Charity Begins Where?

You may have noticed that there has been a big flurry of activity online recently about comments Vice President J D Vance made about the prioritisation of compassion for those nearest to us. He goes on to claim that those 'a lot of the far left' - which appears to mean to the Trump administration anyone more moderate than them - have inverted the principle. He claims the 'far left' hate their own and prioritize people from other nations. 

Now clearly that is a piece of political rhetoric, aiming to justify a principle to move more and more to an "America first" policy stance, and to justify ever more stringent action on undocumented people within the USA. What was different with Vance, compared to Trump, is that he attempted a theological justification of his policies.

He drew on the notion of ordo amoris (order of love) from St Augustine to explain and justify the order of priorities he espouses. This notion of ordo amoris is present in City of God Book XV where the ordering of love is related to sin and morality. The love of the wrong things is equivalenced to sin. For example in describing the earthly (for that read fallen and sinful) city Augustine writes:

"And this is the characteristic of the earthly city, that it worships God or gods who may aid it in reigning victoriously and peacefully on earth not through love of doing good, but through lust of rule." (Book XV.7)"

Of course, this has its roots in Scripture, where the love of money is described as the root of all evil (1 Timothy 6:10) and God's law for right living is summarised by Jesus as loving God and loving neighbour (Luke 10:25-28). Orderly love has God and neighbour as its primary focus and disorderly love is devoted to mammon (Matthew. 6:24).

This still begs the question as to whether some people merit love more than others. St Thomas Aquinas explored these question in his Summa Theologica (also knows as Summa Theologiae). Aquinas isn't an easy read, but he explores theological issues by posing and addressing a series of questions. In Summa Theologica Book 2, part 2, question 26 he explores questions which ask should you love A more than B with a series of candidates for A & B.

Aquinas suggests that it is reasonable to have an ordering of priority:

"We must, therefore, say that, even as regards the affection we ought to love one neighbour more than another. The reason is that, since the principle of love is God, and the person who loves, it must needs be that the affection of love increases in proportion to the nearness to one or the other of those principles. For as we stated above, wherever we find a principle, order depends on relation to that principle." (ST II.II.Q26.Article 6)

Aquinas argues that 'greater affection' for those closest to us is an inevitable consequence of everyday life - and is also moral. However, we must note that he doesn't say that it follows that there should be no 'affection' for those who are distant. So whilst a first impression suggests Aquinas is supporting Vance's position, there is a sting in the tail for the Vice-president. If his treatment of the stranger, the alien, the refugee and the migrant is devoid of 'affection' then it ethically falls short, according to Aquinas.

Likewise in Scripture, whilst the love within the family and good neighbourliness within a community are clearly encouraged, there is also a strong strand of teaching pointing to others - respect for the alien, hospitality to all, and care of the vulnerable. For example, widows and orphans get highlighted (e.g. Malachi 3:5, James 1:27). In the teachings of Jesus, we encounter the need to love our enemies and pray for our persecutors (Matthew 5:44)

But what about neighbours? In Luke, immediately after Jesus summarises the law as loving God and loving neighbour, he is asked who should be seen as a neighbour (Luke 10:29). Jesus responds by telling the parable we know as the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37).

For context, we should note that in New Testament time, the relationship between Jews and Samaritans was not good. We know from John's gospel (John 4:9) that a Samaritan woman was astonished that Jesus - a Jew - would ask her for a drink, share a vessel and receive hospitality from her. In Luke 17:11-19, when Jesus heals ten lepers, only one returns to thank him, and Jesus hold him up as a good example. However, he refers to him as a "foreigner" (Luke 17:18) indicating that he was perceived by the community as somehow 'other'.

Taking this into the parable, the Good Samaritan is often read as a story of one person being kind to a man who has been attacked and robbed, when others weren't. Sometimes a point is made about religious hypocrisy, as it is a priest and a Levite who walk by before the Samaritan arrives. What is sometimes missed is how controversial it would have been to make the Samaritan the good guy. Clearly the conclusion Jesus wants the questioner in Luke 10:29 to arrive it is that the Samaritan is the neighbour, and this would have been hard to swallow. We can see it in the closure of the parable, as Jesus asks who was the neighbour in the story (10:36). The response he gets is "the one who showed him mercy" (10:37). It strongly suggests that the man couldn't bring himself to say "the Samaritan". 

What we can be clear about in that story is that Christians can't support a definition of neighbour that is narrow, confined to a small locality, or to an ethnicity or faith allegiance. It is the nature of human relationships that we can't feel the same level of concern for everyone in a universal way that we feel for people who are close to us. However, I think the Scriptures leave us no choice but to see that we have a duty of care to all our neighbours - whether they are close at hand or far away, whether they are citizens of our country or far from their home.

Over the years I have met quite a few people who have said to me "charity begins at home". In a number of situations, I wondered whether home is where it stopped; in a few cases I even wondered whether it even made it to their home. We may well learn charity (Aquinas' affection or the Bible's agape) at home, but the right thing to do is to learn from that specific situation and apply it to our attitudes and understanding of all people.

Yeshua meets John The Baptist

At this point in the season of Advent, the figure of John The Baptist features. The Gospel readings for Advent 2 & 3 both feature him, and although the focus and theme last Sunday should really be on the Prophets, I decided to do something a little different. I again used some material from the work that Debbie had put in towards writing a life of Jesus in the form of a novel "Yeshua"- some written during her illness. As she put it, she wanted to get away from "men in tea-towels" saying "yea, verily" to genuine characters - inspired by how Hilary Mantel had depicted Thomas Cromwell in Wolf Hall. 

Sadly she only got about half-way before she died. I previously read a section out in church back in 2022 and many people valued it. It was strange reading her words out loud again - especially to a room where no-one present ever met her. However, the feedback afterwards suggested that her writing could still bring new insights and inspiration to a familiar gospel story. 

We pick up the action as Yeshua [Jesus] is on his way to meet his cousin, John The Baptist.

Chapter 4 - Baptism

He had never seen the roads so quiet. He knew the road to Jerusalem like the back of his hand, but he had only ever travelled it at festival time, caught up in a crowd of noisy pilgrims. This silent, solitary journey was a new experience.

He was used to time alone, of course, in the workshop; but there was something different about the act of walking; something that focussed the mind and the heart. One step, then another, then another. One landmark reached, then the next. Each day, a day’s journey nearer to whatever it was that was waiting for him.

Once he was in the hill country, he asked anyone he passed if they had news of John, and it wasn’t long before he began to build up a picture. Exactly how long he had been living as a solitary no one was sure, but it was clear he’d been in the wilderness for some time before his first explosive appearance at the palace in Herodium.  Apparently, he’d thrown himself into the path of the royal carriage, and quoted the scriptures at Herod for a full ten minutes, denouncing his adulterous marriage and warning him of the wrath to come. This, while wearing nothing but an animal skin, and shaking his Nazarite locks like a lion tossing his mane. Why Herod had not locked him up on the spot no one knew. The story was that he was terrified.

That was the start of it, and now, it seemed, he was everywhere; intercepting travellers on the desert roads, going from village to village, warning people of the dire state both of the nation and of their own lives. And people were listening. Well, he’d known that anyway, from what Levi had said. But now it was clear that Levi wasn’t exaggerating.  

He seemed to think something momentous was about to happen; something – someone – was coming.

“John? He’s the hope of Israel. Our leaders have sold us down the river to Rome – but John is calling us back. No more collusion! Blessed be the name of the Lord!”

“He’s preparing the way – a new Exodus from the oppressors!”

 “The Lord is on the move!” An old man gripped his wrist, his eyes staring as if he’d seen an angel, or a ghost. “That’s what he said. He has seen him! The time of our occupation will end – and it will end in fire. He has seen it all.” 

“Where will I find him?”

But the old man was muttering to himself, no longer listening.

He was just south of Jericho when, finally, a group knew where he was. Young men – no more than fifteen or sixteen, most of them – running, shouting, reciting psalms. Punching the air.

“Do you know where I’ll find John?” he called out to them.

“The Baptiser? Just keep going. Head towards the river, follow the crowds. Everyone’s out there.”

“He took us through the river – just like Moses.  We’re the new Israel!” Whoops and cheers from the rest of the group.

“No more lies from Herod. The snake!”

“We’re going to bring down the city with fire!” 

“God in heaven,” he thought to himself. “What is he saying to them?”

He was off the main road now, following the well - worn tracks towards the river, through the groves of date palm, out onto the lush green of the flood plain. In less than an hour, the sandy path had turned to mud, churned by the feet of others searching for the preacher everyone was talking about. 

He could hear them before he saw them. A general hubbub at first, echoing around the valley; then one voice, clear and sharp, splitting the air like an axe. 

“Children of Abraham! Do you think your ancestry is going to save you? Clinging to the past saves no one. Look at these stones – do they not have more of a history than any of you? Do you not think God could take them and make a thousand new children for Abraham if he pleased?”

He stopped in his tracks to listen.

“Do you know what we have become, Children of Abraham? We have become stones on the road; debris, litter, blocking the path of the One we say we worship. And do you know what time it is? It’s time to clear the road. It’s time to change. Time to stop talking about who we are, and start living it. Because believe me, there’s a judgement coming. And what I’m doing here is only the start.

You think I’m the one who can save you? Oh no. Think again. There’s one coming after me, and when he comes, you won’t know what’s hit you. All I’m doing is getting you ready for him. I’m washing you with water. When he comes, he’s going to bathe you in fire.

So come on, come into the water now. If you’re ready to confess, to turn yourself around, then come and do it now. Get washed in this water to show that you’re ready. Because the time is now, do you hear me? The time is now.”

Something inside him was moving, breaking open. They were children again, he and John, sitting in the Temple courts; he all questions, John all certainties. Everywhere there were walls, barriers. Keeping Israel pure, John said.  He had kicked the walls and hit the barriers till his hands were sore, but they had not moved, and he had been shamed into silence. 

But now, moving inside him was a spring. Bubbling up under the Temple floor, a trickle first, and then a stream, and it was welling up between the walls, pressing through the cracks, dislodging the stones, forcing a way from court to court until it was flooding every colonnade, washing over every altar. And now it was a river, hurling the rocks that had once been walls down the Temple Mount and out into the desert. 

He began to walk, and then to run, and the great, heaving sob welled up from the depths of him and shuddered through his chest. He struggled for breath. The sob ached in his throat.

The time was now. It had always been now. 

They were gathered just past the place where the river divided. The main branch flowed on down towards the sea; John was standing up to his waist in the stream that filled the wadi. Half the men of Israel seemed to be in the water with him. Yeshua watched them wading towards him, one by one. 

As each one approached him, he reached out and grasped them by the shoulders. Sometimes, there was conversation; sometimes, just his eyes searching their faces. Sometimes, he called out a scripture. Then he looked up, and prayed, and plunged them down into the muddy water, and up they came, gasping like new-borns, spluttering for breath. 

Yeshua left his outer garment and his bundle on the bank, and waded into the stream. His tunic dragged, his sandals filled with water like leaky boats. He made for a boulder, sat, pulled off his sandals and threw them back to the bank. Then he waded on, into the midst of the crowd. So many men. Boys scarcely more than children; old men who needed help to stand. Rich, poor; hard to tell with their garments shed on the river bank. Some praying; some talking; some larking around. Some desperate to be there; some just following the crowd. The river levelled them all. He was jostled and trodden on, his wet skin rubbing theirs, squelching the same mud, splashed by the same gritty water. He watched, and he waited.

And then at last John’s hands were on his shoulders. His arms seemed nothing but bone and skin and sinew, as if everything else had been melted away. Yeshua looked up, and let him stare into his face. The piercing eyes widened, then blinked. It took him a moment to register what he was seeing. Then let go of his shoulders, and nodded. “I knew you would come,” he said. 

He turned away, and began to wade upstream to where the rocks divided the river. Yeshua waded after him. They leant against the rocks, as the flow of the water tried to tug them back towards the crowd.

“This is about you. You know that, don’t you?”

“I know”. And he did know, although he scarcely knew what he was saying.

He wanted to say more, but the words bubbled, broke, spilled unformed into the stream. He lost all sense of how long they had been standing there. John’s face seemed to be unmaking itself, like the face of a dying man.

“Tell me what to do.”

“Baptise me” he said.

A frown. John’s eyes, confused, searching his.

“Am I wrong then?” 

“No.”

“Then I can’t baptise you. I need you to baptise me.”

He watched the clear fresh water foaming over the rocks, sparkling in the sunlight, then immersing itself in the flow, down into the mud and grit, the sweat and the spit and the dirt of his people. 

“It has to be this way. Come with me now.”

He turned towards the wadi and waded down, past the place where John had been standing, right into the midst of the crowd.  People were watching, wondering what was going on, what the Baptiser was going to do next.

“Here”, he said.

And now John’s hands again, on his shoulder, his back, and the relief of letting go was all there was, all he could feel, all he could know, and the voices around him were lost in the overwhelming of the water, and his ears were full of it, a mighty rush like the wind, and then, for a heartbeat, the sound of silence.

He let God look at him.

He was every mother’s delight as she holds her baby, every coral red sunrise over every tranquil bay. He was every flower, every tree; he was the song of every bird. He was the first day of creation, pure and flawless and good. He was what it meant to want nothing and need nothing else. And now, he was a shoot uncoiling, pushing  back up through the water to break the surface, new and yet who he had always been. He took a great gulping breath, and shook the water from his hair. Then he threw back his head, and laughed.

John was a boy again, poised on the threshold of himself, gazing into another world. “What do I do now?” he asked.

Yeshua looked at him, and his heart was filled with such tenderness he could hardly bear it. 

“Get some rest. Eat. Know that you are loved beyond all imagining.” He laid his hand on the skinny arm as gently as if John were a child, an injured bird.

“And then?”

“Keep watching. Wait. I don’t know yet.” 

“Will you stay here?”

He gazed across the wadi; so many people, so much need. He shook his head. “I have to go. The next part, I need to do alone. But I will come. I promise, I will come.” 

What did John see, as he watched him wading back to the bank? A shadow? A trick of the light? A projection of his own exhausted dreams? All of these, perhaps. He only knew that it shone, and hovered, and its presence lingered like the scent of lilies even when it was gone. 

(c) 2016 Debbie Peatman

Parables Are Fiction

OK - I deliberately put it that way in a recent sermon to get people's attention. We have been looking at parables recently, which are often misunderstood - especially when the parable itself is expressed in a way that was designed to be provocative. So it is worthwhile reviewing what a parable actually is:

1. They are fiction, or perhaps less provocatively, they are a construct. When Jesus tells a parable, he isn’t reporting an event; he is telling a story. The characters and situations he describes may well have rung very true with his listeners – as they do today. People may recognise the type of person he’s depicting, but the form of parable we have is a construct. 
2. Jesus uses items and situations that are familiar to his audience – agriculture, keeping flocks, family disputes, a mugging. He features characters such as tax collectors, shepherds and farmers – to convey his point. He may well be drawing on actual events and encounters (what good author doesn't?), but the parable as delivered is not intended to be received as a report.
3. We have little or no back story, and we don't find out what happened next. We are not told whether the jealous brother joined the party at the end of the Prodigal Son account, because the parable is designed to leave the hearer with questions to reflect on.
4. Parables are not intended to be taken literally –  financial debt is used as a way of picturing forgiveness of sins, for example.
5. They often have a sting in the tail designed to leave the audience with something to think about: The parable of the good Samaritan ends with a question as to which person showed the true qualities of a neighbour. Jesus asks this fully aware of the hostility and suspicion between Jews and Samaritans, which is reported elsewhere. It forces a reply “…the one who showed him kindness” which suggests that even saying "the Samaritan" was a bit too much for the respondent. Likewise in the Parable of the Talents, we want to be with the underdog, but it's the man with 1 talent who gets the hard time! It forces us to ask questions as to what is going on and what does it mean.
6. Parables are reported as being delivered in a specific context (although Jesus probably reused material numerous times as he travelled around). There is sometimes a question that leads in, such as who is my neighbour? Sometimes Jesus has an audience in mind, such as the elite turning up their noses at him spending time with people seen as sinners and outcasts.

With all parables, Jesus is not directly reporting an actual event; he is inviting us to imagine a situation, be challenged by it, and let it evoke a response. It is a much more creative method of teaching than we sometimes appreciate, and parables are designed to leave us with more thinking and imagining to do. The real question is how does the telling and hearing of them change us - that is what they were designed for.

Christians and Climate Change

The other day I heard about some Christians who were sceptics about climate change. Not having had a chance to talk to them myself, I am not sure of the grounds for their objections, but I have come across it before and online. As I am teaching a course on ethics at the moment, it led me to wonder why the case for action on climate change isn't compelling for some people - and especially for those who describe themselves as Christians.

At the same time, I have seen plenty of negative comments on social media from the more right-wing accounts (which sometimes purport to represent the views of "Christian" England) about those protesting about climate change. It is also remarkable how often Greta Thunberg triggers white males of about my age into rage and abuse, but that's a different blog post.

If I was taking my students through this issue, we might consider some of the classic approaches to ethical questions and see how they might shed some light on all of this. Here goes.

Most green campaigners put the issue of climate change and global warming at the forefront of their campaigns, headlines and literature. If we don't act now on CO2 emissions, the result will be that the planet warms, the weather will change and it will have catastrophic effects, including sea levels rising, droughts, loss of food supply, habitable land and much more. This is, of course, based on the fact that the earth can sustain our life due to the "greenhouse effect"  - a blanket of CO2 which prevents temperature extremes both high and low. Shifting the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere through human activity will produce devastating results.

At this point we have to say that the overwhelming consensus of science is that this is a correct analysis. The exact outcomes still have some uncertainty, and the resulting weather may be counter-intuitive, such as more rain and even colder weather in some parts of the globe. However, the case has been made over and over again, and is very widely accepted.

So why do some vociferous people reject it and try to seek out the scientists who might wish to cast doubt? One reason might be vested interest, of course. Decisive and effective action will be costly financially and possibly politically too. It also has to be said that there are some Christians with very particular views about the end of the world who don't see this world as worth worrying about, as it will all end soon and not be here, so its material welfare is irrelevant.

However, I think a big factor feeding into climate scepticism is that the arguments for action on climate change are, as we have seen, usually based on predictions of what is going to happen. In ethics, this kind of argument is referred to as a consequentialist approach. This is a way of thinking that decides the right or best course of action, based on the anticipated outcomes from various choices. Put simply you look at option A and B. Option A means X will happen; option B means Y will happen. X and Y are then compared as to which is expected to produce the most happiness / harmony / love  (depending on the version of this approach you are using) and the best anticipated outcome determines the best choice. As you might already suspect, this can lead to some debatable "means to an end" justifications for certain actions or choices. Just think about the reasons for using nuclear weapons in World War 2, which stated that however awful, they were better than the alternatives.

However, in everyday life, we make choices on this basis all of the time - probably without even thinking about it very much. But when it comes to big issues, you can start to see the difficulty. How do we know that the predictions of outcomes are accurate? Life is not a simple mechanical machine, where a force in one place produces a movement or action somewhere else in a predictable and repeatable way. The complexities of human societies, weather systems, economies, etc. mean that such arguments are always open to challenge. And so, social media continues to be full of people convinced that climate change generated by human activity is a hoax or even a conspiracy, whatever the much better-informed scientists say.

However, for me as a Christian, this kind of argument is not the only - or even the most compelling - argument to be concerned for the planet and to be taking action. I believe the scientific case for action on climate change has been completely convincing for years, but that isn't they key point here. Even if the scientists were wrong, Christians should still be deeply concerned about the planet and making choices to conserve, recycle, and consume less. 

The starting point for this is the notion of stewardship. There is a repeated theme throughout the Bible that human beings are not the 'owners' of the earth, but stewards. The resources we have are entrusted into our care. I don't believe the creation accounts in Genesis literally, but they give a sense and definition to the relationship that humanity should have with the rest of the created order. As a poet put it in Psalm 24:1 "The earth is the Lord's and all that is in it". As such we should have a sense of accountability for how creation has been treated at the hands of humanity, and a sense of responsibility to tend and nurture it, irrespective of what the graphs and thermometers say. (The ethics folks might suggest this is a deontological argument - deon is Greek for duty or obligation.)

Using the same kind of argument, Christians also have an obligation to their neighbour. The parable of the Good Samaritan shows Jesus giving the notion of neighbour a much wider definition than people who are like "us" or who are simply in close proximity relationally or socially. Many of our global neighbours are already experiencing climate change in ways we haven't seen first hand in the UK. Protecting the climate will protect some of the poorest and most vulnerable people. It is a sad irony that the very people who fulminate most about migration to the UK are also often those who question climate change or scorn those who protest about it, not realising that lack of action is highly likely to prompt huge migrations of people in future decades. But I'm drifting into consequences there, so I'll move on...

A second strand to consider is the notion of being a consumer. Living in a western society, it is very difficult not to be a large consumer of goods, energy and even food. A tension I have often discussed with Christian friends has been about finding the right balance between continuing to play a constructive part in society (rather than go completely off-grid) and yet somehow challenge the prevailing culture of ever-growing consumption. What are we being shaped into by the trends and expectations of our world if all we live for is to have more stuff? Surely there has to be an aspect of the Christian life which a the very least hankers after something more enduring - what Jesus in the Gospels calls treasure in heaven? I haven't resolved that for myself, but engaging with the question is important, as can help to stop us simply being carried by the tide. (Asking questions like this starts to bring us into an area called virtue ethics - what sort of people do we want to be or become? What choices, practices and lifestyle might continue to express, reinforce and embed that different set of priorities?)

Furthermore, for people with a religious perspective, the extinction of species and the decimation of habitat by human activity should always be a concern. If the diverse beauty and wonder of the universe is a manifestation of divine creativity, then anything that degrades it has to be challenged. It is not only a breach of the responsibility entrusted to us, but it is a kind of denial of the image of that infinitely creative God planted within us. 

I do believe the science - it's actually been around for several decades. I do think that we are on the brink of inflicting irreversible damage to the climate, and I support urgent action to address it here and around the world. But even if I'm wrong on that, there are strong theological and ethical arguments for making choices personally and communally to limit consumption, care for the environment, and make choices that reduce the impact and footprint we leave on the wonderful planet that has been entrusted to us. 

Mark 3:20-35 The Sin Against the Holy Spirit

Written for our weekly Diocesan reflection video. You can watch it on Vimeo here

Mark 3:20-35  (click here to read passage)

Most of us have had an experience where we wondered if a slip of the tongue has spoiled things. A job interview, a tricky meeting, maybe even a first date can all contain that fear of blowing it by saying something wrong.

The gospel reading for this coming Sunday (Mark 3:20-35) has prompted that thought for many Christians over the years. They have been troubled by Jesus’ words that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is an eternal sin and have then lived in fear that they might have blown their salvation by a slip of the tongue. And even if that isn’t your worry, it seems inconsistent with the rest of the teaching of Jesus that something might be unforgiveable. So, what is going on, and what did he mean?

First, this is addressed to scribes from Jerusalem, who are persisting in saying that Jesus’ words and actions come from an unclean spirit within him (3:22,30. In the Greek, the verb "say" is in the imperfect "were saying", suggesting persistence.). As scholars, they knew the scriptures better than anyone, and yet they had been persistently saying he was inspired by evil. We therefore need to understand this apparent harshness in that context. After all, we know that Jesus’ family were worried, and the crowd said he had gone mad, but only the scribes get this reproach. And even then, Jesus doesn’t directly state that they have already committed this terrible sin.

We also forget that Jesus sometimes speaks like one of the prophets of the Old Testament. Those prophets of old often seem to be foretelling doom and destruction, and yet the fulfilment of their prophecies aren’t always seen through those apparent predictions coming to pass. This is best illustrated in the story of Jonah, who reluctantly ends up in Nineveh to predict the demise of the city (Jonah 3:3-5), but they change their ways and the destruction doesn’t happen – much to Jonah’s disappointment (4:1-3). His prophecy was fulfilled, not by a prediction coming true, but by producing change in the hearts of the citizens of Nineveh.

I think we need to see Jesus’ words in that way here. I believe he is seeking change in the scribes – here his harshest critics - by confronting them in the role of a prophet.

Therefore, we need to turn this passage round. Rather than see it as a limitation, or a catch-clause in a kind of divine contract, we need to look at it differently and more positively. This is really about how difficult it is to escape the reach of God’s grace.

God’s grace, his love, his forgiveness, and his offer of reconciliation are available to everyone, always. In Jesus, that offer is made in person. The text indicates that the only way to place yourself beyond the reach of that infinite and inclusive offer would be to consciously, wilfully and persistently identify that offer with something evil to the very end. Only that can be described - in Jesus’ words – as eternal sin. This is not about a slip of the tongue, or a bad day at the office, or even a difficult spell that we all have in our lives; it is about being completely and permanently closed to receiving anything of the light, love, grace, forgiveness and reconciliation of God represented in Jesus.

A good panel at a job interview do not judge on one comment in isolation from everything else they know about you; they look at the whole picture. A relationship with real potential doesn’t crash with one wrong comment on a date – it works at it to understand. Likewise, our relationship with God doesn’t hinge on a slip of the tongue, a moment of doubt, a mistake in life.

I’ll conclude with some wisdom from Charles Cranfield, who wrote a classic commentary on Mark’s gospel:

“It is a matter of great importance pastorally that we can say with absolute confidence to anyone who is overwhelmed by the fear that they have committed this sin, that the fact they are so troubled by it is itself a sure proof that they have not committed it.” 

Reflection for the Monday of Holy Week 2021: Will the poor always be with us?

 

Monday of Holy Week 2021        John 12:1-11

Six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany, the home of Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. ²There they gave a dinner for him. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those at the table with him. ³Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus’ feet, and wiped them with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. ⁴But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said, ⁵‘Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?’ ⁶(He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.) ⁷Jesus said, ‘Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial. ⁸You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.’

⁹ When the great crowd of the Jews learned that he was there, they came not only because of Jesus but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. ¹⁰So the chief priests planned to put Lazarus to death as well, ¹¹since it was on account of him that many of the Jews were deserting and were believing in Jesus. (NRSV)

 “You always have the poor with you” says Jesus to Judas in response to his complaint about the extravagance of Mary’s perfume being used to anoint his feet. Some people have suggested Jesus is being complacent about poverty. There’s even a song called Stand Up for Judas by Leon Rosselson and Roy Bailey that suggests he had the right idea. A lot of Christians would find that idea offensive, but more importantly than my feelings; it completely misses the point of this passage.

The scene is the home of Mary, Martha and Lazarus who we know are friends of Jesus. They are close friends, such that Jesus is recorded as weeping when he hears that Lazarus has died and then famously raises him from the dead. And the authorities clearly thought Lazarus was close to Jesus, as they planned to execute him – as if he hadn’t been through enough already. In this home setting, Mary gives this precious perfume to Jesus. It is hers to give, and she does it out of love and devotion to her friend. Perhaps there is also a suggestion of worship here too. The key point is that that the gift isn’t Judas’s to give – he wants to exercise control over something that isn’t his, and suppress the generosity of one friend to another. And, according to John, it was all hypocrisy anyway, as he had his fingers in the till. He was syphoning off funds for himself.

But there is also a problem with Jesus’ answer: “The poor are always with you” Is that how things have to be? Is Jesus saying we should be resigned to that? For example, there’s a verse we no longer sing in All Things Bright and Beautiful:

“The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them, high and lowly,
And ordered their estate.”      Mrs Cecil Frances Alexander (1818-1895)

That suggests our social standing is ordained by God; we should be content with it.

No. In fact Jesus is quoting from the Old Testament – from Deuteronomy, one of the books of the Law:

 “There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be open-handed towards your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land”.  (Deut 15:11)

It is a command to be open-handed, generous in spirit and in action. It is not suggesting complacency at poverty, but a communal obligation to be open-handed and not tight-fisted in the face of a poor neighbour. This was not just a plea for action by charitably minded individuals – it was the sacred law of an entire community, it was to be the culture of a community, and Jesus reminds them of it.

Why? Why at this point. Well, Jesus is moving towards a very different act of generosity at the end of the week. He will give himself up to arrest, a rigged trial, cruelty and abuse, and finally a terrible execution on the cross. He will do it voluntarily, because he knows that the gift of his life is the way God’s love and reconciliation is to be manifested in the world. He will absorb rejection, hate, spite, and even death in the belief that ultimately love can triumph over it all. Offering up his life for the world will be an immeasurable act of generosity, and so he affirms someone else pouring out their most precious gift for him and asks for that spirit to be manifested here with his friends to all.

So, I won’t stand up for Judas here, although we will come back to him later in the week. He didn’t understand what was going on here. And Jesus isn’t calling for the status quo to be maintained; far from it. Instead, he calls for a world where everyone is open-handed, where generosity is the hallmark of everyone’s thoughts, aspirations and action. That’s what the church – the community that claims to follow him – ought to be like. 

I wonder what holds us back?

 

Musing on orthodoxy

A long time ago in another universe (actually Dec 2006), I blogged about a letter signed by some church leaders of an evangelical persuasion relating to homosexuality and the standpoint Christians should adopt. I'd rephrase it now, but it made the point.

If you didn't click the link, I questioned the use of the term "orthodox" to describe a conservative ethical standpoint with regard to homosexual relationships. My point was that orthodoxy has historically been used to describe agreement with the historic Christian creeds - especially their definition of the Trinity and of how Jesus was human and divine - the Incarnation. In contrast, ethical issues have been matters of debate throughout the history of the church, and a key current debate centres around how we should understand same-sex relationships. Ironically, at the New Wine conference in the summer of 2006, I had noted that the speaker had talked about Jesus in terms that (at best) were perilously close to adoptionism without any comparable furore about a lack of orthodoxy.

Now there's an important note to make here. Ethics is related to theology, and theology has ethical consequences. The distinction is not as sharp as my opening gambit might suggest. However, it is indisputable that Christians have differed on a variety of pretty important ethical issues without necessarily resorting to labelling each other heretics / unorthodox.

Take, for example, the question of the use of force. Pacifists would argue from Biblical texts such as the prohibitions to kill in the ten commandments (Ex 20:13, Deut 5:17) and Jesus' injunctions to turn the other cheek and love our enemies (Matthew 5:39,44). Others would draw on other texts to assert that military service is accepted (e.g. no criticism is offered in Mt 8:9, and soldier is used as an image in 2 Tim 2:3-4) It is deduced from other principles that defending the innocent and order of the state is a common good. There is a long track record of Christians concluding that where necessary, the use of force and taking of life can be justified. This was developed into what is often called just war theory. 

My question is this: would we refer to someone on one side of the argument or the other as a heretic? Each is considering Scripture very carefully and thoughtfully, but they have drawn different conclusions.

Some would say to me that this issue is different from questions of sexuality. They would assert that the clear view of Scripture is that same-sex relationships are a no-go area, and those who say they could be are just swayed by the times. It's worth noting that early Christians were essentially pacifists until Constantine took power, but as emperors, kings (and later presidents!) claimed Christian faith, the use of force became not only accepted, but even actively encouraged. There is a case for saying that politics and power had a role in changing that ethical standpoint too.

Whether you're a pacifist or not, or whether you are socially conservative or liberal, I have a simple plea. There are people on both sides of these debates who are sincere, thoughtful, conscientious people trying to discern the will of God. All kinds of factors bear down on all of us to read our Bibles with some degree of selectivity. We set aside some texts, because we see principles from other texts as overriding them. Why else do some Christians allow divorcees to remarry, why don't we sell all our possessions, and why do we allow women to lead - let alone preach in church? The answer is that we bring other factors to bear to set those commands and prohibitions aside - the context of the passage in the wider text, the people it was written for, the issue it was addressing and so on. It's all about the delicate and complex art of interpretation or hermeneutics.

So by all means disagree over same-sex relationships, just as Christians have disagreed over other matters - including life and death for centuries. My plea is simply that we should avoid describing those with whom we disagree as unorthodox or heretical. To do so is to make a claim of authority that I, for one, am not prepared to own.

Gove and the King James Bible

The title page to the 1611 first edition of the Authorized Version Bible. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I have been neglecting my blog, so am a bit late to the party on this story. However, I've just had the chance to take a look at the copy of the Authorised Version (aka AV or King James Bible) which has been placed in schools by Michael Gove. Oddly supported by Richard Dawkins and funded by philanthropists, the £370,000 plan has put a reprint of a 1611 version in every English school. You can even buy your own on Amazon.
The edition used (details can be viewed here) has the original spellings and typeface, as well as the original misprints. As a result, the phrase"love of Christ" looks like "loue of Chrift".

I am entirely convinced by the case for ensuring that school students encounter the literature that shaped our language. Shakespeare, the Authorized Version and even the Book of Common Prayer have all done so. However, I wonder what lasting value it will really have in primary schools, where children are still learning to read and to spell. If about 1 in 6 adults struggle to read, how many 8 year olds are going to manage early 17th century English? I suspect it will sit on many shelves largely undisturbed, apart from an occasional perusal by a curious teacher.

My main problem with this whole endeavour is that it reinforces the idea that the Bible is a museum piece frozen in time, and that somehow nothing has happened since. It may even give the impression that the AV is the 'original' or even 'proper' Bible. In fact it has predecessors in English, and was translated around 1500 years after the last of the documents it contains were written. Yet despite all the historical, literary and even ethical problems it presents, the Bible is still a living document for the Christian community. I'm not sure Mr Gove has done us any favours there.

A second more practical observation is that the edition distributed is printed in... China. It's a pity that celebrating such a national achievement couldn't even have given a UK-based printer the work.

Related articles

• Gove defends his £370,000 plan to give King James Bible to every school (yorkshirepost.co.uk)
• Michael Gove defends £370,000 plan to send Bibles to schools (guardian.co.uk)
• Dawkins backs school Bible plan (bbc.co.uk)
• Richard Dawkins the arch-atheist backs Michael Gove's free Bible plan (guardian.co.uk)

Don't get too excited

The recent news about the speed of light being possibly exceeded by neutrinos is bound to set off lots of silly speculation. If I remember the little bit of the theory of special relativity that I ever learned, an object's mass moves to infinity as the speed of light is approached, and ever-increasing amounts of energy are required. I think time slows down too. So you wonder how light ever gets there - those photons know a thing or two.

One line of argument that religious fundamentalists use is that all science is unproven theory - hence evolution is only an unproven theory, alongside (they would allege) creationism, which they find altogether more convincing. I suspect we'll see people suggesting that if the speed of light (or the constant, "c") isn't what science thought it was, then how can we believe archaeology and carbon dating. Well, I guess it needs some honesty on both sides.

Of course all scientific understanding is based on ideas developed from experiments, which have been refined (and on occasion overthrown) by new data or results. However, that doesn't mean all scientific results are wildly removed from the truth; they may correct, they may just be 0.001% out, or the error may be larger. So the scientific establishment always has to have some degree of humility and openness, although it's usually broadly correct. Otherwise the technology on which we all depend would be completely unavailable, (instead of a little erratic).

But the religious who are anti-scientific have to ask themselves why they are so keen to discredit those who work so hard to understand the universe we live in. There is a strong Christian tradition of exploring and scientific investigation, which saw that endeavour as godly activity. So when science first challenged what appeared to be the Bible's chronology, the obvious thing to do was ask whether we were reading the Bible correctly, or were we asking it to yield data it was never intended to impart?

In a sense the same question is relevant to the scientific method. When scientists become obsessed with a result, they can 'read' the material world in a way that suits their purpose - personal pride has been known to taint objectivity even in a laboratory. We may have to review how constant the speed of light is, or it may be folks at CERN making mistakes or even someone wanting a headline. There may not be as much dark matter as they used to think, either.

Whatever the consensus that emerges, I hope that Christians and others with religious faith don't start to see it as some sort of 'victory' over science, because it isn't. This is an exciting moment. Science may have made an important discovery that affects how we understand the Universe, and if that is a better understanding, then we are all winners.

Ranting Repent

Yesterday morning, I really enjoyed preaching about John the Baptist from Matthew 3. There's plenty about John that's disturbing -  not least his choice of clothes and food. Most people's mental picture is probably of someone slightly deranged, or perhaps someone rather like the ranting kind of street evangelist that you cross the road to avoid.

But I think it's not doing John justice to dismiss him that easily. He's not a finger-pointer, wanting to highlight faults, dish out condemnation and generally make people feel worse about themselves. He's a man on a mission, and a very single-minded man.

The clue is in the text itself. All the condemnation language is aimed squarely at the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Although the two groupings were at odds with each other, they both represented religious and moral pride. John blasts them about depending on their heritage to make claims upon God, rather than living lives which bore fruit fit in keeping with someone living a life changed by God.

For everyone else, John gives a call to repent. Repent is one of those words which has been much misused and maligned. The Greek word for repentance, metanoia, means change of mind, or change of thinking. It's about turning, changing direction. For me, that's an incredibly hopeful and positive concept. Change is possible. This isn't "the end of the world is nigh, and everybody is going to die" of the street ranter; this is good news that the kingdom is near and it's changing the world.

Christian apps

A few months ago I spent some money I'd been given in lieu of a birthday present on an iPod Touch (16Gb by the way) It now serves as my diary, address book, to do list, Bible, and if I've got a Wifi connection I can check email, Facebook, Twitter, news headlines, etc. Nothing especially novel there I hear you say. In fact, I can now see why people get iPhones, given the extra flexibility it gives of not having to be near a Wifi connection.

However, here are three useful apps I have found, relating to my work as a minister.

Biblereader from http://www.olivetree.com/ Back in my Palm using days, I used this, but the iPod/iPhone implementation works really well. You can even display the same text in parallel versions, Greek, Hebrew, the lot. Reader is free, as are a number of non-copyright texts, and you simply pay for the other versions you require.

Methodist. Yes, I know I'm an Anglican, but it's a good and free app. News, thought and prayer for the day, Bible studies, podcasts and more.

My Diocese. An app which gives news from various dioceses of the Church of England, daily prayers and readings, information about the church, and you can locate your local churches. Not all Dicoeses (including mine) involved yet, but hopefully will develop into a comprehensive resource in the future. Well done Guildford Diocese for getting this off the ground.

Also a big thank-you to Simon Kershaw for his work in making PDA lectionaries you can load into Outlook and iCal. Synched to my iPod Touch, that means I always have the readings of the day and the Sunday and festival collects without even needing a book.

Any other suggestions out there?

Lent Blog 7: An encounter with Calvin

Image via Wikipedia

Travelling up and down the M6 yesterday, I had two very different experiences of listening to the radio. The first was In Our Time on Radio 4. The subject was John Calvin, which might not inspire many people immediately. In fact it was fascinating. As a student chaplain I came across a number of people very committed to the understanding of Christianity upheld by UCCF, the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship. This is an umbrella organisation for many of the Christian Unions in Higher Education and its Doctrinal Basis owes a lot to Calvinist theology. The programme was a very helpful introduction to this tradition within Christianity, and helped to explain why Christians of the background act and speak in the way that they do. If you're quick, you can catch it here, or download the podcast.

One theme that struck me was that although Calvin and his allies were keen to put the Bible in people's hands - hence the Geneva Bible - the Bible came with comprehensive notes as to how it should be read. In other words, he replaced one form of church authority with another. In some Christian circles today, people describe their views/policies/structures/ethics as 'Biblical' to contrast them with 'human' views. Some (but not all) who come from this Calvinist/Reformed tradition can portray themselves as the carriers of the unpolluted message and be very suspicious of those who do not sign up to the same methodology.

In fact, of course, any 'Biblical' view is not simply an unblemished and unfiltered reading of Scripture with no presuppositions; it is affected by a whole set of theological assumptions. Maybe we all need to be a bit more humble and a bit more modest about our grasp on truth. It's not that I don't believe it; it's just rather hard to filter out from our own prejudices and preferences.

Lent Blog 5: Unexpected Bible Readers

Image via Wikipedia

At last I have caught up, and this is blog post 5 on the 5th day of Lent (omitting Sundays as you do). In fact, I'm writing this in advance, so it will appear to be posted at 7am tomorrow!

The 2011 Trust website has announced a new project as part of its celebrations of 400 years of the Authorised Version of the Bible (or King James Version as it is often known). The idea is to broaden the appreciation of the AV from those with Christian faith to those who appreciate its literary style, and the huge influence it has had on forming the English language.

No surprises with some of the line-up: Andrew Motion, Patricia Routledge, even John Bercow. The eye-catching name in the list is Richard Dawkins. He chooses a passage from Song of Songs. It's just interesting that he was prepared to be associated with the project at all.

Take a look on the 2011 Trust website.

Related articles by Zemanta

• 400 years of the Authorized Version (mikepeat.blogspot.com)

400 years of the Authorized Version

On May 2, 2011 it will be 400 years since the Authorized Version (often referred to as the King James Version) of the Bible was first published. To mark this, you can even get a widget to add to blogs and websites to give you a countdown to the anniversary. An odd juxtaposition of high tech and heritage.

The AV wasn't the first translation of the Bible into the common tongue of people living in England (calling it English might be a bit misleading!) Parts of the Bible had been translated into vernacular going back to the time of the Venerable Bede, and the first full translation into English was completed by Wyclif in the 14th century. The first printed Bible in English was the Coverdale Bible of 1535, which in turn drew on Tyndale's earlier translation work. In fact Tyndale's Bible is regarded as the main foundation for what became known as the AV.

What distinguishes the AV is that it not only had official sanction (earlier versions had also received that), it was the widespread acceptance as the definitive translation of its era. Along with the Book of Common Prayer and the plays of Shakespeare, it shaped the English language, and gave us many phrases that continue to be used to this day. It also shaped the style and form of English used in subsequent translations, such as the Revised Standard Version and New International Version.

More recent translations have access to older manuscripts and greater scope of scholarship, and are certainly more understandable for the modern-day reader in English. However, even if you regard it as a piece of English literature and no more, it has to be acknowledged that it is a tremendous piece of work.

Read more about the celebrations here http://www.2011trust.org/

Authority of the Bible: official views

Every now and then I do a post on this subject, as it's one that comes up regularly at University and also affects many contemporary debates, such as that going on in the Episcopal church of the USA at the moment at their General Convention.

I thought it might be interesting to look up the 'official' view of a number of churches to see what they actually said.

Church of England

Article VI of the 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Methodist
following from a Methodist catechism

The Bible is the record of God's self revelation, supremely in Jesus Christ , and is a means through which he still reveals himself, by the Holy Spirit.

Methodist Church of Great Britain website

Baptist Union
taken from the "What is a Baptist?" area.

The Bible is described as the 'Word of God' because Baptists believe that its writers were inspired by God's Spirit. As such, it has authority to guide both what we believe and how we live our lives.

and
That our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, is the sole and absolute authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and that each Church has liberty, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to interpret and administer His laws.

taken from Baptist Union Website

Evangelical Alliance

Interesting this one, as this is the umbrella organisation for Churches, missionary societies, etc which hold the Bible as their supreme authority. They have a basis of faith, which constituent organisations sign up to. Item 3 is:

The divine inspiration and supreme authority of the Old and New Testament Scriptures, which are the written Word of God—fully trustworthy for faith and conduct.

I found it interesting that none of the above used the controversial words 'infallible' or 'inerrant' in their definitions. Increasingly people from the conservative wing of Christianity are talking about 'orthodox' and 'mainstream' using terms like these, when in fact they haven't been the normative Christian standpoint at all; in fact they are a relatively recent doctrinal development in the way they are understood in contemporary theology.

What makes a meeting?

Earlier on, I was thinking about some exchanges between students relating to the content of Christian meetings. The issue in question was about the relative value of gatherings which focus on prayer and worship, rather than on preaching and teaching. The obvious answer is that a healthy 'diet' should include both, but it revealed the difference between 'conservative' and 'charismatic' evangelical approaches. For one, the decisive encounter with God is with the preached word, whereas for the other, it may be in the preached word, but also in prayer or in a specific prompt from the Holy Spirit. [This all ignores the fact that if everyone is involved in a local church as well, then student meetings are 'extras' anyway]

It echoed for me the different attitudes people have when they have been to a meeting of a committee or working group. For some people a good meeting = a good chat round the table; for others it can only be good if decision are made, tasks allocated and a schedule set. The truth is that different temperament types thrive on different kinds of interaction, and we all need both to keep us human.

I can't help wondering whether the apparent theological preferences relating to christian meetings are more about personality type than about theology. All too often we tend to dress one thing up as the other.

Authority of the Bible, but which text?

I blogged on this a little while back, and thought it was time to explore a couple of questions a bit more. After Easter the set Bible readings for the Church of England follow the account of Jesus rising from the dead and appearing to his disciples. Quite apart from the step of faith required to believe that at all, this has a few problems.

Mark's Gospel (usually seen as the earliest) ends abruptly at Mark 16:8 in the earliest Greek manuscripts available: "and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid". Not exactly the ending you would want at the climax of the greatest story ever told! Later manuscripts have verses 9-20 or another ending that include other appearances and summarize stories found in the other Gospels. The interesting thing is that some evangelical Christians quote the later verses as if they had the same authority as the rest of the Gospel. But, of course, if you have an inerrancy/infallibility view of Scripture, this passage can't be included. On the best evidence available, it isn't Scripture "as originally given"; it is New Testament apocrypha

Or take John 5:1-9, where a man is healed at the pool of Bethesda/Bethzatha. The earliest Greek copies omit verse 4, which refers to the story that when the pool water is disturbed, it is an angel doing it, and that is the moment to enter the water for healing. What seems clear is that verse 4 is a footnote added later to clarify what the man says in verse 7. In later versions, it got incorporated into the main text, although most modern translations make it a footnote. For people with very scrupulous views about Scripture, the status of this verse becomes problematic.

There are plenty more. The one I was studying recently is the fact that the story of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 didn't originally have Acts 8:37. The New Revised Standard Version footnote states Other ancient authorities add all or most of this, [And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he replied, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

The original story simply has the eunuch saying what is to prevent him from being baptized, and Philip does it. The extra later verse inserts a credal statement that presumably reflects the practice of the early Christians. Someone obviously wanted baptism to be seen to require some greater understanding than the original text implies.

The boundaries of the 'canon' of Scripture are, in reality, a bit more messy than we often like to portray, and so it seems to me that an excessive emphasis on inerrancy of the Bible runs into problems the moment you start taking the text itself seriously.

Catalogue Review

Album listed in latest catalogue from Christian bookshop: Hip Hope 2009. Don't do this to me!

Plenty of Bibles on special offer and surprisingly few books with titles along the lines of "Jesus can fix _______ in your life". I do believe Jesus can help people with all kinds of issues and problems; I'm just not convinced it's always as simple as some of these book titles imply.

Couple of conservative evangelical books with truth/teaching in the title and book on Romans in the same section - think I can guess the line they will take.

Glad to see the book on Darwin doesn't appear to be "only godless pagans believe in evolution" but was disappointed there were no items by Stormie Omartian, which has to be the best author name ever found on a Christian book.

Lamentation

I caught up with a podcast from Rob Bell's Church - Mars Hill. Through Lent, they are going through the book of Lamentations. Nice quote while describing the relentlessly bleak first chapter and its lack of solution or happy ending: "I have Depeche Mode albums; I don't need this".

To do justice to the address, he goes on to emphasise the importance of lament - expressing anger, despair and distress without someone stepping in with an instant happiness solution that just doesn't tally. Interesting theory that rap might be lament for young African-American teenagers in the US.

Learning to lament 03.01.09 (american for 1st March) is the file.

Infallibility 2

Thanks to Bishop Alan's blog for reminding us that Darwin was far from the first to suggest that the early chapters of Genesis should not be taken literally. He points out that Origen (185-254) suggested a figurative meaning in his writings, as did other ancient writers, preferring that over a literal historical account.

Will blog more soon - I'm missing it!