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.