Notes For Reflection

August 30                               NOTES FOR REFLECTION

Texts: Deuteronomy 4:1-2, 6-9; James 1:17-27; Mark 7:1-8, 14-15, 21-23

Theme:  Something about the pros and cons of tradition seem to be at the heart of our first lesson and the gospel passage.  So “The Old and the New” (or, for traditional Anglicans, “The Ancient and Modern “) might do.  Something a little edgier might be “When Good Traditions Turn Bad”(or “Go Feral”).  On a different track, “Hearing and Doing” might appeal to those who enjoy James, and would also link in with the other two readings.  I favour “The Tradition of Doing New Things”.

Introduction. On the verge of entering the Promised Land the Israelites are largely free of useful man-made traditions, for they have no experience of living in a land of their own.  What they do have is the gift of the Law, and the calling to so live their life in accordance with it as to be an example to all other nations of the world.  Listen, learn and do is also a fair summary of James’ message in our second lesson this week.  And the gospel passage shows us what happens when we listen to our own “wisdom” hallowed by years of practice, instead of listening to God.  Washing our hands before eating may well be good hygiene, but when it becomes elevated to a test of our religious commitment we know something has gone seriously askew.

Background.  This weekend Dunedin is celebrating the 150^th anniversary of the election of its first mayor, the mark of its status as a city.  The ODT has brought out a special Supplement, including some wonderful photographs of Dunedin in 1865.  Once again I am marvelling at how much the early settlers achieved within the first few years of any organised intentional settlements of Pakeha migrants: our first ships tradition begins in 1848.  William Meluish’s photographic panorama of the city in 1865 shows an astonishing number and range of buildings, from small cramped, decidedly temporary-looking creations to grand three-storey stone structures.  The accompanying text captures the mood perfectly: Fuelled by the Otago gold rushes and driven by the acumen , tenacity and aspirations of its citizens Dunedin rapidly rose.   

Nothing captures this more impressively, perhaps, than the 1865 Dunedin Exhibition Building, a colossus of a building highly ornamented with towers, turrets, finials, and goodness knows what else. Other photos remind us that the pace did not slacken, and two of the most impressive buildings in Dunedin today began life as private residences; “Fernhill”, built for whaler, businessman and philanthropist John Jones in 1868 and now the home of the Dunedin Club, and Larnach’s Castle, built in 1871 for merchant banker and politician William Larnach, and now one of the gems of the Dunedin tourist industry.

But those early days, as busy as the people must have been with domestic and commercial concerns, also saw a large number of churches built around the fast-growing city and beyond.  This year also marks the 150^th anniversary of All Saints Church in Cumberland St and of St Peter’s Church in Caversham.  The first St Paul’s in the Octagon was already built, and work was going on with the magnificent building that became First Church (Presbyterian) in Moray Place.

But the item that caught my eye more than anything else concerns the Dunedin Athenaeum & Mechanics’ Institute.  Dunedin is rightly renowned for its early (and continuing) commitment to education, at primary, secondary and tertiary level.  We can point with pride to our university as the first in the country, and many fine old buildings are still to be found on its campus.  Otago Boy’s High School is another must-see for lovers of architecture and history.  But who among us instantly thinks of The Athenaeum & Mechanics’ Institute when asked about Dunedin’s educational history?  Yet its history dates back to 1851 – just 3 years after those first ships made landfall on our shores!  First known as The Dunedin Mechanics’ Institute, it became The Dunedin Athenaeum and Mechanics’ Institute in 1859.

What was it for then? I quote: Membership of the organisation was by subscription and membership facilitated education of the fledgling Dunedin community – at a time when there was no other adult education available – by providing a library and classes for its members.  And what is it for today?  I quote again: Evolution from an organisation focused on education to a place of social gathering, and its current function as a private subscription library, illustrates the changes in culture and social interest over the past 160 years.  Here is a perfect example of an institution birthed in a tradition that has nevertheless evolved over the years, within that same tradition, to meet new circumstances.

What can we learn from our own story that may help us in our reflections on this week’s readings?  Like the Israelites, these forbears of ours came to what many had believed would be the Promised Land.  Many of them were escaping, if not from actual slavery, from social and working conditions that were not much different.  We can understand what pushed them, rather than what pulled them.  Apart from the missionaries and evangelists, did any of them feel “called” to this land?  What role did their faith play, if any, in the decision of those boat people to risk everything in the hope of a better life in a new country?  Was it their desire to learn a new way of life, a new way to live together, to pioneer a society that would be an example to the other nations of the world?  Or were they simply focused on escaping the harsh realities of life in 19^th century Scotland or England – propelled by desperation rather than inspired by hope?

Clearly, they brought with them many traditions from their past, including religious ones.  But this for them was a new land presenting new challenges.  How well did they learn how to live in THIS place, to learn new tricks, to adapt their traditions to meet new realities?  How well have we continued that process?  Do we yet know how to live here – in this place – in harmony with one another and with our environment?  The Bible talks of “living long in the land the Lord our God is giving us”.  How long was it before the Israelites forgot the land on which they now lived was a gift?  How long before they forgot their divine mandate to pioneer a society that would be an example to the nations of the world?  How long before they forgot the Lord their God and turned to other gods, including the god of their own traditions?    

There was a time when we seemed willing to create a better society for ourselves, and to show other nations a better way to live.  We had a proud tradition of social justice, of mutual care and co-operation, of pioneering new ways of living together, many of which did indeed gain the attention of other nations.  Has that time passed?  Have we abandoned those traditions?  And if we direct the same sort of questions to the Church would the answers be any different?

Deuteronomy 4:1-2, 6-9.  Here we see tradition in the process of being formed.  Notice how the passage moves from the land given to “your ancestors” in verse 1 to the need to remember the story and make it known “to your children and your children’s children” in verse 9.  Verse 2 cautions against adding to, or subtracting from, the Law as it has been received.  (Compare “the tradition of the elders” in the gospel passage.)  Verses 6 -8 underlines the calling of Israel to be a model society for the rest of the world.

Taking It Personally.
 

·         In what sense, if any, is New Zealand rightly thought of as “God’s own country”?  How do you react to that term when applied to New Zealand?

·         Do you think of this country as a gift from God?  Why or why not?

·         Are we too bound up in tradition, or too ready to abandon tradition in the pursuit of “progress”?

·         What are some of the essential truths that we should ensure we pass on to future generations?

·         What one traditional thing in your local faith community would you most like to see changed, and what one traditional thing would you least like to see changed?  Why?

James 1:17-27.  Notice where James begins in this passage: ALL good things are gifts of God.  This includes our birth (baptism) which he gave “by the word of truth”.  This links with that wonderful expression in verse 21, where we are exhorted to “welcome the implanted word”.  But simply to receive (or hear) the word is not enough: we must put what we hear into action.  He even goes so far as to write: “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”  We do well to notice the balance here: some believe that Christianity is all about social service, and have little interest in deep prayer and worship, while others appear to go to the opposite extreme.  In one sharp sentence James calls us to both – listen, learn, and act accordingly is really a summary of his whole letter.

Taking It Personally.

·         If all good things are from above, we need to spend a lot of time in prayers of thanksgiving?  Do you?  Make a list of things you are grateful to God for at this time.

·         Are you a good listener?  Are you quicker to listen than to speak?

·         Are you quick-tempered?

·         Meditate on the expression in verse 21 “the implanted word”.  What do you feel about it?

·         Reflecting on the past month, how have your actions been influenced by that implanted word?

Mark 7:1-8, 14-15, 21-23.  In a real sense the inauguration of the Kingdom of God calls for a whole new way of living as dramatic as that facing the Israelites as they prepared to enter the Promised Land, or that faced by the exiles who found themselves in Babylon.  So what we have in this passage, and in other similar “debates” is, at one level, a clash of culture.  The old ways – the way we do things in this society – are being challenged in a radical way and opposition is only to be expected.  At first sight we might have some sympathy for Jesus’ adversaries here – particularly if we can remembered being asked (on many occasions!) if we had washed our hands before coming to the table.  Isn’t it a simple matter of personal hygiene?  (Similarly, it may well be a good practice to wash food recently bought from an open-air market, and wash the crockery and utensils used for food.  But what is a good commonsense practice has been elevated into a religious requirement, the failure to comply being worthy of condemnation.  Jesus turns the matter into a discussion about inner cleanliness, about which, he implies, his critics seem far less concerned.  Notice that both sides accept that this is not a dispute about the Law of God, but the tradition of the elders.

Taking It Personally.

·         Reflect on verse 15.  Can we not think of things that come to us from outside that can defile us?  Pornography, for instance, or portrayals of violence?  Perhaps Jesus meant that nothing outside us can defile us unless we allow it to enter in to us?  Does that help?

·         Use verses 21-22 as a guide for a period of self-examination and reflection.

·         In what sense, if any, do you experience the words of absolution spoken by a priest as a “certificate of inner cleansing”?

·         What do you understand by the word “folly” in this list?

I value your comments, however they will need to be approved before publishing :)

Notes For Reflection

August 23                               NOTES FOR REFLECTION

Texts: Joshua 24:1-2a, 14-18; Ephesians 6:10-20; John 6:56-69

Theme:  This week it’s decision time for the Israelites (first lesson), and for the followers of Christ (the gospel); so something like “Over to You”, or “It’s Your Call” may provide a good theme.  What about “When All’s Said and Done”?  I’m leaning towards “Hard Teachings – Hard Choices”.

Introduction.  Joshua is now an old man, close to death, and calls the people of Israel into assemble one last time.  He puts it to them bluntly: which god will they serve?  The context is important: the dramas of the Exodus, the wanderings in the wilderness and the entry into the land of Canaan are behind them, and their future seems settled and secured.  Will they still worship God or will they become self-sufficient in the land of plenty?  At the end of his letter to the Ephesians St Paul has a simple but stirring message to the believers in Ephesus.  Stand firm, stay alert, and resist!  And this week we also come to the dramatic climax to chapter 6 of St John’s Gospel.  It’s schism time – who will stay and who will go?

Background.  From time to time during my ministry parishioners have raised with me their individual difficulties with particular clauses in our Creeds, particularly the Nicene Creed. Ironically, those provisions that the early Church struggled with for about 300 years before coming to any sort of consensus that enabled them to issue this Creed are rarely cited by these parishioners.  I don’t think anyone has ever asked me how we can possibly state with absolute conviction that we believe that Jesus Christ is “of one being (or substance) with the Father”; nor does it seem that any of them today lie awake at night struggling to accept that he was “begotten, not made”.  Most of us charge untroubled through these phrases in the Creed – and joyously sing them in verse 2 of the great carol “O Come All Ye Faithful”.

The difficulties start when we affirm our belief that he “was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary”; and they flare up again with “he ascended into heaven”.  It’s the word “Virgin” that’s problematic, isn’t it?  If only that word had been omitted, we could easily rest in soporific complacency if we were affirming that he “was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the woman Mary”; but the idea of a virgin woman giving birth to a boy?  “This teaching is difficult: who can accept it?”  The same might be said about the Ascension.  It’s that word that is difficult.  We could accept that Jesus “returned to the Father”, but that “he ascended into heaven” is just too much for many children of the space age to cope with. 

“Difficult teachings” – perhaps better known as “hard sayings” – are a constant challenge to people who wish to take their Christian faith seriously.  Sadly, many people give up the struggle and leave the Church altogether.  We seem to have an example of this in this week’s gospel passage, and I’ll have more to say about that later.  But first a more general overview of this issue may be helpful.  My experience suggests that there are four broad categories of these “hard teachings”, each of which tends to elicit a particular type of response. 

I have already touched on one of them, which we might call the science-based difficulties.  Anything supernatural can fall into this category: in addition to the so-called virgin birth and the ascension, the various miracles fall in this category, along with all claims that Jesus is divine, and any suggestion of a bodily resurrection (for him or anyone else).  This category usually elicits a response of ridicule: “how can anyone in this day and age seriously believe that?”

The second category concerns all claims to the uniqueness of Christ, which seems to be mixed up with charges ranging from personal arrogance to Western imperialism and just about everything in between.  Theologians who spend too much time in academia call this the “problem of particularity”: here the question might be “how can one person in one country at one time in history be of such universal and eternal significance?”  Of more urgent and practical concern is the effect all such claims have on our relationship with people of other faiths or of none.  Here our modern response tends to be to privatise our faith to the point where we don’t even talk about it among our fellow believers, to abhor any form of overt evangelism, or to adopt the pretence that all religions are basically saying the same thing, aren’t they?  In short, this category is one happy hunting ground for political correctness.

The third category is closely related to the second, and also is infected by political correctness.  We might call this one “teachings about personal behaviour or ethics”.  A classic example in the headlines at present concern the apparent hacking of the Ashley Madison website set up to encourage and facilitate marital infidelity.  Notice how this is being portrayed as a technological failure on the part of the site managers, and a serious breach of privacy, complete with warnings that people who pass on any of this hacked material may find themselves in serious trouble.  Few if any, inside or outside the Church, have said anything about the sin of adultery or the teaching against causing others to sin.  The response here is to insist that no one has the right to judge others: what they do in their private lives is entirely up to them, etc.  Who are we to judge?

The fourth category is my personal favourite.  It includes the very many examples of teachings that condemn materialism.  Who among us has heard a sermon on the Rich Young Ruler, ending with “Now go and do likewise”?  Who has been encouraged to adopt as a memory verse Luke 14:33?  To all such teachings on the cost of discipleship, up to and including a willingness to accept martyrdom, love our enemies and practise or advocate pacificism, our response is either a conspiracy of silence, or a variation on the theme of ridicule: “Come one – get real!”

This week may be a good time to reflect on which sayings or teachings you find difficult, and why?

Joshua 24: 1-2a, 14-18.  History is repeating itself here.  The Book of Deuteronomy maps the end of Moses’ great career as the leader of the Israelites.  It leaves them poised to enter the Promised Land, with all the mixed emotions we might expect, from excitement through to terror.  What lies ahead?  How might they take possession of the land from the peoples already living there?  After years of trying to develop a firm faith in God’s promises, doubts would still arise.  Is this a step too far?  Yet what preoccupies Moses in his final exhortations to the people is the danger that they will turn away from God when life becomes too easy for them in the new land.  Prayer in times of war is always going to be much more frequent and ardent than prayer in times of peace.  This week we come to the end of another great life of service and leadership, as Moses’ successor Joshua prepares to die.  The hard work has been done, as real estate agents are fond of saying.  The Israelites have taken possession of the land, their invasion was successfully completed, and the Lord has given them rest from all their enemies (23:1).  It is time to challenge them again to remain faithful to God – to resist the temptation to adopt local practices and beliefs, including the worship of Baal and other fertility gods.  Joshua is not a keen advocate of multi-faith pluralism.  The people must choose under which flag they will live.  They affirm with him that they belong to God and will continue to worship him alone.

Taking It Personally.

·         Review the passage as a whole in the context of the history of Aotearoa New Zealand.  What issues are there for you in this passage?  Is it helpful or otherwise to see Pakeha as the Israelites and Maori as the Canaanites in a passage such as this?

·         Rewrite verses 16-18 as a Creed:  We believe in the Lord our God who brought us...did great signs...protected us...drove out...  What might a version for this country say?  How do you feel about this?

·         Reflect on your own journey with God?  How might you summarise that in the form of a Creed?

·         Finish with a prayer of commitment to serve the Lord your God “in sincerity and faithfulness”.

Ephesians 6:10-20.  Written, it seems, from a prison cell during a time of periodic bouts of religious persecution, we are nevertheless told that “our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh”.  Rather we are caught up in spiritual warfare, but a battle that is very much to be seen as defensive, as a resistance movement, rather than a crusade or other offensive assault.  We are to “put on the whole armour of God” in order to “stand against”, to “withstand”, and to “stand firm”.  We are under attack, not called to attack.  Of the individual items we are to put on or take up, only the sword is a weapon to be used against others, and the only sword available to us is “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God”.  The whole image of soldiery is transformed from aggression to defence.

 Taking It Personally.

·         Reflect on the expression “spiritual warfare”.  How do you feel about it?  As a Christian have there been times when you felt under attack?

·         Do you find the image of the “Armour of God” helpful or unhelpful?

·         In what sense, if any, do you feel called to resist forces that are antagonistic to God?  Is your local faith community a centre of such resistance?

John 6:56-69.  Before pondering this week’s passage, take time to read slowly through this whole extraordinary chapter again.  Remember that it starts with the Feeding of the Multitude (category 1 hard teaching), culminating in the intention of the crowd to make him their king.  This is followed by Jesus walking on the water (category 1 again!).  Then follows a long passage of teaching on the theme of the Bread of Life.  The first part provokes no strong reaction, perhaps because the general feeling among the crowd is one of bewilderment.  This then starts to grow into anger and opposition, which flares up in this week’s passage.  It is in verse 60 that we find this complaint: “This teaching is difficult: who can accept it?”  It is important to notice right away who voices this complaint.  It comes not from the crowd, nor from his opponents (the Jews), but from “many of his disciples”.  The second thing to be clear about is the exact piece of teaching that has triggered this complaint.  Whatever they may or may not have made of his call to eat his flesh and drink his blood, the key element seems to be his claim to have “come down from heaven”.  Verse 62 only makes sense if that is the nub of the argument.  Assuming, as I believe, this whole passage concerns a dispute that arose in the early church, it seems that the community around the author of this gospel was split over such fundamental issues as the divinity of Christ, of which arguments over the Eucharist may have been just one element.  Verses 66-69 bring it all into focus.  Some have found this teaching just too difficult and have left.  Where does that leave the rest?  Peter responds with an early version of the TINA principle: There is no alternative.  If we accept that Jesus speaks the divine truth – if he has the words of eternal life – where else could we go?

Taking It Personally.

·       Go slowly though the whole chapter, making a note of the teachings that you find hard.

·       Create a dialogue between you and an interviewer who is asking what you do or do not believe in each part of this chapter.

·       Suppose the interviewer asks you if you believe receiving Holy Communion is essential to eternal life, what would be your response?

·       Ponder verse 62 and verse 65.  Are they difficult teachings for you?

Notes for Reflection

August 9                                 NOTES FOR REFLECTION

Texts: 1 Kings 19:4-8*; Ephesians 4:25-5:2; John 6:35, 41-51

[*Note.  I suggest including verse 9a.  It sharpens up the ending of this passage, and brings to mind the famous encounter between Elijah and God.]

Theme:  The word that screams out to me this week is "life", so any variation around that word would give a reasonable theme: "The Bread of Life"; "The Gift of Life";  "Life in Christ"; or "Eternal Life", are obvious possibilities.  For the more adventurous among us, something based specifically on verse 44 in the gospel passage might be worth exploring.  If you want to put more emphasis on the first lesson, perhaps "Strength to Go On", or "Food for the Journey" could serve your purpose.

Introduction.  We begin with Elijah on the run from the murderous Queen Jezebel: when his own strength gives out he receives miraculous succour from an angel of the Lord that enables him to journey on for 40 days and nights to Mount Horeb.  We follow this with an exhortation from St Paul on living a life worthy of our calling, with the emphasis on holding one's tongue in some sort of holy check.  Then we have a third instalment from the wondrous 6^th chapter of St John's Gospel as he continues to explore and develop the central image of Christ as the true bread that came down from heaven.

Background.  It's not often that I spend a lot of time thinking about a broom tree.  In fact, I'm not sure that I have ever before spent any time thinking about a broom tree.  Yet there it was this week in the centre of my mind: from the time I first read the readings on Monday a phrase from our first reading struck me and has stayed with me: Elijah sat down under "a solitary broom tree".  A constant theme in much of my spiritual reading over many years has been the importance of learning to see – to really see.  I have found it a hard practice to learn.  I often set off for a walk along our beach, telling myself that it will do me good to "see the beach again".  Yet very often, as soon as I am on the beach and walking on the sand I am lost in thought.  When I "come to" I realise that I have noticed little if anything that may have been going on around me.  The physical exercise of walking may be doing me some good, but as for refreshing me in mind and spirit – I may just as well have been sitting in our lounge, reading one of those spiritual guides about how to really see, how to be "in the now"!

Part of this is about learning to live in relationship with our surroundings.  One of my study tasks this week has been to read Pope Francis' recent encyclical Laudato Si: On Care for our Common Home.  This is an extraordinary document, comprehensive, coherent and compelling.  It is also timely, given the important international conference on climate change coming up in Paris in December.  There is so much in it that I certainly can't do it justice in these notes; but one of the themes that emerges is the human propensity to think of ourselves as separate from the rest of creation.  It's as if we are the cast of actors living out life on a stage made of everything else.  This mindset leads us to the view that everything else is there solely for our benefit, that it is ours, and so we can decide whether we want to keep it or discard it.  Rich Americans showing off their hunting trophies may be extreme illustrations of this attitude but who among us can say we truly see and value every other living creature for its own sake rather than for our own?

On Wednesday night I watched the latest episode of a very good series called This Town.  This one was set in Akaroa and surrounding areas of Banks Peninsula.  Two of the people featured in the programme seemed to me to shed light on my mysterious interest in that "solitary broom tree".  One was a naturopath and herbalist who spoke about the need to spend time with the plants, to get to know them, and to understand that our relationship with them must be two-way.  We need to learn what we can do for them and what they can do for us.  We are responsible for their health and they for ours.  The other person was a man who drew trees and other plants, and explained that this was a very good way of really seeing them and coming to understand them better.

So what about that solitary broom tree?  I think the power of that phrase for me comes from the word "solitary".  Elijah is in the wilderness or desert.  He is exhausted and despairing of life.  Can we not say much the same of that tree?  Life in the desert is tough for most forms of life, including trees.  This is the only one around that is managing to stay alive in that harsh environment.  As the story is written it would be a bit of a stretch to claim that it is all about that tree.  Inevitably we focus our attention on our fellow human being, and on the wonder of God providing him with cake to eat and water to drink through one of his angel servants.  Yet the narrator refers twice to this broom tree: Elijah sat down under it (verse 4), and later lay down under it (verse 5).  That tree also ministered to Elijah's needs – his need for some sort of shelter in the wilderness.    Was that not equally miraculous – and equally a gift from God?

As I continued to reflect on this tree and the service it provided for Elijah, the story of Jonah came into my mind.  Like Elijah in this story, Jonah was not in the best of moods.  He, too, had done a runner, though he was running away from God rather than a vengeful Queen.  But recall the wonderful fourth chapter, when Jonah sat down to watch (he hoped) the destruction of Nineveh.  God provided a bush to give him shelter, then a worm to destroy the bush.  Verse 10 is the one I have in mind: Then the Lord said, "You are concerned about the bush, for which you did not labour and which you did not grow; it came into being in a night and perished in a night.  This seems to me a perfect illustration of our utilitarian approach to the rest of creation: faced with a glorious example of the creative power and providence of God, Jonah saw the bush only in terms of what it could do for him.

Did Elijah give thanks to or for that solitary broom tree?  Did he recognise it as just as much a gift from God as the cake and water?  Did he empathise with it in its struggle for life in the wilderness?  Did he, in any real sense, SEE that tree? 

1 Kings 19:4-8. The outcry over the American trophy hunters is perhaps a good background to this story from Elijah's prophetic career.  Start reading from verse 1 and see what's been going on.  [In fact, give yourself a treat and read chapter 18 – it's an absolute comedic gem!]  Not feeling safe in the township of Beer-sheba, Elijah drops off his servant and goes into the wilderness, driven by fear and adrenaline.  Eventually his strength runs out and he collapses into a heap under the broom tree.  He is beyond caring, ready to die there and then (Jonah felt much the same, remember.)  Then comes the miraculous visitation of the angel.  At this point our Christian bells should start ringing.  The angel "touched" him; we might say, the angel laid hands on him – the healing touch of God (Christ).  Then the angel tells him to "get up" – as Jesus told the paralytic and others.  To get up is to be raised up to new life – to be resurrected.  The angel ministers to him in the wilderness – according to both Matthew and Mark angels ministered to Jesus at the end of his temptation in the wilderness.  Verse 8 draws on the Exodus journey, of course, but also connects with the temptation of Christ.  Notice the phrase "in the strength of that food" in that verse .  Wonderful!

Taking It Personally.

• A passage for very slow reading, and for praying with your imagination.  Start with the idea of this passage as a microcosm of the spiritual journey.  What insights do you get from that?
• Notice how the story starts with Elijah running away in fear, and ends with him journeying a further 40 days to the mountain of the Lord.  What do you make of that?
• Wilderness and mountaintop often feature as places where God is encountered.  They tend to be places where little else is found.  What do you make of that?
• If you are a gardener, choose a plant to focus on.  First, reflect on what you have done for the plant: you may have planted it, watered it, fed it, weeded it, staked it, pruned it, and so on.  Or you may have neglected it.  Do not judge yourself, simply notice what you have or have not done for that plant.  Then ask yourself, what does the plant do for you?
• Go for a walk.  When you get home write out a full description of everything you saw on that walk.  Make it as detailed as possible.  A week later, walk the same journey.  When you get home write down everything you noticed this time that you hadn't noticed the previous week.  Give thanks to God for everything you saw.

 

Ephesians 4:25-5:2.  St Paul comes down from the lofty heights of the earlier chapters of this wonderful letter, but still manages a few surprises.  This week's passage is one of those personal holiness codes that we find in many of his letters, and is particularly concerned with what comes out of our mouths.  A call to speak truthfully is an obvious starting-point, but this is immediately followed by his first surprise.  It's okay to be angry, so long as we don't sin.  Perhaps what he is really saying is that we need to learn how to deal with our anger: in particular, to avoid brooding on it.  Then comes advice to thieves.  They should give up stealing, and find a legitimate means of earning a living – so far so good – so that they will have the means to give to those in need – which is an interesting new angle.  Instead of taking from others, start giving to others.  The particular then gives way to the general; and is summed up in the exhortation to be imitators of Christ.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• Use this passage as an opportunity for self-examination and confession.  Looking back over the last week or two, which of the "items" on this list of do's and don'ts gives you the most discomfort?
• Are you aware of any occasion on which you may have grieved the Holy Spirit?
• Now recognise those occasions on which you did or said the right thing.  Self-examination is not only about our failings: it is basically about recognising the whole truth about ourselves, good and bad.
• Are you aware of any occasion when you felt prompted by the Holy Spirit to do or say something and you followed that prompting?  Give thanks for the Spirit's guidance.

 

John 6:35, 41-51.  It's worthwhile to read through the missing verses here (36-40) to see why the mood of the crowd suddenly changes.  Notice, too, the use of the term "Jews", which has caused so much harm to Jewish-Christian relations over the centuries.  Scholars believe that this gospel came out of a community of faith after the split between the Jewish and Christian faiths.  Indeed, this chapter may well have been written to counter dissent over the widespread introduction of Holy Communion, traditionalists finding the whole idea of eating and drinking the Lord's body and blood outrageous.  That would certainly be the position of some Jewish members of the new community; and John seems to have adopted the term "Jews" to name those opponents. Another such divisive issue would have been the increasing claims of Jesus' divinity: hence the issue in this passage around Jesus' claim that he "came down from heaven".  Those who had known him and his family from the time of his birth would necessarily have the most difficulty with such a claim.  Almost buried in this dense passage is the claim that Jesus is the only way to the Father – a claim that is no less problematic today.

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• Another opportunity to reflect on your own understanding of Jesus' identity.
• Do you believe that he is divine – God Incarnate?
• Do you believe that he is the only way to the Father?
• Do you believe that through him you have eternal life?
• Do you believe that he will raise you up on the last day?
• What does it mean to you that Jesus is "the Bread of Heaven"?