Publicizing the Personal: Reversing the Sacramental

What are we to make of the publication of the personal in our culture? The latest is the 14 year old girl who took a lie detector test on air and was reduced to tears after a harrowing admission. But we can also think of (alleged) reality TV like 'Big Brother', or the media personalities who make confessions on national TV, or the truly bizarre website named 'sextube' where it appears that people post their own home-made sex footage. (I guess the pornographers are represented on the site also.) Why do ordinary people do this kind of thing? And why do ordinary people view it, listen to it, and follow it? Apart from the critique we could offer from a psychological, sociological and theological perspective regarding voyeurism, and that in our society this kind of thing can re/launch a media career, there is something sacramental about all this. Or should I say a godless sacramentality-in-reverse. Sacraments are an outward expression of an inward grace from God, and confession (and absolution) is a sacrament. (So is sex.) But the publication of the personal (like in a TV confession) often includes what should be sacramental, but is not a grace from God, and not intended to be so. What should be carried out in a sacramental context is turned around, so that those who should be the recipients of grace (e.g. the penitent) become the purveyors, directing something they think worthwhile to their audience, or perhaps trying to receive something from the audience (perhaps adulation or understanding). And what exactly is being communicated? Whatever it is it isn't God's gift. I suspect it is something much more perverse, and most definitely spiritually dangerous and reflective of the vacuity when God is removed from the centre of human life and action.

Envy (vs Gratitude)

It is easy to be jealous or envious of another. And we can be envious of just about anything: possessions, spouse, children, career, coiffure, "luck". Is there anything wrong with a little envy? It's natural, isn't it? Well, on that last point, it is to be expected given the way we experience human nature currently. On the former point, yes, there is something wrong with a little envy, and for two reasons (at least). First, it is the nature of sin to grow in us and, potentially, rule our lives. This is particularly so with a human reality like envy. We can end up filled by it and its cousins jealousy and covetousness. And the door is wide open then to malice and bitterness. The second reason why even a little envy is best avoided is what we miss out on while we are envious. Life! Instead of living one's own life, envy leads us to someone else's. The antidote? Gratitude. The grateful person is centred on their own life, and is able to look for the gifts in their life, exploring, affirming, living, even when they aspire to improve their life and become more fully human.

But grateful to whom? It is not enough to be just aware of the good things in your life. This is good, but not enough to keep envy at bay. One of the benefits of faith is that we can be grateful because we have someone to be grateful to, namely God.

And We Were On Top Of The Pile

I hoped it seemed so obvious before you read the last 2 posts here and here) that the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity are Hellenistic expressions of political compromise and autocratic power. And just in case you are not quite at the point of wondering if you were a bit too hasty in your easy rejection of the doctrines on this basis, how to explain the doctrine of the Incarnation when Christianity was in the political and cultural ascendancy within the Roman Empire? The doctrine of the Incarnation is the major expression of the Christian God of lowliness and humility. If the doctrine of the Incarnation is merely an expression of political power and the church's capitulation to it, why continue with a doctrine that so clearly unites the way of God and the way of the cross? It makes no sense. What makes sense is that the doctrine of the Incarnation is the doctrinal expression of the story of the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, and perhaps despite, and sometimes through, the process of doctrinal formulation, with all its problems, the gospel was held against temptations to the contrary.

The Emperors' Doctrines?

Another jibe directed at the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity is that they are the product of political maneuverings (and therefore not gospel) and the emperor's power designed to support his sole rule. The first is true to an extent, but the wrong conclusion is being drawn; the second is plain wrong.

First, why assume that political maneuverings mean that the gospel is lost? Certainly there was plenty of ego involved, but this is the real world in which Jesus was incarnated. There is no forum of 'spiritual purity' in which to hammer out anything Christian. To think so is a different religion.

Second, if the emperor wanted a doctrinal outcome that instantly supported his autocratic and sole rule, he/they seriously mucked up with the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity. A messiah who dies on the cross? A messiah who as the incarnation of true divinity and preaches the sermon on the mount? Why not split the humanity and the divinity, and in a way that leads inexorably to the separation of divinity and humanity, so that God could be saved from the radical Jesus? Exactly, and that is not what happened. And why would an emperor want a Trinity of non-hierarchical love? Makes no sense. More like the emperor had to make do with the gospel, and like all of us ever since we try to mould the doctrine around our perspective, but the doctrines have the annoying talent of escaping complete domestication.

Trinity and Incarnation: Hellenization of Christianity?

The doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity are anything but the Hellenization of Christianity. Of course they couch the gospel in terms set within the Graeco-Roman world. The doctrine of the Incarnation demands it! If you are one of those who thinks that the two mentioned doctrines were a capitulation to paganism, here are a couple of thoughts.

First, and this is more readily recognised these days, the doctrine of the Trinity with its internal relations within true divinity is not Hellenic. Moreover, these relationships are not hierarchical. A non-hierarchical relational God is Christian, not Hellenism in thin disguise.

Second, the doctrine of the Incarnation, with the union of humanity and divinity in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, introduces change and new experience into God's own life. This has been cause of some reluctance amongst even the greatest theologians of the Incarnation over the ages, which just goes to show how un-Hellenic the doctrine itself actually is.

Third, the death of the Word-made-flesh is not Hellenism. It can't be, and is why the usual christological heresy in some way tries to split the human and the divine, or subordinate the divinity of Jesus to that of the Father. In so doing the heretics maintain the Hellenistic aversion to the real world of flesh, blood, sweat and death.

In the Line of David?

The Old Testament sets its hope on the emergence of a messiah in the line of King David (See 2Sam 7:1-17; Mk 12:35-37). The New Testament picks this up and sees it fulfilled in Jesus. (E.g. Mk 10:47) Nothing surprising in that is there? David was, after all, designated by God who sees the heart (1Sam 16:7), and made Israel a great nation politically. Except that David was also an adulterer and a murderer. (2Sam 11:1-27) It is easy to forget this when we read in the New Testament of Jesus spoken of in terms of King David. And Matthew's Gospel emphasizes the fact that Jesus is the product of the liaison between David and Bathsheba. (Matthew mentions Bathsheba specifically, whereas virtually all the other entries in the genealogy of Jesus are solely the males. See Matt 1:6b) What are we to make of this? The importance of repentance? (That is, God can make something of a repentant sinner?) Yes, but there is something more profound going on here. God can use sin and sinners for God's own purposes. Think of the cross, a terrible sin, yet the point of salvation. And Jesus seems to prefer sinful humanity in calling disciples. We like to think of the great saints as above reproach, but they didn't think of themselves in such a way, and when we cut through the hagiography we find grace moulding itself around, and sometimes using, continuing failure. And Jesus, as God in the flesh, is incarnated in a real human nature, and is at one with sinners in his crucifixion and death.

Why would God do it this way? Pride and perfection leave less room for God, and perfection can lead us to give the credit to human beings rather than God. Not so the sinner. God uses the weak to shame the strong and their wisdom. God has more space to work a surprising result through the weakness of the human vessel. (1Cor 1:18-31)

Love The Questions

I want to beg you … to be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and to try to love the question themselves like locked rooms and like books that are written in a very foreigh tongue. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer.

Rainer Maria Rilke

Now, I Know We Don't Like Black and White, But ...

We are rightly suspicious of black and white judgmentalism. This is one of the features of the Book of Revelation that is a bit hard to take. But let's not be too hasty. People who end up at the upper extreme of the black index don't begin there. They start way back somewhere else on the continuum. And they steadily head that way over time. Sin (or virtue) is, after all a habit, and we make ourselves into the people we are through our habits. The black and white of apocalyptic is, at the very least, warning us about the decisions we make today. (Again, part of the helpful urgency embedded in the apocalyptic form.) Do this (or not do it), and the same the next time, and so on, and who will you become? The extremes of human failure often depicted in apocalyptic might appear to be a long way from where we think we stand but, according to apocalyptic, perhaps not so improbable as we would like tothink.

Blame It On Darwin?

A guest post from the Revd Ron Keynes.

It has been an interesting time recently. The big anniversary mention of Charles Darwin and his ‘Origin of Species’ seems to have brought out the worst in some parts of the Church. I was passing a local Baptist Church recently to find a banner about coming sermons, presenting that congregations’s view that evolution is man’s attempt to avoid responsibility ... and God. Perhaps my views on the work of that naturalist of the past is somewhat jaundiced – he married into a somewhat distant line of the Keynes family, would you believe. He married a niece of John Maynard Keynes – (who also demands further attention in these fiscally challenging times)

Most sad of all is the way in which Darwin’s search for truth in his area of discipline had turned into a huge dispute between science and religion. I doubt if the man ever considered that possibility, for I understand that the one-time candidate for Orders continued his support for the (Anglican) South American Missionary Society till his death and did not expect the horrific response from many! Be that as it may, the real issue of his thoughts and theories has tended, in many circles, to become a matter of huge conflict.

One thing that has long struck me in the debate that has gone on far longer than my lifetime is that surely there is no conflict in the two disciplines of life, science and religion. Both, surely, are searches for truth, and what’s more, searches for bases for truth. Evidence, if you like. Both are essential elements to human development, although the latter tends to come in for considerable flak – mostly because (pardon me!) religionists tend to go in for untenable arguments and grounds, particularly if some sacred cows appear to be in danger. Truth is the issue, and always must be, whatever the outcome.

I recall every now and then the experience of a co-theological student of 50 years ago, who refused to attend lectures on the Creation Stories of Genesis because the lecturer refused to bow to that young man’s refusal to understand Scripture biblically. He vowed to remain literal and fundamental, which meant he must still be trying to defend an impossible chronology. In spite of Archbishop Ussher, the world was not finally created on 23rd October, 4004BC.

If you can cope with another story, I recall 35 years or so ago, having been asked by my Bishop to go to Coober Pedy to sort out a pastoral problem. The RFDS was happy to agree to me flying with them so that meant a series of days flying with a not too happy pilot, unsure of the value of having this ‘skypilot’ alongside of him. Suffice to say that the experience became a valuable one. After landing at Cook (SA) on the Transline, Jack, said pilot, told me he thought that we Christians were stupid. I agreed at the possibility of such a charge, and asked about what, precisely, Jack had come to that conclusion. He referred to the matter of the last paragraph, and while I agreed that there remain quite some Christians who still held to that view, also informed him that I understood that Jews, whose Genesis we were talking about, never understood it literally. I went on to explain more fully, and Jack smiled and interrupted. “You’re right, you know!” he expostulated. My response was simply, ‘and how the hell would you know?’ It was his turn to chuckle. “I am a Jew!” he said. It has long been a sadness of mine that from earliest times, it seems that Jews and Christians could never talk together long enough for us to avoid falling into so many understanding (or misunderstanding!) traps of our own making.

Those Genesis tales are far from shaken by Darwin’s theories – but a literal approach to them has long been. What one needs to do is to understand those ancients tales, catch sight of what they are conveying, and see that these is wisdom beyond imaginings in those apparently naive stories. Jews were never interested in what we call ‘science’ – which only comes from a Latin word for ‘knowledge’ after all. Science looks at the ‘how’ of life and this universe, whilst those wise old Jews looked for the ‘why!’

From where I sit, there is no conflict between the two disciplines. But both need to be taken into consideration. Neither offer any escape from reality; both demand that reality be faced. Both require solid hard evidence for their decisions, and in both cases, that may require the presentation of a theory that is then tested and checked ...and possibly even modified.

Neither time nor space permits the expansion here of the outcomes of where this leads. But it will never hurt for Christians to follow the pattern of Old Testament Hebrew understanding of the Creator – which emerged, not from dogma and tenet, but by the simple and powerful business of observing life and relationships and understanding the outcomes. And that was over a very long period of time indeed.

Mark 6:1-13 Travelling Lightly (Kids' Talk)

For this kids' talk have a suitcase and try to fit in too much stuff. Overdo it with too many pants, shirts, books, exercise stuff, shoes, etc. Just way too much.

What should we do? Decide on what we need, and what is the most important.

A couple of ways to go from here:

• how do we decide what is important? Jesus tells us.
• Get them to say what are the most important things we need in our whole life (not just a holiday)
  

The Offense of the Cross

It is too easy to miss the offense of the Jesus story. Especially if it is familiar. In the weekday Eucharist last week we read from Gen 22:1-14, the near-sacrifice of Isaac, and Matt 9:1-8, Jesus healing a man by forgiving his sins. The first reading is offensive. Even though God doesn't let Abraham kill Isaac, Abraham is praised for being willing to do so. Human sacrifice in the Bible is a pagan idolatrous practice. Be offended.

The second reading highlights for us the closeness of Jesus with God. The whole gospel does this right up to the death of Jesus. The cross is the great shock, the offense of the gospel. (1Cor 1:18-25) How could this Jesus, so close to God, given such authority, die the ignoble death of the cross? Sinner? Or perhaps there is no God?

If we know the story we are then tempted to pull the resurrection in. The cross was only temporary and has been reversed by the resurrection. Our faith in God has been restored. (That is, a pre-crucifixion conception of God.) But notice the language of the New Testament in regards the crucifixion of Jesus. It lifts directly the offensive language of Isaac's near sacrifice. Jesus was given up. With the resurrection the first Christians did not wipe away an inexplicable cross as an aberration corrected in resurrection, but embraced it and its odious character, and proclaimed that in this cross salvation was won. And the beginning of a specifically Christian experience and conception of God.

The Will of God

We ask to know the will of God without guessing that God’s will is written into our very beings. (Elizabeth O’Connor)

Receiving The Eucharist Often

If worldly people ask you why you receive Communion so often, tell them that it is to learn to love God ... Tell them that for your part you are imperfect, weak and sick and need to communicate frequently with him who is your perfection, strength, and physician ... Tell them that you receive the Blessed Sacrament often so as to learn how to receive it well, for we hardly do an action well which we do not practise often. (Francis de Sales)

Ron Rolheiser has soemthing good to say about this as well, here.

A Personal Copernican Revolution

I like the history of ideas. There are many ideas that have revolutionised human life. Examples abound: fire, agriculture and animal husbandry, the stirrup, the discovery of the unconscious. But the greatest revolution in thinking is Copernican in nature. Simply, it is the realisation that each of us is not actually the centre of the universe; the rest of the world does not orbit around me, and neither is it merely the background for my life. This is the great spiritual insight that is the antidote to the human propensity toward self-centredness. We need a centrifugal force ultimately to displace us from the centre of our world. Only God is capable of displacing us from the centre of our universe, and only God can carry the responsibility of the centre. The problem for human beings is that we try to fit God into our world, rather than seeing ourselves orbiting God. The Masai people put it well. They say that “to have faith is to be sought out by God. God has searched us out and found us. All the time we think we are the lion. In the end the lion is God.”