The Marks of True Christian Faith

The Rev'd John R.W. Stott, M.A., D.D.

Our Wednesday morning Bible study at St. John's is currently focusing on the Epistles of St. John.  Many volumes have been written on these well organized and practical books, but I am regularly drawn back to the writings of the late John Stott in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries and in Men With A Message, his brief introduction to the New Testament.  I have always found his "tests of assurance" to be particularly helpful as I evaluate my own faithfulness to Christ.

1. First is the "christological test" - "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every Spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. (I John 4:2)"
2. Second is the "moral test"  - "This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God. (I John 3:10)"
3. Third is the "spiritual test" - "We know that we have passed from death to life because we love our brothers. (I John 3:14)" "This is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us. (I John 3:24)"

By applying these tests to my life, I can pretty readily determine whether or not Christ is making a difference in my life.  And from the evidence, I can gain a rather high level of assurance of the reality of my walk with the Father through the Son and in the power of the Holy Spirit.

But the Rev'd. Mr. Stott also points out that St. John reversed these same affirmations to name and define the spiritual liars such as the Cerinthians who sought to lead the faithful and unsuspecting astray.

1. "Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. (I John 2:22)"
2. "If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie. (I John 1:6)"
3. "If anyone says, 'I love God,' yet hates his brother, he is a liar. (I John 4:20)"

"These are the three proofs of genuine Christianity. John brings them all together at the beginning of his fifth chapter: 'Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.  this is how we know that we love the chldren of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands' (5:1f.).  Unless Christians are marked by right belief, godly obedience, and brotherly love, they are counterfeit. They cannot have been born again, for those who are 'born of God' are those who believe (5:1) and obey (3:9) and love (4:7)."

Well said Brother Stott.  You leave little space or time for some of the stark denials of the faith received that are in the world today (No more than did St. John the Beloved for those same stark denials which abounded in Asia Minor in the first century.)  Might we all apply the truths revealed by God to Blessed John the Evangelist to our lives this day.  If we find in that application vindication and proof of our faith, might we give thanks with humility and purpose to continue in the faith received.  If we find ourselves wanting in the application, might we humbly submit to God's Word written and ammend our doctrine, and our behaviour, and our lack of love.

all quotations and paraphrases are drawn from Men With A Message by John Stott as revised by Stephen Motyer in 1994.  Published in the US by Eerdmans Publishing Co. in Grand Rapids 

Sermon for Trinity Sunday: "The Non-Negotables"

Reflection on Trinity Sunday

Preached at St. John’s Lancaster, 3 June 2012

Anglicans are Creedal Christians. I know that much ink has been spilled over the last few years in the American Church making the point that we are not “Confessional Christians,” but we do have a bare minimum that our Anglican Christian Faith calls us to believe. We believe the Creeds, and we say one or another of them at every worship service, at least here at St. John’s. For Baptisms and Offices we say the Apostles’ Creed, and for Eucharist we say the Nicene Creed. For the life of me, I can’t see much of a difference between being creedal and being confessional, unless it is that Creedal Christians vocalize their beliefs with regularity while Confessional Christians read theirs in a book on occasion. Both have something that you must believe if you are to be honestly counted among their number. It all seems pretty simple to me, but then I am not a very nuanced thinker.

Let me illustrate it this way. If I went on four legs, had a long neck, brown and orange spots, a short brushy tail, and little antennae looking things sticking out of my head, you would say that I was a giraffe. If I crawled on my belly, lived under a rock, and left a trail of slime wherever I went, you would say I was a slug. In the same way, if I believed that the Triune God created the world, and that the Father- the First Person of the Trinity, sent the Son, the Second Person of said Trinity to die and rise again for the redemption of all creation, and then sent the Third Person, the Spirit, to enable people to do wonderful things in said creation- If I confessed my sins, acknowledged Jesus as Lord and asked forgiveness, was baptized and said the creeds and received Communion, you would say I was a Christian. Now, if my attitudes and actions did not match the precepts of Jesus and the Bible, you might point out that I was not a very good Christian, but with that bare minimum of qualifications listed above, I would still qualify as a Christian.

We should note here that there are many animals which might be a bit like a giraffe, but are not giraffes. An elephant goes on four legs and has a short brushy tail, but it is not a giraffe. Without the neck it just can’t quite pass itself off as one. A snake lives under a rock and goes on its belly, but it is distinctly different from a slug. In the same way, there are many people who are devoutly religious, and who do many good things, and who help others, and who take their faith very seriously who are not Christians, because they do not believe in the Creeds. That is, they do not believe that God is Trinity in Unity, and that Jesus Christ is who the Bible says he is and did what the Bible says he did- and does. I’m not here to say they are not good people or great neighbors. I have lived by and worked with Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, and others who I would and have trusted with my life and the lives of those I love. They are good people, and many I count as my friends, but they are not Christians, because they do not believe those basic articles of the Creeds.

Like Kathy Heim’s former rector, now Bishop of Atlanta, is fond of saying, “There’s not a lot you have to believe, but some things are non-negotiable.”

Now for a word about believing, about having faith. I believe that the earth’s atmosphere at sea level and for several hundred feet above sea level, under normal conditions, is breathable and will keep me alive. I am not a biologist or a doctor and I have no idea how it works, but I believe it. In the same way, I believe that when a stewardess tells me to put on an oxygen mask, I had better do it, even though I have never been in a malfunctioning aircraft at a high level where anyone told me I needed to take that action. Experience and understanding might enhance my belief, but the are not necessary to its existence. In the same way, I can believe in God, and trust him implicitly for my salvation, even though I don’t have all of life’s answers, even though I don’t understand everything there is to know about God, and even though my experience of him might not be as profound or personalized as I hope it might be some day.

And so how does all of this apply to my life?
A person who is a Christian does not have the liberty of making up their faith as they go, or taking a bit here and a bit there to meet what they perceive to be their own needs. Any person can do that, but at the point that they stop believing in the creeds, they cease to be Christian. If God is who he says he is, then it is pretty important that we submit to him and live our lives on his terms. We can ask questions and have doubts, but at the end of the day we must believe in the Trinity and in the Incarnation, which are the theological names for the items covered in the creeds. To not do so is to not be a Christian. It is by definition to be something else.

As a Christian, you can expect to have doubts, and questions that just don’t seem to get answered, and times when you feel very alone. Those things are normal. Some questions will never get answered in this life, and some doubts will persist, and sometimes feeling alone is something that we can’t escape. But all of those things are based on our own powers of feeling and perceiving and understanding, and our powers are very limited. So we are called by the Bible to push through our doubts and fears and feelings to embrace the facts of the Creeds- of who God is and what he has done for us in Jesus. You see, our faith is not based on feelings or limited human reason, as good and as helpful as those things might be. They are incapable of fully comprehending the greatness of God or his plan for our lives. And so we trust him, embracing “the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.”

In just a few moments, two of our siblings in Christ will be presented for Holy Baptism, and we will all be asked to stand and renew our own belief in the Faith we have received from Jesus Christ. As they begin this life of public following of God as Christians, I hope that all of us will be able to consider anew what it means to do the same, and commit ourselves to continue in the Faith of Christ Crucified. Come to this place, to this font, to this altar with all of your doubts and imperfect understanding, but come with your faith intact. God will meet you and give you the ability to believe. Realize that that belief does not depend on your ability to form it or embrace it. It is the gift of the Holy Ghost to all who come with yearning hearts. “Consider the mustard seed, which is the tiniest of all the seeds, and yet when it is sprouted it grows into a bush which is big enough for birds to nest in.”  The act of faith- your act of faith, which among other things includes your desire to trust in a loving God, is like that grain of mustard seed. Come today with what you have, and don’t worry about what you don’t have. God’s gift will grow in your heart and mind as you follow him in obedience, and repentance, and humility.

In the Name of The Father, and of The Son, and of The Holy Ghost. AMEN.

What Do They Want?

Sixth Sunday After Epiphany, Year B

Preached at St. John’s Lancaster, 12 February, 2012

II Kings 5:1-19

Just what do they want from us? It is a fair question. Some would say that I must put aside the position held by our holy Mother the Church through the ages that no man comes to the Father save through Jesus Christ. They would say that to hold Christianity as uniquely true while saying that other religions when believed sincerely will not lead to God is a hateful and narrow minded doctrine. Others would say that whatever my own beliefs might be, I must be willing to put them aside for a higher good. That is essentially what the government has been telling our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters over the last two or three weeks. Still others would say that if I say that only the baptized should be permitted to receive Holy Communion, I am excluding people from the kingdom of God and proving myself to be mean spirited and into controlling others. Others would say that if I refuse to redefine that understanding of marriage which has been held by Christians and Jews- and Muslims and Zoroastrians and Hindus and even Pagans throughout human history- that I am judgmental and arcane, and even hateful. There are those in our own denomination who would ask those questions or make those statements. And yet as your priest, as a priest of Jesus Christ, I must answer with Article XX of the Articles of Religion that “it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it may be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and keeper of Holy Writ, yet,… it ought not to decree any thing against the same.” And with St Paul in his second Epistle to the Thessalonians I would say “stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught.” (II Thessalonians 2:15)

Today’s first lesson from Second Kings Five is most instructive regarding what others may want from us and what God wants from us. Naaman was a very successful Syrian general who was highly favored by his master, who like Naaman was a pagan, or one who worshipped the old nature gods. While the Scriptures are not explicit with details, some Jewish and early Christian scholars believed that God had employed Naaman’s military prowess to destroy the power of Ahab and Jezebel as a punishment for their ravages against the prophets of God. But while Naaman was blessed, he had a major problem. He had leprosy, that dreaded skin disease which in all of its forms rendered the sufferer unclean and eventually led to their rejection by human society in that era. His wife had a young Israelite slave girl who said to her mistress, “there is a prophet in my homeland who could heal your husband.” Now in those days, it was common for people, especially rich people to travel to foreign places to seek medical treatment. We have documents which show the precise nature of such travel and the diplomatic protocols which accompanied such trips. But when the King of Israel received the letter from the King of Syria paving the way for the trip, he was terrified because he thought the Syrians were just looking for some excuse to invade their Israelitish neighbors. When Elisha heard about the king’s dilemma, he sent a message to the king and said, “Let him come to me that he may know that there is a prophet in Israel.” Naaman arrived in all of the glory attendant upon his office, and came with faith that this Israelite prophet would pray for him or do some thing which would bring about his healing. He was furious when Elisha refused to receive him, and merely told him to go and wash seven times in the River Jordan. The General exploded! He was not accustomed to being treated in such a fashion. He named the rivers of his own homeland, all larger and clearer and more beautiful than the Jordan, and the Bible tells us that “He went away in rage.” But his staffers spoke to him and said, “My Lord, if the prophet had demanded of you some great quest, you would have complied, so why not do this simple thing?” And he did. “and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a young boy, and he was clean.”

Most modern scholars see this passage of Scripture as part of a larger group of stories having to do with the power of God, and so it is, but the Fathers of the Early Church saw it as much more. Ephraim the Syrian, writing in the mid-fourth century, notes that Naaman’s pride filled him with a spirit of rebellion, which is a sin against God and the leprosy of the soul. Indeed, Naaman, like all of us needed to be healed and delivered from that disease by Christ’s power, and therefore he is sent to Jordan, which is a prophetic pre-figuring of the coming baptism into Jesus Christ which is to bring all nations to purification “through the bath of regeneration, whose beginning was in the river Jordan, the mother and originator of baptism." Naaman offered the prophet rich gifts, because in his pride, he could not imagine that deliverance was the free gift of a loving God. (ACCS V 167-68) Origin, writing in the early third century in Alexandria, points out that a man like Naaman does not, could not understand the great mystery of the Jordan, because true healing comes from the Lord Jesus alone, and Naaman persisted in the error of his pride. (Commentary on John in ACCS V 168) Bishop Caesarius of Arles, writing in the early sixth century, points out that Naaman is a representative of all of us gentiles, who presume “on our own free will and …merits; but without the grace of Christ” we cannot possess health. It is as we submit to the way of Christ in humility and are baptized that we listen to the advice of Elisha and are “freed from the leprosy of the original and actual sins… Gentiles, although old by reason of their former sins and covered with the many spots of iniquity as with leprosy, are renewed by the grace of baptism in such a way that no leprosy of either original or actual sin remains in them. Thus, following the example of Naaman, they are renewed like little children by salutary baptism, although they have always been bent down under the weight of sins.” (Sermon 129:4-5 in ACCS V 168-69)

And so you see, according to our holy Mother the Church, Naaman, and all of us have received the grace of God because some prophet of God stood firm against our demands that the Gospel message be changed to become more palatable to us who wandered about in our own pride and sin. But because there was a man, or we might say a people, who was faithful to the revealed Word of God, the leprosy of sin was done away and healing came to the nations. Whatever people may want us to say or do, our hearts and our minds, our beliefs and our actions and our words must be carefully conformed to the Word of God, which is the authentic eyewitness account of the acts of God in this world. It is there that we find the record of the Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, who is our salvation. My brothers and sisters, in this age there are many who would have us to change, or at least substantially modify, this Good News which has been entrusted to us. This we must never do. Might we, like those who have gone before proclaim the Faith we have received with love and respect for all people, knowing that true healing, real deliverance, and genuine salvation are found only in the Name of Jesus. In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. AMEN.

Thinking About Faith

Events and discussions of the last few days have led me to consider again the true nature of creedal Christianity. What is it that our Holy Mother the Church calls us to believe? What is the irreducible minimum content of that faith once received from the Apostles? While there is certainly room for argument around the edges, if there is no core verity to our Faith, then I seriously doubt it is really worth believing. It ceases to become an understanding of reality based on verifiable experience which enables us to enter into a living relationship with the Triune God.

I have long held Bishop FitzSimons Allison to be a man whose life is characterized by closeness to God, faithfulness to the Scriptures, and consistancy of character. He recently posted the following short essay on the website of the Diocese of South Carolina, and I pass it on in its entirity. I hope you will find it as thought provoking as I do. He cuts to the heart of one of the major issues facing the church today, the erosion and even the denial of doctrine. His essay, like so many of his writings over the years is provocative and takes sides, and therefore I think it is rather likely to be prophetic in nature. I offer it with a prayer for our beloved Episcopal Church, that we might see the beam in our own eye, and thereby be better enabled to see clearly the light of Christ.

Faithfully,
Bill+

Shrinking Jesus and Betraying the Faith
The following article was submitted by the Rt. Rev. C. FitzSimons Allison, XII Bishop of South Carolina, Retired

What caused the crisis now being faced not only by the Diocese of South Carolina but by the entire western Christian Church? It’s more than an issue of sexuality. It’s one of pandering to the secular culture, of shrinking Jesus and betraying the faith.
Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan are two remarkably popular theologians who teach a version of Christianity that reduces the Christian faith to contemporary secular assumptions. For Crossan, Jesus was an illiterate Jewish cynic. No Incarnation no Resurrection. The Easter story is “fictional mythology” (p. 161, Jesus a Revolutionary Biography). Borg claims that Jesus was only divine in the sense that Martin Luther King and Gandhi were divine. Borg dismisses the creeds (p.10, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time) Jesus was a “spirit person,” “a mediator of the sacred,” “a shaman,” one of those persons like Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Mohammed, et al. (p. 32)
Recently Borg and Crossan have collaborated on a book, The Last Week: What the Gospels Really Teach About Jesus’ Final Days in Jerusalem. Their Jesus is a semi-revolutionary leader of peasants and outcasts against the priestly elite and those who accommodate to the dominant system of Roman coercive authority. It was not our sinful condition that demanded his crucifixion but this elite. Borg and Crossan’s Jesus does not come from God to take away sin but arose from among the innocent to teach us how not to
be a part of the dominant systems. They fail to understand the depth of sin in all of us at all times, including peasants, as well as the elite. More importantly they lose the assurance of ultimate mercy and forgiveness.
Speaking of elites these two “scholarly authorities” purport to tell us, “What the Gospels Really Teach about Jesus.” They pander to an increasingly secular culture and to the human itch to find some undemanding simplicity that now finally explains everything. And they do this while
ignoring, and without reference to, the multitude of superior contemporary scholars such as Richard Bauckham, Raymond Brown, Luke Timothy Johnson, N. T. Wright, Richard Hays, Leander Keck, Christopher Bryan, and scores of others whose works reflect the faith of scripture and the creeds.
In addition to the academic arrogance of claiming that everyone has been wrong about Jesusuntil now, Marcus Borg, who is a member of the Episcopal Church, denies, in his writings, the creeds and doctrine he affirmed at his confirmation and in his present worship. It is the same
moral issue as that of Bishop Jack Spong who was asked by one of his clergy, “How can you, as a bishop, ask those you ordain to swear to doctrine that you expressly and personally deny?” Crossan, on the other hand, showed some moral integrity when he resigned his Roman Catholic orders. These are not times when people readily think in terms of doctrine or of honor.
Christian faith, but not secular faith, now effectively banned from schools, colleges, and universities, has been relegated to the private and subjective arena. The result is the growing popularity of any who eliminate from Christian faith all that secular trust finds incompatible: miracles, the radical nature of sin and the consequent radical nature of grace, transcendence, holiness, and our human desperate need for God’s initiative action in Jesus. The consequence of this secular replacement of Christianity over the years is that otherwise educated people can be bereft of any substantial grasp of scripture. One glaring example is Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori who tells us that Marcus Borg “opened the Bible to me.” (Acknowledgements A Wing and a Prayer). The Christian creed’s affirmation, to which she has repeatedly sworn, (but Borg negates) is that Jesus Christ is: “the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light ofLight, very God of very God begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made . . .” Borg has not opened the scripture for Bishop Jefferts Schori but closed its revelation of Jesus’ divinity.
One must ask how such apostasy has come about in the Episcopal Church. One answer is given by the new bishop of Connecticut, Ian Douglas. He accurately claims,” The Episcopal Church does not readily think in terms of doctrine.” As one thinks carefully about this statement the spiritual pathology of TEC becomes apparent. Doctrine is “that which is taught, what is held, put forth as true” (Webster). Doctrine is a synonym for teaching. When we “do not readily think in terms of doctrine” we are unaware and
ignorant of Christian teaching. This is true of both “liberals” and “conservatives.” We were warned in scripture about losing our grasp on doctrine and the danger of false doctrine; (“. . . so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of
doctrine by cunning men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.” Eph. 4:14 (see also Titus 2:;7, I Tim. 1:3, and 4:16, II John 10, II Tim. 3:16, 4:2)
Bishop Douglas’s statement, however, is only true of Christian doctrine. The Episcopal Church does indeed think in terms of doctrine: doctrines of litigation, abortion, divorce, sexual behavior outside of marriage and all kinds of current politically correct doctrines, as well as teachings that Jesus is reduced from the Son of God to a “subversive sage.” (p. 119, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time ) The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church personifies this sad reduction, this shrunken Jesus, this betrayal of Christian faith. Her claim that “salvation is attained by many ways –Jesus Christ is a way, and God has many other ways as well. . .”(italics provided) (Interview, Time Magazine, July 10, 2006) is a violation of her ordination and consecration vows regarding the church’s creed (p. 519, Book of Common Prayer, , 1979). It is also sadly bereft of the Good News that salvation is never attained but freely given to those who believe. As to her belief in eternal life, she is unsure it exists and she contends that Jesus was more concerned with heavenly existence in this life. (Arkansas Democratic Gazette, Jan. 7, 2007) This sad result reduces Christian faith to the secular assumptions of this age while this age is in
desperate need of the very faith that has made it great. Dean William Inge’s famous warning has never been more apt than today: “The Church that marries the spirit of the age will find herself a widow in the next.” We thank God that the leadership of this diocese not only thinks in terms of Christian doctrine but is courageously committed to the sworn faith of scripture and creeds.
When Episcopalians do not think in terms of Christian doctrine they consciously and unconsciously conform to speculations of the current age. When the creedal and biblical affirmations of Jesus’ full humanity and divinity are given up we lose the promised assurance of God’s mercy. The sad secular substitute for divine mercy is a culture destroying permissiveness, lowered standards of morality in society, and diminishing honor in human character. Permissiveness is no substitute for mercy.
Let’s be clear – the doctrine of Borg, Crossan, and Jefferts Schori makes nonsense of the Eucharist: Holy and gracious Father: In your infinite love you made us for yourself; and, when we had fallen into sin and become subject to evil and death, you, in your mercy, sent Jesus Christ, your
only and eternal Son, to share our human nature, to live and die as one of us, to reconcile us to you, the God and Father of all. He stretched out his arms upon the cross, and offered himself, in obedience to your will, a perfect sacrifice for the whole world. (p.362 Book of Common Prayer 1979)
The doctrine of “mere man” (like Martin Luther King and Gandhi) is indeed a widespread heresy in modern times but finds no reflection in any of the major heresies. It was so rare that only a specialist is apt to know its name: psilantropism. One of the outstanding contemporary scholars, Timothy George, has this to say about heresy: Heresy is a deliberate perversion, a choice (hairesis in Greek), to break with the primary pattern
of Christian truth and to promulgate a doctrine that undermines the gospel and destroys the unity of the Christian Church. A Church that cannot distinguish heresy from truth, or, even worse, a Church that no longer thinks this is worth doing, is a Church which has lost its right to bear witness to the transforming Gospel of Jesus Christ who declared himself to be not only the Way and the Life, but also the Truth. Rest assured the Bishop and Diocese of South Carolina, in the face of heretical assault on the Church will be faithful to the “one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all.” The challenge for us at this time is the opportunity to recover the neglected duty of “thinking in terms of doctrine” and to show the cruelty of heresy and declare the Gospel good news of Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior.

Thoughts on General Convention

In case anyone wonders, I thought it good to publish some musings on General Convention, recently completed in Anaheim.

1. While it is important to welcome all people, sinners and saints alike, to God's Church to hear the good news and find salvation and strength, the so called "inclusion resolutions" seem to represent a departure from the traditional Christian understandings of Scriptural authority, Holy Matrimony, and holiness of life. They also would seem to be a clear repudiation of the repeated call of the Anglican primates for individual provinces to not break the bonds of affection between us by unilateral actions.

2. I agree with Bishop Jefferts-Schori that God has given His Church guardianship of Word and Sacraments, and would add that He has entrusted to her the work of bringing the nations to Christ. I would agree with the traditional understanding expressed by Cyprian (I think), who said that there is no salvation outside the church. I would also agree that many people have undervalued the role of the Church in our salvation. But I found the Presiding Bishop's remarks about personal relationships with Jesus to be very troubling, and contrary to all that I have experienced and known in the Bible; especially when taken in the context of some of her earlier statements about the unique mission of our Lord.

3. For some time, I have struggled with the tendency of many in the Episcopal Church, and in Western Christianity in general, to redefine the traditional understanding of Scripture. The resolution stating that certain parts of the Christian Scriptures are anti-Semitic seems to represent a flowering of this undervaluing of the Bible as the revealed Word of God and the rule of our life.

4. I deeply appreciate the example of the traditionalist bishops at General Convention, who have consistently acknowledged the need for traditionalists to stay within the Episcopal Church not only as missionaries, but because a strong Catholic ecclesiology demands it. In their positions I find strength in some very difficult and trying times. I also appreciate the respect that many of the non-traditionalist bishops offered to the theological minority.

5. I come away from all I have read about the Convention with an increased resolve to live within the spirit of the Windsor Report and the Anglican Covenant as promulgated by the Archbishops of the communion. I commit myself to attempt to lead a godly, righteous, and sober life in keeping with the clear teachings of Scripture. And I pray that God will give me strength, wisdom, and humility, to speak and write clearly and plainly as I seek to be the watchman at St. John's Lancaster.