When is a saint not a saint? When they are a soul!

Today, 2 November, is All Souls' Day, a holy day in the western Christian calendar. 

We may be familiar with churches being called "All Souls", one of the most famous being the one on Langham Place within sight of the BBC Centre.

So what's the difference between 'saints' and 'souls'? In a sentence, the saints have already made it while the souls are still on their way... in purgatory (what has been called the "Church Penitent"). The theology of it all is rather abysmal, but, thinking out loud, I wonder if it can be 'redeemed' (pun intended). Purgatory is one of those doctrines which sneaked (snuck?) its way into the Christian faith starting in the Middle Ages. For many years it was a bone of contention between West and East, although Eastern Orthodox Christianity has a comparable notion of post-death testing: the so-called aerial toll-houses. 

The Biblical 'basis' of these doctrines is to be found in 1 Corinthians 3 - "saved through fire". Allegedly it is in a post-death fire that the soul is prepared for glory.

This notion of 'fire' provides a helpful bridge for a redemption of this concept. Fire is indeed purifying and is referenced in other texts such as in 1 Peter 4:17 to refer to believers' earthly cross-like trials, even judgments, preparing the people of God for glory. And they do so, not on account of our own merit or effort or suffering, but because of our participation in the saving merit, effort and suffering of the Saviour - crucifed and risen, suffering and glorified.  

So what I would suggest is this.

1 November reminds us of the Church Triumphant, the saints - all of them - from Abel to Zachariah, from righteous Stephen to compromised Lot, from the brightest example of Christian faith you can think of to the weakest brother or sister with all their failings who we nevertheless trust is in glory. In Christ we are all saints, departing this life flawed and mortal and instantly entering the glory of our heavenly dwelling, the object of Christian confidence not merely aspiration (Luke 23:43; Philippians 1:23, 2 Corinthians 5:3). 

And 2 November reminds us of the souls, those still on their way, to each one of us down here, the Church Militant, whose daily prayer is, "lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil", each undergoing our fiery trials and each experiencing in the midst of them the sufficient grace of God in Christ.   

What is a missionary?

I was inspired to write this article by a recent, largely helpful blogpost by missionaries involved in Bible translation, although my thoughts have been 'cooking' for many years. I should point out that I have been/was a 'missionary' (we'll come back to that word) for something like 17 of 45 years of my life. Subject to what I will say below, it is a description I embrace. And, if you didn't know already, there are countless thousands, if not millions of Christians across the world who right now are giving their all to serve God in challenging settings, proclaiming the Word and helping the needy.

I will get straight to my point. I have a problem with the concept of 'sending' and thus with the term 'missionary'. This may seem bemusing, but if you ask those who have been engaged in 'mission' you will hear countless stories of insensitive people (often including the missionaries themselves) storming into other cultures and settings and imposing their agenda, setting up local branches of their church back home and promoting their pet brands and causes. By contrast there is a species of Christians who have really 'gone native' (I know it sounds awfully colonial, but you know what I mean). They have learnt the language, embraced the culture, loved the people and often, notwithstanding challenges and setbacks, their lives and ministries have seen lasting fruit.

Just this Sunday I was talking to one such man. Humble, generous, kind, outgoing, sensitive,
intelligent - the list could go on. I was asking him about his involvement with a college for training pastors. And he shared about how he had taught a module on the history of the African church. He went on to qualify that the course was intended not from the perspective of 'sending' but rather from the perspective of 'receiving'. He told me that many of our 'missionary stories' exist in a different form in those places where they took place. So we need to approach mission not in terms of those sending and sent, but rather in terms of those receiving. This ties in well with a concept taught us by Jonathan Lamb and others in the 1990s when I first travelled to Russia and the Former Soviet Union: namely partnership, i.e. a non-domineering two-way relationship in which we participate in the lives of those we serve (and they participate in ours).

Ask any Russian pastor and they will have stories to tell of well-meaning missionaries from places such as the UK, USA or Germany inadvertently or carelessly acting inappropriately. On several occasions I have met wet-behind-the-ears, ab-initio-language learners who have been 'given' cities and whole areas by their sending missions. I sat through a sermon in which teetotal Baptists were told that being filled with the Spirit was like feeling jovial after a drink. Missionaries from one international mission which should know better 'discovered' an unreached people group, the Gaelic speakers of the Highlands and islands (one of the remaining strongholds of Christianity in the British isles).  

So how does that impact on the meaning of missionary? I concede that there will also be sending. Indeed the ultimate Sender is not the support group or the local church, but the Lord himself who breathed the Spirit from the Father on the assembled Apostles (John 20). But I would like to add that a missionary is 'one who is received' (cf. Mark 9:36-37). And mission is not merely about sending and giving, but about exchange. The 'missionary' must overcome the 'benefactor's complex' and engage with those whom he or she serves, embracing them, loving them, considering them as equals and willing to receive from them. We see this clearly in the Apostolic practice: Lydia insisting on hospitality for Paul, Paul speaking to the Philippians of his 'partnership' (from the word koinos, business partner) with them in the gospel, the Gentile Christians supporting their Jewish brethren and many other examples. "At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality." (2 Cor 8:13)  

Смешанные метафоры (Н. Т. Райт)

"Павел — мастер богатых смыслом смешанных метафор; так, в следующей главе, в 1-м послании к Фессалоникийцам 5-я глава, он говорит о приходе ночного вора, после чего у женщины начинаются родовые схватки, а потому не следует упиваться, но вместо этого бодрствовать, облекшись в броню. Как говорят в телепередачах, не пытайтесь это делать в домашних условиях!"

(Райт, Главная тайна Библия) 

Democracy in the EU: what you didn't vote for

Within the EU institutions it has long been recognised that there is a 'democratic deficit'.

However, like many problems in the EU it seems that nothing can be done to rectify it. (Another such problem is the seat of the European Parliament.)

The recent appointments at the top of the EU are a case in point.

In response to the prospect of Brexit and in the run-up to the European elections various videos were posted on Facebook, schooling people about the European institutions and how they work. The alleged misinformation by Brexiteers and others was being 'dispelled'.

Recent days have shown the reality of how the EU is actually governed. Four major appointments have been made: the President of the Commission, the President of the Council, the Chair of the European Parliament and the Head of the European Central Bank. In each case the appointments have been agreed behind closed doors and presented to the citizens of the European Union as a fait accompli. Formally, of course, these candidates have to be approved, but the process is a formality. There are no alternative candidates. There is no way for the voting public of the European Union to have its say. Indeed during the course of the recent elections to the European Parliament these candidates were not put forward or even named. In the case of the European Commission there was even a preliminary hustings for potential candidates - but the winner was not part of this process. The 'winners' will now occupy significant positions of power.

This is not democracy in any meaningful sense of the word.

Representative democracy involves an electorate scrutinising, electing, hold to account and potential removing from office members of parliament. These members sit in parliaments where debates take place, votes are taken, bills passed or otherwise. In some cases the members are subjected to press scrutiny. They have to answer questions. They can be recalled and, even if they aren't, they carry out their duties in the sure knowledge of another election in 4-5 years time. This urgency is even more apparent in the case of government ministers.

The EU institutions, in their present form, simply do not live up to this standard.

MEPs are elected with turnouts well below 50% by electorates who often have little idea who or what they are voting for. They then sit in a huge parliament numbering almost 800 members, debating motions about which the general public are largely ignorant, resulting in legislation which is mandatory throughout the EU.

The European Commission is even worse. Its members are unelected, very often consisting of national politicians who have resigned or reached the end of their 'shelf life' in their countries of origin. Their allegiance is not to the electorate so much as the European project per se. Just as they are co-opted by backroom deals, so they are unaccountable. There was at least one case of a mass resignation in 1999, however this was in response to a damning report, not something won by the EU electorate. The European Commission is the 'executive' arm of the EU, the European 'government'. In what meaningful sense can it be said that anyone in the United Kingdom or Germany or anywhere else for that matter, even the most devoted Europhile, voted to be governed by Ursula von der Leyen? How many people outside Germany even knew her name before her appointment was announced? (This is not a personal slight against the mother-of-seven and current Minister of Defence in Germany, but rather an objection to the way in which she has been appointed.)  

Finally, there is the European Council. Now, unlike the previous two institutions, the Council is made up of ministers accountable to national parliaments and electorates. The European Council does, to an extent, reflect what remains of national sovereignty within the EU. However, an important position in the Council is the President, elected for a two-and-a-half-year term (renewable once). Since the treaty of Lisbon this position has been held by Herman Van Rompuy of Belgium, Donald Tusk of Poland (who during the Brexit negotiations famously assigned his UK colleagues a place in Dante's Inferno) and, most recently, Charles Michel of Belgium. Again, I am sure Charles Michel is a nice guy, but readers are invited to read up on the latter's political career. In my personal opinion, hardly a CV meriting appointment to the role of leader of a 500 million superstate. 

What I cannot comprehend is why in the minds of tens of millions of Europeans this unwieldy, undemocratic, flawed juggernaut has become the object of quasi-messianic expectations. I treasure the postwar French-German friendship and am all for international friendship and cooperation. But this cannot be equated with what is a seemingly unstoppable rush towards greater and greater centralisation at the expense of democratic accountability and common sense combined with an almost total inability to learn from past mistakes or rectify identified problems.

Surely there must be a better way. 

Фома Аквинский об авторитете Священного Писания

Таким образом, священное учение ссылается на авторитет философов в тех вопросах, в которых им было дано познать истину силами естественного разума; сказал же Павел в ареопаге: «Как и некоторые из ваших стихотворцев говорили: мы Его и род» (Деян. 17, 28). Впрочем, авторитет их для священного учения условен и случаен, авторитет же канонических Писаний — истинен и неоспорим; [более того] даже авторитет учителей Церкви, хотя на них и ссылаются, не неоспорим. Ибо вера наша зиждется на откровении, преподанном апостолам и пророкам, написавшим канонические книги, а не на откровениях (если таковые имеют место), преподанных учителям Церкви. Поэтому и сказано Августином: «Только эти книги Писания, называемые каноническими, столь достославны, что мы веруем: авторы их ни в чем не погрешили против истины. Что же до прочих писателей, труды коих мне довелось читать, то, полагаю, не все в их трудах истинно: ведь какой бы ни достигли они учености и святости, это все равно — просто их собственные писания и помышления».

Фома Аквинский, Трактат о священном учении, раздел 8, Ответ на возражение 2.

Посвящение диакониссы / Ordination of a deaconness

Бог Вечный, Отец Господа нашего Исуса Христа, мужа и жены Создатель, исполнивший Духом Мариамь и Деворру, и Анну и Олдану, не отказавший Единородному Сыну Твоему родиться от жены, и в скинии свидетельства и в храме избравший жен стражами святых ворот Твоих. Сам и ныне призри на рабу Твою сию, избранную для служения, и дай ей Духа Святого, и очисти её от всякой скверны плоти и духа для того, чтобы достойно совершать врученное ей дело во славу Твою и похвалу Христа Твоего, с Которым Тебе слава и поклонение, и Святому Духу во веки. Аминь.

(Апостольские постановления, viii.20)

“Eternal God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Creator of man and woman, who didst fill Miriam and Deborah and Hannah and Huldah with the Spirit, and didst not disdain to suffer thine only-begotten Son to be born of a woman; who also in the tabernacle and the temple didst appoint women keepers of thine holy gates: look down now upon this thine handmaid, who is designated to the office of deacon, and grant her the Holy Ghost, and cleanse her from all filthiness of the flesh and of the spirit, that she may worthily execute the work intrusted to her, to thine honor and to the praise of thine Anointed; to whom with thee and the Holy Ghost be honor and adoration forever. Amen.”

(Apostolic Constitutions, viii.20)

"все вокруг увядает..." (Августин)

 

«Христос явился людям ветшающего, приходящего в упадок мира, чтобы они могли через Него принять новую, полную молодости жизнь, в то время как все вокруг увядает».

Аврелий Августин Иппонский (V век)