'It's the right place'

Andrew, Kissy Missy and I ventured into the Great White North over the weekend, and Andrew confirmed for himself what he already thought he knew: He's committed to engineering at Michigan Tech.

Andrew fills out the inevitable paperwork as the day begins in the lobby of the Rozsa Center, Tech's fabulous performing-arts center. The Rozsa Center has the largest stage north of Midland. Engineers in costume, eh?

Andrew toured the buildings, met people and had a chance to explore the place. On the right is the R.L. Smith Mechanical Engineering building, the high-rise where Andrew is likely to spend an immense amount of time over the next few years. It houses Tech's world-class mechanical engineering program.

It's spring, so the cars frozen in over the winter are beginning their emergence. Actually, this is a piece of professional public art, created in conjunction with Tech's famous Winter Carnival. The whole story of the frozen car is here.

Now, Michigan Tech's student body is only 21.3 percent women, according to the university's public relations office. How does it happen that Andrew ends up having lunch with three women?

He's comfortable on the campus, even a campus where this is what "spring" looks like.

While Andrew was touring the campus, Kissy Missy and I took in some of the sites. We went to the Library. Capital L.

The Library began life as a student bar in the late 1960s. According to its menu, it was a beer and peanuts-on-the-floor
kind of place.

These days, it's a whole lot more upscale. It's a brew pub with a nice menu. It's a little pricey, and I don't think it's much of a
student hangout any more.

The professors and the parents, however, really, really like it.



Over on the other side of Portage Lake is Hancock. That's not a sidewalk; those are stairs leading down to the Lift Bridge.

I'm just glad the minivan had good brakes. Going up the hills was enough to make Kissy Missy scream a couple of times.

And the snow has melted back considerably, eh? Yes, this is "melted back."

Andrew had the chance to meet with a staff member at Mont Ripley, the ski hill owned by the university. He learned the facility hires committed, passionate, expert skiers as staff members - and they get season passes.


Andrew took a dozen runs down the hill and pronounced it "fantastic."


It was a 943.5-mile round trip, Friday through Sunday, but Andrew was in his element.
Send money.

SS08: The "IT" Shoes

The other day when I was at the hair salon flicking through Vogue, I came across what they claimed to be the new "it" shoe this season- these Etro sandals below.
The term "it" shoes is apt. Cousin IT shoes that is. First Prada had these fringe things all over the place SS07, and now these shoes. Gladiator sandals with fringe piled on, I really don't see the attraction. They kind of look like sandals pretending to be boots or the other way around. Just not quite right.
No matter how they matched it on the Etro runway, there MUST be other better footwear out there to match these cute printed outfits. More simpler sandals perhaps? Heels? Barefoot??? Just when I thought perhaps it was just a one off random thing, I see the exact likeness on the Zara display window. For a moment I worried that this will become a prominent feature in daily fashion (it IS Zara after all). However, HG has convinced me that this is just one of those fashion items that are picked to featured to look cool (I don't know where they get these ideas from) but not really meant for mass consumption- or so I hope. Fingers crossed!

I mean, would YOU wear this????

Image Source: Elle.com

How Not To Wear Colour Leggings

First off I must confess I haven't worn colour leggings myself before. I am simply not creative or bothered enough to actually buy them and do the whole mixing and matching thing with the rest of the outfit. Hypothetically, if I were to wear colour leggings, I would probably just do it the boring and simple way: colour leggings with a casual black dress like in the picture above. And yes, I know it's spring now and leggings is more of a F/W thing, but I thought I would share some of my observations here.

As the title suggests, these are my observations of how not to wear colour leggings/tights. A few weeks ago, I saw someone on the streets wearing something like this:

A bright yellow tee (way brighter than the tee in this image,) a green, half-length trenchcoat, a flowery skirt (very popular in UK highstreet stores this season) and bright, solid red leggings. OK, so obviously I am not a colourful dresser, but I'm usually pretty open minded about style. Now I'm not criticising this girl's outfit exactly (-I'm all for personal style), but I do think that she went overboard with the colours. Wearing solid green on the top (the coat) and solid red at the bottom (the leggings) just does not look cool, arguably except for Christmas day. If you wear colour leggings, please refrain from wearing ten million other colours. Really, colour leggings are colourful themselves already.

And just yesterday, I saw a women who looked at least 45 yrs old wearing shorts and bright red leggings. I'm not actually sure of her age, but she certainly didn't look that young from afar. Sure, colour leggings are fun, but isn't it something that is more for younger women? Is it wrong for me to think the maximum age that anyone should wear these colour leggings is 30? And I don't mean to discriminate against age, but I just really believe in dressing suitably for one's age.

There you go: just a bit of how not to on colour leggings. What are your thoughts on my two points?

Image source: www.urbanoutfitters.co.uk, www.topshop.com

Toywatch

Now I'm not one for watches really. In fact, I haven't worn one since I grew out of Swatch and cannot quite afford a Cartier yet. Also I secretly think that I might have been so spoilt by the digital clock on my mobile that I now find it hard to read analogs. But I'm not quite ready to admit that to myself yet. But anyway, despite all that, my interest was peaked the other day when my cousin mentioned that he wanted to get a Toywatch- especially when I found out that it can be found within the stylish walls of Lane Crawford. So I decided to take a look.
For those unfamiliar, Toywatch are known for their lightweight, over sized plastic watches. I was pleasantly surprised by the designs. They are simple and elegant, with just the right amount of fun in the colors and the clear plastic material. I love the colors and designs of the two above. Priced at around $200USD each, they are great a great accessory to match your outfits with. If I was the watch wearing type and had resources to spare (one can always dream), I'd totally get a few!
Besides those fun ones, they also have ones that kind of resemble more classic designs. Like this white plastic one (left) from the Plasteramic collection, which is designed to look like those oh-so-sought-after ceramic watches but is not. And the one on the right looks remarkably like all those watches that I would describe as "elegant, feminine and delicate" from various luxury watch brands.
Naturally, in this day of super luxing everything, even a brand called Toywatch has a super luxe line. They have it in the form of this black ceramic collection (left). Now this is actually ceramic and not plastic pretending to be ceramic. The design is very elegant and sleek looking. Priced at $1500, its not bad for a ceramic watch- if only it didn't so resemble the J12 Chanel watches (right), which are priced at 5 times that price. Now it just looks like a ceramic watch pretending to be a J12. Not that there is anything wrong with that, Zara does it all the time, but this one is not even cheap! Personally, if I was going to fork out $1500 for a ceramic watch, I'd rather save up longer and get the original one.

Image Source: ToyWatch and Chanel

Checking Out H&M Spring 2008

I've been seeing this H&M print ad everywhere I go, mainly on billboards and in magazines, in London and Hong Kong. I feel like I'm being chased after by this pretty yellow image of Raquel and a wall of flowers telling me that: a) it's Spring! b) Wear yellow! c) Go shop at H&M now! After stalking H&M's website for awhile, they've finally updated their website last week with some of their Spring's offering.

The instant I saw this colour-block, T-shirt dress in the campaign image (worn by Raquel -not this image but the same dress,) I thought, wow, I really want this! It's such an easy, summer casual dress. I love the colour blocks of black, pink and orange together. It's just the splash of colour that I've been wanting in my wardrobe, and since I'm not bothered or creative enough to actually buy seperate colourful pieces and match them together, it's so nice to have the crazy colours put together in one dress in a stylish, easy-to-wear way.

So the next day (last Thur,) I rushed to an H&M store to check out the dress and they only had one size left, and of course it wasn't my size. It is so hard for me to actually find something I want from H&M (or from any store) and it was sold out -I was SO disappointed! It was even sadder when I found out that the dress is seriously affordable -it costs only about 199HKD (=26USD.) I am a bit annoyed that the H&M store was displaying this dress at the display windows when they hardly had any sizes or stock left. I always thought H&M was all about the volume business so I just assumed they'd always have sizes available. Obviously I was wrong. Lesson of the day: Check out these stores more frequently!

The other thing I liked on the website was this bright pink, silk-material-looking dress. It looks perfect for a night out, and since it's not expensive, I wouldn't feel bad if someone spilled drinks on it or if the place was smoky. Alas, they were also out of my size.

As for this red and white flowery top, it's not that I particularly like or dislike it. I thought I would post it up here because I swear I keep seeing people on the streets wearing it! And when I was browsing through a few online stores, I saw something very similar by Marc by Marc Jacobs. So expect to see a lot of red and white flowery tops near you this summer!

Have you checked out H&M's Spring's clothes yet? What do you think of the clothes?

Image source: www.hm.com/gb (Note that the prices are in Pounds.)

Yet Another Black Blazer

Two years ago when I bought my fitted Juicy black blazer with velvet lapels, I thought I was done with this staple. One good quality one is all I thought I'd need. But then this other black blazer popped up on the rack and it had gorgeous silk mini ruffles on the neck collar and black subtle pinstripes AND it was 70% off. I couldn't resist. Then this summer, there was this super fitted dark gray (with a hint of sparkle), 3/4 sleeved blazer with this to die for fancy double layered collar thing also on sale- I had to have it. So really, one can reasonably conclude that I've reached my quota for black blazers. For the record, I have had great mileages for all of them- so they were all completely worth it. Unfortunately recently, I find my eyes wandering again in the black blazer arena.......
While I have enough sharply fitted blazers that stops flatteringly at the waist, I don't have any more loosely shaped blazers that stops at the lower waist. And thus I cannot achieve the totally casual chic look shown above by the Stella McCartney blazer (left) and the Paul & Joe blazer (right) with the sleeves scrunched up. Loosely fitted yet tailored they are the perfect compliment to the more loosely fitted styles that is the trend of late. I saw Heidi Klum wear such a blazer over a cute dress on Project Runway this season (or I thought I did, since I looked back and could not find it!), and thought, wow I need one of those! I was just facing such a dilemma the other day when I was wearing a dress and couldn't find an appropriate jacket to wear over it. All my other black blazers are simply too fitted and short that it makes the whole look too proper and put together, which totally defeats the current style of casual chic dresses. This more casually fitted blazer cutting neatly solves the problem. The above styles from Tucker (left) and Theory (right) demonstrates my point perfectly. Also note the yellow and gray color theme going on here with the Tucker blazer and the Paul & Joe blazer look.
This blazer also works for a more casual office chic look as seen above from the Zara catalog. They even have a sleeveless version for the summer! Sigh.... I think I've almost convinced myself that I need yet another black blazer with this post. It seems like such an investment staple! Or do I?

Image Source: Zara, Shopbop, Net a Porter and Elle

Christos anesti!

It was a joy to baptize my godson George Preston Alexander Sparkman tonight. He is the baby pictured below. To listen to the sermon that I gave, click here.

Flowering of the Passion

Legend has it that in 1620 a Jesuit Priest came across the plant we now know as passion flower. Enthralled with its beauty, that night he had a vision likening its floral parts to the elements of the passion of Christ. The five petals and five sepals became the ten apostles (omitting Peter who denied Jesus and Judas who betrayed Jesus). The three pistils became the nails of the cross; the purple corona (or filaments) was the crown of thorns, and the stemmed ovary was the Lord's chalice of suffering which he accepted at Gethsemane.

The night in which he was betrayed

To listen to this sermon online, click here.

Jesus said, “ ‘Behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table’ And [the disciples] began to question one another about which of them it was who would do this”; from the Gospel of St Luke in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Tonight we commemorate the institution of the priesthood and of the Holy Eucharist. And to help us appreciate what is in the spotlight tonight, I’d like us to turn our attention for a moment to what lies in the shadows—a man who rejected his ministry and who broke communion.

We do not know for sure at exactly what point Judas Iscariot left the Upper Room. Luke’s gospel mentions Judas’ betrayal after the words of institution along with various items of dinner conversation that seem to be listed in no particular order. Matthew and Mark give an almost identical description of Judas at the table before those crucial words of Jesus “this is my Body” and “this is my Blood.” John’s gospel does not give us the familiar institution narrative, but he does, however, mention the early departure of Judas after the washing of feet and before Jesus’ high-priestly prayer.

We are told that the others thought that Judas left to go purchase more supplies for the Passover feast, since he was the one who carried the common purse. This would indicate that Judas left before the Holy Communion, which took place, as the other gospels tell us, “after supper.” Another clue to the timing might be in Jesus’ clue about the betrayer. “It is the one to whom I hand the morsel after I have dipped it,” Jesus said. Then he adds, “What you are about to do, do quickly.”

Exactly when he left, we do no know for sure. But we do know why he left. Why is this night different from all other nights? That departure forever colored the ritual that would continue in the Mass throughout history—the sacrament of unity, the feast of love. For in most every Prayer Book and every liturgical rite throughout Christendom, those sacred words of consecration are introduced the same way: “On the night in which he was betrayed . . .” [Note: Prayer A has different wording, "the night he was handed over" and Prayer D, which is based upon the Liturgy of St Basil, uses John's language, "when the hour had come for him to be glorified."]

I remember turning the pages through a large picture book on Jesus I picked up from a used book store a few years ago. It’s a wonderful book with gospel excerpts, and it is filled with historic Christian artwork depicting the people and events described. When I got to the page describing the Last Supper, I stopped when I saw the picture. I had never seen anything like it before.

It was a picture of the Last Supper in the traditional style of the Eastern icon. Jesus and the apostles were each depicted with a halo or nimbus around the head. Normally, if Judas is in the scene, you can clearly identify him because he is the only one who does not have a halo around his head. This picture caught my attention because it is the only one I’ve seen in which Judas does have a halo. The difference is that unlike the other nimbuses, which are golden, the halo of Judas is solid black.

Judas Iscariot will be eternally known as the man who betrayed Jesus Christ. In at least twenty languages, his name is a synonym for “traitor.” To think of Judas, or to mention his name, is to evoke the image of the whole-cloth traitor. He is the traitor prototype.

Yet there is no good reason for supposing that when he was originally called by Jesus to be one of his own special disciples that Judas was already up to treachery; or that he was any less enthusiastically devoted to Jesus, any less worthy of that call, or any less determined to follow Jesus to the end than the eleven others chosen by Jesus at the same time. Nor can we suppose that Jesus withheld from Judas any of the special divine graces that he conferred on the other disciples who were to hold the office of apostle.

Judas seems to have shared completely in the charism of what would later be called an Apostle, a chief pastor, thus prefiguring—as did all of the Twelve—what we call today the bishops (overseers) of the Church. Living with Jesus day and night, traveling with him, hearing his words and seeing his actions, collaborating with him in his work, sent out by Jesus with a mandate to preach the kingdom of God, to cure the sick, to exorcise demons, to exercise his authority, to rely on spiritual weapons and supernatural means, Judas was in every sense one with the disciples.

Yet it was Judas who finally betrayed Jesus. The personal outline of Judas in the pages of the New Testament is dim on all points—except for his awful treachery. Understandably, the writers would not, could not, remark anything good or even interesting about Judas, except his treachery. In the light of Jesus’ resurrection and the subsequent descent of the Holy Spirit on the remaining Apostles, all that mattered in the eyes of the New Testament writers was that gross treachery, and all they could express for the traitor was utter contempt and abhorrence.

There is perhaps no parallel in the New Testament record to those sad words of Jesus, “It would have been better for him if he had never been born.” And yet that’s not what Jesus wanted for him, at the beginning or the end. The New Testament dismissal of Judas as a traitor has inclined Christians to see him in a bad light from the beginning of his association with Jesus, as a kind of infiltrator admitted by Jesus to the intimacy of his special people, because, it was reckoned, somebody had to betray the Lord.

Yet, we must understand that it didn’t have to happen that way. Jesus could have simply said, “The time is appointed. Let us go down to see the Sandhedrin that I may stand trial for the charges against me.” Judas’ betrayal was utterly unnecessary.

From a divine and a human point of view, Judas must have initially appeared as one of the more promising candidates for leadership in Christ’s future Church. Judas seems to be the only experienced official among the group. In the eyes of the other Apostles, Judas held a high kingdom office.

We cannot reasonably doubt that Judas started off with great enthusiasm and devotion to Jesus, and with full trust and confidence in Jesus’ ultimate success. We know that, for the other companions (until well after the Resurrection) success meant a political restoration of the Kingdom of Israel, with the Apostles occupying twelve thrones of judgment.

Here is where disillusion set in for Judas Iscariot. More in touch with practical affairs than the others, more alive to the politics of his land, he would only grow in disillusionment each time Jesus repudiated attempt after attempt to crown him leader and king. Jesus spoke instead of his suffering and death.

At any given moment Judas could have left Jesus and “walked with him no more,” as many are recorded to have done. But no, Judas wanted to stay. He believed, after his own fashion, in Jesus and his group and their ideals. Yet, he wanted Jesus and the others to be realistic—i.e., to conform to political and social realities, to follow his plan, not whatever plans Jesus may have had.

He certainly formed his own ideas about the sensible way Jesus should go about seizing supreme power and realizing the kingdom of God. Now, in the heady atmosphere of collaboration with the authorities, he saw his way opening out to vistas of greatness, a chief position in the future Kingdom of Israel, once the Romans were driven out and the local Jewish leaders, with the help of Jesus, utterly defeated the hated Romans.

Even when Jesus told him plainly and frankly during that last Passover meal that, yes, he knew it was Judas who would betray him, that made no dent in Judas’ resolution. “Is it I, Master?” said Judas. “You have said so,” Jesus answered.

Remember that Jesus identified his betrayer in this way: “It is the one to whom I hand the morsel after I have dipped it.” From the ritual of the Passover, this seems to follow the blessing over the Matza before the actual supper began. The blessing and breaking of a single piece of matza to be shared with everyone at the table signified their unity. For the head of the supper to dip it in the haroset and give it to one of the guests was a token of affection. Yet both this loving gesture and the fact that Jesus knew about the betrayal were not enough to dissuade Judas from the path he had chosen.

Perhaps Judas did not fully grasp Jesus’ use of the word “betray” at that moment. Many times in the past, he had “betrayed” Jesus in the sense that he had done the opposite of Jesus’ express will, and things had always turned out just fine. That compromise plan still seemed the best to Judas. The ultimate blindness closed in on his soul like a steel trapdoor. “Satan,” the Gospel of John states, “entered his heart.” And we can be sure he was in some sense welcomed in.

Judas was now under the control of the one personality who stood to lose the most by any success Jesus might have. Judas could, without any scruple and always fully persuaded that his plan was fine, go and find the Temple authorities, his “high-level contacts,” and pinpoint the place where Jesus would be at a certain hour, and identify Jesus to the armed force sent out to bring him in.

Only this, thought Judas, would spark the long-sought fight for liberation. Every single event that followed began with Judas’ decision. It all began, “On the night in which he was betrayed” . . .

The terrible agony in Gethsemane; the violence done to Jesus at his arrest and at his mock trials during the night; the hours of imprisonment and abuse by Roman soldiers; the crowning with thorns and the scornful mocking of his person, his arraignment before Pilate and Herod; his scourging; the painful, agonizing path to Golgotha; the searing pain of crucifixion, followed by three hours of waiting for the peace of death,hours divided into weakening efforts not to suffocate.

While the ultimate consequence of Judas’ choice was Jesus’ crucifixion, his specific sin was compromise And we must understand that it really seemed to him a wise and prudent compromise given the impossible situation into which Jesus had boxed himself and his disciples by his violent attacks on the status quo and by his refusal to meet Jewish authorities halfway.

This, then, is the essence of the "Judas complex": one’s compromise of basic principles in order to fit in with the ideas and interests of the world.

The principle of the disciples was Jesus—his person, his authority, his teaching. Their obligation was to Jesus, to remain faithful through conflict and confusion. Judas had been persuaded by his corrupters that all that Jesus stood for had to be modified by a decent and sensible compromise.

Judas was not the only disciple who deserted Jesus in that trying moment—they all did. Judas was not the only one who sinned. He was not the only one who ran away. Peter’s denial was also foretold. So how was Judas different from the rest? He was the only one who did not come back.

Ironically, though he chose compromise with the world over faithfulness to Christ, his own sense of shame and guilt was uncompromising. Judas never gave a thought or opportunity to his own forgiveness. He never thought that the one who had forgiven so many sins and healed so many hearts would welcome back one of his own. His soul was lost to despair and the Satan who had entered his heart was surely pleased when he executed himself, hanging on a tree outside Jerusalem—one last mockery.

Do not be like Judas. Beware, is easier have a Judas complex than you think. If you do, you’d probably be the last person to see yourself as a betrayer. It is so easy to fall into the trap of what may seem like a sensible compromise with the world.

Tonight, no matter how far you have wandered into the world, no matter how often you may have faced the challenges of the faith with what may have seemed at the time like a sensible compromise, you have the opportunity to some back to the Table.

Which such a precious gift as the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, it’s hard to imagine that anyone would compromise their loyalty to him. And yet we do. We wander and stray from his ways like lost sheep, following the devices and desires of our own hearts.

“Is it I, Lord?” Note: the question is not “Is it him, Lord?” or “Is it her, Lord?” but “Is it I, Lord?” That may be the most healthy question we can ponder to prepare our hearts to return to his Table of Fellowship and Altar of Sacrifice. The turning point for Judas was very subtle—the idea that I know better than the Lord. He was willing to compromise his Lord because he thought he knew better. And yet, Jesus’ love for Judas (from day one) was never compromised. When Jesus offered himself as an atonement for the sins of the world, Jesus was offering himself for Judas too.

Oh, that he had only repented and accepted God’s mercy like the others. “The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe unto that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would have been better for him if he had never even been born.”

Fancy Hair Accessories

I used to wonder why accessories stores would sell these fancy hair accessories as if they were popular hair accessories because I had imagined that they were only suitable for fancy daytime events, like for a wedding in a garden or an old-fashioned Sunday brunch, which I supposed not many people attended these days (esp young people.)

But ever since Gossip Girl, I have started seeing hairbands and other similar hair accessories in a different light. (OK, so the huge red bow with Blair's school uniform is a bit over the top, but the others are usually cute.)
So when I went into Accessorize (the UK version of a much better Claire's) last week, as soon as I saw those fancy hair stuff, I rushed over. The first one I held this red rolled sinemay one against my hair. I LOVED it! It was unexpectedly pretty and just so different from what I usually see on myself. Believe me, I've always thought these things were fussy and old-fashioned but I just loved the way the material formed pretty loops on my head.

So I went back to check the hair accessories on Gossip Girl and apparently my preconception that these hair accessories were for brunches weren't completely off -Blair wore one to the grand brunch hosted by Chuck's dad in Episode 102. The one Blair is wearing is so pretty! It's a simple, classic design without being boring.

Here's a similar one to the one Blair is wearing. It's the black version of the red one I tried on. I didn't think the black one looked that great on me because my hair is black -the red one totally stood out more.

Maybe it's the pokka dots, but this one definitely gives off a more dressed-up vibe. It really looks like the ones one would wear to a garden wedding, (where older ladies would wear those fancy hats! Wait, or is it at funerals?)

I couldn't resist including this pink feathers with beads accessory -it's so girly in a non-cutsy way.

This silver sequin and feather accessory looks young and trendy. Perhaps one can even wear it on a fun night out (complete with a 20's styled outfit)?

So yes, maybe I have been brainwashed by Gossip Girl, but if I had a themed party to go to, I would totally try one of these out! Happy Easter holidays people!

Image Credits: http://www.youknowyouloveme.org/, http://www.accessorize.co.uk/

Maundy Thursday: Mass and Priesthood

“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.” 1 Corinthians 11:26

We gather on the Thursday of this Holy Week to begin recalling the central mysteries of our redemption—the betrayal, death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. A few weeks ago, I was looking ahead at my books on ceremonial about the liturgies of Holy Week, and I came across a curious thing. I don’t recall many ceremonial directives about sermons in there. But there was one for one day this week—Maundy Thursday. It read, “It is proper that, at the usual point, a sermon should be preached on the Holy Eucharist and the priesthood” (E. C. R. Lamburn, Ritual Notes, 11th Ed., p. 320).

I thought I might do just that, for an understanding of the Eucharist and the priesthood seems essential, not only for grasping the truths about this night, but also for grasping the meaning of the redemptive suffering, death, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. One thing that should be made clear from the beginning is that, for his holy Catholic Church in all times and places, Jesus is our great High Priest. “Priest” comes from the Greek word presbyter, which means “elder.”

A priest is by definition one who is an elder or wise leader within a community, or one who serves as the father of a tribal family. In that position, he is set apart or “consecrated” to God and his service. A priest is devoted to God with his entire being, and thus devoted to God’s people as well. A priest is an intercessor and a mediator. He goes to meet with God on behalf of the people, and he speaks to the people on behalf of God.

We might say that priesthood began with Adam. He was created in God’s image, to do the will of God as his servant. And as a being made to be a reflection of God’s own image, Adam was a priest. He was consecrated to God in all his being. Humanity fulfilled God’s will through Adam, who conversed with him face-to-face. But sin damaged that office in which Adam stood as a pries of God. In Adam we became rebellious priests—disobedient sons. In his disobedience, we embraced the opposite of a priestly office. Instead of consecrating our life and labor to God, we withheld it as our own, saying, “My will be done.” With the advent of sin, we became unworthy to minister to the Lord.

The priestly duty of offering sacrifice means presenting a gift to God as a sign of love, in recognition of his supreme dominion over all creation. Our sinful nature wants to claim dominion for ourselves alone. Yet, in his mercy, God nurtured the ministry of the patriarchs and the elders of Israel even as they offered imperfect worship. He taught them through prophets, and raised up priests to reconsecrate the people to the Lord. Indeed, the people as a whole were a kind of nation of priests, sanctifying the world by being a holy presence within it—a “light to the nations.”

Sin brought a new task to priestly work—making atonement for sin. Sacrifice would henceforth not merely be a sign of love, it would also be a desperate plea for mercy. The problem was that such priests, rebellious by nature, could only offer imperfect sacrifices. These were but a type or shadow of the real thing. In the fullness of time, God sent his Son into the world. The eternal Word took human flesh from the blessed Virgin Mary. This was the new Adam—the obedient and humble servant. The first Adam brought sin and death into the world; the second Adam brought forgiveness and life.

St Paul put it this way in his letter to the Church of Rome: “For as by the one man’s disobedience, many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” [Romans 5:19]. As the righteous servant, Jesus was able to be the priest that Adam was not. Jesus could offer the one true pleasing sacrifice to God the eternal Father, because he offered it with a truly sinless and humble heart. And that fulfillment of all sacrifices was to be the gift of himself. “For in [Jesus] all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,” St Paul wrote to the Colossians, “and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. And you, who were once alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless before him” [Colossians 1:19-20]. The union of the human and divine in Jesus is essential to his priestly work.

Holy Week and Easter have no real meaning without the Incarnation. The human and divine natures are united in the one person of Christ, as the ecumenical council of Chalcedon puts it: united “without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation” [BCP, p. 864]. He is the one mediator between God and man—bringing divinity and humanity together in himself. And in bringing the two together, Jesus mediated a New Covenant. The Old Covenant was sealed with the shedding of blood. When Moses declared all the commandments of God to the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, and sprinkled both the book of the Law and the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you” [Exodus 24:6-8].

This act of Moses long ago foreshadowed the way that the New Covenant would be sealed in the shed blood of Christ. Jesus offered himself to the Father as the Passover lamb on this night—a sacrifice to spare people from their sins, just as the blood of the Passover lamb spared the lives of the Hebrews when they marked their door-posts with its blood so the angel of death would know to pass over them.

The author of Hebrews speaks a great deal about Jesus as our great High Priest. The crucifixion is a kind of liturgy. Jesus enters the veil of heaven through his death to offer his own blood on the mercy seat, just as the high priest of Israel offered the blood of bulls and goats in the Holy of Holies on the day of Atonement. Jesus is our great High Priest.

In his divine plan, our blessed Lord wanted to share that priesthood with us. Like Israel before, those in his Church are to be “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, and a holy nation . . .” [1 Peter 2:9]. Together, the laos (the "people" of God), by virtue of their union with Christ in holy Baptism, share in what we call “the priesthood of all believers.” This is a ministry of service, love, and mission, to which all Christians are called. Believers must mediate Christ’s love and his saving gospel to the world. Like Israel, we are to be a “light to the nations.” Jesus often spoke of a kind of renewal of Israel in the kingdom of God; part of that messianic mission was to renew Israel’s elders. While he is the only true priest or elder, he shares that priestly work with those whom he calls in his Church.

Early in Mark’s gospel, we read, “He now went up onto the mountain and summoned those he wanted. And he ordained Twelve that they might be with him and that he might send them forth to preach, and to have the power to heal sickness, and to cast out devils” [Mark 3:14-15]. Jesus called out certain men whom he ordained to do the kinds of things he was doing. As Moses laid hands on Joshua and gave him authority to care for the people, Jesus gave the Twelve authority to teach and to heal, and even gave them a share in his ministry of divine reconciliation.

After his resurrection, we read in John’s gospel, “Then Jesus said unto [the apostles] again, ‘Peace be unto you: as my Father sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he said this, he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit: whose sins you forgive are forgiven; and whose sins you retain are retained’” [John 20:20-23].

However, in theological discourse down through the years, when teachers and bishops talked about the institution of holy orders, they did not so much look to this early mountaintop experience nor to this post-resurrection blessing as they did to the Upper Room. The
institution of the Christian ministerial priesthood is always connected with the institution of the holy Eucharist—Sacrament of the Altar.

One of the best books for those studying for the priesthood is The Christian Priest Today by the late Archbishop of Canterbury, Arthur Michael Ramsey. In an early chapter called “Why a Priest,” he outlines four unique qualities of the priest in today’s Anglican Church. The priest is the “man of theology”, the “minister of reconciliation,” the “man of prayer”, and the “man of the Eucharist.” Concerning the last quality, he notes the following:

“The liturgy indeed belongs to all the people. We being many are the one bread, one body. We take, we break, we offer, we receive . . . Where then, and why then, the priests? As a celebrant, he is more than the people’s representative. In taking, breaking, and consecrating, he acts in Christ’s name and in the name not only of the particular congregation, but of the holy Catholic Church down through the ages. By his office as celebrant he symbolizes the focusing of the Eucharist in the givenness of the historic gospel and in the continuing life of the Church as rooted in that gospel. He finds that at the Altar he is drawn terribly and wonderfully near not only to the benefits of Christ’s redemption, but to the redemptive act itself”
[A. M. Ramsey, The Christian Priest Today, pp. 9-10].

Archbishop Ramsey touches upon two fundamental truths about the connection between the Eucharist and the priesthood. The first is summed up in the old theological axiom sacerdos alter Christus—“the priest is another Christ.” That is, by virtue of the grace of holy orders, the Christian priest is indelibly and metaphysically conformed to Christ—the ultimate source and irreplaceable model of his priesthood. Thus, Jesus’ will that the apostles “do this as my memorial” requires that they stand in the place of Christ and speak his words (i.e., not “this is his Body”, but “this is my Body.”)

The second truth Ramsey touches upon is that the Eucharist is a participation in Christ’s redemptive work. It is not simply a reminder that these things once happened—a mere symbol or aide to help call to mind past events. Rather, the Eucharist is a real participation in past events, the constitutor of a present reality, and the foretaste of the future kingdom.

The Eucharist manifests past works of God’s redemption. St Paul told the Corinthian Church, “as often as you eat the bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till he comes” [1 Corinthians 11:26]. The catechism of the Prayer Book reminds us, “The Holy Eucharist, the Church’s sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, is the way by which the sacrifice of Christ is made present, and in which he unites us to his one offering of himself” [BCP, p. 859]. Not only does the Eucharist participate in past events, it is also a present reality. In the blessed Sacrament, Jesus is our “Emmanuel”—God with us. The Word made flesh tabernacles among us. It is in the celebration of the holy Eucharist that the Church is constituted—the mystical Body of Christ on earth.

While the Eucharist is a participation in past and present, let us not forget that the Eucharist is also about the future. Indeed, the second Advent of Christ was the dominant imagery in the Eucharist of the Church in the early centuries. Jesus said, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” [John 6:54]. By receiving Holy Communion, we receive a foretaste of eating and drinking at his table in the kingdom [Luke 22:30].

We can see the connection between the Eucharist and priesthood from the Last Supper. At the Passover meal Jesus shared with his disciples this night, the pure unleavened bread was broken into quarter portions, and one portion, called the afikomen, was hidden away in a cloth and laid aside. No one really knew why, except that it had always been done that way before. It was also called the Bread of Redemption, and it usually went uneaten. Many suspect that it was this portion that Jesus took, broke, and gave to his disciples saying, “Take eat, this is my Body.”

There were four cups of wine during the meal and it was the third cup, traditionally called the Cup of Redemption or the Cup of Blessing which Christ gave to them saying, “Take and drink; this is my Blood of the New Covenant poured out for you.” St Paul noted, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the Blood of Christ?” [1 Corinthians 10:16].

And what of the fourth cup of wine in the Passover meal? At that point, Jesus said, “I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” [Matthew 26:29]. The fourth cup was known as the Cup of Consummation—the cup in which God takes us as his people. After sharing the cup of his precious Blood, Jesus left the liturgy unfinished. Or perhaps we should say, the liturgy continued—in the Garden, at the cross, and at the tomb.

Jesus left the fourth cup on the table because there was another new element in the Seder liturgy; there was a new cup from which to drink; for Jesus, it would be the cup of suffering. Isaiah and Jeremiah had prophesied that the Messiah would drink from the cup of God’s wrath. The grapes of wrath would be churned in the wine-press and the cup of divine wrath would be poured out against sin. Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. Nevertheless, not as I want, but as you want” [Matthew 26:39].

When he was first put on the cross, they offered Jesus wine mingled with myrrh, but he would not take it. “I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until I drink it new in the kingdom.” He hung there on the tree for about three hours. One of the last things that happened before Jesus died was that he looked down and said, “I thirst.” John’s gospel tells us there was a bowl of sour wine nearby. So they put a sponge on the end of a hyssop branch, (note: the same kind of branch used to mark the door-posts with lamb’s blood at the first Passover) dipped it in the wine and raised it up to his lips. And when he drank it, Jesus said, “It is finished.” And bowed his head and gave up his spirit [see John 19:30].

It is finished. It is consummated. The Mass has ended. The Liturgy is over. He drank the final cup, the Cup of Consummation, and brought us into the kingdom of God, for the gate of heaven’s kingdom stands at the cross on Golgotha.

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the Blood of Christ? He drank from the cup or wrath that we might drink from the cup of blessing. Jesus gathers with us here tonight; he presides over our Passover meal through his priest at the Altar. He is himself the Passover Lamb slain for the sins of the world. The sacrificial banquet is spread on the table before us. “Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us,” St Paul said, “therefore let us keep the feast” [1 Corinthians 5:7]. Jesus bids us to come to his holy Table and eat and drink tonight. All is prepared. “Come ye blessed of my Father, and inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” [Matthew 25:34].

Almighty Father, whose dear Son, on the night before he suffered, did institute the Sacrament of his Body and Blood: Mercifully grant that we may thankfully receive the same in remembrance of him who in these holy mysteries giveth us a pledge of life eternal, the same thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord; who now liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.