The Paradox of the Cowley Fathers

I’ve just finished reading Serenhedd James’ The Cowley Fathers which, as the subtitle announces, is “a history of the English Congregation of the Society of St. John the Evangelist.” I found it scholarly and for the most part very readable, even fun in spots.

The Society of St. John the Evangelist was an Anglo-Catholic monastic institution founded in Oxford in 1866 by Richard Meux Benson.  It dissolved with two active resident members in 2012.  For most of its life, it was based in the Oxford suburb of Cowley on the grounds now used by St. Stephen’s House, hence the affectionate moniker the Cowley Fathers.

Two paradoxes of its history struck me as I read James’ book, one positive, one not so positive.  First, the positive and downright Biblical paradox.  During its entire history, the Society of St. John the Evangelist had barely over a hundred members who remained in vows, “professions,” until death.  Yet in spite of its modest size it had a profound international impact, including in India, in South Africa, and in urban communities in the United States.  At home in England, it was a leader in the Anglo-Catholic Congresses and in providing retreats and spiritual direction to many, including C. S. Lewis.  More still can be said about their ministry.  The Cowley Fathers embodied the truth that God can work by many or by few.

The unpleasant paradox is one shared by much of the church during the 1960’s and later, that the Society watered down and cast off more and more of its heritage for a modern porridge, even including eventual majority support for women’s ordination and for the formation of Affirming Catholicism.  The motivation was to become more modern, relevant, and attractive, but the result turned out to be more repellant than attractive.  

While reading James’ narrative, it is not easy to discern just how this sad direction came about. But it is clear that Vatican II’s influence on the Church of England certainly influenced the Society as well.  Internally, much of the responsibility of the descent belongs to David Campbell, “the architect of most of the Society’s reforms of the 1960’s,” in James’ perhaps overly kind words, and then Superior General from 1976-1991.  He led the Society into terminal decline, acknowledging “we do not know whether or not there will be many chapters to follow” yet all the while expressing a positive spin on the decline that is pitiful and tragicomical in hindsight. 

Granted, Anglican monasticism as a whole declined in the post-war years; that decline was under way before the 60’s.  But one would think Campbell and the rest of the Society would have grasped that an attractive strength was its robustly catholic Anglican distinctiveness.  To exchange that for worldliness was foolish at best and surely accelerated the sad decline of the Society.  (Note that is my conclusion, not James’.)

Yes, the history of the Society of St. John the Evangelist has lessons for the church today, does it not?  If only those lessons were learned.

Matt Kennedy Added to ACNA Working Group

I am pleased to hear Fr. Matt Kennedy has been added to ACNA’s Working Group on Race, Racism, and Racial Reconciliation.

I had concerns about the balance of the group but kept them private because I did not know enough about the group members to have a public opinion.  I do know Matt well enough to know he will significantly improve the group’s balance.  And he is an excellent addition regardless.

Even before his appointment I have harbored some hope that the Working Group and the College of Bishops’ response to it would steer ACNA away from the influence of Critical Theory.  That hope is increased now.

The Good Samaritan Revisited

I have a confession to make.  There are a few Bible passages that come up in worship and teaching often and prompt me to think with a tedious sigh, “Oh.  That passage again.”  Yes, that response is sinful and disgusting.  And the parable of the Good Samaritan, which is the Gospel for the 13^th Sunday after Trinity, has been one of those passages.

But I am glad to say the Lord and two excellent sermons on this parable disabused me of that putrid attitude.  First my Rector used the occasion to preach against false notions of social justice prevalent today.  I am encouraged by this and other signs of push back in ACNA.  He also noted that the inn symbolizes the church, something I had either forgotten or missed.

Then I read Sunday’s sermon at Pusey House from the Principal, George Westhaver.  I found it a delight, full of history and interpretation that is new to me.  The significance of traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho, the connection between the Gospel and Epistle lessons for Trinity 13, interpretations of the two denarii – these are among the new (or forgotten) things the sermon taught me.  And, yes, the Principal’s thankfulness for the lawyer’s question also made me smile.

Need I say more?  Read his sermon! (It can also be found at the Pusey House site.  Be aware that his sermons are prepared for delivery more than for reading.  There may be an occasion abbreviation or typo.)

----

TRINITY 13 2020, The Good Samaritan Jesus Christ, Pusey House

Now which of these three was neighbour….

 

The hero of the Gospel story is obviously the Samaritan who cares for the injured man. But the Samaritan is not the only one for whom we may be grateful, we may also be grateful to the lawyer and his questions. People have many jokes about lawyers, but here lawyer is a kind of hero also. Who is my neighbour? The Lawyer’s questions alert us to an important challenge. How do I recognize my neighbour, know the call to love? We’ll look at the answer in a moment, but notice – both the lawyers questions were asked in part for bad reasons. We are told that lawyer wanted to tempt Christ, and that’s what the devil did. And then, we are told that he wanted to justify himself, which is what the Pharisee from Gospel a few weeks ago did, and we know that this is dangerous also. But, in the mercy of God, even these bad motives are turned to good. Thank God for the lawyer, not only for the good in his question, but also for the way the Lord Jesus turns bad to good, death to life. We pray or we ask questions of God for many reasons, and sometimes, with bad and good mixed up in or hopes and in our motives. Yet, if we take questions to Christ, if we persevere in our desiring and asking, we have a good hope that even our confused motives will be turned to good. I may pray for peace of mind, and don’t get it. And then, I am given grace to see that I don’t know the things which belong to my peace, then I see that the Lord is calling me to change so that he can give His peace.^[1]

Some of you will have heard me speak about how his parable is presented in the stained glass of Chartres cathedral. When great Gothic cathedrals were built, filled with stained glass. In golden age of late 12^th and early 13^th, when glass of Chartres and Canterbury was made, most of these cathedrals had a Good Samaritan window. 

The Good Samaritan window is the paradigmatic window of the classic age of stained  glass--why? 

On the one hand, the message of the parable is clear and straightforward. The one who is neighbour to the injured man is an outsider. The Jews looked at the Samaritans with hostility and distrust, and with some good reason. The parable teaches us to see in the outsider our neighbour, one stamped also with the image of God. We are warned about the forms of prejudice or hostility that lead us to deny the common humanity which we share with those different from us. This is of course true, but when the parable was preached on in the ancient Church, most commentators did not begin here. In the Gospels, Jesus is sometimes called a Samaritan, a term of abuse. When we ask who is neighbour to the man in need, the answer the early commentators on this passage gave first was Jesus. They saw in the parable a description the human need, and a description of the fulfilment of the promise in Christ.

 

A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho. 

This is not just any journey. This is a journey from the city of promise, to the city of the curse. Jericho was a cursed place in the OT. It was a favourite retreat of Herod the Tetrach, who killed John the Baptist, and Jericho was near the traditional site of the Temptation of our Lord. The route from Jerusalem to Jericho was notorious as being infested by thieves, a dangerous route. Why would anyone want to leave Jerusalem, the place of the temple, the city of promise, to the city of the curse? If that sounds like a strange question, why would any one of us not chose things which belong to our peace? Well, it’s not so easy is it? We get confused, envy seems like justice, lust seems like love, idolatry seems like enlightened free choice, and even hatred can even dress itself up as hurt feelings. 

We can find ourselves on the way to Jericho almost before we realize it. We may feel trapped, chained. The very things we hate about ourselves come out, again, the very things we confessed and desperately wanted to get rid of, again we find ourselves on the road to Jericho. Sometimes, we don’t think that we’ll go all the way to Jericho, but we can’t stay cooped up in a city of peace, joy, and faith all the time, can we? That wouldn’t be human, or it doesn’t seem that way anyway. This journey describes humankind which fell away from God, and each one of us choosing the wrong thing, finding ourselves, somehow, on the road to Jericho again. This certain man is Adam, every man, and us. When we make that journey, we always fall among thieves. Sometimes we convince ourselves that it won’t work out that way. But, when we give ourselves to hatred, or divisive anger, or contempt, we always loose something of ourselves: the thieves stripped [the man] of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. This is a picture of the life-sapping character of sin, of all choices against the love and wisdom of God. 

 

Next we come to the part of the story where we are most tempted to self-righteousness. 

And by chance there came down a certain priest that way; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite,

On a human level, of course the priest and levite, the religious experts, should stop. We may feel convicted here, and see how we have done the same thing. Ironically, this is a problem more of those who are really trying to live well. The trouble is that our efforts to do the right thing can lead to a certain contempt for those who are in trouble. 

But there is also a deeper truth here. The priest and Levite aren't heartless, they’re just not capable of helping the man. They are the law and the prophets. They can see the man in the ditch, they can see that he has fallen among thieves, they can see that he needs help, but they are not the Saviour. This old interpretation explains what might seem like an odd choice for the Epistle. The Epistle describes the relation of promise and law, what the law can give, and what the Christ will do. St Paul says that the law was a kind of schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. At the same time, it’s not enough  to be given a law, or a code of practice. The law needs to enlivened by the Spirit, by the goodness which the prophets embraced and preached: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the Law.

The priest and the Levites are the Law which reveals why it is a bad idea to go to Jericho, but a law which cannot heal the deep wounds which we get on the way there, they cannot give life to the dead or the half-dead.

But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion on him

The Good Samaritan is the one who is the perfect neighbour to the man in need, or, to speak more generally, the perfect neighbour to humankind in need. According to the early interpreters of the Bible, Augustine, Origen, Ambrose, for example, this Samaritan is Jesus Christ. The Good Samaritan is the one who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and took the road of this present life. He is the seed of Abraham in whom the law and the promise is fulfilled. In the words of Pusey’s mentor and confessor, John Keble, out of love for us, "He made Himself a Samaritan, one who was despised and an outcast of the people."^[2] Christ took the road from Jerusalem to Jericho to be our fellow-traveller, and he falls among thieves for us. In the great Good Samaritan window in Chartres, the certain man gives his back to the smiters, he opens not his mouth, the thieves are like the vicious soldiers in a passion painting, all the while the cross-shaped tree waits for the noble weight of the limbs of the Son of God. 

The Good Samaritan, Jesus Christ does not pass by. He falls among thieves for us, but the viciousness of this un-love has no power over him. He rises from the dead to come to look for us, wounded, and half-dead (note well – only half dead). He pours in wine: this is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins. The good Samaritan does not pass by, he finds each one of us, "binds up our wounds, pouring in oil and wine, healing our past sins and giving us grace".^[3]

What happens next? 

The Samaritan puts the man ‘on his beast’.

In the tradition, this beast is the human nature which the Son of God takes on. Human nature had become beast-like, but the Word becomes flesh, and then carries us with this flesh.

Another interpretation is that this beast is, you know this of course, this beast is the clergy.^[4] By the grace of God, our Lord can use the most stubborn animal to serve his purposes of love, even the clergy. 

The fathers heard the inn as a description of the Church. In the two denarii they saw the treasure of the Gospel, the Old and New Testaments, the two great sacraments, baptism, and HC. Our Lord departs, but it is his treasure, his Word, the sacraments of His life, which sustain us. 

This is, of course, a very brief tour of a very rich parable, rich with the treasure of the Gospel.

Which now is neighbour to him that fell among thieves? First, it is Christ. We are blessed to see the love of God which searches out the man in the parable, but which searches out each one of us on the way from Jerusalem to Jericho. It is his love in us which sends us out to love and to serve. 

Who is the Good Samaritan? This is tricky. 

In a phrase worthy of Stalin, Roger Hallam, one of the founders of Extinction Rebellion, was heard telling his followers that 'the people that run society, run big business, run governments, run the elites' are fully responsible for the 'climate catastrophe'. The solution? MPs and business owners who do not support his understanding of caring for the environment 'should have bullet put through their heads'. Hallam presents his work as saving humanity. That sounds like work of Good Samaritan. But his words reveal something more dangerous and dark, a hatred of at least some of the people he wants to save. 

Some of the conversations about race in recent months show the other problems. Martin Luther King and so many of the great champions of racial equality saw this promise as an expression of the Gospel, of the equal but different dignity bestowed on every person made in the image of God, created to love and to enjoy God’s goodness. On the one hand, we are invited to renew this search for the dignity which God intends. On the other hand, some use language which suggests that some have more dignity than others, language which encourages resentment and division, which condemns the past but shows a great blindness with regard to the present. 

We are living through strange political times, and we need the probing questions of the lawyer in the parable, who is my neighbour, and above all the grace and wisdom of GS JC, a love which conquers hatred and death, and which turns the bad in our mixed motives, to the good wine of his grace. Whatever enables us to see one another, to really see, through eyes of GS JC, this comes first. Then, raised up and enabled to see, with ears unblocked and tongue loosed by the grace of God, then  we can, with the lawyer in the parable, Go and do likewise. 

Let us come to have our wounds bound up, to have grace poured in, to have our eyes open, and to see and love one another in the inn to which the Saviour takes us. 

---

[1] Sometimes, if we get exactly what we pray for, it would be like our heavenly father giving us a stone when we need bread. That change is part of how the lawyer’s mixed motives are turned to good, for him and for us. Ask for something, we get something different, important not to go on as if there is no mercy of God, no goodness of God in the different answer, or, from the reading this past week, maybe the struggle is where we find God’s strength in our weakness. Both too simplistic, perhaps. Finding God’s mercy and God’s wisdom in the answer we didn’t want to get is important, key to learning to grow up in our life of prayer. 

[2] Keble Sermons, Trinity XIII-end, p. 22.

[3] Keble.

[4] Thanks to Fr Jonathan Beswick for this.

Esau McCaulley Assumes Police Murdered George Floyd

Dr. Esau McCaulley excerpts his book Reading While Black and writes on a Biblical view of policing in the latest Christianity Today.  He makes some good points, but near the beginning he discredits himself with an inflammatory assumption [Emphasis mine].

The dark silt of that history has been brought to the surface by recent events, most notably the murder of George Floyd at the hands of police. The many protesters who have marched in our nation’s streets bear witness to the fact that Floyd is not the first. Black Americans have been “under the knee” for not days or weeks but centuries, and this cumulative oppression is once again front and center in our national consciousness.

Thus McCaulley, for publication no less, assumes police murdered George Floyd.  He in effect writes that police intentionally killed Floyd; for murder implies intent.  Further, it is not clear just what killed Floyd.  One possibility is that an overdose of fentanyl killed him; the medical examiner’s report states that his blood had a level of that drug that can be lethal.

What makes McCaulley’s assumption worse is that the police involved are to stand trial, for 2^nd degree murder in Derek Chauvin’s case.  McCaulley does not seem to appreciate America much at times, but one good thing about this country is that our courts assume a man is innocent until proven guilty.  And responsible writers and publications usually take measures to respect that.  Newspapers make a point to print “alleged” murderer, or whatever the accusation is, when someone has not yet been convicted.  Both McCaulley and Christianity Today are reckless and irresponsible when they assume the guilt of murder, either legal or ethical guilt, particularly in such an unclear case.  And, yes, it is unclear.  (That police horribly mishandled a difficult situation is clear.  That it was murder is not.)

Further, in the midst of riots, arson, looting, and attacks on the streets, McCaulley’s assumption does not help matters. 

The above is bad enough.  What makes matters even worse is that McCaulley is a cleric in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) and should therefore be all the more passionate and careful about truth.  Further he is responsible for recruiting other clergy as head of ACNA’s Next Generation Leadership Initiative.  And now he has been placed on ACNA’s Working Group on Race, Racism, and Racial Reconciliation.

It is difficult to see how McCaulley will be helpful in bringing about racial reconciliation when he so assumes a white policeman is guilty.  And Archbishop Foley Beach has requested restraint from ACNA clergy and that they defer to the Working Group for a season:

Specifically, regarding racial issues, we now have a Provincial Working Group on Race, Racism, and Racial Reconciliation which has begun meeting and who will present their results to the bishops in several months. Until then, it is time to listen and not to pontificate our specific political positions. Let us love our neighbors as ourselves.

McCaulley’s article may not be a technical violation of this request, particularly since he submitted it before the Archbishop’s letter.  But an apology and much more restraint forthwith is appropriate given his importance in ACNA and on the Working Group.

And if I were Christianity Today, I would edit the offending paragraph and fast for reasons both ethical and legal.  To assume in print a man’s guilt of murder in such an unclear case and before he goes to trial is not a trivial matter.

ACNA Working Group on Race Announced

The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) has announced the composition of its Working Group on Race, Racism, and Racial Reconciliation:

---

The group is charged with joining in godly conversation and then leading the Church in similar dialogue. As the Rt. Rev. John Guernsey, Dean of Provincial Affairs who was tasked with convening the group, said, “The polarization in our culture and political life, coupled with the sensitivity of matters of race, make this a very painful topic for many. Sadly, many do not feel it is wise for them to express their views except to someone they are confident agrees with them. As a result, it is clear that one of the primary tasks of this group is indeed to talk, and then, out of that experience, to speak to the Church at large in the hope of fostering greater openness and deeper healing throughout the Province.”

Co-chairs of the group, the Rt. Rev. Alphonza Gadsden and the Rt. Rev. Keith Andrews, added, “This working group is a commitment to courage; to listen, to learn, to speak, and to act in such a way that the voice of Jesus may be heard above all other voices. Perhaps what flows from our time together, at least in part, is a better view of all the nations (ethnicities) giving praise and glory to God because we truly see others through the heart of Jesus.”

Members of the Working Group are as follows:

The Rt. Rev. Keith Andrews, Co-Chair, Diocese of Western Anglicans
The Rt. Rev. Al Gadsden, Co-Chair, REC Diocese of the Southeast

The Rt. Rev. Bill Atwood, International Diocese
Sarah Culpepper, Diocese of Fort Worth
The Rev. Kimberly Deckel, Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others
The Rev. Gabe Garcia, Diocese of Western Anglicans
The Rev. Tommy Hinson, Diocese of Christ Our Hope
The Rev. Kempton Jackson, Diocese of Rocky Mountains
The Rev. Esau McCaulley, Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others
The Rev. Gerald McDermott, Anglican Diocese of the South
The Rev. Lawrence McElrath, Special Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy
Gabby Manriquez, Diocese of Western Anglicans
The Rev. Allan Tan, Anglican Network in Canada
Albert Thompson, Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic
The Rt. Rev. William White, REC Diocese of the Southeast

Ex officio as Dean of Provincial Affairs:
The Rt. Rev. John Guernsey, Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic

The group will work together through November and assess their progress at that time in order to determine next steps.

---

I do not know enough about the participants to have much of an informed public opinion about the composition.  But I am glad to see there are a number of particularly vocal names that are not in the Working Group.

In my initial comments on the formation of this group, I said it may be helpful to defer public discussion in ACNA to a less angry, less polarized time.  That seems to be Archbishop Foley Beach’s desire as well.  Among his recommendations in his letter to the clergy yesterday was this:

Specifically, regarding racial issues, we now have a Provincial Working Group on Race, Racism, and Racial Reconciliation which has begun meeting and who will present their results to the bishops in several months. Until then, it is time to listen and not to pontificate our specific political positions. Let us love our neighbors as ourselves.

Now how much ACNA clergy or even Working Group members comply with that request in both letter and spirit is an open question.

I’ve opined that creating this group is something of a gamble.  But proceeding on an ad hoc basis was not working, to put it mildly.  The Working Group has a weighty and volatile task.  I will be among those praying for them.

Biden Doubles Down on His Charlottesville Lie

Largely overlooked in his Democrat nomination acceptance speech last night was Joe Biden repeating his big lie about Charlottesville:

“Just a week ago, yesterday, was the third anniversary of the events in Charlottesville,” Biden continued. “Close your eyes, remember what you saw on television. Remember seeing those neo-nazis and klansmen and white supremacists coming in a field with lighted torches, veins bulging, spewing the same anti-Semitic bile heard across Europe in the ’30’s.”

Biden went on: “Remember the violent clash that ensued between those spreading hate and those with the courage to stand against it? And remember what the president said when asked, he said—quote—there were very fine people on both sides,” Biden lied.   “That was a wake-up call for our country.”

I took pains to expose this lie last year.  I repeat some of what I posted then:

----

Joe Biden in beginning his campaign for President saw fit to smear President Donald Trump’s statement in the aftermath of Charlottesville. He is not the first to deceive about Charlottesville and Trump’s statement for political purposes, and he won’t be the last.  So it’s time to revisit Charlottesville.

First, Trump did not call white nationalists and the like “fine people.”  He did not, as Biden said, assign “a moral equivalence between those spreading hate and those with the courage to stand against it.”  Here is what Trump said, in context:

You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group.

And Trump’s statement was and is accurate.  You had peaceful people who, like me frankly, are concerned about taking down history for current political motivations.  And on the other side you had peaceful people who, also like me, oppose extremist racist ideologies.

----

But that doesn’t stop Joe Biden from telling his big lie. . . again.

What kind of man tells and retells such a vicious big lie at key moments in his campaign?

And why does no one in the “mainstream” “news” media ask him about this?

Antisemite Linda Sarsour a Speaker at Democrat National Convention UPDATED

Someone forgot to tell the Democrat Party that the antisemitism of the U.K. Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn was something to be avoided, not imitated. 

For look who is a speaker at the Democrat National Convention – Linda Sarsour, someone so antisemitic that the Women’s March booted her from leadership.

I’ve got no words, except to say that if the purpose of the DNC was to repel decent people, they are doing a good job of that.

UPDATE:
The Biden campaign NOW realizes how toxic Sarsour is and is trying to disassociate him from her.  Then why was she a convention speaker?

They are trying to have it both ways with a wink and a nod to the antisemites.