Valkyrie

20 Wednesday Jul 2016

Posted by Neo in Church/State, Faith, Lutheranism

Tags

Church & State, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Faith, Operation Valkyrie, self denial

300px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1987-074-16,_Dietrich_Bonhoeffer Great Satan’s Girlfriend reminded me of something that I had spaced off. Today is the anniversary of Count Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg’s attempted assassination of Adolph Hitler. The history of the operation has sort of a Keystone Kops feel about it – nothing went really right for them, and Hitler survived. Here let’s let Courtney tell the story:

Valkyrie is an ancient viking superstition. When brave Norsemen fell in battle (often raiding parties) these hotties with their mammoth shields would appear on winged horses and tote off the fallen to heathen heaven – Valhalla.

Despite oathbreaking, defacing images of gods and wickedness in general – all would be forgiven by success in combat – especially if the offender died a heroic saga inspiring death.

Claus Schenk was a real European blue blood aristocrat. Awarded nobility back in the Holy Roman Empire days ( funny though – HRE was a triple no go – it was neither Holy, Roman or an Empire) the family became von Staffenberg.

In WWII time Deutschland, Valkyrie was code for the Nazi party to maintain control of the Reich in the event of a catastrophic disaster that killed or incapacitated the leadership.
By summertime 1944, 3rd Reich was facing the horrible modern era manifestation of von Gneisenau and von Scharnhorst’s ultimate nightmare – the multi front war.

Allies had captured Rome and were grinding their way up the bloody Eyetye boot of Italy, Allies were fixing to bust out of the Normandy bocage and unleash Great Satan’s panzer General Patton.And the largest defeat in modern history – the destruction of Armee Gruppe Centre saw the annihilation of 20 irreplacable German divisions in a massive Soviet blitz that drove Germany out of Russia and vaulted the Red Army right outside Warsaw.

Despite Allied claims that only unconditional surrender would satiate the Allied and Russian thirst for righteous payback, a clique of Wehrmacht officers plotted a coup d’tat’ against 3rd Reich in an effort to spare Germany ultimate defeat and dismemberment using the contingency plan of ‘Valkyrie’.

Germany’s armed forces had to swear a ‘holy oath’ – not to the state or nation or a constitution – but to der fuhrer personally. In order for the plot to work – der fuhrer had to be killed. Valkyrie also planned trying the wartime leaders of 3rd Reich for war and humanitarian crimes, working out reparations with the allies and bringing Germany back into the family of nations.

Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg was a panzer officer that had fought in Poland, France, Russia and with the famous ‘Afrika Korps’.

Suffering debilitating wounds from combat – losing an eye, a hand and three fingers, Claus and his co conspirators – facing the truth of the regime they so valiantly served – tried in their own way to rectify their sins – singular and collective.

Valkyrie energized the evil leaders of 3rd Reich, anyone connected with the cats of the coup were ruthlessly hunted down, tormented and slain.

via GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD: Valkyrie

And so, the plot failed, and the war went on, as described in the link, until Götterdamerung, the next April.

But it could arguably have worked and it was the last gasp of the old ‘Good Germany’ not to mention the old Prussian Jünkers, who at the last tried to do the only sensible thing. While he was actually not involved was Feldmarschall Rommel, who had built a very good reputation (even amongst his opponents) in the African campaign, was force to commit suicide because of it.

I mention it here because it also killed one of the best Lutheran theologians of the twentieth century, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was implicated as well. He was hanged on 9 April 1945, at Flossenbürg concentration camp. He was not hanged in the normal, reasonably merciful way, that we think of. He was taken, naked, into the courtyard of the fortress, it took him about six hours to die. Reports of the exact way the execution was carried out vary.

Two weeks later the US 90th and 97th Infantry divisions liberated the camp.

The last message we know of him was passed to asked an English prisoner Payne Best to remember him to Bishop George Bell of Chichester if he should ever reach his home: “This is the end—for me the beginning of life.”

The Deutsche Evangelische Kirche in Sydenham, London, at which he preached between 1933 and 1935, was destroyed by bombing in 1944. A replacement church was built in 1958 and named Dietrich-Bonhoeffer-Kirche in his honor.

And he is remembered as both a theologian and a martyr by United Methodist Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and several church members of the Anglican Communion including the Episcopal Church (USA).

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

09 Wednesday Mar 2016

Posted by Geoffrey RS Sales in Faith, Politics

≈ 19 Comments

Tags

Christianity, controversy, self denial, sin

the-arrival-of-the-pilgrim-fathers-antonio-gisbert

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness seems to have become shorthand for the objectives the modern world places before us as being desirable: we should exercise and take care of our bodies not because they are the temple of the Holy Spirit, but because that will allow us to live longer; we want to be as free as possible because that will allow us to fulfil all our needs; and we are entitled to be happy. I don’t blame this on the Americans (although they have to answer for popularising it), it is the underpinning ethos of the liberal ideology which pervades the modern world. There is nothing in this of repentance, self-denial and self-sacrifice, let alone of obedience to the divine law as revealed to us through Christian practice and theory. We must be free to believe what we want, do what we want (as long as it is not illegal), buy what we want (with the same caveat); the accumulation of goods is a proxy for the good life; the more ‘stuff’ we have, the happier we are – as the Rolling Stones put it many years ago:

When I’m watchin’ my tv and a man comes on and tell me
How white my shirts can be
But, he can’t be a man ’cause he doesn’t smoke
The same cigarettes as me

I sometimes wonder whether the modern definition of bliss is not quite close to older definitions of a kind of hell? A raucous cacophony of the assertion of ‘my right’ to have what “i want’ when ‘I want it’, and devil take the hindermost.

Christianity is the real counter culture. We are adjured to take care of the orphan and the widow, we are told to share of our good things, and we are required to do so within God’s plan for these things – His will, not our will is what we ask to be done – not much liberty of happiness there in the world’s eyes, but for Christians this is where we find both – as well as a purpose in our lives which raises us above the ranks of apes gathering fruit in the forests. Jesus is not hot on possessions, and he is not big on self-indulgence – the parable of the Prodigal is, among other things, a commentary on where hedonism leads. We see, in the Christian communities in Acts, the way in which coming to Christ led men and women to a more generous attitude toward their fellows, and we see how the different communities would try to help each other. We know from the history of the very early church that it was this sort of community spirit which gave such a powerful witness that others came to be helped, and stayed to help others.

Christian men and women know we hold our lives on trust from God – we are stewards working for him, and to him we are responsible for the use we make of our talents; we are free to ignore these Christian imperatives, but that’s not the sort of freedom we want. Liberty to pursue our worship of God as we have come to do it is something to be valued. but our ancestors did so in private, and if we have to do so, then so be it. Our true happiness lies in service to God, and of that, the world knows and cares little.

The Faith once received?

19 Tuesday Jan 2016

Posted by Geoffrey RS Sales in Atonement, Faith

≈ 9 Comments

Tags

Christianity, controversy, self denial, sin

Rich young ruler Heinrich Hoffman 1889

As someone who is neither a Catholic nor an Anglican, and whose local chapel consists of about sixty of us on a normal Sunday morning and about forty in the evening, it may be I ought to concentrate on my own communion and stay out of other folk’s business, but since that would make my contributions to this place even more boring than they otherwise are, I tend to comment more widely – and not least because all Christians live in the same context in the West – that of a society in which religion seems to matter less and less to those in power, except in so far as it might involve folk killing others on the streets of London or elsewhere. It is that same society which provides the atmosphere in which we live, move and have our being. Once it was amenable to Christianity, now it is less so. Christianity has always been very good at adapting, which is one of the reasons it has lasted so long and spread globally, but reading Jessica’s excellently argued accounts of recent proceedings in her own Church, and reflecting on the concerns of my Catholic colleagues here, it strikes me that there are some dangers here.

At the heart of the Christian message is a call to repent. That means facing up to the inescapable fact we are sinners. No one likes being called a sinner, and so when I read that the Episcopalians who recognise same-sex marriage are saying they can’t repent because they don’t consider it a sin, I hear not just the clamant message of a single-issue pressure group, I think I hear a wider societal response. Several times here folk have asked about ‘love’ and why some of us seem to react to the word in a way that is less than the warm, pink, fuzzy feeling that seems to be mandatory? There is sometimes, in that questioning, an implication that we are reacting thus because in some way we lack love, and I’m not sure that, certainly in my own case, there isn’t something there. I grew up at a time and in a place when men were expected to keep stiff upper lips and where overt displays of emotion were frowned upon, so I daresay I am not overly inclined to talk about love. That said, there’s something else here, and it is summed up in the words ‘cheap grace’.

Jesus did not die upon the Cross for anything else except to save us from our sins; he, who was without sin, became sin so that in him it could be destroyed so that we, by embracing him, should have life and have it in abundance. It is not a lack of ‘love’ which makes me suspicious when I hear this sin and that sin and the other sin dismissed as culturally condition, it is the feeling that what is really going on here is an attempt to downplay sin until it hardly exists. I don’t now what religion this is, but it isn’t the ‘faith once received’.

That’s not saying that Christianity is a miserable religion which tells everyone is a sinner and we’re all worms, it is saying that Christianity is a joyful religion which tells everyone that they are a sinner and they are redeemed and forgiven by Christ’s blood. If you don’t believe in sin, if you don’t believe you are fallen, then why would you need a redeemer? If you don’t need redeeming, you don’t need Jesus, so you can get an extra few hours in bed on a Sunday morning, have your Sunday evening for watching TV, and all will be well in the afterlife because God loves you. That is false teaching, it is dangerous teaching, and it will lead souls to hell.

What’s false about it? Isn’t God love? Yes he is. He is so much love that it was out of love for us he hung and suffered on the Cross at Calvary. That was not so we could go through our lives doing as we please without regard for the consequences. We are redeemed from the consequences, but there is a price for us too. It is not a big one, but for us all it can be expensive – we are to turn from sin and embrace God. Not because we are scared of him, but because, having received his love, we return it in repentance and obedience. That is love.

The Last days?

13 Thursday Nov 2014

Posted by John Charmley in End times, Faith

≈ 18 Comments

Tags

Catholic Church, Catholicism, Christianity, Salvation, self denial, sin

As intimated in yesterday’s post, I am not a fan of the idea that we are living in the ‘end times’. It is partly that from the time of Jesus, there have been those expecting the Second Coming, and as they have all been wrong, why should we be right; it is partly that it is the nature of history as I read it that there will always be wars and rumours thereof; and partly because anyone who subscribes the the Enlightenment notion that human affairs can move it a utopian direction, has bought into a false prospectus; but that does not mean that the idea itself if false – or that some kind of buy in might not be useful for a Christian.

We know we stand in expectation of Judgment; if we are Christians we know it is coming. Preparing one’s conscience for examination before Confession is, or at least is for me, a sobering exercise. I am too much a Protestant and too little a Catholic to feel the full release which some describe after confession. I know my sins are forgiven by God, but it would be quite nice if I could get to the same place and forgive myself; that I cannot quite do. But the exercise is useful, even as I experience it, because being mindful of my failings in the past, I can at least do the utilitarian thing of trying to avoid those pitfalls in the future; at least the mistakes I make and the sins I commit can be new ones! Ideally, and in practice, living mindful of what one has done wrong, can help in the future; and being mindful that for oneself, this may indeed be the last day, can be a good exercise in practical Christianity. What should I do now that I might put off to the detriment of my souls? What can I do now to be of good Christian witness which I should not put off until a more ‘convenient’ moment?

It is, in part, an aspect of this to which those of us who lament the decline in sermons on ‘sin’ allude when we do so. In our society we are far too mindful of the excuses we can make for not doing those things we ought to have done, as well as for doing those things which we ought not to have done. It is useful, and salutary to be reminded of sin, our own, and that we are not alone in sinning. Sin is, after all, falling short of what God expects and what we want to offer to God, and the conscience is good reminder of that; but if it is dulled by our Society’s constant diet of excuses, and if it is not prompted by the need for Confession, then what does keep it in order and sharp?

In a society which emphasises the need to healthy physical exercise on a regular basis, someone needs to point out the need for a healthy examination of one’s conscience; if Confession does not provide it, then the sense of being on one’s own end times might.

Pusey on Free Will

23 Tuesday Sep 2014

Posted by John Charmley in Anglicanism, Bible, Catholic Tradition, Faith, Homilies, Pusey

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Catholicism, Christianity, Obedience, self denial, sin

1 Peter 2:13-16
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;…

Liberty, freedom! The young heart bounds at the thought. It speaks of the unloosing of chains, the free roaming of the uncaged soul. the full freedom of the will. Man was born, created to be free; full freedom is his original endowment, the condition of his nobility of soul, his distinction from the irrational creatures, the image of God in which he was created. As contrasted with necessity, it is as indestructible as in Almighty God who created it. What then is the freedom which the prophets foretold, which Jesus said that He would give the glorious liberty of the sons of God? Christ freed us from the yoke of sin by the freedom of righteousness: He freed us from the dominion of concupiscence by the freedom of the Spirit and the dominion of love and grace. “Tell me,” says Socrates to a disciple, “thinkest thou that freedom is a great and glorious possession alike to a man and a state?” “Most exceedingly.” “Whoso then is ruled by bodily pleasures and on account of them cannot do what is best, thinkest thou that he is free?” “Not at all.” “For to do what is best seemeth to them to be free; and so then, to have those who should hinder so doing to be unfree?” “Certainly.” “The incontinent seem then to you to be unfree?” “Assuredly.” “And they seem to you not only to be hindered from doing the best things, but to be constrained to do the foulest?” “Both alike.” “But what sort of masters deemest thou those to be, who hinder what is best, constrain to what is worst?” “The worst.” “And what slavery thinkest thou the worst?” “That to the worst masters.” “The incontinent then are enslaved to the worst slavery?” concludes . “I think so.”

You know how with one consent heathen philosophers said, “The wise man alone is free.” “He alone is indeed free,” says Philo, “who taketh God alone for his commander.” “The good man alone is free; for the evil man, though he deny it, is the slave of as many lords as he has vices.” “Lust cometh, and saith, ‘Thou art mine, for thou covetest the things of the body. In such or such a passion thou soldest thyself to me; I counted down the price for thee.’ Avarice cometh and saith, ‘Thou art mine; the gold and the silver which thou hast is the price of thy slavery.’ Luxury cometh and saith, ‘Thou art mine; amid the wine cups I purchased thee; amid the feasts I gained thee.’

Ambition cometh and said to thee, ‘Thou art surely mine. Knowest thou not, that to that end I gave thee command over others, that thou thyself mightest serve me? Knowest thou not, that to that end I bestowed power on thee, that I might bring thee under mine own?’ All vices come, and one by one they chant, ‘Thou art mine.’ He whom so many claim, how vile a slave is he!” From this slavery Christ came to set us free. “If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” But then are we not still under a law? and, if we are under a law, how have we that freedom which youth especially longs for? Is then lawlessness the only freedom? Men admire what is called “the reign of law,” throughout the boundless realms of God’s creation. So did they idolise the beauty of the conception, that they are jealous even of Almighty God Himself, and would not have Him, by any higher law of His love, suspend His usual modes of His operation, Law then is some thing beautiful. Even in human things, what in sights and sounds so thrills through us, as when many voices or minds through obedience to a law become as one? What are all these deeds of united heroism, when all lay “with their back to the field and their feet to the foe,” or that inscription, “To Lacedaemon tell, that here, obeying her behests, we fell,” but the wills of many, obeying, to the death, minds without them whose will they reverenced? And cannot Almighty God make us love a law, which is the transcript of His perfections, the law of love; a law which responds to the law of our better nature within; which brings our whole being into harmony with itself, with our fellow beings and with Him.

Pusey on Christ’s self-emptying

19 Friday Sep 2014

Posted by John Charmley in Bible, Catholic Tradition, Faith, Homilies, Pusey

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

Catholicism, Christianity, God, Jesus, self denial, sermons, sin

Philippians 2:7
But made himself of no reputation, and took on him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

All His attributes He veiled and hid; His infinity, to abide, like other unborn babes, within the virgin’s womb; His eternity, to receive birth in time, younger than His creatures; His unchangeableness, to grow in stature, and (as it would seem) for His earthly form to decay, and be worn by His sufferings; His wisdom, “for our sake and among us to be ignorant, as man,” “of that which, as Lord, He knew”; His self-sufficingness, that He, who had all things, became as though He had nothing. He forewent not things without Him only; He forewent Himself He, the Creator, not only made Himself to need the creatures which He had formed, and was without them — He was hungry and thirsty, and wearied — but even in the things which He wrought, He depended not alone on the Godhead within Him but on the Father. His works were not His own works but His Father’s. He came not to do His own will, but His Father’s. He prayed, and praying was heard, though He Himself was God. He was strengthened as man, by the angel, whom, as God, He created.

Again, how must He have “emptied Himself” of His majesty, who, when, with a word, He could have destroyed the ungodly, and “with the breath of His mouth” have “slain the wicked,” was Himself sold into their hands for the price of a bondslave. He “hid not His face from shame and spitting,” before whom angels veil their faces. He “emptied Himself” of His immortality, and the immortal died. He became subject to death, the penalty of sin. But what seems yet more amazing, He was content to veil even that, in Himself, wherein, so to say, God is most God, the glory of the divinity, His holy being, whereby He hateth all iniquity.

He who is “the Truth,” was contented to be called “that deceiver.” He hid His holiness, so that His apostate angel shrank not from approaching Him, to tempt Him. He veiled the very humility wherewith He humbled Himself to be obedient, so that Satan thought that He might be tempted through pride. He was content to he thought able to covet the creatures which He had made, and, like us, to prefer them to the Father; yea, and the very lowest of the creatures, which even man can despise. They called Him “a gluttonous man, and a wine bibber.” “We know,” say they, “that this man is a sinner.” They reproached Him for disobedience to the Father, and breaking the law which He gave. So wholly was He made like unto us in all things, sin only excepted, that man could not discern that He, the holy God, was not (shocking to say) unholy man.

Pusey: the danger of riches

03 Wednesday Sep 2014

Posted by John Charmley in Bible, Catholic Tradition, Faith, Homilies, Pusey

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

Catholicism, Christianity, self denial, sin

Luke 18:18-30
And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?…

Rather, if one asked, What peril have riches? one might ask, What peril have they not? First, then, they are wholly contrary to the life of Christ and His passion. That cannot be the safe, the happy lot, which is in all things most opposite to His. Unlike Him, we must ever here be; for we are sinners, He alone, as man, was holy; we are His creatures, He our God. But can it be safe not to be aiming, herein also, to be less unlike? Can it be safe to choose that which in all its pomp and glory was brought before His eye as man, to be wholly rejected by Him; to choose what He rejected, and shrink back from what He chose? This, then, is the first all-containing peril of riches. They are, in themselves, contrary to the Cross of Christ. I speak not now of what they may be made. As we, being enemies, were, through the Cross, made friends, so may all things, evil and perilous in themselves, except sin, become our friends. The Cross finds us in desolation, and they, He says, “have received their consolation”; it finds us in evil things, and they are surrounded by their good things; it comes in want, and they have abundance; in distress, and they are at ease; in sorrow, and they are ever tempted even to deaden their sorrows in this world’s miserable joys. Happy only in this, that He who chasteneth whom He loveth, sprinkles His own healthful bitterness over life’s destructive sweetness, and by the very void and emptiness of vanity calls forth the unsatisfied soul no more to “spend money on that which is not bread, or its labour on that which satisfieth not.” But if it be so hard for the rich to seek to bear the cross, it must be hard for them truly to love Him who bore it. Love longeth to liken itself to that it loves. It is an awful question, my brethren; but how can we love our Lord if we suffer not with Him?

2. Then it is another exceeding peril of riches and ease that they may tend to make us forget that here is not our home, Men on a journey through a stranger’s, much more an enemy’s, and linger not. Their hearts are in their home; thither are their eyes set; they love the winds which have blown over it; they love the very hills which look upon it, even while they hide it; days, hours, and minutes pass quickly or slowly as they seem to bring them near to it; distance, time, weariness, strength, all are counted only with a view to this, “are they nearer to the faces they love? can they, when shall they reach it?” What then, my brethren, if our eyes are not set upon the everlasting “hills, whence cometh our help”? what if we cherish not those inward breathings which come to us from our heavenly home, hushing, refreshing, restoring, lifting up our hearts, and bidding us flee away and be at rest? What if we are wholly satisfied, and intent on things present? can we be longing for the face of God? or can we love Him whom we long not for? or do we long for Him, if we say not daily, “When shall I come and appear before the presence of God?”

3. Truly there is not one part of the Christian character which riches, in themselves, do not tend to impair. Our Lord placed at the head of evangelic blessings, poverty of spirit, and, as a help to it and image of it, the outward body of the soul of true poverty, poverty of substance too. The only “riches” spoken of in the New Testament, except as a woe, are the unsearchable riches of the glory and grace of Christ, the riches of the goodness of God, the depth of the riches of His wisdom, or the riches of liberality, whereto deep poverty abounded.

4. Poverty is, at least, a fostering nurse of humility, meekness, patience, trust in God, simplicity, sympathy with the sufferings of our Lord or of its fellow (for it knows the heart of those who suffer). What when riches, in themselves, hinder the very grace of mercifulness which seems their especial grace, of which they are the very means? What wonder that they cherish that brood of snakes, pride, arrogance, self-pleasing, self-indulgence, self-satisfaction, trust in self, forgetfulness of God, sensuality, luxury, spiritual sloth, when they deaden the heart to the very sorrows they should relieve? And yet it is difficult, unless, through self-discipline, we feel some suffering, to sympathize with those who suffer. Fulness of bread deadens love. As a rule, the poor show more mercy to the poor out of their poverty, than the rich out of their abundance. But if it be a peril to have riches, much more is it to seek them. To have them is a trial allotted to any of us by God; to seek them is our own. Through trials which He has given us He will guide us; but where has He promised to help us in what we bring upon ourselves? In all this I have not spoken of any grosser sins to which the love of money gives birth: of what all fair men would condemn, yet which, in some shape or other, so many practise. Such are, hardness to the poor or to dependents; using a brother’s services for almost nought, in order to have more to spend in luxury; petty or more grievous frauds; falsehood, hard dealing, taking advantage one of another, speaking evil of one another, envying one another, forgetting natural affection. And yet in this Christian land many of these are very common. Holy Scripture warns us all not to think ourselves out of danger of them.

Gospel 22nd Sunday in OT, Year A

31 Sunday Aug 2014

Posted by John Charmley in Bible, Commentaries, Faith

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

choices, Christianity, Jesus, Obedience, orthodoxy, self denial, sin, St Peter

St Matthew 16:21-27

Chrysostom points out that Peter uses human reasoning and understanding to question the will of God; his reasoning is carnal, it is the same reasoning Adam and eve used in the Garden of Eden; it is of Satan. Just as John had hesitated to baptise Jesus, so Peter, also reasoning as men reason, misses the will of God. Jesus does the will of God. Origen remarks that now the Apostles knew the identity of Jesus, they have to begin to face up to the destiny that He will soon face; this they find hard. Peter is, Chrysostom says, overwhelmed and confused; he had learned the truth of the identity of Jesus, but not yet the truth of the Cross. He does not know that the Son of Man must suffer for many, or that the way of the disciple is also to take up the Cross of suffering. The gain of wheat must fall into the earth and doe before it is fruitful; so too must the new man in Christ suffer – and he must do so willingly. Only those willing to lose this earthly life will gain the reward of life eternal. Origen remarks that it is the way of men in this world to cling on to life and to try to avoid suffering, and it is thus that Peter reasons.

St Cyril of Alexandria says it is not surprising that the disciples, so recently enlightened as to the identity of the Lord, should still be confused about what he says. They still expect the Messiah to come to redeem captive Israel, and they are not expecting the Suffering Servant. It is only in the Second Coming that He will come in glory to judge both the living and the dead. The glory of the Father is that of the Son, for they are of one substance. Peter, like all Christians, should look to the life to come, for we are not bound by the chains of death, we have new life in Christ. All that was lost will be renewed, aye, and with profit, and though we are dead, we shall live, and death shall have no dominion, for the Lord is Risen. But first He must pass through the valley of the shadow of death, and He who is without sin must give His life for the sake of sinners. It was for that that he came into the world. It is the way of men to turn aside from suffering to preserve their life in this world, but down that wide road lies only destruction. Only in obedience to the will of God can the Christian triumph; only in the Cross of Christ can life be found; only in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit can we persevere in this life, which is but the preparation for life eternal.

Venial sins & their effect

28 Thursday Aug 2014

Posted by John Charmley in Anglicanism, Bible, Catholic Tradition, Faith, Homilies, Pusey

≈ 20 Comments

Tags

Christianity, Grace, self denial, sin

Continuing with our short series of Pusey sermons, here he considers the effects of what the Church calls venial sins and directs us towards the need to deal with them. Too conscious, perhaps, of the effect of the great sins, we can relax our guard against those others which tend, over time, to undermine our faith and character.

1 Corinthians 3:12-15
Now if any man build on this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;…

You know well what would become of a house of wood or of a rick if fire was kindled around it, on however good and solid a foundation of stone it might be raised. The foundation upon which it was built would not save it. So then there are works, done by those who do not yet forsake Christ, which shall not stand in the fire of the great day. What are they, then? Are they great, deadly sins, such as the apostle elsewhere speaks of, “Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, hatred, drunkenness, revelling, and such like”? No. Such works are not and cannot be built upon the foundation; they, as far as in us lies, destroy the foundation, and the soul itself. They who do these things do not build upon “the Rock which is Christ”; they “build their house on the sand; and the ruin of that house,” our Lord says, “is great.” What, then, are these things done by a Christian which bring upon him such terrible loss for eternity? They are heaps of little sins; little self-indulgences against the law and will and mind of God, which do not extinguish the love of God in the heart, yet chill it exceedingly; little vanities; little envies; little self-seekings or selfishnesses; little detractions of a neighbour; little unseriousnesses; little contemptuousnesses; idle imaginings; petty angers; little deceitfulnesses or self-praise. Sins they are of which people make very little, because one by one they think them little sins, but which, weighed together, become very heavy. These encrust the soul, as it were, with habits of mind, in thought, word, and deed, with which they cannot enter heaven. In heaven there cannot be the slightest thought of vain-glory; no petty repugnance or mislike of one another; no suspicion; no comparison of ourselves with others; no discontent; no repining; no thought that we are not cared for enough or loved enough; no grudge; no remembrance of unkindness. And if all these things must be left and laid aside at the very portals of heaven; if none of these things can stand the fire of the day of judgment; if the slightest feeling of unlove would be a dark spot, seen through the whole brilliancy of heaven and unbearable in its transparent purity and brightness; what are any of us doing if we are not using our utmost strength, all the power of our souls, to lay them aside now?

Free Will

27 Wednesday Aug 2014

Posted by John Charmley in Anglicanism, Bible, Catholic Tradition, Faith, Homilies, Pusey

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

Christianity, Grace, orthodoxy, self denial, St Peter

Pusey’s sermons are, in my view, a fund of good, solid, Christian teaching, and the contain warnings which we would still be well-advised to heed. Here, in prophetic mode, he discusses a topic close to our hearts – free will.

1 Peter 2:13-17
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;…

“Tell me,” says Socrates to a disciple, “thinkest thou that freedom is a great and glorious possession alike to a man and a state?” “Most exceedingly.” “Whoso then is ruled by bodily pleasures and on account of them cannot do what is best, thinkest thou that he is free?” “Not at all.” “For to do what is best seemeth to them to be free; and so then, to have those who should hinder so doing to be unfree?” “Certainly.” “The incontinent seem then to you to be unfree?” “Assuredly.” “And they seem to you not only to be hindered from doing the best things, but to be constrained to do the foulest?” “Both alike.” “But what sort of masters deemest thou those to be, who hinder what is best, constrain to what is worst?” “The worst.” “And what slavery thinkest thou the worst?” “That to the worst masters.” “The incontinent then are enslaved to the worst slavery?” concludes . “I think so.” You know how with one consent heathen philosophers said, “The wise man alone is free.” “He alone is indeed free,” says Philo, “who taketh God alone for his commander.” “The good man alone is free; for the evil man, though he deny it, is the slave of as many lords as he has vices.”

“Lust cometh, and saith, ‘Thou art mine, for thou covetest the things of the body. In such or such a passion thou soldest thyself to me; I counted down the price for thee.’ Avarice cometh and saith, ‘Thou art mine; the gold and the silver which thou hast is the price of thy slavery.’ Luxury cometh and saith, ‘Thou art mine; amid the wine cups I purchased thee; amid the feasts I gained thee.’ Ambition cometh and said to thee, ‘Thou art surely mine. Knowest thou not, that to that end I gave thee command over others, that thou thyself mightest serve me? Knowest thou not, that to that end I bestowed power on thee, that I might bring thee under mine own?’ All vices come, and one by one they chant, ‘Thou art mine.’ He whom so many claim, how vile a slave is he!” From this slavery Christ came to set us free.

“If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” But then are we not still under a law? and, if we are under a law, how have we that freedom which youth especially longs for? Is then lawlessness the only freedom? Men admire what is called “the reign of law,” throughout the boundless realms of God’s creation. So did they idolise the beauty of the conception, that they are jealous even of Almighty God Himself, and would not have Him, by any higher law of His love, suspend His usual modes of His operation, Law then is some thing beautiful. Even in human things, what in sights and sounds so thrills through us, as when many voices or minds through obedience to a law become as one? What are all these deeds of united heroism, when all lay “with their back to the field and their feet to the foe,” or that inscription, “To Lacedaemon tell, that here, obeying her behests, we fell,” but the wills of many, obeying, to the death, minds without them whose will they reverenced? And cannot Almighty God make us love a law, which is the transcript of His perfections, the law of love; a law which responds to the law of our better nature within; which brings our whole being into harmony with itself, with our fellow beings and with Him.