Study Notes For R. Williams, 'Tokens of Trust' Chapter 4

“Fearlessness in giving has to find its place at the heart of things…” (83)

1. God’s desire for us and our world is an ‘economy of gift’ (82) whereby we live by a mutual generosity. But this is not the world we live in, and none of us seem to be able to break this cycle of ‘original sin’, which is merely the observation that we are all born into this imperfect world, and exhibit this imperfection in our lives. Thus we have weaved a tangle of selfishness “that goes back to the very roots of humanity.” (82)

2. Jesus is the break in the cycle that is needed.(83) The break must be genuinely human (or it won’t break the human cycle), but it must also be divine to effect the transformation required, for only God is so utterly free as to be able to give utterly selflessly. (This selfless giving is the very nature of God, Father, Son and Spirit.) This is why the doctrine of the two natures in Christ is so important; it verbalizes the experience of being saved by a human act, but one carried out by God in person.

3. Jesus, as Son in relationship with the Father, is this living out in history of the Trinitarian life of unrestricted and utterly consistent love. Utterly consistent remember because God is an utter fullness of love already and does not need us in this sense.) And in him this love is turned also toward us, so that the love we see and receive in Jesus is the total and unselfish giving of God. Through Christ, who is both God’s love turned to us and the Son in person in relationship to the Father, the very life of God is brought into history, personally. Think of Jesus as the intersection of God’s own life of love with the world.

4. But when love meets sin, the cross is the result. (84-85) Notice some of the New Testament metaphors for the death of Jesus (87-88) Williams picks up. None are literally true (which doesn’t mean they are meaningless), but all help us understand the depth and comprehensiveness of the salvation wrought in Christ. “The single central thing is the conviction that for us to be at peace Jesus’ life has to be given up. It isn’t that a vengeful and inflexible God demands satisfaction, more that the way the world is makes it unavoidable that the way to our freedom lies through the self-giving of Jesus, even to the point of death.” (88)

5. The descent into hell, pp. 88-89. Don’t get hung up on this, the point is that Christ’s salvation is universal and complete: nowhere is safe from it! The dereliction of the cross finds its nadir in the descent to the dead/hell, that place of utter godforsakenness. This follows the logic of the substitution of the cross to its (theo)logical conclusion.

6. Interesting argument for the reality of the bodily resurrection of Jesus, not just as a personal/psychological appearance (91-2). The resurrection is the triumph of God over evil and sin, but the theology of resurrection focuses on Jesus, not this triumph in abstract terms. This suggests that the disciples could not dispense with Jesus when talking of resurrection.

7. Through the giving of the Spirit to us (see John 20) we receive the new humanity that is possible through Jesus ‘the break’ in original sin. The cycle is broken in him, and transmitted to us. (92) This Spirit we receive is not just a Spirit of loving other people, but is the Spirit of the love of Father and Son, the love that is free and unrestricted self-giving. (The latter is possible because of the former.) This parallels Jesus’ relationship with the Father on the one hand, and on the other hand, his relationship to the world.

8. The victory of Christ and the giving of the Spirit now have led some to think that the end has already come. Wrong. And this includes all those who cease to act rightly because they believe the end is nigh. We are assured of the future victory, but as the future. (This is one reason why it is important to see the resurrection as the future come to meet us, rather than a past event like the cross. The victory is not locked in the past, ineffective against current evils.)

9. In speaking of the second coming, Williams remembers a saying of Luther who said that if he knew the world was ending tomorrow he would plant a tree today! This is because to do so is good in itself, and doing good is important no matter how short the time frame. (98) So caring for the environment, or doing justice, is the right thing to do and to do now, even though the resurrection will transform everything.

10. Notice the interesting interpretation of ‘Lead us not into temptation’ (99). The light of Christ’s love is not just all beer and skittles. There is the pain of transformation, transforming the persons we have made ourselves by following the channels of original sin. Williams says that ‘save us from the time of trial’ is asking to be spared this final transformation until we have had the time to do some more work now, so that the final judgment won’t be quite so painful. 11. Sharing in the communion of Holy Spirit doesn’t just mean receiving an external gift, but receiving the Spirit that transforms our very natures. (101) What we share – our human nature – is transformed into the likeness of Christ himself. (The Word of God, by becoming an obedient human person, perfects our nature, and this perfection is transferred to us.) This new nature echoes the Trinitarian life itself, a nature that is constituted by mutual giving and receiving. (102) Thus the cycle of original selfishness, broken in Christ, becomes universal

Its About Leadership

The time for leaders has come, the time for enablers has passed. (Kennion L. Callahan)

Where Two or Three Are Gathered

Cathedral Service

I’m only here because I wandered in

Not knowing that a service would begin,

And had to slide into the nearest pew,

Pretending it was what I’d meant to do.

The tall candles cast their frail light

Upon the priest, the choir clad in white,

The carved and polished and embroidered scene.

The congregation numbers seventeen.

And awkwardly I follow as I’m led

To kneel or stand or sing or bow my head.

Though these specific rites are strange to me,

I know their larger meaning perfectly-

The heritage of twenty centuries

Is symbolised in rituals like these,

In special modes of beauty and of grace

Enacted in a certain kind of place.

This faith, although I lack it, is my own,

Inherent to the marrow of the bone.

To this even the unbelieving mind

Submits its unbelief to be defined.

Perhaps the meagre congregation shows

How all of that is drawing to a close,

And remnants only come here to entreat

These dying flickers of the obsolete.

Yet when did this religion ever rest

On weight of numbers as the final test?

Its founder said that it was all the same

When two or three were gathered in his name.

Peter Kocan

Discipline and Forgiveness (The Structure of Matthew 18)

Matt 18:10-20.

Where two or three are gathered..." This is the verse we usually focus on in Matt 18; the presence of Jesus is not dependent on huge 'success'. True enough, and it gives a bit of a warm fuzzy, especially to dwindling congregations or persecuted churches. But let's not miss what else is also going on in this text. But to do this we need to look at all of Matt 18, which can be divided up into four basic parts. The first section talks of the need for humility(18:1-5) . Given the next section's focus on the need for leaders to care for those they lead, and the question about greatness at 18:1, it is probable that this section is a warning to the leaders of the church, offering a practical solution to the ever-present problem of arrogant leadership.

Section 2 is 18:8-14 warns these leaders about the judgment to follow if they disdain even the least of the Christian community. None should be lost. But alas, while this sounds like a recipe for harmonious communal relations, such is not the case. Section 3 (18:15-20) provides the church with a simple procedure by which recalcitrant members of the church can, to be anachronistic, be excommunicated. ("Let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector"; although see 9:9-13). Try to work it out the text says, but if , then take witnesses to see if they can talk some sense into the person, and if the person persists, let them be judged in front of the entire church. God will uphold the decision (18:18 "... will be bound in heaven", a theological passive, that is, God will do it) of the disciples, "For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them. (18:20)

But we can't stop there. Section 4 is that beautiful teaching of Jesus on forgiveness that is a direct response to the arrogant mega-vengeance of Lamech in Gen 4:15 & 22. (See Matt 18:21-22) , followed by the parable of the unforgiving servant. The teaching of Jesus is a response to the universal predicament of humankind, offering an abundance of forgiveness as an antidote to the hubris of disproportionate vengeance. (And this forgiveness that we practice toward others mimics God's forgiveness of us, Matt 18:23-35.)

A couple of things to notice about the structure of the chapter. First, the sections on potential relationship breakdown occupy half the chapter, while the need for forgiveness occupies the remaining half chapter. There is a suggestion here, I think, of the importance of forgiveness no matter what else is said about particular instances of church discipline.

Second, while forgiveness seems to be the primary and overriding imperative here, church discipline cannot be excluded. Arrogant leadership brings judgment (threatened eternal judgment, see 18:3, 8-9), and improper behaviour linked to an arrogant unwillingness to be corrected results in 'ex-communication' (with earthly consequences and heavenly implications, see 18:18-20)

By holding all these threads together without a simple resolution the passage reflects the complexity of real life. It just isn't enough, in the face of serious ecclesial failure, to speak only of forgiveness. Similarly, however, heavy-handed punishment is overriden by the dominical imperative to forgive.

Reading Scripture

How to interpret Scripture has always been the key to the Christian faith. Even before we had the writings that ended up in the New Testament it is clear that people were working the Scriptures.

So how do we read the Scriptures? The most important point is to read each part according to the whole. This is a tricky thing because we are reading Scripture and working it well before we understand the whole. This is one reason why dismissing Scriptural texts, especially ones representative of the important themes of Scripture can prevent the reader ever understanding the whole.

A few examples at this point. Take some of the well known stories of Genesis 1-11. They are not meant to be read literally; this is not the point of why they are where they are in the Bible. Genesis 1-11 is, if you like, setting the scene for what is to unfold in the remainder of the Bible. These stories represent the universal predicament of humankind and creation, the cul de sac from which we are to be liberated. Genesis 12, on the other hand, begins God's response to the universal predicament. The response is the calling of Abraham and Sarah, culminating (if I am permitted to telescope things a bit!) in Jesus. To become bogged down in the historicity of Adam and Eve or the ark is to miss the point of how these stories function in the Bible. (Reread Romans 5:18-21 with this in mind as it will make a huge amount of sense of what Paul is saying.) In this case we read these first chapters in the light of the total structure of Scripture.

John 14:28 is another example of the need to read from the perspective of the whole.
Jesus says "The Father is greater than I." The heretics love this because they use it to reinforce their alien understanding of the eternal relationship between the Father and Son. The Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father. If it were so that the Son was eternally subordinate, the whole gospel unravels, for God remains the shadowy figure behind Jesus and our salvation is not inclusion in the very life of God but a subordinate relationship. Read from the perspective of the whole (and in this case the whole as represented in the historic Creeds of the Church) this verse does not mean an eternal subordination. It refers to the manner in which the eternal self-effacement of the Son is translated in the life of the incarnate Christ.

But how do we work each portion from the perspective of the whole? It is essential to work each part of Scripture, no matter how small, on its own terms. But 'on its own terms' includes the wider context of the passage. So one must work a few verses in the context of the chapter, the book, the testament, the whole Bible, and the historic faith of the church derived from working these Scriptures before you and I were even around.

It is important for each of us, as we work Scripture, to bear in mind the whole that we are constructing. Does the Scripture we are working fit the whole? Before it is rejected, it is important to gain a sense of why it doesn't, and in rejecting it how much other Scripture we are leaving out. The less Scripture left out from our 'whole', the better. (And please, unless you are of the stature of Hans Urs von Balthasar or Karl Barth or the like, don't tell me you include all Scripture in your 'whole'. Indeed, even those two greats probably struggled with some of Scripture and how to fit it into the whole.) It is more likely that, instead of rejecting a piece of Scripture, it can be reworked in the light of the whole. A few examples of this latter procedure will follow in the near future.

God Almighty

"When we express trust in ‘God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible’, we affirm that we have grounds for hoping that our lives, in all their fragmentedness, their conflict and their imperfection, can be held and drawn into cohesion – just as the diverse and alarming world itself is held in cohesion – so that God’s own self-consistent active love and beauty may be reflected within the universe." (Rowan Williams)

Chalcedon, prosaically stated

Jesus turned towards the world is God's wisdom and power in action; but Jesus turned towards the Father is the embodiement of a sort of divine response to divine generosity, the Son turned towards the Father. The life of God is not only the outpouring gift, it's a life in which our own response of selfless gratitude and response is also foreshadowed for ever. Jesus is divine responding embodied in our nature and our world; he responds freely and totally to the gift of the Father, and that response is no less divine than the gift - a perfect response that is both human and more than human. (Rowan Williams)

God is Not the One Who Pushes the First Domino

St John's Chapel, Exodus 3:1-15, the great 'I AM.'

Here is how one of the arguments for the existence of God goes. Here I am, but there is a cause as to how I got here, and a cause behind that, behind that, behind that.... until we get to God. (I had a line of dominos to push over, starting from the first domino to elucidate the point.)

And the question that comes to mind immediately? Who caused God.

Exactly. And that's why the proof doesn't work.

Except it is not the argument that Christianity developed. We don't think God is one cause among many, who just happens to be the first cause next to the first domino.

I'll come back to this.

Turning to the story today. God has heard the cry of the people, the cry of the oppressed, and God intends to free them from their slavery and lead them into a prosperous land flowing with milk and honey. Moses is a bit non-plussed by it all, and asks for God's name. And God says, "I AM".

Strange; it is incomplete. "I am a man, I am Warren Huffa, I am human, I am not a chair, etc; all these are sensible and complete. They define who I am, and do this partly by defining that I am not you, not that chair, etc. But "I AM"?

God just is. God is already complete. God doesn't need to define God's self any further, no need to define God's self over against something else. God just is.God doesn't need us to be complete. This stretches our theological imagination. Christianity thinks of God as absolutely full, with no need to define Godself in relationship to you or I, no need to compete with you or I.

Go back to the example of the dominoes. God is not therefore the one who starts the dominoes off. God is more like the reason why there are any dominoes at all. What pushes them over is as natural as the dominoes themselves. [This means that belief in God is not an alternative to science in explaining the functioning of the universe.]

When you next come to chapel I am going to use this in a subtle piece of theology, but a life transforming one.

In the Stillness

Eternal God, show us how deeply important it is to care and not to care, to let go and allow you to be Lord.

Lord, teach us the silence of humility, the silence of wisdom, the silence of love, the silence that speaks without words, the silence of faith.

Lord, teach us to silence our own hearts and minds: that we may listen to the movement of the Holy Spirit within us and sense the depths which are God. Amen.

The Log in Your Own Eye

St John's Chapel, Luke 6:41-42.

Who likes being gossiped about? No one?
Now, who has gossiped about someone else? You get the point.

No one likes it being done to them, but we all do it. And if you haven't done it, you will. Don't feel bad though; welcome to the human race!

Jesus knew this about us. He likened it to missing the plank in your own eye while criticizing someone else for the matchstick in their eye. (I had a plank and a match held up at this point.) That is, we apply standards to others that we do not maintain ourselves, and are often oblivious to this blindness.

Why? Well, I suppose we feel better about ourselves when we do it. But it gives us a false sense of self and fractures community. There is a better way to strengthen our sense of self rather than criticizing others, and, at the same time, have the courage to face our own truth and do something about it. The key is finding our sense of self in God. This does not mean that we can't find our own sense of self, but just that we do not rely on ourselves alone, for then we will tend to reinforce our sense of self at the expense of others.To find our sense of self in God is to give ourselves a foundation that is solid in itself, not requiring us to pull others down to build ourselves up.

The Desires of the Flesh

St John's Assembly, Galatians 5:13-1, 22-23.

Some people say that we are the most sexually liberated and free generations of humans ever. And that we have successfully thrown off the chains of sexual oppression that held back former generations.

Well, historically, not exactly true in the way we think. Not true that former generations were necessarily sexually chained in all respects. And certainly not true that this generation is liberated in comparison. It seems to me there are new chains. Like peer pressure, to be cool means, for some, to be sexually active. It doesn't look anything like freedom from where I stand. Looks more like a new oppression to me. But I am just a priest... Resist the pressure, and you might find freedom. That will take courage, and character, and I am starting to learn that courage and character are here in abundance.

Christianity has been criticized for being one of those forces historically that said sex was bad, that anything that was enjoyable was bad. Some truth in that, I am sad to say. But not exactly true. I missed that bit in my Christian formation. I found what Christianity has always said, and it is this: whatever we do, however we exercise our freedom, if what we do is done selfishly, or if the result of our freedom is the pain of another, then it's wrong; if it is done out of love, consideration for the other, then it is right. True freedom does not lie in doing whatever we like. True freedom lies somewhere else.

St Paul in today's reading from the Bible says that true freedom is to be found in the Spirit of God. He contrasts the fruit of the Spirit with the consequences of selfishness. Selfishness brings with it enmity, jealousy, anger, envy and the like. Of course it does, because selfishness (no matter how free it seems) is about me, not us. The Spirit of God, in contrast, brings with it love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Nothing enslaves this Spirit and its fruit, and this Spirit, the Spirit of Jesus, leads to true freedom.

Let us pray.
Jesus, in your life and teaching you showed us the way to true freedom, a freedom that cannot be bound by selfishness, but instead leads to life in abundance for all. We pray for hearts that are free, free to love, free to be joyful, free to be generous, and free to be peaceful.
Give us the courage to choose to be truly free. Amen.

A Prayer for the Heart

Let us pray for wisdom. Let us pause from thinking and empty our mind. Let us stop the noise. In the silence let us listen to our heart. The heart which is buried alive. Let us be still and wait and listen carefully. A sound from the deep, from below. A faint cry. A weak tapping. Distant muffled feelings from within. The cry for help.

We shall rescue the entombed heart. We shall bring it to the surface, to the light and the air. We shall nurse it and listen respectfully to its story. The heart’s story of pain and suffocation, of darkness and yearning. We shall help our feelings to live in the sun. Together again we shall find relief and joy. Amen. (Michael Leunig)

Moses and the Burning Bush (Kids' Talk)

Pentecost 16(A)

What would God have to do to get your attention?...
How about making the lights go off, now! (Have this organised)
They'll see through it. If they don't go with the whole miraculous thing as getting their attention.

Then into the story. Last week we left Moses growing up in the palace of the king, called Pharaoh. Moses fought with the Pharaoh, and so he had to leave and go and live in the desert as a shepherd. For a long time. But God came to Moses becasue God has a special task for him. And to get his attention God made a bush burn without burning away.

Can anyone think of other ways in the Bible God gets people's attention?...

The most important way was the cross of Jesus. That gets our attention because it shows us how much God loved us.

The Great 'I AM' of Exodus 3

Sunday August 31, 2008; Pentecost 16(A) Exodus 3, the burning bush and the great 'I AM'.

Strange name: I AM. This is partly God's way of avoiding ancient paganism's method of controlling a god by knowing the god's name. But there is more than this at work here. We are being asked to stretch our theological imaginations.

'I AM' is incomplete. I might say of myself, 'I am a human,' or 'I am Warren Huffa'. 'I am' needs further explanation and definition. In this way I am who I am over-and-against that which I am not. I am human, not a rock. But not so God. God needs no further definition than 'I AM'. God is already complete, and in no need to be defined over-against anything else. God just is.

This is stretching the theological imagination. God is complete, and is so without reference to me or you. (Or anything at all, for that matter.) Nothing more can be added to God, or God's life. God is already full and complete. An absolute fullness.

Sounds remote, self-sufficient and transcendent. Nothing could be further from the truth! In fact exactly the opposite is the truth. For example, God is love, a complete fullness of love already; loving us does not add anything to God. And rather than this making God cold and distant it ensures that God's love is a free gift, with no ulterior motive (no matter how laudable) for God's benefit (not even a win-win for God and us). And because there is no ulterior benefit God's love is entirely trustworthy, because God won't arbitrarily change for the sake of God's changing needs. (This is the point Rowan Williams makes in chapter 1 of Tokens of Trust.)

Let's stretch our imaginations a little more. Jesus claims this great 'I AM' in the Gospels. Especially in John in those "I am ...": the bread of life, the good shepherd, the light of the world. And most especially John 8: "Before Abraham was, I am." But not only in John. In Matthew's version of the miracle of Jesus walking on water, Jesus calms the disciples with the "I am". So Jesus is claiming that God, who is complete and full, who is not defined over and against anthing else but just 'is', this Goid, has taken flesh in Jesus. Jesus, who is defined as himself by not being someone else, or not being a rock. How very un-Godlike. The Jesus who becomes tired, who thirsts, who weeps, and, most especially, who dies a failure on the cross. How very un-Godlike. That stretches the theological imagination.

Let's stretch it a little bit more. We hear in the Gospel today that the evidence of this claim is to be found in this most un-Godlike aspect of Jesus: his death on the cross. Not just a temporary aberration from which we should avert our eyes in embarrassment, but the evidence we need to know th claim is true. Now that stretches the imagination to breaking point - or the reformulation of who God is.

Indeed, and this is the point. The God who is absolute fullness is the fullness of love because of the cross of Jesus. There is no interruption between God and Jesus, and because of this what we say of Jesus can be predicated of God. The cross of Jesus becomes the cross of God, and God becomes the God who is for us. (Rom 8:31)

Where Are You?

St John's Chapel address, weeks 5 & 6 Term 3, 2008.

[Adam and Eve, the two figures representative of all human beings, have disobeyed God, eating the fruit that they were deceived into believing would make them into gods. They are scared and disoriented, and God comes to find them.]

A reading from the Book of Genesis.

"Adam and Eve heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze, and they hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the them, and said to them, ‘Where are you?’ Adam said, ‘I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.’ "

For the word of the Lord. Thanks be to God.

Think of ... (I used an example of a cruel and violent act perpetrated by one person on someone trying to help them)

And the person who did it? What would you say to them? Perhaps, 'Why did you do that?' or 'Who are you, this is so below our common humanity, you have transgressed some of the most basic behaviours that we take for granted to be human community.'

In the language of Genesis, God says, Where are you? The idea is that we have wandered far off (we’re lost). In Genesis the evidence that we have wandered far off is human arrogance, hubris is the word, the arrogance to think we can be like God, and this arrogance shows itself in murder and vengeance and increasing violence. As basic as that. Not far off really. Genesis might use strange stories (like today’s) to communicate it. But if you were to read the first 11 chapters of Genesis, that is the point. Humanity – remember I have said previously that Genesis thinks that we are Adam and Eve – has wandered far off.

Alexander Solzenhitsyn, who died recently, wrote The Gulag Archipelago, which was the book that help alert the world to the horror of the Soviet gulag. He had been there himself and experienced and seen the depravity and deprivation. He tells part of the story of the millions who were arrested, their interrogation and torture, and eventual deportation into the Siberian work camps. He says the reason the NKVD (KGB) agents could be so cruel and lethal, was because they no longer believed in God; they thought they were God. In the language of the Bible, hubris. In terms of Genesis 3: "Where are you?"

But that is not us. True. We are not the NKVD. But let’s think about that a little more. Maybe we are implicated somehow. Our society has structured the economy around utterly unsustainable practices, and become so dependent on those practices, that we are struggling to make the necessary changes to prevent ecological breakdown. In the language of Genesis, ‘Where are you?”

Or anyone who has used illicit drugs. Using drugs might seem cool but it kills someone else over in a third world country who gets caught up in the violence that surrounds the manfacture and distribution of drugs. And remember, the same gangs producing and selling the drugs operate the modern slave trade around the world. In the language of Genesis, 'Where are you?'

The signs are everywhere. We can all see it around us. Even here at the school; exclusion ridicule at times. Does this ever happen? Bullying? And do we stand up against it? Not the gulag I agree, far from it, but multiply these small acts millions of times around the world and …

Today, let us hear the question God asks of each of us: where are you? In the Bible Adam and eve need to find their way back to God. And we are Adam and Eve.

And the Biblical answer to the open ended question of our lostness is Jesus. A new Adam, and a new humanity.

Study Notes For Rowan Williams, 'Tokens of Trust' Chapter 3

A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS

R. Williams, Tokens of Trust, Chapter 3 notes.

“What is seen in Jesus is what God is; what God is is the outpouring and returning of selfless love, which is the very essence of God’s definition, in so far as we can ever speak of a ‘definition’ of the mystery. The phrase in the Creed, ‘being of one substance with the Father’ or ‘of one being with the Father’ can sound a bit chilly and technical … Yet it ought to be one of the most exciting words in our vocabulary…” (71)

This chapter is a brilliant attempt to fill out the claim that Jesus is both human and divine by using all kinds of images, and by contrasting what the ancient Creeds say with what they are not saying. Extraordinary claims were made by his disciples very early on. These claims led inexorably to what we know as the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation. In the totality of his life, we see in Jesus a movement within God, between Father and Jesus, which is expressing what is the case always in God. And this human life is God’s life without impediment, being God’s face directed to us, but also a human response to God, prefiguring our ultimate response to the Father as individuals, a human race and a cosmos. How is it that such extraordinary claims were made of Jesus, and from the earliest strata of the tradition? It is so un-Jewish!

Williams begins with Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom of God, which he understood to mean living under God’s presence and rule and no one else’s. But this kingdom was personalized in Jesus, for acceptance of this kingdom coincided with saying ‘yes’ to what Jesus was saying, trusting in Jesus and what he was saying to God and humankind. Jesus did not just make this kingdom visible (but he did do this) but made it possible. This citizenship through Jesus in God’s kingdom is about our freedom from all (natural and supernatural) powers that demand our allegiance, especially when this allegiance is contrary to God’s kingdom. Such a proclamation and person had (and still does) obvious political and social import, although it cannot be captured by social action alone.

This proclamation of the kingdom was, in fact, talking about being part of God’s people, and this was the central point of debate and conflict in the Jewish world of Jesus. The many Jewish sub-groups had their own particular ideas about who was in and who out. Jesus’ claims about himself found no easy home among these groups.

Remember that the Jews understood membership in the people of God to be dependent on God’s invitation. Jesus was making an implicit claim cutting across the assumption of the day. And he seemed to be suggesting that those everyone agreed were not included in God’s people, and were never likely to be able to meet the requirements of entry, were actually received into membership by believing in Jesus! (60) And this membership meant a new relationship with God and the grace of relating to God as Jesus did. (‘Our Father in heaven…’) without the complexities and intermediaries of the different Jewish systems.

There is remarkably little about Jesus as just a teacher in the NT, even in the early tradition when you would expect it. This is easily explained if we remember that Jesus is remembered not for what he taught alone, but for what he did. In and through him a new community was formed that claimed a new intimacy with God, and this led to questions about his authority to do this. The answer was not an angelic intermediary (hence the denial of this in Hebrews 1) but that there is simply no gap between Jesus and God. (62)

“Awkwardly and slowly and with much complication and even apparent contradiction, the New Testament moves towards the extraordinary notion that the Creator of the universe is at work without interruption in the life and work of Jesus – that it is God who is doing what Jesus is doing.” (62-63)

And given this extraordinary experience and claim, it is no wonder that his followers went out into the word around to preach him and his kingdom, no matter what ‘nationality’ or language the listeners were.

“They saw Jesus as a ‘man for all seasons’, a man for all climates and languages, capable of transforming any human situation by his presence. And when you put it like that, you can see how this echoes what is said about God’s all-powerful nature, capable of transforming any situation.” (65)

But notice how the Scriptures show a Jesus, he in whom God’s action is present without impediment, who is also humble and dependent on God, not just a powerful wonderworker. Jesus receives from God, and reflects back to God. Here is the beginning of the doctrine of the Trinity! God is more than a solitary individual, but a movement of love between Father and Son. (66) But in this movement back to the Father Jesus embodies a perfect human response to God, foreshadowing our own complete response forever. This Trinitarian formulation sets Christianity apart from every other philosophy and religion. (Except those religions and philosophies that, although thoroughly saturated with our language, have claimed it for themselves.)

Williams suggests that a concerto performance is a good way of thinking of the Incarnation. The composer brings to life this music, pouring all that they are into it, yet it is the musician who is playing entirely. As Williams says, it would not be good for the musician to suddenly stop and say “Let me tell you how I feel about this.” (75) The composer and the musician coincide in the performance of the concerto. Here is the link to Jacqueline du Pre’s performance Williams cites as an example of God and humanity at work in Jesus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5C99JyP2ns; “Two ‘sorts’ of life, but in practice lived in one flow of action.” (75)

And don’t miss the final section (pp. 76-77) on Mary.

Sacramental Worship Is Not Magic

Sacramental worship is not magic. Few would think it is, at least explicitly, although its more subtle presence needs to be avoided. Magic is about control: the person who has the knowledge and power, the elements, and the incantation, and what is desired occurs. God cannot be so corralled. Whatever we do in the sacraments, it is not control God. A sacramental theology that sees God self-bound to the sacraments must not become a subtle control mechanism on our part. How such a sacramental theology I leave to someone more able.

Sacramental theology that has become a subtle form of control is analogous to legalism. Legalism says, basically, I do my part then God must do God's part. This is ordinary religion and is believed by many on the edge of the church or outside it. But it also has its purveyors amongst the moralists well inside the circle of faith. It is a control mechanism antithetical to grace. Interestingly, part of the discomfort we feel about sacramental worship that has become legalistic (by which I mean pedantic to an extreme) is that it seems a bit 'magical' with its priest/magician, elements of bread and wine and efficacious incantations.

And it is not just sacramental worship that is open to the magical interpretations. Intercessory prayer is similarly fraught with the possibility. Who hasn't heard someone say, 'I prayed for ...., but it didn't make any difference, therefore i no longer believe." I understand it, indeed sympathise, but it's magic at root.

A theological foundation in all this to keep in mind is that God doesn't need us to worship God. This is exactly the same theological insight discussed in a Christian theology of transcendence. Remembering that in the Christian schema of things God is an absolute and complete fullness ensures that we can never manipulate God through our worship. It also means that whatever we receive from God through worship is without any benefit for God, that is, is for our benefit only and entirely.

Which leads me to a worthy spiritual exercise. For a period of time attend the Eucharist with no intention of receiving from God; go only to give thanks. It is the end of any possibility of magic, and deeply humbling. And, bereft of our own desires, full of thanksgiving for what God in Christ has and is doing, the sheer grace of the sacrament can be received in a new and refreshing manner.

Stretching Our Theological Imaginations

Christianity stretches our theological imagination. The fundamentalisms of the right and left are, at root, a failure of theological imagination. And, to my way of thinking, there are three key 'stretches' in the historic faith of the church, that once assimilated into our way of seeing everything (including Scripture) is utterly liberating. The three stretches are:

• The doctrine of the Trinity
• The doctrine of the Incarnation (in which I include life, death, resurrection of Jesus)
• The doctrine of creation, including creatio ex nihilo and transcendence.

Here are three examples of the kind of stretching required. First, the insight that God is not just somewhere else ('up there, a long, long way away' which is the meaning liberals attach to transcendence, and on this basis reject it for some kind of pantheism or, that blunt instrument of a term, panentheism) but somehow else. But how? Exactly. And incidentally, the implications of this in terms of God's presence and intimacy to and with creation gives everything pantheism does without corrupting our integrity as distinct from God and therefore free. And it is a much more precise theological formula than 'panentheism. See for example Phillip's use of it in terms of a non-competitive God, and a God who can save without diminishing our humanity.

Second, a God who is not defined (like creaturely being) by only separation and difference, but can be fully distinct and fully united with what it is not. I am not a rock because I am human. God can be human and divine without compromise of that humanity or divinity. Now that is stretching things. How to conceive of this? Well, actually, think of the Jesus of the Gospels and you come close. And just to re-stretch your imagination if thinking of Jesus requires little imagination: remember, if the Word (divinity) were removed from Jesus, what would be left? The answer? Nothing would be left. But Jesus is, and always is, fully human.

Third, that in the particular life of this one person, mapped reasonably accurately to a particular time in earth history, with all the baggage attending this history, brings healing and completion to everything that is, including planets and stars hundreds of light years away. Now that is an extraordinary claim. In fact, for me, the jump in theological imagination required is the relatively small jump (or so it would seem in comparison to the claim that Jesus saves the whole cosmos) from Jesus saving humankind. how can one particular life be so universal? Once you have made the jump from the dot of his one life to the circle of the all humanity, then enlarging the circle doesn't take all that more theological imagination, or perhaps I should say, not a jump in kind, just magnitude. But think about it, what an extraordinary claim to make of particularity, especially given the experience of our inefficacious influence on a very small circle of influence. Now that is stretching the theological imagination. No wonder the extremes of right and left tempt, and the historic faith of the church claims the status of a revelation.

Moses in the Nile (Kids' Talk)

Pentecost 15, Exodus 1

(Have 'Moses' on some card in Hebrew.) What's this? It says 'Moses'. Who knows about Moses? (Get the answers, lead into his birth if possible.)

Essentially tell the story with props and willing volunteers.
Points:

• Last week ended in Egypt
• Now the people are slaves to a mean king called Pharaoh.
  
• Moses' mum tries to hide Moses from the soldiers, but eventually can't anymore and puts him in a basket on the River Nile.
• We had a basket with a doll, and a few volunteer reeds (hands in the air waving about)
• Big sister looks on (we got a volunteer to do this)
• Pharaoh's daughter gets the child (another volunteer, with princess headgear)
• Big sister speaks to princess, gets Moses' mum (another volunteer) to nurse Moses
• Princess names him Moses, because he is drawn out of the water.
  
• Moses ends up living in the palace 9from slavery to palace)
  

Biting Satire

I've withdrawn my GAFCON satire because I think it is a bit too biting perhaps (yes, yes, I know, that is the point of satire), so I'll put the theological gloves back on instead. I want the blog to be a point of debate, not cheap shots. So to all those GAFCONs who engage in the debate without rancour and witch-hunting, genuine apologies. For the rest, well ...

Our Humble Nature

"... Jesus, in whom the whole fullness of the Godhead is bodily present to us in the humility of our own nature." (Karl Rahner)

Prejudice Against Miracles

A prejudice against any sort of miracle may be a buried uncertainty about the unfolding presence and action of the Creator, about that burning intensity of divine action that is always around us. It may reflect a version of the watchmaker image, a world wound up by God long ago and ticking steadily on, uninterrupted. (Rowan Williams)

In the Beginning...

Chapel address, Terms 3 2008. [Genesis 1:1-4a; 9, 10b, 16, 18b, 25, 26a, 27, 31]

If I said to you that I had a splitting headache, you would know exactly what I meant. I could say that my head really, really hurts. Both are comprehensible. One is metaphor, one is something more literal.

There are some people who say that it is impossible to convey anything meaningful except in literal language. Not true. I just gave us a simplisic example, but it makes the point. Today's reading tells us a lot, but it is not meant to be read literally. In fact, the first few chapters of the Bible are meant to be read as myth, by which I mean a story that has universal application. When you read this story, and the others that follow it, we are meant to see ourselves and our world. Evey person is meant to be able to read it and understand that this is their world; we are Adam/Eve.

What we read today is one of the stories of creation, first page of the Bible in fact. When God creates, God looks at what God has made and says it is good. God creates in increasing levels of complexity culminating in the creation of humankind. And at each stage God looks at what God has made and says it is good (not perfect). Eventually, God looks at everything and says it is very good. That's us. That is the world around us. Before you encounter the world, before we decide if someone or something has value, God looked at it and say it was good.

And God gives to the humans a task to be keepers of the creation. Part of the purpose of humankind is to be God's stewards over what God has made. And it is good, remember. How very contemporary.

This was all written well over 2000 years ago. And to reiterate the point, we are not meant to be reading this part of the Bible literally. That is why there are two different stories of creation in the Bible. Genesis 1 and 2. They are basically the same. But, they were composed by different people and eventually put together into the one story, running on from each other. Let's think about that: if the person who put them together, and the people who put it into the Bible, thought we should read the Genesis story literally, why put in two? You wouldn't. You would put in one story. But there are two stories, and they are not the same when literally read.

Here the affirmation of God in your ears today: God made you, and you are God's. And God saw you and said, it is good, you are very good.

Building For the Kingdom, Not Building the Kingdom

We can address problems and bring change, but we don't change the world. Injustice just moves on, or so it seems.

From a World Vision pamphlet:

• Human trafficking enslaves more than 27 million people worldwide
  
  
• Human trafficking generates $7 billion a year and is the third biggest crime in the world behind drugs and arms.
  
  
• It is estimated that more people are enslaved today than in the entire 400 years of the transatlantic slave trade. (My emphasis)
  

Which is depressing if we think we are building the kingdom. I have heard N. T. Wright make a helpful distinction between building the kingdom and building for the kingdom. What we do here does not bring in the kingdom, and we will not change the world. But the work we do will be used by God in the transformation to come, which will be historical and material. The way in whcih God uses it is not to just take it over and continue the work, but rather in a surprising and novel way. This is why the small acts of peace and justice, trust and love, are not worthless in comparison to the great problems of the world.

Creation is About Relationship

Faith doesn't try and give you an alternative theory about the mechanics of the world; it invites you to take a step further, beyond the nuts and bolts, even beyond the Big Bang, to imagine an activity so unrestricted, so supremely itself, that it depends on nothing and is constantly pouring itself out so that the reality we know depends on it. Creation isnt a theory about how things started; as St Thomas Aquinas said, it's a way of seeing everything in relation to God. Whatever you encounter is there because God chose that it should be there. (Rowan Williams)

Prayer, the Most Crucifying Thing

Prayer, in the sense of union with God, is the most crucifying thing there is. One must do it for God’s sake; but one will not get any satisfaction out of it, in the sense of feeling “I am good at prayer. I have an infallible method.” That would be disastrous, since what we want to learn is precisely our own weakness, powerlessness, unworthiness. Nor ought one to expect a sense of the reality of the supernatural of which I speak. And one should wish for no prayer except precisely the prayer that God gives us – probably very distracted and unsatisfactory in every way.

On the other hand the only way to pray is to pray. And the only way to pray well is to pray much.

If one has no time for this, then one must at least pray regularly. But the less one prays, the worse it goes. And if circumstances do not permit even regularity, then one must put up with the fact that when one does try to pray, one can’t pray – and our prayer will probably consist of telling this to God.

As to beginning afresh, or where you left off, I don’t think you have any choice. You simply have to begin wherever you find yourself. Make any acts you want to make and feel ought to make, but do not force yourself into feelings of any kind.

You say very naturally that you do not know what to do if you have a quarter of an hour alone. Yet I suspect the only thing to do is to shut out everything and just give yourself to God and beg for God’s mercy and offer God all your distractions. (Dom John Chapman)

Creation vs Its Opposite (Which is Not Necessarily Evolution)

Ultimately it comes down to the alternative: What came first? Creative Reason, the Creator Spirit who makes all things and gives them growth, or Unreason, which, lacking any meaning, strangely enough brings forth a mathematically ordered cosmos, as well as man and his reason. The latter, however, would then be nothing more than a chance result of evolution and thus, in the end, equally meaningless. As Christians, we say: I believe in God the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth. I believe in the Creator Spirit. We believe that at the beginning of everything is the eternal Word, with Reason and not Unreason." (Benedict XVI)

Study Notes For R. Williams, 'Tokens of Trust' Chapter 2

The Risk of Love

R. Williams, Tokens of Trust: An Introduction to Christian Belief, Chapter 2 notes

1. Arguments for the existence of God have their place. (They can’t communicate a living relationship, and do not intend to do so, as can the diary of Etty Hilesum, for example.) Such arguments try to approach everything in creation as a single unit, and ask how to make sense of this whole. (Compare with the atheist who will say that there is no need to try and make sense of the whole because the individual clusters and bits make sense in themselves. No higher order of meaning is necessary.) Arguments for the existence of God also suppose God to be on a different level of explanation than everyday causation. So, the child asks, ‘If God made the world, who made God?’ This is thinking of God as just a bigger version of the things we already know within our world. Instead we are asked to stretch our theological imagination:”we’re trying to get our minds around the idea of an activity that is so utterly consistent with itself, so unaffected by any other activity, that it is, so to speak, its own explanation, its own ‘cause’, eternal and unchanging.” (34)

2. A Christian theology of creation affirms that God’s creativity is ongoing and continuous. This means that without God everything would cease to exist. Most non-believers have a watchmaker (deism) approach that has God ‘make’ everything and then let it go its independent way.

3. Creation is to be understood not just as ‘making’ stuff, but establishing a relationship with the stuff of creation. Indeed, the ‘making’ and the establishment of relationship are one and the same action of God. which is to say that God’s act of creation, while ‘making’ stuff (us, for instance) is also about establishing a relationship with us.

4. A theology of creation is therefore not to be understood as an alternative to science. God is not just one more causative force amongst a series of causes. Creation is about the ‘big picture’, the underlying reason and comprehensibility of all that is.

5. A Christian theology of creation is to be distinguished from pantheism. Pantheism makes the sum total of created reality into God (or at a minimum, God as a universal principle within everything). Christianity supposes a distinction between God and that which is created in dependence upon God. A theology of creation safeguards freedom, gives creation its own integrity, and funnily enough, was one of the principle ingredients in the rise of western science. This is because if creation has its own integrity then we can study it for its own sake; whereas pantheistic science will also be restricted by theological conceptions about what is possible, leading to the neglect of the scientific method of hypothesis and experimentation.)

6. But what of the problem of pain? A world that is truly other than God is a risky world. Creation has its own integrity and freedom, and to deny this by requiring God not to take that risk is to imagine a different world than this one, and one incapable of true relationship with God. Yes, creation is complex and fragile, and very risky, but this is the nature of a real relationship with the possibilities of real growth and reciprocal movement.

7. What of miracles and prayer? Keeping in mind the meaning of ‘almighty’ from chapter 1, we can see that miracles and prayer are not examples of God’s arbitrary whim dis/agreeing to this or that prayer, or overriding the integrity of creation this time and not the next. Instead, Williams suggests the miraculous, including the miraculous in the life of Jesus, are grounded in “a robust idea of God’s action burning intensely in every moment of the world’s existence, always just around the corner of our perception.” (48) Sometimes (as in the case of Jesus) this intensity of God’s presence is closer to the surface than usual, allowing the interconnected whole of creation to come together in a more transparently God-directed manner. (pp. 44-46)

8. A comprehensive theology of creation also allows for creatures that are beyond our perception and instrumental use. Angels in the Bible and tradition, he says, are, at the very least, symbols of this other world that is beyond our usual perception. Creation is not just there for us to use and consume, and is a lot bigger than we usually allow.

9. Finally, to affirm God as creator of everything, visible and invisible, is to allow God to be God of every aspect of our lives, even the embarrassing bits we suppress. God knows who we are, and God can heal and bring every aspect of our lives into a coherent whole. (Again, touching on the idea of almighty as being able to rework creation into a future of life and fulfillment.) This is, ultimately, the meaning of resurrection. (55)

God Can Rework Evil

Pentecost 14, Genesis 45:1-15, Joseph sold into slavery. Used at Holy Innocents 17/10/08

"... you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life." (Genesis 45:5)

Just to be clear I'm not one of those that imputes evil to God. Now there is substantial Scriptural warrant for imputing evil to God, but I don't think this is one of them. God is able to rework evil, even to the extent where it is possible for Joseph to say that God sent him ahead into Egypt. The evil perpetrated by his brothers has been so reworked by God in the life of Joseph that Joseph can say that God sent him ahead to preserve life. The brothers sold him into slavery, but God reclaims the evil to make good.

This reworking of evil is close to the meaning of 'Almighty', an apellation directed to God the Father in the Creed. Rowan Williams says it is best translated as 'ruler of everything' or 'holder of everything'. (That is, God's almighty power is not about arbitrary, overriding power.) It means that God never reaches the point of ineffectivenss and is always able to make a purposeful response no matter the depths of evil and seeming defeat. God can bring things new and often surprising out of evil.

The place we see this most powerfully and poignantly is the crucifixion of Jesus. God brings out of the evil of the human heart our salvation at the point of apparent defeat in death. We are saved not just in the resurrection, but in the cross. What an extraordinary reworking of evil! And this gives us some indication of how to approach those passages in Scripture that impute to God the death of Jesus. Let us be clear: human evil killed Jesus. And God can so rework that evil, so make it part of the total outcome of salvation, that yes, we can say that God sacrificed Jesus.

The Joseph Story (Kids' Talk)

Kids' Talk for the end of the Joseph cycle, Genesis 45:1-15. Used at Holy Innocents 17/8/08

Ever had a bad thing happen to you, but then, surprise, surprise, something good happens? Like you were meant to be going to the playground, but then it started raining so you couldn't, but then, your best friend came around. If you had gone to the playground you would have missed your best friend.

That's what happened to Joseph in the story we have just heard. His brothers sold him into slavery in a far off land. (Used here a slide of him being sold off) A mean and bad thing to do to your brother. But God was able to bring some good out of it. Because when there was a famine in the land of the brothers, they could go to the far off land and get food off Joseph. And so they and there families were able to survive.

God can do this. Bring good things out of mean and bad things that people do. Cn anyone think of any other story in the Bible where people do mean and bad things, but God is able to bring good from it?

When Jesus was crucified. That was a mean and bad thing for the people to do. But God was able to bring good from it. By being willing to die on the cross he heals us, and then God raised him from the dead to go and forgive his disciples for deserting him.

Healthy Churches Checklist

Sorry I had to delete this, but I couldn't get the table to post correctly. If anyone wants the table - it compares the healthy church checklist from NCLS, a four country survey in 2005, Bob Jackson, Robert Warren and Callahan, I can send it to you. Email me at innocents@adam.com.au.

The lists are helpful because they give us some indicators of healthy churches. It is, of course, a bit of a circular thing, because you have to decide which churches are healthy and then list their characteristics. Interestingly, the surveys are pretty consistent across the western world. Anyway, the lists can give some indication of what we can be thinking of in our situation if we wish to increase the health of the church. It is not a certainty of course, and for some might not be useful. But I reckon the lists are a great resource that I have used successfully at Holy Innocents. But these lists are not the messiah; Jesus still gets the guernsey for that office.

The Surprise of the Resurrection Narratives (Part 2)

Surprise 3: The Resurrected Jesus is Not the Radiant, Heavenly Figure

If the resurrection stories were made up we would expect them to reflect the Jewish expectation of a heavenly, sparkling figure like in Daniel 12:2-3. (A text picked up by Jewish contemporary writings. See Wisdom 3:9) The resurrected Christ as narrated in the Gospel stories is not a sparkling figure of power. He seems much more mundane than that, and retains his wounds. If you were going to concoct a story about resurrection why not make it fit the expectation of the target audience? Exactly, you would. And the resurrection narratives just don't.

Surprise 4: The Women as Primary Witnesses.

If the stories were made up no author of the first century AD is going to make the primary witnesses to an incredible event women. This is exactly what the Gospel narratives do. (And to reinforce the point, have a look at what Paul says about the first witnesses of the resurrected Jesus; he omits the women. see 1Cor 15:5-9) Women were not accepted as legal witnesses in the ancient world. Again, a very strange thing to do if the stories are concocted.

Check out the link below to compare the stories of the empty tomb and resurrection of Jesus in parallel format:

http://www.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/meta-4g.htm

Do Not Worry

[Chapel address at St John's, Term 2, 2008. The reading was Matthew 6:25-34. Part of the 'Jesus is Different Series'.]

What are the things you worry about? ...

Some are important, some perhaps not so important. But we still worry. Let's hear what Jesus thinks... (the reading occurred here)

We worry. And about all sorts of things. Some things are not worth the worry because they are not important enough to worry about. Others are not worth worrying about because they are too far into the future, so they might not happen at all. Others things are important and worthy of our concern, but we often worry too much.

Jesus can help us here. He points us to the important things, the things that are deeper and more fulfilling. These are the things worthy of our concern, even our worry. He thinks that many of the things we worry about are not worthy of our worry. They just aren't important enough. Like reputation, what your peers might think. Now you might think that you can't stop being concerned about some of these things. OK, then deal with it, get it over and done with, and move on. If you can't do that, then stronger action is needed.

Jesus thinks the stronger action is to trust God. You are lovable and deeply loved by God. All will be well. Look at the birds of the air, he says, God looks after them, so God will do the same for you. So those things that you worry about that probably aren't the things most important, but still they worry you, trust God instead. And this is the strategy also for those things that are worthy of our worry, but that we might worry about too much. By all means be concerned, even worry at times, but don't let it get you down. Trust God. God will see it through for you.

A story to finish.

An king sentenced a man to death. the man begged for mercy, and added, "If the king will be merciful and spare my life, I shall teach his horse to fly in a year's time."

"Done," said the king. "But if at the end of this period the horse cannot fly, you will be executed."

When his anxious family later asked the man how he planned to achieve this, he said, "In the course of the year the king may die. Or the horse may die, or, who knows, the horse may learn to fly!"

The Surprise of the Resurrection Narratives (Part 1)

See N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, pp. 599ff.

The resurrection narratives are a bit hard to explain if Jesus is not resurrected. Many people think that it obvious that the resurrection narratives are fictional accounts because there was no resurrection, or at least nothing like the narratives make out. N. T. Wright has put this kind of claim under some scrutiny, and has come up with these four aspects of the resurrection narratives that are hard to explain if it were true that they are fiction.

Surprise 1: The Absence of Biblical Allusions

The first Christians said that the death and resurrection of Jesus was ‘according to the Scriptures’. Then why the absence of scriptural quotes and allusions within the resurrection narratives? (There are many such allusions and quotes in the story up to and including the point of the death of Jesus, but after that Scriptural quotes and allusions get a bit thin.) If the resurrection narratives were fictional accounts, then the authors would have added in Scriptural quotes to make the whole thing seem more plausible for their target audience.

Surprise 2: The Absence of Personal Hope

In virtually every other mention of the resurrection in the New Testament and later writings, the resurrection of Jesus is linked to the personal destiny of believers. (See, for example, 1Cor 15; 2Cor 4-5; Rom 8:9-11; 1Thess 4:14; 1Pet 1:3f) That is, the writer will say because Jesus is resurrected, those who believe in him will also be resurrected. To those who are skeptical about the resurrection and think the whole thing is a sham, standard stuff. But, in the Gospel stories of the resurrection the movement is from the resurrection of Jesus to mission. There is not one mention of personal, eternal destiny. (At least that I can find.) Which is incredible if the accounts are fictional. The skeptic reads St Paul and says that the link he makes between the resurrected Jesus and the final destiny of believers is the typical and standard way of all religions: pie in the sky when you die. So why not include the pie in the most basic stories of the resurrection of Jesus? Very strange if you are writing a ficitonal account that is designed to suck in the gullible. Best to make personal destiny the focus, appealing to the self-interest of the gullible. But the Gospels don't. The resurrected Christ sends the disciples on a mission, and a difficult and dangerous one at that. hardly the perfect recipe for building a religion of comfort to those needing a personal crutch!

Study Notes For Rowan Williams, 'Tokens of Trust'

In a study group we are reading Rowan Williams' introduction to Christianity entitled Tokens of Trust. I am writing notes for each chapter for members of the study. I will post these notes each week in case you would like to read the book as well, or perhaps run a group in your church!

R. Williams, Tokens of Trust: An Introduction to Christian Belief, Chapter 1 notes

“Basic to everything here is the idea that Christian belief is really about knowing who and what to trust. (p. viii)”

1. The loss of trust generally felt in society, directed at all levels.

2. The “I/We believe” of the Creeds is not a statement about whether we believe “God” is possible, like someone saying “I believe in UFOs.”

3. Creedal “I/We believe” is more like “I/We trust…”, and indicate where we find the anchor, meaning and purpose of our lives. (p. 6) Which is potentially problematic given the general dissipation of trust within society generally. (On this idea of “believe” being more like trust Williams mentions on p. 5 John 9 which is worth looking up.)

4. So, how do we know we can trust God the Father almighty? The answer has two parts.

5. First, Jesus reveals the inner meaning and purpose of God the creator of everything. The incompleteness and darkness of our natural inclinations toward God are clarified and corrected in the revelation of God in Jesus. (pp.7-11)

6. Note this does not mean we now know everything there is to know about God!(p. 9) But the meaning and purpose that is the inner dynamic of our lives and of history is revealed. Note also that we do not receive this revelation in the abstract (just ideas cut off from life) but in a real human life, the life of the Jew named Jesus of Nazareth. (p.9)

7. The meaning and purpose is unselfish, self-giving love. (p. 10)

8. This section finishes with this beautiful quote: “At the heart of the desperate suffering there is in the world, suffering we can do nothing to resolve or remove for good, there is an indestructible energy making for love. If we have grasped what Jesus is about, we can trust that this is what lies at the foundation of everything.” (p. 10)

9. The second part to the answer as to how we know we can trust God, the Father almighty emanates from the Christian insight that God is love in Godself, and is not requiring anything of anyone/thing else. God is complete fullness. (pp. 11-14) This is important because it means that our creation does not come from God’s need, but out of unselfish love. If there were any kind of deficit at all in God, a deficit that the creation filled, then our meaning and purpose from God is not unselfish, self-giving love. There would be something in it for God, so to speak. (especially p. 12)

10. This is the theological foundation for the Christian claim that we are not forgiven because we are moral. God’s love makes us good. (p. 13)

11. The next section (pp. 15-20) is asking about the nature of God’s almighty power. It is not arbitrary power to do whatever one likes, so that God might choose to destroy just to show God’s almightiness! “Almighty” in the Greek means “ruler of everything” or “holder of everything”. (p. 16) This means God is not only everywhere, but can be relied upon in all situations, and can make good from all situations. God is never found wanting.

12. An interesting discussion of Genesis 18 and Exodus 32 where Abraham and Moses respectively persuade God not to act contrary to the nature of God revealed in the covenant. (pp. 17-19) Williams suggests that these passages, and others like them, function in the Bible as a tongue in cheek literary device to highlight the reliability of God; even in these extreme situations God can be relied upon to be faithful to the covenant (and new covenant).

13. The final sections (pp. 20-28) talk about living this life of love in the world, and being conduits of it, even in our imperfection. He uses a number of examples, including Etty Hillesum, to show that those who believe (that is, trust) are called to stroke the embers of that trust in others. He puts it boldly; we are to be those who take responsibility for God’s believability.

The Lost Sheep

St John's Chapel Address Weeks 5 & 6, Term 2 2008. Part of the 'Jesus is Different Series'..
[The reading was Luke 15:1-7]

I want to talk about money today. (I flashed and then counted $500.) Hey, hang on, there is only $490 here. Could the front two rows come up here and help me look for the ten bucks. (Which they did. After a suitable time - of course there was no missing ten dollars - I said:) Let's not worry about it, it is only ten bucks after all. Who thinks it is worth keeping on looking? I have $490 still. (You get the drift.)

Let's think about what we just did. We went looking for $10 when we had $490 anyway. Some wanted to stop looking, others wanted to keep on going.

Jesus told a story very similar. Let's hear it now ...

God is like a shepherd who has lost a single sheep. Leaving the 99 the shepherd goes off looking for that one lost sheep. The rest of the herd are put in danger by this, remember. Back then no nice safe fenced area to leave the flock. Crazy!

We are each of such inestimable value that God will do the crazy thing and come after us. Even though there are billions of others, God will never give you up. Ever. And will keep looking, even if we don't know we are lost! And keep looking and looking because we are worth a lot more than ten bucks.