Notes for Reflection

November 30             NOTES FOR REFLECTION             First Sunday of Advent

Texts:  Isaiah 64:1-9; 1 Corinthians 1: 3-9; Mark 13:24-37

Theme:  There are some old chestnuts to mark the start of another liturgical year.  "Tell Me the Old, Old Story", is one that comes to mind; another is "Here We Go Again"; but both seem to me to have rather negative overtones.  Something more positive might be "A New Beginning" or "A Fresh Start".  [In some ways it's a pity that we can't have a bit of a 'closed season' between The Feast of Christ the King and Advent Sunday, to emphasise that we really are starting a new season.]  If we want something a little more specific to this particular Sunday, something like "Watching and Being Watched" might start us off in the right direction.  Or, for fellow Isaiah devotees, what about "Are You Still There"?

Introduction.  A rather disconnected collection of readings this week.  We start this new liturgical year with one of the most poignant lines of Scripture as Isaiah cries out to the Lord, "O that you would tear open the heavens and come down".  He wants God to break his silence, to come out of hiding and to reveal himself.  St Paul seconds the motion, albeit less loudly, with words of encouragement to the new believers at Corinth as they await "the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ", to be understood in the context as referring to the Return (a.k.a. the Second Coming) of Christ at the end of the Age.  St Mark rounds things off with an extract from "The Mini-Apocalypse" in chapter 13, dampening down expectations of Christ's imminent return, while acknowledging that no one (not even Jesus himself) knows when that will be.

Background.  How might we sum up the last year?  What has stuck in your mind out of all the headlines and big issues in our media over the last twelve months?  For me, the answer has got to be Governments and their lackeys behaving badly and getting exposed by whistleblowers and hackers.  And all that has taught me one thing: while everyone likes to be heard, no one wants to be overheard.   And that simple statement now has to be interpreted to include all forms of communication.  Many desire to communicate the most intimate and trivial details of their own lives and the lives of their cats, dogs and other significant others, but are outraged if those communications are "accessed" by unauthorised persons, particularly if they show them up in a bad light.  Perhaps the award for the gall of the year should go to Cameron Slater who lodged a complaint against someone who "stole" material from his computer and used it to reveal exactly what Cameron Slater had been doing to damage anyone to whom he took exception, including accessing their electronic communications.

At the lower end of the scale there was a report of schools being warned that teachers had no right to look at the content on a student's phone, even when that student had been using the phone in the classroom, and was suspected of being involved in cyber-bullying.  In the case in point, the students had been expressly told that they were not to have their phones in use during the class time.  The teacher became aware that two students were posting text messages to each other, and challenged them.  Both insisted that no such nefarious activity had taken place.  The teacher did not believe them, and insisted on seeing for herself.  Now think about that for a moment.  Suppose these students were Neanderthals like me and did what I and my fellow students were doing when we were their age – we passed scribbled notes to each other, didn't we?  And if we were caught and the teacher demanded to see the notes, what then?  Was it ever suggested that such a demand was an outrageous breach of our right to privacy?  Would it be today?

Somehow the focus has shifted from the wrongdoing, to criticism of the exposure of the wrongdoing.  [Think Private Manning, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and, of course, Nicky Hagar.]  Our right to privacy seems to have morphed into a right to do anything we wish to do so long as we do it in private.  And woe betide any sneak who invades our privacy and exposes our wrongdoing.

One of the more interesting courses I took as part of my law studies was one on criminology.  The lecturer began the course with a statement along these lines.  "In this course we will be looking at the reasons why people commit crimes, the incidence of criminal offending, and the penal response to criminal offending.  When we have done all that to comply with the prescribed course, we will address the far more interesting question: why do most of us go through life without ever committing any serious offence, even when it might clearly be in our own best interests to do so?"  He was proved to be quite right: the discussions we had on that question were far more interesting than anything covered in the prescribed course.

Broadly we found ourselves in two camps.  Camp one, the idealists, believed that most of us led broadly crime-free lives because we chose to do so, we were moral people, guided by our well-formed and well-informed consciences.  [Yes, even in the Swinging Sixties there were law students who believed in the essential goodness, if not of human beings in general, at least of themselves.]  Camp Two, the realists, knew that the real answer was that we avoided criminal offending out of a healthy fear of being caught; and I for one felt vindicated when, during a power black-out one ordinary shopping day, a large store was just about emptied by its erstwhile customers before the lights came back on 40 minutes later!

All of which ramblings and muses get me to Isaiah, who continues to surprise.  I like to think that I know my way around Isaiah pretty well – Jeremiah not so much, and Ezekiel hardly at all.  I took it for granted that the case for the prophets could be summed up like this:  God was gracious and kind to his people; they had nevertheless rebelled  against him; God was understandably miffed and turned away from them; and the prophet's role was to call the people back to God and ask God to give them another chance.  But this week's passage (at least as it appears in my NSRV edition) doesn't quite say this.  Both verses 5 and 7 seem to change the sequence of events in a quite significant way.  But you were angry, and we sinned; because you hid yourself we transgressed...  There is no one who calls on your name, or attempts to take hold of you; for you have hidden your face from us, and have delivered us into the hand of our iniquity.

It seems to be an example of the "teacher-out-of-the classroom" syndrome.  What is the point of doing right if God has left us to it?  And conversely, if God has chosen not to pay us any attention, why shouldn't we do what we like?  So I'm wondering if this is what is going on in our increasingly secular society.  Having "got rid of God" (the all-seeing Judge), people are outraged to find that they are now under the scrutiny of the "all-seeing" hacker, whose "judgment" may be more terrible than anything they had previously feared from God.  Could that be why the greatest offence these days is to be "judgmental"?

Already, according to a report in the ODT recently, there is a swing back to the good old, relatively secure, typewriter.  So much easier than living a life that could withstand public scrutiny.  Or acknowledging our faults and accepting the forgiveness of God freely offered through Jesus Christ.

Isaiah 64:1-9.  Isaiah sounds to me like a man of about my age.  His patience is running out, and he's given to bouts of nostalgia.  He remembers the good old days when God did awesome unexpected deeds that left no room for doubt and needed no interpretation.  In those days when God appeared everyone knew where they were, and more importantly, who God was.  But that was all a long time ago; and we all know what the people got up to when Moses left them to it for a few days.  God has been absent, or at least invisible and silent, for a far longer time, with the inevitable result, both among the people of Israel and among her enemies.  It is time for God to re-appear and establish his authority once again.

Taking It Personally.

·        Advent is a good time to review your own spiritual journey.  Can you recall a time when God was more obviously present to you than he is now, perhaps when you first became a Christian?

·        Does Isaiah's opening cry strike a chord with you?  Would you like God to make himself more apparent to you?

·        Do you have any sense that you are being watched or listened to by God?  Is that comforting or alarming for you?  How does the image of God as the Divine Hacker who has access to all your thoughts, words and actions strike you?

·        Looking ahead to another year of hearing and reflecting on the Scriptures, how do you feel at that prospect?  Is it exciting, boring, or somewhere in-between?  Is there some particular part of the story that you would like to go into more deeply this year?

·        What would you like learn, experience, hear, see, realise or understand more clearly this liturgical year?

·        Spend some time in prayer as you bring your thoughts before God and ask for his continued grace, blessing and guidance through this coming year.

1 Corinthians 1:4-9.  This passage is a sort of overture of courtesy before St Paul gets to the first movement, dominated by the percussion section!  (Read verses 10-17 to see what I mean.)  Perhaps the idea is to remind the Corinthians of all the gifts they have received (the grace of God in effect among them and within them), so that they will understand how unworthy their behaviour is.  They have not, of course, gone beyond the tipping-point: God will strengthen them so that they may become blameless.  God is faithful (subtext, in contrast to yourselves).  And St Paul reminds them that they have been called into a spiritual fellowship (subtext, in contrast to a club).

 

Taking It Personally.

 

·        Reflect on God's goodness to you.  In what way have you been enriched in Jesus Christ? 

·        Is your local faith community manifesting all the spiritual gifts?

·        Are you (and are they) waiting "for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ"?

·        Is your local faith community manifestly a spiritual fellowship, or more of a cosy group of pleasant people?

 

Mark 13:24-37.  A strange and difficult passage to end this first week with.  It sounds like one dramatic event, and yet verse 29 suggests a process of some length.  Perhaps the better approach is to take it that it will become more and more apparent as time goes on, and that the sooner we become aware of it and respond to it the better.  There is no escaping the difficulty posed by verse 31 if it is supposed to be understood at all literally.  If Jesus (or perhaps the author of this gospel) really did predict the Return of Christ within the lifetime of those living at that time, then they got it wrong by (so far) close to 2,000 years.  On the other hand, verse 32 seems to rule out anyone knowing when it was going to happen.  For me, it has been happening ever since the resurrection, so that already the signs are all around us, and we should be continually on the lookout to see Christ returning among us more and more until the end of the age.  Keep awake, do not sleep your life away.  I think that's the message we should take from all this.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

·        When do you expect to see Christ: (a) at any moment; (b) when you die; (c) at the end of time; (d) none of the above?

·        Do you truly believe that "he will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end"?

·        Is the idea of some sort of Judgment Day important to you?  How else might the manifest injustices of life on earth be set right?

 

 

Notes for Reflection

November 23                         NOTES FOR REFLECTION

Texts: Ezekiel 34:11-16, 20-24; Ephesians 1:15-23; Matthew 25:31-36

Theme: This Sunday is "The Feast of Christ the King", so there's one very suitable theme.  Alternatively, we might choose to celebrate it as "The Feast of Christ in All Creation", which, to my Teilhardian ears, is the same thing in different words.  (It's also, apparently, Aotearoa Sunday, for those who can't cope with grand visions.)  A little more creative (ha, ha) would be to take any one of many amazing phrases from St Paul on this theme, particularly from Ephesians or Colossians (or Romans 8, come to that).  What about "Christ is All in All"?  To emphasise that this is the Feast Day for summing up the story so far and also for looking ahead, I'm going for "What is the World Coming To?"  (Clue, the answer is a three-letter word beginning with "G" and ending with "D".)

Introduction.  We start this week with Ezekiel; and we might notice immediately the gentler tone after some of the more bloodcurdling stuff we've had recently from Amos and Zephaniah.  Yet the message is the same.  Whether directly or indirectly, God will judge between his sheep – there will be a drafting gate through which some will pass to finer pastures and others will be on the trucks to the works.  Somewhat counter-intuitively for sheep, the test will be how they have behave towards other members of the flock.  Our second lesson is from the wonderful first chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians.  It's impossible to do it justice in a brief summary.  My only suggestion at this point is that if you opt for the "Christ in All Creation" theme it might be an idea to substitute some earlier verses from this chapter, particularly verses 9 and 10.  We finish with what is often referred to as the "Parable of the Sheep and the Goats", although there is nothing in the text to suggest it was taught as a parable.  Rather it seems to be a prophetic passage, warning again of the coming judgment, and somewhat putting St Paul's nerves on edge with its James-like dalliance with a gospel of works.  More about this anon.

Background.  Two seemingly unrelated events have dominated my reflections this week, the first sublime, the second ridiculous.  The first concerns the astonishing achievement of landing a mini-laboratory called Philae on a comet with the rather less catchy name of 67/P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko (if you're into pub quizzes, watch out for that one) after a journey of 10 years on the mother-ship Rosetta (now there's a name with a bit of history!), the meeting between comet and laboratory taking place at some vast distance from earth, while the said comet was cruising at thousands of mph!  If I've got this right, it is believed that comets date from the beginnings of our solar system about 4 billion years ago (don't take my word for it, figures are not my strong point, but it was a long time ago!).  But as I read the press reports on this into my mind came something about the sacramental bread being the supreme symbol of the unity of God and humanity, the Creator of the wheat and the creator of the bread.  Here, at some vast distance from earth, yet only a tiny way into the heavens, the Creator's comet is united with humanity's little lander in a sacrament of awe-inspiring praise and worship.  Christ in all creation indeed!

And now from the supreme to the ridiculous (and there are a lot ruder words that I could use to describe it).  In Fort Lauderdale, Florida a ninety-year-old World War II veteran, named Arnold Abbott, and his two "accomplices", both church pastors, were arrested for giving food to homeless people in a public place.  According to the story in a journal called Mother Jones (don't ask, I have no idea, but Google will find it for you), the arresting officer actually called out to Mr Abbott, "Drop that plate immediately!"  Apparently, Fort Lauderdale is one of over 70 cities and towns in the USA who have made it an offence to feed homeless people in a public place.  (Before we get too excited, we might recall that a similar provision was enacted in New Zealand during the Waterfront Strike in 1951, when it was illegal to give food to striking workers or their families.)  Although the "justification" for such legislation varies from place to place, the general theme is that free food attracts the wrong sort of people to the area and is bad for business: it is usually the local chambers of commerce or equivalents who promote such bans.

Putting these two events together can give rise to all sorts of lines of thought, particularly with today's readings in mind, and again the language of St Paul ringing in our inner ears.  Something about the height and depth?  Somewhere up there is our token offering to the God who created our solar system of which the comet itself is but a small token.  The words of the psalmist seem to me to have a whole new ring to them as I ponder all this: When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have established; what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them?  Yet you have made them a little lower than God, and crowned them with glory and honour.  You have given them dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under their feet.  [Psalm 8:3-6]  Teilhard de Chardin, in the absence of an altar in the conventional sense, famously consecrated the whole world as an altar on which to place his priestly offering of bread and wine: how he would have loved the idea of placing an offering on the altar of a comet!

Of course, there will be many who will bemoan the cost of the whole project, and perhaps link these two events by suggesting that if the money "wasted" on sending Philae to the comet were instead spent on providing shelter for the homeless, food for the hungry, and health-care for the sick the good burghers of Fort Lauderdale (and elsewhere) would not have had to enact such heartless legislation in the first place.  True, perhaps, but as I read through this week's gospel I had little doubt how chilling it would sound to any of those burghers who really listened to it.  Even Jesus' most determined critics never tried to stop him feeding people in a public place, so long as he didn't do it on the Sabbath, of course.  Come to think of it, it's not too hard to see how our lesson from Ezekiel might cause a few red-faces among those burghers, particularly those of a somewhat portly build!

Ezekiel 34:11-16, 20-24.  The whole of this chapter 34 needs to be read together.  It opens with an indictment of the leaders (shepherds) of Israel.  In brief, they have been looking to their own interests instead of caring for the people.  Verse 4 does not pull any punches as the failures of the leaders are laid bare.  Accordingly, God will remove the people from the care of these shepherds and assume direct responsibility for the people.  The first part of today's readings is largely taken up with God's promise to take good care of the flock, but it ends with a stern warning to "the fat and the strong" – God "will feed them with justice" (a wonderful phrase!).  The details of their crimes are summarised in verses 17-19, the excluded middle of our set reading.  The second part of the reading ends with the "ideal shepherd-king" installed as head shepherd under God.

Taking It Personally.

• Read slowly through verses 11-16a.  Make a list of the specific types of care that God is promising.  Notice how "site-specific" some of them are: mountains, water-courses, and inhabited parts of the land (that is, excluding the deserts and wilderness areas).  How might this all-encompassing package of pastoral care be translated into the specific geography, history, and needs of this country?
• Now ponder verses 20 and 21.  Who are the fat sheep in our country, and who are the lean sheep?  What sort of sheep are you?  With what kind of sheep is your local faith community most identified with?
• If this chapter were applied to this country at this time, what changes would be required to avoid the 'truck journey to the works'?

 

Ephesians 1:15-23.  Notice the slightly unusual 'order of service' in the opening chapter of this letter.  We might have expected St Paul's compliments to the recipients, and his assurance of his prayers for them, to come earlier than verses 15-16; but he has been so overcome with his high thoughts of Christ that his usual brief doxology has flowered into the extraordinary paean of praise we find in verses 3-14.  Read those verses before starting on this week's set text.  Notice now the content of St Paul's prayer for the Ephesians.  The emphasis is on continued spiritual growth.  Yes, they are facing persecution, and, yes, they are suffering hardship, illness, and all the same challenges that other faith communities were facing at that time; but St Paul does not directly address those needs in his prayers.  He asks for them "a spirit of wisdom and revelation", that more and more they may come to know Christ as he has been revealed to St Paul.  And St Paul then summarises just what has been so revealed.  Once again, we can only marvel at the depth of his mystical insight that the man who died in such agony and ignominy on the cross is the one to whom "all rule and authority and power and authority" has been given by God.  And all the rest!

 

Taking It Personally.

 

·        Using verses 17-19 as a guide, pray such a prayer for yourself, asking God for "a spirit of wisdom and revelation".  Pray similarly for your faith community.

·        Using verses 20-22 as a guide, offering your own prayer of praise and adoration to Christ.  Use "Christ is all in all" as a mantra this week.

Matthew 25:31-46.  I love the heading to this passage in the NRSV edition that I use: it reads "The judgment of the Nations".  First it reminds me that what follows is not "The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats"; and secondly, it reminds me that it is not about me and my sins, but about my country and our sins.  It is the nations that are gathered before the Son of Man on his return in glory.  Faith is a community affair, and it is as a community that we will be judged.  The basis of the judgement, therefore, becomes, not what I did or didn't do, or what you as an individual did or didn't do, but what sort of a community you and I and all our fellow citizens have built together.  Have we built a community where the hungry are fed, the thirsty are given safe drinking water, the strangers are welcomed, the naked are clothed, the sick are given good health-care, and even the imprisoned are remembered and visited?  Or have we built a community that is the very opposite – one in which we each look after number one and the devil take the hindmost (to coin a phrase)?  The structure of the passage makes it clear that wrongdoing is primarily a failure to do right.  Failing to feed the hungry, etc is itself sinful, even if we do not actually prohibit anyone from doing so.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

·        How do you react to the "national collective" interpretation suggested above?  Reflect on your feelings about it.

·        Re-read the story of Arnold Abbott above.  What was your initial reaction to it?

·        Suppose a "free food stall" was set up opposite your house, workplace or church, or in your favourite park, which drew a large crowd of homeless people?  What would your own reaction be?  Would you be more likely to object, ignore them, or volunteer to help?

·        How well or otherwise would this country fare if judged in accordance with this passage?

·        How well or otherwise would your local faith community fare if judged in accordance with this passage?

·        How do you feel about the condemnatory language used in verses 41 and 46? Does it strike you as over the top or "un-Jesus like"?  Or even "un-God like"?

Notes for Refdlection

November 16                         NOTES FOR REFLECTION

Texts: Zephaniah 1:7, 12-18; 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11; Matthew 25:14-30

Theme:  The phrase "Use it or lose it" came immediately to mind, but whether or not that would be a suitable theme may depend on the sensitivities of your local faith community.  "Accountability" (with or without its constant companion, "Transparency") may be a more dignified choice.  "The Day of Reckoning" may also cut the mustard (which is a very strange phrase, now I come to think of it!)  I do hope we can all agree to reject "Wealth Creation 101" or any variant thereof, although "God's Guide to Real Investment" might offer something worth developing.  What about "The Divine Art of Risk-taking"?  On balance (pun only partly intended) that's my choice for the week.

Introduction.  We begin this week with more prophetic blood, threat and tears, this time from Zephaniah.  Perhaps the connection with the gospel passage, which is not immediately obvious, is to be found in the mental image of the Master (God) displayed by the servant entrusted with only one talent (verses  24-25 of the gospel passage).    This might also form a link with our second lesson, especially verse 9, where St Paul writes that "God has destined us not for wrath but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ".  And St Matthew rounds things off for us this week with one of the more complex of Jesus' judgment parables.

Background.  As with many of the parables the Parable of the Talents seems to invite an almost limitless number of interpretations.  I shall limit myself to three. First, some of you may recall that our three Archbishops sent out a pastoral letter offering their thoughts on some of the more important issues we might wish to have in mind when we voted at the General Election.  This prompted a critique, complete with some alternative suggestions, from Dr Bonnie Miller Perry, a former senior executive of the World Bank in Washington and now living in Central Otago, which was published in the ODT on 8^th September.  Dr Miller Perry described the Archbishops' effort as "a fairly predictable list of good thoughts", before offering "an alternative set, hopefully a little more practical and focused, arising from biblical descriptions of Jesus' teaching and actions".

Item 2 on her list read as follows:

Jesus expressed strong views concerning efficiency in business and return on capital.  (Parable of the Talents)  We need to recognise that more efficient businesses, with greater productivity and lower burden of taxation, will benefit all in society.

At the other extreme, this from Robert Farrar Capon (The Parables of Judgment, p.167):

"[The parable] emphatically does not say that God is a bookkeeper looking for productive results.  The only bookkeeper in the parable is the servant who decided he had to fear a non-existent audit and who therefore hid his one talent in the ground."

Tempting though it is, I do not intend to enter into that particular debate today, because I have found a much more interesting approach to this parable following the high drama that has played out – indeed, saturated – our news media this week.  I am referring, of course, to the "escape" of Philip Smith (Traynor), the convicted murderer and paedophile, and, more particularly, to the rabid desire of the media to sit in judgment (or rather, to punish, without the need for prior judgment) all those responsible for granting this man leave in the first place.  So much have they enjoyed this public bloodletting on their part that I suspect they may even regret that Mr Smith has been re-captured so quickly, thereby taking the heat out of the story.

What's all this to do with the Parable of the Talents?  Well, this is a summary of how the Smith saga and the parable meshed as I reflected on this week's readings.  The servants are the staff of the Corrections Department.  The talents are the inmates.  The inmates are entrusted to the servants, who are instructed by the Master (The Law, made on our behalf by our House of Representatives, and applied in practice by our duly appointed judges) to do two things: to detain them, and to prepare them for release from detention when (in the case of an indeterminate sentence – a life sentence or preventive detention) the Parole Board decides that they are safe to release.  With me so far?

Okay, the servants invest their time and talents in trying to get these inmates (who, by the very nature of their sentences, are going to be among the most serious of all offenders) ready for ultimate release.  We know from the present case that there is a gradual process, begun only after many years of confinement (the punitive part of the sentence) has been served, involving very short periods of release.  In Mr Smith's case, on at least 6 occasions he was granted leave for a matter of a few hours.  Each time he complied.  Then on at least 3 occasions he was granted overnight leave, and again on each occasion he complied.  Then he was granted 72 hours' leave and he absconded.

So this particular "investment" turned sour.  Unfortunately, the parable does not tell us what the Master's attitude would have been had one of the servants lost money on one of his investments; but do we really believe that he would have responded with the same fury that he showed towards the hapless servant who was so terrified of getting it wrong that he kept his "talent" under lock and key and refused to take any risks? 

Of course, we can do what the media is so good at and hide from the principle by burying ourselves in the details.  Why didn't he have to wear an electronic bracelet?  Were the sponsors adequately checked out?  Shouldn't checks have been made earlier?  Shouldn't the alarm have been raised earlier?  Shouldn't the victims have been notified earlier?  All good questions deserving of answers.  But the principle remains the same.  The Master could have said to the servants, keep these inmates locked up for the rest of their lives: do not let them out at any time for any reason.  That would have been the safest course of action.  That would have ensured that Mr Smith would not have got to Auckland Airport, let alone Chile and Brazil.  But the Master did not tell that: he told them to do what they did – and now they are being roasted for their obedience.  "You wicked and incompetent servants!  You knew, did you..."

And the question now is, how will our servants in the Corrections Department carry out their duties in future?  Will they continue to invest their time and talents in trying to prepare those who have been entrusted to their safe-keeping for their ultimate release back into our community (which is what their Master on our behalf says they should do), or will they now realise that their Master is a hard man, blaming them when things go wrong, and claiming all the credit for himself when things go right, and follow the example of the third servant in the parable?

And by the way, it's just 6 weeks to Christmas, when we celebrate the Incarnation – a.k.a. The Greatest Risk Ever Taken.

Zephaniah 1:7, 14-18.  Yes, well, it's hard to do anything other than accept the admonition in verse 7, "Be silent before the Lord God!"  Perhaps we need reminding from time to time why "salvation" is needed – what we are being saved from.  Call it the wrath of God, as Zephaniah and the other prophets did, or the inevitable consequences of human greed and exploitation, as we might be more inclined to call it today, the end result is the same.  Either we change our ways or we doom ourselves and the rest of creation with us.  Salvation is the process by which, in and through Christ, we are given the opportunity to change our ways by being changed in ourselves.

Taking It Personally.

·        Spend some time in silence before the Lord.  Try not to engage with any thoughts that come to you.  Be at peace.

·        When you are ready, read slowly through this passage.  Monitor your feelings.

·        What comes to mind?  Images from the First World War, perhaps, or from the TV News from any number of war zones around the world?

·        Are they images of God's wrath in action, or of the inhumanity of humanity writ large?

·        Are we powerless to do anything about the state of the world as it is today?  If not, what can we do?

 

1 Thessalonians 5:1-11.  St Paul is reaching the end of this letter to the faithful in Thessalonica.  As we noted last week they were very much focussed on the End Times, and the Return of Christ.  St Paul reminds them now that no one knows exactly when it will happen; the important thing is to be ready when it does, not simply as individuals, but as a community of faithful people.  They are to live as children of light, and to encourage and build up one another.

 

 

Taking It Personally.

 

·        Start with verse 9: memorise it. 

·        Begin each day for a week by reciting, "today may be the day of the Lord's return".  At the end of the week, reflect on any difference this practice may have made to your attitude or behaviour during the week.

·        Have you encouraged and built up anyone this week?  Has anyone encouraged and built you up this week?

 

Matthew 25:14-30.  Although this is a "self-contained" parable, it reads as a continuation of a long passage of teaching that began back in chapter 14:4.  It is another "absent-Master" case study, and seems to be a variation of the same story that appears in Luke's gospel (19:11-27) as the Parable of the Coins (or "Pounds" as it now called in the NSRV).  The details in Matthew's version are interesting.  The key word in the opening verses seems to be "entrusted" – the man "entrusted" his property to his slaves/servants.  The terms of the trust are not spelled out; although he allots different amounts to each of them "according to his ability".  So perhaps the implication is there that they are to do something with the money.  The first two "traded" with the money entrusted to them and made the same rate of return, 100% in each case.  The third guy was terrified of the master's wrath if he should make a loss and so played safe, conserving the capital but not increasing it.  The Master was fulsome in his praise of the entrepreneurial twosome, and in his condemnation of the nervous nerd.  At the very least the guy should have put it on short term deposit with a reputable bank.  The fact that the master received back the single talent from the nerd and immediately gave it away shows that he was not interested in the money itself, but only in what it showed about their attitude towards him.  The first two sought to do their best for the master, prepared to take a risk and rely on his understanding and fairness if the market went against them.  The other guy valued self-preservation over service to his master.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

·        Which of the servants is most like you?  Are you a natural risk-taker, or is safety-first your guiding principle?  (Think about the Good Samaritan here, perhaps.)  Can you recall a recent occasion when the fear of "getting it wrong" held you back from doing or saying something you now wish you had done or said?

·        Remind yourself that this story is set in the Temple in Holy Week.  What difference does that make to your understanding of the parable?

·        Notice the reference in verse 19 to "a long time"?  What do you make of that?

Notes for Reflection

November 9                           NOTES FOR REFLECTION

Texts: Amos 5:18-24; 1 Thessalonians 4:9-18; Matthew 25:1-13

Theme:  This Sunday is Remembrance Sunday, so perhaps my first two choices are too cheerful (or do I mean childish?)  This week's gospel passage always reminds me of the game beloved of children, Hide and Seek, with the cry, "Coming, Ready or Not".  So there's one possible theme, particularly if your congregation likes to think of itself as children-friendly.  Something a little more grown-up and attention-grabbing might be "Stay Awake Until Kingdom Come".  For all sorts of reasons, compelling and otherwise, I'm going for "When Good Theology Goes Bad."

Introduction.  We begin this week with one of the more shocking passages from Amos.  To a people steeped in liturgical worship, with sung psalms and music to the fore, this passage would have to be the worst review ever written!  One of my favourite prayers as I prepare to lead a service of worship is "May our worship be pleasing to you and uplifting to your people".  Fat chance, seems to be the message through Amos today!  True worship must be offered by people living a life pleasing to God and uplifting to his people, otherwise it won't achieve either of those goals.  St Paul also writes of the need to live a life worthy of our calling; and then turns his attention to an urgent theological issue.  If we are awaiting Christ's return what happens if we die before he gets here?  More about this below.  Finally, we have a rather strange 'judgment parable' that seems to laud self-sufficiency ahead of sharing generously with those who are in need.  Is there room for the notion of moral hazard in a gospel of grace?

Background.  It has never been easy to be a Christian pacifist, and it is especially difficult at the present time.  I am writing these notes the day after "Guy Fawkes Night", the day when we celebrate (and that's the word we use, isn't it, rather than commemorate?) a terrorist attack on the British Houses of Parliament.  A few days ago we saw a dramatic terrorist attacked on the Canadian Houses of Parliament – are we to expect that in a few centuries time Canadians will be celebrating that event, with or without fireworks?  More likely, if the event is remembered at all it will be as the occasion on which the Sergeant-at-Arms brought the attack to an end by shooting dead the attacker, thereby becoming a most embarrassed hero, and giving ammunition to all those who believe it is a fundamental right to bear arms, and to do whatever it takes in self-defence or in the defence of others.  And let's not forget the soldier who was shot dead while standing guard at the War Memorial by the same attacker.  The soldier was not armed.   You join the dots.

And in this country our Government is now agonising over what response, if any, New Zealand should make to the terrorist atrocities committed by Islamist State.  We are all revolted by public beheadings of journalists, aid workers and other "innocent" people – particularly as the victims are usually Westerners; and we understand why President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron feel the need to go on TV and promise that the perpetrators of these barbaric actions will be hunted down and brought to justice, even though we know that it is most unlikely to happen.  And if it did, what would that achieve?  Peace, justice – an end to hostilities?  Or more kidnappings, murders, etc claimed to be in retaliation for whatever is done in the name of that "justice"?  Jesus' death on the cross was designed to break the cycle of violence, not to perpetuate it. 

Should we intervene militarily?  Yes, if we believe that we have a fundamental right to use force in defence of ourselves and other people.  In principle, there seems to be no difference between what the Canadian Sergeant-at-Arms did in Ottawa and going into Iraq or Syria intending to use force to protect women, children, ethnic minorities, members of other sects or religions, aid workers, journalists and anybody else ISIL terrorists intend to harm.  If it is right to use lethal force to protect ourselves, surely it must also be right to use lethal force to protect others wherever and whoever they may be?  What sort of principle would we be upholding if we decided not to get involved because it might increase the risk of an attack on or in New Zealand?  At the very least, any objection to New Zealand military involvement in opposing ISIL must be reduced to practical considerations for those who do not accept that the underlying principle should be pacifism or non-violence.

One of the more challenging aspects of all this was highlighted in a recent discussion on the radio.  The question was raised about the apparent ease with which ISIL has been able to recruit ever more young men to its cause.  How could this be – and where are the "real teachers of Islam" in all this?  At that point I found myself mentally switching off that discussion and applying the same questions to our involvement in World War I.  How was it that hundreds and thousands of young New Zealand men rushed to enlist, and where were the "real teachers of Christianity" in all that?  Those are the sorts of questions that are unlikely to be reflected on or preached about on Remembrance Sunday this year, or to feature very prominently in the next four years of commemorations.

The Church (or more accurately, the churches) has much to reflect on when remembering its role in the whole tragedy of that war.  When it began they were clear: salvation is to be found only in Christ – we either die in the faith of Christ or we do not.  Within 12 months, with the death toll rising, a whole new theology was created.  Now to die in war – or as it was and still is put – to lay down one's life for one's country – became an alternative route to eternal bliss.  No doubt, there were strong pastoral needs in play here, and it would certainly have been right to commend those killed in battle to God's mercy and judgement: pastoral care always requires tact and sensitivity.  What is does not require is quack theology.  Yet, with a few notable, brave and faithful exceptions, the clergy of our church, and I think the same is true of the other churches, too, took to their pulpits with gusto, denounced conscientious objectors as cowards and traitors, and assured their congregation that the will of God was to sign up right away.  Neither the teaching of Christ, nor the exhortations of St Paul, must be allowed to get in the way of the War Effort.  Perhaps the stunning silence of the Church at the present moment is a step forward.

And now if I may be outrageous for a moment, I have to say that another example of quack theology seems to be served up this week by St Paul, of all people.  The parallel is striking.  A real pastoral concern had arisen.  Taught to believe that Christ would be returning very soon, the early Christian converts were eagerly awaiting his return when he would reward them for their faith in him.  However, time passed, Christ did not return and loved ones died.  Had they missed out for ever?  St Paul needed to offer assurance, but what he offered them came very close to a "Grand-old-Duke-of-York" theology [when they were only half-way up they met Jesus half-way down); and, of course, it has spawned those awful "rapture" novels that sell so well in certain American churches.

Amos 5:18-24.  This really is an astonishing passage!  Talk about discomforting the comfortable!  Imagine sitting in your local church, mildly curious about the guest preacher who is to address you on the topic "The Day of the Lord".  You are expecting another cosy message of reassurance, and what you get is today's harangue.  Why are you looking forward to meeting face to face with God?  You think it's going to be sweetness and light?  Well, it's not, and here's why.  Because every Sunday for as long as God can remember you have been infuriating him with your festivals, services, offerings, and, above all, your singing and music.  What God really want from you is a whole new lifestyle – one based on justice and fairness.  Amen.  Are there any notices?

Taking It Personally.

• How would you respond to a charge like that if it were brought against your faith community?
• Reflect on the Collect for Purity (page 405 of the Prayer Book) in the light of this passage.  Should we take the Collect more seriously than we do in our services?
• What image of God are you left with after reading this passage?  How does it compare with your own image of God?
• Spend some time with verse 24.  What is your understanding of "justice" and "righteousness"?  What specifically might this verse be asking of you at this time?  What might it be asking of your local faith community?

 

1 Thessalonians 4:9-18.  This is one of the earliest, if not the earliest, of St Paul's letters that we have in the New Testament, probably written before 50AD.  So the recipients are very new converts, with all the pluses and minuses that go with that.  They are learning to become a Christian community: St Paul applauds them for the progress they have made and encourages them to do even better in the future.  Then he turns to the specific issue that has been bothering them.  As noted above, it is a real pastoral concern, and St Paul does his best to address it.  This may be one of the many instances where brevity might have been the best approach.  "Trust in God, and leave the details to him" might have been a better response, then and now.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• Do you have any burning issue that you would like to raise on matters of faith?  With whom might you be able to raise it?
• How would you respond to a friend who asked you about such matters as life after death, the return of Christ, the end of the age, and so on?  What do you believe about these matters at this time?  Are they of great concern to you, or do you prefer to leave them alone and just get on with things?

 

Matthew 25:1-13.  Although this is another "illustration" of the Kingdom of Heaven, it has a different flavour from the earlier ones.  Notice the introductory word "Then".  This is not a general approach – "the kingdom of God may be compared to..."  Here Jesus is talking about the end of the age.  It follows on from the previous story about the good and bad servants in the absence of the master, and what will happen when he returns.  In this passage, he has returned, and so this parable is about what happens next.  It will be good news for those who are prepared for his return, and bad news for those who are not.  Again, we must resist the temptation to push the story too far, as we find when we get to verse 9.  Suppose that the disciples had responded with these words when told by Jesus to feed the hungry multitudes!  The point surely is that we can only draw on our own spiritual deposits.  To spend a lifetime ignoring Christ (or, perhaps, taking him for granted) runs the risk that we will not be ready spiritually to face the day of his return.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• Would you recognise Jesus if you saw him?  How?
• Are you prepared to meet him face to face?  Would you like to?  Do you hope to?  Would you rather not?
• How do you feel about verse 9?  Think about the expression "you had better go to the dealers and buy some for yourselves".  Who might be the "dealers" today who are offering quick spiritual top-ups?
•  Reflect on verse 12.  Take in the full horror of those words.  Let them inform your prayers this week as you pray for others.