Tag Archives: free will

Chapter 43: late-comers to the Divine Office and meals

cropped-color-calgary-header-3

Immediately upon hearing the signal for the Divine Office, all work must cease.

What’s wrong with being late?

When I was at college we had a long term guest in the community from Lesotho (near South Africa). He was a wonderful man of God and it was a privilege to get to know him over the six months he was with us. He had one cultural tendency which is famous in this country; ‘African timing’. This was particularly evident at Morning Prayer when, fifteen minutes into a twenty-twenty five minute Office, in he would walk and take his usual place by the door.

He was once called up on this trait, to which he responded,

I pray everywhere and will join you when I join you.

There’s a few of things happening in this response which I would like to unpack in relation to this week’s chapter in the Rule of St. Benedict: how lateness can be interpreted, the reason why there are set times for prayer and why promptness is essential, so let’s take them one at a time.

On our wedding day, my father in law spoke about my wife’s lateness; she was born two weeks later than her due date and, my father in law commented,

She’s been late ever since!

Her brother, one of my best friends, is just the same and I’ve shaped my life around this different timing. At my less patient and understanding times I have responded to their lateness in, I suspect, a very natural way; I have found myself feeling unimportant to them. Why are they late? What has happened which has stopped them from getting here? Whatever it is must be more important than meeting me. When I discover that it is curling hair (that’s my wife and not my brother in law!) or cleaning a bedroom you can feel like a second thought. It’s as if they’d rather be doing something else than meeting me or being with me.

Of course they don’t see it this way and it is not true that they’d rather be vacuuming a house than making the allotted time for meeting me but when you’re the one sat twiddling your thumbs, unable to start something in case you get interrupted, you can feel powerless to their ‘whims’. This is the problem with lateness: it is a power play. Lateness creates an imbalance in a relationship because one person refuses to be changed by the desire of another whilst the second party has committed and become beholden to the first.

My Lesotho friend, without knowing it, insulted the rest of the community by communicating a lack of commitment to us, choosing, rather to prioritise his own desires above ours.

Now, you may be thinking to yourself,

But the set times of Morning Prayer are set, not by the community but by tradition and if it doesn’t work for a community then it should change. That time isn’t holier than other times!

It is true that many people ask for times for prayers and other community activities to change to suit the changing preferences of the current members but this opens up the second issue, the reason why there are set times for prayer.

Morning Prayer is not about us. Morning Prayer is not the time we arrange to suit us, it is a time that demands us to prioritise God over and above everything else. It may seem at times to be arbitrary but it trains us to be disciplined in our relationship with God. It may challenge some of us whose view of God is of a Being whose love for us accept everything we are and do and wouldn’t change us for the world. Unfortunately God demands everything of us and wants our commitment to Him because our relationship with Him is the thing which will change us and ultimately save us.

It may seem obvious to many to say this but, prayer is not about us turning to God and bending His will to get our way. Krish Kandiah in his latest post about the new Star Wars trailer, comments,

To be honest too many people try to use prayer in the same way that the Jedi and the Sith use the force. People often say prayer is powerful. But I know that in war time both sides will often be praying for completely opposite things. So unlike the force a Christian understanding of prayer puts all the power in God’s hands not in the person praying, nor in prayer itself but in God. Prayer is a means of speaking to God inviting him into a situation that his will is done. We pray asking not that some impersonal force is wielded by us, but rather we ask that God our heavenly father intervenes in our situation and we place ourselves at his disposal (Krish Kandiah, “5 things to learn from the force awakens trailer”, November 28 2014, http://www.krishk.com/2014/11/5-things-to-learn-from-the-force-awakens-trailer/

Morning Prayer, along with the other times of set prayer, are there to establish a rhythm to change how we structure our day, not around our own desires but around God’s. This is not about arbitrarily doing the will of an institution it is about a counter cultural denial of self and offering ourselves to the disposal of God.

In the communal life we should no longer consider ourselves doing anything alone but in corporation with others. This is particularly true in prayer. Yes, there is a need for private prayer but the set times of prayer are as much about placing our lives, as a community, into the will of God as our individual lives into it. We have, by our commitment to the community, begun the process of disposing of our own wills to the community which, to save it from being a cult, together hands it continually over to the will of God in prayer and study.

My African brother, despite admitting to always praying failed to see the significance of the communal aspect our prayers together. This leads to the third and final aspect to unpack about lateness to prayer, why promptness is essential.

Promptness in itself is not essential but it is rather about a deeper thing that promptness communicates: obedience. Terrence Kardong writes,

The circumstances of ancient life made punctuality quite a different thing than it does for us today. There were no mechanical clocks to keep an eye on, much less digital devices to regulate life down to the second. In the pretechnological age, life was lived by the rhythm of the sun, which changed from season to season. RB 47.1 indicates that the monastic horarium is personally controlled by the abbot, and so a response to the signal is not an exercise in the virtue of promptness but in obedience. Thus it is not entirely correct to characterize Benedict as someone interested in timetables and efficiency; he is more concerned about wholehearted willingness to answer the call of God in the moment. (Terrence Kardong, ‘Benedict’s Rule: A Translation and Commentary’ (Minnesota: The Order of St Benedict, Inc., 1996) p.353)

We see again and again in the Rule of St. Benedict that the heart of discipleship is obedience. The Christian community should be one that lives out the transformative life in the Spirit of the servant hearted Son of God, who looked to the will of his Father. We, like the first disciples, are called immediately to drop our lives, controlled by our vision and understanding, and follow Christ, obediently.

Reflection

Obedience is a dirty concept in our increasingly liberal, anti-authoritarian culture. Those in positions of responsibility have betrayed our trust and those who are meant to be servants have gained power and use it unflinchingly to pursue their own wants and needs. The solution is not to create new sticking plaster remedies but to look to the insights and wisdom of tradition.

Lord Singh of Wimbledon, in a recent debate on the place of religion in society, made this helpful point,

Religious teachings are essentially preventive. Without such teachings we tend to look to sticking-plaster solutions. Today, the response to domestic violence is to build more refuges. The response to drunken and loutish behaviour is, “Let’s extend licensing hours”; to rising drugs problems, “Let’s legalise the use of drugs”; and, to an increasing number of people in prisons, “Let’s build more prisons”. Let us extend this line of thinking to the behaviour of little junior who greets visitors to the house by kicking them in the shins. Solution: issue said visitors with shin pads as they enter the front door.

He went on to suggest,

…we have thrown our religious instructions to one side in constructing remedies to social problems that ignore deeper issues of right, wrong and responsibility—the essence of religious teachings.

God created the Church, the community of disciples, as a means of protecting and growing His people. There are always criticisms that can be made of the Church, globally, denominationally, nationally and locally and it is not perfect (it will always be penultimate until the establishing of the Kingdom of God on Earth) but the solution is not to leave and start again. It is easy to criticise the Church as being irrelevant, petty or, at worse, abusive but for me the Church is really the people and that includes me as a member. The Church changes when we change and the greatest but most costly change is our obedience to one God and to one another. We must learn afresh what it means to commit to life in community.

A brief comment to some close to me who are currently debating the many failings of the Church:
The Church is a community of disciples who obey the call of God on their life. That call is to be daily renewed and transformed into the likeness of Christ who has lived the life which brings true freedom. We all, however, continually fail at this but we have committed to the work of transformation. This work is ongoing and can only be done in the cut and thrust of true relationship and godly society with others. The pain and heartache of these relationships require a commitment which holds us, sometimes imprisons us, to stay and deal with the conflict. It is too easy to leave and start again, forming a community around what we find helpful and befitting – it is not your Church it is God’s and He has called you to serve and not to be served. It is too easy to blame others for our inability to connect but the truth is we all must learn what obedience beyond our own preference and desires looks and feels like.

How quickly do we drop our lives and what we want to respond wholeheartedly to the call of God, however undesirable it is? Are we arriving late for God and assuming we are more important? Do we relegate God to following us round and serving our whims rather than the other way round?

Father God, accept my heartfelt apology for the many times I turn to you assuming you to serve me and my will rather than disposing myself upon your perfect and redeeming will. Correct in me my wayward heart and form to be a more obedient servant to you and your Kingdom.

Come, Lord Jesus.

Chapter 41: dining hours

cropped-color-calgary-header-3

”Let the abbot temper and dispose all so that souls may be saved and the brothers’ work may be performed without reason for complaining”

Who is in control?

It has begun to feel quite odd to spend so much time outlining and structuring times of eating for a community. With our modern Western relationship with food, particularly in a place of affluence, having control over someone’s eating habits is highly parental and is seen as slightly oppressive. There is a part of us that reacts to this seeming misuse of power on the part of the abbot when it comes to our basic desire to eat and drink but is this not a challenge to our culture?

Our culture has an issue with eating; we either eat too much or too little. Our relationship with food is out of balance and it seems many of us cannot control our eating patterns.

The most accurate figures we are aware of are those from the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. These suggest that 1.6 million people in the UK are affected by an eating disorder, of which around 11% are male. However, more recent research from the NHS information centre showed that up to 6.4% of adults displayed signs of an eating disorder (Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey, 2007). This survey also showed that a quarter of those showing signs of an eating disorder were male, a figure much higher than previous studies had suggested.
It is estimated that of those with eating disorders:

10% of sufferers are anorexic,

40% are bulimic, and

the rest fall into the EDNOS category, including those with binge eating disorder.

(from the B-eat website, “Facts and Figures”, 11th November 2014, http://www.b-eat.co.uk/about-beat/media-centre/facts-and-figures/)

We are a society who lacks control. We desire freedom but we don’t know how to handle it. This is yet another cost of the individualistic culture, where the self is raised to god-like status to be satisfied and indulged.

Discipline, in this context, then, becomes counter-cultural. Obedience to an authority outside of the self is not only a challenge but a threat to the basis of the whole world-view. That’s why, nestled in the text about amount and times of eating, there’s a simple statement about the abbot saving souls because this is about more than just food; this is about our issues with control.

“But wait,” I hear you cry, “Is this prison-like system of withholding food the solution? Won’t we, by handing over decisions as to when and what we eat to another, risk abuse of that power?”

Yes.

The risk is big and uncomfortable and I’m sure that abuse has happened throughout the long history of the Benedictine Rule but its a risk still worth making because the other thing this brings up for us is the issue over relationship and covenant.

We no longer appreciate the depth of relationships beyond the pornographic. I deliberately use this evocative word to describe our attitude to each other. I see many of us (and I am very much included) making connections with others in controlled and calculated ways. We weigh up the pros and cons of a potential relationship, we romanticise or functionalise indiscriminately in the way we select prospective friends or partners. This places a distance between us and others and is done in order that we remain self-autonomous which is the ideal of our culture. Others are objects to be observed and handled; we remain the only subject.

I found an article that explores, what Sam Black calls, ‘The Porn Circuit’. He suggests that when we think about doing something stimulating our brain releases dopamine which gives us a sense of craving as well as a sharp focus to remember where we can access the stimulation. As well as dopamine the brain releases norepinephrine which is a form of adrenaline giving us a sense of expectation and preparation for stimulation. Sexual stimulation releases oxytocin and vasopressin which are hormones that help to secure pair bonding and intimacy with another by cataloguing this pleasurable experience with a particular object. Afterwards the body then releases endorphins and serotonin creating an all round feeling of elation. With each experience of euphoria our brains begin to associate the craving with the specific source of that craving.

Porn, this article suggests, ‘short circuit the system’.

Multiple problems happen when porn is used. First, instead of forming a deep connection to a person, your brain ends up “bonding” to a pornographic experience. Your brain remembers where the sexual high was experienced, and each time you desire sexual stimulation, you feel a sharp sense of focus: I’ve got to go back to the porn.

Our culture, I think, is doing something similar. In order to achieve individual, self autonomous people a culture must minimise the importance of pair-bonding and objectify the world around them: everything can be sold and bought and possessed. In this situation if that ‘object’ fails to create craving and release of hormones then we discard it and look for a bigger/better object. By asserting to ourselves that we are the only subject everything else becomes object and an emotional distance is created.

These hormonal releases in our brains are able to be controlled if we train our brain. This requires discipline but we understand discipline as severe and unnecessary so we rely on controlling them ourselves through medical intervention or we refuse to acknowledge a problem with being controlled by our hormones. Authority is placed internally and this means we are able to trick ourselves into thinking we’re in control but we’re clearly not. When we acknowledge our lack of control this releases similar hormones and we get caught in addictive and abusive behaviours.

There is similar chemical patterns in the eating of food. It is important to eat and so our brain releases hormones to ensure we are able to feed our bodies. There is nothing un-healthy about that. We do, however, unconsciously attribute the satisfaction of eating with particular emotional states which shouldn’t go together such as isolation and this is where we get ‘comfort eating’ from.

In the light of these brief, layman’s reflection on cultural impact on our brains, this outlining of the distribution of food sets up, for me, a training to ‘apply our heart (inner part) unto wisdom’ (Psalm 90:12) What the Rule of St. Benedict is doing by placing control in the hands of the abbot is establishing a culture of interdependence where covenant relationships can be formed over peaceful existence and not attach pleasure with food. In our day, this is radically counter-cultural and, in my mind, a solution to the hormonally charged pattern of life offered by the individualistic culture of the West.

Reflection

Where, in the context of a congregation, are we challenging our need for personal control? Where are the opportunities to deny ourselves satisfaction of cravings? Where are we opening ourselves to healthy pair-bondings which will sustain and bring life? Where is the questioning of desire and a training in discipline?

In this section of the Rule of St. Benedict, as we reflect on very practical issues of life, I am continually reminded of the shared roots to the words ‘discipleship’ and ‘discipline’. To be a disciple is to go through a process of discipling, correction of thoughts and behaviours and instructions as to a new way of life. We are to reform and transform which will require a de-construction of our mind; or as Paul says it,

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12:2)

The image of the Body of Christ must be deeply re-thought. We must talk more about how the Spirit challenges us to break down our self-autonomy and become united with others in risk and trust. Passages like 1 Corinthians 12 must be re-focussed away from the objects (spiritual gifts) and back onto the subject (the one Spirit) and our identity must not be connected with the object (the possible ministry/calling) but with the subject (the one Spirit). In this space we are able to fully embrace the Lord’s yoke as he teaches us in the ways of discipleship.

Gracious God, you came to lead us into new life; a life different from the patterns of this world. You came to make disciples to go into all the world as a sign of your kingdom. You broke down self-built, self-actualising, self-centred, selves and created one Body by your Spirit. Teach us, discipline us that we may be saved from ourselves and shaped into the likeness of your Son, Jesus Christ.

Come, Lord Jesus

Chapter 33: private ownership by monks

cropped-color-calgary-header-3

The vice of private ownership must be uprooted from the monastery.

What do I do with all my stuff?

If you read this chapter to anyone outside the Christian church (and many within it too) they’d be deeply concerned about the welfare of the monks in a monastery and would think that they were being brainwashed. I’d go so far as to say that if someone lived out this uprooting then people would intervene and think that the institution was some sort of cult. Most people want to take the benefits of monastic spirituality but few want to pay the price. I am guilty of this feeling as much as any.

This week Archbishop Justin Welby publicly invited anyone between the ages of 20-35 to join a monastic community in Lambeth Palace. This is about committing one year of your life to living in prayer and community. I was immediately grabbed by the idea. As you will know if you read my review of Parish Monasticism that my wife and I feel increasingly called to monastic life in some form. As I have prayed about this opportunity for Sarah and I to go to Lambeth for a year I have been struck by concerns that seem to be pushing themselves to the front of my mind; reasons why it might not be the right thing to do.

One of them is,

What would we do with all our stuff?

Despite all my talk about the benefits of monasticism for the promotion of discipleship amongst Christians I have never had to live out that call of poverty. I have always justified my possessions of things as being needing them for God’s glory but I’ve never been tested on that because I live in a culture that don’t expect me to get rid of things I like (in fact it’s a culture that demands that I don’t!) If Sarah and I had to downsize to one room which already had a bed and wardrobe, etc. What would we do with all our furniture that we’ve paid money for? Surely God doesn’t want us to give them away! What would I do with all my kitchen stuff? After our year Sarah and I would need to start all over again, collecting things to cook and eat with. We need them!

What about my books?!!!!!!!!

I know when God is challenging me, I don’t like it but I know when he’s doing it! In my prayer time I feel that if God is calling us to this year in Anselm’s Community then God is wanting me to look at my ‘need’ for my stuff.

My mum has saying,

It’s only stuff!

I really admire how God has worked in her life to get her to a place where that rings true but he hasn’t walked that with me yet. I don’t look forward to the day when he does it but I pray that he will give me no option!

I can hear the voices of friends and some of you, my dear readers, as we try to soften the call to get rid of all I own and give to the poor; I’ve heard it thousands of times and I’ve said it myself to others,

It’s more about your attitude to stuff rather than the stuff itself.

The problem with this statement is not that it’s not true but that it is rarely tested. We hear that get out and we persuade ourselves that we have a healthy attitude towards our stuff and that that means we get to keep them. I can’t seem to shake that Jesus meant what he said.

If someone came and asked me to give them all my books I would probable, if I’m honest, tell them nicely that I couldn’t do it but they’re more than welcome to use them. When I think about living in community I imagine my books becoming common property, available to anyone who lives in the house/monastery but I would still have a share in them. St. Benedict is calling the monks to not even have a share in property.

There is a reason why this is so difficult for our culture; it cuts to the very heart of our sickness. Individual will being exalted above communal need and consumerism being the foundation of our self-identity. We all have our stories we tell ourselves as to how we are not impacted by them but we are sick and we need help. I feel monasticism is part of the cure for our world and it is increasingly urgent to enact before we lose the power of the gospel out of fear of being ‘not relevant’ or ‘cultural acceptable’.

cropped-color-calgary-header-3

The wisdom of Dietrich Bonhoeffer

I’m not always a fan of just quoting long lengths of internet sites (particularly not Wikipedia) but I’ve been re-reading Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Cost of Discipleship which is, like all his writings, hard hitting and deeply encouraging. As I can’t just quote the whole book I do think this summary is excellent. Here it is in its entirety:

One of the most quoted parts of the book deals with the distinction which Bonhoeffer makes between “cheap” and “costly” grace. But what is “cheap” grace? In Bonhoeffer’s words:

“cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline. Communion without confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ.”

Or, even more clearly, it is to hear the gospel preached as follows: “Of course you have sinned, but now everything is forgiven, so you can stay as you are and enjoy the consolations of forgiveness.” The main defect of such a proclamation is that it contains no demand for discipleship. In contrast to this is costly grace:

“costly grace confronts us as a gracious call to follow Jesus, it comes as a word of forgiveness to the broken spirit and the contrite heart. It is costly because it compels a man to submit to the yoke of Christ and follow him; it is grace because Jesus says: “My yoke is easy and my burden is light.””

Bonhoeffer argues that as Christianity spread, the Church became more “secularised”, accommodating the demands of obedience to Jesus to the requirements of society. In this way,

“the world was Christianised, and grace became its common property.”

But the hazard of this was that the gospel was cheapened, and obedience to the living Christ was gradually lost beneath formula and ritual, so that in the end, grace could literally be sold for monetary gain.

But all the time, within the church, there had been a living protest against this process: the monastic movement. This served as a “place where the older vision was kept alive.” Unfortunately, “monasticism was represented as an individual achievement which the mass of the laity could not be expected to emulate”; the commandments of Jesus were limited to “a restricted group of specialists” and a double standard arose: “a maximum and a minimum standard of church obedience.” Why was this dangerous? Bonhoeffer points out that whenever the church was accused of being too worldly, it could always point to monasticism as “the opportunity of a higher standard within the fold – and thus justify the other possibility of a lower standard for others.” So the monastic movement, instead of serving as a pointer for all Christians, became a justification for the status quo.

Bonhoeffer remarks how this was rectified by Luther at the Reformation, when he brought Christianity “out of the cloister”. However, he thinks that subsequent generations have again cheapened the preaching of the forgiveness of sins, and this has seriously weakened the church:

“The price we are having to pay today in the shape of the collapse of the organised church is only the inevitable consequence of our policy of making grace available to all at too low a cost. We gave away the word and sacraments wholesale, we baptised, confirmed, and absolved a whole nation without condition. Our humanitarian sentiment made us give that which was holy to the scornful and unbelieving… But the call to follow Jesus in the narrow way was hardly ever heard.”

Reflection

There’s not much more I can add to that. Re-read those words at the end,

The price we are having to pay today in the shape of the collapse of the organised church is only the inevitable consequence of our policy of making grace available to all at too low a cost. We gave away the word and sacraments wholesale, we baptised, confirmed, and absolved a whole nation without condition. Our humanitarian sentiment made us give that which was holy to the scornful and unbelieving… But the call to follow Jesus in the narrow way was hardly ever heard.

Many will say that he was speaking specifically to Nazi Germany but I say we too quickly soften nd justify that which is painful to hear.

I know what I need to pray through and start working on in my discipleship and it is this challenging call to start giving away my stuff to prove to myself alone that I have the right attitude to stuff… I might have to build up to giving away books!

Lord Jesus Christ, your call on our lives is complete and unwavering. You demand obedience because a softened version of discipleship doesn’t change the world. Grant to us the strength and help you promised in your Holy Spirit and lead us always in your path.

Come, Lord Jesus.

Chapter 32: property and utensils

cropped-color-calgary-header-3

No one shall treat monastic property carelessly or in a slipshod manner.

How do we care for creation?

In the previous chapter the cellarer is instructed to

…think of all the monastery’s property as if they were sacred chalices.

It is with this still ringing in our ear that we turn to consider all the monastery’s care for the material objects of life. Esther de Waal also comments,

At the end of chapter 4, which looked at the tools of good works, we were told that when we have used them without ceasing, day and night, and handled them faithfully, we hand them over and we receive our reward. Now we see how the ordinary tools of daily life are to be handled in the same way. (Esther de Waal, A Life Giving Way: a commentary on the rule of St Benedict (London: Continuum, 1995) p. 108)

What does a vow of poverty truly look like in a wealthy nation? Is our understanding of poverty relative to neighbours? I would want to suggest that a vow of poverty is to be understood as a vow of simplicity (this idea will be developed next week as we look at personal property amongst the monks.) For now it is worth reflecting on our attitude to property, to the material things of our own lives.

It has been said that we live in a ‘throw away society’; if something isn’t ‘perfect’ or working to our standards we discard it (usually to landfill!) We extend this mentality to our relationships as we increasingly see one another as purely material beings more and more akin to the objects we own and possess. This is, for me, another symptom of the sickness of where we find ourselves at this time. This is why, I suggest, we are happy with the rise of divorce and separation, the increased need for adoption and fostering, the continual need of prostitution, the medias use of the human form to sell products and the discussions over Assisted Dying Bill. As we live out the philosophy of individualism and relativism we see this objectifying of humanity; others are possessions to be treated in the same way as we treat a family heirloom or an electronic device.

The solution to this problem is not to just try and categorise what to objectify and what not to, for there is a chance we begin to divide up who should be treated as holy and who shouldn’t be but to sanctify all of creation. All things are to be treated with respect and care.

Before we run off in a certain direction and begin to fall into the error of pantheism, let me put up some guidance as to the practicalities. I am not suggesting that we worship other human beings or the material things of this world; we worship only the creator and not the creation. To name something as ‘holy’ is to draw it out from the rest of the world. When you handle something that is holy you understand that God cares for this and was part of its creation and it is a gift for you to enjoy. Like all of God’s gifts they are not to be possessed by you but by God who shares with you (again, more of this next week!)

It is the basic understanding that all creation, whether re-formed by humanity or organically grown in nature, is a gift from God to be used by us that leads us to treat all things as someone else’s property: God’s. If you go to someone’s house and you are a guest and you happen to break a mug there should be a pang of guilt or sadness for what you have broken is a possession of someone else. It is the concern of breaking something that is not yours that helps us to care for those objects. The same should be true in creation. The fear should not cripple us to not touch anything out of concern that we may break it but is there purely to guard us against the ‘slipshod’ manner of thinking everything is replaceable; this starts with objects and should extend to relationships… no relationship is replaceable!

cropped-color-calgary-header-3

Possession

I am aware that this chapter and the next one may have a lot of overlap in terms of reflection but I want to add to this reflection on why we should handle objects with care something about ‘possession’.

To have possession of something is to be master of it; this is the same of objects and people. This is where the topic of spiritual possession enters our life. Few of us would think of ourselves as slaves and most of us would resist being told that we submit to another out of fear of losing our freedom. Slavery is, despite the Abolition Bill being past centuries ago, alive and kicking and we’re made aware of this in situations of prostitution, immigration violations, underpaid workforce, etc. There is another slavery that we’d rather not talk about because most of us are victims of it: the slavery to an ideology/philosophy. Commercialisation has made us slaves to the market and to materialism which erodes our relationships and hinders us from flourishing. I have, in the past, referred to this as an addiction and that is the power of our slave drivers.

In the Christian tradition there is a paradox which leads us to true freedom; in order to be free we must become slaves of Christ (1 Corinthians 7:22). We are to be possessed by Christ; he is the one who directs us and holds us. This should be a spiritual possession of his character like we think of a demon possessing a human being.

I was asked this week about demon possession, whether I believed it was a real and distinct thing from mental health issues. My answer is a clear, ‘yes’. I do not agree that all demon possessions in the gospel account are to be thought of as ‘mental health issues’. Jesus clearly talks of demons and personifies them. Jesus commands us to go and ‘cast out demons’ (e.g. Mark 16:17) and that is separate from healing. With that in mind I understand the complications of discerning which is which. Maybe we could begin talking about possession in a broader sense to help us connect with these passages in the gospels. What might it look like to stand and fight against the possession of person who has an addiction which controls them (and that includes addiction to buying certain products or of living a certain lifestyle)? It might mean that we bring Ephesians 6:10-12 to mind,

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his power. Put on the whole armour of God, so that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

What I’m suggesting is that St. Benedict is able to see sacred and mundane as synonymous due to his acceptance that there is a spiritual aspect to our reality and that the way to flourish in one realm is to flourish in the other. We’d do well to begin to encourage our communities to understand this and to pray for our true freedom by obeying the call of Christ to make us slaves of Him who cares and heals us.

Reflection

As a parish minister I am increasingly aware of the people of the congregation to whom I am called to serve. I am aware that they are not ‘mine’ but God’s and he has entrusted me (along with my bishop and fellow ministers) to care for them and that ‘when we have… handled them faithfully, we hand them over and we receive our reward.’ This sense is increasingly true of all people I meet and come in contact with; the members of the community in which I work, the people I interact with online. This is also true of the objects that I use; the keyboard sat in front of me, the pencil currently sat in a book I’m reading, that book, all of it to be handled as if I were to hand it back to someone who’s possession it is.

Our task, as Christians, is surely to also ensure that God takes rightful possession of all creation. That our battle to ‘gain ground’ is to claim things and people back for God and doing so is, in part about making them slaves but to know that if they were not his they’d be someone else’s and the slavery of God is true freedom.

Heavenly Father, come and set us free in the safety of your embrace. We submit to you and accept your guidance to lead us to life of eternity

Come, Lord Jesus

Chapter 30: correction of youths

cropped-color-calgary-header-3

Every age and intelligence should be treated in a suitable manner.

What is age?

I have been wrestling with this chapter for over a week now (hence why I’m late in publishing it!) and I remain slightly stumped by it. It’s not that I don’t understand it nor is it because it is particularly challenging for me, personally but rather it is due to the clarity of which it reads. It is what it is in a sense. What commentary is there to offer on a chapter which says don’t treat ‘youths’ in the same way as adults…

It is in that statement that I suspect that we can pause for a moment: ‘don’t treat youths in the same way as adults’.

Our culture increasingly sees little distinction between ‘youths’ and adults. Age is arbitrary in this respect. What I mean by that is, a person’s age is based solely on an event they had no control over. Aside from that they have developed at a different pace and in a different way to a person born at exactly the same time elsewhere. Age can never be a marker for understanding, intelligence or maturity.

I watched a TV programme last week on child geniuses and saw in this aspect of a child’s life they can be progressed through education quicker if a parent or mentor desires to do so; it’s a lot of hard work but it is possible. Education does not rely on genetics (or at least in some cases) and so a child can be differed through it.

So what is age and why do we have laws that differentiate between ‘youths’ and ‘adults’?

I think the complication when looking at someone’s age and identifying them by it is that our culture, with its excessively heightened individualism, has changed our children or, rather, has changed how we oversee the childhood of the next generation. There is a shift in parenting which now grants more freedom to children whilst, at the same time, there is a reaction against this which puts increased pressure on children to be disciplined. There is, due to technological advances, less direct engagement with child development due to the lack of understanding on adults’ part as to how to use the technology now available to children and therefore policing the content of such activities.

The freedom now given to children is down to a plethora of reasons and, as a non-parent, I do not want to be seen as placing myself in the judgement seat over parents. There is the increased social pressure on adults to work in order to be more economically active and this takes time, time otherwise spent with children. The costs of child care is an expense some parents don’t prioritise or can’t prioritise and, with the advance in technology, no longer seem to need to prioritise. It is easier, for some, to put on the TV, IPad or any other electronic device and almost switch the child off; although they are not switched off they are being shaped and impacted by what they watch.

I know of a child who is given an iPad to watch, on YouTube, their favourite superhero cartoons. This child, like many others, is techno-savvy and knows how to access other videos on YouTube despite being less than 5. This means that without their parent sitting and engaging with them this infant is able to access not only his favourite superhero cartoon but also the more violent adult version of it. I have caught the child watching 15 rated movie clips when they are less than 5! Are we, therefore, surprised when children seem to have knowledge of things way above their experience and years?

Add to the advances in technology and some of our over-reliance on it to develop our children granting us the time to earn or consume more we also have a cultural development which had led us to a peculiar place. After two world wars, which devastated the traditional family unit, there was an attempt at returning to normality. After a decade or so we, as a culture, discovered that that was not possible. Money was tight and, with the single parent family beginning to emerge as a norm, the bond between parents and children was impacted due to parents need to work longer hours to feed the family. Extended families became more important and new family units were formed with the parental roles being moved outside the nuclear family. When these children grew up they revolted and the 60’s/70’s saw the birth of the ‘freedom generation’. Sexual freedom, gender equality and alternative living all became political currency. These, in themselves are not bad things and there was a great need, I feel, for the conversation to be had, however, the passion and force behind these revolutions may well have been created due to the breakdown of traditional structures on children. These structures were in place like scaffolding around freshly budding trees to protect and nurture. If you have not been contained and primed, when you have not had to wait to mature you develop reactionary tendencies and freedom becomes a dangerous tool not just to other people but to yourself.

After the explosion of ‘freedom’ came the children of the revolution and we have my generation who were parented by those ‘hippies’. We knew no difference and grew up being told to do what we like. Our parents didn’t want to put on the straight jacket of tradition and we were encouraged to find our own way. This is still around as I talk with potential baptism families; many of them say they don’t want to force religion on children and they see it as oppressive (or some less aggressive phrases for the same thing). So they want to get their child baptised (for what reason, they do not know) and then they will let them work it out themselves, “Baptism gives them that option.” I don’t want to go into what’s wrong with this thought process but Christianity is an option which is available to this child but, unfortunately, splashing them with water when they are a couple of months old will not impact their consciousness and inform a decision. Christianity is not being made available to them just because they got wet in church before they were able to walk.

This encouragement of self discovery from birth, the non-pressured approach to parenting and the added freedom from responsibility due to technology has led to our children believing they can do what they want, be who they want and act however they like. Again, not all of these things are bad intentions but there is an underlying problem: how do they make informed decisions? how do they develop wisdom? how do we pass on culture and virtues? It is in this context that we have grown into a culture with no shared ideals, highly individualised who raise passion above wisdom and the personal over the social. Age, in this culture, becomes nothing more than a number which restricts personal development towards self fulfilling ‘happiness’. No wonder the age of consent, sexual awakening, experimentation with substance abuse is either being dropped or wanting to be dropped. Young people don’t want to be children, they want to be adults. They want they privileges of being an adult without the tools to take on the responsibilities. We have a generation of young adults who have not been taught the balance between power and responsibility and they cannot pass that wisdom to their children. This does not do our public discussions and politics any favours and can only see social problems increase.

Reflection

I didn’t expect myself to sound like such a cynical, Conservative scaremonger and I don’t mean to be. I want to stress that I’m merely making broad sweeps of observations on trends to encourage you, my dear reader, to pause and reflect. What is behind our current culture? Do we want it to continue on this trajectory. What is the cost to our seemingly ‘good’ intentions?

Being in discussion over emergent/emerging culture this topic is highly divisive. Some, more liberal-minded people, want to continue to push forward to complete freedom, whilst others on the other side of the spectrum want to clamp down. This is the out-working of Gove’s educational policy (personal reflection). Of course most of us sit in the middle of these two extremes but I see more of us sliding towards that liberal end. The rise in UKIP and other culturally branded ‘fascist’ parties is a dramatic reaction against the increasing liberal basis of our culture in all its aspects.

Where is the space for tradition and connection with history? Our identity as agnation is eroding due to our lack of understanding and inherited wisdom. Adolescence is always about rebelling against parental boundaries but if we grant them the freedom they think they want then they will not learn the joy of true happiness within the safety of communal life.

Loving Father, as your child I cry out for your tender compassion and guidance. I’m sorry for the times I have rebelled against your good laws and felt the sharp pain of consequence of my self-fulfilment. Help us, your people, to enjoy childhood, the wonder and discovery within the safety of familial life. Help us to instruct and protect the vulnerable as they grow into maturity, knowing both power and responsibility.

Come, Lord Jesus

Chapter 29: readmittance of departed brothers

cropped-color-calgary-header-3

A brother who has left the monastery, either through his faults or by expulsion, and wishes to return must first promise the complete amending of the fault.

Can we welcome back?

I am taking a short break from Riding Lights Summer Theatre School to write this post. Our theme at the summer school this year is ‘Peace: Make It or Break It’ and I want to write a bit more about ‘reconciliation’ in the light of ‘peace’.
In this week’s chapter, St. Benedict challenges us with even more radical hospitality and grace towards those that cause conflict and division. His compassion and grace is matched by a firm resolve to remain committed to those that hurt and upset him and he calls us to do the same. This resolve to welcome back a previously unrepentant monk is granting that brother the chance to experience grace and forgiveness.
I have written, in the past, on the social tool, ‘Open Space Technology’. This means of discussion has several principles to facilitate multiple creative conversations to occur and to be united together by a common goal or desire. There is also one ‘law’: the law of mobility that suggests that if a participant is not learning or contributing in a particular conversation they should leave and move else where,

In this way, all participants are given both the right and the responsibility to maximize their own learning and contribution, which the Law assumes only they, themselves, can ultimately judge and control. When participants lose interest and get bored in a breakout session, or accomplish and share all that they can, the charge is to move on, the “polite” thing to do is going off to do something else.

I had real difficulty with this aspect of Open Space Technology but I have come to realize, through experience, that it is not about self-autonomy but about the necessity for us to step out of the heat of relationship before it breaks irrecoverably, to gather some perspective, to admit weakness both on the part of ourselves and the others involved and to make a decision as to where to go next. We all are autonomous to a greater or lesser degree; God has given us free will to use, to choose what we do and where we go. Some people will abuse that freedom and cause harm to others or demand their choice is held in higher esteem than others but it is in that freedom we are advised to discover the beauty of real relationship; with God and with others.

Phalim McDermott, Artistic Director of Improbable and an Open Space practitioner, once talked with me about this law and said there’s a reason it is sometimes called the law of two feet (even if those feet are only metaphorical). The first foot is used to retreat from a place, to propel you out. The second is the more important foot for it is used to send you to the next place. That place could be back into the group you left, to repent, to turn back or it could be to go somewhere new. I once noted,

What the law of two feet does do is enable the whole to function and feed itself. The parts need to be attuned to where the information may need to be passed to in order to grow and develop and create. When this happens then the second foot is an important engagement of the individual with the whole. It is not clear, however, if this indeed is how it is used.

In order for community to function it requires the parts to freely choose to participate in the whole. This commitment will require a handing over of a certain amount of autonomy for the ‘common good’. It mustn’t, however, lose all traces of freedom of choice as that free element contains the free choice to commit and to love. Communities are healthy when they hold that tension between the individual choice and the relational imperative. St. Benedict has balanced this to give space for people to be removed without a door being locked to them.

The three strikes aspect maintains the need for the community to be protected so one person’s will is not encouraged and fed so they take the power on themselves completely; for relationships that are based around only one person’s desires are abusive and unbalanced. This aspect of St. Benedict’s Rule, I feel, allows the gracious hospitality of reconciliation without compromising the strong encouragement to challenge our selfish tendencies as fallen humanity. It is radical in that it challenges while, at the same time, welcomes.

Reflection

After a breakdown of relationship how do we give space to the possibility of reconciliation? Do we really hope and pray for such healing to happen? I can talk for ages on my desire to be reconciled to someone who has hurt me but do I actively give space and time for that to happen? It’s far easier to cut the ties with them and move on. To seek healing means to allow mess to exist close by and our lives to be impacted by it. The real path to reconciliation and peace is working hard at entering into painful and difficult spaces to take the battering of relationship breakdown holding onto hope. We, as Christians, enter into conflict with our sights fixed on the end promise that all things will be re-bound together through Christ who is the source of all things and the goal of all things.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.
And you who were once estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his fleshly body through death, so as to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him— provided that you continue securely established and steadfast in the faith, without shifting from the hope promised by the gospel that you heard. (Colossians 1:15-23)

From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once knew Christ from a human point of view, we know him no longer in that way. So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.(2 Corinthians 5:16-20)

Loving Father, I thank you for your grace that despite my many failings and stepping away from you you always welcome me home. The door is open. You do not force your will on us but call us to accept the task you desire. Transform my heart to be more like yours, flexible and open yet steadfast in love. Teach me to reconcile and to participate in your ministry of bringing all things together for good.

Come, Lord Jesus

Chapter 26: those who meet with the excommunicated without leave of the abbot

cropped-color-calgary-header-3

If a brother dares speak with or meet with the excommunicated brother, without the express permission of the abbot, he shall undergo the same penalty of excommunication.

Why can’t I speak with them?

A short chapter this week on the role of authority; a topic that is increasingly contentious in our culture. I have written on the subject before and have reflected at length on it from a personal point of view. I encourage you to search on this site for previous posts on the topic (you’ll find a few!)

The post I thought of first was this one from February which quoted from an article by Anna Mussmann called, ‘Millennials Think Authority Figures Are Untrustworthy Idiots, And Modern Culture Is To Blame’ In this article Mussmann argues that popular fiction is both commenting on the shift in attitudes to authority and wisdom as well as encouraging a particular culture amongst the younger generation.

I continue to reflect on the popularity of changing rules and traditions. There has been, in my opinion, a rise in challenge to long held traditional views and the bending to popularism. Popular media is being used cleverly to move goal posts to argue for a rethink on any moral or ethical standpoint. The way it has been done is similar in approach each time:

A lobbying group begins by publicising the story of a bullied minority who are discriminated against and face daily injustices. Once the public see and hear of this plight of the opposed they have good will and (if we’re honest) feel suitably guilty for making another person feel that way and, being British with colonial guilt now ingrained, do all they can to elevate their oppression. Once this good will is felt and vocalised and people are emotionally invested the lobbying group then proclaim that they are a majority voice and begin approaching politicians who love to say yes to majority voices. With the politicians on side they then move to change legalisation and, therefore, the character of the society.

All this happens with clever use of media, persuasive rhetoric and stubborn campaigning. None of these things are wrong, in fact I am glad that people are able to speak freely and protest against injustices. My issue is that at times the bias is skewed and a balanced debate cannot be had because of unfair game playing by political crusaders. The approach relies heavily on two things: subtle shifts in the use of language and a high reliance on emotive stories to cover up exaggerations and twists of logic.

There is one other thing which is involved in this and why, I think, there’s been an increase in major moral debates in government in recent years; no one understands or respects authority outside of subjective individualism.

I’ve said it before and I’ll continue to say it: our culture is sick. The disease is individualism. The symptoms are isolation, violence in action and language, increase in suicide, imbalance in wealth distribution and the subtle crumbling of social institutions and groupings. The cause: an increasing bias towards unchallenged liberalism.

Of course what I am arguing here is simplistic and overly generalised which, if I were to face up to opposition would need to go into more detail but for now my observations stand as a starting statement. What is clear is the breakdown of trust in authorities leads to no stable ground on which to build a commonality in society. It is right to hold authorities to account but where does it stop?

The Assisted Dying Bill has been widely discussed and, I am glad to say, faced great opposition. My concern is that if the Bill passes the arbitrary six months will be challenged, the ‘terminal illness’ will be challenged and, in our ‘legal precedent’ culture the floodgates will be opened. My use of floodgates will already prickle some of the more liberal of my readers and I stand again in the position of oppressed by the popular, liberal agenda.

Our society wants free will unrestrained. I don’t blame society that but when the Church sides with them and blesses their freedom of choice and calls all their choices ‘Christian’, Christ-like I have a problem. To be a Christian is to be under authority. To be ordained is to be under authority. To act in disobedience to that authority must be challenged (in love) and done to bring you back to the authority given by Christ himself to His Church. The Right Reverend Dr. Alan Wilson, Bishop of Buckingham, an outspoken liberal bishop has been very public in his challenges to authority on the issue of Same Sex Marriage along with many other ordained brothers and sisters. It was Rev. Rachel Mann’s, poet in residence at Manchester Cathedral, article on the recent issue of Rev. Jeremy Pemberton’s denial of licence to minister by his bishop, Rt Rev’d Richard Inwood, because of Pemberton’s marriage to his now husband Laurence Cunnington that made me reflect the most.

In the article Mann writes that the only thing Jeremy Pemberton has done wrong is got married. This is not true. Jeremy has broken Canon Law by refusing the authority of the church in to which he was ordained; authority held by his bishops. In acting against the wishes of this authority he has opened up the need for disciplinary action. He has sworn an oath of canonical allegiance to that authority and that authority must be allowed to act in the manner set out in accepted documents. In order of those documents to be changed there needs to be a thorough debate and discussion. Within that discussion there must be sacrifice on both sides and for reconciliation and peace to be achieved we must allow our selves to be challenged by God through the painful process of community.

Discipline in a Christian setting is about shaping someone into the likeness of Christ, who, himself was under authority. It is not a natural thing for us to reject obedience and we fight against it at every corner (Adam and Eve’s instinct still beats within us!). We don’t understand discipline and it always seems ‘unfair’ but that is what changes us. I repeat my assertion from before; authority must be held accountable and hence why I have promoted before the need for multiple authorities to be held in balance but it is important that we know what the rules are. The problem with the continual erosion of authority is that it encourages repetition. The great prophets and revolutionaries of human history are the ones who know and appreciate authority; who act under it and are humbled by it.

Reflection

Discipline is always a difficult subject and neither party ‘enjoys’ giving or receiving it but it is necessary. To be transformed is to be changed and change is painful and difficult. To live in community is to accept life under an authority; an authority of a Rule and that of an abbot. In parish life there is less explicit authority as anyone who doesn’t like a particular community leaves.

How do we exercise authority in a parish church? What does this look like? How do we accept the admonitions of others and how do we encourage each other to be accountable?

Heavenly Father, you sent your son Jesus to be an example of life under authority and you gave unto him all authority in heaven and earth. He then gave it to His disciples. He gave it so they could proclaim the gospel and to bring your people into a relationship with you. Help us to know how to wield and receive authority.

Come, Lord Jesus

Chapter 24: the measure of excommunication

It is ironic that after beginning to reflect on forgiveness and modes of reconciliation I should be in need from you, my dear reader, for forgiveness. I am disappointed with my self that I was unable to meet my deadline for publishing a post last week. I have my excuses! I am set to fly to Portugal in a week or so and to take some time out of public ministry takes an equal amount of time to prepare. I’m off for two weeks and so the last fortnight has been almost none stop; every moment available to work has been filled and, I’m sorry to say, one of my rest time has been taken over too. I’m also trying to think of the time I can carve out to write the next two weeks reflections in lieu of me going away. Maybe I should leave it until I get back…

Anyway please forgive my tardiness and lack of writing. I hope you understand.

cropped-color-calgary-header-3

For minor faults a brother should be kept from eating at the common table

Why are we not afraid of excommunication?

I have been reflecting on the nature of excommunication and why it is not used all that much anymore. The banishment of a member from a community is not all that big a deal in our society. We excommunicate ourselves so often that to banished by someone else is a familiar experience. In our highly individualistic culture many of us are already starved of meaningful relationships and community that to be told not to participate is of no great significance. In fact maybe our equivalent is to be forced to stay in community as penance!

It was Billy Ocean who once wrote,

When the going gets tough, the tough get going.

I’ve never fully understood that lyric but I’m inclined to disagree. When the going gets tough, the tough dig in It takes boldness and strength to stay even when relationships are sour and there is a breakdown of communication. It is path of suffering and heartache to walk that way and no one will walk it without ending up with scars but we walk it because God chose to walk it and it is in his shadow that we journey.

In olden times when we were more aware and appreciative of the worth and value of community, families and our social aspect to be cut off from other humans, to experience the complete lack of connection with an other would be a shocking and terrible thing. Today, when loneliness is so rife, this experience is not a punishment but almost an accepted reality. To be self-sufficient, self-reliant is an expectation and to be dependent on another is weakness of the highest order. This lie is a sickness that needs a drastic healing.

Excommunication, being refused a place at a common table, is in no way a punishment or a fear in our age; it is an expectation and assumption of millions of people. Mother Teresa famously said,

The greatest disease in the West today is not TB or leprosy; it is being unwanted, unloved, and uncared for. We can cure physical diseases with medicine, but the only cure for loneliness, despair, and hopelessness is love. There are many in the world who are dying for a piece of bread but there are many more dying for a little love. The poverty in the West is a different kind of poverty — it is not only a poverty of loneliness but also of spirituality. There’s a hunger for love, as there is a hunger for God. (Mother Teresa quoted in REACH, col.27, no.4 (Grand Rapids: Christian Reformed Home Mission, 2001)

I’ve been reading Ian Mobsby’s and Mark Berry’s excellent book, ‘The New Monastic Handbook: from vision to practice’ and reached a chapter on practicing healthy communities. When talking about trust and belonging in new monastic communities they write,

The formalised virtues and spiritual practices become the bedrock for developing trusting and accepting relationships in the ecclesial community. Some new monastic communities encourage people who have to work hard at maintaining a healthy relationship, meeting regularly to ensure that communication difficulties or problems do not occur or escalate over time.

When a breakdown of relationship happens the punishment is not excommunication anymore but super-communication because loneliness is now a default not relationship. It pains me to write or acknowledge that but it is so true.

Reflection

The challenge today when living in community is not about how to get people to come, it’s about how to get them to stay! Everyone wants to be in community. There is an ideal community they hold to and the reality soon strips that romantic vision away. When the reality of living with others’ brokenness hurts (and it will hurt) staying feels like a punishment; it is no longer easy or expected.

Relationships of love, however, require a choice, to stay or to leave. This choice must be present at all times and must be genuine. To keep people in community is no longer loving but you hope that each member will find the strength to stay and bear the fruit from trust and belonging. The healing of our individualistic culture will come from people living the life of committed relationships of love. This is how we, as Christians, reveal the reality of God, to live in the supernatural strength of His love, grace and forgiveness and allow Him to shape us, as His body, into His likeness, God in community.

Holy God, Three in One, how beautiful is your love and fellowship! We desire to know and participate in the Triune strength of community. We need your strength to help and hold us at those times when our weakness breaks others and divides us. Save us from our selfish ambitions and vain conceits.

Come, Lord Jesus

Chapter 19: how the Office should be performed

cropped-color-calgary-header-3

We believe that God is everywhere, and the Lord sees both good and evil in all places.

Why go to church?

As we come into land on the specific matters of prayer in a monastic community, like that of the previous section on ‘matters of authority’ (chapter 1 – 7), St. Benedict ends on an idealistic vision; a goal to aim for. He begins this picture by affirming

God is everywhere.

He does this to acknowledge that, yes, we don’t have to go to a particular place with a particular group of people to pray. You, as an individual, can pray in any place at any time but there is a time and place to specifically go to where his presence is particularly felt. This reminds me of words from Common Worship’s Eucharistic Prayer A which says,

It is indeed right, it is our duty and our joy, at all times and in all places to give you thanks and praise, holy Father, heavenly King, almighty and eternal God, through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord.

It does not take long for St. Benedict to highlight an often forgotten aspect of this argument; that, just as you can be in contact with God at any time and in any place you wish, so can he be with you seeing

…both good and evil in all places.

It is surprisingly frequent that I hear people proclaim their belief that you don’t need to go to church to be a Christian. Although I agree with that statement the assumption is not correct. What the person often means (you discover after some further questions) is that to be Christian is a matter of belief alone, ascribing to some statements as true or false or ‘hedging your bets’. To go to Church is seen as an unnecessary waste of time when you’ve already signed to say you are willing to be identified and ‘protected’ as a Christian (until it gets tough). The people I hear this from often cite the truth that God is everywhere and they can pray (if they want to) wherever they are. Indeed many people admit they pray, i.e. they say some words and, as much as they can tell, if God does exist, they think he hears and will act on their behalf.

What these people don’t always care to realise is that those moments when they are not aware of God, when they don’t consider God’s presence with them, God is still everywhere and he ‘sees both good and evil in all places.’ God can become an agent who is commanded to turn up when we ring our prayer bell and depart when we do not require his services. What this means is, that if you want to take seriously the belief that God is everywhere and this means you don’t have to go to church to be a Christian then you must also admit that God is part of every aspect of your life. Being a Christian is not about going to a particular location at a set time but it is about a genuine relationship; a relationship that is two way.

What makes someone a Christian is an active desire to be continually shaped into the likeness of Christ. We do this by reading Scripture and seeing the character of God, perfectly revealed in the person of Jesus in the Gospels. We do this by gathering with other people who are desiring the same change into their lives and discerning together what it means and looks like to be like Jesus. Church then becomes not a place you have to go to but a place where Christians gather to share, to be encouraged, to see Christ in other people and to re-commit themselves to the task of transformation. It is a hospital where the continual healing of our lives can be done in a safe space. We also get shaped into the likeness of Jesus by prayer. Prayer, in this instance, is about inviting God to enter into your life and begin the work of transformation and change. Prayer is the way we open up the wounds of our life to God who can heal us and set us free.

Change is always painful because there is some loss involved. Change can be exciting as well as new things begin to emerge but, as St. Paul says in Romans,

We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. (Romans 8:22-23)

Prayer is a two-way relationship one where we are invited to speak and share, to cry out for change, but it is where God is invited, by us, to speak and share, to cry out for change, often starting in our own lives. When prayer is only seen as a formal request to an unknown agent who delivers what we order then it falls and rarely satisfies. Prayer is about relationship and that is why it is harder than most people think because prayer asks something of us; it invites us to change and to lose something, an addiction to something that distracts or comforts us apart from God. We don’t care to admit it but we love the chains that holds us and imprison us (see ‘Lovers of Chains‘ post). We are all addicts to something and need healing and liberation. We rarely ask for it because the process is tough and the thought of letting that thing we deify, we hold up as our God, to go is inconceivable.
cropped-color-calgary-header-3

Blind to Addiction

It is in R Kelly’s questionable song that he says,

My mind is telling me no but my body my body’s telling me yes

We are torn, as human beings, between that which we might consider noble and that which is more ‘instinctive’. Our conscience is trained to know what is right but our issue, increasingly, in our culture is that there is less shared ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. We do, however, continue to talk as if there is but everything is up for questions as authority is moved and changes. The difference between that which is ‘noble’ and that which is ‘instinctive’ is about that which raises us out of purely materialistic desires, the tangible and the animalistic into a realm of rationality and consciousness. These should be united but they are not always so.

We are creatures that can justify action. There is a wealth of opinion and countless beliefs we can articulate and ascribe to and any action can be explained. We are also in a culture of precedent so if someone else has done it then it is possible for someone else to do it too. This means when barriers are pushed and moved, they are irrevocably pushed and moved. We hope that our beliefs will inform our action but I think the other way is more true; our need to justify, to ourselves as well as to others, our actions shape our beliefs (if I did x I must believe y).

You will see this insight when you live with an addict. Their dependency on a particular substance is rationally justified. It is the extreme cases of alcohol and drugs that we are more aware of it but this justification that comes out of the mouth of those addicts comes out of all our mouths at some point. We may phrase it differently but it is the same,

I can’t help myself.

I need that person to feel secure.

Surely if this makes me happy it’s not wrong.

We justify to ourselves why we need the props and crutches in our lives and religion can be one of them. Having crutches is not necessarily a problem; if you have a broken leg it is helpful for a time of healing but the aim is to let go of the crutch and be free. Religion is a crutch while we heal, the aim is to be free.

My brother in law gave an image, which I find helpful. He was talking about the Law of Moses as St. Paul talks about in Romans. He sees the Law of Moses as a cast which you place over a broken part of our body; the cast does not heal the break but it protects it while it heals. The healing comes from the Spirit. The same is true, I think, of crutches. What is important is not the crutch but the healing.

The problem is we have an odd relationship with crutches. The analogy breaks down after a while so maybe it would be easier to talk about pain-killers. These are helpful and help us live with illness and pain but they can also become something we rely on and therefore blind us from our awareness of the need to heal. The initial problem may disappear but we don’t know and we become addicted to the pain-killers and we justify it to ourselves that we believe we still need them.

Reflection

St. Benedict ends this chapter with an interesting sentence,

Let us rise in chanting that our hearts and voices harmonise.

The aim in prayer is that our hearts and voices harmonise; so what we say is what’s in our heart but also what’s in our hearts is what we say. This extends, I think, to our actions too.
To be Christian is not about going to Church, about saying the right things, but is it is about allowing and inviting God into your lives to transform you into the likeness of Jesus. To be like Jesus is to have your voice and heart harmonised and that your heart is instinctively noble; that which you do without thinking is pure and Godly. We don’t perform Jesus but we become Jesus. We know what Jesus is really like by Scripture, by other Christians and saints and by prayer and the work of Holy Spirit through that relationship. Our authority then must be on three things: Scripture, Tradition and Reason.

Heavenly Father, you are indeed everywhere, you are with us at all times and in all places and you stand at the door to our lives and knock. You never force yourself in but you are wanting to be in our lives to make all things new. I’m sorry for the times that I have sent you back out of the door to hide parts of my life from you. I lie to myself and train myself to believe that you are in it all and you bless all my thoughts and actions but I know that that isn’t true because I’m not yet like your Son, Jesus.

Come, Lord Jesus

Chapter 15: the seasons during which Alleluia is chanted

cropped-color-calgary-header-3

The Alleluia is to be sung with the psalms and responsories from Easter Sunday until Pentecost

Is it Hallelujah or Alleluia?

This chapter is very timely as we begin Holy Week. St. Benedict is discussing the use of the Alleluia chant within the prayers of the community and it might seem, to some of you, of little importance as to whether we are able to say ‘alleluia’ at some times and not at others. At worst this seems to be legislative for no reason and we should be able to say it at anytime. This is true but, for St. Benedict and the Western Church, there is a reason which can be helpful.

The question of the traditional liturgical customs is a litmus test within Christian circles; one which can become petty and pointless very quickly. For one tradition liturgical seasons, cycles, formulas and customs are of no use and arbitrary and we should be set free to respond to the Spirit in the way we see fit. For the other end of the spectrum liturgical guidelines are helpful as they lead us through a rhythm of the year which, when our feelings and natural instincts let us down we can be held within a framework by the grace of God. As with most things it comes down to intention and approach. The liturgical traditions of the church were set out for very important reasons and were there to help guide and protect the Church from every fresh wind of teaching. They are, however, like the Law of Moses; designed to be helpful but can easily suffocate and destroy if not treated properly.

In this day and age with electricity giving us extended working light, preserving food well beyond their natural seasons, we have little to no appreciation of seasons. This is particularly true of food, work and weather. We have done well in the developed world of being able to control our environment and it is possible to get what we want, when we want it and in the way that we want it. There is no sense of being restricted by external influences. When these restrictions impinge on our lives it frustrates us; when we can’t get the item of food we want, when we are unable to work when we want and when we are unable to travel to the places we want.

The world, however, relies on the season to give balance, to give rain when it’s needed and sun. Creation is a delicate system which has worked since well before humanity learnt how to manipulate it. The pre-industrial humanity were very sensitive to times and seasons and set their lives by the creation around them. They were in tune with it and were able to steward the world in a sustainable and natural way. In recent decades, with the effect that civilisation has had on the environment we are looking to reinstate this ‘eco’ agenda. The difficulty comes when it effects us, when it impacts our lives and it costs us. We don’t want our desires to be restrained; this doesn’t make us happy and surely that is what we want, to be happy!

Liturgical seasons are the same. They are there to force us to be sensitive to the ebb and flow of life. The book of Ecclesiastes names this,

For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:
a time to be born, and a time to die;
a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
a time to kill, and a time to heal;
a time to break down, and a time to build up;
a time to weep, and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
a time to throw away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to seek, and a time to lose;
a time to keep, and a time to throw away;
a time to tear, and a time to sew;
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
a time to love, and a time to hate;
a time for war, and a time for peace.

There is a time to celebrate and there are times to be penitent. If we only followed what we felt and thought, with our limited understanding of our inner life, then we would be probed to fall heavily into personal preference. The liturgical structures defend us from that. They correct us. They give us a balanced diet, room for rest and work and appreciation for all spiritual weathers.

So, for the matter at hand; Hallelujah/Alleluia means ‘Praise the Lord.’ It was left untranslated by the early Christians and was understood to be one way to remain connected to the Jewish faith from which they came from. As the New Testament texts (the gospels and the letters) and it reached people with little to no understanding of the Hebrew language it was finally transliterated. Greek has no ‘h’ equivalent and so that letter was dropped creating Allelujah. It then evolved, when translated from the Greek into Latin to Alleluia.
Of course we can ‘Praise the Lord’ whenever we want to. In fact the Psalms tell us to do so! The Psalms also encourage us to do the opposite, to challenge and rail against God. There are times when we need to experience the times when we can’t ‘Praise the Lord’; we need to enter into times of experiencing the perceived absence of God to better appreciate our need for Him. For St. Benedict, ‘Alleluia’ is not used through Lent, a time when we are called to reflect on our human natures, the darkness that exists in our world and so, when Easter morning arrives, we drink in the Allleluias for we have thrusted for them for forty days.

But, as I said before, like most things, this custom can become suffocating and restrictive. That which meant to bring life and a roundness to our spiritual life, can easily become death to it. Jesus’ issues with the Pharisees was not that they were completely wrong, indeed he says of them,

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:20)

The issue was that they were too cautious and protective. Issues of fasting, sabbath, healing that Jesus locked horns with them over, all of them came down to freedom within the framework. The rules and guidelines are there to enable us to be safe but free. If we cast them off then we are vulnerable to the whims of our temptable spirits.

Reflection

As a priest in a parish, I see it as my role to watch the edges of the Christian community, not as a patrol guard but as an advisor. To look out for those who get hurt in the wide open fields beyond God’s Kingdom and to bring them into safety. To remind people who stray beyond the boundaries the sustenance and blessings of that which they are leaving. Ultimately to bridge that fringe as a point of connection.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe the Church should have rigid edges, barriers and walls. I see the Church as centred rather than edged. This is best explained by a short parable:

The Kingdom of God is like a manager coming to check on one of his farms. The farmer who ran the property and kept the sheep welcomes the manager to the homestead and gives him the freedom to look around and to assess the health of the flock and take an inventory.

You are free to explore the acres of land and bring back your report of what you see and find.

The manager sets out to walk the grounds that sprawl into the horizon. He explores the land that is marked on the map as belonging to the farmer, he checks the quality of the grass and he counts sheep. Having not fallen asleep after such an exercise he makes random spot checks on the quality of the meat and the health of the animals.

What he views is very good and he is impressed with the farmers care and clearly profitable oversight of his treasures. The sheep are healthy, happy and safe, the grass and grounds are well kept and free of chemicals. After a long day he returns to the farmhouse to meet with the farmer.

It’s all very impressive.

The manager says,

The sheep are healthy and you have many ready for market. There is one thing, which troubles me… You don’t have any fences. Your land is just spread far and wide and there’s no visible demarcation to the neighbouring farmers’ lands. How do you keep all your sheep together and close by?

The farmer replies,

I dig very deep wells.

As an ordained person I am to be the sign of connection between the local expression of the Body of Christ and the national, global and historical Church. I am to keep us rooted in the faith, passed down from generation and generations; a faith which has been shaped by the wisdom and experience of the ages passed. This is not always a comfortable place or role to play but it is a cost. Yes, traditions must be tested but I deny the temptation to flee or reject the framework when it doesn’t please me or gets me what I want. Yes, I speak from a privileged position of being a white, male, middle class in a historically powerful, often oppressive, nation. So I turn to the church of the liberation movement who, as far as I can read, are strict observers of tradition and find the joy and freedom within the strength of the Apostolic faith based on the creeds and formularies of the Church.

Tradition acts as the deep wells, tried and tested in many contexts. They are not the water, but the channels through which we plunge to access the Living Water, Jesus Christ. I find it comforting to know that no matter how I’m feeling, how weak or broken I am I can go to the wells and find water. Our job, as the Church locally, is to carry people too far from the water to the wells and help them to drink.

Living Water, flow. Burst through the concrete tunnels we hide you in and protect ourselves from your flood with. For the places where we restrict unnecessarily, have mercy on us and reveal yourself.

Come, Lord Jesus.