1 SAMUEL 1: 20 - 28 JOHN 19: 25 - 27
I remember back in 1999 when the Methodist worship Book came out. The circuit in which I was working on the Isle of Man decided to purchase a number of copies for use throughout the churches. Generally it was well received. There was just one matter that caused concern - the Communion service in which God is addressed as both “mother” and father.” And I know that for some, that one reference to God as “mother” invalidated the whole book.
And yet I think that that one reference was entirely justifiable. Now don’t get me wrong. Next week we will not be praying to;
“Our mother who art in heaven.”
That is not how Jesus taught the Lord’s Prayer and it is not how it has been prayed for two millennia. And I’m far too much a respecter of tradition to disregard either scripture or the historic teachings of the church.
And yet I equally do not want to ignore the motherhood of God. And in that I have some worthy colleagues. Listen for a moment to Anselm who became Archbishop of Canterbury just six years after the death of William the Conqueror. Nor regarded as a liberal trendy, he had this to say;
“Jesus, you are gentle with us as a mother with her children.”
And then listen to the greatest religious thinker that this country has ever produced, Mother Julian of Norwich, who over six hundred years ago wrote;
“As truly as God is our Father, as truly God is our Mother.”
Now of course most Biblical references to God portray God as male. That is hardly surprising given that the social context in which the scriptures emerged was one in which men were dominant. But there are exceptions. In the Old Testament there are to be found verses which provide us with images such as God being as a woman in childbirth, a mother unable to forget the child she has fed and a midwife attending a birth at a time when only a woman could serve in that role. And the list could go on much longer. And within the Gospels, Jesus likens God to a woman searching for a coin whilst Jesus takes on himself female imagery in his lament over Jerusalem when he cries out;
“How often have I longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.”
Now of course, God is beyond gender. Being spirit, God does not have the attributes that make us male or female. Indeed, it is irrelevant for in the very first chapter of Genesis we are told that God has created male and female in God’s image. Of course Jesus lived as a man although it is his humanity rather than his gender that is significant in him being the means of our salvation.
Speaking of God as “father” or “mother” doubtless provides us with a quite a range of pictures. Observing the media and hearing people’s stories suggest that whilst for most people there are positive responses to the term “father,” there are those for whom the term is a block on any relationship with God. And yet our stereotypes of fathers and mothers can fall short of reality. I know in many a home the ultimate threat may have been;
“Wait till your father gets home.”
But we know that fathers are not necessarily the fearsome disciplinarians that those words imply. After all in some homes it is the mother who is the strict parent whilst the father may have great qualities of caring, patience and compassion which are often associated with mothers. Time and again the stereotypes are seen to be removed from the realities.
Surely God combines both fatherhood and motherhood in God’s dealings with us. Indeed God represents the very best that can be hoped for of both fathers and mothers. Truly, God is the altogether lovely perfection of parenthood. In the parable of the Prodigal Son, the Father figure who is intended as a representation of God, in some ways behaves as a mother would do. He shows restraint in the face of the Prodigal’s insensitive request for his inheritance. When the Prodigal returns he is most unmanly in running to meet the Prodigal and in kissing him. And then when the other son refuses to join the celebration, he takes on the mother’s role as a peacemaker rather than thrashing the lad as would have been expected of a father. No wonder that Rembrandt in his painting, “The Return of the Prodigal son” has two very different hands of the father touching the returned son - one being very muscular whilst the other has the elegance and gentleness of a woman.
So whilst I am not going to start praying the Lord’s Prayer by beginning with “Our Mother” rather than “Our Father”, I do think it is important to recognise that in God’s we find the wholeness and the perfection of both fatherhood and motherhood. Our God is the divine parent to whom we owe our lives and in whom we find all that we could want in a parent. Yet ultimately, this is about our search for ways to relate to God and to describe God. And then the list of ways in which we can see and experience God would seem to be endless. Our language can never fully describe the wonder of God,
But finally what thought can we take away? I think it is this. God loves us passionately. God is concerned for our well being. And God cannot stop being concerned for us even when love becomes painful. He is what we would wish a parent to be and more besides. So today let us just wallow in God’s love - the love without limits!
BIDEFORD METHODIST CHURCH - Sunday March 2nd 2008
Friday 29 February 2008
Sunday 24 February 2008
Lent 3 - Not so gentle Jesus (Non lectionary sermon)
JOHN 2: 13-22
I think the first prayer that I learnt came from Charles Wesley. It began;
“Gentle Jesus, meek and mild,
Look upon a little child;
Pity my simplicity,
Suffer me to come to Thee.”
If that wasn’t bad enough, I attended a church where proudly displayed was what I now know to be Warner Salmon’s painting “The Head of Christ.” It’s the picture that most of you will have seen (500 million copies have been produced) in which Jesus has flowing blonde hair, blue eyes and makes the late John Inman look like The Terminator. In short it is a picture that has always made me want to protest;
“What a wimp!”
In both prayer and painting I think we have got Jesus very badly wrong and I for one have had to do a bit of unlearning. Which is just as well because today’s reading portrays Jesus in a manner that is hardly “meek and mild.” So let the real Jesus be unleashed!
And that Jesus is certainly blazing with anger in John’s Gospel. Now John puts the clearing of the Temple at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus whereas the other Gospel writers put it as the follow up to the triumphal entry on Palm Sunday. Some would argue that there could have been two such events but given the importance attached to the Temple as a centre of religious and economic life in Jerusalem, it is surely inconceivable that Jesus would have been allowed two such outrages. After all the American scholar EP Sanders argues that this is the event that was the trigger for the execution of Jesus. So I am inclined to think that this episode occurred at the timing suggested by the first three Gospels whilst John being more concerned with significance than chronology has found it suitable for his purposes to tell this story at the beginning of his Gospel.
So let’s for a moment look to the temple itself. The Temple at the time of Jesus was the third Temple ( or a major development of the second Temple depending on your point of view) to be built on that site. Building had begun under Herod the Great at about 20 BCE. It would not be totally completed until about 63 CE under Herod Agrippa. It was a thoroughly magnificent building made of white marble that gleamed in the daylight. Hugely impressive, it conveyed a message about the greatness of Israel’s God and it was the centre of Israel’s religious and economic life. So to confront the Temple establishment was a bold and audacious move by Jesus.
So to what exactly did Jesus object? It wasn’t simply that there was a market place. This was normal in any temple cult. Currency need to be changed from that of Rome to Jewish money in order for the necessary payment to be made. Appropriate livestock had to be sold in order for sacrifices to be made and that which was brought in needed to be inspected. And yet, protesting that God’s house has been turned into a “market” Jesus unleashes his full fury upon the traders - making a whip of cords to drive the animals out of the Temple, scattering the coins of the money changers and overturning their tables.
Wow! This is no meek and mild Jesus. This is a Jesus who is furious, a Jesus who is not going hang around to observe social etiquette. But why? In part it is because the Temple traders are using religion as a means to carry out extortionate practices at the expense of poor worshippers. After all, Jesus is here in line with the prophetic tradition in rejecting the exploitation of the poor. And he knows only too well that much of this commerce is in fact controlled by high priestly families such as that of Annas (Jospehus refers to the “bazaars of Annas“) which included his son in law Caiaphas who figures in the trial of Jesus. No way is Jesus prepared to sit back and see an elite carrying out sharp practice to the detriment of worshipers, many of who would have been impoverished. Instead, we witness a courageous stand against the dominant powers.
Another cause of the anger of Jesus may well have been that the activities about which he protested were going on in the Court of the Gentiles. This Court was as far as gentiles could go. And yet, they were hardly experiencing worship in the midst of a bazaar. Jews could go further especially if they were men but this was as good as it got for gentiles. Now whilst most of what Jesus has been doing has been with his fellow Jews, he has hinted that God is for all peoples in for example his conversation with the Samaritan Woman at the Well and in the parable he told of a good Samaritan. Here, he can no longer abide a system which has been abused in such a way as to keep people from a full experience of God’s love. It has to end! I just wonder to what extent our proclamation and attitudes today keep people who are other than us, away from a full experience of God’s love today.
So there we are. Jesus, far from being meek and mild, is eyes ablaze with anger. His actions are the actions of fury. So perhaps we need not be afraid of anger. Indeed, I would suggest that there are times when we should embrace anger even when that anger is directed towards the places where many would not wish it to be placed. I certainly feel anger at the production of instruments that could carry out mass killing including when they are done by my own country. I certainly feel anger at the opening of casinos and bookies that exploit human weakness. I certainly feel anger at the toleration of homelessness and inadequate housing in a country where such need is often but a few yards from ostentatious wealth whose desires seem to be much more listened to in high places than the cries of the needy. So let there be no mistake - at times anger and the action that goes with it is a Christian duty! Be gone meek and mild church! Arise a church of militancy for the dispossessed, the voiceless and the victims!
But still this is not the point at which to stop. As Jesus is challenged, to give a sign for what he is doing, his answer is;
“Destroy this Temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
How do we interpret this? Well certainly one possibility is to see it in terms of a prophesy of the imminent destruction of the Temple. John’s readers will know that this has happened in 70 CE.
But I guess that most Christians will see it as pointing to his own body. For ultimately the risen Christ will be all that the Temple should have been as the place to meet with God. As we travel through Lent on the way to the events of Good Friday and Easter, we see in Jesus the all sufficient means through which we may approach God and experience the fullness of God’s love. A day of anger in Jerusalem has shown the temporary nature of the Temple as a means to God. Instead we can see in the passionate courage and love of Jesus that in him all our hopes and dreams can be wisely invested.
A world without the Temple seemed an impossibility. Today, we still put our hopes in wrong places be they nation, leaders or even British values. These things are not necessarily wrong in themselves but when we depend on them, they become a form of idolatry. The only place that I can encourage you to invest your allegiance and hopes in in Jesus Christ who is God made flesh. He is thoroughly reliable.
ALVERDISCOTT METHODIST CHURCH February 24th 2008
I think the first prayer that I learnt came from Charles Wesley. It began;
“Gentle Jesus, meek and mild,
Look upon a little child;
Pity my simplicity,
Suffer me to come to Thee.”
If that wasn’t bad enough, I attended a church where proudly displayed was what I now know to be Warner Salmon’s painting “The Head of Christ.” It’s the picture that most of you will have seen (500 million copies have been produced) in which Jesus has flowing blonde hair, blue eyes and makes the late John Inman look like The Terminator. In short it is a picture that has always made me want to protest;
“What a wimp!”
In both prayer and painting I think we have got Jesus very badly wrong and I for one have had to do a bit of unlearning. Which is just as well because today’s reading portrays Jesus in a manner that is hardly “meek and mild.” So let the real Jesus be unleashed!
And that Jesus is certainly blazing with anger in John’s Gospel. Now John puts the clearing of the Temple at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus whereas the other Gospel writers put it as the follow up to the triumphal entry on Palm Sunday. Some would argue that there could have been two such events but given the importance attached to the Temple as a centre of religious and economic life in Jerusalem, it is surely inconceivable that Jesus would have been allowed two such outrages. After all the American scholar EP Sanders argues that this is the event that was the trigger for the execution of Jesus. So I am inclined to think that this episode occurred at the timing suggested by the first three Gospels whilst John being more concerned with significance than chronology has found it suitable for his purposes to tell this story at the beginning of his Gospel.
So let’s for a moment look to the temple itself. The Temple at the time of Jesus was the third Temple ( or a major development of the second Temple depending on your point of view) to be built on that site. Building had begun under Herod the Great at about 20 BCE. It would not be totally completed until about 63 CE under Herod Agrippa. It was a thoroughly magnificent building made of white marble that gleamed in the daylight. Hugely impressive, it conveyed a message about the greatness of Israel’s God and it was the centre of Israel’s religious and economic life. So to confront the Temple establishment was a bold and audacious move by Jesus.
So to what exactly did Jesus object? It wasn’t simply that there was a market place. This was normal in any temple cult. Currency need to be changed from that of Rome to Jewish money in order for the necessary payment to be made. Appropriate livestock had to be sold in order for sacrifices to be made and that which was brought in needed to be inspected. And yet, protesting that God’s house has been turned into a “market” Jesus unleashes his full fury upon the traders - making a whip of cords to drive the animals out of the Temple, scattering the coins of the money changers and overturning their tables.
Wow! This is no meek and mild Jesus. This is a Jesus who is furious, a Jesus who is not going hang around to observe social etiquette. But why? In part it is because the Temple traders are using religion as a means to carry out extortionate practices at the expense of poor worshippers. After all, Jesus is here in line with the prophetic tradition in rejecting the exploitation of the poor. And he knows only too well that much of this commerce is in fact controlled by high priestly families such as that of Annas (Jospehus refers to the “bazaars of Annas“) which included his son in law Caiaphas who figures in the trial of Jesus. No way is Jesus prepared to sit back and see an elite carrying out sharp practice to the detriment of worshipers, many of who would have been impoverished. Instead, we witness a courageous stand against the dominant powers.
Another cause of the anger of Jesus may well have been that the activities about which he protested were going on in the Court of the Gentiles. This Court was as far as gentiles could go. And yet, they were hardly experiencing worship in the midst of a bazaar. Jews could go further especially if they were men but this was as good as it got for gentiles. Now whilst most of what Jesus has been doing has been with his fellow Jews, he has hinted that God is for all peoples in for example his conversation with the Samaritan Woman at the Well and in the parable he told of a good Samaritan. Here, he can no longer abide a system which has been abused in such a way as to keep people from a full experience of God’s love. It has to end! I just wonder to what extent our proclamation and attitudes today keep people who are other than us, away from a full experience of God’s love today.
So there we are. Jesus, far from being meek and mild, is eyes ablaze with anger. His actions are the actions of fury. So perhaps we need not be afraid of anger. Indeed, I would suggest that there are times when we should embrace anger even when that anger is directed towards the places where many would not wish it to be placed. I certainly feel anger at the production of instruments that could carry out mass killing including when they are done by my own country. I certainly feel anger at the opening of casinos and bookies that exploit human weakness. I certainly feel anger at the toleration of homelessness and inadequate housing in a country where such need is often but a few yards from ostentatious wealth whose desires seem to be much more listened to in high places than the cries of the needy. So let there be no mistake - at times anger and the action that goes with it is a Christian duty! Be gone meek and mild church! Arise a church of militancy for the dispossessed, the voiceless and the victims!
But still this is not the point at which to stop. As Jesus is challenged, to give a sign for what he is doing, his answer is;
“Destroy this Temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
How do we interpret this? Well certainly one possibility is to see it in terms of a prophesy of the imminent destruction of the Temple. John’s readers will know that this has happened in 70 CE.
But I guess that most Christians will see it as pointing to his own body. For ultimately the risen Christ will be all that the Temple should have been as the place to meet with God. As we travel through Lent on the way to the events of Good Friday and Easter, we see in Jesus the all sufficient means through which we may approach God and experience the fullness of God’s love. A day of anger in Jerusalem has shown the temporary nature of the Temple as a means to God. Instead we can see in the passionate courage and love of Jesus that in him all our hopes and dreams can be wisely invested.
A world without the Temple seemed an impossibility. Today, we still put our hopes in wrong places be they nation, leaders or even British values. These things are not necessarily wrong in themselves but when we depend on them, they become a form of idolatry. The only place that I can encourage you to invest your allegiance and hopes in in Jesus Christ who is God made flesh. He is thoroughly reliable.
ALVERDISCOTT METHODIST CHURCH February 24th 2008
Lent 3 - Good news for Outsiders
JOHN 4: 5-26, 39-42
This morning time is short and we face a scripture that speaks profoundly to us. So I just want to highlight a little of the message that comes at us from this encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman at Sychar.
Firstly, that this meeting ever happened tells us something important about Jesus. You see, this encounter comes against a background of over 500 years of enmity between Jews such as Jesus and Samaritans. Its roots lay in the planting of new peoples into the area by Assyrian conquerors. With time not only was there a racial issue between two people but a religious issue also. For Samaritan religion had come to a different place than Jewish religion. As the dialogue makes clear one of the differences was in the place of supreme worship of God. For Jews, the Temple in Jerusalem was the place that counted. Samaritans on the other hand looked to Mount Gerizim which was close to the scene of this encounter. Once a temple had stood there but Jewish leaders had destroyed it a century earlier.
By the time of Jesus, both parties had their grievances and so they tended to have as little to do with each other as possible. Indeed most Jews would have avoided going through Samaria but Jesus didn’t.
Anyhow, our scripture finds him thirsty by the well when a Samaritan woman arrives. Firstly he asks her for water and out of that engages her in conversation. Nothing unusual in that you might think. But in that culture it was unusual. For as verse 9 makes clear, Jews did not normally associate with Samaritans. And more than that it was not normal for a man to engage in private conversation with a woman other than a member of his family, something which led to the disciples being surprised at finding Jesus talking with a woman. Do you get it? Jesus was not letting the conventions of the day get in the way of proper and respectful conversation with this Samaritan woman. To most Jewish people, she was an outsider but to Jesus she was quite simply a person worthy of respect.
Now it would seem that her experiences of life had not been altogether kind. We are told that she had had 5 husbands before her current partner. Often this is interpreted as suggesting that she had a particularly sinful lifestyle. Her coming to the well at a time when the Sun was at its hottest rather than earlier in the morning, is often interpreted as suggesting that she was ashamed to be with other women who knew her story all too well. But this is reading too much into her story. The woman may simply have been unfortunate, a victim of bereavement is a society where life expectancy was not all that could have been wished. She may have been harshly treated by men in her life to a point where some of the spark had been knocked out of her so that she preferred to stay away from company. We do not know. What we do know is that if others thought her not to be worth their time, that was not a view shared by Jesus.
Oh make no mistake, here we find the worth of all people being affirmed by Jesus. Differences for him were not an excuse to erect the barriers. Whilst our rag the Daily Mail was this week exposed offering money for stories that would reflect badly on East Europeans living in this country, Jesus systematically knocks down the walls we build against people who are deemed to be other. Indeed, in his respectful dialogue with a woman of other faith, perhaps we can see a model as to how we can dialogue with people of other religions in this country. This means being prepared to listen and even to seek the help of those who are “other” as Jesus does in his request for water, rather than hectoring them or dehumanising them.
Now, this is pretty traditional interpretation. Jesus is on the side of the outsider and this has important significance in how we treat outsiders today be they of other religion, other lands especially asylum seekers or those who are deemed to have in some way or other to have flawed lifestyles. The love of Jesus is for all and we do no favours when we put limits on the love of God.
But I think there is something else going on here. It is too easy for us to see Jesus as the insider and the Samaritan woman as the outsider. You see, that is not the whole picture. This encounter is not in Israel. It is in Samaria. It is on the home turf of the Samaritan woman. She is the one who is at home. And in this place it is Jesus who is the outsider. Consciously and deliberately Jesus has made himself into the outsider. And this can speak to Christian living today. In a real way, Christians need to get used to being the outsider in what is effectively post Christian society. Forget about a past when Christianity in its corrupted form of Christendom dominated. Look to today where we are surrounded by many a Samaria and like Jesus respond to the challenge to engage with a society in which Christians are the outsider. There is a real temptation in times of falling church numbers in Britain, west Europe and increasingly the USA to retreat into a bunker mentality. And yet the example of Jesus urges us away from that. Jesus urges us to positively engage with the diversity of humanity especially with those whose experience of rejection is greatest. If Jesus can be the archetypal outsider, then that is the place for us.
This story is at a well. People who lived in the Middle East in those days as today knew only too well the worth of water - pity Coca Cola with their wasteful use of water do not know this worth. Shortages of water are a problem for much of the world. And yet vital as that is, Jesus offers this Samaritan woman a vision of “living water” which will bring refreshment for all time. This was an is the offer of Jesus. In our world of the rat race in which the rats all too often do their worst to those who cannot keep up, Jesus offers the living waters of his presence, his love and his acceptance. He brings grace, a word that can change the world, through which he gives us a value that we can never earn. This grace is something that we can mediate to others. Just as Jesus stood out against life denying culture in his time, so to are we called to challenge the grey arbiters of power in our world with a vision of grace.
The Samaritan woman rejoiced in her encounter with Jesus. She tells what has happened to her fellow Samaritans. Jesus stays a couple of extra days with the historic enemy. And it is they who discern that Jesus “really is the Saviour of the world.”
And what more of this Samaritan woman? We know no more of what happened to her although I cannot but think that this encounter was life changing to both this woman and to Jesus. But across the world she goes on being celebrated. In Mexico, La Samaritana is celebrated on the fourth Sunday of Lent with specially flavoured water being given so as to commemorate her gift of water to Jesus. In Russia she is honoured as Svetlana which means “equal to the apostles.”
What an elevation for this outsider! But this is the Gospel of the ultimate outsider in which outsiders still find favour.
BIDEFORD METHODIST CHURCH Sunday February 24th 2008
This morning time is short and we face a scripture that speaks profoundly to us. So I just want to highlight a little of the message that comes at us from this encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman at Sychar.
Firstly, that this meeting ever happened tells us something important about Jesus. You see, this encounter comes against a background of over 500 years of enmity between Jews such as Jesus and Samaritans. Its roots lay in the planting of new peoples into the area by Assyrian conquerors. With time not only was there a racial issue between two people but a religious issue also. For Samaritan religion had come to a different place than Jewish religion. As the dialogue makes clear one of the differences was in the place of supreme worship of God. For Jews, the Temple in Jerusalem was the place that counted. Samaritans on the other hand looked to Mount Gerizim which was close to the scene of this encounter. Once a temple had stood there but Jewish leaders had destroyed it a century earlier.
By the time of Jesus, both parties had their grievances and so they tended to have as little to do with each other as possible. Indeed most Jews would have avoided going through Samaria but Jesus didn’t.
Anyhow, our scripture finds him thirsty by the well when a Samaritan woman arrives. Firstly he asks her for water and out of that engages her in conversation. Nothing unusual in that you might think. But in that culture it was unusual. For as verse 9 makes clear, Jews did not normally associate with Samaritans. And more than that it was not normal for a man to engage in private conversation with a woman other than a member of his family, something which led to the disciples being surprised at finding Jesus talking with a woman. Do you get it? Jesus was not letting the conventions of the day get in the way of proper and respectful conversation with this Samaritan woman. To most Jewish people, she was an outsider but to Jesus she was quite simply a person worthy of respect.
Now it would seem that her experiences of life had not been altogether kind. We are told that she had had 5 husbands before her current partner. Often this is interpreted as suggesting that she had a particularly sinful lifestyle. Her coming to the well at a time when the Sun was at its hottest rather than earlier in the morning, is often interpreted as suggesting that she was ashamed to be with other women who knew her story all too well. But this is reading too much into her story. The woman may simply have been unfortunate, a victim of bereavement is a society where life expectancy was not all that could have been wished. She may have been harshly treated by men in her life to a point where some of the spark had been knocked out of her so that she preferred to stay away from company. We do not know. What we do know is that if others thought her not to be worth their time, that was not a view shared by Jesus.
Oh make no mistake, here we find the worth of all people being affirmed by Jesus. Differences for him were not an excuse to erect the barriers. Whilst our rag the Daily Mail was this week exposed offering money for stories that would reflect badly on East Europeans living in this country, Jesus systematically knocks down the walls we build against people who are deemed to be other. Indeed, in his respectful dialogue with a woman of other faith, perhaps we can see a model as to how we can dialogue with people of other religions in this country. This means being prepared to listen and even to seek the help of those who are “other” as Jesus does in his request for water, rather than hectoring them or dehumanising them.
Now, this is pretty traditional interpretation. Jesus is on the side of the outsider and this has important significance in how we treat outsiders today be they of other religion, other lands especially asylum seekers or those who are deemed to have in some way or other to have flawed lifestyles. The love of Jesus is for all and we do no favours when we put limits on the love of God.
But I think there is something else going on here. It is too easy for us to see Jesus as the insider and the Samaritan woman as the outsider. You see, that is not the whole picture. This encounter is not in Israel. It is in Samaria. It is on the home turf of the Samaritan woman. She is the one who is at home. And in this place it is Jesus who is the outsider. Consciously and deliberately Jesus has made himself into the outsider. And this can speak to Christian living today. In a real way, Christians need to get used to being the outsider in what is effectively post Christian society. Forget about a past when Christianity in its corrupted form of Christendom dominated. Look to today where we are surrounded by many a Samaria and like Jesus respond to the challenge to engage with a society in which Christians are the outsider. There is a real temptation in times of falling church numbers in Britain, west Europe and increasingly the USA to retreat into a bunker mentality. And yet the example of Jesus urges us away from that. Jesus urges us to positively engage with the diversity of humanity especially with those whose experience of rejection is greatest. If Jesus can be the archetypal outsider, then that is the place for us.
This story is at a well. People who lived in the Middle East in those days as today knew only too well the worth of water - pity Coca Cola with their wasteful use of water do not know this worth. Shortages of water are a problem for much of the world. And yet vital as that is, Jesus offers this Samaritan woman a vision of “living water” which will bring refreshment for all time. This was an is the offer of Jesus. In our world of the rat race in which the rats all too often do their worst to those who cannot keep up, Jesus offers the living waters of his presence, his love and his acceptance. He brings grace, a word that can change the world, through which he gives us a value that we can never earn. This grace is something that we can mediate to others. Just as Jesus stood out against life denying culture in his time, so to are we called to challenge the grey arbiters of power in our world with a vision of grace.
The Samaritan woman rejoiced in her encounter with Jesus. She tells what has happened to her fellow Samaritans. Jesus stays a couple of extra days with the historic enemy. And it is they who discern that Jesus “really is the Saviour of the world.”
And what more of this Samaritan woman? We know no more of what happened to her although I cannot but think that this encounter was life changing to both this woman and to Jesus. But across the world she goes on being celebrated. In Mexico, La Samaritana is celebrated on the fourth Sunday of Lent with specially flavoured water being given so as to commemorate her gift of water to Jesus. In Russia she is honoured as Svetlana which means “equal to the apostles.”
What an elevation for this outsider! But this is the Gospel of the ultimate outsider in which outsiders still find favour.
BIDEFORD METHODIST CHURCH Sunday February 24th 2008
Sunday 17 February 2008
Lent 2 - Moving with God
GENESIS 12: 1-6 JOHN 3: 1-17
I am one of those people who finds it hard to warm to that patriarch of Genesis, Abraham. A man who on two occasions puts himself before the well being of his wife by pretending that she is his sister so as not to disillusion powerful men who wish to sleep with her, is not exactly the sort of person I admire. That he is recorded as exiling his first child and her mother, being prepared to sacrifice his child whether it be Isaac as in the Jewish and Christian traditions or Ishmael as in the Islamic tradition, and that he seems to have difficulty getting on with people leading to a splitting with Lot and even the unleashing of a war, mean that to be honest I don’t find Abraham to be the sort of guy I would choose to go out for a pint with.
And yet, Abraham is a venerated figure in three religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Why should that be? I think that the answer is that this deeply flawed man is at the same time a man who is prepared to give himself to doing what he feels God to be calling him to, even if this means that he is in more than one way entering new territory.
At the time we meet him, he is already advanced in years. His family have already made a great move. They have travelled from Ur which is probably in what is now South East Iraq to Haran which would be on the Syrian/Turkish border. Their goal has been Canaan but they have not arrived at that destination.
But now comes a call from God;
“Go from the country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you.”
Now I know that migrations on the part of nomadic people were not unusual. But there comes to all of us a time when we want to feel settled. We can all find ourselves held to the places and people that are familiar. Nothing unsettles us quite as much as change.
And yet, this elderly man demonstrates a remarkable level of obedience to God. He get up and moves even though he does not know where he will be going. And in so doing, he abandons the props with which he had lived including his extended family. All of this for an uncertain future! All of this responding to a promise that this elderly man who is married to an elderly woman, would be the founders of a great nation. It sure is obedience even to the point of being just a little crazy.
And if you follow the story, you will find that deeply flawed Abraham keeps trying to do what God calls him to. And of course through his first two sons, Ishmael and Isaac, he is seen as fathering two great nations.
Now, Abraham may not be the primary figure in any of the religions. For Judaism, I would suggest that Moses is more significant. And certainly for Christianity it is Jesus who is of prime significance whilst for Islam, it is the Prophet Muhammad who is seen as the greatest of God’s messengers. But within each of those faiths, Abraham is a vital figure. Jewish circumcision looks back to him and Jewish people see themselves as children of Abraham. For Christians, his significance is seen in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus going back to him and his portrayal in the Letter to the Hebrews as a great example of faith whilst Muslims see him as the prime example of Hanifism, faith in One God.
But the greatest Biblical tributes to Abraham are found in his being described as a friend of God. We first find this incredible description of Abraham in Isaiah (41:8) and it is repeated in the Letter of James where we find it written;
“Thus the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” and he was called the friend of God.”
What a description of Abraham’s relationship with God! It is unique. And it comes about because Abraham believed the incredible promise of God and acted accordingly.
Yes, Abraham is an example of a man who responded to a dynamic understanding of God. He had the capacity to appreciate that God is not simply about the continuance of the status quo but God challenges us to see the world in new ways and to move with God even when that moving takes us into the realism of uncertainty and unpredictability.
I think that there is also movement going on in our Gospel reading. In it we find a well known encounter between Jesus and a man named Nicodemus. Now, Nicodemus was a part of the religious establishment. After all he was a Pharisee, people who were certainly known for their orthodoxy. More than that he would seem to have been a member of the ruling council, the Sanhedrin. And yet, we find him crossing boundaries by coming to speak to Jesus. Oh, we would not have been short of learning. He could have been given the position he occupied. But this Nicodemus was no closed mind and so having heard about Jesus, he was prepared to abandon the safety of past understandings to see if through Jesus he might be enabled to move forwards. In Nicodemus is the ultimate reproach for the closed minded. He is a reminder that precious as inherited truth is, God is always challenging us to new ways of exploration.
The encounter begins with misunderstanding but in the ensuing dialogue there is much that merits contemplation. This morning, I just want to briefly touch on two insights from this scripture.
Firstly, there is talk of a new birth. The same Greek word can be translated as meaning “born from above” and “born again.” My impression is that Jesus is speaking of being “born from above” whilst Nicodemus understand him to be speaking of being “Born again.” That at any rate is where the commentaries leave me.
But think for a moment. Is not being “born from above” quite a revolutionary thought? You see, at the time of Jesus one’s birth status was important. One’s place of honour depended upon it. It was a factor for life in a society in which status was so very important. But wait for it! If we are “born from above” as children of God, then surely we all have a new status. We are all lifted up. And with that then surely distinctions of social class begin to fade away. More than that, in a world in which the only arena in which men and women could free associate with one another was where they were brothers and sisters, this concept of being all children of God surely challenged both segregation and the ranking of men above women. Truly, we miss all too often the vision that comes from being “born from above” that Jesus is heralding a social revolution in which all might find hitherto denied dignity. No wonder that the Apostle Paul was later to write thos earth changing words;
“There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”
Of course, Christianity is about so much more than social reform but it is undeniable that it challenges honour systems that put some above others. Within the gospel is the seeds of social transformation and part of our discipleship is to work out and live its meaning for today.
And secondly, there is the message of Divine love directed at the world. Ancient Israel seems to have lived with a tension between those who saw God’s love as directed exclusively in the direction of Israel and those particularly within the prophetic tradition who saw that love as being wider, directed even as illustrated in for example the Book of Jonah towards the greatest of Israel’s enemies. John 3: 16 has often be used as a clincher verse for exclusion of non Christians from God’s love. This morning I resist that debate but urge you to here evidence that God is attached to the whole world. And that attachment to the whole world is so great that the Son has been sent in order that we might from now be experiencing the quality of life which comes from being in the unending presence of God. And in that presence transformation is worked out as instanced by for example John Newton who following his conversion to faith in Christ eventually came to that second conversion that did not just lead him away from the slave trade that had been his livelihood but into campaigning against that which he now could no longer tolerate.
I think that both Abraham and Nicodemus are examples of people who were prepared to resist the temptation to stand still. Had they stood still, then their lives would never have flowered as they did. Both learnt that just clinging to the place that they were at, was not sufficient. Our God is a dynamic God who urges us forwards. This can serve to mean that our understandings of God need to develop, that our understandings of the injustices of the world need to move forwards and that even how we worship is a not something that should be left fossilised.
Today, we live in a fast changing world. Often Christianity is regarded as irrelevant at best. You and me are called to be a part of God’s mission in our world. By all means cherish that which is our inheritance but for goodness sake, do not close down the doors on God doing something new. Time and again, we need to have the nerve to ask if we are currently in the right place with God. We need to be open to stepping out into the unfamiliar for God most certainly does not stand still. The question for every Christian church this Lent is whether we are accepting of fossilising or whether we are prepared to move with God and God’s mission.
ALWINGTON and NORTHAM METHODIST CHURCHES - Sunday February 17th 2008
I am one of those people who finds it hard to warm to that patriarch of Genesis, Abraham. A man who on two occasions puts himself before the well being of his wife by pretending that she is his sister so as not to disillusion powerful men who wish to sleep with her, is not exactly the sort of person I admire. That he is recorded as exiling his first child and her mother, being prepared to sacrifice his child whether it be Isaac as in the Jewish and Christian traditions or Ishmael as in the Islamic tradition, and that he seems to have difficulty getting on with people leading to a splitting with Lot and even the unleashing of a war, mean that to be honest I don’t find Abraham to be the sort of guy I would choose to go out for a pint with.
And yet, Abraham is a venerated figure in three religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Why should that be? I think that the answer is that this deeply flawed man is at the same time a man who is prepared to give himself to doing what he feels God to be calling him to, even if this means that he is in more than one way entering new territory.
At the time we meet him, he is already advanced in years. His family have already made a great move. They have travelled from Ur which is probably in what is now South East Iraq to Haran which would be on the Syrian/Turkish border. Their goal has been Canaan but they have not arrived at that destination.
But now comes a call from God;
“Go from the country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you.”
Now I know that migrations on the part of nomadic people were not unusual. But there comes to all of us a time when we want to feel settled. We can all find ourselves held to the places and people that are familiar. Nothing unsettles us quite as much as change.
And yet, this elderly man demonstrates a remarkable level of obedience to God. He get up and moves even though he does not know where he will be going. And in so doing, he abandons the props with which he had lived including his extended family. All of this for an uncertain future! All of this responding to a promise that this elderly man who is married to an elderly woman, would be the founders of a great nation. It sure is obedience even to the point of being just a little crazy.
And if you follow the story, you will find that deeply flawed Abraham keeps trying to do what God calls him to. And of course through his first two sons, Ishmael and Isaac, he is seen as fathering two great nations.
Now, Abraham may not be the primary figure in any of the religions. For Judaism, I would suggest that Moses is more significant. And certainly for Christianity it is Jesus who is of prime significance whilst for Islam, it is the Prophet Muhammad who is seen as the greatest of God’s messengers. But within each of those faiths, Abraham is a vital figure. Jewish circumcision looks back to him and Jewish people see themselves as children of Abraham. For Christians, his significance is seen in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus going back to him and his portrayal in the Letter to the Hebrews as a great example of faith whilst Muslims see him as the prime example of Hanifism, faith in One God.
But the greatest Biblical tributes to Abraham are found in his being described as a friend of God. We first find this incredible description of Abraham in Isaiah (41:8) and it is repeated in the Letter of James where we find it written;
“Thus the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” and he was called the friend of God.”
What a description of Abraham’s relationship with God! It is unique. And it comes about because Abraham believed the incredible promise of God and acted accordingly.
Yes, Abraham is an example of a man who responded to a dynamic understanding of God. He had the capacity to appreciate that God is not simply about the continuance of the status quo but God challenges us to see the world in new ways and to move with God even when that moving takes us into the realism of uncertainty and unpredictability.
I think that there is also movement going on in our Gospel reading. In it we find a well known encounter between Jesus and a man named Nicodemus. Now, Nicodemus was a part of the religious establishment. After all he was a Pharisee, people who were certainly known for their orthodoxy. More than that he would seem to have been a member of the ruling council, the Sanhedrin. And yet, we find him crossing boundaries by coming to speak to Jesus. Oh, we would not have been short of learning. He could have been given the position he occupied. But this Nicodemus was no closed mind and so having heard about Jesus, he was prepared to abandon the safety of past understandings to see if through Jesus he might be enabled to move forwards. In Nicodemus is the ultimate reproach for the closed minded. He is a reminder that precious as inherited truth is, God is always challenging us to new ways of exploration.
The encounter begins with misunderstanding but in the ensuing dialogue there is much that merits contemplation. This morning, I just want to briefly touch on two insights from this scripture.
Firstly, there is talk of a new birth. The same Greek word can be translated as meaning “born from above” and “born again.” My impression is that Jesus is speaking of being “born from above” whilst Nicodemus understand him to be speaking of being “Born again.” That at any rate is where the commentaries leave me.
But think for a moment. Is not being “born from above” quite a revolutionary thought? You see, at the time of Jesus one’s birth status was important. One’s place of honour depended upon it. It was a factor for life in a society in which status was so very important. But wait for it! If we are “born from above” as children of God, then surely we all have a new status. We are all lifted up. And with that then surely distinctions of social class begin to fade away. More than that, in a world in which the only arena in which men and women could free associate with one another was where they were brothers and sisters, this concept of being all children of God surely challenged both segregation and the ranking of men above women. Truly, we miss all too often the vision that comes from being “born from above” that Jesus is heralding a social revolution in which all might find hitherto denied dignity. No wonder that the Apostle Paul was later to write thos earth changing words;
“There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”
Of course, Christianity is about so much more than social reform but it is undeniable that it challenges honour systems that put some above others. Within the gospel is the seeds of social transformation and part of our discipleship is to work out and live its meaning for today.
And secondly, there is the message of Divine love directed at the world. Ancient Israel seems to have lived with a tension between those who saw God’s love as directed exclusively in the direction of Israel and those particularly within the prophetic tradition who saw that love as being wider, directed even as illustrated in for example the Book of Jonah towards the greatest of Israel’s enemies. John 3: 16 has often be used as a clincher verse for exclusion of non Christians from God’s love. This morning I resist that debate but urge you to here evidence that God is attached to the whole world. And that attachment to the whole world is so great that the Son has been sent in order that we might from now be experiencing the quality of life which comes from being in the unending presence of God. And in that presence transformation is worked out as instanced by for example John Newton who following his conversion to faith in Christ eventually came to that second conversion that did not just lead him away from the slave trade that had been his livelihood but into campaigning against that which he now could no longer tolerate.
I think that both Abraham and Nicodemus are examples of people who were prepared to resist the temptation to stand still. Had they stood still, then their lives would never have flowered as they did. Both learnt that just clinging to the place that they were at, was not sufficient. Our God is a dynamic God who urges us forwards. This can serve to mean that our understandings of God need to develop, that our understandings of the injustices of the world need to move forwards and that even how we worship is a not something that should be left fossilised.
Today, we live in a fast changing world. Often Christianity is regarded as irrelevant at best. You and me are called to be a part of God’s mission in our world. By all means cherish that which is our inheritance but for goodness sake, do not close down the doors on God doing something new. Time and again, we need to have the nerve to ask if we are currently in the right place with God. We need to be open to stepping out into the unfamiliar for God most certainly does not stand still. The question for every Christian church this Lent is whether we are accepting of fossilising or whether we are prepared to move with God and God’s mission.
ALWINGTON and NORTHAM METHODIST CHURCHES - Sunday February 17th 2008
Sunday 10 February 2008
Lent 1 Choices
Genesis 2: 15-17; 3: 1-7 Matthew 4: 1-11
In his “Confessions”, St Augustine writes;
“Give me chastity and continence but not just now.”
I guess, we all know the reality of temptation. It is a part of being human. That has always been so and always will be. And today, as we enter into the season of Lent, we are met by scriptures on this very subject of temptation.
From the Old Testament has come the story of what has traditionally been referred to as “The Fall.” It is a story that shows man and woman breaching the one boundary given to them by God. It is a story that reminds us that there is a real temptation to breach boundaries and to take on ourselves those things that belong to God. How we see those boundaries today, is a matter of some debate. After all God has called humanity into the process of creativity. So at what stage do we over step the mark in matters such as the application of scientific knowledge? A big one for ethicists there!
Now, the story operates on one level as a reminder of our need for humility. We learn through it that we have a real temptation to step outside of God’s will. From the story has come an understanding of “original sin” which sees humanity as sharing in a falling short of what God would wish us to be. And in so many ways as Paul recognised, Adam is representative of humanity.
But the story has so much more to tells us. Firstly it reminds us that the things we do bring consequences. The disobedience of Adam and Eve brings exile from the garden for them amongst other things. And indeed shame enters into the human experience. And still today, we know what it is to live with the consequences of the choices we make. That is why it is so important to make our peace with God and with others as we worship.
But the story need not be seen as entirely negative. The Orthodox tradition has been particularly helpful in offering a positive outlook on this story. They would suggest that acquiring knowledge of good and evil is a picture of our being enabled to grow up. You know, as a father I am having to learn to let James and Kaye make their own decisions. A part of me would love to wrap them up in cotton wool and protect them for all of their lives. But what would that do to them? It would leave them as but little children for all of their lives. So all I can do is to seek to influence them but to then allow them to make their own decisions even when I might wish they made other choices. It is painful at times but it is the duty of a love that respects them. Likewise this story can be seen as God showing his love for humanity by enabling us to enter into choices, even those that are not in keeping with God’s will. Put simply, the story can be seen as God telling us that we can be free beings who grow through experience rather than utterly dependent little children, forever in nappies.
Now, if Paul sees Adam as a representative person, he equally sees Jesus as a representative person. From Adam, Paul sees death entering the world through disobedience. Through Jesus, he sees the greater power of life entering the world through obedience. Why? Because Jesus is the one who is victorious over temptation!
The tempting of Jesus at the beginning of his ministry is a reminder of the full humanity of Jesus. He is tempted in every way as we are. Matthew sets the temptations in the wilderness shortly after Jesus had been baptised at the Jordan by John the Baptist. The temptations which in length of time equate to the length of Lent are temptations as to the nature of his forthcoming ministry. Tired and hungry as he was, Jesus must have found it hard to resist these temptations to make things so much easier. Each of them was attractive to Jesus - after all temptation has no power if it is not attractive.
Those temptations have meaning today. Turning stones into bread is not a bad thing of itself and yet as the answer of Jesus reminds us, the good is no substitute for the best. Jumping from a pinnacle of the Temple into the depths of the Kidron Valley relying on God’s intervention, would certainly be spectacular even by the standards of some of today’s tele evangelists. But forcing God’s hand is hardly a stance of worship or discipleship. And then doing a deal with evil to attain power is alien to God’s character in every way. And how many have made that particular error of going along with this and that so as to climb a greasy pole believing that with them at the top things would be so very different - only to discover that the result of selling one’s soul is that the compromiser is different and the wrongs just go on and on!
One thing that always catches my eye as I look at the tempting of Jesus, is that the use of the scriptures in temptation. There we see the danger of the clincher verse so beloved by literalism. For Scripture can be used in destructive ways. That is why in Methodism saying “The Bible says” is not enough. To take seriously scripture, we use the Wesleyan Quadilateral in which scripture is in dialogue with tradition, reason and experience. Furthermore, there is value in seeing the scriptures through what we know of Jesus. Given that Jesus is seen to have been all loving, embracing and inclusive, we do well to recognise that we have a problem if our understanding of a scripture is at odds with what we know of Jesus. Always, our theology needs to be in touch with the Word made flesh that is Jesus.
Finally, I want to make a contemporary point. In the past three days, listening to the radio and reading the newspapers has at times made me ashamed to be British. I refer to the controversy over the Archbishop of Canterbury’s lecture to lawyers on Thursday. I have read the lecture and subsequent clarification by the Archbishop. I am not sure of the extent to which I agree or disagree with him as yet. But I do know that I am disgusted at the misrepresentation of the lecture and vilification of the man. I beaing a bear with a small brain, know that at times his arguments are hard to understand and I wish that he would be a little easier to understand (although many of the lawyers present were very impressed at what they heard). Contrary to what is being portrayed, he did not call for a parallel system of law to be introduced. Sections of our media are guilty of bearing false witness in this matter and of inflaming tensions that they themselves have done much to fan. In the case of that great theological publication, the Sun which has sent Page 3 girls to Lambeth Palace and a sound system playing “Rule Britannia”, the coverage has been totally mendacious. The front page on Thursday was nothing short of incitement to hatred! And sadly, far too many have jumped on a bandwagon without bothering to find out what the Archbishop said, such as the MEP I heard on Friday night on 5Live who was quick to condemn the Archbishop but had it eventually squeezed out of him that he had only read a newspaper account - Peter Hitchens managed a similar performance of ignorance on a Welsh radio channel.
I hope that we don’t as a society fall further into a soundbite method of discussing complex issues. The question of law and religious minorities is complex. May we not fall into the temptation of following the voices of hatred whose desire to hold on to exclusion results in denigrating a most reflective holy man, a man who seeks to give value to all. But of course, we wouldn’t be the first to do that would we?
Bideford Methodist Church Sunday February 10th 2008
In his “Confessions”, St Augustine writes;
“Give me chastity and continence but not just now.”
I guess, we all know the reality of temptation. It is a part of being human. That has always been so and always will be. And today, as we enter into the season of Lent, we are met by scriptures on this very subject of temptation.
From the Old Testament has come the story of what has traditionally been referred to as “The Fall.” It is a story that shows man and woman breaching the one boundary given to them by God. It is a story that reminds us that there is a real temptation to breach boundaries and to take on ourselves those things that belong to God. How we see those boundaries today, is a matter of some debate. After all God has called humanity into the process of creativity. So at what stage do we over step the mark in matters such as the application of scientific knowledge? A big one for ethicists there!
Now, the story operates on one level as a reminder of our need for humility. We learn through it that we have a real temptation to step outside of God’s will. From the story has come an understanding of “original sin” which sees humanity as sharing in a falling short of what God would wish us to be. And in so many ways as Paul recognised, Adam is representative of humanity.
But the story has so much more to tells us. Firstly it reminds us that the things we do bring consequences. The disobedience of Adam and Eve brings exile from the garden for them amongst other things. And indeed shame enters into the human experience. And still today, we know what it is to live with the consequences of the choices we make. That is why it is so important to make our peace with God and with others as we worship.
But the story need not be seen as entirely negative. The Orthodox tradition has been particularly helpful in offering a positive outlook on this story. They would suggest that acquiring knowledge of good and evil is a picture of our being enabled to grow up. You know, as a father I am having to learn to let James and Kaye make their own decisions. A part of me would love to wrap them up in cotton wool and protect them for all of their lives. But what would that do to them? It would leave them as but little children for all of their lives. So all I can do is to seek to influence them but to then allow them to make their own decisions even when I might wish they made other choices. It is painful at times but it is the duty of a love that respects them. Likewise this story can be seen as God showing his love for humanity by enabling us to enter into choices, even those that are not in keeping with God’s will. Put simply, the story can be seen as God telling us that we can be free beings who grow through experience rather than utterly dependent little children, forever in nappies.
Now, if Paul sees Adam as a representative person, he equally sees Jesus as a representative person. From Adam, Paul sees death entering the world through disobedience. Through Jesus, he sees the greater power of life entering the world through obedience. Why? Because Jesus is the one who is victorious over temptation!
The tempting of Jesus at the beginning of his ministry is a reminder of the full humanity of Jesus. He is tempted in every way as we are. Matthew sets the temptations in the wilderness shortly after Jesus had been baptised at the Jordan by John the Baptist. The temptations which in length of time equate to the length of Lent are temptations as to the nature of his forthcoming ministry. Tired and hungry as he was, Jesus must have found it hard to resist these temptations to make things so much easier. Each of them was attractive to Jesus - after all temptation has no power if it is not attractive.
Those temptations have meaning today. Turning stones into bread is not a bad thing of itself and yet as the answer of Jesus reminds us, the good is no substitute for the best. Jumping from a pinnacle of the Temple into the depths of the Kidron Valley relying on God’s intervention, would certainly be spectacular even by the standards of some of today’s tele evangelists. But forcing God’s hand is hardly a stance of worship or discipleship. And then doing a deal with evil to attain power is alien to God’s character in every way. And how many have made that particular error of going along with this and that so as to climb a greasy pole believing that with them at the top things would be so very different - only to discover that the result of selling one’s soul is that the compromiser is different and the wrongs just go on and on!
One thing that always catches my eye as I look at the tempting of Jesus, is that the use of the scriptures in temptation. There we see the danger of the clincher verse so beloved by literalism. For Scripture can be used in destructive ways. That is why in Methodism saying “The Bible says” is not enough. To take seriously scripture, we use the Wesleyan Quadilateral in which scripture is in dialogue with tradition, reason and experience. Furthermore, there is value in seeing the scriptures through what we know of Jesus. Given that Jesus is seen to have been all loving, embracing and inclusive, we do well to recognise that we have a problem if our understanding of a scripture is at odds with what we know of Jesus. Always, our theology needs to be in touch with the Word made flesh that is Jesus.
Finally, I want to make a contemporary point. In the past three days, listening to the radio and reading the newspapers has at times made me ashamed to be British. I refer to the controversy over the Archbishop of Canterbury’s lecture to lawyers on Thursday. I have read the lecture and subsequent clarification by the Archbishop. I am not sure of the extent to which I agree or disagree with him as yet. But I do know that I am disgusted at the misrepresentation of the lecture and vilification of the man. I beaing a bear with a small brain, know that at times his arguments are hard to understand and I wish that he would be a little easier to understand (although many of the lawyers present were very impressed at what they heard). Contrary to what is being portrayed, he did not call for a parallel system of law to be introduced. Sections of our media are guilty of bearing false witness in this matter and of inflaming tensions that they themselves have done much to fan. In the case of that great theological publication, the Sun which has sent Page 3 girls to Lambeth Palace and a sound system playing “Rule Britannia”, the coverage has been totally mendacious. The front page on Thursday was nothing short of incitement to hatred! And sadly, far too many have jumped on a bandwagon without bothering to find out what the Archbishop said, such as the MEP I heard on Friday night on 5Live who was quick to condemn the Archbishop but had it eventually squeezed out of him that he had only read a newspaper account - Peter Hitchens managed a similar performance of ignorance on a Welsh radio channel.
I hope that we don’t as a society fall further into a soundbite method of discussing complex issues. The question of law and religious minorities is complex. May we not fall into the temptation of following the voices of hatred whose desire to hold on to exclusion results in denigrating a most reflective holy man, a man who seeks to give value to all. But of course, we wouldn’t be the first to do that would we?
Bideford Methodist Church Sunday February 10th 2008
Saturday 2 February 2008
Transfiguration Sunday - The transfiguration of Christ
MATTHEW 17: 1-9
It hardly seems possible but as we enter February, we are but days away from Lent and the contemplation of the way of the cross. Our next few weeks will be weeks in which the Passion of Christ is at the centre of our thinking. And indeed today’s Gospel reading is very much in the shadow of the Passion. Only a short while before the event which we shall today consider, there has been a high point and a low point in the understanding of those who travelled with Jesus. The high point has been the declaration of Simon to Jesus;
“You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
“He’s got it!” we are inclined to shout. And Jesus seems to have shared our pleasure for in response to this momentous declaration, he has told Simon that now he shall be known as Peter which means “Rock.” And amazingly, on this rock, will Jesus build his church.
The low point has been a total misunderstanding of the
Messiahship of Jesus. This has been revealed in Peter’s reaction to what that Messiahship entails. For when Jesus speaks of the imminence of his suffering and death, Peter cannot but rebel at the thought;
“God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you.”
And for this desire to protect Jesus, Peter has thrown at him by Jesus, one of the great put downs of all time;
“Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.”
Poor Peter! In practically no time, he has gone from “Hero to Zero.” He must have felt crushed. No doubts about his sincerity but surely a case of being sincerely wrong. And his journey to real understanding would have a lot further to go.
But, however humiliated Peter felt himself to be, Peter was by no means chucked out of Jesus' inner circle. Indeed but six days later, Matthew tells us, Peter along with James and John was taken up a high mountain by Jesus. But this would be no ordinary trip up a mountain. On the contrary, it would be an experience to remember for the rest of their lives! An experience that would take them into a wonder so much greater than could be conceived by the scope of their imaginations! An experience that would be teeming with meaning!
So what happened upon that mountain? Well, they certainly saw Jesus in a way that they had never seen him before. Matthew speaks of Jesus’ face shining like the Sun and his clothes becoming dazzling white. Echoes here are to be found of Moses' face shining after an encounter with God. Oh here, they see that Jesus is so much more than they had hitherto realised - the result being that here was an experience not just of Jesus being transfigured but equally of the three disciples being transformed.
Indeed, the experience is about more than an inexplicable change in Jesus’ appearance. It goes so much deeper than that. Firstly, the disciples see Jesus talking with two venerable figures from the past. How they are able to recognise Moses and Elijah we are not told but that he should be seen as in conversation with these men, is highly significant. After all, Moses was known as the great lawgiver of Israel and Elijah was known as the greatest of the ancient prophets. Matthew’s readers would certainly understand the message contained here, that Jesus represents the completion of the Law and the Prophetic tradition. They would get Matthew’s message that in Jesus the hopes of all the years were finding fulfilment. In Jesus, the story of ancient Israel was finding its true meaning and its ultimate goal.
But further revelation was to come. As James, John and Peter know not what to do, there come a voice from the heavens. In part it echoes the voice from the heavens that was heard at Jesus’ baptism, as it proclaims;
“This is my Son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased.”
But then comes an addition;
“Listen to him!”
I would guess that these words were important to Jesus. Too often we underplay his full humanity in our desire to affirm his divinity. But that humanity is a core part of our Christian doctrine. And that humanity would mean that in tough times, Jesus would need to be able to look back and find assurance to enable him to face those times. As the barbarism of a cross would loom ever closer, he would need to be able find assurance that he was in God’s will - anything less and you turn Jesus into an automaton!
And for Peter, James and John, this message would also be important. Soon they would face despondency as Jesus was taken from them. Soon they would know what it was to take huge risks for the gospel. And in such times, the ability to look back on a moment of assurance, would be invaluable. And invaluable it most certainly was for as we find in the Second Letter of Peter;
“For we received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him (Jesus that is) by the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain.”
You see the wonder of this occasion did not leave them. It was a memory to savour as they sought to live out their calling as followers of Jesus. But let us not forget that important as wonder and awe are, so to is the call to listen to Jesus. After all if we do not do so, we end up with a distorted understanding of God who as David Jenkins has reminded us “is as he is in Christ.”
So what of our response? Poor old Peter was reduced, as I guess we would have been, to speaking gibberish. In a way his suggestion to build tents for Jesus, Moses and Elijah, represents our tendency to seek to institutionalise religious experiences rather that let them transform us. For always one of the great temptations is to hang on to what feels good to us rather than to engage with real discipleship in a world that is so very often uncomfortable and filled with pain. We need to be fed spiritually to be truly equipped for service but if all we do is to wallow in the good feelings that can be ours, then the call of Christ is rejected and his words are treated as unheard. Jesus and his friends will come down the mountain and immediately encounter a boy who is disturbed and in great need of help. The need of such suffering and marginalised people serve to remind us of the temptation to be so self centred as to be so seemingly heavenly minded as to be no earthly use. After all, in terms of our Christian discipleship, the purpose of the magnificence of the mountaintop is to equip us for service in the valleys.
Now we stand ready for the journey that eventually leads to Calvary. As that journey nears its end, we will see Jesus’ agony at Gethsemane. Once more the same three companions, Peter, James and John, will be taken with him. Once more they will fall short, three times falling asleep while Jesus was praying out of his deep anguish.
The presence of Peter, James and John at these two events of opposing extremes, mountain and valley, reminds us that suffering and glory are intrinsically linked. The follower of Jesus cannot ask for the glory without the self giving for to ask for such is to ask for that which is other than the way of Jesus. Ultimately it is the Crucified Lord who will also be the Glorified Lord.
As for us, well we can cherish what is revealed about Jesus through the accounts of his Transfiguration. We can cherish the varied experiences through which we are taken to the mountain top. But then, our calling is, strengthened by such experiences, to follow Jesus and to serve him even in the lowest valleys.
GAMMATON AND ALVERDISCOTT METHODIST CHURCHES - SUNDAY FEBRUARY 3RD 2008
It hardly seems possible but as we enter February, we are but days away from Lent and the contemplation of the way of the cross. Our next few weeks will be weeks in which the Passion of Christ is at the centre of our thinking. And indeed today’s Gospel reading is very much in the shadow of the Passion. Only a short while before the event which we shall today consider, there has been a high point and a low point in the understanding of those who travelled with Jesus. The high point has been the declaration of Simon to Jesus;
“You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
“He’s got it!” we are inclined to shout. And Jesus seems to have shared our pleasure for in response to this momentous declaration, he has told Simon that now he shall be known as Peter which means “Rock.” And amazingly, on this rock, will Jesus build his church.
The low point has been a total misunderstanding of the
Messiahship of Jesus. This has been revealed in Peter’s reaction to what that Messiahship entails. For when Jesus speaks of the imminence of his suffering and death, Peter cannot but rebel at the thought;
“God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you.”
And for this desire to protect Jesus, Peter has thrown at him by Jesus, one of the great put downs of all time;
“Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.”
Poor Peter! In practically no time, he has gone from “Hero to Zero.” He must have felt crushed. No doubts about his sincerity but surely a case of being sincerely wrong. And his journey to real understanding would have a lot further to go.
But, however humiliated Peter felt himself to be, Peter was by no means chucked out of Jesus' inner circle. Indeed but six days later, Matthew tells us, Peter along with James and John was taken up a high mountain by Jesus. But this would be no ordinary trip up a mountain. On the contrary, it would be an experience to remember for the rest of their lives! An experience that would take them into a wonder so much greater than could be conceived by the scope of their imaginations! An experience that would be teeming with meaning!
So what happened upon that mountain? Well, they certainly saw Jesus in a way that they had never seen him before. Matthew speaks of Jesus’ face shining like the Sun and his clothes becoming dazzling white. Echoes here are to be found of Moses' face shining after an encounter with God. Oh here, they see that Jesus is so much more than they had hitherto realised - the result being that here was an experience not just of Jesus being transfigured but equally of the three disciples being transformed.
Indeed, the experience is about more than an inexplicable change in Jesus’ appearance. It goes so much deeper than that. Firstly, the disciples see Jesus talking with two venerable figures from the past. How they are able to recognise Moses and Elijah we are not told but that he should be seen as in conversation with these men, is highly significant. After all, Moses was known as the great lawgiver of Israel and Elijah was known as the greatest of the ancient prophets. Matthew’s readers would certainly understand the message contained here, that Jesus represents the completion of the Law and the Prophetic tradition. They would get Matthew’s message that in Jesus the hopes of all the years were finding fulfilment. In Jesus, the story of ancient Israel was finding its true meaning and its ultimate goal.
But further revelation was to come. As James, John and Peter know not what to do, there come a voice from the heavens. In part it echoes the voice from the heavens that was heard at Jesus’ baptism, as it proclaims;
“This is my Son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased.”
But then comes an addition;
“Listen to him!”
I would guess that these words were important to Jesus. Too often we underplay his full humanity in our desire to affirm his divinity. But that humanity is a core part of our Christian doctrine. And that humanity would mean that in tough times, Jesus would need to be able to look back and find assurance to enable him to face those times. As the barbarism of a cross would loom ever closer, he would need to be able find assurance that he was in God’s will - anything less and you turn Jesus into an automaton!
And for Peter, James and John, this message would also be important. Soon they would face despondency as Jesus was taken from them. Soon they would know what it was to take huge risks for the gospel. And in such times, the ability to look back on a moment of assurance, would be invaluable. And invaluable it most certainly was for as we find in the Second Letter of Peter;
“For we received honor and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him (Jesus that is) by the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain.”
You see the wonder of this occasion did not leave them. It was a memory to savour as they sought to live out their calling as followers of Jesus. But let us not forget that important as wonder and awe are, so to is the call to listen to Jesus. After all if we do not do so, we end up with a distorted understanding of God who as David Jenkins has reminded us “is as he is in Christ.”
So what of our response? Poor old Peter was reduced, as I guess we would have been, to speaking gibberish. In a way his suggestion to build tents for Jesus, Moses and Elijah, represents our tendency to seek to institutionalise religious experiences rather that let them transform us. For always one of the great temptations is to hang on to what feels good to us rather than to engage with real discipleship in a world that is so very often uncomfortable and filled with pain. We need to be fed spiritually to be truly equipped for service but if all we do is to wallow in the good feelings that can be ours, then the call of Christ is rejected and his words are treated as unheard. Jesus and his friends will come down the mountain and immediately encounter a boy who is disturbed and in great need of help. The need of such suffering and marginalised people serve to remind us of the temptation to be so self centred as to be so seemingly heavenly minded as to be no earthly use. After all, in terms of our Christian discipleship, the purpose of the magnificence of the mountaintop is to equip us for service in the valleys.
Now we stand ready for the journey that eventually leads to Calvary. As that journey nears its end, we will see Jesus’ agony at Gethsemane. Once more the same three companions, Peter, James and John, will be taken with him. Once more they will fall short, three times falling asleep while Jesus was praying out of his deep anguish.
The presence of Peter, James and John at these two events of opposing extremes, mountain and valley, reminds us that suffering and glory are intrinsically linked. The follower of Jesus cannot ask for the glory without the self giving for to ask for such is to ask for that which is other than the way of Jesus. Ultimately it is the Crucified Lord who will also be the Glorified Lord.
As for us, well we can cherish what is revealed about Jesus through the accounts of his Transfiguration. We can cherish the varied experiences through which we are taken to the mountain top. But then, our calling is, strengthened by such experiences, to follow Jesus and to serve him even in the lowest valleys.
GAMMATON AND ALVERDISCOTT METHODIST CHURCHES - SUNDAY FEBRUARY 3RD 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
