The Holy Spirit and/or The Bible

Dear James, thank you again. Yours is a perfect Sabbath Day message for me. For part of my sermon today on this celebration of The Feast of All Saints, I had occasion to remind the church of this:

Q. What is the communion of saints?
A. The communion of saints is the WHOLE family of God, the living and the dead, THOSE WHOM WE LOVE AND THOSE WHOM WE HURT, bound together in Christ by sacrament, prayer, and praise. (BCP 862; emphasis added)

I always am stopped in my tracks when I meditate on this description of the WHOLE family of God. To me it meshes so well with the basis of our faith and catechesis, i.e., definition of Christian hope:

Q. What is the Christian hope?
A. The Christian hope is to live with confidence in newness and fullness of life, and to await the coming of Christ in glory, and the completion of God’s purpose for the world. (BCP 861)

But all of this is for the wonderful purpose of being KNOWN BY NAME,as you say in your song/poem, by the One who made us and loves us. We say that being known by name is for life-everlasting,

Q. What do we mean by everlasting life?
A. By everlasting life, we mean a NEW EXISTENCE, in which we are united with ALL THE PEOPLE OF GOD, in the joy of fully knowing and loving God and EACH OTHER.

And there is, then, that final, inexplicably wondrous assurance given to us by Jesus and annunciated by Paul and lived out now in real time and real blood:

Q. What, then, is our assurance as Christians?
A. Our assurance as Christians is that NOTHING, not even death, shall separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen.

God's peace to you this day, James,

e+

The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy

I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you... (Jn13:34)

Rev.Dr Elaine, Dennis, Sylvester, William D., WOJO,Frannie, the Anns,brcol,col55 colkoch,'lilbear,Thomas,Rey,Rick,Marie, All who come here!
I stumbled here quite, as I see it, providentially! Searching for something lost, or stolen. Or maybe in an effort to determine which! I still struggle! However I have found in each contact or response an inerring acceptance, and a modicum of respect, of and for my efforts. I feel a deep gratitude to all of you for that and to God for my misstep! Due to the excrescent economics of my progeny, combined with the myopia of our civil and penal codes, all I have left to offer in return, is my person and my music!
To express what I feel, I offer!

"Old Friends!"

We've known each other for so long, it seems,
We've shared each others plans, and all our dreams!
It doesn' really matter why or how,
'Cause we've been Old Friends such a long time now!

It seems that we have been forever friends!
I don't think we've ever had to make amends.
We stand here, side, together, right or wrong!
I guess that we were Old Friends all along!

At times it feels one sided,
You do so much for me!
But then again, you say I do for you!
I guess we'll stand divided, until we finally see,
That, that's the way, that Old Friends often do!

We always seem to know just where we are!
Whenever we're apart, it's not so far,
To think that we're not in each others heart!
I'd say that were Old Friends from the start!

I am learning so much from you all! Mostly, how much I really don't know!
Thank you my "Old Friends!"
God loves you all! And so do I!

Help me out here! Ain't that what it's all about?
James Edward

James Edward et al~ When I began university I was young, immature but evidently had an ounce of perspective. My first room-mate was expelled very early and several others I knew again early in the term. I was amazed that they were apprehended doing much the same as I was at the time(in those medieval times cerfews, alcohol and following archiac rules was paramount). I realized that what was different was that I did what I did quietly and without drawing public attention. The lesson: its more about how you do things than what you do.

My appreciation of that lesson has evolved over the years. It is now more about realization that freedom is as much about respect for the implications and consequences, and yes circumstances, of one's actions but it is equally about respect for other people and the value, if not the content of rule. The guys who 'got caught' seemed more about not listening, not respecting, not acknowledging that other have rights.

I am finding that I can tolerate, accept, respect a much wider range of values, views and positions as and to the extent that these also respect, acknowledge, tolerate and are willin to discuss, challenge,their own as well as mine and others and when the intent of holding and sharing is to further the good, the truth not just their version.

I have shared this before and at the risk of presumption, will do so again:

AS I GROW OLD

As I grow old
I think
Of the things
That I believed
And shudder
At my faith
And how I held it

As I grow old
I learn
That faith
Is strongest
That can bend
And hear
What once it shunned

As I grow old
I feel
What once
I just believed
And now
That faith
Is changine

As I grow old
I think less
Wonder more
Becoming
A part
Of what
I now believe.

Dear James~ I do not wish to interpose within the beautiful dialogue between yourself and RevDr.McCoy but your line: "He possessed the assuredness of only the really stupid" warrants an independent underlining. It reminds us that "stupidity" as a term should be reserved to those who fall within your definition, that is, to those who really should know better.

Dennis!
Please do not consider your comments to be an interopsition! I can't be speaking for the good Rev. Dr. Elaine, but for my part of it, your as welcome as the rain we're having and so needing, on this fine Sunday! I tried posting this previously but I don't think "it took" If it did "take" just be disregarding this'un, wouldja?
Credit where credit's due! "He posessed the assuredness of only the really stupid!" is not my line! I read it, I can't remember where! One thing I like about being my age is, I never see a "Law and Order re-run!"
I do remember, however thinking, that I certainly hope nobody would be thinking I'd be calling the Reverend Dr. Elaine stupid! Far from it! Further thinkin on it, I decided I was just trying to let her know that I can and do read sometimes!
And too! Your right as this rain we're having, I should be knowing better!
You're a darlin man Dennis!
God loves you for it!
And so do I! And I'm fair certain that The good Rev. Dr. Elaine does as well
James Edward

James~ I know you were not referring to Rev.Dr.McCoy and I certainly was not referring to you.

Hey Dennis!
I'll be firstly wishing you a fine rainy Sunday morining! That's what it's doing here and we're thanking God for it!
I can't be speaking for the good Rev. Dr. here, but for my part of it, you're as welcome as this fine Sunday morning rain.
Credit where credit is due, "He posessed the assuredness of only the really stupid" is not "my line" I read it, I can't remember where. One thing I like about being this age is that I never see a re-run of 'Law and Order!" Or have I said that before?
I do remember thinking when, when I used it, "I do hope that I made it clear, that I'd not be calling Rev. Dr. Elaine stupid! Far from it! However by the time I had the thought, I'd already "pushed the button"
As I'm thinking about it, the intened use of the line had nought to do with "name calling" In my own inimitable? way, I was trying to illustrate the fact that I can and sometimes do....Read! I consider it to be "part of my charm" Shows you what I know!!!
God loves you Dennis! And so do I!
And I'm thinking it's a fair certainty, the Rev. Dr. Elaine's doing the same!
Thank you!
James Edward

Dear James, the poem is wonderful! As for the "private/personal" shall I persist?

Yes, the personal is, indeed, the private (sometimes), but I think the interesting phenomenon that the personal also is the "corporate' (in the classical sense of the term) has largely been forgotten in this individualistic society of ours. As I, myself, am a radically introverted soul, I love and appreciate the 'privacy' of my meditative life, but I am always so struck with the amazing grace of the community of the faithful gathered at worship and even more so in mission and lay ministry! I find St.Paul's understanding of the Body of Christ-in-us so expansive and lovely that I wonder how we have come to loose an appreciation of this part of our common life together. Perhaps it is the denominational antagonisms or the unfortunate association of a "Church" either with buildings or authorities that has muted the "real Presence" of Christ-among-us... ("when two or three are gathered...)

While I am so grateful, of course, for all the abundance of life and forgiveness given to me, personally, by the God-in-Christ, I'm not sure that keeping that all to myself wouldn't be a kind of hoarding. When the Spirit calls us forth, are we not called to each other?

Thank you for sharing YOU!... and your words. They articulate just the both/and of our private and corporate lives that I am less able to tell.

God's peace,

e+

The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy

I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you... (Jn13:34)

James, here is an extract from a question you posed to me a while ago that I think you may not have seen. It may be relevant to this immediate commentary of yours regarding the Holy Spirit because you seem, in both places, to be pushing against "authoritative" explanations of the 'private' experience of faith. (If I'm wrong about what I see as an implication ... sorry ...) Your humorous use of 'channeling' notwithstanding, I think the questions you raise about the authenticity of individual experience vs. the seeming distance of ecclesiastical dicta (of whatever denominational color) are noteworthy. If you translate the commentary below re: the both/and of private AND corporate worship vis-a-vis Eucharist to the question about how each of us experiences the Person of God, there may be a connection ...??? Anyway, here goes:

" ...

As for Eucharistic theology and ecclesiastical doctrine, your tradition and mine differ regarding the communion of the Eucharist. It's not so much a matter of a public/private dichotomy as a theological understanding of Who/how the Eucharist is celebrated. An early Anglican poet, John Donne wrote this way

He was the Word that spake it;
He took the bread and brake it;
and what that Word did make it;
I do believe and take it.

The Logos is the author of the 'holiness' of the Eucharist. The priests attending - for us that is the whole congregation assembled as the Body of Christ in the priesthood of all believers as well as the ordained celebrant - join in calling the Spirit (the epiclesis of the whole congregation). The celebrant who is the ordained priest consecrates the bread and wine in and as part of the Communion of people and Spirit. The Holy Communion IS the Eucharist - the joyful thanksgiving - of the people assembled as the worshiping community in the Real Presence of the Risen Christ Who also is present (really!) in the elements-as-sacrament of His Body and Blood; [sacrament is defined as: "an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible Grace."] In other words, we do not account for the transubstantiation as residing singularly in the words and actions of the priest-celebrant, but rather in the joyful thanksgiving of the assembled Body led in worship by the ordained clergy as well as in the change in the material elements.

Neither do we account for the reception of the sacrament as residing in a private individual alone. The Holy Communion is community-making and binding. For example, when we send the consecrated bread and wine to the hospitalized and homebound we do that with a formal blessing from the congregation and we typically hold those recipients in prayer as absent members of the community during the week at the Morning, Noonday, and Evening Prayers.

...

As I said in my initial email response. We Episcopalians have a "via media" (between Rome and Vienna) regarding most of the fundamentals of our theology and doctrine. The chief sacramental theologian in our tradition is Richard Hooker, the sixteenth century Anglican priest who established in his LAWS, the foundations of our sacramental theology.

In a nutshell these are that Holy Communion is a developmental relationship that is both personal (NOT only 'private') and purposive. Three foundations support this theology:

* The Eucharist is the way in which continuing new life, established in Baptism, develops in the lives of the faithful, who are fed with the Body and Blood of Christ.

But this action is NOT exclusively corporeal. It includes PARTICIPATION. Hooker says: "The fruite of the Eucharist is the participation of the bodie and blood of Christ.... who thereby imparteth him selfe even his whole intire person as a mysticall head unto everie soule that receiveth him. . . ."[50] Christ commanded that this be done. This command is sufficient as is the continued presence of Christ in the Church and to the faithful by virtue of His command and promise. The miracle of compassion and love is the REAL participation of Christ in the life of His Body and Blood in the community of the faithful requires also our participation. This sacrament is efficacious by the grace of God and by virtue of the RELATIONSHIP of an ongoing Covenant - the New Covenant of Christ-with-us.

Hooker further says: " ... All thinges considered and compared with that successe, which truth hathe hitherto had, by so bitter conflictes with errours in this point, shall I wishe that men would more give them selves to meditate with silence what wee have by the sacrament, and lesse to dispute of the manner how?"

* The Body of Christ comprises, fundamentally, a relationship WITH Christ FOR A PURPOSE, which, as Jesus teaches, is the revelation of God in the world - it is a soteriological. Our ecclesiological orientation therefore focuses on sacrament as communal and participatory and, as part of a larger continuum: We are 'adopted' by Baptism and 'grow up' in community, and ACT as Christians. In short, being in/with/for Christ has a participatory direction: "that the sacrament becomes that which it is meant to be IN THE USE OF IT, as the faithful receive the body and blood of Christ, transforming them to participate ever more fully in Christ's life, death, and resurrection and continuing work in the world."

* Participation a mutual and PERSONAL (not 'private') encounter of God and human child. It is the fruit or grace: "that mutuall inward hold of which Christ hath us and wee of him". The Eucharist is reciprocal: on the one hand, there is the action of the Father in the Son through the Spirit, which is gratuitous, self-giving and, on the other hand, there is the faithful reception of the Father's gift. It is efficacious at both the personal and corporate levels for the children of God.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for your direct queries:

Is it "Presumption" on my part to assume that Christ should visit Himself, in His body and His blood, upon such as Me? Whatever the place? Whoever the attendants?"

I can't say what is right for you, dear James. What is considered 'presumption' is so varied from place to place - I think we all know in our hearts when and how we presume and so I leave this to you & God.

~~~~~~~~~

"'The words we say, the gestures we make; the manner and custom of our liturgical traditions, AND our essential theological foundations like Apostolic succession, the sacredness of the Trinity, the divine Lordship of Jesus - all of these comprise parts of an identity that together form the 'platform' upon which we stand that brings coherence to our religious 'personality'.' Here I conflict with the term "religious." To me, can't you just guess, that would imply a degree of duplicity, in that, one should posses or develop a "religious personality", as an adjunct to who he or she "really is," solely for those appointed,(self or otherwise), to monitor those things!"

No - I do not intend to use the phrase ' religious personality' as a cloak to put on and take off at a whim. That would seem also to me a kind of religious convenience if not duplicity. What I mean to say is that all traditions have a set of foundational beliefs. For us, this comprises centuries of Scripture, Reason, and Experience (sometimes called 'Tradition') that is promulgated in our Book of Common Prayer and our historical documents. These Foundations form the basis of our seeking the continuing revelation of God - the 'prism' of our sight. We recognize that others in our Anglican Communion have a variety of cultural and societal 'prisms' that condition their sight (e.g., the contending Muslim faith in most parts of Africa) but we have for five centuries insisted upon a corporate effort to hold differences in tension as we journey together under the Quadrilateral of our basic faith foundations that we warrant as the "inherent parts of (the) sacred deposit" of our faith that binds us in unity (NOT uniformity): "The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the revealed Word of God"; "The Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith"; " the TWO sacraments of Baptism and the Supper of the Lord ministered with Christ's words of institutions and using the elements He ordained; and the Historic Episcopate. Within this foundation we seek the purpose of our faith. We struggle to hold in tension the way others seek their own.

As for who does or should 'monitor' the soul's seeking ... well, I hope we help each other rather than monitor and judge. Just imagine a world in which all the seekers sought the goodness of each other. WOW! Just imagine ...