Judgment – Advent 2, 5 December, 2021

Advent is the time when we contemplate the future and prepare ourselves to meet the Lord. We meet him in two ways: firstly, in history at Christmas, when our Lord took on our human flesh to live as one of us. We will meet him again, at the end of time, our time and the world’s time, a place without time, when we face him.

It has been well put (by St Cyril of Jerusalem, some 1600 years ago,) that when our Lord came firstly, he was judged, but when he comes again, he will judge. This is indeed a terrifying prospect, but our Lord know what it is like to be judged, and therefor has mercy. But we must face our sins and his judgment. Yet curiously, and as a paradox, we this moment of greatest scrutiny is promised to be one of greatest intimacy. We shall know him as he is and know ourselves as were truly are, and instead of running for the gates of hell we shall see and understand the love he has for us. Truth shall finally be seen.

So today is rather a bit of a survival training for judgment day. This morning we are faced with St John the Baptist, and his curious baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. The New Testament goes to some pains to make this clear that this is difference from the baptism of the Christians, and John is only the forerunner, the one who points the way. Hence, we deal with him in Advent, on the way to Christmas and seeing our Lord.

Christians deal with evil and wrongdoing in a different way to non-believers. Firstly, we acknowledge the existence of evil. Sins are not relative, not the result of background, they are to do with evil, and our temptations to evil. We cannot explain evil away, nor can we ignore the affects of evil in our life. We do sin.

In one sense, it is the hardest part of Christian living, the acknowledging of the problem of sin. We have a culture that makes us victims and wants compensation. If we have failed, there must be a reason, and someone is to blame. However, it is harder to say, that I have sinned, I am responsible, and I must acknowledge it. It’s much easier blaming someone else, and demanding compensation, and being a permanent victim, always blaming your problems on someone else. But that’s not our way. Yes, we are often hurt by other people. In the end we see that it is evil: we can’t explain it, we just have to learn to hate the sin, try and forgive the person, and leave the rest to God.

Now this is where John the Baptist and his baptism comes in. His baptism was a way of acknowledging sin – it was for repentance and forgiveness. It was a public way of saying I have sinned and wanted forgiveness, and as such very, very powerful. One of the great strengths of evil is that it is nameless. By that I mean that the most effective sin is that never discussed, never acknowledged. Sin without form is the most powerful grip on a person. That is why John’s baptism is powerful, and it makes the person say that yes, I am a sinner.

Now here is where Christians part from John and why the New Testament makes a distinction. For we believe that sin can be taken away. That’s the point of Our Lord Jesus – our sins are taken away. We don’t have to suffer the consequences for our evil, we are not caught in a cycle of perpetuation. It all has to do with his death, showing that his love is such that no sin of ours can separate us from that all-giving love. That is why we say the Agnes Dei just before our communion, “O Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”

All we have to do is let Our Lord take our sins away.

That is why we can approach our judgment with confidence. We will be afraid, because we will see the sin in its true life, clearly spoken so to say, no longer a hidden dark nameless thing. That will be a shock. Don’t have a weak heart on the Day of Judgment. But then we will know, from our Christian lives here, that Jesus loves us, Jesus forgives, and Jesus wants to take us into his bosom. Judgment Day for us is not the horror of sin only, that can drive a person to Hell, but the bravery that we can say, that we are guilty, yet we ask for that forgiveness given to us in the Church, and accept it, and allow us to be overwhelmed in love.

There is another theme I would also like to draw out from the reading today. Both John and Our Lord are put to death by people who don’t want to kill them. John is put to death by Herod to fulfil a foolish promise – he does not want to. Our Lord is condemned to death by Pilate, because of the crowd. Both people sinned because they gave way to other’s wills. Sin is often the giving in to other’s wills. But we are called to follow Our Lord’s will – he gave over his will to God and desired nothing but to follow God. Sin is the removal of our selfish following of other’s wills to give up everything for God.

But for now, we need to look for John, we need to start to see our sins, and find a way of repentance. Nothing beats a life of prayer and the daily examination of conscience – how have I done this day, what have I done and what should I have done better? If we do that, sin is forced out of the shadows and we start to grapple with. That way we can prepare for judgment.

Our Lord is coming – what shall we do?

The Days are Surely Coming – Advent 1, 28 November, 2021

“The days are surely coming,” says the Lord. So starts our first reading today, with the ominous words of Jeremiah to the rebellious people of Israel and Judah, who have left their God to follow the other gods. What has happened? The people of the land have become assimilated into the religious practises of the people around them, and as a result, the wrath of God hangs over them, warning them of the future disaster that will come, when they, with those of the other people around them, those who also worship those petty gods, will be taken away. The days are surely coming.

But we know what has happened in the meantime: in the meantime, the people of Israel and Judah went along with life, enjoying it, and ignoring the prophets who were sent to warn them. It was, and is, always the case. Life, at the moment, seems more interesting: what’s on the television seems more fascinating than the call of the Spirit. But the days are surely coming, says the Lord.

Today we enter the season of Advent, when we contemplate the days that are surely coming. The colour and liturgy changes, and, in the season of Advent, we are encouraged to turn from the now to look to the future.

At first sight the future is not too pleasant. People are going to faint from fear and foreboding, we are told by our Lord, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. But for Christians it is to be different: when these things take place we are to stand up and raise our heads, because our redemption is drawing near.

Traditionally we look at the four last things in Advent as we look to the certainties that our faith teaches: death, judgment, heaven, and hell. The days are surely coming when we will have to face these certainties, and this season is a time when we prepare ourselves for them. We do this because we believe that our life does not end here: this is just a passing stage for creatures destined for immortality, so we have to prepare ourselves for these things.

But when you think about both the final coming of Christ as well as your own future death, what comes to mind? If you were informed by an angel that tomorrow would be that day, the day that the Son of Man would return in all his splendour and glory to bring about an end to this world and to issue forth his judgment upon it, how would you react? Would you be terrified? Overjoyed? Hopeful? Confused? Perhaps a little of each of these reactions would be present. Of this time, Our Lord said that “nations would be in dismay” and that “People will die of fright in anticipation of what is coming into the world.” So, what is your reaction to this promised day of our Lord?

Those who “die of fright” are clearly those who will experience this day completely unprepared. Meeting the Son of Man, the Son of God, the Saviour of the World and the Eternal Judge when you are completely unprepared should be frightful. Nothing could be compared to being unprepared for the judgment of Christ when we stand before him at the time of our death and then at the Final Judgment at the end of the world.

The good news is that on that day, for those who are truly prepared through a life of faith and selfless service of God’s will, they are told to “stand erect and raise your heads because your redemption is at hand.” If you do all you can to prepare for that day, then it will be a day in which you anticipate with the utmost hope and excitement. You will indeed be able to stand erect, turn your eyes to the coming Judge of All, and receive the eternal reward that he so deeply desires to bestow. But this will be your experience only if you are truly ready for that day through a life lived in complete imitation of Christ.

Judgement is also a moment when justice is finally done. Justice we know is a hard virtue to find, so much of what we face is compromise or just wrong. But justice is the very nature of God, the God who sees and knows everything, the God who has lived our lives to also show mercy. The days are surely coming, when finally, finally, true justice will be seen and understood.

Reflect, today, upon that final day. Imagine every person ever created standing before the Judgment Seat of Christ. Every sin and every virtue will be made manifest on that day. The minds and hearts of all will be seen in the light as they are revealed to all by God. Justice will finally be done. Those who have lived lives of fidelity will rejoice as they see God’s justice and mercy unite as his judgments are issued forth. If this day is one that frightens you, consider the reasons why. If you do not look forward to this definitive moment in time, then perhaps you need to ponder more deeply those things you need to do so as to be fully prepared. Prepare yourself today. Do not wait. Our Lord could return at any time. Do not be caught off guard.

The days are surely coming, says the Lord. The question is: how do we want to meet those days? In this Advent season, we are reminded again to turn and face the coming glory of God. We are called, in the words of our Thanksgiving Prayer of the Mass, to wait with eager longing of the coming of the Lord. Eagerness, because we realise that what we are offered is far, far better. This understanding then changes our now, it makes us live in the world with joy knowing the love and power and glory of God. That’s why our Lord tells us that we are not to live with dissipation and drunkenness and the worries of life: a life lived in God is far, far more glorious than that.

We are not to be afraid of the future: God will be there. We are not to be afraid of this moment: God is surely here. Advent allows us to glimpse the glory of that future to inspire us for the moment. The days are surely coming says the Lord, and we can have the confidence to live them now.

Kingship – 21 November, 2021

At long last we come to the end of our Church year. Today is the last Sunday in the cycle of readings, this year’s being Mark, next year’s being Luke. The Church year starts with Advent, the period in preparation for Christmas, but we end the year celebrating a reasonably modern feast, that of Christ the King.

This feast originated in the last Century and finally ended up being celebrated on the last Sunday of the Church’s year. It started in the 1920s, that period after the end of World War I, with the collapse of the European empires and the rise of a myriad of nation states. In the 1920s, many of these states were drifting towards authoritarian governments, often with highly nationalistic and racist ideologies.

It was also a time when the grand ideals of the end of the war started to fail. The establishment of the League of Nations as part of the peace treaties was a hope that there would be universal arbitrator, that would impose peace and prevent nations going to war. Instead, it was hamstrung at the start and its impartiality was never established, as it was seen as part of a victors’ peace terms imposed.

There was also a loss of certainty. The old empires, such as the Russian or Austro-Hungarian, had a hierarchical structure of privilege. Emperors were seen as anointed by God and the system was presented as God-given. But the new and fragile democracies had no such certainties. They were not even certain who should be included in their borders at times. Large numbers of Hungarians ended up in the Romania, and Germans ended up in Poland and Czechoslovakia. Let alone considering the carve-up of Africa with its arbitrary borders.

A casualty of this era was a common view of what was the best form of government. What was the best form: monarchy, democracy, communism, or dictatorship? How do you judge this?

Well, you know the rest, and the resulting war. But the underlying problem remained about the nature of truth. How do you know what is true in a plural world?

This is why the feast of Christ the King was instituted. It was Pope Pius XI’a answer in 1925 to the conflicting ideologies of the world. The only true king for Christians is our Lord Jesus Christ. Furthermore, only the truths that are revealed are the eternal truths.

What the church was saying was no political system was a true system. In the complexities after the war, he was warning that these different systems were all flawed.

Now, over a hundred years have now passed since the end of World War I. But the problem of what is truth remains.

As the last Century closed this became a problem of what was called post-modernism as well. Simply put, it was argued that there was no one truth. Your truth was just as valid as my truth. The idea of truth being something apart and objective was lost for many people. This idea arose from the argument that all people are equal, therefore all truths are equal. Cynically, our civilisation is only that which is imposed by those in control, and not because of underlying truths of justice, because there can be no absolute truth to underpin it.

There was also a huge growth of mechanisms for justice at the same time. With the loss in belief of an impartial truth and therefore a true justice, a whole plethora of mechanisms arose to try and find a justice, often to remedy older systems that were autocratic and bias. I was once a lawyer and over the years I have sadly learnt that so many legal systems are arbitrary, and depend on who can pay for better lawyers. Professional standards tribunals, family law courts, criminal courts all fail too many times because they are flawed institutions that do not deliver true justice. Often they perpetuate injustice instead.

Our gospel today touches on the idea of truth. Our Lord says he came into the world to testify to the truth. Pilate replies, with the cynical, “what is truth?”

There you have it. Our Lord the world-giver testifying to one truth, and Pilate the world-weary finding all truths the same. Pilate does not wait for an answer, but moves on, as for him there is no answer to the search for truth, because he does not see God before him.

The rise of post-modernism at the end of the last century has left us with a world that does not have a concept of a truth, but just a multiuse of so-called truths. This feeds into conspiracy theories that undermine so much of the struggle to find a common purpose, a common purpose that cannot be found because there is not a common truth.

But if we are believers in God, we have to hold to the belief that there a truth that is above who we are and what we perceive. That there is a God who has justice and that our justice must conform to that to have truth. That God is truth beyond all the distortions with which we corrupt the world.

This is why we keep the feast of Christ the King. We believe that there is a Lord, Jesus Christ, who is a true ruler of life. We believe that as our ruler we have a duty and loyalty to him above any system of the world. Furthermore, because he is God, there is a truth that can be found.

This then ties in nicely with what we will talk about in Advent next week, when we talk about Our Lord being the judge at the end of time, and the four last things, as we call them, the four certainties we face. The four last things that Advent covers are death, judgment, heaven, and hell. Judgment is important, because that is when we shall finally find true justice, something we yearn for in this confusing world.

On this feast of Christ the King I would like us to remember that all of this world’s systems only have validity if they touch the divine truth beyond. The only way we can live within this world and its structures is by our life with God, by prayer and sacraments, so we can fulfil God’s will for us and this world. This world will to get better by itself. But it will get better by the courage of each of us to listen to God, to find the truth and apply it in our lives and those for whom we have a responsibility. Or, as Our Lord said, “your will be done, on earth as in heaven.”

Sacrifice – 14 November

Sacrifice is a word that is over used and misunderstood in our world. We talk about sacrifice in many ways – she sacrificed her career for him, for example, when someone gives us something for another. We perhaps hear it in the more formal words from Remembrance Day last Thursday or Anzac Day, about those who made the supreme sacrifice in war.

But for the ancients, sacrifice was one of the actions of life, usually a bit bloody but also a celebration. Pagans and Jews in the ancient world routinely sacrificed. Usually it was animals of some sorts, although the grain offering of the Temple was also a sacrifice. But for most people, sacrifice was the giving up of expensive animals to be slaughtered before your eyes. Often the meat would then be shared with you, some would be kept by the Temple and some returned. Every pagan town would have a temple altar of some sort, where animals would be slaughtered. It is suspected that it was a major source of protein in the ancient diet. You could not escape the smell of blood that would be so strong. Some anthropologists have even suggested that the foundation of human society was not in the so-called social contract suggested by Rousseau and Hobbes, but in a sacrificial compact instead. But that’s another story. Also, what was important was the altar, outside, where the animal was slaughtered, not the building behind, which was used often as a sort of treasury.

For Jews sacrifice was a little different – only in the Temple of Jerusalem would sacrifice be made. But at peak times, like Passover, massive amounts of animals would be slaughtered, tens of thousands of lambs for example. That’s a lot of blood. They used to wash down the Temple, and blood and water literally used to flow from the side of the Temple. That’s the significance of the blood and water flowing from Our Lord’s side on the cross.

So, when the writer to the Hebrews, whoever that was, wrote his letter to those Jews, they would have been very familiar with the concept of sacrifice, and visualised easily the Temple or the local pagan temple altar, with all the smell of animals being slaughtered. Sacrifice was important – it dealt with the notion of appeasing the gods or God and making an offering for a person’s sin. Only sacrifice could do this with its mysterious opening of the doors of death through the shedding of blood.

But the sacrificed needed to be repeated. This was because our own sin continued and the gods remained displeased. There was no end to sacrifice and the shedding of blood and life.

It’s the insight of the unknown writer of Hebrews who thinks about what does it mean, for Christians, that we no longer have a sacrifice of animals? The writer realises the ultimate defect of sacrifice, in that it cannot stop. No matter how many animals you kill, your will need another one. But Christians don’t – why?

The main reason is that animal sacrifice is not required, we have the sacrifice of Christ which we share in the bread and wine, which Our Lord identifies using sacrificial language as his body and his blood. His shedding of himself completes the sacrifice.

This is where the writer takes a new idea. In the past, sacrifices were done for Jews by the line of Aaron, and continued forever, but Jesus takes his priesthood from another line in the Old Testament, that of Melchizedek. Our Lord becomes the new high priest, the sacrificer, and at the same time, the victim, therefore completing the impossible, and being a completion of the demand of sacrifice.

Now, Christian theologians have been divided on why Our Lord had to complete the sacrifice by being the victim. Some writers from the middle ages and then and then the great Protestant Calvin, saw Christ’s death as satisfying the legal need of God – we had broken the law and deserved to be punished, so Our Lord out of his love for us dies in our place and takes away our sin. This is what is called satisfaction atonement, that is Our Lord gives full satisfaction for our sins by dying. But other theologians disagree. For that theory means that Our Lord has to die to appease a God who wants death and sacrifice, an angry God who needs his Son to die. That doesn’t sound like our sort of god.

The alternative theory, from the 20 C Rene Girard and James Alison, is that Our Lord dies to stop us victimising. The needs of sacrifice are not divine, for God always loves us. We sacrifice because we see our evil and we put a sacrifice in place of ourselves. We channel our violence and evil into a sacrifice to show our shame and remorse. This idea is one of transference – we make God into an image of our own evil anger and appease it with the precious blood of life to console ourselves. Sacrifices continue because we never really change and give up vengeance.

Then Our Lord dies as the victim. His identification with the victim means that when ever we try and channel our anger into a victim we find Christ is there. As we love God, we find we can’t sacrifice anymore – Christ is the perpetual victim, so whenever we victimise, we find ourselves opposed by Our Lord. God is not an angry God demanding legal satisfaction but a loving God stopping our evil need of victimisation by turning into the victim.

Once you accept that you start to see the reason why we use sacrificial language with our communion. For we come here to take part in a sacrifice as well. This is not a social club, that’s a fringe benefit, but what we do here is to take part in the eternal sacrifice once on the cross. We take Our Lord’s body and blood, we become part of the victim. This means that we too join with whoever is victimised in the world, the marginalised and the oppressed and the objects of our own sins. Whenever we victimise someone, who ever the current bogeyman is, we see Christ in that person. Whenever we find someone victimised, we join with that victim through the love of God. The self giving of Jesus changes our world and how we oppress and hurt those around us. But most importantly the great sacrifice of Our Lord and Saviour takes all our own sacrifices and hurst and redeems them in the love of God for each one of us.

Sacrifice is different for us because of what we believe as Christians. We no longer think in terms of sacrifice of animals – we think in terms of self sacrifice, how we can give ourselves, and the sacrifice of Christ himself at the altar here. Through our belief in Christ, and our actions, we no longer can pick on animals or refugees, or Moslems or others – we must learn to give ourselves.

All Saints – 7 November, 2021

The good news of the week has been the finding of little Cleo Smith. Everyone on that day was talking about it: we had all been worrying about the fate of the child and thinking dark thoughts, and feeling so deeply for the family whose child was missing. Then the sudden and unexpected news that the child was safe and alive was such a blessing.

I also think that it was such good news because we have had such difficult times. We have all felt the effects of border closures and restrictions. I personally know the worry of not being able to visit an elderly mother. But that’s small fry compared to those who have been separated from close family members. Then there is the whole mask thing, putting it on, taking it off, trying to speak or sing with the thing, it’s frustrating and makes us short-tempered. Yes, we all understand the reason, but that doesn’t make it comfortable. And let’s not start about holidays. We are testy and stressed. So, the news of little Cleo’s safe recovery is wonderful.

It a light in the darkness moment.

I would like us to reflect a bit about the contrast of this today. For today we celebrate one of the ancient feasts of the Church, the feast of All Saints. The origin of this goes back maybe to the 7th or 8th Century, and seems to have evolved particularly in England. That’s why we still get places like All Hallows, which is the older Anglo-Saxon name for All Saints, which is the same word as in “hallowed be your name” in the Lord’s Prayer.

This festival originated because Holy Mother Church wanted us to reflect on the importance of what death and heaven were all about. We have records of saint’s days being commemorated going back to the early church, such with the death of Polycarp in the 2ndC. The idea of what life, death and resurrection was an important one to teach in the pagan world.

The vast majority of people in the ancient world led tough, hard and short lives. From dawn to dusk it was a struggle to get shelter and food. Water was drawn every day and woodfire collected. Then there were plagues and famines that decimated populations. As well as barbarians and later Vikings that could destroy everything. If you ever read the history written by the chroniclers, such as Bede in England of the Early Middle Age, you understand. Bede talks about the swallow flying through the open side of the great hall through the light then out into the darkness again as an analogy of God’s light. I always think how drafty those mead halls must have been with opening to allow the smoke to escape and everyone huddled around trying to keep warm.

What the Faith offered was a hope in the hardness and darkness of life. It taught that there was light in the difficulties of the world. That there were saints, and that the saints knew us and prayed for us, and that we had the chance to join their company as well. That the love of God seen in Our Lord who became one of us, and shared our darkness in pain and death; yet rose from the dead to new life in eternity. Furthermore, this was done out of love for who we were and and the love that knows us all. Our Lord does not want us to be serfs or slaves, not even warriors, but children in his heavenly kingdom instead.

That’s why this feast is so important. We all fall into the darkness of life at times. Now, we don’t have to worry about the Vikings marching and plundering through Goodwood tomorrow. But there are things just as bad: the lack of faith; the pursuit of money that destroys the ability to rejoice in life; the viciousness of modern media; the obsession of our own needs to the exclusion of everything else. Or there are the other extremes, the worries of the world, what does climate change mean for us and our children? Or why are people having conversations about things such as transgender rights in children or the me-too or woke or a whole range of ideas that makes us search Wikipedia to try to understand.

Now, don’t get me wrong; these ideas are all important. Inequality and oppression are always wrong and need to be understood. But one thing the pandemic has taught us is that the best laid plans that we make will go astray. The Vikings are not going to plunder Goodwood tomorrow but I don’t know when I will feel safe to take a holiday anywhere. We are faced with a clear uncertainty in our lives now that we didn’t seem to have before.

But we pray each day, “hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as in heaven.” The saints tell us that the burdens of this world do end. That there is a hope for each of us, to be part of that heavenly kingdom. That hope has inspired the saints throughout the ages. The Roman authorities could not believe how the Christian martyrs were willing to leave this life on this hope, like the teenage Agnes or Lucy, whose shrines are in this church. That faith in God who would make all things new in heaven gave them the courage to face martyrdom. That was the good news that inspired them to die to find life again.

So, this feast of All Saints is one to remind us that there is always good news when we deal with God. Faith offers us so much more than this grey life ever can. Every time we take the sacrament of the living body of Christ  at the altar we affirm again that hope in our lives. Jesus lives. The saints pray for us. And we have a everlasting home in heaven, when all tears will be wiped away and no one ever wears a mask.

Reformation Sunday – 31 October, 2021

Today is a day when many churches are celebrating what is called Reformation Sunday. That’s because Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-five Theses to the church door in Wittenburg, Germany, on this day, 31 October, 1517.  in It’s not usually part of our calendar here but please indulge me this morning, as this is an important part of our history.

We should start by avoiding simplistic views of what the Church was like in the mediaeval period. It’s too simple to say it was corrupt with things like indulgences and bad living popes. The Church militant, that is the Church here, is always filled with saints and sinners. Yes, there were indulgences, where people paid for time off purgatory, but many were trying to reform and outlaw this practice at the time as a bad thing. Yes, there were popes who lived bad lives. But there were good and holy people as well. Our history since that time is not spotless either: every age has its own besetting sin. Part of the nature of divisions is that they ‘other’ the other side: by that I mean that ascribe all the faults to the opposition.

Let’s get back to Luther. His protest, thanks to the new medium of printing, spread rapidly, and reached most of the major cities within a few months. In an earlier age of handwritten documents, it would have taken years. The Pope and Emperor condemned the teaching, and in England Henry VIII wrote against it, and was given, as a reward, the title of Defender of the Faith, a title he kept and is still used by the British sovereign.

But of course, Henry soon had troubles of his own with wives that eventually led him to repudiate the primacy of the pope. He decided that the best way to establish control was to declare England outside the jurisdiction of the Pope and he became Supreme Head. This allowed him to confiscate the wealth of the monastic communities scattered throughout the realm and reward his supporters. But little changed otherwise: the mass continued in Latin and almost unchanged from earlier times.

It was under his son, Edward VI, that the Latin mass mas changed to the English service, with the publication of the first and then second book of Common Prayer in 1549 and 1552. Then his sister Mary I brought back the Latin mass, and then his sister Elizabeth I brought back the BCP.

All this left a church very confused. It had bishops, priests and deacons as the traditional church always had, yet it didn’t have the Latin mass. It was headed by a monarch claiming the title of Supreme Governor (Elizabeth was more cautious than her father) but no pope.

When Mary ascended the throne there was an exodus of Protestants to Europe who returned when Elizabeth became Queen. Many had lived in more radical Protestant cities and expected that Elizabeth would continue the reforms of her brother and establish a totally reformed church, with ministers being elected from congregations. However, Elizabeth was having none of that, and had no intention of giving up her control over the church. She kept the church on the same basis as when her brother died.

This left the English church in a strange situation. It was protestant yet not protestant. It was the genius of theologians at the end of Elisabeth’s reign like Richard Hooker that moved the argument to seeing the English Church as being not a deformed Catholic or incomplete Protestant church, but as something different – a middle way, a via media in Latin, that was both Catholic and Reformed.

Now, this was a very important position. It allowed the Anglican Church, as it would become to be known, as a church that was Catholic and Reformed, a bridge, so to speak, between that of Rome and that of the Protestants.

Now another important part in this was the English civil War that happened after Elizabeth’s death, in the reign of Charles I, between 1642 and 1651, and the succeeding republic and then the restoration of the King Charles II in 1660. England, Scotland, and Ireland were involved in war that was political and religious. The end of it was a realisation that England would exist with a diversity of religious belief: that the State would not impose one form of the church. The English church would try and be encompassing, and that Roman Catholics and other Protestants had a right to hold their religious beliefs.

This led to a a decision to hold the church to the model established under Elizabeth. There would be bishops, but also the Book of Common Prayer that would not be changed greatly from her brother’s time, that would define what it meant to be Anglican.

Now, I could go through the see-saw of how the political ramifications of this played out, with bishops and synods and parliaments all playing different roles. But it evolved a Church that had not only bishops with their authority, but a strong lay authority as well, such as with elected wardens in parishes and eventually synods with the bishop.

Most importantly it has given us a Church that works on balances. Traditionally, we see authority working as Scripture, reason, and tradition. Roman Catholics have what is called the magisterium, the teaching of the church, that can be infallible. We hold that to be tradition, and it need not always be infallible. Yes, we hold to some things as bound, as by the first seven councils, such as the nature of the Trinity, or the definition of what makes the Bible. Protestants often have what they call confessing documents, that is defining statements of some time that are true and cannot be changed. We do not hold our 39 Articles to this standard. We hold that Scripture is a source, but is not complete: it is not like a Koran for Muslims. Then we hold that reason is a way we interpret and understand the teaching of Scripture and tradition.

Now, this is by no means fool proof. The debates about women’s ordination and same sex marriages run against tradition and use Scripture and reason to explore these questions. All we can say is that just because Scripture is silent, and tradition opposes, does not mean the question is ended. This is where theologians like the great John Henry Newman, that Anglican and Roman Catholic, come in, with their idea of the development of tradition and how new ideas are tested and then received, or not received, by the body of the church, that is you here in the pews over time.

What hold this together in the end is a healthy balance and respect. Our church is the best when there is difference, and we respect the breath of views. It is best when those views are made clear and not glossed over as unimportant: that is not intellectually honest nor theologically challenging. When we try to make all parish churches the same, we destroy the genius of being Anglicans. That is why we pray here not only for our wider church, such as Francis of Rome and Bartholomew of Constantinople, but also the protestant leaders. That is why we need places like Holy Trinity in the city. And finally, that is why we, St George’s, complete with incense and birettas and everyone of you, are also needed by everyone else.

Seeing – 24 October 2021

Most books that deal with successful lives or businesses like to explain how they got things right. They often even have rather complacent titles, like, “How to Succeed in Business without Trying” or “How to be Millionaire” or ”How to Lose Weight without Trying” or some other rather smug title.

The Gospels are completely the reverse. They continually show failure and lack of understanding by the disciples of Our Lord. St Mark shows time and time again that the disciples just don’t get it. One only has to think about Peter’s great confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, immediately followed by trying to shut Jesus up with his story of suffering and death, causing Our Lord to rebuke him with “get behind me Satan.” Many scholars believe that Mark originally finished his Gospel (for there are several possible endings to Mark, if you look in a good translation of the Bible) with the command of the young man to the women to go and tell of the resurrection, but they flee and tell no-one, because, we learn, they are afraid. Yet, the Gospel was written for a community who was very much there, and growing, and Mark is teaching that despite our human failings the Church will continue and overcome our failures to teach the Good News.

The passage today, about Bartimaeus, is a passage that continues the illustration how the disciples fail to understand. It concludes a central passage in Mark, where the miracles of healing and interspersed with Our Lord teaching that he must suffer and die. In contrast, the disciples fail continually, such as failing to use the power in exorcising demons and arguing who is the greatest.

Now, one of the most interesting things in this passage today, is that we have a name. Now, names are rare in the Gospel, we are only given a name if they have a continuing importance. In contrast, the blind man healed at Bethsaida is nameless, and we only learn of the healing of Jairus’s daughter, never her name. Perhaps the reason is because the story of Bartimaeus is a story of coming to faith.

It starts with the story set at Jericho. This brings a resonance with the Old Testament, besides the famous story of the falling walls of Jericho, we also have the story of Rahab the Prostitute, who sheltered the spies of the Israelites, and who is a symbol of belief in God. Bartimaeus is a blind beggar. He hears that it is Jesus of Nazareth, and starts to shout out for mercy, calling Jesus the Son of David, a kingly title. Despite the orders of those who do see, and do not acclaim Jesus, he continues his cries for mercy. He is heard, and Our Lord calls him forward. Note that he throws off his cloak to reach Jesus – discarding of old clothes is always an important image in Mark, that is seen most dramatically in the young man who is seized after the arrest of Jesus and runs away naked, an image of leaving a life behind.

Then we have an example of perfect discipleship: Our Lord asks what can he do for him and Bartimaeus asks for sight, and Our Lord grants it to and he sees immediately. Our Lord tells him that his faith has made him well.

Then Our Lord tells Bartimaeus to go, but instead we learn that he follows him on the way. This rather surprising contradiction makes sense only when you remember that the early Christians called their faith “the way,” and this is an image then of following the faith. Bartimaeus becomes a model of a true disciple, not arguing about status, but calling for mercy, asking for healing in true faith, and therefore receiving it, and then following the way. It is for this reason that he has a name, as a follower and believer.

And in perhaps the most remarkable turn in this remarkable story, Bartimaeus is not the only one healed and called in this story. Did you catch who else had a radical conversion? The crowd. They begin with cruelty and exclusion in their hearts, doing everything they can to keep Bartimaeus away from Our Lord: “Many sternly ordered him to be quiet, but he cried out even more loudly, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me!’” And this is the pivotal moment. Our Lord does not call Bartimaeus directly. He calls the crowd to call Bartimaeus. “Jesus stood still and said, ‘Call him here.’”

And then the redemption, so easy to skip over if you’re not paying close attention. “And they called the blind man, saying to him, ‘Take heart; get up, he is calling you.’” This is the moment of the crowd’s conversion, the crowd’s healing, and the crowd’s call. Our Lord’s love is so sneaky and so powerful that it broke open their hardened hearts and they probably didn’t even notice it. They go from trying to keep people away from Jesus to urging them forward. They go from seeing Bartimaeus as an embarrassment and trying to shut him up and keep him hidden, to telling him to take heart and go forward into Our Lord’s embrace.

What we learn here is that call is never individual. We hear call in community. Bartimaeus calls for Jesus, Jesus calls the crowd, the crowd calls Bartimaeus, then Jesus calls Bartimaeus to follow him on the way. This entire process of call and response is deeply healing to everyone involved.

The English writer and clergyman Jonathon Swift, who in between being Dean of St Patrick’s Dublin, a great wit, and writng Gulliver’s Travels, once said that vision is the art of seeing things invisible. It’s a good point. Bartimaeus saw the invisible in Jesus. Bartimaeus is contrasted with the disciples in the gospel today, who see Our Lord healing and doing mighty acts of power, but don’t get the vision: they are lost in their rivalries and dreams of power rather than asking for the vision to understand. It’s also the same with Christians at times; we lose the vision of what it means to follow the Way, to be a Christian. Bartimaeus recognises Our Lord as a royal king, he asks for mercy and healing, and gets it. It’s the same for us; we continually need to see Jesus as our King and Lord, and ask for his mercy, then follow his way. But then remember Mark’s backup message, the message of the whole Gospel: people fail, but the Church goes on. The sum of our failures is not oblivion, but continual offers of repentance and renewal so that the Church, full of imperfect people, still is a place of grace and renewal.

So we are invited today to regain our sight, to see the vision once more, of a God who asks for us to recognise him as our teacher and God, who offers us sight and then asks us to follow the way. God never, never gives up on us, his mercy never fails. So let us hold to that hope, the hope of God and follow the way.

Names – 10 October

There are three famous stories in the Gospel about wealthy people. There is the one today, about the rich young man, there is the parable of Lazarus and Dives (where both die, and Lazarus, who was poor in life goes to Abraham’s bosom), and Zacchaeus, the little wealthy man who climbed the tree to see Jesus.

What is interesting in thinking about these three stories is the use of names. The rich young man in today’s story is given no name. Zacchaeus obviously has one. In the story of Lazarus and Dives, when you read it, the two are contrasted but only poor Lazarus is named – we just call the other one Dives for convenience.

So in the three stories, only once does the wealthy man get a name, in the story of Zaccheaus, who takes Our Lord to his house, entertains him, and then promises restitution for any extortion. So, what makes him special?

Zaccheaus is the one who changes from meeting our Lord. He is the one who promises to give up half his wealth to the poor and restore fourfold any one he has defrauded. He is changed by his encounter with the Lord. In contrast, the other two stories are about the wealthy who fail to change: Dives never changes in life and repents only after death, and the rich young man in today’s gospel also goes away, turning down our Lord’s invitation to give away his wealth and follow our Lord instead.

So, the one who is named, is the one who is changed. Zacchaeus is changed – the others are not. They disappear into history, as examples of those who turn down the offer from God to change, successful in life and failures in eternity, disappearing into oblivion as nameless.

Consider now the wealthy young man who needed to let go of his wealth to inherit eternal life. Our Lord knew that it was his true greatest burden and the young man did not have the strength to let go. It’s also interesting that he asks Our Lord what must he do to inherit eternal life, not obtain, but inherit, like the gift of unearned money from family. He may have made a name for himself in life, but as a result he is nameless to us who follow our Lord. Dives is also nameless to us from his failure to care for Lazarus in life. To follow our Lord is to become a name in God’s eyes, someone who has undertaken the challenge of letting go of what ever we hold most tightly and follow our Lord instead.

Now it is easy to make the Gospel story today about the perils of riches. But temptation is not only about money, it can be about a lot of things. Don’t simplify it. The hold of part of life in some way attracts each of us and binds us. It may be money, it may be status, it may be control: the permutations of temptation are endless. What each has in common is that we are held in some way.

Where you heart is, so is your soul. We can all be tempted. The call from our Lord in each is the same: that we need to renounce that which we hold most closely to find the freedom of following our Lord. We may still be good people even in thrall to our personal temptation – after all the rich young man only lacked one thing, he was not a bad man at all – but eternal life is more than just being good enough, it is about overcoming those temptations. It is about becoming detached from the what holds us away from God. Detachment from the goods and poverty are the indispensable condition for discipleship for three reasons:

1       We have faith in God who provides to us as a Father. If God cares for the birds and the lilies of the field, then God has even more care for each of us.

2       We have a need for companionship, fraternity, of being with other people: how can we continue to own all that we have, when we realize that all around us there are those who lack the necessary?

3       We have a need for freedom: if we are tied to too many things (and it is not just money) that absorb all of our time and our attention, how can we find the space and the taste for the things of God?

After detachment, we can then start to think what is our true wealth in the world? In the end wealth and worth comes from love, love that we share. It’s fitting today that we are also blessing animals at 10 am, for we often find great consolation from the love that animals give to us, that dependant, centred love that reminds me always of the purity of God’s love. Love is the greatest gift that Our Lord shared and the greatest wealth in any life.

So today I want to encourage you all to fight with your own temptations. The way to start is always with little things, if you can succeed in little things, big things start to shrink. Remember that we can have faith in a God who knowns us, we have the need for fraternity with those in need, and we need a freedom from the burdens of the world. Then when you finally can renounce that which binds you most tightly, then you find you have followed our Lord, and eternal life is yours, and you have a name – the name in the Book of Life.

Michaelmas – 26 September

I shouldn’t really be surprised, but it really is amazing how people have forgotten their Christian roots, their Christian heritage, their Christian language, their Christian beliefs. Today we live in a post-Christian world where possibly most people have very little idea about the fundamentals of Christian belief. Which is why clergy often run into a problem when someone suffers a bereavement. It’s not unusual nowadays to hear, when someone has died, loved ones talk about how the dead person is now one of the angels in heaven. As a priest you hear this quite a lot. And it’s tricky, because, on the one hand, you want to be pastorally sensitive to someone who is grieving. But at the same time there is gnawing temptation to correct people who are saying something about the Christian faith which is just simply, well, just wrong.

When human beings die, they don’t become angels. Why? Well, because angels are angels, and humans are humans. Dogs are dogs, cats are cats, and humans are humans and angels are angels. They are just different. Angels are pure spirit: part of the invisible creation we proclaim our belief in when we recite the Creed, that we believe in all things visible and invisible. Spirit is what they are: angels, as the great St Augustine of Hippo pointed out, is what they do: the word angel means messenger or servant of God. Humans are not pure spirit: we have material bodies. Angels don’t: different specie.

So, we are not angels. So, when someone tells you that so and so is no angel, you can agree without any hesitation. No heresy there! There are, though, similarities. Angels and humans have free will. It’s long been a part of the Church’s teaching that Satan was once a good angel but one who used his free will to reject God and his love. The devil has “sinned from the beginning,” he is “a liar and the father of lies,” as St John reminds us in his first letter. But the main point I wish to make is that for centuries, belief in angels stemmed from belief in the supernatural. And one of the things that has characterised Christianity in the last half a century – and this might sound a bit odd – is our rejection of the supernatural.

Like many people of a certain generation, I grew up in an age of faith and my natural life was saturated with the supernatural. I lived in a world of saints, and angels, and miracles. We talked about the miracle of Dunkirk or other events. For many people, 21st-century Christianity has become an earthbound religion. We are to feed the poor and comfort the afflicted. We are to fight for social justice, locally and globally. We may even see the health of this planet and its creatures as a prime responsibility of care. And this is all right and good. But for decades now, many theologians have downplayed the importance of the supernatural and the devotional life that springs from that. Sometimes, they have even ruled out the possibility of divine intervention in people’s lives. And that’s where I have an issue. After all, ours is a religion that was founded by a man who cast out demons, miraculously healed the sick, rose from the dead, and appeared to his followers after his death and then ascended into another realm of being beyond the visible and natural: it was super-natural.

Our Lord believed in the world of angels – as we heard in today’s Gospel – and prayed to his heavenly father. He believed in an existence after death. This is the core of our Christian faith: we believe in one God who exists above and beyond the created world. There is a gulf between God’s perfection and our imperfection, God’s infinity and our finitude. And this God created us to share in this earthly existence – with all its joys and sorrows – with the promise of a share in God’s existence for eternity: sharing in the divine life, as St Peter puts it. And this divine God intervenes in human life. The supernatural bursts through into the natural. It’s what the scriptures tell us over and over again. It’s what the story of Exodus tells us and, of course, finds its ultimate expression in the coming of Our Lord: that the supernatural world breaks into the natural and changes it. Or, rather, restores it to what God originally intended.

So, this is today’s big question on the Feast of St Michael and All the Angels: do we believe in the supernatural? Or are our eyes firmly fixed on the earthly? Do we believe that there is an existence after death? That there are creatures of pure spirit called angels? That the supernatural can change the natural? That we can be changed?

People tell me about the presence of God. They feel it here, they find it in their lives. There are moments when God is finally seen and experienced, a breakthrough into out limited blinkered lives. People are changed by angels, visions of Mary, the presence of God and a myriad of other ways. Some may call it delusion, some know otherwise.

The Christian church is filled with people whose lives were changed forever by the supernatural breaking into the natural. Last week, we celebrated St Matthew: the tax collector who encountered Our Lord and whose life was changed forever. Then on Friday we celebrated the Feast of Our Lady of Walsingham: the story of a Saxon noblewoman who was given a vision of the house in Nazareth where Our Lord grew up and was moved to build a shrine that became one of the greatest pilgrimage sites in England. The church is filled with saints – ordinary men and women just like me and you – who are testament to God’s supernatural intervention changing lives in ways that I think are inexplicable without a belief in the divine. Without a belief in the supernatural. Amen.

Based on a sermon by Fr Tim Handley SSC

Protecting the Powerless – 19 September, 2021

The story of the child today is a lovely part of Mark’s gospel. Our Lord and the disciples reach Capernaum, where they have a house. Our Lord asks what they’ve been arguing about among themselves on the walk there and they don’t answer him. They probably felt sheepish and might have looked at their feet or food or off into the distance (still inside the house), pretending not to hear him. So, he sits the twelve down. This is not a crowd or a medium-sized group. This is the twelve, the twelve who have committed to following him — literally following him around the countryside — to whom he is giving the next two teachings.

“Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all.” Now, the disciples have been fighting over who will be first, and Our Lord tells them who will be the first: the person who doesn’t want to be, the person looked at as not having ambition, the person who shows vulnerability and servanthood rather than seeking their own glory.

Then he takes a child, puts that child in the midst of them, and says, “Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes not me but the one who sent me.” Now children weren’t welcomed in the first century. They were tolerated. Children were an economic asset, able and expected to work. They were property until they were either old enough to own property themselves — boys — or sold in marriage to another male — girls. They couldn’t speak for themselves and had no power.

Yet, a child — powerless against the world around about, vulnerable to the powers that existed, and unable to defend oneself — is who Our Lord tells the disciples to welcome: the powerless, the vulnerable, the ones whose voices are ignored in the world. Our Lord says that by welcoming people like that, the ones who can’t influence society and don’t strive to be in charge, they welcome Our Lord. Not only do they welcome him, they welcome God who sent him. Welcoming the powerless is a far cry from arguing over who is the greatest!

The powerless has always been one of the particular concerns of Christians, and we fail that task at our greatest peril. Today I would also like to talk about one particular response we had to the powerless one hundred and fifty years ago this week. For this week commemorates the 150th year of the death of Bishop John Coleridge Patteson.

One hundred and fifty years ago the growing expanse of international trade created opportunities in Australia and the Pacific for the development of new resources, particularly cane sugar. Europeans had developed a craving for sugar from the 17 C and exploited slavery in the Est Indies and then the opening of new colonies in the Pacific led to the exploitation of blackbirding in the 19 C, which was a legal fiction to overcome what was slavery, the forcible removal of indigenous men to work in the canefields. Slavery was banned within the Empire, but a ships forcibly removed men from the islands claiming they had signed contracts for labour, thus avoiding the slavery definition.

The growth of the Anglo Catholic movement has always been linked to issues of social concern, caring for the powerless, and the establishment of new bishoprics around Australasia led to these bishops trying to protect the Maoris and Melanesians from exploitation and this salvery. The first bishop of New Zealand, George Selwyn, took on Patteson in 1855 to be a priest with the Melanesian Mission, and was so impressed with him he consecrated him a bishop for Melanesia in 1861.

Patteson visited Sydney several times to raise awareness of, and funds for, the mission. He attended our sister church Christ Church St Laurence several times on each visit.

But the blackbirding for the canefields was continuing and Patteson was killed, in the Solomon Islands, on 20 September 1871. The killing was thought to be in retaliation for the abduction, a few days earlier, of five local men and the killing of one other by blackbirders.

His death galvanised mission work in Australia. ABM had been set up in 1850 to raise money for a boat for work in the islands, and had continued to raise money. But the martyrdom of Patterson, as a result of blackbirding, led to a huge rise in interest in raising money for mission work. His death transformed ABM and made it the major mission agency for the Anglican church, with its emphasis on our near neighbours such as PNG and the Solomons.

On the Sunday after news of the murder reached Sydney, 12 November 1871, the bells of Christ Church rang a muffled peal for Patteson. Funds were collected in Sydney for a memorial at the Cathedral, including a very generous personal donation for a “figure” of the martyred bishop. That was considered very popish in those days, and the rules of Sydney’s St Andrew’s Cathedral, even then a bastion of the low church, would permit only mural monuments, so the sculpture was located instead at Christ Church St Laurence, where you can see it to this day.

The resulting missionary work led to the establishment of St Barnabas’s College in Norfolk Island for the training of local missionaries for the Solomons. However, that island was too far south and too cold, and eventually the mission was relocated back to the Islands. Anglicans are one of the biggest churches now in the Solomons. You may remember the islanders we had in our congregation here a few years ago, including one Coleridge, named after bishop John Coleridge Patteson. His grandfather or great grandfather trained on Norfolk Island at that College. Patteson’s death also led to a concerted campaign by the Imperial and Colonial authorities to stamp out this slavery.

How we look after the powerless, in this case the islanders, is how we welcome our Lord. Our Lord’s example of taking a child has been a call to us to look always to the powerless in our midst. After this pandemic is over we will have many nations around us, including our old friends PNG and the Solomons, in need of help again as their tourism industries have been devasted by our closure. We will need to be generous again. But we must remember Our Lord’s example and look away from our own delusions of power to the needs of those in our midst.

 Material on Patteson from an article by Joseph Waugh.

Fear and Hope – 12 September, 2021

I’ve been pondering the Gospel during a week when we have been remembering many anniversaries. The most important one this week was, of course, the terrorist attacks in the USA, the 9/11 moment as it is called. But that has happened just after we have seen the end of the war in Afghanistan, after twenty years of conflict deriving from the attack of 9/11. Then we have had the anniversary recently of the Tampa boat incident, which fundamentally changed our refugee policy in Australia. All of these are important events that call upon us to think about what has happened and why.

So, when I started reading about the Gospel today my slant was different. The story of Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Messiah is a fundamental declaration of who Our Lord really is, a confession of faith that is central to the three synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John, dear John, of course has a different take and perhaps the equivalent for him is Martha’s confession of Jesus as the Christ in the story of the raising of the dead of Lazarus. But that’s another story.

When Our Lord is the Gospel asks the disciples directly, “Who do you say that I am?” it is Peter who makes the leap of faith and confesses him as the Messiah. Now, all the stories about the Messiah were not the same. Some Messiahs were angelic, some were human, some were born of God. Sometimes there was one Messiah and sometimes there were multiple Messiahs. But one oft-repeated theme among these many stories was that the Messiah would overthrow whatever empire was in power and deliver the Jews from oppression. This Messiah was sometimes painted as a military champion, someone who came with power and force. They were the hope of a downtrodden nation. You can see why this story would be so hopeful, so needed for a people who had lost so much of what seemed to have been promised to them by God. We are all looking for a way out of our messes.

So, when Our Lord asks his disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” and Peter responds, “You are the Messiah,” might it be the case that Peter had heard some stories of who the Messiah was supposed to be as he grew up a Jew in a Jewish world? Might it be the case that he had a particular image and vision of this Messiah?

When Our Lord continues the conversation, and he predicts his own personal overthrow, betrayal, suffering, and death, maybe we can understand why Peter rebukes him. It’s not the Messiah story he has signed up for. It’s one thing to imagine yourself as the right-hand man of a powerful figure, not as the right hand man of a dead man. 

Now the core of this seems to be a problem of fear, which I find fascinating at this time. Peter was perhaps afraid for what would happen to his friend, Our Lord, and himself. Death and suffering makes one afraid.

One of the best reflections I find about the nature of fear is that of the great mediaeval saint and theologian, Thomas Aquinas. He asked, why do we fear? – and he saw fear as the response to a future evil. We fear a future pain or hurt. If someone dies now, we do not fear: we have sorrow, but not fear. Fear is when we see some evil result in the future, that brings us hurt in some form.

So, Peter feared a future of the death and suffering Our Lord told him. That is why he started to rebuke Our Lord. This was not the future he wanted.

Then Our Lord then turns around and tells him that he is concentrating on human things, not divine. Get behind me Satan!

Instead, Our Lord holds out for his followers, us, the need for us to take up our cross and follow his way of suffering instead. 

Now, reflecting on the incidents of 9/11 and Afghanistan we can remember our fears at the start of this century. Fears that we would be attacked continual by terrorists. That every plane trip became one of anxiety. That Afghanistan was going to be a source of endless extremists attacking us. Or that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The end of the 20th C had seemed so hopeful – Communism had fallen in Europe, and it seemed as if our pluralistic capitalistic world had a golden future ahead of us. Instead, we entered a new century with fear. Fear of terror. Also fear of being swamped with migrants, which was the Tampa Boat incident that ended Australia being a hope of refugees. It was fear that then drove the response of the start of the wars of this century that are still being played out now.

Let’s get back to Peter. Our Lord’s rebuke of Peter was an act of true love. It was a way of shaking him free from the paralysis of fear. Our Lord wanted Peter to think clearly and to face this future suffering with courage, acceptance, and faith. Courage provides strength. Acceptance cures anxiety. And faith is the remedy for all fear. These and other similar virtues were necessary if Peter and the other disciples were going to be able to endure the suffering and passion of Our Lord Jesus. They needed to know that this perceived evil was going to be transformed by the Father in Heaven and used for the greatest good the world had ever known. They needed to know that Our Lord “must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly…” It was the Father’s will. Because it was the Father’s will, the greatest good would come from the greatest evil because of God’s almighty power.

You see, the opposite of fear is hope. Hope is the expectation of future good. Hope produces joy. If the death of Our Lord would bring about the freedom from sin and the knowledge of the love of God and life eternal, then that future expectation is far, far greater than pain and death. That’s the joy that drives out the short-term pain. That’s why the angels time and time again say, “Do not fear!” – for they bring messages of great joy.

I think so much of the response of the last twenty years has been driven by fear, fear of those who are different, fear of those who do not share our faith as Christians, fear of those who do not share our Western complacency, fear of those who might question our hoarding of wealth and resources. We tried to give hope to places such as in Iraq and Afghanistan by creating a society that mimicked our own and we failed. They did not share our hopes but instead shared our fears of those who were different.

But we should not forget that in many places we have helped and given hope. Our help in Timor for example. Or less well known, the Ramsi mission in the Solomons that stabilised a country heading into civil war. The Solomon Islanders we have had in our congregation could tell you what a blessing that was for their country. These smaller stories of hope should not be forgotten in the larger stories of fear.

So as I end this sermon today I would like us all to consider our fears. We all have them in some way. But whatever we fear we are a people of faith. We know we have sufferings, like the minor sufferings of the covid restrictions, but in the order of things that is hardly noticeable. Some of our fears, such as illness or poverty or age may seem overwhelming. We may identify with Peter and think Heaven forbid that this should happen. But we have, as Christians, hope, the antidote to all fear, hope that wherever we stumble carrying our cross, Our Lord has worked before us and walks besides us still. Hope gives us the courage and endurance we need as we walk our paths.

The Church: Past, Present, and Future – Dedication, 5 September, 2021

Often when I enter a church, I think of all those clergy who have been here before me. Our parish, has been blessed with many great priests, the most notable being a Fr Wise, who for forty years taught the faith, fighting with the bishop and making his mark, followed by a line of illustrious priests with whom I try to keep myself up to their standard.

Besides those whose ministry was to be your priest, there were countless others who came, served, or visited. Some preached and touched people. Others may have made you snooze. The ghosts of preachers past populate any church.

Then consider all those who have sat in the pews over the years. You may see there ghosts around, some of you may still think of that particular seat over there being Mrs So-and-sos, or dear What-ever, who prayed there for many years. Yet there are many more timid ghosts, those who snuck in over the years, maybe hiding away at the back, who came and went and never could make a full commitment yet still yearned and sought God in this house.

For this Church is a house of God. It is a witness to the power of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is a holy place that has called to the world around it to find God and follow that call. It is the place where so many have come into and prayed over the last century.

Churches are built on the foundations of hope with their spires touching heaven. The hopes of people that there is more than the world, that they can find God in the confusion of life around. This hope touches us through life, with the incessant calling that cannot be ignored. Some may ignore it. Some may pervert it into ways that attempt to satisfy cravings. Others may follow that hope and find in faith the love that does fulfil all. When faith is found to fill that hope we find that we do touch heaven. That is the Church.

For Churches mean two things, as you know. A church is a building and a people who are the body of Christ. They are reflective meanings – the building reflects the faith of the people and the people create the building to show their faith. Buildings that so often are filled with beauty to show our love of God in the mystery of worship. Our hope is that through this teaching of the love of holiness faith would be shown to others who would find the fulfilment of their yearning in this way. That people could come here, regularly hopefully, or even flitting in now and then, find God here and touch heaven. All the ghosts who have come into the Church, who we pray, that they may be now in the courts of heaven.

Yet we are not a place that lives only with ghosts – we are a Church that stands and marches into the future. We have tried to teach and show a faith that would provide a future and not bound into the past.

Now that may sound surprising in a Church like ours that is so bound into Catholic tradition. Tradition at its best is the inheritance of the past, the living voice of how others have reached God. It advises us and provides and an example of how God has shown love to our ancestors in faith. We worship God in this particular way because the ghosts of the past have found that this is a way that God speaks.

So, what is it that makes us Anglicans in the Catholic tradition today? We can say it is a love of tradition, a love of worship and a hundred other ways of saying how we have lived the faith in Christ. The one I like best is that is a realisation that there are holy things in the world. That God lives and sanctifies the things around us if we open our spiritual eyes. Being Catholic is the calling to look beyond what we are to the incredible richness of God working around us and asking to work in us. It is the appreciation that holiness exists and can be recognised.

That is why we find this church such an important place. It is not a place that can be a throne of God one moment and a cup of tea dispensary the next. This is where we find holy things. This is where me meet God. This is where past, present and future meet in the sacrament of the altar. This is where the ghosts still whisper in the pews of devotion past as we await the end of time. It is a place where we search for our completeness, our fulfilment with Christ. It is a place that we use to convert others, by showing them the holiness and love of God.

Buildings and people reflect each other: each is church. What we do here should be our way of evangelising for the future, showing others the love of God, and the glimpse of holiness. Our buildings and people should be a sign to the community of the presence of God.

Here in this place we say prayers for those ghosts of the past, those faithful and not so faithful, who have sought here a place of love and forgiveness. Here in this place priests have tried to teach the face and live the life that is a mirror of Christ. Here in this place we continue to seek the holy in a world that rushes by with no time for the present and no hope for the future. The place has many years of the past, but we look with eager longing to our eternity together.

Boundaries – 29 August

Let me talk to you today about boundaries. Boundaries exist around us all the time. Sometimes they are important, sometimes not. We have state boundaries – and at the moment they are very important as we can’t cross them at all. Two years ago, they were almost irrelevant. We have boundaries in our lives, how we deal with others in our lives, how much you can go in an argument or fight before a friendship is destroyed for example. Boundaries exist all the time.

Religion is one area where boundaries also exist. Think back to the Garden of Eden: Adam and Eve were warned they could not touch the fruit of the Tree of Life or the Tree of Knowledge. They were out of bounds, and when the fruit was eaten, consequences resulted. The giving of the Law to Moses that is referenced in the first reading today clearly states the boundaries that the Chosen People were to keep. We think that it was this clarification of the Law, this working out what this means, happened particularly in the time of the exile to Babylon. When the Jews were living among other alien races, it was very easy for them to assimilate and be lost, to forget how they were Jews. But the keeping of dietary laws and other customs defined them as a people that allowed them to keep their identity and then return to the Promised Land. But remember, many Jews stayed in Babylon and continued to be good Jews by keeping the Law. Boundaries helped define the people and preserve who they were.

The Law came to be seen as a boundary on how to behave. As long as you kept the commands, you could live inside a safe space that pleased God. In one sense many of the boundaries made no sense, such as some of the eating requirements, but by keeping them you would know that God was not offended.

It’s a bit like our state boundaries – we all know that the lines are arbitrary, often done by decisions in London in Colonial days, and bear no relationship to what the geography means. I quite sympathise with those who argue that Far north Queensland has much more in common with the Northern Territory than southern Queensland. But I quiet agree that Tasmania has nothing in common with the rest of the states.

So, in the Gospel today what the Pharisees and Scribes were concerned about was a boundary issue. If Our Lord and the disciples were eating without washing their hands ritually clean, then they were living outside the safe place of religion. God would be displeased. Not because they may have had dirty hands, but because they were breaching the boundary on how to live a Jewish life. They were displeasing God, and would bring trouble on themselves and the community in which they lived.

But Our Lord moves the argument completely away. He does not justify what he is, or is not, doing. He attacks the very premise that religion is all about boundaries. He says that religion is all about intent, what we think, rather than what we do. Furthermore, he takes it away from a community perspective of a safe community keeping God’s boundaries, to the intent of an individual.

Now St Paul is going to develop this a lot in the next generation as he talks about Law and Spirit. We are a Spirit based religion, where each person has to make a relationship with God and decide what is right and wrong. That does not mean we are without the Law. In St Matthew Our Lord is quite clear that the Law continues. Our Lord said: “Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt. 5:19) So, if “fulfilment of the law” does not mean lawlessness, then what does it mean?

But our faith affirms that we have been freed from the condemnation of the law, not by remaining wilfully ignorant of it, but through faith in Jesus Christ, the sole righteous one. By this faith we are not condemned. By this Spirit we receive the grace to live lives of faith. Faith that keeps us true to a relationship with God that allows us to live.

Ridding ourselves of condemnation by ignoring God’s law, or pretending as though it doesn’t exist anymore, amounts to little more than a Pelagian attempt at declaring ourselves innocent. Such self-willed innocence ends in a kind of benevolent unbelief whereby Our Lord is viewed as a great man or a nice man, like Moses or Buddha, but just a man nonetheless – and quite unnecessary most days.

Now we are saved by faith in Our Lord Jesus, who “ransomed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.” (Gal 3:13) Our Lord Jesus, the Word incarnate, was condemned under the law; the Jewish leaders declared: “we have a law, and according to that law he ought to die.” (John 19:7) And he did die. The way to freedom from condemnation, therefore, is not pretending that the law doesn’t exist, but faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ “who has loved me and given himself up for me.” (Gal 2:20)

In Christ, we become adopted sons and daughters of God and our entrance into God’s family is through Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist. In these sacraments we are like Paul who said: “I have been crucified with Christ; yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me; insofar as I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God who has loved me and given himself up for me.” (Gal 2:19-20)

By these means, which were given to us by Christ while he walked on Earth, we are initiated into communion with the Trinity through full communion with the Church, which is the Body of Christ. Through this we receive the Spirit to guide us in right living.

But it all comes down to us, each one of us. There is no way we can live good lives by just living within boundaries. What we are challenged to do instead, is to live are lives where we judge the intents of our hearts, and see our failings and seek forgiveness. Christian life is not about boundaries, it is about living and understanding our failures, and finding instead God’s grace and power to stand up again and go forward. We die in Christ through our sins, but rise through faith in his resurrection, the breaking of all boundaries.

Mary MacKillop – 8 August, 2021

Today I am going to talk about an Australian Saint, Mary Mackillop. It’s her feast day today, the 8 August, and we don’t have many recognised Australian saints, and she deserves to be better known.

First, the background details. She was born in Fitzroy, Melbourne in 1842, nine years before Victoria became a separate state from NSW. Her family was poor, and her father not a good manager of family finances. She became a governess with her aunt and uncle at Penola at 18. There she became friends with the local priest, Fr Julian Tenison-Woods, who encouraged her to expand her teaching duties to establishing a school at Penola for poor children when 24. It was then she started wearing a habit and the order started under the supervision of Fr Tenison Woods. The school was soon teaching move than 50 children. She was joined by other women and they began to call themselves the sisters of St Joseph of the Sacred Heart, and opened a school at Grote Street in Adelaide by the invitation of the bishop, Lawrence Shiel.

Now, if you want to found a community, you need a rule, and this was worked out by Fr Tennison-Woods and herself. It emphasized poverty, a dependence on divine providence, no ownership of personal belongings, faith that God would provide and willingness to go where needed. By the end of 1867, ten other women had joined the Josephites, who adopted a plain brown religious habit. Due to the colour of their attire and their name, the Josephite sisters became known as the Brown Joeys.

By the end of 1869, more than 70 members of the Sisters of St Joseph were educating children at 21 schools in Adelaide and the country. MacKillop and her Josephites were also involved with an orphanage; neglected children; girls in danger; the aged poor; a reformatory (in Johnstown near Kapunda); and a home for the aged and incurably ill. Generally, the Josephite sisters were prepared to follow farmers, railway workers and miners into the isolated outback and live as they lived. By 1871, 130 sisters were working in more than 40 schools and charitable institutions across South Australia and Queensland.

However, rapid success always causes problems. The main problem was that the Joeys was not an independent order. Now, we all know from our own bishops that they like to control and Roman bishops are just the same. They didn’t trust what they often thought were uneducated women who were not part of an approved order, especially for teaching. So, the bishops wanted to control what was taught and whom was taught. In Brisbane the Sisters had to withdraw owing to the opposition of the bishop there, and most famously she then fell out with the bishop of Adelaide, a man called Shiel.

Part of the problem lay with Fr Tenison-Wood, who had become director of education for the diocese and fell out with the other clergy. Bishop Shiel demanded changes to the Order and MacKillop refused, so Shiel excommunicated her in 1871. This meant she was also homeless. Forbidden to have contact with anyone in the church, MacKillop was given the rent-free use of two houses in Flinders Street, Adelaide by prominent Jewish merchant Emanuel Solomon and was also sheltered by Jesuit priests. But Shiel did not live much longer and the excommunication was soon lifted.

But Mary MacKillop had also become wiser, and she realised she needed better support. So she travelled to Rome to get approval as an Order – this enabled her to resist the pressures of local bishops. The Rule was also changed to make it more practical by removing the requirement that they own nothing. To run schools and control them they needed to own them, and Rome saw that the Order had to change.

This change of Rule led to problems with Fr Tenison-Wood who had written the original rule. In part Mary had outgrown him, and saw more clearly the needs of her sisters. She had moved on to a much more practical way of living and running the one of the biggest teaching orders in Australia. She also had moved from the strict control with which he had initially run the Order.

Let me give you an example. Her order established an orphanage at Kincumber on the Central Coast, not far from where I grew up. She took the boat there for a visit and a boy who had been found stealing bread was brought to her. She asked him why he had been stealing and he said he was hungry. So instead of some pious statement about the evils of stealing, Mary told him to go to the kitchen and tell the kitchen that she said he needed more food. She knew what it was like to be poor and was practical.

In 1883 Mary moved to Sydney to run the Order, and although she did remain always in charge, she was the guiding light until her death on this day in 1909.

Her order was unusual at a time when women were still controlled tightly by church authorities. Firstly, the sisters lived in the community rather than in convents. Secondly the Order’s constitutions required administration by a superior-general chosen from within the congregation rather than by the bishop, which was uncommon in its day. However, the issues which caused friction were that the Josephites refused to accept government funding, and were unwilling to educate girls from more affluent families. Not all bishops accepted this.

In South Australia they were a great Order, with schools in many country towns including, Willunga, Willochra, Yarcowie, Mintaro, Auburn, Jamestown, Laura, Sevenhill, Quorn, Spalding, Georgetown, Robe, Pekina, Appila and several others.

I wanted to talk about Mary MacKillop for several reasons today. Her emphasise on education for the poor is very similar to what Fr Wise tried to achieve here later with our own parish school which was also free. Also, we know her. Many of you would know the schools or remember the Joeys. If not you knows the locations.

So often when we consider the saints, we think of them as not part of our world. Part of this comes from their locations in distant lands or distant times. But Mary MacKillop walked these streets that we walked. She had fights with bishops and tried to organise her sisters in a way she knew would work. She is very much one of us, not some distant figure.

For sainthood is not an unreachable state, but one that we are all called to be. We will have fights with authorities and friends, but we are all called to live lives that are filled with the presence of God.

I should also mention today another remarkable woman, who feast day is tomorrow, Mary Sumner, who founded the Mothers’ Union. She was the wife of an Archbishop of Canterbury and certainly outshone her husband. She died 100 years ago tomorrow.

The process to have MacKillop declared a saint began in the 1920s, and she was beatified in January 1995 by Pope John Paul II. Pope Benedict XVI prayed at her tomb during his visit to Sydney for World Youth Day 2008. She was canonised on 17 October 2010, during a public ceremony in St Peter’s Square at the Vatican. She is the first Australian to be recognised by the Catholic Church as a saint.

Filling the Void – 1 August 2021

Bread: it’s such a simple thing. Made usually from wheat it has formed part of our diets for millennia. We have evidence for the bread making going back 14,500 years, and the first wheat and barley started being cultivated 10,000 years ago. That’s a long association for us. We even have loaves of bread left over from Pompeii. They are not very edible now, but they still exist.

Bread is also what Jesus took and said was his body.

The gospel today is from John. We have just had Our Lord taking the five loaves and two fish to feed the five thousand, and now we move onto a discussion on how he is the true bread.

In John’s Gospel there is a long search by people for signs. They seek signs of the coming of the Messiah. There was a belief that the Messiah would come; and his coming would be seen by a variety of signs. Now not everyone was agreed about what the signs would be – some though the Messiah would be a military leader, but not all. The signs that were particularly looked for were the signs that had accompanied Moses, the Great Prophet, when he brought the people into the Promised Land. Now, during the forty years in the wilderness the people had ben fed by a heavenly bread called manna. Manna had been found each morning, and continued until they reached the Promised Land. So, the re-occurrence of manna would be a sign that pointed to Jesus being the Messiah.

This is the significance of the people being fed with bread: it pointed to the manna, in that it came from heaven and was not made.

There was also another bread that was important: what we often call the shrewbread, which was the bread that was put out in the Temple every day. It was the holy bread that the priests would eat, and twelve loaves were made each day, to represent the twelve tribes. Even more important at Passover the altar, that the bread was placed on, was lifted up and shown to the people as the face of God as part of the celebrations. So, there was a link between the presence of God and the Shrewbread of the Temple.

So, when Our Lord creates the bread for the feeding of the five thousand, he gives a sign that he is the Messiah.

But what happens next is that the crowd don’t understand the sign. They see the sign as one of abundance, of free food, and want to make him king to supply them forever. So Our Lord slips away with the disciples and crosses the lake.

Then comes the discussion about the nature of the bread. The giving of manna by Moses is raised, and Our Lord says the manna came not from Moses but from the Father, from God, Our Lord then says that he is the bread of life, the great “I am” showing the divine name, identifying himself with God in that statement.

In the statement that Jesus is the bread of life Our Lord sets up the basis of what will happen when he says at the Last Supper, that this bread is his body. Drawing on the image of manna and shrewbread he identifies himself with God and makes the bread his flesh.

Now, eating flesh is abhorrent. In fact, Our Lord’s insistence that people will need to eat his flesh and drink his blood would put people off – and Our Lord does this deliberately. There are several ways of saying eat in the Greek, but the word that Jesus uses to is the word that is used for animals eating – he is asking people to guzzle and munch his flesh and drink. It is deliberately affronting.

This is where we come to the heart of ancient worship – sacrifice, the killing of animals or even humans to appease the gods. Even the sacrifices of the Jewish Temple were to appease God. The meat was then eaten – in the Temple by the priests and Levites; in the pagan temples the meat often was then sold on in the market. In the ancient world most of the meat that people consumed was associated with sacrifices. But of course, sacrifice had to be done over and over again to continue to appease the gods.

Now think about the crowd: they see the sign of the feeding of the five thousand, but search Our Lord out for another sign. They see the signs but are not satisfied, they keep coming back for more signs. They have a craving that cannot be satisfied.

Now, if you are still with me, here we have two things that are never satisfied – sacrifices to appease the gods and the cravings of the crowd. Both cannot be satisfied.

Then Our Lord offers them fulfilment – they will come to him and not be hungry and they will believe and not thirst.

What Our Lord is offering is the end of the sacrificial system – God will be satisfied, and people can end their cravings. How – by belief in Our Lord Jesus who becomes the sacrifice himself and fulfils the needs.

Furthermore, this bread is special: usually what we eat becomes us. Eating this bread makes us part of the bread, Our Lord, the Bread of Life.

That’s the technical part. What it means for us as believers is that we have found a way to escape our endless need for something to fulfil our emptiness. This emptiness may manifest by trying to have more and more money, or possessions, or addictions in some way – for part of the weakness of being human is want more and more. But if we believe in Jesus as our God, he offers a way to escape this craving – believe in him. It is in the love of God we find more than enough, and we can end our mindless pursuit of fame, money, power, drugs or whatever. The deep need for sacrifice is to fulfil our cravings and emptiness. Our Lord gives himself – if we believe, we can be filled. The hole of emptiness is waiting, not for darkness, but the love of God. Our taking of the bread and wine here, at this altar, is part of the closing of the circle of sacrifice. The guzzling of flesh of sacrifice is over, it never filled the need. The emptiness remains – and only by taking God can we fill it. Our Lord is bread, but he wants to fill the hunger of our hearts and not just our stomachs. He wants to fill the gnawing, aching emptiness that we try to fill with lesser things, to satisfy the longing or the boredom that we use substances of all sorts to quiet, to put an end to the grasping, fretting, worrying about having enough of anything that will in the end possess us, rather than allowing ourselves to fall into the hands of the one for whom we were made.

The Gift of Benedict – 11 July

In the year of Our Lord 476 the last Roman emperor, the boy Romulus Augustulus, abdicated following his capture by the Vandal general and king, Odovacar, and was allowed to retire to a villa near Naples, and there disappeared to history. Thus ended the long reign of Rome of nearly a thousand years, and the imperial rule disappeared in Western Europe.

However, there was still an emperor in Byzantium, the great city that the first Christian emperor Constantine has built as a new capital, that still survives under the name of Istanbul. Even though the empire was divided, those of the Eastern part, in the Byzantine palaces of the Bosphoros, remembered their ancient heritage as Romans and yearned for a untied empire once more.

Odovacar was not to rule long, for Italy was then invaded by a new tribe, the Goths, who established a new kingdom. Rome the city continued, poorer than the great days of the Emperors, but substantially intact, with its great walls, monuments, the great aqueducts bringing fresh water from the hills to fill the baths built by long dead Ceasars. Within these walls were newer Churches, some founded by Constantine, others built in the ruins of closed temples. Yet in this city continued the semblance of the ancient Romans, speaking a Latin of sorts, maintaining a link to the time when Rome ruled the world.

It was to this city of Roma that a little boy Benedict was sent for schooling. He was born around 480 in a little town called Nursia, now called Norsia, an ancient town mentioned in the Aeneid as frigida Nursia, a place long known for its cold. He was probably in Rome when the statues to Odovacar were overthrown and the Goth Theodoric was proclaimed ruler of Italy.

He soon left there to pursue a holy life, away from the evil he saw. This was not uncommon, many saw only decay in the disintegration of the old rule of law under the barbarians. The Roman life was fading under the barbarian rulers and many saw only decay around them and sought for a purer life. Some tried to live as hermits, others tried to live together in communities. Benedict would live first as a hermit, settling at Subiaco, some little distance from Rome, where the Emperor Nero had once a stately villa, and whose waters were channelled into those great aqueducts that supplied Rome. However, his early efforts were difficult – he lived as a hermit and then was asked to lead a community, who found him too strict and tired to poison him. He left them and soon had twelve communities, so great was his fame, but soon found himself caught up again in the fights within the very people he tired to live with.

Yet his fame spread and soon the nobles of nearby Rome were bringing him their sons for education. Yet Benedict disliked the quarrels of the monks there and left (one story is that the monks tried to poison him), going south to a place halfway to Naples, where on a hill overlooking the great ancient highway, the Via Latina, he founded his new monastery at the place which would henceforth be known as Monte Cassino.

It was for this community that he wrote a rule to guide the monks on how to live a life together. It is a rule noted for its moderation. It is not proscriptive, it is merely an outline that helps any community wanting to follow a monastic life. Its core values are stability of residence, obedience to the abbot, and monastic zeal. Its very moderation makes it easy to live by, yet calls for a devotion and commitment to the way. The abbot would be elected by the monks for life, preserving the rule of democracy within its tradition while the rest of Europe made do with kings and conquerors. It would be endlessly adapted and adopted by other communities, and would provide the stability for those seeking a monastic life in Europe for centuries.

I’m a middle-aged man now, and St Benedict when he wrote his rule was middle aged. He had tried fervour and strong will and it hadn’t worked. It’s a rule of balance and adaption. It’s the wisdom of middle age. Yet there is a strength in it as well. He knew that living in community and working together was the way to help bring the Kingdom of God closer. So many of the middle-aged people I talk to hate their jobs. They are tired of office politics, endless reports, political correctness, and sheer boredom of so much work. Jobs that often demand long hours and no security. In part that is because the corporations of the world offer the false gods of wealth and power that are never going to satisfy human beings who yearn for God. Benedict gave a Rule that allowed flexibility so that people could realise their desire (what is your desire is what we are asked as we join the community, and we respond that we desire to offer ourselves to God).

Meanwhile the emperor Justinian sent the great general Belisarius to reconquer the lost territories of the West. He re-conquered north Africa and then a few years later in 534 marched up the Via Latina past Monte Cassino to take Rome. He would then be surrounded by the armies of the Goths for several years, during which time the aqueducts would be destroyed and much damage done. One attack on the citadel of Hadrian’s Tomb would only be repulsed by the stratagem of throwing all its statues down on the attacking Goths. The city would eventually fall and be retaken, but by the time of Benedict’s death in around 550, it would be a ghost city, largely deserted, its monuments ruined, its walls pulled down and rebuilt, with space enough inside to grow crops in the forum which had once teemed with life. The great baths that the aqueducts had supplied would remain empty and useless, to crumble into the past. Italy would be ruined, impoverished by the passing armies, its institutions destroyed. Rome the city had passed into history.

Yet Benedict and his rule would continue and provide the stability that the old empire lacked. His rule would become the foundation of all monastic institutions in Western Europe, so much though that within the start of a new Europe, the Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne would make inquiry if there was any other rule known throughout his empire. The monastic schools would flourish with the growth of the monasteries and preserve the institution of learning in the West. From these monasteries would grow again the schools and universities that we know.

For us Anglicans the influence has been profound. It was the Benedictine monks who came with St Augustine that helped to restore the faith to England. This was done by the special monastic missions, based around Churches called minsters, that were established in the pagan areas to bring the faith to the new tribes that would one day become the English nation. One of the inherited characteristics of that system would be a strong sense of parish, a reflection of the vow of stability that St Benedict marked in his Rule. That special devotion to the local parish is still a characteristic of Anglicans, and of our parish here with its great loyalty to our little church.

Our civilisation has a lot to thank Benedict and his rule for its moderation and wisdom that gave a way for the monastic way of life to flourish admidst the uncertainties and turmoil of the early middle ages.