The fall of humanity that began in the Garden of Eden was the flashpoint of our need for a savior. But this need is not strictly based on penal sanction, that God owes us all a lick’n and so he sent Christ to take the lick’n. Certainly we are, as St. Paul says, children of wrath, but Paul is speaking eschatologically when he says that we are all born in sin and are on the path of destruction.

The wrath of God is going to happen no matter what! Christ’s advent to the world does not cancel this wrath out but it does allow us to escape this wrath and to be redirected. This does not happen by so-called ‘penal substitution’ (that the lick’n on the people must happen and Christ takes it for them) but it happens through our redirection through the cross. In other words, the cross does not cancel wrath but it redirects us on to another path, the path of eternal life so as not to experience the final wrath.

Atonement involves redirecting us from Satan to God. Without Christ, our direction is bent toward the path of destruction: Satan in all of his false promises. At the end of time, God will pour his wrath upon Satan and all who are a part of Satan’s world. God must do this not because certain people did not believe Christ took wrath but because they did not believe Christ was the Messiah and the “wages of sin is death.” But those that are believers do not sin eternally as we see in 1 John 3. This third chapter of 1 John teaches us that Christ came to destroy the works of the devil in our lives and because of this our sin does not continue to build itself to this day of wrath.

The problem with much of Western theology is that it is caught up in legalism. Much of Western theology teaches that God owed man punishment as a legal requirement and so Christ took this punishment to himself so that we would not receive it.

Christ’s sacrifice was not done because of the Law – because the law says that there must be a sacrifice – but his sacrifice was done in spite of the law; not that the Law is wrongheaded but that it was created to show the sacrifice of Christ. So, okay, some may be thinking of the chicken and egg conundrum but this is not like that. It is important for us to know that blood sacrifice was not created for payment. We see this notion of sacrifice-for-payment nowhere in the Bible. Blood sacrifice was first created to point to Christ’s sacrifice. The proposed notion that sacrifice was instituted for residual debt was, in my estimation, a result of insecurity; as if people may think that the laws of sacrifice were arbitrary and immoral.

Blood sacrifice was in no way arbitrary and immoral, rather blood sacrifice was necessary for a multitude of reasons. It was necessary because it involves life itself, the very thing that we are trying to protect. As people we live our lives so as to protect the sanctity of life and live as long and as prosperous as we can. Life is important to us and so when life is stopped we stop and we listen. We relate, sympathize and even mourn when life is stopped, when we see the face of death, especially if we are somehow relationally involved in the death. 

The fact that we escape eternal death from the cross does not mean that Christ took a punishment upon himself. God does not punish himself. He never has and he never will. What God has done is sacrificed himself. Christ said this: “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”

Christ did not allow himself to be punished but what he did was he allowed himself to be martyred. There is a big difference. The Western thought that God punished Christ does not fully place the guilt on man by believing God punished Christ for us. It was man that murdered Christ! Think of perhaps when you were a child and you did something wrong and blamed it on someone else. We do this all the time! We always look for someone or something to blame our problems on. We look for a scapegoat. We search for someone to take away our problems, someone or something to take out of the picture so that things can go our way.

Christ is our scapegoat! This is a part of the Old Testament analogy of Christ; that our sins are taken away through the scapegoat (Leviticus 16:2-10). Christ takes the blame for our sin and endures the punishment that we instituted: execution. Remember, God said that we put to death those that sin by murdering another. Christ did not commit such an act. When Christ was tried he was tired for blaspheme and crucified for blaspheme by his own people, the Church.

If Christ was to be punished for our sins he could have simply called an execution to be done on his own accord. It could be argued that Christ died both because of God’s wrath/punishment due to us as well as His people’s rejection of him but these two purposes of his death actually oppose themselves. If God wanted the execution to be done then would his people really be guilty?

The way that God pours out the crucifixion onto our lives is not by us constantly reciting the modern doctrine of justification to ourselves (modern Christian, Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones first taught this and then Sovereign Grace picked up on it). God pours out the power of his crucifixion to us by the sacraments first instituted by Christ and also by the fact that we have this grinding psychological and spiritual need to reconcile ourselves to God (Christ forgiving us does not mean that our desire to reconcile to him is put to an end).  

This does not mean that murder is primary sin that we need to repent of or that murder is the sum of all sins. This means that we have become a part of God’s elect people that murdered Christ. That does not sound very exciting, I know. But this is what it means to be a part of the people of God. It was not that the Jews were guilty and so then a new group was formed. No, the Jews were given the kingdom; and the Church as we know it is a continuation of those same people.

When we surrender our lives to Christ we begin to find out that we are a part of this Covenant people. We are grafted into the Holy people of God. This brings an enormous burden upon us that must begin to reconcile itself to God lest we fall away to the snares of the Devil before we become rooted.   

We must believe that WE put Christ to death but that God forgives us for this. Your sin put Christ to death. You, because you are no different than the people of the first century. As St. Paul says, we all have the same sinful nature that needs to be dealt with.

Christ is the victim and you are the criminal. You must turn yourself in to his authority. You will first be imprisoned but after your eyes are fully opened from all the tears, you will realize that you have been brought into a very unique prison, a new city of hope; yes a city that is much more confined than that of the outside world but a city that is protected by great kingdom walls; a city that is expanding and growing into an eternal kingdom of heaven.  You are now redirected! You have not acquired a legal status that you can jump up and down about. You have become a part of God’s covenant people, a people that has now acquired the “ministry of reconciliation” (St. Paul).

Take a hold of the feeling of guilt that you have and do not attempt to wash it away and believe that it is Satan telling you to earn your salvation (again, the modern teaching of Sovereign Grace). This feeling is a part of your holy calling to Christ. Take this to your Sunday worship and cry your eyes out so that you may be continually reconciled to Christ. Enter into a state of humility and sorrow! In secular terms, think of the kid you blamed or the kid you picked on in school and how you have this constant desire to help him/her. This feeling is similar to your relationship to Christ. You are guilty and you are spiritually inclined not just to say hey thanks, or even hey thanks a thousand times but you are spiritually inclined to reconcile with them through a genuine and continuing relationship.

There is a guilt that continues past all conversion experience directly into your life of Christ. It is a guilt that is healthy and that drives us to worship Christ with humility and tears…tears that lead to joy, but nonetheless, tears! How do we acquire these tears? Well, it does not come by modern doctrines of Western thought but by more ancient doctrines of the East which teach that Christ was much more of a scapegoat and a ransom than he was God’s voodoo doll (Okay, I know that was kind of low but I want to make a point that Christ is not a figure to be disciplined on our behalf).

The guilt that you may have as a Christian needs to come from the fact that Christ is your scapegoat. It will help to know that you are a part of His Covenant people that murdered him. Do not attempt to fabricate a guilt and obtain what St. Paul calls a “worldly sorrow,” by perhaps thinking of the worst few sins you have committed and then asking God to forgive you as a sinner (in order to enter his covenant). This may fade and you may find yourself a seed that never takes root. True sorrow comes from your position within the covenant and if you attempt to extinguish this sorrow you will become very confused and superficial.

As James says, morn…let your laughter be turned to sorrow. Certainly he is speaking to a disobedient people, but the medicine he is prescribing them is the same medicine that Christ prescribes to us all. As the Psalmist says, “He who continually goes forth weeping, Bearing seed for sowing, Shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, Bringing his sheaves with him.”

Remember Christ as the victim and the scapegoat so that you remain humble and do not fall into modern doctrines of legalism and false hope.

L

Many say that liturgical worship is “canned” and “dry.” But the truth is that liturgical celebration is only canned and dry to those that are unwilling to involve themselves in it. The Liturgical church worships regardless of who is and is not worshiping. It does not change its form because of one man or many men’s unbelief.

 The traditional Church worships regardless of how you worship, regardless of whether you worship or not! The traditional church assumes a worship service for the mature Christian to worship with all that he/she has. It also assumes worship for the new believer but the new believer, at first, may not feel like they are giving their all, since their “all” is not nearly as whole as the mature believer that they are worshiping with.

 Worship is not discipleship (although it does instruct and edify), or even, in many ways, evangelism. In discipleship the Church comes down to the new believer’s level, giving certain amounts of attention and information as the person grows. But worship does not involve the Church fragmenting down to the unbeliever’s level, it involves raising the Church “up” to God. This is why the calling of the priest is so important! He is bringing us up to God to worship and serve God – to give him our hearts, hence the Prayer Book’s Sursum Corda: “Lift up your hearts. We lift them up unto the Lord. Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. It is meet and right so to do.”

 Bondservant Liturgy

I love the way St. Paul describes Christians as “bondservants.” Other translations besides the NKJ use the word slave, but bondservant seems much more appropriate since the word is not associated with modern slavery. To be a bondservant of Christ means that we are indeed bound to our servant-hood. We are not slaves in the modern sense of not having freedom, but we are slaves in the spiritual sense of having freedom yet under the certain care and tutelage of Christ.

 When we worship God on the Lord’s Day we become bondservants to Christ through the ordained liturgy of the Church. There is indeed a difference between ordained liturgy and just good liturgy. Good liturgy is good because it looks good on paper, like in a thesis. But ordained liturgy, which we shall refer to as bondservant liturgy, is good because one really and truly becomes bound to it – covenantaly speaking. Bondservant liturgy is done under the succession and law of Christ’s Church-historical under the care and authority of a bishop. Some may be a little leery on the use of the bishopric here, so please allow me to explain.

 It is not the bishop in and of himself that makes the liturgy valid. It is not even his office that makes the liturgy valid. It is what’s behind the office of the bishop that makes the liturgy valid. It is what bishops do that makes the liturgy valid.

 You may have noticed that within Christendom those churches that have no bishop have no standard of liturgy that lasts any longer than one generation. Some churches will use some parts of different liturgies for their service, but this piecemeal type of liturgy does not last. It may seem theologically correct when it is on paper, but is it theologically correct when it is within the Body of Christ? Liturgy, like all ethics, is to be covenantal: Liturgy must be able to be handed down from generation to generation. ONLY THE BISHOPRIC HAS PROVEN ITSELF TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE THIS TASK. The other modern forms of ecclesiology have not been able to sustain a standard of liturgy, and thus have not proven themselves to be covenantal liturgies. There is a liturgy that is bound and a liturgy that is not bound. The liturgy that is bound is the liturgy that is under the bishop (episcopate).

 Let’s take this a step further by including just what liturgy leads us to: grace! Vernon Stanely, in The Catholic Religion (p. 27) says:

 “The episcopate is the warrant or guarantee of sacramental grace. Those bodies of Christians who have lost the apostolic succession, have lost with it the divine warrant of such grace. God may excuse those who act in ignorance, and He may reward their faith by some gift of grace; but if so, it is as outside the covenant, and such grace is ‘uncovenanted grace.’”

Traditional liturgy involves a very tight structure that, although sometimes may seem uncomfortable to us, is able to form our character and lead us to appropriate behavior (great for both adults and kids). We become bound to this particular form/structure. It is a form that is so tightly woven that almost no personality can seep into the service. Almost none of man’s sinful nature can come in to strut its arrogance and manipulative suave. Suave is not all bad, though, right? No it is not, but suave and personality have their place. They especially have their place in conversation, where the receiving end has the freedom to shoot back, creating lively and eventful fellowship. BUT ONE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BECOME A BONDSERRVANT TO ANOTHER MAN’S PERSONALITY, ESPECIALLY WITHIN WORSHIP. Think of the ramifications of this! And does God desire to be worshiped in personality, especially that of one man’s?

Bondservant liturgy is liturgy that has succeeded multi generations and is in itself bound to Christ’s message and redemption; past, present and future. When we give ourselves to Christ’s worship we are becoming bondservants to something very particular within the framework of sanctification. When we submit ourselves as bondservants in worship, we demonstrate our ability to submit ourselves as bondservants to the entirety of life in Christ. If one cannot submit to worshiping God how much more could they possibly be able to submit themselves to anything else Christ asks of them?

There is ample evidence that British Bishops existed in the pre-Nicaene Church, such as the fact that they attended the councils of Arles (314) and Sardica (343). This is comforting to know and gives the Anglican Church serious roots, but even more serious than that is the Apostolic Succession from, in one sense, St. Patrick’s “invisible” succession of apostolic doctrine and liturgy and in another, St. Augustine, the first Archbishop of Canterbury’s “visible” succession of apostolic leadership: the bishopric.

St. Patrick was born in Scotland in the year 387. When Patrick was 16 years of age he was taken captive by Irish marauders and held as a slave for six years, when he was finally able to free himself to return home. In the year 433 St. Germain, Bishop of Auxerre, France, commissioned Patrick to accompany him to Ireland to help the very people that enslaved Patrick.

St. Patrick was instrumental not only in saving the souls of many of the Irish and establishing the Church in Britan but he was also instrumental in forming the liturgyof the Celtic/British church. Patrick had little to work with when he arrived in Ireland, as far as foundation for the Church. It seems that much of the British Church had dissolved their due to various wars. One of his main objectives was to convert Druid worship into Christian worship.

We have little traces of the exact liturgy that Patrick ended with but we know that shortly after St. Patrick’s time, St. Columba took the Irish liturgy to England. One interesting thing to note is that we know the Celtic liturgy had the Creed without the filouque clause (some Eastern influence happening here). The liturgy involved Holy Communion on Sunday’s and Holy Days with unleavened bread as well as responsive readings and Psalms. What Patrick did exactly is unknown but what it evolved in to seemed to be just what England needed. 

St. Columba (521-597) was an Irish Celt who traveled to England to plant a church with the traditions from Ireland. He, with 150 monks established the English “Mother Church” in Iona. 

In 596 Bishop Gregory sent St. Augustine and others from Rome to England as missionaries. Augustine was frightened by the stories of the Anglo-Saxon and returned to ask Gregory if he could abandon the quest. The Bishop convinced him to go forward and Augustine arrived in Kent in 597. He received land from Ethelbert to build a monastery and he later assured that Ethelbert and his knights were baptized. Augustine returned to France to be consecrated as Archbishop of Canterbury. Augustine was also commissioned to govern the whole church of Southern England and Wales, although Wales did not receive his authority.

St. Bede (673-735) was the first known scholar of the English Church. He joined the Monastery of Jarrow as a boy, completely devoting himself to study. He is known for his ecclesiastical studies of the English Church and is also known to have translated the Bible into Anglo-Saxon.

Through the centuries the English Church grew and prospered but not without conflict. As the Roman Bishop became more predominant within the church abroad, many within the Church of England became more and more disgruntled. Several organized reforms were attempted, John Wycliffe (b. 1320) being one of the more known reformers and then later in the 14th century, John Hus.

King Henry VIII was the King of England in 1509. He was a fair scholar and was received by many as a young man of promising expectations. On June 25th, 1503 he was betrothed to his sister-in-law Catherine. In June of 1527 Henry informed Catherine that they had been living in sin according to Lev. 20:21 and that they must be separated. The Pope refused to annul this marriage and so Henry withdrew from the authority of the Pontiff, something that many English churchmen had been praying for for many years.

Henry was in many ways good to the Church and the state. He despised Tyndale’s English Bible but did authorize the English version The Great Bible. He also approved of the great Thomas Cranmer as Archbishop of the Church of England. Henry wrote a treatise against Luther’s rejection of the Seven Sacraments. Henry died at Whitehall, January 28, 1547.

Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556) was a Cambridge scholar who became the Archbishop of The Church of England in 1553 by King Henry VIII. Cranmer instituted many doctrines which leaned in the direction of Calvinism. He wrote the first prayer book in 1549 and later the 42-articles of faith, which were reformed into what we know now as the 39 Articles of Faith. When Mary Tudor became Queen, Cranmer was arrested and forced to sign a letter that retracted his teachings. He was then condemned to die at the stake. When brought to the stake he first put his hand to the fire as a sign of his repentance of signing the retraction document.

In 1603 King James I sent a team named the Virginia Company to search out the new world of America. They touched America on April 19, 1607 and called the particular area Cape Henry. They began to explore and established Jamestown in May 13, 1607 with the first Anglican parish. Over the next century more a more immigrants settled in America and less and less oversight from England was implemented, eventually resulting in an overthrow of the government that is known today as the Revolutionary War.

The Episcopal Church of America was a direct branch of the Church of England. As missionary efforts unfolded in the 19th century, many Anglicans that had loose commitments to the Church of England, such as those from the Evangelical movement and Latitudinarianism movement, began to form churches. The Evangelicals and Latitudinarians were very low-church and also many of them were not concerned about establishing themselves ecclesiastically, and therefore were not able to obtain the authority from an Archbishop.

At the Revolution many of the clergy, whose license came from their bishop in England, left the colonies and returned to England, especially in the South, where laymen were left to lead the corporate worship and Morning Prayer, which became the service on Sunday due to the lack of  priests.

There was a General Council that met in 1789 to unite the church and declare Samuel Seabury’s ordination valid. Seabury had no authorization from the State of Connecticut and because of this and the fact that the Archbishop of England did not believe he could consecrate a bishop of an independent country (post-Revolutionary war). Seabury then went to Scotland to be consecrated by three bishops from the Episcopal Church of Scotland in 1784. Seabury’s ordination as bishop was later approved by the Archbishop of Canterbury.   

Seabury and White then formed the first House of Bishops. The Prayer Book was revised, removing the more Protestant liturgy. This became the first American Prayer Book of 1789.

In the early 1960s, a bishop of the Episcopal Church, James Albert Pike declared that he no longer believed in the virgin birthnor several other basic beliefs of the Christian Faith.  James Pike was a schooled attorney, admitted to practice before the U. S. Supreme Court, who came to the ministry late in life.  He became the bishop of California.  As a result of the refusal of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church to discipline him, a group of Episcopalians left that church and formed the Anglican Orthodox Church under a bishop named Dees whose headquarters was in North Carolina.  A year of so later, another group started up under bishop named George and called themselves the American Episcopal Church.  This group was based in Florida and on Bishop George’s retirement, Anthony F. M. Clavier became the bishop.  The AEC grew to a few thousand members by the 1970s. 

 By the mid seventies, more people had become distraught over the direction being taken by the Episcopal Church and called for a meeting to be held in St. Louis to discuss the direction they would take. This meeting drew several thousand people and resulted in a declaration of belief, written by Perry Laukauff now known as the Affirmation of St. Louis in which they determined to “continue” being the church that the Episcopal Church had been before Pike and the subsequent moving away from the catholic faith.  This determination led to Anglican traditionalists being known as the Continuing Anglican Church.

I made this post several weeks back and received very little response. Where are you Sola Scriptura die-hards? I would love to hear from you! Does this proposal not make sense? If it does not, what is your defence? And if it does, why are you still a modernist?

Many Modern Christians make this general type of assumption that the Bible was handed over from Christ or the Apostles themselves as some sort of gift to all mankind. But research shows us this is not the case!

The Bible is a product of the bishopric! The Bible is a result of the Church. If you do not believe in the authority of the ancient Church then you cannot believe that the Bible is the actual rule of faith. The authority of the Church is its bishopric, which no modern Christian has a part of. The ancient fathers made it very clear that if one is not under the authority of the Bishop then one is not a part of the Church.

The Bible is what the Church calls, “the Canon.” When someone quotes the Bible they are quoting the Church of the Patriarchs, which is still in existence in three geographical forms: The Eastern (Eastern Orthodox), the Roman (Roman Catholic) and the English (Anglican). All of these churches have what is called “apostolic succession.” This means that the ordination of the ministers is in succession with the Early Fathers and the councils that they met in to form the Canon (Bible). So to refer to the authority of “the Bible” is to refer to this apostolic Church, the Church that maintained the rite of the Bishop as well as the Eucharist, which is what the bishops maintain – the purity of Christ’s supper.

Apostolic succession is extremely important when referring to the very representation of God: His Word. But let us be sure to tackle the fact that there were hundreds and hundreds of legitimate books within the market of Christianity at the time the Canon was formed (4^th century); many that would be absolutely unidentifiable as “inspired” to be a part of the Canon to the average or even scholarly Christian.

The big question is, why can’t I quote a passage from Enoch, for instance, which is quoted in the Canonical book of Jude, and is extremely well written with very exciting and thorough theological points, but I can quote Revelation, which is rather confusing and never quoted in the rest of the Bible? The answer is this:

Because the Church says so! Christ gave His authority to the Church and this is the way His Spirit works.

When we quote the Bible we are quoting the Church, because it is the Church and her bishops that determined what is quotable as Scripture and what is not.

The next question is, how could a person that is not received by a bishop with apostolic succession and who does not believe that God has given these bishops authority over us even believe in the Bible and quote it as if they do believe in it? It can not be done!

The Modern Christian that does not believe in the authority of the bishopric can only quote a text that is sacred by receiving an epiphany from the Lord, such as Moses and the burning bush or even a prophetic revelation, which that person would then need to be tested as a prophet.

Modern Christian, who is your prophet? Who told you that each of the books in the Bible is “inspired?”

The Modernist cannot say that the Holy Spirit confirmed to them that the Bible is inspired because all that that would be is the Holy Spirit confirming what the Bishopric has already done!

In order to receive a truly prophetic notion from the Holy Spirit (even if one were a prophet) would be to examine every one of the early documents written in the early church and say “yay or nay.” Aside from the presupposition that the Bishopric already chose the inspired documents, how would this person tell which was which?

Would there be an audible voice? Some sort of apparition? Is it even possible for modern man to discern this selection without the Church? The answer is NO? Without a prophetic voice no deciphering can be made.

One could appoint a prophet to chose the books, but from what succession? Where does this prophet get his authority to be a prophet? Has he made miraculous discoveries? Probably not! Is he ordained from the Bishopric (apostolic succession)? Probably not, otherwise this person would not be a Modernist. They would not be in this predicament to begin with.

The logos (revelation) was given to the Church and not to the printing press. The authority of the logos was given to the Church as an oral tradition. The Church has decided that there are many portions of this tradition that deserve special attention in what we call the Canon. The Church still gives revelation but not as to contradict the Canon. This does not mean that the Church cannot grow and must, for instance, continue to worship in homes like “the Bible says.” The Canon is not a set of rules, it is a revelation that is to be taught and evangelized. The Church will continue to do this like it has from the beginning. And anyone that takes posession of the Bible without the Church is in danger of worshiping the Bible itself.

 My question is: How does the fellowship, the radio, the friends and so forth not constitute a church? It is as if they are deceiving the Christians by teaching Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is no salvation) without directly saying it. They say that salvation is by something completely invisible yet they follow up with something completely different. They too believe that through the church is the way of salvation but they for some reason want people to think that it is not the way of salvation. I believe they do this in order to paint a more powerful picture of the Holy Spirit, as if the Spirit does not direct through the ordinances of the Church but directs only through His invisible power. The whole thing is covered with lies!

Do you want to be saved? Then give yourself to the Church and begin to experience a radical change in your life. What you do not want to do is submit to some sort of rhetorical message of guilt and false promise that will lead you on a very disappointing path of cult-like entrapment and manipulation.

If God has chosen you, you will be brought by him to the baptismal font and then the communion rail, and from there an entire life of submission of prayer, worship, obedience and a host of spiritual blessings.

Everyone here has been sick at one time or another. As we all know, it is no fun being ill, especially if it is an illness that is life threatening.

Over the week I read a book called The Theology of Illness. It is written by an Eastern Orthodox Christian and is a fantastic read. In fact, I will be ordering some soon, along with some other books, to be placed in the Narthex for purchase.

I discovered some very thoughtful things in this book. And I would like to summarize my readings with you today since I think that everyone of you can benefit from this particular topic.

The first thing that we must realize when tackling issues of pain and evil is the fact that we live in a fallen world. This means that the world that we live in is not the world that God first intended us to live in. The book of Genesis says that all of the things that God created in this world were good. But it also says that when Adam and Eve chose to rebel against God the world became cursed and the forces of good and evil began to collide, fighting against one another and eventually ushering in a savior to call the end to everything.

But this calling from our savior is not done. In fact, we are in the midst of his calling and we must battle with him. And part of our battles involve illness and overall suffering! What do we make of illness? How does it fit into this plan of saving the world and our souls?

We must realize that as Christians we are not exempt from illness and suffering but in fact we, in some ways, become more susceptible to them. The book of Job is the classic example of how God actually allows Satan to have his way with us when we need spiritual growth.

 As the author of The Theology of Illness states, we must let go of our sinful passions to grow in Christ and many times it takes some suffering to get these passions to shake off.

 Suffering, especially during an illness, brings us to as state of realization; a state where we are inwardly examining ourselves and our surroundings and are reminded that we are but dust. The Early Father St. John Chrysostom says “ It is for our good that we are victims of illness…since the pride stirred up within us finds a cure in this weakness and in these afflictions.”

 First Peter 4:1 says, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin…

 Christ’s suffering gives our suffering substance. Because of Christ’s suffering we do not suffer in vein, rather we suffer through him and for him.

 Our suffering helps us leave our sin. So in one sense, we are actually sanctified through our sufferings. It’s not that we are being punished for our sins, otherwise one could be accused of being less of a Christian than someone who is not suffering an illness or trial.

 What God does is he allows us to suffer so that we may rise to higher levels; levels of spiritual enlightenment; levels that are unattainable aside from suffering.

 St. Chrysostom says this: “The physician is not only a physician when he orders baths, adequate nourishment, and when he orders the patient to walk through flower gardens, but also when he burns and cuts…”

 God is our great physician and he not only prescribes to us walks through gardens but he also prescribes the cutting and burning. It’s a hard thing to endure but it is a necessary part of this life. 

 To some extent, we should honor the state of suffering! When we are able to do this, we can not only begin to understand the sovereignty of God much better but we can likely become healed faster. Many scientific studies have shown that a proper and humble attitude can carry your health a long way.

 Documents of the early church show how Christians with terminal illnesses and severed limbs could remain in extremely calm states due to the way they perceived illness. We can also see in the Gospel how Christ says that certain illnesses are born to actually glorify God, especially when a healing takes place. 

 Terminal illnesses can also glorify God by preparing the Christian for the eternal state. Not every Christian will be given the opportunity of a preparatory illness, but God works in different ways with different people.

 St. Augustine says this: “Take care of you life and God will take care of your death.”

 Now it is certainly the will of God that people be healed, this is why the Church has taken up the ministry of healing. St. Basil of the 4^th century was known for ministering to the afflicted and latter began the first hospital in the entire world, known then as a Basiliade. This was the beginning of the modern ministry of hospital as the Church continued to plant them all throughout the world.

 So hospitals themselves are a gift from God, given to the Church. Most churches have now backed out of that ministry and have given this ministry to secular people to run – This is the result of modern doctrine that opposes the church and state relations.

 We know that by examining the Scriptures that Physicians do indeed have a noble calling in life and are in many ways ordained by God for their tasks. St. Luke was a physician and was named by St. Paul, in Colossians 4 as “the beloved physician.”

 Physicians help guide our healing process, although in our modern day many physicians refuse to include spiritual help such as prayer as a means to heal. And many physicians in America refuse to promote natural healing through herbs and other natural means.

 My mother was recently diagnosed with gall stones and was required by a doctor to have surgery but decided to tray a natural healing method beforehand (just a special diet) and ended ridding herself of the stones.

God desires healing for us; many times he desires physical healing and always he desires spiritual healing.

The Church is here to guide us through these healings. In James, chapter 5, we see that God calls us to gather the ministers to pray for the sick and to anoint the sick with oil. This is why we have what the Prayer Book call “unction,” where we do just what James 5 requires us to.

There are countless stories of God healing through the work of the Church, and this is a great thing. But let us not forget, the next time we are ill, to consider how God wants us to be healed spiritually as well as physically.

This is a beautiful crucifix that will be available through Lancelot Andrewes Press within a few weeks. This crucifix is striking in a number of ways. It not only shows Christ in icon form (flat and abstract) but it graphically portrays him just as the Holy Scriptures do. The crucifix portrays a number of things that most do not, including how Christ conquered death itself (see the skull at the bottom).

Nothing else can strike you with such fervor, so quickly than a crucifix of this nature! Buy one and put it up in your living room. No, buy two, one for your living room and one as a gift for your Evangelical friend!

Rebekah rightfully argues that contraception has created a culture of egalitarianism and infidelity within our churches. She mentions how marriage is theologically a public institution. It becomes public in a number of ways, in fact, it becomes so public that the husband and wife become accountable with their sex life to the public. Yes, that’s right, the Church is to know your sex life; not perversely of course but ethically.

Before the modern liberal era women would be at the altar during the wedding (in modesty, unlike the naked-from-cleavage-up modern era) with a somewhat timid constitution. She knew that everyone else knew that she would be having intercourse with her new husband for the first time and would likely become pregnant within a month or two. This healthy humiliation gave her and her new husband accountability. But this is not the case in the modern era. There is now no accountability at all due to the embracing of contraception.

Before, the public (church) held married people accountable through their very support of each couple’s sexual activity. Things were obvious! If the couple was not producing “fruit of their consecration” the church would pray for them since the couple was either having bodily trouble or spiritual/relational trouble. But now, the area of sex in a couple’s life is completely off limits to the Church. It’s considered to be a private matter rather than a public matter. This has created anonymity within the Church where people are practicing sex however they please. A woman can withhold sex from her husband (or vice-versa) as a vice against him/her and no one would ever know. The woman now has the power to do this type of thing. And the man’s (and the woman’s) sexual life is also so private that he can stray into pornography and sexual affairs with ease.

Contraception has built walls around marriages. You can really no longer assume that a couple is having relation or bodily problems if they have no children because contraception is perfectly acceptable within many churches. I remember when my wife and I were a part of a very popular Evangelical group and constantly hearing how this pastor or that elder was getting a vasectomy or how one of the ladies was getting her tubes tide.

The sacrament/covenant of marriage is to build a family. This does not mean that a man and wife cannot enjoy each other. On the contrary! They should enjoy each other as much as possible, but not at the expense of what Christ commands of us: procreation.

This is what is very sad about the Evangelical church, there is no union for people that do not desire to have children. There is no vow of celibacy for them and so they feel awkward and many times depressed not knowing why they have not been given the desire or avenue for marriage.

Marriage plays a key role in society and then Church at large. If we do not draw it up to be what it actually is, then liberals and other scuzzbuckets will continue to chip us apart, one piece at a time and traditional marriage will become so diluted that it will be viewed as a complete oddity.

Well, they were right. Haiti did change me. It showed me how truly blessed I am, how blessed we all are. Unemployment in Haiti is at 80 percent and they don’t have stop-gap systems like welfare to meet people’s needs. No homeless shelters, no food stamps, no government assistance. Imagine, no jobs, no welfare, no clean water, no food.

My mom couldn’t understand why I wanted to go to Haiti when people in America need help right here. Honestly I didn’t quite know myself until after I was there a few days. Now I know, the Bible commands us to love one another. It doesn’t say just love Americans. It says “one another.”

I saw poverty in Haiti like I’ve never imagined. I saw men, women and children pat their tummies with both hands as we drove past signaling that they were hungry. I saw babies with runny noses and red-hair, the tale tell sign of malnutrition. I saw people walk miles for clean water. They’d fill their 5-gallon buckets to the brim and carry them home balanced on their heads.

And my faith was made stronger while traveling up and down the mountains in the tiny tap tap. I watched one day as the driver turned the truck off and coasted downhill to preserve gas. His gauge hovered near E for more than an hour. If we’d run out of gas I have no idea what we would have done. God, you brought us here, I have faith you’ll bring us safely home.

It wasn’t all bad though.

I also saw much happiness in the children of the orphanage. They greeted us with a hand shake and a kiss on the cheek every time we saw them. Together we played games, hiked up a mountain and took many pictures, like we’d been a part of their family forever. During their regular Sunday evening worship time, they sang praise songs and did dances for Jesus, it was amazing to witness.