Jonah and Self-Righteousness

In a recent message from Inward/Outward Anne Lamott is quoted, "You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." Idolatry and hatred, and idolatry and hatred and self-righteousness work together. Girardian Reflections has some useful comments on tomorrow's readings from the RCL, in particular the thread running through the Jonah story and Jesus' call to repent and believe in the good news.  (Mk 1:15) Jonah, we remember, has fled from the presence of God because he knows God is a God of mercy (4:2) God has relented from judgement against the pagan, idolatrous Nineveh because the Ninevites repented. Jonah's idol is not so merciful. And Jonah would prefer to keep his idol rather than be at the service of the real God. But forced into reluctant service of God's mercy all Jonah can manage is a sulky child's half-hearted effort.

It is interesting to note that Jonah is the one who does not repent by the end of the story; the idolatrous Ninevites do repent. The Book of Jonah is warning us of the idolatry that refuses to allow God's mercy to go where God wishes it to go, and the wilful disobedience that refuses to be a messenger of this mercy. We can read the conflict between Jesus and his opponents in the light of the Book of Jonah. Jesus calls people to repent and believe in the good news of the kingdom, the kingdom of lost sheep, forgiving fathers, good Samaritans, etc. A call to repent of our idolatry that keeps us from embracing the mercy offered to us and spreading the word of that mercy to any who have the ears to listen.

The enemy of faith in the real God has always been idolatry.

Christ the King (Matthew 25:31-46)

Matthew 25:31-46 is a tough passage of scripture. It is one of those passages that haunts us, as someone said to me recently (quoting Brueggeman I think). For those of us who have tried the black and white interpretation of this passage we know more is required than the easy judgement that the text on its own suggests. Integration into a christology that includes the condemned as well as the blessed would be a good start! The black and white interpretation condemns as surely and superficially as any fundamentalist theology is prone to do, and on as slim criteria as well. What is also needed is a deconstruction of the text that allows it to speak its message of transformation and hope.  Happily, I was provided with just such a deconstruction over the week-end in preparation for our celebration of Christ the King. The deconstruction came in the unusual form of the African Bible Study, a method ob bible study that assumes no expert knowledge, but simply trusts that the text of Scripture is alive with meaning for each of us now. Here are a few of the points that irrupted out of the process:

• Judgement proceeds on the basis of not only what each has done but also on what was not done.
• Both groups, sheep and goat, are as surprised as each other that Jesus was present to them in their lives in the unlikely disguise of the hungry, thirsty, etc.
• Sheep and goats in the time of Jesus were virtually indistinguishable to a casual observer. Just as the criterion of judgement was a surprise, so too final membership was a surprise because salvation cannot be anticipated this side of God's judgement.
• The passage called each of us to greater vigilance and action on behalf of the needy and poor.

No one felt the need to condemn themselves or pronounce their salvation in the strict terms of the parable. Likewise no one resiled from the simple judgement that God asks more of us. All the responses looked to God for mercy, for themselves and for the poor.

Not a bad result.

Hypocrisy

If hypocrisy is defined as simply not living up to the ideals one preaches to others, then hypocrisy is not a bad thing. At least it means that I have ideals, even if I fail them.  No wonder the church is open to easy criticism on this account: we do actually believe in something which isn't all that easy to live. However, better this than believing in nothing at all and having no moral compass.

 The question is whether I am aware of my failure to live up to the ideals of the gospel and the ways in which I twist the demands of God to suit myself and exclude or oppress others. If we are aware of the gap between our own lives and the ideals of the gospel, and I let this knowledge seep into how I live and talk to others, this doesn't really deserve the accusation of hypocrisy. We just call it sin, and calls from us repentance and humility.

In today's Gospel reading from Matthew (22:15-22) Jesus accuses the Pharisees of hypocrisy. I thin we would just call it duplicity. The Pharisees pretend sincerity when all along they intend to try and trap Jesus. Jesus sees through them and cleverly slips through the trap while also embarrassing them. (They bring him a coin with a graven pagan image on it.) Although that they are acting in a way that their own faith would prohibit, and do so willingly and without any sense of caution, suggests hypocrisy.

In Matt 23 Jesus again accuses the Pharisees of hypocrisy, and this time we get some explicit content to the accusation. Although in the first few verses of Matt 23 it sounds like Jesus is equating hypocrisy with saying one thing but doing another (23:3-4), Jesus has more in mind. The rest of the chapter is an extended criticism of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees citing example after example. Jesus' criticisms revolve around superficiality, pride or self-congratulation,  and ignorance of the true demands of God (23:13-28), an ignorance (whether from a genuine blind-spot or willfully committed) that prevents others from responding to God.  And, even more sinister, all this can lead to the scapegoating of the those who point out the hypocrisy. (23:29-39; see also 22:33-46)

How do we prevent ourselves from being hypocrites? This is especially important given that we all fail to live up to the gospel and have blind-spots that prevent us from seeing the extent of our failure. A couple of things can help us in this regard.

1. Repentance for both the failures we are aware of and those we remain unaware of. This last is important because it encourages us to remain vigilant for these hidden sins. And repentance leads to humility. (Matt 23:8-12)

2. Remain in living contact with the gospel to allow it to do its inner and outer work on us. Regular, living contact with the gospel is essential. And I think this contact should be both personal (e.g. reading and reflection) as well as public exposure through the community of faith.  In the church I hear the gospel preached and see it lived, as well as meeting examples of failure to live it. All of this might help me learn something about myself and help me break out of my own small circles of self-deception and hypocrisy.

3. Judge as we would wish to be judged. (Matt 7:1-5) Repentance and humility while we are in regular contact with the gospel of grace will help us to judge as we are judged: mercifully, and with caution.  This is perhaps the best way to respond to those who like to make generalizations about 'the church' or 'Christians' or 'churchgoers' or 'priests' and label 'them' as hypocrites. It is tempting to join them in their hypocrisy by pointing out their hypocrisy in making the generalization. Better to judge as we are, and wish to be, judged.

Conversion, Mercy and The Unforgiving Servant

 A popular misconception of conversion and the Christian life, both within the ranks of the church and beyond, is equating conversion with an apparent change from an extreme of self-degradation or violence to a new life opposite to the old. When I was a teenager this was a standard Christian presentation in the public high school I attended. The presenter would tell us about their former life of meaningless violence and drug taking contrasted with the change that came through faith. The heart of Christian conversion was presented in the story. Conversion is a radical change that breaks our former self to bring alive a new person. We are called to glory, and there is no room at the inn for the current distortion of our humanity. We need remaking.

It is tempting for the voice of faith to use a Damascus Road type
example in talking about conversion because of its dramatic quality. It makes a good story. Moreover, the person who has had an overwhelming conversion experience from a former life of dramatic darkness often wishes to share their experience while it is alive and vivid, and before it is taken up into their continuing journey of life-long, and at times patient, change. The drama of their own conversion translates into an urgency for all listeners to hear the gospel. It can be very powerful, despite the obvious ways in which it can be used to manipulate the vulnerable. However, this kind of focus on black-to-white conversion can unwittingly inoculate the listener against faith and conversion. 'But I am not like that!' is the refrain. I felt this as a teenager. There is a little of the Pharisee in Jesus' parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector in this attitude. But more importantly, while this kind of black-to-white conversion story does reflect the heart of conversion (i.e. a radical remaking) it does not reflect where and how most of the work of conversion is undertaken.  The heart of the Christian life is conversion, but the location of the dying and rising of conversion is in the living of it over a long period of time, taking in many changes, dead-ends as well as joys and victories. Conversion is a patient action of a patient God. The focus on an overnight change misses the learning and conversion that must take place for all of us regardless of whether we have a Damascus Road experience. Conversion into a Christian life includes the loss of innocence that comes after the first flush of repentance and conversion, and includes the transformation of the self-righteousness that can follow a major conversion experience. That is, the problem for some who focus on their own or the general need for an overnight conversion is the reticence to grasp fully the need to give up the sense of righteousness that follows it before it becomes an entrenched self-righteousness. It is too easy for the converted  to end up persecutors.

The rejoinder I have heard is the story of St Paul's conversion. He changed from black to white virtually overnight. And it was this that remained the heart of his faith and proclamation for the rest of his life. Certainly, his conversion was central and unforgettable. However, he went to 'Arabia' (Sinai or Syria?) and then went and joined a church for three years after his conversion. There was more to do than just fall off his horse! And if I am reading him correctly, the focus in his theological and pastoral use of his Damascus Road experience is the mercy of God shown to him (as well as the independence of his Christophany from the Jerusalem leadership).

James Alison says that a better way of thinking of conversion is not to focus on the change from black to white, but on the experience and effects of receiving mercy . The converted are merciful. Here is what he says:

By a story of conversion I don't mean one of those accounts of how I was bound by this or that vice, had an overpowering experience, and have now managed to leave it all behind me - though such changes are by no means to be belittled when they happen. However, they are incidents, and not stories. Someone can give up doing something held a vice only to turn into a persecutor of those who lack his same moral fibre. That is not a Christian conversion. The authentic convert always writes a story of his or her discovery of mercy, which means that they learn to create mercy, and not despite, for others. This rule of grammar we find set out in the parable of the servant who was let off all he owed by the King his creditor, but who didn't forgive the tiny debt his colleague had with him. (James Alison)

The Door You Carry With You

I followed up the door sermon with the kids. This time I took them beyond the idea of Jesus as the door into God's house/room by carrying the door with me. So when I went through the door (just a couple of louvre doors I had lying around) I took one of them with me. I made two points:

1. Doors normally stay in place, you leave them behind until you want to exit. With Jesus, I said, you never leave him behind and he isn't the way out.

2. This means that wherever you are, you can enter God's room through Jesus the door.

Do You Really Want God? (Quote)

From Inward/Outward

"Do you really want to live your lives, every moment of your lives in God's Presence? Do you long for God, crave God? Do you sing and dance within yourselves, as you glory in God's love? Have you set yourselves to be God's, and only God's, walking every moment in holy obedience? I know I am talking like an old-time evangelist. But I can't help that, nor dare I restrain myself and get prim and conventional. We have too long been prim and restrained.

 "The fires of the love of God, of our love toward God and God's love toward us, are very hot."Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and soul and mind and strength." Do we really do it? Is love steadfastly directed toward God, in our minds, all day long? Do we live in the steady peace of God, a peace down at the very depths of our souls, where all strain is gone and God is already victor over the world, already victor over our weaknesses?

 "This life, this abiding, enduring peace that never fails, this serene power and unhurried conquest--inward conquest over ourselves, outward conquest over the world--is meant to be ours. It is life that is freed from strain and anxiety and hurry, for something of the Cosmic Patience of God becomes ours." (Thomas Kelly, A Testament of Devotion)

Presence and the Near-Life Experience

The wisdom of the great spiritual writers is that we human beings are too often not present to our own lives. We are in the past or the future, or too tired or distracted, angry or in denial about reality.  I said to the St John's students recently that if they disbelieve me they should try to see how many seconds they can be present to their lives before some thought, feeling or other distraction intrudes. I said if they lasted 7 seconds they would be doing well.

The older we get the harder it becomes to switch from living outside our lives to living in them. We become calcified in our distractedness and the habit of living elsewhere than right now. A near-death experience can shake us up. Sometimes people 'find' God after a near-death experience. It is my experience that the near-death experience shakes us up not only because we could have died, but because we gain a new sense of the beauty, meaning and sheer goodness of  every moment of life. And although this new sense might only be temporary (because to live in the present and break old habits takes spiritual discipline) it remains evidence, I think, of the truth in the original insight itself, we are not present to our own life. And it is not just near-death experiences that lead people to grasp the sheer gift of life, but the process of dying itself. Sometimes people acquire a sense of the goodness and giftedness of life, their own waste of the gift, and can even move into receiving the gift of real livingness in a moment, as they move to death. (Tolstoy's "The Death of Ivan Ilych" is a fictional account of just such a movement.)

There is also a parallel here with the complaint that God is absent in our lives. "I prayed but it didn't make any difference, and I didn't feel God's presence ... I don't think God exists."  Is there perhaps a parallel here with our absence from life? We think that life is dull and boring, or that it will begin when ... or that my life would be great if only such and such hadn't happened...  But what if, as Ron Rolheiser says, the fault of absence, both in terms of our lives and in our sense of God's presence in our lives, is on our side? It is easy to live as though God does not exist just as it is easy to live unaware of the life waiting to be lived!

See also Leunig's cartoon entitled " a Near-Death Experience (see picture above).

Trinity Sermon About Doors

Tony Kelly, in his book, Touching on the Infinite, quotes from a poem by Tomas Transtromer:

"Each man (sic) is a half-open door leading to a room for everyone."

So for a kid's talk I used a couple of old louvre doors from a cupboard. I had a couple of  kids be the hinges so  could open and shut the doors. I had the kids knock, I opened and hey, look, there is the congregation. And the other way around so I opened to the altar. The point was to say people are like doors. Whenever we meet someoneit is sort of like opening a door because there are a lot of people behind them in a big room, including parents, friends, church, school, and others. And Jesus is like that; open him up and hey, look, (using traditional language) there is the Father! (A future kid's talk could push this a bit further with the doors. Jesus is the door to the Father, but unlike doors leading into a room, we take Jesus the door with us. We can't ever discard the door. It will be so strange they will get the point, as will the adults listening. )

The door imagery was a good one to use to talk about the Trinity with the congregation. People seemed to get it. I contrasted the understanding of our humanity as a door with the individualistic 'self-made man'. The human being of the latter is self-contained, leads nowhere, and relationships are either occasionally needed, recreational but never constitutive. (cf. the Arian view that God was not eternally Father with an individualism of sorts at the root of God.)  The door image leads nicely into what it might mean to be a church of a communion rather than a single congregation, and as disciples we are doors to ... well, Jesus, God, church.

Immanence of God's Presence (Quote)

"The importance of the teaching of the Incarnation is that this mystery of God in his eternal creativity is not only brought closer to us but is really united to us. We no longer need to objectify the mystery that has taken up dwelling in our hearts of flesh. We now know that our awakening to his reality is an imminent possibility for each of us because the awakening is an incarnate encounter. The joyfulness to which this feast should recall us is that this awakening is not the result of our own inadequate resources. It is not our own power or wisdom that leads us but his love that is present as the light of the supreme reality in our hearts." (John Main)

Confusion in 'No Religion'

Here is an interesting article by Philip Hughes over on the ABC religion portal. it examines the waning of traditional religion in Australia. All is not as it seems though. 'No religion' might reflect people's inability to decide, to know what to believe, and how to develop a deeper spirituality. Some 'no religion' might be something like a default position for those confused and stuck by inertia.

Here is a quote.
 

"Thus, influenced by the freedom offered by the "post-traditional" culture that has developed in Australia, many people have withdrawn from the Christian faith, sometimes to a more general spirituality, sometimes to "no religion" at all.

"While many people experienced post-traditionalism as giving them freedom, and thus warmly embraced the option to make their own decisions, others found the responsibility of making their own decisions about the basic ways of approaching life and what to believe about life and the world daunting. Indeed, this has been a root cause of much insecurity in Australian culture.

"There is an interesting parallel here with occupations. While every Australian young person values the opportunity to make their own choices about what work they will do, finding the right occupation is often a very long process and causes great insecurity in the process.

"Young people jealously guard their right to make their own decisions about religious faith and spirituality. Yet they do not find those decisions easy. Few feel equipped to think through what is involved. They frequently fall, almost by default, into a non-religious, non-spiritual approach to life that focuses on the here-and-now."

Gratitude is a Way of Living

If I asked you how you feel when you are thankful, what would you say? When I feel thankful I feel happy, I feel confident about life, more trusting and that I could be more generous. I also feel less anxious. And if I asked you how you acted out your thankfulness, what would you say? It is easy to miss the progression from feeling thankful to acting thankfully. The progression from feeling to action is rewarding because it both consolidates and deepens  the feelings associated with thankfulness and leads to the possibility of a thankful life. Imagine living a thankful life! Being happier, more confident, more trusting, more generous and less anxious!!  It could be life changing. And there are lots of spiritual exercises embedded in and practiced within the Christian tradition to help us access this way of living in gratitude. Although be warned, if you pursue a thankful life you will probably end up believing in God, or deepening your faith!

See also this post on love as action, not just feeling.

One Will Be Taken, One Will Be Left (Matt 24:36-44)

When I was taught New Testament it was still the rage to think Jesus was an apocalyptist. And not just that he was an apocalyptist, but that his expectation was that he would be returning shortly in apocalyptic style. Clearly he didn't, so therefore he got that wrong. And the church, perhaps out of out of embarrassment, or maybe to fool everyone for 'its' own self -interest, changed the preaching and expectation of the apocalyptic Jesus into something more palatable for a church that would ride out the storms of history. Sort of like the whole debate about the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. (You know how it goes; Jesus preached the kingdom, the church preached Jesus, etc.) This kind of false duality with its interpretation that saw Jesus as getting it terribly wrong and the church altering his memory to suit itself, is over mostly. Jesus wasn't an apocalyptist, and although he used the language of apocalyptic style at times, his teaching and expectation runs counter to the usual dualities of apocalyptic and subverted it within. More of that later in the week.

Matthew 24:36-44 hasn't figured large in my head for quite a while. Probably the last time I looked at it seriously I thought it was part of the apocalyptic expectation of Jesus that he got wrong. "One will be taken, one will be left." (vv. 40-41) Taken into heaven, right? The fundamentalists love this kind of stuff. But look at the whole passage again. The analogy for the meaning of "taken" and "left" is Noah. (vv. 36-39) Noah was left, not taken. Contrary to the escapist theologies so prevalent amongst us and in us, Jesus in vv. 40-42 is saying the faithful disciple is left, not taken. This raises all sorts of questions like, "Taken where?" Sure. But notice how the usual interpretation of the passage makes it say exactly its opposite! Jesus was not an escapist, and not an apocalyptist.



I, like just about everyone, thought that Matt 24:40-42 meant that people were plucked from earth into heaven.

Love: Feeling and Action

"Is love a feeling?" I asked my Year 7s this question, and they thought love is a feeling. So I asked, "Is love action?" They also thought love is an action. "Can love be both feeling and action?" Yes, they thought love can be both feeling and action. "Can love be feeling without action?" Yes, they thought love can be feeling without action. "Can love be action without feeling?" Ah, that was a lot harder. I think the majority view was that love cannot be action without the feelings associated with love. Perhaps Jesus thinks otherwise though. His counsel is to love our enemies. I take this to mean that we might have warm feelings toward our enemies, or we might not. But without action we cannot love our enemies. As far as I can tell Jesus did not say we will never (or should not) have enemies, but that we should love them. Like most people I find it easier to love those who love me, especially those for whom I have a warmth in my heart. Like most people, I find it difficult to love someone I am in conflict with, or someone who shows no love toward me, and certainly difficult to love an enemy. But I remember that love is primarily action before it is feeling. I might start with my feelings when I consider someone who I am in conflict with, but I know that it is action that will change the circumstances between us, and action need not be ruled by feelings.

Vaticanomics

Benedict XVI: good theology, funny shoes

I can remember being on a church group set the task of making socially orientated statements. You know the groups, that make statements about justice, etc. I have a great deal of sympathy for those who make these kind of statements because most people who do are probably not well enough informed to make the statements they do! However, the cry of the poor and the desire for peace need voice. Anyway, I didn't write anything much in that group, and what I did say was seen to be too conservative. (I think the final straw for my membership of the group was supporting the invasion of Iraq, with some caveats). Here is an interesting article on a possible new engagement between theology and economics via the Pope. It is very interesting, and makes a couple of good points. The most important is, I think, that the church hasn't really turned its mind to the ethics of a social, impersonal system of human interaction the effects of which are often unintended. A system like the market, for example. We are better at more personal relations, or the distortion of what should be more personal into something impersonal. The article is short and worth a read.

I like a lot of what Benedict XVI says, and incidentally, the article mentioned above speaks highly of Caritas in Veritate, in regards the rapprochement between market economics and theology. The author says that many influential business and finance leaders have found it helpful, and not just Roman Catholics.

Noah's Ark

I am doing a series with some students on 'the evil of the human heart'. I will digress into such topics as the banality of evil (compared to the 'sexiness' of evil on TV and video games). I will also do a session on the way the spiritual realm and the material world are interlaced so that we see that drug cartels are the real manifestations of the demonic, just as the legions of Rome were in the time of Jesus. I started the series this week by reading the punch-line of the Noah's Ark story. The story begins with God sending the rain to kill all living creatures because of the evil of the human heart. By the end of the story God has learned that to eradicate evil the simplistic procedure of killing all the 'evil people just doesn't work. Evil cuts through every human heart. The solution to human evil narrated in Scripture is for God to become one of us, with us, suffer and die at the hands of sinners, and be raised.

This guy made a replica ark - some people have too much time on their hands

So God learns, but guess who hasn't learned this most simple of lessons? Yes, that's right, us, humankind. Indeed, that we have not learned this is part of the evil of the human heart, perhaps even its root. (Separating the sinner and persecuting him/her). In the Noah story God learns the lesson. Of course, God didn't actually have to learn the lesson. But that we haven't learned points to our intransigence, or perhaps blindness, and arrogance. 

Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10)

People hated Zacchaeus for good reason. A tax collector had the force of Roman power behind him to confiscate and enslave tax debtors. He was a sinner whose depth of sin is matched by the hatred evoked among the people of Jericho. No wonder the people of Jericho grumbled at the grace displayed by Jesus toward Zacchaeus. When Jesus includes Zacchaeus in the people of God once more ("child of Abraham") he is doing more than forgiving a notorious sinner. He is also challenging the way in which human communities structure themselves around the hatred of sinners. This is also more than challenging self-righteousness, just as it is more than a call for us to love rather than hate. Jesus' inclusion of Zacchaeus is all of these things but it is also a challenge to the way in which human communities need to hate someone. And when you need a scapegoat there is no better candidate than a sinner. Choose the innocent as the scapegoat and the scapegoating might become apparent, even to ourselves. Better to choose a sinner, and use the sin as the (often large admittedly) fig leaf to hide our dumping on the scapegoat any latent anger we hold. Jesus is challenging Jericho to structure itself around inclusion certainly, and if that wasn't enough, just by the act of inclusion he is challenging the scapegoating endemic to human communities. If you doubt the process of scapegoating is at work in our communities just look at the way the newspaper or a politician can whip up hatred for a "sinner(s)". It isn't difficult to name it as manipulation, but there is something there to manipulate though. That kind of crass manipulation is reasonably easy to recognize; not so easy to recognize when we do it ourselves in a situation not pumped up by the media or unscrupulous politician.

Prayer of Abandonment (And a Discipline of Mind)

Four o'clock in the morning, or thereabouts, when I often have to get up and tend a child, is a dangerous time for my discipline of mind. I get back into bed, and generally, having had enough sleep not to fall back to sleep immediately, start thinking. Thinking about what I should have done yesterday, what I have to do today or this week, what so and so said yesterday and what I should have said in response, etc. And it is easy for these thoughts to chain themselves to other events or thoughts, and before I know it I am agitated or worried, with no possibility of getting back to sleep. And worse still, I enter the new day with those thoughts and feelings in the background. This is not uncommon, and can happen to people during the day or night. There is a traditional spiritual practice that provides an antidote. Pray! At 4AM, once I realise that my mind is spiralling out of control, I say to myself, "I surrender", over and over. The trick is to stop thinking about anything else and saying the word without thinking about anything else at all. Don't concentrate on the word too much because the idea is that the word reflects a confidence in God, to whom you are surrendering. When I do this I am asleep within minutes.

It is the clue for the day as well. Experiencing a rise in aggravation of any kind? Thoughts, feelings building a momentum of negativity? Then say the surrender prayer above, or better still, during the day, try this prayer from Charles de Foucauld.

Father,

I abandon myself into your hands; do with me what you will.

Whatever you may do, I thank you:

I am ready for all, I accept all.

Let only your will be done in me, and in all your creatures.

I wish no more than this, O Lord.

Into your hands I commend my soul;

I offer it to you

with all the love of my heart,

for I love you, Lord,

and so need to give myself,

to surrender myself into your hands,

without reserve,

and with boundless confidence,

for you are my Father. Amen.

Hated and Hating (Luke 17:11-19)

Even the oppressed oppress others; the victimized and excluded exclude others. There is always someone else whose exclusion will make us feel better. Hated but also hating. One could imagine that the inner life of this small group of lepers, rather than their leprosy being the great equalizer of former animosities, merely repeated the usual perversions of exclusion. Hated but still hating.

The Samaritan in this reading is unclean for two reasons: ethnicity and leprosy. When he is made whole, is it only his leprosy of which he is healed? No, surely not just his leprosy is gone but also his conformity to the system that makes 'lepers' and 'Samaritans'. The Samaritan comes back to Jesus who is the source of his physical healing and his wholeness as a full human being, united through faith in Jesus with all those entering this new humanity.

Contrast the behaviour of the nine Jews with the Samaritan. They go to be certified clean by the priest; that is, returning to the system of exclusion through an officer of the system (the priest). From the point of view of the system (of ordinary religion) the nine Jewish lepers only required a single cleansing. They were part of the system before they contracted leprosy, and wanted to return to live within the system's confines. It is the Samaritan (he was never part of the system as a Samaritan) who sees that Jesus, by healing him equally with the nine Jews, also offered him liberation from the system itself.

One could be forgiven for thinking that the Samaritan, if he was meant to report to a Jewish or Samaritan priest, didn't bother. He had escaped the boundaries he formerly accepted forced on all of us by the universal human propensity to create boundaries of ex/inclusion. He would still have been hated by many, but no longer hating. His eyes had been opened.

The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)

Here is a tough parable from Jesus. Some doubt it was even spoken by Jesus, but it has that hard edge that sounds like him. However, perhaps those who say that Jesus used an original common story and made his own changes might be right. The use of 'Hades' owes more to Greek mythology; Jesus prefers Gehenna (Matt 5:22; 10:28; Lk 12:5), the pit of refuse perpetually burning outside of Jerusalem in the time of Jesus. Interestingly, in OT times is was the valley where Israel joined itself to the ordinary religions around it and practiced child sacrifice.(2Kings 23:10; Jer 7:31) If Jesus has taken an original story and made changes, then we should be careful not to read too much into the imagery of the 'bosom of Abraham' and 'Hades' as exactly replicating Jesus understanding of the structure of the afterlife. Rather, the our focus might be better directed at the strange inversion of expectations in the plot of the story.

A couple of points to think about:

1. The parable seems to run contrary to all manner of prosperity gospels. The prosperity gospel links earthly fortune to God's favour, which will continue into 'heaven'. In its crassest form the prosperity referred to is wealth, but it can just as easily be converted into moral rectitude, spiritual gifts or faith, etc. My faith is evidence of my salvation in the future, especially if that faith includes healings and other extraordinary experiences! But the parable warns us that earthly circumstances are not a reliable indication of our relationship with God, now or in the future.

2. The prosperity gospel is just one more example of ordinary religion. Ordinary religion (as distinct from from Christian faith), despite any rhetoric to the contrary, bases itself on 'you get what you deserve'. In ordinary religion mercy is absent. Interestingly, in the parable the rich man, who showed no mercy during his life, and perhaps in the original story went to heaven (he deserved it just as he deserved his wealth), cannot be helped by an act of mercy.(16:24) His brothers can save themselves from a similar eternal fate if they repent, that is, seek mercy. (16:30)

3. The problem for the rich man is that he misread what is required of him. His earthly comfort was not an indicator that he was being blessed by God! In his smug trust in his own prosperity he sees no need to seek mercy! So, after death he lives out the god he believed in, the god without mercy, where the scales are weighed and the result permanent. The rich man was found wanting. Perhaps we should prefer the God of mercy!

4. The parable ends with the statement that not even a resurrection will convince some people to repent. (16:31) Exactly. Resurrection without the cross is ordinary religion. Ordinary religion needs a resurrection so that its adherents can make the smug identification between themselves and those deserving of eternal life. But ordinary religion especially needs a resurrection without a crucified-risen messiah.Ordinary religion crucified Jesus.

The parable remains a shocking warning to beware ordinary religion and its prosperity gospel, and jumping from our 'prosperity' to eternal salvation. If we want a 'you get what you deserve' approach from God, then we may well get it. And we might find that we haven't earned what we wanted!!

Forgetting and Forgiveness

Forgiveness is a lot harder than we generally think. Usually, what we forgive, we could have just as easily forgotten. And forgetting in most cases is fine. If someone happens to apologize we can forgive, but we could have just as easily forgotten. But then there are the hurts that we cannot forgive. “I can never forgive …” Well, whatever we might mean by this statement, we are certainly saying that we cannot forget. Forgiveness of a hurtful action that can only be forgiven (rather than forgotten) is hard. And the reason is because real forgiveness is asymmetrical. ‘S/he’ has hurt me, and I am meant to just forgive them? Get real. ‘S/he’ can at least say sorry first, and ‘s/he’ could try to make amends, all of which will start to balance out the asymmetry. But even then, if we have been hurt terribly, maybe not. The asymmetry will most likely remain. We can’t forget; and it seems, we can’t forgive. There are a couple of things we can do at this point though. We can make sure we are remembering the incident correctly by not making it worse than it actually was (remembering rightly). We can also avoid imputing motivations for a wrong doing without hard evidence. It might also help if we ask ourselves questions like, “Have I ever done something similar?” or “Could I imagine doing something similar if my circumstances were different?” None of the above excuses the wrong, but we can cut the wrong back to its true proportion. The asymmetry will remain, but it might not be quite so great. Now comes the hard part. Forgive. This won’t mean forgetting (if we could forget we would have done so before). ‘S/he’ doesn’t deserve to be let off the hook, ‘s/he’ should be for ever sorry, for ever trying to make up for what ‘s/he/ did, shouldn’t ‘s/he’? And right at this point we see clearly the asymmetry and why real forgiveness is hard. Forgiveness is letting all that go without compensation. Like I said at the beginning, forgiveness is a lot harder than we generally think. But it is a lot more liberating than we think too.

The Parable of the Dishonest Manager (Luke 16:1-9)

Like me, have you always wondered about this parable? Why praise a dishonest manager? "Well done for being so dishonestly devious." But what if vs 9 were a Lucan addition? It is vs 9 that skews the interpretation of the parable itself. Without vs 9 the praise of the master becomes explicable, and the parable takes its place as part of the battery of parables he uttered in reference to his ministry of forgiving sins.

The key, I think, is not to let vs 9 make us think that the manager continues to act dishonestly when he writes down the debts owed to his master. He has previously been accused of acting dishonestly. (16:1)  However, maybe in a society of honour, writing down the debts of some of his master's debtors (16:5-7) would bring immense kudos to the master. The master would be seen generally as a generous man, and might even get the best seat in the synagogue! (See Matt 6:2) Those whose debts were remitted aren't aware that the manager is acting without the consent of his master. They think they are receiving the master's generosity. When the master finds out what the manager has done he praises the formerly dishonest manager because he has finally done something worthy of praise!


Isn't this exactly what Jesus did? He remitted the debts of sinners in the name of God. And those forgiven would have spoken highly of the generosity of God. No doubt this compounded the anger and fury of the enemies of Jesus. However, when seen in this light, the parable makes sense and can plausibly be seen as part of the battery of parables Jesus told about forgiveness. (E.g. Luke 15; 18:9-14)

A New Imperialism?

Dr Mouneer Anis

It is hard to know what to make of this. On one level it makes a good deal of sense that Africa, with its burgeoning Christian population and energy, will change Christianity, including the Western Churches. However, as reported it sounds a little too triumphalistic, even imperialistic. The missionary activity of African Churches in other countries will, presumably, be working with the churches in those countries, wouldn't it? Well ... given the actions of some Anglican African dioceses, one could be excused for thinking not. Some might say that it would be poetic justice if the shoe were on the other foot after the centuries of western ecclesial imperialism in Africa. While this is true, it would also be a possible example of the way in which human sin is ingrained across the generations, races and cultures. Original Sin, in other words.

A more nuanced response came from the Archbishop of Canterbury when he says that "God raises up different countries and cultures in different seasons to bear witness to his purpose in a specially marked way, and it may be that this is indeed his will for Africa in the years ahead."

Theologians

St John the Theologian

I remember reading an article by an Australian Anglican (episcopal) theologian saying, essentially, that the theologian should have, if not a preeminent place in the church, a place of superiority in the discussions, debates and directions of the church. The problem is that it sounds elitist, and the rejoinder to the claim by the bishop was that the church, with all its various divisions of labour, should be more like a symphony. This sounds right, but it does seem to me that the life and voice of the theologian is one that needs to be particularly nurtured and listened to in the church. We have always done this, although in these days of user-pay some smaller theological enterprises might come tumbling down to the detriment of the whole church. But why listen to the theologian? If the theologian's voice is not one of superiority, it is one that must be listened to. But why? I think this post from Ben Myers over at Faith and Theology is an excellent answer to the question.

Quintessential Jesus

 We read from Luke 14:1-14 on Sunday. 14:7-11 is not quintessential Jesus. He has taken a piece of sensible, common wisdom available in Proverbs 25:6-7. Show a little modesty is the piece of advice, and Jesus makes a more theological point, perhaps that our self-promotion will not trick God (true, and while not below Jesus to say, it just sounds a bit too safe for him), or more likely a blanket warning about success in the world. "For all who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted." (14:11) That is, the kingdom will bring down thrones and raise up the lowly (Lk 1:51-53; 6:20-26; 16:19-31; 18:9-14) There is a rawness about this saying that we want to blunt, even a little. It seems a little extreme and unfocused, to say the least. This kind of blanket assertion is found elsewhere, and early. (Jas 4:4-10; 1Pet 5:5b-6) Why didn't Jesus just go with the more reasonable, 'You can't fool God by self-promotion? Why tack on the pithy, difficult, blanket epithet?

Before answering that question, let's return to the passage in hand. The parable advising against premature self-promotion is followed by a passage quintessentially Jesus. Invite to your party those who can't repay you, or who no one else would even think of inviting! The excluded, reviled and ignored. Those who occupy a humble place in the world without choice, no matter how inflated their ego. Why?  So that we can find a home in the kingdom, because the kingdom is populated with such as these. This is more than Jesus giving us some advice to show compassion or humility. This is about the way our humanity and the world is structured. We divide, exclude, victimise and persecute. It is built into our structure of being, and the way our societies are structured. Jesus invites us to live differently by seeing the world differently. Not from the point of view of those who 'win' or want to 'win' in such a world, but from the point of view of those who 'lose'.The honoured guest, from the point of view of the kingdom,  is not famous or wealthy.

Which brings us to the beginning of today's reading, Lk 14: 1-6, the man with dropsy (edema). He is the honoured guest, and it is only Jesus who recognises him and acts. That's because Jesus chooses to see the world from the perspective of the humility of the cross. (Phil 2:5-11) The Pharisees, and a reader like me, very easily miss the point.

Returning to the question of why Jesus would make such a blanket statement as "For all who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted." (14:11), it is important to see that Jesus doesn't thinks the kingdom is about moderating the excesses of human behaviour. There is something radically wrong, cutting to the heart of our societies and the way we become who we are as members of this society. We are all implicated, and there is no escape through moderation or some kind of self-realisation that relies on one's own resources. The doctrinal name for this is Original Sin, and I will write a little more about it later in the week.

Getting Our Language Right

This article from Hauerwas is good on the importance of learning to speak Christian. It includes the importance of learning when to stop speaking, and the way in which we have been co-opted in other political and social languages by a need to separate ourselves from extremism. An example of the former is not giving solace to the bereaved by saying of a loved one, "They have gone to a better place." That smells of the immortal soul. And he cites the use of 'God' instead of Jesus as an example of the latter. Using Cavanaugh, Hauerwas mentions the way in which the secular state has smoothed out the differences between different faiths for its own political stabilization and control through the universalism of  the words 'religion' and 'God'.

Benedcit XVI, Truth and Reform

 I'm interested in the way Benedict XVI is pilloried in general, and what a more nuanced view might include. Try this from Tracey Rowland, 'The Triumph of Theologians Over Bureaucrats in the Vatican', from the ABC Religion and Ethics portal. Here are a few quotes:

"The Church is currently faced with the problem that the generation of 1968 is now at the height of its social influence and is busy pushing a militantly secularist ideology. In order to contend with this we need ecclesial leaders who are able to intellectually engage with the ideas of this generation. They can't do this unless they are across the intellectual history of the past couple of centuries, including the Nietzschean claim that Christianity destroyed eros and is a crime against life itself."

"One of the hallmarks of his (Benedict's) interventions in this field (dialogue) is his insistence that truth matters and thus that the idea of making praxis take priority over belief (cf. Kueng's Weltethos or "Global Ethics" project) is a flawed approach. This is a position he takes from his early mentor Romano Guardini. It is also the position taken by Professor John Milbank, friend of Rowan Williams and leader of the Radical Orthodoxy circle of scholars in the UK and by Professor Gavin D'Costa, an advisor to the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue and author of several best-selling works on the subject of dialogue."

"John Milbank argues that the emphasis on justice and liberation one finds in the "praxis solution" glosses over the fact that religions have differed as much over political and social practices as they have over notions of divinity. He also draws attention to the paradox that those who are most vocal about the need for religious pluralism and building a new world order based upon shared ethical practices tend to be basing their stance on Enlightenment values and attitudes, that is, Western liberal values and attitudes, which run counter to their very project of affirming the non-Western 'others'."

"Let's hope that Pope Benedict continues to appoint to high office people who care about ideas and their social effects, rather than deferring to self-regarding pragmatists and professional paper-shuffling schmoozers. Given he spent 25 years working in the Curia he is well placed to know who fits into what category."

The Dark Green God of Christianity

We had an interesting QT (Question Time) at Holy Innocents last Sunday night. Three excellent presenters with some good questions and discussion following. The topic was "Is God a Greenie?" The answer for most people present (and I think for all three presenters) was 'Yes'. The question is what shade of green? I would say that God is dark green, passionately in love with all of God's creation, a creation interdependent in its complexity and evolution. Can Christianity be a dark green religion? Take the following definition of dark green religion:

"Dark green religion, as I have constructed the term, involves the perception that nature is sacred and has intrinsic value, the belief that everything is interconnected and mutually dependent, and a deep feeling of belonging to nature. Often rooted in an evolutionary understanding that all life shares a common ancestor, dark green religion generally leads to a form of kinship ethics that entails ethical responsibilities to all living things. From this stance, all life is, quite literally, related—a belief that leads naturally to empathy for other living things, who, like us, have evolved through what Darwin aptly called the struggle for existence. Such perceptions generally lead people to see more continuities than differences between their own and other species, and this perception generally leads to humility about one’s place in the grand scheme of things." (Bron Taylor, "Civil Earth Religion Versus Religious Nationalism", http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2010/07/30/civil-earth-religion/, accessed 16 August, 2010.) 

 On this definition the answer is definitely yes. In fact the author goes on to say that the new sensitivity to nature and the cosmos and all living things, with a concomitant sense of kinship and interconnectedness is being grafted onto existing religions, but that such grafting is not necessary because dark green religion can stand on its own feet. But can it? Once we start digging a little deeper theologically we start asking questions about how God and the interconnected web of living and non-living matter relate. This is where dark green religion will fall back into one of the pre-existing options of pantheism, monotheism, etc, rather than just be grafted onto one of them. Is God in some way different from us (that is, everything in the material universe), or are God and matter co-extensive? Christianity declines to collapse God into the universe, maintaining the difference between God and creation. Christianity does this so that the relationship between the two can be one of loving union. Undoubtedly dark green religion can be poured into a pantheistic religion, even one that appears new. (However, Taylor says that the dark green sensitivity is mostly going in a secular rather than religious direction.) But that isn't really new. Dark Greenies will choose either a secular path or find their place in one of the well worn theological paths of humanity.

Speaking of the dark green God of Christianity is not grafting something totally new onto a Christianity allegedly devoid of greenery. While the green sensitivities of our current age undoubtedly add much to our understanding, it has also helped us recover the green and green friendly core of Christianity. (For example, the hypostatic union of  human and divine in Jesus and, of course, the resurrection of Jesus. Not to mention the sacramental practice of the church and an absolute ton of the Bible.)

Happiness and Joy Now And In the Future

I recently asked a group of Yr 7s to write a short essay on what makes them happy. I then asked them to read the Matthean or Lucan Beatitudes (including woes). It stirs some questions to say the least, especially when some of Luke's woes end up on their happiness list! The gospel runs counter to the tendency to collapse happiness and joy down to a passing feeling or activities that are a little on the superficial side, and usually individualistic in tone. Jesus reminds us that there are things that are more important than the usual shopping list of 'happiness products'.

Moreover,  Jesus links happiness to a future fulfillment. "Happy are ... those who mourn, for they shall be comforted." (Matt 5:4) Hebrews picks this up in writing about Jesus as the pioneer of our faith: "...  who for the sake of the joy set before him endured the cross ..." (Hebrews 12:2). The little Greek word anti, translated above as  "for the sake of" can also mean "instead of". Both possibilities pick up the relative importance of present joys. "For the sake of" reminds us to look ahead to a greater joy for us all (Hebrews 11:39-40). The latter possible translation reminds us that there are times when the joys of life may need to be eschewed for obedience to God's call. No wonder it comes as the climax to the great honour roll of people of faith!

Hermeneutics: Simultaneously Receiving and Creating Meaning

"...meaning is by nature alive to, and structuring of, the present, something we discover to have preceded us at the same time as we collaborate in its creation." (James Alison, The Joy of Being Wrong, p. 1.)

Individual Rights and the Victim Mechanism

James Alison says that our predilection for individual rights is merely the reverse of the victim mechanism. Instead of the single victim against the righteous group, individual rights pits the righteous individual against (or at least suspicious of) the potentially oppressive many. Here is what he writes:

"In exactly the same way, the modern, 'enlightened' equivalent relies on the same distortion, but from the reverse side: it is the individual who is the sacred good, imbued with inalienable rights and with an inalienable freedom and conscience. The 'many', the social other, are the threatening and dangerous element, who may at any moment fetter 'my' freedom of rights, which are always worked out over against the social other. To be able to claim the high ground of victim status is indispensable for furthering whatever cause 'I' seek to sponsor. In this case, as in the previous, there has been no escape from the founding sacrality of the victim, as indeed there cannot be without a recognition that the victim is exactly the same as the many, and that the difference is produced by a collectively held delusion." (The Joy of Being Wrong, pp. 37-38.)