> > Brothers: > Thanks Fr Charles for the sermon from the Brit.Col. Synod (A bastion of Canadian conservatism when compared to the Synod of New Westminister across the sound. The bishop is using the only modality open to him and I commend the sermon (too bad he *ordains* women). Growth in Faith thru good instructyion is a core/fundamental duty of the Church and of the apostolic office of Bishop. May we all be busy catechising. If more of our sermons were 'adult confirmation lectures' we'd see more of that Nashville 'action'. Blessings. GDVW+ > I suspect from the viewpoint of urbane Anglicans in London or New York > Canadian Bishop Williams might be viewed as a John the Baptist > redivivus, an anachronism. > > Below are snippets of his sermon at the Synod of the Diocese of British > Columbia, June 8, 2002. > > It is sad that affairs have degenerated to the point in the Church in > Canada that such a sermon has to be presented in an apologetic style. > The good Bishop is not proclaiming the Gospel in a secular university > but in synod. His comments indicate he does not expect it to be well > received or universally accepted. > > The entire sermon may be found at > http://www.caledonia.anglican.org/BsermonJune082002.htm> > > His take on the relevance of increasing dialogue as ameans of seetling > disputes when there are fundamental differences between people is right > on. As a loud, nasty Nashville song says "we need a little less talk > and a lot more action." > > Charles > --------------------------------------------------------- > > BISHOP WILLIAM'S SERMON > SYNOD OF THE DIOCESE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA > VICTORIA, BC, JUNE 8TH, 2002 > > CREED OR CHAOS? > > When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; > for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and > he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify > me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that > the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what > is mine and declare it to you. -John 16:13-15 > <snip> > > I also am speaking to you today from the perspective of a diocese that > is <snip> at a cross roads in terms of its financial future and the > models of ministry that are used. It is a place where we are wrestling > to discern the Truth, and where the Spirit of truth is leading us. > > The Gospel for this opening service of synod talks about the sending of > the Spirit of Truth to guide the disciples into all truth. > > There is probably no more challenging question for our church today than > the one that Pilate asked, perhaps rhetorically, when he stood in > judgment over Jesus: “What is truth?” > > And herein lies … the parallel to our modern situation: Jesus/God saying > “There is truth”, and Pilate, the sophisticated, educated secular > ruler, suggesting that truth isn’t really an absolute, and isn’t really > relevant to the matter before him. > <snip> > In the OT, truth is a quality of God. God is a God of truth. > > Truth here means, essentially, reliability, dependableness. . . > “faithfulness”. It is a fact or state that is unalterable and has to be > accepted. > > Pilate’s question is challenging because, at this time in our history, > it has become the very point of contact between our faith and the world > in which we live. What is Truth? > <snip> > So in dispute mediation, it has become fashionable to suggest that there > is an increasing need for “dialogue”. The theory is that if the source > of the problem is a lack of understanding, then truth can be revealed, > and agreement attained, through increased dialogue and communication. > > This approach is sound. IF the problem is grounded in misunderstanding. > > But this approach is not at all helpful, and can actually worsen things, > when it is applied in situations where the source of disagreement is > not routed in poor communication, where there is a perfectly clear > understanding by parties of one another’s positions. When the root of > the problem is an actual disagreement, then dialogue to increase > understanding can simply lead people to believe they are not being > heard or respected. They can end up feeling manipulated and angry. > > Curiously, the trend in recent decades has been for the church not to > engage in much dialogue with society, let alone to make any claims > about truth. In the dispute between secular and sacred, it seems as if > the dialogue has become a one way monologue, with society doing the > talking. > > The new morality, the notion of pluriform truths, the concept of the end > of history- these are concepts that arise from secular, humanistic > based philosophies that are very politically correct in polite society. > The question for us is, are they true (faithful) to the gospel? Are > they true to Jesus teaching? > > The passage from today’s gospel is, to be quite blunt, incredibly > politically incorrect. > > It suggests that somehow, this Jesus, has a corner on truth, that He > understands the mind of God. It suggests that, through the action of the > Holy Spirit, those who follow him faithfully (by which I think is meant > with a depth of understanding only possible through rigorous and > regular prayer, and study of his teaching), will be lead into truth. > > These are dangerous claims . . . But does this mean they are untrue? > <snip> > As the stakes rise, the tendency is to see less and less of the grey > areas on a question, and more and more of the black and white areas. > <snip> > In all of this, we Christians, have to deal with this rather difficult > passage of Jesus. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into > all the truth. > > How much easier life would be if the Spirit did this by way of an > e-mail, or a television news-spot. “I received and e-mail from God > today. He says that this is the truth about this situation…” Neat, > clean, unambiguous. > > And how utterly futile it would be to most of the world. > > For if God were to operate in such a manner, we would have to make some > hard decisions. Obey or disobey? Follow His wishes, or ignore them? > Challenge His wisdom, of defer to it? > > In short, we would struggle through the often difficult business of > being a people of faith just as the Hebrews did throughout the history > of the Old Testament, and as have people since the Jesus walked amongst > us. > <snip> > > I would argue that IT IS WORSE THAN USELESS for us to talk about trying > to discern the guidance of the Spirit unless we are prepared to learn > the fundamentals of Christian theology. > > <snip> It is fatal to suppose that Christianity is only a mode of > feeling; it is vitally necessary to insist that it is first and > foremost a rational explanation of the universe. It is hopeless to > offer Christianity as a vaguely idealistic aspiration of a simple and > consoling kind. > > It is, on the contrary, a hard, tough, exacting, and complex doctrine, > steeped in a drastic and uncompromising realism. > > And it is fatal to imagine that everybody knows quite well what > Christianity is and needs only a little encouragement to practice it. > > The reality is that it took about three years of very intensive prayer, > study of scripture, and discussion for Jesus to prepare his disciples > for their ministry – they were the first Christians and so become a > model for us. > > St. Paul was not someone who, having been “slain in the spirit” suddenly > became an eloquent evangelist. He brought to the conversion experience > years of rigorous training and study of the scriptures and the law as a > Pharisee. > > So, if we are serious . . .we must become learned in the scriptures and > teaching of God. And we must be learned in prayer. > > And yet this poses a peculiar challenge in much of the modern church > > <snip> > > Invariably, quoting the Bible seems to lead to dismissive charges of > being a fundamentalist. And that carries the stigma of being > ill-educated and unreasoning. Or cold hearted and irrelevant. > > <snip> > If we wish to discern truth, we cannot perpetuate the mild, gentle-Jesus > sentimentality with vaguely humanistic ethics that dominate modern > North American culture without any serious understanding of the > teachings of Jesus. > > Finally, if we wish to be open to the leadings of the spirit of truth… > we must be prepared to challenge people to go beyond …simplistic > notions of why the church should (a) never change or (b) keep changing > so as to be relevant to young folk, and instead grapple with the hard > but critical challenge of how we should do evangelism in the modern > world. > > Theologically, this country is in a state of utter chaos, established in > the name of religious toleration, and rapidly degenerating into the > flight from reason and the death of hope. > > <Snip> > > This is the Church's opportunity, if she chooses to take it. > > As far as the people's readiness to listen goes, the Church has not been > in so strong a position for at least two centuries. The rival > philosophies of humanism, enlightened self-interest, and technological > progress have broken down badly. > > Seizing this opportunity to go into the world and spread the gospel will > not be done by a retreat into personal piety or by mere exhortation to > prayer. And it will not be accomplished by abandoning any claim to the > truths of the Gospel. > > <snip> > However unpopular I may make myself, I suggest that the reason why the > churches are discredited today is not that they are too bigoted about > heology, but that they have run away from theology. > > <snip> > > I would like to suggest that, if we really want to carry out the Great > Commission (to spread the Gospel), we must teach Christianity. And that > is absolutely impossible without teaching Christian dogma. And this > requires that we make some decisions regarding what we understand is, > and is not, true. <snip> > > The central dogma of the Incarnation is that by which relevance stands > or falls. If Christ were only man, then he is entirely irrelevant to > any thought about God; if he is only God, then he is entirely > irrelevant to any experience of human life. > > Teachers and preachers must help people understand that dogmas are not a > set of arbitrary regulations invented a priori by a committee of > theologians enjoying a round of dialectical wrestling. > > Most of them were hammered out under pressure of urgent practical > necessity …. > > I believe it is a serious mistake to present Christianity as something > charming and optional with no offense in it. Christ offended all kinds > of people. It is absurd to expect that the doctrine of his person can > be presented as to offend nobody. We cannot ignore the fact that gentle > Jesus, meek and mild, was so hard in his opinions and so inflammatory > in his language that he was thrown out of church, stoned, hunted from > place to place, and finally crucified as a firebrand and a public > danger. > > Whatever his peace was, it was not the peace of an amiable indifference; > and he said in so many words that what he brought with him was fire and > sword. <snip>. > > At the risk of stating the obvious, I suggest that if we, the Church, > are to make any impression on the modern mind she will have to preach > Christ and the cross. We will have to proclaim the Truth. > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus > > > -- > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to > <faithandlife-unsubscribe@...> ----------------------------------------- This email was sent using FREE Catholic Online Webmail. Please tell your family, friends and children about COL Webmail! http://webmail.catholic.org/