Here is Father Carl's sermon for the Second Sunday in Advent


Advent II 2003
“Blessed Lord, who hast caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning.” “Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning; that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.” “…heaven and earth shall pass away; but my words shall not pass away.”

Teenage rebellion. Mark Twain once said something to the effect, “When I was 17, my father didn’t know anything; by the time I’d turned 21, it was amazing how much he had learned.” Reject parental authority if I don’t get what I want. To which our mothers were often heard to say, “Listen to your father.” Misbehave purposely, however foolishly, to prove that I am in control. Ignore the wisdom of our forebears – after all, they were very uncool, and just can’t possibly understand what we are going through today. We know better…

The Second Sunday in Advent – Bible Sunday. An important topic for Advent, as Scripture, especially that of the New Testament, contains not only the revelation of God Incarnate, but the assured promise that He is going to return, and His return is going to involve judgement for everyone, including rebellious teenagers.

The quotations with which I began, before my little aside, are all taken from the readings for today: the first from the Collect, the second from the Epistle and the third from the Gospel. Now while we may certainly conclude that the holy Scriptures referred to in the Collect are both Testaments, it bears repeating a common observation made often to our small Bible study group, that the Scriptures to which St. Paul refers in his Epistle to the Romans most certainly do not include the New Testament. His letter to the Romans was written approximately A.D. 57 – which, according to the most ancient evidence we have, was before any of the Gospels.

Emphasized differently, holy Scripture to the church of the first several decades was the Old Testament only. Indeed, although the various books that eventually were to make up the New Testament were written by the end of the first century, those that have come down to us as part of the holy Scriptures which comprise the New Testament were not finally agreed upon by the Church until near the end of the fourth century. It also bears mentioning once again, that, initially, there were very few copies of these new writings of the Christian Church, as they had no means of quickly producing multiple copies of anything.

There were also many other fine writings in the early Church – the Epistle of Clement comes to mind – but they were ultimately considered either redundant; or, to have included certain fanciful or even spurious passages – the suddenly famous, so-called “Gospel of Thomas” comes to mind – which made them, at best, superfluous, and, at worst, unsuitable for inclusion in what was to become the New Testament of the Christian Church. Many other fine writings, most likely never intended for Holy Writ but certainly valuable for their insight into the practices and beliefs of the early Church, have been preserved – we broadly call those writings, “The Fathers.”

Why is it important for us to be aware of this bit of history as it pertains to the Bible? Now, not that we should engage here in any kind of denominational bashing; however, it is abundantly clear to anyone making even a casual observation that some, perhaps many “reformed” churches or, protestant if you will, have somehow over the past four centuries managed to detach the New Testament entirely from the early Church, especially when it is mentioned that the Tradition of the early Church is an important guide for us, even 2,000 years later. “No,” say the reformed; “Scripture and Scripture alone must be our guide!” That, by the way, is what is referred to as “sola Scriptura” which very many protestant denominations proudly, actually insistently, proffer as their mantra. To them, what the early Church may have understood, believed, practised – in conjunction with the writings of that Church, which writings in part became the New Testament, as decided upon by that early Church – those beliefs, understandings, practices, and any other writings are, frankly, to be rejected. It appears that a frightening number of protestants believe that the New Testament somehow just appeared, right at the beginning of Christianity, somewhere around 34 A.D. and that what the early Church may have done or believed is of little importance.

It also bears mentioning in passing that historically important items have been trampled – since the Reformation. For example, up to and including the Reformation, there was never any question or contention regarding the hierarchical ministry of bishops, priests and deacons in the Church. Neither the great Ecumenical Councils of the early Church, nor the original continental reformers of the early 16th century had any issue with this – both Scripture and early Church history clearly having set forth such. Why has that subsequently changed?

Similarly, the consistent practice and centrality of Baptism and the Holy Eucharist were not questioned by the original reformers. On the issue of whether Baptism should be conveniently delayed, there was a brief time around the beginning of the 4th century when there was a clear example of man attempting to “bend God’s arm;” the thinking being that, if Baptism cleanses us from all of our sins, then we should delay Baptism until just before the point of our death, because, being cleansed and pure, God would have no choice but to receive us directly into heaven. Happily, perhaps remembering our Lord’s response to the devil in the wilderness, “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God,” the Church reverted to its earlier practice - that which is recorded in the Bible, that the very first thing which happened to new converts without delay and regardless of age, was Baptism, the seal of the New Testament or Covenant, commanded by our Lord, deemed essential by Him, if one would read all of the New Testament and not only sola part of Scriptura.

Is there anything else wrong with the sola Scriptura position? Well, when we consider that another often emphasized aspect of this approach is that each individual believer is encouraged to try to understand the Bible with no help, no history, no reference to what the Church has consistently believed, it is perhaps not surprising that, up to 10 years ago, the number of protestant denominations had reached some 40,000 and was still increasing. We might very correctly conclude that perhaps there is something amiss by ignoring the history of the early Church.

Most of this teenage rebellion has occurred in the past 150 years, where it has become clear that sola part of Scriptura has developed into a real problem; indeed to the extent that disunity and rancour is now often greater among protestant groups than it is towards the dreaded Roman Catholic Church. In the most recent revision of the ALPHA Course, Nicky Gumble relates a rather black humour type of story in the talk, “What About the Church?” It is related from the perspective of a tourist:

“I was standing the middle of the Golden Gate Bridge admiring the view when another tourist walked up beside me to do the same. I heard him say quietly as he took in the view, ‘What an awesome God.’ I turned to him and said, ‘Are you a Christian?’

“He said, ‘Yes, I’m a Christian.’ I said, ‘So am I.’ We shook hands.

“I said, ‘Are you liberal or a fundamental Christian?’ He said, ‘I’m a fundamental Christian.’ I said, ‘So am I;’ and we smiled and nodded at each other.

“I said, ‘Are you a covenant or dispensational, fundamental Christian?’ He said, ‘I’m a dispensational, fundamental Christian.’ I said, ‘So am I.’ And we slapped one another on the back.

“I said, ‘Are you a early Acts, mid Acts or late Acts, dispensational, fundamental Christian?’ He said, ‘I’m a mid Acts, dispensational, fundamental Christian.’ I said, ‘So am I.’ And we agreed to exchange Christmas cards each year.

“I said, ‘Are you an Acts 9 or Acts 13, mid Acts, dispensational, fundamental Christian?’ He said, ‘I’m an Acts 9, mid Acts, dispensational, fundamental Christian.’ I said, ‘So am I.’ And we hugged one another, right there on the bridge.

“I said, ‘Are you a pre-trib. or post-trib. Acts 9, mid Acts, dispensational, fundamental Christian?’ He said, ‘I’m a pre-trib., Acts 9, mid Acts, dispensational, fundamental Christian.’ I said, ‘So am I.’ And we agreed to exchange our kids for the summer.

“I said, ‘Are you a 12-in or 12-out, pre-trib., Acts 9, mid Acts, dispensational, fundamental Christian?’ He said, ‘I’m a 12-in, pre-trib., Acts 9, mid Acts, dispensational, fundamental Christian.’ I said, ‘You heretic!’ And I pushed him off the bridge.”

This story reminded me of something that actually happened a few years ago. Among those of us that dawdle after the fellowship time, several of us often go for brunch on Sundays. While waiting in line at a restaurant, a chap noticed my collar and asked what church we attended. After I had identified us, he asked whether we were Calvinist or Arminian. When I said that we were neither, he stated that we must be one or the other, as there are no other choices. Happily, there was no bridge in the restaurant.

As I was contemplating today’s message, I was also reminded of a communication that I has with one of our parishioners several years ago, where it was clear that they had been influenced, by a sola Scriptura approach, into a non-traditional position with respect to a very important belief. Said position, like many other reformed beliefs that have been uniquely introduced into the church in the past four centuries, is clearly based on a highly contextualized consideration of Scripture; indeed, in this case, contradictory to very clear words of Jesus. In responding to the query, I was further reminded of something that I had saved from an Orthodox priest, with the fine eastern name of McGillicuddy, where he, in a response to similar queries in an Internet Christian forum, quite nicely summarizes how we should approach our understanding of holy Scripture. And here I quote, “For the Orthodox the Bible forms a part of Tradition. For the Orthodox Scripture exists within Tradition. To separate and contrast the two is to impoverish the idea of both alike. Orthodox, while reverencing this inheritance from the past are also aware that not everything received from the past is of equal value. Among the various elements of Tradition a unique pre-eminence belongs to the Bible, to the Creed, to the doctrinal definitions of the Ecumenical Councils: these things we Orthodox accept as something absolute and unchanging, something which cannot be cancelled or revised.

“More specifically, the Christian Church is a Scriptural Church: Orthodoxy believes this just as firmly, if not more firmly, than Protestantism. The Bible is the extreme expression of God's revelation to the human race, and Christians must always be ‘People of the Book’. But as I have said before on this list, if Christians are the People of the Book, the Bible is the Book of the People; it must not be regarded as something set up over the Church but as something that lives and is understood within the Church (that is why one should not separate Scripture and Tradition). It is from the Church that the Bible ultimately derives its authority, for it was the Church which originally decided which books form a part of Holy Scripture; and it is the Church alone which can interpret Holy Scripture with authority.

“There are many sayings in the Bible which by themselves are far from clear, and individual readers, however sincere, are in danger of error if they trust their own personal interpretation. ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ Philip asked the Ethiopian eunuch; and the eunuch replied, ‘How can I unless someone guide me?’ (Acts 8:30-31).

“Orthodox, when they read the Scripture, accept the guidance of the Church. When received into the Orthodox Church, a convert promises, ‘I will accept and understand Holy Scripture in accordance with the interpretation which was and is held by the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church of the East, our Mother.’”

Fr. McGillicuddy neatly emphasizes that Scripture is of extreme importance, but to truly understand it, one must not ignore the Church that wrote it. Neither, as is the tendency of many, even those who profess a sola Scriptura approach, neither is it right and proper, based on some sort of anti-papist position, to ignore or clearly alter significant parts of Scripture. Perhaps the two most alarming examples of ignoring or changing the clear meaning of the Scriptures are what I earlier referred to: the Dominical Sacraments – essential to salvation because Jesus very clearly commanded them to be observed – Baptism and the Holy Eucharist. Sola Scriptura, “only Scripture” often is truly not that at all; rather it has become “only parts of Scripture,” or “only parts of Scripture, and altered to our agenda.” And, by the way, neither should we as traditionalist, catholic-minded Christians, feel that we are immune from lapses into such ourselves.

Bible Sunday. Teenage rebellion. We shouldn’t be surprised that teenagers might appear to be worse rebels than many of us were, as we are living in the midst of an age that encourages individualism, even to the point of “making up truth as it best suits me.” Hmm, that doesn’t share anything with a certain approach to the Bible does it?

Make up my own interpretation of the Bible? Reject parental authority, ignore the wisdom of my forebears because I am far more enlightened today? Teenage rebellion? No. Listen to the Fathers!

THE ANNUNCIATION OTTAWA 2003 CLRk