them is itself in a shoddy and sinful state- and in need of purification and public repentance.

The Virgin Birth is the cornerstone of Christian faith. For on that belief hangs all else. If Christ was not born of Virgin- then he was unable to offer us salvation. He is simply human, no more and no less. But if he is Word made flesh. Son of God and Son of Mary- then he is no less than God himself in human form. Only the latter view has a place in Church- for the most basic and obvious of reasons. And if any current Bishop dare admit to lack of belief in this most basic tenet of faith- they should hang their heads in utter shame. Quite simply they are a cancer within the church- using Christ’s body for the service of self and the acquisition of power. Such bishops- and we can all think of a few- are no less than humanist parasites- seeking to bring the faith down whilst feasting on all that spiritual recognition gives them. That some are doubtless blind to their own spiritual menace- is perhaps the saddest fact of all.

Readers of this blog- we must embrace the truth of the Gospel. What is folly to man is wisdom to God! so let us stand up for the faith of Jesus- son of God and son of Mary. And let us never flinch in proclaiming him as Lord and King at every moment of our lives.

Lord, we thank you that as we have known the incarnation of your Son, Jesus Christ, by the message of an angel- so by his cross and passion we may be bought to the glory of his (actual and miraculous) resurrection. Amen

Not for the first time- Radio 4’s ‘thought for the day’ had me groaning. Today’s pandering to the zeitgeist came from some muddled Canon discussing terrorism. His reflection started well enough as he explained how hatred can overcome integrity of belief – until violence becomes your only goal. I agree.

He then suggested our nation must not react in fear, responding to terrorism by removing trust and civil liberties. Again- spot on dear padre! But then…..and it is always the final thought where the incredulous jump is made- he suggested faith communities must accept pluralism, even promoting it as God’s will. Now hold your horses dear Revd. Heretic!!! Back to school for you. ‘Pluralism’ is terminal to living faith and any wise cleric should know that!

Pluralism is that crazy notion that suggests all faiths are equally valid paths to the divine. Such belief suggests no one faith has prior claim over another- suggesting none contains ultimate truth. And if none does that- why subscribe to any at all? It is unsurprisngly the favoured position of all secularists.

Pluralism is dangerous- for it relegates faith to mere cultural pastime and/or personal opinion. And this is precisely what the Roman Empire preached at the time of Christ. You may worship any and all gods…but never promote one over another. And it was this inclusive fascism which led to the terrible persecution of early Christians (who refused to sacrifice to the pluralist (false) gods). Little suprise the early church rejected pluralism. For if Jesus was born of Virgin and God- then HE alone is the way, the truth and the life and we must ‘baptise all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’. If God came among us this is no man made creed.

So how can a modern clergyman promote on radio the very views that led to the spilling of martyr’s blood? What betrayal of their witness. Shame on you, my brother priest, shame on you! But before I am too insulting- let us examine his claim further. Is he right? Am I dangerously close to terrorism because I uphold the Gospel as ultimate truth?

No- because he is deluded in his moronic conclusion that ‘desire to convert’ necessarily leads to terrorism. I say the Christian can easily desire conversion whilst being an embodiment of peace and respect. How so?

Because the Christian knows they themselves have no right nor ability to convert. We are simply called to live out our faith, showing others the face of Jesus- whilst praying for them. God alone can touch them and lead them into glorious light. So when others do not turn to Christ- or subscribe to other creeds- we do not hurt or chastise them…we certainly do not hate them. To do that would be a betrayal of faith. We simply keep on loving them, respecting them and living alongside them in a non judgmental manner.

Just as we should not weaken democracy in reaction to fundamentalism- so we should avoid attacking Christianity simply because factions within Islam behave in deplorable manner. For lets be honest- it is the diabolical acts of fanatical Muslims which lead others to demand all religions be tarred with the same brush and demoted to the margins of society. Such conclusion is not good enough – for it is to let the torrorist win! And I most certainly do not expect an ordained minister to promote such diluting and defeatist attitude to the nation on Radio 4. Hurrumph!

As we gear up for the expectant, joyful time of spiritual preparation, which we call Adven, it is worth mentioning confession again. But first note this wonderful detail from a painting of the Prodigal Son. The hands of the Father do not match, one is old, gnarled and strong. The hand of a firm, powerful God of justice and discipline. The other is young, tender and smooth. The hand of a loving, gracious and vibrant God. Both these facets of God’s character, so cleverly portrayed by Rembrandt, have a part to play in our journey to the confessional.

Confession is a subject that deserves more homily time and blog space- for the fact remains that many struggle to understand and/or utilise this precious sacrament. So very many hold back from accepting this wonderful gift, given by God to his Church. That is a very sad thing- because confession is one of the most life changing and powerful sacraments in the church armoury. So why is it so seldom used? And why do people not return with great enthusiasm?

In fact ‘reticence’ for the sacrament is spirtually understandable and to be expected! The Confessional is the arena for spiritual warfare. It is where we name and nail our sins to the Cross, where hearts are offered to Jesus, where we reliquish control, admit fault and take responsibility for our actions. Done properly there is nowhere to hide. Thus it takes brutal courage and honesty and such things do not come naturally to fallen beings!

And so the tragedy is- we groan forwards with the hideous weight of sin on our back, bent double and spiritually crippled, simply becuase we prefer OUR baggage to HIS life giving grace. We learn to live with sins, make excuse for them and even love them in a funny sort of way. Why? Because they are very much a part of who we are, and being self centred we love that. How perverse and silly it is- the choosing of death over life- but how very common too. Like Adam and Eve, we hide in the shadows of our shame, rather than walking into the light and love of God’s forgiveness.

What a wonderful ‘test of faith’ confession is then! Dare we drop to our knees and REALLY give our hearts to Jesus? Dare we heed the words of the priest and accept we are made new in Christ? Dare we overcome our sins in his name and be children of the resurrection? Will ‘Alleluia’ be our song, not only in our voices but deep within our hearts? Dare we rise to the challenge this presents for our future? Risk a greater fall for we have risen higher?

The answer might lie in preparation. For I am convinced that the secret to profound, life changing and meaningful confession lies in dedicated, prayerful and meaningful preparation. Put simply- 90% of the spiritual work must happen before we enter the box! Just how that happens is up to the individual- but I offer my personal approach lest it is of use this Advent. (Hint, hint)

The first step prayer and silence. Holy Hour might be a good time as we kneel before Jesus in the sacrament. During this time of prayer we must examine our lives and our conscience. What is going well? What is not? What do we need to give thanks for? What is in dire need of his healing touch? As we examine hearts – we need to be making mental lists. what sins have I committed? I usually compartmentalise mine and put them under three headings, it helps me to remember.

1) Sins against God: times I have not been grateful for grace and blessings. Times when I have ommited to pray or seek his help, times I have deliberately sinned to hurt Him, my blasphemy, hypocrisy, etc

2) Sins against others: times I have been mean or rude about people, times I have neglected to care, times I have not seen in certain people the image of God, times I have used others, etc etc

3) Sins against self: times I have been lazy, times when I have not used my gifts to God’s glory, times I have not loved myself or taken care of myself, times I have chosen death and sin over life and hope, etc etc

Into these I weave both mortal and venial sins. Just before the confessional I find that reciting the ‘Anima Christi’ is particularly helpful. And then one must turn heart and mind to God with grit and purpose. One must be brutally honest and hold nothing back. For when the soul is tuly laid bare before Christ- the words of grace and forgiveness really sink in. We realise a staggering fact- YES he still loves us. Even with our wretched and broken sins, even with those things we are so shamed of, Jesus loves us and calls us back to his glorious light. I end with the Anima Christi and a prayer of S. John Vianney- now please BOOK YOUR SLOT ASAP- and to my confessor- I shall send an email post haste!

Soul of Christ, sanctify me
Body of Christ, save me
Blood of Christ, inebriate me
Water from Christ’s side, wash me
Passion of Christ, strengthen me
O good Jesus, hear me
Within Thy wounds hide me
Suffer me not to be separated from Thee
From the malicious enemy defend me
In the hour of my death call me
And bid me come unto Thee
That I may praise Thee with Thy saints
and with Thy angels
Forever and ever
Amen

“I love You, O my God, and my only desire is to love You until the last breath of my life. I love You, O my infinitely lovable God, and I would rather die loving You, than live without loving You. I love You, Lord and the only grace I ask is to love You eternally….My God, if my tongue cannot say in every moment that I love You, I want my heart to repeat it to You as often as I draw breath.”

Since God revealed himself in Christ Jesus- people have attempted to live according to his command. They have managed this, to varying degrees, only because Christ established his church on earth, and chose twelve Apostles to continue his ministry on earth. The Apostles would have failed in the task but that he promised to be with them, and sent his Holy Spirit, to guard, guide and protect them. He also inspired the Scriptures and provided the miracle of grace that we call the Sacraments.

But just as there have always been faithful Christians, so there have been others whose intentions are not so pure. Sadly the world has seen countless fools who would ‘improve’ or ‘add to’ what God has revealed (the arrogance of which is mind blowing!) Such people wrongfully suppose their own logic superior to the faith once delivered. They see Christ as somehow limited in his revelation and thus offer new reforms and opinions. Such people twist Christianity, promoting a new message or philosophy.

All wrongful or misguided teaching distorts, weakens and misrepresents the true and living Faith. Such dangerous teaching is called HERESY and is one of the gravest of sins of all. Why? Becuase it robs people of salvation. Instead of feeding people- heresy abandons them to the empty presumptions of this wicked world. Sincere Christians therefore have a duty, in every age, to denounce heresy whenever it rears its ugly head. (The picture today depicts S. Augustine defeating heresy in his day)

Some heresies are ancient- such as the ‘Arian Heresy’ which denied belief in the Trinity and claimed Jesus was less than God. In combating this lie the Church wrote the Nicene Creed – a clear statement of what true Christians ought to believe! It remains a useful benchmark for orthodoxy today.

Other heresies are new, such as the terrible heresy sweeping through the Western Church in our time. This new Heresy is now rampant in the Anglican Church (sadly)- and has grown in popularity since the 1960’s. It seductively suggests we should ‘reform’ Christianity and ‘bring it in line’ with more secular thinking. Fuelled by modern notions of ’social justice’ (a good thing initself) it waters down the faith into something new and less demanding. No longer are we to be bound in obedience to the teaching of scripture and tradition- now may re-evaluate and re-interpret according to our feelings and desires.

It is due to this emerging ‘liberal’ heresy (an ironic name given its illiberal methods) that Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals are in danger of being forced out of the Anglican Church on a matter of principle. Please note: I do not refer to old fashioned liberals here -those true believers who allowed for breadth of expression. No this new ‘liberal’ is something altogether different.

The new ‘liberal’ has a clear agenda forged in the politically correct arena of the modern world. It views traditional Christianity with suspicion and seeks to modernise what it sees as a stuffy, patriarchal and oppressive institution. The movement has gained much support, so much so that many in authority, Bishops especially, are now pursuing its goals. The new liberal does not wish to promote breadth of expression but breadth of belief. ‘Anything goes’ is the mantra- except of course faithfulness to scripture and tradition.

What is emerging is a new ‘quasi-Christian’ sect – something retaining a tiny portion of its Christian heritage whilst redefining doctrine according to whim and public opinion. An example can be found in the desire to abandon teaching on sex outside marriage – in order to champion not just homosexuality but even bisexuality and transgendered lifestyles. Or else we find it in the desertion of the traditional understanding of holy orders- in order to ‘invent’ the ordination of women and even the emerging suggestion of lay presidency (whereby anyone in the congregation can say Mass).

Let me give a frightening example (courtesy of Fr. Steele). The following is a ‘new Mass’ – produced in the Anglican Church of America to promote feminist philosophy. The desire is to refer to God in the feminine as much as possible (in blatant disregard to God who chose to reveal himself in the masculine)- even Jesus is called Mother here:

From the penitnential rite: (C = celebrant P = people)

Blessed be the Lady who births, redeems and sanctifies us.
P: And blessed be all of her creation forever. Amen

C: It is truly right, Mother, to give you thanks; for you alone are the I AM, living and true, dwelling in light inaccessible from before time and forever. fountain of life and source of all goodness, you made all things and fill them with your blessing; you created them to rejoice in the splendor of your radiance…..Mother, we now celebrate this memorial of your redemption. Recalling Christ’s death and his descent among the dead, proclaiming his resurrection and ascension to your waiting arms, longing for his coming in glory; and offering to you, from the gifts your have given us, this bread and this cup, we praise you and we bless you…

I could go on but why bother? The full transcript is avaialble via De cura animarum.

Suffice to say… what on earth is going on? This utter nonsense is encouraged and permitted….but Christians like those in S. Barnabas’ are in danger of being bundled out of the door because we wish to stand up for the faith that has always been taught here? The need for prayers is obvious…..for these new liberals don’t simply want to ADD this bunkum to the Christian heritage. It is intended to replace it.

My dear brothers and sisters, we who ARE obedient and faithful must stand together. We must resist the pirates who threaten to overtake Mother church and steal our buildings and traditions. We must resist this hollow bastardisation of the Faith -for it is a slap in the face of Jesus. And we must stop the clelver games using language. Open your eyes and see…we who are faithful are in fact the true liberals- for we accept everything in the name of Jesus, drive no-one away and practice what we were commanded to do.