Notes for Reflection

August 2                                 NOTES FOR REFLECTION

Texts: Exodus 16:2-4, 9-15; Ephesians 4:1-16; John 6:24-35

Theme:  Clearly something food-centred is called for this week.  The first possibility that came to me is "Eating to Live", which should trigger in some minds "rather than living to eat".  For those who prefer something less processed a possibility might be "Our Daily Bread".  I rather like "Always Enough, Never Too much", which should get the tick of approval from the Heart Foundation, Professor Jim Mann and Dr Nadia Lim, leaving us feeling virtuous (and a tad peckish).  The more liturgically minded among us might go for "The Gifts of God for the People of God".

Introduction.  We begin this week with the account from the Book of Exodus of the  miraculous feeding in the wilderness of the "whole congregation of the Israelites", but may still be surprised to be reminded that the menu on this occasion included meat (quail) as well as bread (manna).  In our second lesson the concept of the "entire congregation of Israelites" has been replaced by the image of the Body of Christ, and the idea of the divine gifts of food and drink has been broadened to include vocational gifts.  Finally, we continue our reading from chapter 6 of John's Gospel as the image of Christ as the Bread of Life moves to the centre of the narrative.

Background.  I have been even more than usually obsessed with food this week.  It began last Sunday.  After church (the gospel passage, you will recall, featuring the Feeding of the Five Thousand), a few of us felt the need for something a little more substantial than a crust of bread and a mouthful of sardine, so we headed off to a local cafe, where I soon found myself confronted by a VCT – a Veritable Cabinet of Temptation.  Conscious of the need to avoid leading others into temptation, I will withhold a full list of the contents of this VCT, but one example is forever imprinted on my mind's eye.  It was an enormous hazelnut and caramel slice, clearly intended for me because it was placed on a shelf at exactly my eye-level.  I could feel an enormous weakness flowing into my will, and before I could utter a desperate prayer for help, it came anyway.  Into my fevered mind came the calming image of Professor Jim Mann gently looking at me, and very slowly shaking his head!

I had a bagel instead, and even tried to look only slightly censorious when the man who had preached at the service joined us, bearing with him a large portion of lemon meringue pie and a very pleased look on his face.  Mustn't grumble, as Moses had more than one occasion to say to the entire congregation of Israelites.

I was challenged in a much more serious and moving way on Tuesday evening when I braced myself to watch a documentary called "Little Criminals", about the way in which our society dealt with young boys "at risk" by placing them in various State-run institutions, including the Epuni Boys' Home.  The documentary featured five men who had been through some awful experiences in their childhood in these institutions, and it made for tough viewing.  But one, almost throw-away line from one of these men has stuck with me.  He was recounting how he was always on the look-out for food to steal, and mentioned "lollies, and stuff like that".  Then he added, "Anything, really.  When you're really hungry you'll even steal food you don't like."  He was talking about his childhood, when he was about 8-years-old – and supposedly under the care and protection of the State.

Then this morning (Thursday) as I sat down to write these Notes I learned of a new "supermarket war", this time sparked by a woman with a rather wonderful name of Wilma Waterlander.  She is the lead author of a report on a study that has found that over 80% of packaged food sold in supermarkets is "ultra-processed" – meaning that the original ingredients are no longer recognisable – and are of little nutritional value.  In the study over 19,000 products from 4 different supermarkets in Auckland in 2011 and 2013 were tested against the Food Standards Australia New Zealand's Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (sic), which sounds suitably authoritative if rather bureaucratic.  Needless to say, this report has drawn a blast from Katherine Rich, chief executive of the Food and Grocery Council, backed up by a spokesperson for Countdown.

Ms Rich's counterattack showed the years she spent in Parliament were not wasted.  First she said she did not accept the analysis, dismissing the accuracy of the Nutrient Profiling index.  Then, to use an appropriate cliché, she compared apples with oranges.  Instead of addressing the claim made in respect of "19,000 packaged products" she referred to the total range of 25,000 products apparently available in the average supermarket, presumably including fresh produce and other non-packaged products.

The Countdown spokesman followed the same approach.  He pointed out that the first "department" that customers find on entering a Countdown supermarket is dedicated to fresh produce.  More interesting was the list of the top ten items sold in Countdown supermarkets in the last 12 months: according to this man, they were bananas, tomatoes, broccoli, white bread, carrots, milk 2l, avocado, cucumber, onions and grapes.  Really?  Customers bought more broccoli, and more avocado, than margarine, meat, or marmalade?  Notice I haven't mentioned liquor, and nor did he.

Katherine Rich came up with the best line, of course.   It's all about choice.  People come into supermarkets because they want to choose between 25,000 products.  "They don't want to be limited to mung beans and rye wafers!"  I have no idea what the nutritional value of those foodstuffs is, and I suspect that Ms Rich doesn't either.  That's not the point of her argument.  What she has done is spoken for the modern view that food is no longer about nutrition and well-being – it is about enjoyment, convenience, and a refusal to accept that built into our bodies are certain settings or limitations that we exceed at our peril.  Consumer choice is certainly important, but does that exclude any responsibility on the manufacturers of packaged food to ensure that their products are not harmful to human health?  I can see Professor Jim Mann nodding at me this time.

Exodus 16:2-4, 9-15:  The initial excitement of the escape from Egypt has well and truly warn off.  They are now about 6 weeks into the wilderness experience.  What probably started as a few muted asides from individual malcontents (every congregation has one or two) has now spread throughout the "whole congregation of Israelites" (notice how often that term is used in this chapter).  They now turn on Moses and Aaron (so much safer than blaming the Lord their God), lamenting the loss of the good old days when they sat by the fleshpots of Egypt eating their fill of bread.  The meaning of the word "fleshpots" may have changed somewhat over the centuries, but human nature certainly hasn't.  We are still as adept in looking back to a golden age that never actually existed, when our church was packed to the gunnels and we had six people teaching Sunday School every Sunday!  Far from hitting back, the Lord allows his ungrateful (stiff-necked) people to see his glory, and then promises to supply them with meat and bread.  Little is made of the quail bonanza, the focus from the beginning of this tradition being on the provision of manna, bread, from heaven.  It came, of course, with a series of instructions, designed to ensure that everyone received enough according to their needs, but no one could accumulate more than he or she required.  It is worth reading the rest of the chapter to see just how much attention is given to this strange substance.

Taking It Personally.

·        Can you recall an occasion when you were short of food?  What did that feel like?

·        Recall an experience of eating "in the wild" – on a tramp, or at a picnic, or something.  What is different about such an experience, compared with eating a "routine" meal at home?

·        Is it your practice to give thanks to God before each meal?

·        Is healthy eating for you simply about your physical health, or do you agree it has a spiritual importance as well?  In what way(s)?

 

Ephesians 4:1-16.  St Paul now turns his attention to the whole idea of vocation.  We are used to this word in a limited context.  Until fairly recently we understood it to mean a calling into the ordained ministry or a religious order.  A prayer for vocations would still be understood in that way, I think.  But St Paul recognises the first and greatest Christian vocation is the one we all share, the calling to follow Christ.  In verse 1 he exhorts us to "lead a life worthy of the calling" to which we have been called.  An essential part of this teaching is his whole image of the Body of Christ.  We are called together with all others who have the same calling to form one body.  In verse 8 he misquotes Psalm 68:18, and uses it to introduce the idea of God giving us, within the one Body, different vocations, not for our own individual benefit, but for the good of the whole Body.  We must continue to grow spiritually, as individuals and as the Body, to attain maturity in Christ.  And we must stay on song: we must not allow ourselves to be blown around by variant teaching, or outright deceit.  Speaking the truth is at the heart of the spiritual journey we are all on.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

·        Are you leading a life worthy of your calling?

·        In your local faith community, do you make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace?

·        Reflect on the word "vocation".  What is your principal vocation?

·        Are you growing spiritually on your journey of faith?  In what way(s) has your local community of faith helped you in that process?

·        Do you accept any responsibility for the spiritual growth of others?

 

John 6:24-35.  This week's passage begins with the mysterious absence of Jesus.  After the feeding of the multitude, the crowd had seen Jesus' disciples get back in their boat and go back across the lake, but Jesus had not been with them.  Therefore they assumed that he must still be somewhere on their side of the Lake, but he was not.  When they finally caught up with him in Capernaum they were understandably intrigued.  What a golden opportunity to impress!  Jesus could have told them how he had crossed the lake – he walked across it!  Of course, he didn't say that: instead he questioned their reason for wanting to find him.  They were on the hunt for another free lunch!  This gives him the opportunity to raise the level of the discourse from the mundane to the spiritual, as so often happens in this Gospel.  They seem to make some progress towards understanding him, for they ask him for guidance as to what they must do to "perform the work of God". Jesus tells them that they must believe in him (the one whom God has sent).  They ask for a sign, giving the example of the provision of manna from heaven in the wilderness.  Jesus identifies himself as the Bread of Heaven, for he too has come down from heaven sent by the Father as a gift to bring them life.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

·        Notice that the inquirers here are genuine in their questions.  They are not "opponents" trying to trap or trick Jesus into saying or doing the wrong thing.  What questions would you like to put to Jesus at this stage of the narrative?

·        Meditate on verse 35.  Perhaps learn it by heart.  Recite it to yourself whenever you are eating bread.  Give thanks frequently.

·        Reflect on the Communion wafer.  What is it made of?  Does it have a noticeable taste?  What nutritional value do you think it has?

·        Return to verse 35.  What spiritual value does the wafer have for you? 

·        Would you favour using homemade bread (rather than wafers) for Communion.  Why or why not?  What about once a year on a specially designated Bread from Heaven Day?

Notes for Reflection

July 26                         NOTES FOR REFLECTION

Texts:  2 Kings 4:42-44; Ephesians 3:14-21; John 6:1-21

Theme: I'm tempted to suggest "There is Such a Thing as a Free Lunch" – or perhaps a more adult sounding version would be "The Economy of God".  Other variants that suggest themselves are "With God there is Always More than Enough", or simply "The Extravagance of God".  St Paul offers a rich range of possibilities, my choice being "The Power at Work Within Us".   A slightly less obvious theme from the gospel passage may be "All in the Same Boat".  Incidentally, we should not that this week we begin 5 glorious weeks on John chapter 6, surely one of the finest sustained spiritual reflections in the whole of Scripture.

Introduction.  We begin this week with a brief curtain-raiser to the main event – or perhaps I should say, an entree to the main course.  In a terrible time of drought and widespread famine an offering of first-fruits is brought to the prophet Elisha: despite the commonsense objections of his servant it is found to be sufficient to feed 100 people with some left over.  We follow this with another rich helping from the glorious Letter to the Ephesians,  After that we probably need a long gradual hymn, or perhaps even two, before we are ready for this week's gospel passage, featuring the feeding of the five thousand and the walking on the water, and so much more!

Background.  I'm having issues with "Second Chance Education", at least as it appears in the otherwise excellent  "The Weekend Mix" which comes with the Saturday edition of the ODT.  As someone who had a reasonable go at "First Chance Education" I find it rather galling to discover, week after week, that it seems that I now know far less than I did over 50 years ago.  I may even be in urgent need of "Third Chance Education" just to make up lost ground.  My self-confidence is hardly boosted by the introductory lines under the main heading: Are you smarter than a 15-year-old?  Test yourself on these vintage School Certificate Examination questions.  Apart from anything else, I was 16 years old when I sat School Certificate.

It is slightly re-assuring that I can generally get the "English" questions right.  It is rather bizarre that I often get the French questions right, bearing in mind that I hated the subject, which only became interesting when young French female exchange teachers started to appear in our class-room, all of which looked and smelt remarkably like Brigitte Bardot (remember her?).   It pains me that I can rarely get the chemistry questions right as I did quite well in that subject at University Entrance level.  But this week I was reduced to spluttering fury with the Economics question.  This was "Why do most goods and services have a price?"  Of the 4 multiple choice answers offered, I chose the fourth – "It enables the opportunity cost to be measured" – even though I had only the vaguest idea what that meant.  It was the wrong choice.  The right answer was "Scarcity means there is not enough to meet all wants."

There is so much that annoys me in that simple "answer".  Leaving aside my pedantic objection to the word "wants", that word is also mischievous because it has been chosen to avoid the word "needs".  It implies that price differential only applies to things we want, rather than things we need to stay alive, like food, water, and shelter.  And that is not the only weasel word here.

Far more objectionable is the word "scarcity".  The answer implies some sort of objective shortage of the goods in question – as if everything we need is insufficient and has to be rationed.  In fact, of course, far from price recognising objective scarcity, scarcity is deliberately created to boost price.  I was still engaged in my First Chance Education when I heard of a 'grain mountain' in the United States; and not too long after that I came across equally bizarre images of a 'butter mountain', and even a 'wine lake'.  Whatever else they referred to it wasn't scarcity and unmet need, was it?  While large numbers of our fellow human beings were starving in various parts of the world, grain, butter and wine were being withheld from sale in various parts of the so-called 'developed world' in order to maintain higher prices.

Thirdly, there is the assumption that price is the only appropriate way of distributing scare goods.  In other words, if there is a genuine scarcity of any goods or services, the wealthy should have the right of first refusal and the poor should make do with anything left over, regardless of the goods and services in question.  We have seen a particularly outrageous example of how this works out in practice in respect of shelter.  Why has there been no outrage expressed at Christchurch landlords raising their rents post-earthquake, not to meet any actual increase in their costs, but simply to reflect "the market rate", a rare case where actual scarcity was related to price?  And then there's Fonterra: can anyone understand its argument that when international prices are high, the domestic price has to be high, but when the international price falls the domestic price does not fall with it?  How can there be a surplus of supply off-shore and a scarcity of supply in New Zealand?

There may be worse to come.  We are hearing increasingly scary stories about the shortage of potable water in various parts of the world, and even in parts of New Zealand.  What sort of economics are we going to follow in determining who shall have a drink and who shall remain thirsty?

Perhaps we need a Third Chance Education after all.  A chance to learn about God's economy, based on generosity and sharing.  A chance to learn that competition has brought us thus far in the evolutionary process, but that it is now time to transcend it and become co-operative.  A chance to learn about the physical limits of the earth.  A chance to heed the call of modern-day prophets, including Pope Francis.  A chance to learn about the wisdom of Christ's teaching in parables such as the man who built more and more barns to keep for himself his version of a grain mountain.  This week's readings would surely be included in the course curriculum of such a University of the Third (and quite possibly Last) Chance.

2 Kings 4:42-44.  This whole chapter is a collection of "hero-stories" designed to emphasise that a man-of-God – a prophet – has the power of God.  In fact, from the moment Elisha succeeded Elijah one miracle has followed another, perhaps to establish that he is his own man and that even Elijah was not indispensable.  Begin reading from chapter 2:13 to get a picture of this man in action, starting with a Moses-like parting of the waters.  In chapter 4 he discovers his feminine side and becomes a lot more compassionate and less of a show-off.  By the time we get to this week's short story we see him acting on the word of the Lord.  His servant plays the role later made famous by Andrew.  Notice that the food brought to Elisha – twenty loaves of barley and fresh ears of grain – are a religious offering.

Taking It Personally.

·        How does this story strike you?  What is it "really" about?

·        Does your local church collect items for a food-bank?  Do you think of the humble can of baked beans as an offering to God, a means through which God's blessing reaches others?  Or do you just pop it in the basket without really thinking about it?

 

Ephesians 3:14-21.  We can now see the development of this wonderful letter.  In chapter 1, in some of the most sublime writing in all of Scripture, St Paul outlined his understanding of the universal, cosmic, purpose of God, his eternal plan of salvation, conceived before the beginning of time, and in the process of being worked out ever since.  In chapter 2 St Paul focused on the transformation of the historic relationship between Jew and Gentile – one of enmity and exclusion – which has now been completely transformed in Christ who has broken down that barrier and made the two people into one.  He began chapter 3 with a sort of summary of the story so far, emphasising his special call to take the gospel to the Gentiles; and this week he builds on that at a more individual or personal level.  In large part this reading is a profound and loving prayer for the believers at Ephesus, centred on his desire for them to come to understand that Christ now dwells within them. 

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• Another passage in which to soak yourself.  Meditate on it, do not try to analyse it.
• Pray with St Paul as he prays for you.  Simply add your own "Amen" to each of his petitions on your behalf.
• Finish with a prayer along these lines: "O Lord, in your great love and mercy, grant to me the insight, understanding and vision for which your servant Paul has asked on my behalf, that I may come to know you more fully, love you more dearly and serve you more fruitfully; to your great glory.  Amen.

 

John 6:1-21.  If last Sunday you used the readings set for National Bible Sunday, you will know what "after this" at the beginning of this week's passage is referring to.  Jesus was in dispute with his critics who had objected to him healing the man at the pool on the Sabbath.  He now quite literally puts all that behind him as he crosses over to the other side of the Sea of Galilee.  We should take time to ponder the opening few verses of this passage.  John has put this whole narrative (chapter 6) together in a way that seems to be a profound meditation on the person and mission of Christ in terms of the Exodus narrative.  The crossing of the water may itself be a hint of what the author is up to.  In verse 3 Jesus goes up the mountain, just as Moses did. In verse 4 there is the explicit reference to the festival of Passover.  And in the second half of the chapter we find the theme of the bread from heaven, leading into the only reference in this gospel to the Eucharist.  The subtext, then, is the spiritual journey, involving hearing, seeing, understanding, doing, receiving and growing.  He picks on Philip to be the spokesman for worldly wisdom, who obliges by giving a short economic discourse on price and scarcity.  Andrew, equally unwittingly, becomes the counterfoil, drawing attention to the small boy's free offering.  The detail about the abundance of grass is interesting, perhaps another example of the plenitude of God's creative provision.  The rest of the story is well-known, but another question arises.  What was done with the twelve baskets of leftovers?  Perhaps the point is that the extravagance of God is not to be wasted, but shared with still others.  The crowd is impressed, but misinterprets the divine sign.  Verse 16 suggests that his disciples decided to go home, leaving Jesus behind.  This seems so unlikely at the literal level that it must have a deeper meaning.  Perhaps the disciples felt that the main event was over and they could now go back to the real world.  In which case the episode that follows is a clear lesson not to get ahead of Christ.  We stop when he stops and we set off again only when he sets off.  (Wilderness experience motif once more.)  In the crisis, he comes to them (they do not call for him), and, blinded by fear, they do not recognise him at first.  When they do they welcome him into the boat and immediately they are "home".

 

Taking It Personally.

 

·        Journey slowly through this whole passage, with the Exodus narrative at the back of your mind.  How many points of contact can you find?

·        Think especially about the Passover.  Why does John include a reference to it in this early stage of this narrative?

·        Notice that Jesus' question to Philip is about their buying food for the multitude, not about sending the multitude away to shop for themselves.  What do you make of that?

·        Notice the little 'offertory liturgy' in verses 9 and 11. An offering is brought up to Jesus who takes, gives thanks, and then distributes.  Reflect on that.

·        After the excitement of the 'high mass', the disciples leave in darkness and encounter rough weather.  Ponder that.

·        Whereabouts are you at the moment – all at sea, in the boat, or safe on dry land?

Notes for Reflection

July 19                                     NOTES FOR REFLECTION

Texts:  Jeremiah 23:1-6; Ephesians 2:11-22; Mark 6:30-34, 53-56*

[*This Sunday is National Bible Sunday.  If you wish to feature that, the readings given in the Lectionary are Isaiah 55:1-11; 2 Timothy 3:14-4:5; and John 5:36b-47.  However, virtually any set of readings could be pressed into service when talking about the Bible, and this week's readings are no exception.]

Theme:  I've been toying with the word "Broadcasting", which of course can be divided into two words, "broad casting".  Perhaps less confusing would be "Spreading the Word".  All three of our readings this week seem to be about breaking down barriers – democratising the preaching of the Word.  The selected extracts from chapter 6 of Mark's Gospel are particularly interesting, emphasising the importance in Jesus' ministry of preaching and teaching "ahead of" healing and other miraculous acts of mercy.

Introduction.  Admittedly, this suggested theme does not apply so obviously to our first lesson from the prophet Jeremiah this morning, except in the obvious general sense that any prophetic utterance is, by definition, speaking the word of the Lord.  Yet here there is a fundamental shift in view, culminating in a messianic prophecy.  God is firing the executive team and taking direct control of his people Israel.  In our second lesson the Word is to burst out of its ethnic womb and be released into the whole world – Jews and Gentiles are to be all one people with equal access to the Divine Broadcast.  And so to the Gospel passage.  My guess is that there must be more than one preacher aghast that two of the great stories in chapter 6 of Mark's Gospel are being carefully avoided, and instead we have what can only be described in comparison as a couple of fillers.  But any preachers who do feel that way should be taken to the nearest high hill and thrown off!  This week's choices make it clear that at the heart of Jesus' ministry was preaching the Word of God: everything else was secondary to that.

Background.  As an old boy of the Diocese of Wellington I was as astonished as anyone at the election of The Reverend Justin Charles Hopkins Duckworth to be the Bishop of Wellington in 2012.  I knew little of him at the time, apart from the fact that he had dreadlocks and an aversion to wearing shoes. I started to try to visualise him conducting "State services" in Wellington Cathedral, among the ranks of Judges, diplomats, military top brass, MP's, and other such important people.  Or chairing the Board of Trustees of Samuel Marsden Collegiate School.  How would he cope with people like that, and, and an even more interesting question, how would they cope with him?   Would the weight of the office crush him into conformity, or would he prove to be the agent of change that the majority of the Wellington Electoral College presumably wanted in their new bishop?

Three years on Bishop Justin seems remarkably uncrushed, despite having been the subject of a tirade from Judith "Crusher" Collins (remember her?) for having the audacity to spend 7 days in a confined space while praying for those held in similar conditions in our prisons.  I visited the Wellington diocesan website this week, and was pleased to find his dreadlocks are as uncropped and his feet are as cold as ever.  More importantly, his preaching and teaching are as raw and untamed (by Anglican standards) as before.  (This is the man who called the clergy together before his service of consecration and reminded them that they were slaves chained to the gospel.  I would loved to have seen the looks on the faces of some of my former colleagues!)

I read Bishop Justin's monthly letter to the diocese for June of this year in which he wrote about "contemporary culture's fascination with MTD".  This rather sinister-sounding acronym turned out to stand for "Moral Therapeutic Deism", which the Bishop describes as the "reality where people are happy with an informal religion that delivers a generous inclusive ethical framework that helps us feel better about ourselves and believes in some distant and non-intrusive benevolent creator spirit".  Having admitted he had never heard of it before some youth representatives from the diocese attended a conference and brought the term back to him, Bishop Justin wrote that he instantly understood the idea it conveyed.  He met adherents of that "informal religion" almost daily, and suggested that a large number of Anglicans would be included in their number.  (He was, of course, talking about Wellington Anglicans!)

He also acknowledged its appeal – it had its good points, particularly from the human point of view.  A "generous inclusive ethical framework" is a good start, and certainly more Christian than a mean-spirited exclusive one.  But the Bishop pointed out that what is really on offer here is humanism, not Christianity; and that becomes crystal clear when we look at the second part of the "definition" of MTD.  "A distant non-intrusive benevolent creator spirit" is not the God revealed to us by and in Jesus Christ, is it?  The Incarnation could hardly be described as "non-intrusive".  The God who speaks, who calls, and who sends – who frightens, rebukes and generally disturbs the status quo – is very far from "distant".  Throughout the Scriptures people have found God far too close for comfort.  St Paul will vouch for that!

Bishop Justin's critique centres around the idea that MTD takes the King out of Kingdom: he says we want the kingdom without acknowledging Jesus is our King.  Personally, while understanding his point, I don't find that language particularly appealing or helpful.   But I do agree with him that at the heart of the difference between MTD and orthodox Christian teaching is the issue of personal transformation.  A commitment in principle to "a generous inclusive moral framework" can only be effective if it is put into practice, not just when it suits us, not just when it doesn't cost us anything, but all the time, in every situation, regardless of personal cost.  And that requires a deep inner transformation, made possible only by submission to the Holy Spirit.  We can see a classic example of what this means in the ructions in the EU at this time.  The ideal of European unity is wonderful.  The progress that has been made from the disaster of war to the peaceful co-existence of today is staggering and a cause for rejoicing.

But we have seen only too clearly that human agreements to break down the walls that divide can only go so far.  When hard times come even the most ardent supporter of European unity reverts to Nationalist type.  Germans remain German, French remain French, Britons remain British.  The Greeks are not embraced as fellow Europeans – but as lazy no-hopers who have only themselves to blame.  We shouldn't be too surprised.  We share that same human nature.  We, too, know that what we believe we should do is not always what we do.  And on those occasions we, too, would much prefer a distant non-intrusive benevolent creator spirit to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Would we not?

Jeremiah 23:1-6.   However much we are wedded to the democratic ideal, the thought of the wholesale removal of our leaders by divine fiat has a certain appeal, at least to me. Israel's leaders (described here as shepherds) have failed in their primary role of caring for and protecting the people entrusted to their care.  The fact that the people have been taken captive, and many of them are in exile (the flock has been scattered) is a terrible indictment of the leaders' fundamental failure.    There is some difficulty with verses 2 and 3.  God first blames the shepherds for scattering the flock (verse 2), and then claims that he himself has scattered them (verse 3).  (The point highlights the tension that runs right through the Jewish understanding of history: whenever bad things happen to Israel God must either have done it, or allowed it to happen.  The supreme challenge to this understanding must surely be the Holocaust.)  However, the good news is that the scattering is coming to an end and a new gathering is to take place.  God is bringing his people back, through new shepherds appointed by him, and ultimately by a new branch of the House of David.  It's a pity we are supposed to stop reading at verse 6: the full significance of what is now being promised is set out in verses 7 and 8.  The God of the Exodus is now to be known as the God of the Return from Exile.  This is a complete renewal of the nation: in fact, the words in verse 3 "and they shall be fruitful and multiply" suggests a new creation.

Taking It Personally.

• Do you feel scattered and dispersed at this time or gathered and settled?
• If you have close friends or family members living abroad, do you think of them as "scattered" in this biblical sense?
• Do you pray regularly for the leaders of our nation?  Are they "good shepherds" of our people?  Is that a helpful analogy of their role, do you think?
• Are you hopeful for the future of this country or not?  Do you feel that things are getting better generally – that we are heading towards a better society?
• Pope Francis hit the headlines again this week with his critique of the pursuit of wealth.  Should Church leaders speak out on issues like this?

Ephesians 2:11-22.  This marvellous letter continues, and with it all the difficulties of providing a brief summary of this extraordinary teaching.  (No hint of MTD here!)  Ostensibly addressed to Gentiles, it surely contains a shocking message for Jews as well.  Their whole religious and cultural understanding is turned on its head.  St Paul even goes so far (in verse 15) to claim that Christ has "abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances"!  Even Jesus never went that far.  But notice what is going on here.  This isn't assimilation of one group by another: this is the transcending of individual groups to become one new body.  (Europe united in one new body, not an association of 27 (or whatever the number is now) of individual old bodies.)  The use of the temple (THE symbol of Jewish exclusivity) is used to drive this point home in verses 19-22.  The true spiritual temple is being built, not of stone, cedar, and gold, but of people, all people, Jew and Gentile.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• How might this passage inform your thinking in the present discussion about a national flag?  Do you share the Prime Minister's enthusiasm for symbols of patriotism, or are national flags necessarily divisive?
• Reflect on the present situation in Israel, and its relationship with its Arab neighbours, in the light of this passage.  What hope is there?  Pray for the leaders and people of the region, that they may work to overcome the dividing wall, the hostility between them

 

Mark 6:30-34, 53-56.  You already know what I'm going to say here.  Why is it that we remember the Feeding of the Five Thousand, but never notice that it followed hours of teaching, given out of compassion for the people "because they were like sheep without a shepherd"?   The second little episode has something of a papal tour about it: but notice that the crowds were not hungry for teaching (or even a free meal) – they saw in his very presence the source of healing.  The point is, of course, to recall that Jesus was sent to proclaim the Good News, and then to demonstrate it.  Acts of mercy without preaching and teaching may be good MTD, but it isn't Christianity, whichever diocese we're in.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• Reflect on your own faith.  Is it closer to MTD or to orthodox Christianity?
• Ponder verse 34.  What do you make of the suggestion that Jesus preached to them (perhaps for some hours) out of compassion for them?
• What do you make of the desire of the people (in verse 57) to touch the fringe of Jesus' cloak?  How are we to separate this from superstition and quack medicine?
• Place yourself in that crowd.  Are you among those reaching out to Jesus?

Notes for Refl;ection

July 12                         NOTES FOR REFLECTION

Texts:  Amos 7:7-15; Ephesians 1:3-14; Mark 6:14-29

Theme: Something here about "Speaking the Truth to the Powerful" comes to mind when reading the first lesson and the gospel.  (A slightly more provocative choice might be "Having the Guts to Get On the Right Side".)  But our second lesson raises a far more fundamental issue: who is the truly powerful – Jeroboam (or his toady, Amaziah), Herod, or God?  You might consider "The Power Above All Powers" if you want to emphasise this wonderful passage from Ephesians.  The image of the beheading of John might be one that offers an obvious point of contact with current affairs, but would require a certain delicacy.  Perhaps "Who Remembers the Executioners?" might suffice.

Introduction.  Amos gives us an obvious connection from last week to this.  Just as Ezekiel was called to speak the truth to the Exiles even though none of them were likely tol listen to him, so now Amos has been commissioned to tell the people of the north that they are about to be captured and taken off into captivity, a message they certainly do not wish to hear.  He is advised to "go back where you come from", a phrase still in use this week across the Tasman, although in slightly different circumstances.  The second lesson is one of those  glorious texts that contain the elixir of eternal life, a cure-all for all sicknesses real and imaginary.  How little everything else seems when read alongside a passage such as this!  And how vile the execution of John the Baptist strikes us by way of contrast, as we plunge from the heavenly realms back into the depths of our human nature.  This week's readings together offer a real spiritual challenge: according to how we respond, we can either emerge strengthened in faith and hope in Christ, or become captive in a very dark place of despair and hopelessness.

Background.  I'm pretty sure I invented a new word this week.  I was brooding over the ongoing drama in Greece, and reading all sorts of well-informed people telling the Greeks they had to face facts and live in the real world.  Most of those experts do not themselves live in the real world, at least not in the same real world that vast numbers of Greeks now live in.   The Greeks, the experts seem to agree, are a nation of spendthrifts: through the good years they spent too much, borrowed too much, and earned too little.  Now it's payback time – for the Greeks, that is.  Spendthrifts need to learn the harsh lesson of financial prudence.

But if they borrowed too much to pay for their "lavish" lifestyle, does it not follow that someone somewhere lent them too much?  If the borrowers are to be criticised for their profligate spending, should we not also criticise the lenders for their profligate lending?  Hence the need for my new word: on the moral high ground there is no room for spendthrifts or lendthrifts.  But, of course, no one is allowed to say anything to those profligate lendthrifts because they are the rich and powerful: the Greeks are the impecunious beggars at Dives' gate and should behave accordingly.  While Yanis Varoufakis, the ex-Minister of Finance in the Greek Government, went too far, no doubt, in calling those he was negotiating with "terrorists", there can be little doubt that the financial bosses of Europe attempted to frighten the democracy out of the Greek people.  All credit to them (pun intended) for standing firm.  And there was a biblical note to all this: explaining the sudden resignation of Mr Varoufakis, the BBC correspondent in Athens said it was no surprise – the other countries had "demanded his head on a plate"!

Of far more depth and interest to me than the musings and mutterings of all these well-fed and well-paid experts was an article in the online edition of The Tablet (U.K.) of 7 July.  It seems to be the text of a talk given on BBC Radio 4 by the Reverend Dr Giles Fraser, the Parish Priest of St Mary's, Newington in South London.  He saw at the heart of the stand-off between Germany and Greece  the very different view of salvation in the Western and Eastern Churches.  Angela Merkel is the daughter of a Lutheran Minister.  That church embodies the Western view that Christ's death on the Cross was the penalty to be paid for the sins of humanity.  That the offence of sin against God had incurred a debt that had to be repaid to God before good relations could be re-established.  The debt was so enormous that humanity could not pay it, so God sacrificed his own Son to pay the debt on our behalf.  In broad terms, that understanding of salvation through Christ's death on the cross is at the heart of Western theology, and certainly has many adherents in the Anglican tradition.

But the Eastern Church, including, of course, the Greek Orthodox Church, has never accepted that atonement model of salvation.  In the Eastern Church the emphasis is on Easter Day, not Good Friday.  The Resurrection is the supreme demonstration of God's grace, freely given, without being "earned" by Jesus' self-sacrifice, or in any other way.  It is all about God's extravagant love and forgiveness.  (The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant makes exactly this point, of course.)

Dr Fraser's case is simply this.  Angela Merkel represents all those who, informed by their Western Christian understanding, believe that debts are discharged by payment, not forgiveness.  The Greeks, informed by their Eastern Christian understanding, believe that debts can be discharged by forgiveness.  He doesn't argue that one view is right and the other wrong; he simply suggests that there may be a fundamental theological issue feeding into what most people assume to be an economic and political stoush.  In other words he challenges us to stand firm and refuse to allow "religion" to be pushed out of the Public Square.  Pope Francis is perhaps the most important role model for us to follow here; but it's encouraging to find that even a parish priest in an individual church somewhere in South London is doing his bit, too.

It's fashionable these days to play down the importance of belief in the Church.  "Dogma" and "doctrine" are rude words to be avoided on pain of ridicule.    Dr Fraser's article has shown us that what we believe about the economy of salvation may have a profound effect on how we treat those whom we believe to be in our debt.  We owe him much.

Amos 7:7-15. The wonder is that Amos was offered "voluntary self-deportation" instead of something more like the fate suffered by John the Baptist.  The kindly organisers of the Lectionary have protected us from verse 17, which is the heart of the message Amos had brought to the powerful elite in Israel (the Northern Kingdom, as it was then).  It's not the sort of forecast anyone wants to hear.  (We can imagine Stephen Joyce tut-tutting and warning against self-fulfilling prophesies, or Tim Groser assuring us that there is still plenty of time to turn things round.)  Amaziah seems particularly concerned that Amos has focused his campaign around the religious heart of the Northern Kingdom, Bethel "for it is the king's sanctuary, and it is a temple of the kingdom".  Is this an early hint of the "keep politics out of religion" movement?  (The Occupy Movement – remember them? - can camp at Parliament but not at St Paul's.)   Although Amaziah informs the King what Amos is up to, it seems that Amaziah continues to handle the matter himself.  Perhaps he recognises that Amos may indeed be "under God's protection" and tries to send him away for his own good.  But notice the implication that Amos may be being paid for his troubles: he tells him to go back to Judah and "earn your bread there".  Amos' response is a simple one.  None of this is my idea.  I am not a prophet by choice or descent.  I much prefer running a few sheep and looking after my sycamore trees (or "dressing" them as the NRSV has it.)  But God has sent me here, and neither you nor I have any choice in the matter.

Taking It Personally.

• A week to reflect again on how much you allow your faith to influence your own "political" or "economic" beliefs.  Take an issue such as "Global Warming": is that primarily a spiritual (religious) issue for you, or is it more of a political or economic one?
• You may have seen a documentary this week on bullying in the workplace.  One of the issues was about standing up to the person in authority and challenging what you believe to be an abuse of power.  Have you found yourself in that situation at any time?
• Who (if anyone) do you recognise as a prophet in this country?
• As you read a newspaper or watch the TV News each day this week, look for parallels between the news items and stories or teaching in the Scriptures.  Use these parallels to shape your prayer about these topics.

 

Ephesians 1:3-14.  The whole of chapter 1 is worth pondering over and over again.  Marvel at the depth and breadth of the vision as well as the language used to describe it.  Notice how it takes us beyond the limitations of time.  Looking back, God has chosen us from "before the foundation of the world": looking forward, God has a plan which will come to fruition in the fullness (completion, end) of time.  In the meantime we have already been blessed with "every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places".  We have been "marked with the seal of the Holy Spirit".  In the words of the old song, who could ask for anything more?

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• Imagine this whole passage like a warm deep bath of water, and immerse yourself in it.  Soak in it.  Enjoy the feel of it.  Be cleansed by it.  Relax, and let go of every tension in your mind and body.  And be thankful!
• Select 7particular phrases or verses from this passage, one for each day of the week.  Each day pray with your selected piece, pondering it, repeating it, mediating on it and praying with it.  And be thankful!
• At the end of the week give yourself a double treat.  Have another bath in the passage as a whole.  Then read slowly and prayerfully through the rest of chapter 1.  And be thankful!

 

Mark 6:14-29.  A few weeks ago we reflected on the image of a house divided against itself.  Here we see a terrible example of this.  After the death of Herod the Great, who had been the puppet king of the whole of Palestine on behalf of the Romans, the territory had been carved up between four of his sons, including Herod Antipas (the villain in this story) and Herod Philip.  Herodias was a granddaughter of Herod the Great and had married Herod Philip.  However, Herod Antipas, while a guest in Herod Philip's home, had persuaded Herodias to leave her husband for Herod Antipas, whom she then married contrary to law.  John the Baptist loudly objected, and paid the ultimate price for speaking the truth to those in power.  Notice how this passage starts as an afterword, a sort of "Gross Designs Revisited" script.  Here the emphasis is on the subsequent parlous mental state of Herod Antipas who is ravaged by guilt.  In Jesus he sees John the Baptist revisiting him: we might say in his paranoia Herod is haunted by the memory of what he had done to John.  At his birthday celebration he had been entranced by the erotic dancing of a young girl: the NRSV names her as his daughter Herodias, which seems a little confusing.  More likely, she was the daughter of Herodias, said by Jewish historian, Josephus, to be called Salome.  Whoever she was, the awful result shows human nature at its most base.  Herod's lust came full circle, and John became collateral damage.  The contrast between the Kingdom of God and human kingdoms could hardly be more stark.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

·        A challenging passage for praying with the imagination.  Put yourself in the role of a servant attending at the birthday bash.  When you realise what is going to happen, what do you do?  Do you speak up or acquiesce? 

·        What do you make of verse 29?  What does it remind you of?

·        Would you be prepared to give evidence at the inquest? 

Notes for Reflection

July 5                           NOTES FOR REFLECTION

Texts:  Ezekiel 2:1-5; 2 Corinthians 12:2-10; Mark 6:1-13

Theme:  I think it has to be something about frustration this week – a sort of divine and human exasperation at the wilful blindness of those who, no matter what is said or done in their presence, will not see that that God is in their midst.  God's people are notoriously "stiff-necked", "stubborn", or even straight-out "rebellious", and nothing much has changed down to the present time.  So something like "Divine Frustration", or "Coping with Frustration" might be suitable.  More colloquial would be "Listen Up, You Guys", which would be particularly apt for our first lesson.  For technophiles, what about "Connection Failure"?

Introduction.  We begin very much where we were last week, in utter devastation.  This time the prophet Ezekiel is our first guide.  He is with the "first exiles" in Babylonia when he experiences an astonishing vision of the Divine, and is called into the prophetic ministry.  St Paul is again feeling the stress of trying to get through to the believers in Corinth, and is once again torn between his desire to avoid boasting and the need to prove his credentials to those who are constantly trying to blunt his message by questioning his authority.  Jesus has returned home where his growing reputation as a teacher and healer means nothing to those who have seen him grow up as the carpenter's son and expect him to behave accordingly.

Background.  At this time of the year the Church offers a series of Sundays of "special intentions".  Two weeks ago (21^st June) we were offered "Disability Awareness Sunday"; this week we have "Refugee Sunday", and this will be followed by "Sea Sunday", "National Bible Sunday", and "Social Services Sunday".  How do we respond to these offerings?  Over the years I've never quite resolved my own ambivalence towards them.  Are they useful reminders of particular areas of concern, all too easily pushed aside in our busy lives?  Or are they tiresome interruptions to the weekly flow of our readings, important in their own way, but not of the same central importance as the proclamation of the gospel in all its richness?

Paradoxically, perhaps, my main reservation about them is that they can have the opposite effect from that intended.  We can tick them off, like courses completed or badges earned.  We can observe, say Refugee Sunday, and when we have done so set aside the whole ghastly human tragedy for another 12 months, with a quiet sigh of relief.  Yet "refugees", "sojourners", "aliens", and "exiles" are a central concern of our Scriptural record from Exodus onwards.  Is it better to keep their needs and our response to them in the forefront of our teaching and preaching throughout the year?

In a strange sort of way I've had the same kind of struggle over "healing services", which were all the rage in the 1980's, at least in the Diocese of Wellington.  I was a member of a prayer group at the time, and we got all very excited at the proposal to hold a "healing service" in our local church.  Many meetings were held, plans were made, resources were found, and advertising was organised.  Then one of our members noticed that nowhere on our many lists of things to do was there any reference to the need to seek the consent of the Vicar.  Emissaries were duly selected and dispatched to the vicarage.  The Vicar listened patiently to the sales talk, and gamely read through our planning notes.  He then asked a strange question: "Has anyone checked with the Holy Spirit that 7.30pm on Sunday, 17^th June suits him?"  An interesting discussion followed.  This was about the danger of "compartmentalising" the ministry of the Church in this way.  "If this service is a healing service, what are the other services we hold – 'non-healing'?  More broadly, surely every Eucharist service is an opportunity for healing?

Some years later I found myself in a rather fierce debate that erupted when one of the parishes in our archdeaconry erected a large notice-board outside its church, proudly proclaiming itself as "an inclusive church".  We all knew what this was code for, of course, but again strong exception was taken to the implication that other churches in our archdeaconry were not inclusive – presumably, we were "exclusive", which has a whole range of connotations when you think about it.

But returning to this issue this week, I have been pondering a somewhat different concern.  Inevitably, those with a particular passion for say, helping refugees, become the source of helpful resources for our parishes, and with the best will in the world, those resources will have a particular "slant".  The result can be that in all those parishes that decide to mark this Sunday as "Refugee Sunday" a common "party line" will be preached, one that is carefully shorn of anything that may be considered controversial.  It may be so broad and non-particular as to be too bland to challenge, or even inform.  For example, would this Sunday be a good opportunity for the Christian pacifists among us to explore why there are so many refugees coming out of Iraq, and whether our military training involvement there will make the situation there better or worse??  Or to plead for special consideration to be given to Christian refugees fleeing religious persecution in Islamic countries?  Or to raise the issue of climate refugees?

So perhaps a better approach this Sunday may be to focus on the three readings set for this day and see what, if anything, they have to teach us about refugees.  Our first lesson is the obvious place to begin that reflection, and it starts on a note of hope.  Even in exile in Babylon God is present among his people.  What questions does that raise about national borders, about the desire for a homeland, and about the whole issue of exile – from whom, what or where?  St Paul, immersed in the day-to-day struggle of people with all their petty agenda's and human power-games, has seen a different magnificent reality that words cannot describe.  And Jesus is already experiencing the pain of "exile" in his own hometown, the lot of anyone who dares to speak for God in a society that does not want to hear.

Ezekiel 2:1-5.  It is important to remember that the Babylonian exile took place in stages, shaped largely by geopolitical power games then featuring Egypt and Babylonia.  In 597 Jerusalem was subdued and about 10,000 of its leading inhabitants (including Ezekiel) were captured and taken off into captivity, but the city itself was spared.  It was finally destroyed in 586 after a terrible two-year siege, provoked by yet another attempt to throw off the Babylonian overlords with the help of the Egyptian army (which failed to materialise).  This first, commissioning vision occurs immediately after the first deportation but before the final destruction.  One of Ezekiel's first tasks therefore is to tell the exiles to stop expecting an early return to Jerusalem because it will be destroyed.  Instead, their hope is in God, not in Jerusalem.  1:1 is important.  Ezekiel was "among the exiles by the river Chebar".  That's where he had his overwhelming vision of God, which knocked him to the ground.  Then he heard "the voice of someone speaking".  And the first thing he heard was a command to "stand up on your feet".  This is resurrection language; he falls to the ground (as if dead) and is raised back to his feet (new life), which he experienced as a spirit entering into him. .  And this is immediately followed by his commission, which, we should note, has the effect of exiling him from his fellow exiles.  From being among them, he is now sent to them.  Put the other way, Ezekiel is no longer an exile, because he has been restored to his home in God, while the others remain exiles dreaming of a return to Israel.  Their exile from God is underlined by the fact that there is now a chosen intermediary between God and themselves.  This point is driven home in verse 5: they shall know that a prophet is among them, not that God is among them.

Taking It Personally.

• Has there ever been a time in your life when you felt exiled from God?  Is there any sense in which you feel exiled from God at this time?
• The people are described as "rebels", "impudent" and "stubborn".  How would you describe people who do not share your faith?  How do you feel about them?  Is their lack of faith of concern to you or is that "their own business"?
• If you were given the opportunity to speak to the Prime Minister about "the refugee problem", what would you say to him?

 

2 Corinthians 12:2-10.  This is surely one of the most emotionally charged passages St Paul ever wrote.  His frustration, his anger, and his desperation at the ongoing niggling opposition he is experiencing from some in the infant church at Corinth are driving him nuts.  Notice his reluctance to speak of this vision he had, which he has kept to himself for 14 years!  Even now he ties himself up in knots pretending that it was an experience someone else had, before abandoning this subterfuge.  He knows how it will be misconstrued – who does he think he is!  It's all very well for him with his head in the clouds, but the rest of us have to get on with life in the real world.  Throughout St Paul's ministry, as is shown in his correspondence, he is perfectly ably to deal with, and to give instruction on, mundane practical matters.  (Last week, we recall, he was promoting an appeal.)  But sometimes – when even people of faith seem unable to transcend their pettiness – it just becomes all too much for him who has not only been converted by the Risen Christ, but has also had this glimpse into the heavenly realms.  By verse 10 he has begun to calm down and get a grip.  He has reminded himself – if not them – that nothing is too much to bear for the sake of Christ.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• Is there any experience in your life – whether or not you would describe it as a vision or a direct experience of God – to which you return from time to time to give you strength in times of challenge?
• Have you experienced a "thorn in your side" that you have asked the Lord (unsuccessfully) to remove?  Are you more aware or less aware of God's presence in times of hardship and challenge?

 

 

Mark 6:1-13.  This passage follows immediately after the healing of Jairus' daughter.  Jesus has come back across the lake to his hometown, presumably, Nazareth.  We might have expected a hero's welcome awaited him, particularly if news of his successful ministry throughout Galilee had filtered home.  Instead, his reception is hostile.  They remind one another (and, presumably, him) that he is no better than them; he's an ordinary working man who earns his living by doing manual work, albeit with the skill required of a carpenter.  He can't fool them – they've known him from way back, and they know his mother and siblings.  Whereas in other places he has been the man of power amazing crowds with his teaching and miraculous deeds, here in his hometown it is he who is amazed at their lack of faith, and his own apparent lack of power to do much.  He takes up the itinerant life again, moving from village to village and teaching.  He sends out his disciples two by two to share in his ministry, giving them the power to overcome spiritual opposition.  They start where John the Baptist and Jesus himself had begun – calling the people to repentance.  He also prescribes clear "boundaries", making it clear that they are not to impose on others but to make do with whatever is freely offered to them.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• Do we still have a tendency to recognise overseas experts in preference to our own?  Why might that be so?  Are you good at recognising prophets amongst us?
• Notice the prohibition against being well-prepared before setting out.  Why might that be considered desirable?  Is Jesus encouraging begging (or scrounging)?
• What one thing in this passage is the most helpful for you in your faith journey?